I'm getting screwed by a traffic light camera!

Red means stop dude...whether you are turning or not. sorry.

 

I'm pretty much 100% sure that the above statement is false, unless the right hand turn is in a specific & marked lane that says "Yield" on it.

Good luck.. I'm pretty sure you're paying this one.

-Chris

 

This one just killed me! A couple of years ago, a buddy of mine showed me the picture that speed camera took of him....56 in a 35 with his finger in his nose!!!

 

Nib,

Not looking good for you on this one... Here is a couple of California Driver Laws as stated:

{SOLID RED. A red signal light means “STOP.” You can make a right turn against a red light after you stop and yield to pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles that are lose enough to be a hazard. Make the right turn only when it is safe. Do not turn if a “NO TURN ON RED” sign is posted.}

It looks as if you need (actually in all states not just California) as well as 18 countries that I found - to come to a complete stop on Red before turing right.

Here is the Cali State Law on Traffic Rules and Regs:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs16thru17.htm#intersections

Rich

 

Treat it as a stop sign while turning, as others have stated. You just preformed a California Stop.....

 

P Nibby,

Look at the bright side. At least there isn't any bile or flying fecal matter in that photo!

DL

 

This photo's are hearsay evidence. Any officer who testifies on behalf of the photos does not have personal direct knowledge.

There is no possible way for officer-to-be(if you challenge it) witness the inspection on YOUR camera. Did he know what the inspector had done? Had hewitnessed the log sheets being filled out? Chances are the inspector will not show in court to answer questions or even authenticate his maintenance log.

The red light cams are bullschit and the entire system is a racket to get into your wallet. If southern California courts are anything like the Carol Miller Justice center up in Sacramento, where they herd people into a guilty plea never hearing your argument, they are as crooked as the criminals they have sitting in their jail cells.

 

Nibbles

For what it's worth, I work with a guy that got one of these tickets dismissed a few months ago because the photo was not clear enough to identify the driver. He established in court that three different people drive his car, and a moving violation can not be issued to a vehicle, only a driver. Of course, Texas may be different than California.

On a side note, there is currently a bill in the Texas Senate to ban all intersection cameras.

 

Where was the camera? I was driving through Garden Grove last week and stopped at a couple of camera lights. There was a flash about every 30 seconds for the 5 or so total minutes I was sitting there. As soon as the word gets out that these things are raking in the bucks they will probably be everywhere. It looks as if it will be tuff for to get out of your rolling stop ticket.

 

These cameras are crap....a total criminal racket IMHO. We've got these bastar*s here in Calgary now.

The participating municipality is counseled my the camera equipment manufacturer on how to adjust the yellow light intervals to shorter time frames and to set up the cameras for maximum revenue enhancement.

 

I knew I had another post on this a while back, the link is still good.

http://ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39957

 

Bill, you should be able to SLAY this thing in open court on about 6 fronts it's illegal! Have fun!

Remenber: You can show that THE CAR IN QUESTION came to a stop, and accelerated again, during the time between the 2 photos. Use graphs and diagrams and the fact that the camera captures INSTANTANEOUS speed only, not acceleration/decel!

Can they show you in the car? Conclusively? Beyond the standard for Reasonable Doubt required in a criminal case?!

Your position is: you obeye all laws at all times, and the cameras even being there are illegal, uncalibrated, and their evidence is inadmissable.

 

Talk to a lawyer. He might want to know the chain of custody of the film and subpoena everyone in the chain of custody. If everybody in the chain of custody can't appear, he might be able to get the film excluded. I know this has worked for one attorney I worked with in VA or DC (can't remember which).

 

I'm with Ben. If your calculated average speed was 8 mph but the two photos have instantainious readings of 18 mph, you can demonstrate that it is possible to come to a stop between the images.

I would get discovery on this case, see what they really have on you, when was the equipment calibrated, do they have any other evidence, etc.

Good Luck,

Art S.

 

I believe Cameras need an unobstructed lens to take pictures. If a Black Paint Ball was shot center of the clear lens covers, wouldn’t it make the camera inoperable? If enough people participated in this delinquent behavior, it would certainly frustrate the Revenue machine. In California, the cameras are paid for by private companies with the Revenue being split with the participating Municipality.

 

That's how it is in MD>

 

That's interesting. With many cities/municipalities broke they are aggressively looking for any kinds of new revenue generating machines. I'd like to see people taking a whack at the legality of them. Speeding cameras all over the place will be the next kick if it hasn't already started.

 

I don't know how this "you can make a right turn on red without stopping" deal gets into people's heads. You were taught that? By who? It couldn't be legal anywhere, it's ridiculous. You made an illegal turn, you got caught on camera, end of story.

When I was out driving with my stepson on his learners permit, he pulled the same thing. He was driving just fine until we came up to a red light on the highway, and he blew through the intersection turning right, hardly slowing down. "AAAAAAAAACCCKKKKKK, WHAT ARE YOU DOING??!!" "Uh, you don't have to stop to turn right on a red light." He must have heard it somewhere.

 

Ok let me try and get this clear for anyone who has a driver's license in any country...

STOP WHEN RED!!!
Stoppen Sie wenn Rot!!!
arrêtez quand rouge!!!
остановите когда красный цвет!!!
arrestisi quando colore rosso!!!
pare cuando rojo!!!

If you do not understand that basic rule of driving, please submit you driver's license back to a local DMV or the necessary authorities.

 

LE is exempt from traffic Law when in the performance of their duties. Lights and/or siren are not needed unless specified by policy. Lights and Siren are needed to have traffic yield, but not required if yielding traffic is not needed.

EDIT- Something else, Life's not fair. Get used to it. Pay the ticket or spend more then one days wages fighting it and then see who really won. I do agree it is bogus that it is $371, but what if someone was in the crosswalk and you hit them(such as a cyclist)Then $371, is nothing compared to a lawsuit one of your law school buddies would be dying for.

 

I guess that you have never seen me make a right on a red because I stop every time. It's the law. I know it's the law and I don't want to get a ticket for not stopping. I happen to think it is a good law but that is not the reason I stop, I just dont want a ticket.

On traffic laws we really have 3 choices or a combination of same.
1 Obey them
2 Break them and risk fines
3 Work to change the ones we don't like

Which combination of those do you prefer? You didn't know the law and got caught, get over it.