Red Light Fine (Advice Only)

sunnyc on 23/04/2020 - 01:12
Last edited 24/04/2020 - 15:31

I have recently declined a review of a fine which was handed to me for "Proceeding through a red light"

I am asking for advice on whether or not that I should or have a chance to go to court. It bothers me because if it's my first unintentional fines that I got. If I intentionally cause a traffic offense I would just pay for it.

I have also asked for additional photo/video evidence as I only received two images, both of which I have my entire vehicle across the stop line and also my brake lights were on.

First of all, I like to say that I was in no rush that day and was simply driving normally behind a council sweeper through two sets of lights one of which had a redlight camera. The camera went off when I resumed driving after stopping to wait for the council sweeper to clear the large busy intersection at 10km/h in a 50km/h zone. I had the front of my vehicle blocking adjacent traffic so I proceeded when it became possible. When I was on the other side, I realized that there were no vehicles in front of both vehicles and they were just crossing the intersection very slowly. The other vehicle is a cement truck.

The review was declined on the reason of " Leniency is not appropriate for this offense as it is considered serious due to the safety risk to pedestrians and other road users"

https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/129276/78976/600-8-173…
https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/129276/78977/600-8-173…

I paid the fine, wheel was one foot before stop line.

Automotive

closed Comments

  • Cheeper on 23/04/2020 - 09:44
    +2

    It does not matter what colour the light was when you entered the intersection in NSW.
    If the intersection is not clear then you are to remain behind the line until it is clear and the light is green.
    Easy to get caught with this one but those are the rules.
    It would be a question that may be asked when going for your licence test.

  • kanmen on 23/04/2020 - 10:47
    +3

    Here, you go this is what you want to hear: Yeah mate you're completely right, they're wrong, fight it like you've never fought anything before.

    Happy?

    • sunnyc on 23/04/2020 - 13:05

      I don't want yes men. I was never one myself.

      • Donaldhump on 23/04/2020 - 20:57
        +1

        no

      • blitz on 24/04/2020 - 12:10

        I don't want yes men. I was never one myself.

        Well why didn't you put that in your question? We're all acting like this because we crave your approval.

  • pegaxs on 23/04/2020 - 11:14
    +2

    it's my first unintentional fines that I got. If I intentionally cause a traffic offense I would just pay for it

    Did you tell them that. Did you tell them you didn't do it intentionally. They should just wipe the ticket if you said you didn't mean to do it. I mean, it was unintentional…

    (Advice Only)

    I tell you what, here is my piece of advice; How about next time, you concentrate on what you are doing and be more attentive and follow the road rules. If it was "unintentional" chances are that it was because you were not fully concentrating on the job at hand. What if you hit someone on a bicycle or a person pushing a pram or an elderly pedestrian? Is it still "unintentional"?

    I have an MC license driving a 4WD on that day.

    Thanks for adding that part, I was dying to know… Makes all the difference. And as an MC driver, you would know not to move your B-Double into an intersection if you could not clear it, so why would you think that your 4WD was any different??

  • sunnyc on 23/04/2020 - 13:02

    Can people determine from the photos if the fine "Proceeding through a red light" is appropriate for this occasion. This fine carries $457 and 3 demerit points.

    I'm not on trial for blocking an intersection but I would definitely rather have that fine at $268 and no demerit points.

    • bobbified on 23/04/2020 - 13:19

      The first picture shows you haven't crossed the last line where the trigger is. Your front wheels are on the line (although it's almost rubbed off). So yes, the ticket was issued correctly.

      • sunnyc on 23/04/2020 - 13:22
        +1

        fair enough, I'll be paying shortly then.

        • bobbified on 23/04/2020 - 13:25

          Had you reversed, you probably would've still triggered the camera, but you wouldn't get a ticket because the second picture wouldn't show you going through the intersection.

      • smpantsonfire on 23/04/2020 - 20:45
        +1

        Umm thats a pedestrian crossing line you are talking about….

        • bobbified on 23/04/2020 - 21:03

          That is where the red light camera trigger is.

          • smpantsonfire on 24/04/2020 - 10:07

            @bobbified: Ops car is already a longish car. Red light cameras give a photo of the back wheels of a car behind the stop line.if the trigger is there, then that camera wouldn't get many photos of any cars with the wheels behind the stop line in the first photo.

            • bobbified on 24/04/2020 - 10:24

              @smpantsonfire:

              Ops car is already a longish car

              What does length of car have to do with it?

              The camera trigger isn't placed on the very first line on approach to the intersection. It is just before the "last" line.

              Red light cameras give a photo of the back wheels of a car

              The wheels don't actually trigger the camera. It is the clump of metal that the car is that triggers the sensor. That is why they take two pictures - the second picture shows that the vehicle actually moved and it wasn't just sitting over the trigger.

              In the first picture, OP's front wheels look like they're sitting right on that line and the lights are already red. That is, his whole car is pretty much behind the line. The movement of the car forward would've triggered the camera to take the picture.

  • spackbace on 23/04/2020 - 13:22
    +6

    https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/129276/78976/600-8-173…
    https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/129276/78977/600-8-173…

    Lol… thinks that's perfectly fine to do.

    Doesn't surprise me from a MB owner really

    If I intentionally cause a traffic offense I would just pay for it.

    Well that statement is incorrect

    • sunnyc on 23/04/2020 - 13:24

      Well it should be changed to If i was caught intentionally causing a traffic offense, I would just pay for it.

      • bobbified on 23/04/2020 - 13:26
        +5

        "Intention" plays no part in these offences. They're strict liability offences. You've either committed the offence or you didn't.

      • spackbace on 23/04/2020 - 13:26
        +4

        Ohh, if you were caught…? Here you were caught, with your car in the intersection after it went red, and you couldn't even get through in a decent amount of time due to the slow street sweeper, and the right lane occupied. Yet you still couldn't work out why it wasn't a good thing to do…

        And as the images show, yellow light lasted for 4 seconds, clearly you jumped into the intersection in that time, then shat yourself when the light when red and you couldn't get through.

        • sunnyc on 23/04/2020 - 13:31

          I was behind the sweeper for 50m, I didn't have to rush anything, just a lot of waiting. That light normally allows 8-10 vehicles before it turned red, it moved 1 vehicle. Of course I shat myself.

          • spackbace on 23/04/2020 - 13:33
            +1

            @sunnyc:

            Of course I shat myself.

            And you picked the one intersection with a camera.

            Yet decided to come here and try to find a way out of it (after first asking for leniency, with no defence other than the fact it wasn't intentional…), and bugged members here for proof of your offence, or trying to find a loophole by admitting to another offence.

            You are a grown adult aren't you? Responsible for your own actions?

          • PissLUR on 23/04/2020 - 13:38

            @sunnyc: yellow light is time based. not vehicles.

            • sunnyc on 23/04/2020 - 13:41

              @PissLUR: I was certain I was waiting there since it was green. At 4 seconds, the sweeper only moves 4m.

              • Meho2026 on 23/04/2020 - 15:37
                +1

                @sunnyc: Its possible that you did reach the intersection on a green light but stopped before the entire vehicle was over the stop line. Then the lights have turned red and then youve advanced, triggering the camera.
                Had you stayed where you were, your nose mightve been in the intersection but the camera wouldnt have triggered.
                You wont get off with the fine.
                Youve admitted you were travelling slowly so you wouldve had plenty of time to stop on the amber light because it clearly wasnt safe to proceed through the intersection with a slow moving vehicle ahead of you.

                • sunnyc on 23/04/2020 - 15:38
                  +1

                  @Meho2026: You're right, I should've followed that advice, I was taught to not go and decided to go anyways.

    • pegaxs on 23/04/2020 - 15:51
      +9

      And "archived" for prosperity… Because we all know these kind of photos have a habit of "disappearing" once the OP has kicked an own goal…

  • PissLUR on 23/04/2020 - 13:31
    +2

    you shouldnt have asked for Leniency if you dont think you did the offence.

    • [Deactivated] on 23/04/2020 - 23:55
      +1

      That could be construed as an admission of guilt, couldn't it?

  • Euphemistic on 23/04/2020 - 15:53
    +1

    First pic you are over the line with brakes on. Second pic you have moved forwards at least one car length with brakes still on. Second pic the car appears to be squatting at the front, ie actually stopping, unlike the first pic.

    Given the time between the two pics is similar to the delay since the red light and the car is squatting more in the second pic, my deduction is that you moved as far as between the pics as from the light turning red and the first pic - therefore behind the line, therefore the fine stands.

    I can’t be bothered estimating speeds, but suspect that in half a second or so the vehicle will not have significantly changed acceleration/deceleration as well. Someone might do some maths, it isn’t hard to estimate speeds using the car length and time stamps as units of measure

    • robberbutton on 23/04/2020 - 16:39
      +6

      I can’t be bothered estimating speeds, but suspect that in half a second or so the vehicle will not have significantly changed acceleration/deceleration as well. Someone might do some maths, it isn’t hard to estimate speeds using the car length and time stamps as units of measure

      I'm bored enough in isolation…

      First pic the front of the vehicle is about at the furthest line in the intersection. Second picture, 0.7s later, the rear of the vehicle is at about the same point at the furthest line into the intersection.

      I believe that's an ML350, which is just shy of 5m long.

      5m traveled in 0.7s = 7.14 m/s = 25.7 km/h.

      As they're braking in both photos, it's safe to assume a reduction in speed. Therefore, prior to the first photo, they were traveling at least 25.7km/h. At 25.7km/h, and 0.6s since the light went red, they would've traveled ~4.3m since the red light. Again using the length of the vehicle at 5m, the front of their vehicle would've been at most, 70cm in front of the FIRST stop line at the point the light went red.

      Whilst it is possible the absolute front bumper of the vehicle was beyond the first stop line, I think you'd have a hard time arguing you were already stopped in the intersection when the light went red, or that it was unsafe to stop for the yellow light.

      • Euphemistic on 23/04/2020 - 17:06
        +1

        Assuming 0-100 times of about 10s one could safely assume that the car did not accelerate from standing start to 25km/h in the 0.6 seconds between a yellow light and the red.

      • sunnyc on 23/04/2020 - 17:54

        How do people assume I was going faster than 25.7km/h when I was behind that council sweeper for the past 2 lights?

        • Euphemistic on 23/04/2020 - 18:24
          +1

          It’s an estimate based on the size of the vehicle and how far it appeared to move between two known times. It might actually be 20 or 30. You were braking, therefore you could assume you were going faster prior to braking.

          Yes it’s an assumption and no one here from the internet can prove any differently, but it’s a fair assumption based on the only actual evidence and not your quite likely biased description.

          • sunnyc on 23/04/2020 - 18:27
            -1

            @Euphemistic: Yes, I have nothing against the projected speed, it is reasonably accurate. I am saying that people have been assuming that I was travelling fast and slowing down which is the exact opposite which was I was stopped and speeding up to clear the intersection

            • Euphemistic on 23/04/2020 - 18:33
              +2

              @sunnyc: When brake lights are on it is a perfectly valid assumption to make that you are slowing down, and therefore travelling faster prior to the camera evidence. That’s faster, not fast.

            • pegaxs on 23/04/2020 - 19:50
              +2

              @sunnyc:

              I was stopped and speeding up to clear the intersection

              Yeah, you see, you're selling it, just 'aint nobody buying it.

            • gromit on 24/04/2020 - 14:28
              +1

              @sunnyc: here's the problem with that. It means from a stopped position behind the lights while the road is still visibly blocked you had to accelerate and jump forward from a stop 5m in .7 of a second. So either you were stopping in the second or floored it in a ridiculously dangerous way at blocked intersection (and in doing so went through a red light). regardless the photos show clearly you did go through a red light no matter which version you decide to go with.

            • robberbutton on 24/04/2020 - 16:22

              @sunnyc: You were speeding up and braking at the same time?

      • sween64 on 24/04/2020 - 10:44

        I'm glad someone realised this. I'd go further to say it looks as though the car has traveled more than a car length, it could be 6m which would make it 30 km/h.

  • Mrgreenz on 23/04/2020 - 16:02
    +4

    Looks pretty clean cut tbh, unfortunate.

    You aint getting out of this one imo

  • Vote for Pedro on 23/04/2020 - 16:04
    +9

    On a personal note, i know that intersection and am glad you got done.

  • oshe on 23/04/2020 - 16:08
    +2

    don’t go to court. you cannot prove the light was green before completely crossing the stop line.

    if you could the offence can get substituted to enter intersection when not clear to do so.

    you will always lose and waste time in court and get hit with court fees of $200+

    • sunnyc on 23/04/2020 - 17:56

      Good advice. thanks

      • capslock janitor on 23/04/2020 - 23:25

        No dashcam active?

        • sunnyc on 23/04/2020 - 23:31

          Should get a dashcam shouldn't I. Had a few close calls but the auto brake assist really saved my life. Currently developing one in my spare time similar to Mi.

      • ProlapsedHeinous on 24/04/2020 - 01:05
        +4

        Nah fight it mate, obviously you're innocent. plus we need some more revenue. someone has to pay for the jobkeeper program

  • bongom on 23/04/2020 - 16:26
    +1

    If you unintentionally break the law you're still guilty.
    i.e If you unintentionally kill someone its manslaughter instead of murder.

    • trapper on 23/04/2020 - 16:38

      Most crimes do require intent to commit the act.

      Not traffic offences for the most part though.

  • trapper on 23/04/2020 - 16:36
    +3

    You must be joking, you blatantly drove straight through a red.

    There is no way you would (or should) get out of this fine.

  • johnno07 on 23/04/2020 - 17:03
    +3

    Learn to drive.
    Learn to accept criticism.
    That'll do.

  • Wayne7497 on 23/04/2020 - 17:23
    +4

    You had 4 seconds of amber light, clearly you should have stopped, but you didn't you kept going ..

  • solidussnake on 23/04/2020 - 17:33
    +6

    This was a great read to come home to thanks OP

    • spackbace on 23/04/2020 - 17:58
      +6

      It's like we all share an experience when we're part of these traffic fine posts!

      • solidussnake on 23/04/2020 - 18:17
        +2

        Haha yeah, seeing OP getting negged into next week and finally realising they're in the wrong. This is better than reality tv 😂

        • pegaxs on 23/04/2020 - 19:51
          +3

          I mean, who doesn't love an "own goal"… almost every traffic fine related post here is an own goal

    • Baysew on 23/04/2020 - 18:09
      +2

      It seems like some normality is now slowly creeping back to our lives. Thanks OP, I do feel better.

  • Okayy on 23/04/2020 - 17:45

    have some courage to face the consequences for endangering others safety!

    • grasstown on 23/04/2020 - 18:11

      How on earth does that endanger someone's safety? The others lights are still red and they havnt shot off yet. The lights are designed and timed to allow a few seconds for someone going through on red. The op went through after 0.6 seconds.sometimes people have poor judgement and mistime but your endangering safety is misplaced.

      • Euphemistic on 23/04/2020 - 18:30

        We have red lights for a reason. It’s dangerous to travel through red lights. Yes, in this instance the danger was quite low, but still dangerous.

      • gimme on 24/04/2020 - 10:54
        +1

        Some people have binary logic and assume breaking a traffic law automatically endangers public safety. They can't/don't understand the concept of context, circumstance etc. A good example would be that a moron in a shitbox doing the speed limit is potentially far more dangerous than a skilled driver in a modern car going say 15kph over the limit. This is how govts like you to behave and the messaging always targets the lowest common denominator, so can't blame people for having this sort of mindset and poor judgement.

  • TEER3X on 23/04/2020 - 18:15
    +1

    Don't get this at all, the photos clearly show you broke the law running a red light. Your excuse is irrelevant.

    You would've had fair warning with an amber light. Or do you not know what that light suggests?

    • sunnyc on 23/04/2020 - 18:16
      +1

      Where does it show me breaking a red light? Both wheels were past the line. It shows many things but not the thing I'm being fined for.

      • solidussnake on 23/04/2020 - 18:19
        +1

        Just blocking the flow of traffic like every dick in a large car, If only you you were more patient 🤷‍♂️

        • sunnyc on 23/04/2020 - 18:20
          -1

          I did it so I wouldn't block the flow of traffic? I was patient, who decides to drive behind a council sweeper for 2 whole minutes.

          • nandystam on 23/04/2020 - 19:40

            @sunnyc: Drivers who have no other safe and legal alternative to overtake the council sweeper, that's who.

      • factor on 23/04/2020 - 18:54
        +1

        The stop line does not appear relevant according the the road rules.

        Offence:
        http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/cons…

        59 PROCEEDING THROUGH A RED TRAFFIC LIGHT
        If traffic lights at an intersection or marked foot crossing are showing a red traffic light, a driver must not enter the intersection or marked foot crossing.

        Relevant term from the dictionary:
        http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/cons…

        "intersection" means the area where 2 or more roads (except any road related area) meet, and includes—
        (a) any area of the roads where vehicles travelling on different roads might collide

        The photos show you entered the area where "vehicles travelling on different roads might collide" after the light went red. Law is precise, go and find it, then follow the logic.

        • pegaxs on 23/04/2020 - 19:57
          +2

          56 Stopping for a red traffic light or arrow

          (1) A driver approaching or at traffic lights showing a red traffic light must stop—

          (a) if there is a stop line at or near the traffic lights—as near as practicable to, but before reaching, the stop line

          Yeah, it kinda does…

          OP was not sitting in the intersection when it turned amber/red, they were some 20~25m back from the intersection when it turned amber. The lights has turned red about 1 car length before OP entered the intersection. OP gambled on orange and it come up red… House wins…

          • sunnyc on 23/04/2020 - 20:08
            -1

            @pegaxs: How did you figure I was 20-25m back from the intersection? Do you have evidence that I don't have?

            • pegaxs on 23/04/2020 - 20:28
              +6

              @sunnyc: Maths. It's a terrible thing.

              The distance you travelled in the photos was about 1 car length. For benefit of the doubt I made that about 4m (The ML350 is about 4.9m long, so I gave some leeway in case it wasn't a whole car length.)

              The time between the two photos is 0.7 seconds. Extracting this data, you travelled about 4m in 0.7seconds. This equates to a speed of approximately 5.7m/s or 20.6km/h.

              The photo shows that the amber light was showing for 4 seconds. At 5.7m/s (if it were constant, and you were not slowing down, another leeway I gave), 4sec x 5.7m/s = 22.8m

              The same for the red light. It says it had been red for 0.6 of a second. Since we know your approximate speed, we can just work the data in to see how far back your car was when the light turned red. It was back about 3m, or basically behind the stop line when the red came on.

              The photo also shows very heavy braking in the second photo. The car is nosed down and tail up, indicating that you were braking quite heavily. This indicates that you were in fact probably doing in excess of 20km/h prior to the intersection, so you probably had far in excess of 22.8m during the amber phase of the lights.

              The whole story you are spewing forth that you were stopped over the line before the light turned red and "accelerated" to clear the intersection is utter contrived bullshit. You were not driving with "both feet" and the reason the brake lights are on, is because you didn't want to stuff your shitbox Benz up the arse of Stanley the Street Sweeper.

              My take on it, you saw an amber, thought you would run it, realised that the sweeper was going much slower than you anticipated (ie: it was stopped in the photos and you had not been following it "for 2 mins") and you had to hit the chocks to avoid colliding with the arse of that sweeper.

              So, yeah, "maths"…

              • sween64 on 24/04/2020 - 10:53
                +2

                @pegaxs: When the OP was stuck behind the street sweeper for two intersections it's quite conceivable that they would become frustrated and proceed through the intersection after seeing an amber light so as not to to be further delayed.

                OPs story is BS, pay the fine.

      • smartazz104 on 23/04/2020 - 21:43

        But the back of your car wasn’t past the line…

      • HoffyP on 24/04/2020 - 08:48

        In your own photos mate. You may be over the Stop line, but your first photo clearly has you barely on the far most pedestrian crossing line, as faded as it is.
        You then proceeded to enter the intersection further, this triggering the camera.
        Pay the fine, learn to drive properly.. unintentional is NO excuse with a motor vehicle, or were you perhaps on your phone to while this was all taking place?

  • sunnyc on 23/04/2020 - 18:20
    -6

    People are making assumptions instead of reading. It shows me braking because I use two feet to drive, one on the accelerator and one on the break. I was not travelling at more then 25km/h because I've been behind this council sweeper for a long time. I never got any pictures at 0 seconds and only pictures after 0.7s.

    If I was going to break a red light on purpose I would be travelling at a higher speed and the road ahead would be well and truly cleared not blocked.

    • Euphemistic on 23/04/2020 - 18:31
      +5

      Seriously? So you are one of those people that displays brake lights when not braking? That’s aaking for trouble.

    • spackbace on 23/04/2020 - 18:37
      +15

      It shows me braking because I use two feet to drive, one on the accelerator and one on the break.

      Fk this rollercoaster gets better lol where the hell did you get your license?! Not in this country surely

      • pegaxs on 23/04/2020 - 19:12
        +2

        But but but, I got an MC license…

        Anyway, I did the rough maths for all this before.

        OP was travelling at approx. 20km/h, so had more than enough reaction time.

        The light was yellow for 4 seconds, meaning that OP saw the yellow light from about 28m or about 6 to 8 car lengths from the light.

        OP made a crack at running an amber light and lost. Play stupid games, get stupid prizes…

        Oh and *brake

      • sunnyc on 23/04/2020 - 19:15
        -2

        A motorbike for one takes two feet to drive. I don't understand, a hill start takes two feet to drive.

        • pegaxs on 23/04/2020 - 20:38

          Your photo looks like a Merc. Benz ML350 on a flat piece of road… Did I miss something?

          • sunnyc on 23/04/2020 - 20:41
            -1

            @pegaxs: Yes the ability to drive with two feet.

            • Yummy on 23/04/2020 - 23:20

              @sunnyc: Just curious, who taught you drives like that?

              • sunnyc on 23/04/2020 - 23:36

                @Yummy: I learnt it myself. It's not illegal or bad, it's actually quite a good skill to learn. Learning how to taper/break with your left foot softly. I drive a range of vehicles, up hills, sometimes the engines cut off or lose gears and I don't want to roll backwards so I learnt to use both feet.

                Manual drivers use two feet, of course different with the left foot on the clutch and right foot on the acceleration and brake.

                • Yummy on 24/04/2020 - 00:31
                  +2

                  @sunnyc: You have strong case. Go to the court, tell the judge that you uses both feet when driving & mention your right foot is your dominant. Surely you will win! 100%!!!

                  I wish I can drive with both feet. I got caught twice for speeding, with my right feet, but luckily never a red light offence. /S/igh

            • capslock janitor on 23/04/2020 - 23:30

              @sunnyc: Do you have a medical reason to drive with 2 feet?
              I saw that on Breaking bad, though that was USA.

              • sunnyc on 23/04/2020 - 23:38

                @capslock janitor: No, I normally drive with just my right foot, only uphill do I drive with two feet. Additionally to the reply above, I find it safer to drive with two feet whilst my right foot being more dominant. I wear thongs and when changing to brake, I've had a few close calls where my thong would get caught and I couldn't brake and my left foot was available. Also, I take off much faster when the lights change.

        • ProlapsedHeinous on 24/04/2020 - 01:21
          +1

          Both feet do not operate the accelerator and brakes. Hill starts only need two feet if you are operating the clutch in a manual, no need to operate the brakes and accelerator at the same time.

      • CVonC on 24/04/2020 - 01:38
        +2

        man I can't stand those drivers that have their foot on the brake whilst ACCELERATING as well. It's soooo friggen retarded.

    • smartazz104 on 23/04/2020 - 21:44
      +1

      2 foot driving and tailgating; next you’ll say this wasn’t your fault as you were distracted by your phone.

      • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2020 - 00:20
        +3

        2-feet driving , tailgating, blocking an intersection, broken right brake light, inappropriate footwear… 🤦🏻‍♂️

        I use two feet to drive

        Whilst there is no legislation preventing you from doing this, if you were in a crash and the investigation finds that your driving using both feet was a leading contributory cause, you could be fined for negligent or dangerous driving.

        I wear thongs and when changing to brake, I've had a few close calls where my thong would get caught and I couldn't brake

        Again, wearing inappropriate footwear is not illegal per se, but the legislation does require you to take all precautions to drive in the safest manner possible. If your thongs compromise your ability to drive safely, and you know that it does, you are technically in breach of the law.

        • pegaxs on 24/04/2020 - 11:18
          +2

          OP is just the gift that keeps on giving… :D

          • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2020 - 12:48

            @pegaxs: :D

    • ProlapsedHeinous on 24/04/2020 - 01:14

      If you seriously do that, you're a danger to everyone else on the road. and i can almost guarantee, you'll be one of those numpties that gets to an age (assuming you don't get tboned for running a red light) where you put your vehicle through a shopfront, because you "forgot" which one was the brakes. You are also at higher risk of being rear ended, because nobody will be able to receive brake light feedback if you need to brake in an emergency. Stop doing this, seriously.

  • yayrobots on 23/04/2020 - 18:21
    +2

    Not getting out of this one. First photo light was red for 0.6 seconds. Based on the speed your doing from second photo nearly your entire car would of been before the line when it turned red. Time to hand in your license.

  • No ONE on 23/04/2020 - 18:37

    On technicallity, an incorrect fine was issued. camera took pictures when you are already past the stop line (intersection). For 0.006s you could argue you were still stopped but camera light was triggered regardless. I guess you have a chance in court and argue based on technicallity and get the fine dismissed.

    However, it would not stop the authority in issuing a new fine for blocking the intersection, that may have different fine amount and demerit points.

    • TEER3X on 23/04/2020 - 18:56
      +1

      They're not overturning this one, this isn't America. It's 100% red light camera infringement.

    • Euphemistic on 23/04/2020 - 19:04
      +1
      1. The camera is designed to take pictures after the car cross the line - that is the offence, crossing the line after the red
      2. It’s 0.6s
      3. The car could not have been stopped in the first photo as 0.7s later it has moved as an estimated 25km/h between the two photos.
      4. Unless a further photo could show the vehicle stopped within the intersection there is no way of knowing if the car stopped and blocked the intersection. Once you cross the line you must proceed through the intersection which is what the OP described.
      • No ONE on 23/04/2020 - 19:09
        -1

        The issue is, the car is so close to the line that upon movement (from stopping position) triggered the red light. The triggers are appropriate and not to 100% accuracy. I agree that more photos are required for further assessement.

      • sunnyc on 23/04/2020 - 19:12

        From the evidence, that's correct. I'm not denying it.

    • jason101 on 23/04/2020 - 20:51
      +1

      I'm onboard with this viewpoint - Where does the evidence show the vehicle entered the intersection on red ?

      • Euphemistic on 23/04/2020 - 22:03
        +1

        It moved at an average speed of 25km/h between the two photos. It could not have started from zero in the intersection and accelerated to significantly more than 25km/h (to get to an average of 25 it would probably have to hit 50) in 0.7s - ergo it was moving in the first image, and probably at a speed a bit more than 25km/h so would have been behind the line when the light changed to red.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join