Red light camera fail

[3chordcharlie]

Agreed.., it's bullshit. It should be the prosecution's burden to prove who was driving, not the other way around.



The problem is that it gets mailed to the registered owner, who may or may not be the one driving. For a parking ticket, it gets stuck on the vehicle so the driver gets it upon return.

But the driver is under no obligation to pay it.

In general, a vehicle owner should be aware of who is driving their vehicle.

Rather than charging a moving violation, red-light tickets and photo-radar are like a really complicated, multi-stage parking ticket assessed to the vehicle.

They are also total bullshit. Well, photo-radar could be used effectively and responsibly, but likely never has been.

 

[jlee]

But the driver is under no obligation to pay it.

In general, a vehicle owner should be aware of who is driving their vehicle.

Rather than charging a moving violation, red-light tickets and photo-radar are like a really complicated, multi-stage parking ticket assessed to the vehicle.

They are also total bullshit. Well, photo-radar could be used effectively and responsibly, but likely never has been.

Bingo.

IIRC in some states they're not valid unless served in hand by a law enforcement officer. We don't have them up here so I don't have to deal with it.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Bingo.

IIRC in some states they're not valid unless served in hand by a law enforcement officer. We don't have them up here so I don't have to deal with it.

If you throw out a parking ticket, they will mail you a new one or take it up with you a licence/registration renewal time.

These are revenue generators; if cities wanted an automated way to improve red-light obedience (which really is pretty bad), they would stop with all the games and install camera-activated rocket-launchers.

 

[wirednuts]

It's not like it's a real ticket that counts on your driving record though. It's just a civil infraction for which there is a fine. Far better than an actual red light ticket issued by an officer that gets you points.

the bigger issue is that he is getting fined by the city under false pretenses. the city uses these red lights as proof in court that you did something wrong, while they technically have absolutely zero proof that anything was your fault. then, when you go to court, YOU have to prove innocence when in reality its supposed to be the other way around. they get away with this because people fear a worse outcome over just paying the $100 (tyranny).

prosecutors are always trying to do this. they dont want you to know that you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. they want to scare you into thinking you are always wrong unless you can give factual evidence that says otherwise, and that is just morally wrong.

 

[LTC8K6]

the bigger issue is that he is getting fined by the city under false pretenses. the city uses these red lights as proof in court that you did something wrong, while they technically have absolutely zero proof that anything was your fault. then, when you go to court, YOU have to prove innocence when in reality its supposed to be the other way around. they get away with this because people fear a worse outcome over just paying the $100 (tyranny).

prosecutors are always trying to do this. they dont want you to know that you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. they want to scare you into thinking you are always wrong unless you can give factual evidence that says otherwise, and that is just morally wrong.

If you read the ticket, you'll see that an officer has actually reviewed the violation, and agreed that it's a violation.

Well, the argument could be that in most cases, the owner of the car can be considered liable for the actions of the person he lets use his car. That is, if you let me drive your car, and I run a red light, the ultimate responsibility is yours, for letting a moron borrow your car.

Of course, a mechanic may need to test drive your car, which presents a somewhat different situation.

Or, your car may have been stolen, which let's you out entirely.

In the end though, the purpose is collecting taxes, and somebody ran a red light, so somebody owes the city the fine. :|

There's no dispute over the violation here, just over who has to pay the tax. :biggrin:

 

[exdeath]

+1 for Arizona on many accounts:

Arizona law requires that citations be delivered by person of official capacity within so many days. Without the resources for the state to do this, most people just ignore the automatic mailed ones, or make themselves unavailable if someone knocks on the door, and nothing comes of it. As a result, it's come to light that the cameras being unenforceable cost far more than they generate and many are being shut down. This of course has also drawn the ire of many in AZ, as it genuinely proves that the cameras were entirely for revenue and had nothing to do with safety. AZ has been against cameras for a while, they only started here because our lefty authoritarian totalitarian ex gov single handled requested them via executive order against the vote of the state congress (which she has done on many occasions).

Also, details are fuzzy at the moment, but I'm pretty sure Arizona law requires that a LEO witness an infraction for a citation to be valid (possible that having a real LEO inspect pictures/video before allowing the citation to go out from these cameras meets this requirement).

Arizona law, IIRC, holds the owner accoutable for the vehicle, so if you are genuinely busted for being a douchebag, you are required to disclose the person behind the wheel at the time, or take ownership of the citation for your vehicle.

Many thousands of tickets were also thrown out, and lawsuits won, because it was found that some of the yellow light times at intersections recently fitted with cameras were mysteriously set below the minimum time required by state law.

Mobile vans have been torched on occasion as well. Arizona is very anti-photo radar. Even the most nanny state type people admit that the cameras only cause traffic jams where they are installed and people just speed up after they pass the camera anyway.

That said they are fairly reasonable here, you have to be going 11+ over to even trigger them, and most are installed in places where people need to be paying attention anyway (eg coming from a isolated stretch of 60+ highway type road and starting to wind down into a denser part of town where there are lights and traffic, etc.) This in addition to the state law requiring bright yellow signs warning of photo radar almost a block away, it's hard to feel sorry for anyone who gets popped.

I've triggered a flash on several occasions making a legal left turn on a green arrow, having made a complete stop behind the line first and waiting for the arrow. I've never received anything in the mail, so clearly there is human oversight in the process of mailing citations.

I still won't be sad to see them go, just on principle.

 

[IronWing]

Gurnee, IL? Go ride the roller coaster a couple times; make yourself feel better.

 

[jlee]

the bigger issue is that he is getting fined by the city under false pretenses. the city uses these red lights as proof in court that you did something wrong, while they technically have absolutely zero proof that anything was your fault. then, when you go to court, YOU have to prove innocence when in reality its supposed to be the other way around. they get away with this because people fear a worse outcome over just paying the $100 (tyranny).

prosecutors are always trying to do this. they dont want you to know that you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. they want to scare you into thinking you are always wrong unless you can give factual evidence that says otherwise, and that is just morally wrong.

That. Exactly.

It shouldn't be your job to prove that you weren't driving - the burden of proof should rest with prosecution. The way the city ordinance was written (re: the OP), is that the photo is prima facia evidence that the registered owner was driving (which means that the RO needs to prove that he or she was not driving).

Here's one way to look at it - if I see a car driving around and I run the plate and learn that the registered owner is suspended, can I stop the car? Absolutely - all i need is reasonable suspicion, which is exactly that - suspicion (which can be articulated).

However, can I apply for an arrest warrant for the registered owner? I could, but it'd be a stretch and I would be quite surprised if anyone would sign it (I hope that nobody would). The burden of proof needed for a warrant is probable cause - which is for all practical purposes the same burden of proof (preponderance of evidence) required in civil court. I don't believe that there is probable cause to cite the registered owner for a traffic violation when you have no proof who is actually driving the car, and I don't believe that it should be the burden of the registered owner to prove his or her innocence. That's backwards from how things are supposed to work.

There is a difference between civil and criminal court, but regardless that's my opinion on the matter.

 

[3chordcharlie]

I don't believe that there is probable cause to cite the registered owner for a traffic violation when you have no proof who is actually driving the car, and I don't believe that it should be the burden of the registered owner to prove his or her innocence. That's backwards from how things are supposed to work.

There is a difference between civil and criminal court, but regardless that's my opinion on the matter.

In Ontario, and I imagine other places, a red-light or photo-radar ticket is just a really expensive parking ticket; there's no need to identify the driver to give a parking ticket. There are no 'points' or other licence-related consequences.

I don't like them, but governments in general will have no trouble getting these tickets to stand if they want to do so.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

You are crying about a measly $100? You should feel lucky that it didn't cost you $500 and traffic school like mine did.

 

[Chapbass]

You are crying about a measly $100? You should feel lucky that it didn't cost you $500 and traffic school like mine did.

When was he crying about 100 dollars? He was crying because he wasn't the one driving the car...

 

[Mr. Lennon]

When was he crying about 100 dollars? He was crying because he wasn't the one driving the car...

Ah nvm...reading comprehension fail. Still pretty damn cheap for a red light ticket.