Short version is my car may have been nailed by a speed trap camera in Maryland. I wasn't driving it. I was 350 miles away and can likely prove it. Now what? If the ticket is supposed to go to the driver, how can they prove who it was if the owner can prove it wasn't them? The whole theory behind the use of these devices to prosecute anyone seems awfully shaky, to me. 
Shaky enough that South Carolina legislated them out of existence. 
I am unsure how it works in MD.. I wonder if they will make you implicate the driver?
Question is... do those tickets carry points and insurance issues?
safezones.maryland.gov wrote: "A: If you were not driving your car at the time of the violation, you must provide a sworn statement explaining the circumstances. Your statement must swear or affirm that you were not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation. In addition, your statement must include corroborating evidence that you were not driving the vehicle at the time of the violation. Examples of providing corroborating evidence include: Providing the name, address and driver’s license number, if possible, of the person who was driving the vehicle at the time of the violation. Providing a copy of a police report showing that the vehicle or license plates were stolen (Note: Police reports must have been filed in a timely manner or they will not be considered as evidence.) Your statement must include the citation number and be received no later than thirty (30) days after the mail date of the citation. Your statement must be mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested to: Maryland SafeZones P.O. Box 17648 Baltimore, MD 21297 The SafeZones program will forward your statement and corroborating evidence to the appropriate District Court for adjudication and will inform you by mail of the decision of the Court. In transfer of liability cases, after receiving evidence from the District Court as to who was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation, the police department that issued the original citation may issue a citation to the person named as the driver of the vehicle. This citation will be mailed within two weeks of the police department receiving evidence from the District Court."
Well, I think I found my answer. So, basically I'm supposed to rat-out the person who WAS driving.
mad_machine wrote: I am unsure how it works in MD.. I wonder if they will make you implicate the driver? Question is... do those tickets carry points and insurance issues?
Apparently not:
"A: Violators must pay a $40 fine. Automated speed enforcement violations are considered civil violations; therefore, no license points are assessed. "
That does make me feel better and I'll probably just pay it...which is what I'm sure they are hoping for.
in ohio they make you give the name, address, and license number of whoever was driving if it wasn't you so they can mail them the ticket. i was going to blame my helper when i got one ($100) but they would have just nailed him so either way i'd have paid.
Well, in this case it's my wife, so I'd be paying anyway, too. But, what if I didn't know who was driving it? What if my wife said she hadn't taken it anywhere at that time? If that picture they took doesn't include an identifiable image of the driver and I have proof I wasn't there. How are they going to prove anything? Then what? Again, the whole concept seems very flawed.
Was she speeding?
carzan wrote: Well, in this case it's my wife, so I'd be paying anyway, too. But, what if I didn't know who was driving it? What if my wife said she hadn't taken it anywhere at that time? If that picture they took doesn't include an identifiable image of the driver and I have proof I wasn't there. How are they going to prove anything? Then what? Again, the whole concept seems very flawed.
you have to have a police report claiming it stolen prior to the ticket pretty much. that's the only viable reason they accept for you not knowing who was driving.
@ ECM- I don't know if she was speeding. I'm not sure she does either.
@patgizz- Yeah, that's the way it reads. That don't make it right. Even though an owner can prove they weren't driving, they're still responsible unless they can come up with who was? If my wife had let someone borrow the car, it would be her word against theirs. We would have no proof and the camera provides no proof. That may seem far-fetched, but does that make it ok?
Shaky
Maryland will get their money no mater what. I'd invest in a radar detector and that spray can tag obscuring clear coat stuff.
Not to get to political but O'Malley is looking for billions in new taxes because they overspent after promising the last set of new taxes would fix things. The dems in Nap town are even saying no to new taxes so I expect that the speed camera and red light cash cows will become more prevalent.
great.. as if 95 in MD was not already the East Coast's biggest speed trap
Let me guess...she was exactly 12 mph over the speed limit.
I guess i would wait and see if a ticket even shows up. It sounds like at this point, nothing has actually happened.
EastCoastMojo wrote: I guess i would wait and see if a ticket even shows up. It sounds like at this point, nothing has actually happened.
Yup, that's what I'm gonna do. 
They sometimes take a while to show up. I think it took my brother's 3 weeks from the date of the incident.
Pay it. Its not worth your time or the extra money spent trying to do anything with it. Zero points.
In case anyone is reading this and interested, if it was one of the ones on I-95, they are at ~exit 32 (right near the new ICC), and ~ 55 (just north of where 695 joins back in on the N side of Baltimore).
The pattern is there's a "Speed monitored electronically" sign, one of those digital "your speed is" signs, then a white jeep parked on the side of the road inside a jersey barrier.
There's also one on 895, but I am not sure which way it is targeting.
The government cannot compel you to testify against anyone. Tell them it is up to the state to prove who was driving if it wasn't you and unless you are subpoenaed and under oath you are under no obligation to provide any evidence against who was/wasn't driving. Make the state work for their money. Also a photograph might be hearsay evidence and inadmissible in court, how are you able to verify that the camera was working correctly when it snapped the photo? I wouldn't pay anything.
On the way to work this morning at the New York / Bladensburg road intersection just inside DC the camera flashed 4 times but out of two of those we didn't see any one doing anything wrong.
I got hit with one once.. sorta. Car in the outer lane flew by me as we passed a radar camera. I saw the flash and it was aimed directly at the front of my car... but never received a notice, so I assume they could not tell who was speeding
In Houston people figured out that the red light cameras really didn't have any teeth, even though they said they could keep you from renewing your registration, Harris county doesn't participate in blocking registrations for those things, so all they could really do is write it off on your credit somehow. i will say they really do make it difficult to fight, since it really takes a couple days worth of free time to completely fight one.
really glad we finally got rid of those damn things, even if the mayor screwed the pooch and cost the city a ton of money doing it.
http://www.bluffcitypd.com./
This site has many links regarding traffic cameras.
carzan wrote: Well, I think I found my answer. So, basically I'm supposed to rat-out the person who WAS driving.
Yes, but you don't have to. Presentation of defined "proof" that you were not operating the vehicle is sufficient to vacate the fine and absolve you.
Certainly they would like you to do their work for them, and identify who was driving the car for them. But, you don't have to, and it has no bearing (technically) on showing it was not you.
mad_machine wrote: I got hit with one once.. sorta. Car in the outer lane flew by me as we passed a radar camera. I saw the flash and it was aimed directly at the front of my car... but never received a notice, so I assume they could not tell who was speeding
They send you a still, but they have a video. They know.
As for anyone suggesting the fight I'm court; yes, you can win, but it will likely cost you more in court than it would just to pay it. Like I said, zero point tickets.
You'll need to log in to post.
