Traffic-Redlight Cameras

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Mastino177, May 7, 2007.

  1. Mastino177

    Mastino177 Member

    586
    0
    16
    Alright...I have a question about these things. Are they legal? How can you beat one?

    What if the owner wasn't driving? What if the pictures are inconclusive? Tell me where to look guys.

    HELP
     
  2. foshizzle

    foshizzle New Member

    1,283
    0
    0
    Start here.

    http://www.dot.state.ga.us/dot/operatio ... 120505.pdf

    You probably won't be able to beat it. If you could prove they system didn't meet the legal requirements... maybe. But, it's a big enough money-maker they are usually run just right! With a virtually unliminted supply of income from them, it's easy to stay on the up and up. If someone else was driving, you sign an affidavit telling them who it was. They'll go after them. If they say they weren't driving... who knows... maybe they'll come back at you. Just don't get caught lying I guess.

    Red-light cameras suck. I drove about 400 miles a few weekends ago to FL and saw 5 of them. Pure revenue-generation... it's the 'hip' way to balance your city's budget!

    EXTORTION!!!
     

  3. tj2000

    tj2000 New Member

    397
    0
    0
    Well, you could always go slower and show the camera your GFL. That might work. "It could happen".

    :rotfl: :rotfl: :woohoo:
     
  4. Dan H

    Dan H New Member

    1,075
    0
    0
    I have a problem with speeding but Ive never had a problem with these...maybe cuz I have good brakes? :-k
     
  5. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    My brother just got one of these tickets. I told him to contest it.
     
  6. Sine Nomen

    Sine Nomen New Member

    3,216
    1
    0
    Very important detail.

    They can't charge you with a crime with only one of those cameras. It falls under a subsection of the "failure to obey a traffic control device" law. It is a civil offense, not criminal, with a maximum fine of $75. You get no "points" and it does not go on your driving record. Because it is civil, they don't have to prove "beyond any reasonable doubt" only have to show a "preponderance of the evidence." At least that is how (my lawyer told me) the state law is written and enforced. I don't know the particulars of any local laws, nor whether they would be preempted by the state statute.
    :ianal:
     
  7. legacy38

    legacy38 Active Member

    8,982
    0
    36
    I believe them to be unconstitutional.
     
  8. gsusnake

    gsusnake Token Liberal Hippie

    13,599
    15
    38
    They are unconstitutional.

    The Constitution guarantees your right to face your accuser, no?

    And a video camera can't exactly take an oath. You can't face it in court. You can't ask it questions.
     
  9. Adam5

    Adam5 Atlanta Overwatch

    13,207
    28
    48
    If you fight it and lose it will become a moving violation.

    There is only one defense that I'm aware of that will work. If you were not driving and there is no picture of you driving, you can sign a sworn and notarized affidavit at the court house, that states you were not driving at the time the pictures were taken.
     
  10. foshizzle

    foshizzle New Member

    1,283
    0
    0
    And I think it's perfectly legal to loan your car to someone you don't know... or only have a 'name' for. Bad judgement for sure.. .but illegal? I dunno. "I think his name was Joe... he just wanted to go get diapers for his kids". I bet it would work... BUT you are signing a notarized affidavit... so if you get busted, expect to fry. Georgia law does not allow pictures to be taken of the driver. Only pictures from the rear of the vehicle.

    Where is that in the law?

     
  11. Mastino177

    Mastino177 Member

    586
    0
    16
    There is a rumor out there that you do not have to give up a name...due to the fact that you do not have to testify.

    My question is that there was a red light present over the two left lanes not the right lane, which was a turn right only to I-75. There was no yield sign or any verbal sign (that you can see in the video). I slowed and coasted turning right to I-75 South. No picture of me...as I am not the owner of the auto. A civil matter...who the hell did I commit a tort on...the po-po's...who the hell died and made them the ambastards to Tifton?
     
  12. pyromaster

    pyromaster New Member

    859
    0
    0
    How could you get a ticket turning right?
     
  13. legacy38

    legacy38 Active Member

    8,982
    0
    36
    Dude, I'm in the choir.

    I know that locally a challenge means that the court has to bring in a techinition to verify the camera is in proper working order, but I still don't think that meets constitutional muster. I'd be more inclined to accept them if the picutre showed the driver, but it is my understanding that they do not.
     
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    Your understanding is correct.
     
  15. mzmtg

    mzmtg Active Member

    3,119
    0
    36
    Why? They have been studied and shown to increase traffic collisions where they are installed.

    Is gov't revenue worth sacrificing your safety?
     
  16. legacy38

    legacy38 Active Member

    8,982
    0
    36
    My issue with them is reasonable doubt/burden of proof on the state, and I don't care that they are termed as civil. In my opinion, the state hasn't met its burden of proof simply by producing a picture of a vehicle running a lot. If an officer sees a vehicle run a light but can't stop the vehicle before it turns into a convenience store and the occupants enter the store without the officer being able to identify the driver, the officer can't simply cite the owner of the vehicle, even if present. I don't see where there is any difference between the scenario that I laid out and the pictures of a vehicle without showing the driver.

    If the pictures showed the driver and it could be proven that the camera was working correctly, I would be inclined to accept them under the Constitution.
     
  17. Adam5

    Adam5 Atlanta Overwatch

    13,207
    28
    48
    Where is that in the law?

     
  18. Tinkerhell

    Tinkerhell Active Member

    2,417
    1
    38
    This has come up in the threads before and I had an interesting comment but due to other recent posts by moderators & good points they made I won't re-post it. But searching & googling can turn up all sorts of interesting things about the cameras and their.... inadequacies?... :twisted:
     
  19. Doc Holliday

    Doc Holliday New Member

    633
    0
    0
    Just FYI so nobody wastes money:

    Those sprays that they market to make your tag "invisible" don't work. I saw a consumer report on TV about these where they tested them and the photos still came out clear enough to "convict" you.

    Technology can be used for good...or for bad. These cameras are about as constitutional as the old fashioned road block that we have discussed on another thread. Just another example of Big Brother watching.