9 ms·

In FL, a speed camera can give a car's owner can a ticket without needing to know he was the driver. Your perspective is not true nation wide. "The registered

by peteey 1y ago

In FL, a speed camera can give a car's owner can a ticket without needing to know he was the driver. Your perspective is not true nation wide. "The registered owner of the motor vehicle involved in the violation is responsible and liable for paying the uniform traffic citation issued for a violation" http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.1896.html http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...

AngryData 1y ago
That seems completely fucked to me. Charging people who aren't guilty of any crime with a crime because somebody else was driving their car?
- andelink 1y ago
  What would be the alternative? Just get who was driving your car to pay you back for the fine. If they are not accountable/honorable enough to back you back, then why were you letting them drive your car in the first place?
  - AngryData 1y ago
    The same "alternative" that there is to every other crime in existence, proving the person you charged with a crime actually committed the crime. The default is suppose to be innocence, not guilty. It is the state's responsibility or problem to prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not a citizen's responsibility to prove their continued innocence at all times.
    - jakelazaroff 1y ago
      I mean, the state obviously has photo evidence. So you need to show that either the photo was taken in error, that it misidentified your vehicle or that you weren't the legal owner at the time.
      - lotsoweiners 1y ago
        I got a couple of them like 20 years ago. Picture was terrible. I just through the ticket in the trash and never thought about it again.
      - mothballed 1y ago
        That's absolutely hilarious. They take a photo of something approximating your vehicle that shows your plate number, toss it in a mail system that loses more than 0.5% of the class of mail used, then according to another poster in NY they impound your car after all this. Anyplace with the slightest adherence to the rule of law requires the state to positively identify an actual person, not a vehicle owned by a person, that is responsible for a moving violation. And then personally serve that person rather than just coming up with this absolute bullshit excuse that an unreliable mail system with a letter dropped god knows where somehow is legal service.
        jakelazaroff 1y ago
        A couple things wrong here: 1. Camera-issued tickets are not moving violations 2. Your car will not be impounded for failure to pay (maybe unless you have many, many unpaid tickets) If the photo is bad, you can dispute it! That isn't presumption of guilt, it's the legal system working exactly as intended: one side presents their evidence, and the other side has a chance to respond. Even if USPS loses 0.5% of mail (I am skeptical; that seems crazy high) the state sends at least three notices, so the chances of you missing every notice of your infraction is something like one in a million.
        mothballed 1y ago
        Only by the most ridiculous fiction is running a red light or speeding not a moving violation. They've intentionally pretended like it's not to get around the due process involved.
      - AngryData 1y ago
        They have a photo of a car, but the car cannot commit a crime all on its own, someone has to be driving it. And if you have no idea who is driving when you charge them you are inevitably going to be charging innocent people.
- jakelazaroff 1y ago
  What do you mean by people who aren't guilty? The infraction here is allowing your vehicle to run a red light.
  - AngryData 1y ago
    How do you allow a vehicle to run a red light that you aren't driving?
    - jakelazaroff 1y ago
      Easy: 1. Allow someone else to drive your vehicle 2. That person runs a red light Your responsibility as the vehicle owner is to either not do step 1, or only do it for people whom you trust will not do step 2.
      - mothballed 1y ago
        You don't even have to 'allow' them. Either you could live in a community property state, where your spouse, even a spouse who has initiated divorce against you, legally also owns the vehicle that is in your name. Or someone could steal it. Or someone could steal or duplicate your plates and put it on a nearly identical car, which happened to a friend who had to spend years fighting all the tickets that were mailed to him when an entirely different car (same make/model) used his same plate numbers.
        jakelazaroff 1y ago
        If you can show that your vehicle or plates were stolen, you won't have to pay the ticket; in NYC that is explicitly listed as a possible defense [1]. The spouse thing honestly seems fine — it just means that you're both responsible for paying the ticket, rather than you alone — but if you have an issue it's with the property laws, not the red light cameras. [1] https://www.nyc.gov/site/finance/vehicles/red-light-camera-violations.page https://www.nyc.gov/site/finance/vehicles/red-light-camera-v...

by peteey 1y ago

AngryData 1y ago

That seems completely fucked to me. Charging people who aren't guilty of any crime with a crime because somebody else was driving their car?

andelink 1y ago
What would be the alternative? Just get who was driving your car to pay you back for the fine. If they are not accountable/honorable enough to back you back, then why were you letting them drive your car in the first place?
- AngryData 1y ago
  The same "alternative" that there is to every other crime in existence, proving the person you charged with a crime actually committed the crime. The default is suppose to be innocence, not guilty. It is the state's responsibility or problem to prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not a citizen's responsibility to prove their continued innocence at all times.
  - jakelazaroff 1y ago
    I mean, the state obviously has photo evidence. So you need to show that either the photo was taken in error, that it misidentified your vehicle or that you weren't the legal owner at the time.
    - lotsoweiners 1y ago
      I got a couple of them like 20 years ago. Picture was terrible. I just through the ticket in the trash and never thought about it again.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      That's absolutely hilarious. They take a photo of something approximating your vehicle that shows your plate number, toss it in a mail system that loses more than 0.5% of the class of mail used, then according to another poster in NY they impound your car after all this. Anyplace with the slightest adherence to the rule of law requires the state to positively identify an actual person, not a vehicle owned by a person, that is responsible for a moving violation. And then personally serve that person rather than just coming up with this absolute bullshit excuse that an unreliable mail system with a letter dropped god knows where somehow is legal service.
      - jakelazaroff 1y ago
        A couple things wrong here: 1. Camera-issued tickets are not moving violations 2. Your car will not be impounded for failure to pay (maybe unless you have many, many unpaid tickets) If the photo is bad, you can dispute it! That isn't presumption of guilt, it's the legal system working exactly as intended: one side presents their evidence, and the other side has a chance to respond. Even if USPS loses 0.5% of mail (I am skeptical; that seems crazy high) the state sends at least three notices, so the chances of you missing every notice of your infraction is something like one in a million.
        mothballed 1y ago
        Only by the most ridiculous fiction is running a red light or speeding not a moving violation. They've intentionally pretended like it's not to get around the due process involved.
    - AngryData 1y ago
      They have a photo of a car, but the car cannot commit a crime all on its own, someone has to be driving it. And if you have no idea who is driving when you charge them you are inevitably going to be charging innocent people.
jakelazaroff 1y ago
What do you mean by people who aren't guilty? The infraction here is allowing your vehicle to run a red light.
- AngryData 1y ago
  How do you allow a vehicle to run a red light that you aren't driving?
  - jakelazaroff 1y ago
    Easy: 1. Allow someone else to drive your vehicle 2. That person runs a red light Your responsibility as the vehicle owner is to either not do step 1, or only do it for people whom you trust will not do step 2.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      You don't even have to 'allow' them. Either you could live in a community property state, where your spouse, even a spouse who has initiated divorce against you, legally also owns the vehicle that is in your name. Or someone could steal it. Or someone could steal or duplicate your plates and put it on a nearly identical car, which happened to a friend who had to spend years fighting all the tickets that were mailed to him when an entirely different car (same make/model) used his same plate numbers.
      - jakelazaroff 1y ago
        If you can show that your vehicle or plates were stolen, you won't have to pay the ticket; in NYC that is explicitly listed as a possible defense [1]. The spouse thing honestly seems fine — it just means that you're both responsible for paying the ticket, rather than you alone — but if you have an issue it's with the property laws, not the red light cameras. [1] https://www.nyc.gov/site/finance/vehicles/red-light-camera-violations.page https://www.nyc.gov/site/finance/vehicles/red-light-camera-v...