Traffic Cameras: 4A Violation?

[eye95]

Thanks, guys. Your posts illustrate that some courtesy and decency remain.

 

[palerider116]

Thanks, guys. Your posts illustrate that some courtesy and decency remain.

I believe that there is a lot lost when making a posting. You may mean something, but a reader may take it another way because of a preexisting bias, different level of reading comprehension, and then there is that "Preparation H factor" for the inflamed rear ends that sit in front of a computer.

I rather give someone the benefit of the doubt unless they show otherwise.

No one is perfect. You may have a perfect driving record, but it just takes one lapse in judgment to have an accident. We should all just be grateful that we have lived another day to take the key out of the ignition at our point of destination.

 

[JoeSparky]

A previous poster posted that tickets are mailled to the registered owner of the vehicle IF certain criteria were met.... but he didn't say that one of the criteria was a clear photo of the operator at the time of the alledged violation. Even IF the registered owner was the operator at the time of the infraction--- the state must prove it, not make an assumption that the registered owner was in fact the operator of the vehicle at the time of the infraction.

There is nothing to prove that the registered owner of the vehicle was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alledged violation. I have cars registered to both me and my wife.... WHO WILL THEY SEND THE TICKET TO? or will they send it to both registered owners?

I should not have to prove that I didn't do something. The prosecution should have the burden of proff that I was the operator. This requirement is met WHEN THE LEO PULLS YOU OVER AND CITES but it is NOT MET when a ticket is sent to the address of the registered owner.

 

[eye95]

A previous poster posted that tickets are mailled to the registered owner of the vehicle IF certain criteria were met.... but he didn't say that one of the criteria was a clear photo of the operator at the time of the alledged violation. Even IF the registered owner was the operator at the time of the infraction--- the state must prove it, not make an assumption that the registered owner was in fact the operator of the vehicle at the time of the infraction.

There is nothing to prove that the registered owner of the vehicle was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alledged violation. I have cars registered to both me and my wife.... WHO WILL THEY SEND THE TICKET TO? or will they send it to both registered owners?

I should not have to prove that I didn't do something. The prosecution should have the burden of proff that I was the operator. This requirement is met WHEN THE LEO PULLS YOU OVER AND CITES but it is NOT MET when a ticket is sent to the address of the registered owner.

That poster was probably me. I also posted that the law was written in such a way as it was a violation for your vehicle to be driven through a red light, not necessarily for you to do it. This is not new in the law. As I also posted, if you don't believe me, loan your car to someone who causes an accident and see who gets sued. Both of you can be found liable, jointly and severally--even though you were not driving. You can be held responsible for the actions of folks to whom you give permissions to drive your car.

Of course, that person is now liable to you for any costs they caused you to incur through their negligence.

So, no, the city does not have to prove that you were driving, just that your car went through a red light--and the photos do that quite nicely.

 

[zack991]

eye95.com launches and names Rick Santelli as "Man of the Year."

Agreed great video BTW.

 

[LV XD9]

That is as far as I read. I find your comments directed at my daughter to be incorrectly judgmental and inexcusably reprehensible. I hope you choose to apologize to her through a post to me. If you choose not to do so, I'll just move on.

If you have never ever broken a traffic law, intentionally or through negligence, then I'll pass on your rebuke. I don't think that is the case.

We all make mistakes. The value of a person is not in the never having done anything wrong. It is in the taking responsibility for one's missteps. It was her ready willingness to take responsibility that I take pride in having helped instill.

Now, will you take responsibility for your actions in your post and apologize? Or, shall I make permanent my utter disregard for your opinions (that you created with this post) by disposing of all of them on the ignore heap? Or, shall I renew my respect for you as a responsible person, one who makes mistakes, but makes it right.

Meh. I read your account of what happened.

My daughter got one of these tickets. (Actually, it was mailed to my wife; it was her truck. We insisted that my daughter pay the fine.) The ticket contained two pictures. One showed all four wheels behind the stop line and the light being red. The second showed all four wheels in front of the stop line and the light being red. Both photos clearly showed the tag number. I drive through that intersection all the time and have almost been hit by red light runners numerous times. The yellows are plenty long enough to stop.

No one deserves praise for paying a fine for doing something dangerous and irresponsible, imo. Your account merely reinforces my long-held opinion that it should be much more difficult to get (and keep) a driver's license. Operating a motor vehicle is a responsiblilty not to be taken lightly.

That's all I was saying and I'll stand by it. Ignore away...

 

[JoeSparky]

That poster was probably me. I also posted that the law was written in such a way as it was a violation for your vehicle to be driven through a red light, not necessarily for you to do it. This is not new in the law. As I also posted, if you don't believe me, loan your car to someone who causes an accident and see who gets sued. Both of you can be found liable, jointly and severally--even though you were not driving. You can be held responsible for the actions of folks to whom you give permissions to drive your car.

Of course, that person is now liable to you for any costs they caused you to incur through their negligence.

So, no, the city does not have to prove that you were driving, just that your car went through a red light--and the photos do that quite nicely.

And I think this practice is STILL WRONG! Utah has banned this sort of practice, and for this I AM THANKFUL!

 

[eye95]

Ignore away...

As you wish. At least my daughter takes responsibility for her mistakes. It seems that you do not.

 

[eye95]

And I think this practice is STILL WRONG! Utah has banned this sort of practice, and for this I AM THANKFUL!

I do not dispute your opinion to which you are entitled. I took issue with your misstatement of fact:

...the state must prove it, not make an assumption that the registered owner was in fact the operator of the vehicle at the time of the infraction...

In the case of the law I cited in the post you were discussing, the State (actually the city) need not prove who was operating the vehicle and that idea is nothing new in the law. Owners of vehicles are routinely held responsible for things that happen with their vehicles, even when they are not operating them. I am sure that this is true even in Utah (although, by exception, not regarding red-light cameras).

Again, it was the misstatement of fact with which I took exception.

 

[JoeSparky]

Eye95 with your earlier comment on loaning my vehicle to someone involved in a collision and both me as car owner and the operator being sued is correct BUT I would be sued as CAR OWNER NOT AS OPERATOR. And this goes right back to the redlight cameras.... It is a basic tenant of our legal system that we are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
Just because some court has erroneously ruled that the owner of a vehicle is responsible for how that vehicle is operated to the exclusion of anyone else is my issue. If I am caught running a red light and I am pulled over by the officer, he knows that it was me and he cites me. It is my choice after that weather I plead innocent and make him prove it or just plead guilty and admit fault.

Sending a citation in the mail to the registered owner of a vehicle WITH NO EVIDENCE that the registered owner of the vehicle WAS the ACTUAL operator of the vehicle IS WRONG because it PRESUMES that the registered owner was the operator. THIS assumption may be accurate much of the time BUT because it is NOT ACCURATE 100% of the time it violates the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY especially if they have no photo or witness to identify the driver (in your statement it was a series of photos of the position of the vehicle with a reference to the color of the light at the time--- AND NO COMMENT WAS MADE AS THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE VEHICLE OPERATOR.)

You have told us on the forum that some cities are doing this. I don't doubt it (I have never experienced it) but I stand by my belief that to do so is wrong and in violation of the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! Seems like such municipalities are more interested in REVENUE collection rather than appropriate enforcement of laws and prosecuting cases where the accused is clearly identified and it can be proven! ASSUMPTIONS are not proof!

 

[eye95]

Eye95 with your earlier comment on loaning my vehicle to someone involved in a collision and both me as car owner and the operator being sued is correct BUT I would be sued as CAR OWNER NOT AS OPERATOR. And this goes right back to the redlight cameras.... It is a basic tenant of our legal system that we are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
Just because some court has erroneously ruled that the owner of a vehicle is responsible for how that vehicle is operated to the exclusion of anyone else is my issue. If I am caught running a red light and I am pulled over by the officer, he knows that it was me and he cites me. It is my choice after that weather I plead innocent and make him prove it or just plead guilty and admit fault.

Sending a citation in the mail to the registered owner of a vehicle WITH NO EVIDENCE that the registered owner of the vehicle WAS the ACTUAL operator of the vehicle IS WRONG because it PRESUMES that the registered owner was the operator. THIS assumption may be accurate much of the time BUT because it is NOT ACCURATE 100% of the time it violates the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY especially if they have no photo or witness to identify the driver (in your statement it was a series of photos of the position of the vehicle with a reference to the color of the light at the time--- AND NO COMMENT WAS MADE AS THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE VEHICLE OPERATOR.)

You have told us on the forum that some cities are doing this. I don't doubt it (I have never experienced it) but I stand by my belief that to do so is wrong and in violation of the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! Seems like such municipalities are more interested in REVENUE collection rather than appropriate enforcement of laws and prosecuting cases where the accused is clearly identified and it can be proven! ASSUMPTIONS are not proof!

When you receive the red-light ticket, you would be receiving it at the car owner, not as the operator. The way the law is worded, it is a violation if a car that you own goes through a red.

You could then, in turn, sue the operator for having caused you the loss. I am sure that you would win a civil judgment. Of course, if you aren't loaning your car to folks who do not take responsibility for their actions, you will get your money back.

Under the law, it is up to the owner of the car to make sure that they will be loaning their car to folks who will follow the law, or the owner will be liable for red lights run.

 

[LV XD9]

As you wish. At least my daughter takes responsibility for her mistakes. It seems that you do not.

Let's be clear: she took responsibility because she got caught. She was left with the choice of sticking you with the bill (and likely having to endure a number of lengthy self-righteous lectures) or paying the fine and getting it over with.

There's nothing special or exceptional about a person who pays a fine for a moving violation - people do it every day all over the country. It reminds me of the Chris Rock bit about wanting credit for stuff you're supposed to do.

 

[protias]

http://blog.motorists.org/10-reasons-to-oppose-red-light-cameras/

 

[JoeSparky]

When you receive the red-light ticket, you would be receiving it at the car owner, not as the operator. The way the law is worded, it is a violation if a car that you own goes through a red.

You could then, in turn, sue the operator for having caused you the loss. I am sure that you would win a civil judgment. Of course, if you aren't loaning your car to folks who do not take responsibility for their actions, you will get your money back.

Under the law, it is up to the owner of the car to make sure that they will be loaning their car to folks who will follow the law, or the owner will be liable for red lights run.

I would like to see a cite for this allegation. Seems to me that the way the law works as you've described is a direct violation of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! I am fully aware that for traffic infractions that INTENT need not be proven, just the fact that it occurred. Sounds like they are citing the car and a car IS NOT A LEGAL ENTITY in the eyes of the law but only property.

 

[eye95]

I would like to see a cite for this allegation. Seems to me that the way the law works as you've described is a direct violation of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! I am fully aware that for traffic infractions that INTENT need not be proven, just the fact that it occurred. Sounds like they are citing the car and a car IS NOT A LEGAL ENTITY in the eyes of the law but only property.

I figgered someone was going to make me go look it up eventually. Here it is:

Sec. 27-602. - Imposition of civil penalty for violations.

(a) The city council finds and determines that a vehicle that proceeds into an intersection when the traffic control signal for that vehicle's direction of travel is emitting a steady red signal damages the public by endangering motor vehicle operators and pedestrians alike, by decreasing the efficiency of traffic control and traffic flow efforts, and by increasing the number of serious accidents to which public safety agencies must respond at the expense of the taxpayers.

(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), the owner of a motor vehicle is liable for a civil penalty of $60.00 if a motor vehicle registered to that owner proceeds into an intersection at a system location when the traffic control signal for that motor vehicle's direction of travel is emitting a steady red signal. Said $60.00 penalty shall be assessed for a first or second violation of this article within a 12-month period...

Oh, and this has nothing to do with "innocent until proven guilty." The photos present a prima facie case that the ordinance was violated. If one has a defense to refute that prima facie case, he can go to court and present the defense. As with any other ticket, the recipient can save time, trouble, and expense, and acknowledge his guilt and pay the two dollars.

Link to the full ordinance: http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=11272&stateId=1&stateName=Alabama

 

[JoeSparky]

Well, the city seems to have passed such a law. I still say that from my understanding it is NOT A PROPER APPLICATION OF OUR LEGAL PRINCIPLES in that there is NO IDENTIFICATION OF THE DRIVER.

Please understand that the continuous series of 4-5 cars that continue trough some intersections after the light turns red for them burn me right up.

BUT THE DESCRIBED "solution" is a PROBLEM and no matter what their "claimed" justification the only purpose is to raise revenue!

I will say again, I am glad that the State I reside in has OUTLAWED this form of "traffic enforcement" Revenue gathering. Specifically, the State Legislature said regarding the PHOTO COP variation that since there was NO POSITIVE real time identification of the vehicle operator NO MUNICIPALITY, CITY, or COUNTY in the State could collect any fines from this type of enforcement! And magically, no city, municipality, or county is willing to pay the costs associated with this for no return!

 

[sudden valley gunner]

(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), the owner of a motor vehicle is liable for a civil penalty of $60.00 if a motor vehicle registered to that owner proceeds into an intersection at a system location when the traffic control signal for that motor vehicle's direction of travel is emitting a steady red signal. Said $60.00 penalty shall be assessed for a first or second violation of this article within a 12-month period...

By this logic you are liable for murder because of the thief who stole your gun, or knife, or car or baseball bat. Sounds like a faulty city ordinance.

 

[eye95]

Some defenses against the prima facie case presented by the photographs:

It shall be an affirmative defense to the imposition of civil liability under this article, to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

(1) The traffic-control signal was not in proper position and sufficiently visible to an ordinarily observant person;

(2) The operator of the motor vehicle was acting in compliance with the lawful order or direction of a police officer;

(3) The operator of the motor vehicle violated the instructions of the traffic-control signal so as to yield the right-of-way to an immediately approaching authorized emergency vehicle;

(4) The motor vehicle was being operated as an authorized emergency vehicle under the Code of Ala. 1975, §§ 32-5A-7 and 32-5-213 and that the operator was acting in compliance with that chapter;

(5) The motor vehicle was stolen or being operated by a person other than the owner of the vehicle without the effective consent of the owner;

(6) The license plate depicted in the recorded image of the violation was a stolen plate and being displayed on a motor vehicle other than the motor vehicle for which the plate had been issued;

(7) The presence of ice, snow, unusual amounts of rain or other unusually hazardous road conditions existed that would make compliance with this article more dangerous under the circumstances than non-compliance; or

(8) The person who received the notice of violation was not the owner of the motor-vehicle at the time of the violation.

 

[since9]

My biggest issue with the Intersection Cameras and "Photo COP" is that if a citation is issued for an ALLEGED infraction, the citation is sent to the REGISTERED OWNER of a vehicle. This imposes an UNCONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT for the registered owner(so much for "innocent until proven guilty) to prove that they were not the offender instead of the prosecution proving that you committed the infraction!

Agreed. Guilty until proven innocent is NOT the way we do things here in America.

I am very thankful that the powers that be in UTAH have OUTLAWED the practice of using "PHOTO COP."

I've noticed that Utah has done quite a number of things which makes sense. More states should follow their lead.

There has to be exceptions. Last night, for example, when the light turned green, I proceeding into the intersection very slowly because of the ice, and the light changed to yellow before I even crossed the crosswalk! It was red as I was entering the intersection. Good thing that light doesn't have an infernal camera, or I'd be in court explaining that one...

I wonder if the city will reimburse an individual for their time? It's tantamount to be wrongly charged and prosecuted, something humans are capable of determining at the scene, but which a camera is incapable of determining. It's only right that the city, having enacted the program, would reimburse a wrongly charged driver for their time.

 

[eye95]

Agreed. Guilty until proven innocent is NOT the way we do things here in America...

This has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty (or the reverse). Of course you would have seen the explanation of why not if I were not the only person you have on ignore.

Well, here it is again (so you can peek): The civil violation, according to the ordinance I quoted, is on the owner (unless the vehicle is being used without permission). The photos provide a prima facie case that the owner of the vehicle is in violation of the ordinance. If the owner feels he has a defense to his vehicle going through the red, he can have a hearing and present the defense. Therefore the owner is innocent until guilt has been established either by paying the fine (which is pleading guilty) or by failing to refute the prima facie case created by the photo and being found guilty in court.

You may disagree with the ordinance for a thousand other reasons, but an argument that "innocent until proven guilty" is being violated has zero foundation.