I just got a red light citation for "turning on a red light without stopping," in quotes because that is not what happened.

In the county's own photos, you can see the light was yellow while I was at the intersection, and when I'm in the very short turn, the light is half yellow-half red. In other words, I turned on a yellow light!! (Never mind that it's 7 a.m. on a Saturday morning, and literally two other cars are the only people on the road.)

Is it worth fighting? I get paid by the hour, so taking a day off for a $50 isn't really worth it monetarily (as the county well knows). But I'm sick of this scam.

"In the city's own photos"

FTFY

Ridiculous Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just got a red light citation for "turning on a
> red light without stopping," in quotes because
> that is not what happened.
>
> In the county's own photos, you can see the light
> was yellow while I was at the intersection, and
> when I'm in the very short turn, the light is half
> yellow-half red. In other words, I turned on a
> yellow light!! (Never mind that it's 7 a.m. on a
> Saturday morning, and literally two other cars are
> the only people on the road.)
>
> Is it worth fighting? I get paid by the hour, so
> taking a day off for a $50 isn't really worth it
> monetarily (as the county well knows). But I'm
> sick of this scam.

I seem to remember that "camera tickets" are not points and don't go on your record. The reason being that they can't determine the actual driver to assign the violation to, just the owner of the car.

The Washington Post had an interesting editorial last week that mentioned a little-known aspect of the red-light camera program in Alexandria, Virginia:

As The Washington Times reported four years ago, state law says a private company may not simply drop a ticket in a mailbox and expect it to be considered valid service. Unless a driver receives a hand-delivered copy, the citation can be thrown away without consequence. Depriving Alexandria and its revenue-collecting partner of cash is the surest way to ensure this unsafe program disappears for good.

The Washington Times article was referring to the previous red-light camera statute which expired when the red-light camera program sunsetted in 2005 after a report showed that they had a negative impact on driver safety.



Fortunately for motorists, the new statute instituted in 2007 contains very similar language. Here’s the code requiring personal service of red-light camera tickets (emphasis added):

15.2-968.1. Use of photo-monitoring systems to enforce traffic light signals.

G. A summons for a violation of this section may be executed pursuant to 19.2-76.2. Notwithstanding the provisions of 19.2-76, a summons for a violation of this section may be executed by mailing by first class mail a copy thereof to the owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle. In the case of a vehicle owner, the copy shall be mailed to the address contained in the records of the Department of Motor Vehicles; in the case of a vehicle lessee or renter, the copy shall be mailed to the address contained in the records of the lessor or renter. Every such mailing shall include, in addition to the summons, a notice of (i) the summoned person’s ability to rebut the presumption that he was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation through the filing of an affidavit as provided in subsection D and (ii) instructions for filing such affidavit, including the address to which the affidavit is to be sent. If the summoned person fails to appear on the date of return set out in the summons mailed pursuant to this section, the summons shall be executed in the manner set out in 19.2-76.3. No proceedings for contempt or arrest of a person summoned by mailing shall be instituted for failure to appear on the return date of the summons. Any summons executed for a violation of this section shall provide to the person summoned at least 60 business days from the mailing of the summons to inspect information collected by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system in connection with the violation.

Here’s the code for 19.2-76.3 referenced above:

19.2-76.3. Failure to appear on return date for summons issued under 19.2-76.2.

A. If any person fails to appear on the date of the return contained in the summons issued in accordance with 19.2-76.2, then a summons shall be delivered to the sheriff of the county, city or town for service on that person as set out in 8.01-296.

B. If such person then fails to appear on the date of return as contained in the summons so issued, a summons shall be executed in the manner set out in 19.2-76.

C. No proceedings for contempt or arrest of any person summoned under the provisions of this section shall be instituted unless such person has been personally served with a summons and has failed to appear on the return date contained therein.

Other Articles You Might Like:

City Of Scottsdale, Arizona Lies To Drivers To Get Their Money
What To Do If You Lose Your Copy Of A Traffic Ticket
Driver Convicted Of Speeding Without Ever Receiving Ticket
Pinellas County Clerk of the Circuit Court
Fighting a Moving Violation on Your Own
Essentially it’s saying that they can attempt to mail you a ticket, but if that doesn’t work they have to hand-deliver it in order for the ticket to be valid.

This excerpt from the 2005 final report on Virginia’s ticket camera program sums it up pretty nicely (note that this is in reference to the previous ticket camera statute — emphasis added):

Thus, under Virginia’s red light camera statute as it is now worded, the mere mailing of a citation without personal service by a law enforcement officer does not constitute sufficient notice under the statute’s own terms. While the statute permits the jurisdiction to make the initial attempt to summon the accused to court via mail, if that person fails to respond, he or she is not considered to have been satisfactorily served with notice. Default judgments entered under such circumstances (when the defendant fails to appear in court on the appointed return date) would thus not be binding, and the defendant could not be charged with contempt for failing to comply with such a judgment. Hence, despite its ostensive distancing from the requirements of Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-76, Virginia’s red light camera statute comes full circle and, in the end, requires personal service before a default judgment may be entered against no-shows.

Personal service on all violators is obviously an expensive proposition, involving many staff hours of time, and would defeat one of the primary motivating factors for employing automated detection systems in the first place: a reduction in the number of live officers required to enforce red light laws. (Even the “nail and mail” approach would involve more time, money, and effort than some people would view as warranted relative to the nature of the offense.) Thus, unless a jurisdiction is willing to devote resources to implementing extensive in-hand service, citations mailed for red light camera violations become essentially unenforceable. The average citizen is probably not aware of this loophole, but if word got out on a widespread basis, such knowledge could completely undermine the effectiveness of entire red light camera programs, as citations issued to violators would lose their practical impact.

- See more at: http://blog.motorists.org/toss-your-virginia-red-light-camera-ticket/#sthash.ux4UEaUq.dpuf

I have received junk mail from entities claiming my vehicle was photographed violating red light laws and a collection company has contacted me claiming I owe some fine due to an alleged red light violation. I have never been served a citation under VA law. When and if they do I will contest same as I have a perfect driving record and do not run red lights ever. I stop for yellow lights if I am not already past the stop line ( or very near it).

It is a scam. If a police officer cites you you get immediate notification and you get to face your accuser. A photo from a vendor paid per violation on a piece of your property does not afford you the ability to face anyone. Further all evidence is presented with the presumption of guilt not innocence. There is no chain of custody or protection of the 'evidence' it is simply assumed that a company paid on commission to accuse you is ethical and you are guilty.

Fight it.

Hwxmw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Washington Post had an interesting editorial
> last week that mentioned a little-known aspect of
> the red-light camera program in Alexandria,
> Virginia:
>
> As The Washington Times reported four years ago,
> state law says a private company may not simply
> drop a ticket in a mailbox and expect it to be
> considered valid service. Unless a driver receives
> a hand-delivered copy, the citation can be thrown
> away without consequence. Depriving Alexandria and
> its revenue-collecting partner of cash is the
> surest way to ensure this unsafe program
> disappears for good.
>
> The Washington Times article was referring to the
> previous red-light camera statute which expired
> when the red-light camera program sunsetted in
> 2005 after a report showed that they had a
> negative impact on driver safety.
>
>
>
> Fortunately for motorists, the new statute
> instituted in 2007 contains very similar language.
> Here’s the code requiring personal service of
> red-light camera tickets (emphasis added):
>
> 15.2-968.1. Use of photo-monitoring systems to
> enforce traffic light signals.
>
> G. A summons for a violation of this section may
> be executed pursuant to 19.2-76.2. Notwithstanding
> the provisions of 19.2-76, a summons for a
> violation of this section may be executed by
> mailing by first class mail a copy thereof to the
> owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle. In the
> case of a vehicle owner, the copy shall be mailed
> to the address contained in the records of the
> Department of Motor Vehicles; in the case of a
> vehicle lessee or renter, the copy shall be mailed
> to the address contained in the records of the
> lessor or renter. Every such mailing shall
> include, in addition to the summons, a notice of
> (i) the summoned person’s ability to rebut the
> presumption that he was the operator of the
> vehicle at the time of the alleged violation
> through the filing of an affidavit as provided in
> subsection D and (ii) instructions for filing such
> affidavit, including the address to which the
> affidavit is to be sent. If the summoned person
> fails to appear on the date of return set out in
> the summons mailed pursuant to this section, the
> summons shall be executed in the manner set out in
> 19.2-76.3. No proceedings for contempt or arrest
> of a person summoned by mailing shall be
> instituted for failure to appear on the return
> date of the summons. Any summons executed for a
> violation of this section shall provide to the
> person summoned at least 60 business days from the
> mailing of the summons to inspect information
> collected by a traffic light signal violation
> monitoring system in connection with the
> violation.
>
> Here’s the code for 19.2-76.3 referenced above:
>
> 19.2-76.3. Failure to appear on return date for
> summons issued under 19.2-76.2.
>
> A. If any person fails to appear on the date of
> the return contained in the summons issued in
> accordance with 19.2-76.2, then a summons shall be
> delivered to the sheriff of the county, city or
> town for service on that person as set out in
> 8.01-296.
>
> B. If such person then fails to appear on the date
> of return as contained in the summons so issued, a
> summons shall be executed in the manner set out in
> 19.2-76.
>
> C. No proceedings for contempt or arrest of any
> person summoned under the provisions of this
> section shall be instituted unless such person has
> been personally served with a summons and has
> failed to appear on the return date contained
> therein.
>
> Other Articles You Might Like:
>
> City Of Scottsdale, Arizona Lies To Drivers To Get
> Their Money
> What To Do If You Lose Your Copy Of A Traffic
> Ticket
> Driver Convicted Of Speeding Without Ever
> Receiving Ticket
> Pinellas County Clerk of the Circuit Court
> Fighting a Moving Violation on Your Own
> Essentially it’s saying that they can attempt to
> mail you a ticket, but if that doesn’t work they
> have to hand-deliver it in order for the ticket to
> be valid.
>
> This excerpt from the 2005 final report on
> Virginia’s ticket camera program sums it up
> pretty nicely (note that this is in reference to
> the previous ticket camera statute — emphasis
> added):
>
> Thus, under Virginia’s red light camera statute
> as it is now worded, the mere mailing of a
> citation without personal service by a law
> enforcement officer does not constitute sufficient
> notice under the statute’s own terms. While the
> statute permits the jurisdiction to make the
> initial attempt to summon the accused to court via
> mail, if that person fails to respond, he or she
> is not considered to have been satisfactorily
> served with notice. Default judgments entered
> under such circumstances (when the defendant fails
> to appear in court on the appointed return date)
> would thus not be binding, and the defendant could
> not be charged with contempt for failing to comply
> with such a judgment. Hence, despite its ostensive
> distancing from the requirements of Va. Code Ann.
> § 19.2-76, Virginia’s red light camera statute
> comes full circle and, in the end, requires
> personal service before a default judgment may be
> entered against no-shows.
>
> Personal service on all violators is obviously an
> expensive proposition, involving many staff hours
> of time, and would defeat one of the primary
> motivating factors for employing automated
> detection systems in the first place: a reduction
> in the number of live officers required to enforce
> red light laws. (Even the “nail and mail”
> approach would involve more time, money, and
> effort than some people would view as warranted
> relative to the nature of the offense.) Thus,
> unless a jurisdiction is willing to devote
> resources to implementing extensive in-hand
> service, citations mailed for red light camera
> violations become essentially unenforceable. The
> average citizen is probably not aware of this
> loophole, but if word got out on a widespread
> basis, such knowledge could completely undermine
> the effectiveness of entire red light camera
> programs, as citations issued to violators would
> lose their practical impact.
>
> - See more at:
> http://blog.motorists.org/toss-your-virginia-red-l
> ight-camera-ticket/#sthash.ux4UEaUq.dpuf
>
> I have received junk mail from entities claiming
> my vehicle was photographed violating red light
> laws and a collection company has contacted me
> claiming I owe some fine due to an alleged red
> light violation. I have never been served a
> citation under VA law. When and if they do I will
> contest same as I have a perfect driving record
> and do not run red lights ever. I stop for yellow
> lights if I am not already past the stop line ( or
> very near it).
>
> It is a scam. If a police officer cites you you
> get immediate notification and you get to face
> your accuser. A photo from a vendor paid per
> violation on a piece of your property does not
> afford you the ability to face anyone. Further
> all evidence is presented with the presumption of
> guilt not innocence. There is no chain of custody
> or protection of the 'evidence' it is simply
> assumed that a company paid on commission to
> accuse you is ethical and you are guilty.
>
> Fight it.

Nicely worded. Good to know. Thx

I've heard of legitimate right-on-red turns being a problem for cameras.

Here is what you need to do. You have to prove that you were considered at a point over 1/2 thru the intersection when the light turned yellow. This is also based on the mph of the road. When VDOT does line markings in FFCounty they have absolutely no idea how long to paint the white lines that relate to the speed limit on the said road. The length of the line and the speed limit defines where the 1/2 way point could be on the road.

On a road with a 45 mph speed limit the white lines before the intersections are supposed to be 100 feet long. VDOT has no clue. So over 50 feet and you are considered 1/2 way into the intersection.

Sounds confusing....but read it again and think it out.
Again, you have to prove you were over 1/2 way thru when the light turned yellow.
Your word against there word.
Go Luck. No charge.

I received a traffic cam speeding ticket once. I was in Maryland on a Sunday (important) and was ticketed for going 35 in a 25 school zone. Well, there is no fucking school on Sunday!

I was driving my company car which was a leased vehicle so the cops sent the ticket to the leasing company since their name was on the registration so I didn't even know about it until it was too late. Those dumb fucks went ahead and paid the ticket and then tried to bill me. I explained to them that they should have disputed the ticket as it was a fraudulent charge and I wasn't paying. Then I called the Court and explained what happened. They said the ticket would have been dismissed if someone had filed a dispute. I told the leasing company they fucked up and I wasn't paying the ticket. Never heard anything else about it.

Always fight the camera!

so should i tell you how to beat the camera ? no.

If you entered an intersection during a yellow and can safely exit that intersection, whether it turns red during your transit or not, you did not violate the Virginia law. However, is there a "No Right on Red Sign".

If not, you can contest it, but you'll go before a judge, who will be a Democrat, who will then lecture you like a child on safety before finding you guilty.

So, just quit your whining and pay the Government what you owe it.

Pay a lawyer to represent you. Or pay the fine and shuduup.