SENSORS FOR CROSSING BROKEN LINES

[firstone]

We did start with plod vs convict. Easy conviction, no surprise. 

[OZ930]

28 minutes ago, firstone said:

We did start with plod vs convict. Easy conviction, no surprise. 

If they want an easy conviction they could book all those idiots driving with their fog lights on.

[T-Man]

14 hours ago, Redracn said:

...............If this is on the omeo hwy then I would put it down to the same clown that is putting out fake speed cameras or perhaps there are a few clowns out there. 

 

 

That's about where it was.. 

[Niko]

14 minutes ago, T-Man said:

That's about where it was.. 

I am about to get the exact location off one of the tickets, and the exact offence nominated, but it was Bairnsdale HP that did the issuing.

[Niko]

Okay it was on the Omeo Hwy, Anglers Rest.

 the infringement code number is 8380 on the notice which under the Road traffic regs (Vic)

IS DESCRIBED AS 

FAIL TO KEEP LEFT OTHER THAN DOUBLE LINES.

on the actual infringement notice it is written FAIL TO KEEP LEFT OF DIVIDED LINE RR132 (2) .

I can't find anything on how this offence is detected. 

[OZ930]

Can it be contested on the grounds of incorrect wording of the offence ?

A bit off topic but a friend from NSW,  just crossed into Vic, was booked for 2 kph over the speed limit. The booking officers parting comment was "enjoy your visit to Victoria"

[Ozvino]

Thanks Niko, I would have thought if the police weren't line of sight this wouldn't stand up in court, without a photograph so that makes sense

If this were me I would think about challenging this; how are these devices placed and calibrated? How is the calibration impacted by altitude or temperature? what records are being taken when they place the device? I can see a lot of potential issues with this

@Skidmarks - thoughts on challenging this based on your experience with the law?

Meanwhile..........back in Melbourne families are getting car-jacked and Ice addicts are stabbing hospital staff as they come down from a high......I accept the bullshit with speed cameras as its all about revenue and its someone other than law enforcement running it, but Highway Patrol wasting effort on technology to catch this is totally unacceptable. I have a lot of respect for policing, its a tough gig but this isnt right

[Niko]

I believe at least one may be going to challenge.

2 k over.. and then to get that comment is very very ordinary.

Just now, Ozvino said:

Thanks Niko, I would have thought if the police weren't line of sight this wouldn't stand up in court, without a photograph so that makes sense

If this were me I would think about challenging this; how are these devices placed and calibrated? How is the calibration impacted by altitude or temperature? what records are being taken when they place the device? I can see a lot of potential issues with this

@Skidmarks - thoughts on challenging this based on your experience with the law?

Meanwhile..........back in Melbourne families are getting car-jacked and Ice addicts are stabbing hospital staff as they come down from a high......I accept the bullshit with speed cameras as its all about revenue and its someone other than law enforcement running it, but Highway Patrol wasting effort on technology to catch this is totally unacceptable. I have a lot of respect for policing, its a tough gig but this isnt right

No argument from me on any of that....I Agree 100 pissant...Dave.

[Ozvino]

1 minute ago, Niko said:

I believe at least one may be going to challenge.

2 k over.. and then to get that comment is very very ordinary.

best avenue for a challenge will be taking a technical approach to how the devices are managed; how are they calibrated, how are they tested, how are they transported etc.

[TrevMcRev]

Didn’t they just overtake a bicycle, abiding by the new law to give them space?

Damn mountain biker disappeared into the bush soon after...

And I would ask this guy about it: http://trafficlaw.com.au/

Maybe start with asking on his forum.

It costs as much as the fine to see him, but could still be worth preserving your points and record.

I did have a conference with him but he is not who I used in the end, I would have if I thought I had a valid defence. 

[Ozvino]

I was thinking - so what if you dodge debris or a small animal? If the lines aren’t double how is that breaking the law?

[OZ930]

6 hours ago, Niko said:

DESCRIBED AS 

FAIL TO KEEP LEFT OTHER THAN DOUBLE LINES.

on the actual infringement notice it is written FAIL TO KEEP LEFT OF DIVIDED LINE RR132 (2) .

 

 

14 minutes ago, Ozvino said:

I was thinking - so what if you dodge debris or a small animal? If the lines aren’t double how is that breaking the law?

It's in the wording.

How far over is over ?

 

[Redracn]

Unless the cop had full view of the entire road the entire time or a video of the event he has no way of proving a car triggered his sensor for all he knows it was a kangaroo or electrical interferance. I would also question if the sensors are court approved like radar guns. If not then challenging them would be easy. 

Any device used would come with a detailed manual on how and when to use it. Also the operator would need to be trained in its use and pass a competency test. 

It is my understanding that it is legal to cross the centerline even if solid to avoid an obstacle on the road and it is safe to so. I was just avoiding an obsticle officer, do you have any proof that there were no kangaroos/cats/dog/pig etc on the road. 

[Niko]

All good questions and until it is challenged or we can find out in the meantime exactly how it operates, we are all only guessing.

I have no doubt if it is new technology the Highway Patrol operator would be trained and qualified at it's use, they can't afford to be losing and paying court costs.

Reimbursing people booked etc etc.

Same as whatever technology it is, it would have to be certified and checked by an outside body as to what should happen to all the equipment they now use.

Just weird we haven't heard about it before, and hard to believe the officer would make up some story about sensors etc if they weren't there.

Well hard to believe in my mind anyway.  I think his job would be on the line in this day and age of transparency etc.

Telling two people that we know of the same story would make him look reasonably stupid if they take it to court and he has told porkies (no pun intended)

We need it to get up on 3AW's rumour file and see if the polizia respond to the rumour... .

 

[Airhead]

10 hours ago, firstone said:

Won't affect me. The Boxster doesn't need more than one lane. ?

As it probably can't go hast enough.

 

1 hour ago, OZ930 said:

 

It's in the wording.

How far over is over ?

 

Like being a little bit pregnant. 

 

[OZ930]

6 minutes ago, Airhead said:

Like being a little bit pregnant. 

Not quite. With pregnancy it's either yes or no, but at what point are you considered over the line.

Outer wheel : touching the inside of the line? Inline with centre of the line? Touching the outside of the line?

or is it the centre of the wheel? Or is it the body of the car ?

Once you know the criteria they are using then it is yes or no.

Was there a public education programme ?

 

 

[Redracn]

48 minutes ago, OZ930 said:

Was there a public education programme ?

Of course not. Maximizing revenue is the objective. The more ignorant the plebs the greater the return. 

[T-Man]

9 hours ago, OZ930 said:

....... A bit off topic but a friend from NSW,  just crossed into Vic, was booked for 2 kph over the speed limit. The booking officers parting comment was "enjoy your visit to Victoria"

Damn nanny state.... 

[Eddy]

Just now, T-Man said:

Damn nanny state.... 

Yes,  nanny state

[LeeM]

3 hours ago, Niko said:

and hard to believe the officer would make up some story about sensors etc if they weren't there.. .

 

 ??? Sorry, I just thought that was funny

Apparently politicians are honourable too ?

Ooh look, a Unicorn

[Niko]

22 minutes ago, LeeM said:

 ??? Sorry, I just thought that was funny

Apparently politicians are honourable too ?

Ooh look, a Unicorn

Pleeeese......Don't put them in the same boat as poliies

the thing about this incident is the officer actually offered to show the

sensors/ set up to both our people

[LeeM]

2 minutes ago, Niko said:

Pleeeese......Don't put them in the same boat as poliies

the thing about this incident is the officer actually offered to show the

sensors/ set up to both our people

 Sorry, wont happen again ?

 I just can't comprehend how anyone that is not in a line of sight or have photographic evidence, be able to hand out a fine! I know plod is allowed to estimate speed, issue a speeding fine and it stand up in court (how I don't know, as I would want the EXACT speed I was travelling at before I paid any fine), so for all arguments sake, that sensor thing is purely speculative if he didn't physically see you do it

  Whatever, it's a load of bollocks and blatant revenue raising 

 

[T-Man]

I would imagine the officer would have set up on a bend subject to drivers executing the "straightening" maneuver and if I'm not mistaken a group of 11 cars preceded the two stragglers. The question is... Where the 11 so diligent in their driving that not one crossed the line and subsequently reprimanded by the plod? Surely not! What made these two special? 

[StevepGT3]

8 minutes ago, T-Man said:

I would imagine the officer would have set up on a bend subject to drivers executing the "straightening" maneuver and if I'm not mistaken a group of 11 cars preceded the two stragglers. The question is... Where the 11 so diligent in their driving that not one crossed the line and subsequently reprimanded by the plod? Surely not! What made these two special? 

It may have been that we were more grouped, as the ones that got done we on their own minutes apart, either that or he was still setting up 

[garypgt3]

OK. I own up. I was one of the 2 drivers.  I was advised by one of the officers that there had been several head on crashes on bends (particularly motorcycles) and Vic Roads had contracted the  Highway Patrol to enforce driving on the left. Supposedly tapes placed to the right of the centre line (broken lines at that) on the exit of a tight narrow left hander. Not driving too fast as the area had been subject to a heavy downpour and associated road debris. The road from the corner dropped down about 50 feet to a right hander. Police were parked in a pull over on that corner. The infringement was for "Fail to keep left of a dividing line".  Please note that the lines are not double or solid lines. If I had my right indicator on, then the move would be legal. He did not want to know if I was avoiding something on the road. Whilst the officer pointed out the location of the corner amongst the trees, there is no way he could visually sight the tapes. He would see the car through the trees so I assume that some audible sound from his equipment was made. There was no physical proof of an image or reading shown to me on their equipment in the car. My co offender who had been there some 5 minutes told me later that the officer was nowhere near the equipment when he  moved to wave me in. As I was the only car in either direction, he would have clearly heard me coming . That's it. No drink driving/drug tests. No registration checks. No RWC inspections. No Permit log books checks. Job done. Thanks very much. I drive on roads like these nearly everyday in the Dandenongs and  it is very unusual that I drive out of a left hand corner on the wrong side of the road.

In hindsight, I should have taken up the offer of walking back to sight the tapes and asked for some proof of the offence but is was raining, was about 100 or more feet up the hill and the rest of the tour group were ahead waiting.

I am seeking a review of the infringement.