No Confrontational Parking Fine

Asking for a friend. My friend stopped at a no stopping sign briefly to pick up someone. A week later, got a $260 fine in the mail for stopping at no stopping. The ranger did not fine my friend on the spot nor confront my friend to drive away. I guess the ranger just took a photo, enter the fine into their system and then walked off.

Is this the norm? it seems very easy, no confrontational money grabbing exercise. I think they should have at least walked up and see whats going on with us, check whether it was a mechanical breakdown and if not just shoo us off. I cant imagine rangers now taking a stroll and just start snapping pics of cars stopped at no stopping and fining them all. Sydney City Councils gona be mega rich then.

I know stopping at no stopping constitutes a fine. The question is more of how rangers fine people these days.

Comments

  • +73 votes

    My friend stopped at a no stopping sign briefly to pick up someone.
    stopping at no stopping.

    Yes, your 'friend' deserves the fine.

    “A 'No Stopping' sign means that the driver of a vehicle must not stop at any time on a length of road or in an area to which the 'No Stopping' sign applies - not for a minute, not for a second, not for a jiffy.

    Edit: Well now you've edited it to say:

    I know stopping at no stopping constitutes a fine. The question is more of how rangers fine people these days.

    What do you feel is wrong with their method? Why would they take the risk of confronting someone when they can watch, gather evidence (taking photo) and send you a fine. You can appeal it if you believe it's incorrect, right?

    • +34 votes

      Exactly. Avoid confrontation but still get the job done. There is nothing wrong with how the ranger has acted.

      • +22 votes

        Think of it this way, what is the council's goal:

        a)to stop people stopping in No Stopping zone? and therefore improve traffic flow and/or safety?
        or
        b) to issue a fine and collect revenue?

        The way the ranger acted fits in with b). Prioritises getting revenue over getting the no stopping zone clear.

        A contrary example is that we have warning signs before fixed speed cameras (at least in Victoria). That way we ensure the goal is a) for people to slow down, not b) get fined.

        • -2 votes

          The way the ranger acted fits in with b)

          Er … no it doesn't.

          • +8 votes

            @Diji1: Does issuing a fine later stop the unwanted/unsafe situation happening now?

            • +30 votes

              @R-Man:

              Does issuing a fine later stop the unwanted/unsafe situation happening now?

              It's an effective deterrent as most people will think twice before repeating the behaviour. Similar to parking fines which also don't magically stop a car being parked there and then.

              Your previous example of a warning sign before speed cameras is the same situation here. There was a 'no stopping' sign for people not to stop and get fined. Choosing to ignore that nets you a fine.

              Also, what's the problem with councils earning revenue from such behaviour? Would rather they did that than increase taxes for everyone surely. Funding is needed somehow to pay for all sorts of activities, initiatives and services we enjoy.

              • +7 votes

                @Hybroid: Actually, pecuniary penalties (monetary fines) are not an effective deterrent, as has been demonstrated in many studies:

                https://practicalmotoring.com.au/voices/fines-dont-change-dr...
                https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265671786_The_Deter...
                https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10871/17206

                Road Traffic Authorities, Courts and other authorities are loath to admit this fact, but there is ample evidence that they actually do little, or worse, increase the type of behaviour for they penalise the public.

                For example, if an experienced driver gets caught by a speeding/red light camera, they will often avoid that road or slow down for that intersection, thinking they will minimise any chance of getting caught, whilst continuing to drive in the same way (they believe they are driving safely based on their driving ability, vehicle, road conditions, etc). The road user will believe they were wrongly penalised for this minor infraction, rarely modifying their driving, even temporarily.

                To this extent it is very clear that all fines are merely a tool for raising revenue (from unwitting citizens), much like gambling contributes to the tax coffers by penalising those taking unnecessary risks.

                If governments were serious about improving road safety, there are many options that would work infinitely better:
                - place police cars to monitor accident 'black spots', instead of unmarked cars hidden behind bushes on straight stretches of highway;
                - traffic cameras could be used to photograph and then advertise (shame) publicly the biggest traffic offenders;
                - problem intersections should have their timing sequences lengthened (and use smart, real-time, dynamic traffic control systems) to allow cars to get through, with separate turn signals, cutting congestion and maximising the cars able to safely get through.

                •  

                  @KrzytOzbargainer:

                  For example, if an experienced driver gets caught by a speeding/red light camera, they will often avoid that road or slow down for that intersection, thinking they will minimise any chance of getting caught, whilst continuing to drive in the same way

                  I've always said that myself.

                  Put in a speed camera - everyone slows down for it (usually frustratingly below the actual speed limit) then speeds back up.

                  Drive a cop down that road - almost no-one overtakes them.

              •  

                @Hybroid: Posting on ozbargain about new techniques to catch crooks without confrontation is promoting process and hence you are increasing the effectiveness of this preventative measure.

            •  

              @R-Man: OP's friend may well have already driven off.

            • +5 votes

              @R-Man: Does stop and confront the offending driver in a no stopping zone improve traffic flow ?

            •  

              @R-Man: "Does issuing a fine later stop the unwanted/unsafe situation happening now?"

              no. the sign does that…. for most drivers.

        • +11 votes

          we have warning signs before fixed speed cameras

          Here in NSW, we have a similar thing around no stopping zones. They have a sign at the start of the no stopping zone, and one at the end.

          That way, we ensure the goal is a) for people to not stop there, not b) get fined.

          The councils goal was to send a message that parking in a no stopping zone will incure a penalty. This will make sure that OP’s friend doesn’t park there in the future and through word of mouth, hopefully prevent others from doing the same thing.

          It’S aLL aBoUt CoUnCiL rEvEnUE rAiSiNg, NoT sAvInG LiVeS…

        • +4 votes

          a)to stop people stopping in No Stopping zone? and therefore improve traffic flow and/or safety?

          It's not uncommon for Sydney motorists and/or their passengers to assault rangers. It's safer for the rangers to take images from afar.

          • +3 votes

            @whooah1979: And this sums it up.

            If there wasn't a fear for their safety thanks to an entitled few, they would probably allow a bit more lenience.

            And the sad thing is, the aggressive few will ignore the logic for avoiding confrontation and be the ones screaming revenue raising.

        • +3 votes

          Fines are effective at stopping people from breaking laws. If there was a 100% chance that you would be fined every time your parked illegally, how many people do you think would still do it?

          We're still far away from getting 100% of people, but as technology advances we are getting closer. People start complaining they can't get away with them anymore, instead of accepting that they are doing the wrong thing and blame "revenue raising".

          •  

            @sheamas88: Yep, we're not far away from being like China.

            • +5 votes

              @tranter: Enforcing traffic laws makes us like China? That's quite a leap in logic.

              • +2 votes

                @sheamas88: No not really but it reminds me of something that happened last month. Luckily for the moment at least I live in an area where rangers and police are still allowed to use their discretion (brain).

                I was at a restaurant sitting in the outside dining area when a police car with lights flashing pulled up behind two cars that were illegally parked. Almost immediately two rangers arrived and a few seconds later the owners of the cars scampered out. There was a friendly exchange with the police officer before the owners proceeded to move their cars. No fines were given and the job was done.

                I hope it never gets to 100% as you say and we're still allowed to be human.

                Revenue raising is real in parts of Australia.

                • +10 votes

                  @tranter: That kind of 'friendly neighbourhood' enforcement only works in smaller communities where the enforcer can remember the people who they've let off with a warning once or twice. It breaks down in bigger societies when someone can use this to escape fines - and then park illegally repeatedly. Remember that only a small fraction of illegal parking probably gets noticed at all. The fine isn't just for that one-off, it's also a disincentive to repeat that behaviour even if the culprit might not be found out later. A 'warning' per 20 instances of parking illegally would only encourage that behaviour. A $200 fine per 20 instances of parking illegally makes paying $5 each time instead much more attractive.

                  • +3 votes

                    @HighAndDry: This occurred in one of the largest cities in Australia.

                    In this case it was actually more effective. If the rangers had simply taken a photograph or slapped a ticket on the windscreen the owners would probably be none the wiser and the vehicles would have been parked 'dangerously' for quite a while longer.

                    •  

                      @tranter: Your example: The cars were still parked there.

                      OP's example: The car stopped, and then had already driven away.

                      You see the difference between the two that makes finding the driver more relevant in your case right?

                    • +4 votes

                      @tranter: Do you think the driver would be more or less likely to do the same thing next Friday after receiving: a warning, or a fine?

                      Some people respond well to being told they did the wrong thing. Some people view avoiding the fine as winning and as encouragement that they'll be able to avoid it for future violations.

                      I'm all for discretion, but I see people parking in No Stopping and Clearway zones very often. It's dangerous and causes economic damage (congestion).

                      •  

                        @abb: It's obviously not an easy answer but I believe a multipronged approach is the best. Fines are not the only solution otherwise Sydney wouldn't have any issues. :)

                        People too often these days just think in black and white mode. (can't blame them considering all the stresses and complex problems in today's society)

                        •  

                          @tranter: I'm willing to bet those people will commit the same offence again given that they were let off without any penalty.
                          Fines are a very good deterrent (unless the offender is very rich).

                          What do you think if the police gave a talking to the offenders yet still issued them a fine? I think that would be the most effective and I question people who insists that warning only would be the better option in this case.

                •  

                  @tranter: They could have given the fine and got them to move at the same time. The job get done all the same. They know they are breaking the law. Why only scampered out when the police are there? They shouldn't be parking there in the first place.

                  •  

                    @highdealer: Actually that's the thing, it's most likely they didn't know they were breaking the law. The area is notorious for people unintentionally falling foul of the rules because of confusion over parking limits.

                    One time I even warned a guy who had just parked there that he's likely to get a fine, but he looked at the sign and thought all was good and walked off.

                    There are rangers there giving out fines every single afternoon and evening. Yet people still park there so it's hard to argue that dishing out fines is the only answer.

                    Once people know and the confusion is cleared up I doubt most of them park there again.

                •  

                  @tranter: If people just follow the signs, that would free up police resources, and put parking rangers out of work. If you object to the signage and park anywhere as protest then it's a different matter.

                •  

                  @tranter: A situation where the signage is difficult to read and there are two police officers and at least two rangers seems a lot different than OP'a situation where there were at most 2 rangers and the driver absolutely knew, due to the clear signage, that they were doing the wrong thing.

                  In the first scenario there is plenty of backup if the people were confronted and got aggressive and it's a place where people may accidentally stop in a no stopping zone.

                  In the second scenario the ranger is on their own, or at most works in a pair and OP's friend knew it was a no stopping zone and decided they were entitled to stop there anyway. It sounds like OP and/or friend wanted to argue that it was okay that they were stopping in a no stopping zone because they wanted to.

              • +4 votes

                @sheamas88: I guess China is used as a generic term for police state. But there is a zealousness to law enforcement in Australia that probably doesn't even apply to China a lot of the time.

                But I'm a bit more familiar with Japan, which has it's own share of police horror stories (you don't want to get arrested in Japan). However, the general rule seems to be, if there is no problem the police will stay out of the way. So people break laws all the time, even in front of cops, but things work nicely.

                For example, there are bicycle laws for the usual things, use of lights at nights, no headphones, which side of the road etc. But stand on a busy street corner in Tokyo and you'll see plenty of people breaking these laws and the cops standing by doing nothing. I imagine if you crashed into someone or created some sort of public disturbance you would suddenly find yourself charged with about 20 things you didn't realise were against the law. But until then everyone is allowed to exercise common sense without police intervention.

                Meanwhile I've seen police in Sydney pull over on quiet streets and book cyclists for these kind of things. Strict enforcement is probably necessary to curb the (profanity) who would create public disturbance and claim unequal application of the law. But defaulting to strict enforcement also means that most decent, intelligent people don't get to exercise sound judgement about the impact of their actions. Instead we get conditioned to simply obey and accept that we did something wrong even if we consciously and successfully avoided the negative consequences that the laws seek to prevent.

                In OP's example, stopping in a not stopping is pretty cut and dry. But if they checked that there were no other cars around, and the stopping time and place were chosen to minimize impact (eg high visibility of approaching cars), then there's a reasonable argument that they acted in accordance with the spirit of the law by not impeding traffic flow, even if they broke the letter of the law.

        • +2 votes

          Very often, I tell people not to stop in the "No Stopping Area" in the school zone, because they seriously cause traffic issues. I am big and ugly and I caught tons of abuse. My average of reminding some idiots, what not to do is once every 2 weeks. Not my profession.
          If a ranger would go to everyone who does not adhere to the rules, he/she would be suicidal within 1 month.

          •  

            @cameldownunder: did that twice, at no stopping zone and another double parking. somehow they ended up getting angry at me. lol. seriously. some people does not have common sense / etiquette / decency. i think they just feel that they are above others so common law / sense doesn't apply to them.

            i even reported via an app to local council to ask them to patrol during school pickup or drop off but nothing happened..

        •  

          You know that they have warning signs at No Stopping Zones as well right? These signs ensure that people a) Don't stop there and b) not get fined.

        •  

          Only some cameras have a sign. Many don't.

        •  

          B. I'm sure as hell OP would never stop at no stopping signs now for the fear of ninja rangers hiding and taking photos.

          If a ranger approached him it'll be a different lesson… One that is don't park if rangers are around.

      •  

        Well… it reminds me of a case in Ipswich where an officer used CCTV to issue fines. They were all retracted and an apology issued by the council. I know it isn't the exact same scenario, but the methods of fine issuing DO matter (not to say it is wrong in this case though).

        "I think the officer who was trying to be a little bit overzealous and a little bit innovative has now learnt his lesson," he said. "There'll be no disciplinary action. What we want to do is make sure that staff here are innovative. But this time it's just gone overboard."

    •  

      Overly strict enforcement to the letter of the law just encourages people not to use their brain. If you approach a no stopping sign on a long stretch of straight highway where you have looked and found no cars in sight then you could reasonably argue that stopping for a second would have no impact on any other road users.

      Or to put it another way. If a car stops at a no stopping sign and no one is around to see it, do they deserve a fine?

      • -7 votes

        Or to put it another way. If a car stops at a no stopping sign and no one is around to see it, do they deserve a fine?

        Yes, they are contravening the law so deserve a fine. It's really that simple.

        • +2 votes

          Deserve? Really? You think this is something that a person should not be allowed to get away with?

          The law might say they should get one, but you must have very poor confidence in your own judgement to think you could never assess a situation for yourself, when broadly defined blanket rules are in place.

          It would probably shake you to your core to learn that the NSW government has just introduced some leniency in certain parking fines, which they call "a common sense approach". Whatever that means, right?
          https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/people-shouldn-t-have-th...

      • +1 vote

        If the law is too strict then the law should be changed, not the enforcement of it. OP is entitled to challenge the fine and present his reasons for why he thinks he should have been allowed to stop. If his arguments have merit then the fine will be withdrawn.

        •  

          I don't quite agree. If you soften the law, but not the enforcement, then you either have to reduce the fine or devise some flexible guidelines to strictly enforce (eg stopping is allowed if no car approaching within 200m) which gets messy quickly.

          Softening enforcement has it's own issues of course, and leaving situations up to the judgement of police would seem less fair as some people get away with things that others don't. But we seem to have default strict enforcement, which means that neither citizens nor he police are allowed any flexibility. I have friends who have been issued driving tickets while being advised to contest it by the issuing officer because even they felt the penalty was undeserved. Which is a bit absurd.

          I'm currently living in Japan, where soft enforcement is the default, with strict laws. Which basically means everyone can do whatever they want, but if they cause trouble the cops can come down on them hard. There are obviously large differences in society and people, but it's nice being in a system where the main rule is "don't be a (profanity)".

          The Australian system is more about equally applying the law to dicks and non-dicks. But this means that non-dicks have to be careful, and dicks can still be dicks within certain limits. Whereas softening enforcement would actually allow stricter laws to throw at the dicks while making life easier for the non-dicks.

          This is obviously a thought-bubble argument, but I still find it sad that Aussies expect to be told exactly what is okay and not, and attack the notion of subjectivity or independent judgement.

          •  

            @crentist: Strict laws with weak enforcement means you are leaving it up to the police to decide who is guilt or not, because if the laws a strict and a cop swears he saw you doing it, then every time you're picked up then you're essentially guilty. The court is there essentially to hand out a punishment.

            If the law is weak and the enforcement is strong, then you are letting the cops pick up people who they think are in the wrong, and letting the courts decide who is guilty or innocent. That is how it should be, and that's how it works in most western law systems for good reason

          •  

            @crentist: Imho, To apply japan soft enforcement in australia, you need to change mentality of people here first.

            Most Japanese tends to be mindful about what effect of what they do to others.

            And i think they have been taught that way since they are little.

            Went to japan last year, and public toilets are so clean, no feet on train seats even little kids, very rarely see trash anywhere, keeping left or out of the way when they stop etc etc. Amazing. Meanwhile i saw bunch of westerners chatting in circle in the middle of river of people in harajuku. Somehow they didn’t even notice those people trying to go past them….

            The only thing i was wondering in japan is why vehicle can stop anywhere even near traffic light, which does cause some minor traffic jam but it looks like the norm there since no one honking at them lol.

      • -1 vote

        What?!

        If you approach a no stopping sign on a long stretch of straight highway where you have looked and found no cars in sight

        This is incredibly dangerous. Please never EVER do this on any stretch of highway, even if you can't see any cars. You can only see so far, and highways, especially empty ones, tend to be places where cars go very very fast. Even stopping on the shoulder on a highway is dangerous and you'd be well advised to either stay in the car, or well away from it. Stopping for no reason ON THE DAMNED HIGHWAY when you don't need to? Utterly irresponsible and you'd deserve more than just a fine.

        • +1 vote

          It was an example meant to indicate high visibility with low density. Imagine a longer, straighter, more visible, slower road than the one you are thinking of and a good reason for pulling over.

          Or if you need a new example, an elevated point in a long stretch of well lit, 4 lane, 30km/hr road with no nearby intersections, buildings, or shrubs, covered in speed bumps, with a car full of vigilant passengers looking out over 5km in all directions with binoculars, no visible cars, people, or animals in sight, and you have decided to pull over briefly because for the last 15 minutes your child has removed their seatbelt and decided to dangle themselves out of the passenger window while a redback spider has been crawling all over your face but you have not come across any marked parking spot that would allow you to legally stop just briefly enough to safely slap the spider off and lean over and grab the kid because your passengers are physically unable to do anything but provide excellent guidance on approaching hazards

          •  

            @crentist: Oh damn, I just realised what your username is a reference to.

            Also you forgot this —> "."

            Anyway, I was more making a comment on your specific example, not your intended hypothetical which I do understand.

            But while I agree with you that unwavering adherence to the letter of the law is undesirable (and untenable), I also disagree that the opposite - that laws should be obeyed at the discretion of the individual - should therefore apply.

            There's a (rather large) middle ground in which the people enforcing the law are free to exercise discretion, and in the present case you can frame it as:

            1. The ranger was entitled to issue a fine; and
            2. The ranger, using his discretion, decided to issue a fine.
              (edit: and 2a. In the circumstances where OP's friend flagrantly and knowingly violated the law for no valid reason, this exercise of discretion was the correct one.)

            By sheer selection bias, we wouldn't be aware of those cases in which a ranger saw someone stopped in a No Stopping zone, and decided to neither confront the driver nor issue a fine.

            A. Ranger confronts and Fines - Person knows about it.
            B. Ranger confronts but No fine - Person knows about it.
            C. Ranger doesn't confront but Fines - Person knows about it.
            D. Ranger doesn't confront and No fine - Person doesn't know about it.

            You'd be aware of each time a ranger decides to issue a fine (A & C), but you'd only be aware of half the times where a ranger decides not to issue a fine (only B, not D). That'd skew your perception of how often a ranger is exercising their discretion in either direction.

        • -1 vote

          incredibly

          Relax.

    • +2 votes

      Not saying op's friend is a Uber driver but I've seen Uber cars stopping along clearway zone to pick up passengers. Disrupted the traffic and agitated a lot of other drivers in the morning. Guessing the app told them to stop there but they should be taught a lesson by being fined so they can complain to Uber to change their app's algorithm. An example of issuing fine can drive behaviours and outcomes.

      •  

        I don't get Uber drivers blaming Uber for using their phones illegally, or breaking other road rules. They sound like people blaming Apple maps for driving into rivers. They're still the one driving the car, not the app.

    •  

      DISAGREE its a low scum money grabbing act, they could stop there for 1 second and get fined? maybe the car was having mechanical issue, they dont know

      • +2 votes

        The driver may have right to go to court. They'll then have the opportunity to present evidence that they had a mechanical issue.

    •  

      Also: why should the Ranger confront anyone and risk stopping the driver longer in a no stopping zone?

  • +21 votes

    If your friend stopped briefly, I’m sure the parking officer could see it was not a mechanical breakdown.

  • +2 votes

    Seems like this type of 'covert' enforcement has been going on for a while…

    https://www.smh.com.au/technology/parking-inspectors-snap-20...

  • +7 votes

    lol op

  • +28 votes

    The ranger did not fine my friend on the spot nor confront my friend to drive away

    It almost sounds as if he wanted to do his job without being verbally abused or argued with.

    • -26 votes

      nah if ranger told my friend to move or else cop a fine, my friend would have definitely moved without a word

      • +67 votes

        What if they had a sign there saying not to stop?

      • +1 vote

        nah if ranger told my friend to move or else cop a fine, my friend would have definitely moved without a word

        what's the point? your friend already stopped anyway.

      • +10 votes

        Sure, and so would 9 out of 10 people. And the ranger gets cussed out or assaulted by the 10th.

      • +1 vote

        The sign tells them to not stop there or else cop a fine!

        Your friend got their license by reviewing the correct manuals that teach them what signs mean. They are not entitled to an additional warning. No one is. Take some responsibility.

        A murderer will never get off on a murder charge because "oh no one warned me at the time". Extreme analogy, but apparently you need it.

      • +1 vote

        How could the ranger have possibly known your friend would have moved on if asked?

        • +6 votes

          regardless it doesn't even matter whether he would move if asked. He has already committed the offense and deserves the fine. Avoiding confrontation is a good approach as there is nothing to be gained by talking to him, take the photo, record the details, send him the fine has has rightfully earned.

      •  

        That's like a cop telling a murderer to run away or else go to jail after they've just witnessed them killing someone.

        Let me tell you where you went wrong. The issue isn't whether you will continue to park there or not. That fact is actually irrelevant. The issue is whether you were already parked there or not.

  •  

    Near my work the rangers hide behind a post to catch people stopping at the bus stop, they just take a photo of the car and then I assume send them a fine in the mail.

    •  

      Got any spare rangers? Need some around my way!

    • +2 votes

      Yes, happened to me after stopping for just a few secs to pick up my daughter on her way home from school. I have no idea if they are incentivised on numbers of fines issued but if so it would only encourage that sort of entrapment style behaviour. And spare me the "don't do the crime" lectures, I'm fully aware those views are strongly felt by many.

      There's a bus she can get home, but that had gone and the next one is 30 mins after. No other bus routes use that stop, therefore zero danger or obstruction (don't do the crime blah blah blah, I know, I know…). They had a ridiculous situation where the bus was scheduled 2 mins before many kids from my daughter's school get off the train nearby and when the bus runs a bit late they were risking their necks trying to cross a busy junction and catch it because of the 30 min wait for the next one. Many people contacted the bus company in the last few years to change the timetable but they wouldn't listen and just dismissed it. This year they have now added an additional school bus which finally solves the problem but costs the bus company more, go figure. There was plenty of room on the regular bus and a few minutes adjustment to the timetable would have sorted it.

      The fine for stopping for maybe 10 secs at the bus stop was $263. A friend got fined for being over 40 in a school zone and their fine was less than half of that amount. Which is the more serious offence? I know people get howled down for mentioning revenue raising on here but that's exactly what it is.

      •  

        sort of entrapment

        Entrapment or controlled operations is an acceptable method used by Australian law enforcement to catch criminals.

        • +5 votes

          Which, by the way, this is not. Entrapment implies setting up a trap situation. This is just watching someone do something illegal.

      • +7 votes

        their fine was less than half of that amount.

        Post as a bargain?

      • +3 votes

        What's the route though? What if it ends at the train station and a few minutes later means the people on the bus can't catch the train and have to wait another 30 minutes for the train?

      • +2 votes

        Long post, nothing of substance. I don't like fines, I've been fined enough times to say that. In other words, I'm not a goody two shoes telling you how to live your life.

        My advice is to have some honour. You made the choice to stop there, you knew the penalty, you stopped there anyway. That's the risk you take.

        Many times I've chosen to speed, I got caught. That's just fair game, the price I pay for it. Don't be a coward and point to other things to try and deflect from the fact that you took a gamble and lost.

      •  

        And spare me the "don't do the crime" lectures

        Would it shock you to learn they can't draft laws that say something like "No Stopping, unless you've looked and can't see a bus coming and know the bus schedule and is sure there won't be a bus coming and only stop for a really short time and don't dawdle there"?

        because of the 30 min wait for the next one.

        Maybe teach your kid that a 30 minute wait is preferable to being run over?

    • +16 votes

      They knew it was no stopping but did it anyway. They willfully ignored the law because they didn't think it applied to them. Perfect time to make an example of someone by giving them a big fine.

      •  

        Well the government does that all the time (and laughingly they get to make up the rules to suit themselves and then break a lot of them anyway) so what's sauce for the goose…..

        But I wanted the OP to answer my questions so I could get a better idea of what actually went on and who suffered to the tune of $240 that the OP had to compensate them for it.

        • +3 votes

          who suffered to the tune of $240

          Possibly all the other drivers that had to wait and were inconvenienced by OP's friend thinking they are above following a simple road rule.

          The road rules are there for everyone. They are freely available for anyone to read and getting your license is an acceptance to abide by these rules. If you don’t like the rules, you are free to not use the road and associated infrastructure.

          Punishment via a fine is not compensation. It's more a monetary wake up slap in the face. You're confusing two totally different types of law. Starting to sound a bit like a "freeman on the land" type.

          • -3 votes

            @pegaxs: Firstly if it is a no stopping zone then what other drivers were waiting to stop there who were then inconvenienced? If it was merely a stop for 3 second while someone jumped in the car then what's the big deal? Oh yeah, someone disobeyed and MUST be punished!? Secondly, parking fines like this one are are the local council's turf, getting a driving license is a state government issue and I'm pretty sure that 'parking' legislation is not the same as road rules legislation. maybe it's you who is confused? But excuse me for doubting your overlords. I merely asked for further information from the OP so I could better assess what the real situation was. Should have expected the statists to get triggered….

            • +3 votes

              @EightImmortals: I agree that context is important in understanding the appropriate level of outrage.

              Ozbargainers have a habit of getting on their moral high horse like they have never done anything wrong ever.

              Was the friend stopped for 5 seconds? Was there no traffic around at all? If so, that is pretty stiff and some discretion should be applied.

              If traffic was built up, people had to slow down or go around etc, sure fine them.

              And I'm saying this as someone who has to deal with idiots parked in Clearways on the way to work nearly every day.

  • Top