Police fines for leaving car unlocked.

[fakegt]

I snapped a photo at the end of my street when the local Divvy van had pulled someone over, both Police out of the van, 5 metres away from it, windows open, doors unlocked. I resisted preforming a citizen arrest!

[Maggot]

The only problem with it all is that some people receive less of a penalty for actually STEALING a car!

[banarcus]

This offence was created because of insurance companies. They need someone to be deemed at fault. A lot of traffic infringements have been created for the same reasons.

[Scaffy]

I can see valid points on both sides of the coin. I would never leave my car unlocked when I'm not around, even though the immobiliser automatically activates. I'd have too much to lose and would cry foul if I lost any of my gadgets.

On the other hand, my partner used to live on a very dodgy street and her crappy old Hyundai Accent had the passenger side window smashed twice, just so some little shits could rummage through there for 50c. After the second time, she no longer locked the doors anywhere, but she also had nothing of value left in the car ever. It was fitted with an immobiliser, so it couldn't be taken. A couple of mornings we got up and the passenger door was open, as was the glove box and centre console. The main thing though, no damage and nothing gone as there was nothing to steal.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by fakegt

I snapped a photo at the end of my street when the local Divvy van had pulled someone over, both Police out of the van, 5 metres away from it, windows open, doors unlocked. I resisted preforming a citizen arrest!

One would hope that not only in the enforcement of legislation but in the understanding of legislation there is common sense.

[dave289]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

So if you leave your doors unlocked, the police will rob you.

cant win, leave your doors locked and the crooks rob you and damage your car, leave it unlocked and you also get robbed. we dont have time to catch the crim ,but plenty of time to fine innocent people . but by fining you, they garanteed money for government to go and spend wisely and a loss less paperwork than catching the crim and dealing with them . catch and fine the criminal not the innocent person going about their day. wtf is wrong with this world

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by Redrum

One would hope that not only in the enforcement of legislation but in the understanding of legislation there is common sense.

unfortunately the courts (and i presume the police) follow the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law, which is why some crazy verdicts get handed down (like a burgular sueing the person he's robbed, when he injured his leg in the process of committing the crime).

Originally Posted by redrum

I don't understand people's resistance to such legislation.

..because it's a stupid backwards law, another nanny law. Where i live the crime rate is low, you don't really need to lock your car except at night. I only lock my car because it's a requirement of my insurance.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Redrum

Hmm, and this one takes the cake.

The idea of the law is to ensure people don't leave themselves open to would be thiefs. I remember my time in the army. If something were stolen from an open locker, the person who left it open would get in as much strife as the person who took the property.

I don't understand people's resistance to such legislation. I must say I have lectured people on this legislation but never have I charged anyone with it.

While you (the government) insist on treating people like stupid children who cannot function without constantly being told what to do and are using minor legislation as a substitute taxation system for revenue raising you will find that people will resist.

Australia was once a free country and realisticly if I want to leave my car unlocked for whatever reason that should be my choice.
If I get robbed then that is my fault.
Unfortunately this nannism is also a source of the "It is someone elses fault, who do I sue" mentality that is becoming so common.
While in some cases people have to be protected from themselves I (and many others) believe that it has gone too far and silly "one size fits all" legislation is becoming the standard.

The government is supposed to serve the people not CONTROL the people.

Reasons (just off the top of my head) to leave your car unlocked (or with windows down)
1) Something is inside it and you don't what to overheat it the stinking hot sun.
2) You are going back and forth loading (or unloading).
3) Several people need access to the car for what ever reason.
4) I am parked on a minor dirt road 500km from the nearest town with a flat tyre.

I have had an employee booked for jumping out of her car and running across the road to the pet shop to pick up a lead for her dog (which was in the car) so she could walk it on the beach.

The law is the law and the duty of Police is to enforce it so therefore to resolve the issue those who create or amend the law should be the targets.

[divine_afg]

Note to brain must not forget, wifes b'day, anniversaries, check speedo while driving, Check car is Locked at all times and etc etc

Recently there was position for "Revenue Development officer"
Criterion was must be creative thinker and lack common sense.

Valid Points on boths sides but public has been failed again by our representatives

[nang3]

Originally Posted by Redrum

I don't understand people's resistance to such legislation. I must say I have lectured people on this legislation but never have I charged anyone with it.

like someone else, if this law on its own had been implemented then it would be acceptable.. but there is a never ending stream of useless, way too vague open to abuse type legislation getting through - Hoon laws for example - that are basically revenue raising disguised under a thing veil of 'protecting ourselves from ourselves'.

Ausfalia is becoming a ******** place to live, seems you can't do anything without being fined, treated like a baby murderer or be at risk of offending some pansy *** who doesnt believe in Xmas because of their religion or 1000 other things.

The whole 'cant attack a burgler' thing grinds my gears, someone breaks into my house, rapes my GF and kills my dog and i cant break his arms, legs and every finger FFS.. it should be once they've broken the law they are exempt from the law protecting them, serves them right.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

unfortunately the courts (and i presume the police) follow the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law, which is why some crazy verdicts get handed down (like a burgular sueing the person he's robbed, when he injured his leg in the process of committing the crime).


..because it's a stupid backwards law, another nanny law. Where i live the crime rate is low, you don't really need to lock your car except at night. I only lock my car because it's a requirement of my insurance.

I do not think it is fair to throw the courts and police into the same sentence. Police do not hand down verdicts, the courts do. Police have legislation to enforce, which is set by parliament and within this legislation are offences and each has its own points of proof. Police can in some areas use discretion.

In regard to the law of ensuring people lock their car doors when they park it, I think it should not be required, because one would assume that people would not be so stupid to leave them open in the first place to allow every Tom, Dick and Harry the ability to go through their vehicle. But unfortunately like speed limits "common sense" is not really that common and the Government is forced to legislate.

As for your comment, you only lock your doors because Insurance says you must, you are only inviting trouble with that sort of attitude. I bet the first people you would call if and when some body stole an item from your unlocked car, would be the police, and when you told them you leave your doors unlocked they would think you are an idiot.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by flappist

While you (the government) insist on treating people like stupid children who cannot function without constantly being told what to do and are using minor legislation as a substitute taxation system for revenue raising you will find that people will resist.

Australia was once a free country and realisticly if I want to leave my car unlocked for whatever reason that should be my choice.
If I get robbed then that is my fault.
Unfortunately this nannism is also a source of the "It is someone elses fault, who do I sue" mentality that is becoming so common.
While in some cases people have to be protected from themselves I (and many others) believe that it has gone too far and silly "one size fits all" legislation is becoming the standard.

The government is supposed to serve the people not CONTROL the people.

Reasons (just off the top of my head) to leave your car unlocked (or with windows down)
1) Something is inside it and you don't what to overheat it the stinking hot sun.
2) You are going back and forth loading (or unloading).
3) Several people need access to the car for what ever reason.
4) I am parked on a minor dirt road 500km from the nearest town with a flat tyre.

I have had an employee booked for jumping out of her car and running across the road to the pet shop to pick up a lead for her dog (which was in the car) so she could walk it on the beach.

The law is the law and the duty of Police is to enforce it so therefore to resolve the issue those who create or amend the law should be the targets.

I am not the Government.

As I have stated in other posts, common sense should apply. This includes people leaving their vehicles open and includes the enforcement of such laws.

I do agree with many that we are becoming over regulated. But at the same time I do believe people are no longer willing to be accountable and take responsibility for their actions and are quick to blame the Government or Society for failing to protect them. And this exists also in the area of civil law such as liability cases.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Redrum

I am not the Government.

As I have stated in other posts, common sense should apply. This includes people leaving their vehicles open and includes the enforcement of such laws.

I do agree with many that we are becoming over regulated. But at the same time I do believe people are no longer willing to be accountable and take responsibility for their actions and are quick to blame the Government or Society for failing to protect them. And this exists also in the area of civil law such as liability cases.

Yes I agree. My post was not a shot at you personally or even law enforcement in general (although reading back it might be perceived to be) but at the government law makers.

[FPV8U]

In the modern world where locking a car usually means pushing a button.. Come on guys.

If the worst thing about Australia at the moment is over regulation then the second worse must be whinging for the sake of a whinge.

Unlocked car gets stolen = Whinge
Unlocked car, No insurance = Whinge
Fine for leaving unlocked car = Whinge

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by nang3

like someone else, if this law on its own had been implemented then it would be acceptable.. but there is a never ending stream of useless, way too vague open to abuse type legislation getting through - Hoon laws for example - that are basically revenue raising disguised under a thing veil of 'protecting ourselves from ourselves'.

Ausfalia is becoming a ******** place to live, seems you can't do anything without being fined, treated like a baby murderer or be at risk of offending some pansy *** who doesnt believe in Xmas because of their religion or 1000 other things.

The whole 'cant attack a burgler' thing grinds my gears, someone breaks into my house, rapes my GF and kills my dog and i cant break his arms, legs and every finger FFS.. it should be once they've broken the law they are exempt from the law protecting them, serves them right.

In relation to hoon laws I think they are a great tool for police to use to actually have some affect on those that constantly abuse our road laws. People who drive at excessive speeds, 45kmph over, people who sit in suburban streets night after night doing burn outs, people who drive through boom gates when they are down, because they are too lazy to wait, etc etc. In fact I do not think they go far enough. But that is another topic.

In regard to your second paragraph I agree in some ways and have addressed this i my previous post.

Now to your last paragraph, the assumption you do not have the right to defend yourself against a burglar. That assumption is incorrect. If someone were to attack you or your family, thus committing an offence, or they were to break into your house and try to steal your belongings etc, you have the right in Victoria under Section 458 of the Crimes Act to arrest that person and use reasonable force if necessary to detain that person. In saying this I would always stress it is better to run and let police deal with such offenders and not put yourself or your family at any risk. An important part of what I just said is the reasonable force part. This is open to interpretation by the courts and in retrospect it can be much easier to come up with an answer then in the few quick seconds of a confrontation. If a person were to break into your house and try and steal your belongings, you disturbed them, and they ran out the window and down the street and you shot them in the back, this would most likely not be using reasonable force. If a person broke into your house and charged as you with a knife and you shot them, this may be deemed reasonable force. Again it is up to the court.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by Redrum

I do not think it is fair to throw the courts and police into the same sentence. Police do not hand down verdicts, the courts do. Police have legislation to enforce, which is set by parliament and within this legislation are offences and each has its own points of proof. Police can in some areas use discretion.

In regard to the law of ensuring people lock their car doors when they park it, I think it should not be required, because one would assume that people would not be so stupid to leave them open in the first place to allow every Tom, Dick and Harry the ability to go through their vehicle. But unfortunately like speed limits "common sense" is not really that common and the Government is forced to legislate.

As for your comment, you only lock your doors because Insurance says you must, you are only inviting trouble with that sort of attitude. I bet the first people you would call if and when some body stole an item from your unlocked car, would be the police, and when you told them you leave your doors unlocked they would think you are an idiot.

so...you're upset that i lock my doors, because it's a clause in my insurance? it says i must, so i do. not everyone has comprehensive insurance was my point. If i didn't, they could claim contributory negligence on my part and not pay any claim.

police don't have to enforce every law, but they do (OSIS). they didn't use discretion in the OP?

either way, your arguments are well worded (makes a nice change from other forums i've been on)

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by nang3

Ausfalia is becoming a ******** place to live, seems you can't do anything without being fined, treated like a baby murderer or be at risk of offending some pansy *** who doesnt believe in Xmas because of their religion or 1000 other things.

100% agreement. This country is going down the tube very quickly with all this BS regulation and political correctness.

Back on topic, fining someone for leaving their door(s) unlocked is going too far. I mean people just forget sometimes, or they may hit the wrong button on the remote, etc. It's just a shame that if you accidentally leave your door unlocked, common theives aren't the only ones to worry about.

So what next, if an officer comes to your front door and it's unlocked, you will cop a heavy fine? The principle is the same isn't it? If you have house and contents insurance surely leaving any of your doors unlocked when you're in the back yard or walking the dog around the culdesac is against the law in this brave new world.

[divine_afg]

Originally Posted by Redrum

In relation to hoon laws I think they are a great tool for police to use to actually have some affect on those that constantly abuse our road laws. People who drive at excessive speeds, 45kmph over, people who sit in suburban streets night after night doing burn outs, people who drive through boom gates when they are down, because they are too lazy to wait, etc etc. In fact I do not think they go far enough. But that is another topic.

In regard to your second paragraph I agree in some ways and have addressed this i my previous post.

Now to your last paragraph, the assumption you do not have the right to defend yourself against a burglar. That assumption is incorrect. If someone were to attack you or your family, thus committing an offence, or they were to break into your house and try to steal your belongings etc, you have the right in Victoria under Section 458 of the Crimes Act to arrest that person and use reasonable force if necessary to detain that person. In saying this I would always stress it is better to run and let police deal with such offenders and not put yourself or your family at any risk. An important part of what I just said is the reasonable force part. This is open to interpretation by the courts and in retrospect it can be much easier to come up with an answer then in the few quick seconds of a confrontation. If a person were to break into your house and try and steal your belongings, you disturbed them, and they ran out the window and down the street and you shot them in the back, this would most likely not be using reasonable force. If a person broke into your house and charged as you with a knife and you shot them, this may be deemed reasonable force. Again it is up to the court.

So basically if i am being robbed my response to the good citizen should be - welcome, i will know run out the front door and call the cops.
from the track recored of the call outs my family and friends have made when robbed. i would say my house will be empty by the time authorities arrive
usually the first question as been are you insured rather than asking how the
person is perhaps.
isnt there any law telling us to protect our property meh doesnt raise revenue " common sense " duh

[FPV8U]

Originally Posted by divine_afg

So basically if i am being robbed my response to the good citizen should be - welcome, i will know run out the front door and call the cops.
from the track recored of the call outs my family and friends have made when robbed. i would say my house will be empty by the time authorities arrive
usually the first question as been are you insured rather than asking how the
person is perhaps.
isnt there any law telling us to protect our property meh doesnt raise revenue " common sense " duh

Redrum is simply saying the safer option is to get yourself and family members out of harms way and let the police take care of the offender/s.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by divine_afg

So basically if i am being robbed my response to the good citizen should be - welcome, i will know run out the front door and call the cops.
from the track recored of the call outs my family and friends have made when robbed. i would say my house will be empty by the time authorities arrive
usually the first question as been are you insured rather than asking how the
person is perhaps.
isnt there any law telling us to protect our property meh doesnt raise revenue " common sense " duh

It would have been much easier to type "I hate police" or perhaps "I hate the Government" or even "I hate the law" or even or three.

I am merely trying to assist people with advice where your comments are merely posted to be negative and argumentative.

I did not make society, I did not make laws, I just try and do what most people do and that is to get by as best as we can.

[Sorted]

Oh dear..... What's the big deal? You are a dumb *** if you leave your car/house/work office/shop etc etc unlocked

I find it funny that the have to make it legal to fine people to get the message across....

If your car/house/work office/shop gets damaged/robbed/burnt the first call people usually make is to the insurance company....

Insurers are willing to insure your risk at a low rate at what your risk is worth but if you don't protect that risk why should an insurer pay for your stupidity as your simply are too stupid to lock/secure your risk.

I back this law 100%

Originally Posted by FPV8U

Unlocked car gets stolen = Whinge
Unlocked car, No insurance = Whinge
Fine for leaving unlocked car = Whinge

exactly, but it won't be the owners fault!

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by Sorted

Oh dear..... What's the big deal? You are a dumb *** if you leave your car/house/work office/shop etc etc unlocked

I find it funny that the have to make it legal to fine people to get the message across....

If your car/house/work office/shop gets damaged/robbed/burnt the first call people usually make is to the insurance company....

Insurers are willing to insure your risk at a low rate at what your risk is worth but if you don't protect that risk why should an insurer pay for your stupidity as your simply are too stupid to lock/secure your risk.

I back this law 100%

Usually the biggest cost in a car break-in is fixing the locks and smashed windows of a modern car... not the two or three Shania Twain CDs which are stolen.

[Sorted]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Usually the biggest cost in a car break-in is fixing the locks and smashed windows of a modern car... not the two or three Shania Twain CDs which are stolen.

Not talking about costs here we ate talking about not protecting your risk the go running to the insurer when something happens as you have been too lazy to lick the door.

In any case those type of claims are also due to stupidity of the owner leaving goods in veiw in the car, we never get a claim where a car window is broken and the they have not stolen something of value....

Like phones, lap tops, sat navs, motor bike gear, iPods, brief case, camping gear, motor bike gear...

Also the excess is too high to claim on just a few cd's but the way people ate claiming these days if they can get $50 they will make a claim

there is a house contents insurance that includes cover on your contents for Australia Wide, that includes in your car, we have had numerous $3,000 claims on such contents as above.

Unlocked Car, goods stolen, insured usual answer is don't know how they got into the car without damaging anything..... Lots of these claims occur in the persons driveway

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Sorted

Not talking about costs here we ate talking about not protecting your risk the go running to the insurer when something happens as you have been too lazy to lick the door.

I don't think I'll ever reach that level of motivation...

[divine_afg]

Originally Posted by Redrum

It would have been much easier to type "I hate police" or perhaps "I hate the Government" or even "I hate the law" or even or three.

I am merely trying to assist people with advice where your comments are merely posted to be negative and argumentative.

I did not make society, I did not make laws, I just try and do what most people do and that is to get by as best as we can.

Your Right hate all three and most do. Having said this by the same token i also appreciate the invaluable contribution. I also understand the importance of the the three in our society.

i wasnt trying to stir an argument not one with you anyway(dont shoot me im behind keyboard i cant express my sarcasm). your opinion/info was/is open to interpretation so i played devils advocate.

you and i are just fish in the ocean and the ones elected to create better society aren't doing great job IMHO. I care and contribute to the society where i can but if someone comes to my Home to rob me of my dreams and for the things that i have worked sweat - may god protect him cause No Law will and can stop me


peace
H

[Redrum]

The offence in Victoria is in the Road rules. Leave motor vehicle unattended with keys in ignition, motor running, and brakes not secured or doors unlocked.

Road Rule 231(2) - leave vehicle without applying parking brake effectively, or, if weather conditions prevent effective operation, effectively restrain vehicles movement.

Road rule 213(3) - leave vehicle without switching off the engine when the driver is over 3 metres from the closest part of vehicle.

Road rule 213(4) - leave vehicle without removing ignition key when driver is over 3 metres from the closest part of the vehicle and - (i) there is no-one left in the vehicle; or (ii) there is only a child or children under 16 years old left in the vehicle.

Road Rule 213(5) - leave vehicle without securing the windows (if the windows can be secured); and locking the doors (if the doors can be locked) when driver is over 3 metres from the closest part of the vehicle.

The penalty currently stands at $117

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

I only lock my car because it's a requirement of my insurance.

Really? Which insurer?
Can you forward me the PDS?



Anyway, Locking your car means when some scum wants to go through your ash tray, console and/or glovebox, they will break a window or lock to get in. Whilst I'm not suggesting people do this, I know why some do.

The law has nothing to do with theft prevention, just anotherway to make mnoney. The amount of people I see a day breaking road laws, would keep me too busy to worry about locked cars, if I was an law enforcer. But then I wouldn't be very economic...

[pottery beige]

bloody mad if you don't lock your car up where i live......

[iCat]

i leave nothing in my car for a thief to take, but i lock my car because i try to deter thieves. having said that, i have had my car locked and thieves have still tried to break in and caused me a lot of monetary grief.

and yes, locking my car is a requirement of my comp car insurance, as is locking my house is a requirement of my house insurance. because if there is a police report that states ease of access by a thief, neither will pay up.

so yes, insurance requirement is my biggest concern. because if i had left my car unlocked when i got broken into it would have saved me a lot of dollars and i still have panel damage around the lock that cannot be fixed without bog. a constant reminder and a constant dent.

[nang3]

Originally Posted by Redrum

In relation to hoon laws I think they are a great tool for police to use to actually have some affect on those that constantly abuse our road laws. People who drive at excessive speeds, 45kmph over, people who sit in suburban streets night after night doing burn outs, people who drive through boom gates when they are down, because they are too lazy to wait, etc etc. In fact I do not think they go far enough. But that is another topic.

In regard to your second paragraph I agree in some ways and have addressed this i my previous post.

Now to your last paragraph, the assumption you do not have the right to defend yourself against a burglar. That assumption is incorrect. If someone were to attack you or your family, thus committing an offence, or they were to break into your house and try to steal your belongings etc, you have the right in Victoria under Section 458 of the Crimes Act to arrest that person and use reasonable force if necessary to detain that person. In saying this I would always stress it is better to run and let police deal with such offenders and not put yourself or your family at any risk. An important part of what I just said is the reasonable force part. This is open to interpretation by the courts and in retrospect it can be much easier to come up with an answer then in the few quick seconds of a confrontation. If a person were to break into your house and try and steal your belongings, you disturbed them, and they ran out the window and down the street and you shot them in the back, this would most likely not be using reasonable force. If a person broke into your house and charged as you with a knife and you shot them, this may be deemed reasonable force. Again it is up to the court.

I agree that the HOON laws are a great tool to catch the examples you mentioned and they are the people that the hoon laws should be targeting.

However, they are so vague and open to interpretation that almost anyone can be done - chirping second gear or accelerating spiritedly from the lights up to the speed limit but whilst maintaining 100% traction can also remove your basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty and they can take your car on the spot.

Hell taking a corner at a speed that some random cop deems inappropriate could be considered 'testing the cars handling' or whatever definition the hoon propaganda laws define it as.
I reckon if a cop was following me all day every day that i would be hoon lawed at least 5 times a day, i dont drive like a tool though but yes i chirp second maybe once a day, accelerate rapidly from the lights etc..
yet in 15 years of driving ive had zero accidents so its obvious im not a reckless or dangerous driver.


with the burglary example, so what happened if i come home to find my GF tied up and raped, dog killed and some POS drinking one of my beers sitting on the couch and i go to town on him, break every finger both arms and legs and smashing out half his teeth etc?
sure at the time i found him he was not a threat, just sitting there, but he would have just caused irrepairable mental and physical damage to my GF and therefore myself not to mention killed a pet.

I know if i ever did find myself in this situation every single ounce of self control would be out the window in 0.0005 of a nanosecond and i know the majority of people out there would be the same, i just wouldnt be able to help myself.
I would hope the jury/court would be reasonable enough people to see the justification and not be hamstrung by BS legislation protecting the criminals.

I wouldnt shoot a theif in the back running down the street, but rape my GF and kill my dog and il shoot them in the leg then beat the absolute living ******** out of them.. im sure most guys on here would agree they would do or at least be thinking the same