Got Fined for Stopping in No Stopping Area and Fine Letter is Threatening

voldemart on 18/08/2016 - 14:10

Long story short, got fined for stopping in a no stopping area in front Springvale (VIC) shopping center. Thing was, I was blocked by the car in front mine, whose driver decided to stop and wait for car parking space. It took me about 10 secs to finally decide that that car was not going to move any time soon and I managed to pull out to my right and drove off. Apparently I was spotted by a parking inspector and got a fine!

It wasn't an intersection or anything. To me it's like you get fined for be stuck in the traffic in the left most lane while in front a no stopping sign.

The picture is here. The blue rectangle is roughly where my car was and the red circle is the stop sign.

The other thing is the no stop sign is quite far back from my car so I don't even know if it should even apply to my car at the time? All the information from various sources I could find was all very light on detail, so I am keen to find the relevant laws themselves on this.

In summary, my questions are

  1. do I have a groud if I argue I was being blocked by the car in front of me.
  2. if the stop sign applies to my car at the time, given it's quite far back.
  3. I will ask for a review - do I have the right to ask for the pictures taken the inspectors for the fine?
  4. Assume the review doesn't work, and I take it court (and lose), what's rough $$? Will I also get a conviction under my name?

Thank you for your advice in advance. BTW the language they used in the letter is quite threatening, I quote

"…Notice is intended to give you an opportunity to pay the legal penalty without having a conviction recorded against your name and having to pay legal costs which are involved with court cases"

In the letter a request for review was never mentioned as an option. I firstly thought it's not even possible with this council (Greater Dandenong). Only by chance did I find out online it's actually an option. In my eyes it's crafted to deter potential appeals in court (so they can get away with their own mistakes) instead of informing the fine recipient's rights. It in itself is disgusting and should be illegal in my view.

Automotive

Comments

  • pyramid on 18/08/2016 - 14:13
    +31

    Where is threat ? It's same letter that they send it to all people. It tells that pay fine or go to court . Nothing life threatening here.

    • voldemart on 18/08/2016 - 15:53
      +7

      I am more unhappy about the fact that they don't tell you review is an option. My local council does that and I believe many others also do that.

      Also don't you think they word it in the way that sounds they are doing you a favour. Again my local council put the facts: we are fining you because of this, if disagree you can review, if review fails you can go to court. Simple as that.

      • Gronk on 18/08/2016 - 17:27

        Review is always an option, you'll need to make a written application to the council who issued the infringement and will most likely need to be able to provide some physical evidence that backs your stance.

        I had a parking infringement overturned recently and in that instance the infringement notice clearly defined the grounds under which you may successfully apply to have it revoked, most of them involved some sort of life threatening emergency or medical situation but nothing's stopping you from spinning the wheel.

      • srnoz on 20/08/2016 - 18:08
        +4

        Try your luck with reviewing. After all nothing to more to lose by reviewing. But my experience with Dandenong Council was pretty shit.

        On my first day of driving after moving to Aus 3 years ago, I parked at Dandenong market. I didn't know that parking machines don't accept cards. Rushed into Aldi got some coins (bought an onion bag as I wasn't sure whether they would be happy to just give changes), paid for parking and when I got back to the car, parking inspector had issued the fine. Explained him and he asked me review with the council. 6mins delay between parking fine and my parking ticket.

        Applied for review with all evidence, all turned down. Council was so rude in their reply. Even met with an officer. Only offer was a payment plan in 3 instalments as I had no income at that time. Was extremely pissed off. But realised it is a waste of time to trying any further for $75 fine and copped it.

        Wish you good luck! I hate to say, but be ready to accept the refusal to cop the fine as it is sometimes not worth the time and stress!!

        • expatOz on 20/08/2016 - 21:24
          +3

          Just $75 fine?

        • srnoz on 20/08/2016 - 22:56
          +2

          @3zzy:
          Not sure on what context you meant it. It was $75 + the parking fee.
          It was a significant amount as there was no income at that time for my family. But I wasted too much time with no favourable response. Appealed twice and had a meeting with an officer to explain. Felt like day light robbery.

        • callum9999 on 21/08/2016 - 05:04

          That's a completely different scenario though. You knowingly parked in a space without buying a ticket - there's no provision for you to park now and buy a ticket later when you get change.

          And how would you demonstrate that you were buying onions for change anyway? You could have just seen the inspector by the car and walked over to buy a parking ticket afterwards.

          Leniency would have been nice in your case, but going by the book it's open and shut.

        • srnoz on 21/08/2016 - 12:18
          +2

          @callum9999:
          Mate, I had no intentions to not to get a parking ticket. I would be an idiot not get a parking ticket when the signs are so visible. Just that I didn't know before hand to have coins and It was my first day I drove my self in Aus and first time to Aldi. Lesson learnt hard way. Since then, my car always got coins.

          Anyway I just wanted to share my story and help OP to overcome the frustrations in case OP's appeals are rejected as I felt same.

          I sometimes laugh at my onion purchase when I share the story as I later learnt that I could have simply got a change without any purchases unlike in my previous country where retailers get grumpy to give change without a purchase.

        • callum9999 on 21/08/2016 - 13:25
          +2

          @srnoz: I wasn't judging you or insinuating you weren't going to get a ticket, I'm just saying that despite your intention to buy one you were clearly parked without a ticket at the time the inspector saw you - so the fine was completely legitimate (incredibly annoying agreed, but legitimate). I fully believe you were about to buy a ticket (why would you lie here!) but it's also an excuse anyone could use.

          Your experience therefore doesn't mean the same will happen with the OP as they were mistakenly thought to be parked - though it seems that they shouldn't have been there anyway.

        • ItsMeAgro on 22/08/2016 - 09:43
          +3

          @3zzy:

          Just $75 fine?

          A fellow New South Welshman!

          Mate, I went on holiday up to Queensland and got a speeding fine there… 50% off! Almost posted it to OzBargain!

  • godofpizza on 18/08/2016 - 14:17
    1. do I have a groud if I argue I was being blocked by the car in front of me.

    do you have dash cam footage to prove this? i might be helpful to prove your case.

    i know that particular area/spot is really bad with double parkers and foot traffic. i've avoided that rd and looked for parking in the outer roads.

  • smashed on 18/08/2016 - 14:17

    Can you provide a streetview link?

    Found it: https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.9509116,145.1512065,3a,7…

    • Baysew on 18/08/2016 - 14:47

      Streetview

      It is a one way street. Could there be an issue where OP actually stopped ?

  • smashed on 18/08/2016 - 14:27
    +7

    I don't know the law but it seems a bit iffy to me that the sign is set back on the pavement and yet they are saying you cannot stop to the left (which is a road further in front). If they don't want people to stop there then they should mark the road or put the sign by the kerb.

    If I was new to the area I would be 100% oblivious that I couldn't stop to drop a passenger off (which you say that you were not doing anyway).

    Simple answer, appeal and advise that you were stuck behind a car which decided to stop to wait for parking. Ask for photographic evidence (which they would need to win in court) and tell them that if they review this they should see that you were blocked in.

    You will no doubt win if you are telling us the truth :)

    • Kangal on 19/08/2016 - 21:58
      +3

      Great advice, I was just about to suggest the same.

      Instead of trying to argue your point with people who don't even want to talk with you.
      Just state you were on a legal road, in a one-way street, and blocked by another car in front.
      State that doesn't qualify as parking.
      And ask them for photographic evidence, since they are the ones making A CLAIM against you.

      If they do present photos with you, obviously you will lose, and worse than that will feel a sense of shame for being disgenuine with OzBagrs.

      • Finde on 20/08/2016 - 11:58
        +1

        They don't need to provide photographic evidence? The parking inspector is providing evidence the this person was parked illegally.

        • Kangal on 20/08/2016 - 15:03

          If you dispute it, yes, they do.
          Or prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you infringed their condition of use.

        • heal on 20/08/2016 - 17:44
          +4

          @Kangal: They don't have to provide photographic evidence, however if you take it to court your testimony will create reasonable doubt. If they don't have a photo to refute the reasonable doubt, the infringement will be dismissed

        • Finde on 20/08/2016 - 20:11
          +4

          @heal:

          I don't think you guys have any idea how the court system works in Victoria.

          Source: Victorian police officer who deals with courts on a regular basis.

        • [Deactivated] on 20/08/2016 - 20:39
          +2

          @Finde: court system works in Victoria by people not knowing their rights or the law to be able to make a successful defense, not having enough time on their hands to show up in court to fight it, or actually being guilty with adequate evidence of such … Unless you are suggesting that the court system in Victoria is corrupt

        • Finde on 20/08/2016 - 23:43

          @The Land of Smeg:

          Well for example, where they said, "if they don't have a photo to refute the reasonable doubt, the infringement will be dismissed".

          That is completely incorrect. The ticketing officer provides a statement to say this is what the driver did, this is what I observed, this is why I issued the infringement. It is then up to the driver to prove how the ticket inspector is wrong.

          Just like with police, it is the part of the ticket inspectors profession to know the law and when infringements etc are appropriate. Therefore, just because some person that is annoyed about receiving a ticket stands up and says it's not true, doesn't mean the magistrate has to believe anything the person says. The magistrate can choose to believe that person is lying to get out of the ticket.

          Also from experience, this person is not telling the whole truth. They always try to bend the truth to somewhat suit them and make them look innocent. I guess I'm just cynical though because I only ever see the worst side of people.

        • [Deactivated] on 21/08/2016 - 04:51
          +1

          @Finde: lacking any harder evidence (video/photo/independent witness/confession) the officers'/inspectors' expert testimony is very effective at producing a confession, and officers are extremely well trained at asking questions/making statements which evoke confessions.

          The officers'/inspectors' expertise is sufficient to issue the tickets in the first place (and for the issuing agency to back their officers up in the case of a formal review).

          Yes people lie in court all the time.

          But when it comes to actually being court, I'd like to believe that the laws are actually being applied correctly based on actual evidence and law, if the defendant can show that there is reasonable doubt about the officer/inspector's word/own judgement.

          You are right if there is no reasonable doubt about the officer/inspector's testimony as a witness, and you'd have to have a convincing story about why the officer/inspector is wrong

        • heal on 21/08/2016 - 09:49
          +1

          @Finde:

          I don't think you guys have any idea how the court system works in Victoria.

          True, I have only given evidence in Victoria once, though I found no major differences in the few hours I sat in the court to NSW where I have given evidence on numerous occasions.

          Edit; and rather than me saying "the infringement will be dismissed" I should have said "the infringement will most likely be dismissed". What the public sees as reasonable doubt is not how magistrates see things in my experience. A defendant only has to raise a slightly plausible alternate story for a charge to be dismissed.

        • Kangal on 21/08/2016 - 12:45

          @heal:
          Exactly.

          It sounds like this ends up as a "he said, she said" scenario.
          And in that case, the magistrate does NOT side with the Police Officer or infringement issuers.
          They actually decide who is more likely truthful, or deserving.

          As a statistic, you could make the argument that more of the times they will side with the officer.
          But if you present your case well, and the prosecutor fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are infringing… then the magistrate will side with the defence.

          At the end of it all, you have to wonder…. is it worth it?

        • heal on 21/08/2016 - 13:42
          +2

          @Kangal:
          That's why every police officer I know wants ICV and body worn cameras. Not only will help with prosecutions but help with vexatious complains.

        • stonkered on 21/08/2016 - 18:52
          -2

          @heal:

          So in absence of any other evidence, merely contesting the fine at court will cause a reasonable doubt and therefore CASE DISMISSED!?

          Lol, quite the loophole!

        • stonkered on 21/08/2016 - 18:53
          -1

          @Kangal:

          Lol, where are you guys getting this stuff?

        • heal on 21/08/2016 - 19:58

          So in absence of any other evidence, merely contesting the fine at court will cause a reasonable doubt and therefore CASE DISMISSED!?

          Lol, quite the clown

        • Kangal on 21/08/2016 - 20:48

          @stonkered:

          From court.
          You go there to settle matters.

          Just because someone has made a claim on you, does not necessarily mean it was under fair conditions.
          You go there and plead your case.
          And if you're convincing, then "justice will be served".

          It may not be a perfect system, but it is the most perfect one that we have.
          Don't forget we still have "justice systems" like North Korea or Saudi Arabia still in 2016.

        • stonkered on 22/08/2016 - 08:40

          @heal:

          Must be this clown misunderstood your post cos it seems like you're saying all you have to do to get out of a fine is take it to court and provided the issuer has no evidence, and it's a 'he said, she said' scenario, it will get dismissed?

          I know as little about the law as the next person, but common sense tells me that won't hold water.

        • heal on 22/08/2016 - 12:22

          @stonkered:
          You said that merely contesting the fine will cause reasonable doubt.

          My point is that based on what the op says, if it comes down to a hearing at court, the infringement will most likely be dismissed. The parking inspector will give evidence and can be cross examined by the op. The op needs to ask is how long the parking inspector observed the vehicle in front for? Can s/he describe the vehicle in front? What was it doing? Describe the road, etc, etc? Put it to the inspector that the ops vehicle was not parked but stuck in traffic. Won't be hard to create reasonable doubt. Create an alternate 'reasonable' account. It doesn't even need to contradict the inspector. I see it all the time.

          I changed my comment to "the infringement will most likely be dismissed". I'm no expert in Victorian courts but I am in NSW. You said that you know little about the law but yet you make a sarcastic comment.

          Lol, quite the loophole!

          Therefore I called you a clown.

        • gimme on 22/08/2016 - 13:40
          -1

          I've been seeing 'reasonable doubt' thrown around quite a bit on this thread. Since when RD was applied in civil matters as a criteria for burden of proof? It's all about the preponderance of evidence in these types of cases and more often than not (rightly or wrongly) the council will generally have more credibility with the magistrate - Unless of course the magistrate has had shitty experiences with said council/inspector in which case you may be in luck.
          Having said that, the odds are 50/50 if you are somewhat articulate and present well.

        • [Deactivated] on 22/08/2016 - 16:44
          +1

          @gimme: Road Rules are under Criminal Code, not Civil

        • gimme on 23/08/2016 - 06:30
          -1

          @The Land of Smeg:

          Burden of proof is NOT beyond a reasonable doubt

  • k-rokfm on 18/08/2016 - 14:31
    +6

    First thing you should do is ask for the evidence that they have. In most cases this will be photos but in your case i would assume that they would not have had a chance to get photos. In the case that they do have photos hopefully it should show that you were still driving on the road as opposed to stopping as per the fine and then you can go from there

    • [Deactivated] on 20/08/2016 - 11:01
      +2

      How can you tell by a photo if a car was moving or not anyway?

      • Thenarrator on 20/08/2016 - 11:18
        +1

        i know right.

        • Kangal on 20/08/2016 - 15:06
          +2

          Well…if there's no driver you know its not moving.

          Unless its a fancy new self-driving car that's taking itself for a joyride. ; )

  • SnoozeAndLose on 18/08/2016 - 14:37
    +4

    First ask for a photo/evidence, if the photo did not slow that someone is getting on and off your car, you could argue that you are moving in a very slow motion.

    If they can not prove that you are actually stopping here, you should be fine.

    • Thenarrator on 20/08/2016 - 11:18

      is the burden of proof on them or on you?

      • Finde on 20/08/2016 - 11:59
        +1

        Burden of proof for traffic matters is on the person contesting the ticket.

        • Thenarrator on 20/08/2016 - 12:31
          +1

          i disagree. a step back, why was there a traffic matter to begin with. It resides with the party which brought up the traffic matter. ie rangers

      • SnoozeAndLose on 20/08/2016 - 13:10

        Ranger need to take photos as evident these days, with no evident from them the fine is easily contested.

  • tomsco on 18/08/2016 - 14:40

    Hey OP, first off, I do believe you - there's no reason for you to lie here and ask for advice when incorrect advice won't help.

    Just out of interest though, that looks like quite a wide one way street. Is there any reason why you were so far over to the left?

    • godofpizza on 18/08/2016 - 14:50

      probably trying to look for a parking spot.

    • voldemart on 18/08/2016 - 14:51
      +2

      the pedestrian crossing I had just crossed was narrow and only allows for one car, so I followed the car in front of me without thinking too much.

        • voldemart on 18/08/2016 - 15:50
          +3

          No I was questioning why it was a no stopping zone. I mentioned merely to indicate it wasn't an intersection - or I would wait until the car in front me enough room before I drove ahead. I was simply saying I was stuck there unexpectedly.

  • kumars47 on 18/08/2016 - 15:19
    +1

    I would ask for evidence from the council. Its worth a shot especially if you know you have done nothing wrong.
    Once for a friend of mine asked for evidence and they sent him a letter not long after and say they are withdrawing the fine, keep in mind this was for a speeding fine.

  • Ryanek on 18/08/2016 - 15:23
    +2

    You may very well be innocent, but sorry I'm siding with the council on this one. You had no reason to pull to the left after crossing the intersection so it will be tricky to argue your case. You said yourself you weren't thinking much.

    The road markings clearly encourage motorists to keep to the right. https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.9524739,145.1508181,161a…

    • voldemart on 18/08/2016 - 15:46
      +1

      Thanks for your reply. If you ever been to that place around lunch time on a Saturday you would know you have to take every single opportunity to clear that crossing. To give you an idea, it took me at least 10 mins to get across it after the roundabout, which is about 20 meters away. People kept crossing the street so I had to follow the car in front me really closely in the hope that I can use the same opening to cross it, and they happened to be on the left trying to get a car park..

      I know some of you may say it's my fault to be so close - but let me just say if every road rule was followed, I would still be stuck there right now.

      • vtecdohc on 18/08/2016 - 17:42

        everyone likes to stop there to wait for a spot. The left lane is always full of people double parking.

      • cameldownunder on 19/08/2016 - 12:18

        I see from the Google map, that there are 2 big fat white arrows. My teacher told me to consider such arrows as a wall.

        You have to follow the rules of the road, not the car in front of you. You cannot say "The car in front of me run the red light, so I did it too".

        If you would have pulled to the right, as per road signal, you would not have been stuck behind the other car, which is ( my guess ) the purpose of those signs.

        Anyway. Good Luck if Trying.

        • [Deactivated] on 20/08/2016 - 21:37
          +1

          I think its different if the car is stopping. Isnt it is our duty to avoid an accident?

          The car stopped for no good reason but i "follow the rules of the road, not the car in front of me", so I ploughed on through.

          I see what you mean about the arrows though. Does this mean that its a one lane road down to the roundabout?

        • callum9999 on 21/08/2016 - 05:10

          @lolbbq: What rule of the road would you be breaking if you chose not to stop when the car in front of you did and you couldn't drive around it?

        • [Deactivated] on 21/08/2016 - 17:15

          @callum9999: Not sure but you would certainly be responsible for the damage and injuries.

        • Gravy on 21/08/2016 - 21:44

          @callum9999: negligent driving?

        • cameldownunder on 23/08/2016 - 15:37

          @lolbbq: The car in front should have gone to the right, according signs on the road, and so the OP. Then the car in front stopped near the kurb, so did the OP. Of course this looks like both cars have stopped in a no-stopping zone. If OP would have followed the signs on the road, he probably would have passed the car in front of him ( that stopped ) to the right, or would have come to a stop NOT close to the curb.

  • JoFord63 on 18/08/2016 - 15:32

    I must be missing something. Either the other car arrived first and you managed to squeeze in … to a No Stopping zone. Or the other car arrived after you parked … in a No Stopping zone.

    • voldemart on 18/08/2016 - 15:38

      No, I was just following the car in front me. The road widens immediately after the ped crossing. The new space becomes the parking area and I kept on my previous lane and was blocked by the car in front of me.

      • JoFord63 on 18/08/2016 - 15:45
        -3

        I understand that this might be a first time error, but please take notice of it. The infringement notices are a warning to you … not a warning of bad things happening to you, but a warning that your driving behaviour in this instance may have caused bad things to happen to other people.

        I know I am too sensitive about pretty much everything, but when I was young, a woman just in front of me on a pedestrian crossing was knocked over by a car that went around the car that had stopped, i.e. he went into the left lane rather than waiting.

        • JoFord63 on 18/08/2016 - 15:49
          -2

          And "I was just following the car in front of me" doesn't wash. If you followed him immediately through the crossing, that means you didn't stop to see if there were any pedestrians. If you did stop for pedestrians, that means you were either behind a third car and decided to pull out in which case you should have already seen the other car stopped on the left OR you were already in the left lane before the crossing in which case you should have seen the other car was already stopped.

      • tomsco on 18/08/2016 - 15:54
        +2

        The road widens immediately after the ped crossing. The new space becomes the parking area and I kept on my previous lane and was blocked by the car in front of me.

        This isn't quite true. Before the crossing, the road markings usher you to the right side of the road. So while the road widens after the crossing, you should not be on the left side as you go across the crossing.

  • whooah1979 on 18/08/2016 - 15:35

    Don't worry. The vehicle in front would have received an infringement notice for double parking. Share the pain.

  • fruit on 18/08/2016 - 16:58
    +4

    Did it have a 🔫 emoji in it?

  • MelbEng on 18/08/2016 - 17:01
    +2

    I would send a letter to the council explaining the situation. If no one got out of your car then I would think that you had a pretty strong case.

  • isthisreally_me on 18/08/2016 - 17:05
    -1

    Lawl OP trying to get out of parking illegally by changing what happened? Heard someone plead a similar thing on TV, if youre that close to the curb and you have no break lights on youre getting a fine.

    • terrys on 19/08/2016 - 09:55
      +1

      "if youre that close to the curb and you have no break lights "
      When I am stopped behind another car, i use the handbrake - that is one of the purposes it is designed for…

    • voldemart on 19/08/2016 - 11:27

      Not sure which bit of the story I changed mate. As to the break lights - yes I did have break lights obviously. I doubt they would help me even if the photos taken have them.

  • [Deactivated] on 18/08/2016 - 21:46
    +7

    So basically they fined you for being stuck in traffic

    • Davo1111 on 19/08/2016 - 23:16
      +1

      nah, OP should have waited on the other side of the intersection and waited until it was clear.

      It's like people in the CBD who get "caught" in the middle of the intersection, then to clear, they try and double up on the lane/footpath whatever. If they hadnt entered the intersection in the first place, they wouldn't have been in that situation.

      • [Deactivated] on 19/08/2016 - 23:46
        +1

        He wasn't blocking an intersection

        • Davo1111 on 20/08/2016 - 10:28
          +1

          No he wasn't, but under his own admission he crossed the single white line to clear the intersection (pedestrian crossing)

  • sky blu on 19/08/2016 - 08:21
    +5

    It's weird you got fined like right after that pedestrian crossing. I know the area and people do that all the effing time (hello, it's Springvale mate). Wish there was some way to find out if the car in front of you were also fined. It seems the parking inspector was just filling up his/her quota, or on a bad day. Ask for photo evidence and perhaps share with us or discuss with legal aid to determine fault. At least if you're paying it should be why you're totally in the wrong. You can also try to find out who the inspector is or what car they drive, and make the muddaeffa pay you know…

  • BestofOZB on 19/08/2016 - 10:32
    +4

    From personal experience in QLD (entrance to own underground parking was blocked and stopped on yellow for a minute), if YOU have no evidence the council won't be helpful. Yes you have ground but how will YOU prove it? If you take it to court they will bring the parking inspector and it's your word against his, 99% of the time the judge will take gov officials word as they took an oath blah blah.

    I lost a ridiculous decision and paid $1,700 in fees.

    My advice, if you do not have any SOLID evidence like a dashcam, pay the fine. I know it sucks but that's life!

    • DarwinBoy on 20/08/2016 - 00:53

      Not sure parking inspectors take any sort of oath that I am aware of. They are authorised officers giving them 'powers' but that's about it. When it comes to dealings in court they( the officers and councils) have to prove to a very high standard, their word isn't taken much more seriously than any one else's in court, at least up here in Darwin

  • kima on 19/08/2016 - 11:17
    -1

    no stopping is not supposed to be when you are stuck in traffic like that no, its meant so that you are not pulling up along the kerbside and parking - getting in/or out of the car or waiting.

    the government does not care about true justice when it comes to fines, they want your money and if you don't pay up they put you under duress to do so.

  • FittyFitty on 19/08/2016 - 11:25
    +2

    Is the fine from CARE Park? If so, you can soak it in soapy water and use to cleanse your ayyus for all it's worth…

  • [Deactivated] on 19/08/2016 - 11:55

    Being stuck in traffic or other obstruction does NOT count as bring stopped in no stopping. In your internal review letter request evidence. If what you're saying is true then they probably don't have any and it would be an easy case to make in court. Remember: innocent until proven guilty. Complain to vic ombudsmen or local MP about their letter misleading you on your rights

    • BestofOZB on 19/08/2016 - 12:43

      I'm afraid it's not the case, at leaset in QLD courts! In my case it was simply the word of the parking inspector saying that I stopped on a yellow line with the only evidence being a photo from the car front (how that tells someone is stopped without doors being open etc I'm not sure).

      In OP's case they are presumed guilty (they got a fine) and they have to prove they are innocent. Not that easy I'm afraid.

      • [Deactivated] on 19/08/2016 - 12:57

        What did the judge say? That doesn't seem right

        • BestofOZB on 19/08/2016 - 16:44

          His wording were like even though it makes sense for you to stop, you have broken the law by stopping on a yellow line, I take into account the law when I make my decisions not common sense, therefore pay up!

          The inspector insisted I was stopped for more than 5 min, I said it was a minute or 2 until I figuered out what was going on, was my word against his! (even 5 min is reasonable in my opinion if the entrance to you own parking area is blocked)!

        • [Deactivated] on 19/08/2016 - 18:52

          Well the problem for you here is that "the entrance to you own parking area is blocked". That does not seem to be a defense under QLD law. If It would have claimed that (for example) it would have been unsafe or resulted in a collision to move around under 165 you might have had a chance. Lesson is (1) Not to stop in a no standing without good reason according to the law and (2) read the exact laws and come prepared before taking it to court.

          http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009…
          http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/toumrr2009…

          In OP's case, if he was stuck in traffic (and no where else to go) then he probably would had a collision or it had not be safe to go around. Not sure what the exact law is that he is accused of offending but he should look that up.

          edit: here is the VIC version of the law with the possible defenses:
          http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr200920…

    • kima on 20/08/2016 - 20:36

      people are not arrested based on "innocent until proven guilty" - this concept does not exist, and i don't really understand where the saying comes from?

  • apple2016 on 19/08/2016 - 13:41

    the law in victoria is https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-r…

    If there is a 'no parking' sign, you can stop for 2 minutes in that area:

    if you are picking up or dropping off passengers or goods
    you stay within 3 metres of your vehicle.

    If you stop in, or partly in, an area showing a no parking sign and you are not picking up or dropping off passengers or goods, you are considered to
    be parked and can be fined. This is the case even if you stay with your vehicle.

    Looks like you could still get fined according to the second part.
    How do you think you can convince the court that you had not stopped and was blocked by traffic unless you did pick up or drop off passengers or goods?

    • mangoburger on 19/08/2016 - 14:43
      -4

      That is based on statutes, not a law of the Commonwealth. It was never lawfully enacted by Royal Proclamation, in fact all of the so-called road rules are just that, rules not laws. According to the law, only courts can issue fines. Is the council a court?

      What you really need to do is contact aussiespeedingfines.com and/or knowyourrightsgroup.com.au

      • [Deactivated] on 19/08/2016 - 18:57
        +3

        @manoburger that's complete horseshit

    • momov3 on 19/08/2016 - 15:42
      +2

      OP was seen to be stopping at 'No Stopping', not 'No Parking' sign so your post is not relevant to his situation. I think OP has a case for appeal because 'no stopping' fine is enforced when it is apparent the driver lets passenger in or out, or there is some intentional action /deed during the process of stopping. I was recently fined for the same offence but in my case I really did let an elderly passenger out, appealed the fine and lost.

  • garffi on 19/08/2016 - 15:12
    +1

    Got fined on the same street as you for 'stopping'. We were looking for a parking spot and were driving along the street.
    Stopped for like 10 seconds because we thought a guy was leaving. But he just sat in the car so we drove off. Somehow got fined for that.
    If I 'stopped' to wait for a car that was actually going to leave a parking spot, do I still get fined? It's stupid. They just want money.

    • Kingfabay on 19/08/2016 - 16:03

      Did you indicate while you were waiting? I wonder if that couldve prevented the fine.

      • garffi on 19/08/2016 - 20:01

        It was long ago, can't really remember :/

  • Hiroko on 19/08/2016 - 15:35

    dash cam

  • KaTst3R on 19/08/2016 - 18:06
    +1

    I would think that given the no stopping sign is so far inwards, you would think it was meant for people who attempts to park/stop on the pavement where the stone seating area is !

    • aboabo on 21/08/2016 - 17:43

      I'd like to know also by law, how far away a sign needs to be in order to be read and understood. That sign looks way out of range.

  • enzioFirenze on 19/08/2016 - 21:59

    PTFF I guess and move on!

  • youbeokay on 20/08/2016 - 01:08
    +1

    Since its a one way, ask photo from the council, if the car in front of you was in the middle of the road, then its fair to argue that fact that you were blocked by it, also take into account that whether or not that car has used the indicator, as well as the proximity between two cars.

  • peterpeterpumpkin on 20/08/2016 - 07:59

    I agree the language used is intimidating. Next thing you know you'll be accused of witchery. They'll ask you to jump off a cliff. But If you fall to your death at least you'll prove your innocence.

    Since your stop zone immediately precedes a parking spot I assume that in traffic cars are frequently stopped as you were slightly to the left. Maybe a video filmed today would prove it. Or incriminate 200 other people (and hopefully an inspector). A single photo shouldn't be admissable as evidence for no stopping. Just as a photo of me mid-jump isn't evidence for me flying.

    On another note, has anyone ever received a fine for going over 4P parking?

    • enzioFirenze on 22/08/2016 - 20:30

      I've got a fine for 2P once in three years of time I've parked in the same street, still turned out to be cheaper than paying for uni parking ;)

      • peterpeterpumpkin on 22/08/2016 - 20:34

        Interesting. So I reckon once in 6 years for 4P parking? ;) Seems worth it.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join