Unreasonable and Irrational Parking Penalties Now in Force in NSW

HeWhoKnows on 02/11/2019 - 10:20
Last edited 02/11/2019 - 15:09 by 1 other user

ALERT! UNREASONABLE AND IRRATIONAL PARKING PENALTIES NOW IN FORCE IN NSW

The fine for parking in a NO STOPPING ZONE is now $268.

Fine. I get that. Its a big red sign.
Its there for safety reasons so you shouldn't be parked there.

However…..

The fine for parking within 10m of a corner (where there is no sign) is now $344 PLUS 2 demerit points!

Now think about it this way….

You innocently park your car 6 metres from the corner in a quiet residential street for the week. So there is little or no traffic most of the time.
Its a safe distance well away from the corner (6 metres was acceptable by the old standard).

Your local parking ranger walks past each day and issues you with a Parking penalty.

At the end of the week you have 7 parking tickets on your windscreen and have subsequently accumulated over $2000 in parking fines and lost your license as well (14 demerit points lost).
And you werent even driving your car AND there were no parking signs!

Here is the link to all the new fines.
https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/roads/safety-rules/deme…

Note that no demerit point penalties apply to penalties in relation to sign posted areas indicating where you CANNOT stop or park. Even though these are more severe infringements.

It just doesnt make sense.

Non sign posted Offences should be treated as a minor offence and incur the same penalty as parking in a NO PARKING zone. That is only $114.

This rule has to change!

Post any comments here about how you feel about this and what we can do about this

Automotive

Comments

  • Euphemistic on 02/11/2019 - 14:54
    +2

    And not wearing a bike helmet is nearly twice the fine of speeding by 20km/h. Which one is likely to do the most damage?

    Fines levels are stupid. The concept is good but so many updates and changes and ‘flavour of the month’ mean that they need a good overhaul.

    • try2bhelpful on 02/11/2019 - 15:21
      +3

      If you come off your bike and hit yourself head the damage could be mucho. I think Jerry Seinfeld sums it up.

      Jerry Seinfeld on helmets and helmet laws
      Submitted by R.McElroy on Mon, 2005-10-17 18:05
      "…Skydiving was definitely the scariest thing I've ever done. Let me ask you this question in regards to the skydiving: what is the point of the helmet in the skydiving? I mean, can you kinda make it? You jump out of that plane and that chute doesn't open, the helmet is now wearing you for protection. Later on the helmet's talking with the other helmets going "It's a good thing that he was there or I would have hit the ground directly."

      There are many things that we can point to that proof that the human being is not smart. The helmet is my personal favorite. The fact that we had to invent the helmet. Now why did we invent the helmet? Well, because we were participating in many activities that were cracking our heads. We looked at the situation. We chose not to avoid these activities, but to just make little plastic hats so that we can continue our head-cracking lifestyles.

      The only thing dumber than the helmet is the helmet law, the point of which is to protect a brain that is functioning so poorly, it's not even trying to stop the cracking of the head that it's in…"

        • kahn on 02/11/2019 - 15:54
          +1

          There was an effort in Germany to make wearing a helmet sexy. Do an image search for "helmerettenleben". I'm just curious what they are doing in bed that requires a helmet.

        • whooah1979 on 02/11/2019 - 15:55
          +3

          You could say that Australians are pioneers in passing road safety laws.

          The world's first seat belt law was put in place in 1970, in the state of Victoria, Australia, making the wearing of a seat belt compulsory for drivers and front-seat passengers. This legislation was enacted after trialing Hemco seatbelts, designed by Desmond Hemphill (1926–2001), in the front seats of police vehicles, lowering the incidence of officer injury and death.[13]

          • Baysew on 11/11/2019 - 19:51

            @whooah1979: The difference is that no one else is following.

      • Euphemistic on 02/11/2019 - 16:02
        +1

        If you come off your bike and hit yourself head the damage could be mucho.

        Fully agree with that. Have demonstrated the effectiveness of helmets personally. However, the likelihood of actually falling off is quite low.

        • try2bhelpful on 02/11/2019 - 19:11

          But the effect can be quite large and the are quite a few children who ride. I still go back to Seinfeld, why would you not wear a helmet? Then, again, I also watch 24 hours in emergency. Bike riders make a, reasonably, regular appearance. It would be interesting to know how many people have come off their bikes, at least, once. Almost every rider I know has crashed off their bike at sometime, including me. I fractured my wrist. A friend broke both her elbows. My man ended up with the mother of all black eyes. In fact, probably, my worst injury was rollerblading without a helmet. I knocked myself unconscious and fractured my wrist. They put me in the Cat scan: (queue the joke about finding nothing there). I still have no memory of the accident, last thing I remember is being in control. The guy after me in the cat scan had the full “halo”.

          • Euphemistic on 02/11/2019 - 20:05

            @try2bhelpful: As much as this is probably not the thread for helmet discussion, I don’t believe that a helmet is necessary for ALL cycling. There is a reason there are very few countries in the world have mandatory helmets.

            IMO Anything involving significant speed, heavy fast traffic, or technical off road riding should require a helmet, most avid cyclists would agree. Rolling down to the shops, with kids along a path etc does not, but many cyclists still wear one. I do use a helmet for most ‘public’ riding (mostly as a fine prevention device), any fast riding and all MTB riding but not for 500m to the bus stop to pick up he kids or around a caravan park. Adults should have that choice. I am not aware of any cyclist friends or family who have crashed and ‘used’ a helmet in low speed ‘path’ Riding, but knownolenty who have cracked helmets while riding fast or off road.

            Look at the Netherlands, helmets are not compulsory and they do way more kms than us per capita. They don’t have a massive problem with head trauma compared to us.

            • try2bhelpful on 02/11/2019 - 20:23
              -1

              @Euphemistic: In the Netherlands the pedestrians are the ones who need the helmet; the bike riders are a nightmare. The problem is even if you are slow the thing that hits you might be going fast. However, I would have no issue with making them compulsory for kids and not adults. If people want to scramble their brains that is their issue. After my experience with the rollerblading I’m not willing to take the risk; I dodged a bullet. What I did notice with the Netherlands was everyone was travelling, relatively, slowly.

              • Euphemistic on 02/11/2019 - 20:40

                @try2bhelpful: I’m with you. Mandatory helmets for kids, they are likely to fall off. Adults should be able to make up their own minds for riding on paths and roads under 60km/h.

                • gromit on 04/11/2019 - 16:35

                  @Euphemistic: As long as those adults also don't expect the government or health insurance to wear any costs should they sustain a head injury in the unlikely event of an accident. Choices have consequences to others. FYI, the last study I saw shows Netherlands has a higher rate of head injuries for cyclists than Australia, both in total and percentage wise and even their own studies show that head injuries would reduce by more than 50% if helmets were worn.

                  • Euphemistic on 04/11/2019 - 17:29
                    -1

                    @gromit: By your logic we should also have pedestrians and drivers wearing helmets too. Thousands of pedestrians suffer head injuries and we are doing nothing to prevent them. Drivers also suffer horrible injuries.

                    • gromit on 04/11/2019 - 19:46
                      -1

                      @Euphemistic: by your logic why bother with seat belt rules or a myriad of other safety rules designed to keep you safer and not a burden on the society. After all it is your body why should you have to worry about being safe.

                      • Euphemistic on 04/11/2019 - 20:57
                        +1

                        @gromit: You can argue it both ways. Everything needs helmets or nothing needs helmets.

                        The risk of head injury when riding a bicycle (for sedate riding) is quite low, just like walking, running and a myriad of other activities that do not require a helmet. Smart people still choose to use a method to mitigate the risks, often that means riding with a helmet. Other times it means taking an alternate route and riding slower.

                        Still, you are entitled to your opinion and I’ll still take my opinion that mandatory helmets for cyclists do more to reduce cycling than to reduce head injuries.

                        • Resin on 10/11/2019 - 12:03

                          @Euphemistic: It costs you nothing to put the helmet on. Any other argument is a fallacy.

                          • Euphemistic on 10/11/2019 - 12:53

                            @Resin: Well, I have to buy a helmet, it makes my head hotter, it messes up my hair for a start.

                            As it is, for much riding the helmet is nothing more than a fine preventer.

                            it has been shown plenty of times that the helmet laws reduced cycling which leads to increased car traffic, reduced participation in activity which is detrimental to overall health of the population.

                            • Resin on 10/11/2019 - 13:16

                              @Euphemistic: You are comparing apples with oranges. Not everything should be interrelated.

                              I have no doubt there is truth in what you are saying but anyone that chooses not to wear one or chooses not to ride for the sake of being vain is the issue and not the other way around.

    • diazepam on 03/11/2019 - 22:57

      The amount the government will pay for your healthcare after you hit your head (CT brain, MRI brain and C-spine), hospital admission etc. will be astronomical compared to a written off car when you hit a barrier at 20km/h.

      • Euphemistic on 04/11/2019 - 17:44

        and what about the injuries to driver, passenger or other parties as a result of the crash? Those costs aren’t negligible. And it’s not hitting a barrier at 20km/h either, it’s hitting whatever at 20km/h faster than the speed limit of the road design.

  • CandyMan on 02/11/2019 - 18:49

    Start an online petition

  • gviddy on 03/11/2019 - 05:01
    -1

    Your face is unreasonable and unrational !!

  • terrys on 03/11/2019 - 09:09

    "The fine for parking within 10m of a corner (where there is no sign) "

    What's the fine for parking below the high water mark at Bondi?

    • HeWhoKnows on 06/11/2019 - 08:05

      I would guess around $1000 knowing Waverley Council
      And the rangers shoot first there (take photos) and ask questions later

  • HelpMeiCantSee on 03/11/2019 - 09:22

    It doesn’t matter, do whatever you want, wave around your little blue card, then just tell them you were high, the drugs made you do it. Gets people off everything else…

  • OzHunterNSW on 03/11/2019 - 09:33

    The thing I do not like is this "double demeit points" each and every holiday period.
    Another is police using road construction works to hide their RBT units. Traversing once such site had lights flashing everywhere and workers in hi vis, yet, suddenly I've got this officer jumping out pointing a lit baton at me. Pointing this thing mad it look like a dot. He got aggro bc I failed to see him in the time he expected me to. I ended up finding myself lecturing the idiot.
    Sorry… off topic

    • whooah1979 on 03/11/2019 - 09:40

      Did you get a ticket for speeding?

  • picklewizard on 03/11/2019 - 09:47
    +1

    The reason you aren't allowed to park near a corner is that it obstructs the view of traffic for turning vehicles.

    This puts lives at risk. It is 100% justified.

    How on earth do you justify your thought process that a law that isn't signed is unfair? Is it okay to steal from a shop that doesn't specifically have a "no shoplifting" sign?

    • DiscoJango on 03/11/2019 - 10:48
      -1

      OP's argument is: how is anyone supposed to know this law is in effect.

      There are no solid white lines indicating where you can or cannot park. There will be no street signs indicating this. The council will just assume you know, and then proceed to fine you.

      One persons reasonable assumption of safe parking distance will be different to someone elses, which is why it needs to be signed. Just like every single road constantly had a sign stating exactly what the speed limit is, otherwise everyone would just assume.

      End of the day, its just another easy way for council to increase revenue. Nothing to do with road safety. Just another kpi for a parking inspector.

      • whooah1979 on 03/11/2019 - 11:01
        +1

        This road rule was not enacted by council. It was passed by both Houses of the Parliament. Councils are required to enforce it.

      • field1985 on 03/11/2019 - 11:54
        +1

        It's is a drivers responsibility to stay abreast of the road rules. If they don't want to, they should hand in their licence.

        This also applies when travelling overseas. You are subject to the laws of the country you are in. It's your responsibility to learn and follow them. Ignorance is no excuse.

        "One persons reasonable assumption of safe parking distance will be different to someone elses, which is why it needs to be signed." It's pretty clearly defined as 10m. If you can't judge what 10m is, you should not be driving.

        Councils have a responsibility to maintain traffic flow and safety on their roads. They need deterance of fines/points to prevent selfish people breaking the rules.

      • HeWhoKnows on 06/11/2019 - 08:08

        Good summary

        However my issue is not only the much higher fine where there is no sign but also the loss of 2 demerit points and you are not even driving the car !!!!

        So a red P plater loses their license just for parking the car somewhere.

    • highdealer on 03/11/2019 - 11:44
      +5

      He didn't say the law isn't fair, the fine does not fit the crime is what he is saying. Parking in a no-stopping zone get you $268 and no demerit point but stopping with-in 9.9 m of an intersection get $344 and 2 demerit points.

      Most stopping are within 10m of an intersection but because the sign is there you get a lesser penalty.

      Intentionally breaking the law get you a lesser fine than something you might commit unintentionally or unknowingly is irrational and unreasonable.

      • whooah1979 on 03/11/2019 - 11:58
        -1

        stopping with-in 9.9 m of an intersection

        A driver may successfully challenge a fines based on a 9900mm measurement.

        • highdealer on 03/11/2019 - 12:51
          +4

          Yes, and I successfully challenge a fines base on an 8m measurement.

          Doesn't change the fact that a parking fine come with harsher penalty and demerit point and compare to an intentional driving offence.

      • HeWhoKnows on 06/11/2019 - 08:11

        highdealer
        Thank you for clarifying my point.

        You are exactly correct

  • Herbse on 03/11/2019 - 10:44
    +1

    Not knowing the rules is not an excuse for breaching them.

    The reason you can't park within 10m of an intersection is because it makes it difficult for cars to manoeuvre safely through the corner and also makes it difficult for pedestrians crossing the street to safely see if the intersection is clear to walk.

    • HeWhoKnows on 06/11/2019 - 08:15

      Correct

      But paying a much higher fine and loss of 2 demerit points for an unitentional breach is the issue.

      Remember that parking in a NO STOPPING zone which is clearly an intentional breach carries a much lower fine and no demerit points.

      And these NO STOPPING signs are nearly always on corners.
      So we are talking about the same offense, however one sign-posted and the other not.

  • gimme on 03/11/2019 - 10:46

    Most road laws and penalties are designed with 2 things in mind. Dumb f%$@s and the need for revenue. In my experience there's large numbers of the former and high requirement of the latter. My bet it's going to get worse

    • HeWhoKnows on 06/11/2019 - 08:17

      There will be a lot of RED P platers losing thier license over this one

  • [Deactivated] on 03/11/2019 - 11:02

    At one of over 10 year period, i had no demerit points or parking tickets.

    That was after several parking tickets and no left turn (for certain times) fine.

    I didnt like paying the fines, so i became much more careful and more knowledgeable on most road rules.

    Passing L and getting P1 meant nothing. Experience counts, including getting bitten for making mistakes.

    However, some people have prejudice for govt revenue raising and blah blah.

    Some new migrants and some certain people have no hope in adapting to these rules. E.g. mobile phone use with one or both hands while driving on the public roads.

  • field1985 on 03/11/2019 - 11:38

    It makes complete sense. They need to include demerit points, otherwise rich pricks will just ignore the rules and park anywhere because a fine is of no consequence to them. Don't park like a (profanity) and you wont be fined. Simples!

    • whooah1979 on 03/11/2019 - 11:51

      Bring rich doesn’t make someone a peter. One may see all kinds of drivers from different tax brackets parking unlawfully.

      • field1985 on 03/11/2019 - 12:03

        Sure, the wealthy don't have a monopoly on greed/stupidity.

  • Odin on 03/11/2019 - 12:14
    +3

    How predictable that the comments would be full of pro-authoritarians all essentially bleating "how dare you question the rules!"

    Such a common attitude throughout Australia. It's sad.

    • whooah1979 on 03/11/2019 - 12:23
      -2

      It’s sad that drivers that flout the rules complain about getting caught.

  • highdealer on 03/11/2019 - 12:39
    +2

    People think that this 10 m rule without signage makes sense is out your mind.

    The rule is ambiguous and is up to interpretation.

    Not every intersection is like another, and it is not always clear when an intersection start. The rules just state: "Stop within 10 m of intersection (no traffic lights)*". From where do you measure this 10m? Some intersection curves.

    Even if you can define where the intersection is, are you going to carry a 10 tape measure with you every time you park to make sure you are not within 10m?

    If this was about safety, then having signage and marking should be of the most important to prevent people from putting other people life at risk, but it is not and 100% about revenue raising.

    Not all intersection is the same and parking within 10m will not obstruct vision at all for some intersection.

    10 m is a ridiculous distance sometimes and common sense should apply.

    This is an example near where I live: https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/60750/73883/20191103_1…

    The silver car is mine and it is parked anywhere between 6-10 meters from the intersection depend on where you define the intersection start. Even the Silver Mazda and Black Honda on the other road are within "10m" of this intersection.
    The black Honda is about 7m and the Silver Mazda is only 5m from the white line. Don't even get me started with the White car.

    As a regular user of this intersection, none of these cars park here obstructs the view of oncoming traffic at all an no one in the neighbourhood have any problem with any of the car park in these spots.

    If you still think you absolutely must not park 10m from an intersection, here is another fun one: https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/60750/73882/20191103_1…

    This silver car is less than 10m from the intersection but within the boundary of a 2P parking sign and the sign is not even more than 10m from the intersection. So by some dumb sh!t logic, everyone parking up until that parking sign you get a fine?

    • CandyMan on 03/11/2019 - 14:45

      It’s measured where the curve ends

      I funny thing is some signs are erected 2m from the intersection and that’s not dangerous

      Also keep in mind that if there is a traffic light then you must park at least 20m from the intersection

      • highdealer on 03/11/2019 - 16:15

        Also keep in mind that if there is a traffic light then you must park at least 20m from the intersection

        That law is even more of a joke, there are literally hundreds of parking sign no more than 10m from a traffic light intersection near where i live.

        • CandyMan on 04/11/2019 - 23:33

          That law is even more of a joke,

          Yes I made that point in my comment

      • factor on 04/11/2019 - 08:39

        Incorrect. Measured from the point the two roads "intersect" if you were to continue them both straight through without a curve. It's it the regulation (road rules).

  • happirt on 03/11/2019 - 13:45
    +1

    just park where you are supposed to and you have nothing to cry about

  • Obkay on 03/11/2019 - 13:48

    Im with you OP, if the fine is serious enough to warrant demerit points, there should definitely be a sign posted stating that.

    We have signs everywhere else saying what we can and cant do, why is this one being ommitted? Councils will just silently start fining people who would have no idea the rule has changed and make a heap of cash off this until eventually theyll put up a sign after people complain.

  • Kamsi on 03/11/2019 - 15:42

    I can understand where the OP is getting from. Some of the penalties need to be adjusted because some are quite stupid and unfair.

  • stueyh on 03/11/2019 - 17:13

    Bet you haven't tried to turn a vehicle like a bus or truck that is over 10m long around a corner with a vehicle parked within that 10m buffer and avoid hitting the cars coming the other way? I guess not, these sorts of road rules are there for a reason and people who are ignorant and don't follow them deserve the punishment

  • justwii on 03/11/2019 - 19:44

    Can't find that rule anywhere, reference please?

  • Lockieasy on 03/11/2019 - 20:00

    In my area the council painted yellow lines on just about every corner so you know where you can't park.

  • floppy on 04/11/2019 - 09:06

    The fine for parking within 10m of a corner (where there is no sign)

    I'm lucky that where i live there are signs pretty much on every corner…. mainly because they are all 2 hour limited parking zones.

  • Battlestar666 on 04/11/2019 - 09:32

    It it’s really so dangerous as to warrant demerit points, all they need is a line on the road demarcating the “10m” mark, similar to lines put around driveways to “advise” people not to park over the driveway. This would take the guesswork out. Not done because of the revenue it’s raising. My wife copped one of these fines a couple of years ago for a perfectly safe park in a quiet street by a council notorious for the practice.

  • Seraphin7 on 04/11/2019 - 11:17

    While I agree that the value of traffic and parking fines is, generally speaking, completely disproportionate to the issue they cause, I must take up one point with you.

    Note that no demerit point penalties apply to penalties in relation to sign posted areas indicating where you CANNOT stop or park. Even though these are more severe infringements.

    Parking close to a corner is always a genuine safety issue. Parking in a "no stopping" or "no parking" zone is often (although not always) primarily an issue of hindering traffic flow. Matters related to safety should always be dealt with more harshly than other matters.

  • trapper on 04/11/2019 - 12:56

    If you continue to park there for a whole week even while getting a fine every day then that is pretty stupid isn't it.

    Or do you mean you if you leave the car there for a week before you came back? In that case you shouldn't get multiple penalties for the same offence, I would contest in court in that case.

  • funnysht on 04/11/2019 - 13:40
    +1

    revenue raising at its finest.

    why not just the demerit points.

    whilst i see police always parking in front of macodnalds fast food etc. without even a second thought. police state -__-

  • KozieSeller on 04/11/2019 - 15:43

    I still don't know who the 50% of the idiots that voted in the Liberals, another term of suffering

    • Lockieasy on 04/11/2019 - 16:39

      I don't think there are any other parties in NSW.

  • No ONE on 04/11/2019 - 20:03

    Time to smash all the council's property and leave a print out of the "parking within 10m" offence section, that would sent a message. If they keep raising the offence, you double that.

    Time to sent a message.

  • Plug on 04/11/2019 - 22:03

    It's only the intersection ones that attract penalty points

  • peterpeterpumpkin on 05/11/2019 - 07:28

    I never understood why they don't paint lines at the 10 metres point in Australia. The cost in materials and labour is probably less than having a parking officer note the infringement and issue a fine in the mail. Except the paint reduces risk while the fine increases revenue.

  • syousef on 05/11/2019 - 11:08

    I'm surprised this is getting so much traction and no one is talking about the plan to pull down all the speed camera warning signs in NSW as early as next month.

  • mubd1234 on 09/11/2019 - 20:18

    I think totally reasonable to charge $344 for stopping too close to a corner.

    I live on a street where we have regular offenders, and it makes it extremely dangerous to turn because visibility is severely impaired.

  • [Deactivated] on 21/01/2020 - 15:25

    Oh get a life and stop whinging , is that you Wilma ?
    Whinging whinging Wilma

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join