Got a letter, a very heavy fine and demerit points for not wearing a seatbelt.
I had no idea this camera existed, and now I am terrified there are more letters coming. It was at night too, when it is dark.
So be wary, there are hidden cameras.
Seatbelt Ticket Received in Mail
screensaver on 07/08/2024 - 04:02
Last edited 07/08/2024 - 10:17 by 1 other user
Last edited 07/08/2024 - 10:17 by 1 other user
Comments
Different state and I have heavily heard of this and the tracking of mobile phone use….. They show its usually taken from above so they can see your chest and lap in full view I believe….
https://media.drive.com.au/obj/tx_q:70,rs:auto:1200:675:1/dr…
For example: https://www.drive.com.au/news/phone-and-seatbelt-detection-c…
Just wait till the op hears about point to point and mobile phone cameras 🫣
Edit: Yes, i know the seatbelt and mobile phone camera is one and the same.
Its time to add pic of a seatbelt to OP's @screensaver :)
who the (profanity) watches adds? what century are you living in?
but I did know about the cameras.
I think there's ad options to get free or cheaper Netflix/prime video.
That’s being sensible though…
Why not try something new ? Wear your seatbelt while driving ! What state are you in ?
Those cameras that got you are also in place for mobile phones , I believe we’re getting / got them in Victoria.
About time - the manufacturer is in Victoria.
I think I saw them setting it up a few days ago so yeah we definitely have them now
Portable units have been around for a while now but haven't seen any static setups
We’ve had them for ages in Victoria.
Penalties start from $387 and three demerit points
Wow that is a hefty fine
Thats nothing compared to QLD
OP said what state they were in. Terrified.
I would have said "ignorance"… All the other road users are in "fear".
What state are you in ?
Despair…
Dear OP,
If you are wearing your seat belt to avoid a fine or if there is police or cameras around then good luck to you!What state are you in ?
A state of lunacy.
Madness.
Wear your seat belt Pam!
Oh of course.
Oh come on
Seat belts make sense. Cheers.
I tell you, this better make it to next Monday's "weekly round up" questions…
No they don't, that's Big Seatbelt talking. They are in cohoots with Big Crumple Zone. Bring back cars that don't bend, and where you're safety thrown away from the accident onto the road or into a bush.
this guy newtons
Don't people's cars continually beep until they wear their belt? I thought we solved belts with the ding ding… evidently not.
Can only assume Pam has an older car without this feature. My car will actually aggressively beep louder and louder until you put belt on.
Interested in understanding why you wouldn't wear a seatbelt.
He’s too cool for seatbelts
He’sShe's too cool for seatbelts@SillySorjai: You haven't followed screensaver/Pam's epic posting history on OzBargain? You've missed quite a ride.
gets flung from car, avoids being impaled by tree/pole through drivers seat, you know, the usual reasons
.Cookers think seat belts cause more deaths than they prevent as it stops your body instantly which causes your organs to tear on the inside. Another mate also didn't wear one because it creased his shirts. 🤦
For those dumb enough to beloeve you are stopped instantly, they build in a section of belt that extends to allow some movement in an instant stop. That is why modern seatbelts are a single cradh use item. They need to be replaced after they been used to their full extent.
👍 There is no amounting of reasoning that will convince a cooker though. The more you argue the more they dig in with more deranged views. 🤷
@Name: Tru dat. At least if we can point out the misinformation quickly theres less chance of getting more of these clowns.
Well kind of a fair nick I guess, everyone knows it's verboten not to wear a seatbelt and the eye of Sauron is everywhere these days so it's way too dangerous to flout any 'laws' while driving around where they might get a pic. I thought this was going to be one of those totally grubby extortion attempts where they send you the same taxation bill even though you do have your seatbelt on but it's a couple of centimetres outside of the 'allowed' parameters.
nah, bet they have the overhead pic and its a fair cop…
Yeah that's what I meant. :)
It’s Pam. It’ll be a fair cop.
If taxation is theft does that mean seatbelts are non-consensual bondage?
Relax pedants, it’s a joke.
Haha, nice. :)
The funny part here is that it isnt a "tax", it is a "toll". Taxes are not usually optional, you have to pay them. A toll is applied for people who want to shortcut or bypass something, usually a law, so they pay a small toll for the pleasure… Ergo, traffic fines are "optional" and not a tax.
The difference is a seat belt "toll" is totally avoidable and is a voluntary contribution. This leads it to be neither consensual or non-consensual bondage. It's your right to choose. You wear the belt, but dont have to pay the "toll", or you dont wear your seat belt, but the downside is, you have to pay a "toll" to use the road without your belt on.
Or maybe it's just a tax on "stupidity", I dont know.
@EightImmortals: For those not in the know, the last time this happened it triggered a wall of "taxation is theft" madness
@EightImmortals: This entire argument is conveniently hashed out in the link I posted above, so I don't need to revisit it.
TLDR version for everyone else is:
"No one has been able to convince me of the fault of my arguments that use words like "theft" in figurative ways while still insisting they are literal"
I'd say you're getting good exercise moving the goalposts but I'm not sure you're even in the stadium
@randomusername2017: God, can you imagine.
Thankfully I don't see much work for Pumbaa to bring his sidekick energy to with this one.
It's not like "when you receive a fine in the mail that's a THREAT and DEMANDING WITH MENACES because OFFICER I DO NOT CONSENT TO FINES" naturally calls for someone else to chime in "yeah, get 'em! Take that, libs!"
@Crow K: There's always a potential white knight moment… guessing they just haven't formulated their opposing viewpoint yet.
Surely they must have received post notification to their subscription by now..
@EightImmortals: You'd gain better traction arguing against taxes on money already taxed or anything else self-evident rather than something that appears as an emotional argument.
Traffic fines are not optional
They are 100% optional. The state government prints out a book of rules… you read those rules. You go do a test to make sure you understand these rules. You get a form to fill out to state you understand these rules and sign off that you will adhere to them as a condition of being granted a small rectangular piece of plastic based on the proviso that if you do not adhere to these rules, that you read, understood, were tested on and signed that you would agree too, that you would receive an infringement notice and a fine.
Ergo, traffic infringements are 100% optional. They are more akin to a toll. You dont have to break the rules, but if you do, you have to pay a toll. Much like a "toll" road. You can use the toll road to get somewhere, but you have to pay. If you dont want to pay…. you dont use the toll road. It really is that simple.
At no point are you forced to even get a license. Even getting a license is optional. Driving is not a right or a necessity, it's a privileged activity. You want to drive on the roads supplied by the tax payer, then you are expected to drive to the rules outlined in the "terms and conditions". If you cant do that, then you are pre-warned that there would be consequences for not following the rules. You are at no point "coerced" into having a license and/or driving on "public roads".
Traffic fines are there for the stupid and the impatient, the reckless and the dangerous, the inattentive and the distracted. Traffic fines are "optional" if you just concentrate on what you are doing, have some patience and drive safe.
So obey their rules 'or else'?
No… "adhere to the terms and conditions you agreed to…" would be a better description.
If you don't agree to the road rules or don't agree with the fines that may come from breaking the road rules, you are free to refuse to sign the license contract.
You are also free to contact your local member of parliament and ask them to change the laws you don't think are fair and/or remove the fines (make sure to use your "It's a tax" stance as your reasoning, they love that shit. Add a little "I pay your wages". I've heard that helps).
The government is not forcing you to get a license and they are not sending out fines for "good driving", ergo, ALL traffic fines are "optional".
I don't get how people get a license via having to read the road rules, then sit a test, then sign paperwork saying they will adhere to these "rules" and are witness to road safety media campaigns and advertising and then act all surprised Pikachu when they get a fine for breaking a law they read about, studied, were tested on, saw countless amount of media about possible infringements and said that they will adhere to.
TL;DR: Traffic infringements are "optional" and work more akin to a "toll" than a "tax".
I don't understand the distinction. You don't have to earn 200k, but if you do, you have to pay 47c (or whatever) on the dollar. Both are 100% optional. Why is it a 'carbon tax' and not a 'carbon toll'?
@CaptainJack: Just becasue they use the word 'tax' doesnt mean it is exactly that in a legal sense. It is both a generically used term to indicate someone is taking a cut. Ever heard a father say to a kid 'opening tax' when they take a bite before handing back the chocolate bar?
'Tax' is also a legal term which im not gonna look up because im not a lawyer and i kinda get what they mean when they say something is a tax and not a toll.
@Euphemistic: I don't expect a bloke having a bite of a choccie bar to be that concerned with the precise use of vocabulary.
In my view a seatbelt ticket is just a fine (which is a financial deterrent/punishment) and not a toll (which is actually defined as "a tax or fee for some liberty or privilege". I doubt the government considers not wearing a seatbelt to be a privilege the rich can buy.
@CaptainJack: My point being the terms are used interchangeably by various people, most of whom dont know the actual legal defintion. Quite often the most adamant will argue their point and be wrong about their definition of the term.
Depends if OP was traveling or driving
Seatbelt Ticket Received in Mail
That’s usually how they come, yeah.
Question I have is should you be driving at all? If you can't wear a seatbelt then is there an alternative way to safely transit?
Maybe a motorcycle, don't need a seat belt in a Ducati Street Fighter
@Brick Tamland: THIS! No seat-belts required for motorbikes, plus you get to your destination quicker as traffic is not an issue. Bikes cost less than cars, insurance costs less, rego costs less, Tolls cost less, Parking is free. So many advantages to riding a motorbike. The rest of the world understands, it's always surprised me that it has never really caught on in Australia.
most public transport that i can think of does not require passengers to wear seatbelts. unless you count taxis as public transport
from the neck up
Sure that includes the shoulders though 🤔
I have a shoulder injury but didnt think to apply for an exemption
Shoulder too injured for a seatbelt should mean it's also too injured to be in control of a motor vehicle.
It's unlikely you will get off any form of camera fine as the judicial view is that camera technology is foolproof.
You might get off due to having a good record but it will depend on the personal biases of the magistrate.
You might find one has a bee in their bonnet about mobile phone use but is OK with 10 other traffic related fines in a 4 year period; another might consider that 6 low grade traffic fines in 45 years to be "a poor driving record".You'll also need legal representation as they like to keep their mates employed.
judicial view is that camera technology is foolproof
I mean, if the image very clearly shows the person not wearing a seatbelt with the seatbelt at the side of the vehicle, it's quite cut and dry that the person was not wearing a seatbelt.
Entirely different but i recently got off a camera fine for using a mobile device whilst driving. The thing was, i wasn't using a mobile device in the photos and was holding a wallet. It had to get through AI + human review before the fine was issued. As soon as i saw it though it was obvious and put in a review request.
My point is the judicial view shouldn't be that it is foolproof. There's no dispute here though that they were not wearing a seat belt.@gaosong2101: nah - almost exactly the same though so they still have these problems now. Reading these articles after i got the fine i was worried they would deny the appeal and i'd have to waste time going to court, but they at least cancelled it for me.
didnt think to apply for an exemption
You need to get an exemption before you can legally not wear a seatbelt in NSW. They even have a process of registering the exemption which waives any camera detected fines you may receive and completely avoids the situation you are in.
What shoulder injury is bad enough that you can't put on a seatbelt, but good enough that you can operate a vehicle with both hands?
None
Dude, this is Pam… 100% she is also driving one handed…
Not an injury per se, but bursitis is a condition that would fit the bill. Bursitis in the shoulders can cause pain for motions that are out of a certain range. It can be way too painful to reach around to put the seat belt on, but there would be no issues operating the vehicle controls.
Is this the shoulder injury from K-mart?
Thankyou for contributng to the State Revenue Service.
What do you mean you are expecting several more of these fines? Wearing a seatbelt is one of the most basic things tou need to do in a car. Its onenof the most advertised and policed and has been for decades. If you regulalry dont wear a seatbelt you deserve every ticket you get.
The cameras are NOT HIDDEN they just aren't marked.
It really is an automatic action to put it on, it’s hard to fathom getting in the drivers seat and not strapping in..
Am I surprised Pam doesn’t? No. Not at all.
Lol. seatbelt laws have been in effect for decades and this fine comes as a shock to you? There are no exceptions for private vehicles.
Hilarious.Which is why you need to get one before you drive without a seatbelt
What kind of exemption can you get for not wearing a seatbelt? I doubt one would exist.
Examples:
- doing work that requires you to continually get in and out of the car, and it is not travelling faster than 25 km/h.
- a taxi driver working after dark carrying multiple passengers.
- providing or receiving urgent medical treatment, eg in ambulance.
- being lawfully detained by a police or prison officer.
- in a seat not fitted with a seat belt, and not required to be.
- emergency services personnel.
- bus drivers.
- occupants of agricultural machinery.Plus of course a medical practicioner can give you an exemption for whatever reason they choose. The usual one it it requested for is advanced pregnancy, on the basis that the lap belt could injure the foetus in even a minor crash. Advice is usually to wear the belt anyway.
Ever seen the white lotus? That's pam.
don't know how you wouldn't know the camera existed, it's only been heavily advertised its in operation, plus, wear your belt, then no fines