In 2025, the false-positive rate for AI seatbelt cameras hit 15.28%: more than one in seven flagged detections was wrong. As NSW goes to market for a system to automate more of the fines process, it is worth asking who carries the cost of those mistakes. The answer, right now, is the driver.
New South Wales has raked in more than $400 million from AI-assisted road cameras since 2021, and this week it went to market with a proposal for a system to automate, verify and adjudicate road incidents, using AI-assisted decision-making and "intelligent alerting."
The government is quick to reassure. Transport Secretary Josh Murray says every seatbelt or phone image likely to show an offence is still reviewed by trained staff before a fine is issued, and "this process will not change." Fair enough. But look at the number those humans are there to catch.
In 2025, the false-positive rate for phone-detection cameras was 3.74%. For seatbelt cameras, it was 15.28%: more than one in seven flagged detections was wrong. The AI is roughly four times worse at seatbelts than at phones, which makes sense. A dark belt against dark clothing, a sash shifting as someone reaches for a child, a passenger mistaken for the driver: these are exactly the split-second, low-contrast moments a camera reads badly.
Australia's AI cameras capture about 130 million images a year. The AI discards most of them and forwards only what it thinks shows an offence to a human reviewer. And here's the catch that matters: the 15.28% seatbelt false-positive rate is measured at that review stage. It's the errors the humans caught. It says nothing about the ones a reviewer missed, which don't get overturned; they get mailed out as fines. Then comes the quiet part: most people just pay. So the only wrongful seatbelt fines ever corrected are the share caught at review, plus the stubborn few who fight all the way to court. Every other error simply sticks: invisible, uncounted, and worn by a driver who did nothing wrong.
And from where we sit, we doubt 15% is even the whole story. The fines drivers describe to us are often plainly absurd, the kind a careful human review should never have passed: a parent who turned for a second to hand a child something in the back seat, belted the entire trip, fined anyway. If those are the ones that reach us, how many more are quietly paid without a word?
As the NRMA's Peter Khoury put it: "if you get a fine you need to prove yourself innocent, so it is critical that there is a human element, because we know that the technology can make mistakes." That's the quiet scandal. The burden is reversed: the camera accuses, and you have to disprove it. But the system isn't built to let you. Lodge a review with a genuine, well-founded case and, more often than not, you get a standard, copy-paste "no," as if no one truly looked. The only avenue left is court: months of waiting, real stress and cost, and only then, in front of a magistrate who finally examines the image, does the fine get thrown out. Vindication, eventually, after the process has been made as slow and draining as possible. A camera wrong one time in seven, a reversed burden, and a review that rubber-stamps "no" is not a fair deal for the driver. Closing exactly that gap, helping an ordinary person actually meet a burden the system dropped on their shoulders, is why Fight My Fine exists.
So don't just pay, and don't just fire off a hopeful note that gets waved away. If a seatbelt fine caught a moment that wasn't the offence, put a proper case forward, the one a reviewer can't as easily dismiss. The review is free and won't increase your fine, and the image, wrong one time in seven, often can't prove what the camera claims.
Not as accurate as many assume. In 2025 the seatbelt camera false-positive rate was 15.28%, more than one in seven flagged detections was wrong, and roughly four times the 3.74% rate for phone cameras. A dark belt against dark clothing, a sash shifting as someone reaches for a child, or a passenger mistaken for the driver are exactly the split-second, low-contrast moments a camera reads badly.
Yes. You can ask the issuing authority for a review, for free, and it does not increase the fine. The case rests on a single image, and a single image often cannot prove the belt was not worn. Common grounds include: the belt was worn but blended into clothing or was behind your arm, the fine relates to a passenger rather than the driver, a recognised medical exemption, the wrong vehicle, or an image too unclear to establish the offence.
No. Requesting an internal review with the issuing authority is free in every Australian state and does not increase the fine. If the review is declined you still owe the original amount, and you can consider whether to take it further.
Because the image frequently cannot establish that the belt was not being worn. With a false-positive rate above 15%, many detections are wrong from the outset. The catch is that most people simply pay, so most errors are never corrected, only the share caught at human review or challenged by the driver.
Fined because a passenger's seatbelt looked off in a camera image? A free, printable one-pager: who's actually responsible, what to check on the image, the grounds that work, the evidence to gather, and how to lodge a free review. Pop in your email and it's yours.
Source: Sky News: $400m in AI-camera penalties; NSW eyes automated fines (false-positive rates 3.74% phone / 15.28% seatbelt; 130 million images; Murray and Khoury quotes).
Fight My Fine is a self-help tool, not a law firm, and this article is general information, not legal advice. You are the author and sender of every letter, and the issuing authority makes the final decision on any review. For serious matters or court, speak with a qualified lawyer or a free service such as your state's Legal Aid or community legal centre.