Another Traffic Fine Post Seeking Other Opinions

So go booked for failing to stop at a stop sign at an intersection

It's a funny intersection the stop sign is about 10m from the actual line at the intersection

I stopped at the sign and turned left and got booked.

Officer advised I can't stop at the sign had to drive up to the line… ok

Just checked the fine. Fail to stop at stop sign at an intersection

Thoughts?

It's $400 and 3 points BTW.

Comments

  • +30 votes

    How did you expect to safely check for oncoming traffic if you only stopped at the stop sign?

    It's common sense to stop at the line…(obviously not)

    • +12 votes

      Right side is completely open… Can see about 500m down the rd… I dont mind if im in the wrong just wanted to see what the masses thought.

      If anything it was probably just a preprogrammed thing in my head that saw the sign and stopped at that.

      • +1 vote

        Lol. Your description. If you were in Melbourne, I'd be thinking you got done at the same intersection.

        Edit - clicked your link. Yeah, not as open view as mine but just as ridiculous to enforce a full stop there.

      •  

        Did you cut the apex ?

      • +4 votes

        It might be also about educating people to STOP at STOP signs. I see too many people doing a Rolling-Stop where the visibility is not as good, and then they have to step on the brake with half of the car out, because there was a car coming on the main road, or worse accelerate and the car on the main road having to brake hard not to hit the tail of the car coming out of the stop.

    • -20 votes

      It's common sense most of the time you don't actually need to stop to be safe. Don't try and use common sense and driving laws together please.

      • +14 votes

        If it's a stop sign, you need to come to a complete stop. It's for everyone's safety and it's the law.

        • -5 votes

          Disagree entirely. There are some 'give way' signs that should be stop signs given their danger, and some stop signs that should be give way signs. What decides this is the perception of someone making the decision…which varies from intersection to intersection.

          It is far smarter to drive to the conditions, with common sense and courtesy. Do this and you wouldn't need so many rules and laws and signs that distract drivers from doing the very thing they should be doing…focussing on driving and not reading every sign and checking their speed every 3 seconds.

          But…muppets…and so we have laws and rules for the lowest common denominators.

          •  

            @Lv80: Conditions are for safety and sure have priorities. But roads need to be paid for and that is when fines for the sake of it help a bit. Why do we even have to read this? Stop means stop, else they may as well let you drive on gravel.

            • +3 votes

              @payless69: I'm not suggesting you IGNORE the laws and rules. I'm saying that simply following the laws and rules doesn't make you a safe and competent driver. AGAIN…driving to the conditions is safer than staying within the speed limit often. If everyone drove to the conditions we wouldn't need to have legislated 40/50km speeds in residential streets because people would use their brain and consider that going 60 isn't practical in a smaller street with parked cars and kids and residents often crossing.

              One could travel at 40kmh legally down a residential street and that be twice as fast as one should go in some places.

              But you know…laws rules and signs for everything - the more signs, the less people think. And the less they think the more signs.
              Good luck with that.

              • +3 votes

                @Lv80: It's worrying your getting down voted so much, I think some drivers have been brain washed into thinking the only thing that's kills is speed.

                • +1 vote

                  @mr_fjackson: But it is!!! Haven't you heard. Everyone complains about living in a nanny state (vic) but then has a go at anyone that suggests common sense and courtesy (the thing that gets us through life for the most part without any hard fast rules and laws) - or the lack there of it, is the most dangerous thing.

                  You don't need a law to say don't use your mobile phone when driving if you use your common sense to realise you shouldn't. You don't need two different signs (stop and give way) where you use common sense - because obviously one should give way to any oncoming traffic. It's implied in the STOP…as is the STOP in the giveway - should you need to.

                  If one doesn't use sound judgement and common sense, even stopping at a stop sign doesn't make them any safer when they turn out, than someone that didn't but was more aware of any oncoming vehicles, bikes, or cyclists.

                  And I say this having seen many cars 'stopped' where they were meant to before moving straight into the path of an oncoming cyclist.

                  Hence why just following the laws and rules is less important than actually being aware and considerate and using common sense.

                  Yes obviously we need a framework of rules to play by on the road…but STOP vs GIVE WAY…where both are implied in the other really? And a $400 fine for not?

                  It might be a 1st world problem to whinge about having to pay a $400 fine for not stopping for 3 seconds…but it's only in a 1st world where we have a problem that needs a specific time to be legislated for the problem of people not having the ability to use their brains when in control of a vehicle.

      •  

        User name checks out.

      • -5 votes

        "It's common sense most of the time you don't actually need to stop to be safe. Don't try and use common sense and driving laws together please."

        Why did this get so many down votes? It makes total sense. If everyone used common sense and courtesy we wouldn't have so many flamin' rules and laws. They are right - you don't have to come to a complete stop for 3 seconds (as per 'stop' signs) in many situations to safety turn into or drive over an intersection.

        Who decided 3 seconds? Why not 5? Heck…best make it 10 seconds to be absolutely sure right? Laws and rules for muppets that don't drive with common sense and respect that there are others on the roads too.

    • +6 votes

      When you were looking 500m down the road, did you notice the police car?

  •  

    I have received some that are ridiculous. Flat road and the road curves in a way that forms an obtuse angle going left or right of that intersection (kinda like the hippie peace sign). No obstructions so you can see down those roads for miles.

    One can see the reason for the stop sign for the other side of the road since it is an acute angle going left or right but I got booked cause I didn't come to a full stop for the side with full view.

    I appealed saying I have gladly paid and my intention is for the removal of the sign. Even then, no such luck.

    TLDR - they don't care. Legally, they can fine you, they have, and they will make you pay.

    •  

      Unfortunately the way you have described it is 100% correct. All these fine issuing authorities care only about the letter of the law, not any practicalities involved in driving.

      As you say, once they've got you, they've got you and won't stop until they've extracted that cash from you. Someone's got to pay for all the government waste road safety upgrades.

      • -1 vote

        The cop was unpleasant… aggressive even, that I didn't come to a full stop and wait a few seconds.

        My town is a bit over the top nanny town though. A dozen lollipop crossing for a school of around 150ish.

        •  

          I'm in Sydney … arguably the biggest nanny town of the lot.

          • +14 votes

            @Seraphin7: Mate… Melbourne.

            We will gladly take you on.

            • +2 votes

              @tshow: I hear ya. These days it's welcome to easy going Australia … where we have a law, rule, regulation, by-law, standard and code of conduct to restrict behaviour in every conceivable situation you'll encounter.

            • +1 vote

              @tshow: Sydney lock-out laws win

            • +1 vote

              @tshow: None of you know the extent of Bris/ Qld then I take it. Nanny state with the first to lock out… among many other freedoms lost. I now dwell south because of these.

              •  

                @wiipantz: You may be the first but you're not the best. No you're not.

                We don't just lock out, we built after party shoot up booths. Built it in the nice suburbs too so it's more comfortable.

                •  

                  @tshow: lol. those booths sound like a freedom to some. This thread is from the nanny STATE(not town lol) it's funny you guys try and compare on this subject, we have no senate ffs. Just let that sink in for a bit. Our Mayor became a state premier and earmarked prime real estate for him and his family. Just saying between Melb and Shitney the great Sunshine state leaves you in the dust in dastardly nanny overbearing stakes and some. Good beaches though

              •  

                @wiipantz: Thank You to reveal the truth!

    • +3 votes

      You must run a lot of stop signs to be complaining about receiving multiple ridiculous fines! How many justified fines have you gotten? ;)

      I see tons of people violating stop signs every day, I wish more of them would get fines, might shock them out of their dangerous habits. I didn't consider until now that some of them might be doing civil disobedience like you…

      • +1 vote

        I got one for overtaking on a dedicated overtaking lane. Overtook a couple of B-doubles coming out of a quarry. Failing which, I'd have to tail at 60kmph on a 110kmph zone until they do their drop at the depot 20 minutes out, and cop the stone chips all the way there.

        Coppers are not too impressed that I went over the 110 by a little. Had to or I will be putting the trucks in an uncomfortable position at the end of the lanes.

        Got a parking fine for parking outside a disused childcare that still has 2P posted. The place is a ghost town but somehow, the inspector still patrols the area (90% empty spots at peak).

        The fail to stop at stop sign is my third fine of any sort, ever.

        So yeah, I felt at each time, I categorically breached the written rule. I do not contest that but common sense…

  • +19 votes

    Here's the clickable link: Google Maps.

    The solid line clearly marks where a vehicle must come to a complete stop. The stop sign placement is the most practical for the situation. Bake him away boys.

    • +3 votes

      *bake him away toys

    •  

      How did this bloke get his licence?

      If people are driving around and not obeying the most basic road rule (and commom sense) their licence should be revoked.

    •  

      Savage, haha. I drove past here yesterday and it is a bit of a cluster f* 4-way, probably one of the busiest thoroughfares in the neighbourhood. It may service better as a round-about than an intersection.

      Good arguments for both the OP and the general public. I agree the sign is in an odd place and may not be according to standard road design (someone correct me) and the council could have placed a sign in an island closer to the line - seen that in a lot of places with less available road space. Conversely, unless you are a learner driver (which doesn't seem to be the case), I would presume the training and the road rules given to you would have covered the procedures to follow at a stop intersection. The next question is, 'which takes precedent the sign or the line'? Well I can't tell you that now, however stopping that far back gives you less visibility of the entire area opposed to if you were at the line.

      To the OP, I think recieving a ticket was a bit harsh and I would have been equally upset. QPS has discretion (I believe) to issue infringements but I do wonder how you handled yourself in person to defend your genuine belief.

      Sorry you got one but I guess that's a cheap lesson to learn than to be in an accident.

  • +20 votes

    Stop signs and stop lines
    'STOP’ signs and ‘STOP’ lines (continuous line) are used at intersections to control traffic.
    When you come to a STOP sign you must stop completely before reaching the STOP line, and as close as possible to the line. Where there is no STOP line, stop before reaching, and as close as possible, to the intersection.

    https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/int...

    I've always done it according to the line when there is one.

  • +3 votes

    Like i said not disputing i didnt stop at the line. It was probably an automatic thing that i actually stopped at the sign the slowly moved out…

    Sounds like the masses have spoken.

    In regards to common sense the laws should be written to be black and white no common sense required. My interpretation of common sense may be dofferent from someone elses

    • +8 votes

      I think is is VERY black and white if you read the road rules

      As @bohn said

      Stop signs and stop lines
      'STOP’ signs and ‘STOP’ lines (continuous line) are used at intersections to control traffic.
      When you come to a STOP sign you must stop completely before reaching the STOP line, and as close as possible to the line. Where there is no STOP line, stop before reaching, and as close as possible, to the intersection.

      •  

        Yes, definitely black and white. OP would lose contesting it.

        • +3 votes

          Happy and have paid the fine. My question though the offence was failed to stop at stop sign at an intersection.

          Might i suggest the offence is a poor explanation of what i was actually booked for

          • +2 votes

            @hikaru78: So you stopped 10m before the line, and then proceeded, at slow speed I suppose. say it took you 4 seconds to get top the stop line.
            With a car on the main road, going at 70km/h, that car would have traveled 80m in those 4 seconds. Being now much closer than you saw it when stopped at the sign.

          •  

            @hikaru78: So the law says stop sign= you need to stop at the nearest line / as close as possible to intersection. You got booked because you didn't stop at the line, you stopped at the sign. How is that not booked correctly?

            • +1 vote

              @rave75: Pretty sure there query is the fact that the line says they didn't stop at a stop sign, but they did, they didn't stop at a stop line?

              You know what, surely some common sense from the cop would be more effective than just dishing out a $400 fine? Why can't the cop say 'hey bud, i know its a whacky intersection but you need to stop as close to the line as possible', instead, nup, $400 please.

              Both would have had the same effect, the person is educated on the matter, one earns the state revenue and leaves a salty road user, the other doesn't make any revenue and leaves the road user with a positive experience with the police.

              •  

                @Nebargains: When police said failure stop at stop sign, they are referring to failure at following the rules when they see a stop sign (to stop at the line). Maybe because police thinks everyone has a common sense that when they see a stop sign, they need to stop just before the line, and not at the post sign.

  • +2 votes

    If you think you stopped at the sign, you can contest it. It doesn't matter what we think. Unless you are planning to take copy of this transcript to the court.

    • +1 vote

      I did stop at the sign and the officer acknowledged that I did. To him, it was still an offense. I took his word for it the only wierd thing was that the fine says sail to stop at stop sign which the officer acknowledged I actually did.

      • +1 vote

        You have to come to a full stop. That involves counting to three Mississippi.

        Some people just haven't been confronted with power drink coppers.

        Practically no one stops and counts the three Mississippi when the road is obviously clear.

        • +2 votes

          Qld law just says you have to come to a complete stop. No 3 seconds here

        • +6 votes

          Where does it say you must stop for 3 seconds?

        • +1 vote

          I didn't think there was an explicit 3 second rule either. I imagine driving instructors might drill that into students so it's very obvious to the examiner that you have stopped.

          When I stop, I can feel the car halt and then shift backwards slightly, and I take that to be a sign of having stopped completely, and so drive off of it's safe. But I wonder if that would be sufficient to any police watching?

          •  

            @kiitos: I had a fancy shmancy luxury car that had some sort of brake assist that made the jerking motion imperceptible.

            I wonder what's the go there.

          • +1 vote

            @kiitos: It most certainly would be sufficient. In fact, the motion of that backwards shift is how it is determined that you have actually stopped. No backward movement - you have not stopped.

            I have done a few safe-driving courses as part of job inductions and this has been mentioned each time. Interestingly, there's always at least one guy in the course prepared to argue with the instructor over this or other topics. Hilarious. The instructors purposely bring up these "common sense" infractions to identify, then embarrass, the (profanity) who think they know better.

      • +1 vote

        Check road rules to determine if the solid line is the stop signal, not the post with stop written on it

      • +1 vote

        The line is THE SIGN, the sign STOP is to warn about the upcoming line, with the line being the sign to stop, even not being a sign per se.

        •  

          Whilst I have no issues with paying the fine, reviewing the law and it says I must stop at the line. I would still disagree with your statement. A sign is a sign and a line is a line. However in this instance where there is a sign and a line the line takes precedence. On that basis did I break the law and deserve a fine? absolutely. Did they fine me for the correct offense? probably not.

          • -4 votes

            @hikaru78: Jesus Christ, how to make it clear to you.

            "When you come to a STOP sign you must stop completely before reaching the *****STOP LINE*****, and AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE to the line.

            When you see a stop sign:

            Does the law tell you to stop at the stop sign? NO

            Does the law tell you to stop at the stop line? A BIG YES

          •  

            @hikaru78: If someone says "A Sign from god" are they really seeing a sign in form of a sign like a STOP sign ? :-) LOL

  •  

    It's $400 and 3 points BTW.

    All depends on your income etc etc if that's worth a day in court to you, and the stress from now till then

  • +1 vote

    For NSW, it is "A driver approaching/​at a stop sign/​line (except an intersection/​children's crossing/​level crossing/​place with twin red lights) must stop and give way at the stop line or, if there is no stop line, as near as practicable to, but before, the stop sign."

    By the sounds of it, QLD isn't any different.

  • +1 vote

    Honest question, if you stop at the sign, how could you possibly see what's coming from either direction? And what do you think the line is for?

    •  

      I guess in that situation, common sense doesn't kick it. Also how can the other cars see you when you stopped way behind the line……

  •  

    This is one of the reasons we need regular re-testing for the road rules. Most drivers would have learnt this when they started driving but it seems many have forgotten the basics.

    • +3 votes

      Sounds like OP didn't forget, they just never understood that you're meant to stop at the intersection boundary rather than the sign.

      • -1 vote

        Either way, regular retesting would increase the knowledge of the driving public. While it is unlikely to stop those that deliberately flout the law, education of the ignorant would certainly help.

  • +2 votes

    'stop' means 'come to a complete stop' (the vehicle is not moving relative to the ground).

    Supposed to stop just before the stop line if there is one, or just before the stop sign if not.

    There's no "3 second rule" - you don't need to be able to count to three.

    edit: bit of a carnt to book you despite acknowledging your stop at the sign. Could have used discretion better.

    •  

      End of the day ive paid the fine. Just there is part of me thats annoyed that the booked offence was "failed to stop at stop sign at an intersection"

      • +1 vote

        The stop sign is a combination of a placard on a post and a line on the ground. The road uses identify that if there is no line on he ground what you should do. If you red furtther you’ll probably find that even if the sign on the post is mining you need to stop at the line.

      • -1 vote

        I agree that you were unfairly booked and unfortunately there is nothing much that can be done legally as it would come down to your word against a cop.

        I think the cop just wanted to give a ticket on a technicality rather than a safety issue.

      •  

        Anywhere in the world Stop means absolutely give way in the safest way: In any civilised world at the point where the roads merge so the sign is a pre-warning and the execution of the driver is not to impede the flow of the road in right of way and stopping where safety is at its optimum and mostly that coincides with a line if any. Anybody thinking he has the right by sake to make the roads less safe should be fined everytime he asks such a stupid question!

  • +2 votes

    Seems that your biggest failure was not spotting the cop that booked you.

  •  

    Stop at the solid line…. from the looks of it the sign is put there to give faster and heavier vehicles more space to stop.
    Also, if you're the second car in line at a stop sign and line you need to come to a complete stop again.

    Pay the fine.

  • +1 vote

    Glad they booked you. If you can’t interpret how stop signs and lines work then maybe you should take some time to re-educate yourself on the road rules. Can’t imagine what you would do when there is a more difficult decision to make.

  •  

    I would have honked at you to move forward.

    The cop was right in booking you

    Why would you stop at the actual sign when you can clearly see the bold line.

    I rarely side with the police but in this case, you deserved it mate.

    They should have fined you more.

  •  

    There is this one Stop sign (in which I turn left) where I approach it really slowly from a long way out slowly slowly until I stop. Then go. Otherwise I would be regularly rear ended by other drivers who just roll through it. It is possible to see 100% visibility as we Stop to oncoming traffic turning right.

    Not really on topic. But there it is.

  •  

    The fine is serving the very purpose they are intended for (other than revenue raising.)

    You have now learned an expensive lesson and you won't do it again.

    Pay the fine, you definitely did the wrong thing.

  •  

    I would contest it regardless. Takes the cop off the road for the day. Maybe they'll drop the fine because it's a waste of resources. Have seen this happen in the past for menial fines like these.

  • -1 vote

    MS DRAW or it never really happened.

  • +1 vote

    I'd contest it. Technically, you did come to a complete stop… just a tad early and a bit before the line. I know what you mean by stopping at a stop sign, that's what I'm conditioned to because normally the stop sign is pretty close to the line.

    • +2 votes

      They said the stop sign was 10m from the actual line. That's a lot more than a tad early, LOL.

  • Top