Red Light Camera Challenge in Court - How Best to Plea?

Lconcento on 09/01/2017 - 12:03
Last edited 09/01/2017 - 16:16

Hey guys, I will be challenging a Red Camera penalty in court and I would like some advice as to how I should plea from those who have experience in challenging penalties in court.

What happened: I went to turn left at an intersection whilst the lights were yellow, but then I noticed an oncoming pedestrian from the opposite side of the road running towards my vehicle, attempting to get onto the pedestrian crossing I was turning into. I immediately stopped my vehicle to give way to the pedestrian. However, the pedestrian also stopped once they saw my car.
Then the light turned red and I saw 2 flashes. After the first flash, I realised my vehicle was now in the intersection and potentially blocking cars to my right, so I went to complete the left turn.

On the 1st photo (0.6 sec after the light went red), you can see that in he back wheels of my vehicle have already crossed the first white stop line (there were 2 white lines about 0.5m apart for some reason) with the rear wheels sitting in between the 2 lines.

On the 2nd photo (1.3 sec after the light went red, 0,7 sec after first image), you can see my car has only moved about a meter in that time, which indicates my car would have only been travelling at a low speed from a stopped position.

On both photos, you can also see the pedestrian on the opposite side of the road, moving towards my vehicle (you can see he changed his standing leg between the 2 photos).

So I understand when I go to court, I have the option to either plead guilty (with a reason), or not guilty, and then a later date for a hearing would be scheduled.

I was just wondering, under the above circumstances presented, are there any fellow ozbargainers who have experience in challenging penalties in court can give me some advice as to how to plea to maximise my chances of getting them to waive this infringement all together (Fine and demerit points)?

Thank you all very much for your kind help.

EDIT:

I have also posted a google street view of the exact location of where the incident ocurred:
HERE

Automotive

Comments

  • JimB on 09/01/2017 - 12:09

    Have you wrote in explaining the situation?

    • concento on 09/01/2017 - 12:21

      Wrote in to SDRO, but they said they can't waive any camera based penalties. Hence I chose to challenge it in court.
      Have not wrote in to the prosecutor yet.

      • JimB on 09/01/2017 - 12:31
        +4

        Good luck.

        Hopefully they will accept your reason (which is the right thing).

      • fruit on 09/01/2017 - 12:42

        Wait, really? WTF! That so lame.

        Your case sounds reasonable to me. I'm not an expert on the law but it seems to me you didn't run the red light.
        From my understanding it's the front of your car that needs to cross. (which happened unless you were driving backwards…)

        I can't understand why a fine was issued it's clear this doesn't meet the criteria for infringement.

        How to plea? I don't think you plea anything, you just state your case. No idea, I hope someone can help.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/01/2017 - 02:37

          Them's the breaks, guilty until you are financially well off enough to prove your innocence.
          Either way, the Governments coffers win.
          Absolutely stinks imo.

  • chumlee on 09/01/2017 - 12:40

    Were you already over the thick white line (first line that has the sensor) when the light was orange or did you cross over it when it was orange?

  • [Deactivated] on 09/01/2017 - 12:51
    -2

    if the camera flashes and you have moved from the 1st photo position you will get a fine, if you stop on the sensor and you dont move the car you wont.
    pretty much if both photos show you are in the same position you dont get a fine

    • endotherm on 09/01/2017 - 13:42
      +4

      If you have crossed the stop line, you are technically within the intersection. You are permitted (and expected) to clear the intersection ASAP despite the lights. Other traffic is meant to give way to you while you do.

  • aoeueoa on 09/01/2017 - 13:05

    You have a pretty reasonable case. I'd contest that too.If the light was yellow (and you were unable to safely stop) then the pedestrian would have started crossing on a red man, which isn't allowed. You didn't really have another option to take. You need to explain this to the magistrate succinctly.

    • sparkles on 09/01/2017 - 13:16
      +2

      He may have had the option to reverse back (if space) and wait for the next light.

    • resubaehtgnolhcs on 09/01/2017 - 13:23
      +1

      Couldn't it also be argued in court that you shouldn't be trying to cross on a yellow light anyway? I know we all do it, but at the end of the day a yellow light means stop (if reasonable to do so), as as the OP wasn't speeding through a light wouldn't this be used against him in court?

      • aoeueoa on 09/01/2017 - 21:30

        Yellow like = stop if it's safe ie, if it's unsafe to stop then keep going. There is a point in every yellow light where you just can't safely stop. He may have easily been in this zone and then bang guy runs out in front of him.

  • jzdhgkd on 09/01/2017 - 13:18
    +4

    Something else to consider - you're supposed to stop on a yellow light if safe to do so. Given that you were turning, could you have been going slow enough to stop?

    I'm not being judgemental - I've continued through plenty of yellows when I could have stopped - just thinking of what the magistrate might say in your case i.e. you may have a good reason for avoiding that red light fine, but I do wonder if you could instead be fined for failing to stop on yellow.

    • Some Guy on 09/01/2017 - 18:25
      +2

      It is an infringement to not stop at a yellow light. I recently did a safe driving course for work and many of the blokes in the room actually argued with the instructor that it is not.

      Clearly, it's one of those laws that doesn't get policed but as you point out, it just might in this case.

  • resubaehtgnolhcs on 09/01/2017 - 13:21
    +2

    The photo at 0.6 seconds shows you triggering the camera and is the beginning of your offence. The second photo confirms that an offence occurred. Regardless of the pedestrian, a yellow light means stop, and seeing as you have already confirmed that you were going at a slow speed (as evidenced by the photos), it would be assumed that you had ample opportunity not to make the turn and not cross the white painted lines that triggered the cameras.

    Also, the first photo shows you triggering the camera after the light had turned red. If you were already in the intersection (and over the trigger point) whilst the lights were yellow, you would not trigger the cameras. In my opinion, I'd plead guilty and be done with it as I don't think you'll have much chance of winning this.

    • endotherm on 09/01/2017 - 13:52
      +1

      The first photo shows his vehicle already within the intersection, sitting on the sensor, which triggered the camera after the light turned red. There is no evidence of crossing the line on red. The second photo is taken to determine speed, usually by comparing photos you can see if the vehicle is moving, how fast etc, and conclude that a car can't be in both photo positions without having started behind the line and crossed it at speed after it turned red. If the first photo shows it already in the intersection, and the second shows it only moved a meter or so, it is reasonable to conclude it was just clearing the intersection and had been held up.

      This is a mindless machine/system, it is meant to be reviewed by a human that can make a logical conclusion, however they seem pretty mindless too. It is a bit of a cop-out that they make you go to court and challenge it. From what I have seen, Magistrates throw them out pretty quickly all the time, if your circumstances stack up. Plead NOT GUILTY and explain your circumstances.

      • resubaehtgnolhcs on 09/01/2017 - 13:54

        If they are surface embedded triggers then they are placed after the white lines. No point having the triggers before the white lines as to record an offence you have to cross the lines. For a speed reading wouldn't it be easier to use radar rather than trying to judge distance traveled in 0.1 second (i.e. the difference in time between the 2 photos)? I know the combined red light/speed cameras use radar for speed and do not judge speed from two time points.

        Also, the evidence is the photo showing him over the lines at 0.6 seconds …is it not?

        • endotherm on 09/01/2017 - 14:24
          -2

          Of course the sensors are after the lines, not sure what your point is? If a single photo showed a car in the intersection, how can you say if it wasn't broken down and stationary, or moving? You use a second photo. Radars are expensive, it is easier and cheaper to take a second photo with existing hardware to determine movement. Combined speed/light intersections are designed to book you for speeding and/or red light violations. Not every camera does that.

          Yes, he has crossed the stop line already by the time the first photo is taken, of itself that is no offence. Two things are open to interpretation;

          • (1) in 0.1 sec he traveled 1m, therefore in 0.6 sec he traveled 6m. 6m would put him behind the stop line. Conclusion: he crossed the line against a red light.
          • (2) he had already entered the intersection before it was red, and was waiting and stationary or moving slowly in photo 1, and accelerating away in photo 2. Conclusion: he was in the intersection legally and was clearing the intersection = no offence.

          Both scenarios are up for debate. That's why we have Courts and Judges. The camera office obviously don't like making those decisions and withdrawing fines — if you want to argue case (2), they want you to go to Court and give sworn evidence. Then it is up to the Judge.

        • resubaehtgnolhcs on 09/01/2017 - 15:46
          +2

          @endotherm: but if you're already in the intersection and on the trigger point (i.e. crossed the white lines) when the lights are yellow you don't trigger the camera. The camera only triggers when the lights are red and you then enter the trigger point.

          Also, your point about speed being calculated from the two photos is not used with red light camera detection - hence why there is no mention of speed on the photos of red light (only) camera detection. Taking your example above, if a car moved 1m in 0.1 seconds then by your calculations it would judged to be travelling at 36km/h. This would not be accurate in OPs case. Like you said we don't know what was happening before the photos (too many variables here).

        • concento on 09/01/2017 - 16:22

          @endotherm:
          Sorry just a correction, I only traveled 1m in 0.6 seconds (difference between 1st and 2nd photo)

  • giu on 09/01/2017 - 14:32

    1m in 0.1 secs.
    10m in 1 sec
    600m in 60 secs
    36000m in 3600 secs
    36km / hr

    And you were turning a corner! I wouldn't be using that defense.

    • concento on 09/01/2017 - 16:04

      I traveled 1m in 0.7 sec which equates to 5.142 Km/hr

      • giu on 09/01/2017 - 16:12

        Sorry, I read at .07 sec. My bad.

        • resubaehtgnolhcs on 09/01/2017 - 16:31

          No, you read right. OP has edited and updated his account of the two photos

  • picklewizard on 09/01/2017 - 14:42
    +5

    By your own admission, you entered the intersection when the light was amber.

    The following is a pretty crude approximation of the law:

    Red light: STOP
    Amber light: STOP (usually)
    Green light: GO

    If you were able to stop for the pedestrian, then you were able to stop for the amber. A judge will almost certainly see it the same way, as running an amber is the same as running a red (usually).

    You're crazy contesting this in court. You will end up worse off than paying the fine. It sucks, everybody does it - but you got caught out this time. Pay the fine; the law isn't on your side here.

    • endotherm on 09/01/2017 - 15:08

      I agree with your take on the law, but I have had situations where I was unable to safely stop at the amber and proceeded through, but had to stop further in the intersection because of an emergency situation. One doesn't necessarily influence the other. OP may have had time/distance to brake for the ped, but not enough to stop for the light.

      • picklewizard on 09/01/2017 - 15:42
        +2

        Of course it's not always the case, but I can't see that the distance between the pedestrian crossing and the solid white line is more than 2m, which is definitely not the difference between a 'safe stop' and a 'proceed through' amber light.

    • eXo on 10/01/2017 - 11:14

      My Take:

      Red light: STOP
      Amber light: Beat the RED
      Green light: Clutch Dump

      :-P

      • picklewizard on 10/01/2017 - 12:10

        Yeah pretty much; plenty of us do it and get away with it so I can understand why OP might feel hard done by in this case, but it is a fairly open-and-shut case of him running the light in contravention of the law.

  • apple2016 on 09/01/2017 - 14:51

    On the 1st photo (0.6 sec after the light went red), you can see that in he back wheels of my vehicle have already crossed the first white stop line (there were 2 white lines about 0.5m apart for some reason) with the rear wheels sitting in between the 2 lines.

    Usually there is only one stop line . There can be other lines for pedestrian crossing etc. Can you link the intersection with 2 stop lines with google maps?

    Also check this.
    Was your car similarly placed like the blue car (except turning left from left lane)?
    if yes then you should be able to get out of the fine.

    • resubaehtgnolhcs on 09/01/2017 - 15:52

      I think the two lines the OP is referring to is the first white line at which cars stop at and the second white line completes the 'corridor' for pedestrians to walk in. Like this

      • concento on 09/01/2017 - 16:11

        Yes, resubaehtgnolhcs, you are absolutely right. The second white line completes the corridor for the pedestrian to walk in.
        My REAR wheels have completely passed the first set of white lines in the first photo (0.6 sec after red light), but not the second white line.
        By the time the second image was taken (1.3 sec after red light), I have already completely crossed both sets of lines and am halfway thru the turn into the side street

        • concento on 09/01/2017 - 16:18

          This is the exact location where the incident occurred: HERE

        • apple2016 on 09/01/2017 - 16:34

          @concento: The first white line is the stop line. I think you can successfully challenge the red light fine.

  • chumlee on 09/01/2017 - 16:09
    +1

    These red light cameras are automated and checked regularly. If you were challenging the accuracy of the camera it's a different story but from what you say you went through an intersection on a red light. Magistrates hear all kinds of excuses and probably don't want to hear another ordinary one so you may want to review your decision or you will be up for costs as well.

  • Olokun on 09/01/2017 - 16:40

    On the 1st photo (0.6 sec after the light went red), you can see…

    On the 2nd photo (1.3 sec after the light went red, 0,7 sec after first image), you can see…

    No I can't unless you upload the photos.

    • MITM on 09/01/2017 - 16:57

      you can see = it shows..

      • Olokun on 09/01/2017 - 17:02

        Why thank you.

  • Drifta on 09/01/2017 - 23:22
    +1

    If you're disputing it.. I imagine you have to plead not guilty? Why would you plead guilty and take it to court?

  • Peck on 10/01/2017 - 10:10

    If you Plead guilty, then that is the end of the game. They will accept your plea and plea-se you with a 'guilty' verdict.
    You should plead 'not guilty'.
    BTW plea is the noun, plead is the verb.

    • concento on 11/01/2017 - 00:35

      Thanks for the reminder about the grammar :-)

      • Peck on 13/01/2017 - 09:56

        It's a very tricky one that. I had to confirm it with Mr Google :)

  • Zachary on 10/01/2017 - 17:11

    Where are the two photos??

  • btech on 11/01/2017 - 10:19

    Disclaimer: Not a lawyer - this is not legal advice.
    You should probably read this:
    http://www.lawaccess.nsw.gov.au/Pages/representing/driving_o…
    and maybe even give LawAccess a call if you are not sure about pleading guilty or not guilty. Sometimes pleading guilty gets you a better chance of getting out of it. For example, if you're speeding to the hospital because your wife is about to give birth and get caught by a speed camera, you broke the law. Therefore, you are not really in a position to plead not guilty. If you plead not guilty, the magistrate may simply say "you did it, therefore you're guilty". On the other hand, you might plead guilty (i.e. "I did it") but you might ask for lenience (extenuating circumstances e.g. "the baby was in breach and I was worried for its life") The magistrate might be more lenient because you admitted to breaking the law, but are asking for consideration. Then again, you might just get slapped with the fine and costs anyway. Really depends on who you get, what kind of day they are having, do they like you, etc.

    In your case, you might plead not guilty ("I didn't drive through the red light") and explain that you saw the pedestrian about to step onto to the road and you slammed on your brakes to avoid hitting them - maybe the light was already red for them? Make sure you have your story very clear before going to court. Good luck.

  • [Deactivated] on 11/01/2017 - 11:32
    +1

    Drifta on 09/01/2017 - 23:22

    "If you're disputing it.. I imagine you have to plead not guilty? Why would you plead guilty and take it to court?"

    I did go through a red light. There was no argument about that. I did plead guilty with an explanation and presented my driving. The magistrate accepted my explanation and my driving record. She found me guity with no conviction recorded.

    Be truthful, be yourself, don't be a smart arse and dress appropriately…and that doesn't mean a suit and tie.

    The best part is sitting in the court listening to the bullshit stories being told by people trying to get off drink driving, driving whilst disqualified and driving an unregistered vehicle. Bloody funny.

    • Drifta on 13/01/2017 - 00:31

      Thanks heaps for the follow up! Just wondering when you say no conviction recorded does that also mean you did not have to pay the fine or is it just the demerit points you got waived?

  • [Deactivated] on 13/01/2017 - 09:49

    Yep. No fine and no demerit points.

    I am in NSW. Don't know about other States re points.

    Good luck.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join