Go Safe Photo of Driver

mylittlepony · 22-09-2014 03:22PM

Is nit there be a date and time on letter of the offence that way you know who was driving at that time on the day.

Cleveland Hot Pocket · 22-09-2014 03:27PM

djimi wrote: »

How do you propose it is dealt with? The registered owner can show that they werent driving, as per the law stated above, and even without that law you cannot punish someone for an offense that they can prove they did not commit.

So their car was caught speeding.
Ok.
They should have to show who was using their car to speed, if it wasnt them.

vibe666 · 22-09-2014 03:33PM

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

So their car was caught speeding.
Ok.
They should have to show who was using their car to speed, if it wasnt them.

until the irish courts switch to the cleveland hot pocket road traffic act, we'll just have to stick with the irish RTA which states that you only have to prove that you weren't driving at the time of the offence, not prove who WAS driving.

by the time a gosafe letter comes through the post, it's likely to have been weeks since the offence and in a vehicle that is driven by several people on any given day, it can be impossible to state with 100% certainty who was driving at any given point in time unless the gardai provide a picture of the drivers face.

Cleveland Hot Pocket · 22-09-2014 03:39PM

vibe666 wrote: »

until the irish courts switch to the cleveland hot pocket road traffic act, we'll just have to stick with the irish RTA which states that you only have to prove that you weren't driving at the time of the offence, not prove who WAS driving.

by the time a gosafe letter comes through the post, it's likely to have been weeks since the offence and in a vehicle that is driven by several people on any given day, it can be impossible to state with 100% certainty who was driving at any given point in time unless the gardai provide a picture of the drivers face.

Little harsh, no?
Surely there should have to be someone nominated to accept the points since an offense was committed.

djimi · 22-09-2014 03:45PM

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

So their car was caught speeding.
Ok.
They should have to show who was using their car to speed, if it wasnt them.

The law as posted above doesnt agree with you.

Cleveland Hot Pocket · 22-09-2014 03:48PM

djimi wrote: »

The law as posted above doesnt agree with you.

Hence why I said should.
Ridiculous that someone can speed in someone else's car, then get away with it because the RO can show he was in a different place.

Think I'll borrow someone else's car and drive at 100mph past a gosafe van now. What a stupid country we live in.

vibe666 · 22-09-2014 03:49PM

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Little harsh, no?
Surely there should have to be someone nominated to accept the points since an offense was committed.

no, not harsh at all.

you can't 'nominate' convict someone randomly of a crime that they may not have committed just because a crime WAS committed by *someone* when there is no concrete evidence that they were the one who committed it, that's not how the justice system works.

Cleveland Hot Pocket · 22-09-2014 03:50PM

vibe666 wrote: »

no, not harsh at all.

you can't 'nominate' convict someone randomly of a crime that they may not have committed just because a crime WAS committed by *someone* when there is no concrete evidence that they were the one who committed it, that's not how the justice system works.

Fine so.
Couldn't be arsed replying to you after your above post. So I'll leave it at that for this thread.

[/exit CHP]

Fred Swanson · 22-09-2014 03:55PM

This post has been deleted.

djimi · 22-09-2014 03:55PM

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Hence why I said should.
Ridiculous that someone can speed in someone else's car, then get away with it because the RO can show he was in a different place.

Think I'll borrow someone else's car and drive at 100mph past a gosafe van now. What a stupid country we live in.

I suppose a basic principle of law is that you cannot be convicted of an offense that you did not commit. Unless you change the law to make it an offense not to know who is driving your car at all times then Im not sure how you get around it really.

vibe666 · 22-09-2014 03:58PM

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Fine so.
Couldn't be arsed replying to you after your above post. So I'll leave it at that for this thread.

[/exit CHP]

AKA: CHP has no argument and can't provide any evidence to the contrary, so does the usual hit and run approach so often favoured by those who don't like having to provide evidence to support their strongly held (but often mistaken) opinions.

CiniO · 22-09-2014 04:01PM

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Fine so.
Couldn't be arsed replying to you after your above post. So I'll leave it at that for this thread.

[/exit CHP]

Uuuhhh...
Looks like vibe666 might end up on Cleveland Hot Pocket's ignore list as well

vibe666 · 22-09-2014 04:03PM

CiniO wrote: »

Uuuhhh...
Looks like vibe666 might end up on Cleveland Hot Pocket's ignore list as well

i always wonder if these people who have long lists of people on "ignore" ever consider the possibility that the problem might be them, not the other way around.

CiniO · 22-09-2014 04:17PM

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Little harsh, no?
Surely there should have to be someone nominated to accept the points since an offense was committed.

Offence was committed, and person who committed it should be punished.
But more important to punish that person, is to make sure you don't punish the wrong person. So it can not be just "someone". It must be the person who committed an offence.
It's better to not punish anyone than punish wrong person.

That's how it works and that's exactly what the law says...

Difference to other countries though is that in Ireland it's automatically presumed that it was registered owner who was driving the car, while in most countries such law could not exist as it's against general rule of presumption of innocence.

So in Ireland vehicle owner must prove it wasn't him speeding, while in other countries it's the authorities which must prove it was him speeding.

PS. Possibly there are other countries with law like Ireland, but I don't think there's many.

Vic_08 · 23-09-2014 01:33AM

CiniO wrote: »

Offence was committed, and person who committed it should be punished.
But more important to punish that person, is to make sure you don't punish the wrong person. So it can not be just "someone". It must be the person who committed an offence.
It's better to not punish anyone than punish wrong person.

That's how it works and that's exactly what the law says...

Difference to other countries though is that in Ireland it's automatically presumed that it was registered owner who was driving the car, while in most countries such law could not exist as it's against general rule of presumption of innocence.

So in Ireland vehicle owner must prove it wasn't him speeding, while in other countries it's the authorities which must prove it was him speeding.

PS. Possibly there are other countries with law like Ireland, but I don't think there's many.

Presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenet of Irish law as is the case in many other counties. Unfortunately disgusting laws such as this which ignore it for the sake of convenience have been allowed to stand unchallenged and all for something as trivial as automated speed detection.

It is a complete disgrace and a frightening precedent which could have terrible consequences if applied to other areas of law but sure we have utter fools such as cleveland hot pocket who come out with such gems as "somebody should be nominated as an offence has been committed". Murders, rapes, assaults and robberies are also committed, in the absence of actual evidence should somebody just be nominated for these too?

corktina · 23-09-2014 08:18AM

Vic_08 wrote: »

Presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenet of Irish law as is the case in many other counties. Unfortunately disgusting laws such as this which ignore it for the sake of convenience have been allowed to stand unchallenged and all for something as trivial as automated speed detection.

It is a complete disgrace and a frightening precedent which could have terrible consequences if applied to other areas of law but sure we have utter fools such as cleveland hot pocket who come out with such gems as "somebody should be nominated as an offence has been committed". Murders, rapes, assaults and robberies are also committed, in the absence of actual evidence should somebody just be nominated for these too?

In fairness, once the actual driver has been "nominated" he is then sent a ticket in lieu of the original and then has the opportunity to say "it wasn't me, " and to prove it (or I imagine nominate someone else). It's not an automatic guilty verdict and sentance

ironclaw · 23-09-2014 08:49AM

Just to point out, if the photo clearly shows its you driving (or someone known to you) then you are snookered regardless. The defense of proving it wasn't you driving is useless if your mug (or someone else's) is in the photo already

I'm not a legal expert but I'd imagine if the court held up a photo and someone's face was on it, the onus would be on you to identify them as they were in your car at the time. Perhaps obstruction of justice if you didn't?

Cleveland Hot Pocket · 23-09-2014 09:01AM

corktina wrote: »

In fairness, once the actual driver has been "nominated" he is then sent a ticket in lieu of the original and then has the opportunity to say "it wasn't me, " and to prove it (or I imagine nominate someone else). It's not an automatic guilty verdict and sentance

ironclaw wrote: »

Just to point out, if the photo clearly shows its you driving (or someone known to you) then you are snookered regardless. The defense of proving it wasn't you driving is useless if your mug (or someone else's) is in the photo already

I'm not a legal expert but I'd imagine if the court held up a photo and someone's face was on it, the onus would be on you to identify them as they were in your car at the time. Perhaps obstruction of justice if you didn't?

Careful now lads, you might be "utter fools such as cleveland hot pocket "
for holding that view

Oral Surgeon · 23-09-2014 09:33AM

I don't see the point in getting ATM receipts etc to prove that you were elsewhere.... Unless you were out of the country or hundreds of miles away it is irrelevant. You have already stated that all 3 of you drove the car that day so all 3 of you were in that general area.

Get the picture...

vibe666 · 23-09-2014 09:35AM

there was a rumour doing the rounds in the UK years ago in the pre-digital times that claimed that the two cameras small holes in the back of the camera were to indicate to the police if the film was used up or not without them having to stop and check.

in a moment of youthful stupidity, myself and some friends decided to test it one day by speeding past one that had these holes covered on our way home from work.

unfortunately, the rumour turned out to be false, but better than that, they sent me an image of the car with the ticket which clearly showed 4 pairs of eyes lit up like cats eyes staring back at the camera to see if it was going to flash or not.

it was a good 15 or so years ago and i've lost the picture long since, but it had pride of place up on the wall at home for a long time.

djimi · 23-09-2014 09:40AM

Oral Surgeon wrote: »

I don't see the point in getting ATM receipts etc to prove that you were elsewhere.... Unless you were out of the country or hundreds of miles away it is irrelevant. You have already stated that all 3 of you drove the car that day so all 3 of you were in that general area.

Get the picture...

In this situation its probably less likely to prove their whereabouts. However, the offense will be time stamped with a location, so even if you can show that you were 20 miles away at the time it casts enough doubt so as to show it wasnt you.

vibe666 · 23-09-2014 10:16AM

djimi wrote: »

In this situation its probably less likely to prove their whereabouts. However, the offense will be time stamped with a location, so even if you can show that you were 20 miles away at the time it casts enough doubt so as to show it wasnt you.

and that (as far as the law is concerned) is all you need. if there is reasonable doubt as to a persons guilt, they cannot be convicted of a crime (any crime), as there is a presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty and the onus is on the accuser to prove that guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

it's kind of a cornerstone of the entire justice system.

of course if the OP's face (or any other identifiable face) is in the picture of the offence, this all becomes moot.

corktina · 23-09-2014 10:41AM

Nah.it's a fixed penalty. You don't have to prove who parked a car to give it a parking ticket, same with this. The only argument is really who was driving to give the points to.The Owner is responsible for allowing his car to be speeding

Cleveland Hot Pocket · 23-09-2014 10:43AM

corktina wrote: »

Nah.it's a fixed penalty. You don't have to prove who parked a car to give it a parking ticket, same with this. The only argument is really who was driving to give the points to.The Owner is responsible for allowing his car to be speeding

I said this and got flamed.
People really have difficulty understanding the difference between a criminal offense like murder or a FPN motoring offense.

djimi · 23-09-2014 10:47AM

corktina wrote: »

Nah.it's a fixed penalty. You don't have to prove who parked a car to give it a parking ticket, same with this. The only argument is really who was driving to give the points to.The Owner is responsible for allowing his car to be speeding

Its not the same as a parking ticket though, is it? A parking ticket is just a fine; a speeding penalty involves points on someones license, and as the law is written if the registered owner can show that they were not driving the car at the time of the offense then they do not get the points applied to their license.

vibe666 · 23-09-2014 10:53AM

corktina wrote: »

Nah.it's a fixed penalty. You don't have to prove who parked a car to give it a parking ticket, same with this. The only argument is really who was driving to give the points to.The Owner is responsible for allowing his car to be speeding

sorry, but this is a bad analogy. you don't get a conviction or points put on your licence for a parking ticket, it's not the same thing at all.

points on a licence and a speeding conviction HAVE to be applied to the person who committed them.

the owner doesn't know if the person using the car is speeding any more than they would know if the car had been used in a bank robbery.

you can't give someone points on their licence for speeding if they aren't the one doing the speeding and i'm utterly baffled that this simple fact seems to be eluding several posters in this thread.

Zubeneschamali · 23-09-2014 11:11AM

vibe666 wrote: »

you can't give someone points on their licence for speeding if they aren't the one doing the speeding and i'm utterly baffled that this simple fact seems to be eluding several posters in this thread.

They know the car was speeding, they have photo evidence. It's your car. So, they have evidence that you were speeding. You may say it isn't conclusive evidence, but it's good enough for a judge, unless you can present evidence to show more conclusively that someone else was driving.

ironclaw · 23-09-2014 11:12AM

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Careful now lads, you might be "utter fools such as cleveland hot pocket "
for holding that view

Well, I assuming the photo has a clearly visible face of yourself, your employee or someone that you should reasonably know. If it doesn't, and you can prove as a registered owner that you were not driving and have a reasonable excuse as to why you shouldn't know, then I don't see why you should be prosecuted. Yes, you should know who is driving your car at all times but I can see the legitimate reasons e.g. I'm out of the country, car is available to the family, no one can remember who was driving due to time elapsed etc. In that case I think its reasonable for the fine to be paid but the points dismissed.

vibe666 · 23-09-2014 01:26PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They know the car was speeding, they have photo evidence. It's your car. So, they have evidence that you were speeding. You may say it isn't conclusive evidence, but it's good enough for a judge, unless you can present evidence to show more conclusively that someone else was driving.

no, they have evidence that your car was speeding. unless they can show who was driving at the time, they have no evidence that YOU were speeding.

unless you can provide some case law to show that a person can be arbitrarily convicted of any motoring offence with no direct evidence linking them specifically to that offence other than their ownership of the vehicle used in the offence, I don't see how you have a valid point.

if several people have regular access to the vehicle and nobody remembers being caught by the camera or who was driving the car at that time on that day, there is no way to reliably convict the person who WAS driving that day without further evidence and a significant chance of a wrongful conviction.

if your car is caught speeding, as the keeper of the vehicle they send you the notification as it is your vehicle and if you WERE Driving, you pay the fine and take the points.

if you WEREN'T driving, they can't give you the points as you didn't commit the offence.

Normally, if you DO know who was driving, you fill out the form that says who WAS driving and they get a letter in the post and the points are issued to them, assuming they do not contest it.

if you DON'T know who was driving and it could have been one of several people (as in this case), photographic evidence is needed to ascertain who IS guilty of the offence, since (despite what several people seem to think) you can't just throw points at someone arbitrarily because you think they *might* be guilty if you can't prove it.

mgbgt1978 · 23-09-2014 01:40PM

Demonical wrote: »

Hi all, I got a fine in the door here for speeding. Only thing is none of us remember passing the van and 3 of us were driving the car on the day in question. I have asked Go Safe for a picture which they sent of the reg plate but had the driver blacked out which obviously didn't help. I am the registered owner of the car so I have to nominate the driver. We would like to know who was actually driving the car when it was speeding, obviously no-one wants anyone elses points. So what can we do? Everyone is insured on the car (before it is mentioned).

ironclaw wrote: »

Just to point out, if the photo clearly shows its you driving (or someone known to you) then you are snookered regardless. The defense of proving it wasn't you driving is useless if your mug (or someone else's) is in the photo already

I'm not a legal expert but I'd imagine if the court held up a photo and someone's face was on it, the onus would be on you to identify them as they were in your car at the time. Perhaps obstruction of justice if you didn't?

Should have read the 1st post Ironclaw........the laziness on here

Go Safe Photo of Driver

Comments