HELP! Redlight Cameras - wife got a ticket

[boomerang]

I often hear bicyclists say they have equal rights as cars on the road.

I rarely hear them say bicyclists should be ticketed for running stop signs and red lights just like drivers. And I never hear them say bicycles should be required to have license plates and financial responsibility and annual inspections like motorcycles.

So much for equality.

[The Annoyed Man]

Annoyed, I don't know which cameras you have seen pics from, but the systems in Dallas, Plano, Richardson, and every other one I have seen only take pictures of the rear of the car, it must be quite a trick to get a face shot of the driver under those circumstances. When involved with the project I asked an engineer if they would be using cameras in other positions than behind, and they said they had considered the option but on top of the extra expense that they deemed unwarranted, they felt that the powerful flash required to get an even exposure day or night, might be detrimental to good driving by people exposed to it.

The pictures I've seen were all taken by cameras deployed by the Pasadena California police department. The intersection camera pictures are taken from the front. You're right in that the flash is plainly visible, even in daylight. Likewise with a mobile speeding camera that was mounted in the back of a Blazer, facing backward out the back window. It shot your picture from the front, and the faces were clearly visible.

The first time I saw it was an employee of mine who got caught speeding in one of our company trucks. They mailed us the ticket. I asked the driver if he had been on that particular street at that time on that day, and he denied it. I drove up to the police station and asked to see the picture. The guy's face was plainly visible. I gave them the driver's home address, and they remailed the ticket to him.

I can't speak to the systems used locally here. I assumed they were all the same, but I guess I was wrong.

[dave_in_austin]

I often hear bicyclists say they have equal rights as cars on the road.

That is what Texas law says for the most part. There are exceptions such as not not being allowed on the interstate, not being allowed to use the left lane, etc.

I rarely hear them say bicyclists should be ticketed for running stop signs and red lights just like drivers.

Well, here is another rare case for you then. As one who puts more miles on my bike each year than I do on my truck, I strongly believe that ALL users of the road should comply with the legal requirements and be appropriately cited when they fail to do so.

And I never hear them say bicycles should be required to have license plates and financial responsibility and annual inspections like motorcycles.

Many years ago, the City of Austin did require license plates and inspection of bicycles. When the program was in place I complied without complaint. The program was dropped as it was viewed as not being cost effective and serving no purpose. If you feel strongly about the issue, lobby your legislators to get the law changed. Most serious bicyclists do not have a problem with such concepts.

So much for equality.

Try riding a few thousand miles on Texas roads and in the mean time review the legal outcome of all of the auto-bicycle collisions in the past 10 years and you will learn that there is no equality. There is a strong bias towards automobile operators in both the attitude of many Texas drivers and the legal system. Many people believe that bicycles should not be allowed to use the public roadways and behave in a way that tends to enforce their bias. Perhaps it would be best if only automobiles were allowed to use the public roadways, but that is not what the law presently says. Until the law is changed, we should ALL respect and comply with it even if we do not agree with it.

[mr.72]

You just can't expect to reasonably treat a human-powered vehicle that weighs 20 lb operated by an unlicensed individual with no age, testing, proficiency or licensing requirements the same as how you treat a 300 horsepower 4,000 lb mechanized vehicle complete with extensive licensing and proficiency requirements for the vehicle and operator.

There is no way to treat them the same.

If you do want to run this "equal" or "same" treatment as far as it goes then let's get cyclists riding where they really should be riding, right in the lane of traffic and you can slow your car down and maintain safe following distances just like you would with any other "equal" vehicle. This would be one of the best things we could do for bicycle rider safety since it puts bicycles in your field of vision and and also slows down traffic to sub-20mph. But as long as drivers insist that they should be able to pass cyclists in whatever unsafe manner they would like, then you have to allow cyclists to bend some rules in their favor as well.

When I got hit it was because a driver passed me on my left, like 500 of them do every day, and then proceeded to turn right, failing to note that I was on their right and they ran right on top of me. This is such a common type of auto-bicycle wreck that it has a common name "right hook". Imagine if someone did that to you while you were in your car... passed you on your left and then IMMEDIATELY jammed their brakes and turned right, straight in your path so you had no way to avoid a collision.

It is the passing of cyclists by drivers of cars that puts bicyclists at risk. So when the light is red, and I know that 100 yards past the light is a shopping center on the right and at least some of the cars waiting at the light are going to want to turn into it, then it does me a whole lot of good as a cyclist to "run" that light once traffic is clear and get past the shopping center before the light turns green. This saves lives! Same thing if it is a stop sign, and I just "roll" through it that way you are not so compelled to pass me before turning right. Since I can't ride in the left lane and force you to stay behind me, it's my only defense to keep myself safe.

Likewise if a cyclist is riding on the shoulder of the road and approaches a "T" intersection with a road coming to their road at the left, what purpose is there in stopping for a red light? There is no automobile traffic turning from the side street into the shoulder of the main road. It only serves to make the cyclist contend with the stopped traffic once the light turns green if they stop at the red light.

I am not an advocate of cyclists following the current traffic laws, since they make no sense for bicycles. The traffic laws are written for safety of drivers. Any cyclists who put more than 1000 miles per year of road riding in are keenly aware of their safety on the road and don't need any laws to ensure it. They are super-vulnerable and at high risk all the time, so they will be vigilant. I am an advocate of rewriting most traffic laws to make it safer for cyclists. Unfortunately until cyclists happen to be the majority voters, it will never happen because drivers are totally oblivious to the utility of better traffic laws and only view bicycles as an impediment as is shown on this forum. Once gasoline is $10/gal and cyclists are the majority, then we won't need any new laws. I am not at risk from 10,000 other cyclists on the road.

[Right2Carry]

Let's face it bicycles do not belong on the road anymore than golf carts do.

[Keith B]

This has moved off topic and needs to be brought back to red light cameras, not bicycle and whether they belong on the road or not.

[Liberty]

[quote="mr.72" Once gasoline is $10/gal and cyclists are the majority, then we won't need any new laws. I am not at risk from 10,000 other cyclists on the road.[/quote]
Thats whatthey said about gas reaching $1.00 a gallon when it increased to $0.50 a gallon. Them main difference between then and now is that 1 car families are the exception rather than the rule. Oh and we had Volks wagon Buses instead of SUVs then.

[DoubleActionCHL]

Thanks for the replies, but I must said I'm not interested in the preaching. Any Captain Obvious can tell someone not to run red lights. That's not the issue. I don't condone running red lights and I'm not trying to get out of a ticket. My issue is with the method in which this is handled.

I would have preferred that she actually had been stopped by a police officer. This is not about the fine or the insurance costs or even safety. If that's what you think, you've completely missed my point. This is about a machine acting as police officer, judge and jury. This is about a system that assumes guilt and gives the vehicle owner zero recourse. This is about people being deprived of their right to face their accuser. Red light cameras are clearly a revenue generating mechanism.

Had a police officer caught her, she would have gotten a ticket. She would then have the right to challenge the citation, face the officer, etc. Win or lose, she would have a chance to exercise her rights.

I have a problem with anything that assumes we are guilty. This gives our government yet another method to suck money out of our pockets with impunity.

[lunchbox]

[KBCraig]

Lots of good reading:

http://www.thenewspaper.com
http://motorists.org

[The Annoyed Man]

I have a problem with anything that assumes we are guilty. This gives our government yet another method to suck money out of our pockets with impunity.

With all due respect, if there is a picture with your license plate on it, and you haven't reported the car stolen, then guilt is a very reasonable assumption. And, from my own personal experience, you can challenge the assumption if you can prove that it was someone else at the wheel.

I understand the idea of the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, but that is for a jury or judge. The prosecution always assumes guilt first, or they wouldn't be bringing anyone to trial, and the defense always assumes innocence. I see receiving a ticket as the accusation, not the conviction. Like any accused, you have the opportunity to defend yourself. The issue is always in doubt until either you or the city concede defeat, and either the ticket is dismissed or the fine paid. So what does it matter whether the accuser is a man or machine as long as you have the right to challenge the accuser?

[DoubleActionCHL]

I understand the idea of the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, but that is for a jury or judge. The prosecution always assumes guilt first, or they wouldn't be bringing anyone to trial, and the defense always assumes innocence. I see receiving a ticket as the accusation, not the conviction. Like any accused, you have the opportunity to defend yourself. The issue is always in doubt until either you or the city concede defeat, and either the ticket is dismissed or the fine paid. So what does it matter whether the accuser is a man or machine as long as you have the right to challenge the accuser?

There is no recourse, in this case, because it is not a 'fine' so much as it is a 'bill' from the city. Failing to respond is a presumption of liability. Responding is a presumption of liability. This doesn't go against your driving record or your insurance, and nearly half the revenue goes to the company that runs the cameras. It is in their best interest to catch as many 'red light runners' as possible, and it's also in their interest to make the system as difficult as possible to fight. You are assumed guilty and, unlike our legal process, we must prove our innocence.

[lunchbox]

the camera cant see that you broke the plain of the intersection or not before the light turned red

[KC5AV]

the camera cant see that you broke the plain of the intersection or not before the light turned red

Actually, it can. There are various ways that it's done, but it is quite capable. There are also a number of reviews that each supposed violation goes through to verify that it is accurate.

[lunchbox]

the camera cant see that you broke the plain of the intersection or not before the light turned red

Actually, it can. There are various ways that it's done, but it is quite capable. There are also a number of reviews that each supposed violation goes through to verify that it is accurate.

i dont believe in cops being replaced by a camera and a secretary