Test Drove a Used Car from a Dealer - Got Fined for Being Unregistered!

I went to test drive a used car on Friday from a dealer and on my way back to them, I was pulled over by the police and given a ticket for driving an unregistered vehicle!

I said I was testing the car from a dealer and the constable said it was the responsibility of the driver to ensure that the vehicle was registered.

Has anyone had this happen and do I have any recourse (car dealer said they would pay the fine)?

Thanks

Comments

  • Was the vehicles wearing Trade/Dealer Plates?

  • Wow this is new

  • Wait, this is a thing?!

  • (car dealer said they would pay the fine)

    Problem solved. They stuffed up.

  • Did you lose demerit points?

  • +34 votes

    Vehicle Registration Status Checks; (per state.)

    Feel free to bookmark it…

  • (car dealer said they would pay the fine)

    /end-thread

    • I agree. Non-demerit offence and dealer said they would pay… soooo…?

    • Not really - Now OP has a record for driving an unregistered car, which has implications for the future - and potentially even job prospects.

      e.g. Can't be a traffic cop in most states with anything on your record. Or if OP were to have a serious traffic incident and end up in court, he now has a history of bad behaviour.

      • it also flags him in the automatic number plate system as well as a known unrego'd car driver

        • its true if he purchased the car that had no rego how ever if he doesnt purchase the car he wont have the plates to be recognised

  • +41 votes

    Thanks everyone. I know that the matter “ends” because they are paying the fine but in principle, I am admitting guilt for something I didn’t have control over.

    The other aspect was to highlight to others to be aware. The response I got when I said “how am I suppose to know if a vehicle I’m testing is registered” and was told I could download the VicRoads app to check.

    Has ANYONE ever done this for a dealer demo test?

    Cheers!

    • No. But I did check the loan car I had while my car was being repaired.

      The loan car was not registered……I left it on the side of the road 70km from the shop and told them to collect it..

    • Thanks, I didn't realise this was a thing. Always thought it was the owners responsibility to make sure their car was registered.

      Makes you wonder if you were covered for insurance, and would the dealer have footed the bill if you had totalled a Ferrari.

      • It's both the car owners responsibility and the drivers responsibility…

        Vic. Road Safety act says; (Part 2, Division 2, section 7)

        7 Offence if vehicle or trailer not registered

        (1)A person must not—(a) use on a highway a motor vehicle or a trailer; or (b) own a motor vehicle or a trailer which is used on a highway—unless that motor vehicle or trailer is registered under this Part or exempted from registration under the regulations or is used as specified in a registration permit granted in accordance with the regulations.
        (2)A person must not— (a) use a motor vehicle or trailer in breach of any condition of its registration; or(b) being the registered operator of a motor vehicle or a trailer, permit or allow it to be so used or employ a person to so use it

        Under parts 1(b) and 2(b), the dealership is as much at fault for allowing OP to take the car. The reason they probably offered to pay it is because the fine for them allowing it to happen could be up to double what the driver would pay (Something like OP's 25 penalty units vs. dealer's 50)

        InB4: "Op WaSn'T oN ThE HiGhWaY!!!1!!11!"

        Definition of highway in these rules is taken from the Local Government Act 1989 that says;

        public highway is a road which is open to the public for traffic as a right, irrespective of whether the road is in fact open to traffic, and includes a road
        (a) declared to be a public highway under section 204(1) or under any other Act;
        (b) which becomes a public highway under section 24(2)(c) of the Subdivision Act1988;
        (c) which is a public road under the Road Management Act 2004;

    • The dealer is responsible for ensuring correct trade plates are on the vehicle before they let you take a test drive. Hence, they are paying the fine.

      AFAIK, they will take a copy of your driver's licence for any speeding or red light fines that you might incur during the test drive, for which you are responsible.

    • I woukd triple check and make sure they actually pay the fine, they might just put it in the pile with all the unpaid rego renewals.

    • Did they put a trade plate on it for the test drive?

      Ignore the regular plates, the trade plate is the thing in question - either they forgot to put one on the car, or they put it on but its rego was expired, or the cop is an idiot but "they are the laaaawww!" /Cartman

      You shouldn't have to check rego for this, the dealer should have their shit sorted, but you'd have to check the dealer plate not the normal one, and who knows if the regular app/website check for normal plates works for them?

    • While in most cases yes the driver is responsible…in this case id say its the dealer.

    • +1 vote

      I didn’t have control over.

      Did you ask the dealer if the rego was current? (Technically you could have checked yourself, but I agree that hardly anyone would bother to go to that extent)

  • What recourse do you want?

    Dealer said they would pay the fine. If the car had to be left at the side of the road, I’d have expected the dealer to come and get you or pay for a taxi/Uber.

    If there are no demerit points no big deal. Fill in part on back saying you weren’t driving. Problem solved. Rego probably came through when they were closed or not allowed to do test drives. Accounts forgot to pay it.

    It is ridiculous to think you’d do a rego check of the car you would be test driving.

    • +12 votes

      Fill in part on back saying you weren’t driving. Problem solved.

      Are you serious? That is just plain wrong. OP was driving and was pulled over and fined by a police officer, in person. Pretty sure giving false and/or misleading information is also an offence.

      It is ridiculous to think you’d do a rego check of the car you would be test driving.

      Why is it "ridiculous"?? So, you would just happily drive any random car you were given, even though there is a possibility that it could be unregistered and the onus is on the driver to check the car is registered prior to driving it? It could be unregistered and thus uninsured, all for the sake of a 30 second online check…

      • If the OP borrowed a mates car then yes it is their responsibility to check it is insured and registered.

        As it was a dealer demo, it is pretty reasonable to think that the car would be registered.

        • -21 votes

          So, borrow a mates car, check it. Borrow a dealers car… take their word? Your mate has one car (maybe two) and is your mate. A dealer has a yard with anywhere up to 200 cars to keep track of and isn't your mate…

          It's not about what's "reasonable", as "Well, it was a dealer so I thought…" isn't really a defence… If it was, the cop would have gone to the dealership and fined them instead, as it is also an offence for an owner to allow a vehicle to be driven unregistered.

          One Latin maxim which still endures in Australian law is ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law does not excuse)

          Simple fact is, if you don't own it or don't pay the rego on it, check the status (it's literally 30 seconds). OP's post is a clear warning that it's not "reasonable" to "assume" it would be registered.

          I think OP's post was great in highlighting the fact that we shouldn't just assume… It's a 30 second check on VicRoads, or a $826 fine… It's your pick.

          • @pegaxs: Nah you're wrong mate.

          • @pegaxs: A dealer is a business, they would have someone in their accounts department either who’s entire job is managing registrations for the entire car yard or a very large part of it is.

            9/10 times this would never happened but more than likely as I said before the bill has probably come in, and it has been missed due to COVID. Maybe accounts aren’t back or maybe they’re back at 50% capacity.

            For a mate, yes I would check and probs even for a hire car because more than likely I would be sharing driving somewhere and/or I’d be in a state where I don’t live or far away enough so being stranded would be annoying if the cop wouldn’t allow you to pay the rego then and there.

            For private sellers, absolutely as well. I just think dealers and businesses in general should be responsible for the rego, not the operator.

            I do agree it is something to be aware of and should be checked when doing test drives in the next 6 months.

            • @knick007:

              dealers and businesses in general should be responsible for the rego

              The dealer is responsible for “paying” the rego. They are the owner or “registered operator”. You, as the “driver” are not responsible for the rego, you are only responsible for not driving it on a public roadway if it is not registered.

              So, you would check a mates car, a random sellers car, a car hire company’s car, but you draw the line at checking a dealers car? The very people who lie for a profession? The fact that they have a huge stock of vehicles to keep track of at any one time doesn’t worry anyone… If anyone is going to misplace rego, it’s a car dealer, the very people most users here seem to trust the most.

              As I have said before, if I am asked to drive a vehicle that I don’t own or I am not familiar with, I whip out my phone and run the rego, it literally takes 30 seconds. The law says I can’t drive an unregistered vehicle and it’s me that has to deal with police. I’m not taking the risk.

              and should be checked when doing test drives in the next 6 months.

              FTFY…

              • @pegaxs: Would never have occurred to me to check anyone's rego but my own, mates, dealers, hire cars.

                Now it would - so that thread has been well worth it, thanks OP.

          • @pegaxs: Go to your mate who says your mole is not a cancer, forget it. Go to your doctor who says your mole is a cancer… take their word? (profanity) yes. It is literally part of their jobs.

            Yes your body your responsibility. But you are literally taking the piss here. It is ridiculous to think you need to check the rego of your demo or loan car.

      • Why is it "ridiculous"?? So, you would just happily drive any random car you were given, even though there is a possibility that it could be unregistered and the onus is on the driver to check the car is registered prior to driving it? It could be unregistered and thus uninsured, all for the sake of a 30 second online check…

        Dealership's have a professional duty of care. Salespeople should check their app before a used car test drive. The Used Car Manager should have a list and authorize any test drives (for multiple reasons). The GM and DP should have those lists too. Several people dropped the ball.

        This is a major screw up. But if the dealership is a little dodgy, the department is strong and the sales person is strong no one will care.

        • Dealers lie for a living. Why is it we don't trust sales people with some information, but trust them when a car that they say is registered. This forum is littered with examples of car salespeople bullshitting, and yet people still just accept what dealers say?

          As I have mentioned time and time again (some of it since deleted), the dealer is as much to blame. Under the Vic. Road Safety Act, the owner/registered operator is also partially to blame. It is an offence to permit a vehicle to be used that is not registered. This is where the dealer failed. (And probably why they offered to pay the fine. Don't need the PR blow up from that.)

          Unfortunately, "assumptions" are not a defence in this particular law. The onus is also on the driver to not drive the vehicle. This is stated in the Act as well as backed up by OP receiving a fine from the police officer. You cant just "assume" that because you are at a dealer that the vehicles are registered. You cant just "assume" that because someone tells you it's registered, that it is.

          Several people dropped the ball… This is a major screw up.

          I totally agree. There is so much redundancy in this system, even I am amazed that it failed on every level it went though. The stock controller, the sales manager, the receptionist, the sales person, and as much as all the neggers above don't want to face facts, it also bypassed OP. Not one person in this chain stopped to check. If one person had checked the registration status, this would not have happened.

          But, at the end of the day, the buck stops with the driver. It is illegal to drive a vehicle that is not registered. If you don't know the rego status of a vehicle, you should not drive it until you can verify from the appropriate source that it is. And a sales guy or a private seller telling you it is registered, this is not an "appropriate source."

          I service customers cars and I do about 5~10 rego checks a day before I do any road tests, because I know that there will be that one day that I wont check and that will be the day the police will catch me. I certainly don't just "assume" because they drove it to work that it's registered. The law says that the driver is responsible, so I always check.

          • @pegaxs: Australian Consumer Law

            Services must:

            be provided with acceptable care and skill or technical knowledge and taking all necessary steps to avoid loss and damage

            Sorry pegaxs, your points are reasonable, but I can't see how sending a client out in an unregistered vehicle complies with ACL.

            Tests drives are not free. Clients are qualified. Contracts are signed. Then the client is allowed a test drive. The client has paid for the test drive with both their time and their personal information.

            Driver might be fined, but the responsibility is on the service provider. Yes, it is smart for a client to check rego themselves, but it is not most people outside of the industry know how to do.

            You do it yourself as part of your work as it is one of your duties as a professional.

            Dealers lie for a living

            Yes and no. They can't lie about the product. If the product is not fit for purpose, the client has a high chance of keeping both the car and a refund if they take their issues to tribunal.

            Instead some will lie about experiences, like 'I bought one for my [family member]' (surprisingly about half the time it is true because salespeople will often buy clearance stock), or they will ignore limitations, like DPF systems, if the use you discussed during qualification make the limitations irrelevant.

            • @This Guy:

              I can't see how sending a client out in an unregistered vehicle complies with ACL.

              I cant see how sending a customer out in an unregistered car fullstop complies with ANY law. As I have mentioned before, and my fingers are worn out from typing it… It is against the Vic. Road Safety Act for the registered operator/owner to allow or permit the use of an unregistered vehicle on a public road.

              So, excluding ACL, it's still illegal what the dealer did. BUT, it's also illegal what OP did, It's both illegal to permit and to actually do, hence why OP was fined and the cop didn't accept his excuse of "but it's not my car, it's a test drive from a dealer… How was I supposed to know…"

              Should the dealership have been fined as well? Absolutely! They broke the law as well. But assumptions, complacency and ignorance are not valid reasons for breaking the law, and the cop caught OP and not the dealer. The dealer knows they goofed up, hence they are paying the fine, as they should.

              And I'm not going down the rabbit hole of ACL. ACL is for purchased goods not as described, not to goods you think you might buy, if you like them. ACL kicks in when you buy. Now, if OP comes back and says that they purchased the vehicle and the contract stated that the vehicle was to be registered and it wasn't, they might have a case under ACL for goods not supplied as contracted.

              And the ACCC don't often hand out unregistered vehicle driving offence fines… Happy to be proved wrong there, though.

              Driver might be fined, but the responsibility is on the service provider.

              The driver gets fined because it's also the drivers responsibility… BOTH are at fault. Dealer for "permitting/allowing it" and OP for "doing" it. If people did the 30 second check via their relevant state's website, this would not happen… And alllll the butt-hurt negs in the world cant change that… maybe your local MP can?

              They can't lie about the product.

              This forum is littered with examples of dealers doing just that (Build Vs. MY and features are just some). ACA and Today/Tonight exist almost for this sole reason. So, no, they can lie and the do lie.

              Case in point:
              OP: Is the car registered?
              Sales: Yeah, good to go…
              Police: Any reason you're driving an unregistered vehicle today??
              OP: FUUUUUUUUUU

              • @pegaxs: You service cars.

                You are saying that is it my responsibility, as Johnny customer, to make sure my car is road legal after you have finished your work?

                NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT I CAN'T GET FINED FOR DRIVING AN UNREGISTERED OR UNSAFE VEHICLE. Just that it is the professional's responsibility to ensure their service is up to standard and to cover any costs when they stuff up.

                This forum is littered with examples of dealers doing just that (Build Vs. MY and features are just some).

                And people have received free cars for bull poop like that. In most dealerships it is the job of Finance or Aftermarket to go over the particulars of the car and have the client sign a box right below the particulars stating this is what they are buying. Most people glaze over at this point as they don't care. They just want their car.

                They can't lie unless they want to give cars away for free.

                Remember the Ford PowerShift Drama. How about Holden's lemon law debacle. So many free cars and complete refunds.

                Don't get me wrong, their are liars and fraudsters in the Auto industry. But they usually work in service or after market, somewhere they can do very little financial harm to the business.

                • @This Guy:

                  You service cars.

                  Well, at times I do. I mainly do troubleshooting and advanced diagnostics as well as customer service and road tests. Servicing is for the filter spinners.

                  You are saying that is it my responsibility, as Johnny customer, to make sure my car is road legal after you have finished your work?

                  Nope. Not saying that at all. Never said that. Never mentioned it. It's not even in the same post code as what I have been talking about… But you know, get outraged and feel free to use CAPS and bold if you like, based on something I never said. *cough* Straw man much?? *cough*

                  What I am saying is; If you are the "registered operator" of your vehicle. It's your responsibility to make sure the vehicle is registered. As someone who services it, it is my responsibility to not drive/road test it if you have not registered it.

                  NO ONE IS ARGUING…

                  I beg to differ.

                  Anyway, I've read the rest of your comment and I'm not going to reply as it is a straw man, it's off topic and not related to this thread in any way. All I will say is that this forum and plenty of posts here stand as testament to the fact that sales people lie and do so on a regular basis. That's like saying "Police cant lie. If you ask and undercover cop if they are police, the have to tell you…" No they don't, and no they wont.

                  • @pegaxs: What are you replying to? It is clearly not what I am writing.

                    Sorry pegaxs, bold to be clear, not to be rude.

                    "You service cars."

                    Well, at times I do.

                    It wasn't an insult.

                    "You are saying that is it my responsibility, as Johnny customer, to make sure my car is road legal…"

                    Nope. Not saying that at all. Never said that. Never mentioned it. It's not even in the same post code as what I have been talking about…

                    What I am saying is; If you are the "registered operator" of your vehicle. It's your responsibility.

                    • @This Guy:

                      It wasn’t an insult.

                      Didn’t think it was, I was just telling you what I do. I don’t do a lot of “service” work, I mainly do diagnostic work.

                      It's your responsibility to make sure the vehicle is registered.

                      FTFY…

                      • @pegaxs:

                        It's your responsibility to make sure the vehicle is registered.

                        No. It is the dealerships. As we have both listed, there are up to six people who should be on this who should stop a unregistered vehicle driving off the yard.

                        Hassle free registration is one of the main services of a dealership.

                        You agree that if you screw up at your job, you are responsible. You call dealers liars. But some how, if six people at a dealership, who 'own' the vehicle, fail to met their professional duties, conditions of their dealership licence, conditions of their franchise agreement/s, conditions attached to their trade plates, conditions of their development application, other local bylaws and Australian Road Rules (ignoring ACL), the client, who is in contract with the dealership with their signed test drive agreement, is responsible.

                        I have heard dealership GM's complain of fines up to $20k per unregistered vehicle fined. This obviously includes contract penalties and may be brand specific, but it is completely the service provider's duty to ensure the service they provide is fit for purpose.

                        We both agree dealerships can be dodgy, but I have never read a test drive agreement that states the client is responsible for checking the registration status of the vehicle they are about to drive. And test drive agreements pin everything on the client.

                        • @This Guy:

                          No. It is the dealerships.

                          No, it’s not. If you drive a vehicle, any vehicle, yours, your wife’s/husband’s/friend’s/employer’s/seller’s/dealer’s/etc, it is your duty as the driver to make sure the vehicle registration status is current and active. If you don’t check and drive the vehicle and registration has lapsed, you are committing an offence under the Road Safety Act. (This is why OP received the fine.)

                          It’s the owners obligation to a: keep the registration current and b: not permit/employ a person to drive an unregistered vehicle.

                          Hassle free registration is one of the main services of a dealership.

                          No it isn’t. The main services of a dealership is to sell and service cars. I don’t take my car to a dealer for “hassle free registration”.

                          You agree…

                          Nope, don’t agree to anything that starts with “you agree” (or “so what you’re saying…”)

                          if six people at a dealership…

                          Already covered this in another comment. It’s a cascading series of errors that passed every checkpoint and never got flagged at any step. A monumental stuff up of epic proportions. The final step was OP, who just “assumed” that the dealer had taken care of it (which as the registered operator, they should have done.) but didn’t bother to check, hence, the fine.

                          ACL

                          Has nothing to do with Road Safety Act. Already stated that dealer is also at fault under the Road Safety Act. Dealer should have been fined. Dealer knows this and is why dealer is paying the fine because they know a fine for them would be much steeper. You are getting all bent out of shape thinking that I am saying the dealer isn’t at fault. They are. They failed in their obligations to keep the car registered and to not permit someone to drive it if it was unregistered…

                          I have never read a test drive agreement that states the client is responsible for checking the registration status

                          The client is not responsible for the status, they are only responsible for checking the status. And if you have never read it, it’s because it’s contained in the Road Safety Act. The police are not governed by a road test agreement, they are bound by Road Rules and Road Safety acts (among others). They don’t care what your contract with the dealer says, they only care about what the law says (and filling their quota for the day… and beating on minorities…)

                          • @pegaxs:

                            You agree…

                            Nope, don’t agree to anything that starts with “you agree” (or “so what you’re saying…”)

                            So you are not dumb, you are just trolling. Good bye.

  • +10 votes

    pretty hash

    and very slack work from the dealer. name and shame

    imagine if you had a crash

    • There is no difference between having an accident in a registered vs an unregistered vehicle. The driver is liable for the damages either way.

      • +5 votes

        i beg to differ. if the car is unregistered, you are liable even if you are not at fault. and any insurance certainly isn't going to cover the driver of the unregistered car

        • A driver operating an unregistered vehicle doesn't negate the other party's liability if the other party causes the collision.

          • +1 vote

            @whooah1979: regardless, you would have no insurance or ctp which could be significant especially if you caused injury to others

            • @mtg: CTP in NSW covers all parties involved in a collision. That includes pedestrians, passengers, cyclists, motorcyclists, drivers of other vehicles and, to a lesser extent, the driver at fault.

              That means that CTP covers the injuries for both the driver of the unregistered vehicle and the party that hit them.

              • @whooah1979: Sure but CTP doesn't cover damages to the vehicles or legal liability. With no rego your insurance will be void.

                • @apptrack: You’re right that no rego means no property insurance. But that does matter if the other party is the one that causes the collision. The driver of the unregistered vehicle may legally take the other party to court to seek compensation.

      • You are not covered by CTP so it mose certainly foes make a difference

  • +11 votes

    Now that we've all agreed on what the law actually is, this is where I think the law needs to be changed.

    The responsibility of maintaining a car's registration is with the owner, not with the driver. Therefore, if an unregistered car is being driven, then that has to be the owner's responsibility as well. In other words, the owner needs to be the one receiving the fine, not the driver.

    As much as we can lecture others about checking the registration before getting into a car and driving away, what percentage of the general population actually does that? I'm aware of the rule and many times, I've just simply forgotten to check - when using a rental car, when test driving a car, when borrowing a car. I still remember this one time when we got drinks after work and a friend asked me to drive him and his car back to his place (I didn't drink).

    There are just a multitude of cases where I think it seems almost silly that the driver is being fined over something they have no control over. Ultimately, if you let someone drive your unregistered car, that's on you.

    • The registered operator is responsible for keeping the registration up-to-date and not the owner.

      The driver of the vehicle is responsible for making sure that the vehicle is registered at the time of operation.

    • Now that we've all agreed on what the law actually is

      We have? I beg to differ based on the sheer number of neg votes I received for saying that OP is at fault. This is backed up by legislation and the mere fact that OP received a fine for driving while unregistered.

      what percentage of the general population actually does that?

      Obviously not enough, judging by this thread… Checking registration status is the first thing I do before I drive ANY vehicle that isn't mine.

      I'm aware of the rule and many times, I've just simply forgotten to check

      Then that's a "you" problem, not a "legislation" problem.

      almost silly that the driver is being fined over something they have no control over

      The driver does have control over it. You can call, visit the website or use your states transport departments app (or 3rd party app in some states) to check. If it fails one of those checks, you dont drive it! Or you drive it and you run the risk of being fined for unregistered vehicle or worse, having to foot the bill for injuring or killing someone in the event of an accident, as without registration, there is no TAC/CTP cover either… You think the owner is going to foot the bill for that?

      A LOT of risk for the sake of a 30 second check.

      • All you've done is literally just repeat the same points again saying "that's the way it is". My point is that the law should be changed.

        • Because that is the way it is. And I keep repeating it because so many people just don't get it. No amount of negging my comments can make it go away. It may be a bitter pill for some to swallow, but that isn't my problem if you all get butt hurt over laws. Negging me isn't going to change any laws…

          Even OP has come out and said that they now see how it works. If you are the driver of a vehicle, it is up to you to make sure of its registration status before you drive it. It is up to the registered owner/operator to make sure they register it/keep it registered.

          silly that the driver is being fined over something they have no control over.

          You were saying that a driver has no control over it, but also said that you "knew the law" and that you "forget to check". That is a you problem. The law works because you admitted knowing the law. At any stage, you have the opportunity to check any rego status on any car. You then decide if you leave the car parked, or drive it knowing the risks. This is "control". Choices for your options. Ignorance is not a loss of control, especially when people know that driving an unregistered vehicle is illegal. It's common knowledge. Right up there with don't run stop signs, use your indicator to change lanes and stop on red lights.

          My point is that the law should be changed.

          And how should the law be changed? Are you suggesting that the driver of a vehicle should not be held accountable for checking the registration status of the vehicle? That they should just be able to drive any random vehicle without checking? or that ignorance of the rego status should be a valid defence? Who then becomes responsible? The owner? They already are partially responsible (read above, I posted about that already.)

          If you drive a vehicle that is unregistered and hit another car/motorcyclist/school bus/pedestrian/cyclist and injure/kill someone, who then is responsible if you, as the driver can just say "Well, I didn't know it wasn't registered…" The owner? That hardly seems fair.

          "If it aint (fropanity), don't fix it"…

          The system already works. People already know that you should not/cannot drive unregistered vehicles on public roads. Drivers have many options at their disposal to check that a vehicle is currently registered. Ignorance is not a defence and drivers most certainly DO have control over it. The law already covers both the registered owner/operator AND driver's obligations, so why fix something that isn't broken, all because sometimes you forget… Ignorance, complacency and assumptions should not be used to replace laws.

          • @pegaxs:

            Because that is the way it is. And I keep repeating it because so many people just don't get it. No amount of negging my comments can make it go away. It may be a bitter pill for some to swallow, but that isn't my problem if you all get butt hurt over laws.

            I'm not negging you - we all get negged, no need to get butthurt. If you can't bear others (not me, mind you) disagreeing with you, then maybe you shouldn't say anything. Nothing against, what you're saying, I think it's a fine discussion to have, just complaining about other people negging you seems petty.

            Even OP has come out and said that they now see how it works. If you are the driver of a vehicle, it is up to you to make sure of its registration status before you drive it. It is up to the registered owner/operator to make sure they register it/keep it registered.

            That's the way it is, I agree with that. Now move on to more substantial things.

            And how should the law be changed? Are you suggesting that the driver of a vehicle should not be held accountable for checking the registration status of the vehicle? That they should just be able to drive any random vehicle without checking? or that ignorance of the rego status should be a valid defence? Who then becomes responsible? The owner? They already are partially responsible (read above, I posted about that already.)

            Yes, I think the owner should be held fully responsible. If an unregistered vehicle is on the road, owner gets sent a fine. Surely this seems fair enough. The person who forgets to pay gets fined. It almost seems like common sense to me.

            If you drive a vehicle that is unregistered and hit another car/motorcyclist/school bus/pedestrian/cyclist and injure/kill someone, who then is responsible if you, as the driver can just say "Well, I didn't know it wasn't registered…" The owner? That hardly seems fair.

            No, if you drive a car and you hit something then you are responsible. If there is no CTP, then driver pays out of pocket. I never argued this point.

            The system already works. People already know that you should not/cannot drive unregistered vehicles on public roads. Drivers have many options at their disposal to check that a vehicle is currently registered. Ignorance is not a defence and drivers most certainly DO have control over it. The law already covers both the registered owner/operator AND driver's obligations, so why fix something that isn't broken, all because sometimes you forget… Ignorance, complacency and assumptions should not be used to replace laws.

            "That's just the way it is" isn't a valid reason to not change laws. Hey, remember when we kept slaves or when most of us were peasants with no rights? Hey it didn't seem to "broke" back then right? Maybe we shouldn't have fixed it. This is an irrelevant argument, and the quote an irrelevant one.

            You can have a discussion about who should be fined (the driver or the owner) in the case of an unregistered vehicle without getting butthurt over being negged or without continuing to refer back to "this is how it is" as a defence of your point. I'm just discussing the merits of my point, nothing personal.

            • @p1 ama:

              Yes, I think the owner should be held fully responsible… owner gets sent a fine.

              Already part of the law. The police officer in OP's instance had every right to go to the dealership and charge the dealership with the same offence. But with this comment, "fully responsible", you are suggesting that there should be no onus on the driver whatsoever, and that just opens up the system to abuse.

              No, if you drive a car and you hit something then you are responsible… then driver pays out of pocket.

              And what if the driver cant pay?? An easy fix for that is to make sure the driver is covered by insurance. The way to do that is to make insurance a mandatory part of registration and then partially make it the drivers responsibility to check the car has rego/insurance before they drive it. The way to make sure a driver checks a car has this insurance is to make a law that unregistered cars are not to be driven on the road and fine drivers if they drive a car without rego and CTP/TAC insurance… Oh, hold on… That is the law already…

              "That's just the way it is" isn't a valid reason to not change laws.

              I agree, at times laws do need to be changed, but until the law is changed, the current law is "just the way it is"… Also, changing a law should not be done on a whim and certainly not done to cater to ignorance, complacency or assumptions, which is what you are suggesting. Placing the entire onus on the owner (that already partially exists) takes any of the responsibility off the driver when both should be accountable (which is what it currently is.)

              Hey, remember when we kept slaves

              And what? Slaves? What has… oh, a strawman… Quick everyone, let's attack the strawman… Here is a better example for you;

              How about, years ago, people were not required to have any mandatory personal injury insurance on vehicles. Then people started getting hurt and the at fault drivers had no money to pay for the hospitalisation of the injured party. The gub'ment then made it law that personal injury cover was mandatory and that the onus should be on the owner of the vehicle to pay for it and the driver of the vehicle to check and make sure that the insurance was up to date and current before taking that car anywhere other cars and people may be… Much better analogy than "slave laws".

              Your idea to change the law because you "forget to check sometimes" is the worst idea for a law change. Putting a change of law into affect because "people forget sometimes" opens up the system to abuse. Maybe we should add into law the same rule for speeding? Officer asks you "You know what the speed limit is here?" you could just say "I don't know" or they ask "Do you know how fast you were going?" and you say "I don't remember…" and that's a good enough defence?

              Ignorance, complacency and/or assumptions are not a good replacement for actual laws and laws should not be relaxed to make any of these valid excuses…

              Side note;
              I'm not bothered by the butt hurt neg monkeys. If I was, I wouldn't be here. I was just pointing out that in the face of facts that didn't adhere to what people wanted to hear, it just gets downvoted. I just love this forum that when someone lays down reality, all the frail, easily offended come out and downvote any comments they can get their hands on. It's the same peanuts that upvote "TrAfFiC FiNeS ArE JuSt ReVeNuE rAiSiNG!!!" comments. Unless at least one of them comes forward and tells me why it's wrong, the negs are just a barometer of sheepish stupidity and mob mentality. It's certainly not an indication of right or wrong, because usually the more right you are, the more negs you get.

              • @pegaxs: You not got much else to do this weekend mate? I've never seen someone get so triggered by a forum post.

                Just admit you are wrong and move on.

                • @gaz3342: When you can provide proof I'm wrong, then I'll move on, troll.

                  • @pegaxs:

                    1. The VicRoads phone line (13 11 71)
                    2. The VicRoads website they could have checked
                    3. There are apps for phones
                    4. And I am pretty sure that Victoria still requires rego stickers to be applied.

                    4 is invalid, Victoria hasn't had rego stickers for years.
                    2 and 3 assumes everybody test-driving a car uses a PC/smartphone, which imo is a stretch (I'm thinking of elders, such as my parents).

                    So sure, you could reasonably assume anybody is capable of calling the VicRoads phone line, however there are many instances where even this isn't possible. For weekends, VicRoads line is only open until 12:30pm on a Saturday, so for e.g older people test driving cars on the weekend, very likely SOL.

                    Therefore, I personally believe it is much more reasonable for the onus to be on the licensed motor car traders (LMCT's) to ensure that their vehicles provided for a test-drive are authorised to be on public roads. Trade plates exist precisely so that dealers can do this for unregistered vehicles, the general population cannot get a trade plate.

                    Sure, the law does stipulate that drivers need to ensure cars they drive are registered, but laws have never been concrete, and they can be silly, particularly when we are discussing licensed dealers having trade plates, and forgetting/neglecting to put them on unregistered vehicles provided for a test-drive. Clearly the dealership thought this too, given they have offered to pay the fine in its entirety. Rather than relentlessly arguing for laws that are poor, maybe consider that laws can be improved.

                    I'm happy to hear that the dealership had more common sense than you and compensated OP.

                    • @Chewiebacca:

                      4 is invalid, Victoria hasn't had rego stickers for years.

                      Was confirmed and I withdrew that portion in this comment. OP still had 3 options available to them.

                      I am pretty sure, even for buyers without a phone/PC, the dealership would have access to a phone and the internet. You Your parents can still ask the dealer for proof of registration. If it is registered, they can produce or get this information for you (or your "elderly parents").

                      it is much more reasonable for the onus to be on the licensed motor car traders

                      The onus is also on the dealer to "not permit or allow", but the buck stops with the driver. As stated above, from the Vic Road Safety Act, the driver is also at fault for driving an unregistered vehicle, this is backed up by OP being the one to receive the fine and not the dealer.

                      I personally believe

                      Laws seldom care what you "personally believe".

                      laws have never been concrete

                      No, quite the opposite, they are pretty black and white, but I agree, at times they can be silly or unreasonable, but none the less, they are the law and until a law is changed, it "is what it is…"

                      I'm happy to hear that the dealership had MoRe CoMMoN SeNsE tHaN YoU and compensated OP.

                      Stupid, assumptive comment. Your assumption is that I would not have compensated OP if I was the dealer. Just another person who didn't read my posts, or read it the way you wanted to read it, made assumptions and got all bent out of shape. "HoW DaRe ThEy bLaMe oP!!1!!!"

                      If I was in the dealers position, I would also have paid the ticket for OP, as it is the against the law for me, as the registered operator, to "permit or allow" anyone to use one of my vehicles without registration. I have not said once that the dealer should not pay and have said many times so far that the dealer should absolutely pay. I only wish the police officer said to OP "which dealer, I want to fine them as well for allowing it." and then OP made the dealership pay BOTH tickets…

                      But, the fact remains, (and negging me wont change it), that OP was the one who received the ticket because OP was the one driving the vehicle unregistered, because "laws". And I think it was important now that OP shared this with us, because the amount of negs just goes to show how much absolute ignorance there is of these laws.

                      • @pegaxs: You're being so self-righteous that you're not actually addressing any criticisms of the law, but you're viewing criticisms of "the way things are" as an attack against you. As a result, you're over-stretching and saying things which are profoundly untrue.

                        Laws seldom care what you "personally believe".

                        We live in a democracy. The law is what the general population believe for the most part. The elected representatives are there to pass laws that people "personally believe" and if they do not, they will get voted out. Geez, this is such a mindless statement. Did you know that if enough people "personally believe" that a law should change, it will actually happen. E.g. gay marriage. Wow, democracy.

                        No, quite the opposite, they are pretty black and white, but I agree, at times they can be silly or unreasonable, but none the less, they are the law and until a law is changed, it "is what it is…"

                        That's not true at all. I'm not a lawyer, but I studied law when I was at university. The law is anything but black and white. If the law was black and white, we would not need lawyers, we would not need a judicial system, we would not need judges, trials, juries…etc. Come on now, you can make your point without saying such mindlessly ridiculous things.

                        But, the fact remains, (and negging me wont change it), that OP was the one who received the ticket because OP was the one driving the vehicle unregistered, because "laws". And I think it was important now that OP shared this with us, because the amount of negs just goes to show how much absolute ignorance there is of these laws.

                        How butthurt can you get? You can't engage on the merits of the argument. If you think that people should be fined for driving an unregistered car, that's fine. We can have a discussion about that. You've laid out good arguments for it (e.g. CTP insurance) and I appreciated reading those points.

                        The whole "this is what it is", "laws seldom care what you personally believe", "people are negging me boohoo" are just so childish and immature.

                        • @p1 ama:

                          you're not actually addressing any criticisms of the law

                          I am happy for you to criticize the laws, but offering to replace laws with loopholes for ignorance, complacency or assumptions is not the way to replace laws. That is an absolute stupid basis for law reform.

                          The law is what the general population believe for the most part.

                          It isn't what you "believe", it's what's written down. You don't have to like it, but ignorance of these laws doesn't make them go away or fit what you believe. This whole thread is full of idiots who think that the dealer is fully responsible if you drive a vehicle they give you that isn't registered, when that isn't the case. What they believe and what is law seem to be at odds with each other.

                          Laws for the most part are black and white. They are concrete. The reason we need lawyers and court systems is because the offence/crime committed isn't black and white and is subject to scrutiny. The law at play in this thread is "don't drive unregistered cars on public roads." It's pretty cut and dried stuff.

                          How butthurt can you get?

                          You see, the problem is, not one person has come up with why I am wrong. All the neg sheep pile the negs on, but it doesn't change the fact that it is illegal to drive a vehicle without registration and that the onus is on the driver to make sure that the car they are driving has rego and insurance up to date (It is not up to the driver to pay it or organise it, just to make sure the status is current). I am not talking about what changes should be made or what I "think" the law should be, I'm dealing with what the law currently "is" And no amount of "HoW DaRe He bLaMe Op!!1!!1!" butt-hurt neggery will change what the "current" law says.

                          If I can at least open a few peoples eyes and make them think twice about checking the registration status of a vehicle before they blindly drive it, then I have done my job, and I use the negs in here as a barometer of ignorance and stupidity. I'm not being negged because I am wrong, I'm being negged because people don't like being told they are wrong or that their their belief is being questioned.

                          If you think that people should be fined for driving an unregistered car, that's fine.

                          It's not about what I "think", it's about what the current laws "says". I'm just the messenger here and I'm getting shot for simply saying that "if you drive a car that is unregistered, the law says the onus is on you for not checking the registration status of the vehicle and that ignorance, complacency or assumptions are not valid reasons."

                          So, until the law is changed, we have to operate under the current laws. I am open to changing any law, provided that we don't introduce loopholes that allows ignorance, complacency, assumptions or "forgetfulness" to be used as an excuse to break these laws. But so far, your only reason for wanting to change this particular law is because you "forget sometimes". If you can come up with a better argument to change this law other than your complacency, I'll be happy to hear it. Until then, no, I'm sorry, laws should not be changed because you; "didn't know, didn't think, didn't remember or didn't care…"

                          • @pegaxs:

                            I am happy for you to criticize the laws, but offering to replace laws with loopholes for ignorance, complacency or assumptions is not the way to replace laws. That is an absolute stupid basis for law reform.

                            That's not what I'm advocating for. Again, I think that you've come into this trying to take a (by definition) morally superior position where you are correct because "that's the way it is" and that makes you blind to criticisms of your position.

                            It isn't what you "believe", it's what's written down. You don't have to like it, but ignorance of these laws doesn't make them go away or fit what you believe. This whole thread is full of idiots who think that the dealer is fully responsible if you drive a vehicle they give you that isn't registered, when that isn't the case. What they believe and what is law seem to be at odds with each other.

                            Again, you're conflating two issues here. What the law is and what the law ought to be. Clearly you have a personal attachment to this issue, so let's take another issue. How about gay marriage?

                            A few years ago, a man can't marry a man. If someone were to say "I think we should allow a man to marry a man", would a valid response be "but a man can't marry a man"? Of course not, because the premise of the argument is whether we should allow a man to marry a man or not, not whether it is currently allowed and/or legal.

                            Basically you are making a positive statement "this is the way things are", in a discussion that is primarily normative "this is the way things should be". Again, you are blinded by your choice to be a moral crusader rather than engaging in a discussion of the merits of what you are saying.

                            You see, the problem is, not one person has come up with why I am wrong.

                            I never said you are wrong. You've taken on this position of "me against the world" and you're perceiving everything as an attack against you and/or your position personally. This is not the case and I have never sought to try and prove that you are wrong.

                            By definition, normative statements (of the kind we are discussing) can not be right or wrong because they are simply opinions, not testable hypotheses. You can say "I think the speed limit should be 100", I can say "I think the speed limit should be 120". Neither of those statements are right or wrong. We can talk about why we believe what we should, but neither of those statements seek to describe the world as it is.

                            It may well be the case that the speed limit is 100, or 120, or 60. It doesn't matter. "That's the way it is" is not a logical defence for a position.

                            I am not talking about what changes should be made or what I "think" the law should be, I'm dealing with what the law currently "is"

                            We already agree what the law is. What's the point of talking about what the law is? Anybody can go look it up. That's hardly an interesting or substantive discussion. Yawn.

                            If I can at least open a few peoples eyes and make them think twice about checking the registration status of a vehicle before they blindly drive it, then I have done my job, and I use the negs in here as a barometer of ignorance and stupidity.(i.imgflip.com) I'm not being negged because I am wrong, I'm being negged because people don't like being told they are wrong or that their their belief is being questioned.(i.imgflip.com)

                            I have no interest in the psychology of why people neg you. You seem to bring this issue up again, and again, and again. You don't like being negged, don't post? The fact that you can't stand disagreement is extremely concerning. If you haven't noticed, people neg vote me too, but I don't cry because I believe in people's right to express their view regardless of whether I agree with that view or not, regardless of whether that view is "correct" or not.

                            Again, you've placed yourself in this morally superior position where you are the speaker of truths and the arbiter of what is correct and what is not. If you can't at least see this, then you're just being ignorant.

                            I'll just say this - it's so plainly obvious for someone who is so uppity about "the law" that you have zero legal training and have zero background in the logical foundations of legal thought and reasoning, all of which are standard first-semester, first-year law subjects at any university that teaches the law.

                            This isn't an attack against you, nor is it any sort of implication that only those who have studied the law can discuss or talk about it, not at all. However, the reason I bring it up is that your posts are increasingly filled with logical fallacies - non-sequiturs, ad hominem attacks, moralistic fallacies, proof by assertion…etc. To be able to engage in a discussion with someone involves a basic level of agreement on the terms of a logical argument.

                            • @p1 ama:

                              I think that you've come into this trying to take a (by definition) morally superior position where you are correct because "that's the way it is" and that makes you blind to criticisms of your position.

                              It's not "my" position. It's the "current" law. And until it is changed, it is what it is. I'm being down voted just for stating what the law states.

                              Again, you're conflating two issues here. What the law is and what the law ought to be.

                              I don't deal with what the law "ought" to be, but what it "is". Until it is changed, it is what it is. No amount of negging from anyone will change it. And dealing in "hypothetical" changes is pointless.

                              How about gay marriage?

                              Irrelevant. Nothing to do with Road Safety Act. And it's dealing with a law that "has" changed. If what you are trying to prove is that a law can change, sure, but until it changes, the current law is what is in force.

                              You've taken on this position of "me against the world" and you're perceiving everything as an attack against you and/or your position personally.

                              I am the only one in this thread that has stated the laws relating to why OP was fined. I would say the majority of people in this thread don't appreciate being told that the law differs from their frail beliefs. Only based on the negs and condescending comments but not as single person can prove that what I am suggesting is incorrect. I don't take it personally that idiots want to deny facts. The earth is full of anti-vax and 5G conspiracy theorist already, what's a few more?

                              By definition, normative statements (of the kind we are discussing) can not be right or wrong because they are simply opinions

                              Correct, I agree. But I deal with what is, not what if. Should laws be open to change, yes! Absolutely. We need to change as the world evolves. Should we replace laws with weaker laws because people forget? Absolutely not. Ignorance, complacency or assumptions should never be used to replace any laws and should never be a loophole to absolve people of guilt.

                              Again, you've placed yourself in this morally superior position where you are the speaker of truths and the arbiter of what is correct and what is not.

                              You've missed the point then. I'm not morally superior, I'm just pointing out what the law states. I am not free from guilt, I do the wrong thing, but I learn from it. When someone asks "why", I explain why. Then people don't like the why and take it out on me personally, as if I was the one that issued the fine or that I am advocating for the fine, when I'm not, I'm just laying out the "why" and if people don't like the why, that doesn't make me morally superior, it just means they have issues and need an outlet to blame.

                              And uppity about the law, please. I just find the relevant laws that apply to what a poster has asked about. I'm only "uppity" when people don't like the law. When they do like the law, I'm a hero. And it doesn't take a lawyer to read law. I don't need to be a lawyer to open up legislation and read it. I read it because it concerns me and I enjoy learning. Almost every stupid ticket/fine/infringement that gets posted here is an opportunity for me to learn what the "law" actually "is", as I don't want to be caught out. I don't need to be a lawyer to learn about what laws concern me.

                              And your logical fallacy is logical fallacy fallacy, that you can just dismiss everything I say based on some notion that you feel I may have committed a logical fallacy. I state facts and provide sources. I didn't say anything personally about you, this is not about being morally superior to anyone, it's just the law. If the current laws offend you, that's a you issue, not me being morally superior.

                              Anyway, the point is, OP was fined because of the current legislation. OP shouldn't have the fine rescinded based on what we "think" the law should be, but the dealer should also be fined for this contribution to the debacle. What we should also not do is change this particular law and add a loophole that allows people to negate the law based on ignorance of it, complacency of it or an assumption that it's someone else job.

                              Anyway, I am never going to agree with you on this subject, so at this point it's just best to agree to disagree. You can have at it, but count me out. I've said all I need to say and going over it again and again and getting nowhere is a waste of time.

  • I've read it's common with hire cars (especially in the United States) to not have proper registration - and you then have to go back and get a different car etc. Annoying.

  • Top