Evidence of running red lights

[ADriver]

I got a fine for running the red lights. I hope I could find the evidence of that.
I saw the image that the car was about 1 meter off from the line and the light was red. Then I read here:
https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/licence ... d-offences

It is not needed to prove the light was red when the vehicle entered the intersection.

So my understanding is the photos from Vicroads are not the evidence of me breaking the rule. The inductive loop system is. However, why would I or others trust inductive loop system over my eyes? Human saw red lights, and human cannot feel inductive loop. The loop system could be faulty/inaccurate, human eye is much unlikely.
Now I don't have a photo to prove myself. However, the traffic camera is there. Why doesn't the camera simply take a picture every time when red light is on? You don't even have to save the photo(or flash) if no one broke the rule. Then if Vicroads show me such evidence, I'll be much certain about what I did.
Is there any other evidence(e.g video is even better) Vicroads may have to prove I was running the light?

[Hardy]

You attributed my quote to VicRoads and used it out of context.
The photos have nothing to do with VicRoads. They are police photos. VicRoads does not prosecute these offences.
The photo is needed to gather evidence of your number plate. Evidence of the colour of the lights can come from the computer system without the need for a photo of the light. I gather that is your complaint - that the photo of the light is not essential. But in reality almost every red light camera offence does show a photo of the red light. It is extremely rare to find one that doesn't. The only time I have seen one that does not show the colour of the light is when the light is obscured by a truck, which is going to be the same problem in the system that you propose. That is why they prefer to rely on the inductive loops to detect the offence rather than have a person watch video of every light change to see if an offence has occurred.

Why doesn't the camera simply take a picture every time when red light is on? You don't even have to save the photo(or flash) if no one broke the rule. Then if Vicroads show me such evidence, I'll be much certain about what I did.

You get such evidence from the police via the fines.vic.gov.au website. They have engineered a system that takes photos of cars that break the law, so they probably didn't see any point in taking photos of cars that were complying with the red light.

[ADriver]

Thanks for the reply Hardy.

Maybe I should give the full story. I got the ticket and went to the fines.vic.gov.au. In the website, it provided two pictures. First picture shows that whole body of my car was one meters passed the line and entered the intersection. The light was red. Second picture shows that my car was almost passing the intersection. No evidence shows that my car entered when the light was already red. I guess everyone got the same as the website said this specifically. My argument is that, the moment I(or head of my car) enter the intersection the light could still be yellow and turned in to red after sometime. At that moment I guess it's ok to continue or I'll stop in the middle of the intersection.
Then I read that sentence I quoted from http://trafficlaw.com.au/red.lights.html, says no such evidence is needed.

From your reply:

But in reality almost every red light camera offence does show a photo of the red light.

This sentence doesn't make sense to me. This is saying because the system is almost right at every time, as a result no evidence is needed. I totally understand using a loop is much easier to trigger/detect the offence but I believe there should be enough evidences besides the loop system.

Could I confirm now, besides those two pictures, would I be able to get other evidence from fines.vic.gov.au? If so, how could I do that?

[allde]

Nice try Adriver, except they can now ping you for entering on a amber light.
They'll say the lights were amber for x seconds, you should have stopped, why didn't you?

[Hardy]

There will not be any other evidence unless you contest the charge in court. And you will get nothing more than a couple of legal formalities on a certificate unless you dispute the issue with expert evidence.
You might think you are the first person to think of this, but it is actually raised numerous times every day at Penalty Review Board, in the courts, and in my in box. Which is why I explained it all on http://www.trafficlaw.com.au/red.lights.html

This is saying because the system is almost right at every time, as a result no evidence is needed.

No. It's saying it is very hard to find a red light camera fine where the red light is not visible in the picture. Even if the red light is obscured by a sign or a truck, the evidence used in court is the text printed on the s.83A certificate, which includes the text you can see printed on the photo at fines.vic.gov.au.
The printed text is the evidence the police rely on at court to say the vehicle entered the intersection against a red light.
The photo identifies the offending vehicle.

Many people wrongly assume the photo is the evidence that the vehicle entered against the red light, when as you have pointed out it obviously can not do that. But it is best to think of it the same way as you do with a speed camera offence where the photo of the offending vehicle is not evidence of it's speed. All the photo does is identify the vehicle's rego. Other technologies record the speed and that data is incorporated in the certificate by printing it on the photo. It is exactly the same with red light cameras - other technologies record the state of the lights and the location of the vehicle and that data is then incorporated in the certificate.

In court the evidence is adduced by certificate to avoid the need for a human being to come to court to give that evidence.
But you could subpoena the Redflex traffic camera engineers to give evidence in court where you can suggest to them that they've designed a system that takes photos of cars that entered the intersection on yellow and see how that goes.

[ADriver]

Nice try Adriver, except they can now ping you for entering on a amber light.
They'll say the lights were amber for x seconds, you should have stopped, why didn't you?

I know people will say something like that. Everyone has his own timing. Maybe because I normally drove on big roads and I think other amber lights last longer. I couldn't compare but I do feel that amber was shorter. I was not in hurry that day and had no intention to rush.
Now, I can stop sharply when I see amber. Like what I just did hours ago, the car behind me was buzzing and hating. He was lucky he didn't crash. But I just feel perfect as I obeyed the rule.

[ADriver]

OK. Now I see the problem.
The evidence is the text or whatever police put there.
At the same time, the police probably have the video records. Technically it's very easy to show/capture that image(of lights turning red) but they choose to not do so. At least not publicly.
From my opinion, photo should always be the first option/priority of the evidence in this case. Because human see the same as photo. Human don't read the text "Red light" while cross the street and human don't feel that detective loop. You can trigger and fine with any high-tech system, but you need to show the photo. Not showing the photo, is blaming any system/software/equipment defects(even very low chance) on us. Compare to authority, it's much harder and more expensive to prove oneself as an individual.

I am not going to put more money to bet on the court as I am poor enough. Let polices' keep playing their tricks and fine us.

Thanks again, Hardy.