Posted on 06/22/2023 2:17:34 AM PDT by SteveH
Just ignore it.
Right. It doesn't make you guilty of anything more than that.
That must be terrible for rental companies and I guess it will come to apply to skeet shotguns and baseball bats eventually.
Rental car companies are fine with this. They charge your credit card for any fines or tolls that are accrued while you are driving their car.
the owner has already been coerced into signing that he/she/they were the driver at the time of the incident.
isn’t this demand a violation of the 5th amendment?
‐-——————————
No, if you deny being the driver, you have no standing to argue other facts or theories in court.
I didn’t understand your first response but the rental companies shouldn’t be able to bill the customer for the fines issued to the company.
If the crime is put on the owner of the car then so be it.
This big brother AI system of collecting money isn’t rational or American.
It sounds like you don't understand how rental car companies operate.
The rental company absolutely CAN bill the customer for the fines issued to the company while the car is in the possession of the customer. These terms are laid out very clearly in the rental agreement, which negates any deniability or idiotic argument the customer wants to make on constitutional grounds.
You won't get an argument from me on that. I work in a field where motor vehicle safety and traffic operations are major elements of my job. I'm one of the few people in this industry who doesn't think any of this is a good idea.
I think you meant to say that traffic infractions are "violations," not crimes. It varies by State, but generally, felonies and misdemeanors are classified as "crimes."
Nice!
https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/infrastructure/592689-states-can-now-access-billions-for-speed/ (Feb 3, 2022)
Roadways in the U.S. could receive an influx in speed cameras, thanks to new funds from President Biden’s infrastructure law.
Federal guidance issued Wednesday states that billions of dollars allocated to highway and roadway safety can now go toward installing automated traffic enforcement, such as speed and red-light cameras.
Previously, transportation funds allocated to states were largely limited to fund projects such as reinforcing bridges and roadways, with federal funds for speed cameras only permitted for school zones. However, Biden’s infrastructure law allows states to utilize up to 10 percent of their $15.6 billion highway safety funds, distributed over five years, on “non-infrastructure programs” such as automated traffic enforcement and public awareness campaigns.
Critics have countered that the cameras can be inaccurate and act as more of a source of revenue for communities rather than a speeding deterrent. In fiscal year 2020, Washington, D.C., brought in about $148 million in traffic fines, a majority of which came from speed and red-light cameras, even amid the coronavirus pandemic, according to Washington Business Journal. An analysis even found that D.C. issued more fines than any U.S. city.
Little by little we cede our freedom to technology. We have to trust that these cameras and radar devices are accurate and properly maintained. It’s likely that at least some of them are not.
Then there’s the issue that most automated/remote traffic enforcement devices are owned by private companies. How any of this is found to be legal is beyond understanding.
The authorities, and those private companies who are profitably enriched by human error - and sometimes just by the possibility of human error, bank on the fact that most people don’t have the time, energy or resources to fight the citations.
We’re talking vehicle vs driver. It would certainly be wrong to cite the owner of a car if that car ran a stop sign unless you can convincingly identify him/her as the driver at that time. Turnpike tolls apply to the vehicle.
So in this state if a cop issues you a ticket it's gonna cost you even if he/she was wrong to issue it.
> No, if you deny being the driver, you have no standing to argue other facts or theories in court.
Actually if I am the owner and a bill of attainder is levied against me, that should be standing enough— correct?
The form is a coercive measure designed to squeeze out in some way who the driver is from the owner.
if the owner is the driver, the owner is subjected to duress in the form of the bill of attainder to identify himself, thus violating 5A.
if the owner does not rat out on the driver, the owner receives the bill of attainder, and again it seems to violate 5A.
how any of can that be constitutional i am not understanding...
> Just ignore it.
If there is indeed a human reviewing police officer in the loop, and the driver was wearing a baseball hat and sunglasses, then it seems possible that the reviewing officer could not identify the driver because the sunglasses and hat interfere with identification.
what color are the drivers’ eyes? how far apart are the drivers’ eyes? in what relation to the ears.nose, and mouth are the eyes? etc.
i sense that california law— at least san francisco law, which i have some experience with— requires some form of positive identification of the driver at some stage via a human reviewing officer.
this stage really should be at the beginning, before a notice is sent to the owner (currect?).
then, what constitutes positive identification in a court of law, especially if an alleged perpetrator’s face was partially obscured at the scene of the alleged crime?
A traffic fine is not a bill of attainder and no court will veiw it as such.
Refusing to “rat” out a driver other than yourself is not a right.
Wanting to use the bill of rights in order to be a scofflaw is indicitive of the low moral character that is destroying our country.
We have traffice rules and use technology as a non invasive and non confrontational method of enforcement. Get over it and yourself.
Pay the ticket and slow the eff down or quit blowing through stop stoplights or signs.
If you think the cameras have been calibrated to enhance revenue rather than safety, then make a stink and start a class action lawsuit.
> It sounds like you don’t understand how rental car companies operate.
> The rental company absolutely CAN bill the customer for the fines issued to the company while the car is in the possession of the customer. These terms are laid out very clearly in the rental agreement, which negates any deniability or idiotic argument the customer wants to make on constitutional grounds.
Funny, I have ignored these demands from rental companies for toll money as recently as ~5 years ago, in the USA.
Perhaps (just a guess) the notion of automated toll booths were relatively new to rental companies back then, and they were not set up to handle the additional fee collection in an automated manner.
Automated toll collection is presumably by far the best method of collection for the toll collecting agency, I would imagine.
(I am just guessing that, these days, the toll collection is passed on in an automated manner from the rental company to the rental company customer... and that this is mentioned somewhere in the rental boilerplate agreement (??))
> Little by little we cede our freedom to technology. We have to trust that these cameras and radar devices are accurate and properly maintained. It’s likely that at least some of them are not.
I can believe that this sounds like something that the Biden administration would favor— reducing American citizen freedom to travel by chipping away at it until it is effectively gone, just like they are chipping away at our income, our savings, our gun rights, our right to vote, ... it is remarkably consistent with what seems to be their overall philosophy to reduce or eliminate citizens’ rights, in favor of either government or big multinational corporations.
> Then there’s the issue that most automated/remote traffic enforcement devices are owned by private companies. How any of this is found to be legal is beyond understanding.
Hmmm, (guessing) they must be designated some form of investigatory subcontractor, providing information to a government system using equipment that is certified correct by periodic license renewal (like an automated private detective perhaps). Once the information reaches the government, it is sorted and matched with government databases on citizens such as license plates and registered owners. At this point, I don’t think it quite qualifies as evidence because technically at that point, no human witness has associated the alleged driver perpetrator recorded at the incident with an actual person, ie, the registered owner. They could use facial recognition, but presumably, even at relatively high resolution, they would get a relatively low yield matching actual face photographs at a distance of 100 feet and moving quickly to a driver’s license photograph of a stationary subject (face of a registered owner).
Is automated facial recognition technology acceptable as evidence in a court of law? I’m not sure but I would tend not to believe so, at least at this time. That is why I tend to expect that a human reviewing officer is typically involved at some point in the process.
Then there is the question of at what time the actual reviewing officer is involved in the process. Is it before or after the mailing? if it is after, then I feel thatI could argue legally that the entire process up to that point is suspect because it relies on software generated guesswork. If before, then see above.
> The authorities, and those private companies who are profitably enriched by human error - and sometimes just by the possibility of human error, bank on the fact that most people don’t have the time, energy or resources to fight the citations.
Exactly...
> A traffic fine is not a bill of attainder and no court will veiw it as such.
Then I have the same right not to view it as a bill of attainder. It is just a demand with no force of law. I could ask you for $150 right here if I had your driver’s ID info. It’s a demand but not a demand that has the force of criminal law or civil contract.
It can be construed as a notice to appear under duress of a charge or withdrawal of driving privilege if ignored.
You have to describe why it does not take the appearance of a bill of attainder if you assert that.
Not testifying anything in a court of law due to 5A should be a right. To my understanding, 5A makes no exceptions for testifying against others. Everyone should have the right to remain silent. Squeezing testimony against others by levying penalties and/or fines seems to me to violate that right.
I’m citing the constitution and bill of rights. What laws are you citing?
I am not saying you are wrong, but what laws or regulations are you citing.
Maybe this is all covered in current state vehicle code? Are you citing state vehicle code?
I think the 5A argument you're trying to make is protection from self-incrimination. The state cannot force you to admit guilt, the burden is on the state to prove your guilt.
Making you sign a form that you were the driver just to ticket (accuse) you is a violation of your protection from self-incrimination.
That leaves the state the option to keep looking or to charge you with what evidence they have and make you go to court to defend yourself or to plea (pay the fine). I'd think that if the picture looked reasonably like you and you went to court to deny it was you, the judge would find that it was you and sentence you to the maximum fine to set an example to others to not waste their time.
-PJ
here is a web site that i just now found, and an article inside it about speed trap legality:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.