Red Light Cameras

[sobo]

I have a question for you LEOs.

I live in the DFW area. Recently on the news I saw where they were announcing where all the new red light cameras were being put up and announcing there was a 30 day grace period - which basically says to me you can run the light and since the camera is new, they'll let you off with a warning.

I have a major problem with this. If a cop is sitting there and witnesses someone run the red light - which has killed people, in fact a family was killed leaving church because of a red light/stop sign runner :mad: - that person would get a ticket. Why are drivers all the sudden allowed to run the light because the camera is installed? And why do they announce where these cameras are? Why not just install them - you run a light - you get a ticket in the mail. Plain, simple, to the point. What's not to stop an idiot from thinking, "Hey, they've got a camera on X lane and there's a 30 day grace period. I don't have to be careful." and someone gets killed?

Maybe I'm way off base, and if so, someone please enlighten me. It just seems contradictory for the news to report where these things are and inform everyone about the grace period. What's next - the news to announce where bait cars will be placed so car theives can avoid them or where undercover officers are planning a sting, so all the drug dealers can avoid it?

[txinvestigator1]

No one is "allowed to run the light". If the camera gets you the first 30 days they send a notice. If a cop catches you a ticket you shall get.

[Citicop]

I have a question for you LEOs.

I live in the DFW area. Recently on the news I saw where they were announcing where all the new red light cameras were being put up and announcing there was a 30 day grace period - which basically says to me you can run the light and since the camera is new, they'll let you off with a warning.

I have a major problem with this. If a cop is sitting there and witnesses someone run the red light - which has killed people, in fact a family was killed leaving church because of a red light/stop sign runner :mad: - that person would get a ticket. Why are drivers all the sudden allowed to run the light because the camera is installed? And why do they announce where these cameras are? Why not just install them - you run a light - you get a ticket in the mail. Plain, simple, to the point. What's not to stop an idiot from thinking, "Hey, they've got a camera on X lane and there's a 30 day grace period. I don't have to be careful." and someone gets killed?

Maybe I'm way off base, and if so, someone please enlighten me. It just seems contradictory for the news to report where these things are and inform everyone about the grace period. What's next - the news to announce where bait cars will be placed so car theives can avoid them or where undercover officers are planning a sting, so all the drug dealers can avoid it?

My best guess is that you don't get a ticket FROM THE CAMERA during the grace period. If *I* were there and saw it, I would still issue a ticket, just like always. So, that means that the current level of enforcement stays the same, and then (allegedly) the level of enforcement will increase after the grace period.

FWIW, I am 100% against red light cameras, at least the way they are implemented here. It isn't about safety, it's about revenue in way too many cases.

Citicop.

[phantasm]

Red light cameras are civil penalties against the registered owner of the vehicle, not against the driver. Additionally its a grace period against that civil penalty. An officer COULD summons an individual for going through one of these intersections both before, during, and after this grace period, because a moving violation is against the driver, not the vehicle. I personally wouldn't summons for a red light violation at an intersection with a working red light camera, but that's just me.

[retdetsgt]

Red light cameras are civil penalties against the registered owner of the vehicle, not against the driver. Additionally its a grace period against that civil penalty.

That depends on the state. Here, the picture of the driver is compared to the picture on the reg. owner(s) driver's license by a police officer. If it matches, the ticket is mailed to the owner. There's nothing civil about it, it's a traffic ticket just as if the police officer issued it himself.

A parking ticket is against the car, but ignoring a photo red light or photo speeding will get your license suspended here just as if it had been issued to you in person.

[sobo]

Thank you - that helps hearing an officer's take on it. My thing is - I don't know why they should announce where they are or have a grace period at all. If they want the cameras up - put them up and if you run a red light, you get a ticket.

Good point about the registered owner of the vehicle and not the driver.

I will say this - I got a ticket from a red light camera. :eek:
I was turning right at the red light on the street I used all the time. Perhaps comfort played a role. I always stop and then turn when it is safe. The people to my right had the protected green arrow. I could see as I was approaching the light it was safe for me to turn right on red. I could have sworn I came to a stop and then proceeded to turn right. When I logged on to view the video, I saw I did, what do they call it - a "California Stop"? Where I slowed down, ALMOST to a stop, but not a complete stop. I was in the wrong, I wrote a check for $75.00. But I have noticed, every single red light I approach, even if I can see I can turn right on red, I make sure I come to a complete stop - complete with the roll-back. Then I proceed to turn. I learned something from it and even though I thought before I was a safe driver, I can say that one ticket has made me more cautious - so the optimistic side of me would like to think people could learn to be better drivers with the lights.

However, they could just be a revenue earner.

[TX-LEO]

FWIW, I am 100% against red light cameras, at least the way they are implemented here. It isn't about safety, it's about revenue in way too many cases.

Citicop.

Big heck yeah bro. Some places are removing them because they aren't doing anything but generating money for a company in Japan or something.

Take them all down and burn them IMO.

[TX-LEO]

That depends on the state. Here, the picture of the driver is compared to the picture on the reg. owner(s) driver's license by a police officer. If it matches, the ticket is mailed to the owner. There's nothing civil about it, it's a traffic ticket just as if the police officer issued it himself.

.

They do the same thing here, but it's still a civil matter and has no point value on your DL. It really is simply a fine sent to the registered owner, and not a traffic offense.

[retdetsgt]

They do the same thing here, but it's still a civil matter and has no point value on your DL. It really is simply a fine sent to the registered owner, and not a traffic offense.

I see why you say it's revenue gathering then. Here, if the driver isn't the one of the registered owners, the ticket is tossed. One town tried to intimidate people into saying who was driving, but the courts whacked their peepee for it.

The little town I live in put one up at a major highway intersection and I have to say it's done a lot of good. There always used to be glass and plastic in the middle of the intersection and there are hardly any wrecks there now. I don't know if they get that many tickets out of it, but it's marked so well as a photo red light that people don't try to run it anymore. I'm glad it's there.