Printable View
:car:
A classmate of mine is writing his research paper on red light enforcement (red light cameras) and this question came up. I told him I would ask the pros. What happens if the vehicle is stolen? Would the owner still be held responsible? My thinking is if a vehicle is stolen and the owner reports it immediately he wouldn't/couldn't be held liable since authorities could verify date and time. Am I right? For the record, I support red light enforcement 100%. Many thanks in advance.
I've been told by a co-worker that fighting his red-light ticket was very easy since the camera didn't catch his face - He went before a judge, and said "prove it was me driving".
Verdict: Not guilty. The trial took less than 10 minutes.
Yes, it was him driving.
First I'll start with a personal bias. I'm not a fan of red light cameras or photo radar. The police do the police work better than a remote/automated camera. Discretion is part of my job, and I have an ability to make dynamic decisions that a camera can not. 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.
Well, now that I'm coming down off of my soap box, here we go:
If a car has been reported stolen, a driver can't really be held accountable for the actions of the thief. I can't pin contraband found in a recovered steal on the owner, simply because it must be assumed that it belonged to the thief. On a similar note, traffic violations (Hit and Run, red light, etc) are not the responsibility of an owner once stolen. That's our take on it around here.
But, that hasn't stopped people from doing stupid shit in their cars, then trying to claim that the vehicle was "stolen". EXAMPLE: Idiot crashes car and abandons it (probably drunk at the time). Idiot goes home and sleeps off his hangover. Next day idiot reports car stolen. I know our detectives have caught a few people pulling crap like this, and they seem to follow it up with a "false report" charge in many cases.
It depends on the laws of the state where it's used, but when we had it in VA, the registered owner could provide an affadavit that they weren't driving at the time of the offense, and they wouldn't have to pay the fine. So, if the car was stolen -- that would solve the problem. A few additional points about how it worked here (the law's sunset provision passed and it was not renewed): A sworn officer reviewed the film or video and issued the ticket, not a civilian or contract worker, so they could assess the circumstances. It was a civil fine, not a traffic infraction, so no DMV points accrued. In the case where a cop on patrol got a driver and the red-light camera might have also, we notified the officer in charge of the cameras, and they didn't issue a second ticket.
As to whether there good or effective... Well, I've seen first hand the difference they make. In jurisdictions with red light camera enforcement, red light running every where goes down. In jurisdictions without them... It can be rampant. I live in a jurisdiction that didn't have it, and worked in one that did. Red light running in my home area got so bad that I was almost afraid to start across under a green until I'd waited several seconds! But I could try to get red light violations at work -- without much success. That's my experience... That and the simple fact that most of the Virginia jurisdictions using them didn't make gross profits off of the systems.
(I don't like speed cameras; speed varies and an officer can assess a momentary "oops" where the speed got away from the driver for whatever reason when a camera can't.)
Man I hate when you guys do that.
I jumped right in all hot and bothered and it's not about ladies of the evening.
:o
i have never understood how the ticket can hold up...
if our ticket is argued in court i have to tell the judge that i identified the driver by his florida DL in unic dade cnty....
if I dont say those words exactly the ticket is dismissed.
In our contract cities that have photo enforcement, the cameras capture a video from multiple angles - it's not just a quick photo.
It amazes me that people are willing to commit perjury just to dodge a ticket they earned.
Wonder if they would get a laugh if I where to climb up on the poll and give them a big smile like this :D lololol..
I'm all for it, it can capture accidents, I sat one night watching them flashers going off, I mean, you would think Bush was in town and everyone was taking photos lololol..
I Like it though....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jks9199
Why should he have to do that? It's the States' burden to prove that he was driving.Quote:
Originally Posted by PDawg
I'm confused. In Texas, are tickets issued based on driver identity or vehicle ownership (verified through vehicle registration) as is the case in Iowa?Quote:
Originally Posted by TXCharlie
Sorry to disappoint you, kelly! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by 1sgkelly
"Why should he have to do that? It's the States' burden to prove that he was driving."
His car. If he wasn't who was. Was the vehicle stolen?
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.
So the faces of drivers are recorded?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhino
And if he wasn't lets get him for accessory before the fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1sgkelly
Hmmm... Good question. I'll have to look that up, but I was under the impression the ticket had to be written against the person, not against the car... And my co-worker did get a "not guilty" based on lack of positive identity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimebytes2
Some VERY good articles on red light cameras have been made by Patrick Bedard at Car & Driver.. go to caranddriver.com and search for his name and the articles will pop up with some minor searching... great reads, and probably worthy of citing in the paper.
Owner. Not driver. The registered owner of the vehicle is responsible for that vehicle. But, like I said, our city extends the courtesy to the owner to bring proof that someone else was driving the vehicle- such as a sworn statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimebytes2
I'll start this out by saying we don't have the cameras, but one of the communities nearby does. It created quite a flap in the local paper when they were installed. The liberal rag didn't like the whole "big brother" idea and thought by installing the cameras everyone's civil rights were going to be trampled on. (I hate our local paper)
From what I have been told, the violations are a civil infraction, just like a parking ticket. This does two things, #1 it makes the fine lower (no court costs) and #2, it lowers the burden of proof to a "preponderance of evidence". And like a parking ticket, it is written to the owner of the car. Because of the civil violation the burden of proof to prove the owner didn't do it falls on the owner.
The violation also does not count against the DL of the person.
Covman
Sometime i think its just another way for the city to generate more revenue..... Everyone I know that has fought the summons has won.. I guess im indifferent on this issue. i've seen them work where people who knew they were there would be very cautious when approaching the intersection with the camera, and i've seen more accidents (and taken reports) where people at the last second realized there was a camera and suddenly hit the brakes only to be rear-ended..