just checking.... The cop pulled you over, looked at your licence, wrote a ticket based on the name of the person driving the car when the speeding offence happened? and you wanna ask if you can pretend that someone else was driving the car? Really?
just checking.... The cop pulled you over, looked at your licence, wrote a ticket based on the name of the person driving the car when the speeding offence happened? and you wanna ask if you can pretend that someone else was driving the car? Really?
I'm with you on this, but what comes to my mind, if there is no identification in the system between on spot and camera infringements, then I think that should be ok to do it. The only thing as I mentioned if in the system it does identify if the infringement was on spot or camera. Do you have an idea about this?
No.
Doing so would involve either making a false declaration, which is an offence, or
admitting that you lied to the police on the side of the road about who you were,
which is also an offence.
Former Federal Court Judge Einfield did two years in jail because he lied about being behind the wheel when his car was caught by a speed camera. He denied being behind he wheel to avoid a $77 fine. 2 years in JAIL. So Adam 1... Nope it is not ok to lie and get someone else to take the demerit points. Sure, good chance you'll get away with it... After all that is probably what Judge Einfield thought too...
Yeah.
Thing is, OP above appears to have been a vehicle stop, and an infringement issued by a flesh and blood constable.
Can't see how there's any "taking the points" on that.
Former Federal Court Judge Einfield did two years in jail because he lied about being behind the wheel when his car was caught by a speed camera. He denied being behind he wheel to avoid a $77 fine. 2 years in JAIL. So Adam 1... Nope it is not ok to lie and get someone else to take the demerit points. Sure, good chance you'll get away with it... After all that is probably what Judge Einfield thought too...
I was not encouraging to OP to lie, I was asking if the system would identify the infringement if issued at spot or by camera, as that would be a loop hole. But I did not advise that poster to lie.
Yeah, you did.
Your suggestion to take advantage of a loophole (if it existed, which it doesn't)
would have enabled a person to falsely state who was driving.
In other words - to lie about who was driving.
" if there is no identification in the system between on spot and camera infringements, then I think that should be ok to do it. "
There is no identification within 'the system' for unmaned cameras. But even then you can do jail time if you lie about it. So if you got pulled over by a human cop then you've got no chance of getting someone else to claim the prize.
" if there is no identification in the system between on spot and camera infringements, then I think that should be ok to do it. "
There is no identification within 'the system' for unmaned cameras. But even then you can do jail time if you lie about it. So if you got pulled over by a human cop then you've got no chance of getting someone else to claim the prize.
I read my above comment and I did write " then I think that should be ok to do it " I meant that a person should not do it, but I don't know what I was thinking about when I wrote it. I wanted to know if the system identifies the type of infringement as above. If someone does not abide by the traffic rule, then should be pay the infringement. I agree with that, and it would be up the discretion of the issuing police officer if to issue the ticket or give a warning for that infringement.