| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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 you as a condition of vehicle
> use.(1)
Yes, I can tell you right now that I am splitting hairs with respect to
this topic. I have very strong opinions about the topic and want to see
the government work for every cent that they will get from me on this
ticket.
I am unsure of how other governments have structured their photo-radar
programs, but here the only penalty is a $40 fine, no points or insurance
hike. The Denver photo-radar program is regarded as nothing more than a
newly found cash cow, which bears no teeth.
>
> Now, the notion of whether traffic laws are just is another matter. If
> the road in question were private it would be a contract issue, pure and
> simple, but they are not, so you could make a case that the speed limit
> in question is unreasonable (not successfully in any traffic court, but
> morally).
>
> But you're not trying to make that case, you're evading responsibility
> for what was done with property under your control. Make the case that
> the government is interfering with your right to control the property if
> you can, or make the case that the speed regulation is not supportable,
> but don't evade responsibility.
Yes, I am evading responsibility (temporarily) - on a technicality. When
the ticket was mailed to me, it was assumed that I was the driver, I was
not. Since I was not the driver, I am legally obligated to sign a statement
informing the responsible agency as to the identity of the driver. Normally
that wouldn't be too big of a problem, however, I am reasonably sure that
the driver of the vehicle was a family member. Is it not my constitutional
right to refuse to testify against a family member?
Now, I must clarify what I meant when I said that I was evading
responsibilty. I will pay the fine for the ticket when the correct driver
is sighted for the infraction. I do not dispute the fact the the driver was
speeding. However, it is up to the government to determine who was driving
the vehicle in this instance since the driver was a family member.
There have been multiple cases in the area where the spouse or child of the
registered owner was the one who triggered the camera. In each instance
(that I know of) the registered owner has fought the ticket, but all charges
were dropped before it reached the court. No precedent has been set.
>
> Just my opinion, stated, as always, in my deferential and mild mannered
> style.
Hey, it's all fun and games 'til someone puts an eye out. :-)
Duane
>
> --
> Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
> - - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
> fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
> lugnet.
>
> NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
> will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
