Infringement disputes

[willhouse]

Got a couple of fines tonight, not happy! One was for driving with foggies on (fair enough I guess), and the other for doing "61"in a 50 zone.
The story:
Driving up to a roundabout, maccas on the left, saw cop pulling out of maccas. I exited the roundabout and sped up to 50, and held that speed. Copper came roaring up behind me, and had me pulled over within 300m, and proceeded to fine me for 61 in a 50. I know I wasn't going that fast, I'm not that stupid that I would speed with a cop behind me. I asked to see his radar calibration certificate, to which he said he recorded my speed with the "check speedometer", which I can only assume is his speedo. (he wasn't overly keen for a chat!)
I'm fairly certain my speedo isn't out, gps confirms speed, and I always match other motorists speed.
I feel hard done by, and am thinking of going to dispute the fine (for speeding only).
Do I have any backing if I go down this track? As far as I can see he has no evidence I was speeding if all he was going off was his speedo.
Any thoughts or advice greatly appreciated!

[guy 27]

http://www.aussiespeedingfines.com/

[kabel]

Sounds unfair to me.

[guy 27]

i know this is more based towards qld but its pretty much same same.

http://www.boostcruising.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=520225

[willhouse]

Sweet, cheers guy

[bornwild]

All police cars have cameras installed. If you ask them to supply you with the video relating to your particular situation(which they have to) and you can prove that he wasn't going the same speed as you, you got a firm case.

Alas you are innocent until proven guilty.

[2002_XC]

Just keep in mind that gps is not a valid method of detecting speed. Your speedo will be out, everyones is. If you put bigger or smaller tyres on it for example, it will affect the speed displayed. Ask for the footage, but in the case of speeding infringements, the onus is on you to prove you weren't in the wrong, and not on the police officer to prove that you were

[2002_XC]

Also keep in mind that if he was using the new radar guns, their distance in which they can check speed is great, he may have calcated your speed while he was waiting to turn out of maccas, before you slowed down

[sooty]

Also keep in mind that if he was using the new radar guns, their distance in which they can check speed is great, he may have calcated your speed while he was waiting to turn out of maccas, before you slowed down

+1, is what I was thinking, he was sitting in the maccas driveway to check speeds

[2002_XC]

+1, is what I was thinking, he was sitting in the maccas driveway to check speeds

Correct

[willhouse]

Cheers for the advice, didnt know you could get camera footage. So will enquire about that tomorrow.
Saw the cop pulling out of drive thru, so doubt he was waiting in the driveway. I made a map to explain a bit clearer!
Gonna fight this ay!

http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab91/wilhouse/Other%20Crap/copmap-1.jpg

[Wraith]

I'm with most others in that the speed fine sounds dubious at best, I thought the days of speedometer speed checks were long gone ???...foggies well you got pinned fair n square for that one whether they're obstructive or not (I personally don't think they are) however it is law now to not have them on unless certain weather conditions warrant their use...

I'd be interested in the outcome of this one if you take it further, keep us posted...

Also regarding GPS velocity readouts AFAIK regardless of wheel size changes on vehicles they will still read out a more accurate speed value than any speedometer...that's what I've found with my vehicles anyway after many trials on the topic...

[willhouse]

Agreed with the GPS. Im a surveyor, and after I changed to the 17's, from 16's, I used our R8 GPS (+/-15 to 20mm accuracy) to work out speed. (Set it to record a point every second at exactly 100 speedo km, then used d=v*t to work out the m/s, then convert it to km/h. Speedo over reads by about 3km/h, i.e at 100 speedo k's, actual speed is ~97km/h). I know that wont stand up in court, but it was more for my own satisfaction.
Fortunately one of the truckies at work is an ex detective, so I ran the story past him this morning, and his advice was fight it. So will apply for a court hearing, and keep you posted!
I tried to get a copy of the video as bornwild suggested, but I can only get it if I want to go to court.

Yeah with regards to the fog lights, that was my stupidity. Paid that one already.

[bornwild]

That's crappy, I mean if they are alleging you to have traveled that speed you should be able to freely check out the proof. The police in AUS is bullying people into paying fines. I remember in Germany, if you get a fine for example from a fixed camera they send you the fine + picture of you in your car. Here it's just "here you go pay the freakin fine, you don't need to know how you deserved it".

Logic is one thing that Australian law lacks absurdly.

[2002_XC]

Ok, the police officer cant fine you for doing a speed based on their speedometer. they must (in victoria) have your speed with a radar gun, which is corroborated and tested monthly. maybe you asked the wrong question, ie instead of may i see your corroboration certificate, did you ask to look at the radar gun? if you did ask to see the gun, he cannot deny the request. (if so, by all means fight it!)

currently in victoria, you can request a photo, but they are changing it so that photos are sent for every fine.

personally, i know how the victorian camera system works and how it is maintained and tested. i have every faith in the checks and balances that occur before an infringement is sent. from my perspective, if you get a fine, then you were over the limit.

there is no case law anywhere in the world, and there have been many who have tried to argue that gps is an accurate form of monitoring speed. it is not. there are too many factors in which gps can provide a faulty indication of speed. and realistically, if you said to a magistrate, i was not speeding because the gps said i wasnt, he will say to you. how far away was the police car? 100m? how far away was the gps satellite? 100km? (or whatever distance satelites are). they will tell you, and have told people, that a speed measurement device 100m away is more accurate than one kms in the sky

no to discount anything that you are saying, please dont get me wrong. but ive seen it numerous times, and people are spending $0000 to fight, and no one has won

[bornwild]

Ok, the police officer cant fine you for doing a speed based on their speedometer. they must (in victoria) have your speed with a radar gun, which is corroborated and tested monthly. maybe you asked the wrong question, ie instead of may i see your corroboration certificate, did you ask to look at the radar gun? if you did ask to see the gun, he cannot deny the request. (if so, by all means fight it!)

currently in victoria, you can request a photo, but they are changing it so that photos are sent for every fine.

personally, i know how the victorian camera system works and how it is maintained and tested. i have every faith in the checks and balances that occur before an infringement is sent. from my perspective, if you get a fine, then you were over the limit.

there is no case law anywhere in the world, and there have been many who have tried to argue that gps is an accurate form of monitoring speed. it is not. there are too many factors in which gps can provide a faulty indication of speed. and realistically, if you said to a magistrate, i was not speeding because the gps said i wasnt, he will say to you. how far away was the police car? 100m? how far away was the gps satellite? 100km? (or whatever distance satelites are). they will tell you, and have told people, that a speed measurement device 100m away is more accurate than one kms in the sky

no to discount anything that you are saying, please dont get me wrong. but ive seen it numerous times, and people are spending $0000 to fight, and no one has won

There is a case (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/gps-beats-radar-gun/story-e6frf7kx-1111113864822)...it refers to a case in NSW also.

I don't mean to disrespect your experience with the camera system and it's maintenance (which I think is utter crap or worse, from what I've seen) but GPS read-outs are far, far more accurate than any radar-gun or speedo (I mean proper GPS devices not phone-GPS etc). The fact that the distance is larger by a factor of 1,000 or 10,000 to the satellite compared to the radar gun has no meaning whatsoever.

Satellites are calibrated every second (by the US Army) and have complex formulas for calibrations including the relativity theory(theories) respective to each car/tracking point.

A police officer operating a radar gun can make a lot of mistakes and as the distance between the officer and the car increases the chance of a false readout increases exponentially. For example, if there is a tree in the vicinity of the car (can't remember the exact distance) the readout cannot be used in court (I looked up the laws quite a while ago). Same goes for if a car is in your vicinity.

I had heard about a case in Mexico where a Scientist got snatched speeding on a long straight stretch of road on a sunny day(with no obstructions in sight). The scientist fought it in court and won. How did he win? He proved via physics that the low density(hot air) obstructed the radar reading enough to make the read-out invalid.

My guestimation would be that 75% of fines given out to people by police officers who hand-operated the radar gun are inaccurate. This does not necessarily mean that they weren't speeding, but it means that we don't know by how much hence there is no proof they were speeding.

As for fixed-cameras...well if it was properly calibrated they are very accurate due to the extremely short distances(<20m).

[2002_XC]

so its not a typical gps that any motorist would have.

he got off because he had readouts of the gps at varying intervals that he could download, which typical motorists dont have. by gps, im talking your run of the mill navman and garmins. those ones you cannot produce a document which shows your speed. this guys could. we have had many come up in the previous 6 months. each one has recieved the pay the fine because you cant prove that you werent speeding approach (the burden of proof, which i stated earlier) he could produce that document. im assuming the gps referred to in the first post wont have that capability, if it doesnt, he still cant prove that he wasnt speeding.

if yours can produce a document that proves you werent speeding, by all means go for it. if he pulled you over based on his speedo, go for it, im sure they are not allowed to do that without a secondary speed measurement device.

just remember that in these cases the MOTORIST has to PROVE they WEREN'T speeding. The police officer could attend court and fall asleep, he does not have to prove anything as the motorist was caught during the commission of the offence.

[Nurb608]

There is a case (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/gps-beats-radar-gun/story-e6frf7kx-1111113864822)...it refers to a case in NSW also.

I don't mean to disrespect your experience with the camera system and it's maintenance (which I think is utter crap or worse, from what I've seen) but GPS read-outs are far, far more accurate than any radar-gun or speedo (I mean proper GPS devices not phone-GPS etc). The fact that the distance is larger by a factor of 1,000 or 10,000 to the satellite compared to the radar gun has no meaning whatsoever.

Satellites are calibrated every second (by the US Army) and have complex formulas for calibrations including the relativity theory(theories) respective to each car/tracking point.

A police officer operating a radar gun can make a lot of mistakes and as the distance between the officer and the car increases the chance of a false readout increases exponentially. For example, if there is a tree in the vicinity of the car (can't remember the exact distance) the readout cannot be used in court (I looked up the laws quite a while ago). Same goes for if a car is in your vicinity.

I had heard about a case in Mexico where a Scientist got snatched speeding on a long straight stretch of road on a sunny day(with no obstructions in sight). The scientist fought it in court and won. How did he win? He proved via physics that the low density(hot air) obstructed the radar reading enough to make the read-out invalid.

My guestimation would be that 75% of fines given out to people by police officers who hand-operated the radar gun are inaccurate. This does not necessarily mean that they weren't speeding, but it means that we don't know by how much hence there is no proof they were speeding.

As for fixed-cameras...well if it was properly calibrated they are very accurate due to the extremely short distances(<20m).

Whats the hz rating on that phone he's holding up, lol.

I can pretty much tell you you, most gps recievers are 1hz. My race timer is 5 hz and the newer ones are 10hz and we are still out from natsoft timing, but we are getting closer. This is also dependant on atmospheric conditions, line of site etc.

Now, with all the things you have argued above in regards to people getting off due to low density air etc over a short distance, that is exponentially increased when using satelites. What we use to read speed from satelites is light years away in technology and accuracy from what the US military has.

Now, fixed cameras... Unlike what everyone believes, fixed cameras do not rely purely on their own readings, there is also an independant secondary device to corroborate the reading and if it is out by a certain amount then it is discredited.

[poita]

and remember, most phones use a-gps not real gps.

which is accurate to about 100m~

[delemonte]

and remember, most phones use a-gps not real gps.

which is accurate to about 100m~

Except when embedded in cheap devices, real A-GPS is just as accurate as standard autonomous GPS - it just has the added benefit of a secondary positioning device (by means of an alternate data network e.g. GSM) which can enhance performance in several ways, most notably being faster fixes.

[2002_XC]

There is a case (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/gps-beats-radar-gun/story-e6frf7kx-1111113864822)...it refers to a case in NSW also.

I had heard about a case in Mexico where a Scientist got snatched speeding on a long straight stretch of road on a sunny day(with no obstructions in sight). The scientist fought it in court and won. How did he win? He proved via physics that the low density(hot air) obstructed the radar reading enough to make the read-out invalid.





Just did some further digging on this

There is NO case law in Australia as I have stated earlier. The case in which the herald sun is referring to was withdrawn prior to going to court by a police member who later was reprimanded for doing so.




An article published by the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) recounts the incidents of Brett Pownceby a Victorian farmer who was issued with a speeding fine for exceeding the speed limit by 21km/h (Watt & Crase, 2007).
Supposedly a GPS receiver was turned on and active at the time the alleged infringement occurred. It is stated that Mr Pownceby retrieved records from the GPS device which showed his speed as being within an acceptable range at the specified time. Purportedly the charges against him were dropped when he presented this evidence to an unknown member of law enforcement, however it is stated by the ABA that the case never reached court (Watt & Crase, 2007). It should be noted that an article published by the Herald Sun newspaper reports that a representative of the Traffic Camera Office has stated that "The production of a GPS report alone to avoid any speeding infringement is insufficient”
(Whinnett, 2007).


There was another case, and although he used that arguement in court, the judge dismissed the gps evidence and did not take it into consideration when handing down his judgement. the matter was dismissed due to the police officer admitting that the radar gun was not used properly.




A similar incident involving Michael Simotas, who as it was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper, was charged for exceeding the speed limit by 25km/h. The article states that Mr Simotas made use of an expert witness and GPS evidence acquired from the satellite navigation unit in his car in an attempt to prove his speed at the time of the incident. Initially the court ruled against Mr Simotas, however the charges were dismissed by the District Court of New South Wales on appeal (Wainwright, 2007). It should be noted that the article does not state that the GPS evidence used was taken into consideration as part of the ruling. The article also reports that the police operating the radar unit at the time of the incident admitted to not using it correctly and instead were making a visual estimation of Mr Simtoas’ speed (Wainwright, 2007). The EziTrack website states that the GPS device used was an “EziTrak® GPS Security and Tracking System” which is able to record time, date and vehicle speed ("EziTrak News," 2007). However, it is worth

noting that Michael Simotas is listed as a distributor of the EziTrack product, as such this information may not be impartial ("EziTrak NSW Distributors," 2007; Pye, 2007).




it also goes on to say this





CONCLUSION & ONGOING RESEARCH



At this point in time the first phase is nearing completion, with the selection of devices finalised and the sourcing of these devices currently in progress. The data population phase is currently undergoing a trial process in an effort to determine the best way to accomplish a consistent result; this trial is focused on determining the extent of impacts on GPS signal due to varying atmospheric conditions.




Both of these cases are referred in the document Originally published in the Proceedings of the 7th Australian Digital Forensics Conference, Edith Cowan University, Perth Western Australia, December 3rd 2009 entitled



Satellite Navigation Forensics Techniques

Peter Hannay



Edith Cowan University


see the link if you want more information. Either way, there is no case law or precedent in Australia which has taken gps information into consideration. I have tried to locate the case in New Mexico, but i have been unsuccessful. Could you forward me a link to the source?

http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=adf

[bornwild]

The case in Mexico didn't use GPS....just science :p

[Bloodnok]

Now, with all the things you have argued above in regards to people getting off due to low density air etc over a short distance, that is exponentially increased when using satelites.

Not necessarily the case. A radar/lidar gun is using the doppler shift of a reflected modulated signal to measure speed. This is an analogue effect. A GPS isn't doing the same operation - it's reading multiple digital signals containing very accurate timestamps which come from known positions, and comparing the lag between them to work out where it is via trigonometry. It can also work out the exact time very accurately too. The more satellites it can see at the time the better a fix it can get (and a good GPS receiver will not only be capable of telling you how many it's tracking at any point in time, but what the resultant likely error in both position and time is).

Assuming what the scientist said was correct (which I have no idea about), then the localised atmospheric conditions mentioned could affect the doppler shift type of measurement far more significantly than the GPS measurements, which was probably the point of his case.

The biggest practical problem for GPS is bridges, tunnels, cuttings, buildings, wooded areas and other line of sight obstructions to a wide angle of sky - even overtaking a truck can decrease the accuracy of the information a GPS device can provide by some significant margin.

[2002_XC]

The case in Mexico didn't use GPS....just science :p

so a mute point for willhouse to pursue considering the distance was 300m and the average temp was 19.9 degrees for the day?

Willhouse, your best bet to fight it is to argue that the officer did not provide evidence of the reading on request, and that you cannot be sure that the speed the police officer has told you that you were doing can not be corroborated by your sight. but seek legal advice, and see what they come up with

[willhouse]

Ha ha yeah thats all Im going for, the fact that he followed me for 2/10ths of fk all, and clocked me with his speedo, so couldnt provide me with proof I was speeding. I think the GPS check stuff I was talking about was taken a bit out of context, GPS plays no part in my ticket. Good discussion though!
Bloodnok, GPS will only be better than 5-10m accuracy with the use of a base station on a known point, and a radio link connecting your GPS rover to that fixed reciever. The number of sats makes no real difference if there is no base station (unless it is less than 3). The reason 5-10m accuracy is the best you will get is because the GPS rover alone cannot solve for integer ambiguity, which is the length of the partial wavelength emitted from the GPS sat. The fixed reciever on the known point can account for that unknown by measuring to the same sats as the roving GPS, and comparing the autonomous coordinates to the actual coordinates for that fixed point, and then broadcasting an on-the-fly correction to your roving GPS.
Hopefully that makes some sense!
Ive talked to a few people, and it seems this clown from Coonabarabran has a bit of a chip on his shoulder, and it wouldnt be the first time he has been to court for this.

[Bloodnok]

Bloodnok, GPS will only be better than 5-10m accuracy with the use of a base station on a known point, and a radio link connecting your GPS rover to that fixed reciever. The number of sats makes no real difference if there is no base station (unless it is less than 3).

Last time I was involved with getting really accurate data from a GPS receiver, the numbers were different depending on what you wanted. 3 was adequate for reasonable latitude and longitude - though it wasn't very accurate, and couldn't give you elevation information. 4 would give you better lat/long and elevation as well, but the holy grail was 5 - because at that point you can derive accurate time from it (and also the accuracy of location information goes up again). We were trying to become a high tier NTP source, for which we needed a REALLY accurate time reference. We typically saw over 10 satellites, which gave us the time accuracy we needed, but our receiver was a large mushroom shaped antenna mounted to the roof of a tall building, so it had plenty of unobstructed sky to look at :).

As far as speed measurements have been concerned, I've never tried tracking a car - but I've tracked plenty of trains with handheld GPS receivers (and not your average navman type thing either). The equipment I've used for this wouldn't tell you where to go to get somewhere - though it would draw where you had been on a map afterwards and give you a speed trace.

Trains are actually a good test of the equipment - as the exact course they follow is known and can be compared with satellite photography and mapping. Generally I've come to expect the GPS trace to be better than maps in terms of getting the position right, and satellite imagery can often be offset by a fixed amount.

You can obviously tell from the map trace afterwards where the fix is good and where it isn't - the key with a train is to look at the smoothness of the curves. Railways are characterised by very smooth, very wide radius curves - and any kinks are almost certainly errors. Ditto with the speed trace - any sharp changes are likely to have been errors, and if you were on the train (or in this case, in the car), you'll know if there was hard acceleration or hard braking at any point, so you can check out any suspicious variations.

Anyway, now I'm firmly off topic, so I'll stop rambling about this...


The reason 5-10m accuracy is the best you will get is because the GPS rover alone cannot solve for integer ambiguity, which is the length of the partial wavelength emitted from the GPS sat.

It's actually the resolution of the clock data the GPS satellites send, but yeah, same net effect. With more satellites, you can reduce the error - but you're well into the laws of diminishing returns and involved trig calculations. Tricks like known point comparisons (as you describe) can improve things again, but are very hard to set up right. Ultimately, for a simple handheld receiver, you aren't going to get significantly better resolution than that with the precision the time is sent at at the moment.

It was a deliberate decision when setting up the satellites to limit the precision available to civilians (and early on the precision was a lot worse than it is today, a hundred or so metres being the lower limit for accuracy). There is a second military signal - which is sent at higher precision, and is the primary reason why military spec receivers can get better accuracy. It's not just about hardware quality.


Ive talked to a few people, and it seems this clown from Coonabarabran has a bit of a chip on his shoulder, and it wouldnt be the first time he has been to court for this.

As others have said - seek legal advice (as with all legal issues, it's not about what you know, it's about whether you can prove it in an acceptable way), and fingers crossed for a favourable outcome...

[bornwild]

As others have said - seek legal advice (as with all legal issues, it's not about what you know, it's about whether you can prove it in an acceptable way), and fingers crossed for a favourable outcome...

I was going to write this just now. Our rambling and exchange of 'knowledge' doesn't help you at all. Get a good, qualified lawyer with a track record of winning cases similar to yours. :)

But in all honesty, if I was you, I'd write a letter of complaint, hope it does the trick and move on. If not, then just pay it. It'll save you a lot of headaches and money.

Then again, if the policeman doesn't have evidence then it would be rather easy to prove that you are right.

[scaifeys2.2mk4]

this may have been mentioned before in the text walls but afaik a cop needs to observe you breaking the speed limit for 800m when they are going off their speedo, an example is overtaking, because most times you will be speeding to do so but if you return to the legal speed after the act it is completely fine so unless the cop followed you for a fair amount of time they cant legally book you just by a reading off their speedo, which are rather accurate to a certain speed but after the speed is reached unvalid

this does not go down well with police when you know the ins and outs of their laws and correct them when they inform you of any misconduct, but if you do tell them do it in an appropriate and calm way

with the foggies highlight the part in your handbook that defines them as driving lights, i believe its in there somewhere listed as driving lights which are legal to have on even though we all know they are fog lights