Red Light Camera Ticket Thrown Out In CA.
g under p
Posts: 18,196
http://autos.aol.com/article/red-light- ... d%3D330633
Ouchhhhh...that going to hurt that town's economy for some time.
Peace
Red light cameras have become a popular traffic control tool across the country over the past few years, and as their use has grown so has pushback from motorists. A woman in San Francisco recently fought and had her red light ticket thrown out on a technicality -- a technicality that could cost the city of Newark, Calif., millions of dollars.
Keisha Dunlevy was issued a ticket in Newark for allegedly running a red light. In traffic court Dunlevy argued that the public hadn't been properly notified of the red light cameras at that intersection. A notice did run in the newspaper in November of 2006, but contained an error. "A camera has been installed at the intersection of Cedar Boulevard and Mowry Avenue to capture vehicles that run the red light as they travel east on both streets," the notice read. Cedar Boulevard, however, runs north and south.
The traffic commissioner ruled in Dunlevy's favor, sparing her the $500 fine and opening the door to millions of dollars worth of tickets being challenged. Roger Jones, a red light camera activist, told CBS San Francisco that Newark should refund all the tickets issued from cameras at this intersection from the last six years.
Ouchhhhh...that going to hurt that town's economy for some time.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
If you run a red light, you should pay the fine...regardless of how you were observed doing it.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Turns out the courts weren't pursuing the fines associated with these particular tickets and they got rid of the cameras altogether.
Agreed though with you, know1 - (to quote Baretta) don't do the crime if you can't do the time (don't do it!).
$500 dollar fine for running a red light?!
jesus christ that seems excessive.
But, do cars get tickets or do drivers? that is the question with these cameras...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
So, traffic laws are about paying fines?
Actually, they are suppose to be about public safety and not revenue generation. And cameras only do 1 of those 2 things and it's not help public safety.
I do recall reading a report or two indicating that these cameras actually made many people drive less safely by trying to beat the camera, or by stopping on yellow lights (and causing accidents). I still think though that if you're caught speeding, then you have to suck it up.
Stopping on a yellow wouldn't be the cause of a collision, the cause in that case would be that the person behind was driving too close. You might think I'm splitting hairs, but how language is used to describe driver collisions is important as language commonly used and accepted absolves the driver of responsibility and downplays their negligent driving.
But if you are going through a yellow and it turns red while you are halfway through the intersection, then it is a bunch of B.S.
I'm guessing most cities do not differentiate between the two. I’m guessing most cities shorten the length of the yellow light. And I’m guessing that a $500 penalty would be financially crippling to 60% of the nation.
the onus is on the police to catch you in the act, pull you over, and issue you a ticket.
these cameras demostrate laziness on the part of the police that are supposed to be focused on patrolling the streets looking for traffic violators.
i am paying taxes to have real, live, police officers on the streets. not these cameras. these cameras are a revenue generator and nothing more. they should be illegal.
why not just have some live and some dummy cameras there so the motorists will stop, fearing that they might get a ticket if they run it? i would stop if i knew there was a camera, whether it was a real one or a dummy one.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
*edit - and I KNOW I'd be found at fault, rightfully so.
What gets me is this woman saying she was exonerated. The ticket was for going through a red light. She never said she didn't go through the light and it would appear that they have photographic evidence that she did go through the red light. So she wasn't convicted and later proven innocent of a crime. She found a loophole. More power to her as plenty of people get the wrong end of the loophole but it bothers me to see her grinning like she didn't go through the red light. I agree with the previous poster that traffic signals do have a purpose -- love or hate the cameras I would hope that everyone can agree we have traffic lights for a reason.
BTW, I hate those damn cameras -- there is one at an intersection near my house and I always am stressing getting caught out there while it is yellow. As a result I am sure I push the envelope less and am a safer driver going through that intersection.
Agree with cincy. If a cop didn't catch you running it, then it didn't happen.
I don't really care either way, as long as it's a fruitful means of getting people to pay attention to the fact that they're in control of a machine that could take their life (not to mention those of others).
yeah that is true about live and dummy cams. i just hate those things and think that it is a moneygrab. especially when some municipalites have them and some don't. the playing field is not level.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
So true! In fact, I think yellow lights have my number. Yet, fortunately, I've never been ticketed for running a red light. I did see the camera flash at me once in Sacramento but the ticket never came. This happened about 15 years ago so any of you itching to see me pay- sorry, statute of limitations is up.
OK. Maybe I misspoke. I meant - don't run red lights and you won't have any issues with fines. I'm sick of people running red lights as if their time is more important than everyone else's....or everyone else's safety.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
if you got robbed at gun point and the police used a camera from a local store to identify and arrest a suspect would you be ok with using that camera? I suspect you would.
would the police still not have to go physically arrest the guy, or would they just mail him a ticket?
procedures for busting a speeder/red light runner are different than arresting an armed robber.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Now this I can agree with.
Ok then, if you are fine with that much surveillance... they tap phones and spy on people that are involved in terrorist activities (well heck they actually do this to everyone everyday), so would you be ok with them implanting a device into your car that could monitor it at all times? You better not go over the speed limit ever. And seriously, is it worth it? Allow that much surveillance just to catch someone speeding? Or to catch someone that already ran a red light? It's not like it stops them.
I would venture to guess (no proof) that the majority of red lights are run when people aren't paying attention, not when they are purposely running a red light.
so surveillance is ok based on severity of crime? except of course terrorism which many seem to be against :roll:
you are missing the point of my post. i am against these cameras because it is lazy police work and is a cash grab. if i am going to pay taxes to employ police officers, they are gonna fucking actually do something like patrol the streets and actually pull people over and issue tickets. they are gonna do their job. what they were trained to do, and what they are paid to do. they are not gonna sit back and "watch the money roll right in" by having red light cameras take pictures triggering tickets to be issued and mailed.
you brought up the example of me being robbed at gun point. if this happened at a place of business like a gas station or a store or a parking lot and it is recorded on camera, that is the business owner recording what happens on their private property. that is not the police putting up cameras everywhere. that footage taken on private property would be turned over to police if the police request it, but it is not the police setting up sting operations without probable cause like the red light cameras would be.
additionally, are you for or against the surveillance to prevent terrorism?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
absolutely I support surveillance to stop terrorism.
I live in the Philly area and most, if not all, of those camera's are on city streets. Id much rather have my tax dollars going to police doing actual police work than having to sit at a light so douche bags don't run a red light. and getting money out of douche bags running said red lights allows for MORE police work by putting more money into the city.
i don't see an issue with a camera stopping people from running red lights. it just makes sense. how can anyone argue it's not a good thing is beyond me.
I agree with this -- just this AM someone went through a red light as I was driving my nephew to school and if I hadn't seen it coming it may have been close to being a jackhole running into me because they didn't get up early enough to get where they were going and felt like this made it everyone else's problem and it was then cool for them to blow through a red light at full speed.
I don't care for Big Brother to be watching everything we do but I also would like to feel safe that when a light turns green I am not going to get a 2000 pound missle launched into my door.
(And no, these cameras do not fix that....but I think they help.)
So tell me, if there was a camera there, how does it exactly stop someone from running a red light?
Moving violations are supposed to be given to the driver and go on the driver's record. The owner of the car may not be the driver. Drivers should not be ticketed without proof they were driving the car.
camera or no camera.
Most people who pay attention enough to know the cameras are there probably would never knowingly run a red light anyway
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It doesn't stop them that time, no, but it does show them there is a consequence for running a red light and hopefully stops them in the future. A police officer pulling them over and writing a ticket does not stop them either, it just punishes them after the light has been run.
I don't see a lot of difference between being pulled over and being caught on camera. At least if cameras are doing this job it frees up cops to protect and serve in more productive ways.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
You make a good point about the driver's identity. It should be the driver and not the vehicle's owner who is punished.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
It addresses the faulty behavior right at the moment. Other people see if happening. There are a lot more positives out of a police officer stopping someone rather than sending a ticket in the mail. Likely the people don't even remember running the red light. Their is no behavior modification (or very little) from a red light camera. And that is, or should be, the entire goal. It's not to be punitive, it's to change people's behaviors.
I'm not sure that is true. I have been pulled over but have never gotten a ticket through the mail, so I don't know for sure. I almost feel like getting a ticket weeks later would be more effective because you would never again know if there was or was not a camera. You would always be wondering and maybe that would cause you to drive safer? I am not saying that is definitely true, just suggesting it as a possibility.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Yeah I closed my post with saying that cameras didnt fix the problem but I feel they help with the problem. People are more cautious faced with the penalty vs. the concept of plowing into a bus full of pre-schoolers when they 'drop the hammer' as the reach a yellow light instead of stop.