In the old days, if you got a speeding ticket, a red light infraction, etc, you could go to court, chat with the DA and usually get the offense reduced to a non-moving violation.
I know that all jurisdictions are different, but I'm curious if the same holds true now that many municipalities are using Red Light Cameras and they have actual photos of the offense.
Has anybody tried that tactic recently?
I'd recommending checking out the NMA's web site motorists.org
seems to vary by jurisdiction, but it seems that anymore pretty much any ticket is difficult to fight, more so RLC tickets. I would time the yellow interval at the intersection at which you were snapped and see if it conforms to ITE guidelines. DAGS for "Dick Armey red light camera" somewhere in the report is a summary of the guidelines for your perusal.
good luck
nate
Depends on the state's laws, and we all know that laws always make sense. In NY it's not a moving violation. Also, corporations are people. Maybe I'll claim one as a dependent...
R
Well, I think I found the answer that I was looking for.
I came across the website for the jurisdiction in which the red light was run and these are words they use:
*** Begin Included Text ***How Redlight Traffic Safety Cameras Work
The cameras will capture still and video images of vehicles in the act of a red-light violation, which will initiate the procedure to deliver a Notice of Liability to the registered owner of the vehicle. The violation is a civil matter and will not be reported to insurance companies or generate points on a driver=92s license.
*** End Included Text ***So going to chat with the Traffic Court DA probably doesn't apply and probably isn't worth it. The Liability in question is $50 and that may not be worth the time and effort required to "fight" it in an effort to get it reduced. Odds are the court fees would cost you more if they "reduced" it like they often do with an officer involved traffic stop.
I'm going to recommend to the family member that received the letter/ photo that they just pay the $50 and not do it again.
In most places these tickets are not being issued by the state, city or county. They are issued by a private company and I am guessing you will be sued by them if you fail to pay.
I do know there are a lot of cases working their way through the courts and a lot of people are pissed about this. Many of these have been ruled invalid and a lot of places have had to change their policies. I am really surprised they don't lose more cameras, particularly in places where people have guns in their trucks. I guess that is why they only put them in well populated areas.
That's how they make their money, by making the ticket less painful to pay than fight. (and by "they" I mean not only the jurisdiction but also the private contractors that actually operate the cameras.)
I'd still check the yellow interval. If it's grossly short you could report it to your local news organization and possibly get some class action thing together to get all tickets from that intersection refunded. (in a fair world, that's how it would work.)
nate
It has always been my contention that the "powers that be" are protecting certain drivers/vehicles from getting tickets due to violating RLC. Imagine how safe fire engines/police cars and even state/city/local legislators/councilors have probably (statistically) violated the RLC and not received tickets. So it would be interesting for someone so motivated to request a copy of ALL pictures of all violators for a certain period and see if any of them got a free pass
-snip-
LA is just giving up-
Jim
When you take your ticket to court, it costs them more than the fine for the impartial judge to rubber stamp the ticket and open the cash register. If EVERYBODY contested their tickets, the system would be overwhelmed. So the math works both ways.
Well after being T-boned in the middle of an intersection because someone decided to run the red light, I am all for these cameras in the hope that some people will think twice about running them. My car was totaled and I had multiple injuries because some young kid was late for a meeting.
That was often the way with folk in England. If you knew the location of the cameras you'd adjust accordingly, but I've seen plenty of people only spot them at the last second and slam on the anchors.
cheers
Jules
and you think a camera would have stopped him?
mint;
While that's a regrettable occurrence, I beg you to think about your opinion. Keep in mind that in many cases red light cameras are set up at intersections which have shorter yellow intervals than that called for by ITE guidelines, a "gotcha" trap that decreases safety but raises revenue. Also, if someone "runs" a red light at a camera controlled intersection they receive no points on their license, but a ticket from a police officer is a much bigger deal.
More reading on RLCs here:
nate
Living here in NoVA where there's not so many cameras, but is close by to DC and Maryland where there's an epidemic of the damned things, I invested the $25 in an annual subscription to a database of where all the red light and speed cameras are spotted that I load into my GPS unit. So when I'm driving, I leave the GPS running in map mode all the time even if I don't need directions. If it saves me from even one ticket a year it's more than paid for itself. The database is updated monthly, although I'm a little bad about downloading it and updating my GPS. I never got any tickets before I started doing that, but it can't hurt. (I know, anti-tiger rocks, etc.)
nate
even further, the contracts the camera operator signs with the city frequently state that the city isn't allowed to lengthen the yellow light times or the city can be sued.
mint;
That's one thing that they do right here in VA... there were some studies a while back that showed that proper yellow light timing was key, and RLC's were outlawed for a while. They've been brought back, but with some wording in the legislation that makes them much more palatable.
Virginia State Code § 15.2-968.1. Use of photo-monitoring systems to enforce traffic light signals.
of special interest is section K:
K. Before the implementation of a traffic light signal violation monitoring system at an intersection, the locality shall complete an engineering safety analysis that addresses signal timing and other location-specific safety features. The length of the yellow phase shall be established based on the recommended methodology of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. All traffic light signal violation monitoring systems shall provide a minimum 0.5-second grace period between the time the signal turns red and the time the first violation is recorded. If recommended by the engineering safety analysis, the locality shall make reasonable location-specific safety improvements, including signs and pavement markings.
I'm frankly surprised that any cameras are profitable given those restrictions, but then again, NoVA drivers are almost as awful as Maryland drivers...
nate
mint;
As an aside, I've seen more violations than not of Section M
M. Any locality that uses a traffic light signal violation monitoring system to enforce traffic light signals shall place conspicuous signs within 500 feet of the intersection approach at which a traffic light signal violation monitoring system is used. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that such signs were in place at the time of the commission of the traffic light signal violation.
either that or my GPS database is lying to me, although I've seen cameras at most/all of the intersections where it warbles at me. Maybe some traffic cameras are being counted as red light cameras? who knows. In any case, be careful out there.
I'm a big fan of Section K though. The desire to implement RLC's and the requirements of Section K might actually prompt the authorities to do what they should have been doing all along, that is, to make the light timings compliant, which can only make things safer. So in this one isolated instance, RLCs might actually be doing more good than harm!
nate
We had red-light cameras here in Houston. Sufficient citizens signed a petition to put removing them up to a plebiscite. Kill, murder, death to red light cameras passed by a wide margin. Even then, the mayor declined to remove them!
After threatening to sue her and everybody she ever knew, the red light cameras finally came down.
I recently drove about 2300 miles in Italy. I did not see any cameras for red lights, but speed cameras are all over the place, worse than flies on horse shit. I was driving a rental, but I'm expecting a thick package in the mail one day with a list of cameras I passed.
I was on my good behavior on the Autostrade, but the speed limit is a sensible 130 km/H, 81 MPH.
The issue has been brought up here in CT recently. It is a revenue enhancer more than a safety issue.
When I was in Maryland, going to court was always better than just paying the ticket. Usually, even if it was a slam dunk you still got some kind of break (reduced fine, half the points etc)
Florida goes the other way. I went once. The judge stands up and says "you all could have just paid the ticket and not come before me. You have to understand the fine might be a lot higher than your ticket says. If you want to pay that now, see my clerk over there in the corner". Then he calls the first case, finds the guy guilty and fines him $500. There was a line at the clerk's desk after that.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.