Another speeding fine thread - Page 2

David See · 07-08-2006, 11:03 AM

In some way I agree with you, but I also subscribe to the fact that whatever you think about, you will get. Perhaps, like us here, this person used to try too hard NOT to get caught and brought it on himself.

Perhaps the person involved should cop it on the chin, get on with it and stop being so angry about life in general. Guarantee it won't happen again.

So, how do we stop getting fined whwther we deserved it or not? Stop thinking about it, talking about it and concentrating on it.

FordACE · 07-08-2006, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David See

In some way I agree with you, but I also subscribe to the fact that whatever you think about, you will get. Perhaps, like us here, this person used to try too hard NOT to get caught and brought it on himself.

Perhaps the person involved should cop it on the chin, get on with it and stop being so angry about life in general. Guarantee it won't happen again.

So, how do we stop getting fined whwther we deserved it or not? Stop thinking about it, talking about it and concentrating on it.

I'm not sure if I read what your saying right. But, the way I see what your saying is, instead of sticking to the speed limit, you saying don't bother? I don't see justice in being caught for speeding when you "weren't" actually speeding. Not sure how hard it is for people to understand this part.

**PepeLePew** · 07-08-2006, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FordACE

I have read the thread, and thank the people for offering their advice. Unfortunately, the way things are with people and the world, there is a significant lack of time and resources to persue such a futile and trivial matter. The government and their policies are designed to deter people from persuing these matters. Essentially, it is almost pointless being a good person in this world, you still get bitten.

Im a little perplexed here as Im sure is David. You've started the thread asking for advice, everyone has understood the injustice here though you've said they havent. A few have spent good time replying, but pretty much the responses you'd expect. Going by the above they are wasting their time? Why start a thread is you're not interested in the responses?

Im glad this thread has attracted some good info anyway....

tommoxr6 · 07-08-2006, 11:26 AM

man that sux im not sure about qld road law im in nsw but 85zl had some really good points worth trying. me however never being able to evade nsw penalties i lost my licence for 1 speeding tkt 3pts nd 2pts for not displaying p plates. i took it to court and was told by magistrate the only way id keep my licence was doing a drink driving course effin ***** and i wasnt a dui offender. magistrates have no idea so i say go with wot 85zl had to say get your brother to look into it coz hay iff you can stick it to the man, DO IT

FordACE · 07-08-2006, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PepeLePew

Im a little perplexed here as Im sure is David. You've started the thread asking for advice, everyone has understood the injustice here though you've said they havent. A few have spent good time replying, but pretty much the responses you'd expect. Going by the above they are wasting their time? Why start a thread is you're not interested in the responses?

Im glad this thread has attracted some good info anyway....

I was merely replying to what David See was saying. He hasn't responded to what I said, so I am still unsure as to what he meant. He was basically saying (from my perspective), that we wouldn't get caught if we didn't worry so much about it? If that's what he was saying, that I don't think that is true. I mean, if we didn't bother trying to stay below the speed limit, then we woudln't, so how are we meant to drive along a road without "worrying" (so to speak) about our speed limit?

As for me saying, it is pointless persuing this in court. The reason I say that is, unless you have all the time and money to waste (ie, my comment about limit time and resources), then this is pointless exercise to undertake. Yes, there has been good advice, but it certainly doesn't come at a cost right? This means, without wasting more time and money, injustices prevail. Unless this was a murder case, then I think it is pointless wasting more time and money to persue something for $250, and then you can't even have your points reinstated.

**GasoLane** · 07-08-2006, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FordACE

The government and their policies are designed to deter people from persuing these matters.

Dont forget the legal profession. Your brother could beat it, it just depends on how much he wants to spend.

I got zapped with a mobile radar (113 in a 100 zone) last year in the truck. I stated that I was doing perhaps 106 not the 113 he clocked me at and explained to him that my company has satellite and GPS tracking on all trucks and if we go over 110 we get a 'please explain' letter from head office.

Legal advice said that if I wanted to fight it I would have to provide an 'expert' witness from the people who supply tracking system and the police would probably do the same. The case would have to be heard in Coonabarabran (where I was booked) and if I lost the case I would have to pay for the police's 'experts' expenses as well as my own. At a rough guess even if I won it would cost about $5k.

I copped it and paid the $350 (heavy vehicle fines are higher than car fines)

FordACE · 07-08-2006, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Dont forget the legal profession. Your brother could beat it, it just depends on how much he wants to spend.

I got zapped with a mobile radar (113 in a 100 zone) last year in the truck. I stated that I was doing perhaps 106 not the 113 he clocked me at and explained to him that my company has satellite and GPS tracking on all trucks and if we go over 110 we get a 'please explain' letter from head office.

Legal advice said that if I wanted to fight it I would have to provide an 'expert' witness from the people who supply tracking system and the police would probably do the same. The case would have to be heard in Coonabarabran (where I was booked) and if I lost the case I would have to pay for the police's 'experts' expenses as well as my own. At a rough guess even if I won it would cost about $5k.

I copped it and paid the $350 (heavy vehicle fines are higher than car fines)

This is the unfortunate end result. Thanks for your perspective on this matter.

GCFordChic · 07-08-2006, 03:07 PM

FordAce,

From all the information i have been able to gather GasOLane pretty much hit the nail on the head. The only thing that could be argued was that the device used to record the speed was faulty or being operated incorrectly. This would mean the cost of solicitors, expert witnesses and court fees. Thats the only way to 'fight' it, because essentially the fact that the cop (who is trained to operate the equipment, entrusted to act honestly and authorised to issue fines) has given the fine is enough for a 'guilty' verdict in the eyes of the law.

Anyway, i just hope it doesn't happen to him again.

VSSII · 07-08-2006, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Dont forget the legal profession. Your brother could beat it, it just depends on how much he wants to spend.

I got zapped with a mobile radar (113 in a 100 zone) last year in the truck. I stated that I was doing perhaps 106 not the 113 he clocked me at and explained to him that my company has satellite and GPS tracking on all trucks and if we go over 110 we get a 'please explain' letter from head office.

Legal advice said that if I wanted to fight it I would have to provide an 'expert' witness from the people who supply tracking system and the police would probably do the same. The case would have to be heard in Coonabarabran (where I was booked) and if I lost the case I would have to pay for the police's 'experts' expenses as well as my own. At a rough guess even if I won it would cost about $5k.

I copped it and paid the $350 (heavy vehicle fines are higher than car fines)

Don't forget LIDAR units which it seems are being mentioned here check your speed about 200 times a second. And don't display any reading until at least 80 or so checks have been made. A GPS can be out by as much as 20KPH. EG, SPEED = DISTANCE / TIME. If the GPS takes a reading every few seconds (as opposed to a LIDAR at about 200 times a second) the formula can be out considerably! Spend a bit of time around your local Courts and it's amazing what you can learn! The targets may be moving but they are moving toward the policeman. In effect getting larger as then approach.

**GasoLane** · 07-08-2006, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VSSII

Don't forget LIDAR units which it seems are being mentioned here check your speed about 200 times a second. And don't display any reading until at least 80 or so checks have been made. A GPS can be out by as much as 20KPH. EG, SPEED = DISTANCE / TIME. If the GPS takes a reading every few seconds (as opposed to a LIDAR at about 200 times a second) the formula can be out considerably! Spend a bit of time around your local Courts and it's amazing what you can learn! The targets may be moving but they are moving toward the policeman. In effect getting larger as then approach.

Perhaps I should have explained it better.

All our trucks are fitted with speed limiters and the on board computer keeps a record of all truck data (including speed.) This data is then sent to head office every 5min. The GPS tells the shiney bum dept where we are and any speeding offences, along with other relevent engine data are noted.

MO · 07-08-2006, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Perhaps I should have explained it better.

All our trucks are fitted with speed limiters and the on board computer keeps a record of all truck data (including speed.) This data is then sent to head office every 5min. The GPS tells the shiney bum dept where we are and any speeding offences, along with other relevent engine data are noted.

And that would have got you off...your vehicle is speed limited to 110...therefore you could not have been doing 113.

Plus your your company has all the sat track data.

XA-Coupe · 07-08-2006, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MO

And that would have got you off...your vehicle is speed limited to 110...therefore you could not have been doing 113.

Plus your your company has all the sat track data.

I've seen a speed limited truck doing 120 + ..... It's not enough on it's own.

XA-Coupe · 07-08-2006, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesse06

What a crock, just another cop on a power trip. Oh and have any of you's used a radar gun before? I have and its not that hard to keep it on a car if they are coming/going straight towards/away from you but its a real pain to try keep it on a moving target side on as the camera's don't have enough weight and are the wrong shape for swinging it smoothly like that...I would probably have a bit of advantage over your average cop using one of these too as I shoot skeet every weekend & ducks in season..I seriously doubt alot of these officiers ability with these devices..Its not easy.

My advice to your bro is do what's cheepest.

hey wow, you are just so good !!
as one of 'you's' .. which last time I checked isn't actually a word, who has used a radar gun and have shot firearms for the last say ... 19 years .. it's easier than you make out.
A clue would be good before shooting your mouth off.

uranium_death · 07-08-2006, 11:59 PM

I don't think it's worth challenging. If he can't prove it, spending the money on siliciting fees for a false hope is pointless, esp. if he can't get his points back.

Some cops are bent in more than one way.

FordACE · 08-08-2006, 07:20 AM

Thanks everyone for your input. Sorry if It doesn't seem like I am greatful. I guess, when I started the thread I thought a simple solution would come up that would solve this. If my brother was actually speeding he wouldn't have went off about it in the way that he did. I told him he could have his day in court, but he knows that there is not much he can do about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uranium_death

Some cops are bent in more than one way.

I hope it didnt' seem like I was cop bashing (although my brother said the cop was totally arrogant towards him) in this thread. If it was the cop that did it, then one day he will get his just deserves. If it was the machine at fault, then not much can be done really. Just hopefully in future, they can apply some sort of fall back, ie, two lasers on the one machine, calculating the speed. If there is a discrepancy, then they can't justify you as speeding.

MO · 08-08-2006, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XA-Coupe

hey wow, you are just so good !!
as one of 'you's' .. which last time I checked isn't actually a word, who has used a radar gun and have shot firearms for the last say ... 19 years .. it's easier than you make out.
A clue would be good before shooting your mouth off.

XA we have spoken about this before....you know the brick wall and how good it feels when you stop.

Re my post of speed limited thought it and sat track data might get it turfed.

**GasoLane** · 09-08-2006, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MO

And that would have got you off...your vehicle is speed limited to 110...therefore you could not have been doing 113.

Plus your your company has all the sat track data.

MO, the Speed limiter is set at 100 (or 110 downhill

) and It was on a slight downhill run where he got me.

I asked for and got a printout (from my company) of my speed for 1/2 an hour each side of the time of the booking, but was still told by the solicitor I wanted to engage that to PROVE my case this was what I would have to do and what it would cost.

Why do you think the Highway Patrol just love booking interstate cars... it costs Joe Public too much time and money trying to prove them wrong

MO · 09-08-2006, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GasOLane

MO, the Speed limiter is set at 100 (or 110 downhill

) and It was on a slight downhill run where he got me.

I asked for and got a printout (from my company) of my speed for 1/2 an hour each side of the time of the booking, but was still told by the solicitor I wanted to engage that to PROVE my case this was what I would have to do and what it would cost.

Why do you think the Highway Patrol just love booking interstate cars... it costs Joe Public too much time and money trying to prove them wrong

Fair enough was just a thought.

**GasoLane** · 09-08-2006, 04:46 PM

No problem. Although It would have been nice if the company offered to pay the costs

spotlogo · 09-08-2006, 05:10 PM

I think you can request too see the speed recorded after they pull you over I have don that before in nsw not sure i applies in qld

MO · 09-08-2006, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spotlogo

I think you can request too see the speed recorded after they pull you over I have don that before in nsw not sure i applies in qld

It does..I've had the locals give me a speedo check against the gun.

XR_Strider_GuY · 09-08-2006, 11:28 PM

Hi Guys,

Sorry if i am repeating grounds here but from these posts am I right in saying that in Victoria if you win a speeding case you will still have to cop the demerit points even if the fine has been over turned. I find that interesting as fine and demerit points apply if one is guilty, how can points be issued to an innocent person?

VSSII · 10-08-2006, 05:34 PM

Lots of people will tell you they got off or were found not guilty when in fact the Magistrate may have found the offence proven but recorded no conviction. They're still found guilty so the points are not given back! And anyone in NSW who's had their licence for more than a few years will remember the old slant radars that sat on a tripod on the side of the road. The driver never saw the speed on them. How do I know? I got done! Showing the speed in NSW is a courtesy only.

uranium_death · 10-08-2006, 05:41 PM

The legal system on the whole is a pile of poopie.
People get more for embezzelment than they do for murder nowadays.

Tsk tsk. What is this world coming to?

Allen · 10-08-2006, 05:50 PM

what ever happened to "Innocent before proven guilty" ??
Should't the onus be on the police to prove their case, rather than you proving you weren't?
Its their allogation against you, so they should prove it... not the other way around...

XRchic · 10-08-2006, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uranium death

The legal system on the whole is a pile of poopie.
People get more for embezzelment than they do for murder nowadays.

Intelligent comment of the day...

Quote:

Originally Posted by fairlane ghia

what ever happened to "Innocent before proven guilty" ??
Should't the onus be on the police to prove their case, rather than you proving you weren't?
Its their allogation against you, so they should prove it... not the other way around...

Its called strict liability.

VSSII · 10-08-2006, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fairlane_ghia

what ever happened to "Innocent before proven guilty" ??
Should't the onus be on the police to prove their case, rather than you proving you weren't?
Its their allogation against you, so they should prove it... not the other way around...

We're only talking about a summary offence here. Sure they need to prove it. But to a Magistrate not you on the side of the road! They are the police. They run the show. Well they used to!

XA-Coupe · 10-08-2006, 09:52 PM

It's a staturory offence. If you are innocent you can choose to fight it... or just want to fight it anyway.
The 'innocent until proven guilty' is a bit of a fallacy. If you get busted for murder they lock you up anyway even though you haven't been tried. The system cannot work on such a pure priciple.

MO · 10-08-2006, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XA-Coupe

It's a staturory offence. If you are innocent you can choose to fight it... or just want to fight it anyway.
The 'innocent until proven guilty' is a bit of a fallacy. If you get busted for murder they lock you up anyway even though you haven't been tried. The system cannot work on such a pure priciple.

Very true....and I know from first hand experience...and no it wasn't murder...got a night in cells and a do not approach order before I'd been to court and I hadn't done anything except get a bit drunk.

GCFordChic · 10-08-2006, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fairlane_ghia

what ever happened to "Innocent before proven guilty" ??
Should't the onus be on the police to prove their case, rather than you proving you weren't?
Its their allogation against you, so they should prove it... not the other way around...

It still exists, even in a case like this, just think about it a little more...
'innocent' until a member of the police force (the branch of government there to enforce the law) exercises their power under statute to detect the speed and make a determination according the the reading of the device (which is also regulated by statute) as to the legality of the speed at which the vehicle is travelling. If under or at posted (or expected in 50 residential zones) 'speed limit' then person has not broken law and will not get fined. If reading confirms vehicle is travelling outside the parameters of the law- 'guilty' and a fine would be issued. If you want to appeal that decision you must go to court and the onus is on you to outline why the fine should not apply in that case.

If EVERY traffic offence was determined by the court, there would either be a 10 year wait, or they would have to have ALOT more courts. For a minor breach of the law it has already been determined that the police can find you guilty and fine you. If it is more serious (ie dangerous driving etc) then you are charged (like in other cases like murder etc) and you will face a court.

Whoa, that was the long-winded way to put it wasnt it!!! lol