Red Light Ticket After Running a Light to Avoid an Accident

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California

Hey guys, first post here. I'm looking for some advice on how to fight this Red Light Ticket I got.

The story:
I was driving through an unfamiliar part of San Francisco on my way to work. Coming up to an intersection, I was in the right lane which began to merge to the left (merge began before intersection and ended after). Normally this would be no issue, however next to me was a large flat bed construction truck with a car tailgating it very closely. I needed to merge over and the stoplight had just turned yellow (truck was stopping). I did not have enough to room to stop in my own lane between the truck and the sidewalk, nor did I have enough time/room to slow down and merge behind the truck due to the car tailgating it, so my only real option was to go in front of the truck and through the intersection. Of course, right as I enter the intersection the light turns red and I see the flash of the red light camera go off. I missed the light by 0.4 seconds according to my notice.

Can any of you kind folks share some advise on how to go about fighting this?

PS my court date is tomorrow afternoon (!). I've simply been too busy to deal with this until now.

Thanks guys and gals!

You don't fight it. You learn to drive (or step up and pay the fine when you get caught). If you are unable to merge (remember, when merging, YOU yield, not the other way around) due to heavy traffic, you need to stop in your lane and wait until there is an opening to merge into. You can't just run a red light. There was not an "immediate" threat of accident requiring you to break a traffic law. Go to court and pay the fine.

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

You don't fight it. You learn to drive (or step up and pay the fine when you get caught). If you are unable to merge (remember, when merging, YOU yield, not the other way around) due to heavy traffic, you need to stop in your lane and wait until there is an opening to merge into. You can't just run a red light. There was not an "immediate" threat of accident requiring you to break a traffic law. Go to court and pay the fine.

---

I did not have enough room to come to a stop and wait to merge. The truck was too wide (and driving right on the lane line between our two lanes) to allow me enough room between it and the curb to come to a stop when considering the speed and movement on the truck. I was not speeding, and had the car not been tailgating the truck I would have been able to slow down and merge behind.

Does this change anything or do you still think I should just pay the fine? It seems as if I was in a situation where I could either very likely have an accident with the truck or proceed through the, at the time, yellow light. I feel I made the safest decision, but I am here for advice on the situation.

Quote:

---

Quoting sobe6545

---

I did not have enough room to come to a stop and wait to merge. The truck was too wide (and driving right on the lane line between our two lanes) to allow me enough room between it and the curb to come to a stop when considering the speed and movement on the truck. I was not speeding, and had the car not been tailgating the truck I would have been able to slow down and merge behind.

Does this change anything or do you still think I should just pay the fine? It seems as if I was in a situation where I could either very likely have an accident with the truck or proceed through the, at the time, yellow light. I feel I made the safest decision, but I am here for advice on the situation.

---

No, it doesn't change anything.

You might not have been exceeding the speed limit but you were certainly driving too fast for conditions.

Many have posted here claiming that the reason for breaking the traffic law was because they were compelled to do it for safety reasons. That's hogwash and judges don't buy it.

Pay the fine or go to traffic school if you are eligible. You have no defense here.

You were in a right turn lane. If that lane was controlled by the same red light, it is nobody's fault but your own that you did not slow when the light turned yellow such that you could stop before entering the intersection. If you could have lawfully turned right without stopping, then that would have been what you should have done instead of cutting in front of the truck and running the red light.

I'm not one to say "Just pay the fine" as, particularly if your driving record is good, you can often negotiate a deal for a reduced ticket or in some cases even for a dismissal (perhaps on payment of costs); If you can reduce or eliminate the impact of a ticket on your driving record and auto insurance, why not try? But from what you've said so far, I'm not seeing any legal defense to the ticket should you go to hearing. There's also the traffic school option, if you qualify.

The red light camera ticket is predicated upon your going through a red light, not a yellow light. If the pictures and video show something different, please elaborate.

Thanks for the responses. Based on what you've all said I think I'm just going to pay the fine and take traffic school. It was a tricky situation in an unfamiliar area, and I may have been a bit rushed to get to work. I'll be sure to be more careful next time. Thanks again.

Quote:

---

Quoting sobe6545

---

Thanks for the responses. Based on what you've all said I think I'm just going to pay the fine and take traffic school. It was a tricky situation in an unfamiliar area, and I may have been a bit rushed to get to work. I'll be sure to be more careful next time. Thanks again.

---

I'm guessing your date is arraignment, not trial, unless you've already posted bail some time ago. If it's arraignment, go online to your local court website or call the clerk and see if you can get an extension of arraignment. If it's your trial date, you can try but you'll probably not succeed.

There are ways to fight but a time of .4 is something of a problem. If the intersection has incandescent signals, you can argue that the red light had not reached full intensity and therefore was not a "steady red" signal as specified in the vehicle code. You can sometimes verify this by looking at stop frames of the video online at photonotice.whatever.

If your date tomorrow is for arraignment, your can request Trial by Written Declaration. Then, later, if you have the time and energy, you can see your actual evidence in your case file.

Sobe,

You may have thought you came to a site that was provided for people sharing advice about legal defenses. So, the series of lectures on what a bad driver you are may be a surprise to you. Don’t let it get you down. There are several people here who mistake this legal help site with the condescending lecture site all the time. Lecturing seems to be easier (and more self-satisfying) than actually helping for some people.

If your court date is for tomorrow, that’s just an arraignment. You haven’t blown your chance to develop a defense. All you will do tomorrow is plead guilty or not guilty.

First questions: Is this ticket in your name? Are you the registered owner of the car? Is the picture associated with the ticket clearly a picture of you? Was your ticket from Los Angeles? Are you going to a Los Angeles court?

Answer these questions first before you go to your arraignment.

For the high and mighty (who think the fine should simply be paid) I have the following suggestion: Next time you catch yourself 5 over the limit or not signalling or not completely stopping, drive over to the nearest police station and tell the first officer you see that you're making a citizen's arrest of yourself. Tell him or her what you did wrong and then sign the citation. If this doesn't work, look up the bail amount, fees and assessments for your violation and donate it to the Police Benevolent Association or the 11-99 Foundation.

For the OP, I might suggest my earlier post on 12/30/14. Read the case decision thoroughly, understand it, print it out. While this would not be binding in your county, it could be persuasive, assuming your Police Department uses the same deficient practice that we see here in Ventura County.

I'm sorry, the correct answer is you waited too long to make a decision on how to handle the impending situation and because of this driving error ran a red light. Why did you not stop in the merge lane, wait for the light to change and the other lane to clear before continuing instead of running the light after your error?

Quote:

---

Quoting Jim_bo

---

Sobe,

You may have thought you came to a site that was provided for people sharing advice about legal defenses. So, the series of lectures on what a bad driver you are may be a surprise to you. Don’t let it get you down. There are several people here who mistake this legal help site with the condescending lecture site all the time. Lecturing seems to be easier (and more self-satisfying) than actually helping for some people.

If your court date is for tomorrow, that’s just an arraignment. You haven’t blown your chance to develop a defense. All you will do tomorrow is plead guilty or not guilty.

First questions: Is this ticket in your name? Are you the registered owner of the car? Is the picture associated with the ticket clearly a picture of you? Was your ticket from Los Angeles? Are you going to a Los Angeles court?

Answer these questions first before you go to your arraignment.

---

Yes, just an arraignment. To answer those questions: Yes, the ticket is in my name. No, I am not the registered owner of the car. Yes, the picture is clearly me. No, the ticket is from San Francisco and I will be going to court there.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

For the high and mighty (who think the fine should simply be paid) I have the following suggestion: Next time you catch yourself 5 over the limit or not signalling or not completely stopping, drive over to the nearest police station and tell the first officer you see that you're making a citizen's arrest of yourself. Tell him or her what you did wrong and then sign the citation. If this doesn't work, look up the bail amount, fees and assessments for your violation and donate it to the Police Benevolent Association or the 11-99 Foundation.

For the OP, I might suggest my earlier post on 12/30/14. Read the case decision thoroughly, understand it, print it out. While this would not be binding in your county, it could be persuasive, assuming your Police Department uses the same deficient practice that we see here in Ventura County.

---

What would be the benefit of the citizens arrest? I will take a look at that post too, thank you.

Quote:

---

Quoting Disagreeable

---

I'm sorry, the correct answer is you waited too long to make a decision on how to handle the impending situation and because of this driving error ran a red light. Why did you not stop in the merge lane, wait for the light to change and the other lane to clear before continuing instead of running the light after your error?

---

As I mentioned above there was not room for me to stop in the merge lane due to the truck. There was little warning of the merge approaching the intersection.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

For the high and mighty (who think the fine should simply be paid) I have the following suggestion: Next time you catch yourself 5 over the limit or not signalling or not completely stopping, drive over to the nearest police station and tell the first officer you see that you're making a citizen's arrest of yourself. Tell him or her what you did wrong and then sign the citation. If this doesn't work, look up the bail amount, fees and assessments for your violation and donate it to the Police Benevolent Association or the.

---

This is just ridiculous. He should pay the fine, as he ran the red light. He doesn't have to go turn himself in, because he was already CAUGHT. And furthermore, if the OP were being honest, that he absolutely had to run the red light in order to avoid an accident, the red light camera pictures should be more than enough evidence to clearly show the imminent danger.

Quote:

---

Quoting sobe6545

---

Yes, just an arraignment. To answer those questions: Yes, the ticket is in my name. No, I am not the registered owner of the car. Yes, the picture is clearly me. No, the ticket is from San Francisco and I will be going to court there.



What would be the benefit of the citizens arrest? I will take a look at that post too, thank you.



As I mentioned above there was not room for me to stop in the merge lane due to the truck. There was little warning of the merge approaching the intersection.

---

The "citizen's arrest" comment was an aside that has nothing to do with your case. If it's arraignment, you can still request a postponement while deciding what to do. Waiting and procrastinating, past, present, or future, does not help your case. You can only be effective if you implement a pro-active plan and are willing to learn.

Knowledge is power and if used correctly might win your case.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

The "citizen's arrest" comment was an aside that has nothing to do with your case. If it's arraignment, you can still request a postponement while deciding what to do. Waiting and procrastinating, past, present, or future, does not help your case. You can only be effective if you implement a pro-active plan and are willing to learn.

Knowledge is power and if used correctly might win your case.

---

I think I'll try to request a postponement so I can put some more thought and research into this. If I can't get one I may just pay the fine and be done with it.

If you do TBD, your best shot is to poke any technical holes in the case you can or simply ask the court to accept your plea of "Not Guilty." If you explain why you ran the light, you're most likely guilty. Also, even if you can't get an extension, you still are not required to post bail today. You can request your TBD verbally at the clerk's window or with a short note....to be continued

Listen to donzoh. Call right now and get an extension on your arraignment. Then come back here to start your research.

By the way... If you are not the registered owner of the car, did the owner give up your name in a "snitch ticket"? If so, you should have a little talk with that person.

Quote:

---

Quoting Jim_bo

---

By the way... If you are not the registered owner of the car, did the owner give up your name in a "snitch ticket"? If so, you should have a little talk with that person.

---

Why? They would just be passing the responsibility on to the proper party rather than taking one for a bad driver.

If you do TBD, your best shot is to poke any technical holes in the case you can or simply ask the court to accept your plea of "Not Guilty." If you explain why you ran the light, you're most likely guilty. Also, even if you can't get an extension, you still are not required to post bail tomorrow. If for some reason you can't get your extension online or by phone, you can request your TBD at the clerk's window or with a short note. At that point, the rules of court 4.210 apply as quoted below. Note the capitalization of letters when referring to the From TR205 and the lack of it in the same words in the same rule. This is because the form itself is NOT the initial request made to the clerk. Some clerk's don't know this so bring a copy of this rule with you if you visit the court.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

Why? They would just be passing the responsibility on to the proper party rather than taking one for a bad driver.

---

It's because they have no legal duty to tell anyone asking the question who the driver is. They do have computer search functions that allow them to know what other licensed drivers live in the registered owner's house and will use that, as in this case.

The owner could simply write the address on the snitch ticket and say it wasn't them. Also, they could ask for a legal citation concerning their responsibility to tell anyone if they know who was driving.

Then, if a citation was issued, the owner could easily do TBD and present their DMV photo copy, registration copy, etc. Any court that would return a conviction without a strong resemblance between the two photos is a disgrace to the legal system.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

It's because they have no legal duty to tell anyone asking the question who the driver is. They do have computer search functions that allow them to know what other licensed drivers live in the registered owner's house and will use that, as in this case.

---

Never said they did. But they would be making the person responsible deal with the hassle rather than themselves. It's not their job, business or responsibility to clear up someone else's mistake.

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

Never said they did. But they would be making the person responsible deal with the hassle rather than themselves. It's not their job, business or responsibility to clear up someone else's mistake.

---

That's wrong. The owner would be the person named on the ticket or the snitch ticket. That person had to deal with the situation. They could have dealt with it by ignoring it (if it was a snitch ticket) or by rightfully declaring that they were not the person in the photo. Instead, the owner dealt with it by throwing our OP under the bus.

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

This is just ridiculous. He should pay the fine, as he ran the red light. He doesn't have to go turn himself in, because he was already CAUGHT. And furthermore, if the OP were being honest, that he absolutely had to run the red light in order to avoid an accident, the red light camera pictures should be more than enough evidence to clearly show the imminent danger.

---

You don't read well? I didn't say he should turn himself in. If said the "high and mighty" (people like you) should. Let me know how it goes. Or don't you ever go 5 over, roll a stop, fail to signal, etc.?

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

Never said they did. But they would be making the person responsible deal with the hassle rather than themselves. It's not their job, business or responsibility to clear up someone else's mistake.

---

Agreed. That's why I'd prepare the TBD for them (or maybe give them a draft suggestion for the narrative part), and give them a $100 gift certificate at their favorite restaurant!

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

If said the "high and mighty" (people like you) should. Let me know how it goes. Or don't you ever go 5 over, roll a stop, fail to signal, etc.?

---

The same could be said for you. What you, and your ilk, cannot seem to get through your skulls is this: There are people in the world that believe in accepting responsibility for doing wrong. Not trying to get out of them by playing games with the court, which is 80% of the strategy you normally proffer. If a ticket is bogus, i completely agree with fighting it. But if you did it, own it. At the same time, I (and many others) also recognize the right to have the state prove it's case.

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

Never said they did. But they would be making the person responsible deal with the hassle rather than themselves. It's not their job, business or responsibility to clear up someone else's mistake.

---

If I ever get such a notice, trust me, it will be dealt with effectively. And no, there will be no enforcement. That's true whether it's my mechanic, my dad, my ex (if I had an ex) or my least favorite co-worker.

Some people never outgrew junior high school, I guess.

back shortly

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

The same could be said for you. What you, and your ilk, cannot seem to get through your skulls is this: There are people in the world that believe in accepting responsibility for doing wrong. Not trying to get out of them by playing games with the court, which is 80% of the strategy you normally proffer. If a ticket is bogus, i completely agree with fighting it. But if you did it, own it. At the same time, I (and many others) also recognize the right to have the state prove it's case.

---

If you are suggesting that a defendant should assist the state in their prosecution or that they should not zealously defend themselves, then I'd say you have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

The same could be said for you. What you, and your ilk, cannot seem to get through your skulls is this: There are people in the world that believe in accepting responsibility for doing wrong. Not trying to get out of them by playing games with the court, which is 80% of the strategy you normally proffer. If a ticket is bogus, i completely agree with fighting it. But if you did it, own it. At the same time, I (and many others) also recognize the right to have the state prove it's case.

---

But you don't care much about the Rules of Evidence, Rules of Court, Case Law, Statutory Enabling Language, Legislative History, or some of you, even about precise Statutory Language. I'm guessing if you and your supporters could have applied your legal ideas to the O. J. Simpson case, we could have prevented that nasty robbery in Vegas. Did you ever see the movie called The Star Chamber? Not a true story but still a good movie. Hopefully you'll never be on trial while the judge or prosecution plays fast and loose with such legal niceties.

I'll pay a fine when the prosecution gets its act together. And, I'll quit making noise when the judges do their jobs correctly. Not before then. Clearly, there are cops, prosecutors, and judges who do a difficult job and do it well. Some don't. If you think I should ignore the ones who don't, too bad. Of the four cases I've won, I was objectively innocent of just one. The others were won using available tools and knowledge. I'm not all that smart, but I'm persistent, and I've been lucky that most judges I've seen have been fair and I've made the opinions of others irrelevant.

And, my average red light violation time is .15 seconds or so. Considering the overlapping red light interval, not dangerous, but still a technical violation of the statute.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting Jim_bo

---

If you are suggesting that a defendant should assist the state in their prosecution or that they should not zealously defend themselves, then I'd say you have no idea what you are talking about.

---

Why are you asking such a question? He's not the only one around here doing that either.

On the other hand, I frequently gain insight here from people I disagree with. I ignore the misinformation or I challenge it, and then I retain the insight. I'm not perfect either, and if I put out incorrect information, I hear about it and then I research it and then I don't put out that information again.

On your earlier point about amending a charge, I agree with your earlier comment that an officer is in no position to amend a charge, or move to amend a charge, or suggest such a thing. He's a witness. He should testify about observations made and/or statements made contemporaneously by the defendant. Furthermore, as you say, an amended charge would require a completely different defense and requiring the defendant to return to court yet again would not seem in the interest of justice. The defendant has already likely missed work. Maybe the Local PD would like to pay for lost income and extra mileage?

Here I go again: People v. Goulet "Traffic rules account for most of the contact by average citizens with law enforcement and the courts. Enforcement of laws which are widely perceived as unreasonable and unfair generates disrespect and even contempt toward those who make and enforce those laws."

For those around here who think that a judge ignoring a Rule of Court or Case Law is no big deal, be assured that an average driver, even if they know they did it, will develop contempt for the system. They'll think it's rigged. They'll think that when a cop discovers he's pulled over another cop, he'll say "be careful out there."

Maybe it's just San Francisco, but where do they postpone arraignments at?

Since when do traffic tickets even have case files?

The only "evidence" you're likely to find in this "case file" is a copy of the ticket (provided to the officer by the court) and the officer's declaration which is nothing but a pre-printed, pre-formatted document (again provided to the officer by the court) that requires them to check a few boxes and sign their name. I spent a very long time reading those. There's nothing damning in them.

Quote:

---

Quoting Jim_bo

---

If you are suggesting that a defendant should assist the state in their prosecution or that they should not zealously defend themselves, then I'd say you have no idea what you are talking about.

---

I know plenty about what I'm talking about Jim. You just don't seem to be understanding what it is I'm saying. Nice to see you finally got back after the last ban. Too bad TG got fed up with this place, I'm sure he'd enjoy playing with you again.

Nowhere am I suggesting anyone help the state. Nowhere am I suggesting they should not defend themselves IF it is a bogus cite. I am simply putting forth that most rare of ideas: Taking responsibility for your actions. If you don't want to do that and want to fight the cite/exercise your right to have the state prove their case., go about your merry friggin' way.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

But you don't care much about the Rules of Evidence, Rules of Court, Case Law, Statutory Enabling Language, Legislative History, or some of you, even about precise Statutory Language.

---

Where in the heck are you getting that out of what I said? Where? Please show me.

I am simply putting forth that most rare of ideas: Taking responsibility for your actions. If you get caught doing wrong, take your lumps. If you don't want to do that and want to fight the cite/exercise your right to have the state prove their case., go about your merry friggin' way.

I shall ignore the rest of your rant.

I guess your definition of bogus and mine are different. Bottom line is, traffic tickets are a billion dollar industry. They have long since stopped being about safety and changed their focus to revenue. The state profits hugely from people who are either apathetic or ignorant. This encourages the state to write more and more tickets. If only 10% of the people who get tickets would zealously defend themselves, the profit margins for the state would drop and maybe they wouldn't be so eager to use traffic tickets as a revenue stream. I have never suggested doing anything against the law. Everything I have ever suggested is in adherence to the law. So how could that possibly be bogus?. But since you are so eager about accountability, where is your rant demanding that the state be held accountable? Why don't you cry foul when the state violates its own rules? Where is your outrage at the millions of dollars taken by the state only as a result of the ignorance or apathy of the public? Do you demand only that the public accept responsibility blindly and not take advantage of the protections afforded to them under the law while ignoring the state as it runs roughshod over individual's rights and the law?

It is wholly disingenuous to criticize individuals who would exercise their rights under the law while ignoring the illegal, immoral, and unethical practices of the state.

Quote:

---

Quoting Jim_bo

---

I guess your definition of bogus and mine are different.

---

To quote Severus Snape: "Obviously."

Quote:

---

Quoting Jim_bo

---

Bottom line is, traffic tickets are a billion dollar industry. They have long since stopped being about safety and changed their focus to revenue.

---

You are entitled to your opinion.

Quote:

---

Quoting Jim_bo

---

The state profits hugely from people who are either apathetic or ignorant.

---

To some degree, this is probably true. Then there are the ones who: value their time more than than the ticket cost, are accepting responsibility for their wrong or are rich enough that they just don't care.

Quote:

---

Quoting Jim_bo

---

I have never suggested doing anything against the law.

---

I have never suggested that you have suggested that.

Quote:

---

Quoting Jim_bo

---

Everything I have ever suggested is in adherence to the law. So how could that possibly be bogus?.

---

Never said it was. Let me spell it out for you since you are having a hard time. I used the term "bogus" in the context of a bogus citation. Like if an officer just makes something up out of thin air. Those should be fought tooth and nail.

Quote:

---

Quoting Jim_bo

---

But since you are so eager about accountability, where is your rant demanding that the state be held accountable?

---

How do you know I don't? I've never seen anything on here that required such a rant.

Quote:

---

Quoting Jim_bo

---

Why don't you cry foul when the state violates its own rules?

---

I do, one voice among many. Again, never seen a reason to do it here.

Quote:

---

Quoting Jim_bo

---

Where is your outrage at the millions of dollars taken by the state only as a result of the ignorance or apathy of the public?

---

Again, I have never seen anything here worthy of such outrage. In real life, I have and have expressed said outrage.

Quote:

---

Quoting Jim_bo

---

Do you demand only that the public accept responsibility blindly and not take advantage of the protections afforded to them under the law while ignoring the state as it runs roughshod over individual's rights and the law?

---

Wow! Talk about a dive off the deep end. No, I do not. Again, I have never had cause to get as hot and bothered as you and others do about a traffic ticket.

Quote:

---

Quoting Jim_bo

---

It is wholly disingenuous to criticize individuals who would exercise their rights under the law while ignoring the illegal, immoral, and unethical practices of the state.

---

I am in no way criticizing those who choose to exercise their right to fight a citation/have the state prove its case. More power to you. Good luck getting anything changed in government though.

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

The same could be said for you. What you, and your ilk, cannot seem to get through your skulls is this: There are people in the world that believe in accepting responsibility for doing wrong. Not trying to get out of them by playing games with the court, which is 80% of the strategy you normally proffer. If a ticket is bogus, i completely agree with fighting it. But if you did it, own it. At the same time, I (and many others) also recognize the right to have the state prove it's case.

---

If you consider missing a red by .11 seconds $490 wrong, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If I miss by 2.5 seconds, that's in the danger zone and then, I could see your point. In every one of my camera violations, the time has been well under that and the opposing red has not even turned before I got all the way through. If you assume that traffic signals are only intended to enhance traffic safety, then $490 or even 49 cents at .11 seconds is absurd. Now, $490 at 2.5 seconds may be too little, but I didn't make up the bail schedule.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Some people never outgrew junior high school, I guess.

---

Did you put a great deal of thought into this or did it just sort of come to you?

Yeah, actually not graduating junior high school is one of my biggest regrets. Remarkably, I've still prevailed in my last four consecutive moving violations since around 2002!

It took no thought at all - it's painfully clear.

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

I know plenty about what I'm talking about Jim. You just don't seem to be understanding what it is I'm saying. Nice to see you finally got back after the last ban. Too bad TG got fed up with this place, I'm sure he'd enjoy playing with you again.

Nowhere am I suggesting anyone help the state. Nowhere am I suggesting they should not defend themselves IF it is a bogus cite. I am simply putting forth that most rare of ideas: Taking responsibility for your actions. If you don't want to do that and want to fight the cite/exercise your right to have the state prove their case., go about your merry friggin' way.

- - - Updated - - -



Where in the heck are you getting that out of what I said? Where? Please show me.

I am simply putting forth that most rare of ideas: Taking responsibility for your actions. If you get caught doing wrong, take your lumps. If you don't want to do that and want to fight the cite/exercise your right to have the state prove their case., go about your merry friggin' way.

I shall ignore the rest of your rant.

---

I agree with you about the question of accepting responsibility but to the extent that the system is primarily concerned with money, as most clearly illustrated by the large majority of red light camera cases, the violations should be fought at every turn. I'll take you word for your feelings on the legal issues but I've come across quite a few involved in the system with attitudes like "we've always done it this way" when that way directly conflicts with established law.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting CourtClerk

---

Maybe it's just San Francisco, but where do they postpone arraignments at?

Since when do traffic tickets even have case files?

The only "evidence" you're likely to find in this "case file" is a copy of the ticket (provided to the officer by the court) and the officer's declaration which is nothing but a pre-printed, pre-formatted document (again provided to the officer by the court) that requires them to check a few boxes and sign their name. I spent a very long time reading those. There's nothing damning in them.

---

I've been able to extend arraignment dates on several occasions and I know others, in other counties who've been able to do the same. Courts will frequently have extension information online and will allow extensions by phone, online, in person, or by mail.

In a Red Light Camera Case, such as this one, if TBD is elected (as I suggested) where do you think they'll put the photographic evidence if there's no case file? Would they put them all in a big box and just flip through them as needed? Every time I've gone to court to request case file access, they've known exactly what I was talking about and given me the file, in exchange for my CDL. They even make copies for a buck or so. Furthermore, the copies of TR205 Forms would be in there, as well as the officer's response and any evidence submitted by either party. It holds a good deal of what would normally be provided in discovery.

There might be something damning in there if you know what to look for, such as improperly certified secondary evidence, and I've found it there myself.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

It took no thought at all - it's painfully clear.

---

It's probably just easier for you...not to think, I mean.

Or maybe you're just not important enough to think about.

Poor Sobe must be freakin' out watching the chatter.

Hang in there Sobe, looks like your driving incident has stirred up a debate about stuff that is probably a little much
for your simple query.

The majority of us, I would argue, learn things out on the road as we drive. Sometimes we find ourselves saying"whew, that was close... and not very smart, better not do that again". You will probably remember this in the future I'm guessing. Being that you didn't sideswipe the truck, cause an accident, injure anyone or do any Steve McQueen jumps lets talk about the light.

Four tenths of a second, sounds like you just missed the yellow phase. This type of incident happens on a regular basis with much to do about nothing, not something anyone should practice or be good at but these are mostly prosecuted from a camera and not an officer on patrol.

Red light camera's.... Uhg! Welcome to traffic enforcement by the millisecond (certainly not the same measurement of visual acuity an officer uses on patrol). Camera's are measuring for near perfection. Real world traffic movements are variable and fluid and certainly not perfect. You absolutely have the right to examine the infraction, the seemingly perfect viewpoint of the camera is not always the totality of facts or evidence pertaining to an incident. Remember, you were in the car and the camera was not nor was any of the commenters on this site. If there is a story that is compelling in facts and other evidence then let it be heard, you may have a reasonable argument. I wouldn't use facts like "you being in a hurry or rushing to overtake a truck" personally I would stick to your perceived danger and your last second movement to avoid it. Showing some regret and perhaps mentioning you would use a different approach in the future may help. Depends on the judge you get.

I'm not totally against camera's, deliberate and deadly violators should get fined big time. Had yours been several seconds when the signal phase delay had lapsed for crossing traffic, you would have created a very serious potentially dangerous situation.
Doesn't sound like your case.

Best of luck