Red Light Ticket After Running a Light to Avoid an Accident

[free9man]

I guess your definition of bogus and mine are different.

To quote Severus Snape: "Obviously."

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.

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.

I have never suggested doing anything against the law.

I have never suggested that you have suggested that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[donzoh1]

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 - - -

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!

[cbg]

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

[donzoh1]

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 - - -

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 - - -

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

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

[cbg]

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

[Mlynnc]

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