Fine for Going through Stop Sign on a Green Light

takezo on 16/10/2025 - 12:11
Last edited 18/10/2025 - 10:49

I was pulled over and fined for not stopping at a stop sign at the following intersection:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/PdnBA59z6SeWFsFd7

In the last few years it has been upgraded with a traffic light in place for right turns. The traffic light can be red, green or not active.

As I was approaching the right turn lane, the green light was active, so my understanding was that I had right of way and was not required to come to a stop. When I told the officer the light was green, he said "it doesn't matter you need to come to a stop". I was a bit flustered and didn't really push back.

I can't find anything definitive online about the situation where there are both lights and a stop sign. I would have thought however that the green light gives me way and overrides the stop sign.

If this is the case am I likely to have any luck with a review (no footage).

Edit: this is a better view of the intersection:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/VW8W3vkM8WaC2yPL9

I had assumed there was a stop sign based on what the policeman said.

Update

OK so I just headed down with the intention of taking a photo of the intersection with the light showing a green arrow, only to find that the traffic lights have been changed so there are only red and amber lights now.

So at some stage recently:
- Stop signs have been added above the "Stop on red arrow" sign
- The green arrow has been removed (you could see it previously in the google maps image from Dec 23)

So my recollection of it being green was obviously incorrect, so apologies for that. I didn't mean to purposely mislead anyone. I was obviously on auto pilot as I'm very familiar with the intersection. The light was off and I didn't even see the new Stop signs as there was very clearly no oncoming traffic approaching.

I still would love clarification re the "Stop on red arrow sign". Does this infer that you don't stop otherwise?

When I drove back, there were 6 or 7 cars backed up waiting to cross through. The light went from red to off, as the approaching traffic got a red light. All cars went straight through without stopping at the line as you would at a normal right turn intersection with a green light. In fact to stop at the line would risk you getting rear ended from the car behind.

Automotive

Comments

    • takezo on 16/10/2025 - 12:25
      +3

      There is a traffic light for the turn there now (not shown in google maps). The traffic light was green.

    • rumblytangara on 16/10/2025 - 13:06
      +3

      FYI if you look in the bottom right of a StreetViews image, it tells you when the photo was taken. In this case, 2019.

  • rambutann on 16/10/2025 - 12:24
    +11

    I'm assuming you're referring to the turn into Tucker Road..

    Wow that's a really shitty scenario tbh…
    Why would they have a solid white line at a green light?…

    • takezo on 16/10/2025 - 12:25
      +1

      Yeah that's the one.

    • SnoozeAndLose on 16/10/2025 - 14:17
      +43

      I think for the normal traffic light, there is a solid white line. In Op situation, I will go to court and ask the judge to determine it.

      There is no stop sign. When the light is not on, you can argue that it is a stop line, but when the green light is, on, then you don't need to stop.

      It is just a cash grab for this situation, in my opinion.

  • trulymadly on 16/10/2025 - 12:25

    OP, can you explain where the stop sign is? I assume you drove straight through the right turn lane in this image without stopping, when the green arrow was showing… https://ibb.co/1t2KGYJ5

    • takezo on 16/10/2025 - 12:27
      +28

      wow…so no stop sign, just "stop here on red signal". I guess that answers the question.

  • Porker on 16/10/2025 - 12:26
    +7

    Is this a better street view of the situation?

    https://maps.app.goo.gl/VW8W3vkM8WaC2yPL9

  • takezo on 16/10/2025 - 12:33
    +2

    Do i have any leg to stand on here? If the signal was red, I assume he would have booked me for running a red light, so I assume he can't argue that.

    • Porker on 16/10/2025 - 12:36
      +25

      It depends on what road rule you get booked on.

      However, my take of the situation is that:

      If the turn arrow is red, you must stop
      If the turn arrow is green you don't need to stop
      If no light/arrow is shown, you must stop and can only proceed when safe to do so

      • Browsers on 16/10/2025 - 20:11
        +7

        That's right, and the Vic Road Safety Rules cover it comprehensively with clear differentiation between requirements at stop lines and stop signs either with or without traffic lights.
        Without lights - must stop - section 67
        With lights and turning in direction of arrow on green - no need to stop - section 58.

        • Butterchurner on 17/10/2025 - 10:30
          -1

          67 doesn't apply. Lights not operating doesn't mean they don't exist, so the relevant rule is 63, which makes it a give way scenario unless there's also a traffic light-stop sign, which Victoria doesn't have outside the road rules.

          • Browsers on 17/10/2025 - 10:47
            +2

            @Butterchurner: Clearly 67 does not apply - that is the whole point.

            • Butterchurner on 17/10/2025 - 16:43

              @Browsers: "If no light/arrow is shown, you must stop and can only proceed when safe to do so"

              "That's right"

              Green light - RR 58
              No light displayed - RR 63

    • SnoozeAndLose on 16/10/2025 - 14:18
      +3

      Did the police agree that it was a green light when you crossed, if yes, then you are 100% legal.

      • takezo on 16/10/2025 - 14:31
        +4

        He didn't argue the fact when I made the comment.

        • SnoozeAndLose on 16/10/2025 - 14:33
          +5

          So state it on the court, the only way to prove the cop is wrong is to go to court.

          Another option is to admit guilt and ask Revenue NSW(if in NSW) to waive if you have a good record.

        • DoctorCalculon on 16/10/2025 - 22:21

          If you had a dashcam footage, you can just send that off to the copper.
          You wouldn't even need to go to court.

        • Brianqpr on 17/10/2025 - 13:35
          -3

          Poor guy is only trying to meet his revenue KPIs.

  • prodrome on 16/10/2025 - 12:41
    -3

    https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2…

    Me thinks hot fuzz can't read.

    • Porker on 16/10/2025 - 12:47
      -1

      To me, the relevant sections are:

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

      and must not proceed past the stop line, stop here on red signal sign or nearest or only traffic lights (as the case may be) until the traffic lights show a green or flashing yellow traffic light or no traffic light.

      So my interpretation is that drivers must stop at the STOP line even if no light is shown.

      EDIT: OP confirmed they had a green arrow, so above is moot

      • prodrome on 17/10/2025 - 08:08
        +1

        Yes, if the lights are out - you still have to stop - that makes sense.

        If the light is green and you stop … you're going to cause an accident.

        • Butterchurner on 17/10/2025 - 10:32

          You don't have to stop at a four way intersection when the lights aren't working, so why would this be different? RR 63 is the one that should apply.

  • Jaduqimon on 16/10/2025 - 12:42

    is there an actual Green turn right arrow?

    • takezo on 16/10/2025 - 12:44
      +1

      Yes

      • Jaduqimon on 16/10/2025 - 12:48
        +7

        and you of course as a responsible ozbargainer had dashcam footage of this so it should be an easy challenge in court.

      • Porker on 16/10/2025 - 12:50
        +4

        Please note though, that it appears that the through-lanes might have green lights on, but the turn arrows may not be illuminated. In this case, my interpretation is that you'd need to still stop at the STOP line even if turning right.

        However, if the green turn arrow was on, then I'd be personally challenging the infringement. How you'd prove that without any evidence is another issue.

        • takezo on 16/10/2025 - 12:55

          This thought struck me as well, but I'm certain the green arrow was right as well. I go through this intersection regularly so I'm familiar with it. The fact that the officer when challenged about the green light said "You still need to stop" is what confuses me. I'm not exactly sure where they were parked, but not even sure they would have had a view of the lights.

          • Porker on 16/10/2025 - 13:18

            @takezo: Perhaps officer was talking about green (through) light where you were talking about green (arrow) light.

            It'll be unclear to anyone here, particularly if you can't recall also. Plus it's not something you probably would've actively been paying attention to prior to being pulled over.

  • BiotBargin on 16/10/2025 - 12:49

    solid line means you stop when no signal basically.
    same scenario exists with trams tracks running up the middle island of a split carriage way road .. you want to cross the tram tracks to cross the road, they have the same turning bay setup.
    just another fantastic grey law.

    • Butterchurner on 17/10/2025 - 10:31
      -2

      You don't have to stop at a four way intersection when the lights aren't working, so why would this be different?

      • Butterchurner on 17/10/2025 - 16:44

        Would whoever downvoted care to explain why?

        • megaclix on 17/10/2025 - 17:13

          Wasn't me who downvoted, but can you explain why 'You don't have to stop at a four way intersection when the lights aren't working'? How is it meant to work when the lights are out/malfunctioning (usually flashing amber)?

          (I am not detecting any sarcasm if there was meant to be some)

          • stewy on 17/10/2025 - 19:47

            @megaclix: From what I have seen on intersections near me in NSW, the primary direction has no signage and the secondary cross road has a STOP sign with blacked out lights and text underneath saying "WHEN SIGNALS BLACKED OUT OR FLASHING". Even if signed and you have right of way, I'd still be significantly reducing my speed to guage what the STOP signed direction traffic is going to do.

            Not sure the specifics if no signage on any direction, but I would have assumed in that case you probably treat it as a give way. Googling it looks like all directions are then treated as a STOP sign.

            • megaclix on 17/10/2025 - 21:02

              @stewy: @stewy Yep, that is what I thought we all knew - when lights are out/flashing, they effectively become a stop sign.

              Back to the original OP post. Does that set of lights definitely have a green arrow? Has this been confirmed with a photo?

              If it does have a green arrow (and the opposite traffic stopped on a red), I don't understand how the traffic officer could be so dumb.

              Looks like it should also have a 'no stopping' section.

          • Butterchurner on 18/10/2025 - 20:37

            @megaclix: When the lights at a four-way intersection are flashing amber, you basically give way to your right.

            RR 63 Giving way at an intersection with traffic lights not operating or only partly operating

            This rule applies to a driver at an intersection if traffic lights at the intersection are not operating, or the traffic lights are showing only a flashing yellow traffic light.

            If there are no traffic light-stop signs at the intersection, the driver must give way to vehicles and pedestrians at or near the intersection in accordance with rule 72 or 73 as if the intersection were an intersection without traffic lights, or a stop sign, stop line, give way sign or give way line.

            RR 72 Giving way at an intersection (except a T-intersection or roundabout)

            • A driver at an intersection (except a T-intersection or roundabout) must give way in accordance with this rule if the intersection is without all of the following—
              (a) traffic lights;
              (b) stop sign;
              (c) stop line;
              (d) give way sign;
              (e) give way line.

            If the driver is turning right, the driver must give way to—
            (a) any vehicle approaching from the right, unless a stop sign, stop line, give way sign or give way line applies to the driver of the approaching vehicle; and
            (b) any oncoming vehicle that is going straight ahead or turning left at the intersection, unless—
            (i) a stop sign, stop line, give way sign or give way line applies to the driver of the oncoming vehicle; or
            (ii) the oncoming vehicle is turning left using a slip lane; and
            (c) any pedestrian at or near the intersection who is crossing the road the driver is entering.

            For OP's scenario, in the event there was no green arrow, RR 73 applies, which is essentially the same as 72 except the right turner only has to give way to oncoming traffic and pedestrians crossing the terminating road.

        • pegaxs on 17/10/2025 - 22:09
          -1

          Would whoever downvoted care to explain why?

          Road rule 67(2) deals with stopping at traffic lights that are not operating or flashing yellow.

          So, your comment is partially wrong, in some circumstances, you must stop at some intersections when the lights are not working or flashing yellow.

          • Butterchurner on 18/10/2025 - 20:43
            -1

            @pegaxs: RR 67 relates to intersections without traffic lights. OP's intersection has traffic lights, therefore RR63 applies if no light is displayed (not operating). The only time you have to stop under RR63 is when a traffic light-stop sign (i.e. the stop sign with black dots on it) is present (common in NSW, non-existent in Victoria).

            • pegaxs on 20/10/2025 - 09:30
              -1

              @Butterchurner: Link is to the correct road rule (RR#63(2)), the number I mentioned (67) is not (I agree, that's on me), it was a "typo". But RR#63(2) does make reference back to RR#67.

              (2) If there is a traffic light-stop sign at the intersection, the driver must comply with rule 67 as if the sign were a stop sign at an intersection without traffic lights.

              your comment above was;

              You don't have to stop at a four way intersection when the lights aren't working,

              Which is partially incorrect. If the lights are out, or in error mode, you must at least "give way" and be "prepared to stop", or if sign posted you "MUST" stop.

              That's why you were negged. Your comment was misleading by omitting factual information. Your comment wasnt just a "typo", it was just erroneous.

              • Butterchurner on 20/10/2025 - 13:31
                -1

                @pegaxs: "But RR#63(2) does make reference back to RR#67."

                Yes, I know. But this isn't in NSW (so the rule doesn't apply in practice), and the sign isn't present anyway.

                "That's why you were negged. Your comment was misleading by omitting factual information. Your comment wasnt just a "typo", it was just erroneous."

                Yet the comment I responded to is still positive despite it's completely wrong assertion that 'you stop when no signal basically', which isn't even true in NSW. How good is the internet. Also doesn't explain the downvote for 67 clarification/extra 63 info, unless the person isn't happy about being corrected or wanted me to paste all the definitions and figures of the rule as well.

                • pegaxs on 20/10/2025 - 14:10
                  -1

                  @Butterchurner: Jesus (fropanity) Christ… "iT's nOt iN NsW!1!1!!"

                  Ok then, champ… Let's pull out the Vic Road Rules

                  63 Giving way at an intersection with traffic lights not operating or only partly operating
                  (1) This rule applies to a driver at an intersection if traffic lights at the intersection are not operating, or the traffic lights are showing only a flashing yellow traffic light.
                  (2) If there is a traffic light-stop sign at the intersection, the driver must comply with rule 67 as if the sign were a stop sign at an intersection without traffic lights.

                  Oh, wow, that looks very familiar… Let's look at VicRR#67…

                  67 Stopping and giving way at a stop sign or stop line at an intersection without traffic lights

                  WTAF?? It's the same as NSW road rules? Well, I never…

                  Ergo… your comment;

                  You don't have to stop at a four way intersection when the lights aren't working

                  Is still wrong, even in Victoria, even according to Vic road rules… which are, ironically in this case, exactly the same as NSW RR #63 and #67.

                  Yet the comment I responded to is still positive

                  OMG, boo hoo, have a cry, it has 1 upvote. It's not like 40 people upvoted that comment. Ironically, their comment, with their whole 1 upvote that you are so butt hurt over (that you could easily neg and return it to a 0 vote count) is closer to being correct than your erroneous statement.

                  Also note before you go building strawmen, I didn't say it was right either… But your comment was an all encompassing comment, as in it applies all traffic light intersections with failed light operation. You never referenced back to OP's comment or their situation, you just said;

                  You don't have to stop at a four way intersection when the lights aren't working

                  A, meaning any, not OP's, not "this intersection" in reference to OP's, you are just referencing all intersections with traffic lights, so your comment was wrong. There ARE situations where you DO have to stop at traffic lights that are not working. This is why you copped the negs, because your information is false, misleading and/or incomplete.

                  I made a typo, you made a "factual error", we are not the same. Keep negging, champ, I know your retaliatory negs make you feel better… Ironically, you are negging my comments because I pointed out how your comment was wrong, but you wont even neg the comment from a user you are butt hurt that they got a single upvote… :D

                  • Butterchurner on 20/10/2025 - 15:09
                    -1

                    @pegaxs: I said the rule didn't apply in practice at this site, not that it wasn't a Victorian road rule.

                    "But your comment was an all encompassing comment, as in it applies all traffic light intersections with failed light operation. You never referenced back to OP's comment or their situation, you just said; You don't have to stop at a four way intersection when the lights aren't working"

                    In response to "solid line means you stop when no signal basically" (which at best applies to 50% of NSW traffic lights given they're AFAIK only used on minor legs), and is a true enough statement in context. Mind you, I'd already 'corrected myself' by mentioning the traffic light-stop sign caveat before you joined in, so you needn't have bothered. But not only did you bother, you had another go when I all I said was you used the wrong RR (which wasn't me correcting a typo, it was me thinking you were actually using that RR). Your meme/champ outburst was based on nothing, though it seems to have confirmed where the last downvote came from, so that's nice.

                    "A, meaning any, not OP's, not "this intersection" in reference to OP's, you are just referencing all intersections with traffic lights, so your comment was wrong"

                    Context… Next time a RR debate comes up I'll be sure to see what they do in Somalia before wading in 🙄.

                    • pegaxs on 20/10/2025 - 18:29
                      -1

                      @Butterchurner:

                      I said the rule didn't apply in practice at this site

                      Lol… "bullshit", what you actually said was;

                      You don't have to stop at a four way intersection when the lights aren't working

                      This is what got you the negs. Your comment, the one here, not the one in your head, is wrong

                      In response to "solid line means you stop when no signal basically"

                      Again, I am not commenting on what the other user said. I didn't mention them and did not comment on if I thought their comment was right or wrong, and I certainly didn't "upvote" their comment, basically, because it was also "partially incorrect". You asked "wHy DiD i GeT aLL tHe NeGs?? *sad_face_emoji.tiff*" and I informed you, it was because your comment was *partially incorrect" and people saw your comment and thought it was wrong, so they negged it.

                      Mind you, I'd already 'corrected myself' by mentioning the traffic light-stop sign caveat before you joined in

                      Again, bullshit… My comment was made 17/10/2025 @ 22:09
                      Your "correction comment" was made 18/10/2025 @ 20:37… almost 22~ish hours AFTER I made a comment on why you were getting negged.

                      you had another go when I all I said was you used the wrong RR

                      Again, my mistake was a "typo". The link is to the "correct" road rule (NSW and Vic are the same in respect to RR#63). The difference here, you see, is I owned up to my mistake…

                      Link is to the correct road rule (RR#63(2)), the number I mentioned (67) is not (I agree, that's on me)

                      Cant say the same for you though.. You made a mistake, just own it, learn and move on…

                      Your meme/champ outburst was based on nothing

                      Lol, yeah, ok, champ ;) Good to see you finally used a neg to actually neg a comment that was wrong. Guess the meme worked.

                      though it seems to have confirmed where the last downvote came from

                      Absolutely. I'm not afraid to neg when a comment is erroneous. Yours was, so I negged it. You, on the other hand are not negging my comments because I am wrong, but just out of pure spite and retaliation. I made you look like a goof and you didnt like it.

                      Context…

                      Yes… You could do with some context next time you make any comments on things you seems least able to make informed commentary on.

                      I'll be sure to see what they do in Somalia before wading in

                      Nice strawman. At least if you are going to talk about road rules in Somalia, make a reference to Somalia, not just generalised to thin air.

                      • Butterchurner on 20/10/2025 - 20:57
                        -1

                        @pegaxs: Apologies (yes, I can do it). My first reference to the traffic light-stop sign appears on my end earlier than your reply because of the thread it’s in. I responded to that before seeing yours. But I did mention it again in the first reply to you before we really kicked off.

                        The purpose of the downvote comment was to hopefully generate conversation and reach the correct answer (whoever had it), preferably with the downvoter. Job done.

                        • pegaxs on 22/10/2025 - 12:24

                          @Butterchurner:

                          The purpose of the downvote comment was to hopefully generate conversation and reach the correct answer (whoever had it)

                          And it was literally stewy and myself that "reached the correct answers" (albeit mine had a typo, but the link was correct), but because of your butt hurt and tantrum throwing, you went and negged all my "correct answers" that you were hoping would be "generated" from this "conversation". Why didn't you downvote stewy? They pointed out you were wrong as well.

                          So again I'm just going to leave this here because it applies even more now based on your last comment. I negged your comment because it was wrong. You neg my comments because I pointed out you were wrong. We are not the same.

                          Oh, and since I got a break from downvoting jv and have some spare negs, here, have some "tit-for-tat" negs since we are having a sulk.

  • carlJack on 16/10/2025 - 12:59

    Yeah.. that doesn't make sense.

  • djkelly69 on 16/10/2025 - 13:42
    +1

    I would check what the detail of the fine says, but given there is no stop sign at the intersection shown, it seems difficult for you to have failed to stop at it.

  • 87percent on 16/10/2025 - 13:52

    i hate driving through from Chadstone to Moorabin. Warrigal/Centre/North Road is horrible to drive down

  • GordonD on 16/10/2025 - 14:05
    +4

    I find it hard to believe the cop is right, and the law is that crazy. But it is Victoria.

    If the cop is right it would have got me too. The only sign saying STOP says it only applies if the light is red. All intersections have "stop lines" at the point at which you have to stop if and only if the light is red. Not when its green.

    It is going to take pursuing the matter to a higher level to get a definitive answer.

    RAA in SA has a service which gives you what the expert view is on traffic law interpretation if you think the cop got it wrong. Does the RACV have something similar?

  • Randxyz123 on 16/10/2025 - 14:43
    +1

    Wow what a silly intersection. I find it difficult to believe that unless there was a stop sign or the turn arrow/light was red most people would stop if there was no light or it were green.

    It also IMO it is really horrible to give someone a fine for this, the officer should have given you a warning as most people aren't going to stop if the light was green. They will look to check it is safe but aren't going to come to a complete stop.

    @OP do you have a history of getting tickets or is this your first one for a while or at all?

    I'd be writing in to ask for a warning.

    Also a good reason to get a dash cam.

    • takezo on 16/10/2025 - 18:21
      +2

      No history and yes lesson learnt re the dash cam.

  • Bruceflix on 16/10/2025 - 14:47
    -1

    I can't comment as I have no idea. I can see arguments for either. What a messed up intersection. If it were me, i probably wouldn't have stopped. I think I would fight that in court. Council/state government (whoever jurisdiction it is) needs to fix that up. What a mess. Cop must have been in a bad mood regardless. or you are a P plate

    • takezo on 16/10/2025 - 18:22

      Never used to be any lights here. This is the "fixed" version.

  • BuzzBuzzBuzz on 16/10/2025 - 14:52
    +2

    In my view it's no different to any other controlled intersection. Light was green, you proceeded. I'd struggle to see a magistrate interpreting the situation differently.

    • xuqi on 17/10/2025 - 23:40

      The problem here is the OP doesn't have a dash cam prove his point in court. The cop can say whatever he wants there and the magistrate will believe it.

      Now if there was dashcam footage, then I'd be heading to court…

      • McFly on 18/10/2025 - 22:07

        Dashcam footage would be irrelevant. OP isn't disputing they went straight through intersection.

  • Euphemistic on 16/10/2025 - 17:07
    +4

    When i look at the second link, it appears (to me) to only be a stop line for the red light. There is no stop sign. When green, i would proceed through without stopping just like every other green light.

  • takezo on 16/10/2025 - 18:25
    +3

    OK so I just drove through there again, and there are now stop signs above the "stop on red signal". No idea when they were added but they weren't there in the photo.

    Not sure if this changes anything assuming the lights were green, but what about when no light?

    Very confusing with both signs there now.

    • Porker on 16/10/2025 - 18:55
      +8

      If there's a STOP sign, then you'll need to stop when there's no green arrow.

      Not the best of designs, but presumably there has been a few accidents there such that they want motorists to stop and look.

      My interpretation is that if the green arrow is on, then there's no need to stop.

      • bbinc on 17/10/2025 - 08:53

        Agree. If there is now a Stop sign as well, that is contradictory. I don’t think you can have both a green arrow and a Stop sign. There are quite a few crazy intersections down that way. And in Elsternwick until recently there was a right turn lane, with a right turn arrow painted on the road, facing a No Right Turn sign. Sometimes they don’t get the signs right.
        Dash cams all the way!

    • smartazz104 on 17/10/2025 - 06:59
      +1

      So they made it worse.

      • WhyAmICommenting on 17/10/2025 - 08:32
        -1

        Because of red light runners? Brilliant!

        • smartazz104 on 17/10/2025 - 08:50
          +1

          It already says "Stop here on red arrow."

    • GordonD on 17/10/2025 - 09:22

      OK so I just drove through there again, and there are now stop signs above the "stop on red signal". No idea when they were added but they weren't there in the photo.

      The problem now is you don't know and/or can't prove what the signs said on the day you were booked.

      I wouldn't think that adding actual STOP signs changes your situation. It just appears to correct the legal flaw in the signs before that there wasn't actually a standard format STOP sign, as required by law, to make the STOP on red signal sign enforceable. As it was a court would have thrown it out. But traffic rules have become so complicated, and just plain messy in Victoria where they seem to think they have to have a rule for everything and somehow everyone has to know them, that its hard to know.

      It just isn't a reasonable common sense interpretation of a stop on red signal sign that it means you have to stop on green too. Hopefully someone reviewing your ticket, or a magistrate, would agree.

    • Euphemistic on 17/10/2025 - 14:31

      Is it a regular stop sogn, or stop sign with 3 black dots in it?

  • Drakesy on 16/10/2025 - 18:51

    Police officer is having a bad day.

    They need to go back to school.

    • johnno07 on 17/10/2025 - 12:58
      +1

      Frankly I think whoever is responsible for this intersection is the one in need of further education.

  • northern nsw on 16/10/2025 - 21:27
    +5

    having read most of the sob stories over the years from drivers that feel hard done by the popo or other drivers - and mainly aggreived incorrectly IMHO - I think you have a good case to challenge the infringement, it just depend on your time and money.
    Taking the officers advice, imagine if you had to stop at an unbroken line at every green light, chaos and confusion would reign.
    Just keep an eye on the intersection, you wouldn't want the local council to erect a stop sign in the meantime.

    • johnno07 on 17/10/2025 - 12:58
      +1

      Leave.

  • quick-dry on 16/10/2025 - 22:39
    +3

    "stop here on red arrow". (from the intersection photos)

    Green means go, it wasn't a red arrow.

    I would go back there and properly document the intersection, preferably with visible timestamps in your photos. I would try and request a review, including the photos first, and then go to court as a last resort.

    I wouldn't ask for a waiver based on driving record, since you may still want that for some other time.

  • MorriJ on 17/10/2025 - 02:27

    Where was the cop in all this? Was he following you through the intersection? Was he on the side street? Did he go through a red light to pull you over?

  • Jstrrrr on 17/10/2025 - 08:59
    -3

    I think here are the possibilities:

    1. The OP got it wrong. It's very unlikely that there will be a both a green traffic light ON and a STOP sign at the same intersection. That would be like one traffic light is green, another is red at the same intersection. Any such confusing setup from Vicroads would likely result in Vicroads being responsible for all accidents and fines that occur in that scenario.

    2. If there is a traffic light and a STOP sign, then it's likely the light only operates RED or off. No green. That way, you will always need to stop, and then proceed if not red and safe.

    3. From the photo, it looks like that the sign is a "Stop here when red" sign. That's not at all a stop sign. That sign only attempts to clarify where you need to stop when the light is red. This sign is usually placed at a confusing/complex/non-orthogonal intersection for clarity. It supplements the red light for clarity on where to stop, and nothing more.

    4. This thread is kind of pointless until the OP clarifies the actual setup of the intersection. I would very much like to see a photo of the green light/STOP sign in one frame - this sounds implausible to me, and all "interesting" discussions come from this implausible scenario.

    5. It's of course possible that a very junior cop misread the "stop here when red" sign as a STOP sign. But that would be a beyond rookie error to make and you can easily get the fine retracted by sending in photo of the intersection showing there is no STOP sign to which the ticket refers.

    • takezo on 18/10/2025 - 10:18

      I clarified earlier but there is a STOP sign there now.

      Additionally there is also a turning arrow, which most definitely lights green at times. I'll head down later and get a photo of it.

      Edit: I was wrong. There used to be a green arrow but the lights have now been changed. Please see my update.

    • vi9ilante on 18/10/2025 - 10:22

      Too much brother

  • Benoffie on 17/10/2025 - 09:20
    +2

    Just a reminder to OP that you dont necessarily have to go to court. Certainly in SA, you can write to the Commissioner, state your case and ask for it to be removed. If it's a case of misapplication of the law, this is more convenient for them than the cost of a court appearance.

  • SlickMick on 17/10/2025 - 09:59
    +1

    My pet hate is red arrows. It seems to me, at that intersection, it is clear to a driver turning right whether it is safe to do so. If traffic approaching, stop. If not, go.
    I so hate sitting at a red arrow when no one's coming, then by the time they turn off the red arrow someone is coming, and they get a red light. We could all have gone without inconveniencing anyone else if they'd just let us think for ourselves./r

  • smartazz104 on 17/10/2025 - 10:31

    he said "it doesn't matter you need to come to a stop"

    I'd like to ask him "so what's the point of the green arrow?"

  • Soundwave on 17/10/2025 - 10:32

    To be honest, I would even argue that it's not even a Stop sign but more of a guidance sign. Don't go past this line during a red light/arrow. Probably because drivers had their car nose over into the intersection when red, blocking traffic or having people swerve to avoid them. If the light was green, that sign does not apply. Hence why I wouldn't even consider it a Stop sign. The red light/arrow is the indicator for you to stop, the sign is the indicator for where you need to stop. If the police officer didn't book you for going through a red light at the same time, I would be fighting this.

  • Eeples on 17/10/2025 - 10:53

    OP, is it like one of those traffic lights that cycles from red to yellow to green quite quickly to let 1 car go at a time on a freeway onramp? (Because on those you do need to stop and then go again).

    Or, does it stay green for some time?

    • takezo on 18/10/2025 - 10:17

      No it's not like this. Just a regular traffic light, however sometimes nothing is lit.

  • HCBargain on 17/10/2025 - 10:59

    I live around the corner from this intersection and I'm very familiar with it. The lights help during peak times.

    There is no stop sign. You cannot be fined for not stopping at a stop sign when there is no stop sign.

    If you stopped at a green light you'd be a dangerous driver.

    Do not pay the fine. The cop who gave you the fine is a fool.

    • takezo on 18/10/2025 - 10:20

      That's what I thought as well, until I went back and there are 2 stop signs now on the left and right. I suspect they were just added recently and the cops were camping out there waiting for people going through.

      • CodeXD on 18/10/2025 - 10:26

        What is the date of your alleged "infringement"? I'm sure collective as a whole, ozbargain can collect enough evidence from dashcam to proof there wasn't a stop sign on that day haha

  • jaimex2 on 17/10/2025 - 12:49
    -1

    I don't miss Victoria one bit. The cops there are on amphetamines or something just waiting to jump down your throat for made up crap.

    It doesn't help VicRoads is incompetent either and makes deranged intersections like the one posted. There are plenty of other examples where they make paradoxical intersections or road markings.

    OP did not break any traffic laws and he'll have to waste time appealing it.

  • Dack Smith on 17/10/2025 - 13:13
    -3

    Victoria is part of China, in the One belt one road program so you are liable for any fines, even if laws not broken.

    Especially in Box Hill

  • ID10T Error on 17/10/2025 - 13:53

    A stop sign in vic means stop and also means give way.
    A green light means proceed (with caution)
    This case deserves a court to decide and clarify the double laws conflicting.

  • brokenglish on 17/10/2025 - 22:15
    +1

    I know exactly where that is. No one stops at green light.
    Go to court to contest it, you got nothing to lose. At least you can state your case again.
    That cop is on a power trip.
    You got this!

  • takezo on 18/10/2025 - 10:50
    +6

    OK so I just headed down with the intention of taking a photo of the intersection with the light showing a green arrow, only to find that the traffic lights have been changed so there are only red and amber lights now.

    So at some stage recently:
    - Stop signs have been added above the "Stop on red arrow" sign
    - The green arrow has been removed (you could see it previously in the google maps image from Dec 23)

    So my recollection of it being green was obviously incorrect, so apologies for that. I didn't mean to purposely mislead anyone. I was obviously on auto pilot as I'm very familiar with the intersection. The light was off and I didn't even see the new Stop signs as there was very clearly no oncoming traffic approaching.

    I still would love clarification re the "Stop on red arrow sign". Does this infer that you don't stop otherwise?

    When I drove back, there were 6 or 7 cars backed up waiting to cross through. The light went from red to off, as the approaching traffic got a red light. All cars went straight through without stopping at the line as you would at a normal right turn intersection with a green light. In fact to stop at the line would risk you getting rear ended from the car behind.

    • Daniel Plainview on 18/10/2025 - 12:21
      +1

      Credit to the OP for their integrity stating this.

    • surfingedge on 18/10/2025 - 14:36

      Well when it says "Stop on red arrow", and there is no red arrow, you shouldn't need to stop if the road is clear.

      However you say there are now additional stop signs on top. If you feel like going to court you can attempt to argue that it's unclear which sign trumps which.

      Seems strange to have traffic lights with only red and amber but no green. Any other examples of lights like this?

      • GordonD on 18/10/2025 - 15:14
        +2

        Seems strange to have traffic lights with only red and amber but no green. Any other examples of lights like this?

        Metering lights on freeway access roads. They turn them off when there's not enough traffic to need them.

      • Eeples on 18/10/2025 - 20:33

        The main round-a-bout at Erina, NSW has amber/red and rotating roundabout/lights operating signage. No green light.

    • GordonD on 18/10/2025 - 15:03
      -1

      I still would love clarification re the "Stop on red arrow sign". Does this infer that you don't stop otherwise?

      Sorry, OP, it doesn't say "stop on red arrow", it says "stop HERE on red arrow". It isn't a standard format legal enforceable STOP sign. It is just an instruction to tell you WHERE you need to stop when the lights are operating and the arrow is red. When the lights aren't operating you have to obey the STOP sign above it. What is the rule when the lights are operating and the lights are green? I don't honestly know.

      But here's what google AI says:
      Yes, you must stop at the stop sign even if the traffic light is green, as you always have to obey the sign that is the most restrictive. However, some intersections are designed with traffic lights that override the stop sign. A stop sign takes precedence in Victoria unless a traffic light at that intersection is explicitly designated as overriding the sign, which is rare and will be clearly indicated by the intersection's design. If there is no traffic light, you must stop for the stop sign.

      Looks like that intersection is going to be a great career opportunity for any local cop who decides to sit there and generate more than his quota of bookings easily.

    • rambutann on 18/10/2025 - 16:05

      Yep i went past it today and specifically went through it.. not a single car who had the ability to cross that intersection stopped at the stop sign.. stupid stop sign if you ask me.

      • Davo1111 on 18/10/2025 - 16:40

        It has a stop sign and no green light arrow.

        Can't get any clearer that you need to stop.

        Exactly why the cops were there.

        • takezo on 18/10/2025 - 17:03

          So what do you do when you're 3rd of 6 cars waiting in line, when the oncoming cars get a red light, and then your red light disappears? Does each car stop in turn at the line?

          I'm not trying to be a smart ass, it's a genuine question.

          I also don't see why the "Stop here on red arrow" sign is there, if you always need to stop regardless. Shouldn't just the stop sign be sufficient?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join