user

Got a parking ticket in Maryland the fee was 40-50$ don't remember exactly

trooper

If you folks think those fines are high then be very careful driving Down Under!

In NSW 20kph (12.4 mph) over = AUD$455

30kph (18.6 mph) over = AUD$872

45kph (28mph) over......wait for it...... AUD$2350....

I do as Dave Noble suggests...drive within the limits.........its not that hard in these days of cruise control....

jackal

What a helpful post.

Extreme enforcement of speed limits is fine when speed limits are set to reasonable levels based on engineering standards and following best-practice guidelines developed by traffic engineers (i.e. the 85th-percentile rule, etc.). It's much more aggravating in areas where speed limits are set artificially low for political reasons (complaints by NIMBYs, lobbying by parties who stand to benefit from lower limits--yes, ATS and other camera-operating entities spend money to push for lower limits because they make money on infractions, etc.), which is much of the U.S.

I've never actually seen one, but MD does post warnings about speed cameras being used in construction areas on highways. I generally keep the cruise control set at 9mph over, which I believe is below the speed-camera threshold used in MD (and below which very few cops would bother to pull you over, much less issue a citation), but sometimes when the average flow of traffic is moving 70-75mph even through a 55mph construction zone, it's hard to stay that slow, and yet I've never gotten a citation even when a warning sign has been posted.

justhere

That's not really the point. I agree with what you're saying in the sense that rules apply to everyone and rules are rules.

My point was that not all speed limits are set with safety as the ultimate goal. Additionally, unlike just about every other misdemeanor and felony in the US, if you get a ticket you have to prove your innocence rather than the city or state proving your guilt. "You got the ticket, you must be guilty." At least with an officer stopping you, you have an opportunity to plead your case. Not so with the photo radar, thus the more "honest" way of doing it. In other words, at least they are working for the money.

Again, I agree, if you are speeding and you are caught, then you owe the money but at least give people a chance to plead their case to the officer that is determining your guilt or innocence.

Dave Noble

If you dispute that you were speeding , then you can always take it to court. How do you plead a case in court any more against an automatic camera than a device used by as police officer?

Any place I know of has some leeway on the camera trigger such that someone just 1 or 2 mph over the limit will not get a ticket - normally has to be a few over before triggered

It doesn't matter what reasons are in place for the posted speed limits though; whatever the limit is set to is what is the basis for enforcement regardless of whether enforced by automatic cameras or by humans

justhere

Yeah, good luck with that. For the average person the fact they got the ticket dooms them. I believe in most states the ticket is prima facie evidence that you're guilty. At least with an officer in court you have the opportunity to trip them up on their testimony. A little harder to do that with photo radar. And again that's not really my point. Many speed traps are simply about revenue. Make the jurisdiction work for it the "honest" way by having an officer out there.
Right on both counts but again not my point. I said rules are rules.

cblaisd

A rather telling way of putting it.

If you were speeding, then why would you want to "trip them up"? In fact, why would you be contesting it at all, except on the hopes "tripping them up" no matter what the facts?

If you weren't speeding and believe the citation in error, you'd want all parties to give honest testimony, no?

No need for anyone to be seeking to "trip up" another's testimony.

platbrownguy

No, you can't, which is the problem. Hertz or its agent will automatically pay the fine, thus mooting your challenge and preventing you from contesting the citation (see quoted language from dmv.dc.gov above, and I've had the same be true in my experience). I have successfully challenged bogus parking tickets (i.e., citation for failure to pay, when I had paid, or for parking in a no-parking zone, when it was not a no-parking zone).

Now, with parking citations, you are able to challenge them right away, and my experience has been that the challenge will go through as long as it is processed/docketed before Hertz pays. But even so, on some occasions, my challenges have been rejected because the rental-car agency paid first, and I've been stuck paying for bogus tickets (very common in Washington DC) plus admin fees. It's a cost of living, so I don't worry about it, but it isn't conventionally "fair" (and US tax laws strictly prohibit bundling tickets in with the rental car costs as deductible business expenses, so the tickets can add up quickly in post-tax dollars).

As for speeding (camera) fines, forget it. You don't receive notice because you're not the owner of the vehicle. You're only notified after the fine has been both issued AND paid by the rental agency. That's of course not the case in old-fashioned law enforcement where the ticket is handed to you by an officer.

From the issuing authority's perspective, they don't care; you're free to contract away your due process rights by authorizing an agent (Hertz, etc.) to handle your tickets for you. Unfortunately there's no apparent way to rent a car these days without contracting those rights away.

justhere

Again, not the point. But to answer your question, if you got a ticket you are presumed guilty. Tripping them up doesn't mean dishonest. It just means finding something that creates doubt. And by your logic why are there any not guilty verdicts in any court case? Why would any guilty party ever need a lawyer? If they're guilty why not go straight to jail? Interesting way of looking at things.

Dave Noble

If you got a ticket, then it is down to the camera - if you genuinely believe you are not speeding then you can try contesting it

What I am sensing is not a dispute on whether you broke the law but whether you can weasel out of it when caught

Reason for pleading guilty when caught may well be due to lower sentencing where the crime is admitted - why plead not guilty if the evidence is strong enough that claiming innocence will just delay a guilty verdict and increase sentence

trooper

Why do you set it at "9mph over"? Do you have evidence that every road you drive on has a speed limit set "unreasonably low" by that amount?

I suspect not...so ...why? Because you feel you won't get ticketed? Interesting approach to the law.....do it as long as you don't think you'll get caught? Sorry..but that's what it sounds like..... The funny thing is I feel sure that you do NOT apply that philosophy to OTHER laws.......

I must be odd... ive been driving for 37 years... I spend much of my working week on the road.... and Ive had TWO traffic tickets. One when I was 18...(enough said!) and one last year.....which was waived due to my driving record. I don't understand why people feel the need to speed everywhere... go through DEAD red lights etc etc......and lets face it.... jack the limits by 10mph... and many of the same people will STILL speed.....and justify it the same way.

You know its true....

justhere

A little edit to your post. And that's the problem when an officer doesn't issue the ticket. What happened to the legal point of the right to face your accuser?

Not weasel out but present a defense. Speed limits are normally set at around the 80th percentile and many jurisdictions don't write tickets as "speeding" but rather along the lines of "Speed greater than reasonable and prudent". Let's face it, not all drivers are equal. Someone going 10 over can be less of a danger than someone going 5 under. But who normally gets the ticket, the first one.

Why plead not guilty? Don't know, ask all the people who do plead not guilty. I'm sure they have some good reasons.

Also, why do you think they set speed cameras above the limit in the first place? And why, normally, do people not get pulled over when going just a few over the limit? It's really not as black and white as some posters are trying to make it.

And again, my point was never about speeding. It was about having an officer issue the ticket versus a camera. Tickets are just as much about revenue as anything else so at least earn the money by having officers issue the ticket.

cestmoi123

Having officers issue the ticket is more costly (raising the cost of enforcing the law, and hence reduces the effectiveness of enforcement) and creates the opportunity for discriminatory policing (i.e. giving warnings to people the officers "like").

Some "wiggle room" for speed cams is appropriate, given variance in speedometers, etc.

Personally, I'd prefer a system with higher limits, but strict enforcement (i.e. a 100mph limit on most US Interstates outside of dense urban areas, but a $500 fine for going more than 110mph, a one year suspension for going 120mph, and a lifetime ban for a second offense over 120mph, as an example).

Dave Noble

You can work on an argument that the recording device was faulty

What defence?

Most places I know state the offence as travelling greater than xxx and less than yyy

All drivers are equal as far as what the legal speed is.


It is black and white. There is a speed limit posted. If exceeding that limit, then you are committing the offence. If there are cameras , then

The officers can be utilised on more useful tasks. Also, the cameras can capture a lot higher percentage of speeding drivers than one officer can. How about simply complying with the law, then it matters not whether tickets are issued by camera or by an officer

jackal

Because many friends who work in law enforcement and the legal profession, as well as my personal experiences driving several hundred thousand miles in the past ten years, have confirmed to me that the vast majority of police will not even bother people who are only speeding in the single digits, and even in the rare case that an officer decides to pull someone over for speeding that low of an amount, he or she will almost certainly only give a warning, as such stops are mostly a pretense to look for other suspicious activity.

I will be more than happy to comply with the speed limit when they are set according to the criteria advocated by the National Motorists Association.

Unfortunately, the vast majority are not, and speed limits are instead typically set in a political fashion. A great treatment of this topic is here:
You are welcome to your opinion, but I am also welcome to mine.