Yes officer ,I did exceed the speed limit by less than 13kph

[XUV]

Yes, technically correct at 'exceed speed limit by 13kph'

but getting a fine for doing 100kph in 100kph zone

And they wonder why we think it's a con.

Zac Murray gets $151 speeding fine for doing the limit

 

[Noeleter]

Zero tolerance for speed in Queensland!

 

[Immortality]

That just proves the point that it's all about revenue gathering. Absolutely nothing to do with road safety at all :bang:

 

[Trennaa]

That just proves the point that it's all about revenue gathering. Absolutely nothing to do with road safety at all :bang:

How so?

Seems like a straight forward administration-al error to me? the authority issuing the fine would simply have to disburse a letter advising an apology, no further action required from Mr/s Speeder.

Don't get me wrong, I don't for a second believe that radar guns/cameras etc are designed to reduce road toll or improve road safety, but I fail to see how this proves its revenue raising.

 

[Immortality]

The fact that the system has even allowed this to get through suggests that it's exactly that. No recorded speed equal to or less than the posted speed limit should get fined. Modern computer systems should be able to cope with this fact fairly easily.

If it's not about improving road safety than it can only be revenue gathering.

 

[Trennaa]

No one system is flawless, they, like humans are erroneous (despite how much faith we put in them) - end of the day, they're built by us!

Again, admin error, person who got dealt the fine rings up, authority apologises and that's that.

Same as when someone believes they're innocent, they have the right to take it up with the relevant court to contest their innocence.

Still, to me doesn't prove to me that it's revenue raising.

What does prove to me it's revenue raising, is when police hide in extremely inconspicuous areas simply to catch speeders, rather than to deter them.

 

[Noeleter]

No one system is flawless, they, like humans are erroneous (despite how much faith we put in them) - end of the day, they're built by us!

Again, admin error, person who got dealt the fine rings up, authority apologises and that's that.

Same as when someone believes they're innocent, they have the right to take it up with the relevant court to contest their innocence.

Still, to me doesn't prove to me that it's revenue raising.

What does prove to me it's revenue raising, is when police hide in extremely inconspicuous areas simply to catch speeders, rather than to deter them.

Booking someone for 1 or 2 km/h over limit is also revenue raising unless they can offer proof that a crash at 101 km/hr causes significantly more/ worse injuries and deaths than one at 100km/hr.

 

[Trennaa]

I don't know about other states, however in Victoria, there is a 'buffer' (for lack of a better word). If you're doing 101km/h in a 100km/h zone, you will not get fined for speeding.

 

[Darren_L]

up to July 2006 ADR 18 permits up to a +/-10% speedo error
post July 2006 ADR 18/03 the speedo can't indicate a speed less than actual speed.

So if your car is built to comply with ADR 18 (ie prior to July 2006) you are permitted up to 10% speedo error. So for example if you were given a ticket for 105kph in a 100kh zone and contest it, the ticket will be waived

Post July 2006 vehicle (ADR 18/03), if you exceed the speed limit by even 1kph you are technically good for it... Although I assume they would have to factor in a manufacturers tolerance for the speed detection equipment used, because nothing is 100% accurate.

 

[Drawnnite]

up to July 2006 ADR 18 permits up to a +/-10% speedo error
post July 2006 ADR 18/03 the speedo can't indicate a speed less than actual speed.

So if your car is built to comply with ADR 18 (ie prior to July 2006) you are permitted up to 10% speedo error. So for example if you were given a ticket for 105kph in a 100kh zone and contest it, the ticket will be waived

Post July 2006 vehicle (ADR 18/03), if you exceed the speed limit by even 1kph you are technically good for it... Although I assume they would have to factor in a manufacturers tolerance for the speed detection equipment used, because nothing is 100% accurate.

just on this.
could they potentially call you on it and get you to front up to an approved place to prove the error?
obviously it would have to be an accredited testing station (ie NATA certified)