Speeding Fine - I Need Help on Whether I Should Contest This or Just Roll over and Pay It

EdwardTriggerHands on 29/05/2018 - 14:01
Last edited 30/05/2018 - 22:35 by 1 other user

Hi all,

Sorry for the long post, in advance.

I got home a few days ago to an $884 fine and 5 demerit points (from earlier this month). Allegedly, I was doing 115km/h in an 80km/h zone (M5 in Sydney). I checked the pictures online and they had 4 of them. The first picture wasn't even of my car. The other pictures, 2 were the same (different colours to see rego), and the other was a split second later of the same view. Other than the first picture, the others had my car in them.

Here is the problem that I have with this:

I drive through that tunnel almost everyday. I know it's 80 KM/H and I also know that there are speed cameras. So, to me it doesn't make sense that I would do such a thing (35KM/H over the speed limit!). Especially when in the pictures I can see traffic right up ahead, and the first picture taken by the same camera (same code) shows a lot of cars there.

Another thing I noticed was that the pictures were taken within a split second difference. Once again, by the same camera. With the first picture showing plenty of traffic, and the others showing something different.

I asked for a review thinking that surely they would see the difference in pictures. Maybe they would notice that there might have been an error? But no. They came back saying that the fine still stands and that the camera is fine. They didn't even mention anything about the pictures being different..

So, I decided to do some math to try and figure out how much distance I would cover if I was traveling at 115 KM/H as opposed to 80 KM/H, using the timestamps on the two pictures that show my car.
Here is my math (not very good at this):

Picture 2 timestamp: 09:34:07.090
Picture 3 timestamp: 09:34:07.480

At 115 KM/H:
Time between the two pictures: 0.480-0.090=0.390 seconds
Seconds in a minute: 60*60=3600 seconds
Distance covered per second: 115KMh / 3600seconds = 0.03194 KM per second
Convert the above to Meters: 0.03194 * 1000 = 31.94 Meters
Distance covered per Millisecond: 31.94 Meters / 1000 Milliseconds = 0.03194 Meters per Millisecond.
Distance that should have been covered between pictures: 0.03194 Meters * 390 Milliseconds = 12.4566 Meters

At 80 KM/H:
Time between the two pictures: 0.480-0.090=0.390 seconds
Seconds in a minute: 60*60=3600 seconds
Distance covered per second: 80KMh / 3600seconds = 0.02222 KM per second
Convert the above to Meters: 0.02222 * 1000 = 22.22 Meters
Distance covered per Millisecond: 22.22 Meters / 1000 Milliseconds = 0.02222 Meters per Millisecond.
Distance that should have been covered between pictures: 0.02222 Meters * 390 Milliseconds = 8.6666 Meters

Now, I need to figure out how long the distance is between the two pictures. I need your help!

Does anyone have any idea how long the white lines are in the pictures?

Please find the pictures here

I know this is a long shot. And that's why I need the community's help. This is a massive fine, especially given that I've been driving for over 8 years, and I had not lost a point up until a couple of months ago (different story).

Also, I know the stereotypes. The car is a WRX. But no, not every WRX owner drives like a douche bag. Especially, when you consider the fact that this car drinks petrol like crazy and I can barely keep up with fuel costs…

My only options here are to either pay the fine and cop the 5 demerits, or represent myself and have it decided in court.

Any help is appreciated… And if I've missed anything, please let me know.

Thanks!

UPDATE: I found out that I could add additional details to the review that I requested, on the revenue.nsw.gov.au website. So, I did just that, and this time I asked for an explanation for the different pictures but same camera code and I also questioned the integrity of the timestamps, since my car is not in the first photo. I left emotions out of it and asked proper questions that are valid to be asked in a court. I was told to wait up to 42 days for a reply.
I also requested a camera certificate and got it today. It shows that the speed measurement was certified on 18-09-2017 and image capture was certified on 19-04-2018. The speed measurement undergoes a certification once a year. While the image capture gets certified every 90 days. Will keep updating this post as I get more info.

Automotive

Comments

        • Iam12 on 01/06/2018 - 15:25

          @EdwardTriggerHands:

          Judging by the quality of the pictures on imgur, looks like the 80km/h sign is a screen capture off a video recording. Maybe they snapshotted the time at the time of your alleged speeding to show the sign was working.

        • EdwardTriggerHands on 01/06/2018 - 15:36

          @Iam12: It's a possibility. However, on the revenue nsw website, where I got the pictures from, it says that the pictures are the original version and have not been modified in anyway. So, straight from the camera, to storage and the system processes the metadata, and I get the fine? Right? Wouldn't there be some sort of a disclaimer that the first picture was cut out from video footage?

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/06/2018 - 19:06
          +1

          @EdwardTriggerHands:

          All I'm saying is that what if the timestamps are wrong? This WILL cast doubt over the accuracy of this whole thing…

          How does the timestamps change what speed you were doing? lol

          The photos are just for evidence. Radar detected you doing the speeds reported.

          You won't get out of paying. You'll just waste time and money if you do.

        • EdwardTriggerHands on 01/06/2018 - 19:21
          +1

          @zeggie: I was talking about calculating the speed using the pictures and the timestamps. I wasn't talking about whether or not a radar was used.

          If I end up paying, then I end up paying. I have everything to fight for, so I'll keep doing that until I have no argument. I'm not gonna be accused of something that I don't believe I've done, with questionable proof, and do nothing about it.

          Have a good day, sir.

        • shreav on 03/06/2018 - 08:20

          @zeggie: His job is on the line. And on closer inspection of the photos, it all looks completely suss. If I were him, I'd fight this.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 04/06/2018 - 15:55

          @EdwardTriggerHands:

          You are arguing semantics and hoping for a holy grail technicality. It won't happen.

          Most of the responses indicate they think you were doing 110+ km. You are only focusing on the responses to correlate with your presumption.

          If you're honestly thinking of attending and fronting a magistrate to argue timestamps - please PLEASE record it all on your phone and post it here. It's your duty.

  • Xiaomi on 01/06/2018 - 10:49
    +2

    You will also be receiving a notice of suspension. Three month automatic for 30ks up.

  • dheywood on 01/06/2018 - 10:59

    Picture 1 the road has a bend to the left, picture 2 & 3 the road looks to be straight and lighting is different (maybe due to amount of traffic)…is it even the same camera?

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 01/06/2018 - 14:34
      +1

      It obviously isn't the same camera. But it has the same camera code and operator code. So as others have said, it puts doubt on the accuracy of the metadata since the pictures are original and have not been modified.

  • bocca on 01/06/2018 - 11:00

    Based on some quick mafs, it doesnt look good.

    12m distance travelled in 0.042 seconds would mean you were travelling at 103km/h.

    I would suggest that you reply in a letter and say you are sorry and this is your first offence. If they are feeling nice they will pardon you.

    Good luck

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 01/06/2018 - 14:36
      +1

      Yeah, unless the timestamps are incorrect.

      I'm waiting for their reply.

  • yoquierotaco on 01/06/2018 - 11:44

    I haven't read through all the comments so sorry if someone already suggested. But the first photo is of a different location. Not sure if you could use that to get it dismissed. In regards to distance, use your car as a reference? You know how long your car is. there will be perspective and lens error, but you can get a ballpark.

    The calculation of distance at 115km/h is off a little bit according to google (12.4583333 meters): https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=JqQQW4O4IpOkmAXLy…

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 01/06/2018 - 14:39

      As others have said, it looks to be at around 110 km/h. I'm doubting the accuracy of the timestamps/metadata, as that is the deciding factor. Especially, since there seems to be traffic right up ahead and I don't seem to be slowing down at all.. There is no way I could be going that fast at the traffic up in front and not care about slowing down or moving to the other lane..

      • [Deactivated] on 01/06/2018 - 16:06
        +1

        The cars ahead of you don't look like they are braking as well. So it looks like the traffic is flowing. You can clearly see the nice long gap between you and rest of the cars.
        Too much double clutching and not enough granny shifting like you should be doing.

  • EightImmortals on 01/06/2018 - 12:21
    +2

    Or sign this petition to remove revenue raising devices that do nothing for road safety?

    https://www.gopetition.com/petitions/remove-all-speed-and-re…

  • Lucky13 on 01/06/2018 - 12:31
    +1

    A quick Google - looks like you want legal aid for at least advice if it goes to court, possibly representation. Would call legal aid for NSW.

  • [Deactivated] on 01/06/2018 - 16:20
    -1

    I would also ask to have all those photos uncropped , they crop photos to exclude other vehicals, the truck photo data meta data is tiny compared to the others?

    • EdwardTriggerHands on 01/06/2018 - 19:30

      The website says that the pictures are original versions and have not been modified.

  • [Deactivated] on 01/06/2018 - 16:44
    +1

    I would raise in dispute the following issues (I know some have been reiterated before):

    1. The 2 sets of pictures, which were taken in different part of the tunnel show the same time: 09:34:07(…). That tells me there are 2 vehicles, in the tunnel, doing the exact same speed, at the exact same time.
    2. The 3rd picture suggests a moderate to heavy traffic, with at least 4 vehicles braking simultaneously, whilst another, you(?) or other, doing 115 km/h.
    3. Taking in consideration 2, I am suggesting that at least that camera in the tunnel might be defective. As such, it might be possible that all the cameras in the tunnel be affected by the same "bug". It happened on numerous occasions in Australia. It also happened to individual persons.
    4. Taking in consideration 1&2, I would suggest that the probability of 2 different vehicles, doing exact same speed (35 km/h over the speed limit) at the same time in different parts of the tunnel, with a part of it having heavy traffic, would be astronomical.

    Those being said, I'm not here to judge if you've done it or not. That's not the issue in question. The point is, if you could induce doubt, you have a chance. Again, if you will lose your job over this, you need to fight it.

    I would strongly advise you to go and seek a good traffic lawyer and fight it.

    Let us know how you go.

  • chumlee on 01/06/2018 - 19:27
    +1

    Not sure if you should roll over rather bend over

  • ML4M on 02/06/2018 - 00:15
    +1

    My view is that your only chance is to prove that between pictures 2 and 3, the distance is less than 9meters. Line standards show 9 apart and 3 painted.

    I can quietly say the picture of the truck seems to be Westbound. You cant quite see it via Google maps little orange guy. While pictures 2 and 3 seems to be Eastbound. Both Cameras probably setup at the same spot.

    It would be quite easy for revenue to prove which camera is where but whether its valid in court, your lawyer would know.

  • J5 on 02/06/2018 - 07:52
    +1

    If you believe you are right and can prove it then best fight it

    Otherwise you will be walking first 3 months for over Kph fine

  • Cqx1223 on 02/06/2018 - 08:56
    +1

    The only explanation for the disappearance of the truck in under half a second is either:
    The camera for picture 2 and 3 is installed between the camera for picture 1 and the 80kph speed sign, so the truck has not yet appeared in its view.

    OR

    Camera for picture 1 is at a completely different location. See the curve in the road in pic 1 compared to a straight road in pic 2 & 3.

    Still, they can discard pic 1 and just use pic 2 & 3 against you(I don’t see any problem with pic 2 and 3), as others have mentioned, you seem to have done 12m in that time.

  • Gildea on 02/06/2018 - 11:34
    +2

    To me it seems more likely the following,

    Picture 1 - taken of the speed limit sign prior to the speed trap, this photo gets taken the moment you trigger the speed trap at the floor sensors and proves you had full knowledge of the 80KM speed limit
    Picture 2 - taken a few ms later so that your car license plate is in full view of the photo
    Picture 3 - taken a few ms later again to prove travel and in case LP is dodgy in photo 1

    You'll notice on picture 2 the back of your car is about 3m in front of where the floor sensors finish. If photo went off straight away it wouldn't capture your vehicle in full view

    You've probably gone faster then 115KM as photos look like you've hit the breaks when you realised you went through the speed trap. Nothing points in your favour here by the looks of things…

    EDIT: http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/speeding/speedcameras…
    Speed cameras detect the speed of vehicles by using detectors embedded into the road surface or radar technology

  • savvyconsumer on 02/06/2018 - 19:15

    I would also account for the following benefits of contesting the fine in court and seeking legal advice.

    -Reduced insurance premiums for CTP and comprehensive insurance.

    -QBE offer lower premiums for drivers with no demerit points. Over 40 months this will add up.

    -You are close to the 10 year clean driver record threshold. You need to account for the benefit of getting off for another infringement in 2 years time. This could worth between $150 and $500.

  • DerpFactory on 02/06/2018 - 20:22
    -1

    Ask for the source code for their speed calculation.

  • No and then on 03/06/2018 - 09:17

    In the end if you don't win with the photos, try asking for a warning instead. I know these apply if you have 10+ years of clean driving record but you are almost there.

    • Twodogs on 03/06/2018 - 11:12

      Actually is says you can only apply every 2 years , i had a speeding ticket cleared by sending an email to the officer in charge or something like that and admitting i did speed and have since adjusted my driving technique and could they forgive the fine , it was my first fine in about 20 years though.

  • BusMan247 on 03/06/2018 - 11:50

    We're going to need 1.21gigawatts!

  • savvyconsumer on 03/06/2018 - 20:45
    -2

    This is 35 km/h over the limit.

    NSW Penalty for speeding:More than 30 km/h but not more than 45 km.
    Exceed speed over 30 km/ $884

    http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/roads/safety-rules/demer…

    There are licence suspension periods, similar to the minimum disqualification periods applied by a court, for exceeding the speed limit by more than 30 km/h (3 months), and by more than 45 km/h (6 months).

    You will get a suspension of your license for 3 months if you don't contest this in court if your review is rejected.
    https://www.primelawyers.com.au/traffic-law/speeding-offence…

    The SDRO guidelines state:
    A number of offences are considered a major safety risk and as such we will generally not consider leniency. Serious offences are : speeding offences of more than 20 km/h over the speed limit. Note: Speeding offences of more than 30 km/h over the speed limit incur an automatic licence suspension

    http://www.revenue.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/file_manag…

    I would strongly recommend paying for legal advice.

    • J5 on 04/06/2018 - 16:00
      +1

      No shit captain obvious

      A bit late to the party

  • firejack on 05/06/2018 - 23:49

    My personal opinion is that you should get a lawyer who specialises in traffic infringements to look over this one. I believe that the first image is actually from a different camera an is totally irrelevant to the problem.

    I did super impose the images of your car to double check the distance and it seems even when on the conservative side you were doing at least 100km/h. You can check the image here https://ibb.co/bTY3f8 it may be of use for someone wanting to do their own calculations.

    I think the only/main argument you would have is to be able to validate the timestamps of the camera is a second truely a second in that picture. Also there is a strange reflection (on the road bottom right of your car) in image 2 as opposed to image 3 is this due to a flash? the whole first image seems slightly brighter. Surely if this was a flash you would have seen it and then checked the speed that you were going?

    • Olokun on 06/06/2018 - 12:05

      Removed

  • EdwardTriggerHands on 15/06/2018 - 17:55
    +4

    UPDATE!

    So, after a lot of going back and forth with lawyers (free consultations), all of them said that I should take it to court and fight it. However, someone recommended a traffic lawyer to me, who is probably the top traffic lawyer in Sydney. He pretty much provides lectures to other lawyers on Traffic Law.
    After speaking to him, he explained to me that even if the first picture indicates an error, prosecution can just toss it out and use the rest of the photos. And with that, I wouldn't have much to stand on, resulting in me losing the case and having a conviction recorded. So he recommended that I pay the fine and cop the demerits instead of wasting more money on fighting this and having a conviction recorded. What he also said, is that after I pay this, I can try and appeal the license suspension which will be separate to this fine, if my job/making a living depend on it.

    I have taken his advice and have since paid the fine. It's a big fine. But I guess I'd rather do that, than have a conviction recorded which could ruin my life. I will now focus on the suspension and on whether I can appeal that or just try to find another job that doesn't require a driver license or work something out with my employer.

    Thank you all for your help. I really appreciate the response that I got here. Much appreciated.

    • alvian on 16/06/2018 - 01:47

      Did this top traffic lawyer have anything to say about how one can gather one's own evidence to contest a traffic camera fine in the future? Perhaps your own dashcam footage on the road and the speedo?

      • EdwardTriggerHands on 16/06/2018 - 10:35

        I didn't ask him about any of that. But he said for this case in particular, I would have to prove that the device that captured the speed is faulty. Which means I'd have to get an expert to go out and test the camera. He said this will cost at least $10k.
        Having different pictures wouldn't be enough to raise doubt. Especially when prosecution can just dismiss the first picture and only use the others.

        And I think someone already mentioned here that speeds on dashcams are not accepted in court because they are not certified.

        • alvian on 16/06/2018 - 12:02
          +1

          Dashcams are not certified but if the speed camera said 120km/h but the dashcam shows 80 (i.e. a large discrepancy), then that casts a doubt on the speed camera which may warrant investigation.

        • Ughhh on 16/06/2018 - 12:27
          +1

          @alvian:

          then that casts a doubt on the speed camera which may warrant investigation.

          Thats probably something op would have to pay for, as mentioned by the traffic lawyer, costing at least $10k

  • [Deactivated] on 21/06/2018 - 10:02
    +1

    The speed reading on the dashcam will not work as it needs GPS signals for accuracy. The GPS does not work in the tunnel.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join