I got one of those camera traffic tickets mailed to me. I can even log onto a website and watch a video of myself failing to come to a complete stop when turning right at a light that had just turned red (on Christmas morning too, I wish they’d just send a fruit basket instead). I’m not going to try to get out of it because it would cost more to miss work than just pay the $50 fine.
Here’s what I don’t understand. It says these two sentences separated by a space exactly as typed (except not in all caps, you’re welcome.)
What the heck does that mean? It seems to mean the traffic cam can’t be used as evidence, but then it’s used as evidence.
I think (IANAL or a Cop) that it means the video itself isn’t the basis for the ticket. The officer’s review of the video is what caused the ticket to be issued. It’s not an automatic thing, it requires a human to decide that in fact it warrants a ticket.
I recall reading that some challenges of those tickets were based on not being able to face your accusor. Perhaps this is a way to get around that. The camera isn’t making the accusation, the person reviewing the tape is making it.
Interestingly, I just checked it with google streetview and found that there is no red light for the turn lane. There are three lights for the three lanes that go straight, but no light or turn arrows or anything for the turn lane.
I would think they would say “does not constitute proof” if they meant that.
I forgot to add that the police does not operate the cameras, it is done by a company based in another state. It probably has something to do with this, but I still can’t wrap my head around it.
I guess the laws of physics don’t apply in your hometown. If you make a right hand turn, you would have to stop, at least for a microsecond, in order to change direction.
Does there have to be an explicit light for each lane? In California, right turn on red is permitted, after stop, unless there is an explicit red right arrow. If there is an island between the rightmost turn lane and the through lanes, then the turn is treated as a yield (and there is usually a yield sign) and no stop is required.
Red light camera tickets generally are not criminal citations, they are civil citations. The standards of evidence are not as strong and the right to face your accusor usually does not apply. The OP does have the right to subpoena the officer if he does choose to challenge the ticket.
And even then, you would not have to stop for any duration of time. The plot of your velocity would cross the X axis at a point in time, which has no duration.
I looked through the city codes and didn’t see anything. If it’s not on the books, I consider it legal and routinely travel faster than the speed of light. There is a speed limit for motor vehicles, but by the time I really get going, they don’t recognize it as a vehicle. Gas mileage sucks though, and although I’m going really fast, I always seem to be extremely late for everything.
The law is the same here, stop then turn right on red*. I don’t know if there is supposed to be an explicit light for each lane. The law I was cited for just said something about being at a red light. Seems weird to be cited for not stopping at a red light if there isn’t one though.
*I don’t dispute that it’s somewhere I should have stopped, and normally do, except it was Christmas morning, there were no cars nearby, I slowed and it changed red right before I turned. I probably never saw it when it was red as my vehicle has poor visibility looking up at red lights.
I heard recently that the company that produces/maintains the cameras are not legally law enforcement. Their cameras can provide information to the cops, but the cops are the ones who have to make the call.
