Yes the bottom video was allowed by Henry Greenslade.
The top one was refused by Andrew Harman.
This shows that the lottery in a lot of cases is the adjudicator.
--------
Bottom video - 2250483268 - Greenslade
A contravention can occur is a vehicle is driven so as to fail to give way to oncoming vehicles.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was in Salter's Hill, as shown in the closed circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The Appellant’s case is that the vehicle in the opposite direction was not yet at the priority point when they began to move forward.
Although the Appellant’s vehicle is seen to pass the sign indicating the requirement, it is by no means clear from the images that the oncoming vehicle had, at that moment, passed the equivalent point on the other side of the bridge.
The Adjudicator is only able decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties and applying relevant law.
Considering all the evidence before me carefully I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
--------
Top video - 2250483632 - Harman
The contravention alleged in these proceedings is that this vehicle, at Salters Hill, failed to give way to oncoming vehicles. On the appellant's case, an approaching vehicle was not close enough to require her to give way to it. The proximity of an approaching vehicle is of no relevance to liability. The test to be applied is whether that other vehicle is 'oncoming'. I am satisfied on the council's video footage of the incident that an approaching vehicle as shown on the footage was 'oncoming'. The appellant was required to wait at the restriction to give way to it. Given she did not do so this contravention has occurred. None of the appellant's submissions raise an exemption or defence to that contravention. The appeal is refused.
