Red light cameras

[GoingDown]

Ticket was for making a 'rolling stop' (prior to proceding to make a right hand turn).

Whenever I have to drive through that place now, I am so paranoid I wait for that light to change to green before making a turn.......

.

We're very paranoid now, too. We try to drive around the intersections with red light cameras, going out of our way to avoid them whenever possible. They post all the locations online in our metro Phoenix area. And when we must drive through one, we slow way down and stop on yellow. We don't turn right until the light turns green again. We just sit there through the entire red. And we make sure we do not cross into the cross walk until the light turns green again.

[malf1204]

I became the first person in my county to be found NOT GUILTY of a speed camera ticket yesterday. There were two cars in the template on the photo and the law clearly state that "if more than one vehicle is visible in the template the ticket is not valid as evidence". A police Officer Officer was supposed to have verified the photo(Ha Ha). The camera tech actually showed up to court and lied. He stated that it was OK to have two cars in the template as long as the licenses plate and rear wheel were in the photo. I had obtained a copy of the operators manual for the camera through the FOIA and showed him the above cited passage and he still tried to state that the ticket was valid. I then asked him if there was an margin of error in the camera calibration. He stated "No' the camera is exact in measurement. I then produced the last certification also obtain through the FOIA that stated it was calibrated to + or - 1mph. Mt ticket was issued for 1 mph over the limit. Sp I asked if we were to accept the photo as evidence is it not possible I was traveling under the speed threshold for issuing a ticket? He stated "no" it is not possible. AT this point the Judge found me not guilty stating that I was the first. I spent half a day and hours researching this. I won but I lost. I am fully convinced they issue these citations knowing that they are bogus just hoping you will pay or be found guilty. After all they get paid for going to Court.

[ksgirl38]

congratulations! I once went to court over a failure to stop at a stop sign. Apparently it's not considered a valid stop unless your rear tires come to a complete stop. Anyway, I went to court to fight it and argued that when you are on a hill your tires may roll backwards before forwards when you've stopped making it look like you hadn't. That and a bush was blocking the officers view. The judge bought it. I really just couldn't afford the ticket. Most of the time I think they assume you won't fight the ticket, but it sure is worth it to try sometimes.

[justbroke]

Cocoa Beach Florida is notorious for dismissing the ticket if you show up in court. Since the majority are tourists cruising out of Port Canaveral, or visiting Cocoa Beach, they have a real revenue generator there!

[AngelinaCat]

I am updating this to let you know that our fair city is installing their three red-light cameras. The City fathers and mothers have assured themselves that all the legal issues have been resolved.
Yeah, right!

Like GoingDown, I am plotting my way to and from work to bypass these things as much as possible, which adds extra mileage, and unnecessary stress trying to accomplish the daily tasks.

It is interesting to note that the most logical place to install a red light camera, which is the main East/West highway through town where the bridge over the St. Johns River crosses right by City Hall, will NOT have one. There are traffic violations there all the time because of the speed with which traffic goes over the bridge, in spite of the posted signs.

I guess that posting a camera there was considered 'poor sportsmanship' because it would be like 'shooting fish in a barrel'....

[dgtxpride]

This is a secondhand story, but I've heard of someone in my area getting a ticket from a red light camera because a construction worker or someone with traffic authority waved her through the intersection, but apparently the camera only captured the photo of the car running the light instead of the full video which would provide enough context to prove her innocence. I'm personally fine with red light cameras as long as they gather enough video to prevent false tickets (can be done with today's technology) and don't give the city incentive to get more people to run red lights by doing things like shortening the yellow light (can't be fixed by any technology).

[AngelinaCat]

I have learned to stop about 1/2 car length short of the white line when I have to go through an intersection that has one of those things. God-daughter got a ticket for stopping ON the white line. She did not run the light, but apparently stopping on the line triggered the camera. She could have contested it, but decided that it was easier to pay the fine than go to court.

[justbroke]

They hope that no one contests them! One of the reasons to cross the light on red, is at the direction of an "official" or emergency vehicle. But, you have to raise that as a defense!

[Freddy03]

In Orange County, FL they send you a link so you can view the video of the violation. It's hard to fight it if your on tape.

[sbatman]

$355 photo-radar ticket in Tucson

I got popped by the infamous intersection at River Road and Oracle in Tucson, making a left turn at 17 mph. They sent me a copy with a strong warning to pay up. They were very savvy not mentioning it, but in AZ, photo-radar tickets are not valid until reviewed AND SERVED. After dodging process servers for the house and 2 credit card lawsuits, this was not difficult (just a bit nerve-wracking). Since they couldn't find me or hubby to serve me, 110 days after the ticket was mailed, "POOF", it went bye-bye.

That intersection was built just to snag drivers and there is a fairly constant stream of news stories about it. But the City Of Tucson makes WWAAAAYYYYY too much money off of it to fix (they vary the length of the yellow lights to "gotcha!" and have the red light line in the middle of the intersection), everytime someone goes into office, they say they'll get rid of it. They they will "assess the situation" and that all.

We will drive 2 miles to stay away from that intersection, since it is inherently unfair and the city loves the revenue.

[tobee43]

yes it is! dh just got one a few months ago for $158 and sent the picture right along with the ticket. can't fight that it's right there in front of your eyes. a couple of days ago he almost killed us slamming on his breaks for a yellow light, by the time we stopped we were in the intersection! he had to back up. i said there's no camera at this intersection, he replied you never know if they have someone sitting at the side of the road taking pictures! some of these intersections are so big you can't get through a yellow since they have been set to be really short, so it's such a trap!!

[AngelinaCat]

It is interesting to note that the most logical place to install a red light camera, which is the main East/West highway through town where the bridge over the St. Johns River crosses right by City Hall, will NOT have one. There are traffic violations there all the time because of the speed with which traffic goes over the bridge, in spite of the posted signs.

I guess that posting a camera there was considered 'poor sportsmanship' because it would be like 'shooting fish in a barrel'....

Well, the City Fathers and Mothers are going to start shooting the fish in the barrel. The intersection just outside City Hall is getting one as is another intersection a few blocks away. That will make FOUR Red light cameras on the one stretch of road alone.

Luckily, I can turn right at the foot of the bridge, go a couple of blocks, turn left and have an almost unimpeded straight road through town. It isn't through the best of neighborhoods, but oh, well....

[justbroke]

In 2011, the State of Florida made $51,000,000 in revenue on red light cameras. I'm talking about the State's $83 fee that is part of the red light infraction fine, which ranges from $158 to $201 (from what I have seen). That means that the Cities/Towns are making as much as $100,000,000 in revenue on these cameras. Source: http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/...icket-4/nYDt9/

The laws were just updated to clarify some things, such as what constitutes a right-turn-on-red, but it appears that the "changes" now allow a local "administrative" charge to be added. Tickets could now be up to $408, according to the article. This would mean over $200,000,000 in revenues for the 70 cities/towns with about 400 intersections watched.

Wait for it... wait for it... that is over $500,000 in revenue per intersection on average. (Please note that some intersections make a lot more than the $500K average.) Did I mention that companies like American Traffic Solutions (ATS), that operate the cameras for a portion of the profit, also make very good money from this!

[OHBOY]

I LOVE THIS !!!!!

National Motorists Association
Weekly Email Newsletter

Issue #221




NMA E-Newsletter #221: Administrative Hearings Deny Motorists Due Process

Photo ticket profiteers will stop at nothing to discourage motorists from fighting and beating unfair camera tickets. Their latest ploy comes in the form of California Assembly Bill 666, which would require ticket camera cases to be heard in administrative hearings, not in real courts of law.

This change would effectively deny motorists key due process rights (such as the right to discovery and to confront witnesses) and further stack the deck in favor of those who benefit from camera revenue. For more information on the insidious nature of administrative hearings, check out E-newsletter #219: Resistance is not Futile.

To illustrate the true impact of a bill like AB 666, let’s look at what can happen when a camera-ticket recipient exercises his due process rights in a court of law.

Gant Bloom received a red-light camera ticket in St. Louis and decided to defend himself in court. He did not deny that the image of his car had been captured by the ticket camera, but because he did not receive the ticket until several weeks later, he could not honestly determine whether he or his girlfriend was driving the car at the time.

Bloom’s opening statement included a summary of his strategy: “I decided it just wasn’t fair for me to admit guilt to something I didn’t even know if I did or not. The only physical evidence that the prosecution is going to show you is that it was my car running through a red light. That I don’t deny. I don’t believe the City can satisfy this court that it was me who committed that crime. And furthermore, I intend to demonstrate reasonable doubt that it was me driving that day.”

Bloom’s girlfriend testified that the two of them had conferred and could not determine who was driving at the time of the alleged violation. The prosecuting attorney spent several minutes questioning a representative of American Traffic Solutions (ATS) and the local police officer who reviewed the citation to establish a foundation for what the photo evidence proved, in addition to how that evidence was collected, reviewed, and ultimately resulted in a ticket. In contrast, Bloom, who isn’t an attorney, asked only one question of the ATS employee and three questions of the officer.

His logic was elegant and simple, and points out the fallacy of red-light cameras as a fair means of enforcing intersection traffic regulations.

Bloom asked the ATS employee, “Sir, is there any way (for the cameras) to tell who was driving the car at the time of the violation?” The answer was, “No, there isn’t.”

Bloom then asked the police officer if he would attempt to identify the driver during an in-person traffic stop for running a red light. The answer was affirmative.

Next Bloom asked if the officer would issue a ticket if he wasn’t able to identify the driver. The officer responded, “No, if I couldn’t identify the driver, I wouldn’t issue a ticket.”

Blooms’ final question for the officer: “If you pulled a car over and found out it was a different driver than who was the registered owner of the car, would you issue a citation to the car, to the registered owner who is not driving, or would you issue the citation to whoever was driving the car?” The answer, of course, from the officer was that he would ticket the driver.

The judge found in favor of Bloom and charged court costs to the City of St. Louis. For an entertaining read, you can find the full courtroom transcript at www.tinyurl.com/camtranscript.

Bloom’s defense and the judge’s decision drew the critical distinction between a presumption of innocence and a presumption of guilt. Bloom prevailed in a court of justice, something that would not have been possible in an administrative hearing where those pesky due process rights are routinely quashed.

In California alone there are thousands of motorists charged with unfair traffic violations who, for now, have the opportunity to defend themselves. Curtailing their due process rights through administrative hearings would make it nearly impossible for them to do so. Here’s why:

1.Even if the vehicle owner wasn’t driving and doesn’t know who was, he is still responsible for paying the fine.
2.No additional evidence beyond the ticket itself is needed for a conviction.
3.The defendant will not have the right to confront the witnesses against him.
4.The defendant will not have the right to request discovery in order build a defense.
AB 666 is just one example of the further assault on drivers’ rights. In New York City, administrative hearings are already the norm for traffic violations. If AB 666 is enacted, count on state lawmakers around the country, urged on by their camera company conspirators, to introduce similar bills in their own states. ♦

[justbroke]

This is exactly what passed in Florida... the administrative hearing! This is allowing the local municipality to add $200 in administrative "fees" to the tickets. It is likely to pass in Florida because they have a strong lobby. You should read about how many hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to lobby for the new Florida law, with ATS spending around $119K (from the link in the article I posted earlier). ATS also made more than $230K in campaign contributions in 2012.

Why do we need red-light cameras to have a lobby? (Please note that I'm not trying to make this thread political, but they are definitely revenue streams for both the lobbying companies (like ATS), the contractor (ATS), and the city/town!)