POLICE LOSE SPEEDING FINE FARSE IN COURT CHALLENGE IN SA
January 03, 2007 01:15am
THE validity of speed camera fines from one of Adelaide's busiest intersections has been thrown into doubt by a successful court challenge.
Kangaroo Island businessman Rene Spruyt yesterday was discharged without penalty in the Adelaide Magistrates Court, after arguing that intersecting 50km/h and 60km/h zones at the junction of Grote St, West Tce and Sir Donald Bradman Drive were too confusing for drivers to follow.
Police prosecutor Senior Constable Bill Kerins conceded to Magistrate Bill Ackland the speed zone was "ludicrous" and warned the courts could expect "a lot more matters like this".
In agreeing that Mr Spruyt should not have to pay the $567 expiation notice sent to him in July, Sen-Constable Kerins said there was confusion over whether motorists travelling west in a 50km/h zone on Grote St were bound by this limit as they crossed West Tce, or by the 60km/h restrictions on that road or Sir Donald Bradman Drive.
Senior Constable Kerins said he had been unable to determine the correct speed zone for the intersection, despite extensively researching road traffic regulations and personally visiting the site, and that many other motorists fined for speeding through the intersection had formally disputed their fines.
"The interesting question is that the speed limit on West Tce is 60km/h while the speed limit on Grote St is 50km/h," he said.
"People are being caught doing 61, 62, 67km/h in the middle of the intersection which, under normal circumstances, would be within the tolerance level of the speed cameras if it was a 60km/h zone. The question is whether it is a 50 or 60 zone.
"We now also have the ludicrous situation where people turning left or right from Grote St into West Tce are able to do 60km/h, but those going over Grote St into West Tce have to do 50km/h until they reach the 60km/h zone on Sir Donald Bradman Drive.
"The courts can expect a lot more matters like this involving this particular intersection."
A Holden Commodore utility owned by Mr Spruyt's company, Abventure Pty Ltd, was photographed last June being driven at 67km/h across West Tce into Sir Donald Bradman Drive.
Abventure received the expiation notice for exceeding a 50km/h zone by 17km/h, prompting Mr Spruyt to write to Police Commissioner Mal Hyde in July to dispute the fine.
The Expiation Notice Branch formally responded a month later by refusing to withdraw it, telling Mr Spruyt that "when travelling west on Grote St, motorists should be travelling no greater than 50km/h until they reach the 60km/h sign on Sir Donald Bradman Drive".
Mr Spruyt yesterday told Mr Ackland there had not been a 60km/h zone sign on Sir Donald Bradman Drive when his vehicle was photographed, but that it had been erected several weeks later after he and other motorists complained to police.
Mr Ackland said the question "of where Grote St ends and where Sir Donald Bradman begins" was an "interesting argument . . . best left for another day".
He discharged Mr Spruyt without conviction or fine after he agreed to plead guilty to exceeding 60km/h an hour in a 60km/h zone.
"This is the best result you are likely to achieve unless you are in this for academic fulfilment on proving your point," he told him.
Outside court, Mr Spruyt, who represented himself, said he was "chuffed" because he did not believe the State Government "should be blatantly revenue raising by deliberately creating a trap for motorists".
Police have yet to decide if they will appeal against the decision and a State Government spokesman said last night that it was seeking an urgent briefing on the issue.
"READY TO RUMBLE" over parking
Thursday, 25 October 2007
Motorcyclists have threatened to shut cars out of city parking spots if Melbourne City Council goes ahead with a proposal to ban them from parking on footpaths in narrow city streets.
"The first day the council bring in any new laws, we will come to town and take up one car parking spot each," Motorcycle Riders Association president Dale Maggs said. "That'll fix their little apple cart."
The association threatened a similar tactic in 2002, the last time the council tried to ban parking on city footpaths. The council quickly backed down. Under the plan put forward yesterday by Cr Peter Clarke, motorbikes parked on footpaths in Flinders Lane and Little Collins, Little Bourke, Little Lonsdale and Little La Trobe streets could be liable for fines up to $115. Under current laws, motorcycles parked on footpaths must be close to the gutter and leave two metres of space for pedestrians. Cr Clarke said pedestrians on narrow city streets often had to queue to get past the motorbikes. "Footpaths are for pedestrians, they're not spaces we've put aside for motorcycles."
Motorcyclists were mystified by the proposal. The laws had been put forward by jealous drivers, angry that they could not park for free, rider Steve Lynch said. "These guys are just annoyed that we get free parking." The council will vote on the proposal on Tuesday.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHALLENGE SPEED CAMERA FINES
http://www.fightfines.info
This page should only be used as a guide not as legal advice.
The government is raising revenue in anyway possible, They dont expect anyone to fight them in court over the fines they issue, They expect most people who have been booked to cop it sweet AND THEY DO.
Website guide to speeding
October 11, 2006 12:00am
VICTORIANS are flocking to a website that offers advice on how to fight their speeding fines in court.
The controversial site has been online only three months.
But already scores of disgruntled drivers are logging on every day for tips on how to avoid paying fines.
Defences range from arguments about speedometers to querying the constitutionality of Victoria's speed camera system.
The Government would not say whether the site broke any laws but is not happy with the site, the creation of engineer Carl Agar.
Worth a look:
http://www.fightfines.info
----------------------------------------------------------
THE GREAT SPEED CAMERA RIP OFF
Speed almost never kills, but speeding fines always hurt too much. That’s why the current speed camera policy is grossly unfair. As far as road safety is concerned there is nothing that you can accomplish with a $200 fine that you can’t achieve with a $50 fine. Speed cameras on every road but lower fines is the answer to Australia’s speed camera fiasco.
The impost by the governments around Australia on motorists has reached record levels. In Victorian alone, in the first 10 weeks of this year 223,000 drivers were pinged by speed cameras. This injects about $500,000 a day into the Victorian government coffers. Australia wide the figure is approximately $2 million dollars per day. While governments around Australia are becoming increasingly dependent on speed camera revenue to balance their books, motorists are becoming increasingly grumpy and fatigued at the number and level of fines that have been issued.
This widespread dissension is justified. The level at which the fines are pitched is overly harsh compared to the level of wrongdoing involved. For years we’ve been told to cop the fines on the chin on the basis that, “speed kills - don’t speed and you’ve got nothing to worry about”. This argument is wearing thin with most motorists. This is not surprising: most cons get exposed in the long run.
The current level at which speeding fines are pitched is unjust because it violates the most important rule of sentencing: the proportionality principle. This is the principle that the “punishment must fit the crime”. This requires there to be a matching between the seriousness of the wrongdoing and severity of the punishment.
In Victoria, for example, a car travelling at 63km/h in a 60km zone (there is a 2km/h tolerance) will set you back $131. Travelling at 73km/h in the same spot will cost you $210.
For a moment's inattention we are slugged around 25 per cent to 40 per cent of the minimum wage (now approximately $475 a week). The “harm” caused by speeding does not equal between 10 to 18 hours of labour because nearly always there is no harm done by speeding.
“Speed kills” is sloganist nonsense. In statistical terms the amount of times that a speeding motorist is involved in an “accident” is almost negligible. This is especially so where the motorist is only slightly over the limit. For conclusive evidence of this ask how many of the 223,000 Victorian motorists who have been photographed exceeding the speed limit in the first 10 weeks of the year had a collision at or around the location of the speed camera. The answer is almost certainly zero.
Motor collisions are caused by a number of factors and occur because of complex reasons. In some cases speed is a contributing factor, but it is nonsense to boldly assert that speed alone kills - it almost never does.
Governments won’t be able to develop a fair and workable speed camera policy until they look beyond the simplistic and silly sloganism of “speed kills” and look more analytically and strategically at what they should be doing about the road toll and reducing the incidence of speeding.
If governments took the time to inquire, they would see that world-wide empirical studies show that the greatest deterrent to wrongdoing is not the size of the penalty but the perceived risk of detection. Bigger penalties do not lead to more obedience. To the extent that people make a cost-benefit decision about committing crimes, they generally only weigh up the risk of being caught, not what will happen if they get caught.
The best way to reduce the incidence of crime and speeding, in particular, is to increase the perception in people’s minds that if they transgress they will be caught.
This means that we should have more speed cameras - one on every street would be the ideal - but the level of fines should be significantly lowered. In terms of road and safety management there is nothing that can be achieved by a $200 fine that can’t be accomplished by a $40 to $50 fine. This is the level at which most speeding fines should be pitched.
Every dollar you pay for a speeding fine beyond $50 has nothing to do with making our roads safer. It has everything to do with crude revenue raising. There is certainly a need for governments to raise revenue to pay for important social goods, such as education and health. But in doing so, they need to implement honest and transparent policies. This is lacking in the case of speed camera fines.
The current levels of fines cannot be justified on the basis that “if you don’t speed, there is nothing to worry about”. Humans are not infallible machines. Even the most diligent driver will have momentary lapses in concentration and nudge over the speed limit at times (the only way to avoid this is to drive so far below the speed limit so as to be a hazard to other motorists).
When we do lapse we have a right to expect a penalty commensurate with the level of our wrongdoing, rather than being hit with outrageously high fines. This puts the law into disrepute. While most state governments have been shown to be clueless when it comes to issues of punishment and sentencing, even they can do better than that. It is time for the speed camera rip-off to stop.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WA DRIVER BEATS SPEEDING TICKET RAP
30th July 2006, 7:45 WST
A driver who claims he was unfairly given a speeding ticket because signs were misleading has won his appeal in court and been awarded $750 in costs after the key prosecution witness failed to turn up.
Businessman Michael Hutton refused to accept that he broke the law by driving at 72kmh through roadworks on the Kwinana Freeway and has photographic evidence showing an 80kmh limit on the outside lane and a 60kmh limit on the inside lane.
Magistrate Stephen Malley dismissed the case in court yesterday, refusing a police request to adjourn because the officer who booked him, Sen. Const. Royston Shepphard, was on sick leave, insisting he should have had a medical certificate.
“I’m very happy and feel justice has been served, but the police only have to spend 10 minutes on the road to realise plenty of other people are far more deserving of police attention for serious misdemeanours than I was charged with,” a relieved, but still agitated Mr Hutton told The West Australian. “I’m still out of pocket — yes, I’ll receive $750 in costs but I’ve spent about 10 times that amount fighting this case. I must be mad but it was a matter of principle.”
He believes the contractors responsible for erecting the speed limit signs are not doing their job properly and resents that he has had to spend so much time and money defending himself.
“At the end of the day, if the Main Roads Commissioner is going to delegate the authority to contractors to erect speed limit signs then he should ensure they’re doing so in a lawful manner,” Mr Hutton’s lawyer Laura Timpano said.
Police are not happy with the outcome.
“I’m disappointed and feel the magistrate was a little impatient because the sick officer does have a medical certificate,” said Sgt Graham Clifford, of police media, in the police service’s defence
---------------------------------------------------------------------
RTA STANDS BEHIND SPEED CAMERA'S evidence despite ruling
24/8/2006
The NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) says it does not believe a ruling in the state's District Court will cancel the validity of images from speed cameras.
The court has disallowed a fine imposed on a motorist last year because the photographic evidence from a speed camera used to support the conviction was deemed to be inadmissible.
A lawyer for the motorist says millions of dollars in fines could now be judged to be invalid, but RTA spokesman Adam Berry says speed cameras go through a rigorous testing process and are reliable.
"We believe that this case doesn't set any binding precedent and that it only applies to the specific circumstances in this court matter," he said.
"The judge is yet to provide a written decision. Certainly when we're able to view that decision we'll examine it closely and consider an appeal if that is appropriate."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SPEEDING FINES MAY COME TO SUDDEN HALT
August 24, 2006
EVERY speed camera fine issued by the Roads and Traffic Authority since 1999 may be invalid, after a judge ruled the photos used to convict drivers were meaningless.
The decision in the Sydney District Court by Judge John Nicholson, SC, could cost the State Government hundreds of millions of dollars, said Dennis Miralis, the solicitor who won the case.
The authority had sought to convict his client, David Baldock, of Castlecrag, of driving at 93kmh in an 80kmh zone on the M5 at Bardwell Park in June last year, Mr Miralis said. But Judge Nicholson ruled that the photograph provided by the authority was not valid evidence.
He found that to be given weight as evidence the digital cameras that took the photos had to be calibrated every day. The authority calibrated its cameras once a year, Mr Miralis said.
He said every person convicted on such evidence since 1999 - when digital cameras came in - had been improperly convicted.
"The biggest problem the RTA face is how they're going to run these prosecutions in the future," Mr Miralis said.
He said he would ask the Attorney-General's department to hold an inquiry into how the authority's lawyers had conducted their court cases.
The authority said its cameras were accurate and denied the court's decision had set a precedent. Every camera was subject to "comprehensive" tests, a spokesman said. The authority would consider an appeal.
In March Mr Miralis won an appeal in the Supreme Court against the authority over a speed camera photo that did not have the proper "security indicators". The court overturned his client's $75 fine.
In February the authority lost another appeal when the Supreme Court said a speed camera fine had wrongly stipulated which lane the motorist was using.
There are 113 fixed speed cameras in NSW. Last year $57.3 million worth of speed camera fines were issued, up from $50.9 million in 2004 and $41.6 million in 2003
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NT - SPEED RADAR GUNS SHOT DOWN AGAIN
07sep06
THE police campaign against speeding was in doubt last night after prosecutors admitted there were problems with radar guns.
Police have been forced to drop two court cases this week.
One involved Darwin excavator Rick Woollard, who was allegedly clocked doing 159km/h in a 100km/h zone on the Stuart Highway near Pine Creek.
The Northern Territory News understands at least 25 motorists have successfully challenged speeding fines in the past year. Earlier this year, a magistrate found that NT police did not test speed van cameras for accuracy often enough.
Mr Woollard, 33, of Alawa, contested the speeding charge on several grounds including:
THE radar gun had the wrong tuning forks to prove accuracy;
THE officer who tuned the radar gun was not properly authorised; and
THE radar gun was not gazetted properly.
Darwin magistrate Daynor Trigg ordered police to pay Mr Woollard's legal costs of $375.
``I know I wasn't going that fast and I didn't want to lose my licence because I need it for work, so I decided to challenge it,'' Mr Woollard said.
``There's obviously a problem with the radar guns giving a false reading or not being properly maintained, otherwise the charge wouldn't have been withdrawn by police.''
Mr Woollard urged other motorists to make inquiries if they believed they had incorrectly been caught speeding.
His lawyer Ian Rowbottam said police were aware of the problems with the radar guns well before Mr Woollard's court challenge.
``They just haven't done anything about it,'' he said.
``I'm not aware of any cases yet where people who have challenged the accuracy of speed cameras or radar devices have lost.''
NT police media manager Hayley Dwyer said Mr Woollard's charge was withdrawn due to errors in prosecution materials.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| MOTORIST COURT WIN RAISES SPEED GUN DOUBTS 6th January 2007 A motorist has beaten a reckless driving charge after challenging the accuracy of the reading from a handheld laser speed gun. In Fremantle Magistrate’s Court yesterday, a police prosecutor accepted the laser gun had been used outside the manufacturer’s standards when Mark John Ould, of Samson, was clocked allegedly driving at more than 125kmh in an 80kmh zone. Sgt Neil Regan said it was not in the public interest to proceed with the case because of the potential for a mistake to have been made. Magistrate Peter Michelides dismissed the charge against Mr Ould and awarded him costs of $5000. Outside court, Mr Ould declined to speak to The West Australian but agreed he was happy with the outcome. His barrister, Jon Davies, who earlier congratulated Sgt Regan “on the correct use of the public interest”, could not comment due to the Bar Association’s media gag. It is understood Mr Davies made submissions to the police about the accuracy of the laser gun reading. The guns operate by sending a laser beam which bounces off a flat surface and back to the machine. But it is known that there can be “shake and slide” problems. The held-held gun can shake in the hands of the operator or the beam can slide along the surface of a moving vehicle — creating a false reading. Shadow police and justice minister Rob Johnston said yesterday the case worried him. “We all need to be assured that the hand-held speed guns which police use are accurate or there will be a lot more court challenges,” he said. “You don’t charge someone with reckless driving and, just because there is a challenge over the accuracy, drop the charge. “The public is entitled to be told the truth — not just a lot of spin.” WA Police director of public affairs Neil Stanbury confirmed that Mr Ould’s charge was withdrawn. “It seems as if the officer involved was checking the speed of traffic in one direction when he heard the noise of a vehicle from a different direction,” Mr Stanbury said. “He swung around to try to check its speed. The combination of movement and angles . . . meant that the reading was not reliable. “The officer used the machine outside the manufacturer’s specifications in this particular case but we have full confidence in the laser devices we use.” |
