Police use of cameras

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by John Bear, Mar 18, 2010.

Loading...
  1. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    A man I know just got an email from the police department of a large city near his home. It included
    * A very clear 30-second videotape of himself at the wheel, doing a so-called "California stop" -- rolling through a stop sign at 2 or 3 mph (license plate also clearly shown), and
    * A ticket for $451, to be paid by credit card or bank transfer, online.

    I had not known that street-corner cameras were being used in this way, and I wonder how common it is, and is it a growing trend? It has already affected the way I drive.
     
  2. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    I'm surprised at the level of the fine. Where I live, if you're caught on camera (speeding, typically), they send a fine but don't assign points. The fine for speeding is under $100 under these circumstances, vice about $160 if you have the pleasure of it being served in person.

    There is a case to be made for the dampening effect these things can have, but only if (a) it is well-publicized and (b) people are convinced the cameras are ubiquitous (or movable). In our jurisdiction, one may find out the location of cameras at any given time.

    Personally, I think this is an extension of the "hot pencil." It's about money.
     
  3. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Not payable by cash, check, or money order? :D
     
  4. soupbone

    soupbone Active Member

    I've been a LEO for 14 years and I think this is garbage. What happened to the right to confront your accuser? It sickens me to read the stories about local governments shortening the yellow lights as well forcing a better revenue stream from them.
     
  5. Ian Anderson

    Ian Anderson Active Member

    A friend of mine got a $450 ticket for making
    a right turn on red (in California) - he is contesting the ticket since there was not a "no right turn on red sign".

    I have also heard of cyclists getting a $400+ fine for not stopping at stop sign (plus it goes on a cyclists driving record if the cyclist uses a driving licence for ID.
     
  6. Chip

    Chip Administrator

    The reason it's a $450 fine in California is local government agencies have partners with private, for-profit companies to install the cameras. The company installs and maintains the cameras for free, but in return, gets a substantial portion (50/50 or more in some cases, from what I understand) of the revenue from the tickets.

    Also, apparently red light cameras, at least in Sacramento, are equipped to identify license plates of every car passing through a given intersection, and the ability currently exists (though is not presently in use) to monitor speed and issue automated tickets for drivers speeding through an area with multiple red light cameras.

    Big Brother is indeed upon us, but Big Brother is owned by corporate America.
     
  7. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Traffic cameras are being installed in cities everywhere, it's a hot trend. They are both traffic enforcement measures and lucrative money makers for cash-strapped city governments. Drivers either drive better or else they pay the city. Cities feel that they win either way.

    It results in a citation and people have the option of going to court if they want to fight it.

    I have mixed feelings about it.

    Regarding bicyclists, I'm 150% in favor of ticketing the bastards if they blow through stop signs. The only time in my life that an injury has sent me to the hospital was then I was crossing the street in a crosswalk, the cars had stopped for me, and I stepped into the path of a bicyclist who was passing the cars and hadn't even slowed down.

    Of course, I don't know how traffic cameras could identify dangerous bicyclists.
     
  8. BlueMason

    BlueMason Audaces fortuna juvat

    The police can't be everywhere - personally, I have no issue with red light, speed, or any other cameras being used to enforce traffic laws... I think it's rather simple: follow the rules and you've nothing to worry about.

    As far as soupbone's statement of "What happened to the right to confront your accuser?" is concerned... the traffic camera provides irrefutable evidence, much like a camera in a cruiser...surely you're for having cameras cruisers though?
     
  9. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Another option would be to wear a veil over you face when you drive.
     
  10. bazonkers

    bazonkers New Member

    No offense, but they shouldn't have to put up a sign at every light as CA state law forbids right turns on red. Drivers should be familiar with the laws of the state they drive in. Ignorance shouldn't be an excuse.
     
  11. sshuang

    sshuang New Member



    In California, I think you have to wait for five seconds before making a right turn on red.
     
  12. Ian Anderson

    Ian Anderson Active Member

    Right turn on red is permitted in CA providing you stop first and there is no sign prohibiting a right turn.
     
  13. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    I used to teach driver education to people who had received tickets and who took the class to avoid points -- or to people who were court ordered to attend -- and many people don't seem to understand that we are required to STOP while making a right on red.

    Have you noticed that nobody uses turn signals either? WTF? (WTF? = where's the frankenbeans?)

    I also love the red light cameras, although the price of $400+ is ridiculous. It's supposed to be a small civil fine -- and not a mortgage payment. :rolleyes:
     
  14. jaer57

    jaer57 New Member

    Ian's right; here's the actual California law on the situation:

    21453. (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).

    (b) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a driver, after stopping as required by subdivision (a), facing a steady circular red signal, may turn right, or turn left from a one-way street onto a one-way street. A driver making that turn shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to any vehicle that has approached or is approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard to the driver, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to that vehicle until the driver can proceed with reasonable safety.

    (c) A driver facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by another signal, shall stop at a clearly marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication permitting movement is shown.

    (d) Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in Section 21456, a pedestrian facing a steady circular red or red arrow signal shall not enter the roadway.

    Amended Sec. 1, Ch. 14, Stats. 2001. Effective January 1, 2002.

    http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21453.htm
     
  15. emissary

    emissary New Member

    Kudos.

    And how did the police have his email?

    Anybody else notice the irony in this statement coming from HwyRogue? No offense intended, Hwy, I just got a kick out of it.
     
  16. BlueMason

    BlueMason Audaces fortuna juvat

    I'm a rebel on the inside ;-)
     
  17. Ian Anderson

    Ian Anderson Active Member

    One of my email addresses is in my neighborhood telephone directory.
     
  18. thomaskolter

    thomaskolter New Member

    Well two bills in Florida are trying to do a state approved standard and one bill would ban them.

    My view is the lights are well signed there are cameras and not to turn on red or do rolling stops etc. There is no Right to Privacy on a public road and so if they break the law they should be fined.

    So I think learning the basic rules of the road manner I use a wheelchair and I had one driver whil I had the cross light and she drove over the crosswalk past the broad line and almost hit me. The red light camera picked it up and she was fined for the infraction and failing to yield to a disabled pedestrian for a fine of $875 and she fought it. I showed up to witness since she could have killed me an SUV vs. a wheelchair. The judge loved that.

    Oh and the veil won't work they go after the car OWNER not the driver its assume the owner is responsible for what his vehicle is doing shockingly, unless the car is stolen or something. Then a judge can deal with it in court.
     
  19. bazonkers

    bazonkers New Member

    Oops! You are correct. That's what I get for spouting off nonsense like a whale before checking my facts and I used to live there for 10 years. :) I was thinking of where I grew up in Pennsylvania where right turn on red is prohibited unless a sign is posted allowing it. Sorry!
     
  20. rickyjo

    rickyjo New Member

    It may seem harmless, but putting cameras everywhere is patently NOT SAFE FOR CITIZENRY. Those traffic cameras can be used as tools for more devious things and they will be. We take incremental violations of our liberty or privacy so easily.

    Additionally, soupbone is right about yellow lights. Many lights here in colorado springs are not long enough to drive through even if they change when you are only a few yards from the light going over 40mph. I hit the breaks when I see a yellow light and I get honked at all the time, it's the only way to "follow the law" here. I'm not risking a ticket (although the unsafe stop is probably illegal too, making the very act of attempting to drive through that intersection potentially illegal). I bring this up to suggest that the rules are not always something that can be followed. A real person (in most cases a cop) can identify this, a camera cannot. The human ability to judge a situation is absolutely critical to fair government (if there is such a thing).

    Also, blame can get shifted onto the wrong person. For example, we have a left hand turn that goes over a curb into a parking lot, the yellow light is a mere couple moments as is the green light. Realistically only one car can get through the green light if the 1st car's driver is afraid of going somewhat quickly over a curb, usually there are several cars waiting. A few cars nearly ALWAYS go through the red light because they are stuck in the intersection. The issue is a bad system and drivers that are not considerate of the people behind them and drive slowly, if there was a cam there the people who are not at fault would get blamed. It's a bit hard to visualize, but take my word for it, the people stuck in the intersection are rarely to blame, they are simply stuck behind a bad or inconsiderate driver. I've many times gotten stuck and had to drive through the parking lot's exit to avoid obstructing traffic for several seconds just because I'm stuck behind somebody who thinks the little bump is going to ruin the underside their giant SUV.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2010

Share This Page