Your supposed to stop and have someone who is uninsured hit you in the back.


I saw wehre research shows those light cameras cause problems for that reason.

Boy are you getting some lousy advice.  For one thing the rules on the cameras are diferent for each state.  In other words trying to use Colorado or Hawaii law for an Arizona case is going to get more laughs than a lot of things they'll hear that day.  Claiming No Due Process is liable to get you a lecture on how Due Process is/was served. (HINT- Going to court is the due process.)

The only way you have a chance of beating it is the same way you could beat it if there was a policeman standing there and his ticket would have been flawed the same way.  IE no line in the street as above.  That is also the argument for the legality of the cameras, they see the same things a policeman would if he were there, no invasion of privacy, no expectation of privacy, no entrapment, etc.

As far as tearing up a ticket and ignoring it, you might get away with it once, but the second time,  nope.  And if you get a bench warrant and claim you never got it, you may very easily get  one handed to you then in front of the Judge.  That's the adult little boy equivalent of my dog ate it.  

As far as the advice to claim somebody else was driving, most states hold the RO responsible in the laws authorizing the cameras.

You need to suck it up and take the least expensive "right" way out.

Fight it.... If the cop doesn't show up... they have to dismiss the case.

If he does show up, do your best to bullshit your way out of it..... you've got nothing to lose.

I am 1/2 on the cop not showing up.... saved me $247

$247 for a SPEEDING TICKET??? How fast were you going, Mach 2????

Jeesus...I thought they ass raped you around HERE for shit like this...remind me never to go to Arizona.  

Tickets like this are VERY easy to beat, if you're willing to commit perjery lol.  I'd just tell 'em I was playing poker with the guys, and that you lent the car to someone for a beer run.  They sure as shit can't prove you were driving the car from that pic.  

Given the preposterous amount of money involved here, I'd go and lie my ass off, but that's just me.  

I'd also ask that the radar unit in question be present in the courtroom during the proceedings, because you DO have a right to face your accuser after all.  

Quoted: We used to have the same problem here in Colorado.somebody fought it based upon the following and won:#1 a violation of traffic laws must be witnessed by an actual police officer,NOT A Contractor.{It seems all the people in the radar vans were contractors.} #2-propper summons for a moving violation must be hand delivered by a police officer.{The mail is not proper service} #3-The use of radar cameras must be supervised by a police officer and not a contractor or other paid individual,as only a police officer has the legal right to enforce the laws. you really need to look into this before just giving up.If the photo radar unit was manned by someone other than a legal cop,you have a great case,with Denver colorado as Case law. Do a search on denver Colorado and photo radar and you will be amazed at what you find.

I'd say take the above advice find out what you can, and fight it based on the above. Don't fight it based on they can't prove from the pic it was you, because that glare is not bad enough that it would totaly obstruct the view of the face with a little work in photoshop. THat glare can be pulled out and it can easily be shown to be you. It's about a 1min job in photoshop to take that glare out and there is no way you'd be able to say the photo of the face was altered to make it look like you. Don't fight it based on the photobeing bad, cuz it;s not really that bad. If I wasn't at work, I'd prove that to you by throwing the pic in photoshop and clearing up the glare.

Quoted: No plate visable or did you crop the pic? Here in MA the owner can get a ticket even if he is not the driver.  In Mass. the owner is ultimately responsible for the way the vehicle is operated. Although rarely enforced, police can cite the owner as well as whoever he allowed to drive.

Your state has TRULY gone off the deep end.  What's next, the thought police?  

Quoted: Quoted: So, you are willing to lie? It was you in the car, and you did break the law! I don't know where you read that in anything I've posted. I have said that from the picture provided I cannot say with any confidence who is driving my car.  I have lots of friends of the same complexion who have driven my car.  And I have no recollection of who was driving my car on July 6.   Is it likely that it's me? Sure.  Does that mean that it was? No.  Am I lying in anything I've said here? NO. Chris

Whatever helps you sleep at night man.

Quoted: Quoted: You deserve a ticket fro driving that faggot assed/soccer mom wannabe car. God forbid, I might actually choose to drive a car that you don't like.  Fuck off.

I forgot to add the fucking smiley at the end. Enjoy driving your POS overpriced gocart made by BMW that shouts "I SUCK DICK" around AZ, and do try to obey the traffice laws.


Fuckstick

Quoted: You broke the law and got caught. Sack up and be a man. Dont be like the rest of the shit-heads in this country and try to wiggle out of your responsibility in a loop-hole. Do the crime, Do the time when/if ya get caught. Man Up.

Nice attitude.  Now suppose the whole ticket camera thing is just one big money-making scam.  Should he still roll over and just take it?  Being a man is about standing up for what you believe in as well you know.  Freedom, right to be let alone, etc.  Show me the victims and I'll show you a crime.  If you have the time, you should fight the ticket just to show the bastards that you aren't just another stooge who will bow down to them.

I heard on the Liddy and Hill show on 550 AM KFYI, that a police officer HAS to serve you with a ticket for it to be valid. They said you don't have to pay them. I would look into it personally. You might be able to get it taken off your record. Most people don't realize this and they said the state just expects people to pay, which many do. It's purely a revenue thing.

cck : 0        LEO's : 1

Right or wrong, you helped fill the quota for that month.

Quoted: Quoted: You broke the law and got caught. Sack up and be a man. Dont be like the rest of the shit-heads in this country and try to wiggle out of your responsibility in a loop-hole. Do the crime, Do the time when/if ya get caught. Man Up. Nice attitude.  Now suppose the whole ticket camera thing is just one big money-making scam.  Should he still roll over and just take it?  Being a man is about standing up for what you believe in as well you know.  Freedom, right to be let alone, etc.  Show me the victims and I'll show you a crime.  If you have the time, you should fight the ticket just to show the bastards that you aren't just another stooge who will bow down to them.

You are correct sir. "Being a man is about standing up for what you believe in"! If you believe in Lieing to avoid responsibility for your actions, then you are not a man....You are a coward. If you dont like the law, fight to change it.  

Those camera's  create so much revenue it's stupid. Cops don't have to sit at and intersection and watch cars run lights anymore. All they do is snap a photo, put a ticker in an envelope with a stamp and mail it off. They sit back and collect the revenue.

You ought to extort them in a similar fashion, send them a bill for $2,470 for not removing every redlight camera you see.

In case you missed it earlier

Quoted: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoted: You deserve a ticket fro driving that faggot assed/soccer mom wannabe car. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- God forbid, I might actually choose to drive a car that you don't like. Fuck off. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I forgot to add the fucking smiley at the end. Enjoy driving your POS overpriced gocart made by BMW that shouts "I SUCK DICK" around AZ, and do try to obey the traffice laws. Fuckstick

GOD forbid you have a sense of humor.

Quoted: Around here they just made the court costs more than the ticket so even if you win you lose.

Not necessarily.

I would rather pay higher court costs and it NOT be reported to my insurance company. This is the way it works in TN. If you go ahead and pay the fine it does get reported and your rates WILL go up.

Quoted: Boy are you getting some lousy advice.  For one thing the rules on the cameras are diferent for each state.  In other words trying to use Colorado or Hawaii law for an Arizona case is going to get more laughs than a lot of things they'll hear that day.  Claiming No Due Process is liable to get you a lecture on how Due Process is/was served. (HINT- Going to court is the due process.) The only way you have a chance of beating it is the same way you could beat it if there was a policeman standing there and his ticket would have been flawed the same way.  IE no line in the street as above.  That is also the argument for the legality of the cameras, they see the same things a policeman would if he were there, no invasion of privacy, no expectation of privacy, no entrapment, etc. As far as tearing up a ticket and ignoring it, you might get away with it once, but the second time,  nope.  And if you get a bench warrant and claim you never got it, you may very easily get  one handed to you then in front of the Judge.  That's the adult little boy equivalent of my dog ate it.   As far as the advice to claim somebody else was driving, most states hold the RO responsible in the laws authorizing the cameras. You need to suck it up and take the least expensive "right" way out.

DING, DING, DING!!!!!  We have a winner!

As you mentioned, this is an INFRACTION not a criminal complaint, and the rules for what constitutes due process is varies by the State where it occurred. The judge also has alot of lattitude in how the case is handled.

My personal experience from a few years ago in Pima and Cochise Counties is you might as well pay up. The judge will call you a liar to your face; only cops tell the truth. They just want the money. I have never been cited in the Phoenix area.

My favorite ticket was the 56 in a 55on VASCAR. At night. With me using high and low beam headlight. Real precise, that.

WTH is VASCAR? They use it here in VA too.

EDIT: Never =mind ....http://travel.3dresearch.com/prep1.html

Fight it. Tell the judge that you feel that there is too much glare to properly identify the operator. Tell them that it took too long to receive the ticket. Plead the 5th. Do everything but lie. Even if you are found guilty, at least you cost the county some time and money. It will cost them more than some schmuck who just sends in a check. If everyone would fight these camera tickets the system will get clogged. It might be a hollow victory, but its about the principle.

Quoted: Boy are you getting some lousy advice.  For one thing the rules on the cameras are diferent for each state.  In other words trying to use Colorado or Hawaii law for an Arizona case is going to get more laughs than a lot of things they'll hear that day.  Claiming No Due Process is liable to get you a lecture on how Due Process is/was served. (HINT- Going to court is the due process.) The only way you have a chance of beating it is the same way you could beat it if there was a policeman standing there and his ticket would have been flawed the same way.  IE no line in the street as above.  That is also the argument for the legality of the cameras, they see the same things a policeman would if he were there, no invasion of privacy, no expectation of privacy, no entrapment, etc. As far as tearing up a ticket and ignoring it, you might get away with it once, but the second time,  nope.  And if you get a bench warrant and claim you never got it, you may very easily get  one handed to you then in front of the Judge.  That's the adult little boy equivalent of my dog ate it.   As far as the advice to claim somebody else was driving, most states hold the RO responsible in the laws authorizing the cameras. You need to suck it up and take the least expensive "right" way out.

Actually, not trying to be adick, but it is good advice, what Apatriot posted is good info because AZ may have a similar types of rules regarding these things, so by saying hey check into this, it is a possible option. And if they infact do have similar rules on the use of these things, than there is case law to back up the claims that he was improperly searved the ticket. Case law goes a long way regardless of if it was from your state or out of state, as it still sets a standard especially if the rules are similar on the use of photo radar in both states.

So it's not actually bad advice, just pointing to something to look into.

Quoted: I'd say take the above advice find out what you can, and fight it based on the above. Don't fight it based on they can't prove from the pic it was you, because that glare is not bad enough that it would totaly obstruct the view of the face with a little work in photoshop. THat glare can be pulled out and it can easily be shown to be you. It's about a 1min job in photoshop to take that glare out and there is no way you'd be able to say the photo of the face was altered to make it look like you.

I don't think so... I do this stuff for a living, and there's really not any detail in that portion of the image (though this could be partially due to a poor quality scan).  No amount of Photoshopping can restore information that was not captured.

--Mike

Since the CIA is scanning the ports that you are using to discuss this thread, and what you have said that it was you driving......well.....you're FUCKED
but you can always TRY to fight it

Quoted: silenced .22 + dark night + traffic camera = payback

I wonder if any pissed off ticketed people have done this?

Quoted: Quoted: Boy are you getting some lousy advice.  For one thing the rules on the cameras are diferent for each state.  In other words trying to use Colorado or Hawaii law for an Arizona case is going to get more laughs than a lot of things they'll hear that day.  Claiming No Due Process is liable to get you a lecture on how Due Process is/was served. (HINT- Going to court is the due process.) The only way you have a chance of beating it is the same way you could beat it if there was a policeman standing there and his ticket would have been flawed the same way.  IE no line in the street as above.  That is also the argument for the legality of the cameras, they see the same things a policeman would if he were there, no invasion of privacy, no expectation of privacy, no entrapment, etc. As far as tearing up a ticket and ignoring it, you might get away with it once, but the second time,  nope.  And if you get a bench warrant and claim you never got it, you may very easily get  one handed to you then in front of the Judge.  That's the adult little boy equivalent of my dog ate it.   As far as the advice to claim somebody else was driving, most states hold the RO responsible in the laws authorizing the cameras. You need to suck it up and take the least expensive "right" way out. DING, DING, DING!!!!!  We have a winner! As you mentioned, this is an INFRACTION not a criminal complaint, and the rules for what constitutes due process is varies by the State where it occurred. The judge also has alot of lattitude in how the case is handled. My personal experience from a few years ago in Pima and Cochise Counties is you might as well pay up. The judge will call you a liar to your face; only cops tell the truth. They just want the money. I have never been cited in the Phoenix area. My favorite ticket was the 56 in a 55on VASCAR. At night. With me using high and low beam headlight. Real precise, that.

Hoboy. A ticket may violate and administrative rule or a criminal law, it may be considered a "petty offense" but that doesn't mean that the Constitution does not apply. It does mean that a person would likely not be appointed a pd unless mandated by local law since the USConst does not require an attorney to be appointed unless jail time is a possibility. Judges always have a lot of latitude in how a case is handled. The act of violating the law is an infraction, not the case or the charging instrument. In my jurisdiction, as in many, traffic violations are handled by the general circuit court and prosecuted by the local State's attorney. Many cities charge them as administrative violations and handle the tickets outside the court system.

In this case, it sounds as if the charging instrument is a uniform traffic citation which serves as, you guessed it, a criminal complaint. Are you suggesting this is a civil proceeding? I have already inquired about whether traffic violations are handled administratively in this jurisdiction and no additional info has been forthcoming. However, as noted, such administrative proceedings are ordinarily conducted with all the rights and formalities afforded a criminal defendant (dependent on the jurisdiction) but done administratively as to not tie up a circuit court judge who is too damned busy to collect taxes. This of course, varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The only thing that does not are the standards that are established pursuant to the USConst. Clearly, "due process" is provided for by the Const. anytime the State seeks to take away or otherwise impinge upon a person's life, liberty or property.

A court hearing is certainly process, of a sort. After all, the most basic foundations of due process are notice and opportunity to be heard. The "process due," while it may be defined by state law, can only be measured against the Federal Constitution. In other words, it doesn't matter if the state proceeds according to state or local law if said law fails to comply with the U.S. Constitution. The state is free to require additional process if desired. However, a hearing by itself does not constitute due process...imagine a court hearing held in your absence with no notice....sure you got your day in court...you just didn't know it (no notice or opportunity to be heard)...

I think the initial poster was concerned with the manner in which the ticket was "served" Arguably, without personal service, due process may not have been satisfied. Of course, even if this is so, the problem can be cured by simply personally serving the ticket when you show up to court to posit your due process argument. Anyone who thinks they know all about due process should be able to cite Mathews v Eldridge off the top of their head since this is the preeminent SCOTUS case on what constitutes "due process"

There was a day in this country when taking responsibility for your actions was the accepted way.

I miss the good old days.

Quoted: Photo radar makes me wish I were a judge. I'd make it all too clear to the public such cases would get thrown out. How can anyone justify these things?

geee, that's easy

The guy was either speeding or ran a red light, what's so hard to justify?

Quoted: I'm not trying to weasel out of anything.  The government has a responsibility to PROVE a crime was committed.  I'm not inclined to do their leg work for them.   And I don't think they have met their burden of proof with that photo. Chris

The camera won't take your picture unless you ran the red light or were speeding.

If you blew away a convenice store clerk and the only evidence they had was the security camera footage of you doing it, would you argue against that?

Pay the ticket and slow down before you kill someone

They do ithis in DC.  I just passed a car sitting on 295 south and on in the nothbound Emergency lane.  They are there everyday.  Looked like the officers where asleep in both cars.

Quoted: To everyone who says they have me; Have you looked at the photo?  The large amount of glare over the face didn't disuade you at all? Chris

Was it you?

Was your car stolen?  Who was using your car on that day?
If you know it was you, than to say otherwise would be lying.

Basically you are asking us if we think you can get away with lying to a judge

Quoted: The camera won't take your picture unless you ran the red light or were speeding.

The make them infallible now?

Quoted: Quoted: I've never understood how they can do this.  You're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.  These photo tickets are 100% contrary to this.  You are required to prove that you weren't driving that car.  If you can't you're guilty.  How does this pass Constitutional muster?  Could somebody with more legal knowledge please explain. Let me start by saying I do not like red light cameras.  I thought they were unconstitutional because we have a right to confront our accusers.  Well if you plead not guilty you will have to come back to court on another date and the cop that sent you the ticket after viewing the photo will show up.  He will most likely be able to prove it is you driving and you will lose. As far as being considered innocent until proven guilty you are and it is just the same as a cop pulling you over for speeding.  Just because he pulled you over and you signed the citation does not mean you are guilty.  A red light camera is the same.  You are considered innocent until the judge finds you guilty.

You can confront your accusers, the city that runs the camera is your accusser.  You got hit by a photo radar camera in the city of Tempe AZ, the City of Tempe, AZ is the one accussing you, not the camera.  The camera provides the photo that is evidence of your crime, since the camera takes pictures of speeders.  
Again, if you shoot a store clerk in the head, grab the money and run away and the whole thing is identifiable on camera, are you going to say it's bullshit?  Are you going to walk because you can't confront your accusser, the security camera that took the picture?  of course not.  The photo provides evidence, and unfortunaltly really good evidence.  I would rather trust a camera than a cop.  
I drive by three cameras on the way to work every day, and never have been photograpghed.  Why?  Because I don't speed.

Beating speed cameras
Drivers seek cheap way out

Holly Johnson
The Arizona Republic
Sept. 27, 2004 12:00 AM

SCOTTSDALE - To drivers disgruntled by the appearance of photo enforcement cameras on Scottsdale streets, a cheap way to dodge speeding tickets could seem a welcome reprieve.

And to the scores of Web-based companies dedicated to helping drivers do just that - including one based in Wickenburg - cheating the cameras is a profitable business.

Manufacturers boast that their products reflect camera flashes to alter or conceal plate numbers so they're not visible on film.

Law enforcement officials see it differently.

"They're basically just not effective," said Bruce Kalin, a contract administrator for Scottsdale police.

Radar-Detectors, a local company owned and operated by the aptly named "Radar Roy" Reyer, a former Maricopa County sheriff's deputy lieutenant, showcases a litany of camera-dodging products available for purchase on its Web site.

For $24, drivers can buy Super Protector, a license plate cover that ostensibly renders license plate numbers illegible when snapped by photo enforcement cameras.

Such covers are illegal in Arizona, and Radar-Detectors' Web site warns buyers that they assume all responsibility for using the cover.

For $19.95, speed-savvy consumers can buy Photo Stopper, a spray promising to reflect camera flashes and make license plates invisible to cameras, resulting in an overexposed picture.

Reyer admits his products aren't completely reliable and estimates they foil cameras three-fourths of the time, noting that "no one has figured out a way to come out with a 100 percent effective product." Regardless, products like Photo Stopper have tempted Valley drivers looking for a cheap way to avoid tickets. Although illegal elsewhere in the United States, reflective sprays haven't been outlawed in the Grand Canyon State.Reyer trained other deputies in traffic enforcement during his 20 years with the Sheriff's Office. To some, including his former cronies at the Sheriff's Office, his burgeoning business seems an unlikely career path for a lawman. But Reyer staunchly opposes photo enforcement and champions instead the idea of increasing the number of officers on the streets.

"Patrol officers make contact with individuals, and there's some discretion there," he said. "This indiscriminate machine smells of George Orwell to me."

'Simply don't work'

Kalin has tested the sprays that claim to obscure license plate numbers and said they "simply don't work."

"If anything, they make the letters crisper and darker," Kalin said. "Why waste your money buying this stuff? We're giving (drivers) a 10 mph cushion. How much more latitude do they need?"

Carl Fors, president of Texas-based Speed Management Laboratories, said his company's research corroborates Kalin's findings. Speed Management serves as a consultant to police departments and law enforcement agencies across the country interested in implementing and maintaining photo enforcement technology. It also tests products designed to beat photo enforcement.

"At first it appears as if (the sprays) blind the camera," Fors said. "But when we go to a negative image in a computer, it actually enhances the numbers."

Most law enforcement agencies using photo enforcement send the film back to a vendor for processing. In Scottsdale's case, that's Redflex Traffic Systems. Those companies then receive a cut of the profit for processing those tickets.

"They have an incentive to see every legitimate violator caught," Fors said. "People want to believe in the tooth fairy and the fountain of youth. They want to believe these products are effective," Fors said. "The reality is, this product does not work."

A plan for Loop 101

Scottsdale, the state Department of Public Safety and the Arizona Department of Transportation are in talks to install photo enforcement on a dangerous corridor of Loop 101.

If implemented, the project would make Scottsdale the first city in the country to use the technology on an urban freeway.

City residents and some police and DPS patrol officers have expressed disdain for the plan, calling instead for state funding for additional officers.

Top police and law enforcement officials have praised photo enforcement, claiming it reduces collisions in dangerous intersections and on high-speed thoroughfares.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/0927sr-beatingcameras27Z8.html

Quoted: Quoted: The camera won't take your picture unless you ran the red light or were speeding. The make them infallible now?

Find me an instance where the camera failed.  From my work, I can see a red light camera at an intersection, I see it maybe go off once a night, if I am lucky (my window faces to the front, and I get to see a flash)

Yeah, the camera failed and only took the picture of this one guy.  The camera had it in for him.

He fucking broke the law, he knows it, and he is trying to weasel his way out of it.  He should man up and pay the ticket.

Like I said eariler, I drive by three different photo radar cameras everyday on the way to work, I have never gotten a ticket by them.  I have only gotten one ticket my whole life, when I was a teenegaer, and that one was from a cop (he got me fair and square)  

It's really simple and I'll break it down for you.  In Arizona, the camera won't take your picture unless you are travelling over 11mph over the speed limit.  If the speed limit is 45mph (very common around here in AZ) he had to be going over 56mph to get a ticket.  
He probably got it on Broadway and Rural, the speed limit drops from 45mph to 35mph.  That gets a lot of people because they don't pay attention, people need to pay attention when driving, the speed limit does vary (especially around ASU)

From Judy Hedding,
Your Guide to Phoenix, AZ.

August 20, 2004
New Photo Radar in Scottsdale
If you drive on on Frank Lloyd Wright Boulevard near 77th Street, you'd better watch your speed.

Beginning at 9 a.m. on Monday, Aug. 23rd, a new enforcement camera will monitor the speed of motorists in either direction and take a photo of vehicles going above the posted speed limit of 45 mph. A copy of the photo - and a speeding ticket - will be mailed to the registered owner of the cited vehicle.

The City of Scottsdale advises that this section of Frank Lloyd Wright has been the site of vehicle collisions associated with excessive speed and has a collision rate higher than comparable streets in the city.

The Frank Lloyd Wright camera will bring the number of photo enforcement cameras in Scottsdale to seven. All the other sites are located at intersections and monitor both speed and red-light activity. This is the first permanently installed mid-block photo enforcement camera in the state dedicated to monitoring only speed. The city uses four mobile photo enforcement vans, which are deployed to various locations throughout Scottsdale.

Two additional red light/speed detection camera systems are in the planning stages. They are scheduled to begin operation in September at the intersections of Shea and Scottsdale roads and Shea and 90th Street.

Statistics indicate the city's photo enforcement program is an effective safety tool. Before its introduction in 1997, the collision rate in Scottsdale had increased 71 percent in four years. When photo radar became operational, that trend reversed itself.

According to the City of Scottsdale, in 2003 there were actually fewer collisions in Scottsdale than in 1996, even though the population has increased by 45,000.

Public support for the photo radar program has steadily increased since its inception. A survey completed in January showed 74 percent of Scottsdale residents support photo enforcement and the city's Focus on Safety program.

http://phoenix.about.com/b/a/106772.htm

In my Guard unit we have a lot of DPS officers, they all claim that this stuff doesn't work and in a lot of cases makes it easier to read the numbers on the licencse plates.

Quoted: Beating speed cameras Drivers seek cheap way out Holly Johnson The Arizona Republic Sept. 27, 2004 12:00 AM SCOTTSDALE - To drivers disgruntled by the appearance of photo enforcement cameras on Scottsdale streets, a cheap way to dodge speeding tickets could seem a welcome reprieve. And to the scores of Web-based companies dedicated to helping drivers do just that - including one based in Wickenburg - cheating the cameras is a profitable business. Manufacturers boast that their products reflect camera flashes to alter or conceal plate numbers so they're not visible on film. Law enforcement officials see it differently. "They're basically just not effective," said Bruce Kalin, a contract administrator for Scottsdale police. Radar-Detectors, a local company owned and operated by the aptly named "Radar Roy" Reyer, a former Maricopa County sheriff's deputy lieutenant, showcases a litany of camera-dodging products available for purchase on its Web site. For $24, drivers can buy Super Protector, a license plate cover that ostensibly renders license plate numbers illegible when snapped by photo enforcement cameras. Such covers are illegal in Arizona, and Radar-Detectors' Web site warns buyers that they assume all responsibility for using the cover. For $19.95, speed-savvy consumers can buy Photo Stopper, a spray promising to reflect camera flashes and make license plates invisible to cameras, resulting in an overexposed picture. Reyer admits his products aren't completely reliable and estimates they foil cameras three-fourths of the time, noting that "no one has figured out a way to come out with a 100 percent effective product." Regardless, products like Photo Stopper have tempted Valley drivers looking for a cheap way to avoid tickets. Although illegal elsewhere in the United States, reflective sprays haven't been outlawed in the Grand Canyon State.Reyer trained other deputies in traffic enforcement during his 20 years with the Sheriff's Office. To some, including his former cronies at the Sheriff's Office, his burgeoning business seems an unlikely career path for a lawman. But Reyer staunchly opposes photo enforcement and champions instead the idea of increasing the number of officers on the streets. "Patrol officers make contact with individuals, and there's some discretion there," he said. "This indiscriminate machine smells of George Orwell to me." 'Simply don't work' Kalin has tested the sprays that claim to obscure license plate numbers and said they "simply don't work." "If anything, they make the letters crisper and darker," Kalin said. "Why waste your money buying this stuff? We're giving (drivers) a 10 mph cushion. How much more latitude do they need?" Carl Fors, president of Texas-based Speed Management Laboratories, said his company's research corroborates Kalin's findings. Speed Management serves as a consultant to police departments and law enforcement agencies across the country interested in implementing and maintaining photo enforcement technology. It also tests products designed to beat photo enforcement. "At first it appears as if (the sprays) blind the camera," Fors said. "But when we go to a negative image in a computer, it actually enhances the numbers." Most law enforcement agencies using photo enforcement send the film back to a vendor for processing. In Scottsdale's case, that's Redflex Traffic Systems. Those companies then receive a cut of the profit for processing those tickets. "They have an incentive to see every legitimate violator caught," Fors said. "People want to believe in the tooth fairy and the fountain of youth. They want to believe these products are effective," Fors said. "The reality is, this product does not work." A plan for Loop 101 Scottsdale, the state Department of Public Safety and the Arizona Department of Transportation are in talks to install photo enforcement on a dangerous corridor of Loop 101. If implemented, the project would make Scottsdale the first city in the country to use the technology on an urban freeway. City residents and some police and DPS patrol officers have expressed disdain for the plan, calling instead for state funding for additional officers. Top police and law enforcement officials have praised photo enforcement, claiming it reduces collisions in dangerous intersections and on high-speed thoroughfares. http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/0927sr-beatingcameras27Z8.html

couldn't find the story I was looking for... I read one not too long ago on the AP newswire about a red light camera that was improperly timed and hundreds of people were ticketed and found guilty before the problem was discovered. This took me all of about 2 minutes to find

"Red light and speed camera supporters always claim that the camera never lies. These news items suggest otherwise. An Australian woman lost her license because a speed camera showed she was driving 104 MPH. The problem? Her nearly 30 year old Datsun's top speed is only 73MPH. Likewise, a Raleigh woman found herself trying to fight a camera ticket sent from a city she has never visited. Back down under, the police escorted hundreds of Aussie motorcyclists into a speed camera trap as they drove to an event organized by the police. Police collect $12,000. In each case, the use of machine enforcement causes the burden of proof to be placed on the innocent. They're each forced to fight city hall every time the camera is wrong (which is more than the proponents admit). The revolt against this setup grows in the UK with speed camera operators calling in sick because of the "stress" caused by angry motorists." This seems to be getting a lot of attention lately. We've also had another submission as frankiejr writes "Seems as though a woman in South Wales was clocked at 480mph by a speed camera and was promptly issued a ticket. Funniest part about it is that it was a really cheap car that can barely reach 50mph." Seems like this is the topic of the season"

found here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20031104/1048219.shtml

and

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Red-light cameras. Just the mention of them will get strong opinions from drivers. Many drivers do not like the idea of "Big Brother" watching them -- especially those who have been sent red-light tickets by mistake.  

Since March 2000, 12,093 people have been caught running red lights in Fayetteville. When the All-American City's red-light cameras catch drivers, they receive a ticket in the mail.

Margaret Jacques, who lives in Raleigh, got one of the tickets from Fayetteville in September.
Jacques'citation stated she ran the red light at Martin Luther King Parkway at Ramsey Street, just north of downtown Fayetteville. The problem? Jacques said she has never been to Fayetteville.

That is not all.

"The car in the picture looks like a small brown Honda. I have a silver Impala," she said.

The license plates are only one digit off, but they do not match.

"I was very angry," Jacques said. "The first thing that came to mind is where was I on Sept 12 at 12 o'clock? I have not a clue, I felt like a criminal."

So how could this mistake happen?

"It happens through error, human error," said Rusty Thompson, Fayetteville traffic engineer.

Thompson said someone misread the red-light violator's license plate. The city has voided Jacque's ticket, but not before Jacque said she had to make repeated calls, get her own copies of documents and chase down what happened.

"They put the responsibility to prove that's not my car on me. No more innocent until proven guilty, it's the other way around," she said.

Thompson said he is sorry about what happened, but said Fayetteville has a good track record. Of those 12,093 red light tickets, 52 were sent to the wrong driver. That is less than one percent.

"I don't think we're improperly watching anybody. We're only watching the people who run red lights and there is some human error in processing that information," Thompson said.

After Jacques case of mistaken identity, she now thinks the red light cameras are a mistake.

Since Raleigh put up red light cameras in August, the city has issued 1,945 red light violations. Engineers said 15 of those tickets are being appealed for possible mistaken identity.

found here: Jacques'citation stated she ran the red light at Martin Luther King Parkway at Ramsey Street, just north of downtown Fayetteville. The problem? Jacques said she has never been to Fayetteville.

That is not all.

"The car in the picture looks like a small brown Honda. I have a silver Impala," she said.

The license plates are only one digit off, but they do not match.

"I was very angry," Jacques said. "The first thing that came to mind is where was I on Sept 12 at 12 o'clock? I have not a clue, I felt like a criminal."

So how could this mistake happen?

"It happens through error, human error," said Rusty Thompson, Fayetteville traffic engineer.

Thompson said someone misread the red-light violator's license plate. The city has voided Jacque's ticket, but not before Jacque said she had to make repeated calls, get her own copies of documents and chase down what happened.

"They put the responsibility to prove that's not my car on me. No more innocent until proven guilty, it's the other way around," she said.

Thompson said he is sorry about what happened, but said Fayetteville has a good track record. Of those 12,093 red light tickets, 52 were sent to the wrong driver. That is less than one percent.

"I don't think we're improperly watching anybody. We're only watching the people who run red lights and there is some human error in processing that information," Thompson said.

After Jacques case of mistaken identity, she now thinks the red light cameras are a mistake.

Since Raleigh put up red light cameras in August, the city has issued 1,945 red light violations. Engineers said 15 of those tickets are being appealed for possible mistaken identity.


found here: http://www.wral.com/traffic/2598509/detail.html

Quoted: couldn't find the story I was looking for... I read one not too long ago on the AP newswire about a red light camera that was improperly timed and hundreds of people were ticketed and found guilty before the problem was discovered. This took me all of about 2 minutes to find "Red light and speed camera supporters always claim that the camera never lies. These news items suggest otherwise. An Australian woman lost her license because a speed camera showed she was driving 104 MPH. The problem? Her nearly 30 year old Datsun's top speed is only 73MPH. Likewise, a Raleigh woman found herself trying to fight a camera ticket sent from a city she has never visited. Back down under, the police escorted hundreds of Aussie motorcyclists into a speed camera trap as they drove to an event organized by the police. Police collect $12,000. In each case, the use of machine enforcement causes the burden of proof to be placed on the innocent. They're each forced to fight city hall every time the camera is wrong (which is more than the proponents admit). The revolt against this setup grows in the UK with speed camera operators calling in sick because of the "stress" caused by angry motorists." This seems to be getting a lot of attention lately. We've also had another submission as frankiejr writes "Seems as though a woman in South Wales was clocked at 480mph by a speed camera and was promptly issued a ticket. Funniest part about it is that it was a really cheap car that can barely reach 50mph." Seems like this is the topic of the season" found here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20031104/1048219.shtml and RALEIGH, N.C. -- Red-light cameras. Just the mention of them will get strong opinions from drivers. Many drivers do not like the idea of "Big Brother" watching them -- especially those who have been sent red-light tickets by mistake.   Since March 2000, 12,093 people have been caught running red lights in Fayetteville. When the All-American City's red-light cameras catch drivers, they receive a ticket in the mail. Margaret Jacques, who lives in Raleigh, got one of the tickets from Fayetteville in September. Jacques'citation stated she ran the red light at Martin Luther King Parkway at Ramsey Street, just north of downtown Fayetteville. The problem? Jacques said she has never been to Fayetteville. That is not all. "The car in the picture looks like a small brown Honda. I have a silver Impala," she said. The license plates are only one digit off, but they do not match. "I was very angry," Jacques said. "The first thing that came to mind is where was I on Sept 12 at 12 o'clock? I have not a clue, I felt like a criminal." So how could this mistake happen? "It happens through error, human error," said Rusty Thompson, Fayetteville traffic engineer. Thompson said someone misread the red-light violator's license plate. The city has voided Jacque's ticket, but not before Jacque said she had to make repeated calls, get her own copies of documents and chase down what happened. "They put the responsibility to prove that's not my car on me. No more innocent until proven guilty, it's the other way around," she said. Thompson said he is sorry about what happened, but said Fayetteville has a good track record. Of those 12,093 red light tickets, 52 were sent to the wrong driver. That is less than one percent. "I don't think we're improperly watching anybody. We're only watching the people who run red lights and there is some human error in processing that information," Thompson said. After Jacques case of mistaken identity, she now thinks the red light cameras are a mistake. Since Raleigh put up red light cameras in August, the city has issued 1,945 red light violations. Engineers said 15 of those tickets are being appealed for possible mistaken identity. found here: Jacques'citation stated she ran the red light at Martin Luther King Parkway at Ramsey Street, just north of downtown Fayetteville. The problem? Jacques said she has never been to Fayetteville. That is not all. "The car in the picture looks like a small brown Honda. I have a silver Impala," she said. The license plates are only one digit off, but they do not match. "I was very angry," Jacques said. "The first thing that came to mind is where was I on Sept 12 at 12 o'clock? I have not a clue, I felt like a criminal." So how could this mistake happen? "It happens through error, human error," said Rusty Thompson, Fayetteville traffic engineer. Thompson said someone misread the red-light violator's license plate. The city has voided Jacque's ticket, but not before Jacque said she had to make repeated calls, get her own copies of documents and chase down what happened. "They put the responsibility to prove that's not my car on me. No more innocent until proven guilty, it's the other way around," she said. Thompson said he is sorry about what happened, but said Fayetteville has a good track record. Of those 12,093 red light tickets, 52 were sent to the wrong driver. That is less than one percent. "I don't think we're improperly watching anybody. We're only watching the people who run red lights and there is some human error in processing that information," Thompson said. After Jacques case of mistaken identity, she now thinks the red light cameras are a mistake. Since Raleigh put up red light cameras in August, the city has issued 1,945 red light violations. Engineers said 15 of those tickets are being appealed for possible mistaken identity. found here: http://www.wral.com/traffic/2598509/detail.html

But in all of those cases, it was easy to prove that it was a mistake.  
Cops make mistakes too.  I don't see how you guys keep saying how "cameras are faulty and give faulty readings, I would much rather have a human who has bad eyesight or maybe just a bad day" do it.

People who argue that red light photo radar cameras are wrong or unconstitutional are like the people who argue that income taxes are unconstitutional.  They just don't want to pay it.

Who here has ever gotten a ticket in error from a red light camera?  Be honest.  Anyone?
Anyone gotten a ticket from a cop they disagreed with?  My brother got one for running a yellow light which was crap (I was in the car)
I mean, if the cameras are so faulty, someone here must have gotten one in error.

"Find me an instance where the camera failed.  From my work, I can see a red light camera at an intersection, I see it maybe go off once a night, if I am lucky (my window faces to the front, and I get to see a flash)"

Find it yourself, I'm not your bitch. If you believe technology is almighty and infallible, I won't try to convince you otherwise. By the way, my billing program says you owe me money, pay up. The instances exist and I have seen them on AP newswire...usually realted to some momo who had it set up improperly. Last I checked radars needed to be properly calibrated and cameras properly timed...it's not a microwave

"Yeah, the camera failed and only took the picture of this one guy.  The camera had it in for him. "

OHHHH you know that this camera has not tagged anyone else? I missed that part. Incidentally, nice straw man..that was never said nor suggested. Got any other statements you would like to attribute to me and then knock down? may as well get it out of your system.

"He fucking broke the law, he knows it, and he is trying to weasel his way out of it.  He should man up and pay the ticket. "

I didn't see any post where he admitted breaking any law. Do you remember how fast you were going in a given intersection 3 months ago?

"Like I said eariler, I drive by three different photo radar cameras everyday on the way to work, I have never gotten a ticket by them.  I have only gotten one ticket my whole life, when I was a teenegaer, and that one was from a cop (he got me fair and square) "

Therefore, all cameras must be accurate since you didn't get a ticket from any of the three in the whole country that you drive past? I'm impressed with the deductive force of this one.

"It's really simple and I'll break it down for you.  In Arizona, the camera won't take your picture unless you are travelling over 11mph over the speed limit.  If the speed limit is 45mph (very common around here in AZ) he had to be going over 56mph to get a ticket.  
He probably got it on Broadway and Rural, the speed limit drops from 45mph to 35mph.  That gets a lot of people because they don't pay attention, people need to pay attention when driving, the speed limit does vary (especially around ASU)"


Way to break down...
1) you never got a red light camera ticket
2) this guy did get one
3) you drive past three such cameras daily
4) you live in the same state as this guy
5) He is therefore guilty

I'm sold

I drove to Phoenix a few weeks ago to pick up my car and I couldn't believe how many damn traffic cops they have out there. I must have seen 10 AHP officers on the way down and probably 5 on the way back. Arizona seems to have gotten really "vigilant" on stamping out people speeding in "their" state. Personally, the way I see it is the speed limit should be a guide, it shouldn't be concrete. I mean there are times when going 45 on a 6 lane street with very light traffic is ridiculous. On the other hand there are times when going 65-75 on the highway is too fast due to traffic or weather conditions. Again, it should be a guide like Montana has on their highways. I know people that run the Montana interstates at 100mph as long as the weather is good and there is light traffic with no fear of getting a ticket.

These ticket cameras are a very scary thing and represent more than just getting a ticket in the mail, it is the ultimate big brother.




Despite what the cops say in those interviews, it DOES work.




Here is a good article for you to read:

www.snitch.com/savannah/content/20040818redlight.htm



Get some of this stuff:

www.phantomplate.com/

Quoted: Quoted: couldn't find the story I was looking for... I read one not too long ago on the AP newswire about a red light camera that was improperly timed and hundreds of people were ticketed and found guilty before the problem was discovered. This took me all of about 2 minutes to find "Red light and speed camera supporters always claim that the camera never lies. These news items suggest otherwise. An Australian woman lost her license because a speed camera showed she was driving 104 MPH. The problem? Her nearly 30 year old Datsun's top speed is only 73MPH. Likewise, a Raleigh woman found herself trying to fight a camera ticket sent from a city she has never visited. Back down under, the police escorted hundreds of Aussie motorcyclists into a speed camera trap as they drove to an event organized by the police. Police collect $12,000. In each case, the use of machine enforcement causes the burden of proof to be placed on the innocent. They're each forced to fight city hall every time the camera is wrong (which is more than the proponents admit). The revolt against this setup grows in the UK with speed camera operators calling in sick because of the "stress" caused by angry motorists." This seems to be getting a lot of attention lately. We've also had another submission as frankiejr writes "Seems as though a woman in South Wales was clocked at 480mph by a speed camera and was promptly issued a ticket. Funniest part about it is that it was a really cheap car that can barely reach 50mph." Seems like this is the topic of the season" found here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20031104/1048219.shtml and RALEIGH, N.C. -- Red-light cameras. Just the mention of them will get strong opinions from drivers. Many drivers do not like the idea of "Big Brother" watching them -- especially those who have been sent red-light tickets by mistake.   Since March 2000, 12,093 people have been caught running red lights in Fayetteville. When the All-American City's red-light cameras catch drivers, they receive a ticket in the mail. Margaret Jacques, who lives in Raleigh, got one of the tickets from Fayetteville in September. Jacques'citation stated she ran the red light at Martin Luther King Parkway at Ramsey Street, just north of downtown Fayetteville. The problem? Jacques said she has never been to Fayetteville. That is not all. "The car in the picture looks like a small brown Honda. I have a silver Impala," she said. The license plates are only one digit off, but they do not match. "I was very angry," Jacques said. "The first thing that came to mind is where was I on Sept 12 at 12 o'clock? I have not a clue, I felt like a criminal." So how could this mistake happen? "It happens through error, human error," said Rusty Thompson, Fayetteville traffic engineer. Thompson said someone misread the red-light violator's license plate. The city has voided Jacque's ticket, but not before Jacque said she had to make repeated calls, get her own copies of documents and chase down what happened. "They put the responsibility to prove that's not my car on me. No more innocent until proven guilty, it's the other way around," she said. Thompson said he is sorry about what happened, but said Fayetteville has a good track record. Of those 12,093 red light tickets, 52 were sent to the wrong driver. That is less than one percent. "I don't think we're improperly watching anybody. We're only watching the people who run red lights and there is some human error in processing that information," Thompson said. After Jacques case of mistaken identity, she now thinks the red light cameras are a mistake. Since Raleigh put up red light cameras in August, the city has issued 1,945 red light violations. Engineers said 15 of those tickets are being appealed for possible mistaken identity. found here: Jacques'citation stated she ran the red light at Martin Luther King Parkway at Ramsey Street, just north of downtown Fayetteville. The problem? Jacques said she has never been to Fayetteville. That is not all. "The car in the picture looks like a small brown Honda. I have a silver Impala," she said. The license plates are only one digit off, but they do not match. "I was very angry," Jacques said. "The first thing that came to mind is where was I on Sept 12 at 12 o'clock? I have not a clue, I felt like a criminal." So how could this mistake happen? "It happens through error, human error," said Rusty Thompson, Fayetteville traffic engineer. Thompson said someone misread the red-light violator's license plate. The city has voided Jacque's ticket, but not before Jacque said she had to make repeated calls, get her own copies of documents and chase down what happened. "They put the responsibility to prove that's not my car on me. No more innocent until proven guilty, it's the other way around," she said. Thompson said he is sorry about what happened, but said Fayetteville has a good track record. Of those 12,093 red light tickets, 52 were sent to the wrong driver. That is less than one percent. "I don't think we're improperly watching anybody. We're only watching the people who run red lights and there is some human error in processing that information," Thompson said. After Jacques case of mistaken identity, she now thinks the red light cameras are a mistake. Since Raleigh put up red light cameras in August, the city has issued 1,945 red light violations. Engineers said 15 of those tickets are being appealed for possible mistaken identity. found here: http://www.wral.com/traffic/2598509/detail.html But in all of those cases, it was easy to prove that it was a mistake.   Cops make mistakes too.  I don't see how you guys keep saying how "cameras are faulty and give faulty readings, I would much rather have a human who has bad eyesight or maybe just a bad day" do it. People who argue that red light photo radar cameras are wrong or unconstitutional are like the people who argue that income taxes are unconstitutional.  They just don't want to pay it. Who here has ever gotten a ticket in error from a red light camera?  Be honest.  Anyone? Anyone gotten a ticket from a cop they disagreed with?  My brother got one for running a yellow light which was crap (I was in the car) I mean, if the cameras are so faulty, someone here must have gotten one in error.

The lady in Raleigh didn't seem to think it was easy....
Some of the others were easy to prove false only by happenstance (car couldn't possibly go that fast). If he just "mans up" and sends a check instead of going to court and making the state prove their case, he won't know if there was an error, will he? and neither will everyone else here that's so sure of themselves. If it's legit, it's legit and trial or no, he'll be convicted so why do so many of you have problems with people exercising their rights...seems like gun owners might feel differently

Quoted: I'm sold

It don't matter if you are sold or not.  The cameras are here to stay, they work, and I would bet that the author of this post will in the end pay $247 for speeding.

Justice is served.  

Again, let me break it down for you, I know this is a hard thing to understand.  If you don't speed, you won't get ticketed.  Maybe the author of this thread should have tried that, surprisingly it works.  

Quoted: Boy are you getting some lousy advice.  For one thing the rules on the cameras are diferent for each state.  In other words trying to use Colorado or Hawaii law for an Arizona case is going to get more laughs than a lot of things they'll hear that day.  Claiming No Due Process is liable to get you a lecture on how Due Process is/was served. (HINT- Going to court is the due process.) The only way you have a chance of beating it is the same way you could beat it if there was a policeman standing there and his ticket would have been flawed the same way.  IE no line in the street as above.  That is also the argument for the legality of the cameras, they see the same things a policeman would if he were there, no invasion of privacy, no expectation of privacy, no entrapment, etc. As far as tearing up a ticket and ignoring it, you might get away with it once, but the second time,  nope.  And if you get a bench warrant and claim you never got it, you may very easily get  one handed to you then in front of the Judge.  That's the adult little boy equivalent of my dog ate it.   As far as the advice to claim somebody else was driving, most states hold the RO responsible in the laws authorizing the cameras. You need to suck it up and take the least expensive "right" way out.

Now your ignorance is showing.Nobody told him to use another states laws.what has been stated is the following: check your own states laws concerning process by law enforcement,and the legal revenue practice allowed by state law and constitution.Anybody with a little common sense would have gathered that by reading my post.your response seems to indicate that you either work for the government in your state,or you are still in highschool.

Speed cameras are bullshit, just another revenue producer.  Unfortunately, there is no way to prove a speed radar camera is rigged.  Red light cameras are easy, just go time the yellow light at the next intersection, take that the evidence to court and they throw out the ticket, some judges throw it out just for showing up since they know the yellows are shortened on intersections where cameras are installed.  The frequency of red light runners is too low to compensate for the cost of puchasing and maintaining the cameras without rigging the intersection.  The cameras still exist because people pay the tickets to avoid the hassle, so the government gets away with it.  In most states, there are no points for photo citations, even though there would be points if it was an officer issuing the citation.  If points where issued for photo citations, that might change things and cause more people to show up in court and make the government decide it isn't worth it.

It has been stated in this thread that the cameras only go off if you are going 11 mph over the limit.  How do you know the system isn't rigged to ticket people going 5 over and stating it was 11?  or people going the limit for that matter?  By the time you get the ticket, you've forgotten, and can't know if you were speeding or not.  How do you prove the camera wrong?

And most traffic cameras have split revenue, some to the contractor that owns, maintains, and places the cameras, and the rest to the government.  It's just about the money.

If they really wanted to reduce speed, why not have mandatory speed limiters in cars?  

Any why use vans for mobile speed cameras instead of fixed position cameras if it is such a high accident location?  Once people learned of the camera, they would all drive slow in that area and lower the accidents, correct?  But they move the van and allow people to speed again, so they can come back to get move revenue in the future.

I dont know about Arizona's laws, but here in Texas we are entitled to a trial by jury if we so desire.

If I had that option I would take it.

Quoted: It has been stated in this thread that the cameras only go off if you are going 11 mph over the limit.  How do you know the system isn't rigged to ticket people going 5 over and stating it was 11?  or people going the limit for that matter?  By the time you get the ticket, you've forgotten, and can't know if you were speeding or not.  How do you prove the camera wrong?

Uhh, it's common knowledge around here that it's set to 11.  I know this to be true because I have driven past them at 50 instead of 45, never got a ticket.
How do you prove a cop wrong if he gives you a ticket?  What if he says "my photo radar gun got you goin 56mph" and you know you weren't.  You can't prove him wrong.  You can go to court, and if that cop shows up and still says his radar gun was reading at 56mph, who is the court going to believe? I don't see how fighting against a camera is any different than a cop.  Again, I would rather trust a camera than a cop.  People have issues about photo radar is because the camera is always there, so people can't speed down certain streets and gamble that a cop won't be there (which most of the time they are not)

Quoted: Take a picture of your money and send it to them.

The last time soneone did this, the cops sent them a picture of handcuffs.


It's true.

Quoted: I bet It can be fought because this method does not give you Due Process.

No one was denied due process. Denial would be demanding $$ and offered no way to contest it. He vcan appeal and go to court. You do realize that a cop can witness you commit a motor vehicle infraction and mail you a summons without ever talking to you.

The way NYC gets on with the ticket at red lights is they send out a "Notice of Liability." So you can't use the "It wasn't me defense." Your car ran a red light. Whoever operated it is immaterial.

Quoted: Fight it.... If the cop doesn't show up... they have to dismiss the case. If he does show up, do your best to bullshit your way out of it..... you've got nothing to lose. I am 1/2 on the cop not showing up.... saved me $247

Uhh....what cop? It was a machine.

Quoted: Take a picture of your money and send it to them.

Quoted: Quoted: It has been stated in this thread that the cameras only go off if you are going 11 mph over the limit.  How do you know the system isn't rigged to ticket people going 5 over and stating it was 11?  or people going the limit for that matter?  By the time you get the ticket, you've forgotten, and can't know if you were speeding or not.  How do you prove the camera wrong? Uhh, it's common knowledge around here that it's set to 11.  I know this to be true because I have driven past them at 50 instead of 45, never got a ticket. How do you prove a cop wrong if he gives you a ticket?  What if he says "my photo radar gun got you goin 56mph" and you know you weren't.  You can't prove him wrong.  You can go to court, and if that cop shows up and still says his radar gun was reading at 56mph, who is the court going to believe? I don't see how fighting against a camera is any different than a cop.  Again, I would rather trust a camera than a cop.  People have issues about photo radar is because the camera is always there, so people can't speed down certain streets and gamble that a cop won't be there (which most of the time they are not)

When a cop pulls you over and lies about the speed, you know it because it occurs immediately after the event.  If a camera is set to incorrectly ticket vehicles, nobody will be able to remember if they were going the correct speed or not on some random road several weeks ago.  An officer might receive a lot of complaints about giving false speeding tickets, and then the department can take note and possibly correct the situation.  But a camera with such a delay is not going to have people complaining since they won't remember if they were speeding or not.  The red light camera is at least taking a picture showing your car going through the red light, with the red light showing in the frame, but speeding cameras have no proof in the photograph that you were physically speeding.  So they canwill be abused on a greater scale.