Running a red light camera in Hamilton | GTAMotorcycle.com

Running a red light camera in Hamilton

fbahamin

Member
Been caught by a red light camera in Hamilton. The timing was awful :(((. Now I have a ticket for $325 and 3 options to choose.

If anyone has any experiences with running the red light camera and caught, what's the best course of action to take so the least amount of damage is encountered besides learning a big lesson which would have never been forgotten?

Please let me know if any legal advice, court experiences, phone talk with the prosecutor and etc.

A million thanks
 
It's a camera ticket, you don't have any choice here.

Pay the fine and be done with it. No points and it doesn't affect your insurance.
 
I would personally fight it in hopes of a reduction. There was someone right on your ***** and were unable to stop safely without causing an accident....right?
 
A few years ago, a coworker challenged a red light camera ticket in toronto. People were getting the tickets knocked down to ~200, but no further.

No insurance implications, no demerit points, you got off lucky, pay the ticket (or try to argue financial hardship and get it knocked down a bit).
 
Unfortunately I have experience here. The ticket will come with photo evidence of your car, the traffic light and a clear shot of your front and back plate. On mine you can clearly see that there were no other cars in the intersection. I think I could actually recognize myself as the driver in the photo. In summary, the evidence is all there. I paid it, and it hurt.
 
Been caught by a red light camera in Hamilton. The timing was awful :(((. Now I have a ticket for $325 and 3 options to choose.

If anyone has any experiences with running the red light camera and caught, what's the best course of action to take so the least amount of damage is encountered besides learning a big lesson which would have never been forgotten?

Please let me know if any legal advice, court experiences, phone talk with the prosecutor and etc.

A million thanks

Take it to court.... They will lower the cost and no points... Ask me how I know!! lol
 
Theres a way to fight Red Camera tickets. Someone was successful and beat one using the following method.

They recorded a video of the cycle of the lights and if there is even the slightest delay between the two lights --assuming there are two lights at this intersection and not only one00 (Does not matter if it is from red to green, green to yellow, or yellow to red) they will throw the ticket out. It's worth a shot.
 
No harm in trying, though I don't disagree with the harshness of the penalty--red light runners are potentially lethal, especially to motorcyclists. We can't complain about traffic if we're guilty of the same foolishness.
 
A question about this.
Would you be identifying yourself as the driver,
and therefore allowing them to amend the ticket to add demerit points?
 
Take it to court.... They will lower the cost and no points... Ask me how I know!! lol

Red light Tickets by camera do not receive demerit points - I think you were fleeced with the "no points" - when you accepted your reduced charge unless you were caught by a Law Enforcement Officer:

As of January 1, 2010 the set fine for running a red light detected by a camera system was increased to $260, plus a $60 victim surcharge and a $5 court cost. The total payable is now $325. Prior to this increase, the set fine was $155, plus a $35 victim surcharge, for a total payable of $180. Demerit points are not issued with violations detected by the red light camera system.

The set fine for running a red light when caught by a police officer is $325.00. Failing to stop for a red light where a police officer issues a ticket results in three demerit points.

See http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/c...nnel=17324074781e1410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD
 
A question about this.
Would you be identifying yourself as the driver,
and therefore allowing them to amend the ticket to add demerit points?

no. See post above
 
There should be no way of telling if the could tell who was driving the car. Having said that, I noticed a camera flash from the front as well and could swear that there was a camera but when I googled the intersection, didn't see any. There are only 2 in the back. I am being told that I was being flashed blinded but I can tell the difference from a flash coming from behind and one coming from the front. The logic behind the photos being taken from the front and the back could be for two reasons I guess:
1. To show who was driving the car
2. If the back view of the license was not clear the front will cover for the miss.

The thing is that all those photos from back were followed by a flash from the front. Like all of a sudden, it was day instead of night taking shots after shots.
Regarding with the timing of the three lights, I have to agree that the red came real quick after the amber. I suspect that is why the camera is set up there to make it an easy target for those who don't know it. The blocks are rather short distanced and many lights are set up along that stretch so you would get caught at one if new to the area and not quick enough to realize it's changing so fast. I was going real slow at the time looking for a street name to turn onto and all reasons hand in hand, got me caught into this situation. I don't believe in running red lights as had never done it before. As a human being, we all do booboos in life that are not proud of. I just want to make sure that only fair is fair and there is nothing being ignored before facing the judge or the prosecutor.</SPAN>
 
Well they move the cameras around to various intersections and the google photo could be anywhere from a few weeks to a few years old. So just because you don't see the camera in the google photo means nothing. While driving along Hwy 7 in Vaughan 2 weeks ago I seen them installing a red light camera, if I googled that intersection today the camera wouldn't show even though it is indeed there now.

There should be no way of telling if the could tell who was driving the car. Having said that, I noticed a camera flash from the front as well and could swear that there was a camera but when I googled the intersection, didn't see any. There are only 2 in the back. I am being told that I was being flashed blinded but I can tell the difference from a flash coming from behind and one coming from the front. The logic behind the photos being taken from the front and the back could be for two reasons I guess:
1. To show who was driving the car
2. If the back view of the license was not clear the front will cover for the miss.

The thing is that all those photos from back were followed by a flash from the front. Like all of a sudden, it was day instead of night taking shots after shots.
Regarding with the timing of the three lights, I have to agree that the red came real quick after the amber. I suspect that is why the camera is set up there to make it an easy target for those who don't know it. The blocks are rather short distanced and many lights are set up along that stretch so you would get caught at one if new to the area and not quick enough to realize it's changing so fast. I was going real slow at the time looking for a street name to turn onto and all reasons hand in hand, got me caught into this situation. I don't believe in running red lights as had never done it before. As a human being, we all do booboos in life that are not proud of. I just want to make sure that only fair is fair and there is nothing being ignored before facing the judge or the prosecutor.
 
+1 on that statement.


No harm in trying, though I don't disagree with the harshness of the penalty--red light runners are potentially lethal, especially to motorcyclists. We can't complain about traffic if we're guilty of the same foolishness.
 
Apart from the sarcasm, the below were some of the useful info I was looking for which I found on Google by myself and am sharing with all for just in case. We could all be in this situation one way or another against our will meaning that it was not intentional and rather accidental. Having said that, this was a red on red lights situation and NOT a red on green which would have caused accidents and death. Red on red means that both directions are still red so if anyone crosses the red, would be as guilty and would face the consequences. </SPAN>

If the city or county sends you a photo of you running the red light, examine it to see if the license plate is blurry or clear. Check to see if the photo of you is blurry. If neither you nor your license plate is recognizable, you can fight the ticket. You can say that the person driving your car doesn't look anything like you or is unrecognizable. If the license plate is blurry, you can argue that they cannot be certain they have the right car. If the photo is not included with your ticket, request the photo.</SPAN>

Argue the</SPAN> Reliability</SPAN></SPAN> of the Camera</SPAN></SPAN>
When in traffic court to fight the ticket, ask whether the camera was indeed working properly at the time it generated your ticket. Cameras are machines and they can malfunction. If the</SPAN> prosecution</SPAN></SPAN> cannot decidedly prove that the camera was working properly, they do not have a solid case proving that you ran the red light. Also, those reviewing the pictures can make a mistake in deciding on the accuracy of the picture. Question if they are absolutely certain the picture proves that you ran the red light.</SPAN></SPAN>


The red light camera </SPAN></SPAN>manufacturer</SPAN></SPAN> is supposed to appear at trials regarding red light traffic tickets. A </SPAN></SPAN>representative</SPAN></SPAN> from the camera company is there to testify whether the camera was working properly and when it was last </SPAN></SPAN>maintained</SPAN></SPAN>. If no one shows up to represent the camera company, you can argue that no one is there to verify whether the picture is accurate.</SPAN></SPAN>

One can try arguing that the photograph is hearsay and is therefore </SPAN></SPAN>inadmissible</SPAN></SPAN> under the Sixth Amendment. It is hearsay because you cannot cross examine the photograph or the camera. The Sixth Amendment gives defendants the right to confront their accuser.</SPAN></SPAN>

In summary, it is best to have a traffic attorney represent you. If you are not familiar with traffic law, you will not be able to mount your own defense in court. Without knowing the law or how to prepare a defense, you will likely lose your case.</SPAN></SPAN>
 
And there are many more arguments to make

The first weapon in your arsenal to fight red light camera tickets is to contest the clarity of the photo. Since your vehicle was in motion at the time the picture was taken, there is a good </SPAN>probability</SPAN> the picture will be blurry. Inspect the picture the police department sends you with the ticket.</SPAN></SPAN>

If you are unrecognizable in the photo that is the first defense you should bring up in court. If the judge cannot say </SPAN></SPAN>beyond a reasonable doubt</SPAN> that it is you in the picture, the judge cannot find you guilty. It is important to be truthful. Do not say that the person in the photograph is not you if you know it is you. Simply question whether the judge is certain it is you in the picture.</SPAN></SPAN>

According to the Nolo.com website, if no one from the camera company appears at trial to state that the camera was working properly at the time of the photograph, you can ask the judge to exclude the photos on the grounds that no one is there to authenticate the photo.</SPAN></SPAN>

If it is true that you had to run the red light to avoid an accident, you need to say so at your hearing. There are no guarantees but if you are able to explain the situation, the judge may throw out your ticket.</SPAN></SPAN>

Furthermore, make sure to bring any witnesses you have to the court. You might need to subpoena them. The subpoena forms are available in the court. Witnesses often can verify and support your version of the events and help you to dismiss the ticket. If you have any passengers in the car, consider putting them on the witness stand as well.</SPAN></SPAN>

The best defense in the court is to prove that it is not your vehicle that has been scanned or it was not you driving it if it is the case.</SPAN></SPAN>

There are circumstances, as you approach a yellow light, where the decision is easy. If you are close to the intersection, you keep going. If you are far away, you stop. If you are almost at the intersection, you have to keep going because if you try to stop, you could cause a rear-end crash with the vehicle behind you and would be in the middle of the intersection anyway.</SPAN></SPAN>
Sitting at a red light can feel torturously long, but yellow lights often seem suspiciously short. </SPAN></SPAN>If the yellow time is not set correctly, a dilemma zone is eminent. </SPAN>Some yellow lights </SPAN>are</SPAN> too short. There is an ideal minimum length of a yellow traffic light.</SPAN> Also The Department of Transportation’s traffic manual recommends that yellow lights are between 3 and 6 seconds long. Basically, when you're designing a yellow time, you want to prevent bringing the drivers into what we call the dilemma zone, where you have no good decision you can make. Yellow lights that are too short put drivers in the dilemma zone when they get stuck in the intersection or ram their car to a halt and cause a collision. When drivers approach an intersection as the light turns yellow, some people slam the brakes, others race the red. The wrong split-second decision causes accidents and racks up expensive tickets—sometimes far more than necessary. And this is partly because many cities do not allow long enough yellow lights. </SPAN>Longer yellow lights would give people more time to make it across the intersection without gunning it or slamming on the brakes or racking up a giant fine. Even the standards set allows for a variety of reaction times. If yellow light times were a little more generous, it would slightly slow the flow of traffic and cities wouldn't be able to collect as much money from tickets.</SPAN> Also the countdown timing before a red light is reached would alert the drivers which in this case, it was not set up at the intersection. </SPAN>

Plus, you have to account for the driver's "perception reaction time," which is basically how quickly a driver can react to seeing the light turn yellow. And that reaction time can vary from person to person, which is where things get sticky.</SPAN>
 
a lot of what you said looks like its for US... sixth amendment and what not. Also, (and people please feel free to correct me if im wrong) but they are charging the car essentially for running the light, and not YOU, hence why there is no insurance hit because no one can confirm it is you (other than you).

personally, is it with your time to drop from 375 to half or something similar? not mine. id thank my lucky stars i didnt A- hit anyone and B- no insurance hits.
 
Correct but a lot of them make sense to me as they are simply common senses. If people just hand over $325 every time a photo is taken, that would make it an easy target for a revenue collection from tax payers. The reason for fighting is not for insurance purposes or anything else but rather to see if the law is applied to the tax payers fair and square.

As explained earlier, in this situation, it was a red on red light and not a red on green which changes the situation entirely. Also the speed was so slow so nobody was gunning the intersection to cause any death. I am not trying to justify the action but simply saying that there are conditions where a human decision made can't be quick enough to make everything handy dandy as life is so perfect and nobody ever makes any mistakes in their lives. We make mistakes in life but we must learn from it. The lesson has been learned but practicing rights is everyone's rights. If there is a foul play into this then it should be brought up and spoken of and if not, it is what it is and has to be accepted and move on hoping that it would never happen again.</SPAN>
 

Back
Top Bottom