Minnesota Supreme Court Strikes Down Legality of Red Light Cameras

[shemp]

The Minnesota Supreme Court delivers a unanimous decision striking down the legality of red light cameras. (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1688.asp)

The Minnesota Supreme Court today delivered the highest-level court rebuke to photo enforcement to date with a unanimous decision against the Minneapolis red light camera program. The high court upheld last September's Court of Appeals decision that found the city's program had violated state law (read opinion).

The supreme court found that Minneapolis had disregarded a state law imposing uniformity of traffic laws across the state. The city's photo ticket program offered the accused fewer due process protections than available to motorists prosecuted for the same offense in the conventional way after having been pulled over by a policeman. The court argued that Minneapolis had, in effect, created a new type of crime: "owner liability for red-light violations where the owner neither required nor knowingly permitted the violation."

"We emphasized in Duffy that a driver must be able to travel throughout the state without the risk of violating an ordinance with which he is not familiar," the court wrote. "The same concerns apply to owners. But taking the state's argument to its logical conclusion, a city could extend liability to owners for any number of traffic offenses as to which the Act places liability only on drivers. Allowing each municipality to impose different liabilities would render the Act's uniformity requirement meaningless. Such a result demonstrates that [the Minneapolis ordinance] conflicts with state law."

The court also struck down the "rebutable presumption" doctrine that lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the country.

"The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court concluded. "Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid."

I agree with the decision, especially striking down rebutable presumption.

[Just thinking]

It also makes it quite impossible for the accused to question his accuser in court.

This decision can have great ramifications.

New Mexico (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1690.asp) however is still not yet safe.
Richardson also signed legislation yesterday, SB 861 (bill text), mandating warning signs in advance of red light camera locations along with either rumble strips in the pavement or a warning beacon that flashes a yellow light in advance of the signal light changing to red. The measure, opposed by the Albuquerque mayor, is designed to provide extra notice to motorists so that they are not trapped by short yellow times at intersections.

Here's a thought ... Hey Mayor! -- try increasing the yellow signal time so it's not unreasonably short. I'll bet you get fewer accidents as well as red light violations, plus there will be less need for the expensive cameras. But, oh yea, you'll collect less revenue.

[Bikewer]

I havn't seen any figures as yet as to whether these cameras actually have any effect on traffic accidents, but I imagine they have a considerable effect on city revenues.
Most motorists, receiving their little notice in the mail, will just grumble and pay up, rather than applying for a court date and all.

It is one of my pet peeves as a law enforcement officer; the use of traffic enforcement as a revenue-producing device. It has little effect on accident rates, promotes quota systems and bad tickets, and inspires a very poor opinion of the police in the minds of citizens.

I'm not agains traffic law enforcement, of course, but such enforcement should be geared towards accident prevention, rather than high-volume money-making.

Recently, a local department was caught "manipulating" a school-crossing signal to generate tickets and revenue.
Reprehensible.

[Checkmite]

Here's a thought ... Hey Mayor! -- try increasing the yellow signal time so it's not unreasonably short. I'll bet you get fewer accidents as well as red light violations, plus there will be less need for the expensive cameras. But, oh yea, you'll collect less revenue.


That doesn't follow. The yellow signal serves as a warning that the light is about to turn red; but this doesn't seem to compel any action on the part of drivers. Nobody stops until the light turns red - that's just how people are. Some people, especially at the end of long lines of cars turning left, don't even stop when the light turns red, anticipating enough time to clear the intersection before the right-of-way cars get close enough.

[ClintonHammond]

Yellow lights are 10 seconds long.... Plenty of time to slow down to not get caught by the red.

I'm in favour of rad-light cameras. But then I don't really give much of a hoot for American "laws"

"offered the accused fewer due process protections"
Oh, what frigg'n ever....

[Just thinking]

Yellow lights are 10 seconds long.... Plenty of time to slow down to not get caught by the red.

I'm in favour of rad-light cameras. But then I don't really give much of a hoot for American "laws"

"offered the accused fewer due process protections"
Oh, what frigg'n ever....

Come out by me and clock them ... I will bet you your entire travel expense that yellow lights here are less than 10 seconds -- some less than 5!

Also, take a peek just below this post to find that some intersections have much less than 10 seconds.

[Just thinking]

That doesn't follow. The yellow signal serves as a warning that the light is about to turn red; but this doesn't seem to compel any action on the part of drivers. Nobody stops until the light turns red - that's just how people are. Some people, especially at the end of long lines of cars turning left, don't even stop when the light turns red, anticipating enough time to clear the intersection before the right-of-way cars get close enough.

That depends ... if the light just turned yellow, then yes -- some may feel there is enough time to go through on the yellow. But if it's been yellow for several seconds, they will feel it's about to turn red just before they cut across.

Also ... note here (http://www.freecolorado.com/2003/01/redlight.html):

As the National Motorist Association (NMA) summarizes:

Yellow traffic light timing has been cut from an average of five seconds to three seconds in duration and that revenue collected from intersections with these shorter durations have become a mainstay of many local governments...several cities have dropped their red-light camera programs after adding only one second to yellow light durations at intersections because infractions were "virtually eliminated."

The NMA is so confident that engineering solutions such as yellow light timing, traffic signal and intersection design are a better solution that they have issued the following challenge:

Show us any red light ticket camera intersection that still has high numbers of red light violations...and we will guarantee a MINIMUM of a 50 percent reduction in red light violations through the application of engineering solutions. If our recommendations fail to meet our minimum goal of a 50 percent reduction in red light violations, we will pay the community $10,000 to be used on any traffic safety program or project it chooses. But, if we prove the validity of our contentions, the community will employ our engineering based recommendations at other troublesome intersections, and scrap its ticket camera program.

$10,000 may sound like a lot of money, but since its inception, Boulder's photo enforcement program has cost Boulder residents approximately $670K per year and the program's annual revenue from drivers exceeds $450K. For a program of dubious value, some may call this highway robbery.

[webfusion]

Strobe-flash yellow should be required at camera locations ---

https://storesense2.megawebservers.com/stores/h/HS4886/catalog/MED%20STROBE_thumb.jpg

I would even like to see a strobe-flash red for 2.5 seconds, and then the camera could activate, and I guarantee, the number of violators will drop to near ZERO.

[TragicMonkey]

The last thing bad drivers need is a strobe light flashing to distract them even further. They'll lose track of where they are in their text messages.

[strathmeyer]

Can't they see this is just a slipper slope towards apply all constitutional protections to traffic infractions? Can you imagine if you actually had to be driving recklessly in order to be fined for reckless driving? Our police force would disappear!

[Beerina]

The Minnesota Supreme Court delivers a unanimous decision striking down the legality of red light cameras. (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1688.asp)



I agree with the decision, especially striking down rebutable presumption.

Well, one example of government operating as highwaymen down, now if we can just line up the city council members who make it a crime to pay other people's parking meters, saw off their heads in the public square as they scream, then put their heads on pikes with signs saying "throw rotting rat bodies at my face for fun and exercise!"

[Modified]

Come out by me and clock them ... I will bet you your entire travel expense that yellow lights here are less than 10 seconds -- some less than 5!

Many are in fact set shorter than state laws allow. Some around here are too short to allow stopping with an average car if you are traveling at the speed limit and get caught near the limit of your stopping distance. I've noticed this is less of a problem in the north, probably because they need extra yellow time for stopping on snow/ice, and often don't adjust that time seasonally.

[brodski]

Well, one example of government operating as highwaymen down

Exactly, because highwaymen only ever targeted those coaches which were breaking the law...

oh wait...



If you don't want to pay fines, don't break the law- if you lend your car to a criminal, more fool you.

[Just thinking]

Many are in fact set shorter than state laws allow. Some around here are too short to allow stopping with an average car if you are traveling at the speed limit and get caught near the limit of your stopping distance. I've noticed this is less of a problem in the north, probably because they need extra yellow time for stopping on snow/ice, and often don't adjust that time seasonally.

That would make sense ... especially in Canada. But as I've dug around for some data it seems that where traffic cameras were installed at intersections, the yellow signal duration was reduced. Now, if that's not trying to turn an innocent population into revenue generating criminals, than I don't know what is.

[Beerina]

Can't they see this is just a slipper slope towards apply all constitutional protections to traffic infractions? Can you imagine if you actually had to be driving recklessly in order to be fined for reckless driving? Our police force would disappear!

Quite frankly, I don't know why they bother with these resource-wasting hoops to jump through. Just do away with the cameras, courts, and all that nonsense, and just threaten us directly: give us money or we will hurt you

See? Easy, fast, cuts out the middle man.

Oh, wait. They do that already. So why are they doing this, too? :confused:

[fuelair]

Yellow lights are 10 seconds long.... Plenty of time to slow down to not get caught by the red.

I'm in favour of rad-light cameras. But then I don't really give much of a hoot for American "laws"

"offered the accused fewer due process protections"
Oh, what frigg'n ever....

Whose yellow lights are 10 seconds long? Canadas' might be. Some areas might be - but there is no US requirement for that that I am aware of - and if there is, a lot of places in the US are violating it.

[thaiboxerken]

"offered the accused fewer due process protections"
Oh, what frigg'n ever....

So you would have no problem paying a ticket for something a friend did in your car?

[Babylon Sister]

Am I the only one who thought the title was refering to something about cameras in brothels?

[qayak]

The one thing overlooked in all this is that running a red light is extremely dangerous and a huge problem, at least in my area, Vancouver, British Columbia. What we have now are truckers, mostly gravel trucks pulling pups, who's drivers seem to think that it is okay to run red lights as long as they give a little toot on the air horn before blowing through at 50 miles an hour.

Yes, I think there are issues with the cameras but of all the uses for cameras I can think of, this is about the only one I agree with.

I have not witnessed the yellow light being shorter at intersections where cameras are installed. Having driven through them for years, I find them to be exactly the same as others.

I have long been disgusted by the fact that someone going 1 kilometre over the limit gets a $115.00 fine but someone running a red light gets one for $86.00. The red light run is an actual safety issue, the speed violation is a money grab.

[boooeee]

My wife got caught by a red light camera in Culver City, a suburb of Los Angeles. Culver City is pretty notorious for having tons of traffic cameras and a high ticket rate. It is a significant revenue stream for the city.

Fortunately for us, the traffic cameras here also take a picture of the driver's face, along with the license plate. Although my wife was driving, the ticket was sent to me because my name was on the registration. So, all I had to do was go to court, tell the judge it wasn't me in the picture, and they dismissed the ticket. They didn't even ask me if I knew who it was that was driving the car. It was worth the court trip since the cost of the ticket was about $325 (a state law).

I have mixed feelings about the cameras. I have heard anecdotally that rear end collisions are up in Culver City because people are so paranoid about the traffic cameras. For the record, my wife wasn't racing through the intersection at 80 miles an hour, but got caught in a line of traffic, and misjudged how quickly she could get out of the intersection.

[qayak]

For the record, my wife wasn't racing through the intersection at 80 miles an hour, but got caught in a line of traffic, and misjudged how quickly she could get out of the intersection.

The people I know who got these tickets also recieved two pictures. The first one is snapped at the moment the light turns red to prove that you were not yet in the intersection and the second as you enter the intersection. this shows how long after the light turned red you actually entered the intersection.

Everywhere that I know of, someone already in the intersection has the right of way regardlesss of what colour the light is.

With this being the case, you give a strange justification for your wive's ticket. There is a peddle on your vehicle called a brake and no matter how heavy the traffic flow, applying the brake will prevent her from entering the intersection on a red light, even if she is in a long line. :D

The next time a mass murderer comes up with a lame excuse for why they are not guilty and the jury falls for it, I don't want you to complain about it. After all, you allowed your wife to walk away from her responsibility over $325.00. Just think of the lengths they will go to when it is their life on the line! :p

[Modified]

Everywhere that I know of, someone already in the intersection has the right of way regardlesss of what colour the light is.

As far as I know, in most states you can get a ticket for running a red light and/or blocking an intersection if you get caught in the intersection when the light turns red, even if it was green when you entered.

[fuelair]

The people I know who got these tickets also recieved two pictures. The first one is snapped at the moment the light turns red to prove that you were not yet in the intersection and the second as you enter the intersection. this shows how long after the light turned red you actually entered the intersection.

Everywhere that I know of, someone already in the intersection has the right of way regardlesss of what colour the light is.

With this being the case, you give a strange justification for your wive's ticket. There is a peddle on your vehicle called a brake and no matter how heavy the traffic flow, applying the brake will prevent her from entering the intersection on a red light, even if she is in a long line. :D

The next time a mass murderer comes up with a lame excuse for why they are not guilty and the jury falls for it, I don't want you to complain about it. After all, you allowed your wife to walk away from her responsibility over $325.00. Just think of the lengths they will go to when it is their life on the line! :p
If you know/have someone killed/maimed (and I hope that is not the case) by a red-light runner, I can understand your feelings on this - though I do not agree with them. Until all light systems are set and timed for traffic flow and all have working cameras, I cannot agree with a camera system. And, I guarantee the part about a large increase in rear-ending if it happens - which no camera supporters want to talk about (except to say its' somehow better than lots fewer red-light run accidents).

[brodski]

If you know/have someone killed/maimed (and I hope that is not the case) by a red-light runner, I can understand your feelings on this - though I do not agree with them. Until all light systems are set and timed for traffic flow and all have working cameras, I cannot agree with a camera system. And, I guarantee the part about a large increase in rear-ending if it happens - which no camera supporters want to talk about (except to say its' somehow better than lots fewer red-light run accidents).
OK, let's talk about the issue

Can you demonstrate that cameras increase “rear ending” accidents? have any studies been done? Is this a greater of lesser number that the number of accidents having fewer light jumpers prevents?

Are the rear ending accidents more or less serious than the types of accidents typically caused by lights jumpers?

If you are claiming that cameras make roads more dangerous the onus is on you to provide these data.

If it is shows that enforcing stopping at red lights makes roads more dangerous, wouldn’t the answer be to decriminalize the running of red lights (or remove traffic lights altogether), rather than removing enforcement?

[fuelair]

OK, let's talk about the issue

Can you demonstrate that cameras increase “rear ending” accidents? have any studies been done? Is this a greater of lesser number that the number of accidents having fewer light jumpers prevents?

Are the rear ending accidents more or less serious than the types of accidents typically caused by lights jumpers?

If you are claiming that cameras make roads more dangerous the onus is on you to provide these data.

If it is shows that enforcing stopping at red lights makes roads more dangerous, wouldn’t the answer be to decriminalize the running of red lights (or remove traffic lights altogether), rather than removing enforcement?

The local paper (Orlando Sentinel) did run articles on that quotings studies - as well as a large amount of data supporting that they are basically income producers. Since support here is low and evident I am not that worried - for anyone who is, feel free to go to O.S site and go for red-light cameras as subject lots there. With no offense, I don't bother posting links unless I am really pissed or really angry. This is just another gov't ripoff attempt - and, as I said, here it is not likely to happen (Local already caught in several Bad Things).:D

[shanek]

Yellow lights are 10 seconds long.... Plenty of time to slow down to not get caught by the red.

I haven't run across any that are anywhere near 10 seconds long. Around here, it's more like 4-5 seconds--and it shortens to 3 seconds whenever there's a red light scamera.

[brodski]

The local paper (Orlando Sentinel) did run articles on that quotings studies a search of "red light cameras" at the OS produces 17 hits, none of which includes any reference to any study. The references are not there so I have no way of judging the quality or conclusions of these studies.


- as well as a large amount of data supporting that they are basically income producers. they only produce income if people continue to drive illegally. If you don't want to be fiend, don't break the law.

This is just another gov't ripoff attempt fining criminals is a government rip-of? can you explain the logic behind this, view?
Are prisons government kidnapping centres?

If the law making it illegal to run a red light is wrong, then it should be repealed, if it is not wrong then how can people complain when they get punished for violating it.

[shanek]

If you don't want to pay fines, don't break the law-

The problem is, in this case the person being fined isn't necessarily the person actually breaking the law. And the person breaking the law may not have actually intended to; he could have seen the light turn yellow, figured he was too close for a safe stop, and gone through only to be caught by the camera since the yellow-light time was too short. Or he could have been behind a big truck that ran the yellow light and he didn't see it was red until too late. Or he could have been making a legal right-on-red turn.

[shanek]

Am I the only one who thought the title was refering to something about cameras in brothels?

Nah, that's what the FBI was occupying themselves with installing as the 9/11 attacks were happening. (And no, I'm NOT making that up!)

[Just thinking]

Hmmmm ... this sounds as if perhaps it could be a good subject for Penn & Teller's BS show. Do some traffic enforcement policies really improve traffic safety -- or are they just there for revenue?

[fuelair]

OK, let's talk about the issue

Can you demonstrate that cameras increase “rear ending” accidents? have any studies been done? Is this a greater of lesser number that the number of accidents having fewer light jumpers prevents?

Are the rear ending accidents more or less serious than the types of accidents typically caused by lights jumpers?

If you are claiming that cameras make roads more dangerous the onus is on you to provide these data.

If it is shows that enforcing stopping at red lights makes roads more dangerous, wouldn’t the answer be to decriminalize the running of red lights (or remove traffic lights altogether), rather than removing enforcement?
Had spare time, looked for the major one:http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05048/index.htm .

Short version, a slight increase in cost/benefit of rear end increase over right=turn etc.(rl running) decrease with RLCs in certain specific sites - though not in many others. I.e. accomplishes something in limited areas, nothing in other (except the unsaid - increase in money for the gov't and the companies that sell the systems and monitor them. If you find you can interpret this differently to any major extent (one sufficient to put it in anywhere) please let me know. I dislike major change- and expense of my tax dollars - without a big payoff- for the taxpayers/users (not the RLC company).

[patchbunny]

OK, let's talk about the issue

Can you demonstrate that cameras increase “rear ending” accidents? have any studies been done? Is this a greater of lesser number that the number of accidents having fewer light jumpers prevents?

Are the rear ending accidents more or less serious than the types of accidents typically caused by lights jumpers?

Memory serves, there's a study that shows that red light cameras decrease broadside accidents, but increase rear end collisions. I'll poke about the office tomorrow and see if I can find the report. It may be the same one that fuelair mentioned above.

--Patch

[boooeee]

The people I know who got these tickets also recieved two pictures. The first one is snapped at the moment the light turns red to prove that you were not yet in the intersection and the second as you enter the intersection. this shows how long after the light turned red you actually entered the intersection.

Everywhere that I know of, someone already in the intersection has the right of way regardlesss of what colour the light is.

With this being the case, you give a strange justification for your wive's ticket. There is a peddle on your vehicle called a brake and no matter how heavy the traffic flow, applying the brake will prevent her from entering the intersection on a red light, even if she is in a long line. :D

The next time a mass murderer comes up with a lame excuse for why they are not guilty and the jury falls for it, I don't want you to complain about it. After all, you allowed your wife to walk away from her responsibility over $325.00. Just think of the lengths they will go to when it is their life on the line! :p


Just to clarify, she entered the intersection before the light turned red, got caught in the intersection, and got her picture taken (it's a pretty funny picture actually, catching her in mid-realization of what just happened). That is not to say she couldn't have prevented it. If she were following the letter of the law, she should have stopped before the line and waited until she was sure there was room for her car beyond the intersection.

I find your mass murder analogy hyperbolic. Surely there is a difference between what my wife did, and somebody barrelling through an intersection 5 seconds late at 80 miles an hour? In the same way that going 60 in a 55 zone is different than doing 70 in a school zone?

If they had sent the ticket in my wife's name, we would have paid it. However, since Culver City has a reputation for enforcing the letter of the law and not its spirit in this regard, we figured we'd reciprocate.

[boooeee]

Hmmmm ... this sounds as if perhaps it could be a good subject for Penn & Teller's BS show. Do some traffic enforcement policies really improve traffic safety -- or are they just there for revenue?


I think that's a great idea. I don't consider red light cameras "government theft". It's a legitimate means of law enforcement, if used properly.

[The Fool]

I think free enterprise should prevail. Sell the franchise for red light enforcement to local gangs. They could haul over offenders and collect the fines on the spot.

[brodski]

Had spare time, looked for the major one:http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05048/index.htm .

Short version, a slight increase in cost/benefit of rear end increase over right=turn etc.(rl running) decrease with RLCs in certain specific sites - though not in many others. I.e. accomplishes something in limited areas, nothing in other (except the unsaid - increase in money for the gov't and the companies that sell the systems and monitor them. If you find you can interpret this differently to any major extent (one sufficient to put it in anywhere) please let me know. I dislike major change- and expense of my tax dollars - without a big payoff- for the taxpayers/users (not the RLC company).

from a quick look at your study, I'm not sure how you came to these conclusions, across all camera sites there was decrease in the more dangerous right angle collisions, coupled with an increase in the less dangerous rear end collisions. In jurisdictions where cameras are used, but at junctions where there are no cameras installed, rear end collisions remained roughly constant, with a decrease seen in right angled collisions.

It should be noted that this study showed less overall economic/ safety gain than previous studies, which may indicate that the savings are actually slightly greater than this study indicates. A proper meta analysis would be needed.

The combined results from the seven jurisdictions indicated a positive aggregate economic benefit of approximately $39,000 per site per year when property-damage-only (PDO) crashes are included and $50,000 per site per year when PDO crashes are excluded (table 21). These results indicate that the increase in rear end crash costs (due to the increase in frequency, with a lower severity) do not negate the savings in right-angle crash costs.


A net economic savings of between $39-50k per camera site, per year seems a significant improvement- especially as the savings go up when "property only damage" incidents are excluded. This indicates strongly that people are being saved at the expense of property, which is a trade off I am more than happy with.

Your point about wasting tax dollars on these cameras is misplaced, as these sites are pretty much self funding- those that drive dangerously (and the minority who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and couldn't get a decent lawyer) will fund it on conviction. Hypothecation of fines is not taxation.

If there is a problem with these cameras it is in how the fines are collected and how conviction is arrived at, rather than the cameras themselves- they clearly do increase overall safety, at no cost to the public purse.

I’ll have a more through read of the study tomorrow , when it’s not 2 AM, and when I’m sober.

[shanek]

Hmmmm ... this sounds as if perhaps it could be a good subject for Penn & Teller's BS show. Do some traffic enforcement policies really improve traffic safety -- or are they just there for revenue?

Here are other related issues I've blogged about:
http://www.shanekillian.com/blog/archives/68-Traffic-lights-make-roads-LESS-safe.html

[Solitaire]

I'll throw another study on the pile. :)

A Detailed Investigation Of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting From Red Light Cameras In Small Urban Areas by Mark L Burkey and Kofi Obeng. (http://www.ncat.edu/~traninst/Burkey%20and%20Obeng%20Updated%20Report%202004.pdf )

[qayak]

Just to clarify, she entered the intersection before the light turned red, got caught in the intersection, and got her picture taken (it's a pretty funny picture actually, catching her in mid-realization of what just happened). That is not to say she couldn't have prevented it. If she were following the letter of the law, she should have stopped before the line and waited until she was sure there was room for her car beyond the intersection.

This doesn't line up with how the cameras work. It is not illegal to enter an intersection on a green light. Once in the intersection you have the right of way over people who the light has just turned green for. There seems to be a discrepancy between what your wife told you and what actually happened.

In short, the only way your wife can get a ticket is if she entered the intersection AFTER the light turned red.

I find your mass murder analogy hyperbolic. Surely there is a difference between what my wife did, and somebody barrelling through an intersection 5 seconds late at 80 miles an hour? In the same way that going 60 in a 55 zone is different than doing 70 in a school zone?

Certainly there is a difference. However, there is no difference in the attempt to avoid guilt in the matter. :D

had sent the ticket in my wife's name, we would have paid it. However, since Culver City has a reputation for enforcing the letter of the law and not its spirit in this regard, we figured we'd reciprocate.

Actually, I am happy that she didn't have to pay. I have little use for police, overnments,or the justice industry.

[Art Vandelay]

In short, the only way your wife can get a ticket is if she entered the intersection AFTER the light turned red.I suppose it is possible that there are jurisdictions in which any person who enters on a green light cannot be given a ticket, but there are jurisdictions in which one can be given a ticket for "blocking the intersection". I am not entirely clear as to whether it is the same infraction as running a red light. The issue of who has the right of way is a separate one.

Certainly there is a difference. However, there is no difference in the attempt to avoid guilt in the matter. :D Certainly, it's hardly surprising that someone would try to get out of a penalty. The real issue would be the jury that lets the get away with it.

[Modified]

This doesn't line up with how the cameras work. It is not illegal to enter an intersection on a green light.

In Michigan it is illegal to enter an intersection on a green light if you can not make it all the way through the intersection before the light turns red, and for doing that you can get the same ticket as for entering on the red (unless the law has changed in the last fifteen years).

[SezMe]

Actually, I am happy that she didn't have to pay. I have little use for police, overnments,or the justice industry.


Really? I'll bet you'll sing a different tune when a robber breaks into your house and the police capture the perp and the justice "industry" throws him into the slammer.

Or, more to the point, a drunk driver runs a red light and kills someone you love and the "overnments" use the police to find the perp and the justice "industry" to impose a just punishment.

Or some creeps are about to beat the **** out of you and they intercede to save your sorry @$$.

[qayak]

Really? I'll bet you'll sing a different tune when a robber breaks into your house and the police capture the perp and the justice "industry" throws him into the slammer.

Yeah, right! What planet do you live on. When my house got broken into the police were called and after some investigation they agreed that I had indeed been broken into. About as useful as a buffalo fart in a blizzard.

Do you really believe the police will protect you when the bad men come to hurt you? You watch too much television.

[qayak]

In Michigan it is illegal to enter an intersection on a green light if you can not make it all the way through the intersection before the light turns red, and for doing that you can get the same ticket as for entering on the red (unless the law has changed in the last fifteen years).

From the Michigan driver training manual on the Michigan State Police site:

-If you have entered an intersection when the signal light changes, complete your turn as soon as traffic clears. Do not try to back up in an effort to avoid blocking the intersection.

-

[Modified]

From the Michigan driver training manual on the Michigan State Police site:

-If you have entered an intersection when the signal light changes, complete your turn as soon as traffic clears. Do not try to back up in an effort to avoid blocking the intersection.

-

I was talking about getting caught going straight through an intersection, not turning left. I expect it probably is not a violation when turning left, or that it is one of those "never enforced" violations. Anyway, I would expect them to say the same thing about going straight, as advice about what to do after you have already made a mistake. I know several people who have received tickets for this in Michigan.

I took driver training in Michigan 22 years ago, and I remember they told us "On a two lane highway you should pass at 15 mph faster than the car you are passing. You will most likely need to exceed the speed limit in order to do this, and you will be breaking the law. In most cases, you should break the law in order to pass. Technically you can get a ticket for this, but you should do it anyway." They also told us to keep up with the prevailing speed in heavy traffic, even if that requires speeding.

[brodski]

I'll throw another study on the pile. :)

A Detailed Investigation Of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting From Red Light Cameras In Small Urban Areas by Mark L Burkey and Kofi Obeng. (http://www.ncat.edu/~traninst/Burkey%20and%20Obeng%20Updated%20Report%202004.pdf )

Ok, this study, and doign a little diggign into the story in Shanes Blog, has tipped me against traffic lights.

The cameers shoduil be remoevd, but so should theh lights, they seem to make people "feel" safe, which makes people complacent- which is not a good thing at all.

[Diamond]

Just recently I was at a major intersection and watched a flat-bed truck T-bone a VW Polo. The flatbed had jumped the red light.

The old lady in the VW had her neck broken and her pelvis smashed.

Does anyone want to see pictures of the aftermath?

[steverino]

Am I the only one who thought the title was refering to something about cameras in brothels?

Yes. Me. I saw "SHEMP" and "Red Light Cameras" and thought this thread was about catching unsuspecting customers in brothels.

That said, I got one of these tickets in Chicago (No, not for visiting a brothel :p ) while racing down Western Avenue. While I (think I) deserved the ticket, something in my gut told me I was guilty until proven innocent, and it just seemed unjust. It is all a game, and quite plausable that the electronic trigger system could be off, or rigged, if not tested, or maybe bad weather would affect accuracy. So while I earned that ticket, I feel that the system sets a dangerous precedent.

[boooeee]

This doesn't line up with how the cameras work. It is not illegal to enter an intersection on a green light. Once in the intersection you have the right of way over people who the light has just turned green for. There seems to be a discrepancy between what your wife told you and what actually happened.

In short, the only way your wife can get a ticket is if she entered the intersection AFTER the light turned red.



Certainly there is a difference. However, there is no difference in the attempt to avoid guilt in the matter. :D



Actually, I am happy that she didn't have to pay. I have little use for police, overnments,or the justice industry.

It is possible I may be misremembering the details. Maybe I should try and dig up the photo. Although I'm pretty sure California law says that you need to make sure you can make it through an intersection before you enter it.

[shanek]

That said, I got one of these tickets in Chicago (No, not for visiting a brothel :p ) while racing down Western Avenue. While I (think I) deserved the ticket, something in my gut told me I was guilty until proven innocent, and it just seemed unjust. It is all a game, and quite plausable that the electronic trigger system could be off, or rigged, if not tested, or maybe bad weather would affect accuracy. So while I earned that ticket, I feel that the system sets a dangerous precedent.

Actually, I maintain this is dangerous for two reasons:

1) It means that they no longer have to charge the person who actually committed the crime. Suppose you let someone borrow your camera and they, unbeknownst to you, use it to make child porn and put it on the internet. Should they arrest you for producing the child porn? Should you then be a convicted sex offender and notify everyone where you live for the rest of your life of your infraction?

2) It essentially nullifies any legitimate defense you might have. Suppose you're pulled over by a cop who says you ran the red light. You could say, "No, it was green when I went through and only turned red when I was in the intersection," or, "I was behind a truck and couldn't see the light until it was too late to stop," or whatever. But if you get your ticket in the mail weeks later, are you going to remember the details on that particular day? Are you going to have any way of legitimately defending yourself?

Besides, look through the rest of the thread. They don't achieve anything; if anything, they make intersections more dangerous whereas something as simple as adding one second to the yellow-light time will solve the problem. It's a revenue-generator, nothing more. It's a way for politicians to get money without having to deal with the backlash that happens when they increase taxes.

[Tmy]

Its all a moneymaking scam.

People dont run red lights they run yellow lights. There is a couple second delay before the cross street turns green. Its not as dangerous as people think. Who in their right mind wants to T-bone another car?.

[strathmeyer]

Really? I'll bet you'll sing a different tune when a robber breaks into your house and the police capture the perp and the justice "industry" throws him into the slammer.

Really? I once caught a robber in my house, and when the police showed up and I tried tell him what was missing, he said, "oh, your friends just probably took those things." When they caught him a week later, I asked him if there was any chance of me getting my things back. He said no, since I never gave him a list of what was taken.

At least I wasn't forced by the police to pay the assailant money, like the time I was assaulted.

Gotta love the justice industry.

[FarmallMTA]

Red light cameras? Speeding cameras? Pshaw. Just a little mud smeared over the license plate scotches that little problem of cameras taking photos of your plate and you getting a ticket in the mail. And the logic is.... you're GOING to get a speeding or stoplight ticket from the camera eventually. But you'll only MAYBE get a obscured license plate ticket if an actual cop sees it and cares. A certain moving violation which goes against your record and drives up your insurance, vs. a POSSIBLE non-moving equipment violation that DOESN'T go against your record or insurance. Wow. That's not a very hard choice.

HA, HA, HA. Lowly mud! A great Viet Cong-style solution for foiling Good Old American Technology! Gotta love it!

Problem solved. Forget about it!

[patchbunny]

It is possible I may be misremembering the details. Maybe I should try and dig up the photo. Although I'm pretty sure California law says that you need to make sure you can make it through an intersection before you enter it.

Yes, it's the anti-gridlock law. However, IIRC, it isn't a moving violation of you are ticketed, and it doesn't qualify as running a red light.