Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

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I received a letter advising me that the infringement notice had been withdrawn.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)
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
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

DJ 5:03 pm 26 Apr 08

If you can’t stop your vhicle, whatever it may be and regardless of road conditions, BEFORE the unbroken line hand your license into the nearest Police Station telling them “I do not possess the required co-ordination to drive safely”.

Boo Hoo…. drive according to the ARR and you wont get a fine. Simple. Quit crying like a school girl with a scraped knee. I was being tailgated…. boo hoo. I was forced to speed… BS.

Oh, I do sympathise with chaton however keep in mind that this is a regular excuse for those with poor driving records

Deano 4:42 pm 26 Apr 08

Spideydog said :

Yeah, don’t cross the white line and you won’t get a fine. The law states that you must bring your vehicle to a stop at or before the white line, not after. A bit harsh maybe… but thems the rules.

Yes, that is what the rule states but the intent of the rule is to prevent collisions in the intersection, not penalise people who fail to precisely calculate the stopping distance of their vehicle by a small amount.

A complicating factor is that the decision to fine is based on a single photograph of a point in time that does not necessarily show a true representation of the driver’s intentions or actions. As a result, the examiners fall back on a technical interpretation of the rule. However, the lack of discretion applied in these cases indicate the primary purpose of red light cameras is revenue raising and not necessarily road safety.

Spideydog 1:42 pm 26 Apr 08

Yeah, don’t cross the white line and you won’t get a fine. The law states that you must bring your vehicle to a stop at or before the white line, not after. A bit harsh maybe… but thems the rules.

Remember that the brake lights can be illuminated, but doesn’t mean your vehicle is stopped (not saying yours wasn’t) Someone could argue the same thing being stopped a full car length past the line. Even being just front wheels (which includes the bonnet etc) past the white line, is actually within the pedestrian area. But who cares about pedestrians that have to avoid the front of a car parked within the walking area.

Blackwidda 9:07 am 21 Apr 08

EtFb

I received an infringement notice for lights at Hindmarsh intersection, it shows my 2 front wheels just over the line, brake lights on. After reading your post and another about these cameras I am not paying the fine and will send a letter to cointest the infringement. Any advice from you would be good.

Blackwidda 9:04 am 21 Apr 08

EtFb said :

I had a similar problem — a red arrow at which I’d stopped, and they called it “running a red light” because my wheels were over the (poorly painted, indistinct, arbitrary) white line. I sent them a letter and they said “no, yah boo sucks, pay the fine”. I spoke to an ex-AFP friend who said that the letter would have come from three public service monkeys working on a quota, and the actual cop who signed the letter knew nothing about it, and probably never even saw my comments.

But — this is the key — once you send a letter contesting a ticket, it has to get forwarded to the magistrates and you get taken to court. If you pay anyway, before the court date, the court date gets cancelled BUT the whole pile of paperwork gets sent to a different copper to review and analyse. It was this process that led to them sending me exactly the same information: “there’s a hole in the law about red arrows, so we’re giving you your money back”.

My theory is that they keep little loopholes in the back of their heads for when the three PS monkeys have overstepped their bounds. They can hardly say “our monkeys are fascist bastards working on a quota”, because (a) it would reflect badly on the force, and (b) the truth hurts. So instead they wait until the wheels of “justice” have done a few spins, and then pull one of these loopholes out of the hat and say “here you go, have one on us”.

I don’t trust the cops in this town (or any town) enough to push it any further than that, frankly.

Blackwidda 7:58 am 21 Apr 08

I come from Newcastle and puled up at the lights on Hiondmarsh Drive near Fishwyck and had the front wheels over the line, and this was at 10.30pm. I saw that there was a red light camera so I didn’t move. My car is shown stationary, brake lights on, I got a fine in the mail just like you did, I haven’t paid it and have until the 5th of May to register if I am going to contest it. After reading your comments I am now going to contest it and see what happens. If you havea read of the Dictionary and look up what the meaning of the word “Proceed” states, as compared to ehat the police say that ” you proceeded against a red arrow”, to proceed means to complete, to go through.

madman 11:42 pm 17 Apr 08

chaton said :

I made sure I got a good tax return that year….

OMG!!! LOL I love your thinking!!!

chaton 4:13 pm 17 Apr 08

I have a long story I am still bitter about though it happened a few years ago.

Was pulled over for speeding, just as you get off Canberra Avenue towards Queanbeyan. (The police must have been about 2 metres within the ACT boundaries). Came off a 100 zone (from memory) into a 60 zone and was booked at about 70, and coming down.

That was fine, I accepted that I was speeding and for all the other times I have sped but not been caught I figured I would take it on the chin.

However. While they were checking my licence and rego they came back and asked if I had received a ticket I hadn’t paid. Not to my knowledge, I stated. They had apparently given me a parking ticket which I hadn’t paid, and it was so overdue that my car was unregistered. Apparently they had sent me letters to this effect – not sure what address they were being sent to because they certainly never arrived at my house. So I ended up with about $1200 worth of fines.

It was Good Friday. I needed my car to travel for Easter. They wouldn’t let me drive my car so I had to have it towed back to the other side of Canberra (on Good Friday, didn I mention that?). So I had a towing bill too.

I tried to pay the fines, knowing I needed my car over the long weekend, do you think I could give my money to anyone??? No one was open and no one could help me, Canberra Connect had no clue how to handle my situation, and the police, though sympathetic, were equally confused.

I eventually paid the fines (at the post office from memory), thinking I would contest after Easter. I spent about 6 months talking with various official people and in the end, I got onto some lady who stated “if you paid the fines you admitted guilt”. And that was the end of that.

I made sure I got a good tax return that year….

dontdoit 12:31 pm 17 Apr 08

Same thing happened to me – except I was just going straight ahead. no arrows. they agreed i was stopped, but i had to “pay the $250 fine or face the magistrates court”. then three weeks later a cheque arrived, refunding my money. ?!?!?!?!

natecv8 9:46 am 17 Apr 08

RuffnReady said :

Makes me wish I had contested the 106 in a 100 zone I got on the highway from Geelong to Melbourne. 106 on a dead straight 3 lane road with another driver tailgaiting me…

As someone who drives the Princes Freeway twice a day, I can tell you one thing for sure – you would have been doing more than 106 to get hit, despite what the ticket says. Those cameras have a notoriously high tolerance and the general belief here is that you need to be going 110+ to get clicked. Not only that, you could pretty easily have changed lanes to avoid the tailgating.

The ACT coppers might let you off but I doubt you would have had a chance against the VIC police, given their extensive experience in handing out traffic camera fines..

Aurelius 9:26 am 17 Apr 08

For those who are arguing that “The Police don’t issue the fines” – they send the infringement notice, they sign the letters that pass back and forth regarding the dispute. You sign it, you’re responsible for it.
I have now spoken to a former Ombudsman, and intend pursuing this further.
If the law does not provide for the photographic evidence to be used in a court, then the evidence is null. If the evidence is null, the issuing of the infringements is on very shaky legal grounds.
And Serendipity, whilst I agree that there is plenty that goes on the cops do not see, and therefore do not enforce, that does not excuse the issuing of fines in contravention of the legislation.

blaringmike 9:53 pm 16 Apr 08

Definitely not the cops fault. They just do what they are told by Stanhopeless. It’s the thieving ACT local government trying to tax more money out of you.

OpenYourMind2 9:09 pm 16 Apr 08

Just reading Serendipity’s post and feeling like a bit of a stir, I find it amusing that so many people bitch about cyclists going through red lights. And don’t get me wrong plenty do.
But the funny thing is, so many more cars do so every day. The difference is the driver is often hurtling at high speed in a two tonne object.
I’m not justifying either, I’m just pointing out the irony of so much bitching about those terrible cyclists doing something that is so common in car drivers that a requirement exists to install camera and ticketing systems.

Serendipity 8:35 pm 16 Apr 08

This sounds like another ill advised person, who seem to be on the increase on RiotACT who will bash the AFP/ACT Police at any opportunity, even when their facts are totally wrong. ACT Police have nothing to do with speed or red light cameras. I am no fan of speed or red light tickets either but you do the cause no good at all by blaming the police for everything that goes wrong. Redirect your complaint against the right authority. As a further point, count in any day on any major Canberra road the numbers of people who do run a yellow/red or red light/arrow etc and it is very obvious that only a very small percentage of offenders actually get caught….and when they do they scream like a stuck pig. Add to that all those driving with phones to their ears, zooming past at a high speed on the Parkway, except where the camera is located when everyone slows down to correct speed limit. I guarantee that I would see at least half a dozen light, speed or phone offenders each day just driving three suburbs to and from work. I also followed the link the the Australian Road Rules and that confirms that a ticket can legally be issued for a yellow or red light, thats an Australian wide rule. So I say, do the crime pay the fine. Safer roads benefits every one of us.

The_Soarer 5:37 pm 16 Apr 08

Just to clarify, ACT Policing has absolutly nothing to do with the issuing of red light and speed camera fines. They are issued by a section of Urban Services. ACT Policing do, however, handle the appeals process, as they do for appeals of tickets issued by Police officers.

So really, the government has attempt to ‘steal’ from you, and ACT Policing has done the right thing and let you off.

I agree that they shouldn’t be issued if they don’t have the legislation to back them up…

EtFb 4:44 pm 16 Apr 08

I had a similar problem — a red arrow at which I’d stopped, and they called it “running a red light” because my wheels were over the (poorly painted, indistinct, arbitrary) white line. I sent them a letter and they said “no, yah boo sucks, pay the fine”. I spoke to an ex-AFP friend who said that the letter would have come from three public service monkeys working on a quota, and the actual cop who signed the letter knew nothing about it, and probably never even saw my comments.

But — this is the key — once you send a letter contesting a ticket, it has to get forwarded to the magistrates and you get taken to court. If you pay anyway, before the court date, the court date gets cancelled BUT the whole pile of paperwork gets sent to a different copper to review and analyse. It was this process that led to them sending me exactly the same information: “there’s a hole in the law about red arrows, so we’re giving you your money back”.

My theory is that they keep little loopholes in the back of their heads for when the three PS monkeys have overstepped their bounds. They can hardly say “our monkeys are fascist bastards working on a quota”, because (a) it would reflect badly on the force, and (b) the truth hurts. So instead they wait until the wheels of “justice” have done a few spins, and then pull one of these loopholes out of the hat and say “here you go, have one on us”.

I don’t trust the cops in this town (or any town) enough to push it any further than that, frankly.

p1 4:37 pm 16 Apr 08

“Are the Police still sending out infringement notices for offences they know they have no legal basis for?”

Actually, they would have legal basis for it (turning against red is an offence). What they don’t have is a (legally recognised) form of evidence that people are doing it. Kinda tight of then to keep sending out the notices all the same though. I must remember to run all red arrows from now on….

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site