Crossed the White Line at a Red Light Camera Intersection and Stopped

I've had that happen to me a couple of times. Approached the red light and quickly stopped before crossing the line and entering the intersection. Saw the camera flash in my rear view mirror. Sat stopped and slowly counted to 6 before making my right. Never got a ticket.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

I don't understand how such unpopular cameras even exist.

I'd imagine a politician running on a "no camera" platform would win in every state.

I wish there were more of them, would help prevent/deter the idiots out there from speeding and running red lights. I just wish they were linked to an automatic machine gun ...

in Washington state in some towns crossing the white before coming to a complete stop will get you a ticket in others you can go into the crosswalk and not get a ticket. its not right but that's the way some of the cameras are set up, ive seen cars take a rollingslow free right without stopping and no flash. so I guess you just have to learn which cameras on what corners do what . but if you get into the habit of stopping before the white you don't have any problems .

The white line is not just there for pedestrians. It is also there to allow larger vehicles to make a turn easier. There have been times where I have been driving a motercoach where I was trying to make a right hand turn and there was a car stopped more than a car length past the white line. It made it impossible for me to make the turn so I just had to sit there at a green light and wait until the idiot had a chance to go. At the next light change there was another car past the white line blocking my way. People need to understand that the lines are there for a reason.

Do the red light cameras monitor vehicles passing from their side only or from opposite side as well?

All the ones I know of monitor one direction only.

Thanks for your feedback. So it means these cameras don't work on the opposite side traffic.

The white line gives the police a point to measure from to see how far the pedestrian was thrown.

And I thought that they were keeping the stop ling back so I could see vehicles coming from the left while still stopped behind the stop line (38.963135 -76.939089 or https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B057'47.3%22N+76%C2%B056'20.7%22W/@38.9629791,-76.9394835,133m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0). Actually giving a motorist an extra 5' of visibility in the right hand lane for making Right on Red turns would probably help prevent motorists from stopping past the stop line when making turns on red.
Mark

I always do that no problem

the law is the law - and it is not local it is a state function.
Bottom line, go to the library and read the DOT section u r charged with violating.

This is what I read a long time ago and I believe is used universally

When the light is green, proceed thru the intersection.
When the light is yellow come to a stop and wait for the light to turn green again UNLESS IT IS UNSAFE TO DO SO.
When the light is red do not enter the intersection.

Which means if u r in the intersection when the light turns red u may continue thru the intersection - IE don't stop in the middle of the intersection.
It also says that if YOU determine it is unsafe to stop when the light is yellow u can continue - as long as u r in the intersection (defined by ur front wheels being over the line-and not the one for the xwalk) when the light turns red.

In Maryland it would be illegal for you to use your horn in those circumstances, unless it was a safety issue.
From the Maryland Code: "(b) When to be used.- The driver of a motor vehicle shall, when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation, give audible warning with his horn, but may not otherwise use the horn when on a highway."
Mark

In Maryland it's illegal to breath, unless of course you pay a tax or "fee".

Considering Md. Figured out a way to tax you on the amount of rain that lands on your land... I'm not really all that surprised!

If before or after the line they still get you. WAit for the ticket to come in the mail go the web site and it will show what ever if she is in fault or not. Good luck

A Google search of the phrase "stop at stop line" produced many cartoons of vehicles stopped at the stop line. Virtually all had the car stopped before the car's bumper was over the white line. I suspect that the letter of the law is that you need to stop before your bumper crosses the line. I also suspect that you wouldn't normally get a ticket unless you are way over the line.
Mark

The purpose was supposed to be safety - as in reducing car crashes.

In that spirit, if your car did not enter the intersection, then no cars could crash into you (or you into them).

However, we all suspect safety cameras are really cash-cow cameras.

Now we also have stop sign cameras. My sister once got a ticket for not coming to a 100% complete stop at a stop sign equipped with a camera. They also require you to stop at the painted stop line or a ticket is issued.

I wonder if these have saved any lives?

It probably depends on the municipality on weather or not a ticket would be issued. However, often in my area there is a white line BEFORE the white lines denoting the cross walk where one is supposed to stop to give space for people in the cross walk.

Before NJ removed the cameras in a family members area they had been tagged twice for running red lights. Both times they didn't come to a complete stop. In their case they were sent a ticket that had a link to not only pictures but video of their infraction. I think, as other mentioned, the pictures/video from the camera is reviewed by a police officer prior to the infraction being issued to the motorist.

I have a friend that got a ticket for stopping just past the white line, then proceeded to turn right. If he stopped before the line he could not see if there was traffic coming his way from the left. It seems silly to stop before the white line and then move up so you can see traffic. He now just stops before the white line and stays until the light turns green, no matter how many cars behind him are honking. He says he has had enough of exorbitant tickts (taxes) and will no longer play the game.

I don't know about other states but Florida statutes specifically say you have to stop behind the line and then ease up until you can see.

If you've been pinged with a red-light or speed camera ticket since 2003, you could soon be owed a refund. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, a ruling out of the Cook County Circuit Court on Friday found that Chicago denied due process to motorists who were ticketed by the automated cameras, and that those tickets are now void.

If upheld, the decision would be a near critical blow to the controversial program that's cost Chicagoans millions of dollars over the past decade. It isn't the first time the city's gotten into hot water over the way it's handled the red-light and speed camera programs. Last year, Mayor Rahm Emanuel's office sued the city's former red-light camera operator, claiming the whole program stemmed from a bribery scandal under Mayor Richard M. Daley's administration. An investigation by the Tribune also found that the city was guilty of shortening yellow light times at red light camera intersections.

All told, the program has been a mess since it launched, and Friday's court case could be a near-knockout blow. The Sun-Times reports that the plaintiffs' lawyer is going to request a class action lawsuit for motorists who were unjustly ticketed since the red light cameras first launched. They're also seeking an injunction that would temporarily stop the city from enforcing outstanding red light and speed camera tickets.

This comes at a time when the city is strapped for cash and desperate for revenue to pay off massive, state-mandated pensions that it's on the hook for. But it looks like this gravy train could be coming to a screeching halt.

WOW..

Tell me it ain't so Joe!!

We'll starve to death I tells ya' we'll starve!

Stuff to consider.

The red light camera program has been abandoned in many cities because it violates certain laws and is known to have been used to generate income.

The RLC and Speed camera program in Baltimore made national news a couple of years ago. Yellow lights that lasted 0.5 seconds.... speed cameras giving out tickets for cars that were PARKED on the side of the street and more.

It's shut down now, but they are trying to get the program up and running as it made them tons of money.

WOW!

In Florida, they also capture video. In theory, they asses this before deciding on issuing a ticket or not. I'm not sure if it is the same in other states.

I received a camera ticket and they have a link where you can view the video online as part of paying/disputing the ticket.

The remark about both axles having to cross the white line is wrong.

The law is broken if the vehicle enters the intersection (crosses the white line, if present) when the light is red. It is like a touchdown in football. If you break the plane, you're in.

If you enter the intersection when the light is green or yellow, and it changes to red while you are in the intersection, you have not disobeyed the red light. Actually, you are then supposed to continue through the intersection to get out of the intersection, even if the light is red. A valid defense would be that it was unsafe to clear the intersection.

The flashes are set to go off in anticipation of an impending violation, because if they didn't, they'd miss some violations. For example, a vehicle approaching the intersection at a high rate of speed can trigger a flash. If the vehicle stops before the white line, there is no red light violation, flash or no flash.

It's not like a touchdown in football. My buddy emailed me his violation. The first car went right through a red light. No flash. He followed, flash flash. There is a grace period and violations are reviewed by humans.

The technology works, plain and simple. We don't need to make it overly dramatic. there are so many cams now for every situation in life, when our children get to be our age, it will be harder and harder to lie.

While the other 94% need their vehicles taken from them... this way, us 1%'ers can drive around without any more problems.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

That's a real good information to be aware of. How do you know this by the way?

Up until July I worked for a newspaper here in central Florida. We did numerous stories over the years on these red light cameras. They are indeed reviewed by officers who make the final decision on whether someone ran the light or simply stopped over the line etc. In the beginning it wasn't that way, but it has been for a number of years now.

The first time, I said to myself, I never thought of that.

At a particular intersection, there are folks who do not wait their turn to make a left turn, and so they go up the middle, and cut in, and make the left.

This action pi****** off a soccer mom in an Infinity SUV, so she (like many commercial vehicles and tow vehicles) went over the double yellow, and through the intersection, seconds after red. I am 80% certain that means no ticket. There was no flash.

The technology does it's job, and that is to take digital pics, and video, when a car proceeds through the intersection, over the line, at x ms after the light has turned red. Its job is not to take a pic and video, if cars go onto the other side of the road, and proceed through the intersection, after the light has turned red.

So in reality, it cannot take the place of LE. But understood, LE has greater matters of consequence to attend to.

I'm trying to figure out why this is a Garmin discussion topic? How was Garmin involved?

Personally, I think if you go, not call, and ask this question directly, it would be perceived as a show of good faith that, "she did not want to break the law". BTW, a traffic judge in STL gave me that phrase.

If she explains that once she was into the crosswalk, that backing up was not an option since other cars snug up tightly behind you. She, or you, can point out that as soon as she realized that the light was changing, she stopped as quickly as safely possible, and not get rear ended.

Asking the question will NOT generate a ticket. I just might cause the review of what happened to be more sympathetic. If she did not break the law, you will also learn the policy.

You've got nothing to loose but the anxiety that you have while you "wait for the "other shoe to drop", so to speak.

there is an element who absolutely refuses to acknowledge that stopping at a red light isn't that difficult. Even a 15 y.o. can do it.

For kicks, I recorded from our dash, using a camcorder. HD video, but shows 1/3 of the dash on the lower part of the frame. (not quite ready to go the dash cam front and rear route just yet)

Anyway, going through various intersections in Manhattan, incl. one where I counted down with the indicator at the crosswalk, there is absolutely no way, no how, that a person could get confused on whether to stop, or go. Anyone who is confused, is not supposed to be driving. And the video is absolutely irrefutable as far as whether a vehicle was behind the line on red, or it wasn't.

I haven seen camera flashes for no apparent reason. Anyone know why?

often the paparazzi

Since this is the Garmin forum, just respond to any tickets that you were using a Garmin device and be on your way.

To prove a violation there must be at least 2 photos. One showing the vehicle behind the white line and the light red, and one showing the vehicle in the middle of the intersection and the light still red. The time sequence must match also.
OTHERWISE, it is not a violation.
Behind line and light green or yellow, then in the intersection and light red is NOT a violation.
Behind the line and the light is red and over the line with the light red is not a violation.
Normally 3 photos are taken
- point at which light turns red. The car must be behind the white line.
- short time later showing car in middle of intersection
- another short time later showing car leaving intersection.

Proof can be #1 and either 2 and/or 3.

FedEx trucks do this all day long, making rights on red. Obviously, they drive for a living, they know what they're doing.

Again, it's like going to a store today. Your entire movement is tracked and recorded in 1080p from the moment you enter, until you leave. No different than people working in an office, a warehouse, wherever. Nothing to worry about. I suspect that even if you are a thief, you can even leave the store with stolen items. It's just that upon review, if there is one, there's going to be a permanent record of what you did. In this case, there is a permanent record of you making a legal right on red. To illustrate how absurd, there are some who feel your rights have been violated!

I see this more and more. Drivers seem to be afraid of being too close to the white line. They approach the red light and leave space (sometimes a whole car length) in front of them, similar to your story. Why do they do this? It makes no sense and affects traffic flow. It also delays movement when there is a trigger, such as a left turn arrow or for green light.

of a belief that traffic controls are necessary is where there are meters on on ramps. It is so stupid, that when traffic is flowing, that cars are forced to come to a complete stop, before merging. It's far safer to merge while accelerating, than to come to a complete stop and try to get up to 55 mph. But they are there for a reason, because people cannot merge otherwise. It's childlike, when you compare NYC, to Phila. You go, no, you go, no, I'll go, no, you go, no, let's all just sit here. When you see it in real life, one has to scratch their head and realize, this is why, when a 16 y.o. is added to their parents policy, even if they don't have their own car, it's $2,500, more than the entire policy with mom and dad. But, there seems to be an assumption, that every 5 years the driver gets better and poses less risk. This may not be the case. There are plenty of 40 y.o. people who do not know how to drive....my .02

perhaps the reason behind the uncertainty is that all of the folks on the thread are honest folks who do stop at red lights, and have never gotten a violation nor seen one. Video is really pretty clear--think about when instant replay is used in the NHL or NFL, it's very rare that there are two sides to what really happened.

Again, in the 7+ years that I have been here, this rlc debate has raged on, yet not a single person, not one, has ever emerged stating they wrongfully were issued a summons, and provided proof that it was wrong (the video, the summons itself). The technology works, plain and simple. Usually people who get caught, will provide proof that they were in fact behind the stop line when the light turned red, and that they were wrongfully issued a ticket, because the light suddenly turned red when it shouldn't have, and was manipulated. Far fetched...

Many of the arguments in opposition to speed and red light cameras have nothing to do with actual violation of traffic laws.

Instead, people complain that the cameras are a "cash grab" and have nothing to do with safety or altering driver behavior. Of course, that position ignores the fact that the cameras only grab cash from people who are breaking a law.

They also argue that automated enforcement violates "due process", because the ticket is issued to the owner of the vehicle and not necessarily the driver of the vehicle. Alternatively, people will claim they do not have the ability to "face their accuser" because the ticket is based on a photo rather than a personal observation of an enforcement officer. I believe this is a misinterpretation of the basic procedures of law. Legal processes for public safety (traffic) laws are less stringent than those under criminal law.

The one argument against camera tickets that might be valid is that agencies issuing tickets must adhere to the requirements of administrative process. Essentially, the municipality cannot take administrative short cuts, like having a duly appointed "enforcement officer" review and approve tickets rather than a camera company employee. This is the point of law that results in judges overturning large quantities of traffic tickets. Of course, if a municipality expects drivers to obey the letter of the law, these agencies must comply to requirements that apply to them!

Personally, I agree with your position "the technology works". I have been issued three camera tickets over the years, and have been dutifully upset. But I was upset with myself, not the fact that I was "caught" on camera.

The technology works..... when the cam operators set up the enforcement arguments properly.

Shortening times for green -> yellow and yellow -> red light transition times (likely rare but apparently it's been done more than once) cause otherwise law abiding drivers to receive tickets they would have not otherwise received.

What the technology and the tickets don't seem capable of doing is assigning moving points to the appropriate offenders, and this becomes one place where the technology and the law goes to pieces that helps the observation cameras are a "CASH GRAB" instead of safety item.

The person who's car gets say 40 red-light tickets and 20 speed cam tickets only pays fines. However, if that same person received traffic citations from an officer, those would be moving violations and if the DMV, MVA or other drivers licensing entity followed their rules, that person's license would likely be suspended or revoked. Cams' just can't do that.

My single biggest complaint about citations for RLC & Speed Cmas' is, the monitory penalty isn't high enough.

If the cost of getting a RLC or Speed-Cam ticket were say $40 for the first one in any 3 years, $300 for the second one in any of the same 3 years, and $500 for the third and more in the same 3 years, then I'd think the "safety Cams" were intended to promote safety as repeat offenders would certainly feel the financial pain and be more likely to modify their behavior accordingly.

But, that's just where I sit on these issues..