Television News & Videos
A Current Affair Channel 9 |
Watch the Video
WATCH AUSTRALIAN TV VIDEO REPORT
28.8K MODEM:
REAL Player | WIN | Audio Only MP3
56K MODEM:
REAL Player | WIN | Audio Only MP3
CABLE/DSL:
REAL Player | WIN | Audio Only MP3
Download use Right Click "Save As"
Speed camera accuracy certifcates don't comply with National Measurements Standards - Withdraw court case.
|
|
|
|
LEGAL LOOP HOLE - Speed Cameras fail National Measurement Standards.
|
A Current Affair Channel 9 |
Speed camera accuracy certifcates don't comply with National Measurements Standards - Withdraw court case.
|
|
|
|
Number Plates - Hiding and Disguising to avoid the Speed Camera "Cash Cow."
Today Tonight Channel 7
Motorists resorting to hiding, covering disguising and tampering with vehicle number plates in an effort to avoid speed camera revenue raising around Australia.
|
|
New South Wales RTA loose the Plot!
|
A Current Affair Channel 9 |
- New South Wales RTA loose a speeding case and will not let the matter rest. Legal cost could ruin the defendant.
- RTA can't prove lack of photo tampering and withdraw case
|
|
Victorian speed camera operators ignore some simple rules for speed camera setups that would reduce inaccurate speed readings. Learn what you should do to fight back against wrongful fines. |
Watch the Video
WATCH AUSTRALIAN TV VIDEO REPORT
28.8K MODEM:
REAL Player | WIN | Audio Only MP3
56K MODEM:
REAL Player | WIN | Audio Only MP3
CABLE/DSL:
REAL Player | WIN | Audio Only MP3
Download use Right Click "Save As"
|
|
|
|
A Current Affair Speed Cameras: Radars Inaccurate in NSW
|
A Current Affair Channel 9 |
A radar expert claims 60% of radar reading should be challenged. That weather conditions such as rain and wind or a police officer mobile phone can cause wrong readings
|
Cop speaks out about speed cameras
Reporter: Andrew Bourke
Broadcast Date: May 03, 2007
Over the years, police have defended speed cameras insisting they are used to prevent deaths on the road but one cop is speaking out against them.
If you have ever had the suspicion speed cameras were just cash cows for the government, then Amy Pridham may well be the whistleblower you have been waiting for.
"Nothing is done by the book or how it should be done," she claimed.
She is a former police officer and is dirty on the force for using speed cameras to fill government coffers.
"It would generally be a sergeant and they would say 'Amy you've only got six traffic infringement notices in the last 4 months, you need to get more'," she alleged.
Amy alleges she was encouraged to add to the $20,000 speed cameras make a day, which is more than $7 million a year.
She claims speed cameras were set up at sure thing infringement hot spots, not necessarily dangerous black spots.
"It's a pretty simple piece of machinery to use but when it all boils down to it to be able to prove something in court is completely different to being able to press a button and know something works," she said.
Amy's former boss, Head of Traffic Superintendent Tony Rankin defends the current system.
"There are processes in place, people are trained to use speed detection devices and the expectation they will use them in accordance with that training," he said.
"If Amy has information and wants to talk to me about it or anybody else about it, so that it can be fully investigated, were willing to do that."
Amy has since moved on with her life, insisting she is not bitter about her time in the force.
"I don't know where the funding is going from all these infringements," she said.
"It's definitely not going where it should be going to train the police officers to do the things that need to be done."
Cop speaks out about speed cameras
A Current Affair Speed Cameras: Radar Crusader
|
RoadSense.com.au
Radar Crusader: One Man’s Driving Force
3 June 2004
Ever been caught speeding but been doubtful about the accuracy of the radar? Well, those suspicions may not have been unfounded.
|
Today ACA meets one man who has found the key to unlocking the secrets behind radars and is keen to share his knowledge about the many factors which can affect their accuracy.
Motorist Bruce Josephs isn’t the first person to express concern over the accuracy of radars. But he could be the first person to uncover a document which confirms his doubts. After hundreds of hours on the Internet and writing letters to the Infringement Processing Bureau, police minister and ombudsman, he finally found what he was searching for — a copy of the police service’s radar operation manual.
According to Bruce, who found the information through the Freedom of Information Act, the document outlines some compelling evidence that trees, wind, billboards, even birds can cause an inaccurate reading. The document also states that even heavy rain could affect the correct patrol speed.
Even worse, says Bruce, when a police car is actually moving, it is less accurate.
"So if you have ever been done by an approaching police car, you may have cause to complain," says Bruce. "The manual points out dual-carriageways can be a problem, because the angle you’re getting zapped at might be more than eight degrees, which can alter your radar reading."
This research began when Bruce was clocked going 80 kilometres an hour, when he reckons he was only going 60. Through his investigation, Bruce has drawn the conclusion that unless you have a straight flat road in good weather with no other cars on it, radar is not going to give an accurate reading.
"I was following a semi-trailer, I was going around bends and there was no straight stretch of road at all," he says.
In light of Bruce’s discovery, ACA asked the NSW Police Service to comment, but they refused. Likewise, Police Minister John Watkins also declined an interview.
Fellow radar crusader Harry Brelsford is also familiar with fighting a fine. He’s even written a book about his own battle and has a website for people who want step-by-step advice on how to challenge the system. He urges motorists to fight fines because they have every right to, but contends that even if you take your matter to court, the system is unfair.
“To take this to court will cost me $10,000 minimum,” Brelsford says. “People have to mortgage their houses to do this sort of thing, just to pay a fine they shouldn’t have got in the first place.”
Bruce, who many people may think should simply pay the fine, says it’s not about the money.
"If it was $200, I’d pay it," he says. "It is not just $200. Firstly, it is half my licence, which I should not have to lose, and secondly, if I do it, it means everybody else that comes after me is also subject to this insanity."
Bruce says that, for too long, it’s been assumed radars are infallible. But he hopes the release of this document into the public arena will force a change in the system.
"They should start to change the legislation so that radar is only used where there is 100 percent accuracy," he says. "We don’t want circumstances where innocent drivers are pulled over."
A Current Affair Speed Cameras: Doubling the Money
Reporter: Ben Fordham
11 May 2004
|
|
Speed cameras are installed to slow us down on the roads, but they’ve also become quite a money-spinner for governments.
Once you’re caught, getting a speeding fine overturned can become a David and Goliath battle. Today on ACA, one man who dared take on the system speaks up
A few years ago, ACA revealed how one speed camera at Sydney’s Spit Bridge was the biggest money-maker in Australia. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every day, it was raking in $20,000 worth of fines, filling government coffers with more than $7 million a year.
In fact, the speed camera was so effective, authorities installed another one just 300 metres up the hill, fining speeding motorists twice on the same stretch. But then along came solicitor Stephen Rosanove, who was prepared to take on the system.
“If someone within the system doesn’t do something about it, it doesn’t get done and clearly, for a long time, this has been going on for people who don’t know what to do about the system,” he says.
The two speed cameras cost Stephen four licence points instead of two and two fines totalling $500. Against the advice of many friends in the legal community who told him to simply pay up, Stephen armed himself with a barrister and a sound argument and went to court.
“Two guys are having a fight walking up the street and they go through a few blocks and three cameras catch it, is that three separate offences that the guy will go to court for and go to jail for?” Stephen asks. “No, it’s the same offence.”
A speeding fine is usually dealt with in a matter of seconds. But when this case was heard, judgement was reserved and the parties called back to court four days later. Magistrate Michael Price rocked traffic authorities by supporting Stephen’s argument that despite two camera flashes, only one speeding fine had been committed.
The same thing is happening in Victoria.
Six weeks ago, motorist Stuart North was snapped by two mobile speed cameras in a 60kmh zone. Like Stephen, he felt the way the cameras were positioned was just a revenue-raiser.
Victorian police admitted the mistake and say in cases like Stuart’s, the second fine will be withdrawn. But back in New South Wales, authorities are standing by the controversial second camera.
While Stephen’s legal costs exceeded the original fine, he says it was all about principle and believes his case might help others fight for their rights.
As for the camera which started it all, he has this advice for authorities. “There are a lot of schools, lots of blackspots around this country that don’t have speed cameras. Let’s not use them for raising revenue, let’s put them to good use.”
|
