| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Terry Keller writes:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 22:32:20 GMT, "James Brown" <galliard@shades-of-night.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hmm. Maybe it's different in the States, but here, if you are the registered
> > owner of a vehicle, then you are responsible for that vehicle.(1) If someone
> > else is driving it, they are driving it either:
> > a) with your permission, either implicit or explicit, or
> > b) without your permission.
> >
> > In the case of A, it is your responsibility to determine who was driving at
> > the
> > time, and ensure that they make reparations to you, and that if they use your
> > vehicle in the future, they do so in a safe manner.
> >
> > In the case of B, report your vehicle as stolen, and (if you know the guilty
> > party) charge them.
Both good and valid points. My point is that it was *possibly* a family
member who was driving the vehicle, and I am not required to testify
against them. If they determine which family member *might* have been
driving then I would gladly pay the fine and consider the topic closed.
There are two names listed on the vehicle registration. One male, the other
female. If they took the time to verify that the license plate in the picture
was indeed registered to my wife and I, why can't they verify the sex of the
driver?
> >
> > > Whatever happend to innocent until proven guilty?
> >
> > It isn't a matter of innocent until proven guilty. They have a picture of a
> > vehicle registered to you that was recorded in a breach of the law. They
> > have
> > made a logical conclusion, and sent you a ticket which informs you of the
> > fine
> > for the breach, and (here, at least) a court date for the issue to be
> > resolved,
> > if necessary.
> >
> > My point is more of a responsibility gripe than a legal question. (and pushes
> > my opinion of people even farther into cynicism) If you were speeding, and
> > you
> > got caught, then pay the fine. It's as simple as that.
I didn't get caught. It wasn't me driving. That's my point. I'm not concerned
about paying the fine. Money isn't the problem, its the principle. The vehicle
is registered to two people, which one gets the fine?
>
> Don't know about other localities, but here (Phoenix AZ), if you get a
> photo-radar ticket, the drivers face *must* be clearly visible. If it is
> obscured, they will not process the ticket. So, when driving though
> photo-radar country, keep the sun visor down.(1)
The face WAS clearly visible. It just didn't look like MY hairy mug.
>
> Or better yet, slow down. :-)
>
> -- Terry K --
> 1. Just joking!
Duane
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Photo Radar
|
| (...) pushes (...) Fair enough. In Alberta, you can only have 1 person on a vehicle registration. (AFAIK, anyway) (...) Ah. Another difference. Because our license plates are on the back of the car only, that's the part that gets photo'ed, and there (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Photo Radar
|
| I think you might be splitting hairs here. You're the vehicle owner. Unless it was stolen, you're responsible for what was done with the vehicle. Tell your drivers not to speed or they will have to pay the tickets and increased insurance costs for (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Photo Radar
|
| (...) Don't know about other localities, but here (Phoenix AZ), if you get a photo-radar ticket, the drivers face *must* be clearly visible. If it is obscured, they will not process the ticket. So, when driving though photo-radar country, keep the (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
