Narr
Narr

(*) (*) .. for the gnor ;)
Location: sitting on the step
Member Since: 15th Apr 2003
Total posts: 2568
Posted:okay this is probably a real dumbass question but what is considered a clean licence? i have 6 points on mine (damned speed cameras !!), so does that make it dirty?! i mean i have no convictions, havent killed anyone, crashed etc..so do those points count?



she who sees from up high smiles

Patrick badger king: *they better hope there's never a jihad on stupidity*

Delete Topic

Mot
addict
Location: Netherlands
Member Since: 18th May 2002
Total posts: 666
Posted:Dunno how it works in your country but I'm pretty sure they still count. Speeding is against the law as well.

Those cameras are bastards... those bastards.


Come forth and thou shalt win enternal happiness. but he came fifth so he won an electric toatser.

Delete

Narr
Narr

(*) (*) .. for the gnor ;)
Location: sitting on the step
Member Since: 15th Apr 2003
Total posts: 2568
Posted:ha dont i know it! hey isnt there this group in holland who just go around vandlising all the speed cameras?or is that in the US

she who sees from up high smiles

Patrick badger king: *they better hope there's never a jihad on stupidity*

Delete

vanize
vanize

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Austin, Texas
Member Since: 21st Aug 2001
Total posts: 3899
Posted:It's not the US, because speed cameras per se are illegal (unconstitutional actually) in the united states. so I doubt there are really many speed camera vandals. I cop has to pull you over to prove who was driving since you are innocent until proven guilty, the offender is the actualy driver and not the owner of the vehicle, and simply wearing a pair of sunglasses can make it near impossible to prove who was driving from a photograph.

-v-

Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!

Delete

Spanner
Spanner

remembers when it was all fields round here
Location: in the works... somewhere...
Member Since: 27th Feb 2003
Total posts: 2790
Posted:A clean licence is one with no points on

Have you tried theDVLA? My boyfriend's dad got three on his recently for being over the speed limit although he's a very careful driver generally. Depends what kind of scrutiny your licence will come under I suppose

Passed my theory test today


"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.

yay,

:R"

Delete

Bird
Bird

now available in "advanced"
Location: Cornwall
Member Since: 25th Aug 2003
Total posts: 6086
Posted:I am now back down to only 3 points on my licence!



I'm a sensible driver really!!

(honest)

I just happened to be doing the wrong speed on the wrong roads - thats all!


My state of mind is not yours to define!

There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."

Delete

Narr
Narr

(*) (*) .. for the gnor ;)
Location: sitting on the step
Member Since: 15th Apr 2003
Total posts: 2568
Posted:congrats spanner

ps that was not condoning(sp) drink driving


she who sees from up high smiles

Patrick badger king: *they better hope there's never a jihad on stupidity*

Delete

telic
I don't want a title.

Member Since: 26th Jun 2003
Total posts: 940
Posted:quote:Originally posted by vanize:
It's not the US, because speed cameras per se are illegal (unconstitutional actually) in the united states. so I doubt there are really many speed camera vandals. Is this true? I went looking on Lexis, and I didn't find any Supreme Court cases ruling on the constitutionality of speed cameras.

(I did, however, learn that the 4th Amendment forbids use of a thermal-imaging camera from a public street to determine relative sources of heat in your home without a warrant. Kyllo v. U.S., 533 U.S. 27 (2001). This is unrelated but I thought it was cute, for some reason.)


E pluribus unum, baby.

Delete

vanize
vanize

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Austin, Texas
Member Since: 21st Aug 2001
Total posts: 3899
Posted:I don't think the case ever made it out of the California (not sure, but I think it was there) legal system before everyone agreed. It might have made it as far as the california supreme court, but probably not.

Even lower courts can rule something unconstitutional and create a precident, so not all constitutional issues need go to the state or federal supreme court. Often times a supreme court will decide on a constitutional issue by refusing to see a case, thereby effectly making the ruling of the lower court the final say in the matter (i.e. making that courts decision a precident that future courts will then go by).

I remember there being a big stir about the speed camera thing in the late 80s (not too long after I started driving), and it being decided that traffic violations being issued to the owner of a car (as opposed to the actual driver) was not constitutional, and that the photographic evidence was insufficient since there was usually glare on the windshield, people wearing sunglasses, sun visors down, etc.

The state of California (this time I'm sure about the state) was rather pissed about this since they were then stuck with millions of dollars worth of unusable equipment, but I think they finally found someone (Germany?) to buy it all.

But the proof is in the pudding. Have you ever received a speeding ticket in the mail in the USA? I never have. If you live in Switzerland, Holland, Germany, South Africa, and plenty of other places, you probably have (unless you don't speed of course).


-v-

Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!

Delete

telic
I don't want a title.

Member Since: 26th Jun 2003
Total posts: 940
Posted:quote:Originally posted by vanize:
Even lower courts can rule something unconstitutional and create a precident, so not all constitutional issues need go to the state or federal supreme court. Often times a supreme court will decide on a constitutional issue by refusing to see a case, thereby effectly making the ruling of the lower court the final say in the matter (i.e. making that courts decision a precident that future courts will then go by). My mother says she gets speeding tickets in the mail. However, you don't get the points on your license unlike when a cop stops you, you just get the fine. I've never bothered to get my license, though.

I don't believe you're correct on how precedent works. I'm halfway through law school, so this is my field. The lower courts can never create a precedent for anything except the courts below them. Precedent, like water, flows downhill. If, say, the NY Appellate Division for the 2nd Dept. rules something unconstitutional, that ruling isn't binding on anyone except that court and the trial courts below it.

When the Supreme Court denies cert., it is not the same as affirming the decision below. The difference is on whom the precedent is binding. If it was a California Supreme Court case, and the Supremes denied cert, then yes, the precedent still binds California state courts, but the rest of the country (including California federal courts) is still free to rule otherwise. That's why the circuits can remain split when cert. is denied.


E pluribus unum, baby.

Delete

Eera
old hand
Location: In a test pit, Mackay
Member Since: 29th May 2003
Total posts: 1107
Posted:One of my mates is an exploration geologist in Ghana and when asked to present a clean licence gives the Ghanian one over, his UK one has 10 points on it, but the never specify which country it has to be from.

There's a series of codes which represent the various offenses which should be printed next to the endorsement. nine points for broken bulbs is going to look a lot nicer than 10 from death through dangerous driving though the points are almost identical. If prospective employers like you enough they're not going to stand in your way for a reletively minor offence.


There is a slight possibility that I am not actually right all of the time.

Delete