Sorry 2020+ Owners....Big Brother is Watching...and Aliens....

I've got a wife who never says no. I need a break from that.

 

You can still be tracked with that phone even if it doesn’t have GPS or a data plan.

 

Well, since I go days without even knowing where it is, they'll have a fun time trying. Good thing the battery lasts over a week.

Kinda pisses my wife off when she can't get a hold of me. I try to explain that's the point. No one else I know calls me. They just call my wife and ask her to have me call them.

 

Next time I leave a Taco Bell, I'll be expecting them to use this on me.

 

Is that an AE86?

 

looks like a g1 integra

 

Unsubbed.

 

Dude, what are you talking about? We are talking about a car accident. In the event of such, for you to be placed at fault for the accident, that fault has to be proven 100% without a doubt. This isn’t some “well, that sounds about right, so let’s just go with it” type thing. If fault can not be proven against you, then you are not guilty of anything, as the law states. All day, everyday. Just trust me on this one.

 

Civil standard is proven by a preponderance of the evidence not beyond a reasonable doubt. But what do I know dude, I’m just a lawyer.

 

Source: Just trust me on this one.

 

BD and DRL??

 

I was waiting until October so I could say it’s been a full year with the new Morimotos and no headlight issues....

 

Mr. lawyer, sir, i am simply stating that if you, or the data collected, can not prove me to be at fault in an accident, or any other situation, then i am not guilty of anything. Am i incorrect? How can i be guilty if you can’t prove that i am guilty?

 

Fault is determined by the insurance company in 99% of cases. The term guilty refers to criminal behavior, so if the box determines your phone was running a youtube video at the time of the accident, you don't need much else to be charged with negligent driving reaulting in an accident or something similar.

Essentially, you're combining two separate conceots and arguing them both at the same time.

 

Do you own a fishing boat?

 

Ok, backtracking a bit. In the post that i replied to, the guy stated that in the event of an accident, if the data collected showed that he swerved 7000 times, then he would be toast as far as fault for that particular incident. I replied that he would not be toast due to that specific data. Is this incorrect?

 

Well, I don't get that reference..

 

Well, in the vast majority of my car accident involved cases the insurance company is on the other end of the aisle but the civil standard is proven by a preponderance of the evidence. That is that you prove your point by 51% not by 100%.

That being said “Mr. Clearly not a Lawyer” there are also issues regarding comparative and/or contributory negligence to consider.

 

No that is probably the only thing you have said that was correct.

 

That is, in fact, incorrect. Being able to demonstrate that one driver has a history of reckless driving backed up by data, with the person they hit saying "They were driving recklessly", yeah, it's pretty slam dunk in a civil suit. Depending on the size of the claim, it may not need to involve lawyers but if it does, it would be an easy task to assert that a history of documentable reckless driving is proof of contributory negligence.

In a criminal trial, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil trial, they need only prove that it walks and talks like a duck. Doea that make sense?