CARR Title


NOTE: If you arrived at this page without seeing a menu, please click on this link - - to open the entire CARR website in a new window.

The author asserts his right to publish this information in the public interest
No responsibility is taken for consequences resulting from using any information contained herein



One of the most ludicrously imbecilic offences is that of leaving a car window open or the car unlocked. The government's reason for this is that leaving car windows open or leaving car doors unlocked make it easier for car thieves to steal vehicles. Of course modern cars are fitted with comprehensive computers that control everything and the doors and ignition are protected by rolling codes that are almost impossible to crack.

The utter stupidity of this law is demonstrated by the fact that convertible cars can be legally parked with their roofs down, leaving the entire interior completely exposed to anybody, but they won't be fined for this. Only owners of cars with fixed roofs who leave their windows down or even partly open to allow ventilation on hot days will be fined. A person can merely reach into the interior of a convertible and unlock the doors, but the convertible owner will never be fined for giving access to the car to anybody who passes by.

One has to wonder why the government has not made it illegal to leave a house door unlocked? Gone are the days where car thieves could merely hot-wire a car's ignition and drive off. These days, modern computer-controlled cars with coded keys that have 16 million rolling codes are nearly impossible to steal. So why is it illegal to leave a car window open, when it's not illegal to leave a house door unlocked?

In any case, if a motorist chooses to leave his car window open or the doors unlocked, then he cannot complain if his car is stolen or make a claim against his insurance. But of course a person with a convertible that is stolen would be able to claim against his insurer, because that is the nature of the vehicle that it has a soft top or it is left open. This law is so unfair and illogical, that it needs to be struck down as soon as possible because it makes no sense whatsoever.


In all states of Australia, it is an offence to not wear a seatbelt while being the driver or passenger in a car. This is yet another manifestation of the Nanny State syndrome, where repressive laws are inflicted on people because a small number of them have been injured or killed because they were not wearing seatbelts. The same goes for motorcycle and bicycle helmets.

But why should this be the business of governments? Is it not a person's responsibility to safeguard himself against injury or death? If he chooses not to wear a seatbelt and is injured or killed, that's his bad luck, but it should be his choice whether he wishes to wear a seatbelt or not. Of course if he was injured in a crash because he was not wearing a seatbelt, his insurer should not have to compensate him in any way.

People should always have the right to self-determination and one of those issues is whether a person wishes to take risks with his own well-being and safety or not. But it should not be up to the Nanny State to protect people from themselves if they are willing to drive without wearing seatbelts. This law should be repealed forthwith.


A report in March 2014 stated that a cyclist was abused by men who opened a taxi door in her path on Collins Street in Melbourne, causing her to crash. She recorded the incident on a video camera mounted on her bicycle. The video clip showed her riding past several cars before the taxi door was flung open and she crashed heavily into it and fell to the ground.

"Do you know what you just did? You just doored me. That's an offence," the cyclist said. She pursued them along Collins Street and they began to berate her. "You ride up the inside of a car thatís stopped at the lights. You are a fool. The way people like you ride around is disgusting," one man said. In February 2015 in Melbourne, Alberto Paulon was killed when he cycled into an opening car door and was thrown under the wheels of a truck.

Victoriaís road rules state that it is an offence, punishable by a fine of more than $350, to cause a hazard to a person or vehicle by opening a car door. Victorian Greens leader Greg Barber said that the State Government should consider his plan to introduce demerit points for "dooring".

For years, cyclists have been pushing for a law to make cars remain at least one metre from them when overtaking. But they seem to think that it is all right to ride their bikes within centimetres of cars and then they complain if somebody opens a car door and they run into it. Those idiots even invented a new word - "dooring" - for this sort of incident. But their hypocrisy is enormous, because for cyclists, it's always a one-way street. They want to do whatever enters their heads, riding in-between cars, passing them within a hair's breadth and expect motorists to keep clear of them in every way.

There's a very simple solution for cyclists that do not want to run the risk of being "doored" and that is for them to apply the same standards and rules that they have been demanding from motorists for many years. Cyclists should always ride at least one metre from cars at all times. Cyclists should not be permitted to ride between cars. Cyclists who overtake cars should keep at least one metre away from them. Then they won't get "doored" and they will have nothing to bleat about.

The Victorian government should repeal that stupid law about imposing a fine for allegedly causing a hazard to a person or vehicle by opening a car door. Even a complete imbecile knows that a car door can be opened at any moment without warning, so if they stay at least one metre from cars when driving or even walking by them, then there's no problem. Making motorists responsible for the negligence of others is a disgrace and this law should be repealed.