Ran a red light - not :(
 

So I come to a stand at a red light this morning and the camera flashed just the once. I was close to the first line but I don't think any part of the car was over it. Actually it was a right-turn lane and I wasn't going anywhere anyway because of pedestrians and oncoming traffic, but I think the camera is for any/all lanes. The camera itself is approx 110ft away, face on. I'm not sure one could reasonably tell either way if the front of the car had crossed the first line.

Am I doomed to pay what is apparently $461 (plus any insurance premium hikes)? Is this sort of thing even worth contesting? Do they need multiple pictures to prove anything (and does the camera flash for each picture)? Probably depends on the city?

Re: Ran a red light - not :(
 

My sense is that these red-light cameras are hotly contested. Shop around for an attorney who's dealt with them in your area and then decide which you'd rather pay - the attorney or the city.

Regards, JEff

Re: Ran a red light - not :(
 

You don't even have a red light citation yet... but if you do it'll include photographic evidence of your infraction, so it will be easy to see whether you are over the line with the red light showing. If the photographic evidence is inconclusive, you could appeal it in court.

Re: Ran a red light - not :(
 

Are you sure it flashed for you? I've been at the lights and saw the flash a few times it was cars in other turn lanes.

Re: Ran a red light - not :(
 

The systems I know of take more than one picture and hence flash more than once. Shouldn't worry to much until the citation arrives, if it does.

Re: Ran a red light - not :(
 

Perhaps you can go from :( to :)

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar...meras-20120329

;-)

Re: Ran a red light - not :(
 

I think I was the only one at the lights from my direction at the time. The camera directly faces me so it probably isn't for other directions - they have to try to get the face of the driver, right?

That was my only hope - that the initial picture was because I was too close to the line, but as I'd already stopped, it didn't take any more. If I got some sort of citation that said "turned right on red" then it should be clear from the lack of evidence that I did not - but if it says "entered intersection on red" then perhaps a little more difficult!

Sadly that's LA, not Walnut where this happened!

What's even more annoying is that I only turned right there because my GPS decided there was traffic, re-routed me and told me to turn left, but I was already too close to change lanes, so did a (legal) U-turn up the road to turn right at this junction! :frown:

Re: Ran a red light - not :(
 

No, but I want to be prepared in case I do. I have no idea how long you get to reply to them.

That's the thing, using Google Earth, it's 110ft away (looking across 7 marked lanes, plus central reservation, plus wide corners), so I'm not sure you could accurately tell if the front of the car was over the line. Wheels, yes (but certainly weren't). http://goo.gl/maps/IwYLC looking at the camera. Hmm, do they use the loops in the road to detect going over the line? That circular one is actually centred ON the line, so if I was behind the line but over the circle, maybe that would detect my presence?

Re: Ran a red light - not :(
 

If you get the citation and think the camera / light / sensor is screwed up, worth checking with an experienced attorney as it is quite possible you will not be alone in being falsely accused and the word will be out. Unless presented with clear evidence of an offence I would not simply pay up.

Re: Ran a red light - not :(
 

I don't think you got a ticket. I believe the flash is only done occasionally to warn people that there is a camera at the intersection and not when they take a picture since you should see about 6 flashes as they take pictures.

Also I don't think they would likely give tickets just for crossing the line.

Normally the presiding officer will have to identify you in one of the pictures or else he will likely dismiss the charge. If he can identify you, he then will likely reduce the fine (in Fremont to $100) and ask if you want to attend traffic school which is about 6 hours for one day no more than once every 18 months to erase tickets from your record. You can also fight the ticket but that will be before a judge on a different day.

Re: Ran a red light - not :(
 

In Texas we have some that record video.
My wife received a citation in the mail, and swore she didn't do a rolling stop through a left-turn-on-red as it claimed.
The citation included a link with unique code to view the infraction. Indisputably, proven.....guilty :lol:

In our case it was a city ordinance violation, or similar. It didn't result in an insurance premium hike, and wasn't reported to the DMV/DPS.

Who was driving was not required, as the owner of the vehicle we were on the hook for the fine.

Re: Ran a red light - not :(
 

Was there a "no turn on red" sign anywhere nearby?

Re: Ran a red light - not :(
 

That sounds promising. From what I can tell, there are sensors (loops) that detect your speed as you approach the line, and I do vaguely recall braking a bit sharpish (can't remember why - maybe lights had changed). Maybe it takes a picture early enough to get a good, full-on picture of the driver and license plate before the car starts turning?

Yes. I can't complain at the signage and was aware that the junction had cameras.

Re: Ran a red light - not :(
 

I think that's one of the reasons why they are contested so much, because they don't get the driver. I'm pretty sure the cameras face away from you so they get the back of the car to get the license plate and also prove you went through the light. They also flash more than once.

Re: Ran a red light - not :(
 

Two license plates are required in California.