Police Commissioner's Slur Against Activists
Police Commissioner's comments not befitting an educated person. (but consistent with previous WA Police "dummy spit" comments). How long do you think anti-speed camera behaviour will be legal? NOT LONG!! Interference with the "MONEY TRAIN" will not be tolerated for very long.Add a comment
We Applaud Speed Camera Activists
Just 50 Cents per driver would fund a vigilante "Speed Camera Ahead" sign infront of every speed camera in Perth metro area 24/7 and destroy the WA Govt $100 million dollar money grab. Did you know that the WA Govt budgets on their "Road Safety" campaign failing to the tune of $90 to $100 million dollars each year? Thats is the height of hypocracy and proof positive that REVENUE RAISING is the main driver behind the growth of speed cameras in Western Australia.Add a comment
Don't think that you will see the police operating this device at up to 700m away. You won't!!! The only way you will know that your being targeted by this new laser speed detection system, is with a BLINDER HP-905 anti-laser system fitted to your vehicle. It's the only way to “Make YOUR Car Invisible" to laser speed guns systems like this little abomination. Available from BLINDER.com.au It "invasion of privacy" device has been sold to the media as a "safety belt" detector and an "anti-texting" device. Crap! It has a laser gun hanging off it and it designed to dishout speeding fines to drivers from beyond their immediate visual scanning zone plain and simple.
Article from ABC News - 15th April 2014
Victoria Police are trialling a new long-range video camera incorporating a laser gun that can catch people who are not wearing seatbelts or who are texting whilst driving from 700 metres away. The Ranger video camera is set up on a tripod and allows officers to record up to eight seconds of video ( and also a speed reading using the attached laser gun) before stopping any driver who is found to be breaking the road rules.
Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner Robert Hill says it is the first time the technology has been used in Australia."The new technology allows our police members to zoom in on drivers approaching a static location, [to see] whether they're concentrating behind the wheel, whether they're wearing their seat belt," he said."We'll test the equipment and we'll see whether this is an effective wayto influence driver behaviour, [to] encourage people to get off their mobile phones and wear their seatbelts."
Police are refusing to say how many of the cameras will be operational during the Easter and Anzac day holiday period in Melbourne and in country Victoria.
Don't allow this type of intrusion into your privacy. Arm yourself with BLINDER’s electronic laser defence shield. Available in Australia from www.blinder.com.au
Add a comment
EXCLUSIVE - POLICESPEEDCAMERAS.INFO
This is a translation of the German Evidence used in the Poliscanspeed test case. Download file.
Poliscanspeed Court Evidence 2011 Germany Traffic Test Case Poliscanspeed Court Evidence
Except "... It must be noted that the height of the perspective evaluation template according to the manufacturer's instructions should always be exactly 1 m - no tolerance , not roughly , not " there-abouts " - but exactly 1 m. This perspective is, however, not amount calibrated size and therefore to be regarded not necessarily as safe..." Google Translation.
The PoliscanSpeed Camera has been tested in the European courts for some years now but is still a relative new comer to the Australia legal system. The PoliscanSpeed Camera (manufactured by Vitronic) has been tested in the European courts for some years now but is still a relative new comer to the Australia legal system.
For any speed detection equipment to by legally used in states like Western Australia, it must first be authorised by the the Police Minister and appear in the State Government Gazette. (See the listing for the PoliscanSpeed as issued in the Govt Gazette No. 105. 22-Jun-2012 below). Without this approval the speed camera CANNOT be used by police in our legal system. Basically, anyone contesting an infringement in court could have the speeding fine turfed out on the basis that the apparatus wasn't properly approved for use.
Notice in the above Gazette excerpt how the named apparatus must be legally correct. It appears that the speed apparatus in uppercase "VITRONIC PoliScan Speed" is correct and the wrong lowercase label was Gazetted back in 2010 which has been replaced. I wonder how many speeding cases were thrown out because of this anomaly?
What I didn't know until recently is that the PoliscanSpeed has different software versions (see court case in Germany 2011 below) that can affect the "white check box" among other things. The software is the main processor responsible for the 3D scanning and recording of a vehicle co-ordinates during the 30m scanning run that results in an average speed reading.
My point is that the software is as important, if not MORE IMPORTANT than the physical speed reading equipment itself. If the apparatus model number and name are so important that it necessitates the the Police Minister to re-Gazette the apparatus, then surely changing the software in any speed reading apparatus would require re-testing and re-approval.
This is an extract of from a test case in Germany from 2011. The basis for the test case is that the "white check box" must be of a maximum height of 1metre at the front of the vehicle. If the check box is higher than 98cm for software version 1.xx or higher than 103cm for software version 3.xx then the photo should be scrapped and no fine issued.
( Image left.) This is a classic case of the "white check box" being in the wrong position. It should encompass one of the wheels and at least part of the number plate. Obviously it does not. This shamefully inaccurate photo was passed as "valid" and sent out as evidence for a speeding violation in Western Australia.
The box doesn't include one of the wheels or part of the number plate. Just as important, is the height of the white check box which was not mentioned in our previous article. As you can read below, the height shouldn't be more that 1metre with slight variations depending on the software version used.
In the photo on the left, the check box is about 1.5m high. I was shown another Poliscanspeed camera photo recently in which the white check box appeared to be in the right location and encompassed one wheel and part of the number plate, however the height of the box is more like 1.7m in height. What I didn't realise until recently is that the height of the check box is also a very important double check for accuracy of the photo and the speed reading.
I have seen a number of PoliscanSpeed photos recently and all appear to have check box out of scale with the required 1m maximum height. Is minimum / maximum "height of the Check box" being deliberately ignored by the WA Police when assessing the validity of Poliscanspeed photos?
In summary, these are the points that I wish to raise with our readers.
1) When the software in a laser gun or speed camera is changed, shouldn't the speed apparatus be re-tested and re-approved by the Police Minister and requiring a new appearance in the Govt Gazette?
2) Are the police in Australia (especially WA) setting up in accurate speed camera traps and ignoring the correct "white box" double checks 1) corrct postion, 2) correct size and 3) correct height in order to maximise revenue?
In my opinion the Poliscanspeed should be re-gazetted as follows: (a) apparatuses that bear the name VITRONIC PoliScan Speed M1 using firmware version x.xx ; and (b) apparatuses that bear the name VITRONIC PoliScan Speed M1 HP using firmware version x.xx
The Police may call the Poliscanspeed apparatus by the same name and model number, but if the software is changed so that it functions in a different way or gives different results, then in my opinion the apparatus is fundamentally changed and requires re-approval by the Police Minister.
German Test Case 12.07.2011 Case No. 7 OWi 450 Js 14650/11 - Bladt illuminated speed the decision of the AG Karlsruhe from 12.07.2011 to measure speed with PoliScan Short message to "evaluation criteria to PoliScan speed" by Dipl.-Ing. Roland Bladt, original published in: 2011 DAR volume 13, 754 - 757 The AG Karlsruhe has in its judgment of 12.07.2011, Case No. 7 OWi 450 Js 14650/11 acquitted, DAR 2011, 650, after notification of the author those affected by the accusation of speeding factual reasons because the measuring device PoliScan speed of Fa Vitronic was 11 cm above the manufacturer prescribed limits maximum height of 95 cm. The author agrees with this view, at least in the specific case. According to his calculations may in software versions 1.xx the frame height not less than 77 cm and not more than 98 cm, with software versions the frame height 3.xx not less than 97 cm and not more than 103 cm in length, if the measurement result from his view nor should be utilizable.
WA Government Gazette ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1974
Road Traffic (Speed Measuring Equipment) Notice 2012 Department of Transport Reference: RTA-2012- 00800 Made by the Minister for Transport under subsection 98A(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1974. 1. Citation - This notice may be cited as the Road Traffic (Speed Measuring Equipment) Notice 2012. 2. Previous Approval Revoked. I revoke the previous approval gazetted on page 6295 of the Government Gazette dated 10 December 2010 in relation to apparatuses bearing the name Vitronic PoliScan Speed M1. 3. Approval of laser apparatus for ascertaining speed.
I approve as types of laser apparatus for ascertaining the speed at which a vehicle is moving—
(a) apparatuses that bear the name VITRONIC PoliScan Speed M1; and
(b) apparatuses that bear the name VITRONIC PoliScan Speed M1 HP.
Without this approval the speed camera can NOT be used by police in our legal system. Basically, anyone contesting infringements in court could have the speeding fine turfed out on the basis that the apparatus wasn't approved for use. Notice in the above Gazette excerpt how the named apparatus must be legally correct. It appears that the speed apparatus must be labelled in uppercase "VITRONIC PoliScan Speed" and the wrong label was Gazetted back in 2010. I would suggest that some smart solicitor had a case thrown out of court on the basis that the apparatus was not authorised correctly because of the lower case labeling in the Gazette.Add a comment
EXCLUSIVE - WA POLICE TOP SECRETS REVEALED - EXCLUSIVE
Infringement photo from a WA Police PoliscanSpeed camera with incorrect template watermark check. This infringement was unknowingly paid by it's driver. How many tickets have you paid in false speeding fines?
By PoliceSpeedCameras.info EXCLUSIVE 1st Aug 2012
It is a corrupt system of government that willfully keeps it's citizens ignorant of the "hidden rules" in order to maximise revenue and control over it's citizens while funnelling them into a legal "meat grinder" designed to do one thing only - To extort a predetermined amount of money in the quickest and least costly way (without court delays) under the threat of imprisonment, for trivial speeding offences there-by criminialising it's citizens and for what?
What you need to know:
The "white box" graphical template =on PoliscanSpeed Camera infringements is a double check, automatically generated by the speed camera and placed in the photo as a means of double checking that the camera captured the correct speed reading for the vehicle. If the white box is in the wrong spot, the infringement is worthless in court as evidence and should be put in the bin.
The questions that we are asking are:
1) Why is the template "white box" double check information being kept from the general public?
2) Why did the WA Government sign a 20 year non-disclosure agreement to keep it hidden from the general public?
3) How many of these FALSE infringements are being handed out for drivers to pay?
In my opinion, there are a significant number of these "false tickets" escaping review amounting to many thousands of dollars worth of ill gotten gains for the WA Government.
Don't bother getting out your magnifying glass and trying to view the white box template on your infringement notice. The photo is so small you will not see it clearly, if you can see it at all. Look for the link on the infringement that will allow you to view the high resolution camera photo online. This is the only way you will know the exact position of the white box.
Click the read more for the full story...Add a comment
Most Victorian Drivers Fined for less than 9km/h Over Limit
Even if you believe the spin around speed cameras, you must agree that giving fines for less than 9km/h is just plain ridiculous. Politician who believe that handing out speeding fines for 1 to 9 km/h is nonsensical. We are talking walking speed .
Herald Sun August 18th
VICTORIA AUSTRALIA - Figures obtained by the Herald Sun reveal most motorists were fined for doing less than 10km/h over the limit. More than 1.3 million motorists paid almost $250 million in speed and red light camera fines in the past year. That boosted State Government coffers by $475 for every minute of 2010-11.
Figures obtained by the Herald Sun reveal most motorists were fined for doing less than 10km/h over the limit. By far the biggest revenue raisers of all 435 traffic cameras in Victoria were the four speed cameras mounted on the Melbourne-bound side of Forsyth Rd bridge on the Princes Freeway at Hop-pers Crossing. They collected $4.14 million from 24,410 motorists.
The second biggest earners were the cameras mounted across three lanes of the Frankston Freeway off-ramp at the intersection of Dandenong-Frankston Rd. They snapped 16,425 motorists, who paid $3.19 million in fines.
Motorists paid particular attention to cameras at the intersections of Cemetery Rd West and Royal Pde in Parkville, and Maroondah Highway and Springvale Rd in Nunawading - each booked only one driver in the entire year. The top-earning red light camera was on the corner of Elizabeth and Victoria streets in Melbourne: 9229 motorists were pinged in 12 months.
Of the 585,405 motorists caught by fixed speed cameras in 2010-11, 462,730 were fined for doing less than 10km/h over the limit. Of a further 579,184 nabbed by mobile speed cameras, 465,640 were doing less than 10km/h over the limit. Apart from the 1.32 million fixed and mobile camera fines issued in the past financial year, police issued a further 208,725 on-the-spot fines and just over a million motorists were slugged for not paying tolls on EastLink and other toll roads. The $249 million raised by traffic cameras in 2010-11 is $13 million more than in the previous financial year.
Full details of traffic camera fines for 2010-11 will be on the Department of Justice's website, camerassavelives,vic.gov.au from today.
France - UK News
64% of the French against the speed cameras
By Europe1.fr with AFP
The French are opposed to 64% with the installation of 400 additional automatic radar speed cameras announced by the government these last days, according to a Ifop survey to appear in Western Sunday France.
On these 64%,36% disapprove “completely” this measurement, rejected by all the categories of population and all the electorates, according to the survey institute. “The opposition to this measurement is sharper in rural area where one is most tributary of the car” with 74% of rejection, of which 45% disapprove “completely”, Ifop raises.
On the other hand, 61% of probed approve “the presence of ethylotest in each car” but among them, only 22% adhere to it “completely”.
“Approved by a majority of sympathizers of the PS (61%) and UMP (72%), measurement does not convince the sympathizers of the FN (42%) which confirms their character protester here”, underlines Ifop.
Survey carried out by questionnaire car-managed on line of December 6 near a sample of 1.002 people representative of the French population 18 years old and more. The representativeness of the sample was ensured by the method of the quotas.
400 New Speed Cameras for France
Breath test kits to be in every vehicle
DRIVERS will have to carry a breath test kit in their vehicles from next spring as part of new measures by President Sarkozy to cut the roads death toll.
Other measures include 400 new speed cameras, the introduction of new-generation radar units that work from moving police cars and measures to bring in automatic speed reduction systems in cars. The president also said he was looking at creating a national day for road death victims.
In all, 3,980 people died on the roads in the 12 months to October 31 and Sarkozy has little chance of meeting his own target of under 4,000 deaths in 2011. The new measures, he said, are aimed to bring the death rate down to 3,000 by the end of 2012.
Sarkozy said speed cameras were not "easy budget boosters" and that all the money from fines was put back into road safety.
Alcohol is the No1 cause of deaths, being involved in 31% of fatal accidents, and Sarkozy said in-car breath test kits would let drivers will know whether they were safe to drive. However, he made no announcement on increasing the number of points lost off a licence for drink-drive offences. At present drivers lose six of their 12 points, so a ban is not automatic.
A Sécurité Routière official said the breath test would be a simple "balloon into which you blow and which you need to have in your car or face a fine of €11."
Interior Minister Claude Guéant has also asked EU authorities to look at the obligatory installation of anti-start breath test monitors in each car. Drivers would have to blow into the machine - and pass - before their car would start.
Also, from today, discos and clubs must have breath test machines available for customers to use to know if they have had too much drink or too much to drive.
Drivers already have to carry a fluorescent waistcoat and a warning triangle in their vehicles but there was no indication of whether motorcyclists and scooter riders would have to carry breath tests.
Sarkozy made a point of highlighting the number of motorcycle road deaths last year, saying: "It is not normal that in 2010 24% of the deaths are on two-wheels when they make up just 2% of traffic."
He did not say if the motorcyclists were the cause or the victims of accidents.
Road safety campaigner Chantal Perrichon welcomed the measures as "going on the right road" but added that they should have been done earlier.
USA & Canada News
By Tom Brodbeck ,Winnipeg Sun
There’s no better time than now for city hall to finally put a bullet to the failed photo enforcement program.
With more controversy surrounding the ticket-dispensing, money-making cameras — this time involving allegations of malfunctioning or rigged equipment on Grant Avenue — it’s time to finally wind this program down.
Coun. Scott Fielding (St. James-Brooklands) has already declared that he’d like to see an end to the money-making scheme. He told reporters in September that he would like to pull the plug on the program when the contract with ACS Public Sector Solutions is up in less than two years.
The city’s finance chair says he’d like to replace the cameras with real police officers who can enforce all traffic violations, not just mail tickets to vehicle owners for speeding and red-light running.
When traffic cops pull drivers over for speeding, they can also check for infractions such as impaired driving, driving without a licence or driving a stolen vehicle.
They target drivers, not the vehicle, which means demerits and suspensions can be issued for chronic offenders. Photo enforcement allows chronic offenders to stay on the road — no matter how many speeding or red-light tickets the driver of the vehicle receives — because it can’t issue demerits.
How does that make our streets safer?
Real cops doing real traffic enforcement can also be redeployed for other policing emergencies. It allows police resources to be used more effectively.
What would you rather have on the streets, real cops doing traditional policing or cameras snapping pictures of vehicle licence plates? I’ll take real cops any day.
Besides, collisions at most intersections where red-light cameras have been installed have gone up since the program began, according to Manitoba Public Insurance crash data from 2003 to 2009.
We’ve asked for 2010 crash data but MPI says it’s still not available because they found some errors in the statistics. I guess the city doesn’t like the numbers.
Whatever the case, seven years of crash data shows that red-light cameras are not making our streets safer. Nor are mobile photo radar vehicles, including the ones ticketing motorists near Grant Park High School. Photo radar makes the city and the province a lot of money. But there is no evidence that parking a photo radar vehicle on main thoroughfares like Grant Avenue or Portage Avenue reduces collisions.
We have asked for collision statistics where photo radar is used and the city has never produced them, even though they’re mandated by the province to do so.
Those in favour of photo radar say if you don’t speed or run red lights you’ll never get a ticket. Agreed, for the most part. Although our uniform four-second ambers in Winnipeg do result in unfair tickets for many motorists.
But that’s not the issue. The issue is whether this program has met its objective of making Winnipeg streets safer. The evidence shows that it has not.
Which is why we need to wind down the program and replace cameras with cops. We also need to adopt universally accepted amber times, which means extending amber times for some intersections.
Those steps might not make the city as much money as photo enforcement. But it would go a long way towards making our streets safer.
PHOTO RADAR FACTS
- Collisions have gone up at most intersections where red-light cameras have been installed, according to Manitoba Public Insurance claims data.
- There is no data whatsoever to show whether mobile photo radar vehicles have resulted in a reduction in collisions.
- The city continues to violate its terms of agreement with the province for photo enforcement by failing to make public complete collision data for the program.
- Photo enforcement allows chronic traffic offenders to avoid demerits and licence suspensions because the program targets vehicles, not drivers.
- Photo enforcement has no ability to monitor drivers for traffic violations other than speeding and red-light running. Real traffic cops can bust motorists for violations such as impaired driving, driving without a licence, or driving a stolen vehicle.
Canada - Winnipeg drivers complain of tickets for impossible speeds
WINNIPEG - Far more drivers are shouting down Winnipeg's mobile photo-radar traps after being issued citations for Grant Avenue speeds that they say were impossible.Street cameras, like this one in Ottawa, give police the ability to catch motorists who might be breaking the law. (QMI Agency)
Following a story in the Winnipeg Sun on Saturday about how at least 16 Grant Park High School staff say they were wrongly ticketed, dozens more motorists spoke up to say they've been in the same situation in recent weeks.
Among them is Colin Craig, regional director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who was mailed a fine order in late November for allegedly driving 67 km/h in the same 50 km/h zone on westbound Grant just west of Nathaniel Street across from the school.
"It certainly seems like a suspicious situation, when so many people are questioning the accuracy of the machine," Craig said, noting where the school staff turn onto Grant is a stone's throw from the radar position.
"How could so many people be clocked at 65 to 70 km/h, just after turning onto that street?"
QMI Agency received a flurry of early-morning e-mails, as did Todd Dube of the Wise-Up Winnipeg campaign against the city's photograph traffic enforcement.
"I've lost count, and it's still early in the day," Dube said of the "massive response" to the story.
Late this week, the Grant Park teachers, aides, custodians and other staffers said that they're bewildered by the cited speeds -- as high as 75 km/h -- city police told them they were driving when their cars were photographed by a contracted radar operator in a vehicle parked on a service road adjacent to Grant Avenue.
The Wise-Up group is accusing the city of faulty speed measurements due largely to the radar vehicle's distance from Grant -- too far, Dube says, to get accurate readings.
Coun. John Orlikow, whose River Heights-Fort Garry ward includes the radar site, said he plans to talk to Grant Park principal Yale Chochinov about the tickets.
"I look forward to hearing from them, for sure. We'll see what we can do," Orlikow said.
"If drivers want to challenge it, they should be able to quite easily. We need a recourse to make sure the machine works properly."
Despite a request on Thursday for comment, city police haven't responded to the Grant Park drivers' concerns.
Carmen Barnett, spokeswoman for Mayor Sam Katz, refused to make the mayor available for comment on Saturday.