Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Being liable for a traffic ticket is one thing, but imagine being thought liable for a hit and run collision.

Why would car ownership be anything but a very weak piece of evidence in such a case?

I would hope.

This was wayyyy before red light/speeding cameras existed - I was 17 under mom's insurance. Car insurance calls mom saying my car was involved in a hit-and-run, a bystander took down the license plate of the hit and run car, my license plate. This hit and run also happened in the town I lived in. Totally plausible and even provable it was me, or at least someone driving my car.

My car, however, at that time was about 250 miles away... Being towed, as the shitbox I drove broke down, again. I had the tow truck receipt to prove it.

I honestly don't know what ended up happening, as at 17 I wasn't handling this kinda stuff. I guess the tow receipts proved it wasn't me. Or maybe it was a different make/model/color than what was registered with the DMV. Anyways, I never heard about it again. Of course, nobody went after me for a crime, it was the insurance who cared in this case, not the police. I don't know how long this took to resolved or how much of a pain of the ass it was to deal with.

I just find it very frightening that, when you looked at it from afar, it seemed so obvious that it was me even though I was totally innocent.

In a case of mistaken car identity (as opposed to correct car, but incorrect driver), there are even better sources of evidence: hitting someone usually leaves traces on the car (bent buffer or hood).

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact