Possible hope if you get a picture ticket for running a redlight

[TheLoneGunman]

There are a group of law firms going after these prosecutions and they seem to have some success. They offer a variety of free and paid services.

http://www.redlightlawyer.com/

I don't know them and have never dealt with them, but their arguments seem to make sense.

One of the most interesting is that cops (ON DUTY) have been recieving these photo tickets (and we all know cops never break the law). As a result, in San Diego (where these lawyers are), and other places, some of these tickets are getting dismissed.

[cratervalley]

Thanks for the link! Just a note -- as of right now, all red light cameras in San Diego county have been shut off until further notice. Apparently there were not standards between how each intersection was functioning causing the city to have to turn them all off until they find a way to ensure they all work the same way.

[TheLoneGunman]

The law firm I mentioned just succeeded in getting all of their clients tickets (290 of them) dismissed.

http://news.excite.com/news/r/010905/08/odd-cameras-dc

Hopefully it worked for you

[Grimm]

Looks like a lawsuit will be filed under Federal raqueteering laws to try to get all the fines returned to everyone who has paid one of those tickets.
Based on the judges finding that Lockheed receiving money for each ticket issued is illegal.

[Loki]

I really disagree with those cameras. Especially here in LA. I believe they are not good judges of whether the law is being broken or not. For example, often in LA the intersections get crowded and there is no arrow to turn left on. Instead one must wait till the light turns yellow in order to make a left turn. This of course only lets one maybe two cars go at a time. Now should someone be given a ticket because they slowly moved into the middle of the intersection to make s left turn? No..not at all. In fact I believe that law says that is a legal way to turn. Besides it's not like you are gonna sit in the middle of the intersection and wait for the light to turn green again. I really think those cameras should be taken out. They cause more trouble than they are worth.

[jng]

That great info, wonder how NYC stands.
Been seeing them here and there.

[dag16]

Cambridge is thinking of throwing those up soon.
Thanks for the heads up.

[raimin]

I never understood these cameras. Under california law, i believe, if any part of our car is in the intersection when the light turns red, you have the right to continue through.

So if a picture is taken when the light turns red, and shows you are already in the intersection, what law did you break?

[brainsmile]

Makes it better for people in sd

[psycho-]

I have a hilarious picture of me runnin' the red light here in pacific beach (neighborhood of San Diego). I hate those damn things.

Victor

[Grimm]

The one on Aero Drive (by Fry's in SD) sucks big fat you know what. You can guess where I got busted, can't you.

[cratervalley]

Hehe I heard a funny joke about that something to the effect of some guy got mailed a picture of him running a red light and a fine in the mail, so he mailed the court a photo of $75.

raimin, the red light cameras are only activated if you enter the intersection when the light has already turned red -- the photo is imprinted with the time the light has been red. Check out :

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~tco/asset...es/img0083.jpg

the number 21s on the photo shows that the light has been red 21 seconds and this fool came barreling through.

[victant]

Hahaha!!! Great pic! I guess these red light cams really can have a use after all.

[Burzhui]

that guy is an idiot, what can i say... i got to look at some iinfo on this in NYC

[k28la]

as much as i like my privacy respected, some drunk p.o.s. ran a red light and smashed into my car, nearly killing me... that said, i'm for the cameras... then again, maybe you haven't been hit by a pickup truck going 80 mph... food for thought

[cratervalley]

I am undecided honestly about traffic cameras because they are just a money maker for the city, at least with a police office you are being issued a ticket by a real person that saw you do something and knew the complete circumstances of the offense. If we are going to automate crime-fighting why not make robots that break up domestic disputes before racking up $217 red light tickets from careless motorists.

On a lighter note check out:
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~tco/html/unusual_photos.htm

courtesy the same site, it is odd pictures (some I can't figure out), some people mooning the red light cam, one motorcyclist giving it the two finger salute.

[krackato]

I heard that once a man and not his wife ran a red light in his convertible. He got a ticket with a picture, which his wife opened. He had his arms around "the other women" and was caught. Don't know if he talked himself out of it or if they got a divorce or what, but that's a pretty scary invasion of privacy.

[ziggie216]

too late for me, i had to pay $271 + 6 hours of traffic school. ouch

[Nanotech9]

is that the fine for only 1 violation?

[benger]

Originally posted by k28la
as much as i like my privacy respected, some drunk p.o.s. ran a red light and smashed into my car, nearly killing me... that said, i'm for the cameras... then again, maybe you haven't been hit by a pickup truck going 80 mph... food for thought

I sort of understand how you feel. This SUV going about 50 ran the red light as I was crossing an intersection. It missed me by only a matter of inches. If I had crossed a half a second earlier, I would have been t-boned big time. Pissed me off knowing I could have been killed right then and there. If those cameras make a person think twice before running a red, I'm all for it.

[AH3000]

Car & Driver has an article quoting a study that intersections with cameras actually increase the amount of accidents. Why? Because drivers make panic stops in order to avoid entering the intersection.

Further studies show that an effective way to decrease intersection accidents is to increase the time of the yellow light.

They recount the experience of one city where the officials went to increase the yellow time at a photo-intersection (from 3 to 4 seconds). Turns out that the contract with the camera company forbids the city from changing the timing. Why? Because the camera company splits the proceeds from the citations with the city.

Therefore if the city increased, the timing the camera company (Lockeed Marietta) would experience a loss of income due to the reduced amount of tickets due to the fact that less people would be in the intersection when they're not supposed to be there.

Profits or safety? Hmmmmm.....

[benger]

Originally posted by AH3000
Car & Driver has an article quoting a study that intersections with cameras actually increase the amount of accidents. Why? Because drivers make panic stops in order to avoid entering the intersection.

Those panic stops are usually the result of people driving in excess of the speed limit or people just simply not paying attention (cellphone,makeup etc.) to the traffic lights until it's too late to stop safely. Injuries due to "panic stop" accidents probably aren't going to be as traumatic as those due to "red light running". The former being mostly rear-enders, with the latter being side impacts which usually causes more serious injury. More so when it comes to pedestrians

Yeah, you could probably say that revenues are part of the reason for these cameras, but a big part of it is also to save lives.

[cratervalley]

Here's what I think would be a fair way for the red light cameras to work. Break it down into the same percentages in which real officers would dole out tickets:

15%-20% receive written warnings (no tickets) based on prior offenses
55-60% would be fined
and the remaining 30%-20% would just be thrown out altogether.

I know at present some were being thrown out because the picture wasn't readable.

There is a whole "anti-police" industry to fight tickets, evade radar, etc. etc. Just look at the bad of any performance car magazine. They make some plates that you can put over your license plate (illegal in California) that polarize your license plate from the angle of the camera. Also the make a clear extra glossy varnish to put on your license plate (also illegal in California) to overexpose your license plate to the red light cameras. Whether these techniques work I can't say, but I do think they are interesting.

[resented]

Holy cow read this :

Why do the notices consider me guilty of the offence before it has been proved?

Under the law the owner is deemed guilty of the offence unless he provides a statutory declaration nominating another driver.

[g222leav]

Originally posted by cratervalley
Hehe I heard a funny joke about that something to the effect of some guy got mailed a picture of him running a red light and a fine in the mail, so he mailed the court a photo of $75.

raimin, the red light cameras are only activated if you enter the intersection when the light has already turned red -- the photo is imprinted with the time the light has been red. Check out :

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~tco/asset...es/img0083.jpg

the number 21s on the photo shows that the light has been red 21 seconds and this fool came barreling through.

that picture looks like it was taken in 1965

[Grimm]

Originally posted by benger


Those panic stops are usually the result of people driving in excess of the speed limit or people just simply not paying attention (cellphone,makeup etc.) to the traffic lights until it's too late to stop safely. Injuries due to "panic stop" accidents probably aren't going to be as traumatic as those due to "red light running". The former being mostly rear-enders, with the latter being side impacts which usually causes more serious injury. More so when it comes to pedestrians

Yeah, you could probably say that revenues are part of the reason for these cameras, but a big part of it is also to save lives.

Gee... thanks for your opinions, how about sprinkling of facts to go with them?
Did you notice that you responded to someone's post with only an opinion? They refered to a respected news source. Strike one.

They are not "panic stops" they are sudden stops. Panic stops occur when a driver is attempting to avoid a hazard. A photo light might be hazardous to your wallet, but it is only realy dangerous in increasing your chances of getting rear ended.

Thank you doctor for informing me how much more healthy those rear endings are. So how many more accidents occur as a result of the cameras? Care to back it up with some statistics? No? Still just an opinion? We'll call this strike two.

Lipstick and cell phones? I watch for these things when I drive, they are hazards. But I haven't noticed them doing sudden stops behind photo intersections, these are usualy the ones who just drive on through. And speeding in city traffic in San Diego??? Ha!!! I guess you have never been here. Strike three.

To pretend that pedestrians are safer because of these cameras is beyond obtuse. Drivers are watching the lights like hawks because of the camera, who has time for the pedestrians?

Suuuure they save lives.
Revenue generated in San Diego by photo intersections = millions.
Lives saved = 0.
The court found that the cameras were placed specificaly to generate revenue. They were placed in intersections with high traffic volumes and low accident rates. Your already all out of strikes.

So who are you? Do you work for the rats who are mugging us at these intersections? Or are you just brainwashed?

[benger]

Did you notice that you responded to someone's post with only an opinion?

Yes I did. And it was just that, my opinion.

They refered to a respected news source.

I never discounted that news source now, did I?

They are not "panic stops" they are sudden stops. Panic stops occur when a driver is attempting to avoid a hazard. A photo light might be hazardous to your wallet, but it is only realy dangerous in increasing your chances of getting rear ended.

The realization that I'm about to enter an intersection and possibly broadside a car or get broadsided by cross traffic is a hazardous thought to me. Panic worthy, IMHO.

Thank you doctor for informing me how much more healthy those rear endings are

You know that's not what I meant. Plain and simple, there's hardly anything to cushion an occupant during a side-impact. But with a rear-ender, you have much more material to absorb the energy from the collision.

So how many more accidents occur as a result of the cameras?

I didn't write anything pertaining to the amount of accidents caused by these cameras, so I don't know why you're asking me for those figures.

Lipstick and cell phones? I watch for these things when I drive, they are hazards. But I haven't noticed them doing sudden stops behind photo intersections, these are usualy the ones who just drive on through.

Just because you've never seen it happen doesn't mean that it never happens at all.

And speeding in city traffic in San Diego??? Ha!!! I guess you have never been here. Strike three.

Nope, I've never been there. I'm talking about my experiences here in the Bay Area.

To pretend that pedestrians are safer because of these cameras is beyond obtuse.

Report: Red light cameras save lives

Red Light Cameras Save Lives and Taxpayer Dollars

Drivers are watching the lights like hawks because of the camera, who has time for the pedestrians?

Well, that's the idea. If drivers are more aware of these cameras, then they are less likely to run a light and hit a pedestrian.

Suuuure they save lives.
Revenue generated in San Diego by photo intersections = millions.
Lives saved = 0.


It's unfortunate that San Diego used these cameras as a tool to profit from, but not all cities operate in the same manner.

The court found that the cameras were placed specificaly to generate revenue. They were placed in intersections with high traffic volumes and low accident rates.

That's the case in San Diego, but not in San Francisco where cameras were installed at intersections that have had a number of pedestrian injuries/fatalities due to red light runners.

So who are you?

Someone who's sick of irresponsible drivers on the road.