21 February 2008

Red Light Cameras

| Aurelius
Join the conversation
31

I know there is a bit of an anti-camera sentiment amongst Rioters, and so I offer this story.
I recently received a traffic infringement notice for “proceed when traffic arrow red”. It said that just after midnight on January 28 (note: public holiday = double demerit points) I went thru a red arrow at a traffic light.

Ordinarily, I would have just paid it, since I know I sometimes skate close to the line and it’s entirely possible I might have done what was alleged. But I remembered this particular trip. I had a friend staying for the long weekend and late at night, we went out to hunt for a snack. This friend is someone who never does anything wrong – I’m sure you know the type. And I’m pretty confident that if I’d run a red light, if I’d even cut it fine, Eric would have said something. I don’t remember it being a topic for discussion while we toured the ACT looking for hot dogs, so I was pretty confident a mistake was made.

I have just now seen the photos.

They show my car stopped at the lights, with the brake lights on. The car stopped a short amount beyond the first white line, but not excessively. The car is a Barina and the front wheel is sitting almost on the line.

They also show the date and time incorrect (and given the issue of double demerits, the date is a very relevant detail) with both the original infringement and my own recollection.
I am obviously going to contest this infringement. And I would encourage you all to do so too, if you receive such a letter. It just concerns me that a lot of people would just pay without questioning. Everyone I have asked thus far has said they would pay without requesting the photo.

Join the conversation

31
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

In NSW they take a photo of you crossing the white line and then subsequent photos to make sure you have actually crossed into the intersection. If you have just pulled up over the white line and not poroceeded into the intersection you don’t get fined. This is clearly why we need uniform road rules that are the same in all states and teritories. If you haven’tcoissed over the white line and are sitting ther with your brakes on you are not intending to proceed against a red arrow, regardles if you have 2 wheels over the line or not. The dictinoary ahs a quite different explanation for what the trem proceed means.

Dear V8 Berlina with a three tier spoiler,

I recently went through a red light camera intersection and the light was still amber after I crossed the white stop line.
It was late afternoon and the sun was shinning in all its glory and as I couldnt clearly see the traffic lights, I realised half way through the intersection that the lights were indeed amber. By the time the lights went red, my back tyres were just coming out of the intersection.
I have been informed that these cameras do activate even if the light is amber.

I am usually a pretty safe driver and always stop for a red light. I do recall a car behind me that also went through the intersection although I am just a bit worried that these particular set of lights may have activated and taken a pic on amber…

Regards
griersy81

V8 Berlina with a three tier spoiler8:13 pm 21 Feb 08

“Berlina, where the logic ends is simple – when does someone’s behaviour constitute a danger to the public?”

Um, crossing that white line does constitute a danger to the public. Pedestrian are meant to have clear passage infront of that white line. By going past it, you risk striking pedestrians if they stupidly start crossing without looking) and you cause them to have to move around your vehicle. So even if you don’t drive right through the intersection, a hazard to the public is created by entering the intersection past the white line.

NSW RTA recommends you stay about 0.5m behind the line and vehicles behind you should be far enough back so they can see your rear tyres to reduce risk or rear end pile ups.

el ......TECortina 250 Deathtrap6:47 pm 21 Feb 08

AJW = Amber Jane/Joan Weston.

Yeah, the one that ran a red light while running from the cops and ended up killing a person.

What a crock of shit

fight it in court

Gorilla Dog’s for PM!!!

West_Kambah_4eva5:28 pm 21 Feb 08

IT’S “GRILLA DOGS” YOU HEATHENS!!!! Yes, it was a play on Gorilla and Griller, making “Grilla”.

Berlina, where the logic ends is simple – when does someone’s behaviour constitute a danger to the public?
Rules are there for the guidance of the wise, and the obedience of the stupid.

Who’s AJW?

I want to know more about the future of Gorilla Dog’s!

V8 Berlina with a three tier spoiler4:50 pm 21 Feb 08

Maelinar,
the danger with your logic is where does it end? Ok, a few cm is ok, then a few more and a few more. The white line is the white line. A court may decide to ignore the fine, and in light of the inaccurate date may throw out the offense, but the inaccurate date aside, will still see an infringement has occurred even if its minor and an honest mistake.
I do agree though, unfair in light of all the sh*t AJW gets away with.

So on the AJW scale, you actually stopped for the red light, albeit you missed by a few cm. You are facing a fine.

AJW didn’t stop for the red light, hit a few things, several other factors, and got off.

I don’t think you’ll have a problem if you take it to court for some reason.

If you are less than 100% sure about the infingement, always go to Dickson and look at the image.

A friend got a speed camera fine in the mail a few weeks back, alleging his trail bike went through a camera on Northbourne at 10k over the limit.

The fact that he was out of town on the day, and his bike was chained to a steel post in a locked garage led him to suspect it probably wasn’t him or his bike.

He trudged over to Dickson to view the rather blurry image, and sure enough the rego number was close to his, but what they claimed was a “6” was actually an “8”.

Armed with a photo of the back of his bike he was also able to show that the whole exhaust system had mysteriously jumped over to the other side of the bike in their photo.

They actually admitted they had stuffed up, and withdrew the infringement notice.

It pays to check……..

James-T-Kirk2:28 pm 21 Feb 08

What are these points of which you speak? Never lost one – and I never, never, ever drive like a nanna!

Holden, I thought so too – my wife managed to talk her way out of a moderately severe speeding fine (20km/h in excess of 110 limit) in NSW in the mid ’90’s.

Reckon natecv8’s right though – it’s the money they want.

Natecv8, yes, if I’d known the reputation and tendencies of the ACT judiciary at the time I probably should have taken it to court! 🙂

“The ACT – where guilt is no reason to convict”

Holden Caulfield1:35 pm 21 Feb 08

I concur with the three year time cycle for return of points incurred. This makes sense as your licence is revoked if you accumulate 12 points in any three year period.

@Snarky, that seems a bit rough, especially as I know of one fellow who had a speeding fine overturned and cancelled on account of him writing a letter pleading his case on account of a previously clean driving record. This guy has done it more than once also, mind, one of the cancellations was due to a technicality of signage placement. But the fact remained, in both instances, he was speeding (marginally) and wrote a letter and got off.

Well there ya go….. 🙂

I think in WA its 2-3 years from the date of the infringement. If the ACT does a bulk 5 year refresh – it seems a bit unfair.

Snarky: You went about it the wrong way. Every infringement they get they will deny you a caution unless you have a VERY, very good reason. It’s revenue for them and they won’t give it away that easily.

You need to be steadfast in your approach, that you will contest the fine in court based on those factors. More likely than not they will still organise a court date, but the judge will likely withdraw the fine.

Danman: Not quite true. All infringements expire after a 3 year rolling period. If you get one on the 1st of Jan 2000, the points will be returned on the 1st of Jan 2003.

The multiple of 5 years you are thinking of is generally when you need to renew your license. That doesn’t have any effect on points at all, it’s just a new piece of plastic with a new photo.

Every multipule of 5 years of you rage afetr you got your license is when the points are refreshed.

i.e. I am just about to turn 30, so my point, if I had lost any, will be renewed.

As i understand it, this will not happen again until I am 35.

I got done for going through the red on Hindmarsh Drive about 4 years ago. It was a fair cop – it was about quarter to 2 in the morning, I was tired and I misjudged the light timing, so, guilty, no question about it.

Up till then I’d had a spotless driving record for some 17 years previously – nothing but a couple of parking fines, in fact. So, I wrote off to the Commissioner asking if, in light of the fact of the spotless record, the time of the offence and the fact there was no-one else round at all whether I might get off with a caution this time.

Not a chance.

Made me realise that the police don’t view it as a “spotless driving record”, merely a record where you haven’t been caught yet and therefore of no real value at all. It’s changed the way I drive. I used to drive like an old nanna, extra cautious and protecting the “spotless” record. Now I take a few more risks than I used to – I still drive like a nanna (old habits etc) but now it’s a nanna with a bad attitude 🙂

Incidentally, is it still 3 years to regain lost points?

V8 Berlina with a three tier spoiler11:31 am 21 Feb 08

Aurelius,
Red Light cameras ad “running a red light” are casual terms. The offence red light camera is proceeding into/through an intersection against a traffic signal. Indeed, they are to keep us safer by stopping people who go through the intersection completely. You did not. However you did cross the line and however petty we all consider it, you did illegally enter an intersection.

I must say though that the photograph should show that and penalties should differ for illegally entering the intersection (a short distance in error) and actually passing through it. In some jurisdictions (UK, not sure about Aus), multiple images are taken in sequence to differentiate the offences and to clear those who make genuine errors such as in this circumstance. I would move for the government to ensure a sequence of images is taken in the ACT, but that would cut revenue I guess.

“proceeding against red arrow” then one cannot ‘proceed’ with one’s brakes on.”
Just because your brakes are on does not mean ou can’t still move the vehicle. And whether or not your brakes were on, you crossed the line and that is “proceeding” into an intersection.

Late night snack…were you and Eric smoking bongs that night?

I got done for the same fairly ridiculous “infringement” (at a spot where the sensors are very obviously set up to catch this sort of thing regardless of sense). On the advice of a friend who’s fairly senior in the AFP, I sent a letter off to the “Chief Police Officer” explaining the situation and asking him to get someone in the Infringements division to take a look at the photo with a view to having the notice cancelled. Kept it short and polite and… well, I haven’t heard back yet, but I have reason to be optimistic. Police are NOT, in fact, total bastards, and no cop would have dinged me in person for my terrible crime. I think it’ll be OK.

Berlina: While I agree with the ‘across the line’ argument, let us pause and remember why red lights cameras exist. They’re to stop people running red lights, therefore causing accidents.
And if we’re discussing definitions, if the infringement says “proceeding against red arrow” then one cannot ‘proceed’ with one’s brakes on.

I believe a precedent has already been set in the ACT where a judge ruled that if it was possible to get one thing wrong on a speeding fine, then it is reasonable to presume that they could have gotten the details incorrect as to the speed (from the top of my head it was the date or something).

Again from the top of my head, I think it may have been Kirby in 2003 – but google should be able to front more reliable data.

Following that precedent, but applying it to your situation, you can follow the line that it is reasonable to expect that they got a number of things wrong, but you may have to see your day in court to get off.

I didn’t think they had Gorilla Dog’s back in 1995. I was thinking something like 1999, or round about…

Oh and AM CB. What’s that got to do with Gorilla Dog’s? Does one change service station diets according to HF or UHF???

Remembers the old QUIX ?
Is it gone ?

We used to get gorilla dogs from there back in the AM CB days of 1995

Hell I’d want to see the photo’s! BTW, did you get your Hot Dog’s? Hope you did. But just for the record, Gorilla Dog’s are better 🙂 Anybody that remembers the old Qwix on Canberra Ave should remember Gorilla Dog’s 😀

Holden Caulfield10:21 am 21 Feb 08

Good luck with that Aurelius. Keep the bastards honest!

V8 Berlina with a three tier spoiler10:12 am 21 Feb 08

Speaking as a student of law,

Your vehicle crossed the white line, your tyres were on it. Crossing that line against a red signal is illegal. Doesn’t matter by how much or what type of car, the point is you did it. So it may be petty, but you did break the law.

However, precident has being set in NSW for drivers caught on speed/red light cameras where the date/time is incorrect on the image. Person where such inacuracy occured were able to avoid paying the fine, though it cost a bit to go to court.

The government relies on people paying the fine rather than paying to go to court.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.