speed cameras and demerits

[Guest]

I thought it was up to their judgement.

[Guest hate-evoz]

Yeah cops pretty much do what they want these days or try there best to.

[boon]

Excessive display of speed is what it falls under, I believe.

[subysnax]

again. just wondering in regards to the speed camera thing. obviously if a cop pulls you over and you are doing those speeds then you are toast. whether they would impound your car based on the camera photo. Definitely a summons to court over probably a careless driving charge or maybe they would go for you for dangerous and reckless driving

lets face it. im sure everyone on this site has decided to give the car some throttle and put it up into the high digits. Even if it is on a straight road for a moment of madness.

I understand the road is for the commuting and racing is for the racetrack. Im just talking that head rush when you see what your car can do and you start to thinking with the wrong brain

[Guest]

Waiting for the bang

[94 Leone]

speed cameras are a pain. Though they should have to be brightly coloured; I mean, it\'s a slowing down technique, not a revenue gaining technique; higher police presence or camera presence = people driving slower.

= safer roads;, isn\'t that what the government want? I suppose they also want to take the idiots off the road; but the real idiots; taking their licence off them isn\'t gonna take them off the road.

[Simon C]

If they don\'t have a picture of your face in the speed camera photo, would not the duty of proof fall upon the police to prove that it was you, rather than fall upon you to prove it wasn\'t you? Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of our legal system.

[94 Leone]

lol.

In theory.

[Guest]

 Simon C said:

If they don\'t have a picture of your face in the speed camera photo, would not the duty of proof fall upon the police to prove that it was you, rather than fall upon you to prove it wasn\'t you? Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of our legal system.

No its your car let em know who was driving or take the meds. Just coz you dont want to get a fine, or someone else who was driving doesnt want the fine that doesnt give you the right to get away with it. Sort of circumvents the action theyre taking.

[lachlan]

You can write in stating you have taken reasonable steps to identify driver but couldn\'t . Have to get it signed by jp and stuff .

Speed cameras = fail . If they worked then they would be redundant wouldn\'t they ?

[Marky]

 Simon C said:

If they don\'t have a picture of your face in the speed camera photo, would not the duty of proof fall upon the police to prove that it was you, rather than fall upon you to prove it wasn\'t you? Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of our legal system.

how can they possibly prove it? proof of guilt is the photograph of your car in the act i would have thought, pretty hard to argue

your car: your responsibility just like parking fines etc

if you werent driving, the onus is on you to say nah jim was HERE IS JIMS DETAILS and jim has to own up to it, otherwise everyone will just say... well nah it was jim, i dont know his last name, i just give random dudes the keys to my vehicle all the time

if he doesnt own up then he is a dick and you should take the lesson learned and not let him borrow the car

re: visibility of cameras, two sides to the argument - the best would be if they were invisible, not stationary, then people would learn not to speed anywhere or be at risk of ticket anytime/anywhere

if they are high vis, you will slow down for camera, speed up after, defeats the purpose

just wait till we get the ones on motorways which measure average speed over distance, thatll be game over too

[94 Leone]

People will get in the habit of power naps.

[Unseen1]

 lachlan said:

You can write in stating you have taken reasonable steps to identify driver but couldn\'t . Have to get it signed by jp and stuff .

Speed cameras = fail . If they worked then they would be redundant wouldn\'t they ?

Closest answer to correct in this thread. Under s118 of the Land Transport Act (LTA) the Police can require the registered owner to disclose who was driving at a time when an offence is alleged to have been committed. 51kph over the limit is a careless driving offence at least, probably reckless.

If you are served with a s118 notice you\'ll know the game, it speaks for itself- you need to take reasonable steps to find out who was driving, and the Police are likely to ask what steps you\'ve taken. They may still prosecute you at that point for failing to comply with the s118 notice, if they don\'t think you\'ve taken reasonable steps.

If you get the s118 notice and don\'t make any efforts, and just stay silent, Police will prosecute you for failing to give information. Maximum sentence on this is a 20k fine, and there is no mandatory disqualification. Under s80 of the LTA the Court CAN take your licence for this charge, but at their discretion.

Example of sentence: A client of mine\'s car is involved in a crash, it\'s stripped of tags and plates on the roadside, client goes and gets it towed next day, Towing co calls Police, they run the chassis number, find out who owns it, ask him who was driving (s118 notice), he stays silent, they prosecute for failing to give information, he ends up with a $350 fine plus Court costs ($132.89) and no disqualification. Plus legal fees . This was Monday of this week.

Side note: Be careful winning the battle and losing the war. Some Police hold grudges, and they can make your life miserable.

*sorry for the long post