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

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

  • 177
    Guilty
  • 41
    Not Guilty

Comments

Search through all the comments in this post.
  • +42

    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…

    • +16

      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.

      • +5

        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…

        • +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.

          • +2

            @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.

            • +2

              @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.

            • +1

              @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?

              • +2

                @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.

          • +2

            @Lets Go Brandon: Council fined my wife for sstopping in a BUS zone, but got the date wrong. They did not reissue a fine.for the correct date. Either Lucky or lazy

      • -5

        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.

        • +11

          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.

    • -1

      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.

      • +6

        Have to admit this is one I lost my licence for a little while over. … And I slowed, but didn't stop, and hit her just hard enough to knock her off her feet

        The only similarity to OP's case is the scene of the crime.

      • +5

        you hit a pedestrian at a crossing and you seem upset you lost your license?

        yes, of course you got booked, and rightfully so….

        🤦

      • But it would have given me some satisfaction if everyone else who'd done something stupid had gotten booked too.

        I think the point here is that you had a higher duty of care because you were in charge of a dangerous thing. You're supposed to watch out for stupid people. Being stupid isn't illegal, but running into people on a designated crossing definitely is!

      • +26

        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.

        • -5

          It's not about "moving", it's about "blocking". You can be moving AND blocking at the same time.

          How fast does one have to be travelling before it is not considered blocking?

          Even if you drive through at 40km/h, the section of road for which it is an offence to "block (the 20m preceeding the crossing, the 5m (?) of the crossing itself, and the 10m after the crossing), that 35m section of road will be "blocked" for 3.15 seconds.

          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.

          The crossing supervisor has clearly determined it to be safe for themselves to enter the crossing after OP was exiting the crossing area AND furthermore determined it safe enough to guide children across at this point.

          Wow OP is such a dangerous menace! /s

          • +1

            @tenpercent: At this point,. I am sure you are trolling, but, it's Sunday, so I'll bite…

            How fast does one have to be travelling before it is not considered blocking?

            1c ??… And I dont know, the law doesn't stipulate a "speed", "time" or "distance" for what it considers "blocking". The only reference I could find is in RR#125 where it states you are considered to be "unreasonably obstructing" if you were doing 20km/h or less in an 80km/h zone.

            Even if you drive through at 40km/h

            If my auntie had balls… OP wasnt doing "40km/h". RR#125 and RR#128 both say that you "cannot unreasonably obstruct drivers and pedestrians" and that if you cant "clear a crossing", you should not enter it…

            The crossing supervisor has clearly determined it to be safe for themselves to enter the crossing…

            If that is what the crossing supervisor has done, then they are an idiot. 100% if their area manager saw them doing that, they would have their arse verbally kicked in. This is 100% against the "SWMS", SOP manual and training that we got. If there is a car in/on the crossing, DON'T ENTER THE CROSSING.

            Unfortunately, some parents and kids DGAF and will cross anyway without waiting for the crossing supervisor, because they are just as stupid and impatient as the car drivers, and in that case, as a crossing supervisor, if you have people that just walk out onto the crossing, you must go out and stop traffic.

            I wasn't there to witness this incident, so I dont know if the crossing supervisor walked out because they "thought" it was safe or because people approached the crossing and just walked out without waiting for the crossing supervisor to let them know it was safe…

            So no, they may have determined that it was NOT safe, but due to the actions of impatient pedestrians, they may have had to move out onto the crossing anyway…

            Wow OP is such a dangerous menace! /s

            And that is the sort of dipshit, entitled attitude around school crossings that gets people and kids injured. OP's car, being where it was, would absolutely have made that crossing supervisors job much much harder than if OP did the right thing and just waited for the road beyond the crossing to clear.

            The reason the ranger was there was probably at the request of the crossing supervisor or their manager due to too many incidents just like OP's. So, yes, people driving like this can absolutely be a "menace" on crossings. There is a reason why the road rules exist.

            • -2

              @pegaxs:

              "cannot unreasonably obstruct drivers and pedestrians"

              I can literally see pedestrians safely traversing the crossing behind the OP's vehicle guided by the lollipop dude. Clearly no obstruction.

              If my auntie had balls…

              I'm not here to judge your auntie.

              And that is the sort of dipshit, entitled attitude around school crossings that gets people and kids injured.

              Nah it ain't. OP was clearly not endangering anyone.

              ranger… at the request of the crossing supervisor or their manager

              I didn't realise it takes such a large team of middle managers to hold up a sign and hand gesture towards kids.

              people driving like this can absolutely be a "menace" on crossings

              Agreed. But in OP's case, he evidently was not.

              • @tenpercent:

                I can literally see pedestrians safely traversing the crossing behind the OP's vehicle guided by the lollipop dude. Clearly no obstruction.

                This is your "assumption" based on that photo… The crossing supervisor should be standing almost in the middle of the crossing, but they are standing off to one side due to the "obstruction" of the vehicle being there. So no, it isnt "clearly no obstruction". And the obstruction is to sight lines as well as walking paths. 100% this is an obstruction. My bet is this car was much more over the crossing before the crossing supervisor walked out and the ranger took the photo.

                Nah it ain't.

                It literally is. Blocking a children's crossing is absolutely a menace to the crossing supervisor's job and the safety of pedestrians, hence the reason there are rules and fine associated with doing it.

                I didn't realise it takes such a large team of middle managers to hold up a sign and hand gesture towards kids.

                WTF are you on about? The ranger is hired by council, crossing supervisors are hired by Transport for NSW. Everyone has a manager. My manager looked after ALL of the Hunter region, from all the schools in Newcastle all the way up to about Scone. 1 manager for about 300~ish crossing supervisors. 1 manager for 300~ish people is a "large team"??

                But in OP's case, he evidently was not.

                They absolutely were, hence the need of a ranger to be in attendance and the issuing of a ticket for what they did.

                Troll harder.

  • +40

    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.

    • 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?

      • +15

        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?

        • +2

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

          • @Devilius:

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

            Their argument is probably "it doesn't say for how long you had to be stopped for this offence to apply. Ergo, even 1/2 a second could be enough.

            On one photo you are clearly on the crossing when children? are crossing close behind you.

            The next photo does show that your car has moved forward a little bit (still within crossing zone though), but it hasn't moved very far considering those kids had time to finish crossing the road and move out of the picture frame.

            A really slow crawl can appear like you have stopped and even I can bring a vehicle to a halt without the rear brake lights being engaged :)

            In a manual, a gear shift can bring a slow moving car to a halt (or keep it there one brakes applied), and for an automatic, applying handbrake doesn't engage rear brake lights.

            In the absence of adequate momentum, just the slope of the road can bring a car to a halt/prevent it from moving forward.

            So, to challenge this fine, you're going to have to be prepared to challenge those kinds of claims.

      • +4

        Dear OP
        You were there. Not us.
        You know if you did anything wrong or not.
        So Im im not calling you guilty or not guilty.

        However you havent said anywhere specifically that you are NOT GUILTY of the fine

        Its just sounds like you are trying to weasel your way out of this fine.
        Thats probably why the poll is so heavily against you

        Firstly you need to get a good understanding of why you were fined
        It sounds to me that you don't have a full understanding of what you may have done wrong.
        Then you need to decide if you agree or disagree.

        If you disagree then take the matter to court.
        You can represent yourself
        You can plead not guilty and then have the matter heard at a later date.
        In this case, there will be a prosecutor and the ranger to give evidence so it will be heavy duty - hence best to have legal representation so it will be expensive!

        Or you can plead guilty with an excuse and explain on the day; why it ocurred and what the judge should take into consideration.
        For example - you did stop near the pedestrian crossing, but you were simply following the instructions of the lollipop man

        If you plead guilty with an excuse, make sure your have a clean driving record because the prosecutor will hand your driving record to the judge to take into consideration. A clean driving record will definitely go in your favour.

        Dont argue the finer points as you have done here as this just makes you look guilty.

        How long will it take?
        Usually matters where the accused has legal representation go first to minimise thier legal costs.
        Then people representing themslves.
        Id say you could be out by lunch time or mid afternoon so basically write the whole day off work
        I can assure you its very entertaining to see what excuses people come up with and what they get away with, or not, and also to see how lenient the judge is on the day.
        This helps you to prepare yourself when its your turn

        Will the judge impose a higher fine?
        Only if they think you are being a smart arse and wasting the court's time.
        So its very important to dress well, Be humble. Be apologetic. Be graceful.and Dont argue the point.

        The judge may stay the fine, reduce the fine, remove the points penalty, remove the fine and the points penalty.
        The odds are that you will come out better off. Just how much better off depends on your driving history, good behaviour and the mood of the judge on the day.
        Even the cases before you can affect the judges decision.
        eg if your case looks good compared with the earlier ones, you could get off lightly if not all together.

        I present this information from personal experience so I know the process.
        No opinions or guesswork here.
        In my situtation I had a perfectly clean driving record.
        And the cases before me were dreadful compared with mine, including repeat offenders and people that had lost all thier demerit points.
        The judge read what I wrote in my request for a review (my excuse) and then let me off.
        The judge didnt even ask me to say anything.
        Make sure you bow and say 'thank you your honour"

        PS Using the "guilty with an excuse" approach I also got my girlfriend out of a hefty $350 parking fine that involved 2 demerit points as well.
        She also had a perfectly clean driving and parking record which was taken into consideration by the judge.

        • "people that had lost all thier demerit points" does this mean in cases before yours the judge removed demerit points from drivers who had accumulated demerit points for driving offences?

        • What was the name excuse?

      • +1

        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.

        • +4

          Does the break light indicate that it's time to consume a kit kat?

        • -3

          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.

          • @Devilius:

            If there were third photo, it would show that I cleared the crossing after the second photo.

            A flaw with this argument would be that just because a third photo showed that you eventually cleared the crossing, it doesn't prove that you weren't stopped or otherwise blocking the crossing when the second photo was taken.

      • Your rims tell a different tale….They had stopped rotating.

        • +3

          Unless the paint on the road moved underneath him, the car has clearly moved forward between the two photos. In the first image the shorter white line is some distance in front of his rear tyre. In the second photo his tyre is on top of it.

      • From the photos, it looks like you moved ~30 cm over ~60secs. Lets assume width crossing ~300 cm, and your vehicle ~200 cm long.

        Based on above, at your speed it would take roughly 15 minutes for a vehicle to enter and clear the crossing.

        If you saw a vehicle taking 15 mins to move this distance, would you still say they aren’t blocking the intersection, even though they are just passing through? Yes?
        How about if they take 5 minutes? Would you still consider impeding the crossing? Yes?

        How about 60 seconds then? No? Why?

        • +4

          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].

          • +1

            @SlickMick:

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

            Muppet?

          • -4

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

            • +3

              @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.

              • +2

                @SlickMick:

                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.

                Rarely do I see ANYONE wait for a 20m gap at the other side of a crossing. The parking ranger should just sit at crossings for an hour every morning and arvo and hit their monthly quotas in less than a week.

                nothing is safe when you have a combination of moving vehicles and children.

                Nonsense black and white drivel. OP was on the exit side of the crossing slowly moving forward (not towards any pedestrians children or otherwise), and even the lollipop person had clearly deemed it safe to enter the crossing themselves and to guide children through. If the situation pictured in the OP is not "safe" then the lollipop person should be fired and lose their Working With Children Check for putting their own personal physical safety and that of children at grave risk.

                • +1

                  @tenpercent:

                  Nonsense black and white drivel. OP was on the exit side of the crossing slowly moving forward (not towards any pedestrians children or otherwise

                  The position the photo captured the car, it was preventing other cars (and pedestrians) from having a clear view of other road users.

                  Even though there was room for the kids to cross, doesn't mean the required distance was there for others to have full view of the crossing.

                  If the situation pictured in the OP is not "safe" then the lollipop person should be fired

                  Meh, prove the lollipop person told the kids it was safe to enter the crossing in the first place.

                  Don't these dudes walk out, raise their signs then when sure cars have stopped/crossing is safe, they blow a whistle and wave the kids onto the crossing?

                  Not much preventing a kid to enter a crossing without being given the go ahead by the crossing guard.

                • @tenpercent:

                  The parking ranger should just sit at crossings for an hour every morning and arvo and hit their monthly quotas in less than a week.

                  Ever occur to you that Ranger only has something to do because people think the rules/laws don't apply to them?

                  • @Muppet Detector: Ever occur to you that some of the rules don't make sense or are overly broad and therefore shouldn't apply to anyone beyond specific circumstances where some kind of risk actually exists?

                    • @tenpercent: Of course, but I understand that my opinion or judgement of these rules/laws doesn't matter. Well not in the sense that it means the fines or penalties won't apply to me.

                      In the case of this particular parking/stopping rule, I presume it exists to facilitate a steady flow of traffic or stop traffic congestion.

                      I am sure that many people would only intend to cause such an obstruction for a few seconds, but left unchecked, you end up with people waiting several minutes or more for parking spaces to become available to maybe even longer periods of double parking.

                      Left unchecked, it only takes one person to start this and when not bought into line, the behaviour becomes so frequent that it is common and bit by bit, inconsiderate muppets extend their periods of blocking traffic longer and longer.

                      Multiply this across multiple parking spots along a given street.

                      Then, as traffic in that street becomes congested, the traffic jam protrudes onto adjoining roads, causing traffic congestion there too.

                      Rather than say "you can stop for 1 minute" and invite everybody to say "but I was only there for 55 seconds", it's just more effective to say "don't do it at all.

                      This is why it makes sense to me. It makes sense to me because I understand that the world doesn't revolve around me and that my actions have the potential to affect many many other people.

                      Common laws/rules need to be kept very simple, if not black and white. The more caveats or exceptions created the more difficult and expensive they are to manage.

                      There are examples where specific examples do apply, such as "no parking here between 4 - 6" or "drop off zone" or "loading zone" etc in some places, obviously they believe others don't need to be micromanaged to that extent.

            • @EightImmortals:

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

              Apparently it didn't change fast enough because he couldn't clear the crossing in time.

              I think that the general idea is that you're not supposed to enter crossings & intersections etc unless you can clear them. (So if there isn't enough room on the other side of crossing, not supposed to attempt to start crossing and hope that whatever is blocking the road ahead has moved by the time you get there.

              Not often practical, I know, but it is what it is. No doubt they set the laws/standards with the lowest common denominator in mind.

    • Yellow cross-hatching is irrelevant though - you're not permitted to block any intersection. Same as our "U-turn must give way" signs in VIC - again, this applies everywhere and always, not just when there's a reminder sign.

      • +1

        yes, i agree.

  • +11

    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.

  • +10

    They were taken in succession within 60 seconds

    ffs how slow were you rolling

    • +1

      I wondered this too, but after rereading I think what OP means is the evidence we have is 2x pictures taken within the same timeframe with no seconds indicator (9.04am). Therefore the two pictures had to have happened within 60 seconds of each other maximum.

  • +9

    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.

    • +1

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

      I reckon you're a traffic engineer or something similar as you often have good takes on these things

      OP is blocking the sight line for traffic in the other direction - pic 2 shows it pretty well.

      • +1

        I reckon you're a traffic engineer or something similar as you often have good takes on these things

        yep, i started my engineering career in it.

    • 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?

      • Pardon the pun

  • +8

    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?

  • +7

    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.

  • +6

    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.

  • +5

    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.

  • +4

    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.

    • -1

      What does this mean "That was it, I left court with all my points intact." ?

      • They had a perfect driving record, i.e. had all of their demerit points. The fine was going to take some points. They took it to court, the judge dismissed it due to the perfect driving record, therefore they have no longer lost any demerit points (all my points intact).

        • +1

          So you think motorists lose demerit points for driving offenses?

        • Thanks for the explanation, exactly what I meant :)

  • +4

    given people have moved onto the crossing and the crossing guard has travelled a significant distance between the 2 photos, you are effectively stopped, moving a couple of inches every few seconds does not qualify as proceeding across the crossing.

  • +4

    i dont see what you are complaining about, both photos show your car is on the pedestrian crossing. there is enough time between the two photos that the pedestrians are half way across the walkway or further and you are still there. you're not allowed to stop or slow to a crawl there. next time dont cross it until its clear.

  • +4

    I will never understand why people - like you OP - finds it neccessary to take every metre of road in front of you. If you just stopped and waited for there is clear space it'll be fine. You do you get to your destination faster being 10cm behind the car in front.

    This isn't just my rant about this situation, its every situation, give others in front more space.

    • People make mistakes. Others do things on purpose and never learn.

      It's hard to know which driver you encounter so it's best just to be tolerant.

  • +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.

  • +3

    Both photos were taken on 20 August 2025 at 9.04am. They were taken in succession within 60 seconds (or less).

    Even if in your mind you somehow believe that negotiating 30cm of distance over 60 seconds in a car is considered 'moving', you were still on that crossing for 60 seconds. You were blocking the crossing!

    And that's from when the first photo was taken. It takes time to take a photo, so you were likely on that crossing for well over the 60 seconds you stated.

    I don't know enough about the law to comment on whether the infringement was issued for the wrong offence, but I do feel that you'd still need a level of sympathy from the judge for this to swing in your favour. Would they show sympathy considering this is related to a children's crossing? I hope not.

  • +3

    I will be charitable and say your memory of the event must be playing tricks on you.

    As others have said, if you examine the two photos it is clearly not as you described.
    1. For those students to be behind your car, backtrack a bit. The front of your car is more than 8 metres from the start of the crossing. So either you ignored the controller or had been there for a while when the controller walked to the centre of the road and the students started crossing. And THEN photo 1 was taken.

    2.Then comes the time between photos. Your vehicle has moved forwards 20-30 cm in that time. But in that same time the students have completed their crossing and gone from view. The stop go controller has also gone from view. Two cars that were out of sight in the first photo have appeared and the front one has commenced to cross. That would have to be at least 10 seconds.

    And how far has the car moved in all that time?

    Of course as discussed back and forth before, you are at fault anyway for being on the crossing at all. The rules are stricter for lollipol controlled school crossings. You must not enter the crossing while anybody is on the entire crossing …. even the other side of the road.

    An analogy. You have entered a train level crossing and the lights have turned red. The bell is ringing but heavy traffic ahead has prevented you from completing the crossing. As the train approaches with horn blaring all you can think about is the injustice of it all.

  • +2

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

  • +1

    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.
  • +1

    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.

  • +1

    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.

    • +16

      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.

      • +1

        You're not meant to stop on a road while someone pulls out of a park though

        Are you supposed to drive into them? Or are parked cars meant to stay put until after peak hour? No one allowed to let them out?

        • Are you supposed to drive into them?

          No. Clearly if something was impeding your safe passage, you would have a really good reason to stop.

          Or are parked cars meant to stay put until after peak hour?

          They can only pull out into traffic when it is safe to do so. If there is anything in that lane then it probably isn't safe for the previously parked car to enter it.

          No one allowed to let them out?

          Well, if they do, they shouldn't be caught doing it. But generally speaking, no.

          • @Muppet Detector: So let's bring this all together:

            1. Driving into other cars is bad (I appreciate the clarity here!)
            2. If you are parked and there is bumper to bumper peak hour traffic you can't leave unless there is a huge gap in the traffic.
            3. Other drivers aren't allowed to create a big enough gap in the traffic to enable 2 except when adhering to point 1.

            So either:

            • Parked cars must stay put during peak hour traffic (point 2), or
            • Parked cars must create a hazard by edging forward and forcing themselves into a small gap between cars because then and only then the other driver can stop because point 1.

            Thankfully most Australians aren't sh$t people, like whoever wrote the legilsation or the regulations which results in this nonsense, and parked cars can and do leave their spots during peak hour traffic. Unfortunately there is another breed of sh*t people called 'rangers' who try to enforce nonsense like this.

            • -1

              @tenpercent: Just because there are parking spots made available for the public to use, doesn't mean that they have to park there if the conditions of use aren't acceptable to the person choosing to use them.

              • @Muppet Detector: Sure nobody has to do anything, right? If you don't like the nonsense rules you don't have to do the thing.

                But… do you think those rules are perfectly reasonable?

                • +1

                  @tenpercent: It's reasonable that the rules and practice both prioritise vehicles already in a line of traffic over those seeking to enter it. If the road is congested, why should the people behind the "kind soul" have to wait even longer while that driver is unilaterally choosing to be "considerate", especially when the written requirement and expectation is the opposite?

                • -1

                  @tenpercent:

                  But… do you think those rules are perfectly reasonable?

                  It doesn't matter what I think, but if I want to avoid paying fines/penalties, it's best practise that I avoid breaking any rules or laws.

                  It's all well and good being courteous and polite to strangers, but if you do get fined for stopping to let the parked car out, is the driver of that parked car going to pay your fine for you?

                  If not, maybe they could be courteous and polite to you and not expect you to do anything to expose you to that possibility, eh?

      • -1

        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.

        • +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.

        • +2

          Systematically fining people for double parking and blocking traffic while waiting for cars to leave spots sounds like a decent congestion-busting tactic to me?

    • -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.

      • 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.

        • -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."

          • +5

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

  • +1

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

    • -1

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

      • +1
        • 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

  • +1

    how bout you post a dashcam footage?

Login or Join to leave a comment