Red Light Enforcement

[TheOldRhino]

Sometime i think its just another way for the city to generate more revenue..

Of course it is. But rather than increased everyone's taxes, why not just increase the taxes of stupid people? Think of it that way.

I will say this, since installing red light cameras in our cities, it has brought down the number of accidents at the camera'd intersections as well.

[adroitcuffs]

... This opinion stems partially from the fact that the city gives us tickets (while we are in our patrol cars, and on-duty) for speeding past the photo radar... If I'm driving fast while at work, I have a reason to be doing so. The city feels that unless it is a specifically "authorized" emergency run (with light/siren on at the time of the picture) you should be driving Ms. Daisy. Unless, of course, you are the chief... who recently announced on the news that he didn't need to pay his photo radar ticket because he was on duty...

On a side note... so I guess when the city officials are the victim of some random crime you can just go the speed limit. When they get ticked off and want to know "where the hell have you been", you can quote their own statements!

[Radar]

A neighboring city to mine has red light cameras, and I do security on the side for a buisness right at the corner of one of the intersections, so I'm familiar with the cameras here, and the leos that work the area.
The red light cameras here catch anyone running past the stop line sensors, even if you stop on the crosswalk. If you stop, then slowly roll forward across the crosswalk in the curb lane only, (i.e. turning right on red, which is not illegal here) it will not take your picture. Now if you ask most officers, they wouldn't pull you over for stopping past the stop line, though in all reality, you have run the light even if you didn't enter the intersection.

The cameras here record several angles, one takes a picture of the back of your vehicle and the rear plate, one a close up on your windshield in hopes of getting the driver, a third captures full video of you running the stop line and going through the intersection.

The tickets from the cameras are about $25 cheaper than if an officer witnessed you running the light and wrote you himself, so officers are still encouraged to pull vehicles over if they see someone run the light. Once they write the higher ticket, they make a notation in the narration that the red light camera caught the subject also, and when the ticket is processed, they pull the photo ticket, nullify it for the officers ticket, and attach it so if it goes to court, the judge has the photos and the officers ticket.

The camera tickets can be nullified for certain cases, such as they are not given to the officers on duty, and from what I understand but have never tried, off duty officers as well can get out of the ticket, as well as ff's and ems. One of the security guys was chasing an automotive burglary subject once, and ran the light, but never got a ticket. When we inquired, they told us they won't write us a ticket.

[Willowdared]

http://www.sdsheriff.net/encinitas/56mph-1.83sec.mpeg

[Crimebytes2]

In GA, the law states the owner of the vehicle is responsible for it. As a courtesy, our city court gives the driver the opprotunity to prove it wasn't them driving so we can cite the person that was driving.

No such luck in Iowa. According to the Chief, the ticket is issued to the owner of the vehicle, regardless of who is driving. Even with proof the owner is still responsible for the ticket. This was the biggest issue regarding red light enforcement in my home town, especially with regard to business owners. Why should they be responsible for their employees careless driving? My response - deduct the cost of the ticket from their pay.

[Crimebytes2]

Of course it is. But rather than increased everyone's taxes, why not just increase the taxes of stupid people? Think of it that way.

I will say this, since installing red light cameras in our cities, it has brought down the number of accidents at the camera'd intersections as well.

Same here. I no longer fear going through the intersection of 16th and Broadway!

[Radar]

No such luck in Iowa. According to the Chief, the ticket is issued to the owner of the vehicle, regardless of who is driving. Even with proof the owner is still responsible for the ticket. This was the biggest issue regarding red light enforcement in my home town, especially with regard to business owners. Why should they be responsible for their employees careless driving? My response - deduct the cost of the ticket from their pay.

Well, it's like this. It's not the courts responsability to ensure that whomever you let drive your car won't run red lights, and when you get the ticket, you can then make son, daughter, wife, friend, neighbor, whomever was driving pay the ticket, or pay you back for the ticket. If they aren't responsible enough to pay for the ticket, or pay you back, then what the hell did you loan them your car for?

It's like Seatbelt tickets. I'm not exactly sure of the exact fine amounts, so i'm going from what I think I remember it being:
Seatbelt fine is $150 to the driver, + $50 for each additional unbuckled occupant, which is still a fine against the driver, not your friend in the passenger seat. Even if the driver has his seat belt fastened, and say it's his three friends who aren't buckled, it's $150+($50x3)= $300 fine, against the driver. The reason that even the seat belt wearing driver gets a $150 fine is that it's his/her responsibility to make sure his/her occupants are fastened in.

It doesn't matter if you were driving or not. It's your car. It's your responsibilty to make sure your car doesn't run red lights, even if you aren't in it, or aren't driving, unless of course, given the stolen vehicle example.

If you are driving, and your best friend is with you, and unbeknownist to you, his backpack he brought with him has two pounds of MJ and a stolen handgun, well, if you get pulled over, and consent to the search of your vehicle, well, you know what, you may not have known about your friend's collection, but now you and your friend are going to both have matching bracelets and each of you now have a felony record, and your car, well, it's the police department's newest undercover vehicle or auction revenue item.

[Crimebytes2]

Well, it's like this. It's not the courts responsability to ensure that whomever you let drive your car won't run red lights, and when you get the ticket, you can then make son, daughter, wife, friend, neighbor, whomever was driving pay the ticket, or pay you back for the ticket. If they aren't responsible enough to pay for the ticket, or pay you back, then what the hell did you loan them your car for?

It doesn't matter if you were driving or not. It's your car. It's your responsibilty to make sure your car doesn't run red lights, even if you aren't in it, or aren't driving, unless of course, given the stolen vehicle example.

Uh, Memphis, sweetie... I agree 100%! Did my post come across as otherwise?

[Radar]

Uh, Memphis, sweetie... I agree 100%! Did my post come across as otherwise?

Nah, nah, I simply quoted you instead of quick replying. Not sure why.

[Hannibal]

I thought this thread was about hookers.

[CT209]

CT has a "prima facie" clause built into the "Hit-and-Run" statute. If all anyone can get is a license plate of the "run" vehicle, the registered owner is charged unless he/she can prove someone else was driving. We call it the "narc on your wife" law. I think hit-and-runs are a serious offense, so I kind of go along with that statute.

They were talking about putting in red light cameras and the proposed law had that same loop-hole. But, if the citation is a small fine and no points were charged against my license, I don't think I'd have an issue with the cameras.

I do know that if anybody was using one of my vehicles and I got a ticket because of something they did, it'd be the last time they'd drive my car. Oh, and should we get those cameras, all of the vehicles we own are getting put in my wife's name.

[TXCharlie]

It doesn't matter if you were driving or not. It's your car. It's your responsibilty to make sure your car doesn't run red lights, even if you aren't in it, or aren't driving...

Using that logic, then rental agencies should be responsible for making sure their cars don't speed or get involved in accudents... I think they must be treating this as a parking ticket, not a moving violation. Would that be a safe statement???

I've never heard of a felony charge like hit & run assuming guilt, either. Whatever happened to the Constitution?

As a PS, a lot of cars around here are not registered to the correct owner anyway, because I think it's customary for the buyer to turn in the paperwork to get the registration transferred - But that doesn't always happen.

[Crimebytes2]

I thought this thread was about hookers.

Is that one track mind of yours working overtime, again, Ronin?

[Jks9199]

Red light camera tickets were a civil infraction, not a traffic infraction, comparable to a parking ticket. No points were assessed against the owner's DMV record, and the fine structure was different (flat fine for the violation). There was a rebuttable presumption that the owner was the driver, just as there is a rebuttable presumption that the owner was the person who parked the car illegally. If the owner wasn't driving and swore an affadavit to that effect, no fine. Or, if the owner wanted to make whoever was driving pay the fine... Their business.

And, just like a parking ticket that "you" got when your buddy borrowed your car... If you want to fight it, you have the right to go to court, confront your accuser, and present evidence on your behalf. At that point, the government must prove it's case. (Hard to argue with the photos or video, though!)

[Willowdared]

Using that logic, then rental agencies should be responsible for making sure their cars don't speed or get involved in accudents... I think they must be treating this as a parking ticket, not a moving violation. Would that be a safe statement???

I've never heard of a felony charge like hit & run assuming guilt, either. Whatever happened to the Constitution?

As a PS, a lot of cars around here are not registered to the correct owner anyway, because I think it's customary for the buyer to turn in the paperwork to get the registration transferred - But that doesn't always happen.

Perhaps one of our sworn members can explain how vehicle registration works? How the seller submits a release of liability, but the buyer still has to register the vehicle?

Anyone?

[KaiGywer]

As far as rentals go, I guess it's pretty easy. They know who had the car at the time, and will just charge the renter for any tickets received during their rental period (with a hefty "service fee" I'm sure)

[ray98]

moving violation. Would that be a safe statement???

I've never heard of a felony charge like hit & run assuming guilt, either. Whatever happened to the Constitution?
.

Circumstantial evidence cases are put in front of juries every day.

[tapout]

CT has a "prima facie" clause built into the "Hit-and-Run" statute. If all anyone can get is a license plate of the "run" vehicle, the registered owner is charged unless he/she can prove someone else was driving. We call it the "narc on your wife" law. I think hit-and-runs are a serious offense, so I kind of go along with that statute.

that is nice...it can be very difficult to solve a hit and run even with a full valid plate description here because if the victim cant identify the driver or pick him from a lineup, all the owner has to say is that he was not driving.

its frustrating when you ask the owner who had his car and he says, "i dont know, this guy i know, steve."

whats steves last name?
im not sure, we call him "dirty", does that help?

no, where do you know him from?
around town

do you make a habit of lending your car to people you dont know?
i do know him

apparently you dont
i told you, he's steve

etc, etc

very frustrating