What's the deal with traffic cameras
#11
![](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/s2ki/ranks/gold_member.png)
![](https://staticssl.ibsrv.net/autocomm/Content/S2Ki/milestonestars-10yr.png)
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Professor Touge Emeritus
Posts: 8,570
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
8 Posts
![Default](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Now I make a point of laying on my horn and revving as I go through every traffic camera enforced intersection. I don't know why, that's just how I do it now. It makes me feel better about the situation.
#12
![Default](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
It depends on whether or not the municipality shares revenue with the state or not. If it does, then the points would indeed count. If the municipality and vendor exclusively share the revenue, most likely you'll keep getting collection letters until you either pay up or the ordinance is eventually overturned.
Here's a link to a lot of articles regarding this very common problem: www.thetruthaboutcars.com/author/the-newspaper/
Upon reading these articles, there are some familiarities regarding traffic cameras:
- City councils and vendors (Redflex, American Traffic Solutions...) are in cahoots with each other
- They claim safety as a reason for the installation of cameras
- Increasing yellow times actually decreases accidents
- Legality issues with State Traffic Codes
- Vendors make it as difficult as possible to challenge violations
Here's a link to a lot of articles regarding this very common problem: www.thetruthaboutcars.com/author/the-newspaper/
Upon reading these articles, there are some familiarities regarding traffic cameras:
- City councils and vendors (Redflex, American Traffic Solutions...) are in cahoots with each other
- They claim safety as a reason for the installation of cameras
- Increasing yellow times actually decreases accidents
- Legality issues with State Traffic Codes
- Vendors make it as difficult as possible to challenge violations
#13
![Default](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by whiteflash' timestamp='1317329539' post='21023928
Really Rick? I've heard the exact opposite. I heard that LA was considering de-installing theirs because it was a massive money pit. There's too many loopholes on these cameras, and with a half-assed somewhat sober lawyer you can get it thrown out. Unless I heard wrong ![suspect.gif](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/smilies/suspect.gif)
![suspect.gif](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/smilies/suspect.gif)
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
Yes, without reasonable doubt, the judge & person checking the photos (their name is listed in the citation) have to be able to identify the drivers face. If they cannot, then they will not be able to issue a ticket. If they do & you go to court & they cannot match the photo to the driver's face, then typically the case is dismissed & you will receive a refund of the ticket fees you paid.
#14
![](https://staticssl.ibsrv.net/autocomm/Content/S2Ki/milestonestars-10yr.png)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 17,792
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
![Default](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I had to deal with a 3 year old red light camera ticket this year. I ignored the one and only "citation" I received from Fremont regarding it 3 years ago. Never saw anything pop up on my driving record, so I figured no big deal. Earlier this year, they finally come after me to try and collect on the money they felt I owned them. I took the case to court and beat the ticket. Technically the case was dismissed based on my claim that I had the legal right to cross examine the person whom reviewed the original photos and video of the violation in court. The State argued that they had a new expert whom would testify to the facts, to which I countered I was not be afforded due process to cross examine all witness.
Over the years, I've won and lost my share of cases, but this one was my favorite. I actually got a fist bump from one of the court workers for winning.
Over the years, I've won and lost my share of cases, but this one was my favorite. I actually got a fist bump from one of the court workers for winning.
#15
![](https://staticssl.ibsrv.net/autocomm/Content/S2Ki/milestonestars-10yr.png)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 17,792
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
![Default](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Yes, without reasonable doubt, the judge & person checking the photos (their name is listed in the citation) have to be able to identify the drivers face. If they cannot, then they will not be able to issue a ticket. If they do & you go to court & they cannot match the photo to the driver's face, then typically the case is dismissed & you will receive a refund of the ticket fees you paid.
#16
![Default](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
^ Wouldnt the 5th work on the "pressuring part".
"Technically the case was dismissed based on my claim that I had the legal right to cross examine the person whom reviewed the original photos and video of the violation in court. The State argued that they had a new expert whom would testify to the facts, to which I countered I was not be afforded due process to cross examine all witness "
Vu, could you explain this part more? I would like to know/understand this better. Thanks!
"Technically the case was dismissed based on my claim that I had the legal right to cross examine the person whom reviewed the original photos and video of the violation in court. The State argued that they had a new expert whom would testify to the facts, to which I countered I was not be afforded due process to cross examine all witness "
Vu, could you explain this part more? I would like to know/understand this better. Thanks!
#17
![](https://staticssl.ibsrv.net/autocomm/Content/S2Ki/milestonestars-10yr.png)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 17,792
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
![Default](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The 5th only applies to you, not to you giving someone else up. If you are saying it isn't you, how can you "plead" the 5th?
Easier to explain in person.
"Technically the case was dismissed based on my claim that I had the legal right to cross examine the person whom reviewed the original photos and video of the violation in court. The State argued that they had a new expert whom would testify to the facts, to which I countered I was not be afforded due process to cross examine all witness "
Vu, could you explain this part more? I would like to know/understand this better. Thanks!
Vu, could you explain this part more? I would like to know/understand this better. Thanks!
#18
![Default](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by slightly2ned' timestamp='1317414574' post='21028511
^ Wouldnt the 5th work on the "pressuring part".
"Technically the case was dismissed based on my claim that I had the legal right to cross examine the person whom reviewed the original photos and video of the violation in court. The State argued that they had a new expert whom would testify to the facts, to which I countered I was not be afforded due process to cross examine all witness "
Vu, could you explain this part more? I would like to know/understand this better. Thanks!
Vu, could you explain this part more? I would like to know/understand this better. Thanks!
#19
![Default](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
supposely each traffic cam takes 2 or more pictures. one right after another to determine if the vehicle is actually in violation... for instance... 1st picture taken at 8:00 and 15 seconds, your vehicle is 2 feet past the crosswalk, 2nd pic at 17 seconds your vehicle is 5 feet past the crosswalk... you would be in violation.. if your vehicle didn't move any futher but pictures were taken, you should be fine....
there arent many ways to move around this but there is a trick... red light cams are indeed hard to contest.. so easiest way is to just pay for it.. the only issue is that even though its a photo violation, its still considered a moving violation. The fine will be sent in the name of the registered owner of the car.. if the picture isn't that clear, you can substitute the driver for someone else.. i would say an elderly grandma who has a drivers license but hardly or retired driving take the point.... lol
there arent many ways to move around this but there is a trick... red light cams are indeed hard to contest.. so easiest way is to just pay for it.. the only issue is that even though its a photo violation, its still considered a moving violation. The fine will be sent in the name of the registered owner of the car.. if the picture isn't that clear, you can substitute the driver for someone else.. i would say an elderly grandma who has a drivers license but hardly or retired driving take the point.... lol
![ponder2.gif](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/smilies/ponder2.gif)
#20
Registered User
![](https://staticssl.ibsrv.net/autocomm/Content/S2Ki/milestonestars-10yr.png)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 2,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I got a redlight ticket a while ago, did the whole trail by declaration and was still found guilty. I went to court to plead my case. There were 18 people there for red light violations that day. Of the 18 that were there, I was the only one that got my case dismissed because at the time of trail, the officer that issued the ticket was on vacation. Otherwise, I would have been stuck paying as well.