On a comical note, my buddy recieved a photo ticket in the mail. It was his mechanic driving the car, at 2am, on his way back from the casino. Talk about busted!
My buddy just about killed him.
I think a lot people in this thread are confusing what is legal and what is politically possible. In many places, the government could legally enforce speed limits through some sort of automated camera system. That is a separate issue from whether or not the voters are willing to let the government actually do that.
Apology accepted. No worries.
I understand your point, but it’s kind of like offering an alibi. It’s not enough that you say you weren’t there; you have to explain where you were. In these cases, it’s not enough to say that you weren’t driving the car; you have to say who was. You have no lawful right to not incriminate someone else. If you don’t know, you can certainly say so, but the court just might not believe you.
As for fooling the cameras… I love this story: http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/09/valley_monkey_has_37_unpaid_ph.php
I’m not sure that analogy holds. The second part should read : “In these cases, it’s not enough to say that you weren’t driving the car; you have to explain where you were when the photo was taken.”
Why should I have to prove who was driving the car as long as I can prove it wasn’t me? I don’t have to prove who murdered X as long as I can offer a solid alibi, that’s the job of the police.
Understood, but the traffic offender, whoever it may be, was driving your car. In the great majority of such cases, no one is better able to know who was driving your car than you.
Nevertheless, it should have no bearing on the question of *my *guilt or innocence. I suppose it would be considered not cooperating with police, which as far as I know is perfectly legal.
But the real question is whether proving I was somewhere else actually works in the real world. In your experience, does it?
The state has imposed a legal requirement that you say who was driving your car if you weren’t. I believe the state is within its rights to do so. For that matter, I think the state would be within its rights to require you, by law, to say who else committed a murder for which you were charged, if you knew. It just so happens that that extra step hasn’t been taken in any jurisdiction of which I’m aware… but I can’t think of any reason why it couldn’t (subject to privilege, of course).
Although Hollywood loves them, alibi defenses are pretty rare IRL. I can’t recall a single one offered, let alone which successfully led to an acquittal, in my six years as a prosecutor and now more than eight as a magistrate.
It works sort of the same in Australia, which was the last (and only) place where i’ve been caught by a speed camera.
I was driving my girlfriend’s car one day, on a main road with a 70km/h (about 40mph) speed limit. Eveyone on that road does at least 80km/h most of the time, and that’s about what i was doing.
Anyway, a week or so later, my girlfriend got a ticket in the mail. We sent in a statutory declaration saying that it was me, not her, who was driving the car. The happy conclusion to this story, though, was that, a few weeks later, we got another notice in the mail saying that the ticket had been canceled due to a problem with the image from the speed camera. This also gave me some confidence that the system was working fairly, and that technical problems with the camera were taken seriously if they raised doubts about the fairness of the ticket.
Here’s what the New South Wales government (pdf) has to say about the situation of someone else driving the car:
Elendil’s heir noted:
In New South Wales, the burden on the registered owner is even greater. Not only are you obliged to say who was driving your car, but if you don’t, then the registered owner is responsible not only for the fine, but will also receive demerit points on his or her license. So the guy from Arizona in Elendil’s Heir’s link would be responsible for those tickets, despite the monkey mask. Furthermore, if someone else was driving, and you don’t identify them in a timely manner:
Personally, i think that all this is a pretty fair system. If you don’t want to be responsible for the shitty driving of other people, don’t lend your car to people that you don’t trust. I can’t think of a single friend or family member who would borrow my car and then stick me with the consequences of a speeding or a red light ticket. If you know someone who would do that, you’re an idiot for letting them drive your car in the first place.
How do you confront your accuser?
What happens when traveling at the speed limit or under is unsafe for the conditions of the road?
So what if you list someone and they dispute the claim? Better yet, scan the obituaries for people to blame. (“Yep, my dear departed 93-year-old neighbour borrowed the car”) If it’s a communal car, how the heck would you know who drove it 3 weeks ago once the notice arrives? It relies on the fact that in 99% of cases, the options are 1 or 2 other people. And also on the fact that license plate counterfeiting is -so far - rare.
Legally, it rests on the same basis as the TSA’s optional searches. If you don’t want to identifiy yourself with your government papers and be frisked, you can walk across the USA instead of flying. If you don’t want to identify the driver, get rid of your car and take the bus everywhere. Having agreed to license a car, you agree to these terms. It describes and what’s almost a necessity in modern life as a freedom of choice option. Yes, driving is a privilege; but so is clean air and water nowadays.
I’m curious what happens to out-of-state drivers who have NOT consented to this arrangement as part of their licensing.
the article is funny - they “observed him putting on the monkey mask before the speed zone” but did not apprehend him wearing a that mask while driving? Pretty stupid. If you want the case to stick, let’s see some evidence that should be so easy to obtain that a monkey in a patrol car could do it. Also- the monkey man’s a moron too, if he drives a car so covered with identifiable decals that it can only be his car…
Not correct.
People can be legally compelled to testify – issuing a subpoena to a witness has been a part of our legal system for several hundred years. It’s the same principal being used here.
If you are married, the judge takes a dim view of people who attempt to pervert justice, and fines you both with points. If you nominate an uncontactable (i.e. non-existant) overseas visitor, you will probably be expected to produce proof of insurance cover for said visitor and if you can’t, you may be charged with allowing an uninsured driver the use of your car (which can get your car confiscated).
Si
Just one comment …
Selling computers to the government is like selling guns to the Indians. Just Don’t. We’ll all live to regret automated and practically indisputable law enforcement.
Not really, because:
Which actually worsens the problem. Maybe if you had the camera mounted on an unmarked moving vehicle that you park in a different spot everyday. But then that’s a money making scheme, not a way to get people to reduce their speed.
This has been covered already such as here:
but I just wanted to offer than in Venezuela you are responsible for your car. If someone kills someone else on your car, you are on the hook until you clear it up. If you cannot, then you are it. It makes sense, really. It is your car and you should know who is using it and for what. A car is a serious thing.
Anyways, good to see that the system is actually being used somewhere (England, so far IIRC). It does strike me as something that makes a lot of sense. Another extra point for seeing that it is against the law in at least one state on the US. This is the kind of thing that I know would get many people on edge both for the privacy bit and the “prove it was me and it is real” angle.
As has also been covered, the main problem I see for the privacy concerned is that it does gather data on the doings of guiltless citizens. It would take some serious reassurance that the data on non-infractors is being discarded and that the system is not capable of being used to locate someone.
Does anyone in England (where the system is used) know what’s happening to the data? Is it being stored somewhere? for how long? who can obtain that data and for what reasons?
That’s cooperating with the DA, not the police. Testifying and talking to the cops are two different things.
The point being - nobody can be compelled to tell the police eevrything they know as a fishing expedition to satisfy the police.
Mind you, if you lie and mislead the police in their investigation, that’s obstructing justice. But you do not have to tell them what you know.
Once a person is charged (based on sufficient evidence) and a trial is set, then you must tell the trial what you know in response to specific questions, that relate ONLY to that charge.
The problem with being always responsible for your car is that sometimes you are not. A case in Ontario in the 1960’s established the responsibility of an owner to pay the massive damages awarded to an accident victim; who was run down by the mechanic driving drunk using the car left overnight at the repair shop. The law said the owner was responsible, but is that real justice? How would you prevent that? The law was changed later, IIRC.
Right.
I’m assuming that “a person” and “you” are two different people.