I was asked a question I couldn't answer. If you're in the intersection when the light turns red, does the camera take your picture or the car that enters the intersection after the light turns red?
The red light camera pictures:
1)your car (front view)
2)the face of the driver (you)
3)your license plate
"Violators receive a grace period: cameras will not photograph vehicles entering the intersection until after the signal has been red for 0.3 seconds. The camera first photographs the vehicle as it illegally enters the intersection. The camera takes a second photograph when the vehicle is in the center of the intersection, allowing for a clear photo of the driver." http://www.sfgov.org/site/livablestreets_index.asp?id=14440#...
hope this helps
In Texas the camera is positioned right side of the intersection sidewalk behind of the red light completed with camera, flash etc. It seems that it may not be able to take a picture in the front though as it does not have the same setup in the other side of the intersection.
In NYC it appears from my observation of cars getting snapped near my home, that the camera take one, two or three photos depending upon the model being used, and the camera fires the strobe light only after the vehicle enters an intersection AFTER the light is red. I have seen cars enter on yellow but not photoed even if the light turns red while in the intersection. I pass through approximately 6-8 setups in going to and from work. I have not seen a car photographed for entering on yellow.
On the web page of the Red-Light Camera Enforcement of the city of Chicago,
- The cameras become operational only after the light turns red.
- Cameras do not take pictures of cars already in an intersection, either waiting to turn left or right, or going straight ahead.
And from the same site, this is how it works:
- Digital cameras are tied into the traffic signal system and sensors beneath the pavement. When the light turns red, the system is ready.
- When triggered by a vehicle passing over the sensors above a minimum speed, the cameras take still and video pictures of the rear of a vehicle, including the license plate.
A video of how it works is posted at: http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATT...
None of the cameras in my area take front photo's and I see one of them take a car that was halfway in and out of intersection and had to go because he couldn't back up. But if we are asking this question, the camera operators are not doing a proper job of educating us about them. Of course doing so would not allow then to enhance their revenue stream.
There is an intersection where a camera monitors left turn traffic as well as the speed of through traffic!
Eastbound McDowell RD and Scottsdale RD
Wonder what criteria is applicable here.
I had a picture taken once of a car that I owned. It only took a picture of the back of the car. I had to fill out a form that said I was not driving and the ticket was dropped.
This is based on Kingsport TN Cams others may be different.
The short Answer
The Cam takes a snap shot of the license plate of a vehicle that has passed the white stop line after the light has turned red. So if you are past the white stop line when the light turns red it will take the shot of your lic plate.
Now a little more detail
The cams also take video of the entire intersection all day long - The video shows the vehicle as it approaches the intersection and takes the picture. this information is reviewed by a Kingsport Police Officer before any tickets are issued.
The cams are ticketing the vehicle not the driver - the cam does not take a picture of the driver only the tag. The ticket is mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle -
Note- These are civil fines and do not go on your drivers license - The ticket is issued to the car not the driver- and if your are the owner of the vehicle you are responsible for the fine. Yes even if you were not driving Its your vehicle.
Saw some poor soul get nailed tonight. Courtesy of my GPS I knew where the camera was, so had already stopped well short of the crosswalk. I'll snap a few pics of it tomorrow since Miss POI asked for them.
Aha, just yesterday I stopped at an intersection when the amber light came on, where I knew a red light cam to exist, the car next to me did not. We were headed north, the camera and strobe was on the west side of the road. So, the camera located on the LEFT side of the road took his pic - the strobe flashed and I got my first look at how it worked. The car was in the intersection when the light turned red. It was not red when he entered as best I could tell.
Even with all this info about the camera only taking pictures after the light is red. i am still suspicious.
I have a cover on my license plate so I do not have to worry about it's picture being taken. It works quite well.
Were can i get one please?
jfreed322 wrote: Even with all this info about the camera only taking pictures after the light is red. i am still suspicious.
There has to be some legal definition of when a vehicle is considered to be running a red light. I believe most states define this as the point your front tire is when the light turns red. If you're past the white line that defines the intersection when the light turns red, then you're legally in the intersection. If the light turns red before your front tire crosses the line, then you're liable to get ticketed. Cameras should photograph the view of where your front tire is when the light turns red. Check your local laws to see what's legal for you. It might be different.
I saw a segment of MythBusters that pretty much disproved these devices. How do you know yours works "quite well"? Do you have a model they didn't test?
In Costa Mesa, CA, we have eight red light cameras. They use a sensor that actually calculates the speed of vehicles approaching the intersection. With speed and distance calculations and the exact time of when the yellow goes red the cameras take 30 digital frames of vehicles that are anticipated will enter on a red. The 30 pictures include both front and rear. The cameras get both front and rear license plates, the drivers face and the red light. The photos are first reviewed by a technician that works for the company that owns the red light cameras system. If the technician thinks that it was a red light violation, he forwards the photos to the Costa Mesa Police department. An actual cop has to review the photos. If the cop thinks the photos show a violation then its forwarded to the Orange County Court system. The court mails a ticket to the registered vehicle owner. The ticket will include photos of the vehicle and drivers face. Its about a $400 ticket.
What we really need are supermarket express lane cameras to catch those that are trying to go through with extra items...now that would be a great use of technology!
Apparently in Minnesota, a judge threw out the red light system because it was not taking pics of the driver and therefore, deemed unconstitutional since there was 0 proof of WHO actually committed the red light violation.
I suppose it will only be a matter of time before that get's fixed and they start issuing tickets again....
It always seemed to me that you could just put your arm over your face if you run a red light, and then block the camera from photographing you. Not sure it's very practical (or sensible) but it's a thought...
I've wondered about that also....but there's a part of me that wonders if they keep getting the same car/license plate running red lights and the driver's face is always covered up, then I wonder if they can add recklace endangerment or something more serious than a red light once they figure out who's doing it.
The state of Texas has outlawed license covers of all types to make sure folks do not have plates that wo't show up on camera.
If you have a cover make sure it won't get you a ticket that way.
On the lighter side, just remember, if realize you're in an intersection at a most inappropriate time, you might as well just smile, because you're on Candid Camera...!!!
Covering your license plate in plastic or any other cover in New York State is illegal.
"Covering your license plate in plastic or any other cover in New York State is illegal."
So is speeding and running stop lights, but ppl do it. I guess you have to pick the lesser of two evils (or at least the one that cost less), however, I am not saying that you should intentionally do something illegal.
I am just glad that where I live they take a picture of the back of my car. It makes it very easy to say that I was not driving, and very very hard for they to prove that I was.
Doesn't matter who is driving.
The citation goes to the registered owner of the vehicle regardless of who was driving...the registered owner can get out of paying the ticket by stating who was driving.
Your gramma could be driving your car and you get the ticket. If you want gramma to pay you have to give her name to the law.
As long as I'm here, why would anybody want or have to use something to cover up a license plate. Can a cop give you a ticket for an unlawful covering on a license plate..probably, do you pay the fine and leave the covering on? Or pay the "stupid" tax and follow the rules? If you (or I) drive thru a redlight...we deserve the ticket. If you drive thru because of not paying attention, you deserve a ticket. I don't care how you are caught. Would I prefer a live cop at every intersection? Sure, but that's a bit ridiculous. We all just need to be a little bit more responsible. We speed, get caught, we pay the fine, same with redlights. Cities and States making money, you bet. I'm going to do my part and not be a contributor.
Thankfully, I think the majority of redlight runners get away with no incidents, only close calls, or minor accidents, because the rest of us are driving defensively watching out for their butts. Worried about getting "snapped" when making a right turn on a red..(I know you came to a complete stop)..nothing says you have to turn right on a red..just that you can.
Then there are the ones that blow thru a redlight splitting the car they T-bone into two pieces and killing an off duty firefighter that just got off duty and was on his way home to his wife and baby.
Would a camera have prevented this? Of course not.
But this may not have been the very first redlight this driver blew thru either. Perhaps if he was ticketed previously by being caught by a camera he wouldn't have run this light...who knows.
Yes, this recently happened to a North Texas firefighter.
Just my two ¢ and let your conscience be your guide, I'll be watching.
Here in Connecticut, we had a firefighter killed by someone that ran a red light. Here's the kicker...
The collided with another fire engine responding to the SAME scene. Not that a red light camera would have prevented that, though.
You can't win...in Ohio, you can watch your own video of running the red light along w/ colored printouts mailed to home. (back of your car). I've only gotten this once (never even heard of red light camera before this)...bad luck... light turned red a split second before my front bumper past the white line. You can fight it if your bumper past the white line (at the light) & its still YELLOW.
In Arizona the ticket is mailed to the registered owner of the car, but if someone else is driving the car, you just mail in a photocopy of your driver license and say, "see, it isn't me!" The ticket and photo that is sent to you asks you to identify the person in the photo, but you are under no obligation to help the police in their investigation. When you prove that it isn't you, the ticket is dropped.
Because of this, I have the car I usually drive registered in my wife's name only, and the one my wife drives in her name only. If we ever get a photo radar or red light ticket, we can send in our photocopy of our driver license and say "see, it wasn't me!" For all practical purposes, they usually won't send a ticket if the person in the photo is obviously of a different sex from that of the registered owner of the vehicle.
And as far as how they work in Scottsdale, ALL of the cameras are capable of detecting speed, including the redlight cameras. It is not unusual here for a red light runner to get a speeding ticket at the same time. Double Whammy!
It also varies from state to state as far as where and what part of the vehicle needs to pass what point in the intersection before the light turns red. In AZ, the front wheels, not the front bumper is the part of the vehicle, and the line is an imaginary line that runs "from curb to curb." The white paint on the pavement designating the crosswalk is NOT the point you have to cross. It is much further into the intersection, and in intersections with red light cameras it is designated by a thin red stripe, which shows up quite well in the photo they send you.
You can see the red line I'm talking about in this Google map (http://tinyurl.com/39nmm6) of an intersection in Scottsdale at Scottsdale Rd and Shea Blvd. It's in the upper left corner of the intersection, and is lined up with the outside edge of the sidewalks on the North side of the street. I suspect that many other states use this standard, rather than the crosswalk paint to determine whether you get a red light ticket or not.
I can't speak for any agency in CA other than what I got straight from a Ventura PD employee. When they get a violation they compare the picture with the DMV photo of the registered owner and if they look the same they send the ticket. Ventura PD won't stop at the red light violation though. If they see in the picture that you don't have your seatbelt on they will add that to your cite as well.
Also, if you work for a law enforcement agency in CA your registration (if you did the paperwork) won't have your address, just the name of the agency you work for. When VPD gets one of these they don't send you a ticket, they send notification to your agency to handle as they see fit. And no, despite what you see on TV, most agencies won't just toss this in the trash and laugh with you. It will probably go into your jacket and could effect your next evaluation, since driving is a big part of an officers job.
This may have been discussed somewhere else here before, but there are other violation cameras out there also. In the SF Bay area toll roads will take a picture of your vehicle goes through a toll booth without paying. As I understand it, at least one of these agencies uses a system of "automatic plate recognition" to get the license and quite possibly no real person ever looks at the picture.
I got a call from an elderly lady in Ventura County asking for help with some tickets she had received from them She said that she had never been in that area in her life and yet she had received three tickets for running toll booths there. In each case the picture was included and the plate that was "read" by the machine was a "paper plate" from the dealership that sold the car, and the dealer name was large enough that it was read as a license plate and the dealer name just happened to match my callers personalized plate.
Only SPEED cameras get you from the front. Which, by the way, were outlawed in Texas as of Sept 1 of this year. The red light cameras take a picture of your rear plates once you cross the "the line." I put it this way because cities go an redefine what an "intersection" is.
According to Texas statute, when approaching an lighted intersection you stop:
a) behind the white stop line
b) if no line is present, stop behind the cross-walk
c) if no cross-walk is present, you stop behind the end of the curb.
Cities that decide to use the photo-enforcement systems define the intersection as "curb to curb." Period. Regardless of a stop line or crosswalk, if there is a camera in that intersection you must pass the curb in order to be even remotely safe from the cameras. In DFW, you will typically see this "line" marked by a dotted line from the end of the curb, if there is not already a line at that point.
Additionally, the "lag time" before the cameras take your picture is just for publicity. A California audit showed that over 70% of "violators" were ticketed in the first 1/10 of a second. This "lag time" is adjustable in their systems but would rarely be over 3/10 of a second. Two tenths of a second equates to hundreds of thousands in revenue for the cities, and the vendors.
The photos are first reviewed by a technician that works for the company that owns the red light cameras system. If the technician thinks that it was a red light violation, he forwards the photos to the Costa Mesa Police department. An actual cop has to review the photos. If the cop thinks the photos show a violation then its forwarded to the Orange County Court system.
If you believe that, I have some beachfront property here in Dallas for you. The violation never gets to an officer. I'll try to find the articles I read where they got busted for this. They have an "electronic signature" system for approving the violations. The vendor handles it all! They just click an "approved" button which signs it with teh officers signature and off to the mail with it. They just rely on you either not knowing your rights with these, or moreso that you just don't want to bother fighting it. A majority of the other states, like Texas, don't put it on your license and they just cost $75. Most people just will pay it rather than deal with the hassle. Me...$400 and points on the license is a bit much for me to just roll over on.
Oh..and by the way... you know that the vendors also pay for the installation and maintenance of the systems right? The cities are not out ONE DIME. EVER. If the citations don't cover the "monthly costs" then the vendors eat the difference and try to make it up on the next month's bill.
They'll still send you the ticket and just assume that the registered owner is driving.
This is part of the problem with cities making a criminal matter into a civil one. And that is why it is a civil one so that they do not have to worry as much about "proof" of the violator. They ticket the vehicle instead of the driver. I am not a lawyer, but I guess that the "burden of proof" is not as critical in a civil issue.
Again, this is why now they are doing $75 citations and no points/insurance. This way drivers are more likely to pay it and go about their day.
My brother was helping me move a few years back and drove my car while I was driving the U-Haul. On Queens Boulevard, he blew a red and I got a ticket in the mail a few weeks later. The letter was actually from the New York City Department of Finance. It showed the before and after frames of my car moving through the intersection while the light was red, and a third frame digitally zoomed in to show my license plate. Yes, they can care less about who is driving, they just want to generate revenue.
In maryland it shoots you from behind. Two shots of the vehicle, and one of the license plate. Time and speed is calculated based on the distance you travel over a period of time.
The easy solution to all the above questions and answers is DON'T RUN THE RED LIGHT.....
It's not even about the revenue. It's about saving a life, maybe yours, your family, my family, me, or a friend of yours.
Quackinup, your right...
I dont know if any of you have had this happen before or not but it becomes one very expensive photo of your car. Not worth it!!! ha ha
i am also from CT. do you have or know where the POI for cop radar locations are?
Basically i am looking for something that will let me know where the cops are looking for people that are speeding.
I can't speak for other cities, but here in Council Bluffs IA, I wish this was the motivation for the city to have red light cameras. They are certainly most emphatic about saying it's a safety issue, but several facts say otherwise, most obviously is the fact that accidents at camera intersections have increased since the cameras were put in place. I'm nearly rear-ended at least once a week stopping at camera intersections, and have frequently almost rear-ended people in front of me who come to a screeching halt as soon as the "don't walk" starts to flash. Then there's the fact that in spite of witnessing several red light violations a day, every day, I have never once seen one ticketed by an officer. And the area with the most observable and blatant red light violations didn't get cameras because it's also the most concentrated area of retail and restaurants in the city! If they want them for revenue, fine. Just be honest about it instead of putting on this ridiculously transparent charade about it being a safety issue!!
OK, rant mode off I've downloaded the red light POI file but haven't had a chance to upload it and try it out! Of course I know where all the lights are here anyway, but even though I've been especially careful about all red lights (even non-camera) since the cams went in, it will certainly be nice to have some additional warning when traveling in unfamiliar places.
Yep, I saw that one, too. They were specifically testing devices or methods that prevented Radar detection and as you said, none of them worked. But they didn't test anything that could prevent you from being "optically" caught. It may seem like semantics, but I don't think so. I'd like to see them test that as well.
I like when they take on the various devices on the market that's suppose to help you in this way or that. I just saw the episode where they destroyed all of the common fuel economy aids like magnets, the 300 mpg carb, and paint thinner. They don't always have the most scientific approach, but there methods are probably more like what you and I would use (unless you happen to be a scientist, of course).
....and you have to remember that a big portion of this show is entertainment. They do things on this show many times that provides the most "bang" and "excitement" level they can muster. It's good for ratings.
terms | privacy | contactCopyright © 2006-2016