Red Light Camera Violations...

So I got my first "red light violation". Didn't stop before turning at a red light. In Illinois, that's illegal, you have to come to a complete stop.

In all reality I'm going to end up just paying the 100 dollars, do the crime pay the fine, but I was wondering if these methods of traffic control have been proven to be legal? I know a few years back, a Florida judge said it was illegal to issue citations based on camera evidence alone... but I think they were issuing actual citations that went on your driving record and could get your license suspended... this one I received specifically states that nothing will go on my record and my license is safe, regardless of if I pay or not. Anyone have any court cases, or Supreme court cases, going for or against these traffic cameras? I'd be interested to read up on them.

reply to post by againuntodust


Houston's had plenty of problems with them. Actually, I don't think anyone is required to pay the tickets as they are sent out by a third party. So I've heard anyway. I got one and just said someone else was driving my car. They just dismissed it.

Here are some articles, but research a bit more about your state.

cameras turned back on

houston mayor defends decision on cameras

Well it is the folks that just pay up that fund there little systems,, And thats fine..
But , If it wasnt a certified letter,, I never saw it!

How ever 100 bux isnt bad , being as you "could have" caused some one to get hurt,,
So think of it as a Pre Crime Fine

reply to post by againuntodust

I can tell you that in Missouri, I beat one of these tickets. I was told at the time by the Judge AND Prosecutor that I was one of the only one's they had come in and beat one. EVER.

How did I do the impossible? It wasn't even my car. That is what it took. I'd sold the car over 2 months before and had all the paperwork to prove it. Originally coming from California, where license plates go with the car and stay with the car, I didn't realize the real harm that can come here by not taking my plate off the car. I left it to the relative to dispose of plates and they didn't.

With all that though..and the fact the car was documented as being someone else's with the State..all proper like..I STILL almost lost the case.

I'd say pay your $100 or represent yourself if you want the thrill of a day in traffic court. If it doesn't carry points on your license though? I'd never pay an attorney to get into a proper fight over it. Not against those odds.

i think they are illegal. some red light camera only take pictures of the license plates, not the driver.

if someone else was driving, the owner is on the hook for an illegal infraction he did not commit. you can't penalize an innocent person for a crime he did not commit. that is not justice.

on the other hand, when you call them on that, they say you are responsible for lending the vehicle to someone else and their actions.

but, if you lend your car to someone, they get drunk and run someone over, they don't charge the car owner with vehicular manslaughter, they charge the driver.

the government can't have it both ways, either you're responsible for all crimes and infractions committed in your car, or the driver of the vehicle is.

I think the legality has to do with the specific language of the laws in your state.

For instance: You have the right to face your accuser in court.

If the camera doesn't show up to court, you don't get to face your accuser.

Hundred dollars? Out here in Silicon Valley the fine was 350.00. But the one nearest to my abode was "disabled" so many times that now the very thick armored yellow pole is the only thing remaining. I guess they had a bit of trouble with the maintenance costs.

Well I got a ticket in the mail, and it said I did not make a complete stop at a red light, which I think is rediculous because im pretty good for making complete stops at red lights. The ticket was "certified" by a "police officer" and I was given the option to pay half and dispute it, via mail. So I did just that, and they kept sending more letters, each time with the fine increased and more red words on the letter, not explaining if my dispute was considered.

So I just caved and paid it, because in delaware you can get your license suspended by robo-cop-tron.

Funny thing is, im sure I paid via taxes to have these things installed, so they can give me fines.

Awesome.

Ignore it. Especially if they send the ticket to you via regular first class mail. They can't prove you ever received it. Dang police state.

Ive seen license plate covers that blur out your plate with a push of a button.. get one of them and run all the red lights you want

reply to post by againuntodust


If it says you don't have to pay, why would you?

Originally posted by timmhaines
reply to post by againuntodust

 

If it says you don't have to pay, why would you?

The fine doubles if you don't. Then they sell it to a collection agency and it goes on your credit report. At this stage in my life I don't want to make a social statement and further damage my financial history.

Apparently, not many motorists are happy with red-light cameras -- the law-enforcement products that snap a photo of you and your license plate if you are caught in an intersection when the light turns red. Many feel the devices are more about raising municipal profits than they are about making the roads better. With those disgruntled drivers as possible customers, two items have been separately designed to bust the photo-busters at their own game. One is presently accessible. The other seeks additional seed cash. If you want to read the article, you can get it here: New car to buy

Originally posted by keisha008
Apparently, not many motorists are happy with red-light cameras -- the law-enforcement products that snap a photo of you and your license plate if you are caught in an intersection when the light turns red. Many feel the devices are more about raising municipal profits than they are about making the roads better. With those disgruntled drivers as possible customers, two items have been separately designed to bust the photo-busters at their own game. One is presently accessible. The other seeks additional seed cash. If you want to read the article, you can get it here: New car to buy

Damn this debate has been ragin in the UK for over a decade or more concerning speed cameras.

It seems pretty inconclusive whether they've had a dramatic effect on road accidents by themselves or the accumalitive effect of multiple strategies and the already downward trend.

Siteing them in heavy traffic to pedestrian areas or outside schools very few would argue with but quiet,straight and safe roads where the speed limit just gone from 30 to 40 is blatantly there to catch people out dozing,a its a revenue stream which just gets on peoples nerves.

It's mobile vans and units that sit with cameras trying to catch you at 70mph as the road goes from dual carriageway to normal A road.Again it appears to be revenue driven mostly.

If you are unlucky it's the number plate that identifies you so the citation is posted to the vehicle owners.Of course if you can talk someone into owning up as the driver then you can sidestep it but....

I've heard of fancy plates that reflect the radar,that supposedly show up blank on film etc,etc but they don't work,nor does a loosened rattly plate.

What can would be conveniently caking part of the plate in mud or dirt but they see you,they pull you.lol.

Oddly we have cameras on our traffic lights to aid traffic control but have never heard of them taking stijls or used against light jumpers.

if they did my licence would be toast cos i'm bad for sneaking thru in the tail though the lights just gone red.

If a cop car saw me then it'd be 3 points and a fine - 60 quid.lol