RSS
Another YouTube Speeder Found Not Guilty Due To Lack Of Evidence
from the be-careful-when-you-speed-and-youtube dept
It seems that it's becoming somewhat common for police to scour YouTube for videos of people filming themselves speeding. However, at the same time, we're seeing at least a few of the tickets handed out for such YouTube speeding thrown out. The latest is over in the UK, where a guy charged with speeding due to a YouTube video has been found not guilty because there's not enough evidence that he was the one actually driving the car -- or that the car was really traveling at the speed shown on the speedometer. This doesn't mean that folks posting their speeding videos on YouTube won't still be fined, but it appears that (at least in the UK) courts are making sure that there's enough actual evidence there to make the fines stick.
22 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- UK Now Seizing Music Blogs (With American Domains) Over Copyright Claims
- Sky News Tells Reporters Not To Use Twitter To Break News Without Permission
- UK Report Blames The Internet For Terrorism, Says ISPs Should Take Down Content
- Universal Music Claims Copyright Over Song That It Didn't License, Just Because One Of Its Artists Rapped To It On A Leaked Track
- DailyDirt: Looking For Science Projects...
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Uk Courts...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Reckless driving
As to proving who was driving the car at the time, it should be the owner of the vehicle's responsibility to make sure the persons driving their vehicle are acting within the law and (unless it has already been reported as stolen). Therefore they should either provide details of the person driving their vehicle at the time of the video or fined themselves.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reckless driving
Can you suggest a practical way to enforce it?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Reckless driving
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Reckless Driving
So in the case of this news story. If the courts cannot determine that it was the owner of the vehicle who was driving at the time of the video's recording and the owner is claiming innocence. Then the owner should have to provide the police/courts with the details of the person who was driving, or pay the fine themselves.
Basically ignorance should not equal innocence.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Innocent until proven etc
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Italy's worse..
His lawyer pointed out that under Italian law, the police have to record the speed 4 times, I suppose in order to cancel out radar-gun errors.
It was successfully argued that the driver was driving too fast to be correctly recorded 4 times, and therefore cannot be charged with speeding.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reckless Driving
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What about the poor RIAA?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reckless driving
2. It is my right to loan out my vehicle. In most US states, the responsibility for safe and proper driving falls, rightfully, on the driver, not the vehicle owner. Think about the liability of car rental companies if we made the car owners responsible! Now, I could be charged with obstruction of justice if I were subpoenaed to provide the name of the person using the car, and I refused.
3. Many young people post videos they have found, claiming credit in order to look "cool." I think what the courts are saying is, how do we know the video in question was not one simply found elsewhere by the user and reposted as opposed to being shot by the user?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reckless Driving
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reckless Driving
Yes, if you as the employer can't identify who was downloading child porn on your computer then you should be held accountable. It's not too hard to figure out who was sitting at what desk in an office environment.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reckless Driving
I agree that, if issued a court subpoena, the owner must provide information about who drove the car. However, refusal would lead to an obstruction of justice charge, NOT liability for the original crime.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
No, you shouldn't be held accountable. I assume the cops would be able to identify the person in your vehicle on the scene.
Now, if that person causes the pileup and then flee's the scene. Expect the cops to come knocking because it's your license plate sitting on the interstate.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Reckless Driving
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Reckless Driving
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reckless Driving
> courts cannot determine that it was the
> owner of the vehicle who was driving at
> the time of the video's recording and the
> owner is claiming innocence. Then the owner
> should have to provide the police/courts
> with the details of the person who was
> driving, or pay the fine themselves.
There's a little thing we have in USA (which you may or may not have in the UK-- I have no idea) called the "presumption of innocence".
That means the state has to prove me guilty of a crime. I don't have to prove myself innocent. And I cannot be compelled to testify against myself, either.
That means that if the state charges me with a crime, they better have the evidence to prove it. I don't even have to say a word other than "not guilty" when they ask how I plead. I certainly am not obligated to provide details of who was driving my car, at what time and under what circumstances. If they can't prove I was behind the wheel, then I'm entitled to an acquittal and that acquittal can't be conditioned on me helping the authorities figure out who *was* the driver at the time.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Reckless Driving
> at least some jurisdictions, this "miscarriage
> of justice" is exactly how it works.
The difference is that the tickets generated by those cameras are adminstrative fines, not criminal citations.
Yes, under such a system, the state can hold the owner of the vehicle responsible for the fines, no matter who was actually driving. But at the same time, they have to give up a lot of the advantages that come with a criminal charge.
With a traditional criminal speeding ticket, if you didn't show up in court or pay the fine, they could issue a warrant for your arrest. They could also suspend your license if you got too many tickets and sentence you to take classes like Defensive Driving.
With camera tickets, all that stuff is no longer available to the state. If you fail to pay the fine, the worst thing they can do is send the debt to a collection agency, which might blacken your credit rating and/or bar you from re-registering your vehicle until the fine is paid. They can't arrest you for it, put points on your license for it or take your license away-- because in order to do any of those things, the state has to prove *you personally* committed the offense, not just your vehicle. And they can't meet that burden of proof with a camera photo of your car.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
In a case where someone is actually filming themselves speed and bragging about it, whether they're the ones driving or not.. the fact that they let their vehicle be in a situation like that in the first place is reason enough to give them a ticket.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment