Hey guys
Need your advice on this Red Light Infringement. I was new to the area and went in the lane that was turning right. I did not go right but went straight (can be seen in the second image) but the camera detected it and received the Infringement.
https://ibb.co/7gNQBtL
https://ibb.co/0BMp2Hb
Do you guys think there is a a chance I can get out of it if I take it to court?
Your advice would be much appreciated.
Thanks for reading.
The right lane had a red light and you were on the right lane (in addition to the other lane you were on). I think it's a bit unfair that you be issued this fine, but you're a terrible driver if you can't keep your car on a lane and deserve some kind of punishment to force you to learn to drive better.
"New to the area" - what does it have to do with the fine? The areas you're familiar with rather have red lights that mean go? Better don't bring up this nonsense excuse at court if you choose to go there.
Does that mean you cannot change your mind about turning right once you are on the turn right lane?
If you're a cyclist, road rules don't apply to you.
Before the intersection should be fine, but you are not supposed to in the intersection.
Once you pass those solid white lines between the turning lane and lane going straight… yes… you CANNOT change your mind.
If it's a long turning bay and the lines are still dotted, yes you can change lanes again no issue.
You certainly can't change your mind AT the intersection though!
Correct, that's the whole point of solid lines etc.
You could have caused an accident with that driving.
Seriously..
Not really, looks pretty clear as I dont see another close to him as hes through the intersection and he's gone through a green.
He went straight through an intersection from a turning lane.
If you make a wrong turn, it's OK. You can redirect your journey without penalty.
If OP is inattentive enough to miss several right turn only signs and a safety camera there's a decent chance they might not check their blind spot thoroughly.
There's a saying that goes a good driver sometimes misses the turn and a bad driver NEVER misses the turn.
This happened to me, not quite to the extent that youve done. Turning red light camera picked up my van wheel in the turning lane. i looked at the photos and it showed me driving straight and not turning. Here in SA i appealed them online via email with the photos stating that i was traveling straight. They responded with something like this fine has been cancelled now. (not exactly word for word)
either way i would 100% appeal. dont listen to the keyboard warriors here acting like they've never made a wrong turn.
Keyboard warriors.
He is asking an open question.
If he did that in a driving test.
What would be the outcome.
Probably not a red light ticket… lol
You would like the other fine as well?
Nope, you've got nothing. You weren't in the correct (left) lane, you went through the red light of the lane you were in (even if you didnt turn right, you still proceeded in to the intersection) and then made your way over to the other lane (indicating or not doesn't really matter).
It's a great sign that you were not paying attention to the road, traffic lights, lane markings and prior warning signs about right lane is right turn only.
Also glad no one was to your left as I'm sure with how little attention you were paying to the road you'd not have seen the other car and probably cut them off or driven in to them.
I'd totally be ok with when these types of fines get to court the penalty doubles for the ignorance of the situation and expectation of being able to talk your way out of it.
It's a waste of the courts time
And that's why I'd be fine with them doubling the fine or making sure the person wasting the court's time pays a little extra.
No one is willing to take accountability of their actions, camera proof of going through a red light for the lane they were driving in but don't think it applies to them.
100%agree with you. Pay the fine, learn the lessons and move on.
I've had fines too. And modified my behaviour.
The tax payer thanks you for your ignorance of the court process. You are welcome to pay fines issued where not all elements of the crime can be proved. Others may choose to contest errors by the authorities.
Hate people that do this. Just cause you want to go straight doesn't mean that you can go straight from a turning lane and risk having an accident. Your time isn't that much important, turn right and come back. You deserve the fine, pay it.
Gosh OzB trolls are out in force again.
You don't deserve a red light fine. Sure, you probably deserve one for not indicating or changing lane over solid white line but not for running red light.
Send a letter appealing the fine.
You think its "trolling" to give an opinion (which he specifically asked for)?
Or is it trolling simply because you don't agree with it?
Labelling everyone that disagrees with you an OzB troll isn't a healthy way to start discussion, but you do you.
Opinion dressed as a 100% definite BS? lol
Well, a few people including myself have already proven you people are full of poo and don't know what you're talking about.
Best to not express an opinion and phrase it as a certainty if you don't know crap about the subject at hand
Oh yes!!! Finally a place that I recognise, the good ol' Wellers Hill intersection.
I'm in the local facebook community group and see this exact problem popping up from time to time. I've had a quick look at the comments history and the overwhelming amount of responses said that they could not get their fines overturned. However, a couple of them said they wrote in and got let off.
This might also help: https://www.facebook.com/9NewsQueensland/videos/270793482280…. Funnily enough, this was shot at the exact same intersection as your infringement.
What state was this in?
I had a similar thing happen to me in NSW and I successfully challenged the fine online and had it reversed without even needing to go to court.
Same experience in QLD. Everyone should disregard non-sense advice from people with zero clue because they just love acting like they are lawyers and telling people off online
This is what happens when you raise a generation that all get trophies.
I think you should try an appeal.
This happened to me once (in Victoria). The light flashed, but I never received an infringement. I assumed it was deemed invalid.
Not one single person on this thread has directed you to the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 2009 (Qld).
This is why you never take legal advice online. Good luck OP and sorry about your fine
Go to court and fight explain the situation. You need to say ur guilt or not. They explain the situation. You can say I’m not guilty as I didn’t turn right. But have gone straight due to fact I’m new to the area. And I always obey traffic lights. U can also ask for section 10 dismissal which mean there is no fine and no points provided u have a 5 yrs clean driving record.
Let me know how you go. But I will challenge it
I think you should take it to court as you were not stopped at the red arrow and did not then change your mind to go straight.
Argue you were always going straight but turned in from Orford and you failed to move over to the left turn in time for the intersection.
You should totally fight the fine! You didn’t run a red light.
Yeah appeal it. I wanna see you get extra fines on top for wasting the court's time.
Plead guilty and beg for forgiveness. Might get off with a warning.
I got a warning recently instead of paying the fine. But this was because I have no incidents for last 10 years.
A judge is a banker, and bankers make money. You contracted with the government corporation to obey the road rules, when you applied for your license. If you initiate court action, the burden of proof will lie with you. So unless there is an exemption such as 'not familiar with the area', or the sitting judge happens to be your uncle, or you are 33 degree Mason, you will likely lose, and be out of pocket with additional court costs. Good luck trying.
I've done the same thing in WA, didn't get a fine at all
Do crime pay the fine sorry mate going court waste of your time and court time most like fine more.
You entered the intersection from a lane that had a red light.
The fact you went straight, left, right, or backwards doesn't matter.
That lane you were in has a nice big solid white line dividing it from the lane to the left for a reason.
The fact you illegally changed lanes doesn't preclude you from stopping at the red light.
Even if we take the argument that you were in 'both lanes', so therefore could go on the green… using that exact same argument you also had to stop because of the red. You can't pick and choose which light you obey.
You were in the lane that required you stop. You illegally changed lanes partially (crossing that solid white line), but as you hadn't completed the merge you were still technically in the lane you were first travelling in.
Fine will stand 100%. I can promise you that.
I guess nobody should trust a promise from a nobody on the internet.
Had a similar experience as the OP around 3 years ago and had the fine withdrawn without needing to go to court.
I wonder why my fine didn't stand 100% lol Can you still keep that promise?
No need for name calling… this is adult conversation and doesn't need to get petty and immature..
Can I keep my promise? Well if this came over my work desk it wouldn't be withdrawn… I promise you that champ. How's that for cryptic ;).
I note you said "similar" and not "same". Every circumstance is different and you got a withdrawal on yours… congrats.
But in OP's circumstances it would definitely stand. He proceeded into the intersection (turning or not makes no difference) from a lane that had a red light. The offence is committed on crossing that white line into the intersection. What he does after that fact by going straight or turning or transforming into a magical peacock is completely irrelevant. Offence provisions on a red light are very clear, and he's satisfied them.
But go ahead… let him have his day in court. I'm not a Magistrate and he might catch a break, who knows.
Where was the name calling? Sensitive much? You are a nobody on the internet. I dont know your name, your qualification etc.
Hahaha "similar". Legally they would be the same. Funny you apply a very broad criteria to say the OP can't get out of the fine yet you say a situation that I have personally said is similar (some might say identical) is different to the OP's situation. Double standard much? Try and stick to one story please.
My front wheel clearly did enough to trigger the red light camera and I was issued an infringement for not stopping at red light which was subsequently withdrawn with hardly any effort so your long post is not only misleading, it can pretty much go in the bin unless you can now start accusing me of bribing someone to get out of it
Please go on with your misleading post to explain how my experience is so different? My wheel touched/crossed the line and triggered the camera.
Yeah you sound so professional using words like "provisions" yet at the end of the day, if you were a traffic offence lawyer, you would be out of a job since you are telling your client he has no chance while there are others who didn't even seek advice from a professional yet got out of the fine with very little effort.
Lol if it came to your desk? As I said, you would be out of job since you are wrong. You have a living witness saying he was able to get the fine withdrawn without even going to court yet you are arguing if it was up to you, it wouldn't be withdrawn? That just proves you have no clue and you are not willing to even admit that you posted something online under the pretence you have knowledge of the subject
It's not going to be a popular opinion here since every second idiot just wants to get satisfaction out of a "bad driver" getting fined because their own driving is so perfect every minute of the year
@UFO: Of course you should because you know your BS post was wrong
FACT is that I had a very similar fine withdrawn so the joke is on you
Fine will stand 100%. I can promise that lol
Looking quite stupid now, eh?
If he had been completely in the green straight ahead only lane, but then just illegally turned right instead, would that be running a red in your book?
Given that he wouldn't have 'entered the intersection from a lane that had a red light' he should legally be in the clear right? lol
That's an interesting interpretation of what I didn't say for completely different circumstances. But it needs more dragons. And wizards… people love wizards.
Not allowed to change lanes during an intersection either. You're toast kid. :(
You didn't run the red. Just appeal it, the website might have a option to provide details as to why the fine is incorrect.
I'd be inclined to cop it, personally. You were in a right turn lane, and you passed over the stop line of that lane while the signal was red. Where you went afterwards is kind of irrelevant (though could also be viewed as an illegal lane change). Familiarity with the area would presumably not hold much weight in the eyes of the law; that shouldn't inhibit your ability to interpret and follow road signals. It sucks, and I'd also be gutted if I was pinged doing this (we've all done it), but I think there isn't much to do other paying it and moving on.
I knew this wasn't in NSW as I've had a couple of friends who did the same thing in Sydney, who definitely got captured (super bright flashes on dashcam from the Safety Cameras), yet never received any fines.
I don't know the QLD style, can you even appeal like in NSW? But I would have a go at challenging either way, maybe QLD isn't as far ahead as NSW for these scenarios.
Same, I am in NSW and I did what the OP did and I got flashed but no fine.
I you sure there wasn't a car broken down in the left lane and you had to merge into the right to get around them? just a thought…totally legal and a feasible reason for being in the right hand lane momentarily.
The amount of bad legal advice in this thread is astounding.
Yes, you absolutely did run the red light. It's completely irrelevant what you did afterwards, and no, you won't get let off for 'going straight'.
100% this.
Proceeded into intersection on red light. No where in the legislation does it state that an allowable defence is "direction of travel upon exiting intersection negates the need to abide by this rule".
What he is trying to argue is that provided you are partially in another lane you can go in any direction on any light… which is ludicrous.
You clearly haven't read the law.
The lights as described by the law do not belong to particular lanes. Straight or arrow lights are described (and specified in the road rules dictionary section). These are matched with the behaviour of turning or proceeding straight.
Show me the section of the Road Safety Act or state equivalent that says it's a defence to proceed entering an intersection from a lane with a red light if you're going a different direction.
I'll wait.
@Factor: I disagree. The lights ARE designated to particular lanes… the turning lane and the straight lane. If you are in the turning lane and the light for that lane is red, and you cross into the intersection from that lane, THAT is where the offence is deemed to have occurred… not whether or not you've turned or gone straight.
If you are sitting stationary at a red right hand turn, and 10 seconds later decide to go straight so proceed into the intersection from that lane (not turning), you've instantly run a red light by crossing that solid intersection line while the light was red. That lane has it's own traffic signal, and has nothing to do with any other red or green light in any other lane. It's very much specific to that lane.
You are NOT permitted to enter into the intersection on a red light for any reason. There is no such defence that direction of travel once in the intersection has any part to play in it. If you are travelling in a particular lane that has a particular light signal, you must obey that light signal. Every. Single. Time. It's clear the OP was mostly in the turning lane (more than 3/4 of his car is STILL IN THE LANE for goodness sake!). Where he decides to drive once in the intersection is of no relevance whatsoever.
It's where and when he entered that counts, and Time and Place are crucial components in proving any offence. People here are getting confused on when the offence occurs. The act of crossing the intersection line on the red light from a particular lane, is exactly when the road rule as legislated has been broken. Not because he's gone straight or turned right. That's zero relevance as the red light offence has already happened.
Those photos show the exact time and place of the offence. That the lane next to him is green is beside the point. HIS lane was clearly red. It's a lock.
The lights as described by the law do not belong to particular lanes.
LOL… They most certainly do :D
Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 2009, Rule 56, (1B)(b)
(b) approaching or at traffic arrows showing a red traffic arrow, in a marked lane with a traffic lane arrow applying to the lane indicating a single direction that is the same direction as the red traffic arrow.
You can go and sit in the same special corner as dji1111111111111111111
I'd definitely try my luck and take it to court.
No chance. Cop it on the chin, move on.
No chance? wow should I buy next week's powerball ticket then since I had a similar fine withdrawn before even without going to court?
Amazing how this thread is littered with people with zero knowledge acting like they are subject matter experts.
You are not providing any useful advice nor do you want to. You just get pleasure from telling the OP he's a bad driver, he's done the wrong thing and seeing him penalised.
Awfully weird thing to get a kick out of but you do you lol
Quite sickening to see the level of abusive, troll comments disguised as "legal advice".
"legal advice" because there are too many people who just copy and paste sections of the legislation and they think they know sh*t when they don't
Righteous and mostly baseless reactions is pretty much a given on these types of questions here. You really can't go wrong with doing the oposite of what 90% of the internet says. There's always a couple of good comments in each thread. Trick is having the smarts to find them
You crossed the line when it was red, it really doesn't matter the direction you were going unfortunately.
If you want to go to court you need to tell the judge that you are "guilty under mitigating circumstances".
The mitigating circumstances are that while you crossed the solid line at a red light (which is the offence) you did not proceed in the direction of the red arrow. You crossed the line to proceed in the direction of travel that was permitted by the traffic light.
While doing that you can then explain why you did it, that it was safe as there were no other cars around etc.
Don't make up any excuses about moving around broken cars/bicycles and so on that other people are suggesting. That's lying in court and much worse than a red light fine.
You should pay the fine for being a bad driver.
You are running a red light. Here is a story all about it, with cases from Holland Park Mags Court, which is only just down the road from your infringement.
https://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/the-obscure-red-lig…
If you don't have a subscription, it is regarding someone who was waiting to turn right, had a red light, changed their mind and continued straight ahead on the green light, but from the right turning lane:
The rule, under section 56 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Road Rules, applies when there is a green light but a red right hand turn arrow.
It is an offence for motorists to try to avoid the red arrow by ducking into another lane and driving straight ahead through an intersection.
Yes
@OP wondering how this happened well signposted were you driving to a sat nav ? I know sometimes they are innaccurate if not up to date etc. Looks likw you may just have to cop it and not panic and change lanes, just continue on the path and turn somewere down the road
As a lawyer, I can tell you that most of the commentary here is complete and utter rubbish. Much of it is based on very little understanding of road rules and traffic laws and even less understanding of how a court works.
If you have no idea, please don't act like you do.
As a lawyer tell us the answer to this scenario.
My bet is they are a something like a will and estate lawyer or conveyance lawyer and also know (fropanity) all about traffic law.
Like me as a mechanic on cars saying “you guys don’t know shit about jet/rocket engines. I’m a mechanic, I would know.”
My point is really just how ill-informed much of the commentary in this thread is, but I'll bite.
OP is entitled to challenge this in court, and can possibly make a case that is compelling. People have got off (either not guilty or guilty but with no conviction recorded) doing this manoeuvre before so there is a reasonable chance of not having to pay the red light camera fine here. Whether or not the magistrate on the day agrees is another question though.
Worst case scenario is probably just having to take a couple of hours off work to attend court and then still having to pay the fine - I can't see extra costs or fees being applicable in this scenario. So there is not a huge amount to lose by challenging it. Given the circumstances, it's probably worth going for it.
take a couple of hours off work
I've never been to a magistrate court before but my understanding is that you are allocated a day to attend and your case could be the last hearing. That would be more than a few hours. But IANAL so what would I know.
Also the charge is
Fail to stop at red light
The OP was in the lane that was required to turn right and was therefore required to stop. The OP did not stop. The fact that the OP continued to head straight is irrelevant.
@MS Paint: The relevant charge is an offence under rule 60:
60 Proceeding through a red traffic arrow
If traffic arrows at an intersection or marked foot crossing are showing a red traffic arrow, and a driver is turning in the direction indicated by the arrow, the driver must not enter the intersection or marked foot crossing.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units
So it does not matter which lane OP was in. What is relevant is whether the driver is "turning in the direction indicated by the arrow". If the driver goes straight, he or she is not committing an offence under rule 60.
I'd be reasonably confident to convince the the magistrate that OP went straight based on the evidence (the red light camera may even have video confirming this).
So it does not matter which lane OP was in.
But it does in this case because the OP was in a dedicated turn right lane.
If it was a single lane intersection and the OP could proceed left, straight or right from that lane then I would agree with you.
@MS Paint: The way this would play out in court is by addressing what OP is charged with. If the relevant charge is under rule 60, then OP could argue he went straight and therefore there is no offense under rule 60. There may be other things OP did wrong but he is not charged with them so they are not relevant.
I can't see extra costs or fees being applicable in this scenario.
Added to all that is also, if OP pleads guilty, they will have to pay court costs (the magistrate may waive the fine but not court costs).
If OP pleads not guilty, it will be set down for trial and they will have to come back another day and will cost them more than “a couple of hours”.
The relevant charge is an offence under rule 60
And talk about being a lawyer and chastising everyone else for being shit at reading laws… please Mr. Lawyer, can you then explain how rule 56 (1B) onwards works and how you deem it not applicable. The offence is committed the moment OP goes over the line, not with what direction they go after the line.
Rule 56 deals with failing to stop for light. Rule 60 deals with entering contrary to light. So the way I see it, OP committed both offences.
@pegaxs: Rule 56 is not a camera detected offence. It is relevant only if a police officer was present at the time an offence under rule 56 occurred.
Rules 59 and 60 are the two rules relevant for red light cameras.
Rule 56 is not a camera detected offence. It is relevant only if a police officer was present
Yeah, I'm not buying that. Where does it say that?
When OP was asked what the fine said, their reply was;
Hey mate, it says failed to stop at a red light.
Failed to stop at a red light is an offence under rule 56 as outlined in the Qld demerit points schedule
Description of offence Legislation Points Fine Failing to stop for a red traffic light or arrow. Queensland Road Rules—Section 56 3 $575
Rule 60 applies to an intersection where there are no lane markings denoting what path a vehicle must take. OP was in a lane with a right turn only sign and markings, meaning that they must turn right from that lane. It is to be expected that OP is going to be turning from that lane, ergo, rule 56 (1B)(b) "Failure to stop" applies here, not 60. (What OP does AFTER they cross the stop line is irrelevant, as the offence is committed by crossing the stop line.)
Rule 60 deals with, if you are wanting to turn, you are not to enter the intersection or foot crossing while you wait for a green light.
Christ, you're a bad lawyer.
@pegaxs: Settle down mate, is this the first time you've read the road rules?
Camera offences for rule 56 are difficult to prove for the prosecution unless there is a video. This is because, generally, it is harder to establish whether OP failed to stop from the photos and it is much more straightforward taking two photos in respect of entering the interaction (ie one before entering the intersection at a red light and one after). Rules 59 and 60 are usually the rules that are applied as a result. For example, you can't disprove whether OP stopped at the line from the photos alone and if he stopped correctly at the stop line (at photo 1) and then later proceeded (at photo 2), the offence under rule 56 is not relevant.
Even in the case that rule 56 is indeed the one at issue, you could try to argue OP is no longer entirely "in" the right turn lane anymore. Depending on the magistrate, that might work. Regardless, this idea that OP has no chance at all because of some strict interpretation of the road rules is a complete misunderstanding of how the system works.
is this the first time you've read the road rules?
Not my first, but possibly yours?
Camera offences for rule 56 are difficult to prove for the prosecution unless there is a video.
If this "no video, cant prove it" was an issues, then this would easily be solved by installing cameras that take videos. So these cameras either do take videos, or it's not really as much of a requirement as you are making out.
it is harder to establish whether OP failed to stop from the photos
Ok, you're telling me, from these two photos it is hard to establish whether OP failed to stop? And from these photos, you cant ascertain if OP stopped "before or as close too" the stop line as outlined in rule 56? Or if they "fail to stop". I know it's really hard without the video footage, but have another look. (Hell, from the photos, I was even able to work out OP's speed)
you can't disprove whether OP stopped at the line from the photos alone
Did you literally not look at the photos? You are unable to tell me if OP stopped before, or as close as practically possible to the line? Even though from those photos, I can see no brake lights and can estimate a speed of about 40km/h and the second photo is literally OP's car about 5m on the wrong side of the line.
you could try to argue OP is no longer entirely "in" the right turn lane anymore
I agree with this part, and if I was going to court, this would be the angle I would push as well. Maybe try and cop to a lesser offence of cutting over a continuous dividing line and disobey road markings.
this idea that OP has no chance at all because of some strict interpretation of the road rules is a complete misunderstanding of how the system works.
I never said this. Not once have I said "OP cant win", all I have maintained is that rules 59 and 60 are not the rules at play here and neither are the "dictionary definitions".
Anyway, from an actual Sydney law firm (I know, not Qld, but it's the same road rule number in both states), their information page regarding red light camera offences has this to say;
Regulation 56 of the Road Rules 2014 makes it an offence to run a red light.
There is no mention of rule 59 or 60 on that page.
Here is a link from another lawyer firm that states;
When is it considered ‘running a red light’?
Pursuant to Regulation 56 of the Road Rules 2014, a vehicle approaching a red light must stop at the designated stop line. It will be considered ‘running a red light’ when the light is red and all of the vehicle’s wheels have crossed the stop line.
Both of these legal firms are wrong? Do they need to edit their pages to read rules 59 and 60?
While I don't doubt you are a lawyer, but yet again, I highly doubt you are a traffic lawyer if you cant even tell what road rule actually applies to this situation. Just because someone is a car mechanic, does not mean they know how jet engines work. It's ok to be a lawyer and not know how laws and rules outside your area of expertise work.
@pegaxs: Ok first off, I appreciate that you've taken the time to dissect the road rules, my initial criticism was largely directed at the other people in this thread who haven't done that and were just answering with little idea of what they were talking about.
A few more things:
I am familiar with NSW traffic law, but perhaps it is different in Queensland. Rule 59 is the rule that is most commonly camera detected here in NSW. See https://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-10/demerits-…. Note specifically that rule 59(1) is labelled "Proceed through red traffic light (camera detected)*"
The main point re stopping is that it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that OP didn't stop. It doesn't really matter whether OP did or not because OP doesn't have to admit to not stopping. So the simple fact that the prosecution has the onus to prove OP didn't stop is significant. If the prosecution only has the two photos, one argument to take to court might be that the photos do not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that OP didn't stop.
Point 2 changes entirely if there is a video available. So if I were OP I'd be asking for the video, if one is available, to be provided to him/her.
Given the challenges with proving whether someone stopped at a red light with still photos, it is far easier to determine entering an intersection on a red light with them. This is why rule 59 is camera detected, as this is the rule that states that entering an intersection at red light is an offence, and usually why two photos are taken (once before entering the intersection, the other in the intersection).
Those links are not wrong. It is entirely correct that rule 56 leads to an offence of failing to stop at a red light. I was just saying that this is not a camera detected offence for the reasons above (admittedly this is in NSW, again might be different in Queensland).
There are options here for challenging the fine (which is OP's original point) even if the red light offence can't be challenged. It's possible to turn up to court and ask for no conviction to be recorded (aka section 10). This depends on how nice the magistrate is. But generally this is more likely to be accepted by the magistrate if you've got a good driving record.
is this the first time you've read the road rules?
OMFG I've haven't laughed so loud in ages.
Just so you know, pegaxs is the go to Q.C. with regards to road rules on ozbargain. You picked on the wrong person here but I'm enjoying the entertainment. I can't help but feel you are back pedalling on this one with your last reply.
This depends on how nice the magistrate is.
So the magistrate knows the OP broke multiple rules, is not a safe driver, is a threat to other road users, doesn't know the road rules, is entitled and generally an all round Muppet but will let them off because they are feeling nice. Pleeeeease. Kill me know before the OP does at the next intersection. FFS.
@MS Paint: Overdramatic much? This is not a particularly dangerous manoeuvre given the lack of other vehicles around.
But regardless, if OP can convince the magistrate to let him or her off, OP doesn't pay the fine and doesn't get a conviction. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant - that's how the system works.
@boojah: 1: (a) The rules are worded slightly different in Qld. Rule 56 in Qld has an extra subsection (1B) that NSW does not have.
(b) That being said, The "camera detected" comment does not mean that this is the only offence that can be captured on camera. None of the penalties in this list under Rule 60 say "camera detected", so, on your logic, no offence for rule 60 can be caught on camera. So, I can turn right on any red right arrow, and unless the police actually catch me, there is nothing the camera can do about it because on that list of fines, it doesn't say "camera detected" for rule 60. Forgive me if I'm not buying it.
Another example of how "camera detected" isnt defined by that list you posted, is looking at the speeding demerit/fines list where it makes NO reference to cameras, but we all know you can get pinged by a camera, both mobile and fixed cameras. Using your example, how can I booked for speeding by a camera if it doesn't say "camera detected" in the demerits schedule?
2: OP didn't stop. It's not hard to prove when you have two photos, 1 second apart. From the first photo we can see that OP is on the line and then after 1 second, 2 car lengths over the line. From this, we can even deduce the speed of the vehicle, proving it was not stopped. That is basically the whole reason these camera are there in the first place.
If cameras are only there to detect rule 59 infringements, they are worth nothing and using your logic, as all fines for rule 60 would be thrown out of court. And for rule 56, they only have to prove that the vehicle did not stop on or before the line. Now, if photo 1 and photo 2 were identical and showed OP over the line but not in the middle of the intersection, they may have a harder time proving the vehicle wasn't stopped.
3: A lot of speed cameras do actually take video as well as photos. And OP isnt going to ask to see the footage, because they already know the answer to that question.
4: It isnt hard. It's super easy. Frame 1 vs. frame 2. Is the car in the same place? No, ergo, car was moving. Frame 1, car on the line. Frame 2, well over the line. It is basically a 2 second movie shot at 1 frame per second. I even made it into a video so you can see what it looks like. Now, prove to me that vehicle is stopped…
5: Not buying it. Both link examples made references to being "caught by camera" and referencing rule 56. Why would 2 separate legal firms, unrelated to each other, make this same mistake? Just in case you think it was a fluke, here is another lawyer firm that references 56 and "red light cameras.
In Qld, the wording of rule 56 (1B)(b) backs up this claim. Cameras are there to detect 56 (not stopping on/at the line), not just 59 or 60 (entering into), although a camera could be used for the latter as well.
6: Agree with this part. Fight the power.
@pegaxs: 1 and 5: You can look at all the offence listings under the Road Rules in NSW here: https://lawcodes.judcom.nsw.gov.au/lawcodes/bol/view/bol_cod…
This is the camera detected offence for s59(1) : https://lawcodes.judcom.nsw.gov.au/lawcodes/law-part/view/bo…
This is the camera detected offence for s60 : https://lawcodes.judcom.nsw.gov.au/lawcodes/law-part/view/bo…
Note that there are no camera detected offences under s56 in NSW, so I don't see how s56 could be detected by a camera in NSW - there just isn't an offence for it.
However, relevantly for OP, based on some commentary I've seen from others, it does seem to be the case that there are camera detected offences under s56 in Queensland (though I'm not aware of a website that lists them all like the Judicial Commission in NSW does).
2,3,4: I was just illustrating a point that, as the saying goes, if you can't argue the facts, argue the law. That is, perhaps it's at least questionable just on the photos alone and a magistrate might feel like the case isn't made out beyond reasonable doubt (although you've done it, a police prosecutor possibly won't have the time or capacity to put together much of a compelling case). Law is rarely ever black and white and sometimes you just have to take a punt. Is it likely to succeed? I'm doubtful, but I've seen more unlikely things get up.
And to add, s56(2) (assuming in play in Queensland) would regardless require the vehicle to remain stopped if it is in the marked turning lane or turning in the direction of the arrow. So OP would have to establish two aspects to avoid a conviction:
1. the vehicle wasn't "in" the marked turning lane (as discussed above)
2. they were not turning in the direction of the arrow (this part is seemingly easy to establish based on the photos).
In NSW (and Victoria too as I understand), the lane doesn't matter for s56 so you can actually stop at the red traffic arrow, and then go straight ahead if the circle light is green.
@boojah: Cheers for the link, but that seems to be the old NSW Road Rules 2009, The latest inforce version would be the 2014 version I have been looking for this type of information for ages, because I get a lot of questions about the codes and it usually takes a lot of digging to get to what "Offence code: 83613" means on a ticket.
if you can't argue the facts, argue the law.
Exactly this. I could not agree more. This is the angle I always tell people. If the facts are not in dispute, then look at the legal definition and see if there is a grey area in there. Look at the law and if it doesn't apply 100% to this situation, jam your verbal pry-bar under the part that doesn't fit and start lifting. This is why I often post the relevant legislation with what the person has been fined for, but like most humans, people dont want to give the full version of what went on or any other details that removes doubt. People will lie and omit truth to get that confirmation bias they come here seeking.
And the rest of all of what you have said here make sense. I only wish you have have said this 4 posts ago instead of saying "You're all wrong, source: I'm a lawyer."
In NSW (and Victoria too as I understand), the lane doesn't matter for s56
Agree… In NSW/Vic it might not… But the wording is much clearer in the Qld version of the same rule. Wait till you start getting questions from people in WA and look at their dumpster fire of road rules. Almost every state in Aus. follows some basic version of the Australian Road Rules, so what is rule 56 is in one state, is basically the same for most other states. WA is a dog's breakfast.
Thanks for taking the time to write this up more clearly and explain it a little better. I appreciate it and will bookmark it for future reference.
@pegaxs: Fair point. I wasn't really intending to say everyone was wrong - just that there was a lot of rubbish being posted. And the good points seemed to be lost in the wave of nonsense.
Anyway I appreciate your feedback - I learnt a few things about Queensland law in the process. I'll stay practising in NSW though 😂
No.
Any update on what you did? It would be really appreciated.
@rover100 thats what i thought…