Gt-r 40km/h Over. Need Your Help!

[Misanthrope]

If you cant find a competent solicitor contact these guys. http://www.speedingfineconsultants.com/

I read that website. It made me want to cry. I have been royally f***ed by dodgy police by the exact scenarios pointed out. Police hiding at the bottom of a hill, around a bend, falsely quoting me, road works at early hours of the morning with not a worker in sight...you name it. Wow...is this for real? I see police hiding ALL the time. Surely thats allowed. 

[Cowboy1600]

I read that website. It made me want to cry. I have been royally f***ed by dodgy police by the exact scenarios pointed out. Police hiding at the bottom of a hill, around a bend, falsely quoting me, road works at early hours of the morning with not a worker in sight...you name it. Wow...is this for real? I see police hiding ALL the time. Surely thats allowed.

I got done for 99 in a 60 zone years ago. I know I was speeding but there was no way I was doing 99. I was on an XR250 which you have to wring pretty hard to get to 100. Hell, it topped out at 120. I would've been doing ~75 max.

I'm 100% sure the copper just hadn't reset the radar from the last guy. He was super keen to show me ther readout. I was stunned.

[R31Nismoid]

Top advice from the horses mouth, good to know if any of my "friends" ever get into any speeding fine difficulty.

That's always been the case

If you are only 5km/h over into the next "bracket", plead under it by 2-3km/h and you are set.

Happens regularly as Graeme has said, it's preferred actually.

The moral of the story is this, if you are pulled over, get out your mobile phone, dutifully inform the policeman that you will record the rest of the discussion and ask to see the radar display. Even without the phone backing you up no police officer will ticket you for a speed he cannot show you on his unit. If he's a good cop, he will just warn you.

Issue in Victoria is, they don't legally have to show you the camera. Its ridiculous, but that's how it is.

Suppose you could ask to see the model?

Anyone had experience with insurance costs and and bad driving history?

As you said you'd had 2 previous offences in 3yrs - you might find the 3rd offence, and of such a high nature... could unfortunately lead to a non-renewal of policy (worst case)

Agree with everyone else though - lawyer up without a doubt. Don't go in alone.

I've been to court 2 or 3 times for speeding/driving stuff, gone in with a lawyer and so far I've had a total of around 5 of 8 charges dropped in those appearances.

One was a "claimed" 140km/h+ in a 80 zone. Ended up being brought down to well under 100km/h for various reasons.

Not quite the same here, given this is a camera and not an officer base situation. I'd be very inclined to say it will be dismissed unquestionably based on the evidence provided in this thread.

[Beer Baron]

The penalty is completely out of step with the severity of the crime,

agree with this part of your post 10000%.

the penalty does not fit the crime.

why is it that a motorist, who does the right thing and watches the road instead of having his eyes glued to his speedo, who on a 110 zone hits 120km/h down a hill is suddenly up for a severe fine and a loss of points that can mean loss of income, loss of mobility all for something which had absolutely no impact on anyone elses liberty or enjoyment of their lives? Yet a bloke who decide to bash someone in the face can go to court and get a good behaviour bond (aka nothing as isn't everyone bound by the rules of society to not break laws?) and court costs of $60... so a person who has assaulted someone and greatly impacted upon their enjoyment of life is told he now has to obey laws and pays $60 a motorist who exceeds the speed limit slightly gets a couple hundred $ in fines and a loss of liberty. does that seem right to anyone?

Conversely I recently spend some time driving in different countries in europe. over there if someone chooses to drive down the fast lane in their R35 or ferrari at 180km/h then people get out of their way and let them go. it doesn't impact on my enjoyment of the road if this bloke wants to blast by so I move out of the overtaking lane and let him through. not like here where people take a speeding motorist as a personal affront and do everything possible to block them in whilst tootling along 5km/h below the limit. also on that note I broke the law and got a speeding fine. doing 63 in a 50 zone. wanna know what it cost? 15 euro. that's right, $20. that seems about right to me and I'm happy to pay it and accept that I did the wrong thing. I didn't bash someone in the face and accordingly the punishment fits the 'crime'...

the way we carry on propaganda campaigns against speeding in this country and the draconian penalties are completely out of whack with what society wants and purely another form of tax that small minded people accept under the banner of safety. it needs to change.

[wht510]

Amen to that.

[eastes]

why is it that a motorist, who does the right thing and watches the road instead of having his eyes glued to his speedo, who on a 110 zone hits 120km/h down a hill is suddenly up for a severe fine and a loss of points that can mean loss of income, loss of mobility

For the record it turned out to be an 80 zone. I was 122 in an 80 zone.

The problem is context. It is impossible for the law makers to always put a law in context with the crime.

100 in a 60 zone in a suburban street with people everywhere whilst going around a corner is context that deserves very severe punishment.

120 in a 80 zone in a quiet area on a long straight with no pedestrians and nearly empty road is totally different context and deserves punishment.

For a lawmaker, I imagine it would be nearly impossible to differentiate the context between the two whilst keeping things simple enough to manage. Unfortunately, sometimes people will be punished more than they deserve and sometimes people will not be punished enough. That's just the way it is and is the reason I am requesting a court summons to see what happens. (it STILL hasn't arrived by the way)

Edited November 12, 2010 by eastes

[wht510]

They usually take a couple of months plus (well they do in Victoria anyway)

Does this give you a chance to redeem some of your old points that you were due to get back? Technically (someone please correct me on this..) doesn't that mean you haven't been convicted, so the points haven't been awarded to you yet?

[fungoolie]

That's just the way it is and is the reason I am requesting a court summons to see what happens. (it STILL hasn't arrived by the way)

Do not be at all surprised if it doesn't ever arrive. I know it's wishful thinking but there is actually a slim chance. I was once in this situation where the police knew I had a small pile of virtually incontrovertible evidence from our detailed dialogue immediately after I received the expiation notice and when I decided to call their bluff and ask to appear in court I never received the actual summons! They may already know that in this case it would be thrown out by a magistrate if you decided to fight it with a lawyer and were just hoping you bent over and took it like the vast majority of the victims that just blindly pay up without exploring all their options. They're pretty conscious of the need not to add to the number of "bad" precedences as well as the costs involved.

I'm pretty sure that if they sent out an unwarranted expiation notice through the mail carte blanche to EVERY motorist that drives past a camera even if not speeding they'd probably get a 75% hit rate! How many of us can truly state categorically that they weren't speeding at a specific spot 2-3 weeks previous? So many don't even ask for the photo....

Edited November 12, 2010 by fungoolie

[nick_7g]

I had a run in with the police in NSW and got 4 different infringements for the one situation. The total fine was roughly $1500 and 3 demerit points. I had initially shown up to court and entered a not guilty plea and was issued with a date to appear. I had planned all along to plead not guilty and on the day I was due to appear before the judge, but I spoke to the lady (yes, received legal advice from "some lady") who checks you in to court, and I told her that yes I had committed the offences (and as a result was guilty) but that I didn't know they were offences at the time. She said I was better off pleading guilty and asking for leniency from the judge.

I did not have a lawyer, and was only sporting a character reference from a family friend. I sat in court and the judge read out each case and asked the defendants what they were pleading, and all of them plead not guilty, and it came to me and I plead guilty so she hear my case immediately. She read the character reference, asked me if I would do it again, to which I promised I wouldn't and she decided not to enforce the financial penalties associated with the infringements. I was pretty happy with the result, because at the time that was a stack of money (about 3 times more than the offending vehicle).

Now I know that this doesn't apply directly, or even closely, to your case, but it's just an example of when admitting your wrong doing was rewarded with leniency.

Best of luck in your endeavours!

[GTRPowa]

Anyone had experience with insurance costs and and bad driving history?

Doesn't affect it really, they normally only care if you've been done neg driving. Long story short, a long time ago I appealed a suspension and saw my record weighing in at 4 pages long. My insurance was not affected then, and isn't now. However if you were going much faster you could be charged with "Driving at a dangerous speed" - Getting 2 of these I believe is around a 5 year disqualification? It sits amongst the bigger charges in relation to motor vehicles, which includes murder with vehicle. You don't wanna get charged with this lol.

(I didn't check your state, but they're all starting to follow each other's leads.)

[Beer Baron]

For the record it turned out to be an 80 zone. I was 122 in an 80 zone.

The problem is context. It is impossible for the law makers to always put a law in context with the crime.

100 in a 60 zone in a suburban street with people everywhere whilst going around a corner is context that deserves very severe punishment.

120 in a 80 zone in a quiet area on a long straight with no pedestrians and nearly empty road is totally different context and deserves punishment.

For a lawmaker, I imagine it would be nearly impossible to differentiate the context between the two whilst keeping things simple enough to manage. Unfortunately, sometimes people will be punished more than they deserve and sometimes people will not be punished enough. That's just the way it is and is the reason I am requesting a court summons to see what happens. (it STILL hasn't arrived by the way)

yeah I know, wasn't referring to your case (or any case) in particular just the way in which speeding 'offences' (and i used that term loosely) are enforced in this country. they place much greater importance on speed limit watching than watching the traffic and road conditions which can actually cause accidents.

I mean how many accidents are caused just by some bloke doing 120 down a straight stretch of 110 highway? not many I would wager. No car I know of suddenly goes from a beacon of safety at 110 to a death trap waiting to spontaneously throw me off the road at 120. Conversely how many accidents are caused by driver inattention or lack of awareness of their surroundings and lack of anticipation of other motorists actions? Many. I've personally witnessed dozens and i've avoided many more purely by knowing what is behind me, what is beside me, who is in that side street up ahead what the bloke in front is doing.

I couldn't give a shit if I'm doing 63.2km in a 60 zone I'd much rather have my eyes on the bloke in the driveway who hasn't made eye contact with me yet and looks like he's about to launch out into my path of travel. which is better? me t-boning him at a nice legal 60km/h? Or me seeing what's going to happen and having time to swerve around him at my illegal 63.2km/h? perhaps if it's a cop in this situation pulling out of a driveway without due care and attention he can fine me for 3km over the speed limit and avoiding a perfectly legal accident.

Oh wait, speed enforcement is all about safety isn't it? I think not.

As a person who rides a motorbike daily to and from work and own and drive a variety of cars I am subject to all sorts of clowns on the road watching their speedos. I bet if at any moment I stopped one and simply asked them: "is there a car behind you right now and what is it doing" most would not be able to tell me as they have no idea what is happening around them as the government has told them that the only safe way to drive is watch your speedo and stick to their arbitrarily applied speed limits.

I own a variety of vehicles from a scooter with 10hp to a sports bike, to a 600hp GTR, to a 4.5tonne truck and I drive and ride at a speed at which I think is safe. This includes taking into account my current state of awareness and alertness, the vehicle i'm operating (it's tyres, brakes, handling performance etc), the road conditions, and the level of fckwits around me and what they are currently telling me through their driving. if it happens to coincide with the sign on the side of the road then great, if not then I guess I run the risk of being labelled a criminal simply for driving my car in a safe manner.

sorry for the rant but the amount of shit driving I see happen every day that in the eyes of the law is perfectly legal drives me nuts. yet I see perfectly competent, attentive, intelligent drives get reamed time and again for small speed infractions and the like. when was the last time someone was find for forming a rolling blockage 10km/h below the speed limit by sitting in the overtaking lane right beside someone doing the same speed as them? I've certainly never head of it or seen it happen, but fkwits hog the right lane like it's a hobby. if you want to drive slowly what is bloody wrong with the left hand lane? I know I use it when I'm intending to drive at or below the limit.

[Marlin]

I can't agree with you more Baron. Further, I think we should all be banding together and nominating you as the public voice of The Australian Motorist.

[Harey]

Agreed Baron for PM!!!

[Nee-san]

I can't agree with you more Baron. Further, I think we should all be banding together and nominating you as the public voice of The Australian Motorist.

Bring forth the concubines !

[oscar32]

Amen Beer Barron. Amen.

I do a LOT of long distance driving and I can tell you it not the speeding cars that's the issue, its the f**kwits and their caravans doing a solid 80 kays right until the nice, straight flat overtaking areas where they seem let let the rig wind out. And many others.

[Cowboy1600]

This is why you should never roll over in cases where your punishment does not gut you crime.

http://www.news.com.au/national/victim-tel...0-1225955702228

Magistrates make an add of the law all the time. Why should f**kwits like the guy in the article get off essentially scott free yet you have to cop a suspension for going over an arbitrary figure painted on s sign?

Try and have it withdrawn on the basis of two cars in the shot.

If that doesn't work, take it as far as your wallet allows.

[Marlin]

What annoys me is the national motoring magazines have done virtually nothing to try and turn this situation around. Sure, they whinge and moan about the state of the speed policing system, but as a whole they've done nothing tangible toward the cause.

One would think that if anyone had the ability to highlight and help fight, it would be these magazines.

They're always quick to jump on tele telling us of the latest Car of the Year, or whinge about fuel prices, but how about actually making a consolidated effert to band the Aussie public together via the magazine to actually do something about this!?

I'd think it would even sell more mags if we needed to purchase same to keep up with the latest developements.

The Australian public (well Qld at least) asked for this themselves 30 odd years ago when we voted via referendum to Not have every disputed offence dealt with in court. It was effectively a mandate to hold us by our ankles and shake like hell..

[GTRPowa]

Somehow I think if the car was a Silvia or GTS-T, this thread would be far different. But I agree nonetheless, I don't even know what the speed limits in my new local area is. I just maintain my 3 seconds gap (one of the best things you can do yourself, also lowers the stresses of driving and you wouldn't even notice), watch several cars ahead, look around, indicate at corners, and stop at stop signs and lights. It's rather easy and I've been driving in this manner for 11 years and I'm yet to be in an accident at all. Edit: And yes, if it wasn't for my attentive driving style, I definitely would have been in a few accidents. I've dodged some fools over my time, thank god I wasn't looking at my speedo at the time.

Edited November 21, 2010 by GTRPowa

[rev210]

OP, don't take this too harshly.

When you grab a drivers licence , on that day you are bound by a bunch of laws governing the use of the vehicle you drive with penalties for crossing the line.

Speeding is one everyone knows. 100kmh is the speed limit, you can go less than that but, not more than that.

If you know doing speeds over the speed limit are illegal and do them anyway. Then when you get caught you pay 'stupid tax'. Because by definition you are.

The ease at which a speed limit can be safely maintained is not even worth talking about.

Most of this "waaahhhh I was stuck behind a semi and HAD to go 40kmh over because it is safer.." equates to " waaahh I was stuck behind a semi doing the speed limit because I was speeding for the last 20km and caught up to it and it made me do the speed limit and that makes me cry more waaaahhhh!"

Pay the fine for being stupid. And get smart (well smarter because even a dumb ass can understand this part of the law)

[Marlin]

Gosh, I'd love to be at a BBQ with you.