Question About Possible Red Light Camera Ticket in CA

[KizzyMan]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I was driving home late a few nights ago, and got "flashed" by a red light camera at the corner of Sepulveda and Victory Blvd. in Van Nuys (Los Angeles, CA). I was not speeding. When it happened I remembered thinking that I must have been at least partway into the intersection, but there were no cars behind me so it must have been my picture it was taking. It was last Friday night so I haven't received a ticket yet, but I'm concerned I might get one.

As I recall it, I am about 99 percent sure that my front tires were at least over the first crosswalk line, and about 75 percent sure they were over the second crosswalk line, before the light turned red. I'm thinking (and also hoping) that my rear tires must have been what set off the camera.

So, my question is...what is the law in CA with respect to when you are legally allowed to cross an intersection without being in violation of running a red light? If the photo shows my front tires are over the front crosswalk line, am I OK? Or, do they have to be over the second line? Or do both tires have to be over both lines?

I know that the pictures are reviewed before they send a ticket out, but it would be helpful to know the law in any event. Knowing that the city is strapped for cash, I've been wondering if they are sending out more "borderline" cases in the hope that people will just pay and not contest them.

Thanks for your advice!

-Kizzy

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I was driving home late a few nights ago, and got "flashed" by a red light camera at the corner of Sepulveda and Victory Blvd. in Van Nuys (Los Angeles, CA). I was not speeding. When it happened I remembered thinking that I must have been at least partway into the intersection, but there were no cars behind me so it must have been my picture it was taking. It was last Friday night so I haven't received a ticket yet, but I'm concerned I might get one.

As I recall it, I am about 99 percent sure that my front tires were at least over the first crosswalk line, and about 75 percent sure they were over the second crosswalk line, before the light turned red. I'm thinking (and also hoping) that my rear tires must have been what set off the camera.

So, my question is...what is the law in CA with respect to when you are legally allowed to cross an intersection without being in violation of running a red light? If the photo shows my front tires are over the front crosswalk line, am I OK? Or, do they have to be over the second line? Or do both tires have to be over both lines?

I know that the pictures are reviewed before they send a ticket out, and as described above I'm hoping it won't lead to one, but in the meantime it would be piece of mind to know what the law is.

Thanks for your advice!

-Kizzy

You tires would have to cross the FIRST line. The pictures will show pretty clearly that they weren't.

 

[KizzyMan]

Thanks, that's good to know. I'm almost certain they were over the first line, probably in the middle of the crosswalk. If I'm right, that would mean that it must have been my rear tires that crossed the line late and triggered the camera. It's odd timing but I presume it must happen from time to time.

In any case if I do get cited I'll be scrutinizing that photo very carefully. Of course, if I was clearly behind the line, then I'll just pay the ticket.

 

[Zigner]

Thanks, that's good to know. I'm almost certain they were over the first line, probably in the middle of the crosswalk. If I'm right, that would mean that it must have been my rear tires that crossed the line late and triggered the camera. It's odd timing but I presume it must happen from time to time.

In any case if I do get cited I'll be scrutinizing that photo very carefully. Of course, if I was behind the line, then I'll just pay the ticket.

See, the problem is that when YOU saw the light turn red, it had ALREADY been red for a short period of time. As soon as the red light starts to power up, it's red. Again, the pictures will show it...

HOWEVER -

It may be possible to fight the ticket for other reasons. Check out www.highwayrobbery.net (not an endorsement) or use Google to get more information...

 

[JIMinCA]

You tires would have to cross the FIRST line. The pictures will show pretty clearly that they weren't.

How do you know this?? Can you cite your source? Were you there? I think the theory you have presented is flawed.

OP, don't get wrapped around the axle until you actually get the ticket. If you do get one, there are a LOT of good defenses for these types of tickets.

 

[KizzyMan]

We'll see. I was only really concerned with the legal portion of the reply, i.e. that it is the front tires and first crosswalk line that matter. The rest is speculation (on my part as well). Having said that, obviously I was the one who was there, and I'm pretty sure I cleared that line, even assuming for the delay it might have taken for the electrical signal to illuminate the red light, and then for the time it took that light to reach my eyes. My front tires might even have crossed the second line (or were just about to) as the light changed to red, but the length of my car is such that even in that case it would still have been possible for my rear tires to have been just behind the first line at that point, and hence triggered the light as they crossed it. Honestly, I think that if my front tires (and body) had been behind the first crosswalk when the light turned red, I wouldn't even be posting here. I would just know that I ran it. But that's not the case.

Time will tell. I'll be sure to post back here either way.

 

[Maestro64]

It all assumes the light and camera was set up properly, which is huge assumption these days since there is plenty of documented cases of the opposite being true. I personally witness RLC in CA on a recent trip snapping pictures even when cars did not enter the intersection and ones where cars were in the middle and it turned red. Since most people just pay you can bet those tickets were money in the bank. They are suppose to review all pictures to make sure they were real violations, however, does that really happen.

As it was pointed out Home - Fighting Red Light Camera Tickets is the current best source of information addressing these kinds of tickets.

FYI, there is not delay for the light to turn red and for you to see it, electicity and photons all travel at the speed of light, it is immediate. The problem is that there is sensor on ground some distance back from the stop line/cross walk and the system makes a guess at when you cross the sensor and when your car would get to the stop line/cross walk, if this assumed time is off it will snap a picture even though you cross the line already.

 

[Zigner]

How do you know this?? Can you cite your source? Were you there? I think the theory you have presented is flawed.

OP, don't get wrapped around the axle until you actually get the ticket. If you do get one, there are a LOT of good defenses for these types of tickets.

I'll be proven right on that.

And, then you go on to parrot what I said. Are you just trying to stir up trouble again?

It's ok, I still love, admire and respect you.

 

[KizzyMan]

It's interesting you mention that. I drove back to the intersection the other night to have another look at the crosswalk and observe the duration of the yellow light. In the short time I was there, I noticed several camera flashes and in each case it appeared they were for cars that were clearly already in the intersection. It does make me question whether there could be a calibration issue.

In any case, as I say, if the photo shows me behind the line at the red, then I will pay the ticket and move on.

But assume for a moment that the photo shows me just slightly ahead of the line, and they decided to send me the ticket anyway. Will it be easy to get this dismissed? Or in the case of "close calls" do the judges basically just say you're guilty?

 

[Zigner]

In any case, as I say, if the photo shows me behind the line at the red, then I will pay the ticket and move on.

I'd recommend against that. But it's your money.

Or in the case of "close calls" do the judges basically just say you're guilty?

That's the beauty of the camera system. There's not such thing as a close call. There are other issues that can be raised...but you're either past the line or your not. And, "on" the line counts as "past" the line for the purposes of our conversation.

And, don't let Jim scare ya...he's a bit hard-headed but means well.

 

[KizzyMan]

Zigner,

So when they review the photos (as they are supposed to do), and they see a photo has been taken of a car with its front tires just at, or slightly past, the limit line (in my case, the first crosswalk line), they simply dismiss it, and it never becomes a citation? Or if it does somehow become a citation, a judge would dismiss it? In other words, justice is truly blind? I ask, because I suppose there's a cynical side of me that thinks the city is so cash-strapped, that they will be more aggressive about ticketing close calls in the hope that they won't be contested (either due to ignorance of the law, laziness, or some combination thereof).

Also, assuming I was behind the line at the red, I'm not sure on what basis I could contest it. I looked at the duration of the yellow light and it looked about right to me, although I didn't time it. Apart from that, I suppose I could contest the calibration of the equipment. I suppose that's a bridge I'll cross when I hopefully don't ever come to it.

-Kizzy

 

[Zigner]

Zigner,

So when they review the photos (as they are supposed to do), and they see a photo has been taken of a car with its front tires just at, or slightly past, the limit line (in my case, the first crosswalk line), they simply dismiss it, and it never becomes a citation? In other words, justice is truly blind? You are truly either behind the line, or not...and that is also exactly how a judge would see it?

Also, assuming I was behind the line at the red, I'm not sure on what basis I could contest it. I looked at the duration of the yellow light and it looked about right to me, although I didn't time it. Apart from that, I suppose I could contest the calibration of the equipment. I suppose that's a bridge I'll cross when I hopefully don't ever come to it.

-Kizzy

Yes, at this point you are probably better off just taking a "wait and see" approach. HOWEVER - make SURE your address information for your car is up to date!

 

[KizzyMan]

Good point. Yes, it is.

 

[N2l83]

Duuuuuude let me tell you a little secret.
If anyone ever gets a traffic light ticket and wants to get out of it oh boy that is the easiest ticket EVER to get out of. Contest it. Got to court and simply say that you were not driving. They will dismiss it without questions asked.
Their cameras can not prove YOU were driving the car. Also get an alibi to say you were with them when you let your friend drive the car. Dismissed.
eventually they will get tired of hearing people say this but until they come up with another more proven way of showing YOU were actually driving the car without a doubt, I suggest using this excuse to your advantage. They will know its more than likely not true but they can NOT prove you were driving. Its the easiest way for them to get honest people to pay money even though there was no officer to actually see this happen.

 

[davew128]

They take pictures of the driver and the rear license plate because these intersections have cameras at opposite corners. Dude.