Speeding Fine - I Need Help on Whether I Should Contest This or Just Roll over and Pay It

EdwardTriggerHands on 29/05/2018 - 14:01
Last edited 30/05/2018 - 22:35 by 1 other user

Hi all,

Sorry for the long post, in advance.

I got home a few days ago to an $884 fine and 5 demerit points (from earlier this month). Allegedly, I was doing 115km/h in an 80km/h zone (M5 in Sydney). I checked the pictures online and they had 4 of them. The first picture wasn't even of my car. The other pictures, 2 were the same (different colours to see rego), and the other was a split second later of the same view. Other than the first picture, the others had my car in them.

Here is the problem that I have with this:

I drive through that tunnel almost everyday. I know it's 80 KM/H and I also know that there are speed cameras. So, to me it doesn't make sense that I would do such a thing (35KM/H over the speed limit!). Especially when in the pictures I can see traffic right up ahead, and the first picture taken by the same camera (same code) shows a lot of cars there.

Another thing I noticed was that the pictures were taken within a split second difference. Once again, by the same camera. With the first picture showing plenty of traffic, and the others showing something different.

I asked for a review thinking that surely they would see the difference in pictures. Maybe they would notice that there might have been an error? But no. They came back saying that the fine still stands and that the camera is fine. They didn't even mention anything about the pictures being different..

So, I decided to do some math to try and figure out how much distance I would cover if I was traveling at 115 KM/H as opposed to 80 KM/H, using the timestamps on the two pictures that show my car.
Here is my math (not very good at this):

Picture 2 timestamp: 09:34:07.090
Picture 3 timestamp: 09:34:07.480

At 115 KM/H:
Time between the two pictures: 0.480-0.090=0.390 seconds
Seconds in a minute: 60*60=3600 seconds
Distance covered per second: 115KMh / 3600seconds = 0.03194 KM per second
Convert the above to Meters: 0.03194 * 1000 = 31.94 Meters
Distance covered per Millisecond: 31.94 Meters / 1000 Milliseconds = 0.03194 Meters per Millisecond.
Distance that should have been covered between pictures: 0.03194 Meters * 390 Milliseconds = 12.4566 Meters

At 80 KM/H:
Time between the two pictures: 0.480-0.090=0.390 seconds
Seconds in a minute: 60*60=3600 seconds
Distance covered per second: 80KMh / 3600seconds = 0.02222 KM per second
Convert the above to Meters: 0.02222 * 1000 = 22.22 Meters
Distance covered per Millisecond: 22.22 Meters / 1000 Milliseconds = 0.02222 Meters per Millisecond.
Distance that should have been covered between pictures: 0.02222 Meters * 390 Milliseconds = 8.6666 Meters

Now, I need to figure out how long the distance is between the two pictures. I need your help!

Does anyone have any idea how long the white lines are in the pictures?

Please find the pictures here

I know this is a long shot. And that's why I need the community's help. This is a massive fine, especially given that I've been driving for over 8 years, and I had not lost a point up until a couple of months ago (different story).

Also, I know the stereotypes. The car is a WRX. But no, not every WRX owner drives like a douche bag. Especially, when you consider the fact that this car drinks petrol like crazy and I can barely keep up with fuel costs…

My only options here are to either pay the fine and cop the 5 demerits, or represent myself and have it decided in court.

Any help is appreciated… And if I've missed anything, please let me know.

Thanks!

UPDATE: I found out that I could add additional details to the review that I requested, on the revenue.nsw.gov.au website. So, I did just that, and this time I asked for an explanation for the different pictures but same camera code and I also questioned the integrity of the timestamps, since my car is not in the first photo. I left emotions out of it and asked proper questions that are valid to be asked in a court. I was told to wait up to 42 days for a reply.
I also requested a camera certificate and got it today. It shows that the speed measurement was certified on 18-09-2017 and image capture was certified on 19-04-2018. The speed measurement undergoes a certification once a year. While the image capture gets certified every 90 days. Will keep updating this post as I get more info.

Automotive

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2018 - 14:10
    +7

    just role over

    Which role in particular? Speeding ombudsman?

    I know it's 80KM/H and I also know that there are speed cameras

    Were you by some chance attempting a quick overtake?

    Was your window down so you could listen to your exhaust note in the tunnel?

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 29/05/2018 - 14:27
      +3

      Roll****

      I wasn't attempting a quick overtake and no, I never have my window down to listen to my exhaust in the tunnel.. lol

      • Dreamcast on 31/05/2018 - 06:04
        -1

        Haha come on, as if you don't. Everytime I go thorough with my wrx sti, the windows go down slightly and then vrooooom. Though I do it when it's not busy and drop the speed down to 40 then punch it to 80.

        Now that I have a blow off valve, it's time for some vrooom tsshhhh ;)

        • djmm on 31/05/2018 - 07:28
          +1

          In my BMW 40 to 80 is a second.

        • EdwardTriggerHands on 31/05/2018 - 07:48

          Never in a tunnel full of cars lol. Too much smoke for me.
          Edit: that's the only time I'm in that tunnel.

      • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 31/05/2018 - 17:12
        +1

        How do make a sausage roll?
        Push it down a hill.

        I'm so sorry.

    • wantitforless on 29/05/2018 - 15:43
      +1

      have heard some people say they kiwi cousin from 99 Smith St South Auckland was driving. THink they have to do a stat dec.

      • Certified Angus on 02/06/2018 - 09:45

        Until they find out kiwi cousin wasn't even in the country, then you're caught for the stat dec too

      • Drewbo on 02/06/2018 - 20:04

        Google "Justice Marcus Einfeld".

    • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 31/05/2018 - 17:11

      Swissroll?

  • SydStrand on 29/05/2018 - 14:11
    +35

    The car is a WRX

    Fully sick, brah!

  • RyanMK on 29/05/2018 - 14:12
    +1

    I drive through that tunnel almost everyday. I know it's 80KM/H and I also know that there are speed cameras. So, to me it doesn't make sense that I would do such a thing (35KM/H over the speed limit!).

    Others with more experience would be able to chip in soon, but this definitely isn't grounds for contesting it. Your only hope is to prove:
    1. You were not speeding; and/or
    2. The camera is faulty

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 29/05/2018 - 14:33
      +1

      Yeah, I realize that won't hold up in court. I feel like I'm out of options here.

  • tre180 on 29/05/2018 - 14:18
    +1

    From that angle the distance between shots looks closer to 8.6m than 12.5m, but perspective can be misleading, you'd need a side-on view and a measurement of the line spacing to even have a hope of proving them wrong.

  • iampoor on 29/05/2018 - 14:22
    +32

    Google for the NSW Roads & Maritime Services Delineation - Section 4 Longitudinal Markings.

    From what I can see it should be on page 8 Land Line L1 which is 3m white line with a 9m gap to the next white line.

    Looking at the pictures you seem to have covered at least one white line and one gap so minimum 12m.

    Sorry, doesn't seem like there is much point contesting.

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 29/05/2018 - 14:37
      +5

      :/
      Thanks for the info, mate.

      Much appreciated

      • Scrooge McDuck on 29/05/2018 - 15:36

        Seems like you'll need to grab your ankles on this one champ.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAYyPELvyqI

      • inherentchoice on 31/05/2018 - 15:19
        +5

        Little surprised no one suggested using the ruler in Google Maps.

        https://imgur.com/a/7lv5NJH

        https://goo.gl/maps/WM7GuNLXLQK2

        So the rough measurement on the lines coming out of the M5 eastbound tunnel = 12.41 metres for one line and one gap. It's imprecise with fuzzy pixels but that's scarily the same number you calculated for the distance travelled over 390 milliseconds at 115km/h. :o Plus it aligns with the 12 metres from the Govt manual as quoted by @iampoor.

        • EdwardTriggerHands on 31/05/2018 - 15:29
          +1

          Yeah, I guess it's gonna come down to how accurate the timestamps are. I mean, decrease the time, and the next thing you know, I'm travelling at over 150km/h and the other way around.

          As others have already mentioned, in this case they have to prove that the metadata is accurate/correct, right?

        • wolffram on 02/06/2018 - 23:03

          @EdwardTriggerHands:

          Not quite- that’s the reason cameras have certifications. All they have to prove in court is that the device was certified, (by producing the certificate). The relevant legislation then allows the device to be accepted by the court as accurate. It’s up to you, the defendant to prove the inaccuracy. Most Traffic Offences are what’s termed “Absolute Offences”. This means that they are reverse onus offences, ie, the onus is on you as the defendant to prove your innocence (as opposed to more serious criminal offences where the defendant has a presumption of innocence).

        • SydneySurfer on 04/06/2018 - 09:23

          @wolffram:
          Strict or absolute liability offences does not mean that the defendant loses the presumption of innocence. It just means that the prosecution does not have to prove mens rea (intention). They just have to prove that you committed the act (actus reus). Hence, the photos and certification which is their legally required evidence that a defendant committed the offence.
          In Australia, there is always the presumption of innocence.

    • cameldownunder on 01/06/2018 - 11:54

      Suppose cars in the tunnel stick closely to the limit, the cars in front of you have hardly moved, while you gain a lot of space on them.
      Should be an indication you are significantly over the speed. You probably had to step relatively hard on the brake not to slam in the car in front of you. Does that ring a bell ?

      We all have bad days, and maybe you were speeding. Good thing nothing has happened, and you didn't kill anyone. Pricey lesson to be learned.

      • EdwardTriggerHands on 01/06/2018 - 14:50

        They seem to have hardly moved because they are further away.
        And it also seems like there is traffic there and they aren't going 80km/h. Which is why it would seem that my car is going over the speed limit… it's all relative. Timestamps have a part to play in calculating the speed using the pictures, too.

        And with all honesty, I don't start braking at the last second. I slow down gradually over a fair bit of distance so that my brakes don't heat up too much and start squealing. 06 Sports car stuff.. So there is no way that I would have slammed on the brakes like your describing.

        I know we all have bad days. I do too. And sorry if I sound a little defensive. It's just that this is stressing me out so much.

  • GG57 on 29/05/2018 - 14:26
    +8

    Still got the WRX then.
    I would probably focus on the differences between Pictures #1 and #2, as I don't understand where all that traffic went in 0.061secs? Maybe that will put the doubt on the camera's accuracy?

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 29/05/2018 - 14:29
      +2

      Yeah, decided to just save up for a wedding..

      That's what I had in mind. But I'm not sure how much they care about that, given that they didn't even address it in the review.

    • jonnochen on 30/05/2018 - 12:50
      +6

      Yeah agree with this. The time difference between 1 and 2 is less than 0.1s but somehow the truck has disappeared out of site. I reckon you might have a chance with this, not the other.

    • Lifeinflow on 31/05/2018 - 03:07
      +3

      Truck photo looks like a different camera at the same time. Notice the road curves in the truck photo.

      I don't know why they sent it to you, likely a mistake on their part, but may not be grounds for contesting given it doesn't affect the accuracy of the camera measuring your car speed.

      • EdwardTriggerHands on 31/05/2018 - 07:45
        +1

        Wouldn't they acknowledge that at least? Or don't these photos get checked before fines are sent out?

      • abb on 31/05/2018 - 11:18
        +7

        may not be grounds for contesting given it doesn't affect the accuracy of the camera measuring your car speed.

        Which camera is measuring his speed? #9551 that looks at the straight road, or #9551 that looks at the corner and started the whole process?

        Seems reasonable to me to doubt the accuracy of the speed measurement if they can't even get the supposed unique camera identifier codes right.

        • Ison on 01/06/2018 - 15:06

          This !!

  • dcep on 29/05/2018 - 14:27
    +3

    will dashcam with gps speed able to contest something like this ?

    or they'll just ignore it & claim footage is doctored

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 29/05/2018 - 14:31
      +2

      Funny story, beginning of this year, I decided to record every trip I take with GPS and speed showing on the dashcam…

      But I gave up on that after a few months because I ended up with hours of footage that I didn't think I'd need. Kicking myself for making that decision right now :(

      • SnoozeAndLose on 29/05/2018 - 15:14
        +13

        you wont get GPS in the tunnel.

      • Procyon on 01/06/2018 - 21:27

        Damn! And you didn't just leave the camera running, overwriting the oldest files?

        • EdwardTriggerHands on 01/06/2018 - 22:07

          I was planning on saving the trips for at least a month each. Mainly because most fines reach people within a month. And that meant having to sort and move files every night and I got a little lazy and thought it wasn't worth it. So I stopped doing that. But now I'm doing it again because of this fine.

          Edit: I kept the dashcam running, but in normal mode. And only saved the bits where there was something going on, on the road.

    • [Deactivated] on 04/06/2018 - 15:55

      No. Dashcams, unlike speed cameras, are not certified measuring devices, and will not stand up as evidence in a court proceeding or appeal.

  • bongom on 29/05/2018 - 14:30
    +11

    FYI GIYF for maths.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=115kmh+to+ms

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 29/05/2018 - 14:32
      +2

      Could have saved me a fair bit of time..lol

    • blonky on 30/05/2018 - 16:39
      -8

      1km/hr = 3.6m/s

      115km/hr = 31.94m/s

      • twinbag on 31/05/2018 - 09:14
        +5

        *1m/s = 3.6km/h
        1km/h = 0.28m/s

  • 87percent on 29/05/2018 - 14:48
    +9

    post this on Reddit.. but going 115 in general in Sydney is laughable (from my experience)

  • Ryanek on 29/05/2018 - 15:10
    +17

    Based on a 3m white line and 9m gap I sketched up this 3D model. Assuming your WRX is around 4.5m I placed the models 13m apart. Looks about right.

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 29/05/2018 - 15:25

      Thanks for that, mate.

      It seems that the only argument that I would have would be the 2 different pictures from the same camera at the same time.. But I don't think that will hold up, sadly.

      • Ryanek on 29/05/2018 - 15:49
        +1

        Yeah put it this way, 8m is only double your car length. It appears you have traveled at least 3 times this distance.

        • xravisher on 01/06/2018 - 12:20

          I think it might be possible to still contest the internal chronometers that the cameras use.

          But then again, hard time proving that from those 3 pictures too

  • garffi on 29/05/2018 - 15:33
    +18

    Strange that pic 1 is completely different to pic 2&3 even though they're taken less than a second apart. I would contest it.
    They must have caught someone in pic 1, otherwise why would they need to take a few more pictures following that?
    Shift their attention on the camera and not on how fast you were travelling. Point out pic 1 doesn't show your car. Make them explain why the same camera shows different traffic conditions despite the <1 second time difference.

    This is probably one of those cases where you know there's no way you could do it. I mean who would drive 35km/h over the limit in the tunnel when everyone knows there's speed cameras.

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 29/05/2018 - 17:38

      Exactly!
      I'll give them a call as soon as I can.

      • Lichen6420 on 29/05/2018 - 18:29
        +6

        Agreed…. Simply doesn't add up if the time stamps are correct. Where did the truck disappear to in less than 1 sec?

        Personally i would contest and put in front of a magistrate. Doesn't take a genius to figure out something is not correct here.

        • steven6 on 30/05/2018 - 01:04
          +23

          I can see what happened. The truck was caught speeding at 115kph then the turbo kicked in and it shot up to 141.622kph and went back(or maybe forward) in time.

        • EdwardTriggerHands on 30/05/2018 - 01:13

          @steven6: Lol

        • Scrooge McDuck on 31/05/2018 - 01:07

          @steven6:

          You're thinking 4th dimensionally!

        • xravisher on 01/06/2018 - 12:22
          +1

          If you'd have read the comments above, you'll notice that there is a curve to the left in picture #1 and not 2 & 3.

          It would seem that there is some grounds for contesting this given the camera codes.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 30/05/2018 - 20:25

        Who are you going to call? They don't deal with these over the phone. They won't go "oh, sorry our mistake tap tap fine deleted"

        You need to pay up or request the matter be heard in Court. That won't go well for you.

      • Antikythera on 01/06/2018 - 21:14
        +1

        have a crack at doing the math if the first picture of your car(2nd overall) has the timestamp of the first picture overall (pic of the truck)

        ie the pics were somehow saved with the wrong timestamp and the extra random photo got saved into the sequence.

        t1 - random truck
        t2 - you
        t3 - you

        should be
        t1 - you
        t2
        t3 - you

        i wouldnt be surprised if the math comes out at 80km +/- 5km

        • EdwardTriggerHands on 01/06/2018 - 22:20

          You're spot on, mate.

          When I calculate it like you asked, the speed is much less than what they've accused me of.

          The biggest challenge ends up being calculating the distance based on these photos.

    • abb on 31/05/2018 - 11:20

      Make them explain why the same camera

      The problem is that these photos are clearly not from the same camera, despite both being tagged as 9551. The photo with the truck is on a bend, the other photos are on a straight.

      • garffi on 31/05/2018 - 11:40
        +3

        That's why we let them explain to us. Let's say there are 2 cameras, the metadata incorrectly labels both of them as 9551. Isn't there enough reason to say that the metadata stating 'Vehicle Speed 115km/h' is also incorrect?
        I also thought of the possibility of 2 cameras, but all the metadata (unless it's incorrect) shows that it's the same one. Maybe it's the same camera but different angles?

  • pifts on 29/05/2018 - 15:39
    +4

    Don't rely too much on the opinion of internet strangers. Look up your nearest community legal centres on naclc.org.au or ask a lawyer who does traffic offences.

  • Yummy on 29/05/2018 - 15:48
    +13

    Pic 1 is a completely different pic than the rest. Look at the speed sign positioning. They'd made a boo boo.

    Contest and demand answer for that teleported truck.

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 29/05/2018 - 16:01

      Yeah, I'll call them up and give it my best shot.

      • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2018 - 17:31

        I don't think they meant to give you pic 1, just 2 and 3. How many images would they normally send?

        • EdwardTriggerHands on 29/05/2018 - 17:33

          Not sure. What do you think about the timestamp though?
          From what I understand, they'll send at least 2 photos.

        • Deridas on 30/05/2018 - 17:48
          +9

          @EdwardTriggerHands:

          You have three photos.
          They have the same camera code
          Same speed

          But in it there are two different locations
          Two different vehicles

          Despite this they're meant to be taken in sequence.

          This surely puts the onus on proving validity of the photos onto the company.
          If they claim they sent the first one to you in error, surely they need to proof in court how that error came to be, and that they can prove that the sliding car was yours and not the truck.

          Once again, I'm no lawyer, but $880 is too much not to take a day off and contest in court, especially if you know you're innocent

        • trapper on 31/05/2018 - 12:22

          @Deridas: Yeah the photos are totally inconsistent and obviously can't be relied on, at least without further investigation, so he might just get away with this.

          But how can he seriously not know if he was speeding 35km over the limit… Man do you normally drive around like this or not?

        • EdwardTriggerHands on 31/05/2018 - 14:57
          +1

          @trapper: That's what I try to explain to people.. I don't drive like this. I have a passion for cars and driving, and consider driving a privilege, not a right.
          But most people seem to look at me, consider my age, and the type of car I drive. And from that, they conclude that I'm a reckless driver :(

  • windrc on 29/05/2018 - 15:52
    +10

    You could write up a scientific paper to contest.

  • oscargamer on 29/05/2018 - 16:10

    Do you know how the camera detects your speed?
    Is it wires in the road or radar?
    Have you looked for the calibration certificate online?

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 29/05/2018 - 17:34

      Not sure how the camera detects the speed tbh.

      But I'll request the calibration certificate tonight.

      • warhead on 01/06/2018 - 19:23

        The cameras don't detect speed, radar device does and triggers the camera to take a photo.

        The camera code field usually has a 4 digit code that represents the camera's location, not the camera itself.
        Say there are 2 cameras; Pic 1 would be taken from the first one and Pics 2 & 3 might be taken from the second. Only reason I can think of why they'd do it this way is to account for a car moving fast enough to leave the field of view of the first camera and into the second within the span of the 350-400ms it takes for the flash on the camera to cycle for the next shot.

        Logically following that assumption, the offender is in Lane 1, next to the truck (in Lane 2) blocking camera view, but can see the tail light reflection on the wall.

        • EdwardTriggerHands on 01/06/2018 - 22:29

          How would I have gone through all those cars and come out ahead, in 350-400ms?
          And does this also mean that I would have been going over the speed limit while I was next to the truck? Wouldn't that mean every car in front of me would have been faster than me? Since, you know, I was that close to them and didn't crash?

          Only reason I can think of why they'd do it this way is to account for a car moving fast enough to leave the field of view of the first camera and into the second within the span of the 350-400ms it takes for the flash on the camera to cycle for the next shot.

          So, if we say that this is correct, it would mean that the cameras are very close to each other. Otherwise, I'd have to be going seriously fast to cover the distance between the cameras in 350-400ms, around a bend, with traffic in front. Did I misunderstand?

  • ThithLord on 29/05/2018 - 16:15
    +8

    If you contest this, I'd recommend getting the tax invoice for the last nth amount of times you've taken this tunnel. This mightn't help at all, sure - but it could show how often you take the tunnel.

  • sparkles on 29/05/2018 - 16:51
    +1

    I'm going to guess you travelled about 5 metres in between the two shots and that's using my eyes, nothing else LOL.

  • JimmyF on 29/05/2018 - 18:54
    +13

    The only way out is to say something is up. What happened to the truck!?

    At 09:34.07.029 there is a truck in the picture, and less than 1/2 second later at 09:34.07.090 the truck is no where to be seen!?

    Clearly something is wrong…..

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 29/05/2018 - 22:38
      +2

      Yep, exactly what I thought. I'll speak to them and see what they say.

      • JimmyF on 29/05/2018 - 22:58
        +3

        If it was me, I would ask for this fine to be withdrawn based on there is clearly an issue with it and can't be trusted. Trucks just don't disappear, and if you can't trust the first picture, how can you trust the rest of the pictures.

        1/2 second is nothing, trucks don't disappear.

      • bigticket on 31/05/2018 - 00:19
        +1

        The truck seems to have been doing the exact same speed you were doing??? Coincidental?

        So, who was speeding, you or the truck? That would be my case and the time stamp discrepancy. As far as I know, you are only allowed one review, so your only option may be to take it to court.

        My opinion, it appears the truck was not speeding due to the traffic in front of it.
        The anomaly of the truck image, is cause to cast doubt on the evidence that should result with the fine been withdrawn. Be sure to update the outcome!

    • alvian on 30/05/2018 - 03:23
      +3

      There isn't 1/2 second between photos 1 and 2. The time gap is 6.1 milliseconds, 6 hundredth of a second, 6/100 second. Less than the blink of an eye.

      • JimmyF on 30/05/2018 - 07:48

        True….. I was trying to use a term that everyone would understand, hence why I said "less than 1/2 second later"

    • Baysew on 30/05/2018 - 19:54
      -1

      What happened to the truck!?

      Truck was travelling at 141.6 k/mh

      • JimmyF on 30/05/2018 - 19:58
        +1

        Truck was travelling at 141.6 k/mh

        and the rest of the traffic in front of the truck? Just pushed it out of the road ;)

        • Baysew on 30/05/2018 - 20:07
          +9

          Once it the truck hit 88 MPH it was back to the future.

  • terrys on 30/05/2018 - 08:37
    +3

    From the look of that, the truck was apparently doing 115KPH just before it went through the time warp…

    • Melong on 01/06/2018 - 10:01

      great scott!

  • gth on 30/05/2018 - 09:01
    +17

    The photo with the truck is a different camera location (very different lighting + green lights on roof).

    It hasn't been given to you to depict your car - it has been supplied to show that the speed sign before the speed detection location was working fine.

    • steven6 on 30/05/2018 - 09:39
      +1

      You're right. I had to look at it a few times to notice that.
      Also a slight bend in the road with the truck.

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 30/05/2018 - 11:42
      +2

      What about the camera code? It would help if someone who had gotten a fine for that location, to tell us if they had something similar..

    • mister_snrub on 31/05/2018 - 17:15
      +1

      This is the winning answer! Many plus votes to you sir/madam.

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 31/05/2018 - 22:52

      Let's say that you're right. It still doesn't explain how the timestamp on the first picture (the truck) shows that it was earlier than the second and the third pictures (when I supposedly was caught speeding).

      Surely they can't go back in time (even if less than half a second) and take a photo? And since the photos are original, how is it that the offence was recorded on the first picture, even though I was not in it?

      Or if you say that I was caught speeding in the first picture, and that triggered the first picture and then the second and third, it still shouldn't hold up in court given that my car isn't in the first picture. Which should render the second and third pictures as not enough evidence.

      Am I making much sense here? Or am I just talking nonsense?

      I feel as though something triggered the speed trap/detector in the first picture, and because they couldn't make out what it was, they decided that the next best option/vehicle should take the blame?

      Idk man…

      • dazzawul on 01/06/2018 - 13:49
        +2

        At 7.090 it shows you at a particular position.

        At 7.480 it shows you at least 12m further down the road (line markings are 3m long, the space between them is 9m, 12m).

        That's ~30m\s, which is ~110km\h, sorry dude, unless the timestamps are wrong you were doing 110km\h, as difficult as it is to believe someone would be able to even reach the speed limit let alone exceed it on the M5 during daylight hours.

      • gth on 04/06/2018 - 09:19

        The camera on the speed sign (image 1) is probably recording the same as some dash cams: always writing to ram in a loop until an image is needed (ie a speeder detected down the road).

        The time interval between this image and the ones that confirm your plate (usage 2 and 3) are only similar in time to show it was working. Obviously enough people tried the defence of "there was no speed sign" or "the electronic sign said 100" for them to invest in an additional image to shut down such excuses.

        Finally, the speed you were doing is calculated using sensors under the road: you have Buckley's of arguing this, because science. If the sensors were wrong, all the speeding fines would be wrong. Thus, not going to happen.

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 30/05/2018 - 11:39

      I've only been driving for a little over 8 years, with almost perfect driving record. But they said that they looked at my history, and the fine still stands. :(

  • zambuck on 30/05/2018 - 11:12
    +3

    Isn't picture 1 of an entirely different tunnel section? I see a curve to the left in tunnel, cars and lighting in picture 1, but I see a straight line in pictures 2 and 3. All 3 images indicate in the header info that they're from the same camera though.

    If picture 1 is from somewhere else in the tunnel at almost the exact moment of photo 2 that'd at least explain the disappearing truck. It didn't disappear, it was just photographed elsewhere at the time.

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 30/05/2018 - 11:41

      The question in this case would be, why would they provide that as evidence? And why does it have the same camera code?

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 30/05/2018 - 14:20

      Thanks for your input, mate.
      Much appreciated.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 30/05/2018 - 20:30
      -1

      "you must be proven guilty beyond reasonable >doubt"

      That's for criminal matters. This is a summary offence.

      • trapper on 31/05/2018 - 12:29
        -1

        Actually that not true. For both criminal and traffic offences the standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join