Photo Radar

[natty bumppo 297]

Suuuuure you don't

maybe it's cause she barters at the scene ....

[Ban Hammer 14,665]

Suuuuure you don't

or just maybe, it's difficult to get tickets when one doesn't drive....

[Peikko 1,575]

Your skepticism is ill founded, on all counts. I do drive and I do not have any traffic citations, not one.

[DEDixon 39]

Your skepticism is ill founded, on all counts. I do drive and I do not have any traffic citations, not one.

me either babe.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

There is nothing disingenuous about a camera catching people running red lights. Junctions are hazards that create innumerable potentially dangerous situations. If you are approaching a junction and can't stop in time when the lights change then you are approaching the junction at an inappropriate speed.

Accidents tend to rise dramatically where these systems are installed, due to over cautious drivers stopping unexpectedly to avoid the traps. While I am all for enforcing the laws of the land, these are dangerous, and geared only to generate income for the cities, and the corporations who lease the equipment.

[MrsCat 6]

Accidents tend to rise dramatically where these systems are installed, due to over cautious drivers stopping unexpectedly to avoid the traps. While I am all for enforcing the laws of the land, these are dangerous, and geared only to generate income for the cities, and the corporations who lease the equipment.

[MrsCat 6]

Has anyone here tried to fight a photo radar ticket?

I have known a few people who fought them. Essentially, they showed up, met with the prosecutor before court, and had the ticket dropped because it wasn't worth the prosecutors time for a $200 ticket.

If you have the day off, I'd fight it. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that you ran the red light, which means they have to do a little more than just saying that the machine is correct. They have to prove that its correct. If I thought I didn't run it, I'd fight it.

ex: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsAppea...eSacramento.pdf

[Peikko 1,575]

Accidents tend to rise dramatically where these systems are installed, due to over cautious drivers stopping unexpectedly to avoid the traps. While I am all for enforcing the laws of the land, these are dangerous, and geared only to generate income for the cities, and the corporations who lease the equipment.

Accidents are not caused by the 'over cautious' stopping suddenly. If you ram someone who stops suddenly, you are driving too close to the driver in front at an inappropriate speed which is reflected in the fact that if you ram someone from behind you are ALWAYS at fault.

The people who need to stop suddenly are those who are approaching a junction at an inappropriately fast speed because it's only when you are going at an inappropriately fast speed that you do not have time to react appropriately to light changes. Only approaching a junction at an inappropriately fast speed leads to accidents.

The 'over cautious' driver will not be approaching a junction at a speed that would demand stopping suddenly when the lights change. Approaching a junction 'overly cautiously' gives a driver much more time to take appropriate action should the lights change as they approach. The 'overly cautious' driver might annoy the 'lead footed' driver but that's the 'lead footed' drivers problem, not the problem of the 'overly cautious' driver.

[slim 1,533]

It is kind of an American tradition to try to beat traffic tickets. It's like they're inherently wrong and the only "good ticket" is one that's handed to you by a real cop who shows up in court on the day you go to fight it. And even then, the cops are usually so impressed you give a damn about the legal system they're willing to recommend an easy sentence.

- That is, if they show up at all.

As for the OP, if you go into court claiming "there was a car 40 feet in front of me that went through the intersection before I did" it sounds a lot like "I wasn't paying attention to the traffic control device, I was just watching the car in front of me." Also, given the size of that intersection, 40ft. would've put that car safely through the middle of the intersection before you even approached the stop line. On a normal transition from yellow to red, even if that car was not in the intersection already, it would've been clear of all six lanes by the time you crossed the stop line.

As Sofiyya has already pointed out, you don't have to incriminate yourself. If you have a problem with lying in court and simply denying it was you, say something like - "I can't tell from that picture if it was me or not." If they can't tell either, then it wasn't you. If it's clearly you and you're clearly across the line then offer a more reasonable explanation - "although traveling under the posted speed limit, I determined I could not safely stop my vehicle before entering the intersection and therefore I chose to proceed through so as to not cause an accident or to prevent others from safely passing." The judge will call bullsh!t, but they'll be so happy with your creativity that they may just let it slide.

Also - WEAR A SUIT! There are two places you always wear a suit, and court is one of them. I had a judge actually thank me for "dressing appropriately for her court" when I went in to face charges for excessive speed. (27 over - tagged by aircraft!) The trooper was there and he asked me if I was more worried about the points (facing 2 points) or the fee (up to $200) and I said "both." When it came time for me to step up, the prosecutor called me over and said, "how about a simple speeding charge with no points and no fee. All you pay is court costs?" In that instance, I knew I'd violated the law but I also knew what they could and couldn't get me for and what my options were.

It also helps to know the codes. I once was accused of driving on the sidewalk and when the judge had to look up the code and I recited it for her, she was impressed enough to dismiss the case.

Lastly, never underestimate the power of bartering with the prosecutor. I was accused of excessive speed in a small community near my city - one of those "we only sit out on the highway to make money" type deals - and when I went to court I asked if I could plead to lesser charges. He said, "absolutely." Of the 130 people sitting there waiting, they called me up first and said, "you're pleading guilty to an equipment violation, right?" I said yes, paid my fine and walked out a happy man. They were happy to have me!

The system is the system. Right or wrong, it works a certain way and if you do your homework, you can figure out a good defense.

Good luck! - And keep us posted on how it goes.

[slim 1,533]

Accidents are not caused by the 'over cautious' stopping suddenly.

They are at intersections where drivers wouldn't normally be "over cautious" due to installation of red light cameras.

It seems there's an initial spike in accidents at those intersections and then it levels off over time. When I say level, I mean it goes right back to where it was before the cameras were put there. So, they don't reduce accidents at all. They actually increase them for a short time period. Now, if the purpose of installing cameras is to reduce accidents, but they don't do that... why would cities still use them?

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

How much is the fine? Just send in a photo of the cash, maybe it will work.

if not, we will miss you.

[Peikko 1,575]

They are at intersections where drivers wouldn't normally be "over cautious" due to installation of red light cameras.

It seems there's an initial spike in accidents at those intersections and then it levels off over time. When I say level, I mean it goes right back to where it was before the cameras were put there. So, they don't reduce accidents at all. They actually increase them for a short time period. Now, if the purpose of installing cameras is to reduce accidents, but they don't do that... why would cities still use them?

I am sure that these cameras do very little to educate drivers as to the dangers of approaching intersections, probably because the main focus of drivers is not learning from mistakes and learning how to drive better when they get caught driving badly, but how to avoid paying the fines imposed, using all these excuses displayed above. Bottom line, unless the camera is rigged, you have driven badly if you get snapped by one of these cameras. That doesn't necessarily mean you always drive badly, but chances are, if you keep getting caught by them, you probably do.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Kevin and 10]

The system is the system. Right or wrong, it works a certain way and if you do your homework, you can figure out a good defense.

Exactly

The cop, judge, and prosecutor all represent the state. How could you possible have a fair trial in court if there is a conflict of interest?

[PhiLandShiR 18]

They are at intersections where drivers wouldn't normally be "over cautious" due to installation of red light cameras.

It seems there's an initial spike in accidents at those intersections and then it levels off over time. When I say level, I mean it goes right back to where it was before the cameras were put there. So, they don't reduce accidents at all. They actually increase them for a short time period. Now, if the purpose of installing cameras is to reduce accidents, but they don't do that... why would cities still use them?

Please post a link to support this.

Thanks

[mawilson 2,133]

How much is the fine? Just send in a photo of the cash, maybe it will work.