"LJ909" (lj909)
02/19/2016 at 20:57 • Filed to: None
2
23|
"LJ909" (lj909)
02/19/2016 at 20:57 • Filed to: None | 2
| 23 |
Let me give you a recent story as to why I’m saying this. I have a cousin who got one of those red light camera tickets. This happened in Riverside California (most cities of phased these out mind you). Now he ran the red light yes but only because of two things: 1. The red light camera photos he got in the mail with the ticket show him past the point of no return when the light was still yellow and in another photo show him in the intersection once the light was red. If he had stopped he would have been in the middle of the intersection. 2. He only took the chance and going when the light was yellow because he was trying to get home to his wife who was very sick at the time and needed to get to the ER.
So in the mail with the ticket and photos is an appearance date for the courts. So he takes off work on that date thinking hes going to see the judge. Wrong. On that day, the date on the ticket is to see a clerk at a window. He was there less than 10 minutes after waiting for his number to be called for over an hour. He missed a whole day of work without pay to go to a window and have a lady give him a paper with a website on it to schedule a court date. He was pissed.
So he schedules the court date. He still has to miss work without pay but he only takes half a day off this time. He gets to the court. He has proof that he took his wife to the ER in the form of discharge papers that the hospital gave them. He was told these would be enough to dismiss the case. At the appearance before the judge though, hes told that not only can he not present the papers that dismiss the case but that the reason he cant is because the judge doesn’t hear or see evidence at this appearance. He has to plead not guilty and schedule a trial date back at the same clerk window he went to the first time. On top of that, while the paper he has will dismiss the case, he has to pay a $35.00 “administrative” fee. What the hell does that mean?
Basically while he has proof he’s not guilty they are still going to get some money out of him even though he has proof of innocent intent. I swear I saw both of his eyes twitch in anger.
Reluctantly he got a new court date for a trial that lasted 10 minutes and paid a bs fee on a $450.00 ticket. This wasn’t even the worst I heard of the small offenses in the courtroom. Dozens of people were given the run around for waste of time things like not following a cone pattern of having windows that are too darkly tinted. This all showed me how bogus and inefficient the judicial system is for a minor offense.
wiffleballtony
> LJ909
02/19/2016 at 21:06 |
|
In my state they have to serve you with the ticket if you don’t respond to the mail, which no one does. Then it’s a couple months of dodging the server and you’re home free.
Birddog
> LJ909
02/19/2016 at 21:11 |
|
Welcome to the world of revenue generation.
|
LJ909
> wiffleballtony
02/19/2016 at 21:29 |
|
Damn I wish it was that easy here.
Highlander-Datsuns are Forever
> LJ909
02/19/2016 at 21:40 |
|
If he pleads not guilty it goes to trial, why didn’t he do that? There is a similar kind of set up where I live in MT and it actually really sucks. I need to do a whole story on my ticket last summer.
Nauraushaun
> LJ909
02/19/2016 at 21:50 |
|
1. The red light camera photos he got in the mail with the ticket show him past the point of no return when the light was still yellow
I don’t think this proves anything. It proves that the light was yellow before it was red, and he was prior to the intersection before he was in it.
Yes, the light was yellow before he got into the intersection. It was yellow for a while time before that as well. He decided to bust through anyway.
Not trying to be an asshole, but they’ll probably say the same thing. I tried to argue a red light ticket once, they didn’t budge an inch.
|
Nauraushaun
> LJ909
02/19/2016 at 21:53 |
|
Why have they been abolished in most states? I’m not a fan of them, but it’s hard to make a case for banning them when they do catch people breaking the law, and they don’t catch people who don’t break the law.
BaconSandwich is tasty.
> wiffleballtony
02/19/2016 at 22:04 |
|
Which state is that?
I’ve always been curious to know what happens if I, as a Canadian, run a red light down in the US. Do they even bother trying to send the ticket up here?
|
BaconSandwich is tasty.
> Nauraushaun
02/19/2016 at 22:05 |
|
Chicago seems to be a perfect example: there’s been a lot of under the table deals with the politicians and the companies that put up the cameras. They haven’t actually proven to reduce accidents, and if anything, have had the opposite effect. In some cases I’ve heard of the length of the yellow light being shortened in order to bring in more ticket revenue, but those may be old wives tales, so to speak.
Denver Is Stuck In The 90s
> wiffleballtony
02/19/2016 at 22:06 |
|
Same here. But sadly I live with my parents and theyre goodie 2 shoes. My dad is the type of person to stop at a yellow and my mom goes 3 under to avoid speeding. They make me pay my bogus automated tickets. (Ive only gotten one but still)
smobgirl
> BaconSandwich is tasty.
02/19/2016 at 22:32 |
|
I (probably) got caught at a red light camera in CO when I had just moved here and was lost (thought I had a green right turn arrow, turned out I was in a 5-way intersection and the half-right turn wasn’t legal). I still had VA plates on the car. No one ever saw a ticket from that.
1111111111111111111111
> LJ909
02/19/2016 at 22:36 |
|
Thankfully we have no cameras here. The odd thing is when I’m driving in towns that have them people drive like shit.
|
smobgirl
> Nauraushaun
02/19/2016 at 22:37 |
|
They frequently do catch people who aren’t breaking the law. For instance, right on red is still legal at most intersections with cameras, but you have to follow an exact (unpublished) protocol or you’ll still get a ticket. (Stop behind the crosswalk for x amount of time, then proceed forward to see the oncoming traffic, but if you sit too long in the crosswalk the camera can think you're a new car illegally across the line once you move and you get a ticket anyway, stuff like that)
|
LJ909
> Highlander-Datsuns are Forever
02/20/2016 at 00:10 |
|
Please do. I would like to read it.
|
LJ909
> Nauraushaun
02/20/2016 at 00:12 |
|
Well in California, once your past the point of no return, you have no choice but to follow through. Its like the lesser of two evils: comply with one law while breaking another. Besides, yellow means prepare to stop, not stop.
RiceRocketeer Extraordinaire
> LJ909
02/20/2016 at 00:28 |
|
Was going to recount my experience with a red light camera but it still makes me mad years later. I’m glad that they make little sense financially so a lot of places have ended up shutting theirs down.
|
wiffleballtony
> BaconSandwich is tasty.
02/20/2016 at 00:59 |
|
Arizona. They actually killed almost all photo radar in the state. There might be a couple intersections left but I haven’t seen one in years. Pretty sure you could ignore those tickets.
Klaus Schmoll
> LJ909
02/20/2016 at 09:15 |
|
What a weird law! In Germany, if you enter the intersection under yellow, you are good, and if you enter under red you are fucked. As simple as that.
|
LJ909
> Klaus Schmoll
02/20/2016 at 11:45 |
|
It should be like that here, especially with a yellow light meaning prepare to stop. But our governments chase revenue so it sucks.
|
Nauraushaun
> BaconSandwich is tasty.
02/21/2016 at 07:49 |
|
If they haven’t been proven to reduce accidents, that is a big draw.
Otherwise. Even if they create more instances of rear-ending when people stop for red lights. You’re weighing that up against reduced incidents of people running red lights. Hard to make a point without numbers to back it up, but the rear-endings are probably a safer form of collision.
|
Nauraushaun
> LJ909
02/21/2016 at 07:51 |
|
Yes but all we know is that he was past the point of no return when the light was yellow. It’s likely that the light had been yellow for a while, he’d been driving towards it for a while trying to make it through, and he should’ve been braking.
He was past the point of no return in the same way that he was in the intersection when it was red: because he messed up and didn’t stop when he should’ve.
Lets be realistic. Yellow means it’s about to turn red. You’re not allowed to drive through a red, so you should stop when it’s yellow.
|
Nauraushaun
> smobgirl
02/21/2016 at 07:54 |
|
I see, fair enough.
In Australia you can’t drive through a red, and you can’t turn right on a red. We have dedicated turn lights for that, I’m not sure if you do too. When our cameras catch you it’s because you broke the law.
Once I was snapped while doing a U-turn in an intersection. I entered when the light wasn’t red, but the manouver took longer than usual because it was a tight turn in a 300ZX and I got flashed. That would’ve been unjust, but I never received a ticket for it. Either because they determined I did the right thing, or they didn’t get my plate.
|
BaconSandwich is tasty.
> Nauraushaun
02/22/2016 at 14:19 |
|
As far as I’ve heard, they usually end up causing more accidents. Sometimes accidents inside the intersection supposedly go down, but the number of accidents just outside the intersection increase. A few links that say they aren’t so great:
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/study…
http://time.com/3643077/red-li…
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/20…
|
Nauraushaun
> BaconSandwich is tasty.
02/22/2016 at 18:43 |
|
You could argue that incidents outside the intersection are probably less dangerous. Two vehicles colliding while travelling similar speeds in the same direction, compared to t-boning or head-on collisions. Maybe if you compare deaths/serious injuries, red light cameras come out on top.
Maybe.