Unprofitable IPOs Are Back, But Is That A Bad Thing?

YouTube Speeder Doesn't Leave Enough Evidence For Police

from the lucky-him dept

Tue, Mar 13th 2007 10:40am — Mike Masnick

While we've seen some stories of speedy drivers getting fined for posting videos of themselves speeding on YouTube, it seems that one British motorcyclist made out just fine, after the police realized that without an official date and time on the video, they had no way of making sure that the ticket was presented within 14 days of the event -- leaving him free to speed and YouTube yet again. Of course, before doing the same, you might want to check the statute of limitation on giving speeding tickets in your area... and wait to post the video until after that. Of course, how long will it be until we see laws proposed to make it illegal to film yourself speeding?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

30 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2007 @ 10:53am

How Long?
Of course, how long will it be until we see laws proposed to make it illegal to film yourself speeding?

Well, if it was recorded with a camera-phone then it is already illegal in many states.

I guess you'd have to make sure you were using a much larger and more cumbersome video camera in order to stay on the good side of the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sanguine Dream, 13 Mar 2007 @ 10:54am

That's too easy...

Of course, how long will it be until we see laws proposed to make it illegal to film yourself speeding?

Nah I see lawmakers removing the statue of limitations on speeding. And if I recall there are precious few crimes that have no statue of limitations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ajax 4Hire, 13 Mar 2007 @ 10:55am

Never admit it was you...
Never, Never, never ever admit to illegal activity.
But do not lie under oath either.

I don't know is always a good answer.

Oh, I'm first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast, 13 Mar 2007 @ 11:34am

Nah I see lawmakers removing the statue of limitations on speeding. And if I recall there are precious few crimes that have no statue of limitations

Yes, and in this case - the crime would be not paying the city the money it's entitled to...

Which is worse than murder or treason anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2007 @ 11:38am

Re: That's too easy...
The "statue" of limitations, eh?
Is that like Lady Liberty, only it has a stopwatch and a calendar instead of a torch and books?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sanguine Dream, 13 Mar 2007 @ 11:40am

Re:
But I thought the money wasn't entitled to the city until the speeder was caught (no matter how the speeder is caught). Or do the cops think every speeder (and everyone that breaks the law in a way that calls for a fine as punishment) to just break the law and then send in a check to the city?

Or maybe that was your point...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sea Man, 13 Mar 2007 @ 11:47am

It is apparent that we must make it illegal to record any type of video unless you are a licensed photojournalist. Video cameras in the hands of the general public are a threat to national security. Don't worry, you still have good old fashioned still pictures and Flickr to record your memories for posterity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Saul, 13 Mar 2007 @ 11:53am

maybe it's just me
Maybe it's just me, but doesn't anyone else think the bigger point here is being missed. Forget whether it's illegal or not; whether it's admissable or not; whether he's fined or not. Speeding like that is really dangerous. It causes accidents, injures and kills people. This guy is a inconsiderate dumbass - plain and simple. It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt, 13 Mar 2007 @ 11:58am

statute of limitations
"you might want to check the statute of limitation on giving speeding tickets in your area... and wait to post the video until after that."

I thought the point was that they couldn't prove WHEN the video was taken...so why would anyone need to wait until after the statute of limitations has run out before posting the vide? :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2007 @ 12:01pm

Re: Never admit it was you...
But... saying "I don't know" when you do know is also a lie, in which case you are lying under oath anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheDock22, 13 Mar 2007 @ 12:12pm

Re: maybe it's just me
I completely agree. Speeding at 100 mph through a 30 mph zone and video taping yourself doing it is very dangerous. I think the statute of limitation should be lifted in cases like this. If you video tape yourself committing a crime, it shouldn't matter when that crime happened.

Won't anyone think of the children!! No, seriously, someone could have gotten really hurt. Just because police weren't around to catch this guy being jerk doesn't mean he shouldn't pay the price.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Neal, 13 Mar 2007 @ 12:22pm

Columbo
Those police need Columbo to scour that video for clues. He'll drive the route, watch the video for a few hours, then roll his eyes back and slap his forehead right before announcing he knows when it was done. Somewhere there will be the clue, the newly paved road, the new yard sale or road sign, a freshly planted tree or painted house.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Luke, 13 Mar 2007 @ 12:22pm

Actually it does
Dock22 - that's the point - who decides what is dangerous and what is not? Apparently the guy did NOT hurt himself or anyone else. Just because someone else did doesn't mean he will...why do I have to pay for someone else's stupidity?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cixelsid, 13 Mar 2007 @ 12:22pm

Re: Never admit it was you... by Ajax 4Hire
Never ever assume you're first. Sanguine Dream can always beat you to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tom, 13 Mar 2007 @ 12:24pm

Moron
Luke, you are a moron. Seriously, because only a moron wouldn't understand how moronic your comment is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paul, 13 Mar 2007 @ 12:33pm

Profit?
Ok so, record yourself speeding, add a fake 14-day-old timestamp in the corner of the video with some software then post to youtube
[ link to this | view in thread ]
William, 13 Mar 2007 @ 12:38pm

Take the FIFTH
I plead the fifth. You have the right not to incriminate yourself and it is not a lie. In fact it is the fifth amendment in the bill of rights. FIFTH. If the pigs want to talk to you just don't say anything and ask for a lawyer. Half the people in prison right now would be free if they exercised their rights. They confess or plead guilty when the cops don't even have the evidence to file charges.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pedren, 13 Mar 2007 @ 12:41pm

Re: Re: Never admit it was you...
Ever heard of that ingeineous amentment known as the 5th. In America anyway I'm not entirely sure that Britan has the same thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Greg, 13 Mar 2007 @ 12:50pm

Re: That's too easy...
No, what they'll do is make it illegal to record a video without a date/time stamp on it. No doubt the RIAA will defend the bill as a way to stamp out theater taping (finally, for real this time, we mean it).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Casper, 13 Mar 2007 @ 1:52pm

Re: Actually it does
The problem is HE is one of those stupid people. These idiots that think if they CAN go 100MPH+ that there isn't a reason not to. All I can do is laugh. First of all, 100MPH is not impressive, so doing something stupid like that in a residential area is just stupid to me. I run cars over 160MPH a lot, but I have learned that there are times and places for such things... such as a track. Even though I am kind of an adrenaline junky or speed freak, I know there that it is important to be in a controlled environment. There are also huge differences between purpose built race cars and sports cars and modified street cars. My street cars that I take that fast are designed with aerodynamics in mind (not a spoiler off ebay), and are running on tires rated for the speed. A Honda Civic may have $20,000 into engine and body modifications, but it is not going to be as stable as a sports car designed to generate down-force from the body of the car. Other factors such as undercarriage and suspension are also things that most "tuners" do not take into consideration. You need to realize that ordering the most expensive coil-over system will not help you if you do not know how to dial it in and tune it properly. I'm all about the car culture and I prefer to build imports (German and Japanese), but I understand limits.

Ok, so I was wandering off topic. My point is that these people are not educated enough to realize that if a car pulls out in front of you when you are traveling 100MPH, you WILL have an accident. At 100MPH you are traveling about half a foot ball field a second. The average non-race car driver, is not going to react in time to even try to make a controlled maneuver. Best case would be that you wreck your car and miss the other person. Worst case is that you obliterate both cars and kill everyone involved and possibly kill bystanders. Either way, it's a bad day for you. It's just not worth the risk. Does this mean I have never done anything stupid? No, but at the same time, these actions are more then just stupid. Actions such as driving 100MPH, in a 30MPH zone, in a city is grossly negligent. If someone was going 100MPH on a freeway in the middle of the night and away from traffic, I wouldn't care. If he wrecked out there it wouldn't risk other people, but in town is totally different. I don't care if stupid people kill themselves, but they should not be doing it around other people.

On a final note, no matter how good of a driver you are, on the road you are surrounded by horrible drivers. Every day commuting to work I dodge half a dozen of the worst drivers I have ever seen. I learned that driving around these people is more like driving with the idea that they are all out to hit you. If you add additional speed to the equation, it gets far harder to dodge them. I have no problem with people driving 80MPH or more on a highway where traffic is going 65MPH+. In that equation you and your vehicle only have to overcome about 20MPH or difference to avoid an accident. Of course this goes back to my rant about vehicle safety. If your driving an SUV or truck, you have no business over 65MPH anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kyros, 13 Mar 2007 @ 2:27pm

This isn't a debate about the dangers of speeding, it's about the statue of limitations as it applies to videos on the web. Realistically some idiot politician will eventually use this as part of his platform. And realistically some idiots in here will continue to make comments about how safe/unsafe it is to drive fast, regardless that half of them are too young to even drive yet. (finished ranting~)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fernando, 13 Mar 2007 @ 2:34pm

Don't verb "youtube".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wisconsingod, 13 Mar 2007 @ 2:49pm

To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.
- GK Chesterton
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheDock22, 13 Mar 2007 @ 3:51pm

Re:
I still think that the statute of limitations for any crime video taped should never expire. I mean, this maniac was driving WAY too fast and put many lives in danger for the sake of entertainment and yet he does not even get a harsh fine because the police were not sure of the date.

Some crimes due not have limitations, such as murder. But other heinous crimes do, like rape. I believe the statute of limitation in rape cases is 5 years. And yet if you come to court after that time with VIDEO proof it happened and who did it, the criminal still gets to walk free.

It is not like the police are going to have the resources to arrest every dumb kid who video tapes themselves spray painting a building, but for other dangerous crimes like the one in this story, well that guy should have had some kind of punishment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Henry Lasko, 13 Mar 2007 @ 5:56pm

Re: GK Chesterton quote....
Yes, Wisconsingod, we can all reproduce the Google-sponsored thought of the day.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Enrico Suarve, 14 Mar 2007 @ 3:43am

Re: Re:
In answer to TheDock22's points (Hi by the way), I am pretty sure that the statute only applies in this case due to the manner in which the evidence was presented (i.e. solely non-identifying video evidence)

The statute of limitations (I think that may be a US term) exists due to speed cameras, and basically states that you have to issue the ticket within 14days, otherwise the accused cannot reasonably be expected to remember who was driving the vehicle at the time. It's there also to prevent wasting the courts time with un-provable arguments going back and forth

In this case, although the video identified the address it didn't identify the driver specifically. If he had admitted it was him I am reasonably sure that he could be prosecuted - yeah its effectively a loophole but probably not one worth closing off unless lots of people start posting evidence to youTube in this manner

I should clarify that I am not a lawyer so cannot guarantee the above but am reasonably sure this is the case - are there any UK lawyers out there willing to back or beat me up for the benefit of clarity? ;0)

Either way the guys a tit driving 100mph through what is probably a residential area (30mph usually = residential in the UK). Local Somerset papers should publish the link in their next edition, so local people know which window to throw the bricks through - yeah that’s vigilantism and no I don't care
[ link to this | view in thread ]
|333173|3|_||3, 14 Mar 2007 @ 7:01am

Was it a 30MPH zone, someone will ahve to count the lamp-posts and find the distance between them to be sure. Some residentail areas are 60, some 50. while I acept that he was going way over the limit in any case, there may be rules which tell the police that if he was not breaking the limit by more than a certain amount it is not worth the effort. You hardly want a bunch of detectives wasting a month or so on proving who the driver.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Guy, 14 Mar 2007 @ 7:31am

Common Sense is Dead
I have never seen a residential area that is 60 or 50 mph. where the bleep do you live? Regarless, even if the speed limt was 60, he was still going 40mph over the limit which is 66%over the limit. Proof enough for me to lock the bastid in jail for a good 30 days or so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
William, 8 Oct 2008 @ 10:49pm

best comment ever
"On a final note, no matter how good of a driver you are, on the road you are surrounded by horrible drivers. Every day commuting to work I dodge half a dozen of the worst drivers I have ever seen."

I am a very good driver however i agree with you 100% not to say that i havent gone over 140 sometimes on a middle of nowhere highway(i have a 1994 supra) but people arent robots and when your driving fast and they think you might hit you even if you just want to draft off them you never know what they might do driving in a residential or populated area or on a road with any drivers is not safe unless its sanctioned(meaning only on a track or on the autobahn.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Granto, 9 Oct 2008 @ 7:30am

Re: Never admit it was you...
"I don't know" is a BAD answer!

It can be shown in a court that you were trying to hide your involvement, knowledge of something, etc.

The correct response (IMHO) is "I require legal advice before answering.", or if you're in the US, just don't answer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]