Speed Camera Driver Busted for Speeding, 102km/h in 50km/h Zone

Sprint XR8 · 28-05-2011, 01:10 PM

Quote:

A government labor relations board in Australia yesterday upheld the firing of an employee busted for driving a speed camera van at more than double the speed limit. Stuart Rollo appealed to Fair Work Australia after he was terminated by Serco Traffic Camera Services in Victoria on December 10 for driving 102km/h (63 MPH) 50km/h (31 MPH) zone. On Thursday Commissioner G.R. Smith determined the firing was warranted by the circumstances.

The government of Victoria granted Serco the right to issue automated speeding tickets. The firm hired Rollo to drive the photo enforcement vehicle to a given location and turn on the equipment. Each speed camera van was equipped with a GPS tracking device that allowed remote monitoring of the vehicle's location and speed.

On October 22 a Victoria Police unit photographed Rollo driving a speed van at 87 km/h (54 MPH) in an 80 km/h zone (50 MPH) and the citation was mailed to Serco. This prompted company officials to examine Rollo's driving history, as recorded by the GPS device. This audit uncovered that Rollo in September had been driving up to 113 km/h (70 MPH) in a 100 km/h (62 MPH) zone -- well within the tolerance for which an ordinary Australian motorist would receive a ticket. It also confirmed his blast at more than twice the legal limit on October 22.

Although speed camera firms have argued in court that GPS data is unreliable when used by a motorist to defend against a speeding ticket, in this case Serco asked Ben Ditford, the major projects and account manager for Mobile Tracking and Data Pty Ltd to testify that the GPS tracking unit produced information far more accurate than a speedometer.

"I accept the evidence of Mr Ditford and I find the GPS equipment on the Serco vehicles is reliable," Smith wrote in his decision. "In any event, to the extent that errors may exist, I find, on Mr Ditford's evidence, that it is unlikely that any error could lead to the equipment not being able to discern the difference between 50 km/h and 102 km/h."

Rollo argued that he was never told that his speed would be monitored by GPS and that the device was only meant to verify that vehicles were properly positioned throughout the day. Rollo also argued that he had been speeding because he had a medical condition and needed to go to the bathroom. Smith rejected the argument because Rollo had never raised the subject with his employer and he only mentioned this once the case reached the cross-examination stage. Smith questioned the man's honesty.

"Mr Rollo has not accepted that he knew he was speeding," Smith wrote. "However this does not sit comfortably with the evidence of Mr Fryer who said that Mr Rollo admitted to him that he may have set off a speed camera on the night in question. This evidence was consistent with the GPS data which showed there was a sudden drop in speed immediately after the speed camera detected him exceeding the speed limit. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Rollo was not unaware of the fact that he was traveling at a speed which was above the speed limit."

Smith concluded that this amounted to serious misconduct and Rollo's summary dismissal was warranted. A copy of the decision is available in a 150k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: Rollo v. Serco Traffic Camera (Fair Work Australia, 5/26/2011)
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs...au-fastcam.pdf
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3491.asp

SteveJH · 28-05-2011, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Rollo also argued that he had been speeding because he had a medical condition and needed to go to the bathroom

Interesting excuse.

tex · 28-05-2011, 01:37 PM

What a fool. WTF was he thinking while exceeding the prescribed limit driving his speed camera van fitted with GPS - real time monitored and DATALOGGED.

Oh that's right, he was never advised it logged history. That explains it. Whacker.

Maybe he was just a proactive revinue minion, and was trying to maximise camera up time, obviously requirng he pedal to the metal between installations.

Regardless, suck eggs moron, you got what you deserved, how many Mrs Smiths have you booked for doing 3kmh over?

Yes indeed, just deserts have been dealt, and moron will lose the opportunity to add to any more coffers.

Pity they don't confiscate and crush the vehicle under hoon laws. Now that would be sweet.

Oh, and as gesture of my appreciation for your previous job history;

[IMG]

[/IMG]

Jim Goose · 28-05-2011, 02:10 PM

Serco... now there is a great defence contractor if ever i seen one..
Some of the staff they employ around the place certainly shouldnt be working on a defence force base, let alone given a speed camera van.
(Serco is another worldwide company, with its claws in a lot government contracts)

deserves all he gets this fellow

ray38l · 28-05-2011, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Serco... now there is a great defence contractor if ever i seen one..
Some of the staff they employ around the place certainly shouldnt be working on a defence force base, let alone given a speed camera van.
(Serco is another worldwide company, with its claws in a lot government contracts)

deserves all he gets this fellow

serco are grubs. They get a contract and then use a smaller company to run the contract for them. I know through experience that most of the contract workers get paid less then award wage. That's why they end up with idiots like this

Jim Goose · 28-05-2011, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ray38l

serco are grubs. They get a contract and then use a smaller company to run the contract for them. I know through experience that most of the contract workers get paid less then award wage. That's why they end up with idiots like this

BINGO!

Ben73 · 28-05-2011, 05:59 PM

Firstly it said the GPS was unreliable.
Then he said he was speeding because of a medical condition
Then it said he did not know he was speeding.
Pfff fine him $2000, make him lose his license for a year and crush his car.
Gotta have zero tolerance across the board.

When the NSW mobile speed cameras started not long ago, I was doing 65 in a 60 zone and one of these camera cars passed me doing 70+
Stopped next to him at the next set of traffic lights and I stared directly at him the whole time with a serious look on my face. I think he felt a bit uncomfortable because he kept looking quickly then looking away lol

I emailed the RTA about his pathetic driving. Never heard back from them. He would of got away with it the scumbag ****.

Keepleft · 28-05-2011, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben73

I emailed the RTA about his pathetic driving. Never heard back from them. He would of got away with it the scumbag ****.

Forget RTA, call Macquarie Bank.

**GasoLane** · 28-05-2011, 06:23 PM

^^^ What he said.

The millionaires club.

TheInterceptor · 28-05-2011, 06:54 PM

Please oh please crush the van.

And dump it on Gillards lawn.

MITCHAY · 28-05-2011, 07:21 PM

Lol that's gold

:

wodahs · 28-05-2011, 08:42 PM

bet he thought he'd get away with it coz he knew where the speed camera for that area was

vztrt · 29-05-2011, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheInterceptor

Please oh please crush the van.

And dump it on Gillards lawn.

What does she have to do with state based speed cameras??

...............

Pretty lame excuse seeing the driver was working in a job that wouldn't really give him access to a bathroom.

Jim Goose · 29-05-2011, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vztrt

What does she have to do with state based speed cameras??

...............

Pretty lame excuse seeing the driver was working in a job that wouldn't really give him access to a bathroom.

Didnt you know? The PM is responsibles for everyones woes...

svo supporter · 29-05-2011, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheInterceptor

Please oh please crush the van.

And dump it on Gillards lawn.

Smart thinking. Who pays for them to begin with? Little tip....Tax payers

**ebxr8240** · 29-05-2011, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by svo supporter

Smart thinking. Who pays for them to begin with? Little tip....Tax payers

State tax's pay...

Rockape · 29-05-2011, 12:35 PM

Impound it for 28 days...

xr6turboford · 29-05-2011, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

State tax's pay...

Its hard for some people to distinguish between state gov and fed gov. Having said that their both necessary evils.

svo supporter · 29-05-2011, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

State tax's pay...

And where does the state tax come from? You guessed it. Tax payers, like you and me.

svo supporter · 29-05-2011, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xr6turboford

Its hard for some people to distinguish between state gov and fed gov. Having said that their both necessary evils.

Either way, we are the tax payers that are digging into our pockets for them to get the money. So at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether it's state or federal. We are the ones that bought the van to begin with and we'd be the ones paying to replace it.

So is it still a smart move? Don't think so.

mrbaxr6t · 29-05-2011, 05:11 PM

impound the van for 90 days (one less mobile speed cam out there) good for us all I am certain more money will be saved due to loss of revenue than what will be spent impounding it

and for what its worth what hope do the rest of us have obeying the rules when the ones enforcing them cannot obey them

aussie muscle · 30-05-2011, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xr6turboford

Its hard for some people to distinguish between state gov and fed gov. Having said that their both necessary evils.

well, federal is necessary, state less so.

you are right tho, i noticed this at the last federal election, most people were complaining about roads and hospitals and education, the three main state responsibilities... and they do teach this stuff in school