Hi MocoLoco,

That is a good question, I should have been more specific and answered that originally.

There have been cases where the camera is out of calibration. As you may or may not know, the camera takes a picture with a time stamp at a certain position on the road, and a second picture with a second time stamp at another position on the road. Defendants who knew they were not going the speed that was listed in the citation have went back and measured the actual distance and based on the pictures and extracted the elapsed time from those same pictures, and then have calculated their exact mile per hour speed to the thousandth of a mph. There were times where their calculated speed was just barely under the allotted "cushion" and times where it was grossly under the allotted cushion, but in either case the defendant is considered innocent by law until they breech that cushion. To say this evidence is inadmissible is unfair and against an individuals due process guaranteed by the constitution.

If you can figure out feet per second from the pictures, which with a measuring tape this is possible, you can then calculate miles per hour.

@MocoLoco
You lost me after the word "fishy" :))

MocoLoco,

It's one thing to ask questions, and to even have a differing opinion which is welcome. It's another thing to imply that I am being deceitful and then post some math based on assumptions that aren't even factual. I have nothing to gain if I were to not tell the truth.

The camera pictures have a time stamp using tenths of a second, so it will read HH:MM:SS:T, the T being tenths of a second. This is something you could have researched on your own, before posting actually.

Anyway, to make sure you don't make any other incorrect assumptions, I am posting a picture of a Maryland speed camera citation with a truck that was doing a mathematically calculated 38.63mph, and not the 50mph (in a 35mph zone) listed in the citation. Before you speculate incorrectly any further, here is the citation so that you can see what they look like.

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/8744/speedcameraerror3.jpg

As stated earlier, differing opinions are welcome, non fact based math and implications that others are lying are not.

I'm not saying that you are deceitful at all. Sorry if that's how I came across. What I'm saying is that the time measurement period is too short. If the time shows 52.3 to 52.6, that could mean 0.3 seconds have elapsed. But, it could also mean that only 0.2 seconds have elapsed (52.35, rounded down to 52.3; and 52.55, rounded up to 52.6) If only 0.2 seconds elapsed, and using the same math, that truck would be travelling 57 mph.

The Beatle could very well be doing the same speed, or be going slightly faster than the truck. If it was just slighly behind the the right rearview mirror it wouldn't show up in the first picture. Hard to tell if it moved that much forward from the first picture. Of course, without other pictures it may very well have been going 100 MPH.

Actually it is the driver of the vehicle that is ultimately responsible for the ticket per state law, this does not differ from county to county.

http://www.baltimorecountymd.gov/Agencies/police/speedcameras/speedfaqs.html#anchor12

If you are not driving the vehicle and you go to court and swear under oath, as well as provide the name and address of the person that was driving (under oath still) then you are found not guilty. By saying law enforcement vehicles are exempt, it means the drivers of law enforcement vehicles ... and although I am sure there are circumstances where someone other than a sworn in police officer could be driving a "law enforcement vehicle", 98% of the time it'll be a police officer. I don't feel that is misrepresenting anything, and I don't believe you will now that you are aware the final responsibility lies on the actual driver.

Officers are currently liable for the tickets. By liable, I don't necessarily mean they are writing the checks to pay for them, but if they get an amount of speed camera tickets outside of the 'norm', whatever that is, their commander can and will penalize them in one way or the other. This is straight from an officers mouth, although you are welcome to ask any officer you know to verify.

I believe we agree that police officers should be held to the laws they are sworn to uphold.

You may ulitmately be right that the owner can be found not guilty. However, from your link it reads:
"The law provides that the registered owner must provide a signed affidavit that states they were not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation and provide the name, address and, if possible, the driver’s license identification number of the person who was driving at time of the violation. The police have the discretion to then forward the citation notice to the person identified by the registered owner."

I don't see that this frees the owner of the fee, nor does it say the driver will then be responsible for the fee. What happens if every time I get one of those tickets and I claim, say, Brad Smith, was driving my vehicle?

Daniel. Yes, I would imagine that anyone that was not a policeman and not an entity that profited from the cameras, would be for the first bill (protecting due process) and against the second bill (which exempts police officers from the law).

Knowing MC, they are very interested in revenue and deliberately turn a blind eye to the conflict of interest. I do know that it has been pointed out to them.

Here is an example of PG County telling defendants that evidence is inadmissible, I don't know if all jurisdictions are doing this, but if the people sit back idly and do nothing, I can guarantee they would all follow suit.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3645.asp

It's really a much bigger deal then people are giving it credit for. Liberties and freedoms are almost never taken away quickly, they are eroded away slowly and that is what is happening here.

The second link below is also in Montgomery county, and I believe this will clear things up for you, scroll down to the part of the page that says "How do I know if I am able to Transfer liability of my Speed Citation?" . I'm sure there is no confusion in the definition of "transfer of liability", but if there is, there is not much else I can do to explain it. For discussions sake, here is the legal definition of "liability":

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1151

I can tell you that I have taken time to observe a speed camera hearing in person, and I saw a parent who brought their adult child in to accept the 'transfer of liability', the parent was exonerated and the adult child accepted liability. Note that you do not have to have the person with you to do this, as the law states it requires name and address etc etc, that's just what I observed.

http://www.rockvillemd.gov/police/speedcamera-faq.html (scroll about 2/3rds of the way down)

The Montgomery County site you cited is also adding something that is not in the law, with that last sentence, and used fear mongering. I believe you would agree the final say should be the site of the entity that made the law, the State of Maryland. (see the link below)

http://safezones.maryland.gov/faqs.html#q17

If you are still not sure, hopefully you will take my word that I have seen this first hand in person, if not I'm sorry but I am not sure what additional facts I can present to you, to convince you.

It does seem there are conflicting accounts from different government entities.

I don't quite understand why a parent would bring their kid into court to transfer liability. Why didn't the parent just tell the kid he had to pay the bill? As far as I know, insurance isn't informed and it is just a simple fee.

There were several articles in the gazette a few years ago about Montgomery County police officers getting speed camera tickets while on duty, but not for an emergency. The county tried to stick the cost to the officers who, by and large, refused to pay the fee. I don't recall the end of the fuss, but it seemed the union won the war.

Maybe cops are getting speed camera tickets while on duty and actually paying them. Somehow I doubt that is happening.

Hi Richard,

I'm guessing you didn't read my blog, because that isn't what these bills or this blog is about. Please read the blog.

Richard I tried to challenge calibration records of one of my speed tickets where I couldn't possibly have gone as fast as the speed the camera showed. Because the representative of the company in court stated the camera was calibrated correctly, my case was not considered otherwise. Why would the company admit the machine could be wrong? If I was speeding, yes I take responsibility. To this day, I still believe the camera was wrong on my tickets for speeding in front of Rockville High school (5:52 a.m.). I made a left turn from Twinbrook Parkway onto Baltimore Road. It was not a school day.

Brad, Hello. If i give you the information from my ticket could you calculate for me?