|
||
|
VIC |
NSW |
QLD |
SA |
WA |
ACT |
||
|
Recently a person on the Whirlpool forum went back and reviewed a speeding fine their mother had received at a fixed speed camera located in a school zone. Avoca Street, between Howard Street and Barker Road Southbound,Randwick Link to the Whirlpool post Wrongly accused speed camera fine - Driving licences (whirlpool.net.au) Three photos are provided at the bottom of the post and after reviewing the photos I would appear the person may have been driving at around 47 km/h and not the 59 km/h they were fined for. However at this stage there's one piece of information that needs to be confirmed before this can be verified and that is the spacing between the lines shown on the road. The assumption in the responses is the lines are spaced 1 metre apart, however if this assumption isn't correct and the spacing instead is 1.27 metres, then the person was travelling at 59 km/h. Before saying the camera is faulty it is necessary to collect and confirm all facts and not make assumptions. There's no point challenging a fine unless you have all the information verified. In addition this person has already paid the fine and unfortunately, even if this camera was faulty, based on the typical responses I've seen in the media when cameras are reviewed, is if you pay the fine you have accepted you were doing something wrong. I think this is not fair on the general public as people know if they challenge a fine there's considerable time involved and you may end up with additional costs. In effect, to use a very harsh term, it's effectively legalised extortion. I'm currently challenging a parking ticket that occurred in November 2019 and to have my voice heard this has taken considerable time and much angst, plus I'm exposing myself to additional costs. It's often better to treat fines as a tax and move on. The system to me is all for the government and against the person, so you really need to have a strong case and luck on your side because in the end, it boils down to a magistrate who is employed by the government agreeing with your case. As an example I recently attended a hearing and the prosecutor did not turn up. Because the case was held virtually (I was present in the court) the council was given time to locate the prosecutor (possibly 10-15 minutes) so they could attend. If I had not turned up on time I would not have been given a second chance. Back to the fixed speed camera in Avoca Street. If you're in the situation you're reviewing a speeding fine you need to check the photos to confirm the alleged speed. In this case the car travelled around 5 intervals as shown by the marks on the road. You know the time interval as that is given in the photos. You know roughly the number of lines on the road (although this an estimate), but you don't know the distance. You need to measure the distance from the start of one line to the start of the next. Multiply that distance measured by the number of lines and you have your distance. Then use Speed/Distance/Time calculator to work out your speed by entering the distance and time. If anyone can measure the distance between the lines to confirm the distance, it would be possible to determine if this fixed speed camera was faulty or not. Kelvin Eldridge Update: 4 September 2022 Further persistence by the Whirlpool poster ended up getting the fine dismissed. It really does pay to review any fine you receive. Sadly the system does appear that only by asking to go to court will your case be review properly but in this case that was not necessary. |
||
|
|
||