What's this with the RTA?

[Ext User(Patrick Young)]

Every speed camera victim since 1999 would have a case?

--
--------------------------------------------
4x4 Hilux Auto Service Centre,
BP 106 Timbuktu,
Mali (West Africa)
Tel: 292 91 52
Specialising in turbo diesel and R290 aircon
--------------------------------------------

[Ext User(Untermensch)]

In order to protect their revenue stream the gumbiment will quickly write
some retrospective law so nobody can fight this and the gumbiment wont lose
any money.

Bit like the guy charged with warning motorists about a speed trap up the
road, tax evasion is a serious crime.


"Patrick Young" <patrick@hilux.ace.unsw.EDU.AU> wrote in message
news:lOaUf.13791$dy4.51@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> Every speed camera victim since 1999 would have a case?
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------
> 4x4 Hilux Auto Service Centre,
> BP 106 Timbuktu,
> Mali (West Africa)
> Tel: 292 91 52
> Specialising in turbo diesel and R290 aircon
> --------------------------------------------
>

[Ext User(Toby Ponsenby)]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:46:25 GMT, Patrick Young wrote:

> Every speed camera victim since 1999 would have a case?

What's what? with the post?
--
Toby.
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Ext User(Patrick Young)]

Toby Ponsenby wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:46:25 GMT, Patrick Young wrote:
>
>
>>Every speed camera victim since 1999 would have a case?
>
>
> What's what? with the post?

Heard on TV, hang on, I'll take a look about:

<http://seven.com.au/news>

"State facing huge speed cameras bill

The RTA has lost a court appeal over faulty speed camera photos which
could cost the government dearly"

--
--------------------------------------------
4x4 Hilux Auto Service Centre,
BP 106 Timbuktu,
Mali (West Africa)
Tel: 292 91 52
Specialising in turbo diesel and R290 aircon
--------------------------------------------

[Ext User(FuTAnT)]

"Patrick Young" <patrick@hilux.ace.unsw.EDU.AU> wrote in message
news:%kbUf.13825$dy4.8041@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Toby Ponsenby wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:46:25 GMT, Patrick Young wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Every speed camera victim since 1999 would have a case?
>>
>>
>> What's what? with the post?
>
> Heard on TV, hang on, I'll take a look about:
>
> <http://seven.com.au/news>
>
> "State facing huge speed cameras bill
>
> The RTA has lost a court appeal over faulty speed camera photos which
> could cost the government dearly"
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------
> 4x4 Hilux Auto Service Centre,
> BP 106 Timbuktu,
> Mali (West Africa)
> Tel: 292 91 52
> Specialising in turbo diesel and R290 aircon
> --------------------------------------------
>

I thought that already happened a while ago, with the MD5 checksum, or is
this a different case? Couldn't find it on the site anyway.

[Ext User(atec77)]

FuTAnT wrote:
> "Patrick Young" <patrick@hilux.ace.unsw.EDU.AU> wrote in message
> news:%kbUf.13825$dy4.8041@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Toby Ponsenby wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:46:25 GMT, Patrick Young wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Every speed camera victim since 1999 would have a case?
>>>
>>> What's what? with the post?
>> Heard on TV, hang on, I'll take a look about:
>>
>> <http://seven.com.au/news>
>>
>> "State facing huge speed cameras bill
>>
>> The RTA has lost a court appeal over faulty speed camera photos which
>> could cost the government dearly"
>>
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------
>> 4x4 Hilux Auto Service Centre,
>> BP 106 Timbuktu,
>> Mali (West Africa)
>> Tel: 292 91 52
>> Specialising in turbo diesel and R290 aircon
>> --------------------------------------------
>>
>
> I thought that already happened a while ago, with the MD5 checksum, or is
> this a different case? Couldn't find it on the site anyway.
>
>
Was on the news this morning , I though I heard a billion but that
couldn't be correct , a mass appeal over fines back into 19999
either way it goes to prove cameras suck as an accurate speed
measuring device .

[Ext User(athol)]

FuTAnT <blah@blah.com> wrote:

> I thought that already happened a while ago, with the MD5 checksum, or is
> this a different case? Couldn't find it on the site anyway.

I think that it went to a higher court.

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
The state of infrastructure in New South Wales is a disgrace.
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Ext User(Just JT)]

"atec77" <atec77**@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> either way it goes to prove cameras suck as an accurate speed measuring
> device .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wrong. The contention is about LEGISLATIVE COMPLIANCE rather than ACCURACY
of the measuring device.

"Mr Miralis said there was no suggestion the photographs had been altered,
and that the errors in NSW came down to 'a failure to comply with
legislation'."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/speedcam-slip-may-cost-100m/2006/03/23/1142703456320.html

Bottomline: those arseholes caught were IN FACT SPEEDING but they got away
with a TECHNICALITY.

--
SpeedingKills

[Ext User(ShazWozza)]

Just JT wrote:


> Wrong. The contention is about LEGISLATIVE COMPLIANCE rather than ACCURACY
> of the measuring device.

It is government greed and disdain for the law verging on corruption.


> Bottomline: those arseholes caught were IN FACT SPEEDING but they got away
> with a TECHNICALITY.

Wrong. Speed cameras are fallible. Only if they were infallible could your
statement be correct.

[Ext User(Toby Ponsenby)]

On 23 Mar 2006 00:47:27 GMT, athol wrote:

> FuTAnT <blah@blah.com> wrote:
>
>> I thought that already happened a while ago, with the MD5 checksum, or is
>> this a different case? Couldn't find it on the site anyway.
>
> I think that it went to a higher court.

Probably - and at this very moment there's probably an extreme
scramble afoot to keep the details off Austlii :-))))
Might have to put in my own version of a scramble to help make sure
the info is available on Austlii.

--
Toby.
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Ext User(Just JT)]

"ShazWozza" <shaz_wozza@elementspring.com> wrote:
> Just JT wrote:
>
>
>> Wrong. The contention is about LEGISLATIVE COMPLIANCE rather than
>> ACCURACY
>> of the measuring device.
>
> It is government greed and disdain for the law verging on corruption.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~
AN ANARCHIST!!!

--
TooBadStupidityDoesn'tKillImmediately

[Ext User(D Walford)]

athol wrote:
> FuTAnT <blah@blah.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I thought that already happened a while ago, with the MD5 checksum, or is
>>this a different case? Couldn't find it on the site anyway.
>
>
> I think that it went to a higher court.
>

Victoria had to give back mega bucks when many cameras were proved to be
faulty and years later a lot of those cameras are still switched off.
I'm not sure that forcing a Govt to give back fine money is all good as
the pricks will then just find another way of taxing the fuck out of all
of us.



Daryl

[Ext User(reg-john)]

"Just JT" <JohnnyThor@Hotmale.Com> wrote in message
news:4422021f$0$2933$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshostin g.com...
> "atec77" <atec77**@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> either way it goes to prove cameras suck as an accurate speed measuring
>> device .
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Wrong. The contention is about LEGISLATIVE COMPLIANCE rather than ACCURACY
> of the measuring device.
>
> "Mr Miralis said there was no suggestion the photographs had been altered,
> and that the errors in NSW came down to 'a failure to comply with
> legislation'."
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/speedcam-slip-may-cost-100m/2006/03/23/1142703456320.html
>
> Bottomline: those arseholes caught were IN FACT SPEEDING but they got away
> with a TECHNICALITY.
>
> --
> SpeedingKills
>
>

yes i agree, those bastards doing 67kmh in a 60 zone should be cut down like
dogs! the nerve of them!

[Ext User(reg-john)]

"Just JT" <JohnnyThor@Hotmale.Com> wrote in message
news:442296f9$0$2920$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshostin g.com...
> "ShazWozza" <shaz_wozza@elementspring.com> wrote:
>> Just JT wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Wrong. The contention is about LEGISLATIVE COMPLIANCE rather than
>>> ACCURACY
>>> of the measuring device.
>>
>> It is government greed and disdain for the law verging on corruption.
>>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> AN ANARCHIST!!!
>
> --
> TooBadStupidityDoesn'tKillImmediately
>
>

a troll!

[Ext User(Just JT)]

"reg-john" <al@fddfd.com> wrote:
>
> yes i agree, those bastards doing 67kmh in a 60 zone should be cut down
> like dogs! the nerve of them!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
No such thing as safe speeding. The law of physics dictates that the faster
you go, the farther is your stopping distance in case of an emergency.

That 7kph difference in speed can mean life or death.

--
AndYouCan'tRepealTheLawsOfPhysics

[Ext User(Patrick Young)]

Just JT wrote:

> No such thing as safe speeding. The law of physics dictates that the faster
> you go, the farther is your stopping distance in case of an emergency.

Your fizix does not take into account the properties of the vehicle in
question (how it's loaded), the environment, the driver, tailgating, or
any number of other factors.

> That 7kph difference in speed can mean life or death.

That difference is some minor factor in a whole shiteload of other
factors though. You watched the TV add too many times?

> AndYouCan'tRepealTheLawsOfPhysics

YouCanDoTheProperFizixAfterTheEventThough

--
--------------------------------------------
4x4 Hilux Auto Service Centre,
BP 106 Timbuktu,
Mali (West Africa)
Tel: 292 91 52
Specialising in turbo diesel and R290 aircon
--------------------------------------------

[Ext User(John Hudson)]

>
> yes i agree, those bastards doing 67kmh in a 60 zone should be cut down
> like dogs! the nerve of them!
>
>

Yeah, they're a real PITA, holding up the traffic!!

[Ext User(Just JT)]

"Patrick Young" <patrick@hilux.ace.unsw.EDU.AU> wrote:
> Just JT wrote:
>
>> No such thing as safe speeding. The law of physics dictates that the
>> faster you go, the farther is your stopping distance in case of an
>> emergency.
>
> Your fizix does not take into account the properties of the vehicle in
> question (how it's loaded), the environment, the driver, tailgating, or
> any number of other factors.
~~~~~~~~~~
Here's for you to do. Drive up to 60kph and then stop as hard as you can.
Measure your stopping distance. Then drive at 67kph and stop as hard as you
can. Now measure the difference in stopping distance. Then pretend a
pedestrian just crossed the road; tell us if there's a chance of survival.

--
HowManyMetresDifference?

[Ext User(eeviil inc.)]

Just JT wrote:
> "Patrick Young" <patrick@hilux.ace.unsw.EDU.AU> wrote:
>
>>Just JT wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No such thing as safe speeding. The law of physics dictates that the
>>>faster you go, the farther is your stopping distance in case of an
>>>emergency.
>>
>>Your fizix does not take into account the properties of the vehicle in
>>question (how it's loaded), the environment, the driver, tailgating, or
>>any number of other factors.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> Here's for you to do. Drive up to 60kph and then stop as hard as you can.
> Measure your stopping distance. Then drive at 67kph and stop as hard as you
> can. Now measure the difference in stopping distance. Then pretend a
> pedestrian just crossed the road; tell us if there's a chance of survival.
>
> --
> HowManyMetresDifference?
>
>
Perhaps Brainiac, you could take 10 cars, say an EH Holden, a VC
Commodore, a Kingswood, A Corolla, an XB Falcon, an EB Falcon, a 4WD or
two, a few different new cars, and whatever other cars take your fancy,
and complete your tests. I'm sure you will find some cars stopping from
67km/h would stop in similar, or god forbid shorter distances than some
of the others stopping from 60km/h. You obviously don't have a very good
idea of physics if you live by your statement. Cars are different,
brakes are different, road surfaces and conditions are different, etc
etc etc. Please take your blinkers off and look at the real world, not
your tunnel vision view...

Are you employed by the RTA by any chance??? Or do you simply believe
everything govco says? Either way stop showing your lack of knowledge
and stop being a troll

AdamWhoIsNotADickheadShitStirringTroll

[Ext User(Just JT)]

"eeviil inc." <imnot@there.net> wrote:
>>
> Perhaps Brainiac, you could take 10 cars, say an EH Holden, a VC
> Commodore, a Kingswood, A Corolla, an XB Falcon, an EB Falcon, a 4WD or
> two, a few different new cars, and whatever other cars take your fancy,
> and complete your tests. I'm sure you will find some cars stopping from
> 67km/h would stop in similar, or god forbid shorter distances than some of
> the others stopping from 60km/h. You obviously don't have a very good idea
> of physics if you live by your statement. Cars are different, brakes are
> different, road surfaces and conditions are different, etc etc etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, I agree, cars are different and some cars stop better than others.
Those cars which stop better PROVIDE A HIGHER MARGIN OF SAFETY than others.

It would be ridiculous to have a different speed limit for each type of car,
would you reckon? There is no excuse for a better engineered car to SPEED,
full stop.

> Please take your blinkers off and look at the real world, not your tunnel
> vision view...
~~~~~~~
Sorry, but it is you SPEEDING PROPONENTS who have the BLINKERS on.

Irrespective of car make, THE SAME CAR WILL STOP FURTHER at a higher speed.
No high-tech engineering will contradict the laws of physics.

>
> Are you employed by the RTA by any chance??? Or do you simply believe
> everything govco says? Either way stop showing your lack of knowledge and
> stop being a troll
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your definition of a troll is someone who disagrees with you?

--
IfSoThenI'mATrollFightingALostCauseInTheNameOfRoad Safety