CarTalk.com Best of Deals Car Reviews Repair Shops Cars A-Z Radio Show

Nabbed by infamous speed trap camera

I live in a small town on a road that most motorists apparently believe the posted speed limit is just a guideline. A child was hit and killed by one. If you can’t obey the speed limits, you get what you deserve.

What is a child doing in the road when cars are driving on it?
Or are you saying the driver was speeding on the sidewalk?

It is entirely possible to drive above the speed limit, yet still be able to not hit pedestrians that are crossing at designated crosswalks, if the driver is paying attention to what is happening outside the windshield of their car.

The problem is that the vast majority of drivers don’t pay attention to the events that are occurring outside of that windshield.

BC.

“What is a child doing in the road when cars are driving on it?”

How many children actually understand the dangers involved? And even if they do, they often forget the possible problems when there is something important to them, like where the ball went. Kids have a terrible case of tunnel vision. This can even be the case on busy roads. Many busy roads around me are still residential. At one time, they were quiet country roads, but aren’t anymore.

I think you have a right to complain, since you should be able to face and question your accusar @circuitsmith. Unless the red light camera is able to be brought into court and have it answer your questions about the nature and condition of the infraction cited, I think you may have a case. I’m not saying it’s a fight worth fighting on practical level. You can’t fight city hall and all that. But you indeed may have a case.

I believe the right to face your accuser (in Texas it’s the right to “be confronted by the witnesses against” you) applies only to criminal cases. In Texas, traffic tickets issued by a cop are criminal, so you have these rights (attorney, jury trial, confronting witnesses) and I think speed cameras are illegal, but tickets from red light cameras are civil matters. The statute says something like “becomes liable for the payment of a civil penalty” as opposed to “commits an offense,” the standard criminal terminology.

I really hate how they can simply declare something to be a civil matter and then you suddenly don’t have any rights, but unless that’s turned over, I suspect demanding the opportunity to face your accuser is futile.

Joseph…the majority of municipalities that sign up for speed trap cameras are not doing so because of safety concerns. They are doing it to raise revenue. That’s why I don’t like speed trap cameras and I never will. The love of money is the root of all evil. Speed trap cameras are evil.

And you know this because … ?

Why do you have a problem with the camera? It is only recording facts, no opinions, just the facts. It sounds to me that your real objection is that the speed limit may be set too low? Maybe you should fight for more realistic speed limits and not object to enforcement techniques.

@Bladecutter “What is a child doing in the road when cars are driving on it?”

Children never need a “reason” to be in the street. They are unpredictable; unfortunately that’s part of being a child. That’s exactly WHY speed limits are lower in school zones and child play areas! Every driver should know that. Maybe if the driver had been doing the speedlimit he/she may have been able to stop in time.

In California, each city does red-light cameras its own way. And courts around the state rule this way or that depending upon how the judge thinks at the time. Anyway, it’s a mixed bag. I don’t know this from experience, but just reading the newspaper, so take it with a grain of salt. But in some cities apparently, if you get a red light camera ticket mailed to you, you don’t actually have to pay it. It’s a sort of trick, where the letter is stated in such a way as to make you think you have to pay. There’s multiple web pages on this issue. Here is what one says:

Does your “ticket” have the address of the Court on it? If it doesn’t, or if it says (in small print on the back of the page), “Do not contact the court,” it’s not really a ticket at all - it’s a police trick!

http://www.highwayrobbery.net/

And courts around the state rule this way or that depending upon how the judge thinks at the time. Anyway, it’s a mixed bag.

Likely true, however one thing is certain.  <b>The red light camera is NOT issuing tickets for a driver who is obeying the law.</b>

Joseph…I thought this thread was basically dead so I did not know you had brought my comment up again. I don’t like these red light cameras because they are installed and maintained by “for profit corporations.” Your comment “Likely true, however one thing is certain. The red light camera is NOT issuing tickets for a driver who is obeying the law” is based upon an assumption. An assumption is not fact.

I agree that you should obey the law but where is the “proof” that the person on the camera is breaking the law? A “for profit” company does not make money if the cameras only see law abiding citizens driving past. The camera can easily be adjusted to send a ticket to someone who is driving 30mph in a 30 mph zone. I want a living, breathing law enforcement officer giving out tickets to the public. They have to back up their claims in court in front of a judge. Red light cameras just keep hanging on a pole and taking pictures. This is one-sided justice at best.