"Beat the Radar Camera!" Topic

It might work…
link

Or you could just stop at red lights and not speed.

Notice that he doesn't deny that he was driving, nor does he deny speeding. As he "almost always" fights his tickets and records his interactions with a police, we might assume this is a recurring situation. So, while failing to take responsibility for his own actions, he demands accountability of others. Typical.

Maryland has been using them on Rte. 95. The fine is $40 USD bucks, but it would cost me over $100 USD to return to Maryland and fight it.

The article is correct that the government is using extortion tactics to get any extra money out of people. Maryland stated that if the citation was just paid without a fight, they would not notify the insurance company.

Kinda like, "Nice place you got here, shame if there was a fire."

The article also states correctly that it burden of the government to prove who was driving the vehicle. If they don't have a photo of you behind the wheel, they do not have a case.

As a side bar (get the legal term, pretty crafty huh?)
Seems Maryland has been having problems with people locating the cameras and destroying them. Over $100,000 USD in damage last year (at $40 USD bucks a ticket, that tough to make up).

Maryland's solution? No, don't remove the cameras, they installed cameras to watch the cameras.

Well, another alternative is to do what we did in Houston. REMOVE THE CAMERAS.

It is a basic premise of US jurisprudence that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. A picture of a car number plate in no way shows who is driving the car.

As an interesting aside, these cameras are owned and operated by a for-profit corporation, which splits the proceeds with the municipality in which they are placed.

Fundamentally wrong.

I'm not absolutely certain of this but I seem to recall that Illinois makes the owner of the vehicle liable for any traffic violations. Chicago has traffic cams and it turns out they are a private enterprise. The company that owns them is trying to get Chicago to reduce the time the yellow stays on.

Or you could just stop at red lights and not speed.

This.

But the article does have an interesting point in that under the 5th Amendment you cannot be forced to testify against yourself. Thus, if you don't admit to the incident, and the camera doesn't capture your image, the court is effectively left with a difficult path of proof. (Though, frankly, if you did the crime, pay the fine, is my belief. Personal integrity comes into play here.)

That is why the new systems take a very nice photo of the driver of the car and pull a copy of the DL photo to compare it to.

Its even a better idea to just stop speeding and putting other peoples lives in danger from you braking the LAWS.

NO one has the right to drive as fast as they want. Speeding kills more people then guns do every day. I have had 4 people I loved killed in my life because people think its OK to speed and no one I know has been shot out side of war.

I hate these cameras with a passion for all the reasons people have already listed. That said, the writer of the article is wrong, the government does not have to prove you were the driver. The laws governing these abominations are written as civil infractions, not criminal, so there's no protection against self incrimination, no proof needed you were driving etc. Following advice like his, to go to court and argue that it wasn't you, etc, will not work.

There is a reason I wear a ball cap, fake beard and dark sunglasses when I drive in any state where there are speed trap radar cameras. Even in a rental car, they would have a difficult time proving it was me driving the car!

Okay, the above – is a joke – I don't do this, but it would certainly make it less likely for a conviction on one of those tickets – even the better multi-angle camera sites. Then again, I find it much easier just to drive according to the speed limit and not get the ticket in the first place.

In California, the people do have to prove you were the driver. But they don't bother unless challenged. And most people don't challenge, they just pay the fine. Every municipality that has had the option to vote these out has done so, every time. Interesting.

Well, another alternative is to do what we did in Houston. REMOVE THE CAMERAS.

They removed the cameras because they weren't making money. People were not running lights at the cameraed intersections, and the ticketing company got upset about it.

Drive like you know how to and you won't have to worry about those cameras. When driving, drive. Do not apply make up, talk on the phone, eat or shave while driving.
I just recently got myself a cell phone. It's turned off while I'm driving. I have it for emergencies. That is so I can call for help if I need to. I can turn it on first. Guess what, so can yall.

"They removed the cameras because they weren't making money. People were not running lights at the cameraed intersections, and the ticketing company got upset about it."

Actually, no. The cameras were removed (over the vociferous protests of the owning company) due to public outrage and the city of Houston actually had to pay $4.78 USD million for breaching the contract which governed their emplacement. This amount was based on annual earnings from the scheme.

I hate these cameras, they are only there to make money. Cities play with the yellow light time duration to get more money. You have a right to face your accuser, not some robot camera. If you have a drivers license and register your car you get the ticket. If you are an illegal alien without a license or an unregistered car, you don't have to pay! So you punish the responsible citizens but not the irresponsible ones!

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
SGT Says blog