Search

Aussies reminded to look out for this lifesaving roadside marker

Aussie drivers are being reminded about a little-known roadside marker that could save your life. As the holiday season approaches, drivers have been reminded of the purpose of the small green circles that appear on roadside reflector poles. "With the holiday period fast approaching, I wanted to remind residents about green reflectors," federal MP Colin Boyce wrote over the weekend. "You may have noticed some green reflectors on guide posts beside the road on some highways. These indicate that there is a safe place to pull off the road coming up soon so you can indicate your intentions early and be prepared," he said. The number of dots indicate the distance between you and the place you can pull over. Three dots mean that drivers are approximately 500 metres from a safe place to pull over, two means you're 250 metres away and one green circle appears just before the area. "The idea is from road safety advocate and B double truck driver Rod Hannifey, alerting drivers that there is a safe place to pull off the road coming up," the Queensland MP added. "While the idea was originally intended for long haul truck drivers all road users can use them." Many Aussies have shared their enthusiasm for the highway initiative, and how important it was for caravan and motorhome drivers especially. "A lot more people need to know about this. Especially people with caravans," one woman commented. "Would love this all over Australia! There's nothing worse than driving at night with a screaming baby in the back who wants a feed and not knowing if it's a safe place to pull over," another said. Others have shared that they hadn't noticed the markings or realise what it meant. "Have asked a few people recently if they knew what these reflectors stood for, and not one knew. Explanation followed. Should be a compulsory question asked of caravaners," one local wrote. "One of the world's best kept secrets! Thanks," another said. Images: Truck Friendly/ Yahoo

Travel Tips

First driver fined under new road rules

The driver of a luxury car is believed to be the first person fined under new rules that requires high-powered vehicle owners to hold a special license. New legislation in South Australia came into force on December 1st this year that requires drivers of ultra high-powered vehicles (UHPV) to hold a U class licence. Drivers who flout the rules can be hit with six demerit points a maximum fine of $2,500 for the first offence, with the penalty for subsequent offences potentially leading to one year of imprisonment. On Monday, police in South Australia revealed a man driving a Lamborghini had been fined for allegedly breaching the new law on Sunday: the first day the legislation came into force. “About 7.30am on Sunday 1 December, police stopped a Lamborghini Huracan on Queensborough Ave, Hillcrest after noticing it was not bearing a rear number plate,” a South Australia Police spokesman wrote in a media release. “The officer identified the vehicle as being classed as an UHPV however checks on the man’s licence revealed that he did not have the required ‘U’ class licence endorsement." “A 36-year-old man from Evandale was issued with an expiation notice for driving with an expired licence for that class of vehicle.” The requirement for the licence was introduced following the death of Sophia Naismith, according to the Department for Infrastructure and Transport. In 2019, Sophia Naismith, 15, and her friend were struck luxury Lamborghini after the luxury car mounted the kerb and hit the teenagers before crashing into a restaurant. The Naismiths campaigned for changes and they were introduced, with Attorney-General Kyam Maher saying: “If you drive an ultra high-powered vehicle, you need to go through training to have that accredited on your licence.” Image credits: South Australia Police

Legal

"About time": Coles bold parking move sparks debate

Frustrated staff at a Coles-owned bottle shop in Brisbane have taken matters into their own hands and retaliated against drivers flouting parking rules outside their store. Management at a First Choice Liquor Market store in Newstead have locked in cars taking advantage of the customer-only spaces. It is understood that some cars remain parked in the 15-minute spots for extended periods, sometimes overnight, despite signs saying that fines apply. A photo shared on Facebook showed a car with P-plates blocked in by a yellow bollard and note that read: "Due to you not adhering to the parking rules, your vehicle has been locked in by management and will be kept on record." "Please see First Choice management to discuss your options". A local woman who shared the photos said there "were at least two other cars locked in" when she was passing by this week. Locals were divided by the store's actions, but many supported their decision. "About time. Pub takes all the spaces," one said. "I’ve been there when the store opens and there have been no car spaces available". "Don’t park where you shouldn’t. It’s simple," another added. A third said it was "about bloody time" something was done about the parking. However, a few others had a more understanding approach, with one local saying that the limited parking in a large apartment complex across the road could be contributing to the limited parking. Another suggested the staff had gone too far, noting the importance of being able to "flee" in a hurry, particularly in violent situations. "The thought of their vehicle being blocked in by bollard, should an unthinkable situation arise, is horrific to think of," she said. "While I understand this would be frustrating for your shop, it could be putting someone’s life in danger — as another perspective to think of." Coles have responded to the management's actions explaining that their commitment to customers means providing "parking and clear access to our stores." "The Newstead store carpark is owned by Coles and has signage throughout the carpark informing locals about parking time restrictions which are also painted on the parking bays," a Coles spokesperson told Yahoo News. "To ensure we are making our stores more accessible for customers, our store team may use its discretion to remind the community of the parking rules.” Images: Facebook

Legal

"Two strikes and you're out": Crackdown on dodgy taxi drivers

The NSW government is introducing tougher penalties for taxi drivers caught ripping off passengers, as they crackdown on dodgy practices. Taxi drivers caught committing two fare-related offences will be disqualified from driving a taxi, rideshare or any other type of transport from December 6. The offences include not using their meter, overcharging, refusing a passenger travelling a short distance, demanding a fare not displayed on the meter, adding a surcharge and charging a maxi-taxi surcharge for less than five passengers. Transport Minister Jo Haylen emphasised that the "two strikes and you're out" system would be used to crack down on a “minority of rogue drivers” in the industry, ahead of the holiday season. "We're sending a strong message to the minority of rogue drivers that if they continue overcharging, not using the meter or refusing fares they now risk being kicked out of the industry," Haylen said. "From 6 December, drivers convicted twice for fare-related offences will not only be disqualified from the taxi industry but also rideshare companies like Uber and DiDi. "With these better regulations in place, passengers can have a safe and fair ride, while supporting the taxi industry. “This is a really busy time for the taxi and rideshare industries. Christmas parties are starting to kick off, people will be starting to come home through the airport, and then there are people rushing around for those last-minute gifts,” she added. "The majority of our state's 15,000 taxi drivers are doing the right thing, but these new measures will ensure that those who aren't, are out." The laws will also apply to Taxi drivers with existing breaches on record, who will now be at risk of being banned from the industry by the Point to Point Transport Commissioner Anthony Wing. More than 900 fines have been issued to taxi drivers by commissioner inspectors in the last two years. "Let me reinforce, most drivers are consistently doing the right thing, but we want all passengers to know that there will be harsh consequences for drivers who continue to break the rules - they now face being kicked out of the industry," Wing said. "We take all fare-related offences seriously which is why my Inspectors are frequently out conducting plain clothes operations along with highly visible compliance activities." He added that "small time first offenders" would not necessarily be prosecuted but issued a fine instead of a strike. Image: Shutterstock

Legal

Mum appeals "incorrect" $410 seatbelt fine

April Miller and her husband had been visiting family in the Blue Mountains last month when the new detection cameras flagged her for not wearing her seatbelt properly. The Sydney mum argued otherwise, saying that the couple clearly had their seatbelts on and they were incorrectly fined. “We came back to a fine in the mail (claiming) our seatbelts weren’t on correctly,” she told 7NEWS. “In the corner you can clearly see that we have our seatbelts on, both of us. “If you’ve broken the law, you’ve broken the law, but if you haven’t and there’s no reason for it, then that is frustrating.” She has since appealed the $410 fine and three demerit points, and while her first appeal was denied, it is not stopping her from trying again. The seatbelt detection cameras were implemented on July 1 this year, with the intention of saving lives, as 15 per cent of deaths on NSW roads each year involve seatbelt noncompliance. Shadow Transport Minister Natalie Ward said, “if the seatbelt was on, then the fine should be repaid”. “Fining motorists who do the right thing is unacceptable because it reduces community confidence.” Transport for NSW Centre for Road Safety executive director Bernard Carlon told 7NEWS that “although the AI works to identify whether there is an offence that has been committed, there are two human reviews that happen after that” before an infringement is issued. “There can always be human error and we want to have a system that’s fair.” In just five months since the implementation of the cameras, 50,000 fines have been handed out. Fines for not wearing seatbelts have plummeted from more than 16,500 in July to about 9,800 in October. “There’s a massive reduction in the number of people offending, that’s really good,” Carlon said. Image: 7NEWS

Travel Trouble

Major driver's licence change for Victorian drivers

A major drivers licence change has been implemented in Victoria. Up to 800,000 learner and provisional drivers in the state will soon have electronic access to their licence in a bid to make "it easier for them to go about their lives". They join the 1.2 million motorists in the state who already have the capability to access their licence digitally, a feature that was only introduced in Victoria in May this year. While the digital licences are optional, the state government said that feedback from the public has been overwhelmingly positive. Like other digital licences, it features a highly secure, timed QR code" that can be scanned by businesses and other authorities to verify authenticity and prevent fraudulent use. Victoria Minister for Roads and Road Safety Melissa Horne said the initiative aims to simplify life for young drivers in the state. "We’ve seen more than 1.2 million Victorians access their licence on their phones since we launched this technology in May, and I’m sure we’ll continue to see a strong take up from our younger drivers," she said. The licences can also be updated in real-time if there are changes to conditions, personal information or if a licence has been cancelled or suspended. The state government is also working with venues to ensure licences are compatible with major scanning technology making it easier for both customers and venues across Victoria. Image: Shutterstock

Legal

Driver fined $544 for little known road act

A Mercedes driver has copped a massive fine after illegally transporting a ladder in the back of his car. The motorist thought he snagged a bargain on Gumtree, buying a ladder from someone who lived only a few streets away. But when he went to take the ladder home after placing it in the backseat of his car, the ladder was protruding almost one metre out the window. Highway Patrol officers in Sydney's west stopped the driver who said, "I picked it up from someone on Gumtree, I’m just going down the road". He was $544 and lost three demerit points by the roadside, with the short distance of travel between his purchase location and destination meaning nothing to police due to the dangerous nature of the act. The driver claims he "didn't know" it was an offence to drive with a protruding load, despite every state and territory handed an on-the-spot fine if any items stick out of a moving vehicle. "Due to the danger posed to other road users as well as the driver himself, he was issued with an infringement," NSW Police said, explaining that the driver was able to disassemble the ladder and store it "more suitably" in the car before taking off again. In NSW, the fine for driving with a protruding load will set a motorist back $349. Across the country, fines fall between $200 to $400 for drivers of light vehicles, however, those in heavy vehicles can pay thousands. Protruding loads can alter the weight distribution of a car and make it unstable and unsafe to drive, reducing a driver's control, while also posing a risk of hitting others on the road, pedestrians or cyclists. Image credits: Facebook

Legal

Dashcam footage captures wild brawl on busy Queensland road

Dramatic dashcam footage has captured the moment two men get involved in a wild brawl in the middle of traffic. The video taken in Chandler, Brisbane on Tuesday showed a white Ford Falcon utility overtaking multiple vehicles while changing lanes twice, before coming to a stop at a red light. As the male driver waits for the light to change, another man exits his Audi and rushes through the traffic to the Ford. The Ford driver opens his door before punches started flying, and they have it out in the middle of the road. The two men appeared unbothered by the dozens of vehicles around them punching and kicking and one point they even slammed into an orange ute, with the driver forced to use their horn to warn the duo off. The owner of the vehicle recording the dashcam was forced to move their car forward to avoid a collision as the Ford rocked forward during the fight. The altercation escalates, with another man attempting a karate-style kick before the lights changed and the men were forced to return to their car. While the cause of the altercation is unknown, Queensland Police said they have been made aware of the video. They said no formal complaints have been made. Image: Dash Cam Owners Australia/Facebook

Legal

"Rot in hell": Family of murdered paramedic speak out over ruling

The man charged with murdering New South Wales paramedic Steven Tougher has been found not criminally responsible due to a mental health impairment, with Tougher's family "appalled" by the decision. In April 2023, Tougher, 29, was stabbed in a McDonald’s carpark by Jordan Fineanganofo, 23, in a frenzied attack at 5am in the Sydney suburb of Campbelltown. The father-to-be had been eating with a colleague when he was approached by Fineanganofo, who stabbed him 55 times and leaving 24 incised wounds. “I am going to f**king kill you,” Fineanganofo said to Mr Tougher, according to the agreed facts and court documents. Mr Tougher was rushed to hospital after the attack, but suffered a cardiac arrest and died at the hospital shortly after he arrived. Both the defence and the Crown prosecutor agreed the court could find Fineanganofo was not responsible because of his mental health issues, with Justice David Davies stating on Friday that he cannot be held criminal responsible. “I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the psychical acts,” he said. “(I) find the accused was suffering from a mental impairment at the time he committed the acts”. Justice Davies found Fineanganofo had been suffering from a mental health impairment at the time of the attack and did not know the wrongness of his actions because of his illness. The court was told Fineanganofo experienced auditory hallucinations, increasing paranoia, and suicidal ideation before the deadly attack, as the 23-year-old told psychiatrists that he heard voices telling him to harm himself and others in the weeks leading up to the offences, and believed he was surrounded by malignant demons. As Justice Davies handed down his decision, Tougher's friends and family broke down in court. “You chose not to take your medication, you’re the demon,” one person shouted at Fineanganofo as he was taken into custody, while another person yelled, “Rot in hell, you dog.” Outside court, Mr Tougher’s father Jeff said the family were “appalled” with the outcome. “It is neither what we wanted nor what we expected,” he said. “Stephen has been lost in this deeply flawed and broken process.” The heartbroken father said the family “strongly oppose” the court's decision to agree to a finding of not criminally responsible, and they were “deeply offended” they were not consulted before the decision was made. Mr Tougher’s father said the family would be pushing for an inquest into the “deplorable” circumstances surrounding his son’s death. “We are damaged today, but we’re not broken. The system is broken, and as a family, we will be fighting for change,” he said. “My son will not be forgotten, nor will his death be dismissed.” Image credits: Facebook

Legal

"Unfair": Pauline Hanson's tearful pledge after court ruling

Pauline Hanson has made an emotional pledge after the court <a href="https://oversixty.com.au/finance/legal/judge-rules-against-pauline-hanson" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled</a> she made racist remarks towards a fellow senator. Justice Angus Stewart found that the One Nation leader engaged in "seriously offensive" and intimidating behaviour when told Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi to "piss off back to Pakistan" in a tweet, with the judge saying the message constitutes "strong racism". After the ruling, Hanson spoke to Sky News in a teary interview in which she called the Federal Court ruling “unfair and unjust”, lamenting that Australia was “not the country I grew up in”. <div> </div> “I just feel that the country’s changed so much in such a way that people can’t say what they think anymore. The thought police is out there, everyone’s shut down for having an opinion,” she said between sobs. “It’s not the country I grew up in." “People may criticise my comment, but I’ve never changed since the first day of politics nearly 30 years ago." “But I think the decision made I think was unfair, unjust and a bit hard, but I’m not going to give up, I’m going to appeal against it, I’m going to fight this.” Handing down his the decision on Friday, Justice Angus Stewart labelled the post as “an angry ad hominem attack”. He ruled the post was “reasonably likely in all the circumstances” to “offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate the applicant and groups of people, namely people of colour who are migrants to Australia or are Australians of relatively recent migrant heritage and Muslims who are people of colour in Australia”. Justice Stewart found that Senator Hanson’s post was motivated by “the race, colour or national or ethnic origin” of Senator Faruqi, and her response was not made in good faith as a fair comment on a matter of public interest. “Senator Hanson’s tweet was merely an angry ad hominem attack devoid of discernible content (or comment) in response to what Senator Faruqi had said,” Justice Stewart said. Image credits: Sky News

Legal

Man's DIY speed camera sign sparks debate

Over the years Aussies have come up with various ways to warn fellow drivers of nearby speed cameras, and one man took matters into his own hands by alerting motorists with a handwritten sign. Dressed in a neon orange singlet, a man was spotted at a busy intersection on the Princes Highway in Melbourne over the weekend waving to passing cars while holding up a "Beware Camera" sign. The photo was shared to local news service Wyndham TV's Instagram, and many were quick to praise the "local hero", who one identified as Daryl. “Absolute bloody Aussie legend right there,” one person commented. "A good citizen," another wrote. A few others commented that he was doing "God's work" and deserved to be bought "a beer or 10". However, not everyone was pleased with this act, with many questioning why he was interfering with road safety measures. “Motorists need to take responsibility for not speeding,” one person argued, before others defended the move, saying it would reduce speeding and crashes. Others asked why he didn't have more important things to do with his time. There is no specific law that prohibits warning other drivers about the presence of a speed camera, so the man's actions were legal. This is not the first time Aussies have done this, with many sharing videos exposing the "sneaky" way mobile speed cameras catch drivers in NSW on social media . One person shared a video to TikTok showing a mobile speed camera car parked next to another road sign. “This is their tactics, parking next to other signs so they blend in,” he said in the viral video. Image: Instagram/@wyndhamtv

Travel Trouble

"I’m coming home from a party, and I don’t want to end up getting arrested": do driving apps help people break road rules?

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/verity-truelove-1237331">Verity Truelove</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-the-sunshine-coast-1068">University of the Sunshine Coast</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michelle-nicolls-1299069">Michelle Nicolls</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-the-sunshine-coast-1068">University of the Sunshine Coast</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/oscar-oviedo-trespalacios-1417150">Oscar Oviedo-Trespalacios</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/delft-university-of-technology-1040">Delft University of Technology</a> Apps such as Google Maps, Apple Maps and Waze can tell drivers when they are approaching speed cameras or random breath testing stations. Countries such as Germany, France and Switzerland have banned apps from displaying these enforcement locations. But what effect are these apps having in Australia – are they helping drivers break road rules? Our new <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753524002972">paper</a>, published in the journal Safety Science, examined this question. We found this technology can, in some cases, contribute to people thinking they are invincible on the roads. However, we also found they can sometimes help people drive more safely. <h2>Being made aware of enforcement can help road safety</h2> We conducted focus groups and interviews with a total of 58 drivers from Queensland, to understand how the use of this technology influences perceptions of being caught for breaking road rules. One driver told us: "If I know it’s coming up, I’ll put my phone down. If I was, say, texting or checking something, but then like once a good few 100 metres away, I sort of pick it up again, depending though." Another said: "It sort of depends where I am driving, I guess. Like, if I am driving on a country road and there is a speed camera there I would probably slow down for the speed camera and then sort of speed up again once I am sort of past that; it sort of depends on the circumstances." We also found that, for some people, being made aware of enforcement locations can help drivers better regulate their speed. This helped them comply with road rules more consistently. Waze also shows the speed limit in the area, which further assisted some drivers to stick to the speed limit. One driver told us: "I’m a bit careful if I just look at the speedo and just double check that I’m on the right amount of speed." Another said: "It just gives you a warning like, ‘OK, you need to check your speed.’ Just to double-check you’re going on the right speed perhaps or when it’s a camera coming up." <h2>Concerning behaviours</h2> Concerningly, we also found some drivers who use these apps are looking at and touching their screens more than they otherwise would. This can distract drivers and increase their <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753524001097">risk of crashing</a>. One driver told us they post traffic updates on the app they use while driving, “which I know is wrong.” Another said: "Just hit the button on the phone. Just two steps after I go past the camera." Another driver told us: "It’s so helpful […] Especially if it’s, say, late night and I’m coming home from a party, and I don’t want to end up getting arrested." One driver said: "I probably feel slightly more invincible, which is probably not a good thing." When asked why these apps are used, one driver said: "I guess the drug and the drink-driving." <h2>Apps can help and hinder road safety</h2> We know breaking road rules significantly contributes to <a href="https://www.who.int/teams/social-determinants-of-health/safety-and-mobility/global-status-report-on-road-safety-2023">crashes and road fatalities</a>, with deaths on Australian roads continuing to <a href="https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/road_deaths_australia_monthly_bulletins">increase</a> over time. On the one hand, when drivers are aware of enforcement measures like cameras and police, they are more likely to stop breaking the rules in those areas. That’s particularly true for behaviours such as speeding and using a phone while driving, we found. Using apps that flag where cameras and police are located also means drivers would be more exposed to enforcement activities than they otherwise would be on a normal drive. On the other hand, our results suggest some drivers are using these applications to break road rules more often in places where they think they won’t be caught. These apps are also not always completely accurate. For instance, even though Waze can display some police operation locations such as roadside breath testing, it can’t capture all on-road police activities. Further, camera locations are not always up to date or accurate. <h2>Weighing benefits against risks</h2> While these apps do have some benefits, it’s important to weigh these against the risks. It’s also important to recognise traffic enforcement isn’t just there to make you comply with road rules at a specific point; it is meant to remind you of the constant risk of being caught and to encourage consistent rule compliance. The goal is to ensure that drivers are following the traffic rules across the entire network, not just in isolated spots. With road fatalities at some of the <a href="https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/road_deaths_australia_monthly_bulletins">highest rates we’ve seen in recent years</a>, we need everyone to work together to stop more preventable deaths and injuries.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/237664/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/verity-truelove-1237331">Verity Truelove</a>, Senior Research Fellow in Road Safety Research, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-the-sunshine-coast-1068">University of the Sunshine Coast</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michelle-nicolls-1299069">Michelle Nicolls</a>, PhD Candidate, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-the-sunshine-coast-1068">University of the Sunshine Coast</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/oscar-oviedo-trespalacios-1417150">Oscar Oviedo-Trespalacios</a>, A/Professor Responsible Risk Management, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/delft-university-of-technology-1040">Delft University of Technology</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/im-coming-home-from-a-party-and-i-dont-want-to-end-up-getting-arrested-do-driving-apps-help-people-break-road-rules-237664">original article</a>. </div>

Legal

Judge rules against Pauline Hanson

A judge has ruled that Pauline Hanson's <a href="https://oversixty.com.au/finance/legal/pattern-of-bigotry-pauline-hanson-being-sued-by-senator-over-tweet" target="_blank" rel="noopener">comment</a> to a Muslin senator constitutes "strong racism". Justice Angus Stewart found that the One Nation leader engaged in "seriously offensive" and intimidating behaviour when told Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi to "piss off back to Pakistan". Hanson made the comments on X, formally Twitter, in September 2022, with Justice Stewart finding that the outburst breached the Racial Discrimination Act. The post was racist, nativist and anti-Muslim, the judge said, explaining, "It is a strong form of racism." Hanson's post was in response to one from Faruqi on the day Queen Elizabeth died, as the Greens deputy leader wrote she could not mourn the passing of the leader of a "racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised peoples". Hanson's claim that she did not know her Greens rival was a Muslim when she sent the tweet was rejected by the court. The One Nation leader also argued that she merely engaged in political discourse by pointing out hypocrisy from the Greens deputy in criticising the monarchy while benefiting from moving to and living in Australia, which was quickly shot down by the judge. "Her tweet was an angry personal attack on Senator Faruqi," Justice Stewart said. Hanson has been ordered to delete the tweet within seven days and to pay the Greens deputy leader's legal costs of running the lawsuit. Image credits: Getty Images / Instagram

Legal

Aussie drivers warned over commonly ignored road rule

Aussie drivers are being reminded to follow simple road rules and etiquette when driving on a highway, with one often ignored rule costing drivers hundreds. Police are fining drivers caught driving in the right lane on a highway without overtaking anyone. A Victorian man was fined $198 and two demerit points over the weekend "after travelling 3km in the right-hand lane and passing no one,” Senior Sergeant Aaron Riches told the Geelong Advertiser. Penalties also apply in other states and territories, including NSW where the penalty can be as much as $410. Victoria Police told Yahoo News Australia that this wasn't part of a crackdown, as they are always monitoring roads to ensure drivers are following the road rules. "Police are out and about every day, making sure people are following the road rules. Road safety is a priority for police, and we will continue to focus our efforts on ensuring those using the roads are safe," a spokesperson said. According to VicRoads, when travelling on a multi-lane road with a speed limit of over 80km/h, drivers must keep out of the right lane unless they are overtaking, turning right or if all lanes are congested. In NSW a P-plater was caught "disobeying" this rule and copped a $410 fine. Sydney lawyer Avinash Singh of Astor Legal said some drivers get of easy, with penalties actually reaching $2,200. "On a road where there is a speed limit of more than 80km/h, you must not drive in the right lane, unless you're overtaking," he said. Although unlikely, "you can incur a fine of up to $2,200 for disobeying this rule," he added. NSW Police also reminded drivers in August against ignoring "keep left signs unless overtaking" as travelling in the right lane has resulted in "an increase in collisions involving drivers overtaking other vehicles". Images: NSW Police Highway Patrol

Travel Trouble

Maggie Beer wins top award while on the road to recovery

Maggie Beer has been honoured with a top award just days after opening up about her recovery following a fall last month. The 79-year-old Aussie chef won Best Host of a Format at the C21 International Format Awards in Cannes for her role hosting Maggie Beer’s Big Mission on the ABC. The leading awards recognises creativity and excellence across the global television industry. Beer was the only woman in the category, beating some of the television industry's biggest names including Jimmy Kimmel for Who Wants to Be a Millionaire US, Stephen Fry in Jeopardy UK, Alan Cumming for The Traitors US and Big Zuu for Big Zuu’s 12 Dishes in 12 Hours. Maggie Beer’s Big Mission was inspired by the findings of the Royal Commission into Aged Care in 2021, which exposed high rates of malnutrition in older adults living in aged care. In the show she led a world-first social experiment to transform the meals and dining experience at an aged-care home in Perth, WA. Beer and team of experts changed the menu, dining rooms and gardens using the "care model" to improve nutrition and wellbeing of residents. In a statement, Beer said it was a “privilege to actually live the experience in an aged-care home brave enough to show warts and all.” She learned what was acceptable to feed residents and what wasn't but “…most of all how to begin the journey of change to show the difference that is made to the happiness and wellbeing not only of the residents but the staff as well,” she said. “With her extraordinary leadership she has put older Australians first and given them a voice,” managing director of Artemis media, Celia Tait said. This comes just days after Beer opened up on her fall in August, where she suffered minor bone fractures and related injuries, telling her instagram followers that "even though I want to tell you how good I’m feeling now, I still have a way to go." “I will make a full recovery, and part of it is the care and the love that I’ve been given.” Images: Instagram

Food & Wine

Could a recent ruling change the game for scam victims? Here’s why the banks will be watching closely

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jeannie-marie-paterson-6367">Jeannie Marie Paterson</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nicola-howell-1160247">Nicola Howell</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/queensland-university-of-technology-847">Queensland University of Technology</a> In Australia, it’s scam victims who foot the bill for the overwhelming majority of the money lost to scams each year. A 2023 <a href="https://download.asic.gov.au/media/mbhoz0pc/rep761-published-20-april-2023.pdf">review</a> by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) found banks detected and stopped only a small proportion of scams. The total amount banks paid in compensation paled in comparison to total losses. So, it was a strong statement this week when it was revealed the Australian Financial Conduct Authority (AFCA) had <a href="https://my.afca.org.au/searchpublisheddecisions/kb-article/?id=f9f8941f-7379-ef11-ac20-000d3a6acbb4">ordered</a> a bank – HSBC – to compensate a customer who lost more than $47,000 through a sophisticated bank impersonation or “spoofing” scam. This decision was significant. An AFCA determination is binding on the relevant bank or other financial institution, which has <a href="https://www.afca.org.au/make-a-complaint#:%7E:text=Any%20determinations%20we%20make%20are,service%20is%20free%20to%20access">no direct right of appeal</a>. It could have implications for the way similar cases are treated in future. The ruling comes amid a broader push for sector-wide reforms to give banks more responsibility for <a href="https://www.fico.com/blogs/detection-prevention-tackling-scams-every-angle">detecting</a>, deterring and responding to scams, as opposed to simply telling customers to be “more careful”. Here’s what you should know about this landmark ruling, and what it might mean for consumers. <h2>A highly sophisticated ‘spoofing’ scam</h2> You might be familiar with “push payment” scams that trick the victim into paying money to a dummy account. These include the “<a href="https://www.acma.gov.au/articles/2024-01/scam-alert-re-emergence-hi-mum-scam">mum I’ve lost my phone</a>” scam and some <a href="https://www.scamwatch.gov.au/types-of-scams/online-dating-and-romance-scams">romance</a> scams. The <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/dragged-kicking-and-screaming-banking-giant-loses-battle-against-scam-victim-20241015-p5kide.html">recent case</a> concerned an equally noxious “bank impersonation” or “spoofing” scam. The complainant – referred to as “Mr T” – was tricked into giving the scammer access to his HSBC account, from which an unauthorised payment was made. The scammer sent Mr T a text message, purportedly asking him to investigate an attempted Amazon transaction. In an effort to respond to the (fake) unauthorised Amazon purchase, Mr T revealed security passcodes to the scammer, enabling them to transfer $47,178.54 from his account and disappear with it. The fact Mr T was dealing with scammers was far from obvious – scammers had information about him one might reasonably expect only a bank would know, such as his bank username. On top of this, the scam text message appeared in a thread of other legitimate text messages that had previously been sent by the real HSBC. <h2>AFCA’s ruling</h2> HSBC argued to AFCA that having to pay compensation should be ruled out under the <a href="https://download.asic.gov.au/media/lloeicwb/epayments-code-published-02-june-2022.pdf">ePayments Code</a>, a voluntary code of practice administered by ASIC. Under this code, a bank is not required to compensate a customer for an unauthorised payment if that customer has disclosed their passcode. The bank argued the complainant had voluntarily disclosed these codes to the scammer, meaning the bank didn’t need to pay. AFCA disagreed. It noted the very way the scam had worked was by creating a sense of urgency and crisis. AFCA considered that the complainant had been manipulated into disclosing the passcodes and had not acted voluntarily. AFCA awarded compensation covering the vast majority of the disputed transaction amount, lost interest charged to a home loan account, and $5,000 towards Mr T’s legal costs. It also ordered the bank to pay compensation of $1,000 for poor customer service in dealing with the matter, including communication delays. <h2>Other cases may be more complex</h2> In this case, the determination was relatively straightforward. It found Mr T had not voluntarily disclosed his account information, so was not excluded from being compensated under the ePayments Code. However, many payment scams fall outside the ePayments Code because they involve the customer directly sending money to the scammer (as opposed to the scammer accessing the customer’s account). That means there is no code to direct compensation. Still, AFCA’s jurisdiction is broader than merely applying a code. In considering compensation for scam losses, AFCA must consider what is “fair in all the circumstances”. This means taking into account: <ul> <li>legal principles</li> <li>applicable industry codes</li> <li>good industry practice</li> <li>previous AFCA decisions.</li> </ul> Relevant factors might well include whether the bank was proactive in responding to known scams, as well as the challenges for individual customers in identifying scams. <h2>Broader reforms are on the way</h2> At the heart of this determination by AFCA is a recognition that, increasingly, detecting sophisticated scams can be next to impossible for customers, which can mean they don’t act voluntarily in making payments to scammers. Similar reasoning has informed a range of recent reform initiatives that put more responsibility for detecting and responding to scams on the banks, rather than their customers. In 2023, Australia’s banking sector committed to a new “<a href="https://www.ausbanking.org.au/scam-safe-accord/">Scam-Safe Accord</a>”. This is a commitment to implement new measures to protect customers, including a confirmation of payee service, delays for new payments, and biometric identity checks for new accounts. Changes on the horizon could be more ambitious and significant. The proposed <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2024-573813">Scams Prevention Framework</a> legislation would require Australian banks, telcos and <a href="https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/accc-vs-big-tech-round-10-and-counting">digital platforms</a> to take reasonable steps to prevent, detect, report, disrupt and respond to scams. It would also include a compulsory external dispute resolution process, like AFCA’s, for consumers seeking compensation for when any of these institutions fail to comply. Addressing scams is not just an Australian issue. In the United Kingdom, newly introduced <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy94vz4zd7zo">rules</a> make paying and receiving banks responsible for compensating customers, for scam losses up to £85,000 (A$165,136), unless the customer is grossly negligent.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/241558/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jeannie-marie-paterson-6367">Jeannie Marie Paterson</a>, Professor of Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nicola-howell-1160247">Nicola Howell</a>, Senior lecturer, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/queensland-university-of-technology-847">Queensland University of Technology</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/could-a-recent-ruling-change-the-game-for-scam-victims-heres-why-the-banks-will-be-watching-closely-241558">original article</a>. </div>

Money & Banking

Mother and son reunited after rigid aged care rules divided them

An elderly woman and her disabled son are celebrating after they successfully beat a bureaucratic blockage that threatened to <a href="https://oversixty.com.au/lifestyle/family-pets/red-tape-threatens-to-remove-a-man-with-down-s-syndrome-from-his-elderly-mother" target="_blank" rel="noopener">split</a> them up for good. Anne Deans, 81, and her 56-year-old son, Mark, who suffers from Down's syndrome, were hoping to live together in Anne's aged care facility, but the pair were met with countless hurdles when trying to get Mark a room of his own. Now, Mark's sister Sharon shared the happy news that the mother and son are to be reunited. "We're very happy today. We've got a great result," Sharon told <a href="https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/melbourne-mum-and-son-living-with-downs-syndrome-reunited-in-aged-care-facility/ff023844-be2d-4ab8-be95-75bf91f17b4a" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A Current Affair</a>. "I'm so grateful that people understood and they listened. That's all I ever wanted through this whole thing, was someone to listen." The problems began when authorities originally refused Mark's request to move into Anne's aged care facility, with federal government policy saying that aged care is "not appropriate for people under 65". But Mark's relatives argued that given the life expectancy of people living with Down's syndrome is 60 years, an exception should be made. A new assessment was done and Mark has been granted a place at the same nursing home as his mother, as Mark's other sister Michelle said, "We got what we wanted. Everything worked out perfectly, the way it's supposed to." After Anne received the exciting news, she said, "I'm feeling great. He's staying with Mum!" Sharon and Michelle hope that their experience will assist other families with unique circumstances. "My advice is to keep pushing," Sharon said. "Only you know your family and you have to be their voice. "There's a lot of difference out there and a lot of people who are individuals [and] they need to be looked at individually." Image credits: A Current Affair

Legal

The surprising unknown road rule that is costing drivers

A woman has issued a warning to Aussie drivers after being threatened with a hefty fine for a common car decoration. Janelle McEvoy, a young woman from Perth, took to TikTok to recall the moment she learned that she could be facing a fine for having an air freshener hanging from her car’s rear view mirror. “I randomly got breath tested on the way to an event this morning and the police officer told me when I get home I need to remove this hanging from my car to avoid the $100 fine and the demerit point,” she said in her TikTok video, which has since had nearly 2 million views. “Doesn’t everyone have one of these hanging from their car? Where is it supposed to go?” Thousands of people flocked to the comments on the video to share their surprise over the obscure road rule, with one person writing, “The way my jaw dropped when you showed what it was cause I bought the exact same thing not too long ago.” Another added, “That’s crazy, I have like four air fresheners and two crystal chains hanging from my car.” The rule, which varies between states, can carry fines and possibly the loss of demerit points, if a police officer deems that the driver’s vision is obstructed from whatever is hanging from the mirror. In NSW, drivers without a clear view of the road can be fined $410 fine and have three demerit points issued. In other Aussie states, the fine for obstructed vision can range between $100 and $361. Image credits: Shutterstock

Money & Banking

10 rules every good house guest follows

You've been invited to stay in somebody else's house. You're instantly told "make yourself at home!" But you can't really, can you? Here's the unsaid rules of being a houseguest you just can't break. 1. Not arriving on time Always provide your itinerary to your host before you arrive. If your flight or train is delayed, give them real-time updates. Google Map your journey in advance so you know exactly how to get to their house. It's awfully inconvenient as a host to be waiting to give a guest keys, but have them arrive two hours late because of an excuse like "I got lost". 2. Turning up empty handed You don't need to bring much, but when staying at someone's house you need to arrive with a token of appreciation. A bottle of wine, some chocolates, or a kitsch little jar of jam you made. Turning up empty handed is expected by the host, but all good houseguests know a small gift is the right way to kick things off. 3. Keeping your shoes on Perhaps you live in a shoes-on house when you're at home, but unless told so, you should never keep them on when staying at another's. Especially if you only see your host walking around bare foot, or in socks/slippers. Houseguests bring in extra dirt, fluff, and marks – the most conscious you can be of that, the better. 4. Turning down food When you're staying in somebody else's home, you must eat what you are served. Hosts go to a lot of effort to make you feel welcome and cooking for you is a big part of that. If you have any dietary requirements, say so before you arrive and offer to bring a bag of shopping. Your host will probably refuse, but you've laid the groundwork for happy mealtimes for the duration of your stay. 5. Not cleaning up Picture this: you're staying with a friend, and they're at work all day while you mooch around their house. The dishwasher is full but you don't know where anything goes in the cupboards. You pile your dirties in the sink, and your friend comes home to find them. Cue instant aggression that will forever remain unspoken. Avoid being a bad guest by cleaning up when you're a houseguest – even if you put things back in the wrong place. 6. Not asking to use laundry facilities One of the most difficult things about travelling is getting your laundry done. When a washing machine and dryer become available, it's natural to want to jump on them. But you must ask your host first. They will always say yes – everybody understands what it's like to have to wear inside-out underwear when you've had no laundry facilities for a week – but it's just polite to ask. 7. Asking your host to quiet down When staying in somebody else's house, there's a high chance of noises you're not used to. That could mean your host watching TV at midnight when you've got to be up early, or them talking loudly on the phone at 6AM while you're asleep. But you can't say anything about it. If you are noise-sensitive, always bring quality earplugs. 8. Bringing lovers home We get it, maybe you're in an exciting new city and the options for a little sexy time are pinging at your phone every few minutes. But you cannot, under any circumstances, invite a new lover over to somebody's house when you're staying there. Even if you have their house to yourself, it's just a breach of respect. If you want to hook up, go to their place. 9. Leaving the bed unmade Hosts generally accept there'll be some clean-up after you're gone. But don't leave the guest bed unmade, or your dirty sheets on it. Strip them off on your final morning, and either fold them nicely, or put them in the washing machine (this is one situation where you don't need their permission to use their laundry). Remake the bed with or without clean sheets if possible. 10. Not saying thank you It doesn't have to be a formal written letter (though that would be nice, wouldn't it). But you must thank your hosts after you leave with a note, an e-mail, or even a text. It's something so easy to forget to do once you're gone, but ensures the host feels their hospitality has been appreciated. And if you've not broken any of the other rules, you'll definitely get invited back. Image credits: Shutterstock Written by Lee Suckling. First appeared on <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Stuff.co.nz</a>.

Home & Garden

"It's just not OK": Parking inspectors under fire for fining innocent drivers

Melbourne drivers are being hit with parking fines despite not doing anything wrong, raising questions about the legitimacy of the infringement notices. Emma Hodgkinson from Essendon told 9News that she was fined for supposedly overstaying in a two-hour parking zone. "I was furious, it's just not OK" she told the publication. Hodkinson had only left her house 40 minutes prior to the time stamp on the fine, and used CCTV footage from her home to prove it. "When I saw the timecode on the footage and I compared it to the time on the ticket I realised I hadn't done anything wrong and it was their mistake," she said. Many other drivers have had similar experiences, with one man from Richmond saying he received a $99 penalty earlier this month, despite having almost an hour left on his Pay Stay app. Another driver was fined by Stonnington Council who said he had parked for more than two hours even though he'd only been there for about 20 minutes. In most of these examples, many other cars in the same area had also been fined. "I was able to prove I was innocent but how are [the other drivers] going to be able to prove that?" Hodgkinson said. Council Watch representative Dean Hurlston said the reason why innocent drivers are being fined could be because council parking inspectors have to hit their quotas. "We know the job of a parking inspector is well paid for good reason," he told 9News. "They definitely have quotas. Councils need money, they're cash strapped. This is a way to gouge and raise revenue." If you've been unfairly fined, it is important to collect as much evidence as possible, including photos and screenshots. Image: Nine News

Legal

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Aussies reminded to look out for this lifesaving roadside marker

First driver fined under new road rules

"About time": Coles bold parking move sparks debate

"Two strikes and you're out": Crackdown on dodgy taxi drivers

Mum appeals "incorrect" $410 seatbelt fine

Major driver's licence change for Victorian drivers

Driver fined $544 for little known road act

Dashcam footage captures wild brawl on busy Queensland road

"Rot in hell": Family of murdered paramedic speak out over ruling

"Unfair": Pauline Hanson's tearful pledge after court ruling

Man's DIY speed camera sign sparks debate

"I’m coming home from a party, and I don’t want to end up getting arrested": do driving apps help people break road rules?

Judge rules against Pauline Hanson

Aussie drivers warned over commonly ignored road rule

Maggie Beer wins top award while on the road to recovery

Could a recent ruling change the game for scam victims? Here’s why the banks will be watching closely

Mother and son reunited after rigid aged care rules divided them

The surprising unknown road rule that is costing drivers

10 rules every good house guest follows

"It's just not OK": Parking inspectors under fire for fining innocent drivers

Our Partners