Allowing your number plate to get dirty or actively obscuring or altering it could cost you a hefty fine, demerit points and maybe even jail!
A 50-year-old Irish rider recently copped a £600 (about $A1140) fine and nine demerit points for trying to evade detection by police by altering his Honda’s number plate with black tape.
His solicitor said the bike had been off the road for a year and he was on his way to the garage to get an MOT (Ministry of Transport roadworthy).
Likely story!
Number plate offences
Rear mudguard prevents plate from getting dirty
In Australia, fines for an obscured plate vary substantially state to state from about $100 to almost $700 and up to three demerit points.
The offence can be worded as something like “using a vehicle with an altered, incorrect or misrepresented number plate”.
That can include a number of issues such as simply allowing your number plate to get dirty.
Telling the cop who pulls you over that you had no idea it got dirty is not an excuse as you are obliged every time you use a vehicle to ensure it is in legal, working order.
Fraudulent plates
However, it can get worse.
If the plate has been fraudulently altered (as in the mock photo at the top of this article), the penalty is up to $1000 or two months’ jail.
The tougher penalties are due to the use of stolen and fraudulent plates to commit crimes, not just evade speed cameras.
I knew one flexible rider who used to stand up and extend his right foot back to obscure his plate as he passed a roadside speed camera.
Another rider had his plate on a rotating mechanism which he could activate via a switch on the handlebars to rotate the plate out of sight.
Both could have been fined for fraudulently obscuring their plate and face the harsher penalties.
There are also various clear plate covers that are claimed to prevent a speed camera from getting a clear image.
Some “invisible” sprays (including hairspray) are also claimed to legally obscure your plate from a speed camera.
Hairspray leaves a detectable gummy residue
Most of these only claim to “help avoid detection”. They offer no guarantees.
You may think police won’t notice, but they are aware of these scams.
If they pull you over, even for a licence check, one of the first things they check is for these devices and sprays which leave a telltale gummy residue.
Police in several states couldn’t give us exact numbers for motorcycle plate fines, but they claim it is common.
It consists of a slim unit stuck with adhesive tape that lights up whenever the rider slows, whether using the brake or just engine braking, as is often the case.
“Asking a police officer at the local cop shop hasn’t shed any light. He was just guessing at the answer and gave the safe answer of ‘no’ but to ask VicRoads,” he says.
“I’m trying to find out if it is a clear cut black and white NO to sticking anything to your helmet, or if it’s still open to interpretation depending on the policeman or under review for clarification.
“If it’s still a grey area, then I am prepared to risk a fine and increase my safety by testing the unit.”
Illegal in some states
Our understanding is that Victorian and South Australian police still believe it is illegal to attach anything to a helmet by any means, while NSW Police have held off issuing fines until Australian helmet rules are homogenised across all states.
That could take some time.
Meanwhile, Raphael and other supporters of this safety device to avoid being rear-ended are in a legal abyss.
The device is similar to the Smart Brake Light that we sell on our website because we believe it is a key safety feature.
However, that does not affect the compliance of helmets.
‘Expert advice’
We asked police and relevant departments in all states for their advice on whether Raphael would be fined for wearing the helmet.
A few replied and none was particularly certain.
Queensland Police HQ flat out refused to give legal advice. That’s strange since their officers give legal advice when they issue a fine!
How can a police officer on patrol confidently issue a ticket? How can they possibly have more knowledge on all the relevant road rules and laws than police HQ and relevant transport departments?
Interestingly, Queensland Police have no concerns about action cameras and a previous state Police Minister actually suggested riders wear them for evidential reasons!
VicRoads just quoted us the usual Australian Standards stuff.
When we pointed out that the standard only applies at the point of purchase, they agreed.
They also admitted there is “no road rule specific to brake lights fitted to helmets” and said it would be open to police interpretation of the rules.
On both issues, most police say that so long as the attachment doesn’t interfere with the function or safety of the helmet it can be attached.
But how do we know it won’t affect the safety of the helmet?
Safety experts say helmets are designed so that in a crash and slide, nothing will catch on the ground and rotate your head, leading to neck injuries. But there is no empirical evidence to prove it does adversely affect safety.
Victorian Police were the sole objectors to Santa and other novelty helmet covers.
On the issue of the brake light, they said helmets must comply to the Australian Standards.
“As far as I am aware (the standards) do not allow for the attachments to motorcycle helmets to be made,” the spokeswoman said.
South Australia police said it was an ADR issue, but the brake light is not attached to the bike, so how could that affect helmet compliance?
Western Australia police flick-passed it to the light manufacturer to work with each helmet manufacturer to ensure that the helmet remains legal according to Australian Standards when the light is attached.
That’s virtually impossible. Do they know how many helmet manufacturers there are in the world!
WA police say you cannot alter the structure of an approved helmet by drilling holes, placing stickers or painting a helmet.
“So sticky adhesive pads for accessories are dependent on the quality of the helmet,” they say.
Conclusion
Our answer is “user beware”!
If you’re like Raphael, you may think your safety is more important than risking the off-chance of a fine.
Police are allegedly fining riders who remove the catalytic convertor or cat from their motorcycle, according to several motorcycle dealers.
While the replacement of the muffler or exhaust system may contravene noise rules, removing the cat has nothing to do with noise, but with air pollution.
The cat is that ugly metal box often underneath your motorcycle.
It burns red hot to reduce toxic gases and the size of pollutants in the exhaust gas.
Some actually claim it causes more asthmatic reactions because it reduces the size of the airborne carbon which infiltrates the lungs easier.
Despite exhaustive legal research, he says he can find no mention in the ADRs of removing a catalytic convertor being illegal.
However, there remains conflicting views over whether it is illegal to remove the cat.
Mark Barnett, Product Manager for Link International which distributes Arrow exhausts says the gaseous emissions laws under ADR 79.04 do not apply to scooters, motorcycles or trikes.
“Some of our dealers have said they know of riders being prosecuted for removing cats,” Mark says.
He says the Federal Department of Transport and Regional Services told him that ADR 79.04 would never be applied to motorcycles as it was “too difficult to enforce and the numbers are too small to make it worth their while”.
However, Motorcycle Council of NSW exhaust expert Brian Wood says bikes are also subject to environment laws.
“Once registered, a vehicle becomes subject to the ‘in-service’ regulations that apply in the state in which the vehicle is registered,” he says.
“In NSW, most ‘in-service’ regulations are administered by the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).
“In the case of exhaust emissions, it’s the NSW Environment Protection Authority.”
He says that under the NSW Clean Air Act, it is an offence to remove, disconnect or impair a system.
The offence for an individual is 200 penalty units. A penalty unit is current $110. So 200 penalty units would be $22,000.
Similar rules apply around the country.
So while you may be able to remove the cat under ADRs, you may run foul of environment laws.
Aftermarket exhausts
While on the subject of aftermarket exhausts, Mark says the ADRs override local state rules.
“We’ve had TMR officers in Queensland going to dealerships and saying every bike on the plot fitted with an aftermarket exhaust is illegal and the fine is $550,” he says.
“This is not true. A European homologated exhaust is legal under ADR and therefore is legal in all states and territories in Australia.
“I had an email from a TMR policy office agreeing that an aftermarket exhaust is legal providing it complies to ADR 83.00 and that for a LAMS bike it does not improve the engine performance.
“That’s a ‘gotcha’ for LAMS as most aftermarket exhausts will give an improvement, albeit in Arrow’s case only slight with the dB killer in place.
“However, for some bikes this may break the 150kW-per-tonne LAMS power limit.”
Brian also points out that the ADRs only apply up until the bike is registered and rolls out of the showroom.
Conclusion?
Sorry we can’t be more definitive on the legalities of removing a cat.
It seems to be a grey area that is exploited by police and transport officials to penalise motorists.
Stay tuned for Levente’s challenge to the laws. He is hopeful of a win that will set a legal precedent for all riders.
We will have the verdict on his case as soon as it is available.
Learner riders had previously only been fined for the offence.
Now they cop a demerit point for not wearing an approved hi-vis vest or jacket.
They will also now get three demerit points for riding without a “supervising driver (sic) sitting on the seat beside (sic) them” and one demerit point for not displaying an L plate.
Vest of shame
John Eacott chooses to wear high-visibility gear but says it should not be compulsory
VMC media spokesman John Eacott says the rider learner permit changes are “unwarranted” and not a safety issue.
“The application of a requirement to have the Vest of Shame (aka the hi-vis safety vest) ‘securely fastened’ becomes a safety issue on hot days as it leads to heat stress and reduced rider competence,” he says.
“This was highlighted shortly before the RIS when the Minister for Roads and Road Safety was shown the testing procedures at Deakin University of garments for MotoCAP.
“It is bizarre to have a requirement for a hi-vis vest for Learners and then demand it be worn in a manner to reduce rider efficiency. This was brought to the attention of the Department of Transport, but appears to have been ignored and not even mentioned in the summary of responses.”
We asked the Department of Transport for the number fines issued since the rule applied in 2014 and what consituted an approved vest/jacket.
No reply has yet been received but we will update if/when they do.
L plate demerit point
The VMC also claim the L plate demerit point is unfair as a plate can easily fall off a motorcycle resulting in a rider losing their licence and their only mode of transport.
“There is no road safety risk or road user behaviour targeted by the sanction, therefore no genuine road safety objective served,” their submissions says.
“A motorcycle is an arduous exposed environment, experiencing vibration, winds, rain, road grime/fumes and sunlight/UV exposure.
“L plates are typically plastic, embrittle with time and are not very resilient to these exposed service conditions.
“As a result, an L-plate may fall off during a ride without the knowledge of the rider since plates are affixed to the rear of the motorcycle.”
Hi-vis mandated
The learner hi-vis rule was introduced in 2014 despite the state government’s road safety committee citing a European road safety research that found the benefits of wearing a high-visibility vest depended on the time of day and location.
Since its introduction, there has been no study into its effect on crashes among learners and the Traffic Accident Commission does not differentiate learner riders in its statistics.
The Prof has reviewed several international studies on motorcycle conspicuity and “look but fail to see” accidents and says there is “sufficient doubt” of the effectiveness of hi-vis to call for a repeal of the mandatory requirement.
He says the studies had varied findings suggesting:
Dark clothing is more visible in certain lighting situations;
Hi-vis rider gear may be less visible in certain conditions; and
Hi-vis clothing could create a “target fixation” for motorists, causing them to steer toward the wearer.
Richard also says he regularly wears a hi-visibility jacket when riding, but has still been hit by a car.
“The driver claimed they didn’t see me, from a distance of less than 2m, as they changed lanes on top of me,” he says.
When the law was introduced, the VMC cited Prof Huggins’s research and objected to the rule on several grounds:
Wearing hi-vis clothing may impart a false sense of security for novice riders;
Modern research shows that people don’t recognise or react to motorcycles, rather than not seeing them at all;
Drivers are more likely to see a bike but make an error in timing;
All bikes have hard-wired headlights yet no research has been done on how this affects hi-visibility; and
If hi-vis is a real safety issue, why are there no greater penalties for drivers who crash into people wearing them?
Speeding fines based on Lidar or radar readings are difficult to defend, but not impossible, says NSW traffic and criminal law specialist Chris Kalpage.
Check out his tips on defending a Lidar or radar speeding fine:
Chris on his Ducati at the track
Lidar readings
Lidar speed readings are potentially more accurate than “check speeds” and police estimates which were covered in my previous article.
So they need more careful analysis prior to any court hearing.
“LIDAR” stands for Light Detection and Ranging which means it uses pulsed lasers of light.
Police aim the hand-held Lidar device at an object and a laser beam of light bounces back and forth to measure changes in the distance over time.
It is the most accurate form of speed assessment.
Radar devices work the same way, but use radio waves instead of light.
Calibration
However, like any measuring instrument, these can be compromised depending on calibration and manner of use.
Failure to produce a S137 Road Transport Act certificate at a hearing could call into question the reading obtained.
We also consider whether the device has been properly calibrated. The prosecution would have to produce a certificate signed by the police officer at the start and end of their shift certifying the device was tested over a measured prescribed distance of 25m and 50m.
Each Lidar has a prolaser testing book, which is completed and signed off when the tests are done.
Lidar use
LIDAR is used around the world
We also consider the use of the Lidar on a motorist.
Was there a clear line of sight for the officer during the duration of the test?
Was the required three-second observation and testing likely, based on available distance for the test and the alleged speed? For example if the maximum sighting distance from the officer is 30m and you are meant to be travelling at 30m/second they only have one second to conduct the test which is insufficient time.
Was there excessive movement of the unit?
Is there the potential for the laser to be reflected back from another surface?
Radar devices
If the radar device uses a Doppler beam, we again consider calibration.
However, there are other contentious issues with a Doppler beam as they are much wider than a Lidar beam.
The old Silver Eagle Radar used to have a beam of about 20x20m for every hundred metres of projection.
This creates confusion over which vehicle provided the speed reading.
I have run cases where a small vehicle such as a motorcycle was traveling in front of a speeding four-wheel drive and may not be the vehicle giving the speed reading.
Police always argue that if there are multiple vehicles in the beam then an error reading should show on the device but that is subject to question and scientific challenge.
We also consider whether there were multiple vehicles in the beam and whether there were many vehicles of a similar size. This raises the question of identity of the offending vehicle.
Use of mobile radars in areas where traffic isn’t sparse raises the issue of target identification.
Use guidelines
LIDAR radar speed gun
Guidelines for the use of Lidar and radar have previously contained prohibitions such as at the bottom of a hill or within 50m of a change in speed zone sign.
Those restrictions on police have now been considerably eased in many jurisdictions, despite public criticism.
However that information may be relevant in a defence or in a plea of guilty.
Also, keep in mind that both these devices can be used in approaching or receding mode, which means they can hide in the bushes and activate the device once you have gone past them and shoot you from behind.
When defending these cases, especially the Lidar, some magistrates wish to have scientific evidence from the defence supporting the basis of the challenge to the instrument.
Disclaimer
This article is for reader information and interest only and is based on New South Wales law. It is not intended to be comprehensive, and does not constitute and must not be relied on as legal advice.
Please be aware that every case is different and the matters raised may not be of specific relevance to your situation but may have a general application. You must seek specific advice tailored to your circumstances. Chris is happy to talk to anyone needing clarification. He can bet contacted on 0418 211074.
(Sponsored post on lane splitting for our North American readers)
Lane-splitting is the act of riding a motorcycle between the lanes of traffic on a freeway or city road. It’s a controversial topic in motorcycle safety, with a variety of opinions and different laws on whether it benefits motorcyclists or puts them in more danger. Many riders advocate for lane-splitting, out of fear that they’ll be sandwiched between two vehicles in a rear-end accident in stop-and-go traffic. They claim it’s safer to travel between lanes, and eases traffic during a busy commute. Those against it argue lane-splitting increases the likelihood of a crash if a driver isn’t paying attention, and doesn’t notice the rider along his or her side.
Motorcycle injury attorneys at Cannon & Dunphy, S.C. claim motorcyclists face a greater risk than any other vehicle on the road. If involved in an accident, riders are are also more likely to suffer serious or catastrophic injuries. Lane-splitting has come up a lot in legislation about motorcycle safety, with a lot of gray area in different parts of the nation. So what is safer, splitting lanes or staying within the lines? A study at UC Berkeley suggests splitting reduces the likelihood a motorcyclist will be hurt in a crash, and the findings could change motorcycle laws across the country.
Lane-Splitting Increases Safety
The study, shared by the American Motorcycle Association, showed that riders who split lanes were significantly less likely to be struck from behind in a crash. Researchers reviewed nearly 6,000 motorcycle-involved collisions between 2012 and 2013. In 997 of those cases, the motorcyclist was splitting lanes at the time of the crash. Overall they found riders who split lanes were 6% less likely to suffer a head injury, 10% less likely to suffer an injury to the torso, and 1.8% less likely to die in a crash.
A few significant findings include:
Lane-splitting motorcyclists are less likely to be rear ended than those that don’t lane split, from 2.6% to 4.6%
Riders who lane split are 14% more likely to wear a full-face helmet and proper protective gear
Lane-splitting is safe if the rider travels at 50 miles per hour or less, and no more than 15 miles per hour above the flow of traffic
Authors of the study cite stop-and-go traffic as the main reason motorcyclists are in danger on the road. The American Motorcycle Association agrees, stating,”reducing a motorcyclist’s exposure to vehicles that are frequently accelerating and decelerating on congested roadways can be one way to reduce rear-end collisions for those most vulnerable in traffic.”
Which States Allow Lane-Splitting?
Despite being a common practice on other continents like Australia, Europe and Asia, only California has legalized splitting for motorcyclists. California passed a bill known as AB-51 in 2017, ensuring that the practice is legal across the state.
After the bill was passed, the Governor’s Highway Safety Association released data showing an almost 30% decline in fatal motorcycle accidents since lane-splitting was legalized. The data failed to highlight a specific trend across the United States, with numbers ranging from a 66.7% decrease in Washington D.C. to a 175% increase in fatal accidents in Rhode Island. However, the national average dropped by 8.6%, 30 states saw a general decline in fatal motorcycle accidents, and there were decreases of more than 20% in 14 states.
Other states are working on their own legislation, but no other states have fully legalized lane-splitting like California. Utah has passed some legislation in May 2019, legalizing lane splitting with specific modifications for “lane-filtering”. Oregon, Washington, Connecticut, DC, and Maryland are currently considering new lane-splitting legislation as of October 2019. Many states don’t have any specific mention of lane-splitting within their legislation, meaning it’s not necessarily prohibited by law. This list includes Montana, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, and North Carolina. All other states have laws in place to specifically prohibit lane-splitting for motorcycle riders.
As more information begins to come out about lane splitting safety, it will be interesting to see if more states choose to legalize the practice in hopes of keeping motorcyclists safer.
If you have been fined for speeding based on a police officer’s estimate or “check speed”, there may be several defences, says NSW traffic and criminal law specialist Chris Kalpage.
Now, Chris follows up with information a lawyer seeks when defending a rider on a speeding fine based on an estimate:
Collecting information
As I stated in my previous article, photographs of where the incident occurred are a great help as it provides information about what may have obstructed the proper tracking of the vehicle.
Distances will also enable the calculation as to the distance over time and therefore the potential speed.
We usually attend the police station to see the police in-car video (ICV). That video will show in many cases what the officer could see and what you may have said when pulled over.
In a hearing, the officer may produce a transcript of what you said which is another reason to be wary of saying anything.
If it is an in-car radar breach, it provides us invaluable information of what speeds were registering, the time between observation of the vehicle and locking the speed, and any other matters that could potentially affect the Doppler beam or the reading on the radar, in addition to the patrol speed of the police vehicle.
Check speed
A “check speed” fine is based on the speed the police vehicle was travelling.
In this case, examining the ICV will show whether the officer had the ability to maintain a consistent distance and speed to provide an accurate reading.
In many of these cases I have observed the highway patrol (HWP) vehicle being baulked by slower vehicles that the smaller, lighter and more nimble motorcycle has been able to get around unaware they are being followed.
When the HWP vehicle gets around the obstruction, seconds have gone past and the police have to accelerate hard to catch up.
In the heat of catching up, it has, on occasion, been that the speed alleged is the speed of the HWP vehicle and not that of the bike.
Similarly, if the HWP vehicle is parked on the side of the road and the officer has to accelerate in pursuit, there is often a degree of hard acceleration involved.
The ICV may also show whether the officer was able to view the bike consistently during the test or lost sight of the vehicle, which would put the check speed or estimate in question.
Example case
A rider on the Old Pac (Image: YouTube)
I ran a case on the Old Pacific Highway where the officer passes the bike and the radar showed the bike was travelling at the speed limit of 80km/h, as shown in the ICV.
The bike pulls into Pie in the Sky cafe and a number of minutes later the HWP vehicle pulls in. The officer gets out and starts yelling at the rider and charges him with speed over 45.
When I examined the ICV it showed the bike had travelled past the HWP vehicle at 80km/h but more importantly the police vehicle had done a u-turn and did not see the offending motorcycle until it was pulling up.
So how was an estimate or check speed of more than 45km/h made in the absence of seeing the vehicle?
More importantly, why had the HWP been unable to catch up to the bike, which was the other issue, relied on by police seeing the PV had been hitting speeds of 140-150km/h.
On closer examination of the video it was seen that the HWP vehicle was held up when doing its u-turn by several cars pulling out of Brooklyn, including a learner driver who held up the police by a considerable amount of time.
As many riders are aware, if you give someone a 15-second rolling start at the track, it takes a long time and a lot of speed to catch up. We obtained scientific calculations relating to this, which established that the bike could not have been travelling at the speed alleged. Our client was successful at the hearing.
Chris Kalpage sets up for a track session
Officer’s estimate
A police officer’s estimate is the least reliable assessment of speed.
Observing the ICV may give us information as to time and distance that the officer had to make their assessment.
I ran a case where two bikes crested a hill on the Putty Rd at the same time as a police vehicle travelling in the opposite direction. The officer saw the bikes and locked on to their speed within a second.
They did not allow for three seconds of observation and testing with the radar, nor did they allow for multiple vehicles in the beam.
When that was challenged, the officer relied on his estimate which was dubious because of the short observation time as the bikes went past.
At the hearing, the officer conceded a lesser speed and our client retained his licence.
The longer the observation, the greater the accuracy of the estimate.
If an officer is coming around the corner as you are tipping in going in the opposite direction we have to challenge the speed estimate over the length of observation time.
Often it is based on a momentary snapshot and preconceived ideas based on the rider’s posture on the bike, noise, etc, not hard facts. Therefore, it is subject to challenge.
Technology
Potentially more accurate forms of speed assessment such as lidar and radar needs more careful analysis which will be covered in a future article.
Disclaimer
This article is for reader information and interest only and is based on New South Wales law. It is not intended to be comprehensive, and does not constitute and must not be relied on as legal advice.
Please be aware that every case is different and the matters raised may not be of specific relevance to your situation but may have a general application. You must seek specific advice tailored to your circumstances. Chris is happy to talk to anyone needing clarification. He can bet contacted on 0418 211074.
Police have waived a Bribie Island rider’s $400/3point infringement for having a void helmet sticker in a test case that proves riders can legally remove the external sticker.
Ian Joice, 63, says he was pulled over by police on Bowen Rd, Glass House Mountains, on 12 August 2019 at 11.38am.
He says the officer noted the external sticker had the word VOID across it from age and sun damage while the internal label was faded due to wear.
Internal label
A week later he received an infringement notice in the post for “fail to wear helmet”.
So he contacted Motorbike Writer after reading our article which advised riders that is legal to remove the external sticker.
The issue of police being directed to meet traffic offence targets or quotas are back in the news in Queensland and South Australia.
The matter generally raises the ire of motorists who say it is proof that police are revenue raisers rather than performing road safety duties.
Critics also say it leads to motorists being fined for minor speeds and diverts police patrols from catching high-range speeders.
Controversial quotas
The quota controversy has been raised after two recent events:
In Queensland, emails that set quotas for traffic tickets have been revealed in court by a Gold Coast cop in evidence of bullying by senior officers. Queensland police have always denied the existence of quotas but have again admitted there are “benchmark” expectations or “targets” for officers on various offences.
In South Australia, a senior police officer sent an email to staff offering a gift card as an incentive to issue more speeding and traffic fines. SA Police were forced to retract the email and advise that the incentive went against official policy.
Offence quotas (or “benchmarks”, or “targets”) for police are not new.
In the 1970s and ‘80s, the Queensland Bjelke-Petersen government blatantly referred to them as “kill sheets” for traffic and criminal offences.
Officers were required to reach certain targets to gain promotion or face punitive measures such asa long run of “graveyard shifts”.
Rather than promoting road safety and a crackdown on crime, it led to massive police corruption, culminating in the Fitzgerald Inquiry and subsequent jailing of senior cops and politicians.
Quotas exist in various countries at varying levels of legality around the world.
For example, the UK Government ran a two-year pilot project with the Thames Valley force allowing police to claim back a proportion of speeding fines to pay for road safety projects.
Quotas are largely outlawed in democratic countries as unconstitutional.
Yet the practice often continues in a non-official capacity to evaluate the productivity of “slack and lazy officers”, as one former senior cop told us.
Are “targets, benchmarks, incentives, kill sheets, or productivity evaluations” just quotas by another name? Leave your comments below.
Now, Chris has offered the following tips on what to do when pulled over specifically by NSW police for speeding, although the lessons are generally applicable around the world.
Chris Kalpage on his Ducati
Recorded
If you are pulled over by a NSW highway patrol vehicle, the conversation is being recorded on both audio and video.
Even if it is not a highway patrol vehicle, the officer will make notes on your responses.
Often people are nervous and say things. It is sometimes safer not to make any admissions, especially if you do not have all the facts.
Even then, be wary of making admissions as they may seriously compromise your potential defence.
For example, where exactly do they say they observed you speeding and how did they assess your speed?
It can be the case that where you were alleged to be speeding is not where you have been pulled over by police. You may not have been speeding at the point they say you were.
In one case I defended, the in-car video clearly showed the bike passed the unmarked police car travelling in the opposite direction some 15km from where the rider was eventually pulled up. The rider obviously had no idea what the officer was talking about.
Identity crisis
If a police officer comes knocking on your door accusing you of failing to stop, there are clearly issues about the potential identity of the rider, etc.
In another situation on the Wisemans Ferry, a Ducati 748R rider went past a police four-wheel-drive and they accused my client some days later.
We successfully defended the case over the accuracy of the police recording of the bike rego number and whether it was his bike at the scene.
You generally don’t know all the facts on the side of the road so why step on a potential landmine?
Assessing speed
LIDAR radar speed gun
Generally there are four methods police use to assess speed, excluding fixed and mobile speed cameras. They are listed here in descending order of accuracy:
The Lidar, which is a gun-like object which projects a laser beam and is aimed by the officer at an alleged specific target;
The in-car radar which is a radar attached to the police car and uses a Doppler beam;
Check speed which is a police officer following you and assessing your speed by using the car’s digital speedometer. It essentially shows their speed which may not be yours; and
Police officer’s estimate, which has no objective measurement of speed.
Often the police will use one of the first three methods, combined with their estimate.
Things to consider on the roadside
If you have the presence of mind, ask the officer where specifically you are alleged to have been speeding and how they assessed your speed.
It is beneficial for you to take photographs of where the incident is meant to have taken place. If you have the capacity on your GPS or phone, record the exact longitude and latitude.
On country roads it may be difficult to pinpoint the exact location weeks later when you decide you want to challenge the allegation.
If the police officer was stationary when they alleged they observed you speeding, try to observe from that vantage point.
That will provide you with the officer’s visibility of your approaching vehicle and their maximum sighting distance.
Again, take photographs from that vantage point. Take notice of anything that may have obstructed the officer’s vision in tracking your vehicle.
Try to assess the distance you travelled from when the officer first observed you to when they started their test. This distance will depend on your alleged speed. Consider the following:
What is the maximum sighting distance the officer had from where they were standing or where their vehicle was parked;
From the maximum distance, how far had you travelled when the officer finished their test? Often we roughly work that out from when they step out on to the road or when they turn their lights on if facing you or if you get shown the reading on the Lidar; and
If they are mobile, we use either when they turn their lights on as they are approaching or, at the worst, the “crossover point”. That is the point at which they go past you and are no longer getting a reading from your vehicle.
Disclaimer
Chris Kalpage
This article is for your information and interest only. It is based on New South Wales law only. It is not intended to be comprehensive, and does not constitute and must not be relied on as legal advice. Please be aware that every case is different and the matters raised may not be of specific relevance to your situation but may have a general application. Seek specific advice tailored to your circumstances.
