red light cameras

[tvlcompanygirl]

Originally Posted by TennPing

The American way is that you are innocent until proven guilty. With the cameras, you are guilty unless you prove you are not.

No, the burden of proof is on the camera (or the city really) to prove it is you. That's why it is so easy to get out of these. Just because the car is registered in your name, does not mean you were driving.

This makes me wonder....how many rental car companies get tickets in the mail? They have no obligation to tell the city who was driving. Your information is protected. They can't give the city your name, address, or anything.

[DiderotsGhost]

Originally Posted by tvlcompanygirl

No, the burden of proof is on the camera (or the city really) to prove it is you. That's why it is so easy to get out of these. Just because the car is registered in your name, does not mean you were driving.

This makes me wonder....how many rental car companies get tickets in the mail? They have no obligation to tell the city who was driving. Your information is protected. They can't give the city your name, address, or anything.

Technically, you are correct that the burden of proof is on the state. De facto, the burden of proof is on the person getting ticketed for a few reasons:

(1) The opportunity costs [not to mention the headache] of challenging a traffic ticket are greater than the cost of the ticket itself in most cases. Busy people don't want to give up part of their life to fight an unfair ticket.

(2) Courts have a tendency to 'bypass the Constitution' and shift the burden of proof in some cases. This is especially true in drug cases, where I don't see how anyone could reasonably argue it's "innocent until proven guilty." It's less true with traffic tickets than with drug cases, but there is still an element of burden shifting, because it would be otherworldly expensive for the police to prove guilt for every traffic violator. Hence, the courts tend to be more lenient in accepting weaker forms of evidence as fact than they might be, in say ... a murder case.

[tvlcompanygirl]

Originally Posted by JakilaTheHun

Technically, you are correct that the burden of proof is on the state. De facto, the burden of proof is on the person getting ticketed for a few reasons:

(1) The opportunity costs [not to mention the headache] of challenging a traffic ticket are greater than the cost of the ticket itself in most cases. Busy people don't want to give up part of their life to fight an unfair ticket.

(2) Courts have a tendency to 'bypass the Constitution' and shift the burden of proof in some cases. This is especially true in drug cases, where I don't see how anyone could reasonably argue it's "innocent until proven guilty." It's less true with traffic tickets than with drug cases, but there is still an element of burden shifting, because it would be otherworldly expensive for the police to prove guilt for every traffic violator. Hence, the courts tend to be more lenient in accepting weaker forms of evidence as fact than they might be, in say ... a murder case.

Yes, the thing is though (and you may be agreeing with me if I read you right), that we have a right to face our accuser. When you get a ticket from an officer, you go to court and it's your word against his and any other evidence he may have. With these cameras, it's your word against the cameras. The only thing the camera can "say" is "it's your car", not "it's you". If you say "it's not me" you are in no way obligated to answer "Who is it?" You may not even know. Such as the case with car rental companies. When you rent a car, and run a red light, they send the ticket to the car rental place. They can't reveal your information. All they have to say is "it wasn't us" (obviously, as it was a renter) and the ticket goes away.

You are right about it being a huge hassle to have to go to fight the ticket and I can see how some people can't do it. I refuse to be manipulated by the state. I have teenagers and several cars all in my husband's name. If we get a ticket in the mail (which we never have), he will definitely fight it. But don't worry, the perpetrator will still pay a price!

[TennPing]

Redflex is a unit of Redflex Holding Systems based in South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

[rccrain]

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research said just two weeks ago that money is the primary motivation for municipalities to install the cameras, pointing to Kingsport as an example where fines increased by more than 300 percent in the first year.

“The motivation in Johnson City is to impress upon the public the need to be safer drivers,“ said Commissioner Darden.

Somebody's lying. My guess would be the guy getting the money.

[mbmouse]

Originally Posted by rccrain

Somebody's lying. My guess would be the guy getting the money.

Ya think?! LOL! I agree with ya.

[treyver]

Originally Posted by tvlcompanygirl

Yes, the thing is though (and you may be agreeing with me if I read you right), that we have a right to face our accuser. When you get a ticket from an officer, you go to court and it's your word against his and any other evidence he may have. With these cameras, it's your word against the cameras. The only thing the camera can "say" is "it's your car", not "it's you". If you say "it's not me" you are in no way obligated to answer "Who is it?" You may not even know. Such as the case with car rental companies. When you rent a car, and run a red light, they send the ticket to the car rental place. They can't reveal your information. All they have to say is "it wasn't us" (obviously, as it was a renter) and the ticket goes away.

You are right about it being a huge hassle to have to go to fight the ticket and I can see how some people can't do it. I refuse to be manipulated by the state. I have teenagers and several cars all in my husband's name. If we get a ticket in the mail (which we never have), he will definitely fight it. But don't worry, the perpetrator will still pay a price!

Obviously, you haven't rented a vehicle and read the vehicle, rental-contract carefully. I was with an associate who received a speeding-ticket from a camera system. The vehicle rental-company forwarded the rental-agreement to "that camera company", and he received the mailed-citation, 3 weeks later. It was a shock to him and me!

Also, please don't confuse the process and procedures of a criminal offense versus a civil offense. When a police-officer gives us a moving violation, that is a criminal offense.

When a city contemplates using an automated camera enforcement systems (ACES), a city will ALWAYS pass a local ordinance to change that moving violation from a criminal offense to a civil offense in order to justify the use of an ACES - thus, running a red-light or speeding (which is usually a criminal offense when cited by a police officer) is treated as simply as a parking ticket ( a civil offense).

Our Constitution is very explicit about providing citizen protection and rights for criminal offenses.... but for a civil offense, you may need to ask a lawyer...

[treyver]

Originally Posted by rccrain

Somebody's lying. My guess would be the guy getting the money.

I hope referencing this video at a web site is permissible. And watching this video may seem like a scare-tactic. But accidents do happen...


Intersection Safety Cameras, Red Light Cameras, Red Light Running,

YouTube - Red Light Runners Compilation

[Beretta]

This has really veered off topic of Kingsport, Johnson City and Bristol. Feel free to pick up general red light camera discussions in the appropriate forum.