How to get out of parking/speed camera tickets in DC (a theory)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure that many folks caught in a camera speeding ticket or red light ticket will feel it unfair, but these machines help to keep our kids safe. Compared to suburban jurisdictions' police, MPD has never really made motor vehicle violations a priority (as compared, say, to hanging out at Best Buy). I'm glad to see the cameras pick up the slack.

Yeah, there are a lot of kids running across 295.

Seriously. I can get behind speed cameras on residential streets and in school zones but the ones on the frigging interstate are indefensible.

Yes, because speeding on interstates never causes accidents and presents no safety problems to those in breakdown lanes.

Brilliant.

You know what causes more accidents on the interstate than speeding? People braking hard because they see a freaking speed camera.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure that many folks caught in a camera speeding ticket or red light ticket will feel it unfair, but these machines help to keep our kids safe. Compared to suburban jurisdictions' police, MPD has never really made motor vehicle violations a priority (as compared, say, to hanging out at Best Buy). I'm glad to see the cameras pick up the slack.

Yeah, there are a lot of kids running across 295.

Seriously. I can get behind speed cameras on residential streets and in school zones but the ones on the frigging interstate are indefensible.

Yes, because speeding on interstates never causes accidents and presents no safety problems to those in breakdown lanes.

Brilliant.

You know what causes more accidents on the interstate than speeding? People braking hard because they see a freaking speed camera.

Link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You know what causes more accidents on the interstate than speeding? People braking hard because they see a freaking speed camera.

Won't someone think of the drivers? Most marginalized, oppressed part of our society.

[Anonymous]

OP here. I do not think people should drive any speed they want, but some of these cameras are ridiculous.

For example, my husband got a $150 ticket because he was in front of a red turn signal, but realized that he was in the wrong lane and did not want to turn. So he got out of the red light lane and into the straight lane, which was green. And he got a ticket. When I looked up the code, what's illegal is crossing over the crosswalk lines while the light is red. Changing lanes is not necessarily illegal if you don't cross the lines in the red light lane. So I wrote that on my protest. But the camera has no discretion and gave us a ticket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure that many folks caught in a camera speeding ticket or red light ticket will feel it unfair, but these machines help to keep our kids safe. Compared to suburban jurisdictions' police, MPD has never really made motor vehicle violations a priority (as compared, say, to hanging out at Best Buy). I'm glad to see the cameras pick up the slack.

Yeah, there are a lot of kids running across 295.

Seriously. I can get behind speed cameras on residential streets and in school zones but the ones on the frigging interstate are indefensible.

Yes, because speeding on interstates never causes accidents and presents no safety problems to those in breakdown lanes.

Brilliant.

You know what causes more accidents on the interstate than speeding? People braking hard because they see a freaking speed camera.

http://www.sehinc.com/news/truth-about-speed-limits-explained-engineer

Link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.sehinc.com/news/truth-about-speed-limits-explained-engineer

Not quite, but good effort.

[Anonymous]

I think Op is on to something. Former federal law clerk here. And in writing legally defensible decisions, it takes ten times a long and is ten times as frustrating to respond to an argument raised by a pro se plaintiff or terrible lawyer who has no understanding of the issues as a decent legal argument. And it's not just having to write boilerplate. It's that you can't just write, "no, because that's stupid and not the real issue" and more on. You have to explain why it's stupid. Which can be like trying to prove a negative. And some argument really are so dumb that there is no law on point. Because the fact it is dumb is self evident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Op is on to something. Former federal law clerk here. And in writing legally defensible decisions, it takes ten times a long and is ten times as frustrating to respond to an argument raised by a pro se plaintiff or terrible lawyer who has no understanding of the issues as a decent legal argument. And it's not just having to write boilerplate. It's that you can't just write, "no, because that's stupid and not the real issue" and more on. You have to explain why it's stupid. Which can be like trying to prove a negative. And some argument really are so dumb that there is no law on point. Because the fact it is dumb is self evident.

EXACTLY. And if you had, say, thousands of "cases" you need to respond to, and the ability to "dismiss" certain ones for any reason, wouldn't you dismiss the ones that will take extra time and work?

So when you dispute a ticket, you have to make the adjudicator work. Not necessarily by writing something stupid, but by creating a situation where he/she has to do work, like typing, or looking up the law in detail and writing a unique response. I only wish there was a way to test this out.