Red light traffic cam

thperez1972 said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's a big negative ghost rider. The statement is misleading, because the intended user of that statement would not have read it until it was contextually useless. Weather intentional or not it is. It was phrased carefully not to make himself a liar. By the way you can keep your doctor its just cost more. Semantically that wasn't a lie either.

Now if the BR official said so long as I hold this position I have no intent on trying to collect and he was being truthful, and he is still holding his office the user could rely on that statement. But to make a statement with no validity because contextually "currently" expires instantaneously.


I guarantee you wouldn't put up with that bull$hit weasel language from a suspect nor would you trust it. If a suspect who is a known drug dealer say, "hey man let me up I currently have no intention of running from you" what would you do?

Emperor said:

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.

Click to expand...

You made yourself clear. You presented a scenario outside the scope of the discussion. In one case, there is an officer present that could decide to issue a traffic ticket or not issue a traffic ticket. Fighting that ticket would put the person in front of a judge. That has nothing to do with a civil penalty where fighting it would put the person in front of an administrative hearing. This scenario is irrelevant to a discussion regarding red light cameras.

Emperor said:

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.

Click to expand...

You are making an argument that would allow just about anyone to run just about any red light at just about any time.

I've addressed the "if you feel unsafe, you split" condition. You stop, assess the situation, then act accordingly. If there is no time to stop, i.e., a person at or in the immediate area of the vehicle, the person would show up on camera. If it's a person standing in the area making you nervous, there is not an immediate threat and there is time to assess the situation. If you are nervous because they are standing there all suspicious like, they may not be the issue. If you are nervous because they are motioning toward you or moving toward you, you will be able to react before they are close enough to be a threat. If they are close enough to be a threat, they will show up in the picture if the camera is triggered. But, again, if you stop before going, it's likely the camera will not be triggered as the software takes into account people turning right on red. That doesn't mean you must turn right for the camera to not be triggered. It means once you come to a stop, the system isn't monitoring you. I know this is the case with a number of the cameras in the CBD.

Emperor said:

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.

Click to expand...

The not part of "camera or not" is irrelevant to the topic of fighting a notice generated by a camera. And you have not presented a scenario where the woman should not be found guilty or convicted. You've presented a scenario where more information is needed before the penalty is dismissed.

Emperor said:

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!

Click to expand...

If there's a legitimate cause for concern, you'd have a point. But people in the area does not meet the criteria for blowing through the light without stopping to be an acceptable choice. If you choose to to advocate that anyway, then the civil penalty should be worth it for your peace of mind.

With respect to the intersection right past Igor's, I don't remember there being a red light camera there. But in case they's added one or for the intersections with a camera, see above regarding the camera's programming.

Bangswitch said:

That's a big negative ghost rider. The statement is misleading, because the intended user of that statement would not have read it until it was contextually useless. Weather intentional or not it is. It was phrased carefully not to make himself a liar. By the way you can keep your doctor its just cost more. Semantically that wasn't a lie either.

Now if the BR official said so long as I hold this position I have no intent on trying to collect and he was being truthful, and he is still holding his office the user could rely on that statement. But to make a statement with no validity because contextually "currently" expires instantaneously.


I guarantee you wouldn't put up with that bull$hit weasel language from a suspect nor would you trust it. If a suspect who is a known drug dealer say, "hey man let me up I currently have no intention of running from you" what would you do?

Click to expand...

The statement is 100% accurate. It makes no predictions about the future. Any application of the statement with regard to future events is an error on the part of the reader. Misleading is giving the wrong impression. The statement does give the wrong impression. It is phrased correctly and describes the situation at the time the statement is made.

First of all, a suspect would never say that. But if they did, I'd be smart enough to recognize there were conditions in his statement that would not allow me to use it to make predictions regarding his actions in the future, whether that be 5 minutes or 5 hours into the future.

thperez1972 said:

The statement is 100% accurate. It makes no predictions about the future. Any application of the statement with regard to future events is an error on the part of the reader. Misleading is giving the wrong impression. The statement does give the wrong impression. It is phrased correctly and describes the situation at the time the statement is made.

First of all, a suspect would never say that. But if they did, I'd be smart enough to recognize there were conditions in his statement that would not allow me to use it to make predictions regarding his actions in the future, whether that be 5 minutes or 5 hours into the future.

Click to expand...

That's my point. Based on my extensive experience with elected officials I am smart enough to know there are conditions to the statement. And any implied warranty instantaneously expires as its coming out of his mouth. Any use of that quote, but for historical reference would be misleading, intent be damned. But people don't make conditional statements to that level of specificity, when the intent is to be transparent.

thperez1972 said:

You made yourself clear. You presented a scenario outside the scope of the discussion. In one case, there is an officer present that could decide to issue a traffic ticket or not issue a traffic ticket. Fighting that ticket would put the person in front of a judge. That has nothing to do with a civil penalty where fighting it would put the person in front of an administrative hearing. This scenario is irrelevant to a discussion regarding red light cameras.

Click to expand...

I disagree that it's irrelevant. I am illustrating that there are cases made by regulatory agencies where breaking the law is not only allowed, it is advocated by many. This scenario, while not being the same as the intersection scenario, is germane to the subject.

You are making an argument that would allow just about anyone to run just about any red light at just about any time.

Click to expand...

I would say, there are places in this country, state, city; where certain people (females), should not be at any time. Day or night! But this incident happened at 12:20 in the morning. SIP Factor is much higher after midnight.

I've addressed the "if you feel unsafe, you split" condition. You stop, assess the situation, then act accordingly. If there is no time to stop, i.e., a person at or in the immediate area of the vehicle, the person would show up on camera. If it's a person standing in the area making you nervous, there is not an immediate threat and there is time to assess the situation. If you are nervous because they are standing there all suspicious like, they may not be the issue. If you are nervous because they are motioning toward you or moving toward you, you will be able to react before they are close enough to be a threat. If they are close enough to be a threat, they will show up in the picture if the camera is triggered. But, again, if you stop before going, it's likely the camera will not be triggered as the software takes into account people turning right on red. That doesn't mean you must turn right for the camera to not be triggered. It means once you come to a stop, the system isn't monitoring you. I know this is the case with a number of the cameras in the CBD.

Click to expand...

Then the camera's as deterrents are worthless; and are complete money gambits! Because, if I come to a complete stop, then blow the rest of the red light and it does not catch that infraction, it's arbitrary!

The not part of "camera or not" is irrelevant to the topic of fighting a notice generated by a camera. And you have not presented a scenario where the woman should not be found guilty or convicted. You've presented a scenario where more information is needed before the penalty is dismissed.

Click to expand...

The information needed is an arbitrator or judge that can hear the woman's account that she was scared ****-less about stopping and staying there. Again, I have heard regulatory agencies say not to put yourself in a situation where you feel unsafe. Female > Alone > Red Light > 12:20 am. This is all the info she/they needs. IMHO.

If there's a legitimate cause for concern, you'd have a point. But people in the area does not meet the criteria for blowing through the light without stopping to be an acceptable choice. If you choose to to advocate that anyway, then the civil penalty should be worth it for your peace of mind.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this too! Anyone could find themselves in areas that are known high crime areas with or without firsthand knowledge. Baby gets sick in the middle of the night, next thing you know, mama is driving at 2:00 am on _____________. Fill in the blank with your favorite known high crime area/road.

Emperor said:

1. I disagree that it's irrelevant. I am illustrating that there are cases made by regulatory agencies where breaking the law is not only allowed, it is advocated by many. This scenario, while not being the same as the intersection scenario, is germane to the subject.

2. I would say, there are places in this country, state, city; where certain people (females), should not be at any time. Day or night! But this incident happened at 12:20 in the morning. SIP Factor is much higher after midnight.

3. Then the camera's as deterrents are worthless; and are complete money gambits! Because, if I come to a complete stop, then blow the rest of the red light and it does not catch that infraction, it's arbitrary!

4. The information needed is an arbitrator or judge that can hear the woman's account that she was scared ****-less about stopping and staying there. Again, I have heard regulatory agencies say not to put yourself in a situation where you feel unsafe. Female > Alone > Red Light > 12:20 am. This is all the info she/they needs. IMHO.

5. I disagree with this too! Anyone could find themselves in areas that are known high crime areas with or without firsthand knowledge. Baby gets sick in the middle of the night, next thing you know, mama is driving at 2:00 am on _____________. Fill in the blank with your favorite known high crime area/road.

Click to expand...

1. What law is being broken in your scenario?

2. If those areas exist, then the onus is on them to stay away from those areas.

3. Most people don't stop before running the red light so the cameras aren't completely useless. And if someone stops before proceeding, they are much more likely to wait until the intersection is clear before running the light. That goes back to letter of the law vs spirit of the law. And it's not arbitrary. It catches incidents that meet a set of criteria and doesn't catch those that don't. The criteria is not random (arbitrary). It's clearly defined. But they are money gambits.

4. "Your honor, I stopped at the red light that night and saw a group of guys at the intersection. They turned around and stared at me. I felt scared so I went through the red light." Perfectly legitimate excuse. It may not work but it's worth a try. "Your honor, I was driving alone and it was 12:20am. I felt scared so I drove through the red light without stopping." I hope you can see the difference.

5. If it's an immediate threat, don't stop. Any traffic camera would capture the immediate threat. If it's not an immediate threat, stop and determine if there's a threat. If there is, proceed. If there's a cause for concern that isn't a threat, monitor it. If it becomes a threat before the light turns green, act accordingly.

If there is not an immediate threat, what's the problem with stopping?

thperez1972 said:

1. What law is being broken in your scenario?

Click to expand...

Perhaps I misspoke but is it not illegal to not stop if you are being pulled over? It's a long way to lead a cop if you get the flashing lights on I-10 right past the Gross Tete exit and end up finally pulling over at the first gas station in Henderson?!? Multiple jurisdictions too!

2. If those areas exist, then the onus is on them to stay away from those areas.

Click to expand...

Those areas DO exist. Sometimes people (particularly females), get lost in their neighborhoods; much less across a big urban sprawl. Remember, many things could put a person in places they may otherwise not have intended to be.

3. Most people don't stop before running the red light so the cameras aren't completely useless. And if someone stops before proceeding, they are much more likely to wait until the intersection is clear before running the light. That goes back to letter of the law vs spirit of the law. And it's not arbitrary. It catches incidents that meet a set of criteria and doesn't catch those that don't. The criteria is not random (arbitrary). It's clearly defined. But they are money gambits.

Click to expand...

Speculation on what people will or won't do.

4. "Your honor, I stopped at the red light that night and saw a group of guys at the intersection. They turned around and stared at me. I felt scared so I went through the red light." Perfectly legitimate excuse. It may not work but it's worth a try. "Your honor, I was driving alone and it was 12:20am. I felt scared so I drove through the red light without stopping." I hope you can see the difference.

Click to expand...

Semantics. I see the difference the way YOU phrased it!

5. If it's an immediate threat, don't stop. Any traffic camera would capture the immediate threat. If it's not an immediate threat, stop and determine if there's a threat. If there is, proceed. If there's a cause for concern that isn't a threat, monitor it. If it becomes a threat before the light turns green, act accordingly.

If there is not an immediate threat, what's the problem with stopping?

Click to expand...

There aren't traffic cameras at every red light in America for one, and again, certain people are more at risk than others when driving in urban centers in the middle of the night.

I am not advocating breaking the law on its face. I am trying to argue there are times when it is not only the prudent thing to do, it's the correct thing to do. The act of committing the crime, is not undone at the outset. Only, it should be forgiven after the circumstances are brought to light.

Emperor said:

1. Perhaps I misspoke but is it not illegal to not stop if you are being pulled over? It's a long way to lead a cop if you get the flashing lights on I-10 right past the Gross Tete exit and end up finally pulling over at the first gas station in Henderson?!? Multiple jurisdictions too!

2. Those areas DO exist. Sometimes people (particularly females), get lost in their neighborhoods; much less across a big urban sprawl. Remember, many things could put a person in places they may otherwise not have intended to be.

3. Speculation on what people will or won't do.

4. Semantics. I see the difference the way YOU phrased it!

5. There aren't traffic cameras at every red light in America for one, and again, certain people are more at risk than others when driving in urban centers in the middle of the night.

I am not advocating breaking the law on its face. I am trying to argue there are times when it is not only the prudent thing to do, it's the correct thing to do. The act of committing the crime, is not undone at the outset. Only, it should be forgiven after the circumstances are brought to light.

Click to expand...

1. That's not how it works. I am not the one who should provide the information to back up your claim.

2. Someone ends up in those areas either by force or by the choices they made. So unless they are forced, the onus is still on them.

3. There's no speculation about what people will do. There is a defined criteria. It is not random. It something falls within that group, the camera is triggered. If it doesn't fall in the group, the camera is not triggered. That hold true regardless of what people do or don't do.

4. I phrased the first one to show my opinion and the second to show your opinion based on "all the info they need." There is a difference but it's not semantics.

The information needed is an arbitrator or judge that can hear the woman's account that she was scared ****-less about stopping and staying there. Again, I have heard regulatory agencies say not to put yourself in a situation where you feel unsafe. Female > Alone > Red Light > 12:20 am. This is all the info she/they needs. IMHO.

Click to expand...

5. I agree there are times when the spirit of the law should be viewed. My position is

(a) don't stop if there is an immediate threat
(b) if there's not an immediate threat, stop and evaluate
(c) if there becomes an immediate threat, see (a)

I feel this covers all external threats. What it doesn't do, on purpose, is excuse someone from breaking the law because they are scared of a situation that does not exist. If someone's anxiety is bad enough to where they see everyone as a threat, perhaps they should not be driving.

And you either didn't answer my question or you phrased it in a way that didn't directly relate to the question. If there is not an immediate threat, what's the problem with stopping?

thperez1972 said:

1. That's not how it works. I am not the one who should provide the information to back up your claim.

Click to expand...

I was asking sincerely. It is either in the statute or it isn't. You have cited many laws verbatim on here before. I thought you could provide some insight?!?

2. Someone ends up in those areas either by force or by the choices they made. So unless they are forced, the onus is still on them.

Click to expand...

You are a rigid black & white kind-a-guy. So, if your elderly mom, aunt, grandma; hypothetically, got lost while going to the ER in the middle of the night, and ended up dead (and under no circumstances do I or would I ever wish this on you or anyone else), from a tragic case I have explained; you say, "Sorry Mom, it was your fault?"

3. There's no speculation about what people will do. There is a defined criteria. It is not random. It something falls within that group, the camera is triggered. If it doesn't fall in the group, the camera is not triggered. That hold true regardless of what people do or don't do.

Click to expand...

I wasn't citing the camera aspect in that sentence. I should have been more clear.

4. I phrased the first one to show my opinion and the second to show your opinion based on "all the info they need." There is a difference but it's not semantics.

Click to expand...

You have introduced a bent by omitting certain facts from the second scenario; and / or injecting differing descriptions of the excuse. Even if ever so slight.

5. I agree there are times when the spirit of the law should be viewed. My position is

(a) don't stop if there is an immediate threat
(b) if there's not an immediate threat, stop and evaluate
(c) if there becomes an immediate threat, see (a)

I feel this covers all external threats. What it doesn't do, on purpose, is excuse someone from breaking the law because they are scared of a situation that does not exist. If someone's anxiety is bad enough to where they see everyone as a threat, perhaps they should not be driving.

Click to expand...

That is why this is so gray! I'm not excusing anyone from breaking the law either. An inanimate object with absolutely no discretion caught a person breaking the law (by software design), and the beneficiaries of this inanimate object expect remittance, no questions or excuses needed. There are indeed extenuating circumstances. There are indeed LE agencies on record telling people it is okay to break the law in certain instances. Two sides to every story. Picture versus emotion.

And you either didn't answer my question or you phrased it in a way that didn't directly relate to the question. If there is not an immediate threat, what's the problem with stopping?

Click to expand...

If the red light is at a seedy location, and it's late at night, I'm going to stop! My wife probably won't! I'm okay with that.

Emperor said:

1. I was asking sincerely. It is either in the statute or it isn't. You have cited many laws verbatim on here before. I thought you could provide some insight?!?

2. You are a rigid black & white kind-a-guy. So, if your elderly mom, aunt, grandma; hypothetically, got lost while going to the ER in the middle of the night, and ended up dead (and under no circumstances do I or would I ever wish this on you or anyone else), from a tragic case I have explained; you say, "Sorry Mom, it was your fault?"

2. I wasn't citing the camera aspect in that sentence. I should have been more clear.

3. You have introduced a bent by omitting certain facts from the second scenario; and / or injecting differing descriptions of the excuse. Even if ever so slight.

4. That is why this is so gray! I'm not excusing anyone from breaking the law either. An inanimate object with absolutely no discretion caught a person breaking the law (by software design), and the beneficiaries of this inanimate object expect remittance, no questions or excuses needed. There are indeed extenuating circumstances. There are indeed LE agencies on record telling people it is okay to break the law in certain instances. Two sides to every story. Picture versus emotion.

5. If the red light is at a seedy location, and it's late at night, I'm going to stop! My wife probably won't! I'm okay with that.

Click to expand...

1. I do not know of any statute that lists a time or distance restriction as to when one must stop. But I have not memorized every law.

2. I never said they deserved to die for their bad choices.

3. Based on my experience, the overwhelming majority of people who run a red light do so without stopping while trying to squeeze through on a yellow. I have seen very few people run through the red light after stopping and making sure the road way is clear. I say "very few" instead on none because I can recall one but there may be one or two I don't recall. The one I remember did it at 2-3 in the morning. His excuse was it was the middle of the night, he had stopped, and there was nobody on the road to yield to. If he hadn't have been drunk, it may have worked.

4. What makes it gray is the individual's interpretation of immediate threat. I don't think it's reasonable to view an individual or multiple individual in the area, with no further explanation, as an immediate threat. It could be 2 in the morning at St Claude and Tupelo. Someone in the area may be a cause for concern but not an immediate threat, regardless of how nervous they make the driver.

5. Again, if there is not an immediate threat, what's the problem with stopping?

On the subject of stopping at night for law enforcement. That mainly pertains to unmarked units without bar lights. If a fully marked police unit with full exterior bar lights stops you it’s a little different. My wife and kids are told to go very slow, turn on flashers and call 911 to let them know wants going on. If another unit joins in then you better stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

thperez1972 said:

1. I do not know of any statute that lists a time or distance restriction as to when one must stop. But I have not memorized every law.

2. I never said they deserved to die for their bad choices.

3. Based on my experience, the overwhelming majority of people who run a red light do so without stopping while trying to squeeze through on a yellow. I have seen very few people run through the red light after stopping and making sure the road way is clear. I say "very few" instead on none because I can recall one but there may be one or two I don't recall. The one I remember did it at 2-3 in the morning. His excuse was it was the middle of the night, he had stopped, and there was nobody on the road to yield to. If he hadn't have been drunk, it may have worked.

4. What makes it gray is the individual's interpretation of immediate threat. I don't think it's reasonable to view an individual or multiple individual in the area, with no further explanation, as an immediate threat. It could be 2 in the morning at St Claude and Tupelo. Someone in the area may be a cause for concern but not an immediate threat, regardless of how nervous they make the driver.

5. Again, if there is not an immediate threat, what's the problem with stopping?

Click to expand...

All I am saying is the OP's wife is defending her actions by saying she was legitimately concerned for her safety, and it was late and there were individuals. At Corporate and College, there ARE shady characters nearby. I am only agreeing that I would consider her excuse as grounds for a dismissal of the camera's accusation.

Even if the easiest road to take for the OP is to pay the ticket and move on, it shouldn't be. Just my opinion. Not advocating crime!

Perhaps he should slap sparks off of her head for being there at that time in the first place, but that is his call!

MOTOR51 said:

On the subject of stopping at night for law enforcement. That mainly pertains to unmarked units without bar lights. If a fully marked police unit with full exterior bar lights stops you it’s a little different. My wife and kids are told to go very slow, turn on flashers and call 911 to let them know wants going on. If another unit joins in then you better stop.

Click to expand...

This^ sounds more in line with what I had heard and understood to be the case.

Then, there is this: https://www.wbrz.com/news/grand-jur...ve-unit-reports-on-alleged-sexual-misconduct/

Marked unit! Sugar cane fields!

According to the Business Report today, this very item was to be re negotiated at at meeting today, but post poned till next month

Emperor said:

This^ sounds more in line with what I had heard and understood to be the case.

Then, there is this: https://www.wbrz.com/news/grand-jur...ve-unit-reports-on-alleged-sexual-misconduct/

Marked unit! Sugar cane fields!

Click to expand...

I read stories of teachers everyday as well but still have to send my kids to school


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Danny Abear said:

According to the Business Report today, this very item was to be re negotiated at at meeting today, but post poned till next month

Click to expand...

I wonder if the camera operators want to get Baton Rouge to increase collection efforts from past due tickets.

.

MOTOR51 said:

I read stories of teachers everyday as well but still have to send my kids to school


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Click to expand...

Yep! Me too!

It wasn't a knock against anyone. It was just a "fringe" example to illustrate that the "slow roll to lighted areas" may/could also include marked units if one were so inclined!?!

krotsman said:

The only enforcement threat BR has is sending delinquent "violations" to a collection agency as a debt owed to the city. However, in the last year or so the Metro council had some hearings about them and it came out that they do absolutely nothing to enforce the fines. They are just happy to get whatever is paid, once the private company gets the bulk of the payout, of course...

Click to expand...

Correct ...this is exactly what I heard on a tv news report .. they came out and said...If you don't send in the money...they don't do anything...except talk about it !

If the fine is small ( $25 - $50) I might pay it because that's the kind of person I am more than that... I never received it ...mail do get lost !
Gary

seems like that this commercial bussiness was found to be operating in several states WITHOUT A LISCENSE TO OPERATE... IT was asked about the local license to conduct their operation here.... sure hope they get escorted to the state border line...... how can they justfy a ticket to a sedan and the photo shows a truck with a out of state plate with the same ID # as the local sedan...... you should have the right to confront your acusser face to face...................................................................drill sgt.