Skip to main content

PoliScanspeed camera nabs two serious speeders in Australia

Two reckless speedsters were caught having a road a race in Western Australia by a Vitronic PoliScanspeed camera, the company reports. The speed measuring system revealed they were 105 kph (65 mph) and 117 kph (73 mph) above the official speed limit. The two were sentenced to high fines and long-term suspension of their driver licenses.
May 1, 2012 Read time: 2 mins
RSSTwo reckless speedsters were caught having a road a race in Western Australia by a 147 Vitronic PoliScanspeed camera, the company reports. The speed measuring system revealed they were 105 kph (65 mph) and 117 kph (73 mph) above the official speed limit. The two were sentenced to high fines and long-term suspension of their driver licenses.

According to Vitronic, even if cars are driving closely next to each other, its PoliScanspeed speed measuring system can clearly identify speeders. The company points to two other speedsters who were caught on camera driving at 195 kpm (121 mph) and 207 kph (129 mph) in a 90 kph (56 mph) zone. At the time of the offence they were driving nearly next to each other.

The company claims this case would have been dismissed if conventional technology had been used, as it cannot distinguish the measured values of two vehicles driving next to each other. However, because the PoliScanspeed speed measuring system uses laser-based technology, Vitronic says it can clearly allocate measured data to vehicles that are driving closely behind each other or next to each other.

One of the two speeders pleaded guilty right at the beginning of the trial. The second driver first claimed that only the other one had been speeding and wanted to challenge the charges. In the end an expert report ordered by the police eventually convinced the defence.

"There is no doubt we can capture two cars at once and we will fight any challenges, especially for hoon matters," said Inspector Mark Ripley, in charge of traffic control, told the The West Australian newspaper.

Related Content

  • February 2, 2012
    Making the case for ALPR in enforcement
    Federal Signal's Brian Shockley uses examples from around the world to make the case for the greater use of automatic license plate recognition technology in the US. It is time, he says, to consider the possibilities of a national network and the use of average speed enforcement
  • July 30, 2012
    Monitoring and transparency preserve enforcement's reputation
    What can be done to preserve automated enforcement's reputation in the face of media and public criticism? Here, system manufacturers and suppliers talk about what they think are the most appropriate business models. Recent events in Italy only served to once again to push automated enforcement into the media spotlight. At the heart of the matter were the numerous alleged instances of local authorities and their contract suppliers of enforcement services colluding to illegally shorten amber signal phase tim
  • February 5, 2015
    Prison sentence for holding a mobile device while driving
    As of 1 February, it will be illegal for drivers in Singapore to hold any type of mobile device while driving. Previously, only calling or texting someone on a mobile phone was barred. Anyone caught holding any mobile device, phone or tablet, while driving can be found guilty of committing an offence; this means mobile phones and tablets. The new changes include not just talking or texting but also surfing the web, visiting social media sites and downloading material. The law also applies to just hold
  • February 25, 2015
    New legal basis brings EU wide cross border enforcement
    Pan-EU enforcement is set to become a reality after legislation is revised. In May 2014 the European Court of Justice ruled that European Directive 2011/82/EU, which came into force in November 2013 to facilitate the exchange of information between member states in relation to eight road traffic offences, had been set up on an incorrect legal basis. The regulations had been introduced under police cooperation rules on the prevention of crime, but the Court decided that the measures in the Directive do not c