Just be aware for all the pedestrian in Melbourne CBD area. I had received a ticket from police cost me $74 due to crossing at pedestrian to train station when the red walking light stop blinking. And the polices on duty stopped me and my friend and explained to us blar blar blar, then they grab our details and phone number for the ticket to be send by post. I though that may be a warning for the first time but eventually I received the infringement Notice within 2 days by post. Did anyone had that some sort of experience?
Pedestrian Infringement Victoria
LSHL on 29/11/2014 - 16:05
Comments
- 1
- 2
Hear, hear!
They've kind of always had jaywalking on the books but never really enforced, except the occasionally by the book cop on a power trip or as an excuse to stop and search a suspicious looking guy (or gal), especially in the US.
I think they have cracked down on it due to injuries/fatalities from those that don't look properly. Especially in NY and I've heard Brisbane, but that could have just been in run up to G20 for motorcades.
But something about less tax revenues and budget deficits makes me suspicious this is a nasty lazy revenue raiser just like speed cameras.
I hope the police in WA fine the cyclist that cycle whatever and however they like……
when accident happen, they always blame the car driver….. stop blaming others, it's your own life to protect?
@adamren:
many cyclist cycle almost in the middle of the road, where cars have to follow behind slowly at the single lane double line road. When finally overtake the cyclist, in front of traffic lights, the cyclist manage to catch up beside you, then you have to let it go in front again.Cyclist should follow the car, bike rules, 1.5m apart and behind the car
where a car driver drives slowly they get a fine for disturbing the traffic….
16 cops at one intersection. .. plus 2 in the road. . ridiculous waste of money and resources if you ask me
If this is Collins St then I think that's where they train new constables in traffic management (which would explain huge numbers). Gotta do it somewhere.
Yep I see this all the time at Collins and King intersection and I think its fair enough to be honest.
Also the number of times I've seen people cross the road at Collins and Spencer against the red light when there are cops clearly visible the at the other side, then act all suprised when they get done! What were they expecting?
Also the number of times I've seen people cross the road at Collins and Spencer against the red light
There used to be an underpass from Spencer St station to get to the other side without crossing the road. When Southern Cross was built, the geniuses decided to close that underpass. Now, we get people booked for crossing the road.
It is just a money making business.
@ms:
It is just a money making business.
I got to be honest, I use this intersection everyday and the police officers are always in groups and in uniform. Never seen them fine people covertly, undercover or anything like that. It's pretty obvious when they're out there looking for jay walkers. My point is (which you cut off when you quoted me) you have to be pretty stupid to cross the road against the red light when the police are clearly visible. Its not like they're hiding behind a bush jumping out surprising people. If it was just about raising revenue, then I think they would be using more covert tactics like they do with speed traps.
@neos:
The point I was trying to make is that the govt. removed the safer option which now leads people to this sort of behavior.
I just saw the other day down Swanston, two blondes riding bikes without a helmet go past a few coppers, they didn't even bother to stop them.
obviously they got carried away checking out the blondes.
Easier to tell without helmets on
They're only human…
Obviously they were too busy monitoring pedestrians to bother noticing the roads. Priorities, man!
Don't you get it? Cyclists never cause any damage, injury or danger to others so they're exempt from road rules and most definitely shouldn't need to register their bike.
I'm not sure if the negs are from people who don't get sarcasm, or who understand it but still think that cyclists should only obey the road rules they feel like.
It is no longer sarcasm if you have to explain it.
The intersection outside Flinders St Station is very dangerous, pedestrians are constantly running through red lights nearly getting hit by cars and trams (many do get hit by cars and trams).
So while most people don't need their hands held when they cross the road, lots of people still do need an adult to help them.
Secondly, these operations are usually done to train new recruits, you'll notice that they epaulettes show no rank i.e. newbies. If they are directing traffic, there will be someone behind them with rank to teach them.
This has got to be one of the worst ones, the corner of Flinders and Elizabeth Street is just hell.
Flinders St / Swanston St is definitely as you described. Pedestrians start walking even when the traffic light is blinking red, then they meander across the road. Very inconsiderate and definitely stuffs up traffic. I think that if you're going to risk crossing the road when the traffic man is blinking red, at least hurry across! :/
yeah… apparently not… because they have 40km/h zones in front of universities and TAFEs. Seriously, if you can't cross the road without someone holding your hand by the age of 18, you probably shouldn't be doing tertiary studies.
It's not just in front of universities and TAFEs. It's 40 km/h zones in any area where there are lost of people, e.g. shopping strips are also 40 km/h.
It's ridiculous. If you're too stupid to figure out when it's safe to cross the road you have much bigger issues.
Total nanny state.
If traffic was actually held up (cars started going, had to stop because someone ran out) then that's a different matter.
it's not ridiculous at all, I work in the melbourne cbd 5 days a week and just this thursday while I waited to cross Lonsdale St, along Swanston St, I saw 6 people cross half the road against the colour of the lights. Most people that pull the nanny state/revenue raising crap are people that think the rules don't apply to them. I do it at times too, I will admit, but only a idiot does it when police are around or doesn't notice them…
Was traffic held up though? If it's safe to cross then it's safe to cross…
It might be "safe to cross", but it's still jaywalking
Yeah if people jaywalk not noticing there are cops around they probably won't notice oncoming cars and deserved to be fined! Those people whose head down playing with their mobile phones or listening to loud music unaware of their surroundings.
The worst thing about ozbargain is the majority of the audience are bootlickers. Of course you will get negged for defending their civil rights.
Where as you get negged for posting shortsighted comments?
Meh it's not high school, being popular isn't a big deal :) At least there's different opinions flying around and it's actually stayed other civil (we can agree to disagree without needing to abuse the other party? Say it isn't so!)
For example if you want a ton of negs then just say ANYTHING positive about an Apple device.
If you want upvotes then flavour of the month is Enloop etc.It's generally quite predictable, though sometimes there's a surprise.
Nanny state that pays a significant contribution to your medical expenses if you get hit…
I find when crossing roads if you wait for the green man you don't get a ticket…its pretty simple.
When it's safe to cross, do you still sit there waiting for a few minutes for an automated sign with no idea on the surrounds to tell you it's safe?
Yep I wait, I always look before I cross the road too. It's the combination of being raised to follow all laws and be aware of surroundings and having seen a pedestrian killed from walking on a red. The sign has no awareness of its surroundings (obviously) but if it's green the traffic lights are red, and if it's red the traffic lights are green. So in the interest of safety surely its better to wait until the cars are stopped (and look to confirm) than to have cars with right of way going with drivers not paying attention. I don't often cross roads with signs where there are not any cars, but I still wait.
I find it amazing the people who walk against the red man in the CBD (where there are pretty much always cars) yet when they drive they get annoyed when they have to wait for pedestrians walking against the red.@rochow:
He said the red man had stopped blinking. And you can't cross when it's blinking unless you entered the walkway when it was still green.
I think that fining people for it is quite petty, but if you are too absorbed to notice police standing at the other side of the crossing was it truly safe to have crossed anyway?
I have travelled overseas extensively and while it does vary by country it helps to know the local laws, customs and enforcement behaviour and alter behaviour accordingly.
I'm not saying you are wrong to walk against signals, it's your right to make that choice, I choose not to. But if you get fined for doing it (beings it is against the written law) then you don't get to complain, especially knowing that "jaywalking" is illegal.
I'm smart enough to assess the situation when crossing the road, and decide that the prospect of a 70 odd dollar fine isn't worth the 30 seconds I'd save. That's money better spent elsewhere.@bercilak: I misread it. You can easily walk when it's flashing depending on when it started. I wouldn't walk on a red in front of a cop though…
That doesn't mean the law isn't ridiculous. Although given 6 upvotes for you, 0 for me, it seems everyone disagrees.
I simply don't need the government to control absolutely everything for me.
Gay marriage is illegal so they shouldn't complain. They know it's illegal. It's the law, and they should just shut up and accept it. The government knows best. Right? A very extreme example, however I don't believe in "the government say XYZ is wrong and if you don't be a good sheep you deserved to be punished". Jury nullification exists for a reason, because laws aren't black & white and often are too broad and aren't applicable a lot of the time. They're often very contradictory: such as being trusted to vote, drive a car, have a child - yet considered too stupid to determine whether it's safe to cross a road or not. Just because some random people at some point wrote down some rules doesn't make them right.
@rochow:
I definitely agree that this law and many others can be ridiculous when they are enforced, but I find that it is easier, and cheaper, to just go with it.
There are ways to go about getting things changed (like raising awareness/protests/speaking to government reps) but I think that breaking petty laws because you don't agree with them will only cause you to become poorer and not change the laws for the better. You do always have the opportunity to take the matter to the courts if you feel that you are wronged by the laws/actions of the police.
I think that they tend to do the occasional crackdown on jaywalking in CBD areas more to discourage the action than to raise money. If you have pedestrians quickly getting across at the very end of the flashing red cycle cars who should have been able to make turns in the amber stage may miss their opportunity and be stranded in the intersection on the opposite green (have seen this many times in several different Australian cities)
Essentially they will not enforce jaywalking in Australia unless you put yourself/others in danger by doing so, or about every 6 months or so outside train stations and major intersections where they place obvious uniformed officers and get the oblivious jaywalkers.
But all in all it really is a personal choice, I'm never in a rush to get anywhere so don't find the prospect of standing at the red watching the world go by to be a big issue.If you interfere with traffic it's a fair fine. If someone starts turning, you walk out, they stop with nowhere to go and get cleaned up by a car coming through… very real possibility.
I don't consider myself a free spirit, at times I find the government just stifling. And they want to filter the internet - great!
As long as they write in green pen, hurts my feelings when they use red ;)
@rochow:
I also find the government stifling in many ways, but it's the necessary evil to living in this country I guess.
If the government starts filtering the internet I'll be on the front line doing all I can to stop that crap! It's bad enough with web filters at work…Enough they made laws?
That quote is a bit out of context, the full is, "I cross when it's safe - no matter what any red or green man says".
They are guides, they don't actually know when it is or isn't safe. If it's showing it's not safe to cross but it actually is, I'll cross. If it says it's safe but it's not, I won't.
Like you said, most people cross when they think it's safe to cross, including the ones who died, got hit by a car or nearly got hit by one.
Everyone's ability to judge whether it's safe or not varies, hence traffic lights to make everyone's movement predictable and also to increase awareness.
It exists in other countries, because unlike Australia (ironically) they know that the law can often be very outdated or downright stupid, and at times it's not applicable to enforce because it was not written to cover a situation such as one they've been presented to adjudicate on.
The only pedestrian I've seen killed was walking on a green (corner of Queensberry and Lygon, Melbourne). I find if you're walking on a green, you are paying far less attention to your surrounds because you are assume you're safe whereas cars are running red lights every day. I prefer to trust my own judgment.
The automated sign and fines are there because when a pedestrian gets hit, we use tax payer’s funds to either scrap them up or heal them.
Your family, emergency services and tax payers are forced accept the consequences should you be unlucky enough to be hit.
I always wait. Having witnessed two separate incidents where a pedestrian has been hit whilst crossing on a red man, I am happy to wait that extra few seconds. We also had a guy killed in front of my work because he didn't want to cross the long way round so just weaved his way through the stopped traffic and then got collected by a car speeding up the turning lane trying to catch the arrow. I think there are more accidents than people realise.
I also like to be a good example to any children or teenagers watching, they aren't as good at judging traffic so should really wait for the green man - but aren't exactly encouraged to when everyone else seems to disregard it.
im totaly ok with this.
pedestrians can get away with alot , and most times they dont impede traffic , but if you have multiple officers covering one section all day @ 74$ per ticket , you gotta be getting a fair few tickets that day to warrant it.
people immediately think its a money grab , sometimes it is , but ALOT of people have got to be doing the wrong thing to make these "traps" financially feasible.
its like when people complain about fines from red light cameras or speed cameras or about getting a ticket for not stopping for a stop sign and use the excuse but nobody was around i wasnt hurting anyone excuse, possibly but if these things do go unmonitored they can get out of hand, and its the cbd man, if 1 person gets hit and a cars airbag goes off that lanes gonna be blocked for like min 20-45 mins, thats a gigantic inconvenience, and airbags arnt that hard to set off..
There's a store 100m from the intersection. It's fine for me to cross. Why in the world should I be fined? It's stupid to think an adult needs to walk hundreds of extra metres to an intersection instead of crossing wherever. The same adult who can command a vehicle, yet is apparently not clever enough to walk 5m across a road without being hit by one.
As mentioned above, walking out in front of cars and them having to avoid you is a different scenario. That would fall under the same category as being a nuisance whether on foot, bike or car.
https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-r…
Pedestrians are not allowed to:
cross the road within 20 metres of a pedestrian crossing - they must use the crossing
The rule is the same in NSW.
If you don't want to obey the lights. Don't cross at them, go 20 metres in either direction. Problem solved.
Why in the world should I be fined? It's stupid to think an adult needs to walk hundreds of extra metres to an intersection instead of crossing wherever. The same adult who can command a vehicle, yet is apparently not clever enough to walk 5m across a road without being hit by one.
So why have traffic controls at all, let's just have it free reign and we can all work out who can go and who can't at the intersections by ourselves. Who needs traffic lights?
The point is, traffic controls increase efficiency. By having traffic lights, intersections become more efficient and more cars can pass through. Same with pedestrian crossings. I'm not sure if you've ever driven through the Melbourne CBD, probably not because you're from QLD, but it really is an exercise in not hitting people. They pop across the road everywhere and it's actually a hazard.
Walking when it's safe vs walking in front of cars are different things though. If you interfere with traffic it's no different to being on a bike or a car, it's dangerous and a fine is acceptable.
.i.e. some common sense needs to apply based on each scenario.
@rochow: I personally think that a fine is perfectly acceptable for the group of people in OP's situation who barge across the road right when the light has turned red and then cars have to wait for them. It's no different to running a red light when you are in a car.
It's not dangerous, perhaps, but it's a nuisance to drivers because by the time the pedestrians have cleared, only a few cars are able to go before it's red for the cars again.
In this case, it's completely safe to walk because the cars won't motor you down, but it's a nuisance to everyone on the road and it causes traffic jams and is simply unorderly.
@paulsterio:
I misread his initial post which is why I commented in the first place. Solid red in front of cops, well, that's pretty stupid :)By safe I mean you're able to cross the road without interfering, so if a car had to change it's action because of you (such as dawdling across after it's red), you're interfering. Safe for you (not getting hit), and safe for all other road users (not having to take evasive action or end up stranded in an intersection).
I think this is a complete non-issue. It's a simple case of knowingly taking a risk and breaking the law and then complaining about it afterwards.
The truth is, everyone speeds, everyone jaywalks, everyone runs red lights, everyone occasionally parks for too long, everyone makes mistakes like this.
But when you're at a pedestrian crossing and you see a bunch of cops standing around and you still choose to break the law, then that's really your own fault. Arguing about whether this is "nanny state" or whether the cops should be there or not is irrelevant, you did the wrong thing and you got caught, that's just bad luck and you took that risk when you chose to do what you did.
Have to agree with you. Incidentally, the crackdown on jay walkers in the Melbourne CBD has been going on intermittently for while:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/police-target-jaywalkers-a…
Seems like you may get a fine for scratching yourself the wrong way in Victoria these days.
What's the go down there? They seem red hot on fining drivers.They regularly have these stings in sydney. To be honest, if you can't spot 2 or more policemen in high vis, you shouldnt be crossing the road on red and deserve the fine.
Was in a taxi going through the city, and people just step onto the street oblivious to any traffic. I understand why people get killed/police issue tickets
Agreed, be aware of you surroundings and if you can't spot people who are trying to be visible than you shouldn't risk crossing a road when the lights are about to change
Just to clarified on that day, we are following the big crowd to cross the road when the red man still blinking but when we almost finish our crossing the red man completely stop blinking. We are not realised that there are 2 police officer was standing there and only two of us were selected. We're not arguing with the police, just consider a bad luck on that day and learn a new lesson. I believe on that day the authority may issuing a lot of ticket because I saw the police man have to flicking a few pages to record the my details. But as my understanding, if you're on the pedestrian while the red man still blinking, you should be able to finish your journey with no rush. If you think that you can't finish the crossing on that time limit then better don't step in and just wait.
I do understand that the drivers in Melbourne are very frustrated about the pedestrian crossing especially in peak hour. But the pedestrian got the right to cross the road and the vehicle have to give way. Just for our own safety it is not worth to take the risk. If the pedestrian are the major cause of traffic jam than the authority should review the road planning.
But the pedestrian got the right to cross the road and the vehicle have to give way
no.
Pedestrians have the right to cross the road when the signal allows. As for vehicles "must give way", the law is written in a way that you can't just bowl through a crowd of people in your car just because you have a green light.
I know somebody who accidentally killed a jaywalker, and she has to live with that for the rest of her life. Just FYI they didn't penalise her.
If the pedestrian are the major cause of traffic jam than the authority should review the road planning.
ummm they do. At the moment the traffic congestion is made worse by pedestrians and drivers blocking intersections.
Years ago, I was driving in the city. The pedestrian light had turned red and this woman walked casually to cross the street. She blocked the traffic on a narrow 2 lanes road. When I horned, she gave me the death stare with the same attitude as the OP that pedestrians have more rights than drivers.
I'm not arguing who is more entitled to what but you really do need to have common sense. Being hit by a car is no small matter.
But the pedestrian got the right to cross the road and the vehicle have to give way.
No, that's not true. If you cross the road, unless it is at a signed crossing or at the lights, you have to give way to vehicles.
If the pedestrian are the major cause of traffic jam than the authority should review the road planning.
No, they should fine people who blatantly contribute to that. If pedestrians obeyed the law and didn't try to push it, then everything would be fine. Have you ever been in a car and seen a whole bunch of people rush to cross the road right before it turns red and hold up traffic - yeah, that's what causes the traffic jams.
If you are crossing an intersection with no lights and cars are turning, cars have to give way to you (similar to a car who is going straight). In saying that, it would be SUICIDE to actually do that.
Same applies with "shared zones", same thing though, you can be in the right but you'll also be dead.
This explains why so many people get run over, a the driver just drives off leaving them to die, because the driver had right of way! It sounds a bit 3rd world'ish.
Can you provide a link to the law which says you are allowed to hit pedestrians when the driver has right of way?
And are you willing to kill someones mother, father or child on the basis you think you have right of way?
Can you provide a link to the law which says you are allowed to hit pedestrians when the driver has right of way?
I think you've misunderstood what hes trying to say.
- Pedestrians have the responsibility to give way to vehicles when crossing the road (outside green man lights/pedestrian crossings)
- Drivers have a responsibility to stop at lights/crossings and avoid collisions with pedestrians.
The law is written in a way that drivers can't just bowl through people because they have the right of way.
EDIT - Davo's spot on with what I was trying to say :)
Where did I ever talk about hitting anyone. Having the right of way simply means that if a person wants to cross a road and a car is going straight along, then the person has to give way to the car. This has got nothing to do with hitting people. Small minded people often think that laws regarding right of way are simply to prevent accidents. No, it is to ensure more predictable behaviour on the road so that the roads are more efficient.
When you are turning, you give way to cars going straight - that's an example of right of way. If you decide to plough out anyway, chances are, the car going straight would want to avoid an accident and stop. Exactly the same as if a pedestrian were to cross the road. Even though the car going straight has the right of way, he will obviously want to stop to avoid a collision. But a road system where everyone just goes isn't very efficient, there will be lots of stopping and starting and obviously, lots of risk.
I never said that drivers are allowed to hit pedestrians. We're not talking about killing people, that's manslaughter. We are talking about accidents.
If an accident were to occur because a pedestrian stepped out in front of a car that's going straight and proceeds to get hit, unintentionally, by the car, then absolutely, the driver won't be liable for any charges because he had the right of way.
Refer to Davo's post just above.
I know somebody who accidentally killed a jaywalker, and she has to live with that for the rest of her life. Just FYI they didn't penalise her.
Obviously wasn't punished as she had the right of way and wasn't doing anything wrong.
You beat me to it :(
Australian drivers are really really nice in terms of giving the pedestrians the road. I have lived in Beijing before Olympics, and the drivers there were crazy…
Also, I hate bringing money and compensation onto a talk about accidents which should never happen, but I think if the pedestrian was crossing the road on red light, I think the driver is not completely responsible for the compensation as the pedestrian was not mean to be on the road.
Edit: Though technically, driver is at fault because technically, drivers always have to have full attention to the road and have to be able to stop. It becomes a double liability sort of thing.
Also, I hate bringing money and compensation onto a talk..
Yes it is completely irrelevant.
In Victoria this is sorted out by the TAC and is a 'no-fault' scheme. This means that medical benefits will be paid to an injured person regardless of who caused the accident.
@Baysew: Wow, that's really good. :P I have based my statement on other states. Though I have to say, that sounds expensive policy to run, even though it is very nice, for government.
Well at least the money goes to the injured rather than lawyers figuring out the technicalities of who is at fault and what the vibe is with double liability.
Though technically, driver is at fault because technically, drivers always have to have full attention to the road and have to be able to stop. It becomes a double liability sort of thing.
Think of scenario, If any old person or person with leg injury can't walk fast enough to cross in time from green to red. Should they get ticket overtime, I hope NO.
I think OP shouldn't be getting a fine for this.
As OP said, if pedestrians are major cause of traffic jam, then yes, government should review the road planning and make some bridge for pedestrians.
Depends if the old person or injured person crossed before or while the red blinking man was on. In this case, op seems to have crossed while on red, so your scenario is irrelevant.
If any old person or person with leg injury can't walk fast enough to cross in time from green to red. Should they get ticket overtime, I hope NO.
If they start crossing on green, they're allowed to do that. If they began crossing on red, they deserve the fine. The injury is irrelevant in the situation.
No, it's exactly the same as with cars, it's measured from when you pass the solid white line.
In a car, as long as you have passed the solid white line as the lights turn red, you're not going to get a fine.
Same as with pedestrians, if you don't begin to cross (i.e. step onto the road) after the light has turned red, then that's okay. It says clearly at most crossings "Flashing Red Man = DO NOT CROSS". It can't be simpler.
Sorry but you're wrong.
First, the amber light means stop unless it's unsafe to do so.
So if you're over the white line and it turns red, getting a ticket it depends if it was safe to stop on the amber or not.Pedestrians, do not have amber lights.
Flashing red means finish crossing, but do not start to cross.No, you're wrong.
If you are over the white line when the lights turn red, you do not receive a fine. If you are not yet over the white line, but proceed to go anyway, then you do receive a fine.
It's that simple. There is no judgement involved of what is "safe" and what is "not safe". That's how the red light cameras work, they snap a photo if you cross after it is red. Easy.
Amber light means stop unless it is not safe to do so.
Failing to stop if it is safe will result in a fine from a police officer, not a camera.A camera may not snap you, but a police officer will fine you instead if they believe you would have been able to stop safely. One way of determining this is if I was in front of you and was able to stop myself, worse yet is if I've been stopped for some time.
Road Safety Rules 2009
Part 6
Division 1
Rule 57
Page 53http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/LTObjSt5.nsf/DDE300B846EED9C7CA257616000A3571/A1EA37D8E6E0E200CA257761003FFFBF/$FILE/09-94sr003.pdf
Does anyone know how far away from a pedestrian crossing you must be to be able to legally cross the street without having to use the pedestrian crossing?
e.g. if it's 50m away do you have to walk to it and use it? I presume there is some number. I cross a street near my place every day about 20m from a pedestrian crossing and I am literally in front of the local Police station when I cross. Been doing that for 30 years in front of the Police station and they have never said anything. I guess those cops have better things to do or maybe 20m from the crossing means I dont need to go down to use it as I'm too far.
This is NSW by the way.20m is okay :)
20m apparently
my singapore friend told me that unlike when they were a colony, they enforce jaywalking fines
the tourists tend to get caught as the locals have been well trained by the fine city
we have lost many civic values along the way to our me first society where we get away with murder
so when it is enforced we scream bloody murdermalaysia even seems to follow this
and they are more free wheelingrubbish. how would they even enforce a fine on a tourist who will probably be 1000s of miles away next week. they might catch tourists but i bet 99% of them get off with a warning.
I jaywalked. Was 5 lanes from memory. However, need to keep in mind some blocks are LONG because they just have the lanes coming off them. Who is going to walk kilometres to the next intersection to cross?
Some locals crossed as well however they looked rather hesitant, so assuming it's not too common over there.
ummm they do it all the time in other countries, if you can't pay on the spot, you go to the police station until they can sort it out. It's only in the first world countries they hand the fine onto immigration and make your life hell next time you try and re-enter the country
lol what? In Singapore, they pass the fine onto immigration and you aren't getting out till you pay the fine.
I was almost fine for crossing latrobe street and swanston street, when the pedestrian crossing was red. This was at 3am when there was no road traffic.
They were checking my id and everything when a group of drunks started creating trouble. The officer told me. "You are off the hook. The sergeant has bigger fish to fry."
I should have seen them but I walked from Chapel street and all I could think about was a double whopper. I was dazzled by the bright lights of Hungry Jack
At 3 am a double whopper sounds interesting.
He got the munchies…lol
Partied on Chapel street, was trying to catch a cab and ended up walking.
The philosophical argument is "If a tree falls in the forest and noone is around to hear it, should it get a ticket??
it is pretty normal to get fine for jaywalking in Melbourne CBD. I have seen a few people getting fined near southern cross crossing. Even a friend of mine got fined for doing it. Now days I always look around for police if I am about to cross the road during red light, which I rarely do anyway, unless in a hurry. BTW you are breaking a rule by walking when the red man is blinking.. it is blinking because it means no one should cross now, but those who already have crossed during green light, it should be ok for them. Kind of like yellow light for driving, except you are sometimes allowed to go through yellow light, but not blinking man because you are not travelling at 60km/h and you have enough time to stop without hurting your feet. Be responsible.
Let them jaywalk and think they're better than the rules designed to protect them!
It's about time we cleaned up the gene pool and let nature take its course in eliminating stupidity!
Except when these idiots are taken to hospital and in for emergency surgery and rehabilitation afterwards, it's taxpayers that foot the bill.
So what you are saying is you broke the law and you got a ticket.
Coppers are such pigs! Why aren't they out arresting people breaking laws instead of harassing normal everyday people.
I agree they shouldnt be allowed to fine people who are using proper judgement.
If they make a mistake, then so be it. Policing should be for criminals!
The same applies to drivers. If the light is red and they think they can make it safely they should be free to do so. Like the pedestrian they are humans and they should be free to do what they want without government nanny state controls.
I want to pee now, so why cant I just pee where and when I like. I can do it safely. I mean peeing in public hurts no one. Hell dogs can do number1's whenever they like, why cant I?
Why cant we be free to do what we like when we like, I dont like the way they look at me, it's them not me
Damn governments protecting us from us!!!! Who elects these fools!!
If you want to live in that sort of society, why don't you move to a country where you can and won't be fined. And then when you managed to get hit, you'd have to pocket your hospital bills.
- 1
- 2
Never had a fine but you gotta be careful especially when in the CBD. The Victorian police haven't yet figured out that we are all taught how to cross the road at the age of 3 and don't need someone to hold our hand anymore.
Also find it ridiculous the amount of cops they have policing crossings in the city sometimes… 2 cops at each set ped crossing both ways. .. 16 cops at one intersection. .. plus 2 in the road. . ridiculous waste of money and resources if you ask me