Those darn red light cameras

Do those people get their money back? Do the extra rear ended cars and their insurance companies get money from the localities for damage done? Does anyone killed because of trying to stop at the yellow because they didn't want to chance a ticket get their life back?

Did it really get "better"?

You can feel good about helping your community out, or their community. When they get some up where you live, you won't have to drive so far to help.

I have no problem with these cameras being used for revenue.
I would consider it a moron tax.
DON'T RUN RED LIGHTS !!

People should sit at broken red lights for hours at 2 and 3 in the morning even if there is no intersecting traffic? Things are not so black and white as you want everyone to believe and some conditions warrant human witness that is not available when cameras are used. I reserve the right to face my accuser and HE/SHE/IT better be able to answer some questions!

If they don't provide the same deterrent as seeing a police cruiser at the intersection, they're not working properly, IMO. It's the blatant offenders that need to be targeted. These folks are the ones who need to know that getting a ticket isn't the only price of reckless behavior. This isn't to be treated like a parking violation stuck under your wiper. The success of a law enforcement program should be measured by how much crime is reduced and no by how much money it brings into the city.

The Sixth Amendment says, "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." You cannot face or cross examine a camera and it cannot convey all of the conditions that might exist at the time one fails to clear the far plane of an intersection before the light turns red.

...where these cameras exist to wait to complete a left turn. Stay back at the line. Sure as you do enter the intersection, the traffic you need to stop before you can complete the turn will NOT stop on the yellow and by the time you are making the turn the light will be red, and you will be caught. Some won't snap the picture unless straight traffic goes through and in that case you have a better chance of not getting a ticket for being in the intersection when the light went red. Since they are photo snapping cameras and not video cameras and ONLY come on even if they were video cameras when a violation has occured, then there is no way for the ticket issuers to know you entered the intersection to make the turn when the light was green and couldn't complete it till it went red because someone coming from the opposite direction just barely managed to beat the red light, or maybe actually set it off which shows BOTH of you in the intersection, and BOTH get the ticket.

You see the light turn yellow and know you can barely stop in time but there's a big car or truck coming up behind you that you can see has no intention of stopping. If you hit the brakes, you're going to be rammed. If you run the light to avoid getting hit, you get a ticket. Nice choices you have here.

I do not see how they violate my civil rigts.

You do.

I say the cameras are witnesses. The prosecution must show the photo is of the defendant"s car, that the camera was in good working order at the time. All the defense has to do is prove the camera lied.

I do not have a right to drive a car. I have the privilege to do so granted to me by a driver's license.

Angeline

What about the peripheral conditions at the time? As a defendant I could cross examine the citing officer about those. How can I cross examine a camera about things it has no knowledge of and hasn't taken a picture of? I have no doubt that it violates my right to face my accuser, the camera, not the prosecutor whom is simply an interpreter of the camera's testimony!

Sixth Amendment (though this would not generally be a criminal matter):

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

I'm glad we don't have any of those cameras up here...so far.

Strange, I thought they were.

This seems easy as apple pie to me. STOP when the lights are changing to red. Then you won't get prosecuted.

Mark

It's largely the purpose for the cameras. That they are popular revenue producers and that cities like that idea most of all. There doesn't seem to be significant evidence to suggest that city officials are as interested in public safety as they are in hauling in cash. If you dig into this, you'll even read that the 3rd party makers and operators of these cameras complain when cities lengthen the duration of the yellow signal because there are fewer violations. You'll also read that there's significant evidence to suggest that some cities have even shortened that duration to increase the number of tickets issued. I hope that's not for real. I do know that, when these were placed in my city, the expected income from the devices was published but I never saw a single statistic as to how many accidents were expected to be prevented. It's about the money and that's the rub.

an accuser. It is very possible that one could have a compelling reason to run a light that a human witness would readily understand, but a camera cannot.

<cross>Please tell me Mr. Camera, what were the traffic conditions at the time you took this picture? Was the motorist to close to the intersection to stop safely when they proceeded through the intersection? What yellow light timing did you witness on the day you took this photo?</cross>

Perhaps you disagree with the 6th Amendment though. If so then move somewhere else!

I wonder if you could demand a third party technical diagnostic of the equipment? if you could afford the bill of course.

I'm betting it's proprietary, trade secrets, etc, and not allowed.

Of course, even it was, unless that ticket would cost you your license, it would be so expensive that no one would find it worth the cost.

I avoid them because my last boss was ticketed by one and it was a $70 fine vs $125 minimum for an attorney for a one hour minimum. For him it was not worth fighting since he might have to go to court twice or more at a growing legal expense to fight it.

Like someone that "interprets" fingerprints?

When police use forensic evidence the defense has an opportunity to challenge the validity of the processing and interpretation of the evidence. That might, for example, involve calling the persons who collected/processed/interpreted the prints to testify though I don't know if it is actually done very often. I'm not at all sure how that traditional practice might or might not be possible with one of these cameras.

I'm sure the legal issues have come up in other contexts (eg: photographic security systems for stores, banks, ...) but this is potentially different because it is likely that there is no human accuser and no other evidence.

FWIW: There are some rules about which photographs are admissible in court. My understanding (as reported by one of my patients) is that in NC, when private investigators take pictures, the photographs must be from film cameras with a time stamp. Digital images are not acceptable. I don't know if that also applies to automated surveillance systems or other types of photographic evidence.

I wondered about any decline, so I looked for a study. I found one titled "Investigation Of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting From Red-Light Cameras In Small Urban Areas", done in 2004 by the North Carolina A&T State University for the United States Department of Transportation.
It said many things, and one of them was ?Using a large data set, including 26 months before the introduction of RLCs, we analyze reported accidents occurring near 303 intersections over a 57-month period, for a total of 17,271 observations. Employing maximum likelihood estimation of Poisson regression models, we find that:
The results do not support the view that red light cameras reduce crashes. Instead, we find that RLCs are associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes.?.

But as I said, it said many things, so it may be best to look at the entire study:

http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/Burkey_Obeng_Updated_Report_2004.pdf

Both involved in what Steve mentioned. People seeing the yellow and knowing the camera is there, so slamming on their brakes and getting rammed by the tailgater behind them.

Another example is at the Anne Arundel community college my daughter attended some years ago, and got a $75 (I think that was the fine) for "running a red light" since they had cameras at the one road into the college. Just before start of classes there are two turn lanes into the place and both lines move on a light, but sometimes the line stops before completing the intersection at start of class day and also after lunch time. It was clear from the picture they sent she was at 45 degree angle on a turn, but "Send us the money!" is all you get.

In that instance I feel they are taking deliberate advantage of the traffic situation simply to raise revenue, and that from the college kids and their parents.