![]() |
|
Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated. |
|
The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#61 | ||
FPV GT 0915
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Mostly in my GT
Posts: 716
|
I would have ignored the letter in the first place, and thrown it in the street, "sorry EPA never received that letter"
__________________
Bluprint BA GT 2004 Model - Mods: Tinted Windows, Premium Sound, BBS Mags, 245/35R19 fronts, 285/30R19 rears, BMC POD Filter, SS cold air induction, HM tri-y headers, Redback cat back system, Herrod power snorkle, moded Herrod helix spacer, 4" ram air induction, More to come.. |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#62 | |||
Da Boss
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Victoria
Posts: 455
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
On the 6th day god created holden ![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#63 | |||
Regular Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Kilsyth
Posts: 472
|
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#64 | |||
Regular Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Perth, WA.
Posts: 109
|
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#65 | |||
Regular Schmuck
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,640
|
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#66 | ||||
Mr old phart
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Northern Terrorist
Posts: 1,715
|
Quote:
Oddly enough, they use cameras because it was determined that the eyeball method is not good enough to accurately determine speed, so they developed a less arbitrary method of measure. Likewise, the human ear is also rather arbitrary and easily affected by things such as mood or headache, so Db meters were invented as a non-arbitrary measure. The man who can accurately judge speed by eye and volume by ear got nailed to a cross just over 2000 years ago and although they say he will return, we are yet to see anyone replicate this feat. Therefore, the fact that one person who claims to be able to judge sound volume accurately by ear is actually taken seriously enough to ask, nay force, the alleged offender to pay money to prove their innocence is not only very wrong, but the complainant is clearly full of themselves to boot. Quote:
__________________
An object at rest cannot be stopped!! BA GT-P Blueprint |
||||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#67 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 589
|
Quote:
people who fail should be charged $100 to cover the innocent people. you'd expect 1/3 of people tested would fail and thus make up the shortfall for people who pass. i relise this isn't exactly detailed but it is the basic sort of thing that is required. |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#68 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,296
|
Quote:
So I had to spend that $20.00, had to waste approx 4 Hrs on the phone, most of it on hold but still could not do any productive work, not to mention the stress. Point is I had to go through all those hoops, and cost and if you factor in the 4 hrs lost work the $$ amount is more than the ticket, just to prove I was innocent. I wonder how many in the same situation would simply pay the fine as the lower cost option. And then they try to tell us that speed cameras are not revenue raising. However my point is that with the current laws you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent, whether it speed cameras or noise levels. |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#69 | |||
Mr old phart
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Northern Terrorist
Posts: 1,715
|
Quote:
Secondly, speed cameras have two parts - radar for speed detection and camera for ID. The bit at fault in your case was the ID, not the detection, which is a bit different to a correct ID with a guess at detection.
__________________
An object at rest cannot be stopped!! BA GT-P Blueprint |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#70 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 436
|
I'd rather spend 4 hours on the phone and pay $20 then take a day off work to go to court.
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#71 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Salamander Bay
Posts: 5,427
|
$20 for the photo and it wasn't you so really you got fined $20 for being inocent that sucks big time . I'd be getting up them for a refund as they made an error
__________________
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Everyone starts off with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience. The trick is to fill the experience bag before the luck bag is empty. "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Start a new career as a bus driver Rides: FG2 XR6 stock at this stage but a very nice ride xc 4 DOOR X CHASER 5.8 UNDER RESTO |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#72 | ||||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,296
|
Quote:
My feelings exactly. a day in court would cost me much more than $20.00 + 4 hrs. even without a lawyer. Quote:
And I am not convinced that the speed camera detection part works all the time anyhow. There has been many many cases where motorists have gone to court and proved the camera wrong. At best it may work in 90% of the cases. However the main point stands. You are guilty until proven innocent. Think of the case where it is a shared car. The camera detected speed fine comes in two to four weeks AFTER the fact. so unless you have a good memory, you have little hope of identifying the actual driver of the car and the registered owner cops it. Where is the fairness in that?. Should it not be up to the police/RTA to *prove* who was the driver at the time?. Also after this event I am now totally convinced that speed cameras are there purely to raise revenue, and that the authorities rely on the fact that most people will find it easier to pay rather than challenge it. edit: Had this been in an area that I frequent, I would probably have paid up without question as the process to get the photos is so hard that I would not go through it unless I was positive. Last edited by gz1; 29-05-2008 at 01:46 PM. |
||||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#73 | ||
Mr old phart
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Northern Terrorist
Posts: 1,715
|
A day in court is covered by court costs....
__________________
An object at rest cannot be stopped!! BA GT-P Blueprint |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |