Go Safe Photo of Driver

Demonical

Hi all, I got a fine in the door here for speeding. Only thing is none of us remember passing the van and 3 of us were driving the car on the day in question. I have asked Go Safe for a picture which they sent of the reg plate but had the driver blacked out which obviously didn't help. I am the registered owner of the car so I have to nominate the driver. We would like to know who was actually driving the car when it was speeding, obviously no-one wants anyone elses points. So what can we do? Everyone is insured on the car (before it is mentioned).

RootX

Does any of the drivers hold a foreign license? If yes, nominate him and split the fine

vibe666

unless you can get a picture of the drivers face to allow you to identify who was driving, you can't be expected to just nominate someone and if the gardai can't provide you with the evidence, then there is statistically a 66.6% chance that the wrong driver will be prosecuted which isn't exactly a reliable way to go around convicting people.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

vibe666 wrote: »

unless you can get a picture of the drivers face to allow you to identify who was driving, you can't be expected to just nominate someone and if the gardai can't provide you with the evidence, then there is statistically a 66.6% chance that the wrong driver will be prosecuted which isn't exactly a reliable way to go around convicting people.

As the registered owner, it is up to you to prove who else if not you was driving. No proof means you take the hit.

Demonical

RootX wrote: »

Does any of the drivers hold a foreign license? If yes, nominate him and split the fine

Unfortunately no

vibe666 wrote: »

unless you can get a picture of the drivers face to allow you to identify who was driving, you can't be expected to just nominate someone and if the gardai can't provide you with the evidence, then there is statistically a 66.6% chance that the wrong driver will be prosecuted which isn't exactly a reliable way to go around convicting people.

That's what I said but apparently it is up to me as the registered owner of the vehicle to know who is driving it at every minute :rolleyes:

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Demonical wrote: »

That's what I said but apparently it is up to me as the registered owner of the vehicle to know who is driving it at every minute :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
Well that's the law.


You can request a photo to include the driver's face. But at the end of the day, if it is inconclusive, as the registered owner you are responsible. Similar to m50 tolls, parking fines, penalties issued for no tax/insurance/nct (if issued when the car is parked in public property, if someone else is driving then they will get the fine+points)

Demonical

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

As the registered owner, it is up to you to prove who else if not you was driving. No proof means you take the hit.

Is it not up to them to provide the proof? The car is insured, taxed NCT'd everything else is the way it should be. Do I need to set up a sign in, sign out sheet in the car or something? I've no problem taking the "hit" as you call it if I was driving but not if I wasn't.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Demonical wrote: »

Is it not up to them to provide the proof? The car is insured, taxed NCT'd everything else is the way it should be. Do I need to set up a sign in, sign out sheet in the car or something? I've no problem taking the "hit" as you call it if I was driving but not if I wasn't.

No, they have taken a photo of your car committing an offense, it is now up to you to prove someone else was driving.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Demonical wrote: »

Is it not up to them to provide the proof? The car is insured, taxed NCT'd everything else is the way it should be. Do I need to set up a sign in, sign out sheet in the car or something? I've no problem taking the "hit" as you call it if I was driving but not if I wasn't.

As the registered owner, you should know who else and when your car is being driven. You are responsible for the car.

bazz26

Demonical wrote: »

Is it not up to them to provide the proof? The car is insured, taxed NCT'd everything else is the way it should be. Do I need to set up a sign in, sign out sheet in the car or something? I've no problem taking the "hit" as you call it if I was driving but not if I wasn't.

They have proof that the car registered in your name was caught speeding. It is not their concern about how many drivers you allow to drive your car. If nobody owns up to the offense then by default the registered owner gets the points and fine. There is no conspiracy here.

Demonical

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Well that's the law.


You can request a photo to include the driver's face. But at the end of the day, if it is inconclusive, as the registered owner you are responsible. Similar to m50 tolls, parking fines, penalties issued for no tax/insurance/nct (if issued when the car is parked in public property, if someone else is driving then they will get the fine+points)

That's what I wanted to know, if there was any way to (or am I entitled to) get a photo of the driver...thank you.

CiniO

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Well that's the law.


You can request a photo to include the driver's face. But at the end of the day, if it is inconclusive, as the registered owner you are responsible. Similar to m50 tolls, parking fines, penalties issued for no tax/insurance/nct (if issued when the car is parked in public property, if someone else is driving then they will get the fine+points)

Well it's not exactly the law.

The law makes presumption that registered owner was driving.
If he can prove he wasn't then he can't be prosecuted.
Easiest way to prove he wasn't driving is to point out someone else who was driving and assuming that person accepts that fact and pays the fine, then case is closed.

However if registered owner can prove he wasn't driving somehow else (f.e. has an alibi - can show she was somewhere else at that time), then he can not be prosecuted for speeding, even if he can't point out who was driving.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

CiniO wrote: »

Well it's not exactly the law.

The law makes presumption that registered owner was driving.
If he can prove he wasn't then he can't be prosecuted.
Easiest way to prove he wasn't driving is to point out someone else who was driving and assuming that person accepts that fact and pays the fine, then case is closed.

However if registered owner can prove he wasn't driving somehow else (f.e. has an alibi - can show she was somewhere else at that time), then he can not be prosecuted for speeding, even if he can't point out who was driving.

Interesting to see if you can prove that?
Because the law as it stands is that the registered owner receives the fine unless the form is posted back with another driver's details.

vibe666

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Interesting to see if you can prove that?
Because the law as it stands is that the registered owner receives the fine unless the form is posted back with another driver's details.

it was always the case (at least when I was in the UK) that if you were genuinely unable to say who was driving the car and it *may* have been someone else, then you cannot be prosecuted simply because the law cannot prosecute someone for a crime if there is reasonable doubt as to their guilt.

I can't imagine it's all that different in Ireland, we have enough trouble getting guilty people convicted in this country, seems a bit of a stretch to expect them to push for the conviction of someone for a crime they may genuinely not have committed?

joujoujou

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Interesting to see if you can prove that?
[...]

It is possible, at least sometimes.

[thread]91237853[/thread]

Cleveland Hot Pocket

vibe666 wrote: »

it was always the case (at least when I was in the UK) that if you were genuinely unable to say who was driving the car and it *may* have been someone else, then you cannot be prosecuted simply because the law cannot prosecute someone for a crime if there is reasonable doubt as to their guilt.

I can't imagine it's all that different in Ireland, we have enough trouble getting guilty people convicted in this country, seems a bit of a stretch to expect them to push for the conviction of someone for a crime they may genuinely not have committed?

But the law is, as it's your car,if you don't post back the form with someone else's name on it that the points and fine get applied to you.

djimi

I suppose the question is whether or not the law would hold up if challenged. In other words, can be found to be guilty of an offense that you can prove you didnt commit.

Right now the system as it works is basically the car get the fine, which is then applied to the registered owner by extension unless they can provide the name of the person who was driving. Id be interested to see if it would hold up if challenged in court.

CiniO

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

But the law is, as it's your car,if you don't post back the form with someone else's name on it that the points and fine get applied to you.

The law doesn't say anything about forms or posting them.
The law says that it's presumed that registered owner is driving his vehicle during offence.
If he can prove otherwise - f.e. by showing that he was somewhere else at that time and could not possibly be driving, then he can not be prosecuted for that offence.

vibe666

just read that other thread (and asked for a followup from the OP since it's relevant here) and aside from several people who seemed to value their own opinion on the matter above what the RTA legislation says, it seems that if you can prove you weren't driving and you don't know for sure who was, you *might* get away with it, but not so sure in a case where you know who was driving but aren't sure who was but know who it might have been.

its actually quite an interesting piece to study, so (aside from someone *probably* getting points and a fine out of it), it's going to be interesting to find out how it turns out.

vibe666

here's the legislation from the other thread for anyone interested.

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/RevisedActs/WithAnnotations/EN_ACT_2002_0012.PDF

(4) Where—
(a) a notice under this section is served on the registered owner of a mechanically
propelled vehicle or affixed to such a vehicle, and
(b) the registered owner of the vehicle was not driving or otherwise using the
vehicle at the time of the commission of the alleged offence to which the
notice relates,the registered owner shall—
(i) not later than 28 days after the date of the notice give or send to a member
of the Garda Síochána or a traffic warden at the Garda Síochána station
or other place specified in the notice a document in the prescribed form
signed by the registered owner and stating the name and address of the
person who was driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of such
commission, and

(ii) give or send to a member of the Garda Síochána or a traffic warden
within such period as may be specified by the member or warden at the
Garda Síochána station or other place aforesaid such other information
within his or her knowledge or procurement as the member or warden
may reasonably request for the purpose of identifying, and establishing
the whereabouts of, the person referred to in subparagraph (i) of this
paragraph.

(8)(d) if the registered owner of the vehicle concerned was not driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the alleged offense concerned, he or she is required by subsection (4) of this section –

(i) not later than 28 days after the date of the notice, to give or send to a member of the Garda Síochána or a traffic warden at the specified Garda Síochána station or another specified place a document in the prescribed form signed by the registered owner and stating the name and address of the person who was driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of such commission, and

(ii) to give or send to a member of the Garda Síochána or traffic warden within such period as may be specified by him or her at a specified Garda Síochána station or another specified place such other information within his or her knowledge or procurement as the member or warden may reasonably request for the purpose of identifying, and establishing the whereabouts of, the person referred to in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph.

(9)
(e) if the registered owner complies with the said subsection (4), the payment
aforesaid need not be made by the registered owner and a prosecution of
the registered owner in respect of the alleged offence aforesaid shall not be
initiated.


(11) Where, in a case to which subsection (2)(b) of this section applies, the registered
owner of the mechanically propelled vehicle concerned does not furnish in
accordance with subsection (4) of this section the information specified in
paragraph (i) of that subsection, then, in a prosecution of that owner for the
alleged offence to which the notice under the said subsection (2)(b) relates,
it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown that he or she was driving
or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the said
alleged offence.

(17) A person who, pursuant to subsection (4) of this section, gives or sends to a
member of the Garda Síochána or a traffic warden information (whether or
not contained in a document) that is, to his or her knowledge, false or
misleading shall be guilty of an offence.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Thanks Vibe666 I think that proves what I mentioned.

CiniO

Thanks Vibe666 I think that proves what I mentioned.

vibe666

the important bit that seems to be splitting opinion is this:

"it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown that he or she was driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the said alleged offence."

the problem here is what would constitute evidence to the contrary?

in this case, we have three people who cannot honestly say who was driving at the time of the offence. if all three inc. the keeper of the vehicle turn up to court and swear under oath that none of them honestly knows who was driving and none even saw the gosafe van as (i think) the OP stated, then i personally doubt that a judge is going to convict one of them (i.e. the keeper) if there is a reasonable doubt as to their guilt.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

CiniO wrote: »

Thanks Vibe666 I think that proves what I mentioned.

I forgot why you were on ignore actually, it's smart arsed BS like this.
Between the know-it-all crap that you normally come out with, and now resorting to mimicking, you can join the other cabb8ge and
zegnaj kutas and one or two other on my ignore list.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

vibe666 wrote: »

the important bit that seems to be splitting opinion is this:

"it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown that he or she was driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the said alleged offence."

the problem here is what would constitute evidence to the contrary?

in this case, we have three people who cannot honestly say who was driving at the time of the offence. if all three inc. the keeper of the vehicle turn up to court and swear under oath that none of them honestly knows who was driving and none even saw the gosafe van as (i think) the OP stated, then i personally doubt that a judge is going to convict one of them (i.e. the keeper) if there is a reasonable doubt as to their guilt.

Until the contrary is shown would apply that, until reasonably proven otherwise, the registered keeper is responsible.

The accepted proof is to show that someone else is driving at that time. Otherwise we could all just get affidavits signed by solicitors and get off all fines.

djimi

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Until the contrary is shown would apply that, until reasonably proven otherwise, the registered keeper is responsible.

The accepted proof is to show that someone else is driving at that time. Otherwise we could all just get affidavits signed by solicitors and get off all fines.

Not necessarily. If I can produce receipts/ATM withdrawals/credit card payments etc that show I am elsewhere at the time of the offense, or if I can provide some other evidence to show my whereabouts, then I can prove that I wasnt driving.

vibe666

the keeper is responsible unless they can prove they weren't driving. in this case it's a grey area as the keeper doesn't honestly know one way or the other.

the other thread (not sure if you read it or not?) was pretty cut and dry in that the OP had proof that he wasn't driving and that (until he got the gosafe letter) to his knowledge nobody was driving it, or had permission to drive it.

the OP in that particular case just had to turn up to court with evidence that he wasn't driving and to state under oath that he didn't know who was driving and that nobody had his permission to drive during the time of the offence and that would have been that.

this one i'm not so sure about, i suspect we'll have to wait and see.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

djimi wrote: »

Not necessarily. If I can produce receipts/ATM withdrawals/credit card payments etc that show I am elsewhere at the time of the offense, or if I can provide some other evidence to show my whereabouts, then I can prove that I wasnt driving.

So we just forget about the little matter of the speeding?

djimi

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

So we just forget about the little matter of the speeding?

How do you propose it is dealt with? The registered owner can show that they werent driving, as per the law stated above, and even without that law you cannot punish someone for an offense that they can prove they did not commit.

CiniO

vibe666 wrote: »

the important bit that seems to be splitting opinion is this:

"it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown that he or she was driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the said alleged offence."

the problem here is what would constitute evidence to the contrary?

in this case, we have three people who cannot honestly say who was driving at the time of the offence. if all three inc. the keeper of the vehicle turn up to court and swear under oath that none of them honestly knows who was driving and none even saw the gosafe van as (i think) the OP stated, then i personally doubt that a judge is going to convict one of them (i.e. the keeper) if there is a reasonable doubt as to their guilt.

I'd in OP's case it would be not enough to say that they just don't know who was driving. It's presumed registered owner was driving until contrary is shown. Saying that you don't know if you were driving or not is not contrary.
But if OP said that he doesn't know who was driving, but it definitely wasn't him as he was them somewhere else and could prove that, that surely would be enough of the contrary shown.

vibe666

CiniO wrote: »

I'd in OP's case it would be not enough to say that they just don't know who was driving. It's presumed registered owner was driving until contrary is shown. Saying that you don't know if you were driving or not is not contrary.
But if OP said that he doesn't know who was driving, but it definitely wasn't him as he was them somewhere else and could prove that, that surely would be enough of the contrary shown.

aha. i think you might be right.

time will tell i guess.

mylittlepony

Is nit there be a date and time on letter of the offence that way you know who was driving at that time on the day.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

djimi wrote: »

How do you propose it is dealt with? The registered owner can show that they werent driving, as per the law stated above, and even without that law you cannot punish someone for an offense that they can prove they did not commit.

So their car was caught speeding.
Ok.
They should have to show who was using their car to speed, if it wasnt them.

vibe666

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

So their car was caught speeding.
Ok.
They should have to show who was using their car to speed, if it wasnt them.

until the irish courts switch to the cleveland hot pocket road traffic act, we'll just have to stick with the irish RTA which states that you only have to prove that you weren't driving at the time of the offence, not prove who WAS driving.

by the time a gosafe letter comes through the post, it's likely to have been weeks since the offence and in a vehicle that is driven by several people on any given day, it can be impossible to state with 100% certainty who was driving at any given point in time unless the gardai provide a picture of the drivers face.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

vibe666 wrote: »

until the irish courts switch to the cleveland hot pocket road traffic act, we'll just have to stick with the irish RTA which states that you only have to prove that you weren't driving at the time of the offence, not prove who WAS driving.

by the time a gosafe letter comes through the post, it's likely to have been weeks since the offence and in a vehicle that is driven by several people on any given day, it can be impossible to state with 100% certainty who was driving at any given point in time unless the gardai provide a picture of the drivers face.

Little harsh, no?
Surely there should have to be someone nominated to accept the points since an offense was committed.

djimi

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

So their car was caught speeding.
Ok.
They should have to show who was using their car to speed, if it wasnt them.

The law as posted above doesnt agree with you.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

djimi wrote: »

The law as posted above doesnt agree with you.

Hence why I said should.
Ridiculous that someone can speed in someone else's car, then get away with it because the RO can show he was in a different place.

Think I'll borrow someone else's car and drive at 100mph past a gosafe van now. What a stupid country we live in.

vibe666

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Little harsh, no?
Surely there should have to be someone nominated to accept the points since an offense was committed.

no, not harsh at all.

you can't 'nominate' convict someone randomly of a crime that they may not have committed just because a crime WAS committed by *someone* when there is no concrete evidence that they were the one who committed it, that's not how the justice system works.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

vibe666 wrote: »

no, not harsh at all.

you can't 'nominate' convict someone randomly of a crime that they may not have committed just because a crime WAS committed by *someone* when there is no concrete evidence that they were the one who committed it, that's not how the justice system works.

Fine so.
Couldn't be arsed replying to you after your above post. So I'll leave it at that for this thread.

[/exit CHP]

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

djimi

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Hence why I said should.
Ridiculous that someone can speed in someone else's car, then get away with it because the RO can show he was in a different place.

Think I'll borrow someone else's car and drive at 100mph past a gosafe van now. What a stupid country we live in.

I suppose a basic principle of law is that you cannot be convicted of an offense that you did not commit. Unless you change the law to make it an offense not to know who is driving your car at all times then Im not sure how you get around it really.

vibe666

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Fine so.
Couldn't be arsed replying to you after your above post. So I'll leave it at that for this thread.

[/exit CHP]

AKA: CHP has no argument and can't provide any evidence to the contrary, so does the usual hit and run approach so often favoured by those who don't like having to provide evidence to support their strongly held (but often mistaken) opinions.

CiniO

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Fine so.
Couldn't be arsed replying to you after your above post. So I'll leave it at that for this thread.

[/exit CHP]

Uuuhhh...
Looks like vibe666 might end up on Cleveland Hot Pocket's ignore list as well

vibe666

CiniO wrote: »

Uuuhhh...
Looks like vibe666 might end up on Cleveland Hot Pocket's ignore list as well

i always wonder if these people who have long lists of people on "ignore" ever consider the possibility that the problem might be them, not the other way around.

CiniO

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Little harsh, no?
Surely there should have to be someone nominated to accept the points since an offense was committed.

Offence was committed, and person who committed it should be punished.
But more important to punish that person, is to make sure you don't punish the wrong person. So it can not be just "someone". It must be the person who committed an offence.
It's better to not punish anyone than punish wrong person.


That's how it works and that's exactly what the law says...

Difference to other countries though is that in Ireland it's automatically presumed that it was registered owner who was driving the car, while in most countries such law could not exist as it's against general rule of presumption of innocence.

So in Ireland vehicle owner must prove it wasn't him speeding, while in other countries it's the authorities which must prove it was him speeding.

PS. Possibly there are other countries with law like Ireland, but I don't think there's many.

Vic_08

CiniO wrote: »

Offence was committed, and person who committed it should be punished.
But more important to punish that person, is to make sure you don't punish the wrong person. So it can not be just "someone". It must be the person who committed an offence.
It's better to not punish anyone than punish wrong person.


That's how it works and that's exactly what the law says...

Difference to other countries though is that in Ireland it's automatically presumed that it was registered owner who was driving the car, while in most countries such law could not exist as it's against general rule of presumption of innocence.

So in Ireland vehicle owner must prove it wasn't him speeding, while in other countries it's the authorities which must prove it was him speeding.

PS. Possibly there are other countries with law like Ireland, but I don't think there's many.

Presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenet of Irish law as is the case in many other counties. Unfortunately disgusting laws such as this which ignore it for the sake of convenience have been allowed to stand unchallenged and all for something as trivial as automated speed detection.

It is a complete disgrace and a frightening precedent which could have terrible consequences if applied to other areas of law but sure we have utter fools such as cleveland hot pocket who come out with such gems as "somebody should be nominated as an offence has been committed". Murders, rapes, assaults and robberies are also committed, in the absence of actual evidence should somebody just be nominated for these too?

corktina

Vic_08 wrote: »

Presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenet of Irish law as is the case in many other counties. Unfortunately disgusting laws such as this which ignore it for the sake of convenience have been allowed to stand unchallenged and all for something as trivial as automated speed detection.

It is a complete disgrace and a frightening precedent which could have terrible consequences if applied to other areas of law but sure we have utter fools such as cleveland hot pocket who come out with such gems as "somebody should be nominated as an offence has been committed". Murders, rapes, assaults and robberies are also committed, in the absence of actual evidence should somebody just be nominated for these too?

In fairness, once the actual driver has been "nominated" he is then sent a ticket in lieu of the original and then has the opportunity to say "it wasn't me, " and to prove it (or I imagine nominate someone else). It's not an automatic guilty verdict and sentance

ironclaw

Just to point out, if the photo clearly shows its you driving (or someone known to you) then you are snookered regardless. The defense of proving it wasn't you driving is useless if your mug (or someone else's) is in the photo already

I'm not a legal expert but I'd imagine if the court held up a photo and someone's face was on it, the onus would be on you to identify them as they were in your car at the time. Perhaps obstruction of justice if you didn't?

Cleveland Hot Pocket

corktina wrote: »

In fairness, once the actual driver has been "nominated" he is then sent a ticket in lieu of the original and then has the opportunity to say "it wasn't me, " and to prove it (or I imagine nominate someone else). It's not an automatic guilty verdict and sentance

ironclaw wrote: »

Just to point out, if the photo clearly shows its you driving (or someone known to you) then you are snookered regardless. The defense of proving it wasn't you driving is useless if your mug (or someone else's) is in the photo already

I'm not a legal expert but I'd imagine if the court held up a photo and someone's face was on it, the onus would be on you to identify them as they were in your car at the time. Perhaps obstruction of justice if you didn't?

Careful now lads, you might be "utter fools such as cleveland hot pocket "
for holding that view

Oral Surgeon

I don't see the point in getting ATM receipts etc to prove that you were elsewhere.... Unless you were out of the country or hundreds of miles away it is irrelevant. You have already stated that all 3 of you drove the car that day so all 3 of you were in that general area.

Get the picture...

vibe666

there was a rumour doing the rounds in the UK years ago in the pre-digital times that claimed that the two cameras small holes in the back of the camera were to indicate to the police if the film was used up or not without them having to stop and check.

in a moment of youthful stupidity, myself and some friends decided to test it one day by speeding past one that had these holes covered on our way home from work.

unfortunately, the rumour turned out to be false, but better than that, they sent me an image of the car with the ticket which clearly showed 4 pairs of eyes lit up like cats eyes staring back at the camera to see if it was going to flash or not.

it was a good 15 or so years ago and i've lost the picture long since, but it had pride of place up on the wall at home for a long time.