Go Safe Photo of Driver

corktina · 23-09-2014 01:41PM

vibe666 wrote: »

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.

You don't get them either if you are nominated as the driver...it's still put to you that you were speeding and you still have the opportunity to accept that or contest it

knucklehead6 · 23-09-2014 01:43PM

was there not a thread similar to this a while back where it was pointed out that, in the case of a company car, the company secretary is the one who is liable for the points unless he/she can prove the car was being driven by another person?

CiniO · 23-09-2014 01:46PM

vibe666 wrote: »

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.

Well, while obviously Zubeneschamali logic that if your car was speeding proves that you were speeding is not right, but you are not exactly correct with the rest.

Law that we have (which was quoted earlier in this thread), says that "until contrary is shown, vehicle owner is presumed to be driving during offence" pretty much automatically assumes it was vehicle owner who committed offence, and authorities issuing the fine, don't need to prove it to him that he was driving at the time.
It's opposite - if it wasn't him, then he needs to prove it to authorities that it wasn't him.
So unfortunately in that case, if vehicle owner has no proof that he couldn't be driving at that time, then he will be prosecuted no matter if he really was driving or not.

What's not the case though, is what Cleveland hot pockets was saying that someone must be prosecuted no matter what as some must have been speeding.
Vehicle owner is presumed to be driving, but if he can prove otherwise, then he can not be fined for speeding, which he didn't commit. Fact if real driver can be found or not, is irrelevant, as once vehicle owner proves it couldn't have been him, then there is no way he can be prosecuted for something which was just proven he didn't commit.

Zubeneschamali · 23-09-2014 02:01PM

vibe666 wrote: »

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

In magical land where the authorities know all the facts and give a crap, this may be true.

Here in Ireland, they have evidence (I didn't say proof) that you were speeding. That evidence is enough to drag you in front of a judge.

If you say "10 of us have access to the car and no-one remembers who was driving that day, so you can't convict any of us", the judge will say "Watch me: guilty."

Cleveland Hot Pocket · 23-09-2014 02:09PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In magical land where the authorities know all the facts and give a crap, this may be true.

Here in Ireland, they have evidence (I didn't say proof) that you were speeding. That evidence is enough to drag you in front of a judge.

If you say "10 of us have access to the car and no-one remembers who was driving that day, so you can't convict any of us", the judge will say "Watch me: guilty."

Careful, with that amount of logic, you might offend mr Polish Knowitall

djimi · 23-09-2014 02:19PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In magical land where the authorities know all the facts and give a crap, this may be true.

Here in Ireland, they have evidence (I didn't say proof) that you were speeding. That evidence is enough to drag you in front of a judge.

If you say "10 of us have access to the car and no-one remembers who was driving that day, so you can't convict any of us", the judge will say "Watch me: guilty."

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Careful, with that amount of logic, you might offend mr Polish Knowitall

That is not what is being debated here though. Nobody has disputed that if the registered owner cannot prove they werent driving that they will get the points. What people are saying is that if the registered owner can show that they were elsewhere and werent driving then they will not get the points.

vibe666 · 23-09-2014 02:30PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In magical land where the authorities know all the facts and give a crap, this may be true.

Here in Ireland, they have evidence (I didn't say proof) that you were speeding. That evidence is enough to drag you in front of a judge.

If you say "10 of us have access to the car and no-one remembers who was driving that day, so you can't convict any of us", the judge will say "Watch me: guilty."

that's the entire point though, they don't have evidence YOU were speeding, just your car.

would you care to back up any of your theories with evidence of your own? case law, precedence, even a past thread here would do where this has been the case or will we just stick with what the law says?

Zubeneschamali · 23-09-2014 02:43PM

vibe666 wrote: »

that's the entire point though, they don't have evidence YOU were speeding, just your car.

That is evidence that you were speeding!

It isn't proof you were speeding. If you show up in court and prove that you were in New Zealand for a month at the time, and could not have been driving, you will get off.

But if you just show up and say "That isn't proof, and I deny it", you will be convicted. If you say "That could have been anyone, that's reasonable doubt" you will be convicted.

Have a read:

(3) Where, in a case to which section 35 (1)(b) applies, the registered owner of the mechanically propelled vehicle concerned does not give or send in accordance with section 35 (6) the information specified in paragraph (b) of that subsection, then—

(a) in a prosecution of that owner for the alleged offence, which is not a penalty point offence, to which the notice under section 35 (1)(b) relates, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that he or she was driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the alleged offence, or

(b) in a prosecution of that owner or another person for the alleged offence, which is a penalty point offence, to which the notice under section 35 (1)(b) relates, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that—

(i) where the registered owner is an individual, he or she was driving or otherwise using the vehicle, or

(ii) where the registered owner is a body corporate or unincorporated body of persons or has hired out under a hire-drive agreement or leased the vehicle—

(I) the person permitted under an approved policy of insurance or under an agreement, as the case may be, to drive the vehicle was driving or otherwise using the vehicle, or

(II) in the event of being unable to ascertain the identity of that person, the registered owner is deemed to have been driving or otherwise using the vehicle,

at the time of the commission of the alleged offence.

mikeecho · 23-09-2014 02:45PM

I think the OP should fight the ticket in court, and post back here the result.

But..in situations like this where a ticket is disputed, and someone is adament that they will fight it in court, they never ever seem to post updates.. i wonder why that is ?

CiniO · 23-09-2014 02:46PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In magical land where the authorities know all the facts and give a crap, this may be true.

Here in Ireland, they have evidence (I didn't say proof) that you were speeding.

Well, they have evidence that your car was speeding.
It doesn't automatically mean that you were speeding, however law assumes that until proven otherwise.

That evidence is enough to drag you in front of a judge.

If you say "10 of us have access to the car and no-one remembers who was driving that day, so you can't convict any of us", the judge will say "Watch me: guilty."

That's actually true, and it's all due to fact that law assuming that vehicle owner is driving during offence exists here.

But still - if you say in front of the judge "10 of us have access to the car and no-one remembers who was driving that day, but it definitely wasn't me as I was then working in Egypt and can prove that", then judge won't be able to just say "guilty".

Zubeneschamali · 23-09-2014 02:50PM

CiniO wrote: »

it definitely wasn't me as I was then working in Egypt and can prove that", then judge won't be able to just say "guilty".

Assuming you can prove the bit about Egypt to the judges satisfaction, sure.

But that is not the case for the OP: he admits that he drove the car that day.

CiniO · 23-09-2014 02:51PM

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Careful, with that amount of logic, you might offend mr Polish Knowitall

You know what Cleveland Hot Pocket - you are starting to go too far.
All the time on this forum I'm discussing on the subject, not the posters.
If you don't agree with my opinion, present argument against my opinion, no my person. That's the general rule on this forum I though.

It's not the first time when you don't agree with me, and instead of presenting any reasonable argument in discussion, you just keep stating your opinion and insulting me personally.

Your post reported now...

CiniO · 23-09-2014 02:54PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Assuming you can prove the bit about Egypt to the judges satisfaction, sure.

But that is not the case for the OP: he admits that he drove the car that day.

And that's why if he can't prove otherwise that he wasn't driving, or he can not find a person who will accept the blame, then he will be prosecuted for speeding.

BMJD · 23-09-2014 03:15PM

So suppose you leave your car in to be serviced or whatever, and you get a fine in the post; since you have to nominate an actual person as opposed to a business which could have 20+ people who may have committed the alleged offence...are you supposed to march into the garage and demand to know which of the employees drove your car at a certain time 6+ weeks ago? That's horse$hit.

If you can prove that you weren't driving then it's up to GoSafe or whoever is dishing out the fines to do their own detective work. If their photographs can't even show who was driving then I would question whether they are up to the job of deciding who is allowed to drive on our roads.

Zubeneschamali · 23-09-2014 03:24PM

BMJD wrote: »

If you can prove that you weren't driving then it's up to GoSafe or whoever is dishing out the fines to do their own detective work.

"I left it in for a service that day" is not proof. "I was in jail for a month before and after that date" would do it.

BMJD · 23-09-2014 03:29PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

"I left it in for a service that day" is not proof. "I was in jail for a month before and after that date" would do it.

A grainy photograph of a registration plate isn't proof either.

djimi · 23-09-2014 03:39PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

"I left it in for a service that day" is not proof. "I was in jail for a month before and after that date" would do it.

Of course it's proof, if you have a dated, timed receipt to back it up.

Zubeneschamali · 23-09-2014 03:39PM

BMJD wrote: »

A grainy photograph of a registration plate isn't proof either.

It is evidence. And the law (posted twice now, upthread) is that it creates a presumption of guilt which you must disprove.

You can't just deny it, or cast some reasonable doubt like in a murder case, you need to show the contrary, to the judges satisfaction.

Zubeneschamali · 23-09-2014 03:42PM

djimi wrote: »

Of course it's proof, if you have a dated, timed receipt to back it up.

No, it isn't. The car was out speeding at a particular place and time, the fact that you paid a garage for a service at a different time proves nothing.

Now, if you can produce a mechanic who'll say he was driving, cool, but good luck with that.

Cleveland Hot Pocket · 23-09-2014 03:44PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is evidence. And the law (posted twice now, upthread) is that it creates a presumption of guilt which you must disprove.

You can't just deny it, or cast some reasonable doubt like in a murder case, you need to show the contrary, to the judges satisfaction.

Some fools like Cinio don't seem to be getting this however.

djimi · 23-09-2014 03:50PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it isn't. The car was out speeding at a particular place and time, the fact that you paid a garage for a service at a different time proves nothing.

Now, if you can produce a mechanic who'll say he was driving, cool, but good luck with that.

Lets say the photo shows that the car was caught speeding at 11.30 on 23/09 and you have a receipt/invoiced dated 23/09 at 12.15 for a full service. Im no legal expert but put it to a judge that your car was in for servicing at the date and time in question and produce a receipt that backs that story up and I dont see how it doesnt at least present a credible case for your story being true.

djimi · 23-09-2014 03:51PM

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Some fools like Cinio don't seem to be getting this however.

Give it a rest ffs (Cinio too); its bloody tedious watching people trading insults.

Cleveland Hot Pocket · 23-09-2014 03:56PM

djimi wrote: »

Give it a rest ffs (Cinio too); its bloody tedious watching people trading insults.

I was called a fool for being correct, so no I will not.

vibe666 · 23-09-2014 03:58PM

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

I was called a fool for being correct, so no I will not.

you haven't been correct yet, so i don't see how that is possible.

Zubeneschamali · 23-09-2014 03:58PM

djimi wrote: »

I dont see how it doesnt at least present a credible case for your story being true.

What we're saying is that you don't just need a credible story. You need to prove you weren't driving, which is a different standard from saying the prosecution didn't prove you were driving.

So, in the servicing case, how have you shown that you didn't take it for a spin to check the garage fixed some issue? You've given a plausible story, but you haven't proved it.

This is why the only reliable way to get out of the charge is to have someone else say they were driving. Cases where you can prove you weren't without being able to say who was are quite rare, like I was in jail, hospital, Australia or whatever.

Cleveland Hot Pocket · 23-09-2014 04:03PM

vibe666 wrote: »

you haven't been correct yet, so i don't see how that is possible.

In your opinion.
Which matters about as much to me as the price of tea in china.

It's been clearly said on thread by me, by Zubeneschamali, by corktina and some others. Yet some posters like you and Cinio decide that you are correct in face of presented fact.

As I did earlier in thread and will do again since you don't seem capable of absorbing information, I shall bid you adieu.

Cleveland Hot Pocket · 23-09-2014 04:04PM

vibe666 wrote: »

you haven't been correct yet, so i don't see how that is possible.

please see below as it explains why I am correct again for you.
Zubeneschamali I agree exactly with what you have said.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What we're saying is that you don't just need a credible story. You need to prove you weren't driving, which is a different standard from saying the prosecution didn't prove you were driving.

So, in the servicing case, how have you shown that you didn't take it for a spin to check the garage fixed some issue? You've given a plausible story, but you haven't proved it.

This is why the only reliable way to get out of the charge is to have someone else say they were driving. Cases where you can prove you weren't without being able to say who was are quite rare, like I was in jail, hospital, Australia or whatever.

CiniO · 23-09-2014 04:05PM

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Some fools like Cinio don't seem to be getting this however.

I don't think you even bothered reading my posts, as I actually agree with what you quoted saying I don't and insulting me.

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

I was called a fool for being correct, so no I will not.

Definitely not by me. I didn't call anyone a fool in oppose to you how keep insulting me for no reason.

I demand you stop doing that right now, understand?

Cleveland Hot Pocket · 23-09-2014 04:12PM

View Post Today, 16:05
Remove user from ignore listCiniO
This message is hidden because CiniO is on your ignore list.

Anyone bothered enough to tell me what he said, as he's on ignore
?

CiniO · 23-09-2014 04:15PM

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

please see below as it explains why I am correct again for you.
Zubeneschamali I agree exactly with what you have said.

Well until recently you were claiming, that someone has to be prosecuted, no matter what.
So according to what you were saying, even if registered owner could prove he wasn't driving at the time of offence, but couldn't point out who was, he should be prosecuted.
That's not true, and that's why we weren't agreeing with you.

Now you seem to changed your mind, and now you are saying exactly what we were saying from the very beginning. So yes - now you're correct.

Go Safe Photo of Driver

Comments