Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

An interesting precedent in S.A?

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by hornet, Dec 25, 2014.

  1. #1 hornet, Dec 25, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 25, 2014

    I wonder if the report would have been followed up if it had come from a motorcyclist????

    Police estimate Toyota sedan was travelling at 120km/h in 70km/h zone on Gorge Rd
    • DECEMBER 25, 2014 8:17AM
    A screen grab of the speeding vehicle captured by the cyclist’s camera on Gorge Rd.

    AN ACCUSED speeding motorist, who police tracked down using video provided by a cyclist, is charged with driving at a dangerous speed and in a manner dangerous to the public.

    Police say the driver of a white Toyota sedan was travelling at no less than 120km/h in a 70km/h zone when he passed a cyclist on Gorge Rd, about 3.30pm on November 15.

    The cyclist captured vision of the Toyota using a camera he had attached to his riding suit, a police spokesman said.

    “Armed with the vision, police from the Eastern Adelaide Traffic Enforcement Section conducted checks and measurements of the location where the incident occurred and have estimated the speed at no less than 120km/h in a 70km/h zone,’’ he said.

    Police say they located and charged an Athelstone man, 22, who will be summonsed to appear in court later.

    Cyclist with a GoPro catches speeding driver

    “The public can report any dangerous driving by contacting the Police Assistance Line on 131444 or at any police station,’’ the spokesman said.
  2. It would have been a lot harder to prove the cars speed. They could say with confidence that the cyclist speed in relation to the car was a lot easier to prove, would be my guess.
    havenT you got a turkey to carve Hornet ?
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. I've been doing the manual labour while Mrs Hornet has been wrangling the food!
    Merry Christmas to you :)
  4. Yeah you too mate, just enjoying a few quiet moments before the hoards arrive. Have a good one.
  5. As if people need another reason to hate cyclists . Dobbing people in hate it !
  6. I'm not watching the video but that article reads like pro gov propaganda. Was the cyclist was being an arsehat and he had to do 120 to get by reasonably? Might have done something similar involving a truck myself in the past :whistle:
  7. watch the vid.. the yota was certainly fanging it. (looks like a fooly sik JZX100)
    there was no need to overtake that quick.. the JZX was on a mission, as one does in the hills in SA...
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. So if it was a helmet mounted camera, would the film be deemed inadmisable as it was from a camera mounted illegally on a helmet ?

    BTW, this one looks like it is not a helmet cam as you see his head move but the view stay pointed to the front.
  9. A good lawyer should be able to make mincemeat of this. The camera is an uncontrolled device, no calibration trail. The question I would place to the prosecution is what evidence do you have the camera frame acquisition rate was accurate, what evidence do you have the video footage has not been modified? What integrity of the chain of evidence is there?
    • Agree Agree x 3
  10. Perhaps the cyclist is an off duty police officer, and that's all the integrity the judge will need (and the police needed to proceed with charges). Easy to watch the video and count the time between 2 points, measure the distance, fairly accurately estimate the speed.
  11. Counting the time between 2 points assumes that the camera frame rate is standard and unmodified, is there proof of that?
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. I might argue the footage is over 12 months old. Though that may not work for non-summary offences.
  13. The argument fails.

    The time limit is two years, not 12 months. Refer to s 52 Summary Procedure Act 1921

    Secondly, the cyclist knows what date the footage was taken, and police know what date it was reported to them.

    Last, but not least, non-summary offences has no relevance to the thread. By virtue of s 5 (2)(b) dangerous driving is a summary offence with a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment under s 46 RTA 1961

  14. Ok, thanks justus.
  15. Firstly, Why can't they determine the frame rate post-facto, if required? (Is there a possibility for tinkering with the camera that would make the footage inadmissible as evidence?)

    Secondly, if they are estimating 120 in a 70 zone, that seems to allow a fairly wide margin for error. Surely all they need to prove is that he was travelling at a speed significantly above the posted limit for the road. I don't know if this is sufficient for a case hold up, but it doesn't seem to me an unreasonable basis for them to punt on a conviction. Is there something I'm missing?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. You seem always determined to defend the indefensible and ignore the stated facts, don't you? The report says: “Armed with the vision, police from the Eastern Adelaide TrafficEnforcement Section conducted checks and measurements of the location where the incident occurred and have estimated the speed at no less than 120km/h in a 70km/h zone,’’ he said.
    The assessment of the driver's speed was made by measuring the distance he covered and the amount of time it took to cover it. It's a time-honoured method used by military, intelligence agencies and law enforcement. It's not estimating, it's measuring.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  17. If the video was sped up or frame rate altered, that would change the time it took, would it not?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. He's a goner. Prior to the speed limit changes, driven by the cyclist lobbyists I would suggest, it was a great road. Fast sweeping bends with a couple of tight sections just to keep you awake at the beginning and end. Speeds of over 120 were nothing out of the ordinary.
    But now it's 70-80 mostly, that's the limit and they police it with great enthusiasm. The driver new that and took a punt, he lost.They will have no trouble in proving it, given its an estimated speed the best he can hope for is pleading guilty to a lesser speed if he's got a good lawyer and the prosecution is up for it.
    I'm no legal expert butt that's how I see it,.
  19. Using the same caveat, I would expect a competent lawyer with a good video editting expert witness to give it a good run.
  20. You would be better off arguing that the driving was not dangerous.

    Legoe J in the unreported case of Freckelton v Gower said that "the offence will be trivial if there is no danger in fact and there is no real possibility or a cogent possibility of a potential for danger."

    The respondent in Owen v Connellan was travelling at over 150km/h and the magistrate said it was trivial. Police appealed the decision to the Supreme Court and lost.

    You also have the recent matter in Queensland where Warwick Fribance was captured on camera passing to close to the cyclist. His lawyer successfully argued there was no danger to the cyclist when the offence was committed. The agreed and ordered the defendant be "convicted but not further punished".

    You have verbal evidence from the cyclist that footage has not been doctored. The onus is then on you to show otherwise.

    There is no difference between using your own camera footage or CCTV in court.

    "There's always argument that video was tampered or doctored, but we have that as police officers. We'll have defence raise issues that we doctored tapes, but that's a matter for the magistrate."

    Link: Helmet camera footage sought by police to catch dangerous drivers

    • Like Like x 1