Maryland Speed cameras

[NynJa]

Another /thread here. Again, the ticket should go to the person driving, regardless of who is the owner. If they make no effort to determine who that is, with something as simple as already-available face cameras, then fuck it.



Because you're really trying to say it's better that we just make no effort to determine the actual driver of the person speeding in the car.

because people havent made crybaby excuses to try to get out of camera tickets taken with frontal cameras...

[Tweek]

All this shows is that you absolutely want someone (anyone) to be punished for the oh-so outrageous crime of driving at speeds exceeding what the government deems safe.

That's not how free society works.
Free society works under some principles like presumption of innocence, free speech,...

But there's a trend of (of?) finding exceptions to those principles when they're incovenient, replacing them by their much less meaningful cousins: presumed innocent unless the crime is profitable to the state; freedom of non-offending speech,...

The trend isn't new, but it's sure growing faster than ever before (see: SOPA and the like; "we can't enforce copyright online while upholding presumption of innocence, saveguarding free speech and respecting privacy, so fuck all that shit") and speed cameras are sure symptomatic of it.

Presumption of innocence implies that you'd rather let the guilty go unpunished than punish the innocent, regardless of the impracticality/impossibilty of proving culpability, punishement or nature of the crime.
If speed cameras can't prove culpability beyond reasonable doubt, then they're not a valid tool of law enforcement.
But since they bring in the cash, they're there to stay.


Damn you for making me restate that in a less humoristic fashion than the first time.

address my examples to tyche then when you are responsible for your property and legally held liable.

[archibaldcrane]

because people havent made crybaby excuses to try to get out of camera tickets taken with frontal cameras...

The court will determine the validity of a particular legal argument on a case-by-case basis.

Do you think it should be any other way?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[Churchill]

I assume Aurik is trolling or did he get retarded

[Salodin]

because people havent made crybaby excuses to try to get out of camera tickets taken with frontal cameras...

Because that isn't the point made by people in this thread for not using them in the first place.

In case you don't get it, people don't want face cameras because it will occasionally allow some one who deserves the ticket to get away with out paying the fine. These same people are okay with not having the face cameras even though people are getting tickets they don't deserve and have no way of defending themselves against the tickets.

Neither way is perfect, but there are far fewer ways for an innocent person to be charged by adding the cameras that would be paid for by the profits of the system already in place. There is no reason to not install them into cameras already in place, other then to lump innocent people in with the guilty. No one in this thread has even tried to refute this, probably because they can't.

[aurik]

Yes, because being given the privilege of driving on public roads allows the courts to deny you basic rights guaranteed in this country for over 200 years.

Also, apparently there are no situations where I am not responsible for the damages cause by my vehicle. Mmk.

Sorry, what basic right are you being denied by them not allowing you to drive on public roads?

[Ashmada]

address my examples to tyche then when you are responsible for your property and legally held liable.

No. Firstly because I don't believe arguing through analogies leads anywhere and secondly because it's pretty damn late.

[aurik]

Because that isn't the point made by people in this thread for not using them in the first place.

In case you don't get it, people don't want face cameras because it will occasionally allow some one who deserves the ticket to get away with out paying the fine. These same people are okay with not having the face cameras even though people are getting tickets they don't deserve and have no way of defending themselves against the tickets.

Neither way is perfect, but there are far fewer ways for an innocent person to be charged by adding the cameras that would be paid for by the profits of the system already in place. There is no reason to not install them into cameras already in place, other then to lump innocent people in with the guilty. No one in this thread has even tried to refute this, probably because they can't.

Wrong, I don't want face cameras because it's going to cost a fuckton of money, and I'd rather they spend that money blanketing more area with speed cameras.

[Salodin]

I assume Aurik is trolling or did he get retarded

Nah, it's his twin brother using his account.

Sorry, what basic right are you being denied by them not allowing you to drive on public roads?

Presumption of innocence, due process, maybe more? Maybe basic right is the wrong term to use, but you get my point nonetheless.

Wrong, I don't want face cameras because it's going to cost a fuckton of money, and I'd rather they spend that money blanketing more area with speed cameras.

Money they already made by forcing innocent people to pay the fine in the first place? I see where you're going with this, and I don't like it =(

[archibaldcrane]

I assume Aurik is trolling or did he get retarded

Unfortunately, he appears to have gotten retarded. I am disappoint.

However, don't be too hard on him, there appears to be some sort of confusion about America that can be expected from Canadians.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[Tyche]

Legal precedent has been set where you aren't liable for your personal property, even more specific to this situation, your vehicle. See hit and run accidents.

I didn't know you tried to make that point or I would have addressed it earlier.

[aurik]

Nah, it's his twin brother using his account.

Presumption of innocence, due process, maybe more? Maybe basic right is the wrong term to use, but you get my point nonetheless.

These are the things they need to deprive you of constitutionally guaranteed rights. The right to drive on public roads is not in the constitution, hence they don't need any of these things.

Money they already made by forcing innocent people to pay the fine in the first place? I see where you're going with this, and I don't like it =(

I'd still rather they use this money to build out the anti-speeding infrastructure first.

Anyone who owns and licenses a car is at least minimally responsible for what happens with that car on public roads. Get used to it.

[Tweek]

Legal precedent has been set where you aren't liable for your personal property, even more specific to this situation, your vehicle. See hit and run accidents.

I didn't know you tried to make that point or I would have addressed it earlier.

hit and run was not my example..

[aurik]

Unfortunately, he appears to have gotten retarded. I am disappoint.

However, don't be too hard on him, there appears to be some sort of confusion about America that can be expected from Canadians.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

Call me when you want to actually have a discussion rather than just troll.

[Salodin]

Anyone who owns and licenses a car is at least minimally responsible for what happens with that car on public roads. Get used to it.

But it's like, the post right above his...you know what, nevermind.

[archibaldcrane]

Yep. Unless you are allowing an employee or someone who you know is a compromised driver (inebriated, inexperienced, incapable due to age, etc) it's difficult to make an argument that the owner is liable for the driver's actions in situations where identifying the driver is reasonable.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[Tyche]

hit and run was not my example..

Your analogy isn't the point, the point of your analogy is the point.

[aurik]

Legal precedent has been set where you aren't liable for your personal property, even more specific to this situation, your vehicle. See hit and run accidents.

I didn't know you tried to make that point or I would have addressed it earlier.

IE, in order to convict you of a crime (as opposed to ticket you for a moving violation), yes they actually need to give you due process, presumption of innocence, and cross a larger legal burden in the form of reasonable doubt.

For traffic tickets, not so much. Believe it or not, you are responsible for your vehicle, and if you disagree with a ticket you ALWAYS have the option of making your case to a judge (ie, if it was used without your permission, extenuating circumstances, etc)

[aurik]

Yep. Unless you are allowing an employee or someone who you know is a compromised driver (inebriated, inexperienced, incapable due to age, etc) it's difficult to make an argument that the owner is liable for the driver's actions in situations where identifying the driver is reasonable.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

So how much does setting up face cameras on every speed camera cost? Since we're now talking about whether implementing such a system constitutes "reasonable".

[Tweek]

Your analogy isn't the point, the point of your analogy is the point.

but there are many exceptions to the is which you are responsible anf held liable