Opinions on speeding fine.

[Yellow_Festiva]

I think a letter of leniency is your best bet. You weren't all that much over the limit and you have a good record.

You may get lucky, or you may pay the fine. Trying to pursue your case will set you back much more than $153.

From what I have seen in that picture, and as you described you would have had several hundred metres to adjust your speed.

If it were me, I would write the letter and see what happens. If I ended up paying the fine such is life.

[naddis01]

Yes I agree with what you have said. What annoys me really is I probably would have seen the first sign and have been doing the correct speed if I wasn't fixated on the police car. As can be seen by my detected speed I was adjusting my speed from the posted 110.

However that is not a defence I guess. But then one could argue that my speed wasn't checked in the 80 zone.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by naddis01

Yes I agree with what you have said. What annoys me really is I probably would have seen the first sign and have been doing the correct speed if I wasn't fixated on the police car. As can be seen by my detected speed I was adjusting my speed from the posted 110.

However that is not a defence I guess. But then one could argue that my speed wasn't checked in the 80 zone.

I would be demanding a letter of apology, you were pinged with a speed detection device within 300m of a speed zone decrease.

[2011G6E]

Brazen, you keep mentioning this "they can't ping you within 300 meters of a speed sign" stuff...the lower speed zone starts at the lower speed sign, not 300 meters after it. It's up to you as an observant driver to ensure you are doing the speed for that next area by the time you reach the sign.
Once again, as others have asked, how would you apply this to a school zone? Should you be allowed to have 300 meters after the sign to slow down to the posted speed for he school times?

That drawing is interesting...am I to take it that the two 80 signs with the black rectangle in between are both "standard" speed signs with the red circled number? If they are, and the "80 zone ahead" sign is one of the black ringed ones, then that's no real surprise...I know several places where they seem to "double up" on speed signs, possibly after extending the zone and leaving the old sign in place.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Brazen, you keep mentioning this "they can't ping you within 300 meters of a speed sign" stuff...the lower speed zone starts at the lower speed sign, not 300 meters after it. It's up to you as an observant driver to ensure you are doing the speed for that next area by the time you reach the sign.
Once again, as others have asked, how would you apply this to a school zone? Should you be allowed to have 300 meters after the sign to slow down to the posted speed for he school times?

That drawing is interesting...am I to take it that the two 80 signs with the black rectangle in between are both "standard" speed signs with the red circled number? If they are, and the "80 zone ahead" sign is one of the black ringed ones, then that's no real surprise...I know several places where they seem to "double up" on speed signs, possibly after extending the zone and leaving the old sign in place.

funny last night looking for the enforcment rule, about speed before/after signage.

i found several tas/vic operation (gov.pdf) of all radar/lidar and exclusion zone and all mention 400mtr from 110k...300mtr from 80k

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Brazen, you keep mentioning this "they can't ping you within 300 meters of a speed sign" stuff...the lower speed zone starts at the lower speed sign, not 300 meters after it. It's up to you as an observant driver to ensure you are doing the speed for that next area by the time you reach the sign.
Once again, as others have asked, how would you apply this to a school zone? Should you be allowed to have 300 meters after the sign to slow down to the posted speed for he school times?

It's all he says / she says stuff till one of you actually quotes the relevant text to prove your argument. Of which no one has actually done as yet.

School zones??? Have you not seen how fine print is applied to anything? A little * in the corner and "Does not apply to school zones" as a sub clause is all that is needed to address that issue.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

It's all he says / she says stuff till one of you actually quotes the relevant text to prove your argument. Of which no one has actually done as yet.

School zones??? Have you not seen how fine print is applied to anything? A little * in the corner and "Does not apply to school zones" as a sub clause is all that is needed to address that issue.

Hey you're right, learn something new everyday.


http://www.police.qld.gov.au/rti/pub...1.htm#06_05_01

Speed detection devices should not generally be operated in the following restricted site locations:

(i) on a road which could be described as the downgrade of a hill;

(ii) on a road within 300 metres after a sign indicating any decrease in the prescribed speed limit;

(iii) on a road within 100 metres before a sign indicating any increase in the prescribed limit; or

(iv) where the length of the speed zone is less than one kilometre.

It is recognised that in some instances, it may be necessary to perform speed detection operations in restricted site locations. Such instances include:

(i) 40 km/h school zones;

[Rodp]

Speed detection devices should not generally be operated in the following restricted site locations:

There's the argument about 300m blown right there. 'should not generally' is not an amnesty to the posted speed limit until you're 300m past the sign.

I see police with lasers sitting at the bottom of hills all the time, one near Bankstown with is a long and reasonably steep downhill stretch.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by Rodp

There's the argument about 300m blown right there. 'should not generally' is not an amnesty to the posted speed limit until you're 300m past the sign.

I see police with lasers sitting at the bottom of hills all the time, one near Bankstown with is a long and reasonably steep downhill stretch.

Doesnt matter, it says 'should not generally' instead of 'should generally' big difference. You read any legislation and legal text, it is full of that kind of language. The courts are clearly aware of the intention of the guideline or legislation.

The fact is they had a speed detection device in a restricted site. Hearing Naddis story of a road coming into a town I cannot on the surface see justification for it.

[Dave3911]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Doesnt matter, it says 'should not generally' instead of 'should generally' big difference. You read any legislation and legal text, it is full of that kind of language. The courts are clearly aware of the intention of the guideline or legislation.

The fact is they had a speed detection device in a restricted site. Hearing Naddis story of a road coming into a town I cannot on the surface see justification for it.

Couple of things.

1. Your quoting QLD Police operating policy. Not legislation or "legal text". The offence is completely different and is not dependant on whether the policy is followed or not. Funnily enough, the policy quotes the relevant offence. While these policy's can be used against the police to cast doubt on the accuracy of their evidence, it's certainly not an automatic win for the OP.

2. You didn't quote the whole policy. It lists numerous other scenario's where officers can use a speed detection device in a restricted site. Including "areas where there are a number of public complaints relating to the speeding of vehicles"

3. This offence occurred in Victoria.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Doesnt matter, it says 'should not generally' instead of 'should generally' big difference.

It's essentially the same jargon we trot out in our contracts. We sell 2 hour onsite response (or best effort) which essentially means if we don't make it onsite within 2 hours, tough luck. Get done by a speed detection device in an area well within 300m of a posted sign or downhill stretch of road, tough luck.

[rancidpunx]

I just noticed that the QLD policy has changed.

It always used to read that detection devices could only be operated in the above scenarios with written approval from a very high ranking officer. Now reads "Not Generally", which just gives them a green light to do what they want.

[blownv8au]

Originally Posted by Brazen

You cannot be issued a ticket for travelling at the speed you were at before the sign for a distance 300m. End of story.

That is why we put the speed limit signs so far out of towns, why roadworkers put roadwork limits 300m before the roadworks etc. You are given 300m to do that speed. In respect to speed enforcement the 80 sign is saying '80kmh zone 300m ahead'.

Thats crap. you would be through a school zone before you had to slow down for it.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by blownv8au

Thats crap. you would be through a school zone before you had to slow down for it.

That has been addressed a several times already in the last 3 pages.

[blownv8au]

Yeah i was reading the first page when i posted it. i didn't realise the thread had gone three pages and am working at the same time.my bad, won't do it again .

[Serial_Fool]

Take pictures, both on site and bird's eye, where you were speeding and pulled up.

At the very least you could get it knocked down a tad with a respectful showing in court.

[prydey]

hey naddis, looking on google maps, would i be correct in assuming it was as you were coming in to a small town called Cullulleraine??

[Ducati888]

If you write Civic Compliance a letter asking for it to be dropped, and if you have not had a fine in two years, it will be dropped.

This is the case in Victoria. two year gap without a fine, if you write to them & tell them you were a bad boy & won't do it again, it will be dropped. This has already been mentioned in this thread but received no responses.

I've done this twice & succeeded.

[Dave3911]

Originally Posted by Ducati888

If you write Civic Compliance a letter asking for it to be dropped, and if you have not had a fine in two years, it will be dropped.

This is the case in Victoria. two year gap without a fine, if you write to them & tell them you were a bad boy & won't do it again, it will be dropped. This has already been mentioned in this thread but received no responses.

I've done this twice & succeeded.

FWIW, I'll link it again.

http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content...ument_id=10369

A whole lot of worry over nothing.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Brazen, you keep mentioning this "they can't ping you within 300 meters of a speed sign" stuff...the lower speed zone starts at the lower speed sign, not 300 meters after it.

I don't believe Brazen ever said the speed limit starts 300ms after the sign. The limit may start at the sign, but it says that radars should not be used within 300m of the speed change.


On topic of the OP, the cop is suggesting you entered the 80 zone doing 90.
Which means you managed to pull up your car from 90km/h to 0 in about 2 seconds.

Somehow I am thinking he pinged you before you reached the sign.

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by prydey

hey naddis, looking on google maps, would i be correct in assuming it was as you were coming in to a small town called Cullulleraine??

I would prefer not to get any more specific but using the method you have and the info provided you would be able to work it out.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by rancidpunx

I just noticed that the QLD policy has changed.

It always used to read that detection devices could only be operated in the above scenarios with written approval from a very high ranking officer. Now reads "Not Generally", which just gives them a green light to do what they want.

Its the opposite, the 'Not Generally' means they cannot do what they want. According to the law 'Not Generally' is the catch-all.

Its very simple. A magistrate would not start over-turning legislation (thats the High Courts job), an officer in Naddis case should not be using a speed detection device on a vehicle within 300m of a speed zone change.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by Dave3911

Couple of things.

1. Your quoting QLD Police operating policy. Not legislation or "legal text". The offence is completely different and is not dependant on whether the policy is followed or not. Funnily enough, the policy quotes the relevant offence. While these policy's can be used against the police to cast doubt on the accuracy of their evidence, it's certainly not an automatic win for the OP.

2. You didn't quote the whole policy. It lists numerous other scenario's where officers can use a speed detection device in a restricted site. Including "areas where there are a number of public complaints relating to the speeding of vehicles"

3. This offence occurred in Victoria.

Police not following procedures, guidelines or policy is a case of unlawful or improper conduct.

Bunning V Cross 1978,
French V Scarman 1979
R V Lobman

And for the police to rely on exceptions to the general rule means they need to have demonstrated they have taken all action to adhere to the general rule. Your example above of public complaints would need satisfy a magistrate that this a case of an exemption being granted. The policy states that the police would need to seek a higher speed limit before being allowed to use the exception - I would love to see that happen.

People are reading the policy wrong, they are reading the exception first then working back, whereas its the other way round.

Anyway there have been countless people who have had their speeding ticket thrown out of court due to the 300m rule.

[prydey]

if its a hand held device, it could be operated 300+ meters from a speed zone change and still be capable of pinging you as you enter the new zone. either way, i see speed guns operated within that distance all the time, as do most other members.

[Dave3911]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Police not following procedures, guidelines or policy is a case of unlawful or improper conduct.

Bunning V Cross 1978,
French V Scarman 1979
R V Lobman

And for the police to rely on exceptions to the general rule means they need to have demonstrated they have taken all action to adhere to the general rule. Your example above of public complaints would need satisfy a magistrate that this a case of an exemption being granted. The policy states that the police would need to seek a higher speed limit before being allowed to use the exception - I would love to see that happen.

People are reading the policy wrong, they are reading the exception first then working back, whereas its the other way round.

Anyway there have been countless people who have had their speeding ticket thrown out of court due to the 300m rule.

I acknowledged all of that in my post. I clearly said it can be used to get out of a fine and cast doubt on the evidence provided by the police, but what it isn't is a free kick.

What I'm struggling to understand, is how you could possibly think that a policy from QLD would have any bearing on an offence that occurred in Victoria. Care to address that part of my post.

Anyway, regardless of all this. It's a moot point because there is absolutely no need for the OP to go to court at all. One letter and it all goes away. That is actually policy in Victoria, rather than this QLD discussion that is irrelevant to the OP.