Timing of red light cameras

I received a citation in the mail today containing three pictures of my car. The first showed it approximately 6 inches in front of a wide white line that I assume marked the official start of the intersection. The second was my car almost across, and the third was of my license plate. Is the first picture taken at the instant the light turns yellow? If so, it was clearly impossible for me to stop as the car is right on top of it. Is the second taken the instant the light turns red? If so, the ideal stradegy is obviously to floor it when the light turns yellow so you can be all the way across by the time the second photo is taken.

Here’s a guess, but it makes sense to me:
Photo 1 taken as light turns red. Show position of vehicle.

Photo 2 taken a moment later to show that you didn’t just stop a little over the line and did not proceed through the intersection.

Photo 3 taken as identification of vehicle.

Photo timing, and number of photos snapped, could of course vary with location.

Dunno how it works in your jurisdiction - you haven’t said where you are. But here, the camera triggers when the light goes red, not yellow.

I think you’ve answered your own question, but you don’t want to hear it. Clearly it can’t have been taken when the light turned yellow, as that would prove nothing. The gap between the two photos is also less than a second (how far has your car moved between the two?), so isn’t going to be the length of the yellow light either.

Far more likely that the first photo was taken after the light was red. The second demonstrates that your car was moving, and not stopped just over the line.

I live in Baltimore, Maryland. If the first picture is taken when the light turns red, then I clearly ran the red light. My thinking was, why are there two pictures if the camera took the picture as the light turned red, but you are right, a second picture to show that I was truly moving would be necessary.

On the other hand, now that I think about it, the first picture could be taken as the light turns yellow to prove I was not already in the intersection at that time. I mean, what if I was already in, but had to stop because some dog or person ran in front of me. But I do admit it makes more sense for have been snapped when the light turned red. On the other hand, the idea is to make money, and having them snap it when the light turns yellow, and ticketing you on a technicality, would generate much more income.

Didn’t either picture show the light itself? I don’t know how a picture of your car proves anything. My father-in-law got one of these that showed his car under a clearly red light. Either way, I have no idea why the first photo is necessary. The second photo is the one that counts, if the light is red at that instant.

If your photos don’t show the light, I would consider fighting the ticket and challenging the timing of the camera. Have no idea what the success rate is on such a defense, however.

Never mind. I don’t know why my first search failed, but when I went back I found the following: http://people.howstuffworks.com/red-light-camera.htm
which clearly explains that I was caught red handed running the light.

The cameras are only active when they are needed; this doesn’t have to be proven for every ticket. Three photos are common: one crossing the line, one of the driver, and one of the license plate. The first two pictures verify the car’s motion. In two-photo jurisdictions, one photo is taken crossing the line, and a second picture shows the license plate, the car, and the car’s motion.

In California, it’s illegal to enter an intersection if you can’t leave it before the light turns red; obviously, state laws vary.