Number Plates - Hiding and Disguising to avoid the Speed Camera "Cash Cow."
Today Tonight Channel 7
Motorists resorting to hiding, covering disguising and tampering with vehicle number plates in an effort to avoid speed camera revenue raising around Australia.
New South Wales RTA loose a speeding case and will not let the matter rest. Legal cost could ruin the defendant.
RTA can't prove lack of photo tampering and withdraw case
Today Tonight Channel 7
Victorian speed camera operators ignore some simple rules for speed camera setups that would reduce inaccurate speed readings. Learn what you should do to fight back against wrongful fines.
Watch the Video
WATCH AUSTRALIAN TV VIDEO REPORT
28.8K MODEM: REAL Player | WIN | Audio Only MP3
These TV news and current affairs articles are from 2004 through 2007. Most are as relevant this year as they were a few years ago and make interesting viewing. The wmv format is a Windows media file format and require Windows Media Player installation.
A radar expert claims 60% of radar reading should be challenged. That weather conditions such as rain and wind or a police officer mobile phone can cause wrong readings
Cop speaks out about speed cameras
Reporter: Andrew Bourke
Broadcast Date: May 03, 2007
Over the years, police have defended speed cameras insisting they are used to prevent deaths on the road but one cop is speaking out against them.
If you have ever had the suspicion speed cameras were just cash cows for the government, then Amy Pridham may well be the whistleblower you have been waiting for.
"Nothing is done by the book or how it should be done," she claimed.
She is a former police officer and is dirty on the force for using speed cameras to fill government coffers.
"It would generally be a sergeant and they would say 'Amy you've only got six traffic infringement notices in the last 4 months, you need to get more'," she alleged.
Amy alleges she was encouraged to add to the $20,000 speed cameras make a day, which is more than $7 million a year.
She claims speed cameras were set up at sure thing infringement hot spots, not necessarily dangerous black spots.
"It's a pretty simple piece of machinery to use but when it all boils down to it to be able to prove something in court is completely different to being able to press a button and know something works," she said.
Amy's former boss, Head of Traffic Superintendent Tony Rankin defends the current system.
"There are processes in place, people are trained to use speed detection devices and the expectation they will use them in accordance with that training," he said.
"If Amy has information and wants to talk to me about it or anybody else about it, so that it can be fully investigated, were willing to do that."
Amy has since moved on with her life, insisting she is not bitter about her time in the force.
"I don't know where the funding is going from all these infringements," she said.
"It's definitely not going where it should be going to train the police officers to do the things that need to be done."
Ever been caught speeding but been doubtful about the accuracy of the radar? Well, those suspicions may not have been unfounded.
Today ACA meets one man who has found the key to unlocking the secrets behind radars and is keen to share his knowledge about the many factors which can affect their accuracy.
Motorist Bruce Josephs isn’t the first person to express concern over the accuracy of radars. But he could be the first person to uncover a document which confirms his doubts. After hundreds of hours on the Internet and writing letters to the Infringement Processing Bureau, police minister and ombudsman, he finally found what he was searching for — a copy of the police service’s radar operation manual.
According to Bruce, who found the information through the Freedom of Information Act, the document outlines some compelling evidence that trees, wind, billboards, even birds can cause an inaccurate reading. The document also states that even heavy rain could affect the correct patrol speed.
Even worse, says Bruce, when a police car is actually moving, it is less accurate.
"So if you have ever been done by an approaching police car, you may have cause to complain," says Bruce. "The manual points out dual-carriageways can be a problem, because the angle you’re getting zapped at might be more than eight degrees, which can alter your radar reading."
This research began when Bruce was clocked going 80 kilometres an hour, when he reckons he was only going 60. Through his investigation, Bruce has drawn the conclusion that unless you have a straight flat road in good weather with no other cars on it, radar is not going to give an accurate reading.
"I was following a semi-trailer, I was going around bends and there was no straight stretch of road at all," he says.
In light of Bruce’s discovery, ACA asked the NSW Police Service to comment, but they refused. Likewise, Police Minister John Watkins also declined an interview.
Fellow radar crusader Harry Brelsford is also familiar with fighting a fine. He’s even written a book about his own battle and has a website for people who want step-by-step advice on how to challenge the system. He urges motorists to fight fines because they have every right to, but contends that even if you take your matter to court, the system is unfair.
“To take this to court will cost me $10,000 minimum,” Brelsford says. “People have to mortgage their houses to do this sort of thing, just to pay a fine they shouldn’t have got in the first place.”
Bruce, who many people may think should simply pay the fine, says it’s not about the money.
"If it was $200, I’d pay it," he says. "It is not just $200. Firstly, it is half my licence, which I should not have to lose, and secondly, if I do it, it means everybody else that comes after me is also subject to this insanity."
Bruce says that, for too long, it’s been assumed radars are infallible. But he hopes the release of this document into the public arena will force a change in the system.
"They should start to change the legislation so that radar is only used where there is 100 percent accuracy," he says. "We don’t want circumstances where innocent drivers are pulled over."
A Current Affair Speed Cameras: Doubling the Money
Reporter: Ben Fordham
11 May 2004
Speed cameras are installed to slow us down on the roads, but they’ve also become quite a money-spinner for governments.
Once you’re caught, getting a speeding fine overturned can become a David and Goliath battle. Today on ACA, one man who dared take on the system speaks up
A few years ago, ACA revealed how one speed camera at Sydney’s Spit Bridge was the biggest money-maker in Australia.
Every day, it was raking in $20,000 worth of fines, filling government coffers with more than $7 million a year.
In fact, the speed camera was so effective, authorities installed another one just 300 metres up the hill, fining speeding motorists twice on the same stretch. But then along came solicitor Stephen Rosanove, who was prepared to take on the system.
“If someone within the system doesn’t do something about it, it doesn’t get done and clearly, for a long time, this has been going on for people who don’t know what to do about the system,” he says.
The two speed cameras cost Stephen four licence points instead of two and two fines totalling $500. Against the advice of many friends in the legal community who told him to simply pay up, Stephen armed himself with a barrister and a sound argument and went to court.
“Two guys are having a fight walking up the street and they go through a few blocks and three cameras catch it, is that three separate offences that the guy will go to court for and go to jail for?” Stephen asks. “No, it’s the same offence.”
A speeding fine is usually dealt with in a matter of seconds. But when this case was heard, judgement was reserved and the parties called back to court four days later. Magistrate Michael Price rocked traffic authorities by supporting Stephen’s argument that despite two camera flashes, only one speeding fine had been committed.
The same thing is happening in Victoria.
Six weeks ago, motorist Stuart North was snapped by two mobile speed cameras in a 60kmh zone. Like Stephen, he felt the way the cameras were positioned was just a revenue-raiser.
Victorian police admitted the mistake and say in cases like Stuart’s, the second fine will be withdrawn. But back in New South Wales, authorities are standing by the controversial second camera.
While Stephen’s legal costs exceeded the original fine, he says it was all about principle and believes his case might help others fight for their rights.
As for the camera which started it all, he has this advice for authorities. “There are a lot of schools, lots of blackspots around this country that don’t have speed cameras. Let’s not use them for raising revenue, let’s put them to good use.”
Radar Detectors have had their day. It takes on a few milliseconds to obtain a speed reading with a laser gun. IF your radar/laser detector manages to sound a warning, its already too late. YOUR BUSTED.
The new generation of laser speed detection equipment is leaving radar based technology far behind. Laser is far more capable as a speed measurement tool than reflection prone radar equipment.
Laser detector jammers are emerging as the only tool capable of defeating laser guns and laser speed cameras such as the new Poliscan Speed Laser Speed Camera. The best on the market is the new BLINDER X-TREME 7 - series of multipurpose laser systems.
With BLINDER stealth technology you'll have time to slow down and avoid a speeding ticket without drawing attention to yourself.
What on earth is wrong with Victorians allowing a State Government to do what they are doing to the general population? A small Australian state with 5 million residents, where 2.86 million warrants and Court orders exist for unpaid speed camera fines and tollway fines. Are Victorians so distracted with football that there civil liberties no longer matter? WAKE-UP!!!
The down side of nabbing the majority of drivers with a speeding fine is the inevitable rise in disqualified drivers and a steady rise in the road toll.
Concern has been raised by both supporters and opponents of speed cameras that the exponential growth in speeding offences detected will lead to a large increase in the number of people disqualified from driving, which causes severe economic consequences for those involved and may also encourage unlicensed (and therefore uninsured) driving.
Come to Victoria - The Speed Camera Mugging State of Australia. "If you come to our state with a drivers licence, we'll make sure you leave without one."
Do Speed Cameras save lives? Statistics from around the world and Australia suggest not! Why? Because speed cameras target the vast majority of law abiding citizens who travel a few kms over the speed limit, not the true causes of road fatalities! Speed Cameras are "fools gold" for governments looking for a quick fix solution to road deaths, but prove a bonanza for cash strapped governments looking to reduce police manpower and raise revenue. Add to this mix speed detection technology that is inaccurate, low speed tolerance limits and a court system that is blind to these problems and you have a recipe for disaster.
Road Patrol Cops Replaced by Cameras
Why do you think speed cameras are so appealing to governments? Simple, speed cameras are cheaper to run than real police. Speed cameras don't ask for pay rises or let off drivers with a warning - Real cops do! It's based on a false economy to save money and raise revenue. What the community gets is a rise in road deaths and a bunch of young road hoons running the streets like a scene out of the movie "Mad Max" Don't believe it? I live in Western Australia where the Police Traffic Branch was amalgamated with the local suburban police stations. So who looks after the streets now? Basically, its a free for all.
The Editor of The Observer wrote (17th July 2005):
"Last week, the government announced a three-month moratorium on further speed cameras. This was partly in response to the work of engineer Paul Smith [Safe Speed's founder], who has spent 5,000 hours finding out why, though the number of cameras has risen exponentially, there has been no corresponding reduction in traffic fatalities. He concludes that, far from acting as a deterrent, speed cameras take responsibility for safe speed away from drivers, and their concentration from the road. Cameras are as likely to cause an accident as to prevent one." (link)
