NSW Fine for Stop on/near Pedestrian Crossing (in School Zone)

Devilius on 18/10/2025 - 16:30
Last edited 18/10/2025 - 16:34

Hi guys, I need input of whether I got a case or not.

I got a fine in the mail for Stop on/near pedestrian crossing (in school zone) in Willoughby area. Penalty is $562 and 2 demerit points.

I asked for a review as I believe that:
• I was the only person in the car and there was no one else with me at any time.
• I did not pick up or drop off anyone during my travel on that day. My engine was on at all times.
• It was peak hour so there were a lot of pedestrians and cars in the area.
• There was a school crossing supervisor attending to the pedestrian crossing and there were a lot of people crossing as it was during peak hour.
• I stopped before the pedestrian crossing as directed by the school crossing supervisor to give way to the pedestrians.
• When there were no pedestrians attempting to cross or present near the crossing, the school crossing supervisor moved away to allow me to move forward.
• After the school crossing supervisor moved away, I moved my car forward slowly as there was a car on the other side and the traffic was quite heavy.
• Given that there was a car in front of me and the traffic was quite heavy, I travelled through the pedestrian crossing slowly but my vehicle did not stop on or obstruct the pedestrian crossing.
• When the traffic is heavy, I usually don’t keep pressing the accelerator. I usually let the car roll by itself and only press the accelerator again when necessary.

I also pointed out that:
• Both photos were taken on 20 August 2025 at 9.04am. They were taken in succession within 60 seconds (or less).
• There was a school crossing supervisor who moved away when I began my move across the pedestrians crossing.
• If you look at both photos, I never stopped. I did not press the brake, as evidenced by the fact that my rear brake light was never on. Also, you can see the smoke coming out from the exhaust on both photos as I was in the middle of accelerating slowly due to the traffic conditions on both occasions.
• The car in front of me also was in the middle of cruising through the traffic. His rear brake light was not on too. Both of us were moving slowly but we kept moving together with the traffic.
• If you look at my tyres and the pedestrian crossing lines, you will note that between the 2 photos and within 60 seconds (if not less), I kept moving through the pedestrians crossing.

The original photos and my red marks can be found here - https://imgur.com/a/Uv1l4wx. Basically my car looks as stopping as it's in a picture (possibly taken by a ranger). If it's a video, you will see that it keeps moving slowly.

They responded with: "We acknowledge your comments that you did not apply your brakes or come to a stop at the time of the offence, however we are unable to cancel the fine. We have reviewed fine details along with the images provided and are satisfied the fine was issued correctly."

Anyway, my questions are:
1. Is there any point in fighting in court or should I just pay and move on?
2. On the website, there are only these 2 photos. Do they actually have more photos? Can I request these extra photos (if any)? If not, I am guessing it will be ranger's word vs mine at court which I am guessing they will believe the ranger and that's it?
3. How long attending court will take (from beginning to end)? The whole day?
4. Looking at the website, they may impose a higher penalty. Is this correct or just extra fees (e.g. prosecutor's court costs and court fees)? Do you know how much the prosecutor's court costs and court fees be?
5. I don't think I should get a lawyer to fight a fine of $562. Should I represent yourself or am I silly to do this? Can LawAccess NSW or Legal Aid NSW help?

Any extra input is appreciated. Thank you.

Poll Options

  • 60
    Guilty
  • 16
    Not Guilty
Automotive

Comments

    • Ryanek on 18/10/2025 - 17:41
      +11

      Hard disagree. You need to keep crossings free, especially in a school zone.

      • SlickMick on 19/10/2025 - 10:40

        Yes, never move onto a crossing or into an intersection if you aren't going to be able to clear it.

        I was driving in US, and got caught in the middle of an intersection when the lights changed. I had to try to back into a pedestrian crossing to get out of the road of traffic. There were pedestrians banging on my car, quite rightly, it was like I was trying to mow them down in reverse at crawl speed. One of the worst moments of my life.

  • Davo1111 on 18/10/2025 - 16:50
    +15

    I think you're missing the point of the fine. It's about entering the pedestrian crossing when there wasn't sufficient space on the other side. Not the fact you slowed down.

    This is akin to "blocking the box" when there are those yellow cross hatches at a traffic light.

    I think it you had pulled up to the car Infront, and not blocked the crossing, you'd have a better case.

    Imo you need to find out what constitutes a pedestrian crossing. If those marks are drivers aids, or part of the crossing itself.

    • Devilius on 18/10/2025 - 17:23

      Thanks for your reply. The only problem that I got with your response is you assumed that I stopped at the second photo, hence I was blocking the pedestrian crossing. But I kept moving (together with the car in front of me) even after the second photo. Both photos were taken when I was still moving and not stopping at all. Image you are alone with no cars around you and you are crossing the pedestrian crossing slowly. A ranger takes 2 photos when you were crossing and said you stopped (or blocked the crossing) even though you are just passing through. How do you fight this?

      • Davo1111 on 18/10/2025 - 17:31
        +3

        The lollipop person was able to walk out, stop traffic, then proceed to allow people to walk 6m(?) onto the pedestrian crossing. I think that would take at least 6 seconds?

        I'll put it this way. If the fine said "blocking the pedestrian crossing" do you think you would be guilty? I think so.

        EDIT ahh i see what you're getting at. The penalty is probably a parking fine, not a driving fine.

        I found this link - not sure it's current: https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr201410…

        "(3) In this rule— "road" does not include a road related area, but includes any shoulder of the road. "

        If that's the rule that applies on the fine, you might be able to get out on a technicality?

        • Devilius on 18/10/2025 - 17:43
          +1

          The offence is Stop on/near pedestrian crossing (in school zone), which I assume under s172.

      • Settero on 18/10/2025 - 18:01

        photo shows 3 cars in front of you that look to all have their break lights on, where you doing a very slow roll, maybe, still dosnt look like you had enough room to exit completely without stopping inside the crosswalk. ( there is a significant part of the rear of you car still within white markings of the crosswalk ), is this nitpicking, probably.

        • Devilius on 18/10/2025 - 18:37
          -1

          I might be wrong but I disagree with you. The car in front of me didn't have the brake light on in the photo. I started entering the crossing after he already moved. 2 cars in front of me possibly got the brake light on but not the third car. The second car may just be decelerating. Anyway, yes, I agree that my rear still within the white markings in the second photo but I didn't stop in the second photo. I kept moving together with the car in front of me. If there were third photo, it would show that I cleared the crossing after the second photo. But, since I don't have this photo, I have no evidence (which is where my problem starts). Hahaha.

      • EightImmortals on 19/10/2025 - 07:47
        -1

        But this is ozbargian where the government is always right and justified in taking even more of your money, even when they aren't. If you were moving through the crossing even at a slow pace due to traffic flows beyond your control then any judge with more than 2 working brain cells should throw the fine out. But that's the catch these days….

        • SlickMick on 19/10/2025 - 10:46

          Sounds like they're using the wrong infringement, but I'm sure it is illegal, and certainly should be, to block a crossing. Just like you must not enter a congested intersection, you must not enter a crossing if you can't clear it.

          We need simpler laws: the infringement here should be driving like a [not sure what terminology is most appropriate].

          • EightImmortals on 19/10/2025 - 10:48

            @SlickMick: The crossing looked safe to enter but traffic up ahead changed after he already entered.

            • SlickMick on 19/10/2025 - 11:01
              +1

              @EightImmortals: nothing is safe when you have a combination of moving vehicles and children.
              The rules are in place to protect children. Don't get caught anywhere near the crossing when the lollipop lady comes out. Pause before the crossing, if you can make it across, proceed. If you can't, wait.

              The traffic didn't reverse back to block OP's spot to get off the crossing. OP was never in a position to enter the crossing, because they didn't have room to clear it.

  • Davo1111 on 18/10/2025 - 16:54

    Re your questions

    1. You need to genuinely assess if you're guilty or not. Like what does the actual laws, and definitions say.
    2. They may have, but aren't required to show you until court. Afaik them sending you photos is a courtesy. if you're relying on "insufficient evidence" when you're actually guilty, you're taking a risk.
    3. From my experience at a nsw local court all the traffic matters were dealt with first. Then the serious stuff started. They were out in less than 2 hours.
    4. Court fees should be on the website. I have no idea how that works.
  • Drakesy on 18/10/2025 - 17:27
    +1

    Honestly, those photos don't show anything that could be considered impeding the pedestrian crossing.

    Revenue raiser is having a power trip.

    You're on the wombat crossing sure, but the wombat crossing isn't the pedestrian crossing, thats what the zebra lines are to delineate.

    If you did drive through the crossing whilst people were trying to cross that would be a whole other story, at the end of the day these photos don't really show anything of substance.

    • tenpercent on 19/10/2025 - 10:44

      Revenue raiser is having a power trip.

      Is it a power trip or you they get a cut or a bump to some kind of performance incentive KPI?

      • Drakesy on 19/10/2025 - 10:59

        Pardon the pun

  • pegaxs on 18/10/2025 - 17:32
    +7

    As a former school crossing supervisor in NSW, let me just start by saying, there is a special place in hell for people who disobey controls and rules around school crossing zones. Ignoring crossing supervisors by driving through, remaining on the crossings or parking just before/after the crossing are the biggest issues I faced on a daily basis.

    What you have done here is both dangerous and stupid. It reduces visibility for both pedestrians and the crossing supervisor. It also causes an issue with having to walk around your vehicle. Theoretically, you should not have entered the crossing unless there was room for your car to fully clear the crossing. And this whole "but I was creeping forward" doesn't really cut the mustard, as you can clearly see you are blocked in by other cars…

    That being said, it's their definition of what you are doing that may be an issue, because under the road rules, you are not really "stopped" in the definition of parking, but "stopped" because you are in traffic. This makes the road rule surrounding what you did as harder to interpret.

    Road Rule 171 deals with "stopping" on or near a children's crossing. The problem lay with the definition of "stopping"… You were not stopping to remain or to park, but because of traffic impeding/obstructing your travel. Even the example they give in RR#171 shows vehicles parked, and not in the line of traffic. (Side note, RR#350 deal with distances and a portion of a vehicle being in the no stopping area)

    NEXT we have what they should have possibly booked you for, RR#128A Entering a blocked crossing.

    (1) A driver must not enter a children’s crossing, marked foot crossing or pedestrian crossing if the driver cannot drive through the crossing because the crossing, or a road beyond the crossing, is blocked.

    You would have been able to clearly see that the road beyond the crossing was blocked due to traffic, and under RR#128A, you are not to enter unless you can "clear" the crossing, which you clearly could not do as shown in the photos. The crossing starts at the stop line and ends when your whole car is clear of the crossing. This fine is $423 and 3 points, and I feel as though this is the fine you should have gotten.

    So, while I am not the bearer of good news, I think they have attributed the wrong fine to what you did. They have applied RR#171 about not "stopping", when what they should have done is thrown RR#128A at you instead. a slightly cheaper ticket, but it moves from 2 up to 3 demerits.

    And with that, I cannot vote, because yes, you should have received "a" fine… just not "that" fine…

    • Davo1111 on 18/10/2025 - 17:38
      +7

      I think they have attributed the wrong fine to what you did.

      I'm starting to think this is the case. OP might get out on a technicality or they might re-issue the correct fine

      (1) A driver must not enter a children’s crossing, marked foot crossing or pedestrian crossing if the driver cannot drive through the crossing because the crossing, or a road beyond the crossing, is blocked.

      • pegaxs on 18/10/2025 - 17:42
        +4

        Yes, I think they have attributed a "parking" type fine to a "line of traffic" offence. OP has the choice, get the fine changed to the correct offence, and save $100~ish but cop 3 points, OR, eat the fine but only cop 2 points, OR, take it to court, waste half a day, get the fine tossed because it's the wrong fine, only to have the council/police re-write the fine out for the correct infringement…

        • Lets Go Brandon on 18/10/2025 - 17:51
          +2

          I do not believe it is possible for them to change the offence regardless of the fact the authorities would not be so invested in such a trivial matter to pursue at such length.

          • pegaxs on 18/10/2025 - 18:13
            +1

            @Lets Go Brandon: Oh, my word they can change the offence mentioned on the ticket. What they do is "withdraw" the incorrect one, and then issue another one, this time with the correct offence. It only changes if the council/police take this to court and try and make it stick and fight that #171 applied and they lose. They cant then change the ticket… but if the error is found before then, it's as easy as "withdraw and reissue".

            And it's a $420+ ticket… of course they are going to be invested in pursuing this amount of money. An $89 parking fine, probably not, but a $423 ticket, you can bet your balls they want this one.

            • Lets Go Brandon on 18/10/2025 - 18:41
              +1

              @pegaxs: Once again I very highly doubt it. Rarely will the courts have a police/council representative for a trivial run-of-the-mill driving offence. $423 is a pittance and I doubt they'll have a personal vendetta against the driver. Incorrectly issued fines if proven will usually be written off as an error with no further ado.

            • tenpercent on 19/10/2025 - 10:46

              @pegaxs: So the best course of action for OP's wallet is to let them take it to court and then win on a technicality?

              • Muppet Detector on 19/10/2025 - 11:15

                @tenpercent: Taking the facts presented here at face value, OP wouldn't "be winning on a technicality", he would be "winning" because he didn't commit the offence for which he was accused.

                Whilst we certainly must obey whatever laws they impose, they can't just make stuff up and charge you for stuff you didn't do, they at least need to accuse you of committing the right offence if they want to impose some kind of penalty.

      • Devilius on 18/10/2025 - 17:49
        -1

        Not quite. I think I get what everyone thinks now. The problem for me is there is car in front of me which was moving along with me but everyone thinks the car in front of me stopped (and possibly me too) hence I was blocking the crossing or there was no enough space for me to clear. If only there is a third photo that shows that I kept moving and didn't block the crossing after the second photo.

        • Davo1111 on 18/10/2025 - 20:20
          +3

          or there was no enough space for me to clear.

          Yes, that is your fault.

          You have your answer, your fine can be fought, but they can also issue the correct fine.

    • Devilius on 18/10/2025 - 17:44
      -7

      Thanks for your reply. The only problem that I got with your response is you assumed that I stopped at the second photo (because there is a car in front of me), hence I was blocking the pedestrian crossing. But I kept moving (together with the car in front of me) even after the second photo. Both photos were taken when I was still moving and not stopping at all. Image you are alone with no cars around you and you are crossing the pedestrian crossing slowly. A ranger takes 2 photos when you were crossing and said you stopped (or blocked the crossing) even though you are just passing through. How do you fight this?

      • pegaxs on 18/10/2025 - 17:57
        +13

        It's not about "moving", it's about "blocking". You can be moving AND blocking at the same time. In the first photo, you can clearly see your brake lights are on and the crossing supervisor is on the crossing with you. You clearly "entered when you are not able to clear the crossing" at this point, and it is nothing to do with you "moving". They dont even need the second photo, as that is more likely a photo of your number plate rather than proving you were "not moving".

        In the first photo you are clearly "on" the crossing with the supervisor (breaking RR#128A). This is their "money shot", the second photo is more than likely just for your registration details.

        You can play the "but I wasnt "stopped" card for the fine you got (RR#171), but all they are going to do is nail you with RR#128A on the reissue.

    • GordonD on 18/10/2025 - 18:06

      parking just before/after the crossing are the biggest issues I faced on a daily basis.

      Have to admit this is one I lost my licence for a little while over. Not because I did it, but because I wasn't careful enough when someone else did it. Was in a following car when the one ahead stopped partly on the crossing to drop off a passenger at her home. And she got out, and instead of waiting for the car to go, she walked around the front of the car and across the crossing, concentrating on waving goodbye to the people in the car who'd just dropped her off. And I slowed, but didn't stop, and hit her just hard enough to knock her off her feet. Of course I got booked. But it would have given me some satisfaction if everyone else who'd done something stupid had gotten booked too.

  • Lets Go Brandon on 18/10/2025 - 17:36

    It's a tricky one but it could be explained that you crept forward from your original position as we can see ample time had passed from people being on the crossing and the photographer having changed position while your car had barely moved.

  • Ryanek on 18/10/2025 - 17:38
    +4

    You're guilty, but you should try asking for leniency. If denied, then that's the end of that.

  • localhost on 18/10/2025 - 18:08
    +2

    Congratulations and welcome to the club. Left more than $1000 in Chatswood Public School area - one was ridiculous double parking while waiting for car to leave parking spot.
    Just avoid the area and don't stop on that crossing - saw many photos taken there. This is a honey-spot for Willoughby rangers.

    • freefall101 on 18/10/2025 - 18:21
      +5

      You're not meant to stop on a road while someone pulls out of a park though, you're meant to keep moving until you find a free park. Just because so many people do that doesn't make it any wrong. It impedes traffic and thus is against the law.

      I'm curious what the other one was if that's the ridiculous one. Sounds like the problem is behind the steering wheel though.

      • localhost on 18/10/2025 - 18:26

        This area is crazy - especially during the rainy days. Many people want to pick their small kids. Saw a guy entering the car and slowed down behind it - waited no more than 5 sec until he left the spot. And during that time ranger took a photo.

        Don't remember other as they were 5-6 years ago.

        Only once saw a ranger helping cars to leave the area and reduce congestion for 6 years while my kid was in that school. All other times - honeypot area for them.

        • Lets Go Brandon on 18/10/2025 - 18:46
          +2

          Chatswood rangers are turds. I received a parking fine last year for not paying when the meter no longer existed, Was immediately revoked but I am certain many people just pay up.

    • Devilius on 18/10/2025 - 18:38
      -4

      Hahaha. I don't even have a child in Chatswood Public School. I simply use that road to avoid Fullers Road. Wrong move unfortunately.

      • localhost on 18/10/2025 - 18:46

        Ask for leniency - explain due to traffic, etc.. Also sometimes when kids cross without sign lollypop man enters the area to protect them. This might be your case - 1st photo.
        BTW lollypop man is very nice guy from Nepal - Arun.

        • Devilius on 18/10/2025 - 18:51
          -2

          I tried. It got rejected. They responded with: "We acknowledge your comments that you did not apply your brakes or come to a stop at the time of the offence, however we are unable to cancel the fine. We have reviewed fine details along with the images provided and are satisfied the fine was issued correctly."

          • localhost on 18/10/2025 - 18:52
            +3

            @Devilius: Sorry man, just pay the fine and avoid the area during school pick/drop hours.

  • simplystu on 18/10/2025 - 19:32
    +4

    TL … but I did read through (all your silly dot points).

    yet you say … about not engaging a lawyer - reckon, if you did … they will say what you are trying to dismiss.
    YOU were in the wrong … just pay fine + move on with life.

  • TEER3X on 18/10/2025 - 20:54
    +5

    I don't understand the issue?

    You blocked a crossing, you got a fine.

    It may have been a set of very unfortunate circumstances, but it is what it is.

  • Stealtho on 18/10/2025 - 20:58
    +1

    lol you are stopped on the crossing, all over red rover.
    If you did this at a set of lights and they went red you’d be done too.

  • elgrande on 18/10/2025 - 21:07
    +5

    They were taken in succession within 60 seconds

    ffs how slow were you rolling

  • Muppet Detector on 18/10/2025 - 21:24
    +3

    I believe that you were deserving of a fine, just not the one you got.

    Stop worrying about what everyone else was doing, it was your car that was caught blocking a pedestrian crossing whether you were moving or not.

    Maybe the other cars were similarly fined, maybe they weren't, but you can't base your defence on "but they did it too".

    IMO, on this occasion, the law is very precise. If you have the resources to challenge this, then do so.

    They need to penalise you for the law that you did break, not the one that "this looks close enough, it'll do".

    If nothing else, the person issuing the tickets may receive better training so that he can do better in future.

  • MS Paint on 18/10/2025 - 22:33
    +1

    You were stopping Arun from performing his very important job safely. I voted guilty. 🎻

    • Gunnar on 18/10/2025 - 23:16

      It happened in Willoughby. People called Arun aren’t allowed there, it will make the area too racially diverse.

      • MS Paint on 18/10/2025 - 23:19
        +1

        But but but

        • Gunnar on 18/10/2025 - 23:28

          Interesting, from the photos the guy doesn’t look Nepalese so either that guy is lying or the OP is lying and that pic is jot
          Accurate. Based on the thread I’m guessing it’s the latter

  • Jaduqimon on 18/10/2025 - 23:14
    +1

    how bout you post a dashcam footage?

  • foxmulder on 19/10/2025 - 00:04

    2 photos were taken from 2 angles and you are still in the same spot. Ranger may take 1-2? seconds for that two photos.

  • No ONE on 19/10/2025 - 00:19
    +2

    pedestrian crossed the road and gone and yet your car is still on the pedestrian area. Regardless of anything, you should not have moved forward until you had full car space after pedestrian crossing.

  • Yummy on 19/10/2025 - 00:36
    +3

    OP, you didn't completely stopped and your @ss is on zebra. Always stop at least 2 meters away before zebra and pass only when the front is cleared.

  • TilacVIP on 19/10/2025 - 07:31

    $562 - yeah, a bit harsh for rolling through (not completely blocking if what the OP says is true) a crossing.

  • prodrome on 19/10/2025 - 08:33
    +1

    You're not on the crossing. You're on some white paint near it.

    • foxmulder on 19/10/2025 - 09:10
      +1

      pegaxs provided this road rule - apparently your car has to be 20m (about 4 cars lenght) before the crossing or 10m (2 cars length) after the crossing. I didn't know this either.

      • HelpMeiCantSee on 19/10/2025 - 09:38
        +1

        Because it’s a recently and quietly added stipulation. This madness needs to stop

        • Hellfire on 19/10/2025 - 10:34

          It seems to have been there for many years when looking at the historical version so hasn't been recently added. And appears to apply to parking because it mentions it's 20m unless the parking signs say otherwise and is contained within "Part 12 Restrictions on stopping and parking"

  • HelpMeiCantSee on 19/10/2025 - 09:37
    +3

    Having just been through a similar fight, I can give you my experience and likely outcome.

    Firstly, the ranger is human. And very likely a decent person. They are not the system, just the end link. From their perspective, they see people doing absurd stuff and not just flouting the law, but common decency.

    /end devils advocate.

    I too received a fine in a school zone unfairly and chose to fight it in court (mostly because of the points, but over $500 is way excessive too). Nominated court on the form and waited. For over 6 months, nothing then about 8 months on, I got a notice saying is listed at court x on day y at whatever time. Went in, waited to be called, then was asked eventually done plead guilty or not guilty. Said not guilty, case adjourned until whatever day was decided.

    The second appearance is the actual one where they deal with it. I pleaded my case, with evidence, and a judgement was made. In my case, despite photographic evidence on my part, the magistrate didn’t agree with me, but given my squeaky clean driving record gave me a section 10 dismissal.

    That was it, I left court with all my points intact. I got the feeling for first offences the magistrate tends to section 10, but dirty driving records would push the other way.

    Things to note about court specifically- despite having been in court many times, sometimes even as a witness/professional witness, being the defendant was totally different. My usual confidence was pretty shaken, and I didn’t know the process or when what was supposed to happen, which really affected me. The prosecutors are very aggressive and are exceptional at making you feel very, very small. I have experienced cross examination as a witness before, but this time it felt much more personal.

    In the end, I suggest to fight- this excessive penalty culture has to stop. Government overreach has to stop. Fines in the mail have to stop- May studies have shown that retroactive penalties DO NOT address behaviour- only intervention at the time does. Education does.

    The more of these type of fines that are challenged, the more pressure there is to stop sending fines out weeks after an offence. There is no evidence it achieves anything other than revenue. If changing behaviour is the aim, then the sole focus should be increased presence by authorities- coupled with discretion, and watch the rate of offences crumble.

  • btech on 19/10/2025 - 09:40

    I think here is the answer you're looking for, though probably not the one you want to hear.

    Firstly, I believe you that:
    a) you may not have technically stopped
    b) you likely were trying to do the right thing and it wasn't your intention to break any rule

    I also understand your point about "if a ranger took a static photo when you were moving" and agree with your premise, though I don't think that is actually the main issue here. Having said that, I also agree that on a technicality they potentially applied the wrong fine as pegaxs said.

    Ozbargain (and forums in general) can be a rough environment to get validation and even if you're in the wrong it's hard to hear that, especially when people can be quite harsh about it, so you have my sympathy especially since a lot of people do lots of way worse things in school zones or otherwise. And we all make mistakes though sometimes forum replies seem to indicate otherwise.

    I think your difficulty comes because between the photos you barely moved and in one of the photos some kids are crossing behind you, so you clearly were moving very slowly and technically blocking part of the crossing. I think at best you could argue in court that you were moving. If you were lucky, and the judge was sympathetic to your logic and agree that they applied the wrong fine, you might get off. A traffic lawyer may be able to get you off too. In my opinion (not legal advice) you'll have a hard time arguing that you did not do something wrong with (e.g. block the crossing.)

    While I understand that this feels unfair and if only the cars in front if you moved just a bit further this wouldn't have been an issue, I think your case is not strong enough and you're not in a good position to get out of this.

    Just one final note. IF you have a 10 year clean driving record (no other fines ar demerits) you could try and ask for them to not apply the demerits and just issue the fine. In that case, I would say something like "I respect and understand the importance of road rules as evidenced by my clean driving record of 10+ years and request that you withdraw the demerit points in this case. I have already paid the monetary fine." and pay the fine before sending your letter.

    Good luck OP.

    Edit: I see the very helpful and relevant post above me that just got posted around the same time. You can see the amount of time and effort and what you will likely be up against.

  • BewareOfThe Dog on 19/10/2025 - 10:18

    I should've bought more popcorn.

  • webtonmoy on 19/10/2025 - 10:26
    +1

    This looks so ridiculous to me. I hope they use common sense rather than blatant revenue-raising attempts.

  • tenpercent on 19/10/2025 - 10:38

    I don't think they have enough evidence against you to conclude you were stopped… or at least they haven't revealed that evidence to you yet.
    You should ask for the exact timestamps of each of the photos including the seconds.

    All the photos they showed are the exact same timestamp.
    So for all we know (and as far as a magistrate knows) old mate has just taken a couple of quick snaps from a couple of angles all within less than a second whilst you were rolling forward. And there's certainly evidence you were moving forward between the various photos.

    • tenpercent on 19/10/2025 - 10:39

      Also, what sort of uppity twat pulls out their phone to take photos of a car that is barely on a crossing, clearly moving forward, and is not posing any danger to anyone, and especially when there is clearly bumper to bumper traffic right ahead of that car? I bet the same person would've dobbed in Anne Frank and gotten a sense of personal achievement and warm fuzzy feelings in certain parts of their anatomy from it.

  • 2027 on 19/10/2025 - 10:57

    Kinda curious about the cars on the other side of the road in the second photo, where did they go/come from? The people crossing the road, and the crossing supervisor, same thing.

    Somehow, all these people managed to move more than 20cm between the two photos, and you didn’t. What’s with that? Even the person taking the photos was able to move a considerable distance between the two snaps compared to you, and they were on foot?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join