I got a red-light ticket from a camera. BS flag!

[FTF]

It seems like some people are mad at me for proposing to say that someone else was driving my car. I'm not going to lie in court, OK. I was trying to point out a loophole in the law that they are not allowed to take pictures of my face, so they couldn't prove it was me. I also put this at the end of that proposal....

I can win on this argument alone. I guess.

Jesus. It was sarcastic.

Stop hating on me. I think these cameras are BS. Just ignore the first comment and focus on the issue. Should I just blindy accept this as an acceptable law enforcement action? I guess your comments are welcome, but I am NOT going to blindly accept it. I'm going to appeal it, take the afternoon off of work, show up in court, and voice my opinion even if it costs me an extra 25 bucks in court costs.

The law.

40-14-21. From the Georiga Code.

(e) A traffic-control signal monitoring device shall not be used to produce any photograph, microphotograph, electronic image, or videotape showing the identity of any person in a motor vehicle.

This reference is to dispute the claim that they have a copy of my face. Of course, they are following the law so I should not worry. Right.

40-14-22.

Each county or municipal law enforcement agency using a traffic-control signal monitoring device shall at its own expense test the device for accuracy at regular intervals and record and maintain the results of each test. Such test results shall be public records subject to inspection as provided by Article 4 of Chapter 18 of Title 50.

In Marietta, rear-end collisions increased 49 percent from 65 to 97 from 2004 to 2005. At the intersection of Cobb Parkway and Windy Hill road, there were 108 accidents of all types in 2004 and 163 in 2005. Since their installation, red light cameras have generated $2.7 million for the city

I plan on requesting these records per a FOI request. The inspection records and the total accidents in the years stated by the news article. I'm not going to get a lawyer. I know I'm going to end up paying my 70 bucks. But, I am going to get my 1.5-2 minutes to tell the judge and the rest of the court this is BS.

Sure, I probably ran a red light. But, I personally think it just generates income for marietta. I also think it's illegal. I'm going to tell them this. Last time I checked, it was my right.

 

[iiibdsiil]

So, it's not okay for him to jokingly say he is going to commit perjury, but it IS okay for the members of this forum to say "The day guns become outlawed, I'll be an outlaw."

 

[Blackfork]

Here's the future

I think I would keep googling around and see what other folks have come up with.

This kind of nonsense from our masters is the future.

 

[MachIVshooter]

So, it's not okay for him to jokingly say he is going to commit perjury, but it IS okay for the members of this forum to say "The day guns become outlawed, I'll be an outlaw."

You don't have a constitutional right to run red lights. Driving is also a privilege.

That said, it is foolish for anyone to propose, suggest, condone, or otherwise advocate the breaking of any law on a public internet message board. It is also against the rules here.

 

[Gord]

Post that you're thinking about making up a blatantly transparent lie in court (that one's on par with "I was just holding it for my friend, I swear" ) and then complain about "stop hating on me" when people point out that perjury is A Bad Thing™ and that red light cameras only record actions as opposed to causing them?

Can't say as I understand your logic here. If you don't want to be flamed, word your posts more clearly and don't blame people on teh intarwebs for not picking up on your obvious sarcasm.

Then again, I suppose I was supposed to know that you were joking when you said you'd lie, and the fact that you clarified that only after catching gobs of crap about it isn't suspicious at all.

-----

I don't like surveillance cameras; red-light cams, on the other hand, seem to be a pretty useful tool for reducing accidents via the "I don't want to pay fifty bucks" method. Saying that red light cams cause accidents based on a report stating that there were more accidents in the year after installation is like saying that guns reduce crime based on a report stating that crime is down coupled with the fact that gun ownership has increased - there's simply no way to eliminate all other variables that might cause a particular trend.

And you still haven't clarified as to how you came to be ticketed in the first place. If you can't remember it, the likely scenarios are that you either weren't paying attention or got caught as the light turned red. If you can dig up some reasonable proof that what occured was the latter, good luck on fighting the ticket, but if you're so ready to admit that you "probably did run a red light" then why not just pay the fine and be more alert in the future instead of going out of your way to make it look like you're innocent? They can't generate revenue without tickets, and they can't ticket you if you didn't run the light - and if you did, it seems they're doing their job just fine. Yes, simply mailing the photo to you sans fine might work, for you, but other people may not be as moral as you are, thus it may not affect them. So, we revert to the lowest common denominator for discouraging a repeat: "gimme some money."

 

[Firethorn]

You lost all my sympathy the moment you mentioned lying. That's not highroad.

There are ways to fight the ticket, especially if they shortened the yellow to generate more revenue, but also tends to increase accidents.

I personally stop if I can safely when the yellow light comes. If I got a ticket, it'd be because they set the yellow too short and I wasn't in a position or vector to stop without generating an accident. I do assume the guy behind me has bad breaks and poor reaction times, being rear-ended is no fun.

 

[FTF]

You lost all my sympathy the moment you mentioned lying. That's not highroad.

What the F is the highroad anyways?

I define my own personal high road. You can all choose to believe me or not when I said my first option was sarcastic. You know what... I don't care. It wasn't lying anyways... I do NOT remember the exact moment that camera caught me. None of you will be there when I make the decision on how to fight this. This is the one place I expected support... instead, most of you are just 'hating' on me because I mentioned that I should say someone else was driving. Sorry.. it makes me mad... that is one way to protest it since they can't argue against it... from now on I should proofread every single statement I make, cross checking against DOJ and DOT statistics to ensure it meets acceptable requirements.

I can see where a lot of you are coming from.. but maybe when you get that red light ticket, and it's 200 bucks instead of the 70 bucks I'm "lucky" enough to owe, you can look back and say "Well, gee.. that must have been me.. the camera cannot possibly lie and well, gee, a police officer DID sign my citation.". I hope all of you get a ticket like mine. I can't wait to be there and tell you "you should have known better". Maybe your ticket will be 55 in a 50. and it will count against your points and what not. I'll be there saying "I told you so".

 

[BigO01]

I am amazed that none of those who posted didn't point out what could be an obvious flaw in the whole "Camera" scam police seem to be in love with these days . That is does the cameras angle also include not only the "Criminals car/plate but does it also capture the signal itself ?

If it doesn't I would ask the state to prove that the light was even red when I went through it , just because it has timers etc doesn't mean that they were calibrated correctly or didn't malfunction when I went through a yellow light . Does it snap a picture each and every time the light turns red to check for anyone there or are there other sensors that are involved in this whole thing that are subject to malfunctioning ?

Also at what point were you in the intersection when the picture was taken if the picture is taken at the exact second the light turns Red and you are over halfway through the intersection you didn't run a Red light as it was yellow when you entered it , which isn't against the law a yellow light means caution and if there wasn't a pedestrian or another vehicle in the intersection turning into your path when you entered it you exercised the caution necessary that a yellow light requires .

 

[Gord]

You're catching flak because you mentioned an intent to commit perjury (without any hint of sarcasm or making it out to be a joke) and because you admit to (probably) being wrong, but instead of sucking it up, paying the fine and doing the right thing, as most of us would define it, you're trying to weasel out of it with FOIA requests and lying to a judge.

I imagine you'd have gotten much more support if you had presumed your innocence instead of repeatedly saying that "I probably did". If you "probably did" - take responsibility for it. That's "High Road."

If I'm ever in your situation, I will do what I can to verify that the ticket is valid. If it's not, I will contest it to whatever extent I feel like. If it is, I'll pay my fine - whatever amount it may be - and consider it a life lesson. It'd be more like 70 in a 50, though - and considering the general flow of traffic in CA, I wouldn't be the only one by a long shot.

 

[FTF]

you're trying to weasel out of it with FOIA requests and lying to a judge.

How is this weaseling out? This is in my original post.

If I get near the court date and my conscience strikes I think I'm just going to ask the judge to make a 1.5 minute statement and just list the reasons I think it's BS and just generates revenue for the county... let him give me a fine, at least I tell them I'll never spend another dime in Marietta again!

I said I would tell the judge why I thought it was BS. That isn't lying. That's what I'm going to do. That is my right. Why is it wrong to make FOI request to back up my assertions even though I know I'm still going to get the 70 dollar fine?

I wish I was as clean as the rest of you all. I want to say a lot of mean things, but that wouldn't be "high road" enough, now would it. Sorry I'm taking a stand... and quite honestly, if "lying" is held in that high of a regard, I imagine none of you can, in good conscience, vote for anyone.

 

[DRMMR02]

I'm with most people on this.

There may be a good battle to fight in here somewhere. But I don't think you are the one to fight it. Leave that to someone who actually got screwed unjustly by the cameras.

You broke the law. You ran a red light. Stop whining about how you got caught. Take the High Road and pay the fine you deserve.

 

[pictoblu]

FTF and the rest of y'all,

Here is the problem when we write:

No one hears a "tone of voice" nor does anyone see a facial expression.


But FTF, yes I know what you mean about these darn awful red lite cams they have set up all over Metro now. I'm over in Dekalb, (near Smoke Rise) and the times that I take Scott/PDL into town I cringe everytime I get near that lite/camera set up they have at Clairmont. I wonder about malfunction and mistaken identifications, if I could stop in time if the light were to change right as I got there, and so forth.

Yes, I think the red light cameras are are real money makers for the towns that implement them, and yes, I think they purposely shorten yellow light time just to generate revenue.

But as far as this relating to the 2nd Ammendment, I am still wondering.

 

[FTF]

I'm with most people on this.

Yet another assertion. Why aren't you guys jumping on him for THIS? I suppose this statement is backed up with research validating this 'fact'.

 

[SomeKid]

On what legal basis can they charge you for the offense when they have no proof that YOU were the one actually driving the car?

gobang, Here where I live the judge actually ordered a woman who was not driving - and proved she could not have been the driver - to either pay the fine, or find the giulty party. That's right, he forced her to do the governments job. Nice eh?

 

[DirtyBrad]

I got one here in MD a few years back. They do have a picture of the red light and your car in the intersection. At the time, there were no pictures included of the front of the car or of me. I've heard people argue against the speeding cams on this basis - the red light cams, you can clearly see that you're in the intersection with a red light; the speeding cam obviously has no such "proof".

When first reading this, I was thinking, stop bitching and just pay the fine. Running red lights is really dangerous and I know a few people who have been in bad crashes because of it.

Some good questions have been raised, though. I think I have to change my opinion on them and say that they're unfair and against our system of law.

To the person that asked how we'd feel if one of ours was in a hit and run and one of these caught them, I don't think that's an intelligent way to make logical decisions. If someone hurt someone I love, I'd be very happy with illegal searches, abuse in custody, and whatever else they could throw at him. Doesn't mean that's a good way to make policy.

 

[Gord]

Why is it wrong to make FOI request to back up my assertions

What are your assertions?

How is the camera "BS" and "only there to generate revenue"? Did it not do its job as designed when it photographed you running a red light, which you admit you "probably" did?

 

[FTF]

What are your assertions?

My assertions are that the cost involved in implementing surveillance systems bascially require that tickets be issued. I also assert that accidents at the intersection at which I recieved my ticket have not decreased, but INCREASED over the last two years since surveillance was initiated.

How is the camera "BS" and "only there to generate revenue"? Did it not do its job as designed when it photographed you running a red light, which you admit you "probably" did?

Well, you obviously don't believe me, so what can I really say. I am entitltled to my own opinions. I think that if a video surveillance systems costs 2 million dollars to implement and is so effective that everyone stops running red lights, that the city will lose money. These systems ARE expensive, and how better to pay for them than by writing tickets. If it were that effective that it could replace beat cops and replace ticket writing, then what would happen if everyone knew that and simply slowed down and/or stopped at a yellow. The system would not generate any more money and would still require the same degree of maintenance and the city that bought it would be in the red.

I tire of explaining myself. These redlight cameras are not right. They are not legal. I speculate that most are with me. Some of you seem to think that I care what you think of me... I don't. If I cared that much I woulnd't even post here at all considering the holier-than-thou attitude that prevails. I guess I screwed up by saying that I had another way around it that involved lying. Had I not said that, it probably would be another 10 post thread anyways. I stand behind what I said and stand behind what I plan on doing. Like I need validation from a bunch of internet commandos with a self-righteous attitude anyways.

 

[Gord]

Then why post it here? Were you hoping the same "internet commandos" would agree with you?

Looks like somebody has some issues to work out.

I'll just go by the old "you can lead a horse to water" adage and cut my losses. Have fun.

 

[FTF]

I thought it was political. Guess it's not.

 

[DMF]

Pictures haven't been evidence since before the advent of Photoshop.

Wow, I guess I'll quit carrying that camera with me to search warrants, and on surveillance. If only someone had told me sooner.

Contrary to your irrational rant, photos are often used as evidence, including photos taken with digital cameras. If a photo has been altered it is easily detected, so there are no concerns about the affect of Photoshop on photographic evidence.

 

[FTF]

Irrational rant?

How can I detect if the photo implicating me has been altered. Bear in mind, it must be "easy" since I am nowhere near tech saavy.

Besides.. this is getting way out of bounds. I'm stuck trying to defend my own right to say this is BS. Forget you all. I'm going to do it anyways. Of course I'm not going to lie, but I will pay my 25 bucks to say my peice in court... hopefully in front of a lot of taxpayers... and hopefully if I get my FOI requests, maybe one or two of them will agree with me that it is all BS.

I ran a red light and it was caught on camera. Guess I might as well just give up and send in my money. Sorry. Can't and won't do that... I disagree with it. Too bad you all can't agree to disagree that I have that right to disagree. I want to say "mindless drones" but I'm sure I'll get yelled at for that. Oh well.

I'm going to whine and complain like hell over my 70 bucks. Stop yelling at me and give me a "hell yeah" for actually sticking up for something and having at least a shred of proof to support it.

It's just a ticket. That is an OK violation of your privacy.

Will a mod please lock and delete this entire thread? I'm thoroughly convinced a bunch of the board members here are full of crap and I see this staring me in my face. More cameras for all! More police work without police! It's for the children!

Yeah, I probably ran a red light... but at what cost?

 

[DMF]

These redlight cameras are not right. They are not legal.

Really? They're not legal? How come the courts have repeatedly found they are quite legal.

Regardless, if you truly believe there is no legal basis for the use of those cameras then man up and make that argument in court, rather than being a liar and coward and perjure yourself as you stated you plan to do.

You want to rant about what is "right" and what is "legal," but rather than man up and do the "right" thing, and the "legal" thing, you would rather just commit perjury which most certainly is not right or legal. Which makes you a hypocrite.

 

[DRMMR02]

FTF, did you run the red light?

 

[FTF]

FTF, did you run the red light?

Based on what they sent me in the mail, yes.

The ticket provides me the option to appeal. I am choosing to appeal.

 

[meef]

DRMMR02:

FTF, did you run the red light?

Well now, that all depends on your definition of the word "is".

And another thing, I did not have sex with that woman - Ms. Lewinski!




Please note the smilies were added to emphasize that I am not "hating on anyone".

Geez.... where did that expression come from anyway?



ps.... good luck with your appeal. No, really.