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

fullysicman

Sorry ploddy, but some legislation is black and white and other legislation is open to interpretation. Speeding/Wearing Seat Belt, Obeying signs Black and white, This being able to stop safely is open to the perceptions of the officers. They will base their opinions as to whether you could safely stop on a number of issues. What was the speed of the vehicle, when did the light go yellow, what were the road conditions, what was the traffic conditions , etc. We all perceive things differently. What you deem is safe may not be what I deem is safe, nor the next person. Yes the video evidence is the best way to support your opinions. What about the offence of follow too close? Remember when there was a distance involved and they have now taken that out to A driver must drive a sufficient distance behind a vehicle travelling in front of the driver so the driver can, if necessary, stop safely to avoid a collision with the vehicle.

Apparently this is a very hard ticket to issue now as it is open to perception of what is a safe following distance as there is no distance or 2sec /3 sec following distance mentioned in the legislation.

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.

I question as to why you would be concerned what the person has to say as you have already formed the opinion that they could have stopped safely because you have stopped them.

HP Plod

It's an opinion and a mind set, the mind set is that we are required to prove the legislation as it is written, it is an opinion as to the officers perception that he could stop safely, these go to proving the offence, why do i listen to what they have to say, becuase one day someone just might have some legitimate reason as to why they committed an offence, in all honesty you are correct, i don't have to question anyone, i can just go by my observations alone and run with it, but its best to ask to first allow someone to give a reason, to avoid any unneccessary court cases for both driver and officer as there may be an emergency involved, and to give the oublic the perception (even thohgh you have your mindset on how we think) that we are interested in why they did not stop.

Let's face it i will stand by the fact that law is written, it is concrete and black and white, and this concrete can be questioned by what if's and reasons, but the magistrate has the final say and it is up to his/her personal perception of what is safe to stop. We have to put forward the evidence.

My favourite yellow light ticket is the one where i stop but the car beside me goes through... give me a valid reason why they couldn't stop if i could (AND NO TRUCKS!!!! ).

Put it this way... let me write you a ticket based on my law and take it to court, i enjoy the challenge, I enjoy the legal argument.

This is an agree to disagree story. i'm not changing my thought process based on what people tell me here, as my thought process has enabled me to do my job with commendable results and no adverse feedback from public or bosses, and sorry to say it and sound pompous.. no losses in court, my evidence is always solid based on the laws i enforce, it will always be that way no matter how happy or bitter i become... I'm still happy to nut it out with you guys on here though, however i still see the usual public mind patterns emerging over what is law, what is abuse of powers and what is perception wrongly percevied to be an aspect of the law.

But i also see some very intellectual comments and some very valid points that enables me to make my own inquiries as ot their validity, and i have been very impressed, despite what you may think that we think... car enthusiasts doesn't always mean hoon/bogan, there are alot of you that know much more than me, and i like to hear from you.

Evaded Motorsport

Just to give you an idea of my background in Law, it is from 6 years experience working in Family Law from running my own files including but not limited to Domestic Violence Applications and defenses, Property and Children's issues. 3/4 of a completion of a Law degree, which I have taken a break from in the last year as I am in the process of developing my own Debt Collection organisation. So including that area I have been involved in the legal industry in some way, shape or form for close to 9 years.

I've discussed the issue with fellow law students and a couple of solicitors and stupidly closed a fantastic link to a book regarding ambiguity in statute and the law, it wasn't 100% relevant but it would of given you a fantastic idea of where we are coming from. The opinion and mind set that you speak of is exactly what we are talking about when it comes to ambiguity (I don't like the word ambiguity but in my sickly sniffly head it seems the most adept description atm).

You have to make a decision on whether or not it was safe to stop.

Rock Lobster summed it up perfectly above.



Sorry to say it but this is a silly analogy, that is granted that if you were able to safely stop then he/she would be in a position to safely stop their vehicle. Rock Lobster and myself are not referring to these instances.

Rock Lobster and I are referring to the instances were other variables are in play, going back to the tired old analogy of a truck/ambulance/falling boulder off the hillside a tsunami or any other event that could cast some doubt over the ability of the occupant of the vehicle to stop safely.

Safe can not be defined by statute, because it can not be defined by statute becausee various different people have varying opinions on what is safe and to many variables, because there are varying opinions the court must look at the two sides of the story and make a decision. This then sets precedent. Because safe can not be defined their is an ambiguity (once again I know this isn't the correct word but a better word fails to spring to mind atm)

I honestly don't think we are that far apart in our views, unless you really believe you should stop if a truck is clearly going to clean you up through the intersection.



You generally won't get adverse feedback from public, I know various people that have been unhappy with the treatment and conduct of police officers but will not make a complaint for the following reasons:

• Time, people are busy and often do not see the value in making a complaint;
• They may not see that value because they believe that no one listens;
• Not caring about it, some people just deal with it without causing a noise;
• Lack of ability to convey their frustrations;
• Not knowing the correct channels to make a complaint;&
• Fear of being black marked in the future.

As I have said before I have had good and bad dealings with police. The good dealings were fine, the police were friendly, polite (I walked away with a fine but so be it I was at fault.) I have had good dealings with police as well during my course of work and some that were ridiculous. 2 Police cars with 6 officers for a job to assist in serving court documents, although I did appreciate it for being prompt, just thought it was poorly managed resourcing of police and another where I informed them that I would be unavailable until after 6 by which time the party who was to be served would also be home. I received a call at 5.00 pm advising me that the Police were 10 minutes away. I advised them of the previous telephone call. At this stage the operator became incredibly rude. Eventually she said she would call me back to arrange another time, I advised I needed atleast an hours notice to attend then finally at 7:45 pm I received a call that the police would be there at 8.00 pm.

The two bad run ins I have had with police outside of work, one was being pulled over after apparently speeding, I know I wasn't, Speedo and GPS were both reading 1 to 2 km's an hour eitherside of the speed limit. I explained this to the officer, she was rude, aggressive and completely unhelpful and completely idiotic. To top it off two vehicles in front of me who left the same set of lights were a further 100mtrs up the road. I didn't bother following this up, it just wasn't worth the time. I would of lost more money from loss of work than I would of from coping the fine.

The other occured in Southport Magistrates Court, the officer was rude to court staff and to myself after he was informed that the Police Guide was incorrect regarding the procedure for completing a certain document.

As I have said I have had plenty of good run ins whether I was or was not on the right side of the law. So I am not saying you are all like that. I am pointing out (and having a whinge) that people will not make a complaint, they generally just lump it for whatever personal reason.

My parents were promised an apology after a Police Officer interrupted a business meeting accusing my parents of stealing petrol, the receipt was provided to the police station the next day. A complaint was made and no response was supplied. It wasn't the issue of attending the premises as that was caused by the Petrol Station in question, his conduct though was deplorable.

As I said, court is a long and expensive process, I see the people you tend to get to court, most of them have nothing better to do so you tend to end up with dead shits in there. most people just deal with the fine rather than spending $2,000 + to fight a $300 fine.

I'm not saying you are good or bad, my only dealings (as far as I know) have been on here, I also understand that many of your views come from the training police officers are supplied with.

HP Plod

I can respect your views in relation to al this, as a legal professional we are often on different sides of the table, It's nice to come on here and sometimes jump on the same side, and also allow a gloves off approach and stoush across that table again. As I said we are going to have to agree to disagree about this. My job is to enforce the laws sets out to me, I'm not taking my views based on my training, god!! 6 months at the academy is not near enough training, I'm taking my views from both professional and life experience, 13 years in the job and plenty of experience in this field, I think i can finally stand up and say that I knwo what I'm talking about, I earnt it.

I'm giving the members here my point of view, it gives them who usually only deal with police when on the receiving end of a nasty tasting fine, I'm enabling them to see how the law sits, how it is perceived, I guess my first statements should be "I'm not saying you have to think like me and change your point of view" but as you would agree, you're not going to change and I'm not going to change just becuase you disagree with my view, if i'm wrong on a term of law then yes let me know, I'm not wrong on the law here, I'm giving you my mindset, how i approach the investigation.

Topically speaking, 99.99% of people who are issued TIN's for yellow lights are usually because they are trying to get through before the red, the remaining .01% are the extenuating circumstances you talk about, so thats why I don't consider them a part of the legislation written unless raised.

as for my analogy, I threw that in based on realife epxerience and for some light hearted reality check, thus the smiley face, this has happened to me on 3 occassions in my career.

So lets sum up, I'm always going to say that law is black and white and it is the precedents, or emergenices that may affect the way an investigartion will be conducted, but in the end i have certain elements to satisfy to prove an offence and i will be tenacious in my approach to obtain a conviction, you guys will beleive that law is written to be felxible, thats fine with me becuase you are the ones bringing in the precedents for me to negative.

Like XXXXGold (Who I'm surprised has not put in his 2cents worth), I will definitely look forward to our discussions, the trouble is i don't get enough of it, prosecutors tend to have the relationships with the legal beaks (sorry, force of habit) not the arresting officer.

And i totally agree the dead shit syndorme seems to leach into the courts, it breeds nasty complacency in my career, the my shit doesn't stink syndrome, I honestly wish that i could get somedecent legal argument in court, i love the challenge, but alas it is not to happen yet, not in traffic anyway, plenty in my criminal days.

I only ask that those with decent points of view don't attack my integrity, or my career by saying that i don't know anything about law, or its interpretation, i never insult anyone on theirs, if i was a recruit or new guy by all means but as stated i earned the right to have a decent say here, as i have slogged throigh these laws and argued their words for a long time, and if you don't know me personally don't comment on me.

Evaded Motorsport

That's fine,

I actually intended to apologise at the end of my last novel regarding my comment, I tend to be blunt at the best of times. While sick I tend to be worse.

It wasn't an attack on you although I can certainly see how you could take it that way, it was more a poorly worded attempt of saying your knowledge of the law itself is quite good but how you apply it (albeit in those very few circumstances) tends not to mesh with how the 'legal beaks' and statute writer's tend to see it. As I said above, my apologies it wasn't intended to offend just poorly chosen words.

You won't find much in traffic as I alluded to before, unless someone is down to their last points or they have a particulare grudge to settle, the reality is that it just isn't worth fighting it financially and the strain on time. Which unfortunately has bred a view from the general public that people are now guilty before proven innocent. I can't think of a better way of going about the system but at the same time it loathes me to think that the best system is the one that we currently have. It also loathes me to see how traffic laws are heading but that is a separate topic and I digress.

4teecal

Plod. You need ICV. It stops all red/amber light arguments dead in their tracks. A picture paints a thousand words. Arguments with the words like "subjective" "unsafe" etc all go by the wayside when people see their driving from a different perspective.

Evaded Motorsport

They do have ICV, we are talking about those 1 in a hundred/thousand moments were there are other contributing factors that can make it debatable.

GTRwilson

thats news to me.