UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 1^st, 2019 at 9:51am:


So
In other words,
The grubberment have decided, not just to punish you for some semi- legal cash grab fine
But if you have the gall to dare and question them, they fine you on top of the fine?

But you can't get compensation for your time and effort to fight the fine if you win.

And this is an honest system???????????

All the grubberment want is to churn out fines and get the pennies rolling in.

If they stuff up, as we all know they do regularly, they don't want anyone to question it, but to just pay up.

Speed cameras are about as accurate as a two Bob watch.
They measure your speed over 1 metre, that's right, 1 metre.
The signal is picked up by a piezoelectric sensor in the road and sent to a computer mounted in a box on the side of the road.

As your wheel goes over the second piezoelectric sensor, a second signal is sent to the computer

If the timeframe is too short, it tells the camera to take a picture.

Bingo, flash for cash.

Now the facts
Piezoelectric sensors are know to fail or malfunction regularly.
Putting them in an environment that can be anything from 0 deg to 60 plus degrees will cause them to malfunction even more often.

Then there is the computer
We all have computers don't We?
All of our computers function flawlessly every single day, don't they?
And putting a computer in a box on the side of the road that has temperatures of a similar range to the road 0 deg to over 60 deg c is really going to be beneficial to the computer function.

Trucks, cars and other vehicles also vibrate
Quite a bit in fact.
Out of balance tyres can affect the piezoelectric sensors
Vibration can and does destroy circuitry in the boxes that house traffic lights.

(I used to test these things and you should see how truck noise vibration destroys the circuitry)

But the speed camera computers, far more complex than traffic light computers, won't be affected like every other electrical device, because the known lying R&M tell us so????

Finally, you get the "fine" in the post weeks or months after the event.
It's virtually impossible to prove you were not speeding at a time weeks or months before.
And the grubberment have circumvented the law by making you guilty without actually proving you are.
You must prove your innocence, rather than them proving guilt.

Our grubberment are all crooks
The R&M are even bigger crooks, justifying their lies and corruption by claiming they save lives.
But there is ZERO , nada, nuffink to prove that putting up speed cameras and camera cars has actually saved even one life.

But, on the other hand, it can be easily proven that fixing the roads save many lives.

But the grubberment don't want to spend money fixing roads, they just want revenue.

A POX ON THEM ALL.

Valkie wrote on Jul 1^st, 2019 at 5:55pm:


I will tell you some of the details. It was a public holiday. The officer was under pressure to fine any motorist to justify his job. I came along about a second too late to go through an amber light. The traffic lights turned from amber to red when I was about halfway through the intersection. I exited the intersection a second later. The officer put his emergency lights on and intercepted me down the road. Officer explained to me that I could have stopped at the stop line. I told him otherwise. I figured that there was a rule -- later told to me by a duty lawyer -- that if you cannot stop safely for a yellow light, you may proceed through. It is now told to me that even if you cannot stop for the stop line safely, you should stop safely over the stop line and back up. Only excuses are emergency reasons, or if a car is following behind. $391 fine - 3 point demerit.

The court did not want to hear any of my claims that I tried to brake, even after I pointed it out to her in the dash cam footage of a red flash, and even the car coming in to view that I was braking until I withdrew braking procedure and rolled over the line and then kept going. I left the scene of the intersection well before the officer's vehicle had got the green light. I did not impede or do any dangerous on the road. If anything, had I tried to stop for the stop line, I would have gone off the road.

What really irks me is that the prosecuting lawyer acted like this was an open-and-shut case. The audible scoffs she gave when I was giving testimony. The all-high-and-mighty attitude about how I should have easily gone from 50kmh to 0 inside a distance of 10m from the stop line. The way she summed up by telling the magistrate how to do her job giving her directions. Oh, and she was acting on the police's behalf at no cost to the officer. I wish I could have had a representative speak on my behalf, given that I was not in any considerable fashion someone with lawyer experience.

I wish the Qld police would make up their minds on what is acceptable.

As far as I am concerned, the Australian government can refund me about $1500 worth of fines and court costs from the last 15 years and rescind the traffic history for about 3 or 4 cases on my driving record.

rhino wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2019 at 4:47pm:


The problem was, I tried to stop for the yellow light. And had I not slowed down for the yellow light, I would very likely have exited the intersection before the lights had turned red. All the court saw on police dash cam footage was of me driving about 40kmh through an intersection after having slowed from 55kmh (max). The situation I had was a 70m stretch of road that showed a green light facing me when I turned the corner and headed towards the intersection. The cars that had passed through the intersection before me had given me the impression that the lights there had only just turned green. So, I had the gamble of either driving up slowly and betting on an amber light to stop safely. Or speeding up and getting a green light that only just turns amber just before or after I reach the stop line.

But, the light turned amber a good distance before I reached the stop line. I had to go from accelerating to braking in what, after reviewing the footage at home, I can say was about 0.75 seconds after the light turned amber. Gave just over a second's worth of braking. Then rolled over the stop line at a perceptively slow speed on dash cam footage. At that point, I accelerated off the intersection halfway through to clear the intersection, which was about the time of the red light. Alternatively, had I kept accelerating to the speed limit before the stop line, I would have got to the stop line a second after the light turned amber, and I would likely have gone through the intersection easily before the light turned red. Had I kept braking, I would have stopped over the stop line. It all came down to whether I felt I was doing the right thing.

I had a near similar situation a month after that, where I slowed from 60kmh to 50kmh for that area. I got a yellow light, where the vehicle was in a similar relative position. I quickly braked and braked heavily. I went from 50kmh to 0kmh in a short time and managed to pull up to the stop line, with the front wheels over the stop line. The difference being that I was in a smaller car and had readied myself better and was not in the process of accelerating.

The Qld police have fined me for stopping over the stop line, 20 years ago. Now, they changed their minds and will fine people for not stopping for yellow light signals. I wish that had some consistency with their rulings. This was a blatant revenue raising exercise for the police officer.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2019 at 6:33am:


What do you have against revenue?   

Bobby. wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2019 at 8:01am:


Don't break the law then.

Do you understand what revenue is, Bobby?

rhino wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2019 at 8:39am:


Exactly what I thought.