Todayvith facial recognition technology, will the Photo Enforcement Unit be able to prove who was driving?
Told myvife that we should register the vehicle she drives in my name and myehicle in her name .
Then mail the driver license photo revealing thathe registered owner is not the one pictured in the violation photo.
deleted 
Welcome back!
The car with the license plate gets the ticket, not the driver necessarily. If itâs registered to you, then you pay the ticket. Iâve had this happen when my daughter got a ticket. The car is registered in my name and she is the regular driver. Where I live, no points are assessed, just a fine. Thatâs because they canât determine who the driver was.
Nope, thatâs why they were thrown out in Minnesota and not allowed anymore.
Interestingly @Whitey and I pretty much agreed on this issue 6 years ago. I think all the amendments are important though and these days the 1st seems to be in danger.
In Denver, if the registered owner claims not to be the driver, "you must include a clear, legible copy of your driverâs license and sign the affidavit below in the NOTICE OF VIOLATION."
The Photo Enforcement Unit compares the images. If no match, the citation is âcancelledâ.
âYou may identify the driver in the spaces below; however, this is optional.â
This allows the known driver to not be revealed!
Yeah Iâve read it and I wasnât implying that Car Talk could not censor what is written here. Interesting that most censorship has been by other members which might mean something. While not car related, California recently changed the terminology that is to be used with certain folks violating the law. Then more recently, NYC has also dictated what terminology may be used and indicated substantial fines for violators. This is just a couple recent instances of âgovernmentâ dictating speech.
At any rate, doesnât matter if we agree or not. One personâs hate speech may be anotherâs simple statement of fact or observation. If I remember correctly without making a big deal out of it again, what you considered spewing hate was simply a statement that the UK arrested someone for using the wrong name. Of course they are not subject to our constitution, Hang loose as they say and blue skies.
NH has not allowed Red-Light cameraâs - although we could really use them.
But NY has them. And from what I understand from relatives in NYâŠthe ticket goes to the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle needs to show they werenât driving the vehicle (i.e. give up the name of the person who is). If not then the owner pays the ticket. Some people were trying to get out of tickets this way. The camera would clearly show a small petite woman driving the car, but the car belonged to a 300lb man. If the man refused to say who the driver wasâŠthen he had to pay the ticket and accrue the points on his license.
Is that whathe citation indicates? Or what people claim?
Here, if the registered owner is nothe driver and does not wanto pay the fine (no Points can be assessed), the citation instructs: "you must include a clear, legible copy of your driverâs license and sign the affidavit below in the NOTICE OF VIOLATION."
The Photo Enforcement Unit compares the images. If no match, the citation is âcancelledâ.
âYou may identify the driver in the spaces below; however, this is optional.â
This allows the known driver to not be revealed!
You have clearly not driven in Minnesota. 
My state will out-stupid Russian drivers any day of the week.
My problem with red light cameras is that theyâre dumb.
If a cop sees me stop at a red light with my bumper accidentally 2 inches over the stop line, he wonât do anything because Iâm not doing anything wrong. The red light camera will say I ran the light.
I have the same problem with speed cameras. Radar is not always accurate. A speed camera in Cardiff ticketed a scooter rider for doing 46 in a 30. He was actually going 18. The car next to him was going 46, but the camera dinged the wrong vehicle. Took him months of court time to get out from under being falsely accused.
Of course, the main problem with all of these scams is that they are exactly that - scams. Private companies with a financial motivation to get you a citation are being allowed to facilitate issuing citations.
There should be a hard wall between the justice system and a profit motive. It always leads to abuses. The red light camera company gets the timing of the yellow light reduced so that more people will run the red. The private prison works to increase recidivism and extend sentences so that they make more money by having more prisoners. The police station works to âfind suspicious moneyâ and confiscate it so that they can take vacations and buy party equipment with the money they stole through âcivil asset forfeiture.â
All the other valid arguments against traffic cameras aside, the profit motive alone should be enough to see them outlawed.
Here in Wash. DC âThe vehicle owner is responsible for all automated enforcement tickets issued to the vehicle, regardless of who was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation.â
https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/automated-red-light-enforcement-faqs
In DC they include two photographs with the mailed citation.
The second photo taken half a second or so after the first.
For a speed photos a ruler is painted on the pavement to show how far the vehicle moved in the given time, thus a visual measure of speed.
For red light tickets the first photo shows the vehicle in the crosswalk, the second shows the vehicle in the middle of the intersection.
Maybe where you liveâŠbut I specifically said NYâŠ
If you slide on ice or snowy beyond the stop line, you were going too fast for the road conditions. Not saying I never do that though.
You mean like 2 mph with ABS pumping away like crazy? Welcome to Minnesota where the driver is always wrong.
There is a limit to this. The constitution guarantees freedom from unreasonable searches an seizures which something like asking for documents would be a violation. A camera at an intersection is NOT the same thing. If you think it is, then what next, cops wonât be allowed to look at you when you are out in public.
If you rob a bank, the cops wonât be able to observe you, stop you or arrest you. How about rape or murder. If the cops investigate and ask you questions, are they violating your rights?
Cameras are not violating your right to privacy.
I donât remember that post but must be back there 6 years ago or so. I support LEOs and have never been arrested and never in trouble outside of traffic issues. BUT, after the last few years, it should be evident to everyone, that if questioned, regardless of your innocence, it is spectacularly stupid to not have a lawyer with you. If they can bankrupt and charge innocent American heros, what would they do to a normal stiff in an effort to close cases?
OOPS, I got caught by one of those regurgitated posts. Sorry bout that.
No, but cameras canât talk, so they do violate my 6th amendment right to question my accuser in court.
Itâs physical evidence, not testimony. You are allowed to inspect the physical evidence and question those who are testifying against you. Follow your logic and no physical evidence would be allowed in court.
