Photo Radar

icassell · Jan 22, 2009

I got nailed by a photo-radar van on the way to work this morning $@!#

Phoenix has these cameras which take a pic of your face with the radar and your license plate -- then you get the ticket in the mail. I wonder if I can get out of the ticket by criticizing composition technique, post processing, lighting, etc...

A colleague of mine got one of these and his wife's comment was: "Hey, that's a great picture of you they got"

Big Mike · Jan 22, 2009

Here in Alberta, we don't have license plates on the front of our vehicles, so the photo radar only gets us from behind. jerks

Have you heard this joke/story?...
A guy gets a $120 photo radar ticket in the mail and is not happy about it. So rather than send money, he takes a photo of $120, sends that to the police and thinks himself to be quite clever.
The police, however, are pretty clever as well. They sent back a photo of handcuffs.

clarinetJWD · Jan 22, 2009

I am a huge advocate for the banning of those cameras, as I feel they are unconstitutional. All Americans have a right to face their accuser, but when your accuser is inanimate, it doesn't really work. It sucks about the ticket, though :S

icassell · Jan 22, 2009

We also have our plates on the back. You get flashed twice -- once in front to get your face and once in back to get the plate.

Big Mike · Jan 22, 2009

I am a huge advocate for the banning of those cameras, as I feel they are unconstitutional. All Americans have a right to face their accuser, but when your accuser is inanimate, it doesn't really work. It sucks about the ticket, though :S

The problem is that it's not just a mere accusation, is it? It's actual proof that you were speeding. Assuming the device is calibrated properly.
I don't like them (I've been caught too many times) but I don't want to ban them.
We also have them for red lights as well.

We also have our plates on the back. You get flashed twice -- once in front to get your face and once in back to get the plate.

.
Is it two separate cameras that fire from two locations simultaneously? Or does it get you once from the front, then again after you go past it? What if you have slowed down in that time?

Here, they only get you from behind, after you have past them. The result of that is that whenever someone drives by a vehicle that looks like one of the 'photo radar vans'...they slam on the brakes. The part that drives me crazy is that people will see the van, then slow right down and crawl by at 10 or 20 below the posted limit. The thing won't go off until you are going 10 over for crying out loud!

icassell · Jan 22, 2009

Big Mike said:
We also have them for red lights as well.

.
Is it two separate cameras that fire from two locations simultaneously? Or does it get you once from the front, then again after you go past it? What if you have slowed down in that time?

Here, they only get you from behind, after you have past them. The result of that is that whenever someone drives by a vehicle that looks like one of the 'photo radar vans'...they slam on the brakes. The part that drives me crazy is that people will see the van, then slow right down and crawl by at 10 or 20 below the posted limit. The thing won't go off until you are going 10 over for crying out loud!

It's two cameras ... and you can't possibly slow down enough between the flashes without having the guy behind you ram you ...

We have them for red lights too.

NateS · Jan 22, 2009

Big Mike said:
The problem is that it's not just a mere accusation, is it? It's actual proof that you were speeding. Assuming the device is calibrated properly.
I don't like them (I've been caught too many times) but I don't want to ban them.
We also have them for red lights as well.

.
Is it two separate cameras that fire from two locations simultaneously? Or does it get you once from the front, then again after you go past it? What if you have slowed down in that time?

Here, they only get you from behind, after you have past them. The result of that is that whenever someone drives by a vehicle that looks like one of the 'photo radar vans'...they slam on the brakes. The part that drives me crazy is that people will see the van, then slow right down and crawl by at 10 or 20 below the posted limit. The thing won't go off until you are going 10 over for crying out loud!

Actually, in this great country we call home, you are innocent until proven guilty, so at the time of the ticket, it is a mere accusation until the judge or jury decides otherwise or until you plead guilty. So....again, the camera equipment IS the accuser until you are found or plead guilty and not being able to face said accuser is a direct violation of your/my constitutional rights. Whether their is "proof" or not is not the point.....you are still being accused of speeding.

I would probably fight for a dismissal due to this violation and if that wasn't granted, I would issue a subpoena for all of the equipment to be brought to the trial (including, cameras, servers that process, mailers, etc..) so that I can face my accuser. I agree with the others (obviously) that it is a violation of our rights and I know a few people who have gotten these tickets (red lights actually) to not stand up in courts because of those violations.

From what I see, if you fight it, it usually gets thrown out...because they make so much money from people who just pay and don't fight it that they often don't want to mess with those who do argue the ticket.

Big Mike · Jan 22, 2009

I don't want to get into a discussion about Americans and their Constitution.

If you don't want your constitutional rights violated...then don't speed :roll:

sabbath999 · Jan 22, 2009

clarinetJWD said:
I am a huge advocate for the banning of those cameras, as I feel they are unconstitutional. All Americans have a right to face their accuser, but when your accuser is inanimate, it doesn't really work. It sucks about the ticket, though :S

The cameras are evidence, not the accusers. You have the right to a trial, the state prosecutor will serve as your accuser on behalf of the state.

icassell · Jan 22, 2009

sabbath999 said:
The cameras are evidence, not the accusers. You have the right to a trial, the state prosecutor will serve as your accuser on behalf of the state.

Unfortunately (and they know this) it usually is cheaper and quicker just to pay the fine.

Mitica100 · Jan 22, 2009

Photo Radar Tickets Self-Help Site

There is no need to pay the ticket, IMHO. It's just an intimidation tactic.

It seems illegal in AZ to have a ticket issued by a non-person which has a stamped signature. The book above explains how everything works. I listened to her on Thanksgiving on KTAR and she made a lot of sense. She is an AZ lawyer and knows the ins and outs when it comes to this law.

Also, this is a quote from a KTAR show about photo radar cameras and legislation:

"The budget passed by the Arizona Legislature late Thursday includes a plan to expand photo radar statewide, but to keep photo radar tickets off a driver's permanent record and just give them a fine.

The plan is meant to encourage drivers to pay their fines, a flat $165 per ticket. Lawmakers decided motorists would be more likely to pay if the tickets did not go on their records.

Ron Williams with the Arizona Insurance Council is not pleased with the idea.

``It means that, in essence, these people can commit this particular act over and over and over again, and these people who are repeat offenders in this way will have no other consequence to their particular driving habits," Williams said.

He said that puts public safety at risk.

``Basically, masking tickets or not having them appear on driving records, is important for public safety, simply because it allows the worst offenders to continue to drive on the roads," said Williams.

He said the plan is not fair to safe drivers because those caught by photo cams violating the laws will not face higher insurance rates, as they would if the tickets counted against points on their driver's licenses."

I wouldn't pay the ticket which, BTW, will be dismissed after 120 days. The cops need to deliver a citation in person, at your home (serve you) and if you're not home, tough! They cannot leave the citation with anyone else, even family, if you're not present. The downside of things is that you'll have to watch your door for about 4 months.

Big Mike · Jan 22, 2009

Here in Alberta, photo tickets do not go on your record...they can't really prove who the driver is/was anyway...I guess a photo from the front would solve that problem but the people might wear masks while they drive :lol:

I think the official charge is 'Being the owner of a vehicle that was photographed going 120 in an 80 zone' bla bla bla. We are given the chance to plead our case (if we choose) but if you don't, you get the standard letter that says 'in your absence, you were found guilty'...please pay the fine. The fine will have to be paid before you can renew your license, which is a yearly renewal...so they always get paid eventually.

Because it doesn't go on our record, the only penalty is the money...which has given rise to the criticism that it's just a cash cow for the police/city. It certainly does make a lot of money for them.

icassell · Jan 22, 2009

Well, when the photo shows up in the mail I might scan it in and post it here .... it would be fun to let the TPF crowd critique it ...

royalWITHcheese2 · Jan 24, 2009

I don't know is this is anywhere else but in Virginia there are signs on the highway letting you know they radar from aircraft...a little over the top if you ask me...

icassell · Jan 24, 2009

royalWITHcheese2 said:
I don't know is this is anywhere else but in Virginia there are signs on the highway letting you know they radar from aircraft...a little over the top if you ask me...

Nah, they're all over the place -- not just Virginia. I have this mental image of them dropping a bomb on you if they catch you speeding.