Wonder how this would work for rental vehicles.

Sometimes the video evidence is crystal clear: Link (new window)

Well, that way, they will BOTH be safer drivers. It had nothing to do with the money...really...it didn't.

Chinchillazilla: Traffic camera thread!



Ohhh yeah, that's hot baby. Just look at those sharp knees.

StoPPeRmobile: Wonder how this would work for rental vehicles.

If you can't pin it on one specific person, the only logical solution is that everyone is guilty. Your ticket will be arriving in the mail soon.

In the UK they deal with this loophole quite nicely. They will only convict a person of speeding if they were actually driving the car at the time of the offence. This is quite a just approach that respects the rights of suspects.

Totally unrelated to this, there is a completely separate offence of the owner of a car failing to disclose who was driving their car at a particular time. The penalty is ... pretty much the same penalty as the penalty for speeding. Simple!

I'm here for the picture of the Chinese guy with his hand on his passengers boobies.

Here we go: Link (new window)

They quite obviously cannot both have been driving the car, so the judgement is bunk on its face. The judge who issued the ruling just wasted taxpayer money... there is no way he expected that ruling to weather an appeal.

Flip a coin. Either it was Schödinger's cat or The Mini-Rapture™. Now get off my tennis court lawn.

Well, one of 'em did it. flip a coin folks. I understand trying to get out of a ticket, but one of ya was driving. just because the camera doesn't show a face doesn't mean it didn't happen.

wmoonfox: They quite obviously cannot both have been driving the car, so the judgement is bunk on its face. The judge who issued the ruling just wasted taxpayer money... there is no way he expected that ruling to weather an appeal.

This. No way this survives an appeal.

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: wmoonfox: They quite obviously cannot both have been driving the car, so the judgement is bunk on its face. The judge who issued the ruling just wasted taxpayer money... there is no way he expected that ruling to weather an appeal.

This. No way this survives an appeal.

The decision wasn't supposed to...the whole thing is a set up to find the ordinance too vague to be constitutional by an appellate court, which will result in the cameras being shut down. That's why it was a pro tem judge -- there's no impact to his career.

Reasonable doubt X 2 = Guilty!

BurnShrike: Chinchillazilla: Traffic camera thread!

[www.spencerdailyreporter.com image 360x270]

Ohhh yeah, that's hot baby. Just look at those sharp knees.

you do know that is not a traffic camera, right?

asciibaron: BurnShrike: Chinchillazilla: Traffic camera thread!

[www.spencerdailyreporter.com image 360x270]

Ohhh yeah, that's hot baby. Just look at those sharp knees.

you do know that is not a traffic camera, right?

Ugh, now I just feel dirty. It's like looking at a picture of a hot woman only to find out it's a tranny.

The larger issue here is that according to Washington state traffic code, a school zone is 20 MPH day or night, 365 days a year. Those traffic signs that flash "school zone - 20 MPH when flashing" are intentionally misleading because it is also 20 MPH when they are not flashing.

I used to live near a small town that had an elementary school along a state route, and therefore, a 20 MPH school zone. The local PD would occasionally camp in that school zone late at night and bust people for doing 35 MPH. They must have made a fortune off of it.

IMHO, the school zone laws in Washington are overly draconian. Limit school zone hours to 90 minutes before classes start and after classes end; during classes, raise the limit back to normal or some intermediate limit. For elementary schools, use a fixed 25 MPH limit. For middle and high schools, knock 10 MPH off of the regular speed limit (25 min, 45 max).

The guy or his wife was going 31 in a 20. If they won't admit who was driving, fark 'em, fine 'em both.

Magorn: wmoonfox: They quite obviously cannot both have been driving the car, so the judgement is bunk on its face. The judge who issued the ruling just wasted taxpayer money... there is no way he expected that ruling to weather an appeal.

People have often been convicted, at separate trials for the murder of a single individual. And yes, Courts have upheld these sorts of verdicts that are a physical, but not legal, impossibility.

Felony convictions tend to be a little more far-reaching. While multiple people could be responsible for a murder, and therefore found guilty of the charge, there is little doubt that only one of the convicted in this case was responsible for the speeding violation.

The judge was simply being a smart-ass, and he wasted public money in the process. The court is not a playground, nor is it your personal fiefdom; this judge should be removed from the bench.

Teen Wolf Blitzer: The guy or his wife was going 31 in a 20. If they won't admit who was driving, fark 'em, fine 'em both.

Somebody sets a fire in a movie theater while you're there. Nobody will admit to it. Send all patrons to jail.

This is the logic you're working under, and this is why this will be overturned. No chance in hell of being upheld.

FTA "There is simply no statutory authority to make the registered owner of a vehicle responsible for an infraction," Warme wrote. according to the retired judge that the car is jointly registered to.

If the ticket is thrown out on those grounds, would the same apply to parking tickets?

AbsentFriends: Teen Wolf Blitzer: The guy or his wife was going 31 in a 20. If they won't admit who was driving, fark 'em, fine 'em both.

Yeah, fark the 5th amendment!

Waterboard them until one confesses.

Why bother getting a confession? Just shoot both of these obvious criminals. Process? Law? Common sense? Fark that!

Stupid democracy, always getting in the way...

LemmySlender: FTA "There is simply no statutory authority to make the registered owner of a vehicle responsible for an infraction," Warme wrote. according to the retired judge that the car is jointly registered to.

If the ticket is thrown out on those grounds, would the same apply to parking tickets?

As wonderful as that would be, parking tickets are not moving violations and do not accrue to the driver, but to the car.

Apparently, even if you loan your car to someone, you are responsible if they park illegally because you should have known better than to loan your car to that person. (I get the concept of parking tickets in big cities with limited parking, but not in suburban sprawl...)

Dinjiin: The larger issue here is that according to Washington state traffic code, a school zone is 20 MPH day or night, 365 days a year. Those traffic signs that flash "school zone - 20 MPH when flashing" are intentionally misleading because it is also 20 MPH when they are not flashing.

I used to live near a small town that had an elementary school along a state route, and therefore, a 20 MPH school zone. The local PD would occasionally camp in that school zone late at night and bust people for doing 35 MPH. They must have made a fortune off of it.

IMHO, the school zone laws in Washington are overly draconian. Limit school zone hours to 90 minutes before classes start and after classes end; during classes, raise the limit back to normal or some intermediate limit. For elementary schools, use a fixed 25 MPH limit. For middle and high schools, knock 10 MPH off of the regular speed limit (25 min, 45 max).

I'm unclear why we have school zones for high schools at all. And around here they flash not only morning and afternoon, but also through three periods of lunch because they all allow the kids to walk off campus to eat. If they're considered old enough to leave for lunch, we should also be expecting they're old enough to cross at a crosswalk.

\Back in my hometown they flashed all the school zone signs on public school schedules, even though all the ones on high traffic roads were private. Cops had a field day pulling people over during our vacations. Because it's about safety.

wmoonfox: Teen Wolf Blitzer: The guy or his wife was going 31 in a 20. If they won't admit who was driving, fark 'em, fine 'em both.

Somebody sets a fire in a movie theater while you're there. Nobody will admit to it. Send all patrons to jail.

This is the logic you're working under, and this is why this will be overturned. No chance in hell of being upheld.

Not quite. It's more like you and another person are in a room with a third guy. One of you kills the third guy but the evidence points to both of you (or is ambiguous) but there's no question that one of you did it. There likely is evidence of involvement that implicates both of you.

You point the finger at the other guy, the other guy points the finger at you.

There's proof you are both involved, but no proof as to which one actually pulled the trigger...so boom, you are both guilty.

/at least that's how it was explained to me

tcaptain: wmoonfox: Teen Wolf Blitzer: The guy or his wife was going 31 in a 20. If they won't admit who was driving, fark 'em, fine 'em both.

Somebody sets a fire in a movie theater while you're there. Nobody will admit to it. Send all patrons to jail.

This is the logic you're working under, and this is why this will be overturned. No chance in hell of being upheld.

Not quite. It's more like you and another person are in a room with a third guy. One of you kills the third guy but the evidence points to both of you (or is ambiguous) but there's no question that one of you did it. There likely is evidence of involvement that implicates both of you.

You point the finger at the other guy, the other guy points the finger at you.

There's proof you are both involved, but no proof as to which one actually pulled the trigger...so boom, you are both guilty.

/at least that's how it was explained to me

Ah yes, the old "prisoner's dilemma" paradox.

wmoonfox: Teen Wolf Blitzer: The guy or his wife was going 31 in a 20. If they won't admit who was driving, fark 'em, fine 'em both.

Somebody sets a fire in a movie theater while you're there. Nobody will admit to it. Send all patrons to jail.

This is the logic you're working under, and this is why this will be overturned. No chance in hell of being upheld.

Setting fire to a movie theater? That only happens to Nazis

Skirl Hutsenreiter: Dinjiin: The larger issue here is that according to Washington state traffic code, a school zone is 20 MPH day or night, 365 days a year. Those traffic signs that flash "school zone - 20 MPH when flashing" are intentionally misleading because it is also 20 MPH when they are not flashing.

I used to live near a small town that had an elementary school along a state route, and therefore, a 20 MPH school zone. The local PD would occasionally camp in that school zone late at night and bust people for doing 35 MPH. They must have made a fortune off of it.

IMHO, the school zone laws in Washington are overly draconian. Limit school zone hours to 90 minutes before classes start and after classes end; during classes, raise the limit back to normal or some intermediate limit. For elementary schools, use a fixed 25 MPH limit. For middle and high schools, knock 10 MPH off of the regular speed limit (25 min, 45 max).

I'm unclear why we have school zones for high schools at all. And around here they flash not only morning and afternoon, but also through three periods of lunch because they all allow the kids to walk off campus to eat. If they're considered old enough to leave for lunch, we should also be expecting they're old enough to cross at a crosswalk.

\Back in my hometown they flashed all the school zone signs on public school schedules, even though all the ones on high traffic roads were private. Cops had a field day pulling people over during our vacations. Because it's about safety.

I've never seen a child walking within the "School Zone" by my neighborhood elementary school. I've seen plenty of minivans and SUVs pulling blindly out in front of oncoming traffic to drive to their house 200 yards away, but never a kid on foot.

BurnShrike: asciibaron: BurnShrike: Chinchillazilla: Traffic camera thread!

[www.spencerdailyreporter.com image 360x270]

Ohhh yeah, that's hot baby. Just look at those sharp knees.

you do know that is not a traffic camera, right?

Ugh, now I just feel dirty. It's like looking at a picture of a hot woman only to find out it's a tranny.

Is that thing supposed to detect the presence/absence/amount of cars for signal changing purposes, or is it something else, all together?

wmoonfox: They quite obviously cannot both have been driving the car, so the judgement is bunk on its face. The judge who issued the ruling just wasted taxpayer money... there is no way he expected that ruling to weather an appeal.

The problem with that is the non-refundable fee for the appeal is usually more than the fine. So the government gets their money regardless.

mister aj: Totally unrelated to this, there is a completely separate offence of the owner of a car failing to disclose who was driving their car at a particular time. The penalty is ... pretty much the same penalty as the penalty for speeding. Simple!

Unfortunately, that would not work in the US. The 5th Amendment is in the way.

People cannot be compelled to perform the work of the procecutors and obtain, find, create, or identify evidence. A person cannot be compelled to incriminate himself and through extension anybody else. It is the job of the procecutor to bring charges against the correct person.

Benjimin_Dover: mister aj: Totally unrelated to this, there is a completely separate offence of the owner of a car failing to disclose who was driving their car at a particular time. The penalty is ... pretty much the same penalty as the penalty for speeding. Simple!

Unfortunately, that would not work in the US. The 5th Amendment is in the way.

People cannot be compelled to perform the work of the procecutors and obtain, find, create, or identify evidence. A person cannot be compelled to incriminate himself and through extension anybody else. It is the job of the procecutor to bring charges against the correct person.

False, in a criminal court, you can be subpeona'ed to testify against someone else. The only thing the 5th Amendment protects is your right not to self-incriminate.

Dinjiin: The larger issue here is that according to Washington state traffic code, a school zone is 20 MPH day or night, 365 days a year. Those traffic signs that flash "school zone - 20 MPH when flashing" are intentionally misleading because it is also 20 MPH when they are not flashing.

Actually, posting those signs should prevent them from enforcing the law. That's the legal concept that the exception proves the rule. If it SAYS it's a school zone when flashing, legally, by definition that's the same as posting it's not a school zone when not flashing. Since that's a basic tenant of our legal system I don't know how they can get around it. Some law talking guy want to help out?

McNignog: BurnShrike: asciibaron: BurnShrike: Chinchillazilla: Traffic camera thread!

[www.spencerdailyreporter.com image 360x270]

Ohhh yeah, that's hot baby. Just look at those sharp knees.

you do know that is not a traffic camera, right?

Ugh, now I just feel dirty. It's like looking at a picture of a hot woman only to find out it's a tranny.

Is that thing supposed to detect the presence/absence/amount of cars for signal changing purposes, or is it something else, all together?

Those usually detect the frequency of incoming emergency flashing lights and attempt to change the light quicker. They are the origin the urban legend that you can flash your headlights at a redlight and have it change, because some of them really WILL work that way.

Skirl Hutsenreiter: I'm unclear why we have school zones for high schools at all

Because high school kids are retards.


ZAZ: The legislature repealed the law two years later when people realized how stupid it was.

Police in Washington don't abuse it enough to stir public outrage. But it is a very tempting source of revenue. I imagine it won't take long for a city to change the timer on their photo radar cameras from school hours to 24/7.


Land Ark: I've never seen a child walking within the "School Zone" by my neighborhood elementary school.

Depends on the time. Just prior to classes starting and just after classes end, I see tons of kids on the sidewalks and in crosswalks around schools. However, once classes start, you rarely see any children outside of school grounds. The only exception is around noon when half-day kindergarten classes end and when open high school campuses allow teens to go get lunch off campus.


Mr Guy: Actually, posting those signs should prevent them from enforcing the law.

It doesn't negate the 24/7 school zone speed because the signs fail to state "otherwise xx MPH [when not flashing]". It has been brought to court many times and the people always lose.

Land Ark: I've never seen a child walking within the "School Zone" by my neighborhood elementary school. I've seen plenty of minivans and SUVs pulling blindly out in front of oncoming traffic to drive to their house 200 yards away, but never a kid on foot.

Well, you have to drive your kid to school, otherwise they could be hit by all that minivan traffic.