I got a speeding ticket in the mail yesterday.

[DudleyGarrett]

@Belrix

So state it outright:

1. Was that your car in the picture?
2. Were you driving the car? If not, then who?
3. Do you think the speed indicated by the device is accurate? If not - how fast do you think you were going?

Your defense so far is that you were “rubbernecking” - that’s not a very good defense for speeding.

If you went to court - what would be your argument that you shouldn’t be ticketed?

Pretty much has to be one of the three.

You’ve been beating around the bush on your guilt in this matter. I can understand - it makes righteous indignation a bit easier if you’re the victim.

The thing is I don’t know if I’m guilty. I’ve said in about three different posts as to why I’m bothered about it.

It was an obvious trap likely to generate some revenue for the shitty town from outside traffic. Is that clear enough?

If you choose not to read, that’s not my problem.

[Swallowed_My_Cellphone]

@Leaffan

You were driving over the limit. You were caught. Suck it up.

Maybe. An ex-girlfriend of mine is a lawyer and her firm had a client get a ticket in the early 1990s when photo-radar took a shot of his licence plate on the 401 expressway near Toronto. The speed recorded for the offending vehicle was obscenely high and the fine was EXHORBITANT.

One look at the photo, and the lawyer handling the case started laughing. They showed the photo to the judge and asked if perchance it was the Mercedes photographed in the neighboring lane that was possibly the true culprit rather than their client. The Mercedes was moving so quickly that in the photograph it was blurry. The judge dismissed the ticket.

The photo-radar speed cameras are not infallible.

It’s possible the OP’s car was not what triggered the system, but with three photos, I agree it seems unlikely and possibly “highway hypnosis” made Dudley feel like he was going slower than he was. That’s happened to me before when I used to commute on backroads. And I did get a ticket once. When I saw the radar gun I took a quick peek at my dash and thought “Holy shit!” because it really didn’t feel like I’d krept up to 55 (limit was 50, and the cop was a nice guy about it.)

[Walkabout]

Maybe this little town with the cute little Mom 'n Pop hardware store has a problem with people driving 15mph over the speed limit, and they want to slow them down. Do you have a problem with them trying to enforce their laws?

[Belrix]

@DudleyGarrett

The thing is I don’t know if I’m guilty. I’ve said in about three different posts as to why I’m bothered about it.

It was an obvious trap likely to generate some revenue for the shitty town from outside traffic. Is that clear enough?

If you choose not to read, that’s not my problem.

My three questions are entirely independent of whether it’s a speed trap or not.

That, I guess, would be a fourth question:

4. Was the road marked as 25 mph?

ETA: There’s a 35 mph section of semi-residential road near me that always, always, always has a cop on it. It’s marked 35 mph. It may be revenue generation but it’s clearly marked. If I get a ticket on it, it’s my fault.

[DudleyGarrett]

@WVmom

Maybe this little town with the cute little Mom 'n Pop hardware store has a problem with people driving 15mph over the speed limit, and they want to slow them down. Do you have a problem with them trying to enforce their laws?

It wasn’t near the store. Do you have anything to add but snark?

[DudleyGarrett]

@Belrix

My three questions are entirely independent of whether it’s a speed trap or not.

That, I guess, would be a fourth question:

4. Was the road marked as 25 mph?

That’s a good question and I’m not sure. The road was fairly wide and “felt” like it could handle faster traffic (sparse buildings set back) and I remember going in to the town and leaving, I was in a line of cars (in the more zoomed-out picture, you can see a car in front of me and the hood of a car behind me).

[Walkabout]

@DudleyGarret

It was an obvious trap likely to generate some revenue for the shitty town from outside traffic. Is that clear enough?

Hey, all I’m saying is that town might have some reason to want to slow down traffic other than just to wring money out of “outsiders” like you. You already said you didn’t know if you were speeding or not, so I’d think the photographic evidence they sent you might make you think that maybe you were breaking the law.

[Leaffan]

The equivalent here would be driving 70 kph in a 40 kph zone. I drive through a 40 kph zone (in front of a school) on my way to work every morning. I ALWAYS make sure I’m in the 40 to 45 kph range. There’s a cop sitting there about once a month and lots of people get ticketed.

Look, I’m not a holier-than-thou prick, I’m just saying that driving over the speed limit is against the law, and if you do it, expect to get ticketed once in a while. I always make sure I read the speed limit signs. I usually drive about 10 - 15% over the speed limit. I’ll never get ticketed for that here. It’s not worth saving the extra few minutes on every drive to always worry about getting ticketed.

[lobotomyboy63]

@DudleyGarrett

That’s a good question and I’m not sure. The road was fairly wide and “felt” like it could handle faster traffic (sparse buildings set back) and I remember going in to the town and leaving, I was in a line of cars (in the more zoomed-out picture, you can see a car in front of me and the hood of a car behind me).

There’s a street near here that is like this. You’d swear the limit must be 40 mph because on one side, there’s a long wall for a gated community and the other is a bunch of houses. It’s a wide boulevard with a grassy median but it’s 30 mph and the cops get a lot of people there. I imagine even some locals get ticketed there…once.

[DudleyGarrett]

@WVmom

Hey, all I’m saying is that town might have some reason to want to slow down traffic other than just to wring money out of “outsiders” like you. You already said you didn’t know if you were speeding or not, so I’d think the photographic evidence they sent you might make you think that maybe you were breaking the law.

What if I send them a picture of my speedometer going 25 MPH and mail it back to them and say, “Hey I just happened to take this picture when I was going through your town at this precise moment.”?

It is photographic “evidence,” after all.

[Madd_Maxx]

Slight hijack. In this situation, what if you say that Person X was actually the person driving the car at that time, and because of the delay in you receiving the ticket, Person X has since died. Since Person X isn’t alive to say whether or not they were driving the car, do you have to prove you weren’t driving the car (a time card etc) or are you just off the hook?

[DudleyGarrett]

@lobotomyboy63

There’s a street near here that is like this. You’d swear the limit must be 40 mph because on one side, there’s a long wall for a gated community and the other is a bunch of houses. It’s a wide boulevard with a grassy median but it’s 30 mph and the cops get a lot of people there. I imagine even some locals get ticketed there…once.

The sad part is that visitors get that whole unwelcome feeling and will just avoid that town altogether.

Off the Home Depot, I go. Sorry, little townie, this is why you’re losing the battle.

[DudleyGarrett]

@Madd Maxx

Slight hijack. In this situation, what if you say that Person X was actually the person driving the car at that time, and because of the delay in you receiving the ticket, Person X has since died. Since Person X isn’t alive to say whether or not they were driving the car, do you have to prove you weren’t driving the car (a time card etc) or are you just off the hook?

“You have five (5) business days forward an official record (death certificate) of the deceased.”

[Wargamer]

@DudleyGarrett

What if I send them a picture of my speedometer going 25 MPH and mail it back to them and say, “Hey I just happened to take this picture when I was going through your town at this precise moment.”?

It is photographic “evidence,” after all.

Good luck selling THAT story to a judge.

[DudleyGarrett]

@Wargamer

Good luck selling THAT story to a judge.

The intent would be to mock the handy-dandy little robot trap they have going.

[Sleeps_With_Butterflies]

@DudleyGarrett

It wasn’t near the store. Do you have anything to add but snark?

Do you have anything to add besides excuses? Do you realize you’re being snotty to anyone who disagrees with you and/or tells you to suck it up and pay? Over $40??!?

You were driving in a place unfamiliar to you. 25 mph can be a hard speed to maintain. You say you were driving and rubbernecking. The machine captures anything over a certain speed limit. Pictures of your vehicle were taken.

The logical next step is: you exceeded the speed limit. Is there a chance the machine was wrong? Sure. There is also a chance of nuclear war before dinnertime tonight. Likely? No.

So you can get defensive, drag out the tired insults in reading comprehension, get your back up to anyone who disagrees, cling to any comment to give you hope, and generally try to find any and every way to get out of paying the $40 but it all just comes off as the excuses of someone who was caught and doesn’t like that.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@DudleyGarrett

What if I send them a picture of my speedometer going 25 MPH and mail it back to them and say, “Hey I just happened to take this picture when I was going through your town at this precise moment.”?

It is photographic “evidence,” after all.

A similar apocryphal story circulating on the internet suggests that they’ll mail you a photo of some handcuffs.

My condolences… a speedtrap sucks no matter whether it’s a radar camera or Sheriff Coltrane hiding behind a bush.

I never minded these in Japan because they were marked with obnoxious blaze-yellow signs for miles before you happened upon them. You’d have to be drunk or asleep to miss one, and they accomplished the purpose of slowing down traffic. But these sneaky ones that you can’t even see, they’re not trying to slow anyone down, they’re just trying to generate revenue from tourists. Goes against the spirit of law enforcement IMO.

[MacTech]

It’s too bad that Virginia outlaws radar detectors, if you had one, it would have likely detected the radar signals from the speed camera long before you were in visual range of the camera (do speed cameras use Constant-On or Pulsed/Instant-On radar?), and alerted you, which would have given you time to check and adjust your speed…

My Valentine One detects those “Your Speed Is” X-Band/K-Band speedboards at least a mile away, sometimes two miles, even over hilly terrain

[Gfactor]

III. LEGAL BACKGROUND OF TRAFFIC CAMERAS

A. Arguments against Cameras and Litigation Summary

Red-light camera critics have asserted a variety of constitutional problems with automated enforcement programs. n68 Some critics contend that the cameras violate equal protection because punishments differ between automated enforcement [*615] violations and violations enforced by “on-the-spot” police officers. n69 Others assert that municipal programs that boot vehicles when the owners fail to pay automated enforcement tickets constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment. n70 Critics who consider the violations an illegal search and seizure implicate the Fourth Amendment. n71 Still others contend that automated enforcement programs are an unjustified invasion of privacy. n72 However, the problems with this argument have been examined n73 and one judge explained “[a]lthough cameras operated by the Government are a concern regarding privacy issues, those concerns are outweighed by the legitimate concerns of safety on our public streets.” n74

Other arguments against cameras raise due process concerns by examining the hearing process. Since the vehicle’s owner is presumed guilty, challenging the ticket is extremely difficult. n75 In Chicago, ninety percent of challenges fail because the city will accept only a handful of defenses. n76 In explaining the difference between a camera violation and a ticket by a police officer, a commentator explained that “[a] camera-monitored violation may be proved by a mere preponderance of the evidence, but the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a [police officer cited] infraction was committed.” n77 The evidence demonstrates that red-light tickets are extremely difficult to challenge and therefore critics contend that they violate due process because they do not ensure a fair and impartial hearing. n78 Another argument against the use of red-light cameras is that the statutes authorizing them place the burden of proof on the defendant. n79 For example, Cleveland’s ordinance states that [*616] “[t]he contents of the ticket shall constitute prima facie evidence of the facts it contains.” n80 Plaintiffs around the country have alleged that red-light camera programs are unconstitutional because vehicle owners are ticketed whether or not it can be proved that they are driving. n81

In recent years there has been a wide expansion of traffic camera litigation. n82 Of the existing cases, very few have examined the constitutionality of cameras as this Note does. For example, one case challenged the District of Columbia statute on the grounds that the “provision on its face presumes that the owner of a vehicle was its driver at the time of the infraction.” n83 The plaintiff alleged that he did not know who was driving his car at the time of the violation, and that because the driver could not be identified, the District of Columbia “impermissibly shifted the burden of proving the violation to him.” n84 However, the court upheld the statute and granted the District’s motion for summary judgment. n85

The federal courts have skirted the question for the most part and avoided deciding the constitutionality of the cameras. n86 In Dajani v. Maryland, the district court dismissed the case for lack of federal jurisdiction, and did not reach the merits of the plaintiff’s constitutional claims. n87 An Oregon appellate court also dismissed a case in which the plaintiff alleged a violation of his constitutional right to due process. n88 In affirming the dismissal, the Ninth Circuit stated that “the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to declare the defendant’s speeding conviction unconstitutional, grant him a new hearing, or compel the State of Oregon to refund his fine.” n89 However, a North Carolina District Court did reach some of the constitutional issues of red-light cameras but held that the appellant lacked standing to challenge the statute. n90 In addition, a lawsuit is currently pending in an Ohio federal court alleging “constitutional violations with respect to the burden of proof, [*617] the presentation of evidence, . . . and the Excessive Fine Clause of the Eighth Amendment.” n91

Litigants challenging red-light cameras have had more success in state courts. Recently, a Minnesota appellate court held that the state’s photo-enforcement ordinance was “in conflict” with the Minnesota Highway Traffic Regulation Act. n92 While emphasizing that its decision “does not determine the general validity or invalidity of photo-enforcement of traffic violations,” n93 the court interestingly noted a trend in legal challenges to red-light cameras. n94 It stated that “the automated-traffic-enforcement systems that have been upheld against legal challenges by vehicle owners are cases in which the state, rather than a local unit of government, enacted the vehicle-owner-liability legislation.” n95 The question was appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which affirmed the appellate court on April 5, 2007. n96 Other courts have dismissed convictions by determining that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. n97 The Oregon Supreme Court dismissed a red-light camera conviction because there was no witness available to identify the driver of the car and no evidence that the defendant owned the car. n98 In addition, an Oregon appellate court recently held that the state’s speedy trial statute applied to camera citations, because the state law mandated that traffic violations were crimes and thus subject to the rules of criminal procedure. n99 Since courts are reluctant to discuss the federal constitutionality of cameras, a challenge to Cleveland’s system will likely have to rely on state law as the preceding successful challenges have.

Kevin Shannon, NOTE: SPEEDING TOWARDS DISASTER: HOW CLEVELAND’S TRAFFIC CAMERAS VIOLATE THE OHIO CONSTITUTION, 55 Clev. St. L. Rev. 607 (2007)

This suggests a possible defense:

The report also notes a fatal flaw in the Virginia’s camera law – motorists can ignore any ticket received in the mail. Only tickets that are personally served matter (the same thing happened in Arizona).

Virginia DOT Study Shows Cameras Increase Injury Accidents

Here is the report they are talking about: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-vdot.pdf

I haven’t reviewed the claims made in the report; nor have I checked to see if the law has been amended, but it’s a start.

ETA: The report deals with red light cameras, and the “fatal flaw” is tied to that particular statute. I don’t know if any of that stuff applies to photo radar, or even if it still applies to red light cameras.

[Belrix]

@DudleyGarrett

The intent would be to mock the handy-dandy little robot trap they have going.

This seems to imply your defense is that it’s a trap and an earlier post suggests you question the accuracy of the machine.

Those may be valid if the machine was faulty, (call the calibration & maintenance records into court) or if the street was not marked as 25 mph (go back and look or have a friend do it).

Otherwise, your arguments are just grousing over getting caught. If it’s no points on your license, then I’d just pay up the $40, it’d be cheaper than court costs.

You’re probably lucky they don’t toss a stiffer charge at you - looking at it another way, you were 60% over the speed limit (assuming accurate measurement). That’s the same ratio as doing nearly 100 in a 60mph.

This may affect your insurance costs, too, since it’s a moving violation. My wife’s company (she works for an insurer) pulls driving history every six months or so (there’s a centralized database service for this now, of course).