Hi, Just received red light camera ticket. First picture, which is suppose to prove I entered intersection on a red: Pic taken from behind the car appears to show front of car over the intersection white line, but tires very close to line [slightly outside intersection], but do not believe this is proof I entered intersection after red light. It can be argued either there is no clear proof the car entered after the red, as front of car was already in the intersection. I plan to fight on this premise. What do you think?
The purpose of the first picture isn't to show you in the intersection.
It's to show you approaching the line while the light was already red.
Red Light charges issued by camera, as opposed to being stopped and charged by the police, do not result in demerit points or record of conviction. You are simply being charged as the owner of the vehicle, not necessarily as the driver. Given the lack of penalty beyond the fine, these offences may not always be cost-effective to contest if you will be losing work or incurring expenses.
There are no demerit or insurance increases with a charge issued against the OWNER of the vehicle, such as red light cameras. So the only penalty is the fine itself.
How many pictures did they send?
Do the pictures show your front wheels BEFORE the line and then your front wheels AFTER the line? Would be very hard to dispute the ticket if this is the case.
Or do all pictures show your front wheels AFTER the line? If this is the case, then you might bring reasonable doubt to the charge by trying to show that you stopped completely at the line (wheels BEFORE the line) and then proceeded into the intersection.
Now if you were going to fight it, I would also be asking a lot of questions about the equipment used.
- How does the timing work? How does it calculate the times?
- Does it use radar to determine speed or time?
- How is this equipment tested and checked and calibrated?
the tires are very close to the intersection line, but not over, but the front of the car must be into the intersection, so my contention is that there is no evidence showing the car entered the intersection after the red light, i believe it is their responsibility to have conclusive proof that car was not in intersection when the light turned red.
So only one picture, and your front tires are NOT over the line yet?
If that is the case, then you need to investigate the definition of intersection and figure out if it is the tires that need to be over the line, or just the front of the car. Maybe somebody knows some caselaw already that can help. Not a ticket I have dealt with before so I have never researched it myself.
I think we may need some clarification as to what is meant by the "intersection line". Does that mean the stop line or part of a crosswalk? Posting the picture would probably help.
Update on this?
I've the same scenario. The 1st picture that is supposed to show car has crossed the line on a red light doesn't clearly show that. From the picture, one can see the front tires edging over line.
The notice does state that the "signal had displayed red for 000.5 seconds when vehicle approached intersection.
1- picture does not show front tires before white line on red signal. Thus picture is poor evidence.
2-How can one safely stop when approaching intersection at 50km/it considering circumstances 0.5 secs (if that is to be believed).
Thank you! I will fight this and update on the status. It's bad form to ask a question and seek advice and not update the status.
The purpose of the first picture is not to show you across the line. It's to show your vehicle at the line while the light is already red. It's to show the light had already been red before you entered the intersection.
The highway traffic act requires you to stop your vehicle behind the line, not your tires.
I've just posted separately on this same subject, but to join in here:
@bend said: "The purpose of the first picture is not to show you across the line. It's to show your vehicle at the line while the light is already red. It's to show the light had already been red before you entered the intersection."
Technically/legally speaking (per 144(18)), the first photo is supposed to be evidence of the first element of the offence: "Every driver APPROACHING a traffic control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle..." And you are supposed to stop at the roadway marking per 144(5), i.e. at the line. A vehicle that is passed the line is no longer "approaching" the intersection. Thus, there is no evidence of all essential elements of the offence. That's my argument anyway, and I'll be testing it in court at a later date.
- Similar Topics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest