In WA a police officer for the jurisdiction reviews the video and “Certifies” the ticket.

Yes, you can fight in court, but with the video/photo evidence good luck with that.

Since the obligation for a moving violation to identify the driver can’t be met, WA considers red light tickets a “parking violation” which passes the responsibility to the registered owner. While they used this as an end around the requirement of identifying a driver in order to cite the charge, they “sell” it as a “we’re cutting you a break because it won’t go on your record” deal as a subtle manipulation to help you decide to just pay it and consider yourself lucky it wasn’t a “real” ticket.


Here is where I have a problem with it...

Failure to stop is a moving violation, yet for “convenience” and “efficiency” they employ cameras and hire a contractor (who has a monetary interest) to handle “enforcement”.

When red light cameras come in, there is LOTS of proof of related shortened yellow light times and increased red light times (no, the company and the political jurisdiction would never tweak the system for mutual benefit...). A cynical person might think this would be to maximize “violations” and increase “revenue”.

So, the “Law” is playing fast and loose with “intent” and “partnering” with private enterprise for a mutual profit motive.


My take, when it comes to splitting hairs and being “flexible” with definitions of violations, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. WA has a “loophole” that is not well publicized - Submit an affidavit that you weren’t driving the car at the time and the ticket gets dismissed. That caveat was included in order to get support of those legislators who were willing to sell out and agree to it, but only if there was some “protection” for folks “falsely accused”.


Of course while all of the info on how to pay for the ticket, how to challenge in court, what happens if you don’t pay (collection fees, cancelled veh registration, etc...) is included in the notice, they conveniently avoid including the a specific info about filing an affidavit if you weren’t driving the vehicle to have it dismissed.

They do tell you that you can claim it wasn’t you, but the included form to do so asks you to provide info on who WAS driving and formatted in a fashion that most would assume means it is required. The “notice” I received even included verbiage to the effect that an “incomplete” form “may not be considered”. While it doesn’t go so far as to “require” completion, the inferrence is that if you weren’t driving, you are expected to drop the dime on who was by providing them with the name and info for the “driver”, thus passing the obligation to another who will then suffer the same extortion attempts. Otherwise, your statement “may not be considered”


Another un-disclosed tidbit of info is that the only requirement the state put in place is an affidavit that you weren’t driving and there is no legal requirement compelling you to name someone else as a part of that affidavit.


So I, instead of filling out their form, returned my notice with a signed affidavit along with the legal citation of relevant RCW. I (correctly and honestly) noted that while I am the registered owner of the vehicle, my wife, adult children, parents, and in-laws all have access to the vehicle and I am unable to say with any certainty who was driving the vehicle at the time. Given the delay in receiving notice from the infraction date was about three and a half weeks, it is true. I don’t keep a daily diary of vehicle use.

Two weeks later I received notice that the ticket had been dismissed. Slam dunk, the law clearly states that has to happen if such an affidavit is provided.


Splitting hairs? Maybe, but no less disingenuous than the racket and subterfuge the “system” used to set the scam up in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeyspizza:

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

Virginia is prevented by state law from using speed cameras.

But Virginia does have red light cameras.

They don't work, either empty boxes or not connected to anything.

Cheaper to leave them in place than remove them I'd guess.

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:
Beirut-By-The-Lake is installing a couple again, this time in or near The Loop. I thought they were all taken down a couple years ago because the corrupt city employees got caught bribing (or being bribed by, don't remember, or really care) the camera company.

If a disease is not totally eradicated, it comes back even more virulent.

In the 70s, my dad was the controller for a company in Chicago. He and his boss were returning from lunch to find city employees installing parking meters along the street the company was on. The boss made a few phone calls and then told my dad to cut a $5,000 check to a law firm named something, something and Daley. A couple of days later, the city employees were back cutting off the newly installed meters. True story.

^^^^^^^^
Hah! I remember that one!

Our city tried the "cameras in the school zone" idea. One day I was off, school holiday, when I was came across the camera system, set up and operating. I pointed this out to various agencies (police, city council, news) First the answer was that they were out "testing" the system. Second, people ticketed by the system that day started complaining.Third, the company lost its contract. Interestingly, the company had changed the school signs from "When children are present." To "6:30 AM to 6:30 PM. School ran 8:30 to 3:00.

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:
Beirut-By-The-Lake

quote:

Originally posted by FishOn:
You know the company that sells those systems (and the monitoring service) was caught posting messages on local newspaper comment sections, about how great the service was, and how many accidents were avoided etc. Total BS. It was a campaign of misinformation, so they could keep selling systems and fleecing municipalities.

In my opinion the cameras cause more accidents as drivers slam on the brakes when approaching an intersection where traffic is slowing, so they dont get caught in the camera zone. Rear end accidents.

http://bancams.com/ats-gets-ca...ng-citizen-comments/

I got tagged twice from a specific camera on a left arrow that had been rigged to generate revenue, and I'm a good driver, which is why it really pissed me off.

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:
Beirut-By-The-Lake is installing a couple again, this time in or near The Loop. I thought they were all taken down a couple years ago because the corrupt city employees got caught bribing (or being bribed by, don't remember, or really care) the camera company.

If a disease is not totally eradicated, it comes back even more virulent.

I can confirm that cameras were installed right in front of 191 N Wacker at Lake St. I was there on a project last week while they were being installed.