If you get a ticket in the mail why would you not challenge the accuracy of the camera, I would want to see test results challenge the authenticity of test results, how and when the testing was done was it recently, were the cameras installed, and adjusted per manufacturer recommendations, who installed it a cop or a trained manufacturer installer.
I once did exactly that. Not so much challenging the accuracy of the camera, but the way in which it was used.
I was pinged for speeding one night (in a work vehicle again) when heading home after working late. I got a copy of the speed camera photo and it looked pretty dodgy. It was mostly pitch black with two blurry red glows from the tail lights and a dimly lit number plate that required some guesswork to identify. No features of the vehicle itself were visible in the inky blackness.
It was pretty sketchy evidence so I chose not to pay the fine, thinking I had a good chance of defending it in court. Even though it was only one demerit point and a fine of around $100, I felt aggrieved enough to argue the case in front of a magistrate.
So I got a copy of the police evidence which included the officer's name and the details of the speed camera equipment he was using, including serial numbers, calibration certificates, etc. I then got a copy of all the documentation and police procedure manuals related to setting up and operating that particular type of camera. They are obliged to make all that stuff available under the freedom of information act. But it's not actually free, you have to pay for it. The whole lot ran to hundreds of pages of photocopying. I remember thinking at the time that I may as well have just paid the bloody fine as it was nearly the same amount of money.
From the quality of the photo, it was obvious that the operator had not set the camera up properly because the flash clearly hadn't gone off. I took (daylight) photos of the location to show that he also hadn't followed the police manual as to where speed traps could be set in the first place. According to their own operating and procedures manual, speed detection devices were not supposed to located within 200m of a change of speed limit sign. This one was only about 100m.
I went to court for my Perry Mason moment, with all my paperwork and photos, feeling pretty confident that I had this charge beat. I was allowed to cross-examine the officer who had operated the camera and he was clearly surprised at my intimate level of knowledge on the subject (I'd spent weeks doing my homework and knew the manual way better than he did). He actually ended up admitting to the court that he'd left the camera on its daylight setting even though it was a dark night, and had not engaged the camera flash. He also conceded that he had made a bunch of other set-up errors that were contrary to the police manual, including the camera location. He looked pretty embarrassed about being shown to be a bit of a fuckwit.
The magistrate chastised the cop, saying that he had demonstrated "gross incompetence" in the performance of his duties, and hadn't met the standard of evidence required for bringing the matter to court. He then turned and congratulated me on presenting a robust and interesting defence. I was feeling pretty cocky by then, expecting a "case dismissed" result. So the next words that came out of his mouth came as a shock: "I find the speeding allegation proven" and he imposed the fine and demerit point penalty.
I asked him to explain his decision, which he was was quite happy to do. His determination was based on two factors.
1. All the police manuals and procedures were merely guidelines that they could choose to comply with or not, as they saw fit. They were not mandatory requirements, so the police officer had merely acted incompetently and had not actually done anything malicious or illegal.
2. He conceded that while the evidence against me was poor, the grainy and pretty much illegible photo of the number plate was "on the balance of probabilities" my vehicle because I'd neglected to prove that I was elsewhere at the time.
The idiot cop on the other side of the courtroom had gone from looking embarrassed to having a shit-eating grin on his face.
It seems that (in Tasmania at least) the "presumption of innocence" does not apply to traffic infringements, and the cops can do whatever they like when gathering evidence, including being grossly incompetent.
To get out of a speeding ticket, it seems that you have to actually prove that the police acted maliciously or illegally, or maybe have a rock-solid alibi that you were somewhere else at the time.
