Mobile Speed Camera Fine- Two cars in Photo

[Yoda]

Wife just got a speed camera fine in the mail.
Very unusual as she never speeds and has never had a speeding fine in her driving life (20+years)
She knows she was driving on this road at this time and is sure she wasn't speeding. She is doubly shocked by the fact is was 17kms over.
If it was her then that's that but she is very sure she wasn't speeding that day. ( she remembers exactly where this was and driving past the camera)

The photo is below. The road is 4 lanes wide, 2 each way .Her car is the silver pulsar on the far side of the picture in the four lane going away from the camera van.
How do they know which car was speeding as there are two cars in the photo and it was a mobile camera van?

http://i784.photobucket.com/albums/yy122/Yoda1/Scan2.jpg

Do you think this is worth questioning and what's the process?

Cheers

[DAVESS-V]

Man, personally i think they should al be questioned. Those cameras are money makers...

My opinion i would challange it. I would have thought that the car coming towards the camera (car shot from front) was the one speeding but i would think you have something to work with.

[vz6.0]

theres some sort of triangulation used on a multiple car picture to determine which one actually triggered the shot.

Id be more concerned about the degree incline on the road, looks pretty steep to me and im sure theres a guideline/limit to the pitch of the road.

no idea really.

[CLUBRED]

Given how close to the kerb she is, you could argue the car is stationary and couldn't possibly be her. I bet the Mazda guy has a nice picture in the mail aswell.

[VZSS350]

If she is sure she wasn't speeding then it's definitely worth while challenging the infringement notice. Another option would be asking for leniency or non conviction due to her faultless driving record. Not sure how this works in QLD but I know of people who have done this successivelly in NSW.

I assume the process would be writting a letter addressed to whoever the fine to be paid to.

Good Luck.

[eddiemonster]

Firstly ask how it is possible that the other car in the photo was not the 1 at fault if that fails like what happened to me i was caught 8km over the limit and have not had a fine in the last 3 years and asked if it could b withdrawn and it was but in vic iam sure if u go over 10kph the limit they will not withdraw it but in the future 4 everyone if a speed camera car has parked illegally eg on the naturestrip and u no u got zapped take a photo of the car parked and u should say the car was parked illegally they have no special rights. Keep in the back of ur minds.
Cheers Eddie

[vx_clubby]

she drives very close to the kerb!
I would certainly challenge it, especially if she hasnt had any fines in a long time

[macca33]

I'm tipping that it may be the approaching car that is responsible for the infringement.

[blarks]

I'm tipping that it may be the approaching car that is responsible for the infringement.
more than likely, but yoda's missus still got a fine. I've heard this guy is pretty good.
http://www.speedingfineconsultants.com/

[Richar]

If your wifeys got no speeding fines for 20 years.+ then just send in a letter, as its a first offence in over 20 years, they'll give you a warning. I've had it done before, if not take it to court, i'm sure you will win as you have 20 years+ clean history.

[C4B]

Where is that photo taken? (looks familiar)

[NZSHAKER]

I have heard b4 that if there are 2 cars in the photo they will just send both pics and if both pay then its all good for them isnt it.

aka Money makers :)

But yea with a good record just ask the question the worst that can happen is you pay the fine....the best is no fine

[Yoda]

Thanks for the good advice. Cheers. Just checked with the better half, no traffic infringements ever in the last 22years.

It was on Wardell street Ashgrove, Brisbane. The camera was on the east side of the road and she was on the other side driving towards Enoggraa.
Well spotted by some, The photo is somewhat deceiving, she inst that close to the curb as its two lanes each way and off camber , she was in the far outside lane which is four lanes from the camera.

[CLUBRED]

After doing a tiny bit of research, it would seem the second car in the picture is not an issue, the only issue would have been if the two cars are travelling in the same direction.

Ask to see the full photo though, apparently the ones they issue aren't full frame. dunno why.

So, unless you're pretty good at letter writting, it looks like you may have some favours comng your way from the Mrs, LOL....

http://www.delonixradar.com.au/speed-cameras/

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Speed-cameras-MP-questions-twocar-loophole/2005/06/18/1119034101310.html


"There is no problem if the cars are travelling in opposite directions," she said, "because the camera identifies the direction of the vehicle it photographs."

[Sunny08]

The camera takes more than one photo but only one is sent in the mail identifying the car

[send-it-up]

A couple of years ago i was in the same situation, except there were 3 vehicles in the photo, but 2 were travelling in the opposite direction. 1 was only probably a metre and a half away from me (we were both in our respective right hand lanes). I sought legal advice but was told the same as above, if the vehicles are travelling in the opposite direction you really don't have an argument so i had to suck it up and pay the fine which hurt, because i hadn't had a fine in about 8 years!

[vyls1wa]

if a car is travelling at x speed then the car would appear at a point in the frame that would indicate if she is speeding, ie, if the nose of the car is only in the image then its to far out of frame. The shutter speed and time the time the photo is taken is in relation to the cars speed. Even though she hasnt recieved a fine doesnt mean she doesnt speed. I speed all the time, i havent been done it 8 years.

[Sime]

All the mobile cameras I've seen down here take the photo out the front window of the car. So was this guy parked on the nature strip facing the wrong way or can they set them up to take photos out the back window now?

[bigdogdazza]

Thanks for the good advice. Cheers. Just checked with the better half, no traffic infringements ever in the last 22years.

It was on Wardell street Ashgrove, Brisbane. The camera was on the east side of the road and she was on the other side driving towards Enoggraa.
Well spotted by some, The photo is somewhat deceiving, she inst that close to the curb as its two lanes each way and off camber , she was in the far outside lane which is four lanes from the camera.

:goodjob: LOL I have trouble not getting fined in a 22 day period! They swarm me like mozzies!:goodjob:

[bigdogdazza]

Thanks for the good advice. Cheers. Just checked with the better half, no traffic infringements ever in the last 22years.

It was on Wardell street Ashgrove, Brisbane. The camera was on the east side of the road and she was on the other side driving towards Enoggraa.
Well spotted by some, The photo is somewhat deceiving, she inst that close to the curb as its two lanes each way and off camber , she was in the far outside lane which is four lanes from the camera.

:goodjob: LOL I have trouble not getting fined in a 22 day period! They swarm me like mozzies!:goodjob:
I just got back from 3 months workin away at weipa and 3 cancelled lic notices! Revinue sux!

[CLUBRED]

All the mobile cameras I've seen down here take the photo out the front window of the car. So was this guy parked on the nature strip facing the wrong way or can they set them up to take photos out the back window now?

I have heard that there are new ones that can do both directions, I have seen units with camera mounted at the front, can't really see if they have two seperate units due to their obviously illegal tinting. :confused:

I should add i thing the bi-directional cameras could be a myth, not sure how the operator could keep them all in check should they go off at the same time.

[MickmeMate]

Given how close to the kerb she is, you could argue the car is stationary and couldn't possibly be her. I bet the Mazda guy has a nice picture in the mail aswell.

If only it were that easy!!!hehe

[SteveK]

Could be a case of both parties involved being sent a fine and if they can get payment out of at least one of them, then so be it. Seems like both guilty until proven innocent.

If you are certain you/wife are not at fault then by all means contest it.

[Herbz]

Definetely have a crack at it. Just imagine how often this kind of thing happens but people are to unsure if they should fight the fine or not, the extra dollars they would make from fines which probably arent accurate would be amazing.

While we are on the subject, does anyone know if a speed camera is set up in somones drive way if this is legal or not? I got fined in a residential street for exceeding 50Kms an hr. The car was litterally reversed into the drive way and the camera was in the garden bed completely out of view. There was no way you could tell it was a speed camera....There must be some situations where they arent allowed to set these things up?? ie driveways..

[planetdavo]

Modern cameras can tell whether the car is approaching or driving away from them.
Pretty easy for them to eliminate one of the two cars in this situation.

[bigdogdazza]

Definetely have a crack at it. Just imagine how often this kind of thing happens but people are to unsure if they should fight the fine or not, the extra dollars they would make from fines which probably arent accurate would be amazing.

While we are on the subject, does anyone know if a speed camera is set up in somones drive way if this is legal or not? I got fined in a residential street for exceeding 50Kms an hr. The car was litterally reversed into the drive way and the camera was in the garden bed completely out of view. There was no way you could tell it was a speed camera....There must be some situations where they arent allowed to set these things up?? ie driveways..

Dont know if its legal but if they tried to "set up shop" on my lawn I would be telling them politely to move along!LOL My 82 kg great dane has just found out he can be quite intimidating and would love the chance at greeting this kind of behavoir!LOL

[macca33]

Modern cameras can tell whether the car is approaching or driving away from them.
Pretty easy for them to eliminate one of the two cars in this situation.
I agree Davo - I just cannot remember how to read the data block. However, one car appears to be right in the middle of the RADAR beam, having just entered; and one has not (to my mind) departed the beam, on an away detection.

[planetdavo]

Dont know if its legal but if they tried to "set up shop" on my lawn I would be telling them politely to move along!LOL My 82 kg great dane has just found out he can be quite intimidating and would love the chance at greeting this kind of behavoir!LOL
It wont work, as the land owner has absolutely no claim on the council owned nature strip. All you can do is ask a police car parked on your driveway (but within your own fenceline) to move along, eg radar trap etc.
PS: Dog might end up dead, or very costly for it's owner...:teach:

---------- Post added at 07:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:02 PM ----------


I agree Davo - I just cannot remember how to read the data block. However, one car appears to be right in the middle of the RADAR beam, having just entered; and one has not (to my mind) departed the beam, on an away detection.
A friend recently scored a few points back due to the passing of time, and the brochure in the envelope explained how to read the block, including direction of travel. Can't remember exactly myself either!

[cdbrown]

If they come and park in front of your house is there any problem with going along and standing infront of the van?

[planetdavo]

If they come and park in front of your house is there any problem with going along and standing infront of the van?
Yes.
As they are parked on public land, doing a job the laws allow them to do, there are certain laws that could ultimately get you charged for obstructing their job, once they ask you to move.

[Herbz]

The car was actually parked IN the drive way..That was why I didnt even realise it was a radar because it looked like a normal car in somones driveway...the camera itself was actually in the garden within the site boundry....

[planetdavo]

Since the day "safety camera's" came out, people have been looking for ways to get out of fines.
Everyone needs to remember that these camera operators are simply doing the job they are employed for, and it's 100% legal. Whether it's 100% moral is a separate issue, and that's where Australians are limp wristed, sorry to say.
These cameras operate under the regulations created by politicians, and if there is one thing pollies love, it's money. Complaining on the internet or to the media wont help. You have to complain to the source, the politicians.
That leads to the other thing they love. Being voted back in come election time...

[Sunny08]

In the day time they can get both directions but at night they will only get one direction so that flash doesn't blind the other lane of traffic. I.e at night you have to drive past the camera and the flash is at your rear. Day time anything goes.

[planetdavo]

In the day time they can get both directions but at night they will only get one direction so that flash doesn't blind the other lane of traffic. I.e at night you have to drive past the camera and the flash is at your rear. Day time anything goes.
Down in Mexico there is no flash at night time anymore. Technology has considerably improved.

[mrtockley]

Since the day "safety camera's" came out, people have been looking for ways to get out of fines.
Everyone needs to remember that these camera operators are simply doing the job they are employed for, and it's 100% legal. Whether it's 100% moral is a separate issue, and that's where Australians are limp wristed, sorry to say.
These cameras operate under the regulations created by politicians, and if there is one thing pollies love, it's money. Complaining on the internet or to the media wont help. You have to complain to the source, the politicians.
That leads to the other thing they love. Being voted back in come election time...

True Davo, but try and get one Pollie to give up the revenue (that is factored into the budget as an income btw) that has been there for years is as futile as complaining about how immoral it is on forums etc.. NO politician is ever going to win votes by going against the grain in regards to 'traffic safety' now. It's the best thing since sliced bread to the government, they can slap you for your own 'safety' and still get the backing of the general public. I can't remember the last time I spoke to someone that supported cameras though ..

[Devil CV8]

Yes.
As they are parked on public land, doing a job the laws allow them to do, there are certain laws that could ultimately get you charged for obstructing their job, once they ask you to move.
are you sure about that? They aren't police and have no power to issue a "move on" order (or whatever they call it these days)

I'd be interested what law you are breaking if you stand in front of the camera car/van blocking the shot.
Once a police oficer arrives onsite and instructs you to move on, yes you must move on. but the speed camera operator, as you put it, are just simply doing a job.

[CLUBRED]

Police still operate the cameras up here, and as we all know up here QPOL seem to do as they please. I've seen them regularly operate speeding blitz's out of private property, hell as a kid we used to sit next the the guy with the radar, those days the things were the size of tanks and I'm lucky to this day I can reproduce.

[Super Snake]

If they come and park in front of your house is there any problem with going along and standing infront of the van?

just get your lawn mower out...turn it on....and park it next to his car.

[planetdavo]

are you sure about that? They aren't police and have no power to issue a "move on" order (or whatever they call it these days)

I'd be interested what law you are breaking if you stand in front of the camera car/van blocking the shot.
Once a police oficer arrives onsite and instructs you to move on, yes you must move on. but the speed camera operator, as you put it, are just simply doing a job.
The laws they operate under allow them to request you move if you obstruct them after they have set up. If you don't move, they can get the police involved, and that is one you will rarely ever win.

---------- Post added at 06:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:22 PM ----------


True Davo, but try and get one Pollie to give up the revenue (that is factored into the budget as an income btw) that has been there for years is as futile as complaining about how immoral it is on forums etc.. NO politician is ever going to win votes by going against the grain in regards to 'traffic safety' now. It's the best thing since sliced bread to the government, they can slap you for your own 'safety' and still get the backing of the general public. I can't remember the last time I spoke to someone that supported cameras though ..
Aussies are weak as p!ss. We slap politicians with a feather. People honestly believe simply voting in the opposition next time will make things better. What a joke! Most Aussies are realistic with cameras, as long as they are fair. What people get sh!tty about (but do nothing about) is say getting booked for doing 3 or 4 km/h over, especially in Vic. Anyone that thinks we should be allowed to do 15 over is simply an idiot, and should be ignored.
Look at some of the constitutional freedoms America has, then look at us.

[Devil CV8]

The laws they operate under allow them to request you move if you obstruct them after they have set up.Must admit I've never seen this law. Then again I haven't looked for it
[QUOTE]If you don't move, they can get the police involved, and that is one you will rarely ever win.[COLOR="Silver"]
agreed, once the police instruct you to move on, you must.