Electric Cars Require Fewer Jobs to Build

[Phil Allison]

Rob wrote:

------------

** Not where I live Australia) and I bet most other places too.

The owner only has only supply authorities with correct details of the driver at the time to be off the hook. That person will then receive a fine notice and be subject to loss of licence if they fail to pay.

I said "here". "Here" is in the Netherlands.

** Jesusu H. Christ - NOW he tells us .........

Here the registrant
of the license plate is responsible for most traffic offenses made
with the car.

** So parking tickets and that kind of thing ?

Not speeding through red lights or otherwise driving dangerously or illegally.

Stuff that could result in loss of license.

** You are just making this mad shit up aren't you ??

No.

** Remains to be seen.

The Dutch are loopy, but not that loopy.


...... Phil

 

[Rob]

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 10/9/19 3:28 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
tirsdag den 8. oktober 2019 kl. 07.00.05 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 10:25:48 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 10/7/19 10:17 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 10:01:18 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 10/7/19 9:37 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 12:49:47 PM UTC-4, Rob wrote:
bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
I think it may actually a high intensity array of white LEDs, not a
strobe. People put all sorts of weird crap on the license plates to try
to defeat 'em like IR LEDs or blinking LEDs pointing backwards, and
darkly tinted plate covers, reflective tape, stuff like that. High
intensity visible light flash will defeat any of that low-effort ideas I
believe.

Over here that is an offense that would result in a hefty fine when
you are caught. Maybe that is because most traffic tickets are issued
after cameras have taken pictures some way, and it has been like that
for decades. I believe in the USA for many situations it is required
that you are being stopped by a policeman, but that rarely happens here.

No, traffic cameras are widely used, just not all that pervasively... i.e. not at every intersection. Usually they are used at trouble spots.

The problem I have is that they are often operated by a company on a profit sharing basis with the local jurisdiction. So the company has little incentive to be accurate, rather they have every incentive to issue summons. There is no police officer reviewing anything. More importantly, there is no accuser to question in court. In fact, in many jurisdictions they don't even give you a trial, it's a hearing with a review board.

You don't get a trial because civil infractions, taken individually,
aren't crimes

Sorry, don't understand. Traffic tickets get a trial when issued by a cop. How is this different?

What kind of "trial" are we talking? Around here for civil infractions
like speeding and running red lights you go before a judge and plead
your case to the best of your ability with the 20 seconds you have
available (there are lot of people waiting...) and the judge says "Eh,
no" and you usually leave with nothing but your original ticket and
still a fine to pay. it's that way even if they're issued by a police
officer

Who has to go to court for camera offenses, the driver or the owner?

Do they have good footage of the driver's face?

usually yes, though for small speeding fine that won't affect your license
it isn't needed the owner just gets the fine

technically the law requires the owner to tell who was the driver at request of the police, but at the same time can't be forced to incriminate one self or family


I'm legitimately curious what would happen if one went with the above
defense when facing a judge in a US traffic court.

99.9% of people wouldn't have the stones to do that during a bench
hearing in front of a real judge with 50-100 other people in court with
you listening to everything you say. I bet it's rarely if ever been tried.

I'm totally confident the court would not just say "Oh, we hadn't
thought of that!" and just waive your fine and waive everyone else's, too.

Of course you would still get the fine. Maybe you would get away without
the points on your license.

 

[Phil Allison]

bitrex the Druggie wrote:

------------------------

Well, at the very least I don't remember everything some dumb binny in
the office says to me for years or whether she was polite about it, or
not. Usually I'm in the process of forgetting what she say as fast as
she can say it if the words are otherwise irrelevant to my life.

** Your responses look weird an inappropriate.

You take drugs ?

** One valuable thing I learned from that job was to always get phone numbers from the people you work next to. After being fired, I could not contact any of them as we were all dismissed on the same day, in my case on the street outside the premises as I arrived.

I made a complaint to the relevant Govt Department about my treatment and was openly disbelieved. The boss owed me pay in lieu of notice and holiday pay.

Why do you need everyone's phone numbers? The people you work with
generally shouldn't be your friends, too.

** So you really need the reasons spelt out ?.

Your friends are your friends.
Just the fact that you and them have to show up in the same place day
after day to get paid is a low bar for friendship IMO

** As all of us had been badly mistreated by an insane boss - conferring would have allowed a joint approach to the Govt office that regulates employment law here.

Get our deserved "pay in lieu of notice", prove that the boss's claims of staff misbehaviour were fraudulent and have the stinking asshole put on notice that he was breaking the law.

Plus maybe stop the asshole hiring and firing good people at whim.

( snip more drug affected shite )



...... Phil

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 5:14:10 PM UTC-4, Rob wrote:

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

usually yes, though for small speeding fine that won't affect your license
it isn't needed the owner just gets the fine

technically the law requires the owner to tell who was the driver at request of the police, but at the same time can't be forced to incriminate one self or family


I'm legitimately curious what would happen if one went with the above
defense when facing a judge in a US traffic court.

99.9% of people wouldn't have the stones to do that during a bench
hearing in front of a real judge with 50-100 other people in court with
you listening to everything you say. I bet it's rarely if ever been tried.

I'm totally confident the court would not just say "Oh, we hadn't
thought of that!" and just waive your fine and waive everyone else's, too.

Of course you would still get the fine. Maybe you would get away without
the points on your license.

Here it doesn't work that way. The court is about the ticket. It is up to the DMV to assign points. The judge can't waive them.

--

Rick C.

++-+- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
++-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 4:15:09 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

I'm legitimately curious what would happen if one went with the above
defense when facing a judge in a US traffic court.

99.9% of people wouldn't have the stones to do that during a bench
hearing in front of a real judge with 50-100 other people in court with
you listening to everything you say. I bet it's rarely if ever been tried..

I'm totally confident the court would not just say "Oh, we hadn't
thought of that!" and just waive your fine and waive everyone else's, too..

I've gone to court with similar levels of arguments many times. Once the judge kept asking me if I had anything else to say and I thought that meant he thought I hadn't said enough to get off so I continued with basically the same information. The third time through he stopped me by say, "The light was green? Not guilty."

I could go into detail but it's too wordy. Bottom line is all you need to do is create a "reasonable doubt" which not being able to identify the driver satisfies.

You don't really have an argument other than feigning incredulity.

--

Rick C.

++--+ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
++--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 3:28:24 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

tirsdag den 8. oktober 2019 kl. 07.00.05 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 10:25:48 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 10/7/19 10:17 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 10:01:18 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 10/7/19 9:37 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 12:49:47 PM UTC-4, Rob wrote:
bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
I think it may actually a high intensity array of white LEDs, not a
strobe. People put all sorts of weird crap on the license plates to try
to defeat 'em like IR LEDs or blinking LEDs pointing backwards, and
darkly tinted plate covers, reflective tape, stuff like that. High
intensity visible light flash will defeat any of that low-effort ideas I
believe.

Over here that is an offense that would result in a hefty fine when
you are caught. Maybe that is because most traffic tickets are issued
after cameras have taken pictures some way, and it has been like that
for decades. I believe in the USA for many situations it is required
that you are being stopped by a policeman, but that rarely happens here.

No, traffic cameras are widely used, just not all that pervasively... i.e. not at every intersection. Usually they are used at trouble spots.

The problem I have is that they are often operated by a company on a profit sharing basis with the local jurisdiction. So the company has little incentive to be accurate, rather they have every incentive to issue summons. There is no police officer reviewing anything. More importantly, there is no accuser to question in court. In fact, in many jurisdictions they don't even give you a trial, it's a hearing with a review board.

You don't get a trial because civil infractions, taken individually,
aren't crimes

Sorry, don't understand. Traffic tickets get a trial when issued by a cop. How is this different?

What kind of "trial" are we talking? Around here for civil infractions
like speeding and running red lights you go before a judge and plead
your case to the best of your ability with the 20 seconds you have
available (there are lot of people waiting...) and the judge says "Eh,
no" and you usually leave with nothing but your original ticket and
still a fine to pay. it's that way even if they're issued by a police
officer

Who has to go to court for camera offenses, the driver or the owner?

Do they have good footage of the driver's face?

usually yes, though for small speeding fine that won't affect your license
it isn't needed the owner just gets the fine

technically the law requires the owner to tell who was the driver at request of the police, but at the same time can't be forced to incriminate one self or family

So if exercising the right to not incriminate a family member how can the owner be given the fine? Is it just set up to say someone has to pay without caring if it is the person who was driving?

--

Rick C.

++--- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
++--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:30109eec-b95a-4b1d-bfcd-258bc31a2aa2@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 10:57:51 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-7,
jla...@highlandsniptechn
ology.com wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 11:55:35 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net
wrote:

On 10/8/19 11:53 AM, bitrex wrote:

Maybe so. In the modern (real) world the emotional reaction
of "rage
" in
response to almost any situation is almost always
counterproductive
...

Well, unless you're the President, that is.

But he's usually right.

The customer is always right. The president isn't in the same
class.

LOL... I am sure the President is always right... just not about
thing being discussed. But he is right about something all the
time.

I recall when Reagan became President in spite of the fact that
most of his campaigning was just him acting. I was amazed that a
decent actor could fake his way into the Presidency (compared to
the many very bad actors that most politicians are). But now I am
completely floored that we could elect a total buffoon on the same
basis that we select hosts of reality shows, by how much drama
they can create.

I know there have been a number of stories about government being
run in strange ways like in Idiocracy, but I never expected any of
them to come true.

I agree. There were Twilight Zone episodes that came close to
what is going on right now, but Rod would have to write a whole new
series to encapsulate the utter crap we have been expected to accept
as leadership.

 

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 02:45:05 -0700 (PDT), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 7:56:41 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 20:11:22 -0700 (PDT), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 7:30:43 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 07:17:23 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 10:07:51 PM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 18:53:45 -0700 (PDT), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 6:40:36 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 17:48:17 -0700 (PDT), Michael Terrell
terrell.michael.a@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 2:05:18 AM UTC-4, edward...@gmail.com wrote:

"Sono Motors suggests its car charge up just over 18 miles on a 24% efficient solar cell. If NovaSolix can get to that 90% number, that’s 67 miles of sunlight driving. The average daily miles driven in the USA is about 40 miles per person."


14,600 miles per year? I generally drive under 3,000 miles per year.

And we drive well over 15,000 miles on each vehicle each year.

So, average of 14,000 per year or 40 miles per day sound right. Actually, i drive more due to limited charging stations and keep making additional trips to keep charge up. With on-board solar charger, i can probably drive less.

It's just under that to and from work. There are also a few 1200mi
trips in there (and one this coming week).

NovaSolix's 40% solar modules on roof and hood is close to a level 1 charger onboard.

Complete nonsense.

Yes, many times you are full of nonsense.

40% is indeed nonsense, moron.


Sun light is half visible, half UV & IR. Photovoltaic cell is limited to only half of the solar energy (probably less than 30%). Carbon nanotube tuning to the visible and IR region can capture upwards of 40%. Several companies demonstrated the potential, some had real prototype. I guess the world is full of "nonsense", moron.

Even you admit it's a dream. Moron.

It's not a dream. The technique is well known. It's just a matter of mastering the grow of CNT-RA, Moron. Is "Moron" a common way to greet people in your culture. If so, i respect your culture, Moron.

So, moron, you think one prototype, somewhere, is the same as
production? Yes, you _are_ a moron. It was not a compliment, moron.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 1:23:32 PM UTC+11, k...@notreal.com wrote:

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 02:45:05 -0700 (PDT), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 7:56:41 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 20:11:22 -0700 (PDT), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 7:30:43 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 07:17:23 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 10:07:51 PM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 18:53:45 -0700 (PDT), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 6:40:36 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 17:48:17 -0700 (PDT), Michael Terrell
terrell.michael.a@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 2:05:18 AM UTC-4, edward...@gmail.com wrote:

"Sono Motors suggests its car charge up just over 18 miles on a 24% efficient solar cell. If NovaSolix can get to that 90% number, that’s 67 miles of sunlight driving. The average daily miles driven in the USA is about 40 miles per person."


14,600 miles per year? I generally drive under 3,000 miles per year.

And we drive well over 15,000 miles on each vehicle each year..

So, average of 14,000 per year or 40 miles per day sound right. Actually, i drive more due to limited charging stations and keep making additional trips to keep charge up. With on-board solar charger, i can probably drive less.

It's just under that to and from work. There are also a few 1200mi
trips in there (and one this coming week).

NovaSolix's 40% solar modules on roof and hood is close to a level 1 charger onboard.

Complete nonsense.

Yes, many times you are full of nonsense.

40% is indeed nonsense, moron.


Sun light is half visible, half UV & IR. Photovoltaic cell is limited to only half of the solar energy (probably less than 30%). Carbon nanotube tuning to the visible and IR region can capture upwards of 40%. Several companies demonstrated the potential, some had real prototype. I guess the world is full of "nonsense", moron.

Even you admit it's a dream. Moron.

It's not a dream. The technique is well known. It's just a matter of mastering the grow of CNT-RA, Moron. Is "Moron" a common way to greet people in your culture. If so, i respect your culture, Moron.

So, moron, you think one prototype, somewhere, is the same as
production?

That was not what was asserted. There's always a gap between the appearance of a prototype and the establishment of higher volume production, and there's another gap between regular production and mass production. Krw doesn't go in for fine distinctions - what he's got left looks rather like a two bit processor.

> Yes, you _are_ a moron. It was not a compliment, moron.

Being called a moron by krw puts you in respectable company. Agreeing with anything krw posts is riskier. He's not always wrong, but he does have a lot of remarkably foolish misconceptions.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 10:23:32 PM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 02:45:05 -0700 (PDT), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 7:56:41 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 20:11:22 -0700 (PDT), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 7:30:43 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 07:17:23 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 10:07:51 PM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 18:53:45 -0700 (PDT), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 6:40:36 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 17:48:17 -0700 (PDT), Michael Terrell
terrell.michael.a@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 2:05:18 AM UTC-4, edward...@gmail.com wrote:

"Sono Motors suggests its car charge up just over 18 miles on a 24% efficient solar cell. If NovaSolix can get to that 90% number, that’s 67 miles of sunlight driving. The average daily miles driven in the USA is about 40 miles per person."


14,600 miles per year? I generally drive under 3,000 miles per year.

And we drive well over 15,000 miles on each vehicle each year..

So, average of 14,000 per year or 40 miles per day sound right. Actually, i drive more due to limited charging stations and keep making additional trips to keep charge up. With on-board solar charger, i can probably drive less.

It's just under that to and from work. There are also a few 1200mi
trips in there (and one this coming week).

NovaSolix's 40% solar modules on roof and hood is close to a level 1 charger onboard.

Complete nonsense.

Yes, many times you are full of nonsense.

40% is indeed nonsense, moron.


Sun light is half visible, half UV & IR. Photovoltaic cell is limited to only half of the solar energy (probably less than 30%). Carbon nanotube tuning to the visible and IR region can capture upwards of 40%. Several companies demonstrated the potential, some had real prototype. I guess the world is full of "nonsense", moron.

Even you admit it's a dream. Moron.

It's not a dream. The technique is well known. It's just a matter of mastering the grow of CNT-RA, Moron. Is "Moron" a common way to greet people in your culture. If so, i respect your culture, Moron.

So, moron, you think one prototype, somewhere, is the same as
production? Yes, you _are_ a moron. It was not a compliment, moron.

If you have to call someone a moron to get your point across, you have already failed.

--

Rick C.

++-++ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
++-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rob]

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

Rob wrote:

------------




** Not where I live Australia) and I bet most other places too.

The owner only has only supply authorities with correct details of the driver at the time to be off the hook. That person will then receive a fine notice and be subject to loss of licence if they fail to pay.

I said "here". "Here" is in the Netherlands.


** Jesusu H. Christ - NOW he tells us .........

I presumed the cleverness that when someone writes "here" and he describes
some different situation than the reader is familiar with, the reader
understands that "here" is describing a different place than his own.

Apparently that is too much to presume here in this group.

Here the registrant
of the license plate is responsible for most traffic offenses made
with the car.

** So parking tickets and that kind of thing ?

Not speeding through red lights or otherwise driving dangerously or illegally.

Stuff that could result in loss of license.

No, everything in that category as well. Red lights, passing on the
right, speeding up to 30 km/h, etc.
Dangerous driving that warrants the car to be stopped by police
would be different, but that actually is a "band" because when it is
so dangerous that the car can only be stopped with a lengthy pursuit
this is normally not done.

** You are just making this mad shit up aren't you ??

No.


** Remains to be seen.

The Dutch are loopy, but not that loopy.

Then you do not even know about the "Mulder law"... which I explained
a little elsewhere. The law that states that for those kind of offenses
there is no possibility for appeal when you have not paid the fine.

 

[Rob]

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

technically the law requires the owner to tell who was the driver at request of the police, but at the same time can't be forced to incriminate one self or family

So if exercising the right to not incriminate a family member how can the owner be given the fine? Is it just set up to say someone has to pay without caring if it is the person who was driving?

Here, yes. The "but it was my wife who was driving" thing does not
even enter the scene. The owner gets the fine and it is his own
business to have it paid by whoever he things should pay it for him.

The only exceptions are stolen cars and rented/leased cars. But there
has to be a signed contract on file, not just some verbal agreement.

 

[Rob]

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 4:15:09 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

I'm legitimately curious what would happen if one went with the above
defense when facing a judge in a US traffic court.

99.9% of people wouldn't have the stones to do that during a bench
hearing in front of a real judge with 50-100 other people in court with
you listening to everything you say. I bet it's rarely if ever been tried.

I'm totally confident the court would not just say "Oh, we hadn't
thought of that!" and just waive your fine and waive everyone else's, too.

I've gone to court with similar levels of arguments many times. Once the judge kept asking me if I had anything else to say and I thought that meant he thought I hadn't said enough to get off so I continued with basically the same information. The third time through he stopped me by say, "The light was green? Not guilty."

I could go into detail but it's too wordy. Bottom line is all you need to do is create a "reasonable doubt" which not being able to identify the driver satisfies.

You don't really have an argument other than feigning incredulity.

When you have been photographed at a light that was red (over there always
are two photographs, one when your car is with the front wheels on the
line and the second one is when you have way passed the line), and you
say "but the light was green", does the judge even listen to you?

I could understand that when the claim was made by a person (although
normally the judges here usually do believe statements made by police
officers under oath in procedures like that), but a clear photographic
evidence cannot be so easily waived away here. It is not like OJ Simpson
trial here.

 

[Rob]

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 5:14:10 PM UTC-4, Rob wrote:
bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

usually yes, though for small speeding fine that won't affect your license
it isn't needed the owner just gets the fine

technically the law requires the owner to tell who was the driver at request of the police, but at the same time can't be forced to incriminate one self or family


I'm legitimately curious what would happen if one went with the above
defense when facing a judge in a US traffic court.

99.9% of people wouldn't have the stones to do that during a bench
hearing in front of a real judge with 50-100 other people in court with
you listening to everything you say. I bet it's rarely if ever been tried.

I'm totally confident the court would not just say "Oh, we hadn't
thought of that!" and just waive your fine and waive everyone else's, too.

Of course you would still get the fine. Maybe you would get away without
the points on your license.

Here it doesn't work that way. The court is about the ticket. It is up to the DMV to assign points. The judge can't waive them.

Ok but what if the driver is unknown? The points are awarded to the
driver, not to the registration holder, right?

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 10:05:06 AM UTC-4, Rob wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok but what if the driver is unknown? The points are awarded to the
driver, not to the registration holder, right?

The registration holder is not involved. If he/she was not driving they only need to state that in a hearing. These are usually not significant fines. The biggest hassle is having to deal with it in person. There are HOV violations which become significant very quickly. We have some roads that are exclusively HOV. The first fine is a token $25 or something, the second $100 or so and the third over $200. They also assess points for HOV violations. Again, go to court and offer testimony that you were not the driver. I believe many HOV cameras will catch the faces in the car because they want to count heads of people and not manikins. So tough to argue your way out if you were driving.

Interesting that you seem to consider $200 a significant fine.
$200 is at the low end of traffic violation fines here.
E.g. jumping a red light in a car is $265 plus $10 admin fee.
(we used to have those special lanes but they turned out to be in violation
of some other law and instead of fixing that they were just opened to
everyone)

It's funny the way you ask about the driver being unknown as if the points MUST be awarded to someone. We can't have unawarded points sitting around.

Well, when it would be too easy to escape the points by just stating it is
unknown who was driving, that would not last too long here.

Yes, that is my point. Where you are it seems to be about holding someone responsible even if they aren't guilty. That's a big no-no here. We like to hold the correct person responsible.

--

Rick C.

++++- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
++++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rob]

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok but what if the driver is unknown? The points are awarded to the
driver, not to the registration holder, right?

The registration holder is not involved. If he/she was not driving they only need to state that in a hearing. These are usually not significant fines. The biggest hassle is having to deal with it in person. There are HOV violations which become significant very quickly. We have some roads that are exclusively HOV. The first fine is a token $25 or something, the second $100 or so and the third over $200. They also assess points for HOV violations. Again, go to court and offer testimony that you were not the driver. I believe many HOV cameras will catch the faces in the car because they want to count heads of people and not manikins. So tough to argue your way out if you were driving.

Interesting that you seem to consider $200 a significant fine.
$200 is at the low end of traffic violation fines here.
E.g. jumping a red light in a car is $265 plus $10 admin fee.
(we used to have those special lanes but they turned out to be in violation
of some other law and instead of fixing that they were just opened to
everyone)

> It's funny the way you ask about the driver being unknown as if the points MUST be awarded to someone. We can't have unawarded points sitting around.

Well, when it would be too easy to escape the points by just stating it is
unknown who was driving, that would not last too long here.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 4:18:03 AM UTC-4, Rob wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 4:15:09 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

I'm legitimately curious what would happen if one went with the above
defense when facing a judge in a US traffic court.

99.9% of people wouldn't have the stones to do that during a bench
hearing in front of a real judge with 50-100 other people in court with
you listening to everything you say. I bet it's rarely if ever been tried.

I'm totally confident the court would not just say "Oh, we hadn't
thought of that!" and just waive your fine and waive everyone else's, too.

I've gone to court with similar levels of arguments many times. Once the judge kept asking me if I had anything else to say and I thought that meant he thought I hadn't said enough to get off so I continued with basically the same information. The third time through he stopped me by say, "The light was green? Not guilty."

I could go into detail but it's too wordy. Bottom line is all you need to do is create a "reasonable doubt" which not being able to identify the driver satisfies.

You don't really have an argument other than feigning incredulity.

When you have been photographed at a light that was red (over there always
are two photographs, one when your car is with the front wheels on the
line and the second one is when you have way passed the line), and you
say "but the light was green", does the judge even listen to you?

In my case there was no camera, there was a cop sitting at the other side of the intersection at night in the rain. The intersection was blocked off because of flooding and I had to go around a vehicle in the left turn lane after waiting for all the jerks behind me to go around in my way. I finally reached the intersection the left turn light went off as I entered the intersection (no yellow caution like you get normally). Before I exited the intersection I expect the light on the blocked side turned green. Turns out one of the sitting police cars with their lights flashing was waiting to make a right turn.

So I went through all this, potentially in more detail than I give here and the third time through the judge was looking for a way out.

I could understand that when the claim was made by a person (although
normally the judges here usually do believe statements made by police
officers under oath in procedures like that), but a clear photographic
evidence cannot be so easily waived away here.

Everyone testifying is under oath. The courts believe cops over others because they are "trained observers".

When you talk about "clear" photographic evidence, that is the problem. The evidence is not clear. If the person can not be identified you have no evidence to tie an individual to the offense. It would appear that in England there is a different sense of justice than in the US. The crime itself has rights of being attached to someone no matter whether the person is guilty or not. The crime can not go without SOMEONE being punished.

> It is not like OJ Simpson trial here.

They had photos at the OJ Simpson trial? I must have missed that.

--

Rick C.

+++-+ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 4:14:44 AM UTC-4, Rob wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 5:14:10 PM UTC-4, Rob wrote:
bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

usually yes, though for small speeding fine that won't affect your license
it isn't needed the owner just gets the fine

technically the law requires the owner to tell who was the driver at request of the police, but at the same time can't be forced to incriminate one self or family


I'm legitimately curious what would happen if one went with the above
defense when facing a judge in a US traffic court.

99.9% of people wouldn't have the stones to do that during a bench
hearing in front of a real judge with 50-100 other people in court with
you listening to everything you say. I bet it's rarely if ever been tried.

I'm totally confident the court would not just say "Oh, we hadn't
thought of that!" and just waive your fine and waive everyone else's, too.

Of course you would still get the fine. Maybe you would get away without
the points on your license.

Here it doesn't work that way. The court is about the ticket. It is up to the DMV to assign points. The judge can't waive them.

Ok but what if the driver is unknown? The points are awarded to the
driver, not to the registration holder, right?

The registration holder is not involved. If he/she was not driving they only need to state that in a hearing. These are usually not significant fines. The biggest hassle is having to deal with it in person. There are HOV violations which become significant very quickly. We have some roads that are exclusively HOV. The first fine is a token $25 or something, the second $100 or so and the third over $200. They also assess points for HOV violations. Again, go to court and offer testimony that you were not the driver. I believe many HOV cameras will catch the faces in the car because they want to count heads of people and not manikins. So tough to argue your way out if you were driving.

It's funny the way you ask about the driver being unknown as if the points MUST be awarded to someone. We can't have unawarded points sitting around.

--

Rick C.

+++-- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 10:59:20 AM UTC-4, Rob wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
It's funny the way you ask about the driver being unknown as if the points MUST be awarded to someone. We can't have unawarded points sitting around.

Well, when it would be too easy to escape the points by just stating it is
unknown who was driving, that would not last too long here.

Yes, that is my point. Where you are it seems to be about holding someone responsible even if they aren't guilty. That's a big no-no here. We like to hold the correct person responsible.

The reason things have changed here is that it was too easy to escape with
claims like "unknown who was driving". These traffic offenses (not crimes)
are too common to bring every case to court, the courts were way overloaded
by people doing that. There were standard letters online to send in reply
to any ticket received, just to clog up the system.

That's rather a bizarre solution to the problem of cameras providing insufficient evidence to convict a person, change the rules to allow conviction without sufficient evidence. They only have to prove a crime was committed, not who committed it.

Good thing they don't have such rules regarding more offenses. A bank gets robbed and the cops pick a known bank robber and put him away for another 10 years.

Sure as it is now, sometimes someone may be incorrectly found guilty of
something they really did not do, but these cases are way outnumbered
by those who really were at fault but are just trying to escape from it.

Yes, by all means obtain justice at any cost. No, wait, that's not justice. Hmmm...

It just means you should not lend out your car to just about anybody,
unless you can trust them to behave well and pay you back when they
have incurred a fine (or you are prepared to live with that).

Ahhh, so the crime was not running a red light, or going 5 over the posted speed limit, it was lending your car too casually. Maybe this will help justify parents beating their children.

Besides that, the goal of the system is not to strike the not-guilty
owner of a car for what some other driver has done, the goal is to keep
everyone abiding to the rules.

Uh, everyone except for the justice system.

When you drive according to the rules,
you normally won't get tickets. I get maybe one every 3 years, mostly
for things like driving 5 km/h too fast on a highway.

What does that have to do with anything? According to you it doesn't matter how YOU drive. What matters is how your car drives.

What happens in your country when your Tesla is summoned and it strikes a person?

--

Rick C.

+++++ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rob]

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

It's funny the way you ask about the driver being unknown as if the points MUST be awarded to someone. We can't have unawarded points sitting around.

Well, when it would be too easy to escape the points by just stating it is
unknown who was driving, that would not last too long here.

Yes, that is my point. Where you are it seems to be about holding someone responsible even if they aren't guilty. That's a big no-no here. We like to hold the correct person responsible.

The reason things have changed here is that it was too easy to escape with
claims like "unknown who was driving". These traffic offenses (not crimes)
are too common to bring every case to court, the courts were way overloaded
by people doing that. There were standard letters online to send in reply
to any ticket received, just to clog up the system.

Sure as it is now, sometimes someone may be incorrectly found guilty of
something they really did not do, but these cases are way outnumbered
by those who really were at fault but are just trying to escape from it.

It just means you should not lend out your car to just about anybody,
unless you can trust them to behave well and pay you back when they
have incurred a fine (or you are prepared to live with that).

Besides that, the goal of the system is not to strike the not-guilty
owner of a car for what some other driver has done, the goal is to keep
everyone abiding to the rules. When you drive according to the rules,
you normally won't get tickets. I get maybe one every 3 years, mostly
for things like driving 5 km/h too fast on a highway.