Forums > Social Chat > car licence stuff

Posted: 17th Oct 2003
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.

Posted: 17th Oct 2003
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*

Posted: 17th Oct 2003
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!

Posted: 18th Oct 2003
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."

Posted: 18th Oct 2003
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*

Posted: 18th Oct 2003

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.

Posted: 18th Oct 2003
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!

Posted: 18th Oct 2003

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.

Posted: 18th Oct 2003
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.