Maryland Speed cameras

[Deadgye]

That's perfectly reasonable! In fact, why don't we set up face cameras so we can judge how tired/distracted the drivers 100m ahead are.

[archibaldcrane]

Even if there is a face camera, you're still going to have to go to court and say "Not me" and they're going to say "who was it? get him in here to pay the fine", just like you do now. Everyone doesn't just get away scot free because it's not the registered owner of the car. These situations where people don't know who was driving their car and can't find out do not realistically exist. Stop it.

It should not be a citizen's responsibility to procure a suspect for the court.

The court accuses one person of a violation. That person's responsibility is to appear in court and defend him or herself from the allegation. Once that is done (well beyond reasonable doubt in the case of a face-camera), the case is dismissed. If the court wants to charge someone else with this violation, and wants to bring in the car's registered owner to testify against that person, have at it. That's an entirely separate case.

Once the owner has convincingly proven that they were not the driver, the case against them should be dismissed and that should be the end of the case against them. The court can ask, compel, plead, or otherwise encourage the car owner to divulge the identity of the driver, but the driver (as it is in California) has no legal requirement to do so.

Enforcers of laws should take reasonable actions to determine who has violated a law (i.e. use cameras to take photos of drivers) to ensure that people are not wrongfully prosecuted, and if they know they have the wrong person they should dismiss the case against that person.

[Gregorio]

That's perfectly reasonable! In fact, why don't we set up face cameras so we can judge how tired/distracted the drivers 100m ahead are.

There is a possibility of someone with hollywood makeup connections to alter someone's face with prosthetics to frame another person. It's not absolute certainty, so we can never punish these people.

[archibaldcrane]

It's not ideal. We agree on that. It is however the next best thing. Or rather, it's the best thing because the ideal cannot reasonably be achieved.

There are no face cameras being employed. How can you possibly argue that the current situation where no effort is made to identify the driver is the next best thing?

[archibaldcrane]

Pretty obvious that it would be ideal to issue the ticket to the actual speeding driver, but if that is impractical, I think making the owner of the car responsible is a decent compromise.

Considering photographing the faces of the speeding drivers is eminently practical given that the exact same technology is used successfully for red light cameras, there is no need for compromise.

[Gregorio]

It should not be a citizen's responsibility to procure a suspect for the court.

The court accuses one person of a violation. That person's responsibility is to appear in court and defend him or herself from the allegation. Once that is done (well beyond reasonable doubt in the case of a face-camera), the case is dismissed. If the court wants to charge someone else with this violation, and wants to bring in the car's registered owner to testify against that person, have at it. That's an entirely separate case.

Once the owner has convincingly proven that they were not the driver, the case against them should be dismissed and that should be the end of the case against them. The court can ask, compel, plead, or otherwise encourage the car owner to divulge the identity of the driver, but the driver (as it is in California) has no legal requirement to do so.

Enforcers of laws should take reasonable actions to determine who has violated a law (i.e. use cameras to take photos of drivers) to ensure that people are not wrongfully prosecuted, and if they know they have the wrong person they should dismiss the case against that person.

So all you need to do to get out of speeding tickets forever is to trade your car with your husband/wife/girlfriend/boyfriend? Sounds fantastic.

Or, again, wearing a ski mask whenever you drive.

[archibaldcrane]

Also, people talking about swapping cars with their spouse, for example. The police aren't retarded, neither are the courts. Family records are part of the public record. Drivers license photos exist. When you have face cameras, identifying members of someone's immediate family is trivial, as well as being more just and fair.

[archibaldcrane]

So all you need to do to get out of speeding tickets forever is to trade your car with your husband/wife/girlfriend/boyfriend? Sounds fantastic.

you really think cops are fucking stupid don't you

also are you arguing that cameras should be the only control on speed? they don't even demerit your license, the system you are advocating is unlimited speed for the rich.

[Ksandra]

Wherever they are not correct. Correct, being the optimal speed limit based on the conditions of the particular road.

optimal usually means "the fastest we can go without killing people" (within reason) lowering those limits just makes it even safer but annoys people who hate driving slow. not really wrong imo

[Ksandra]

also are you arguing that cameras should be the only control on speed?

uhhh cameras actually add to control as we have them + cops instead of just cops.

[Salodin]

Even if there is a face camera, you're still going to have to go to court and say "Not me" and they're going to say "who was it? get him in here to pay the fine", just like you do now. Everyone doesn't just get away scot free because it's not the registered owner of the car. These situations where people don't know who was driving their car and can't find out do not realistically exist. Stop it.

No, it's not like that now. Right now, it's "Youre vehicle, you pay. Doesn't matter whos driving". With face cameras, you could at least say "Look, that's not me. You want his name? Here. When you summon him for court, you will clearly see that that is the face in the camera.".

These situations do exist, stop pretending they don't. Are they as common? Absolutely not. But punishing just one person wrongfully for a crime they did not commit is not acceptable, especially when putting the system in place is so easily done elsewhere.

And no, it is not millions of tax dollars spent to do so, since apparently these cameras make millions a year. Unless of course most of those tickets would be thrown out if we could see the driver actually doing the speeding, in which case I rest my case.

[Deadgye]

It should not be a citizen's responsibility to procure a suspect for the court.

It became your responsibility when you let them drive your car. You don't even need to bring them in person, an offical written statement should be enough.

The court accuses one person of a violation. That person's responsibility is to appear in court and defend him or herself from the allegation. Once that is done (well beyond reasonable doubt in the case of a face-camera), the case is dismissed. If the court wants to charge someone else with this violation, and wants to bring in the car's registered owner to testify against that person, have at it. That's an entirely separate case.

The problem with this line of thinking is that regardless of if you did it or someone else did it, they used your car. This means they had your permission to use your car which makes it, at least partially, your responsibility.

Once the owner has convincingly proven that they were not the driver, the case against them should be dismissed and that should be the end of the case against them. The court can ask, compel, plead, or otherwise encourage the car owner to divulge the identity of the driver, but the driver (as it is in California) has no legal requirement to do so.

Enforcers of laws should take reasonable actions to determine who has violated a law (i.e. use cameras to take photos of drivers) to ensure that people are not wrongfully prosecuted, and if they know they have the wrong person they should dismiss the case against that person.

Like I already said, here is an example that is not completely bullshit and actually happens every day. My car is registered in my dads name. Following this line of thinking all he'd have to do is show that the guy in the picture(me) is not him and then he'd get off scott free. Likewise you and a friend could just exchange cars and go speeding 100mph down a 30 without having to pay the fine.

You cannot claim that your way is ideal when it results in loopholes that gigantic.

There are no face cameras being employed. How can you possibly argue that the current situation where no effort is made to identify the driver is the next best thing?

Just because the person driving your car wasn't you, doesn't mean that everybody involved gets off scott free. That's a horrible way of thinking. The car is registered in your name and you let someone borrow it. That means that you are at least partially responsible for what that person does.

The ideal would be the person driving gets punished. This happens by either placing a cop at every camera (waste of reasources and not reasonable) or by having the person who owns the car show that court who it was. Cameras to take pictures of the persons face wouldn't change anything. There isn't some magical CSI database that would let them send the ticket to the face in the picture. You'd still have to go to court and show that it was person b.

You asked us if we think the ideal is the person speeding getting punished, so why are you suggested ways that result in not only the person speeding not getting punished, but also not punishing the person who gave them the car to speed with.

[Salodin]

uhhh cameras actually add to control as we have them + cops instead of just cops.

Unless you're rich like archi said, then fuck it.

GO SPEED RACER GO GO SPEED RACER.

The cameras make over 77million a year, is it so much to ask that they just add face cameras just to make sure they aren't prosecuting the wrong person? If some one else is driving the car, then the court can just compel the owner to tell who it is, since they would obviously know the person unless the car was stolen.

[Deadgye]

Also, people talking about swapping cars with their spouse, for example. The police aren't retarded, neither are the courts. Family records are part of the public record. Drivers license photos exist. When you have face cameras, identifying members of someone's immediate family is trivial, as well as being more just and fair.

Does nothing to address using a friends car.

No, it's not like that now. Right now, it's "Youre vehicle, you pay. Doesn't matter whos driving". With face cameras, you could at least say "Look, that's not me. You want his name? Here. When you summon him for court, you will clearly see that that is the face in the camera.".

You do the same exact shit when there aren't cameras. Nevermind the fact that you're jointly liable for letting him use your car. Why the hell would you go to court and just go "here this is his name" instead of just 1. Having him go with you. 2. Having a signed document from him saying it was him. 3. Just having him pay. This doesn't affect your license, it's a menial fine.

[Gregorio]

you really think cops are fucking stupid don't you

also are you arguing that cameras should be the only control on speed? they don't even demerit your license, the system you are advocating is unlimited speed for the rich.

No, not at all. In what world do you live in where police have the time to investigate speed camera photos and cross check them with family DMV photos, summons those people to court, and have that officer present evidence against them for a $75 fine? And not all states keep digital copies of drivers license photos. I don't think MD does either.

[Gregorio]

No, it's not like that now. Right now, it's "Youre vehicle, you pay. Doesn't matter whos driving". With face cameras, you could at least say "Look, that's not me. You want his name? Here. When you summon him for court, you will clearly see that that is the face in the camera.".

These situations do exist, stop pretending they don't. Are they as common? Absolutely not. But punishing just one person wrongfully for a crime they did not commit is not acceptable, especially when putting the system in place is so easily done elsewhere.

And no, it is not millions of tax dollars spent to do so, since apparently these cameras make millions a year. Unless of course most of those tickets would be thrown out if we could see the driver actually doing the speeding, in which case I rest my case.

No, that's not how it is at all. In every article posted it's been stated that you can use the "It wasn't me" defense, but you have to present them who was to get out of the ticket. Stop making things up.

[archibaldcrane]

I like how everyone is complaining that if you use face cameras, then in situations where the car owner isn't the driver then the actual driver gets off scot free.

You mean like the current situation?

Because right now, the actual driver gets off scott free. Using face cameras doesn't let the actual driver off the hook - because the actual driver is already off the hook. It prevents the wrong person from getting prosecuted, and provides evidence of who the driver is.

[Deadgye]

Except for you know, the whole thing where even with face cameras the fine gets sent to the person who owns the car. Also, I fail to see how "the current driver gets off scot free" is worse than "the current driver and the owner of the car both get off scott free". To be clear, I'm not against the addition of face cameras. I'm just showing you how your reasoning for adding them is completely ass backwards and wrong, and why they won't make a difference.

I like how you keep ignoring everything that hurts your argument.

[archibaldcrane]

My reasoning is that I don't want people punished for violations they did not commit.

I don't know how you can possibly think that's "ass-backwards and wrong".

If they can't punish the correct person then noone should be punished.

[Gregorio]

Ohshit I just remembered something. A friend of mine has an identical twin brother (completely serious). They're the same weight and have the same haircut and everything. If he let his brother drive his car and he got a ticket, even a face camera and a team of police officers dedicated to making sure the camera photos match up with DMV photos, my friend is going to get the ticket in the mail and he's completely innocent.

Shit, I guess we have to rule out face cameras too. The only way we can stop this injustice is to have police officers stopping people and doing DNA/fingerprint tests for every $75 fine that they want to issue. This is the only way to prove the legal obligation of "absolute certainty" that the justice system MUST have.