Should I go to court over speeding fine? NSW

Lneg on 26/01/2017 - 19:48
Last edited 03/02/2017 - 20:11

Got speeding fine. The reason for ticket was speeding under 10 km/h at 60 zone(73km/h).Checked the camera picture, and find out I was turning into right. Please check the pictures, my vehicle is "B"
https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/208304/46035/pic1.jpg
https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/208304/46036/pic2.jpg

Argument 1. I did write for a review to SDRO, and told them that it's impossible to turn right while doing 73km/h.
They replied that penalty stands, meaning I still have to pay the fine. But on the letter explains speed camera senses every single lane, every single cars speed.

Argument 2. After I got reply from SDRO, checked picture again, and find out that there is more information on top left corner of the picture. And it says "..lane:1..". I thought it means offender is on lane 1. Called them directly, and explained that I was on the lane 3. Operator says "Oh yes, I see that, can I put you on hold", then I thought, everything is ok, It's clear that it wasn't my vehicle doing speeding after all. And he comes back says penalty still stands, I asked "Why"?, He says "you need to go to court, there is only 1 review, and they've done it". I said "but you can see that it wasn't my vehicle?, it says lane 1", He goes "I DON'T KNOW WHICH IS LANE 1, AND WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE CAMERA". I was shocked, and don't know what to do.

Option 1. Go to court, and take the day off from my work, no earning for that day, and fight for the $114 fine.
Option 2. Pay the fine, and move on.

Question 1. What is lane 1?
Question 2. Should I go to court, how successful am I?
Question 3. Is there any way to fight without going to court?

Thank you.

UPDATE.
Good news, they said the penalty notice issued to the incorrect registration.
We've done it OzBargain community. Thank you everyone for read, voted, commented and consulted. Because of you I did send second review online, and called them a day after just to make sure they received it, and make sure they would actually review it. After 2 days from my call I received email saying penalty sent to wrong registration number.

Poll Options

  • 8
    Pay the fine, and move on, there is no chance for you.
  • 454
    Go to court, you have a good chance
  • 12
    Go to court, and good luck
  • 2
    There is other way
Automotive

Related Stores

Roads and Maritime Services
Roads and Maritime Services

Comments

  • jzdhgkd on 26/01/2017 - 20:00
    +54

    Lol clearly you aren't making that turn at 73km/h.

    You sound like a calm and reasonable person so I'd recommend going to court. Can't imagine losing an appeal like this!

    Even if you make more than $114 in a day at work you need to consider you'd avoid getting demerit points and a subsequent insurance premium hike (although I'm not sure how you'd quantify the amount it'd increase.)

    • neg on 26/01/2017 - 20:08
      +13

      Yea, I know, right. I thought that common sense will clear things up, but these guys from SDRO don't care at all. I mean this should be easy fix, but they pushing it to go hard way, which is not fair at all.

        • dizzle on 26/01/2017 - 22:34
          +12

          Not making light of your situation (and I hope your sister has recovered or is recovering) but taking the personal side out of it:

          Comparing the two, you admit to speeding but for a good reason (whether it is a good reason or not is in the eye of the beholder - It's similar to the old conundrum of breaking into a pharmacy to save your dying son…The law was still broken).

          This is different to the OP that believes he was wrongly fined and wants to dispute that in court. I think looking at the photos (The notes saying lane 1 + the car in lane 1 moving significantly further between the two photos than the OPs car) is convincing enough to me.

        • sator on 27/01/2017 - 18:10
          +30

          Rushing your sister to the hospital - YES. Rushing to see your sister at hospital - NO.

        • Tech5 on 28/01/2017 - 14:52
          -1

          They accepted your right to speed. In turn, you gotta accept their right to fine you

        • callum9999 on 31/01/2017 - 07:00

          And what if your speeding resulted in someone else's sister ending up critical in hospital?

          All speeding motorists (me included) think they can drive safely above the speed limit at the time - but most of you couldn't possibly know that until it's too late.

      • hashtagbargain on 27/01/2017 - 10:19
        +7

        Also, apart from the money perspective - challenge them on a matter of principle!

      • Scrooge McDuck on 27/01/2017 - 11:47
        +1

        Yea, I know, right. I thought that common sense will clear things up, but these guys from SDRO don't care at all. I mean this should be easy fix, but they pushing it to go hard way, which is not fair at all.

        They're government bureaucrats, they blindly follow procedures without compassion nor critical thought. I've never known anyone who appealed successfully through the SDRO. It seems to be mostly a compliance tool exploited by the ticket issuer, "You can write a letter to the SDRO and ask them to review the ticket (so take it and quit bothering me so I can move on)."

        • Scrooge McDuck on 27/01/2017 - 12:11
          +95

          Let me analyse the photographs:

          The first photo was taken at 09:53:12.668 and the second at 09:53:13.058, a time interval of 0.39 s.

          The alleged speed of the offending vehicle is 73 km/h, multiplied by 1000 m/km divided by 60 min/h and 60 s/min gives 20.3 m/s.

          The vehicle's speed 20.3 m/s multiplied by the time interval of 0.39 s gives the distance travelled between the photos, 7.9 m.

          The standard length of the Mazda6 in the photos is 4.670 m1 and it can be clearly seen to have travelled further than its length over the interval. The distance travelled is reasonably comparable to the calculated 7.9 m.

          The standard length of the Hyundai i30cw in the photos is 4.245 m2 and it can be clearly seen to have travelled less than its length over the interval. The distance travelled cannot be longer than 4.245 m.

          1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda6#First_generation_.28GG1.3B_2002.E2.80.932008.29 ↩

          2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_i30#First_generation_.282007.E2.80.932011.29 ↩

        • Scrooge McDuck on 27/01/2017 - 12:25
          +56

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          In addition to this evidence you have the fact that Lane 1 is the left-most lane which corresponds to the Mazda6 not your vehicle. So it is virtually certain that you will win this case. Simply be courteous and read the magistrate the facts and evidence. I will happily appear for you as an expert witness being a qualified Physicist and Mechanical Engineer if you'd like.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 27/01/2017 - 12:32
          +7

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          This thread could proceed as to ways in which the OP could recover restitution from the RMS/SDRO for their error(s).

        • neg on 27/01/2017 - 18:22
          +2

          @Scrooge McDuck: Thanks. I will call SDRO one last time, and if not succesful, I'll apply for the court.

        • MessyG on 27/01/2017 - 18:29
          +1

          @Scrooge McDuck: I am in awe sir.

        • Kangal on 27/01/2017 - 20:04
          +5

          @Scrooge McDuck:
          Great sleuthing McDuck!

          But let's take it further.
          We can analyse the distance the Mazda went in that interval.

          (word of caution, the Mazda WAS speeding to make the Yellow Light. They passed the traffic line in time and hit the brakes as soon as they crossed the line. Evidence can be seen with the initiation of the brakes. However there's an obvious, thus significant, body roll on the Mazda where the weight/G has shifted to the front end. You can tell by the apparent lift at the back and the droop on the front. So the Mazda possibly sped up from the 60km/h limit to around 75km/h, and began deceleration, probably dropping down to 65km/h throughout the intersection. This means the distance (0.39s) his car travels (18.1 - 20.3m/s) is anywhere from 7.0m - 8.0m distance. Judging by the distance travelled in terms of the Mazda we can see it has travelled roughly 1.5 car lengths. So 1.5 units x 4.67m length ~ 7m. So we can not only prove with actual evidence that the Hyundai wasn't speeding, but we can actually prove the Mazda WAS speeding. If the Mazda was doing the speed limit it would've barely travelled 6.3m, or about 1 and 1/3's length. If you're not convinced we can even measure the length of the intersection there, and get a finer grain of accuracy.)

          PS I've crossed that intersection before, it is a Red Light Speed Camera intersection.
          And there is a big sign stating the speed camera, I think it was installed back in 2013.

        • CandyMan on 28/01/2017 - 15:02
          +1

          @Scrooge McDuck: with a name like that its unlikely the judge will take you seriously :P

        • Scrooge McDuck on 28/01/2017 - 15:19
          +6

          @CandyMan:

          And I'd hate to be you at a drug court.

        • CandyMan on 28/01/2017 - 15:37
          +2

          @Scrooge McDuck: yeah that would suck

        • FirstNameLastName on 29/01/2017 - 00:22
          +8

          All these calculations but no one has factored in if the vehicles are laden with coconuts or of African/ European origins.

        • Pattycakes on 29/01/2017 - 08:21

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          what a boss. Respect

      • sator on 27/01/2017 - 18:11
        -7

        Government employee…

      • smpantsonfire on 28/01/2017 - 01:09
        +1

        I would just keep hassling them to be honest.

      • goraygo on 28/01/2017 - 07:17
        +2

        Try calling them again and request to talk to a supervisor. See what you get.

      • Serapis on 29/01/2017 - 12:30

        Thing is if you went to court, they're not likely to appear and contest it so at least it wont take long.

    • [Deactivated] on 26/01/2017 - 22:39
      -6

      you need to consider you'd avoid getting demerit points and a subsequent insurance premium hike

      It's interesting that insurance companies don't ask for your drivers license number to check your driving record … just rely on you answering honestly.

      I thought you could request clemency if you had a clean record for 10years… sounds like the OPs record might not be squeeky clean.

      • tomsco on 27/01/2017 - 07:38

        sounds like the OPs record might not be squeeky clean.

        Based on what?

        • John Kimble on 27/01/2017 - 07:53

          Because presumably that would be your first defence?

          Although in this case where it seems it is a straightforward processing error, perhaps shouldn't be wasted?

        • tomsco on 27/01/2017 - 08:39

          @John Kimble:

          Although in this case where it seems it is a straightforward processing error, perhaps shouldn't be wasted?

          My thoughts exactly, why waste a warning when you're not guilty.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/01/2017 - 09:21
          -2

          Based on what?

          I think the SDRO automatically considers clemency based on a 10year clean record. The fact they didn't come back with this makes me think the OP doesn't have a squeaky clean record.

        • tomsco on 27/01/2017 - 09:56

          @sp00ker:

          Hey, thanks for the response - did not know this. In VIC, if you don't request it, you don't get it (need two years clean record for under 10km/h over).

          Regardless of clemency, the photo the OP posted is not a car turning a corner at 73km/h.

          The whole thing will be a waste of taxpayer money - hopefully when the OP says they want to go to court, it get's reviewed there and they withdraw it (as long as the letter letting them off doesn't say they are being let off with a warning, this would piss me off enough to continue it to court).

        • Flying Ace on 27/01/2017 - 10:00
          +2

          @sp00ker: Why would the OP plead clemency on a squeaky clean record for an infringement that is clearly a mistake? I have a squeaky clean record too, and if I got a fine like the OP's I wouldn't be thinking of my clean record, I'd be thinking how it is quite clearly wrong.

        • John Kimble on 27/01/2017 - 10:39

          @sp00ker: I don't think they check first before they send out the fine. What if it wasnt you driving at the time? And what if it's like this situation where you don't want it because it's their fault?

          I'm pretty sure you need to respond asking for exception due to good record.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/01/2017 - 17:54
          -1

          I get what you guys are saying about a clean record and being in the right, etc … but it'll be a pretty hollow victory in court. Just the time and effort involved. There's very few consequences of demerit point and a $114 fine seems small in the scheme of things.

          If your representing yourself, you might make a procedural error, which means you lose, get lumped with costs, etc. The magistrate probably hasn't done physics since high school, so your arguments about making a right turn at 73Km/h might not fly, when compared to an official report saying the camera was functioning properly. I'm sure they'll magically produce another report saying lane 1 is the right-most lane in the photo (american software, etc)

          The infringement system has very little to do with public safety and justice. It's just about collecting money.

        • robbyjones on 27/01/2017 - 18:26
          +1

          @sp00ker: you only need common sense to see there has been an error made, I am sure any judge would understand that most people wouldn't see justification for paying for a legal defence and would overlook any procedural errors. I think you have watched too many legal dramas on TV.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/01/2017 - 21:29
          +1

          @robbyjones:

          you only need common sense to see there has been an error made

          If common sense was the overriding factor, the fine would've been dropped at some point, but it hasn't been dropped, so I wouldn't rely on the magistrate using common sense either.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/01/2017 - 07:29
      +3

      Give A Current Affair a call! They love these kind of stories.

      On top of everything else it might encourage others caught at that intersection to check their fines. Many would just go ahead and pay them. System is obviously VERY flawed!

      If you were taking that corner at 73 km/h there would be smoke!!

      • Untameable on 29/01/2017 - 23:49

        Agreed. ACA aren't the best but someone has to name and shame idiot beauracrats.

    • neg on 03/02/2017 - 20:12
      +8

      Good news, they said the penalty notice issued to the incorrect registration.
      We've done it OzBargain community. Thank you everyone for read, voted, commented and consulted. Because of you I did send second review online, and called them a day after just to make sure they received it, and make sure they would actually review it. After 2 days from my call I received email saying penalty sent to wrong registration number.

      • [Deactivated] on 04/02/2017 - 16:43
        +1

        Great outcome.

  • [Deactivated] on 26/01/2017 - 20:23
    +8

    just for accuracy lanes number left to right so lane 1 is always the kerbside
    at 73 kmh you would travel 20.4m in the 1 sec between photos

    looks more about 20km/hr or less to me

    • neg on 26/01/2017 - 20:27

      Thank you, Since now I have to go to court, I just need to proof that "lane 1" is actually kerb side lane. Do you know where to find that document?

      • [Deactivated] on 26/01/2017 - 20:32
        +23

        << Former Police Officer - it is simply the universal descriptor - anyone in the industry describing an incident on the road describes multi lane roads this way - take your picture to any police officer and just ask them to point to lane one - every single one will go with the left lane (right in the US - even they follow the same rule)

        I do think you run the risk of getting off the speeding and being hit with the red light instead though - but that is based on me living in Queensland for some years now - the rules in NSW could be substantially different since my time.
        EDIT: No - you're all good

        From RMS NSW
        "If you are crossing the intersection as the light turns yellow (amber) and it is not safe to stop, do not panic. Continue driving through the intersection. The camera only takes a photograph if you cross over the stop line 0.3 seconds after the light has turned red.

        Traffic already in the intersection or entering on a yellow (amber) light will not activate the red light camera."

        So - assuming your low speed - as calculated - you entered the intersection while it was well and truly green or just yellow, doing around 15-20km/hr and were still turning when the vehicle in Lane 1 triggered the camera

        • neg on 26/01/2017 - 20:50
          +8

          I was waiting to turn right, entered into intersection, waiting to clear traffic from other direction, then yellow light came on, but this Black SUV was not going to stop, after passing the Black SUV, I had a chance to go.
          In NSW, once you entered into intersection, you have to go when its safe to so, cannot go back.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/01/2017 - 20:55
          +1

          @neg: Yep - looks just like that to me - I'd write in and see if you can get someone to have another look - physics and time proves you didn't infringe.

        • John Dough on 27/01/2017 - 15:30
          +4

          @neg:

          Hey neg, this wont even end up in court.
          Call them back or go in there in person. Keep going up the ranks until someone listens.

          You will get to the right person and they will fix it and be apologetic.

          Just keep insisting on it being escalated as it is clearly their error and don't take no for an answer.

          The guy you spoke to at the first point of contact isn't the person you need.

        • neg on 27/01/2017 - 18:26
          +4

          @greydaniel: Thanks, I 'll call them again.

      • windrc on 27/01/2017 - 11:07

        You can run through the same light again on the left most lane and verify from the photo.

        Otherwise, try google for a sample photo

    • marc86au on 27/01/2017 - 11:17
      +1

      I may be wrong but it doesn't look like 1 second between the photos? 09:53:13.058 - 09:53:12.668 = 0.39 of a second. Not being critical, just pointing it out as it may be important in your calculation of distance traveled in the time

    • sergun on 28/01/2017 - 11:04

      0.39sec. between the photos means 7.9m travelled at 73km/h.
      The 1st lane car travelled around 5-6m (given car's length is ~4.5m):
      http://imgur.com/i2bDRT7

      Hence, the 1st car speed on the 2nd photo is ~55km/h.
      However, the 1st car has applied the brakes between the 2 photos (looks like it was beating the red light), hence its speed on the 1st photo is well above 55km/h - by how much, hard to say.

    • neg on 03/02/2017 - 20:12
      +1

      Good news, they said the penalty notice issued to the incorrect registration.
      We've done it OzBargain community. Thank you everyone for read, voted, commented and consulted. Because of you I did send second review online, and called them a day after just to make sure they received it, and make sure they would actually review it. After 2 days from my call I received email saying penalty sent to wrong registration number.

      • chumlee on 03/02/2017 - 21:07
        +2

        Well done.

        Makes you wonder what happens to those like the elderly or poor English skills who can't defend something silly like this fine.

        Go spend the money at the pub now

        • neg on 03/02/2017 - 21:14

          What if my vehicle(hyundai) was at lane 1 with Mazda??? Is it possible that more that 1 vehicle captured in picture at the same lane? How could I prove that I wasn't speeding? Makes us wonder?

  • k-rokfm on 26/01/2017 - 21:02
    +102

    Came here expecting a stupid reason of why you were speeding and it was actually reasonable.

    I am pleasantly surprised, well done.

    • [Deactivated] on 26/01/2017 - 21:13
      +57

      Took out my pitchfork for nothing :(

      • StewBalls on 28/01/2017 - 10:43
        +2

        I just wanna know who to bill for the wasted flaming torch…

        • gimli on 28/01/2017 - 10:46
          +6

          use it on the people who voted "Pay the fine, and move on, there is no chance for you."

        • Scrooge McDuck on 28/01/2017 - 12:09
          +7

          @Gimli:

          Could the admins release the identities of those people?

          They're clearly in need of help.

    • ronnknee on 27/01/2017 - 10:10
      +5

      Yea same here. There have been too many stupid posts recently.

  • chumlee on 26/01/2017 - 21:26
    -2

    You are going to need more evidence before going to court. See if as part of discovery you can get access to maintenance logs to determine if the cameras were malfunctioning at the time or required recalibrating. Was car A in fact the one speeding etc.

    • neg on 26/01/2017 - 21:33
      +1

      I am not expert of law, never been to court, don't know the procedure. Can you help me where can I get this document/evidence?
      I want to be 100% sure that I would win, cause fighting system makes me so exhausted.
      Is there anyone who has been on court, and tell me what chance do I got? 90%?10% 50%?

      • chumlee on 26/01/2017 - 21:38
        +3

        Start with legal aid and ask them what you should be presenting in court as they will have a lot of experience. Maybe even speak to a registra at magistrates court.

        Remember speeding fines are strict liability offences which means you are guilty until you prove you are innocent

        • djkelly69 on 08/02/2017 - 22:36

          Not sure anyone is still reading this but:

          strict liability offences which means you are guilty until you prove you are innocent

          is not correct - the onus of proof is not reversed for strict liability offences (which is what you have stated). As noted below, it basically just means that intent is irrelevant.

      • resubaehtgnolhcs on 26/01/2017 - 22:17
        +1

        You can get the camera calibration details online from SDRO, just enter your details from the penalty notice. In NSW cameras are calibrated every 30 days and the details (certificate) of calibration for the cameras are available when you check the pictures.

    • sd on 29/01/2017 - 13:32
      +2

      I don't think he needs more evidence. Its not OP's responsibility to prove that the cameras were wrong, but the onus will be on the proscecutor to prove that he was going at 73 km/ph and based on the photos, he wont be able to. OP doesn't really need to be doing any sleuthing in his part from what I know about the courts, it should be a straight forward open and dismissal case.

      • chumlee on 29/01/2017 - 13:55
        -2

        You need to read up on strict liability offenses.

        • sd on 29/01/2017 - 14:21

          Just read up here:
          http://www.criminallegal.com.au/wa/criminallawinfo/what-is-a…

          It says that for those offences, Proscecutor still has to prove the crime but doesn't have to prove intent. So if OP goes to court, proscecutor still has to prove that he was at 73 Kmph, but doesn't have to prove that he was doing it intentionally or not. And I dont think they will be able to prove based on what someone else said about it being 20 m difference in 1 sec.

        • chumlee on 29/01/2017 - 14:48

          @sd: yes and according to the articles 4th and 5th paragraphs the police have proven their case with a radar and camera. Now OP needs to prove his case

        • tomsco on 29/01/2017 - 19:16
          +1

          @chumlee:

          Well no, they haven't proven their case.

          The photo says lane 1, which would suggest the left most lane and as above, the information on the photographs clearly proves the OP wasn't speeding.

      • MrFrugalSpend on 31/01/2017 - 01:37

        Actually OP is appealing, so the onus is on them to prove it was wrong.

        I've got just 3 things to say - Be prepared, be prepared, and be very prepared.

    • neg on 03/02/2017 - 20:12
      +1

      Good news, they said the penalty notice issued to the incorrect registration.
      We've done it OzBargain community. Thank you everyone for read, voted, commented and consulted. Because of you I did send second review online, and called them a day after just to make sure they received it, and make sure they would actually review it. After 2 days from my call I received email saying penalty sent to wrong registration number.

  • MondaySleeper on 26/01/2017 - 21:36
    +9

    May be a dump question. If OP s going to court, he is going to lose 1 days wage. Can we recoup that from the authority as its obvious its their mistake? I know we can get the court expenses back but will loss of wage fall into it?

    • k-rokfm on 26/01/2017 - 21:57
      +2

      No you can't recoup loss of income - its your choice to take it to court taking account of all costs outside court fees

      • dizzle on 26/01/2017 - 22:26
        +3

        However, depending on what job you have, many positions that have sick leave have the option to take one or two days per year as personal leave. You don't generally need a reason as opposed to sick leave or carers leave, so maybe that's an option. Otherwise talk to your manager and see if there is another way you can use sick/annual leave to cover your pay.

      • Diji1 on 27/01/2017 - 00:09
        +22

        No you can't recoup loss of income

        Which is ridiculous. Clearly if OP wins against the state then the states wrongful actions have caused the loss of income to occur.

        • YellowDieselGolf on 27/01/2017 - 13:25
          -2

          You are free to do as well tell you.

  • 2shoes on 26/01/2017 - 22:01
    +5

    If people here are right about the numbers, I would ask for a photo of lane #3. The photo won't exist.
    Tell them they've provided the photo of another car (because well, technically they have).

    Hard for them to fine you with no evidence, maybe that would prompt a rethink??

    • neg on 26/01/2017 - 22:04

      I just wright down your suggestion, All possible argument would be handy, I guess.

      • MrFrugalSpend on 31/01/2017 - 01:39
        +1

        I don't think there is a photo of each lane - there is only one camera.

    • neg on 03/02/2017 - 20:13
      +1

      Good news, they said the penalty notice issued to the incorrect registration.
      We've done it OzBargain community. Thank you everyone for read, voted, commented and consulted. Because of you I did send second review online, and called them a day after just to make sure they received it, and make sure they would actually review it. After 2 days from my call I received email saying penalty sent to wrong registration number.

  • bobbified on 26/01/2017 - 22:16
    +13

    The clown you had on the other end of the line probably doesn't know what he's talking about.

    Before you elect to go to court, you could try call the SDRO back and ask nicely to speak to a supervisor to explain your case.
    If you do get a good outcome from that, make sure you get it in writing.

    • Skramit on 26/01/2017 - 22:22
      +1

      Do this.

      Also write to them with your case explained in detail and the evidence you will present in court about lane 1.

    • [Deactivated] on 26/01/2017 - 22:33
      +7

      The clown you had on the other end of the line probably doesn't know what he's talking about.

      Nah - it's true. Only one review by the SDRO is allowed. Even worse, for parking infringements, they don't even review the photographic evidence taken by the parking inspector. They just (after denying your review) that you can request the photos from the council.

      Justice has absolutely no relevance when it comes to an SDRO review. It's pretty much a shake down and they're betting you're too lazy/busy to take it to court.

      • bobbified on 27/01/2017 - 08:44
        +3

        Nah - it's true. Only one review by the SDRO is allowed

        I was actually referring to the bit where the operator says: "I DON'T KNOW WHICH IS LANE 1, AND WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE CAMERA".

        You'd expect that they'd know this stuff back to front because they stare at these things all day long!

        And I think you're right about the review being a joke! If they actually did review it initially, it'd be quite obvious to them that they've got the wrong car.

        Anyway, stories like this really p|ss me off. While it's usually "innocent until proven guilty", these offences are pretty much the complete opposite. I hope OP asks for costs to be awarded based on the SDRO's own stupidity.

        • dufflover on 28/01/2017 - 01:59

          Given every call place usually has that warning about being recorded this could be used in a next call back where to hopefully get to speak to a higher level!

    • neg on 03/02/2017 - 20:13
      +2

      Good news, they said the penalty notice issued to the incorrect registration.
      We've done it OzBargain community. Thank you everyone for read, voted, commented and consulted. Because of you I did send second review online, and called them a day after just to make sure they received it, and make sure they would actually review it. After 2 days from my call I received email saying penalty sent to wrong registration number.

  • resubaehtgnolhcs on 26/01/2017 - 22:27
    +15

    It looks like the person who processed this penalty got the incident number (3) mixed up with the lane number (1).

    Based on the two photos and the 0.39 seconds between the frames, the evidence suggested that if you were travelling at 73kmh you would have traveled about 7.9 meters in 0.39 seconds. This is not what the two photos show - you have only traveled maybe 1-2 meters maximum. This, together with the fact that logic would state lane number one would be the left hand kerb lane, should highlight the SDROs mistake here.

    Call them again and point all this out to them. If they insist they can't help, then go to court as I can't see how logic will prove you wrong.

    • neg on 03/02/2017 - 20:13
      +2

      Good news, they said the penalty notice issued to the incorrect registration.
      We've done it OzBargain community. Thank you everyone for read, voted, commented and consulted. Because of you I did send second review online, and called them a day after just to make sure they received it, and make sure they would actually review it. After 2 days from my call I received email saying penalty sent to wrong registration number.

  • Elppa8 on 26/01/2017 - 23:30
    +1

    If the camera takes a photo after the lights have turned red then why are the yellow lights displayed in the photo at 12.668 seconds. Seems to me the camera took the photo early.

    • resubaehtgnolhcs on 27/01/2017 - 01:18
      +6

      That only applies to red light camera infringements, not speeding infringements. With speeding infringements, the camera takes a photo independent of what the lights are doing (although you can get done for both speeding and red light).

  • Findo on 27/01/2017 - 01:38
    +2

    I've taken turns at 73km/h before, but my rear end was hanging out. You should definitely take this to court. A legal win feels good and trumps any lost income.

    • John Kimble on 27/01/2017 - 06:54

      trumps any lost income.

      Depends on one's financial situation. Plus due to what appears to be someone's processing error and ridiculously black and white no exceptions policy, a waste of time and effort for the OP that shouldn't have been the case in the first place and time they can't get back.

  • Drj55 on 27/01/2017 - 07:59
    +2

    Got are so clearly in the right here that you can't possibly just pay the fine. May have consequences like higher insurance premiums?

    I have faith that common sense will prevail. Usually if I get completely unreasonable advice from someone over the telephone, waiting a day or so and calling back to get someone else often helps. I would try again before going to court.

    • neg on 27/01/2017 - 18:29

      Thanks, I'll try again

    • neg on 03/02/2017 - 20:13
      +1

      Good news, they said the penalty notice issued to the incorrect registration.
      We've done it OzBargain community. Thank you everyone for read, voted, commented and consulted. Because of you I did send second review online, and called them a day after just to make sure they received it, and make sure they would actually review it. After 2 days from my call I received email saying penalty sent to wrong registration number.

  • klonky on 27/01/2017 - 08:30
    +1

    I find "1 review" completely unreasonable considering you are clearly not at fault. Is there not a senior police staff member to write to complain?

    • neg on 03/02/2017 - 20:13
      +2

      Good news, they said the penalty notice issued to the incorrect registration.
      We've done it OzBargain community. Thank you everyone for read, voted, commented and consulted. Because of you I did send second review online, and called them a day after just to make sure they received it, and make sure they would actually review it. After 2 days from my call I received email saying penalty sent to wrong registration number.

  • tomsco on 27/01/2017 - 08:40
    +1

    To the OP, considering it sounds like they did not actually review (sounds like they just sent out a template email without looking at your case), I would argue that you are still entitled to one review… where they actually review the evidence.

    • neg on 03/02/2017 - 20:14
      +1

      Good news, they said the penalty notice issued to the incorrect registration.
      We've done it OzBargain community. Thank you everyone for read, voted, commented and consulted. Because of you I did send second review online, and called them a day after just to make sure they received it, and make sure they would actually review it. After 2 days from my call I received email saying penalty sent to wrong registration number.

  • ThithLord on 27/01/2017 - 09:39
    +3

    Oh god. I can't believe the operator didn't know which lane is which. Or, more likely, they knew that you weren't in that lane but their hands were tied. That's absolutely despicable. I wish you all the luck, OP

    • neg on 03/02/2017 - 20:14
      +2

      Good news, they said the penalty notice issued to the incorrect registration.
      We've done it OzBargain community. Thank you everyone for read, voted, commented and consulted. Because of you I did send second review online, and called them a day after just to make sure they received it, and make sure they would actually review it. After 2 days from my call I received email saying penalty sent to wrong registration number.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join