The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Crash87 on September 04, 2013, 07:04:50 AM
-
I got a letter/ticket in the mail yesterday. The letter referred me to a website that has a video of my car (can't see the driver) making a rolling stop/right turn at a red light with no traffic. The letter says paying the ticket is an admission of guilt and that, if it wasn't me driving I need to provide the name/address of the driver.
I looked around on the internet and it seems that I may not have to pay since there is no proof I'm driving. I'm thinking I should send them a letter pleading not guilty and taking the 5th amendment so I don't have to give them someone else's name.
Anyone ever got one of these before and/or have any advice?
-
Were you driving?
-
I got a letter/ticket in the mail yesterday. The letter referred me to a website that has a video of my car (can't see the driver) making a rolling stop/right turn at a red light with no traffic. The letter says paying the ticket is an admission of guilt and that, if it wasn't me driving I need to provide the name/address of the driver.
I looked around on the internet and it seems that I may not have to pay since there is no proof I'm driving. I'm thinking I should send them a letter pleading not guilty and taking the 5th amendment so I don't have to give them someone else's name.
Anyone ever got one of these before and/or have any advice?
This is in no way legal advice. I would ignore the fact that it even happened. There is a case awaiting trial with the Missouri Supreme Court to determine whether these are even allowed in the state of Missouri. Furthermore, the city of St. Louis has no authority to adversely affect your credit score or cause any other form of financial distress if you don't pay. The only authority they have is to issue arrest warrants, which they have publicly stated they will not do.
On the ethics/morality aspect - You may have been the victim of an unethical setup. The company behind the cameras also controls the light infrastructure. It has been shown that they change the length of the yellow lights in order to catch more red-light violations.
-
I got a letter/ticket in the mail yesterday. The letter referred me to a website that has a video of my car (can't see the driver) making a rolling stop/right turn at a red light with no traffic. The letter says paying the ticket is an admission of guilt and that, if it wasn't me driving I need to provide the name/address of the driver.
I looked around on the internet and it seems that I may not have to pay since there is no proof I'm driving. I'm thinking I should send them a letter pleading not guilty and taking the 5th amendment so I don't have to give them someone else's name.
Anyone ever got one of these before and/or have any advice?
This is in no way legal advice. I would ignore the fact that it even happened. There is a case awaiting trial with the Missouri Supreme Court to determine whether these are even allowed in the state of Missouri. Furthermore, the city of St. Louis has no authority to adversely affect your credit score or cause any other form of financial distress if you don't pay. The only authority they have is to issue arrest warrants, which they have publicly stated they will not do.
On the ethics/morality aspect - You may have been the victim of an unethical setup. The company behind the cameras also controls the light infrastructure. It has been shown that they change the length of the yellow lights in order to catch more red-light violations.
I'll add to that (the bold part). There is an argument that this is "for safety". Bollocks. Do you know what one thing makes red lights more safe? ...making the yellow light longer. If they're shortening the yellow to issue more tickets, they're making it less safe.
-
Good ol' red light scamera's. Our town police cheif was bought off by the company that installed the red light cameras. Both the company and the town was making big bucks off the people, until enough of us raised a stink and got city council to terminate the countract, much to the police, mayor and courts dismay. It was a cash cow.
If it was me, I would simply ignore that ticket. It's a contract that they're trying to trick you into signing. It violates your due process and right to face your accuser.
-
This happened to me last year. Driving my car in San Diego, no one was around and I did not stop all the way when turning right on red. Funny thing is...if you went on the web site and watch the video...you can totally tell it was me.....but I have very short hair and was wearing sun glasses. So because they did not think it was a girl driving the car they did not send the ticket to me or even my Dad (who owned the car at the time)! They sent a ticket to my brother! Who has not ever been to San Diego. He sent back a letter saying that it was not him and he was in a different state and has never been to San Diego and it is not his job to find out who was driving the car. I don't remember where that letter got us, but my mom just found a place that for $89 hires a lawyer to fight the red light cams and they pretty much always win. This was to make sure my brother was protected. If they had sent it to me I would have just ignored it. It is all just a fishing expedition.
I think in LA they were ruled unconstitutional or something b/c you could not face your accuser. So I know in LA you can ignore them, they are phasing them out. People that don't know that though still pay when they get the letter.
-
We have lots and lots of red light cameras around (suburban IL). Here, if you follow the appeal procedure they generally dismiss the ticket (unless you are habitual). Our appeal procedure does not include any possibility of lying, however. My husband has gotten these before, typically in the rain. He doesn't run red lights but he has been caught on the insta-snap in the very last second after the yellow turns red, boom. We have always appealed, it was raining, not safe to stop, car behind following too close to safely stop, etc.
Many towns around us have removed the cameras - no idea why, they must be a total cash cow but whatever.
I would attempt to appeal the ticket without lying. But like I said, here there is no "guilty or not guilty" you either pay the ticket or appeal it.
-
If you were indeed driving, I would pay the ticket.
I don't know how many jurisdictions are "scamming" people with photo-enforcement, for example by shortening the yellow light, but I bet it is fewer than people think. The MMM philosophy is to walk and bike for transportation as much as possible. Therefore, having a place where it is safe to walk and bike is key. Giving people tickets for when they break the law helps create a safe place for walking and biking. I know I feel much safer walking when people are in the habit of coming to a complete stop before turning on red.
-
Accidents from right turn on red are extrememly rare. According to this article, citing (an admittedly 12 year old report) the accident rate from light violations is less than 5000 a year http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2693.asp (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2693.asp) with fewer than 11 deaths. you are quite literally more likely to die being hit by lightening http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2693.asp (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2693.asp).
In this analysis of pedestrian and cyclist deaths in Conneticut over a 13 year period, only 4 people died being hit by right turning vehicles. The bicyclist was intoxicated, and another pedestrian was not obeying traffic signals at the time.http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0336.htm (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0336.htm)
Since most cameras are placed to best catch right turn on red rolling violations (which are not that dangerous) and since other studies show that cameras can increase the frequency of other accidents, and since the majority of constituents are often against cameras, I think it is safe to say they are most often installed for money making potential, rather than safety concerns or the demand of the populace.
-
I got a letter/ticket in the mail yesterday. The letter referred me to a website that has a video of my car (can't see the driver) making a rolling stop/right turn at a red light with no traffic. The letter says paying the ticket is an admission of guilt and that, if it wasn't me driving I need to provide the name/address of the driver.
I looked around on the internet and it seems that I may not have to pay since there is no proof I'm driving. I'm thinking I should send them a letter pleading not guilty and taking the 5th amendment so I don't have to give them someone else's name.
Anyone ever got one of these before and/or have any advice?
This is in no way legal advice. I would ignore the fact that it even happened. There is a case awaiting trial with the Missouri Supreme Court to determine whether these are even allowed in the state of Missouri. Furthermore, the city of St. Louis has no authority to adversely affect your credit score or cause any other form of financial distress if you don't pay. The only authority they have is to issue arrest warrants, which they have publicly stated they will not do.
On the ethics/morality aspect - You may have been the victim of an unethical setup. The company behind the cameras also controls the light infrastructure. It has been shown that they change the length of the yellow lights in order to catch more red-light violations.
The State of Maryland is the biggest user of these money-making schemes. They claim it makes the streets safer. It probably does, but the lights strategically placed at the bottom of steep hills and changing the speed from 50 to 35 in a short stretch (and then placing a camera there) certainly makes one wonder.
I can't give legal advice. IIRC, there have been class action lawsuits around these cameras because they have not been reviewed by a police officer or because the light timing was way off and "catching" innocent people.
-
If you were indeed driving, I would pay the ticket.
I don't know how many jurisdictions are "scamming" people with photo-enforcement, for example by shortening the yellow light, but I bet it is fewer than people think. The MMM philosophy is to walk and bike for transportation as much as possible. Therefore, having a place where it is safe to walk and bike is key. Giving people tickets for when they break the law helps create a safe place for walking and biking. I know I feel much safer walking when people are in the habit of coming to a complete stop before turning on red.
In one town in Maryland, a bicycle was clocked going 57 mph. So, the cameras can definitely be wrong. =-)
-
Accidents from right turn on red are extrememly rare.
This depends on the traffic engineering. Around here, crackheads city engineers revamped all the roads to contain a center median. The effect is that to get anywhere on the left, you have to pass it and do a U turn. Right-turners at the lights just don't quite have it in their heads that they have to yield to both oncoming traffic and U-turn traffic.
I see right-turn-on-red vs U-turn accidents on almost a daily basis.
-
I received one of these last year. It was for a light here in Texas but came from a company (yes company, not a court or any public entity) in Arizona and looked more like a bill than a ticket. You couldn't see anything inside the car on the video so no way to tell who was driving (though I'm the sole owner and person on the insurance). I'm sure that the car has gone through that same intersection many times since and would be surprised if there weren't more rolling stops but no other tickets ever came.
Ethically... I'd imagine it's nearly impossible to drive (or maybe even leave your home) without breaking at least one law. Using cameras and automated systems to ticket everyone for all of these minor incidences is asinine. There are so many judgement calls made by drivers as to whether or not something is safe that it should take a judgement call by an on the scene police officer to give out tickets for unsafe driving that does not result in any damages.
-
This is a huge controversy in Missouri too. I used to live in Illinois and had never/or rarely seen yield signs for right turns. In Missouri, almost all right turns are yields, except the ones with red light cameras, and that is how they get a lot of offenders.
To see the extent of the problem, check out this article (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/red-light-ticket-scofflaws-in-st-john-will-be-told/article_d8c8c402-b1fd-5a28-8c05-b8b69c93e6fd.html). There are 6,781 UNPAID red light tickets in St. John, MO. The population of St. John, MO is 6,517. They have 264 MORE unpaid red light tickets than residents.
Additionally, don't expect to even be given the opportunity to fight this in court. I received a notification of ticket in February, and I sent it back requesting a court date. I received a letter postmarked April, notifying me of my court date in March. I don't have the exact dates on hand, but I've saved everything at home.
If you were indeed driving, I would pay the ticket.
Why? These cameras have been shown to NOT reduce accidents. Not to mention, they target the least concerning of accidents - right turns on red at 5 mph are not exactly a high-danger event.
-
Accidents from right turn on red are extrememly rare.
This depends on the traffic engineering. Around here, crackheads city engineers revamped all the roads to contain a center median. The effect is that to get anywhere on the left, you have to pass it and do a U turn. Right-turners at the lights just don't quite have it in their heads that they have to yield to both oncoming traffic and U-turn traffic.
I see right-turn-on-red vs U-turn accidents on almost a daily basis.
If done correctly, the round-a-bout is the safest of all traffic intersections. They are designed to have fewer conflict points. (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nevadadot.com/uploadedImages/NDOT/Traveler_Info/Safety/conflict_points.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nevadadot.com/safety/roundabout/benefits.aspx&h=212&w=360&sz=19&tbnid=GvVFprLwlEh46M:&tbnh=72&tbnw=122&zoom=1&usg=__44xWxM4A1kUfEtW9vyPOPuKtRTM=&docid=sM4whZM3FrQEyM&sa=X&ei=_FInUr3TM-nsiQKU84D4DA&ved=0CC4Q9QEwAA&dur=2203) The design actually does increase the number of accidents while turning right, into the roundabout. However, it decreases head on collisions, which are far more dangerous. All collisions in roundabout traffic flow are the result of two cars moving in nearly the same vector direction ... IE accidents are typically glances that are a problem for the car, but not a safety problem for passengers.
-
This conversation led me to search Google, and I found this website related to Maryland speed cameras. Many examples here of speed cameras gone wrong:
http://www.mddriversalliance.org/
-
If you were indeed driving, I would pay the ticket.
Why? These cameras have been shown to NOT reduce accidents. Not to mention, they target the least concerning of accidents - right turns on red at 5 mph are not exactly a high-danger event.
For the same reason that you should pay a ticket if you get one while biking if you roll through a stop sign. It may be stupid, but you broke the law, you should take responsibility for your actions.
-
If you were indeed driving, I would pay the ticket.
Why? These cameras have been shown to NOT reduce accidents. Not to mention, they target the least concerning of accidents - right turns on red at 5 mph are not exactly a high-danger event.
For the same reason that you should pay a ticket if you get one while biking if you roll through a stop sign. It may be stupid, but you broke the law, you should take responsibility for your actions.
So we should follow laws and immediately pay for their consequences, even if they cause us harm?
-
If you were indeed driving, I would pay the ticket.
Why? These cameras have been shown to NOT reduce accidents. Not to mention, they target the least concerning of accidents - right turns on red at 5 mph are not exactly a high-danger event.
because you broke the law? Might not like it, but it is illegal to roll through a stop sign/red light. Not saying the cameras aren't there to make money, but it doesn't justify breaking the law either. It's the same as stealing from the bank because you don't agree with their fees...
But appeal it, if you lose, pay it.
So we should follow laws and immediately pay for their consequences, even if they cause us harm?
What laws actively harm you by following them? Laws are enforced with consequences when people break them however...
-
My wife just went to traffic school for $220 instead of paying the ticket and paying the higher ticket price. We choose that avenue since the ticket happened locally and we didn't want to spend months dodging process servers and worry about being handcuffed and dragged off to jail if she was ever stopped for something else in the future. Also, she's more aware of not running red lights.
If this happened out of town, I would just throw the ticket away.
-
So we should follow laws and immediately pay for their consequences, even if they cause us harm?
Yep. Otherwise why bother following any laws? The bulk of them cause us harm by limiting our freedom to do things, yet we need to follow them anyways.
-
So we should follow laws and immediately pay for their consequences, even if they cause us harm?
What laws actively harm you by following them? Laws are enforced with consequences when people break them however...
Red light cameras have been shown to increase rear-end collisions, so the law in question causes harm by following it. The reason being, people slamming on their brakes to avoid running a red light on a short yellow, are more likely to get rear ended.
http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/rear-end-crashes-go-up-after-red-light-cameras-go-in
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_jersey&id=9234959
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/
Or a summation of multiple news agency's own studies:
http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/increase-accidents
-
So we should follow laws and immediately pay for their consequences, even if they cause us harm?
Yep. Otherwise why bother following any laws? The bulk of them cause us harm by limiting our freedom to do things, yet we need to follow them anyways.
Yet this law is so questionable some courts have determined it to oppose the Missouri Constitution, and a decision by the supreme court is pending. This is exactly why we have checks and balances. Also, see my previous post that shows we are harmed by more than the limitation of our freedom. There is actual physical harm coming from these cameras.
-
Red light camera tickets are nothing more than an unconstitutional process that resulted from the merger of a corporation and the state. It's not the "law" that's in question, its the process of apprehension. Due process and the right to face an accuser are not afforded in that process, and courts have agreed on that.
-
If the infraction happened in your car you should pay the ticket and pursue collection from whoever was driving the car.
The last three countries I have lived in make extensive use of speed, red light and rail crossing cameras. They work and are a much better use of resources than policeman chasing people around to write a ticket.
-
So we should follow laws and immediately pay for their consequences, even if they cause us harm?
Yep. Otherwise why bother following any laws? The bulk of them cause us harm by limiting our freedom to do things, yet we need to follow them anyways.
That's hyperbole.
Rosa Parks broke a "law". The point is, unconstitutional practices are not lawful.
mpbaker22 is correct that in that the data shows they are completely unsafe as well. Our city council found this data to be convincing as well for public safety.
-
If I had done something wrong, I would pay the ticket. In the video though my car is being driven responsibly. No pedestrians or other traffic, clear visibility, etc.
I don't think not responding would be a good idea; my bill might just go up. I think I'll just this letter and see what happens:
To Whom it May Concern,
I received a letter claiming I committed a violation of a speeding law in the City of St. Louis on 08/08/2013. I am writing to plead ‘not guilty’ to this charge. Although this option is said to result in this matter going to court; it is my suggestion that the charges simply be dropped. This suggestion comes out of respect for tax payers, and my request that their hard earned money not be wasted in such proceedings. I know of no evidence of my involvement with this alleged ‘crime’. I see no way the government could prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I am also unaware of any legal requirement for me to implicate someone else in this process. My understanding is that it is the government’s responsibility to prove a person’s guilt and that it is my 5th amendment right to remain silent on the matter.
If it is the government’s decision to move forward in this matter, I would request copies of any evidence the prosecution may have of my involvement in the “offense” and, if my understanding of the law is incorrect, an explanation of both what I have misinterpreted and any pertinent legal requirement that I am unaware of.
I'll post back whenever I get a response and let you guys know how it went.
-
Red light camera tickets are nothing more than an unconstitutional process that resulted from the merger of a corporation and the state. It's not the "law" that's in question, its the process of apprehension. Due process and the right to face an accuser are not afforded in that process, and courts have agreed on that.
Yes, this.
-
Obvious first question (which no one seems to have asked yet): is it actually your car? Obvious because I got one a year or two ago from someplace in Washington state. Now I haven't been in Washington in maybe 15 years, the vehicle in the photo was a small station wagon while mine's a pickup, and the license plate was from another state, with a different number - though similar enough to fool an OCR system.
-
Obvious first question (which no one seems to have asked yet): is it actually your car? Obvious because I got one a year or two ago from someplace in Washington state. Now I haven't been in Washington in maybe 15 years, the vehicle in the photo was a small station wagon while mine's a pickup, and the license plate was from another state, with a different number - though similar enough to fool an OCR system.
If I had done something wrong, I would pay the ticket. In the video though my car is being driven responsibly. No pedestrians or other traffic, clear visibility, etc.
The OP has already admitted who the car belonged to.
-
I'm definitely no libertarian, but I find these red light cameras/tickets to be a gross abuse of constitutional protections as noted by others (right to face accusers, presumed innocence unless proven otherwise, etc.). The blurring of giant revenue streams and private corporations in the mix just makes it even more slimy. Particularly when companies are getting a percentage of the revenue, which obviously just provides the incentive to issue as many tickets as possible.
As if this isn't bad enough, now states and counties are starting to turn over prison and jail operations to private companies. Imagine you're in a jail run by a private company, whose bottom line is dictated by how many people they can keep in prison, and as long as possible. When your parole hearing comes up, it's up to a profit-driven company to decide (or at least to influence heavily by reporting your behavior while incarcerated). What the hell are we coming to...
-
I'm definitely no libertarian, but I find these red light cameras/tickets to be a gross abuse of constitutional protections as noted by others (right to face accusers, presumed innocence unless proven otherwise, etc.)
I don't follow this reasoning that keeps cropping up. If you own a gun and let a little kid play with it . . . and someone gets shot, you're responsible. In the same way, if you own a car and someone goes through a red light in it . . . you are responsible.
Proof of your innocence (or lack there of) is given by the car in question shown on video committing the crime. If you are not shown in the video there is legal recourse to rectify the mistake.
Your accuser in this case would be the police department. I'm not sure what you expect to gain by facing them?
-
I'm definitely no libertarian, but I find these red light cameras/tickets to be a gross abuse of constitutional protections as noted by others (right to face accusers, presumed innocence unless proven otherwise, etc.). The blurring of giant revenue streams and private corporations in the mix just makes it even more slimy. Particularly when companies are getting a percentage of the revenue, which obviously just provides the incentive to issue as many tickets as possible.
As if this isn't bad enough, now states and counties are starting to turn over prison and jail operations to private companies. Imagine you're in a jail run by a private company, whose bottom line is dictated by how many people they can keep in prison, and as long as possible. When your parole hearing comes up, it's up to a profit-driven company to decide (or at least to influence heavily by reporting your behavior while incarcerated). What the hell are we coming to...
Only because that said for profit company has a monopoly afforded to by a government. Dig deeper and you find there are judges who are getting kickbacks by incarceration and even labs for every so called positive ID. Govts have just as much incentive as a private company to exploit the profit motive. Each is a monopoly so its no wonder they often to collude for reasons of protectionism.
Are we going to see the day when a government operates or contracts out expanded revenue generation via drones tracking motorists or civilians who break the "law"? Are drones really so different than red light cameras? It's all a variance of technology. It reads like an interesting dystopian novel but plays out like some creepy scientific dictatorship.
-
I'm definitely no libertarian, but I find these red light cameras/tickets to be a gross abuse of constitutional protections as noted by others (right to face accusers, presumed innocence unless proven otherwise, etc.)
I'm not sure what you expect to gain by facing them?
Due process, a fair trial, innocent until proven guilty and the right to face your accuser.
-
I don't follow this reasoning that keeps cropping up. If you own a gun and let a little kid play with it . . . and someone gets shot, you're responsible. In the same way, if you own a car and someone goes through a red light in it . . . you are responsible.
I'm not sure that analogy fits.
A little kid may or may not know what a gun is and certainly doesn't have the maturity to fully understand the danger of it.
An adult licensed driver has gone through training (and probably has years of driving). They should know what they're doing.
I can assure you Hertz and Avis don't think they're the responsible party if you get popped by a red light camera in their car.
Proof of your innocence (or lack there of) is given by the car in question shown on video committing the crime. If you are not shown in the video there is legal recourse to rectify the mistake.
Your accuser in this case would be the police department. I'm not sure what you expect to gain by facing them?
In Texas they get around all of this by treating it as something similar to a parking ticket. It isn't a moving violation (even though you're clearly moving). It doesn't count against insurance or driving record.
-
I received a ticket for (allegedly) speeding in DC, caught on camera. I did some reading and found that any half-baked argument usually wins on these, because there is no one who can testify to contradict anything you say. I drafted a 4 part argument for dismissal, including an argument against the impermissible burden shifting that occurs when I am required to prove that it wasn't me driving. I had another argument where I cited the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration official sunset time and the definition of dusk and twilight (time stamp said 4PM, but the image looked like it was taken at night). I also made some weird argument about the photo not being authenticated, blah blah. It was fun, and sort of tongue in cheek, but I had absolutely nothing to lose.
A year later I get a postcard from the DC DMV saying they were dismissing the ticket.
-
Your accuser in this case would be the police department. I'm not sure what you expect to gain by facing them?
As we've seen, these tickets often get issued in error, sometimes with no rhyme or reason. Or sometimes there are extenuating circumstances that are off camera. I can ask a police officer, "Did you see me driving the car?" I can't cross examine a camera to expose holes in the charges. I can't ask a camera, "Did you notice that I was pushing carefully through the red light to make way for the three fire trucks that were screaming towards the intersection attempting to get through, but could not unless I moved?"
On the radio just last week a person was issued a ticket by a camera, but they were not even in the city in question at the time (nor was their car, it was sitting in their driveway at home). If the person was sitting at home at the time of the alleged incident, and can't "prove" they were not in the city going through a red light, how do they refute the bogus charge? So far it seems many courts give the benefit of the doubt to the camera, which flies in the face of the constitutional protections afforded us of being presumed innocent. With no one to cross examine, I don't know how one can establish their innocence.
-
I'm definitely no libertarian, but I find these red light cameras/tickets to be a gross abuse of constitutional protections as noted by others (right to face accusers, presumed innocence unless proven otherwise, etc.)
I don't follow this reasoning that keeps cropping up. If you own a gun and let a little kid play with it . . . and someone gets shot, you're responsible. In the same way, if you own a car and someone goes through a red light in it . . . you are responsible.
Proof of your innocence (or lack there of) is given by the car in question shown on video committing the crime. If you are not shown in the video there is legal recourse to rectify the mistake.
Your accuser in this case would be the police department. I'm not sure what you expect to gain by facing them?
In one case near me, a guy's car was stolen. The car thief got hundreds of dollars in tickets (maybe thousands). The owner of the car was sent the speeding tickets **even though he had reported his car stolen.**
So, there are problems with these systems.
-
I'm definitely no libertarian, but I find these red light cameras/tickets to be a gross abuse of constitutional protections as noted by others (right to face accusers, presumed innocence unless proven otherwise, etc.). The blurring of giant revenue streams and private corporations in the mix just makes it even more slimy. Particularly when companies are getting a percentage of the revenue, which obviously just provides the incentive to issue as many tickets as possible.
As if this isn't bad enough, now states and counties are starting to turn over prison and jail operations to private companies. Imagine you're in a jail run by a private company, whose bottom line is dictated by how many people they can keep in prison, and as long as possible. When your parole hearing comes up, it's up to a profit-driven company to decide (or at least to influence heavily by reporting your behavior while incarcerated). What the hell are we coming to...
This post reminds me of the civil forfeiture info I shared in a thread on this forum.
If the police financially benefit from taking your house, car, etc due to a "crime" even if you are not guilty, then they are more likely to do it. In sum, this means I can come to your property, commit a crime, and then you get *your* property taken away because the crime I committed was on your property...even if you don't know me...even if you did not know about the crime.
Only North Carolina has a law against civil forfeiture.
-
On the other hand to all these "rolling right on red" arguments, I'd rather prefer that the asshole that is 4th in line turning left through a red get a ticket. I know my buddy is glad that there was a red light camera when he got broadsided by a guy with a suspended license that was POSITIVE he had the right of way... 2 seconds after the light changed.
-
On the other hand to all these "rolling right on red" arguments, I'd rather prefer that the asshole that is 4th in line turning left through a red get a ticket.
That depends though. Turning left through a red could be legal as long as you are past the white line when the light is yellow (at least in Missouri). At certain intersections, it's actually possible to be the 4th car waiting at a green light and be beyond the white line, so you are technically in the intersection.
Though, admittedly, these intersections are few and far between. Not to mention, the cameras are supposed to recognize this as legal.
-
On the other hand to all these "rolling right on red" arguments, I'd rather prefer that the asshole that is 4th in line turning left through a red get a ticket. I know my buddy is glad that there was a red light camera when he got broadsided by a guy with a suspended license that was POSITIVE he had the right of way... 2 seconds after the light changed.
Any major intersections with have security camera already in place monitored by your local DOT. Local police would have access to that video too. So the red light camera's for revenue generation aren't needed to review an accident in cases like that.
-
I'm definitely no libertarian, but I find these red light cameras/tickets to be a gross abuse of constitutional protections as noted by others (right to face accusers, presumed innocence unless proven otherwise, etc.). The blurring of giant revenue streams and private corporations in the mix just makes it even more slimy. Particularly when companies are getting a percentage of the revenue, which obviously just provides the incentive to issue as many tickets as possible.
As if this isn't bad enough, now states and counties are starting to turn over prison and jail operations to private companies. Imagine you're in a jail run by a private company, whose bottom line is dictated by how many people they can keep in prison, and as long as possible. When your parole hearing comes up, it's up to a profit-driven company to decide (or at least to influence heavily by reporting your behavior while incarcerated). What the hell are we coming to...
This post reminds me of the civil forfeiture info I shared in a thread on this forum.
If the police financially benefit from taking your house, car, etc due to a "crime" even if you are not guilty, then they are more likely to do it. In sum, this means I can come to your property, commit a crime, and then you get *your* property taken away because the crime I committed was on your property...even if you don't know me...even if you did not know about the crime.
Only North Carolina has a law against civil forfeiture.
I was thinking of this too. I've had enough run ins with the Po-Po that I just try to avoid being in my car. I feel like I'm wearing a target while driving. And it's all one big money making scheme. Protect and serve, indeed.
-
Based on the fact that the tickets from red light cams and photoradar system don't usually count against your record or insurance, etc... seems to be a tacit admission they're only there for revenue generation.
That said, they like to put a photoradar camera about two blocks from my house, at the bottom of a hill. I've ridden my bicycle past it fast enough to set it off... I wonder if the car in the road got a ticket? It's also fun to do a wheelie past it on the sportbike. I've done it 4 or 5 times, but have yet to get a ticket from it. (I wouldn't mind having those pictures!)
-
I once got a speed camera ticket in the mail, from a small city 300km from mine. I was coming off the highway (a 100km/h zone) and was on the offramp, when the picture was taken. I was clocked at 63km/h. I could see the 50km/h sign ahead of me, in the picture. I was slowing down at the time, but was still 100m from the 50km/h zone, when the camera caught me.
These tickets here don't count towards demerits, or insurance rates, as they are fines, as opposed to moving violations.
Because I would have had to go to court, and make a 600km round trip drive to dispute it, I paid the $85 ticket. But I gave the officer a piece of my mind, when I called to pay the ticket, when he tried to give me a lecture about speeding. (I'd lost the ticket, as I had 120 days to pay, and I wasn't about to pay them a day earlier than I had to, so I had to call traffic enforcement for the ticket number, so I could call the courthouse with a credit card payment).
-
Based on the fact that the tickets from red light cams and photoradar system don't usually count against your record or insurance, etc... seems to be a tacit admission they're only there for revenue generation.
That said, they like to put a photoradar camera about two blocks from my house, at the bottom of a hill. I've ridden my bicycle past it fast enough to set it off... I wonder if the car in the road got a ticket? It's also fun to do a wheelie past it on the sportbike. I've done it 4 or 5 times, but have yet to get a ticket from it. (I wouldn't mind having those pictures!)
One camera in MD clocked a bike going 57 mph. Of course, it was not accurate. =-)
-
On the other hand to all these "rolling right on red" arguments, I'd rather prefer that the asshole that is 4th in line turning left through a red get a ticket.
That depends though. Turning left through a red could be legal as long as you are past the white line when the light is yellow (at least in Missouri). At certain intersections, it's actually possible to be the 4th car waiting at a green light and be beyond the white line, so you are technically in the intersection.
Though, admittedly, these intersections are few and far between. Not to mention, the cameras are supposed to recognize this as legal.
Except it's not legal: you're not supposed to cross the white line to begin with unless you think you can immediately clear the intersection.
That said, when you've already sat through a complete cycle because the intersection is so congested that the stream of opposing traffic is constant, it's understandable to want to creep into the intersection in order to get through.
-
On the other hand to all these "rolling right on red" arguments, I'd rather prefer that the asshole that is 4th in line turning left through a red get a ticket.
That depends though. Turning left through a red could be legal as long as you are past the white line when the light is yellow (at least in Missouri). At certain intersections, it's actually possible to be the 4th car waiting at a green light and be beyond the white line, so you are technically in the intersection.
Though, admittedly, these intersections are few and far between. Not to mention, the cameras are supposed to recognize this as legal.
Except it's not legal: you're not supposed to cross the white line to begin with unless you think you can immediately clear the intersection.
That said, when you've already sat through a complete cycle because the intersection is so congested that the stream of opposing traffic is constant, it's understandable to want to creep into the intersection in order to get through.
Where are you that it's not legal? I checked my local state code (Washington (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61&full=true#46.61.055)) and the only place the white line is mentioned is the red light section - when the light is green, there's no obligation to stop there.
The local city code is pretty sparse (since the state laws cover most things), but the only mention there also supports this: When reviewing red light camera pictures, a citation can only be issued if the camera has a picture of the car behind the stop line with the light already red, as well as one of the car going through the intersection during the red.
-
If you were at fault breaking the law, Mann up and pay the fee.
Strongly don't like the law? Fight to get it changed or move to where the laws are more to your liking.
-
On the other hand to all these "rolling right on red" arguments, I'd rather prefer that the asshole that is 4th in line turning left through a red get a ticket.
That depends though. Turning left through a red could be legal as long as you are past the white line when the light is yellow (at least in Missouri). At certain intersections, it's actually possible to be the 4th car waiting at a green light and be beyond the white line, so you are technically in the intersection.
Though, admittedly, these intersections are few and far between. Not to mention, the cameras are supposed to recognize this as legal.
Except it's not legal: you're not supposed to cross the white line to begin with unless you think you can immediately clear the intersection.
That said, when you've already sat through a complete cycle because the intersection is so congested that the stream of opposing traffic is constant, it's understandable to want to creep into the intersection in order to get through.
Where are you that it's not legal? I checked my local state code (Washington (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61&full=true#46.61.055)) and the only place the white line is mentioned is the red light section - when the light is green, there's no obligation to stop there.
The local city code is pretty sparse (since the state laws cover most things), but the only mention there also supports this: When reviewing red light camera pictures, a citation can only be issued if the camera has a picture of the car behind the stop line with the light already red, as well as one of the car going through the intersection during the red.
The typical language is as follows (quoted from Georgia state law, but several other states are either similar or identical):
No driver shall enter an intersection unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection to accommodate the vehicle he is operating without obstructing the passage of other vehicles or pedestrians, notwithstanding any traffic-control signal indication to proceed.
In a left-turn-on-green situation, a lack of gaps in oncoming traffic counts as "insufficient space," and (since you're making a permissive, not protected, left turn) there is no "traffic-control signal indication to proceed."
Now, if there's only one car in the intersection doing this they can probably get away with it, but if there's a big intersection and several cars pile in and don't clear the intersection until after it turns red, the second and subsequent cars are likely to get cited (if they're caught).
-
On the other hand to all these "rolling right on red" arguments, I'd rather prefer that the asshole that is 4th in line turning left through a red get a ticket.
That depends though. Turning left through a red could be legal as long as you are past the white line when the light is yellow (at least in Missouri). At certain intersections, it's actually possible to be the 4th car waiting at a green light and be beyond the white line, so you are technically in the intersection.
Though, admittedly, these intersections are few and far between. Not to mention, the cameras are supposed to recognize this as legal.
Except it's not legal: you're not supposed to cross the white line to begin with unless you think you can immediately clear the intersection.
That said, when you've already sat through a complete cycle because the intersection is so congested that the stream of opposing traffic is constant, it's understandable to want to creep into the intersection in order to get through.
As TLV said, you're wrong. I've actually heard in some places it's illegal to wait at a white line on a green light.
The bigger problem here might be that most people don't know their local laws, so they by default cannot fight them.
If you were at fault breaking the law, Mann up and pay the fee.
Strongly don't like the law? Fight to get it changed or move to where the laws are more to your liking.
Not sure if this is what you meant, but on one hand you say man up and pay the fee. Then you say, fight the law if you don't like it. Fighting it could include not paying the ticket ... so which one do you support.
Don't you think it's ridiculous that so many people say "it's illegal, take the penalty," instead of saying, "that law is utter bullshit and needs to be broken as a form of opposing it."
-
If you were at fault breaking the law, Mann up and pay the fee.
Strongly don't like the law? Fight to get it changed or move to where the laws are more to your liking.
Not sure if this is what you meant, but on one hand you say man up and pay the fee. Then you say, fight the law if you don't like it. Fighting it could include not paying the ticket ... so which one do you support.
Don't you think it's ridiculous that so many people say "it's illegal, take the penalty," instead of saying, "that law is utter bullshit and needs to be broken as a form of opposing it."
By fight it, i mean get involved in the politics/system to get the law changed. Most of what i read in this thread sounds like dodging.
-
As TLV said, you're wrong. I've actually heard in some places it's illegal to wait at a white line on a green light.
You realize I was talking about permissive left turns with oncoming traffic, right? If it were illegal to wait at a white line in that situation as you claim, it means the law would be telling you to plow into somebody else's car.
-
So we should follow laws and immediately pay for their consequences, even if they cause us harm?
Yep. Otherwise why bother following any laws? The bulk of them cause us harm by limiting our freedom to do things, yet we need to follow them anyways.
That's hyperbole.
Rosa Parks broke a "law". The point is, unconstitutional practices are not lawful.
Yes and she paid the consequences for it as well, that is why she is a hero. If she would have weaseled her way out of it (to be fair I believe she was arrested, so that might have been tough) then nobody would have cared.
Also, which part of the constitution in 1955 said you couldn't force black people to sit at the back of the bus? Or am I misunderstanding your point on this?
-
As TLV said, you're wrong. I've actually heard in some places it's illegal to wait at a white line on a green light.
You realize I was talking about permissive left turns with oncoming traffic, right? If it were illegal to wait at a white line in that situation as you claim, it means the law would be telling you to plow into somebody else's car.
I was curious about this, as I've always pulled into the intersection to facilitate a turn, and am annoyed at busy intersections with no protected turn, when others don't do the same. Best I could find in both the Texas Transportation code and the Texas driver handbook: you can turn left on green as (if permitted) but you must yield to oncoming traffic (and pedestrians). No mention of the white line or the intersection at all. So I will continue to pull into the intersection to turn.
On a side note, the TTC also states it is illegal to coast on a downgrade with the gears disengaged. I wonder how much of a downgrade they mean?
-
If you were at fault breaking the law, Mann up and pay the fee.
Strongly don't like the law? Fight to get it changed or move to where the laws are more to your liking.
Like America, where we have the supremacy clause. I'm moving there!
-
As TLV said, you're wrong. I've actually heard in some places it's illegal to wait at a white line on a green light.
You realize I was talking about permissive left turns with oncoming traffic, right? If it were illegal to wait at a white line in that situation as you claim, it means the law would be telling you to plow into somebody else's car.
I was curious about this, as I've always pulled into the intersection to facilitate a turn, and am annoyed at busy intersections with no protected turn, when others don't do the same. Best I could find in both the Texas Transportation code and the Texas driver handbook: you can turn left on green as (if permitted) but you must yield to oncoming traffic (and pedestrians). No mention of the white line or the intersection at all. So I will continue to pull into the intersection to turn.
Just keep in mind that if you get stuck in the intersection after the light turns red, you're obstructing traffic and therefore breaking the law. The sure-fire way of avoiding that situation is to not pull out to begin with until you are ready to turn.
-
As TLV said, you're wrong. I've actually heard in some places it's illegal to wait at a white line on a green light.
You realize I was talking about permissive left turns with oncoming traffic, right? If it were illegal to wait at a white line in that situation as you claim, it means the law would be telling you to plow into somebody else's car.
I was curious about this, as I've always pulled into the intersection to facilitate a turn, and am annoyed at busy intersections with no protected turn, when others don't do the same. Best I could find in both the Texas Transportation code and the Texas driver handbook: you can turn left on green as (if permitted) but you must yield to oncoming traffic (and pedestrians). No mention of the white line or the intersection at all. So I will continue to pull into the intersection to turn.
Just keep in mind that if you get stuck in the intersection after the light turns red, you're obstructing traffic and therefore breaking the law. The sure-fire way of avoiding that situation is to not pull out to begin with until you are ready to turn.
But that's only illegal IF the lane you are turning into will be extended into the intersection once you turn, thereby obstructing traffic.
-
Yes, you pull into the intersection, then complete the turn as you can, which may include as the light turns red (oncoming traffic should yeild, obviously you should be cognizant of cars not slowing down). If you cannot clear the intersection in the lane you are turning into, then you should not pull out.
However, defensive driving instruction here, teaches that you pull 1/4 the way into the intersection so that you are better able to complete your turn, and that you may complete the turn after/as the light turns, if you have pulled into the intersection. This site has a nice explanation of the rules in Texas: http://texashighwayman.com/laws.shtml#WaitingIntersections (http://texashighwayman.com/laws.shtml#WaitingIntersections).
-
So we should follow laws and immediately pay for their consequences, even if they cause us harm?
Yep. Otherwise why bother following any laws? The bulk of them cause us harm by limiting our freedom to do things, yet we need to follow them anyways.
That's hyperbole.
Rosa Parks broke a "law". The point is, unconstitutional practices are not lawful.
Yes and she paid the consequences for it as well, that is why she is a hero. If she would have weaseled her way out of it (to be fair I believe she was arrested, so that might have been tough) then nobody would have cared.
Also, which part of the constitution in 1955 said you couldn't force black people to sit at the back of the bus? Or am I misunderstanding your point on this?
The 14th amendment prohibits any government from using segregation.
She was a hero, she didn't move and it sparked a change despite the city "law" of segregation which she was arrested for.
I'm not disputing the fact that running a red light is against the "law". What is unconstitutional is how you are charged and tried which denies us due process, etc, as I said a couple of times already. So arguing about what traffic laws are being broke is not the point.
Like the Rosa Parks case, people boycotted riding the bus..the city lost money... same goes here.. people need to stop paying those tickets and refuse on constitutional grounds.
-
So we should follow laws and immediately pay for their consequences, even if they cause us harm?
Yep. Otherwise why bother following any laws? The bulk of them cause us harm by limiting our freedom to do things, yet we need to follow them anyways.
That's hyperbole.
Rosa Parks broke a "law". The point is, unconstitutional practices are not lawful.
Yes and she paid the consequences for it as well, that is why she is a hero. If she would have weaseled her way out of it (to be fair I believe she was arrested, so that might have been tough) then nobody would have cared.
Also, which part of the constitution in 1955 said you couldn't force black people to sit at the back of the bus? Or am I misunderstanding your point on this?
The 14th amendment prohibits any government from using segregation.
She was a hero, she didn't move and it sparked a change despite the city "law" of segregation which she was arrested for.
I'm not disputing the fact that running a red light is against the "law". What is unconstitutional is how you are charged and tried which denies us due process, etc, as I said a couple of times already. So arguing about what traffic laws are being broke is not the point.
Like the Rosa Parks case, people boycotted riding the bus..the city lost money... same goes here.. people need to stop paying those tickets and refuse on constitutional grounds.
Speaking of the 14th amendment, it sure sounds to me like some districts using red light cameras do not follow this amendment (if money is considered "property"):
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
-
Yes, you don't have to look too hard the find how these revenue generating devices are unconstitutional. They've been challenged in court many times and have lost...its just a matter of people taking them to task, one ticket at a time. Clog the system.
-
I'm not disputing the fact that running a red light is against the "law". What is unconstitutional is how you are charged and tried which denies us due process, etc, as I said a couple of times already. So arguing about what traffic laws are being broke is not the point.
To me, it's even more ridiculous that I was notified of my court date a month after it took place. I have evidence of this, but at this point, the only way to fight it (that I know of) is to go pay a lawyer to fight on my behalf, at which point I've paid far more for the lawyer than the ticket.
I haven't received any notifications in the mail for a few months though, and my credit report doesn't show anything related to it.
-
I'm not disputing the fact that running a red light is against the "law". What is unconstitutional is how you are charged and tried which denies us due process, etc, as I said a couple of times already. So arguing about what traffic laws are being broke is not the point.
To me, it's even more ridiculous that I was notified of my court date a month after it took place. I have evidence of this, but at this point, the only way to fight it (that I know of) is to go pay a lawyer to fight on my behalf, at which point I've paid far more for the lawyer than the ticket.
I haven't received any notifications in the mail for a few months though, and my credit report doesn't show anything related to it.
I say central services because I love the movie Brazil so much...but the bureaucracy sending that out a month after the fact isn't surprising.. it actually benefits them so they're indifferent. Central services is the one thing in which its own ineptness actually empowers it because they have a monopoly on the law.
-
I'm not disputing the fact that running a red light is against the "law". What is unconstitutional is how you are charged and tried which denies us due process, etc, as I said a couple of times already. So arguing about what traffic laws are being broke is not the point.
To me, it's even more ridiculous that I was notified of my court date a month after it took place. I have evidence of this, but at this point, the only way to fight it (that I know of) is to go pay a lawyer to fight on my behalf, at which point I've paid far more for the lawyer than the ticket.
I haven't received any notifications in the mail for a few months though, and my credit report doesn't show anything related to it.
This. And I received a number of our tickets 8 months after the infraction, which left plenty of time for us to generate more tickets instead of correcting our behavior. Now, I slow down before the speed cameras and all of the tourists speed past me while honking. Really fun.
-
I'm not disputing the fact that running a red light is against the "law". What is unconstitutional is how you are charged and tried which denies us due process, etc, as I said a couple of times already. So arguing about what traffic laws are being broke is not the point.
To me, it's even more ridiculous that I was notified of my court date a month after it took place. I have evidence of this, but at this point, the only way to fight it (that I know of) is to go pay a lawyer to fight on my behalf, at which point I've paid far more for the lawyer than the ticket.
I haven't received any notifications in the mail for a few months though, and my credit report doesn't show anything related to it.
This. And I received a number of our tickets 8 months after the infraction, which left plenty of time for us to generate more tickets instead of correcting our behavior. Now, I slow down before the speed cameras and all of the tourists speed past me while honking. Really fun.
Yeah, nothing unsafe about that at all! ;)
Not that I am trying to promote illegal activity or anything, but an app that some of you might be interested in is called Trapster. http://www.trapster.com/ Users submit speed traps, enforcement cameras, and road hazards, that then alert all Trapster users in the area. A high-tech version of flashing your headlights to alert drivers of potential road hazards. I also think using a good radar detector (like the Valentine V1) to increase situational awareness is important too. Like OldToyota says, you stay safe while others fly by and get the citations you avoided.
-
Remember, the people going faster than you are crazy bastards and the ones going slower are stupid idiots.
Who else misses Carlin?
-
If you were indeed driving, I would pay the ticket.
I don't know how many jurisdictions are "scamming" people with photo-enforcement, for example by shortening the yellow light, but I bet it is fewer than people think. The MMM philosophy is to walk and bike for transportation as much as possible. Therefore, having a place where it is safe to walk and bike is key. Giving people tickets for when they break the law helps create a safe place for walking and biking. I know I feel much safer walking when people are in the habit of coming to a complete stop before turning on red.
+1
Watch the video and time the yellow light for yourself. Then, look up your state codes on minimum yellow light timing and see if the light is timed correctly. I think you'll find it is correct.
You gotta ask yourself - "do I feel lucky?" about paying the ticket. For me I wouldn't cry about getting caught and just pay the ticket. It get's real complicated real fast when you start ignoring tickets. The "system" works with hundreds of people like that (that don't pay) every day and knows how to get your attention.
-
If you were indeed driving, I would pay the ticket.
I don't know how many jurisdictions are "scamming" people with photo-enforcement, for example by shortening the yellow light, but I bet it is fewer than people think. The MMM philosophy is to walk and bike for transportation as much as possible. Therefore, having a place where it is safe to walk and bike is key. Giving people tickets for when they break the law helps create a safe place for walking and biking. I know I feel much safer walking when people are in the habit of coming to a complete stop before turning on red.
+1
Watch the video and time the yellow light for yourself. Then, look up your state codes on minimum yellow light timing and see if the light is timed correctly. I think you'll find it is correct.
You gotta ask yourself - "do I feel lucky?" about paying the ticket. For me I wouldn't cry about getting caught and just pay the ticket. It get's real complicated real fast when you start ignoring tickets. The "system" works with hundreds of people like that (that don't pay) every day and knows how to get your attention.
It's not a question of the yellow light being less than the state minimum. It's a question of the yellow light being 3 seconds long on Tuesday and 2 seconds long on Wednesday, presuming both 2 and 3 seconds are longer than the state minimum. The point is that the company that handles the lights has been CAUGHT multiple times changing the timing of yellow lights.
The second half of your post shows a clear ignorance of the situation in Missouri. There are multiple pending cases challenging the red light cameras as a whole and I've already posted, in detail, the consequences and process of not paying.
-
If you were indeed driving, I would pay the ticket.
I don't know how many jurisdictions are "scamming" people with photo-enforcement, for example by shortening the yellow light, but I bet it is fewer than people think. The MMM philosophy is to walk and bike for transportation as much as possible. Therefore, having a place where it is safe to walk and bike is key. Giving people tickets for when they break the law helps create a safe place for walking and biking. I know I feel much safer walking when people are in the habit of coming to a complete stop before turning on red.
+1
Watch the video and time the yellow light for yourself. Then, look up your state codes on minimum yellow light timing and see if the light is timed correctly. I think you'll find it is correct.
You gotta ask yourself - "do I feel lucky?" about paying the ticket. For me I wouldn't cry about getting caught and just pay the ticket. It get's real complicated real fast when you start ignoring tickets. The "system" works with hundreds of people like that (that don't pay) every day and knows how to get your attention.
It's not a question of the yellow light being less than the state minimum. It's a question of the yellow light being 3 seconds long on Tuesday and 2 seconds long on Wednesday, presuming both 2 and 3 seconds are longer than the state minimum. The point is that the company that handles the lights has been CAUGHT multiple times changing the timing of yellow lights.
The second half of your post shows a clear ignorance of the situation in Missouri. There are multiple pending cases challenging the red light cameras as a whole and I've already posted, in detail, the consequences and process of not paying.
There are better ways to change the law than to protest by ignoring the ticket. My point is, once you get caught up in the system it can get very expensive and time consuming. YMMV - so if you have the time and energy for that, go right ahead and continue.
-
If you were indeed driving, I would pay the ticket.
I don't know how many jurisdictions are "scamming" people with photo-enforcement, for example by shortening the yellow light, but I bet it is fewer than people think. The MMM philosophy is to walk and bike for transportation as much as possible. Therefore, having a place where it is safe to walk and bike is key. Giving people tickets for when they break the law helps create a safe place for walking and biking. I know I feel much safer walking when people are in the habit of coming to a complete stop before turning on red.
+1
Watch the video and time the yellow light for yourself. Then, look up your state codes on minimum yellow light timing and see if the light is timed correctly. I think you'll find it is correct.
You gotta ask yourself - "do I feel lucky?" about paying the ticket. For me I wouldn't cry about getting caught and just pay the ticket. It get's real complicated real fast when you start ignoring tickets. The "system" works with hundreds of people like that (that don't pay) every day and knows how to get your attention.
It's not a question of the yellow light being less than the state minimum. It's a question of the yellow light being 3 seconds long on Tuesday and 2 seconds long on Wednesday, presuming both 2 and 3 seconds are longer than the state minimum. The point is that the company that handles the lights has been CAUGHT multiple times changing the timing of yellow lights.
The second half of your post shows a clear ignorance of the situation in Missouri. There are multiple pending cases challenging the red light cameras as a whole and I've already posted, in detail, the consequences and process of not paying.
There are better ways to change the law than to protest by ignoring the ticket. My point is, once you get caught up in the system it can get very expensive and time consuming. YMMV - so if you have the time and energy for that, go right ahead and continue.
And my point CONTINUES to be that you obviously haven't read my previous posts in this thread which have covered the EXACT thing you are talking about.
-
UPDATE:
St. Louis sent me a summons. I can either pay the $100 or go to court and have a judge tell me to pay $100. If I don't pay they turn me over to a collections agency.
I'm just going to pay. This fine is completely absurd, but I don't want to deal with a collections agency over $100.
Thanks for all the advice/input everyone
-
I got a letter/ticket in the mail yesterday. The letter referred me to a website that has a video of my car (can't see the driver) making a rolling stop/right turn at a red light with no traffic. The letter says paying the ticket is an admission of guilt and that, if it wasn't me driving I need to provide the name/address of the driver.
I looked around on the internet and it seems that I may not have to pay since there is no proof I'm driving. I'm thinking I should send them a letter pleading not guilty and taking the 5th amendment so I don't have to give them someone else's name.
Anyone ever got one of these before and/or have any advice?
This is in no way legal advice. I would ignore the fact that it even happened. There is a case awaiting trial with the Missouri Supreme Court to determine whether these are even allowed in the state of Missouri. Furthermore, the city of St. Louis has no authority to adversely affect your credit score or cause any other form of financial distress if you don't pay. The only authority they have is to issue arrest warrants, which they have publicly stated they will not do.
On the ethics/morality aspect - You may have been the victim of an unethical setup. The company behind the cameras also controls the light infrastructure. It has been shown that they change the length of the yellow lights in order to catch more red-light violations.
I agree with this 100%.
We fought them and had them removed from 3 cities in our general area. The tickets were like $470 a pop.
They're all gone now and everything is back to being decent.
They have legal issues with constructive receipt of said violation. You know how you sign a cops ticket? That's basically releasing yourself on your own recognizance. there is no way for them to establish that you received the ticket.
I'll also point out that most of outfits are dubious. They engage the city and say we'll put all this up and run it and then give you a % you have to do nothing and it will "fix" your budget. IT IS poor governance for your city to do this and citizens should actively resist this.
Just remember; I live in a pretty decent sized city in southern california and we successfully had them removed from multiple cities. Populations totalling close to 1/2 a million. It can be done.
-
UPDATE:
St. Louis sent me a summons. I can either pay the $100 or go to court and have a judge tell me to pay $100. If I don't pay they turn me over to a collections agency.
I'm just going to pay. This fine is completely absurd, but I don't want to deal with a collections agency over $100.
Thanks for all the advice/input everyone
wow that sucks. They're a bit more aggressive over there aren't they?
-
UPDATE:
St. Louis sent me a summons. I can either pay the $100 or go to court and have a judge tell me to pay $100. If I don't pay they turn me over to a collections agency.
I'm just going to pay. This fine is completely absurd, but I don't want to deal with a collections agency over $100.
Thanks for all the advice/input everyone
go to court; have them prove it was you.
when they ask you was it you? Just plead the 5th.
You aren't required by law to incriminate yourself.
-
UPDATE:
St. Louis sent me a summons. I can either pay the $100 or go to court and have a judge tell me to pay $100. If I don't pay they turn me over to a collections agency.
I'm just going to pay. This fine is completely absurd, but I don't want to deal with a collections agency over $100.
Thanks for all the advice/input everyone
go to court; have them prove it was you.
when they ask you was it you? Just plead the 5th.
You aren't required by law to incriminate yourself.
I think this advice will vary by state. In Texas it isn't a moving violation. They don't care who was in the car. Your car ran the light. It is like a parking ticket. They don't care who parked the car. It was parked. The meter ran out. Pay up. (I'm not saying this is particularly fair... just how it is.)
-
The State of Maryland is the biggest user of these money-making schemes. They claim it makes the streets safer. It probably does, but the lights strategically placed at the bottom of steep hills and changing the speed from 50 to 35 in a short stretch (and then placing a camera there) certainly makes one wonder.
At night. In heavy rain and wind in the remnants of a tropic storm. At 4AM, obviously empty road. Not knowing the area. Driving a crap car (not mine) with foggy windows. God damn it. But they got me fair and square and I paid them their blood money.
-
UPDATE:
St. Louis sent me a summons. I can either pay the $100 or go to court and have a judge tell me to pay $100. If I don't pay they turn me over to a collections agency.
I'm just going to pay. This fine is completely absurd, but I don't want to deal with a collections agency over $100.
Thanks for all the advice/input everyone
Just a collections agency? Or is that a threat of an arrest warrant in there anywhere?
If its just a collections agency, I would ignore and let them try.
-
Wow, I expected a lot better from the MMM community on this issue. What we get is a majority whining that it's unfair that they have to pay for breaking traffic law and then conniving to get out of their fines. Then mpbaker cites a FHWA study that states there are modest economic benefits in the increase of rear-end vs. right-angle crashes from RLCs pretending it's an anti-RLC conclusion. While stating that most crashes and even moreso fatal crashes are not RTOR, they disproportionately affect bikes and pedestrians.
I find it somewhat amusing that almost all times this happened the person who received the violation admits to the violation but still thinks they are right to fight not only their ticket but the enforcement system. If the yellow light is too short then remove the system instead of making sure the light conforms to FHWA or state guidance. We live in a country where there are more than 30,000 traffic fatalities a year. It's not that right light cameras are the answer to traffic safety but they're one of the things the northern European countries have used in their safety campaigns. AASHTO, FHWA, TRB synthesis, a recent publication in the Journal of Safety Research, etc. all show positive benefits of automated red light enforcement. Attempting to deny this because it suits your narrative of victimhood is tantamount to climate denialism.
-
Wow, I expected a lot better from the MMM community on this issue. What we get is a majority whining that it's unfair that they have to pay for breaking traffic law and then conniving to get out of their fines. Then mpbaker cites a FHWA study that states there are modest economic benefits in the increase of rear-end vs. right-angle crashes from RLCs pretending it's an anti-RLC conclusion. While stating that most crashes and even moreso fatal crashes are not RTOR, they disproportionately affect bikes and pedestrians.
I find it somewhat amusing that almost all times this happened the person who received the violation admits to the violation but still thinks they are right to fight not only their ticket but the enforcement system. If the yellow light is too short then remove the system instead of making sure the light conforms to FHWA or state guidance. We live in a country where there are more than 30,000 traffic fatalities a year. It's not that right light cameras are the answer to traffic safety but they're one of the things the northern European countries have used in their safety campaigns. AASHTO, FHWA, TRB synthesis, a recent publication in the Journal of Safety Research, etc. all show positive benefits of automated red light enforcement. Attempting to deny this because it suits your narrative of victimhood is tantamount to climate denialism.
Applause, applause, applause! I agree 100% and this is what I wish I had taken the time to research and say. Thank you.
-
Sorry to disappoint you steve, I guess some people don't like being bullied by local governments and corporations teaming up to subvert the law of due process in order to generate revenue under the guise of "safety". I say good for them.
-
Sorry to disappoint you steve, I guess some people don't like being bullied by local governments and corporations teaming up to subvert the law of due process in order to generate revenue under the guise of "safety". I say good for them.
this is a succinct distillation of the problem with Red light cameras.
that and they're fascist.
-
Sorry to disappoint you steve, I guess some people don't like being bullied by local governments and corporations teaming up to subvert the law of due process in order to generate revenue under the guise of "safety". I say good for them.
Agreed.
Tickets/fines issued without regard for common sense (in this case the fact that there is no other traffic is completely ignored) are no different than theft. However, if the worst thing that happens to me is occasionally having a hundred or so dollars stolen then I can't complain too much.
-
Sorry to disappoint you steve, I guess some people don't like being bullied by local governments and corporations teaming up to subvert the law of due process in order to generate revenue under the guise of "safety". I say good for them.
this is a succinct distillation of the problem with Red light cameras.
that and they're fascist.
Mr.Macinstache, let me parse this. You don't think the appeals process which is very similar to appealing a ticket given by an officer is acceptable due process. You don't like corporations administering these programs. That's simple, lobby to have public ownership and no revenue sharing. You say it's under a "guise of safety" despite the fact that they increase safety and reduce more severe accidents writ large and that when coupled with good yellow and all-red light timings and good intersection selection (e.g. ones with more right angle crashes) they are incredibly valuable. Why not lobby for better intersection selection and make sure light timings meet state standards (they mostly do)? In the end I'm convinced that most people like you don't particularly care about traffic safety and are more interested in what you perceive as your right to violate traffic laws with impunity and want to reduce the chances of being fined.
Clutchy, maybe you use a different definition of fascism, hopefully one beyond "things I don't like", but you'll have to let me know what attributes of fascism these live up to.
1. The primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether universal or individual.
2. The belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment which justifies any action against the group’s enemies, internal as well as external.
3. Dread of the group’s decadence under the corrosive effect of individualistic and cosmopolitan liberalism.
4. Closer integration of the community within a brotherhood (fascio) whose unity and purity are forged by common conviction, if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary.
5. An enhanced sense of identity and belonging, in which the grandeur of the group reinforces individual self-esteem.
6. Authority of natural leaders (always male) throughout society, culminating
in a national chieftain who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s destiny.
7. The beauty of violence and of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success in a Darwinian struggle.
---Five Stages of Fascism (http://link=http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/235001)
-
Sorry to disappoint you steve, I guess some people don't like being bullied by local governments and corporations teaming up to subvert the law of due process in order to generate revenue under the guise of "safety". I say good for them.
this is a succinct distillation of the problem with Red light cameras.
that and they're fascist.
Mr.Macinstache, let me parse this. You don't think the appeals process which is very similar to appealing a ticket given by an officer is acceptable due process. You don't like corporations administering these programs. That's simple, lobby to have public ownership and no revenue sharing. You say it's under a "guise of safety" despite the fact that they increase safety and reduce more severe accidents writ large and that when coupled with good yellow and all-red light timings and good intersection selection (e.g. ones with more right angle crashes) they are incredibly valuable. Why not lobby for better intersection selection and make sure light timings meet state standards (they mostly do)? In the end I'm convinced that most people like you don't particularly care about traffic safety and are more interested in what you perceive as your right to violate traffic laws with impunity and want to reduce the chances of being fined.
There is no appeal - it's guilty to proven innocent!
Why the hell should I have to lobby for a different entity to steal from me? Theft is theft no matter who does it. Why didn't we just tell slaves to lobby their owners for different owners if they didn't like it?
And if you go through the thread again, you'll see examples where these Red light cameras correlate with increased accidents. The accusation that I don't care about traffic safety is absurd. That is one of the reasons I am against them. I can put you in touch with my city councilman who is a commercial airline pilot that led the fight to get rid of our red light camera because they were in fact a determent to public safety.
-
Here's another element: EVEN IF the cameras were shown to improve public safety, should we be willing to trade our constitutional protections for it?
As an example, it would be much "safer" if everyone's houses were searched by the police every week for anything dangerous or illegal, or having police cameras in our homes, but of course we don't do that because it violates our rights of privacy and against unreasonable searches. This is a (somewhat) outrageous example, but hopefully it illustrates that "safety" is not the end-all justification for unconstitutional practices, such as assuming guilt and forcing a person to prove their innocence against a non-entity camera accuser. There's often a balance between safety and liberty, and one can't be argued to the exclusion of the other.
-
Also, for those of you in favor of these Red light scameras, I am sure that you all NEVER drive a mile per hour over the speed limit, right? That is illegal! We should have speed sensors as well, every 100 yards to monitor your speed. And if you exceed the limit, even by 1 mph, you are breaking the law and should be sent a fine. Because speed kills! Correct?
-
I wouldn't like the sensors . . . but if I broke the law, I'd pay the fine. Otherwise you're just being dishonest. Because of the fine, I'd be more careful about my speed.
If you run a red, you broke the law. Just because you're used to getting away with it doesn't make it right.
-
For these reasons I'm a bit worried about the insurance placing driving monitors in a car to 'protect' against 'rate suckers'. At this point it is seemingly voluntary if you want 'lower' rates by proving you are a good driver. How long before that line gets blurred, though. In order to even get insurance, you may need to have that. Then, they will be in all cars and big brother will just come arrest you for what your car has reported to the gestapo... err, traffic court.
1984, we are there.
-
I wouldn't like the sensors . . . but if I broke the law, I'd pay the fine. Otherwise you're just being dishonest. Because of the fine, I'd be more careful about my speed.
If you run a red, you broke the law. Just because you're used to getting away with it doesn't make it right.
That's what I'm saying with the sensors. The red light camera's are the camels nose. If you accept them, the sky's the limit. I could also the car insurance industry lobbying for the devices that catch you speeding etc. It's a win/win for them to increase your rates and increase revenue for the govt.
I don't think anyone is suggesting breaking laws. It's about the act of apprehension that protects our civil rights under the law.
Sort of like, police officers aren't above the law. They have procedures they have to abide by when searching your person, making arrests and so on.
-
As an example, it would be much "safer" if everyone's houses were searched by the police every week for anything dangerous or illegal, or having police cameras in our homes, but of course we don't do that because it violates our rights of privacy and against unreasonable searches. This is a (somewhat) outrageous example, but hopefully it illustrates that "safety" is not the end-all justification for unconstitutional practices, such as assuming guilt and forcing a person to prove their innocence against a non-entity camera accuser. There's often a balance between safety and liberty, and one can't be argued to the exclusion of the other.
Well, that is where we are in the US. It's "safer" to break into everyone's medical records/bank statements in the search for "terrorists." Instead of fighting the enemy that is against our Constitution and democracy, we've become the enemy.
And we do have cameras in our homes. They are on our computers and easily hacked into by the government if they so wish.
It sounds paranoid, doesn't it?
I was amused (horrified?) to see that thinking you're being surveilled has been removed from the list of "bizarre" thoughts by psychologists trying to diagnose psychosis. Apparently, it's no longer bizarre to think you are being surveilled...because you are!
*waving to nsa* Hello, NSA! Hope you are well! ;-)
-
I wouldn't like the sensors . . . but if I broke the law, I'd pay the fine. Otherwise you're just being dishonest. Because of the fine, I'd be more careful about my speed.
If you run a red, you broke the law. Just because you're used to getting away with it doesn't make it right.
You are ignoring or not aware of the scams behind the tickets. In some cases--well documented--companies have given out unfair tickets. In one case, they fined a bicycled for going 60 or so mph. Come on. That's crazy.
In another case, a man kept getting tickets for a car he had reported stolen. The bills went to a collection agency and it took him hours of time to get it all straightened out...and then he'd get another ticket due to the guy who stole his car.
Plus, it's more surveillance. Yuck. DC now has cameras at every entry point to the city. If you drive in a vehicle, your plate is photographed and saved in a database. Why? These are creepy.
-
Electronic monitoring of your driving and parking activity is here to stay and will only get more sophisticated over time. This is much more cost effective than policing with people, which wastes everyone's time. This will be a huge upgrade to road safety. I would like to see it coupled with a tripling or so of infringement penalties. Red lights should be $1000 fine because running them causes so many deaths. The US has among the highest road death rates per capita in the western world. Sweden, with half the US rate (despite 9 months of ice all over the country), has over 1000 speed cameras. Penalties are linked to income as well as speed - a couple years ago a billionaire was clocked doing 180 mph and was fined over a million dollars.
-
Sweden, with half the US rate (despite 9 months of ice all over the country), has over 1000 speed cameras.
I'm not sure that's really a one-to-one comparison. Sweden is very small in comparison to the US. Their highway system is less than 10% of the size of the US's. There is a decent rail system (and it's easy to build a rail system with a smaller footprint).
-
Miles driven per capita is comparable, but Swedish road conditions are typically worse.
-
Miles driven per capita is comparable, but Swedish road conditions are typically worse.
I don't think it scales in a linear fashion. For example, if there were 5 million traffic lights in Los Angeles (I'm making that number up) -- I don't think it compares to 2.5 million small towns with 2 lights each.
I also would argue the Swedish road conditions (based on having many Swedish friends that thought "oh these people are freaking out about a little ice and snow on the roads" ... then driving on it... and being scared shitless. There is a difference (for example) between Swedish roads with snow tires and ice/snow removal and Texas roads with no snow tires, no snow removal and a layer of 1/2 of ice beneath the snow.
-
I must say it seems to me the cry of Constitutional rights infringement is a bit of smoke and mirrors to rationalise the desire to do what ever one likes in their car and not be held responsible unless caught in the act by a human Police Officer, which is very rare and unlikely to happen as there just are not enough Police to station one at every intersection.
But of course I could be wrong, so how about this?
Here in Australia we are responsible for our cars. As such, if our car is photographed running a red light or speeding then we will receive a fine. If we were not the person driving the car at the time we have the option of advising the authorities of who was the driver* and if we choose not to then we are responsible for paying the fine.
How would all the posters in this thread feel about that situation?
*Pleading the 5th would not be an option because by nominating the driver responsible you would not be incriminating yourself so it would not apply.
-
Electronic monitoring of your driving and parking activity is here to stay and will only get more sophisticated over time. This is much more cost effective than policing with people, which wastes everyone's time. This will be a huge upgrade to road safety. I would like to see it coupled with a tripling or so of infringement penalties. Red lights should be $1000 fine because running them causes so many deaths. The US has among the highest road death rates per capita in the western world. Sweden, with half the US rate (despite 9 months of ice all over the country), has over 1000 speed cameras.
Something suggesting these don't actually prevent accidents overall, which impacts my thought process on these quite a bit:
http://blog.esurance.com/are-red-light-cameras-actually-causing-accidents/
Penalties are linked to income as well as speed - a couple years ago a billionaire was clocked doing 180 mph and was fined over a million dollars.
This I like, progressive taxes are quite fair to me (though I'm also not rich and have an econ degree hah).
[/quote]
-
Wow, I expected a lot better from the MMM community on this issue. What we get is a majority whining that it's unfair that they have to pay for breaking traffic law and then conniving to get out of their fines. Then mpbaker cites a FHWA study that states there are modest economic benefits in the increase of rear-end vs. right-angle crashes from RLCs pretending it's an anti-RLC conclusion. While stating that most crashes and even moreso fatal crashes are not RTOR, they disproportionately affect bikes and pedestrians.
I find it somewhat amusing that almost all times this happened the person who received the violation admits to the violation but still thinks they are right to fight not only their ticket but the enforcement system. If the yellow light is too short then remove the system instead of making sure the light conforms to FHWA or state guidance. We live in a country where there are more than 30,000 traffic fatalities a year. It's not that right light cameras are the answer to traffic safety but they're one of the things the northern European countries have used in their safety campaigns. AASHTO, FHWA, TRB synthesis, a recent publication in the Journal of Safety Research, etc. all show positive benefits of automated red light enforcement. Attempting to deny this because it suits your narrative of victimhood is tantamount to climate denialism.
How bout this for an argument?
Controlled studies show the average driver reaction time to a light turning green-> yellow is 2.3 seconds. Missouri law states yellow lights need to be 3-6 seconds in length. At 45 mph, a car travels between 198 and 396 feet during the yellow light time window. Missouri state law requires vehicles to have the capability of decelerating at 14.66 feet/second
Taking conservative measures, we'll go with 396 feet and 6 seconds. Assuming the AVERAGE (remember, some people are naturally worse than average) reaction time, a driver who his braking will hit the brakes 2.3 seconds later, 244.2 feet from the line. At the state required 14.66 feet/second^2 deceleration, the driver will take 4.5 seconds to stop, and will stop in 148 feet, a full 96.2 feet from the line. That should be enough, except 6 seconds i the MAXIMUM yellow light time.
3 seconds is the MINIMUM. In cases where the minimum is used, a driver caught in the 198-396 foot zone will find himself a full 99.8 feet over the line, provided he has braked at a rate required by the state.
So, essentially, we have a red light camera system that has been set up to enforce vehicular requirements stronger than those of the state. Missouri doesn't release the individual traffic light timings, so I can't provide hard data for a specific intersection, but it's certainly possible municipalities are enforcing a law NOT on the books.
-
I must say it seems to me the cry of Constitutional rights infringement is a bit of smoke and mirrors to rationalise the desire to do what ever one likes in their car and not be held responsible unless caught in the act by a human Police Officer, which is very rare and unlikely to happen as there just are not enough Police to station one at every intersection.
But of course I could be wrong, so how about this?
Here in Australia we are responsible for our cars. As such, if our car is photographed running a red light or speeding then we will receive a fine. If we were not the person driving the car at the time we have the option of advising the authorities of who was the driver* and if we choose not to then we are responsible for paying the fine.
How would all the posters in this thread feel about that situation?
*Pleading the 5th would not be an option because by nominating the driver responsible you would not be incriminating yourself so it would not apply.
It's more the selective enforcement of laws. I sat at a light this morning and literally watched 7 cars in a row enter the intersection illegally, but they weren't running a red light, so they weren't issued tickets. People fail to use turn signals all the time, but they aren't ticketed.
-
....
Here in Australia we are responsible for our cars. As such, if our car is photographed running a red light or speeding then we will receive a fine. If we were not the person driving the car at the time we have the option of advising the authorities of who was the driver* and if we choose not to then we are responsible for paying the fine.
...
As has been pointed out, this makes sense and is consistent with how parking tickets are handled (parking tickets, by the way, are going electronic as well so stay tuned for that). I'd like to see someone go to court and argue they don't owe a parking ticket (levied by a private parking or enforcement company, for example) because their brother-in-law borrowed the car that day.
-
I must say it seems to me the cry of Constitutional rights infringement is a bit of smoke and mirrors to rationalise the desire to do what ever one likes in their car and not be held responsible unless caught in the act by a human Police Officer, which is very rare and unlikely to happen as there just are not enough Police to station one at every intersection.
Maybe for some people. Not in my case. I am just tired of being monitored constantly. And I think municipalities do this to increase revenue.
-
I must say it seems to me the cry of Constitutional rights infringement is a bit of smoke and mirrors to rationalise the desire to do what ever one likes in their car and not be held responsible unless caught in the act by a human Police Officer, which is very rare and unlikely to happen as there just are not enough Police to station one at every intersection.
Maybe for some people. Not in my case. I am just tired of being monitored constantly. And I think Know municipalities do this to increase revenue.
The main thing is the red light tickets are just a silly situation. A camera can't detect a lot of things. A cop wouldn't ticket a driver who barely runs a red light because they weren't sure if they could stop in time. A cop wouldn't ticket a driver who has a legitimate reason for 'running' a red light.
And people will say you can go to court if you are legitimately innocent, but that's ridiculous. That's multiple hours, sometime over multiple days, that you have to take off work to fight an illegitimate ticket. ...Not to mention the tickets given out across the state that can't be fought because the court room is 200 miles away.
-
As has been pointed out, this makes sense and is consistent with how parking tickets are handled (parking tickets, by the way, are going electronic as well so stay tuned for that). I'd like to see someone go to court and argue they don't owe a parking ticket (levied by a private parking or enforcement company, for example) because their brother-in-law borrowed the car that day.
I wouldn't call parking tickets similar. With a red light camera, there's video evidence of someone breaking a law. Being from Chicago, parking tickets seem to be issued incorrectly more than correctly.
-
As has been pointed out, this makes sense and is consistent with how parking tickets are handled (parking tickets, by the way, are going electronic as well so stay tuned for that). I'd like to see someone go to court and argue they don't owe a parking ticket (levied by a private parking or enforcement company, for example) because their brother-in-law borrowed the car that day.
I wouldn't call parking tickets similar. With a red light camera, there's video evidence of someone breaking a law. Being from Chicago, parking tickets seem to be issued incorrectly more than correctly.
Same thing. There are plenty of examples of poorly-timed lights or camera systems that incorrectly charged people too. If you get the German shepherd to guard the ham, don't expect to have any ham left.
-
As has been pointed out, this makes sense and is consistent with how parking tickets are handled (parking tickets, by the way, are going electronic as well so stay tuned for that). I'd like to see someone go to court and argue they don't owe a parking ticket (levied by a private parking or enforcement company, for example) because their brother-in-law borrowed the car that day.
I wouldn't call parking tickets similar. With a red light camera, there's video evidence of someone breaking a law. Being from Chicago, parking tickets seem to be issued incorrectly more than correctly.
Same thing. There are plenty of examples of poorly-timed lights or camera systems that incorrectly charged people too. If you get the German shepherd to guard the ham, don't expect to have any ham left.
Yep. Like I've said before a lot of people will just pay it so they don't have to worry about it. Other people don't want to waste hours and hours to fight a $100 ticket. Sure, you can go to court and fight it, but when they are issued frequently in error, maybe we should stop wasting everyone's time.
-
Good article here. It points out how American Traffic Solutions had to settle lawsuits about unfair yellow light timing. ATS was accused of reducing the length of time for yellow lights in order to capture more red light runners:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/03/18/red-light-cameras-lawsuits/1985537/
-
Good article here. It points out how American Traffic Solutions had to settle lawsuits about unfair yellow light timing. ATS was accused of reducing the length of time for yellow lights in order to capture more red light runners:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/03/18/red-light-cameras-lawsuits/1985537/
Yep! I actually got a second red light ticket in a municipality that actually will arrest you if you don't pay it (compared to the city of St. Louis which does nothing if you don't pay). So, naturally I fought it in court with the argument that the timing wasn't correct. I backed into the amount of time the light was yellow from the video presented on the government's website. I used that to calculate the speed and minimum stopping distance, and I showed that it did not comply with state law.
My ticket was dropped, but I wonder how many people are not aware of what's going on.
-
Good article here. It points out how American Traffic Solutions had to settle lawsuits about unfair yellow light timing. ATS was accused of reducing the length of time for yellow lights in order to capture more red light runners:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/03/18/red-light-cameras-lawsuits/1985537/
I got a ticket the other month that I am presently ignoring, and for this exact reason. It was at an intersection that I rarely go through, and I actually remember the incident, because the light was still green when I crossed the intersection and yellow then red in -- I swear! - less than three seconds. The statement I got shows I wasn't speeding, as well. I've researched this in my city and, sure enough, the timing of the yellow lights at the eight intersections that have the cameras is well below whatever the national standard is, while at all other intersections, it's standard. Plus, the line they judge you on isn't the crosswalk line, which is what any driver would use as a guide, but a thick line well beyond the crosswalk. It's total entrapment, in my view. I could not have avoided this ticket, as I was driving through a green light and it turned yellow then red THAT fast.
What my lawyer friend here told me was 1. don't view the video on the website if you're directed to one, because that serves as proof that you have received the ticket. 2. ignore it. Here, it's dismissed after 120 days if you haven't been served by a process server, which happens rarely. BUT, the magistrate almost never dismisses them, so fighting it doesn't work. The ticket is $300+, more than a minimum wage for one week, and going to traffic school was over $200.
-
I find this subject interesting so did a bit more reading.
The major of Modesto, CA was surprised to find that the camera he had voted for had been positioned not to prevent the dangerous "t-bone" kind of accident but to catch people turning right on red (illegal, yes, but not that dangerous). He felt the camera was positioned to raise revenue as opposed to increasing safety. Now, he is against the camera.
He is also not thrilled that the revenue from the camera--around $1MM--has gone to Arizona (home of American Traffic Solutions). He said it might be a different story if the revenue was staying in the community and being put to good use.
-
Where I live, the company gets 50% of the revenue and the city gets 50%, if I recall correctly.
-
Where I live, the company gets 50% of the revenue and the city gets 50%, if I recall correctly.
Yikes! I thought 33% was bad in STL. The bigger issue in my mind is that councilmen in these towns will frequently declare that they are receiving this service for free because the companies don't get paid on a per case basis. Yes, but they're still receiving 50% of anything that comes in. That's not "for free" it's just a different fee system.