Investigators: Red-light cameras may issue illegal tickets

pefferdc said on July 25, 2010 at 9:20 AM

My wife was caught in one of these red light cameras in Fife. On closer inspection, and computing speed of other vehicles, we determined cars were going from a dead stop through the intersection at 60 mph. The camera speed has obviously been speed up which can make a quick stop disapeare. We beat this ticket as did a couple of others. Intersections, car speeds can best be measured on cameras with large intersections. This looks like fraud to me. thanks DHP

daverino said on March 22, 2010 at 9:41 PM

I see these cameras flashing off if a bird flys past it. I haven't gotten a ticket yet but I've been flashed a few times. One time I blew right through the red and didn't get a ticket but the old lady gave me some hell...ended up taking her to Appleby's just to shut her up. She was like "What are you rich? red light tiket and Appleby's in one day?"

soccermutt said on March 17, 2010 at 7:35 PM

I went to court just last week in Fife over my ticket. I was the car in the intersection when it went red and the car behind me ran the red light. I got the ticket so I fought it. It was clear in the video which car was mine (I have a small hatchback, the offending car was a sedan). The officer (who I subpoenaed) stated the last car was mine, when clear as day it wasn't. So the judge ruled against me still! To make matters worse I got the evidence (more than just the photo ticket) in the mail AFTER my hearing which shows a full page color blowup of my car from the front with a car behind me! I don't mind the cameras...but my case was completely unjustified and the judge did not rule based on the factual evidence provided. I would appeal but the "processing fees" are nearly triple the cost of the ticket. I feel violated!

jwangseattle said on March 16, 2010 at 5:07 PM

let me tell you about this intersection. it is hellish! it causes more accident or death than any other intersection if they do not change the camera settings or light settings. it is super long and wide, therefore you either slow down and be afraid of it turning red on you or run it and risk hitting someone or getting a ticket. this intersection is super long and hard to beat any lights. most of the time, i practically coast and refuse to go past it until it turns red for me to stop and go once it turns green. i sometimes count the flashing crosswalk signal lights to calculate when the light might turn red. it is just a terrible intersection. either the city make the signal lights pauses longer from orange to red or they wil kill people for revenue to support their needs. oh well.... atleast it is close to the HOSPITAL IN CASE YOU NEED LIFE THREATENING CARE!

mellybelly323 said on February 18, 2010 at 4:54 PM

I'm torn over the camera issue. I myself have gotten a red light ticket. However, the only reason I got the ticket is because the yellow light lasted all of a second and a half - and the darn thing turned yellow just as I entered the intersection. I paid my ticket, rather than fight it, just because it seemed easier. But I am convinced that they shorten the caution light in order to "catch" more red light runners. As for these tickets being reviewed before they go out - at 16 tickets a day just for ONE intersection - who the heck are we paying to review the thousands of tickets that must happen each week per city?

livinlavida said on February 10, 2010 at 9:46 AM

9000 tickets at $124 a piece = $1,116,000! It probably cost that much to install the cameras in the first place and now our tax dollars get to pay for a court case on top of it! These red light cameras need to go, and now! In my opinion they are all illegal. If you want to catch someone running a red light, hire a cop, buy him a car and let him sit there and use some simple common sense and "human judgement" to ticket people. Maybe this would also help the unemployment rate in our state.

crownedforever said on February 5, 2010 at 8:40 AM

My son was in the hospital for 2 weeks and 2 of his visitors received these tickets. Both complained they had no time to get through the intersection before it became a red light. I think the camera should be removed and everyone who received a ticket should be refunded.

applebite80 said on February 4, 2010 at 11:30 PM

I'm against these cameras and I have never gotten a red light ticket. There is NO safety benefit. According to a study done in Virginia these cameras INCREASED accidents there. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1844.asp I don't understand how ANYONE can defend these cameras. What kind of person is willing to have the government watch you at all times to keep you from stepping out of line? That's not the kind of America I want to live in.

paranoid2 said on February 4, 2010 at 6:53 PM

If the cameras are not illegal then why did they set the orange caution light to change immediatly. I suggest you find a non camera light and time the caution light, the find a camera mounted on and do the same. Results are surprising. Oh yes why is the camera pointed down at the rear of the car after you make a left turn?

jamey said on February 4, 2010 at 3:50 PM

If people stop running red lights, then the city will just shorten the yellow lights. This is about the MONEY, not safety. This is like crack to city administrators. Once you get a taste of the Revenue, you want more, more, more. Just like the drug forfeiture laws of the '80's.

dede1978 said on February 4, 2010 at 1:53 PM

As for the intersection in question in the above article. If they are truly writing 16 tickets average daily, maybe they should and it is an illegal setup. Maybe they should remove the cameras and place a couple officers in the intersection to catch those red light runners. I think the only people who are truly bothered by these cameras are those who don't like getting caught.

dede1978 said on February 4, 2010 at 1:47 PM

kameha, My photo was taken at an intersection in Seattle, and the cop I know is in Lynnwood, can't speak for Fife. But I still think the cameras should stay, and not as a source of income. I see people run red lights all the time, and it is illegal and they deserve tickets. Everyone complains that cops should be doing more important things. Red light cameras would be a means of keeping them on more important matters, rather than pulling over the idiot who doesn't understand a yellow light means the light is going to turn red and they should slow so they can stop. Run a red light, you deserve a ticket. As for cameras being used for speeders, go for it. Again, my understanding of the cameras catching speeders is for school zones. And I'm sorry, but when my kids were in school, I didn't want people speeding around them. How many times do we have to hear about kids getting hit in school zones because someone was speeding and not paying attention.

dodoo said on February 4, 2010 at 12:41 PM

I think every intersection everywhere ought to have camera's. Running red light's is illegal and is the number one cause for intersection accidents. Keep me safe.

streetstock said on February 4, 2010 at 12:13 PM

After seeing your report and stating that the law says that it needs to be at an intersection some one should investigate the camera set up in tacoma on river road near EQ casino its not at a light and they use it to get speeders. Which i think is total illegal. Also some cities charge more then $124 a ticket.

kameha said on February 4, 2010 at 11:33 AM

well dede, maybe you didn't get a ticket because you know a cop. I did get a ticket for turning right after I stopped and checked for cars and the judge wouldn't toss it because Fife City has no other means of income.

graham said on February 4, 2010 at 11:02 AM

All citys are after is MONEY

sofedup said on February 4, 2010 at 10:05 AM

More power to those willing to push back against this OBVIOUS abuse of Legislative intent. Either municipalities abide by the intent of statutory authority or no-one will.

stryker said on February 4, 2010 at 9:18 AM

Stop running red lights and stop whining ya big babies.

dede1978 said on February 4, 2010 at 9:14 AM

wawolf, did you get a ticket? No. I know a Lynnwood police officer and he told me they review the photos so tickets like that are not issued. They make sure the tickets that they issue will stand up in court. I had the same thing happen to me too, I never got a ticket either.

dede1978 said on February 4, 2010 at 9:11 AM

I'm sorry, but I think the red light cameras should stay. And those who clearly run red lights should be ticketed and pay the fine. I go through those red light camera intersections all the time and have never gotten a ticket. Maybe if those who do get the tickets start paying attention it will no longer be an issue. So stop your nagging, pay your ticket and stop running red lights.

wawolf said on February 4, 2010 at 8:51 AM

Red light cameras are highly imperfect. I was turning right when a car came flying up to make a left turn. So I stopped as the light turned and the red light camera went off because I had stopped past the line. I then continued with my right turn when it was safe to do so. I didn't run a red light, but the camera still went off because I was over the line.

masterblaster said on February 4, 2010 at 7:53 AM

I hate the surveillance society but the sheepeople are bound and determined to have it. I don't run red lights and I don't commit crimes so by the sheepeoples reasoning I should not care about being watched and monitored. The criticism of people like me comes from liberals and conservatives. Welcome to te NewSSR. But, I have an idea for the red light surveillance lovers. If the purpose of them is safety and not revenue enhancement as you assert then the money collected from fines should be used to lower the price of car tabs for those of us who don't get tickets.

fastnlight said on February 4, 2010 at 6:26 AM

The cities don't pay a cent for installation. The company does a site survey for profit potential, performs the install and operation for no upfront fee, then takes the first 6-10 k earned each month from the camera right off the top. You can see why cities always support these devices becuase it is pure bonus income for them with very limited additional cost (enforcement). Are you suprised the number of them seemed to explode during a time of massive budget cuts? They will get there money anyway possible even if that means bending some rule and scalping the public from another direction.

fastnlight said on February 4, 2010 at 6:21 AM

The Cities all over the puget sound are reaping the cash from these "safety" devices. It's all about the money for both the company who pushes them and the cities that say yes to installation. Did you know that they are placed based on traffic and profit potential and not based on actual safety factors! Don't ever pay a ticket from one of these automated enforcements (they have no actual recourse if you deny the incident) and we will see them all go away. Spread the world.

noskills said on February 4, 2010 at 6:17 AM

In theory I like the red light cameras but I dislike them in practice for 2 reasons. 1. I see them go off all the time when someone hasn't ran a red light. 2. Private companies own and operate most of those red light cameras.

logic14 said on February 4, 2010 at 3:41 AM

fines should be based on income like many European countries do. If you make unber 50K it would be $50, or 51K to 75K $100, 76K to $100K $150, 101K to 150K $250, over 160K $400, over 250K $800 etc.

wittyname said on February 4, 2010 at 12:49 AM

How much money did the city blow putting them up in the first place? At any rate, a Judge is higher up the totem pole than a city attorney so feel free to blow that intersection on a red late all you want. But be aware, there will most likely be a patrol car hanging out there looking for you and the ticket a cop writes you will stick.

techwillfail said on February 4, 2010 at 12:02 AM

I got a ticket from this intersection, all I saw was the flash from the cameras not even the light was visible to me... That intersection is pure chaos and I drive all over the US.

rex1959 said on February 3, 2010 at 11:40 PM

If everyone stopped running red lights, then the cameras would come down ... DUHHH.

thunderbird3 said on February 3, 2010 at 11:27 PM

people should be fine for running a red light it doesnt matter where it occurs, specially in kent wa! everybody runs red lights.

jackwong said on February 3, 2010 at 11:16 PM

This is NOT the time to take away this camera, in a time of massive deficits and cutting of social programs for the highly at-risk is at stake. I hope the lawyers do the right thing and lay off of the city.

oranje said on February 3, 2010 at 11:07 PM

Fines must be based on income. $124 may a lot for a teacher, but peanuts for a high tech executive.

blankingout said on February 3, 2010 at 10:49 PM

That's take *them all down!

blankingout said on February 3, 2010 at 10:48 PM

I say taken all down!

charles_b_guy285 said on February 3, 2010 at 10:47 PM

My understanding is that the price of a ticket cannot be more than a parking ticket. What parking ticket is $124? One that was created to skirt the law! Hope these cameras go down in Flames!