Everything you need to know about police radar, laser and speed cameras in New South Wales

1) What are the different types of police radar / laser & speed cameras used in NSW?

a) What is the respective the tolerance / accuracy of each device?

 

b) What are the guidelines for use of this equipment?

 

c) How do these devices make mistakes?

i) Moving Radar errors and mistakes

 

ii) Laser (LIDAR) errors and mistakes

 

iii) Speed camera errors and mistakes

2) What products offer the best protection against these types of police radar / laser / cameras?

a) What are the laws governing the use of radar / laser detectors in NSW?

 

b) Can the police determine if you are using a radar detector?

3) What are the penalties / demerit points and speeding fines for NSW?

a) If I know I wasn't speeding, how can I challenge / beat a speeding fine

4) What are the road fatality statistics for New South Wales?

5) Summary for police radar, laser and speed cameras in New South Wales

What Radar / Laser speed measuring devices are used in NSW

Firstly, it needs to be explained that there are four different RADAR bands (frequencies) used throughout the world as well as LASER (which is completely different to radar).

The four radar bands include:

X-Band (10.275GHz up to 10.775GHz) - not used anywhere in Australia

K-Band (24.050GHz up to 24.250GHz)

Ka-Band (33.400GHz up to 36.000GHz) - Australia is licensed for 34.2 - 35.2GHz only

Ku-Band (13.175GHz to 13.675GHz) - not used anywhere in Australia

Radar (short for radio and ranging) works by transmitting a pulse of electromagnetic (EM) energy, also referred to as RF energy at a moving object.  Using the Doppler principle the radar gun ‘listens’ to the change in pitch of the radio waves as they reflect off the moving vehicle and thus determines the speed.  Similarly when a train blows its whistle as it passes you – you can hear the change in pitch of the whistle, as the train moves past. 

The radar beam starts out as a small diameter pulse when it leaves the radar gun, but grows quite rapidly as the distance increases from the gun.  At a distance of 300 metres, the radar beam is now 100 metres tall and 200 metres wide! If 6 cars were simultaneously hit by a radar beam (six vehicles driving down the freeway), 6 pulses would come back to the radar gun, and the radar gun would detect (and report the speed of) the largest signal of the 6 signals present.  To overcome this shortfall, the latest radar units with Digital Signal Processing (DSP) can identify the strongest and the fastest targets to try and help the police officer identify which vehicle's speed is being displayed on the radar gun.

Because the radar beam is so large when traveling down the road, a radar detector can be located almost anywhere in or on the vehicle, and it will detect the radar signal.  Radar will penetrate glass, plastic, even people, but is reflected by metal and metallic objects.  Radio waves will only travel in a straight line, so you are relying on reflections of other objects to give you advanced warning if you do not have a line of site with the radar gun.

Traffic radar uses a radar beam to measure speed. Think of the beam as a searchlight. It’s invisible because it’s made of microwaves instead of light, but otherwise it acts very much like a light beam. It travels in straight lines. It’s easily reflected. It scatters as it is passed through dust and moisture in the air. And — this is essential — it has to hit your car before it can determine your speed. Radar can’t see around corners or through hills. It can’t see you when you are behind another vehicle. When in the clear, how strongly your vehicle reflects determines at what distance the radar can detect your speed. Generally, larger vehicles reflect more strongly than smaller vehicles. Trucks are more “visible” at further distances than cars. The principle on which radar operates is absolutely reliable. Radar equipment, on the other hand, is only as good as the quality of its design and manufacture. Traffic radars tend to be unreliable. They’re cheaply made and therefore vulnerable to many interferences that cause false readings. And, compared to the military and weather radar which have rotating antennas, traffic radars are vastly simplified. This simplification means that traffic radar cannot tell one car from another. The operator has to do that, and since the operator can’t see an invisible beam any better than you can, he frequently doesn’t know which vehicle’s speed is being read. This is a source of many undeserved tickets.

As a defense against radar detectors, many police radar units can be operated in the Instant-on mode, also called the Pulse mode. This means the radar is in position, but it is not transmitting a beam. So it cannot be detected. When the target is within range, the radar operator switches on the beam and the radar calculates the speed, usually in less than a second. This calculation happens too quickly for the target (you) to respond in time.  Still, you can defend against Instant-on by recognizing it when the operator zaps traffic ahead of you.

As well as radar, there is also LASER (also known as LIDAR, - LIght Detection And Ranging), which operates at a frequency of 904nm ± 33MHz. A police laser (LIDAR) gun emits a highly focused beam of invisible light, in the near infrared region of light, at 904nm of wavelength, with the beam being around 50cm in diameter at a distance of 300m from the laser gun. Unlike RADAR which determines a vehicle's speed by measuring its Doppler shift, police laser (lidar) calculates speed by observing the changing amount of time is takes to "see" reflected pulses of light over a discreet amount of time.

Because the laser beam's diameter is so narrow, if a laser gun is aimed at the license plate, the beam is so small, that most times, none of the laser signal would actually “spill over” up to the windshield, where your detector is mounted.  Thus, a radar detector with laser detector mounted on the windscreen would not even detect the laser beam targeted on the license plate (or headlights or bumper for that matter). This means the beam of a laser gun is accurate enough to target a single vehicle out of, let’s say, six vehicles driving down the freeway. The laser gun can target and detect that single vehicle in less than ½ second after the trigger is pulled, while the surrounding vehicles would not detect the laser beam as it passed right beside their vehicle! 

Other than radar and laser, there are other ways of calculating a vehicle's speed being:

• Vascar - This is not a radar or laser, system; rather it is a glorified stopwatch that relies on the policeman's honesty and accuracy. They are mounted in the police car and are often used when following the target. When the target car goes past a landmark (usually a white marking across the road), the timer is started and when the car goes past the second landmark, the timer is stopped. It is hooked up to the patrol car's speedometer to give a target speed reading. It relies on the button being pushed at the right time and the pacing distance to be long enough to overcome any timing errors. The only countermeasure is careful observation, or a GPS unit if it's a regularly used Vascar area.

• Piezo-electric strips - pressure-sensitive strips embedded in the roadway (a set distance apart if speed is to be measured - typically 1-3 metres).

• Inductive Loops - embedded in the roadway detect the presence of vehicles, and with two loops a set distance apart vehicle speed can be measured.

• Arial Speed checks (similar to Vascar)

Back to Top

In New South Wales, the police use the following speed measurement devices:

The 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.

The Kustom 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)

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. 

Fixed speed 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.

How accurate are these devices?

The assumption being made here, is that the speed measuring equipment is being used according to the manufacturer's guidelines (see below).

 

The Kustom Silver Eagle & Golden Eagle dash mounted moving radars are accurate to ± 2km/h in stationary mode and ± 3km/h in moving mode

 

The Prolaser 3 Laser (Lidar) gun is also accurate to ± 2km/h and cannot be operated in moving mode.

 

The Traffipax speed cameras are accurate to ± 2km/h and cannot be operated in moving mode.

Back to Top

What are the guidelines for use of this equipment?

Contrary to what the government or police would have you believe, the accuracy of these "speed measurement devices" can be somewhat doubtful, particularly if the manufacturer's guidelines for use are not strictly followed.  Police officers, and mobile speed camera operators are trained in the proper use of these devices, but that isn't to say these guidelines are always followed.  It is estimated that 10% of all LIDAR infringements are incorrect and up to 30% of all moving radar speed readings are also incorrect!

The Australian standards AS 2898.2-2003:

"Radar speed detection - Operational procedures" - can be purchased HERE

The Australian standards AS 4691.2-2003:

"Laser-based speed detection devices - Operational procedures"

- can be purchased HERE

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?

How do Police Radar, Laser & Speed Cameras make mistakes?

Moving Radar mistakes:

The Texas Department of Public Safety produced a comprehensive manual based on the Federal tests. It cautions operators, "...the radar does not generate 'false' readings. Anytime a reading appears, the radar has sensed a signal. The radar operator must be familiar with situations that can produce 'error' readings." If the operator does not detect the error, a ticket will be wrongfully issued.

Here are the radar "errors" detailed by the Texas manual:



 

1. Antenna Positioning Error
The radar beam travels in a straight line, neither bending around curves nor following the contour of hilly terrain. If the antenna is not properly positioned, it may seem to clock an approaching car when, in fact, it's clocking another car in the background.



2. Look-Past Error
Even if the operator aims his antenna properly, radar is still subject to "look-past" error. This is caused by the radar looking past a small reflection in the foreground to read a larger reflection behind. This error is all the more insidious because poorly-trained operators assume it can't happen.

 

Texas instructors warn, "It is a widely-held misconception that the reflected target signal received by the radar antenna will always be that of the closest vehicle to the antenna. There are times, due to traffic conditions, that the closest vehicle is not returning the strongest signal."

The Texas instructors confirm this problem with radar, saying "It is not unfair to say that the reading you register could be a larger, better target three-quarters of a mile down the road."



 

3. Vehicle Interference Error

Texas tells its radar operators that this "...situation becomes more critical if difference in patrol speed and interference-vehicle speed is five to ten mph. A target vehicle moving 61 mph may be recorded at 66-71. These borderline speeds are more difficult to detect with the eye."






 

4. Cosine Error
Cosine error produces a result similar to Interference error except no moving traffic need be present. A stationary object adjacent to the road, such as a building, or road machinery, or even a sign, makes a more efficient reflector than horizontal pavement. Therefore the radar uses that reflection as the basis of patrol speed.

 

If this reflector were positioned straight ahead on a collision path, the patrol speed estimate would be close enough. But the further the object is located off a direct line to the target, the lower will be the estimate of patrol speed. This is a simple trigonometry problem relating to the cosine of the angle between the target and the ground reflector, hence the name Cosine error. Since Cosine error always makes patrol speed seem smaller than it actually is, it always acts to raise the reading of target speed.

 



 

5. Double-Bounce Error
Microwaves are easily reflected. That's what makes radar possible. But the operator must be aware of the difference between an ordinary reflection and a bad bounce. Big objects such as trucks are very efficient reflectors, and it's possible for the radar beam to bounce off several moving trucks at once, always producing erroneous readings.






 

6. Beam-Reflection error
Because microwaves are so readily reflected, Texas instructors recommend caution, even in mounting the antenna within the patrol car. They say it's possible that a reflective path can be set up through the rearview mirror that will produce radar readings on vehicles behind the patrol car when the radar is aimed forward. And those vehicles behind can be either coming or going, since radar does not distinguish directions.

 



 

7. Road-sign error
The ready reflectability of microwaves means that road signs are also source of errors.

 

8. Radio-Interference Error
According to the Texas course, "UHF radio now in use can force radar to read various numbers when you transmit, or just key the mike. Citizens band radio transmissions from within the patrol vehicle can cause ghosting (false readings)." It recommends that no radio transmissions be made while clocking target vehicles.

 

9. Fan-Interference error
When the antenna is mounted inside the patrol car, the Texas course says, "Radar will have a tendency to read the pulse of the fan motor (air conditioner, heater, or defroster)." The instructors go on to say, however, that the fan reading will disappear when a target comes into range, and that the fan will not distort the speed reading of the target car.

 

However, in the case of moving radar, they say, "Sometimes a steady fan speed will override patrol car speed reflected from the roadway." When this happens, the false speed reading produced by the fan will be substituted for patrol speed in the moving radar's calculation of target speed. Since the calculation consists of subtracting patrol speed from closing speed, if the fan reading is less than patrol speed, then the speed displayed for the target will be incorrectly high.

 

Back to Top

 

Speed Laser (Lidar) mistakes

Police LIDAR can also make errors if not operated according to the manufacturer's guidelines.

 

1. Stationary - Laser cannot be used in moving mode, they must be used whilst stationary.  Similar to radar, laser cannot be used in the rain, snow, or high dust environments.

 

2. Interference - If for any reasons intended signal returns are interrupted, it may not be able to determine target velocity. Bright lights (such as Halogens) beaming directly into a laser aperture may desensitize or entirely masks target's echoes. The brighter and closer the light source the greater the chance of interference.

 

3. Cosine Error - Is the angle from 0* perpendicular to the target vehicle. The greater the cosine angle the greater the error. However, cosine error is always in favor of the motorist, one of the speed readings will be will be proportionally less than the actual speed of the target vehicle.

 

4. Sweep Error (also known as pan or slip error) - Is manifested when the laser is aimed at one part of the vehicle, say the license plate, and due to the motion of the operator, the laser also targets a side mirror during the same trigger pull. Sweep Error adds to the real speed of the target vehicle. See videos below.

 

5. Reflection Error - On very hot days with low humidity a visible mirage/reflection of the target vehicle is created. In many cases, when the laser is aimed at the target vehicle the infrared beam also receives readings from both the target vehicle and the mirage causing a Sweep Error.

 

6. Overexposure Error - When a laser gun receives an extremely powerful reflective signal, such as a sun flare off a vehicle, the computer's timer can't see return of the 904 nanometer signal it sent. It can't compute a speed reading. In general, the laser gun is looking for the strongest return reflection of its own emitted beam for speed computation.

 

LTI 20-20 exposed as unreliable (source)

Daily Mail, 15th October 2005.

 

Experts and two investigations by the BBC's Inside Out program and The Daily Mail have revealed that the police's favourite speed gun, the LTI 20-20, is flawed and can produce incorrect and unreliable speed readings. The device is used in some 3500 speed traps around the UK, but motorists have been prosecuted for speeding when they're adamant that they weren't over the limit. However, the main expert witness called by the CPS to defend the equipment in court is the boss of the UK importer, Frank Garratt, a former police officer and now a millionaire.

 

In tests the speed gun recorded a wall speeding at 44mph. (Yes, a brick wall, that's not a misprint) Other tests showed a bicycle doing 66mph and a parked car doing 22mph. The Daily Mail reports that even when the camera is set up following the police's own guidelines and the manufacturer's handbook some of the readings were wildly off the mark.

 

The newspaper wrote "The Mail can expose the scandal of a speed enforcement industry in which the collection of fines is considered paramount - whatever the consequences for innocent drivers caught in police traps by faulty readings." Lawyers told the paper that motorists are now rebelling by refusing to pay fines and fighting their cases through the courts. One solicitor, Barry Culshaw from Southampton, is representing 15 clients who all claim to have been a victim of faulty LTI 20-20 readings.

 

Another discovery, writes The Daily Mail, is that vital video film, often taken as secondary evidence, is often mysteriously withheld from accused motorists by the CPS. On at least 10 occasions the CPS has suddenly dropped the case against a motorist when ordered by a judge to hand over the revealing footage. 

 

Dr Michael Clark is Europe's leading expert on laser technology and a former directory of a company making laser detection equipment for traffic lights and car parks. He's also a fierce critic of the speed gun and has acted as an expert witness on behalf of many motorists since he defended himself after being caught for alleged speeding.

 

Dr Clark says the gun is defective because its wide beam can easily pick up the wrong vehicle and if not held firmly on the target (which is a difficult task itself) it can produce an erroneous speed result because of "slippage".

 

Reflections from road signs and from other cars, even stationary ones, can also make the laser device misinterpret the true speed of the vehicle. The LTI 20-20 works by sending out a beam to measure the distance of the target from the officer operating it and also how long it takes for the beam to reflect off the target and bounce back. The operator looks through the sights and sees a red dot which he aims onto the target and presses a trigger. Critically the beam must be held firmly at the same point on the moving vehicle. But if slippage occurs and the beam moves up, down, or along the vehicle the gun will measure an inaccurate reading.

 

In tests in the USA, it was shown that if the beam slips from the windscreen of a car down to its grille on the bonnet it can add 8mph onto the vehicle's measured speed. If it slips along the length of the car - which is possible when a vehicle comes around a corner into the speed gun's sights - a whopping 30mph can be added on to the reading.

 

The BBC's experiments with the LTI 20-20 were dismissed by both the UK importers and ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) saying it was impossible for the gun to make any errors and that the BBC used an American version of the gun which they claim has less reliable software.

 

However, that claim was been rejected by the Daily Mail who obtained a UK version of the gun - a LTI 20-20 Ultralyte certified by Tele-Traffic, the UK importers based in Warwick.

 

Dr Clark points out during the experiments that the gun uses a multi-mode laser which uses 3 beams, not one. Over a long distance the beams widen so if it's targeted onto one vehicle it can unintentionally hit another vehicle nearby by mistake. Dr Clark said "A policeman can't tell from 400 meters away - or even at a longer distance in many cases - exactly which car he is marking." To demonstrate his point they parked a car at the side of the road and drove a white van past it at just 3mph. The laser gun was pointed at the car from 371 meters away which, according to the handbook, is easily within its capabilities.

 

As soon as the van drove past the parked car the laser gun picked up the moving van. It was impossible to target just the parked car along and as a result the car was recorded as travelling at 3mph, even though it was really stationary. The experiment was repeated with the van doing 26mph and the gun clocked the parked car at 26mph.

 

Another problem is reflection from other vehicles. They pointed the gun at a different parked car and slowly drove the white van past. It recorded the parked car doing 22mph. Dr Clark explains "The beam sometimes catches the reflection of a nearby car. It zig-zags to this car before carrying on to the target vehicle and returns by the same route."

 

In their final experiment they pointed the gun at a brick wall with no moving vehicles in the area. They moved the beam along the wall instead of keeping it perfectly still on a single point to create the slippage effect. The gun was confused and showed a speed of 44mph. Dr Clark said "This shows how a traffic officer can mistakenly pick up a reading from a wall by the side of a motorway or even an empty road if he doesn't target a vehicle properly. Of course there's no record to prove if an officer had targeting the vehicle properly or not. Assumption of accuracy is always taken for granted even if the officer had unwittingly made a mistake.

 

ACPO state that the gun shouldn't be used at distances more than 500 meters, but Dr Clark says that it's being used in some cases at double that distance.

 

Despite the recent media interest in these issue the shortcomings of the gun was discovered nearly a decade ago in 1996 in the US state of New Jersey. The state temporarily banned the gun after a court witnessed someone targeting the gun on a wall of the courtroom and it measured 4mph. The lawyer, Joe Maccarone, defending a motorist accused of speeding called on an expert from NASA. The expert said that at just over 300 metres there was only a 60% chance of a human operator hitting a 12 foot wide target with a laser gun. Cars are only 6 foot wide so the chances of hitting something other than the target are very high indeed.

 

Hand-held laser mistakes videos



If you have been given a ticket from a laser gun when you were positive you weren't doing the alleged speed, then

YOU MUST WATCH THIS VIDEO!

 

A pop-up window will appear so please make sure your pop-up blocker doesn't prevent it from opening and playing in a new window.

 

 



Part Two

This video also shows how "reflection" can also create errors in speed readings, as well as the slip error as featured in the first video

 

A pop-up window will appear so please make sure your pop-up blocker doesn't prevent it from opening and playing in a new window.

 

Back to Top

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 fatalities.

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!

 

The 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 traveled".

 

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 duties

 

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.

 

These 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."

 

 

Drivers lose speed camera test case Leonie Lamont

source: The Sydney Morning Herald, 21/02/07

 

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.

 

 

Speed cameras caught out

Friday, 7 April 2006 - (source)

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. Australian bus.

 

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?"

 

 

HOW TO BEAT SPEED CAMERAS

By Howard Gipps TV ACA March 13, 2007 (source)

 

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.

 

 

Sydney's Faulty Speed Cameras Exposed

Police Speed Cameras Found Faulty Again.  (source)

 

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."

 

Back to Top

What is the best defense against each of these speed measuring devices??