My husband has received a fine for going through a red light 59.3 seconds after it turned red at a busy intersection. One can travel nearly 1k in that time, so it would be ridiculous to even think this could be done during a busy period. (I was a passenger, and know this not to be true). What he actually did was do a U-turn with the green arrow. We sent a letter explaining how 59.3 seconds could have elapsed, but it was rejected. Is it worth going to court?
Red light camera fine
aocal on 31/05/2014 - 09:58
Comments
59.3 seconds after it turned red
1 minute is 60 seconds. So 59.3 seconds is almost 1 minute. How long does it take to do a u-turn???
Request the camera pictures and go from there.
Requesting the camera photo will cost you $7.50 unless you view the photo at the Civic Compliance Victoria office in the city.
It will only show you what you already know.
In NSW the rule for U Turns is
"At traffic lights
Drivers are not permitted to make a U-turn at traffic lights unless there
is a U-Turn Permitted sign displayed or a green U-turn traffic light
is displayed."So in Victoria, you do have discretion to make a U Turn at the traffic lights, BUT you must not go through a red light. So attempting to do a U Turn at a busy intersection may not work out as you won't have enough time to complete this maneuver. Keeping in mind a car doing a U turn must give way to all others.
So back to the fine :
"Offence verification
In addition to using SSV, all speeding, red-light and unregistered vehicle offences are subject to a strict verification process before an infringement notice is issued.
A qualified verifications officer assesses each incident and a second officer reviews and verifies this decision. The assessment is then provided to the Traffic Camera Office (TCO) of Victoria Police. An infringement notice is only issued if Victoria Police is satisfied that an offence has occurred."Your request for review was rejected.
The cost of going to court, days pay, legal costs etc etc, would be more expensive than the on the spot fine of $361.
So pay the fine and maybe don't do U turns at busy intersections.
Where was the camera?
Was it facing the opposite direction to where you started the U turn?
I imagine he may have finished the u turn late and so the light was red facing where you ended up.The lights facing were green but in the opposite direction red. However, there was a right hand turn green arrow and no sign to say u-turns aren't allowed. The u-turn was completed on the green arrow. So we were heading north and did the u-turn and were heading south. The south lights were red to allow for the right hand turns. Thus the 59.3 seconds because the lights facing south had been on red for that time to allow the right hand turn.
Does my head in when i see people do u turns at traffic light. Also the previous poster said you can only do a u turn if the signs says that you can, not the other way around.
OP's in Melb. You can do a u-turn at traffic lights, unless there's a sign that says no u-turns.
In Victoria, U-turns are permitted at intersections with signals unless there is a ‘no U-turn’ sign.
This is weird, in NSW the trigger for red light cameras are where you are supposed to stop, go past and they trigger. I.e at the entrance of the "intersection"
So in NSW you cant get flashed by a red light camera doing a U turn (illegal) on a green light- ever
Go have a look at the intersection, and have a close look at the road.
Ask for the photos and be sure to specify that you need the pic showing you entering the intersection against a red light. If what you're saying is what happened, then it's clearly just a glitch in the system. You'd be crazy to just bypass doing this and opting to just go to court - the $7.50 someone has said it will cost for the pics is nothing compared with the day's lost wages etc it will take to go to court.
If, on the other hand he did have a momentary lapse and went through a red light without realising it, you're not going to have court costs on top of the fine.
If I were you, I would go to court with lots of evidence. The photo they have is a photo of your car in the intersection, there are other explanations why your car is there… in your case, you were traveling in the opposite direction and just completed a u-turn. I would go back to the intersection, have a good hard look, make sure your husband did in fact do the right thing and that there is a possibility of error with the camera or 'loopholes' with light sequence etc etc etc. Take photos, if possible, do an reenactment (husband drive, do a u turn, you video from the passenger seat), and a Google image of the bird's eye view of the intersection and indicate your u-turn route, camera position.
Yes, it seems lots of work, but only you and your husband know if that's worthy to do. I am not a lawyer, but I do understand where you're coming from. Good luck.Please name the intersection, so other OZBargainers won't get caught.
Also this is an interesting read Yahoo
The camera didn't catch him driving through the red light, only being still in the intersection once the light had changed.
Most of us can't see the post to which you've linked. It's a restricted group.
Sorry -
Red light fine ruling may open floodgate for challenges
Date: May 28 2007
A DECISION in Dandenong Magistrates Court might have opened the way for
hundreds, if not thousands, of motorists to challenge red light camera
fines.When dentist Robert Banks-Smith was snapped by a red light camera at the
corner of North and Warrigal roads, Oakleigh, he thought it would be a
simple matter to have what he considered to be an unjust fine dropped.Eighteen months later Mr Banks-Smith can celebrate a victory that has
potentially cost him tens of thousands of dollars but which has exposed
serious flaws in Victoria's red light camera system. Mr Banks-Smith
initially decided to appeal against the fine, which he incurred in
August 2005, because he was adamant he had entered the intersection
while the light was green, but was photographed in the middle of the
intersection because traffic congestion meant he was unable to complete
a right turn until the light was red."In my naivety I thought that an error had been made and that a simple
appeal to the traffic camera office would rectify the situation and
cancel the notice," he said.When two appeals for review were turned down, Mr Banks-Smith began
researching the red light camera system, finding he had been
photographed by one of the older "wet film" cameras rather than the new
digital type. "I began approaching the sources of information only to be
confronted with a brick wall," Mr Banks-Smith said. "The operation of
these cameras must be one of Victoria's best-kept secrets."Mr Banks-Smith made 10 unsuccessful freedom-of-information requests for
documents on the operation of the cameras. He then unsuccessfully
subpoenaed Tenix, the operator of the camera, for documents, and was hit
with a bill for $20,000 in costs.Eventually he accumulated enough information about the old-style cameras
to be confident that he could argue their ineffectiveness in court.
"These cameras have a single loop sensor placed after the stop line and
only take photographs of the vehicle once it is in the intersection.
They do not measure speed, nor do they show the vehicle proceeding
through a red light," he said.His barrister, Ian Alger, then proposed that they base their argument on
the interpretation of a few lines in the Road Safety Act and its
accompanying regulations.They argued that the "prescribed process" whereby a photograph is deemed
to accurately show that a motorist had run a red light was not followed.This was controversial because the regulations were introduced to cover
the new digital cameras, and it was unclear whether they applied to the
old-style cameras. Magistrate Simon Garnett found in favour of Mr
Banks-Smith. "All in all, this was a landmark decision by the
magistrate," Mr Banks-Smith said.Superintendent Shane Patton, of the Traffic Camera Office, disputed the
magistrate's decision and said police were unconcerned that other
motorists would try the same defence."Our review of the legislation through our prosecutions and research
section sees that it's so clear that it shouldn't be misinterpreted in
any future cases. We don't believe there's any ambiguity whatsoever."OP - out of curiosity, how much was the fine?
Please let us know what you choose to do and what eventually happens :)
Still waiting.
kind of confusing. 53 seconds means it was full red, and then you guys went through? were U turn permitted there? i think they will send you the photographs of the incident. ask for it if you havent received it.