Quoted:
How does one get out of these tickets? It doesnt seem constitutional that i cant face my accuser at the scene of the "crime".

Anyway, i want to protest this. Whats a solid defense? It does appear that i was in the intersection when red but cant completely tell if i was before the line when red.

Thanks and much appreciated.

Quoted:


You don't have a right to confront your accuser at the scene of the crime.

You do have a right to confront them in court, or in lieu of that, since red light cameras aren't a charge against the driver, they're an accusation against the "vehicle" similar to how a parking ticket works. Administrative hearing is what you'll get, and you'll have an officer there who will play a nice video for the admin hearing official/judge who will watch the light turn red before your car enters the intersection. Then, instead of paying the $100 fine, you get to pay even more.

Quoted:
Was it on route 83 and around Thorndale? I was in that area and those cameras were just clicking away like crazy Taking pictures of everyone making left turns, folks sitting and waiting
to make right turns etc. It was like a fireworks show. Must have been at least 5 or better cars getting pics taken for each light. These things are bullshit. Just there to fleece people.

Quoted:
Those cameras have a bunch of pics of my middle finger

Quoted:
Was it on route 83 and around Thorndale? I was in that area and those cameras were just clicking away like crazy Taking pictures of everyone making left turns, folks sitting and waiting
to make right turns etc. It was like a fireworks show. Must have been at least 5 or better cars getting pics taken for each light. These things are bullshit. Just there to fleece people.

Quoted:


it was on 95th and cicero. and i agree its ALL about money.

Quoted:


So in other words, keep your mouth shut and pay your municipal overlords right?

Quoted:
I live in Lombard and the village had put cameras up at the intersections of Roosevelt and Finley, and at Columbine and North Ave. (rt.64).  After numerous complaints and newspaper articles in the Lombardian, the village officials took them down.  I was amazed that the officials would listen to the residents and get rid of a sure revenue generator.  Maybe there is hope for us yet!!!

And yes, the video and pics are reviewed by a police officer to determine if a violation has occurred.  The big problem is no one will turn right on red.  People come to an intersection at a red light, want to turn right, see the flash of the camera across the intersection, and slam on brakes.  They SUCK!!!

Quoted:
If they really cared about safety, they'd make the green and yellow lamps green and yellow timers so a driver could see exactly how much time there was left before changing.  And at the end of one street's cycle, all the lights would be red for 4 or 5 seconds.

Quoted:


A Sheriff went through a red light after seeing someone do the same thing.  Sheriff stopped the driver and found out driver was DUI.  Sheriff arrested driver.  Sheriff got a ticket because he did not have his emergency lights on while he went through the red light after the driver.  Sheriff tried to fight it, and lost.  Moral of the story, he took a DUI driver off the street, got a 3 hour paperwork to write, and still had to pay $100.00.  These red lights are definetly a SCAM.  Cops don't like them either.  It does nothing to deter crashes.  Most people now slam on their brakes, regardless of weather conditions.  Towns that have them also make their officers pay for the ticket if they go through without their emergency lights on.  So, look for squad cars slamming on their brakes too.

Quoted:

Outstanding - I fully support the issuance of this ticket to the officer. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

In fact, with the increase in cameras everywhere I think it's time to start reducing police staffing levels. Think of all the taxpayer money this will save!

Perhaps now more police officers will actively oppose the cameras.
 

Quoted:







We already oppose.



Yeah, all the police does is issue tickets, right.... Do a little research and find out that we do many roles. So, reducing staff because of cameras is not a real bright idea.

Who is "we"? Is this an official statement by the FOP? Where is the URL to this statement?

 

Quoted:



By "we" I meant police officers.  At least the ones that don't want our jobs replaced by cameras.  We know how much the cameras are just a revenue making for the cities that utilize them.  The money does not even go to the police departments of those cities.  It goes to a "general" fund, which means the city will spend it as they see fit i.e.(usual government waste).  The cameras also don't allow for intoxicated drivers to be detained, such as in the example I gave earlier.  I think most common people would agree that taking a photo of a DUI driver is not the same as taking him off the road.  By you agreeing with that Sheriff getting a ticket, maybe he should have waited for the light to turn green and risk losing sight of the DUI driver.  Cameras also don't take people with warrants off the streets or illegal guns/drugs.  Most of us (cops) would rather have more officers doing these tasks and more officers to back us up than cameras giving revenues to politicians.

Here are  some articles from the St Louis Police Officers Association, sorry not the FOP but close enough, against the cameras:
http://www.fox2now.com/ktvi-red-light-cameras-031109,0,3346729.story

Their Chief's association is obviously in favor of the cameras, but that is no surprise since chiefs tend to swing in favor of mayors/city officials:
http://www.fox2now.com/ktvi-red-light-cams-031909,0,114626.story

Dallas already saw the light, no pun intended, and no longer use the cameras against first responders.  Because when first responders (cops, fire, ambulance) are trying to go to your house for an emergency, the last thing that should be in our minds is if we are going to have to pay $100 for going through a light.  The first thing in our mind should be getting to your house in one piece and not causing a crash.  Sometimes we can use lights/sirens, sometiemes we should not.  There are types of calls where the use of our emergency lights is not tactical, but most people don't know that.

Here is the link for Dallas: http://www.policeone.com/police-products/communications/articles/1858340-Dallas-switches-red-light-law-for-first-responders/

These cameras were not designed by cops.  I agree of people being angry at them, but don't blame cops for them.  The only connection they have with the police departments is that there is an officer that was placed in a position to review them.  Not a very sought after position, may I add.

Quoted:

Big money for the electricians union and municipalities. This is the biggest scam ever perpetuated on people of this state.

As an electrician myself,I don't see how the Electricians Union is the big winner here. The HLC's are strictly a money maker for the municipalities I got got on Rowling and Biesterfield for a right turn violation and just paid the stinkin bill. What are ya gona do?, loose #350 to save a $100 violation? They know tou're not going to miss a day of work to show up in court!

Quoted:


Pay attention to the red lights is all I'm saying. I am completely supportive of those who wish to exercise the option to contest them, if they feel they were improperly issued.

But going in just to roll the dice when you know you're guilty is not right, in my book.

Quoted:

Outstanding - I fully support the issuance of this ticket to the officer. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

In fact, with the increase in cameras everywhere I think it's time to start reducing police staffing levels. Think of all the taxpayer money this will save!

Perhaps now more police officers will actively oppose the cameras.
 

Quoted:



By "we" I meant police officers.  At least the ones that don't want our jobs replaced by cameras.  We know how much the cameras are just a revenue making for the cities that utilize them.  The money does not even go to the police departments of those cities.  It goes to a "general" fund, which means the city will spend it as they see fit i.e.(usual government waste).  The cameras also don't allow for intoxicated drivers to be detained, such as in the example I gave earlier.  I think most common people would agree that taking a photo of a DUI driver is not the same as taking him off the road.  By you agreeing with that Sheriff getting a ticket, maybe he should have waited for the light to turn green and risk losing sight of the DUI driver.  Cameras also don't take people with warrants off the streets or illegal guns/drugs.  Most of us (cops) would rather have more officers doing these tasks and more officers to back us up than cameras giving revenues to politicians.



Here are  some articles from the St Louis Police Officers Association, sorry not the FOP but close enough, against the cameras:

http://www.fox2now.com/ktvi-red-light-cameras-031109,0,3346729.story



Their Chief's association is obviously in favor of the cameras, but that is no surprise since chiefs tend to swing in favor of mayors/city officials:

http://www.fox2now.com/ktvi-red-light-cams-031909,0,114626.story



Dallas already saw the light, no pun intended, and no longer use the cameras against first responders.  Because when first responders (cops, fire, ambulance) are trying to go to your house for an emergency, the last thing that should be in our minds is if we are going to have to pay $100 for going through a light.  The first thing in our mind should be getting to your house in one piece and not causing a crash.  Sometimes we can use lights/sirens, sometiemes we should not.  There are types of calls where the use of our emergency lights is not tactical, but most people don't know that.



Here is the link for Dallas: http://www.policeone.com/police-products/communications/articles/1858340-Dallas-switches-red-light-law-for-first-responders/



These cameras were not designed by cops.  I agree of people being angry at them, but don't blame cops for them.  The only connection they have with the police departments is that there is an officer that was placed in a position to review them.  Not a very sought after position, may I add.

Quoted:
So police officers are only now opposing it since the cameras threaten to replace police officers and are issuing "illegal" tickets to officers? Not because of the fact that cameras have no place in a free country or millions of dollars collected for not completely stopping when turning right on red with no traffic going the other way.

Got it.
 

Quoted:



No, not outstanding, more like disgusting. LE needs the legal ability to pass through red light cameras to remove drunks from the road.

You know, I really honestly do rely on this website to provide me with an ample dosage of idiocy. But this takes the cake. Thinking LEO's will get behind elminating red light cameras if a contingency of the public supports them being fined personally for doing their job is the dumbest thing I have read this month.

The fact that a cop has to take food off his table because he did his job and took a drunk off the road sucks.

Thinking the individual rank and file officer supports red light cameras is foolish. The avearge cop is doing his or her job like you and I are.

I fucking hate when people blame cops for the actions of legislators. None of us would want to see a system in which individual cops pick and choose which laws they enforce. That sir is NOT American exceptionalism. That sir is the MO of the third world.

Immaturity and a clouded headed will never advance liberty.

Quoted:







I guess you missed my point, but that's fine...

Quoted:
This money making scheme is in response to the inability for officials to properly budget and spend money.  

Quoted:


I thought that is what they use higher taxes for.........

Quoted:
A bit of research will show that cities (Chicago is most prominent, here) have reduced the amber signal time where there are cameras. No reason whatsoever except 'ka-ching.'

There are even maps of amber light times throughout the city available; it can be a real eye-opener. So when someone essentially says, "Shut up and take your lumps, you ran the light" what they're actually saying is, "The game has been rigged, it's not a fair table but stop complaining and pay the cheater."

Larry

Quoted:


I agree pay attention. But I wouldn't call being 6 inches over the white line "guilty"

Quoted:


You missed the point-they only get a ticket if they don't follow departmental rules regarding code runs. Just like everyone else, they're getting dinged for breaking the rules. They just don't like it when they apply to them, and shout 'public safety' to justify doing things that violate the rules.

In many circumstances, the privilege of violating traffic controls is directly tied to having warnings activated. Most departments have very specific rules about violating traffic controls, and doing so without warnings activated is essentially the same offense it is for a non-cop. Hence the ticket-


Larry

Quoted:


I sometimes go through the Worth area too. SW highway & Harlem is another that snaps more pictures than the poparazzi.



I know it took my picture many times, although I was making a legal turn.  No ticket yet.



Maybe it's a state law that a LEO must review each possible violation before issuing a ticket.  If this changes, our mailboxes

will fill with these revenue generators, since the privately owned, for profit companies will cast a huge fishing net for cash.

Quoted:

And not so long ago, you called me immature.

I understand in the world according to Larry it is all figured out, but you are wrong. It's like conversing with my 13 year old.

The fact that a Cop got a ticket in ANY WAY for removing a drunk off the road is bullshit.

Had you eaten some laminated glass as a result of this drunk, and the only thing that seperated your face from the windshield was a Cop driving through a red light camera, your tune would change.

Hence the saying "No good deed goes unpunished."