Speed Camera Camera Camera...
  • Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    UFO
    UFO is offline
    Citron Tragic UFO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Gerringong, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    9,702

    Icon13 Speed Camera Camera Camera...

    From today's SMH Column 8

    Talking of cameras. Darren Stephenson, of St Ives, reports there is a well-placed speed camera along the Eastern Arterial Road between Killara and St Ives. "A second camera was installed not long ago to watch for vandalism on the speed camera. Not enough. A third camera has now been installed to watch the camera that watches the speed camera. Where will it end?"



    Advertisement
    Craig K
    2009 C5 HDi Exclusive

  2. #2
    Fellow Frogger! Mitch Mi16's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Great to see where the Taxes we pay go, isn't it!!!
    THE MAD PUGGA

    1989 405 Mi16 (PGT-405)

  3. #3
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    642

    Default

    Here in good ol' SA we have just had a host of fixed speed cameras put in place and a week after the people that operate the cameras started protests because speed cameras were making so much revenue they thought they should have a pay increase, i say good on them
    05' Megane 225 Cup

  4. #4
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    3,628

    Default

    My mum got done twice in one night (both directions) by that camera when we first got the XM - it's just a little quicker and quiet than the 504 she was used to

    She was ropeable!

    I've seen the camera on the camera on the camera - crazy!

    Derek

  5. #5
    1000+ Posts bowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Sydney, Concord City, Sir.
    Posts
    3,376

    Default

    hahah that is just great is it not..

    time for a revolution ppl...

    Works: 2003 YV Commodore (That is Cecil to you)
    Playing: R12, SuperPos, thinks It's a race car and Sunny the R12 Lego set.
    Previous: SuperGrumpy fuel spitting 504ti(ish), SuperComfortable 505 STI, SuperDoper carried my groceries Mi16, Choo Choo'd Volvo S40
    Wanted Will hoard 12/15/17 Junk.

    "More and more of less and less" - Marina Abramović

  6. #6
    Fellow Frogger! mmm...CORNERS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Epping, Sydney
    Posts
    574

    Default

    there was a letter in motor magazine once, the guy who wrote had a good idea..basically if everybody requested to see their pics and choose to take the matter to court, the system would be so clogged that it would take years to get through even a few months worth of fines!!! let the revolutions begin
    PS, after 7 years of driving, Ive never had a ticket(lucky i guess), but i know i'd be well pissed off and it'd probably be for a couple kph over....coughrevenuecough!

  7. #7
    Gone Fishin' Ray Bell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Burpengary and Murrumburrah, Qld and NSW
    Posts
    9,223

    Default

    And while we're on this subject we're all so keen on...

    A couple of weeks ago there was a member of the NSW Opposition on TV stating (categorically) that they are purely there to raise revenue.

    Did anyone note who that was? Was it the leader of the Opposition, or the shadow Transport Minister or who?

    Just want to make a note for when the time comes to start quoting people...

  8. #8
    1000+ Posts Poo-Go's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    1,420

    Default

    I saw an interesting thing in a magazine. Basically someone wrote in and said that if governments are so determined that cameras are about safety, not revenue, they should simplify the non-monetary penalties.

    If you get caught by a camera, you get x number of days (say 2-5) without your licence, per km/h over the limit. That way it's punitive, and immediate - there's a very real temptation there not to speed, as the penalty is very direct. Fines should be abandonded. If governments adopted this sort of policy, it would prove the cameras are not about revenue.

    Of course, it won't happen, as the camera ARE there to raise money. But it certainly bears thought. Even if this idea did have a chance to make it. I think you'd still need to maintain small fines - to cover administration of the system.

    In the same magazine (I think it was Motor) someone makes the point I've been making for ages, and that is the abandonment of the presumption of innocence. It's assumed you are guilty of speeding because the camera took a photo of your car because it detected it breaking the speed limit. With surfacing evidence of the cameras malfunctioning this is becoming very shaky legally, and this is not to mention that you have to prove you weren't the driver of the car, not they prove that you WERE, which is also very dodgy.

    Goverments at any time, but particularly when they are playing with people's livelihoods (and a big part of their cash), are obliged to do things the correct way on principle and in law. At the moment with this speed camera issue, they are not. They are our government, not our parents, it's just not good enough for them to arbitrarily make up the rules that suit them.

    My rant for the day.
    Last edited by LookingforMi16; 16th January 2004 at 05:55 PM.
    Care factor = -273.15C

  9. #9
    1000+ Posts Poo-Go's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    1,420

    Default

    Still going...

    Another thing that gets me is double demerit points periods. Same issue again, if they are going to do it, they have to do it right on principle and in law.

    They could easily send a letter to every single licence holder in the state informing them of the changes, and it would probably be cheaper than the ad campaigns they come out with. This is right on principle, as it is a requirement to get a licence that you have an address. It is not a requirement that you watch TV and listen to the radio for their announcements.

    The way I see it, at the moment, when you get your licence, they hand you the rulebook, say, these are the rules, obey them. That's fine. Then they go and change the rules for a couple of weeks a year. Do they inform you properly? No.

    In my opinion, since they have issued you with your licence under certain rules, then the burden should be on them to inform you when the rules change, not the burden on you. It's just another example of a goverment department shirking its responsibility.

    Another example: The default urban speed limit in NSW was lowered from 60km/h to 50km/h recently. How many were aware of this? There's a pattern emerging - one of an agenda to obfuscate and confuse.

    more. I'd better be careful. Too many of these rants and I'll be broke!
    Last edited by LookingforMi16; 16th January 2004 at 06:10 PM.
    Care factor = -273.15C

  10. #10
    Gone Fishin' Ray Bell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Burpengary and Murrumburrah, Qld and NSW
    Posts
    9,223

    Default

    And a good one, raising some interesting issues...

    Could we claim, then, that the laws are a breach of the Australian Constitution? Is the presumption of innocence a part of that document (what is it, the Westminster Act or something?), or is it a part of something else?

    One thing's for sure, even if you couldn't muster the people to clog the courts defending the charges, you could sure do it with people applying for clemency in relation to automatic licence suspensions.

    They would file into the courts in droves with evidence from employers that they can't work without their licenses... it would be a sham. The piles of paperwork that would be required would cost us a jungle full of trees as their records were printed out for the magistrate to consider as he made his judgement.

    Virtually none of the real crimes would get a look-in for court time... the assaults, the shoplifting, the break and enters... you know, the things that actually do harm or damage to people or possessions.

  11. #11
    1000+ Posts Poo-Go's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    1,420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Bell
    And a good one, raising some interesting issues...

    Could we claim, then, that the laws are a breach of the Australian Constitution? Is the presumption of innocence a part of that document (what is it, the Westminster Act or something?), or is it a part of something else?
    I'd like to think so, but I don't think so, as tax law abandon's the presumption of innocence. If the ATO charges you with something, you must answer it and prove your innocence.
    Care factor = -273.15C

  12. #12
    Gone Fishin' Ray Bell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Burpengary and Murrumburrah, Qld and NSW
    Posts
    9,223

    Default

    Originally posted by LookingforMi16
    Still going...

    Another thing that gets me is double demerit points periods. Same issue again, if they are going to do it, they have to do it right on principle and in law.

    .....In my opinion, since they have issued you with your licence under certain rules, then the burden should be on them to inform you when the rules change, not the burden on you. It's just another example of a goverment department shirking its responsibility.

    Another example: The default urban speed limit in NSW was lowered from 60km/h to 50km/h recently. How many were aware of this? There's a pattern emerging - one of an agenda to obfuscate and confuse.
    No, I'm sure that it's written into law that public notices in newspapers have some official stature.

    On the confusion side, the best they ever did was that 'speed zoning' that existed on the major arteries out of Sydney (to Goulburn, Bathurst and Newcastle) where there was a constantly changing speed limit to keep track of.

  13. #13
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    6,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LookingforMi16
    I'd like to think so, but I don't think so, as tax law abandon's the presumption of innocence. If the ATO charges you with something, you must answer it and prove your innocence.
    Interesting. What's that statement based on?

  14. #14
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Melbourne Victoria
    Posts
    11,806

    Default

    The whole thing of onus of proof, rests upon certain fundamentals.(among others)

    (1) he who alleges(accuses) must prove!

    (2) presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

    Unfortunately, legislators have continually moved the goalposts by seeking to reverse the onus of proof. It is particularly odious when this practice and trend is associated with the growth of revenue raising under the guise of "Road Safety" (or any other similar social issue)

    Any free man should be able to stand before his accusers in a court of law and defend accusations made against him (or her) and access and right to that hearing should neither be expensive or an excuse for punitive treatment even if the charge is eventually proven.

    As it stands today, for a simple traffic matter, you have to demand your right to a court hearing and in doing so risk being more severely punished, as governments try harder with pressure upon their (our) courts to recoup revenue, rather than simply allow justice to be accessed by the community.

    This gets even worse when you get involved with tribunals and local government where ignorance of an obscure law is no defence. There is a real growth industry towards shifting the onus onto an accused while denying the accused the right (privacy laws old chap!) to be told who is their accuser.

    Some time ago in our local area they dreamed up a wonderful system, they would advertise (locally) that certain changes may occur and invite submissions on the issue. They would then bring in the changes (to save revenue) without any further consultation or debate citing that only 300 residents of 8,000 objected therefore the majority approved!!!!

    i.e use apathy or ignorance of the actual issue/result to build a spurious result.

    Fortunately accross Melbourne, communities have woken up to these underhand and manipulative tactics and have taken the trouble to expose hidden council agenda's, in recent attempts to over regulate garden plants in the name of orderly "conservation plans" for their municipalities.

    All that I can say is that the Motoring public has to do the same. Be aware of attempts to deny access to our rights, or to limit justice only to those who have the means and resources to take matters to court, and of course any further attempt to reduce our right to a fair hearing of our complaint or defence of any accusation.

    After all who could trust any mechanical speed measuring device as being accurate unless we have the right to know at the time (right then and there) what speed our vehicle was said to be doing? The only way this could be fairly done is by having the device show the speed as our vehicle activates it!

    Anything less is a denial of justice and limits our rights to challenge or find the truth about malfunctioning equipment. (how else would a dud speed camera continue to operate for months until it was proven that cars COULD NOT do the speed alleged!!)

    As I have said before, it's a sure sign of revenue raising when a government refuses to provide its motoring public with an accurate means to check their speedometers BEFORE introducing, expanding or changing speed parameters.

    I want safer roads, less collisions, less injuries, but suggest there are better ways to achieve those goals than the cynical approach taken by our governments. --- My two cents worth of comment.

    Ken.
    Last edited by Kenfuego; 18th January 2004 at 03:48 AM.

  15. #15
    who? when? huh? GTI124's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gordon, NSW
    Posts
    4,527

    Default

    It's about the vibe of it...it's about Mabo...
    - Lincoln

    Contribute to the World Community Grid.

  16. #16
    Fellow Frogger! Ralph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Wodonga
    Posts
    928

    Icon9

    What presumption of innocence? Breathalysers are a classic example. You have to prove you are not over the limit before you can go on your way. If you refuse I think they charge you with the equivalent of high range PCA. You are presumed over the limit until you can prove otherwise!

    I'm not against breath testing.

    Matt.
    On the internet, no one knows that you are only wearing a fez.

  17. #17
    Fellow Frogger! boodek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Wodonga, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ralph
    What presumption of innocence? Breathalysers are a classic example. You have to prove you are not over the limit before you can go on your way. If you refuse I think they charge you with the equivalent of high range PCA. You are presumed over the limit until you can prove otherwise!

    I'm not against breath testing.

    Matt.
    You beat me to it, Matt - I was going to say much the same sort of thing. While on speed cameras, did anybody else hear the Victorian (I think) opposition member stating recently that if they were elected, they would do away with the ridiculous 3km/h buffer before you are booked, and make it a more realistic 10%?
    Another Presumption of innocence - and general freedom - issue I saw a few years ago was here in Wodonga; on a Saturday morning on one of the main roads, the Sherrif's Department in conjunction with the police were stopping every car heading west in order to see if there were any warrants, unpaid fines, etc. outstanding on the driver. I see a couple of problems with this: 1) The driver must prove him or herself innocent before being allowed to go; 2) Just because you happened to be driving a car west down Elgin St that day, you were targeted to prove yourself innocent in matters which in many (most?) cases had nothing to do with the fact you are driving a car. If my statement seems a bit obscure, let me put it another way: in essence, it would be like the Sherrif's Department in conjunction with the police stopping everybody walking down the main street of your town, funneling them through a checkpoint and demanding they prove themselves innocent before releasing them.
    This sort of thing just does not sit well.
    Ben.
    _ _________________ _
    A very fun 1997 manual 406 ST
    A lovely 2006 407 HDi Executive

  18. #18
    rek
    rek is offline
    1000+ Posts rek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic
    Posts
    1,388

    Default

    Interesting read in The Age today.

    "Speed trap: why fines are not the only solution"

    http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/0...360633943.html

    Peter
    2008 Saab 9-3 1.9 TiD Sportcombi
    2011 Volvo C30 DRIVe 1.6D

  19. #19
    Cal
    Cal is offline
    Moderator Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    1,624

    Default

    An awesome article on this subject: http://www.cis.org.au/policy/spr03/polspr03-1.pdf

    Cal.
    1995 Mazda MX5 - 2F Race Car
    1990 Mercedes 300TE
    1990 Mercedes 230E
    1977 Jaguar XJS V12
    1971 Morris Mini 1100K
    1967 Porsche 911S
    1957 Porsche 356A Speedster Replica

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •