NeoPatrick

Why bother to try to try to prove that? If it was your car you ARE responsible for the ticket. Isn't that "basic law 101"? What's more now you have the proof that your friend owes you the money if you wish to collect from them.

Mincepie

Just pay up! DC is horrible to deal with and you will probably have an awful time when you next go to renew your license.

woodysagoodboy

Neo, Why would you be responsible for running a red light if you weren't driving the vehicle. In your world, the friend reimburses the owner and owner gets a moving violation on his record, infraction points, and higher insurance rates.

FainaAgain

You're lucky it's only $100. My cousin stop at a store in San Francisco to buy cigarettes, talked to the shopkeeper, walked out - $240 for blocking something, don't remeber was it a fire hidrant or a handicapped exit - something like this, not a parking spot.

NeoPatrick

"Neo, Why would you be responsible for running a red light if you weren't driving the vehicle. In your world, the friend reimburses the owner and owner gets a moving violation on his record, infraction points, and higher insurance rates."

Yes, that IS the way it works. What's your point -- that the laws should be changed? A good reason to make sure you know to whom you are lending your vehicle!

I believe in most states the owner of the vehicle can then contest the ticket, but only by providing the details of the driver in a formal affidavit. But it was your car -- you're responsible. Why do you think you pay to insure your car in the event of an accident when someone else is driving it?

NewbE

I thought moving violations "belong" to the driver, parking infractions to the owner of the car. In Germany, the cameras take a picture of the driver AND the plate, thus solving the problem and creating a new and hilarious type of art: we knew people who laughingly passed around photos of themselves caught breaking the law and looking open-mouthed and foolish in the process!

woodysagoodboy

Thanks, NewbE, We really have to go to DC and take care of some things. And I'll eat in Northfield this weekend in your honor. Neo, You must have gone to Regent Law School.

NeoPatrick

No, but I do sometimes attend the Google Law School:

From the D.C. DMV.org website (since it was Washington D.C. we were talking about):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"How to Contest a Photo Enforcement Ticket

As with a parking ticket or a minor traffic violation, to contest a photo enforcement ticket, your request must be received within 60 calendar days of the date of the traffic ticket. Again, do not submit payment if you plan to contest the ticket.

If your defense for contesting the ticket was that the car was in the control of another person at the time of the violation, the owner of the vehicle must provide an affidavit with the name, address, and driver's license number of the person who was driving at the time.

Failing to schedule your hearing within 30 calendar days of the ticket date will cause you to be assessed a penalty equal to the fine, and your driving privileges will be suspended."

woodysagoodboy

Neo, I am concerned about an unconstitutional shift in the burden of proof/burden of persuasion in prosecuting these cases. That you quote the law as it exists is irrelevant to the underlying principle of due process. Your research has identified the problem, not the solution.

Hey, NewbE, Have you seen the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode in which Larry David gets the photocop ticket?

lskohn

Just for the record -- the print on the parking meters in DC is a perfectly legible size. The meters say "2 hours" in the biggest print, but the warning to check for nearby signs is in about the same size type as the effective hours, and easily readable by this boomer without putting on her reading glasses.
Unless the ticket itself is defective (wrong street, wrong license, etc.) I don't think DC administrators will be very sympathetic.

I am not sure it will make the OP feel any better, but I have seen the same type of warning, in the same size print, in many cities. As in most cities, cars parked on main thorofares during rush hour are not just a hassle, they are dangerous - so the restrictions are often rigorously enforced.

I'd be upset too if it happened to me, but that's no reason not to pay the ticket now, before the penalties get added.

kayd

It is a civil fine like a parking violation, not a criminal penalty, and it says nothing about points against the car owner's driving record. If there were something other than a small amount of money at stake, I agree that would be unfair.

kit

Neo -- I didn't even own a car when I lived in DC...but I definitely remember the two years' worth of editorial coverage of the propsed cameras in the Washington Post. Now I live elsewhere and the same sorts of "cameras cause accidents" reasearch is creeping back into my life.

And I still don't care; am just aware of the issue, that's all.

NeoPatrick

"That you quote the law as it exists is irrelevant to the underlying principle of due process. Your research has identified the problem, not the solution."

Exactly. So please don't shoot the messenger.

Regarding those cameras CAUSING accidents -- google and you'll find a ton of stuff, mostly from the UK where they've been doing cameras for quite a while now. Invariably when someone claims the cameras cause accidents, proof comes back to show that isn't true. Some statistics tried to show an increase in accidents, when the statistics were based on the figures BEFORE the cameras, not after, for example. It seems the detractors have a pretty hard time refuting the evidence that at just about every intersection where cameras have been installed, accidents and deaths have decreased.

Jolie

I don't get it, so maybe somebody who understands the law knows (any lawyers in the house?): if gov't can't fine someone unless it can prove who was driving, then how can a city ever issue parking tickets at all? Are all parking tickets unconstitutional? I would think a government has to power to restrict parking at certain times/areas.

If the difference is the "driving" part, I still don't get it. The car didn't get into that illegal parking position without having been driven there by someone.

So what if, instead of issuing a speeding ticket, the government simply impounded speeding cars like they do illegally parked ones. After all, the car itself exceeded the speed limit, too, not just its passengers. Then it wouldn't matter who was driving; the offense attaches to the car.

NewbE

"So what if, instead of issuing a speeding ticket, the government simply impounded speeding cars"

Well, they'd have to catch them first.

;-)

Katterine

The various governments are just raking up revenue in the name of "protecting us" from ourselves. This blog will give you advice on how to handle the ticket the most effective way.

annoyingparkingticket.blogspot.com

They also invite you to reply to their posts with your experience. Together we are stronger in rejecting ploys that suck money out of our pockets!

janisj

Katterine: Welcome to Fodors. But I can tell you, registering simply to dredge up old, moldy threads and post links to websites really isn't kosher. Suppose you didn't notice the OP was nearly 18 months ago??? (Advertising isn't allowed on here)

NeoPatrick

I got raked over the coals once today for pointing out it was meaningless to revive an old thread (in that case about a link that was no longer even accessible). But I'll do it again.
I suggest you all forget the above advertised link and instead search for "www.annoyingkaterine.com".

Keith

You mean because she has never posted here before and just logged in to pormote that website?

Keith

tchoiniere

Here I was wondering if the OP was reporting back if she paid her ticket or not?