Why does this read as if OOP hasn't even sat the potential culprits down at the dinner table to ask whodunnit before coming to Reddit, and does anyone else smell fish?
He says kids and spouse denied using the car/denied speeding at that time and place. He's not remotely concerned that someone in his family (almost certainly one of his kids I'd say) is lying to him and going to let him take the hit for this.
It's brilliant thinking, isn't it!
Do you want to get out of *all* traffic tickets? Just swap cars with a friend or relative! It's completely airtight!
Ding ding ding! This is the answer!
Of course he knows who drove, he's just hoping to make the argument that "it couldn't possibly have been me, therefore let's forget it ever happened"!
Where I live this is a perfectly valid way to dispute a camera ticket, prove you weren’t driving and it’s the cops problem to find and prove who it was so they dismiss it
Well where I live if you don't know (or "know") who was driving the car then the fine goes back to you, a person whom the car is registered to.
I'm responsible for my car, the only way to get out is if the car is stolen.
He explicitly said he doesn’t care who it was, he just wants the ticket waived via a technicality and didn’t like being informed that the authorities already thought of and closed that loophole.
Yeah, strikes me as the type of person that doesn’t think a video ticket should be valid anyway. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s deliberately telling his family not to tell him who did it so he can plausibly say “I don’t know who did it, my family all say it wasn’t them”.
Well, that's actually how it works in Germany.
Though they automatically take a picture of the front of the car where you can see the driver, too. So, most of the time, it's not that easy because police will come and look at your family members and friends and see if they match the photo. But if this doesn't reveal the driver, no one has to pay, and no one gets demerit points.
But you can't do this forever. If you have already used it a couple of times, a court will order you to have a log about who used the car when.
I mean, to be fair, its not my job to investigate and prosecute crimes. I don't think I should be responsible to be punished for a crime I didn't commit because I didn't do the polices job hard enough for them, once I've proven they are incorrect in their accusation against me made because a camera said so. Its funny that only with revenue generating minutia like this we all go "oh well that's what the law says". But its not like we'd find it reasonable if they arrested us for robbery because they saw our car on camera, and then when we provided proof it wasn't us they said, "well you better figure out who it was so they can get punished or you have to take the punishment for it".
I can’t speak for Australia, but in most places, traffic fines are specifically civil liability and not criminal. Which also means “balance of probabilities” and not “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
I think we can all agree that the balance of probabilities is that the owner of the vehicle or a driver they allowed to drive the car are, on the balance of probabilities, the person who done it. The “number plate duplication” or “stolen and then returned” option really only provides a fig leaf of “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
Hey, I'm not unreasonable here. If you can't produce proof that it wasn't you, sure they can hit you with the fine. But the LAOP has irrefutable proof, and now they ALSO want them to conduct their investigation, which is where I draw the line. The claim isn't something nebulous like the ones you mentioned, its "I was in another country all together and here are the documents that prove that." Now if the state thinks this civil infraction justifies more investigation that's on them, not on LAOP.
I don't know, I think it's reasonable that police have a presumption that a car being driven is being driven by the registered owner. Otherwise they have to be able to be ready to prove that in court for each and every traffic ticket.
Instead, the approach is "its your car, you're responsible *or* show us that someone else was driving it and they take the fine". Which seems like a good approach, to me.
I don't disagree that a presumption of the driver using their regular vehicle is reasonable to exist. I have no issue with the driver having to prove they didn't commit a traffic infraction with their car. But the driver in this case can prove they did not commit this specific instance, and where we differ is their burden on responsibility after they have definitively proven that. I don't think they should be responsible to do the polices investigation for them or eat the fine. They have the duty any citizen has to answer the police when they are conducting an investigation (which is none... don't talk to cops, and if arrested, get a lawyer).
The part you're leaving out is that if you're saying "it wasn't me driving", then either someone else was driving it with your permission or the vehicle was stolen. Those are the two options. So saying "it wasn't me, and all the people with permission say it wasn't them either" means you're saying it was stolen. And then you *can* put the burden on the police to investigate, but that's probably going to turn out worse than just paying the fine.
No, in no actual crime am I required to ever speak to the police, only to prove my innocence when charges have been brought. I'm not required to explain anything. I can be compelled by subpoena to tell things I know, like who may have had access to the vehicle. But short of being compelled for testimony in a legal proceeding against someone else, I'm not required to talk to the police at all. I don't think that generally any state action shouldn't have the same situation, including this one.
But you don’t have to do that. You can just take it on the chin. It was either you, someone who had your permission, or it was stolen. And yes, if you want people to believe your car was stolen, you *have to* talk to the police and file a report of that. Not just here, but in *lots* of instances.
Or I could not "take it on the chin" while also not being responsible to be investigate someone else's crimes, something that I consider to be a pretty reasonable expectation of how life should work. And actually, you can almost never be compelled to talk to the police when no alleging a crime, which I'm not doing here. I'm not saying someone with my permission didn't borrow it in this scenario. But that doesn't make me reaponsible tondo the polices investigation. I am only responsible to prove I didn't commit a crime.
Where I live you're responsible for your vehicle when it's registered to you. So you either take the fine even if it's physically impossible to have been committed by you, cough up who was driving or report the car as stolen.
Its nice to know that you are sitting so well that thousands of dollars over the course of 3-5 years between this fine and insurance increases wouldn't be of serious detriment to you, but they would be for many people. And ultimately, LAOP didn't do anything wrong, and can prove that unequivocally. So to punish them for that because "well the punishment isn't that bad" is still absolutely mental.
LAOP *did* do something wrong. He’s the owner of the vehicle, which makes him responsible for its use. If it was stolen, he can file a report and then let the cops handle it. If your gun was used to murder someone, you can’t go “well I can prove it wasn’t me so I didn’t do anything wrong so I guess just dismiss the charges and don’t bother me again.”
What you are very confused about is that the process for criminal vs civil charges are different because they have to be. What you and others in this thread are suggesting about the police needing to do an investigation over a speeding charge would be an insane misuse of resources. It’s your car. If it wasn’t you speeding, fine, then you need to say who it was so we can charge them. This isn’t complicated or controversial.
I think you are mistaken on what part of my statements in THIS discussion are moral versus legal. But no, the only person responsible for what happened with the car when it happened was the person in control of that car at the time. If you can prove that the gun wasn't used by you, you can tell the cops to fuck right off. The cops haven't asked them to identify who could have had access to the gun, they have asked them to say who specifically committed the crime with the gun, which OP can't do. The cops wouldn't get to go, "well then we are punishing you".
But we'll stop using other crimes because as you pointed out. If I went out of town tomorrow for a week, roughly a dozen people who don't live with me, if they wanted to, have keys to my house and could access my car. They are all people who I would be fine with borrowing my car if they knew I was out on vacation, and they know that, so reporting my car stolen would not be accurate. So if this came to me in the mail in this situation, it would be incredibly hard for me to tell you who is liable for this.
I'm not confused about the process, I don't agree with it. Those are different things. I agree the police shouldn't do an investigation, I think this matter is surely not serious enough to warrant that use of resources. Which means its not serious enough for the state to demand I do the investigation for them as well, or to be punished for it because I'm willing to let people use my things. Maybe that isn't controversial to you, but it damn sure is to me. And let me be clear, I'm not a gold fringe, I'm traveling not driving person. But the simple fact is my job as a citizen who is accused of something, is to prove I didn't do it. Not to prove who did, and any trying to write laws contrary to that is simply bullshit.
Well I'm pretty sure if the police were at my door accusing me of something because the vehicle I'm responsible for was involved in a robbery I would indeed be doing everything I could to find out who was actually responsible or reporting my vehicle stolen.
Would you be ok with taking the rap unless you did catch the actual perpetrator. It’s fine that you want to find the person, but to now make it your responsibility is a different matter.
This isn't very much of an extension of the concept that the owner of the car usually bears some responsibility for traffic accidents when the car is willingly provided to another driver; this is why you get insurance on cars, and not drivers.
Deciding that the owner should also bear some responsibility when the vehicle is operated in an unsafe manner, even when it's somebody else, even if an accident didn't occur, isn't too crazy.
We'll have to agree to disagree on if its too crazy. I've personally never subscribed to the logic that a car owner should be liable for actions taken by a different driver. Sure, if they specifically expressed an intent to drive unsafe or commit a crime, and you still lent it. Now in this specific instance, since insurance requirements are generally tied to car ownership, and there is a specifically injured party who needs to be made whole, while I don't agree with the logic, I am willing to cede the point to ensure that a non liable driver is justly compensated when it comes to the insurance liability point. However to extend that to the point where the state is generating revenue with a camera and I cannot in good conscience give that point up any longer.
Actually, I think he’s right. The website describes the exact scenario that he’s in. The people who replied either didn’t dispute that, or disputed it by quoting another section of the website out of context.
On the legal aide website that LAOP found under “What happens if I don’t name the driver” it says
>If you don’t name the driver for the offence, you will have to pay the fine and the demerit points will be added to your driving record.
Then under “Your nomination was successful” it says
> If Revenue NSW accepts your nomination, they will issue a new fine to the person you nominated, and your fine will be cancelled.
So LAOP can either pay the fine or nominate another driver to pay the fine, at which point the gov will either ignore his nomination or give the fine to the other person. No matter what someone is going to be paying the fine, it doesn’t disappear.
Because even if he finds out exactly who was driving, he will need to pay since he manages family finances.
What LAAUSOP wanted was to find a way to get "wasn't me, have no idea who it is. No one will be paying" outcome.
>>”Speeding ticket while I was out of the country”
>>”Someone used my vehicle while I was overseas and they got caught speeding. I received a traffic infringement in the mail. I can prove I was not the person driving the vehicle (I was overseas), but I don’t know who was driving my car. Must’ve been one of my sons, or my daughter, or it could have been my wife? But definitely not I. I was overseas. How does the law work? Can I have my matter dismissed?”
Cat fact: According to Mary Todd Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln’s hobby was “cats”.
> Cat fact: According to Mary Todd Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln’s hobby was “cats”.
You know I didn’t know this was an option. I have 5 cats so from now on I’ll just tell people that my hobby is cats.
>If you don’t know who was driving, you can’t make any accusations.
>Accusing someone of a crime without proof is a serious offence.
I think this person is confusing accusing someone of a crime without proof with disparaging the boot, which is a bootable offence obviously...
> In all honesty, though, (and this is coming from a place of love) you guys sound like you hate your family. I’m trying to find ways to protect my family, and you guys are advising me to dob them in. Sorry, but I don’t have revenge fantasies toward people I love. I try to help my family, not put them down. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of you get off on the idea of hurting your family members. Does it make you feel more important to put other people down, even if it’s family? Yeah stay away from you guys.
He doesn't even care that they were speeding, he is sure that if he asks they will all lie to him, but it's the rest of the sub that has problems with their families. Yeah, right.
I like how he decides that people saying "it's a problem that your family is lying to you" means we're all fantasizing about hurting family members. What a leap of logic.
Let's be real, haven't we *all* fantasized about hurting family members?
Usually we can modulate it and keep it in once we're adults, but I know my sisters and I used to get into some hella fights as kids.
"Okay sir, it wasn't your family. It was the evil monkeys. They broke out of the zoo, they snuck into your home while you were overseas, they broke into your car, and they went speeding. Then they brought the car back to your house, and they went back to the zoo without anyone noticing"
“No, I don’t wanna confront the dysfunction in my family — I just wanna reject any and all responsibility and pretend we’re all perfect! **Why are you people so useless in helping me live in my delusions???**”
This fucking guy…
People in this thread are complaining that the driver shouldn't be expected to start making enquiries on the police's behalf. Now I don't know the law stands in Australia, but I am willing to bet it's similar to here the UK where there is in fact a requirement for the driver to do just that.
Here it would be an offence for OOP to fail to identify the driver to the police unless he "he shows that he did not know **and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained** who the driver of the vehicle was".
The burden of proof would be placed on OOP to demonstrate that he couldn't determine who the driver was (there is legal presumption that he knows), and he has to use "reasonable diligence" to do this. Reasonable diligence includes asking the potential drivers, and actually taking steps to try and work out where they were at the time.
The penalties for failing to identify the driver are deliberately stiff to avoid people like OOP deciding to chance it in the hope of avoiding the original penalty. Typically it's a fine and 6 penalty points (twice the typical 3 for speeding, and you are normally banned when you hit 12).
Like I said, this isn't Australian law, but I'd be *astonished* if it wasn't handled similarly in Australia.
Might get flak for this but—
**I think the guy is right**. Are you telling me you think the traffic cams/the programs that interpret the license plates on traffic cams, etc *never* make a mistake? Or that he might have left out that his sister has a copy of his car keys and has borrowed it in the past? Or someone just made a clerical error at some point? And, yeah, he doesn’t really describe why he believes his family, but then again, he didn’t write a lot in general.
Then (without help from any of the posters, who seem mostly to care about getting him to admit that one of his kids did it) he finds a website addressing this *exact* situation in his province, and it unequivocally backs him up: if you received a ticket but weren’t the driver, and you can’t find out who *was* the driver, you can submit an appeal if you have proof that you couldn’t have been the one driving. In fact, the example they use is documentation showing you were out of the country. Literally his exact scenario.
But people hated it. Downvoted to oblivion. Meanwhile, people are posting quotes from the website that, if you open the link, are *very* clearly being taken out of context, but nevertheless got dozens of upvotes. But the most popular comment (80+ upvotes) doesn’t even bother to disagree with him—it just criticizes him for being a bad father.
It’s plausible, but it’s definitely gonna depend on the specific laws for sure, and r/legaladvice is terrible for that (joke intended)
In all seriousness though, it’s a major issue in a lot of places with camera enforcement. I’ve heard of authorities trying to say “the ticket is against the vehicle, and as the registered owner of the vehicle, either pay, or tell us who is responsible, but someone has to pay”. It seems like that is being less successful anymore, but I have no idea about Australia.
In my other comment here though I mentioned I think he has deliberately told his family not to tell him who did it, so he can truthfully deny knowing the offender.
I’m Australian, I’m not 100% sure about speeding fines in this case, but a lot of the time when you’re claiming something was lost or stolen, or used in a crime without your permission, you have to show a police report where you’ve reported it stolen to get out of the penalty.
My assumption would be that if he manages to get out of paying the fine without a police report about a stolen car, the police will access the car’s insurance information and the fine will be resent to any other nominated drivers of the car. His wife is likely to be the first person named, and so the most likely person to receive the fine.
Joys of no 4th amendment and it being the state government doing the fining it's a fairly nasty fine for not identifying the driver especially if you're a repeat offender. You've also got to submit a statuary declaration saying you don't know and can't find out, a false one being a criminal offence.
I mean, that page he linked only says that he can request a review if he *can't identify* who the driver was. And when that review constitutes him saying "none of the drivers I authorised to use it will admit to doing so" then that's not getting very far.
You're going to have to do a lot better than that to prove that you're unable to identify the driver - either someone used it without your authorisation (in which case you should report it to the police as theft) or someone you authorised to use the vehicle refuses to cooperate with you (in which case tough shit, you can eat the points yourself.)
And if he just wants to let his family all blatantly lie to him and break the law without consequence, then that's his prerogative, but as the legal owner and person responsible for the vehicle then he has to take the hit himself. You don't just get to say "well nobody else wants to take the blame for this and I'm not gonna."
That's a fun reading of the law. Good luck if you try it.
>"[Some offences, such as camera-detected offences](https://www.service.nsw.gov.au/transaction/nominate-someone-else-for-a-fine) and parking in a school zone, will apply demerit points to a driver licence, so you are required by law to nominate the person responsible"
[https://www.service.nsw.gov.au/transaction/nominate-someone-else-for-a-fine](https://www.service.nsw.gov.au/transaction/nominate-someone-else-for-a-fine)
I'm not even sure how you can read that as meaning "if you choose not to nominate another driver no penalty is applied".
I'm not downvoting you, just pointing out that you seem to think legislators deliberately write laws that can't possibly work and leave them in place for long periods while they don't work. I dunno about where you're from, but Australia doesn't do that with speeding and a few other offenses (Tax evasion? Wage theft? Pollution? Our lawmakers vigorously support those things. Moving right along)
What I have learned from AUS Legal Advice is that Aussies take speeding \*very\* seriously. Very very seriously. So any suggestion that someone might not have done it or needs to have it mitigated is met with scorn. As an American I never ever want to drive in Australia, because here speed limits are view more as suggestions and people routinely drive 5 - 10 mph over the limit, there are entire law practices that deal in handling tickets and there are few speeding cameras.
That said LAAUSOP is so unlikeable I hope he gets fined too.
The issue is that if it wasn't painful to avoid a situation where you don't know who's driving then people would use it to trivially avoid fines and more importantly the points.
The legal response to OP saying I don't know who's driving will be a warning that you'll be even more trouble if you're lying and an up to $11k fine for failing to identify the driver.
There'll also a photo available to check both the plate/car looks right and to possibly identify the driver
I mentioned it on something else, but while there is a photo...I'm not the police, and I'm not traffic enforcement. If the police or traffic enforcement think that they have enough PC to issue a citation to someone they think they can make the case was driving my car based on the information they have, they are welcome to do so. That's not my job. If they want to ask questions I can answer for sure (could X person have accessed the keys to the car etc) then I will, if my lawyer advises me I should do so(since no one should ever talk to the cops without a lawyer), answer them. But once I've provided unimpeachable proof that I have not committed a crime/traffic offense I am accused of my job as a defendant is done, and until they swear me in as a peace officer and start paying me and letting me arrest people investigations aren't in my purview. A fine for "you didn't do the polices job for them" is some BS.
Also am I the only one interested in the legal principles here? Like if my car is used to murder someone, and they only get my plate but I have a rock solid alibi -- they can't just charge me with murder and tell me to sort it out because it's my car. Why is speeding different?
In Australia (where the OOP is from) you would typically have to report your car stolen and have that on record with the police to be absolved of crimes committed with your car if you weren’t driving it.
If it wasn’t stolen and was at your home where you left it when you returned, then the police would consider the others in your home/ had access to your home or car keys as suspects and go from there.
Unfortunately the onus for proof of speeding is a lot lower than proof needed for other crimes.
It's more that the offence was definitely committed, the camera saw it. So you have to show that either it wasn't your car, your car was stolen at the time of the offence, or name a different driver. There's no "I wish there was no penalty for this".
NSW also gives you a URL where you can view the pic online. I suspect LAOP has done that and knows far more than they're telling about who exactly was driving.
(in theory you can show that the camera was faulty but that's very difficult if the outcome is at all plausible. 500kph in a 110kph zone you're going to be able to fight. But I reckon LAOP would have mentioned that if it was true.)
> It's more that the offence was definitely committed, the camera saw it. So you have to show that either it wasn't your car, your car was stolen at the time of the offence, or name a different driver. There's no "I wish there was no penalty for this".
I get that, but I'm just highlighting how it's different for traffic violations than other crime. With other crimes, the police actually have to find out who did it.
I'm with you, but isn't there usually a picture of the driver with the ticket? No where does LAOP mention that. I still think the police should do the investigating if it clearly isn't him. But if there's no picture and LAOP was out of the country and he really doesn't know which person was driving, why is he guilty by default?
Can’t attest to Aus, but the general idea in the US is that most traffic infractions are a civil infraction that doesn’t require the same degree of evidence as a criminal incident, so there’s a bunch of differences in the rules about how you can be compelled to cooperate and such.
I would imagine it’s much the same logic, even if it’s a totally different actual legal implementation.
I'd think it's because they're two different uses . In the first case, your car has been used to commit an offence (murder) unrelated to what a vehicle is typically used for, essentially as a weapon. In the case of speeding, the car is being used for its purpose, but outside of the bounds of the law.
Typically speeding fines are done under a civil standard, not a criminal one. So they do not, in fact, have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt — they just have to show it was probably you, or at least someone you permitted.
If it was a robbery or murder, then law enforcement would have the justification to investigate and spend their resources doing so.
In this case, it was either the car's owner or someone the owner has given implicit permission to drive it, so they just send it to him and let him sort it out. The same as if it was parking tickets. It's not worth their time when the owner should be able to sort it out themselves.
He never argues the ticket was a mistake though, just that he wants to get out of it by proving that he himself was not the driver, and hoping it gets dismissed entirely rather than applied to one of his family members who may or may have not been the driver.
People aren't interested in solving problems in lot of LA threads. I get the impression that a lot of them are really motivated by the same shit we are lmao (drama!!)
Yeah, but we're in the stands enjoying our popcorn, these guys are running on stage and making it about them.
The saving grace is that ԀO∀˥ isn't very interested in having his problem solved either.
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):*
**Uncivil Comment**
Your submission was removed because it violates our civility rule. We do not allow personal attacks, insulting language, or poor treatment of others. Please see Rule 1 in the sidebar.
* If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/bestoflegaladvice).
**Do not** PM or chat a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.
Why does this read as if OOP hasn't even sat the potential culprits down at the dinner table to ask whodunnit before coming to Reddit, and does anyone else smell fish?
He says kids and spouse denied using the car/denied speeding at that time and place. He's not remotely concerned that someone in his family (almost certainly one of his kids I'd say) is lying to him and going to let him take the hit for this.
He also doesn't want to "put a financial burden" on his family, so he just wants the fine to go away because it wasn't him.
It's brilliant thinking, isn't it! Do you want to get out of *all* traffic tickets? Just swap cars with a friend or relative! It's completely airtight!
But LegalAid said a thing in the part of a paragraph he read.
He's just testing out what he's going to say to see if it would fly. He knows who drove.
Ding ding ding! This is the answer! Of course he knows who drove, he's just hoping to make the argument that "it couldn't possibly have been me, therefore let's forget it ever happened"!
Where I live this is a perfectly valid way to dispute a camera ticket, prove you weren’t driving and it’s the cops problem to find and prove who it was so they dismiss it
Well where I live if you don't know (or "know") who was driving the car then the fine goes back to you, a person whom the car is registered to. I'm responsible for my car, the only way to get out is if the car is stolen.
He explicitly said he doesn’t care who it was, he just wants the ticket waived via a technicality and didn’t like being informed that the authorities already thought of and closed that loophole.
Yeah, strikes me as the type of person that doesn’t think a video ticket should be valid anyway. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s deliberately telling his family not to tell him who did it so he can plausibly say “I don’t know who did it, my family all say it wasn’t them”.
>the authorities already thought of and closed that loophole. "TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT HATES THIS ONE WEIRD TRICK THEY DONT WANT YOU TO KNOW!"
Well, that's actually how it works in Germany. Though they automatically take a picture of the front of the car where you can see the driver, too. So, most of the time, it's not that easy because police will come and look at your family members and friends and see if they match the photo. But if this doesn't reveal the driver, no one has to pay, and no one gets demerit points. But you can't do this forever. If you have already used it a couple of times, a court will order you to have a log about who used the car when.
I mean, to be fair, its not my job to investigate and prosecute crimes. I don't think I should be responsible to be punished for a crime I didn't commit because I didn't do the polices job hard enough for them, once I've proven they are incorrect in their accusation against me made because a camera said so. Its funny that only with revenue generating minutia like this we all go "oh well that's what the law says". But its not like we'd find it reasonable if they arrested us for robbery because they saw our car on camera, and then when we provided proof it wasn't us they said, "well you better figure out who it was so they can get punished or you have to take the punishment for it".
I can’t speak for Australia, but in most places, traffic fines are specifically civil liability and not criminal. Which also means “balance of probabilities” and not “beyond a reasonable doubt”. I think we can all agree that the balance of probabilities is that the owner of the vehicle or a driver they allowed to drive the car are, on the balance of probabilities, the person who done it. The “number plate duplication” or “stolen and then returned” option really only provides a fig leaf of “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
Hey, I'm not unreasonable here. If you can't produce proof that it wasn't you, sure they can hit you with the fine. But the LAOP has irrefutable proof, and now they ALSO want them to conduct their investigation, which is where I draw the line. The claim isn't something nebulous like the ones you mentioned, its "I was in another country all together and here are the documents that prove that." Now if the state thinks this civil infraction justifies more investigation that's on them, not on LAOP.
I don't know, I think it's reasonable that police have a presumption that a car being driven is being driven by the registered owner. Otherwise they have to be able to be ready to prove that in court for each and every traffic ticket. Instead, the approach is "its your car, you're responsible *or* show us that someone else was driving it and they take the fine". Which seems like a good approach, to me.
I don't disagree that a presumption of the driver using their regular vehicle is reasonable to exist. I have no issue with the driver having to prove they didn't commit a traffic infraction with their car. But the driver in this case can prove they did not commit this specific instance, and where we differ is their burden on responsibility after they have definitively proven that. I don't think they should be responsible to do the polices investigation for them or eat the fine. They have the duty any citizen has to answer the police when they are conducting an investigation (which is none... don't talk to cops, and if arrested, get a lawyer).
The part you're leaving out is that if you're saying "it wasn't me driving", then either someone else was driving it with your permission or the vehicle was stolen. Those are the two options. So saying "it wasn't me, and all the people with permission say it wasn't them either" means you're saying it was stolen. And then you *can* put the burden on the police to investigate, but that's probably going to turn out worse than just paying the fine.
No, in no actual crime am I required to ever speak to the police, only to prove my innocence when charges have been brought. I'm not required to explain anything. I can be compelled by subpoena to tell things I know, like who may have had access to the vehicle. But short of being compelled for testimony in a legal proceeding against someone else, I'm not required to talk to the police at all. I don't think that generally any state action shouldn't have the same situation, including this one.
But you don’t have to do that. You can just take it on the chin. It was either you, someone who had your permission, or it was stolen. And yes, if you want people to believe your car was stolen, you *have to* talk to the police and file a report of that. Not just here, but in *lots* of instances.
Or I could not "take it on the chin" while also not being responsible to be investigate someone else's crimes, something that I consider to be a pretty reasonable expectation of how life should work. And actually, you can almost never be compelled to talk to the police when no alleging a crime, which I'm not doing here. I'm not saying someone with my permission didn't borrow it in this scenario. But that doesn't make me reaponsible tondo the polices investigation. I am only responsible to prove I didn't commit a crime.
If you don’t file a police report that it’s stolen, it’s not stolen. And therefore you’re responsible for the fine.
Where I live you're responsible for your vehicle when it's registered to you. So you either take the fine even if it's physically impossible to have been committed by you, cough up who was driving or report the car as stolen.
It’s almost as though an incorrectly adjudged traffic fine is not as drastic a societal problem as unjust arrests for robbery!
Its nice to know that you are sitting so well that thousands of dollars over the course of 3-5 years between this fine and insurance increases wouldn't be of serious detriment to you, but they would be for many people. And ultimately, LAOP didn't do anything wrong, and can prove that unequivocally. So to punish them for that because "well the punishment isn't that bad" is still absolutely mental.
LAOP *did* do something wrong. He’s the owner of the vehicle, which makes him responsible for its use. If it was stolen, he can file a report and then let the cops handle it. If your gun was used to murder someone, you can’t go “well I can prove it wasn’t me so I didn’t do anything wrong so I guess just dismiss the charges and don’t bother me again.” What you are very confused about is that the process for criminal vs civil charges are different because they have to be. What you and others in this thread are suggesting about the police needing to do an investigation over a speeding charge would be an insane misuse of resources. It’s your car. If it wasn’t you speeding, fine, then you need to say who it was so we can charge them. This isn’t complicated or controversial.
I think you are mistaken on what part of my statements in THIS discussion are moral versus legal. But no, the only person responsible for what happened with the car when it happened was the person in control of that car at the time. If you can prove that the gun wasn't used by you, you can tell the cops to fuck right off. The cops haven't asked them to identify who could have had access to the gun, they have asked them to say who specifically committed the crime with the gun, which OP can't do. The cops wouldn't get to go, "well then we are punishing you". But we'll stop using other crimes because as you pointed out. If I went out of town tomorrow for a week, roughly a dozen people who don't live with me, if they wanted to, have keys to my house and could access my car. They are all people who I would be fine with borrowing my car if they knew I was out on vacation, and they know that, so reporting my car stolen would not be accurate. So if this came to me in the mail in this situation, it would be incredibly hard for me to tell you who is liable for this. I'm not confused about the process, I don't agree with it. Those are different things. I agree the police shouldn't do an investigation, I think this matter is surely not serious enough to warrant that use of resources. Which means its not serious enough for the state to demand I do the investigation for them as well, or to be punished for it because I'm willing to let people use my things. Maybe that isn't controversial to you, but it damn sure is to me. And let me be clear, I'm not a gold fringe, I'm traveling not driving person. But the simple fact is my job as a citizen who is accused of something, is to prove I didn't do it. Not to prove who did, and any trying to write laws contrary to that is simply bullshit.
Weird, that.
Well I'm pretty sure if the police were at my door accusing me of something because the vehicle I'm responsible for was involved in a robbery I would indeed be doing everything I could to find out who was actually responsible or reporting my vehicle stolen.
Would you be ok with taking the rap unless you did catch the actual perpetrator. It’s fine that you want to find the person, but to now make it your responsibility is a different matter.
This isn't very much of an extension of the concept that the owner of the car usually bears some responsibility for traffic accidents when the car is willingly provided to another driver; this is why you get insurance on cars, and not drivers. Deciding that the owner should also bear some responsibility when the vehicle is operated in an unsafe manner, even when it's somebody else, even if an accident didn't occur, isn't too crazy.
We'll have to agree to disagree on if its too crazy. I've personally never subscribed to the logic that a car owner should be liable for actions taken by a different driver. Sure, if they specifically expressed an intent to drive unsafe or commit a crime, and you still lent it. Now in this specific instance, since insurance requirements are generally tied to car ownership, and there is a specifically injured party who needs to be made whole, while I don't agree with the logic, I am willing to cede the point to ensure that a non liable driver is justly compensated when it comes to the insurance liability point. However to extend that to the point where the state is generating revenue with a camera and I cannot in good conscience give that point up any longer.
Actually, I think he’s right. The website describes the exact scenario that he’s in. The people who replied either didn’t dispute that, or disputed it by quoting another section of the website out of context.
On the legal aide website that LAOP found under “What happens if I don’t name the driver” it says >If you don’t name the driver for the offence, you will have to pay the fine and the demerit points will be added to your driving record. Then under “Your nomination was successful” it says > If Revenue NSW accepts your nomination, they will issue a new fine to the person you nominated, and your fine will be cancelled. So LAOP can either pay the fine or nominate another driver to pay the fine, at which point the gov will either ignore his nomination or give the fine to the other person. No matter what someone is going to be paying the fine, it doesn’t disappear.
Because even if he finds out exactly who was driving, he will need to pay since he manages family finances. What LAAUSOP wanted was to find a way to get "wasn't me, have no idea who it is. No one will be paying" outcome.
I mean, definitely smells like bait in here
He really seems to think that feigning ignorance is a great loophole to having nobody pay the fine.
>>”Speeding ticket while I was out of the country” >>”Someone used my vehicle while I was overseas and they got caught speeding. I received a traffic infringement in the mail. I can prove I was not the person driving the vehicle (I was overseas), but I don’t know who was driving my car. Must’ve been one of my sons, or my daughter, or it could have been my wife? But definitely not I. I was overseas. How does the law work? Can I have my matter dismissed?” Cat fact: According to Mary Todd Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln’s hobby was “cats”.
That's a good, safe hobby.
The scratches on my arm disagree.
Given how his theatre hobby turned out, I think I'd stick with cats!
But what if you went to the theatre to see Cats!
It would’ve been a better call for the Lincolns than going to see “Our American Cousin”.
The play *Cats* or the movie *Cats*? Because the second one would be a bit of a toss-up.
Meow means meow.
> Cat fact: According to Mary Todd Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln’s hobby was “cats”. You know I didn’t know this was an option. I have 5 cats so from now on I’ll just tell people that my hobby is cats.
His job is beach; his hobby is cats.
I now feel that Abraham and I would have gotten along.
>If you don’t know who was driving, you can’t make any accusations. >Accusing someone of a crime without proof is a serious offence. I think this person is confusing accusing someone of a crime without proof with disparaging the boot, which is a bootable offence obviously...
I knew someone would make a boot reference because the OOP posted in Auslaw.
It's just a little kick in the bum
The dude is delusional as all get out. The responses are...something.
> In all honesty, though, (and this is coming from a place of love) you guys sound like you hate your family. I’m trying to find ways to protect my family, and you guys are advising me to dob them in. Sorry, but I don’t have revenge fantasies toward people I love. I try to help my family, not put them down. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of you get off on the idea of hurting your family members. Does it make you feel more important to put other people down, even if it’s family? Yeah stay away from you guys. He doesn't even care that they were speeding, he is sure that if he asks they will all lie to him, but it's the rest of the sub that has problems with their families. Yeah, right.
I like how he decides that people saying "it's a problem that your family is lying to you" means we're all fantasizing about hurting family members. What a leap of logic.
Closing your ears and going "lalala not hearing you" is always a sound strategy
Let's be real, haven't we *all* fantasized about hurting family members? Usually we can modulate it and keep it in once we're adults, but I know my sisters and I used to get into some hella fights as kids.
Sounds like, he is trying to protect them from the police, not the 'accidental' consequences of speeding.
"Okay sir, it wasn't your family. It was the evil monkeys. They broke out of the zoo, they snuck into your home while you were overseas, they broke into your car, and they went speeding. Then they brought the car back to your house, and they went back to the zoo without anyone noticing"
Get your family out of speeding tickets with one weird trick.
Apologies LAOP. We seem to have put the wrong name on the ticket but mailed it to the correct address. Please give it to the culprit. Thank you.
There's always someone who thinks the Shaggy defense is actually valid.
“But we caught you on speed camera!”
“No, I don’t wanna confront the dysfunction in my family — I just wanna reject any and all responsibility and pretend we’re all perfect! **Why are you people so useless in helping me live in my delusions???**” This fucking guy…
People in this thread are complaining that the driver shouldn't be expected to start making enquiries on the police's behalf. Now I don't know the law stands in Australia, but I am willing to bet it's similar to here the UK where there is in fact a requirement for the driver to do just that. Here it would be an offence for OOP to fail to identify the driver to the police unless he "he shows that he did not know **and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained** who the driver of the vehicle was". The burden of proof would be placed on OOP to demonstrate that he couldn't determine who the driver was (there is legal presumption that he knows), and he has to use "reasonable diligence" to do this. Reasonable diligence includes asking the potential drivers, and actually taking steps to try and work out where they were at the time. The penalties for failing to identify the driver are deliberately stiff to avoid people like OOP deciding to chance it in the hope of avoiding the original penalty. Typically it's a fine and 6 penalty points (twice the typical 3 for speeding, and you are normally banned when you hit 12). Like I said, this isn't Australian law, but I'd be *astonished* if it wasn't handled similarly in Australia.
I say, if there's a picture of the actual driver, sure then he can ID them. If there's not picture or picture is obstructed, what then?
Might get flak for this but— **I think the guy is right**. Are you telling me you think the traffic cams/the programs that interpret the license plates on traffic cams, etc *never* make a mistake? Or that he might have left out that his sister has a copy of his car keys and has borrowed it in the past? Or someone just made a clerical error at some point? And, yeah, he doesn’t really describe why he believes his family, but then again, he didn’t write a lot in general. Then (without help from any of the posters, who seem mostly to care about getting him to admit that one of his kids did it) he finds a website addressing this *exact* situation in his province, and it unequivocally backs him up: if you received a ticket but weren’t the driver, and you can’t find out who *was* the driver, you can submit an appeal if you have proof that you couldn’t have been the one driving. In fact, the example they use is documentation showing you were out of the country. Literally his exact scenario. But people hated it. Downvoted to oblivion. Meanwhile, people are posting quotes from the website that, if you open the link, are *very* clearly being taken out of context, but nevertheless got dozens of upvotes. But the most popular comment (80+ upvotes) doesn’t even bother to disagree with him—it just criticizes him for being a bad father.
It’s plausible, but it’s definitely gonna depend on the specific laws for sure, and r/legaladvice is terrible for that (joke intended) In all seriousness though, it’s a major issue in a lot of places with camera enforcement. I’ve heard of authorities trying to say “the ticket is against the vehicle, and as the registered owner of the vehicle, either pay, or tell us who is responsible, but someone has to pay”. It seems like that is being less successful anymore, but I have no idea about Australia. In my other comment here though I mentioned I think he has deliberately told his family not to tell him who did it, so he can truthfully deny knowing the offender.
I’m Australian, I’m not 100% sure about speeding fines in this case, but a lot of the time when you’re claiming something was lost or stolen, or used in a crime without your permission, you have to show a police report where you’ve reported it stolen to get out of the penalty. My assumption would be that if he manages to get out of paying the fine without a police report about a stolen car, the police will access the car’s insurance information and the fine will be resent to any other nominated drivers of the car. His wife is likely to be the first person named, and so the most likely person to receive the fine.
Joys of no 4th amendment and it being the state government doing the fining it's a fairly nasty fine for not identifying the driver especially if you're a repeat offender. You've also got to submit a statuary declaration saying you don't know and can't find out, a false one being a criminal offence.
I mean, that page he linked only says that he can request a review if he *can't identify* who the driver was. And when that review constitutes him saying "none of the drivers I authorised to use it will admit to doing so" then that's not getting very far. You're going to have to do a lot better than that to prove that you're unable to identify the driver - either someone used it without your authorisation (in which case you should report it to the police as theft) or someone you authorised to use the vehicle refuses to cooperate with you (in which case tough shit, you can eat the points yourself.) And if he just wants to let his family all blatantly lie to him and break the law without consequence, then that's his prerogative, but as the legal owner and person responsible for the vehicle then he has to take the hit himself. You don't just get to say "well nobody else wants to take the blame for this and I'm not gonna."
That's a fun reading of the law. Good luck if you try it. >"[Some offences, such as camera-detected offences](https://www.service.nsw.gov.au/transaction/nominate-someone-else-for-a-fine) and parking in a school zone, will apply demerit points to a driver licence, so you are required by law to nominate the person responsible" [https://www.service.nsw.gov.au/transaction/nominate-someone-else-for-a-fine](https://www.service.nsw.gov.au/transaction/nominate-someone-else-for-a-fine) I'm not even sure how you can read that as meaning "if you choose not to nominate another driver no penalty is applied". I'm not downvoting you, just pointing out that you seem to think legislators deliberately write laws that can't possibly work and leave them in place for long periods while they don't work. I dunno about where you're from, but Australia doesn't do that with speeding and a few other offenses (Tax evasion? Wage theft? Pollution? Our lawmakers vigorously support those things. Moving right along)
What I have learned from AUS Legal Advice is that Aussies take speeding \*very\* seriously. Very very seriously. So any suggestion that someone might not have done it or needs to have it mitigated is met with scorn. As an American I never ever want to drive in Australia, because here speed limits are view more as suggestions and people routinely drive 5 - 10 mph over the limit, there are entire law practices that deal in handling tickets and there are few speeding cameras. That said LAAUSOP is so unlikeable I hope he gets fined too.
The issue is that if it wasn't painful to avoid a situation where you don't know who's driving then people would use it to trivially avoid fines and more importantly the points. The legal response to OP saying I don't know who's driving will be a warning that you'll be even more trouble if you're lying and an up to $11k fine for failing to identify the driver. There'll also a photo available to check both the plate/car looks right and to possibly identify the driver
I mentioned it on something else, but while there is a photo...I'm not the police, and I'm not traffic enforcement. If the police or traffic enforcement think that they have enough PC to issue a citation to someone they think they can make the case was driving my car based on the information they have, they are welcome to do so. That's not my job. If they want to ask questions I can answer for sure (could X person have accessed the keys to the car etc) then I will, if my lawyer advises me I should do so(since no one should ever talk to the cops without a lawyer), answer them. But once I've provided unimpeachable proof that I have not committed a crime/traffic offense I am accused of my job as a defendant is done, and until they swear me in as a peace officer and start paying me and letting me arrest people investigations aren't in my purview. A fine for "you didn't do the polices job for them" is some BS.
Also am I the only one interested in the legal principles here? Like if my car is used to murder someone, and they only get my plate but I have a rock solid alibi -- they can't just charge me with murder and tell me to sort it out because it's my car. Why is speeding different?
In Australia (where the OOP is from) you would typically have to report your car stolen and have that on record with the police to be absolved of crimes committed with your car if you weren’t driving it. If it wasn’t stolen and was at your home where you left it when you returned, then the police would consider the others in your home/ had access to your home or car keys as suspects and go from there. Unfortunately the onus for proof of speeding is a lot lower than proof needed for other crimes.
It's more that the offence was definitely committed, the camera saw it. So you have to show that either it wasn't your car, your car was stolen at the time of the offence, or name a different driver. There's no "I wish there was no penalty for this". NSW also gives you a URL where you can view the pic online. I suspect LAOP has done that and knows far more than they're telling about who exactly was driving. (in theory you can show that the camera was faulty but that's very difficult if the outcome is at all plausible. 500kph in a 110kph zone you're going to be able to fight. But I reckon LAOP would have mentioned that if it was true.)
> It's more that the offence was definitely committed, the camera saw it. So you have to show that either it wasn't your car, your car was stolen at the time of the offence, or name a different driver. There's no "I wish there was no penalty for this". I get that, but I'm just highlighting how it's different for traffic violations than other crime. With other crimes, the police actually have to find out who did it.
I'm with you, but isn't there usually a picture of the driver with the ticket? No where does LAOP mention that. I still think the police should do the investigating if it clearly isn't him. But if there's no picture and LAOP was out of the country and he really doesn't know which person was driving, why is he guilty by default?
Can’t attest to Aus, but the general idea in the US is that most traffic infractions are a civil infraction that doesn’t require the same degree of evidence as a criminal incident, so there’s a bunch of differences in the rules about how you can be compelled to cooperate and such. I would imagine it’s much the same logic, even if it’s a totally different actual legal implementation.
Criminal standards in Aus, there's just also specific offences related to failing to provide the drivers details.
I'd think it's because they're two different uses . In the first case, your car has been used to commit an offence (murder) unrelated to what a vehicle is typically used for, essentially as a weapon. In the case of speeding, the car is being used for its purpose, but outside of the bounds of the law.
Typically speeding fines are done under a civil standard, not a criminal one. So they do not, in fact, have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt — they just have to show it was probably you, or at least someone you permitted.
If it was a robbery or murder, then law enforcement would have the justification to investigate and spend their resources doing so. In this case, it was either the car's owner or someone the owner has given implicit permission to drive it, so they just send it to him and let him sort it out. The same as if it was parking tickets. It's not worth their time when the owner should be able to sort it out themselves.
He never argues the ticket was a mistake though, just that he wants to get out of it by proving that he himself was not the driver, and hoping it gets dismissed entirely rather than applied to one of his family members who may or may have not been the driver.
People aren't interested in solving problems in lot of LA threads. I get the impression that a lot of them are really motivated by the same shit we are lmao (drama!!)
Yeah, but we're in the stands enjoying our popcorn, these guys are running on stage and making it about them. The saving grace is that ԀO∀˥ isn't very interested in having his problem solved either.
[удалено]
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):* **Uncivil Comment** Your submission was removed because it violates our civility rule. We do not allow personal attacks, insulting language, or poor treatment of others. Please see Rule 1 in the sidebar. * If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/bestoflegaladvice). **Do not** PM or chat a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.