NSW Riding a Scooter in Car Park Without a Helmet?

[Clancy]

Whereas I am quite sure that a shopping centre car park is
a road-related area within the meaning of Rule 13(1)(d).
And yes, you can commit that offence in a road related area.

Just be on the safe side and assume any area of public access is subject to any and all of the nanny state laws the authorities can dream up.

The kind of private property where you are not subject to those laws really means exactly that private property that is not just privately owned, but also out of bounds to the general public.

The reason is, it is about the authorities responsibility to protect the general public, so obviously if the private land is out of bounds to the general public then that is why those laws no longer apply, but then may apply to private land that 'is' granting access to the general public... The exact circumstances will vary, but that is why i say just to be safe, assume any area of public access applies all the nanny state laws.

 

[Adam1user]

Pretty sure a shopping centre car park is private property.
I don't think they can book you for not wearing a helmet on private property.
I would be fighting it !

Hi,

Thanks for your comment, I will check with this, if this turns out to be true, it is my ticket off. Great idea.

Thanks,

 

[Adam1user]

That is true, however, the technical difference might be that although the car park is privately owned, it is 'public access'.

Still, cannot hurt to speak to the center management about it.... but even if they sided with you, can you prove exactly where the offense occurred? No one can guarantee the police would not 'adjust' the offense location.... in which case, still, the best advice is to pay the fine.

Hi,
Thanks for your comment, I do agree with what you wrote, although maybe private property but it is considered as public as there is the restaurant there which is used by the public, but I will be contacting the centre management and the city council, which should provide more info.

 

[Adam1user]

Just be on the safe side and assume any area of public access is subject to any and all of the nanny state laws the authorities can dream up.

The kind of private property where you are not subject to those laws really means exactly that private property that is not just privately owned, but also out of bounds to the general public.

The reason is, it is about the authorities responsibility to protect the general public, so obviously if the private land is out of bounds to the general public then that is why those laws no longer apply, but then may apply to private land that 'is' granting access to the general public..... the exact circumstances will vary, but that is why i say just to be safe, assume any area of public access applies all the nanny state laws.

Thanks for all your comments, it gives a bit of hope. I renewed my licence today and I found out that if a person has good driving record, the person pays 50% of the fees. I renewed it for 5yrs and paid $90 (as the points have not incurred on this infringement, as it will be on my record once it is paid, if I paid the fine already, I would have paid $180), there are other aspects to consider accepting the fine and just pay it.

I do agree it may have been against the law, but the police officer has given a harsh penalty for this. The laws are to prevent accidents and prevent loss of life, but in my case, it will not cause any of those two and the chance of an accident is zero. As I mentioned before, this is common sense but the law is the law and does not rely on common sense, but the police office was too harsh, especially there was no risk.

In addition, what caused this, is that officer thought I am not respecting the first officer when he told to put the helmet on, as that officer was in the middle of the road walking toward the side, I was going to park, so I was waiting for that officer to clear out of my way, but I think she thought that I am not respecting the first officer.

 

[sammy01]

OK - so by that logic, if you run someone over in a car while in a 'private' car parking station, the cops can't get involved? Or to be a little less dramatic, you have a fender bender car accident. Is car insurance not relevant because the insurance only covers public roads, or would you expect your insurance policy to still be valid?

So - just to highlight the flaw in your argument... Private property? OK, but it isn't your property... Ride your bike with no helmet on your property....Or get permission from the owner of the property... So go on write to Stocklands mall or where ever the event occurred and ask them to provide you with retrospective permission to ride your bike on their property without a helmet so you can win your court case..

Go on I dare ya... let us know how you go with that one...

 

[Tim W]

Thanks for all your comments, it gives a bit of hope. I renewed my licence today and I found out that if a person has good driving record, the person pays 50% of the fees. I renewed it for 5yrs and paid $90 (as the points have not incurred on this infringement, as it will be on my record once it is paid, if I paid the fine already, I would have paid $180),

If a person renews their licence before the due date of the fine,
then the fine default (or other outcome) is not yet on the record,
because it hasn't happened yet.
That doesn't make you clever, just lucky.

I do agree it may have been against the law...

No "may have been" about it.

..., but the police officer has given a harsh penalty for this.

As far as I can tell, you have received no more or less a penalty than anybody else who commits this offence.

The laws are to prevent accidents and prevent loss of life...

It also exists to protect the citizens from those who think themselves superior and infallible,
and that therefore the law should not apply to them (even if they do think it should still apply to others).

..., but in my case, it will not cause any of those two and the chance of an accident is zero.

Like I said, people who think themselves superior and infallible.

As I mentioned before, this is common sense but the law is the law and does not rely on common sense, but the police office was too harsh, especially there was no risk

There was risk. To you.
One of the purposes of Road Rules is to protect people whose opinion of their driving (or riding) ability exceeds their personal technical skills, and whose inflated opinion does not account for the fallibility of others.

in addition, what caused this, is that officer thought I am not respecting the first officer when he told to put the helmet on, as that officer was in the middle of the road walking toward the side i was going to park, so I was waiting for that officer to clear out of my way, but I think she thought that I am not respecting the first officer.

No.
What caused it was that you were not wearing a helmet.
In the end, this is all on you.
Take it to court if you wish.
There is a remote possibility that the Magistrate will dismiss the matter.
That will not make you clever, just lucky.

 

[Tim W]

ok - so by that logic, if you run someone over in a car while in a 'private' car parking station, the cops can't get involved? Or to be a little less dramatic, you have a fender bender car accident. Is car insurance not relevant because the insurance only covers public roads, or would you expect your insurance policy to still be valid?....

So - just to highlight the flaw in your argument... PRIVATE PROPERTY? ok but it isn't YOUR property... Ride your bike with no helmet your property.... OR get permission from the owner of the property... So go on write to Stocklands mall or where ever the event occurred and ask them to provide you with retrospective permission to ride your bike on their property without a helmet so you can win your court case.. Go on DARE YA... let us know how you go with that one...

Our OP, however, need not spend any effort on this line of thought.
It is settled law that a car park is a "road related area", and therefore a place
where it is possible to commit the offence alleged.

 

[Adam1user]

If a person renews their licence before the due date of the fine,
then the fine default (or other outcome) is not yet on the record,
because it hasn't happened yet.
That doesn't make you clever, just lucky.No "may have been" about it. As far as I can tell, you have received no more or less a penalty than anybody else who commits this offence.It also exists to protect the citizens from those who think themselves superior and infallible,
and that therefore the law should not apply to them (even if they do think it should still apply to others). Like I said, people who think themselves superior and infallible.There was risk. To you.
One of the purposes of Road Rules is to protect people whose opinion of their driving (or riding) ability exceeds their personal technical skills, and whose inflated opinion does not account for the fallibility of others. No.
What caused it was that you were not wearing a helmet.
In the end, this is all on you.
Take it to court if you wish.
There is a remote possibility that the Magistrate will dismiss the matter.
That will not make you clever, just lucky.

Hi Tim,

I am not saying that I am superior and infallible. I stated from the start that I was wrong (from the theory of the law). I also stated and agree the law is there to protect everyone. I am not disputing this at all.

I will never ever ride without my helmet, gloves, bike pants and bike jacket (even if it is more than 40 degrees), safety first (mine before others), no argument on this.

I am saying in my situation, a caution would be more appropriate. As there was no risk to hurt myself or anyone else. Assuming if I hit a car that is backing out (which I doubt and will never ever happen), it will not do any dent in the car or my scooter, just paint scratching at max. If I rode on the a road with out the helmet or other safety attire in excess of 20k/hr (which I will never ever do), I am happy with more than this infringement!

It is 3 points (& $300 or more) that will stay for 3 years, and it has other ramifications. I don't think this a price to pay for something like this. I did not say I was smart to renew the licence now (I was lucky).

 

[Adam1user]

There is a remote possibility that the Magistrate will dismiss the matter.

Hello Tim again,

I am not trying to get out of it, but seeking section 10, which is I'm admitting to the error but asking for a caution and I'm happy to go on good behavior, which is a more appropriate for this case.

 

[sammy01]

Section 10 good behaviour bond (I believe) can be granted by a magistrate for minor criminal matters... So low range drink driving does not incur a lost of demerit points. Drink driving is covered under criminal law. Crazy though it may seem, so a first time low range drink driver could get a section 10 bond, no fine, no loss of licence and no loss of demerit points...

But I don't think a section 10 bond is applicable to traffic infringements. If you take this to court, I think you're better off pleading guilty but drawing upon your established good driving record and the fact that it was a low speed zone as grounds for the magistrate to consider the fine / demerits.

Now the problem you've got there is that the police officer who was there at the time did not think a warning was necessary, so I reckon you'll be hard pressed to convince the magistrate that the police officer got it wrong...