Maryland Speed cameras

[archibaldcrane]

Do you honestly believe the reason the costs of tickets have gone up several hundred percent in the last few years is to deter crime?

no, i don't honestly believe that at all. i know, and have stated many times, that these automated systems are implemented specifically to raise revenue, and in maryland they've gotten judges who roll right along with this system, presuming guilt and not allowing a client to defend himself.

If you were hiking in the himalayas with mountains of evidence, plane tickets, photographs, etc. etc. showing that you couldn't have been the person driving, they'll still give you the ticket, even though they know, 100% for sure, you weren't driving.

That, I have a problem with.

[NynJa]

it's nice when things come together this well, back to back even

Other than the fact it wasnt me, you cant prove it was me, so therefor it wasnt me. I already got called "butthurt" (thats very professional) and got extra days tacked on for reporting you for trolling. In fact, I should have appealed my temp ban because no one can prove that I made those posts under my account, someone else was using my login and it was bullshit that I got served 5 days for it.

[Melena]

I have no clue how reputable of a source this is, but it confirms my understanding that in some cases and states, the owner of a car is responsible even if they are not the ones driving it in the case of negligence or an accident, and I'm pretty sure speeding or running red lights fall under negligence.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...you-29731.html

[archibaldcrane]

Nynja, you realize that you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it wasn't you in court and they will still give you the ticket, right?

[hey]

It does help though.

[citation needed]

[NynJa]

Wat do you mean? I'm just using your fucktarded logic. "You cant prove it was actually me driving my car/using my forum ID, therefor it wasnt me and I should be absolved of punishment"

[Gregorio]

no, i don't honestly believe that at all. i know, and have stated many times, that these automated systems are implemented specifically to raise revenue, and in maryland they've gotten judges who roll right along with this system, presuming guilt and not allowing a client to defend himself.

If you were hiking in the himalayas with mountains of evidence, plane tickets, photographs, etc. etc. showing that you couldn't have been the person driving, they'll still give you the ticket, even though they know, 100% for sure, you weren't driving.

That, I have a problem with.

Except that doesn't happen because you ARE allowed to put up a defense. Even the very impartial stopbigbrothermd.org site you've quoted from said this. And if you have "mountains of evidence" I would hope that you giving permission for a friend to use your car would be among those mountains.

(And since this is on the last page, I'll throw it out here again for you to probably ignore)

Well, aside from the fact that one judges attempt at saving time in a court room by not allowing "I wasn't going that fast" defenses (guess what...that doesn't work vs a police issued ticket either) does not miraculously make an entire system of speed control unconstitutional...

How is it presuming you guilty? You have the opportunity to present a defense, and even a face camera (and you still haven't answered my question...this is the FOURTH time I'm going to ask...did you recently abandon that support?) isn't going to allow you to go in and tinker with the camera system to make sure it's calibrated properly when there's someone there testifying that it is calibrated properly.

Nynja, you realize that you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it wasn't you in court and they will still give you the ticket, right?

No they wont. I want one real life example of when this has happened. Just one out of MILLIONS, I'm sure it should be easy enough to find.

[archibaldcrane]

No they wont. I want one real life example of when this has happened. Just one out of MILLIONS, I'm sure it should be easy enough to find.

So you're saying if you show definitive proof that it wasn't you, but don't disclose who it was, you'll still get off?

Because Maryland judges sure aren't having it.

[archibaldcrane]

The only defense that the court is going to accept if you were not the driver of the vehicle, and you have the name and the address of the person who was driving, and you present that to the court under oath I will accept that as a defense.

Just proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that it wasn't you isn't enough.

[NynJa]

That's because someones responsible for paying that fine...be a snitch or pay a bitch.

[Ashmada]

Thing is: scamera are resilient buggers.
Once they settle somewhere, you can't remove them.

Reason doesn't work: scameras (and scamera tamers) don't care about the presumption of innocence or due process, all they care about is gorging themselves on delicious €/$ bills.

Force doesn't work. Not even fire can stop them. Sure, you might kill an individual scamera, but another one will replace it soon enough; if not a pair for Hydra blood courses their veins. For the first time in the history of mankind, we encounter a threat that cannot be killed with fire!


And soon enough, they'll get hungrier and hungrier; soon, they'll ask for treats, such as:
- Serial widespread speed reductions: "This road used to be safe at 90 (kmh), but now, with your newfangled safer cars, it's only safe at 70. I predict it'll only be safe at 50 in 3 years".

- Lingering temporary roadworks limitations: before scamera: 30 (kmh) in roadworks, for as long as work last, maybe a couple of days more.
After scamera: the limitation lingers weeks, sometimes months after the work is done. Drivers assume the sign doesn't apply anymore (since the motive for its presence is gone); but it does and the scamera feasts.

- Others I forget.

Sorry, Archi, but Maryland is doomed, just like our ol' Europe before it. This is a menace one can't combat, only endure.

[NynJa]

Force doesn't work. Not even fire can stop them. Sure, you might kill an individual scamera, but another one will replace it soon enough; if not a pair for Hydra blood courses their veins. For the first time in the history of mankind, we encounter a threat that cannot be killed with fire!

Must be nice knowing your tax money constantly being wasted having that shit repaired instead of more useful things. So in the end, you're paying for those every time they're destroyed instead of just one fuckwit who cant obey the speed limit. good job smartypants

[archibaldcrane]

did that seriously just happen?

this is amazing

Ashmada has won the thread, hands down

[Ashmada]

I'm not british/don't live in the UK/don't pay taxes in the UK.

[Tyche]

That's because someones responsible for paying that fine...be a snitch or pay a bitch.

I'm just curious, in what other crime does someone HAVE to be prosecuted simply because it happened?

[Ashmada]

All the potentially profitable ones.

[Gregorio]

[/I]Just proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that it wasn't you isn't enough.

Do you (or anyone) frequently go to the Himalayas and leave your car running with a "promise you'll bring it back" sign on it, or do you know who is driving your car when you're not? Wouldn't that be helpful for the "shadow of a doubt" thing? Regardless, if something like you claim is constantly happening where a person has been made to pay the fine when it was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that they were not driving, it should be easy to find. I mean with MILLIONS and MILLIONS of speed infractions already happening, a case like that would stick out, no? If it hasn't happened, stop claiming it as proof of a broken system.

Also, one judge saying something /= every judge everywhere, and /= make it unconstitutional. Also, 6th time now, what happened to your support of face cameras? And if you are allowed to offer a defense that they will accept, how is it a presumption of guilt?

[Tweek]

I'm just curious, in what other crime does someone HAVE to be prosecuted simply because it happened?

millionth time: parking ticket which is nearly the exact same way these tickets are classified


off the top of my head too you can be held liable for things happening on your house/land/business property even if you weren't the one who committed the crime, lots of things can be pointed to the person/owner of said property when it comes to different codes of violation as well shit even HOAs can hold you to these. maybe it wasn't your fault, maybe you didn't dump hazardous materials but you're still responsible, maybe it's not your fault your business isn't up to code or someone stashed stolen property or planted illegal shit or maybe grew weed on your property without you knowing it? idunno there are probably countless examples where you're responsible for your property (like a car) if there were drugs found in your car with 5 passengers who do you think is liable? you could tell the cops they can't provide proof it was you who left it in your car i'm sure it will go well now we're even talking about criminal charges where before we were talking about simple bullshit fines and violations of which hold no criminal substance

[archibaldcrane]

Do you (or anyone) frequently go to the Himalayas and leave your car running with a "promise you'll bring it back" sign on it, or do you know who is driving your car when you're not? Wouldn't that be helpful for the "shadow of a doubt" thing? Regardless, if something like you claim is constantly happening where a person has been made to pay the fine when it was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that they were not driving, it should be easy to find. I mean with MILLIONS and MILLIONS of speed infractions already happening, a case like that would stick out, no? If it hasn't happened, stop claiming it as proof of a broken system.

Do you think that the situation I presented (clear evidence that you could not have possibly been driving the car when the photo was taken) should be sufficient for having the fine dismissed or not? If that doesn't cut it, then continuing this discussion is meaningless.

Nynja thinks that unless you hand over the driver you should have to pay, even if you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt it wasn't you.

[NynJa]

I'm just curious, in what other crime does someone HAVE to be prosecuted simply because it happened?

Something is already prosecuted, the car committed the crime (speeding). Obviously a car can not speed on its own, and someone must be responsible for operating said vehicle. If no one can be found to be in the vehicle, then the owner of said vehicle is ultimately responsible. Surely someone with a law background would have a better method of explanation. As was said a couple times before, I'm pretty sure if no one wants to pay the fine, a judge could probably have the car impounded.

Youre standing infront of two people, one is holding a red ball, and one is holding a blue ball (lol)...you're struck in the head by a ball, you turn around and see the blue ball at your feet, and the red ball is on the floor infront of the two people behind you. Who threw it? Or are you just ignore it...