Unfair Defect  

wolfman101

I'll just leave this here.

wolfman101

?

Faun-

wolfman just throw your front plate on your dash :P:P

wolfman101

I keep it in the boot.

TXR05

Question for HP if he wishes to reply, as I cannot find it online.

I recently got a speeding ticket for doing 50kph in a school zone by a TruCam ( which I saw them setting up 10 minutes earlier ) Now I was according to google maps about 90 meters from the 60KPH zone ( So I was speeding up when I was done for the change of speed zone )

Now yes I accept the fact I was speeding in a school zone, but when I could see the speed sign at the other end of the intersection. I feel it's a little over the top

xr6greg

Offence complete and your done unless HP Plod would like to comment on how most Magistrates deal with TruCam offences when contested.

UNR8D_

I do find it amusing people asking a police officer how they would defend/get out of a matter or even just general advice, lets just say you would have better chance winning a photo comp with the OP's pictures then you would getting a accurate answer on how to defend a traffic matter from a HWP officer... speak with a solicitor or do some research on the relevant legislation yourself. http://www.austlii.edu.au/ is a good start.

@wolfman101 Do R8's have any position at all to run a front plate from factory? I know the RS5's etc run a bar with a front plate mount that sticks out like a boil, been a while since I checked out an R8 in person.

wolfman101

The standard grill has a molded in cutout that can't be removed. I always ran one on that-no point taking it off. My new GT grille has a detachable holder that can be removed (as I just did) to expose just grille.

blue fc

trx05 i had a similar fine not long ago(by the time they pulled me over i was in the next speed zone).put simply you are still in that zone until the new limit sign.

vk134

Simple fact, it is a speed LIMIT, you just have to stay under it until exactly past it to the new higher or lower speed, I drive through a 90 to 60 zone transition, every day and they ping people just 50m into the 60 on that one very regularly

OLD GEEZER

Most drivers seem to be totally ignorant of the rules. The lower speed limit starts at the sign most only appear to lift off the gas at the sign .The higher speed starts at the sign but nost seem to hit the gas pedal when they can see the sign in the distance.

BukkaneNinja

I love how some people can't see the logic.
I understand why people get it wrong - 60 down to 40 zone, need to slow down and be doing 40 by the sign.
In that same logic, 40 into 60 zone, I should speed up and be doing 60 as I pass the sign?

I don't , just putting it into terms that some people can't seem to grasp.

Twat In The Hat

If you are driving in a 50 zone, approaching a 60, you are not to exceed the 50km/h limit until AFTER you have entered the new zone.

If you are driving in a 60 zone, approaching a 50, you are to ensure that you are already at the correct speed BEFORE entering the new zone.

Paullus

Yes that is the law, but was TXR05's ticket justified?

Example: Pinged for speeding in 40km/h school zone, 30m before the end of the 40km/h zone:
@7.31am when there are no kids, parents or cars in sight: No
@3.01pm when school zones are at their peak: Yes

I'd like to think police have enough judgement and common sense in these scenarios.

Having said that, ~90m in a 50km/h zone is a bit far out from the new zone; normally that length would take at least 6.5s of travel time; not exactly near the new speed zone.

clutch-monkey

lol
it's a lucky dip dude

OLD GEEZER

There has to be a start and end time that has to be obeyed and rules are rules and in this instant the op would have arrived at his destination sooner had the rules been followed.
Clutch monkey attitude also plays a part sometimes

Paullus

Whoops, forgot to put my [sarcasm] tags around it

Twat In The Hat

As pointed out, nearly 100m? That's a fair gap.

Shuffs

The best thing that ever happened to school zones in NSW,was when they were all equipped with solar powered warning lights (the red circle around the 40 lights up as well) at both ends of the school zones,that activate at the allotted times,particularly handy with country schools

Paullus

Or those without kids. I usually have a general idea when school holidays are but don't know specific dates

clutch-monkey

kids wouldn't get run over so much if they paid attention to what's going on around them and not stay glued to their smart phones

UNR8D_

Guess kids out west have more commonsense then to walk infront of 2T of vehicle while its in motion.

HP Plod

Traffic manual

6.3.2 Restrictions on speed detection device site locations (restricted site locations)
POLICY
Speed detection devices should not generally perated in the following restricted site locations:
(i) on a road which could be described as the downgrade of a hill;
(ii) on a road within 300 metres after a sign indicating any decrease in the prescribed speed limit;
(iii) on a road within 100 metres before a sign indicating any increase in the prescribed limit; or
(iv) where the length of the speed zone is less than one kilometre.
It is recognised that in some instances, it may be necessary to perform speed detection operations in restricted site locations. Such instances include:
(i) 40 km/h school zones;
(ii) local neighbourhood areas;
(iii) on downhill grades where there is documented history of crashes; and
(iv) areas where there are a number of public complaints relating to the speeding of vehicles. The 'Traffic Complaint' functionality within QPRIME should be used to identify such areas (see QPRIME User Guide).
When operating a speed detection device in any restricted site location, the officer in command is to consider the aspect of fairness towards the motoring public. In every case, that officer is accountable for justification of the operation of the device at the restricted site location.

So yes you're ticket was justified, the 300m and 100m rule does not apply as it's a restricted distance zone.

When I operate truism I target vehicles within the vicinity of the crossing. That way based on the traffic manual I can justify the operation of my devices.

Sorry big fella, you have two choices now, pay or contest.

TXR05

I won't contest. As I said, yes I was speeding. Yes it was at the set of traffic lights that kids do cross.
I'm not trying to get out of the ticket in any case what so ever. I was speeding, I got caught.

What I'm annoyed about is the fact I could see the 60 sign 80 meters up the road which at 40 kph is 8 seconds away.

Whats also annoying is I didn't know that, and I find out 2 weeks later when I get the fine that I was speeding. Would of been nicer to have been pulled over and told on the spot.

But what ever. It's 1 point and $146 and a lesson.

HP Plod

Fair call...I'm a firm believer that the notion that you have no idea where speed cameras, trucams etc are going to be is going to make you more alert to your speed and change you driving behaviour to avoid detection. This will happen for you now.

Awaiting the speed camera debate

xr6greg

The corporate response as required by the QPS and the Government.

How many children are actually involved in traffic crashes during school times? About 1 or 2 per annum in Qld and usually being backed over by mum in her 4wd; not by people speeding through the zone.

Road fatalities statewide have NOT decreased over the last decade. So what impact has covert revenue raising speed cameras had on making the roads safer?

mark1414

Its not worth it...

HP Plod

Because if they weren't there, then more kids would be injured and the road fatalities and serious crashes would increase by a huge amount.

The majority out there that are conscious of their speeds because there are ramifications of not doing so, by this way of thinking they are safer drivers already.

Again an old argument but speed cameras are not the be all and end all of road safety, they are but a mere drop in the ocean of the entire campaign.

Just like for other crimes we don't just rely on them occurring to try and stop them. Reactive policing is a drop in the ocean of fighting crime levels,.

There are many factors in all facets of policing that are used to combat our outcomes... Speed cameras are the ones that affect people the most, because it hits financially and this pisses people off.

People don't ever argue about seeing police on the street, people don't argue about us going to schools and educating children on road safety including up coming p platers, people don't argue when they see big RBT sites, these are more tasks we complete for road safety that you never see me doing, you only see me doing revenue raising. My 8 hour day, 40 hour week is quite busy and not always exciting and chasing imports!!!

vk134

And then you get the recidivist fwit who just laughs his rotten toothed head off, they just chuck the fines on their SPER account, treating it like another credit card, they don't worry about rego, insurance or licencing. They whine about rights yet take no responsibilities, act like the world fn owes them, then cry like bitches when the police ping them for doing stupid shit in illegally modified cars, paid for with a combination of centrelink and proceeds of crime.

Prior to the school speed zone rules, most people slowed down, but some selfish, head up their arse tools, used to just fly through these areas, totally unaware how fn random rids run and ride about these places. I saw many close calls, so even though the school zone affects my work drive, I can live with it, but it does need to be a more active sign (like shuffs posted) as you get caught behind mindless tards during school holdays, as they just cannot be fkd thinking and having any situational awareness.

clutch-monkey

a tax by any other name

xr6greg

HP Plod. Not having a go at you doing your job. But sometimes the 'corporate response' just doesn't cut it. Research in Europe and the USA have indicated that speed cameras, about 10 percent, have caused an increase in serious road crashes. I thought the advertising said that speed cameras decreased the incidence of crashes?

And the MAJOR contributing factor to decreasing fatals has been car design (technology), road design AND paramedics (Medevac etc) not sneaky TruCams or RBT sites (how much does the QPS get paid by QT per breath test - bit of a money shuffle happening there isn't it?)

wolfman101

Greg, you're going to have to provide some evidence to support your assertion on camera:accident relationship.

xr6greg

Why?

Most research will always indicate that speed detection devices will reduce the incidence of speeding as well as injury traffic crashes (that's why we love statistics - it can always prove someone's point of view.)

Typical research data such as the findings below give lots of wonderful stats in support of how good things are.

Wilson et al. (2006), in their Cochrane review of speed camera research, noted
that all the studies they examined that included crash data showed reductions in
crashes after the implementation of the automated speed enforcement program,
with reductions ranging from 14% to 72% for all crashes within the vicinity of
camera site to 8% to 46% for injury crashes and 40 – 45% for crashes involving
serious injuries or fatalities. While critical of the methodological limitations of the
studies reviewed, the Cochrane authors concluded that speed cameras are “a
promising intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and
deaths.”

Similarly Pilkington and Kinra (2005) critically reviewed 14 speed camera studies
and concluded that: “Existing research consistently shows that speed cameras
are an effective intervention in reducing road traffic collisions and related
casualties. The level of evidence is relatively poor, however, as most studies did
not have satisfactory comparison groups or control for potential confounders.”
Reductions in crashes ranged between 5% and 69%; injuries fell 12 – 65%; and
deaths were reduced by 17 to 71% in the vicinity of the cameras. Hidden and
unpredictably located mobile cameras produced area-wide reductions in crashes
“of a similar order of magnitude” as well.

One “potential confounder” of particular concern is the fact that speed cameras
are frequently installed at locations with a recent history of speed-related crashes
(so-called “black spots”). Reductions in crashes at these locations after the
installation of cameras may simply be due to chance or regression to the mean,
the statistical phenomenon by which abnormally high or low numbers of events
return to normal rates independent of any intervention (Persaud, 2001).

The 2004 evaluation of the U.K. speed camera program noted earlier (Gains et
al., 2004) was not included among the studies reviewed by Pilkington and Kinra.
It, too, found reductions in crashes and injuries at sites where cameras were
installed – a 40% reduction in persons killed or seriously injured; a 33% reduction
in personal injury collisions; and a 35% reduction in the number of pedestrians
killed or seriously injured. This report also explicitly addresses the regression to
the mean issue and argues that it “does not apply in full measure” because
camera siting criteria included factors other than collisions (85th percentile
speeds at least 10% above speed limit plus 2 mph; speeding as a factor in some
or all collisions at the “black spot”; at least 20% of drivers exceeding speed limit)
and because speeds were reduced as well as collisions.

One Auditor Generals report into the effectiveness of speed cameras in the ACT was a little bit more damning and information from an RTI request disclosed that

ACT government crash statistics, provided to the opposition, show accidents at the site of nine fixed speed camera sites have not been reduced since the cameras were activated in 2007 and 2008.

In many cases, the data shows drivers were actually involved in more crashes after the fixed cameras came in.

The number of crashes has increased at the sites of two fixed speed cameras on the Federal Highway, city-bound near the Antill Street roundabout, and north-bound between the Antill Street roundabout and Zelling Road.

Naturally you can refer to Professor Allsop's 2010 study - Effectiveness of Speed Cameras - RAC Foundation (UK) which indicated

21 camera sites at which, or near which, the number of collisions appears to have risen enough to make the cameras worthy of investigation in case they have contributed to the increases.

But I'm sure the ad on TV that says speeding is dangerous is evidence enough to support the use of covert speed cameras that the Qld State Govt statistics clearly show has NOT decreased fatalities etc is enough to convince anyone that speed alone is the biggest cause of death on our roads?

HP Plod

Some interesting findings... However never have I said and never has it been advertised or educated that speed alone is the only cause of fatal/injurious crashes.

The fatal five are widely advertised yet I never see anyone bitch and whine about getting a mobile phone ticket (distraction), a seatbelt ticket, done for drink driving.

So why is it that speed related measures are so widely criticised? I can tell you with all honesty I write more seatbelt and mobile phone tickets than I do speeds, in fact I nt them more than I hunt with a lidar.

I'll do probably tops 5-10 hours of lidar a week the rest is causal patrols for offences relating to the other fatal four. Yet alas fatigue is something I cannot target, at some point driver responsibility has to play a part. The majority of our fatals of late are due to fatigue.

We put measures in place to combat this, driver revived, education, advertising, yet people don't take notice,

And another thing that comes to mind relating to speed cameras, they say they are blatant revenue raising tools. I'll sit in a camera in both covert and overt positions and on average I'll have anywhere from 4000-8000 vehicles travel through in a 4 hour period, most spots will yield an average of 20-30 detections, so how is this revenue raising? 2 deployments per day.

So one camera per day based on this subjective analysis.

3.65 million vehicles through this camera per year

18250 detections per year

Average price of speed fine say $220

So revenue raised 4.015 million

So you will just see holy shit 4million in fines that blatant revenue, but when you consider how many cars actually travel through the camera site per year it's pittance, and yes multiply this by x amount of cameras and there's your revenue but again, look how many cars travel on the roads each day and travel at the speed limit. Again a small percentage in the scheme of things.

If I was getting 2-3000 detections per day with this many cars going through then yes you could call it revenue raising as this will increase to 481+ million in fines

I don't think by me putting this in context will prove anything to you.

But it still puts it in the scheme of things.

wolfman101

I still question the motivation between choosing to hide a camera, have the hoon pass through, not realise they have been pinged and kill granny down the road in the high risk area vs having it signed, and forcing the hoon to slow down through the high risk area. Seems counter intuitive to me.
I'm not complaining about the act-speeding is speeding. If you can be pinged you SHOULD be. It's how it's represented to the public that bothers me.
I believe that if road safety was the highest priority that almost all cameras would be fixed.