Company Vehicle Photo Radar Ticket

[tirebob]

Okay... Everybody is sick of the photo radar ticket questions I am sure, but I am genuinely annoyed by this. I just received a photo radar ticket in the mail for the Urban company truck from back in early December. In all honesty I do not know who was driving the truck because I know it wasn't me as I never go on Beddington (where the ticket was incurred) for any reason, and at this time of year I have 5 employees who potentially are driving to pick up or deliver stuff as well as lending it to clients sometimes who have to leave their car with us or whatever.

Nobody is admitting to it being them and I can't tell from the pictures who was driving or I would just make them pay it, but for the life of me I cannot figure out how the company can be fined for and individual breaking the law.

It pisses me off to no end. If I was the driver I would have no issue paying it, but I wasn't, and nobody here admits to it or I would make them pay for it, and I can't remember which people/customer may have borrowed the vehicle and drove that direction on that day. Should I even bother trying to fight it?

[schocker]

Registered owner is always responsible for non-pulled over tickets no matter who is driving. I enjoy them myself as no demerits, but I can see your frustration. I think you can still fight it and try and have it reduced.

[pheoxs]

That sucks, do employees not have to track mileage of any kind? We're allowed to use our office truck for personal use as well but still have to record the start/end mileage and the date in a spreadsheet.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by schocker
Registered owner is always responsible for non-pulled over tickets no matter who is driving. I enjoy them myself as no demerits, but I can see your frustration. I think you can still fight it and try and have it reduced.

Agreed. When my gf gets photoradar I receive the ticket as I technically own the car even though she is the primary driver on it as far as insurance is concerned.

In all fairness I consider myself a pretty honest dude but if I felt like my job was in jeopardy or I wouldn't be able to pay next month's rent I don't know if I would admit to it either as there really is no winning for that employee.

[killramos]

And this is why many companies spend big money tracking their vehicle usage.

Somehow it think a photo radar ticket is the lesser cost of lojacking your vehicles, cost of doing business?

After being burned this time maybe you create a usage log for your trucks?

As for the not feeling liable for your employees actions when they are using company property for company business on company time well....

Do I have to finish that thought?

[tirebob]

I hear all that guys, but it still doesn't feel right. My thoughts are, so what if it is a company vehicle? It is a matter of legal responsibility and where in the law does it say my company has to pay the legal punishment for my employee's (or customer's) personal actions?

Say I have a company pen on my desk and an employee or customer takes it home, gets in a fight with his neighbour and stabs him in the eye with it. My company is not responsible to the crown for their actions even though it was my companies pen. It should be no different for the companies vehicle?

Seems strange to me...

I wish they had windshield pictures or the like so at least there is the potential to identify the driver.

[spikerS]

I hate photo radar. It isn't a deterrent, it does not improve safety, it is just a way to generate revenue.

Personally, I think all photo radar / red light cameras should be removed, and instead replaced with actual officers. These officers would do nothing but enforce traffic laws, all day, 100% of the time. Give them a hard quota, 25 tickets a day or shift or whatever. The tickets issued would more than cover their costs, and would ACTUALLY contribute to road safety, being visible, and stopping the infraction as it takes place. Not only that, but being an actual officer, you can stop drunk drivers, can find drivers with no licence, no insurance, the whole works.

Photo radar is nothing but a cash cow disguised as safety.

[jacky4566]

It was only a marketing campaign but I do believe a system like this would be much more effective.

[carson blocks]

Originally posted by tirebob
I hear all that guys, but it still doesn't feel right. My thoughts are, so what if it is a company vehicle? It is a matter of legal responsibility and where in the law does it say my company has to pay the legal punishment for my employee's (or customer's) personal actions?

I believe if you look at the actual charge, it is for being the "registered owner of a vehicle involved in...", commonly known as a RO ticket, hence no points involved. As the registered owner, in the eyes of the law, you are guilty of that charge. You didn't speed, but you owned the vehicle that did, and that's the charge they lay with photo.

Most employers I've heard of will bill the employee back for the cost of the ticket if they can prove who was driving. If it happens all the time, a tracking system (either manual or electronic) can be implemented. If it's a one-off or very infrequent, it's likely not worth the cost and hassle.

As an aside, I've had a few photo tickets with my company truck, and my bookkeeper insists I have to pay my company's photo radar charges personally. I argue that it's a RO ticket and my company is the RO and the company should pay. She says it's a fine for breaking the law and that's not an allowable expense. We argue about this every time. My accountant says I have an argument, but that claiming it may trigger an audit. I have no idea what the tax law actually is, but it burns me to pay them with my personal visa every time my company registration is up for renewal.

[Env-Consultant]

Nevermind, noticed the 160 (1) portion.

[carson blocks]

Was just going to post that. Sec. 160(1) says "If a vehicle is involved in an offence referred to in Section 157 or a bylaw, the owner of that vehicle is guilty of an offence". Sucks, but they've got to get that sweet photo radar money. At least there's no demerits and insurance increase. If I had a real speeding ticket for every time the photo radar on Henday has dinged the company truck for a BS 3-5km/h over the limit over the past 5 years, my insurance would be through the roof.

[J-D]

I would consider it a lesson and start tracking vehicle usage. Photo Radar is one thing, but something more serious could happen and you want to know who is using the vehicle at any given time.

[revelations]

As a vehicle owner, you are responsible for knowing the operator of the vehicle at a given time.

What if the vehicle was in a reported hit and run? When the CPS show up at the registered address there will be a lot of questions asked. They wont be able to charge you though but you can certainly get fined a lot.

[max_boost]

How about you dock the fine equally between the 5 guys? haha that might not go over too well but everyone else has already said it, it follows the registered owner.

[speedog]

Originally posted by revelations
As a vehicle owner, you are responsible for knowing the operator of the vehicle at a given time.

What if the vehicle was in a reported hit and run? When the CPS show up at the registered address there will be a lot of questions asked. They wont be able to charge you though but you can certainly get fined a lot.

This. It's your company's vehicle and if it has anything that identifies it as such, then your company's reputation could very well be harmed by the actions of your employees while said vehicle is in their care.

Yeah, I know that as a company owner that you want to be the nice guy but business is business and it doesn't take much on behalf of even one employee's actions to start to get a bad reputation. I think a staff meeting would be in order with some new rules - what if your speeding vehicle rear ended a car and killed someone all because they couldn't stop in time because of their speed?

[ianmcc]

Originally posted by max_boost
How about you dock the fine equally between the 5 guys? haha that might not go over too well but everyone else has already said it, it follows the registered owner.

Agreed. The guilty party sure AF knows-perhaps some pressure from the other four will help them recall their transgression.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by tirebob
I hear all that guys, but it still doesn't feel right. My thoughts are, so what if it is a company vehicle? It is a matter of legal responsibility and where in the law does it say my company has to pay the legal punishment for my employee's (or customer's) personal actions?

Say I have a company pen on my desk and an employee or customer takes it home, gets in a fight with his neighbour and stabs him in the eye with it. My company is not responsible to the crown for their actions even though it was my companies pen. It should be no different for the companies vehicle?

Seems strange to me...

I wish they had windshield pictures or the like so at least there is the potential to identify the driver.

Rule of law. No one is above it. Individuals or groups, doesn't matter. I get what you're saying but you can't expect the law to not apply because it's not able to charge an individual. Your pen comparison is very different than a vehicle. The use of vehicles is a regulated thing that applies to individuals and operators due to the very nature of vehicle usage (companies run them in fleets, individuals have their own or have many and others drive them, etc therefore application of enforcement simply has to be different. whereas individual responsibility and intent applies to criminal acts due to the personal nature of it and more serious consequences of said acts to the victim and accused.

Hope that made sense? The old brain isn't getting it out quite the way I want today, hahahah.

[tirebob]

So maybe this is a dumb question Phil, but say I have a gun that is legally owned (guns are also regulated) and I legally loan it to a friend who is legally allowed to use it and said friend uses it in a crime. Is the government allowed to charge me with said crime because I am the gun owner or does it fall on the person who did the crime?

I get what you are saying but it doesn't make it right. The burdon of proof for any prosecution should fall on the crown and not be left up to the charged to find the guilty party if they are not guilty themselves no?

[mr2mike]

Gun question: I'm sure you would be highly questioned in this crime and potentially brought in under the inital thought of you being an accessory to the crime. Loaned gun to friend knowing his intentions.

Guilty until proven innocent.

[killramos]

Originally posted by tirebob
So maybe this is a dumb question Phil, but say I have a gun that is legally owned (guns are also regulated) and I legally loan it to a friend who is legally allowed to use it and said friend uses it in a crime. Is the government allowed to charge me with said crime because I am the gun owner or does it fall on the person who did the crime?

If you did what you say you better know the crown is still going to be trying to throw every law in the book at you over the transfer ( even temporary ) of that gun to your friend. And you sure as fuck better know who had that gun at the time of the crime.

You are making this way too personal, a law was broken by a company employee, in a company vehicle, on company business, on company time. Company is completely liable for that.

If I broke the law in the course of my job you can be sure my company is also in deep shit. My company has policies in place to prevent that from happening, and insurance in case it does. If the company can't figure out it was me who fucked up? They are still in shit, they can't just write it off as being the personal decision of an unknown employee.

You should just be happy its a 150 dollar ( or whatever ) speeding ticket and not a 2 million dollar lawsuit against your business for them killing someone on the road.

Personally I would be making them all fill in vehicle usage logs from now on after none of them admit to getting the ticket. This is a problem over you getting burned by trusting your employees not over how the law is applied.