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.

[VIC] Police don't trust speed cameras

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by [FLUX], Oct 22, 2010.

  1. Greed cameras. Nothing more. Nothing less. The 21st century tool of broke governments. :censored: [​IMG]
  2. And have a read of the comments. Proof positive that sometimes democracy and the right to an opinion isn't deserved.

    Now, if they believe that "in this instance" the camera's reliability is called into question, how can it not be regarded as unreliable, full stop?

    When we have a system where burden of proof of innocence is shifted back onto the alleged offender, then the camera system, indeed, any speed detection system needs to be one hundred percent reliable. Anything less than this is simply not acceptable.

    However, the government saw speed detection as a crucial revenue stream. Back in the late 80s the Cain Labor government legislated that speed cameras were to be deemed as "scientific instruments". That their "evidence" was considered as prima facie. This supposedly means that its evidence is irrefutable.

    I use a few scientific instruments at work, including a gas chromatograph and other equipment. They all need to be calibrated and tested. Otherwise their accuracy and reliability will be called into question. And they can fail too. Or they can be set up incorrectly.

    We are told, like school children, that the camera system is infallible. Bumby expresses his total faith in the system. Of course, being a politician who never answers a question with a straight answer, that he's the consummate bullshit artist. If the camera system is discredited then that means a half a billion hole in his budget.

    It would mean that the lazy pricks who call themselves public servants would have to effectively manage the state budget, rather than having tonnes of money thrown at them and being told, "spend it wisely, if at all possible".
  3. I was overtaken by police riders at least twice when i was in the speed limit. What can i say, i dont own a uniform
  4. sets a legal precedent for the rest of us
  5. does this mean a plumbers union will fund a legal challenge for a plumber who is booked and doesn't believe he was??

    Getting very tired of the speed camera debate. Realistically everyone is arguing over 3-5km fines which is within the ADR + - 10% regulations on speedometer calibration so in theory despite Victorian laws to the contrary all is well.

    IF police have reason to believe the camera was incorrect, is it like the ptp camera IE there was a period where it was inaccurate??? how could it simply be inaccurate in one instance. Those Eastlink camera's have been found to be dodgy on more than one occasion too.

    What about police radar?? don't hear many of those being challenged. Perhaps more real police Mr Brumby who can detect sh*t drivers not just put money in your cheque account for petty speeding infringements.
  6. If their union gets lawyers to review the case and are happy to fork out for it, then I don't see why not. They may have found an inconsitency with it and as it may affect the officers work, feel it may be worth fighting if it is wrong. Why couldn't the plumbers union do this if it could affect the members work. It would be worth asking. This could set a good precedent.

    That was up until 2006. It is now changed. http://www.trafficlaw.com.au/speedos.html

    If they have found an issue then good on them. This could benefit every one. Rather than bag the police officer who is giving it a shot, I would have thought that people could have seen it could help every one.

    And to the OP. It is not the Police force that is fighting this, it is the union and the member. The force and then government are the ones standing behind the cameras. I'm sure the police officers would prefer more officers on the road dealing with offences than cameras.

  7. Day, I understand that you believe that this will be a good thing, but I have my doubts. Already the pollies and police are hedging that this was merely a once-off fault that only affected this one police officer. That's how they're going to (down)play it.

    The hypocrisy is mind-boggling though. It's faulty, just this once for this one police officer, but the camera's are fine for the general public even though the general public complain about their inaccuracies regularly.

    Yes, it is the Police Union, and a police member that is fighting this, but are they not all members of the police force themselves? So, the official position of the police force is that the cameras are accurate even though members of the police force believe that they may not be, on certain situations that only apply to themselves. The hypocrisy here is mind-boggling.
  8. What legal precedent would this be?
  9. But why do they have reason to believe there was an issue in this instance? I don't see how a camera can malfunction in one single instance.
    Its probably more simple in that a police officer and the police union is challenging the fine, its just not a good look when there is already so much bad media on the subject.

    It won't help too many people because as quoted in that article the govt and VicPol have full confidence in the system....... hang on what?
  10. There is none.

    It's not the first time someone has challenged a TIN in court.
  11. Magistrate courts don't listen to and/or don't really set precedents... however smart lawyers can learn from the case and employ similar tactics.
  12. +1=D>
  13. Yeah, that was my point. In Victoria, at least (and this is where all this shit's happening), judgements made in the County Court and above can be used as precedent. I don't think that the Supreme Court has to consider judgements made in lower courts, though.

    Even then, it would take a brave, or perhaps a smarter judge than the one who set the precedent to ignore the supposed precedent set by another case. The judiciary is as conservative and as cautious as one can be. But, case depending, precedent need not hold sway.

    When it comes to the Magistrate's Court, I think that it's a matter of anything goes, really.
  14. *nods at mjt*

    In regards to the linked HUN article I found this comment interesting:

    Mark Cornford of Mooroolbark Posted at 11:48 AM October 22, 2010
    It's nice to see the police look after there own... Last June I got 8 infringement notices in 10 working days all exactly the same at 108kmh in a 100kmh zone on East Link at this very same camera location and each time my cruise control was set on 98kmh and all I got from the police was "sorry but we are not going to review these this is your problem not ours" and as I could not afford anytime off work or the expense to fight them in court I just had to pay them all... This is so wrong and the police double standards are at work again and the innocent general public get there hands tied... This makes me so angry, if I was made to pay than it should be good enough also for this police woman to pay up like the rest of us who was ripped off by the Eastlink camera's.
    The exact same speed infringement 8 times in 10 days?? Helloo???
  15. I'm not suggesting it was just one instance. If they have been able to find an issue similar to the Hume cameras, then it may benefit every one. I would like to know more about the case and what they are fighting it on.
  16. Flux, I appreciate that, and as i have just mentioned above in my reply to ajc, if they discover a fault in the system then although it is a different system to the Hume cameras, if it is proven that there is a problem then it may help others. I find it strange that the pollies and force command are already claiming it is a one off. How could that be? I'dd like to see this one further.

    As far as alligning the police members with force command when it has been seen in recent time that the Chief Commissioner is quite happy to treat his members like shit in a similar way to the previous CC, then I don't agree. Police members are as open to prosecution as any one else. This case just proves it again.

    Like any other member of the public, this officer has a right to defend the case. She is not management, does not create the rules, so I don't see the hypocrisy. If she was to get off it simply because of her position, then I would agree, but not in this case. She has to jump through the same hoops.

  17. Current affairs TV aired interesting reports about Speed Cameras this week, using as their source the the Vic Roads person who headed up the safety division at Vic Roads and controlled the introduction of speed cameras across the state.

    Note the spin by the cops in the ACA Clip.

    And from Today Tonight:

  18. that article was great until it mentioned the seven year high rubbish.