Robo Red Light Tickets

[rbuswell]

Pelican friends:

What is the prevailing opinion of the Robo Red Light tickets. Should they be paid or is it just municipal fine harvesting? How can a jurisdiction expect to prevail in court when there is no known driver to ticket? Your opinions are very welcomed.

[mattdavis11]

Having researched and given a presentation, I believe they are nothing but a cash cow for municipalities. When you research the data, it will show that the number of right angle collisions has declined, but the number of rear ends has risen. However, studies have shown that lengthening the yellow will successfully achieve the targeted goal, with data showing in a reduction in both right angle collisions and rear end collisions at controlled intersections.

The penalty, IMHO, is unconstitutional if it is a criminal offense, as one can not face the accuser. However, many states have provided a means for defense and have also made the offense a civil penalty, much the same as a parking ticket.

IIRC, Virginia was the first state to have a pilot program and it was ditched with in 5 years.

[Jim Richards]

DC still has 'em and also speed cameras.

[mattdavis11]

Looks like the Virginia Assembly enacted legislation in 2007 to allow them. They had a pilot program in the mid 90's and deemed the cameras not effective.

We have them here, and it was a sneaky, one line, non germane amendment, very late in the legislative session. No one caught it. Her colleagues were pissed when it went viral.

[IROC]

They installed them in our town a few years ago. They specifically placed them at intersections where people were notorious for running red lights (especially during high-traffic times of the day where people keep shooting through the intersection long after the "left turn green light" goes off because they know people aren't going to ram them intentionally).

At first everyone freaked out and slammed on their brakes whenever a light turned red. Anywhere. It was nuts. After awhile, though, it actually became pleasant at these intersections because - lo and behold - everyone actually started following the rules! Imagine that!! They have been very effective in my town.

They review each one and only actually cite about half of the people getting their picture taken. Tickets are never issued for "right turn on red" violations.

I don't have a problem with them. Speeding cameras, I would have a problem with...

[rbuswell]

This is good stuff. I actually agree that the robo-lights may do some good with red light runners. But the premise that you can fine an inanimate object for a moving violation just doesn't seem to hold water. Maybe it does work under the same theory that allows a municipality to fine a car for parking in the wrong place.

My reason for asking is more personal. My 82 year-old father who is now car-less [I hold POA so I had to do the dirty deed of taking his keys :-( ] got several of them before we confiscated the car. In fact, it was one of the many symptoms that made the decision easier. He won't be driving any more but I still have these hate-mail letters. If someone doesn't pay, what can the city do? I will be selling the car in a different state than my dad lives in so it will go out by a new title, etc. so I don't see how they can really collect. Any horror stories I should know about?

[mossguy]

I'm with Mike on this. Red light means STOP. Why is this such a problem to some?

[IROC]

Originally Posted by rbuswell

Any horror stories I should know about?

I don't have any horror stories, but the "constitutionality" of these things were debated like crazy when ours were first installed and - although I don't remember the exact logic - they were deemed legal and enforceable.

[intakexhaust]

Why is it a problem? The entire program is built on revenue only and its CORRUPT. Check out the Australian company in bed with the usual Chicago con's. They planned the corruption right from the start!

A huge Chicago Tribune investigation into the city's red-light camera program has taken another astonishing turn.


Redflex Holdings Ltd, the parent company of Chicago's ex-red-light camera vendor, acknowledged last week the entire camera program was "likely built on a $2 million bribery scheme," the Tribune reports.


The company also "outlined a series of its own failures and misdeeds involving an alleged bribery scheme the company said was 'apparently proposed' by the former city official who oversaw its contract."


More from the Tribune:


"In a release Sunday to Australian authorities and shareholders, the parent company for Chicago's red-light camera vendor outlined a series of its own failures and misdeeds involving an alleged bribery scheme the company said was 'apparently proposed' by the former city official who oversaw its contract.


"The internal probe was commissioned after disclosures by the Chicago Tribune in October. The findings, many of which first were disclosed in Sunday's newspaper, concluded that Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. paid $2.03 million to the consultant on its Chicago contract with some of the money intended for the city official.


"The then-president and then-executive vice president of the Phoenix-based subsidiary 'had knowledge that would have made any reasonable person highly suspicious that this was a bribery scheme, and they acted improperly in allowing this arrangement to occur,' the Australian parent company, Redflex Holdings Ltd., said in the summary filed with the Australian Securities Exchange.


"The probe also found that the subsidiary falsely told the Tribune and city officials last year that it had thoroughly investigated allegations of wrongdoing after the Tribune obtained a two-year-old whistle-blower letter by a company employee.'"


Even before the Tribune's investigation, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel was heavily criticized for the red-light camera program. Last year, a Crain's poll found many Chicago business owners and managers faulted Mr. Emanuel for handing the red-light-camera contract to Redflex. "A contract for cameras that no one wants or needs . . . so much for transparency," one business owner said to Crain's.


The Tribune notes that the scandal "has cost Redflex its Chicago contract, which provided about 13 percent of the Australian company's annual revenue and has been worth nearly $100 million over its lifetime."


"In addition, Mayor Rahm Emanuel banned Redflex from competing for the city's upcoming speed camera program. Redflex had been considered a top contender, and the scandal delayed the progress of the program, which Emanuel is counting on for revenue in this year's budget," the daily reports.

[intakexhaust]

Redflex President, CFO, and lawyer resign.
Redflex executives resign - Chicago Tribune

[rbuswell]

Originally Posted by mossguy

I'm with Mike on this. Red light means STOP. Why is this such a problem to some?

I guess for the same reason that we shouldn't speed because the sign says 75 MPH. Yet we're Porsche owners :-) . I don't want anyone to think I'm against red lights or speed limit signs. I just think that a moving car has a driver who is in the wrong. The owner of the car is being denied due process and money is being extracted without much recourse or the chance to face the accuser. If it isn't a criminal offense than it is a civil offense (or vice versa). They can't have it both ways IMHO. If it is legal to run the robo-light system then they should not be able to ticket for an offense observed by an LEO. The only difference is the peace officer. Why does the exact same offense suddenly become criminal? Just sayin'.

Originally Posted by IROC

I don't have any horror stories, but the "constitutionality" of these things were debated like crazy when ours were first installed and - although I don't remember the exact logic - they were deemed legal and enforceable.

This is very helpful. Without doing a whole lot of research, I think we can assume that this has been debated in my dad's home state too or they couldn't still run the traps if ruled against.

[Rick Lee]

Redflex runs the cameras in AZ too. The state did away with the hwy. speed cameras, but plenty of cities still use the red light cameras. I don't really mind them, as I never ever run red lights anyway. And my radar detector has a gps with all red light cameras programmed and regular updates. So it tells me when I'm approaching one. My problem is that the fines are considered civil, so your right to face your accuser is out the window and the right-turn-on-red (even the totally legal left-turn-on-red on one-way to way streets) varies by area. Some places won't send a ticket for any kind of right turn on red, others send for them, even if you came to a complete stop before turning. I got flashed in CO Springs last year, because my bumper went over the white stop line when I came to complete stop. I guess they didn't send me a ticket because the second photo showed the car hadn't moved since the first one. But I think it's different in other places.

And I'm particulary chapped about one (speed camera at an intersection) Mrs. Lee got in Scottsdale because the process server blatantly lied on her affadavit, never attempted to serve us, and the judge granted "alternate service," which lets them tape the notice to your front door and then you're considered served and have to repsond.

[GWN7]

Cash Cows. Places that have them say it's all about safety, it isn't, it's all about taxing you. We have combined cameras here. They function as red light and speeding. They also have roving bastartds that sit in a car/suv and take your picture from the park lane on the street.

When the cameras first came out someone went around and unbolted them from their bases (two nuts removed). This allowed anyone to push the camera over and it then smashed to the ground.

[G50]

Originally Posted by mossguy

I'm with Mike on this. Red light means STOP. Why is this such a problem to some?

As stated above, there is a lot of corruption in the system.

Also, they generate a huge amount of tickets on "rolling rights." I.e., not coming to a complete stop on a right turn. So, you roll through a right turn at 1 mph, and it's a $500 ticket.

That's totally bogus. So much so, that many cities wouldn't issue tickets for that silliness.

The camera companies, however, make a % of the tickets. So they inserted provisions in the contracts requiring the police department to issue those tickets! Because not all that many people blow through red lights, but huge numbers don't come to a COMPLETE stop on a right turn.

How dumb is that? A private company dictating what law enforcement has to do? A police dept being contractually obligated to issue a certain # of tickets, thus giving up their ability to use their discretion and judgment in issuing tickets? There is no way that is constitutional.

It is also unconstitutional the way the tickets are issued and served. In California, they just stick the ticket in the mail! Serving by mail isn't enough to guarantee that the defendant has received notice. What if the notice got lost in the mail? Now the defendant has been convicted of a crime, with no notice.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by G50

How dumb is that? A private company dictating what law enforcement has to do? A police dept being contractually obligated to issue a certain # of tickets, thus giving up their ability to use their discretion and judgment in issuing tickets? There is no way that is constitutional.

This is not the way it works here, but my town might be an exception. There is no contractually obligated number of tickets here and the police do review them to the best of my knowledge. For awhile (and they may still do it), they were publishing the number of actual tickets issued vs the number of "violations" in our local paper. It was running less than 50%. It comes out today - I'll check.

Heck, I was driving to work one morning when the roads were slick (slicker than I realized, come to find out). The light turned yellow/red and I was not able to stop in time and basically slid right thru the intersection (and the camera caught me). I didn't get a ticket.

What has happened (regardless of the constitionality of all of this) is these intersections are now much safer. I drive through them every day and they are much better now than they were.

[cairns]

I'm with Mike on this. Red light means STOP. Why is this such a problem to some?

I agree but....in Maryland we have both red light and speeding cameras. The lights are unsynchronized and very frustrating and the yellow light times have been dramatically reduced. The speeding cameras are placed in positions where the speed limit is obviously too low or in positions where one might overcome a posted limit (at the bottom of a hill, for example). It is so bad the cops have been caught giving fingers to the cameras and their union has negotiated a free pass for them. Further, while they've invested all this money in taking money from the citizenry they've failed to use the same technology to make life better for us. Emergency vehicles have no override to change the lights. The same technology could be used to make the light green or red to improve traffic flow (thereby increasing safety) as well as reduce congestion gas consumption and pollution. That isn't happening.

Further, these devices are operated by contractors who receive a percentage of the proceeds. They are incentivized to issue more, not less, tickets and are using every trick in the book to do so. We've seen cars clocked at 50 who were sitting at red lights. Do you remember if you were really going 36 in a 25 two weeks later? No you don't- you just figure they got you and pay the ticket. You're probably trying to remember where you were and where the camera was. Even if you know you weren't at fault how are you going to prove it?

And we still have due process in this country- who's driving the car? You? Or your sister?

There is no doubt these things exist to take $ from the citizenry. Our states and counties have budgeted for the amount expected to be received and those budgets are increasing. It's a government money grab that contributes little, if anything, to overall traffic safety. Where does the money go? To improving our roads, driver education or safety programs? No. It goes to feed an ever increasing bureacracy.

I agree a red light does mean stop. The trouble is drunken, wreckless or inattentive drivers are not going to be affected by a camera. They won't even see them. And no points will go on their records- as long as they pay they can walk away.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by cairns

Further, these devices are operated by contractors who receive a percentage of the proceeds. They are incentivized to issue more, not less, tickets and are using every trick in the book to do so. We've seen cars clocked at 50 who were sitting at red lights. Do you remember if you were really going 36 in a 25 two weeks later? No you don't- you just figure they got you and pay the ticket. You're probably trying to remember where you were and where the camera was. Even if you know you weren't at fault how are you going to prove it?

Oh, they definitely want you to re-offend. I can't remember the last time I was stopped for speeding and the cop told me to slow down. They don't want you to slow down. And in AZ they bribe you to shut up and pay by offering to drop the points if you do the online traffic school (run by the state), for the exact same amount as the fine, instead of paying the fine. Seems to me, if you're really a danger on the road, you should get the points and commensurate insurance hike.

And with a camera, you often don't know they got you until a week or two later. If you're really a speeder, you could rack up multiple tix on the same road on the same day. I know, when I've been pulled over by a live cop, regardless of ticket or warning, I slowed it down for a while thereafter. Camera tix help ensure you'll keep speeding and the state keeps collecting.

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by IROC

What has happened (regardless of the constitionality of all of this) is these intersections are now much safer. I drive through them every day and they are much better now than they were.

Yeah. Actually, there's tons of ways we can make the U.S. a much, much safer place if we're just willing to disregard the Constitution.

We could reduce the crime rate to almost nothing, and easily cut fatal traffic accidents in half, for starters.

[jwgn777]

[COLOR="DarkRed"][B] In NY a study show that it was actually causing some bad accidents you know people try to judge where they are and thinking they might get caught in between yellow and red light so they floor the throttle. One good thing is on intersection that you can make a right turn on red you must stop then proceed other wise the real time camera gets you. People don't stop. There are actually people viewing the video. It's funny there are no traffic cameras around any of the court houses.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by rbuswell

Any horror stories I should know about?

yes, go to the ER and talk to some trauma intake surgeons about the pedestrians who were hit by red light runners

I was lucky when I was hit b/c I was in a Sube Outback when the idiot T-boned me and spun my car 180 deg. I was not injured except for being shaken up a lot and was able to restrain myself from killing her.

The thing to watch out for is if the city puts in the cameras and then SHORTENS the yellow time. I'd fight that. also, a big no on contractors who receive a percentage of the proceeds