Richmond unleashes unsafe red light ticket scammera campaign; fight back, don't pay!

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/l...cle_6b740b76-e8c7-5e6a-95eb-1c0622f66e24.html

comments on article:

red light cameras target car owners, not bad drivers; cause increase in accident producing injuries; car owners can ignore tickets


vehicle owners are targeted not bad driver.

Vehicle owners can **fight back** by refusing to respond to mailed red light camera tickets - their right under Va. law and would drive the program to be revenue negative if the city must pay for persona service for a lot of accused owners.

According to initial analysis by the national motorists association, it appears this intersection and probably other Richmond intersections do not comply with state and federal standards for timing of yellow lights etc., and so the Richmond red light ticket scamera scheme seems ripe for further investigation.

More background:

Red light cameras tend to increase the number of injury producing accidents because drivers behave differently at these intersections based upon asymmetric information and fear of the cameras, causing rear enders and establishing incentive for localities to make the intersections more dangerous by shortening yellow timing less than fed standards, etc.

Most people should know this already, but just in case, the rule is this: unless you are served personally (i.e., deputy hands you the summons), there is no penalty for ignoring red light camera tickets mailed to you or tacked to your door. See blogs at http://blog.motorists.org/toss-your-...-camera-ticket & http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/08/2.../#comment-3026

Let's get the word out - if localities know they will not make money on ticket scammeras, they will not engage in these accident producing schemes.

See 2005 VDOT red light camera report at http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-vdot.pdf:

As the 2005 RLC VDOT report states in Appendix H: Virginia’s red light camera law “ultimately requires a personal notification, which may prove prohibitively expensive for some jurisdictions.”

In summary, in Virginia, there is no penalty for not responding to a **mailed** red light camera ticket - personal service, meaning a Sheriff's deputy finding you and personally handing you the car owner a red light camera violation summons is required - the city does not have enough money to pay for such personal service for every red light camera ticket - if enough people refuse to respond to red light camera tickets in Richmond, then the program becomes "revenue negative," and the city will be forced to shut down this dangerous program.

There was an intersection near my house in Montgomery. Every few days, I'd see the fallout of an accident where at least one of the cars went through on a red. They put cameras in. I hardly ever see an accident at that intersection any more.

My wife got one of those tickets. It was my daughter driving. We gave her the ticket, and she paid it.

I wish there were more red light cameras.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Did you get the ticket put in her name or was it still in your wife's.

OP's first link does not work - try this http://blog.motorists.org/toss-your-virginia-red-light-camera-ticket/ It references Section G of http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-968.1

Section B statyes that the operatorof the vehicle isd the responsible party. Prove it was me, copper! Not "It was more likely than not" or "But who else could it have been" but "Prove it was me.,copper!" See Sections D & E for the fine print. Also see Sections J through M for what they have to do for it to be legally operated.

stay safe.

The fact is that RLCs are about revenue, not safety. They arent force fields that stop cars from going through. Lots of little towns are throwing these things up and generating massive revenue from unsuspecting passerby. It's been shown time and time again, they increase rear end collisions. As the OP pointed out, many cities have been caught REDUCING the yellow light time when they installed RLCs to INCREASE revenues.

The simplest way to reduce collisions is just to extend the yellow light time by .5-1.0 seconds. It's free and works.


A bad driver from out of town who doesnt know about the cameras will still run the light and cause an accident, a drunk will still run the red light and kill someone etc.

And I could say just as firmly that red light cameras are about safety and not revenue. Then it would be your turn to make an unsupportable claim.

I can tell you that they were installed in Montgomery at intersections where crashes due to red lights being run were happening routinely. I can tell you that, at that one intersection of which I have intimate knowledge, owning a home within 1000 feet of it, having gone through it several times a day for years, that the camera nearly eliminated wrecks at that intersection.

I am 100% for red light cameras. "I wasn't driving," should be an absolute defense, requiring proof that the owner was, or tossing the ticket on the owner's mere say-so.

Due process. A attorney here in the STL area was interviewed on the local radio station and he recommends that you toss them in the trash. RLCs are a scheme to make money under the guise of safety. I have no doubt that reductions in accidents have occurred but the evidence is clearly on the side of revenue generation, at least in my area. Our little town uses them and some percentage of the profits go to the out-of-state monitoring company.

Toss them in the trash. Make the local cop shop witness you running a red light, or a fellow citizen rats you out as a witness to a traffic infraction.

Want to eliminate wrecks? Replace lights with round-a-bouts .... almost zero costs, no big brother, a zillion times more effective, but , waat? ~ no extra revenue....that why they don't do it.

My legislature has not approved red light cameras ... and I have given testimony in respect to every bill I have seen.

Its ALL about money ... those who think its not do not understand what happens when a camera is put in ...

Plus its the biggest due process stick in the ass I have ever seen.

I have never paid a camera ticket of any nature and never will.....its one of the reasons why I own guns --- to protect me from this type of outrageous gov't behavior.

eye95 said:

And I could say just as firmly that red light cameras are about safety and not revenue.

Click to expand...

I don't want to say that you are a complete idiot ... I think you have made the argument regarding that that for yourself with this post....

And no, I am not your teacher....

eye95 said:

We gave her the ticket, and she paid it.

<o>

Click to expand...

Next time, have your kid contact me .... instead of listening to a goof

eye95 said:

And I could say just as firmly that red light cameras are about safety and not revenue. Then it would be your turn to make an unsupportable claim.

Click to expand...

Please no... not that. That's already what discussion with you is like on the other 95% of topics.

davidmcbeth said:

I think his mother dropped him on his head and when he complained she said" no video? did not happen"

Click to expand...

That's a better view then him getting dropped then making it into a conspiracy theory that the .gov hired a Manchurian candidate that was a kid stolen by the .gov since parents have no rights over kids because the .gov threatens all its citizens to do everything with the threat of violence since police can just shoot you at will with no repercussions since they are tyrants in collusion with the tyrannical .gov.

Did I nail it? Lol

Disclaimer: to break it down for those who need bit broken down that was sarcasm on my part. It was used to try and show how bad things sound on here sometimes.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Crap I forgot the DUI "roadblocks" and forcing licenses on people to said school to retrieve said kids that aren't really theirs but on loan from the .gov which they are forced to pay taxes for or else they will be "raided" and shot.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

That's a better view then him getting dropped then making it into a conspiracy theory that the .gov hired a Manchurian candidate that was a kid stolen by the .gov since parents have no rights over kids because the .gov threatens all its citizens to do everything with the threat of violence since police can just shoot you at will with no repercussions since they are tyrants in collusion with the tyrannical .gov.

Did I nail it? Lol

Disclaimer: to break it down for those who need bit broken down that was sarcasm on my part. It was used to try and show how bad things sound on here sometimes.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Sure. What? Oh, I get it ... sure .... pay attention to the road