Photo Red Light violation (6 photos and 12-second video)

General Discussion
82

Camera’s are everywhere. Watch the Movie - “Patriots Day” (about the marathon bombing). The camera’s depicted in the film were real. There must have been 10-20 camera’s from private businesses in that section of Boylston st. All were accessed by the FBI to obtain the identity of the bombers. Plus they confiscated everyone’s cell phones there. They had hundred of phones.

NYC has THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of camera’s. All large cities do now. London England probably has the most and they were the first due to the IRA bombings of t he 60’s and 70’s.

I know a guy who has a small farm stand in the Lakes Region NH that has a security Camera on the stand. His closest neighbor is 3 miles away.

And then there’s the camera’s hunters put up in the woods before and during deer season.

They’re everywhere - get use to it.

83

As physical evidence, it’s lacking. It has no context, and there’s no way to prove that the evidence is accurate. As to questioning those who are testifying against me, that’s a neat idea but there are several problems with this:

First, those who are testifying against me are basing their testimony on what the camera is telling them happened. If the camera were human, this would be hearsay. Since, as you say, the camera is treated as “evidence,” all the guy testifying against me has to say is “the camera shows a violation,” and even if the camera said I was doing 47 when I was really doing 18, I’m gonna lose unless I can somehow prove that the camera was wrong. And of course, that violates the basic concept that the prosecution is supposed to prove the camera is right, because they are supposed to prove I did it. I am not supposed to have to prove that I didn’t do it.

The other problem with this is that the justice system is weighted toward cop testimony. I’ll give you an example. Years ago, I got a a ticket from a particularly bored deputy in Iowa for 56 in a 55. Yeah, 1mph over. Well within the error range of both my speedometer and his radar.

Took it to court. Got him to admit that he did not know what the error range of his radar was. Got him to admit that he did not know if his radar was properly calibrated.

I had obtained a copy of the radar’s manual and submitted it into evidence. It said the radar could be off by a certain amount, which worked out to “it could say I was going 56 when I was actually going 55.” It also said the radar has to be calibrated with a tuning fork before each use, something the cop admitted he hadn’t done.

The prosecutor then stood up on re-direct and asked him if he trusted his radar. “Yes.” Then in a particularly bad moment of lawyering, asked him what time it was. Cop looked at his watch and answered. The prosecutor pointed out that the courtroom clock had a different time, and the cop said “well, I trust what my watch says.” So I re-crossed and had him go over that once more, and then said “So even though you have been provided evidence by a court of law that your equipment is inaccurate, you insist on believing your equipment,” to which he answered yes.

Judge came back with a guilty verdict and I had to pay, even though the cop hadn’t operated the radar correctly and had said he would believe the radar even if presented with evidence it was wrong.

That kind of crap happens every day across the country. If a cop takes the stand, his word will be given more credence than the accused. As such, the evidence used against the accused should be unimpeachable, and if it isn’t, the system generating that evidence shouldn’t be legal.

84

As I posted before, two images separated by a known time interval can verify speed.
In DC the speed and red light cameras take double shots.
If two photos of a car taken half a second apart show the car moved 44 feet, that proves it was going 60mph.
The chance of that plus the radar being off by the same amount is remote.
For red lights the second image is taken when the offending vehicle is in the middle of the intersection, and the red traffic light is in the frame.

85
  1. prove it was me. 2) prove the camera’s clock was accurate at the time. 3) on the red light one, prove that the timing of the yellow wasn’t intentionally shortened to generate more tickets. Hint: If the red light camera was installed under contract by a private monitoring company, it probably was.

Btw, to point 1, no, having a picture that looks like me isn’t good enough. That camera needs to have pulled me over and gotten my ID like a real cop would have.

Remember the Steve Jobs conversation we were having a few days ago?

Steve-Jobs-780x621.jpg780×621 55 KB

That’s not Steve Jobs. It’s a guy in Egypt, and the resemblance is close enough that it inspired a bunch of internet idiots to decide that Jobs faked his own death. And yeah, I know, what’s the likelihood that someone who looks like me would be driving my car? Doesn’t matter - it’s the prosecution’s job to prove conclusively that it was me, not my job to prove that it wasn’t. They specifically get around that idea by making traffic offenses “civil infractions,” which in addition to throwing basic evidentiary rules out the window, often means you have no right of appeal. In short, they’re violating the constitution by claiming that what they’re doing isn’t covered by the constitution.

Red light running is a menace, and I’d love to see cops working traffic lights rather than sleeping under bridges pretending to run radar, but if a cop accuses me of a crime, they need to have actually witnessed that crime themselves, not been told about that supposed crime by a private company that makes money every time someone gets accused of a crime.

86

Here in DC “The vehicle owner is responsible for all automated enforcement tickets issued to the vehicle, regardless of who was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation.”
https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/automated-red-light-enforcement-faqs

87

Yes, and that’s ridiculous and should be struck down.

1 Like
88

The only thing about your point that I don’t understand, is video evidence not admissible in court? If I rob the liquor store after hours and the camera gets a good look at my mug, I can be prosecuted right? Even if an officer (or anyone else) wasn’t there to witness it. I don’t see the difference in video evidence there vs. video evidence (or photo evidence) of a traffic violation.

It doesn’t really matter to me. We don’t have that tech in my area that I’m aware of (yet). But I can see the benefit of automating some of the traffic enforcement rather than trying to have a salaried person actually witnessing someone run a red light.

I will admit, 99% of the time I’ve gotten a ticket, I deserved it! I’ve never received a stop light citation, but I’ve gotten a few speeding tickets through the years. And you’re correct, the officer’s word carries more weight in traffic court than the driver’s word. Most times for good reason. You really have to prove your innocence in court when you get a traffic citation, rather than them proving your guilt. That seems to be the case whether you got an automated ticket or an “in person officer” ticket.

Shadow, your posts make me think you get your share of tickets :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

89

30 mph

My bad, i missed the HALF second. 60 is correct.

That is true with any evidence, it is always subject to interpretation. That is why it is your right to examine the evidence. There are ways to determine if the evidence has been tampered with. One way is to do a frame count. Videos are usually recorded at 30 fps. The frame rate is recorded in the video parameters. Then by knowing the distance between objects in the video, you can accurately or at least very closely determine speed using time/distance formulas.

As for red light running, again you can use the frame rate to determine just how long the yellow lasted. But even if you can prove that it was shortened, very few, if any states have it in their codes as to how long a yellow light must last. Fifty years ago, 5 seconds was the accepted time but the mechanical timers were notoriously inaccurate back then. Today, most lights with cameras are set to 4 seconds and that is generally acceptable to the courts. Show it was under 4 seconds and you have a chance, but it is up to the judge.

BTW, they don’t issue a citation unless the light was red when you entered the intersection. Also if someone else was driving your vehicle, you may have to throw them under the bus in order to avoid paying the fine, but that’s between you and them. You are ultimately responsible for your vehicle, no matter who is driving it. If they cause an accident, you will be paying. Hope you have good insurance if you keep lending out your vehicle.

90

Ha! I haven’t had a ticket in probably 25 years. Got a few when I was younger and dumber. I deserved some and paid 'em. Didn’t deserve others and fought them, and only lost the one I talked about above for 1mph over, thanks to the People’s Republic of Iowa. :wink:

You can, yes, unless you can find a doppelganger or show that you were out of town when the store was burglarized, because the video clearly shows you and it clearly shows a crime being committed.

In the case of a speed camera, even if we take as-read that it’s got your mug and they know it’s you, we do not know whether or not the speed was in error. Is it calibrated correctly? If it is, then did it really get your speed, or did it get a return off the guy racing up behind you? If it’s the double-shot camera, do we know that its clock is accurate? Quite frankly, do we know that the company which stands to profit off of you getting a speeding ticket isn’t changing the numbers to make you appear to be speeding? Since there wasn’t a human there looking at what the camera saw, we don’t know.

In the case of red light cameras, they’re borderline entrapment. They shorten the length of the yellow when the cameras are installed so that drivers who are used to having X seconds before the light turns red end up with fewer seconds. This not only means that we have induced those drivers into breaking the law when otherwise they would not have, but it also means that drivers who are aware of this practice will slam on the brakes violently the instant the light turns yellow, and that’s dangerous.

In the liquor store example, there is no timeframe in which it is legal to steal merchandise. In other words, there’s no way for the government to induce you into committing an illegal act that you thought was legal - you already know it’s wrong to steal, and you know that it is always wrong to steal. But there is a time frame - the yellow - after the green light in which it is legal to proceed through the intersection, and the camera company is getting the city to shorten that time frame so that more people will run the red and they will make more money.

The long and the short of it is that cameras run by private companies that are used to catch lawbreakers are mixing the justice system with profit. That should never be allowed because it’s an inherent conflict of interest.

As far as:

One of the tickets I got was for 20 over. I came around a curve on a densely-wooded 2 lane highway and got popped by the cop. He claimed I was doing 75. I knew full well I wasn’t even if my speedo were wildly inaccurate.

I got him into court and he testified that, per legal requirements, he had clocked me for 2 seconds to obtain a fix. I got him to admit where he’d been sitting, and where I was first visible. I had the distances ready to go, and showed mathematically that if he’d really been able to point his radar at me for 2 seconds before I passed him, I would have been going 30 under the speed limit. At the speed he claimed I was going, I’d have passed him long before the 2 required seconds were up.

This cop testified under oath that he had done something he didn’t do, and even after I proved that he’d committed perjury, he was allowed to leave the courtroom without being charged.

And that was a mild lie. Look up “New Orleans police ham sandwich” some time to show the depths that some cops will sink to in their dishonesty.

Cops lie, just like anyone else, and their word frankly should not be taken as gospel any more than any other person’s.

91

I understand some cops are crooked. But every criminal is innocent (in his own mind). “I didn’t do it!” So yeah, the cop’s word is generally going to carry more weight.

Was unaware they shortened the yellow lights. I assumed they were all set to illuminate for some standard period, whatever that is.

The only ticket I received that I don’t think I deserved, I was about 20 years old driving a red 1989 mustang gt. I got passed by a suburban. Immediately after that, I got pulled over and got a speeding ticket. I asked the cop how come I got a ticket when I was getting passed, and how he knew he clocked me vs the big ass suv that passed me. His response was basically that a red mustang draws attention. I think that’s called profiling these days!

92

I think you will find that as a whole cops don’t lie as much as most people. Something I found from some cop friends is that most of the time, they don’t care if you win or lose in court. They did their job by reporting the offense they observed.

About half the time you can talk your way out of the ticket if you have a good story, but beware that you may be admitting guilt in telly your story and that could backfire, so make it a good one. I like the one where the driver told the trooper that his wife ran off with a trooper and he thought that the trooper was trying to bring her back.

BTW, I usually just pay the fine but there were a couple I thought were wrong and I fought them, and I won each time. Also I got one for doing 1 over. The speed limit was 55 and I got the ticket for doing 66, but there was a 10 mph margin so I was only 1 over the margin. It was a Radar ticket and as an old radar tech, I could have proven that I was not doing 66, but then I’d still have to admit to the judge that I was doing 65 and I don’t think she would like that.

93

Using DC as an example is not necessarily the best example. Lots of stuff goes on in DC that should not be allowed. At any rate, sure most LEOs are honest but because of their constant exposure to the dark side, they have a built in bias that says everyone they arrest is guilty and its just a matter of getting them to admit it, one way or another.

We talked about the right or non-right to privacy in your back yard. A book I’m reading mentioned that the rule is 1000 feet in the air is your domain. Lower than that requires a warrant and a privacy violation. Can’t say how accurate that figure is but I do know there is a figure and it’s not 20 feet.

94

That whole incidence actually says more about the judge . . . and what it says isn’t very good

95

No he didn’t and you clearly don’t know much about radar. He had you long before he saw you. All he had to do was not lose contact once he had you or you could claim it was someone else he had clocked.

96

An Ohio patrol officer said that “9 you/re fine but 10 you’re mine”. Heard him on the radio I think. I was stopped once for going 59 in a 55. The guy was nice and never even wrote a warning but I was stopped none the less. Now had there been a bottle in the car, a beer can, or the smell of pot (none of these things of course would be me) into the back of the squad it would be. So 4 over is probable cause. I did have a little cash though since I was heading to the casino. Cash though is still legal unless you have a lot of it. Never had to worry about that again on the way home.

1 Like
97

I think when the red light cameras came out in IL, it was not considered a moving violation. IL now it appears it is, but they have this cool thing called traffic school, you pay to attend a 4 hour class and a ticket will not go on your record if you do not receive another ticket within a year. Get a second ticket within a year you can pay to attend an 8 hour class, and no more tickets within a year are not reported. If you get a 3rd ticket you can request from a judge another 8 hour traffic school and no more tickets within a year they are cleared from your record. Cheaper than the hike in auto insurance I think.

98

That’s pretty impressive. Care to explain to the audience how he or his radar “had” me around a curve and behind a thickly forested hill that you can’t see through? :wink:

To clarify, that ticket was dismissed because the judge agreed that it was impossible for the cop to have both locked onto me for the 2 seconds required and for me to have been speeding. But the judge should then have at minimum admonished the cop for lying on the stand, and that didn’t happen.

99

I got a ticket for going 72 in a 65 once, so the 10 mph buffer doesn’t always work. Full disclosure, I did pass a hwy patrol officer. Long line of cars going 65 in the right lane. I had the cruise set to 72ish. When I got to the front of the long line, a hwy patrol officer was in front. I figured it’s too late now, so I kept going. The patrol officer pulled me over and gave me a ticket. He said the ticket was more for “a lack of respect” shown by passing the hwy patrol rather than excessive speed. In my mind, it wasn’t showing a lack of respect. I assumed there was no point trying to hide or slow down once he’d seen me, so let the chips fall where they may. No “disrespect” intended. Geez. Get over yourself, dude! Luckily, he never turned the ticket in so I didn’t have to pay. I think he was just mad at the world that day because it was pretty close to Christmas and he had to work :laughing:

100

A lot depends on the hill and the band the radar is using. Seeing through a forest is not a problem for radars. They can see over or around small hills because the beam will “scatter”. That phenomenon is how radars can see over the horizon. Not enough space here to fully explain it.

If you were in an area with very little traffic, then those radars can see you up to 6 miles away. That distance is line of sight only but at shorter distances, say 1/4 mile, seeing over a small hill or through a forest is no problem.

Radars are commonly used over jungles to map the floor below because foliage does not attenuate a radar wave very much.

BTW, a common misbelief is that a radar detector will detect the radar before the radar will detect the vehicle. Hate to bust anyone’s bubble that believes this because it is not true. Radar detectors have to operate over a wide band because it does not know the exact frequency channel is in use. Wide bandwidth, less sensitivity. Radars use the transmitted frequency as a reference for the receiver so it operates in a vary narrow band. Narrow band, high sensitivity.

101

I don’t think you quite understand how police radar works. We’re talking about legal requirements for using radar to measure a vehicle’s speed, not a terrain mapping radar or a target acquisition radar.

For it to be a valid reading, the officer has to see you. Pointing the radar at a tree and getting a reading of 70mph when no cars are visible to the cop does not tell him which car is speeding even if the radar “sees” the car.

Doppler radar such as used by the police requires a target that’s moving toward it or going away from it. A car that’s traveling roughly perpendicular to its beam won’t return a valid reading because of something called the cosine effect error - in fact if it’s traveling exactly perpendicular, it will return a reading of 0mph. Obviously, that’s not going to result in a valid ticket.

Further, a car that’s in a corner returns inconsistent readings due to the rapidly changing cosine effect angle, which means the cop can’t get a good reading until the car exits the corner.

So, it’s already been established that I came around a corner, which means I was traveling perpendicular, or nearly so, to the beam before coming around the corner, and that I was hidden by a hill and trees, which means the cop couldn’t see me in the first place until I came around the corner.

Even generously assuming that I pulled an Automan and instantly passed through the corner onto the straight to eliminate the error inherent in the curve, after I came around the corner, I would have had to have been going vastly under the speed limit in order for him to establish the mandatory 2 second lock.

I’m really not sure why you keep arguing this - this happened something like 2 decades ago, and the judge sided with me because the cop was dead wrong and then lied on the stand to cover his incompetent performance with the radar.

1 Like