Bloody red light cameras

[RustyBucket]

The city's automated revnue generation system got me.

I got a letter in the mail yesterday demanding $230 out of me from a red light camera. The first image shows my car just past the stop line 0.7 seconds after the light turned red. It says I was doing 47KM/H which is 3 under the limit.

Doing the math, 47Km/H is 13m/s. That means in 0.7 seconds, the car would travel 9.1m. A 1994 Q45 is approximately 5m long, according to the service manual. So, if the rear bumper of the car was just past the stop line 0.7 seconds after the light turned red, that means that my front bumper would have been 4M or less from the stop line the instant the light changed. There is no way the car can stop from that speed in that distance.

Of course, they may try to argue that I should have stopped on the yellow, but scanning the intersection for hazards takes at least 0.7 seconds. If the light changed while I was scanning the intersection, it would give me less time to react to the yellow light and allow me to stop.

Does NICO think my arguments would hold up in court? Any other suggestions? I'm not giving this up without fighting it first.

[breadbox]

Yeah do the math with lots of visual aids at the ready. But no I don't think it will "hold up in court."

[Encryptshun]

I suppose anything is possible, but based on your evidence it seems like a weak case. Unless you can prove that the light didn't turn yellow until after you entered the intersection, the facts are what they are and clearly show you just entering the intersection when the photo got snapped.

[numbnuts240]

pie charts. lots of them. then more pie charts to describe the original pie charts. throw a bar graph in there to break up the monotony.

but really, don't go in there with math equations and all that jazz, they might think you're insane and have you committed. now which will be worse? paying a fine, or living with crazies, on lock down, medicated out of your mind?

[sentrastace]

wow i cant believe you actually did the math...i dont think itll make a difference unfortunately the camera caught you over the line when it as red and thats basically it.

[sbird1]

I've heard a rumor that red light cameras are soon to be made illegal. You might check on that too. Nice math and effort though. Fight the power!

[sbird1]

Yep. Check it: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/florid ... s-illegal/

Oooh, but you're in Canada...

[AZ89two4Tsx]

I don't know the laws in your area but, technically you don't have to pay the ticket unless they serve it to you in person at your front door. You can just "say" you never received the letter in the mail.

That's what most people here in Phoenix do, and also a big reason why a lot of them aren't generating revenue and are being shut down.

[Dittoz7]

Yep. Check it: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/florid ... s-illegal/

Oooh, but you're in Canada...

Beat me to it.

[fiznowler]

Yep. Check it: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/florid ... s-illegal/

Oooh, but you're in Canada...

Beat me to it.

We used to have them at major intersections but they banned them all here. It went all the way up the ladder in the Missouri court system. It was decided that they do not allow due process. Link to my local s*** news station.
http://www.kspr.com/news/local/85995552.html

[RustyBucket]

Yep, I'm in Canada so the laws are a little different.

I can't just pretend I didn't get the ticket. If I do that, they'll forward it to a collection agency and I'd rather not have that on my credit rating.

The other thing that makes me mad is that the court date is after I will have moved halfway across the country, so it's not like I can just show up at the courthouse that day to defend myself. I've checked into it and I can request another court date, but considering the event in question happened in March and the ticked wasn't issued until May 31. It doesn't give me a lot of faith in their ability to get back to be before I leave in August.

Since I was so close to the stop line and my speed was under the limit, I figured that math might prove my innocence. I've suffered through engineering school, so math like that doesn't really bother me anymore.

I might have no choice but to just pay it, but I really don't like the idea of just giving up my money like some serf. Plus, it's probably going to affect my insurance after I move, even if they aren't putting points on my license. Getting screwed by authorities and getting screwed by insurance companies... yay.

[Rev_D21]

I've heard a rumor that red light cameras are soon to be made illegal. You might check on that too. Nice math and effort though. Fight the power!

Rochester NY just bought into the camera BS. And they are adding more this summer. They need some way to pay off the stupid boat they bought a few years back that didn't run and didn't make a dime.

[C-Kwik]

Can't speak for Canada law, but its likely the way the laws are written with regards to red lights are similar. Generally in the states, the law basically says you can not enter an intersection when facing a red light. That said, if any part of your car wasn't in the intersection when the light turned red, I doubt you have an argument (not a very good one anyways).

Of course, they may try to argue that I should have stopped on the yellow, but scanning the intersection for hazards takes at least 0.7 seconds. If the light changed while I was scanning the intersection, it would give me less time to react to the yellow light and allow me to stop.

A yellow light is simply a warning that the red light is coming. Part of your duty in scanning the road ahead is to notice a light turning yellow and making the appropriate judgement as to whether or not you can make the light or not. Frankly, as long as your eyes are forward, you should be able to see the light change in your peripheral vision.

One thing you could do is check how long the yellow light cycle is and make sure it is as long as the yellow light for other intersections of the same size and speed limit. Or even better, if the engineers who determine and program yellow light lengths use some sort of a published or predetermined standard, find out what that is and compare it to the length of the light of that intersection. That might be a basis for an argument. If this is the case, make it a simple argument that you expected the yellow to be a little longer so you thought you could make it. I'd avoid trying to accuse anyone of trying to generate revenue by shortening the yellow unless you have proof that it was a deliberate action with the intent of generating more revenue in mind.

[PoorManQ45]

Did anyone else notice that he said that if he ignores the fine it goes to a collections agency?

Man they're relaxed up there! If you don't pay the fine here you end up with a bench warrant!`

[Dattebayo]

A yellow light is simply a warning that the red light is coming.

It is not the same everywhere.
In several cities including Washington DC, they can ticket you for running a yellow light, regardless of the situation.

And if you read your driver's handbook from when you had to take your learner's test, it says differently. Just saying.

[C-Kwik]

A yellow light is simply a warning that the red light is coming.

It is not the same everywhere.
In several cities including Washington DC, they can ticket you for running a yellow light, regardless of the situation.

And if you read your driver's handbook from when you had to take your learner's test, it says differently. Just saying.

Do you have a vehicle code for that? Not saying its not a possibility, but here's all I can find:

"2103.5 A STEADY YELLOWSIGNAL alone shall have the following meaning:
(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady yellow signal is thereby warned that a
related green signal is being terminated or that a red signal will be
exhibited thereafter, or both; and
(b) Vehicular traffic shall stop before entering the nearest crosswalk of the
intersection, unless so close to the intersection that a stop cannot safely
be made."

And for red lights:

"2103.7 A STEADY RED SIGNAL alone or the word “STOP” shall have the following
meaning:
(a) Vehicular traffic facing the signal shall stop before entering the
crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before
entering the intersection;
(b) Stopped vehicles shall remain standing until green, green arrow, or
flashing yellow is shown, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this
subsection; and
(c) A vehicle facing a steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection
to turn right after stopping. The vehicle shall yield right-of-way to
pedestrians within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully
using the intersection."

Couldn't find anything else pertaining to yellow lights in any of the other chapters of the code that appeared relevant. Outside of the existence of a more specific law pertaining to this, I'd speculate it is a judgement call that is based on an interpretation of "unless so close to the intersection that a stop cannot safely be made." Perhaps a precedent was set where being in the intersection when the light turns red implies that one could have stopped safely. I disagree with it for some circumstances so even then, I would hope its not a hard fast "rule". But I really disagree with any agency that enforces such a law in this manner because there is no real purpose. Red light accidents rarely occur as a result of catching a red light while one is in the intersection. It usually doesn't provide enough time for cross traffic to become a hazard and most controlled intersections include a pause where all lights are red for a moment to help prevent such an occurrence. Though, recently, I discovered a local city here cycles the next green immediately after the opposite light turns red. Even then, it would be tough for the cross traffic to become a hazard unless a driver takes off like a bat out of hell and the intersection is relatively large or they timed the light as they approached it.

I do agree there are variances in the way a law is written between municipalities and the way they may be enforced. So its always a good idea to check the law where the citation occurs as well how such laws are interpreted and enforced. If a legal precedent was set, it can be a tough fight as its likely to involve an appeals process in order to set a new precedent.

As for driver's handbooks, they are not the law. They do tend to go over laws and such, but many of the things in a handbook and on the test are suggestions for safe driving. That said, I've personally taken a test where all the answers to a particular question were not correct as a matter of law. It was simple enough to answer as the most reasonable answer was the right answer, but from a legal standpoint, it was incorrect.

[ADDirishboy]

You're not gonna beat it. Honestly, the people who you would be showing off your math skillz too all work there cause they barely passed high school. They won't understand.

[MinisterofDOOM]

A bunch of stuff

Very much agreed. Especially on the senselessness of enforcing with no respect to individual circumstances. Encouraging people to mash their brakes anytime they see a yellow light is a VERY BAD THING. As I've said many times before, I spend my time driving for me and everyone around me as well, because I operate under the (generally true) assumption that those other drivers are all idiots. Even if I know I can make a stop in time, I do not know that the car behind me can. And if there's any question at all, I'm not making the stop.
Red lights "overlap". When one direction turns red, the other does not simultaneously turn green. There's a period of all red lights which is specifically designed to "clear" the intersection. And, at any rate, most areas' laws have sections clarifying that, in the event that there IS, for some reason, a car in the intersection just after a light turns red, that cross traffic seeing a green light should still continue to yield right-of-way to that car until the intersection is clear. So it's a non-issue anyway.

There is definitely no room for steadfast, to-the-letter enforcement of that kind of thing. A well-supported argument that a stop for the light would not have been safe under the existing circumstances should be defense enough. There's no excuse for "running" a red light, but being in the intersection when it changes is a whole different thing.

Unless things have changed recently, Mexico actually adds an additional warning preceeding red lights. Green flashes, then changes to yellow, then to red.

[numbnuts240]

serf

holy carp i have never encountered someone who actually used that word in context. good man.