Speed camera photo with another vehicle in it. Can I get off?

**Old Steve** · 1st March 2011, 18:27

January 2nd, I went for a ride around the Rotorua lakes. Mid January, Igot a camera speed ticket for doing 85 in an 80 km/hr zone (4 km/hr tolerance over the holiday period).

I wrote off and asked for the photo. Two weeks later, wrote again and reminded them that without the photo I would be unable to accept or tranfser liability for the infringement. Finally, posted two days after the expiry of the infringement response period, the photo arrived in the mail. I have a couple of problems with the photo.

1. The quality of the photo. It looks terrible, my bike (going away) appears out of focus, I can't just not read the registration plate, I can't even tell that the bike has a registration plate - I went out and checked, yeah it does. Also there's a car coming towards the camera, which is in focus, it's registration plate has been blacked out with permanent marker pen, and that car and my bike almost overlap.

To be honest, and I've included this comment in my response to NZ Police, if that photo comes from their approved speed detection equipment then they need to have a serious review of the equipment they're using. It looks like a hand held, auto-focus, low resolution digital camera was used. Sure it has the bar across the top with the identity of the location and the camera and the speed, but anyone could crank that up on Photoshop.

2. There is another car coming towards the camera in the photo. It almost overlaps the image of my bike. This car is in focus, my bike isn't. Would the other car distort the speed recording?

What I want to know, will I still have to pay the infringement if another vehicle is in the photo? Has anyone ever responded because of another vehicle being in the photo but still had to pay or have they got off? Also, what have the speed camera photos others have received looked like. This was printed on A4 printer paper, looked just like an inkjet or colour laser printer. Definitely not on photo paper.

Now don't get me started on how safe it is to ride along staring at your speedo and not being aware of the road and traffic conditions. My suspicions about the NZ Police's interest in road safety versus revenue collection don't need to be included here. Hey, 5 km/hr above the limit - that's not dangerous. My speedo needle is 5 km/hr wide for God's sake. I reckon it'd be safer for me to be doing 90 km/hr and looking out for other vehicles, changes in the road's condition, and pedestrians than looking excessively at my speedo so that I didn't exceed 84 km/hr.

**sil3nt** · 1st March 2011, 18:31

Just suck it up. Think of all the times you get away with speeding. Surely the fine for 5km/hr over the limit isn't that much?

**Pussy** · 1st March 2011, 18:43

5 km/h over the limit?? That's right up there with drowning kittens in the orphanage's water supply!! (p/t!)

I reckon under those circumstances, with multiple vehicles in the pic, that it is worth defending

**What?** · 1st March 2011, 18:44

more than 1 vehicle in the frame = no way of proving which one was over the limit. Write back and deny any wrong-doing.

**FJRider** · 1st March 2011, 18:45

Only a few K's over the limit ... right ...

**Old Steve** · 1st March 2011, 18:48

Oh yeah, I'm going to dispute it. I've written 3 letters so far. My middle names aren't "Pedantic Prick" for nothing.

I just wanted to hear from someone who actually got off because there's a second vehicle in the photo. Or who had to pay even though a second vehicle was in the photo.

[QUOTE]Only a few K's over the limit ... right [QUOTE]

Actually, only one (1) km/hr over the reduced tolerance level.

**ac3_snow** · 1st March 2011, 18:52

Yea stick it to the man!!!

haha sounds to me like a damm good reason to get off it.

**FJRider** · 1st March 2011, 18:53

Originally Posted by Old Steve

Oh yeah, I'm going to dispute it. I've written 3 letters so far. My middle names aren't "Pedantic Prick" for nothing.

I just wanted to hear from someone who actually got off because there's a second vehicle in the photo. Or who had to pay even though a second vehicle was in the photo.

So .... it wasn't you and your bike in the photo ... and you weren't speeding ... right ... ???

**Oblivion** · 1st March 2011, 18:59

Do you want to scan it and upload it? I might make the situation alot clearer.

**FJRider** · 1st March 2011, 19:03

Originally Posted by Oblivion

Do you want to scan it and upload it? I might make the situation alot clearer.

He got pinged 5 km's over the limit ... $30 ... how clear do you need ... ??

**Virago** · 1st March 2011, 19:07

Does the photo have the date / time / speed stamp on it?

If it has a "-" (minus) in front of the speed, it refers to a vehicle travelling away from the camera.

5 clicks over the limit must only be a $30 fine? Is it worth all the time and aggrevation?

**Oblivion** · 1st March 2011, 19:11

Originally Posted by FJRider

He got pinged 5 km's over the limit ... $30 ... how clear do you need ... ??

Really...? Is it that little?

I usually see people with 100$ fines. Didnt really think it was that cheap for 5k over

And my bad, tickers not working 100%. must be excess sugar.

**FJRider** · 1st March 2011, 19:11

Originally Posted by Virago

5 clicks over the limit must only be a $30 fine? Is it worth all the time and aggrevation?

$30 indeed ... no aggro ... it's given me a laugh ....

**Old Steve** · 1st March 2011, 19:16

Hey I told you my middle names were "Pedantic Prick"

**steve_t** · 1st March 2011, 19:18

I'd suggest the photo is a LOT clearer on their monitor and would be clearer on photo paper. Photo paper is too expensive. They should email the photos out these days or at least make them available online to a secure login. Plain paper would, as you said, not let you make out rego plates unless the plate was close to the camera