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.

Mobile speed cameras NSW - Front or rear facing photos?

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' started by Suzukiguy11, Jun 13, 2016.

  1. Hey guys, I have a few quick questions about how mobile speed cameras operate in NSW.

    The other day, I was sitting over the speed limit and as I came over the crest of a hill, I spotted a mobile speed camera on my side of the road and slammed on my brakes straight away. This car was only about 100m away from me, but as soon as it saw me, I was on the anchors.

    My question is this.. seeing as I obviously don't have a license plate on the front of my bike, would he have been able to still get me? I've been searching the forums for days now and I have read conflicting information. Some people claim that the way the mobile speed cameras work is that they ping your speed and take a photo as soon as you come into sight, and they video record from a window out the side of the vehicle with a camera facing diagonally forwards, so that they can cross reference the time the photo was taken with the video footage and find out your license that way. Other people claim that the operator hears a beep to notify him of a speeding bikes and then is required to write down license plate number in a notebook? Other people claim that neither of these methods are used, and that bikes can't be caught from these mobile speed cameras due to a lack of front number plate?

    I know it was stupid of me for speeding and I normally stay within the speed limits. It is no justification but it was a quiet area of road with no cars or houses in sight and my adrenaline got the better of me. Now I feel like an absolute idiot because I found out later that day that double demerits started that morning and I was roughly travelling at 20km over the speed limit. In my defense, I always scan the roads and there was no sign 250 metres before the camera, only 50 metres before as I came over the hill so I had no warning.

    I understand that I am probably going to get told off for speeding and I accept that, but believe me, I have learnt my lesson. Even if I don't lose my license somehow, I am NEVER speeding again. I need my license for my job and my uni degree, so I may have just ruined my life and the thought of that has been a massive wake up call.
  2. Who is going to cast the first stone, you hoon. Where was this camera, always interesting to hear where they are. I would have expected that the detection gear and camera would need to be simultaneous or at least very closely together time wise or there would be a big hole in combining the 2 to prove you did it. Interesting point the bit about detecting you as you approach and the lack of front plate, dont know but interesting all the same. These things scare me, other than others warning you there is zero defense from them. Arsehole things.
  3. hahaha - yeah right! ;)
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. I can't see them continuing with no front plates if their speed cameras can't get your number. I don't know how they do it but am certain that they do. Slamming on the brakes would probably be too late and could have disastrous consequences on someone behind you. They could rear end you if they are also speeding and too close. Don't worry about a fine as it may not eventuate and there is nothing you can do in the mean time. Only start to worry if you get it.
  5. Thats why every couple of years front plates gets talked about. And we again tell them about thin sharp knifes bolted to the front is stupidly dangerous. Be nice to see that idea in the bin for ever. It took as much work as not running headlights permanently to get rescinded but both get trotted out ad nor sum by these that dont read history.
  6. I thought that the 'Safety Camera Cars' (not police or fixed cameras) in NSW, could only snap you on the approach, as all the camera gear is at the rear of the vehicle. So, IMO I think you'll be ok, but I'd like for someone else with a little more knowledge about these bastards here in NSW.
    I think if you where a regular offender, they string the multiple photos together, which they then compare to your bike and riding gear, but still have to prove that it is beyond reasonable doubt that you are the offender.

    I think Victoria is a different set up, as I have seen them with a device attached to the front bumper of the car, which I assume gets you from the rear.

    Keep us informed as to the outcome.
  7. I'm constantly scanning the road and checking mirrors so at the time that I hit my brakes, I was certain there wasn't anyone behind me, or in sight for that matter. That's why I also find it hard to believe that there was a sign 250 metres before the camera because there was nothing to block my view. Maybe he wasn't fully set up yet? (I hope).

    Is there anyone on here that has been caught by these camera cars? Most of the posts on forums that I read are people saying that "They should be able to get you." But surely someone has been caught by them at one stage or another if they are capable of catching bikes?

  8. I have been caught by one on the Old Pac ,lucky only 10 k over .
    I can't believe I didn't spot it it was ahead of me on my side of the road so thought it wouldn't get me .
    The camera followed me as I went past taking pictures until it got one of me and my plate.
    So I am not sure if the camera auto scans and pans or if the lovely gentleman inside the cab does it
    but I downloaded the images and it clearly showed the sequence as it panned from the back window to the side of the car
    and finally in the last frame there is my plate JUST , but that was enough so I got the letter in the mail .
  9. On a brighter note I got pinged for exactly the same thing at night but never got a ticket.
    As soon as I got home I sent them a scathing email as the dick who had set up the car on the side of the road had only one warning sign out and it was
    only 25 meters from the back of his tax wagon .By law as far as I know they have to have two signs out the first from memory 100 meters (i could be wrong on that as it was a while ago I looked it up) and the second 50 meters from the back of the tax truck .
    Not only that but the sign was partially obscured by long grass .
    It was really dangerous as a lot of drivers were getting caught out by it and on seeing it slamming on the brakes , not an ideal situation when your on a bike surronded
    by cars jamming on the brakes.
  10. There is no law requiring any pre-warning sign in NSW.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. I checked the RMS website a few days ago and I'm pretty sure it said that a sign 250m and another one 50m beforehand are legally required.

  12. It is a policy of the programme, not a requirement under statute.

    Here is the blurb from RMS, where does it note that signage is LEGALLY required? It doesn't because it is simply the policy to display the signs in an attempt to assure motorists that the programme is not simply for raising revenue.

    "An initiative of the NSW Speed Camera Strategy is to enhance warning signs for mobile speed camera vehicles to ensure motorists see and recognise the enforcement activity. Mobile speed camera signage is overt; mobile speed camera vehicles are marked, and operators place portable warning signs approximately 50 metres before and after the vehicle. In addition, a further warning is provided up to 250 metres before the vehicle. The use of overt enforcement ensures all motorists see and recognise the enforcement activity and is an obvious reminder that enforcement represents a threat to those breaking the law."
  13. I stand corrected, they don't use the term 'legally', however, as the placing of these signs is part of their normal policy/procedure, I dare say that if they do not follow correct procedure, the fines could be contested. It isn't simply their way of 'being nice', they must be required to place these signs, or else it wouldn't happen at all. Simply because they don't use the specific word 'legally', that doesn't mean much. They also don't use the term 'at the operators discretion, so the way that I interpret that paragraph is that the placing of the signs is a requirement, not an option.

  14. The signs I have seen are placed a couple of car lengths away. The vehicles started out very marked, there mostly white now and are very hard to pick. I usually see them as I pass, to late then. I have been lucky a couple of times with other vehicles flashing me before I arrived. Seems thats also becoming rare what with all the finger wagging done these days.
  15. With all due respect, you have little idea about how the law works. lets say a motorist is issued an infringement then elects to have the matter heard by the court and claims the signs that are required as part of the policy were not on display. What would be the defence the motorist is going to run? You have to have a legal defence or an error at law to defend a prosecution.

    To add another way of looking at your assertion, would it then not be prudent that in all photos produced by these mobile cameras, the fore-warning signs are clearly visible, otherwise every motorist would simply claim the signs were absent and have the matter dismissed? If these signs were mandatory to satisfy the proofs of an offence and they were not clearly visible in the images, then it would be the worlds easiest defence to that prosecution to simply assert that the lack of signage is grounds for dismissal.
    A couple of points to consider...
    1) The signs are placed approx 250M and 50M on the approach side of the trigger zone (forget the sign after the camera as it is irrelevant for the purpose of forewarning) and would be very difficult to see in the photo taken from the camera car due to their size relative to the distance from the car, as well as being placed on footpaths etc where they may be obscured from the camera car perspective, but not the oncoming vehicle perspective.
    2) The signs are printed on 1 side only, the side facing oncoming motorists, so even if the sign was physically visible from the camera car, you couldn't show it's content.
  16. I called the RMS and they informed me that the signs are first placed by the operator of the vehicle, then checked with a distance wheel and adjusted if necessary, then a photo is of each sign, with the vehicle in the background on a handheld camera to ensure that if contested in court, there is proof that the operator followed correct procedure.

    So either the RMS operator I spoke to made all of that up for a laugh, or you have little idea about what your talking about, with all due respect.

  17. they were probably taking the piss :p

    they almost always have a "your speed has been checked" sign, but not always a warning sign.
  18. A pic taken on a pocket digital camera by the camera car operator would be worthless as evidence that the signs were in place when the speed camera tripped and snapped a vehicle. Who is to say the operator didn't remove them or re-locate them after taking the pic?

    I wouldn't believe a word the RMS customer service muppet tells you about what is legally required and what is not. I'll put the question to you again, show me the statute containing the requirement for the signs to be there.....
  19. as to the purpose of the signs... there to alert you to the enforcement zone and encourage you to slow down to legal speed.

    the thing is.. if there are speed limit signs along the road, there is no need to warn of the speed limit at the location of the camera...
    'cos you should already know :p
    facetious i know, but if you choose to ignore the speed limit anyway, why should a camera matter? :)

    Mobile speed cameras FAQs - Speed cameras - Speeding - NSW Centre for Road Safety
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. Some light reading for you;
    refer s138(i)(ii) Road Transport Act 2013(NSW)