TruCam speed fines under a cloud after court ruling favours motorists

[csv8]

TruCam speed fines under a cloud after court ruling favours motorists

Robyn Ironside
The Courier-Mail
September 24, 2013 12:00AM




Thousands of speeding fines in doubt

TENS of thousands of speeding fines issued by the latest police enforcement device have been placed under a cloud by two court rulings calling into question their legality.

TruCams allow police officers to take video of vehicles at the same time as clocking their speed in areas not suitable for mobile speed camera vans to operate.



Since being rolled out statewide in mid-2012, the devices have caught an average of 13.83 vehicles an hour - more than three times that of mobile speed vans (4.03), and almost twice as many as covert speed cameras (7.89).

Sunshine Coast-based speed camera consultant Scott Cooper said the images issued by police from the TruCams did not comply with their own legislation because they were not imprinted with any data.

Twice now he has tested this in court, and on both occasions the magistrate found in favour of the motorist.

The Queensland Police Service has now requested an appeal of the decision in the Brisbane District Court.

In the first case, Bob Ebert was snapped allegedly doing 71km/h in a 60km/h zone on Mt Mee Rd at Ocean View last December. Mr Ebert said when the infringement notice arrived, it looked different to previous fines he and his wife had received, and he decided to seek legal advice.

"When you receive the photo there is no block in the corner with information like the date and time, the site number and the speed," he said.

"The only information is the red and white circle over the registration number. There's also a close up of your rego plate but that could be taken anywhere."

He appeared in Pine Rivers Magistrates Court on August 20 and was found not guilty of the speeding offence, which carried a $145 fine.

Another motorist who challenged his TruCam fine but did not want to be identified was also cleared of doing 124km/h in a 100km/h zone on the Gateway Motorway after the magistrate found the details of the offence were added to the photograph at a later time.

"For the Prosecution to rely on the contents of the data block to prove the speed of the vehicle then the data block must be made by the photographic detection device," said the ruling by Magistrate Sheryl Cornack.

"Clearly the photographic detection device did not make any writing on that image as it is not shown in the notice. Clearly the writing has been added at a later time."

Mr Cooper said he was being inundated with queries from motorists about the TruCam fines which he believed were unenforceable.

"Not only did we win these cases, we annihilated them," Mr Cooper said.

"Here is a magistrate pointing out all the deficiencies - enhanced photographs and a photographic device that cannot and does not imprint the correct information."
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/q...-1226725501137

[Trump]

The problem is, TruCams aren't used Australia wide. If they were, the ruling would set a precedent that should result in the scrapping of RoboCops everywhere.

[noflac52]

Its a start against this draconian type of revenue raising.

[2011G6E]

Given how easy digital manipulation of images of all sorts is these days, it should cast a pall of doubt over all photos from all types of camera. As with our recent one, how do I know that box with the information wasn't added later or fiddled with after the fact? Our number plate even looks weird in the photo we received...the blown up image just looks "odd"...is that "MFA", or something else? Why the apparent "gap" between the second and third letter? Conspiracy theorists can have a field day...


Of course we know they're infallible, so there was no point in my taking time off work and spending money to appeal it. But you see my point.

Once you cast doubt on one part of a system, it creates doubt for the rest of that system.

[FAT245]

Just get one of these!

http://plate-flipper.com/

[2011G6E]

Geez...$350???

When a couple of door hinges from Bunnings and a cheap aftermarket universal choke cable kit is so much cheaper...

I saw a device similar to one of them in a motorcycle magazine..."Enables you to easily clean that one hard to get at spot on your pride and joy: behind the number plate!"...

[prydey]

oh dear, another speed camera thread.

people getting off on a technicality suddenly think they weren't breaking the law!

and before anyone jumps in arguing about being pinged for 1km/h over etc, these 2 cases weren't. one was 71 in a 60, and one was 124 in a 100. fact is, the car speedo probably read between 1-5km/h higher than those figures as well, so the driver can hardly claim he just 'crept' over.

also note, at no point did i mention safety. so leave that chestnut alone as well.

i am not saying they aren't revenue raising, but if you want to exceed the posted limit by up to 20km/h, and you get caught, just cop it on the chin and move on.

flame away peoples.

[MAD]

We're supposed to adjust to our inaccurate speedos.
If you know you're doing 100 when it says 105, doing 110 on the dial doesn't mean you're doing 110 all of a sudden.

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Given how easy digital manipulation of images of all sorts is these days, it should cast a pall of doubt over all photos from all types of camera. As with our recent one, how do I know that box with the information wasn't added later or fiddled with after the fact? Our number plate even looks weird in the photo we received...the blown up image just looks "odd"...is that "MFA", or something else? Why the apparent "gap" between the second and third letter? Conspiracy theorists can have a field day...
image

Of course we know they're infallible, so there was no point in my taking time off work and spending money to appeal it. But you see my point.

Once you cast doubt on one part of a system, it creates doubt for the rest of that system.

That F looks like a B that's had the right hand side erased lol.

I can't remember where I read it, but I'm sure it was a Queensland official that said the photos you receive in the mail are nowhere near the quality of the original pic, and that's why they can send out tickets for what appear to be barely legible number plates.

Sounded like bs then, sounds like bs now.

[jpd80]

No but the way speedos are designed to comply with the ARDs means that they must either
read dead on or slightly fast - but never slower like many think with the old plus or minus chestnut..
That hasn't been the case for many years..

[MAD]

Originally Posted by jpd80

No but the way speedos are designed to comply with the ARDs means that they must either
read dead on or slightly fast - but never slower like many think with the old plus or minus chestnut..
That hasn't been the case for many years..

Plenty of cars still on the road that only need to comply with those old ADRs.

[csv8]

Prydey it's not just another speed camera thread.it's about the police following the law not altering photos etc to achieve a desired outcome. I am not against speed cameras, just how they are used to raise revenue.IF they are used as originally intended no problem but they aren't. Magistrate agreed the photos weren't legal!!

[prydey]

Originally Posted by csv8

Prydey it's not just another speed camera thread.it's about the police following the law not altering photos etc to achieve a desired outcome. I am not against speed cameras, just how they are used to raise revenue.IF they are used as originally intended no problem but they aren't. Magistrate agreed the photos weren't legal!!

my money says no photo's were altered. its like when people get out of parking fines because the officer put the wrong date or street or something. it doesn't somehow mean the person was suddenly not doing something illegal.

its a technicality. that is all.

everyone knows there is a massive amount of revenue from camera's. if people want to still run the risk, just pay the fine instead of making out they are suddenly innocent due to a clerical error.

[nstg8a]

I don't think anyone was claiming they were innocent, and while the noble thing to do would be to just take it on the chin, I personally think any chance of getting one over the state revenue collectors should be applauded.

Especially when it shows the potential is there for easy misuse of the system by the very ones supposed to be upholding the law.

[csv8]

Mr Dempsey indicated the Government would look to change the law to allow TruCam speed fines to be enforced.

"If there are ways that we can improve, we will do that," he said.

"We're certainly not fearful of what will come forth."

The Queensland Police Service has 44 TruCam devices, of which 35 are in use at any one time.

They have a detection rate of more than three times that of mobile speed camera vans, and almost twice that of covert cameras.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/q...-1226726491423

My comment : So, Mr Dempsey will change the law so illegal speed cameras are made legal!!!

[fte50]

Originally Posted by prydey

my money says no photo's were altered.

its a technicality. that is all.

Correct, most likely un-altered but clearly did not comply with required conditions, so therefore its somewhat hypocritical trying to defend the law with a tool that itself doesn't comply/conform.

Funnily, the police use technicalities all the time knowing speedo error accounts for speeding (in many cases, not all) - their tolerances also defy the standards and tolerances of ADR.
So yes, nothing more than a quick buck with no regard for peoples safety.

[prydey]

its in the same vein as a criminal getting off because the evidence against them was illegally obtained. it doesn't make the perp any less criminal.

everyone loves to 'stick it to the man', until such times as they are the victim.

[Matty4]

Originally Posted by prydey

people getting off on a technicality suddenly think they weren't breaking the law!
.

This has nothing to do with thinking that you're not breaking the law. It has everything to do with the govt, law-makers and law-enforcers being made to comply with those same laws that they make/enforce.

This is why we hear of court cases where defendants have got off on a technicality due to the police not following the laws in regard to all manner of things, like evidence gathering and handling, timeframes for interviews, incorrect notations and signatures on evidence briefs etc etc.
These are all just technicalities but in the eyes of the judiciary due process has not been followed so therefore they are usually found not guilty.

This is no different ( but some seem to think it is when it comes to traffic matters).

[Matty4]

Originally Posted by prydey

its in the same vein as a criminal getting off because the evidence against them was illegally obtained. it doesn't make the perp any less criminal.

And it doesn't make the police any better than the "criminal" then either, does it?

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by prydey

its in the same vein as a criminal getting off because the evidence against them was illegally obtained. it doesn't make the perp any less criminal.

everyone loves to 'stick it to the man', until such times as they are the victim.

Yeah..........we shouldn't insist that information used to fine or charge us is beyond refute. Just issue the police with sticky notes that they can jot a rego down on as we drive past, we will just trust that all was correct and pay up.

Seriously, if I do get a fine in the mail two weeks after driving up a length of road, since there is no way I can remember exactly if I may have been a few k's over, I really want something that doesnt look like a kids science project as the evidence against me.

They say our GPS records cannot be used as a defence, and yet they are effectively taking a photo and then writing on the photo in texta to say what happened.

We are not asking for much.

[kiwiinaus]

a motorcyclist in Qld got pinged by hand held radar on a country road. he was sure he was not doing the speed shown to him on the radar. he talked to legal friend who said to challenge it and told him what questions to ask. the day court arrived and the motorcyclist started his questions when the cop started to get a bit cranky with him. so he asked what the previous speed fine was in his pad. you guessed it. exactly the same speed. as were several before and after. case thrown out and a cop with some explaining to do. the old radar guns did not give time of speed on them.

[XR Martin]

EDIT. No matter