In New South Wales, the police use
the following speed measurement devices:
radar (aka moving radar) set up in police cars:
early dash-mounted radars used in NSW were the KR10-SP
and KR11 manufactured by Kustom Signals Inc in the USA.
Both these units can
be used in stationary and moving mode, and can be used in "instant on" mode
or "constant on" mode. One antenna for front only or two antennas for
front / rear can be used.
KR10 and KR11 units are being replaced with the Silver
Eagle and the Golden Eagle radars (still made by Kustom
Signals Inc of USA). Both these units operate on
K-band radar, although there are unconfirmed reports
that in Early 2007, a Ka-band Silver Eagle II variant
will be used in NSW patrol cars. The Ka-band has a
smaller antenna head and operates around 35GHz (as
opposed to K-band 24.15GHz)
laser (aka lidar):
The NSW police,
use the Prolaser 2 and more recently the Prolaser 3 as
their choice of hand-held laser. The
Pro laser hand-held Lidar guns operates at a
frequency of 904nm, and as per all speed lidar guns, has
an extremely narrow divergence of the radar beam,
as well as able to acquire a vehicle's speed in less
than one second. The Kustom Prolaser does not
utilize jamming codes, and thus will not alert to a
laser jammer being operated (at) the laser gun, as well
as being one of the easiest laser guns to jam.
Speed cameras were first introduced in NSW in 1991. The new generation Traffipax
(K-band radar) equipment are now vehicle mounted. A speed camera basically consists of a camera data recorder fitted to a conventional slant radar unit. This system can be modified to digital imaging in the future.
Speed cameras are dispersed throughout NSW and are operated in locations with a known crash or speeding history. They are used in stationary mode and are suitable for use in moderate traffic areas with multi-lanes. The vehicle mounted speed cameras can monitor both directions of travel simultaneously, day or night.
cameras operating in NSW are either the Traffipax (more common) or the Redflex.
Principally, both "approved speed measuring and recording devices", as the traffic law calls them, are the same. Each system consists of a tall pylon with sizeable grey box housing the camera and
photograph recording apparatus, a separate mast with a powerful flashlight located about 10 meters down the road from the camera and, most importantly, the actual speed measuring equipment embedded in the road, between 20
and 45 meters down the road from the camera. These speed
sensors are typically
arranged as three or more cables running parallel to each other and spaced about 1 to 2 meters, or as wire loops, always buried under the road surface and spanning the width of all traffic lines in one particular direction of travel.
Finally, NSW hare
incorporated a fixed point to point speed camera system. The
system comprises of two linked cameras, many km apart.
The first camera will digitally record the number plate of a vehicle as it passes. The second camera will take another, time-recorded, snapshot when the vehicle passes it.
The cameras know how long it takes to legally cover the
distance between the two points, so If the vehicle has reached the second camera too soon, it must have travelled
above the speed limit for some of the way. The new
system was first trialled on a 12-kilometre stretch near Chinderah and on a 35-kilometre section of the Pacific Highway at New Italy, both on the far North Coast, and on a 4.2-kilometre length of the M4 between Wentworthville and Granville.
What are the
guidelines for use of this equipment?
What does all this mean? It means that there are requirements for the
correct placement and setup of speed camera devices as well as guidelines
for the use of radar devices. Rules
that must be followed for setup, placement and testing! But are they?
Police Radar, Laser & Speed Cameras make mistakes?
Speed camera mistakes:
The police and the government
would like to have us believe in their "utmost confidence in the accuracy of
speed cameras". Of course they would, as a proven fault could cost
them millions of dollars in repaid fines and loss of revenue, not to mention
a loss of confidence. But how
just accurate are the NSW speed cameras?
The more they fiddle, the
longer the road toll stays the same
source: Harold Scruby - 16/11/06
Back in 1995 the premier Bob Carr, and his roads
minister, Carl Scully, proudly launched their
ambitious program called "Road Safety 2000" stating
that New South Wales would have the safest roads in
the world with less than 500 deaths and 5500
injuries on the roads each year.
When the millennium came around,
the NSW annual road toll was in excess of 600
Scully quietly dumped the Road Safety 2000 program
faster than a extraterrestrial explanation given by
Moulder and launched "Road Safety 2010" campaign
instead, boasting a saving of 820 lives by the year
2005 and 2000 lives by the year 2010.
Yet by the end of 2005 the road
fatalities in NSW had not dropped below 500.
Now, not only has the NSW Government moved the goal
posts but they have changed their shape too!
NSW Government have benched the globally agreed "deaths per
hundred thousand of population" measurement and
instead have committed to reducing "vehicle crash
deaths per 100 million vehicle kilometers
This clever little change has
given the government some extra variables that will artificially change the results they are
promoting. For example with petrol prices rising,
people will travel less or use more public
transport, so there will be a fall in the number of
road deaths, even though there has been no change in
road safety trends.
In 2003, the year of the most recent data available
from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the NSW
rate of motor vehicle crash fatalities per 100
million kilometres travelled by vehicles was 0.89,
which is the second highest of all Australian
states and higher than the overall Australian
average rate of 0.81
There are other suspect practices by the government,
in NSW for example, the RTA and police have a nice
little arrangement called the "enhanced enforcement
program" or EEP. Last year the RTA gave the NSW
police approximately $8 million dollars to pay for
their overtime whilst the police conducted road
safety enforcement operations - in other words speed
enforcement, random breath testing and other traffic
Now whilst it's agreed the police
should be paid for their overtime, heck they deserve a
pay rise I say, but such suspect payments compromise the
independence of the police and how and where they
carry out their duties.
payments in effect, enable the Minister for Roads to
dictate how, when and where the police operate these
traffic duties. The effectiveness of these methods has not been independently investigated.
Of course the police won't
criticize the Road Traffic Authority because
actually getting paid for your overtime is
appealing, particularly when their pays are in
desperate need of review.
The payment for overtime should
come from the Treasury, not the RTA and the high
road fatalities can in theory, be partly blamed on
the NSW Police association due to its opposition to
modern work practices and technologies that would
reduce road trauma significantly and improve the
safety of its members.
NSW residents take action on "faulty" speed camera (source)
KURRAJONG Heights residents have had enough.
They're sick and tired of receiving multiple speeding fines from the Bells Line of Road speed camera, with some claiming there was "no way" they were over the limit.
Backed by fellow-residents, truck drivers from Lithgow and even regular visitors from Blacktown, Kurrajong Heights resident Robin Voigt is leading the charge.
"I personally feel persecuted," she said. "This camera is placing hardship on the community up here with residents copping multiple fines just trying to go about their daily lives.
"The RTA claim this permanent speed camera has been located there as it's supposed to be a known black spot, yet long-term residents cannot recall any serious accidents or deaths in this location.
As this camera is placed on a hill the momentum will carry you over 60 kilometres per hour unless you have your foot jammed on the brake."
Ms Voigt said the camera was so despised it has been pulled out of the ground with a chain by a semi-trailer, shot at, and had its lens spray-painted and covered with rags.
Residents said the camera was unreliable and booked drivers who were not speeding, and even
photographed cars at random.
Ms Voigt said a fellow-resident was booked nine times in one day while moving house up to the Heights, while her neighbour was booked three times in one day taking her children to and from school.
Another resident is set to lose his licence for just going over the 60km/h limit on four occasions, but needs his licence to drive his children to school in his wife's absence, travel to work and visit his mother who is ill with cancer.
Ms Voigt suggested the Roads and Traffic Authority or Hawkesbury City Council should provide Kurrajong Heights residents with a community bus as "more and more of us lose our licences".
Resident Steve Rawling AM told The Hawkesbury Gazette yesterday he was booked three times by the speed camera in April, May and June last year, but "never in the previous six years of the speed camera's existence, and never since".
"I protested there must have been a fault with the camera in that period," Mr Rawling said.
"In 46 years of driving in many countries I have had only one exceeding the speed limit offence.
The police and RTA were not interested in my protest, and the NRMA legal people said the following: 'Suppose that you had just had your speedo checked by a licensed service, and you had the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Dalai Lama, and the Pope as passengers, and they were all willing to testify that you were travelling at no more than
60km/h, the authorities would still maintain that the camera does not lie."
Mr Rawling took the matter to court where the magistrate had some sympathy with his case.
"But after checking the statutes, (the magistrate) said he had no power to restore the lost points, but let me off the fines. I know which I would have preferred.
"The simple fact is even when people are not exceeding the limit, you can stand at the end of my driveway (150 metres from the camera) and watch them slow down for 500m, and then go merrily on their speeding way.
Hawkesbury MP Steven Pringle and Londonderry MP Allan Shearan have both undertaken to ask the RTA to check the camera's calibration and location "as a matter of urgency" with the RTA.
"I would think by now, its effectiveness has diminished dramatically, and it's probably time to put it somewhere else where there is a genuine black spot need," Mr Pringle said.
"I'm concerned this may be more about a revenue-raising exercise in comparison with improving safety."
In a test case pitting motorists against the reliability of speed cameras, NSW's highest court has come down on the side of technology.
The Roads and Traffic Authority had appealed against a District Court decision in which motorist David Robert Baldock successfully challenged the reliability of a speed camera.
Mr Baldock claimed he was travelling below the speed limit - 80kmh - but the three photographs stated he was travelling at 93kmh when snapped on the M5 motorway, on June 12, 2005.
Evidence presented to Judge John Nicholson in the District Court was that the camera had been tested six months previously for its accuracy.
He said the time lapse meant he could not be sure of the accuracy of the machine, beyond a reasonable doubt.
This morning, the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, in what it described as a "test case", upheld the speed camera.
It said the law was designed to ensure that expert police resources were not tied down in numerous court proceedings.
When the laws covering them were introduced, the cameras replaced hand-held radar devices operated by police.
It said the purpose of the law was to promote road safety, and on specific questions of law, the judge had erred.
But while motorists have been put on notice, Mr Baldock's win will stand.
The appeal court said the RTA had not sought to have the matter re-heard in the District Court.
The appeal had been brought as it was in the RTA's interests to have the legal issues determined, and it ordered that the RTA pay his costs.
One of the many fixed speed cameras along Parramatta Road.
A ruling last month in the Supreme Court may force the State Government to repay drivers millions of dollars in fines.
On March 22, the Roads and Traffic Authority lost a Supreme Court appeal over speed camera photos. A $75 fine issued to motorist, Timothy Mitchell, was found not to contain the necessary markings stipulated by the the Road Transport Safety and Traffic Management Act.
The case went before Justice Michael Adams, who said the speed camera photo issued to Mr Mitchell contained non of these indicators and therefore his fine for driving 21 kmh over the limit on Parramatta Road, Auburn, should not stand.
Phillip Gibson represented Mr Mitchell and outlined the case to 702 ABC Sydney's Breakfast Presenter, Adam Spencer. "[Mr Mitchell] had his car photographed, allegedly speeding. These photos have some safeguards built into them and one of them is a security indicator.
"The problem with the RTA is that they have previously lost cases because they couldn't prove they were complying with the law in relation to theses security indicators. So in Mr Mitchell's case they tried to delete the security indicator from the photo."
Phillip Gibson says his client also denied he was speeding and it would have been easier for Mr Mitchell to have just paid for the fine. "But he didn't do that as a matter of principle because he said he wasn't speeding."
Instead, Mr Mitchell took the case all the way to the Supreme Court and won.
Mr Gibson explains that the speeding fine came from a fixed speed camera and his client had to pay $11 for a copy of the photo to help him with his case. However, Mr Gibson highlights that there are certain problems with these copied photographs. "The photo doesn't contain all the information you need. To get a photo containing all the information, you need to take the matter to court and take them on."
Whether or not Mr Mitchell's case will force the State Government to refund or waive other fines is yet to be determined. But, two years ago the Victorian Government was forced to repay $26 million to almost 165,000 motorists caught by faulty speed cameras.
Mr Gison believes there are many implications from Mr Mitchell's case. "We know there's been a precedent in Victoria where they've had to pay back millions of dollars in fines because their machines didn't work.
It's our belief that many speed cameras in NSW don't work (they record incorrect speeds).
"When the Government set up the legislation for these machines, they built in some safeguards. But the problem is the RTA is consistently showing that they can't meet the safeguards."
Mr Gibson says these safeguards are necessary to "protect motorists and put some balance back into the system".
However, he says cases like Mr
Mitchell's may see motorists start to lose
confidence in speed cameras.
Australian Buses Uncover Speed Camera Errors (source)
Bus drivers in Australia are outraged by tickets from faulty speed cameras.
A dozen bus drivers in Australia stand accused by speed cameras of speeding while on the job, but their cases actually demonstrate a significant error rate with the speed cameras used.
One driver was accused of driving a bus at 87 km/h on a flat stretch, yet the maximum speed of this vehicle -- downhill -- is 82 km/h.
Another camera ticketed the driver of a bus filled with 75 passengers for driving 74km/h uphill.
The Rail, Bus and Tram Union conducted its own test and determined the maximum possible speed on the incline in question was 56 km/h without passengers.
Union official Peter Jenkins told the Manly Daily, "Do you pay the $313 for the speeding ticket or pay $500-$600 to fight it. The demerit points could take away his driver's licence and his income. The drivers are pretty cheesed off about it."
The Roads and Traffic Authority will not review any motorist citations issued by this camera which produces $1 million in yearly revenue.
"One driver said it was impossible to go faster because the gears automatically changed down, usually to second. The RTBU has contested all 13 fines and the RTA has agreed to review the cases. "How could you be going at that speed [74km/h] when the automatic transmission is dropping back to second?"
Michael Simotas was booked by the police who claim he was driving at 85km/h in a 60km/h zone. Using his car's GPS tracking, he was able to beat the charge. "I knew that I wasn't speeding so I thought why should I cop a fine for something I didn't do.
"When I got home I downloaded the data from the unit and played it back on a map. It shows my position heading speed at all times and it shows that I wasn't speeding."
The GPS tracking in Michael's car was able to show he was travelling at 59km/h and not 85km/h as claimed by the police. Michael's lawyer Dennis Miralis says the legal victory could set a new precedent.
"It will allow people in the future who've got this and who've been charged with speeding offences to really challenge what the police say the speed was," he says.
Motorists will have new grounds to challenge speeding tickets after an investigation by National Nine News showed hundreds of defects in Sydney's fixed speed cameras.
A four month long National Nine News Investigation found that 568 faults had been discovered during 7,500 accuracy tests on the state's 117 fixed speed cameras.
The Roads Traffic Authority claims no motorist was wrongly fined as a result of the faults but speed camera lawyers say the never before released maintenance records will be used to launch new challenges to speeding tickets.
The RTA's Fixed Speed Camera Testing Records reveal that the normal operations of cameras were suspended almost 200 times to replace worn road sensors and when speed measuring systems failed, power was cut or there were camera technical problems.
The RTA admits other faults, including flashes that didn't work, image quality issues and camera component problems, happened dozens of times and caused the review and possible withdrawal of speeding offences which had been detected.
"It shows we have a very rigorous testing regime," offered the RTA's Alec Brown.
"No maintenance issues led to any speed measurement errors in the last year."
But lawyer, Dennis Miralis, who makes a living fighting speed camera tickets, says it's the first time the RTA has publicly admitted maintenance issues could cause the withdrawal of speeding tickets.
"We are talking about tens of thousands of motorists who are affected by these sorts of problems - motorists which the RTA now are publicly acknowledging could lead to the improper issuing of a ticket and the consideration of the withdrawal of a ticket."
"These cameras are not invincible, these cameras are subject to error."
The investigation also found that the RTA doesn't routinely compile a list of the camera faults its inspectors discover.
Under Freedom of Information laws, National Nine News put in a request for three years of reports on the maintenance and accuracy of speed cameras. We were told by the RTA it would take a staff member 4 years to compile the information and cost $246,000.
The request was refused by the RTA's records access unit on the grounds it was an "unreasonable diversion of resources."
What is the
best defense against each of these speed measuring devices??
Simple! - "Don't speed" - I hear echo amongst the narrow minded.
That's fine, and we agree whole heartedly, but "Don't speed and you won't
have to pay a fine" assumes three very important things:
"Speed cameras play an important role in detecting speeding motorists and I think everybody would love to think the cameras play a good deterrent role. But the problem is you have to have confidence that they work properly and if they don't than the public will lose confidence in them and they'll lose their deterrent value."
So what happens when you are driving down the road, sitting on 80km/h
(according to your speedometer) in an 80km/h stretch of road, but you cop a
radar (aka moving radar) set up in police cars:
and Golden Eagle dash mounted radars are manufactured by
Kustom Signals Inc in the USA. When transmitting
in "constant on" you will be able to detect the
long-range radar beam with any reasonable radar
detector. Due to the laws governing the use of
radar detectors in NSW, only the Bel STi is unable to be
detected by the Stalcar RDD
the Ka-band Silver Eagle II does indeed come out in NSW,
then similarly to the K-band unit, a decent radar
detector will detect this radar when used in "constant
on" mode. If the radar is only switched on when a
vehicle is in range, you are relying on a vehicle in
front of you begin targeted, thus setting off your
detector. If you are the only vehicle on the road
and you're targeted with "instant on" your toast! Due to the laws governing the use of radar detectors in
NSW, only the Bel STi is unable to be detected by the Stalcar RDD
point, some people have asked the question about radar
Your most important question
in purchasing a so-called radar jammer should be "does it work?"
You may have seen them advertised on other websites and some magazines:
the passive radar/laser jammers (also known as radar scramblers).
Some passive jammers are
Phantom, Phantom II, Phaser or Phazar, the Phantom III and The Black Widow.
Passive radar Jammers DO NOT WORK!
These "jammers" are usually manufactured by a company called Rocky Mountain
Radar (RMR). We have tested many of their units and we have yet to find one
that works as advertised.
Know what to avoid before you purchase such a passive
jammer, consider reading the "Jamming Testing Report" by Radar Roy first to
find out why we do not sell and/or recommend them.
Active Radar Jammers - Not Much Improvement! You may have also heard of the active radar jammers with the name of Phantom RCD XP or The Scorpion. These do work to a
Active radar jammers like those named above, only jam X, K with any success
and have difficulty jamming Instant on radar. Their effectiveness
against Ka radar is even less, especially at close range. Read a test
report on active radar jammers here.
laser (aka lidar):
Laser guns are another "deadly" device in
that they can calculate your speed in less than a second. Although
most radar detectors include a laser sensor, they usually offer little more
than a "ticket notifier" when they go off. Having said that, there ARE
circumstances where a laser (detector) can and has, provided adequate
warning...although these are few and far times in
between. Click on the video below and to the left (allow
pop-ups) to watch just how quickly a laser acquires a vehicle's speed.
So what is the best defenses against laser?
Well, as far as a detector goes, the best at detecting laser is the Valentine One.
just finished convincing you a detector is useless against laser, but the
Valentine One, will give you the best chance of detecting "off-axis"
laser from the car in front of you being targeted.
For proof that the
Valentine is the best unit at detecting laser, read our 2008 Laser Detector test:
"That being stated, these
results suggest that, especially in close-range laser encounters, the
Valentine 1 is the top performing laser detector, by a wide-margin,
followed by the Escort 8500 X50 and more closely, the STi Driver, and the
Beltronics RX65 Pro.."
But as aforementioned, just detecting the laser won't be enough.
The most cost effective solution is with the use of Veil anti-laser paint.
Veil will give you additional seconds warning time when used in conjunction
with a good laser detector. You can read more about Veil in our laser
The best defense against laser is by the
use of an active laser jammer. Unlike
most active radar jammers, active laser jammers do work. An active
laser jammer will prevent a speed being displayed for a brief time whilst
you adjust your speed if necessary. The best laser jammers for the
Australian model LTI
Ultralyte according to the Guys Of Lidar 2007 test are
the Laser Interceptor and the Blinder. You need to look at the results
for the Ultralyte 100pps as these are
the laser guns used in Australia. The Laser Pro Park finished fifth in
the test against these laser guns.
Traffipax mobile speed cameras in NSW operate on K-band and
are always transmitting ("constant on"). For that reason, they are
easily detected with a decent radar detector. The best
radar detector for picking up K-band radar is the Valentine One, but this
detector is NOT invisible to police RDD. Therefore the only radar
detector that IS invisible to RDD is the Bel STi.
Light / Speed
best product for alerting to a fixed speed and red light cameras is a GPS device that
stores these locations in a database. Many GPS manufacturers offer
products that add this service (called "point of interest") to their
navigation products. A GPS based device is perfectly legal to own and
operate in New South Wales at the time of writing.
How does each radar detector
perform detecting NSW radars, lasers & cameras?
best radar detector for NSW:
Due to the laws banning the use of a
radar detector in New South Wales, we cannot recommend the purchase of
any "speed evasion article". There are, however, drivers who choose to
ignore these laws, and purchase a radar detector anyway. Those doing so, would most likely choose a stealth radar detector, as
only stealth radar detectors are 100% invisible to the Stalcar
police radar detector detector (see below)
What are the laws governing the use of radar detectors in
purchase and use of prohibited speed measuring evasion
person must not sell or offer for sale, or purchase, a
prohibited speed measuring evasion article.
penalty: 20 penalty units.
(2) A person
must not drive a motor vehicle, or cause a motor vehicle
or trailer to stand, on a road or road related area if a
prohibited speed measuring evasion article is fitted or
applied to, or carried in, the vehicle.
penalty: 20 penalty units.
owner of a motor vehicle or trailer which is driven or
stands on a road or road related area in contravention
of subsection (2) is guilty of an offence.
penalty: 20 penalty units.
(4) It is a
defence to a prosecution for an offence under this
section if the defendant satisfies the court that the
article concerned was not designed as a prohibited speed
measuring evasion article but was designed for another
(5) It is a
defence to a prosecution for an offence under subsection
(2) or (3) if the defendant satisfies the court that, at
the time of the alleged offence:
vehicle was in the course of a journey to a place
appointed by a member of the police force, an officer of
the Authority or a court, in order to surrender the
vehicle was the subject of a notice, issued in
accordance with the regulations, requiring the owner of
the vehicle to remove the article from the vehicle
within a specified time and that time had not expired,
defendant did not know, and in the circumstances could
not reasonably be expected to have known, that the
article concerned was fitted or applied to, or was being
carried in, the vehicle.
1909 - Sect 4AE
Surrender and forfeiture of prohibited speed measuring
(1) A police
officer who reasonably believes that:
prohibited speed measuring evasion article is being sold
or offered for sale in contravention of section
4AD (1), or
(b) a motor
vehicle or trailer is standing or being driven in
contravention of section 4AD (2) because of an article
fitted or applied to, or carried in, the vehicle, may
require a person in possession of the article to
surrender it immediately to the police officer or, in
the case of an article fitted or applied to a motor
vehicle or trailer and not immediately removable, may by
notice in writing served on the owner of the vehicle
require the owner to surrender the article within a
specified time and in a specified manner to the
Commissioner of Police.
officer of the Authority who is authorised in writing by
the Authority for the purposes of this section and who
finds a prohibited speed measuring evasion article
fitted or applied to, or carried in, a motor vehicle or
trailer may, by notice in writing served on the owner of
the vehicle, require the owner to do either or both of
the article (if it is fitted to the vehicle),
surrender the article within a specified time and in a
specified manner to the Commissioner of Police.
(3) A person
must comply with a requirement under subsection (1) or
(2), whether or not he or she is the owner of the
penalty: 20 penalty units.
(4) A court
which finds an offence under section 4AD or under
subsection (3) to have been proven against any person
may order that the article concerned, if not already
surrendered pursuant to a requirement under this
section, be delivered to the Commissioner of Police
within a time and in a manner specified by the court.
article surrendered as required under this section is
thereby forfeited to the Crown and may be destroyed or
otherwise disposed of at the direction of the
Commissioner of Police.
liability attaches to any person on account of the
surrender by the person, in pursuance of a requirement
under this section, of a prohibited speed measuring
evasion article of which that person is not the absolute
1909 - Sect 2
Prohibited speed measuring evasion article means any
device or substance that is designed, or apparently
designed, to be fitted or applied to, or to be carried
in, a motor vehicle or trailer for the purpose of
detecting, interfering with, or reducing the
effectiveness of, an approved speed measuring device,
and includes a radar detecting device and a radar
jamming device. Radar detecting device means a device
designed or apparently designed to be fitted to or
carried in a motor vehicle or trailer for the purpose of
detecting electromagnetic radiations from an approved
speed measuring device. Radar jamming device means a
device designed or apparently designed to be fitted to
or carried in a motor vehicle or trailer for the purpose
of interfering with the receiving by an approved speed
measuring device of reflected electromagnetic
Summary for police radar, laser and speed cameras in NSW.
If radar detectors
were legal to use in the New South Wales then the
best radar detector would be the Valentine One.
However due RD's being banned in NSW, Delonix cannot and
will not making any recommendations to you. As
mentioned earlier, there are those that choose to ignore
the laws banning radar detectors, and buy a Stealth Radar Detector being 100% invisible to detection by police RDDs.
For legal advice on
speeding matters in NSW, we suggest you contact Not Guilty