Thread: Speed Cameras

Originally Posted by Steve123

FFS you nitpicking wanker. The camera snapped your vehicle speeding. It served it's purpose. The vehicles registered to you.
Fit for purpose is the most incorrectly used cliche these day's.. normally by arsewipes trying to avoid paying their bills.
If anything isn't fit for purpose it's probably you. Your mother should have swallowed.

Who's pulling your strings, food for thought you have such a deep and meaningful approach are you well educated?

30 seconds googling 'Speed Camera Responsibilities' turned up this which is paraphrased from the Land Transport Act:


Speeding offences
Liability for moving vehicle offences

Section 133 of the LTA shows proceedings may be taken against any person who, at the
time of the offence, was:
• the person allegedly committing the offence; and/or
• the registered owner or one of the owners of the vehicle involved; or
• lawfully entitled to possession of the vehicle, whether jointly owned or not regardless
of whether that person is an individual, or was the driver or person in charge of the
vehicle at the time.

Defences against proceedings
It is a defence to proceedings under section 133 of the LTA that at the time the offence
was committed:
• the person was not lawfully entitled to possession of the vehicle, whether jointly
owned or not; or
• another person was driving the vehicle; and
• immediately after becoming aware of the alleged offence, the person advises the
enforcement authority in writing of these things, and
• the person gives the enforcement authority a statutory declaration:
- identifying the driver, by giving name and address or
- other particulars that may lead to identification, or
- establishing that they could not identify the driver, after taking all reasonable steps
to do so.

Fairly clear that the registered owner is liable for the ticket unless they can give the name of the driver.

Just one of the responsibilities of owning a vehicle in this country.

Suck it up princess!

Originally Posted by systolic

30 seconds googling 'Speed Camera Responsibilities' turned up this which is paraphrased from the Land Transport Act:


Speeding offences
Liability for moving vehicle offences

Section 133 of the LTA shows proceedings may be taken against any person who, at the
time of the offence, was:
• the person allegedly committing the offence; and/or
• the registered owner or one of the owners of the vehicle involved; or
• lawfully entitled to possession of the vehicle, whether jointly owned or not regardless
of whether that person is an individual, or was the driver or person in charge of the
vehicle at the time.

Defences against proceedings
It is a defence to proceedings under section 133 of the LTA that at the time the offence
was committed:
• the person was not lawfully entitled to possession of the vehicle, whether jointly
owned or not; or
• another person was driving the vehicle; and
• immediately after becoming aware of the alleged offence, the person advises the
enforcement authority in writing of these things, and
• the person gives the enforcement authority a statutory declaration:
- identifying the driver, by giving name and address or
- other particulars that may lead to identification, or
- establishing that they could not identify the driver, after taking all reasonable steps
to do so.

Fairly clear that the registered owner is liable for the ticket unless they can give the name of the driver.

Just one of the responsibilities of owning a vehicle in this country.

Suck it up princess!

• another person was driving the vehicle; and
• immediately after becoming aware of the alleged offence, the person advises the
enforcement authority in writing of these things, and
• the person gives the enforcement authority a statutory declaration:
- identifying the driver, by giving name and address or
- other particulars that may lead to identification, or
- establishing that they could not identify the driver, after taking all reasonable steps
to do so.

Did that That's why if you did not do it its illegal to say you did and I did not need to pay and have the erroneous infringement recorded against me , well done great research who knew!

Hurry up and pay your speeding fine. The Government needs the money to pay the benefit to a solo mother.

Originally Posted by systolic

30 seconds googling 'Speed Camera Responsibilities' turned up this which is paraphrased from the Land Transport Act:

Speeding offences
Liability for moving vehicle offences

Section 133 of the LTA shows proceedings may be taken against any person who, at the
time of the offence, was:
• the person allegedly committing the offence; and/or
• the registered owner or one of the owners of the vehicle involved; or
• lawfully entitled to possession of the vehicle, whether jointly owned or not regardless
of whether that person is an individual, or was the driver or person in charge of the
vehicle at the time.

Defences against proceedings
It is a defence to proceedings under section 133 of the LTA that at the time the offence
was committed:
• the person was not lawfully entitled to possession of the vehicle, whether jointly
owned or not; or
• another person was driving the vehicle; and
• immediately after becoming aware of the alleged offence, the person advises the
enforcement authority in writing of these things, and
• the person gives the enforcement authority a statutory declaration:
- identifying the driver, by giving name and address or
- other particulars that may lead to identification, or
- establishing that they could not identify the driver, after taking all reasonable steps
to do so. ]

Fairly clear that the registered owner is liable for the ticket unless they can give the name of the driver or show that they could not identify the driver. ].

Just one of the responsibilities of owning a vehicle in this country.

Suck it up princess!

Fairly clear that you didn't bother reading it properly so I've made the relevant bit really obvious for you ... suck it up princess.

Originally Posted by systolic

Hurry up and pay your speeding fine. The Government needs the money to pay the benefit to a solo mother.

Sorry I would say solo parent gender neutral and in fitting with gender fluidity.

Originally Posted by GravelBen

Fairly clear that you didn't bother reading it properly so I've made the relevant bit really obvious for you ... suck it up princess.

Obviously the authorities agree no pay

Thank you for your effort have you been practicing law long or are you still practicing, just having a laugh

Originally Posted by GravelBen

Fairly clear that you didn't bother reading it properly so I've made the relevant bit really obvious for you ... suck it up princess.

Fairly clear that it was either his partner or her daughter. It's not as if it was a fleet vehicle driven by 25 different staff members.

I can't get speeding fines because I self-identify as a tractor that can't go fast enough to break the speed limit. Sending me fines is therefore a rampant oppressive bigoted discriminatory refusal to accept my true identity, and whoever sent it should be arrested for hate speech.

Am I doing this right?

Originally Posted by systolic

Fairly clear that it was either his partner or her daughter. It's not as if it was a fleet vehicle driven by 25 different staff members.

So what? He doesn't know who it was, the exact number of options is irrelevant as long as its above 1.

If someone robs your house it doesn't matter if the police have 2 suspects or 25, if they can't prove who it was they can't just choose to punish one of them at random can they?

Originally Posted by GravelBen

I can't get speeding fines because I self-identify as a tractor that can't go fast enough to break the speed limit. Sending me fines is therefore a rampant oppressive bigoted discriminatory refusal to accept my true identity, and whoever sent it should be arrested for hate speech.

Am I doing this right?

Don't forget the gender thing also, looks like your on to it

Originally Posted by GravelBen

So what? He doesn't know who it was, the exact number of options is irrelevant as long as its above 1.

If someone robs your house it doesn't matter if the police have 2 suspects or 25, if they can't prove who it was they can't just choose to punish one of them at random can they?

Well said that person (gender neutral)

Originally Posted by Maca49

Geeze I wish I was young again with a decent slug gun! Speed cameras would be much more fun than street lights!

Paint ball so much better than air rifles....And if it is a particularly annoying day, have some frozen ones that were prepared earlier......

Are you confused because your wife is your daughter ?

Sent from my SM-G388F using Tapatalk

This camera ticket has cost about $10 so far! In lost time on this thread! FFS pay it and save everybody’s dosh, shit let’s start a “give a little” page!