Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey everyone, i recently got a new job and i have to drive pass around 3-4 speed camera twice a day.

so this is making me a bit edgey so i just want someone to help me clarify:

1, how much km do u have to go over the actual speed limit until you get snap

2, how long will it take for them to send a fine letter IF i did get caught

-pete

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/201850-questions-about-fixed-speed-cameras/
Share on other sites

1. usually over 10% of the speed limit, ie over 88 in 80 zone

2. not really sure on this but i think someone mentioned 6-8 weeks or something..

I've heard of many cases where they've been set to less than 10%.

DO NOT speed past them.......

From big-ass trips... speedos are usually set to be lower than the speed you're doing.... If you use a nav. unit, it always displays that you're travelling slower than what the speed ostates (they might not take into consideration contours however)... But the speedo-checks on highway to melbourne registered same speed as GPS; which was at least 7km/h under what the speedo read. - so don't get paranoid, but don't exceed the limit. Driving instructors recommend 3km under speed limit to do driving tests :blink:

I thought fines always come within 2 weeks?

Keep in mind that if is IS 10%, it's still not going to be a good measure, due to inaccuracies in your speedo, the camera etc. Just do the speed limit through the camera.

thats when a pfc commander comes in handy :blink:

If you know where they are why would you speed past them?

:blink:

like a few people have said, speedos in cars generally read about 5km/h over what you are doing. so if the speedo says 100 youre doing 95. so if you go through a speed camera on, or even slightly above the limit, you should be right.

cops with radar/lidar ive heard need to give a 10% leeway. add into account that your speedo is high as well..

many times ive been in a 100 zone, with the speedo reading 110 to 115, and a cop has been there, and i havnt been done.

10% are you kidding me? lol. It's more like 2 or 3km/h. so 63 in a 60 zone will most likely see you booked, as will 103 in a 100 zone. I have no idea who came up with this 10% theory, but it's bullshit.

10% are you kidding me? lol. It's more like 2 or 3km/h. so 63 in a 60 zone will most likely see you booked, as will 103 in a 100 zone. I have no idea who came up with this 10% theory, but it's bullshit.

your theory is no better

it's definiately not 2-3km/h

Too lazy to edit but:

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...t&p=3560020

afraid to say.. not a good year for me :)

Just curious to know, do policemen have a Flash on their Radars?? or any other speed recording device (Laser)? etc

I was doing abt 111kmh in a 100 zone :D:( silly me,

I think i saw a flash from behind some trees and an un marked commodore parked some 2km down on the M4

can't be sure if it was me, as there were a few other cars around me doing the same speed...

but then again, i can't even be sure if it was a police flash or some blue light i saw through the trees in a factory or sumthing else :D ..........

dam , sooooo anxious. hope i dont get anything in the mail.

Most radar's do not have a flash, if the radar operator sees someone doing high speeds they would radio the chasing car (in this case I assume it would be the unmarked commonwh0re parked 2km down the road) telling them that x person is speeding and to chase em down.

However there are new radar setups where the radar is on the ground and the camera is behind it. They need to have a good lock on ~3secs then takes a photo immediately. Quite easy to notice this.

I think all police officers are being currently trained to operate radars, all HWP's know how to use radar's already.

As for your case, ADR's specifies 10% tolerence for speeds, so maybe you are being paranoid.

from

http://rvcs-prodweb.dot.gov.au/files/ADR%201803.pdf

5.3. The speed indicated shall not be less than the true speed of the vehicle. At the test

speeds specified in paragraph 5.2.5. above, there shall be the following relationship

between the speed displayed (V1 ) and the true speed (V2).

0 ≤ (V1 - V2) ≤ 0.1 V2 + 4 km/h

The equation means as follows:

95 Being Indicated speed 90 being true speed.

0 <= 95 -90 <= 90*0.1 +4

0 <= 5 <= 13

So there for Indicating 95 but going 90 is in the acceptable range. Were are as

110 Being Indicated speed 90 being true speed.

0 <= 110-90 <=90*0.1+4

0 <= 20 <= 13 Which means its not acceptable.

So the allowable difference depends on the speed the car is actually traveling.

Put easier, your indicator must NOT be showing a slower speed then the car is travelling, and it must not indicate more the 10%+4km of the true speed

So In a 60 zone, your indicated speed must be between 60-70 to be ADR approved.

In a 80 zone, 80-92

In a 100 zone, 100-114

In a 110 zone, 110-125

10% are you kidding me? lol. It's more like 2 or 3km/h. so 63 in a 60 zone will most likely see you booked, as will 103 in a 100 zone. I have no idea who came up with this 10% theory, but it's bullshit.

You are wrong as far as NSW goes ( as we speak, plans are in place for much less leway) but you are correct as far as VIC goes, 63 in a 60 zone ,84 in a 80 zone and they get you. This is speed cameras only, its up to the cop if its a none camera speed trap. What gets me in the case of VIC is the fact that the equipment they use to measure speed has a plus or minus 3% accuracy according to manufactures guidelines, if I was booked for doing 63 in a 60 zone I would defend it in court and I would win everytime!!

yeah true. I still don't believe it's anything like 10% though. Someone please drive through a 110 camera at 122 and tell me what happens :P my guess is fine.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...