Red Light Camera Infraction - Worth Trying to Fight?

jimbbski wrote: There has been a number of newspaper stories in the Chicago papers in the past months covering the use of photo red light cameras in Chicago. I won't go into details but one of the facts found that increased violations was that "someone" cut the yellow light time to less then 3 seconds. I wonder how that happened? These cameras have brought in millions of dollars into Chicago's piggy bank with little to show for in safety wise.

Try timing the light with a stopwatch, and see if the yellow light is within the minimum allowed. Some states require that they add a half second to the yellow light time if a red light camera is being used. Here in Georgia, we had a ton of tickets thrown out because somebody set the yellow light time to a half second faster than the minimum allowable time.

I was in traffic court and the bailiff asked how many people were there to fight red light camera tickets. Fifty of the seventy five people raised their hands. He pulled all of them to the side and told them the judge does not throw them out for any reason and it would save a bunch of time if they just paid now and left. All but three did. The first two were found guilty and had to pay the fine as well as court costs. The third stated that he did run the red light (at the end of a highway exit ramp) but only because a semi truck was coming up behind him and had no intention of stopping for him or the red light. The judged asked the officer that wrote the ticket to put the video on the projector and sure enough the guy just floored it and turned out of the way just in time, the semi truck blowing through the intersection at 51mph.

The judge said well obviously you were paying attention to your surroundings but the fact is you ran the red light, found guilty, full fine and court costs

In reply to Nick_Comstock:

The judge should be pulled from the bench.

In reply to Flight Service:

I was blown away by it. The guy was beside himself, the bailiff pulled his taser out, but he was able to keep it together enough to not be changed with contempt of court. He kept asking if he should have just sat there and got hit, definitely had a bad vibe in the room. But that's what you get in Knox county.

Nick_Comstock wrote: In reply to Flight Service: I was blown away by it. The guy was beside himself, the bailiff pulled his taser out, but he was able to keep it together enough to not be changed with contempt of court. He kept asking if he should have just sat there and got hit, definitely had a bad vibe in the room. But that's what you get in Knox county.

I've heard of areas where you're assumed to be at fault in a collision if there are no tire marks on the road. The assumption being, you're supposed to just slam on the brakes and ride it in. And sucks to be you if you have ABS.

Nick_Comstock wrote: In reply to Flight Service: I was blown away by it. The guy was beside himself, the bailiff pulled his taser out, but he was able to keep it together enough to not be changed with contempt of court. He kept asking if he should have just sat there and got hit, definitely had a bad vibe in the room. But that's what you get in Knox county.

That's incredible. Sounds like something out of the old Chuck Norris movie White Line Fever.

One thing I haven't seen ever brought up is isn't it up to the government to prove who was actually behind the wheel at the time of said infraction? Just because a vehicle is registered to you, doesn't mean you are the one always behind the wheel. I would think if you deny in court you were behind the wheel, they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who was actually behind the wheel.

They had these red light cameras in Minneapolis a few years ago, but they didn't last long and were removed as the state supreme court deemed them illegal. Even many police departments here in Mn were against them.