Photo Enforcement Ticket Research (Very Long)
08-21-2002, 11:52 AM
#1
Casual Observer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Agoura Hills, California
Age: 51
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Photo Enforcement Ticket Research (Very Long)
I was planning on responding to another thread wherein there was a question regarding photo enforcement tickets for red light violations. The information I found was very lengthy so I started a new thread rather than hijack the old one.
Note that these are legal arguments that are geared towards changing an existing law that puts photo enforcement into effect. As such, these arguments are unlikely to win at the trial court level (like when you initially go in to fight your ticket). Rather, these are public policy and constitutional arguments which are more likely to be successful upon appeal.
Also note, this is not legal advice and is provided for education purposes only.
This information comes from the National Motorists Association (NMA) and it is their official position on photo-enforcement.
NMA OBJECTIONS TO PHOTO ENFORCEMENT SCHEMES
Inadequate notification of defendants
Most governments using photo enforcement notify defendants via first class mail. There is no reasonable guarantee that the person to whom the letter is addressed will actually get the letter, understand the letter nor know how to properly respond. However, the government makes the assumption that proper notification was achieved and the defendant is willingly ignoring the order to appear or pay. The result can be a warrant issued for the arrest of the person named on the ticket.
Failure to positively identify the driver of the vehicle
Frequently, the photo does not adequately identify the driver of the offending vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is mailed the ticket, even though the owner was not driving the vehicle and in some instances may not know who was driving the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is forced to prove his/her innocence, often by identifying the actual diver who may be a family member, friend or employee.
Failure to promptly notify defendant
Defendants may not receive citations until several days, sometimes weeks, after the alleged violation. This makes it extremely difficult to reconstruct the circumstances involved in the supposed violation. There may be circumstances that justified exceeding the speed limit or being in a controlled intersection under a red light. There may have been confounding factors that led to a photo being taken in error. Having traversed a given intersection or roadway dozens of times over a short time frame makes it almost impossible to recall the specific events of a two-week-old trip.
No certifiable witness to the violation
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it may take a thousand words to explain what the picture really means. Even in those instances where a photo enforcement operation is being overseen by a law enforcement officer, it is highly unlikely the officer would have any personal recollection of the supposed violation. For all practical purposes, there is no "accuser" for the defendant to confront, a Constitutional Right. There is no one that can personally testify to the circumstances of the alleged violation. 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.
System designed to inconvenience motorist
Under the guise of protecting motorist privacy, the court or private contractor handling defendant notification may withhold send a copy of the photo of the alleged violation to the vehicle owner. (Many of the photos do not clearly depict the driver, or the driver is not the vehicle owner.) The Vehicle owner is forced to travel to the courthouse to see the photograph, an obvious and deliberate inconvenience to discourage ticket challenges.
No safety benefit
Despite the claims of photo enforcement equipment marketing departments and press releases about tens of thousands of extra tickets being issued, there is not any independent verification that photo enforcement devices improve highway safety, reduce accidents or improve traffic flow. Believing the claims of the companies that sell photo enforcement equipment or municipalities that use this equipment is on a par with accepting the claims of any commercial interest that wants to improve its profitability. Claims are frequently made that it is only the U.S. where photo enforcement is opposed. It should be noted that the U.S. has a lower fatality rate than most of the countries that regularly employ photo enforcement devices.
Unable to apprehend or stop dangerous drivers
Photo enforcement devices do not apprehend seriously impaired, reckless and 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!
OBJECTIONS SPECIFIC TO PHOTO RADAR
Radar errors and spurious readings
Photo radar is still radar, and it can generate false speed readings. There is no vehicle tracking history by a qualified officer. Hundreds, if not thousands, of tickets can be generated between routine maintenance and calibration inspections, potentially resulting in as many faulty readings. But, because no one is checking the correlation between actual vehicle speeds and the vehicles being photographed, erroneous readings could readily occur.
Enforcement emphasis on ticket volume
Despite claims to the contrary, photo radar is used in locations characterized by high traffic volume and under-posted speed limits. It is not profitable to use photo radar on residential streets, low volume roads or where speed limits are posted at the 85th percentile (the speed they should be posted at).
Operator error and abuse
Photo radar should not be used on high-speed, multi-lane highways. Tests done by the University of Virginia found that fewer than 3% of the photos taken of vehicles on Interstate-type roads provided a clear image of a single vehicle, the license plate number and the driver.
Negative effect on proper speed zoning
Photo radar is not profitable enough to justify its installation in locations where proper speed zoning has been employed. The only avenue for adequate profitability is to set the tolerance threshold to unreasonable levels, e.g. one or two miles per hour over the speed limit. Politically, this is usually not acceptable, nor will the courts support enforcement of this nature. This leaves only one option, setting or retaining under-posted speed limits that are inappropriate for existing traffic speeds.
OBJECTIONS SPECIFIC TO RED LIGHT CAMERAS
Will not prevent most intersection accidents
Intersection accidents are just that, accidents. Most motorists do not casually drive through red lights. More likely, they do not see a given traffic light because they are distracted, impaired or unfamiliar with their surroundings. Even the most flagrant of red light runners will not drive blithely into a crowded intersection, against the light. Putting cameras on poles and taking pictures will not stop these kinds of accidents.
May retard synchronization of traffic lights
If red light cameras are relied upon to generate revenue for local governments, those governments will be loath to carry out policies that will reduce the income flow. Traffic light synchronization, elimination of unneeded controls and partial deactivation of traffic lights during periods of low traffic volume may all be de-emphasized in favor of continued revenue flow.
Not cost effective under legitimate circumstances
If intersection controls are properly engineered, installed and operated, there will be very little violation of the traffic control devices, deliberate or accidental. From the motorists' perspective, government funds should be invested in improving the installation and operation of intersection controls, not in cameras that serve no purpose other than to generate revenue for municipalities that have abrogated their traffic engineering responsibilities.[
Note that these are legal arguments that are geared towards changing an existing law that puts photo enforcement into effect. As such, these arguments are unlikely to win at the trial court level (like when you initially go in to fight your ticket). Rather, these are public policy and constitutional arguments which are more likely to be successful upon appeal.
Also note, this is not legal advice and is provided for education purposes only.
This information comes from the National Motorists Association (NMA) and it is their official position on photo-enforcement.
NMA OBJECTIONS TO PHOTO ENFORCEMENT SCHEMES
Inadequate notification of defendants
Most governments using photo enforcement notify defendants via first class mail. There is no reasonable guarantee that the person to whom the letter is addressed will actually get the letter, understand the letter nor know how to properly respond. However, the government makes the assumption that proper notification was achieved and the defendant is willingly ignoring the order to appear or pay. The result can be a warrant issued for the arrest of the person named on the ticket.
Failure to positively identify the driver of the vehicle
Frequently, the photo does not adequately identify the driver of the offending vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is mailed the ticket, even though the owner was not driving the vehicle and in some instances may not know who was driving the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is forced to prove his/her innocence, often by identifying the actual diver who may be a family member, friend or employee.
Failure to promptly notify defendant
Defendants may not receive citations until several days, sometimes weeks, after the alleged violation. This makes it extremely difficult to reconstruct the circumstances involved in the supposed violation. There may be circumstances that justified exceeding the speed limit or being in a controlled intersection under a red light. There may have been confounding factors that led to a photo being taken in error. Having traversed a given intersection or roadway dozens of times over a short time frame makes it almost impossible to recall the specific events of a two-week-old trip.
No certifiable witness to the violation
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it may take a thousand words to explain what the picture really means. Even in those instances where a photo enforcement operation is being overseen by a law enforcement officer, it is highly unlikely the officer would have any personal recollection of the supposed violation. For all practical purposes, there is no "accuser" for the defendant to confront, a Constitutional Right. There is no one that can personally testify to the circumstances of the alleged violation. 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.
System designed to inconvenience motorist
Under the guise of protecting motorist privacy, the court or private contractor handling defendant notification may withhold send a copy of the photo of the alleged violation to the vehicle owner. (Many of the photos do not clearly depict the driver, or the driver is not the vehicle owner.) The Vehicle owner is forced to travel to the courthouse to see the photograph, an obvious and deliberate inconvenience to discourage ticket challenges.
No safety benefit
Despite the claims of photo enforcement equipment marketing departments and press releases about tens of thousands of extra tickets being issued, there is not any independent verification that photo enforcement devices improve highway safety, reduce accidents or improve traffic flow. Believing the claims of the companies that sell photo enforcement equipment or municipalities that use this equipment is on a par with accepting the claims of any commercial interest that wants to improve its profitability. Claims are frequently made that it is only the U.S. where photo enforcement is opposed. It should be noted that the U.S. has a lower fatality rate than most of the countries that regularly employ photo enforcement devices.
Unable to apprehend or stop dangerous drivers
Photo enforcement devices do not apprehend seriously impaired, reckless and 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!
OBJECTIONS SPECIFIC TO PHOTO RADAR
Radar errors and spurious readings
Photo radar is still radar, and it can generate false speed readings. There is no vehicle tracking history by a qualified officer. Hundreds, if not thousands, of tickets can be generated between routine maintenance and calibration inspections, potentially resulting in as many faulty readings. But, because no one is checking the correlation between actual vehicle speeds and the vehicles being photographed, erroneous readings could readily occur.
Enforcement emphasis on ticket volume
Despite claims to the contrary, photo radar is used in locations characterized by high traffic volume and under-posted speed limits. It is not profitable to use photo radar on residential streets, low volume roads or where speed limits are posted at the 85th percentile (the speed they should be posted at).
Operator error and abuse
Photo radar should not be used on high-speed, multi-lane highways. Tests done by the University of Virginia found that fewer than 3% of the photos taken of vehicles on Interstate-type roads provided a clear image of a single vehicle, the license plate number and the driver.
Negative effect on proper speed zoning
Photo radar is not profitable enough to justify its installation in locations where proper speed zoning has been employed. The only avenue for adequate profitability is to set the tolerance threshold to unreasonable levels, e.g. one or two miles per hour over the speed limit. Politically, this is usually not acceptable, nor will the courts support enforcement of this nature. This leaves only one option, setting or retaining under-posted speed limits that are inappropriate for existing traffic speeds.
OBJECTIONS SPECIFIC TO RED LIGHT CAMERAS
Will not prevent most intersection accidents
Intersection accidents are just that, accidents. Most motorists do not casually drive through red lights. More likely, they do not see a given traffic light because they are distracted, impaired or unfamiliar with their surroundings. Even the most flagrant of red light runners will not drive blithely into a crowded intersection, against the light. Putting cameras on poles and taking pictures will not stop these kinds of accidents.
May retard synchronization of traffic lights
If red light cameras are relied upon to generate revenue for local governments, those governments will be loath to carry out policies that will reduce the income flow. Traffic light synchronization, elimination of unneeded controls and partial deactivation of traffic lights during periods of low traffic volume may all be de-emphasized in favor of continued revenue flow.
Not cost effective under legitimate circumstances
If intersection controls are properly engineered, installed and operated, there will be very little violation of the traffic control devices, deliberate or accidental. From the motorists' perspective, government funds should be invested in improving the installation and operation of intersection controls, not in cameras that serve no purpose other than to generate revenue for municipalities that have abrogated their traffic engineering responsibilities.[
08-21-2002, 12:13 PM
#2
Casual Observer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Agoura Hills, California
Age: 51
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right now the leading California case is out of a San Diego Superior Court. The case is entitled:
In re: Red Light Camera Cases The People of the State of California, Plaintiff, v. John Allen, et al., Defendants.
This case appears to have reached a final ruling in the San Diego Superior Court in September 2001, however it has not yet been heard at the appellate level.
In summary, the court stated its conclusions as follows:
1. The City does not operate the red light camera system in accordance with Vehicle Code section 21455.5;
2. The failure to comply with the statute, by itself, does not violate the United States Constitution;
3. Lockheed Martin operates the system on a contingency;
4. Noncompliance with the statute, when combined with the contingent fee and all of the other activities of the City and Lockheed, does not constitute outrageous governmental conduct in violation of the U.S. Constitution; and,
5. The evidence obtained from the red light camera system as presently operated appears so untrustworthy and unreliable that it lacks foundation and should not be admitted.
Obviously numnber 5 is the most significant finding of the court. Note that this ruling shows a judicial trend but is not binding precedent yet as it has not been heard on appeal.
In re: Red Light Camera Cases The People of the State of California, Plaintiff, v. John Allen, et al., Defendants.
This case appears to have reached a final ruling in the San Diego Superior Court in September 2001, however it has not yet been heard at the appellate level.
In summary, the court stated its conclusions as follows:
1. The City does not operate the red light camera system in accordance with Vehicle Code section 21455.5;
2. The failure to comply with the statute, by itself, does not violate the United States Constitution;
3. Lockheed Martin operates the system on a contingency;
4. Noncompliance with the statute, when combined with the contingent fee and all of the other activities of the City and Lockheed, does not constitute outrageous governmental conduct in violation of the U.S. Constitution; and,
5. The evidence obtained from the red light camera system as presently operated appears so untrustworthy and unreliable that it lacks foundation and should not be admitted.
Obviously numnber 5 is the most significant finding of the court. Note that this ruling shows a judicial trend but is not binding precedent yet as it has not been heard on appeal.
08-21-2002, 07:44 PM
#3
Curiosity Killed The CL-S
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Age: 50
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting read! It would be nice to know how the case turns out eventually, since I can see that having a major impact on the use of cameras in traffic enforcement.
08-21-2002, 08:29 PM
#4
Race Director
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 10,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of court battling and lots of money being spent. Basically just a waste of everyone time since one day in yours and mine lifetimes camera enforcement will be the norm rather than the exception. It is already being used in lost of other countries despite the [lame] arguments. My 2 cents.
08-22-2002, 02:17 AM
#5
Suzuka Master
Originally posted by kensteele
Lots of court battling and lots of money being spent. Basically just a waste of everyone time since one day in yours and mine lifetimes camera enforcement will be the norm rather than the exception. It is already being used in lost of other countries despite the [lame] arguments. My 2 cents.
Lots of court battling and lots of money being spent. Basically just a waste of everyone time since one day in yours and mine lifetimes camera enforcement will be the norm rather than the exception. It is already being used in lost of other countries despite the [lame] arguments. My 2 cents.
I can think of some areas where photo enforcement might be a good idea...
However...
I thank god for good karma (or whatever luck) when I've had a camera at a red light flash me when I was just sitting behind the intersection. It turns out the camera and strobe missed the person making a right turn on a red, but managed to take a dead on flash of me sitting at the intersection. Good thing I was not in the crosswalk or inside of the intersection. (I could mention a number of other scenarios, but will spare you. How do you fight high-energy particle running through a semiconductor junction?
I can only comment on the photo controlled red light system in my area, but the intersections were NOT picked for accident purposes. (Can I prove it? No!) However, they sure were NOT the ones that I would have picked.
There was a good article (IMO) in one of the car mags recently and statistics can sure be made to lie (I'll spare the cliché). I was very interested in the part about rear endings at photo controlled intersections not being fully accounted for (a matter of line drawing and where the car has to be in relationship to the intersection to be counted as a rear ender...) So, whatever, let the stats churn. All's I can say is: I've had more than a few close calls where I've had to creep very close to the inside of the intersection to avoid getting rear ended by some idiot. BTW, being in the right wont ever fix the nerve damage done by an idiot removing the rear of my car. I am amazed that the lights are not set to delay the green of the cross traffic, when people try to "beat the red".
If cities were so interested in the common good and safety, why not have the following strategy:
1. Give the ticket to people who run the red (right through the middle of the light).
2. Delay the cross traffic green light for late runners and at least save a possible rear-ending and/or t-bone? As for the ticketing policy, they never go for my suggestions (would reduce their revenue).
AS to photo radar and other automated ticketing systems -- I look at them as I do "conventional radar". The sites are generally selected on the basis of revenue collection. I speak from experience again. I NEVER see a police vehicle where I see speeding related accidents. (the location is near a stop light and most of the traffic tends to slow down as they reach the intersection. The problem is a few people coming from the other direction, tend to haul ass and the traffic engineers have installed traffic counters on numerous occasions. I guess it doesn't pay to stop 10 lunatics, when you can ticket about 100 "technical" violators in the same 24-hour period. OTOH, I have a friend who used to live on a 4-lane residential stretch with a posted 25-MPH limit. Interesting to note that this is one of the "favorite" locations for radar traps. They hand out tickets for going 10 MPH over the limit there. My friends never heard an accident or heard of an injury to a anyone or anything in the 15-years of living on the street. A quick run through some of the where_is_the_radar.com sites will show that the police love to put radar and other “automatic” systems at the bottom of hills and other locations where “human nature” and responses can demonstrate a tendency towards 10+ over the speed limit behavior (add in streets that are extensions of freeway off-ramps (people have adjusted to the higher freeway speeds).
So, the tools have a potential to protect and warn people of truly dangerous areas where people are hurt.
OTOH, I question the use of this technology when the people who are selecting the locations SEEM to be interested in revenue collection as opposed to safety.
So, for the lame excused -- I guess you can add my diatribe to the list of "lame" excuses...
The "problem" is the use of high-tech tools -- they can be used or abused. I’m not impressed with the use of this technology in my area.
08-22-2002, 02:11 PM
#6
the last one alive
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been looking into a lot about these photo red intersections- primarily because they mailed me an infraction this week. I genuinely never run red lights- at least now intentionally. According to the blurry data on the photo, I entered the intersection the exact same time it hit red. I need to go back to the intersection next week with a stopwatch at the same time of my ticket and check the yellow light interval. At 30mph, it needs to stay yellow for 3.2 seconds, and doing a rough count in my head, I counted about 2.5.
But it really does seem like these cameras are setup more for revenue than accident prevention. It appears the best sort of prevention of accidents at intersections is lengthening the duration of the yellow light. This can cut down on red light running by 90% according to some tests.
dhlesq-
could you email me? i have a few questions i was hoping you could help me out with. thanks.
But it really does seem like these cameras are setup more for revenue than accident prevention. It appears the best sort of prevention of accidents at intersections is lengthening the duration of the yellow light. This can cut down on red light running by 90% according to some tests.
dhlesq-
could you email me? i have a few questions i was hoping you could help me out with. thanks.
08-22-2002, 03:05 PM
#7
4-8-15-16-23-42
ok unitl they installed these things i don't think that i have EVER run a red light (maybe unintentionally, but i even doubt that)
a couple of months ago i was behind a van who stopped in the intersection after changing lanes into mine, subsequently i could not see the light and guess what-it turned red while i was sitting behind this idiot. well i got a ticket and payed, BUT now,,,every fawking light that i aproach that i know has cameras,,i get ansy and slow down, speed up, look at the crosswalk-lights, everything that i need to do to make sure the damn camera doesn't go off, but at the same time neglecting safety by paying too much attention to this crap!
frustrated
awesome reading BTW
swclown
a couple of months ago i was behind a van who stopped in the intersection after changing lanes into mine, subsequently i could not see the light and guess what-it turned red while i was sitting behind this idiot. well i got a ticket and payed, BUT now,,,every fawking light that i aproach that i know has cameras,,i get ansy and slow down, speed up, look at the crosswalk-lights, everything that i need to do to make sure the damn camera doesn't go off, but at the same time neglecting safety by paying too much attention to this crap!
frustrated
awesome reading BTW
swclown
Trending Topics
08-22-2002, 06:32 PM
#8
Race Director
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 10,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have people who run red lights routinely and you have people like me who never run redlights. Is it possible for me to accidently run one, yes, and I'll have to pay if I do. But I welcome the cameras because something has to be done to stop the chronic redlight runners who do so unsafely. They are the cause of all this. When I said lame, I meant the business of challenging the camera setup, the lens timing, the camera angle, debating who was in driving the car, your rights to talk to a live ticket-writer, due process, all of that nonsense. A misdemeanor traffic violation doesn't afford you certain rights and right now, it's going through all those legal battles but in the end, it will work out as I've said. As for revenue generation, that's debatable; but if you don't run lights, who cares, let them collect from the idiots who do.
I find it hard to accidently run a light if you are truly careful, it might take some getting use to because we are conditioned to drive a certain way for so many years but given the opportunity to conform over a year or two, I think we'll learn. Everything else has been tried from on the spot traffic control, changing the light sequence, long yellows, whatever, the light runner are going to run it. When you almost get hit and killed by a light runner, when that idiot goes flying thru the intersection while you see green, you will come over to my camp with bells on. I saw an 18-wheeler going thru the intersection last month, he ran the light because he was going too fast to slow down, so he layed on his horn to let everyone know he was coming thru. There was dead in that intersection for anyone and everyone who might have missed his call. I've been driving for so long (use to glancing both ways on intersection approach) that now I have to thoroughly scan left and scan right at every intersection just to save my life against someone who doesn't want to at least yield when going thru a red light. And that's how bad it is. When the city proposal comes, I'm going to vote "Do it".
I find it hard to accidently run a light if you are truly careful, it might take some getting use to because we are conditioned to drive a certain way for so many years but given the opportunity to conform over a year or two, I think we'll learn. Everything else has been tried from on the spot traffic control, changing the light sequence, long yellows, whatever, the light runner are going to run it. When you almost get hit and killed by a light runner, when that idiot goes flying thru the intersection while you see green, you will come over to my camp with bells on. I saw an 18-wheeler going thru the intersection last month, he ran the light because he was going too fast to slow down, so he layed on his horn to let everyone know he was coming thru. There was dead in that intersection for anyone and everyone who might have missed his call. I've been driving for so long (use to glancing both ways on intersection approach) that now I have to thoroughly scan left and scan right at every intersection just to save my life against someone who doesn't want to at least yield when going thru a red light. And that's how bad it is. When the city proposal comes, I'm going to vote "Do it".
08-22-2002, 08:06 PM
#9
Suzuka Master
Originally posted by swclown
ok unitl they installed these things i don't think that i have EVER run a red light (maybe unintentionally, but i even doubt that)
a couple of months ago i was behind a van who stopped in the intersection after changing lanes into mine, subsequently i could not see the light and guess what-it turned red while i was sitting behind this idiot. well i got a ticket and payed, BUT now,,,every fawking light that i aproach that i know has cameras,,i get ansy and slow down, speed up, look at the crosswalk-lights, everything that i need to do to make sure the damn camera doesn't go off, but at the same time neglecting safety by paying too much attention to this crap!
frustrated
awesome reading BTW
swclown
ok unitl they installed these things i don't think that i have EVER run a red light (maybe unintentionally, but i even doubt that)
a couple of months ago i was behind a van who stopped in the intersection after changing lanes into mine, subsequently i could not see the light and guess what-it turned red while i was sitting behind this idiot. well i got a ticket and payed, BUT now,,,every fawking light that i aproach that i know has cameras,,i get ansy and slow down, speed up, look at the crosswalk-lights, everything that i need to do to make sure the damn camera doesn't go off, but at the same time neglecting safety by paying too much attention to this crap!
frustrated
awesome reading BTW
swclown
Your situation == bummer. I've been spared, but there are a few of the "controlled" intersections where I now make a right turn and chose a detour (I was lucky). I've watched people waiting for a van or truck (blocking their view) in the opposing #1 lane get a nice flash (they were waiting to make sure that someone wasn’t steaming along in the opposing #2 lane).
When someone needs to choose between an accident and a ticket, something is flawed.
08-22-2002, 08:25 PM
#10
Race Director
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 10,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by EricL
Your situation == bummer. I've been spared, but there are a few of the "controlled" intersections where I now make a right turn and chose a detour (I was lucky). I've watched people waiting for a van or truck (blocking their view) in the opposing #1 lane get a nice flash (they were waiting to make sure that someone wasn’t steaming along in the opposing #2 lane).
When someone needs to choose between an accident and a ticket, something is flawed.
Your situation == bummer. I've been spared, but there are a few of the "controlled" intersections where I now make a right turn and chose a detour (I was lucky). I've watched people waiting for a van or truck (blocking their view) in the opposing #1 lane get a nice flash (they were waiting to make sure that someone wasn’t steaming along in the opposing #2 lane).
When someone needs to choose between an accident and a ticket, something is flawed.
08-22-2002, 08:59 PM
#11
Suzuka Master
Originally posted by kensteele
You know what the law says just as well as I do. That situation is not running the light. The camera is going to flash but who says you gotta pay for that? Doesn't the camera take a series of pictures in order to tell the whole story? What would the series of pictures say about this incident? Perhaps that the car was planted in the intersection when the light changed and that he will have the right of way as he attempts to clear the intersection, exactly what the manual says to do. Not a ticket in my book. Camera doesn't know the difference, but the person reviewing the photos will.
You know what the law says just as well as I do. That situation is not running the light. The camera is going to flash but who says you gotta pay for that? Doesn't the camera take a series of pictures in order to tell the whole story? What would the series of pictures say about this incident? Perhaps that the car was planted in the intersection when the light changed and that he will have the right of way as he attempts to clear the intersection, exactly what the manual says to do. Not a ticket in my book. Camera doesn't know the difference, but the person reviewing the photos will.
I’m sorry to report that this is at the center of the problem.
In 30 years of driving, I’ve never gotten a red-light ticket. I mentioned that situation since I know people who have gotten tickets for that exact reason. I stopped taking a left at a couple of local intersection for this very reason (I like to be safe and have low insurance rates).
I have a friend who was nearly killed by a red light runner and he constantly rants about the inadequacies of the system down in San Diego.
I was also of a similar mind (as you were) about hoping that some of the kamikazes would cool it. (I’m still doing as much defensive driving as I used to.)
Some comments:
1. People’s motivations relative to revenue collection are relevant
2. If you were designing a system, would you brag about how much the city was going to pay for extra cameras and backup devices to protect the few people that get unfair tickets? Or would you just soft sell the idea that “we got ‘ya covered” and err on the side of revenue collection?
3. The manual says that traffic is not supposed to enter the intersection until it is cleared. However, I know of people that got bitten. So, speaking as someone who hates red-light runners, I can only tell you that serious, sane, and reasonable people have some questions about how reliable and fair the system is.
4. The system that is local uses a strobe and I’ve looked at the system and only seen a single head on flash in the case of the late clearance. Do they have a low-light camera? (I don’t know) Do they just ignore it? As an additional thought, what about people who “chain-up” in threes to get through an intersection? Hard to discern between someone who was in a one or two car queue (with safety concerns) vs. someone who was “pushing it” by trying to be the caboose. (I’ve seen these folks get a ticked from a policeman).
08-23-2002, 10:18 AM
#12
Casual Observer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Agoura Hills, California
Age: 51
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by kensteele
Doesn't the camera take a series of pictures in order to tell the whole story?
Doesn't the camera take a series of pictures in order to tell the whole story?
About two years ago I got a photo-enforced red light ticket in San Diego on Garnet Street in the Pacific Beach area. They had me dead to rights as I looked down, looked up, saw the yellow and it turned red just before I entered the intersection. I had no other tickets on my record and had not been to traffic school in over 18 months so I pled no contest and did online traffic school. No big deal.
About three days after I saw the strobe light flash me at the intersection I receieved a package in the mail from the City of San Diego. It contained a pre-printed citation along with photocopies of several photographs that appeared to be taken with some kind of low-light vision camera.
The pictures included one of the front of my vehicle across the limit-line (and therefore in the intersection), one close-up of my face, one close-up of my front license plate, and one close -up of my rear license plate.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
STL TL-S
3G TL Problems & Fixes
9
09-23-2015 08:52 PM
