A friend of mine got a red light ticket in the mail a while back and has decided to ignore it. His justification is that the staute of limitations is 120 days(I have yet to see any proof of this) and he was told that Phoenix is so backlogged that they cannot serve people in time to make the ticket stick. His court date is 1 week before 120 days. I say the whole thing sounds bogus and he's gonna end up paying more in the long run. I'm curious if anyone here can shed any light on this?

 

pay the ticket...duh, and then don't run red lights, seems pretty simple

 

Golly it's not like he didn't do anything wrong... Unless the person accidently got stuck in the intersection, I have serious disrespect for someone who would purposefully run a red light. I personally almost lost my right thumb to a girl who ran a red light making a turn in front of me. I think that the red light camera tickets should come with an automatic 6 or more month liscence suspension effective a week after the ticket. Maybe that would stop people from doing it. Flame me all you want, unless you've lost someone or been injured by a redlight runner you can't understand. Pay the ticket. javascript:emoticon('')

 

Don't get me started on photo radar. It is nothing more than a money generator for cities.

The first thing I'd ask is if his car is registered to a home address or a post office box. If it is registered to a P.O. Box I would ignore it and not worry about it.

If he doesn't pay up they may send someone to his house to 'follow up'. If his car is registered to a PO Box then they obviously cannot send someone after him.

Read this for more info. This guy was a cop in AZ for years:

http://radarbusters.com/support/beat...ts/default.asp

 

Redlight runners suck, are stupid, inconsiderate and deserve whatever they get. People need to take this as serious as it is because folks have died, been disfigured or crippled for life, and whole families have been lost to some idiot that doesn't think the rules should apply to them.

You know if you've run lights and, if you've run lights, you know you should pay the ticket.

I think our biggest problem with photo tickets are we don't trust the technology to be correct. Hopefully it will prove to be as accurate as a ticket from a cop and we'll get to the point where we can suspend the license(s) of the registered owners of the cars involved if the tickets are not paid. Might sound hard core but we need to remember that driving is not a right, it's a priveledge. If I loan my car to somebody I'm responsible for their actions in my car. If I don't want to pay the ticket I can always go to the person that drove the car and get the cash from them.

And don't get me started on people that drive impaired.

 

Do you seriously think the Post Office does not know who owns the PO Box? Will they send someone to get him for a red light ticket? Probably not, but there will be an outstanding warrant for him so that when a cop sees him run the next light or he gets stopped for speeding it will come around to bite him.

In some states, maybe all, there are no points involved because of the likelyhood that someone other than the owner is driving the car. A hefty fine however is levied and that alone should make you carefully consider who you let drive your car.

If your friend doesn't want to pay, I say fine. His disregard for authourity will catch up with him one day. By not paying the ticket it will probably be sooner rather than later. I only hope he does not hurt someone in the process.

 

Good points

 

I am against red light cams or anything like them. Not because I constantly break the law, but because "big brother" is tightening his grasp on us. A decade or two ago, cops had to catch you to give you a ticket. Now, there are red light cams, cameras that can send you a ticket if your exhaust is too loud, and cams that can ticket you for speeding. If this keeps up, in another 20 years, the cars themselves will be giving us tickets whenever we break any law. They will just keep tightening the screws down on us a little at a time until we are completely controlled by the government.

/end rant

 

Again. Driving is not a right. If there wasn't a need for the camera's (laws being disregarded) then companies wouldn't have a market for them.

I agree with you about government getting too involved in our lives but you only invite them in when you break the traffic laws. They're devolping magnetic license plates that get scanned when you drive over a hidden/buried scanner. Tells them your speed, weight, license plate expiration date and insurance status. Also lets them know if the car/plate is stolen.

Wow.

 

I read an artical about the cameras on the freeway to scottsdale, and they seem to be more dangerous than anything. They posted pics of people taking there hands of the wheel just to flip of the camera. Just drive the right way and everything should be cool.

 

So you are telling me you never speed (even one MPH over), always come to a full and complete stop at a stop sign, and are familiar with every other traffic law out there? What if it is an emergency and you need to speed to get to a hospital? If a cop pulls you over, he will usually escort you so you can get there quicker after you tell him what is going on and have some sympathy for your breaking the law. I know it is a privelage to drive, but at the same time, we are supposed to live in a land of freedom. If I want to engange in a little "spirited driving" on a deserted road, I want to be able to. I know there is a certain amount of risk in doing so, but there is also a certain amount of risk in getting out of bed in the morning. Driving is a privelage, but it should also be fun. Worrying about the next red light cam or sensors in the pavement isn't fun.

 

Thats not what Mark is saying. What Mark is saying is that if he were to run the red light he would pay the fine. We've all done it intentionally or not, its still breaking the law. Spirited driving on a deserted road is not the same as spirited (or to use my term "wreckless") driving on a busy city street. I dont see red light cameras out in the middle of no where. If you dont regularly break the law than you have nothing to worry about.

If its an emergancy, you get the ticket, you show up for court, explain the emergancy with the proper proof and the judge throws out your case. They arent idiots and they dont fine people for emergancies.

Its the same thing as a bank robber getting his picture taken while robbing a bank. Somehow that picture is ok but speeding or running red lights isnt? Breaking the law is breaking the law.

Cheers
Rob

 

I agree with ArizonaGeek on this one. That's coming from a guy who never drives the speed limit, but doesn't even go through a yellow light

 

THansenite,

Please stay in West Des Moines, IA and don't visit Arizona. We have enough bad drivers with lame excuses already without you.

 

True. We had 3 of the top 5 cities (in the country) for red-light running last year here in Arizona. Too many people moving here from other places that don't understand public safety (or have no regard for it).

Ajo has no cameras. I don't think Tonopah does either. Anyone seen any in Coolidge or Ashfork? Nope. Just the deadly intersections and stretches of certain highways where problems have become chronic.

Also, on the point that they are designed as a money-maker for cities.... not so, not even close. We all heard about the problems with the 101 where the cameras went up long before they were installed. Remember the people that laid out there (dead) for days when they got hit from behind by a speeder and their car went off the road?

If I were a city and I was doing this for a buck my cameras would be mobile so I could hit all the best spots to make the dollars and keep my intendeds off-balance, not glue my investment down to one location.

 

The fixed location cameras cannot be there to make money. Probably 95% of the people that drive down any given road do it almost every day, so they know the cameras are there. If those people get caught by the cameras they pass every day they are just stupid. On the 101 people were routinely driving 100 mph on a 55-65 mph freeway. Not real safe, so they put cameras there to try to slow them down. y guess is the surface streets with cameras also had speeding problems. When I'm going 80 on my way to work at 5:00 in the morning, 80% of the traffic is going 70, 10% 65, and the rest about the same as me. In my opinion, aA 10-15 mph difference is probably not too big of a deal (or I wouldn't do it).

The first red light cameras were placed in the intersections that had the highest fatality rates, so I think they are honestly trying to make things safer.

I'm not a big fan of "big brother" or the cameras, but I do think they were installed for legitimate and acceptable reasons.

 

we had them in fresno, the were removed. the system was found to be illegal by some court so they had to pull them. here is why.....
if you got popped you had a 270.00 fine, 100.00 went to the city, the remaining 170 went to the company that owned them......here is the catch. the city of fresno was leasing them and since they did not own them the company that was leasing them to the city was making a profit hense illgeal....... I would find out if they are owned by the city, or leased, if they are leased you should not have to pay the fine etc. etc. ..........but this is CA.

 

Wow what an incredibly antagonistic statement.
1 red light cams cause more accidents than they do prevent
2 if the light is yellow and you dont clear the intersection b4 it turns red you get a ticket
3 is it worth it rear ending some one who slams on the breaks just as they get to an intersection to avoid a ticket?

Red light cams are owned by no city in th eunited states. Theya re owned by the companys that make them. The agreement is a split profit contract where by the owners get a slice of the ticket fines. The owners place the cameras not at places where you would think needs em. But rather on where the most traffic flow is. Higher volumes of traffic produce higher rates of tickets.

Im of the opinion that traffic enforcement is for safety, not income generation. Want a sure fire way of slwoing people down? Park a empty police crusier on the side of the road with a police cap on the back of the seat. Very cost effective

 

Thats a funny one. Iowa is ranked number 3 for driving skills and knowledge. Arizona is ranked 33!
lol
http://www.nbc5i.com/automotive/4572224/detail.html

 

The results do not support the view that red light cameras reduce crashes. Instead, we find that RLCs are associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes. (emphasis added)

Any Questions from all you law and order types?
http://www.motorists.com/issues/enfo...eport_2004.pdf


Because Peek’s contract specifies payment of $35 per citation and no compensation for accident reduction, the final decision regarding locations is not done with the proper incentives in mind.