Capturing speeders. Anywhere. Anytime.
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: F Murtz on 22 Jul 2010 23:36 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. > There must be some record as my gps unit constantly tells me the limit and whether I exceed it.
From: Sylvia Else on 23 Jul 2010 04:33 On 23/07/2010 5:52 PM, Athol wrote: > Sylvia Else<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > >> 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. > > Point taken. There's a reason why I no longer do anything that > involves being an expert witness in court... I hate it. > >> 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. > > I'd agree that in most cases, such an infringement would be very > quietly dropped. I assume you'd not point that out until it went to > court, so that you could make them look incredibly stupid? Pretty much. > Given > that they would have dropped it if pointed out before going to court, > would you expect to be awarded costs that could have been avoided by > pointing it out to them earlier? > It's very unusual to be awarded costs in a criminal case anyway. Merely having exculpatory evidence is certainly not sufficient, so I definitely wouldn't expect to get costs in a situation like this. However I wouldn't incur any either, beyond time and travel. Sylvia.
From: hippo on 23 Jul 2010 08:47 Athol wrote: > > Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > > On 19/07/2010 4:53 PM, Athol wrote: > > >> http://fat.ly/2r1rd > > > Yes, *now* it's there. I think the RTA have spies reading this group ;) > > Mind you, the published "locations" are pretty broad, tending to include > > all of the length of a road within a suburb. > > Yep. Broad enough to allow them to actually operate the speed camera at > a known high-speed position just far enough from the actual black spot > to provide no actual safety benefit, no doubt. :-/ > > 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. :-) > Plus, once they're parked and the driver's pissed off, they're no longer mobile, except in a theoretical sense. But I suppose that 'Speed Cameras - Anytime' just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? Cheers -- Posted at www.usenet.com.au
From: hippo on 23 Jul 2010 08:57 Bernd Felsche wrote: > > D Walford <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote: > >On 19/07/2010 10:42 PM, Toby wrote: > >> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:20:04 GMT, Athol posited in: > >>> Sylvia Else<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > >>>> On 19/07/2010 4:53 PM, Athol wrote: > > >>>>> http://fat.ly/n9abe > >>> > >>>> Yes, *now* it's there. I think the RTA have spies reading this group ;) > >>>> Mind you, the published "locations" are pretty broad, tending to include > >>>> all of the length of a road within a suburb. > >>> > >>> Yep. Broad enough to allow them to actually operate the speed camera at > >>> a known high-speed position just far enough from the actual black spot > >>> to provide no actual safety benefit, no doubt. :-/ > >>> > >>> 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. :-) > >> > >> The Qld GovCo plays the same game. > >> In reality, the sites used are supposedly carefully surveyed. Really. By > >> the operators of the walletraper machines. > >> That survey is much more about ensuring convictions than, say, slowing > >> traffic in dangerous areas. > > >In Vic they don't even claim to place camera's in high accident zones so > >in one way they are more honest. > > Statistical analysis in the UK showed that placing a garden gnome > would have the same effect in most of the "black spot" locations. > > It's called "regression to the mean". Where there is an unhappy > coincidence of crashed, it's labelled a black spot. The natural > tendency is that any extremes will tend to smooth out. Unless > there's a real problem in road layout/management in which case > somebody with a brain has to be called in to recognize the > significant problem and to recommend the most-appropriate change to > the road. ...which, presumably, wouldn't be, 'Oh yeah, I know, put a speed camera there. That'll fix it guvnor!' -- Posted at www.usenet.com.au
From: John Tserkezis on 24 Jul 2010 18:15
Athol wrote: > I'm sure that there is an insurance company out there who provides > liability insurance to the NSW government and is ecstatic about this > decision... High risk = higher premiums. I'm quite sure they'll be happy. That said I'm also quite sure after the first operator gets killed here, insurance or not, the operators will flatly refuse to man the vehicles. And if GovCo doesn't like that, they can man them themselves. |