Fined for Running a Red Traffic Arrow to Give Way for an Ambulance

bargainfinder on 14/12/2016 - 12:10
Last edited 11/04/2021 - 13:27 by 2 other users

Hi everyone,
I received a fine for failing to stop at a red traffic arrow. There was an ambulance right behind me and it was safe for me to turn right in order to give way for the ambulance so i did and There was a safety camera at the intersection so i received the fine in the mail.

I asked them to review the fine and the outcome was unsuccessful because i have no proof of my claim. And they still want to fine me, if i want to further protest this case, i need to do it in court.

In my letter asking for the review, i told them to look for photo that the ambulance also proceed through the red light after me, however they claim there is none and said there is no way to find that photo. And unsurprisingly, they have me on photo running the light. This is NSW Office Of State Revenue.

Has anyone experienced this? who manage those camera? where can i find the photo of that ambulance running through the red light because it did run the red light after me.
if having no proof/photo of the ambulance running the red light, do i stand a chance in court for this case?

Your input/advice is much appreciated

UPDATE: After making phone calls, i have been told by Camera Enquiry Line( Part of RMS) that they have a footage of the incident and they can see there was an ambulance behind me. I have submitted another request to the SDRO to review my case again with this new evidence.

Also thanks to Notcheap for the link in regard to NSW legislation about Keeping clear of police and emergency vehicles
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2014/758…

Automotive

Comments

        • whooah1979 on 15/12/2016 - 17:11

          that's good to know for next time they blast their sirens.

  • jhmtaylor on 15/12/2016 - 10:18
    +2

    Here is a tip that happened to a relative of mine (who happens to be a police officer).

    He was fined for exceeding the speed limit in a school zone. He challenged it in court and asked for an adjournment so that he could subpoena the school attendance records and the principal to determine if it was a school day when the offence occurred. The police withdrew the charge.

    If you decide to challenge it. You have two options. To deny there was an offence citing Section 78 (3) or plead guilty with a reasonable excuse. In either case ask for an adjournment so that you can subpoena the ambulance service records and the chief executive of the Ambulance service to testify. I think you will find it is all too hard for the police and they will drop the charges

  • Peck on 15/12/2016 - 10:40

    If you cannot find the proof, pay the fine. No point in going to court without proof, or you will just be telling them a 30 second story, and THEN paying the fine PLUS court costs.
    Off topic, & Out of interest, I found this:-
    "10 May 2016: Downing Centre Local Court
    Summary: A 31 year old female from Greystanes nominated a 69 year old male for a speeding offence which took place at North Ryde. OSR's investigation found that the nominee was not in Australia at the time of the offence. She was charged with falsely nominating another person.
    Outcome: She was convicted and fined $1,500, with $300 professional costs and $87 court costs and disqualified from driving for 12 months."

    • baggyred on 15/12/2016 - 13:27

      There is a difference between providing false testimony to get off and providing true, yet unsubstantiated testimony.

      • Peck on 15/12/2016 - 16:20

        I did say "Off topic". I definitely was not inferring that 'bargainfinder' would be giving false testimony.

  • myfuturej on 15/12/2016 - 12:29

    I observed at the court for driving-related offenses. I stayed for the whole day as part of my course requirements. I felt that the magistrates are pretty emphatic people although it is a different story is someone is driving over 20kph above speed limit. Some people argue that it is there first time to commit the offense, some would point out the specific circumstance. For instance, there is this worker from Salvos who ran a red light and drove 75 on a 60 zone. The woman said that she is driving a client with some mental illness and in a very difficult situation. She said that because of the situation, so many thoughts are racing through her head that time. The magistrate did not ask her to pay the fine.

    • smpantsonfire on 15/12/2016 - 13:43

      That last one is bull. Shoulda paid the fine. What if she had an accident? Killed other people? Does she get let off because the same circumstances?

      People have to be in control and 100% attentive.

      • resisting the urge on 20/12/2016 - 19:44

        Except that noone is fully in control, or 100% attentive.

        Oh, and fines, rants, laws and ads all have a limited impact.

        How can you enforce rigid law when a driving tutor is allowed to be an obtuse dad, an inexperienced brother, a psychotic mother… etc.

  • baggyred on 15/12/2016 - 13:25
    +1

    Elect to take it to court.

    As soon as you do, some sergeant will look at the file and slump their shoulders at having to put all the paperwork together for a court hearing.

    You will likely get a call from them and you can explain the circumstance to the charging officer direct (not just the general helpine).

    If they sense you are genuine, send in a stat dec witnessed and you will probably find you will get away with a warning.

    Had this happen to me (albeit not a red light).

    FWIW - I believe it is your civic duty to fight it if you believe you are not guilty of the crime. Even if the outcome is additional cost.

  • EchoEcho on 15/12/2016 - 14:15
    +2

    I'm quite surprised to see the number of comments here stating that OP shouldn't have gone through the red light. I've always thought that I wouldn't want to get in the way of any emergency vehicle and would be prepared to break some road rules (if it's safe to do so) to let the vehicle through.

    "You may drive onto the wrong side of the road or drive through a red traffic light to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle if it is safe to do so."
    Source: https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/other/emergenc…

    I would expect other states to have something similar in their rules. However, in OP's case we're struggling to find evidence of the ambulance and I guess it's unfortunate that he/she didn't have a dashcam.

  • sd4f on 15/12/2016 - 14:40

    Ok, so for those of us who are unsure about this, what should I do in a situation such as this? More to the point what is the correct (as in legally and officially correct) thing to do?

    My take on this is that the correct thing to do is also the selfish thing to do. In the OP's situation, it looks like they should have stayed put and waited for the lights to change.

    • wombok2 on 15/12/2016 - 15:02
      +5

      My thoughts exactly, those saying "Pay up, move on" IMO are retarded or probably have no understanding of what an 'emergency' is.

      IMO if there's an emergency and you are blocking the road, I would think waiting for the lights and causing extra delays for the ambulance would be the last and stupidest thing to do, especially if we are taking about saving someone's life.

    • NotCheap on 15/12/2016 - 15:03

      Read the legislation in your own state, they do vary a little.

      If you're stopped at a red light, like the OP, in general you MUST get out the way IF its safe to do so, IF the red or blue lights are flashing (some states also have 'or siren'. It doesn't matter what other road rules you break in getting out the way so long as whatever you do is SAFE.

    • psy on 15/12/2016 - 16:00
      +2

      I've run a red light before for a fire truck, and I'd happily do it again. If it means someone gets to hospital 30 seconds sooner, or the police catch a criminal then so be it.
      In my situation traffic in the other direction was non-existent and I made a left hand turn.

  • danield on 15/12/2016 - 15:06

    I actually saw this exact thing happen only yesterday or the day before, my reaction was "Wow, He just ran a red light I wouldn't have done that".. Cause the weird part was the car turned left and after the ambulance had gone through the car was already through the intersection and kind of stopped as if satisfied that it averted the problem before eventually just speeding off.

  • zathras on 15/12/2016 - 15:14
    +2

    This is the answer from the RAA in South Australia:
    http://www.raa.com.au/community-and-advocacy/driver-survey

  • [Deactivated] on 15/12/2016 - 18:47
    +4

    Just know you might of just saved someone's life, every second counts in an emergency situation where medical attention is needed.
    I hope it goes in your favor all the best.

  • [Deactivated] on 15/12/2016 - 18:52
    +1

    I am snake handler and was bitten three times by an Eastern Brown I was removing from a sporting complex near Sydney earlier this year.

    Yep, ambulance to hospital under siren. Stop signs and red lights don't hold them up. It's the bloody lunatics that panic and don't know what to do. Ambulance siren, flashing lights, driver blowing the horn and screaming out "get over you f*****g idiot."

  • Grish on 15/12/2016 - 21:43
    +2

    Op acted accordingly and lawfully. In fact, had OP not have moved, they would have broken the law.

    The ill informed do-gooders that apparently would "never run a red" are imbeciles, a menace to society (and sheep).

    The key here is that it was clearly safe for OP to accommodate to the urgency of the emergency, so they did the right thing. Congratulations.

    I doubt this will even reach court once the camera footage showing the ambo is finally reviewed.

    • luckydan79 on 16/12/2016 - 10:20

      Not worth the pain and effort and HE is still out of the pocket since he has to run around PROVING that he is in the wrong with various phone calls and attending other matters.

      Ambos are allowed to break all laws and matter of road rules to reach the destination I wouldn't of ran it regardless just stayed stationary.

    • BestofOZB on 16/12/2016 - 19:13

      Do you really think calling people names prove your point? Jeez!

      • Grish on 17/12/2016 - 09:17

        The intention of describing those types of people was never about trying to prove any points.

        When I deal with facts, there are no points to prove as the facts speak for themselves.

        Also, describing someone is not name calling.

  • [Deactivated] on 16/12/2016 - 00:30

    You made the right decision and probably saved someone's life.
    It's been cleared that vehicles must safely clear the path for an emergency, and it overrules any other traffic rules.
    Not clearing the path for an emergency is a double crime. Both on the traffic side and ambo side.
    That's silly that they have your photo but not the ambo!
    If they have the photo but there is no ambo then that's another story.
    If you are sure that was an ambo and not a minibus or something, don't give it up, force them to BTFO.
    Some people commented some nonsense.
    COULD WE HAVE EVERYONE TO GO AND READ THE RULES?
    IF THERE IS AN EMERGENCY BEHIND YOU, YOU HAVE TO SAFELY RUN THE RED LIGHT.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/12/2016 - 01:15
      -1

      "and it overrules any other traffic rules. "

      ummm, no. Clearing a path for emergency vehicles will not mitigate many traffic rule breaches, for example drink driving, driving unlicenced, fleeing the scene of an accident. There are traffic rules requiring giving way to pedestrians at marked crossings. (Messy.) Crossing a level crossing when a train is coming. Too many to mention.

    • whooah1979 on 16/12/2016 - 05:55
      +1

      Not clearing the path for an emergency is a double crime

      It may be an offence under the road rules for not giving way, but not a crime.

    • whooah1979 on 16/12/2016 - 06:05
      +1

      it overrules any other traffic rules.

      It certainly doesn't. It may be an offence in nsw that may result in a $433 fine and three demerit points, the same as running a red light offence. It's not a serious offence and no more so than those from this link.
      http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/index.cgi?fuseaction=demer…

    • luckydan79 on 16/12/2016 - 10:26

      "IF THERE IS AN EMERGENCY BEHIND YOU, YOU HAVE TO SAFELY RUN THE RED LIGHT."

      And spend the next week in court proving that your in the right, so instead of receiving a fine 433 and 3 demerit points your STILL paying court costs which is $300 dollars to not obtain 3 demerit points and having to waste hours on end to after attending court.

      The better method is wait for the light to go green and then move out of the ambos way, I know a minute in the Emergency will bring the person closer to death but if you get hit by a stray car because you Ran that red light you are pretty much compounding the problem. Just don't do it. If it was a REAL emergency ambos would of found another way thru.

      • Tm15 on 18/12/2016 - 16:03
        -1

        "If it was a REAL emergency ambos would of found another way thru." by ramming your car out the way? come on man this isnt grand theft auto

        • luckydan79 on 20/12/2016 - 11:26
          -1

          A minute may "seem" like a life or death scenario…. but your putting both yourself and the Ambo in danger by running the red light.

          Ambulances are equipped with the state of the art equipment to keep the patient resuscitated and alive. Don't try and compound the problem by running a red light.

  • NotCheap on 16/12/2016 - 08:04
    -1

    It does actually… "(3) This rule applies to the driver despite any other rule of the Australian Road Rules . " however its limited to getting out the way of / giving way to an emergency vehicle and only if safe to do so.

    So things like speeding, running down pedestrians, driving into a trains path, driving over signs, pushing other cars out the way, getting blind drunk for the few seconds it takes to giveway/move out the way, whilst OK in grand-theft-auto are not safe therefore you'd be breaking the law. The intent is where its safe for you to do so, that you can drive over median lines, double lines, drive through intersections, red lights, no turn left/right, wrong way, oncoming traffic lanes etc so the emergency vehicle can get past.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/12/2016 - 10:45
      -1

      "It does actually"

      I disagree. 'despite' and 'overrules' are not the same at all. Road rules legislation isn't a user guide with power ups, it's a set of offences to be policed. 'despite' means police can issue this offence in isolation without having to listen to every excuse under the sun involving other laws. 'overrules' all other rules is just crazy, and would allow drunken crash offenders to flee the scene without leaving details if an ambulance arrived. If your car is seriously wrecked there are laws for the investigation of serious crashes and people could tamper with evidence saying they were unblocking emergency access. All other road rules are not overruled just because you are blocking an emergency vehicle. That would be chaos.

      • NotCheap on 16/12/2016 - 14:19
        -1

        I think you're taking it out of context. Whatever you do still needs to be 'safe' and you're only permitted to not follow the other rules for the purposes of giving way or getting out the way (rules 78 and 79).

        The intent is that other rules don't apply when you're giving way or getting out the way of an emergency vehicle; the objective of the law is that motorists do not unnecessarily impede emergency vehicles by following road rules, except those intended for the safety of themselves, others or assets. Despite and overrule in this context mean the same.

        • [Deactivated] on 16/12/2016 - 14:33

          If you can find any existing credible source that says 'despite' and 'overrrule' are synonyms, legal or otherwise, I'll accept it. Thanks.

          Failure to exchange insurance/contact details at an accident is many things, but not a matter of public safety. 'Safely' departing the scene of an accident because you were clearing a path is hardly going to hold up. Other road laws do apply and are not magically overridden by avoiding breaking another law. Each law will apply and may have a mitigating circumstance defence. Laws don't just disappear and get overridden.

  • luckydan79 on 16/12/2016 - 10:18

    If a driver is in the path of an approaching police or emergency vehicle that is displaying a flashing blue or red light (whether or not it is also displaying other lights) or sounding an alarm, the driver must move out of the path of the vehicle as soon as the driver can do so safely.
    Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

    You didn't have to move out of the way of the Emergency Road vehicle, I would of just waited at the lights and the Emergency Vehicle would of found another route. They are allowed TO break all road rules you aren't.

  • BertieBrown on 16/12/2016 - 11:44

    From what the OP has detailed it almost seems like RTA is trying to make things difficult for OP just so they'll pay a fine; yuck.

  • peterpeterpumpkin on 16/12/2016 - 12:58

    The fact nobody is even sure of what the legal requirements are shows this is an issue that needs media attention.

    Imagine if police were driving towards a madman. I don't think they'll stop to issue you a ticket if you ran a red light to let them through.

    • dbun1 on 16/12/2016 - 13:06
      +1

      The fact nobody is even sure of what the legal requirements are shows this is an issue that needs media attention.

      They have covered this many times on shows like A Current Affair.

      Basically emergency vehicle drivers don't expect people to run red lights to get out of the way.

      As a country though the vast majority of drivers don't know how to act when approached by an emergency vehicle.
      Even something as simple as pulling to the left is struggle at the best of times.

    • BestofOZB on 16/12/2016 - 19:19
      -2

      I agree it has been covered many many times already that I couldn't even bother looking up a link. Basically You are Not allowed to break the law, period.

  • dbun1 on 16/12/2016 - 12:59

    Driver fail - yes, you need to make way for an emergency vehicle, but you should not break any road rules in doing so.

    If the emergency vehicle wanted to get around you, they would driver over the curb (if possible) and cut through the intersection - they ARE allowed to break rules if necessary.

    The course of action in this case would have been to wait for the appropriate green signal and then pull to the left as soon as possible.

    This is the most sensible course of action as you risk being T-boned by running a red into oncoming traffic.

    • NotCheap on 16/12/2016 - 14:20
      -2

      Wrong

      • dbun1 on 16/12/2016 - 14:35

        Wrong

        They have covered this many times on A Current Affair and every time the emergency vehicle drivers say that a car should not run a red light (i.e. break a road rule) to make way.

        They always interview a police officer who says the same thing and goes through what cars should and shouldn't do.

        • NotCheap on 16/12/2016 - 15:19
          -4

          If its not safe, then sure stay put. If its safe to go through a red light in getting out the way, then that's perfectly fine.

          What it comes down to is what is meant by 'safe' - which would be tested in a court and end up being what reasonable person would consider as safe.

          So in the scenario where all vehicles in an intersection are stopped (all directions) - you're sitting there at a red light, with an ambulance up your arse with its lights and sirens going honking the horn.
          a) you sit there and wait for the green light
          b) you floor it, doing a massive burn-out and get enough speed up to drift through
          c) you drive forward through the red light, into the interesection and to the left, at a slow pace, moving out the way just enough for the ambulance to get past

          According to the law:
          a) illegal (breach of regulation 78)
          b) illegal as your actions are not safe - therefore you're not covered by (3) of regulation 78, and in breach of other regulations
          c) legal - good choice

          Hope this helps clear it up

  • BestofOZB on 16/12/2016 - 14:03

    "as soon as the driver can do so safely."

    The law will argue that it is not safe for a car, ever, to run a red light.

    Legally you have no leg to stand on I guess, hopefully you will have some people with common sense to consider your appeal.

    Never take it to court.

    If they refuse, just pay the fine and sleep tight knowing that you did the "right thing".

    I know it is illegal, but I will do it any day.

    • NotCheap on 16/12/2016 - 14:22
      -1

      Wrong. If you can do so safely (no traffic, or traffic has stopped (given way) for the emergency vehicle), you must go through the red light to get out of the way.

      • [Deactivated] on 16/12/2016 - 14:52

        'must' run the red light? Turning hard right into U-turn that never enters the intersection might be an option and you've disregarded that entirely.

        • NotCheap on 16/12/2016 - 15:05

          You forgot levitating, that counts too if you're going out of context. This discussion has been about sitting at a red light with an emergency vehicle approaching from behind.

          How about we keep to trying and helping others understand the law?

        • BestofOZB on 16/12/2016 - 19:10
          +1

          @NotCheap: I really do not think the law says you must run a red light to give way to an ambulance.

    • highdealer on 16/12/2016 - 17:45

      The law will argue that it is not safe for a car, ever, to run a red light.

      They can argue that but there are quite a few holes in that argument.

      Police, Ambulance, fire brigade and a few form of special emergency service all have toheright to run a red light in special circumstance and i am sure they can only do so if it is safe.

      There are places where left turn or going straight are permitted after stopping at a red light. So there are situation where you can go on a red light if it is safe to do so.

      Traffic light are there to ensure everyone safety and manage a good traffic flow at the same time. In this situation, if the OP is truthfully making sure that it was safe before crossing, no one safety at risk while if he didn't he might possibly put the patient life at risk.

      I am not advocating that everyone should run a red light when it is safe to do so, but there are certainly situation where common sense kick it and i don't think any sensible judge or jury would punish you for doing the right thing.

      • BestofOZB on 16/12/2016 - 19:08
        -1

        As I said, I would do it everyday, but as I was told once by a magistrate, the law only knows the law, not common sense.

        Emergency services have sirens and lights, they are specially trained to safely cross an intersection.

        If it is allowed to turn left after stopping at a red light at certain areas, those areas are specifically assessed by authoroties to be safe for that purpose.

        It's never safe, in the eyes of the law, to run a red light.

  • StewBalls on 16/12/2016 - 21:09

    Good on you OP for doing what you felt was ethically right; as someone else already noted, your lateral thinking might have helped save a life.

    I hope you get a good result…if not, I would suggest you go to your local courthouse & speak to the Chamber Magistrate, explain your situation, and seek their guidance…I have found them very approachable and helpful with these types of matters in the past. Failing that, try your local MP, they might go to bat for you…

    This thread is yet another sobering reminder of the inherent dangers in asking for legal (or any) advice on OzB, the clueless bush lawyers are out in force as usual…

    • [Deactivated] on 16/12/2016 - 21:22

      Amen to that. I've been campaigning to get anyone without a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science or Software Engineering minimum kicked off the internet. Who are they kidding. Maybe give read only access if they can recite the MIPS IV ISA.

  • lyl-Lychee on 17/12/2016 - 00:10

    Comment above about having a rear dashcam is good.

    If this situation came about for me, I'd just watch the ambulance driver's hand gestures in the rear view mirror to figure out what he wants.

    If they're just sitting there or making gestures to stay put, then I don't move.
    If they're making clear gestures or expressions to run the light, then I'd run the light.

  • SeVeN11 on 17/12/2016 - 02:02
    +1

    Just did a bit of research and things are different in WA, Western Australia.

    Yes, you do have to give way, but you cannot break any other road rules and there is an example specifically stating you cannot run a red light.

    so be careful when you are driving on WA roads as the rules is different (which I think its stupid)… i.e. somebody might have died in your situation because you were unable to give way as you would have had to run a red light.

  • suryaavinash on 17/12/2016 - 03:39

    Rules suck sometimes , are u happy for what you have done and that's what matters.

    Thanks for what you have done.appreciate it :)

    The judge should rule it in your favor.

  • [Deactivated] on 17/12/2016 - 09:56

    Reading the comments on this and other traffic offence threads it is no wonder we have the road toll we do.

    BTW. Traffic offences are held before a Magistrate not a Judge except for criminal charges such as culpable driving causing death etc.

    • [Deactivated] on 17/12/2016 - 10:26

      Surely that comes down to a failure by legislators and road traffic authorities to make laws for this unambiguous.

      In science, maths and engineering, precedence of operators and operations are unambiguous. A computer scientist could write the laws in C or pseudocode and every other computer scientist would understand without argument, as machines only understand absolute instructions and imperative.

      If you were to translate current laws into computer code, infinite loops would cause errors at compile time or you'd get heap/stack overflows at runtime due to circularity.

  • [Deactivated] on 17/12/2016 - 10:14

    Once you got those footages and proved your innocense sue those who have installed cameras to issue fines but have not taken the required steps to prevent an innocent person being fined. You could get compensation for the time you put in and damages, if any. Having said that it would be a long process and probably even better to just get them to apologize you.

    • whooah1979 on 17/12/2016 - 19:56

      an innocent person being fined.

      the problem is that op did commit one offence so that they to avoid committing another. it's lose lose situation.

      • [Deactivated] on 17/12/2016 - 20:01

        hmmm not entirely sure what I am saying but I thought that it is not an offence to safely make way for an emergency vehicle to pass (even if you have to disobey a red traffic light). Just like the emergency vehicles do? Like I said, maybe I'm wrong.

  • ozlab on 17/12/2016 - 13:37

    You should probably just move aside and stop your car when ambulance is behind you. In that way the ambulance will find a way to overtake your car. When you cross the light you might introduce unforeseen circumstances.

  • Kevan2 on 17/12/2016 - 15:23

    Is it the same when a police Sargent gets pulled over for speeding or gets a fixed camera ticket in the mail for speeding in own car. POM

  • syousef on 17/12/2016 - 18:42

    Bloody disgraceful. This is the sort of idiotic revenue raising that costs lives. Someone hears about this and doesn't get out of the way of the ambulance in time. If I had any faith in politicians I'd tell you that once you resolve this you should take it up with your local MP.

  • bargainfinder on 17/12/2016 - 23:34
    +17

    Update: I received an email from them today.

    "We have looked at the photographs again and have cancelled the penalty notice. You do not have

    to pay the fine and no demerit points will be applied to your licence.

    We apologise for any inconvenience this has caused."

    Guess my effort trying to fight this has been paid off. I am happy with the outcome. Thanks all for your input. A win-win out come as someone live might have been saved and i don't need to worry anymore about the fine.

    • whooah1979 on 18/12/2016 - 00:49

      Update: I received an email from them today.

      It's surprising to hear that the sdro is working on a Saturday.

      • bargainfinder on 18/12/2016 - 01:18

        Not sure if they are working on Saturday but the email received at 12.10 am Saturday. It was from a no reply email address, just like their previous email sent at 12.10 am. Must be an automated system

        • resisting the urge on 20/12/2016 - 20:03

          Maybe it was a third party, phishing from another timezone(!)

          Very strange. Did you check the validity of the links, without clicking them ;-)

  • AlienC on 18/12/2016 - 07:38

    Always treat the other party as if they know nothing and are clueless (especially with kids some adults and in this case the NSW government)

    I'm glad you got this kerfuffle cleared up and thanks for reporting back to us

    This comment really only serves now as a thank you and time capsule to all those in passing

  • tassiemays on 18/12/2016 - 12:02
    +1

    Tas Road rules I image are consistent with NSW.

    1. Keeping clear of police and emergency vehicles

    (2) If a driver is in the path of an approaching police or emergency vehicle that is displaying a flashing blue or red light (whether or not it is also displaying other lights) or sounding an alarm, the driver must move out of the path of the vehicle as soon as the driver can do so safely.
    Penalty:

    Fine not exceeding 15 penalty units.

    I say you have a very valid reason & defense.

  • foxmulder on 18/12/2016 - 18:14

    Hi for the same situation but if it was just a speed camera not red light speed camera will the driver get fine as well?

    • whooah1979 on 19/12/2016 - 14:03

      if it was just a speed camera not red light speed camera will the driver get fine as well?

      speeding is an offence. you can expect a fine and demerit points.

      • foxmulder on 19/12/2016 - 15:14

        It was a friend who was in the same situation. He stopped to turn right, but not realising there is a right lane for right turn. He was in middle lane which meant to go straight. It was green to turn right but red light to go straight where he was. He turned right.

        There was a sign of speed camera but not red light speed camera.

        • bargainfinder on 19/12/2016 - 16:33

          Just wait for a week or two. But in my experience, I was sitting on a must turn right lane and the arrow to turn right was red. It was green to go straight, I decided to go straight so I move up and change to left lane to go straight, as soon as I crossed over the white stopping line, the camera fire off. However i didn't receive any fine in the mail. They must have reviewed the photos and see that I didn't turn right but instead went straight

        • foxmulder on 19/12/2016 - 16:41

          @bargainfinder: Hi last time I personally get a fine letter it was 3 weeks from incident. So I guess my friend will need to wait till January to make sure. Let's hope for the best. Thanks for the reply.

  • sunnyc on 25/12/2016 - 21:14

    They love getting you because you're an easy target for the government. It's a victimless offense but If it helps pay their salaries, they will get you for it.
    When there is a victim crime. They tend to do nothing to an extent that I report the crime and cut my loses

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join