“Red Light Camera!”

I'm not sure if this has been covered here yet, but a family member of mine got a red light ticket in the mail the other day. She asked me to see what I can do about it.

Around waterloo, there are a lot of these cameras popping up, but almost always a sign that indicates the presence of the camera so that you'll be more tempted to stop.

I guess she didn't notice the sign, the light turned yellow, she thought she could catch it, and it turned red as she was practically in the intersection.

The letter we recieved said that the light had been red for 0.4 seconds when she entered the intersection (lol) and she cleared the intersection at 1.5s from when the light turned red.

Now from what I understand, this is basically just a glorified parking ticket, no points, no record or anything like that, just a nice $180 fine.

My questions include what the procedure and charges are for this offense (ie. what is the standard of proof, what section, penalties, etc), and whether or not the margin of time in the alleged incident can play a factor also.

Thanks!

Running red is running red. There are gonna be 3 pts for that.

I'm working on an update to my site on how to fight red light camera tickets but I just never have enough time. So I'll give you a short version of what's coming.

1. You're right, the ticket does not affect your insurance, driving record or demerit points. The pleading guilty settlement in Toronto is around $60 + victim surcharge + costs to about $80 or just under 50% of the original value.


2. Fighting the ticket is a balance of reducing the fine AND not losing income every time you go to court and miss work. You have to decide what threshold works for you and at what point you would be prepared to plead guilty or negotiate further.


3. Requesting disclosure and exploiting the witness summons are solid ways to fight the ticket but you will pay a heavy price to do this even if only in terms of multiple court appearances as you argue and whittle away at them. Is it worth it to fight a ticket that is equivalent to an expensive parking ticket? Only you can decide this.


4. If you were traveling at a slow rate of speed (under 15km/h for example) AND the light was red for less than 1 second, you can argue that this is consistent with a driver slowing down and proceeding with caution at an amber light.


5. Finally, on Jan 1, 2009 the regulation changed but some municipalities didn't bother keeping up! I've seen a Mississauga red light ticket issued this year and it's invalid. This may be true for your city as well. If you scan it (blank out the plate, driver name and address) I'll be able to tell you whether Waterloo is on the ball.

Hmm... thought they'd set those cameras to so that only 2 seconds or more after the light turned red the camera would activate. I guess that I was wrong.

Radar Identified wrote:Hmm... thought they'd set those cameras to so that only 2 seconds or more after the light turned red the camera would activate. I guess that I was wrong.

I was at weston and finch and sat as a funeral went by.

It had an escort but the camera was blinking away .

not sure how that worked out.

Cheers

Viper1

Well, I went to find out more today but I found out that my family member decided to just pay the ticket From what I understand, theres no points because it gets mailed to the car's RO, even though the RO may not have been driving the car.

I guess she learned to be more careful! IMO, these cameras can be silly with such a narrow margin, it doesn't take into account whether or not there is another car behind you, or the traffic or anything. In some cases, coming to a sudden halt could be more dangerous than proceeding a little bit late through the intersection.

Thank you all for your replies!

Several years ago, I responded to a letter in the paper from a guy who insisted Stratford invest heavily in red-light cameras. The fact that the governments own study concluded that this system CAUSED more carnage than it prevented, is proof that municipalities that use it are strictly in for the cash! The link to the study still works if anyone is interested (.pdf):

NO to red-light cameras

Several days ago I read a Letter To The Editor written by Jim Flanagan who stated that all city intersections should be equipped with hidden and unannounced "Red Light" cameras. Mr. Flanagan implies that motorists identified and photographed under this program would have their vehicle impounded until a $1000 fine is paid.

Under section 31.2 of the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) the maximum fine for failing to obey a red light (Section 18) is $500, and there is no mention of impoundment, therefore, it cant be done. So to suggest that these $1000 dollar fines will handily fund this system is based on flawed research and ought not to be taken seriously by any member of council.

I have been driving daily in this city for 27 years, and frankly, Ive never noticed this popular "pastime" which is being "condoned" (by Stratford Law Enforcement), as reported by Mr. Flanagan. In fact, I find the timing of the "yellows" to be generally consistent and predictable, and the overlapping red lights seem to add that extra margin of safety, should someone misjudge there approach.

But perhaps Im biased by the fact that I still apply one of the most important tips my driver-ed teacher taught me: When a traffic light turns green, proceed "if safe to do so." Unfortunately, the sections of the HTA pertaining to Green Lights, just state that motorists (and pedestrians) may proceed to cross when the light turns green. Theres no mention of checking for safety issues first. Too often, I see drivers and pedestrians alike, focused intently on the lights; waiting to launch into motion the instant they see "green." Just look both ways first, and a tragedy could be easily avoided.

If we were to introduce red light cameras, the result would be a massive increase in rear end collisions due to people slamming on their brakes the second they see yellow. A government-sponsored program, which tested this system, established a 2% increase in deaths and injuries, and a 23.4% increase in property damage. Sure, the incidence of angle collisions decreased by 20.8%, but there was a 40.8% increase in rear end collisions. Im willing to bet not too many drivers have their head rests adjusted properly, so the incident of whiplash will skyrocket. Often times, whiplash has life-long medical consequences. These figures just dont warrant a "blitz" of cameras installed at our intersections.

In summary, Mr. Flanagans suggestions are not legally viable, affordable, or effective in preventing

accidents which are caused by red-light runners, and I hope council never spends one dime on studies for a proposed system. The data is already in, and it points clearly to an ineffective and dangerous system.

Instead, perhaps everyone can help lower the statistics, which states 30% of all accidents occur in intersections, by being more aware of others around you. If youre at the front of the pack when the light is about to go green, look left and right before you leap into the danger zone.

Study Website: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2003-ontario.pdf

(see pg. 21 for "final" statistical results)