point-point speed traps.

Where else but from the Bracks possie.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/02/26/1109180168095.html

will this coincide with front plates by the end of the year?

vifer

 

Reminds me of a news segment on Sydney TV recently debunking the myth of the
Australian "larrikin" - this idea that Australians are free-spirited
individuals with a general contempt for authority. We are the most
compliant nation in the western world. Nowhere else in the world are hidden
speed cameras tolerated the way we accept them in Victoria and SA. We
meekly accepted compulsory helmets (motorcycles and push bikes), seatbelts,
toll roads, and now in NSW they are passing laws forbidding you to take
photographs on beaches. What's next? Front number plates, speed limiters
on bikes, capacity restrictions....

Our national history of civil disobedience starts are the Eureka Stockade
and ends with the Vietnam moratoriums. There's SFA in between or since.

I'm not an advocate for speeding but I also cynical enough to know speed
cameras are not targeted at traffic accident reduction.

End of rant....

Rob

 

Yeah, its getting almost to the point where I think about moving
interstate....
When travelling on the Eastern Freeway outbound I see the electronic sign
proclaiming, "Dont fool yourself....speed kills" and this is where I am
sitting on 110-12klms....and I am getting passed by others doing
considerably more...this occurs every week of the day and still there are
hardly any accidents....Of course speed can kill but it is somtimes a
contributing factor and not the only one when an accident occurs...petty the
dick heads in spring street dont acknowledge that...

col

 

When (if) they do get these point to point cameras up and running it will
raise an interesting question. How will they deal with identification of the
person committing the infringement. At the moment all speeding offences are
static, but dynamic speed detection raises a whole new series of problems for
driver identification. If there are is than one driver how will they
determine if it was one, the other, or both who committed the offence. I
wonder how magistrates will deal with these situation. I have had a quick
look at the amendment act for point to point camera speed detection and there
is no suggestion at all of how to deal with such matters, or whether they had
even been considered.



Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

It's 'when', see today's The Age.

Yeah, I wondered this too. If we go Mel to Wangaratta, change drivers,
and the other guy hoons off to Albury, who gets done? How do they
prove which driver did the speeding?

I'm a bit surprised no-one seems to have raised the issue of civil
liberties. With a normal speed camera, you only get photographed if
you break the limit. Now, they are going to photo everyone. I'm
*really* uncomfortable with the idea of the Govt monitoring my
movements around the State.

 

Chances are they'll just short-circuit it and pin it on the registered
owner, on whom the onus will then be to prove they weren't behind the
wheel when the transgression was committed... if the vehicle's
registered to you, you're responsible for its use, and everything else
is tough shit...

 

Yes that is exactly what they will do, but my point is that all other traffic
fines which are detected by camera and issued by post are static offences,
there can only be one person committing the offence. With average speed there
could be two or more people who may have driven the car while the offence was
being committed, but there is no certain way to determine how many of those
people may have committed the actual offence. eg if Mrs Blog loans her car to
her sons Joe and Fred, and they both share the driving on a trip from
Melbourne to Sydney, and they change drivers every half hour, when she gets
the fine in the mail, who does she nominate as the 'driver' who committed the
offence? Both of her sons can stand up in court and 'say I didn't speed, it
was my brother' and AFAIK if the prosecution can't identify the person who
committed the offence they can't win a conviction.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

Well, rather than one camera at Wodonga and one at Craigieburn, chances
are the system will use cameras positioned every 30 or so km along the
highway, and bookings will result from you covering the distance
between_any_pair of cameras at less than the minimum permissible time.

But, it won't be the government. It'll be a private company contracted
to implement and operate the system, exactly as happens to be the case
with cameras in shopping centres, train stations, airports...

....we've collectively decided to allow the thin end of this particular
wedge in long ago.

 

When DUI laws were first introduced in NSW, they had a run of
punters who claimed to have taken an additional drink "to calm
their nerves" after their initial breath test.

(In NSW, the roadside breath test is an initial screen. If you
blow over, you're apparently carted off to the cop shop for
another test with a more betterly calibrated machine.)

The NSW gubmint came out with a new law that defined that
additional drink to be an active and deliberate attempt to
beat the system, and made it an additional offence, blah-di-blah.

Cynical as I am, I can see that the situation you suggest
would be quickly countered with a law that says changing drivers
is a deliberate attempt to buck the system, and hit both of
them with the whammy, or something equally safety-minded. Will
be a bit more interesting than the DUI case, since it's pretty
hard to argue that changing drivers periodically on lengthy
journeys isn't a good, sensible, and safe thing to do.

G

 

Remember Horace Rumpole? He called that "the cutthroat defence". Both
lags stand up and say "It weren't me guv-nor, it were the other bloke.".
Rumpole particularly disliked the cutthroat defence 'cos it really
only served to particularly irritate the 'old darling' on the bench,
and both defendants came off worse as a result.

G

 

It's really a bit bloody late to be getting uncomfortable about
that now. GovCo already has a pretty good idea about who you are
and where you're going. You have a mobile telephone right? You
probably have one of those RFID tag thingamies for paying
bridge/freeway tolls too, right?

G, who pays his tolls over the counter every time. If the bastards
want to know who I am and where I've been, they'll have to go
to the minor additional effort of photographing my number plates
and OCRing them.

 

The great thing about script writing for television is that at the end of the
episode there is no appeal court or other implications for the writers to
consider.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

.. eg if Mrs Blog loans her car to

On the same nerve with company vehicles. Who gets done? the liability falls
on the company operating / owning / being the registered owner of the
vehicle. The Directors.

Goverment says.."F!@# you .. Pay me! "

Unless you've reported your vehicle stolen ( pre or post fact with
affidavids ) then you're done.

vifer

 

"It was Nev driving my car at the time officer"

Al

 

Works better if you nominate someone who lives overseas, South America for
instance.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

If you only watched Sir John Mortimer QC's work on telly, then
you probably missed 9/10ths of the subtleties. The Rumpole character
was far more entertaining in print. Reasonably legally valid too,
certainly more so than 'Laura Norder' and 'NCIS' - and hardly
surprising, Sir Mortimer is a 'Queer Customer' after all, so he
presumably knows a thing or two about the law (and about hobbing
with the right knobs amongst the British upper class!).

My mention of the cut throat defence was for your entertainment,
not for your legal enlightenment.


Geez your a grumpy old stick in the mud Nev!

G

 

Hello, Nev..!
You wrote on Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:31:50 +1100:

N> I know all that, but it is only relevant for static offences. I am
N> talking about situations where there are more than one driver and the
N> offence is committed over an extended period.

Won't matter in the slightest. They will just make the registered owner responsible for identifying the driver at fault. If no driver can be identified, the registered owner will wear it. This is pretty much how it is now. Trying to circumvent paying a revenue raising fine is harder than shitting a watermelon. The WILL get the money out of you somehow. lol

 

Hello, Nev..!
You wrote on Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:59:21 +1100:

N> Farque Khantz wrote:
??>>
??>> Hello, Nev..!
??>> You wrote on Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:31:50 +1100:
??>>
N>>> I know all that, but it is only relevant for static offences. I am
N>>> talking about situations where there are more than one driver and the
N>>> offence is committed over an extended period.
??>>
??>> Won't matter in the slightest. They will just make the registered
??>> owner responsible for identifying the driver at fault. If no driver
??>> can be identified, the registered owner will wear it. This is pretty
??>> much how it is now. Trying to circumvent paying a revenue raising
??>> fine is harder than shitting a watermelon. The WILL get the money out
??>> of you somehow. lol

N> Why do people keep replying to my posts talking about one driver? I'm
N> not talking about one driver, I'm talking about the possibility of two
N> or more drivers driving the car during the execution of the offence and
N> the actual driver or drivers who committed the offence being identified,
N> but not being clearly identifiable.

Ahh I see, you are asking how they will split the fine if more than one is possibly at fault. Simple, all those driving between point A and B (where the offence occured) get fined equally. Remember, it's not about justice, it's about revenue raising - you ARE guilty regardless of whether it can be proved or not. I guess it's 'guilty by association'

 

happened where i work 12 months or so ago

the driver denied he was driving at the time again and again

the guvnmint increased the fine and the company had to pay the fine

this also meant that no one copped the points

 

Hello, Johnnie5!
You wrote on Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:03:42 +1100:


??>> Won't matter in the slightest. They will just make the registered
??>> owner responsible for identifying the driver at fault. If no driver
??>> can be identified, the registered owner will wear it. This is pretty
??>> much how it is now. Trying to circumvent paying a revenue raising
??>> fine is harder than shitting a watermelon. The WILL get the money out
??>> of you somehow. lol

J> happened where i work 12 months or so ago

J> the driver denied he was driving at the time again and again

J> the guvnmint increased the fine and the company had to pay the fine

J> this also meant that no one copped the points


I hope the company docked his pay lol