Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Get a new bike from $50 per week

Red Light Traffic Cameras (Part Deux)

By Aurelius 16 April 2008 23

A while back, I wrote about how I’d received a traffic infringement notice based on a red light camera. And because the car was stopped (admittedly slightly over the line) and the time of the offence and the photo were different (by 23 hours) I intended to contest it.

Now I have an outcome, I think it might be worth sharing with the RiotACT readership. Especially given what the outcome is.

I informed the Police I would contest the offence. I did not specify the reasons (I think you’re meant to, but I wasn’t going to flag my punches).

I received a letter advising me that the infringement notice had been withdrawn. Why? Not because of either of the reasons I had identified, but because the legislation about red light cameras does not cover turning against a red arrow.

If I had just paid the fine, does anyone here think the Police would be refunding my money? Are the Police still sending out infringement notices for offences they know they have no legal basis for? If so, are they guilty of obtaining monies by deception?

Personally, I think that camera offences should automatically have the photo included at the first instance,  rather than the driver having to request a copy. But that is a side issue next to the theft that is going on by the ACT Police, sending out fines for something they have no legal basis for.

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
23 Responses to
Red Light Traffic Cameras (Part Deux)
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Spideydog 1:07 am 27 Apr 08

Oh thats right..stats tell the whole story. Did the stats say how many more drivers are on the road comapared to before. Oh and the CT’s is a reliable source of good information too……CT tells the population what sells newspapers … camera bashing and alike sells newspapers.

For the record I said (if you would like to read my post again more carefully) IF it saves just ONE life, it is worth it. You like to bash my post, but you can’t even read it properly, or don’t I deserve it because i’m “just another poster”

Umm the law states “at or before” (in words to that effect) not just “AT” like you are saying. You may need to rehash your road rules knowledge because it seems you know very little. When you cross the white line you have proceded into the intersection, even if you stop. How does stopping a car length BEFORE the white line equate to the same offence if the vehicle has not proceded into the intersection? (yes, I agree, people stopping a car length is wrong, but is not the same offence as you have suggested) And where the hell did “Camrys” come from???

Where indeed are these wonderful stats that you preach, tell me they aren’t from CT. Sorry to get personal, but your input was barely readable and showed a great lack of knowledge, on all fronts.

Are you someone that was caught doing the wrong thing and are now peeved because you got fined ?? Sounds a lot like sour grapes to me. If you think the laws are wrong, write to the ministers, start a petition and get them changed.

minime2 11:07 pm 26 Apr 08

Maybe this “don’t cross the line” thing is what has caused the now very-common habit of vehicles stopping up a car length BEHIND the line. The law says – at the line (if you are the first car for the pedantic).

So they are committing THE SAME offence as going across the line on the red – all but a few inches…right?! “At” means that – not just over or just before. Mostly Camrys though. So they should get booked too on the arguments above.

But, maybe some instructor told them to stay back in case a car runs up your rear and pushes you into the traffic. If the impact is that great your whiplash and other injuries will mean you wont even notice the second impact. Spidey… the cameras haven’t saved lives … read CT (and Riot) to see that ACT road death rate has gone UP since the cameras. And rear enders up by 50%++ at some – Ginnenderra and Aikman for one. Your early input was readable, but cliches make you just another poster.

Spideydog 5:26 pm 26 Apr 08

Sorry to rain on your parade Deano, traffic offences are Strict and absolute meaning a drivers intent is not considered, full stop. A driver reason for not stopping at the white line is purely a mitigating circumstace. Simple fact is the law states stop before the borken line. Is it a little harsh…maybe. I think DJ is correct in saying that all drivers should have the ability to stop thier vehicle before the line.

How do you know what the law was designed for? You say it was only designed for “stopping collisions” When drivers go past the white line, they are in the pedestrian zone, so even just having the front end of your car over the line doesn’t mean you aren’t going to collide with a pedestrian or at the very least inconvenience them by having to walk around the vehicle.

A great deal of traffic crashes occurr at traffic lights and intersections and this includes pedestrians. So why not target this?

I remember when geting my drivers licence, of being told that you must stop before the white line, and if I didn’t stop before the white line, would mean a possible failure of the driving test…. Obeying the road rules doesn’t stop after you get your full licence?

Yes I agree that cameras don’t have discretion and may seem a little unfair, Police do have discretion and can take into account any mitigating circumstance which may result in a caution as opposed to fine, but that’s life and police can’t be everywhere and a camera may be needed in some places to take thier place. If a camera has saved at least one life, I’ll take that any day of the week, year,etc

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site