TIFU: Doing a log run, past a speed camera...

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by Gangplank

The burden of proof is on then to prove that you were driving the vehicle at the time. If they have a picture, fine, but make them prove it or pay it.

You don't get it. The laws are already on the books. YOU have the burden of proof that you were not the driver. If someone was in possession of your car and was the one caught speeding, it is on YOU to provide that person's information to the courts/authorities. The laws are written where the registered owner is responsible for any automated tickets generated. Unless you can prove that someone stole your tags. You have no case.

The same principle applies if you loan your car out to someone. They get into a bad wreck which was their fault. Guess who is going to be at the receiving end of that lawsuit. And it's not the driver.

[xQx]

Originally Posted by Gangplank

The burden of proof is on then to prove that you were driving the vehicle at the time. If they have a picture, fine, but make them prove it or pay it.

I can't speak for your local laws, but I can speak about Australian laws.

The burden of proof is on the owner of the car to identify the person driving at the time. If they can't, the owner of the car is legally assumed to be driving, and is personally responsible for the fine.

In Australia, if you're found doing 25kph over the limit, you (or the owner of the car) pay a nasty fine and instantly loose your licence for a month. Again, they have absolutely no requirement to attempt to find out who was driving.

If the car is owned by a company, the company can say that they don't know who was driving... when that happens the company is fined between $3,000 and $17,000; and in some jurisdictions the company car is de-registered (ie. not allowed to be driven by anyone) for six months.

(Edit: I can't find anything to support the whole 'de-registered' statement, i know for sure that used to be the case, but there's a chance it's now just been replaced by a $17,000 fine nationwide. There's a strong push in Australia to make road rules "homogeneous" nationwide, even though the laws are determined by the state; anyway, the point is I can't speak for your local laws, but I can say it's not unusual for the burden of proof to be reversed for traffic offences. )

[low135]

Originally Posted by Esteban

Or...

this

[Esteban]

Originally Posted by low135

this

Haha, yeah, that's one definition. I think I like the other one mentioned here as well (fight the power), better. Though some might say the definitions are similar. lol

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by Esteban

Haha, yeah, that's one definition. I think I like the other one mentioned here as well (fight the power), better. Though some might say the definitions are similar. lol

The nerds will think it means file transfer protocol.

[xQx]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

The nerds will think it means file transfer protocol.

can confirm. I knew it wasn't referring to file transfer protocol in this context, but FTP means only one thing to me. (and it usually precedes ://)

Fight the power?! really?

I think you mean something slightly different, tho similar, it's the title of a Rage Against The Machine song.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by xQx

can confirm. I knew it wasn't referring to file transfer protocol in this context, but FTP means only one thing to me. (and it usually precedes ://)

Fight the power?! really?

I think you mean something slightly different, tho similar, it's the title of a Rage Against The Machine song.

Yep. And usually, there's references to bacon with it...LOL.

[Esteban]

Originally Posted by xQx

can confirm. I knew it wasn't referring to file transfer protocol in this context, but FTP means only one thing to me. (and it usually precedes ://)

Fight the power?! really?

I think you mean something slightly different, tho similar, it's the title of a Rage Against The Machine song.

"Fight the Power" was a Public Enemy song before Rage Against the Machine covered the N.W.A. song, "FTP." And the Isley Brothers came out with their own "Fight the Power" before N.W.A. were saying FTP.

Edit: N.W.A.'s "FTP" was also covered by Bone Thugs-n-Harmony, Dope, and Kottonmouth Kings.

[Gangplank]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

You don't get it. The laws are already on the books. YOU have the burden of proof that you were not the driver. If someone was in possession of your car and was the one caught speeding, it is on YOU to provide that person's information to the courts/authorities. The laws are written where the registered owner is responsible for any automated tickets generated. Unless you can prove that someone stole your tags. You have no case.

The same principle applies if you loan your car out to someone. They get into a bad wreck which was their fault. Guess who is going to be at the receiving end of that lawsuit. And it's not the driver.

No, I get it. What I'm saying is if It was me I'd show up and demand the state to prove their case, or just pay the ticket.

Honestly I get the laws are written the way you describe but the state can't shirk it's duty of due process. They bear the burden to prove their case. That said it's probably not worth the trouble so I'd just pay it unless there were points attached.

Oh and no Speeding Cameras here in FL. We do have redlight cameras EVERYWHERE and driving and talking on your phone is still allowed which is crazy!

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by Gangplank

No, I get it. What I'm saying is if It was me I'd show up and demand the state to prove their case, or just pay the ticket.

Honestly I get the laws are written the way you describe but the state can't shirk it's duty of due process. They bear the burden to prove their case. That said it's probably not worth the trouble so I'd just pay it unless there were points attached.

Oh and no Speeding Cameras here in FL. We do have redlight cameras EVERYWHERE and driving and talking on your phone is still allowed which is crazy!

Yes, you can go to court. But then you're just making the situation worse because you'll now have court costs on top of just paying the fine. Unless the fine is usury, which there has been law suits over, you're really wasting time and more money. The premise is as I indicated. Ultimately you as the registered owner of the vehicle is responsible for what happens with the operation of the vehicle. There is going to be no disputing who the registered owner is when the tag is run through the system. As such, the government has satisfied their burden of proof. It's up to you to name the person who was operating the vehicle if it wasn't you. Or if you don't want to do that, you have the ability to sue in small claims court against said driver.

The same principle applies with auto insurance and liability in a wreck. Even if the driver who isn't you was at fault, the plaintiff is still going to come after you/your insurance.

[Gangplank]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

Yes, you can go to court. But then you're just making the situation worse because you'll now have court costs on top of just paying the fine. Unless the fine is usury, which there has been law suits over, you're really wasting time and more money. The premise is as I indicated. Ultimately you as the registered owner of the vehicle is responsible for what happens with the operation of the vehicle. There is going to be no disputing who the registered owner is when the tag is run through the system. As such, the government has satisfied their burden of proof. It's up to you to name the person who was operating the vehicle if it wasn't you. Or if you don't want to do that, you have the ability to sue in small claims court against said driver.

The same principle applies with auto insurance and liability in a wreck. Even if the driver who isn't you was at fault, the plaintiff is still going to come after you/your insurance.

Actually, whether the insurance follows the car or driver depends on the policy, insurance type & exclusions.

Most people don't think about it when they loan someone their car, but your friends liability coverage may or may not cover your car if he/she is driving it. In fact, you can require your friend to add your car that they are driving to their policy or add what is called non-owned/hired auto coverage. It just takes a call to their agent. By most people don't know or bother to find out.

https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/n.../05/249762.htm

And I'm sure glad I live in a state without speeding cameras.

[Gangplank]

I had to look up the meaning of TIFU. Lol!! Feeling old..er..

[chris_flies]

Trade-offs of living in VA; no speed cameras and impossible trap situations like MD and DC, but no radar detectors to save you if you aren't paying attention.

[Thunderguts]

Originally Posted by chris_flies

Trade-offs of living in VA; no speed cameras and impossible trap situations like MD and DC, but no radar detectors to save you if you aren't paying attention.

I've often wondered how they enforce this. You could say that you hit the brakes when you saw the cop or just say that the car in front of you did so you did too. Do they impound your car to look for hidden radar equipment? Hell, everyone on the highway seems to brake for no reason now anyway so it hardly proves you have a radar detector.

[JimVonBaden]

Originally Posted by chris_flies

Trade-offs of living in VA; no speed cameras and impossible trap situations like MD and DC, but no radar detectors to save you if you aren't paying attention.

Actually, it is a minor fine to have them, and they can no longer confiscate them. More, it is a secondary offense, so they have to get you for something else before they can get you for the radar detector.

[Matticus91]

Originally Posted by Thunderguts

I've often wondered how they enforce this. You could say that you hit the brakes when you saw the cop or just say that the car in front of you did so you did too. Do they impound your car to look for hidden radar equipment? Hell, everyone on the highway seems to brake for no reason now anyway so it hardly proves you have a radar detector.

They have Radar Detector Dectectors, not kidding. And they are crazy accurate. It's a little box they point at traffic and it can pick up the signal from your detector. The beam from it is pretty narrow so if they get a "hit" they just aim it back at the cars to determine which set it off. That's enough for them to immediately have "probable cause" to search your car for a detector. Once they find it they take the serial number down and if you're caught again with that SR in the state you're in big trouble, assuming they even let you off the hook the first time.

[Gangplank]

Originally Posted by Matticus91

They have Radar Detector Dectectors, not kidding. And they are crazy accurate. It's a little box they point at traffic and it can pick up the signal from your detector. The beam from it is pretty narrow so if they get a "hit" they just aim it back at the cars to determine which set it off. That's enough for them to immediately have "probable cause" to search your car for a detector. Once they find it they take the serial number down and if you're caught again with that SR in the state you're in big trouble, assuming they even let you off the hook the first time.

I guess now we need radar detector detector detectors?

[xQx]

Originally Posted by Gangplank

I guess now we need radar detector detector detectors?

Not really. If a car has a radar, just assume it has a radar detector. If radar detectors were common enough that police got a return on investment installing radar detector detectors, they'd be in every car.

In Australia I think they're pretty much standard in states that have radar detector laws - But in reality, cops don't need radar detector detectors.

90% of people with radar detectors have cheap shitty units that plug in the cigarette lighter. If a cop sees you fumbling around trying to hide shit in the cabin while they pull you over, they're going to search the car for a radar detector (or drugs or whatever it was that you wanted to hide).

But the other radar detector cops use is simple ... if they see you come over a hill at speed, then see you instantly hit the anchors when they pull the trigger on their radar; they're going to pull you over and say they detected a detector.

If they've got lazer and hit you and get no read, then hit a couple of cars around you and get a good read, then hit you again and get no read - you're going to get pulled over and searched for a lazer jammer.

[Gangplank]

Originally Posted by xQx

Not really. If a car has a radar, just assume it has a radar detector. If radar detectors were common enough that police got a return on investment installing radar detector detectors, they'd be in every car.

In Australia I think they're pretty much standard in states that have radar detector laws - But in reality, cops don't need radar detector detectors.

90% of people with radar detectors have cheap shitty units that plug in the cigarette lighter. If a cop sees you fumbling around trying to hide shit in the cabin while they pull you over, they're going to search the car for a radar detector (or drugs or whatever it was that you wanted to hide).

But the other radar detector cops use is simple ... if they see you come over a hill at speed, then see you instantly hit the anchors when they pull the trigger on their radar; they're going to pull you over and say they detected a detector.

If they've got lazer and hit you and get no read, then hit a couple of cars around you and get a good read, then hit you again and get no read - you're going to get pulled over and searched for a lazer jammer.

Sorry, I forgot to turn on the sarcasm font.

[Matticus91]

I don't want to jinx anything but so far, no scary looking local-gov letters in the mail lol

[Esteban]

Originally Posted by Matticus91

I don't want to jinx anything but so far, no scary looking local-gov letters in the mail lol

Hopefully, good luck will be on your side. Will send some of my Irish luck your way to help.