Going to Court for Going Through a No Left Turn Sign

Lknight321 on 23/06/2019 - 23:56
Last edited 02/07/2019 - 07:28 by 1 other user

Hey all!

I have a court attendance coming up next week for going through a no left turn sign placed on the intersection between Pitt St and Hunter St (NSW CBD). Basically, I dropped my family off in our small Mitsubishi Mirage at Circular Quay and tried looking for some parking around the area.

I was going up through Pitt St, and the first permissible turn was to Hunter Street given the arrow in the lane. The thing is that at the time, there was a bus already waiting at the front of the intersection to turn. As such, both erected signs conveniently placed on the left hand sides were (from my view) obstructed.

After turning in, three police officers came out, and I advised that the bus obstructed my view however he did not listen and said that I should look. This seems like an easy cash grab in my opinion :( How am I meant to see what's around a bus? At the time there was even another car behind me which was also stopped.

The officer said I should write in for leniency, and I asked how I can prove that a bus was indeed in front of me - he said he will upload his GoPro footage with the fine (which he did not). After writing into Revenue NSW it got turned down.

I live in the west and do not generally drive around the city as i'm not very familiar with the area and the signs. I decided to go to court with the hope of getting this thing dismissed…but I have never been to a court before :)

Two questions:

1) Shall I plead guilty with reason or do I have a chance of winning an innocent plead?

2) Will the officer show the GoPro footage of the turn in court?

FYI here are some images of the intersections and erected signs:

https://imgur.com/4rowiTm

https://imgur.com/v8YesQD

https://imgur.com/4N1Tvks

Any advice to help me with this matter would be greatly appreciated!

Cheers.

Edit: outcome of court case https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/465925?page=3#comment-7453…

Automotive

Comments

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 24/06/2019 - 10:09
      +5

      payment plan

      Bad idea. Payment plan options are on the rear of the fine. That's an easy way to get slapped with a costs order.

    • knight321 on 24/06/2019 - 12:48
      +1

      I don't have an issue with paying the fine off. I just feel guilty to pay this given the circumstances - it doesn't make sense to me. It seems like a common spot for errors and needs to be addressed by RMS.

      I also don't want it to go on my record with demerits as my insurance premiums will go up with it…

        • knight321 on 24/06/2019 - 16:58
          +9

          Buddy if I had seen the sign I wouldn't have turned. At the time I was behind the bus waiting for a good 2-3 minutes to turn in. There was an arrow in the lane indicating a valid left turn.

          I have never in 5 years of driving have been fined for disobeying a no left/right turn.

          Like I said this seems to be a common spot to catch people or they wouldn't be standing there.

          Yes next time I will just stop at an intersection on a green light to read a sign so that I can indicate right to change lanes. Pfft.

            • knight321 on 24/06/2019 - 19:17
              +2

              @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: I will be pleading guilty and specifying my reasons. No time to read a sign when the lights just turned green and I am second in line behind a bus which obstructed my view.

              I am not saying I will have a guaranteed positive outcome. Just hope for some leniency given the circumstances. I've had and paid off a few fines before knowing that I was in the wrong - I just think this is silly aha

              Only time will tell :)

              • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 24/06/2019 - 19:51
                -4

                @knight321:

                . No time to read a sign when the lights just turned green and I am second in line behind a bus which obstructed my view.

                I am near certain the magistrate will love that answer.

                Just not in the way you might be thinking…

              • damienpang on 25/06/2019 - 02:21
                +1

                @knight321: I'm not sure if there is no time to read the sign. If a bus starts from standstill making a near 90 degree left hand turn, it cannot be going anywhere fast. You have ample time to look at the signs unless you are following real close behind the bus.

                You can obviously read the sign (which is right next to the traffic light indicating whether you can enter the intersection), if you are not seeing the sign that obvious then I doubt whether you are paying attention to the traffic light either.

                The lane marking only indicate it's the lane for left turn when it's allowed, the signs are still valid and shouldn't be confused with.

                • knight321 on 25/06/2019 - 19:24

                  @damienpang: If you have ever seen the way a bus turns in then you'd know my pain. It turns slowly turns until it faces the side then advances forward.

                  I was not up it's ass - I keep a safe distance. A mirage is very low and legit I had no visibility of the sign.

                  Not saying I am not wrong - it's just a factor which needs to be considered.

                  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 25/06/2019 - 19:27
                    -1

                    @knight321: One the bus enters the intersection and commences its turn, it is no longer between you and the sign. How does the bus continue to obstruct the sign?

                  • twinbag on 26/06/2019 - 19:35
                    +1

                    @knight321: The sign would have been visible before the lights. So if you can see the lights are green you can also see the sign.

                    • knight321 on 26/06/2019 - 19:58

                      @twinbag: I was already past the line. As bus was turning I just saw a green light and went. If you look at Google maps this is not a sharp intersection but it goes straight for a good 15m before turning in.

  • Euphemistic on 24/06/2019 - 07:21
    +6

    The officer probably won’t even bother to turn up to court - and to be I’m honest I’d rather they were doing more important police things.

    It is completely up to you if you want to contest in court, but you made the mistake, not seeing a sign is not an excuse unless it is obscured by a immovable object so that no one can see it. Could go either way.

    You asked for a review, and it was denied what makes you think a magistrate will be different?

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 24/06/2019 - 10:04

      The officer probably won’t even bother to turn up to court

      They always turn up to Court.

    • [Deactivated] on 24/06/2019 - 10:54
      +2

      I know someone that spent a full day defending himself in court over a red light charge, they absolutely threw everything they had at him. In the end, the magistrate found the evidence of two police officers 'unreliable'.

      Costs would have been enormous if he lost, with a full day of a prosecutor, witnesses about the state of the traffic lights etc.

      He wasn't allowed to use his own photos to prove anything so he had to use the ones the prosecution had taken. The police claimed they 'clearly' saw him cross the stop line after the light went red, but it was that faded and old it wasn't visible in the photos they took from the distance away they claimed to be, and he had a couple of witnesses in the car that testified it was green…

      But yeah, they basically turn up and throw everything they can at you, even for minor things.

      • knight321 on 24/06/2019 - 12:51

        Interesting. I still will be taking my photos just incase. I did send it through with the Revenue NSW letter which I'm sure the magistrate will have.

        I just hope that the magistrate will understand my position and how confusing this intersection is.

        The officer at the time was quiet rude stating I was blind and what not. Gonna be a fun time with him!

          • compugrid on 26/06/2019 - 11:41
            +1

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: You said you learn from your mistakes and paid for them. Do you learn from all these negs to consider you might be wrong in your knowledge this time? BTW if you are in the lane and it shows the direction only, by the time one riched the sign and stopped to read it, pissing off other drivers behind, one can get fined for blocking traffic while reading the sign. Once the driver realises he should not turn left he will drive straight ahead from the line that shows to turn left - Second fine, as there is no combination with a straight arrow permitting him to drive straight. The rules of priority signs over the road marks are clear but the implementation and use of rules could be confusing. Especially if the sign is not temporarily because of the road condition, but permanent. In the OP's case, it is confusing. The low implementation should be as clear as it sounds and looks clear in any circumstances.

            • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 26/06/2019 - 16:26
              -1

              @compugrid:

              Do you learn from all these negs

              Not everyone wants to hear the truth or have law quoted. I accept that.

              might be wrong in your knowledge this time

              Nope. Happy for anyone to point out anything I've posted, other than personal opinion, that is wrong. So far nada.

              one can get fined for blocking traffic while reading the sign

              That's not an offence. Read the Road Rules.

              as there is no combination with a straight arrow permitting him to drive straight

              I've already answered this elsewhere. s92 and s 329 and ancillary sections of the Road Rules. It's not an offence.

              use of rules could be confusing

              Ok.

              Especially if the sign is not temporarily because of the road condition, but permanent.

              What?

              In the OP's case, it is confusing.

              OP said they didn't even see the sign. How was it confusing…if you never saw it?

              looks clear in any circumstances.

              …in your opinion only.

              • Vote for Pedro on 26/06/2019 - 19:27
                +1

                @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: They might not like how you are saying it, but can’t fault what you are saying. OP said he didn’t see the sign because it was obstructed by bus so there’s no need to discuss whether it’s complicated or not.

                Also, the ongoing saga of ‘if op didn’t see the sign, how did he see the green arrow’.

                Is driving in a big city challenging? yes. Is there lots going on? Absolutely. Should we enter an intersection when our view of a green signal is obstructed? No

  • oscargamer on 24/06/2019 - 07:28

    What are you trying to achieve op?

    Being found not guilty?
    Getting a lesser fine?
    Getting fewer/no points?

    • knight321 on 24/06/2019 - 12:52
      +1

      My best hope is it gets dismissed given the circumstances - not sure if I plead guilty with reason though.

      I might go to legal aid NSW to ask whether I should go innocent or guilty but seems like guilty is my best bet atm (given that there was actually a sign there)

      • oscargamer on 24/06/2019 - 13:58

        If you plea guilty, you will get found guilty, you will get the points, you will get some fine. That what you want?

        • knight321 on 24/06/2019 - 17:04

          I've read cases where people pleaded guilty and got some form of leniency.

          Of course I will provide a reason to justify why I did what I did. But also say yes there was a sign there and it was wrong of me to turn. It would've been better to make such signs more visible, or placing one on the other side etc.

          Idk only time will tell now :)

          • dlakers3peat on 25/06/2019 - 00:19
            +10

            @knight321: Last week went to court to fight a fine. I pleaded guilty but explained the circumstances around why I was fined. I received a section 10 dismissal with no fine and no loss of demerits points. I have very good driving record though. Only 1 fine in the last 17 years, and that fine was 9 years and 6 months ago.

            So you need to provide the court with evidence such the photos you have provided, along with your driving record. Must please guilty though. Also when pleading guilty you do not have to attend court in person. You can fill out the form the send to the court with all the supporting documentation.

            • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 25/06/2019 - 12:41
              -3

              @dlakers3peat: Very easy to get years ago. Unfortunately a lot has changed since then. Amendments introduced in 2017 changed several parts of a section 10 dismissal. Last years Report indicates less than 15% of guilty pleas were granted a section 10 dismissal.

              • Laurana on 25/06/2019 - 16:14
                +6

                @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: He started the sentence with “Last week”, not years ago.

                • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 25/06/2019 - 16:50
                  -1

                  @Laurana: Thanks. I am aware, thus my post. dlakers3peat did well being granted one due to, as I stated, being far harder to get nowdays. I never said they got theirs years ago when it was easy, but I can see how my post can be misinterpreted.

  • Bid Sniper on 24/06/2019 - 08:24
    +8

    What a stupid mess of a inspection, typical Sydney signage. Problem is that RMS (formally RTA) are more powerful than the courts.

    Write a letter to RMS, then once that fails go to court. You're going to pleased guilty (give your reason why you did make a mistake) but you're going to ask for a section 10 dismissal if you have a clean driving record for the last 10 years.

    Thats a trap due to poor signage and you got caught unfortunately. Fken Sydney signs

    • knight321 on 24/06/2019 - 12:54

      I agree with you. This is why the CBD is a crap hole to drive around.

      I don't know about writing through to RMS. Doubt they will do anything really. But I have already elected to go court which is next Monday.

      • Bid Sniper on 24/06/2019 - 13:39
        +2

        I hate driving through there, its a mess.

        I wrote a letter before to RMS and got a positive result. Pretty rare thing though.

        To me Id would of wrote the letter, get the expected bad result, then elected to go to court. That what when you give you evidence, you have shown you tried with RMS first, thus looked to avoid wasting the courts time by trying to sort this out yourself.

        Either way you're going in and pleading guilty. Fact is you did turn at that stupid no left turn sign. Thats not what is dispute, what is that is was a mistake on your part.

        • knight321 on 24/06/2019 - 17:07

          Yes maybe I should have. I just got annoyed by revenue NSW haha

          I guess it's a lesson for the future :)

          I actually spoke to a cop at my local station who encouraged me to go and said it can't hurt because it's unlucky what happened to me. He said the court is for the people and depending on the judge could get a positive result

          • capslock janitor on 24/06/2019 - 17:32
            +1

            @knight321: "For the people"… don't know about that. Have read so many stories of judges stuffed up on sentencing the most heinous of crimes.
            Yeah really depends if you get a judge with a brain and a heart. Wish you the best to stick one up.

  • djones145 on 24/06/2019 - 08:32
    +1

    how much is the fine? how much demerit points?

    by you going to court what are u losing? are u taking leave, travel cost, time, effort, stress?

    is it worth it?

    • knight321 on 24/06/2019 - 12:56
      +2

      I get 1 day off a fortnight from work (RDO) and I have already elected the day.

      If I accept the fine, I need to pay $265 and incur 2 points against my record.

      But given the circumstances I don't feel comfortable doing that.

      • djones145 on 27/06/2019 - 08:40
        -3

        so instead of enjoying ur day off, copping a fine and losing a few points

        you decide to go to court, fight it, stress over it, create a post, waste hours reading and replying to posts…

        ok….

        good luck!

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 24/06/2019 - 10:07
    +7

    OP, once the bus pulled forward and commenced turning, did you look at the green light to confirm you could proceed turning?

    The road markings merely indicate which lane allows you to turn without impeding other traffic. It doesn't give your permission to enter the intersection.

    You realise that's why they place those signs there right? Also on the traffic lights on the opposite side of the intersection.

    You can't say you couldn't see the traffic lights as they were "obstructed" as you would then be admitting to entering the intersection without knowing if the lights were green and whether you were allowed to proceed.

    You should have waited for the bus to finish it's turn and confirmed via traffic lights or otherwise, including signage, that you are allowed to enter the intersection.

    • luffyex2010 on 24/06/2019 - 14:18
      +2

      This is actually a strong point as it tells the judge you are driving
      1) too close to the bus
      2) making a blind turn with the bus.

      Which you might need the intelligence of the collective brains of Ozbargainer to devise an excuse sorry I meant a plan.

      • knight321 on 24/06/2019 - 19:03
        +1

        I dont disagree with you here and this is why im thinking of pleading guilty. The signs were indeed there.

        It just amazes me that if this is indeed a common spot for people to turn in, and im sure most if not all are as confused as I am, then why hasnt the RMS done something about it.

        I dont know if anything can be done. At the time I did have visibility of the traffic lights hence why I proceeded through but dont remember seeing the signs anywhere. I dont know maybe I am stupid.

    • capslock janitor on 24/06/2019 - 17:06
      +10

      Road marking should not show "left turn only" it should have the combined forward arrow too, no?

      • knight321 on 24/06/2019 - 17:08
        +5

        BINGO THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY HELP!

        • harrywwc on 25/06/2019 - 08:42
          +6

          There is ambiguity in the road handbook -

          https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/roa… says "

          Painted arrows

          Arrows are painted on the road to tell you which direction must be taken by traffic in each lane." (my emphasis)

          So, you are in a situation where you are required to follow the direction of the arrow, because of the above, but are not permitted to because of the time-limits on the (possibly hard to see in heavy traffic) signs.

          If it were me, I would please leniency because I was following the direction of the arrow painted on the road as that was a "clear indication" that traffic in that lane is expected to go in that direction.

          (I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one in a TV show)

          edit - more info: https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2014/75…

          92 Traffic lane arrows
             (1)  If a driver is driving in a marked lane at an intersection (except a roundabout) and there are traffic lane arrows applying to the lane, the driver must:

       (a)  if the arrows indicate a single direction—drive in that direction...

          although 2(B) may be the over-ride…

          (2) However, this rule does not apply to a driver if:
          …
          (b) a traffic sign indicates that the driver may drive in a direction different to that indicated by the traffic lane arrows…

          The sign (as shown in the photos) doesn't indicate a "different direction", other than "no entry during these hours".

          it seems ambiguous with one rule stating you must follow the arrow, the other saying you don't have to if there is a sign indicating otherwise.

          If you are a member of a Road Users Club, maybe call them and ask their advice?

          • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 25/06/2019 - 10:29

            @harrywwc:

            So, you are in a situation where you are required to follow the direction of the arrow,

            You forgot the traffic light and intersection. The lane markings operate subject to these.

  • chriise on 24/06/2019 - 10:08
    +2

    I fear they just won't hear you out… But in any case I wish you luck op.

  • humdogg on 24/06/2019 - 10:55
    +1

    asking for legal advice online is usually a bad idea.

    On this forum, it is particularly bad.

    • knight321 on 24/06/2019 - 13:10

      I am only looking for general advice as other people might've faced similar issues.

      I might miss something or find something useful which I didn't know. It's also good to see if my view is consistent with those online.

      You don't need to respond to it if you don't want to, it's just nice to provide some guidance :)

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 24/06/2019 - 15:33
        -2

        It's also good to see if my view is consistent with those online.

        That just leads to confirmation bias and won't help you in any possible way.

        • nith265 on 25/06/2019 - 18:25

          That just leads to confirmation bias and won't help you in any possible way.

          ergo if anyone agrees with your comments all of the information you have supplied is incapable of being of use…?

          • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 25/06/2019 - 18:52

            @nith265: OP has failed to acknowledge anyone (and not just me) disagreeing with their point of view. Take of that as you will.

            • knight321 on 25/06/2019 - 20:00
              +1

              @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: I am NOT disagreeing with you - WHY do you think I will be pleading GUILTY?

              It just amazes me some of the logic that you have put forward because in reality when I think you are sitting in my car you would also be stuck and confused.

              Like I said again you are not wrong - its just unrealistic in my eyes. I will take more care next time - I just hope that if a sign is of importance - it is nice and CLEAR for everyone. In saying this - if I do disobey signs - wouldn't you think I'd be getting more fines and accidents? lol

              • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 25/06/2019 - 21:50
                +4

                @knight321: Don't let it amaze you. My questions are questions the Magistrate will likely put to you. Have a think about how you will respond.

  • pingualien on 24/06/2019 - 11:06
    +3

    goodluck i hope you win!

  • Cave Fire on 24/06/2019 - 11:37
    -5

    Technically, giving legal or financial advice without qualifications is illegal in most Oz states… I'm going to stay away from these posts and focus on Bargains. FYI, there is Aussie Legal that has barristers that give advice.

    • donga100 on 24/06/2019 - 14:08
      +8

      So you are advising us that giving advice to OP is illegal?

      • Cave Fire on 24/06/2019 - 14:40

        not sure who US is these days… but yeah it seems strange that so many of these questions are asked all the time. I think some of them might be legal issues case study questions from uni.

    • [Deactivated] on 24/06/2019 - 16:12
      +5

      It is not illegal to give unqualified legal or financial advice. Telling someone to get legal advice is legal advice. People can and do represent themself in court without qualifications. A crime might be misrepresenting your qualification, which is very different.

      For all the talk about online legal advice, kindly name one successful legal action in CIVIL court against online free bush lawyering.

  • [Deactivated] on 24/06/2019 - 11:41

    Is this the first "mention" in court? If it is the case probably won't actually be heard then. You should ask for the court to issue an order for the go pro footage from the officer.

    • knight321 on 24/06/2019 - 21:20

      It is the first mention I think? From what I know if I plead guilty (Which im thinking of) it will be finalised in the day. If Innocent then it will be set at another date.

      How do I ask the court? Via phone? I would hope that he does bring in the footage anyways as what else would he have to prove I turned in?

  • luffyex2010 on 24/06/2019 - 13:12
    +1

    Only replying this because you are Batman~

    1) Plead guilty as you did turn into a no left turn area during peak hours on a weekday regardless of video footage or not.

    2) But other decision could overturn the decision could rely on:-
    - Due to your *perfect no accident or fine driving record
    - You are aware that you have broken the law but there was an obstruction to the sign (still not sure how could you missed the sign after viewing the photos as you would be on the right driver seat as First photo is taken a pedestrian angle so it wouldn't count to evaluate/judge)
    - You have poor eyesight
    - You have zero witnesses (as in willing to stand up or provided to you) but hopefully, the judge will consider with a more lenient approach/outcome because you going to tell the Judge if you are to be caught with the same offense in the city again, the judge can double or triple the fine and take your license away!. (say it with passion Keanu Reeves style hand motion maybe some eye droplets might help)

    Don't think "hardly driving to the city" will change anything if not….all the interstate/outstation offenders would have gotten away.

    I parked on a no parking zone in Eastwood once, the No Parking sign was nearly completed faded away (just the coloured left). Took the photo and requested to hopefully review my parking fine but was told I should check and ask before parking on a coloured area. Lol paid fine and get on with my life.

    • chickemugget on 24/06/2019 - 13:36
      +4

      I don't think "poor eye sight" is a good idea. It could be considered reckless driving if you were vision impaired and drove without glasses.

      • luffyex2010 on 24/06/2019 - 14:21
        +1

        OP please don't use the poor eyesight excuse not a good idea in court unless you really have a recognized written document of eyesight disability…..

    • capslock janitor on 24/06/2019 - 17:11
      +1

      I got fined on disability parking, marking on ground was eroded and with no signage. Parking scums.

      Funnily within the month they repainted the marking and erected a sign up front. True scums of the earth.

      • kolorijo on 25/06/2019 - 15:36
        +4

        They use your fine money to repaint the marking & erect the sign.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 25/06/2019 - 15:37
        +1

        That scenario is definitely unfair. That is one you would definitely contest.

  • crentist on 24/06/2019 - 13:34
    +1

    so this document from rms suggests that the use of this particular sign is not recommended to be used, though it doesn't state that it isn't allowed

    … the use of a NO LEFT TURN sign should be restricted to turns which cannot be made by a design vehicle, eg a 12.5m single unit vehicle…

    so that could at least support your case of not expecting to see any sign
    and if you want to go for the extra long shot, track down the actual standards and see if any requirements were breached when they put up this unusual sign.

    I know someone who had a red traffic light blocked by a bus, and found that the lights had been installed in breach of placement requirements (it was too low due to store frontage). Fine got waived and the lights were reinstalled properly. I think this may also have resulted in many people getting fines reversed. The guy was high in nrma and kinda felt duty to keep the rta in check, because they do make mistakes.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 24/06/2019 - 15:08
      -1

      So the Road Rules 2014 (NSW) s 91 "suggests" that OP should obey No Left Turn signs. A sign of this nature is specifically referenced in Schedule 3.

      s 92(2)(d) also suggests that lane markings do not apply if entering an intersection

      s 317 (and other sections) allow the additional traffic control ie. the sign under the No Left Turn sign.

      Think a magistrate will place emphasis on your document over the Rules?

      so that could at least support your case of not expecting to see any sign

      Not expecting to see a sign at an intersection? Wow. You won't get far with that argument.

      Don't share irrelevant documents and spread misinformation when you have no idea what you're doing.

      • crentist on 24/06/2019 - 16:46
        +1

        It's not misinformation, it's a direct quote with an interpretation based on a good understanding of how local and international standards are written from plenty of time spent working closely with those forsaken documents.
        I think you misunderstood what I said. You also seem to have misinterpreted the line I quoted from that document, and the regulations that you linked.

        So the Road Rules 2014 (NSW) s 91 "suggests" that OP should obey No Left Turn signs.

        They specifically do not. They state that "a driver must not turn left". The bold emphasis is mine, but the use of the word "must" has a very strict meaning in standards. There is no "suggestion" that someone "should" obey the sign. It is a requirement that obey the sign. Very big difference.

        The word "should" is used in my comment's quote, and has it's own specifically defined meaning. It means that something is recommended, but not required.
        So, I was pointing out that it is not a requirement that "No Left Turn" signs are not used, but it is recommended that they aren't used in this case. Given that OP's best defense seems to be that they didn't notice the sign, guidelines recommending against but allowing the use of that sign may help support their case for being unobservant. But not much more than that.

        The extra stuff I mentioned was referring more to OP doing research into placement and positioning of the actual physical location of signs in the hopes of finding a mistake, if they are truly convinced they are in the right. This information seems to be in standards that need to be purchased, and are separate to the road rules. I expect that they wouldn't find a mistake, but the research would be educational.

        For your own education, I refer you to the Standards Australia SG-009 Preparation of Standards for Legislative Adoption, section 5 "Use of Must, Shall and Should"
        Read that closely, before interpreting what the rules "suggest".

        • knight321 on 24/06/2019 - 19:25
          +1

          Thank you for this info :) I'll have a look into it, wouldn't hurt bringing it up. If anything ill just get shut down haha.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 24/06/2019 - 19:43
          -4

          it's a direct quote with an interpretation

          You also seem to have misinterpreted the line

          It's a indirect quote from a guideline that has absolutely no authority on anything.

          You conveniently chopped the actual reference paragraph as it begins with "Left-turn bans are difficult to police" thus you've completely skewed the source material to change the context. Reading the paragraph in its entirely reveals the opinion - they are difficult to police so they should sparingly be used and has no relevance to "not expecting to see a sign". 99.9% of all intersections have a sign, traffic light or other traffic control instrument. That argument would never fly.

          BTW did you even check the year of that publication? lol. Predates the new legislation by 6 years :)

          They state that "a driver must not turn left".

          Did my quotation marks "suggest" not infer I was ironically referring to your quote "suggests" in that a guideline "suggesting something" somehow has authority of the actual Rules that absolutely restrict something? Maybe I should have used a sarcasm /s for your reading benefit.

          Of course the Rules must be obeyed. Why do you think I'm posting?

          The word "should"….

          Thanks for the essay. Irrelevant once it dawns on you that I was mocking the first sentence of your previous post.

          guidelines recommending against but allowing the use of that sign may help support their case for being unobservant.

          Zero chance. As mentioned your "guideline", when read in completeness, does not give the opinion you are alleging. They may be hard to police but unfortunately for OP his action was in fact policed.

          doing research into placement and positioning of the actual physical location of signs

          I already quoted the relevant legislation. It ain't there. Show me elsewhere.

          before interpreting what the rules "suggest".

          Lol. See above.

          • crentist on 24/06/2019 - 23:19

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

            It's a indirect quote…

            It's word for word you (mod edited: personal attack), what more do you want

            …from a guideline that has absolutely no authority on anything.

            That was the entire point of defining the word "should". It removes any enforceable authority from any document.

            You conveniently chopped the actual reference paragraph as it begins with "Left-turn bans are difficult to police" thus you've completely skewed the source material to change the context.

            You conveniently chopped off the part just before that where it indicates that the signs are intended to deny entry into one-way streets to skew it as you want. I chopped off the part about policing because the fact that it was policed is much less relevant than you seem to think.

            Did my quotation marks "suggest" not infer I was ironically referring to your quote
            Thanks for the essay. Irrelevant once it dawns on you that I was mocking the first sentence of your previous post.

            No it was clear. But your use of the word also made it clear that you thought I was "suggesting" that the sign was not allowed. The rest of your post, and now this next one, "suggests" the same.
            I was pointing out that the word has a specified definition when used in these kind of documents, which I understand, and you clearly do not. Mocking me for using the word correctly just means you continue to use it incorrectly.

            Zero chance. As mentioned your "guideline", when read in completeness, does not give the opinion you are alleging. They may be hard to police but unfortunately for OP his action was in fact policed.

            Zero chance of what? Of helping OP beg for lenience? Just putting on a sad face has more than a zero chance.
            And what do you mean by opinion? I'm not alleging any opinion, and certainly not the one you seem to think.
            The guidelines I have pointed to are NOT strict, and I have never implied that they are. In fact I made it clear that they aren't. They can be ignored for any reason, they just mentioned one reason not to put them up everywhere.
            Once that dawns on you, you'll realise that the fact that OP was policed makes no difference, because that doesn't prevent sign placement anyway.

            doing research into placement and positioning of the actual physical location of signs
            I already quoted the relevant legislation. It ain't there. Show me elsewhere.

            No you didn't. You quoted the road rules, which mostly tell drivers what to do. I suggested tracking down the Australian Standards that tell the road authority and any engineers and professionals who design and build the roads what to do. You can do this research yourself. I don't know why you bothered picking up on this point though.

            But basically you're completely misinterpreting what I'm saying and then arguing against your own misinterpretation. You're saying that the guidelines don't say something, which they don't, and I'm not saying that they do, and was never the point anyway.
            The point is that a fairly recent and still available, though superseded, RTA guideline (btw 6 years is nothing in the world of Standards) makes an unenforceable suggestion for something that may help OP as they beg for leniency. That's all. OP is still gonna have beg.

            • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 25/06/2019 - 10:44
              -1

              @crentist: I'll ignore the personal attack.

              That was the entire point of defining the word "should". It removes any enforceable authority from any document.

              Glad we agree.

              You conveniently chopped off the part just before that where it indicates that the signs are intended to deny entry into one-way streets to skew it as you want.

              It does not say that.

              It says if the sign is to be used to ban a left turn into a one way street to see another applicable section. Again you are changing the context.

              No it was clear.

              you - so this document from rms(rms.nsw.gov.au) suggests

              me - so the Road Rules 2014 (NSW) s 91(legislation.nsw.gov.au) "suggests"

              I was mocking your post. I clearly used quotation marks. I can't control your interpretation but you cannot infer my original intent. Lighten up. I still stand by that your guidelines suggestions mean diddly squat when referenced in conjunction with the Rules.

              Zero chance of what?

              Of using that guideline document as a reason or excuse as to why OP was "unobservant" (your quote - note the quotation marks please)

              No you didn't.

              Yes I did. Schedule 3 which operates subject to s 329.

              I suggested tracking down the Australian Standards

              Schedule 3 clearly states signs of this nature are permitted under the Rules and do not appear in Australian Standard guidelines (nor are they required to).

              The rules allow the sign. The rules allow the placement and location of the signs. The rules are under which the infringement was issued to OP. Capice?

              (btw 6 years is nothing in the world of Standards)

              It is something when the Rules include portions of the "guidelines" and make it law.

              OP can beg, but using (please again note direct quotation) "guidelines recommending against but allowing the use of that sign may help support their case for being unobservant." are very, very unlikely to assist him in anyway possible. Thus the purpose of my original post.

              • crentist on 25/06/2019 - 11:14

                @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: So again, you’ve misunderstood everything. I never said the signs aren’t allowed. I said they are allowed. I had to define a word for you to make that clear. But they aren’t the most common signs on the road. And it turns out that there are some guidelines that support why that might be the case, and why OP might have made the erroneous assumption that there wouldn’t be a sign.

                If you were only saying that you think that’s a dumb argument, fair enough. But everything about you proving that the signs are allowed etc has been arguing against a point that was never made.
                Don’t make me get out the dictionary again

                • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 25/06/2019 - 11:56
                  -1

                  @crentist:

                  they aren’t the most common signs on the road.

                  Common enough to be in the Road Rules.

                  But everything about you proving that the signs are allowed etc has been arguing against a point that was never made.

                  Your point was to find an exception.

                  You told OP to "track down the Australian Standard guidelines"

                  previously you also told OP to "research into placement and positioning of the actual physical location of signs in the hopes of finding a mistake, if they are truly convinced they are in the right. This information seems to be in standards that need to be purchased"

                  Sounded like you think there's a possibility the signs weren't allowed.

                  I referred you to Schedule 3 which states they aren't in or subject to the AS.

                  Simple.

                  • crentist on 25/06/2019 - 13:49

                    @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

                    Sounded like you think there's a possibility the signs weren't allowed.

                    No I was pointing out how OP could determine that for themselves, and that mistakes do sometimes happen. But I also described that particular pursuit as an "extra long shot"

                    I referred you to Schedule 3 which states they aren't in or subject to the AS.

                    Again, "No you didn't. You quoted the road rules, which mostly tell drivers what to do. I suggested tracking down the Australian Standards that tell the road authority and any engineers and professionals who design and build the roads what to do. You can do this research yourself."

                    Since you obviously can't do this research yourself here's a starting point.

                    That type of information seems like it might be found in AS1742 & 1743, which are expensive ($500+). Luckily they are referenced in the freely available Austroads Guides, which have also been adopted by RMS.

                    Look at that. Fun titles like
                    4.5 Location and Placement of Signs
                    4.5.2 Longitudinal Placement
                    4.5.3 Lateral Placement and Height

                    These are guidelines about how high signs should be placed, how far from intersections etc. The kind of details that prevent road signs from being a bit of paper stapled to the nearest tree. But they should be superfluous to any driver reading the Road Rules, apparently to the point that the existence of such documents can't be comprehended, but here we are.

                    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 25/06/2019 - 15:34

                      @crentist:

                      "extra long shot"

                      Cool. We can now agree on that. Your suggestion was an extra long shot.

                      Look at that. Fun titles

                      Most of which was not adopted or incorporated into the current laws. Check the schedules for yourself. Check the Act as well whilst you're at it.

                      Austroads is a company. They make guidelines. Not laws.

                      Regardless, you've failed to cite where the signs OP didn't notice fail any of your precious guidelines. You have to back up your argument. Not me. You can't just declare a statement as truth and then say "I'm right, do your own research!"

                      • crentist on 25/06/2019 - 16:28
                        +1

                        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

                        Your suggestion was an extra long shot.

                        I never claimed otherwise, you've been arguing with yourself over this point because you couldn't read the first thing you replied to.

                        Most of which was not adopted or incorporated into the current laws. Check the schedules for yourself. Check the Act as well whilst you're at it.

                        Cite this please. Please provide the RMS guidelines for sign placement that don't borrow extensively from those guidelines.

                        Because in their own technical supplements RMS states this: "Austroads has released the Guide to Traffic Management and all road agencies across Australasia have agreed to adopt the Austroads guides to provide a level of consistency and harmonisation across all jurisdictions. This agreement means that the new Austroads guides and the Australian Standards, which are referenced in them, will become the primary technical references for use within the Agency."

                        "Primary technical references" are a long way from "Most of which was not adopted or incorporated…".

                        "…into the current laws" is a somewhat separate matter which hasn't quite clicked in your mind. Almost nothing about the laws in the Road Rules are related to the responsibilities of road designers.

                        Regardless, you've failed to cite where the signs OP didn't notice fail any of your precious guidelines.

                        Never claimed to. Again, learn to read before you reply.

                        Also those "precious guidelines" are national Standards. You may think that rules are only written to control individuals, but these documents control every industry down to fine details. Being ignorant of their existence doesn't make them "precious" any more than being ignorant of laws makes them "precious". It just means you fail to understand how things work in the world.

                        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 25/06/2019 - 17:06
                          -1

                          @crentist:

                          Cite this please. Please provide the RMS guidelines…blah blah

                          Why would I cite guidelines when they have no effect in law?

                          I have already cited the relevant legislation. Schedule 3 and s 91. Further more refer to s 316. The form of sign appears to be adopted and used. That's it. s 317 provides for the plate attached to OP's Do not turn left sign. They are legal.

                          That is the extent that the legislation has "adopted" or "incorporated" those "guidelines" into law. So yes, they vary quite significantly from the guidelines as the criteria is far, far reduced.

                          I really don't care, and neither will the Court, that a private company's guidelines, not adopted into law, say otherwise. Even then you're failed to state how the guidelines differ from law. So again, State where OP's sign fails to meet your guidelines recommendations.

                          Almost nothing about the laws in the Road Rules are related to the responsibilities of road designers.

                          s 322 refers to how the sign must be placed. Substantially different from your "guidelines". The key definition being "clearly visible" to road users. This is far removed from your guidelines.

                          This would not have been a sporadic decision. A lot of key players will have considered those guidelines, and many, many, many other internal and external recommendations, before deciding what is necessary inclusion in legislation.

                          It just means you fail to understand how things work in the world

                          You fail to understand how legislation and the Court system operates.

                          • crentist on 25/06/2019 - 19:36
                            +1

                            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

                            Why would I cite guidelines when they have no effect in law?

                            Why are you citing the law in a discussion about sign visibility? It has everything to do with practised guidelines on sign placement, which the law wouldn't bother spelling out.

                            a private company's guidelines, not adopted into law

                            This "private company" (actually an organisation comprised of all national road authorities) spells out how the nations roads should be built. Those local (ie state) authorities then adopt and make modification to suit themselves. These are the people who make the roads we drive on.

                            You fail to understand how legislation and the Court system operates.

                            Again, you don't understand the relationship between Standards and the law, and what the Standards actually are, or why we are discussing them. Here you go. And before you get excited, I know that the word "voluntary" is in there.

                            You're clearly one of those people who thinks we should all bend over and submit to anything the law says, but you don't realise that the law doesn't tell everyone how to do literally everything. A lot is left to technical committees who write Standards that the law can fully adopt and enforce or simply reference when necessary.

                            I found a fun reference for you. The Australasian Legal Information Institute. Full of court transcripts with judges and lawyers on both sides of the law discussing the Australian Standards as a legal reference point.

                            • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 25/06/2019 - 19:52

                              @crentist:

                              Why are you citing the law in a discussion about sign visibility?

                              The subject of the entire discussion is the infringement OP received.

                              This "private company"

                              Yes a private company.

                              https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landi…

                              spells out

                              Suggests.

                              Again, you don't understand the relationship between Standards and the law,

                              Again no one at the Court will care. Standards\guidelines are not laws.

                              Bit tiresome to ask a third time, but how has the signs OP "didn't see" breach your precious Standards? If you could prove the signs comply with the Act and Rules but not with the "guidelines" they you might have an argument. Alas, you haven't. I wonder why.

                              You're clearly one of those people who thinks we should all bend over and submit to anything the law say

                              Hell no. Have you seen any of my posts on other threads? People need to know and enforce their rights.

                              In this case OP stated he "didn't see" the sign and blames the bus. Also blames the cops and waiting for someone to make a mistake. No pity from me. My viewpoints are arguments are exactly what he's facing if he represents himself. The exact same questions will be considered.

                              I found a fun reference for you.

                              You just found austlii? Congrats! Cite a decision on this particular issue.

                              • crentist on 25/06/2019 - 22:15

                                @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

                                Bit tiresome to ask a third time, but how has the signs OP "didn't see" breach your precious Standards? If you could prove the signs comply with the Act and Rules but not with the "guidelines" they you might have an argument. Alas, you haven't. I wonder why.

                                Because I never claimed this and you misread my original post from the beginning.
                                We've been over this.

                                Cite a decision on this particular issue.

                                Not gonna dig through a legal archive for a case involving a No Left Turn. You feel free though.
                                But there are plenty of references to the standards in various cases, which contradicts this:

                                no one at the Court will care

                                Plenty of caring going on. Standards and guidelines are commonly used as a reference to make a decision, even though they don't dictate any decisions, as was never claimed.

                                • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 25/06/2019 - 22:22

                                  @crentist:

                                  Because I never claimed this

                                  You kinda did. If we now agree the signs don't breach the guidelines and they don't breach the Rules, then no reason to even mention the guidelines.

                                  But there are plenty of references to the standards in various cases

                                  I looked. 90% are about road quality or curbs causing damage or injury. $$$.

                                  Standards and guidelines are commonly used as a reference to make a decision

                                  ..in the absence of law. Which there is in this scenario. And you confirm the signs don't breach the guidelines.

                                  • crentist on 26/06/2019 - 00:03

                                    @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

                                    we now agree the signs don't breach the guidelines and they don't breach the Rules,

                                    I haven't read the guidelines so I can't comment on whether they breach or not beyond a guess. Same as you, but I've worked with enough strictly defined documents to know not to claim certainty where it doesn't exist.
                                    Location and installation doesn't seem to be covered by the Rules at all, so that's moot.

                                    then no reason to even mention the guidelines.

                                    I already gave my reasons for mentioning the guidelines.

                                    And you confirm the signs don't breach the guidelines.

                                    I don't confirm this. I didn't make any assessment about whether they breach or not.
                                    Claiming that I did seems to be the crux of your argument.

                                    ..in the absence of law

                                    Yet you still haven't found any laws that state how exactly signs should be located and installed. Just that they are enforceable once installed, however that may be. Which is obviously missing a few important details.

              • ChatCPT on 25/06/2019 - 11:49
                +5

                @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Comment Voting
                24-hours limit for voting negative on comments is currently capped at 5

                Stop using up my negs. trying to read through the thread here and your comments are like cancer spread throughout the post. Stop commenting please. Take a hint. The negs suggest no one agrees with you!

                • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 25/06/2019 - 11:54
                  -1

                  @ChatCPT: Feel free to contribute something.

                  • John Kimble on 25/06/2019 - 12:26
                    +1

                    @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: They have; Negs. ha

                    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 25/06/2019 - 12:29

                      @John Kimble: Happy for anyone to point out anything I've posted, other than personal opinion, that is incorrect.

                      So far nada.

                      • John Kimble on 25/06/2019 - 12:42
                        +2

                        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Well, I've not read everything you've posted, so cannot say if you've said anything right or wrong, but from what I can gather you are taking a very hard, black and white stance where you believe OP shouldn't bother going to court (which who knows, may well end up being good advice).

                        However, mostly everyone else seems to have come to the general consensus that it would be very easy for anyone to make the same mistake as the OP, which would mean there is a potential for improved signage and therefore IMHO a possibility for the OP to get off with a section 10 (But obviously going to court is always a roll the dice situation with these matters)…especially if they can convince/prove to the judge the police are specifically targeting that intersection due to this???

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join