Red Light Camera Ticket Thread!

[dravnx]

The question is, does the Constitution matter?

If no, then simply pay the ticket. If yes, then hold the government accountable to its own rules and fight it.

The Constitution does matter. The photograph is the evidence, the accuser is the state/county/city that holds jurisdiction. If you go to trial, you will get a chance to face your accuser. That is the Constitution. Questioning the Constitutionality of a red light camera is like questioning the Constitutionality of a blood test. It's just evidence.

Remember, driving is a privilege, not a right, so many Constitutional arguments don't work.

And stop getting tickets and you won't have to fight them.

 

[rodr]

Remember, driving is a privilege, not a right, so many Constitutional arguments don't work.

Actually it is a right.

http://www.realtruth.biz/driving/supremecourt.htm

 

[CABilly]

The Constitution does matter. The photograph is the evidence, the accuser is the state/county/city that holds jurisdiction. If you go to trial, you will get a chance to face your accuser. That is the Constitution. Questioning the Constitutionality of a red light camera is like questioning the Constitutionality of a blood test. It's just evidence.

Remember, driving is a privilege, not a right, so many Constitutional arguments don't work.

And stop getting tickets and you won't have to fight them.

The tech from red flex should have to come to trial then to testify to their involvement in the case. They are one of the states witnesses and should be available for cross examination. A $500 fine is really fucking steep and is about into misdemeanor punishment territory. As such, I would fight it as much as I could.

 

[budman]

Hope you kick ass Gabe.

The one ticket on my record is a red light right turn.
I watch the vid 5 times. Then checked on the frames per second to see if I actually rolled the light. It was so close I doubt a human would have written me up.

500 bills for rolling at less than 1mph is a bit of BS.

 

[jh2586]

Do you think $600 (including traffic school) for this is fair, no matter the circumstances?

Do you think $600 is only unfair when YOU or someone you know personally gets caught running the red light? Or do you think it's unfair all the time? Seems like people only care about it when THEY personally get slapped with the fines and fees. But it's supposedly unconstitutional right? I got caught running a red light on camera and yes, I did pay $600 for the fine and traffic school. Why? Not because I thought it was perfectly constitutional for them to do it, but rather because I KNOW that I ran that red light and I KNEW well ahead of time the consequences of doing so.

If it was a close call, or if it was not posted on a sign stating the intersection was filmed, then maybe I'd complain, but even still, I wouldn't use that excuse to get out of an infraction that I did in fact commit, just because there was a flaw in the system, unless that flaw directly affected the evidence itself (like calibration, frame rates etc.)

 

[dravnx]

Actually it is a right.

http://www.realtruth.biz/driving/supremecourt.htm

There is much case law that disagrees with you.

 

[dmfdmf]

The one ticket on my record is a red light right turn....500 bills for rolling at less than 1mph is a bit of BS.

I read that once traffic at an intersection adapts to the red light cam, most of the tickets are for people trapped in the intersection due to traffic backing up and something like 80% of the tickets are for rolling the right turn. This is not enough to pay the costs so many cities are pulling the cameras.

Edit: I treat intersections with cameras as "no right turn on red" to avoid any hassles.

 

[HeatXfer]

You want to put money on me getting the ticket dismissed?

PM sent

 

[rodr]

Do you think $600 is only unfair when YOU or someone you know personally gets caught running the red light? Or do you think it's unfair all the time? Seems like people only care about it when THEY personally get slapped with the fines and fees. But it's supposedly unconstitutional right? I got caught running a red light on camera and yes, I did pay $600 for the fine and traffic school. Why? Not because I thought it was perfectly constitutional for them to do it, but rather because I KNOW that I ran that red light and I KNEW well ahead of time the consequences of doing so.

If it was a close call, or if it was not posted on a sign stating the intersection was filmed, then maybe I'd complain, but even still, I wouldn't use that excuse to get out of an infraction that I did in fact commit, just because there was a flaw in the system, unless that flaw directly affected the evidence itself (like calibration, frame rates etc.)

But you didn't answer the question. What do you think of the size of the fine? Not just from your perspective, but from that of normal citizens.

 

[jh2586]

But you didn't answer the question. What do you think of the size of the fine? Not just from your perspective, but from that of normal citizens.

I think it's very expensive, but I don't disagree with it, especially when they have signs at the intersection of the amount due IF you run a red light. Also they warn you that the intersection you are about to cross IS in fact monitored.

 

[rodr]

I think it's very expensive, but I don't disagree with it, especially when they have signs at the intersection of the amount due IF you run a red light. Also they warn you that the intersection you are about to cross IS in fact monitored.

And yet you somehow ran it anyway. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you made a mistake and wouldn't have done it if you knew you were getting a ticket.

My point is that the fines are abusive and prey on those who make mistakes. While the cameras may deter scofflaws, the fines do not and exist only as a source of income, not in the interests of public safety.

Also consider what happens when you pay up "because you deserve it", and then later get a citation that you don't deserve. You fight that one and lose. Now because of the first citation you are no longer eligible for traffic school, you get a point on your record and your insurance rates go up. Enough of those and you can lose your license unjustly.

This is another reason to fight every ticket. Accepting the reality that the justice system is often unfair.

 

[KrustyKruser]

Actually it is a right.

http://www.realtruth.biz/driving/supremecourt.htm

Just reading the cliff notes on the case law on that page does not agree with the idea driving is a right. Many of those case laws state that people are free to move freely and with their belongings. Which is true, but the site is taking it a step further and saying that cars are included in the ability to move freely. I don't buy it, you can move freely all you want on your feet or a bicycle. That site seems like constitutionalist propaganda.

 

[dravnx]

Just reading the cliff notes on the case law on that page does not agree with the idea driving is a right. Many of those case laws state that people are free to move freely and with their belongings. Which is true, but the site is taking it a step further and saying that cars are included in the ability to move freely. I don't buy it, you can move freely all you want on your feet or a bicycle. That site seems like constitutionalist propaganda.

What I got is that we don't need drivers licenses, registrations or insurance either. Sounds like Freetard stuff.

 

[HappyHighwayman]

Driving is not legally a right. The government is not obligated to give you a driver's license. Do you know anyone legally driving without a license?

 

[dravnx]

The tech from red flex should have to come to trial then to testify to their involvement in the case. They are one of the states witnesses and should be available for cross examination. A $500 fine is really fucking steep and is about into misdemeanor punishment territory. As such, I would fight it as much as I could.

Only if red flex is your accuser. They are gathering the evidence, the state/county/city is the accuser. No one is arguing the validity of the evidence and the OP isn't admitting whether he ran the light or not, only the constitutionality of the system.

 

[rodr]

Driving is not legally a right. The government is not obligated to give you a driver's license. Do you know anyone legally driving without a license?

I say it's a right in that if you meet requirements that are fair and sensible, the government is indeed obligated to let you drive on public roads.

In my observation the word "privilege" is used by those who want to decide who's privileged and who isn't. The government is not our parent and we are not its children.

 

[jh2586]

But you didn't answer the question. What do you think of the size of the fine? Not just from your perspective, but from that of normal citizens.

And yet you somehow ran it anyway. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you made a mistake and wouldn't have done it if you knew you were getting a ticket.

My point is that the fines are abusive and prey on those who make mistakes. While the cameras may deter scofflaws, the fines do not and exist only as a source of income, not in the interests of public safety.

Also consider what happens when you pay up "because you deserve it", and then later get a citation that you don't deserve. You fight that one and lose. Now because of the first citation you are no longer eligible for traffic school, you get a point on your record and your insurance rates go up. Enough of those and you can lose your license unjustly.

This is another reason to fight every ticket. Accepting the reality that the justice system is often unfair.

Actually I ran it because I thought I could make it, which was a mistake on my part. Poor judgement. Not because I thought I wasn't gonna get caught. That's the last thing on my mind lol.

In fact, I even KNEW it was a red light camera intersection. Just poor judgement. And honestly, I think it actually works in certain circumstances. For instance, when passing through intersections that are green, especially around those areas, I am a lot more cautious and tend to reduce my speed so I can react much faster to yellow/red lights.

 

[Gabe]

I am not understanding your logic here. Did you or did you not run the red light? If you did, pay the price. If not, then fight it.

But to sit here and make a silly (IMO) excuse about how unconstitutional it is to have red-light cameras is ridiculous.

Plus the reference you quoted earlier, the camera itself isn't what is "judging" you, but rather just providing evidence. You are judged based on evidence of an infraction of running a red light. You can sit here and argue your point all day long about how unconstitutional it is and blah blah blah, but at the end of the day, the question you have to ask yourself.. did you or did you not run the red light?

Honestly, I don't know. If the person driving the car did run the red light, it's not clear from the photographs and video. There is room for reasonable doubt. I may have been in the intersection on the yellow, or maybe not. I'm not going to submit myself for a disproportionate and onerous punishment to the state for a totally victimless "crime" I may or may not have committed.

And I'm curious why you think the Constitution is a "blah blah blah" thing. As I recall, you're a pro gun person. Why is the 2nd amendment so much more important than the 6th? If we need to bear arms to protect our rights from overreaching government, what rights are you talking about, anyway? And would you be willing to help me shoot up the traffic court?

The question is, does the Constitution matter?

If no, then simply pay the ticket. If yes, then hold the government accountable to its own rules and fight it.

Yeah! That's all I want. If I committed a crime, prove it.

I say fight it

I've never gotten a red light ticket because motorcycles don't have front license plates...or they don't pursue motorcyclists.

They do photograph your rear plate, but maybe the other equipment (that triggers the camera) isn't calibrated for motos.

Actually it is a right.

http://www.realtruth.biz/driving/supremecourt.htm

Uh, oh! I have a new man crush!

Hope you kick ass Gabe.

The one ticket on my record is a red light right turn.
I watch the vid 5 times. Then checked on the frames per second to see if I actually rolled the light. It was so close I doubt a human would have written me up.

500 bills for rolling at less than 1mph is a bit of BS.

Yes...do we really want our laws enforced by robots? If so, drones will be next, following every motorcyclist and issuing tickets every time you go .1 mph over the speed limit. Hey, you broke the law, so pay up, right?

Do you think $600 is only unfair when YOU or someone you know personally gets caught running the red light? Or do you think it's unfair all the time? Seems like people only care about it when THEY personally get slapped with the fines and fees. But it's supposedly unconstitutional right? I got caught running a red light on camera and yes, I did pay $600 for the fine and traffic school. Why? Not because I thought it was perfectly constitutional for them to do it, but rather because I KNOW that I ran that red light and I KNEW well ahead of time the consequences of doing so.

If it was a close call, or if it was not posted on a sign stating the intersection was filmed, then maybe I'd complain, but even still, I wouldn't use that excuse to get out of an infraction that I did in fact commit, just because there was a flaw in the system, unless that flaw directly affected the evidence itself (like calibration, frame rates etc.)

That's a good point. I think punishment should be proportional, but of course it doesn't bother me until I'm fined! I am, like most people, a hypocrite, but that's not a crime.

There are tech people here with billions of dollars, for whom $490 represents about 5 seconds of pay. For me, it's 3 days. Is the deterrent effect equal? How does that serve public safety?

While the cameras may deter scofflaws...

The deterrent effect is actually very small, because it does indeed reduce the number of red-light running, it also greatly increases rear-end collisions (no Asia SF jokes, please) at the camera sites as people see the "red light camera in use signs" and slam on their brakes without checking their mirrors.

Here's a DOT report. Note the attached table: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/

Net aggregate benefit was about $17,000 per year, per camera in terms of "economic benefit," but we all know what this is about--generating revenue. If that's true, this isn't a deterrent, but a means of generating government revenue. In other words, a tax or fee, and a tax or fee that's applied in a very non-progressive fashion that nobody voted for.

Death to red light cameras! Death to those who favor security over freedom! (well, maybe not death, but it sounds better than "Extreme Discomfort to those who favor security over freedom!") Fight every ticket whether you're guilty or not.

 

[rodr]

Actually I ran it because I thought I could make it, which was a mistake on my part. Poor judgement. Not because I thought I wasn't gonna get caught. That's the last thing on my mind lol.

In fact, I even KNEW it was a red light camera intersection. Just poor judgement. And honestly, I think it actually works in certain circumstances. For instance, when passing through intersections that are green, especially around those areas, I am a lot more cautious and tend to reduce my speed so I can react much faster to yellow/red lights.

Could it be that your judgement was not that bad, and instead the yellow light was set to an unusually (perhaps even illegally) short duration? Cities have enormous financial incentive to do this at red light camera intersections.

http://www.highwayrobbery.net/indexExpanded.htm#Def2

 

[treadtread]

Replying to some comments made by jh2586:

Evidence collected in an unconstitutional manner is usually (the usually is because IANAL) not admissible in court. If Gabe thinks that red light cameras are unconstitutional, he should fight the ticket, regardless of whether he broke the light or not.

Besides, if you think about it - what is there to stop the government adding a speed meter to the camera, thereby measuring the speed of everyone driving through the intersection and using that for tickets? Would you accept that?