Got Caught By a Red Light Camera?

There is no sensible way to run traffic and red light cameras. They are designed to make money. Many years ago such a proposal, without camers, a speed trap was touted by tow or three in council. We shot it down in flames.Places like DC know what they are doing is immoral and illegal as is much everything else and Virginia. Every State should adopt South Dakota's plan and stop letting Flroida and other places victimize its citizens who haven't praticed to beat their schemes and cameras. One small town about 40 miles away has put it's situation into the dumpster because you were veirtualy assured of getting at least one camera ticket. People stopped shopping and traveling down that highway. They still have some and they give out a lot of red light tickets. ut a lot more have wrecks being rearended or rearending people at the signal trying to stop from legal stopped before the stripe and a camera shot.
Each of those accidents cost Motorists thousands of dollars and some not so minor injuries.

"Driving my half ton pickup with full insurance I figure getting rear ended is better then getting a ticket."

Yeah, unless that guy that rear ends you shoves you out into the intersection where you get T-boned. Slamming on the brakes is rarely a good idea. Thinking and planning will generally work in your favor.

I didn't have time to read the 4 pages of this thread. I find it interesting that SD seems to look like the good guys in this. Sioux Falls, SD is one of the closets big cities to me. They have a lot of red light cameras in that city. When ever I go there I'm so paranoid about getting a ticket that if I even see the light start to hint at yellow I slam on the brakes as hard as I can. Driving my half ton pickup with full insurance I figure getting rear ended is better then getting a ticket.

3oaks ............ not true, sorry.

I got a citation in Tucson for going thru a left turn red light.

Traffic was moving thru - my speed in the citation showed 18 mph. Validated.

The person in front of me stopped so I did not reach the proper line in front by about 10-12 inches and thus was deemed to have run the light.

Now, had they not stopped I would have been clear.

Was going to fight it rather than pay the $305 and take an online traffic safety course. No points on my record.

I could take it to court. If some judge still holds me to it I pay more than the $305, take the course in person (in Tucson and I live about 30 miles from the place it is), get 3 points on my record (which will boost my insurance rates) and, if I lose, I pay all the court costs (amount unknown). And maybe have to pay a lawyer to get me thru it.

I paid it.

I have not had a ticket of any kind in decades and that was speeding ticket for about 15 mph over.

I know it will never happen again but if I were ever in that situation again I will stop and let traffic figure out how to go around me. :-)

2oldman wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:
95% of advance signal ahead flashers are a waste of money and more importantly, they undermine thier value in the 5% of locations where they are of benefit.

I really appreciate them and pay attention when they tell me I'm not going to make the green. A car would have to accelerate at a blinding rate to make the green when the flashing starts. It's those stupid always-flashing ones that I think are worthless. All they do is tell you there's a signal ahead. Whoop de doo.

Thank you for responding.

I agree. Even in my car I'd like indication I wouldn't make the green. We have 50-60 MPH speed limits and I don't like burning off all that speed to stop for one of the many signals. If there was some indication I would have to stop anyway, I could lift off the gas earlier. Sure there are some clues (cross traffic tripping sensor, pedestrian, don't walk flashing, etc. on an 'old" green light, but more the better for me.

I think the cameras are useful as proof of who ran the light causing a wreck.
I don't see them doing much good at enforcement.

2oldman wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:
95% of advance signal ahead flashers are a waste of money and more importantly, they undermine thier value in the 5% of locations where they are of benefit.

I really appreciate them and pay attention when they tell me I'm not going to make the green. A car would have to accelerate at a blinding rate to make the green when the flashing starts. It's those stupid always-flashing ones that I think are worthless. All they do is tell you there's a signal ahead. Whoop de doo.

Thank you for responding.

I agree. The only time I find the "always flashing" lights helpful is when there is an incline or curve in the road that blocks the upcoming signal light that is situated right below the incline or around the curve - in that case, the flashing lights give you that extra notification that there might be a red light just out of view, or even a line of stopped vehicles.

valhalla360 wrote:
95% of advance signal ahead flashers are a waste of money and more importantly, they undermine thier value in the 5% of locations where they are of benefit.

I really appreciate them and pay attention when they tell me I'm not going to make the green. A car would have to accelerate at a blinding rate to make the green when the flashing starts. It's those stupid always-flashing ones that I think are worthless. All they do is tell you there's a signal ahead. Whoop de doo.

Thank you for responding.

valhalla360 wrote:

scootsk wrote:
I realize this thread is about red light cameras but it seems to have taken another direction. On Long Island, Nassau County implemented a school spped zone camera program. When it was introduced the politicians taunted it as a way to close a 30 million dollar budget gap. After a few complained that they shouldn't put cameras in school zones as "money makers". The powers then changed their tune and said the camera were for safety. Lol. Fast forward five months, surrounded by way too much controversy, the program was ended. But here are some raw facts: the cameras were set to issue a ticket to those that exceeded the posted school speed limit by 9 mph. So math say you get a ticket when traveling 29 in a 20 mph zone, sounds reasonable. The program issued over 400,000 tickets from September to late November to the tune of $31 million. I don't know but those numbers do indicate a tremendous problem with speeders in school zones, imo.

The numbers DO NOT indicate a problem with speeders.

The numbers indicate an incorrectly set speed limit. It may suprise you but traffic engineers have found that drivers are actually very good at determining the safe speed for a roadway. School speed limits are notoriously bad at getting it right. I've yet to see a speed limit under 25mph that is appropriate. The problem is someone gets up and says "what about the safety of the kids" and then logic goes out the window. Some of the issue is legislative in nature, some locals have mandatory speeds and in others the school is allowed to demand a paticular speed. Of course no one wants to be the one who said to heck with the kids safety because that one time you do, thats when a fast car wil hit a kid (even though it is not a systematic issue)

"The numbers indicate an incorrectly set speed limit".

The towing (anything) speed limit in California is 55mph.

Truckers routinely travel at speeds ranging from 55 to 65+.
(Illegally)

Tow your trailer, boat, toad, etc. at 55mph - and you *will* have semis up your a**, and flying by.

They probably are great at determining the safe speed where they can get away with it.
Some ordinary folks risk it also.

Bottom line - when a Chippy isn't too busy, or there is a "heavy enforcement" area - they can write all the cites they want.

Been that way "forever" (including the 55mph).
So much for the traffic engineers..:W

.

Dtank wrote:

Sprink-Fitter wrote:

dons2346 wrote:
Well, if you are a South Dakota resident and have SD plates, worry no more. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/3/editorial-three-cheers-for-south-dakota/

The article talks about speed cameras, not red light cameras.

Indeed it does - the thread title is a bit misleading......
of course *if* you read the article......:)

However, there is a "duh" factor here/there....
Replacing the SPEED *CAMERAS* with a real cop won't save the SD residents -
the LEO won't need to ask SD DMV for anything!..:S

All the info is available electronically - and the LEO also has the vehicle operator's DL in hand!

False "security" -
Speeder doesn't pay - cite goes to warrant.
"Next time" the driver is stopped, he/she will go to the grey bar.
Plus - *any* other traffic stop *anywhere* may show the outstanding warrant.
Can you say, "No bueno".

BTW - the well posted towing speed limit in CA is 55mph.
Entering from AZ, OR, or NV - which have a higher limit for same, the CHP will be happy to welcome the visitor with a written "greeting"..:W
(NO speed cameras - so some may get a free ride...for a while).

.

I agree it will be an issue but it likely will play out a bit different.

Until they give you the ticket, they can't post a warrant against you. You have to be notified before they can pursue a warrant (parking tickets get around this with the assumption you see the ticket on the windshield) So assuming the don't have your name and address, it's hard to get the ticket to you.

The problem is you could rack up a ticket a day then if they want to be nasty about it, they could post an officer downstream from a license plate reader and when someone with a dozen tickets comes by, it sends a message of who to pull over and the officer hands you a pile of tickets. It could be very profitable to have an officer rotate along major boarder crossing points picking up the multiple ticket offenders.