Being forced to contest an inflated fine over a trivial offence is a waste of time for everyone involved
Last month I went to court for a breach, charged with exceeding six hours’ driving. Now we all know the way the logbook works. If I started at 8.07pm I must mark my book as starting at 8pm (rounding work up) then if I finished at 2.07am the next day I should then mark the next page as finishing at 2.15am (again rounding work up). Yet I have only worked six hours but the book would show I had worked six and a quarter.
When I was pulled up I had marked the end of the first page at midnight at Euroa showing kilometres, then I marked the start of the next page the same and of course, if you do not stop, you would not mark the book till you did.
The copper who pulled me up was brusque and did not let me look properly at the page. I explained to him that we had to round work up (he disputed this as I explained the situation above) and said I didn’t think I had broken the law. I offered to show him the Navman Sentinel but he was not interested. Again I said, “Did you look at my record, I am not in the habit of breaking the law” which he again refused to discuss.
Stubborn refusal
When the ticket came via email, I sought a review. I sent copies of both logbook pages showing I had marked both at midnight with Euroa, then took a screen shot of the Navman page clearly showing I stopped at 11.57pm until 12.12am and asking for the ticket to be withdrawn. I wrote I would accept a clerical error fine for not marking the break in, but had clearly shown I did stop for 15 minutes, so did not drive for 6.25 hours. I again explained the way the rounding up rules steals our time.
I had been deciding when to mark it, thought I will be in Melbourne in two hours so all good, had a bit of trouble getting a park, so that took the extra few minutes and then went to bed and marked the book when I got up, forgetting to mark the break at Euroa.
They refused the review, saying they could not withdraw the ticket (this is not true, they can but simply would not), so I sought a second as in their reply they commented on the logbook but failed to comment or recognise the Navman. This is a third party, tamperproof device which clearly showed I had a 15 minute break. Again, this second review was refused.
Now if this was a serious offence, driving 20 hours in a day or such, I would expect a penalty and for it to be severe. But we are talking about the possibility, even without the Navman backup, that I drove six hours and two minutes. Now any sane and reasonable person would say that is not dangerous (and I then had an eight hour break, so not a fatigue risk either) and I could not and would not pay the $453 fine, believing it to be completely over the top for the alleged offence.
Highway Advocates offered advice and representation – and they offer a discount to National Road Freighters Association (NRFA) members – and at court the judge asked did I have a licence in another state as my supplied print out showed only one warning nearly 10 years ago. He did not seem really interested, but was agreeable to a section 10, recognising both my pleading guilty and my record and road safety efforts which we documented and supplied to them early. This saw the fine dismissed; no fine or penalty but it may remain on my record.
NHVR input
This long winded explanation is to give some weight to why I wrote (and the NRFA endorsed and others have agreed to the intent) seeking removal of police powers to police the Heavy Vehicle National Law. Now this is a bit like the elephant in the room. Many complain but no one has had the gumption to do or say anything. I don’t want to piss anyone off, let alone the police. They have a hard enough job with robbers and murderers, but if we have the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) policing the NHVL, how can police then do so without any NHVR oversight or input?
Yes, there must be a deterrent if you break the law and others are at risk. But if police simply take the easy mark and fine you for something completely ridiculous that is really not road safety related, and when you seek review they simply say, “Go to court”, then that is not what the law is meant to do. It’s also not a good use of our time or the courts.
We all know we are seen as an easy target when fined in one state and live in another. The police know you will, more likely than not, simply pay the fine because of what it will cost you to defend it.
The NHVR are saying their on-road inspections and any industry efforts will be based and focused firstly on education and then enforcement. No one can expect to get warnings over and over, but if it is the NHVL, then the absolute we should accept to see is a fair go. Then any fines issued by police would be reviewed by the NHVR, not some privately owned bureaucrat who it seems gets a bonus for refusing to review and rescind bullshit fines.
I will be writing (and will put the letter in next month’s column) to every police commissioner. I will be asking them if they will seek to follow the NHVR path of education first, enforcement second and will then chase the NHVR to find a solution to unfair, unreasonable and fines that have nothing to do with road safety being issued by police. I would welcome your comments.
|
|
*ROD HANNIFEY, a transport safety advocate, has been involved in raising the profile of the industry, conducting highway truck audits, the Blue Reflector Trial for informal parking bays on the Newell, the ‘Truckies on Road Code’, the national 1800 number for road repairs proposal, and the Better Roadside Rest Areas Group. Contact Rod on 0428 120 560, e-mail rod.hannifey@bigpond.com or visit www.truckright.com.au