Maryland Speed cameras

[Yugl]

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.

You're making broad and emotional, rather than rational, claims. Not wanting the wrong person to be punished isn't sufficient for reason. You would need more premises to reach the conclusion "we should install frontal speeding cameras." After all, you can maintain the belief that people should not be punished for violations they did not commit and be against frontal cameras. The difference between you and them is not having the desire, but the reasoning for having the desire. If the "problem" with punishing the incorrect person is that they'll endure undue fines, then you're rational to oppose the addition of extra cameras to the extent that the people of MD cover that cost. If the "problem" with punishing the incorrect person is the mere accusation or independent of the punishment, then you're rational to support additional cameras.

Finally, your last sentence is merely fluff. Logically, to make this sentence even relevant to the debate, you would need to show that the current system never punishes the correct person. That is the meaning of "[cannot] punish the correct person." There is a difference between "cannot" and "cannot always" and your failure to recognize this distinction is why you face such opposition. The former is a false accusation of the current system. The latter is applicable even if you introduce frontal cameras. Introducing frontal cameras will reduce the number of cases supporting the latter, but whether that reduction is worth the costs returns to the original paragraph. In short, emotional writing is fallible writing.

[NynJa]

Alright gents and germs, lets do this...

So you're going to go to court and plead "well your honor, theres no proof that the person driving the car is me, therefor I should be exempt from paying this speeding violation fine". Any half intelligent plaintiff attorney and/or judge will tear your asshole to shreds.

Q-Who was driving your vehicle?
If answer is "I dont know": how do you not know whos driving your vehicle? Was it stolen... Why was it not reported stolen? The fact you neglected to report it stolen means you're responsible for it. If you lose your credit card and dont report it stolen, later on you get your bill and you find out someone maxed it out, good luck playing the "well it wasnt me" card. Same principal.
If your answer is "I may have taken a nap (or something similar) and someone I know took my car": Who do you know commonly takes your car? Surely that cant be a huge list. Are there here today? Why dont they pay the fine then? You're still responsible for your vehicle regardless. Pay the fine, and collect the money from them. If they refuse to pay, down the hall is small claims court, take it up there.

Remember, you're under oath, and I think (sarcasm...I know) perjury holds a bigger punishment than a 40$ speeding violation. They'd corner you and catch you so damn fast you're going to wish you just paid that 40 bucks and got it over with. The judge, as others have said, can just have the car impounded since "it" has an unpaid speeding violation, and to get your car back, you'll wind up having to pay the 40$ fine, as well as impounding fees...but hey atleast your court fee will be waived since you did win the trial.

[archibaldcrane]

Let's not do this, considering what happened last time you wanted to do this.

Spoiler: show

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...at122851PM.png

I could do without your "doing this".

[hey]

If they refuse to pay, down the hall is small claims court, take it up there.

Stop saying this please. It would cost more/as much just to file a suit than the ticket costs, and then you still need to prove they were actually the one driving anyway, which you may not be able to do.

[aurik]

I see no problem with the state holding the registered owner responsible for the action of the vehicle in the case where the driver cannot be reasonably determined. Would it be better to always nail the correct driver? Sure, but the discussion about the feasibility of that is a completely separate tangent.

BTW. "Beyond all reasonable doubt" isn't the legal standard for traffic violations, because driving a car on public roads is a privilege, not a right.

[NynJa]

Let's not do this, considering what happened last time you wanted to do this.

Spoiler: show

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...at122851PM.png

I could do without your "doing this".

I'm pretty sure I can call you Cheapy McCheapskate if I want, because that is what you are showing you are, which is pathetic considering how often you throw around how "rich" you are. As far as I know, calling someone a cheap bastard is not a forum violation, considering earlier in the thread you went out and called me a "stupid fuck". I'm pretty sure "stupid fuck" would raise redflags over "cheap bastard".

I got temped for calling you religious names, and then got an additional for a bullshit "butthurt" claim, but hey I dealt with it and its done. The only reason you dont want me "doing this", is because I destroyed every pathetic counter argument you had, now deal with the fact that I had FIVE days to mull this over, so either fail to reply and scurry off like a dog with a tail between its legs, or keep running the hamster wheel.

[archibaldcrane]

I see no problem with the state holding the registered owner responsible for the action of the vehicle in the case where the driver cannot be reasonably determined. Would it be better to always nail the correct driver? Sure, but the discussion about the feasibility of that is a completely separate tangent.

BTW. "Beyond all reasonable doubt" isn't the legal standard for traffic violations, because driving a car on public roads is a privilege, not a right.

Point is they aren't even making an effort to determine the identity of the driver, despite the technology being both available and in widespread effective use for that exact purpose.
And Nynja, shut the fuck up. Or call me "jewish" again. Either way. Glad to see you're just as mad as you were the moment you got banned. Never change.



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[Judai]

Honestly, it's hard to have a discussion of any kind when one side continues to repeat the same thing over and over without any sort of answers or even comments about the questions posed to them from the other side.

I was going to post a compromise before this got locked. (not sure why it did but w/e)

If face cameras were implemented then I think the compromise could be that along with the normal ticket/plate picture, an additional picture of the driver could be sent to the owner and at that point the owner has two options, pay the ticket or take it to court and identify the driver responsible. If the owner refuses to identify the driver, then they can pay the ticket because I feel it is too easy and pathetic of an option to merely obstruct justice and say, idk who that is.

Obviously, in the few cases of some sort of frame job/fraud/stolen car the police would be notified and an investigation would be started. However, if it is found during that investigation that the owner merely lied and the driver is a friend/family member they would be charged with obstruction. (thus no loop holes for ppl trying to avoid paying the ticket and not turn in their brother)

I feel the police investigating every single ticket would be impractical but in the few cases of an actual circumvention of the law by frame/etc it would be acceptable. I'm sure someone will be opposed to the idea of forcing the owner to identify the driver or pay for the ticket themselves but that would be pathetic.

summary for the tl;dr

-car caught speeding, picture taken of car plate/driver face
-ticket is sent to registered owner with pictures of car plate/driver face
-owner can pay ticket or go to court and identify the driver - ticket is changed to the correctly identified driver
-in the few cases of fraud/frame/stolen car - investigation is started by police and correct driver is found - if driver is found to be a friends/family member of the owner, owner is charged with obstruction for being a faggot and wasting the police/court's time.

[Tweek]

archi snitched on someone to mods?

[Salodin]

Honestly, it's hard to have a discussion of any kind when one side continues to repeat the same thing over and over without any sort of answers or even comments about the questions posed to them from the other side.

I was going to post a compromise before this got locked. (not sure why it did but w/e)

If face cameras were implemented then I think the compromise could be that along with the normal ticket/plate picture, an additional picture of the driver could be sent to the owner and at that point the owner has two options, pay the ticket or take it to court and identify the driver responsible. If the owner refuses to identify the driver, then they can pay the ticket because I feel it is too easy and pathetic of an option to merely obstruct justice and say, idk who that is.

Obviously, in the few cases of some sort of frame job/fraud/stolen car the police would be notified and an investigation would be started. However, if it is found during that investigation that the owner merely lied and the driver is a friend/family member they would be charged with obstruction. (thus no loop holes for ppl trying to avoid paying the ticket and not turn in their brother)

I feel the police investigating every single ticket would be impractical but in the few cases of an actual circumvention of the law by frame/etc it would be acceptable. I'm sure someone will be opposed to the idea of forcing the owner to identify the driver or pay for the ticket themselves but that would be pathetic.

summary for the tl;dr

-car caught speeding, picture taken of car plate/driver face
-ticket is sent to registered owner with pictures of car plate/driver face
-owner can pay ticket or go to court and identify the driver - ticket is changed to the correctly identified driver
-in the few cases of fraud/frame/stolen car - investigation is started by police and correct driver is found - if driver is found to be a friends/family member of the owner, owner is charged with obstruction for being a faggot and wasting the police/court's time.

This is the way it should be. The reason it isnt this way is because they're just using this for revenue gain instead of punishing people who break the law. /thread.

[archibaldcrane]

archi snitched on someone to mods?

Lolno tweek, they took that on themselves. Sometimes the lesson isn't learned though apparently.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[archibaldcrane]

This is the way it should be. The reason it isnt this way is because they're just using this for revenue gain instead of punishing people who break the law. /thread.

Basically this, which is why similar automated systems have been removed in Arizona or the fines became "voluntary" like in California.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[NynJa]

Point is they aren't even making an effort to determine the identity of the driver, despite the technology being both available and in widespread effective use for that exact purpose.
And Nynja, shut the fuck up. Or call me "jewish" again. Either way. Glad to see you're just as mad as you were the moment you got banned. Never change.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

And if facial cameras were implemented, youd then just wear sunglasses, and go "thats not me, you cant see their eyes"...and still whine and complain and try everything possible.

I've learned my lesson, I'll just call you cheap instead


Tweek I pmed you, determine your own conclusion.

[archibaldcrane]

And if facial cameras were implemented, youd then just wear sunglasses, and go "thats not me, you cant see their eyes"...and still whine and complain and try everything possible.

Missing work to spend two hours at a courthouse in a feeble attempt to get out of a $60 ticket isn't worth my time.

Keep thinking this is about me, and not justice, though.

[NynJa]

Missing work to spend two hours at a courthouse in a feeble attempt to get out of a $60 ticket isn't worth my time.

Keep thinking this is about me, and not justice, though.

But missing work to spend 2 hours at a courthouse relying on "It wasnt me, you cant prove it was me in my car" to get out of a 40$ ticket seems worth your time?

[greenhills]

But missing work to spend 2 hours at a courthouse relying on "It wasnt me, you cant prove it was me in my car" to get out of a 40$ ticket seems worth your time?

i'm going to guess it is a matter of principle and not a matter of how much money. but, go ahead and be one of the people that just pays it even though it is not justified.

[NynJa]

even though it is not justified.

http://www.animateit.net/data/media/...eel_hg_clr.gif

[archibaldcrane]

But missing work to spend 2 hours at a courthouse relying on "It wasnt me, you cant prove it was me in my car" to get out of a 40$ ticket seems worth your time?

What?

Didn't I just say it's not worth my time?

Pretty sure I just said that, you even quoted it.

Doesn't make it right if I wasn't the one driving. Once again, money has nothing to do with my opposition to this unjust punishment system.

[aurik]

Why don't you just hit your friend up for the $60 fine he incurred on your behalf.

[archibaldcrane]

Why don't you just hit your friend up for the $60 fine he incurred on your behalf.

must be trolling

must be