Another YouTube Speeder Found Not Guilty Due To Lack Of Evidence

from the be-careful-when-you-speed-and-youtube dept

Wed, Oct 8th 2008 9:36pm — Mike Masnick

It seems that it's becoming somewhat common for police to scour YouTube for videos of people filming themselves speeding. However, at the same time, we're seeing at least a few of the tickets handed out for such YouTube speeding thrown out. The latest is over in the UK, where a guy charged with speeding due to a YouTube video has been found not guilty because there's not enough evidence that he was the one actually driving the car -- or that the car was really traveling at the speed shown on the speedometer. This doesn't mean that folks posting their speeding videos on YouTube won't still be fined, but it appears that (at least in the UK) courts are making sure that there's enough actual evidence there to make the fines stick.

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

Filed Under: fines, speeding, tickets, uk, video
Companies: youtube

22 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2008 @ 11:05pm

Wow the UK actually doing something smart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Have teeth (profile), 9 Oct 2008 @ 4:24am
  
  Re:
  Shira law is smart?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keill Randor, 9 Oct 2008 @ 12:22am

Uk Courts...
Thankfully our court system over here the UK isn't QUITE as easy to politicize as it is in the US, so you tend to have a more balanced outcome. I just hope it stays that way...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous UK, 9 Oct 2008 @ 3:32am

Reckless driving
If these people are reckless enough to spend their time driving around the streets with video camera's filming their speedometers. Then whether they were doing the actual speed shown or not, they definitely aren't driving with due car and attention and should be fined according.

As to proving who was driving the car at the time, it should be the owner of the vehicle's responsibility to make sure the persons driving their vehicle are acting within the law and (unless it has already been reported as stolen). Therefore they should either provide details of the person driving their vehicle at the time of the video or fined themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2008 @ 3:45am
  
  Re: Reckless driving
  cHow do you exactly "make sure the persons driving their vehicle are acting within the law?"
  
  Can you suggest a practical way to enforce it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Jerk, 9 Oct 2008 @ 3:58am
    
    Re: Re: Reckless driving
    I think he means if you think your friend is going to speed, record it, and post it, don't loan him your car.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hegemon13, 9 Oct 2008 @ 6:05am
  
  Re: Reckless driving
  1. How are they going to determine the owner of the vehicle from interior video?
  2. It is my right to loan out my vehicle. In most US states, the responsibility for safe and proper driving falls, rightfully, on the driver, not the vehicle owner. Think about the liability of car rental companies if we made the car owners responsible! Now, I could be charged with obstruction of justice if I were subpoenaed to provide the name of the person using the car, and I refused.
  3. Many young people post videos they have found, claiming credit in order to look "cool." I think what the courts are saying is, how do we know the video in question was not one simply found elsewhere by the user and reposted as opposed to being shot by the user?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous UK, 9 Oct 2008 @ 4:31am

Reckless Driving
The point I was trying to get across is this. If you, as the owner of a vehicle allow someone other than yourself to drive your vehicle. It should be with the understanding that if said other person breaks the law and the courts are not be able to prove who was actually driving at the time of the crime. It is then the owners responsibility to provide information of who was driving their vehicle at that time and if not it is you the owner who can be held accountable. (Unless the vehicle has been stolen).

So in the case of this news story. If the courts cannot determine that it was the owner of the vehicle who was driving at the time of the video's recording and the owner is claiming innocence. Then the owner should have to provide the police/courts with the details of the person who was driving, or pay the fine themselves.

Basically ignorance should not equal innocence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2008 @ 5:57am
  
  Re: Reckless Driving
  Maybe it's because your in the UK, but here in the US you cannot compel someone to testify against themselves (fifth amendment), and without enough evidence that the owner was the driver at the time of the infraction then it would be a mis-carriage of justice to then fine the owner for the actions of another. If my employee decided to use the computer that I provided for business purposes, and I am the Owner of that computer, then the employee uses it in a crime. If the government can't determine who was actually using the computer at the time of the crime should I then be charged and convicted? It essentially the same thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch, 9 Oct 2008 @ 7:30am
    
    Re: Re: Reckless Driving
    In the case of speed/red light cameras in at least some jurisdictions, this "miscarriage of justice" is exactly how it works. They send a photo and a ticket to the owner's address, and the owner has to either pay up or tell the police who was driving.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BTR1701, 9 Oct 2008 @ 12:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Reckless Driving
      > In the case of speed/red light cameras in
      > at least some jurisdictions, this "miscarriage
      > of justice" is exactly how it works.
      
      The difference is that the tickets generated by those cameras are adminstrative fines, not criminal citations.
      
      Yes, under such a system, the state can hold the owner of the vehicle responsible for the fines, no matter who was actually driving. But at the same time, they have to give up a lot of the advantages that come with a criminal charge.
      
      With a traditional criminal speeding ticket, if you didn't show up in court or pay the fine, they could issue a warrant for your arrest. They could also suspend your license if you got too many tickets and sentence you to take classes like Defensive Driving.
      
      With camera tickets, all that stuff is no longer available to the state. If you fail to pay the fine, the worst thing they can do is send the debt to a collection agency, which might blacken your credit rating and/or bar you from re-registering your vehicle until the fine is paid. They can't arrest you for it, put points on your license for it or take your license away-- because in order to do any of those things, the state has to prove *you personally* committed the offense, not just your vehicle. And they can't meet that burden of proof with a camera photo of your car.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- amaya, 9 Oct 2008 @ 6:08am
  
  Re: Reckless Driving
  how do we find out who the owner of the car is? they dont show the vin number on those youtube videos, they dont show the registration, all you get is a shot of the inside of the car. so, your saying that if a friend of mine borrows my truck and they get caught speeding your saying i should get a ticket because it was my truck that allowed them to speed? what if someone borrows my truck and causes a huge pileup on the freeway? should i be held responsible? i was miles away eating cake at my grandmothers house, so how could i have known that there was a risk of them causing the pileup? that is why they have insurance, and that is why i carry insurance on my truck that covers it no matter who drives, because i dont mind if my friends borrow it, and i know that accidents happen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hegemon13, 9 Oct 2008 @ 6:13am
  
  Re: Reckless Driving
  Can you explain to me why the owner should be held in any way accountable? A car is a machine, nothing more. It can be used legally or illegally, and ownership has no influence on that. So why should an owner be liable for the actions of a friend driving his or her car? The approach of "if we can't punish the perpetrator, let's find someone else to punish in his place" is dangerous, stupid, and blatantly unjust.
  
  I agree that, if issued a court subpoena, the owner must provide information about who drove the car. However, refusal would lead to an obstruction of justice charge, NOT liability for the original crime.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BTR1701, 9 Oct 2008 @ 12:14pm
  
  Re: Reckless Driving
  > So in the case of this news story. If the
  > courts cannot determine that it was the
  > owner of the vehicle who was driving at
  > the time of the video's recording and the
  > owner is claiming innocence. Then the owner
  > should have to provide the police/courts
  > with the details of the person who was
  > driving, or pay the fine themselves.
  
  There's a little thing we have in USA (which you may or may not have in the UK-- I have no idea) called the "presumption of innocence".
  
  That means the state has to prove me guilty of a crime. I don't have to prove myself innocent. And I cannot be compelled to testify against myself, either.
  
  That means that if the state charges me with a crime, they better have the evidence to prove it. I don't even have to say a word other than "not guilty" when they ask how I plead. I certainly am not obligated to provide details of who was driving my car, at what time and under what circumstances. If they can't prove I was behind the wheel, then I'm entitled to an acquittal and that acquittal can't be conditioned on me helping the authorities figure out who *was* the driver at the time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scott Lithgow, 9 Oct 2008 @ 4:39am

Innocent until proven etc
I have often wondered how they got the guilty verdicts without any evidence other than a shot through the windscreen. Obviously the ones that turn the camera on themselves whilst shouting there name and address are a different story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sean, 9 Oct 2008 @ 5:20am

Italy's worse..
Just yesterday on the news (if I find an article on La Repubblica I'll link to it) a speeding driver won an appeal against his ban.

His lawyer pointed out that under Italian law, the police have to record the speed 4 times, I suppose in order to cancel out radar-gun errors.

It was successfully argued that the driver was driving too fast to be correctly recorded 4 times, and therefore cannot be charged with speeding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2008 @ 6:01am

"If my employee decided to use the computer that I provided for business purposes, and I am the Owner of that computer, then the employee uses it in a crime. If the government can't determine who was actually using the computer at the time of the crime should I then be charged and convicted?"

What about the poor RIAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Casey, 9 Oct 2008 @ 6:10am

Re: Reckless Driving
"If the government can't determine who was actually using the computer at the time of the crime should I then be charged and convicted? It essentially the same thing."

Yes, if you as the employer can't identify who was downloading child porn on your computer then you should be held accountable. It's not too hard to figure out who was sitting at what desk in an office environment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2008 @ 6:25am
  
  Re: Re: Reckless Driving
  That doesn't come any were close to the proof beyond a reasonable doubt criteria. Just because you wish someone be held accountable does not make it legal, or are you suggesting some form of anarchy?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2008 @ 6:13am

"how do we find out who the owner of the car is? they dont show the vin number on those youtube videos, they dont show the registration, all you get is a shot of the inside of the car. so, your saying that if a friend of mine borrows my truck and they get caught speeding your saying i should get a ticket because it was my truck that allowed them to speed? what if someone borrows my truck and causes a huge pileup on the freeway? should i be held responsible? i was miles away eating cake at my grandmothers house, so how could i have known that there was a risk of them causing the pileup? that is why they have insurance, and that is why i carry insurance on my truck that covers it no matter who drives, because i dont mind if my friends borrow it, and i know that accidents happen."

No, you shouldn't be held accountable. I assume the cops would be able to identify the person in your vehicle on the scene.

Now, if that person causes the pileup and then flee's the scene. Expect the cops to come knocking because it's your license plate sitting on the interstate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chad, 9 Oct 2008 @ 2:56pm

In Canada where I live, we have photo radar cameras here. They basically take a picture of your car speeding and whether you're the one driving or not, the owner of the vehicle is the one who gets the ticket. In those cases, you don't even get to see a speedometer, you don't get to fight the tickets very easily, or prove that the camera is even working.

In a case where someone is actually filming themselves speed and bragging about it, whether they're the ones driving or not.. the fact that they let their vehicle be in a situation like that in the first place is reason enough to give them a ticket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
KING, 17 Feb 2009 @ 12:39pm

http://www.erepublik.com/en/visit/bb07cdc3568b845cb060f65999720ea7
[ link to this | view in chronology ]