[AshSimmonds]

How to beat the speed camera cash cow, largely hypothetical, but worth mulling over...

Imagine this:
a Multanova speed camera takes a picture of a speeding car.

Sometime later an infringement is issued to the registered owner (currently about 3 months later in W.A.).

The registered owner then waits till the last possible day to send back the infringement notice with the details of a different driver nominated (another 2 months).

Important: this nomination must go back unsigned – if you sign the nomination it becomes a statutory declaration, a legal document. Unsigned it is worthless in a court of law – if you can, get someone else who has completely different handwriting to fill in the driver details.

Here’s the good bit: to date the public servant data entry clerk who receives the infringement have not cared that the infringement notice was returned unsigned, they just reissue the infringement to whomever was nominated – hypothetically you could nominate the prime minister as the driver and they would send the infringement notice to him. Anyone know Paul Keating’s drivers licence number?

Seriously though... You need to know; name, address, date of birth and drivers licence number of the person being nominated. I would strongly suggest a person who is not going to care that they are nominated by you although this does not actually have to be so – you could nominate anyone you have these details for (you can even ask me!) – just don’t sign the notice.

Next that nominated person gets the infringement notice (currently another 2 months later in W.A.).

That person waits until the last possible day to return the notice nominating the desire to have the matter dealt with in a court of law.

Important: there is a section of the “court election notice” (fancy talk for having the matter taken to court) that states “i understand the charges or have had them explained to me” – this part needs to be completely blacked out – I use a black artline marker to obliterate these words.

The cops then send a summons to the nominated driver – this summons must arrive within 12 months of the date of the alleged offence or it can be thrown out of court – there is a statute of limitations law that requires the summons to be issued within this 12 month timeframe.

So that driver gets the summons and goes to court on the nominated date (currently 6 – 12 months later in W.A.) and pleads not guilty.

The matter is remanded for a hearing date (currently 2 – 3 months later in W.A.).

The cops begin an investigation and find out that not only does the nominated driver not look anything like the person in the photo but it’s not even the nominated drivers vehicle.

The cops go back to the registered owner who declines to comment - from January 2007 new laws in W.A. mean the owner of a vehicle is legally obligated to tell police (when asked) who was driving any vehicle registered to them at that time - this is however not an instruction to guess who was the driver - the registered owner is not obligated to look at a photo and quite entitled to say "i don't know" or "i can't tell you what I don't know", in response to an inquiry by a police officer - see my thread on common law regarding answering the door to police).

What do they do now?

1. Continue with the prosecution of the nominated driver – who is obviously not driving in the photo, is not the owner of the car and would hopefully have proof they were elsewhere (like work – you can use signed timesheets for this – a timesheet is a legal document).

2. Re-issue the infringement to the registered owner – this must occur within 12 months or the statute of limitations law means it should be thrown out when it gets to court.

The best bit: even after all this the cops get the registered owner or actual driver into court within 12 months it will have cost them thousands of dollars and many many hours of paper ‘pushing’.

If it gets to court then there are other avenues to pursue:
• find out how to issue a subpoena – the court will explain this to you & send you the required documents.
• apply for freedom of information for the speed camera manual (instructions on the speed camera web site).
• use the internet to search for details on the manufacturers company profile.
• issue subpoenas to as many senior executives from the cameras manufacturing company as you can – do this by registered mail with person to person proof of delivery (this will cost a few dollars each time – it is the recipient’s responsibility to appear or face arrest with a bench warrant – the person who you subpoena can apply to the court for reimbursement of wages, accommodation & travel expenses which the court has to pay but cannot be passed on to you – it is you right to do this).
• issue a subpoena to the camera operator to provide documented evidence for maintenance and calibration of the speed camera – the camera operator will be in court anyway but they will not bring the last 7 years of maintenance or calibration records.
• it would be your argument in court that you need the camera manufacturer to examine the maintenance & calibration records for inconsistencies that may have resulted in an inaccurate reading - it is you right to do this.
• you still need the speed camera manual from FOI to be able to ensure the ‘witness’ is correct and accurate. You can apply for endless remands until you are provided with the manual or this will provide grounds for appeal if convicted.
• remember to ask questions regarding how the camera is set up. In W.A. the operators use spirit levels and tape measures that are not calibrated.

This means that inaccuracies in the critical set-up result in inaccurate readings every day for every single infringement ever issued.

It is your right as an Australian to do this. Do not let the cops bully or intimidate you into believing any different.

Imagine if every speeding camera notice was challenged in the above manner – such a court challenge can cost the state government up to $50,000.00 (for as little as a $100.00 speeding fine) even if convicted and the alleged offender has to pay the speeding fine, it would cost the state governments so much speed cameras would disappear overnight. It would tie up the court system and police resources to such a degree that they would have no choice but to only prosecute the very worst of offenders and not use these devices to line the coffers and pockets of government.

Source: http://www.policespeedcameras.info/cgi-bin/bbs/UltraBoard.pl?Action=ShowPost&Board=multanova_cams&Post=261&Idle=0&Sort=0&Order=Descend&Page=0&Session=

[flamestone]

Didn't bother reading to the end because some recently just told me about getting fined for failing to nominate a driver.  It all got well into 4 digits once it was all done.  Ouch.

[dkabab]

i have heard that if you pay for a fine with a cheque, say the fine is $200. you send them a cheque for $220. they cash the cheque and send you a $20 cheque in return. but if you dont cash that cheque, they cant process the fine.

i have a feeling this wouldnt work.... but just thought id throw it out there

[AshSimmonds]

Myth.

edit: http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/ticket.asp

[mondi]

There is another way to beat the fine. There is a lawyer I have heard of that knows a lot about how the physics of the speed cameras work(I know that's pretty funny just there).

I had an article about it a few years ago. Anyhoo, this guy tells you to request a copy of the photo, and with measurements and a grid overlay can work out if it was your car speeding or not. If not he takes it to court and presents the technical evidence.
Unfortunately if he fines that it was your car speeding there is nothing that can be done unless you want to play silly buggers but that can back fire.

[dkabab]

There is another way to beat the fine. There is a lawyer I have heard of that knows a lot about how the physics of the speed cameras work(I know that's pretty funny just there).

I had an article about it a few years ago. Anyhoo, this guy tells you to request a copy of the photo, and with measurements and a grid overlay can work out if it was your car speeding or not. If not he takes it to court and presents the technical evidence.
Unfortunately if he fines that it was your car speeding there is nothing that can be done unless you want to play silly buggers but that can back fire.

couple of years ago i tried this... without anyones help. wrote up a whole thing about the cop being in the wrong spot etc... cosine angle, and so on...  but it got rejected. i even used photos, diagrams and measurements. still wouldnt take it. this was prior to court. and since it was 1 point/$180 i just paid the thing and was done with it. (too scared to go to court)

[mondi]

Friend of mine is a Camera car contact operator.

His job is to drive the car to the spot that has already been "marked" by the Cops for that day, and stay with the car at all times.
There are a few things I know about the rules/workings of the cameras that I can not repeat here, cos' not really supposed to know about them.

But I can say that he has been  beaten up, chased, had the camera car beaten up and all manner of abuse. Even bribed, blackmailed and begged(including offered certain favors). 

[dkabab]

(including offered certain favors). 

hmmm really. 

i can imagine the violence though, not good.

[Aircon]

couple of years ago i tried this... without anyones help. wrote up a whole thing about the cop being in the wrong spot etc... cosine angle, and so on...  but it got rejected. i even used photos, diagrams and measurements. still wouldnt take it. this was prior to court. and since it was 1 point/$180 i just paid the thing and was done with it. (too scared to go to court)

i know someone who got out of one by showing that the speed limit signs were confusing and the setup of the camera was wrong. can't remember where he got the camera set up rules from.

[AshSimmonds]

Multanova photos ‘thrown out’
17th May 2008, 9:15 WST

Police were so far behind in processing speeding fines that thousands of Multanova photographs were thrown out last year rather than being used to issue fines to offending motorists, the Opposition claimed yesterday.

Figures supplied by WA Police in response to questions from the Opposition in Parliament show that about 28,000 Multanova images were discarded last year.

Shadow road safety minister John McGrath said the cancellations proved that police were forced to discard the photos because of the massive backlog in processing Multanova fines, which have an average delay of 53 days.

Police deny that the images were discarded because of a backlog in processing fines.

The figures also showed that the number of pictures taken by speed cameras had halved over the past four years despite steady increases in the number of Multanovas in use.

Mr McGrath said the declining number of photographs was further evidence that the system was not coping and that a parliamentary inquiry was needed to identify the cause and extent of the problem.

“Are speeding drivers being let off the hook because police are taking fewer camera shots or throwing more film into the bin?” he said.

“I think the public needs some answers on Multanovas and how they work. We don’t expect the police to tell people the great intricacies but we do need to be confident that the system is going to work properly and will pass all tests in terms of scrutiny.”

Last year, more than 1100 rolls of film, which each hold an average of 25 photos, were discarded. A total of 468,000 images were taken, compared with more than one million four years ago and 708,000 in 2006.

Traffic services Insp. John Vivian said the films were cancelled because of testing, technical and operational issues, not because of the backlog in processing infringements.

He said the implementation of the new speed camera infringement processing program, CAP Speed, had presented some difficulties but he expected improvements as soon as next month.

“Yes, there is a backlog but we are putting out the number of images as quickly as we can,” Insp. Vivian said. “We’ve employed more people to address those issues and we’re slowly bringing it down.”

“The underlying thing behind all this is we do have strict quality control and if there is an operating error we will cancel the film.”

He said people were quick to criticise speed cameras without recognising that the road safety message was getting through to West Australians.

RAC member advocacy executive manager David Moir, who has called for a review into the Multanova program, questioned their use as a deterrent given the lengthy delays between the time an offence occurred and the issue of the infringement notice.

“The question is how well is the current enforcement program working given that the whole purpose of this is to reduce crashes yet we are seeing the number of fatal accidents and serious injuries rising in recent years.”

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=73542