Man sues over red-light cameras for $3 million

David A. Czech is crazy upset about tickets, so he's suing the city of Northwood, Ohio, its police department, and an Arizona-based maker of red-light cameras (which automatically snap photos of traffic violations). The suit alleges that the cameras are part of an "unconstitutional ordinance to extort money" put in place by the city, and Mr. Czech (on behalf of himself and 20,000 other "offenders") is asking for a $3 million payback and an injunction barring use of the cameras. This isn't the first case of its kind that we've seen -- and it undoubtedly won't be the last, considering the recent spate of these systems being utilized across the nation.

[Thanks, Simon]

[strider_mt2k @ Jun 21st 2007 7:06AM]

How dare you extort money from people by penalizing them for not obeying driving regulations!

FOR SHAAAAME!!!

(hold on it just turned yellow!)

[Larry-NC @ Jun 21st 2007 8:39AM]

It is not about the traffic violation. It is a about respecting the constitution; which this government has not been doing very well.

One by One Us Americans are losing all of our liberties; and it all started with the Patriot Act.

The way we are controlled and observed and put in camera is the closest thing I've seen to Comunism. Believe me this is not about terrorists.

It is about controlling and monitoring every aspect of our lives.

Want to enforce the red light? Create more jobs for police officers to enforce it instead of paying the chinese to make the cameras!

[Chris Spalding @ Jun 21st 2007 12:15PM]

If you could learn how to spell communism correctly, I might listen to your rantings about Big Brother

[Nobuyuki Idei @ Jun 21st 2007 12:23PM]

"Create more jobs for police officers to enforce it".
Now that's communism.

[Wonderkid @ Jun 21st 2007 7:08AM]

What is ironic here is that here in the UK, most of the cameras are obviously only here to make money, such as a stretch of our M4 motorway near Reading where there are apparently about 10 miles of roadworks with 3 lanes still open, yet despite the fact one can safely drive 70 mph on any other 2 lane road, they have imposed a 50mph speed limit heavily enforced by cameras. Now the cracker here is that there are never any workmen there and no reason for the limit at all. HOWEVER, I do fully support red light cameras and this is why I find this person's protect odd. When I lived in the USA, there were many deaths due to boy racers crossing red lights with terrible consequences. Driving a little over the speed limit during safe conditions is not the same as crossing right in the pass of other vehicles or running over people! As general comment to my American friends, the UK is on a very very dangerous downhill slope and please do not adopt our appalling lack of civil liberties and loss of common sense and respect. (Tony Blair is not the hero you think he is. He has ruined this country and I am disgusted.)

[Wonderkid @ Jun 21st 2007 7:13AM]

Sorry, my use of English in my previous posting was terrible! Typed the above in a hurry using my Apple Bluetooth keyboard which for some reason, makes typing somewhat unreliable. Going to dump it and get a Saitek Eclipse with backlit keys as it's much nicer to type on. Dear Apple, Please make your keys much lighter in your next full size keyboard. :-)

[jason @ Jun 21st 2007 11:33AM]

You miss the point entirely with your support of red light cameras.
Anyone willing to risk their life by blowing a red light will still blow the light if they are only risking 90$

However i agree with you about the cameras being about making money. That is all they are about as the Northwood police patrol the same places where the cameras are located and often times will double ticket people for speeding or blowing the red lights. (the cameras catch both)

[PEZ @ Jun 21st 2007 7:09AM]

Hey! Lets replace a $40 per year cop with a $1000 camera.

I'll sue you punk, I'll sue.

Is Ohio really a state? I thought the Gov forgot to vote it into the union? Could be.

Hey, its not better than the iPhone! Right?

I Want my american idol.

[eric @ Jun 21st 2007 8:23AM]

Congress forgot to formally pass the resolution to make it a an official state even though Jefferson signed the act. Somehow no one in the country noticed this until the 1950's. Congress then passed a retroactive bill that pretty much officially named Ohio the 17th state.

[Paul @ Jun 21st 2007 7:10AM]

This guy is just mad that he was caught by a camera and is trying to sue them to pay for his ticket.

[Dagad @ Jun 21st 2007 7:41AM]

If this idiot doesn't want to get penalised every time he breaks a red light here's a little piece of advice.

Stop breaking the law! Dumbass!

[jason @ Jun 21st 2007 11:42AM]

If this idiot doesn't want to get penalised every time he breaks a red light here's a little piece of advice.
Stop breaking the law! Dumbass!

The red light cameras break the law! Dumbass!
All a camera can do is show you evidence. In the USA you bust be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. A single piece of evidence can not do this. Yet you can not argue these tickets in a court of law like you can a ticket written by an officer. All you can do is pay them or do what this man is doing and sue the city, police, and the company in Arizona that gets something like 75% of the money from the tickets.

a government that can fund itself is not accountable to it's citizens and ultimately becomes an oppressive regime. This is how it starts unless we the citizens stand up against it.

[bob @ Jun 21st 2007 8:44AM]

Has anyone here responding with 'obey the laws' comments actually had to deal with these cameras on a daily basis? They are about the most rigged game of chance around. While 'normal' lights have a very predictable flow to their sequence, red light cameras have unusually short yellows and always seem to catch traffic that is just beginning to flow. This forces a fun decision of slam on the brakes, hope like hell the light is still yellow as you pass through, or just drive uncommonly slow as you approach these cameras. The third option only applies after you know where the camera is though.... The particual city being sued also has a mobile speed camera van that is parked in various places around the city to pass out speeding tickets on random roads, don't worry take a drive through the town and see if you get a present in the mail a few weeks later -- does that sound like fun to anyone?

[MoneyMan083 @ Jun 21st 2007 11:05PM]

Yellow means slow down and stop. It doesn't mean question yourself and how long will the light be NOT red. It is simple, STOP. Don't break the law and you won't have your "so-called" constitutional rights "violated". Stop breaking the law and infringing on my right to be safe in public. He broke that law before the camera shot his picture.

[one2gamble @ Jun 21st 2007 5:48PM]

Just duck as you go through, the cameras have to able to clearly identify the driver of said vehicle.

[Leo Lee @ Jun 22nd 2007 5:46AM]

I also agree that although it may be a good deterrent for speeders, it ends up causing more damage than good. I got hit with one in Baltimore but my only options at that time were slam the brakes on a 1-second yellow in a 45MPH zone or ride through. TAGGED~

They should perform a study on how many rearendings occurred from the sudden brakings to avoid these damn cameras...

[Matt B @ Jun 21st 2007 9:18AM]

20,000 is a lot of people to protest this. With a little advertising, they could increase that number. The government has to listen and do what the people ask, that is what their job is for.

Oh who am I kidding. The govt. doesn't care.

[johnzilla @ Jun 21st 2007 9:18AM]

Both sides have a point.

Agreed, if you don't want to get a ticket, don't run a red light.

However, the government does not have the right to keep you under surveillance. Each person has the right to travel anonymously. These cameras violate that right. There's absolutely no guarantee that the cameras are only used to track people running red lights, and there's absolutely no guarantee that information on your whereabouts and travels won't be used against you later.

For example, what if there's a murder two houses away from one of these cameras? Imagine the police showing up to question you at your workplace, just because you passed through the intersection at around the time of death (alleged and estimated time of death).

Everyone is entitled to their privacy, and that includes anonymous travel. If you can't have privacy, and can't travel anonymously, you are not free and the US is not a free country. Simple.

[Easy @ Jun 21st 2007 9:55PM]

If thats the case why not remove security cameras from everywhere (like airports, etc). Why check people before getting in an airplane? Let people carry whatever they want. As long as you are in public property, don't expect to be anonymous. Any police officer on the road can see you.

[johnzilla @ Jun 21st 2007 11:31PM]

You missed the point. Yes, any police officer can see you in public. But cameras are automated.

As far as your comment about airports, don't get caught up in security theater thinking anything is actually safer. Do you really believe banning nail files and more than 3 oz. of shampoo is actually having an effect?

The best way to stop people from blowing up your airplane isn't a strip search...it is behaving in a way that doesn't make them want to blow up your airplane in the first place. Think about it.

[The Aggie CEO™ @ Jun 21st 2007 9:19AM]

They found them Unconstitutional in Greensboro, NC and have been removing throughout the entire state city by city since 2005

[FreshJulius @ Jun 21st 2007 9:19AM]

Not to mention, here in NC they are notorious for photographing after you're through the intersection [and do use uncommonly short yellow lights], but still send you a ticket. Then, the onus is on you that received the ticket to drag yourself through the hell that is the modern day traffic court to show that you didn't deserve the ticket in the first place. Then it becomes an instance of whether you want to/can spend the better part of a day to get out of a ticket you didn't deserve in the first place! What an f'n racket...

[CowboyGA @ Jun 21st 2007 9:20AM]

bob has a point. Unlike officers who can claim they are working to save lives, these cameras are used as income generators. You're not getting a lecture on "slow down, I've seen two kids get killed on this road recently." Instead, you're getting blindsided with a fine for an infraction you're unaware of - and likely can't even remember.

If the cameras have signs posted and only apply to those speeding wildly over the limit, then fine, but many of these cameras are trying to fine people for traveling with the flow of traffic.

[primetime4 @ Jun 21st 2007 9:24AM]

I support this guy wholeheartedly even though I have never received a ticket from a red light camera. This kind of thing is just another way to make money and has nothing to do with traffic safety. What really gets me fired up are the cameras set up for speeding not to mention the "Speed checked by aircraft" nonsense. The government actually has a stealth fighter in the sky making sure you keep it below 65. I will take Smokey any day.

[ne0 @ Jun 21st 2007 9:36AM]

Redlight cameras around the US owned by Lockeed had to eb removed after they lost several lawsuits due to getting caught short cycling the yellow lights in order to issue more citations (which led to a huge increase in fatalities at intersections using the cameras). This gentleman stands a good chance of winning his lawsuit based on previous record - private companies cannot issue traffic citations - a sworn officer of the law must witness the offense - that's the constitution folks, we don't hand over liberty for security.

[Logik @ Jun 21st 2007 5:04PM]

That's right! What's that saying?

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” - Benjamin Franklin

[jason @ Jun 21st 2007 9:36AM]

put countdown timers on lights instead of this garbage. yellow light times vary so widely from one intersection to the next that it's almost impossible to judge safe stopping distance vs running the risk of running a red light.

law authorities have this problem all wrong,

although from a business/money perspecitve it's hard to argue with them because this device (sneaky though it may be) pays for itself while my suggestion would require taxpayer investment which of course no one would vote for.

[Eric in Ga. @ Jun 21st 2007 9:36AM]

Well, in Georgia, these cameras are starting to become more and more frequent. And I say - Bring 'em on! The police forces here have so much more to deal with that camp a dozen officers around a county to enforce what people are supposed to do (I mean, drivers are tested on this stuff to get their license in the first place, right?).

As I understand these cameras, they only snap the picture after the light is red, and they detect a car entering the intersection against the light. *Snap* goes the camera. Then, in addition to the ticket in the mail, you get a picture of your car in the act of breaking the law.

Having been nearly killed by people running a red light (missed my vehicle by what I can only assume was inches), I say fine them all!

[Ricksta @ Jun 21st 2007 9:50AM]

So if he is suing on behalf of 20,000 people, that means he got a $150 ticket? I wonder how much money he will lose in missed days at work and legal fees.

People like this make me mad. You cannot realistically have a cop on every corner. You are in the public domain.

The constitution does not protect your *priviledge* to drive.

You ran a red light. Pay for it.

[Whiplash @ Jun 21st 2007 9:58AM]

Here in Fresno, CA we had these suckers put in. Then about a year later ripped out.

I agree with Bob above. The problem with these cameras is that they are put in, not to improve public safety, but to generate revenue. They put these in, shorten the yellow, and then nab everyone who's halfway across the intersection. It's a scam pure and simple.

[ADR @ Jun 21st 2007 9:59AM]

"However, the government does not have the right to keep you under surveillance. Each person has the right to travel anonymously. These cameras violate that right. There's absolutely no guarantee that the cameras are only used to track people running red lights, and there's absolutely no guarantee that information on your whereabouts and travels won't be used against you later."

Exactly, we have a constitutional right to free travel, the right of free passage. Speed limits, license plates, traffic lights all fly in the face of this right but were put in place for public safety. I'm not saying that they aren't good ideas but something put in place for public safety should be perverted into a revenue generating system for th egovernment.

Past that all of these things have become nothing but revenue generators and end up harming a lot of individuals. I'm sorry but $150 for 7 mph over the speed limit to someone making minimum wage is an economic hardship. Why do I have to pay money every year to renew my vehicle registration? Shouldn't I only have to do that if I buy a new car.

Highway speed limits are supposed to be revaluated every 10 years and are supposed to be set 10 MPH faster than the average flow of traffic. That is why it is a speed limit, since anything past 10 mph of the average speed of traffic was deemed to be unsafe. I can't remember the last time I saw every car on the highway doing 50 mph. The government knows people will drive faster and puts hundreds of police cars on the highway to issue over $200 million highway tickets each year, thats the number from Ohio. Each highway patrol officer cost taxpayers over $200,000 in time, salary, and equipment. The average suburban cop costs taxpayers around $120,000. All revenue genrated through traffic tickets is supposed to go to fixing and building roads. If you drive around Northeast Ohio you can see that's not the case.

The first study on the multiple traffic cameras that were put in Cleveland, OH showed an increase in traffic accidients at every location. Some with an increase of 1000% which means that there were no reported accidents at one location and then the next quarter there was 10 due to the camera. The camera is monitoring a traffic light around a blind corner at the bottom of a hill, nice huh. The yellow was timed by a watchdog group right before the camera was put in and the yellow with the camera is now a 1/4 second faster than it was before. SO you are going down a hill and begining to go around the corner, all of a sudden you see a light right in front of you that just turned yellow, its either th emiddle of winter or raining. You have two choices, run the light or slam on your brakes. If you run the light you have a good chance at getting a $120 ticket, points on your license, and a higher insurance rate. If you slam on your brakes they may lock up and in bad weather you may slide into oncoming traffic casing an accident and getting you a bigger ticket since you will have most likely slid through the intersection tripping the camera and have the cop write you a ticket for reckless driving casing a traffic accident.

In other words go guy go. I wonder how the case of the guy in England that was fined $30,000 for congestion violations is going. Yes in England they fine you for being stuck in traffic and yes this is coming to America as well. Well we see that your car was stuck in traffic for 1 hour and at $0.20 a minute you owe us $12. If that just happens to be your commute every day just look at it as a new toll.

[ADR @ Jun 21st 2007 10:05AM]

For some reason it looks like my U's are missing from cause. Sorry about that, my keyboard is crap.

There has to be a distintion between running a light that is clearly red where there is a chance of hitting a moving car and just missing the yellow caution period where the other light hasn't even turned green.

[Crivens @ Jun 21st 2007 11:25AM]

They don't charge you in England for being in traffic (well, unless you park on a crossing or some other stupid move). The congestion charge is in the centre of London and you basically have to pay an amount of money (about $10 when I was there), every day, just to go there in your car. Because the centre of London is huge, with millions of people, and it has loads of shops, then it used to be totally congested to the point where it was becoming impossible to do anything. So they brought this idea in to lessen the amount of people entering London. Now businesses are closing down and the place is practically deserted compared to how it used to be. Considering trains and buses in England are Satan's transport (in a bad way) then you won't be to surprised that I haven't been to London in years even though it is only half an hour away. Or was. I moved to Cyprus since. Which you would all love as people drive through red lights here as soon as any pedestrians get off the road. *Loads* of accidents essentially (also because total lack of concentration and talking on phone *all the time* when I believe it is banned in the car like in the UK). Still, luckily they have slow coach speeds (lucky to get 60mph limits even on carriageways) so normally just bruises. Get this freedom now though as they are getting the idea of speed cameras too! (and larger fines, when it was about $30 for speeding last year, but going up fast).

Cheers

[Mike @ Jun 24th 2007 6:26PM]

Doh! Congestion charging isn't a charge for being trapped in congestion. Its a fee you pay to drive into central London (and Durham, last time I was there). If you don't pay, you get fined. If you don't pay your fine, you get fined more. Kinda like a parking ticket system. Oh, and Crivens - you said "I haven't been to London in years" I assume you get your horror stories about London closing down from a motoring magazine. I was there last week, the shops were bustling, the tube was cheap and easy to use (come to Wales if you want public transport horror stories) and the traffic was moving along nicely. And everybody knows the devil rides a motorbike.

[meg @ Jun 21st 2007 10:07AM]

I can see two sides hre, too, here in Atlanta people are crazy, they think red and green are the same thing, I've been stuck waiting at a light through two cycles because all the people turning left across form me kept doing it after the arrow turned red. No one in my lane going straight could go.
On the other, the yellows are short, it's very stressful worrying about being able to stop behind the line as soon as it turns yellow, and I've quit going to Wal Mart and Target because both have cameras nearby, and I have to make a left turn, which the short yellow doesn't always give me time to do (I have no trouble with them if I'm going straight.) I now shop at Kroger just because it's closer and the traffic is less insane, and there's no red light camera there. I order everything else from amazon, let the UPS guy worry about the traffic!

[Mile @ Jun 21st 2007 10:08AM]

Some cities have installed them without consulting their State Law which effectively prohibited them. Some states then changed their laws so the cities could have them.

The main point is that once a violation is captured by a camera and a fine notice sent, it is no longer considered a criminal matter but a civil one.

The good side of this is it doesn't go against your driving record so it doesn't affect your insurance costs.

The bad side of this is it is very difficult to get your day in court if you want to have one.

Also, it's the owner of the car that gets fined - not the driver.

So, it's got its plusses and its minuses.

[Alexander @ Jun 21st 2007 10:48AM]

Having been recently ticket by one of the 'speed cameras' here in Cleveland Ohio (on Broadway near the Turney/Miles interchange) I fought my ticket and lost.

I wish I would have had the knowledge that this post brings me. I argued that the camera was not a police officer, and therefore could not have the authority to issue tickets. What if an emergency on that day forced me to come home early? They countered that if it was an emergency, there should have been a police report or a medical record of something going on. I said that some domestic disputes do not require the intervention of the police, but since it is my family I had a right to be there to try and protect my family, but at that point I knew I had lost. I had no evidence for any of this, and the judge was a bastard anyway.

$350 was the total fine. 200 for the actual ticket, $50 for court costs, and another $100 dollars in lost wages for that day.

The best part is, we have been paying for these things even though they haven't been working right. We could have paid for over 30 officers to work full time with how much we have paid for these things, and they haven't been working anywhere near the 99% uptime they claim.

Total, and completely hogwash if you ask me. I would rather pay an officer to sit on that corner (it's a kind-of seedy neighborhood) rather than a camera. A officer could break up fights. An officer could respond to a mugging. A camera will just issue tickets. Not worth it.

[dog @ Jun 21st 2007 11:12AM]

My big bitch about the cameras is that often times just lengthening the yellow would serve EXACTLY the same purpose. It saves lives and doesn't add complexity. However, it also doesn't add money to the coffers.

They tried them in Minneapolis, MN and the court shut the cameras down because there isn't any way to tell who is driving the car.

[Conrad Bell @ Jun 21st 2007 11:24AM]

Car and Driver magazine did a very interesting statistical analysis of Red Light Cameras. For give me but I don't have the proper bibliographical information. Basically the company that pays to cameras up gets 50% or more of your ticket profits. So your money isn't even going to the state, you're paying to make the campaign contributor's richer. Additionally it has also been proven that these camera's actually increase the number of rear end accidents because people SLAM on there brakes to avoid getting a ticket. Scenario 1. You're driving along at 35 mph with a vehicle in front of you, light snaps from green to yellow to red before you or the vehicle in front of you has a chance to break. Maybe they were playing with their ipod, Maybe you couldn't see the light because they are a truck and even following at a reasonable distance they block your forward view of the street light. They pull an ABS assisted Panic stop, as hard as they can to avoid the red light ticket, you're reflexes are slow, or heaven for bid your car doesn't stop as fast as their does, and you crush them going 25 to 30 mph. Now you've caused a lot more damage than any ticket, and the only people really benefiting from this is the Corporation that Bribed the politician to put the cameras up to begin with.

[jason @ Jun 21st 2007 11:24AM]

These cameras are not just for red lights, they also monitor speeding.
The cameras at the Woodville and Lemoyne intersection are located at the bottom of an overpass hill.
Unless you ride your breaks down the hill you will pick up enough speed to earn a 90$ speeding ticket.
The moronic thing is that these cameras are unnecessary (and questionably legal) as actual cops patrol the same stretches of road where the cameras are located. It is highly probably that if you get caught by the camera you will also be caught by a cop and get slammed with 2 tickets instead of one. And if you try to avoid the cameras they get you with the "speed van" over on the back roads where the entire stretch is 45mph except for a one mile speed trap where it's 35 and that's where they park the van.

Thank god someone is standing up to this nonsense

[shelterpaw @ Jun 21st 2007 11:28AM]

Double edged sword. If you put up camera's you violate our rights. I believe it. However, cops have too much going on to be able to keep violators in check.

The real problem are the people that don't respect the law. Too many people break the law and now it's a problem. If the penalties were stiffer perhaps people wouldn't do it as much, but \ when someone truly does it by accident, the penalties seem a bit harsh.

The only good thing about camera's is that they don't discriminate. Everyone receives equal punishment. No one can talk their way out of a ticket. The bad thing is, where does it stop. Next thing you know you'll have camera's everywhere.

It really is a damed if you do damed if you don't situation.

I think the only solution is to make the process of acquiring a license much harder. People should have to go to special schools that go way beyond our basic driving schools. Seems like Europeans have better control of this. Then make punishment stiffer for violators. Maybe not jail time, but bigger fines and impounding your car for a week or so, so you can't drive it. That'll make people thing twice.

[Chris McDowell @ Jun 21st 2007 11:33AM]

http://www.ticketassassin.com/index.html

[Mazie Drew @ Jun 21st 2007 11:46AM]

I say keep the red light cameras up!!! Here in Florida and especially in the town I live in, it is an everyday occurance to run red lights and to turn left on a red light--just as common as eating three meals a day. If you are in that big a hurry that you have to run a red light, then you just need to start using the airlines to get where you need to go or leave earlier to get where you are going. This is a very dangerous thing to do and has caused deadly accidents in the town where I live. If you can not or will not obey the laws, whatever they may be then you need to move to a place where there are no laws.

[007baf @ Jun 21st 2007 11:46AM]

I think the concept of the traffic cameras providing safety is fine in theory. I was broadsided with my wife and 18 month old in the car while we went through a green light. The guy who ran the red light totaled my almost paid off car. Fortunately we weren't hurt. Of course the perp didn't have insurance. Having said that, these cameras must go. My personal injury isn't even close to the injury being done to our constituional rights of due process. Burke v. Fought (1978), 64 Ohio App. 2d 50. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that it is not constitutionally permissible to allow a hearing procedure in which the factfinder has an "incentive to convict." Ward v. City of Monroeville (1972), 409 U.S. 57. In Ward, the Court held that a "situation in which an official perforce occupies two practically and seriously inconsistent positions, one partisan and the other judicial," is a denial of due process. Id. at 60. Even in an administrative proceeding, due process still requires a fair opportunity to be heard, and a fair hearing includes the right to produce testimony, the right to cross examine witnesses, and the right to be informed of the evidentiary facts on which the tribunal bases its decision. (Source: www.sternlaw.com)

In response to this controversy, states are enacting statutes such as California's Red Light Reform Bill, AB 1022, which prevents vendors of red light cameras from being paid based on the number of citations they issue. (source: Edmunds.com)

For all practical purposes, there is no "accuser" for motorists to confront, which is a constitutional right. There is no one that can personally testify to the circumstances of the alleged violation, and just because a camera unit was operating properly when it was set up does not mean it was operating properly when the picture was taken of any given vehicle.

These devices discourage the synchronization of traffic lights.
When red-light cameras are used to make money for local governments, these governments are unlikely to jeopardize this income source. This includes traffic-light synchronization, which is the elimination of unneeded lights and partial deactivation of other traffic lights during periods of low traffic. When properly done, traffic-light synchronization decreases congestion, pollution, and fuel consumption. (ref Supreme Court findings on unconstitutionality of a factfinder having incentive to convict) Source: http://www.motorists.org/

The bottom line is we cannot afford to give up our rights. I don't confuse this with the Patriot Act (The earlier posting is a non-sequiter) - there a court or tribunal has oversight. With traffic cameras an officer or contractor, not really at the scene, is judge, jury and executioner.

These cameras need to be abolished or reformed to simply provide a constant feed (you don't have a right to privacy if you have a license and it requires you to obey laws). In this case the camera isn't judging you, but merely collecting information that no municipality could ever have the ability to process, though police could use time segments to look for a thief evading them, for instance.

[YouFaceTheTick @ Jun 21st 2007 12:30PM]

The whole concept of speed cameras and red light cameras is VERY Orwellian. I can understand recording the events and if a crime is committed AND reported, then a HUMAN can go back and look at the event. But to pass judgment electronically is so f-ed up.

[Cole @ Jun 21st 2007 12:31PM]

There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional here. Everything that is outside is open to public domain. You can film any of it and you can take pictures of it. I support red light cameras. They are used for a good purpose, to catch people committing a dangerous traffic infraction and to raise revenues for the town or city in which they are placed so taxes don't go skyrocketing. For those who believe that the government is going to use these cameras to track your every move so that they no where you are and what your doing, your wrong, there are way to many people and cars for the government to even care about you. How much more conceited can you be. I find it funny that you people complain about red light cameras but don't complain about cameras in banks, large and small stores alike, parking lot cameras, cameras in schools, in police stations, town halls, fire departments, on and on. They help deter some crime and help catch criminals. And the recordings last at most for 2 weeks because the cost of tapes gets be expensive and digital media can only hold so much. This guy that is suing needs to get a life just like the New York judge suing for 54 mil over a dry cleaners losing his pants.

[V @ Jun 21st 2007 12:54PM]

the 3 million is his, so much case law on this matter. the problem with cameras takes away our basic right to 'face our accuser'. laws in many states allow cameras for ticketing purposes in very sensitive areas, school zones. this is a no brainer. money in the bank, with just a simple lawyer(obvious by the small amount of suit $3mill)

[Jake @ Jun 21st 2007 1:00PM]

Guys,

I live near here and actually did the data network for the company that owns these camera's (redflex traffic systems).

The real problem is that the yellow light that used to be 3-4 seconds long, is now 2.5 seconds. This now results in premature slamming on breaks by drivers, or a ticket for everyone expecting a standard yellow light. The truth is, there's been no noticable decline in accidents at the major intersections where these have been installed.

Furthermore, the "safety" argument that you'll get from the city government (or anyone else for that matter) is a sham. The local government is in it to collect revenue that they were previously unable to collect - pure and simple. If they could have a cop on the corner doing the same thing, they would. But it's only for the revenue - not the "safety of the citizens".

This is even further evident on how it affects your driving record - it doesn't. The city can't come after you for the money because an officer wasn't there. Instead they authorize the traffic camera company to collect. What happens if you don't pay? Their only recourse is to send your bill to a collection agency.

[Al @ Jun 21st 2007 4:54PM]

I am the victim of one of these cameras. While I don't see them as "unconstitutional", the traffic court system considers them to be prima facia evidence of guilt. THIS is where the problem lies. The system takes pictures of plate and is "activated only when the light is red". The pictures taken do NOT include the Red light as part of its' image/picture of our car, thereby there is no evidence that the picture was take while the light was red.

When I fought my first ticket on these grounds, the Judge told me "that's the way the system works, GUILTY". I appealed, requesting a Jury Trial, instead, the appeal was declined but the amount due cut in 1/2.

When I fought my second ticket, I submitted manufacturer's MTBF specification showing the failure rate of their equipment. In addition, I subpoenaed court records of the number of red-light-camera tix issued along with those found not guilty (there were NONE). I made a case for the MTBF and the lack of Not Guilty indicating a clear probability of the camera failing as a result of these items and its' time in use. The case was dismissed!

Good luck to all of you, but I suggest you make the fight as I did; show the camera is capable of failure and therefore is not a self-evident proffer and, absent of this prima facia evidence all tickets must be dismissed w/out corroboration by someone (ie: a Police officer saw you do it)...Al

[LJKelley @ Jun 21st 2007 1:06PM]

While I support cameras (that don't videotape just snap photos) to enforce speed and red lights, I DO NOT support corporation using it gain money. If it was all state/federal implemented... perhaps but law enforcement should never be about money.