Re: Speed Camera Fine/NSW-wrong Driver?HELP!
Saab C900 Viggenist
>larstetens wrote:
>> I got a penalty notice from NSW OSR regarding a speed camera fine for a
>> speed offense that occurred when I was out of the country-I wasn't the
>> driver (out of country).But as I am the registered owner-I got the
>> bloody fine. I narrowed it down to 2 mates who were driving the car
>> when visiting from America-SO WHAT do I do?
>>
>> I've never had a speed fine(not perfect-just lucky I reckon). I'm
>> supposed to fill out that "stat-dec"-to say I wasn't driving the
>> car-which is not the issue/problem (obvious-I wasn't in the country).
>> But I can't get either my two mates to cop to "who was driving"...So I
>> have no way of 100%/Dead set identifying "who" was actually driving the
>> car-and the pic according to the OSR doesn't reveal that. Furthermore I
>> don't have these blokes "drivers license numbers"?? How am I supposed to
>> sign that statutory declaration form? I know I wasn't the driver-but I
>> have no idea at the end of the day WHO was actually driving the car at
>> the exact moment of the fine-and NSW OSR doesn't really offer any help
>> either.
>>
>> Anybody know how this process works if you weren't the driver? Do I
>> just pick one of these blokes-give their address in America and "wash
>> my hands" of the ordeal? I just don't want to have to pay the fine or
>> get the points-as I wasn't even in the country.....HELP
>>
>>
>I'm not sure if NSW do it, but in some states you can request a blown up
>photo of the vehicle. That might help you identify the driver. There
>is usually a fee for providing this photo.
Yes you can purchase copies of photo(s) by sending $11 to the SDRO (I did
that recently for a camera fine notice I've received), but they will NOT
show faces due to privacy laws - if any personal features are visible
they're obscured before the pictures are printed and sent.
I don't know if the photos when produced in a court will also have faces,
etc. obscured but I presume they would.
Craig.
--
Craig's Saab C900 Page at | Craig's Classic Saab Workshop - Sydney .au
http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900 | http://www.classicsaab.net and other URL's
Email: c9...@lios.apana.org.au | For Saab 99/C900/9000 Enthusiasts World-Wide!
Alternate: saab...@gmail.com | Web-forums, galleries, library, links, etc.
Sylvia Else
>
> I don't know if the photos when produced in a court will also have faces,
> etc. obscured but I presume they would.
If they are, then the unobscured ones could be subpoenaed.
Not that that helps. To avoid liability, the person in whose name the
vehicle is registered has to comply with the legal requirements. Proving
that they were not driving doesn't cut it.
Sylvia.
peterwn
wrote:
>
> Yes you can purchase copies of photo(s) by sending $11 to the SDRO (I did
> that recently for a camera fine notice I've received), but they will NOT
> show faces due to privacy laws - if any personal features are visible
> they're obscured before the pictures are printed and sent.
>
Golly! I have never heard of such PC crap in all my life! Surely the
owner of a car is entitled to see a picture of the person driving his
or her car especially when the driver has dropped the owner in it.
Perhaps privacy is merely an excuse, the authorities do not want
drivers identified as it causes them more hassle and work.
Saab C900 Viggenist
Don't really know, but the rules about getting copies of the pictures are
very explicit to say that any visible faces shown will be 'blocked'. I guess
it just means someone digitally alters the image before printing it, but
then that raises the question of the important features (like rego number,
etc.) being changed or potentially changed.
I have never been in a court hearing over a speed camera fine so I don't
know if the pictures used as evidence have faces 'blocked'. Anyone know?
I can think of one reason (which is a bit counter-productive) - if the car
has been stolen, then because the vehicle owner wasn't driving it, the
identity of the thief is *protected by privacy laws* in any images captured
for an 'official' fine-issuing purpose by a speed camera, etc. Really stupid
(hence the note it's counter-productive), but that's the way privacy
legislation works (at least here in NSW). It might be national since there
are national privacy Acts too.
Stephen X. Carter
Dredging through a hazy memory (so don't flame too hard if bits are wrong!)...
Wasn't there a case not so long ago of a High Court Judge who owned a car that was caught
speeding, and when asked who was driving he named someone who had (he said) since returned to
the USA.
She later turned out to have been dead several years.
I seem to recall that he (in some form) repeated the deception (but I may be wrong about that).
Eventually he was done for perjury.
The point is that there has to be a get out for you. Have you even sought professional legal
help on this?
--
steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
Sylvia Else
'twas a former Federal Court judge, Marcus Einfield. He has yet to be tried.
<http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/einfeld-trial-postponed-for-month/2008/03/31/1206850763836.html>
Sylvia.
Noddy
"Stephen X. Carter" <steve@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:482a3714.9739876@localhost...
> The point is that there has to be a get out for you.
There is.
They *cannot* prosecute you if you can prove you *weren't* driving the car,
and as the OP was out of the country at the time the offence took place he's
off the hook. All he has to do is state that if the car was used while he
was away it was done so *without* his permission and the case will be
dropped as it'll cost more to prosecute than what it's worth.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
RainbowWarrior
news:482a3714.9739876@localhost...
>
> wrong!)...
>
> Wasn't there a case not so long ago of a High Court Judge who owned a car
> that was caught
> speeding, and when asked who was driving he named someone who had (he
> said) since returned to
> the USA.
>
> She later turned out to have been dead several years.
>
> I seem to recall that he (in some form) repeated the deception (but I may
> be wrong about that).
>
> Eventually he was done for perjury.
>
> The point is that there has to be a get out for you. Have you even sought
> professional legal
> help on this?
Yep, the "get out" is the driver at the time accepting reponsibility.
If you choose to leave your car as a "free for all" while you go away you
are responsible for it usage. If you don't want to risk it, simple, just
hide the keys, they can ring you if they need it desperately or put a
specific trustworty "mate" in charge. If your "mates" won't admit to driving
the vehicle then they're not good mates or the vehicle was stolen.
If you come back from overseas and find your car has been upside down in a
ditch for 2 weeks, and your "mates" say they didn't drive it, do you just
take it on the chin and accept responsibility or tell the insurance company
nobody was driving it?
RainbowWarrior
news:482a6965$0$58051$c30e...@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
> Noddy.
The motto of this story is, register all your vehicles in the name of people
who live overseas and you can get off free on all speeding or redlight
camera tickets.
Noddy
"RainbowWarrior" <anemail...@tgr.fr> wrote in message
news:X3vWj.871$IK1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> The motto of this story is, register all your vehicles in the name of
> people who live overseas and you can get off free on all speeding or
> redlight camera tickets.
Shame you can't do that :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Mr.T
"RainbowWarrior" <anemail...@tgr.fr> wrote in message
news:X3vWj.871$IK1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
people
> who live overseas and you can get off free on all speeding or redlight
> camera tickets.
But of course you legally have to be a resident in the state which you
register the vehicle, and provide a current address.
MrT.
RainbowWarrior
news:482acf16$0$17509$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Doesn't meant they can't be out of the country a lot.
Noddy
> Doesn't meant they can't be out of the country a lot.
Sure, and if you are then they'll have a hard time booking you if your car
is used without your permission :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Mr.T
> >> The motto of this story is, register all your vehicles in the name of
> > people
> >> who live overseas and you can get off free on all speeding or redlight
> >> camera tickets.
> >
> > But of course you legally have to be a resident in the state which you
> > register the vehicle, and provide a current address.
> >
>
Does mean their normal residence must legally be in the state, and therefore
they are able to be prosecuted.
And it also means they can simply sell the vehicle any time they want, since
they are legally registered as the owner, not you!
You must be a very bad driver to want to risk that. :-)
MrT.
RainbowWarrior
Damn I really must use the <sarcasm> tags for some :)
RainbowWarrior
> Noddy.
Yeah any parking bingles, just drive off, it's not the registered owners
responsibility for the damage to other peoples cars, as he can prove he
wasn't in the country :P
Noddy
> Yeah any parking bingles, just drive off, it's not the registered owners
> responsibility for the damage to other peoples cars, as he can prove he
> wasn't in the country :P
That's right :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Mr.T
> >> >> The motto of this story is, register all your vehicles in the name
of
> >> > people
> >> >> who live overseas and you can get off free on all speeding or
redlight
> >> >> camera tickets.
> >> >
> >> > But of course you legally have to be a resident in the state which
you
> >> > register the vehicle, and provide a current address.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Doesn't meant they can't be out of the country a lot.
> >
> > Does mean their normal residence must legally be in the state, and
> > therefore
> > they are able to be prosecuted.
> > And it also means they can simply sell the vehicle any time they want,
> > since
> > they are legally registered as the owner, not you!
> >
> > You must be a very bad driver to want to risk that. :-)
> >
Or at least a smiley if you insist on writing like you are serious. With so
many morons on the internet, you just look like another one if you don't
make your intention at least partly obvious.
If you expect us to read your mind, you wouldn't need to bother posting in
the first place! :-)
MrT.
Kwyjibo
"Toby" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:g1eks7$8ee$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> Kwyjibo blathered on in Kwyjibo:
>
>>
>> "Snapper" <snap...@y7mail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:e5sj34t0ge6qs2e08...@yarwho.com...
>>> Kwyjibo wrote...
>>>
>>>> Why would I bother imagining that when it doesn't happen in the case of
>>>> speeding motorists?
>>>
>>> Because it does.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>> If your vehicle is snapped by a speed or red light camera you,
>>> as the registered owner are deemed to be guilty, unless YOU can prove
>>> that
>>> someone else was driving, and to name that person. If you can't, then
>>> you
>>> wear
>>> the penalties.
>>
>> And you can provide a link to the specific section of legislation that
>> states this?
>>
>>> It doesn't matter if, in the case of the OP, you were overseas at
>>> the time, unless they snapped a different car and got the rego details
>>> wrong.
>>> Even then there have been many documented cases where Victoria Police
>>> has
>>> dug
>>> its heels in and refused to acknowledge that it fucked up, thus forcing
>>> the
>>> victims into protracted and costly legal action.
>>
>> Ahh. You mean you can go to court, just like you can when the police use
>> circumstantial evidence to suspect you of ANY crime?
>> You and Toby both need to get it through your thick heads that receiving
>> a
>> fine is not an indication that the legal system has removed your
>> presumption
>> of innocence. The police are making an accusation - the same as they do
>> with
>> rapists, murderers and any other offence. The only difference is that
>> they
>> provide you the option to own up and pay a fine without the need to go to
>> court to declare yourself guilty. The only time you need to go to court
>> is
>> if you want to dispute their evidence - the same as you would in any
>> other
>> case.
>> Speed offences are no different to anything else.
>>
>
> Such an abidingly stupid cunt....still.
> Lets get it clear - just for you
Here we go.......
> The idea with this legislation is that you can plead guilty to the
> offence allegation simply by paying the fine.
> That is as it is with all other on-the-spot allegations.
Correct (for once)
> That's as far as it gets in terms of similarities.
Wrong.
> Because when you get to court, you have to prove it was not you driving
> the vehicle involved in that allegation.
> The prosecution side does not have to prove you were the offender, at
> all.
<sigh>
Not very good with logical thought, are you Toby.....
The police have circumstantial evidence that you were involved in the
offence - The photo.
It's your job to refute that eveidence - EXACTLY THE SAME WAY YOU WOULD FOR
ANY OTHER OFFENCE.
>
> And herein lies the DIFFERENCE.
There is no difference, stupid.
> THERE IS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE DOING WHATEVER IT IS THAT THE
> ALLEGATIONS WERE BROUGHT FOR.
Lot's of people have been convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence
too. What's your point?
> There is only evidence is of a form that the the vehicle you have
> registered has been involved in some manner. That material is entirely
> irrelevant to the practical matter of the offence.
Wrong. It's circumstantial evidence.
>
> In all other on-the-spot offences there is direct evidence, gathered at
> the scene, by an officer entitled to do just that.
Lie. Have fun explaining littering, breaching water restrictions etc.
<snip remaining loony shit>
--
Kwyj.