Incorrectly accused of not wearing seatbelt

Car_54

1. If I were in the back seat, and grabbed the driver’s belt to throttle him, wouldn’t it lock?

2. Even if he wasn’t wearing a belt, couldn’t I grab the belt and throttle him anyway? Subject obviously to (1)?

TooManyPoints

None of the above really matters. The blanket exemption is in place. If it were to be allowed only when there was no risk, every taxi driver accused of breaking the seatbelt law would argue that he perceived a risk. It would be a ridiculous requirement and one that would be almost impossible to adjudicate on. I have to say it seems outdated - especially when many purpose built taxis have dividers behind the driver.

Personally I don't really see why taxi drivers would want a get-out-of-jail free card for failing to wear a seat belt. If it was me I would far rather face the probably very small risk of being throttled by my passenger than hurtling into the steering column or through the windscreen at 40mph. But it is what it is and the reason it is is the reason I gave.

Manxman_in_exile

Is the taxi driver exemption because of the danger of them being "strangled" from behind?  I'd always thought it was to allow them to exit the vehicle quicker if their customer did a runner.  (Although I'm not sure I'd put much money on any taxi driver in a foot race).

I agree with TooManyPoints I'd rather run the small risk of being attacked from behind rather than run the risk of going through the windshield or into the steering column.

DB1904

Manxman_in_exile said:

Is the taxi driver exemption because of the danger of them being "strangled" from behind?  I'd always thought it was to allow them to exit the vehicle quicker if their customer did a runner.  (Although I'm not sure I'd put much money on any taxi driver in a foot race).

I agree with TooManyPoints I'd rather run the small risk of being attacked from behind rather than run the risk of going through the windshield or into the steering column.

It has to be the risk from the passenger attacking them.

Ath_Wat

Car_54 said:

1. If I were in the back seat, and grabbed the driver’s belt to throttle him, wouldn’t it lock?

2. Even if he wasn’t wearing a belt, couldn’t I grab the belt and throttle him anyway? Subject obviously to (1)?

You sound far too interested in this.

photome

Wonder if the OP will return and update

jimjames

[Deleted User] said:

Problem is that the court is likely to take their word for it, so you will need to show quite convincingly that you were wearing your seatbelt.

As per a previous post the court has to be shown evidence that proves the offence. A blurred photo as described isn't proof if it doesn't show interior visibly. 

[Deleted User]

jimjames said:

[Deleted User] said:

Problem is that the court is likely to take their word for it, so you will need to show quite convincingly that you were wearing your seatbelt.

As per a previous post the court has to be shown evidence that proves the offence. A blurred photo as described isn't proof if it doesn't show interior visibly. 

Perhaps in theory, but in practice the courts tend to take the police's word for these things in the absence of other evidence. They still operate on the laughable assumption that the police are honest and trustworthy. This even extends to the non-police operators of speed camera vans.

Beware that the photo they supplied might not be the one they go to court with either. They might take the time to find a better one from the video footage they have.

OP, do you have a dashcam? They usually record sound by default and all modern cars have to have a seatbelt warning sound. The absence of that sound on the dashcam recording could prove you were wearing your seatbelt, or at least cast reasonable doubt on the police's evidence.

facade

rigolith said:

They still operate on the laughable assumption that the police are honest and trustworthy.

They have to. If we start by assuming that the police are fundamentally dishonest, then there is no point in our legal system.

Logically, a policeman/woman has nothing personally to gain, and everything to lose by making up accusations over something so trivial, whereas the accused has the incentive of avoiding a fine & costs,

so in a

"It was 'im wot dunnit- I seen him clearly!" vs "No I never!" situation they lean towards the police version of events.

TooManyPoints

Perhaps in theory, but in practice the courts tend to take the police's word for these things in the absence of other evidence

The days when courts unconditionally accepted a police officer's evidence simply on the basis that he is a police officer are long gone, I'm pleased to say. They may accept it because he presents as a good witness and his evidence appears credible, but that is different.

That aside, whose "word" would this be? The function of a speed camera is to take photographs which can identify the vehicle. They are not designed to identify the driver and of the very many I have seen, especially those taken with hand held devices, it is often difficult to see if anybody is driving at all, let alone whether they are wearing a seat belt. They are usually taken from quite a distance. If the camera operator was to give evidence that he saw the driver without a seat belt, I would be surprised if the court accepted it readily. The operator has other things to do and I doubt a court would accept, beyond reasonable doubt, that he was correct. Of course if the matter went to court and the police intended to rely on his evidence, it would have to be disclosed to the defendant beforehand.

It's a shame that it seems the OP is not going to let us know what he is going to do, or that he couldn't post the pictures that have been provided.