Why I hate Traffic Enforcement Cams

[TheStatutoryApe]

So, you're saying that where she is with a red light, is a ticketable offense... that WAIT line is just a few feet past the red light.

It doesn't hurt to go to traffic court, but as the attorney I hired to get the Evo child out of her traffic tickets (which they did) said "I sit there and these people are told that if they can't afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for free, but no, they waive the right to an attorney and say things so stupid that I just want to stick needles into my eyes".

I am happy to say that the Evo Child now drives like a little old woman. She has learned her lesson.

It appears to be at least a car length past the crosswalk and if you are supposed to stop before the crosswalk then nearly two car lengths. I would agree that its iffy a judge would let it go but if you (or a lawyer) could generate a good argument based on the info that Edward has provided I would say its a pretty easy win. The lines are confusing and apparently the sensor is well passed the crosswalk line so it would indicate that you have only just entered the intersection when you have already passed the lines that any person should be able to reasonably assume mark the intersection. And if you can subpeana or some how generate statistics on the number of persons who are ticketed at that location versus others you may be able to have it deemed entrapment.
Of course this all depends on local laws. In my home town they deemed a speed limit sign that was different by 5mph for only one block of the street for no apparent reason to be entrapment, especially since the police would sit there and ticket people in that area all the time. The city had to change the speed limit sign.

 

[russ_watters]

Do I need to point out that you guys are arguing about where the car was when the light turned red?

 

[Moonbear]

Do I need to point out that you guys are arguing about where the car was when the light turned red?

I think that's the whole point, isn't it? If the car is beyond the point where the driver can see the light, they were in the intersection BEFORE it turned red, which means they didn't run through a red light. If you're already in an intersection when it turns red, you are allowed to complete your turn to get out of the intersection.

That has got to be the most confusing intersection I've ever seen anyway. It's like it's just meant for you to get a ticket to have the Wait Here line in the middle of the intersection? If it says "Wait Here," well, that's where I'd be pulling up to wait for the light to turn, not 20 ft back from it.

Some of this also depends on whether there is another light at the intersection other than the one shown in the photo. If that is the only light, that car is past where the driver could see it changing. You're not supposed to stop for red lights that are BEHIND you. But, if that's just one of several lights at the intersection, and there is one across the intersection and visible, then all bets are off.

Still, I've sat at intersections with my foot off the brake. Granted, they are not flat ones, but ones with hills.

But, I still really think that camera is miscalibrated if it's taking pictures of cars that have not crossed the line. If the nose of the car was over the line, I'd say it did show the light being run, but not when the vehicle is still fully behind the "Wait Here" line.

Edit: Oh, nevermind, looking at the picture again, I see there ARE other lights clearly visible on the other side of the intersection. If she's still going 22 mph crossing the Wait Here line while that red light is clearly visible, then yes, she's running the light.

 

[cristo]

I don't see how there can be any complaints, to be honest. The amber light means "prepare to stop" so, regardless of how long the red light has been on for, the driver clearly saw the amber light as approaching the junction, and decided to continue and chance whether or not the light would turn red. Taking a turn at a junction like that at 22mph isn't what I would call "preparing to stop."

As for the identity issue, someone has to take the ticket. If you want to argue that he shouldn't have to incriminate his spouse, then he'll just end up getting the ticket himself!

 

[Evo]

but, if that's just one of several lights at the intersection, and there is one across the intersection and visible, then all bets are off.

Edit: Oh, nevermind, looking at the picture again, i see there are other lights clearly visible on the other side of the intersection. If she's still going 22 mph crossing the wait here line while that red light is clearly visible, then yes, she's running the light.

bingo!

 

[edward]

Let me clarify; the WAIT line has nothing to do with the left on green arrow function which is the situation here. As I mention in post eleven it is a point where vehicles must stop when waiting to turn left when the full green is on in both N & S directions.

People were pulling too far out into the intersection and were causing accidents. Hence the WAIT line.

My point is that the vehicle in question was already legally in the intersection when the light turned red just .05 seconds before the camera flashed.

I just drove by again and the WAIT lines are well out from a line that would project from one curb to the curb on the opposite side of the street. That projected line is the legal point at which a vehicle may proceed through the intersection if the vehicle crosses that imaginary line on yellow.

The projected (not visible) line is approximately three feet beyond the second cross walk line.

The engineering for the intersection was done by the state DOT. The cameras were installed by a private company. The pictures must be viewed by an officer of the Tucson police Department.

I am guessing that the PD officer didn't notice the .05 RTIME = RED TIME that is clearly printed on the top of the picture.

 

[cristo]

My point is that the vehicle in question was already legally in the intersection when the light turned red just .05 seconds before the camera flashed.

The vehicle is traveling at 22mph, as per the photo, and the red light had been on for 0.05 seconds. At this speed, the car would travel ~1.5 feet in 0.05 seconds. Thus, unless the "legal line" is 1.5 feet behind the wait line (something which doesn't seem possible, since the car is longer than 4.5 feet, and you say the legal line is 3 feet up from the second pedestrian crossing line) the vehicle was not legally in the intersection when the light turned red.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't see how there can be any complaints, to be honest. The amber light means "prepare to stop" so, regardless of how long the red light has been on for, the driver clearly saw the amber light as approaching the junction, and decided to continue and chance whether or not the light would turn red. Taking a turn at a junction like that at 22mph isn't what I would call "preparing to stop."

The laws regarding this are different in different places. In the area where I live the cameras only go off if you have entered the intersection fully after the light change. Some places are more or less strict on what constitutes running a red light.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The vehicle is traveling at 22mph, as per the photo, and the red light had been on for 0.05 seconds. At this speed, the car would travel ~1.5 feet in 0.05 seconds. Thus, unless the "legal line" is 1.5 feet behind the wait line (something which doesn't seem possible, since the car is longer than 4.5 feet, and you say the legal line is 3 feet up from the second pedestrian crossing line) the vehicle was not legally in the intersection when the light turned red.

That's part of his argument I believe. That the limits of the intersection are not clearly defined.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Was it even legal to enter the intersection if it was a yellow light still? Some places it's not even legal to run a yellow light I think, and others it's not legal to rush a yellow light, i.e. if you're far enough away to stop safely, you have to

 

[russ_watters]

...they were in the intersection BEFORE it turned red, which means they didn't run through a red light.

My point was that the light turns yellow before it turns red. And yellow doesn't mean "go faster". That's why this doesn't fly:

She would already have been past the light in the foreground and while turning left is she was looking left and not at the lights on the other side of the wide weird intersection.

It would have been futile to stop at that point because she would have been left stranded in the intersection.

Where was she looking when it turned yellow and she wasn't in the intersection yet? At 22 mph, she would have been either stopped well before the "wait" line (then accelerated after it turned yellow) or not moving fast enough to overshoot it attempting to stop.

She got caught running a red light. She should suck it up and pay the fine.

But, I still really think that camera is miscalibrated if it's taking pictures of cars that have not crossed the line. If the nose of the car was over the line, I'd say it did show the light being run, but not when the vehicle is still fully behind the "Wait Here" line.

That's why it takes four pictures. You get to see it before it crosses the line and again in the middle of the intersection.

 

[Evo]

That's part of his argument I believe. That the limits of the intersection are not clearly defined.

From all of the driver's license tests I've taken (You have to take one every time you move to a new state) you are required to stop before the FIRST white line, the second set of lines you see in the picture is the pedestrian crosswalk, the line for cars to stop is before the pedestrian lines. There is no confusion, it's always the first white line.

 

[edward]

My point was that the light turns yellow before it turns red. And yellow doesn't mean "go faster". That's why this doesn't fly: Where was she looking when it turned yellow and she wasn't in the intersection yet? At 22 mph, she would have been either stopped well before the "wait" line (then accelerated after it turned yellow) or not moving fast enough to overshoot it attempting to stop.

She got caught running a red light. She should suck it up and pay the fine.
That's why it takes four pictures. You get to see it before it crosses the line and again in the middle of the intersection.

You have assumed a lot from one picture that was taken by a camera which had the sensor located in the wrong place.

I just found out today that the sensors will be moved and lines repainted and moved for the second time at that.

I hope you enjoy the whiplashes you will be getting when you panic stop at ayellow lights.

 

[edward]

Look closley at the picture in the OP. You can see the black paint covering the original white line. It is about three feet in front of the current white WAIT line.

 

[edward]

The traffic court judge tossed this case out. I finally got access to the video and freeze framed it. The yellow was only on for 2.06 seconds. State law requires 3 full seconds.

The judge also agreed that the front of the vehicle was apparently already over the line while the yellow was still on.

This was a left turn on green arrow situation.

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/5602/1000987jpgscamcamow3.jpg

 

[GeorginaS]

WooHoo! Go edward.

 

[Danger]

Good on ya, mate. I knew that there was something fishy about that set-up. Now just sit back and grin as the lines form to be reimbursed for illegal tickets from that intersection.

 

[edward]

Good on ya, mate. I knew that there was something fishy about that set-up. Now just sit back and grin as the lines form to be reimbursed for illegal tickets from that intersection.

There was an article in the newspaper about a class action law suit. The traffic cameras are operated by a private company and they definitely have a profit motive.

The cameras are OK if timed and operated properly. In this case the Judge used the term arbitrary and capricious.

 

[Proton Soup]

a little UK traffic camera "hack"tivism for your entertainment, edward

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/index2.htm