Speeding - downhill slope definition

[Rusty62]

On the back of the ticket there is a note about camera's on a downhill sloping road. Apparently it may be necessary to locate them on slopes if there is a documented history of crashes on that sloping section of road.
Can anyone tell me where I might find the definition of a slope and how I can find out if there is a documented history of crashed in a particular section of road?
I know there probably no chance of lenience anyway, but I'm interested to know. Every ticket I've ever had is 1 or 2 ks into the next fine bracket, this one too and its in a 50 zone with no pedestrians or traffic at the time.

[FGII-XR6]

a slope on a road is a section that is not level a downhill slope is as above but where the slope takes you to a lower place .

[saam]

have you seen this website before?

http://www.aussiespeedingfines.com/

[xxx000]

maybe get your brakes checked?

a mate once booked someone for speeding up a steep long section of road, the driver explained that 'he had to speed to get up the steep hill'

so by that logic if he stopped his car he wouldn't be able to make it up the hill at all?

cops and authorities can't win either way, people always try to explain and justify themselves rather than saying yeah I was inattentive and yes i was speeding

[2011G6E]

Some of us are old enough to remember when radar first came in...and we were promised...absolutely assured...that radar traps would never be set up at the bottom of hills, that they would only be set up in known black spots where there were a lot of accidents. And most people agreed and thought that was a good idea.

Then we started noticing them at the bottom of hills...questions were asked, and police wheeled out the excuse that "there'd been more accidents there".

Face it...they'll put them where ever they like, they won't follow the regulations and do things like not set up where reflective surfaces are likely to bounce the beam back and give a false reading, to not target you if there's other vehicles close by, they'll now use camera photos with more than one car in it, etc...basically they've crapped all over all of the promises and assurances a worried public had given to them when the devices were introduced.


And they wonder why people don't trust them...

[Coyote mk3]

Originally Posted by xxx000

maybe get your brakes checked?

a mate once booked someone for speeding up a steep long section of road, the driver explained that 'he had to speed to get up the steep hill'

so by that logic if he stopped his car he wouldn't be able to make it up the hill at all

Ever driven a KIA pregio? Lol

[EVLKNEVL]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

a slope on a road is a section that is not level a downhill slope is as above but where the slope takes you to a lower place .

Is that the official definition as used in that particular section of legislation?

[satria]

Originally Posted by Coyote mk3

Ever driven a KIA pregio? Lol

I was thinking along the same lines. Some people have really never driven a slow car, lol

[Matty4]

My understanding is a slope with regard to camera placement is where a vehicle will naturally gain speed travelling down it, in top gear, without any input from the driver.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by xxx000

a mate once booked someone for speeding up a steep long section of road, the driver explained that 'he had to speed to get up the steep hill'

so by that logic if he stopped his car he wouldn't be able to make it up the hill at all?

ever try driving a crap car? 4cyl? ever driven at 40 in a 100 zone?
I had a 1200cc mazda wagon that struggled on inclines. if i didn't get a run up, i'd be very slow up the hills.

it's scary in a little car when a truck barrels up behind you and brakes at the last second. I had truck so close behind me all i could see in the rear view mirror was his number plate!

[aussie muscle]

I noticed when i visited Byron Bay a few years back they had a speed camera on the steepest section of the main road.

[Eldubayu]

With all the flaming I have received in the last 2 days. I have identified an undercurrent of belief by 'car enthusiasts'. And I'm not just referring to the Ford Forum.

'Car enthusiasts' seem to believe that it is OK to break the road rules because they can justify anything by coming up with unrealistic excuses, analogies and metaphors.

No magistrate on this planet will accept the excuse that you "have to take a run up to get up a hill".

[Kable72]

Mate, why are you here? Thought you could rustle some feathers behind anonymity and get your little giggles? Please go away so we can have discussions in peace.

OT: Alot of the time you can't get away with it but if you present your case you have nothing to lose. For work I have to drive a 2000 model non turbo transit so I know all about having to get a decent run up to get up any sort of hill or rise in the road.

[GT]

Anyone baiting Members in threads, will not be tolerated. Stick to the original post topic and play nicely thanks. I suggest that very new Members read more and speak less, until they get a feel for our place.

Gaela

[satria]

Originally Posted by Eldubayu

With all the flaming I have received in the last 2 days. I have identified an undercurrent of belief by 'car enthusiasts'. And I'm not just referring to the Ford Forum.

'Car enthusiasts' seem to believe that it is OK to break the road rules because they can justify anything by coming up with unrealistic excuses, analogies and metaphors.

No magistrate on this planet will accept the excuse that you "have to take a run up to get up a hill".

That magistrate should watch the gee whiz segment on top gear where they try and climb the small hill, and fail! Yet it is a legal new car over there.

Fair enough it's UK and not Aus, but there are similar cars over here :/

[K93George]

Originally Posted by saam

have you seen this website before?

http://www.aussiespeedingfines.com/

I understand not everyone knows how to provide a faultless argument but the fallacies are just too hard to read past. It's riddled with presuppositions and sweeping generalisations. Perhaps there is some legitimacy to what is being typed but when a site reaches a certain ratio of fallacies to sentences typed I begin to have suspicions...

[Matty4]

Many years ago I got done and lost my licence.
I was following a couple of slow vehicles in a 100km/h zone through some slightly twisty bits. Both vehicles were travelling between 80-85km/h. Once the road opened up I pulled out to overtake and whilst I was doing maybe 105 or a bit more they then increased their speed back up to 100 (bit like overtaking lanes really!!).
There was an oncoming vehicle a long way in the distance and I would have made it comfortably at my initial speed, however when they sped up the whole scenario changed instantly. It was either maintain speed and have a head on, force my way in between these 2 or speed up to complete the overtaking. I chose the 3rd option in that split second.

The oncoming happened to be an unmarked ploice car.

Long story short, I took it to court and had my day 12 months later (I was going to lose my licence for 6 months). During his summation the Magistrate agreed whole heartedly with my actions to avoid any potential collision that may have occurred with the first 2 choices I mentioned.
Having said that, here in Vic the licence suspension in mandatory, not even he could reduce that. He did however greatly reduce the fine that I received for the infringement.

The road in question had visibility for a couple of k's, was open country and no other traffic.

[K93George]

Originally Posted by Matty4

Magistrate agreed whole heartedly with my actions to avoid any potential collision that may have occurred with the first 2 choices I mentioned.
Having said that, here in Vic the licence suspension in mandatory, not even he could reduce that. He did however greatly reduce the fine that I received for the infringement.

Individual circumstances don't apply with mandatory license suspensions as you discovered. However that isn't to say the police can accuse you of said speed and you have lost your license. If you can prove to a greater degree that they have "proved" you violated said law, the mandatory license suspension doesn't apply as you are not guilty of the offence.

Some would say it's impossible to prove a negative, and I completely agree, you need not prove with absolute certainty you weren't speeding but prove to a greater degree. The judge will conclude who has the best explanation with the best evidence.

[FGX-351]

Accuracy cannot be assured if the camera is placed on a hill or a crest.
It needs to be parrellel with target vehicle and to the horizontal plain of the road.

The answers you are after are all in the Australian Standards, use of these devices need to be in accordance with the standards.
AS 2898.1-2003 RADAR speed detection.
AS 2898.2-2003 Operation proceedures.

This website is also worth a read in regards to how these devices work.
http://www.delonixradar.com.au/queensland/

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by The-ShowStoPPa

Accuracy cannot be assured if the camera is placed on a hill or a crest.
It needs to be parrellel with target vehicle and to the horizontal plain of the road.

The answers you are after are all in the Australian Standards, use of these devices need to be in accordance with the standards.
AS 2898.1-2003 RADAR speed detection.
AS 2898.2-2003 Operation proceedures.

This website is also worth a read in regards to how these devices work.
http://www.delonixradar.com.au/queensland/

The public is pretty much fully aware of the "rules and guidelines" for using speed cameras and laser speed devices...we get told them all the time whenever someone complains about the things.

...it's just that they don't get followed...

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by EVLKNEVL

Is that the official definition as used in that particular section of legislation?

you will find if you had to rely on a definition in court for an offence this would be acceptable as it is a definition that is factual and understandable by the masses. sometimes people try to complicate things needlessly.

[JC]

Originally Posted by EVLKNEVL

Is that the official definition as used in that particular section of legislation?

Probably. Legislation quite often refers to words as defined in the dictionary.

[Franco Cozzo]

I drove my mates standard 60 series troop carrier, that thing is hopeless up hills, you can't just maintain speed all the way up the hill, you need a run up, and if its steep you're lucky to be doing 50km/h up the top of it.

[FGX-351]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

The public is pretty much fully aware of the "rules and guidelines" for using speed cameras and laser speed devices...we get told them all the time whenever someone complains about the things.

...it's just that they don't get followed...

I get what your saying but you'd be surprised the amount of people that are unaware and just think, "well the police are doing it so it must be right".
Myself included once upon a time.

For anyone wanting to contest such a scenario thats when the standards and a decent camera come in handy.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by xxx000

maybe get your brakes checked?

a mate once booked someone for speeding up a steep long section of road, the driver explained that 'he had to speed to get up the steep hill'

I remember as a kid being on a clapped out old MTT bus, it couldn't make it up this hill without the clutch slipping. Took a run-up still no good. Had to offload us kids, then take another run-up to finally make it. Was a pain having to climb the hill on foot.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by The-ShowStoPPa

For anyone wanting to contest such a scenario thats when the standards and a decent camera come in handy.

And if you happen to get booked whilst on holiday or travelling interstate, a few days off work along with petrol, motel etc to contest it...

Most of Mr Plod's HP force know this that's why they like interstate cars

[redxm]

bye..
dont let the door hit ya bum on the way out.

[K93George]

No Eldubayu, if you consider your original comment an "argument" it was a terrible one at that. From my perspective the issue was saying car enthusiasts believe it's ok to break the law. I've read many posts that have argued in favour of the law and haven't been "flamed". Perhaps its how you present yourself.

Your next comment, well... That's a perfect example of how you choose to present yourself ;)