The camera doesn't write the ticket. A police officer reviews footage that the camera company refers to him and he writes the ticket. He will also be the one testifying against you in court. And yes, they can make it stick.
The flaw is not in how the ticket is written but in who they send the ticket to. They are essentially ticketing the owner of a vehicle with out any proof he was driving it. Where they get you is when you show up in court and they can look at you and look at who is in the video.
I’ve heard of studies, in which intersections with red light cameras generate an increase in the number of rear end crashes. Reason being, people are afraid to drive normally through the yellow light for fear of getting a ticket. So, they slam on the brakes to avoid going through, because of fear of the camera, and get hit from behind.
The lawmaker might want to watch how Sheldon fought his traffic ticket....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOfxGR0K9jA
It is against the law in the state of Tennessee for an out of state company to issue a traffic ticket. And try the collect money in the firm of a fine.
Baltimore county MD had to pay back several hundred thousand dollars because the sworn officer who attested to the tickets personally had been dead for 6 months.
Nope. The ticket comes from some company in Arizona.
” And yes, they can make it stick.”
Not sure about other states, but the rep is correct. They can’t do anything in Tennessee if you ignore it
I got a parking ticket on my Jeep several years ago. It was for parking in a restricted area on a Saturday night in Raleigh, NC. My Jeep was parked 2 hours away in my driveway. Somebody apparently fat-fingered the license plate number when issuing the ticket. There was no recourse, other than the fact that the plate that they issued the ticket on, had not been delivered to me yet. The state of NC sent me a new tag in the mail (I guess my old one was up for replacement)..... so I contacted the state, and they wrote a letter that said, there is NO WAY this plate was in the possession of Mr. Klemper at the time that this parking ticket was issued. The city of Raleigh had to eat that ticket.
That’s why i always send my attorney to court for $150. The camera ticket here in L.A. is $250. My attorney ALWAYS wins and i save money and time for these DOT assholes wasting my time with this nonsense.
The article says that the companies running the cameras are assessing the fees after review; law enforcement is not previewing the pictures prior to issuing fines!
In most jurisdictions, the officer is not required to appear.
You need to back up on that .it's been provided in court that the cameras will not hold up .
Wilmington ignored red-light camera law under Williams (click here).
(Appeared in Thursday March 23, 2017 issue.)
Even at this moment, I am contesting an illegitimate citation based on my turning left from a one-way sreet to another crossing it, where the citation shows that my vehicle was photographed while stopped before lawfully entering the intersection, the speed entered as a double hyphen (no speed recorded). Remember now, some $400,00 of the fine money has already been given tyo the private corporation owning the camera apparatus, and who send their technicians to the court to testify against the cited vehicle owner.
The citation intimidates the owner by charging an additional $35, doubtlessly to affray the cost of having the technicians present to rebut the owner's attempt to contest the citation. When you read this article, you will see that the city has already been ordered to cease citing such right hand turns (or left hand when a one-way into another one-way street crossing it) as being classed as a "rolling stop" if it is claimed that the vehicle has not been brought to a fully complete stop before resuming motion.
So, how does the camera "know" that a safe maneuver has or has not been executed? In my case, the bumper had not crossed the stop line, the tail lights were extra bright showing that the brakes were applied, and in the succeeding image of two secondas later, there was no visible traffic shown on the crossing stree as my vehicle was turning into the roadway and proceeding.
To me, this really defines what "egregious" really means in using these entrapment devices to improve the (failing) city government's economics. They lose: $800,000 back to the owners, plus I suppose an additional $400,000 already forked over to the recording company for the images ans the billing. I doubt if that would be recoverable. The private company only does what the city pays them to do. Right or wrong is outside the contractor's purview, eh?