red light camera photo enforcement

[Clipper965]

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

While driving in Bradenton Florida on 7/02/01 I got caught by this Camera. I got the ticket in the mail. I personally believe these cameras to be unfair as a means of getting revenue by harassing the public over minor traffic infractions. Is there any defense I could muster to challenge this ticket? . I read in some states there needs to be signs advising the public cameras are in the area. Money is really tight now and this $158 fine is money that I need to pay other living expenses so any help anyone could be would be appreciated it.I am in the silver SUV. There is a sign there saying no turn on red. I think what must have happened is I could not stop in time and just turned without stopping. You can see pictures and a video buy going to:

Login


Citiation/Violation b000008364

Pin 297565298What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[asiny]

First, can a MOD or the OP please remove the link, citation and pin# from the site!

You realise that by simply going to the site and entering your citation # and pin # - in some states - indicates that you have received the citation? Also it would seem that Florida can issue red-light violations via regular mail - with no need for certified mail.

Statute 316.0083
(b)1.a. Within 30 days after a violation, notification must be sent to the registered owner of the motor vehicle involved in the violation specifying the remedies available under s. 318.14 and that the violator must pay the penalty of $158 to the department, county, or municipality, or furnish an affidavit in accordance with paragraph (d), within 30 days following the date of the notification in order to avoid court fees, costs, and the issuance of a traffic citation. The notification shall be sent by first-class mail.

I will say I did goto the site and see the video - you had more than enough time to stop. You simply chose to ignore the light because you were not paying attention. And, considering it was a NO TURN ON RED light - you blew through a red light and turned on red too. It seems you may not have been the only one who received a citation on this one too.

I see the speed limit is posted as 45, you could argue the yellow time was too fast - by some timing the yellow should be steady for 4.5 seconds. By their own timing it is yellow for 3.8 seconds. This could be your only argument.

 

[racer72]

Nothing in your post suggests the ticket is not valid or unwarranted. If you can't afford it, you can't afford to drive. Sell your vehicle and buy a bus pass instead.

 

[demurringdude]

You realise that by simply going to the site and entering your citation # and pin # - in some states - indicates that you have received the citation?

What states would those be?

 

[Who's Liable?]

First, can a MOD or the OP please remove the link, citation and pin# from the site!

You realise that by simply going to the site and entering your citation # and pin # - in some states - indicates that you have received the citation?

Please provide which state allows such an action. As far as I know, there is NO state that allows for this.

Going to a website and viewing a video of a similar car with a similar looking driver does NOT constitute guilt, nor valid delivery of said citation.

 

[asiny]

Please provide which state allows such an action. As far as I know, there is NO state that allows for this.

The fact that the OP was sent a unique ID and login number (despite that they chose to release it to the public ) - followed by (I read) they logged into the website using the unique ID and login, I was basing my above statement on reference of another user from a similair 'ticket-in-the-mail' thread.
I was under the impression that, as the citation was regular mailed and could not be confirmed as delivered, that the private user login could be used to verify the user did receive the citation. This may well be my incorrect assumption.

Going to a website and viewing a video of a similar car with a similar looking driver does NOT constitute guilt, nor valid delivery of said citation.

With the OP saying the below, it reads as though either a) the OP had viewed the video and verified that it is there car or b) they have not yet logged into the site and just assumed it was their car ;

I am in the silver SUV. There is a sign there saying no turn on red. I think what must have happened is I could not stop in time and just turned without stopping. You can see pictures and a video buy going to:

 

[Who's Liable?]

The fact that the OP was sent a unique ID and login number (despite that they chose to release it to the public ) - followed by (I read) they logged into the website using the unique ID and login, I was basing my above statement on reference of another user from a similair 'ticket-in-the-mail' thread.
I was under the impression that, as the citation was regular mailed and could not be confirmed as delivered, that the private user login could be used to verify the user did receive the citation. This may well be my incorrect assumption.

And that is all it is. An assumption. ANYONE can get the ID as well as a login number. If the OPs 18 year old son looked up the video online using the ID and password, would that mean the OP is still legally served? The mail could have been stolen, who knows. The online viewing is a courtesy provided by the city, that is all.

With the OP saying the below, it reads as though either a) the OP had viewed the video and verified that it is there car or b) they have not yet logged into the site and just assumed it was their car ;

On an online entertainment board .

You still have not provided a list of states that allow online viewing as a valid form of delivery of said citation.

 

[asiny]

You still have not provided a list of states that allow online viewing as a valid form of delivery of said citation.

Sorry if this sounds attacking, but it seems as though you never read what I wrote. After re-reading your response I think you may have put multiple responses in one paragraph though;

I was basing my above statement on reference of another user from a similair 'ticket-in-the-mail' thread.
I was under the impression that, as the citation was regular mailed and could not be confirmed as delivered, that the private user login could be used to verify the user did receive the citation. This may well be my incorrect assumption.

ANYONE can get the ID as well as a login number. If the OPs 18 year old son looked up the video online using the ID and password, would that mean the OP is still legally served?

The ID and Login is specific to the citation - I may be guessing, but I highly doubt that thousands of tickets are being mailed out using the same citation and pin number.
If the citation was certify mailed and signed for - at the correct address - then regardless of who signed for it, it was accepted at the correct address. If the OPs 18 year old decided not to give the OP the ticket - that is a legal defence?

The mail could have been stolen, who knows.

If someone is stealing mail, and uncover a traffic citation - call me crazy - but for some reason I don't think they are keeping the citation to go check out the site.

Why is it so many users tell many of those asking questions (especially if their legal situation is more serious) not to say anything or continue asking for further information? Could it be a) they are attempting to legally protect themselves? or b) they are attempting to legally protect the person asking questions because what they type could be used as evidence against them?...

On an online entertainment board .

 

[demurringdude]

You said

First, can a MOD or the OP please remove the link, citation and pin# from the site!

because...

by simply going to the site and entering your citation # and pin # - in some states - indicates that you have received the citation?

and then you admitted...

I will say I did goto the site and see the video

So you are saying that the moderators need to act swiftly to prevent people like you doing what you already did. Or am I missing something?

 

[swalsh411]

The white jeep made it through barely. The Sequoia with the roof carrier and you clearly blew through the light. If you couldn't stop in time then either you were not paying attention, have horrible reaction times, or terrible brakes.

 

[disneykid52]

Wont affect your license.

 

[HighwayMan]

You were at least 60 feet from the marked stop line and the light was already steady red. You seem to be living in some fantasy world. You make the mistake and then you blame the municipality for citing you, going with the old "revenue generation" angle? Come one - be an adult and accept what you did was clearly wrong as shown on the video.

 

[HighwayMan]

And I wouldn't call disobeying a steady red light to be a "minor traffic infraction".

 

[asiny]

So you are saying that the moderators need to act swiftly to prevent people like you doing what you already did. Or am I missing something?

Yes, you did miss something. I was not asking for it to be removed swiftly, just asking for it to be removed.
Ultimately my reasoning was incorrect - but my incorrect understanding IF simply logging in could be accepted as receipt of the citation, as I read that the user HAD visited the site already so it would not matter if anyone else logged in.

But as I have discovered this site is considered;

On an online entertainment board .

 

[You Are Guilty]

I think what must have happened is I could not stop in time and just turned without stopping.

I think that is what happened too - that video says a lot. (Of course, it might have had something to do with you not hitting your brakes until about 3' before the stop line, but I'm no expert).