Red Light Camera Ticket - CA

In California. I received a camera ticket in the mail. What happened is that it was in a heavy downpour of rain that afternoon. Rain was so strong for a few minutes that I could hardly see through the windshield wipers. So, I continued lowerering my speed to be safe and able to see.

I was driving very slow, due to conditions. About 10-15 mph (in a 35),just as I approached the intersection. The light was green. When I was about 3 feet from (before) the crosswalk the light turned yellow, then red before I was out. The yellow is set to last 3.5-3.8 seconds, before the red. There was no way to stop before the intersection as the road was almost flooding. Then the camera took the picture sometime during the yellow(not red). It shows I am at the crosswalk line.

I believe the conditions & my unuasual speed were the cause, not a willing red-light runner.
I want to fight this $275 ticket. What should I do? How do I present this.
Is there a law for extreme conditions? ... and, how can I prove the camera flashed on yellow not red? I don't know if it was off, or the storm effected it.... or if it's suposed to flash on yellow?? All ideas will help.

I'm not an authority on law in California, but I believe you can handle this situation one of two ways: 1) pay the fine or 2) go to court, fight the ticket, tell the judge everything you told us.

[racer72]

A lot depends on what you consider to be a safe driving speed under far less than normal driving conditions. I would consider a safe driving speed in the conditions you describe as pulled over and parked along side the road till the shower passed. Using the numbers you give, at 10 mph you would travel 56 feet in 3.8 seconds. The average road had 12 foot wide lanes and if you were crossing a typical arterial intersection of 2 lanes in each direction plus a center left turn lane, this would make the intersection of 60 or more adding in the distance from the stop line to the crosswalk on the other side of the intersection. With that information, you could argue that you did enter the intersection legally with green light but due to the slow speed you were traveling you were unable to clear the intersection before the light changed to red. The above information along with a couple pictures of the intersection could provide a strong enough foundation to have the ticket dismissed. Good luck.

Thank You acoalson, for your input. Is there a formula?

I've heard that someone fighting this can't have the usual say in their defense. It's not like other tickets? I don't understand that.

I am not familiar with how this type of ciation is "seen by the court". It seems that they could believe that a photo is "automatic guilt", and not value my explination.

Do you think (or have seen) traffic judges feel this way?

I've been told I shouldn't respond to the "mailed" ticket, only if I am served in person??

All knowledgable ideas are welcome!

First, go take a look at the photo. The photo will show your car in relation to when the light turned red. Even though you may have thought it was yellow, you may have not actually entered the intersection at that time. I was confused about this also, until I read how the definition of an intersection is written in the statutes.

Considering it was pouring rain, I would be suprised if they could actually make out an individual in the car. So you might be able to get out of the ticket based on lack of evidence. Remember, "preponderance of evidence" is what must be shown to win in a traffic court.

No ticket is ever automatic. Judges are people too. They are drivers just like you and me. They will listen to a worthy argument and will dismiss if you can provide a prep. of evidence that you are not guilty. Explain your situation as you did here and there is a chance you might get out of it.

You are taking a chance if you don't respond to a mailed ticket. Yes, technically they cannot prove you actually received it, but most towns say they may suspend a license and/or hand deliver a ticket that was not responded to (although I have yet to hear of someone who had it hand delivered...please respond to this post if you have). I doubt a judge will be sympathetic to someone who had to have their ticket hand delivered.

Thank You racer72 & engineer. I am mature, but haven't (wouldn't) ever run a red light ever. (lotsa yrs.)

? engineer: What are the statues on defining an intersection ??

I was in court and a guy was there for one of these photo enforcement citations and a failure to appear per the "courtesy notice". He told the judge That he never ran a red light, that he thought the "courtesy notice" was a mistake, and threw it away. He said he was never pulled over, never recieved a citation, and he never signed a ticket promising to appear. He had no obligation or reason to address the issue.
The judge agreed and dismissed the failure to appear stating that the courtesy notice, is exactly that, a courtesy, and not a obligation of the court, and does not create any obligation for the defendant.
The judge then pulled out this black and white printout; the "photo" that "photo enforcement" had taken, and showed it to the guy. He asked if he recognized the driver of the car, the guy said the only thing he could recognize was his license plate. The judge dismissed the ticket, apoligized to the guy, and stating that these "photo enforcement" citations were a problem and the court was dealing with them "differently". He also said the citation was for a "moving violation" and was the responsability of the driver of the car and not the registered owner.
I have heard the court recently created "The beaureu of Traffic citations" to deal with these tickets.