Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket
-
@Rhywden said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
@asdf said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
And if you're actually suspected to have committed a criminal offense (which requires a lot of effort as a driver), then the burden of proof is most definitely not on you, ever.
Yes, of course, that's why no one ever had to provide an alibi.
As I said in other threads before: You clearly don't understand basic legal principles at all. Especially not "in dubio pro reo".
Stop watching crime shows and pick up a non-fiction book some time. Or take a course at the Volkshochschule. Or read Udo Vetter's blog. Or literally do anything to educate yourself, because your lack of legal knowledge is incredibly embarrassing.
-
@asdf Listen, it's your car and thus the onus of proving that you weren't the driver is primarily on you, unless there has been a photo or something.
I'll give the need to educate yourself right back.
-
Seems like there's a bit of confusion between guilt and responsibility. The police care about who is guilty for a violation of driving rules (speeding tickets, parking, etc), even when there was no damage to anyone. However, a court might care about who is responsible when someone is due reparations for an accident. Say someone using your car crashes into someone's parked car and drives off, but a camera captures the license plate.
The owner of the parked car is going to go after the owner of the car for damages, regardless of who was driving. Your car is either being driven by someone with your permission, or it is stolen. If it was driven by your friend "without your permission" then feel free to accuse your friend of stealing your car if you find that preferable to paying. What's unlikely to happen is the court deciding that because it doesn't know who crashed the car, no one has to pay for the damage to the other person.
At least here, this is basically solved by insurance. But the insurer will want to know who was driving because it's only liable for damages caused by the actual person insured, not the car itself. The insurance company will be happy to believe you if you say you didn't drive and don't know who did, since then they don't have to pay. But here basic insurance to cover damage to third parties is mandatory.
-
@Rhywden said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
Listen, it's your car and thus the onus of proving that you weren't the driver is primarily on you, unless there has been a photo or something.
Well, you're wrong. That's all I can tell you.
The police may claim otherwise, but a judge would simply laugh in their faces and dismiss the case unless there's conclusive proof you were the driver (assuming we're talking about something that's actually a criminal offense).
Because that's how the fucking law works, whether you believe it or not.
-
@Rhywden said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
Listen, it's your car and thus the onus of proving that you weren't the driver is primarily on you, unless there has been a photo or something.
What you may be referring to here is the following law about parking tickets:
Note how this specifically only applies to parking tickets and absolutely nothing else. In all other cases, the owner of the car cannot be punished unless the authorities can prove that he's the driver.
Also note that this is also the only case where your "criminal vs civil law" comment is relevant, since the law obviously doesn't apply to parking tickets issued by private owners.
Edit: In case you still believe that the owner can legally be assumed to be the driver: Please ask yourself why this law was added to the code (as evidenced by the "a" suffix). It would be completely unnecessary if what you're saying was true.
Edit 2: Also note that the constitutionality of this law was challenged, see links at the end of the page. I cannot find any details, but it's very likely that this was because the law breaks the principle "in dubio pro reo". It's also very likely that this law was only declared constitutional because otherwise, there'd be no fucking way to ever make anyone pay for a parking ticket unless you film every single arrival at every single place where you're not allowed to park at all or at least not indefinitely.
-
This makes more sense.
I find it hard to believe that any system would blame you for not being able to prove your car was stolen.
-
@Kian said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
At least here, this is basically solved by insurance. But the insurer will want to know who was driving because it's only liable for damages caused by the actual person insured, not the car itself. The insurance company will be happy to believe you if you say you didn't drive and don't know who did, since then they don't have to pay. But here basic insurance to cover damage to third parties is mandatory.
Not exactly.
Usually, if you purchase a vehicle, the bank will require full coverage. Full coverage will cover cases of car theft. It also covers things like, car failure. "I parked my car and the brakes failed" is still up to you to pay.
This is why I keep full coverage even after the car is paid off.
But, notice that you don't get a ticket from the government for your brakes failing to keep your car parked.
-
@asdf said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
parking tickets
And I'm ok with this because parking tickets are relatively trivial compared to someone stealing your car and racking up 10 different charges.
That said, I'm pretty sure that if the cop can identify the person, they're not going to ticket the owner, anyway. Making severe tickets a moot point.
-
@xaade said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
I find it hard to believe that any system would blame you for not being able to prove your car was stolen.
Well, you'll definitely get the tickets. Somehow, @Rhywden seems to mistakenly believe that makes it your legal responsibility to pay. Which is not the case.
In general, it's a good idea not to blindly trust the police or city officials and to know your rights. They'll often try to make things easy for themselves and make it sound like you have legal obligations you actually don't have.
-
@dkf And of course everyone keeps detailed documentary evidence of every time they valet park their car.
The OP said the owner had to identify the person driving in order to escape the fine.
-
@asdf said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
Well, you'll definitely get the tickets.
If your country set up its laws such that:
- A person takes your car.
- Goes speeding.
- Gets pulled over in your car.
- Speaks to a cop directly.
- And you, the owner, get the ticket.
That country's government is as dumb as a bag of bricks.
-
@xaade @asdf I could understand getting a notice of the ticket, but yeah, in xaade's description, that would be stupid to actually get the ticket.
-
@xaade
Of course I was talking about the case where the identity of the driver is unclear. Also, you obviously challenge the ticket immediately in that case.
-
-
@Greybeard said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
And of course everyone keeps detailed documentary evidence of every time they valet park their car.
Do any countries other than the US have valet parking?
-
@coldandtired said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
@Greybeard said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
And of course everyone keeps detailed documentary evidence of every time they valet park their car.
Do any countries other than the US have valet parking?
I think we have it in the UK, but only for the really posh places. And I don't mean 'I shop at Waitrose' posh, I mean 'my butler shops at Waitrose' posh.
-
@RaceProUK I've had a valet park my astra. I was working for a Billionaire at the time and I was 4 degrees removed from power. Though my power was the equivalent of a saudi prince that was put in charge of women's affairs.
-
@RaceProUK said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
I think we have it in the UK, but only for the really posh places
It's pretty much posh hotels in places like London where the parking isn't directly at the hotel.
I'm fine with that. Ain't no random person driving my car. The mechanics at the garage only drive it because they have to.Related note: the garage seems to have employed at least one non-midget mechanic, so the seat in the car wasn't moved when it briefly went in earlier
-
@loopback0 said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
Related note: the garage seems to have employed at least one non-midget mechanic, so the seat in the car wasn't moved when it briefly went in earlier
I am more worried if a woman drove it. The last time a woman drove my car it now has a big gauge on the bumper. £200 for the bumper, another £100 for colour match.
If I the car is going to get fucked up, I will be the one doing it.
-
@lucas1 said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
a big gauge on the bumper
What does it measure? Airflow? Precipitation?
-
@TimeBandit said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
@Rhywden said in The Official Status Thread:
You're currently mixing civil and criminal law cases, by the way. A very common mistake.
You better educate yourself on that - or you'll be in a lot of pain if you try that approach in a civil proceeding.Not sure what you mean here. I guess Canadian laws and German laws are very different.
Germany itself is very different. In Germany, bicyclists will ride straight in to the path of a speeding bus if they have the right of way. Germans are like lemmings in that regard.
-
@Rhywden said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
Also: Do you try this approach on traffic tickets? "I didn't drive the car!" Do you expect to get very far with that?
In the USA, at least in all the jurisdictions I am aware of, they have to prove that you were the one driving the car. Getting a picture of a number plate is not enough. They also have to get your face.
-
@Rhywden said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
@abarker Then you probably need to overhaul the system if it allows such asshats to drive. The Swiss have the right idea: If you cross a certain threshold, your car is impounded and put into an auction.
Yes, that is a great idea... You Germans just can't help but pine for totalitarianism, can you?
-
@RaceProUK said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
@TimeBandit said in The Official Status Thread:
so he get the ticket
What if a woman owns it?
Pfffffffbt, women can't drive. Silly hedgehog.
-
@Rhywden said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
I'll be the first one to say that speeding is inherently dangerous.
And you would be wrong.
-
@TimeBandit said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
Hey, if I borrow your car and run over pedestrians with it, are you responsible according to German laws ?
That depends. Did the pedestrians have the right of way? In Germany, only those who have the right of way are responsible for anything. Seriously, they are like lemmings over there.
-
@Rhywden said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
I personally know someone
Is how people start sentences when they are caught lying on the internet.
-
@asdf said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
@Rhywden said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
@asdf said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
And if you're actually suspected to have committed a criminal offense (which requires a lot of effort as a driver), then the burden of proof is most definitely not on you, ever.
Yes, of course, that's why no one ever had to provide an alibi.
As I said in other threads before: You clearly don't understand basic legal principles at all. Especially not "in dubio pro reo".
Stop watching crime shows and pick up a non-fiction book some time. Or take a course at the Volkshochschule. Or read Udo Vetter's blog. Or literally do anything to educate yourself, because your lack of legal knowledge is incredibly embarrassing.
You are my hero.
-
@xaade said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
I find it hard to believe that any system would blame you for not being able to prove your car was stolen.
I find it hard to believe that Germans jump out in front of speeding vehicles like lemmings without even looking to see if anything is coming, but it is more amusing to me to assume that this is the case and believe @Rhywden when he said so.
-
@Polygeekery said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
Is how people start sentences when they are caught lying on the internet.
Oh, I don't think he's lying. He seems to honestly believe that the law works like in crime shows: As soon as the police suspect someone, he or she has to come to the station and provide an alibi.
In Germany, you don't ever have to tell the police anything except your name. Not even if you get a nice letter full of threatening legalese words in which they tell you to appear at the station.
Those letters are pretty common and are one of the examples of common police misbehavior I referred to above. Legally, only a judge can force you to even appear at the police station, which those letters almost always "forget" to mention.
-
@Polygeekery said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
@Rhywden said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
I personally know someone
Is how people start sentences when they are caught lying on the internet.
I personally know someone who drives a car
-
@RaceProUK said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
I personally know someone who drives a car
But do you know anybody who holds a driving permit? Because I do!
-
@Polygeekery You would be surprised mate.
-
@Polygeekery said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
@xaade said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
I find it hard to believe that any system would blame you for not being able to prove your car was stolen.
I find it hard to believe that Germans jump out in front of speeding vehicles like lemmings without even looking to see if anything is coming, but it is more amusing to me to assume that this is the case and believe @Rhywden when he said so.
The Germans may not do it, but the British certainly do.
-
@asdf said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
Legally, only a judge can force you to even appear at the police station, which those letters almost always "forget" to mention.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse?
-
This post is deleted!
-
@xaade said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
Ignorance of the law is no excuse?
They're not legally required to mention the actual law. And there are surprisingly few effective laws against police misbehavior in Germany.
Unless they physically harm someone, they can pretty much do whatever they want during an investigation. They're breaking the law in the process, but other than filing a complaint with the police department (which of course results in a very thorough internal investigation ), there's nothing you can do against that.
Unlike in the US, it's really hard to get evidence thrown out based on police misbehavior in German courts. Illegally obtained evidence is usually still valid.
-
@asdf said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
Unlike in the US, it's really hard to get evidence thrown out based on police misbehavior in German courts. Illegally obtained evidence is usually still valid.
There is some of that in the US.
For example, if I have probable cause to search your house, but I find no evidence for the crime associated with probable cause, but I find evidence of another crime...
That's admissible evidence.
There are obvious reasons why this is a good thing, and obvious reasons why it is a bad thing.
-
@asdf said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
Well, nope. You're misrepresenting the German law here. Claiming "I didn't drive and I don't know who did" does work. The police will then have to come to your house to verify you are the person on the photo the camera took. Which, more often than not, they're too lazy to do.
I don't know German law, but it's about the same here. The trick is that traffic violations are parts of the "fines" category (and actually a special category of those), which means the whole process can be dealt with without a judge looking into it: a policeman writes it, sends it to you, you pay, done. No judge has seen it, it doesn't go to your file (apart from points on your license, but that's an administrative file, not a criminal record). So from that angle, it does looks like it's up to you to prove your innocence (which is @Rhywden claim).
But (guessing that it's the same in Germany, but it's probably not very different), that's only if you accept this administrative process without a judge. If you don't, you are perfectly entitled to a true trial, which follows the usual process where it is up to the prosecution to prove your guilt!
Now, what might confuse @Rhywden further is that, in the end, judges do not decide on "absolute certainty" (and proof). They decide on whether they are convinced "without reasonable doubt" that you committed the offence (if it was otherwise, cases where it's your word against your accuser's, such as some rape ones, would never result in a conviction!). And judges in traffic violation courts are unlikely to be easily convinced that you did not drive the car if you can't prove otherwise, or at least offer something more than just "I don't remember". So while police might not bother getting the picture and verifying it etc., that doesn't mean you won't be convicted.
(and if you feel that the judge didn't hear you properly or was too easily convinced, you can always appeal, as in any trial... but an appeal court is even less likely to be impressed by the "I don't remember" defence if you can't back it up!)
-
@xaade said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
@asdf said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
Unlike in the US, it's really hard to get evidence thrown out based on police misbehavior in German courts. Illegally obtained evidence is usually still valid.
There is some of that in the US.
For example, if I have probable cause to search your house, but I find no evidence for the crime associated with probable cause, but I find evidence of another crime...
That's admissible evidence.
Sort of. They can use anything that's in plain view, including when it's something that was uncovered during a legal search. However, the scope of their warrant still applies; they can only look in places where they'd reasonably expect to find whatever their warrant says that they're looking for. For instance, if they're searching for a physical object, then their warrant doesn't allow them to search your computer's hard drive. If they're searching for a stolen car, it doesn't allow them to search your gun safe.
-
@anotherusername said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
@xaade said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
@asdf said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
Unlike in the US, it's really hard to get evidence thrown out based on police misbehavior in German courts. Illegally obtained evidence is usually still valid.
There is some of that in the US.
For example, if I have probable cause to search your house, but I find no evidence for the crime associated with probable cause, but I find evidence of another crime...
That's admissible evidence.
Sort of. They can use anything that's in plain view, including when it's something that was uncovered during a legal search. However, the scope of their warrant still applies; they can only look in places where they'd reasonably expect to find whatever their warrant says that they're looking for. For instance, if they're searching for a physical object, then their warrant doesn't allow them to search your computer's hard drive. If they're searching for a stolen car, it doesn't allow them to search your gun safe.
And, though you didn't say it, the same applies to searches conducted under probable cause or exigent circumstances without a warrant.
-
@abarker said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
@anotherusername said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
@xaade said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
@asdf said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
Unlike in the US, it's really hard to get evidence thrown out based on police misbehavior in German courts. Illegally obtained evidence is usually still valid.
There is some of that in the US.
For example, if I have probable cause to search your house, but I find no evidence for the crime associated with probable cause, but I find evidence of another crime...
That's admissible evidence.
Sort of. They can use anything that's in plain view, including when it's something that was uncovered during a legal search. However, the scope of their warrant still applies; they can only look in places where they'd reasonably expect to find whatever their warrant says that they're looking for. For instance, if they're searching for a physical object, then their warrant doesn't allow them to search your computer's hard drive. If they're searching for a stolen car, it doesn't allow them to search your gun safe.
And, though you didn't say it, the same applies to searches conducted under probable cause or exigent circumstances without a warrant.
And it all goes out the window on one of those random stop lines.
"We're just searching your car for something. We can't tell you what it is, in case you tell someone in line what to hide."
-
@remi
Yeah, that sounds somewhat familiar.@remi said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
And judges in traffic violation courts are unlikely to be easily convinced that you did not drive the car if you can't prove otherwise, or at least offer something more than just "I don't remember".
Proving that multiple people had unrestricted access to the car might be enough, though, if there's no evidence you personally were near the scene of the "crime" (i.e. it's not on your way to work or something like that).
Of course, all of that is assuming that they don't have a useful photo, which they usually do in case of speeding. So if the police decides not to be lazy, then you're usually fucked anyway.
-
Fun fact: NodeBB autocompletes @Grade-A-Premium-Asshole when you type
@ r e m i
. Alt confirmed?
-
@asdf said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
Fun fact: NodeBB autocompletes @Grade-A-Premium-Asshole when you type
@ r e m i
. Alts confirmed?We're a whole group.
-
@boomzilla said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
We're a whole group.
I know, but I remember only one person using the group banner.
-
@loopback0 said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
Related note: the garage seems to have employed at least one non-midget mechanic, so the seat in the car wasn't moved when it briefly went in earlier
Being 6'5", this can be quite a nuisance.
-
@asdf said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
@boomzilla said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
We're a whole group.
I know, but I remember only one person using the group banner.
I think that's me?Edit: Nope.
-
@asdf said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
I know, but I remember only one person using the group banner.
@Weng said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
I think that's me?
-
@Weng said in Vehicle Responsibility: Here's Your Ticket:
I think that's me?
No, you use @Discourse-touched-me-in-a-no-no-place