[DaveC]

And Jeeza's lawyers had the case dismissed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6982514.stm

Dave

 

[Arna]

Makes me want an Alfa more...

That's ironic considering how he criticized the new range for being a bit slow. First he says that the competition can outrun the Alfas and now Alfa outruns him for his own speeding ticket. LOL. I wonder what Alfa he was driving/reviewing when he got the ticket. Jerk.

 

[HenryKrinkle]

Supposedly it was a 3.2 Brera.. He and the other two did pick the Brera as their top choice to own in that roundup bytheway.. So it's a wee bit slower, the haters would make it sound like it runs like a dump truck..

The whole thing is kinda lame. From what I gather, Clarkson was loaned the car, by Alfa, and claims he wasnt driving the car when the speeding happened.. Alfa got the ticket cuz hello he was borrowing their car. A car he didnt own. He shoulda just paid the ticket, what a dumba*s.

 

[Craig]

He shoulda just paid the ticket, what a dumba*s.

Why? He may not have been driving. It could have been a cameraman, soundman, producer or even just an assistant.

Clarkson has stated on at least one occasion that he has never been caught by a speed camera and that you'd have to be bloody stupid to get caught as UK speed cameras are marked with a large warning sign.

 

[1.6 HF]

Clarkson has stated on at least one occasion that he has never been caught by a speed camera and that you'd have to be bloody stupid to get caught as UK speed cameras are marked with a large warning sign.

Is he sure that rules it out in his case?

 

[Craig]

No, but there has been no evidence presented that he was actually driving, only that Alfa had loaned him (?) the car.

I admit that here in speed camera central (Victoria Australia) that would be enough to prove him guilty, but not in anywhere that the law hasn't been perverted.

 

[Arna]

Alfa should lend me a car. I'll pay for the speeding tickets. The review will still be good.

 

[elite38868]

Do the speed cameras only take pictures of the car and its license plate or does it get the driver too? This sounds like a huge flaw especially if the owner of the car has let someone borrow it. This would NOT fly in Ca as everyone would be fighting their tickets and winning.

 

[bshorey]

Why? He may not have been driving. It could have been a cameraman, soundman, producer or even just an assistant.

Clarkson has stated on at least one occasion that he has never been caught by a speed camera and that you'd have to be bloody stupid to get caught as UK speed cameras are marked with a large warning sign.

Seems pretty unethical to me. If the car is in your care, then you should also be responsible for any infractions incurred whilst it's under you care.

I suspect that if the car was used in a bank robbery that they'd have somehow been able to cough up the name of the driver.

So, a manufacturer lends Top Gear a car for testing, Top Gear goes out and gets lots of tickets, then stiffs the manufacturer for the fines? I've got to think that people will think twice before lending cars in the future.

bs

 

[Craig]

G'Day Brian,

There is a difference between 'in your care' and under your control.

In this case several people may have driven the car along the same stretch of road within a short period. One of them may have exceeded the speed limit by as little as the width of the speedo needle. Which one? Even the driver may not know. Unless accurate records of who was driving when were kept, who knows. Was the clock on the speed camera accurate, was the film crews?

There are lots of issues that make it very hard to determine who was responsible. And then there is the issue of whether the vehicle photographed was even the one borrowed from Alfa. Errors have been made before.

Generally, number plate recognition software is used and if it finds a valid number a letter or fine is sent without human validation.

Alfa would be in the clear as it would have been documented that the car had been loaned to Top Gear.


Cameras in the UK generally take photo's from the front (I believe) but whether or not the driver is recognisable I do not know.

Here, photo's are usually taken from the rear.

Here, letters are sent to the registered owner requiring them to either incriminate themselves or someone else.

Here, the vehicle owner is guilty until proven innocent.

Here, it is up to the owner of the vehicle to prove their innocence. It is not up to the prosecution to to prove their guilt.

These last three points are the reverse of normal legal practice in this country.


And, No I have not been photographed by a speed camera for several years.

 

[Palmer]

Permanent speed cameras in the UK generaly face in the direction of travel, therefore the pictures produced capture the rear of the car. The person to whom the car is registered is summond, it is then up to them to accept the ticket or come up with whoever was driving. The issue with most drivers here is not the £60 / $120 doller fine but the three penalty points on your licence. Twelve points total in a three year period and you lose your licence. This has impact for future insurance premiums as you are bound by law to disclose them.

I'm with Craig on this one, anyone of the production team could have been driving.

P.S. I don't have any points on my licence, I'm too old to go at any great speed

 

[bshorey]

G'Day Brian,

There is a difference between 'in your care' and under your control.

In this case several people may have driven the car along the same stretch of road within a short period. One of them may have exceeded the speed limit by as little as the width of the speedo needle. Which one? Even the driver may not know. Unless accurate records of who was driving when were kept, who knows. Was the clock on the speed camera accurate, was the film crews?

There are lots of issues that make it very hard to determine who was responsible. And then there is the issue of whether the vehicle photographed was even the one borrowed from Alfa. Errors have been made before.

Sure but the one thing we *know* is that it wasn't the manufacturer, who graciously lent them the automobile. So why stiff them with the ticket?

Generally, number plate recognition software is used and if it finds a valid number a letter or fine is sent without human validation.

Alfa would be in the clear as it would have been documented that the car had been loaned to Top Gear.


Cameras in the UK generally take photo's from the front (I believe) but whether or not the driver is recognisable I do not know.

Here, photo's are usually taken from the rear.

Here, letters are sent to the registered owner requiring them to either incriminate themselves or someone else.

Here, the vehicle owner is guilty until proven innocent.

Here, it is up to the owner of the vehicle to prove their innocence. It is not up to the prosecution to to prove their guilt.

I guess that's the question - with Clarkson getting off, did that also let Alfa off the hook?

bs

 

[alfaromeo1green]

That's clearly lame of T.G. They need to deal with any issues that come up while the car is in their care. Would you lend these guys a car again? I wouldn't. AR can just tell them they won't be sending them any more test cars!

 

[bshorey]

I'm with Craig on this one, anyone of the production team could have been driving.

So, I lend you the keys to my car, you and some friends go out and have some fun, get some tickets, you don't know who was driving it when, so *I* have to pay the ticket?

Sorry, doesn't make sense to me. If I lent you the keys, and you couldn't keep track of who was driving, then you should still take responsibility for the infraction, not stiff me with it.

bs

 

[elite38868]

Have to say I disagree. I don't believe the US has a lot of speed cameras, however, we do have a lot of red light cameras. Our red light cameras capture the light that is red, your car entering the intersection late, the stupid look on your face after you realised you were caught, and the front/rear license plates. That way, when it goes to court, you can't dispute it especially if you are the person in the picture!

This kind of nonsense, blame-game BS is rediculous. If I lend someone a car, I'm not responsible for what they do with it. The government should have the burden of providing a photograph of who was driving and go from there.

Now, as far as alfa "graciously" lending someone a car, that's a load of crap. Alfa only does it for their own publicity, which is fine. They expect people to exceed speed limits, however, they also expect them to pay for their fines too

 

[Craig]

The government should have the burden of

proof.

This too is my belief and is one of the basic tenants of English law (inc. US & Aus.).

Brian, In Aus (and I'm betting the UK) you basically cannot borrow (or hire) a car from a company without signing a document giving the time and date you picked-up the car. I am sure Alfa was in the clear.


If as in your example you loaned a friend your car you would be required to sign a declaration on the letter you received. Your friend would then be sent a similar letter. If your (now ex) friend denied driving the car and provided reasonable proof that he couldn't have been driving you would have to pay the fine unless you could prove that the car was in the possession of someone else at the time.

Basically you would end up in court wasting a lot of time and money proving you were innocent. Most people would just pay the fine which is what the government hopes will happen. Revenue from camera fines now makes up a large part of the State budget.

So the law has been perverted because it's too hard to actually prove who committed the crime. There now has to be a fall guy.

 

[elite38868]

It is kind of funny when someone is contesting a red light violation caught on camera and the judge asks the person, "is this you?" and shows you the picture. You stumble around and say, "uhh uhh yeah". The judge then claims you guilty and you have to pay your fine + court costs. Now, if you for some reason were wearing a ski mask and they couldn't ID you from the picture, it wouldn't hold up. So many people just pay these if they were guilty or not.

 

[Vindingo]

Do the speed cameras only take pictures of the car and its license plate or does it get the driver too? This sounds like a huge flaw especially if the owner of the car has let someone borrow it. This would NOT fly in Ca as everyone would be fighting their tickets and winning.

you are right, it doesnt fly... someone knocked over my motorcycle and an eyewitness got their plate. I filed a police report with license plate number and nothing came of it. Cop said all they have to do is say that they werent driving the car! Nothing came of it... thanks SFPD

If you let someone borrow your vehicle, the owner of the vehicle should be just as responsible as the offending party.

 

[Damo105]

Simple - don't let anyone borrow your vehicle, especially not your Alfa(s).

I'm trying to think of someone who I would let borrow my GTV. Ummm....nope, can't think of anyone

Craig - I agree with you totally about the injustice of the situation in Victoria. Apparently now the police are trying to prevent people from presenting evidence in court in defense of driving offences. It stems from people calling in expert witnesses to testify that cameras can and do make mistakes. The police are annoyed, so they're trying to have such testimony barred.

If they succeed, not only will drivers be guilty until proven innocent, but they'll be prevented from offering evidence in their defense.

It's so refreshing to live in a democracy!

 

[JeffM]

I drive a loaned car a lot (I work for a bicycle race team, and Volvo gives us a batch of cars each year on loan for sponsorship). Tickets always get back to me. The car is owned/registered/insured by Volvo, but they know the plate number of my car and if they get a ticket associated with it they drop it in the mail to me. Since I like the job, I always pay them promptly so as not to anger the sponsor. Sounds like the blokes at TG ought to have a similar policy!