Separate names with a comma.
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.
Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by smee, Jun 23, 2011.
The only way we're going to rid our roads of these things is take each & every fine to court. Clog the system and let the fat sweaty pollies know that motorists are sick of being cash cows for the government. We pay thousands in rego, insurance, toll roads etc the government knows it's easy money. Parking metres, speed camera's safety camera's. There is not ONE scrap of evidence that shows these camera's saves lives.
People say "Don't speed & you won't get photographed" Well that's not the point. These cameras are faulty & take pics of INNOCENT motorists. They get the fine 3 months later when they can't remember days/times & just pay the fine thinking they were guilty! It's BS people!!!!
These things are illegal. They aren't callibrated to the National Measurements Act 1960 and their 'security' for the digital prints is hackable. Half the cops don't use their speed guns according to 'proper' use (on curves/hills, close to guard rails, other vehicles...etc etc..).
I'm very passionate about these friggin speed camera's & sick to friggin death of driving/riding UNSAFELY past one. You all do it. When you see a camera whats the first thing you do?? You take your eyes off the road & you break your concentration to check your speed. THIS is how accidents occur!
Fortuitous timing, if it makes it into the government audit.
It will make it harder for the camera fans (Vicroads, TAC) to argue that they are foolproof and fair.
The best thing about this is that the number of crashes etc on the hume won't be affected at all proving the cameras do nothing except generate revenue
Thats actually incorrect. They are quite legal.
The same argument has been run (and lost) several times.
Nah, if it happened it they would just say that switching it on is justified because people aren't driving any safer.
How many accidents do they get per year on the stretch covered by those cameras anyway, it's not like its a particularly challenging bit of road?
I would imagine accidents in that section would be predominantly fatigue related if anything. Or maaaaaaaaybe to do with the odd intersection here and there.
But reduction of speed/speed control is always going to be on the table because it's not just a risk (probability) reduction measure by reducing lateral grip requirements and buying people more time to react/evade... It's also a damage-reduction measure by reducing the amount of energy involved when a collision does occur. Even if every single crash was due to space aliens removing the steering wheels from cars with a disintegration beam, speed reductions and speed enforcement would still be on the cards because it's a way to reduce the damage caused by a crash. In fact, if the aliens can't be controlled then there'd be even more emphasis on reducing speeds. And that's something we see already. Fatigue is an issue? Reduce speed limits. Shit road conditions or a slippery road? Reduce speed limits. Lots of crashes due to dangerous overtaking? Reduce speed limits.
But they haven't really tried to control them pesky aliens yet.......
Fair enough on the fatigue front I suppose, of all the times I have been on that stretch of road it has been on a trip from Sydney to Melbourne, or back again.
I would have thought that would make it worse?
Mmm, probably not, really.
- If the road's too twisty/technical/scary, a lower speed limit 'should' mean the law-abiding traffic speeds are closer to the too-afraid-to-go-fast vehicles, so there's less "need" to overtake.
- Lower traffic speeds mean vehicles accelerate to overtaking speeds faster, which reduces exposure time.
- Lower speeds mean lower kinetic energy, reduced damage.
Though if the speed's too low it'll just piss everyone off and they'll speed anyway.
That section of the hume is a straight section not dangerous and not far out of Melbourne, it is just a cash cow and nothing more.
This is exactly what we are spoonfed & led to believe. If a measuring device be it speed, weight or whatever doesn't comply with the most basic of requirements (ie National Measurements Act) then it's use is illegal. Callibration of these machines is done by personel (ie RTA) not officially authorised through proper chanels
Of course the argument has been run & lost several times...because the public have no access to restricted documents on how these things are supposed to be set up etc. You have to go to all the trouble of applying to freedom of information etc & who has the time to do that??? It's just easier to cop the fine & get on with life.
The argument has also been won several times and the information required is slowly filtering through. How can the public allow a machine to be judge, jury & executioner??? And where is the revenue raised going to, certainly not back into the roads!!!
Either iether way they are here to stay.
I say we pay taggers to do their art on them or something like that. There has to be a way to make them more painful for those that make and take from them than they are worth.
Trouble is they are worth hundreds of millions. Only if they are working.
I did notice they took all of our high powered rifles off us before installing them. There's some forward planning there.
The only way is as stated before,if you get a fine guilty or not you must contest it.Yes it will cost you time and court fees but if everybody did this they would soon get the hint.I have contested mobile speed camera and won,even when i was doing something i shouldnt have, simply as the police prosecuter made a deal as he knew that this particular magistrate hated his time being wasted with small speed infringments.Bottom line no court costs no fine,and reduced demerit to 1 point so as not to set a presedent.
Yeah i copped 1 point but it felt great.
This argument has been accepted a few times however in each and every instance, the earlier decision
has been dismissed in a higher court. As a result, you now have to take it to the High Court of Australia
for any hope of a change to the current position.
The National Measurement Act 1960 therefore has no impact on both the detection or prosecution of
speeding offences. In fact this legislation does not even require speed camera's to be certified. S.10 of
the National Measurements Act 1960 does not apply to traffic offences.
Refer to these examples where your argument was used and discover for yourself how successful it was:
Allen v Broome  TAS.
Police v KS, DT and IY  VIC.
You may instead refer to:
Section 35 - Road Safety (General) Regulations 2009:
35. Testing of fixed digital road safety cameras
For the purposes of sections 81 and 84(7) of the Act, a fixed digital RSC is
tested in the prescribed manner if the testing officer who tests the system-
(a) is satisfied that the system is in a satisfactory electrical condition and, in
particular, that any maintenance carried out on the system has been carried
out in a satisfactory manner; and
(b) is satisfied that the speed calculation unit (if any) is properly calibrated
so that it indicates speed readings within a limit of error not greater than or
less than 2 kilometres per hour or 2 per cent (whichever is greater) of the true
Police also rely on Section 83 of the Road Safety Act 1986:
83. Evidence of testing and sealing
A certificate in the prescribed form to the effect that any prescribed speed
detector or device referred to in section 79 or 82 has been tested or sealed
in the prescribed manner, signed or purporting to be signed by a person
authorised to do so by the regulations is, without prejudice to any other mode
of proof and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the
prescribed speed detector or device has been so tested or sealed.
Whoa, steady on....just an opinion!
I can just as easy post up a load of twaddle stating that the National Measurements Act IS infact relavent, but:
(a) I'm not trying to win a court case here.
(b) can't be shagged. I don't give a festering ball of dog snot if you don't agree, that's what a forum is for...to discuss idea's, not have a contest of wits with someone only half-armed!
I have in fact used this argument in court, as well as the faulty MD5 algorithm used to 'secure' the digital pic they use as 'evidence'.
All you have to do in court is poke holes in the prosecution's argument. All they have is a picture...that's it! It's no use bringing up good driving records, or you need your transport for work/kids etc.
Anyway, the main point has been stated. These camera's aren't the be all & end all of road safety, and are faulty! You have prominet experts presenting the evidence. Who presents the data FOR the camera's??? Polititians, camera operaters & RTA! Do you really thing the Maquarie Bank bought a swag of 'safety camera's' because they care about your welfare on the road????
Take any fine to court and clog the system. Don't just give up & say the camera's are here to stay - that's what the pollies want. They're takin you're hard earned cash! I certainly will do all I can to stop it. Win or lose, it doesn't matter!
A high powered hunting slingshot should suffice, and is silent. Fun for all.
Spray paint would also do the job in a peaceful manner.
I can't believe there are knobs on here defending them.
I work with a bloke who got done 6 days in a row on the way to work doing exactly 108 on Eastlink. It is the biggest rort.
I re-read this thread and I can't spot a single person in favour of speed cameras on the Hume or Eastlink.
My own posts were only to illustrate that even in a world where "excessive speed" didn't occur, speed enforcement would continue to be undertaken as a damage reduction method. I hate point-to-point cameras (and Victoria's entire approach to speed enforcement), personally.
Point to point cameras at least have the advantage that if you notice you're inadvertently over the limit, you can do usually something about it before getting pinged.
what's important IMO is not the fact of their inaccuracy, as the effect this story will have at a time when the government is assessing the the public's perception of speed cameras.
It's a good time to make some noise.