You can always call them and ask if they have anyway to ID you (Be sure to leave your name, DOB, address and phone number) :)






I'd wear a different jersey for a month or so, just in case you have a motivated cop working the camera detail.

Please. I dont know where you live, but here in CA even cops are getting laid off. They dont have enough time or manpower to work the real crimes let alone spend the manpower on a biker running a light.

Perfect example of a legal logic fail. More speed cameras, please.

When I lived in Encino, there was a camera at an intersection which included a bike path parallel to a busway. It would always take a picture of me when I crossed, probably thinking a car was running the red and entering the busway. After the umpteenth time, I considered striking poses, flashing my chest, mooning it, etc.


Big Brother

If I recall correctly, here in Illinois, red light camera tickets are on par with a non-moving violations like parking tickets, due to the fact that the actual driver cannot be identified.

This is where Lucha Libre driving masks come in handy.

What if your face is recognizable so they know who you are? E.g. if Lance Armstrong runs one? They don't need to run facial recognition software, license plate, etc...

Obviously if Shaquille O'Neal runs one, they'll probably know it's him.

My guess is that maybe it'd be discrimination then so they wouldn't send a ticket?

In Korea, they have these things everywhere. Not just red lights but also radar for speeding so they'll actually mail you speeding tickets. It doesn't matter if they know who was in the car driving, it's the responsibility of the owner of the car. If your friend borrowed your car, you still have to pay (and I suppose you can try to get money from your friend).

RVD.

Maybe that explains the Ninja woman thread a while ago...

+1 for the Lucha Libre Masks :roflmao2:

Ok, so here's the legal explanation, sue me, I'm not a lawyer:

Minnesota Supreme Court Strikes Down Red Light Cameras

The Minnesota Supreme Court delivers a unanimous decision striking down the legality of red light cameras.

The Minnesota Supreme Court today delivered the highest-level court rebuke to photo enforcement to date with a unanimous decision against the Minneapolis red light camera program. The high court upheld last September's Court of Appeals decision that found the city's program had violated state law.

The supreme court found that Minneapolis had disregarded a state law imposing uniformity of traffic laws across the state. The city's photo ticket program offered the accused fewer due process protections than available to motorists prosecuted for the same offense in the conventional way after having been pulled over by a policeman. The court argued that Minneapolis had, in effect, created a new type of crime: "owner liability for red-light violations where the owner neither required nor knowingly permitted the violation."

"We emphasized in Duffy that a driver must be able to travel throughout the state without the risk of violating an ordinance with which he is not familiar," the court wrote. "The same concerns apply to owners. But taking the state's argument to its logical conclusion, a city could extend liability to owners for any number of traffic offenses as to which the Act places liability only on drivers. Allowing each municipality to impose different liabilities would render the Act's uniformity requirement meaningless. Such a result demonstrates that [the Minneapolis ordinance] conflicts with state law."

The court also struck down the "rebutable presumption" doctrine that lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the country.

"The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court concluded. "Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid."

Sometimes I hate our legal system.

Glad a bunch of lawyers figured out how to keep cars running red lights... enjoy your "constitutional right" to do so.... maybe some of those same lawyers will end up in a crash caused by someone who had their "rights" restored? I hope so. (not saying this about you, khat, fwiw)

In Seattle there's a few nutjobs fighting against the redlight cameras, what selfish asses.

There's a camera at Broadway & John that I've been known to run when doing sprints down broadway, I bet they have some good "victory" shots of me down at the precinct!

So the question is, what would you do if they mailed you a ticket for running that red on your bike?

Thanks for excluding me... :) but...

Why would the absence of a red light camera keep cars running red lights? Don't you think the same idiots who would do it in the first place aren't going to be fazed by the presence of a camera?

"Hmmmm, I'll not run this red light because I know there's a camera but I'll risk that one up there even though I don't know if there's a cop sitting at the cross street."

IMHO people either do or don't follow the rules, period. Why do you think we have folks running around with dozens of drunk driving convictions? (Other than the fact that we don't throw them in jail long enough).

And, should you be issued a ticket if there are those victory shots down in the precinct? Speeding ticket: framable, failure to stop: not so sexy :D

Either way I don't care, because I don't run red lights.

Selfish asses fighting for constitional rights? How dare they.

Here's an idea. Pull all the cops off the side of the road toasting their testicles with radar guns, and put them at intersections. I own a business on a 4 lane between 2 lights, about half a mile apart. The cops sit in the business driveways and radar all the time. I have never seen one speed related accident in the 13 years I have been on this road, yet see people speed all the time. I have seen multiple accidents at the lights. I watch people run the red lights every fricking day.

I do hope you can at least appreciate the irony of those two statements, one right after the other.

Pay it! I have no problem supporting local law enforcement, whether through taxes or tickets or whatever. Unlike some folks in the world, I understand they don't pull money from trees to fund their budgets.

The real question is how would they find my address based off a picture of me on a bicycle.. I don't think they actually use facial recognition software for this stuff, so it ain't gonna happen.

But, if they included the picture of me "winning" the sprint with my arms in the air and all, I'd have to frame it!

Yeah, same question I asked...answer will be telling :)

No, fill me in.

Like I just posted, I'm willing to pay the consequences of running said light.

And fwiw I'm not running the light while it's already red, just squeezing through when it's about to turn red, e.g. yellow. If I'm too late, I'll see the flash and know the camera got me.

I'm not trying to run the light, I'm trying not to (by sprinting). The timing of this light and the one before it means you need to keep up lots of speed to make it through both, good training.

Facial recognition has a leeeetle ways to go yet. Here in Virginia you're not even allowed to smile on your driver's license photo because it messes up the FR software...

:thumb:


Moral of the story: always smile when running red lights.


Actually, I'm quite sure that the couple of cmaera intersections around here have far fewer people running the red or blocking the intersections than those without a camera. They have big signs that say the intersection has cameras, too, which I think plays a role in it.

Keep in mind, I'm somewhat on the fence on this issue. It makes it less likely for people to commit crimes if they think a camera is on them, but it also invades people's rights to a small degree.

I bet all that litigation cost the taxpayers a ton of money. How about drivers just stop running the damn red lights? God forbid you have to wait another light cycle for the sake of public safety.

Wow, that's a great idea. I wonder why nobody has thought of that before. Then we wouldn't need those cameras. Hey, while we're at it, how about people just stop breaking laws? Then we wouldn't need cops either! :thumb:

You say you are willing but if they did have a way of ticketing you every time you ran the light would it change your behavior? I am guessing it would and therefore you are not really willing to pay the consequences you just know you won't have to. Also maybe that guy in the souped up Honda isn't trying to run the light either he is trying not to. Fwiw I have nothing against your scofflaw attitude just the self righteousness.

How am I a scofflaw if I'd pay the ticket? A true scofflaw would scoff at the such an idea.

Sure I'd think twice about doing it again were I to get a ticket, that's part of the point of these light-cams.

But the big difference between me and the souped up Honda? About a thousand pounds, e.g. they are actually a danger to others, not just themselves.