Red Light Offence Due to Failing to Enter Intersection Fully on Left Turn While Giving Jaywalking Pedestrians Right to Cross

Octogenarian on 13/01/2021 - 14:04
Last edited 13/01/2021 - 14:39 by 1 other user

Hi OzBargainers

Red light camera pics : https://imgur.com/a/0v2BqsK

The gist of the offence is that the car has triggered the red camera sensors due to having its rear wheels on the stopping line when the traffic light changed to red. This happened mainly due to 2 factors:

  1. The driver was not well experienced at understanding intersection rules. I.E that the car has to be fully in the intersection area prior to the change to red.
  2. Completing the turn was stymied by jaywalking pedestrians who crossed on red and as the law requires let them finish the crossing.

There are two traffic camera pictures (https://imgur.com/a/0v2BqsK) attached to the fine, showing:

  1. The car at a full stop with car's braking lights ON exactly at the moment when the traffic light changes to red (the rear wheels are on the stopping line)
  2. A few milliseconds after the car is in the junction, also with brake lights ON as the driver realised she has to finalise the turn as the light has turned red. However, at this point there were still jaywalkers in finalising their crossing and by law the driver had to wait till they have finished.

By saying jaywalker I mean those people who start their crossing at either flashing red or fully red pedestrian traffic light.

This happened in a junction just a few meters from our home and at a non-rush hour.

This was a bone fide rookie mistake with no intention to break law or anything in that spirit.

Can anyone please advice on whether it makes sense to write a leniency request or to dispute the fine? Any other relevant advice would be highly appreciated.

Cheers

Kind regards.

Automotive

Comments

  • GG57 on 13/01/2021 - 14:09
    +7

    Was the light amber when the vehicle was driven into the intersection?

  • Baysew on 13/01/2021 - 14:14

    Perhaps post the photos here, so we have a better idea to offer a solution.

  • orangetrain on 13/01/2021 - 14:17
    +15

    Mspaint or pay fine

  • sunnypack on 13/01/2021 - 14:17

    Do you have an mspaint diagram? Also you can appeal offences, just cite your reasons. If you have dashcam footage even better.

    • GG57 on 13/01/2021 - 14:23
      +3

      Highly likely that the lights were amber when they entered the intersection; any dashcam footage would be incriminating.

      • sunnypack on 13/01/2021 - 14:27

        You're not required to submit incriminating evidence. But you can submit evidence that may help with your appeal. It's not a court anyway, so there's always that option if the appeal doesn't work out. Just know that if they know that dashcam footage exists and is (potentially) incriminating they can request it. So whether that's worth it… up to the driver.

        I am not a lawyer this is not legal advice etc. Well if you're getting legal advice on a OzB forum that's not going to work out anyway.

        • GG57 on 13/01/2021 - 14:49

          "You're not required to submit incriminating evidence."
          "I am not a lawyer"

          That is self-evident.

  • SnoozeAndLose on 13/01/2021 - 14:32
    +5

    OP if you don't have MS paint, dam cam footage or red light camera picture. We cant help.

    You are a missing a couple of dimensions here.

    OZbargain Traffic offence support team cant help

    • khomeini on 15/01/2021 - 10:51

      I can see a business opportunity in this.

  • Octogenarian on 13/01/2021 - 14:51
    +1

    UPDATE:

    1. Red light camera pics link added in the post.

    2. Reply to those who suggest using a dash cam video. Unfortunately, the driver was not aware of the offence at this moment so the dash cam video has been overwritten as it runs in a cyclical recording loop. Thank you for the suggestions

    • khomeini on 15/01/2021 - 20:24

      Thanks 80. I'd go with bobbified's comment below - I'd write to the body who issued the ticket and try the letter route, you never know but don't hold your breath over it. If that fails, then just pay.

      Technically, it's a pretty clear case of someone who was behind the second line when the lights turned red. This means that she ran a red - end of regardless of circumstance. As a road user she will now know to be aware of cameras, especially at intersections, and if in doubt just stay behind the lines and wait till after the lights change. I've seen this a lot at a Mlbn CBD intersection and am extra vigilant but when I was wasn't aware of this rule got a few infringements due to the same issue. We all learn from our mistakes.

  • bobbified on 13/01/2021 - 14:53
    +14

    Basically, a red light camera is activated 0.1-0.2 seconds after the light has turned red. If your vehicle crosses the line after this, the first picture is snapped to show you on/crossing the line. The second picture is snapped shortly after to show you in a position that is further into the intersection (or in your case, further into the turn). That proves you have disobeyed the red signal.

    If you're just stopped on the line and not moving, sometimes the pictures will be snapped, but since you're in the same position in both pictures (and not moving into or across the intersection), they won't issue a ticket.

    To be blunt, they don't care what your intentions are. You run the red, you get a ticket. If you want someone to consider your "intentions", you'll need to take it to court.

    PS: are you really a rookie driver at age 80+ (going by your username)?

    • Octogenarian on 13/01/2021 - 15:03

      Thanks for the explanation !
      My wife was behind the wheel and she does not drive much :-( and relatively insecure on the road.

      I know that if we are considering the scenario from a pure legal aspect she is at fault. But I do believe there are mitigating circumstances such as her intention, and the fact that she gave right to jaywalkers who were the true offenders in that case even though it cannot be proven without a proper video evidence ( I do believe there is a traffic camera there though). All she had to do in that scenario is just to move the vehicle a bit further into the intersection and wait till they have finished.

      I also know that it is hard to get leniency with a red traffic offence. So considering the factors above I have decided to turn to the most knowledgeable source on the internet. Ozbargain community !
      Cheers

      • GG57 on 13/01/2021 - 15:10
        +1

        Was the light amber when the vehicle was driven into the intersection?

        • Octogenarian on 13/01/2021 - 15:22
          -1

          Not sure what it was. The facts are that my partner, as you can see is the only vehicle turning left. As far as I understand (and also can be corroborated by the images), she waited with her rear wheels on the stopping line while the light was green and then amber. Then when it turned red progressed further and then waited a bit more. All this due to some offending pedestrians (If trusting her words and I do !)

          • GG57 on 13/01/2021 - 15:33
            +1

            @Octogenarian: The photos state that the amber light duration is 4 seconds. Doesn't sound long but I think that is reasonably standard.

            There are more factors at play here though, as even entering an intersection on amber is not permitted unless you can't stop safely.
            And even on a green light, you are only allowed to progress if you can get totally through the intersection.

            The driver would have been better staying where they were, let the truck turn, and wait for the next green light.

          • gromit on 15/01/2021 - 08:21
            +3

            @Octogenarian: I think you are misinterpreting those images, she was not stopped in the first image, she was breaking into the corner as the distanced traveled in the next .7 of a second suggests she was already moving. Also the red light camera would not have waited 0.9s to take the first image if she was already sitting there, this suggests she only just entered the intersection and has triggered it through crossing the line (hence moving).

      • bobbified on 13/01/2021 - 15:12
        +1

        Unfortunately, you're right. Red light offences are viewed as serious (in my opinion, rightly so) offences and they're pretty strict on those, so they're unlikely to give you any leniency. However, nothing is stopping you from giving a written appeal a try.

        To be honest though, I wouldn't even waste my time with an excuse anymore and just pay it (or do write an appeal knowing they'll probably reject it, just to get a time extension) or go on a plan to pay $5/week for the next year or two.

      • [Deactivated] on 13/01/2021 - 15:23
        +3

        I think the part that is against you is she voluntarily accelerated after all that, under red.

        • Octogenarian on 13/01/2021 - 15:55
          -1

          Panicked. Was at full stop before red (see the break lights) . Light changes to amber .. she cannot make her mind.. then changes to red she abruptly moves into the intersection.. Road insecurity … Could happen to many young drivers etc..

      • S2 on 13/01/2021 - 16:13

        I also know that it is hard to get leniency with a red traffic offence.

        According to this previous post, it seems leniency via the courts is not that difficult. Whilst that was a speeding offence, the thread has other comments about people receiving reduced fines in court when being remorseful. Example 1, 2.

        • Domingo on 15/01/2021 - 19:32
          +2

          Different kettle of fish. Running a red light is considered a more serious offence than a low level speeding offence and is not typically granted leniency:

          Grounds Reasons and considerations Evidence required to support your review
          Red light - Considered I was directed to travel through the red light by an authorised officer Proof of situations such as road works or an emergency at the time of offence. We may refer to Transport for NSW for advice.
          Red light - Not Considered A clear driving record For public safety, these offences are not considered based solely on a clear driving record.
          Red light - Not Considered Claims that you were not able to stop in time as above
          Red light - Not Considered Claims that you could not see the lights as above
          Red light - Not Considered Claims that the light was yellow when you entered the intersection (red light offences are only issued when the light is red before the vehicle enters the intersection) as above

          Source: https://www.revenue.nsw.gov.au/help-centre/resources-library…
          Note: I love that the website is literally called "revenue"

          Similar story in Victoria:

          Serious road safety related offences are ineligible for official warnings.

          An official warning will generally not be given for a red light, mobile phone, seatbelt or any serious road safety offence; this is due to the serious nature of the risk that these types of offences pose to all road users.

          However consideration may be given where a proven emergency situation can be shown.

          Source: https://www.police.vic.gov.au/official-warnings

  • MS Paint on 13/01/2021 - 15:08
    +3

    The car at a full stop with car's braking lights ON

    Are they? Just looks like a reflection from the red camera flash to my untrained eyes.

    • Octogenarian on 13/01/2021 - 15:18

      Look at the upper tailgate flat brake light on the back door. It is clear that it is on (you can enlarge the image). You can even discern a contrast with other parts of tail lights that are off on the tailgate area ! Cheers

      • MS Paint on 13/01/2021 - 15:32

        OK. Do me a favour.

        Go out to your 2012 Rx350 with your wife. With the wife in the drivers seat and the engine running get her to press the brake pedal. Headlights to be off.

        Can you please remain at the back of the vehicle and observe, even better take a photo of, which lights are illuminated.

        Thanks for your time.

        • Octogenarian on 13/01/2021 - 15:56

          I did this experiment a few hours back before posting !!! Engine running with no break on the upper tailgate light if off. It is a specific light that turns on only when break pedal is pressed.

  • abb on 13/01/2021 - 15:11

    Why not stop when it was orange?

    • Octogenarian on 13/01/2021 - 15:30
      -2

      Sorry mate, would not be able to answer those WHY questions. Every driver has their own sense of road confidence, knowledge of traffic laws, and their own decision making algorithm. You will have to ask my wife all the WHY questions. All I am trying to do is to bring some facts or alleged facts (by me as I do trust my wife's story). We are now trying to figure out if all those facts from above can actually warrant appealing for leniency or it is jus waste of time. Cheers

      • abb on 13/01/2021 - 15:31
        +5

        Sure, but you should address this question in any request for lenience as it will be the first thing on the reviewer's mind.

        • Octogenarian on 13/01/2021 - 15:38
          -4

          I guess my wife was not aware of how an intersection operates in terms of stopping lines etc. What is considered to be IN an intersection and OUT of… From the red light camera operating perspective if the rear wheels are on or behind the line (have not crossed it ) that means that the car is not IN the intersection. In regard if the driver is allowed to progress INTO the intersection while there are pedestrians crossing there is NO definitive answer from the legal standpoint. Therefore, it is not an offence to slide your car into the intersection while there are pedestrians crossing. All my wife's fault was that she had not slid deep enough with the car so the rear wheels wouldn't have triggered the camera. Cheers

          • Euphemistic on 15/01/2021 - 13:10
            +7

            @Octogenarian:

            I guess my wife was not aware of how an intersection operates in terms of stopping lines etc. What is considered to be IN an intersection and OUT of…

            Based on this, and some other comments your wife needs to learn to drive and learn the road rules. Not knowing isn’t an excuse.

            Pay the fine, take it as a lesson, don’t do it again.

    • blorx on 13/01/2021 - 17:08

      Entered on green, based on other comments. So are you suggesting to stop over the line roughly pic 1?

  • AdosHouse on 13/01/2021 - 15:27
    +26

    I'm gonna say that the Lexus was never at a complete stop, and was moving the whole time.

    0.7 seconds between photos. In the second photo the back wheels are about where the front wheels are in the first photo. Wheelbase of the 2012 Lexus RX350 is 2.74m . So traveling at 2.74m in 0.7 seconds is 3.91m/s or 14km/h. So the Lexus would have had to be doing 14km/h constant speed to cover that distance in 0.7 seconds. IF the Lexus was stopped, to move that 2.74m in 0.7 seconds the Lexus would have amazing foot movement speed and incredible acceleration to do that.

    So that over. I wouldn't advise the Lexus driver to appeal, it will be thrown out. Cough up and learn.

    • MS Paint on 13/01/2021 - 15:34
      +3

      This guy physics

      • AdosHouse on 13/01/2021 - 15:35
        +10

        More like, this guy is procrastinating about getting ready for work because he doesn't want to.

        • MS Paint on 13/01/2021 - 15:38
          +1

          Lol. That's rapid movement considering also.

          car's braking lights ON

          Can you please adjust your formula / calculations based on the resistance of the brakes of an RX350

          • Flirtle on 15/01/2021 - 20:33

            @MS Paint: Found the other procrastinator, that or you just want to see how that the maths. rabbit hole goes.

    • steven6 on 13/01/2021 - 15:51

      I agree, as it looks like the brake lights are on in 2nd photo.

    • Octogenarian on 13/01/2021 - 15:52
      -6

      I think that everything agrees with reality in the above. Your calcs make sense but the conclusion is not bulletproof.

      That car is 300hp engine and does 0-100km/h in 8 sec. The derived acceleration is 3.47222 m/s2. Like i said, my wife is not a confident driver and can be harsh on the gas pedal with abrupt spurts of gas /brake especially in a situation such the discussed one. The panicked and did not what to do so hit the gas and then breaks/

      • hm on 13/01/2021 - 16:00

        that's slow for 0-100

        • MS Paint on 13/01/2021 - 16:08

          With fuel that's 2 tonne of Toyota goodness

      • MS Paint on 13/01/2021 - 16:01

        That car is 300hp engine

        I'm guessing this is rounding up to the nearest 100

        • Octogenarian on 13/01/2021 - 16:08

          Yep 270ish to be precise…

      • AdosHouse on 13/01/2021 - 16:13
        +12

        That is actually not a fast car. For comparison it has the same kW/tonne as my 2001 VX V6 Commodore, and only 41Nm more torque but weighs 500kg more. That car is not fast by anyone's standard.

        And unless your wife is a double peddle driver, the time it takes to move the foot from one pedal to the other has to be taken into consideration.

        EDIT: OP let me just give you some advice. Your wife said X happened, maths disagrees with it, and if you try and take it to court, the court will rule against you and throw court fees on top. Let your missus say X happened, say 'yes dear, but no point arguing because the system won't help us (or some other BS excuse)' and just pay the fine. Blame the system (nobody cares), keep the missus happy, and just let it go.

        • Octogenarian on 13/01/2021 - 17:52
          +3

          Makes sense now. I rechecked the calcs and your conclusion makes sense. She could not have done that stop drive stop jump in 0.7 secs. Since break lights light up even when the driver pumps them while roiling on inertia it is impossible to conclude as to what was the kinetic energy of the car on both images. Thanks for taking the time to do the math. I guess I should have given it a deeper thought before just believing my own convictions.

          • Scrooge McDuck on 13/01/2021 - 21:41
            +6

            @Octogenarian:

            I guess I should have given it a deeper thought before just believing my own convictions.

            Or your wife.

          • Flirtle on 15/01/2021 - 20:35

            @Octogenarian: It's still okay to believe your convictions.

            Trying to remember what happened days, weeks, months ago can be difficult, and nothing is more proficient at proof than video and/or maths.

            A generally good driver can still make mistakes.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 13/01/2021 - 21:39
          +1

          Perhaps she put it in neutral then revved it like BAM BAM BAM BAM then selected D for maximum respect.

    • steven6 on 13/01/2021 - 17:18

      So if acceleration is a constant (which I guess it would be very close to being) and speed is variable, then the Lexus would have had to go from 0-28kp/h in 0.7 seconds or less?

  • steven6 on 13/01/2021 - 15:46

    Looks like the brake lights are on in the 2nd photo?

    • Octogenarian on 13/01/2021 - 16:00

      Yep. Read my post carefully. She was at full stop before entering the intersection then entered and stopped again. Due to bad decision-making caused by jaywalkers.

      • steven6 on 13/01/2021 - 16:03

        So she drives with her foot on the brake? Or car was moving in both photos?

        • Octogenarian on 13/01/2021 - 16:07

          She was at full stop then hit accel then hit the break pedal again because there were still people crossing.

      • deme on 14/01/2021 - 19:36
        +3

        They were not jaywalking.

  • Caped Baldy on 13/01/2021 - 16:00
    +11

    Pay the fine and move on. There's very little leniency for red light offences and stuff with school zones.

    This is ozbargain not ozDrivingSupport or ozHelpmeprintscreen.

  • Hithere on 13/01/2021 - 16:22
    +11

    The driver was not well experienced at understanding intersection rules.

    Oh dear. Maybe driver should consider a few lessons from a driving school and learn the current road rules which may help them build confidence on the road. Next time it may be another car involved, or even a collision with a pedestrian.

  • JimmyF on 13/01/2021 - 16:38
    +16

    The driver was not well experienced at understanding intersection rules. I.E that the car has to be fully in the intersection area prior to the change to red.

    Not a reason for getting out of the fine.

    Completing the turn was stymied by jaywalking pedestrians who crossed on red and as the law requires let them finish the crossing.

    Also not a reason for getting out of the fine.

    This happened in a junction just a few meters from our home and at a non-rush hour.

    ok, but not a reason for getting out of the fine. There is no 'home' drive how you want zone.

    This was a bone fide rookie mistake with no intention to break law or anything in that spirit.

    ok, but not a reason for getting out of the fine. Mistakes happen, you learn from them and pay the fine.

    Can anyone please advice on whether it makes sense to write a leniency request or to dispute the fine?

    You haven't given any valid reasons. So no, pay the fine. Learn from it and move on!

  • Mumbles on 13/01/2021 - 16:42
    +4

    The options mentioned by the OP will be unsuccessful. For this specific situation I'd just pay the fine. Secondly I'd be educating the driver to accept responsibility and focus on the things they can control or else history will repeat for lessons not learned.

    A leniency request means your wife is specifically going to state that she knew the situation, made the mistake, admits fault for her mistake and is asking for leniency based on a list of acceptable reasons. eg. spotless driving record with long driving history. No evidence is needed for a leniency request as all parties agree and accept the situation.

    A dispute is totally different to a leniency request. It's your wife saying she was never at fault. This requires describing how she conformed to all laws and prove how she was never at fault. In the wife's specific scenario she says she was not at fault, didn't conform to all the laws and can't prove anything.

    The learners driver manual will cite that pedestrians have right of way (regardless of J walking). All big cities have traffic lights, pedestrians, impatient drivers who don't like pedestrians having right of way.

    • GG57 on 13/01/2021 - 16:48
      +1

      But it was "just a few meters (sic) from our home".

  • pegaxs on 13/01/2021 - 18:20
    +17

    Math time. (Because facts don't care about your stories.)

    The distance covered in the photo is about 3~4m in 0.7 seconds.

    This means that the car was moving at between 15 and 20km/h at the time the photo was taken.

    The driver did not "accelerate" after being stopped. A: that car would not accelerate that hard in that distance (needs to be about 12.5~16.3m/s²) and B: You don't accelerate with your foot on the brake.

    Added to this, there was a 4 second showing of the yellow, meaning that the yellow was showing well before OP entered the intersection, (or it was the worlds slowest grandma/pa crossing the road.)

    Ergo. OP ('s wife) is making up stories.

    Pay the fine.

    • MS Paint on 13/01/2021 - 19:16
      +1

      Welcome back peg

  • Hithere on 13/01/2021 - 19:13
    +2

    Never let the truth get in the way of a good story eh?

  • jsrz18 on 13/01/2021 - 21:46
    -2

    Unfortunate situation. I go through something similar all the time where there is a red light camera but also a pedestrian crossing where people jaywalk. Only difference is that if the light is green for me, I will drive through, and the jaywalkers are forced to stop, and not cross, or otherwise risk getting hit, because I'm not stopping especially with a camera right there. You should do the same after this fine.

  • Strahany on 13/01/2021 - 23:05
    +2

    Use this as a learning experience of how easily your partner panics behind the wheel. The next challenging moment could be whilst travelling 60+, and that’s when you don’t want someone panicking.

    Your partner should seek further training or cease driving. It’s dangerous for you and everyone else.

  • SF3 on 14/01/2021 - 00:12
    +4

    I feel for the truck driver on the opposite side wanting to turn into the same road/direction.

    At the same time, the truck driver would have seen the flash… An equaliser event took place.

  • MontyMacaw on 14/01/2021 - 08:48

    Looking at the photos it could be argued by the position of the truck that there was an obstruction AFTER the car was positioned in the intersection. If several vehicles were held up then it could be argued that there was a reason out of the driver’s control and they were exercising good judgment by giving way to jaywalkers. I wouldn’t mention whether the pedestrian lights were flashing or not as technically you shouldn’t enter an intersection unless it is clear to proceed through it and avoid such situations. Having said that we all know that if everybody actually did this then the roads would be a mess because many situations would result in cars never being able to turn at peak times. To avoid such things the driver would have to go against the direction of the turning lane and go straight through the intersection and break another law. Catch 22 if you will.

    • MS Paint on 14/01/2021 - 12:41
      +2

      Yeah Naah. Op's wife ran a red light and nearly got T boned by a truck. That's what happened.

  • bargainbrats on 14/01/2021 - 08:53

    If that was me n got stuck at the red i would of reversed back a bit n waited for green light

    • zzap on 14/01/2021 - 10:13

      You should never do this.

      • TheGreatBab on 15/01/2021 - 08:42

        Can you please elaborate on why this should never be done ? Thanks

        • pegaxs on 15/01/2021 - 11:57

          Because "Road Rule 61 (5)";

          (5) If the traffic lights or traffic arrows (as the case may be) change to yellow or red while the driver is stopped and the driver has entered the intersection, the driver must leave the intersection as soon as the driver can do so safely.

          • TheGreatBab on 15/01/2021 - 14:54

            @pegaxs: Yeah - Leaving intersection can be by going forward or by going backward. Any Reason why he can't go backward and make the intersection safe ?

            • pegaxs on 15/01/2021 - 23:28
              +1

              @TheGreatBab: Guess it hinges on the word “safely”. If you nosed in and can back up safely, then do so. I have done that on a few occasions. But if you nosed in and someone is behind you, you have to exit by going forward.

  • chrisharry53 on 14/01/2021 - 09:10

    I would use all the good advice here and write in. If rejected, pay up unless prepared to go to court after working out the extra cost involved.

  • Drj55 on 14/01/2021 - 09:50
    +3

    The other issue on the reviewer's mind will be the huge truck waiting patiently to turn right. It's this kind of situation where running a red-light can kill you. Truck thinks lights have changed and starts turning right. Person running red-light slams into them. I know that's not quite the situation here but at the very least your wife's actions caused the truck to turn well after the red signal.

  • zzap on 14/01/2021 - 10:09
    +2

    The driver was not well experienced at understanding intersection rules. I.E that the car has to be fully in the intersection area prior to the change to red.

    Can someone show me legislation to this effect?

    My understanding is that if a vehicle partially or wholly (“fully”) enters the intersection during a green light, you are to complete your manoeuvre. The vehicle does not need to be “fully” in the intersection prior to the change to amber/red.

    For example, if you partially enter the intersection to turn right and yield to oncoming traffic, you should complete your turn when safe to do so if the light turns to amber/red. Can anyone clarify?

    This is from police.vic.gov.au (I assume other states are consistent):

    What if I was already in the intersection?
    A road safety red light camera is activated when a vehicle crosses the stop line and enters the intersection after the light/arrow turns red. If a vehicle is already partially or wholly over the stop line and within the intersection when the light/arrow turns red, an infringement will not be issued. All images are verified before an infringement notice is issued.

    If OP’s vehicle was already partially in the intersection when the light turned red (which appears to be the case based on the first photo provided), I would contest the infringement.

    • SnoozeAndLose on 14/01/2021 - 10:14

      Something missing here in your theory is the jaywalker.

      If there is a dash camera footage to show this or a withness who is/are willing to write an SD for you then you will have a case.

      Without it, your chance of winning is slim

  • BigBirdy on 14/01/2021 - 10:14

    You acknowledge your wife didn’t handle it well, and she didn’t. Not only did she proceed on a red light, she held up that truck in the middle of the intersection, thus furthering the danger to other road users. I’ve seen vehicles come out as soon as a light goes green, slamming into vehicles that had been held up mid-intersection. She should have noted that truck, and stayed put.

  • OzHunterNSW on 14/01/2021 - 10:30

    Not entirely sure what you are trying to do here. Is this story time? Who got the fine? The hero, or the protagonist of the story?

    You seems to know about tyres on lines… why didn't you reverse back? Why did you chose to proceed through the red light?

  • whooah1979 on 14/01/2021 - 10:33

    https://imgur.com/a/0v2BqsK

    That looks like a legitimate offence. There is no way out of this one.

  • rod1709 on 14/01/2021 - 13:33

    a couple of things….

    where is already being in the "intersection" when red light goes on?
    is it in this case 1, the solid stop-at line or 2. the broken line lining up with the kerbing?

    if it is 1. then car is already in intersection and no offence
    if it is 2. then car is not already in intersection therefore an offence is committed

    the other thing is the photos show no sign of the late pedestrians so hard to build any argument there

    anyhoo, the real issue is was driver already partially in intersection when red light went on, and this boils down to the definition of where the "intersection" begins. personally i think it is the forward broken line which lines up with the street kerbing (but i'm not 100% sure).

  • RecklessMonkeys on 14/01/2021 - 14:21

    Did the pedestrians push the car through the intersection?
    Pay the fine.

  • Chris Topher on 14/01/2021 - 19:09

    The STOP sign at the traffic lights has me a bit confuddled.

    • pegaxs on 15/01/2021 - 12:04

      It means "If traffic lights are blacked out/not working, intersection to be treated as a STOP sign", See NSW Road Rule 63.

  • deme on 14/01/2021 - 19:37

    The driver was not well experienced at understanding intersection rules.

    Take it to court and state this.

    • ialam99 on 14/01/2021 - 22:15
      -1

      Yep thats exactly what you should do. In most cases, the judge will just write off the fine or reduce it to a $50 donation or something if you have a decent driving record.

      • deme on 14/01/2021 - 22:20

        I was joking but can't tell if you are.
        I reckon it is silly to argue based on ignorance of the law for driving offences.

        • ialam99 on 14/01/2021 - 22:32

          You can pretty much go to court and say you cant afford to pay and the judge will write off the fine. You just have to be willing to spend 3 hours of your life at the court room waiting for your 5 mins in court.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join