Baltimore Issued Speed Camera Ticket To Motionless Car 286
A reader sends this story from the Baltimore Sun:
"The Baltimore City speed camera ticket alleged that the four-door Mazda wagon was going 38 miles per hour in a 25-mph zone — and that owner Daniel Doty owed $40 for the infraction. But the Mazda wasn't speeding. It wasn't even moving. The two photos printed on the citation as evidence of speeding show the car was idling at a red light with its brake lights illuminated. A three-second video clip also offered as evidence shows the car motionless, as traffic flows by on a cross street. Since the articles' publication, several lawmakers have called for changes to the state law that governs the way the city and other jurisdictions operate speed camera programs. Gov. Martin O'Malley said Tuesday that state law bars contractors from being paid based on the number of citations issued or paid —an approach used by Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Howard County and elsewhere. 'The law says you're not supposed to charge by volume. I don't think we should charge by volume,' O'Malley said. "If any county is, they need to change their program.'"
Not legal here. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In my own area, a Judge has ruled they are not legal.
What is "they"?
Re:Not legal here. (Score:5, Funny)
Lawyers. The judge outlawed lawyers.
Re:Not legal here. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm no grammarian, but I'm pretty sure "they" is either Judges or Areas...
Re:Not legal here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well let's see, TFA is about speed cameras, so that can't be it.....I know! PURPLE MONKEYS!!!
Re:Not legal here. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not legal here. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not legal here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, "The department has said that a single officer can review up to 1,200 citations in a given day.". So if you have an awesomely diligent cop reviewing these things, who's working on it non-stop for a full 80 hours, that means he's devoting about 24 SECONDS to each one. So loading the data, reviewing the pictures and the video, making a decision, and clicking on whatever buttons and possibly filling out supplementary information required of him (whatever that may or may not be) all in 24 seconds. Yeah, the donut eating coffee swiller is just rubber stamping them. Hell, he probably doesn't even notice what color the car is, nor does he care.
This system isn't designed to improve safety or help anyone, it only does one thing, and that's to make money for the local government and the contractor.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I wouldn't talk so much shit about cops that can work an 80 hour day...
Re: (Score:3)
*whoosh*
What does a double shift have to do with an 80 hour DAY?
Re:Not legal here. (Score:5, Funny)
My father was a lawyer, we used to go on road trips to fight the speeding ticket we got on the last road trip.
My favourite defence was the calibration log. "Manual says it has to be calibrated at each shift, do you have records showing it was calibrated on the morning of _______? Nope? Thanks, have a nice day."
And then we'd sit in the back and watch every other defendant use the same questions and get let off :)
Re:Not legal here. (Score:5, Interesting)
can't provide recent calibration test records.
And in-court sworn testimony from the person who signed-off on the calibration and the calibration of that calibration instrument, all the way back to NIST.
We only give so many speeding tickets because we have a RADAR gun - people focus on what they can measure. I've been thinking of using OpenCV to create a tailgating gun. That's an actual danger, unlike speeding which usually isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be a jackass. I see more than enough tailgaters when I'm going 10 over in the right lane and other absurd scenarios. Seriously, sir, the left lane is right there. Why not just use it? (It's a lot more common to see tailgaters when you're in the left lane, too, but that mostly occurs to me when I am already passing someone and a person behind me wants to at the same time pass both of us at 20 over.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not legal here. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not legal here. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, theres sufficient evidence that shows they make the roads more dangerous because of sudden stops to avoid said tickets, and have done little to curb others that would run it anyway. They also have a habit of taking pictures during green lights and submitting tickets for those.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, theres sufficient evidence that shows they make the roads more dangerous because of sudden stops to avoid said tickets, and have done little to curb others that would run it anyway. They also have a habit of taking pictures during green lights and submitting tickets for those.
Is there any evidence to show if they are effective at preventing pedestrian accidents? I regularly walk through some intersections with redlight cameras, and the cars *always* stop at the red light at the intersections with cameras - at the other intersections, drivers regularly do a rolling stops where the driver is only looking to the left to see if there's any traffic coming so he doesn't see the pedestrian in the crosswalk coming from his right-hand side.
As a pedestrian, I think it's fair to trade off
Re:Not legal here. (Score:5, Insightful)
As a pedestrian I try to always understand that in a battle of "Who can pay less attention to where they are going" the pedestrian will always lose.
So I do not play that game. I assume the drive does not see me till I know he does.
When I ride a motorcycle I do the same.
Pedestrians that step onto a road hoping that cars see them and stop need to fail at this before they pass on their defective genes to offspring.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, if your walking you are taking a very large risk anyway and should be paying attention since you aren't protected by a steel cage, especially if you walk the Monday after daylight savings time switch happens (single highest pedestrian death day each year)
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, if your walking you are taking a very large risk anyway and should be paying attention since you aren't protected by a steel cage, especially if you walk the Monday after daylight savings time switch happens (single highest pedestrian death day each year)
Are you sure you meant to say "fair"? Why should the pedestrian who poses the smallest risk to everyone have the largest responsibility to look out for errant drivers? Sure, it's realistic, but it hardly seems fair - to be fair, the guy in the steel cage that's capable of inflicting great harm on the unprotected pedestrian would be the one that's paying closer attention.
Re: (Score:2)
No one has ever successfully protested their own imminent death as unfair. The Grim Reaper doesn't give a rat's ass. If you're vulnerable, the only one who can watch out for you is you.
Pragmatically, "fair" is irrelevant or worse: distracting.
I suspect the usage "to be fair" is just linguistic habit. "On the other hand" would probably been more semantically appropriate.
Re:Not legal here. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd agree that fair is not the right word to be using here. "To be brutally honest" would probably be better (and more correct) than "To be fair".
As a pedestrian I'm amazed at how stupid many drivers are. As a driver I'm amazed at how stupid many pedestrians are.
Whether walking (or biking ) I treat it like a game where the drivers are actively trying to kill me and won't be punished if they do. That is definitely not true, and wouldn't be fair if it was, but thinking that way is a great survival tactic.
As a driver I've many times let someone "steal" my right of way since that seemed preferable to being in an accident, even if it would have been the other driver's fault.
Re: (Score:2)
As a pedestrian, I think it's fair to trade off a few more rear-end collisions for better pedestrian safety.
Or smarter/more aware pedestrians. Seriously, while it's a given that motorists have a responsibility to be mindful of pedestrians, if you're not *also* being pro-active as a pedestrian, watching the traffic to ensure that you're not going to get run over, then you're even more irresponsible and probably a future Darwin Award [darwinawards.com] winner. Just sayin' ...
I say this as a bicyclist who was once, many years ago, hit by a car at an intersection, even though I had the right-of-way. I had even looked directly at the
Re: (Score:2)
The first thing that I was taught as a motorcycle rider, even before I had figured out where the fuel valve was, is "Always assume you are invisible." Goes for walking too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
As a non-pedestrian
How do you get to/from your car? Teleport?
Re:Not legal here. (Score:5, Funny)
As a non-pedestrian
How do you get to/from your car? Teleport?
He doesn't. Was born in a trailer, will live in a car or a trailer, will die in a trailer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not legal here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They also have a habit of taking pictures during green lights and submitting tickets for those.
That's the best part
Once you get the citation, it is YOUR problem to try and prove your innocence. If you do prove your innocence (at a greater expense than the ticket), then no penalties are imposed on anyone who was at fault.
The rational behavior for the contractors would then be to introduce a random chance of snapping/citing every passing car to make more money. Unless there are stiff penalties/bans, they will do so, if they are not doing so already.
Re: (Score:3)
I've had to fight my way through two different red light camera tickets. One wasn't even my car (different make and model, different lic plate, though only 1 digit off), and the other shows me clearly coming to a full stop before turning right on red (which is legal in California)
Both incidents involved three trips to the courthouse. First to acknowledge the receipt of the ticket and set an arraignment date. Second trip for the arraignment, "How do you plead," and setting a trial date. Third trip was th
Re:Not legal here. (Score:4, Informative)
And there's at least [theatlanticcities.com] as much [azcentral.com] evidence [dot.gov] to the contrary [iihs.org].
Re: (Score:2)
When people stop driving too slow in the far left lane, I'll stop tailgating.
Re:Not legal here. (Score:5, Informative)
If you're going to put that in, than I also demand something about people cruising 20mph under while in the inside lane, because those are the people I tailgate. If you want to go slow, that's fine, just get out of the way of those who don't.
If you're going to put that law into place, then how about computer controlled speed governors on every car, restricting them to the speed limit (with maybe a short override allowable for merging/passing)
If I'm driving 65 in a 65mph zone and pass a block of cars driving 60mph, I don't need an idiot tailgating me until I complete the pass. He may want to drive 80mph, but that doesn't mean that I should have to drive 80mph to pass a car.
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't you change lanes to pass?
There are obstruction-of-traffic laws against driving slowly in the inside lane, but these aren't enforced because if others can change lanes to pass, nobody's really obstructing anyone.
But on the Autobahn, it's illegal to pass in the outside lane, so people driving slowly in the inside lane really are obstructing traffic. For this reason, would you be
Re: (Score:2)
It's illegal to pass on the outside lane in many places. Well, this state has it phrased differently. You're not to cruise in the inside lane, it's for passing -- you pass, and move back out of the lane.
It's never enforced, though, obviously.. but the intention is there.
Re: (Score:3)
"Too close" is "a distance which does not guarantee that stopping to avoid collision is possible [wikipedia.org]".
Correct.
Poor people don't own camping trailers, silly!
Re:Not legal here. (Score:5, Insightful)
"In my own area, a Judge has ruled they are not legal."
If "they" means red light cameras, they probably should not be legal.
I did a bit of internet research last year, and found out that of the U.S. cities that surveyed the results of their red-light-camera use, many of them (a majority) found that they actually increased both the number and average severity of collisions.
How is that possible? Some of the reasons are complex, but others are simple. For example: instead of just cruising through an iffy judgment call when the light is about to change, motorists now (fearing a traffic ticket that can be $100 + in some places) slam on their brakes, and get rear-ended by the inattentive driver behind them.
Others cities have been caught deliberately shortening the duration of their yellow lights to create more ticket revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
In my own area, a Judge has ruled they are not legal.
That's good - in my State highway surveillance also is prohibited [state.nh.us].
While most States were busy installing them, the New Hampshire legislature banned them. We have so many legislators that it's really infeasible to buy them off. I think this was the same year they told the Feds to got to hell on RealID also.
Obviously guilty (Score:5, Funny)
He is guilty. Clearly guilty of embarrassing some government officials with his so called 'evidence'. Lock him up.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah... the McKinnon strategy...
Re:Obviously guilty (Score:4, Interesting)
He is guilty.
Just think how many other people just paid the ticket and didn't contest because they didn't have the time or assumed the judge would sustain the fine? While I have little sympathy for drivers who drive on the edge, pushing yellow lights and often running reds, in many places, Traffic Cams are a SCAM.
Re: (Score:3)
Just think how many other people just paid the ticket and didn't contest because they didn't have the time or assumed the judge would sustain the fine?
That's only a part of it.
Much worse is that no matter how many people successfully contest the ticket, the contractor is never fined. Utter lack of penalties for bad behavior encourages bad behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
People's Republic of Maryland
You sure you don't mean Stalinist?
Well one town has a law for that (Score:2)
http://www.volokh.com/2012/12/13/now-theres-a-speech-restriction-for-you/ [volokh.com]
Happens everywhere (Score:4, Informative)
This happens regularly in the UK too, often with slightly unusually shaped vehicles like flat bed trucks. Sometimes the police paint the road markings used to verify the amount of movement between two sequential photos the wrong distance apart as well (happened near me).
Best thing to do is record your journeys with GPS so you can always prove you were not speeding. In fact all you really need to do is record one journey and then just alter the dates on the log for whenever you need it. UK courts have consistently taken GPS data over speed camera images/radar data.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is that in the US, most jurisdictions (including Baltimore) require you to be physically present at the court at a given time to contest the charges. For most people, it's far more cost effective to simply pay the fine than to spend hours in traffic/waiting/before the judge(s).
Re: (Score:2)
In some districts, that wasn't enough, so in addition they charge an extra court fee to contest the ticket and if you fail tio prove your innocence beyond reasonable denial, you get to pay that, your time, the fine, and extra points on your insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only in TV shows. In real life, that's tampering with a crime scene.
The camera was only out by 38mph! (Score:5, Funny)
Crooked cop (Score:4, Insightful)
The cop who signed off on this ticket is obviously not doing his job. This should at least be fraud, if not something more serious. Of course, there's no chance of the thug with a badge getting any sort of charges laid against him. There is no justice in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Not fraud. Extortion.
Re:Crooked cop (Score:5, Informative)
The cop who signed off on this ticket is obviously not doing his job. This should at least be fraud, if not something more serious. Of course, there's no chance of the thug with a badge getting any sort of charges laid against him. There is no justice in the US.
Not fraud. Perjury. The cop is basically swearing that he witnessed the accused committing the act of speeding, and it is quite obvious that he did not. He lied to the court, in a round about way.
Re: (Score:2)
No fraud. Not perjury. Incompetence. The cop is basically incompetent. ...or lazy.
This just in: Lazy, incompetent people in all lines of work...
Re: (Score:2)
This just in: Lazy, incompetent people in all lines of work...
Old news. Dupe. See "The Peter Principle": "employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence."
Re:Crooked cop (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are supposed to look for the infraction and do not it is lazy.
If you attest to a court that you did when you in fact did not you are perjuring yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Fraud and perjury. Taking money to do a job and not doing it is fraud. Also perjury for the reasons you mentioned.
Re: (Score:2)
The cop who signed off on this ticket is obviously not doing his job. This should at least be fraud, if not something more serious. Of course, there's no chance of the thug with a badge getting any sort of charges laid against him. There is no justice in the US.
Not fraud. Perjury. The cop is basically swearing that he witnessed the accused committing the act of speeding, and it is quite obvious that he did not. He lied to the court, in a round about way.
The article didn't actually state that the officer's signature constituted swearing under penalty of perjury. Every document I've ever seen that is such, also requires you print your name to remove the problem in this case "Duur, we don't know who's signature that is".
Of course the State of Maryland has numerous other problems concerning these cameras. First and foremost is that you don't have the legal right to force cities and counties to obey state law [thenewspaper.com]. Oh, and that includes when the officer's signatu [thenewspaper.com]
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Crooked cop (Score:4, Insightful)
Perjury.
Signing off on the ticket matches the definition of perjury [wikipedia.org]. The officer willfully and falsely certified that the driver violated an ordinance (speeding over the limit), one which had a financial penalty to the driver (possibly above and beyond the $40, given insurance and other unknown factors). If I recall correctly, the statements for signing off on tickets for revenue enhancement cameras include statements that signing is under penalty of perjury.
The only out would possibly be mens rea, the intention. If the cop did so accidentially, then it could be incompetence (and not malice). Since the job was explicitly to examine these photos, then you're into malpractice territory. Doesn't speak well to the cop, nor to the program. If this is one case of a major foul-up, how many more were there, ones paid off false due to fifty dollars being less cost than missing a day of work to dispute it.
Note: IANAL. Also, obviously, I am strongly against the police acting as The Sherrif Of Nottingham, levying fines and taxes for their own benefit. Revenue cameras tend towards injustice; especially so when they change conditions like shortening the time of yellow lights to increase said revenue.
photo tickets don't go on you they go on the car (Score:2)
photo tickets don't go on you they go on the car
Re:Crooked cop (Score:4, Informative)
Did you ever see how they "sign" the citations? They are printed signatures in low dpi meaning noone really reviews them on a case by case basis.
I got a ticket once and tried to dispute it based on the fake signature but the judge was as crooked as the cop who showed up in court because he admitted the case even though the fake printed signature should have invalidated the complaint to begin with.
Someone high up in position of authority is filling up their pockets and the pockets of their cronies with money from those shotgun-approach speeding tickets.
Meanwhile, those freeway speed cameras are gone as they were ruled illegal but I did not see a dime back and I still had to deal with my insurance rates going up because of the points.
Re:Crooked cop (Score:4, Informative)
Do away with the fines. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Or, are those the actual city limits where the city has jurisdiction and people just got caught speeding?
A municipality doesn't just end because most of the houses run out. If they're still charging taxes out there, they get to enforce speed limits.
If the speeding took place outside of their jurisdiction, sure, they've overstepped
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, are those the actual city limits where the city has jurisdiction and people just got caught speeding?
A municipality doesn't just end because most of the houses run out. If they're still charging taxes out there, they get to enforce speed limits.
It's not a question of jurisdiction, but of "residential area". At least I assume that's what OP was referring to.
Presumably, once the residential area ends, the speed limit should be raised. Keeping speed limits low once the houses (i.e the reason for keeping speed limits low) ran out is most likely a revenue grab.
Re: (Score:2)
In both states I've been licenced in, you *do* risk having your license suspended if you accumulate too many points. but, since speed cams are notorious doe problems, those tickets don't accumulate points.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus the fact you can't assign points or suspend a license without being able to 100% validate who was driving the vehicle. The vehicle can be fined (or towed if theres enough) for violations, but the "I let someone borrow my car" defense has worked in the past when they tried to suspend a license based on the camera.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we realy cared about the safety of drivers on the road then speeding violations should be delt with using some kind of points system that will eventualy suspend your licence for a while.
Not sure where you come from, but they do in Illinois. Each speeding ticket is 1 point, unless it's over 25mph over the speed limit (used to be 35), then it's an automatic misdemeanor instead of a traffic citation. Additionally, if you get 3 tickets in any 12 month rolling period, your license is suspended, the duration of which is decided by how much you were speeding.
Re: (Score:3)
Any way, its a great old book, and I have better things to do than to worry about spelling on an internet forrum. Besides, I do not have to worry about sp
Re: (Score:2)
Its all relative! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
From a point of view at the center of the solar system that car was moving at 30 km/s!
The IAU as just unanimously voted in your favor.
Now they*cough*WE can all drive at the speed of our choosing because all data is relative and not permissible in court! :-D
Re:Its all relative! (Score:4, Funny)
Drive a little faster than that and you could see us sooner.
90's Era Germany (Score:5, Interesting)
This happened when I was in the military in Germany in the early 90's. Just about to leave for the US and I got a speeding ticket in my mailbox for my 67 VW Beetle. Thing is, that Beetle never even made it onto the autobahn or any other street since I had the engine out of it the whole time and didn't finish the project before I had to leave country. I also wasn't allowed to leave until the false ticket was paid. Back then, if you contested the ticket, you had to write in to get access to the photos. I didn't have enough time left in country for that, so I had to pay the ticket or get an Article 15 (which is like a speeding ticket for your life in the military). I had thought, and still think, that it was a scam played on GI's about to leave the country. I'll have to dig that ticket out and finally request the photos from that bit of glory...
double fine (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
My mother was driving through baltimore a few years back. A couple weeks later a red light camera ticket came in the mail. My parents paid it, only to have it show up again in their mailbox. At first they were really mad that the city screwed up and sent multiple tickets, even though the first payment went through....then they realized the timestamp was about 10 minutes later than the first. Yep, my mother accidentally ran the same stoplight twice in a row because she was lost...
Just when I was thinking these cameras were a bad idea, you had to post that. Running a light once, because you're lost is inexcusable.
My mom totaled her car that way. She's still driving and doesn't hold herself responsible. After all, she was just lost. It's not like she was drunk. Those people should go to jail. grrrr
What a racket... (Score:2)
The Baltimore Beltway is notorious for being one giant speed trap. In all of my commuting around that area, I've yet to see any construction zone actually have any workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Start driving with chains on your tires, that will change...
Re: (Score:2)
In all of my commuting around that area, I've yet to see any construction zone actually have any workers.
It's not only in Baltimore. We have that here in Chicago too. Seems like some roads have been under construction for 8 months now, and I think I've seen them being worked on twice. It's just sad that they get away with this crap.
Why can't we just have them removed? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Something to do with spending appropriations are not subject to voting referendums - the Arundel Mills casino is an example of this (the people voted to appose putting it there, judge ruled that the people have no authority to object).
Re: (Score:2)
There is no democracy I can see here. Welcome to the People's Republic of Maryland.
As a resident... (Score:4, Interesting)
Living in Baltimore now, What I would really like them to address is this:
Why are the speed cameras concentrated in the predominantly lower class black areas?
Why are cameras that were approved to operate ONLY in school zones ONLY during school hours, issuing tickets around the clock?
Why are mobile speed cameras being used when they were only approved for stationary cameras in school zones?
Re: (Score:3)
Might have something to do with the fact that Baltimore is predominantly black, and predominantly poor.
Class action (Score:2)
Was it a red Mazda? (Score:4, Funny)
Obviously the car looked fast.
Moving so fast... (Score:2)
We had speed cameras on the freeway in Phoenix (Score:5, Interesting)
for a couple years. They were eventually removed because people simply ignored the tickets that came in the mail. Tickets delivered by mail are not delivered by a sworn peace officer so they were unenforceable. The state contracted with a private company because sending process servers out to deliver tickets would be too expensive.
There were other ways around the tickets, too. Two car families would register husband's car in wife's name and wife's car in husband's name. If the face in the photo doesn't match the license photo of the registered owner, the ticket would not be mailed. One guy in Scottsdale collected >30 tickets without having to pay because he wore a gorilla mask when he drove past the cameras. He admitted to owning the car and the mask, but denied being at the wheel and no one could prove that he was behind the wheel when the photos were snapped.
My idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I have an idea for making traffic safety laws about traffic safety and not revenue generation:
Pass a law that says all proceeds from moving violation citations go into a statewide fund. Then every 12 months, the funds are distributed evenly to every licensed driver in the state who has a 36 month clean driving record. Good drivers get rewarded by bad drivers, who pay into the fund with their tickets, and municipalities can't turn traffic laws into a cash cow with bullshit like speed traps, red-light cameras with short yellow lights, and other shenanigans.
Re:My idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But that would increase safety at the cost of reducing State revenues. ;)
Actually, this might cause the soccer moms to go insane demanding 24x7 speed traps on every road in town.
pencil whipping (Score:3)
The vendor on his video link goes into detail about all the checks that are done, and at one point says "a minute to do this, a minute to verify that, a minute to check this..." etc.
The main article then states that "a single officer may check 1400 a day". OK, time for maths! There are 480 minutes in an 8 hour day, assuming no breaks for potty or lunch. We'll assume the officer is equipped with a sandwich and depends. But he obviously is spending LESS than "a minute" reviewing the entire citation so lets go down to seconds.
28800 seconds in his breakless-day, / 1400 citations, means the officer is averaging no more than 20 seconds per citation review. If we add up the vendor's recommended "minutes" to be about 3 per citation, the officers are being pushed to spend 16% of the expected time reviewing and approving these citations.
This is the police department's fault. If an officer is approving more than 500 citations a day, he's spending less than a minute on each review and is either not being given adequate time to do his job, or is just plain pencil-whipping/shortcutting to be lazy or work his quota/metrics.
Yeah, or what? (Score:2)
Really? And what are you going to do if they don't change their programs? Oh, I know the answer: nothing.
Florida recently