Capturing speeders. Anywhere. Anytime.
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: Bernd Felsche on 20 Jul 2010 22:53 Athol <athol_SPIT_SPAM(a)idl.net.au> wrote: >Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >> I'd like to see the raw accident data, and I've asked the RTA to >> publish it. What are the chances? >I'd also like to see more detailed location information, including >correlating position to crash sites, but I don't have any expectation >of seeing that unless there is a change of state government and the >incoming government force its release in order to prove that the >camera locations are not actually at the crash sites... >I checked the NSW state gazette. They gazetted the speed detection >apparatus and cameras as meeting the rules, but have not apparently >gazetted approved locations. Now if they could also be so kind as to gazette the laws of nature and make it abide. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an X against HTML mail | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. / \ and postings | --HL Mencken
From: atec77 on 22 Jul 2010 05:32 On 20/07/2010 8:02 AM, Doug Jewell wrote: > Athol wrote: >> Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >>> On 19/07/2010 4:53 PM, Athol wrote: >> >>>> http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/downloads/mobile_speed_camera_locations.html >>>> > > The Toowoomba range has such a bad record, that they decided to grace it > with a fixed camera - on the up section on a very small section where > the road levels out after 10% grades. In 30'odd years of being in the > district I can't recall a single accident on the up section. >> >> Oh, and the slogan "Mobile speed cameras. Anywhere. Anytime." is now >> verifably false. There is a prescribed list of locations, which makes >> the word "Anywhere" clearly and irrefutably false. :-) >> > > We have a couple of cams just beside the grand plaza off ramp up high and some bugga keeps ripping the plate off the pole and hacking the cables . a little further out near the green-bank off the cam there gets warmed up regularly with a burning tyre I seems gatso's don't have a long life :) -- X-No-Archive: Yes
From: Kev on 22 Jul 2010 08:05 atec77 wrote: > Woolies Bradman st used to do a huge breakfast for $5.60 > trouble is they have security on the staff carpark now :( > The Fuel terminals and refineries have pretty good canteens problem is getting access to them :) Kev
From: Sylvia Else on 22 Jul 2010 21:29 On 21/07/2010 6:30 AM, Toby wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:52:45 GMT, Athol posited in: > >> Sylvia Else<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >> >>> I'd like to see the raw accident data, and I've asked the RTA to publish >>> it. What are the chances? >> >> I'd also like to see more detailed location information, including >> correlating position to crash sites, but I don't have any expectation >> of seeing that unless there is a change of state government and the >> incoming government force its release in order to prove that the >> camera locations are not actually at the crash sites... >> >> I checked the NSW state gazette. They gazetted the speed detection >> apparatus and cameras as meeting the rules, but have not apparently >> gazetted approved locations. > > Heh heh ... > Lawyers please note:-) > If they HAVE to gazette those locations, and I have a feeling they do, then > anyone booked gets no case to answer, automagically. Right? > I can't find anything in the legislation to suggest that the locations have to be gazetted. One particular issue to watch with these mobile speed cameras is that operator presumably has to set into the device the applicable speed limit. That limit will then be included on the photographs produced, and no further evidence will be required in court that the speed limit stated on the photograph is correct. Thus anyone who finds themselves in the situation where the speed limit is wrongly stated must obtain *evidence* that it is wrong that they can tender in court. It will not be sufficient to argue in court that there's no evidence that the specified limit is correct. Sylvia.
From: Sylvia Else on 22 Jul 2010 22:34
On 23/07/2010 12:23 PM, Athol wrote: > Sylvia Else<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >> On 21/07/2010 6:30 AM, Toby wrote: >>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:52:45 GMT, Athol posited in: > >>>> I'd also like to see more detailed location information, including >>>> correlating position to crash sites, but I don't have any expectation >>>> of seeing that unless there is a change of state government and the >>>> incoming government force its release in order to prove that the >>>> camera locations are not actually at the crash sites... > >>>> I checked the NSW state gazette. They gazetted the speed detection >>>> apparatus and cameras as meeting the rules, but have not apparently >>>> gazetted approved locations. > >>> Heh heh ... >>> Lawyers please note:-) >>> If they HAVE to gazette those locations, and I have a feeling they do, then >>> anyone booked gets no case to answer, automagically. Right? > >> I can't find anything in the legislation to suggest that the locations >> have to be gazetted. > > That's a pity. I wonder if the more exact positions could be extracted > from the RTA under FOI... > >> One particular issue to watch with these mobile speed cameras is that >> operator presumably has to set into the device the applicable speed >> limit. That limit will then be included on the photographs produced, and >> no further evidence will be required in court that the speed limit >> stated on the photograph is correct. > >> Thus anyone who finds themselves in the situation where the speed limit >> is wrongly stated must obtain *evidence* that it is wrong that they can >> tender in court. It will not be sufficient to argue in court that >> there's no evidence that the specified limit is correct. > > Interesting. I've never seen anything in writing anywhere to document > what the posted limit is on any specific piece of road. About the only > evidence that would appear to be reasonably accessible would be a photo > of the length of road including a speed limit sign. > An independent witness would be sufficient. A photograph on its own is no use - there has to be evidence from the person who took it about when it was taken. One could also subpoena the records of speed sign installation. Indeed, that might be advisable, so as to refute any suggestion that the speed limit was changed in the interim. Of course, any reasonable person (which probably excludes me in this situation) would make representations to the authorities about the error regarding the speed limit, and in most cases (the remainder being due to official incompetence) the penalty notice would be withdrawn. Sylvia. |