Red Light Camera Citation/Ticket - Would you appeal this?? (Knoxville: rental car, rental)

[as3369]

Depending on the private vendor, the normal practice is to take two still pictures: an "A" shot that shows the vehicle position behind the crosswalk lines and the "B" shot which shows the vehicle's position and speed at a certain time during the red light cycle. If the position "A" shot shows the vehicle past the crosswalk (into the intersection) and the light is either green or yellow, then you can challenge the violation. The video loop is usually a 12 second cycle. Factors that are considered include funeral procession, emergency vehicles in the area, manual traffic direction (school crossing guards, police, etc).

There are sensors that "anticipate" that a vehicle will violate the traffic signal based upon speed and light cycle. The videos are later reviewed to determine if there is a violation prior to sending out a notice.

Hope this helps!

[NJDevil]

Finally discovered how they get away with it. The camera citations are not tickets, they are considered fines. That's why it doesn't go on your record. Some of you may have figured that out but we didn't....

[kkompton]

I have also received a photo ticket from the same intersection and was wondering who reviews the video. The photo has an officers name on it but is not signed, is the ticket able to be dismissed?

[Max4Speed]

Whatever happened to the OP who started this? Did he ever get anywhere?

I personally think that money maker these might be but they DEF help reduce wrecks. I see idiots running red lights all day and always wish they had cameras on EACH and EVERY traffic light.

These pictures are reviewed by an officer and they decide if there was a violation or not.

For example - if you make a right on a right light after coming to a complete stop, the camera MIGHT go off but you WILL NOT get a ticket. Neat stuff I must admit.

[TennPing]

Redflex is a unit of Redflex Holding Systems based in South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

[robnktown]

My honest opinion is that these are just a revenue generator.I think the courts don't expect you to contest it but think if everyone that got a ticket for general speeding,etc citations/vioations would go to court and bog down the courts with these as the courts are already a castastrophe in backlog cases,etc things would change but that won't happen.Anyway,who you think the judge would rule in favor of yours or the officer/picture?My opinion!

[Barking Spider]

We can really show those so and so's a thing or two. Lets just all quit running the red lights and keep the revenue stream from flowing.

Not sure, but I imagine there are not a whole lot of tickets issued for people that DO NOT run the red lights.

[mbmouse]

Originally Posted by Barking Spider

We can really show those so and so's a thing or two. Lets just all quit running the red lights and keep the revenue stream from flowing.

Not sure, but I imagine there are not a whole lot of tickets issued for people that DO NOT run the red lights.

On one hand, I TOTALY agree with you. On the other, they are not just generating revenue for the cities that have them, but the insurance companies that cover drivers in those cities.They are also creating panic of getting a fine and causeing more accidents. For example, my step son got in an accident last night. He is fine. Here is what happens and has been happening a lot in cities that have these cameras. He was traveling in a line of traffic. About 15 cars up, there was a traffic light, it turned yellow, the person that was 6 or so feet from the white line slamed on thier breaks on the yellow. Well, all 15 to 20 cars that are behind that person also has to slam on thier breaks. My son was able to avoid the car in front of him, but the driver behind him wasn't so lucky....smacked into the back of him, totaled the car. Bent the frame of both cars. The driver at the light??? Well of course they and their car are fine and went on probably oblivious to the accident and two lives that they changed behind them several cars back. Now my son has to deal with the insurance company of the driver that hit him and her insurance just went up I am sure.
I will put money on the fact that if there was no camera there, that driver would have went through the yellow and everyone behind them would have had the appropriate time to slow down and stop for the light, no damage.

[treyver]

A ruling of the Seventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, affirming the constitutionality of red-light photo-enforcement programs, effectively settles the issue of the constitutionality of photo-enforcement programs.

The ruling (No. 08-1363 decided January 5, 2009) -— authored by the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Frank H. Easterbrook — is a ground-breaking decision on photo enforcement programs with national implications.

The Seventh Circuit held that issuing citations to vehicle owners (or lessees) without any evidence of who was actually driving the vehicle at the time of the traffic violation is constitutionally permissible.

“Is it rational to fine the owner rather than the driver? Certainly so,” Chief Judge Easterbrook wrote in the Court’s ruling. “A camera can show reliably which cars and trucks go through red lights but is less likely to show who was driving. That would make it easy for owners to point the finger at friends or children -— and essentially impossible for the City to prove otherwise. A system of photographic evidence reduces the costs of law enforcement and increases the proportion of all traffic offenses that are detected; these benefits can be achieved only if the owner is held responsible,” the Court stated.

The Court also found that imposing a fine on the owner of the vehicle rather than the driver not only “improves compliance with traffic laws” but has the additional benefit of encouraging owners to take greater care in lending their cars. “Owners will take more care when lending their cars and often they can pass the expense on to the real wrongdoer,” according to the Court.

The Court also addressed the issue of revenues derived from photo traffic enforcement systems. “That the City’s system raises revenues does not condemn it,” according to the Court. “Taxes, whether on liquor or on running red lights, are valid municipal endeavors. Like any other exaction, a fine does more than raise revenue: It also discourages the taxed activity. A system that simultaneously raises money and improves compliance with traffic laws has much to recommend it and cannot be called unconstitutionally whimsical.”

[hiknapster]

Originally Posted by treyver

The Seventh Circuit held that issuing citations to vehicle owners (or lessees) without any evidence of who was actually driving the vehicle at the time of the traffic violation is constitutionally permissible.

The Court also found that imposing a fine on the owner of the vehicle rather than the driver not only “improves compliance with traffic laws” but has the additional benefit of encouraging owners to take greater care in lending their cars. “Owners will take more care when lending their cars and often they can pass the expense on to the real wrongdoer,” according to the Court.

I am the first on here to scream about obeying the law. I'm a rules follower and I hate unsafe drivers. I also have nothing against the red-light cameras. However, this is a terrifying precedent.

They know darn well that it might not be you driving, but "oh well?" This is unconstitutional. And they get around this by not really making the ticket a criminal offense. At some point, this is going to get thrown out. The makers of these cameras needs better technology to prove it is the driver, otherwise, at some juncture, this is going to get overturned.