# red light traffic camera ticket question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 12, 2009, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-traffic-camera-ticket-question/481000 "2009-01-12T23:01:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-traffic-camera-ticket-question/481000/1 "2009-01-12T23:01:42Z")
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.) > [@](#): > > "Please note that recorded images do not constitute evidence of a violation of city ordinance 17-210(c)(1). > > Based upon my review and inspection of the recorded images, I state that a violation of 17-210(c)(1) did occur." > > Then it’s signed by a cop. 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. Just to throw this in, 17-210 of the city code only says that a person may be cited for any of the following reasons, and (c)(1) says “for violating section 17-506(a)(3)(a)”. 17-506(a)(3)(a) is failing to stop when turning right at a red light. So it actually seems impossible for me to violate 17-210(c)(1). Are the city’s laws that messed up or am I interpreting them wrongly? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-traffic-camera-ticket-question/481000/2 "2009-01-12T23:24:51Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![tim-n-va](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim-n-va/32/3001_2.png) [@tim-n-va](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim-n-va)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-traffic-camera-ticket-question/481000/3 "2009-01-13T00:17:02Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-traffic-camera-ticket-question/481000/4 "2009-01-13T00:57:30Z")
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. > [@Telemark](#): > > 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 would think they would say “does not constitute proof” if they meant that. > [@tim-n-va](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-traffic-camera-ticket-question/481000/5 "2009-01-13T01:13:47Z")
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. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-traffic-camera-ticket-question/481000/6 "2009-01-13T01:49:20Z")
> [@Fubaya](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![racer72](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/racer72/32/3075_2.png) [@racer72](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racer72)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-traffic-camera-ticket-question/481000/7 "2009-01-13T01:54:15Z")
> [@tim-n-va](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-traffic-camera-ticket-question/481000/8 "2009-01-13T01:55:33Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > 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. 🙂 :dubious: You’re thinking of stopping, then going backwards. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-traffic-camera-ticket-question/481000/9 "2009-01-13T02:06:46Z")
> [@ZenBeam](#): > > :dubious: You’re thinking of stopping, then going backwards. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-traffic-camera-ticket-question/481000/10 "2009-01-13T02:43:23Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I guess the laws of physics don’t apply in your hometown. 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. > [@Voyager](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-traffic-camera-ticket-question/481000/11 "2009-01-13T08:03:12Z")
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.