Speeding camera ticket

cowman

cowman

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
5,405
Location
Danger Zone
Display Name
Display name:
Cowman
So I'm a bit annoyed... I just received a citation in the mail for speeding in Cedar Rapids, IA.

Pertinent facts:
The car photographed from the rear and the license plate appear to be mine.
I was not driving, I was not in the car, and in fact I haven't even been in the state of IA for at least a year.
I know who was driving the car that day and that person's name is on the title, but their name does not appear on the citation.
No photo of the driver appears in what they mailed nor on the website where I looked it up.
I do not wish to incriminate the person who was driving.
The person who was driving does not recall speeding

Any of you ever contested something like this? It seems pretty open and shut since I was not driving the car and they have no evidence I was driving. They have a "contest by mail" option, I wonder if it could be as simple as stating the fact that I wasn't driving the car. Probably isn't worth my time to drive all that way to contest in person.... but I kind of feel like I should fight it just on principal.
 
It depends on the state law. In one jursdiction near here, the citation is sent to and is the responsibility of the vehicle owner based on state records. No contesting it on the basis of who is driving (and no points accrue as a result). In another jurisdiction, the owner can be released from responsibility if he/she rats out the person who was actually driving.

So check the local and state codes.
 
No experience with this situation, but I'm curious.
The car is titled/owned by the driver but registered to you? Is that possible?
If not registered to you, where did they get your name & address?
 
cowman said:
So I'm a bit annoyed... I just received a citation in the mail for speeding in Cedar Rapids, IA.

Pertinent facts:
The car photographed from the rear and the license plate appear to be mine.
I was not driving, I was not in the car, and in fact I haven't even been in the state of IA for at least a year.
I know who was driving the car that day and that person's name is on the title, but their name does not appear on the citation.
No photo of the driver appears in what they mailed nor on the website where I looked it up.
I do not wish to incriminate the person who was driving.
The person who was driving does not recall speeding

Any of you ever contested something like this? It seems pretty open and shut since I was not driving the car and they have no evidence I was driving. They have a "contest by mail" option, I wonder if it could be as simple as stating the fact that I wasn't driving the car. Probably isn't worth my time to drive all that way to contest in person.... but I kind of feel like I should fight it just on principal.
Click to expand...

I-280? I seem to recall they drop the speed limit to 55MPH right there by the cameras...
 
upstateny said:
No experience with this situation, but I'm curious.
The car is titled/owned by the driver but registered to you? Is that possible?
If not registered to you, where did they get your name & address?
Click to expand...

No the car is titled/owned/registered to two people and I'm one of them... the person who was (probably) driving is the other.
 
cowman said:
No the car is titled/owned/registered to two people and I'm one of them... the person who was (probably) driving is the other.
Click to expand...
Does you wife know about this?
 
Tell them you were not driving and honest disclose who you allowed to drive the car. There's a good chance they may drop it and not bother to pursue it further. It's a number game and it's not worth their time chasing down people.
 
My mom got one of those letters once. Problem was, picture wasn't her, or her car or her license plate. She was 77 at the time, 85 now, and she called the judge and just wore him out for their mistake and the threatening tone of the letter they sent her. The judge actually sent her a hand written apology.

I love it when a lawyer tries to talk my mother down. I haven't seen one win yet. Like I said, she is 85 and carries a .357 loaded with 38 special. She keeps telling me she needs to get a concealed permit.

She will out live me.
 
Brad Z said:
Was she in Iowa at the time?
Click to expand...
Iowa was between home and the place where she was doing stuff with friends and she was traveling around that time so it's a distinct possibility. Of course, I wasn't there so I can never say for sure ;)
 
So, I have had a couple similar experiences. Until very recently, my son's Jeep was in my name (insurance reasons). There were two separate incidences, perhaps a year apart. They were both (oddly) right turn on red without stopping. The video (online) was very definitive (he did it and was clearly pictured in the video). Yes, I did turn a dime on my son. It was all done online, though. They gave me 30 days to refute it.
 
Just pay the ticket. Someone was speeding in a car owned by you. Pay the damn ticket and if you know who was driving, ask them to reimburse you. If you don't want to ask them to reimburse you, then just suck it up, pay the ticket and stop complaining.
 
Cavorter said:
Just pay the ticket. Someone was speeding in a car owned by you. Pay the damn ticket and if you know who was driving, ask them to reimburse you. If you don't want to ask them to reimburse you, then just suck it up, pay the ticket and stop complaining.
Click to expand...

To me that's the lazy way out. The amount of money is trivial. The point is that they've accused me of a crime I didn't commit and are holding me responsible. I would honestly feel more guilty for just paying it and moving on than not attempting to do something.
 
Don't pay it. It's a civil infraction, and they have very limited or no recourse against you. They used to threaten sending it to collections, but they can't even do that anymore.

The mayor was on tv last year. Reporter asks, "Why should people pay this fine?" His answer... "To have a clear consious"
 
I guess it's legal in some places. I think it's a lazy, punk move too. They are fining an owner instead of ticketing the driver.

I don't think you are being accused of a crime since you said no points are charged.

Did both registered owners get the fine? Does it have to be paid by both? Just one?

It's like a parking ticket, they don't know or care who the driver is, they ticket the car.
 
I know of a few tiny tiny towns in IL and MO that are on major highways that are notorious for having easily missed speed limit signs and a patrol car that does nothing but issue tickets all day. It's obvious to anyone the issue isn't safety, it's just a source of revenue.

From reading these articles, looking at the speed limit/actual speed on the citation, and talking to the person who probably was driving at the time I get the distinct impression this is the big city version. She doesn't speed normally, she says she was driving with the flow of traffic all day. The city is pulling all kinds of revenue from this.... something stinks.
 
Here's one guy's opinion from the enforcement side of this equation:

I hate red light cameras and I hate speed cameras. That is the epitome of lazy enforcement. My personal belief is the use of these cameras to gain revenue for private companies on behalf of public agencies is a gift of public funds. If you can research the Iowa law and find out it's not enforceable (like the red light cameras here in Los Angeles), then I'd strongly consider finding a legal way to not pay. First step would be to contest it.

All that being said... I absolutely love license plate readers.
 
A few years ago KC installed red-light cameras, operated by a private company. They did similar, assessing a fine and mailing it to the address on record and no points were assessed.

I think they actually increased accidents as people would slam on the brakes on a yellow light and get hit.

Pretty sure the MO supreme court said running a red light was a moving violation, not the equivalent of a parking ticket. So the driver had to be ticketed, not the owner, and that a private company couldn't be used as a law enforcement agency.
 
Pay the ticket and respect those silly little speed limit signs.

If you weren't driving, but know who was, you can sue them for your damages.

You could also challenge the ticket on the assertion of the "fast lane" doctrine. But that doesn't usually help.

Of course my advise sucks because everyone on this forum thinks that speeding is "cool for school" since there is no FAR requiring them to comply with those silly little signs on those silly little roads.
 
Speaking of license plate readers...

I used to own an old Nissan pickup. It was very crappy.

Anyway, one day in like early June, there was still the remnants of a huge snowbank near my mom's house, from the snowplow pushing all the snow down her street to the end.

When I reversed out of her driveway, I decided "just for fun" to back into the snowbank to stop, instead of touching my brakes. I did so, smirked to myself, and began the drive home.

I was surprised to get pulled over like a half hour later. He asked if I knew why he was pulling me over. I wasn't speeding, my tabs were current, frankly I was at a loss, and tried to politely say that I had no idea, and was wondering myself.

He said my whole license plate was packed with snow. There was no snow in the entire state, none on any other part of my truck, yet just my whole plate area was jam-packed with snow.

I laughed, told him I was screwing around and purposely backed into the only snowbank left in Minnesota. He didn't seem too stressed, brushed it off, ran my plate, and let me go on my way.

I can only imagine how suspicious I looked... no plate reader's gonna work on me!
 
I speak from local gov't experience - red light and speed cameras are ambush taxes - they exist for revenue, with a very, very occasional safety motivation, in special cases/locations. If you don't live in the state where issued, you can (usually) ignore them. Reciprocity is usually reserved for "real" moving violations. They tag the registered owner to make collection cheap and easy; operating the cameras and billing is outsourced - it's just a revenue stream for the jurisdiction, with the only cost being dealing with the low-volume percentage of those who contest the fine, and even the bulk of that might be handled by the vendor. Calibration on the cameras is often sketchy, and the local gov't isn't in the business of following up, unless a lot of voters start griping about a particular camera being "off". One good technique is placement on routes frequented by people not/not in the political jurisdiction - like hotel taxes, they nail the out-of-towners. . .sort of the same with parking meters - within some politcal limitations, meter locations and time intervals are designed to maximize fines/violations - sometimes the local businesses have serious input, but the point is maximum revenue, and there are vendors who sell advice on how to design a parking "system". There will be some noise about parking equity, traffic, etc. But the largest consideration is the revenue.
 
Let's assume @Sundancer is correct and municipalities are out to maximize revenue with their silly little signs.

Given that, is it not wise to comply with the signs for no other reason than to avoid the consequences?

The unpopular contrary opinion is that there are safety reasons for the numbers on those little signs. But who would care about that?
 
Ravioli said:
Let's assume @Sundancer is correct and municipalities are out to maximize revenue with their silly little signs.

Given that, is it not wise to comply with the signs for no other reason than to avoid the consequences?

The unpopular contrary opinion is that there are safety reasons for the numbers on those little signs. But who would care about that?
Click to expand...
I'm a firm believer in the rule of law and a proponent of if you follow the rules, you don't usually have to worry about the consequences of breaking them.

But red light cameras and speed cameras are lazy. A moving violation should be assessed to the person committing the crime. Not whoever owns the vehicle. There's zero due process there and you have no right to confront your accuser.

Now if you want to have a cop there running tickets all day every day, I'm a million percent okay with that.
 
We used to get the photo radar and red light tickets for former owners of this house who'd been gone for nearly a decade. Wrote letters back to various contractors in various states explaining they don't live here. None responded ever and the assumption is on their side that the State keeps accurate addresses on registrations.

I finally figured out how they did it. Renewed their plates online, and kept claiming our address. Since I really didn't want to see who ELSE might show up wanting money, or to serve warrants for these two ninnies, I decided to write a letter to end it.

They'd long since moved out of state and were towing a fifth wheel that they apparently lived in. Lovely photos of it in my mailbox regularly.

Letter to the Sheriff, CC'd State DMV, and the county plate office -- and I got two nice letters back that it was being looked into (by the sheriff - I suspect they're wanted on other charges), and secondly that the plates had a lock out put on them that they could not be renewed online the next hear, and proof of address was required.

Fine by me, I just didn't want their names associated with my house in any database of any sort.

No more photo tickets in the mail the last year or so. Nice.
 
In many states the law says the vehicle owner is responsible for any use made of his or her car unless the actual driver takes responsibility. Only way out of out is to report the car stolen.
 
Unconstitutional. Sixth Amendment.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Tell them you will pay when the witness shows up in court and can explain to the judge what they saw.

It is all about the money. Nothing to do with safety.
 
Given the choice between getting a speed camera ticket and a moving violation for speeding, I'd take the former every time. If the presence of speed cameras causes police departments to not put resources on speed control, it's a win in my book. That said, obviously the best defense is not to speed (or at least keep under ten over).

By the way, apps like Waze are good for providing the current speed limit (that's often an issue as you don't always see the speed limit signs) and of course alerting you to speed traps.
 
One advantage of living in KS is we don't have front license plates. Cameras that take those pictures seem to generally be looking at the front of the car, maybe they have a second one, I dunno. Maybe they figure the extra expense of a second camera is more than the revenue they miss out on.

The E-470 toll road in Denver does take pictures of front and rear as you drive through the toll gates at full speed. But, just suppose you are moving a kid to college and have a bike rack on the hitch and the rear camera doesn't get a good view, and you don't get that $20+ bill in the mail the following month...
 
Dude, your wife was driving, and you're bent out of shape trying to pay the fine with the other owner of your joint checking account?

If you think she didn't do it, challenge it. But trying to get out of an obligation by a technicality is not good character. You -- or your wife -- have the moral obligation to pay the fine unless you think it didn't happen at all. And if that's the case, hiding your wife's identity is both useless and unethical.

The state has proof the speeding DID take place. And challenging that is confronting your accuser.
 
DFH65 said:
Unconstitutional. Sixth Amendment.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Click to expand...

Not a lawyer, but if this is a civil infraction, the above would not apply, would it?
 
My understanding is the ticket goes to the driver not the car.

Can THEY PROVE you drove the car?

It's also NOT your responsibility to help them find the speeder.

These tickets are a joke, they are some decent countermeasure you can use to avoid these things.
 
Got a red light camera ticket in Texas a couple years ago. Showed me not coming to a complete stop, but pretty downright slow prior to turning right. Only one other car around and they were stopped to the left. Can't remember all the specifics, but I was given a few days (20? 30?) to show up at a traffic court to dispute the ticket. Unfortunately, I typically don't get my mail for up to 60, sometimes 90 days so that time frame had passed. But they did send me another ticket with a late fee attached because I didn't pay it in time.

Did some research and found out that the Texas legislature had essentially taken all the teeth out of these cameras. Basically, they're allow to bill you but they can't put anything on your driving record, or the car's record, or your credit report. Just renewed my Florida tags and there were no issues. License doesn't get renewed for a few more years, but haven't heard anything from insurance.

BTW... I no longer get a hotel in Irving when I do my annual pilgrimage to CAE in Dallas because of their stupid cameras.

This is only Texas. Iowa may or may not have a similar deal.

Oh yeah, the fine was supposed to be sent to a place in Ohio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top