Red Light Cameras

I don't think traffic citations are viewed as only a revenue stream
either. But, I would be very interested to see how much enthus-
iasm was retained if city/counties/states were suddenly ordered
to remit these fines to the feds, for distribution like highway funds.

Other than the obvious, greed, I've never understood why traffic
fine revenue is not used for street repair, and other more related
purposes. I would think that school zone offense fines could
easily pay for crossing personnel and other similar needs.

Additionally, other than the traditional - "what the market will bear",
what determines the amounts of these fines, anyway? I'm still wait-
ing for the city dolts and others in the SUV envy category to grad-uate the
fines based on the vehicle size driven. You breeze through
a school zone at 60 in an 18 wheeler, the fine is $2,500. Do it on
a bike, and it costs $1.50. <g>


Thanks - Gary

 

I think you probably did read too much into it.. The camera's on
intersections don't have the same effect as a patrolman in the intersection
directing traffic.. rather than sitting behind a coffee shop somewhere ...

All they have caught is a car allegedly running a red light with no idea of
who the driver is..

It's not the same thing at all.. Put a freakin' cop in the problem
intersections, directing traffic..

The Irving police dept.. and I have had several meetings concerning officers
who sit in their cozy patrol cruisers when the traffic is gridlocked and/or
other drivers have vehicle problems that block traffic.. The situation in
Irving has gone from bad to worse over the past seven years.. There a a few
of these officers who believe the only time they are required to exit those
cruisers is to write a ticket for some infraction..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

Yes. They don't have the same effect.... and I think we are looking
at two different arguments here. I'm not opposed to the cameras,
provided they work the kinks out. And if they can't work the kinks
out, then they shouldn't do it.

I'm not sure there is an "allegedly" about it at this point. What
does seem to be at stake is who the driver is, and whether or not they
even have the right vehicle.

Any technical merits on this one? Anyone?

It is the same thing if you look at it from the perspective of that it
matters how they obtain the information, which was one of your
arguments, or criticisms of the system.

I have a love / hate relationship with cops. I respect them for the
most part, but i think a lot of them are abusive.


--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

"The kinks" being intentional short-cycling by the contractors as
documented all over the place. And ticketing the vehicle owner instead
of the operator at the time of the violation.

 

Steve -

thanks for the legal clarification on this one. I had not thought of
these various scenarios and correlated them directly to how the lights
and cameras work. It would seem that Bill is right and has a much
stronger argument in light of the new information.

My apologies, Mr. Bill....

Well this is where I completely agree with everyone about not using
the camera system. If you can't prove who was driving the vehicle
then they should not be subject to getting the ticket. According to
what you have described here, you pretty much would HAVE to do that to
qualify it as a Class C misdemeanor.

If all of this is still a problem, why are the lights being utilized
to give out tickets?

So what can one do from a legal standpoint? Are people fighting this
and wining or is it another example of an abusive and corrupt legal
system?

--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

Yeah! that definitely qualifies as a "kink."

And all the stuff that Steve mentioned in the previous post. He
really brought up a lot of good points that I had not thought of.


--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

If all of this is still a problem, why are the lights being utilized

Basic legal dogma says you can address it as an injured party. That
means you wait until you are "nabbed" and protest and appeal it all
the way up.

 

Problem is, he's wrong. RL Cameras don't take one photo. They take
several. When you look at them, you can see the movement of the
vehicle as well as the on or off of the red light. (BW pictures don't
show the color).

The camera will "catch" a car crossing the threshold of the
intersection on red and snap several shots to prove it.


--
gburnore@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com
===========================================================================

 

Bingo. Easy money.

You can say someone else was driving your car if you want to supply
their name and address.

Fortunately, in _most_ juristictions using RL cameras, there are no
points assesed and Insurance isn't raised as it is if an officer
"sees" you running a light. It's far easier for the cop to lie than
it is for the camera.


--
gburnore@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com
===========================================================================

 

I received a ticket for this very thing.

I was sitting at a red light here in Dallas on my way home from work
one nite. Since the fair was going on, I decided to go the side roads
around the fair and avoid the highway through it. I was sitting at a
light with my feet planted on the pavement when I saw a car coming up
quickly behind me. I figured he didn't have time to stop and so I
goosed the bike over to the left heading toward the left turn
lane...but going also into the intersection. I didn't make it across
the crosswalk when I saw red and blue lights pop on. I realized they
were directly behind me and so I proceeded into the intersection
figuring the cop was wanting me to get out of his way. When I made it
across, I got into the right lane and realized the lights were for me.
I pulled over and calmly asked the cop (one of the very few times I've
ever been calm when I'm pulled over) what I could do for him. He then
proceeded to tell me how I ran the red light and could've caused an
accident. He wanted to know if I'd been drinking and so on. I
explained that I thought he didn't see me and was about to hit me. I
then went on to tell him that I was getting out of his way and he
directed me into the intersection. I also reminded him that it was 2am
and there were no cars other than he and I (and his butt plug in the
car with him...who is standing next to me at this time wanting to
search my bike). He said I never stopped at the red light because if I
had "the brake light would've been on". I then flipped out on them. At
this point, reality set in that this buffoon was about to run over me
and didn't realize it...and then would make out that it was my fault
while I was in the hospital or worse. I then told him and his butt
plug that they were very much welcome to write me a ticket and be sure
to appear on it. I told his butt plug that he could do himself a favor
and get away from my motorcycle unless he was about to buy it from me.

Needless to say, they wrote me the ticket and didn't show up to court
when it came time. The silly assed city attorney tried his best to get
me to plea on the ticket and was telling me about this "one of a kind"
deal that would help me out of this mess. I told him that I wasn't
donating a dime to his fund to buy a real suit that fits and I wanted
him, the little puck faced cop and his butt plug all in front of a
jury. When we got in front of the judge, she was less than amused that
neither of the officers were available for trial when I gave her a
brief summary of what happened. The city attorney explained to her
that they were on "stake-outs". I wanted the judge to explain how two
patrol officers assigned to traffic could be on "stake-outs"...or were
they saying "steak-outs"? She asked the same of the city attorney and
he started muttering. She dismissed the case and I went on my
way...but not before telling them to pay the city attorney more money
so he could afford a nice suit to wear when he appears in court.

I was PISSED OFF!!!!

The worst about it, I wouldn't want to get a ticket just to test this.
Knowing how juries today are, they honestly believe that whatever the
city attorney says is factual and proof. I'm amazed when I hear what
some attorneys tell jurors...and the jurors think they have to take it
at face value. My wife served here several months ago on a civil case.
I kept telling her each day when she'd finish and then the next day
when they'd start "I don't want to know any thing about the case, just
want to remind you that you're the deciding factor in the case and
just because you're told something...it doesn't make it so". When it
was all over, she told me about the case. She then went on to say how
they reached their verdict. I asked her what they based their decision
on and she said "it was because that's the law...that's what the judge
and attorneys said". I then reminded her that what they said was the
law was only a manipulation of what they wanted to send to the jury,
but the law still rests with the jury...and that's why they were
there.

Should be required for EVERY potential jury member: Twelve Angry Men

The sad part is that unless the good cops start taking control of the
bad cops, it'll only get worse. I was told once by a cop "it's not my
fault that there's bad cops". I explained that him being a police
officer and working with bad cops while turning away when he witnesses
something wrong *is* his fault. He then asked me how I knew that he
didn't do something or even witnessed something like that. I replied
"because you admitted to there being bad cops".

 

All the way up to what? This is a civl case, not a criminal case. You
can't take a parking ticket like item up to the Supreme Court. You will
only get a coupe of appeal levels and if they turn you down your screwed.
Now a challenge to the actuall validity of the law as the injured party
could be heard, but that's a different route in our legal system.

 

Right. But, as I was saying, the typical process is that you can't
challenge the law (in court/appeals/etc) until you're damaged by it.

I can protest a law and I can contact my rep about it. But I can't
directly challenge its validity in court unless I've been damaged by it.