Maryland Speed cameras

[archibaldcrane]

I don't think it's that fine a hair to split to say the owner of a car is responsible for where it is parked (regardless as to who parked it there) but the driver of a car is responsible for the speed he drives.

This law doesn't appear to put the burden of proof on the prosecution to show who said driver was.

[Ksandra]

I don't think it's that fine a hair to split to say the owner of a car is responsible for where it is parked (regardless as to who parked it there) but the driver of a car is responsible for the speed he drives.

I would, because it'd be the friend that parked it illegally just as much as he'd be driving it illegally if speeding. And in both cases it could easily be a situation where the owner has no idea of what is going on. And the burden of proof would be on the owner if he didn't want to pay for his friend's actions.

[Suvhater]

the burden of proof is on whoever is enforcing the ticket for a moving violation, not both parking and moving violations. I believe you should be innocent until proven guilty (even though it hasnt been that way for at least a decade).

[Tweek]

ksandra is right here.

unless you can prove that your car was taken without your permission the gov isn't going to give a fuck they just want to get paid. if you tried to snitch on your friend to the courts they aren't going to want to get involved they just want to get paid

[archibaldcrane]

in parking ticket situations it doesn't matter who parked it there, it never has, it never will. "my friend parked it there" is not a defense - the courts don't care who, they just care "what". it's a completely impractical thing to determine at the time the violation is issued.

in moving violation situations, the important thing is to punish the actual driver, and if that's not the car owner it makes no sense to punish him. who is driving is a completely practical thing to establish at the time of the violation.

I may have missed it in the thread but do these speed cameras not take photos of the driver's face (like California red light cameras) or do they?

[Tweek]

people posted it only snaps pics of the back license plate, they mentioned it doesn't get a picture of the person and that you don't receive a moving violation point on your record. i'm just assuming all these things stated in the thread are true.

[Ksandra]

in parking ticket situations it doesn't matter who parked it there, it never has, it never will. "my friend parked it there" is not a defense - the courts don't care who, they just care "what". it's a completely impractical thing to determine at the time the violation is issued.

in moving violation situations, the important thing is to punish the actual driver, and if that's not the car owner it makes no sense to punish him. who is driving is a completely practical thing to establish at the time of the violation.

first off, why does it make no sense to punish the owner for their friend speeding, but it makes sense to punish the owner if the friend parks illegally?

Secondly, again, this is about efficiency with the police/law. They don't have the time nor give a fuck about tracking down the correct person. As Tweek said they just want to get paid. You can then, in turn, sue your friend for the payments afterwards.

[Myrrh_Quetz]

I'm almost positive that Speed Cameras do not take a picture of the face since they take a picture of the back of your vehicle. I had a friend rake up 900 dollars in Speeding Tickets in one night. He didn't have to pay for them. I did.

[archibaldcrane]

Yeah, that's remarkably fucked up. I've always wondered why these speed cameras/red light cameras aren't vandalized more often. A quick shot of black spraypaint in passing is all it would take to render their shit unworkable for a while.

[Baha]

So I was being facetious about the drunk driving thing in case you didn't catch that. The idea I was talking about is that when an officer pulls you over for speeding, he doesn't write a ticket to the owner of the car, he writes one to you, the driver. This is the problem with absentee camera tickets. They place blame without any proof of who is driving the car. Whether the car was borrowed without my knowledge, stolen, or grandma took it to the store and missed the school zone sign, it should not be (and isn't in Oregon) legal to ticket the registered owner without being able to provide positive proof of identification. This also applies to fleet vehicles registered to the business owner. You still have to respond to the ticket/summons, but there is a little box that you check that says you were not the driver and/or this is a fleet vehicle.

There's no reason to have identification for speeding tickets or parking tickets, that's the whole point of license plates.

If it was stolen it's a small matter to settle it. I noticed that it was stolen between then and then, and called it in at X o'clock at the police department. If your car gets stolen and used for a crime, you'd have to do the same thing. You do report it when your car gets stolen, right?

If it was borrowed "without your knowledge":
First of all: seriously? By whom? Either it's close family that uses it on the regular, which makes the responsibility easy to sort out. Dad gets ticket, sunday afternoon, street so and so, knows he wasn't anywhere near there, thus asks his wife and kids if they might've been driving the car at the time. Sorted.
Or it's maybe something out of the ordinary, like the neighbour needing a car while his is in the shop. This wouldn't happen without you consenting, I'd hope.

Businesses track their vehicles, be it by gps or basic filekeeping on who is driving which vehicle. Would be easy to sort this out internally, but there's a chance that they might be able to have it transferred straight to the driver. Can't say for sure, I don't drive for a living.

I believe you should be innocent until proven guilty (even though it hasnt been that way for at least a decade).

If you can't say for sure who was driving your car at a particular time, you've got bigger problems than a simple speeding ticket.

Sure is "my dog ate my homework miss, honest!" in here.

[archibaldcrane]

If you can't say for sure who was driving your car at a particular time, you've got bigger problems than a simple speeding ticket.

The point is, you shouldn't have to. The burden of proof is supposed to be on the court. If they can't say for sure who was driving, then noone should receive a violation.

[Salodin]

No, they do not. They just assume that the license plate belongs to the person driving, and subsequently the person breaking the law.

[Myrrh_Quetz]

This kind of talk has been happening in Winnipeg for many years. People just learned to shut up and not speed in areas with the cameras

[archibaldcrane]

This kind of talk has been happening in Winnipeg for many years. People just learned to shut up and not speed in areas with the cameras

don't pollute this thread with your canuck freedom-hating

[Melena]

people posted it only snaps pics of the back license plate, they mentioned it doesn't get a picture of the person and that you don't receive a moving violation point on your record. i'm just assuming all these things stated in the thread are true.

One of my coworkers got nailed twice in 3 weeks by the same red light camera. He got a nice picture of him in the drivers seat making the turn without coming to a stop in his mail as well as his front plate. Was actually surprised at the detail.

[archibaldcrane]

Red light cameras in California are obviously different than these speed cameras, in that they actually care whether they've got the right person.

[Zelas]

Oddly enough they do remove fixed cameras. Took out a couple in front of Northview Elementary School in Bowie. I guess people just need to complain more.

[Judai]

MD has the same red light cameras, the Speed cameras only take a picture if the car is speeding and they register your speed as you pass it, so it can only get you from behind. The two cameras work completely different, since Red Light cameras simply check for motion in the intersection during the few seconds after a light turns red, or just snap pictures after every red light in some areas. It's harder to set up a camera that can check a vehicles' speed and then take an accurate picture from the front, of both the driver and the plates.

Obviously, if someone stole your plates it would be pretty easy to show proof that's it's not the same car.(unless the genius robbers put the plates on the same exact make/model/color car) Even then you should have filed a stolen plates report and be able to prove it. Most of you are whining about some petty things and act like it's your right to speed and you should be able to get away with it unless an actual police officer catches you. Don't let idiots drive your car if you are worried about them breaking the law in it.

The majority of these cameras are in good areas to prevent ppl speeding past schools. I hate the cameras but if they just realized that our speed limits are out of date and need to be raised it wouldn't be a problem. The main problem is most people don't understand how the cameras even work, so they slow down to retarded speeds(10 under the limit) or slam on the brakes to avoid getting a ticket. People slow down with cameras on the other side of the road, thinking they are magical and can take photos of cars going the other way, across a 2 lanes of traffic and a median.

In summary, the cameras suck, pay the fine, you can't get out of it, don't let idiots drive your car. I'm sure these cameras will be nationwide in a few years. People used to vandalize them, they get replaced fast.

[Apelila]

Speed camera's in AZ flash the driver's face. State law there says they have to prove the party getting the ticket is responsible for the crime, so 'we caught this car speeding' isn't good enough.
I was waiting on that flash to cause a pile up too, before they took down the freeway camera's. Its bright as hell and if someone pops it driving beside you it can seem be startling, not the kind of reaction you want to have from someone driving a car at 60mph in traffic.

[Cream Soda]

The point is, you shouldn't have to. The burden of proof is supposed to be on the court. If they can't say for sure who was driving, then noone should receive a violation.

The way I look at it, you don't have to do it.

When you register the car, you take responsibility.

If they can prove that the car is in violation, then you're responsible for your car. If you can prove someone else was driving, then that's fine, but if you can't, then pay up.