An interesting read:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/60000-on-bikers-1700-speeding-fine-revoked-20111026-1mjce.html (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/60000-on-bikers-1700-speeding-fine-revoked-20111026-1mjce.html)
Bet he's glad he's old mans not a plumber.....
Although a tradie costs about as much these days ;)
I had on one occasion the necessity to use a Radar "expert" in a traffic case, the German fella used to appear for and against the Police on traffics matters!
He made the statement in the Barristers briefing that Police regularly fudge distances, terrain etc to get "Pinches" and "perjure themselves on a daily basis" to obtain convictions!! :o
Scary aint it?? Then you have to go and spend vast sums of your hard earned to prove you didnt do what the Plod said you did!! >:(
It would seem like simple maths at the end of the day.
Mmick
Here in Vic we recently had a class action brought by several people who were fined for speeding. They were caught by speed cameras on a freeway and were adamant that they hadn't exceeded the limit. They didn't get off however a [leo] who also was caught speeding on the same road by a camera claimed that the camera was faulty and had the fine withdrawn. Hmm ...
That's amazing.
IT's a good thing he got court costs awarded to him... $60,000!!!!
Quote from: ducmeister on October 26, 2011, 05:58:49 AM
Here in Vic we recently had a class action brought by several people who were fined for speeding. They were caught by speed cameras on a freeway and were adamant that they hadn't exceeded the limit. They didn't get off however a [leo] who also was caught speeding on the same road by a camera claimed that the camera was faulty and had the fine withdrawn. Hmm ...
Yes I remember that one.
So it begs the question, Was the fixed camera on the freeway wrong, or was the mobile radar in the police vehicle wrong?
Mmick
When the courts look at costs I wonder how they will look at "Dad's time" ... could be interesting (and a nice little earner).
I have just watched the video and can't understand any of it ... but this from the article was interesting:
Quote
Outside the court, Mr Busuttil said he had spent 18 months and thousands of dollars to prove he was not speeding.
I don't believe any such thing was 'proven' ... just that the information presented was incorrect [laugh] - yes I am being pedantic and obnoxious, again.
Anyway well played in getting off ... unfortunately there are very few that could afford the $60k (and the 18 months) it seems you need to fight these things.
Quote from: Betty on October 26, 2011, 11:24:19 AM
I don't believe any such thing was 'proven' ... just that the information presented was incorrect [laugh] - yes I am being pedantic and obnoxious, again.
Evidence was entered that the radar system showed he was going 76, whereas the LIDAR showed 140+
The experts showed that the police
1. over estimated the distance involved by almost 100m
2. under estimated the amount of time they sampled the speed with the LIDAR.
3. accidentally included video of the RADAR in the car, and refused initially to turn it over into evidence.
yeah, i'd say that's proven.
But 76klm/h in the RNP is still 16klm/h over the posted speed limit, which most people know is pretty low anyway!
But that's a side note really.
I kind of agree with Betty, that the info provided by the plod was incorrect at the higher end.
Who has that amount of time and $ to fight it though?
$60,000 buys a lot of bike [cheeky]
Quote from: ducatiz on October 26, 2011, 01:34:21 PM
Evidence was entered that the radar system showed he was going 76, whereas the LIDAR showed 140+
The experts showed that the police
1. over estimated the distance involved by almost 100m
2. under estimated the amount of time they sampled the speed with the LIDAR.
3. accidentally included video of the RADAR in the car, and refused initially to turn it over into evidence.
yeah, i'd say that's proven.
Lucky I am not a lawyer then ... I didn't see how it was proven he was not speeding.
The radar still had him 16km/h over the speed limit (just not the 89km'h over that the LIDAR was claiming). Even if they are both "proven" to be wrong/inaccurate/used incorrectly it still doesn't
prove that he wasn't speeding.
If the radar is accurate where the LIDAR was not ... and that wasn't clearly articulated in the article - he is still speeding. They didn't prove he wasn't speeding simply that the 149km/h reading was a rather large pile of faecal matter.
The officer seems to have proven himself to be a dickhead however.
EDIT: I need to stop being distracted ... Matty provided a more concise explanation. [thumbsup]
More on the case:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/lidar-doesnt-lie-speed-tickets-stick-after-bikers-barrister-father-wins-the-day-20111027-1mljg.html (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/lidar-doesnt-lie-speed-tickets-stick-after-bikers-barrister-father-wins-the-day-20111027-1mljg.html)
An interesting point is that the display on the LIDAR shown reads +149. This would indicate that the bike is moving toward the copper, not away, as the rest of the photo shows...
The technique used to get these bogus readings is called sweeping. LIDAR works by bouncing light off the target, and measuring the distance twice or more times. The change in distance and the time interval between measurements gives speed. You can get the ground to move if you like, by simply sweeping the beam along it. Similarly, if you sweep the beam from the back to the front of a bike, you add significantly to the apparent speed.
Quote from: Betty on October 26, 2011, 03:47:55 PM
Lucky I am not a lawyer then ... I didn't see how it was proven he was not speeding.
The radar still had him 16km/h over the speed limit (just not the 89km'h over that the LIDAR was claiming). Even if they are both "proven" to be wrong/inaccurate/used incorrectly it still doesn't prove that he wasn't speeding.
Forgive me, I thought the limit was 80 for that stretch for some reason...
QuoteIf the radar is accurate where the LIDAR was not ... and that wasn't clearly articulated in the article - he is still speeding. They didn't prove he wasn't speeding simply that the 149km/h reading was a rather large pile of faecal matter.
The officer seems to have proven himself to be a dickhead however.
EDIT: I need to stop being distracted ... Matty provided a more concise explanation. [thumbsup]
the story referred to him subpoenaing the officer's dash cam showing the RADAR speed and the officer's car speed. if someone is moving twice your speed at close to 150km/h, it doesn't take you a mere seconds to catch up to them.
Just to clarify what is proven and what is not....
The way our adversarial legal system works is that the Police or DPP need to prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt to succeed. All the accused needs to do is raise reasonable doubt about that proof. This guy didn't need to prove he wasn't speeding, just that there was reasonable doubt that the actual charge was legitimate. As they appear to have charged him with doing 149km/h and there was plenty of doubt about whether that was accurate, the charge was dismissed. The court is not required to make a finding about what speed he was actually doing and whether that was over the limit.
While this has got a lot of media coverage, its not likely to result in a precedent the rest of us can use to escape speeding fines as it appears to be based on the actual facts of the case. $60k is a lot to spend on keeping your licence.
Here ends the legal studies lecture.. ;D
Quote from: ducmeister on October 26, 2011, 05:58:49 AM
Here in Vic we recently had a class action brought by several people who were fined for speeding. They were caught by speed cameras on a freeway and were adamant that they hadn't exceeded the limit. They didn't get off however a [leo] who also was caught speeding on the same road by a camera claimed that the camera was faulty and had the fine withdrawn. Hmm ...
I know someone else who did win in this action. Her and her hubby were riding their Ducatis. They are both in the photo. She was booked, he wasn't. According to the GPS on Steve's bike, they weren't speeding. It went to court and she won.
Quote from: techno on October 27, 2011, 07:17:25 PM
Just to clarify what is proven and what is not....
The way our adversarial legal system works is that the Police or DPP need to prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt to succeed. All the accused needs to do is raise reasonable doubt about that proof. This guy didn't need to prove he wasn't speeding, just that there was reasonable doubt that the actual charge was legitimate. As they appear to have charged him with doing 149km/h and there was plenty of doubt about whether that was accurate, the charge was dismissed. The court is not required to make a finding about what speed he was actually doing and whether that was over the limit.
While this has got a lot of media coverage, its not likely to result in a precedent the rest of us can use to escape speeding fines as it appears to be based on the actual facts of the case. $60k is a lot to spend on keeping your licence.
Here ends the legal studies lecture.. ;D
In my experience, traffic infringements in Qld see you guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. There is no reason why it would take such a large amount of time and money to raise "reasonable doubt". This guy had to fight to reverse his automatic assumption of guilt from the legal system.
This is the same for all of my dealings with the traffic branch and I would be interested to hear of anybody who believes they were considered innocent until the police proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Quote from: Rowdy on November 04, 2011, 06:17:21 AM
In my experience, traffic infringements in Qld see you guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. There is no reason why it would take such a large amount of time and money to raise "reasonable doubt". This guy had to fight to reverse his automatic assumption of guilt from the legal system.
This is the same for all of my dealings with the traffic branch and I would be interested to hear of anybody who believes they were considered innocent until the police proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Contrary to how it might appear, we do still have a presumption of innocence in this country. If you want to see someone who believes this, look at my avatar. ;D
Exerpt from article "His father said police charged 22 drivers for speeding on Lady Wakehurst Drive on May 8, 2010, and 10 of them had their licences disqualified."
I presume most of the other people charged were sucessfully found guilty. I wonder how hard the Police had to work to prove their allegations beyond reasonable doubt?