Ohio judge rules speed cameras a 'scam'

General Discussion
21

I don’t see how a car can be convicted of committing a traffic infraction. Only a person can be responsible for that. And only a person can get the ticket, not the car. It seems to me for a conviction to be valid, there must be a photo of who is driving the vehicle, and they must be clearly identifiable in the photo.

On question: If the judge says “Ok, so you claim you were not driving the car. Then who was?”

Would you be required to answer who it was, if you actually knew? What if it was your spouse? Isn’t there a court policy that you are not required to testify against your spouse? And if you said “I don’t know”, that seems like it makes you an irresponsible car owner sinc eyou don’t know who is driving your car. But is that enough of an offense – if you say ‘I don’t know’ – to give you the ticket?" I expect there isn’t a clear answer to all of this. Legal-wise I mean. Here in Calif I don’t think you’d be required to answer even if you knew who was driving your car at the time the photo was taken. But other states are probably different.

22

This whole thing is upsetting because people so easily give up their rights and freedoms for what they believe and are told is “safety”. You have the right to face your accuser, man to man/woman, eyeball to eyeball, and being proven guilty. How do you do that with a camera or a faceless corporation? Yes I have been ticketed for speeding but by a human and have absolutely no problem with that. But cameras, no way . . .

23

George:
the 5th amendment applies in that scenario

24

Name of that Stock Company. I need to diversify my holdings and Dow/SP500 is getting too rich for me.

25

Cameras are unfair to those of us who think that yellow means " hurry up."

26

i.e. 99% of the drivers

Though, hasn’t it been shown that where the cameras are, they reduced the time the light is yellow? Mostly to increase tickets and revenue