cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Photo Enforce Lights

tag
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Photo Enforce Lights

Of course there isn't anything funny about running a red light, marinevietvet, and I'm sorry to hear about your uncle.  That's an awful thing to have happened, especially in light of what you said about him surviving Normandy.

 

I was being sarcastic.  Yet I am against cameras being installed everywhere;  I support the other viewpoint, as stated by this gentleman quoted in the article: 

 

Paul Smith of the Safe Speed road-safety campaign, an advanced motorist and professional engineer, argues that the authorities' increasing reliance on speed cameras is hindering, and not helping, attempts to cut road deaths. "What we really need to do is work on drivers' skills, attitudes and sense of responsibility. We need to work in the pyschological domain rather than the domain of physics."

 

But here's what's happening instead:

 

One common tactic now used by operators is to install CCTV, so that they have cameras watching over their cameras. But most anti-vandal measures are hush-hush. "We'd love to be telling people why they shouldn't target our cameras," says a partnership spokeswoman. "But if we reveal how we are ahead of the criminals, that enables people to use it to their advantage".

 

Seems kind of ridiculous to me, especially when the people feel these cameras are overly intrusive in the first place.  I think a cop writing a ticket by the side of the road has more preventative and educational value for the errant driver and other passing motorists than an unseen camera triggering a summons to be sent perhaps several days after the infraction.

 

Anyways, sorry if my writing doesn't always convey my thinking.  It comes out better in person...I think.  :smileyhappy:    

 

 

Message 21 of 26
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Photo Enforce Lights

I have a problem with them Smiley Happy  I don't condone moving traffic violations, and I had a friend come close to losing his life while on a motorcycle because a truck ran a stop sign, but these things take the human element out of it.  I've got 2 tickets from these things since they installed them in my city, and both were for a very conservative rolling stop while doing a right turn.  A cop would never in a million years pull me over for that, and I know there are humans that review the results of these, but at that point, they're not going to choose to let me off the hook.
Message 22 of 26
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Photo Enforce Lights

That's a big chunk of change to have to pay around the holidays. I've gotten 2 in the same day and each was for $65 i think in NYC. When i recieved them i just  pled guilty on the back of the ticket and mailed in my payment.
Message 23 of 26
Cory
Established Contributor

Re: Photo Enforce Lights

Good Morning,

 

So it's been awhile since I posted the lastest information about this ticket. I did respond last year in November, and set up a court date in hopes the judge would reduce the ticket on May 29, 2010. That judge didn't even budge. He said I have up until 08/25/2010 to pay the fine, and traffice school will be allowed. The fine is $500.00.

 

Get this, I got another ticket (speeding ticket) at about the same time. Tried to go to court on that one and reduce the fine, no luck. The CPA (California Highway Patrol) officer scatched out the mileage he was going to give me, and wrote a higher amount because I made him mad. So in total, I owe a whooping $1000 estimated, no later than September 1. I am really thinking about walking or riding a bicyle since I only work 3.5 miles away from work.

 

I hope that if anybody else encounters this fine, get way more mercy than me.

Message 24 of 26
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Photo Enforce Lights

I live in WA state.  There are cameras in some of the lights around here.

 

They will send a ticket but, at the same time there are options on the ticket.  One of them is you were not driving the vehicle. 

 

I have received 2 tickets and 2 warnings.  One for running a redlight the others for speeding, one in a school zone.  I had lent my car to someone (bad mistake) so I physically was not driving, nor had the car in my possession.  All they can say is it was registered to me but that does not mean I was driving.

 

I think the fact they cannot prove it was the registered owner driving is why they give that option.  Which is a good thing.

I did not pay the ticket and it did not go on my record.

 

The bad part (for me) was the person I lent it to let her boyfriend, who had no license, drive it.  I found this out after he stole my car.  After it was recovered it was full of crack and pipes and totally trashed.  My insurance would not cover it.  I am still paying for that car.

Message 25 of 26
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Photo Enforce Lights


@Anonymous wrote:

@Cory wrote:

Have anyone of you had any experience getting one of these tickets. Those are the lights that flash, if you run a redlight while driving. I got one July 19, 2009 and have not responded yet. My conscious is telling me to respond as soon as possible. But fear is gripping me and telling me to just let it go.

 

Cory


Well I have never personally gotten one and I have been around alot of them where I live. However, I know people who have gotten them and the fact is that there is NO defense to it whatsoever. Unless it clearly shows that you were more than 50% through the intersection, then you are guilty by the virtue of prima facia evidence (basically the picture itself is the proof you are guilty) and will not be dismieed or contested in anyway. They suck and they are similar to the ones issued by choppers which are ALSO indisputable and prima facia evidence and therefore automatic guilty. That being said, I personally am the type that would try and fight this. You should try and hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst that they will not dismiss it and you have to pay for it.


I had actually heard (though do not know for a fact) that there had been some successful contests based upon the premise of "right to face accuser" defense, which had actually been upheld in appeal.  Do I know this to be absolutely true....nope.

 

I also have heard that some cases that do not clearly show the driver, but only the license plate, were dismissed on the premise that there was no proof of who was driving...and being a "moving violation" was not tied to the car, but the driver...and were dismissed for lack of evidence.  Again...this is reading on the internet...but don't know the specifics. 

 

txjohn

Message 26 of 26
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.