Cleveland lawyer finds traffic camera ticket loophole

For those interested,some video on the story:

http://mfile.akamai.com/12938/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2009/0220/18...

You may want to check your the way your local law is written!

Interesting comment. I tend to avoid driving into vicinities know to have a problem, because it's too easy to become a part of that problem just by being there. I can see how these traffic cameras would be a deterrent to shopping and conducting business in these cities.

The same thing happened when cities converted parking lots into stores and office buildings in an attempt to encourage mass transportation. Instead it encouraged the rapid growth of large shopping malls in the suburbs with adequate parking.

OK, so you figure, I rented or leased a car, and I got ticketed in Cleveland for a traffic camera violation, but since I don't own the car, I don't have to pay now, because of this court decision. But this court decision doesn't get the rental car or leasing company off the hook for the ticket, as far as I can tell. So why does it matter? The rental car or leasing company will pay the ticket and then come after you.

The contract you signed before you got the car lets them do that. Rental car contracts are very specific about this, and entitle the rental car company to collect the fine, any penalties or late fees due because you didn't pay, and even the rental car company's costs of collecting the money for any ticket issued to the car while you rented it, even if you weren't the person responsible for getting the ticket. So not only does ignoring the ticket not get you off the hook with the rental car company, but it puts you on the hook for even more money. This court decision wouldn't change that. And I'm sure lease contracts work the same way.

It's been this way for a long time, because long before traffic camera tickets and toll evasion tickets, there were parking tickets that renters would stick the rental car company with. You still have to pay those to the rental company if you don't pay the court. So what's the difference??

Of unequal treatment. The redlight tickets are also a civil matter rather than a criminal offense so that also could have some bearing on the matter... I feel if I get a ticket that I deserve, I should pay it, not try to find a loop hole that gets me out of it... but that's just me.

Also the guy spent mucho dinero getting out of a $100 fine... Was it worth it?

The project appears to be driven by corruption, not safety.

Are these intersections safer?
Are the drivers in these communities safer drivers?
Are the dollars collected improving the community?

Who benefits? What's in it for the average driver? Is this good for my Mom?

Is the issue with red light cameras that they are not accurate, i.e., they capture a picture of a car that has not really run a red light? Or is it something else?

The camera does exactly what it is designed to do, and with precise accuracy. The probability of running a red light undetected is 0%.

The issue is in a electronic device of which capabilities exceed the abilities of the average human to judge the variable speed of their vehicle against the variable distance to the other side of the intersection against a variable length yellow light interval.

Has anyone ever tested Mom's ability to make these judgments on the fly? What is her percentage of success?

Broke the law - knew it - and did the weasel. These people kill, maim and injure far too many for anyone to have sympathy with their cause.

Lots of similar laws make the owner of the vehicle pay 5 times the penalty if the driver can not be identified - good incentive to make the guilty pay.

Don't speed. Don't run red lights. And no excuse for short yellow (if such a thing exists) - learn what a 'dirty green' is and use but don't abuse your faithful GPS!

What is the percentage of success of her kids surviving a T-Bone collision when she runs a red light and a truck makes the green at full speed? Removing the cameras so mommy doesn't have to worry about getting a ticket if she runs a red light while distracted is extremely asinine. "My kids are dead at least I didn't get a ticket for running the light." Give me a break.

You're talking about running a red light. That is clearly wrong, and very dangerous, but a different subject. If there are cars in the intersection then it's a blatant action of running a red light.

I'm talking about running yellow lights. We all run yellow lights. It's impossible not to. It's unsafe to try to prevent running a yellow. That's why we are talking about a possible rear ending problem. Average innocent law abiding people are confused about where safety lies.

There is a period of time when both directions are red. There is a delay for the drivers with a new green light to start out. Then it takes them time to get into the intersection. It's a relatively save process. An intersection where more than 1000 cars pass a day has success rate greater than 99.99% if it gets though one day without an accident.

The math just does not add up here. How many tickets were issued in a day???

If all lights everywhere had 4 way red for a short period, don't you think it would just about eliminate t-bone collisions?
Like I said just a thought.

If they would sync the lights on main roads- then there would be no one running red lights and would reduce accidents. It would also save fuel, vehicle maintenance, reduce traffic and reduce emission.

In an advanced (defensive) driving course I did the instructor told us about "dirty green". Quite simply - if the light has been green for a while - and ANY attentive driver will be aware of how long a light ahead has been green - then it is a "dirty green" and due to change. You have NO excuse for not catching a yellow because you should (MUST) be aware that you might need to stop if the light has been green for a long period. It is in fact quite unreasonable to assume it will stay green!

Gets back to the NUT behind the wheel and should it be there. If the NUT if faulty (has poor attention and judgment) then perhaps it would be better riding a buss and letting a professional make the decisions.

I have three points and a question.

First, I typed that in, not Absolute.
Second, the insult does not enhance your point.
Third, I don't take the time to time green lights. Do you want me off the road, and riding a bus, because I have a proven problem of running dirty green lights? Tough crowd!

In my neighborhood, green lights have different durations. I know this because a few intersections have extremely short green durations, too short in my opinion. The other direction at the same intersection stays green until a car stops at the red side. We have one intersection that is so short you can hardly make it across before it turns yellow.

I can think of three lights which are always red. I make them green so seldom that I don't even try anymore.

In a defensive driving course I took more years ago than I care to admit the term was "Stale Green" referring to a light that had turned green more than 30 seconds earlier. But then that was back in the days when traffic lights were plugged into mechanical timers that had a static cycle requiring a technician to physically go to each intersection and change the gearing in the cycle mechanism.

If your instructor was assuming green lights are on for a fixed amount of time, then that instructor needs to be retrained - and immediately. Modern traffic signal controllers change green cycles based on several different patterns depending on the time of day, the amount of traffic, and probably the one thing you can't control, cross-traffic demand. The best indication you can now get about a light being ready to change is if there is traffic waiting on the cross street or, the pedestrian walk signal has changed from walk to flashing.

I myself, use the pedestrian walk signal has changed from walk to flashing method when possible.

Apologies to plemirande for not quoting correctly.

I do agree - my course was probably the same vintage - makes it tougher to decide if a green is "dirty" or "stale" but the principal still applies - you just get more alert because you can't believe your luck!

Complaints about short time greens? Again - makes it tougher but the principal still applies only you get "snaky" with the traffic people when it goes red early.

In these days of electronics if you have a really short green (or a long red) then that is what they intended OR the thing has a problem. A call to your traffic authority will solve that really quickly.

But most yellow lights are also timed based on the speed limit for the road they are controlling. No, I won't buy the "short yellow" argument either. Baltimore's been really good at shortening the yellows for their red light camera, but IF you're doing the speed limit, it's not a problem.

The bigger issue is that most people think a yellow means they need to speed up to get through the light (usually because they're going too fast to stop in time and they know it). Slam on the brakes so you don't run the light??? No, that's why you're getting in the rear end collisions... It's not just you that's going too fast, but the car behind you as well.

Good point. I forgot about the intelligent lights we have today. They are not perfect, but they work OK. They definitely are more common.

I remember back in the day people would learn the lights and time them.

There are some problems. Some lights will stay red until traffic pulls up and stops. There are magnets in the pavement to detect a vehicle is there.

Two know problems.

First, the placement has to be where the first vehicle is likely to stop. I know of one intersection where it was placed too close to the intersection and cars frequently stop too far back. In that case the whole line will wait for someone to come from the other direction and trigger the light across the street. If no one comes for an hour, you wait for an hour.

Second, some motorcycles are not big enough to trigger the light. In that case, I've heard, the law states a maximum time they are required to wait until they can proceed safely through the red light.

They are called induction loops and a car driving over them will cause a change in the current flow through the change in the magnetic field the loop generates.

That is a problem, but again a call to the authority having jurisdiction - the traffic people - will usually get it corrected. It's a slow process trying to place the blame for the wrong location, and then expensive as the loop must be disconnected, new grooves cut, new wire, new connection and then new testing.

Back when I was riding the trick was to put the kick or side stand down so the stand was on top of either a corner of the loop or a junction.

The "I've heard of ..." defense is a myth and you can and will get ticketed in every state for running the light if caught.

That was the answer I received to the questions: "What is the legal way to handle a light that remains red?" "How long do you have to wait?"

I don't know the length of a yellow light, but if your driving down the road and the yellow lights are timed at 4 seconds, 4 seconds, 4 seconds, 4 seconds, then when you get to the red light camera it's 3 seconds - gotcha, then the person who deployed the lights has created a violation greater than the person who was half a second late in crossing the intersection.

A municipality next to mine announced recently that they're putting in their first red light cameras later this spring. This thread's discussion has made me determined to test the shortened-yellow-to-raise-revenue theory out. I'll go videotape the traffic lights a few times soon and see if the timing of the yellows are consistent. And then a month or two after the cameras go up, I'll go back at the same times and days of the week and tape them again and see if they've shortened the yellows.

It would make a great story in local media if they have.

We are just seeing these cameras pop up in our area. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out!

when you go on the assumption that there is no intent on stoping for the red that you KNOW is coming.

I'm sorry, I don't time lights of any color, I pay constant attention to traffic. I'm a nervous driver. I don't drive through an intersection without looking both ways. I don't start out on a green without looking both ways first.

I have avoided a hand full of accidents because I've seen vehicles pulling out or not stopping. I've avoided deer and debris in the road which other drivers never saw. I don't know where their head was at, but maybe they were timing a light.

Most of the time I know where cares are beside and behind me. When things go wrong, I usually know instantly if I can change lanes or not. I often don't know the color of the light up ahead, I figure I'll deal with that when I get there.

I don't have a problem stopping for red lights, never have, but I may be the type of driver who gets nailed by these red light cameras. According to our expectations, timing the colors of the light is the only thing that matters. If I should get a ticket, I'll be guilty of not paying attention to what now has artificially been deemed important.

It's as if to say, if we can just get everyone to stop for red lights then we only need to look at up at the light as we approach an intersection. It's a dream world, and this artificial importance mandated by cameras and computers is not going to get you there.

There is only one reason for cities to install redlight cameras, revenue. The person driving the car doesn't get the ticket, the owner of the car gets it. The violation doesn't get a bad driver off the street, no points against him. Six year old kids know that red-light means stop so the ticket doesn't teach anything. You aren't even inconvenienced by being stopped to receive the ticket, they'll mail it to you and you can mail in your tax....UHHHH I mean fine.

A police officer can write enough tickets in a day to pay his wages and benefits for the week. Plus receiving a moving violation ticket from a police officer is like getting called to the principle's office. Then, if things are handled right, you lose time from work to go to court and pay a fine and court costs. You might even have to go to traffic school. Those are real incentives for most of us to do it right the first time and stop for the red light.

The second day of writing traffic tickets will pay for the officer's car, car expenses and communication gear for the week. The remaining three days he can spend doing important things.

As long as you sit still for traffic cameras being installed on your city, your fearless leaders will install more of them. They are an income stream with no costs.

Jack j

Duh, this guy himself is the lawyer and he certainly considered money well spent since the publicity.

Jeff

Part of paying attention to traffic is paying attention to the traffic control devices, such as speed limit signs, stop signs and yes, even traffic signals. Timing of the lights should have nothing to do with it at all. Everyone knows that when a light turns yellow it will, within a few seconds (the actual ammount of time is irrelevant,) turn red. If you practice the situational awareness to the extent that it sounds you do, you will know when a light turns yellow and is about to turn red and will stop for the red. That being the case, you would rarely, if ever, have to deal with a red light camera notice.

If you don't pay attention to the light, you're right you will get nailed by the camera. Hopefully you can realize that the "artificial importance" of a red light isn't so artificial. They are there to control control the flow of traffic in an attempt to make an intersection safer, not just because it looks like a good spot to put a couple of yellow or black boxes with a green, yellow and a red light.

There's nothing artificial about someone loosing or nearly loosing a child, parent or friend because someone goes through a red light and has a defense of, "the car in front of / next to me went through so I thought I could make it..." Or is that just what it takes for people to realize the level of importance of REALLY paying attention to traffic and safety devices while driving??