Red Light Camera - Think I Was Caught In Work Van

[BA_Turbs]

  mickq said:

  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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You've either left out facts or are not telling the truth, becasue what you have described is not legal. The "reasonable man test" applies to everything. Ever heard the saying "believes on reasonable grounds"..? ANyway, this is so far off topic I can't even remember what the topic was. Believe what you want mickq, and get and tell all of these friends of yours to get better soliciters, a trained chimp could have defended in court that matters you are describing.

Oh, and last piece of advice... Calm down, take a few deep breaths.

[stang]

I`m a happy little vegemite,happy as can be.

Sorry guys thought I would lighten up the mood.

Seriously, you can learn lot from these type of forums try to listen to what people say and try not to make it personal.

Oh and don`t forget to smile there is new software out that turns your screen into a camera(opps only kidding.)