Cali Man Protesting $480 Red Light Cam Tickets

[J86]

You must live in the Wild Wild West. I almost never see someone just blatantly run a red light. Sometimes I see people try to beat yellows. Less often, I see them slam on their brakes or swerve while going running a red, in which case I assume they probably aren't paying attention.

Or New Orleans.  I've never seen such blatant disregard for any and all traffic laws as down here.  I've been honked at and swerved around because I had the gall to stop at a red light before.  On more than one occasion.

[bing_oh]

Or New Orleans.  I've never seen such blatant disregard for any and all traffic laws as down here.  I've been honked at and swerved around because I had the gall to stop at a red light before.  On more than one occasion.

NYC seems pretty similar in their distain for traffic laws. It was a whole different world driving there.

[J86]

NYC seems pretty similar in their distain for traffic laws. It was a whole different world driving there.

'Course now I gotta remember to play by a different set of rules when I head back north

[Colonel Cadillac]

Or New Orleans.  I've never seen such blatant disregard for any and all traffic laws as down here.  I've been honked at and swerved around because I had the gall to stop at a red light before.  On more than one occasion.

Really? I feel like people obey the traffic laws more than they do up North. And everyone drives as slowly as humanly possible.

I have never seen such blatant disregard for speed limits. If the speed limit is 35, that means 20 for some people. 25 for others. On a very rare occasion, I'll be behind someone who actually goes 35 in a 35.

[93JC]

You say "blatant disregard": I do not think this means what you think it means. In fact, if people are going 20-35 in a 35 mph zone that means they're following the law quite perfectly.


Although in practice I'm sure that's quite annoying to someone who doesn't.

[Raza]

You say "blatant disregard": I do not think this means what you think it means.

[93JC]

I mean it's a limit, right? A maximum, not a minimum. If you're going 36 in a 35 zone you're blatantly disregarding the speed limit. If you're going 34 you're blatantly following the letter of the law.

[Raza]

I mean it's a limit, right? A maximum, not a minimum. If you're going 36 in a 35 zone you're blatantly disregarding the speed limit. If you're going 34 you're blatantly following the letter of the law.

No, you're right.  I just like how you phrased it.

[Morris Minor]

Fines for traffic violations should be paid in person, in cash, at traffic courts. The cash, after being handed over, should be incinerated by court employees in front of guilty violators, and thus removed from circulation.

[dazzleman]

Fines for traffic violations should be paid in person, in cash, at traffic courts. The cash, after being handed over, should be incinerated by court employees in front of guilty violators, and thus removed from circulation.

That's a novel idea.  Of course, our cash-greedy government would never agree to that.

I think that if the government is really serious about punishing serious traffic violations, the penalty should take up some of the person's time, rather than just his money.  A weekend spent picking up trash, or something like that, would be a much worse punishment for a lot of people than writing a check.

[J86]

Really? I feel like people obey the traffic laws more than they do up North. And everyone drives as slowly as humanly possible.

I have never seen such blatant disregard for speed limits. If the speed limit is 35, that means 20 for some people. 25 for others. On a very rare occasion, I'll be behind someone who actually goes 35 in a 35.

People drive slowly because if you actually did 35 down St Charles you'd have no car left!

I think people drive shitfaced, run reds, hit things, turn left from the right lane, etc. way worse down here.

[hounddog]

Fines for traffic violations should be paid in person, in cash, at traffic courts. The cash, after being handed over, should be incinerated by court employees in front of guilty violators, and thus removed from circulation.

That would be illegal.

I say it should be handed over to school children to buy candy, gum and hookers.

[J86]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

[BENZ BOY15]

ahahha. I got one in the same price range for the same violation. Although the city of SF fucked up the paperwork (since the car was registered to my Mom) and we never heard anything from them again. The photograph was great. I was wearing aviators and talking on my cellphone flying south on highway 1 just past the Golden Gate.

To be fair, everyone else was speeding too and well, I just didn't see the light in time. It was really small and I didn't have time to stop, so I just went. So did the lady behind me.

[dazzleman]

ahahha. I got one in the same price range for the same violation. Although the city of SF fucked up the paperwork (since the car was registered to my Mom) and we never heard anything from them again. The photograph was great. I was wearing aviators and talking on my cellphone flying south on highway 1 just past the Golden Gate.

To be fair, everyone else was speeding too and well, I just didn't see the light in time. It was really small and I didn't have time to stop, so I just went. So did the lady behind me.

Your driving skills are suspect.  A $480 fine is the least of your worries.

[BENZ BOY15]

Your driving skills are suspect.  A $480 fine is the least of your worries.

I admit. It was stupid and I just wanted to go home. I really should have gotten a speeding ticket (I was doing about 70MPH, I'm guessing in a 45MPH zone) and I was pissed because of the $6 it costs to drive across the GG bridge, the traffic...and I just wanted to get home (Santa Clara) as soon as I could.

I made it. No speeding tickets, the great city of SF blew the paperwork and ya.

The biggest horseshit ticket was the 65MPH in a 50MPH and it ended up being $300, not to mention whatever it costs to drive from Santa Clara to Santa Cruz (because it happened on the 17, which connects Silicon Valley to Santa Cruz). I swear that entire stretch through the mountains is rigged. The speed limit (and this is a freeway..EDIT: Highway 17) changes and I was in the SLOW lane and I got pulled over. Not the people going faster than me...no, no. But the cop was nice, FWIW. He asked me if I knew what I did wrong & I honestly had no clue. "Expired registration?" LOL

Rags can back me up on this one. The speed limits change and they're pretty damn low and I thought I was being conservative at 65MPH.

[AutobahnSHO]

I call them "pink" lights, although I guess it should actually be "orange"..

[850CSi]

$480 for any traffic violation that isn't horrifically reckless driving is absurd.

[Byteme]

$480 for any traffic violation that isn't horrifically reckless driving is absurd.

Houston's fine schedule is here:  http://www.houstontx.gov/courts/pdf/fineschedule_0110.pdf

Double those amounts speeding amounts if you are caught in a construction zone.

Get caught with fireworks in your car in Houston and the fine is $817.  

[J86]

Houston's fine schedule is here:  http://www.houstontx.gov/courts/pdf/fineschedule_0110.pdf

Double those amounts speeding amounts if you are caught in a construction zone.

Get caught with fireworks in your car in Houston and the fine is $817. 

The Shoreacres polices are insanely johnny-on-the-spot re traffic enforcement.  5 over- they'll go for you.  Is all of Houston like that!?

[TurboDan]

$480 for any traffic violation that isn't horrifically reckless driving is absurd.

Yeah. For many people, this could be a big chunk of a month's rent or food for their children. A hundred or two is one thing, but $500 for a minor traffic violation is outrageous. In society as a whole, we're raising the stakes to the point where the slightest of errors can have consequences that are far too serious.

Never mind if the person can't pay, then has a bench warrant out, gets arrested, etc.

[850CSi]

Yeah. For many people, this could be a big chunk of a month's rent or food for their children. A hundred or two is one thing, but $500 for a minor traffic violation is outrageous. In society as a whole, we're raising the stakes to the point where the slightest of errors can have consequences that are far too serious.

Never mind if the person can't pay, then has a bench warrant out, gets arrested, etc.

You raise another point: these policies are inherently regressive. I mean, I've noticed that NC has been trying to close its budget shortfalls in part with skyrocketing court costs. But is that really the segment of the population you want to be targeting?  Of course, it's politically viable because you'll get eaten alive if you dare suggest that raising court costs on 'criminals' is bad public policy, but that's basically what's happening - the state is trying to squeeze cash out of people who really can't afford it because they're easy targets politically.

I see it every single day: people get stuck in a never-ending cycle of DWLRs because they can't afford to pay the fines.

[Byteme]

The Shoreacres polices are insanely johnny-on-the-spot re traffic enforcement.  5 over- they'll go for you.  Is all of Houston like that!?

Not really.

Don't speed in Bellaire, West University Place, Loop 610 near the Astrodome.  Every large metro area has places like that though.,

[sparkplug]

I remember an internet post about a person getting an automatic ticket of some sort, it was a car being towed. The tow truck driver violated the law but the owner of the towed car got the ticket. This was years ago. Edit: This was in South Africa.

Not fond of red light cameras but they've probably improved them. In the meantime, don't run red lights, you don't want to end up in the morgue because you got hit by a bread truck.

[Byteme]

Yeah. For many people, this could be a big chunk of a month's rent or food for their children. A hundred or two is one thing, but $500 for a minor traffic violation is outrageous. In society as a whole, we're raising the stakes to the point where the slightest of errors can have consequences that are far too serious.

Never mind if the person can't pay, then has a bench warrant out, gets arrested, etc.

Sounds like not getting a ticket should be a priority if one can't afford to pay it.

[dazzleman]

Sounds like not getting a ticket should be a priority if one can't afford to pay it.

Now you sound like a conservative and Dan sounds like a liberal.

[bing_oh]

Sounds like not getting a ticket should be a priority if one can't afford to pay it.

Kinda what I was thinking. Don't play the game if you can't afford it.

[TurboDan]

Kinda what I was thinking. Don't play the game if you can't afford it.

I would agree if an officer had witnessed the offense and deemed it the best course of action to issue a summons.

However the camera-based tickets are often based on technicalities, as has been mentioned. For example, the red light cam will generate a ticket even if someone came to a full and complete stop at a red light before legally turning right, however they had to inch up and see if it was safe enough to turn. If you get "stuck" in the intersection and the light turns red – SNAP! It's those types of situations that bother me.

As for the "don't play the game if you can't afford it," I honestly think you're right in theory, but it's getting to the point where nobody can afford to make even the slightest of mistakes or deviate from total perfection. Maybe you think $500 is OK, but what happens when they raise it to $1000, or $2000?

At the very least, there should be an alternative method of "payment," such as community service. I was in a local municipal court for work last week and at one point the judge went to a video feed of inmates at the county jail – the vast majority of these people were in there for failure to pay fines/fees, mainly stemming from traffic tickets. There simply HAS to be a point where we can't be incarcerating people over traffic tickets because they couldn't afford the outrageously-priced fines. You may as well start opening debtors' prisons in the US.

[bing_oh]

I would agree if an officer had witnessed the offense and deemed it the best course of action to issue a summons.

However the camera-based tickets are often based on technicalities, as has been mentioned. For example, the red light cam will generate a ticket even if someone came to a full and complete stop at a red light before legally turning right, however they had to inch up and see if it was safe enough to turn. If you get "stuck" in the intersection and the light turns red ? SNAP! It's those types of situations that bother me.

As for the "don't play the game if you can't afford it," I honestly think you're right in theory, but it's getting to the point where nobody can afford to make even the slightest of mistakes or deviate from total perfection. Maybe you think $500 is OK, but what happens when they raise it to $1000, or $2000?

At the very least, there should be an alternative method of "payment," such as community service. I was in a local municipal court for work last week and at one point the judge went to a video feed of inmates at the county jail ? the vast majority of these people were in there for failure to pay fines/fees, mainly stemming from traffic tickets. There simply HAS to be a point where we can't be incarcerating people over traffic tickets because they couldn't afford the outrageously-priced fines. You may as well start opening debtors' prisons in the US.

Some cities have gone to a system where an officer IS assigned to review red light camera footage and issue summonses for those violations. That would take away any such "technicalities." And, obviously, if someone claims that they did not commit the violation, they have every right to plea not guilty and force the state to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe it's not a perfect system, but it's really no less perfect than an officer issuing a citation and accusations of bias or human error.

As for those people in jail for failure to pay fines/costs, I wouldn't feel too bad for most of them if I were you. I work in a county where the municipal court judge is known for his extreme leniency. We frequently make jokes about his "payment plans" for fines and costs...a nickel a month for the next 40 years. Yet, I arrest many, many people for failure to pay fines and costs and the vast majority of them are the same people who I see spending their weekends getting totally shitfaced at the bars and getting arrested with various illegal substances in their pockets. It's interesting that they have the money to drink and get high, but can't pay those fines they know they have.

[TurboDan]

Some cities have gone to a system where an officer IS assigned to review red light camera footage and issue summonses for those violations. That would take away any such "technicalities." And, obviously, if someone claims that they did not commit the violation, they have every right to plea not guilty and force the state to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe it's not a perfect system, but it's really no less perfect than an officer issuing a citation and accusations of bias or human error.

As for those people in jail for failure to pay fines/costs, I wouldn't feel too bad for most of them if I were you. I work in a county where the municipal court judge is known for his extreme leniency. We frequently make jokes about his "payment plans" for fines and costs...a nickel a month for the next 40 years. Yet, I arrest many, many people for failure to pay fines and costs and the vast majority of them are the same people who I see spending their weekends getting totally shitfaced at the bars and getting arrested with various illegal substances in their pockets. It's interesting that they have the money to drink and get high, but can't pay those fines they know they have.

Yeah, I'm starting to see it your way. Actually, my town has the system in place where an officer reviews it. However I'm not sure if they're allowed to use discretion in tossing camera tickets they wouldn't have written themselves, or if they simply review if the ticket is legal. I'll have to ask the chief next time I run into him.

Also agree on the courts. Everybody in that damn court room looked like a real loser. Basically every screw-up you knew in high school wouldn't go too far. They all claimed they had "disabilities" and such while begging for mercy from the judge, who pretty much gave in every time. Then there were the guys who were trying to take anger management so their DV charges would get thrown out if they behaved, etc. Felt like taking a shower by the time I left, although it was actually pretty entertaining in some respects.

The thing that got me was the clothing they all wore. Stained sweat pants on the guys, big fat chicks wearing tight tank tops with flab practically falling out, hoodies and ripped jeans on all. Although I did enjoy seeing a scantily-clad lady defense lawyer in her late 20s/early 30s wearing "hooker boots" and showing some cleavage.

I was there to see the case of a pet store owner who was charged with 38 counts of animal cruelty. She was quite the prize, herself.