Watch out for fake red light camera tickets, in California

[NotACopOrLawyer]

Add: San Jose, CA fake SPEEDING tickets

San Jose CA mails out camera-generated SPEEDING "notice of violation."

They too are fakes. A genuine speeding ticket will have been filed with the court, and the ticket will give you the court's address and tell you to appear at the court within 30 - 40 days.

If your "ticket" tells you to contact the city, the police department, or a private company, and does not have the court's address or says, "Do not contact the court," it has not been filed with the court and has no legal weight. You can, and should, ignore it.

Despite all these obvious signals, most people who receive the notices actually turn themselves in. It's amazing.

There is a bill in the legislature (SB 466) to legitimize tickets like San Jose's, but its earliest effective date would be Jan. 1, 2006.

For more info about fake tickets see the website http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsticket.htm

NACOL

 

[JETX]

At least nine cities in California are sending out fake red light camera tickets, to get you to identify the driver, so that they can send the driver a real ticket. (The fake tickets don't have a court's address on them, as they have not been filed with the court! Therefore, they have no legal weight and should be ignored.) It's a great con game - most people, not having heard anything about it in the press, fall for it. And, while the fake tickets are fully bilingual, I think that those not as familiar with American courts (and such things as the 5th Amendment) are much more likely to be fooled.

I hope you find this of interest.

What a crock of crap.
A redlight ticket holds the owner of the vehicle liable for the ticket... unless/until the owner identifies the driver at the time of the citation.
There is nothing nefarious about the 'notice' requiring the registered owner to identify the driver if he/she doesn't want to be held liable for the citation.

 

[NotACopOrLawyer]

It is different in CA, AZ, and OR

JETX seems to be in Texas, which will do their red light camera and speed camera tickets in the east coast style, if the legislature ever approves them. TX cities will issue their camera tickets to the registered owner of the car, like a parking ticket. In the east coast program, you can get an unlimited number of the tickets and you will come out unscathed as long as you pay them on time.

Here on the west coast, the tickets are a criminal matter and put a point on the driver's record. That's why they have to identify the driver with a decent-quality photo. The fine is many times higher, too. And the point will mess up your car insurance.

I noticed that JETX, while quite critical of my objective (as I expect a LEO would be), did not address my statement that the CA fake tickets (no court address) can be ignored. I stand by that statement. The registered owner who receives a fake ticket does not need to identify the driver.

NACOL

 

[NotACopOrLawyer]

SB 466 - automated speeding tickets - coming to a vote!

SB 466 (to allow mailed speeding tickets in CA) will come to a vote on April 19th. See the Action page at highwayrobbery.net for info on how to contact your state senator to oppose the bill.

NACOL

 

[lwpat]

Photoblocker Spray

The spray does work, so well in fact that New York and other areas have specifically banned its use but it is almost impossible to tell and hard to prove.

Here is a corrected link to the photoblocker site

PHOTOBLOCKER RED LIGHT CAMERA SPRAY

 

[NotACopOrLawyer]

Aside from the controversy as to whether sprays (or covers) can actually blur the photos as claimed by their marketers, there is the problem that the average person who gets a red light camera ticket is not a speeder or aggressive driver, but is older, drives at moderate speeds and has a clean driving record, so doesn't think that they would ever get a red light camera ticket. Thus, it's not likely that they would purchase and install protective measures "just in case."
If you are in a "driver responsibility" state and decide to wear a mask, be sure it doesn't cover your eyes or restrict your peripheral vision.
(From highwayrobbery.net FAQ's)

NACOL

 

[ylen13]

Aside from the controversy as to whether sprays (or covers) can actually blur the photos as claimed by their marketers, there is the problem that the average person who gets a red light camera ticket is not a speeder or aggressive driver, but is older, drives at moderate speeds and has a clean driving record, so doesn't think that they would ever get a red light camera ticket. Thus, it's not likely that they would purchase and install protective measures "just in case."
If you are in a "driver responsibility" state and decide to wear a mask, be sure it doesn't cover your eyes or restrict your peripheral vision.
(From highwayrobbery.net FAQ's)

NACOL

lol, with how many cameras we have in socal and it's growing in numbers every day, average joe will take this kind of measures just because you will eventually run a light with out having intention to do so

 

[NotACopOrLawyer]

Where is good proof that the sprays work?

I am also going to take this opportunity to ask you and all other CA motorists, to call your state senator or assemblyperson and ask them to vote against SB 57, which will add 40% to the fine on tickets. More details are available on the Action page of Highwayrobbery.net , the website about red light camera tickets.

NACOL

 

[NotACopOrLawyer]

SB 57 is coming to a vote next Tuesday, May 3. Speak now or hold your peace.

 

[akwaitress]

Alaska got rid of them

I just thought I would mention that Alaska tried photo radar up here and everyone pitched such a fit they did away with it.

 

[JETX]

I just thought I would mention that Alaska tried photo radar up here and everyone pitched such a fit they did away with it.

What did they find out that they didn't need it because everyone knew the persons who owned the three cars registered there??

 

[NotACopOrLawyer]

How?

HOW did they get rid of them in AK?

Also want to mention that SB 57 was approved 4 - 1 by the first committee on May 3 and is now going to another committee.

NACOL