I don't want to speed but..

I have had this on my mind also and it bugs the shiiit outta me! There are photoblocker plates that fit over your plate to block it from different angles. They run approx. $40. It is a sport over in Europe to destroy these cameras or Gatsos I think they are called.

 

They were invented by a Dutchman called Maus Gatsonides. He was actually a race car driver! Hence the name Gatsometer

http://www.imps4ever.info/racing/rallies/gatsonides.html

and here is a pic of him competing in the 1954 Mille Miglia. He died in 1998.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Your not going to beat em. They are a fact of life now in this day of technology, going to just have to live with them. Or speed where the cameras are not located. We are considering them down here, but they will be the mobile versions fitted in vans. So they can be moved anywhere at any time. Just be careful guys.

 

Don't mean to hijack... but that is a great looking TR2.

 

Personally, the red light cameras have changed my driving habits in that I don't have a need to run them. There are times where traffic situations almost force you into that scenario.

Well Ken its guys like you that kill innocent people by running red lights. No excuse here , hopefully some day you or your family will get kill by one of these red light runner or stop sign runners . If you want a to talk to someone who lost a family member to one of you let me know , I can give you their phone number.


BobD , yeah the TR looks good yet. My 1st car was a 59 TR3A , fun draggin your fingers on the ground .

 

Theres a transparent plastic plate you can put over your liscence plate. When viewed straight ahead your plate can be read but from an angle, where the cameras are, it cant be read. It only costs about $30 tops & it really works

 

All you have to do is NOT speed..........

Finally, advantage Jimmy!

DL

 

Steve, this is an incredibly ignorant statement. I can understand your pain at having lost a friend or family member, but there is undeniable proof that many cities have intentionally made intersections less safe in the interest of raising more revenue. By pulling stupid tricks like shortening the yellows, they force more drivers to either run the red light or panic stop, risking being rear ended. Here's the first article I found using Google, but they're everywhere:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/078ftoqz.asp

I think you owe Ken an apology. Driving is inherently dangerous and there is no proof that Ken is any more or less safe than the rest of us. To wish harm on his family is despicable, regardless of any loss you've seen or suffered.

 

I agree, no excuse for running red lights. To me this is as bad as passing a stopped school bus.

I use to live in the Phoenix area which was the running red light capital of the world, lots of needless injuries and death. After the cities and counties installed red light camera's the accident rate went down and revenue went up. Also, before I left, Paradise Valley installed a camera they would get you for speeding and running the red light to catch those blasting through the intersection.

As for road side photo radar, that is a different story. I am very much opposed to this since most towns outsource this to private companies as money makers. All sorts of abuse and entrapment. I got bagged once, 49 in a 40 MPH. I fought the tickect and won because the unit was illegally parked in an emergency only lane and the picture showed the emergency only sign. The picture could not have been taken any other way, to the judge threw it out.

As for lenses which bend the light, the city of Scottsdale would conficates them, and gives you a ticket. Heard about a spray you can buy, check the back of car magazines.

Finally, lots of people don't pay them when the bill comes to the house and for themost part the towns rely on people to send the money. If they have to serve the ticket, it custs in to the margins.

MB

 

DC isn't New York. This area has the most whacked traffic patterns I've ever seen.

The reason so many people run the yellows around here is that the lights are set all wrong. If you drive the speed limit, you get caught at just about every light. And if you stop for a yellow, you might as well turn off the engine and go to lunch. If there wasn't a three mile backup on that road, there will be, by the time it goes green again.

And then there's another light 30 yards away. (The lights are always in sets like that -- even if they had to divert one road to bring the intersections closer.)

The "alternate routes" have been blocked off. Literally. Barricades across the road, to keep you from driving around the designated blockages. ("All roads lead to the traffic jam.") And there are obstructions placed to prevent merging traffic and roadway traffic from seeing each other. (On 95 and Telegraph, there's even an artificial hill built to block visibility.)

If this wasn't such a transient population, the town governments would not only not get re-elected, but would be wearing the latest fashions in tar and feathers.

By contrast, NYC gets far less gridlock with far more cars.

I'm new enough to the area that I still stop for red lights. But I've often wished we could send the local city planners to NYC to see how traffic patterns are supposed to work.

And while they're away, we can change the locks on their offices.

 

When they take the photograph of your car and your license plate, don't they have to have to identify that it is you behind the wheel too?

If so, just drop the sun visor down. From the angle the cameras are installed in Texas (at underpasses up high) there is no way they can see who the driver is.

Or do they just ticket the vehicle?

 

You are right in AZ, they ticket the driver, not the car. My oldest daughter got caught lots of times (not condoning her poor driving) speeding, but since the car was in mine and my wifes name it never stuck. My wife would go down to the court house, tell them it was not her, they would look at her look at the picture under a magnifing glass, ask if she knew who it was, she would say no, they dismissed the case. In AZ, they can't force you to tell who the driver is...landmark case a friend was involved in

MB

 

Ken,

Vent understood. A lot of times on this board folks type first and then re-read and re-think later. I understood your post. The reality of DC traffic is frustrating to say the least. If you don't stick your nose into the intersection you'll never get through! DC knows that their roads are full of commuters who are not "paying" for the maintenance of the roads, so they use things like this to fill the coffers to pay for the mayors trips abroad (read: road maintenance).

To respond to your specific question, I don't know of any way to really beat a questionable circumstance infraction, and in most cases it isn't worth the bite of time out of your life to try. If it's just a fine, pay it, and avoid that intersection/road from then on. I see a lot of vehicles around town with those "shifter" plate covers, and frankly I can't think of a better way to piss off a traffic officer than to advertise your desire to outwit the system.(if it even works!)

MTC

 

There have been numerous articles published on this matter, and I suggest you do your own research, but, generally, photoradar tickets are inadmissible in court as evidence against your illegal activity. In fact, several relatively high-profile cases (CA, IIRC) have made this perfectly clear. The problem is the officer presenting the case in court is usually provided with a report and a picture from the photoradar company (the company contracted by the jurisdiction to operate the photoradars for them). From an evidentiary perspective, this is hearsay and thus inadmissible (the officer did not witness the crime, pull you over, identify you and issue you the citation and can therefore only testify about the chain of control of the pictures themselves rather than the crime). However, despite this, traffic court judges have been instructed by the traffic authorities to uphold the ticket and ignore the fact that it is hearsay. An interesting judicial perspective! So, even if you challenge the matter at the traffic court level, you'll be found guilty. Several cases are going through the appellate procedure, I understand, which may yield some interesting results. As a lawyer, I find this a travesty of justice on the one hand (if the prosecution doesn't introduce admissible evidence, the citation should be dismissed) and the correct result (the vehicle was, in fact, speeding) on the other. However, the real problem is that now we're on the "slippery slope": if it's okay to bend the evidentiary rules for this, what's next? From a civil rights perspective, this is very troubling.

Regardless of the outcome, I think they're here to stay. The original post was specifically pertaining to Washington, DC, and since I'm in the area, I'd like to completely concur that driving in DC, VA and MD are INSANE. Period. It's long been a bone of contention where the worst drivers in the area are from. However, the traffic patterns are a nightmare (poorly marked, perpetually under construction and often changing without notice, terminally congested, and completely without discernible flow). Add in a mix of driver stupidity (cellphone usage, left lane moving chicanes, failures to signal, heightened aggressiveness, etc.), and we end up with chaos. Unfortunately, neither DC, VA nor MD is going to be able to alleviate the congestion or excise driver error. Moreover, photoradar is a VERY lucrative operation for the jurisidictions that employ them.

Just recently, DC announced that they will expand their usage of fixed photoradar sites. Politicians, law enforcement and the judicial system all tell us that they are in place to 1) reduce speed and 2) thereby make us safer by slowing down the traffic. Well, more importantly for them, they generate huge profits. It's unlikely that we would have this "big brother" enforcement if they weren't so profitable. Even more troubling was the recent revelation that DC's contracted photoradar supplier was discussing being paid on a per ticket basis. This would give them a perverse incentive, and we should all be very cynical as to their motives.

So far, I've been talking about photoradar. I should point out the distinction between photoradar and redlight enforcement. While I generally disdain and don't respect photoradar, redlight enforcement is a proven, valuable tool to dissuade redlight runners. We've all seen the driver who blows through the intersection sometimes with tragic results. Some drivers are inattentive. Others are in a hurry. Whatever. I have, however, experienced very short yellow lights that have left me practically locking up my tires in order to stop for the red. That's not exactly safe, nor right, either. In fact, even though redlight photo zones have shown to reduce the amount of redlight running, it has also resulted in an increase in rear-end collisions.

Photoradar, on the other hand, is just a revenue enhancer. Period. I think it's ridiculous to ticket someone for going 70 in a 55 on an empty 8-lane road such as the Capital beltway. Thus we can employ a couple of "defensive" tactics. The various means of defeating these photo devices include, as discussed, plastic covers and reflective sprays (even putting mud on your plate(s) can be effective, although it is also illegal). The pros and cons are discussed elsewhere. However, new photo systems are beating the sprays by not using a flash to illuminate the tag. The newest photo systems use computer enhancement to illuminate and identify the tag. How long it takes to get into service in your jurisdiction is anyone's guess, though. The more advanced jurisdictions may already have them.

By the way, the use of photoradar in VA is set to expire statewide by the middle of this year unless it is legislatively extended (what's called a sunset provision which can be renewed). You may all wish to write your state representatives informing them of your feelings about photoradar.

Frankly, this is a cat-and-mouse game we are playing with the establishment. We're losing. Are you all aware that someone is taking pictures of your license plate whenever you drive on the GW Parkway? Notice the tall white boxes stationed on the northbound lanes by Reagan National and the major Government installation around Langley, VA. In this post 9/11 world more and more technology is being used to observe and track us. Not to be paranoid, but there is certainly a huge possibility to use these technologies against us rather than for us.

Happy Motoring!

CW

 

Well guys it must be me here because I see there are always excuses to break the laws. If you are driving to fast trying to beat the lights then it stand to reason that you can't stop for a red light. If you are in the middle of the box and the light turns red then you have to run it. If its 2AM and you pull up to a stop sign and no one is around it is OK to yield and run it. If the cops use photo radar for lights or speed then it is unfair. Yeah I have had people murdered by people who had the same excuses. I've worked out of DC for 3 years and I didn't have to run a light or block the box. A populated city/town is no place for speed. If you want to take it to the track or some lone interstate and take your chances then go ahead and take the risk. My Fcar is 28 years old and in good shape for its age but it goes 30mph in the city and 65 on the interstates. My point to Ken is there is no excuse and based on his parents encounter he can appreciate how quickly these tragedies happen. By putting his family in that situation he needs to rethink (shock the message) his actions when he gets into his car. Live and learn but enjoy the ride. So 30mph in 2nd gear gives you all the sound you need. Oh don't forget to donate your organs.

 

Get one of these, you'll be doing the speed limit and still having fun.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Hello all,

Who gets the ticket when someone is caught with a camera?

What if you let someone use your car and they were speeding or run a red light?

The only address on record is the owners. I wouldn't mind paying the fine and not getting insurance involved.

In NJ, points are assigned to the driver, not the car.

Any help will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Tom

 

Tom,

Not sure if your state has a different procedure, but I'd be surprised if it did. Anyway, you are correct. The photoradar operator checks the tag against the motor vehicle database. The registered owner of the vehicle is sent the citation which also contains the photo(s). Currently, no points are assigned by the DMV, MVA or equivalent. The registered owner is responsible for the payment of any fine that is levied. For non-payment, the DMV can, and will, add penalties and can suspend the registered owner's license and/or boot the car if found in the jurisdiction (I think). If the registered owner is not the operator, it's of no concern to the DMV who was driving as long as the fine is paid. The registered owner can, of course, seek reimbursement from the operator. Frequently, these shots are frontal and include a reasonably clear picture of the operator.

A funny story (urban myth?)...when photoradars were first being deployed, a ticket was sent to the mailing address of a registered owner. When the registered owner's wife opened the citation she noticed the registered owner was accompanied in the vehicle by another woman. Worse, the photo was taken while he was supposedly away on a business trip in another city. I think the proper term is now "owned" although it used to be "busted". Anyway, it supposedly lead to a divorce and a lawsuit (against the jurisdiction for invasion of privacy). The lawsuit was dismissed under the "in plain sight" doctrine.

CW

 

nope. we dont build photoradar cameras........ least i have never seen any at work, or on our intranet

 

Lockheed Martin IMS (name changed to ACS State and Local Solutions) operated the photoradars in Denver (class action). Not GD, but industry competitor. These are both major conglomerates doing a lot of work for Homeland Defense, which should be of concern when you consider my previous comment regarding the encroachment upon our privacy and civil liberties.

CW