Fined for Running a Red Traffic Arrow to Give Way for an Ambulance

bargainfinder on 14/12/2016 - 12:10
Last edited 11/04/2021 - 13:27 by 2 other users

Hi everyone,
I received a fine for failing to stop at a red traffic arrow. There was an ambulance right behind me and it was safe for me to turn right in order to give way for the ambulance so i did and There was a safety camera at the intersection so i received the fine in the mail.

I asked them to review the fine and the outcome was unsuccessful because i have no proof of my claim. And they still want to fine me, if i want to further protest this case, i need to do it in court.

In my letter asking for the review, i told them to look for photo that the ambulance also proceed through the red light after me, however they claim there is none and said there is no way to find that photo. And unsurprisingly, they have me on photo running the light. This is NSW Office Of State Revenue.

Has anyone experienced this? who manage those camera? where can i find the photo of that ambulance running through the red light because it did run the red light after me.
if having no proof/photo of the ambulance running the red light, do i stand a chance in court for this case?

Your input/advice is much appreciated

UPDATE: After making phone calls, i have been told by Camera Enquiry Line( Part of RMS) that they have a footage of the incident and they can see there was an ambulance behind me. I have submitted another request to the SDRO to review my case again with this new evidence.

Also thanks to Notcheap for the link in regard to NSW legislation about Keeping clear of police and emergency vehicles
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2014/758…

Automotive

Comments

  • djkelly69 on 14/12/2016 - 12:18
    +9

    You will likely need to provide some proof yourself - it is not really up to them to provide you with the evidence you need to get off.

    Maybe talk to NSW Ambulance Service and see if there is some way they can verify an ambulance was in that area at that time (and will give you that information).

    I get the feeling people try this excuse quite often, and that is their response to everyone. If you advise them you are happy to take it to court they may back down.

    • MrMcHairyHead on 15/12/2016 - 17:19
      +28

      Why is it not up to them? They're the ones sending the fine, they should provide proof there WASN'T an ambulance.

      How on earth can you be expected to provide proof there was an ambulance there?

      • Scrooge McDuck on 15/12/2016 - 17:49
        +5

        This is why everyone should use 360° dashcams.

      • djkelly69 on 15/12/2016 - 19:14
        +3

        They have provided evidence he committed the offence. They also advised they looked and couldn't find evidence of the ambulance.

        If you are going to raise a defence, the onus is on you to prove it.

    • D6C1 on 15/12/2016 - 12:52
      +22

      No he shouldn't take it laying down. He did the right thing and shouldn't be punished for it.

      • Freitag on 15/12/2016 - 14:03
        +11

        I was in an ambulance in the front seat with sirens on while going to the hospital (wife about to give birth in the back). We came to a red traffic light just like this with one car in front and the ambo was saying to himself/me "don't run the red… don't run the red" and explained to me that it would still be illegal for that car to go through the red light.

        So based on that, even though it might be done with the best intentions it seems like it's still illegal to run a red with a ambulance behind you.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 15/12/2016 - 17:59
          +34

          Who cares about what's illegal when someone's dying in an ambulance?

        • whooah1979 on 15/12/2016 - 18:13
          +7

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          Who cares about what's illegal when someone's dying in an ambulance?

          the motorists are exercising rights to not put themselves in harms way by running a red light and commit an offence while doing it. we've seen a vehicle get clipped after moving across the line on red to give way.

          the person in ambulance is not their responsibility. their first responsibility is to not put themselves, their passengers and other motorists at risk of a collision that may also delay the ambulance.

        • [Deactivated] on 17/12/2016 - 16:33
          +3

          @whooah1979: Why don't they turn their sirens and lights off when they come to a stop in traffic at a red light then? That'd stop people from panicking and doing impulsive things to get out of the way of the emergency service vehicle, no?

          Genuine question here. I am curious about the topic.

        • mmd on 18/12/2016 - 04:18

          @blue-dinosaur:
          Some do, some don't.
          I guess it depends on the severity of the patient in the ambulance, and other things like highway traffic lights vs normal road.

        • ninjataki on 21/12/2016 - 22:24

          @whooah1979: Sounds good. Then while were on the overboard protection line lets solve the issue at the root and remove all sirens and flashing lights from the ambos that way motorists will not get nor feel spooked/care to put their passengers and other motorists at risk of a collision that may also delay the ambulance. Furthermore those same motorists will not be unfairly placed in a position to exercise their rights to not put themselves in harms way by running a red light and commit an offence while doing it. Those oh so terrible motorists, how dare they care.

  • spackbace on 14/12/2016 - 12:20
    +4

    http://www.mynrma.com.au/blog/2013/09/26/tips-for-assisting-…

    Remember, you are required to abide by road rules at all times.

    • John Dough on 14/12/2016 - 15:40

      If you read comments at the bottom of that article, most people agree you should not break the road rules to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle.

      Although if it were safe and everyone was clearly stopped at an intersection, I'd certainly feel like I should move out of the way, even if it was a red light.

      Based on this line of thinking, and the clear instruction from authorities on the matter that you should not break the law, OP has buckleys of fighting this one I'd say, even if you prove they were there!

      Pay the fine and move on.

        • singlemalt72 on 15/12/2016 - 10:44
          +7

          Laws vary state to state, but Emergency vehicles under lights and sirens can disobey just about any traffic requirement as long as it is done in a sfe manner. They can't blow a red light at speed, but are required to slow, check for safety and then proceed.

        • singlemalt72 on 15/12/2016 - 12:37
          +4

          @Slippery Fish:

          You will find that in Queensland, Emergency Workers (Ambulance and Fire) can do exactly what a Police Officer can do under lights and sirens except for the proviso that Police can do so without the use of lights and sirens "If in the circumstances - it is reasonable" eg. clandestine approach to a location. SES, however, do not fit the definition of Emergency worker or Emergency Vehicle in Queensland.

          All set out in Part 19 - Section 306 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 2009

        • mataeka on 15/12/2016 - 16:24
          +2

          Theres an awful lot breaking that rule where I live in Brisbane (just off a main road) I always watch them run the red light. Although just the other day a cop car got into an accident as they ran a red light to attend an armed hold up nearby….

        • mataeka on 15/12/2016 - 16:36
          +18

          Actually you're totally wrong too -

          http://mypolice.qld.gov.au/bundaberg/2015/03/16/myth-buster-…

          "If behind you, you MUST pull over and allow the emergency vehicle room to pass. You may drive onto the wrong side of the road or drive through a red traffic light to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle if it is safe to do so."

          https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/other/emergenc…

          "You may drive onto the wrong side of the road or drive through a red traffic light to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle if it is safe to do so."

        • downbythecreek on 17/12/2016 - 11:21

          The police officer was just being elitist and wrong. Ex QLD firey here, would routinely go through reds with the care of a give way sign, often behind or followed by ambulances.

    • [Deactivated] on 14/12/2016 - 16:08
      +12

      "Remember, you are required to abide by road rules at all times."

      Rubbish !

      http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104/…

      See 2 and 3

      • spackbace on 14/12/2016 - 16:11
        -6

        as soon as the driver can do so safely.

        Ah huh

      • [Deactivated] on 15/12/2016 - 11:36
        +1

        Who was your 'evidence' to support?
        I see a lot of left and abide road rules

        Your links 'evidence'
        TIPS FOR ASSISTING EMERGENCY VEHICLES:
        - Do not panic
        - Slow down (but do not brake rapidly)
        - Use your indicators
        - Be aware of other motorists; drivers should not play music at such a volume they cannot hear outside sounds.
        - Do not move suddenly or move into the path of the emergency vehicle
        - Move as far to the left of the road as you can and come to a stop.
        - If you cannot move out of the path safely, keep moving forward until it’s safe to move over.
        - Remember, you are required to abide by road rules at all times.

      • abb on 15/12/2016 - 14:58
        +1

        Spackbace is still technically correct (although likely didn't know it)…

        The road rules explicitly state that you can (and, if required, must!) break most usual road rules in order to give way to emergency vehicles. Nice citation!

        • Thenarrator on 18/12/2016 - 12:42

          you break road rules but only in a safe manner.

  • chriise on 14/12/2016 - 12:20
    +6

    I thought busy intersections had traffic cams they could review for this sort of thing. I'm almost certain they could find evidence that you are telling the truth if they tried… pretty disappointing if they would choose to enforce a fine anyway. People shouldn't have to be concerned about copping a fine for safely moving out of the way for emergency services. There should be an element of common sense with rules like this. If it helps, I think you did the right thing.

    • bargainfinder on 15/12/2016 - 12:12
      +23

      It is disappointing indeed.
      I called SDRO and spoke to a lady, who I explained that I have been in contact with the RMS and RMS can confirm that I am telling the truth as they have a video footage of the incident. All I ask the lady is to freeze the fine and review the footage. She refused and said they already did their part. If I want to dispute further, I need to go to court. And then she keep going on that there is no such video, even if there is, they cannot access it. It all bullshit she is trying to get out of doing her job. I was pretty angry and demand to speak to her boss. Then i was put on hold for almost 30" and then advice they will review the footage, I just have to submit a review request. No apologies from her, very bad and unprofessional attitudes

      • chriise on 15/12/2016 - 12:20
        +2

        The worry with going to court is you've still technically broken the road rules… Even your evidence, if you can get hold of it, shows that. You'd be hoping for someone to show some common sense and save the penalties for criminals who actually need a lesson learnt.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 15/12/2016 - 18:08
          +8

          Judges are reasonable, the SDRO is not. I've never heard of anyone successfully contesting a fine with them.

          Gather the evidence you can OP, take your case to court and explain your situation to the judge. At best the case will be dismissed, at worst it'll be dealt with under Section 10A, which is practically the same outcome.

        • Thenarrator on 18/12/2016 - 12:45

          @Scrooge McDuck: Plus court fees

        • Scrooge McDuck on 18/12/2016 - 13:09

          @Thenarrator:

          The judge has discretion in deciding whether or not to impose court costs.

          AFAIK, they're rarely imposed for Section 10A outcomes rather than B or C.

      • nikey2k27 on 17/12/2016 - 08:03

        In Queenlsand they do have. my firend drive TAXI used escorting an organ he speed fine going 120km in 60zone contact police they got rid of it. he got a cool wall photo.

  • 7412547854 on 14/12/2016 - 12:24
    +5

    Unfortunate good deed. Technically you cannot break any laws simply because an emergency vehicle is behind you. The law goes a little something like "if it is safe to do so, move left and give way to emergency vehicles". At a red light, you can't move forward as you will be breaking the law and therefore you cannot move left and give way. If there is a way, they will scoot themselves through traffic, if not - they will generally turn off their lights while they wait for traffic to move and not to cause undue stress to vehicles around them.

    Even though a witnessing police officer will probably never issue you a fine for this, its probably unlikely that the camera operator will withdraw the fine. Their logic is pretty black and white.

  • scrimshaw on 14/12/2016 - 12:24
    +7

    Emergency vehicles actually do not expect you to run a red light. Some vehicles switch their siren off at the traffic lights so as to not cause other motorists around them to do the wrong thing and run the lights (because this causes wayyy more accidents)

    While it was a noble act for you to take the initiative to move out of the way, running a red light at an intersection is inherently dangerous to you, pedestrians and other motorists, hence the fine. Their logic is fairly binary — you are either in the right or in the wrong!

    You should only cross the intersection (red) only when a police officer specifically instructs you to.

    To fight this in court, you'd need to gather evidence. This might be giving a call to the ambulance department in your area and getting some information about ambulance dispatches on that particular stretch of road.

    • [Deactivated] on 14/12/2016 - 12:41
      -3

      I agree :), but some emergency vehicles are bullies. I was on a rural 100kmh road, no cars going in the other direction. An ambulance driving very fast approached from behind. I had slowed to 70kmh in preparation for him to overtake easily. Instead he decided to tailgate, ride me and wanted me entirely off the road onto the dirt shoulder that wasn't even a car width. I am 100% certain that stopping is the slower and more dangerous option.

      • Mumbles on 14/12/2016 - 13:52
        +8

        I think you've forgotten everything from the Learner's driving manual. You're supposed to gradually + safely pull over to the side of the road. Not consistently sit at 70km/h.

        This is an example. A driver of a 100km/h car on a single lane road should be keeping their foot on the brake pedal till they got the speed down to 0km/h or until the ambulance has overtaken.

        Ambulance drivers already have a lot on their mind. They are also in a panic, might be on the radio, are driving a heavy vehicle, have to worry about the comfort of their injured passengers.

        You can help out emergency services drivers by being a predictable driver. Let them see your brake lights and indicators. Cruising at a constant speed with no signs of stopping or turning is usually interpreted by emergency services as you not having seen them.

        • [Deactivated] on 14/12/2016 - 14:49

          There are plenty of Australian roads that don't have space on the shoulder for a human width, let alone a car. The circumstance I described had a stormwater ditch and soft shoulder. Committing to stop isn't always the safest option. On a thin bridge it would be quickest to maintain full speed until leaving the bridge rather than just hitting brakes and causing an obstruction. It's basic ODEs.

          If you see someone drowning out at sea, running and swimming in the most direct straight line isn't always the quickest.

        • [Deactivated] on 14/12/2016 - 16:23
          +23

          Emergency Service Driver here - If it was me I would have stayed behind as well. Not tailgaited - but 10+ seconds behind. A car in front travelling at 70km/h doesn't mean that they know I am there. I have no idea what they will do if I surprise them by passing them. 10+ seconds means you can see me in your mirrirs, you can see my flashing lights and I am ready to react to anything unpredicable you may do if you are one of those drivers that panics when they see me behind them. I would prefer a slower response with you stopping, than a faster, riskier response by guessing that you know I am there. Maybe you are travelling 70 because you have your maccas balanced on your lap or yelling at the kids in the back seat? If I want to get through and it is unsafe I will turn my lights off and wait. I am in a hurry, but I don't want you to do anything stupid to get out of my way. Giving way at traffic lights if it is safe to do so is acceptable, and my partner (If I am lucky enough to have one) and I will judge the traffic as I approach.

          The message here is be predicable. Use your indicators. Don't flash your lights to tell me to go without slowing down, as I am not sure what that means. It could mean your are stopping or it could mean you are unable to give way. I want you to stop and eyeball me. I will do my best not to surprise you.

          Getting to the emergency is the most dangerous part of the job.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/12/2016 - 09:41

          @bradn:
          I do appreciate your response :)

          Ambulance Victoria gets about 30 speeding fines a month for genuine breaches of road laws, so the drivers are no angels when held to the same standards as other road users. The response from the ambulance spokesperson is that drivers are overstretched and have the least morale in 31 years and need their licence to work. Ambulance drivers are driving not just to a patient's best interests and public safety concerns, but primarily to the schedule demands of the current lack of paramedic services. It's been a terrible year for ambulance crashes in WA, SA and multiple crashes in Victoria, some not involving other vehicles.

          Regarding maintaining a 10 second+ gap, my mental arithmetic forces me to point out that at 100kmh, that's almost 280 metres, a staggeringly long distance. That's almost two large city blocks or an Iowa class battleship. I struggle to imagine anyone being charged for obstructing an emergency vehicle 280m behind. Is 10 seconds, ~280 metres truly accurate or possible?

        • [Deactivated] on 15/12/2016 - 11:41
          +1

          @Frugal Rock:

          As a passenger in an ambulance 280m is too short, imagine needing to take heavy breaking of an ambulance while lying done in a bumpy bed with IV lines and other injuries. Eww painful.

          as for the go slow ambulance can swerve around me,
          same severe or minor injuries strapped to a bed with sideways g'force can be quite painful.

          Ambulances ask for plenty and braking room and straight line travel for a reason and it is not the driver or the road users.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/12/2016 - 12:10
          +1

          @carlb:
          I'm not without ideas or suggestions :) It's a shame that traffic lights are not electronically coordinated for emergency vehicles, maybe red lights for everyone except one lane to clear congestion for the ambulance. Cars pickup GPS signals but there is no system to alert these situations. It would be easy to do, but there doesn't seem to be the drive from the right people. Self parking systems on cars are far more complex than receiving an alert for an emergency vehicle and getting off the road. Game machines have proximity readers built in but expensive cars and even more expensive emergency vehicles only have a horn. It's a shame that there is more technology and coordination behind video game figurines than with basic public safety with emergency vehicles.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/12/2016 - 12:39
          -1

          @Frugal Rock:

          Many traffic lights have millions of vehicles pass each day, to be honest with you I'm not willing to spend money on such a traffic light for 1 emergency vehicle a week.
          Particularly as the future will be vehicle to vehicle communications, a natural evolution of TCAS is planes.
          and the cost will be levied on the drivers.

          The intersections at hospitals and facilities are another matter, many fire stations have button overrides to activate changes to street traffic lights on either direction of the exits.
          but everywhere no i wouldn't support any funding.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/12/2016 - 12:48

          @carlb:
          TCAS relies on SSR, expensive and unreliable in noisy urban situations. That will not happen.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/12/2016 - 12:56
          -1

          @Frugal Rock:

          take things far too literally lol
          Vehicle to Vehicle communications as in each car within a range continually providing travel direction speeds, vehicle status (gear) and positioning data so that the vehicles can decide whether it is safe to enter, exit, change lanes, speed to travel to avoid stopping behind traffic ahead, get out of way of emergency vehicle.
          This would be digital radio communications based not necessarily two way.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/12/2016 - 13:02
          +1

          @carlb:
          Well, you also said many intersections have 'millions' of vehicles passing each day for rhetoric, when NSW has the most registered motor vehicles of 5,247,199 in the entire state. Millions, plural, is a large portion of the entire state through a single intersection every day.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/12/2016 - 21:47
          +1

          @Frugal Rock: 10 seconds was a rough guess. Being based in Sydney my goal is around 6 seconds. 4 seconds standard heavy vehicle gap + 2 seconds wiggle room / reaction time. I added a bit of time for reaction time based on the high speed. It is amazing what people do when they see you - including slamming on their brakes. If I get too close to the car in front they may not see my roof / front grill lights. Also sirens are not that effective if the driver has the stereo on loud. Each service has their own response protocols and procedures, which can be quite different.

          Interesting reading:
          http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/new-cars-to-warn-drivers-…
          AND
          https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2621-emergency-vehicl…

        • Mrgreenz on 16/12/2016 - 02:21
          +1

          @carlb:

          1 million / day
          50,000 / hour
          1000 / minute
          16 cars / second

          Rough calcs but where's these traffic lights so I can avoid

        • WannabeHermit on 17/12/2016 - 07:14
          +1

          @Mrgreenz:

          11.57 cars/second ;-)

        • Kevan2 on 17/12/2016 - 15:21

          @carlb:

          Ask grandma what she thinks?

        • [Deactivated] on 20/12/2016 - 13:42
          -1

          @Mrgreenz:
          back to your literal rubbish so be it millions should be annually not daily literally million concurrent cars
          I clearly meant that many light accumulate to millions of crossings, 100k cars passing at least 10 traffics lights each = millions of times cars pass through lights

          but you clearly were wrong about vehicle to vehicle so you needlessly 'nitpick'

        • [Deactivated] on 20/12/2016 - 13:45
          -1

          @Frugal Rock: I imagine at least 20% of those are used daily and pass multiple traffic lights

        • [Deactivated] on 20/12/2016 - 14:52

          @carlb:
          Clearly wrong? Yeah. Two Virgin Australia planes clipped wings recently despite having TCAS because it doesn't work at ground level. A bit of a problem for…cars. TCAS keeps large objects apart large distances if possible and primarily uses altitude for avoidance. It uses radar information and needs open space, like airspace, to be effective. You really think cars 1 metre apart in noisy urban environments will work? Sorry, but no. I think you even have continuity issues with exactly who you are arguing with, as you are swinging blindly.

        • [Deactivated] on 20/12/2016 - 15:20
          -1

          @Frugal Rock:

          Wings clipping on group is human error TCAS is used in air.

          Telephone = device translate and transmit sound.
          TCAS = an acronym "traffic collision avoidance system"
          TCAS is not a specific plane product but collection of different products into a suite to provide relevant information available for operational coherence
          There is one specifically designed for planes,

          Audi, Volvo, Google and BMW etc would have a variation specifically for 'MOTOR Vehicles' which would include broadcasts location direction altitude position speed

          Cars will not literally use TCAS as is on a plane,

          I bet you think telephones couldn't possibly work on the street since they rely on cables.
          well that is why analogue mobile phones were invented and they used the same basic analogue fundamentals as the wired, but don't work on a wire.
          Now the digital mobile telephone is nothing at all like the analogue wired phone, but they are still a Telephone.

          Airplane TCAS hardware wont work on cars, but a Cars enhanced equivilent to TCAS and other complimentary guidance systems are already existent in self drive cars and even existing non self drive cars.
          the technology for a Cars to avoid accidents already has started popping up in cars, lane guidance head light detection, blind spot alarms

          "traffic collision avoidance system" is the next stage where 2 Audi's in the next year both inform each other they are 2 kilometers apart but on a head on collision course.

        • [Deactivated] on 20/12/2016 - 15:55

          @carlb:
          "I bet you think telephones couldn't possibly work on the street since they rely on cables."

          "well that is why analogue mobile phones were invented and they used the same basic analogue fundamentals as the wired, but don't work on a wire. Now the digital mobile telephone is nothing at all like the analogue wired phone, but they are still a Telephone."

          Are you proud of that effort? The technical ignorance is palpable. Homer Simpson should be presenting this with an accompanying crayon drawing.

        • [Deactivated] on 20/12/2016 - 16:35

          @Frugal Rock:
          it is reality technology in one fundamental current day use, finds its way into different uses, then later even changes its mechanisms.

          your just looking for an argument for the sake of one, as if i will waste time describing the technology radio and electrical frequency with you. Simple for you is all you deserve. Wired vs wireless

  • Baysew on 14/12/2016 - 13:11
    +1

    Here is some info that might help

    If a driver does enter an intersection with a red light camera they could expect to receive a traffic infringement notice as the officer reviewing the photo probably won’t see the emergency vehicle and he or she may also take a different view on whether the driver’s actions were ‘safe’. The driver would need to write to police asking them to withdraw the notice and if that fails, elect to take the matter to court and argue the issue before a Magistrate. That, in turn, may require that the driver makes inquiries with the relevant emergency service to confirm that they had a vehicle proceeding at that intersection at that time and in an extreme case, the driver may want to subpoena the driver of the emergency vehicle to confirm that the actions taken were safe. At that point one might decide it’s just easier and quicker to pay the ticket.

  • bargainfinder on 14/12/2016 - 13:16

    NSW ambulance is a dead end. I Just got off the phone with them. They said they need a number plate or the ambulance number mark on the ambulance to further assist me.:(

    • Mumbles on 14/12/2016 - 14:14

      If the NSW ambulance is not able to help you over the phone then you'll probably have to do like Baysew said and subpoena everything from the NSW ambulance service.

      All the ambulance GPS information is probably on-hand. Every ambulance has a GPS with GPS logging to cover their legal butts. You (or your lawyer) have to sift through the information and match the red light camera's date + time + GPS location with the ambulance following you at the same co-ordinates.

      Unfortunately, the red light fine isn't the ambulance's problem, its yours so don't expect them to go to any expense helping you.

      I'm not a lawyer so best to seek your own advice.

      • WT on 15/12/2016 - 08:57

        Might be under the freedom of information act, which is cheaper and easier then a subpoena

    • scrimshaw on 14/12/2016 - 16:08

      do you have a dashcam? If you do that's a big lead.

      never mind, I can see that you have somehow got the footage

  • BigTed on 14/12/2016 - 13:26

    You could maybe argue necessity?

  • bobbified on 14/12/2016 - 13:40

    …however they claim there is none and said there is no way to find that photo. And unsurprisingly, they have me on photo running the light.

    Have you tried pulling your photo from the SDRO website?

    https://www.apps06.osr.nsw.gov.au/mypenalty/Authentication.j…

    I haven't had a camera fine for many many years, I'm not sure what happens if they don't have the photo.

    • bargainfinder on 14/12/2016 - 14:01

      I have 2 photo from SDRO website. It only has my car in it. no ambulance because the ambulance stopped at the line before it proceed

    • bobbified on 14/12/2016 - 13:55
      +2

      You're such a genius - now please point us to where it states that it's illegal to run the red light to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle.

      There a fine for blocking the path of an emergency vehicle and there's a fine for getting out of the path of an emergency vehicle by proceeding through a red light.

      I guess if you were in OP's situation, you'd take what you think is the safer option (for yourself) and just sit there in the path of an ambulance while someone's dying because you don't want to risk a ticket?

      • Ryanek on 14/12/2016 - 14:22
        -2

        Really? Running a red light is illegal period. You should not break the law to move out of the way of an ambulance. http://www.dfes.wa.gov.au/safetyinformation/Pages/givewaytoe… Remember, you cannot break the law to give way to an emergency vehicle, for example, driving through a red light.

        To answer your question, yes I would sit in front of an ambulance because the alternative is to break the law and endanger other commuters.

        • bobbified on 14/12/2016 - 14:48

          You're quoting WA rules.

          Traffic rules differ according to the state - the OP is in NSW.

          Have a look at this post on the NSW Police Force's Facebook page and their replies. Even they are not willing to give a concrete answer to the question:

          https://www.facebook.com/nswpoliceforce/posts/10152403233896…

        • Ryanek on 14/12/2016 - 14:53
          +3

          @bobbified: Check out how to respond to a NSW ambulance from the drivers themselves - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsplO_2l4hE

          I don't understand your link, the Police are also saying You are required to abide by road rules at all times.

          If you are pointing me to the comments do you really want to take seriously the social media liaison writing those replies?

        • bobbified on 14/12/2016 - 15:39
          -1

          @Ryanek:

          I haven't been able to watch your video yet - my office blocks youtube.

          What I meant from that link was, you can see the responses and even the cops avoid saying whether it's legal or not.

          John Wilson What about at a set of traffic lights can't move over front of the line red light. Do we go over the line get flashed by *a camera or stop and wait
          August 28, 2014 at 1:08pm · Like · 3

          Police Force John Wilson - Every situation is different. You should always do what is appropriate and safe in any given scenario.
          August 28, 2014 at 1:16pm

          The response from the cops has completely avoided the question because I'm 100% certain that even they are not sure.

          This link has an analysis of the laws and makes reference to NSW and how the laws are unclear.
          https://practicalmotoring.com.au/car-advice/can-you-drive-th…

          To be honest, I'm not arguing whether it's legal or not because it seems likes a mess.

          My point is, the way these laws are written, it's really not clear - so we shouldn't draw conclusions on whether OP is wrong or not.

        • scrimshaw on 14/12/2016 - 16:11
          +1

          @bobbified:

          It says on point number 8

          1. You are required to abide by road rules at all times.

          Abiding by road rules in this sort of situation means you should not run the red light. Which is pretty obvious, since running the red means you create more danger and then more work for the ambulance guys…

        • callum9999 on 15/12/2016 - 11:13
          +3

          @scrimshaw: Utter rubbish. I've been at countless red lights where it's completely safe to do that - especially where all the traffic has stopped because they heard/saw the sirens.

          Though I personally couldn't care less what the law says. If I'm at a red light that's safe to cross and someone is possibly dying behind me, I'm going through it.

        • abb on 15/12/2016 - 15:04
          +4

          Actually, you're wrong.

          http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104/…

          NSW law explicitly states that you must move out of the way despite any other road rules.

        • DarwinBoy on 16/12/2016 - 11:33

          Nothing is 'illegal period'. It doesn't mean you are breaking the law if you do something illegal, it's just expected you follow the rules and if you do something 'illegal' expect to have consequences or at least explain yourself, that's why we have courts and judges. They work with the grey in between the black and the white.

  • Fybre on 14/12/2016 - 15:17

    I'm confused as to why the ambulance couldn't just go around you? Was there a traffic barrier to stop them?

    The definition of 'giving way' to an emergency vehicle, if you are stationary, is to remain stationary.

    Personally, if I wanted to get out of the way, I'd have pulled left in front of the cars stopped at the lights, rather than do my right hand turn. If you did it tight enough, you may not even set off the camera.

    • bargainfinder on 14/12/2016 - 15:24

      it is impossible to change to left lane without crossing the white stopping line because the line is right in front of me, if i proceed, i would have still set off the camera

      • Scrooge McDuck on 15/12/2016 - 20:16

        But you wouldn't've proceeded through the intersection, which would've helped your case.

        • [Deactivated] on 17/12/2016 - 22:56

          What if he just stood still lol?

  • bargainfinder on 14/12/2016 - 15:30
    +27

    After making heaps of phone call from legal aid to local police, to RMS. I have found out that i can access to the footage of the incident through Camera Enquiry Line at the RMS. They can confirm that there was an ambulance behind my car. So i am submitting another request to the SDRO to review the footage. Because from there previous respond, they said there was no evidence of the ambulance. So i am hoping they could see that i am not lying to get out of this fine.
    And to further clarify, NOT even the police or the people who work at the RMS can answer my question THAT i should or should not have make the turn through the Red Light.

    • scrimshaw on 14/12/2016 - 16:13
      +1

      I hope it works well mate. Fingers crossed.

      Perhaps it's time to buy a dashcam? I own the G1W-CB and it works really well in dark conditions (this costs $45 AUD) It's saved my ass several times.

      • bargainfinder on 15/12/2016 - 10:13

        Thanks. I hope so too
        Yes having a dashcam would be great. But in my case I would have needed a rear dashcam to capture the ambulance.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 15/12/2016 - 20:18
        +1

        It's saved my ass several times.

        Deets?

    • Godric on 15/12/2016 - 18:01

      Police cant answer that question but ozb can!

  • NotCheap on 14/12/2016 - 16:41
    +19

    There's a lot of rubbish in this thread and a lot of shit quoted by people that don't seem to know the law (the only rules).

    The only RULE is the legislation, and in NSW its the following:

    http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2014/758…
    78 Keeping clear of police and emergency vehicles

        (1)  A driver must not move into the path of an approaching police or emergency vehicle that is displaying a flashing blue or red light (whether or not it is also displaying other lights) or sounding an alarm.
    Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
    Note. Approaching, emergency vehicle and police vehicle are defined in the Dictionary.

    (2)  If a driver is in the path of an approaching police or emergency vehicle that is displaying a flashing blue or red light (whether or not it is also displaying other lights) or sounding an alarm, the driver must move out of the path of the vehicle as soon as the driver can do so safely.
    Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

    (3)  This rule applies to the driver despite any other rule of these Rules.

    Note - this inst GIVING WAY (that's another set of rules and is a bit different); this is about KEEPING CLEAR of emergency vehicles.

    Your situation is probably covered by 2 and 3.
    (2) says get out of the way when you can SAFELY - this means get out the way unless you're going to cause an accident/injure someone (or damage/destroy an asset) by doing so
    (3) says get out of the way DESPITE any other road rule - this means no other rule applies

    If there is an ambulance with its flashing red or blue lights on, which may or may not also have a siren going, up your clacker and you're at a red light, you MUST move out of the way IF its safe to do so.

    Seems pretty straight forward to me. If they didn't want you breaking any road rules in getting out the way, they wouldn't have included (3)

    Just to be clear - I said 'probably covered by 2 and 3' because if the ambulance didn't have its flashing blue or red lights on - you shouldn't have moved out the way (even if they were honking/siren or flashing their headlights).

    Just make sure the photo shows the flashing blue/red lights of the ambulance up your arse, and you should be fine (no pun intended) :D

    Cheers

    • Big Trev on 15/12/2016 - 07:52

      If you get a photo with the ambulance in it, and it doesn't show the beacons/strobes, look for a single green light mounted around the bumper bar. Not sure if it's the same in NSW, but in Vic these are fitted to Ambulances for this reason - there's a light continuously illuminated so the speed camera scammers operators know that their beacons were on even if they don't show in the photo.

    • bargainfinder on 15/12/2016 - 10:15

      Yes the ambulance did have its siren and lights on. So I thought they did want me to give way to them

      • NotCheap on 15/12/2016 - 13:04
        +7

        Stop saying giving way. You weren't giving way, you were "Keeping clear of police and emergency vehicles". Its important that you don't use the term 'giving way' in your defense as giving way relates to a different rule.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/12/2016 - 13:24
          -1

          Vicroads

          "a Police or other emergency vehicle has its red or blue lights flashing or its siren on, you must:

          • get out of its way
          • give way and stop if necessary, even if you have a green traffic light."

          NSW

          "AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES - REG 79

          Giving way to police and emergency vehicles
          79 Giving way to police and emergency vehicles

          (1) A driver must give way to a police or emergency vehicle that is displaying a flashing blue or red light (whether or not it is also displaying other lights) or sounding an alarm."

          It's in official literature and laws of multiple states.

        • NotCheap on 15/12/2016 - 14:59
          +4

          Thanks for the neg.

          You've quoted reg 79 which is the wrong regulation, hes NOT giving way. Read the scenario. He WAS keeping clear, which is reg 78. Please check the definitions of giving way vs keeping clear.

        • bargainfinder on 15/12/2016 - 15:13
          +2

          ok i stand correct. I just re read the legislation and you are right.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/12/2016 - 15:32
          -1

          @NotCheap:

          The VicRoads public education video "Vic Roads - Road Rules (3) - Giving Way To Emergency Vehicles" even uses clearing a path by lane changing as a prime example of giving way. Giving way can mean creating a free path. The way it's used is pretty interchangable.

          Roads NSW: "You will be liable for an on-the-spot fine if you do not give way to emergency vehicles." No mention of blocking.

        • NotCheap on 16/12/2016 - 07:45

          Thats because most people dont know the laws, dont know the definitions and as such they try to explain it in terms that the majority of people will understand to achieve the desired outcome.

          Not disputing what vicroads might be saying in their video; just giving way isnt the same as keeping clear but to the average punter it doesnt matter what they're doing so long as their actions or inactions arnt slowing up/stopping an emergency vehicle.

          An easy way to think about it is that giving way means not getting in their path of travel; and keeping clear is getting out of their path of travel. If you're already in their path of travel its 'getting out the way' and if you're action is going to block their path of travel, its 'giving way'.

          Whats important tho is that bargainfinder is using the proper terms to defend their actions in quoting the correct regulation.

  • bargainfinder on 14/12/2016 - 16:48
    +1

    Thanks for the link. I guess I can use this to strengthen my ground should I need to dispute it in court

    • resisting the urge on 15/12/2016 - 09:51

      Getting out of the way can sometimes be accomplished by moving into the junction partially, or completely, but not crossing the other side. IIRC red light cameras take a photo of you crossing the first line (on entry) and a second of you after you pass the second line- to prove you broke the law.

      It is not illegal to stop in a junction (though it can be very dangerous) and many people do- either due to banked up traffic or other hazards, perhaps even break-downs. Perhaps a good choice here is to cross only the first line (not the second- not even for a moment), and move to the lane beside you inside the junction (once it is safe to do so), and put your hazzard lights on. Most junctions are 4 lane junctions, and doing this will block the way of traffic from the opposing sides and could be dangerous, will allow the ambo to pass and is a safe course of action… but, yes I too have seen this happen and assume that the ambo had someone dying inside so was not driving by the book. In a critical situation they might encourage you to move out of the way if you already had not by the time they got right there- and quite frankly they'd rather you set off the camera than have to explain why they did. Normally, they cross to the other side to go through banked-up junctions- and in this case they either made a mistake, or could not go around due to other obstacles.

      A major problem with the solution above is that once the camera has fired, it will fire again when the first vehicle crosses the second line, so you HAVE to stay where you are and let someone else (ideally the ambo) do that, so the evidence the IPB see shows you not having crossed the junction entirely, possibly with your hazzards on, and the other vehicle proceeding- even if on the green.

      But in any case, you have to note/take your own evidence afterwards. And that can be hard sometimes. However this is not revenue raising- the people given this authority will invariably use it, you have to give them a damn good reason not to.

      Either way, shit happens. The lesson here for all of us is to always be ready to take evidence when driving. A note in your diary after the ambulance passes (at least) of the plate number- and the location, date and time would certainly help the IPB respond more appropriately. A photo of the junction afterwards on your phone to prove the time and location. (Don't take a photo at the time as using a phone whilst driving is illegal too)

      The reality is that most of us drive in a daze a lot of the time and we can all get a bit panicked when startled (like the ambo drivers have said earlier) in which case mistakes can be made, evidence goes uncollected and fines are not withdrawn.

      • smpantsonfire on 15/12/2016 - 13:39

        No they just take 2 photos of you one before the stop line, and one after your wheels clear the stop line.

        • resisting the urge on 15/12/2016 - 15:59

          So much for that theory then!

          Okay, so there is the conundrum: What do you do if an emergency vehicle is absolutely insistent on you getting out of the way- do you wait for them to shunt you, obstruct where the law very clearly says you should not, or (somehow) calmly proceed to break the lesser law once it is 'safe to do so'

          Safe to do so is the matter of debate here, surely. E.g. You are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

          So if you 'do', you should JUST have to be able to say it was safe to proceed the way you did. But of course, the lawyers will demand evidence as peasants are just peasants and exist primarily to provide the blood on which bureaucracy feeds.

          Example 2; vehicle bears down on another stopped at a red-light. Impact is assured, according to the judgement of the driver peering through the mirror of the stationery vehicle. In terror the driver (according to the law) makes sure it is safe to proceed and moves across the junction to avoid the impending impact.

          Sometimes, one may have no choice to break the law- but imposing a fine would hardly serve a purpose.

  • Sam J on 15/12/2016 - 08:36

    If you wouldn't have given way you could have been fined for not giving way to an emergency vehicle.

    • whooah1979 on 15/12/2016 - 11:13
      +1

      If you wouldn't have given way you could have been fined for not giving way to an emergency vehicle.

      Ambulance and fire brigade are unlikely to issue infringement notices. I'm not sure if they even have the authority to do so.

      • D6C1 on 15/12/2016 - 13:01

        They don't

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join