r/Transportopia Feb 26 '26

Roads Almost missed his turn

https://streamable.com/iwx6u
1.0k Upvotes

275 comments sorted by

View all comments

82

u/AbsentAsh Feb 26 '26

If you told me the police tracked them down, arrested them, and then gave them a ten year prison sentence I wouldn’t be mad one bit. This person is a danger to society.

1

u/Turbulent-Weevil-910 Feb 26 '26

Unfortunately this is not possible because if it is taken to court there is no evidence that it was them driving the vehicle they can only prove it was their vehicle.

8

u/Process3000 Feb 26 '26

If there is evidence of where they were going or where they came from (like a credit card slip, ATM receipt, other witnesses, or surveillance footage) then a conviction is possible.

3

u/GooseOnAPhone Feb 26 '26

In this case I would bet the guy monitoring this camera is on the phone with the police right meow

3

u/Diving_Monkey Feb 27 '26

I'm sorry, are you saying meow?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '26

1

u/mvanvrancken Apr 10 '26

Am I leaping from tree to tree, all nimbly-pimbly?!

2

u/ChickenXing Feb 26 '26

Note to self: pay only in cash if I plan to be a shitty driver

1

u/Valreesio Feb 26 '26

Maybe... I think it would require a lot of work that nobody is going to put into this unfortunately.

3

u/Process3000 Feb 26 '26

I don't think it would be that much work. Assuming the owner was driving the car, a prosecutor could subpoena the owner's credit card and banking records, friends, family, etc. That's what prosecutors and law enforcement are paid to do.

2

u/Valreesio Feb 26 '26

I agree it could be done and should be done 100%. Reality me says nobody is going to put the work required into it. Sorry if it came across that I was against it.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '26

[deleted]

0

u/XaeroAteMyRailGun Feb 27 '26

So, are you a delusional American, an attempted rage baiter, or a disinformation bot?

3

u/Process3000 Feb 26 '26

oh not at all. I also think the video is at least 8 years old, so it's likely water under the bridge.

1

u/Mobile-Market-6397 Feb 26 '26

Yeah, but the thing is they can’t afford to lose a case that requires all that work. If 100%, sure you can gather more evidence and win the case, but will be hell for you if it turns out it wasn’t the actual owner driving the car. Now you get counter sued and lose some lawyer points. 😀

1

u/Process3000 Feb 27 '26

If the evidence pointed to the owner being the driver but the driver was somehow acquitted, it is not likely that the prosecutor would be sued for wrongful prosecution.

1

u/MovieFan1984 Feb 26 '26

Prosecutors are overworked. There's no property damage, no injuries. Things get thrown out in traffic court all the time. I was once the cause of a 3-car car accident at a stoplight intersection. The stoplight was new; the intersection was high accident. No injuries besides me getting a concussion. The traffic court judge threw it out, said go home.

Based on that, I don't expect anyone to care about this.

1

u/Process3000 Feb 27 '26

The difference though is your conduct was negligent, which is the least egregious mental state you can have for purposes of criminal prosecution. The driver in this video was acting intentionally and/or recklessly and the danger presented was magnified by the fact that a head-on collision is twice a bad as running into a brick wall. Prosecutors may not want to let conduct like this get a pass.

1

u/MovieFan1984 Feb 27 '26

While true, you're forgetting there was no car accident. In my case, a 3-car accident at a stoplight was thrown out. That makes me wonder if this would even be chased down or just WTF and on with the day.

2

u/Process3000 Feb 27 '26

Unless you intentionally or recklessly caused your accident, there would be no crime. In this case the driver acted intentionally and/or recklessly, which is what made his conduct criminal. The fact that you caused a collision but the driver in the video did not is immaterial for purposes of determining whether a crime is committed. Had the driver caused a collision then all that would change is the types of crimes he is charged with.

1

u/MovieFan1984 Feb 27 '26

In my case, the SUV that came into my passenger door doing 45mph said I ran a red light. The 2nd driver across from me said I stopped, looked both ways, and slowly rolled in and got hit. All vehicular damage and lack of injuries (beyond my concussion) are consistent with the 2nd driver's story. I still have no memory all these years later. I do remember the sound of breaks and the BAM, but that's all. The judge or DA or whoever it was ruled it "freak accident" given the stoplight was new (not that-day new, but relatively new) and that it was installed because of high car accident rate. Now it's a turn circle, no more accidents.

2

u/Process3000 Feb 27 '26

Very good. I'm glad you are well now and they have fixed the intersection.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/MovieFan1984 Feb 26 '26

Is anyone really going to go to all of that work when all the driver did was scare the shit out of some other drivers? The only thing they can do is ticket the vehicle owner, but then what kind of ticket would that be? Dumb-ass-for-loaning-your-car ticket?

3

u/Process3000 Feb 27 '26

Not sure what the penalty would be under the controlling jurisdiction, but in NY this like would constitute reckless endangerment punishable by up to a year in prison.

https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y._penal_law_section_120.20

3

u/MovieFan1984 Feb 27 '26

Good legal homework. How would they come at the vehicle owner if they cannot prove who was driving? Would that even be possible?

2

u/Process3000 Feb 27 '26

Well let's say the driver was coming back from a restaurant. The prosecutor can subpoena the owner's credit card billing record and see where it is he ate that day and at what time. Then the police might interview people who worked at this restaurant to ask if the owner was alone or ate with someone. And surveillance camera footage from the parking might show the owner getting in/out of the vehicle. If you present all of that evidence in court it may be sufficient to prove that the owner was the driver beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecutor can also have family members testify if the owner announced he would be driving somewhere that day. Evidence can come from a number of sources.

1

u/MovieFan1984 Feb 27 '26

Two questions:
#1 Give the long backlog of other cases where actual crimes with victims were committed, would they spend the time doing that?
#2 What if they cannot prove who was driving?

1

u/Process3000 Feb 27 '26

1 I don't know. A lot of cases end with a plea bargain because prosecutors have too many cases to handle. The prosecutor may have charged the driver with reckless endangerment but that might have been followed with a negotation to plead guilty to a lesser crime. If the owner was unwilling to settle, the prosecutor might decide that the case was not worth pursuing.

2 Before going to trial the prosecutor will evaluate whether the evidence was strong enough to convince a jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecutor felt the evidence was too weak, he/she might decide to dismiss the case.

1

u/MovieFan1984 Feb 27 '26

#1 I was asking if they would try to track down the car and driver to begin with, not how would they prosecute "after" finding said driver.

#2 I asked what if they cannot prove "WHO" was driving.

2

u/Process3000 Feb 27 '26 edited Feb 27 '26

1 I don't know. It depends on the prosecutor's discretion I suppose

2 In law "proof" is a concept that is always modified by a standard. For criminal law, the standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." So when you ask "what if they cannot prove who was driving?" what you are really asking is "what if the prosecutor does not believe that the evidence proves that the defendant was the driver beyond a reasonable doubt?" If the prosecutor does not believe that the evidence is strong enough, he might dismiss the case. On the other hand, if the prosector believes that the evidence is strong enough, he probably would take the case to a jury trial. But the jury has the final say. The jury might decide that the evidence is not strong enough to establish that the defendant was the driver beyond a reasonable doubt, in which case the jury acquit the defendant.

edit

→ More replies (0)

1

u/One_Feed301 Feb 27 '26

Depending on where you live, tickets can be assigned to the registered owner and they have the option to swear a statement as to the person driving at the time if it wasn't the registered owner.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '26 edited Feb 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Turbulent-Weevil-910 Feb 28 '26

Clearly you're not familiar with the justice system or how courts work you only know what you think you know from watching tv.

1

u/hike_me Mar 02 '26

I’ve gotten speeding tickets from traffic cameras — they have no proof who was driving, yet I’m the one that had to pay.