Red light camera's down town Columbus

[ecc_33]

I went through a light today down town and the light turns yellow. I was at the stop line when the light turned so there was no way to stop. At the very last minute were I could see the last glimps of the light it turned red. Does anyone know when they take the pics? I was in a commercial vehicle and it was the company I work for. I went through another about a hour later and it was yellow the whole time. Never did see any red. FML. I'm real paranoid about my driving and those fucked up camera's. If I would have stopped for the first one. ("I drive a 27,000lb truck") I would have been stopped under the traffic light at best or damn near the middle of the intersection which would have been worse than what I did.

[SRTurbo04]

Its pretty obvious if the camera flashed at you, even in the day time. I think you would know if it went off on you.

 

I had got one a few years back and they send you a link to a video. Based off that maybe you could dispute it about the weight and the safety of that vehicle.

[ecc_33]

I didn't see any flash. Hopefully I'm just freaking out for no reason lol.

[Dr. Pomade]

Were you on 4th Street near Nationwide (or whatever that cross street is) where there are two lights in fairly close proximity to each other?

[cstmg8]

I heard you have to be halfway through when the light turns red to be legal.

[KillJoy]

If you were past the line when the light went red, you are fine.

 

Trust me.

 

 

KillJoy

[Turbs3000]

Ya even in the daylight there are bright flashes, and it doesn't count if you are in the intersection for yellow then red. Only snaps if it's red when you enter the intersection. Also those cameras aren't legal here anymore, they passed a new law in December but I'm not sure when it goes into place...

[Exodus]

Ya even in the daylight there are bright flashes, and it doesn't count if you are in the intersection for yellow then red. Only snaps if it's red when you enter the intersection. Also those cameras aren't legal here anymore, they passed a new law in December but I'm not sure when it goes into place...

Expand please

[MrMeanGreen]

The law went into effect last month in Ohio where an officer has to be present when the camera takes the pic, otherwise you cannot be given a citation any more.

 

Columbus will be physically removing their cameras starting the third week of March, but they cannot be used standalone now any further for a citation.

[mrs.cos]

They are only legal if if a law-enforcement agent is at the intersection when it catches you going to the intersection basically nullifying already light cameras. I'm it went to effect I think January 13

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/11/19/traffic-camera-bill.html

[ecc_33]

Were you on 4th Street near Nationwide (or whatever that cross street is) where there are two lights in fairly close proximity to each other?

 

Yep. Had a blown hyd. hose on a rock truck down at the Scioto river. Ran back to the shop on alum creek to make the hose and went back to put it on. I'll be glad when that job is done and I don't have to drive in down town traffic! Went through one on 4th then going back I believe it was 3rd.

[Forrest Gump 9]

Like others have said, I think you're ok. I have not seen them working in awhile. I hate red-light runner but I hate those damn red light cameras more.

[TeddyBearFromHell]

The law went into effect last month in Ohio where an officer has to be present when the camera takes the pic, otherwise you cannot be given a citation any more.

 

Columbus will be physically removing their cameras starting the third week of March, but they cannot be used standalone now any further for a citation.

 

The law takes effect March 23 (roughly the 3rd week of March), 90 days after the Governor's signature. But, no flash...no ticket.

[Ben]

A. The effective date of the statute is, or should be, irrelevant. Traffic cameras without human witnesses or operators violate the confrontation clause of the U.S. Constitution. Always have. (I am aware however, that several jursidictions have ignored this point of law in order to extract money from the citizenry.)

 

B. If you were already across the stop line when the light turned red you are fine. A steady red signal requires one to stop at the stop line and refrain from entering the intersection. See, Ohio Rev. Code 4511.13. If you are already across the line when it turns, this is a physical impossibility. You cannot be criminally liable for failing to do that which it is impossible to do.

 

This isn't legal advice or and official statement. Just my informal $.02 as a concerned citizen.

[HotCarl]

I live close to the red light camera on sawmill and hard road and have seen it take picture's even when a car hasn't done anything illegal. I think more often than not the equipment took pictures for the officer to review and decided if the action was illegal or not. Of course i would know, i received one of these red light tickets once.

[HotCarl]

A. The effective date of the statute is, or should be, irrelevant. Traffic cameras without human witnesses or operators violate the confrontation clause of the U.S. Constitution. Always have. (I am aware however, that several jursidictions have ignored this point of law in order to extract money from the citizenry.)

 

B. If you were already across the stop line when the light turned red you are fine. A steady red signal requires one to stop at the stop line and refrain from entering the intersection. See, Ohio Rev. Code 4511.13. If you are already across the line when it turns, this is a physical impossibility. You cannot be criminally liable for failing to do that which it is impossible to do.

 

This isn't legal advice or and official statement. Just my informal $.02 as a concerned citizen.

 

So the way i understand it is that there is an officer who reviews all videos before issuing a traffic violation (at least that was my experience, my ticket had an officer's signature and time stamp when the video was viewed). To play devils advocate, wouldn't this fulfill the need to have a human witness or operator in order to issue a ticket?

[Turbs3000]

So the way i understand it is that there is an officer who reviews all videos before issuing a traffic violation (at least that was my experience, my ticket had an officer's signature and time stamp when the video was viewed). To play devils advocate, wouldn't this fulfill the need to have a human witness or operator in order to issue a ticket?

By definition, no. Playback is no longer a viable medium with the new law. An officer has to physically be on site for it to be a ticket able offense. The way i see it is This way the city can answer to all the citizens who are sick of them without voiding contracts with the companies out west that own the service. My biggest complaint about red light cameras has always been that of the $100 ticket, your city gets 50 and the company in another state gets 50. If I do something wrong and get ticketed for it then fine, my bad but that .gov money should not be going to a third party in another state.

[Ben]

So the way i understand it is that there is an officer who reviews all videos before issuing a traffic violation (at least that was my experience, my ticket had an officer's signature and time stamp when the video was viewed). To play devils advocate, wouldn't this fulfill the need to have a human witness or operator in order to issue a ticket?

 

Well no, that wouldn't do it because the officer isn't a witness to the crime - he is a witness to a video of an alleged crime. He can't authenticate the video (testify about what it shows) because he has no independent personal knowledge of what it shows because he was not an eyewitness to the actual event. In other words, in order to be sure a video is genuine and present it or to talk about what it shows in court, you need the testimony of either the person who made the video or an eyewitness to the event. In the case of an automated camera, there is no person to cross examine about what the video really shows because no person shot the video. Also, unless you have a cop on the corner watching or someone monitoring the live feed from the camera, there's no witness.

 

I should note that several jurisdictions have disagreed with me on these points. But, in my view they're wrong and simply placing expedience and the perceived need to collect dollars over the guarantees of our Constitution and the rules of evidence.

 

Now there is, I must admit, a pretty good argument to be made that human witnesses are a lot more fallible that automated video cameras. But, the solution, if you want to allow this kind of evidence without witness verification, is to change the law, not to ignore it. But there's a danger in that too. For instance, it's pretty easy to produce a fake video or photograph these days. If we don't insist that the maker of the video or photograph come in to court and testify that it really shows what it purports to show (authenticity), we could end up with a pretty unfair system. Imagine trying to defend yourself from an allegation of a crime where there is a video that shows you doing the crime but you know you didn't do it and you can't identify or cross-examine whoever made the video and there's no human witness to verify or dispute what the video apparently shows. Starting to see why we have the right to confront the witnesses against you?

 

I'm glad the Ohio legislature has taken the action they have to secure, by legislative enactment, the rights which we already had under both the Ohio and federal constitutions. But I'm also saddened that they had to.