10 Reasons To Oppose Red-Light Cameras
November 15th, 2007 Posted in Red-Light Cameras
1) Ticket cameras do not improve safety.
Despite the claims of companies that sell ticket cameras and provide related services, there is no independent verification that photo enforcement devices improve highway safety, reduce overall accidents, or improve traffic flow. Believing the claims of companies that sell photo enforcement equipment or municipalities that use this equipment is like believing any commercial produced by a company that is trying to sell you something.
2) These devices discourage the synchronization of traffic lights.
Once red-light cameras start making money for local governments, they are unlikely to jeopardize this income source. Engineering improvements that lessen the income brought in by the cameras include traffic-light synchronization, the elimination of unneeded lights and partial deactivation of other traffic lights during periods of low traffic. When properly done, traffic-light synchronization decreases congestion, pollution, and fuel consumption.
3) There are better alternatives to cameras.
If intersection controls are properly engineered, installed, and operated, there will be very few red-light violations. From the motorists’ perspective, government funds should be used on improving intersections, not on ticket cameras. Even in instances where cameras were shown to decrease certain types of accidents, they increased other accidents. Simple intersection and signal improvements can have lasting positive effects, without negative consequences. Cities can choose to make intersections safer with sound traffic engineering or make money with ticket cameras. Unfortunately, many pick money over safety.
4) Ticket recipients are not notified quickly.
People may not receive citations until days or sometimes weeks after the alleged violation. This makes it very difficult to defend oneself because it would be hard to remember the circumstances surrounding the supposed violation. Even if the photo was taken in error, it may be very hard to recall the day in question.
5) Ticket recipients are not adequately notified.
Most governments using ticket cameras send out tickets via first class mail. There is no guarantee that the accused motorists will even receive the ticket, let alone understand it and know how to respond. However, the government makes the assumption that the ticket was received. If motorists fail to pay, it is assumed that they did so on purpose, and a warrant may be issued for their arrest.
6) There is no certifiable witness to the alleged violation.
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it may also take a thousand words to explain what the picture really means. Even in those rare instances where a law enforcement officer is overseeing a ticket camera, it is highly unlikely that the officer would recall the supposed violation. For all practical purposes, there is no “accuser” for motorists to confront, which is a constitutional right. There is no one that can personally testify to the circumstances of the alleged violation, and just because a camera unit was operating properly when it was set up does not mean it was operating properly when the picture was taken of any given vehicle.
7) Taking dangerous drivers’ pictures doesn’t stop them.
Photo enforcement devices do not apprehend seriously impaired, reckless or otherwise dangerous drivers. A fugitive could fly through an intersection at 100 mph and not even get his picture taken, as long as the light was green!
8) Cameras do not prevent most intersection accidents.
Intersection accidents are just that, accidents. Motorists do not casually drive through red lights. Even the most flagrant of red-light violators will not drive blithely into a crowded intersection, against the light. More likely, they do not see a given traffic light because they are distracted, impaired, or unfamiliar with their surroundings. Putting cameras on poles and taking pictures will not stop these kinds of accidents.
9) The driver of the vehicle is not positively identified.
Typically, the photos taken by these cameras do not identify the driver of the offending vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is mailed the ticket, even if the owner was not driving the vehicle and may not know who was driving at the time. The owner of the vehicle is then forced to prove his or her innocence, often by identifying the actual driver who may be a family member, friend or employee.
10) Ticket camera systems are designed to inconvenience motorists.
Under the guise of protecting motorist privacy, the court or private contractor that sends out tickets often refuses to send a copy of the photo to the accused vehicle owner. This is really because many of the photos do not clearly depict the driver or the driver is obviously not the vehicle owner. Typically, the vehicle owner is forced to travel to a courthouse or municipal building to even see the photograph, an obvious and deliberate inconvenience meant to discourage ticket challenges.
Download a copy of this list (PDF)
Other Related Articles
Red light enforcement cameras in Ottawa, Ont., Canada, are catching unexpected prey: cops, firefighters and paramedics. The resulting C$180 tickets stand since province law requires emergency vehicles to stop at red lights before passing through, and slowing down to a crawl isn’t good enough. The city won’t back down, and has required the agencies involved to pay C$11,000 (US$10,000) so far. (Ottawa Citizen)
…Well sure: those cameras are all about revenue no matter where they are.
#6 is grounds for dismissal in my state. An officer can not write a traffic ticket for offensesof the law that he did not witness if that offense is less than a misdemeanor. Which driving through a red light is less than a misdemeanor. similarly when a crash occurs a ticket that is written for a person driving through a red light can easily gain a dismissal with a simple motion by the defendant or his/her attorney. However, in such cases I feel redlight cameras would be helpful in litigations resulting from said crashes.
I think the resources that are available to be used such as red light cameras should be utilized. Before you all attack me let me clarify by saying that I support the cameras being there and taking pictures of vehicles that go through the red lights. I don’t however, support mailing out tickets to those individuals. The photos I feel should be used for litigations when there is a crash and both drivers claim to have had the green.
Boy have you missed two big reasons to oppose them.One the local residents will
be subjected to flashes at night where the cameras are near dimly lit residential
areas and two the camera will be aimed into some homes near the intersections.
By informing your neighbor who may not understand that this is a constitutional
violation of their private property rights!
They just recently installed this in one of the suburbs around Des Moines, IA (where I’m at). And, I agree with all of the 10 points up there, especially for the simple fact that dangerous drivers will always be dangerours drivers. A camera monitoring them isn’t going to stop them from making wreckless decisions.
Did a camera ever stop shoplifters? Don’t shoplifters continue to steal, even though they know that they are being watched?
To Ruscular, whose bike lacks sufficient mass to trigger a green light, forcing him to run a red light. I ride, too, and I’ve had that problem. Look on the bright side; if you have insufficient density to trigger a green light, you also have insufficient density to trigger the red light camera. Much better than a cop waiting to write a ticket, even if you sat there for 20 minutes waiting for the green.
To be honest, most (notice I said MOST) cops understand that type of situation and won’t hassle you. But that doesn’t help when it’s the one cop who’s had a pissy day and damned well WILL take it out on someone.
My first time here, so yes, I’m a different Mike. Strangely, I find myself approving the red light cameras. Normally, I don’t think an inanimate object should be the sole evidence in a violation charge, and for that reason, it can be beaten. But here’s what I see today: The light turns yellow, you’re practically on the intersection. Do you slam your brakes or go through? Most people go through. The car behind you figures that you got through, so they go through.
Now, the car behind HIM also goes through. By this time the light has turned red, or if a long yellow, it’s about to switch now. But another car still goes through and, amazingly 2-3 more cars go through AFTER that. It’s no longer a matter of decision whether you can legitimately make the light or slam your brakes. It’s simply not wanting to be bothered waiting for the next green light.
Whether it’s cops or cameras, the offense is the same, violation. Now here’s the problem in the ‘old days’. A cop is waiting for red light runners. You approach the intersection, the light turns yellow, you have plenty of time to get through. But the cop stops you anyway, claiming that you ran a red light. You state that the light was yellow. He says it turned red while you were still in the intersection. You were under the light, so you can’t see whether it was red or still yellow. Try arguing that case in court. As a passenger in vehicles that have been cited for ‘running a red light’ under the circumstances just described, I was in a position to see if the light had actually turned red, and it hadn’t. And many cops have even said that going through the yellow light is considered running the red. A stupid statement since blinking yellow lights would also require you to stop, and then proceed, just as blinking red lights do. But they don’t.
In the age of the camera, two things must happen to trigger that camera. One, the light in your direction must be red. Not green, not yellow, but red. Second, there must be a sensor at the stop line to trigger the camera. That keeps the camera from ‘claiming’ that you ran a red light if it was still yellow when you entered the intersection. Even if the light DOES turn red before you complete the intersection, you’ve already passed the sensor, which did not actuate since the yellow light precluded it.
But I’m the owner of my car. Let’s say that I let the neighbor borrow it because his car was in the shop. Next thing I know, I’ve got a red light violation mailed to me because the license plate is registered to me. But I never ran any red light. Moving violations are a driving offense, not ownership offense (as are parking tickets). The court must prove that the accused actually committed the act. It’s not up to the registered owner to prove his innocence. He is not required to explain that his neighbor was driving the car. Under the 5th Amendment, the accused doesn’t have to say anything, and that Right cannot be used against him.
For that reason, there is more than one camera at an intersection. Sure, there’s 4 directions of traffic, and that’s the primary reason, but secondarily, when a red light camera snaps your car, the other 3 also do the same thing. That way, there are 4 shots of your vehicle and one of them should be able to show the driver. If not, case dismissed. Mr. Prosecutor, prove that Smokey the Bear was not the driver. Prove it, I dare you!
Now, for the final concern, performing a legally permissible turn on red. In order to be effective, the cameras must be aimed at the center of the intersection. So if you turn right on red, you’ll never pass in range of the camera. Sure, it will trigger, and get a shot of nothing, or the other cars proceeding in the legal direction on a green light.
(This is a long essay) For rebuttals, sure, there can be equipment malfunctions. Those are easier to argue in your defense, though, than the testimony of some cop with his own agenda. If you’re certain that you were cited without cause, subpoena the maintenance records for that intersection, and show the lack of certification of reliability standards. The prosecution is not going to want to spend thousands of dollars in the court’s time as well as his own department’s time unless he’s certain that it won’t be a waste, all for a $75 fine.
[...] http://www.motorists.org/blog/10-reasons-to-oppose-red-light-cameras/ [...]
To: Mike jr.
Good point!
BreAnna
And to the one’s who can’t understand why peoople are against the cameras try getting a ticket in the mail saying you have to pay 90.00 or more because of the brilliant cameras! The way the economy is we don’t need more people trying to pull a fast one over us!!!!!!
For all the people who argue the fact that these cameras save lives, I can agree with. But what I think alot of peoples problem with this is how do we know if these cameras work, how accurate are they really? And who the @!# paying to install these cameras? Is this just another way for the city of revenue to pocket more money? In my opinion the cops need to get up off their lazy butts and do their job!I’ve seen cars run red lights in front of a cop and he must of been to tired to chase after them. Come up with another solution that will be more effective!
Once again we are presented evidence that the anti-destination league is using phony data and flawed methodology to support a report that helps them make more money from a “product” that provides no value to the American driver.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2593.asp
I suppose to defend your case you first have to make sure there is no “No turn on red sign” present at the intersection. Take photos of the intersection to prove this evidence to the judge. Also, make sure that you can prove that “that” is the intersection in question by photographing or videoing the roadsigns to tie it to the ticketed intersection.
The judge will have a succession of photos available to him/her (not just one). They should acquit if photos shows no marker for no “No turn on red sign,”
Your second issue is whether your time has lapsed to request a court date. I don’t know what to offer then, other that to make calls. Tickets can be appealed too, down at City Hall.
I myself, have made it a point to no turn on red, anymore, even if it’s legal, because I don’t trust the cameras. It’s not worth the effort of having to defend yourself.
Got photoed supposedly running a red light. In fact, and it shows on the photo, I turned right on red and the camera shot me anyway. This happened in June, 08 and and I wasn’t notified until October, 08. Attached to that was a penality that doubled the fine and a collection notice that doubled the total amount. It went from $50 to $200.
Got any suggestions to defend the case?
Dear Sir
How can I prove in court that I didn’t run this red light taken by the camera. I was in the middle of the street when the light was yellow. But when I got the ticket in the mail, it shows me running the red light. I have been driving for 39 years, and never has a red light ticket, or ticket of any kind. How can I prove that I didn’t run the light.
Thanks
Jackie
I have a 150cc moped and the traffic signal wont pick up my bike being there and run through the sequence much faster so that the cross traffic can be on their way.
When I ride my bicycle the green light turn to red before I am half way across the street. I ride a recumbent bike which has a slower acceleration than diamond shape bicycle.
Having these camera’s at red lights have there good points and bad points. The one pet peeve that I am concerned with is, like all mechanical equipment they have malfunctions now & then. Say that one of the camera’s malfunctions and starts taken pictures of every car that goes by when the light is green? Then a lot of drivers would get a ticket for running the signal when it was actually green. Unless these camera’s show both the plate & the signal light in the picture. If I ever get a violation citation in the mail and I know I am innocentI will fight it all the way.
There are too many flaws in redlight cameras. I drive a tractor trailer my truck was already in the intersection when the light changed but my trailer wasn’t and caused the camera to take a picture.
Well, If the fines break me,,,I will just trot myself down to the local police,,,walk in ,,plop myself on the desk and say HELLO??? Here I am,,,Im going home to live with you,,,You guys broke me,,I have no place to live thanks to your friggin cameras,,,End of discussion thankyou,,,whats your wife cooking for dinner??
Traffic court has sidestepped the constitutional right to “confront one’s accuser” in the ‘red-light ticketing’ issue by turning the penalty into an ordinance violation. This lowers the courts’ requirements to gain a conviction.
The good news is that it won’t effect one’s auto insurance in the form of a moving violation conviction. The bad news, is that the city has embraced this strategy as an excuse to maximize ticket revenue. Gone is the defense that the accused ticketed driver is not guilty because he/she was not behind the wheel of the vehicle when the violation was recorded. The owner is thus found responsible whether or not he/she was driving. Therefore, the conviction process for the violation is more strongly guaranteed, which is obviously the major goal of the city so it may more reliably guarantee greater revenue from this system.
What causes further rage is that Redflex, an Australian company, is taking a chunk of the profits from the ticket revenue. Yes, ticketed drivers generate income for an offshore company that installs these camera systems. Call it the Ticketing Industrial Complex, instituted by Big and Little brother’s circle-jerk agreement to further exploit the Chicago citizenry.
Then again, the city of Chicago needs to pay over $155 million in payouts to victims of police brutality. How else can the city pay?
What a common problem…. I, personally know of three individuals that have been murdered by Chicago Police resulting in coverups. It’s pretty disgusting.
In regard to the cameras, the term “HIGHWAY ROBBERY” comes to mind. This is just another way in which the government can screw us (we, the people).
I suppose the excuse for ticketing “the passing of gas” will be that it could create “a dangerously explosive situation” (LOL)!
The government is not “for the people, by the people” as the Constitution implies. I fear that one day if we pass gas we will be ticketed by the police state. It is so totally unreal! I am all for safety, but “safety” is an excuse to extort money from citizens! I hate the establishment!!!
this is a great blog. I just got back home after going through an intersection with an extremely short yellow and then it turned red and I saw the “flash” of the RLC. Now I’m worried. I moved from a state with long yellows. I wasn’t driving fast so I feel I can safely contest this (fortunately I found out these tickets in my community are contestable). You bet I’m going to contest it since I didn’t run a red and I know it!
[...] It’s hard not to agree, or at least see some logic in their arguments. Read on, more discussion later. 10 Reasons To Oppose Red Light Cameras [...]
George 11/28/07: I just read your question on how they know if the citation was delivered. They do not have to. You do.
When you are pulled over for any reason they run your car tag while pulling you over, and do a drivers check when they have possession of your license. If they both have no criminal activity showing on either registration in most speed-trap circumstances they will make you one for either/or. I can think of several instances where friends or family have been arrested, detained, fines exorbitant fees and required lawyers to get licenses reinstated for judicial errors or misconduct which is marginally lawful, but unfair, which to me is the same as unethical.
The terms lawful and ethical are supposed to serve what is justice which is what we are supposed to have in a court of law. The term just has the word ice added to it and is supposed to cool situations where the heat of wrongful actions is contested in a civil environment.
It cost my son-in-law about two-grand in bond, court-costs, attorney fees and lost work due to incarceration in which the full imprisonment was not documented for a minor traffic stop in which they let him know an outstanding arrest warrant was issued for him years earlier out-of-state because the court did not post his payment of a fine years earlier. My daughter had the canceled check payment in her file.
Since his lawyer was officially concerned with the reinstatement of his commercial drivers license and he was not officially arrested, but only detained he decided it was not worth fighting the county and state adding more cost to this cruel joke( the date was 4/1/99) he let it go. You have to know what is on your drivers license and what you are driving. All state laws are different.
Hey Jim Cole…You’re a woosie sheeple jellyfish. These cameras are not about life saving-they are about tax and more tax.
ake up and smell reality….woosie.
People like you make me very angry because you are part of the problem.
It’s leading to totalism. If they have a system that screwed up then imagine how many others are also in your shoes. When good people get treated this way by the law it really calls into question the legitimacy of the whole system. It’s pretty obvious the city doesn’t want to work with you to get it resolved.
As far as rights go, you can just about throw that thought out the window when it comes to traffic control. It seems now-a-days, if anything happens involving a vehicle, your rights are so thin they’re no longer useful. It’s a nice thought though.
Others might but I don’t have a short term answer for you. Long term you and others in the same boat should get together. There’s always power in numbers. Thats part of the reason the NMA exists. This is part of the problem when citizens fail to get involved BEFORE its to late. At the minimum, hopefully this’ll make you mad enough to work on a way, with the help of others, to get rid of those camera’s. At the very least write all your public officials. Make some noise. This isn’t about safety, it’s about ripping good people off. We’ve gotta quit acting like a nation of sheep.
I just received a letter stating that since I didn’t pay $95 by 1/30/08 I now have to pay an extra $25 by March 23, 2008. I have waived my right to a trial because I didn’t reply in time.
This is the first letter I have every received . It is post marked March 3, 2008.
I called our police dept. They looked at the video. It occurred at night in our city. I never!!!! drive at night in our city. I am an older woman and do not go downtown at night…EVER!!!
Imagine receiving this crazy document without any chance to fight it and having to pay $120. I did nothing wrong! I have been driving for 34 years. I received a traffic ticket over 20 years ago. It was from a plane flying overhead. I have alway felt I should have fought that ticket. I dont’ speed. I always stop at red lights. Even if there is not other car on the road. This is so not fair. We have all been duped by these cameras. Every person deserves the right to face their accuser. What is this leading to?
So, what are the odds I will get a citation for making a right turn but stopping over the line? The light flashed at me before I hit the intersection, scared me, and I eased off the brake before I hit it again and therefore stopped over the line. I’m not really sure. Maybe I didn’t start stopping until the flash happened, but I KNOW for sure the flash happened before I hit the intersection, and it scared me, but I did stop. Am I likely to get a citation? Obviously I was approaching the intersection too fast.
Swede,
Most of these people contesting these camera citations were probably local citizens from surrounding municipalities. How many of them have to take off from work, pay for parking, travel distances of fifty miles or more at todays fuel prices and other associated expenses. My arguments stem from the fact that some road agents( traffic officers ) make up laws as they go and the majority of people simply write a check. the most classic act I can remember is when my wife slid on ice into the back of my daughters car while my daughter slammed on her brakes to avoid a head-on with a speeding red-light runner attempting to make a left-turn. She was in the intersection on a green arrow ( No Cameras back then ). My wife called the police and and she was ticketed because she called the police. She went to court and the ticket was dismissed but court costs were $61.00. The ticket fine was only $40.00. What is the first thing the insurance company wants in order to process a claim? ” A police report with an accident investigation ” DUH! At the scene the officer stated that he had to issue a ticket because he was called.
I meant to say the traffic courts are jam packed with mostly people contesting these citations issued from the cameras.
Nobody can ever convince me that these camera systems are about anything other than money. I live in a Chicago suburb and my town installed these cameras at 4 intersections promoting safety, but what is really stupid is that the most dangerous intersections are county roads and they were not allowed to install the cameras where they are needed the most.
I have no beef with catching and fining people who blatantly run the red light but the majority of citations issued (at $100 a pop) were for crossing the white line in the right turn lane or not coming to a full stop for several seconds. Most of the Chicago stops are during the first few seconds of the red light when the cross traffic still has the left turn arrow, thus making a yield for oncoming traffic somewhat moot as there is no oncoming traffic yet. Not long ago these same intersections syncronized rt hand turn arrows with the left turn arrow so you were not even required to stop at the red light.
This is purely a cash cow and in my town the money was rolling in but suddenly after 5-6 months the cameras were turned off because they had “achieved their goal of improving awareness and safety”. Please – 4-5 months of data is not a creditable amount of statistical data to draw any formidable conclusions. Enough people with political connections bitched or an influential attorney got really pissed. There is no due process, the traffic jams are jam packed and you have little or no hope of contesting a $100 fine for a ticky tack creeping over the white line. This has nothing to do with safety and everything to due with money. Let’s call a spade a spade.
Continued: I forgot to add that Traffic Divisions hearings are just that primarily. I asked the judge where he was going to get an impartial jury of twelve of my peers for the accusation ( not allegation)that I was going eleven miles over the limit. I was fortunate the day I got the ticket. I had my friend in the car with me and he was watching my speedometer and we were looking for the hidden trap. The Magistrate insisted I could not have a jury trial without paying all types of legal fees. I felt this was intimidation because I waived my right to the attorney for fighting a $107.00 fine.
I have not admitted this to too many people, but I went to that courtroom with the intent of being arrested because I was so mad about the citation. It was 43 days before the hearing and I wrote the states Attorney-general, and the Assistant Attorney-General for our district and received no response. the local newspapers had several investigative articles written from several years prior and I also had copies of the Bill-of Rights and the Tennessee Code Annotated with highlights of my rights. Our local County Sheriff was assisting us in a fund-raiser carnival at our church several days before the hearing. I told him to look for me in his jail because the municipality I speak of did not have one. His response was different than mine. I will fight City Hall. The hearing and all associated incidents within the courtroom that evening would cover a chapter in a book based on circumstantial reasoning as to why my case was dismissed, but the citing officer would not drop the charges.
Jeffery,
You should have backed up into the cars behind you since you were already in the intersection and then collected the insurance( if the driver behind you had it for rear-ending you) for the accident. When it comes to RLC’s I look at traffic signals more closely now and time the yellow wondering when cameras will be installed on all of them. If you do the math on the subject before court and produce it in court with logic and common sense judges are ethically bound to dismiss the charges. I took some law classes and wondered why a class in statistics was required for a para-legal degree. I am not a para-legal or an attorney. In my opinion it is because judges are held to the highest standards of the judicial system and all laws are not fair or equitable. A law is judged on intent and not just personal opinion. $380.00 sounds like extortion to me under the circumstances you stated, because the Bill of Rights says you have the right to a jury trial in matters concerning litigation over $20.00 and can face your accuser. Small governments within the states do not want negative publicity concerning unethical but legal extortion. I fought the law and I won and the municipality did not appreciate my knowledge, facts, the states ruling on the facts, and my attitude, with respect to law-enforcement.
When the speed limit is set and motorists are not bumper-to- bumper, but following properly at a reasonable distance the cameras should deter speeding and red-light runners. This is not the case when mitigating circumstances change the statistics of citations issued for deviations to the norm. A woman slammed on her brakes when the light changed to yellow and I slammed on mine while driving a loaded step-van. The police were clearing an accident involving two vehicles where one apparently was turning right into a drive and was rear-ended. The woman in front of me had time to clear the intersection, in my opinion, but was worried she would be ticketed for running the light. We both stopped, but the guy behind me was following too closely and could not see the light. I thought the impact from his pick-up hitting my highboy step-van was from my load sliding and falling over because I missed the woman by inches. She was gone when the light changed to green again, but I had to explain to the police all I did was brake to prevent from impacting her, which was successful. The woman went home never knowing the light was probably timed where she should have kept going and I would not have had to slam on my brakes. the guy behind me was probably rubbernecking the accident vehicles which were removed from the road by then. ” All I did was stop for the light, he did’nt was my plea. He got a ticket, but my boss was not pleased with me. there were no RLC’s back then. There should be RLC warnings posted just as Stop and speed-limit signs should be.
There is some interesting points of views here..some good, some non-factual and some, just, guessing it sounds right..
Myself, I try to use logic and facts..there is no such thing as 100 percent, RLC will help, does not matter if you are a copy,citizen, city worker, tourist..etc..How does anyone really think, RLC, helps out, tremendously, I have seen so many times, how, you proceed, from a green light..and down the street..about 10 or 15 away toward to upcoming light..bam…the light changes from, green/yellow/red, within a second or two..you do the math, and see, how fast the foot has to stop on the petal..as I have done so many times, then, one day,when I was trying to stop, at a upcoming quick, changing light…I stopped just past the first line..thats all..and I saw what I think, was the RLC..but I did not run the light..I think, at a lower percentage..RLC can deter certain, possible, speed demons…but its all about the money…dont be fooled..in thinking otherwise…do you really think, if, it was not making money…they would use it…all the ones that say, its about safety..yea right..why dont you look at the Financial reports..of the departments, that have started to use, the cameras..Do you think,there bottom line has not improved, do you really think, accidents still dont occur, because of cameras..come on now…bad people are bad people, good people, make mistakes, that is just the way it is..but where I have a problem is, when, good people…like myself..have got to stop, quicker, than a fish, about to get ate up by a predator..
I rec’vd a red-light camera ticket in Culver City. I was surprised at actually being photographed and that I was late getting through the intersection. I was interrupted by a left turn vehicle, right before the signal changed yellow, I braked, causing my delay. It all happened so fast. The bigger shock was getting a fine of $380.
There was no traffic visible that evening, and the car I braked for is pictured as I’m entering the intersection. What possible chance do I have of reducing this premium first? Second, I can go to traffic school, but I am concerned about the $380. which is a burden since I am on a limited income.
Just got a ticket in San Fran. Light was green. Checked the mirrors and then looked ahead again when the light was yellow. Snap decision whether to SLAM on the brakes or go through. Figured I would end up stopped in the intersection so I went thru and got flashed. Shortest yellow light I ever saw for a 35 MPH zone. Not sure how much it will be, but saw someones blog that they paid $371 for one here. Wow. Solution is easy. Be like your grandma and drive way below the speed limit and back up traffic around the city.
An earlier post had someone shooting out a light for a $50 fine. Hmmmmm.
Another thing I forgot to mention is that Semi-trucks with trailers cannot get tickets from a mere photo. The license plate on the back of a trailer cannot be used to track the driver or any company that uses the trailer by law enforcement. Truck drivers in the know go through red light cameras and also toll booth cameras with impunity.
Cameras at lights will not slow down the flow of traffic. If the speed limit is posted and a vehicle is doing that limit it takes a set distance to stop. All cameras will need to have a set time limit on yellow to stop a driver who is simply following the flow of traffic. An 18 wheeler takes longer to stop than a Volvo unless the truck slams on his brakes because a camera is in use when a Volvo is behind him. Point in question is rear end collision or vice versa.We could write books on government stupidity when ethical and moral decisions are put into the judicial principles of law for the purpose of protections of the people and not spicing up the treasury.
I am a good driver. I have never had a ticket and I have had only one accident many years ago as a teenager. As far as red-light cameras are concerned I believe that it is a scam for revenue. I also believe that it is against the law;law enforcement violating people’s rights in the guise of public safety.
First of all, if the camera is there for safety’s sake, then why not coordinate with the local traffic regulatory body to help insure that changes can be made for a safer intersection. Why isn’t the revenue from the tickets directed for the improvement of the intersection, pay off the expenses of the camera installation and support and provide for the future care of the intersection. It’s not cheap to install these cameras. There’s also expensive support. Police still have to work and look at these photos or videos so the are working, just not at the intersection in question.
An unmanned camera taking a photo or video is not enough to convict and fine a party for any offense. What if you are in heavy traffic? How do you know if the camera is calibrated correctly or even working properly at all? How do you know if the allegation is true without a sworn statement?
I had a friend contest his recently and sure enough, after going to court to see the “evidence”, he was fully stopped at the red light, then he made a right turn. He went after he received his ticket and there are no signs saying “No Turn on Red”, video taped it and took it with him to court. They still made him pay the fine saying he didn’t come to a stop fast enough. I had one friend go see the photo and there wasn’t even a car in it!
I find it interesting that where I live, right-hand turns on red are legal yet at some intersections cameras have been set up for this and not for people running reds through the intersection.
If these cameras are truly for the public safety, then they are a temporary measure at best. Enforcement can only do so much. There are people who will willfully run the red light and continue to do so unless it is at least an inconvenience to them. A camera is NOT going to do that.
Red light camera’s are a bad idea…
There’s a new red light camera where I live and I spend more time watching the light than watching the road infront of me. And yes it does change from yellow to red fast.
* Just like there’s no corruption in politics, there’s no “cash cow” in red light camera’s.
Why do rear end collisions occur? You are driving too fast and following too close. Simple as that. Slow down, keep a safe distance and stop when the light changes.
A classic example is the city of Winnipeg, Manitba, after they introduced RLC the intersection accident rate fell by half, thats 50%. Yellow means stop not go relly fast to beat the red.
What worries me more is the number of people exhibiting paranoid ideation.
Red light cameras are a menace to the health of motorcyclists. Studies do show a decrease of t-bone accidents, but they also show an increase in rear end accidents. People panic stop when seeing an amber light. If you are on a motorcycle, you can stop much more quickly than the automobile behind you. If you are behind someone stopping quickly in panic to avoid a ticket – you may find yourself as part of a car sandwich. RLC’s are a bad idea. Most accidents occur well after the light changes, not during the time we are being ripped off by another government heist.
I just received one of these “tickets” in the mail. I live in Chicago. We figured out it was my son who was driving the car when the “offense” occured.
Even though there is a video online, it doesn’t show the whole picture, so to speak. He was approaching an intersection in the right turn lane to make a right turn. The light was green, someone (you can see the other vehicle on the picture and in the video) pulled out in front of him from the gas station, my son swerved around the car and continued on with his right turn without stopping. In that moment of the swerve, you can see the light go from yellow to red, very quickly, as my son turns the corner. In the video, it looks as if my son is coming from the left lane to make a right turn…of course without stopping on the red first, since he didn’t see it turn because he was avoiding an accident.
This is bogus. If a cop was there and would have seen the whole thing, I would bet my right arm he/she wouldn’t have even pulled my son over.
The fine is 90 freakin’ bux! What a cash cow!
City governments don’t see people who live there as citizens…they see them as walking/driving ATM machines!
We no longer have a Constitution…
After 28 years of no traffic tickets, I got a ticket for ignoring a traffic light. I was on a motorcycle and making a left hand turn. The traffic signal could not sense my bike and would not turn on the left turn arrow. I knew this and entered the intersection just after the yellow came on. As an investigation, I decided to suspend my donations to local charities until I saw another driver get a ticket for doing the same thing. After two years, I took $11,000 and bought a timeshare in Key West. Three years after that I took $18,000 and bought a timeshare in Kona. After that I gave up and started donating again.
They are suppose to but I wouldn’t count on it. If they are willing to cite people who just stop over a the stop line or don’t make a right turn on red absolutely correct, I doubt they would give you a break.
Besides, they really are a scam anyhow.
I don’t have a problem with RLCs per-se, but more-so with the way the lights they’re placed at have been rigged. I’ve gotten flashed by a RLC, but that was because the yellow light was so short and I was so close to the intersection that me slamming on my brakes to stop in time would have caused an accident. Also, has anyone noticed how friggin bright those flashes are?! That’s enough to cause an accident (especially at night) because drivers are blinded by the flash.
Question – what about if you’re in the way of an emergency vehicle and the only way for you to get out of the way is to run a red light? Is that a forgivable offense in traffic court?
give me a break you people its never going to stop like the gas prices this is all a freaking scam a scam please stop we have people in this world cant even feed there kids and it wouldnt be so bad if the ticket
so $$$$ high $390-400 i panic every time the light changes yellow.
Well, here’s one way to deal with RLCs!
Man arrested for shooting traffic camera
Tenn. Man Arrested for Allegedly Firing at Least Three Rounds at Red-Light Traffic Camera
Staff
AP News
Nov 27, 2007 23:07 EST
Police have lost red-light cameras to traffic accidents but never to gun play. “This is the first one that’s been shot,” Capt. Gordon Catlett said of the wounded camera at the intersection of Broadway Avenue and Interstate 640 – one of 15 camera-equipped intersections in the city.
Clifford E. Clark, 47, was charged with felony vandalism and reckless endangerment for allegedly firing at least three rounds from a .30-06 hunting rifle at the camera, knocking it out of action.
He was arrested after patrol officers heard shots around 2 a.m. Sunday, spotted a minivan leaving the parking lot of a closed business and pulled it over. Inside they found Clark and the high-powered rifle.
Clark, now facing a $50 fine if convicted and loss of his rifle, refused to say anything about the incident to police, leaving the motive unclear.
Catlett, who oversees the red-light camera program, said 6,798 drivers have been photographed running the red light at Broadway and I-640 and ticketed since the camera was installed in 2006. Clark was not one of them, he said.
Information from: The Knoxville News Sentinel, http://www.knoxnews.com
I was wondering just how law enforcement prove the issued ticket was delivered/received to the address sent and the responsible party?
Tracy wrote:
Coming from a law enforcement backgroud, let me respond to this.
1-Yes, they do improve safety at intersections. Mainly for the people that drive in the area every day. It is posted that the camera is there. Those that know are more observant and pay attention because they know they may get ticketed. The ones that are not from the area need to pay attention to the signs, and the traffic lights, and then there won’t be a problem. Where we have them in the city I worked at, accidents drastically decreased once they were installed.
2-The devices had absoultely no impact on how the lights are synchronized. That is at the traffic departments discretion based on the flow of traffic.
3-Yes, there are better alternatives. But until each citizen is willing to pay higher taxes to pay additional officers salaries, to the point of having an officers presence at every single red light 24/7, then it isn’t going to happen.
4-Our department goes through the tickets weekly and immediately mail out tickets. An officer manually writes out a ticket after reviewing the tape and determining if a citation needs to be issued or not.
5-Not only are they notified promptly, they are notified accurately. The ticket goes to the address on your regstration. If your address is wrong on your registration, then that in itself is against the law. So if you don’t receive the citation because of that, it is your own fault and not the police departments.
6-See #4. An officer reviews it before the citation is mailed out.
7-This is true. However, having an officer at the intersection 24/7 isn’t going to stop them either. It is a personal decision each person makes when they get behind the wheel and nothing will change their driving habits if they are just a reckless person. The red lights are more to raise awareness to those that just simply aren’t paying attention when they should be. I can pretty much say that if you have received a red light citation then you probably pay more attention when you go through lights now.
8-I can say that in my city, accidents at intersections that have the red light cameras have decreased since the program has been implemented. That speaks for itself.
9-There is no way they can tell for sure whether the owner is driving or not. This is a chance you take when you let someone drive your car.
10-Designed to inconvenience the motorists? Have you lost your mind? If you simply pay attention when you are driving and obey the laws, then you won’t have a problem. When you aren’t paying attention and you run a red light, you are not only putting other people in jeopardy, but you are also placing yourself in jeopardy. They aren’t there to be an inconvenience. They are there to raise awareness. Besides, I would rather be inconvenienced, as you put it, than be dead due to someone not paying attention.
Tracy…I have one question for you….
If these cameras are so “safety-minded”, then why are the fines so bloody well high? In my city in the Southwest, these RLC have generated well over $1M in the short time (less than a year) that they have been installed. I guess I don’t quite swallow this obscene amount. To me it sounds like a money getting machine and doesn’t have anything to do with safety at all.
Tracy said the citation is mailed to the address registered to the car. I recently had a flash of light from a camera when i went through an intersection; i was not aware of these cameras until this happened. I am from a different city. Recently i had to move from my home (due to pesticides/lung damage) about 28 days before the citation date. I don’t yet know if i will be moving back to my home, it’s all very complicated and expensive. My neighbor was collecting my mail up until around the time i got the citation. Because i was missing some of my bill payments, i did an address change with the post office because i dont’ know when or if i will be returning to my home. Now i’m worried about the ticket. Will the post office forward a ticket? If they wont’ forward it, what will happen to me? Since i am in the middle of an emergency and disaster related to suddenly leaving my home, unplanned, just grabbing a few things as i was leaving, I am overwhelmed and confused about what to do. Changing my address is something i’m very unsure about. I’m still paying rent on the place i was forced to move from. I am very confused. And now, i have this ticket, probably, though i don’t know for sure. And i don’t know how to find out or what to do. I have been told that if i call the court or police to ask if i have a ticket in the system, it may not have been inputted yet. I am very worried about this. Tracy said it’s illegal to not change your address, but what if it’s not clear in an emergency where you are going to be living in the next couple of months? I am gradually changing my address with various accounts, it’s only been a month and 4 days since i moved out, and i still hope i can move back. I just don’t know how. It’s a major disaster, decontaminating the place will cost a few thousand. I am trying to figure out what to do. Now i need to find out how to receive my ticket, if one is even issued.
Since localities can “tune” their revenue from
RLCs by shortening the yellow light time, and some have done so, we must insist that yellow duration be long enough for a safe stop under most road conditions, and there should be a marker installed upstream of the intersection that shows you the distance that you would travel at posted speed under the yellow. If you get yellow before this marker, you have to stop; if you are beyond the marker you won’t get caught in the trap by the red.
Asking legislators for common-sense fairness might seem a futile exercise in many states, but if enough of us make some noise, things might change.
Tracy, you are wrong about the timing(see # 2) at the 4 intersections I frequent, one of them had the timing of the yellow shortened by half. at this same intersection a friend of mine received a ticket for reckless driving for slamming on her brakes trying to stop as the lights changed on her so fast. no accidents are down at this intersection, but the pd for that city now all have brand new cars,and new landscaping around the jail. Lets get real about what these cameras are really for.
I am sure the pro camera people (I even wonder if it isn’t people from the campaing) will blast me again. But hey, I know in my heart RLC are scam. So I will say what I am going to say
If cameras are so succeessfull why did 2007 V-Dot show more accidents http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1844.asp ? Why did the 2004 Burkey-Obeng call them a safety detriment? http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/crash-risk-reduction-resulting-from-red-light-cameras/ That one was 57 months of data, almost 5 years? Hmm. I didn’t make this up, neither did the NMA.
Believing a camera vendor or a city is no different than taking financial advice from a bookie.
Coming from a law enforcement backgroud, let me respond to this.
1-Yes, they do improve safety at intersections. Mainly for the people that drive in the area every day. It is posted that the camera is there. Those that know are more observant and pay attention because they know they may get ticketed. The ones that are not from the area need to pay attention to the signs, and the traffic lights, and then there won’t be a problem. Where we have them in the city I worked at, accidents drastically decreased once they were installed.
2-The devices had absoultely no impact on how the lights are synchronized. That is at the traffic departments discretion based on the flow of traffic.
3-Yes, there are better alternatives. But until each citizen is willing to pay higher taxes to pay additional officers salaries, to the point of having an officers presence at every single red light 24/7, then it isn’t going to happen.
4-Our department goes through the tickets weekly and immediately mail out tickets. An officer manually writes out a ticket after reviewing the tape and determining if a citation needs to be issued or not.
5-Not only are they notified promptly, they are notified accurately. The ticket goes to the address on your regstration. If your address is wrong on your registration, then that in itself is against the law. So if you don’t receive the citation because of that, it is your own fault and not the police departments.
6-See #4. An officer reviews it before the citation is mailed out.
7-This is true. However, having an officer at the intersection 24/7 isn’t going to stop them either. It is a personal decision each person makes when they get behind the wheel and nothing will change their driving habits if they are just a reckless person. The red lights are more to raise awareness to those that just simply aren’t paying attention when they should be. I can pretty much say that if you have received a red light citation then you probably pay more attention when you go through lights now.
8-I can say that in my city, accidents at intersections that have the red light cameras have decreased since the program has been implemented. That speaks for itself.
9-There is no way they can tell for sure whether the owner is driving or not. This is a chance you take when you let someone drive your car.
10-Designed to inconvenience the motorists? Have you lost your mind? If you simply pay attention when you are driving and obey the laws, then you won’t have a problem. When you aren’t paying attention and you run a red light, you are not only putting other people in jeopardy, but you are also placing yourself in jeopardy. They aren’t there to be an inconvenience. They are there to raise awareness. Besides, I would rather be inconvenienced, as you put it, than be dead due to someone not paying attention.
I don’t know whether or not red-light cameras help, hurt, etc… But, I did live in San Francisco for several years (1999-2003). During that time I saw _the most egregious_ running of red lights I have seen anywhere. Twice I was nearly blindsided by drivers who simply ran red lights and on another occasion I had to slam on my breaks fully at a green light to avoid a collision. Talk about nerve-wracking! This only took place in the city of San Francisco. I never saw this problem outside the city itself.
During my time in SF the city installed red-light cameras very aggressively. Since that time I have not seen anyone running a red light like I saw in the past.
This is purely anecdotal data, but from my point of view they did solve one problem.
Cheers
I have 10 comments in regard to the article’s points as follows:
1. The claim is made with no proof or logic to verify the claim. It’s like saying: Studies show….
2. Synchronization requires a set driving speed in order to work. This requires more foresight and patience than many drivers have and may not even be realized by tourists or others not familiar with the pattern. The red light runners at the back of a platoon can still do their thing.
3. Agreed, a RLR camera can cause rear end crashes. There is a learning curve to be climbed here just as there was during the early days of clogged urban freeways during rush hour when rear end crashes were an almost daily occurance where I lived. They are rare now.
4. Whining!
5. Whining!
6. Whining! What better witness than a photo?
7. Whining!
8. Obfuscation
9. Whining!
10. Whining!
My favorite part about everyone’s comments is about how we are supposed to respect other people’s opinions and express our own. Yet, some people feel the need to call others “stupid” and “lazy.” Jarvis – your point would have been well-made and just fine if you had refrained from accusing everyone of being stupid. Beartoe – I don’t know why it’s necessary to accuse cops – people who choose to put their lives on the line – for being stupid and lazy. Police officers, have little to do with RLCs because an enforcement tool like this is decided to be used by administration, council members, and government offices, not the men and women working the street. I’m sure some police officers are stupid and lazy. I’ve met some. But a generalization like that is untrue, just as most generalization of a group of people are.
I liked the article, I think it was right on the money and I think the points were well-supported by facts.
These forums provide such amazing insight!
For example, Jarivs has distilled this issue down to one simple fact: we are all too damn stupid to comprehend a traffic signal.
If I had only been more cognizant of my intellectual limitations, I would have never wasted all that time trying to figure out the terror threat color chart.
You’re all stupid. Pay attention to what you are doing and when you see a yellow light, like none of you have mentioned, that is when you begin to SLOW DOWN, then you actually “STOP” on the red. Seems pretty self explanatory. Does anyone remember taking their drivers ed classes? Apparently not! Camera or no camera, an accident at any intersection ultimately will fall on human error! This is the bottom line.
We went to the mainland last year [we live on Maui] {I know Boo-hoo}. went to see my Navy son in Jacksonville FL.
I pretty much follow the rules and it felt good to drive leagaly without someone pushing you down the road as they try here.
Too many out there drive by intimidation [I honk, you move, personality].
What a beautiful place Jacksonville is.
I wonder if its because most drivers are educated?
It is a never-ending source of fascination for me that people have convinced themselves a camera-issued citation is a more effective deterrent to running a red light than the natural built-in deterrent. Like getting t-boned by a semi.
I don’t know what you thought that you saw. I am just pointing out the empirical evidence that red light violations are not nearly as rampant as the Luddite Authoritarians would have us believe, yet they want to employ an enforcement method that we know does not work but that does generate millions in revenue for the jurisdiction.
RLC have always been used for cash not safety. When the revenue really disappears , so do the cameras. NC is great case in point on this. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1909.asp
No one on this site advocates driving unsafe let alone me. But most RLV crashes are plus 5 into red, not under a second. Yet your typical RLC ticket is for under second! ON this web site is evidence showing increasing amber time reducing violations by over 90%.
Law enforcement for profit is inherently dangerous in that it focuses on volume not safety. Which is defintely the case here. Heck ATS sat there and admited to the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal that they needed 20 violations a day to be profitable (10 per 12 hours). http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/041807/loc_041807033.shtml http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/17/1707.asp
Mr. Young:
Are you saying that when I was in Florida, I did not see red light runners on an almost daily basis? I do see quite well; do not need nor use eyeglasses.
Would you believe that early this year (2007) a bus was behind me on highway 192. I slowed for a yellow and stopped in time for the red. The bus changed lanes, passed me and ran the red. A city bus yet!
I talked to a cop while buying gas about red light runners. He said that about half were tourists and the other half were locals.
Bill writes:
“Too many people [in FL] are in a huge hurry, especially in the Orlando area and are running red lights. We saw red light runners almost daily. From reading the news and seeing red lights run in Florida, I can assure you that I am convinced that revenue generation is not of primary interest. The primary interest is safety and they have a problem in Florida to address.”
Sorry, the empirical evidence does not support your assertion. Companies that sell red light camera systems do so on the basis of the revenue generated, not the improved public safety. That is largely because (1) the municipality is expressly interested in the money and (2) overall crashes increase at camera-equipped intersections.
I pay very close attention to what other drivers are doing and to what other posters assert. After an assertion that a particular intersection (41st & Yale, Tulsa, OK) had “hundreds of violations every day,” we sent out a team to observe and in 6 hours of observation saw zero deliberate violations and one questionable late entry. We did see some rolling right-on-red turns but these were of no consequence to traffic safety at all.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please tell us where to get it.
We spent a few months last winter in Florida. Too many people there are in a huge hurry, especially in the Orlando area and are running red lights. We saw red light runners almost daily. When your light turns green, you are wise to wait a few seconds. They don’t have enough cops there to get the word across to some motorists and were pushing hard to get the law changed to allow cameras.
From reading the news and seeing red lights run in Florida, I can assure you that I am convinced that revenue generation is not of primary interest. The primary interest is safety and they have a problem in Florida to address.
To beartoe,
I resent that you think were stupid and lazy and i would like to see where you get your evidence. Were not lazy when you need us for help, just when it interupts your day huh? But i do agree that the cameras are a bad idea and very easy to beat in court if you know what to say. That i agree with.
As the owner, I lawfully complied and returned the mailed citation, reluctantly listing the driver in the photo as my son.
The video showed his brake lights on but a rolled “Ca. stop” for a right turn. It also showed NO cars in the 6 lane-wide intersection. Even the most zealous “human” urban cop wouldn’t have ticketed him.
The kicker was that we sent it back to the out of state private company serving as the city’s front man and shared revenues partner. Two months later I had an arrest warrant out for me (40 years clean record) because I listed my son’s address as “same” on the line beneath my address. The response: “We don’t know where SAME street is”. I felt like the AFLAC duck communicating with Yogi Berra.
It does not follow that the best strategy to prevent crashes is predicated upon cameras capturing the event. Red light cameras are a failed preventive measure but are quite punitive for drivers and quite rewarding for the jurisdiction and the vendor selling the service.
Further, red light cameras as noted in the article, by comments, and elsewhere are set up at the most lucrative locations rather than the most dangerous. On top of this, yellow light times are frequently shortened so that the intersection will produce more citations, hence more money.
The engineering solutions listed above are much more effective than cameras but produce no revenue so the result is that we drivers not only get a more dangerous situation but we also have to pay for it.
I will guess that none of you have lost a love one to someone running a red light.I have no problems with cameras at intersections because I STOP WHEN THE LIGHT TURNS RED!!!!! Why blame someone else because you want to break the law?? If you are always late start leaving earlier.
Certain states have stamped license plates, with raised non-retroreflective letters/numbers on a retroreflective background.
You need to have all retroreflective material, or all non-retroreflective material.
The stockk contrast is too great, and is so easily visible via cameras, once the image is inverted.
Also certain states that mandate front plates [they are usually the ones that are very highly retroreflective] are the ones that engage in the use of LIDAR laser trap extortion. Laser guns only prove average speed, not instantaneous speed, and should be excluded from traffic enforcement usage. (but they won’t because it is far to easy to rake in the bucks)
i’ve also heard that applying certain kinds of hairspray to your license plate will defeat the cameras. not basing this on anything but my gf’s mom’s word.
camera tickets are easy to beat
you’ll need to do some research, maybe consult a “legal professional,” but the jist of your defense is that you have the right to face your accuser in a court of law.
though it’s anecdotal evidence that most cops are stupid & lazy, it’s a proven fact that the justice system is founded on the premise that maximum profits depend on processing (read: fleecing) as many people (read: sheep) in as little time.
if you can make yourself a massive administrative ballache over a petty camera ticket, then of course they are going to dismiss your case. pure, self-interested, capitalism folks. learn up!
Thanks so much for your post. Here is my story.
Some time ago cameras were installed at a major intersection, near a transit hub. They are set to catch red light runners and also catch folks who do not come to a complete stop when making a right turn on red. They were set incorrectly for buses making a right turn on red. Many tickets were issued to bus drivers before they were adjusted. Bus drivers had to take the day off and go to court to get the ticket dismissed. A commercial license allows for few tickets before it is suspended in this state. Now few bus drivers will make a right turn on red. This defeats the purpose of right turn on red, moving traffic and decreasing gas use. I’m a bus driver and I see these lights flash, when it is dark, and there is no one in the intersection. I have seen the lights flash when only those cars with a green light were in the intersection. So how many people have received tickets unfairly and just paid them? And me? I never make a right turn on red.
Right on the money! Dick Armey had it right when he called them a scam!