Red Light Photo Radar (Sherwood: lawyers, costs, lawsuits)

[jackw97224]

Received an alleged red light photo radar ticket. Sent motion to court with case law from California appeals courts that repeatedly overturn municipal courts on red light photo radar tickets as violation of right to confront the witness and hearsay. The court violated my notice and opportunity and I appealed to the Oregon Supreme court, which only recommended the municipal court be reversed and remanded for retrial. The appeals court judge said something about my failing to "adequately preserve" the court record but don't know what that means. Any idea what Assistant Attorney General Timothy A. Sylwester meant? Also, does the municipal court owe me for the costs incurred for my appeal? Does the municipal court have to reset to before the retrial and does it need to undo the suspension of my driver license pending the new trial? The case number is CA A149647 and municipal court No. 0528308.

[oregonwoodsmoke]

So, did you run the red light or not?

[Beenhere4ever]

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

So, did you run the red light or not?

In America jurisprudence, does guilt still have any relevance? It is all about"they violated my rights".

[campion]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

In America jurisprudence, does guilt still have any relevance? It is all about"they violated my rights".

Supposedly in American jurisprudence, a person has the right to face their accuser. I don't consider an inanimate object my accuser. If a cop sitting at a light stops me, then in court I'd be facing my accuser. But a red light camera is hardly a sentient being that I can cross-examine. And that's nothing compared to the supposed standard of "innocent until proven guilty." These red light camera cases turn into situations where the defendant has to prove their innocence, rather than the other way around.

I'm all for cops enforcing traffic laws; I'm adamantly against private companies practicing something barely better than extortion by threatening points and lawsuits if fines for red light cameras aren't paid.

[EnricoV]

Pfft. If a cop is sitting in his car, with a radar gun focused on me as I pass ... he's not doing the "accusing" the radar gun is. Same with a fixed red light camera.

[Beenhere4ever]

Originally Posted by campion

Supposedly in American jurisprudence, a person has the right to face their accuser. I don't consider an inanimate object my accuser. If a cop sitting at a light stops me, then in court I'd be facing my accuser. But a red light camera is hardly a sentient being that I can cross-examine. And that's nothing compared to the supposed standard of "innocent until proven guilty." These red light camera cases turn into situations where the defendant has to prove their innocence, rather than the other way around.

I'm all for cops enforcing traffic laws; I'm adamantly against private companies practicing something barely better than extortion by threatening points and lawsuits if fines for red light cameras aren't paid.

Yeh, yeh, in America we all like to be constitutional lawyers. Never ever concede guilt. I guess our role models are the wise guys in organized crime. But I do think it would be neat to put every photo cop violation in a driver's record. That way when they DO get pulled over, there's a pattern of scoffing at law that a judge can use to decide on an appropriate penalty. Oh, yeh, I know, there's a "right" to have your behavior on the road ignored. Silly me.

[oregonwoodsmoke]

The red light cameras take a photo. It's kind of difficult for them to get a photo of your car running a red light if you have never run a red light.

I suggest that you pay your ticket and stop whining. You broke the law, you got caught. Pay up and get on with your life.

[Sherwoody]

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

The red light cameras take a photo. It's kind of difficult for them to get a photo of your car running a red light if you have never run a red light.

I suggest that you pay your ticket and stop whining. You broke the law, you got caught. Pay up and get on with your life.

I'm curious if I'll get something in the mail soon myself. I assume if you're in the intersection when the light has turned red, they snap a photo. In this instance I feel it was my safest option and I suppose I'll need to appear in court to plead my case. Here's my story, tell me what you think.

I was about the 7th vehicle in line with maybe 10 cars behind me. I'm behind a 16' U-Haul type truck so until traffic started moving I couldn't see the light. Due to traffic we all were traveling between 5 and 10 mph through an intersection that had 6 lanes and a center median. When the light comes into my view was in the 1st of 6 lanes I needed to get through, it is yellow then turns red. This light could not have been green more than about 30 seconds and the yellow is probably set for the posted speed limit (35) not 5 to 10. I understand you should not proceed through if there is not room for you on the other side, but what are you supposed to do if the green is unexpectedly short and you are already in the intersection when the lights change? My two options with a split second to choose were to make a sudden right turn when I saw the yellow turn to red or follow the traffic safely through. I chose to follow the traffic through and give my best surprised look at the camera while doing so.

[pw72]

Photo radar is no different than a cop sitting on a corner observing. In fact, it may be better. Don't like photo radar?, well, perhaps you should start obeying actual traffic laws. (Personal oberservation: I have run my share of red lights over the years, usually with confidence that nobody would be endangered.) However, these laws do mean something, and while I am not a perfect driver, I generally agree that photo radar is a good thing overall. While I have been lucky to not get in any accident due to my poor driving behavior, I can certainly understand any attempt to reduce crashes and deaths. So I support the process, and I regret my past poor driving behavior. While it hasn't caused any accidents, I'm sure it could have, and that is enough for me.

[EnricoV]

Originally Posted by Sherwoody

I'm curious if I'll get something in the mail soon myself. I assume if you're in the intersection when the light has turned red, they snap a photo. In this instance I feel it was my safest option and I suppose I'll need to appear in court to plead my case. Here's my story, tell me what you think.

I was about the 7th vehicle in line with maybe 10 cars behind me. I'm behind a 16' U-Haul type truck so until traffic started moving I couldn't see the light. Due to traffic we all were traveling between 5 and 10 mph through an intersection that had 6 lanes and a center median. When the light comes into my view was in the 1st of 6 lanes I needed to get through, it is yellow then turns red. This light could not have been green more than about 30 seconds and the yellow is probably set for the posted speed limit (35) not 5 to 10. I understand you should not proceed through if there is not room for you on the other side, but what are you supposed to do if the green is unexpectedly short and you are already in the intersection when the lights change? My two options with a split second to choose were to make a sudden right turn when I saw the yellow turn to red or follow the traffic safely through. I chose to follow the traffic through and give my best surprised look at the camera while doing so.

It doesn't make any difference what your excuse might be for why you broke the law ... you still broke it.

You're not supposed to enter the intersection unless there is sufficient room for you to continue through the intersection. That you were tailgating the trailer isn't a defense. It's your responsibility to follow the law, not the trailer's responsibility to guide you safely through traffic.