Maryland Speed cameras

[archibaldcrane]

Keep stomping around though like a 4 year old just wanting people punished, regardless as to whether the punishment is deserved though.

It's a good look on you NynJa.

[NynJa]

you guys are idiots...lol. really, idiots.

[hey]

Thinking someone shouldn't be punished for a crime if there's no proof they committed it makes us idiots? Really?

[Salodin]

What are you talking about? It was their car, therefor they were driving.

Idiot.

[Acevalefor]

In Hillsboro, OR the speed cameras are set up with face shots. There is one picture taken of the front of the vehicle, and one of the back. Both photos are mailed to the owner of the vehicle with a fine attached. You can pay the fine, contest the driver, contest the owner(which is pretty hard to do), or pay the fine with a no contest plea. If you contest the driver, you send a copy of photo ID along with the signed ticket back to the court and the case is dropped when the photo on the ID and the photo of the driver don't match. There is no "Well someone has to PAY!!11!" bullshit. The case is just dropped. If you contest the owner, you have to send a copy of the title and you better be damn sure you are correct because they pop you with the maximum fine of you are wrong. It takes no more time than sending 1 photo of the back of your car to you and there are no attachments to your driving record. It's an incredibly good system and it pissed a lot of people off because of the accuracy. it covers the responsibility of the police department to reasonably attempt to identify the driver. This is a good example of how the rest of the nation should work. Washington does a pretty good job of it too.

For the "Your car, your responsibility" people, there is a huge grey area regarding owned property and responsibility. Stop with the "herp derp don't let your friend drive, go be a selfish fuck and don't help anyone out because they might just screw you inadvertently". The car wasn't sitting on the side of a road somewhere. It was being operated by a driver and that driver was not you.

[archibaldcrane]

Sounds like a pretty good system up there in Oregon if a state is going to resort to these types of revenue collection tactics.

Do you get a point on your license along with the fine or no?

[Lucavi]

In Hillsboro, OR the speed cameras are set up with face shots. There is one picture taken of the front of the vehicle, and one of the back. Both photos are mailed to the owner of the vehicle with a fine attached. You can pay the fine, contest the driver, contest the owner(which is pretty hard to do), or pay the fine with a no contest plea. If you contest the driver, you send a copy of photo ID along with the signed ticket back to the court and the case is dropped when the photo on the ID and the photo of the driver don't match. There is no "Well someone has to PAY!!11!" bullshit. The case is just dropped. If you contest the owner, you have to send a copy of the title and you better be damn sure you are correct because they pop you with the maximum fine of you are wrong. It takes no more time than sending 1 photo of the back of your car to you and there are no attachments to your driving record. It's an incredibly good system and it pissed a lot of people off because of the accuracy. it covers the responsibility of the police department to reasonably attempt to identify the driver. This is a good example of how the rest of the nation should work. Washington does a pretty good job of it too.

For the "Your car, your responsibility" people, there is a huge grey area regarding owned property and responsibility. Stop with the "herp derp don't let your friend drive, go be a selfish fuck and don't help anyone out because they might just screw you inadvertently". The car wasn't sitting on the side of a road somewhere. It was being operated by a driver and that driver was not you.

Not that I'm disputing any of your first paragraph, because it sounds like a great system, but how the fuck is it being selfish not lending a potentially-expensive vechicle to someone who is going to wrack up vechicle violations? On your vehicle? Fuck. That. Noise. The only people driving my $35,000 death machine are my mother, father, brother, and my god-brother. For anyone else, I better be in the car. For those 4 people listed, every single one of them would pay any fines incurred while they were operating the vechicle. It has nothing to do with being selfish. I trust those individuals, and this would be a complete non-issue with them. For anyone I do not trust with my car, I would not lend my car to. It makes perfect sense, and this is long before the police ever got involved with any sort of traffic or vehicle violation.

[NynJa]

I'm gonna lol when any of these ppl who let these shady people drive their car wind up getting their car stolen...

[Demosthenes11]

Thinking someone shouldn't be punished for a crime if there's no proof they committed it makes us idiots? Really?

you can't use this argument lol

You need to change it to "Thinking someone shouldn't be punished for a crime if there's no proof they committed it, unless the proof requires much more work than is reasonable, makes us idiots?" in which case it does make you seem like an idiot because it needs such an amendment. Maybe those cameras are significantly more expensive and require much more monitoring and regular checks that it actually makes it unreasonable to be used in these situations. It's the same for parking tickets - you /could/ put a parking enforcement agent on the corner of every block, but it doesn't make it profitable. you could add face recognition technology to these speeding cameras to catch the person, but it might not make it profitable.

[hey]

lol? They'd still rake in massive profits with face cameras. I doubt it'd cost more than a few million per year (including installation, loss of revenue from wrongly issued tickets, etc), vs what was it? $77m? they make now per year. And i'm not sure why they would require more monitoring/maintenance.

[Lucavi]

You're all about them making money and you don't even care if people are actually committing these crimes. You're all about the "I'd rather see a million guilty go innocent than one innocent found guilty, eh?" Over a 40 fucking dollar ticket.

You're some kind of freedom fighter.

[Demosthenes11]

lol? They'd still rake in massive profits with face cameras. I doubt it'd cost more than a few million per year (including installation, loss of revenue from wrongly issued tickets, etc), vs what was it? $77m? they make now per year. And i'm not sure why they would require more monitoring/maintenance.

so you doubt, and are not sure, and are estimating.

The argument the state would make is that there is no need to install these new cameras because they can legally give out tickets already. I really don't think the state differentiates between the 2 types of tickets (this $40 ticket and parking tickets) because of "feasibility" and the 2 have separate legal power simply because of "feasibility"

[Gregorio]

There have been no statistics posted of innocent people receiving tickets (only a made up stat by Archi), no stories of people presenting their documentation of them being in the Himalayas and still being issued the ticket, and no stories of judges refusing to listen to their defense aside from a blanket statement telling people not to claim they weren't going that fast. You guys are failing hard at proving innocent people are still receiving these tickets.

But keep up with the hypothetical situations and comparisons to murder, it's really winning people over.

[Ashmada]

Alright, 10+ pages and all we've had are horrible analogies and repeated calls of "it's only 40$".

Analogies: pointless, even if they were good, which they aren't.
"There's already an exception to/violation of the rule, let's add another"?
Is that really a line of reasoning you want to adopt? If you see no issue with that, you're awfully shortsighted.

As for the "it's only 40$" argument:
- Works both ways, you know. As a matter of fact, it works better against you: personally, I'd care just as much if it was a symbolic cent.
- So what? Due process should apply regardless the severity of the potential punishment.
- Won't be 40$ forever. It's just to get you used to the system, in 10 years you'll be paying ten times that (that's what happened to us).

(I predict you'l ignore the first 2 bullet points and concentrate on the third)

You're all about the "I'd rather see a million guilty go innocent than one innocent found guilty, eh?".

Funny thing is, that's what western courts are all about, too. At least, in theory.

[Lucavi]

That was my point.

[Demosthenes11]

you are making a moral case, not a legal one. You can be morally outraged, fine, but that's not the issue here

[Tweek]

- So what? Due process should apply regardless the severity of the potential punishment.

should spend the same time effort and money on a shoplifting charge as we do on a rape or murder case? that doesn't seem realistic that's why people are saying it's just $40 (as in it's just $40 it's NOT points on your record people are concentrating way too much on the value when that's not the main point of the argument it's just an additional factor)

[Ashmada]

But keep up with the hypothetical situations and comparisons to murder, it's really winning people over.

That's been mostly Tweek's doing (see above), tbh.
Honestly, I wouldn't be as patient as Archi discussing at length those terrible analogies and comparisons to murder. 10 pages of that shit, I'd go all Dimmauk on the guy.

[Tweek]

That's been mostly Tweek's doing (see above), tbh.
Honestly, I wouldn't be as patient as Archi discussing at length those terrible analogies and comparisons to murder. 10 pages of that shit, I'd go all Dimmauk on the guy.

nah, it was other people bringing up analogies like murder and hit and runs etc. see link here I did respond to this post though about murder explaining that negligence of a firearm not being locked up and being used by a minor would change the circumstances though. The only analogy I consistently brought up was parking tickets which I believe is a perfectly legitimate analogy. I was also specifically asked examples of situations in which a person not present would also be held responsible or held liable so I named a few.

I've actually been one of the people who keeps proclaiming this is in fact not a murder trial and the seriousness of these fines are being blown out of proportion.


I responded directly to a statement saying all cases should be treated equally no matter the severity of the punishment above which is complete bullshit.

[Salodin]

There have been no statistics posted of innocent people receiving tickets (only a made up stat by Archi), no stories of people presenting their documentation of them being in the Himalayas and still being issued the ticket, and no stories of judges refusing to listen to their defense aside from a blanket statement telling people not to claim they weren't going that fast. You guys are failing hard at proving innocent people are still receiving these tickets.

But keep up with the hypothetical situations and comparisons to murder, it's really winning people over.

There were links in just the last page...