Was it 149km/h or 76km/h? Biker's barrister father wins $60,000 battle to beat speed

[CarTooner:-)]

Originally Posted by prydey

the amount of people that have been wrongly accused of speeding would pale into insignificance against those who were guilty as charged...

Fair call; if that were untrue there'd definitely be more such stories on Today-tonight & more public dissatisfaction... but what cheeses me off is, inappropriate application of speed-limits and speed (revenue) entrapment.

e.g. Where is the logic in being able to do 100 kmph on the Princes Fwy in piddli' rain with 4 lanes fully-loaded but you can't do 108kmph on the same 4 lane freeway in dry ideal conditions, on a Sunday with no cars within cooee?
Imho 108, 110 or even 120 kmph in such locations/conditions is not unsafe... and this is all about road-safety i$n't it?

[b0son]

Originally Posted by prydey

the amount of people that have been wrongly accused of speeding would pale into insignificance against those who were guilty as charged.

collateral damage is ok in your book?

IMO, a system which assumes you're guilty until proven innocent needs to be faultless.

[2011G6E]

Exactly...absolutely faultless and repeatedly able to be proved so against any standard and against any test possible. Handheld and mobile radar is hardly so.

[CarTooner:-)]

Good point B0son but I doubt Prydey or anybody would really condone collateral damage (innocent people being penalised).
Prydey also said: "...but most people that are caught are guilty as charged!" which I think as a generalisation is probably true.
Realistically, scientifically and technically; is any system really perfect, infallible, faultless (especially when there is a human element)? The Police need technology to stop d-heads causing car-nage...
I think the tickets I've received have probably been spot-on but are the speed-limits and tolerances that have been adopted/enforced (speed limit +3kmph) fair in all situations?
It seems to me common sense doesn't always figure in the enforcement equation when it comes to location and conditions.
I also think if you're being booked for being more than 3kmph over a limit for 3seconds is opportuni$tic (by the revenue rai$er$).

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by b0son

Hardly. I'm saying the police do not have sufficient technical understanding to appreciate what circumstances may give rise to erroneous readings - thats why the operating guidelines exist. If they take shortcuts assuming the equipment is never wrong, mistakes will be made, and people will be booked for an offence that was never committed.

Considering that you are guilty until proven innocent where these offences are concerned, it is entirely reasonable for the police to be expected to dot the i's and cross the t's in terms of the way they operate the equipment.

The idea that people are getting off on a technicality is wrong.

Ive seen this line of guilty until proven innocent dragged out so many times. ITS NOT TRUE. Im not yelling there, just highlighting it.

You are at no point guilty until proven innocent in a traffic offence any more than you are guilty until proven innocent in a murder case. I will try and prove to you that you are still presumed innocent until proven guilty when issued with a fine. The only difference in a traffic offence is you dont have to go to court. Thats it, you get an option. You can opt to pay the fine and leave it at that instead of being forced to attend court for a speeding ticket. Police evidence (in this case a radar device) suggests a charge is warranted, in a traffic offence a ticket is issued instead of a summons. The issuing of a ticket is the equivalent of being charged for an offence which is the manner in which your right to the presumption of innocence is protected in criminal matters for example, charged, accused, not presumed guilty. You are simply the accused at that time in both cases. And you remain the accused until you either fight it in court, or opt to pay the fine. Paying the fine is the same as you going to court and pleading guilty. ie: You were until you payed the fine, presumed innocent until you plead guilty.

If the argument is proving it is the problem, then what about DNA in a matter that carries 10 or more years in jail? It can also be flawed, but is also used to get rapists, murderers and pedophiles. Try proving the DNA is wrong and see how much $$$$$$$$$$ that will cost you. My point is, the use of technology is not an abrogation of your presumption of innocence. There is no perfection in the criminal system, why would anyone expect perfection in traffic matters? (note: this does not mean who cares, it means we cant have perfection).

I know this, Ive driven past hundreds possibly thousands of cameras and police with radars, and Ive never been fined when I wasnt speeding. But I have gone past them a handful of km/h over the limit, and not been fined at all. I know a couple of people who reckon they were wrongly fined, ranting about how wrong it was, and I rarely see them drive within the limits. Its my guess, and I admit its a guess but it is based on knowing them and having been in the car with many times, they were speeding and just looking to blame someone else.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

That's a gross over reaction. You really have a strong and unreasoning desire to sneer at anyone who suggests that the authorities are not flawless. If you want to turn this into how angelic and righteous you think police officers are then you need to consider that before anything they're human and they do make errors of judgement and mistakes, and no one here has suggested they do this intentionally. The guy was not implying this at all so it's not really fair that you twist it around.

If you read my post from a few posts ago, it states they are human and make mistakes. Welcome to humanity.

Absent evidence of widespread misuse, there is no reason to accuse the police of being poorly trained, or taking their job lightly. All we have is one bloke who got off on a technicality, and a bunch of people who either admit they speed and the law is dumb, or another bunch who want to blame someone else that they got caught. There is no evidence that there is widespread misuse of the devices.

Its ironic, this thread is about the flaws of radar, and allegedly false accusations against innocent until proven guilty motorists, yet people are quick to jump to the conclusion despite a clear lack of evidence that our roads are being policed by the Keystone Cops.

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I wouldn't be suprised if some officer short of his quota didn't smudge figures to get the results he or she needs.

I'm not saying it happens, but its not beyond the realms of possibility.

Im not saying it doesnt happen. Cops have been busted for far worse, a significantly high up Qld copper went to jail. He wasnt the first, and wont be the last. That doesnt mean we should let every crim out, or stop enforcing a set of rules that the majority of the public seem to be behind.

But there is no evidence police are going out of their way to do that. The odd error is not the same thing. Sure it shouldnt happen, and sure its something they need to address if there is a problem. This case is not a smoking gun.

[2011G6E]

But that's the point...the system is so weighted towards the presumption of guilt, that we are told the cameras and other devices are so infallible, that it is basically so damn expensive and time consuming to even bother fighting it, that most people, even if unsure of the offence (quick...how fast were you driving two weeks ago on tuesday afternoon at 2:56pm? Answer exactly to wthin 3%!) simply shrug, say "well...maybe I drifted over the limit by a little and I was speeding...the camera says so", and pay up.

This is what "they" rely on...the doubt, the fact that the normal person couldn't tell you exactly how fast they'd been driving ten minutes ago, let alone a week or two back at a certain time of day.

There are simply too many cases of people who have been diligently watching thier speedo and yet still get booked...it creates uncertainty and doubt with the system. All it takes is one or two wealthy people to successfully fight it in court, and everyone else starts to doubt thier own fines...but there's bugger all they can do about it because most of us don't have the resources to fight it.

[In Focus]

All this means is the police will (rightly) tighten up their procedures, and there will be fewer opportunities to get out of a fine you know you earned.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Ive seen this line of guilty until proven innocent dragged out so many times. ITS NOT TRUE. Im not yelling there, just highlighting it.

You are at no point guilty until proven innocent in a traffic offence any more than you are guilty until proven innocent in a murder case. I will try and prove to you that you are still presumed innocent until proven guilty when issued with a fine. The only difference in a traffic offence is you dont have to go to court. Thats it, you get an option. You can opt to pay the fine and leave it at that instead of being forced to attend court for a speeding ticket. Police evidence (in this case a radar device) suggests a charge is warranted, in a traffic offence a ticket is issued instead of a summons. The issuing of a ticket is the equivalent of being charged for an offence which is the manner in which your right to the presumption of innocence is protected in criminal matters for example, charged, accused, not presumed guilty. You are simply the accused at that time in both cases. And you remain the accused until you either fight it in court, or opt to pay the fine. Paying the fine is the same as you going to court and pleading guilty. ie: You were until you payed the fine, presumed innocent until you plead guilty.

If the argument is proving it is the problem, then what about DNA in a matter that carries 10 or more years in jail? It can also be flawed, but is also used to get rapists, murderers and pedophiles. Try proving the DNA is wrong and see how much $$$$$$$$$$ that will cost you. My point is, the use of technology is not an abrogation of your presumption of innocence. There is no perfection in the criminal system, why would anyone expect perfection in traffic matters? (note: this does not mean who cares, it means we cant have perfection).

I know this, Ive driven past hundreds possibly thousands of cameras and police with radars, and Ive never been fined when I wasnt speeding. But I have gone past them a handful of km/h over the limit, and not been fined at all. I know a couple of people who reckon they were wrongly fined, ranting about how wrong it was, and I rarely see them drive within the limits. Its my guess, and I admit its a guess but it is based on knowing them and having been in the car with many times, they were speeding and just looking to blame someone else.

Best post of this thread

I have been driving for 25 years on Australian roads, and probably spend 15 years as a professional driver, driving all over the state covering 100's of Km's a day, and I must say I have NEVER been booked when I was not speeding, I have copped a few fines, I was even close to losing my licence years ago.

And I know the last two fines I got the radar reading as spot on to the last Km...114 in a 100 for my last one about 5 years ago.

You will find people complaining about not being speeding when they get booked are either looking for excuses, or are un aware of what they are doing....

[b0son]

Originally Posted by fmc351

You are at no point guilty until proven innocent in a traffic offence

Speed detection equipment is classified as a scientific instrument. The reading taken with this equipment is assumed to be accurate. The onus then passes to the defendant to prove otherwise.

Have your day in court but make no argument, and you are automatically convicted - the police are not required to prove their case.

If the argument is proving it is the problem, then what about DNA in a matter that carries 10 or more years in jail? It can also be flawed

True, and thats why its not the sole piece of evidence one would rely on in a criminal matter.

Try proving the DNA is wrong

As long as you can provide a plausible explanation as to why your DNA was there, you have reasonable doubt. eg. DNA alone doesnt prove non-consensual sex.

[geckoGT]

Same old arguments, different day.

We are done here.