Got Booked by Police - No Seatbelt

aboogee on 13/01/2021 - 15:21
Last edited 13/01/2021 - 15:33 by 1 other user

So turning to OzB community for an another advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Automotive

Comments

  • field1985 on 14/01/2021 - 18:22
    -1

    Fact remains: Unless you can prove "she only released the seatbelt when we stopped" you don't have a leg to stand on.

    Courts will believe cops over perpetrators everytime. Pay the fine and move on.

  • andyken on 14/01/2021 - 19:42

    Court

  • [Deactivated] on 14/01/2021 - 22:23
    +2

    Challenge it. It'll take you months or even a year to get this sorted in court. Represent yourself, tell the truth about what happened, and it will be dismissed.

  • Pretzel_Ninja on 15/01/2021 - 00:22
    -2

    Pay the fine.

    The legislation for wearing seat belts applies to both moving and stationary.

    You've been pulled over by the police which means the car is "stationary". "Parked" would mean you are leaving the car - no one is leaving the car when you've just been pulled over by the police unless instructed by the police. This is all that's needed as evidence, you've admitted to having a passenger not wearing a seat belt while the vehicle was "stationary".

    • kjg on 15/01/2021 - 12:53
      -2

      Thank you - glad to see there are some other sane people reading this thread. People will neg you despite what you have said being 100% correct, purely because they don't agree with the law or the penalty correctly issued in this case.

      • happydude on 15/01/2021 - 14:39
        +2

        Your interpretation is complete stupid.

        If I’m dropping someone off in a area designated “Pick Up / Set Down Only - No Parking” there is no possible way to do that without either copping a parking fine or a seatbelt infringement. Ridiculous.

        Parking is a defined term meaning “ includes stop and allow the driver's vehicle to stay (whether or not the driver leaves the vehicle).”

        The “Stationary” part is clearly for things like traffic lights and stop signs.

        Before you thought too much about it did you consider the Golden Rule of statutory interpretation?

    • Mikeer on 15/01/2021 - 16:26
      +3

      Some claim that in order for a car to be "parked" the engine must be switched off.
      Some go as far as to say that the keys must be taken out of the ignition cylinder.
      I am starting to believe that this definition of "parked" is an old wives' tale.

      I will show this is incorrect using just the NSW Road Rules, in addition to the example that @happydude already provided earlier.
      Disclaimer: IANAL and nothing I write is legal advice.

      This definition of "parked" would make the following rules contradict each other:
      Rule 213: Making a motor vehicle secure
      Rule 264: Wearing of seatbelts by drivers

      Rules 264(1) and (2) state that "The driver of a motor vehicle that is moving, or is stationary but not parked" … "must wear the seatbelt" except for certain exceptions that do not apply to this example. In other words, the driver of a motor vehicle that is "parked" is permitted to not wear a seatbelt.

      Rule 213(3) states that if the driver is leaving the vehicle and "will be over 3 metres from the closest part of the vehicle, the driver must switch off the engine before leaving the vehicle." This, and rule 213(2), implies that if the driver remains within 3 meters of the vehicle, the driver is allowed to leave the vehicle without turning off the engine.

      A driver cannot physically leave the vehicle if they are restrained by a seatbelt. This means that rule 213(3) implies that a driver can legally remove the seatbelt without turning off the engine, therefore when considering rule 264 (and consequently 265, 266 and 267) the definition of "park" cannot require the driver to turn off the engine in order for the vehicle to be considered "parked".

      I believe this would prove those claims wrong. I think that the claims stem from confusing "parked" with terms like "stationary" (i.e. driven, but not moving, for example sitting in traffic) and "in control of the vehicle" (e.g. DUI for sitting in driver seat with keys in ignition). But IANAL so happy to be proven wrong if I am.

  • Donaldhump on 15/01/2021 - 09:23
    +2

    Challenge it, f…. them, can’t just make shit up

  • payless69 on 15/01/2021 - 10:24

    My kids have grown up. But reading the above we would probably not having kids anymore. Sorry things like this are not the only issue but cumulating!

  • SKiZO on 15/01/2021 - 10:40
    +2

    It's not just a fine, there's points involved as well right? Everything JV has said is correct. Have him represent you.

    I've been in the same situation twice and represented myself. If they can't prove it, it will get thrown out. My biggest tip is not to give any information to the cops prior to going to court. Don't write any sobbing letters asking for evidence, leniency, etc. You would be giving them evidence and they will have time to make shit up before they get to court.

    Make sure you ask for your costs ($100), but it's up to the magistrate what he will do with that.

    Do it for experience if anything.

    • kjg on 15/01/2021 - 12:55
      -3

      Nearly everything jv has said is legally inaccurate and is poor advice that no lawyer would actually give.

      I'd pay the OP's resulting increased fine as a price of admission to see jv shut down in a court room.

  • AustriaBargain on 15/01/2021 - 10:51
    -2

    Why the heck did you unbuckle the kid on the road. Because he was uncomfortable or causing a fuss? Because he started to cry terribly? I understand that crying is annoying to your ears but the road rules don't bend so you can avoid a little annoyance. "A cop is coming, quick unbuckle the kids!".

    Thanks for not catching the bus or train btw, the worst thing on a hot day after long day of work is having a kid screaming in a confined space.

  • chriskq on 15/01/2021 - 11:16
    -2

    I've had kids cry in the baby seat…. you let them cry and crank up the radio, open the windows, give them a dummy or milk bottle play a sing along etc….. i dont understand what pulling over, unbuckling the kid was going to do unless you had to change the nappy - which again is no reason to do a u turn on double lines… what for the next safe spot to pull over.

  • suchan on 15/01/2021 - 12:22
    +2

    Reading / hearing about cases like these, makes me wish for someone like Judge Frank Caprio in Australia.

    All this arguments and back and forth only proves that how our law is upheld depends largely on one's interpretation and there's nearly no chance of being given "benefit of the doubt". There is little to none human empathy.

  • cnrmlj on 15/01/2021 - 13:29
    +2

    If you can afford the time off work and the timing of not having the $100 for a period of time, i would take it to court as long as you are 100% confident that you are in the right on the second one.

  • fozzie on 15/01/2021 - 16:59
    +1

    Reading some of the comments make me fuming, anyway, op is not denying the first fine but the second, which police assumed (he had stopped so child could be without seatbelt).
    Yes go to court and try to get it cancelled. Good luck

    • chrisharry53 on 17/01/2021 - 08:44

      It amazes me the crap that some of these keyboard Warriors post. They try to upset the OP rather than sticking to the question asked. Been happening to me on my separate post.

  • Brooklyn on 15/01/2021 - 18:09
    -3

    Thank you JV for making me and all the other cops… aka pigs, who do a job that none of you would… make us out as assholes. We uphold the law as in our job we are expected to do that. People like you are the reason I left the force and have now taken on a new life journey as a Dog Trainer.
    Simples if you have an issue with the police / fines etc… consult your lawyer and go to court. Not friggin atomic theory here. Throwing in my OZ badge right now… Mods you know what to do… You have banned so many others..

    • cruiseronroad on 15/01/2021 - 20:42
      -2

      who do a job that none of you would

      Are you trying to imply that people who join the police, a well paid career with benefits are some how of a higher order than those that don’t? Lol.

      • Ughhh on 15/01/2021 - 21:18
        +3

        I didn't read it as that…..

        You can't deny that being a cop has higher risk than being an accountant. Your bad posture and squeaky chair beats dealing with shitty people.

        • cruiseronroad on 16/01/2021 - 07:03
          +2

          Would never deny its challenging dangerous work, but it’s also well compensated with great flexibility.

          It’s the none of you would part I took issue with.

          It’s just a job.

          • chrisharry53 on 17/01/2021 - 08:48
            -2

            @cruiseronroad: Had a bus driver, who intentionally left people standing in the hot sun with no shelter at the START of his run while he parked under a tree in the shade with a/c on, tell me what he puts out with when I asked him why he did that. Takes all types, nice bus driver, nice policeman, and then the rest.

  • Kranbone on 15/01/2021 - 18:31
    +2

    I'd appeal only the seatbelt fine explaining that your wife unbuckled the child when stopped.

  • megaclix on 15/01/2021 - 22:59

    After reading through pretty much all the comments, it appears that the crux of the seat belt infringement comes down to the ambiguity of being parked or not.

    Looking at the lookout on Google maps, it sounds like the OP pulled over on the left hand side of the road before the 'nose in' parking spots, but I would assume fully over the solid white line on the left hand side of the road (OP mentioned there were other cars parked there).

    If a police car pulled over the OP, and the OP stopped in a 'nose in' spot, would they be considered to be 'Parked'? Or does police pulling you over trump any parking defence?

  • lostn on 16/01/2021 - 11:46

    This is scummy. A seatbelt should only be needed if the car is moving. If you've been pulled over and stopped, you should be able to take off your seatbelt.

    It sounds like he had it out for you.

    From their point of view, tax payers pay the police budget, so they have to get you on fines. That's revenue. Catching murderers doesn't bring revenue, so fines are a high priority. Whether to fine you is at their discretion but it wouldn't surprise me if there are quotas to meet.

    • gomelbcityfc on 23/01/2021 - 22:30

      I dk why you got negged

      This is true, you only need seatbelts when vehicle moving on a roadway

      Unless has been changed, seatbelt not mandatory when in private driveway, parked, or travelling in reverse

  • Raheen on 17/01/2021 - 08:42
    -1

    GOOD pity you didn't get more fines and everyone else who clogs up the roads at Stanwell Tops when the weather is good, with love from local resident's of the area whom are sick of the crazy amount of traffic and are unable to go about their business because the roads are flooded by out of towners like you.

    • gomelbcityfc on 23/01/2021 - 22:32

      Easy answer: move to wollongong

  • brad1-8tsi on 18/01/2021 - 13:34
    +1

    If you feel it's unjustified then take it to court. Both you and your wife should make contemporaneous notes without emotive additions of what happened tp present to the magistrate. Also diagrams, etc.

    There's stuff in your story that doesn't make sense so work on the logic of your argument and keep it brief.

  • gomelbcityfc on 23/01/2021 - 22:28

    Yeah, NSW police rarely lenient on mobile phone / seatbelts

    You had a better chance of getting uturn fine overturned

    Fact, from experience unfortunately

  • Zachary on 01/02/2021 - 19:13

    any updates?

      • Zachary on 06/02/2021 - 16:17

        thanks for the update.

      • SJDR on 07/02/2021 - 16:06

        And this is why cops will keep dishing out incorrect fines . SMH.

        • Zachary on 07/02/2021 - 18:59

          Well, one way to ensure a no seat belt fine is to get a dash cam that has a rearwood facing camera, so you ahve one facing the front and another directly facing the passengers and driver inside and that would be your evidence to confirm you wearing your seatbelt or not. Have one on the rear windscreen too for a different perspective so overal four cameras - one front facing, one facing inside the car from front, one facing inside the car from the back and another camera acting as your rear dashcam for those behind smashes….

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join