|
Speed
Camera Law
Mobile
Speed Cameras
Mobile
speed cameras are usually mounted in
cars which are parked on the side of
the road. A radar beam is directed at
an angle across the line of traffic to
detect the speed of vehicles passing in
either direction. If it detects a
vehicle travelling over the threshold
speed, the device will take a
photograph of the offending vehicle.
The registered owner of the vehicle
will then receive a traffic
infringement in the mail. The owner has
the option of paying the fine,
objecting to the fine, nominating a
driver or explaining that the driver is
unable to be nominated.
Because
mobile speed cameras operate on radar,
they are prone to the many of the
typcial problems that hand-held radar
devices suffer. If another vehicle is
in the picture, it is possible that the
other vehicle may have interfered with
the radar reading. Same applies for
large reflective objects such as metal
signs or large metal objects like
trucks.
See
also: How
mobile speed cameras
work
|
Fixed
Speed Cameras
Fixed
speed cameras are mounted on
poles, bridges or other
structures by the roadway.
Most fixed speed cameras
operate using piezo strips
which are imbedded in the
roadway. The strips of
chrystaline material react to
the pressure of the passing
vehicle and measure the time
it takes for a vehicle to pass
between two points on the road
surface. If the vehicle's
speed exceeds the threshold, a
photo is taken of the
offending vehicle.
Piezo
strips are able to determine
which lane the offending
vehicle is travelling in, so
the fact that other vehicles
are on the road or in the
photo is not usually a problem
for the
prosecution.
See
also: How
do fixed speed cameras
work.
|
|
Defences
If
your licence is at risk, then it is
usually worthwhile to take the case the
court because it is always possible to
avoid licence loss if the case is
properly handled.
In
many situations it is not easy to
defend speed camera cases. Sometimes
expert evidence is relied upon to cast
doubt on the accuracy of the speed
reading. In almost every case it is not
necessary for drivers to prove what
speed they were travelling at. The
police have the obligation of proving
the case against the defendant. Many
cases are won because the police fail
to achieve that. If you are wondering
if it is worthwhile taking your fine to
court, you will find the answer by
asking yourself if you can afford not
to take it to court. Unless you can get
around happily without driving a motor
vehicle, then generally you will need
to take the matter to court to achieve
a better outcome.
Mobile
Speed Camera Set-up
Guidelines.
Paragraph 2.2.1 of the Mobile
Cameras Policy Manual states:
To maintain
community confidence in the speed
camera initiative, it is important for
the operational use of the devices to
be seen as fair and reasonable.
Under no circumstances are speed camera
vehicles, tripods or flash units to be
disguised by signs, logos, breakdown of
vehicle (eg. boot open or spare wheel /
jack visible etc), tree branches, lamp
posts, dust bins or any other means
that would generate public perceptions
of sly operations.
I
am sometimes asked if a breach of the
above guideline will afford a good
defence to a speed camera charge.
The short answer is that it will
not. Bonnet
open.
When
prosecuting a speed camera charge, the
police must prove that it has been
operated according to law. The relevent
law is regulation 303 of the
Road
Safety (General) Regulations
1999.
The only provision
that touches on the issue of
compliance with guidelines is
regulation 303(b)(i) which states that
certain devices (i.e. mobile speed
camers) must be used in
accordance with operating instructions
approved by a testing officer.
The
testing officer's operating
instructions for the Gatsometer MRC
System mobile speed camera can be
downloaded
here.
The
law says the testing officer's
operating instructions must be complied
with. However, they do not adopt, refer
to or incorporate any of the matters
mentioned in paragraph 2.2.1 of the
Mobile Cameras Policy
Manual.
The
operating instructions relate to
matters concerning accuracy of the
device and correct data collection.
They do not relate to the fairness
of its operation.
There
is no law which requires the police to
comply with paragraph 2.2.1 of the
Policy Manual. When the police
prosecute a person for a speed camera
offence, they do not need to adduce any
evidence in court that paragraph 2.2.1
or any other paragraph of the Policy
Manual has been complied with. The
policy manual is never tendered in
evidence by the prosecution. Compliance
with it is irrelevant to proof of the
offence.
Even
if a defendant satisfies a court that
paragraph 2.2.1 has not been complied
with, this does not prevent the police
from proving the speeding offence
occurred. The driver would need to go
further and show that non-compliance
with the Policy Manual or any owners'
manual or operators' manual might have
caused the speed measurement reading to
be incorrect. See Ozbinay v. Crowley
(1993) 17 MVR 176, a decision of the Supreme Court of
Victoria, where the court held that
non-compliance with the manufacturer's
operators' manual was not a ground for
dismissing charges unless there was
further evidence to show that the
non-compliance caused an erroneous
reading for this defendant. In
speeding cases defendants may adduce
evidence to show that there is
reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of
the speed measurement, but they will
most likely be wasting their time if
they rely solely on the police failure
to comply with the policy manual
without linking that failure to a
possible error in the
measurement.
If
your vehicle was photographed at a time
when you believe guideline 2.2.1 was
not being complied with, you might
decide to complain to the Traffic
Camera Office and see if it will
withdraw the fine. The TCO probably
won't help you because the camera
operator is unlikely to agree that they
operated the camera in breach of para
2.2.1, and the TCO never withdraws a
fine if there is a dispute about the
facts of the case.
Don't
be too disheartened though. There are
often better ways to win a speed camera
case.
|
