Question regarding speed detection

jaytyn · 12-06-2005, 02:32 PM

Hi all

my girlfriend got pulled over by a detective on the long weekend in NSW and he told her she was doing somewhere between 125-145 in a 110 zone.

He was in an unmarked car and had no speed measuring device.

He gave her an infringement for doing 15-30kms over the limt - 6 demerit points. He said he was going write the speed as 125kms.

She wants to know if it is worth fighting in court, or writing in to try and get off the fine, or if she should just pay it.

I am not fimiliar with the NSW Road Regulations, so if anyone can provide some advice, that I can pass on to her, that would be appriciated.

Cheers
Jay.

EFPWR · 12-06-2005, 02:48 PM

Was she actually speeding?

Teki04 · 12-06-2005, 03:00 PM

He had no proof so i would fight it.... he was just going based on what he saw with his eyes i guess.... Ive had friends get done for going like 100kmh in a 50 zone, but couldnt get done cause it was just a normal cop car without a radar

jaytyn · 12-06-2005, 03:03 PM

She thinks she was doing 115, 120 at the absolute most.

It was a KN 1.6L Laser with 3 people on board and shit loads of luggage. The poor car is very sluggish, I'd imagine she would have some trouble trying to maintain that sort of speed....

jonbays · 12-06-2005, 03:33 PM

Writing is the first step and can't hurt but I expect this will result in you receiving a standard letter asking you to pay and accpet it or go to court and argue it there.

Then you need a lawyer.

If its policemans word against yours you can imagine how well you will go. But with a lawyer you have a chance without no chance.

If the policeman had a colleague with him in the car who can then independently verify he followed you for the prescribed distance at speeds ranging from X-Y You are gone. In NSW Police have been lying in court since 1788 so they are going to back each other up on a no account speeding matter for certain.

Truth is a KN laser can go that fast can't it. Its not like the huge fully loaded bendy Bus in mosman that kept getting caught speeding by the speed camera when the bus' tachometer told a very different story.

What do you think the police can prove? What can you prove? Who do you think a magistrate will believe? maybe your GF just got caught speeding and thats just bad luck for being caught doing the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time. It happens every day and what can you do about that.

Rodp · 12-06-2005, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teki04

He had no proof so i would fight it.... he was just going based on what he saw with his eyes i guess.... Ive had friends get done for going like 100kmh in a 50 zone, but couldnt get done cause it was just a normal cop car without a radar

I've conversed with a HWP a few times on a few occassions and also been privy a few times to recordings of HWP doing the rounds and the few recordings I had seen were HWP estimating speed before hitting them with the radar and amazingly they were always within 1 or 2kph.

If the officer was an experienced HWP then I think you're done. If it was a general duties, I'd probably fight it.

mik · 12-06-2005, 04:37 PM

police are 9 points of the law , hard to beat them , she admits to speeding but not sure how much, cant see a jp giving much sympathy , i got fined last year for an error in my log book not wearing a seat belt,( hard to see how that affects road safety) total 407 buks and 3 points , in my opinion, bite the bullet and pay the fine, dont like your chances in court

XA-Coupe · 12-06-2005, 04:50 PM

find out what TUPMED means and then figure out if you could be bothered fighting it.
If she was speeding, she is better off just taking it as it's not a dumbarse camera and obviously there was some form of discretion.

MITCHAY · 12-06-2005, 05:04 PM

Some cop pulled me over for speeding one time when i wasnt. I just questioned as to whether he had any evidence to prove i was and he just said i just know you were. He wasnt beside me or behind me to use judgement. He said im goin to send a fine for <=15km/h over.

I never got it and would of debated anyways cause there was no possible way even if i was speeding that he could of busted me for it plus no evidence to back it up cause if he did hes obligated to offer to show the radar reading. I wasnt worried cause i knew i was right.

I think it just was an excuse to pull me over and try defect me even when everything legal. If you got P plates on with mags and exhaust it must be illegal lol.

jaytyn · 12-06-2005, 05:15 PM

Thanks for the feedback.

I certainly have no problem with her recieving an infringement for speeding...
I just wasnt sure if estimation of speed is admissible by someone other than a HWP cop.

I guess its hard to proove in court.

I agree TUPMED could have been a resonably accurate indication of speed.

Thanks for the replies!

XA-Coupe · 12-06-2005, 05:28 PM

Jay, the law doesn't differentiate between HWP and General duties.. what goes for one goes for all.

**Mechan1k** · 12-06-2005, 05:45 PM

If you can get a decent lawyer that knows their .... you should get off the fine as the officer didn't have evidence to show her at the time of the offence of her actual speed.

XA-Coupe · 12-06-2005, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mechan1k

If you can get a decent lawyer that knows their .... you should get off the fine as the officer didn't have evidence to show her at the time of the offence of her actual speed.

There is no legal requirement to show the driver anything. It's a courtesy only and also only makes sense if the offence was detected by radar or laser. Should it be detected by other means ( and there are other means ) there is nothing to show.

Rodp · 12-06-2005, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mechan1k

If you can get a decent lawyer that knows their .... you should get off the fine as the officer didn't have evidence to show her at the time of the offence of her actual speed.

Mark I eyeball is all the evidence required. Doesn't have to show you a recording of the speed either.

**Captain Stubing** · 12-06-2005, 08:32 PM

Consider the fact that police vehicles have their speedometers checked and certified every few months, this is so they can use the speedo, when following other cars, to get the speed to show on the fine.

Kryton · 12-06-2005, 09:14 PM

its not really hard to tell when a car is doing 120kmh+ even if you are going the oposite direction.
she admits to speeding so just pay the price and learn from it.

**Falcon Coupe** · 12-06-2005, 09:31 PM

If you fight it, get a laywer, if you don't the judge will take the police officer's word over yours, that's what happened to me when i defended myself.

13-06-2005, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XA Coupe

Jay, the law doesn't differentiate between HWP and General duties.. what goes for one goes for all.

a good solicitor will rip that detective's evidence to shreds. I've been in court and seen what my solicitor can do, and he isn't a traffic law specialist. I had 2 police witnesses against me on a traffic charge, the first was a prosecutor and by the end of questioning he came off like a blithering idiot, unfortunately cop number 2 was a HWP and came off like a damn professor. If the detective can't articulate his evidence good enough, then his evidence can and probably will be beaten. He may be great in court over assault, murder, drugs, but traffic law is a different kettle of fish

deesun · 13-06-2005, 04:45 PM

Yes if you are going to fight you really need someone with traffic law experience, it may cost more than the actual fine and you may or may not get off but sometimes its the points that count even above the principal.

MrQuan · 13-06-2005, 04:58 PM

She admits to breaking the speed limit and was caught doing so. Pay the fine and stop b!tching.

XA-Coupe · 13-06-2005, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devil cv8

a good solicitor will rip that detective's evidence to shreds. I've been in court and seen what my solicitor can do, and he isn't a traffic law specialist. I had 2 police witnesses against me on a traffic charge, the first was a prosecutor and by the end of questioning he came off like a blithering idiot, unfortunately cop number 2 was a HWP and came off like a damn professor. If the detective can't articulate his evidence good enough, then his evidence can and probably will be beaten. He may be great in court over assault, murder, drugs, but traffic law is a different kettle of fish

That may well be true but as I said, the law doesn't differentiate between them.

13-06-2005, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XA Coupe

That may well be true but as I said, the law doesn't differentiate between them.

It may be different in Vic, but in NSW not all cops have had their mk1 speed detection devices calibrated.
In other words, a HWP cop knows everything he needs to know about traffic law in order to get a conviction, GD and detectives don't. If you can get the cop to make errors or conflicting statements in his testimony you will beat the charge.

RED_EL_XR8 · 13-06-2005, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devil cv8

It may be different in Vic, but in NSW not all cops have had their mk1 speed detection devices calibrated.
In other words, a HWP cop knows everything he needs to know about traffic law in order to get a conviction, GD and detectives don't. If you can get the cop to make errors or conflicting statements in his testimony you will beat the charge.

I always found it was easier to look out the windscreen and avoid getting pulled over in the 1st place. Most NSW coppers give you more than a sporting chance, the radar sites are signposted. It makes much more sense to avoid paying solicitors to figh it in the firsr place! You may get of some with a good brief but you wont get off all of them.

TURBOTAXI · 13-06-2005, 07:18 PM

Police officer: In my judgement the vehicle was travelling at X speed.
Good solicitor: So in this case you have no factual, actual or other evidence, you were relying solely on your judgement to determine the speed of the vehicle? You just think the vehicle was travelling at X speed?
Police officer: Yes
Good solicitor: Very well, so what does history tell us about a police officers and their judgement? - Do you think the judgement exercised by police is always correct, exact and without any examples of poor judgement?
Police officer : er... um..... well. I think she was speeding.
Good solicitor: Can you please answer the question?
Police officer: well there are examples of good and bad judgement.
Good solicitor: So you acknowledge that the judgement of police officers is not always accurate?
Police officer: In some case yes.
Good solicitor: Mmmmmmm. So is it reasonable to say without doubt that this person was travelling at X speed?
Police officer: well I know she was speeding!
Good soicitor: So does that mean you cannot confirm, without any doubt, that this person was travelling at X speed?
Police officer: well, er um. not definitively.

CASE CLOSED - DISMISSED.

XA-Coupe · 13-06-2005, 07:18 PM

You are not getting the point .... perhaps I need to type slower for you Holden types.

The law doesn't differentiate. A particular officer's performance in court is another thing.
Slow enough ??

XA-Coupe · 13-06-2005, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TURBOTAXI

Police officer: In my judgement the vehicle was travelling at X speed.
Good solicitor: So in this case you have no factual, actual or other evidence, you were relying solely on your judgement to determine the speed of the vehicle? You just think the vehicle was travelling at X speed?
Police officer: Yes
Good solicitor: Very well, so what does history tell us about a police officers and their judgement? - Do you think the judgement exercised by police is always correct, exact and without any examples of poor judgement?
Police officer : er... um..... well. I think she was speeding.
Good solicitor: Can you please answer the question?
Police officer: well there are examples of good and bad judgement.
Good solicitor: So you acknowledge that the judgement of police officers is not always accurate?
Police officer: In some case yes.
Good solicitor: Mmmmmmm. So is it reasonable to say without doubt that this person was travelling at X speed?
Police officer: well I know she was speeding!
Good soicitor: So does that mean you cannot confirm, without any doubt, that this person was travelling at X speed?
Police officer: well, er um. not definitively.

CASE CLOSED - DISMISSED.

lol, as if

:

RED_EL_XR8 · 13-06-2005, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XA Coupe

You are not getting the point .... perhaps I need to type slower for you Holden types.

The law doesn't differentiate. A particular officer's performance in court is another thing.
Slow enough ??

Maybe if you used a larger font as well they may get a grasp. :voldar02:

TURBOTAXI · 13-06-2005, 07:24 PM

Seemed reasonable to me?

MrQuan · 13-06-2005, 07:24 PM

Why has this thread gone on this long? Just pay the gaddam fine. She admits to speeding, she was caught.

If you break the law and you're caught, deal with it. It really ****es me off when people dispute if it was 5kmph over or 15 or whatever. Stop being such a wimp.

If you don't want fines, then don't get caught speeding.

Rodp · 13-06-2005, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TURBOTAXI

Seemed reasonable to me?

Law and Order viewer, eh? :P