Federal judge dismisses suit against city's red-light cameras

I think it is time to write to lawmakers and get a Standard, that Yellow lights on camera lights can not be shorter than other similar Yellow lights. in fact I think they should have to be a second longer. To eliminate doubt..

On the same page as the Chicago Tribune article is a link to a web site selling a spray that you can apply to your license plate that reflects the flash from the Red Light camera causing an over exposed photo. Don't waste your money. The TV show MythBusters did an entire show on this last fall and proved the spray does not work. Also almost every state has laws on the books that prohibit placing anything over the license plates that prevents them from being viewed or photographed. The best thing to do is obey the speed limits and not run red lights.

i have never been through an intersection that has a red light camera, but I have been through several lights were it seems that the yellow light is shorter than others. Is there a standard of how long these light have to be? I was pulled over once and luckly only recieved a warning but I was already across the line where one is supposed to stop for a red light when the light was still green and before I could exit the intersection it was red. I dont understand why some seem longer and some are shorter. Am I the only one that notices this?

Hi, everyone,

In an effort to limit high speed chases, which often end tragically, police in many localities, in most cases, now only have to get the tag number of the vehicle they're pursuing. They then suspend the chase and issue a summons to the registered owner. It then becomes the owners responsibility to either prove he wasn't behind the wheel, or suffer the consequences. These tactics have also been challenged in court and dismissed.

Miki

One more reason to not loan your vehicle to anyone.

isnt democracy great

Personally, I find the concept of Big Brother worrisome at best.

Regards, Ted

So if a city bus driver runs a red light they give themselves a ticket because the driver doesn't own the bus.

On a more serious note, I have said for years traffic lights should have a countdown timer when the light is green that tells you how many seconds you have before it goes to red, especially if they are on a road that has a speed limit of 45 or 55 MPH. Maybe someone else can verify this but it seems that I read somewhere that thay are using such lights in Europe or Japan.

I know in California they have some walk/don't walk signs that countdown the time until the light is going to change. I believe these are meant to help those crossing the street, but is very useful for those driving also. If you know that pedestrians have only a few seconds to cross the street, you also know that the light is about to change to yellow or red. I hope that all of them are changed to this format. Of course this may cut revenue for the city so they probably won't make them standard.

I too, use those count down number as advance warning when a red light will be on.

What will happen if you cross the intersection and suddenly you end in the middle because everyone stopped. Then the light turns red. Will you get a ticket?

Per the California Driver's Handbook;

"Do not enter the intersection if you cannot get completely across before the light turns red. If you block the intersection, you can be cited."

So most likely, you will receive a ticket.

Yes I have Noticed, I will show you the revised code. However it seems like little is done to follow it.

Ohio Revised Code Sec. 4511.090
The time period during which a traffic control signal displays a yellow light or yellow arrow shall conform with the provisions contained in the manual adopted by the department of transportation pursuant to section 4511.093 of the Revised Code governing the time of display of yellow lights and yellow arrows by traffic control signals, and that time period shall not be shorter than the time period prescribed by that manual for intersections that are of the same type or have the same characteristics as the intersection at which the traffic control signal is located.

I know several people in VA that have gotten a ticket for blocking the intersection.

I dont understand that legal jargin. Please translate that for me.

As they should. Just stop at the stop line before entering the intersection if the cars are not moving. If the intersection clears and the light is green, then move through the intersection. If it turns red, you are all set.

I personally (as someone who lives in the Boston area) think there is a special place in hell for people who insist on blocking the intersection so that the cross traffic which now has the green can not move. One of these days I am going to going to go ahead and ram them (when driving my oldest car), pay the extra insurance premium for the next few years, but go "man, that felt good", especially if the person is driving some really expensive late model auto like a BMW or something. It would be worth it!

PT

Let say it is still green and you only see that there is one car in the intersection(let say it is a big intersection). Will you stop because you don't know if it will turn red. Then the car at your back my blow there horn at you.

And? Does it hurt your feelings? Well then, either ignore them or give them the universal sign to let them know that you think they are #1.

Patrick

At what point is enough , enough?
I love my country, but it seems more and more it is no longer my (our) country. We should just change it from "We the people" to "Becauase we say so!"
Ok sorry getting off track here. I have heard rummors of speed cameras now on Randall Rd in St.Charles IL. And I beleive law makers are working on Red Light cameras in Elgin.

If the light is still green and the intersection is blocked I sit and wait til its clear and the person giving me the universal sign saying that I'm #1 can just shove it up his gluteus maximus because I just dont have time for people that are so impatient.

I beg to differ. Photoblocker has been out for years and they vendors know that it works. So they "manipulate" their systems so that it does not work. It's not that difficult to do. It is "their" system after all.

How about this Fox News story out of Denver from 2002 that tested it with the Denver PD.
http://208.65.153.251/watch?v=EJTvrD1cM8E

Or why is Photoblocker illegal in four states if it does not work? Maryland, Illinois, Wash DC, and now California!

http://208.65.153.251/watch?v=nXn4H23FO-8

And then there is this story from last year out of Austin Tx where the news station tested it themselves:

The big question is does it work? We sprayed it on one of our license plates and simulated a traffic camera flash. The reflection blinded our camera leaving nothing but a full screen of white flash.

http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=5324664

There was video with that story, but I guess they archived it.

Either way it goes, PHOTOBLOCKER DOES WORK. Don't believe everything you see on TV.

Actually, Myth Busters tested things to defeat radar guns, not photo cameras. They proved those devices didn't work, but they didn't test things to prevent camera exposure (at least on the show I saw - twice - last fall.

You can either stop and have someone honk at you, or you can chance a ticket. I'm sure the guy honking behind you won't pay your ticket if you get one.

i live in chicago and got one of these tickets and asked how they can prove that i was driving the car and they said they dont need to the car got the ticket but they can not put points on my liscence so that is how they get away with they just want the money gee mayor daily a thief comon!!

Even when they say it's not - It's about the money.
It's ALWAYS about the money!

In Europe, before the dawn of "Photoblocker" there was the good old hairspray.
I the old license plates (before the EU) just a coat of hairspray would do the trick, since speed cameras and red light cameras have been around for much longer in Europe.
When the new EU approved license plates rolled in, there was talk that the new coating on the license plate would not allow hairspray to stick to it properly and it would no longer work. Now, I don't know if it would work on US license plates but, if anyone knows how to test it out, it would be nice.

I saw that one too. But they did test the sprays as well and said it did not work.

Here's a couple of things to point out on that episode that you may not have noticed.

1: the camera they used WAS NOT a speed van camera or red light camera. I don't know what it was, but that wasn't the same thing.

2: they brought in someone from one of the vendors as an "expert" to run the cameras. In all the shows that I have seen, the two guys ran the whole experiment. I have yet to see one, including the one I watched last night, where they brought someone else in.

3: there are cameras everywhere. Why did they not bring in a radar van for the experiment just like the Denver PD did in one of the videos I linked to in the previous post? All they would have to do is drive it to their test area, and turn on a switch. Then see what the photos show or don't show. No need to bring in an "expert" to do that.

There was so many things wrong with that "experiment" for them to honestly say that it was "busted." That experiment in no way simulated the red light camera setup.

I wish I could find the video to the Austin news station that did their own test. What they did is sprayed Photoblocker on a plate. Then they set it in front of a big spot light to duplicate the candle power of the flash on the RLCs (your personal camera flash does not even compare). Then they took several pictures of the plate and guess what??? Nothing but a big white glare of nothing. (Texas plates are white in case you did not know).

So...again...don't believe everything you see on TV. Sooner or later you'll be buying a can for yourself or someone you know.

They have it in their contracts with the cities that if a camera is not getting a certain amount of citations, then the vendor came move it to another location that would.

Mayor Daley of Chicago came right out and said that it was about resolving their budget problems.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/06/661.asp

And they make it as difficult as they can to fight the citations. That is why most cities do the $75-$100 so they hope that you'll just pay it rather than taking the time out to go to city hall to dispute it. And most people do just that.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/14/1418.asp

Fortunately for us here in Texas, as of Sept of 07, we can request a trial by jury if we feel the need.

Find you a spotlight that would match the RLC flash. Then spray your plates with the hairspray. Then take your camera and see what happens.

Watch the Austin News station do their test:
http://www.phantomplate.com/vidpop_kxan.html

But the hairspray will wash off. Photoblocker doesn't.

I wholeheartily agree. It used to be "innocent until proven guilty", now it is "guilty and pay" if I am reading right what the judges are doing.

The whole attitude now seems to be one of gathering money, not trying to be just about it at all.

And the attitude goes further to "point and blame" instead of protect and serve.

Do we really have a big brother any more or is Uncle Sam out to get us now?

Is this the beginning of tyrany?

I believe there is a way the redlight cameras can be used to do what they want, but the way they are going about it doesn't seem fair, just or right.

A NE Tennessee man received a ticket with picture of a SUV with his tag number running a toll booth in NY. He has proof he was here in TN at the time.

The plates here in TN are flat (no raised lettering) and are easy to alter. Instead of paying the fine, he went out and got personal plate which still (for now) have the raised letters.

http://www.tricities.com/tristate/tri/news.apx.-content-arti...

It's crazy. People are getting power mad and the gov't is letting it happen. This guy in NH got arrested and had his car impounded due to a .75 toll that he paid and the vendor did not register correctly. They suspended his license and he was arrested for driving under a suspended license; which I am sure that he did not get a notice of.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2199.asp

thinks that most people ARE guilty of running the red lights, and should pay the fine.

I see so many people running through red lights it is pathetic.

Although $$$ is a factor, I think safety is a factor too.

And I have an unprovable opinion that most people who want to fight paying the fine just don't want to pay the fine, and are just sorry they got caught.

If the car owner's brother borrowed the car and ran a light, the brother can reimburse the car owner, and the owner of the car now knows something more about his/her brother!

the presumption that we are guilty until proven innocent is anathema to the true American way of life. Liberty has a price and if the price is the guy you see running a red light does not get caught so be it. I agree, people should not run red lights but the concept of an oppositional accusatory government is scarier to me. But, then again, I oppose the Nanny State in all of its forms and guises.

Regards, Ted

"guilty until proven innocent is anathema to the true American way of life."

Isn't that the point, that the camera proved the light was run? Now the owner of the car must pay the fine.

"Liberty has a price and if the price is the guy you see running a red light does not get caught so be it."

If the red light camera takes a picture that shows the car running a red light, it was caught, IMHO.

People can always contest it, just as they can tell the judge that the peace officer who wrote the ticket got it wrong, and that the light was yellow, not red.

If the person running a light crashes into you, (or causes you to swerve and hit someone else) is that the price of liberty, too?

Best regards!

You can think that, which is exactly what they want you to do. They could care less. They want your money. There is more than enough information to prove that they have absolutely no safety factor to them at all. How about all of these "independent" studies for starters:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp

City officials and vendors show the one study from the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety which was ran by a man named Richard Retting. Mind you, that the IIHS is funded by INSURANCE COMPANIES, and you will find that Mr Retting was once the transportation manager for the city of New York and was the first to bring the cameras to the US. You can find out more on him by this article:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/00...

Here's the gist of it. The city officials claim that they really want to reduce the side-impact collisions at intersections. Yet a KNOWN side effect of the cameras is a drastic increase of rear-end collisions. This happens in every single city that have installed the cameras. People who normally would cruise through a yellow light, not a red light, are slamming on their brakes in fear of receiving citation. Yet city officials gloss over this phenomena by saying they are "typically less severe than the side-impact collisions." WOW. Let's see...there are one or two T-Bone collisions at this one intersection (yes, one or two per year, if that!) and since the camera has been installed, there is 10 to 20 rear-end collisions per year. Statistically, this is a HUGE increase. The rear-enders still cause damage to the cars, which cause insurance claims, which results in increases in premiums. Not to mention injuries, medical claims, law suits, and...ready...even FATALITIES related to the cameras.

Two journalist killed in Kuwait due to speed camera:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2173.asp

UK Department for Transport statistics show that road deaths have increased where speed cameras are most prevalent.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/05/551.asp

Traffic fatalities in Washington, DC increased eight percent last year as a twenty percent increase in tickets sent overall photo enforcement revenue to new heights.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/09/943.asp

Since then, the total number of accidents at photo enforced locations jumped to 57 compared to 43 in the six months prior to installation -- a 33 percent increase.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2112.asp

I could go on...and on. But I think that I have supplied enough examples to show that the information is out there. And it definitively shows that the CAMERAS DO NOT SAVE LIVES. The thing that ticks me off is that city officials have access to all of this information, and probably have seen it. There have been some responsible ones that have seen this information, and dutifully decided against the cameras.

I hate red light runners as much as the other guys. However, I seldom see someone blatantly run the reds. Most of the time they are pushing the yellows.

The fact of the matter is that driving, especially in the big cities, is a dangerous thing. We have all been in accidents by one reason or another. But the fact is that the cameras are not going to stop the drunk driver (which a majority of the time what the T-bone collisions are caused by), or the unaware driver on their cell phone. Or...the ones that just don't care. Additionally, the cameras have increased my odds tremendously of being rear-ended at an intersection by hundreds of a percent.

Ten people involved in a rear-ender, compared to the two in a T-bone, is that really acceptable to you? It's not to me. An collision is a collision and they all can cause serious injuries; and definitely all cost money.

You are more than entitled to your opinion; as am I. I just think that it is uninformed.

Whew!...stepping down from the soapbox!! Man..when I get on a roll....

I wish we lived in a world of black-n-white. It ain't always so.

The systems are manipulated to catch the most people possible.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1805.asp

Now why don't they just use the stop lines?? More money maybe??

They send tickets out to drivers GUESSING what the last letter of the plate was. Then, when it is clearly a mistake, you cannot just make a phone call, you have to come to the courthouse to make your case to a "hearing officer" which is employed by the city, not a judge. And when I mean a mistake, I'm talking a owner of a car getting sent a citation when the picture of the violator shows a truck!
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/17/1791.asp

That is just one of many examples!

Educate yourself my friend! You too will see the light.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/related.asp?page=1&T=0&S=16&...

Here is the Austin video I mentioned earlier, where the news station performed their own test of Photoblocker.

http://www.phantomplate.com/vidpop_kxan.html

You can test out the hairspray the same way. See if it works.

the real question is what amount of surveillance for the sake of surveillance is a person living in an allegedly free society required to endure. I say none without probable cause. You may want the government capable of snooping into everything you do in public...I want the government to leave me alone, period. Your acceptance of this creeping police state is okay for you now because you are willing to trade this level of privacy for getting people who run red lights off the street...what if I believed we should have surveillance cameras watching to see if some person with a mental disturbance is walking down the street because I believe the mentally disturbed are more inclined to cause street crime...shall we summarily remove them in the name of safety because they stepped into your yard (clearly trespassing) or maybe even spit on your petunia?

My guess is the Founding Fathers' skin would crawl at some of the s*(& we allow to occur in the name of safety...and a false safety at that.

JM2C, of course...

Regards, Ted