Got Booked by Police - No Seatbelt

So turning to OzB community for an another advice

Was travelling on Lady Wakehurst Dr, Otford past a lookout point towards Sydney one Saturday morning. My youngest started to cry quite terribly so I hesitated for a while, saw no vehicles around and performed a U-turn to get back to the lookout point. Police then suddenly appeared behind and signalled me to pullover. I stopped at the said lookout point. My wife who was in the backseat wasn't aware and upon me stopping, unbuckled our my son's seatbelt intending to step out. I told her I couldn't open the door (child locked) as an officer was approaching, she was shocked but she just stayed put.

Police told me my U-turn was illegal due to double solid lines - I should have noticed but I didn't - so I accepted and accepted the fine. He then looked at the backseats and went, oh your son didn't have seatbelts on, which I explained I U-turned to get back to this lookout point to calm my child and his restrain was just released. The police officer saw my crying son and could probably tell I wasn't lying but instead said that "yeah I have 3 kids but I don't do that". He was reluctant but and said yeah it's a serious safety matter. He told me clearly that I will receive a fine for my U-turn which I said OK and for seatbelt, it was kinda vague and my wife was under the impression that he gave us benefit of doubt (fact remains, she only released the seatbelt when we stopped). He then also tried to inspect our car seats to make sure they were the right one for our children - of course they are. My eldest was also properly restrained on his during the incident.

Two weeks later, I got two penalty notices, for the illegal U-turn as well as seatbelt. I paid for the first offence. I requested for a review - stating my circumstances. Today, I received another letter stating that they couldn't be lenient on this as it was a serious safety offence. I was quite speechless as I wasn't asking for leniency. I just didn't think it was an offence I committed.

Called up Revenue NSW who then redirected me to LawAccess and my options are:

  • Pay the fine (quite reluctant, I paid the fine on illegal U-turn which I committed, but why should I pay for this)
  • Go to court (whichI need to pay $100 upfront, if the judge decide the case against me, then might incur further cost)

Regardless, I am in a lose-lose situation. I just want to ask what should I do, and to question whether it is fair - just because of misconception by police officer that I have to go through all these?

TLDR got booked for 2 driving offences, I accepted one but I didn't successfully appeal for the other. I think its unfair. What should I do?

Comments

  • +78

    Pay the fine, move on. Not worth the time, stress and energy.

    • +68

      The police officer will not have any proof for the seatbelt offence.

      • +2

        True, as he only saw it when the car was stopped/parked not while it was moving.

        • +49

          The judge will just throw out the charge after a couple of minutes.

          It's quite possible the police will drop the charge if it goes to court once they realise they have no evidence.

          • +8

            @jv: Agreed, but you still have to show up to court for the case to be thrown out.
            "Not worth the time, stress and energy." kinda sums it up.

            • +36

              @ESEMCE:

              you still have to show up to court for the case to be thrown out.

              That could take years with the COVID backlog…

              In the meantime, you can invest the money you'd otherwise pay for the fine…
              Good chance the cop might have retired by then too…

            • +2

              @ESEMCE: Demerit point ? Record ?

              Maybe it is.

          • -3

            @jv:

            It's quite possible the police will drop the charge if it goes to court once they realise they have no evidence.

            If that is the case, wouldn't this apply to all traffic infringements that aren't caught on camera?

            • +10

              @tsunamisurfer:

              wouldn't this apply to all traffic infringements that aren't caught on camera?

              The ones that the police witnessed the law being broken, or the one's that they just assumed ?

            • +3

              @tsunamisurfer: Not really. If the police at a set of lights see you run a red light chances are the court will believe them over you, even if it was close and you had just made it across before the light turned red. It's touch and go in that situation.

              U-turn on double-lines would most likely be recorded on dash cam as with most other offence these day.

              But the seatbelt fine in this instance is a bit different, unless the officers claims he clearly saw the child was not strapped in (which if the OP claims he was, & I believe him) & would be lying then the OP would lose the case in court most likely.

          • +12

            @jv: jv is bang on here. If OP pleads innocent, the case will be dismissed. There are no costs for this.

            Some cops will just try to stick people with everything they can. I guess that works for them if enough people don't dispute the fines.

          • +1

            @jv: evidence?

            i am not sure if you are aware but pretty much every police officer in NSW wear body camera's that are always on and recording whilst on shift.

            what the officer sees the camera basically see's and more , also anything that OP might have said is now also recorded so he might of even dug himself into the grave by confirming verbally "the restraint was just released".

            he could go to court and the judge might be lenient but the reality is , that officer and that footage is going to be there so its pretty pointless.

            OP just needs to pay the fines and move on with his life.

            • +6

              @DisabledUser373341:

              that officer and that footage is going to be there so its pretty pointless.

              So the officer had footage of the passenger driving without a seat belt on?

              • -7

                @jv: @jv

                if an officer is walking up to a car , and one of the passengers is unrestrained regardless of whether it happened before or after they were pulled over then that driver is basically driving with an unrestrained passenger simple as that.

                the video footage they would have at that point , is that of an unrestrained passenger (the child in this case). there is 0 reason in his particular case the child should be unrestrained at that point thus is a fineable offense.

                the driver also broke one road rule which he was fined for , at that point in time people will say/do anything to get out of a fine , if i was the police officer who is to say whether the driver's account of why the child is unrestrained is true or false?

                at the end of the day it doesn't matter, because if OP goes to court you want to know what the judge is really going to say to the driver in no uncertain terms , "no passenger especially a child should be unrestrained while the ignition is turned on especially given the fact you were just pulled over unless it was an emergency circumstance" , not just that but you actually confirmed to the police officer verbally that your child was unrestrained.

                i can see it in court already

                OP: your honor , i was only trying to calm my son down. that is the only reason why he was unrestrained.
                Judge: ಠ_ಠ

                • +12

                  @DisabledUser373341:

                  if an officer is walking up to a car , and one of the passengers is unrestrained regardless of whether it happened before or after they were pulled over then that driver is basically driving with an unrestrained passenger simple as that.

                  No it's not.

                  Where in the legislation does it say that?

                  • -12

                    @jv: @JV

                    It might not be the exact legislation , however do you want to know what the video footage is going to look like?

                    *police officer walks alongside the right side of the vehicle
                    *looks through the windows on his way to get to the driver
                    *consults driver and fines him for Offence A
                    *walks to the back of the car
                    *observes through the window a child is unrestrained (Offence B)

                    Go ahead and try to explain to the judge why your child is unrestrained at that point , its not as if it was just "literally unclipped in full front view of the officer". If it wasn't unclipped right in front of the officer , guess what , he was unrestrained. simple as that.

                    What i am trying to say is , whilst occupants are in a car , and especially after OP was just pulled over. everyone , man , woman , child should be restrained by appropriate safety devices (seatbelts) unless directed by the officer not to do so.

                    • +15

                      @DisabledUser373341: The offence is driving without a seatbelt, not parking without a seatbelt

                      It might not be the exact legislation

                      That is what the judge will rely on…

                      • -9

                        @jv: Correct , the judge relies on the legislation to make a judgement additionally including evidence provided to him.

                        What evidence does the driver have to prove that the child was restrained while driving? , testimony from his wife? LOL

                        What evidence does the police officer have to prove he was unrestrained? Full video footage of the officer fining the driver for offense A and then encountering another offense (B) in the line of his duties

                        You truly , deeply believe the judge is going to pass his judgement in favor of OP based on the aforementioned FACTS especially after he had just committed an offense to begin with.

                        Come off it mate.

                        • +9

                          @DisabledUser373341:

                          What evidence does the driver have to prove that the child was restrained while driving?

                          They might have strapped them in themselves.

                          What evidence do the police have that he wasn't?

                          If the driver says he was, and the police didn't see whether he was or not, what law has been broken ???

                          • -3

                            @jv:

                            The offence is driving without a seatbelt, not parking without a seatbelt

                            No, no it is not.

                            what law has been broken ???

                            Maybe you should actually understand the law before playing wannabe lawyer and giving terrible, legally incorrect advice that no person should rely on.

                            Where in the legislation does it say that?

                            Read rule 266 of the Road Rules 2014 (NSW) and understand it before you give advice. Clearly the rule applies where a vehicle is moving or stationary, but not parked.

                            • @kjg:

                              The offence is driving without a seatbelt, not parking without a seatbelt

                              No, no it is not.
                              the rule applies where a vehicle is moving or stationary, but not parked.

                              @kjg how is the rule different from what @jv wrote?

                              • @Mikeer: Rule 266 of the Road Rules 2014 (NSW):

                                266 Wearing of seatbelts by passengers under 16 years old
                                (1) The driver of a motor vehicle (except a bus or motor bike) that is moving, or is stationary but not parked, must ensure that this rule is complied with for each passenger in or on the vehicle who is under 16 years old.

                                This rule requires the driver to ensure a passenger under 16 is wearing a seatbelt and is split up into a number of subrules with slightly different requirements depending on the age of the passenger.

                                In short:
                                (1) the relevant offence is not driving without a seatbelt, but relates to failing to ensure a passenger is wearing a seatbelt; and
                                (2) the offence can occur when the car is stationary, not just while the driver is driving.

                        • +3

                          @DisabledUser373341: JV does have a point though.
                          Being unrestrained in a non-moving vehicle that is stationary/turned off doesn't imply guilt.
                          Being unrestrained in a moving vehicle does.

                          I feel unless there's dashcam footage or officer footage, with the amount of cameras in cop cars these days the onus would fall on the cop to prove guilt and thus supply evidence

                      • -3

                        @jv: If your keys are in the ignition you are driving. You must remove the keys from the ignition to stop driving. Pulling over in a layby is not parking.

                        • +3

                          @field1985: So does that mean every passenger exiting the vehicle at the airport where “ignition must remain on” etc etc is breaking the law? That’s ridiculous, I’m no lawyer but I assume there has to be an implied intent for the vehicle to move or about to move, for that rule to be applicable. If you are clearly pulled over and have no intent to drive (ie, going to let a passenger out), you can’t be regarded as “driving or stationary”… the stationary is there to suggest while stopped at traffic lights etc.

                    • +1

                      @DisabledUser373341: I get what you are saying and hence feel that my chance in court is slim
                      But the truth is, if I was willing to unbuckle his seatbelt when the car was moving then I wouldnt have performed the U-turn in the first place
                      So almost like getting fined twice for the same thing, at least from my perspective

                • +1

                  @DisabledUser373341: I was booked for speed last easter, and the police checked all passengers seat belts. Everyone was strapped in. I do not see a reason to unbuckle, quite the opposite, you are still on the side on the road, and as we have seen in the past, that's a VERY DANGEROUS location to be in.

                  • @cameldownunder: Correct , that is all i was trying to say and people downvote me because they have a hard-on for OP

                    The most hilarious bit is , if you saw someone do a U-Turn in front of you over double lines your first reaction would be "WTF is this guy doing" , followed by "omg he has kids in the car".

                    People are so quick to jump to the defense of seemingly innocent people here they quickly forget the initial action of what OP was pulled over for.

                    Now don't get me wrong i am not chastising OP intentionally , we all do wrong things from time to time in our lives , nobody is innocent.

                    This post is just for the people who downvoted me thinking they are smarter then the system , if you were on the road at the time and saw what OP did right in front of your eyes that had potential to cause an accident you would be raising your pitchforks ever so high.

                    Ill finalize with , there is NO reason the driver or any passenger in the car should have their belt undone especially with the ignition running and especially if a driver was just pulled over for an offense unless it is an emergency situation.

                    As i said earlier good luck OP with whatever you choose to do.

              • @jv: I think its very dangerous for passengers to drive, let alone to do so not wearing a seatbelt!

            • +1

              @DisabledUser373341:

              i am not sure if you are aware but pretty much every police officer in NSW wear body camera's that are always on and recording whilst on shift.

              Sorry what?

              https://www.itnews.com.au/news/nsw-police-body-cam-discretio...

              NSW Police will continue to allow its officers to choose when to activate body-worn video (BWV) cameras and when not to, despite calls from the legal profession to require that the devices be activated whenever powers are exercised.

              • +1

                @Munki: gladys style - choose when to apply as it suits…same in victoria isn't it - meaningless equipment because it doesn't protect the taxpayer only the user.

          • @jv: Not necessarily, I went to court and was basically my word against theirs, no evidence, judges almost always side with officials. And yeah, paid $1,700 in court fees.
            OP, pay and move on, life is unfair.

        • True, but unless this goes on Today Tonight. No one in the government department gives a sh!t.

      • +7

        lol.. I can see how that goes…

        honest your honor - the cop is lying.

        Yea I take your word over old Sarge - case dismissed.

        • +16

          honest your honor - the cop is lying.

          The cop didn't see them driving without a seat belt, only after the car had stopped.
          They need to be able to prove in court that an offence was committed.

          Of course, the cop can lie, but that would be perjury…

          • -5

            @jv: I think you'll find the defendant needs to do the proving…
            They did 20 odd yrs ago when I tried for different offence.

            • +8

              @pharkurnell:

              I think you'll find the defendant needs to do the proving…

              That's not how it work for a traffic offense…
              The judge will want to see evidence the offense took place.
              It would require the cop give evidence that he saw them driving without a seatbelt (which he didn't). Or some kind of video evidence…

              • +6

                @jv: JV is on the money here. Got out of mine even though the cop "saw me without a seatbelt", if they can't prove it in court, then it gets thrown out.

                • -1

                  @Pootie Tang: Neither can the OP (which for the record I believe him) prove the child was strapped in.

              • +5

                @jv:

                The judge will want to see evidence the offense took place.

                • judge magistrate
                • offense offence

                It would require the cop give evidence that he saw them driving without a seatbelt (which he didn't). Or some kind of video evidence…

                It is an offence in NSW to not wear a seatbelt when a car is stationary (and to not ensure a passenger under 16 complies with wearing a seatbelt). It is misleading to state that the police office must have witnessed the OP "driving".

                jv, stop giving quasi-legal advice encouraging the OP to foolishly challenge what appears from the information that has been provided to be a legitimately issued infringement penalty. You are not a lawyer and the OP would be a fool to listen to you.

                • +2

                  @kjg: is that right? seatbelts need to be on even when a car is stationary?
                  my knowledge is abit rusty but if thats the case then i guess the police is right then.

                  • +2

                    @legendary-noob: Did your penalty notice cite a specific road rule? I imagine rule 266 of the Road Rules 2014 (NSW) applies (although I do not know which subrule applies in this situation - depends on the age of your child). Note that the obligation on a driver to ensure their underage passengers are wearing a seatbelt/are properly secured applies when a car is stationary but not parked.

                    The driver of a motor vehicle (except a bus or motor bike) that is moving, or is stationary but not parked, must ensure that this rule is complied with for each passenger in or on the vehicle who is under 16 years old.

                    • @kjg: If you are pulled over, gear in park or neutral, with the handbrake engaged, but ignition still on, are you parked or driving?

                      Serious question.

                      • @Salmando: This is from Vic road rules on mobile phone use, but I would imagine the definition of stationary but not parked would be consistent.

                        For the purposes of this rule, stationary but not parked includes being stationary—

                            (a)     in a marked lane or line of traffic on a road; or
                        
                            (b)     in a bicycle lane or bicycle storage area.
                        
                      • @Salmando: Stationary. I think parked means engine is off.

            • +2

              @pharkurnell:

              I think you'll find the defendant needs to do the proving…

              I think you'll find that the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence.

              They did 20 odd yrs ago when I tried for different offence.

              No, what probably happened is that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to prove that your offence was committed, and it was then over to you to dispute that.

              • +4

                @Scrooge McDuck: yeah
                not a legal expert but i thought the western legal system is on the basis of innocent until proven guilty, not the other way..

            • @pharkurnell: What offence I wonder…

          • @jv: Just because a car is stopped it doesn't mean it's not driving. Otherwise there are banks of cars not driving at every red light.

            If the keys were in the ignition, he was driving with a child unsecured.

            Doesn't matter what his intentions or personal situation were.

            Kids aren't a get of jail free card.

            He's guilty of the offence on the facts presented.

            • @field1985: @jv: Just because a car is stopped it doesn't mean it's not driving. Otherwise there are banks of cars not driving at every red light.

              That’s an interesting one.

              I have been known to turn off the car engine, put the handbrake on, and remove my seatbelt when stopped at a red light (when I know the lights sequence is) so that I can get access to my phone.

              I’ve done it only a couple of times, and that was when my phone mount had broken and before I purchased a new one. (So much for commercially manufactured products that are designed to hold the phone in place.) It would have been interesting if there had been a police car nearby.

              • @Kandrew: Might get done for parking too far from the kerb…

            • @field1985: But my car has push button start…

        • +1

          "You already did an illegal U-Turn, it's very likely you are a reckless driver, and thus not insuring everyone has seatbelts on"

      • +2

        Police do not need proof. It would be your word against the officer's and guess who the judge will believe!

        • +4

          It would be your word against the officer's

          So the officer would need to provide a statement stating they saw them driving without a seatbelt..

          • @jv: That's what I said

            • +3

              @Ocker: OP has two witnesses who can state definitively what occurred.
              The police have one witness who can only say what he observed after the car had pulled over.
              Case dismissed!

              • @Almost Banned: I dont know what baby seats some of you have, but there is no chance in hell anyone from outside the vehicle is able to see if a child is wearing a seatbelt in his child seat (especiialy those that cater for what appears to be under 3 years old<I am assuming here>)

      • +3

        This is not how summary offences work.
        Police officers word is more than yours. You'll need to prove you didn't or had a reasonable excuse as to why you did.

        I can't tell if jv is trolling or lying.

        • +5

          Police officers word is more than yours.

          Have the police stated they saw the passenger in a moving vehicle not wearing a seat belt???

          That is what the judge will want to know.

          If they only saw them when the vehicle was parked, that is not an offense and then it will be thrown out.

          • -7

            @jv: Seriously, jv, stop commenting, because you do not know what you are talking about and nobody should be guided by your misinformation.

            • +5

              @kjg:

              because you do not know what you are talking about

              I sure do…

              stop commenting

              lol… not a chance…

              • -5

                @jv: How very Trumpian of you, continuing to repeat factually and legally incorrect information. It's a pity OzBargain won't stop your trolling.

                • +4

                  @kjg:

                  How very Trumpian of you

                  Trumpians are the ones that believe you do not need to follow laws…

                  • +2

                    @jv: The OP broke the law…

                    • +1

                      @kjg:

                      The OP broke the law…

                      for the U turn yes, but they claim they were wearing their seatbelt and nobody has any proof to the contrary…

                      • -1

                        @jv: The OP didn't say they broke the law because they were not wearing a seat belt. Do you have comprehension problems or are you just trolling? The OP broke the law by failing to ensure their child was wearing a seat belt/properly secured.

                • @kjg:

                  won't stop your trolling.

                  Trumpians always attack people claiming they are witch hunting, trolling or creating fakenews…

          • +1

            @jv: A vehicle doesn't need to be moving to be driving.

            Do you take your seat belt off at red lights? Because if you're "stopped" it must be safe, right?

            • -2

              @field1985:

              Do you take your seat belt off at red lights? Because if you're "stopped" it must be safe, right?

              They pulled over at the curb, they weren’t in the middle of the road.

              Being stopped at the curb is not considered driving.

              • +2

                @jv:

                Being stopped at the curb is not considered driving.

                Maybe not by you. In the real world, it legally is and the penalty issued to the OP is valid - the wording of offence specifically applies to the driver of a motor vehicle that is stationary.

                For the purposes of the Road Road Rules 2014 (NSW) 'drive' includes 'be in control of'.

                Stop giving quasi-legal advice and presenting your statements as facts when you are entirely wrong. You have zero idea what would actually happen if the OP attempted to challenge this in court.

                • @kjg: Not only that but giving legal advice when not so qualified is prohibited by the Legal Profession Act and has real life consequences so I agree jv should maybe stick to what she is "good" at.

                  See: https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/from-bob-jane-ad...

                  j

                  • -1

                    @Lysander:

                    it legally is

                    Nope, not when you pull over and stop anywhere you are legally allowed to.

                    It’s also common sense.

                    • +1

                      @jv: Read the law, jv, and stop lying. Your denial of the truth is as bad as Trump denying he lost the election.

                      The content of a “troll posting” generally falls into several areas. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge…

                      Please stop trolling.

                      • -1

                        @kjg:

                        and stop lying

                        you're the one making stuff up.

                        • +1

                          @jv: What have I made up?

                          Read rule 266 of the Road Rules 2014 (NSW) and stop lying and trolling.

                          • @kjg:

                            stop lying and trolling.

                            seems you have mastered that…

                            • +1

                              @jv: So I haven't made anything up? I have provided helpful, fact-based assistance to the OP and all you want to do is troll me.

                              • @kjg:

                                and all you want to do is troll me.

                                yet another lie…

                                I was responding to xywolap and then you started the trolling…

                                • +1

                                  @jv: Pointing out the facts to correct your potentially harmful misinformation is not trolling. You falsely claiming I have made things up and repeating your disproven 'facts' is trolling.

                                  It's sad that you can't just admit you are wrong and instead of focusing on the facts you attack me instead.

                                  Please read rule 266 and please keep the conversation focused on the OP's issue.

                                  • @kjg:

                                    Pointing out the facts

                                    facts are clear.

                                    Seatbelt was removed after they parked and they were not driving without a seatbelt.

                                    • +1

                                      @jv: Sigh, you can't even get that right. Car was not parked.
                                      Not driving without a seatbelt is also completely irrelevant to the offence and the OP's query.

                                      • @kjg: I get what you are saying, but I dont think you know from OP's post that he wasnt parked. And as a result you come off overly antagonstic in this thread of posts.

                                        So when he says 'I stopped at the said lookout point.' I dont think you can conclude this means the car was in drive and not parked, he wasnt speaking legally he was speaking colloquially. I cant see from any of his follow up posts that he has clarified what state the car was in when he stopped, only that he stopped at the lookout.

                                        My interpretation is along the lines of JV's of the story, being he pulled over and parked the car at the rest point. If so, JV's advice generally makes sense. The car was parked, the officer couldnt have seen and doesnt claim to have seen the car not parked with the seatbelt undone. While, perhaps normally when pulled over, people may not put their car into park, i mean i think i would, but maybe people dont, in this case the whole point was to assist the child in distress so parking would have been necessary after dealing with the police.

                                        Not sure why OP didnt mention to his wife that the police were pulling them over… Otherwise, regardless of the law, assuming what the OP said is accurate (but regardless of whether he was merely stopped or parked), officers have discretion and it is harsh of them to enforce it in this scenario. I suspect he either didnt believe them for some reason, doesnt have kids, or has recently seen a deadly accident involving kids and feels the need to extra cautious and not lenient.

                                        Another way of looking at it, is on the facts presented, the OP had no way to stop what occured from happening. He could not stop his wife undoing the seatbelt and his wife unaware of the police surely thought they were parking and not just 'stopping' when she undid the seatbelt. The stress of the upset baby and approaching police officer contribute to hamper better communication between the parties involved.

                      • @kjg: Firstly you keep trying to compare or somehow relate trumps actions to @jv and this to me is trolling. Second…why do you have such a hard on [email protected]? By looking at your post comments I can see you're constantly trying to squash and I'd almost say bully @jv. Just stop. This forum post IS for advice. Not professional advice. Move on and stop acting like a d&#k just because you don't agree with their opinion.

                    • @jv: I don’t want to comment on the legality of the action, per se. But I do want to ask this.

                      Since when did common sense and the law have any relationship with each other?

                • +2

                  @kjg: I've seen you call out jv for giving 'quasi-legal advice' and claimed that he/she is spreading misinformation. Are you a lawyer yourself? Or someone who is qualified to give legal advice?

                  I have no skin in this debate, I am just following along cause I find it interesting but I see you are constantly calling him/her out so I was wondering if you are any more qualified.

              • @jv: Being stopped at the curb is definitely driving, it's called "standing" a vehicle. That's why there are "NO STANDING" signs.

                Stop offering advice. You're clueless.

                The rules these days are intense and always favour the police. The days of "being let off" are over.

                Trying to prove he was not "driving" will probably get the book thrown at him.. police could pull his vehicles ECU records and verify it was running (keys in ignition) at the time of the offence.

                • @field1985:

                  Being stopped at the curb is definitely driving, it's called "standing" a vehicle.

                  Well then every time I get home, stop my car and take off my seatbelt, I should get booked.
                  Every time I go to the coffee shop, stop my car and take off my seatbelt, I should get booked.
                  Every time I go to the local fruit shop, stop my car and take off my seatbelt, I should get booked.

                  I dooooon't think so………

                  • @jv: The driver must remain in control of the car if they are standing a vehicle.

                    Everytime you stop your car, you take the keys out of the ignition, then you take off your seatbelt, then you won't be booked.

                    And before you say "but I leave my keys in the ignition while I go to the coffee shop. Is that driving?"

                    Yes it is. It's an offence to leave keys in an unattended vehicle.

                    • @field1985:

                      Everytime you stop your car, you take the keys out of the ignition, then you take off your seatbelt, then you won't be booked.

                      How do you check your transmission fluid then ?

                      • @jv: You do it off the road. You should not be checking or changing fluids in a roadway that drains into the environment.

                        • @field1985:

                          You do it off the road.

                          A bit difficult if you don't have a garage.

                          Pretty sure you can check your car and wash you car parked by your nature strip…

                          • @jv: "Pretty sure you can check your car and wash you car parked by your nature strip…"

                            Yes.. that is off the road. Like I said. What's your point??

      • Do the rules say that you only need to have your seat belt on when the car is moving or when it has been started? I think that the cop might have a good case, unless the engine was off. Either way, a case of the he said she said becomes an instant win for the cop.

    • +13

      Some people have principles that they are willing to spend time, stress and energy to uphold. Being apathetic to unfair situations is not for some.

      • +4

        It also enables unfair practices to continue.

    • +1

      no don't move on. thats the pu**y way out - they don't have proof, seem em in court…if they bother to show up.

  • +1

    which i need to pay $100 upfront

    why?

    • +46

      no afterpay account

Login or Join to leave a comment