For permanent speed traps, this is doable, especially in this digital day and age. Germany has been using photo speed traps since the 1970s, when they were more expensive due to the analog film. Setting up a portable speed trap with only one device is much easier than setting up one, then hiding the rear camera.
In fact, back when film was expensive, the Germans would set the traps with two triggers. One would trigger the flash even if you were doing the exact speed limit, and the other would take the picture only if you were at least 10% over the speed limit. Served quite well as a warning when you saw the flash, which is what the cops wanted: that people slow down and not cause accidents.
As a transportation engineer, I can assure folks that “sliding through yellow lights” is not illegal by federal standards. These are followed by most states and municipalities. Yellow means caution. Red means stop. The yellow at a three-color light is there to give folks time to either clear the intersection or to stop. Not to make them stop. That is the safest arrangement.
In Kentucky (and some other places in the US) this whole matter is avoided by a legal requirement that a ticket must be issued by an officer who witnesses the offense. This is largely to prevent an officer from being badgered into writing a ticket by an influential or particularly vociferous person.
I meant that the evidence proving someone guilty is, by default, used against the registered keeper; it’s then for the keeper to accept the blame or demonstrate that either someone else was authorised to use the vehicle or that it had been stolen.
It just wouldn’t be workable for there to be no binding legal link between a vehicle and a designated person.
So… I say I wasn’t driving, but it could have been either of my roommates, A or B. A and B both disclaim having driven the car, saying it must have been the other. Who gets fined?
Why? Seriously, why would a private citizen be required to say anything at all? I don’t follow your reasoning. And what is this mumbo jumbo about recorded keepers?
I did clearly say “in UK” - and just as clearly, you are not. Not mumbo-jumbo over here. DVLA (Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency) records a vehicle’s “registered keeper” (and as I said, almost the same as owner - but technically not the same - a leasing company may own it but you are the registered keeper). The law here requires that if you are the registered keeper who receives a fixed penalty notice for speeding (triggered by a speed camera) then you are liable for the fine unless you say you were not driving at the time, in which case the law requires that you (whether you are a private citizen or any other kind of citizen that may be defined in your jurisdiction) must identify who was driving at the time. I believe if you said “it could be A or B” the law may require that you ascertain. If A and B both deny, you are still liable and your only exit is to tell the authorities that it must have been A or B and hope they investigate further. Chances are that the authorities will just leave you to pay the penalty.
If you have a licence (yes, with two 'c’s - I’m talking about the UK here; can’t comment on the US situation) to own and operate a motor vehicle on the public highway, you are accepting responsibility for the actions of that vehicle. It’s not acceptable to say “I wasn’t driving, and won’t tell you who was”.
As I said: I’m talking about the UK, where 'car owner" is legally termed “registered keeper”, a deliberately awkward phrase to emphasise that there may be a distinction between ‘person with legal responsibility’, ‘owner’ and ‘regular driver’.
You get fined, in all likelihood - see my reply above, to anotherone. Unless, I suppose, hypothetically (IANAL) you were able to persuade the authorities that one or other of A or B was perverting the course of justice? I doubt they would give two hoots - you are liable and if A and B both deny it and are unable to prove it, you are left holding their baby. If one of them might demonstrate to you they had an alibi, then you could state to the authorities that you believe the other was diriving and they would then get the letter. If they denied it … I have no idea. Wormhole?
Since I was not replying to you or anything you have written… ok buddy… sure thing.
Yet… Here you are.
That’s a shame. Because in the U.S. we have the right to not say anything at all. Not having a monarch whose power comes from magic man in the sky is kinda nice like that.
Front pics of people in full face helmets which is much more common in the EU are not going to be much better than just a pic of the plate from the rear.
We do have that right to silence too (and BB is not a US-only site, so yes, here I am). Stumo introduced the UK equivalent, earlier which added to the general discussion that some of us continued.
But local law here (are all 50 US states’ laws the same?) says I do not have the right to “silence” when I take on the responsibilities of owning a motor vehicle and driving it, or allowing it to be driven, on the public roads, if that vehicle is observed contravening traffic laws.
My apologies, my reply clearly should have stated that both Ministry and I seemed both to be talking about registered keeper (certainly a UK term) and that the burden of proof/right to silence argument did not/ought not apply in the way you wished it to, regarding a registered keeper’s responsibilities. Perhaps it was a stretch for me to assume your comment about registered keeper mumbo-jumbo meant you did not understand that term re how it applies here, and that my earlier comment in that regard may in part have been a trigger for this, causing me to try to explain, albeit clumsily, so again, apologies for replying in a manner you consider inappropriate.
(Also, I got an email notifying me of a response and on this device the link opened up straight to your comment. So my double bad for not checking more diligently.)
Interestingly over here the fine letter does not say “you did it” (the issue the prof seemed to have) but “your car was seen and you are liable unless you can tell us who it was if it was not you” - so no contravention of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. It is a murky area but one that I seem to recall all those years ago was carefully debated by our political representatives to ensure an innocent person was not automatically fined and had an opportunity to present their defence. Do some states really allow drivers to stay silent and not state who they believe was driving at the time of the infraction, if not them? Speed cameras here tend to see the rear of the car so there is never any picture of a driver (which could be subject to dispute in any case).
Yes, the right to remain silent or to not testify is the same in all 50 states. It is a protected right.
Of course not. But we don’t let law enforcement take action against a citizen for the actions of another citizen which makes sense to me. The “drive around unaccountably” angle is irrelevant. Had law enforcement witnessed a crime, the driver of the vehicle would have been charged - not the owner. Since the state has no witnesses as to who was driving, they have no case.
Sorry but that does violate the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. It says right there in black and white, the owner is liable unless they testify who was driving. In other words, the owner is being asked to prove innocence. Additionally, they are being asked to provide testimony as to who the driver was even though the owner may not have been present at the time of incident. Without witnessing the act, how can the owner testify about actions to which they are not privvy? See how that works?
