question on speeding tickets with cameras

[Insane3D]

I'm so glad my state doesn't allow these type of red light and speed cameras...

 

[MrBond]

Found the articles:

Part 1 is here: http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050619/NEWS08/50619009

Part 2 is here: http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dl...AID=/20050620/NEWS08/506200307/-1/NEWS

Some highlights since I know the average ATOT'er isn't going to read all of those articles.

Toledo has recieved almost $600,000 in revenue since the cameras were installed in 2001. The city gets 25% of the ticket price (a ticket is $95). The city gets more of a percentage as they issue more tickets.

Reasons why tickets aren't issued: Plate or signal obstruction, camera malfunction, and emergency vehicles or funeral processions passing through.

The cameras have video capibilities and that footage is used at evidence in appeal hearings.

In Toledo, there's 10 cameras at intersections that have been in place since 2001. Six intersections had fewer accidents, four had more after the cameras. They have 23 cameras and a speed-detection van now.

The Ohio General Assembly passed a bill that required police officers personally witness and ticket red-light offenders (making the cameras usless) but it's probably not getting passed by the senate this session.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: LoKe

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: LoKe
They wouldn't drop the charges, they'd probably tell you to get your friend ot pay you back. Your car, your problem.

I don't think a single post from you in this thread is correct yet. Stop now, please.

I'd rather not, but thanks for the suggestion.

I don't see you trying to help at all, and I don't see how I'm wrong.

If his friend isn't insured on his vehicle, why would be be driving it?

First, I'm telling the OP you are full of sh!t, that helps.

Second, many policies allow you lend the vehicle to a friend or relative as long as it's not long term. Check you policy for details, this can vary by state.

Also, you assume the friend's policy won't cover them on a borrowed vehicle, again check you policy, again, this can vary by state.

Are you in the insurance field, or have *any* knowledge of it? Do you even own auto insurance?
http://www.autoinsuranceindepth.com/how-does-insurance-work.html#faq11

Third, they don't check your license when you get caught by a camera.

Fourth, If the friend wasn't insured, and they got pulled over in you vehicle, you are NOT responsible, your friend is.

Fifth, they will drop the charges against you if they can't prove it was you behind the wheel. This may vary by state, but should technically be challenge that all the way to the supreme court since they can't prove it's you.

In short, quite while you're way behind.

 

[JackBurton]

You should learn a valuable lesson from this....next time cover your plates.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: MrBond
Found the articles:

Part 1 is here: http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050619/NEWS08/50619009

Part 2 is here: http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dl...AID=/20050620/NEWS08/506200307/-1/NEWS

Some highlights since I know the average ATOT'er isn't going to read all of those articles.

Toledo has recieved almost $600,000 in revenue since the cameras were installed in 2001. The city gets 25% of the ticket price (a ticket is $95). The city gets more of a percentage as they issue more tickets.

Reasons why tickets aren't issued: Plate or signal obstruction, camera malfunction, and emergency vehicles or funeral processions passing through.

The cameras have video capibilities and that footage is used at evidence in appeal hearings.

In Toledo, there's 10 cameras at intersections that have been in place since 2001. Six intersections had fewer accidents, four had more after the cameras. They have 23 cameras and a speed-detection van now.

The Ohio General Assembly passed a bill that required police officers personally witness and ticket red-light offenders (making the cameras usless) but it's probably not getting passed by the senate this session.

From what I understand, in most intersections that have red light cameras, the number of accidents from someone running a red drop, but the number of rear end accidents usually go up as people slam their brakes trying to stop at the light...

 

[imported_LoKe]

Hmm, I appreciate the info Phoenix. I wasn't aware of such circumstances of insurance, but maybe it's different in Canada? I've never really looked into it...

Sorry about my reply then, was trying to be of some assistance.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: MrBond
Found the articles:

Part 1 is here: http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050619/NEWS08/50619009

Part 2 is here: http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dl...AID=/20050620/NEWS08/506200307/-1/NEWS

Some highlights since I know the average ATOT'er isn't going to read all of those articles.

Toledo has recieved almost $600,000 in revenue since the cameras were installed in 2001. The city gets 25% of the ticket price (a ticket is $95). The city gets more of a percentage as they issue more tickets.

Reasons why tickets aren't issued: Plate or signal obstruction, camera malfunction, and emergency vehicles or funeral processions passing through.

The cameras have video capibilities and that footage is used at evidence in appeal hearings.

In Toledo, there's 10 cameras at intersections that have been in place since 2001. Six intersections had fewer accidents, four had more after the cameras. They have 23 cameras and a speed-detection van now.

The Ohio General Assembly passed a bill that required police officers personally witness and ticket red-light offenders (making the cameras usless) but it's probably not getting passed by the senate this session.

From what I understand, in most intersections that have red light cameras, the number of accidents from someone running a red drop, but the number of rear end accidents usually go up as people slam their brakes trying to stop at the light...

I have read the same. Of course the counter is rear end accidents are "better" than T-boning, but whatever.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: LoKe
Hmm, I appreciate the info Phoenix. I wasn't aware of such circumstances of insurance, but maybe it's different in Canada? I've never really looked into it...

Sorry about my reply then, was trying to be of some assistance.

No problem, silly Canuk.

 

[axelfox]

I would think the person who is driving the car at the time of the picture is presumed to the be the owner of the car.

 

[destined]

u can't be found guilty of a crime because its presumed its you...

 

[shoRunner]

did they send it to you in the mail? did you sign for it. if not don't go, they can't prove hat you got it. it could have been lost in the mail or never delivered.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Heard about a guy who did the following:


1. He got a picture in the mail of him speeding or running a red.
2. He sent a picture of a check for the fine.
3. The police sent a picture of handcuffs.
4. He paid the fine.

Pure classic.

 

[phreakah]

solution

 

[Icepick]

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
At least in WI, it doesn't matter who is driving the vehilcle. THe owner is responsible for any accidents or tickets. That's why you should enver let other people driv eyour car unless you trust them completely.

:thumbsup: Exactly.

This is how it is in NYS too. If you let your buddy borrow your car and he runs down 20 nuns crossing the street and kills them, the authorities will punish him, of course, but they'll come after you too. Your car is your responsibility and what is done with it is your responsibility.

It's no different than the laws surrounding gun ownership. If someone steals your gun and commits a crime with it, you'll be held responsible. Same concept.

 

[destined]

Originally posted by: icepik

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
At least in WI, it doesn't matter who is driving the vehilcle. THe owner is responsible for any accidents or tickets. That's why you should enver let other people driv eyour car unless you trust them completely.

:thumbsup: Exactly.

This is how it is in NYS too. If you let your buddy borrow your car and he runs down 20 nuns crossing the street and kills them, the authorities will punish him, of course, but they'll come after you too. Your car is your responsibility and what is done with it is your responsibility.

It's no different than the laws surrounding gun ownership. If someone steals your gun and commits a crime with it, you'll be held responsible. Same concept.

are you a lawyer? just curious. i don't see how nys can prove that you broke the law when they dont' physically pull you over... isn't it my constitutional right to be innocent until proven guilty? and they can't prove without reasonable doubt that i commited the infraction.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: phreakah
solution

Unless they have updated that item, and others, it will not work on digital cameras. they just do a negatve image (or something) and it will still show up. They showed it years ago when my home town Wilmingotn NC was getting them.