NSW mobile phone detection cameras

[mick taylor]

People should not use a hand held phone when driving, end of story.
But the law goes to the point of trying to be Nazi type of load of crap, oh you touched your phone, busted ! you were not using it ! f off.
I may just look to see who is ringing and I am like are f him or I will pull up and ring back as soon as I can find a spot.

But for the lowest denominator we all have to pay the price of Nazi like dictating laws and I can understand just how stupid some people are and agree with such that some people should not have a phone in the car at all, because they truly are idiots and shocking on the road regardless, not to mention far worse that many people at .05 that's a fact.

But if I just flick the phone over to glance who it is at the appropriate time mind nothing wrong with that at all. you would not want to pick your nose or touch the radio as you have just adverted your attention for 1 second, better not blink or be over 50yo regardless next.

[Citroënbender]

I’ve not heard how this is tracking, now it’s officially live.

Does anyone know anyone in NSW who’s been pinged (and a penalty applied) by one of these covert cameras?

Still seeing heaps of drivers playing with phones in ways that appear to contravene the regs. I think slightly less than a few months ago, but still a lot.

[Citroënbender]

I’ve still not heard of anyone decisively nicked by these devices.

Was NSW sold “The finest robes, most befitting an Emperor”?

[Citroënbender]

This is a serious post, a serious matter.

The NSW Government want to reverse the onus of proof upon people receiving a detection penalty in this category.

In other words, you will need to prove some days or weeks after an event, that you were not holding a mobile phone as alleged by the prosecution.

The only way I can realistically see this being possible is to run a full time in-car camera with audio (another few issues if anyone rides with you) and to securely archive footage for months. Cost and technical unfamiliarity will exclude a significant number of people from such facility.

[Tassie f100]

So if the NSW get short of funds they may as well send a notice to every rego number in the state.Most will argue but the others who think they might have been guilty will just pay up.Win win for the Govt!!

[fordomatic]

Originally Posted by Citroënbender

This is a serious post, a serious matter.

The NSW Government want to reverse the onus of proof upon people receiving a detection penalty in this category.

In other words, you will need to prove some days or weeks after an event, that you were not holding a mobile phone as alleged by the prosecution.

The only way I can realistically see this being possible is to run a full time in-car camera with audio (another few issues if anyone rides with you) and to securely archive footage for months. Cost and technical unfamiliarity will exclude a significant number of people from such facility.

Just don't use your phone while driving

Haven't heard of anyone being wrongly accused. Have however, a few mates that have been done. I think these are great.

[Citroënbender]

I already don’t use my phone when driving - thanks for the tip.

But what if I am stopped at the lights and pick up a fuel receipt which has come loose from where it’s clipped in the ashtray, in order to put it away more securely? I’m then holding something white, mobile-phone-sized.

Simply, I do not trust the technology to be accurate and believe this proposed amendment is a sop to poor implementation of a flawed strategy. I would rather more actual police were out and about.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by fordomatic

Just don't use your phone while driving

Haven't heard of anyone being wrongly accused. Have however, a few mates that have been done. I think these are great.

Strawman argument - reversing proof is ridiculous, it's being done to undermine the system to discourage people from contesting fines.

If you've been fined for using your phone how about the government shows proof? They're the ones with the fancy camera system.

Someone gets accused of a rape or murder - prove you didn't commit the rape or murder, doesn't work that way bud, what happened to the presumption of innocent until proven guilty? A pillar of our society.

Might as well as be in Hong Kong - just don't mention independence so you don't end up getting your organs harvested in some Chinese gulag - easy.

Why do we even have police anymore? Let's just have cameras everywhere and then make people prove themselves innocent on accusations.

Slippery slope, give em an inch and they take a mile.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Strawman argument - reversing proof is ridiculous, it's being done to undermine the system to discourage people from contesting fines.

If you've been fined for using your phone how about the government shows proof? They're the ones with the fancy camera system.

Someone gets accused of a rape or murder - prove you didn't commit the rape or murder, doesn't work that way bud, what happened to the presumption of innocent until proven guilty? A pillar of our society.

Might as well as be in Hong Kong - just don't mention independence so you don't end up getting your organs harvested in some Chinese gulag - easy.

Why do we even have police anymore? Let's just have cameras everywhere and then make people prove themselves innocent on accusations.

Slippery slope, give em an inch and they take a mile.

Damn straight. I hope the civil libertarians go nuts over this (they can occasionally be useful )

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Damn straight. I hope the civil libertarians go nuts over this (they can occasionally be useful )

#Metoo

But because it's related to road rules everyone seems to take everything they do as some safety initiative instead of seeing it as the revenue raising exercise it actually is.

Have your fancy phone detection cameras - my issue is the proof changing to the receiver of the fine rather than on the government.

If they were fussed about the safety aspects of phone usage wrhile driving make it 10 points, $7500 bucks and see how many people roll the dice at those odds.

It's just a turd slapped in egg rolled in some flour and breadcrumbs for good measure.

[hackney]

Quite frankly,the more they catch the merrier & happier I will be!

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by hackney

Quite frankly,the more they catch the merrier & happier I will be!

If they are caught fair and square by the police, then yes.

If they are relying on some dodgy camera that gives false positives, and then they say it's up to the receiver of the fine to prove they are innocent, then no, that is complete bull****. Disgraceful conduct imo.

Our justice system was founded on innocent until proven guilty. I don't know how this stuff can bypass that principal.

[hackney]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

If they are caught fair and square by the police, then yes.

If they are relying on some dodgy camera that gives false positives, and then they say it's up to the receiver of the fine to prove they are innocent, then no, that is complete bull****. Disgraceful conduct imo.

Our justice system was founded on innocent until proven guilty. I don't know how this stuff can bypass that principal.

Sorry,do not (respectfully) agree.Catch em,any way you can!

[Tassie f100]

Originally Posted by hackney

Sorry,do not (respectfully) agree.Catch em,any way you can!

You maybe right Hackney,catch them all,BUT do it legally,don’t just send off a bill to everyone who got photographed holding something in their hand,might be a cup of coffee or a sandwich. I agree with Franco hit em hard,$1000 fine 1st time, 30 days loss of licence 2nd time and so on,but do it legally,don’t put the onus on the driver to prove their innocence,that is not the way the Westminster justice system is supposed to work.

[Express]

I've been rear ended on two occasions by driver's on phones and as far as I'm concerned fine them, fine them big then take their licence away for a while.

But even though I have an intense dislike of people who drive while on the phone I do believe they should be treated as innocent until proven guilty and the onus should be on the State Government to prove the driver broke the law and not the other way around.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

If they are caught fair and square by the police, then yes.

If they are relying on some dodgy camera that gives false positives, and then they say it's up to the receiver of the fine to prove they are innocent, then no, that is complete bull****. Disgraceful conduct imo.

Our justice system was founded on innocent until proven guilty. I don't know how this stuff can bypass that principal.

Is there any evidence that these systems are generating a significant proportion of false positives or are you just postulating? The whole premise of your argument is based around this 'If' statement.

if the above is proven, then I'd agree with you. If it's not, then I support the technology.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by hackney

Sorry,do not (respectfully) agree.Catch em,any way you can!

So you think it's ok to send innocent people fines for no reason?


Would you agree if you got a fine in the mail, and never touch your phone while driving? I'll bet you would change your tune pretty quickly.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0

Is there any evidence that these systems are generating a significant proportion of false positives or are you just postulating? The whole premise of your argument is based around this 'If' statement.

if the above is proven, then I'd agree with you. If it's not, then I support the technology.

I think if they are changing their tune, and making the driver prove their innocence, then they know they are getting false positives.

Might only be a small number, who knows for sure, but I reckon they have. Just have a think about it. How can a camera mounted a fair distance away be able to tell the difference between a phone, and a phone shaped/size object in someones hand. It can't be 100% accurate. No way in hell.

[GasoLane]

https://www.9news.com.au/national/ns...3-605bc9d71a44

[Tassie f100]

This phone thing is like the speed camera fines where if a car is detected going too fast,but the number plate is a bit hard to read the dept will send out a fine to whoever owns a rego that looks like the photo.As an example- BOSS travelling from Geelong to Melb everyday around 4.30pm.Gets a speeding fine in the mail dated a couple of weeks earlier.What does he do?Probably thinks oh well, must have been going a bit fast that day,so I better pay up.

[roKWiz]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

.

Someone gets accused of a rape or murder - prove you didn't commit the rape or murder, doesn't work that way bud, what happened to the presumption of innocent until proven guilty? A pillar of our society.
.

Tell that to the bloke in gaol for the murder of Peter Falconnio, no body and some dodgy evidence base on his dodgy girlfriend.

[lra]

From the photos that I have seen on the TV news, if you are holding something that looks like a mobile phone, it is 99% a mobile phone.
A MarsBar, hamburger, cup of coffee, stubby of beer, or packet of chips, do not look like a mobile phone, but they can be just as distracting as a phone.
Some states of the USA, drink-driving is an offence, not as we know it, just drinking water or any liquid is classed as drink-driving.

[Tassie f100]

Originally Posted by lra

From the photos that I have seen on the TV news, if you are holding something that looks like a mobile phone, it is 99% a mobile phone.
A MarsBar, hamburger, cup of coffee, stubby of beer, or packet of chips, do not look like a mobile phone, but they can be just as distracting as a phone.
Some states of the USA, drink-driving is an offence, not as we know it, just drinking water or any liquid is classed as drink-driving.

You may find that although not illegal to eat or drink whilst driving,you could be booked for careless driving

[Citroënbender]

One detail people are missing is that you do not have to be “holding” the phone to be considered in breach, simply in contact with it. On your lap, or resting against your leg, are both open to prosecution as if you were holding it.

So you’ve been through the Macca’s driveway, you took out your wallet to pay with “tap and go”, as you’re strapped into the seat and there is a queue behind you, it seems courteous to get on the road and home. Wedge your wallet against your thigh on the seat cushion and drive away.

Camera gets you 100m later; phone resting against your leg. How the dickens will you prove the alleged phone was actually your wallet?

[marty351]

In a few years time, I can almost bet there will be a class action lawsuit against the govt.
Remember the fiasco in vic with the new laser speed detectors?

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by Citroënbender

One detail people are missing is that you do not have to be “holding” the phone to be considered in breach, simply in contact with it. On your lap, or resting against your leg, are both open to prosecution as if you were holding it.

So you’ve been through the Macca’s driveway, you took out your wallet to pay with “tap and go”, as you’re strapped into the seat and there is a queue behind you, it seems courteous to get on the road and home. Wedge your wallet against your thigh on the seat cushion and drive away.

Camera gets you 100m later; phone resting against your leg. How the dickens will you prove the alleged phone was actually your wallet?

I think they will rely on clear incriminating evidence to fine you.

The traditional phone in 1 hand resting in the palm with the thumb doing it's thing on the screen.

Oh, and they have changed the rules specifically for drive through situations like Macca's where you are allowed to hold your phone to pay or provide an app code for scanning.

[Citroënbender]

I would like to believe you are right, but have nil trust in the government to do the right thing.

There’s been too much an element of concealment about the operation of these cameras. If they were so darned good and accurate, there’d be more and better “gotcha” pictures to strike fear into the heart of phoneaholics.

If the legislation passes, I will just have to put cameras in every car, work out the uploading details and storage duration.

Re the Maccas comment, my point was the confusion of a wallet with a phone beyond the venue, by a second-rate camera operated by first-rate money-grubbing muppets.

[hackney]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

So you think it's ok to send innocent people fines for no reason?


Would you agree if you got a fine in the mail, and never touch your phone while driving? I'll bet you would change your tune pretty quickly.

You can guarantee that nearly 100% were on the(or holding) phone.They will not win this in court.Further more,I have NEVER picked mine up! I have never comfortable with doing it,period.Hook it into your vehicles Bluetooth,how simple can that be? Obviously some people do not have the grey matter to do that.I make NO apologies for my statements.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by GasoLane

https://www.9news.com.au/national/ns...3-605bc9d71a44

Surprise surprise the Government is trying to avoid people contesting their fines because people are doing it in large numbers so they'll just change legislation so it's guilty unless proven innocent and it's on them to prove its not a phone.

Who saw that coming?

They don't seem too confident in their new fancy camera system if it's coming down to this.

[marty351]

Originally Posted by hackney

You can guarantee that nearly 100% were on the(or holding) phone.They will not win this in court.Further more,I have NEVER picked mine up! I have never comfortable with doing it,period.Hook it into your vehicles Bluetooth,how simple can that be? Obviously some people do not have the grey matter to do that.I make NO apologies for my statements.

What you are doing, and what they think you are doing may be completely different.
To be falsely accused of an offence because they "think or interpret" you committing an offence cannot fairly stand up in a court. Any government changing laws to deliberately bastardise the populace through intimidation should be removed by all legal means necessary.
As I said earlier, class actions, or even personal actions will end up with the govt paying. And at our expense.