Maryland Speed cameras

[Yugl]

Double.

[hey]

Oh ok. So in addition to further endangering the lives of citizens so that we can "resolve" incidents at the word of a cop, we also selectively hand out punishment.

Yes?

Except for the endangering the lives of citizens part, which you just made up.

[Xajii]

Lifelong MD resident, surprised I didn't find this thread before.

The whole thing is fucked but the biggest issue to me is that they put these cameras on roads where there's like no traffic. There are ones on the Eastern shore on roads that lead to housing areas with a total of like twenty people. It's for-profit bullshit that capitalises on the fact that these roads that are technically state owned are used like five times a day to get to and from one's home.

They're also mercilessly hiking prices of tolls all over the state, most notably at the Bay Bridge

[Apelila]

Oh ok. So in addition to further endangering the lives of citizens so that we can "resolve" incidents at the word of a cop, we also selectively hand out punishment.

Yes, lets waste manpower by demanding that every instance of speeding require an officer to pullover the offender. We have so many officers that we might as well expend resources on a common offense.

Lets replace all other functions of an officer with cameras. That way, when shit gets real, we'll have a recording ready for COPS and not the manpower to do much else.

I'm all for further endangering the lives of citizens so that the less than 50% of speeding cases where the offender isn't the owner can resolve themselves at the word of a cop. In this era with all the AIM and email garbage, it's too difficult to have your buddy tell the court that he or she was driving the car. If only the judge had facebook man!

So what is your point exactly? My hypothetical was a point about how police officers, during routine traffic stops can discover much a much more serious offense, but that went over your head. Yes, speed camera's are more cost effective(revenue generators) than a police officer.

They do not provide the same benefits. They can both benefit public safety if used properly. I have no problems with camera's, its the enforcement that leaves much to be desired. They do not increase safety the way they are currently being used in many cases. The point Hey is trying to make is that our legal system does not have "Guilty until proven innocent" as a motto.

Your last point: you do understand that a friend driving your car was not what I was talking about, but rather someone else using a system to be dick. A system that has no to little verification.

Also, there is nothing in the vein of public safety about this system if I can drive through a speed camera at 100mph, get flashed, and then a few blocks later cause a massive accident. While a police officer would only be able to pursue, they have more options than simply recording the offense for a fine to be paid.

[Fhqwghads]

I think people who are arguing about presumption of innocence being upheld with these cameras haven't bothered going to the site that was linked. The judge addressed the court with all the defendants who showed up to contest their speeding tickets with something along the lines of: "our system is infallible; if you cannot provide names and addresses of someone else who was driving, you are guilty." That is not presumption of innocence, as nobody could challenge the validity of the devices set up to issue the tickets. The judge had already decided, before the defendants could even utter a single word, that they were guilty. That is the whole problem - you are not guilty until proven innocent, you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise. That is not how the system is supposed to work.

This goes back to the whole apathetic society we live in, where the mantra of "I'm not doing anything wrong so I don't care" continues to erode our rights. If the judicial system starts down this path, then who's to say that they can't set up other cameras to capture people violating minor statutes? We'll be in a country where you'll need to know every law on the books, in every city, in every county, and in every state otherwise you'll be found guilty without any sort of due process. There needs to be human intervention, because machines cannot make decisions based on circumstances that are outside the function they were built for. I do not want my tax money being spent on a machine whose sole purpose is to create revenue, and as a side effect potentially pulls an officer who can do much more than issue tickets off the streets.

[Judai]

Oh god, I'm agreeing with Hey about something. There's a reason that innocent until proven guilty is built into our laws. Lets use an example.



Cut a sentence from this. Now, this is an extreme example but similar events have happened in states with camera's.
Lets say I have the exact same care as my Neighbor.

Spoiler: show

same color, same model. Not that hard to do for some cars, I see my cars model practically everywhere. Now, in this example he pisses me off. So at 1 in the morning, I swap his plates onto my car, hop on the freeway and get him a nice ticket for 30 MPH over the speed limit. No face picture, same car, and same plates means he's on the hook for it. How does he prove his innocence? How do you prove his guilt?

Or, from the real life example I extrapolated that from - I have the same model car as a public figure who has angered me. I find out what their license plate # is, and do the same thing with a mock plate over mine. When this happened, the person who did it was a dumbass and drove past the same camera 20 times in an hour to make a point. But if they hadn't, according to the logic that 'its the car that gets the ticket' the person who's car was associated with the 'plate' in the photo would have been responsible for the fine and for proving their innocence.

I mean, it's just a ticket. You can totally prove that it wasn't you driving the car, right? All the camera proved is that a car was speeding. not whom it belonged to, not who was the operator, not if the excessive speed was unsafe or any other factor that law enforcement officers can/should take into account when making a citation.

Let's say I murder someone and the only evidence I leave are some of my neighbors hairs and fingerprints on the murder weapon I lifted from his home. Now my neighbor is fucked for murder and has to prove his innocence because someone went well beyond the norms to make sure another person was framed. In this case the evidence is pretty damning and unless the defendant can prove it was not them, they are probably fucked.

The same way the evidence from the camera is pretty damning. However, if you can prove your car wasn't there at the time in question, you could get off. People are taking the, "there is no way out of these tickets" too literally. If you have a valid case you can prove your innocence but you cannot prove that you were not speeding, the machine was broken, or any of that bullshit ppl usually lie about to get out of a ticket. "Oh officer, I didn't realize how fast I was going" Bullshit.

Innocent until proven guilty has not been part of our judicial system for a long time because too many ppl lie about everything.

[hey]

Innocent until proven guilty has not been part of our judicial system for a long time because too many ppl lie about everything.

Everyone lies, that doesn't mean everyone is guilty.

[Baha]

Cut a sentence from this. Now, this is an extreme example but similar events have happened in states with camera's.
Lets say I have the exact same care as my Neighbor. same color, same model. Not that hard to do for some cars, I see my cars model practically everywhere. Now, in this example he pisses me off [...]

Let's say you hate your twin brothers guts, fake his license and get tickets in his name. Let's say your name is Ethan Hunt and you know this guy who can make great masks.
Seriously, grasping for straws here. What is even the point of registering a car's owner or license plates if you can never use that data?

This goes back to the whole apathetic society we live in, where the mantra of "I'm not doing anything wrong so I don't care" continues to erode our rights. If the judicial system starts down this path, then who's to say that they can't set up other cameras to capture people violating minor statutes? We'll be in a country where you'll need to know every law on the books, in every city, in every county, and in every state otherwise you'll be found guilty without any sort of due process.

Y'all are seriously soapboxing with "innocent until proven guilty" slippery slope bullshit. It's a basic fine, barely a step up from a parking ticket. Surprised noone wheeled in the Franklin liberty/security quote yet, lol.

There needs to be human intervention, because machines cannot make decisions based on circumstances that are outside the function they were built for. I do not want my tax money being spent on a machine whose sole purpose is to create revenue, and as a side effect potentially pulls an officer who can do much more than issue tickets off the streets.

It's not an either/or thing. Cops will still be on patrol, looking for suspicuous activity, looking for cars reported stolen, eating donuts, generally doing cop things. While the cameras can of course be used as a pure revenue generator, that'll lose effectiveness fast as people grow used to their placement. They're far better used to dissuade speeding in dangerous areas. If they're being used for entrapment, a couple officers positioned strategically along the road with a speedgun would be able to do that just as well, and you'd still need to explain how it wasn't your fault in court.

Cameras set up with the proper tolerance (in favour of the drivers) will pretty much always be right. A lot of outliers such as when you're overtaking someone will either not get registered, or get picked out on the review. There's supposed to be some desk people filtering through all the pictures before they're sent, things like "same car getting 50 tickets in one hour" ought to get noticed. The damn things don't put a stamp on your ticket and mail it out to you on their own.

Nothing's completely foolproof of course, but the vast, vast majority will have, in fact, been over the speed limit simply because they were in a hurry.

[Ksandra]

I hate this whole "guys lemme prove this doesn't work 100% with this completely asinine example that rarely happens, and therefore since it doesn't work 100% we need to get rid of it completely".

[Acevalefor]

Going back to the fleet vehicle thing, there are plenty of small companies with multiple vehicles on the road at any given time. Working for AAA, I could call another driver and ask him to cover a couple hours of my shift in my truck while I took care of something. (We worked 12 hour days, so if we had business to take care of we had to do it while on duty. So this situation was a common occurrence) There is nothing the registered owner can bring to court to prove who was or was not driving that vehicle except for my word(And remember, people lie all the time). Also, why would a business owner want to throw his employees under the bus and point a finger at them? He pays the insurance bill which would rise significantly with the number of bullshit camera tickets given around here. That's why Oregon's laws and even local laws limit the power of these cameras. They are completely fallible and the lawmakers know it.

If I am caught speeding, I will pay the fine. When I get photographed while pulled over on the side of the road, that's a problem. This actually happened too. Again, another situation that proves the need for exceptions like Oregon has. Other states allowing unchecked profiting off of these cameras is appalling no matter how you look at it.

[Tweek]

I hate this whole "guys lemme prove this doesn't work 100% with this completely asinine example that rarely happens, and therefore since it doesn't work 100% we need to get rid of it completely".

this.

lol at the examples people are using. the murder counter argument was perfect, so people can be setup or framed for murder? no more murder convictions ever!

[hey]

I hate this whole "guys lemme prove this doesn't work 100% with this completely asinine example that rarely happens, and therefore since it doesn't work 100% we need to get rid of it completely".

Sure, and what else do we just start assuming people are guilty of? Surely there must be other crimes that we can assume people are guilty of right off the bat?

[Ksandra]

Sure, and what else do we just start assuming people are guilty of? Surely there must be other crimes that we can assume people are guilty of right off the bat?

It's already been mentioned. Parking tickets.

[archibaldcrane]

I hate this whole "guys lemme prove this doesn't work 100% with this completely asinine example that rarely happens

the asinine example that rarely happens is someone else driving your car?

[Ksandra]

the asinine example that rarely happens is someone else driving your car?

I was referring to examples like apllila's about finding a car with the same model/color and switching the license plates.

[archibaldcrane]

yeah that's not the problem though

[Ksandra]

yeah that's not the problem though

and yet, you were the one that quoted and asked.

I don't think we should base laws off the assumption people are in the process of breaking other laws. So apellila's example and the examples of "my car was stolen" shouldn't be in the equation at all.

[archibaldcrane]

right but the actual problem is that the state cannot prove you were driving yet you are liable and presumed guilty

[Ksandra]

right but the actual problem is that the state cannot prove you were driving yet you are liable and presumed guilty

but that's not what you were asking about...I'm well aware about what you think the problem is.

And again, parking tickets.

[Judai]

Again, if someone else is driving your car, get the money from them. If they are that big an asshole they won't pay for their ticket, why are you letting them drive your car? If it's so terrible, you can take them to court like any other matter and settle it there. Why would you lend someone your keys if there is the possibility they won't respect your property in the first place? Are they going to be driving 50 in a 35mph zone? 60 in a 45? I drive slower if I'm driving another person's car.

These cameras have actually slowed speeds in front of schools, even if it's only for a few moments as they pass the cameras. MD had several cases of idiot kids walking into the street and getting hit/killed because they were idiots not looking both ways and that's part of what started this whole speed camera thing.

I've got a ticket while driving my mom's car. I paid it. Not a big deal.