Traffic Cop *BUS-ted* [Archive] - Australian LS1 and Holden Forums

The Warden

19-09-2004, 03:38 PM

Check this cop out, maybe he's one of us :hide:

Disclaimer: Posted for amusement purposes only, do not turm it into a general bagging of the cops.......

Interesting thing about the speed is that he was doing 49kph over the limit, at 50kph, it's hand over the keys, and the car, and you're walking for a minimum 28 days until you go to court, hummm........

From Stuff.co.nz:

Senior police officer caught on camera doing 149kph
03 September 2004

A senior Northland police officer has been snapped driving at 149kph while police wage a national campaign to slow down speeding drivers.

Northland road policing manager Inspector Rob Lindsay confirmed that the senior police officer was clocked at 149kph by radar while travelling on State Highway 1 near Hukerenui, north of Whangarei.

The officer was apparently travelling to a meeting at the time in a mufti car on Thursday last week. His rank and station have not been released by police, but it is understood he is of, or above, senior sergeant rank.

"It's an unacceptable speed. There was no acceptable reason for him to be travelling that speed. He was on duty, but not being called to an emergency," Mr Lindsay said.

"We are very disappointed, and so is the officer."

Mr Lindsay said the officer had been issued with a $630 speeding ticket and 50 demerit points.

Demerit points are given for some traffic offences and all speeding infringements, except those recorded by a speed camera.

If drivers get a total of 100 or more demerit points within two years, they will be suspended from driving for three months.

"It's an indication to the public that the police are no different and the rules apply to everybody," Mr Lindsay said.

The officer's speed came within one kilometre an hour of an immediate 28-day licence suspension, which comes into force if motorists are caught driving at more than 50kph over the designated speed limit.

Mr Lindsay said the officer had not been charged with dangerous speed.

The situation had been assessed by the officer who issued the ticket and in his opinion it was a matter of "straight-out speed". The ticket had not been issued immediately, but the officer's details had been taken, and the ticket issued later, which was not unusual, he said. (EDIT: Yeah Right!!!)

The incident came within the same week Mr Lindsay had proposed the speed limit on some stretches of Northland road should be reduced in light of Land Transport Safety Authority statistics. The LTSA report found loss of control on curves was Northland's major road safety issue, with speed a common factor.

Mr Lindsay said he was extremely disappointed with the officer's "error of judgment" given the police emphasis on the issue of speed – especially as the recorded speed was so high.

"We all make mistakes, and he's not the only police officer to ever get a ticket," he said.

RoadSafe Northland co-ordinator Gillian Archer said given the huge road safety commitment of every member of the police force she dealt with, it seemed a huge lapse.

"Our guys up here are pretty committed to reducing road speeds and road trauma. It's an unfortunate incident," she said.

Police national road safety manager Superintendent Steve Fitzgerald said it would be inappropriate to comment while the incident was still in the judicial process.

"I guess the main message is, nobody is exempt – the law applies to everyone."

Kirium

19-09-2004, 04:42 PM

How is he hiding? That pane of glasss looks reasonably see-through to me. Must be my x-ray vision.

I understand that hidden traps may occasionally have their merits in catching speeders in a known speeding area, but i thought there were STRICT regulations regarding the use of radar guns. stuff like reflective objects within LOS and within certain angles of the gun. high-tension power lines, minimum seperation distances between the car and other objects...

I'm sure the manufacturer of the radar gun wouldn't guarantee 100% that the gun would provide an accurate reading if they knew it was being "shot" thru glass.. with a solid metal post very close to the LOS...

I know you'll almost immediately jump to the defence of police and traffic police tactics, but the motoring public at large is no longer fooled by "every k over is a killer" bullshit. we know you're raising revenue. i'm sure the police minister couldn't give a flying f*ck about the odd traffic crash. she cares about keeping her high-paying government job, which has gone from protecting life and property, to creating funding for government. if she can't provide that income that the state government expects now, thanks to c*nts like steve bracks, she can kiss her job and government pension good-bye.

how about we increase driver training, maintain roads better, decrease the average age of vehicles on the road and increase speed limits on highways to cut travel times and fatigue? how about that?

I think cops should be more critical of the shit they're forced to do in the name of raising dollars... none of u seem to accept that speed enforcement has become a joke, and almost solely exists to raise money. a speed camera van doesn't stop people from speeding, just leaves them cursing the police after they get the ticket... take a more pro-active approach to reducing the road toll by implementing the above...

vh-holden

19-09-2004, 04:42 PM

is it illegal to park in a bus stop? cos thats where i'd be stopping if he waved me down..

markone2

19-09-2004, 05:31 PM

Important quote in the article "but if they are not speeding, then they have nothing to worry about".

no!

:eek: I am puzzled as to why the Government aren’t demanding a ban on the production of ALL V8 cars in protest to them killing their own drivers on fast paced Motorways..
Speed Kills and its time we set these irresponsible drivers straight.
Now excuse me while I go and drive at 95Kp/h in a 100kp/h zone in my 20 year old Volvo, or maybe the wife’s Landcruiser we brought for taking the kids to school…..
A heavy downpour…, badly chambered roads.., tyre pressures somewhere between 0 and 30psi….eyesight that has not been tested in 4 years and little or to no knowledge
Of any road-rule changes in the last several decades won’t be a problem as I’m AN EXPERINCED DRIVER and rate my driving as above average…
A risk to others?.....CERTAINLY NOT!!...I believe in what my Police Minister tells me….I can’t possibly be unsafe. because I’m not speeding!

Kindly nicked courtesy of *Wheels* ;)

Devil CV8

19-09-2004, 05:50 PM

is it illegal to park in a bus stop? cos thats where i'd be stopping if he waved me down..
Of course it's illegal...you would need to give the wave to the cop to let him know you saw him, then pull over at the first legal, safe parking spot (preferably at least 100m away) and await the policeman attending to you... I'd probably give it at least 2 minutes before driving off though.....

dvx

19-09-2004, 06:24 PM

doesnt anyone else find the contrast of the wagon wheel ad to the cop funny? Wander where he had his first wagon wheel?....

vysandman

19-09-2004, 10:20 PM

I think this Lard first "Wagon Wheeled" about 30 years ago.
I reckon he'd be open to a bribe with a McDonalds voucher.

Aus_SS

19-09-2004, 10:37 PM

the sad part of this honestly is that the racq ...which is a motorist spokes body agrees with the police tactics .appears that the new motorists association are what we have to all get behind and get rid of the nrma etc that now bow to what the polies and pedestrian council want

Wazz_ChevLS1

20-09-2004, 08:30 AM

It seems Queensland cops are not the only state using the bus shelter tactic. Went past one here in Adelaide, out Tea Tree Plaza way for those that know it. He had his bike parked way off the side of the road while he blended in with the dark advertisement poster in the bus shelter.
I wasn't speeding so he didn't bother me but is was quite funny that he chose a bus shelter with dark advertising and if I remember correctly he didn't have a bright coloured village people vest on so the black bike jacket blended in well.

ssberlina

20-09-2004, 10:38 AM

The cops in Brissy do this all the time. The last one I saw hiding in a bus shelter was on a Sunday on Milton Road. The funny thing was he was a fat blob as well.

Mongy

20-09-2004, 11:47 AM

Funny thing is if they weren't such TOOLS people would have some sympathy for them. Alcohol and drugs is the number ONE killer on QLD roads, speed is number 5. On the roads I use to go to and from work (160klm round trip a day) I see an average of at least 3 speed cameras per week (probably more) I'm lucky to be put on the bag every 2 years, what does that tell you. If they were serious about safety I'd be blowing in the bag on a regular basis. :bash:

glen III

20-09-2004, 01:18 PM

I'm sure the manufacturer of the radar gun wouldn't guarantee 100% that the gun would provide an accurate reading if they knew it was being "shot" thru glass.. with a solid metal post very close to the LOS...

Have another look...he's standing half outside the pane of glass, shooting through air only. Shooting almost directly up the road, and any angle actually works in the motorists favour.

Why does everyone constantly think cops care about fund raising? It does not go into the police budget, nor does the officer get a commission. It's the job. These cops wouldn't have applied to Traffic or Highway Patrol sections if they didn't want to be first-tasked to traffic and speed enforcement, so why would they....

..... be more critical of the shit they're forced to do in the name of raising dollars... none of u seem to accept that speed enforcement has become a joke, and almost solely exists to raise money. a speed camera van doesn't stop people from speeding, just leaves them cursing the police after they get the ticket... take a more pro-active approach to reducing the road toll by implementing the above...

Speeding can and does kill.......whether you think so or not. I agree that state governments advertising campaigns tend to sensationalise it to a degree. I've always advocated raising speed limits on sections of roads that are of a very high standard, redcuing the limit on others. I've also said I don't agree with fixed cameras, but if someone gets done by one, then they are really too stupid to be driving. But my central theory is that people have to take responsibility for themselves. They know the speed limit, choose to drive above it, yet ALWAYS shift the blame to the "Stupid cops". I find this amusing. Regardless of how sneaky you may think the enforcement is, and yes, it can be sneaky, the driver of the car is in the wrong in the first place.

markone2

20-09-2004, 01:33 PM

[QUOTE=glen IIIWhy does everyone constantly think cops care about fund raising? It does not go into the police budget, nor does the officer get a commission. .[/QUOTE]

:confused: so they no longer have to adhere to a set number of tickets in a given time frame....ie: Quota

VX2VESS

20-09-2004, 01:43 PM

gov't does pressure them to collect speeding tickets, its a lot of money for them.

some area of road can take more speed others less, but generally that more more to change the speed signs often along a road at short distances.

EG built up area with 50 limit, a section of the road has no homes for say 1 k but the limit is still 50kph. ppl know its safe to increase to 60 kph. but hwere does the radar sit.

glen III

20-09-2004, 01:47 PM

Why does everyone constantly think cops care about fund raising? It does not go into the police budget, nor does the officer get a commission. .

:confused: so they no longer have to adhere to a set number of tickets in a given time frame....ie: Quota

There's no such thing as a quota. But I know you won't believe it, so I won't labour the point.

m@w8

20-09-2004, 01:47 PM

Glan III,
To say something like you are "too stupid to be driving" if you're caught speeding is pretty naive. Maybe because it's because you've not driven in Victoria where the tolerance is 3km/h!!

The real problem is the message that the government is giving that you are "safe" if you travel below the speed limit. The speed limits are not magical, and do not make you any safer just because you comply with them.
The safest speed to travel is firstly the same speed as the rest of the traffic, and secondly appropriate to the conditions (visibility and road surface). If you're lucky, the speed limit will be sensibly set so that you comply with it. If you're unlucky you may get a speeding ticket, despite the fact that complying with the limit may in fact be more dangerous.

I used to think, like you, that people who are caught speeding were just stupid, not paying attention, or willfully disobeying the law. That's just not the case any more. When I first had my licence, speed enforcement initially targetted the extreme offenders (20km/h or more above the limit). Now I can only assume due to the cash to be made, they now target the majority of drivers on the road .

Also, due to this stupid enforcement, drivers now spend more time looking at their speedo than at the road!

And despite all this concentration on SPEED, the road toll has essentially flatlined for the last 10 years.

Check out http://www.sense.bc.ca for some interesting stats on speed enforcement.

in particular http://www.sense.bc.ca/research.htm

m@w8

20-09-2004, 01:51 PM

double post

RICHO

20-09-2004, 01:59 PM

There's no such thing as a quota. But I know you won't believe it, so I won't labour the point.

There may not be a quota but here in Victoria there is an "expectation" by good old Bracksy's govt that the police "contribute" a percentage of money towards their total budget.

Now, when you are an organisation whose very purpose is to serve and protect the community exactly how do you generate such a "contribution"?? Fines first and fines last!!

Do the police like it?? Hell No!!

Do most police agree with the emphasis on speeding?? Almost certainly not from the blue boys I've spoken to.

Are the police in any way to blame?? Of course their not!! They're just the poor damn sods that the Politicians trot out as scapegoats for an increasingly angry public.

I've had my share of speeding fines (deserved most of them) and my advice is to take the time to chat to the guy (or gal) that's pulled you over. You'll be amazed at how decent most of them are and even more suprised by just how "flexible" the "Zero" tolerance rules actually are. :D

Of course if you're agro or a smartarse........ :rolleyes:

m@w8

20-09-2004, 02:00 PM

Couldn't agree more Richo. Spot on!

glen III

20-09-2004, 02:13 PM

Glan III,
To say something like you are "too stupid to be driving" if you're caught speeding is pretty naive. Maybe because it's because you've not driven in Victoria where the tolerance is 3km/h!!

What I said was to get caught by a fixed speed camera you would have to be too stupid to be driving, what with the at least 3 signs indicating it's location. I stand by my call.

The safest speed to travel is firstly the same speed as the rest of the traffic,

Agreed. If you didn't have people driving 20km/h over between people doing the limit, that would be safer.

and secondly appropriate to the conditions (visibility and road surface). If you're lucky, the speed limit will be sensibly set so that you comply with it. If you're unlucky you may get a speeding ticket, despite the fact that complying with the limit may in fact be more dangerous.

Yes, if you're comlying with the limit, and everyone else is doing 20km/h or somore, that can cause complications. Crazy idea- how about they do the same speed too?

Also, due to this stupid enforcement, drivers now spend more time looking at their speedo than at the road!

Nonsense. Can't hold your car at a constant speed for any period of time? Learn to drive. As you are on an enthusiast website, I would imagine you are an enthusiast driver, if you can't tell if your car is picking up/dropping off revs/speed, maybe you just plain can't drive.

Kirium

20-09-2004, 02:50 PM

Have another look...he's standing half outside the pane of glass, shooting through air only. Shooting almost directly up the road, and any angle actually works in the motorists favour.

I'm well aware of how RADAR works. And EM waves don't travel in direct, focused directions like laser. they radiate outwards, in a general direction. if he's standing behind the post and glass, but shooting slightly to the left of it, i GUARANTEE that SOME of the EM energy is hitting the post and reflecting back to antenna, in a much shorter time than the waves which are hitting the vehicle and travelling back to the antenna. MTI theory will dictate that the RADAR decides the object is moving faster than it actually is, thanks to the shorter time gap of the radio waves which hit the post/glass. Of course, if he's using laser, than it's all totally irrelevant... :D

Speeding can and does kill.......whether you think so or not. I agree that state governments advertising campaigns tend to sensationalise it to a degree.

I've read how RTA can fudge figures on speeding by including speed as a factor in accidents where even tho a vehicle may have been travelling at 50kph in a 60 zone, due to fog/black ice/whatever, the vehicle speed was still inappropriate for the conditions. chalk up another fatality statistic to the speed kills column... :rolleyes:

But my central theory is that people have to take responsibility for themselves.

The governments obviously don't think we can be responsible for ourselves, so they take it upon themselves to nanny us to death by imposing ludicrous speed limits (like 110 on the hume, where the limit should be at least 150, if not even higher IMHO) leading to fatigue on long drives. I live in the NT and can routinely drive at 200kph+ on roads which are clearly inferior to the hume. By all eastern state logic, i should be dead many times over. but here i am, alive and kicking. I'll put it down to days of advanced driver training i've done, track time (where i can safely learn the limits of my car), a head filled (mostly) with common sense, and finally a safe, modern car.

Edit: I guess I'm sick of piss-weak governments that keep shoving BS down our throats like "every K over is a killer", who are only too happy to keep lowering limits, and increasing the number of cameras to line their pockets with cash, instead of taking a pro-active approach to lowering road tolls with the measures i outlined in my first post... The sad, frustrating part is, those gutless wankers in power don't seem to want to change anywhere in the near future... It doesn't help public opinion of your job when police are seen sitting on their arse in the back of speed camera vans (here in Darwin anyway, i know some states revenue collection vans are privatised) instead of showing a visible presence in high-crime areas, preventing personal attacks on families, shopkeepers ect...

m@w8

20-09-2004, 02:55 PM

What I said was to get caught by a fixed speed camera you would have to be too stupid to be driving, what with the at least 3 signs indicating it's location. I stand by my call.

Once again I say... you obviously don't drive in Victoria. There are NO SIGNS and the cameras are hidden behind overhead direction signs and bridges.
You NSW guys have it very easy, and yes I'm amazed that ANYONE up there gets caught.

Yes, if you're comlying with the limit, and everyone else is doing 20km/h or somore, that can cause complications. Crazy idea- how about they do the same speed too?

My point was that if everyone is doing a sensible speed for the environment (lets say 80km/h on a divided road) and the speed limit for some reason is 60, then it is DANGEROUS to do 60 because of the speed differential.

Nonsense. Can't hold your car at a constant speed for any period of time? Learn to drive. As you are on an enthusiast website, I would imagine you are an enthusiast driver, if you can't tell if your car is picking up/dropping off revs/speed, maybe you just plain can't drive.

So your speed never varies more than 2km/h when you drive? Rubbish!

Dacious

20-09-2004, 03:12 PM

Gotta go with GlenIII with this one. I drive aggressively and irrationally at times, and have been let off my fair share when I could/should have been booked. I have no problem knowing when I am over the limit, even by a small amount and I don't drive down the road eyes glued to the speedo. If you need the speedo for more than an occassional reference when driving steadily along, without turning or stopping, then I'd conclude you are too inexpert for public roads. It is certainly true that some people don't need to speed to be far over their ability level.

No-one likes being told what to do when 'I've never had an accident', and having it reinforced punitively thru the wallet is painful. But experienced drivers don't speed in areas where kids, pedestrians or other road users are likely to cross their paths - around shops or schools or businesses, in suburban sidestreets, on arterial roads with uncontrolled intersections or on backroads without clear fields of view going hundreds of metres. If someone is killed in an accident with you, even if it's 'not your fault', it will ruin your, and many others', lives. Just ask the accident investigations guys, SES, ambos, the family of the deceased or even people and theior families just put through the whole coroners' system without being charged with an offence.

If drivers were really good enough to speed in urban environments then we wouldn't see flowers taped to roadside furniture in the suburbs, or skidmarks and broken glass around freeway centre dividers. The fact is you are in control right up until the point when you aren't, and almost no-one killed or injured while driving ever planned to be, minutes or seconds before they are. It's also mostly the case that when a crisis is imposed on you like something crosses your path or you are forced off it when driving, you almost never want to be going faster than you are. Hence the focus on speed.

A car is still the deadliest thing the average person controls, and even though it may be the kids', or the elderly drivers', or the careless pedestrians' fault that they cross your path, if you are fair hooting along then you'll still be culpable. That's why it is subject to the level of control it is.

Kirium

20-09-2004, 03:17 PM

I meant Doppler not MTI... :doh:

m@w8

20-09-2004, 03:19 PM

Let me get this clear. I'm NOT advocating speeding. I agree 100% with everything Dacious says (apart from being able to not vary your speed by 2km/h!!! Seriously you can get booked for 3km/h over in Vic. Think about it!)

But how does getting booked for 63 in a 60 zone help fight the road toll? It's this blind obession with drivers exceeding the speed limit that is getting people killed!! How about concentrating on the things that are causing those flowers taped to roadside furniture, like lack of experience, poor road and vehicle condition, poor and inappropriate drive training, road rage, etc... Simply attributing it to "speed kills" is doing nobody any favours, but conveniently it does make a lot of money for the government...

Dacious

20-09-2004, 03:33 PM

It helps by you, if you can't hold a constant 60-62km/h, driving at 58...

Look, my father in law who is a retired primary school principal and a pillock of society got done for 67 by a speed camera. He's 72 with glasses, and his reactions aren't too flash. It's probably much better for him and everyone else he drives at 55 than 65.

And if you don't believe you can't stop much faster from 50 than 60, seriously, go and try it.

I don't know anyone who's actually been booked for 63 - they do apply a fudge factor and if you got a ticket for 63 in a 60 zone it probably means your speedo said 70. That is more than 10% over. Even if your speedo is wrong it is telling you you're over. If you lack faith in it, better to be conservative!

And yep, doing 50 in a 60 zone with fog or bad conditions like water flooding a road could be construed as travelling unacceptably fast. In addition to obeying road rules such as speeds, giving way, stoplights and the like, you also have an obligation not to run into someone else even when they don't - that's where the 'travel at a speed you can safely stop and avoid an accident in' bit comes in.

Just because most of us don't do it - including me, I'm no angel - doesn't mean that obligation isn't there.

markone2

20-09-2004, 03:44 PM

The day I see an option to pay my speeding fine to a registered charity is the day I'll believe speed camera's are more than just blatant revenue raisers designed to prop up ailing State coffers

m@w8

20-09-2004, 03:44 PM

I don't know anyone who's actually been booked for 63 - they do apply a fudge factor and if you got a ticket for 63 in a 60 zone it probably means your speedo said 70. That is more than 10% over. Even if your speedo is wrong it is telling you you're over. If you lack faith in it, better to be conservative!

I would have not problem with a 10% tolerance. That has been my entire point! Using a tolerance that is too tight ends up targetting the majority of road users, not just the dangerous ones, and if the majority of people on the road are driving dangerously, then the road toll would be much MUCH higher.
The safest speed, reserch has proven is the 85th percentile, and this should be how speed limits are set. Unfortunately in many cases they are not.

And yep, doing 50 in a 60 zone with fog or bad conditions like water flooding a road could be construed as travelling unacceptably fast. In addition to obeying road rules such as speeds, giving way, stoplights and the like, you also have an obligation not to run into someone else even when they don't - that's where the 'travel at a speed you can safely stop and avoid an accident in' bit comes in.

Just because most of us don't do it - including me, I'm no angel - doesn't mean that obligation isn't there.

Once again, that's my point. The Speed limit is not a good indicator of what is safe. Motorists should be encouraged to actually THINK when they drive. And rather than just look at the sign and drive slower than the number on it, they should look at the environment (fog, pedestrians, school, etc...) and make a common sense decision.

Speed enforcement is not a bad thing. It's just when it executed poorly, for the purpose of raising money and not for road safety, then it's a tragedy waiting to happen.

Get rid of speed cameras and put more police on the roads! How does sending a ticket (next week) to the guy who just killed your child help?
A policecar who can stop the guy then and there is much more sensible.

m@w8

20-09-2004, 03:46 PM

The day I see an option to pay my speeding fine to a registered charity is the day I'll believe speed camera's are more than just blatant revenue raisers desingned to prop up ailing State coffers

That is one of the best ideas I've ever heard... but I doubt we'll see it... :(

RICHO

20-09-2004, 03:52 PM

And yep, doing 50 in a 60 zone with fog or bad conditions like water flooding a road could be construed as travelling unacceptably fast. In addition to obeying road rules such as speeds, giving way, stoplights and the like, you also have an obligation not to run into someone else even when they don't - that's where the 'travel at a speed you can safely stop and avoid an accident in' bit comes in.

Just because most of us don't do it - including me, I'm no angel - doesn't mean that obligation isn't there.

The only issue I have is that of all the road rules that could be enforced to make driving safer for everyone, speeding is the only one being pushed.

Here in VIC it's pushed because it can be enforced and penalties imposed without police. Fixed Point Speed Cameras, roadside speed cameras that have been outsourced to private companies to operate. All speed focused. And the emphasis is there because it is the cheapest way to raise revenue.

If and that's a big IF more police were on the roads and able to issue penalties for things such as tailgating, failing to keep left, driving in an unsafe manner (e.g. 50 in a 60 zone in zero visibility and driving rain) we would all be safer. But it costs money to get more police on the roads and it's money that Governments won't spend.

It's easier and cheaper to blame speed and blame the driver rather than take a good hard look at the dangerous culture of bad driving that has developed.

As a couple of people have said, 50 in a 60 zone can be unsafe, so can 95 in a 100 zone if you are sitting in the right hand lane. And in exactly the same manner, 130 on a clear road that you no well with minimal traffic can be perfectly safe. The issue I think most people have is that only ONE of these examples is getting either publicised or punished at the moment.

And that's just plain wrong!!

GHZ28

20-09-2004, 03:52 PM

I'm well aware of how RADAR works. And EM waves don't travel in direct, focused directions like laser. they radiate outwards, in a general direction. if he's standing behind the post and glass, but shooting slightly to the left of it, i GUARANTEE that SOME of the EM energy is hitting the post and reflecting back to antenna, in a much shorter time than the waves which are hitting the vehicle and travelling back to the antenna. MTI theory will dictate that the RADAR decides the object is moving faster than it actually is, thanks to the shorter time gap of the radio waves which hit the post/glass. Of course, if he's using laser, than it's all totally irrelevant... :D

...

Police radar is not doppler radar as such, it neither knows nor cares how far
the target is away, only that it is moving at a speed relative to the radar device. I have been using them for 20+ years and am an authorised instructor.

He is using an LTI laser device.....so yes.....it is all totally irrelevant....

RICHO

20-09-2004, 03:56 PM

Police radar is not doppler radar as such, it neither knows nor cares how far
the target is away, only that it is moving at a speed relative to the radar device. I have been using them for 20+ years and am an authorised instructor.

He is using an LTI laser device.....so yes.....it is all totally irrelevant....

Finally an expert!!

So I have a question.

Does the width of the beam from an LTI radar device get wider the further away the target is??

If so does that mean that other vehicles could be include in the beams "field of vision"?

For example a car travelling in the opposite direction or behind you in another lane etc

Dacious

20-09-2004, 04:04 PM

Just an example. Last Tues night I was driving down Warrigal Road through Chadstone. I was in the centre on the crown of the road travelling South. A girly in a Excel was in the left lane, with my front wheel just off her rear. We were both doing maybe 60-65k. It was raining and had been for a while, quite hard.

When we almost got to Centre Rd, she hit a standing 6" deep patch of water invisible to either of us in the gutter. The bowwave hit the windscreen of my car, momentarily blinding me. I saw her brakelights come on through the torrent of water and the rear of her car moved sideways towards me, aquaplaning as the water dragged her left front around. I don't know how close it came to mine, but if it had've kept swinging and touched me in those conditions one or both of us may have lost it. Neither was in control at that instant, and arguably we were travelling at a speed where we would not be booked.

But I would contend it was still foolhardy of both of us - in thsoe conditions she should have been travelling slower and probably more in the centre of the road, and I should not have been sitting on her shoulder so she had room to manouevre. It was more luck than good management that we didn't touch and the two cars straightened up, coming up to an intersection with a forrest of trafficlights and light poles waiting to smash or slice a sliding car in half.

If we'd been doing 75, 85 and she hit that big puddle..... I've seen people sitting on higher speeds in similar conditions.

m@w8

20-09-2004, 04:13 PM

Another example. I was driving behind a Gemini a few weeks back on a wide road (60 zone). I wasn't catching him, and was sitting on around 60-65 (shame on me!) so he was probably doing at least 65.

I noticed him wander around on the road a bit over the center line then swerve back. I could see him leaning into the back of the car as he drove. Then to my horror, he drove off the road into a telegraph pole! No attempt to brake whatsoever. We stopped to help, and there was also a 3 week old baby thrown into the passenger footwelll, luckily OK, and a girl in the back with a broken pelvis. The driver was barely concious and ended up with broken ribs and some cuts and bruises.

If there had been a speed camera there, he would have most likely got a letter in the mail a week later. Woo Hoo.
If there had been a police car, they may have pulled him over before he cleaned up the pole.

But this will undoubtably get added to the "speed related accident" statistics when the problem was the driver who was possibly "under the unfluence" and not watching the road.

GHZ28

20-09-2004, 04:25 PM

Let me get this clear. I'm NOT advocating speeding. I agree 100% with everything Dacious says (apart from being able to not vary your speed by 2km/h!!! Seriously you can get booked for 3km/h over in Vic. Think about it!)
...

You can get booked in Victoria at speed limit plus 10%+1 ie 67 less the manufacturer's specified error of 3 km/h, so you get tickets saying 64 km/h when you were actually doing 67.

I am not advocating that is a fair or reasonable system, just attempting to clarify the true situation as explained to me.

In Queensland we currently enjoy a tolerance of 11 km/h or 10%+1 whichever is the greater for speed camera offences.

m@w8

20-09-2004, 04:32 PM

You can get booked in Victoria at speed limit plus 10%+1 ie 67 less the manufacturer's specified error of 3 km/h, so you get tickets saying 64 km/h when you were actually doing 67.

I am not advocating that is a fair or reasonable system, just attempting to clarify the true situation as explained to me.

In Queensland we currently enjoy a tolerance of 11 km/h or 10%+1 whichever is the greater for speed camera offences.

I'd like to know where you get that information for Victoria. Here's what I got from an article in The Age in January

===
One particular gripe is the police's reduction in what they call their enforcement threshold. In a 60 km/h zone, there is a legislated 3 km/h tolerance for speed cameras, so you won't be booked for going 63 km/h or under. Before March last year, police set their own enforcement threshold at 10 km/h above the speed limit in every zone so, in reality, we had a 70 km/h speed limit in a 60 zone. Police won't say what the new enforcement speed is, but it's believed to be about 3 km/h in a 60 zone.
===

So from that I understand that the tolerance is 3km/h. Considering that the ADR's allow for a 10% error in your speedo, that doesn't seem fair to me.

The margin should be 10% + 3km/h to allow for speed error AND camera tolerance. But then the revenue would drop massively.

GHZ28

20-09-2004, 04:33 PM

Finally an expert!!

So I have a question.

Does the width of the beam from an LTI radar device get wider the further away the target is??

If so does that mean that other vehicles could be include in the beams "field of vision"?

For example a car travelling in the opposite direction or behind you in another lane etc

Yes the beam does spread, it is intentionally diverged in all brands of laser speed measuring devices. Beam dispersion is 3 mRadians, or 1m at 300m, 2m at 600m, 3m at 1000m.

Hence, it is normal to only use laser out to 600m in multilane situations, thus the beam is quite clearly entirely within the one lane and covering only one vehicle.

The lasers are direction discriminating, so a vehicle travelling the other direction would result in a speed with a negative relative velocity, normally indicated by -65 for instance rather than 65.

Laser devices indicate the range to the target, further aiding in target identification.

GHZ28

20-09-2004, 04:41 PM

I'd like to know where you get that information for Victoria. Here's what I got from an article in The Age in January

===
One particular gripe is the police's reduction in what they call their enforcement threshold. In a 60 km/h zone, there is a legislated 3 km/h tolerance for speed cameras, so you won't be booked for going 63 km/h or under. Before March last year, police set their own enforcement threshold at 10 km/h above the speed limit in every zone so, in reality, we had a 70 km/h speed limit in a 60 zone. Police won't say what the new enforcement speed is, but it's believed to be about 3 km/h in a 60 zone.
===

So from that I understand that the tolerance is 3km/h. Considering that the ADR's allow for a 10% error in your speedo, that doesn't seem fair to me..

The margin should be 10% + 3km/h to allow for speed error AND camera tolerance. But then the revenue would drop massively

Correct...SHOULD be 10% for ADR plus manufacturer's specified error.

But it isn't, that same camera system operated in Queensland has a 0% error applied to it by our Government.

We all lose somewhere, depends on what YOUR state decides is an enforceable speed for camera offences.

And don't believe everything in the newspapers, they are written by journalists.....for instance, in yesterday's Sunday Mail up here we had an article which asserted that vehicles on a highway HAD to GIVE WAY to entering vehicles. Probably half the people who read that article now believe it to be true, hopefully not with fatal consequences.

ps. Try to find someone who was actually doing 63 km/h when they got their ticket in Victoria.

From my experience driving down there, the traffic certainly does seem to travel at or below the speed limit more than other states. That is an observation from an experienced operator, not a statement of fact. It is hard to remember not to apply the Queensland tolerance down there, so far been lucky. I always get rentals with cruise control these days.

RICHO

20-09-2004, 04:50 PM

Yes the beam does spread, it is intentionally diverged in all brands of laser speed measuring devices. Beam dispersion is 3 mRadians, or 1m at 300m, 2m at 600m, 3m at 1000m.

Hence, it is normal to only use laser out to 600m in multilane situations, thus the beam is quite clearly entirely within the one lane and covering only one vehicle.

The lasers are direction discriminating, so a vehicle travelling the other direction would result in a speed with a negative relative velocity, normally indicated by -65 for instance rather than 65.

Laser devices indicate the range to the target, further aiding in target identification.

Thanks for that!! I had been wondering.

Would operator movement make keeping the beam within one lane more problematic??

Taking operator movement into accounnt and based on those dispersion rates the only way to be sure that the beam was focused on 1 lane only would be to require lasers be mounted on a stable tripod.

m@w8

20-09-2004, 04:58 PM

Correct...SHOULD be 10% for ADR plus manufacturer's specified error.

But it isn't, that same camera system operated in Queensland has a 0% error applied to it by our Government.

We all lose somewhere, depends on what YOUR state decides is an enforceable speed for camera offences.

And don't believe everything in the newspapers, they are written by journalists.....for instance, in yesterday's Sunday Mail up here we had an article which asserted that vehicles on a highway HAD to GIVE WAY to entering vehicles. Probably half the people who read that article now believe it to be true, hopefully not with fatal consequences.

ps. Try to find someone who was actually doing 63 km/h when they got their ticket in Victoria.

From my experience driving down there, the traffic certainly does seem to travel at or below the speed limit more than other states. That is an observation from an experienced operator, not a statement of fact. It is hard to remember not to apply the Queensland tolerance down there, so far been lucky. I always get rentals with cruise control these days.

Agree on "what you read" but I can't find any information on the Vicroads site about what the official tolerances are.

As far as finding someone who was actually doing 63... well how can you tell? Even if you can remember exactly what the speedo was reading, that could still be out by 10%.

I got a ticket a few months back for 76 in a 70 zone, which I thought was a bit harsh. According to ADR's, my speedo may have been reading 69!!

I've safely driven through many "manned" speed traps at 5km/h over the limit (as per my speedo) and never been pulled over, and I've been pulled over for doing stupid things below the speed limit. Cameras cannot be as descriminating.

GHZ28

20-09-2004, 05:47 PM

Agree on "what you read" but I can't find any information on the Vicroads site about what the official tolerances are.

As far as finding someone who was actually doing 63... well how can you tell? Even if you can remember exactly what the speedo was reading, that could still be out by 10%.

I got a ticket a few months back for 76 in a 70 zone, which I thought was a bit harsh. According to ADR's, my speedo may have been reading 69!!

I've safely driven through many "manned" speed traps at 5km/h over the limit (as per my speedo) and never been pulled over, and I've been pulled over for doing stupid things below the speed limit. Cameras cannot be as descriminating.

Thought I should mention, I am not a serving Police Officer, my training and accreditation is from the USA but is current, very current.

I don't think there are any official sites with tolerances, and they vary by state and in some instances with officer's discretion.

Most modern speedometers with the correct size tyre are accurate within 2 km/h and normally read high.

I am not an expert in all states legislation or tolerances, but have a vested interest in remaining current as much as I possibly can. From memory, Victoria used to put two speeds on infringement notices from camera detected offences, detected speed and alleged speed. They have discontinued that practice and now just put the alleged speed on the notice.

GHZ28

20-09-2004, 05:58 PM

Thanks for that!! I had been wondering.

Would operator movement make keeping the beam within one lane more problematic??

Taking operator movement into accounnt and based on those dispersion rates the only way to be sure that the beam was focused on 1 lane only would be to require lasers be mounted on a stable tripod.

No not really, most of the operators are very good at what they do. With training and experience there is absolutely no need for a tripod, although a rest can assist at longer ranges.

ssvyredute

20-09-2004, 06:17 PM

No not really, most of the operators are very good at what they do. With training and experience there is absolutely no need for a tripod, although a rest can assist at longer ranges.

boy ! you must be really talented and skilled to hold a radar gun steady. :eek:

GHZ28

20-09-2004, 07:30 PM

boy ! you must be really talented and skilled to hold a radar gun steady. :eek:

What the.....???????????

we are talking about laser speed measuring devices here.

now I know why I normally don't bother making comments on the rubbish that is proliferated about radar on this type of forum.

m@w8

20-09-2004, 08:53 PM

What the.....???????????

we are talking about laser speed measuring devices here.

now I know why I normally don't bother making comments on the rubbish that is proliferated about radar on this type of forum.

Don't worry mate. Not everyone here is an adolescent without a licence.
(You should see the WRX forums!) You just have to ignore some stuff. It is after all just someone elses opinion, and hey, this is a public forum.

Thanks for the useful info and discussion. ;)

vysandman

20-09-2004, 09:40 PM

Lighten up guys. Who cares who knows the most technical information about Radar. The whole fixed camera idea is a joke. They are never placed in "Black Spot" areas but conveniently down the road on a straight where more people can be caught. An example here in Sydney is the one on Delhi Rd. I have travelled that road for years and have seen a few accidents on the curves just after the bridge heading west. Where do they put the camera ?
On the straight stretch of road before the curves Heading East. I've never seen an accident there and the camera cannot detect the speeding cars heading West on the side of the road where the accidents always occur. I have seen accidents before and AFTER the camera was erected, so it has had little IF ANY effect. You're right, there is no Quota for tickets, but I know a few cops and one in particular who has told me you are frowned upon if you only write 2 tickets for the shift and the "norm" is 10 for example. I find HWP Officers are usually "Special" people and I love it when they defend every action by a fellow officer (No matter how trivial or unnecessary) to be justified by "He was only doing his job".

Devil CV8

20-09-2004, 11:00 PM

You're right, there is no Quota for tickets, but I know a few cops and one in particular who has told me you are frowned upon if you only write 2 tickets for the shift and the "norm" is 10 for example.

Every worker is measured by much work he does, and a traffic cop is measured by number of tickets. There may be no quota but a cop writing an abnormally low number of tickets will be "counselled" and/or have a ride along with his/her supervisor.

RedR8

20-09-2004, 11:41 PM

It is quite good timing that this thread has started now given the opportunity I had last week. I will make it clear from the outset that I am not a police officer either. Last week I had the opportunity to have a chat with a Brissy traffic cop, and watch him use the device in question in the article. I also had an opportunity to try it too. So I hope I can add some perspective for everyone.

1. Every time one of these devices goes out for use, they are put through a number of calibration tests to ensure they are working correctly. One of these tests involves measuring fixed, pre-surveyed, distances. If there is more than +/- 1cm variation on the surveyed distances (which are around 100m) then the device doesn't get used. This test happens again after the device has been finished with for the shift.

2. The accuracy with which you can aim at an object is outstanding. Without anything to assist or rest the device on (i.e. it was in the shoulder) I could get a telephone pole at 250m and a wheelie-bin at >400m, so don't ever think they can't pick up an individual car. So whether the police are hiding or not, it doesn't matter. If they have line of sight to your car, you are open to reading.

3. We weren't hiding. Out in the open, with bright yellow vests on, with the car parked on the side of the road. Yet, people still managed not to see us.

4. The inbuilt electronics ensures the vehicle being targeted is “tested” more than once and done so fairly. I can’t remember exactly how it worked, but went along the lines of the device having to have a certain number of readings returned all within a small tolerance of each other, otherwise there was no result.

5. No blatant revenue raising occurred. Every offence that a ticket was written up for was at least a 3 point offence, with a lot of 4 point offences as well. One was even worse. We were in a 50 km/h residential zone, and it sickened me to really see what speeds some people do. Some of it was through stupidity, and some through arrogance.

So if everyone wants to bleat about revenue raising, or sneaky tactics or whatever other gripe, just remember that it is your choice to break the law. Next time you're doing 73 in a 50 zone, think if you would want someone else doing that in your street around your kids. If you think this is revenue raising, feel free to reply. If you wouldn't want the cops hiding in your street behind a tree to catch the person, also feel free to reply.

[flame suit goes on] :hide:

RedR8

rusty

21-09-2004, 01:16 AM

Speeding can and does kill.......whether you think so or not. I agree that state governments advertising campaigns tend to sensationalise it to a degree. I've always advocated raising speed limits on sections of roads that are of a very high standard, redcuing the limit on others. I've also said I don't agree with fixed cameras, but if someone gets done by one, then they are really too stupid to be driving. But my central theory is that people have to take responsibility for themselves. They know the speed limit, choose to drive above it, yet ALWAYS shift the blame to the "Stupid cops". I find this amusing. Regardless of how sneaky you may think the enforcement is, and yes, it can be sneaky, the driver of the car is in the wrong in the first place.

brilliant logic there. while of course its true that you wont be booked if you dont exceed the speed limit, what if the speed limit is totally unsuitable for that particular stretch of road? what if the people who get fined, bitch because the speed limit makes people bored and inattentive?

lets redefine the situation.

what if there was a new personal hygiene campaign started by the government where they wanted you to turn on and off the tap in your bathroom wash basin with your left hand. always your left hand. why? because they cobbled together some stats that say 88.43% of people wipe their ass with their right hand. so now 50 bureaucrats in 3 separate committees from 4 goverment departments had 11 meetings and decided we all have to turn on the taps to wash our hands with our left hand. as a matter of fact, its suddenly crucial to national hygiene that we do. they spend a few million running this on tv, with hard-hitting slogans like "bathroom safety is no joke", and a few million more installing cameras in public buildings where they fine you as you walk out the door if you dont turn the tap on and off with the left hand. pretty soon current affairs programs are doing shock stories on people who are repeat right hand offenders and, the very worst of all, those jacket-wipers who dont wash their hands at all. after a while, its plain nothing seems to result from the hygiene campaign and the fines, but the government is making between $200 million and $400 million per state in revenue, so more campaigns are run and the fines are made heavier. somehow, ties emerge between bathroom cleanliness and the common cold. government funded studies show a 5% reducing in right handed knob twisting results in a 60% reduction in sick days at primary schools. a small minority shake their heads in amazement whilst the majority of population nod their heads and quote the new hard-hitting slogan "wipe off 5 and stay alive" to each other.

sound familiar?

rusty

21-09-2004, 01:26 AM

5. No blatant revenue raising occurred. Every offence that a ticket was written up for was at least a 3 point offence, with a lot of 4 point offences as well. One was even worse. We were in a 50 km/h residential zone, and it sickened me to really see what speeds some people do. Some of it was through stupidity, and some through arrogance.RedR8

suburban streets deserve their 50kmh limits. suburban streets are legitimate places for speed enforcement, and it sounds like the policy youre describing, 3 and 4 point offences in a 50 zone, are sensible and a real service to the community. sadly i think thats a definite rarity.

surburbia i have no problem with. highways and motorways are something else. plus, in some states, fines are issued much less than the amount youre talking about. victorians get fined for 3+kmh over. thats 103kmh in a 100kmh zone, youre fined. thats bullshit. first of all, highways shouldnt be 100kmh, unless theyre actually a goat track mislabeled, and secondly the margin for leeway should be far greater than 3kmh. not to mention, if the government was really interested in road safety, speed enforcement would be way down the list, in direct proportion to its importance as a contributing factor.

rusty

21-09-2004, 01:39 AM

If we'd been doing 75, 85 and she hit that big puddle..... I've seen people sitting on higher speeds in similar conditions.

theres the real point.

people are being trained to look at the sign on the side of the road, then look at their speedo and peg that miserable speed limit to the max they can get away with.

instead, people simply need to be trained to drive to the conditions.

that means, if its 4am on a dry, empty floodlit M1 motorway, sure do 130kmh. do 150kmh if you want. but when its bucketing down in peak hour, do 80, or whatever feels right. pay attention to THAT, not some speed limit that was imposed many thousands of kilometers (and days) away from the stretch of road youre on.

Mongy

21-09-2004, 06:28 AM

It is quite good timing that this thread has started now given the opportunity I had last week. I will make it clear from the outset that I am not a police officer either. Last week I had the opportunity to have a chat with a Brissy traffic cop, and watch him use the device in question in the article. I also had an opportunity to try it too. So I hope I can add some perspective for everyone.

[flame suit goes on] :hide:

RedR8
:lol: I deleted the rest because it was too looonnnng. Yes, that is probably correct, they would be calibrated to the correct settings, but a fair bit still rests with the integrity and honesty of the operator in question. On one of the defensive driving courses I have been through 2 officers came and gave us a talk on safety from a police perspective and a demo of a radar unit. They showed us how it can be misused by making the rear wall of the classroom do 60kph. And I can tell you from first hand experience that the back wall was not moving :lol: They then told us that this does not happen - EVER. My question to them on the day was if it "never" happens, how did they just expertly happen to know how to misuse it so successfully. Some police are genuinely "jaded" by having to see what damage and despair accidents do to people and families, and they feel they are doing the right thing, but I think they need to distance themselves from it to get a better perspective, and I don't know if that is possible for them to do after some of the things they have seen and witnessed. I agree with Markone2 100%, give it to charity, then I'll belive it is not just for revenue. Another thing they could do that would make me believe they care about safety more than the states coffers is to have more alcohol and drug testing, so that we can rein in our number one killer. I can tell you it would not worry me if I was bagged every day, I would feel a lot safer driving than I do now, because seeing speed cameras every second day does nothing towards making me feel safer on the roads, it just makes me angry at the futility of it all.

scat2k3

21-09-2004, 07:35 AM

Veeate

21-09-2004, 07:51 AM

When the government spends every last cent of revenue raised through speed cameras on driver education programs and road improvements, then and only then will I believe they are serious about road safety.

Until then, its just another way to make money for the consolidated revenue coffers.

Cheers,

Scott

Could not agree more. The government needs to do so much more to address our licencing system and our roads before i will support speed cameras - let alone this complete focus on speeding.

Always easy to 'punish' drivers. How about 'investing' in us with safe roads and a licencing system where you need to really earn the right to drive. Sad to say that some people just dont have the skills , co-ordination....whatever....to carry a licence. But instead our licencing system allows them on the road if they can do a 3 point turn or a reverse park.

The bike riders out there know what it means.....they have to attend stay upright courses....their licence system actually means something in terms of what type of bike you can ride etc.

For us car drivers where is the brake test from 100-0 (in actual fact it should be 110 since that is the top speed limit)....the swerve and avoid test at the same speed....i could go on but it gets me too fired up...........

If Ian Luff or other high performance instructors was giving out licences a lot more people would be catching public transport and the roads would be safer and there would be less need for speed cameras round every corner.