• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Virginia law allows folks to ignore red light camera tickets!

Gaidheal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
54
Location
Earth
I think they're a good idea, sorry

I've experienced them in many countries (Europe) and as pointed out above;

If you run the red light, you are automatically in the wrong unless you can show some good reason (safety related) why it was necessary - driving at excessive speed and running out of time and space to stop for it is not such a reason (although for safety reasons, you actually probably should just keep going and pay the fine like a man).

If someone drives into the rear of your vehicle, they were driving too fast or too close or paying insufficient attention to road and traffic conditions, maybe even all three. Regardless, they're going to be paying for your car, their car, possibly facing prosecution and you're sure to sue for any injuries. This hypothetical situation is not grounds for you to commit an actual offence.

The monetary issues... well, this varies from nation to nation. In the UK people get upset with speeding cameras and red light cameras because the revenue is ringfenced and must be spent on still more cameras. There are steps to alter this and many councils (they are county level local government) are removing cameras or rendering them inoperative on grounds of safety but actually because it costs them money to run the cameras but they get no revenue from them, themselves. In other nations the situation is usually more sensible. In the USA it would seem that private contractors are getting a cut, which does worry me, I have to say.

Points to bear in mind about traffic signals:

On green, as you approach, you should be OFF the gas and preparing to SLOW TO A STOP, until you are close enough to the signal that at your present speed you could not stop or the signal changes (in which case you STOP!).

On amber, as you approach, you come to a STOP unless it occurs when you are already too close to stop, in which case you carry on.

On red, you STOP. This is not rocket science. If you cannot see the signal yet, you drive AS IF IT IS RED. This is because it could be and you MUST STOP if it is, whereas if it turns out to be in your favour, you can simply carry on with no danger (and accelerate if you need to).

Really, if you don't understand this already or choose to ignore it, these cameras were made to catch you and fine you, in the hope of changing your behaviour for the safety of the rest of us. The USA has an atrocious road death toll when compared to other 'first world' nations and poor driving accounts for the majority of it, despite the focus on alcohol recently (which is obviously very serious too).
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I've experienced them in many countries (Europe) and as pointed out above;

If you run the red light, you are automatically in the wrong unless you can show some good reason (safety related) why it was necessary - driving at excessive speed and running out of time and space to stop for it is not such a reason (although for safety reasons, you actually probably should just keep going and pay the fine like a man).

Right off the bat your position stems from a premise which is both false and, were it true, utterly heinous.

That premise being that red light tickets ought to apply when there is no time or room to stop, and that violators should, for safety, "keep going and pay the fine like a man".

Have you ever bothered to study how laws actually work? Have you ever considered the phenomenon of "incentive" at a societal scale?

Red light cameras which worked under the premise you've created would be a far, far worse idea than no cameras at all. You could fully expect accidents to go promptly up.
 

Gaidheal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
54
Location
Earth
Reading comprehension is your friend.

Nope, not what I wrote. Nice try though. :¬)

If there is not time to stop you were travelling too fast on approach and that's precisely why the cameras have been rolled out. If there is not time to stop as the light goes to amber, however, you continue on your way and will not trigger the camera.

I suggest you learn to drive better and read better, soon. With respect, you have to be pretty poor at both to misread what I wrote and adavance the nonsense you just did.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Nope, not what I wrote. Nice try though. :¬)

If there is not time to stop you were travelling too fast on approach and that's precisely why the cameras have been rolled out. If there is not time to stop as the light goes to amber, however, you continue on your way and will not trigger the camera.

I suggest you learn to drive better and read better, soon. With respect, you have to be pretty poor at both to misread what I wrote and adavance the nonsense you just did.

So now you're going to impeach my driving record because we disagree in a debate?

Do you know the first thing about me, my age, or my driving record, "son"?

When you were busily studying reading comprehension, did you ever hear about something called an ad hominem?

And your position was quite clear. I've not failed to comprehend it. You, sir, have failed to comprehend the problem with your reasoning. And I have no obligation to continue a discussion with a person who is more interesting in impugning my character than in having a straightforward discussion on these ideas and their merits alone.

I will leave you to have fun with others who will, similarly, find no validity in your defense of these devices.
 
Last edited:

Gaidheal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
54
Location
Earth
LOL Calling me son won't change what you wrote.

I don't need to know nor care about your 'record' to indict you for advancing your poor understanding of my post and even worse understanding of how to drive safely and competently. Have a nice day!
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I don't need to know nor care about your 'record' to indict you for advancing your poor understanding of my post and even worse understanding of how to drive safely and competently. Have a nice day!

That's right: only those who agree with your ridiculous premise have any understanding of how to drive safely and competently.

I'm sorry to say that, in all your years of practice in reading comprehension, you've also failed to appreciate the meaning of non sequitur.

And this forum, which is filled with adults, won't be impressed by your pathetic attempt to win an argument by using baseless ad hominem attacks. Simply put, there is no way you can deduce one thing or another about my driving skill or safety from my rebuttal to your position.

I didn't challenge your (trivial and pointless) explanation of how, when, and whether to stop for a yellow light. I questioned whether the premise under which you would suggest red light cameras operate would be beneficial to society; and I maintain that it would not.

At any rate, thanks to your reuse of the ad hominem after having been called out for it, I've won this debate, and can comfortably move on.
 
Last edited:

Gaidheal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
54
Location
Earth
Okay, in detail then, since you're determined... *sigh*

1. Well, I can and have taught 'advanced' driving and I am personally familiar with techniques employed in 'close protection' driving as well as 'high speed pursuit' driving, so I think I'll rest on my own knowledge and standard of driving, thanks. I'm certainly not inclined to take seriously someone who doesn't understand that if they have run out of stopping distance relative to a stationary object, they must have been travelling too quickly for road conditions and vehicle ability. Furthermore, I want little to do with someone stupid enough to 'slam the anchors on' when presented with a red light that they are about to run (assuming it's safe, but obviously illegal, to immediately proceed across the junction), in the case of signals with a camera, accepting that they will be fined, legitimately.

2. Non Sequitur is a Latin phrase that means "it does not follow" and since everything I have written does follow, tossing it out here makes you look like an idiot who's trying to bluster his way out of the argument.

3. No, I rather suspect the forum is already familiar with your tactics and tone and will read mine at face value, noting that no such attacks were made but that you are fond of tossing out Latin legal terms without understanding their proper meaning.

4. Mention of the amber light here actually is a non-sequitur and an attempted straw man argument, hilariously. However, you still have nowhere addressed what I actually said, which is why I laughed off your initial nonsense, in the first place. Instead you invented what you wished I said or worse misread me as saying (but I was charitable and assumed no malice, opting for the latter) which would make that, too, a straw man.

You can "maintain" whatever you like, it's still total bollocks, you're still wrong (and a poor driver if you actually drive as you imply) and you still didn't address anything I actually wrote. Please, don't waste any more of your time with this, certainly I have better things to do than waste mine trying to educate you.

I realize this is an 'off topic' part of the forum, so I am going to move back to looking through the parts that actually inspired me to join.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
4. Mention of the amber light here actually is a non-sequitur and an attempted straw man argument, hilariously. However, you still have nowhere addressed what I actually said, which is why I laughed off your initial nonsense, in the first place. Instead you invented what you wished I said or worse misread me as saying (but I was charitable and assumed no malice, opting for the latter) which would make that, too, a straw man.

Mention of the amber light was a result of my having no idea how you might deduce that I am an unsafe driver from my post. I didn't make a single statement as to what *I* have done, or would do, in such a circumstance. Whatever you might have assumed, it wasn't myself I was worried about.

I find it interesting that an "advanced driving" instructor would be so inclined to assume that folks ought to, or will, behave in the same fashion as himself.

While we might agree that the safe thing to do, generally, is continue through a red light if one is speeding too fast to safely stop, it is an unsafe assumption that Average Joe will make this decision. Thus, regulations need to be designed with the aim of best incentivizing Joe to the safest behavior: even when that may fail to "punish" him for prior instances of unsafe behavior.

Your post quite explicitly articulated your belief that someone who is going too fast to safely stop should get the ticket, and should pass through the light regardless, merely because he is a "real man". I argue that this is an accident waiting to happen.

Forgetting that there may be valid reasons to speed, the offense such a person would have committed is one of speeding, not one of violating a red light. They are distinct offenses. The time to catch the person for the speeding offense is when he is speeding, not when it is time to incentivize him to stop properly at a red light (which is the supposed point of these cameras, correct?).

Your position would serve to ensure that red lights are used, when possible, to punish speeders. I maintain that this corrupts the incentive provided by red light cameras, and encourages some people (not myself) to stop when they shouldn't. I maintain that this will (and already does) lead to accidents.

I maintain that the only reason for this is to punish speeders. I further maintain that speeding is a lesser offense than running a red light, is more common, generally less of a danger, etc. Therefore, the benefit of punishing speeders with red light cameras by not making allowances for folks who may have been going too fast is not worth the cost of more accidents thanks to poor incentives.

I argue, therefore, that the proper time to catch speeders is when their speed can be shown to be unsafe for road conditions, not when that speed led them to decide to go through a yellow light that they could have safely stopped at, had they been driving slower.

I maintain that, if it is obvious that the proper thing to do is to go through to yellow light if one is going too fast, that the law ought to reflect this fact, no person should be given a ticket for doing so, lest they be encouraged to do otherwise. If this means that some people are not busted for speeding based on their inability to safety stop from their traveling speed, then so be it.

The law itself supports my position. The law allows one to pass through any yellow light where it would be unsafe to stop, and it makes no requirement that one be traveling below any speed to do so. Therefore, legally tickets cannot be given as you describe. Such tickets would have to be given for the actual offense, which is an unrelated one: speeding.

§ 46.2-833. Traffic lights; penalty.

...Steady amber indicates that a change is about to be made in the direction of the moving of traffic. When the amber signal is shown, traffic which has not already entered the intersection, including the crosswalks, shall stop if it is not reasonably safe to continue, but traffic which has already entered the intersection shall continue to move until the intersection has been cleared. The amber signal is a warning that the steady red signal is imminent...
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
...On green, as you approach, you should be OFF the gas and preparing to SLOW TO A STOP, until you are close enough to the signal that at your present speed you could not stop or the signal changes (in which case you STOP!)...

No need to apologize for your opinion. It was thoughtful, and others, including me, agree.

I do take disagree with the above sentence. When I approach a green light, my foot stays on the gas, and I maintain speed. To do otherwise impedes the traffic around you. It drives me nuts when I follow someone who slows for every green. Keep the traffic moving smoothly. If the green turns yellow, I'll decide if I can safely stop or if I have to proceed through. I have never run across a light that I couldn't either safely stop at or proceed through before the red when it turned yellow while I had the gas on.

There is no need to take one's foot off the gas to be prepared to stop on a yellow occurring outside the safe stopping distance.
 

Gaidheal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
54
Location
Earth
Actually, that's a mistake based on me picturing coming over a hill, believe it or not LOL.

You keep your speed stable, specifically, you do not accelerate (or allow the car to accelerate through gravity) - this is something a lot of people actually do. You're quite right that there is little worse than people who approach a junction where they have right of way by successively dropping speed and then racing away at the last minute.

Nice catch, thanks.

P.S. You can often see the signals from a long way away, which is where the 'be prepared to stop' line comes from, when talking about a green light. If you're a long way from the green, there is a good chance it will in fact cycle as you're approaching, especially in cities where signals are often quite closely managed and periods short.
 
Last edited:

MK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
396
Location
USA
So if you get ticketed through a red light camera, it isn't because it was you that was seen committing the infraction, its because it was your property that was seen committing the infraction right? Why is the property owner the one who is penalized and deemed negligent in this situation? This is my main beef with these cameras. At the very least they need to prove that you are the one committing the infraction, not that your property was used in it. I feel the same way about parking tickets.
 

Gaidheal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
54
Location
Earth
Good point, MK, however...

You are responsible for your property, so either you were driving or someone you permitted to drive (if the vehicle was stolen at the time, you're not going to be made to pay and they now have a lead on the thief). In either case, you're responsible for the fine and that's quite reasonable.

Furthermore, I think you will find that the photograph is of good enough quality to identify the driver - certainly they are in the UK and other nations.
 

MK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
396
Location
USA
You are responsible for your property, so either you were driving or someone you permitted to drive. In either case, you're responsible for the fine and that's quite reasonable.

no, its not reasonable to criminally punish a person for the way another drives their car especially when the car owner isn't present. If someone borrows you car, gets drunk and drives it, do you deserve a DUI for it? Well, maybe in your backwards world you do, but I surely don't. How about if they kill someone with it through their own negligence? Is it you who should be charged with manslaugther? Its rediculous. The person who is responsible for the infraction is the one who broke the law, is the one that should be ticketed and is the one who should be held responsible for their actions. If the authorities can't figure out who it was, than it should be tough **** for them. Put a patrol man on the damn street and pull the people over when they break the motor laws.
 

Gaidheal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
54
Location
Earth
Um, yes it is.

You permitted them use of your vehicle, so in the first instance it is very much your responsibility and problem. Thereafter, you simply declare who the actual driver was and all is golden, except for them. If you don't want to face this, don't let people likely to run red lights drive your vehicles. Simples!

Honestly, straining your analogy for another paragraph was a waste of your time, though I see how you might think I meant you ought to pay the fine for them, which is not correct. You are responsible for getting it paid, though, as it's your vehicle that was involved.

In UK parlance (the jurisdiction I am most familiar with) you would be called 'the registered keeper' and all correspondence goes to you, in the first instance, regardless of who the driver may or may not be (since they are unknown at that time but presumed to be you unless you show otherwise).

Although you did go off the deep end there, rather, I have to agree for the most part with "put a patrol man on the damn street" - this is precisely my position in the UK with regard to the fact that the only traffic enforcement now is automated speeding fines and the occasional red light camera.
 
Last edited:

MK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
396
Location
USA
You permitted them use of your vehicle, so in the first instance it is very much your responsibility and problem. Thereafter, you simply declare who the actual driver was and all is golden, except for them. If you don't want to face this, don't let people likely to run red lights drive your vehicles. Simples!

Honestly, straining your analogy for another paragraph was a waste of your time, though I see how you might think I meant you ought to pay the fine for them, which is not correct. You are responsible for getting it paid, though, as it's your vehicle that was involved.

In UK parlance (the jurisdiction I am most familiar with) you would be called 'the registered keeper' and all correspondence goes to you, in the first instance, regardless of who the driver may or may not be (since they are unknown at that time but presumed to be you unless you show otherwise).

Although you did go off the deep end there, rather, I have to agree for the most part with "put a patrol man on the damn street" - this is precisely my position in the UK with regard to the fact that the only traffic enforcement now is automated speeding fines and the occasional red light camera.

I'll definitely skip over your posts from this point forward. Thanks for the head's up.
 
Last edited:

William Fisher

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
238
Location
Oxford, Ohio
There are cases where many have received tickets for turning right on red after stop. Then there can be a problem for LE, if the person driving can not be identified: "Your Honor there are four people who have permission to drive my car. I don't know who was using it then". The offender has to be ticketed in some states NOT THE CAR.
 

Gaidheal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
54
Location
Earth
William, the latter part, was what prompted a change in UK law, such that the registered keeper would be charged if they did not nominate a driver (either through choice or claiming they had no knowledge). It was controversial but in practice, the modern devices can take a pretty good image, making it quite hard to hide identity if the police choose to investigate.

The other part is a good point; in many other (most, perhaps?) countries you can never (in ordinary driving conditions) pass a red signal, neither to turn right (as in the USA and other countries that use the same side of the road) nor left (as in the UK and other places which use this side). I know that it's illegal within NYC, too (except at some specifically posted signals), however it's legal in most of the country and I can see it becoming a real problem if the camera malfunctions.

Remember, though, unless I'm recalling the law incorrectly, you must come to a stop and assess the situation before turning, so that would probably not trigger the camera. It might, though. Interesting. :¬)
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
So if you get ticketed through a red light camera, it isn't because it was you that was seen committing the infraction, its because it was your property that was seen committing the infraction right? Why is the property owner the one who is penalized and deemed negligent in this situation? This is my main beef with these cameras. At the very least they need to prove that you are the one committing the infraction, not that your property was used in it. I feel the same way about parking tickets.

Fortunately in Virginia, the owner can simply attest that he is not the diver and their is no fine - moreover, the owener can simply ignore mailed tickets - PERSONAL service is required by law in order to penalize the owner - the localities will never pay for personal service :)
 

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
In all cases of traffic tickets, you have the right to contest the ticket in court. Now, if the police officer does not show up, the judge will have to (by law) dismiss the case because every person has the right to face their accuser. This is not possible with a traffic cam. In fact, I would posit that traffic cams violate our right to due process. On our most basic rights, we must not give even an inch.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Kirbinator said:
Is it too much to ask that THE GOVERNMENT work WITHIN the law?
:lol: :lol: :lol: Is there a ROFL smiley available?
With all the news reports we have of officers (& various other gov't agents) behaving badly?

coolfrmn said:
Cause more rear end collisions because people don't want to risk a ticket.
BUT, as eye pointed out, rear end collisions are less harmful than T-bone collisions.

eye95 said:
long trains of cars following each other through the red light, knowing that the traffic in the other direction physically can't go until the caboose goes through.
They try to do that here in Milwaukee, too.
When my light turns green, I start moving forward, even if there's a 'train' going through.
Pretty soon, someone in the illegal left-turners chickens out. I've never had to stop, even on the motorcycle.
Suppose that's aggressive driving, but what would you call the people who force their way through the light?
 
Top