Many intersections where I live have unmarked red light cameras. The fine is $85, but no points. We are being watched constantly and we do not even know it.

Click here for photos: Red Light Camera Violation

 

I don't know about in your location, but in California they are required to publish the locations of all red light cameras (where they are still legal) and to have signs before the intersection. And they do.

In the city where my business is located, the fine for a red light camera violation is $490 and is a point on your driver's license unless you are able to take traffic school.

 

Our courts have disallowed them in MN. I don't run red lights so it is not a problem anyway, but hate them on principal. Just about everywhere they have been used, fines are issued and behavior changes. When that happens and fines stop rolling in, they shorten the yellow lights to generate more revenue, and in many cases cause accidents that the cameras were supposed to prevent. But the whole prevention argument is phoney, it is just to treat people like deep pockets for the city.

 

I read that in LA if someone ignored the red light ticket absolutely nothing would happen. If you respond or fight it, you enter a different category and all bets are off. True or false Ms Murphy?

You may not run lights but you may still get a ticket. For the one and a half years I lived in Burnsville, winter hell, I recall you can make a right on red (after stopping). That legal action may trigger a camera and you may have no way to fight it. Innocent victims are getting nailed here.

 

They are legal in New York and they're adding more of them. No signs, no warning just
Wham Bam Thank you ma'am... $150 bucks
No points on your license because they can't see who's driving. They showed on the news that where the cameras were located the yellow light was a couple of seconds shorter than on lights where there is no camera.

 

i heard about the same thing. and i know people that simply ignored it and they can't do anything about it. or at least they haven't done anything about it ... lol

 

i heard about the same thing. and i know people that simply ignored it and they can't do anything about it. or at least they haven't done anything about it ... lol
[/quote]

The future of red light cameras is up in the air. A lot of legal issues are popping up and several cities that invested in them are backing off the issue. What you might be remembering is "snitch tickets". This is when the company that runs the camera, doesn't get a good picture of your face or its obvious that someone else is driving. They send a ticket asking you to identify the driver. These are not sent out by the courts and you are not required to respond even though it looks like a real ticket.

 

They have been popping up like MAD lately here, within the past 2 months my town and surrounding towns are covered. Almost every intersection near me now has them. Everyday I see a new one pop up throughout my travels.

 

First off, the city of Los Angeles itself no longer has red light cameras. Various incorporated cities in the LA region (within LA county, etc) do, though. They are all independent. One such city is Culver City. Also, don't get confused with San Diego where they are no longer enforcing them but where tickets were still going out, so you could safely ignore them there. So to answer your question specifically as asked, the answer is False.

Now, technically, you could claim you never received the ticket in the mail. It's a crap shoot. They may or may not choose to flag your dmv record. The pictures and video are VERY clear and you really couldn't argue it's not you unless it really wasn't you. And if it wasn't you, then you submit plea of not guilty with reason that it's not you. You can't be compelled to give testimony and so long as you don't submit testimony, they can't compel you to disclose who it is.

Ignoring the ticket could result in the same response from the court as when you fail to respond to a parking ticket. Each city is different and may or may not choose to pursue it. If they do, then dmv flags your records, additional fines are added (parking tickets, for instance automatically double, plus fees) and you may find yourself unable to renew registration unless you settle up. Again, each city has the option to pursue or not. They can even send it to a collections firm who will then begin to call you at any phone number they can find that might be vaguely associated with you (believe me, a collections firm called me last year looking for my ex-husband's first wife, as if I would have any clue where she was because, according to them, a people search turned up my name and number on a public record and their people search said she and I "might be related" even though I have never changed my name ever) and send nasty notices in the mail. I am told (source: traffic attorney) that some cities in the region do pursue further action and some don't, and the choice to roll the dice is strictly your own.

The red light camera technology here is pretty solid. They know if you roll the right turn (they have video) and they will downgrade to a lesser offense with lesser fine if you argue you were making a right, slowed down, and there was no traffic. They have the timing on the yellows here very accurate. Your only possible defense is to have video of your own which shows a damn good reason why you ran the red light (like an emergency vehicle for which you needed to clear the lane).

In many instances, your best hope is to go to court, plead guilty, ask for community service instead of the fine and get traffic school. The fine is a fixed amount and they will not reduce it.

As always, YMMV. Laws in your state or city may vary. I'm not a traffic attorney.

 

We had red light cameras in Houston. However, every intersection was clearly marked well before the camera. A traffic attorney started a petition to have the cameras removed. The city did everything possible to keep the petition from coming up for a ballot vote, but they ultimately failed. When it was put in front of the citizens, the votes were very close, I think it was 52% against the cameras and 48% for. When the results came out, the city tried to invalidate the initiate. They said that the citizens needed to start the initiative within 30 days of it passing. So if they don't do it in 30 days, they have absolutely no recourse? Ever? After a legal circus, the judge sided with the citizens. The mayor was considering appealing the decision when she was hit by a lawsuit from the camera company. Apparently this pissed her off because she immediately shut the cameras down and never appealed the decision. The cameras have been off for several years now.