logo
Little-known road rule landing Aussies $2k fines

Little-known road rule landing Aussies $2k fines

News.com.au04-06-2025
Aussie motorists have been warned of one seemingly minor driving habit that could cost them thousands of dollars in fines.
Significant penalties apply to those who flout the lesser-known road rule of leaving your car unlocked or your windows down after parking.
However, there is one group of motorists exempt from the rules concerning unlocked doors and window security.
In most states, there's a '3-metre rule' that dictates how far you can stray from your parked car without locking it. Essentially, if you move more than 3m away, you must lock your vehicle and secure the windows. Failure to do so could result in a fine.
And let's be honest; almost everyone's been guilty of leaving their car unsecured while going for that quick coffee run or dash into a shop, often without a second thought.
While leaving your car unlocked may seem a harmless oversight, there's a very good reason for the 3m rule.
Improving vehicle security helps prevent car theft and dishonest insurance claims, such as when a vehicle is left unlocked intentionally and a claim is made for an alleged theft.
Astor Legal's principal lawyer Avinash Singh explains: 'The reasoning behind the law is to prevent cars from being stolen and then used in more serious crimes,' he said.
'The use of allegedly stolen vehicles making it difficult for police to track down the offenders.'
Here is everything you need to know about this often-overlooked rule.
New South Wales
In NSW, it is illegal to leave a running car unlocked or with a minor inside while unattended. Additionally, drivers must not leave their vehicle unattended with the windows down unless the gap is two centimetres or less.
The fine is $114, but if the case goes to court, penalties can reach up to $2200.
Queensland
In QLD, it's illegal to leave your car unlocked when unattended. Similarly to NSW, you can't leave your vehicle unattended with the windows down unless there is a gap of five centimetres or less.
The maximum penalty is $3096, with a fine of $2669 if the car is unlocked with the keys inside.
Victoria
In Victoria, it is an offence to leave your vehicle unattended without properly securing it, which includes ensuring all windows are fully closed and the car is locked.
The on-the-spot fine is $117, with court penalties approaching $600.
Western Australia
WA follows similar rules to other states regarding vehicle security: you must ensure the doors and windows are secured when leaving your car unattended. The fine for failing to do so is $50.
However, there's a stipulation that if you're going to pay for parking, you don't need to lock the car and put the windows up.
Tasmania
In Tasmania, it's the law to switch off the car, remove the key from the ignition, and ensure that no minors (under 16) are left in the vehicle when unattended.
The rules also specify that the doors must be locked and the windows secured (defined as closed or open by up to 2 centimetres). The maximum penalty for leaving your car unlocked is just under $200.
Australian Capital Territory
In the ACT, you must secure your car when leaving it unattended, ensuring the windows are closed and the doors are locked. Failure to comply can result in a significant fine: 20 penalty units or $3200.
Where is South Australia?
South Australia is the only state that does not have this law. Regulation 23 of the Road Traffic (Road Rules — Ancillary and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2014 explicitly exempts drivers in South Australia from needing to lock their doors if away from their vehicle.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Former AFL player reportedly tested positive to performance enhancing substance
Former AFL player reportedly tested positive to performance enhancing substance

News.com.au

time5 hours ago

  • News.com.au

Former AFL player reportedly tested positive to performance enhancing substance

A former AFL player reportedly tested positive for a performance-enhancing substance while playing in a lower-level competition following the end of his professional career. The player, who finished his AFL career in 2023, has this year been placed under provisional suspension, per Code Sports. It's understood the player tested positive while playing in a lower-level league last year, and despite having put an end to his professional career by that stage, could still be tested under the AFL's Anti-Doping Code within 12 months of his AFL exit. FOX FOOTY, available on Kayo Sports, is the only place to watch every match of every round in the 2025 Toyota AFL Premiership Season LIVE in 4K, with no ad-breaks during play. New to Kayo? Get your first month for just $1. Limited-time offer. The report elected not to name the player in question. The player's test was undertaken by Sport Integrity Australia; the governing body, formerly known as ASADA, which aims to preserve fairness at all levels of Australian sport. Under the AFL Anti-Doping Code, if a player intentionally takes a prohibited substance to gain an advantage, they are subject to a maximum ban of four years. Local leagues, including the state competitions, are held to the same rules. In late 2024, ex-Melbourne player Joel Smith was suspended four years by SIA for cocaine use and trafficking after turning up a positive result on a matchday test in August 2023. But unlike Smith's circumstances, Niall reports the unnamed player in question's alleged breach was 'for a substance that is banned both in and outside the competition'. He noted also that positive results for performance-enhancing drugs were 'extremely rare' in the AFL, as cases of positive tests for illicit substances are more common. Then-Collingwood players Josh Thomas and Lachie Keeffe copped two-year bans in 2015 after testing positive for performance-enhancing drugs. The 'Essendon 34' that were banned for the 2016 season after four years' worth of investigation did not return positive tests for a banned substance but rather were suspended on circumstantial evidence they were administered with a banned substance.

Court's stunning apology to South Australian MP over blackmail charges
Court's stunning apology to South Australian MP over blackmail charges

News.com.au

time6 hours ago

  • News.com.au

Court's stunning apology to South Australian MP over blackmail charges

A South Australian court has apologised for a system error which logged a guilty finding against an ex-MP who was accused of blackmailing Premier Peter Malinauskas. Annabel Digance is suing Mr Malinauskas for damages, claiming he orchestrated a 'malicious prosecution' against her to further his own political ambitions and crush a parliamentary inquiry into alleged bullying in the Labor Party. During a hearing in the South Australian Supreme Court in late July, Justice Graham Dart told the court that Ms Digance and her husband Greg had been found guilty of blackmailing Mr Malinauskas. The court was told their charges were later dropped, according to court records. Ms Digance and her husband Greg were charged with blackmailing Mr Malinauskas in 2021. The SA Courts Administration Authority (CAA) said in a statement on Tuesday that neither Ms or Mr Digance had been found guilty. The court said that in April 2023 a nolle prosequi order was made, meaning the prosecution was abandoned. 'There were no orders made which involved a finding of guilt against either of the defendants,' the court said in a statement. The court said that a document which stated that a finding of guilt had been made was 'generated in error and is incorrect'. 'The CAA unreservedly apologises to the parties for this error,' the court said in a statement. 'The CAA will review all court matters with orders made in the same circumstances to ensure that court records are accurate. 'The CAA will also commission an external assurance review into this matter.' In Ms Digance's statement of claim in her civil lawsuit, she argued that her arrest and prosecution caused 'injury, loss, damage and harm' and that Mr Malinauskas conspired with the SA Police to pursue her. She is suing both the premier and the State of South Australia and is seeking $2.3m in damages. The matter is scheduled to return to court in September.

Cop's courtroom grope dismissed as ‘joke'
Cop's courtroom grope dismissed as ‘joke'

News.com.au

time7 hours ago

  • News.com.au

Cop's courtroom grope dismissed as ‘joke'

EXCLUSIVE A police prosecutor who was found to have harassed a female court officer while working inside a courtroom has been cleared of all charges, on the basis that the act could have been 'a joke'. SA Police officer Greg Hill, 62, was charged with aggravated indecent assault after he was reported for 'tickling' the left buttock of the court officer after she called him into a courtroom in 2022. The woman was working as a court officer, which ensures the smooth running of the court and includes letting lawyers know when they are required in the courtroom. The woman told police she was holding the door open for Mr Hill when he 'touched her left buttock'. She described the touch as 'feeling his fingers move in a tickling movement'. 'It made her angry as he had no permission to touch her,' the court heard. She told police she said to him: 'I wouldn't be doing anything like that to me if I were you' to which Mr Hill 'stepped back and laughed'. She then said: 'I'm serious, I'll have you for sexual harassment' before Mr Hill replied: 'I don't know whether to take you seriously or not'. The incident was captured on CCTV and showed that Mr Hill had his fingers 'curled' and that 'movement of his fingers was consistent with a tickling motion'. The magistrate was 'satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt' that Mr Hill 'deliberately tickled [the woman's] left buttock, it could not be proven that he did so for 'sexual gratification or [to] cause sexual humiliation.' The magistrate said that while the 'harassing, unacceptable and disrespectful' act amounted to 'unwanted touching' - the element of indecency could not be proven. 'It was just as likely the action was a joke or ill-conceived gesture,' the magistrate said. 'There was no suggestion of any flirting behaviour by the defendant. The touch was not accompanied by any comment or other behaviour.' He was found not guilty and acquitted of the charge. The matter was put before the SA Supreme Court last week after the Commissioner of Police appealed against the acquittal. Supreme Court Justice Laura Stein dismissed the appeal on Thursday, finding the magistrate did not err in finding a 'failure to establish sexual intention'. 'Regardless of that conclusion, I reiterate the Magistrate's comments that the behaviour was harassing, unacceptable, inappropriate and should not have occurred,' Justice Stein said in her decision.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store