Red Light Camera's - Corruption in the courts? Say it ain't so!!!

Wow... Great post... Very informative read... No surprise that the government is in it for the money, though...

 

So if you're wearing a ball cap and sunglasses how could they prove it was you? And, these intersections are very well marked with signs letting you know that there is a camera ahead. I find it hard to believe that I'd ever get ticketed for one of these. Finally, I wonder if these are just the beginning of them setting up cameras for speeders? They could really crank in the dough if that ever happened.

 

It's a good article and a sad commentary on our justice system. We depend on our Judges to follow the rule of law and when that fails we have little left. I have no problem with the principle of the cameras if an officer is present. One concern I have is that I've noticed yellow lights seem to be timed shorter. It is causing people to slam on their brakes in order not to run a red and I'd bet money it is a contributing factor in the rear end collisions.

 

is there a cliff's notes version? i'd been reading for 4 or 5 minutes (and i read pretty fast) and noticed i was barely a 1/4 way through.

my issues with red-light cameras are minimal. i did see a minor effect on traffic light courtesy, but for the most part people just stomped the throttle and belted through when they saw the amber.

the only sensible place i've ever seen speed cameras is AT traffic lights. when it was introduced here a year or two ago, i saw a MAJOR improvement in red-light courtesy. rather than everyone gunning it at the lights to be the last through, people would stop as intended, and allow those people waiting to turn at the lights to actually make a legal turn, and not get stuck in the middle of the intersection.

so i am definitely pro-red-light-speed-cameras. normal speed cameras... pleh! they have done absodiddlysquat.

having said that, here's my red-light infringement. 4 seconds after the amber was displayed i'm out of the intersection, a bit strict by my book, i probly should have sent them a poor quality photograph of $280 dollars :
entering
exiting

 

yep. my point in the post above. a total of 4 seconds from the time the amber light was displayed (see above photograph) to the time i was already OUT of the intersection, yet still this is illegal behaviour. i had just exited a side street and was accelerating and checking around for other road users, i probably saw the amber half a second to a second after it was displayed, factor in half a second's thought/reaction time, had i attempted to stop for the intersection, it would have been screeching tyres, possible flat-spots, and the likely scenario of my car intruding into the intersection.

i know i did the right thing by continuing through the intersection, but camera-based fines ARE NOT defendable here without great effort.

 

This sort of thing pisses me off. I hate big government.

 

This is absolutely amazing. Its such a blatant violation of our 6th amendment rights. The ACLU needs to sue these bastards.

 

http://www.motorists.org/

 

Great article, and yes, I read the whole thing. I suggest you should too as well, to understand why traffic tickets in general, along with courts, are just revenue machines. Of course, there are speeding tickets that are absurd and should be questioned by officers, but generally, not so.

There were several cases in NY some time ago, regarding the red light cameras. Apparently they found by reducing the yellow light to 3.5 seconds and then 3 seconds, their revenue went up drastically.

Anyone see the movie Brazil? Just a suggestion.

 

This should be no surprise to anyone with a view of history of these events. Traffic courts haven't been about justice for quite some time.

Over thirty years ago, Folsom NJ was finally forced to rebate hundreds of speeding tickets, after someone finally got the State to take judicial note that their 25 MPH speed limit sign on the otherwise 50 mph (back then) "white horse pike" was hidden behind a bush. The Carolinas have been infamous for "revenue enhancement" speed traps for half a century.

But the technology vs due process debate goes back to doppler shift radars. When you note that these radars are "calibrated" by having them tell you that a stationary tuning fork is doing 25 MPH, you wonder what happens when you drive a stiffly sprung car over a poorly paved road. Or in front of a street sign vibrating in the wind. I've been pulled over on a radar report four times -- and not once did the radar jibe with the speedometer. But a cop can just say what the radar displayed, and what you say the speedo displayed doesn't count.

It's the presumption of guilt that separates traffic court from a system of justice.

But if you want to go way back, cases of citizens arrested for warning motorists of speed traps dates back to the early 1900s. Isn't the point to get motorists to slow down? Or is the fine the essence of the matter? Since these kinds of cases are still in the news, I think the answer is self evident.

http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/handcuff.asp

 

Some case last year maybe in the South where a guy was ticketed for flashing his headlights to warn others of the "POlice" Cop was behind him and saw the flashing tailights and pulled him over for ticket...Guy argued in court and it dragged out with the argument of free speech..It was mentioned that the police was there to slow down traffic, and by flashing his lights he was also slowing down traffic, so the same end result...Why the ticket?

He Won.

 

LOL, that's EXACTLY what i was thinking, or a paintball gun. If they ever do that here that's what I'm doing...I'm dumb enough to try . Or just go out at like 3AM with some spray paint hahahahahhaha ba$tard$

 

Good info. except for the obvious play on statistics.

Red light running/accidents goes down 60%, but rear end collisions go up 140%...well what the hell does that mean.

If red light accidents went from 100 to 40 and rear end collisions went from 10 to 24, which is worse? Getting side swiped at 60 (as the red light runner guns it to make it through) or getting rear ended at 30???