Advice on Red Light Camera - Overtaking a Stopped Car Triggered The Camera

pwnd on 06/06/2024 - 10:31
Last edited 06/06/2024 - 12:16

Hi,

Question as I was unable to find anything clear looking through QLD road rules. Would love it if somebody could point it out or give me some advice.

My partner went through an intersection earlier this month.

Two lane intersection, left lane goes straight, right lane turns.

Straight had green, right had red.

In the left lane a car was stopped, for quite a while, possibly due to the turn left being congested.

My partner, along with a number of other cars ahead of her (not an excuse, just painting the picture) went around the stopped car, partially using the right lane, and continued straight.

Red light camera went off and we received the fine yesterday. In the photos provided, it is clear that she went straight instead of turning right.

What is the law/precedent here? If there is an infraction, would it be crossing the solid white line to change lanes?

I couldn't find an example of this being an infraction. Closest I found was

"If you’re approaching a pedestrian or children’s crossing, you cannot overtake or pass a vehicle that is travelling in the same direction and has stopped or is stopping at the crossing."

Would appreciate advice or a point to the road rules that clarifies this

EDIT

Thanks to @sumyungguy for finding some relevant articles, will most likely see if we can have the infringement reviewed based on some precedent in QLD from the Courier Mail article.

"Kirsten Victoria Williams was the only one of the nine defendants to face the red arrow charge spared a fine, but a traffic offence conviction was recorded.

Mr Young said although a charge was “technically made out’’ and although he was not satisfied there was an emergency, he accepted Lamond’s written evidence that she had swerved into a right hand turn lane to avoid a car stopped in front of her.

She then moved back into the lane she was previously driving in.

Mr Young said it was “one of those extraordinary circumstances’’ where a court could apply its discretion."

Automotive

Comments

  • askbargain on 06/06/2024 - 10:32
    +3

    valid fine, pay it. why do you think you don't have to follow the road rules?

    • Odin on 07/06/2024 - 07:42
      +10

      Alternative view:

      Invalid fine

      Don't pay it

    • ssmith3104 on 07/06/2024 - 14:44
      +1

      I hate that sort of attitude.

      • kaleidoscope on 08/06/2024 - 05:02
        +1

        Probably working for such revenue raising organisation

    • HeWhoKnows on 08/06/2024 - 10:01
      +1

      Incorrect

      OP didnt go through a red light which is what the fine was issued for
      Its legal to change lanes (safely) to pass a car that has stopped as was the case here,

      • smpantsonfire on 08/06/2024 - 11:07
        +1

        Well I mean not really. Fine is unfair 100%.

        But they most likely changed lane and crossed a solid white line if it was that close to an intersection.

        So the fine IS unfair, but if she did not get this fine, crossing a solid line would be the appropriate valid fine.

        EDIT. just saw this comment further down.

        EDIT 2. many more of the same comment. But I guess you get the point.

      • justworld on 08/06/2024 - 12:18

        It's not legal to change over solid lines. Also not legal to change lanes within an intersection.

  • geekcohen on 06/06/2024 - 10:35

    Got Dashcam footage to back it up? If you do, they might be the only alternative way to get out of it……..

    • pwnd on 06/06/2024 - 10:41
      +1

      Unfortunately no dash cam in partner's car. In the infringement photos you can clearly see the direction our vehicle travelled, as well as the stopped vehicle.

      • Joey2scoops on 07/06/2024 - 07:50
        +6

        It is maybe old fashioned to give way in all kinds of circumstances where convenience now seems to be the #1 goal of most drivers.

        Pet peeve: Car travelling towards me with a parked car on their side of the road overtakes the parked car by driving in my lane and forcing me to give way to them. And if there is an unbroken line, nah, that doesn't matter because it's only for overtaking, right? Nope, that's not how it works.

    • jv on 06/06/2024 - 11:12
      -1

      Got Dashcam footage to back it up?

      Back up what? They were in a right turn lane…

  • rambutann on 06/06/2024 - 10:38
    +11

    The hard part here is that technically you can't cross a solid white line - and to do what you are referring to she would have had to cross the solid line at the intersection.

    I think you may have a bad time on this one but give it a crack.. send in a dispute claiming that someone was not moving for an extensive period of time in the left lane and that overtaking was the only option available at the time - you clearly proceeded straight through the intersection.

    • pwnd on 06/06/2024 - 10:40

      That's the bit that I was trying to find on QLDs transport page.
      What the law is around overtaking across a sold white line is, and if that is also an infringement, what the penalty is.
      Running a red light is considered a life endangering offence, so carries a heavy penalty.
      If it is an option, would prefer to go with the lesser penalty.

      • jv on 06/06/2024 - 11:12
        +8

        What the law is around overtaking across a sold white line is,

        You were in a right turn lane. You must turn right.

        • pwnd on 06/06/2024 - 11:13
          -1

          what if there is a fire on the right?

          • payless69 on 06/06/2024 - 12:37
            +2

            @pwnd: Then make a post here to jail Elon Musk.

            • pwnd on 06/06/2024 - 12:39
              +1

              @payless69: I recognize all the individual words you typed, but when I put them together…..?

        • EightImmortals on 06/06/2024 - 11:36

          Was the WHOLE car in the turning lane or just a couple of wheels as she went around the other car?

          • pwnd on 06/06/2024 - 11:47

            @EightImmortals: 3/4 of the car in turning lane.

            • EightImmortals on 06/06/2024 - 11:49
              +4

              @pwnd: So two wheels in both lanes, hey worth a try, give the tax collectors a call and let us know how you get on. You might get a human with half a brain on the other end of the phone and they'll cancel the fine. Or you might get an NPC. GL either way. :)

      • JDMcarfan on 06/06/2024 - 13:53
        +4

        Whilst I don't condone taking traffic tickets to court, be ready to do so as the review process is notoriously money hungry.

        John Cadogan has gone through a similar thing
        Common sense should prevail in court. Whilst he's in NSW, QLD road rules would be identical.
        Take tips from his vid

        Make sure to use your appeal so that the judge sees that you've gone to some effort to try not to waste court time.
        If they reject your appeal, then go to court. Just explain your situation in layman's terms (dont quote road rules) and accept verdict.

        I've done this myself for an offence that I was guilty of, but the officer was guesstimating my speed.
        I plead guilty, asked for a Section 10 (like JC did, find the QLD equivalent), explained why I appealed incl. conflicting police notes between the ticket and the CAN, and my own recollection of my speed. They checked my driving history and dismissed the fine.

        • pwnd on 06/06/2024 - 13:59

          Thank you for this. Really comprehensive and great advice.

          • JDMcarfan on 06/06/2024 - 14:10

            @pwnd: np. just read your later comment. I'd probably just request the following penalty be applied in both your review and in court.
            Disobeying right lane must turn right sign Queensland Road Rules—Section 89(2)

            • sumyungguy on 06/06/2024 - 14:14

              @JDMcarfan: ,,, but there's no sign, just a line-separated right lane with an arrow painted on the roadway.

              • JDMcarfan on 06/06/2024 - 14:24

                @sumyungguy: sorry yeah you're right
                in NSW there is this: Rule 32 (1) Not turn right from multi-lane road from within right lane

                cant find the exact same QLD version but seems like any rough equivalent offence whilst cheaper than a red light still carries like 2-3 demerits. not sure about OP but I value demerits more than $, so I'd petition hard on getting let go completely then.

      • SlickMick on 07/06/2024 - 09:53
        +1

        I don't think they're going to pass laws for the exceptions, but clearly e.g. if someone was broken down in the left lane, then you're going to work around that even if you are breaking a law to do that.

        If your situation is like this, I would hope you should get off. But you might get a stickler for the law like @jv who would have the whole city in gridlock rather than put a workaround in place.

        The law is there for us, not against us.

    • pegaxs on 06/06/2024 - 10:51
      +10

      The hard part here is that technically you can't cross a solid white line

      Road Rule 147(a) would beg to differ.

      147 Moving from one marked lane to another marked lane across a continuous line separating the lanes
      A driver on a multi-lane road must not move from one marked lane to another marked lane by crossing a continuous line separating the lanes unless—
      (a) the driver is avoiding an obstruction

      I would say that a car that is broken down and/or having issues moving would easily constitute an "obstruction".

      • pwnd on 06/06/2024 - 10:56
        +1

        Thank you for providing this.
        Just making my way through Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Road Rules) Regulation 2009.
        422 pages of joy.

        • pegaxs on 06/06/2024 - 11:04
          +8

          Use it with caution… If your wife went round because the other car was "broken down", she may have a legit case. If she just went around because "(fropanity) this waiting in line bullshit!!"… her outcome may not be the desired one…

          • EightImmortals on 06/06/2024 - 11:08
            -1

            @pegaxs: She could legit say she thought the car was broken down so she went around it.

            • pegaxs on 06/06/2024 - 11:15

              @EightImmortals: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Meh, that is up to her conscience to decide. It may well be how she perceived the vehicle to be at the time… If the photo shows no cars waiting around the corner or banked up, she may have a case. If there are cars banked up, they may not buy that excuse.

          • pwnd on 06/06/2024 - 11:12

            @pegaxs: I am not sure how long the other car was there.
            Was more checking if what she did was actually classed running a red light, or if it could be brought down to a lesser infraction and what the infraction was.
            Potentially might be Disobeying right lane must turn right sign Queensland Road Rules—Section 89(2) 3 $123.
            If it is that, it's a saving of $500.

      • jv on 06/06/2024 - 11:13
        +2

        I would say that a car that is broken down

        It wasn't.

        It was waiting for traffic to clear.

        • pegaxs on 06/06/2024 - 11:16
          +3

          Oh, sorry, jv. Didn't realise you were there…

          • jv on 06/06/2024 - 11:16
            -1

            @pegaxs: I was in the car.

            • pegaxs on 06/06/2024 - 11:18

              @jv: You may want to read my comment again, I made reference to IF a car was broken down, it would constitute an obstruction, not that the car in this case was broken down.

              But thanks for playing ;)

            • Hvrd on 06/06/2024 - 12:33
              +4

              @jv: can confirm, I was the car

              • mapax on 06/06/2024 - 13:46
                +6

                @Hvrd: So jv was inside of you?

        • pwnd on 06/06/2024 - 11:17
          +7

          I would say that a car that is broken down

          I don't know if the police would believe this. The stopped car was a Toyota Camry.

          • pegaxs on 06/06/2024 - 11:19
            +6

            @pwnd:

            The stopped car was a Toyota Camry

            Oh, in that case, it wasn't broken down… We all know that the Toyota Camry is the most reliable vehicle on the market :D

  • Che0063 on 06/06/2024 - 10:41
    +4

    Crossing solid white lines is against the rules, unless there are blockages. This rule was likely violated since there are often solid white lines ahead of intersections.

    In addition, you continued straight in a right-turn lane.

    Please don't rush whilst driving. You likely broke 2 road rules to, what, save one red-light cycle?

    There is nothing unclear here, unless you genuinely thought there was an obstruction (Parked car) in the straight lane. Normal traffic, even traffic that is slightly congested, does NOT count as a valid obstruction

    • askbargain on 06/06/2024 - 10:43
      +2

      3 rules. crossing white line, entering intersection with red light, and going straight on a right turn lane

      • pwnd on 06/06/2024 - 10:47

        do you have a link to those "rues" and the penalty units they carry.

        • askbargain on 06/06/2024 - 10:54
          +1

          Driving past twin red traffic lights after stopping before the lights (other than at a level crossing) Queensland Road Rules—Section 66(4) 3 $619

          Driving across single continuous dividing line, a single continuous dividing line to the left of a broken dividing line or 2 parallel continuous dividing lines to perform U-turn Queensland Road Rules—Section 132(2A) 3 $278

          Disobeying right lane must turn right sign Queensland Road Rules—Section 89(2) 3 $123

    • pwnd on 06/06/2024 - 10:46
      +1

      There was a blockage. The stopped car. Even if the stopped car was not there, there is an additional car that was coming from the opposite direction that had turned right right (our left) that was also partially blocking the straight lane.
      As mentioned above, if the infringement is going straight in a right turn lane, or crossing solid white lines, I would prefer to change the infringement to that, as I imagine the penalty will be less severe as neither is classed a life endangering offence.

      • askbargain on 06/06/2024 - 10:48

        a stopped car is blockage? you share the road. wait your turn.

        if the stopped car wasn't there, you can legally move around the car on the opposite direction to continue straight

        do you also stop in the middle of round-a-bouts?

      • Che0063 on 06/06/2024 - 10:52
        +3

        According to you: "In the left lane a car was stopped […] possibly due to the turn left being congested."

        It's called traffic. Sometimes, other drivers (including opposite car blocking you) are idiots. That is normal traffic. You wait patiently wait until the traffic clears.

        Congestion and an idiotic driver blocking an intersection causing congestion are not valid obstructions, unlike, say, an illegally parked car, or roadworks. The valid obstructions are situations where it is unreasonable to wait for the obstruction to clear.

        Waiting for the next traffic cycle for a clear intersection is a reasonable time to wait.

      • jv on 06/06/2024 - 11:14
        +2

        There was a blockage. The stopped car.

        Waiting for traffic to clear is not a blockage.

      • 7ekn00 on 06/06/2024 - 12:26

        You are talking like you have the option, entitled much …

        They can throw all four charges at you and let you sort it out in court ;)

    • SlickMick on 07/06/2024 - 09:59
      +1

      The scenario sounds to me that they were being good citizens and keeping the traffic flowing with no risk or detriment to anyone. Sounds like the law is at fault here, not the driver. (Also sounds like the intersection needs some redesign.)

  • sumyungguy on 06/06/2024 - 10:47
    +5

    Got done for this myself. The courts are full of people unaware of an amendment made in 2018 to make the prosecution case watertight.
    Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 2009, Part 6 Traffic lights and twin red lights, 56 Stopping on a red traffic light or arrow (1B) Subsection (2) applies to a driver (a) approaching or at traffic arrows showing a red traffic arrow who is turning in the direction indicated by the arrow; or
    (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.

    • pwnd on 06/06/2024 - 10:53

      Thanks for this. Reading through it now.

      • sumyungguy on 06/06/2024 - 10:55

        Once you're in a lane with a traffic light arrow, you are bound to proceed in that direction. If you change lanes and go straight ahead, you've run the red light. Search for Weller Road & Toohey Road intersection.This is behind the CM's paywall https://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/the-three-brisbane-…

        • pwnd on 06/06/2024 - 11:00

          I will double check the notice when I get back, but I think it might actually be that intersection.
          Pretty sure it said Tarragindi.
          Bugger.

          • sumyungguy on 06/06/2024 - 11:11

            @pwnd: 2018 amendment:
            Amendment of s 56 (Stopping on a red traffic light or arrow)
            (1) Section 56—insert—
            (1B) Subsection (2) applies to a driver—
            (a) approaching or at traffic arrows showing a red traffic arrow who is turning in the direction indicated by the arrow; or
            (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.

    • SlickMick on 07/06/2024 - 10:04

      Oh you just reminded me of my biggest pet hate: red arrows. There is no need for them. You already have to give way if anyone is approaching, if it's clear you should be able to go.
      In this stupid law-crazy society we've evolved into, I stop for the red arrow whilst noone is approaching. The lights sense that I'm there and give others a red light and me a green arrow. By then cars are approaching - I should have already been gone but now they have to wait for me.

      Laws should be enforced when people are doing the wrong thing. I'm sick of making up laws just to control us.

      • xylarr on 09/06/2024 - 11:24

        Ok, I'll bite.

        One is called an uncontrolled right hand turn, the other is a controlled right hand turn. The first one is demonstrably less safe than the second. At a busy intersection, they will control right hand turns to try to stop people running into each other because people make mistakes.

        • SlickMick on 09/06/2024 - 20:35

          No doubt it's safer, but there has to be a balance. The incompetent drivers who can't make good decisions for themselves probably love it. I think they should leave the driving to others who can make a good decision whether to cross in front of oncoming traffic.

      • sumyungguy on 09/06/2024 - 11:54

        In urban areas, signal-controlled right turns keep traffic moving by allowing periodic release of queued vehicles.

        • SlickMick on 09/06/2024 - 20:36

          Yes, green arrows can help in those cases. It's the red ones that bug me.

  • Caped Baldy on 06/06/2024 - 10:48
    +2

    Grabs popcorn

  • [Deactivated] on 06/06/2024 - 10:50
    +1

    So she went straight ahead from a turning lane? She also crossed a solid lane line to do it?
    And this was all because of a bit of congestion in the side street?

    Time to put the grown up pants on and realise you are part of traffic and you should follow the rules. Being a bit more patient woudn't hurt.

    • Che0063 on 06/06/2024 - 10:54
      +2

      How is this so difficult to understand? Smh.

  • Euphemistic on 06/06/2024 - 10:51
    +4

    Request a review. You went straight, the straight light was green.

    Think there was a thread a while back something similar. Someone pinged for going straight from right turn lane or maybe it was straight was red and they turned from the straight lane. Cant remember the outcome, not gonna search.

    • pwnd on 06/06/2024 - 10:54

      Had a search, couldn't find anything similar. Having a read through the doc that sumyungguy quoted.

      • kaleidoscope on 08/06/2024 - 05:10
        +1

        what sumyungguy mentioned was the traffic law. What your partner did was getting out of an obstruction. Write back for a review explaining the situation. Good luck.

        Based on some people’s views of the traffic law, if a car breaks down in front you’re supposed to get stuck behind till end of time. smh…

    • pegaxs on 06/06/2024 - 10:55
      +3

      Came here to say the same thing…

      Road Rule 147(a), moving out of your lane to avoid an obstruction (ie: broken down car) and they did not turn right against the red right turn traffic light.

      I dont think it is going to be a slam dunk, but if the photos show the other car not moving in that lane in the photos and that OP had to "go around" them as to avoid an obstruction, but went straight, then there could be a case for that.

      • Che0063 on 06/06/2024 - 10:59

        Normal traffic does NOT count as an obstruction!

        EDIT: Normal traffic also includes when sometimes side streets become blocked, requiring SHOCK GASP patience for the traffic to clear

        • pegaxs on 06/06/2024 - 11:09
          +3

          Didn't say it did. I made reference as to "IF" it was broken down…

          (ie: broken down car).

          I also mentioned that it would NOT be a slam dunk based on not knowing if the car was broken down or just in line waiting to turn.

          I also made this comment as you were making yours. So I am well aware of the differences.

    • bobwokeup on 06/06/2024 - 12:42
      +1

      100% the driver made a judgement call and obviously checked no one was in the turning lane and then used part of it to drive around the stationary car. Imagine if everyone didn’t use common sense like that and just stayed behind that car, if it was broken down they’d never get past. Would they then use the turning lane instead and go a different way, no they eventually go around and continue straight as well.

  • mbck on 06/06/2024 - 10:52
    +1

    Thank you for your funding of state programs.

    • payless69 on 06/06/2024 - 12:29

      Steven NEEDS every cent. Was she wearing the belt correctly?

  • pegaxs on 06/06/2024 - 11:02
    +1

    "If you’re approaching a pedestrian or children’s crossing…"

    This rule doesn't apply to your situation. You were at an intersection, not a pedestrian crossing, unless I have missed something…

    The big question I want to ask is, was the other vehicle stopped because it was incapacitated/broken down/driver issues/act of god/etc? or was it just waiting to turn behind other vehicles turning left?

    One is an obstruction… one is impatience… One is legit, one is poor time management. If it's a "time management" issue, your review may not go so well.

    • pwnd on 06/06/2024 - 11:05
      +1

      I am not sure why the other vehicle was stopped. I was not driving and my partner did not get out to inquire.
      So I cannot answer your big question of why it was stopped or for how long.
      If the car was stopped there for the past hour, would the law be applied differently?

      • sumyungguy on 06/06/2024 - 11:07
        +1

        Check the time of day, that intersection (if it's the one we're thinking) is inside a school zone, somewhat congested at peak delivery and collection times.

  • BillyStm on 06/06/2024 - 11:50

    Requesting the lesser fine may result in additional charges being added, you make reference the other car is in the photo if they review the intersection footage and see it clearly there with a left indicator on waiting for congestion to clear they can add your partner crossing the solid line and others on top…sounds like a game of russian roulette trying to challenge this one

    • pwnd on 06/06/2024 - 11:53

      Can't see an indicator on the other car, just that it's hugging the left side of the lane, and the stopped car partially in the intersection.
      Was checking if anybody had previous experience, but it seems like that intersection and situation has been already featured in the courier mail.
      Can't read the article as it's behind pay wall but will see if I can get some more info.

      • BillyStm on 06/06/2024 - 11:54

        That's on the photo you have. Not what they have access to.

        Also given there's a stopped car in the intersection meaning cars cannot travel straight or turn left would not give immediate grounds for it to be safe to go around the car in question and pass the car in the intersection to get back to the required lane. Are you going to claim both those cars are broken down?
        Sounds like a case of impatience here.

  • payless69 on 06/06/2024 - 12:27
    -2

    Get a less stubborn partner.
    Hope she gets 2 fines for going around using the turn lane to go straight.
    Red light cameras are there for valid reasons.

    • pwnd on 06/06/2024 - 12:34
      +2

      Divorce would be far more costly than paying this infringement, so at this point not something I was considering.
      I thank you for your input.

    • bobwokeup on 06/06/2024 - 12:38
      -2

      Do you know how to read? Partially used the turning lane. She clearly went straight at a green light and not the red arrow.
      Some people on this page are so stupid. Bet you’re the type to never receive a fine too!!

      • payless69 on 06/06/2024 - 12:40
        -4

        Entitled Karens all claim that they can partially claim every men they like!

        • pwnd on 06/06/2024 - 12:43

          The individual words, they make sense. It's when you put them together that I struggle…

        • bobwokeup on 06/06/2024 - 13:04
          -1

          Repeat in proper English please??

  • MS Paint on 06/06/2024 - 15:06

    Ok. I've just read through this thread with a bag of microwave popcorn.

    My conclusion is - pay the fine.

  • Drpepper666 on 06/06/2024 - 16:38

    Just tell your Mrs she did the wrong thing and is wrong. Ha ha

  • Tigercjn on 07/06/2024 - 14:57

    Even if she was in the right lane and decided to go straight ahead, she would get a fine as the lane had a red light. Due to the red light, you can not enter the intersection for turning or going straight from that lane. You won't be able to get out of this one.

  • pwnd on 15/07/2024 - 08:56
    +2

    Final update, Dept of Transport withdrew the fine.
    As my partner's car is registered in my name, had to send the fine to be issued to her before we could contest.
    When the fine went in for review they decided to withdraw the fine.
    Thank you all for your valuable input

    • Kremleen on 15/07/2024 - 12:34
      +1

      Glad you got someone with common sense at the review stage

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join