Red Light Camera Ticket - Not in Photo | GTAMotorcycle.com

Red Light Camera Ticket - Not in Photo

MTRCYCLS

MTRCYCLS

Well-known member
Well I got a ticket in the mail today for a failing to stop at a red light. Few things though...

The first photo is of my vehicle (behind the white line) with brake lights on and a car in the intersection making a left hand turn on the red.

The second photo is of an empty intersection (no car shown), assuming my vehicle made a right turn (not sure no one can remember since photo was take 2 weeks ago)

The camera says my vehicle was travelling 38/km/hr but I can't see how you could do that making a tight 90 degree turn (and beat the red light cameras second photo)

Do i have a chance at fighting this ticket?

Any thoughts/opinions are appreciated.
 
Strange....thought the 2nd photo is supposed to show your vehicle in the intersection on a red. Post the pics, blank the plates if you want. From your description, it's the car turning left that should be getting the ticket.
 
Clearly you were going so fast the camera couldn't catch you...why do you think you were going right? Maybe you flew through going streight? Maybe you were over to the right to avoid the guy going left...aa you were going through the red?
MAYBE NOT??? How do you prove otherwise?
 
Sadz said:
Clearly you were going so fast the camera couldn't catch you...why do you think you were going right? Maybe you flew through going streight? Maybe you were over to the right to avoid the guy going left...aa you were going through the red?
MAYBE NOT??? How do you prove otherwise?
Click to expand...

i dont even recall driving where this happened... I could have turned right, obviously didnt go straight.... Could have backed up... I dont know... The weird part is the second photo says my speed is 38... But no vehicle in the photo???image.jpg Sorry blurry photo but you get the idea.
 
I'd say fight it. Shows you stopped and no car in the intersection. Obviously an error.
 
Last edited:
Riceburner said:
I'd say fight it. Shows you stopped and no car in the intersection. Obviously an error.
Click to expand...
No...it shows he had his foot on the brake. If he had stopped he would be in the pic like the 2 cars across the road.
PS...Im using my phone to see grainy pic so what do I know. I am going to look on the computer at home though out of curiousity.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't he be in the intersection in the 2nd pic if going thru the red? Would have to be going more than 38km/h to clear it, no? ......umm, what's the time stamp of the 2 pics? They are pretty tiny, even on a computer screen.
 
Riceburner said:
Wouldn't he be in the intersection in the 2nd pic if going thru the red? Would have to be going more than 38km/h to clear it, no? ......umm, what's the time stamp of the 2 pics? They are pretty tiny, even on a computer screen.
Click to expand...

Both photos indicate 38km/h

same time stamp.

the ticket says i entered the intersection 1.6 seconds after the light turned red yet the photo clearly shows that i am not in the intersection.

Baking my noodle :S
 
Last edited:
REeSIvDEiNTl said:
Both photos indicate 38km/h

same time stamp.

the ticket says i entered the intersection 1.6 seconds after the light turned red yet the photo clearly shows that i am not in the intersection.

Baking my noodle :S
Click to expand...

Looks like ****ery to me. Fight it.
 
TorontoBoy said:
Cloaking technology in action!?!?! Fight the ticket. Clearly there is no proof.
Click to expand...


From what i read it seems like they need 2 photos.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    7.3 KB · Views: 76
REeSIvDEiNTl said:
Both photos indicate 38km/h

same time stamp.

the ticket says i entered the intersection 1.6 seconds after the light turned red yet the photo clearly shows that i am not in the intersection.

Baking my noodle :S
Click to expand...

Ok, so the first photo show you with your front wheels at the line when the light has already been red for 1.6 seconds, and it shows you doing a speed of 38 kmph at that moment. The second photo taken moments later shows no car at the line.

Between your speed while at the line in the first photo, and the fact that you are not seen stopped at the line in the second photo, how would you be able to explain that?
 
griff2 said:
Ok, so the first photo show you with your front wheels at the line when the light has already been red for 1.6 seconds, and it shows you doing a speed of 38 kmph at that moment. The second photo taken moments later shows no car at the line.

Between your speed while at the line in the first photo, and the fact that you are not seen stopped at the line in the second photo, how would you be able to explain that?
Click to expand...

You don't have to prove that you are innocent. They have to prove you are guilty. Without the 2nd pic, they cannot prove it.
 
DOHC1 said:
You don't have to prove that you are innocent. They have to prove you are guilty. Without the 2nd pic, they cannot prove it.
Click to expand...

I think they could still prove it with the backing of simple physics.

Stopping distance at 38 kmph is not instantaneous. The data line on the photo shows that the car was still doing 38 kmph when it was right at the stop line, and it is physically impossible for any car to stop from 38 kmph within a few centimeters without the assistance of a wall or other vehicle blocking its path.

Physics dictates that the car would have continued travelling into the intersection even if under full braking, and that travel beyond the stop line by itself would constitute running a red light. That in itself is evidence.
Total%20stopping%20distances%202.PNG


The absence of the car in the second photo is secondary evidence that the car did not stop for the red, either at or beyond the line. The speed being recorded suggests that though the car may no longer have been within camera view, it was still in range of the radar unit component of the red light camera system.

By the way, the legislation does not say that the car has to appear in BOTH photos, but only that the the license plate must be clearly shown in "a" photograph.
 
griff2 said:
Ok, so the first photo show you with your front wheels at the line when the light has already been red for 1.6 seconds, and it shows you doing a speed of 38 kmph at that moment. The second photo taken moments later shows no car at the line.

Between your speed while at the line in the first photo, and the fact that you are not seen stopped at the line in the second photo, how would you be able to explain that?
Click to expand...

The first camera malfunctioned and read his speed incorrectly. In reality he was stopped. The second photo proves he was not in the intersection at all. If he was actually traveling at 38kph he would have shown up in the second photo. There might be a discrepancy between the two cameras, so due to equipment failure there is no clear proof he went through the red light.
 
Just go to see the Crown Prosecutor and show him the photos. He will drop the charges. If he doesn't, fight it because they do not have a photo of you going through the intersection on a red.
 
TorontoBoy said:
The first camera malfunctioned and read his speed incorrectly. In reality he was stopped. The second photo proves he was not in the intersection at all. If he was actually traveling at 38kph he would have shown up in the second photo. There might be a discrepancy between the two cameras, so due to equipment failure there is no clear proof he went through the red light.
Click to expand...

Did it malfunction? Equipment test and maintenance logs would show if there was an operational problem. If they show no issues that day, how would the OP be able to prove a malfunction? Would the prosecutor buy the argument that the OP's car teleported itself out of the intersection?

TorontoBoy said:
In reality he was stopped. The second photo proves he was not in the intersection at all. If he was actually traveling at 38kph he would have shown up in the second photo.
Click to expand...

If he was actually stopped, he would have shown up in the second photo.
 
Last edited:
griff2 said:
Did it malfunction? Equipment test and maintenance logs would show if there was an operational problem. If they show no issues that day, how would the OP be able to prove a malfunction? Would the prosecutor buy the argument that the OP's car teleported itself out of the intersection?


If he was actually stopped, he would have shown up in the second photo.
Click to expand...


Perhaps OP made a very fast right turn? Point is, the crown won;t go that far for a simple red light ticket. I bet it gets thrown out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom