• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: Tronica

Hume highway speed cameras

I remember my old man telling me a little while ago about a show he watched (may have been that car show on abc, can't think of the name atm) where they had 2 identical SS Commodores, one was driven by Peter Brock and the other was driven by one of the guys that hosts the show. Peter drove from where they were to the destination, swerving in & out of cars trying to get there as quick as he could, and then the other guy drove the exact same route but did the speed limit, didn't change lanes if it wasn't necessary etc. and after a 40 min car ride only ended up being 4 mins behind Peter.

TLDR - there's absolutely no need to speed as it doesn't get you anywhere any quicker and only ends in a deadly car accident/s or at best a fine and loss of some demerit points. No offence, but maybe next time you'll learn to slow down :)
 
Last edited:
There are aerial speed lines marked on the F3 now around the Warnervale/Toukley exit and a sign warning about aerial speed detection being in use.
 
MazDan said:
You cant make that claim. You dont know what may have happenned had they not been there.

Speed cameras are a necessary evil in the fight against safer driving.

For all you know, it could have been your life or that of a loved one that was saved by a speed camera.
Click to expand...

I can't make that claim because I didn't. When quoting people, please don't quote things that are either edited, 'half copy/pasted' or whatever just to suit your reply please. Not cool at all.

E.g
Us Victorians won't be seeing a decline of speed cameras put in areas purely as revenue and not stopping any accidents.
Click to expand...

I said in about a decline of speed cameras in areas that are used for revenue purposes and not for stopping any accidents. Something off hand I can think of is the cameras along the straight stretches of the Princess Highway in between Geelong + Melbourne. I think there was like a total of 2 'accidents' along the area(s) I am mentioning in 5ish years. Naturally the police/government love to quote the reason for the speed cameras there is something like 20-40 'accidents' in 5-10 years, they neglect to mention that the statistics is from the time period before the major upgrading of that road from a single or dual lane 'nightmare' stretch of road to the 3-4 lanes each direction 'beautiful' (for driving conditions, not the actual scenery, it sucks!) which are almost autobahn like at parts.

As I stated, I agree 'stupid' speeds should be monitored for, not 3% above the speed limit. Also of course it is for lowest common denominator, I wish cameras were intelligent enough to distinguish from 'junk' cars that shouldn't be allowed to doing 80km/h at all. I just wish tracks like Phillip Island etc were open longer so the general public can make use of designated speed ways to drive/ride at speeds far greater than the public limit of 100/110 km/h in Australia
 
MazDan said:
pmsl.

You can spin it as much as you like.

The fact is You said it.

And your wrong.
Click to expand...

Wow.. Are you that blind? (or too much ecstasy consumption maybe)

I guess I have to spell it out again. I did not say speed cameras are a blanket revenue raiser + don't stop accidents. There are some locations/areas where this applies but not everywhere.

If you can't see that, well, I guess I pity you. Either you're ignorant of how English language can work and/or you're arrogant that you won't listen to any other points of view bar you own, at least in this situation.

Further clarification as well. The meaning I used was that us people who live in Victoria won't be seeing a decline of the speed cameras that are put in certain areas that are pure revenue raisers due to the government actually relying on some-all of these camera's revenue for their budgets. If you still disagree then all I can do is *shrug shoulders*. Then again, I guess I could be mistaken or lying to myself when I think to myself of seeing some people speed around primary school areas when I pick up my child that I wish there was either a speed camera or police with radar etc so these people speeding in areas where there shouldn't be speeding, like primary schools get caught and pay $$$ for their selfish driving.

I guess using "your" as a contraction for "you are" says it all if you really want a blanket generalisation to nit pick.
 
Last edited:
enough, people.

Sux2, I hope they put a radar near the school soon!

but on major roads...
Speed cameras don't do anything to save lives.

people's fear of speed cameras does.

If it was you on the roads and an out of control speeder caused your death, whether or not they were caught by a speed camera, changes nothing for you.

as long as you're living in fear, why not buy a gun?
Spread fear on to others?
Get hysterical!
SOMETHING IS WRONG.

:\
 
^^^^^^^ Interesting point of view.

Its sad that the fear of the speed gun or the fear of losing money is something that has to be used to try and get people to just be responsible.

Far to many people nowadays are all about me me me and dont seem to understand that we should be responsible to everyone and not just ourselves.

But, thats the way the human race has become I guess.
 
contrast dismissal said:
but on major roads...
Speed cameras don't do anything to save lives.

people's fear of speed cameras does.


:\
Click to expand...

They also (in my view, a bit educated from knowing body repair shops and general talking to people's anecdotal reports in relation to the following) can contribute to the greater number of 'accidents'. People more concerned about watching their speedo and having 'accidents' which ultimately need $$$ to fix repairs on various vehicle's bodies can also happen.

Of course, the trade of from possibly stopping some deaths is a positive *IF* said people actually are 'only' involved in these 'accidents' needing body repair instead of contributing to the road toll. Of course it's impossible to tell if these people would have actually hurt/killed anybody including themselves is a whole other topic in itself.

Still, I'm in the view that the narrow margin that fines are issued of the speed limits from cameras still irritate me. If anyone thinks it's sour grapes from being fined, I don't think I've actually ever had a ticket from a speed camera. I guess this is a topic like religion, politics etc. It will raise a few tempers etc and be nigh on impossible for one person's viewpoint to actually sway someone else's view to 'switch camps'. That is for someone either to find the speed camera's use (either amount of actual cameras and/or speed variance they are set to issue fines and/or actual locations of said cameras) to either be a positive or negative view to actually change their view to be on the 'other side'.

So... Who is up for a political debate using religion for the basis of our viewpoints whilst adding speed cameras into the debate just for shits + giggles :! :)
 
Guns don't kill people... rappers do!

Srsly though, the whole back and forth about speed cameras is just wasted energy to me, I just keep coming back to this thread to see if the OP ended up getting a fine in the mail.
 
All speed cameras in Australia are technically illegal, as the laws per the state are in contradiction with the laws of the commonwealth "where theres is a discrepancy in the laws of the state, federal law must prevail".

Ill briefly explain to you how this works, all cameras used to detect speed/red light infringements do not comply to the standard measurements act per the commonwealth, In Victoria they use a standard of measurement called the RMIT system, they are not patented under the national measurement act and are not assigned a number as per federal law states, therefore the evidence of the camera detecting an offence under a state measurement system is in contradiction of federal law and is not admissible ad evidence in a state court of law.

Also the road rules act per 2006 from memory dose not mention the queens name as we are still part of the commonwealth any law enacted is required as per the constitution to be "Approved by her majesty the queen of england or her lawfull representitive (being the governor general)" technically you have broken a rule not a law. Also having a machine be prosecution, judge and jury is in direct violation of the imperial application act (innocent till proven guilty) which is Victorian law and has the correct wording (reffering to the queen) the road safty act dose not have this, if shown in a court of law on these points alone you will win.

Also unless you give jurisdiction to be tried by a bail justice (meaning one judge) then you will be. Under the high court ruling of forge v ASIC it requires that all state courts must refer back to the way they were when written into the constitution, being a chapter three court which requires you to be tried by 2 magistrates or a jury of your peers(i contested a fine once and the judge asked what the hell i was talking about 2 hours later i was back in court with two magistrates present the prosecution practically shit them-selfs and dropped the case. I was awarded damages.

Also its very easy for the prosecution to not have a burden of proof that goes "beyond a reasonable doubt". For example if your pulled over by a copper the police officer can get up as a witness and because its a human its harder to prove although the rules still apply as per what I wrote up the top of this post. A machine however the witness will be the priovate contractor that installs the camera instruct the magistrates to please tell the witness to answer yes or no questions. here are a few you can ask

Is there any way you can prove i was the driver at the time of the alledged offence. - no
Is there anyway you can prove that at the time of the alledged offence i was the driver of the vehicle in question - no
Is there anyway you can prove that at the time of the alleged offence that the equipment was working 100% can you verify this - no
Is there any way the photo could have been tampered, corrupted with as going from a digital MD5 algorithm to a photo - no

for mobile speed cameras refer to the supreme court case that found camera operators were actually able to remote control the mobile cameras from a laptop anywhere and ask the witness if there is a possibility that this has occured and if they say no then explain to them the supreme court case and ask them if it has happened before then it must be able to happen again.

If the prosecution hold up any photocopied documents a photocopy is not legally admissible in court.

speed/redlight cameras are pure revenue raising tools and have been proven not to reduce the road toll imo I find the flash going off is dangerous i stated this to a court once and a magistrate agreed with me and i asked if infra red technology should be implemented instead.

This information will get you off a fine but dont use it to speed i dont condone it it just pisses me off getting snapped going 2km over the limit or placing speed cameras where people are most likely to speed (going down a hill or after a 100 zone turns to 80).




message me if you need info
 
Last edited:
^ Interesting question in my opinion is what do you say when the Magistrate or Prosecutor ask you to reaffirm your position in regards to the The Australian Act 1986?

The key point that our friend has failed to clarify is that your exact situation prior to lodging your defence will determine the success of your defence.

The fact is that in practically 97.7% of cases in which a police officer has directly become involved in a traffic infringement process, the offender has already provided sufficient information for prosecution within the first 90 seconds. Fixed cameras are a different story.

All infringements play on the guilt of the offender. If you know you did it, you know other know you did and they can prove it - then you are going to pay the infringement unless you can't.

In legal parlance an infringement notice is nothing more than that - it's a notice. You are on notice that you are suspected of violating a certain aspect of legislation. It's not saying your guilty but it certainly implies that you are. Constitutionally you are entitled to a defence and that is why you have the section on the rear of a fine that you can fill in and lodge.

What you do after you receive an infringement notice is key to the end result. If you know your guilty you will pay it, but if you know this isn't correct then you need to follow process and complete the form and submit it for processing so that you can have your claim heard.

If you destroy the infringement, dispose of it or simply ignore it without making a response in the allotted 28 day period, then you will find it very very difficult to take that matter further.

The last point I want to make is that the end result all comes down to the big day, in front of the magistrate or who ever you find yourself in front of. You can have all of the constitutional background you want, but if that magistrate has a bent on traffic offenders they will uphold the fine. You still have right to appeal of course, but you better have deep pockets too because as you move up the chain the more you pay and the more difficult the challengers are.

A colleague of mine does a lot of this stuff and I the highest he ever had a client pay was just shy of $10k; and all he got was a fine waived.
 
Also, just a couple of other quick issues I just remembered that will be useful to any of you considering taking these sorts of steps -

bikki_muncher69 said:
A machine however the witness will be the priovate contractor that installs the camera instruct the magistrates to please tell the witness to answer yes or no questions. here are a few you can ask

Is there any way you can prove i was the driver at the time of the alledged offence. - no
Is there anyway you can prove that at the time of the alledged offence i was the driver of the vehicle in question - no
Is there anyway you can prove that at the time of the alleged offence that the equipment was working 100% can you verify this - no
Is there any way the photo could have been tampered, corrupted with as going from a digital MD5 algorithm to a photo - no
Click to expand...

Actually, here is a list of questions I have sourced (and removed sensitive info from) that apply directly to the calibration issue of speed cameras

In regards to the statement of claim issued by the state in that matter of --------, we ask that ------- provides proper certification under section 83, of the Road Safety Act 1986, that the speed detection device involved in the alleged offence, was in fact tested in accordance with the National Measurement Act 1960.

Specifically, we request that the following information is provided prior to the scheduled hearing date in regards to this matter :

1. Make, Model and Serial Number of the speed measurement device.
2. Certified verification that this device was accredited by a National Measurement Institute; and
3. Verification that this device has been Calibrated under section 10 of the National Measurement Act 1960.


bikki_muncher69 said:
If the prosecution hold up any photocopied documents a photocopy is not legally admissible in court.
Click to expand...

Sorry buddy but this one is a little dated.

As a direct and indirect result of the precedence passed into law post the matter of R v Minors [1989] 2 All ER 208, many aspects of The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and The Uniform Evidence Act, including Uniform Civil Procedures as adopted by the Commonwealth and other states have been changed to accommodate electronic based evidence.

Specifically, S.51 of the Evidence Act abolishes the principles and rules of the common law that relate to the means of proving the contents of documents. Therefore original documents are no longer required. A copy of a document is as good as an original document.

That is a very simplified overview and there are set rules that must be met before this provision is up held, but the key point I'm trying to make is that it isn't simply as black and white as "Its not admissable"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top