Speeder Cameras

[loaf]

So I just got a picture "ticket" in the mail. Actually two of them, for $95/each. The document says it's not a moving violation and no points, all you have to do is pay. Or if you don't, we'll send the collection agency after. Total BS and just extortion if you ask me. 40 in a 25, moving with traffic. I'm sure that little stretch of road is quite the moneymaker for that city.

[AtomicCEO]

http://www.buyradardetectors.com/Articles/...mera-Radar.aspx

 

If it didn't come by certified mail, throw them away. They probably won't put the effort into coming to track you down for $95.

[moneymakers]

But they will put out a warrant.

 

Next time you stroll thru a stop sign and you get pulled over.

 

95.00 will be cheap compared to bond.

[cre8tiff]

But they will put out a warrant.

 

Next time you stroll thru a stop sign and you get pulled over.

 

95.00 will be cheap compared to bond.

 

They can't put out a warrant, unless we have somehow lost the right of facing our accuser. And I don't think the Constitution has been eroded THAT much. Probably why they say "We will take it to collections" not, "We will issue a warrant" and the ticket costs no points, despite the fact speeding is absolutely a "moving violation". .

 

You can't face a camera in court.

Edited September 16, 2008 by cre8tiff

[Furd]

i imagine that you should treat them as you would any traffic ticket. It almost always pays to contest them, as they will typically reduce the charge. They are attempting to discourage you from doing this by not hitting you with points.

 

Ignoring a traffic ticket is a bad idea. At a minimum, the fines will increase and the man will nab you next time you run afoul of the law.

[Egret]

i imagine that you should treat them as you would any traffic ticket. It almost always pays to contest them, as they will typically reduce the charge. They are attempting to discourage you from doing this by not hitting you with points.

 

Ignoring a traffic ticket is a bad idea. At a minimum, the fines will increase and the man will nab you next time you run afoul of the law.

But if you don't break the law, you have nothing to worry about.

[Furd]

Ohio Supreme Court rules that traffic cameras are legal

 

A "fundamental misunderstanding"

 

The camera-challenging plaintiffs took a clever tack, implying they should actually be treated more harshly for breaking the law. Moving violations are criminal offenses, their lawsuit claimed, with traffic-court hearings, points assessed against one's license and even license revocation as possible consequences. But snapshot-caught violations get treated more like parking tickets -- civil cases, with no penalty beyond a fine.

 

That, the suit contended, "decriminalizes" speeding and red-light running, which clashes with state laws, so municipalities overstepped their authority. Nonsense, replied the court. Akron's speeding and red-light laws remain intact, and police can still enforce them. "The Akron ordinance complements, rather than conflicts with, state law," wrote Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Furd

[Azazello1313]

they won't put out a warrant on you, but they may slap the damn boot on your car like they do for unpaid parking tickets. I say you're better off taking your medicine now and being done with it.

[H8tank]

They can't put out a warrant, unless we have somehow lost the right of facing our accuser. And I don't think the Constitution has been eroded THAT much. Probably why they say "We will take it to collections" not, "We will issue a warrant" and the ticket costs no points, despite the fact speeding is absolutely a "moving violation". .

 

You can't face a camera in court.

 

 

Ever had a parking ticket?

 

Man, very ignorant.

[cre8tiff]

Ever had a parking ticket?

 

Man, very ignorant.

 

If you fight a parking ticket, the issuing officer has to appear in court. And no, the meter has never actually given me a parking ticket, only an officer.

 

Man, you NEVER check anything out before you shoot your mouth off, do you?

 

Before your next point, here let me help you.

 

Here is a definition of moving violation for you.

 

And this is your argument against me:

While some violations, like parking violations, are civil matters involving a vehicle's owner, moving violations are charged against the actual driver. However, moving violations enforced by automated camera enforcement may be prosecuted as civil violations against the vehicle's owner.

 

See that wasn't so hard, was it?

Edited September 16, 2008 by cre8tiff

[TimC]

Big Brother meet Loaf.

 

Loaf. Big Brother.

[I Like Soup]

http://www.buyradardetectors.com/Articles/...mera-Radar.aspx

 

If it didn't come by certified mail, throw them away. They probably won't put the effort into coming to track you down for $95.

 

Good info here.

But they will put out a warrant.

 

Next time you stroll thru a stop sign and you get pulled over.

 

95.00 will be cheap compared to bond.

 

Bad info here.

 

i imagine that you should treat them as you would any traffic ticket. It almost always pays to contest them, as they will typically reduce the charge. They are attempting to discourage you from doing this by not hitting you with points.

 

Ignoring a traffic ticket is a bad idea. At a minimum, the fines will increase and the man will nab you next time you run afoul of the law.

 

I guess it depends on the state. I received my first camera ticket in April. I went ahead and pulled up the statues that deal with that type of ticketing. Being served is actually the only legal way they can contact you (I don't recall sending certified mail being mentioned). They can notify you by mail, but if it isn't certified, it is a waste of time as they can't prove you received the ticket. They are hedging that most people are going to roll over like a bunch of pusssllies and just pay up. My situation...I was sent two notices in the mail, each time with a court date pushed back. I knew from reading the statues that they had to contact me via serving. Oh, another stipulation, if they haven't served you within 120 days of the date of offense, the ticket is no longer valid. It has been beyond that.

 

Don't be lazy people, fight the injustice.

Edited September 16, 2008 by I Like Soup

[dmarc117]

sounds like you were speeding. pay the ticket.

[I Like Soup]

sounds like you were speeding. pay the ticket.

This is what is wrong with the mentality of motorist nowadays. You must be proven guilty in a court of law. Too often now, people assume guilt or guilt is a given when it comes to moving violations. Sure, you may be speeding, but the law has to play by their own rules to catch you legally.

[cre8tiff]

This is what is wrong with the mentality of motorist nowadays. You must be proven guilty in a court of law. Too often now, people assume guilt or guilt is a given when it comes to moving violations. Sure, you may be speeding, but the law has to play by their own rules to catch you legally.

 

 

I was on a ride along with my buddy who was a traffic cop at the time. Traffic was going about 8 miles over the limit. He pulled out in traffic, turned on his lights and a red Firebird immediately pulled over . He pulled behind it and parked. He walked to the car and asked, "Ma'am do you know how fast you were going?" The woman answered, "I think 72.". (It was a 60 mph zone). He walked back to the squad car and wrote her a warning for 72, but he could have easily written her a ticket without ever really gunning her, or having evidence she was speeding, just because she blurted it out (confessing). He said he only gives warnings in that situation, but it happened all the time.

 

Oh and I am as progressive as they come, but I did note every black motorist my white friend pulled over protested they were pulled over because they were black, not because they were speeding.

[Azazello1313]

Don't be lazy people, fight the injustice.

 

I don't know if it's worth fighting or not, that will depend on local laws, the PD's motivation to enforce, etc. you may well be right that it is in his interests to stiff them because they won't follow through. but come on...."fight the injustice"? he was speeding, he got caught...let's not make him a martyr here.

[AtomicCEO]

i imagine that you should treat them as you would any traffic ticket. It almost always pays to contest them, as they will typically reduce the charge. They are attempting to discourage you from doing this by not hitting you with points.

 

Ignoring a traffic ticket is a bad idea. At a minimum, the fines will increase and the man will nab you next time you run afoul of the law.

 

When you get a traffic ticket, an officer hands it to you. If they mail you a ticket, they have no way of knowing you ever received it. Toss it.

[Savage Beatings]

 

Not legal in Minnesota.

[AtomicCEO]

I don't know if it's worth fighting or not, that will depend on local laws, the PD's motivation to enforce, etc. you may well be right that it is in his interests to stiff them because they won't follow through. but come on...."fight the injustice"? he was speeding, he got caught...let's not make him a martyr here.

 

I have long felt that officers give tickets on the road, NOT for the offenses most likely to cause an accident or endanger others, but for the offenses which are easiest to enforce... like sitting on your ass with a donut and a radar gun.

 

Every single car on the road is breaking the law every time they drive. There's something wrong with the laws.

[cre8tiff]

Interesting the personalities that are split between the "Question Authority" and "Stand up for your rights" types and "Pay the Ticket, you broke the law and got caught" and "You'll be punished if you don't pay it" types, are also the ones most vocal about either side of the current political situation.

 

Fascinating

Edited September 16, 2008 by cre8tiff

[Furd]

When you get a traffic ticket, an officer hands it to you. If they mail you a ticket, they have no way of knowing you ever received it. Toss it.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. It depends on the ordinance. If this is more akin to a civil infraction rather than criminal, service by US Mail may be sufficient.

[AtomicCEO]

I wouldn't be so sure. It depends on the ordinance. If this is more akin to a civil infraction rather than criminal, service by US Mail may be sufficient.

 

I seriously doubt it.

[Azazello1313]

Every single car on the road is breaking the law every time they drive. There's something wrong with the laws.

 

not every single car. not even close. trust me, I ALWAYS get stuck behind them.

[I Like Soup]

I don't know if it's worth fighting or not, that will depend on local laws, the PD's motivation to enforce, etc. you may well be right that it is in his interests to stiff them because they won't follow through. but come on...."fight the injustice"? he was speeding, he got caught...let's not make him a martyr here.

C'mon, I'm rallying the troops here!

 

US Mail is not a legal means to contact someone. If a municipality has it on the books, guarantee you it has to be sent certified.

[Furd]

I seriously doubt it.

 

 

I hope that you're not that serious:

 

(h) Notices of liability. Any ticket for an automated red light or speeding system violation under this section shall:

 

(1) Be reviewed by a Cleveland police officer;

 

(2) Be forwarded by first-class mail or personal service to the vehicle's registered owner's address as given on the state's motor vehicle registration, and

 

(3) Clearly state the manner in which the violation may be appealed.

 

City of Cleveland ordinance