Red Light Camera Ticket Thrown Out In CA.

g under p

http://autos.aol.com/article/red-light- ... d%3D330633

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

know1

That's stupid.

If you run a red light, you should pay the fine...regardless of how you were observed doing it.

hedonist

We had it out here in LA for some time; in fact, Danny got hit with a $350 ticket due to the camera (and paid it, too).

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!).

mikepegg44

g under p wrote:

http://autos.aol.com/article/red-light-camera-ticket-thrown-out/?icid=maing-grid7|ipad|dl4|sec1_lnk3&pLid=330633

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

$500 dollar fine for running a red light?!

jesus christ that seems excessive.

know1 wrote:

That's stupid.

If you run a red light, you should pay the fine...regardless of how you were observed doing it.

But, do cars get tickets or do drivers? that is the question with these cameras...

cincybearcat

know1 wrote:

That's stupid.

If you run a red light, you should pay the fine...regardless of how you were observed doing it.

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.

hedonist

cincybearcat wrote:

know1 wrote:

That's stupid.

If you run a red light, you should pay the fine...regardless of how you were observed doing it.

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 believe the fines work as a deterrent toward irresponsible driving - or attempt to, anyway. Like a police officer giving a ticket, though that's given to the driver and not necessarily to the owner of the car.

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.

Go Beavers

hedonist wrote:

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.

Jason P

If you actually run a red light, so be it.

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.

gimmesometruth27

i am against all red light cameras and speed limit cameras that issue tickets via mail.

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.

hedonist

Go Beavers wrote:

hedonist wrote:

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.

OK, I'll concede that (I love proper language use :P ). I'm a fairly-aware and defensive driver, but I know I'd be thrown for a loop - and hopefully react quickly - if someone in front of me stopped as SOON as the light turned yellow.

*edit - and I KNOW I'd be found at fault, rightfully so.

F Me In The Brain

Totally understand why the court threw this out -- it is a shit technicality but a technicality nonetheless.

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.

badbrains

cincybearcat wrote:

know1 wrote:

That's stupid.

If you run a red light, you should pay the fine...regardless of how you were observed doing it.

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.

Agree with cincy. If a cop didn't catch you running it, then it didn't happen.

hedonist

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i am against all red light cameras and speed limit cameras that issue tickets via mail.

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.

But then you'd also be paying taxes for live *and* dummy cameras

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).

gimmesometruth27

hedonist wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i am against all red light cameras and speed limit cameras that issue tickets via mail.

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.

But then you'd also be paying taxes for live *and* dummy cameras

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).

this makes sense. why can't we get the rest of the country to apply that same standard to things like, say, guns?

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.

brianlux

Jason P wrote:

If you actually run a red light, so be it.

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.

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.

know1

cincybearcat wrote:

know1 wrote:

That's stupid.

If you run a red light, you should pay the fine...regardless of how you were observed doing it.

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.

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.

pjhawks

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i am against all red light cameras and speed limit cameras that issue tickets via mail.

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.

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.

gimmesometruth27

pjhawks wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i am against all red light cameras and speed limit cameras that issue tickets via mail.

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.

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.

it is two completely different things. one is a misdemeanor moving violation, one is a felony with use of a deadly weapon.

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.

cincybearcat

know1 wrote:

I'm sick of people running red lights as if their time is more important than everyone else's....or everyone else's safety.

Now this I can agree with.

cincybearcat

pjhawks wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i am against all red light cameras and speed limit cameras that issue tickets via mail.

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.

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.

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.

pjhawks

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i am against all red light cameras and speed limit cameras that issue tickets via mail.

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.

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.

it is two completely different things. one is a misdemeanor moving violation, one is a felony with use of a deadly weapon.

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.

so surveillance is ok based on severity of crime? except of course terrorism which many seem to be against :roll: