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.

TAS Speed 'assumption'

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by dgmeister, Nov 12, 2012.

  1. Speed 'assumption'peeding, 5 points and $450, 107 in a 70 zone

    thing is the cop only 'assumed' i was speeding because of the noise from the bike,
    didn't actually get a reading or photo on the speedo gun.

    can the cop just say you were speeding? ie his word against mine?

    seeing as i probably was speeding, and talked the cop down from $900 fine, license disqaulification, and bike confiscation, i will pay the fine i got given.

    i ask no sympathy, do the crime do the time. just a bit weird how he randomly 'made up' a number without the speed camera reading.

  2. The subject has come up before a and a court will generally trust a police officer's opinion on speed. They do receive training in speed estimation. Whether you believe it is valid or not the courts generally do. That's not to say it can't be challenged depending on clear lines of site etc but its an uphill battle.
  3. i'm gonna grin and bear it.

    plus he said if i go to court he's going for the full 120kph estimation. f uck that.

    merry christmas officer
  4. More or less, that's pretty much what happened to UDLOSE

    All they really need to do is pick a number in a 10 or 15 km/h bracket. Whether you were doing 107 or 109 is really only for academic purposes - it's a moot point.

    I think that is just words. Possibly even said because he knows he's on rough ground if you do challenge it. If you elect to take it to court, you will be fighting the offence on the sheet given which will be on the lodgement form, and not some crap he chooses to pull out of his arse.
  5. If the 5 points will cause you to walk for a while I'd at least talk to a lawyer before paying it - no doubt it will cost you more than the fine though if you take it to court. If the points aren't a problem I'd just pay the fine. The cops know how much it costs to get lawyered up, and rely on this to convince us to bend over & lube up.
  6. Lesson to all.
    Never, ever, ever admit you even MAY have been speeding.

    • Like Like x 5
  7. #7 dgmeister, Nov 13, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 7, 2013
    don't need a lawyer to say there is no evidence.

    then it comes down to my word against the cop
    and whether they can prove speeding without a camera reading.

    i don't know what speed i was doing, but there is no evidence of the fact that i was speeding, other than the cop says so.

    surely a conviction requires some evidence?
    or is a cops word enough, without any evidence?

    What are lawyers, really? To me a lawyer is basically the person that knows the rules of the country. We're all throwing the dice, playing the game, moving our pieces around the board, but if there's a problem, the lawyer is the only person that has read the inside of the top of the box. I think one of the fun things for them is to say, "objection." "Objection! Objection, your Honor." Objection, of course, is the adult version of, "Fraid not." To which the judge can say two things, he can say, "overruled" which is the adult version of "Fraid so," or he could say, "sustained," which is the adult version of "Duh."
  8. In my case the cops speed estimation was thrown out because we kept him on the stand for literally days and his numbers were changing each time, our lawyers grilled him almost to breaking point. We also had an expert witness ex hwp criticize his techniques and it also came out that he did his original speed estimation training over 10 years ago and never been tested again.

    I reckon if you just walk in off the street they'll take the cops word for it every time.

    In court our expert witness guy accused the cop of "bombing" us when is a well known term in the HWP. It means you pull up a young guy, bomb them with a huge speed figure that they pulled out of a hat. Usually they'll argue/plead with the cop and admit to a lower speed which they'll do you for.
    • Like Like x 2
  9. If he based your speed on sound, rather than sight, I'd say it would be pretty easy to get off.

    When you first heard the bike, how many cylinders did you believe it had?
    What gear was the rider in officer?
    What capacity did you assume the bike was?
    Can you explain the Db scale to me?

    Not even close to beyond a reasonable doubt.
    • Like Like x 6
  10. They won't admit to using only sound in their court statement though.. Also in my court case the cop said his initial observation was based on sound and he could 'hear that we were racing', he got ripped a new one over that.

    I got pulled up heading to old road on my gf's tyga kitted 250 (looks like a late model 600). I'd just come off the freeway and pulled onto the highway and accelerate up to 70 (the speed limit). Next thing i look and I see a cop tearing through traffic and it cuts in and pulls me up. He goes "mate you were f*cking flying back there". As soon as I opened my mouth he cuts me off and says "look mate I don't want to talk about your speed I just want to talk about how loud your bike is and give you a RBT". After talking to him for a sec about how loud the bike is I dropped a comment along the lines of "I said yeah mate I understand, the biggest problem is the bike can't be ridden quitely because it's so gutless I have to floor the hell out of it just to keep it with the traffic off the lights". He looks puzzled and took a look at it and I said man its only a 250, it's my GF's bike, mines in the shop. Then the lightbulb went off in his head and he realized that I wasn't bullshitting and that I probably wasn't speeding. He obviously only heard the bike and he would've heard it going up through the gears quickly and assumed from the screaming sound that I was going ballistic on it. After that he was really nice to me and let me go.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Given that the OP knows what speed he was actually doing, and the cop reduced the figure significantly from what they BOTH appear to believe was the approximate speed, I don't see this example of 'estimation' being particularly unjust.

    When they do it where a handful of km/h makes the difference, that's another matter.

    That comment of Udlose's about 'bombing' is pretty disturbing, too.
  12. That's my point. 250/4 always sound like they are going fast, for example.

    It's good to see one of these observation speed fines getting bumped. Even though it doesn't officially set a precedence and does contribute to slowing a scary trend.
  13. Isn't there an onus of proof when alleging a crime has been committed?
  14. That's right I thought that was the point of this "strict liability" bs.
  15. I believe that is with regards to intention or knowledge of the fact. Murder, for example, requires knowledge that you are killing someone, otherwise it is manslaughter. Speeding and other road rules do not require this.
  16. Don't cops' converstions get recorded? You could ask to see the transcript where it says that he estimated on hearing as opposed to sight??

    This certainly is a merky one but wouldn't it look bad for him also saying (and recorded) that if you took it to court he'd make it worse? I mean. thats duress, bribary, lying...whatever, isn't it?? Even if you lose they'd have to stick with the original fine wouldn't they? Which is it officer - this speed or that?

    The burden of proof is on him, as he's accusing you so he has to prove that he knew you were speeding. Like challenging a speed camera. they bring all the crap to court where the machine is accurate, calibrated regularly & all the other crap.
  17. Exactly, the difference is the actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind), but my point was leading more towards the more we bend over and take it, the lazier the law enforcement officers get and that can lead to genuinely evil people getting off on a technicality. Probably too wide an issue for this thread.
  18. I did am intermediate course and used one of their bikes - a lil CB250. The Instructor was a cop. We are head into an 80 and he is signalling me to go faster. I'm thinking "I'm already doing 80" looked down and it was only 60. My sensation of speed to begin with on that little bike was totally out.
    Then we've heard of John Laws getting off in his new Mercedes because the new car didn't seem to be going as fast as it was.
    We know the sensation when you slow from 100 to 60 you seem to be going so slow at first. You usually are aware of this and adjust.
    So, could an estimate be influenced by the conditions the person doing the estimate was in prior to making the estimate or by the current environment (like quiet cars and noisy bike - bike must be going faster).
    I reckon OP got off reasonably well here. No suspension, fine could have been worse and no loss of license. Had it been NSW it would have been 3 months on the sideline but maybe then the Cop would have reduced it to 29 over.
  19. pfft.. i had a cop "estimate" i was doing over 50... i said i saw the speedo so he defected the bike.

    they are a law unto themselves.
  20. but were you speeding ?