Interpreting the traffic rules differently and fined by Police. Should I go to court?

Herbert on 23/04/2016 - 22:33
Last edited 24/04/2016 - 13:13

I was driving my three-year-old son, My wife and my aged parents for a family day out to Royal National Park on Easter Saturday.

My son was sick, coughing and vomited after our hour long drive, crying and struggling in child Seat; My wife suggested to stop briefly so that we can give my son some water to make sure he didn’t inhale any vomit into his lungs. I also desperately need and toilet break.

I couldn’t stop anywhere along the way as it would block the traffic on the one-way road until Sir Bertram Stevens Drive where there appeared to be stopping lane available on the left with two parked cars.

Public toilet was on the right. There were three ¼ hour parking available in front of the toilet and one car park next to it, which I didn’t enter as it is illegal to cross the double solid lines. So I pulled over into the stopping lane, parked after those two cars, turned the hazard light on and ran across the road when the traffic was clear.

After I got out of the toilet, I saw one Federal police car pulled over after my car. I crossed the road immediately when it was safe to cross.

The officer signaled me over and asked for my driver’s license. He seemed to be in a hurry and promptly denied my request for discretion after asking me if it is a medical emergency. He quickly wrote me one penalty notice of $248 for disobeying no stopping sign with wrong offence location and incorrect address and drove away. I went up the road and found the no stopping sign that was blocked by the two parked cars before me.

My review request for leniency was denied. My son’s medical certificate and the medical emergency was acknowledged but they claimed that only medical emergency of passengers at risk of death or harm would be accepted.

I received my first penalty notice for this honest mistake after 10 years driving.

I guess the legal definition of “emergency” was narrower than my interpretation of “emergency”.

RMS publication on safety and rules states that “ No Stopping signs mean that in the area in the direction of the arrow you must not stop your vehicle at any point on the road, unless there is a medical or other emergency.”

I parked at where the arrow is in the photo below.

http://i67.tinypic.com/1ywx6p.jpg

Do I stand a chance to argue this case in court?

Automotive

Comments

  • spackbace on 23/04/2016 - 22:57

    How much is the fine for? $$s?

    • spackbace on 26/04/2016 - 10:35
      +2

      There were three ¼ hour parking available in front of the toilet and one car park next to it, which I didn’t enter as it is illegal to cross the double solid lines.

      Personally, I would've crossed the lines (after having a quick look around) to just park up. 1 of those cases where the law is kinda stupid to your actions. Assuming you weren't holding traffic up by making the turn, it seemed the practical thing to do, rather than parking up on the side of the road, putting yourself in more danger when you got in and out of your car.

      Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but yeah when it comes to my kids, I wouldn't care about those 2 painted lines on the road, under safe and quiet road conditions.

      • snook on 26/04/2016 - 16:03
        +7

        It's not illegal to cross double yellow lines to turn into a driveway, entrance etc. It's only illegal to pass cars and do a uey.

  • Herbert on 23/04/2016 - 23:02

    $248

    • spackbace on 23/04/2016 - 23:29

      Lose a day of work to fight it… So is it worth it?

      I don't need to know your financials, but it's a question you need to ask yourself.

      • Herbert on 23/04/2016 - 23:39
        +11

        It would no make sense financially, especially considering I would have take a day off work and travel a long way to the court closest to the park if pleading not guilty.

        If pleading guilty with explanation, I might be able to ask the case to be transferred to my local court.

        I do want to fight this on principle.

        • spackbace on 23/04/2016 - 23:41
          +5

          I do want to fight this on principle

          No worries, do what you gotta do. The cop won't care, he's paid to be there. You'll go through the next few weeks stressing over it, then the day off work, and subsequent stress if you lose.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/04/2016 - 23:47
          +3

          If pleading guilty with explanation, I might be able to ask the case to be transferred to my local court.

          There's no point in going to court if you intend on pleading guilty.

        • chumlee on 24/04/2016 - 07:51
          +3

          You can still go to court and plead guilty. You are acknowledging your error and pleading guilty but asking the magistrate to waive the financial penalty which he/she has the discretion to do. Happens often in Victoria

        • StewBalls on 24/04/2016 - 17:23
          +12

          @chumlee: Honestly, I wouldn't want to risk catching the Magistrate on a bad day & having him not only refuse to waive the fine, but also hit me with court costs for a frivolous case…all for $248.

          OP had his bite at the apple with the review request, unfortunately that was denied…principle or not, best course of action is simply to pay up & move on!

        • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2016 - 18:55
          +4

          @chumlee:

          If you go to court and plead guilty, expect the magistrate to be very disapproving about that. By doing so you would have wasted not only your time, but the time of the magistrate, the court, the prosecutors and all other court staff.

          When you are asked the question "if you intended on pleading guilty, why did you come to court?", what would your response be?

          "Because I felt like I could get out of the fine?"
          "Because I can?"
          "Because I wanted to see what court is like?"
          "Because I admit I did the wrong thing but don't want to pay what I'm supposed to pay?"

          Select your answer from the available options. I'll give you a minute to do so.
          ……….
          ………
          ……..
          …….
          ……
          …..
          ….
          …
          ..
          .

          Have you made your selection? Good.

          If you go to court to 'fight' your fine, only to plead guilty when you get there, you'll not only get slapped with the original fine but also court costs. And if you're gainfully employed, you'll lose a minimum of one day's pay, plus the court always has the right to increase your original penalty.

          The only time people plead guilty to get out of a fine (at least in Victoria) is when they're charged with fare evasion on Melbourne's public transport system. But that shouldn't be used as a general 'going to court' guide at all; that happens because the government do not have the correct materials to successfully prosecute the charged.

        • chumlee on 24/04/2016 - 21:00
          +2

          No it happens often with traffic offenses also. Plead guilty but inform the magistrate the fine is not in proportion to the offense and excessive for someone with an excellent driving record.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/04/2016 - 22:10
          +6

          @KaptnKaos: no offense but you are plain wrong about this.

          You can plead guilty at court then ask for mitigating factors which reduce the penalty.

          For example in some cases you can ask for a section 10 good behavior bond with no conviction recorded.

          so the conversation with the judge would go

          Judge :How do you pleaded ?
          Defendant : I pleaded guilty and ask for leniency in sentencing
          J: what matters would you raise ?
          D. Your honour, this was an emergency , my son was sick and i needed to find a safe spot to pull over to attend to him , there was no other safe space in the part and i am unfamiliar with the area, I do understand that i had stopped in a no stopping area and i also would submit that the sign for the area was blocked by other cars. I would normally not waste the courts time with this matter but i had already explained this to the SDRO and i was denied leniency. If you honor sees fight i would ask the court to dismiss the charges.
          J: I understand.
          J. Case Dismissed thank you.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/04/2016 - 22:12

          @CaptKirk: ignore my spelling errors. i am tired and not really focused.

        • Herbert on 26/04/2016 - 01:34

          @chumlee:

          I went to court once as family support for my auntie lost her license because of collision with a cyclist.

          During my observation of the cases presented before hers, one mother of two was booked for DUI and speeding on one suburban road. She pleaded guilty and managed to keep her license by saying that she was depressed upon learning the news of her sister's terminal cancer on that day and needed to keep her license to pick up her children.

        • True Bargains on 26/04/2016 - 09:58

          @chumlee:

          True, I went to court to ask a magistrate to transfer a speeding fine from my company name to my personal name (I had missed the date to submit a transfer form). I pleaded guilty and he agreed to do it. Dropped the fine from $3k (company speeding fine rate) to $180 (personal speeding fine rate).

        • Serapis on 26/04/2016 - 14:54
          -2

          From talking to magistrates before, they would pretty much be like:

          "Did you break the law"
          "Yes?"
          "Okay pay the fine. Next!"

          They deal with many times more cases per year than judges in higher courts and often have no time to apply leniency or discretion.

          • You yourself found the legal definition for 'emergency' already so there is no point arguing it.
        • abh_gup on 26/04/2016 - 21:02
          -1

          I agree, Herbert… that would be the right thing to do… fight for your right when its a matter of principle.
          But very hard in an institutionalized society, because our 'civilized' system is subtly flawed and corrupt in a polished way!

          The legal systems and state police department have to make money too… so they have ingeniously devised incontestable ways that most of the pubic cannot overrun, but comply with their position of the real perpetrators taking undue advantage of victims…

        • bargainking on 26/04/2016 - 22:38
          -1

          @CaptKirk: I agree with CaptKirk as I just recently fought my $295 fine in court - it was worth it. The Magistrate would look at your driving record first - clean. You would plead guilty but argue that it was an emergency and the sign was blocked. I'm 95% sure your case will be dismissed.

        • abh_gup on 27/04/2016 - 00:46

          @abh_gup: By the way, I've had Zero fines in lifetime of driving. Wish you all the best.

        • spackbace on 24/04/2016 - 10:09
          +9

          What? I wasn't out to actually know if OP would earn more than that in the day working or not. I was proving a point.

        • ctg on 24/04/2016 - 23:49
          +1

          @Tal_Shiar: You seem to be missing a grasp on the English language.

        • Tal_Shiar on 25/04/2016 - 00:06
          -8

          @ctg: Spackbace's last reply shows otherwise . I suppose in making his point, he could have taken the scenic route and driven Miss Daisy home too

        • spackbace on 25/04/2016 - 00:59
          +2

          @Tal_Shiar:

          Your replies remind me of a teenage girl.
          Feel like actually contributing to the discussion?
          No?
          OK then

        • DrDollar on 25/04/2016 - 07:55
          +1

          @Tal_Shiar: Hello.

        • smartazz104 on 26/04/2016 - 07:57
          +2

          @Tal_Shiar: The more you post the less sense you make and you weren't making much sense to begin with.

        • QW3RTY on 27/04/2016 - 09:12

          @Tal_Shiar:

          Resorting to a personal attack now? Which one of us is acting like the teenage girl again? Ohh yeah, you!

          Translates to: "Nuh uh! I know you are, but what am I?"

    • [Deactivated] on 23/04/2016 - 23:26
      +1

      The OP thanks you for answering his question.

      • kima on 24/04/2016 - 16:44
        -3

        People neg you because they think that this doesn't really happen stuck in their perfect cotton candy world lol. I remember speaking to a fed and he told me the amount, it was pretty high but I can't remember, do you know what it is?

    • [Deactivated] on 25/04/2016 - 09:08
      +2

      Documented where? Abandon weasel words, provide the evidence if you want to avoid being downvoted.

  • [Deactivated] on 23/04/2016 - 23:40
    +30

    Long story short:

    You are going to need first-hand impartial evidence or witnesses to avoid this fine.

    By "first-hand" I mean from a source which was present at the time at the location of the alleged incident. This excludes any medical appointments or certificates that have eventuated after the incident.

    By "impartial" I mean somebody that is not related to you, somebody who you are not closely associated with, and somebody who is qualified and registered to offer medical advice.

    Unfortunately, this excludes any documentation that you've obtained, and also your wife.

    OP, I hope you understand why this is the case and please also understand that I'm not picking sides here. I'm giving you the honest facts black and white. If waiving infringements were that easy, people would be frivolously visiting their doctors to obtain medical certificates, and travellers accompanying the fined motorist would be giving evidence of any excuse in court.

    Truth be told, if this case went as far as court chances are that the case would be found against you, because you don't actually have any proof that your son was sick at the time of the alleged offence. A medical certificate would indicate that your son was sick at the time of the certificate being issued, not specifically at the time of the infringement being issued.

    As heartless as this sounds, if you had any recorded evidence (eg. Internal dashcam, phone video recording, etc) then I would've strongly advised you to take this to court. You could call upon the issuing officer as a witness, but if that officer denies the medical incident then you'll be worse off. And that's why I wouldn't recommend court action in this case.

    A note for yourself and others - if you have a medical incident that requires you stop in a no stopping zone, call (or have someone call) either 000 or an equivalent of 'Nurse On Call' in your state or territory and explain the entire incident in full. Use your discretion and common sense on what number to call.

    By doing this, you are safeguarding yourself against any infringement that you may be issued. Remember, calls to emergency and medical help lines are recorded, and your call records along with the voice recordings from the called agency could possibly be adequate evidence to have such an infringement waived.

    Hope this helps.

    • Herbert on 23/04/2016 - 23:47
      +3

      Thank you very much for your detailed explanation! It helps a lot.

      • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2016 - 02:06
        +15

        No problems. I know it's probably not the particular solution that anyone would hope for, but I do hope that it clears up any confusions which you might have had regarding this.

        But I will say this - you might have a $250 odd debt on your hands now, and that could have been either $150 or even $350 depending on the figure set by the government. Nonetheless, it's probably worth getting a fine over the health of your loved ones.

        You might consider it unfortunate that you've been given an infringement in circumstances beyond your control, but you can consider yourself very, very lucky that nothing serious happened to your son.

        If there's anything positive about this incident, it's this.

        • Herbert on 24/04/2016 - 11:47
          +1

          Much appreciated!

        • arcticmonkey on 25/04/2016 - 13:34
          -4

          Consider the $250 a donation to ongoing health and public services for your child.

          If Turnbull gets back in, you can expect many more vicious health and school cuts that will cost you far more than $250.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/04/2016 - 14:44
          +1

          @arcticmonkey:

          Labor voter detected.

        • arcticmonkey on 25/04/2016 - 15:13

          @KaptnKaos:

          Anyone except the lying Liberal mob for me. They are disastrous for the everyday person. Our bargain savings will be spent on paying for health, $100,000 degrees and cuts for Turnbull's big multinational mates.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/04/2016 - 16:26
          -2

          @arcticmonkey:

          Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that Labor won't increase spending? (Serious question)

    • Jackson on 25/04/2016 - 21:55
      +2

      The statement about needing first hand evidence and impartial witnesses isn't altogether true. You can take a cop on one on one and it's your word against theirs, the judge should be impartial, provided you have a strong argument or the thing that the thing that the cop was supposed to be measuring is not easy to make a black and white decision on.

      Having said that, you stopped somewhere there was a sign saying no stopping there isn't many ways to interpret that besides you didn't see it, and obscured by other vehicles isn't a defence for that, or that you had a medical emergency, but then you went to the toilet once you realised it wasn't serious. On that basis you would be completely wasting your timing fighting it, for the reason that if it was an emergency and your son was in an emergency you would have still been there by his side.

      Also I am not sure about it being illegal to cross double lines? It's illegal to overtake, but it's not illegal to pull into a driveway so a car park next to a toilet to me sounds like it would have a drive way, in which case it's perfectly legal.

      Don't take this in any way that I am discouraging people going to court when they truly believe they are right, I support that, however I don't think you have a strong enough argument. Also you have to pay $50 just to take it there and it's non refundable (at least in NSW), so you will only be 198 better off should you win. I think that said the reasons not to go are mounting quickly

  • [Deactivated] on 23/04/2016 - 23:46
    +4

    Wrong offense location and wrong address are maybe something you can use against them.

    • [Deactivated] on 23/04/2016 - 23:48
      +3

      Sure, you can always do that.

      The court will ask you for the correct details.

      The court will instruct the infringement issuing agency to reissue the penalty noting the correct particulars.

      Back to square one.

      • AlanHB on 25/04/2016 - 10:23

        Why do you think the court has the power to do that? They only decide if you've committed the offense before them, not change the offense to suit your alleged actions.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/04/2016 - 11:06

          If the court believes that you did commit the offence, the court won't withdraw it just because it contained a typographical or administrative error. The court would have the power to either a) arrange for the infringement issuing agency to reissue the penalty citing the correct particulars, or b) to impose a penalty directly upon the accused should he or she be found guilty.

        • AlanHB on 25/04/2016 - 11:39

          @KaptnKaos:

          In respect to a): They could suggest to the organisation to change the offence, but that would be extremely cheeky considering the separation of powers in Australia.

          b) He isn't "guilty" of the offence caused. He wasn't even present in the physical area where it occured at the time it occurred. If satisfied he wasn't there, a court couldn't find that he commited the offence.

    • Herbert on 23/04/2016 - 23:57
      +1

      It may be eligible for waving. I have no idea how to do it though.

      According to Police Suitability of infringement notice for cancellation or waiving PROCEDURE

      If it should come to the notice of the officer in charge of a station or establishment that an infringement notice contains one or more of the errors listed below, that infringement notice should be considered for cancellation or waiving:

      (i) incorrect name or address or date of birth of the alleged offender;
      (ii) no time of offence;
      (iii) no date of offence;
      (iv) no location of offence;
      (v) no penalty inserted;
      (vi) no offence title or code inserted;
      (vii) incorrect infringement notice fine amount inserted;
      (viii) incorrect offence title or code inserted;
      (ix) incorrect location (vastly different suburbs or areas – kilometres apart);
      (x) incorrect day of offence;
      (xi) incorrect date of offence in respect of allegation section only. An incorrect date of issue on the infringement
      notice on the same line as the issuing officer’s particulars does not invalidate the infringement notice;
      (xii) expiration of limitation of proceedings;
      (xiii) more than one offence inserted (PT56: ‘Infringement notice’ notices only);
      (xiv) parking offences where the vehicle is registered to a business or company and such business or company
      has been de-registered or is in liquidation;
      (xv) issued to an overseas visitor and the prosecution copy of the infringement notice shows that the alleged
      offender has since left the state; and

      In making a determination as to whether or not to cancel/waive an infringement notice, consideration should be given
      as to whether a prosecution action instigated before a court would be likely to fail due to the apparent defect in the
      infringement notice subject of the determination.

      • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2016 - 00:03
        +2

        You can apply for the infringement to be waived on point 9, only if the written address is a sufficient distance away from the actual location. However, if you've already applied for a waiver and this has been refused, you cannot make another waiver application. Any further cases of possible waivers must be made in court.

        Another question - when you saw the no stopping sign, did you see anything else on that sign? Like times of the day, days of the week, etc?

        • Herbert on 24/04/2016 - 00:22

          It was a normal no stopping sign with arrows to both directions. It has to be because it is a one way road.
          Any stopped cars would block the traffic.

          I parked at where the arrow is in the photo below.

          http://i67.tinypic.com/1ywx6p.jpg

          I made the wrong assumption that it was an emergency stopping lane when I saw two parked cars.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2016 - 00:26

          @Herbert:

          So the no stopping sign didn't have any times or days written underneath like this?

          http://goo.gl/IXUyJm

          Or was it more like this?

          http://goo.gl/YN8ZnM

        • Herbert on 24/04/2016 - 00:31

          @KaptnKaos:

          It is a one like this:

          http://goo.gl/o9Hnaz

          Now I think about it, under the circumstances, I would most likely to make the stop even I saw the no stopping sign.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2016 - 00:48
          +2

          @Herbert:

          Oh, that's a shame. The reason I asked is because Easter Saturday is a declared public holiday in NSW, and parking control signs showing days of the week are not applicable on public holidays.

        • Herbert on 24/04/2016 - 10:33

          @KaptnKaos:

          Thanks!

        • Peace Maker on 25/04/2016 - 11:44

          @Herbert: INAL but have you considered the 'mistake of a fact' defence? You said you didn't see the sign because it was blocked, and you saw other cars parked there, so it was reasonable to conclude you could park there?

        • Herbert on 26/04/2016 - 00:30
          +1

          @Peace Maker:

          I don't think 'mistake of a fact' defense would win the case. As KaptnKaos commented below:
          "The onus is on you, as the driver, to be aware of all signs enforcing the area that you've parked in."

          I am pondering upon the exemptions suggested by Factor in ROAD RULES 2014 - REG 165

          (d) the driver stops at a particular place, or in a particular way, because the condition of the driver, a passenger, or the driver’s vehicle makes it necessary for the driver to stop in the interests of safety, and the driver stops for no longer than is necessary in the circumstance

          Or maybe the necessity defence.

          The common law defence of necessity operates where circumstances (natural or human threats) bear upon the accused, inducing the accused to break the law to avoid even more dire consequences.

          The elements of the defence were that —

          (i)
          the criminal act must have been done in order to avoid certain consequences which would have inflicted irreparable evil upon the accused or upon others whom he or she was bound to protect;

          (ii)
          the accused must honestly have believed on reasonable grounds that he or she was placed in a situation of imminent peril; and

          (iii)
          the acts done to avoid the imminent peril must not be out of proportion to the peril to be avoided.

  • pjcook on 24/04/2016 - 07:36
    +2

    "Public toilet was on the right. There were three ¼ hour parking available in front of the toilet and one car park next to it, which I didn’t enter as it is illegal to cross the double solid lines. So I pulled over into the stopping lane, parked after those two cars, turned the hazard light on and ran across the road when the traffic was clear."

    I am confused as to what you consider to be a one way road?

    Also if there was a designated car park on the right, then as far as I know you could have crossed the unbroken line to enter the car par park.

    • cowiie on 24/04/2016 - 07:52

      I'll answer this one.

      I couldn’t stop anywhere along the way as it would block the traffic on the one-way road until Sir Bertram Stevens Drive

      This statement explains that he initially wanted to stop on a one way road but decided not to because it would have stopped traffic.

      which I didn’t enter as it is illegal to cross the double solid lines.

      Double solid lines means it is illegal to cross, you can only cross to enter car park if it is a single solid line. (QLD)

      • pjcook on 24/04/2016 - 09:40
        +2

        From http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/traf…

        Looks OK to me to cross top enter or leave a property, the rest rooms would constitute a property.

        Dividing lines

        Unless a sign tells you otherwise, you can cross any type of dividing line when turning right at an intersection. You can also turn to the right across a dividing line to enter or leave a property (eg home or shops) by the shortest route.

        Broken white dividing lines – may be crossed to overtake if the road ahead is clear. Double white unbroken (continuous) lines – you cannot overtake
        Broken white dividing lines – may be crossed to overtake if the road ahead is clear.

        Double white unbroken (continuous) lines – you cannot overtake across these lines.

        Double white lines with an unbroken (continuous) line closer to you – you cannot overtake across these lines. Double white lines with a broken line cl
        Double white lines with an unbroken (continuous) line closer to you – you cannot overtake across these lines.

        Double white lines with a broken line closer to you – you may cross the lines to overtake if the road ahead is clear.

        Do not make a U-turn across an unbroken (continuous) line or double centre unbroken (continuous) lines, unless the line closest to you is broken or where another rule prohibits performing the U-turn.

        Do not overtake across a single unbroken (continuous) line.
        Do not overtake across a single unbroken (continuous) line.

      • cheesecactus on 25/04/2016 - 19:26
        +2

        Afaik if youre turning into 'something' then crossing double solid lines is fine

        • cowiie on 25/04/2016 - 19:39

          Yes I believe you are correct about this when in NSW. They have double lines everywhere lol. Defeats the purpose.

        • cheesecactus on 25/04/2016 - 20:38

          @cowiie:

          Also true in WA

        • cowiie on 26/04/2016 - 07:26

          @cheesecactus: Will remember that the next time I'm in WA

        • tryagain on 26/04/2016 - 10:29
          +1

          Afaik if youre turning into 'something' then crossing double solid lines is fine

          True for NSW, not true for QLD. My wife found that out the hard way a few years back from a rude and arrogant highway patrol officer. Some police give others a bad name.

  • alxr0101 on 24/04/2016 - 07:45
    +12

    OP may want to brush up on road rules in general before ascertaining if their specific interpretation of a road rule would be supported by a Court.

    eg. it is NOT illegal to cross double yellow lines (unless otherwise marked or it is a media strip) if you are turning off the road into a driveway/shop/road-related area (and safe to do so).

    Also it would not have been a "federal police officer" that issued you with a fine in NSW. Federal Police have jurisdiction for traffic in territories such as ACT. NSW state police would have issued you a fine.

    • Herbert on 24/04/2016 - 11:14

      Yes. You are right.

      I was wrong to assume that it was illegal to cross the double solid line to enter parking space. It is legal to do so in NSW. When I was learning how to drive 10 years ago, my instructor's words were like"Think double solid lines as a wall, never cross it, etc… "

      As it was a public holiday, there were heavy traffic travelling at 70Km/h at both directions.

      I would definitely held the traffic If I were to stop to wait for the traffic at the other direction to clear to cross the double solid line.

      Wouldn't I be fined for "Disobeying No Stopping Sign" in that case as well.

      It seemed to be a catch 22 situation to me.

      • alxr0101 on 24/04/2016 - 13:45

        Why would you be fined for making a legal right turn? The No Stopping sign applies to the verge of the road…not the actual roadway.

        There is a penalty for obstructing traffic however it's not relevant for your case and if someone else wants to wade through the road rules, they are welcome to.

        edit: that NO STOPPING area is there for precisely this reason, to allow traffic turning right to be bypassed by vehicles behind them.

        Vehicles that park in the No Stopping zone deserve the fine, especially on busy long weekends when traffic would bank up (dangerously) if a vehicle is waiting to turn right.

        • Herbert on 24/04/2016 - 16:49
          -8

          I think your understanding is wrong.

          According to RMS website, no stop signs mean that in the area in the direction of the arrow you must not stop your vehicle at any point on the road or kerb

          In other words, the no stopping sign applies to the whole "road" in the legal sense, including the verge and the lane.

          If I were taking my time to wait for a safe gap through oncoming traffic to cross, while blocking all the traffic behind me and potentially cause accident and road rage, I would likely to be fined for "Disobey No Stopping Sign" as well.

        • alxr0101 on 24/04/2016 - 19:31
          +7

          @Herbert:

          You're getting even more confused and overthinking road rules. No Stopping does NOT apply to traffic flow. No Stopping applies to the verge, not the roadway. However if you decided to park ON the roadway and have a nap then it's obstructing traffic. The irony may well be that such a fine is less than the No Stopping.

          Otherwise what are you going to do when you approach a T-Junction and there's a No Stopping sign adjacent? Continue rolling for fear of a fine?

          Your reasoning for erring on the side of caution (by not turning..even though it was legal to do so and, by means of No Stopping signs, permitted following drivers to get around you) is flawed when you then proceed to park in a No Stopping zone, a zone designated as such for safety reasons as much as to prevent inconveniencing other drivers along that narrow stretch of roadway.

          edit: how many people get booked for stopping on the roadway, adjacent to a No Stopping sign, when in a traffic jam?

        • BartholemewH on 27/04/2016 - 00:15

          It's your understanding of the road rules that will get your arse kicked in court. Legally not allowed to stop on the roadway in a traffic lane… how do you think that could actually be safe, let alone enforced?

    • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2016 - 14:10

      This rule differs from state to state.

      In Victoria you cannot cross double unbroken lines for any reason whatsoever, so the OP was right in erring on the side of caution.

      https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-r…

      • alxr0101 on 24/04/2016 - 14:25

        OP is asking whether to appeal the matter in a NSW court. Displaying ignorance of the relevant NSW law is not going to win any support whatsoever..quite the contrary. Using a Victorian law as justification for breaking a NSW law is not a winning strategy.

        Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2016 - 15:54

          Not saying at all that the OP use Victorian laws as a defence, I merely mentioned it to make other users aware that the same laws might not apply to all states.

          But the OP, by erring on the side of caution and not crossing double unbroken lines, didn't directly break any laws. The OP only broke the law when he stopped in a No Stopping zone.

          Like I've mentioned in my previous comments, the OP should not take this to court unless he can provide first-hand impartial evidence.

          The OP could apply for the infringement to be waived on point 9 as noted earlier, but only if the written address is a sufficient distance away from the actual location. However, if you've already applied for a waiver and this has been refused, you cannot make another waiver application. Any further cases of possible waivers must be made in court.

        • alxr0101 on 24/04/2016 - 19:48

          @KaptnKaos:

          Yes, of interest maybe to point out rules differing in other States and Territories. However erring on the side of caution by parking in a No Stopping zone doesn't make sense.

          Yes, the OP claimed not to have seen the No Stopping sign (obscured by another parked car). That stretch of road has several No Stopping signs along its length. But not a reason the OP is seeking to appeal on (and not one likely to succeed.."I didn't see the sign" won't work).

      • AdrianW on 24/04/2016 - 23:09
        +1

        Wow!

        Vic: "You can't overtake, turn, or enter or leave the road across double lines."

        Thank god I live in WA: "If the centre/dividing lines are continuous, do not cross that line unless you are turning right (i.e. to leaving or entering the road) or making a U-turn."

  • Flying Ace on 24/04/2016 - 08:09

    Regardless of the legality (or not) of where the OP parked, it's pretty lousy of the cop to issue an infringement for what appears to be a minor offence especially considering the circumstances of why the OP was stopped there!

    • Settero on 24/04/2016 - 09:36
      +2

      i dono , if i was the office i might not believe op either, the whole parking in a no stopping zone in front of public parking , in front of a public rest room , coming out of the rest room kinda makes it look like he just stopped for the bathroom and choose to stop in the no parking area instead of parking.

    • alxr0101 on 24/04/2016 - 13:52
      +4

      Why is it a minor offence? No Stopping zones are not created for the mere convenience of enabling fines to be issued. In this particular case it is there to enable traffic flow to continue safely when a vehicle is waiting to turn right into the carpark.

      No Stopping zones are placed for reasons of safety and traffic flow. No Stopping zones are often found where visibility of traffic (eg intersections) would be obstructed by parked vehicles.

  • StewBalls on 24/04/2016 - 08:12

    After I got out of the toilet, I saw one Federal police car pulled over after my car.

    I wasn't aware that the AFP did traffic infringements???

    • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2016 - 15:55
      +2

      A friend of mine received a parking infringement from AFP for parking in a loading zone in Victoria. It certainly happens.

      • StewBalls on 24/04/2016 - 16:45

        Thanks, good to know…I genuinely did not realise that they did anything like that outside areas of Federal jurisdiction like airports etc.

  • Diji1 on 24/04/2016 - 09:46

    I would say no do not persue this in court as it does not sound like a genuine emergency.

    Unless …

    no stopping sign with wrong offence location and incorrect address

    If you mean the police officer has entered the wrong location for the address the alleged offence occurred then it may be a different matter. I would seek legal advice provided you do not pay more than $248. Because that may well get the charge thrown out of court.

    • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2016 - 18:31

      I would seek legal advice provided you do not pay more than $248.

      That'll get you a lawyer for about 10 minutes.

      Great advice.

      • whooah1979 on 25/04/2016 - 10:47

        That'll get you a lawyer for about 10 minutes.

        it's not unusual for solicitors to provide the first consultation free of charge. they then charge >$450p/h + gst if they decide to take you on as a client.

  • spurf on 24/04/2016 - 10:31

    If you have a 10 year clean driving record you can request the infringement to be waived as long as the offence is considered to be minor.

    • Herbert on 24/04/2016 - 10:51

      Unfortunately no. 10 year clean driving record would not be considered for non-demerit-point-carrying offences, according to the response from SRO review team.

      On the other hand, I might be eligible for section 10 dismissal if pleading guilty with explanation.

      According to Justice Department Website:

      In determining whether or not to make a non-conviction order the court must take into account:

      • the offender’s character, previous criminal history, age, health and mental condition;
      • the trivial nature of the offence;
      • the extenuating (mitigating) circumstances in which the offence was committed;
      • any other matter that the court thinks proper to consider.

      • spurf on 24/04/2016 - 11:20

        Didn't realise no demerit pointd where involved (lucky!)…section 10 dismissal sounds like your best bet.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2016 - 18:37
          +1

          No parking violation attracts demerit points.

        • snapper on 25/04/2016 - 12:35
          +1

          @KaptnKaos: Parking in a school zone during the designated school zone times incurs a 2 demit point penalty. (in NSW)

        • [Deactivated] on 25/04/2016 - 14:46

          @snapper:

          Jesus, you can't even park in a school zone during school zone times? Good grief!

          Here in Melbourne some school zones can be as long as 1km!

        • snapper on 26/04/2016 - 01:24

          @KaptnKaos: I think it is only certain parts of the school zone - like the pickup/drop off zone. I guess this is fair enough, as parked cars would cause all of the vehicles coming in to pick up kids to swerve around them. The confusing bit is where it is perfectly ok to park in that same section at other times (eg 2P). Make sure you move your car before 2:30pm or the council ranger will be there, issuing fines (hefty) plus the loss of 2 demerit points…

    • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2016 - 15:56

      Parking infringements cannot be appealed by a good driving record in any state or territory.

  • huydn on 24/04/2016 - 17:49
    -1

    So what I got from your post is that you received the ticket because you didn't see the sign and now you're using the 'emergency' excuse? I don't know what kind of 'principle' you are fighting this on. You are already WRONG by parking without checking the signs (if any). Just pay the fine, anything else is just excuses.

    • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2016 - 18:33
      +1

      He stopped there because his son was unwell. He happened to stop where he wasn't meant to.

      The OP probably understands his wrongdoing. What's hard to comprehend about these 4 lines?

  • jotay on 24/04/2016 - 17:54
    -1

    Sigh.take it as a "contribution" to the society when you pay the fine.I just got 1 for red light,and i didn't even know till I got the notice.Now I know that the most notorious $making intersection of Cemetry rd /Parkville in Melbourne has strike again.After reading the forums,I know any appeal etc will be futile..so I will bite the bullet and be poorer.

    • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2016 - 18:41
      +1

      .I just got 1 for red light,and i didn't even know till I got the notice.

      So let me get this straight. You ran a red light and didn't know about it? Pull the other one.

      Now I know that the most notorious $making intersection of Cemetry rd /Parkville in Melbourne has strike again.

      Red light cameras don't strike. Red light cameras don't make people poorer. Poor driving decisions make people poorer. Don't break the law and you won't have to pay a fine. Simple.

      After reading the forums,I know any appeal etc will be futile..so I will bite the bullet and be poorer.

      Let's go over that again.

      Red light cameras don't make people poorer. Poor driving decisions make people poorer. Don't break the law and you won't have to pay a fine. Simple.

      • StewBalls on 24/04/2016 - 20:42
        +1

        So let me get this straight. You ran a red light and didn't know about it? Pull the other one.

        Jotay probably mistook the camera flash as papparazi…honest mistake, could happen to any of us! ;)

        • jotay on 24/04/2016 - 21:14

          It was a big junction and I was sure it turned orange by the time i as the 3rd car turned…but!!!oh well i just hv to be careful next time i drive.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2016 - 21:26
          +1

          Hopefully jotay wasn't in a Paris tunnel…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join