Red Light Camera - Think I Was Caught In Work Van

[BA_Turbs]

  mickq said:

  BA_Turbs said:

Red light cameras take a series of three images when they detect someone entering an intersection against a red signal.  If you were already in the intersection before the light turned amber, then you have not committed and offence.  If you entered the intersection against a red or amber signal, that is an offence.  So in other words, the camera may have one or even two images of your vehicle being in the intersection against the red signal, but if it does not have the first,  you are sitting pretty.

Hope this puts your mind at rest 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong.

The laws say that you should not enter an intersection unless you are sure you can clear it. This is done to prevent gridlock. That is what they will say if he argues based on the truck slowing him down: you knew the truck was slow, you knew the truck would take time to cross the intersection, yet you entered the intersection when there was reasonable evidence available to you at the time to suggest exiting the intersection prior to the red light might not be possible.

I know at least one person done in a similar way, although in her case she proceeded forward waiting to turn right (as you do) and a car ran the light heading towards here meaning she couldnt do her right hand turn until after the light went red (either that or she had to stop in the middle of the intersection and stay there!). She was still fined for the above reasons.

His best bet is the location of the red light camera detection strips. In general they are just past the "stop line" where cars are meant to stop before the intersection. Although the camera photos usually show the cars mid intersection (because they are travelling fast and there is a slight delay between detection and the first photo), the strips tend to be about 2m past the stop line.

Chances are that when the light went red you were in the middle of the intersection or further, and the camera would not have been tripped.

If they fine you, by all means try writing in, but dont expect to get let off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mate,

I completely disagree with what you are saying. I don't think given the "reasonable man" test anyone would ever get found guilty of this in court. I know I can't nominate case law or specific incidents, so I am not looking ot turn this into a fued, but I don't agree. What you are saying would depend heavily on case law because it is a situation where it comes down to your interpretation of the legislation.

Also, with the number pictures, haven't been able to get a proper answer on that, there's every chance it is two and not three pictures as iTec said.

Antony

[sbr79]

So am I to stay put at a greenlight if a Expensive Daewoo is in front of me, all because I knew the chances of the commodroe breaking down far outweighted the chances of me getting throught the green light.

[drcook]

if anyone can clear this up for me:

if I enter an intersection when the light is still amber, but turns red while im already IN the intersection will I get pinged?

[Flukey]

  drcook said:

if anyone can clear this up for me:

if I enter an intersection when the light is still amber, but turns red while im already IN the intersection will I get pinged?

I wouldnt think so but happy to be proven wrong. I imagine it has happened to me many times but I've never received an invoice.

[maximum_velocity]

  BA_Turbs said:

  mickq said:

  BA_Turbs said:

Red light cameras take a series of three images when they detect someone entering an intersection against a red signal.  If you were already in the intersection before the light turned amber, then you have not committed and offence.  If you entered the intersection against a red or amber signal, that is an offence.  So in other words, the camera may have one or even two images of your vehicle being in the intersection against the red signal, but if it does not have the first,  you are sitting pretty.

Hope this puts your mind at rest 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong.

The laws say that you should not enter an intersection unless you are sure you can clear it. This is done to prevent gridlock. That is what they will say if he argues based on the truck slowing him down: you knew the truck was slow, you knew the truck would take time to cross the intersection, yet you entered the intersection when there was reasonable evidence available to you at the time to suggest exiting the intersection prior to the red light might not be possible.

I know at least one person done in a similar way, although in her case she proceeded forward waiting to turn right (as you do) and a car ran the light heading towards here meaning she couldnt do her right hand turn until after the light went red (either that or she had to stop in the middle of the intersection and stay there!). She was still fined for the above reasons.

His best bet is the location of the red light camera detection strips. In general they are just past the "stop line" where cars are meant to stop before the intersection. Although the camera photos usually show the cars mid intersection (because they are travelling fast and there is a slight delay between detection and the first photo), the strips tend to be about 2m past the stop line.

Chances are that when the light went red you were in the middle of the intersection or further, and the camera would not have been tripped.

If they fine you, by all means try writing in, but dont expect to get let off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mate,

I completely disagree with what you are saying. I don't think given the "reasonable man" test anyone would ever get found guilty of this in court. I know I can't nominate case law or specific incidents, so I am not looking ot turn this into a fued, but I don't agree. What you are saying would depend heavily on case law because it is a situation where it comes down to your interpretation of the legislation.

Also, with the number pictures, haven't been able to get a proper answer on that, there's every chance it is two and not three pictures as iTec said.

Antony

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree....You cant prove the truck was never going to make it through the intersection....You will be alright, dont expect a fine in the mail :o

[Guest TypeHoon]

By the time (or if) the letter arrives from work you wont be there anymore, return to sender marked not known at this address.....

Dont call me when it goes pearshaped....

[Blown BA]

  TypeHoon said:

By  the time (or if) the letter arrives from work you wont be there anymore, return to sender marked not known at this address.....  

Dont call me when it goes pearshaped....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's right your half way there :lol:

[mickq]

  BA_Turbs said:

Mate,

I completely disagree with what you are saying.  I don't think given the "reasonable man" test anyone would ever get found guilty of this in court.  I know I can't nominate case law or specific incidents, so I am not looking ot turn this into a fued, but I don't agree.  What you are saying would depend heavily on case law because it is a situation where it comes down to your interpretation of the legislation.

Also, with the number pictures, haven't been able to get a proper answer on that, there's every chance it is two and not three pictures as iTec said.

Antony

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Reasonable man test? What planet do you live on? Since when is a "reasonable man test" relevant in court?

I'll give you some examples:

You get home from a night out. You have not have a single drink. You have 10 people with you all night and they all verify you have not drunk.

You are in your lounge room, and decide to have some drinks.

2 hours later, there is a knock at the door. You answer. The police ask you to blow a breatho, as someone saw you driving a bit wonky and called them up saying you might be drunk.

You blow, register over 0.05%, and are booked for drink driving even though you never drove with any blood in your system.

Reasonable man test? It would fail that big time but you WILL be booked for drink driving and you WILL lose the case in court in the example I wrote above. Its happened.

Why? Because in Victoria (and likely similar other states) the law states that the onus is on the driver to maintain sobriety for 3hrs after driving. And yes, that's true

Reasonable man test? Totally irellevant and it makes me laugh. Many laws, and their application in court rooms, dont pass any kind of logic test.

You can not have had much first hand experience with the judicial system if you seriously think logic and reason come into it. It generally DOES NOT.

And the same applies to the legislation about entering intersections. Its not at all cloudy and there is no room for different interpretations.

"A driver must not enter an intersection if the driver cannot drive through the

intersection because the intersection, or a road beyond the intersection, is

blocked.

Penalty: 2 penalty units.

Examples

The intersection, or a road beyond the intersection, may be blocked by congested

traffic, a disabled vehicle, a collision between vehicles or between a vehicle and a

pedestrian, or by a fallen load on the road."

A truck making leaving the intersection within green and yellow lights impossible would qualify as as a blockage caused by congestion. As such the vehicle should not have entered the intersection in the first place.

Argue all you want, I know people who have been booked for just that kind of event, and when they protested or went to court, the fine was upheld and they then had to pay court costs on top of it.

[saleen]

It's illegal to queue across intersections!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ZAP]

At the end of the day IF Falchoon crossed the white line after the lights were red, he will have a nice ass pic of his van and cop a fine as he ran a red light. If the lights went red AFTER he crossed the white line the camera would not have taken his Pic. Red light cameras are activated by crossing the final white line, not in the middle of an intersection.

While there are heaps of dumb laws in Oz, it is up to the magistrate/judge to "interperet" the law and apply it accordingly. While you may get fined on a dumb law, you can take it to court and have it looked at under the situation it was given.

(P.S I am not saying red light laws are dumb.)

Mickq are you a lawyer or something, lighten up, BA_Turbs is a fine member of the vic plod squad and does know something about the rules.

Oh, And if a cop turns up at your doorstep and says "blah balh, blow in this, you can legally tell them to pi$$off as they must have a warrant and prove you were the driver at the time.

I also do not believe the 3 hr rule you state, although VIC has some weird laws.....