Queensland Run an Amber Light $330+3 Demerit Points. WTF!!!!!

[4stanger]

Originally Posted by SM1DY

Could someone clarify this one, can you be fined for driving tired?

I caught a glimpse of this discussion on one of those morning shows on tv this morning.
Some spokesman said that after an accident, if it could be proven, you could be fined for driving tired.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by Arnaldo

I caught a glimpse of this discussion on one of those morning shows on tv this morning.
Some spokesman said that after an accident, if it could be proven, you could be fined for driving tired.

Proven?? Whould love to see the test for that.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Proven?? Whould love to see that test for that.

No you wouldn't.

It would become a cash ELEPHANT for the fiscal experts in the public service.

Another law dreamt up by people who work so hard every day that they never get tired.......

[MercurySilver]

eg
so ive done a 12 hr shift and had to drive a 50 min round trip and i had 5 hrs sleep the night before, plus i drive all day at the job on heavy machinery
am i tired????
what rubbish
how on earth are they going to prove that

[csv8]

2011G6E..speed cameras are working well !!! and Q is getting more !! DOH !!
The only answer QPol has is more speed cameras !! what about driver education, police presence on the roads, road deaths related to speed are 20% of road toll. The other 80% are virtually ignored. Why ? because speed cameras are an easy fix ???? The money spent on speed detection is out of proportion to the road toll..
I am not anti speed camera. just how they are used..high flow traffic areas, behind trees, bus shelters etc. Black spot areas ??? rarely.
Speed cameras are QPol's pr disaster. Numerous studies show they don't reduce the road toll.....links have been posted on FF...

[gtxb67]

has there been a rule change???

the 2 rules have been in place for a very, very long time, so what is the problem
we complain that we do not see police on the road, because speed cameras are doing their job and now we are complaining that the police might actually be out there doing their job - pick a side and stick with it


we all know speed cameras are for revenue but guess what. if they withdraw speed cameras from service, then they will just tax the people who are alert enough to see speed cameras more - better to tax the oblivious people in my opinion

[jpd80]

The rule has been in for nearly two years, I don't know what all the fuss is about
as I see it, the only reason it's being brought up now is that people are starting
to take liberties and going through intersections late when they should stop.

This isn't an issue in a majority of driving and only occurs when approaching a stale green...


Think of the alternative, short amber lights.... not good.

[xisled]

In Victoria, I got done for going through an amber light around 9 years ago when I first gotr my licence. Fined $280 and 3 points.

I do not see the problem with this rule.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by xisled

In Victoria, I got done for going through an amber light around 9 years ago when I first gotr my licence. Fined $280 and 3 points.

I do not see the problem with this rule.

The problem is that by increasing the fine and points there will be a change in the way some people react at traffic lights which can and probably will lead to accidents.

Driving in traffic is somewhat of a herd mentality. You are all going the same way and expect others to react the same way to any situation.

If all of a sudden some people do something completely different e.g. jam on the brakes as soon as they see an amber light causing the vehicle behind to brake heavily and so on backwards up the line each with a slight reaction delay until there is a pile up.

All the theory and babble about "safe following distances" is completely and utterly pointless as the only thing that will happen should you drop back a car length in traffic is that someone will move across from another lane.

The most common cause of ALL accidents is something unexpected happening for whatever reason.

This change will increase the number of unexpected events........

[LTDHO]

Just shows what people know, or don't know.

As far as I can recall, it has always been illegal for running a amber/yellow light. It's more dangerous when the driver hard accelerate through. People ofen confuse it with "Proceed if safe to do so"

I note a few above have asked "What's so dangerous about it?"
Many accidents occur from running an amber. (IMO more than fatalitites than speeding too)

I do agree with 'Kent' as people who wear earphones should also be targeted.

[xisled]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Just shows what people know, or don't know.

As far as I can recall, it has always been illegal for running a amber/yellow light. It's more dangerous when the driver hard accelerate through. People ofen confuse it with "Proceed if safe to do so"

I note a few above have asked "What's so dangerous about it?"
Many accidents occur from running an amber. (IMO more than fatalitites than speeding too)

I do agree with 'Kent' as people who wear earphones should also be targeted.

Why would you target people with earphones, does that mean all deaf people should be targeted to. BTW I do not wear earphones while driving.

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by xisled

Why would you target people with earphones, does that mean all deaf people should be targeted to. BTW I do not wear earphones while driving.

Mate.......

Clearly I was referring to MP3 players and phones, not the hearing impaired.

[Jim Goose]

I think people need to re-read the rule....

There is NO CROSS IF UNABLE TO STOP SAFELY.

57 Stopping for a yellow traffic light or arrow
(1) A driver who is approaching, or at, traffic lights showing a
yellow traffic light—
(a) must stop—

It then says :

(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

Means that its ok to cross the white stop line as long as you dont enter the intersection!

There is NO provision in the law for you to cross on a yellow light at all.

This is purely a revenue raising law now... as it will no doubt mean that red light cameras, will now also operate on a yellow light in QLD.

I can understand a red light camera as its clearly breaking the law... but this is truely rediculas and unworkable and unsafe.

Imagine trying to stop on a yellow light in an 80 zone if your say 30meters from the line and it changes?

[Agent86]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Imagine trying to stop on a yellow light in an 80 zone if your say 30meters from the line and it changes?

My rule of thumb in the truck is double the length of the solid white leading to the intersection, at 70 or below moderately loaded, is suficent.
If heavy or faster, thats the point of not even attempting to stop.

Not going to have too many truckies left after the ramp up of enforcement i think.

Good thing I now stay away from QLD

[XBROO]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

I think people need to re-read the rule....

There is NO CROSS IF UNABLE TO STOP SAFELY.

57 Stopping for a yellow traffic light or arrow
(1) A driver who is approaching, or at, traffic lights showing a
yellow traffic light—
(a) must stop—

It then says :

(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

Means that its ok to cross the white stop line as long as you dont enter the intersection!

There is NO provision in the law for you to cross on a yellow light at all.

This is purely a revenue raising law now... as it will no doubt mean that red light cameras, will now also operate on a yellow light in QLD.

I can understand a red light camera as its clearly breaking the law... but this is truely rediculas and unworkable and unsafe.

Imagine trying to stop on a yellow light in an 80 zone if your say 30meters from the line and it changes?

Jim I hope you're wrong about the red light cameras, will be changed to go on yellow. Because this will cause accidents, I don't think it'll come to that. I think it's more of a law for the police to enforce. Surely the government wouldn't be that stupid right?






Right?

[BENT_8]

This rule should not be a problem if motorists follow the other guidlines for an approach to an intersection.

As a truck driver, we are taught to be cautious of a STALE green, which means if you are approaching a set of lights and the green has been showing for a while you automatically prepare for the yellow to appear.
Not too many lights are sequenced to change after a second or two so the stale green is a regular occurance at most intersections.

The problem is that most motorists drive around in a daydream and only react once the light change sequence has begun and either blast through or hit the anchors.

During my HR license test i was taught to prepare to stop on a stale green by backing off a little whilst maintaining a safe braking distance to any vehicles in front until i reached 40mtrs before the solid line at which time any vehicle infront would be in the intersection and out of my way.
At the point of no return, 40mtrs, i would continue through, if it changed prior to that point i could stop easily as i was prepared.

Easy really, if you are paying attention and driving defensively...

[Agent86]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

This rule should not be a problem if motorists follow the other guidlines for an approach to an intersection.

As a truck driver, we are taught to be cautious of a STALE green, which means if you are approaching a set of lights and the green has been showing for a while you automatically prepare for the yellow to appear.
Not too many lights are sequenced to change after a second or two so the stale green is a regular occurance at most intersections.

The problem is that most motorists drive around in a daydream and only react once the light change sequence has begun and either blast through or hit the anchors.

During my HR license test i was taught to prepare to stop on a stale green by backing off a little whilst maintaining a safe braking distance to any vehicles in front until i reached 40mtrs before the solid line at which time any vehicle infront would be in the intersection and out of my way.
At the point of no return, 40mtrs, i would continue through, if it changed prior to that point i could stop easily as i was prepared.

Easy really, if you are paying attention and driving defensively...

you need to drive where i do in melb.
the majority of the time is ok, but the lane switchers can and do erode the saftey gap often.

I get crap for driving so slow, but if i was up near the speed limits i can garauntee that there would be quite a few mangled cars and a couple of people being planted.

All the statements that rely on the premise of people doing what they are supposed to, are bound for failure because there are far too many ( as you know ) who do whatever, whenever, for random reasons ( often no reason at all ).

I've only been involved in two crashes since i attained my HC licence 12 years ago, both i could not have avoided unless i physically was not there.

one guy was desperate to challenge me had on on the hume ( pre upgrade) and i was on a bridge with nowhere to go, and the other just merged into the side of my cab at 20 kph in traffic. a true WTF situation.

Until people are held accountable for the bad actions that LEAD to consequences such as running lights, tailgating etc, no amount of law/legislation change will affect the problem.

Treating symptoms is not trating Cause.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Agent86

you need to drive where i do in melb.
the majority of the time is ok, but the lane switchers can and do erode the saftey gap often.

I get crap for driving so slow, but if i was up near the speed limits i can garauntee that there would be quite a few mangled cars and a couple of people being planted.

All the statements that rely on the premise of people doing what they are supposed to, are bound for failure because there are far too many ( as you know ) who do whatever, whenever, for random reasons ( often no reason at all ).

I've only been involved in two crashes since i attained my HC licence 12 years ago, both i could not have avoided unless i physically was not there.

one guy was desperate to challenge me had on on the hume ( pre upgrade) and i was on a bridge with nowhere to go, and the other just merged into the side of my cab at 20 kph in traffic. a true WTF situation.

Until people are held accountable for the bad actions that LEAD to consequences such as running lights, tailgating etc, no amount of law/legislation change will affect the problem.

Treating symptoms is not trating Cause.

Totally agreed!
The point is, if your doing the right thing and driving accordingly, there is nothing more to fear from the new fines than there was before.
Accidents will always happen, the frequency is what needs to be limited.

Its like people who cry when new camera's are installed or the fines go up. Its only a problem when you get caught doing the wrong thing.
Adhere to the rules/guidelines you obtained your license by and there should rarely be a problem.
If someones losing $1k and 6 points a year, it would suggest ones driving habits needs reviewing, not legislation.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by XBROO

Jim I hope you're wrong about the red light cameras, will be changed to go on yellow. Because this will cause accidents, I don't think it'll come to that. I think it's more of a law for the police to enforce. Surely the government wouldn't be that stupid right?






Right?

Just checked with a mate who is a solicitor and does a lot of traffic.

All wrong.

Law degrees come from universities not corn flakes packets, internet forums or google.

You can cross on an amber light provided the subsections are complied with. The line just denotes the boundry of the intersection if that point is not level with the lights.

[2011G6E]

The traffic lights in Rockhampton...which seem to be run more on a cycle than on road sensors...would cause a simply staggering amount of accidents if everyone was in mortal fear of going through a yellow. People would be jamming on their brakes and rear-enders would increase ten fold overnight. If I'm a couple of car lengths from a yellow, I won't stop, be it on the motorbike (especially on the motorbike because cars won't stop as quick as I can), in the Celica, or in the G6E. I'll keep on driving through. If I got pulled over, I would demand the officer prove that I could have "safely" stopped in the time allowed.

The problem is that humans have about a two second reaction time. That light goes yellow anything less than fifty meters (or possibly more) in front of you, and you probably won't even be able to decide to hit the brakes if you are in a 60 zone before you cross the line.

It;s a ludicrous situation...you won't collide with anyone coming from the other side of the intersection if you cross on a yellow...no traffic lights in the world have a change to a proceed aspect on the opposite side until your light has gone red to stop you to allow them to move off. Also you have to allow for the delay between your light going red, and the other light going green on the crossroad...it isn't instant, so cross traffic will never be able to pull out in front of you.
There is no danger in running a yellow at all, never has been, never will be.

[XBROO]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

The traffic lights in Rockhampton...which seem to be run more on a cycle than on road sensors...would cause a simply staggering amount of accidents if everyone was in mortal fear of going through a yellow. People would be jamming on their brakes and rear-enders would increase ten fold overnight. If I'm a couple of car lengths from a yellow, I won't stop, be it on the motorbike (especially on the motorbike because cars won't stop as quick as I can), in the Celica, or in the G6E. I'll keep on driving through. If I got pulled over, I would demand the officer prove that I could have "safely" stopped in the time allowed.

The problem is that humans have about a two second reaction time. That light goes yellow anything less than fifty meters (or possibly more) in front of you, and you probably won't even be able to decide to hit the brakes if you are in a 60 zone before you cross the line.

It;s a ludicrous situation...you won't collide with anyone coming from the other side of the intersection if you cross on a yellow...no traffic lights in the world have a change to a proceed aspect on the opposite side until your light has gone red to stop you to allow them to move off. Also you have to allow for the delay between your light going red, and the other light going green on the crossroad...it isn't instant, so cross traffic will never be able to pull out in front of you.
There is no danger in running a yellow at all, never has been, never will be.

I agree with what you're saying, I also ride a bike. The only time I see a problem with running an amber would be, when a car is turning right at an intersection. As I was always taught that if you are the first car into the intersection you can remain there until the amber light, then go when traffic has come to a halt.

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

.

There is no danger in running a yellow at all, never has been, never will be.

So so wrong.

The couple of seconds between your light changing to red and the crossroad going green is needed for the turning traffic to clear the intersection before the green hits.

Have you not thought about traffic travelling from the right and left that are not stationary, but are travelling and anticipating their coming green light. With your scenario people waiting to turn for all of the arrogant "i can just squeeze an amber out of this" are sitting ducks with traffic bearing down on them at the speed limit.

If you have a truck up your clacker, or cannot stop safely for any other reason, you dont stop.

If you can safely stop - you do.

Then those waiting to turn can easily and safely.

It is really very easy. I am amazed that people dont get it.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by flappist

Just checked with a mate who is a solicitor and does a lot of traffic.

All wrong.

Law degrees come from universities not corn flakes packets, internet forums or google.

You can cross on an amber light provided the subsections are complied with. The line just denotes the boundry of the intersection if that point is not level with the lights.

I got such a headache reading all the responses on this forum, how did such a simple straight forward rule befuddle so many people?

Common sense tell us to avoid crashes by watching out when approaching intersections with stale greens and vehicles up our backsides...

Amber lights are set at 4 and 5 seconds for a good reason, to allow vehicles to clear intersections with out panic stops.

Maybe a good new year's resolution would be for drivers to use their brains..

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by jpd80

I got such a headache reading all the responses on this forum, how did such a simple straight forward rule befuddle so many people?

Common sense tell us to avoid crashes by watching out when approaching intersections with stale greens and vehicles up our backsides...

Amber lights are set at 4 and 5 seconds for a good reason, to allow vehicles to clear intersections with out panic stops.

Maybe a good new year's resolution would be for drivers to use their brains..

But that's the problem...yes, the yellow has a longish delay to "allow people to clear the intersection"...but start a campaign telling people they'll be fined if they run a yellow, and a big percentage of people won't run the yellow anymore, and the moment a yellow appears they will jam on the brakes to avoid a potential fine.

[XBROO]

I got hit up the rear once when I was younger in a XB ute. I stopped at an amber and got hit by this lady behind me, who thought I was going to go through. Anyway when the police came, 'probably because I was a young fella' started saying it could of been my fault. I asked 'how when I was hit from behind?' He said ''if I was across the line when she hit me, then I'm committed to go through. I said 'no I was stopped before the white line and it was after she hit me that my car went across the line.' And she said the same, luckerly. Anyway always wonder about that law, so are you committed to go through an intersection once you cross the line?

[blackf6]

I had completed a defensive driving course around 3 years ago and the trainer was an ex police officer. He said that Qld red light camera's were getting converted to redlight speed camera's that on speeding up to run a red light would also then take a second picture of you speeding. Stops me from doing the wrong thing. :0

[Outbackjack]

Ahhh , yes , the QLD police...... The best police that money can buy.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

Ahhh , yes , the QLD police...... The best police that money can buy.

Don't you worry about that......

On a side note, I drove in a genuine legal open zone in Australia 2 days ago. Lady Elliot Island is not part of QLD (or any other state or terrritory) so therefore has no traffic laws at all
I got up to about 20km/h as that was as fast as I deemed safe at the time........

[OffRoadFalcon]

This doesn't make a heap of sense to me.

I've 'run' amber lights before, simply because the lights changed to amber when I was far too close to stop, and if I tried I'd end up sitting in the middle of the intercection, and possibly rear-ended at times. As often as possible I will stop, and always slow down a bit as I approach to aid stopping in time.

But there's times (maybe 20 per year) when I can't stop as quickly as normal, due to a fragile load in the back, and so have had to run it, but never, never a red. If I stopped some objects may move and damage themselves or others. Both the passenger and I would be perfectly safe, but the cargo wouldn't.

I know if I got fined for simply not having the time to stop at the amber, I'd be pretty annoyed.

[blackf6]

I was heading to work the other morning. I live in QLD. Came up to an intersection on a green and about 1 meter from the stop line the lights changed orange. As an unbeknownst to me unmarked police car was sitting at the intersection blinded by the corner. Then as I am driving past the intersection said car speeds up behind me, by then I thought it was the police. And yes they then proceed to put their disco lights on and intercept me. Not one word was said about the orange light, they only wanted to Breathalyze me. So I still think it is up to the officers judgement and discretion at the time of the offence.