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

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 31/05/2018 - 18:53

          It's a summary offence. Strict liability.

        • SydneySurfer on 01/06/2018 - 09:49
          +1

          @zeggie:
          The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt in criminal and traffic offences.

          Regardless of which 'standard of proof' is used, 'beyond reasonable doubt' or on the 'balance of probabilities', the 'onus of proof' is always on the prosecution or the plaintiff because a defendant or accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

          *Strict liability of summary offences just means mens rea is not required, only actus reus. Has nothing to do with standard or onus of proof.

        • wolffram on 02/06/2018 - 23:30

          @SydneySurfer:

          @zeggie is correct. This is a “reverse onus” offence. The defendant does not have the presumption of innocence here.

        • SydneySurfer on 04/06/2018 - 09:43
          -1

          @wolffram:
          You misunderstand the reverse onus of proof concept and how it might apply in drug offences, etc. Check out juddcom.nsw.gov.au and aph and ALRC for clarification.

          For traffic offences check below for a simple explanation:
          https://nswcourts.com.au/articles/what-is-the-standard-of-pr…

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 04/06/2018 - 16:07
          -1

          @SydneySurfer:

          Oh lord. Did you seriously link a blog post from an ambulance chasing law firm?

          Why do I get the feeling you are a confused uni law student. Have you ever observed traffic cases being heard?

    • supaderp on 30/05/2018 - 20:42
      +5

      The way you used a line for every sentence made it so hard to read. I was trying to find a rhyme in your poem.

    • gromit on 31/05/2018 - 08:10
      -2

      As they say "you must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt"

      many here may say it, however it is completely false in these matters, it isn't a criminal case, you do not have a right to innocent until proven guilty. It also seems the truck picture is likely just their to prove the posted sign limits as others have suggested, though I guess worth at least questioning that one.

      • trapper on 31/05/2018 - 12:30

        The standard of proof is also 'beyond reasonable doubt' for traffic offences.

        • gromit on 31/05/2018 - 19:09
          -1

          that is not correct, beyond reasonable doubt is purely for criminal matters. In civil and infringement matters the standard lower "probably true", the difference is small but significant and means there is an onus on you, especially in these sort of situations, to provide reasons to meet that bar that your version is probably true.

        • SydneySurfer on 01/06/2018 - 06:26

          @gromit:
          The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt in criminal and traffic offences.
          See explanation here: https://nswcourts.com.au/articles/what-is-the-standard-of-pr…

          Regardless of which 'standard of proof' is used, 'beyond reasonable doubt' or on the 'balance of probabilities', the 'onus of proof' is always on the prosecution or the plaintiff because a defendant or accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

          *Strict liability of summary offences just means mens rea is not required, only actus reus. Has nothing to do standard or onus of proof.

        • gromit on 01/06/2018 - 07:22
          +3

          @SydneySurfer: I stand corrected, it does seem from that that traffic is considered under the beyond reasonable doubt.

    • ensanguined on 31/05/2018 - 10:38

      Your post was three hundred times more confusing than the OP's, and have the information provided was wrong…

  • askme69 on 30/05/2018 - 15:54
    +4

    First picture shows the speed on entering, so you cant say it changed half way through.

    The others will show the vehicle.

    The cameras don't lie, and if they are malfunctioning, the penalties are caught before they are even issued.

    You have no grounds.

    • Deridas on 30/05/2018 - 20:05

      The cameras are clearly lying, it's two different cameras they're claiming as one.

      • chanleystan on 30/05/2018 - 21:16
        +3

        Unless the camera code is a set?

        Would be good if someone who has been fined in that tunnel can shed some light on this.

    • Chewiebacca on 30/05/2018 - 22:45

      If those cameras don’t lie, it means in 60 milliseconds that truck in picture 1 vanishes out of sight yet his WRX apparently moves at 115km/h in pics two and three. I wouldn’t be happy at all having a fine based on what is clearly an unreliable camera/set of cameras.

      The section of the tunnel is the same but angles are slightly different and cars on the road seem totally off too. OP, if that’s the evidence they have against you, I’d 100% be contesting on the grounds of malfunction + the judge is likely to view in your favour given your spotless driving history. Have the matter heard in court.

      • abb on 31/05/2018 - 11:24
        +2

        Photo #1 is from a completely different camera. Note the road curves in that photo but not the others.

        • Chewiebacca on 31/05/2018 - 22:26
          +2

          Which is exactly why I said “faulty camera/set of cameras”, the photos indicate that the same camera (as per the camera code in the corner) is used when they clearly are not the same camera. It’s arguably enough reason to call into doubt the reliability of this fine, which is want you want when taking the matter to court.

    • firejack on 05/06/2018 - 23:08

      53,000 fines under review due to faulty cameras… "Cameras don't lie"… nice joke!
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-03/faulty-wa-speed-camera…

  • colaman on 30/05/2018 - 16:34
    +1

    I would work on the time stamping. There is no way picture 1 is time stamped correctly. It looks like a totally different time of day compared to the other 2. On that evidence alone, how can you conclude that pictures 2 & 3 time stamp are correct.

    • macrocephalic on 01/06/2018 - 11:59

      The timestamps could be correct. Two photos show the car at the time. The third (first) photo is from a different camera at the same time and doesn't show the OPs car.

  • Hirolol on 30/05/2018 - 17:35
    +1

    Write them a letter explaining that the pictures don’t make sense.
    Please update us on how it goes

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 31/05/2018 - 22:37

      I did. Now I'm waiting for them to reply. It says that it might take up to 42 days.

  • lunartemis on 30/05/2018 - 17:49
    +3

    This is one motivating reason for high students to continue studying Maths at school!

    • bobs burgers on 30/05/2018 - 19:47
      +5

      From my own experience, students who were high generally preferred dropping out of maths as soon as possible.

      More power to maths tho!

  • sraymond on 30/05/2018 - 17:50
    +5

    SDR nearly always deny a review and then decline to prosecute when you show up to court if their evidence is at all flimsy. Take them on and I reckon they’ll withdraw.

  • Mudbuddha on 30/05/2018 - 18:12
    +1

    i would contest it, its worth a try regardless, i mean how would the judge know the camera was right if you dont speak up, 2 sides of the story can make a whole lot of difference even if the charge is less then the initial, also just so you know, getting caught over 35kms means you lose your license for 3 months regardless of how many points you have.

    good luck!

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 30/05/2018 - 22:14
      +1

      Yeah, the only way for it to get worse is if it turns from $884 to $2200 and everything stays the same.

    • bobs burgers on 30/05/2018 - 19:44
      +5

      Is that under the newly introduced "its not a Toyota Camry" law?

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 30/05/2018 - 22:13

      But why?.. );

  • [Deactivated] on 30/05/2018 - 18:46
    +1

    It's a mind set you don't have to prove you are right "They have to prove they are right"
    So why are there discrepancy in the Photos ? 1 , 2 to 3.
    Why are there so many cars on both sides in 3 but few in 1 and 2
    For everyone notice the tunnel lights in picture 3 going around a curve yet 1 and 2 where in a straight.

    Why can a car be at 115k with many cars but only at 80 with few cars? You have the same distance in 1&2 so how fast was your Bugatti Veryron accelerating, can your car do that?
    Why on the second Camera is your car not there?
    How is the speed measured?
    Is the the speed time averaged " thats why when the camera see's a missing number plate it assumes you are sppeding.
    What is the maximum speed anyone has been court? Why are they always in 5km difference not 6 or 8 but 10 or 5 aren't they acurrate like 115.5
    Why is it 115km not 114 or 117
    Has anyone in the last 48hrs contested them!
    How often and at what speeds, the results over the last 3 months
    When was this camera last tested
    Who is the operator what is his skill set, how many nulled fines has he had、 how long doing the job, compared to other operaters.

    You have 2 cameras to contest
    Their system as they say you are wrong not we are right, they have not proven why you are wrong , just saying you are wrong, keep that in mind don't get personal
    Has the operaters been drug tested? As they have denied your appeal yet the photo 3 shows no car?
    Do they get a bonus for more booking in the way of money or any benifit , promtions, has been proven before that the parking and police denied getting any benifits but did.

    What are the penalties for them getting wrong if not why?
    Do they have a rating of getting it wrong/ right it should be 100% as they have the expertise and resourse over a very small area.
    How is it measured by people bending over and getting it.

    And please change your name triggerfinger is very offensive on ob as all firearm post are nowbanned LoL 🤔😊

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 30/05/2018 - 22:12

      Thanks for your input.
      So many good points raised by everyone here…

      And I don't think I can change my name. But I do hope you get the reference lol

  • hugh on 30/05/2018 - 19:09
    -1

    Cop it sweet.

    What do you lose?
    Money and a few points.
    What do you gain?
    Experience, personal growth and hopefully wisdom.

    Contest.

    What do you lose?
    Lots of time, money, dignity and having to be at the mercy of the Magistrate. If you are young, you won't have a snowball's chance.
    What do you gain?
    The wrong sort of experience and first hand knowledge of the court system.

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 30/05/2018 - 22:04
      +6

      I also lose my license for 3 months… Which I found out not too long ago.
      And it looks like my job will go with it..

      Edit: The license suspension applies if this isn't withdrawn.

    • abb on 31/05/2018 - 11:27
      +5

      Hey hugh, I'm fining you $1000 for unauthorized use of an Astro Boy (tm) picture.
      Please pay me now and receive some wisdom and appreciation for intellectual property rights.
      If you contest this fine, you will lose time and dignity.

      Would you prefer to pay by PayPal, PayID, or Bitcoin?

      • hugh on 31/05/2018 - 14:26
        -5

        Post a few deals and I might take you seriously.

        • abb on 01/06/2018 - 09:02
          +2

          Your failure to treat me with due respect reflects badly only upon yourself, Padawan.

  • bobs burgers on 30/05/2018 - 19:42
    +10

    There is 2 issues here.

    1. The OP is clearly not driving the Ozbargain recommended Toyota Camry.
    2. The truck has clearly gotten to 88mph and changed the year its in, which shifted the camera sideways a bit
    • EdwardTriggerHands on 30/05/2018 - 22:03

      I knew I should have just gotten a bloody Camry and avoided the stereotype );

      • Wiede on 30/05/2018 - 23:39

        I had a camry, trust me the stereotype was much worse for me

  • Will Mcdonald on 30/05/2018 - 20:28
    +2

    looks like its about 12 meters of distance covered between the photo. So based upon the time calculation you were traveling @ approx 110 km/hr.

  • [Deactivated] on 30/05/2018 - 20:32
    +3

    If you are genuinely innocent, have an initial consult with a traffic lawyer (initials are often free) and they will have the experience in proving it properly and persuasively. There is a chance that NSW will pay your legal bill if you win. Ask the lawyer what your chances are on that

  • Olokun on 30/05/2018 - 21:29
    +3

    Two points.

    1. It looks like picture 1 is from a different camera which is most likely used to show the speed that the sign prior to the speed trap was displaying at the time.

    2. Most speed cameras use 2 methods to verify the speed, 1 being the strips in the road and the other being laser/radar. The photos are usually only used to identify the vehicle.

    I am not sure if my points are correct for your situation but something to consider.

  • Tech5 on 30/05/2018 - 22:33
    +8

    This will be in next years General Maths HSC

  • syousef on 30/05/2018 - 23:28

    Do speed cameras zoom? Because those 2 images are not taken at the same angle of view by the same camera.

    Take a look at the first 2 pairs of green lights overhead. The interval formed by each pair overlap in image 1, but in images 2 and 3 they are staggered. That can't be done just by cropping/digital zoom. You either had different cameras or at the very least some kind of zoom. But also where are the rest of the overhead green lights in images 2 and 3?

    The TWO trucks aren't the only thing different between 1 vs 2 and 3. None of the traffic matches.

    And what's with the green cast on 2 and 3?

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 31/05/2018 - 14:41

      The green cast doesn't make sense to me.
      And the traffic from picture 1 should have appeared behind me on the other pictures at least..

  • cart00nist on 30/05/2018 - 23:28

    This is why i use Waze and slow down 15-20kmph below the speed limit at all speedcams just to avoid their potential malfunctions.

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 30/05/2018 - 23:45

      I know this may be hard to believe, but I honestly slow down too. No one in their right mind wants to get snapped by a camera..
      And with this kind of car, I dread having to hit traffic speeds very quickly. I see the fuel needle come down as I put my foot down. Lol

      • Scrooge McDuck on 31/05/2018 - 01:10
        -3

        Sooo, why do you drive it?

        • EdwardTriggerHands on 31/05/2018 - 01:18
          +1

          It's the only car I have. I was planning on selling it, but my work conditions changed and I can't be without a car, nor can I afford to buy another one and then sell this, and I recently found out that it was backed into with a tow bar, and only the bumper was fixed. So, the value of the car would be less, and I'd lose sleep if I sold it to someone without being honest about it.

          And on top of that, I have a wedding that I'm trying to save up for.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 31/05/2018 - 01:30
          -8

          @EdwardTriggerHands:

          Sooo, why'd you buy it in the first place?

        • EdwardTriggerHands on 31/05/2018 - 07:43
          +7

          @Scrooge McDuck: I've had it for over two years now. It was a different time with a different mindset back then.

        • Iam12 on 01/06/2018 - 13:16
          +1

          @EdwardTriggerHands:

          I know it's human nature to try and explain yourself but if years of bargaining has taught me something, it's that people will ask questions irrelevant to the topic just to wind you up and take the moral highground at any chance. Not singling out the ol' Scrooge but in general you will never satisfy both parties in these conversations.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 01/06/2018 - 15:03

          @Iam12:

          it's that people will ask questions irrelevant to the topic just to wind you up and take the moral highground at any chance.

          It boggles my mind as to why anyone would jump to that conclusion.

          This isn't a debate and my questions don't have any criticism behind them. I was curious and simply wanted to know the motivation for buying such a vehicle.

          A bit about me: I'm a scientist and engineer. I have always had an innate desire to understand how things work be that nature, machines, or people's minds.

          It's unfortunate that some people assume the worst about others based on very little. My questions are based on the OP's revelation (in the comment to which I replied) that the car is very fuel inefficient, a peculiar factor at odds with OzBargaining and with no redeeming, mitigating or extenuating factors mentioned: Hence my questions.

          This is a discussion forum and OP seems willing to engage with readers. It isn't a concierge service where we just answer the thread title and nothing else. So I think you're mistaken in describing my questions as irrelevant. As to taking the moral high ground, I'm not in a debate with OP so I don't see how that applies. I wasn't looking down on OP for his choice of vehicle either. So long as it doesn't obstruct traffic, I'm not concerned with the consumer choices of other motorists.

          in general you will never satisfy both parties in these conversations.

          Actually, I was satisfied with OP's reply to my 2nd question. If you look, you'll see that I was the 1st user to upvote it.

  • npnp on 30/05/2018 - 23:33
    +2

    Definitely two different locations two different cameras. Look at the bend in the photo with the truck, that bend is no longer in 2nd and 3rd photos. Besides the truck and all the other vehicles all of a sudden (in a fraction of a second) have been disappeared. I'd definitely question the credibility of the whole allegation based on this contradictory photos.

  • grog on 30/05/2018 - 23:48

    "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."

    If this gets to court, the certification will be very difficult to argue against.

    The speed measurement will mean more than photos.

    Basically the cops say this car with this rego was clocked at this certified speed at this time, and this photo shows the rego plates.

    • syousef on 31/05/2018 - 14:12

      The weight of the certification is going to depend on the judge hearing the case. A decent judge seeing that the camera must be faulty or the evidence mistaken despite the certification would throw the case out.

  • Lucky13 on 31/05/2018 - 07:37

    Maybe you sped up briefly to pass someone that day??

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 31/05/2018 - 14:43

      I don't think so. Especially given that all the pictures say I was on lane 1.

  • chillwok on 31/05/2018 - 09:36
    +2

    if you contest the fine you will need the following. this is based on my personal experience.

    1. very good public speaking skills and able to think fast on the spot.
    2. evidence such as the picture that may show the camera is at fault. your claims of i wasn't speeding cuz i travel that road everyday and knows there's cameras isn't evidence that you weren't speeding.
    3. if you take it to court and the prosecutor persuades you to plead guilty before the hearing then you should have a spare 2 or 3 hundred extra to pay.

    i remember one of the multiple reasons why i chose to challenge the fine was cuz one of our prime ministers(i think it was paul keating) challenged a fine and he won based on his word he wasn't speeding. i guess being a former minister would have helped the case.

    at the end of the day the judge may rule on your side so good luck.

  • factor on 31/05/2018 - 10:25
    +5

    Great post — the contradictory photos are sufficient for every fine from this camera ID to be overturned. Their 'evidence' process clearly doesn't work.

  • playswithfire on 31/05/2018 - 10:38
    +1

    something doesn't smell right with those photos/timestamps.

    does the M5 have toll points? can you request the times you went between points from their tolling system?

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 31/05/2018 - 14:37

      It does have toll points. However, I don't travel through them. I enter after and exit before.

      • playswithfire on 01/06/2018 - 19:26

        well, there goes that idea.

  • [Deactivated] on 31/05/2018 - 11:01

    I didn't know a WRX can go that fast! From the pictures it seems your flux capacitor is working fine.

  • [Deactivated] on 31/05/2018 - 11:12
    -1

    You could go for leniency but that's partly dependent on your driving history and there's 'another story' there. Personally, I'd pay up and move on.

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 31/05/2018 - 14:35

      I've had a clean record for as long as I've been alive. In everything.
      For driving however, I had a clean record for as long as I had been driving (>8 years), up until last Feb, when I got snapped by a traffic camera. And that was due to the fact that I was quite tired on the way home from work. No excuses there. So I paid that and moved on.

      The problem here is that this is a big fine. It will also trigger a license suspension for 3 months, as soon as I pay it.

  • picklewizard on 31/05/2018 - 12:12
    -1

    If this were in Vic you'd lose your licence and car for at least a month.

    This does seem to be an error thrown off by the truck due to the height - I would consult a traffic lawyer.

    WAIT UP OP… the picture with truck, chronologically, is the first picture, correct?

    The next two pictures, taken milliseconds later, the truck (or any other vehicle in that pic) is NOWHERE to be seen. Am I missing something, or is something severely off here? The time from photo 2 to photo 3 is MUCH LONGER than the time from photo 1 to photo 2, but between 2 and 3 your vehicle only moves a short distance. Thus, the truck should have moved EVEN LESS distance in 1-2 than your car did in 2-3.

    Also, why is your vehicle not present at all in picture #1? It should only start taking photos AFTER an offense is detected. If it detected an offense, then surely the vehicle responsible should be in the FIRST photo?

    I think you have a case! There is 100% something wrong with the sequence of the three images that is easily proven.

    Edit: it's apparent these are different cameras but they should all be within ~1ms sync of each other, and as such the truck should definitely still be in frame.

    • FiDad on 31/05/2018 - 12:32

      Also, why is your vehicle not present at all in picture #1? It should only start taking photos AFTER an offense is detected.

      I believe that might be due to truck blocking camera view of OP car in picture 1. I say this as truck is quite obviouly in lane 2 and op is in lane 1 and due to height of the truck and angle of the camera it is possible that OP car is in lane 1 but not visible to camera

      • picklewizard on 31/05/2018 - 14:13

        Nah, there's no cars around him in the other photos.

        …unless he really was speeding and left them all behind! OP pls respond

        • EdwardTriggerHands on 31/05/2018 - 14:30

          The question is why aren't there any vehicles from picture 1, in pictures 2 and 3?

          If I was speeding (I don't believe I was) and left them all behind, why would picture one be there? And what would trigger the first camera to take a picture, use the same camera code, and provide that picture as supposed proof? Along with the timestamp? I thought I was the only one seeing something wrong with this. But I'm glad most people can see that too.

      • EdwardTriggerHands on 31/05/2018 - 14:26

        How can I be in lane 1 in the first picture, and then suddenly be on my own, supposedly speeding, still on lane 1?

        Something isn't right.

        • picklewizard on 31/05/2018 - 14:30

          You sound like you're good with numbers and can write a letter, maybe request the official measurements of the lines in the picture?

        • EdwardTriggerHands on 31/05/2018 - 14:31

          @picklewizard: I tried. But RMS said they don't have that information. Actually, the lady said that the lines aren't measured… Which I don't think is correct. She transferred me to another department who wanted to transfer me back to RMS because they didn't have that info either.

        • Mrgreenz on 31/05/2018 - 14:51

          @EdwardTriggerHands:

          Next time you drive yhe tunnel time how long it takes to cover lots of lines at a constant speed. You could then deduce the combined line and gap length pretty easily. Assuming the lines are the same. Do it over a long a distance as possible for accuracy. Maybe get a passenger to do it for safety.

  • kaleidoscope on 31/05/2018 - 12:24
    +1

    @OP, friend sent me this link about police faking roadside breath tests.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-30/victoria-police-record…

    • EightImmortals on 31/05/2018 - 14:32
      +3

      They were faking them to get their quotas up, no one was framed.

      (Anyone still believe they don't also have speeding fine quotas? )

    • Charity on 31/05/2018 - 16:51
      +1

      OMG. Thanks for sharing. Wow, did that get swept under the rug? Did the fake media even report about it on TV?

      He said no individual members had been spoken to about the falsified tests, but all officers would need to attend a "guidance" session.

      Lol. That is a joke (on the Aus public).

      Btw, would give u a +1 but have reached my daily quota! lol

      • Randolph Duke on 31/05/2018 - 18:32

        What sweep? Front page of The Age last night and today.

  • mezje on 31/05/2018 - 12:56

    AFAIK those lines are 10m apart.

    9m and 12m for argument sake is hard to distinguish in the photos. I would say you traveled one whole length (10m) putting you closer to 80 than 110.

  • EightImmortals on 31/05/2018 - 14:31

    These guys might be able to help.

    http://www.aussiespeedingfines.com/

  • dealbreaker on 31/05/2018 - 17:18
    +1

    You can use a distance on your car as a reference, measure the distance between your front and back wheel and then use as a reference distance on the image. It wont be great but may be enough.

  • 4foxache on 31/05/2018 - 20:18
    +2

    I always contest every fine regardless. I figure if they're going to revenue raise from me I'll make them earn every cent.

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 31/05/2018 - 23:00

      The fear is that I take this to court, and end up with a Max fine of $2200.
      So far, I believe I have a solid case, in regards to the timestamps and picture differences. I'm still waiting for them to reply back to me though. So, they'll either withdraw the fine, or nothing changes.

      • EightImmortals on 01/06/2018 - 08:47

        srsly, check out the site I linked to in my last post.

  • [Deactivated] on 31/05/2018 - 22:56
    +2

    Three things :

    1. This looks like a tagging error of some sort.
    2. The licence plate on the truck is obscured and cannot be read.
    3. Looking at that forward traffic, 115km'h isn't practical nor likely.

    ALSO : Pictures of your car appear to be from an older model of camera. Likely years ago. The truck image is from a better camera with higher resolution. Yet they're all timestamped at the same time. Dodgy.

    Somethings gone amiss here. Pester the dicktards.

  • humdogg on 01/06/2018 - 00:25
    +1

    The two photos of your car seem to prove that you were speeding at the alleged speed.

    The issue is with the third photo with the truck. It is clearly a different camera (maybe same location, different position). The issue is that it that the third picture has the same camera code and operator ID.

    Nobody seems to know what that means. The prosecution will probably have some explanation for it. But I think it needs to be a very good explanation. And the uncertainty of it all should really make you consider contesting the fine, because of the high standard of proof that is still required in traffic matters.

    As always, be very cautious of legal advice on the interwebz. Imo, this forum in particular is one of the worst on that front; bargain advice strong, legal advice /spew.

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 01/06/2018 - 10:32

      What if the timestamps are incorrect? I mean, the whole equation was based on the timestamps being accurate/correct. If they're not, then there's no way they can determine the speed based on the photos alone.

      I've already spoken to a law firm. I just need to schedule an appointment for a consultation.

      EDIT: Also, the photo with the truck has the earliest timestamp. So, it's actually supposed to be the first picture.

  • rmamila on 01/06/2018 - 01:24

    @EdwardTriggerHands
    I noticed something interesting in the pictures.

    In the time gap of Pic1 and 2, which is 61 milli seconds, that truck and all other vehicles have zoomed past from the visibility of image2. What speed they would have been driving to make that happen?

    However there is whopping 390 milli seconds gap between Image2 and Image3, in which duration you have only managed to move your car to the next lane mark of the road and you are still well within the visibility. If you had been driving at 110 km/h, that truck and and all other vehicles in image1 would have been driving above super sonic speed to be able to manage to go out of the visibility in image2.

    The other thing I noticed was that the image1 and image2 don't seem to be from the same camera or same location in the tunnel. Image1 shows a bend of the road at the end. However next images don't have that bend. However the text on the images say that they are coming from the same camera.

    • rmamila on 01/06/2018 - 01:33

      Again I am not sure how you can prove something obvious in the picture in the court by yourself. Sometimes they won't listen to you. I have my personal experience at Vic civil tribunal when I went against local council report favouring a multi level construction without enough parking on site but claims that they can park 18 cars in front of their land. The land frontage only had 17 meters after the driveway.
      At the tribunal I gave raised that they can't park 18 cars in 17 meters because a car is more than 1 meter long and the road is a narrow one. So it's not side parking and it's only parallel parking. There are railway commuters always parked in front of this land and even beyond as it's next to a busy station. I even took many videos and picture on different days showing that it can park only 3 cars there.
      The judge/chairman at the tribunal said I was not qualified to comment on traffic. He finally gave the approval to the construction. Sometimes you can't even prove the obvious without a Lawyer.

      • EdwardTriggerHands on 01/06/2018 - 10:37

        Yeah, you have a point. If this does go to court, I'll definitely get a lawyer to represent me.
        I have no issues with representing myself, as I'm okay with that. But this seems to be too big to stuff up and given I'm young, it will probably be best if a lawyer handled it.

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/06/2018 - 09:55
    +2

    Obvious explanation. Picture 1 is to prove the speed limit for that section of road. That's why it differs and why OP's car isn't in it.

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 01/06/2018 - 10:39

      Like I mentioned in another reply here, why is picture 1 timestamped before I was supposedly speeding? Was that where the speed detector/trap was? If so, I'm not even in that picture…

      • shreav on 01/06/2018 - 10:56

        Hey, I think I know the answer although anyone is welcome to correct me. I believe there is a speed radar set up and a camera that is slightly further down.

        So the speed radar detects your speed and immediately signals the camera to take shots. So that is why I think the first shot does not include you and the subsequent photos do.

        Does that answer your query?

        • Wazkick3n on 01/06/2018 - 11:16
          +1

          Regardless the truck and other "heavy" traffic have miraculously disappeared in the span of 61 milliseconds. That's literally unheard of.

        • Iam12 on 01/06/2018 - 13:25
          +4

          @Wazkick3n:

          They did not.

          Picture 1: Shows that at the time of subaru doing 115km/h the speed sign was working 100 meters before the speed trap cameras. If the sign wasn't working then any previous sign sets the top speed or if no sign, city rules apply.

          Picture 2: Shows when subaru entered the trap area
          Picture 3: Shows when subaru left the trap area

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/06/2018 - 14:58
          +2

          @Iam12:

          Yes, finally. Someone else gets it.

          Otherwise someone would start an Ozbargain forum post "Speeding Fine - I Need Help on Whether I Should Contest This, I don't recall seeing the speed limit"

        • EdwardTriggerHands on 01/06/2018 - 15:08

          @Iam12: Okay, put it this way…

          The order of the photos/timestamps are as follows:
          Picture 1: 09:34:07.029
          Picture 2: 09:34:07.090 Speed trap entry (according to what you said)
          Picture 3: 09:34:07.480 Speed trap exit (according to what you said)

          You say that I entered the trap area in picture 2 (09:34:07.090).
          Yet, you tell me that at the time I was supposedly speeding, Picture 1 was taken (09:34:07.029) to show the speed sign was working 100 meters before the trap. Did they predict that I would be speeding? How did they know that I would be over the speed limit, and took a photo (Picture 1) before I entered the speed trap (which is in Picture 2)?

          Shouldn't the correct order of the pictures be, Picture 2 -> Picture 3 -> Picture 1?
          All I'm saying is that what if the timestamps are wrong? This WILL cast doubt over the accuracy of this whole thing…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join