Vitronic Poliscan Speed Cameras

[fourseven]

Download the Vitronic Poliscan speed camera manual here: http://antilag.com/fourseven/poliscan.pdf

http://i.imgur.com/YGN6F.png

[JBAE]

??? not in the box? no fine?

[fourseven]

Plate and part of front tyre must be in box. Not sure if they paid it or fought it in court.

[Adr3naL1N]

is the box messed up then? no way the plate and part front tyre is going to fit in that box together

[V70R]

Plate and part of front tyre must be in box. Not sure if they paid it or fought it in court.
Where does it say it has to be?

[Yakky Bear]

Where does it say it has to be?

Right here.
from the vitronic poliscan operators manual.

http://i49.tinypic.com/w2li0z.jpg

[DRKWRX]

its say a wheel or numberplate? not both?

[Tre-Cool]

interesting. do you guys think i should fight this one, seeing as there is another car in frame with mine.

http://www.vyssute.com/downloads/image1.jpg

[DRKWRX]

other car isnt in the box.

[fourseven]

http://i.imgur.com/fNcsa.png

[Brockas]

interesting. do you guys think i should fight this one, seeing as there is another car in frame with mine.
Nope.

[esky]

interesting. do you guys think i should fight this one, seeing as there is another car in frame with mine.

http://www.vyssute.com/downloads/image1.jpg

textbook perfect photo.

[V70R]

interesting. do you guys think i should fight this one, seeing as there is another car in frame with mine.

Ironically, had you been going about 1km/h quicker then yes. The car in the outside lane would be in the frame - thus voiding the fine.

[MadDocker]

Not necessarily. The new cameras can shoot multiple targets across multiple lanes. Would have just been pinged for going 96km/h.

[V70R]

Not necessarily. The new cameras can shoot multiple targets across multiple lanes. Would have just been pinged for going 96km/h.
Not necessarily.
User manual above states: Other road users travelling in same lane or an adjacent lane must not be visible in the template.
We are referring to this particular case.

[Skitzo]

LOL @ Tre-Cool.

[j3rk]

Not necessarily. The new cameras can shoot multiple targets across multiple lanes. Would have just been pinged for going 96km/h.
Rumor or fact?

[SLEEKA]

Rumor or fact?
Fact.

The missus just tried to fight one in court because she got done with a white 4wd in the photo. The 4wd was actually smack bang in the centre of the photo and her car was partially cut out of the frame so I thought it was worth a shot at fighting it. As it turns out, as the "template" was clearly around her number plate and the rear left wheel it was still accepted as valid regardless of the 4wd position.

Basically, the old myth that having a 2nd car in the photo will save you is exactly that - a myth. With the new multi-lane sensoring radars you can get done with multiple cars around you. If the 2nd car was inside the "template" with your car, then thats a different story and it is thrown out.

Back to the funnies :)

[mr_mike]

instead of cloggin up the funnies thread figured i would start a new topic.

There seems to be a few people who know the rules as far as these cameras go. I have seen what the car requirements are but what about a bike?

do both wheels and plate need to be in the shot? given bikes wheelbase is shorter than a car so angle would b diffrent?

[Joe]

Give me 2 secs, I'll merge all the Poliscan posts into this thread.

[mr_mike]

breakin my brain Joe, i seen the thread again but has 1.40pm time stamp and i was thinking WTF did i miss this thread it wasnt here a second ago!

[fourseven]

LOL I was wondering why it said that I started the thread when I hadn't!

Check the first post if you want to download the manual.

[Turbo2.6L]

Cheers fourseven, great link!

[ONETEN]

Might be a dumb question, but how do you get the digital copy of the photo? Ive only ever been sent the paper with tiny thumbnails on it and don't recall the form saying anything about requesting digital copies...?

[fourseven]

If your infringement is from a Poliscan camera, there is a link on the paperwork you can view online.

[Lasoya]

Can anyone confirm the wheel and number plate rule in template, does it has to be a full plate plus part of wheel or full wheel and plate?. Does it have to have both or just one of those rules in the template?

[rhyshc]

Interested to know if this goes for red light speed cameras and the fixed freeway speed cameras.

[fourseven]

Lasoya, has to be part of both the plate and tyre.

rhyshc, the fixed freeway cameras are Vitronic Poliscan so yes same rules apply. Also applies to the new fixed speed cameras in the suburbs/on main roads. These rules don't apply to the old school red light cameras.

[fourseven]

Also, to view your infringement online:

https://viewinfringement.police.wa.gov.au/

[mr_mike]

do you know if the infringements go online before you get the letter in the mail?

Also cant fin dany info saying what the requirements are for a pic of a bike

[Macca]

do you know if the infringements go online before you get the letter in the mail?

Also cant fin dany info saying what the requirements are for a pic of a bike

They are online as soon as the infringement has a notice number. So basically the 1st you will know is when you get the letter

[ONETEN]

Sorry to dig up an old thread but just want to see what you guys think of this.

It's a mate driving, and was during double demerits so its a 14 pointer and $1000 crab eggs...

Just read through the manual and from what I understand we may have reason to have this dismissed as evidence seeing as the plate is not inside the template at all.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1la8kq0wgpig7za/Photo%2018-01-13%2023%2013%2058.jpg

Direct link incase photo ain't working (am on phone): https://www.dropbox.com/s/1la8kq0wgpig7za/Photo%2018-01-13%2023%2013%2058.jpg

Cheers

[fourseven]

You can fight it. The manual says that infringement should be dropped, but that doesn't mean the court will throw it out.

Call Jeremy Noble.

[Macca]

right on the edge of the plate and with wheel so not much chance

[ONETEN]

For some reason that downloaded pic is bad worse quality than online, here is a close up showing the plate is *just* outside the template:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rqol4aorwt6pzz2/Photo%2018-01-13%2023%2041%2035.png

Will have a chat to Jeremy Noble anyhow see what our chances are.

Cheers

[sensei_]

Does the poliscan speed cams flash during the day? and if so, what distance do they activate

i was driving a mates car and i think i may have been slightly over whilst passing it.

[fourseven]

No they don't. Most of them won't flash at night either as they are using IR.

[Macca]

For some reason that downloaded pic is bad worse quality than online, here is a close up showing the plate is *just* outside the template:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rqol4aorwt6pzz2/Photo 18-01-13 23 41 35.png

Will have a chat to Jeremy Noble anyhow see what our chances are.

Cheers

Yeah that looks more defendable. Still do not like chances tho. Good luck

[ONETEN]

Cheer think we will need it :)

As for flashing in the day, it must depend on the camera or something cause I have been flashed At 4pm on my way to Tafe previously, only a 75 no pointer but I wouldn't have seen the camera save for the flash.

[mr_mike]

You can fight it. The manual says that infringement should be dropped, but that doesn't mean the court will throw it out.

Call Jeremy Noble.

i'm only guessing here but if the sample box does not line up properly then could you not argue the camera was not set up at correct angle etc and infact the reading is incorrect?

[sensei_]

No they don't. Most of them won't flash at night either as they are using IR.

interesting. i remember the older multinovas would flash regardless, and for night time there would be a red flash to counter the initial white flash.

i have seen the poliscan flash at night due to someone speeding next to me (i never got the ticket), and it was more of an orange-y light with no initial white flash.

[mr m00se]

Yeh I had camera flash the bloke infront of me lastnight driving home along reid. Was definetly and orange-ish colour flash

[fourseven]

It's a yellow bulb. They are still out there but most units are now running IR.

[mr_mike]

well we buzzed the fixed camera on the freeway last night at 200 and there definetly wasnt a flash

[dmwill]

well we buzzed the fixed camera on the freeway last night at 200 and there definetly wasnt a flash

Which one? Don't think there is a camera in the Mitchell Fwy ones right now. Radar detector didn't go off as I passed them...normally does.

[fourseven]

The Como area fixed camera isn't operational either.

[Sciflyer]

Also, to view your infringement online:

https://viewinfringement.police.wa.gov.au/

Presumably then they are no longer slugging you $25 just for the privilege of viewing the original camera photo like they used to with the Multanova ones? (pingpingpingpings)

[miksta]

Roe Hwy does'nt appear operational lately either.

[mr_mike]

Which one? Don't think there is a camera in the Mitchell Fwy ones right now. Radar detector didn't go off as I passed them...normally does.

the one southbound on mitchell fwy after reid hwy

[lathiat]

In the manual it actually says "and/or the license plate".. not sure why they put, but "and/or" reads to me as either is OK. Thoughts?

[Stealthed]

No they don't. Most of them won't flash at night either as they are using IR.

I've always found this ironic, with them telling you cameras are to save lives yet someone who was flogging it wouldn't even know they've been done until a week or two later and would of by then killed a dozen puppies continuing on at break neck puppy killing speeds...

[Baron]

In the manual it actually says "and/or the license plate".. not sure why they put, but "and/or" reads to me as either is OK. Thoughts?

Means exactly what it says, so it is not necessary for both part of the plate and one front wheel to be in the template. Can't avoid the fine for that photo unfortunately. Can confirm that by reading bottom of page 8-5.

[fourseven]

I don't know what you guys are reading but the manual is very clear.


At least one front wheel respectively or rear wheel and/or the licence plate of a vehicle...

That means IN ANY photo, the licence plate MUST be in the template.

The bottom of page 8-5 clearly says:


Reject the photo as an evidence if:

- neither a front wheel NOR the licence plate are at least in part visible with the template

Again, the licence plate MUST BE in the template or the evidence should be rejected.

It doesn't make much of a difference though, as the court has a history of not throwing out infringements if the template isn't showing what it should.

[mr_mike]

A mate was reading a manual for the cameras and mentioned it says the operating speed of the camera is XXmtr/s (cant remember exact figure but it equalled to 270kph) so if you pass the camera at 280kph does that mean the camera will miss you?

[Baron]

I disagree on that.

"Neither a front wheel nor the license plate" means that one alone will suffice. The use of 'neither' implies that one alone will suffice, otherwise the better wording would be 'At least part of both the license plate and front wheel are not visible'.

"And/or the licence plate of a vehicle" means by 'or' that the license plate alone will suffice... because clearly it is not referring to both front and rear vehicles being in the template.

[RICEY]

Im neither gay nor a homosexual, does that mean I'm one of them?

[sensei_]

It doesn't make much of a difference though, as the court has a history of not throwing out infringements if the template isn't showing what it should.

but if thats the case, then the gov't is just helping themselves to free money. hardly in the name of road safety.

if the manufacturer's guidelines arent being followed, then the cameras are being abused for revenue raising.

[fourseven]

The manufacturers guidelines are just that. It would be a safe bet that 99% of infringements that are issued incorrectly based on the manual, the driver was still speeding.

It would be nice if the courts followed the manual though, I agree!

[sensei_]

driver may have been speeding, but if the guidelines arent being followed, then we could have people either getting penalised too harshly, or too lightly. either way, only cements the view that cameras are used for revenue raising.

[SimonR32]

Worth a contest?

http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/yy15/SimonR32GTR/image1_zps67912935.jpg (http://s773.photobucket.com/user/SimonR32GTR/media/image1_zps67912935.jpg.html)

[-Luke-]

The photo pretty much sums up the Australian motor industry, three out of date Toyota's on the road and an empty holden dealership.

[RICEY]

It aint open on Saturdays :)

[S85FI]

SimonR32,

If you read the manual for it it actually shows an example like yours as text book perfect. ... the box capturing the front tyre and number plate of the offending vehicle.

I'm not so sure how you would go :(

[jaba]

The photo pretty much sums up the Australian motor industry, three out of date Toyota's on the road and an empty holden dealership.

I only see two Toyota's :P

[SimonR32]

SimonR32,

If you read the manual for it it actually shows an example like yours as text book perfect. ... the box capturing the front tyre and number plate of the offending vehicle.

I'm not so sure how you would go :(


Other road users travelling on the same lane or an adjacent lane are visable with the template

I would have thought that would cover it?

[R3N]

they always have a camera set up there almost every weekend

[S85FI]

Do you get done done points now for 8k over?

Not sure about the other lane. I read the manual some years ago. Im pretty sure the template is described as a tyre and number plate captured. So for that image only the centre car is in the template.

[sensei_]

they always have a camera set up there almost every weekend

ive seen it there for like 3 sundays in a row. the freeway up towards belmont side is also another regular hot spot.

[jzx_andy]

pretty sure you can contest it as another moving object (4wd) is within the box, people have done this and succeeded before.

[ossie_21]

Worth a go but probably won't get retracted, depends if the time fighting it will cost more than $75 or not. Best bet is to go in with the section of the manual & the photo to fines enforcement explaining its not valid & hopefully they will just withdraw it on the spot. If you do get off let us know, be interesting to see how many like these they try to get away with if in fact it's not valid.

But is it just me or are those id boxes getting bigger? I know it has to get the plate & a wheel but I wonder if they have made them bigger because the amount of people getting off because they were smaller

[BOSS 290]

Worth contesting.

[GTB Liberty]

My understanding is that the Vitrionic Poliscan speed measurement accuracy below 100 Km/h is 3Km/h. As such, based on my photo it states I am travelling at 81 Km/h but the fine states Alleged speed is 80 Km/h in a 70 Km/h zone.

It's the difference between $100 and no demerits and $200 and 2 demerits.

Any thoughts?

[huggy_b]

Did you need a long run up to hit 80km/h in the barge?

[GTB Liberty]

Did you need a long run up to hit 80km/h in the barge?

Funny Thuggy ...

Got anything useful to add ?

[huggy_b]

Pay your fine

[Fukushima]

Your speedo probably said 86 so its not like you were accidentally speeding

It's worth trying to avoid the points loss but I thought they were accurate to 1km and "I got the manual from the internet" might not cut it.

[TJ]

That will be in writing somewhere - so yeah chase it up

[GTB Liberty]

Was just advised by infringement management that only 1 Km/h leniency is given on a Poliscan photo fine despite documentation from Poliscan stating the accuracy is 3Km/h up to 100 Km/h and then 3% beyond 100 Km/h.

[Fukushima]

Link to documentation?

[GTB Liberty]

The technical data document is one I have had for years and clearly states 3 Km/h. Have not been able to find another online as yet. Can find full manual but that doesn't have variance tech specs.

Surprised as previous tickets (albeit from over 4 years ago now) had a variance of 3 Km/h.

Speedo is irrelevant as mine is 10% out due to rim / tyre changes and I use a GPS. Had just hit the go pedal to overtake, changed lanes, hit the brakes and then "flash". Am not denying being over limit ... would prefer reasonable fine of $100 and no demerits obviously.

[Fukushima]

Yep fair enough

[BOSS 290]

Physicist 1, Laser 0

Posted on August 15, 2013 by jonbon


Wow, the system works.

My laser speed camera court case was this morning. While I was waiting to be called, a policeman came and asked if I was still pleading “not guilty”, which I confirmed. He then asked how I intended to defend, and I explained that I intended to show that the photographic evidence produced by the camera had not been evaluated correctly to be accepted as evidence.

“Oh,” he said, obviously taken aback. I doubt he’d ever heard that one before.

About an hour later another policeman came and tried to get me to change my plea, implying heavily that they always win in laser speed camera cases. I told him I’d prefer to let the magistrate decide, which he accepted.

Then I was called in. The magistrate asked if I was still pleading “not guilty”, I said yes, and the trial started.

Here’s what had happened that evening. I was driving along London Street in Mount Hawthorn, speed limit 60 km/hr, glancing at my speedometer every so often to check my speed (as I do). I saw the speed camera photo flash, checked the speedo immediately, and it was still dead-on 60. I figured it must have been a test flash or something, which I’ve encountered before, so I ignored it. Then a few weeks later the citation arrived in the mail, claiming I was going 69 km/hr and demanding that I pay the $75 fine.

If the people who read this blog know anything about me, it’s that I’m really resourceful. I looked at it as a physics problem. My speedo said 60, their laser said 69. Who was right?

Having lectured on measurement uncertainties, I had to admit that my speedo could have been wrong. I doubted that, though. I bought the car in March, and shortly after had the RAC inspect the car, which included a speedo accuracy test, which it passed. Being who I am, I sometimes run my own speed tests whenever I encounter one those speed tests on the road, either with radar or lines on the road. Those all confirmed my speedo, so I had no reason to doubt it.

So my job was to prove that the error was the laser’s. The citation said it was a Poliscan Speed unit, so I looked up the specifications on the manufacturer’s website (Vitronic in Germany). Unfortunately, they said it was accurate to within one km/hr, so that wouldn’t help me.

The photo of my car on the citation was pretty low quality, but the fine print said that higher quality photos were available online, which I obtained. Curiously, the high quality photo included some kind of rectangular overlay which highlighted my car. The police photo website called it a “template” but didn’t define what it was, so I decided to get the laser camera manual to see exactly what it meant.

Except that you can’t get the manual off the Vitronic website. They don’t make it available. Dig deeper, and you find that they consider it proprietary information, only released to licensed customers like police departments. Hmm.

Figuring I wasn’t the only person in the world wondering how the Poliscan unit worked, I entered the words “poliscan manual” into Google. There at the top of results was a PDF for their 2010 manual in English (not from Vitronic, if you know what I mean). Other results confirmed that I was not alone in my curiosity about the mysterious “template”.

With the manual I found that the template is used to identify the “speeding” vehicle, provide information on where on the vehicle the laser measurement was made, and establish that the photograph may be used as evidence. There were a number of evaluation criteria the photo template had to pass, including one that no other vehicle should be “visible” in the template.

By the photo criteria in the manual, though, I had to admit I was “guilty”, but I knew I wasn’t. However, I did note two things. There are two lanes in each direction on London Street. I was in the lane closest to the camera, and the photo showed there was another vehicle behind me in the next lane heading in the same direction, though outside the template. I also noticed that the template included, on the other side of the street, a glass-enclosed bus shelter.

That’s when it hit me. The problem wasn’t the laser. It was the manual – the evaluation criteria for the photo template. The important issue wasn’t what was “visible” in the photo, it was what was visible to the infrared laser, said laser quite capable of reflecting off the flat glass panels of the bus shelter in the template.

That’s when I knew I would win.

At the trial, the prosecutor (another policeman) called the camera operator from that evening on London Street as a witness. He basically went over a bunch of boilerplate issues. Then it was my turn to question him. I got him to confirm that he was the one who evaluated the photo, but he would only say that he evaluated it as he “was trained to do”. I asked if the evaluation was based on the criteria from the manufacturer’s manual, which he admitted seeing “some time ago”, but could recall no details regarding the manual, reiterating that he had “evaluated as trained”. I tried to ask him if, as part of his evaluation, he considered the effect of the glass in the bus shelter in the template regarding visibility of other vehicles, but the magistrate disallowed the question saying it would need to be answered by a scientific expert. (Luckily, I knew one.) Last, I asked him if he could see reflections from the many glass panels that were scattered around the courtroom. “Of course,” he said simply.

Then it was my turn to be a witness. The magistrate asked my profession, and when I admitted I was unemployed, he asked for my qualifications, so I explained my degrees in Physics and time as a Physics lecturer at UWA. From there, he pretty much let me speak. I explained how my speedo said I was going 60, accepted that I couldn’t prove it, and explained all the work I had done to try to find a fault with the laser reading. I explained the physics of radar reflections, how they are normally an inverse fourth-power relation, but that corner reflectors like the one formed by the bus shelter would change it to an inverse square relation, which could confuse any distance calculations done by the instrument. I explained how the “visibility” criterion in the manual could not merely be what was visible in the photo, but had to be what was visible to the laser. Though he wouldn’t let me provide my copy of the manual as evidence, he did let me read aloud the section that was important to my argument. In the end, I said that due to the possible infrared laser reflections from the bus shelter in the template, it was unclear whether the violating vehicle was mine, the car behind me in the photo, another car not even visible in the photo, or even none of us. Due to the doubts created by the bus shelter, the photo evidence had to be rejected.

Then the prosecuting policeman cross-examined me. Strangely, he tried to get me to agree that the template was a “static” feature on the photo. I’m not sure why he did that, but it was clearly false, not only from the description in the manual, but also from the examples of other template photos from the same evening, which his own team had entered as evidence and I was shown. I explained as much. Then he asked about my own speedo, and how I could know it was accurate. I explained the RAC inspection result from March, but he continued, trying to get me to agree that an error in my speedo may have resulted in my speeding. I told him that I doubted that the RAC would permit an error tolerance of fifteen percent.

“Fifteen percent?” he asked. “Nine km/hr out of sixty,” I answered. Then he shut up, and I was allowed to sit down.

So the magistrate made his finding. He said he believed me when I said I was going 60 km/hr, and that he himself could see the reflection of the photo flash in the bus shelter. (I had seen it too, but didn’t bring it up in case someone claimed it was a porch light or something.) He said that while the legislation permitted laser camera photo evidence as prima facie (“first glance”) proof of an offence, that was weaker than what was actually required: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He accepted my testimony as an expert scientific witness (mentioning his struggles in a physics unit at his university), and said that I had demonstrated that the presence of the bus shelter in the template put a reasonable doubt on the evidence. Case dismissed.

I thanked the magistrate and left. I was surprised to see one of the court clerks beaming at me as I left, and even more surprised that the prosecuting policeman shook my hand and congratulated me outside the courtroom. Then he turned to other policemen waiting out there, lifted up his hands, and said, almost happily, “We lost!”

Wow, just wow. The system really works.

[BOSS 290]

http://i65.tinypic.com/2ykhymo.jpg

Same area, same detected speed. Notice the reflections?

[ossie_21]

In the article the reflections were in the template, so the one above is probably legit

[BOSS 290]

Says who, the camera operator? The template is not fixed, the speed reading could be from a vehicle outside the picture. There are three large reflections; 1. the sign above the car 2. the reflection of the metal pole to the right of the car 3. The reflection of the metal cover attached to the power pole just to the left of the car.

The Lidar could be looking anywhere within the scope of the photos. I was doing 60km/h. The speedo is accurate. The problem lies with the placement of the camera, it's environment is not free from reflection or interference.

[j3rk]

Seems reasonable?
Contact the guy, ask him?
Get him to come in as an expert witness.

Set a precendee that any reflective object cannot be within the photo!

[ossie_21]

Says who, the camera operator? The template is not fixed, the speed reading could be from a vehicle outside the picture. There are three large reflections; 1. the sign above the car 2. the reflection of the metal pole to the right of the car 3. The reflection of the metal cover attached to the power pole just to the left of the car.

The Lidar could be looking anywhere within the scope of the photos. I was doing 60km/h. The speedo is accurate. The problem lies with the placement of the camera, it's environment is not free from reflection or interference.

Let us know how your appeal goes :)

[S85FI]

If penalty unity are $50 how did the guy get a $75 fine? In 2013?

[mys1]

If penalty unity are $50 how did the guy get a $75 fine? In 2013?

Wasn't it a "Modified" Penalty unit?

[_S9_]

the camera operator from that evening on London Street as a witness. He basically went over a bunch of boilerplate issues. Then it was my turn to question him. I got him to confirm that he was the one who evaluated the photo, but he would only say that he evaluated it as he “was trained to do”.

The SCO actually evaluates each photo taken on his shift? :rolleyes:

[S85FI]

Wasn't it a "Modified" Penalty unit?

Modified means if you pay now and not go to court you get a discount.i.e. the modified penalty. If you go to court you pay the prescribed amount if you lose plus court costs....

[Macca]

The SCO actually evaluates each photo taken on his shift? :rolleyes:

yes they do, it comes up on laptop as soon as it is taken, if faulty they delete it

[2jzlux]

yes they do, it comes up on laptop as soon as it is taken, if faulty they delete it

Or they put it on auto accept if they are sleeping.

[BOSS 290]

yes they do, it comes up on laptop as soon as it is taken, if faulty they delete it

I doubt they would watch every single photo taken, I've seen the slack carnts reading the fucking newspaper while sitting in those X Trails.

I've transferred the infringement from my business to my own name, I'll elect to take the matter to Court when I receive it. This time I'll have a little fun though, I'll delay if for a good year or two.

[fourseven]

If penalty unity are $50 how did the guy get a $75 fine? In 2013?

1.5PU.

[S85FI]

I don't think they have done 1/2 units since 2012. The $25 and $75 ticket didn't cover administration costs so they dropped the half units.

That's what I remember in an article. Just downloaded the penalty list and no $25 increments. ???