Have any of you guys received a "camera" ticket in the mail?
07-02-2007, 07:13 AM
#1
AudiWorld Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have any of you guys received a "camera" ticket in the mail?
The wife just got one a few weeks ago for running a red light, and we received the actual ticket in the mail last week. You know how that goes...she says it was yellow...the pictures say it was red. We are both from out of state up at beale, so we dont really know the local courts. If she went to the court date and plead no contest, do you think the judge do anything about the $340 ticket? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
07-02-2007, 08:11 AM
#2
Why roll over? Aren't you innocent until proven guilty? The city is assuming you are guilty without
any due process. What city?
Here's a simple way to try:
http://www.helpigotaticket.com/declar/index.html
Note that yellow lights can be shortened, and because most cities won't allow you acess to the 2 or 3 pictures the camera usually takes in the process of recording your "violation", you cannot check to make sure the equipment is taking the pictures at the correct intervals, and<ul><li><a href="http://www.highwayrobbery.net/">therefore correctly calibrated.</a></li></ul>
Here's a simple way to try:
http://www.helpigotaticket.com/declar/index.html
Note that yellow lights can be shortened, and because most cities won't allow you acess to the 2 or 3 pictures the camera usually takes in the process of recording your "violation", you cannot check to make sure the equipment is taking the pictures at the correct intervals, and<ul><li><a href="http://www.highwayrobbery.net/">therefore correctly calibrated.</a></li></ul>
07-02-2007, 03:21 PM
#3
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rights, innocent until proven guilty and trial by jury both apply to CRIMINAL charges.
The European Court of Human Rights just came to an interesting judgement.
They found that speed and red light cameras amount to regulation of a privilege (driving) and the laws of habius corpus etc. do not apply.
Check out Californias horrific traffic light accident rate, not to mention the post below where a cyclist was nearly killed. Californians love running red lights and I for one am glad to see that something is being done. I find it hard to understand why anyone would deliberately undermine such enforcement.
BTW, April, do you have any evidence that cities are shortening the yellow light interval to make money? That would amount to absolutely criminal and effectively murderous behaviour. Maybe you should make your evidence public. It goes against my experience of public employees (one in Caltrans, one in the city) who are dedicated, of great integrity, and try to act in the public good.
They found that speed and red light cameras amount to regulation of a privilege (driving) and the laws of habius corpus etc. do not apply.
Check out Californias horrific traffic light accident rate, not to mention the post below where a cyclist was nearly killed. Californians love running red lights and I for one am glad to see that something is being done. I find it hard to understand why anyone would deliberately undermine such enforcement.
BTW, April, do you have any evidence that cities are shortening the yellow light interval to make money? That would amount to absolutely criminal and effectively murderous behaviour. Maybe you should make your evidence public. It goes against my experience of public employees (one in Caltrans, one in the city) who are dedicated, of great integrity, and try to act in the public good.
07-02-2007, 03:29 PM
#4
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a link to the normal formula used to calculate yellow interval :
As you can see, it is based on mean traffic speed, incline, reaction time, etc. There is no mention of whether a red light camera is installed. So you seem to be saying that San Francisco's traffic dept. is not using this formula, but rather another one based on profit. I would assert that you are in error.<ul><li><a href="http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/Documents/dpublications/Capacity_Analysis_&_Signal_Timing.pdf">http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/Documents/dpublications/Capacity_Analysis_&_Signal_Timing.pdf</a</li></ul>
07-02-2007, 03:59 PM
#5
Red light runners go down, but rear enders go up. Instead of just keeping people stupid about
laws - AND the reason for them (of course some are dumb and designed to generate revenue), why not spend the money on real driver education? Using the argument you just mentioned, any surveilance camera catching even the most minor infraction such as spitting on a sidewalk would be open season. Besides, the ticket arrives long after the infraction, which reduces or eliminates the deterant effect.
I forget just where the article could be found, but there was a case of a British man who took both pictures (in the US you only get one pic, even though several are taken), and by using the time stamp on the photograph, the distance traveled (real measurements taken from scene), he could deduce that he could not have been going the speed the machine claimed he was doing. So either the time stamp was defective, or the machine's calibration was off.
Since it is the government's job to decide who is fit to drive on public roads, it can be said it's their failure that results in so many fatalities and infractions. Why is it we can go to any number of other countries with far higher speed limits, and see fewer deaths (both pedestrian, bike, and car)? Why don't they make sure people are trained better? They need a larger revenue base on which to keep themselves and their friends employed. You always see people crying for more police enforcement, and yet drime is falling in many places - so the cops end up doing revenue generation for the city. So the real outrage here IMHO, is the lax standards for drivers, and the willingness for government to exploit that, rather than save lives.
<a href="http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/2843/patrick-bedard.html">"be sure to read both pages"</a>
<a href="http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/nma-objections-to-photo-enforcement/#prevent">"it disrupts traffic flow, causing more pollution"</a>
<a href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/190/190923_800mph__police_accuse_supersonic_driver_.ht ml">"in case you thought machines were infallible"</a>
<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/07/18/hot-rodder-to-take-on-the-system/">"errors closer to home"</a>
<a href="http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/10120/patrick-bedard.html">"and here's another fine scam"</a>
If we had proper driver training in this country, we would see fatality rates fall, along with tickets. In that case, double all the fines! But first we need trained drivers, and laws that allow for independent thinking on the parts of drivers, rather than being (dumb) sheep.
I forget just where the article could be found, but there was a case of a British man who took both pictures (in the US you only get one pic, even though several are taken), and by using the time stamp on the photograph, the distance traveled (real measurements taken from scene), he could deduce that he could not have been going the speed the machine claimed he was doing. So either the time stamp was defective, or the machine's calibration was off.
Since it is the government's job to decide who is fit to drive on public roads, it can be said it's their failure that results in so many fatalities and infractions. Why is it we can go to any number of other countries with far higher speed limits, and see fewer deaths (both pedestrian, bike, and car)? Why don't they make sure people are trained better? They need a larger revenue base on which to keep themselves and their friends employed. You always see people crying for more police enforcement, and yet drime is falling in many places - so the cops end up doing revenue generation for the city. So the real outrage here IMHO, is the lax standards for drivers, and the willingness for government to exploit that, rather than save lives.
<a href="http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/2843/patrick-bedard.html">"be sure to read both pages"</a>
<a href="http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/nma-objections-to-photo-enforcement/#prevent">"it disrupts traffic flow, causing more pollution"</a>
<a href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/190/190923_800mph__police_accuse_supersonic_driver_.ht ml">"in case you thought machines were infallible"</a>
<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/07/18/hot-rodder-to-take-on-the-system/">"errors closer to home"</a>
<a href="http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/10120/patrick-bedard.html">"and here's another fine scam"</a>
If we had proper driver training in this country, we would see fatality rates fall, along with tickets. In that case, double all the fines! But first we need trained drivers, and laws that allow for independent thinking on the parts of drivers, rather than being (dumb) sheep.
07-02-2007, 04:19 PM
#7
Has somebody timed that actual light?
A camera costs on average $60K to 90K to install, yet generates on average $4 million dollars per year. Pretty obvious what it's there to do.
Two police officers - one watching, and another on a motorcycle would a much more effective deterant IMHO. Visible, immediate, and capable of giving a lecture;-)
"Simply put, shorter yellow lights mean more people enter on red. When yellow time is inadequate, a condition develops where individuals approaching an intersection are unable either to come to a safe stop or proceed safely through the intersection before the light turns red. Engineers call this condition the "dilemma zone" and its something that the old formula for calculating yellow times was specifically designed to avoid.
That has all changed. The new formula produces much shorter yellow times as much as 30 percent shorter, depending on the particular intersection involved. You can log onto my web site (www.freedom.gov/auto) and compare for yourself the differences between the 1976 Institute of Transportation Engineers formula and the current formula.
Of course, these changes were made in the name of safety. But even if you grant that they were made with the best of intentions, the policy of shortening yellows has been a complete failure. Intersections are less safe as a result. Nonetheless, many within the transportation bureaucracy cling to reduced yellow times because it is extremely profitable."
http://www.motorists.com/ma/armey.html
"examines the Myth that there are legions of aggressive drivers responsible for a national crisis of red light running and speeding. Evidence suggests that something else altogether is closer to the truth, a complete breakdown in safety standards oversight....he FHWA HOTO office routinely allows and or adopts unsafe engineering practices to placate political agendas. In regards to signalized intersections, the situation is further exacerbated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) adoption of deviant "guidance" for signal timings..... <a href="http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_intro_redlight.htm">"learn about motives and about standards that are subverted"</a><ul><li><a href="http://www.hwysafety.com/nma_rlc_timeline4.htm">look at this chart showing extended yellows reduced runners massively!</a></li></ul>
Two police officers - one watching, and another on a motorcycle would a much more effective deterant IMHO. Visible, immediate, and capable of giving a lecture;-)
"Simply put, shorter yellow lights mean more people enter on red. When yellow time is inadequate, a condition develops where individuals approaching an intersection are unable either to come to a safe stop or proceed safely through the intersection before the light turns red. Engineers call this condition the "dilemma zone" and its something that the old formula for calculating yellow times was specifically designed to avoid.
That has all changed. The new formula produces much shorter yellow times as much as 30 percent shorter, depending on the particular intersection involved. You can log onto my web site (www.freedom.gov/auto) and compare for yourself the differences between the 1976 Institute of Transportation Engineers formula and the current formula.
Of course, these changes were made in the name of safety. But even if you grant that they were made with the best of intentions, the policy of shortening yellows has been a complete failure. Intersections are less safe as a result. Nonetheless, many within the transportation bureaucracy cling to reduced yellow times because it is extremely profitable."
http://www.motorists.com/ma/armey.html
"examines the Myth that there are legions of aggressive drivers responsible for a national crisis of red light running and speeding. Evidence suggests that something else altogether is closer to the truth, a complete breakdown in safety standards oversight....he FHWA HOTO office routinely allows and or adopts unsafe engineering practices to placate political agendas. In regards to signalized intersections, the situation is further exacerbated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) adoption of deviant "guidance" for signal timings..... <a href="http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_intro_redlight.htm">"learn about motives and about standards that are subverted"</a><ul><li><a href="http://www.hwysafety.com/nma_rlc_timeline4.htm">look at this chart showing extended yellows reduced runners massively!</a></li></ul>
Trending Topics
07-02-2007, 04:33 PM
#8
Hmmmmmm
<ul><li><a href="http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamscameras.htm#rocklin">it may be a red light camera company going phishing - consult traffic lawyer?</a></li></ul>
07-02-2007, 05:35 PM
#9
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trading red light running accidents for rear-enders sounds like a great deal to me.
Red light running accidents are usually horrendous considering the combined speed of both vehicles, while rear enders are more often fatal to the car but not the drivers. Plus it's often cyclists who are killed by red light runners.
PS, my manual transmission 944 is the only reason I'm alive today. A red light runner in Los Gatos doing at least 50 mph would have side-swiped me, except that I was in 3rd not 1st and stalled.
PS, my manual transmission 944 is the only reason I'm alive today. A red light runner in Los Gatos doing at least 50 mph would have side-swiped me, except that I was in 3rd not 1st and stalled.
07-02-2007, 05:46 PM
#10
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, there is one way to ensure you don't get a red light ticket - don't go through on red.
I've driven most of my life in a country with red light cameras at nearly every light, and speed cameras everywhere, and never had a ticket in my life, neither does anyone else I know.
Cameras there do not affect safe drivers. I didn't screech to a halt at every light, I drive normally, just like I do in CA - safely.
The highway code is clear, on yellow you must stop if it is safe to do so. The highway code says you should also adjust your approach speed so that you can safely stop if the light changes. So you don't have a right to drive at the lights at excessive speed, and then complain when you can't stop on yellow and get a ticket.
This is a typical American approach when asked to make a slight sacrifice in the common good - complain that your civil rights are being violated, and then nothing gets done.
Last time we had this debate I gave you all the statistics from the UK. It would be interesting to ask the literally thousands of people alive today due to traffic cameras, and ask them their opinions on the matter.
I'm going to be writing to Santa Clara, asking if they can put a camera at the intersection of River Oaks and Zanker, where there have been 2 nasty red light accidents in the last few months. The flowers were there until recently for the last one.
Cameras there do not affect safe drivers. I didn't screech to a halt at every light, I drive normally, just like I do in CA - safely.
The highway code is clear, on yellow you must stop if it is safe to do so. The highway code says you should also adjust your approach speed so that you can safely stop if the light changes. So you don't have a right to drive at the lights at excessive speed, and then complain when you can't stop on yellow and get a ticket.
This is a typical American approach when asked to make a slight sacrifice in the common good - complain that your civil rights are being violated, and then nothing gets done.
Last time we had this debate I gave you all the statistics from the UK. It would be interesting to ask the literally thousands of people alive today due to traffic cameras, and ask them their opinions on the matter.
I'm going to be writing to Santa Clara, asking if they can put a camera at the intersection of River Oaks and Zanker, where there have been 2 nasty red light accidents in the last few months. The flowers were there until recently for the last one.