Why I hate Red light cameras

I assume it was his vehicle - who was driving?

Maybe they don't work in small towns, but I think in larger cities they actually do some good. I live in Chicago, and you would not believe the number of people who not only ignore yellow but also red, which coupled with our congestion makes for a very dangerous mix. When the red light cameras were installed, it took awhile, but the intersections did eventually lose status as demolition derby intersections. I don't agree with placing them in areas just for revenue, but I can say I have witnessed a positive effect on at least 3 intersections I travel through every weekday. They can have a positive effect.

Other people he let borrow his car.

Shouldn't the people who borrowed his car pay?

Even better, he should have visited http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsticket.htm and used the advice there. Something on that page could have been of use to him.

Thanks for the link, but it wouldn't have helped anyway.

Reread my post. 'twas in past tense.

However, my question still stands. Shouldn't the people who borrowed his car been the ones to pay?

It doesn't matter that your post was in the past tense. If I say, "It wouldn't have helped anyway." There's a reason.

I don't feel like discussing any further details of what I consider a private matter. If all I wanted to share with this discussion board was that my father has paid two red light camera tickets that were not his, that's all I wanted to divulge. Ask as many questions as you want. I'm not required to answer them.

Usually, when someone makes a comment in a thread like this, the natural assumption of others will be that the person is:
1. making a point, or
2. supporting some contention.

If someone is not willing to discuss a comment, perhaps it would better not to comment in the first place.

You asked a question, I answered it. So it shows I was willing to discuss it up to a point. If I don't want to answer any personal questions, that's up to my discretion, is it not? You can't accuse me of not being willing to discuss that particular comment.

I apologize if I upset you. I assumed that you had a point to make when you said that your father had paid two RLC ticket that were not his. I wondered if perhaps you thought that this infringed on some right of your father (although the same thing is true of parking tickets - the civil law almost always is written to make the registered owner of the vehicle liable).

Since it was your father, the person who got one or both of the tickets might have been you - but I assumed that you would have paid them.

Where did you get that idea?

And for whom would it be better for "twix" not to have commented?

I agree. My question to twix was one in which a simple yes or no response was all that was required. I personally didn't care who it was. However, the fact that twix jumped to the defensive tells me that the tickets were more than likely his, and his father paid them.

The entire point I was trying to make was that the car's owner shouldn't have had to pay for the mistakes of the driver, and pointed out the link based on the belief that it was a wrongly issued ticket. Apparently, an incorrect belief.

I've never gotten a red light camera ticket. I didn't realize that in some twisted way I was confessing that the tickets were mine.

No one ever said that you had, did they?

I only wondered if that might be the reason why you made a comment that you were not willing to discuss. In the past, you have discussed and defended your comments vigorously (just like you used the word "twisted" to describe what seemed to me and others to be a possible reason for your refusal to comment further on who got the two RLC tickets). It just seemed odd that this time your previous pattern was not followed.

Enough said.

jgermann, he's referring to my last post, not yours.

Only someone with something to hide would so quickly become so defensive.

Your statement that this is not his normal pattern only adds credence to the preceding. But, I don't think I have to say any more. In fact, I may have said too much. His secret isn't any of our concern and I believe it's derailing the thread.

So...I'm happy I have the camera databases on my unit, because if I'm going to get caught for stopping OVER the stop line (which is VERY common here), and thus being technically IN the intersection when the light turns red, I want a police officer to do it, not a machine.

The camera did not cause the second driver to follow too closely, the driver of the front car was an innocent victim.

If the genuine purpose of the camera is to lower the accident rate then there should be no fine at all and the cameras should be set up to clearly photograph the driver of the vehicle. A summons for the owner of the vehicle to appear in court should be issued a long with the photo. If the owner recognises the person in the photo and it is not the owner then the person in the photo should appear in place of the owner. At the appearance in court the driver should be issued a ticket of a minimum dollar amount and points on their license. It is the points on the license that will become the real deterrent to running the light. If the owner says they do not know the driver then the owner should be issued a large fine and no points. The reason for the large fine is for lying to the court about knowing the driver, no points because it the owner was not driving. I believe that this way the issue of the cameras being in place just as revenue generators goes away and accidents will be reduced because cameras will be placed only at dangerous intersections.

Your idea makes sense because it puts some teeth in the punishment. As a matter of fact, I believe that the country will gravitate toward something like this because of a couple of things.

First, people will become more accepting of Automated Traffic Enforcement as most studies will show that ATE works to improve safety and generate revenue from lawbreakers. Of course, there will be still be towns that go to extremes in generating revenue just like there will again be towns like Bell, California where the city officials line their own pockets.

Second, the steadily increasing use of cellphones while driving - particularly texting - will result in sufficient accidents that citizens will want visual evidence that the person causing the accident was, in fact, on the cellphone. ATE could be expanded to provide such evidence at RLC intersections first. Opponents will hollar, of course, that their privacy is being violated but security cameras are watching them already so this would be a small step.

You're probably right. That's been the trajectory.

It’s just amazing to me that perhaps a significance portion of the population would be supportive of techno-fascism. We already use drones to assassinate people extra-judicially but hey, there’s a war on—a war on terror, a war on drugs, a war on crime, etc. We need more crusades to make the world a safer place.

Like you say, it’s just a matter of time before we implement technology to countereffect the consequences of other introduced technology. Human nature is flawed so it can only be a growth industry.

Introduce the cell phone, grow the market, introduce new laws to mitigate the change, implement surveillance cameras to regulate,…cycle, rinse, repeat.

The problem with your solution is in the remedy of the person appearing who is not the vehicle owner. The summons was issued to the owner. If the owner appears and is not the person in the photograph all they have to state to the court is "Wrong Defendant." The court cannot compel them to implicate another, and if asked by the court if they know the person in the photograph all they have to do is repeat the statement that the wrong defendant is being charged. Do not answer the question if you can identify the person, it may be your spouse and you cannot be compelled to testify against your spouse. It is not the vehicle owner's responsibility to identify an operator, it is the duty of the prosecution to charge the correct party. If the wrong party is charged in a legal setting, the judge has no option but to dismiss the action as the wrong party is being charged.

With the way red light citations are currently handled, it is the responsibility of the vehicle owner as it is the vehicle owner and not the operator being charged with the infraction. That is why they are being handled the same as parking tickets where the owner is responsible for the vehicle and its operation.

In Double Tap's suggestion, the "owner" has a choice. Get the driver to appear and be charged or else the owner would appear and identify the driver or decide to pay the huge fine. I see no problem in wording a law such that this would occur.

The owner cannot be forced to testify against another party. It is the responsibility of the prosecution to bring the correct party into court. The owner can be charged for the ticket, but cannot be fined for refusing to incriminate another party. That's the fallacy, it is coercing testimony.

I am not a lawyer, however if the owner of the vehicle does not name or produce the person in the picture then give the owner a very onerous fine. Just as the owner of a vehicle can be sued and be financially liable if the vehicle is involved in an accident hold them accountable for the red light ticket and fine if they don't name or produce the person in the picture.

Who says that a person can't be forced to testify against another? The only protections are against self-incrimination or privileged communication. If you refuse to testify in court, you can be held (imprisoned and/or fined) in contempt.

You "might have" implied it. And "more than likely" Strephon_Alkhalikoi did too. But since you guys didn't come right out and say it, I guess not?

I was referring to both of yours.

A normal pattern for having a discussion on a message board? And that gives credence, to what exactly?

If anything, you two are over-reacting. No matter what I say, this is what I get.

I'm being accused of

A. being defensive
B. not telling a secret
C. getting red light camera tickets and not paying them
D. having something to hide
E. Not answering a simple yes or no question

All because I stated my father paid two RLC tickets that were not his. I understand it's important to discredit everything I've ever said, because I'm an irrational, emotional, defensive person. Go ahead and draw your own conclusions about me, because you're going to anyway.

I would like to see this thread become more friendly.

Miss POI

Seems like this place is getting alot of mad people for things like this topic. How about turning back to be a GPS forum.

A: You are.
B: I don't care (see E).
C: Whether you did or didn't isn't my concern.
D: You do, based upon how you responded.
E: All you had to do is answer the question "yes" or "no". If you had, that would have been the end of it. So, hold yourself responsible for everything that happened afterward.

This is the end of the line, period. If you want to argue further, do it through my contact page, NOT HERE!

The only reason why I won't continue it further, is out of respect for Miss Poi, not because you're demanding that I do it through your contact page.

Surely, both of you have been around the web way long enough to know that this is the kind of debate that should have moved to Private Messages, yes, through the Contact Page, long ago. It doesn't mean you are required to engage one another there. If one chooses to play there, and the other does not, it ends there. But this ceased to be of general interest many posts ago, I'm pretty sure. Move on, please.

Baltimore thought of this before "jonny5". When RLC's were first introduced in Baltimore, a reporter timed the yellow for RLC intersections and non-RLC intersections. You guessed it, the yellow time for RLC intersections had been reduced - to below federal guidelines. As a result of the reporter's story, the RLC yellow times were increased to what they had been.

Do we actually have that many NON-FAMILY members driving our cars that this is such a frequent issue that it requires such a long debate? Seriously, 99.5% of the time the driver of my car is me. The other .5% it's my wife. I really don't see the value of the finer points of who was driving vs the registered owner. Either way, the fine comes out of the same checking account.

Would you like to pay the fines for all of the vehicles driven by non family members that get caught? I don't think so, and addressing Box Car, you can bet your lungs that a person can be compelled to testify or spend a very long time in the gray bar hotel for contempt of court.

Not necessarily true, here is an example that just happened yesterday Nov. 2nd 2010 (election day).

"A number of hot button issues drew voters to the polls. In Garfield Heights Ohio, 51% of voters chose to ban the traffic cameras."

Now that's how it's done. A grass roots organized petition drive to get the issue on the ballot, and out of the politicians hands.

Power to the people!

all rlc's on the highways are preceded by ample warnings that you are approaching one. Here's what people should do when warned: Slow down! How you can still get ticketed when warned twice in advance in beyond me. Moot now however, since all highway rlc's were reomoved.