As I understood, their is supposed to be one second of amber/yellow for every ten mph on said street. I supposedly rolled a stop on my scoot right in front of a motor cop. I did stop, but took off right after without a foot touching the ground. I argued the point and he let me go, that time.
Back in the day, I ran from many more than I ever got stopped by. These days, they don't consider your having stopped unless both feet have touched the ground, or a three count after stopping. I guess I still roll stop signs! Lol

aka Bob

 

OK....so I (them) are texting on their cell phone, and happen to RUN a stop light.
Two people killed in one car, red light runner killed also. How did the camera help?
Then, what I am waiting to see....is all of the jerks that pull INTO the intersection....waiting for the light to turn yellow so they can ZIP accross 'just before'
the light turns red.....fuuny to see their face when the citation arrives.
Red light cameras equal a revenue maker. If you run a red light, no matter if there
is a camera or not, someone could die. Might need 'stop sign' cameras next. Why not?

chuck

 

Really? The jurisdictions I've had contact with didn't work that way. The citation is issued to the owner of the vehicle who then has the option to pay it, or take a hearing at which they must give information regarding who WAS driving, or pay the fine based on "permitting the violation"... Sounds quite a bit more fair the way they do it where you are. I've seen hundreds of those photos, I don't see how they can even tell who's driving in most of them.

 

Maybe it varies between states. My ex got one driving a car registered in my name, and its got a form that you fill out stating you weren't the driver, then you get an enlarged copy of your lic photo, send it in and it's dismissed. I don't see how any state can give you a ticket when you can provide photo evidence that it wasn't you. Hell, out here people will cover their faces when driving by the photo radar units that saturate the phoenix area, then get the ticket in the mail, send in their photo of their lic & it'll get dismissed.

 

As you said it varies by state and municipality. If the regulation is written so that the vehicle owner is responsible for the operation of the vehicle, the owner will pay. Simple as that. BTW, I have ZERO sympathy for anyone that runs red lights. If you want to know why, just ask me about my 27 YO daughter with a TBI becouse of one who did.

 

I don't want to hear about all the folks killed by a red light runner...tragic as the cases may be...BUT: How would a camera have helped?
Once you go through the light and have your picture taken, you have alreadyt hit (possibly) someone. The camera is for all the people that MAKE IT.
Run a stop sign.....cheaper that way.

chuck

 

Obviously, no one wants to hear about the truth anymore. As far as a red light camera helping her at that particular moment, it would not have. As far as those griping about breaking the law and having to pay the price afterwards, my point was NO SYMPATHY. If you speed, run lights or any other activity that causes you a run in with the law, just be an adult and pay the ticket. Don't whine & cry about it.

 

Now be nice they are at Starbucks with a bunch of riders there for bike night.

 

In California Photo-equipped intersections, the money is made on improper right-hand turns, not from running red lights. The courts (3-judge appelate panel in Orange County) have recently ruled that the red-light video (yes, it's filming you) and photos are hearsay evidence. This means that challenging the ticket will get you off, but it will cost you two days off, one to plead in court and one to appear in court. Of course LE is not running commercials or anything to let motorists know it!

http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/...0161616e1.html

 

Now that wouldn't be the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would it? Keep in mind they are the most overturned court in the country. Or is this still on the state level?