5 ms·

That's just it -- they can't. Better not let someone else drive your car; if it's registered under your name, you're responsible for the fine! EDIT: I stand c

That's just it -- they can't. Better not let someone else drive your car; if it's registered under your name, you're responsible for the fine! EDIT: I stand corrected; apparently, this is not the case in AU, and may not be the case in certain states in the US. That's the last time I don't fact-check my posts... =P

lutorm 14y ago
How does that even nearly meet the "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" criterion? I don't see how that could ever hold up in court.
- viggity 14y ago
  in Iowa, the tickets they issue are civil citations, not criminal citations. Therefore, you have no right to confront your accuser and there is a lower criterion for guilt. Also, if you want to contest it to an administrative judge, it'll cost you an EXTRA $80
  - Wingman4l7 14y ago
    This is the state saying "We value the court's time & resources over actual justice." Anecdata: A coworker once got ticketed for speeding on a highway on-ramp. Upon trying to contest his fine in court using photos of the roads, he was told by the judge that he would be fined an extra $[large sum] for every photo he attempted to show to him.
- Wingman4l7 14y ago
  Therein lies the problem. I'm reminded of this "Artifact From The Future" from Wired Magazine's "Found" feature in their Feb. 2007 issue -- a speeding ticket in 2054: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.02/images/found.jpg http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.02/images/found.jpg Very prescient, IMO.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
jack-r-abbit 14y ago
I believe with the red light cameras, the driver needs to be clearly visible for a ticket to get issued. I would imagine that any such camera-based system would need to be like this. I've heard of a stretch of toll road in FL that you actually go through toll booths and are issued an entry ticket that you give on your way out. If the entry and exit times equate to you speeding, the driver is issued a ticket. That solves the identification problem.
- Wingman4l7 14y ago
  Is there a documented case of anyone successfully disputing a red-light camera ticket based on this? I've been on one of those toll roads myself, and I don't think it was in FL (somewhere in New England maybe?), so other states probably do that too.
  - tomflack 14y ago
    There is for automatic speed cameras in Australia. I'm constantly bemused by questions that pop up around this subject in the States. It's largely a solved problem here?
tomflack 14y ago
I'm guessing it'll be exactly the same in the states as it is in Australia. On the speeding fine you receive in the mail, you indicate that you were not driving at the time and nominate who was. This is a legal declaration. Now you'd think it's a slam-dunk to just lie and get out of fines this way, however a huge number of people including a Supreme Court judge have been caught lying, and in the case of the judge jailed for then .[1] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Einfeld http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Einfeld
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- brc 14y ago
  It is in Australia. The regular speed cameras (radar+photo) are high res and clearly show the driver - very difficult to argue you weren't driving the car.
  - michaelcampbell 14y ago
    My question is a bit rhetorical, and ridiculous, but I'll ask it anyway - is there any corresponding law in Australia that prohibits one from driving disguised or dressed in such a way that it is impossible to determine who is actually driving?
    - brc 14y ago
      I don't think there would be, because you still have to sign a legal document to say it was you, or nominate the person it was. So even if you had a gorilla suit on, you'd still have to sign it to say who was in the gorilla suit. So I don't think the photo is used as a legal argument - they still have them on at night - but merely to make it crystal clear to the owner of the vehicle who was driving it at the time. Interestingly, there is a loophole whereby a vehicle registered to a company instead of an individual can foregoe the identification of the driver, but they must pay a much higher fine. This is to assist with companies that may own a fleet of vehicles and it's impossible to determine who was driving what car when. It's a loophole people with cash + their own business use so their own licences don't get affected. Not many know about it.

lutorm 14y ago

How does that even nearly meet the "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" criterion? I don't see how that could ever hold up in court.

viggity 14y ago
in Iowa, the tickets they issue are civil citations, not criminal citations. Therefore, you have no right to confront your accuser and there is a lower criterion for guilt. Also, if you want to contest it to an administrative judge, it'll cost you an EXTRA $80
- Wingman4l7 14y ago
  This is the state saying "We value the court's time & resources over actual justice." Anecdata: A coworker once got ticketed for speeding on a highway on-ramp. Upon trying to contest his fine in court using photos of the roads, he was told by the judge that he would be fined an extra $[large sum] for every photo he attempted to show to him.
Wingman4l7 14y ago
Therein lies the problem. I'm reminded of this "Artifact From The Future" from Wired Magazine's "Found" feature in their Feb. 2007 issue -- a speeding ticket in 2054: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.02/images/found.jpg http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.02/images/found.jpg Very prescient, IMO.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

jack-r-abbit 14y ago

I believe with the red light cameras, the driver needs to be clearly visible for a ticket to get issued. I would imagine that any such camera-based system would need to be like this. I've heard of a stretch of toll road in FL that you actually go through toll booths and are issued an entry ticket that you give on your way out. If the entry and exit times equate to you speeding, the driver is issued a ticket. That solves the identification problem.

Wingman4l7 14y ago
Is there a documented case of anyone successfully disputing a red-light camera ticket based on this? I've been on one of those toll roads myself, and I don't think it was in FL (somewhere in New England maybe?), so other states probably do that too.
- tomflack 14y ago
  There is for automatic speed cameras in Australia. I'm constantly bemused by questions that pop up around this subject in the States. It's largely a solved problem here?

tomflack 14y ago

I'm guessing it'll be exactly the same in the states as it is in Australia. On the speeding fine you receive in the mail, you indicate that you were not driving at the time and nominate who was. This is a legal declaration. Now you'd think it's a slam-dunk to just lie and get out of fines this way, however a huge number of people including a Supreme Court judge have been caught lying, and in the case of the judge jailed for then .[1] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Einfeld http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Einfeld

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
brc 14y ago
It is in Australia. The regular speed cameras (radar+photo) are high res and clearly show the driver - very difficult to argue you weren't driving the car.
- michaelcampbell 14y ago
  My question is a bit rhetorical, and ridiculous, but I'll ask it anyway - is there any corresponding law in Australia that prohibits one from driving disguised or dressed in such a way that it is impossible to determine who is actually driving?
  - brc 14y ago
    I don't think there would be, because you still have to sign a legal document to say it was you, or nominate the person it was. So even if you had a gorilla suit on, you'd still have to sign it to say who was in the gorilla suit. So I don't think the photo is used as a legal argument - they still have them on at night - but merely to make it crystal clear to the owner of the vehicle who was driving it at the time. Interestingly, there is a loophole whereby a vehicle registered to a company instead of an individual can foregoe the identification of the driver, but they must pay a much higher fine. This is to assist with companies that may own a fleet of vehicles and it's impossible to determine who was driving what car when. It's a loophole people with cash + their own business use so their own licences don't get affected. Not many know about it.