Red light traffic cam

krotsman · Oct 22, 2019

January 2019

https://www.brproud.com/news/local-news/to-pay-or-not-to-pay-your-traffic-camera-questions-answered/

>We talked to Baton Rouge Chief Administrative Officer Darryl Gissel on this one. He said the company, American Traffic Solutions, sends out the ticket by mail. Currently, the city is not taking any further action to collect on unpaid tickets. <

AustinBR · Oct 22, 2019

krotsman said:
January 2019

https://www.brproud.com/news/local-news/to-pay-or-not-to-pay-your-traffic-camera-questions-answered/

>We talked to Baton Rouge Chief Administrative Officer Darryl Gissel on this one. He said the company, American Traffic Solutions, sends out the ticket by mail. Currently, the city is not taking any further action to collect on unpaid tickets. <

I think that clears everything up nicely.

RedStickChick · Oct 22, 2019

EightySix said:
I just got a notice in the mail about a red light violation in baton rouge. The car is in my name but it's my wife's car. I wasn't driving it at the time of the violation. I am named the defendant on the notice.
I asked my wife about it and she remembers when it happened. It was @12:18 am and she wasn't
about to stop for the light because she was scared of the shady characters hanging out on the corner of corporate Blvd and college Dr.
How should i handle this. I can fight it or I can ignore it. If I choose to ignore it will I get a flag at the DMV?
If I fight it and tell them I wasn't driving the car at the time, what's the chance of it being thrown out?

Thanks

For future reference, the "shady characters" at this intersection are the least of her worries.

Pay it, move on, and if anything make a right on red and u-turn in the future.

RedStickChick · Oct 22, 2019

AustinBR said:
I think that clears everything up nicely.

Yeah except they're trying to renew the contracts for the traffic cameras now soooooo that's probably not going to be kosher going forward.

EightySix · Oct 23, 2019

Unless there is a person in the road at the time you get to the intersection with a red light, stop for the red light. Any person in the road should show up in the pictures. If you access the situation after stopping and determine it to be unsafe, that's a different story. I actually talked about this action in an earlier post when I discussed the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law. But if you go in and say "I made no attempt to comply with the law because things I can't show you were in the area creating the possibility there could be an issue," you shouldn't be surprised if it doesn't work.

She may have stopped and accessed the situation hence her stating that the shady characters were making her nervous. I may have misstated and made it sound like she ran the light. Regardless, I think she made a good choice based on her situational awareness.

EightySix · Oct 23, 2019

RedStickChick said:
For future reference, the "shady characters" at this intersection are the least of her worries.

Pay it, move on, and if anything make a right on red and u-turn in the future.

How can that situation be the least of her worries. It was bad enough to make her want to get the hell out of there.

Yeah, right on red would have been a safer move but most likely would have netted the same results.

As I said before, this thread will definitely help me with how I'm going to handle this notice.

Magdump · Oct 23, 2019

thperez1972 said:
In New Orleans, the cars are towed. In Baton Rouge, the ordinance calls for booting. The same would generally hold true for the boot. They have no incentive to hold an administrative hearing on the side of the road if your car has been booted. I don't know what Hammond does and I'm too tired to look it up.

I'm not saying someone should pay it or not pay it. I'm saying someone should explain all the pros and cons if they are going to suggest ignoring the notice.

Personally, I detest the system as it is currently being run. It is being used as a tool to make money and any safety that results is a good side effect. If they wanted to make the system about safety, reduce the penalties. A $20-30 fee is enough to get the attention of someone who just wasn't paying attention. And that will quickly add up for the repeat offenders.

Not sure about Hammond either, but I’ve never seen or heard of any sort of ticket cameras in Hammond. I’m glad it was suggested to me to ignore the notice (or to the public) and I think people should do their own research on the pros and cons before deciding to ignore them or not. It was easy for me and just so happens, I’m speaking from experience. But I haven’t suggested that anyone ignore the notice, only sharing my experience.

Magdump · Oct 23, 2019

3 minutes but the point I keep seeing (and the main reason I choose to ignore junk mail tickets) is at the 1:10 mark.
Although this is another state, it’s pretty universal and I still believe a good defense if anyone ever had to take it to court.

https://youtu.be/CFQ2MZoEGI0

Bangswitch · Oct 23, 2019

krotsman said:
January 2019

https://www.brproud.com/news/local-news/to-pay-or-not-to-pay-your-traffic-camera-questions-answered/

>We talked to Baton Rouge Chief Administrative Officer Darryl Gissel on this one. He said the company, American Traffic Solutions, sends out the ticket by mail. Currently, the city is not taking any further action to collect on unpaid tickets. <

AustinBR said:
I think that clears everything up nicely.

So what happens when leadership changes and the next guy/gal is interested in collecting the forgone debts?

We’ve been promised these kind of things before. Remember when the seat belt law changed, and they said it would just be used when contact has already been made. Then a short couple years later they started have LEO do ‘foot patrols’ on on-ramps. Remember when we were told if you like your doctor you can keep him. Captain Obvious here, politicians lie. They deflect and they delay, because they know their policies are so unpopular that they can’t get away with it wholesale.

Even if it’s $300 and that’s as low as they are willing to reduce it to, it is as cheap as it will ever be. Sure you may get away with never paying the ticket, but there is a pretty good probability you won’t.

thperez1972 · Oct 23, 2019

EightySix said:
She may have stopped and accessed the situation hence her stating that the shady characters were making her nervous. I may have misstated and made it sound like she ran the light. Regardless, I think she made a good choice based on her situational awareness.

EightySix said:
How can that situation be the least of her worries. It was bad enough to make her want to get the hell out of there.

Yeah, right on red would have been a safer move but most likely would have netted the same results.

As I said before, this thread will definitely help me with how I'm going to handle this notice.

If it's legal to turn right on red at an intersection, that situation is usually factored into the way the camera operates so turning right on red after coming to a complete stop would likely not have resulted in the same outcome.

I believe an important question not yet asked was what were they doing to make her nervous/scared? Were they moving toward her or making some sort of motions toward her? Or were they standing there looking all suspicious and stuff?

- - - Updated - - -

Bangswitch said:
So what happens when leadership changes and the next guy/gal is interested in collecting the forgone debts?

We’ve been promised these kind of things before. Remember when the seat belt law changed, and they said it would just be used when contact has already been made. Then a short couple years later they started have LEO do ‘foot patrols’ on on-ramps. Remember when we were told if you like your doctor you can keep him. Captain Obvious here, politicians lie. They deflect and they delay, because they know their policies are so unpopular that they can’t get away with it wholesale.

Even if it’s $300 and that’s as low as they are willing to reduce it to, it is as cheap as it will ever be. Sure you may get away with never paying the ticket, but there is a pretty good probability you won’t.

What promises were made in the article?

Bangswitch · Oct 23, 2019

thperez1972 said:
If it's legal to turn right on red at an intersection, that situation is usually factored into the way the camera operates so turning right on red after coming to a complete stop would likely not have resulted in the same outcome.

I believe an important question not yet asked was what were they doing to make her nervous/scared? Were they moving toward her or making some sort of motions toward her? Or were they standing there looking all suspicious and stuff?

- - - Updated - - -

What promises were made in the article?

In Krotsman’s post he quoted a BR official claiming ‘Currently, the city is not taking any further action to collect on unpaid tickets.’

Now that’s not a promise nor is it a direct lie by the official. It is however a misleading statement, because it would imply to the reader that they won’t try to collect on past due debts. He left himself a good out by using the word ‘currently’, but who cares what they are doing currently? We are asking him to be Nostradamus here since we all expect to live past ‘currently’.

thperez1972 · Oct 23, 2019

Bangswitch said:
In Krotsman’s post he quoted a BR official claiming ‘Currently, the city is not taking any further action to collect on unpaid tickets.’

Now that’s not a promise nor is it a direct lie by the official. It is however a misleading statement, because it would imply to the reader that they won’t try to collect on past due debts. He left himself a good out by using the word ‘currently’, but who cares what they are doing currently? We are asking him to be Nostradamus here since we all expect to live past ‘currently’.

He's describing the actions that are being used at the time he is replying. How is that implying anything?

Bangswitch · Oct 23, 2019

Additionally it’s a matter of time before the State Auditor and the GASB standards require a footnote concerning uncollected camera ticket revenue. This will change internal practices in the Municipalities and the TPA operating the camera systems. What that means for people who get these tickets is there will be an increased in collection efforts.

Bangswitch · Oct 23, 2019

thperez1972 said:
He's describing the actions that are being used at the time he is replying. How is that implying anything?

If you get a camera ticket today, do you care what today’s policy is on unpaid camera tickets or do you care about when it’s past due?

See I care about the possibility of them trying to collect in the future when my hypothetical cam ticket is past due, and since I can’t guarantee they attempt to collect at a later date I would pay it and move on with my day.

340six · Oct 23, 2019

Bangswitch said:
Additionally it’s a matter of time before the State Auditor and the GASB standards require a footnote concerning uncollected camera ticket revenue. This will change internal practices in the Municipalities and the TPA operating the camera systems. What that means for people who get these tickets is there will be an increased in collection efforts.

[Baretta]
"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time", "You can take dat to da bank" and "And dat's the name of dat tune."
[/Baretta]
And yes I know about his wife

Bangswitch · Oct 23, 2019

340six said:
[Baretta]
"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time", "You can take dat to da bank" and "And dat's the name of dat tune."
[/Baretta]
And yes I know about his wife

Well we all know what The Cos did but it’s hard not to enjoy a rerun of the Cosby Kids.
or
His stand up routine for that matter.
Why should we hate Baretta?

thperez1972 · Oct 23, 2019

Bangswitch said:
If you get a camera ticket today, do you care what today’s policy is on unpaid camera tickets or do you care about when it’s past due?

See I care about the possibility of them trying to collect in the future when my hypothetical cam ticket is past due, and since I can’t guarantee they attempt to collect at a later date I would pay it and move on with my day.

By using "currently," he created a distinct separation between the efforts today and any efforts in the future. His statement was not a promise. His statement was not misleading. His statement was not implying anything. Just the opposite. His statement made it clear he was describing the current state and was making no implications regarding the future.

Bangswitch · Oct 23, 2019

thperez1972 said:
By using "currently," he created a distinct separation between the efforts today and any efforts in the future. His statement was not a promise. His statement was not misleading. His statement was not implying anything. Just the opposite. His statement made it clear he was describing the current state and was making no implications regarding the future.

That article is nearly a year old. Regardless of his intent. It is no longer "currently" as used in the context of the quote contextually its the "future". It wasn't even "currently" when the article was published. That policy may not have changed but relying on it not to is a mistake. I don't concern myself with past policies I'm interested in the future. So yes relying on that quote is misleading, regardless of anyone's intent. Was it a promise? No. It was a carefully worded statement that means nothing in the contextual future.

thperez1972 · Oct 23, 2019

Bangswitch said:
In Krotsman’s post he quoted a BR official claiming ‘Currently, the city is not taking any further action to collect on unpaid tickets.’

Now that’s not a promise nor is it a direct lie by the official. It is however a misleading statement, because it would imply to the reader that they won’t try to collect on past due debts. He left himself a good out by using the word ‘currently’, but who cares what they are doing currently? We are asking him to be Nostradamus here since we all expect to live past ‘currently’.

Bangswitch said:
That article is nearly a year old. Regardless of his intent. It is no longer "currently" as used in the context of the quote contextually its the "future". It wasn't even "currently" when the article was published. That policy may not have changed but relying on it not to is a mistake. I don't concern myself with past policies I'm interested in the future. So yes relying on that quote is misleading, regardless of anyone's intent. Was it a promise? No. It was a carefully worded statement that means nothing in the contextual future.

That's called "moving the goalpost." You initially claim was the statement was misleading. (That's after you implied the statement was a promise.) You're now claiming the statement is fine and it's the reader's reliance on the statement that's misleading. I'm not exactly sure what "relying on that quote is misleading" means but I do see that it's not the original claim.

Emperor · Oct 23, 2019

thperez1972 said:
People can turn right on red at an intersection with a camera without getting anything in the mail. The key is they must come to a stop first. No California stops. So some systems or some cameras ignore movement into the intersection if the thing comes to a stop before entering the intersection.

Unless there is a person in the road at the time you get to the intersection with a red light, stop for the red light. Any person in the road should show up in the pictures. If you access the situation after stopping and determine it to be unsafe, that's a different story. I actually talked about this action in an earlier post when I discussed the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law. But if you go in and say "I made no attempt to comply with the law because things I can't show you were in the area creating the possibility there could be an issue," you shouldn't be surprised if it doesn't work.

The electronic enforcement system would need to be pretty complex to make a determination regarding stopping on the side of the road in sparsely populated areas.

Perhaps I did not make my point clearly enough. As for not stopping for a pull over and proceeding to a more lighted area, etc. It means, if you are being pulled over on a highway in the middle of nowhere by LE, and you feel unsure about stopping in a sugar cane field, because you do not feel safe; it has been told over and over by regulatory and safety department officials, that you should acknowledge the LE and slowly proceed to a place that is more lighted, or a center of activity. You do not have to stop where ever you are. This has been repeated over and over again. I have even heard suggestion(s) that you should phone 911 to tell the operator why you are not stopping, etc.

As for an intersection with or without people, why do they have to have people in your view? It takes seconds to pounce from behind a bush, mailbox, parked car, building, etc. to put a gun in a driver's face at a red light. You know that! I stated that I heard accounts from the same agencies above, that if you feel unsafe in that situation, you split! It would be very easy for a scumbag predator to wait for a female to show up.

My contribution to this thread has to do with the OP pondering a decision to fight the ticket or not. I have just given two scenario's where this woman should not be convicted or found guilty of this offense. Camera or not.

Yes! The woman ran the light! Yes! The camera caught her! Yes! A ticket came in the mail! No! She should not have stayed at the red light at 12:20 am if she felt unsafe, unsure, scared, nervous, etc. No! She should not have to pay! Yes! There should be a mechanism for her to plead her case as to my red light / intersection scenario above. Yes! She should be exonerated!

If my wife is in this same situation, she is running the light! A right turn may be worse than staying! Case and point, Jackson Ave. from St. Charles heading west. Two blocks passed the beautiful people, you may end up dead!

Red light traffic cam

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

Well-Known Member

Make your own luck

-Global Mod-

-Global Mod-

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Don’t troll me bro!

Don’t troll me bro!

Well-Known Member

ESSAYONS

Well-Known Member

ESSAYONS

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

-Global Mod-

Well-Known Member

ESSAYONS

Well-Known Member

ESSAYONS

Seriously Misunderstood!

Log in

Forum statistics