$300 Fine For Driving Through An Orange Light - Can anyone clarify the road rule?  

Darkness

I now smell burnt bacon.

intheknow

must have had a pretty shitty insurance company if they wouldn't fix your car.

HP Plod

Pedantics, i was n't saying it was exactly 10m/s i sadi it is about, I wasn't intending on using this as a basis of the argument, I was merely giving an intepretation that with a 4 second orange/yellow/amber (whatever you wish to call it) you can give an approximate judgement of your stopping distance.

I have seen the argument of the guy behind me was that close i ran the light to avoid the collision, it didn't work, again based on legislation you have to stop if safe to do so, it doesn't say unless there are extenuating circumstances, like being rammed from behind. This is where case law rears its ugly head, these extenuating cirucmstances are rasied and tested, most fail.

I agree that hyou must take your ownsafety into consideration, but you must also take into consideration the law.

Abuse of power???? What drugs are you smoking how is wrtinig an infringement for a clear breach of the law an abuse of power? How is issuing the $300 and 3 points an abuse of power? NEWS FLASH!!! - We don't make the fines up to suit a situation, we are given the fines, i'm tired of this thought process.

I know you guys don't like the fines, but they are only there for those who choose to test the waters of criminology.

Bring on the wrath of hate mail

intheknow

lol, i can happily say that the qps haven't had a single cent out of me in 10years.

well said hp plod!

kenny13783

if u dident admit to the police that u could safely stop and if u dident speed up to make it through u can def beat it in court i have twice once car once in my truck u just have to say that u thought it was to proceed than try to brake and end up in the middle of the intersection and if u look up transport act and rules u will find loop hole two sets rules one what they fined u for and two says proceed with caution good luck ive represented mysekf in court 8 times and only had 1 suspention give it a go

Darkness

Going by that post they obviously let you off because they felt pity due to your incredible amount of stupidity.

kenny13783

yea mate u can beat the court system with pity for stupidity right on fuck wit u know what your on about pffff

Darkness

Ah yes, I guess they can't prosecute someone suffering from obvious mental retardation such as yourself.

Twat In The Hat

Seems he lacks the ability to understand what you meant. I however, found it quite amusing

Darkness

You'll have to get used to it on here, there are always plenty of threads with people complaining how they got caught speeding at 1am in the morning, which they consider okay as there was no one else about.

Then you'll get the retards that sit there and agree that the person who was caught was unlucky and hard done by.

Darkness

It would seem to be the case with that one.

HP Plod

I am used to it now, and appreciate some of the support on here and take criticism well too, but i still beleive that you guys should here from the other side, too many stories here, with one sided opinions and arguments, and a little bit of truth bending too I think.

I like the challenge and the arguments, I don't get to argue at work it gets me complaints and wastes my time and does not allow me to get out on the road having to explain myself, so I just let the motorists suffer from the new epidemic hitting town.

It's called, "Shootyourselfinthefootitis" Its very contagious it also accompanies, "Footinmouthitis"

Twat In The Hat

The feeling you get when issuing an infringement to someone who clearly thinks they are a) above the law, better than you and c) has superman syndrome (and occasionally d) I swear I wasn't doing anything wrong) would be fucking awesome. Especially knowing that he is going to go home, say you are a revenue raising fuckwit, and probably make a thread on a site like boost - complaining about the corruption in QPS and how you were clearly abusing your power.

Pure Evil

Rock Lobster

I respectfully disagree. Given your choice of username I would expect that you have an intimate knowledge of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act and its subordinate legislation which of course includes the Road Rules Regulation in which case you will be familiar with section 57 which states that a motorist, when confronted with a yellow light, must stop if it is safe to do so. No distinction is made between potential hazards/complications that may be in front of or to the rear of the vehicle which may adversely affect the ability of a vehicle to come to a safe stop. The nature of this omission dictates that vehicular conditions to the rear of the vehicle, among other things, may be considered when determining whether it was safe to stop in the circumstances. I don't know about you but I wouldn't consider the impending arrival of a tailgating B double on my back seat to be particularly safe.

Even if we disregard the above interpretation, the defence of necessity may be available to the accused. This defence is available when an offence has been committed in order to avoid a situation where significant harm was imminent. The action taken by the accused needs to be proportionate to the potential level of harm that would have been caused had the offence not been committed. Using the truck analogy again, serious injury and potentially even death would be possible if a large truck was to collide with the rear of the vehicle at speed so proceeding through a yellow light would be considered proportionate in virtually all cases. This of course assumes that it is accepted that the actions of the accused were indeed necessary.

Even so, ricerocket has made admissions and appears to have been questioning the legitimacy of the infringement notice rather than the safety aspect so neither of the above scenarios are applicable in this instance.

drags2010

ya just say if didnt feel safe t0 st0p y0u will get 0ff

drags2010

als0 my mate winds d0wn his wind0w 0nly a crack t0 talk t0 them, that wuld help fr next time

Darkness

Y0u're an idi0t.

HP Plod

understandable, but you are forgetting the one thing here that this offence relates to.... its been observed by a police officer?!? it is not a run that light based on necessity and hope word doesn't get back to the police station that someone would come and interview me, 9/10 TIN's i issue with this offence has video evidence to back the fact that you had time to stop safely, becuase agreed it is an interpretation based on driver and officer, i guess if a video shows you had ample time to stop without blocking the intersection then you are guilty, if its becuase you had a b-double bearing down on you and you beleived they would smack into you then the merits of this defence are weighed up.

A driver who is approaching, or at, traffic lights showing a
yellow traffic light—
(a) must stop—
(i) if there is a stop line at or near the traffic lights and
the driver can stop safely before reaching the stop
line—as near as practicable to, and before
reaching, the stop line; or
(ii) if there is no stop line at or near the traffic lights
and the driver can stop safely before reaching the
traffic lights—as near as practicable to, and before
reaching, the nearest traffic lights; or
(iii) if the traffic lights are at an intersection and the
driver can not stop safely under subparagraph (i) or
(ii), but can stop safely before entering the
intersection—before entering the intersection;

and sorry you're wrong legislation is cut and dry black and white there is no grey areas there is no what if's. this section is based purely and solely on the fact that you must stop at or as near as practicable to the stop line when a yellow is lit and it is safe to do so, plain, simple clear and concise.

Then as you are implying the what if's come into play and these are the what if's that must be dispelledby theinvestigator who witnessed the event taking place, obviously common sense should be considered, but its up to the individual officer. This is not to argue that your scenarios are not plausible, they are, but you have stated that I'm wrong due to a misintepretation of the legislation, and to this i'm not. It's a piece of legislation that says if you can safely astop then stop, if you can't then don't becuase if you couldn't stop safely then you would enter the intersection and block traffic. This section allows for the free and safe movement of traffic at an intersection governed by lights.

Caselaw says otherwise.

Rock Lobster

HP Plod, I am not entirely sure of the point you are trying to make. Yes the incident was witnessed by police, does that mean all alleged offences that are witnessed by police ultimately result in a conviction? Of course not.

Your claim that statute is black and white is not entirely true either, ask Jayant Patel who is currently awaiting the CoA's reserved decision on his appeal against his conviction and sentence. Safe is one of those subjective terms that is not, and cannot be reasonably defined by statute. Generally speaking, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a word or phrase has the widest reasonable definition as when there is any doubt this must fall in favour of the accused. You make reference to the case law but in reality there is very little case law in regards to proceeding through a yellow light with a vehicle following so closely that stopping would almost certainly cause a collision. If this defence is accepted it rarely, if ever makes it to the superior court stage for obvious reasons.

As for your interpretation of safe, are you suggesting that because I can safely stop my vehicle that I should do so regardless of whether a 20 tonne truck is likely to kill any children I may have in the back seat? Granted, in the case of the thread starter this does not apply and as I said, he/she has already made admissions, but I can guarantee you that it is not always safe to stop even if you are capable of physically bringing your vehicle to a stop before the line.

Evaded Motorsport

That is such a police officer view, it is black and white. Your own admission to the ambiguity comes from the following statement.

The act is designed to be a little ambigious so as you said the police officer can make a decision whether it was safe or not to stop. It is granted that 90% of cases the party has failed to stop when it was safe to do so. The other 10% is where the grey comes in, whether it may or may not be safe to stop.

This is the whole reason for case law, to clarify the amibiguity and define a guide as to how the law should be enacted.





These two sentences clearly contradict each other, in the first isntance you are saying there are "no what if's." The last part of your sentence clearly states that, it is up to the invdividual officer. Which states there what if's earlier on. This is where the ambiguity comes from, the officer may believe that it was safe to stop, the driver may not, the parties have different perspectives of the matter down to the view of both parties, past events etc etc.

Your knowledge of the law is sound, your understanding of how the law operates is slightly off.

Police officers are human to, I have run into some shockers but at the same time I have had some great experiences with them (I have dealt with both sides in my two career paths). Having friends who are in the police force or have been in the police force and your own views you have expressed in many threads (which I greatly appreciate and generally agree with) gives you a somewhat different understanding of how the police operate.

I have a fever of 39.1 one at the moment so it has been a little difficult in conveying the message that I want but I think it should suffice.

HP Plod

you are all missing the point i was trying to make.

Law is written, it IS Black and White, where in this piece of legislation does it have a subsection stating: "Unless there are other mitigating circumstances, that may not allow you to stop, or you have a big truck, or you were bsuting to go to the toilet... blah blah blah... No where, it is black and white and written as it stands.

THEN:

Individual is intercepted and give a reason as to not stopping. It is up to the officer investigating to negative these defences based on the law as it stands, here we have all the "What ifs", based on the officers knowledge of the law as it is written, he is required to prove that it was safe to stop based on his investigating skills. To say my knowledge of law is sound and my knowledge of how it operates is low is an insult.

I have been doing this for over 13 years, its just like the section for speeding, it says and i paraphrase, so no insults on the way i word it, a driver must not exceed a speed limit posted for a road. Clear and concise... BLACK and WHITE even.

But how may of you bring up reasons for speeding? Everyone. Why do you bring up reasons? Becuase our legal system says everyone is innocent until proven guilty, we have a right to a fair trial, and if we lose either suck it up or appeal it.

But we all bring in What if's. There is no what if in the speeding legislation.. Do you get my point? I was told that i was wrong in my interpretation of the law for yellow lights, wrong, My interpretation is excellent, because it is written very clearly. But by all means bring up the what ifs, they don't change how the law is written, they change how it is investigated to prove how it is written.

At the end of the day, for example, you take a speeding fine to court, evidence is brought forward for us to prove that you exceeded the speed limit, you raise defences to sya this is wrong, the decision is based on whether i can prove the elements andf whether the defences raised are such that a person is excused from that law.

So a yellow light is run, i bring evidence to prove 1. the light had turned yellow, 2. You were driving said vehicle on said road 3. That based on evidence at hand you were able to stop safely prior to the white line. All of this is done by negativing your defences.

As for A B-double or another car hitting you from behind, personally if i saw it i would be taking action against the driver behind you, but lets face it the real reason people run yellow is to avoid stopping.

And becuase an officer sees an offence does it automatically make you guilty?? Well ask yourself this am i aksing you questions in order to get you off this ticket? No I'm asking questions to prove the offence took place, so you can guess where my mind set is. I won't apologise for that.

I appreciate your opinions on this, but don't attack my integrity in relation to my position. I have a high standing in my career and i have a large knowledge base on just sabout all legisltation and if i don't then i will certianly make my own inquiries, I don't have to proescute you straight away, I ususally have 12 months under the stattue of limitations for traffic matters.

Oh and yes my spelling is bad but i type faster than my eyes can read, and i don't have spell check, but you get the jist.

thanatozz

Police officers aren't always right and there are a lot of them out to just do you for nothing. Maybe because they've had a bad night, who knows. Personal experience for me was I did a legal uturn and went over some pre-existing skid marks. Another 500metres on a cop pulls me over and said i was doing burnouts. Brand new slicks on my car, no burnt rubber and a front wheel drive. I tried to argue but the lady just seemed to get pissed off. I sent a letter into the OIC but no-go of course.

Seems to be a heavy bias towards modified cars from a lot of traffic cops, who want to fine us for nothing just because we don't have stock cars. Sorry that was a bit OT. But we're talking about cops

HP Plod

did you take it to court? if so what was the outcome? if not why?

And slicks? has the term changed lately as slicks to me are zero tread, need warming up to drive tyres? what are slicks?

thanatozz

When the the lady threatened impounding my car and taking me to court for 'hooning' i then told her, maybe i let go of my clutch too quicky when changing a gear and it chirped (which it didn't). The skid marks started at the other side of the intersection i did a uturn in, but they didn't see me do a uturn. So she changed it to.. not having proper control of the vehicle which was just $200 or 230 and no points. So i didn't see there to be any value in taking it to court. Also there was no proof, it would've been he said she said.

But i asked the officer for evidence she just said 'we heard you'. I said, my tyres are brand new with the line on them, there's no smell of burnouts, it's a front wheel drive. At one point she said i should get a 4 cylinder hatchback if i can't stop myself from doing burnouts, as well as that i should go out to beenleigh to do them not regular roads (lol) and she was obviously mad from the start. EDIT: BTW when she said i should get a 4cylinder.. I do have a 4 cylinder, apparently she wasn't smart enough to tell the difference when looking at an engine. I think i just had bad luck getting a cop who wanted to rape someone over anything.

Don't think i said, but when i say slicks. I have mickey thompson street slicks. And it was the night after i bought them. They cost like.. $400 each and i NEVER do burnouts to waste tread lol.. i'm not rich.

HP Plod

no worries got concerned there when you said you had slicks on. AS for the ticket i can't comment i was not there.

thanatozz

Yeah i've had all good experience with cops in the past. 2 other officers with her were all fine, except one guy kicked my numberplate to try loosen it on my front bar which i was pissed about. I was just going home from the gym at about 6.30 and it's a 2 minute drive lol. Wasn't out cruising or anything so yeah just bad timing for me running into an angry cop.

My point was they're not all honest and don't have evidence when booking people. They actually looked at their law book for about half an hour trying to figure out what they could fine me with, not fining me with the original accusation they made. So seemed like all BS to me.

Evaded Motorsport

*shakes head*

HP Plod

Well I like to have evidence, i like to have everything wrapped up in a nice little package, becuase at the end of the day we live in a society that is prone to complaints and whinging (Hell I do it myself from time to time), and I seem to have a lot more tickets going to court these days, not becuase they are dodgy tickets but becuase people are more likely to (and I apologise for this) not accept responsibility for their actions. I have many tickets going to court purely on the basis that they are going to lose their licence due to points not becuase of a point of law, out of the last 10 court cases, only one brought up any decent questions in relation to his ticket, unfortunately he lost but he had some valid questions, two went through with absolutely no questioning the other 7 plead before trial.

Its a pity that people have dealings with officers of questionable integrity, but if you have me as your intercepting officer, it is a pleasant trip, until you get your boarding pass and see how much first class is, but thats my job, if you're flying my airline, you've done something wrong.

thanatozz

Yeah good to know. I would've gone to court with it if it was for hooning or trying to take points off me. Because i had a friend in the car who was a witness to me doing nothing. But that's the only time that i've been fined when i've been pulled over (3 times) with my car. Other cops just said nice car and had the general look over.

Back to what you guys were talking about regarding orange lights. I have the mindset that, if i can make it through without speeding then that's ok for me to do. Because if you have to speed to make it.. then you should've stopped. Sometimes i do speed though if i've caught about 4 reds in a row lol.

HSV

Sidetrack - Are these ET Streets? You are aware that ET Streets aren't legal to run on the road, right?

thanatozz

Sorry i was mistaken. Not sure why but i thought it was mickey thompson. It was toyo lol. TOYO 195/50R16 R888

They are street legal.

HSV

All good mate, was a curiosity thing, I wasn't aware the ET Streets were illegal until the other week, I always thought they were legal.

PyrotiX

If there is just one thing I can add to this, it's this.

Having had my fair share of dealings with Queensland Police over the years, it's been my observation that those who have only been in the service a few years or are relatively new to everyday dealings with the public have what I would call, a more in-touch view of what is legislative black and white. I guess you could liken this to the "officers discretion".

When I began dealing with more senior officers, I noticed a considerable change in attitude than those who were only relatively new to the service or who maybe didn't have as much dealings with the public as their senior colleagues. It's almost as if there is a bitterness or resentment towards the general public from the continual blows from over the years.

With all due respect of course, it's almost as though this attitude has influenced what could be determined, officers discretion. There are very few absolutes in law. The law is not black and white and it is almost always open to interpretation.

Pure Evil

I seriously cant believe this is still open, at the end of the day we have his side of the story only .
Pyrotix is right, the law is NOT black and white. The officer made a judgement call and booked you. Just think of it as one you didnt get away with, and lets face it ill lay money on the fact you have gotten away with heaps in the past, we all have