Man Avoids 37 Speed Camera Tickets By Wearing Monkey Mask

[KRAZGRL]

http://jalopnik.com/5355617/man-avoi...ng-monkey-mask

lol

[tomato]

Nice try, monkey dude!

Isn't the owner of the vehicle ultimatelly responsible for all infractions anyway (unless car is officially reported stolen) ?

[kustom play]

nope not in arizona

i have had a few and never paid them

mailing a ticket is not proper service in AZ so nobody pays them

this is a common thing here in az, there just trying to make an example of him, to bad its failing and backfiring in DPS's face

the one problem with photo radar is that it nails the car not the driver, a lot of judges will automatically dismiss photo radar cases. One guy was caught doing 110mph and case was dismissed

[yarr_is]

i lol'd

[tomato]

Is that right? I'm pretty sure service by mail is valid in CA.

[Kioshi]

Usually in court, especially in California, if they can't identify the original owner of the car present in the car, the ticket is dismissed. My friends have pulled out of it several times..not using monkey mask though...ie: hoodies or really big shades and turning of the head~

[tomato]

Good to know, thanks Kioshi

[*MAD DOG*]

Lol

[SilverBack]

good one

Here's another from a while back:

GERMAN traffic police have been left looking like proper muppets by a British prankster. An Audi TT with British registration plates has been repeatedly caught speeding on roads in the Bavarian city of Bayreuth.
But because continental speed cameras are set up for left-hand drive vehicles, the cameras keep missing the driver’s face.

Instead, they keep capturing clear views of a manic Muppet-like toy which the cheeky Brit has propped up on his passenger seat. But police admit they are even baffled about the identity of the muppet. The No.1 suspect is Animal – the manic drummer from The Muppet Show’s house band The Electric Mayhem. But several residents of Sesame Street are also in the frame, including the lovable monster Grover and Bert’s rubber-ducky-loving sidekick Ernie. Now police have released one of the photographs in the hope someone will recognise the furry speed demon.
A German police source said: “The number plate is not enough. We need clear evidence of who is driving the vehicle too. “But because this is a British vehicle we can never get a decent picture. The driver has obviously worked this out because he has placed a large puppet in the passenger seat. “This may be an example of the famous British sense of humour but it is still dangerous driving. “The driver has been caught on camera on several occasions and the puppet is on the passenger seat every time. We suspect he positions the toy deliberately before accelerating past the camera.”

The photo released by police was taken on August 8 this year on Bayreuth’s busy A9 road at 11:11am. It clearly shows the reckless muppet accelerating to 155 kilometres per hour on his way to the German capital Berlin. As the speed limit on the road is 120 kmph, the driver is due for three points on his licence and a e50 fine.

They don't know who the driver is, they don't know who the muppet is, and they don't even know what kind of car it is (Audi A4 Avant)... I'll rate this prank a solid 9/10 LMAO

[Tamago]

Originally Posted by k r a y z e e . j o j o

They don't know who the driver is, they don't know who the muppet is, and they don't even know what kind of car it is (Audi A4 Avant)... I'll rate this prank a solid 9/10 LMAO

i was just thinking that... looked a the muppet, started reading the article, came to Audi TT, scrolled back up and chuckled. god bless modern media

[chongopants]

wont fly in TX, you will just get points on your license...

[ellenbetty]

Here in the US, in most states, in civil court, the owner of the car is legally responsible for damages for any accident caused by any driver of the car, if the owner lent the vehicle or if the owner gave the vehicle as a gift to another person. Basicly loaning a car or giving the car as a gift, is the same a aiding and abetting in any crime commited by your vehicle. The person who paid for the vehicle is responsible for anything done with the vehicle. Selling the vehicle for a $1 will not avoid responsiblity for civil liability.

[kustom play]

Originally Posted by ellenbetty

Here in the US, in most states, in civil court, the owner of the car is legally responsible for damages for any accident caused by any driver of the car, if the owner lent the vehicle or if the owner gave the vehicle as a gift to another person. Basicly loaning a car or giving the car as a gift, is the same a aiding and abetting in any crime commited by your vehicle. The person who paid for the vehicle is responsible for anything done with the vehicle. Selling the vehicle for a $1 will not avoid responsiblity for civil liability.

totally wrong on so many levels

the person whos in control of the car would be at fault. If your car is insured and you lend the car to somebody the insurance follows the car. Your insurnace company could go after there insurance company if they want but that doesnt involve you. If you loan the car to somebody who has no insurance then you uninsured driver insurance covers it. If you dont have then then your stupid and shouldnt be driving.

if you loan somebody your car and they kill somebody your not at fault unless they told you they planed to kill somebody with your car. LOL at aiding and abetting, I think you need to look more into that lol.

This is the reason why they cant arrest the guy with the monkey mask, cant prove the driver. They blew up the story here how he was going to get arrested for this only to find they have nothing to arrest him on. It made DPS (our state police) look like idiots.

[ozmdd]

You are only responsible for damages if you were negligent in lending the vehicle. That is tricky to define, because its subjective, but it basically means that if you had reasonable cause to suspect the person was going to do something dangerous/foolish, you can be held liable. For example: if you lend your vehicle to someone whose license is suspended and you didn't ask them if they had a valid license, you might be held responsible. If you asked them and they lied to you so you lent it in "good faith," you are probably in the clear.
The owner of the vehicle IS responsible in most civil situations, like red light cameras and toll roads.

[kustom play]

Originally Posted by ozmdd

You are only responsible for damages if you were negligent in lending the vehicle. That is tricky to define, because its subjective, but it basically means that if you had reasonable cause to suspect the person was going to do something dangerous/foolish, you can be held liable. For example: if you lend your vehicle to someone whose license is suspended and you didn't ask them if they had a valid license, you might be held responsible. If you asked them and they lied to you so you lent it in "good faith," you are probably in the clear.
The owner of the vehicle IS responsible in most civil situations, like red light cameras and toll roads.

not true as well

this is the reason why they are having issues, trust me on this, I can show you the letters of violation and ive been in the insurance business for quite some time

the state HAS TO PROVE THE DRIVER NOT THE CAR. thats why this guy is getting let off. I take it you dont have photo radar in your state lol

try looking it up online, also check out places like www.camerafraud.com

a lot of good info

[tomato]

Originally Posted by ellenbetty

Here in the US, in most states, in civil court, the owner of the car is legally responsible for damages for any accident caused by any driver of the car, if the owner lent the vehicle or if the owner gave the vehicle as a gift to another person. Basicly loaning a car or giving the car as a gift, is the same a aiding and abetting in any crime commited by your vehicle. The person who paid for the vehicle is responsible for anything done with the vehicle. Selling the vehicle for a $1 will not avoid responsiblity for civil liability.

I'm pretty sure you're correct in California (the bold part of your statement at least) For example, if I want to sell my car and I let people drive it around, and let's say one guy driving my car around gets into an accident, I, as the owner of the car, can be held liable for damages he caused. That's the way I understand it.

The fact that he may have insurance and I may have insurance is secondary, I think, ultimately the owner is liable, that's why it's so important to sign the Release of Liability form and file it with the DMV ASAP when you sell your car.

(I could be wrong, of course, but this is what I understand from reading the DMV of California's info ).

Now, infractions caused by a different driver are a different story, and I'm not clear on that, that's why I asked. My understanding was that only parking tickets could be tracked back to the owner of the car, but not driving infractions.

[kustom play]

we had an issue a few years back at a toyota dealer, somebody brought there car in for service, it was some sports car (cant remember i think it was a vette or something) but the tech took it for a "test driver" ended up crashing the car into another car, then rolling it down a hill taking out a another businesses sign.

The driver of the car was at total faut, the owner of the car was not. they sued his insurance for the damages.

your theory is why photo radar doesnt work, and why most states are doing away with them.

[silver_echo]

local story for where i am, a toyota tech at the dealer was "testing" a customer car (supra) to make sure that it was "working" and the owner got a ticket in the mail a few weeks later... the ticket came from a place that is 6 hours away(if you drive the speed limit)... yeah, that tech lost his job...