Any suggestion on Beaverton photo ticket

was-ent me.

 

So why did you run the red light? Speeding is one thing, blowing red lights is another. Grrrrr.

 

+1

Obviously you ran the red light so why shouldn't you pay? I agree that the money would be better spent as a contribution to the food bank, but... you ran the red light.

BTW I've run 'em too when in a hurry and I know I shouldn't have. I've also cursed under my breath when another driver ran a light in front of me just as I got the green and was starting to pull out. Bottom line is we've probably all done it, but none of us should. Stories like this are making me be more careful. Sorry you got caught. That fine hurts!

 

As a general rule, and as one who drives in Beaverton a lot, I would avoid running red lights there.

 

I notice that you didn't proclaim your innocence or that you were trapped in the intersection by a slow moving car ahead of you. Personally, I consider that a far more dangerous offense than going 55 in a 40 zone. However, assuming that you can make a case for your innocence with skilled counsel, mounting a defense against the photo radar ticket will be both difficult and at least 5 times more expensive than the ticket itself, if you get a top tier attorney.

As a practical matter, if you haven't gotten any traffic tickets for the last 15 years, you're not in any danger of getting into trouble with your insurance company. It takes four garden variety moving violations within a 24 month period (we're not talking recklessness, DUI, etc. which is a whole other matter) to net you a 30 day suspension. It's for tickets 3 and 4 that you'll want to shell out cash for a lawyer.

My advice would be a) pay the ticket, b) give a like amount to the Oregon Food Bank and c) say a little prayer of thanks that you didn't kill anyone. It is, after all, the holiday season.

BTW, my wife also got a photo radar red light ticket in Beaverton--right in front of the police station on Beaverton-Hillsdale Road! I told her the same thing except for b): it wasn't Christmas and the money was coming out of my pocket.

 

How fast do you go?

 

Well, Was it your car?
Were you clearly shown in the photo, or clear enough not to argue?
Clear shot of the plate?
Check the date and time as those things usually lag a bit before being sent out.

I wish they had one of those things on one intersection I go through every day on the way to work to catch the rigs who constantly run the light coming from the other direction and cause
Cars to have to sit though another sequence of lights to get through the intersection. That's the I 82- Valley mall Blvd west bound intersection in Union Gap, WA. One to look twice on if you are the first car in line heading into town off the freeway.

 

While I am not an attorney, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, usually tickets issued via camera can be contested simply by signing an affidavit indicating that you were not the driver. Plain and simple, the car is not eligible to be declared the offender, only the driver. The only way that the city or county can make a ticket stick is by attaching it to the driver. In the case of a camera, since there is no officer to testify that it was you, and if there is no definitive proof contained in the picture, then you can simply go on record by stating, to quote George Thorogood "It wasn't me, no no Sheriff, it wasn't me...Oh, it must have been some other mother, no no child, it wasn't me."

 

Phototickets are not allowed in Orange County anymore because some lady made a huge point. I'd look into it and use the same arguement. I believe It was something about the delay of the photos or inaccuracy of. ..... which doesnt sound good for you, just makes you more guilty. But look in to it. good luck

 

Cute, but lets be real. The law may be flawed, but the administrators of justice are not THAT clumsy stupid (despite what you may think). I don't know if you live in Oregon, but if you assert as a defense that it wasn't you, you have to say --under oath--who was the person driving the car registered to you at the time of the alleged infraction. Lying on an affidavit is not to be taken lightly. The state has the burden of proof, but the photo radar evidence and the proper identification of a vehicle as belonging to you will carry a lot of weight with the judge. If you don't provide any name and say in effect "geez, I don't know who had my car but it was back in my driveway that night" don't expect to get off, and don't expect a lesser punishment than you would have gotten by pleading no contest.

 

Based upon my experience with the judge there at the Sheriff's office, unless you've got boobies, you're screwed. The old guy DEFINITELY is easier on females than males.

 

You may also want to check out whether or not a photo ticket shows up on your record. They do not in WA as far as I know, and don't any place else either, since they are not issued by an officer. They are akin to an expensive parking ticket.

It is isn't obvious by now, photo tickets, especially red light ones, are a craven attempt to gain more revenue. More fleecing of the sheeple.

 

I don't think that will fly in Beaverton. I believe they go after the registered owner of the vehicle regardless of who was driving. They've gotten some flak for that in the local press, but I don't think it's changed their policy.

 

IT WAS DIETRICH THAT WAS DRIVING, NOT ME!
THEN HE RAN AWAY

 

LOL +1

 

+1

This is accurate.