Fighting the red-light cameras (credit rating, dangerous, legal)

[20yrsinBranson]

Originally Posted by NJDevil

Hubby got a red-light ticket and he's gonna fight it. If anyone else got one recently and wants to join him, please DM me. He's got 2 weeks. He feels it is extortion for the offense not to go on your license or your record if you simply pay the fee. One thing he found out is that it's not legal for them to mail you a ticket; it has to be handed to you. He talked to a Knoxville lawyer's office today and they claim nothing about these cameras are legal.

City and county gov't will just keep doing whatever they want until people rise up and defend their rights. I know ya'll want to obey the laws, but there's nothing wrong with asking questions and standing up for yourself, Tennessee. Don't let them walk all over you. (public service announcement )

My understanding is that "red light" cameras only trip if the light is a SOLID RED when the car enters the intersection.If your husband was abiding by the speed limit and paying attention to what he was doing, he had more than enough time to stop before he entered the intersection. I suppose if things would have been different - if he had been broadsided at a green light by some moron running a red, that you would want to have the violator drawn and quartered. But because it was YOUR husband and he didn't kill anyone (this time), it should be ok.

Since the police cannot be everywhere all the time, they have little mechanical eyes doing their work for them. And thank goodness for that! If people OBEYED TRAFFIC LAWS we wouldn't need them, now would we?

Tell your husband to pay the fine and start driving responsibly.

20yrsinBranson

[golgi1]

Originally Posted by treyver

A ruling of the Seventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, affirming the constitutionality of red-light photo-enforcement programs, effectively settles the issue of the constitutionality of photo-enforcement programs.

The ruling (No. 08-1363 decided January 5, 2009) -— authored by the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Frank H. Easterbrook — is a ground-breaking decision on photo enforcement programs with national implications.

“Is it rational to fine the owner rather than the driver? Certainly so,” Chief Judge Easterbrook wrote in the Court’s ruling. “A camera can show reliably which cars and trucks go through red lights but is less likely to show who was driving. That would make it easy for owners to point the finger at friends or children -— and essentially impossible for the City to prove otherwise. A system of photographic evidence reduces the costs of law enforcement and increases the proportion of all traffic offenses that are detected; these benefits can be achieved only if the owner is held responsible,” the Court stated.

The Court also found that imposing a fine on the owner of the vehicle rather than the driver not only “improves compliance with traffic laws” but has the additional benefit of encouraging owners to take greater care in lending their cars. “Owners will take more care when lending their cars and often they can pass the expense on to the real wrongdoer,” according to the Court.

The Court also addressed the issue of revenues derived from photo traffic enforcement systems. “That the City’s system raises revenues does not condemn it,” according to the Court. “Taxes, whether on liquor or on running red lights, are valid municipal endeavors. Like any other exaction, a fine does more than raise revenue: It also discourages the taxed activity. A system that simultaneously raises money and improves compliance with traffic laws has much to recommend it and cannot be called unconstitutionally whimsical.”

Unfortunately, the red light camera situation, nationwide, isn't as simple as this judge makes it out to be. He leaves out a LARGE part of the equation in his reasoning. Although, I recognize that his primary focus is on who to ticket, and not the justification for the lights in general. Its not as simple as "don't break the law and you have nothing to worry about".

Here is why:

In the case of red light cameras, nationwide, here is a profit motivation that trumps law enforcement motivation. As a result, very real safety and quality of life issues are created.

In the case of traditional law enforcement, municipal revenue is a secondary product of law enforcement. That is, except in the many cases where the local government is a little too large and corrupt, traffic laws aren't made and enforced solely to generate revenue, beyond what is reasonable to the actual smooth and safe function of the municipality.

However, in the case of red light cameras, the companies who contract with municipalities set minimum infraction requirements as part of the agreement with the municipality. This means that the municipality has to set the light patterns specifically to ensnare a minimum amount of individuals in an infraction. This means that the lights eventually get set so that motorists are more likely to blow lights. Blown lights mean accidents. Accidents mean injury and death. WTF?

I see it all over the place here. Short yellows, and more frustratingly, lights inexplicably set so that there is no longer a "slip" of traffic that flows through all the lights on the strip. The lights are set so that perhaps the first one or two cars make it through all of the lights, but the rest are forced to stop at every light on a double or triple lane road. Its insanity, its selfish revenue generation at the cost of safety and quality of life for those of us that drive these roads every day for work. The government is supposed to serve the community and ensure safety, not decrease safety to generate revenue.

I could get on board with red light cameras more if strict laws were concurrently made that all lights had to be set to maximize safety and traffic flow. Otherwise, people should really be enraged by these lights and the hazards that result from them.

[rustproof16]

The red light enforement program has beem ruled UNCONTituional in alot states for serval reasons.
#1 pictures can be changed on a computor ( green to RED)
# 2 Drivers are not identifed and that is why the police do not inform your insurance company
# 3 It's been proven that the amber light time has been changed.
# 4 On the issure of RIGHT turn, The white line that you have to stop behind has been changed
and you can not see traffic unless you pull up. Then you get a ticket.

These cities konw this going into contract with his AZ. company and when they are forced to shut
the system down guess who keeps the MONEY!
They never give it back and that is the PLAN!

[Barking Spider]

You resurrected a 4 year old post for your first one?

[TheShadow]

Originally Posted by NJDevil

Hubby got a red-light ticket and he's gonna fight it. If anyone else got one recently and wants to join him, please DM me. He's got 2 weeks. He feels it is extortion for the offense not to go on your license or your record if you simply pay the fee. One thing he found out is that it's not legal for them to mail you a ticket; it has to be handed to you. He talked to a Knoxville lawyer's office today and they claim nothing about these cameras are legal.

City and county gov't will just keep doing whatever they want until people rise up and defend their rights. I know ya'll want to obey the laws, but there's nothing wrong with asking questions and standing up for yourself, Tennessee. Don't let them walk all over you. (public service announcement )

How about just stopping at red lights? Seems no different than getting any other ticket, except you get the option of not having it on your record. Bonus!

[danielj72]

Originally Posted by Barking Spider

You resurrected a 4 year old post for your first one?

While it may be an old thread what he had to say is accurate. Ill never understand why anyone supports these revenue machines. Local government corruption at its best, and worse yet a lot of the profit goes out of our state or even out of the nation. If government needs revenue then it should go to the people with budget cuts or tax increases. That is the proper way to raise revenue. Traffic enforcement schemes are literally entrapment. When you see traffic enforcement going on it should be for the reason of public safety, NOT for revenue.

[weisgarber1]

Originally Posted by danielj72

While it may be an old thread what he had to say is accurate. Ill never understand why anyone supports these revenue machines. Local government corruption at its best, and worse yet a lot of the profit goes out of our state or even out of the nation. If government needs revenue then it should go to the people with budget cuts or tax increases. That is the proper way to raise revenue. Traffic enforcement schemes are literally entrapment. When you see traffic enforcement going on it should be for the reason of public safety, NOT for revenue.

It is accurate, and when a/the camera revenue generation slows down at one location, cameras are often moved to other locations, moved to where the "take" is larger.

[onetoughkitty]

The city I just moved from voted to have those things banned. Maybe someone should bring it to a vote here. I believe these things cause more accidents then they actually prevent.

[TheShadow]

Originally Posted by danielj72

While it may be an old thread what he had to say is accurate. Ill never understand why anyone supports these revenue machines. Local government corruption at its best, and worse yet a lot of the profit goes out of our state or even out of the nation. If government needs revenue then it should go to the people with budget cuts or tax increases. That is the proper way to raise revenue. Traffic enforcement schemes are literally entrapment. When you see traffic enforcement going on it should be for the reason of public safety, NOT for revenue.

How is it entrapment? Entrapment means that law enforcement INDUCED you to commit the crime. Running a red light is a criminal act that the driver makes the only decision about. No one induced you to ignore the yellow/red light and go through it.

I had to laugh, even though I felt like crying, when I was rear-ended because I stopped at a red light. The idiot behind me even told the officer that he thought I would run it, so he sped up and was looking for cross traffic and didn't see me stop. Red light runners KILL people everyday. Camera enforcement generates revenue because it catches ALL the violators and not just the few that an officer might see. I have no problem with them.

[weisgarber1]

Originally Posted by onetoughkitty

The city I just moved from voted to have those things banned. Maybe someone should bring it to a vote here. I believe these things cause more accidents then they actually prevent.

I think neighboring Oak Ridge CC voted, 5-4, the same vote as originally authorizing the revenue generation traffic cameras, not to renew the contract with the company, Redflex, which is "hustling" their "camera merchandise." According to a 2014 story from local Knoxville channel 8, Redflex was getting the "lion's share" of the revenue, 2/3 as compared to the 1/3 the city was receiving, and not even a 50-50 split. But, money (easy revenue generation) talks and the issue will arguably resurface.