I got a notice of violation in the mail that came from a traffic camera; however, H was driving. I was originally the primary driver of this car, so it is registered in my name, but now H is the primary driver. Because the violation came from a traffic camera and not a cop, it is classified as a "civil penalty" and not a "moving traffic violation." Therefore, the violation is not made part of one's driving record, no points are assessed, and it does not affect insurance premiums. (This information comes directly from the notice of violation.)
Even so, I'm kind of like, "wait a second, I wasn't driving--I don't want this violation in my name!" You can complete an affidavit of non-responsibility if someone else was driving the car, but I'm wondering if it's worth the effort when the money is coming from the same place either way. What gives me pause is that (a) the affidavit must be notarized (ain't nobody got time for that?) and (b) in filling it out, you have to provide names and addresses of both the driver and the owner of the car, and as I listed the same address for both of us I was wondering if this was an exercise in time-wasting. H agrees that he committed the violation, so we will not be contesting the fine. I'm just wondering if it's worth the trouble to get the violation changed to his name rather than mine.
Given the above information, would you bother with the affidavit of non-responsibility?
I'd leave it. Like you said, "Ain't nobody got time for that.". It won't be made a part of your driving record or impact your insurance, so just pay it and move on.
Ok. At first I was like "oh hell no H, I'm not taking responsibility for your violation!" Then we realized that it doesn't go on one's driving record (whew...). I guess I worry that somehow it would affect something in the future?
(The violation was for passing a school bus FWIW. I didn't want to mention that in the OP because it makes H sound really reckless, but I get the impression that it was more of a technicality, like the bus had its signal on to stop at a traffic light and H pulled up next to the bus [four-lane highway] at the light rather than stopping behind the bus. So it's a violation that could potentially have come with significant penalty had he been caught by a cop and not a camera.)
I would probably try to get it properly assigned to the person driving. Getting something notarized isn't very hard or expensive. You probably have someone at work who can do it, or at your bank or credit union.
Post by LoveTrains on Nov 20, 2014 10:06:46 GMT -5
Dude, Eff these traffic cameras. Big Brother is Watching You.
But to your original question, no I wouldn't bother. These camera tickets don't come with points on your license or affect insurance because they can't prove who is driving. Since it was definitely your H and you are not disputing whether you should pay, I would just pay and be done with it.
But this is why these cameras are bullshit. They are made by these private companies who get a cut of every ticket that gets mailed out and paid. It's a cash cow for the cities and frankly, I find the whole thing disgusting.
How on earth does a traffic camera know that you passed a school bus? That seems very... advanced?
Uh yea, this. How do they know? It is a video?
No, but there are multiple pictures. I can't really tell what's going on, but in one picture he's to the left and behind the bus and in the next he's even with the bus, and the bus's stopping signals are on in both photos.
They often take a picture every x seconds or they have videos.
Still shocking that someone is monitoring all of these cameras closely enough to catch something like that. Speed checked by radar or going through a red light can easily trigger a camera (in Manhattan, it seems that the cameras only go off when there's a violation -- you can see the flash when someone runs a red).
Monitoring the buses is a whole 'nother level. Wouldn't this be extraordinarily expensive?
Dude, Eff these traffic cameras. Big Brother is Watching You.
But to your original question, no I wouldn't bother. These camera tickets don't come with points on your license or affect insurance because they can't prove who is driving. Since it was definitely your H and you are not disputing whether you should pay, I would just pay and be done with it.
But this is why these cameras are bullshit. They are made by these private companies who get a cut of every ticket that gets mailed out and paid. It's a cash cow for the cities and frankly, I find the whole thing disgusting.
Yeah, when H realized that this was basically a city tax for the neighboring city, which has the best public schools in the area, I said "think that will get M into City of X schools?" LOL.
They often take a picture every x seconds or they have videos.
Still shocking that someone is monitoring all of these cameras closely enough to catch something like that. Speed checked by radar or going through a red light can easily trigger a camera (in Manhattan, it seems that the cameras only go off when there's a violation -- you can see the flash when someone runs a red).
Monitoring the buses is a whole 'nother level. Wouldn't this be extraordinarily expensive?
But can you program the computers to pick up on certain things in the images? I wonder if this is one of them. I mean, computers can scan to match facial recognition, right? So why can't a computer be programmed to indicate and/or flag pictures if there are red school bus lights on in them.
I wouldn't bother since it's not something that is really attached to your name anyway. I'm pretty sure once you pay it, nobody will even know it ever happened. It won't be listed on your driver record/credit report/whatever other personal record, at least.
If he isn't contesting that he did it, I'd just pay it and be done with it. It wouldn't be that much work to get your name out of the discussion, but it's probably not worth ANY work.
Dude, Eff these traffic cameras. Big Brother is Watching You.
But to your original question, no I wouldn't bother. These camera tickets don't come with points on your license or affect insurance because they can't prove who is driving. Since it was definitely your H and you are not disputing whether you should pay, I would just pay and be done with it.
But this is why these cameras are bullshit. They are made by these private companies who get a cut of every ticket that gets mailed out and paid. It's a cash cow for the cities and frankly, I find the whole thing disgusting.
Sits here.
I'd contest it for this reason. Yes, it's pointless to you in the end. But if I had a chance to make these cameras less cost-effective, I might do it just to be an asshole.
Also, the fact that the affidavit has to be notorized? Why is the burden of proof on the individual to show they are not driving the car? No, it's the state's job to prove you were the driver. Our civil liberties are being thrown out the window because people don't want to pay property taxes to fund city operations.
When a friend got a red light camera ticket they sent pictures where it was CLEARLY her driving the car. I have no idea how it's either legal or right to ticket the owner of the car if the photos don't identify the driver. But I'm guessing that's why they say it won't go on your record.
When a friend got a red light camera ticket they sent pictures where it was CLEARLY her driving the car. I have no idea how it's either legal or right to ticket the owner of the car if the photos don't identify the driver. But I'm guessing that's why they say it won't go on your record.
Yeah, these pictures are all from the back of the car. So you can see the license plate, but you can't see a damn thing inside the car.
Also, the fact that the affidavit has to be notorized? Why is the burden of proof on the individual to show they are not driving the car? No, it's the state's job to prove you were the driver. Our civil liberties are being thrown out the window because people don't want to pay property taxes to fund city operations.
When a friend got a red light camera ticket they sent pictures where it was CLEARLY her driving the car. I have no idea how it's either legal or right to ticket the owner of the car if the photos don't identify the driver. But I'm guessing that's why they say it won't go on your record.
Yeah, these pictures are all from the back of the car. So you can see the license plate, but you can't see a damn thing inside the car.
Fuck that. Look, I know I'm not supposed to give legal advice here, so i won't but holy shit at the due process violations here. If you want to take a stand, call a lawyer about bringing a class action against the state.
Yeah, these pictures are all from the back of the car. So you can see the license plate, but you can't see a damn thing inside the car.
Fuck that. Look, I know I'm not supposed to give legal advice here, so i won't but holy shit at the due process violations here. If you want to take a stand, call a lawyer about bringing a class action against the state.
Huh. I had no idea that my thread would spark so much indignation. And if it did, I feared it would be against my H because I think he did break a law. But you have inspired me--I'm just not sure it's worth my energy to pursue given that we have a three-month-old at home.
Yeah, these pictures are all from the back of the car. So you can see the license plate, but you can't see a damn thing inside the car.
Fuck that. Look, I know I'm not supposed to give legal advice here, so i won't but holy shit at the due process violations here. If you want to take a stand, call a lawyer about bringing a class action against the state.
Some states require an owner to sign an affidavit as to who was driving their car at the a time in order for them to get out of a ticket.
Fuck that. Look, I know I'm not supposed to give legal advice here, so i won't but holy shit at the due process violations here. If you want to take a stand, call a lawyer about bringing a class action against the state.
Some states require an owner to sign an affidavit as to who was driving their car at the a time in order for them to get out of a ticket.
I understand this -- that's what RBP said was the case here. But the constitution says a state can't force you to testify. In most states, it is also illegal to force someone to testify against their spouse.
Other states have been sued and people have won and they've had to change their programs.
Dude, Eff these traffic cameras. Big Brother is Watching You.
But to your original question, no I wouldn't bother. These camera tickets don't come with points on your license or affect insurance because they can't prove who is driving. Since it was definitely your H and you are not disputing whether you should pay, I would just pay and be done with it.
But this is why these cameras are bullshit. They are made by these private companies who get a cut of every ticket that gets mailed out and paid. It's a cash cow for the cities and frankly, I find the whole thing disgusting.
They just put one on a local highway near me (and you, I am assuming). It's a highway my husband drives every day. He was mentioning it to me yesterday. They're utter bullshit. I am a speeder. Yes, it's illegal to speed, but I take my chances. If I get a speeding ticket, I pay it and move on. The fact that I now need to watch for big brother is absolutely insane.
Fuck that. Look, I know I'm not supposed to give legal advice here, so i won't but holy shit at the due process violations here. If you want to take a stand, call a lawyer about bringing a class action against the state.
Huh. I had no idea that my thread would spark so much indignation. And if it did, I feared it would be against my H because I think he did break a law. But you have inspired me--I'm just not sure it's worth my energy to pursue given that we have a three-month-old at home.
Dude, Eff these traffic cameras. Big Brother is Watching You.
But to your original question, no I wouldn't bother. These camera tickets don't come with points on your license or affect insurance because they can't prove who is driving. Since it was definitely your H and you are not disputing whether you should pay, I would just pay and be done with it.
But this is why these cameras are bullshit. They are made by these private companies who get a cut of every ticket that gets mailed out and paid. It's a cash cow for the cities and frankly, I find the whole thing disgusting.
They just put one on a local highway near me (and you, I am assuming). It's a highway my husband drives every day. He was mentioning it to me yesterday. They're utter bullshit. I am a speeder. Yes, it's illegal to speed, but I take my chances. If I get a speeding ticket, I pay it and move on. The fact that I now need to watch for big brother is absolutely insane.
In my state?! Hrmm.....time for a letter writing campaign to the Gov. Elect.
They just put one on a local highway near me (and you, I am assuming). It's a highway my husband drives every day. He was mentioning it to me yesterday. They're utter bullshit. I am a speeder. Yes, it's illegal to speed, but I take my chances. If I get a speeding ticket, I pay it and move on. The fact that I now need to watch for big brother is absolutely insane.
In my state?! Hrmm.....time for a letter writing campaign to the Gov. Elect.
I'm in Mass. This is on 495 close to Lowell. Not sure if you're in Mass or not, but I assume 495 may be somewhat close...
In my state?! Hrmm.....time for a letter writing campaign to the Gov. Elect.
I'm in Mass. This is on 495 close to Lowell. Not sure if you're in Mass or not, but I assume 495 may be somewhat close...
They just showed up this week.
I thought you were in Mass. I'm in RI. I CANNOT believe that Massachusetts allowed some BS like that. I am more likely to drive on 495 much farther south but I wonder if they have more that are coming up and on other sections of road. That section of 95 between Canton and the RI border is a speedway.