Fined for Rear Passenger Not Wearing Seat Belt When Engine in Stop Condition

Lright195104 on 13/08/2023 - 20:35

Long time lurker and have always been benefited from this group, first time posting, so please go easy :)

I have faced a weird situation recently. Was asked to stop the car for random drug test near Melbourne CBD area. I moved to the testing lane and then stopped the car near the officer to participate in the drug test. My brother wearing a thick puffer jacket was sitting in the rear passenger seat. While the engine was in stop state, for 30secs he opened the seat belt to take the puffer jacket out, as it was hot inside.

The officer spotted and handed over 4 demerit points and $396 fine. I politely said, engine was in stop condition when seat belt was opened, but he did not listen.

Already requested a fine review and has been denied. Shall I contest at court or accept that at fault and pay the fine?

P.S. Financially doing difficult at the moment. Hence reaching out. Please help me with your opinion / suggestion.

Poll Options expired

  • 46
    Could have been given a warning.
  • 29
    At fault, pay the fine.
  • 568
    Contest at court and might be able to win.
Automotive

Comments

  • DogGunn on 13/08/2023 - 20:42
    +17

    The rule is that you and your passengers must be wearing a seatbelt when the vehicle is moving or is stationary, but not when parked. Even following a police direction, it is hard argue that you would be parked when pulled into the side (given park has a defined meaning in the road rules).

    You're probably shit out of luck here.

    You could ask for a payment plan or you could try your luck and ask a magistrate for some leniency from the fine, but there is no guarantee that would work.

    • dtc on 13/08/2023 - 21:07
      +13

      To add to this:

      a vehicle, … is stationary but not parked if the vehicle, … is stopped—
      (a) in a marked lane or line of traffic on a road; or

      It’s a pretty shitty thing for the police to do in the circumstances, but technically if you are stopped on a road then you are stationary but not parked, even if your engine is off. So you must wear a seatbelt.

      I haven’t checked if a DUI testing lane counts as a ‘marked lane’ or is given a different designation when coned off, but I doubt it

      • DogGunn on 13/08/2023 - 21:23
        +5

        That rule is only relevant to mobile phones.

      • Jaysful on 14/08/2023 - 23:23
        +2

        Makes sense as a general rule but sucks for OP. I guess if you're stopped on the road (even at a police traffic stop), there is still the risk of another vehicle failing to stop and colliding with OP. So the seat belt rule still applies due to being on the road.

      • 10khours on 15/08/2023 - 11:11
        +2

        So the police could order you to pullover, then order you to leave the vehicle, then when you take the seatbelt off they can fine you? It makes no sense haha.

        • Montyjpm on 16/08/2023 - 09:06

          "Better Call Saul" moment right here.

        • chriise on 15/08/2023 - 20:42
          +2

          He unbuckled to remove his jacket while already pulled up. I get that there may be some letter of the law technical violation, but seriously - get a grip.

          • 811b11e8 on 16/08/2023 - 06:53
            +3

            @chriise: Sadly lots of accidents even when cars stopped. It's not uncommon for a pulled up car to get hit from behind or side wiped.

            Your very unlikely to find any leniency from Vic Police on this half a dozen officers killed in recent years while vehicles being pulled over. No doubt the courts are aware of it too. It's why the big push for vehicles to slow down to 40 when passing police with lights on.

            .

            • DrScavenger on 17/08/2023 - 04:30

              @811b11e8: So? Can't make rules over extremes. Car can run you down on sidewalk as pedestrian as well. What should we do? People die, it's unfair. But it is how it is.

    • EightImmortals on 14/08/2023 - 06:26
      +64

      And yet another case of 'rules are for when brains run out'?

      If the intent of forcing people to wear seat belts is to save lives in the case of an accident then if the car is stationary with the engine off the rule should not apply. But then that would be common sensical which wont make sense to anyone who is so enslaved that they actually believe orders must be followed without question. Take the thieving ****s to court, given the amount of illegal covid-era fines that have been overturned you might get the right judge. Worst case scenario you have to pay the extortion money and let it be a lesson to you of the kind of state we live in and never trust the cops nor the government again.

      (Additionally would your brother have taken off his seatbelt if you weren't forced to pull over by the cops in the first place?)

      • right195104 on 14/08/2023 - 07:45
        +14

        Fully agree. He might have not done if the car was stationary. He told me, he did that, because he thought it was safe to do so :(

          • RockyRaccoon on 14/08/2023 - 11:44
            +28

            @belongsinforums: Even anti vaxers can have other options.

            At least show some respect. As it had turned out there was overkill with vaccines.

            And in case you are thinking I’m one of them, I think my 5 vacs to date would indicate I’m not. Plus I have flu shots each year

              • [Deactivated] on 14/08/2023 - 18:01
                +9

                @belongsinforums: Um… they WERE bs… because thousands that were due/payable have now been CANCELLED.

              • infinite on 14/08/2023 - 21:39
                +4

                @belongsinforums: They were BS, that's why tens of thousands of them were torn up, overturned or forcibly refunded back to the public.

              • m0tyrider on 02/11/2023 - 21:48

                @belongsinforums: The covid fines were bs

          • SpainKing on 15/08/2023 - 21:36
            +3

            @belongsinforums: C'mon mate, anti-vaxxers can still be right on certain things. Don't have to hate everything they do just because you disagree with something you find fundamental. They breathe air and eat meat and wear clothes. That doesn't make those actions part of the anti-vax agenda. Thinking a fine someone was issued is bullshit is the same thing

            Acting like you are (disregarding their opinion entirely based off an unrelated opinion you disagree with) likely contributed to his current anti-vax stance

            If anything he's spouting liberal rhetoric, not specifically anti-vax (though there is overlap)

        • [Deactivated] on 14/08/2023 - 18:25
          +3

          Good intentions don't matter to these arseh___. Only the letter of the law, what they can get away with. A cop I know told me even other cops despise the ones who do highway patrol. This must be one reason why. Best chance is going to court, saying you can stop momentarily to pick up and drop off passengers, and it's not like the guy took it off to go rob a bank - merely took the opportunity to adjust to make an uncomfortable situation better for the ongoing journey AFTER the cop allowed you to leave, you're in the front and can't control what someone does in one instant, that had the belt still been off when the cop released you, you would have required he put it back on, and the fact the guy in the back waited until the car was stopped to adjust it proves he following the spirit of the law, because he was uncomfortable the entire time yet waited until the car was parked. Reiterate you could have stopped briefly to let someone exit, so the "officer" is being excessively punitive in this case as it was HIS requirement you stop that put you both in that situation.

      • DogGunn on 14/08/2023 - 08:53
        +18

        And yet another case of 'rules are for when brains run out'?

        No this is a case of an over zealous police officer. There was no need to fine someone where they didn't see them approach the stop without the seatbelt.

        If the intent of forcing people to wear seat belts is to save lives in the case of an accident then if the car is stationary with the engine off the rule should not apply

        If this was the case, then people would be permitted to stop at traffic lights, turn off their car and undo seatbelts, but that's not the intention.

        Serious vehicle accidents occur when people are stopped in their vehicle on the road, which is the purpose of the rule requiring seatbelts at all times a car is on the road. Further, we all pay a TAC charge, which means it is in the communities interest to reduce accidents.

        Your diatribe is misguided. The issue here is the police officer, not the rules.

        • EightImmortals on 14/08/2023 - 09:01
          -6

          "No this is a case of an over zealous police officer. The issue here is the police officer, not the rules."

          And what was he being 'overzealous' about if not the 'rules'. Plus that is simply an assumption, maybe was a jerk and was merely being spiteful? No shortage of those types around these days.

          "f this was the case, then people would be permitted to stop at traffic lights, turn off their car and undo seatbelts,"

          I see. And that happens a lot does it?

          Or conversely how about if I pull up in the carpark by the beach and eat my lunch without a seatbelt on? Would you be excusing the cop and defending the misuse of rules in that situation?

          "Serious vehicle accidents occur when people are stopped in their vehicle on the road, which is the purpose of the rule requiring seatbelts at all times a car is on the road."

          Can you cite examples of that being the reason they implemented seatbelt laws? Including when in a stationary vehicle with the engine turned off? And why would someone stop on the road anyway if not for a breakdown of some kind? And in that case you'd be out of the car waving oncoming traffic to alert them to the danger while waiting for the tow truck to arrive.

          Why are you being an apologist for the state? How does it benefit you that people are extorted unjustifiably?

          • DogGunn on 14/08/2023 - 09:09
            -1

            @EightImmortals:

            I see. And that happens a lot does it?

            How can I answer that question? It's illegal. Legality changes people's behaviours.

            Or conversely how about if I pull up in the carpark by the beach and eat my lunch without a seatbelt on?

            Well you would be parked, so that would be legal to have no seatbelt anyway.

            Can you cite examples of that being the reason they implemented seatbelt laws?

            Are you seriously asking if people crash into stationary cars and whether that is dangerous?

            And why would someone stop on the road anyway if not for a breakdown of some kind?

            Have you seen the number of people that stop on the side of a freeway in an emergency stopping lane simply to play with their phone?

            Including when in a stationary vehicle with the engine turned off?

            The more important factor is whether the car is parked or on an active road.

            Why are you being an apologist for the state? How does it benefit you that people are extorted unjustifiably?

            What what what what what

            • EightImmortals on 14/08/2023 - 09:24
              +2

              @DogGunn: "How can I answer that question? It's illegal. Legality changes people's behaviours."

              I thought you raised that example because you had knowledge that it happens so much they had to make rules about it. I've been driving for 40 years and I've seem plenty of weird stuff on the roads but never someone stopped at the lights with their engine off so they can take off their seatbelt. :)

              "Are you seriously asking if people crash into stationary cars and whether that is dangerous?"

              No I'm asking for evidence of your claim that people getting hit when stopped on the road was the "purpose of the rule requiring seatbelts at all times a car is on the road."

              "Have you seen the number of people that stop on the side of a freeway in an emergency stopping lane simply to play with their phone?"

              OK, sure, but you said 'stopped on the road' and not pulled off to the side of the road. And wearing a seatbelt wont cure their stupidity.

              "The more important factor is whether the car is parked or on an active road."

              Again, nobody parks on a road. They might park in a parking bay, or pull off to the side but they don't stop on the road. But I guess that's the kind of thing you meant in the first place? As for the OP I'm assuming the cops pulled them off to a designated testing area. (The stupid bastards did that here at xmas time and traffic in both lanes was backed up for about a kilometre. ) In which case that the OP was not on the road to start with with simply adds to the abusive fine.

              Cheers

              • DogGunn on 14/08/2023 - 09:38
                -2

                @EightImmortals: I honestly can't tell if you're trolling with that reply, especially with the last paragraph. When a car is on the road, I think, should be fairly obvious. Your reply is overly pedantic.

                The only paragraph which I think you raise a valid reply to what I wrote:

                OK, sure, but you said 'stopped on the road' and not pulled off to the side of the road. And wearing a seatbelt wont cure their stupidity.

                The emergency stopping lane is an active part of the road - that's why it's considered another lane.

                It's not legal to park there, nor is it legal to stop there unless an emergency, for good reason.

                • EightImmortals on 14/08/2023 - 09:43

                  @DogGunn: "When a car is on the road, I think, should be fairly obvious. Your reply is overly pedantic."

                  Maybe. My assumption when you said 'on the road' was that you meant ON THE ROAD, as in stopped dangerously in the path of traffic but after your reply I can see that you meant 'stopped anywhere the road is paved' whether in the path of traffic or otherwise.. In which case I'm not sure your point is valid, maybe, maybe not. But in the case of the OP which was what I was really addressing then definitely not.

                  "The emergency stopping lane is an active part of the road - that's why it's considered another lane.
                  It's not legal to park there, nor is it legal to stop there unless an emergency, for good reason."

                  Fair enough. No argument there. But that's a different topic than seatbelts.

                  • DogGunn on 14/08/2023 - 09:51
                    +2

                    @EightImmortals:

                    But in the case of the OP which was what I was really addressing then definitely not.

                    Unfortunately, the OP was still on the road and not parked regardless of the status of the engine (engine being on or off does not factor into whether a car is parked for the rules), which is why the infringment notice is likely to be valid.

                    The issue here is the police not using the discretion they have. There is zero reason to give a fine if the OP's circumstances are true, and the officer should have used discretion to either warn or just not fine at all.

                    • EightImmortals on 14/08/2023 - 09:53

                      @DogGunn: Indeed, the OP has the moral high-ground in this case and I hope they use it to challenge the thieves in court.

                      • RockyRaccoon on 14/08/2023 - 11:52

                        @EightImmortals: I agree it’s not fair, but in court the judge will ask if the passenger removed his seat belt.

                        Yes would be the response

                        Judge would then say it’s proven. Guilty Thats all.

                        Now it will depend on Judge to impose fine.

                        OP will have to toss up if the savings vs the cost of attending court that may or may not mean less to pay. $0 or $?

                        Remember it’s Victoria where discretion only applies to major crimes.

                        • EightImmortals on 14/08/2023 - 12:03
                          -1

                          @RockyRaccoon: Actually OP will go to court and tick the box that says "Guilty but with explanation" (or however it's worded in VIC), the beak will then ask him what the explanation was and hopefully the judge has more than two brain cells unlike the cop and will throw the case out.

                          I hadn't heard that judges are not allowed discretion in the cases they hear down that way (in which case why bother with courts at all?) but it wouldn't surprise me. Yet more evidence of the tyranny we live under, as if we needed any more at this point..

                          • DogGunn on 14/08/2023 - 12:07
                            +1

                            @EightImmortals: They're allowed to reduce the fine to nothing, but they have their hands tied re demerit points. There is no discretion if a person is found guilty or the offence is proven, even if the Magistrate dismisses it. The points get added anyway.

                            • EightImmortals on 14/08/2023 - 12:09
                              +1

                              @DogGunn: OH well, better than losing the cash as well I guess, at least the points will come back. :)

                              • pndl on 14/08/2023 - 20:48

                                @EightImmortals: not really, if you ever get asked if you were ever found guilty of an offence, for example, when applying for a visa, you must answer yes. however, if you just pay the fine then you were never found guilty and the matter is concluded.

      • Jake D on 14/08/2023 - 12:26
        +2

        If you are not parked, but stopped in a roadway, there is still the chance of collision with passing traffic. Would probably still want a seatbelt on. Even so, cop was being a prick.

        • liquid metal on 15/08/2023 - 04:53
          +1

          I would argue that the police officers are in much higher danger then, than a person in the backseat, protected in a steal cage with crumple zones.

      • MrFunSocks on 14/08/2023 - 17:15

        Accidents can still happen when you’re being roadside drug tested.

        • EightImmortals on 16/08/2023 - 12:16

          Indeed, I wonder who is liable in those cases?

          The idiot who hit you from behind because they weren't awake or the cops for pulling you over in a dangerous spot?

          • try2bhelpful on 16/08/2023 - 12:23

            @EightImmortals: The idiot from behind will be legally responsible. The cops are usually pretty good but we encountered a breathalyser on the Melbourne Geelong Road one Summer day that was appalling. They set it up around a blind bend in the road and it was carnage watching cars trying to avoid hitting those stopped in front. We were fortunate, there was room for us to run off the road.

      • gromit on 16/08/2023 - 09:08

        so you think stationary cars on roads don't get hit by other cars ever? Cop, if story complete and true, sounds like a dick as a warning in such a situation could have sufficed. But definitely it is NOT safe to have the seatbelt off.

    • HeWhoKnows on 14/08/2023 - 08:05
      -2

      Can OP pls define:

      "While the engine was in stop state"

      if Engine is turned OFF then technically the vehicle is PARKED.
      It doesnt matter where the vehicle is parked. the fact is that it wasnt going anywhere

      If the engine is still running and geras are in neutral or park, thats a different story

      • DogGunn on 14/08/2023 - 08:50
        +6

        if Engine is turned OFF then technically the vehicle is PARKED.
        It doesnt matter where the vehicle is parked. the fact is that it wasnt going anywhere

        For the road rules, this is not the case. Parked means the vehicle being stopped in a position that allows the driver to leave it where it is.

  • Unorthodox on 13/08/2023 - 20:45
    +15

    Depends if the officer saw him take off the seat belt to remove the jacket when the car was stopped completely and engine off. If so, the officer is a bit of a prick for not just giving a verbal warning.

    That said, common sense - you're stopped for a short period of time, shouldn't have played around with the seatbelt - I'm sure routine traffic stops across the world have given police a sense of danger when stuff like that happens. Too many possible negative implications.

    • outlander on 13/08/2023 - 21:07
      +30

      Common sense would tell you that seatbelts aren't needed for a car that isn't moving, but common sense also would tell you that an interaction with the police is at best neutral and at worse life destroying, so you're best off avoiding them completely, or failing that acting very cautious in their presence to limit what they can use against you.
      But you can't control everything, and a passenger taking their seat belt is one of those things.

      • DashCam AKA Rolts on 13/08/2023 - 21:20
        +1

        Common sense would tell you that seatbelts aren't needed for a car that isn't moving,

        By this logic, you would be okay to remove a seatbelt at a red light. You can't, you're still in traffic.
        Same with OP's situation. Car was stationary but still in traffic, hence seatbelts need to be on at all times.

        • right195104 on 13/08/2023 - 21:39
          +4

          My situation was, car was stationary with engine stopped and moved to a drug testing lane. :(

          • DashCam AKA Rolts on 14/08/2023 - 08:47
            -1

            @right195104:

            drug testing lane

            Would that be a lane where vehicles move in and out? You know, actual traffic, albeit slow moving.

            • lysp on 15/08/2023 - 15:54

              @DashCam AKA Rolts:

              Would that be a lane where vehicles move in and out? You know, actual traffic, albeit slow moving.

              I think the difference is a breath-test lane takes about 20 seconds per car to move through.

              A drug test (from my understanding) takes about 20-30 minutes. So it's more a parking spot than a lane.

        • outlander on 13/08/2023 - 22:23
          -7

          By this logic, you would be okay to remove a seatbelt at a red light. You can't, you're still in traffic.

          Yes, that's exactly right. Common sense says a seatbelt offers limited protection at a red light, so it shouldn't be necessary to wear it.

          But the law isn't shaped entirely by common sense. It also needs to factor in simplicity, to make policing easier. That's why you get all these weird definitions. OP is pretty squarely in that zone, where they haven't broken the spirit of the law, but might have violated the technical aspects of it. It's really up to a judge to decide if a car is in traffic when at a police stop. If it is, I'd be asking why policemen are drug testing vehicles while they are still in traffic. That seems kind of dangerous, no? Sticking your hand inside a car while it's still in traffic seems very anti common sense

          • try2bhelpful on 13/08/2023 - 23:11
            +4

            @outlander: It is possible to be rear ended when you are at a red light, it happened to my other half. Also you would need to fumble around putting the belt back in before you took off, which means you may not be proceeding as required.

            • outlander on 14/08/2023 - 14:37
              -4

              @try2bhelpful: It's possible to fall and hit your head while walking, yet cyclists are made to wear helmets even while stationary while pedestrians are not.

              Laws don't just fall out of someones butt. They are built around a central premise, and the central premise for seatbelts is to protect people from accidents at high speed, because too many were getting shot out windshields.

              • try2bhelpful on 14/08/2023 - 21:04

                @outlander: Ya mean when bicyclists are on the road ready to start riding in traffic again? It is called common sense when it comes to “vehicles” on the road even if they are stationary. The guy who rear ended my other half hit him pretty hard because he wasn’t paying attention to the road conditions.

                The idea of plugging and unplugging your seat belt whist you are between light cycles is pretty daft.

        • ColtNoir on 14/08/2023 - 11:49
          +3

          If it was a breath test I’d agree but a drug test you gotta sit there for several minutes. This cop needed to hit a quota.

  • Mokr on 13/08/2023 - 20:49
    +34

    Brother should pay

    • capslock janitor on 14/08/2023 - 11:36
      +4

      can transfer demerits to him too or ?

  • SydStrand on 13/08/2023 - 20:53
    +5

    Police probably should have been nicer about it, but you (or your brother) are technically in the wrong. Make him pay for it.

    • Ade99 on 14/08/2023 - 07:57
      +9

      maybe they had failed the "attitude" test?

      • coffeeinmyveins on 14/08/2023 - 09:51
        +2

        Thinking this. Unless the cop was a genuine (profanity) and these guys were just on the receiving end, there's usually a bit more to it than this.

        • ShiKu on 15/08/2023 - 21:15
          +2

          There's definitely more to it than this. Whenever OP goes with " I politely said," or "but he did not listen" and uses "shall", OP would almost definitely be argumentative here

          • coffeeinmyveins on 16/08/2023 - 09:58

            @ShiKu: "They pulled us over for no reason"

            Reality

            "We have a loud aftermarket exhaust and were racing at the lights"

  • sumyungguy on 13/08/2023 - 20:54
    +2

    Any witnesses in the car?

    • right195104 on 13/08/2023 - 21:29
      +1

      Yes my brother and his partner

      • sumyungguy on 13/08/2023 - 21:54
        -1

        Problem is, in our country the police are always right. If you contest in court it may end up costing more. If the demerits aren't going to exceed your limit, I'd suggest paying the fine. If it's going to cause hardship due to licence suspension, consider consulting a traffic lawyer.

        • right195104 on 13/08/2023 - 22:01

          Do you know or share any thread where I can get to know, how much does it cost to contest in court? I have never faced this before or anyone in our family.

          • sumyungguy on 13/08/2023 - 22:13
            +2

            @right195104: This link details possible outcomes: https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/going-court-challenge-fine
            I can't figure out the court costs for Vic so it may be best to call the numbers on your infringement notice. I contested a speeding fine in NSW where the cost of proceeding to court was clearly stated.

          • morse on 14/08/2023 - 02:06
            +4

            @right195104: As per what rock-bottom said, contact legal aid. I think it’s worth contesting, as even though what happened was probably technically illegal, it wasn’t placing anyone at risk of harm and there is an expectation that police will use their discretion to make reasonable decisions as to whether to fine under the circumstances. This is important both for the public but also the safety of police. If some police do these kind of arsehole moves it damages the reputation of police, they’ll have less respect and are at greater risk of assault and verbal abuse.

            • vshek on 15/08/2023 - 15:15
              +1

              @morse: I spent last fiver years in the US before returning back to Sydney and I can say the Cops there are (usually) very reasonable, yes they use heavy tactics but for real situations instead of someone not wearing the seatbelt on stop sign or someone going 3 KMPH over speed limit unlike aussie copus who really done have big issues to deal with and mess around with these silly things.

              • entropysbane on 17/08/2023 - 13:17

                @vshek: Even worse, OP was dealing with Victorian Police. Not all Australian plod are like that lot thankfully.

  • 87percent on 13/08/2023 - 20:55
    +8

    Probably not a good idea in general to fiddle around when cops have pulled you over

    • Protractor on 13/08/2023 - 20:57
      +1

      Yeah, you might get shot

    • coffeeinmyveins on 14/08/2023 - 09:51
      +4

      Cops here don't go blasting people in their cars for scratching their balls.

      • DGrayson82 on 14/08/2023 - 09:57
        +7

        Yeah but go 1kmh over the limit and you'll have 5 police cars, 2 choppers and an ED-209 after you.

        • coffeeinmyveins on 14/08/2023 - 10:15
          +2

          I've seen cops do ridiculously dangerous driving and overtakes in order to catch up with someone that was going 5kmh over the speed limit.

          Yep let's just endanger everyone for that quota.

      • bobbified on 14/08/2023 - 10:05

        I'm sure they would somehow monetise it if they could actually see it… imagine that - instead of mobile phone cameras, they have a 'ball-scratching' detection camera haha

  • El cheepo on 13/08/2023 - 20:56
    +1

    Not to say there aren’t some awful people in the police force but are you saying:

    Officer spotted him with a belt off but didn’t see him wriggling around trying to take a jacket off while seated in a car?

    And…

    He didn’t just put his belt back on immediately after taking it off?

    Are you actually sure he had it on to begin with?

    Either way, i would be getting your bro to pay the fine or court cost.

    • JimmyF on 13/08/2023 - 21:06
      +3

      Yeah feels a little more to the story than what the OP has said.

      While technically illegal, if it truly happened as the OP said then it was pretty low for the cop to fine them for someone taking off a jacket while stopped and putting their seat belt straight back on.

      • right195104 on 13/08/2023 - 21:41
        +2

        My brother had the seat belt on 100%.

        He was opening the seat belt while the officer was talking to me, to open his puffer jacket.

        This caught officer's attention and he started explaining that I am responsible and will now be fined.

        • El cheepo on 13/08/2023 - 23:43
          +10

          If thats the case with no missing details and your brother was caught the second he took it off, i would fight it.

          But i feel like theres more to this then you let on.

        • gromit on 14/08/2023 - 11:57
          +2

          and no smart arse comments to the cop or backchat/arguing and he definitely saw him take it off to adjust where upon he immediately put the seatbelt back on? then the Cop was a dick, however I wonder if their is more to this story, challenge in court (but note if their is more to the story the cop will have written that down when issuing the fine).

          • Nebargains on 14/08/2023 - 18:26

            @gromit: Cops do this sort of thing, some are just pricks. I got fined in another state for something that is legal in one state but not the other and I wasn't aware, was literally driving to my destination from a regional airport at the time, fair enough I should have known the rule. IMO perfect opportunity to educate and issue a warning considering what I did was completely legal just over the border, nope, issued me a $450 fine or something ridiculous and told me that I was wrong and the rule was the same in all states (it's not) and he would know because he's been a cop for 25 years.

            Was he within his rights to issue a fine? Sure, but it was ridiculous considering the circumstances.

            • gromit on 14/08/2023 - 23:38

              @Nebargains: Yes some are just pricks, also many people stretch the truth when they recount their version to make it all sound innocent. Every cop alive will have heard a thousand times they only just removed the seatbelt this second or only momentarily sped up and unless they saw it they would be unlikely to believe it.

            • aekt on 16/08/2023 - 14:05

              @Nebargains: Are you referring to U-turn rule here? I (coincidentally) have been driving for 25 years, across multiple states and only learnt that it is legal in Vic this year. I have been to Vic multiple times in the past too.
              It had only occurred to me to look the rule up because Google Maps was telling me to do a U-turn at a traffic light.

              • rfarlz on 17/08/2023 - 13:08

                @aekt: U-Turns and double white lines are the rules that I find vary the most state to state.

        • jumpypotato53 on 14/08/2023 - 14:15

          Feels like the officer didn't like you for some reason. Maybe there's more to the story like they mention below. He saw your brother went to unbuckling the seat-belt and that was a good opportunity for them to fine you. It looks like they are right and your brother should still be using the seat-belt according to the laws but it does look like they were picking on you.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join