OnlyNDaUsa said:

NDRU said:

exactly, you'd rather not turn family over to the law, so you are still legally responsible, but you say "you are going to pay this!"

unless there is a photo of the driver (some do show that too) then even if you could prove it was not you driving you would not be able to prove who was. Just that it was not you. *same goes in the mechanic example above*. But I am not even sure that would always work as a defense.

yes, to both exampes, but that means going to court.

I think it's best to ask for the mechanic or whoever to pay you first and avoid going to court.

.

[Edited 12/23/10 7:03am]

red light cameras are illegal in MN. supreme court struck them down in 2007

The supreme court found that Minneapolis had disregarded a state law imposing uniformity of traffic laws across the state. The city's photo ticket program offered the accused fewer due process protections than available to motorists prosecuted for the same offense in the conventional way after having been pulled over by a policeman. The court argued that Minneapolis had, in effect, created a new type of crime: "owner liability for red-light violations where the owner neither required nor knowingly permitted the violation."

"We emphasized in Duffy that a driver must be able to travel throughout the state without the risk of violating an ordinance with which he is not familiar," the court wrote. "The same concerns apply to owners. But taking the state's argument to its logical conclusion, a city could extend liability to owners for any number of traffic offenses as to which the Act places liability only on drivers. Allowing each municipality to impose different liabilities would render the Act's uniformity requirement meaningless. Such a result demonstrates that [the Minneapolis ordinance] conflicts with state law."

The court also struck down the "rebutable presumption" doctrine that lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the country.

"The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court concluded. "Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid."
http://www.thenewspaper.c...6/1688.asp

It is my understanding that those cameras are positioned to take a photo of the driver AND the license plate.If your kid gets the ticket you take it outta their hide. If your friend/neighbor gets photo'd then it's on them as well, they have to reimburse you. If they don't it's off to court you go...

If your car was stolen then it should be reported as such. If you have a police report confirming the theft you don't pay the ticket.

If it was the mechanic you get him to pay using the picture as evidence. If he refuses off to court you go...

For the record, been caught twice...

Graycap23 said:

NDRU said:

no, but that is more of a parent/child issue in this case. If the car had been stolen and gotten tickets that's a different story

I'm not talking about kids. Anyone who drives your car.

The system here is (since you also get demerit points on your licence up to 12 or something, different amounts according to varying seriousness of offences)

so, if someone else was driving at the time, you get them to fill in and sign a form, and the fine will be redirected to that person.

every time i drive past a red light camera

i stick my tongue out...in a seductive way

well... just in case i get flashed

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Lammastide said:

Now THIS I totally agree with. I can understand why I would be mailed the ticket if a camera caught my daughter committing a moving violation in a vehicle I had the authority of letting her drive. But between my daughter and I, I certainly wouldn't take on the ultimate financial responsibility for her screwup. She'd be paying that ticket.

But I do wonder... how does this effect the insurance rates of the vehicle owner?

the problem with making the kid pay is that the ticket goes to the owner. So yeah someone borrows your car you get the ticket and I may not even be possible to fight it.

And in Texas I do not think they report them to the State so they do not go on your record so they would not appear on your insurance either.

Looks like redlight tix are handled differently than regular moving violations.

Will I receive any points on my driving record for this violation?

No, the civil penalty will not be recorded on the registered owner's driving record.

Will my insurance rates be affected?

No, the civil penalty will not affect your insurance.

Will an arrest warrant be issued?

No, a warrant for arrest will not be issued, as this is a civil violation and not a criminal offense.
Will the red light cameras take a picture of the driver of the vehicle?

No, It is a civil penalty assessed against the registered owner of the vehicle; it is not a criminal violation. Similar to a parking ticket, there is no need to identify the driver and therefore, no need to capture the image of the driver.

http://www.arlingtonpd.or...t/FAQs.htm

[Edited 12/2/10 19:36pm]

Graycap23 said:

NDRU said:

well that's on her to make her son pay the ticket, the DMV doesn't care who pays it. But unless she wants to say her son stole her car and let the law handle it, then it's a parent/child issue

Q? U take your car 2 a repair shop. The mechanic has 2 test drive your car when he is done. He gets a Red light ticket................should u have 2 pay 4 that?

I think here you CAN dispute it if you weren't the driver but you better have airtight proof.

physco185 said:

every time i drive past a red light camera

i stick my tongue out...in a seductive way

well... just in case i get flashed

SCNDLS said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

the problem with making the kid pay is that the ticket goes to the owner. So yeah someone borrows your car you get the ticket and I may not even be possible to fight it.

And in Texas I do not think they report them to the State so they do not go on your record so they would not appear on your insurance either.

Looks like redlight tix are handled differently than regular moving violations.

Will I receive any points on my driving record for this violation?

No, the civil penalty will not be recorded on the registered owner's driving record.

Will my insurance rates be affected?

No, the civil penalty will not affect your insurance.

Will an arrest warrant be issued?

No, a warrant for arrest will not be issued, as this is a civil violation and not a criminal offense.
Will the red light cameras take a picture of the driver of the vehicle?

No, It is a civil penalty assessed against the registered owner of the vehicle; it is not a criminal violation. Similar to a parking ticket, there is no need to identify the driver and therefore, no need to capture the image of the driver.

http://www.arlingtonpd.or...t/FAQs.htm

[Edited 12/2/10 19:36pm]

Is it still BOGUS?

Y.E.S.

NDRU said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

unless there is a photo of the driver (some do show that too) then even if you could prove it was not you driving you would not be able to prove who was. Just that it was not you. *same goes in the mechanic example above*. But I am not even sure that would always work as a defense.

yes, to both exampes, but that means going to court.

I think it's best to ask for the mechanic or whoever to pay you first and avoid going to court.

My advice would be to pay the fine, but protest it when you do. And even write on the check "I was not driving" Or "the car was in the shop at the time of this ticket" in the notes and on the forms you have to sign.

then sue the mechanic shop owner in small claims court.

Mach said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

the problem with making the kid pay is that the ticket goes to the owner. So yeah someone borrows your car you get the ticket and I may not even be possible to fight it.

And in Texas I do not think they report them to the State so they do not go on your record so they would not appear on your insurance either.

ZERO problem ... the kids are allowed to use the car AND they understand it's still ON THEM if they get a moving violation ~ I OWN the car ~ I SET the RULES !

If I'd gotten a ticket as a teenager, I'm quite sure my driving privileges would have been suspended (by my parents) until that I'd reimbursed them for the cost of the ticket.

Genesia said:

Mach said:

ZERO problem ... the kids are allowed to use the car AND they understand it's still ON THEM if they get a moving violation ~ I OWN the car ~ I SET the RULES !

If I'd gotten a ticket as a teenager, I'm quite sure my driving privileges would have been suspended (by my parents) until that I'd reimbursed them for the cost of the ticket.

XxAxX said:

red light cameras are illegal in MN. supreme court struck them down in 2007

The supreme court found that Minneapolis had disregarded a state law imposing uniformity of traffic laws across the state. The city's photo ticket program offered the accused fewer due process protections than available to motorists prosecuted for the same offense in the conventional way after having been pulled over by a policeman. The court argued that Minneapolis had, in effect, created a new type of crime: "owner liability for red-light violations where the owner neither required nor knowingly permitted the violation."

"We emphasized in Duffy that a driver must be able to travel throughout the state without the risk of violating an ordinance with which he is not familiar," the court wrote. "The same concerns apply to owners. But taking the state's argument to its logical conclusion, a city could extend liability to owners for any number of traffic offenses as to which the Act places liability only on drivers. Allowing each municipality to impose different liabilities would render the Act's uniformity requirement meaningless. Such a result demonstrates that [the Minneapolis ordinance] conflicts with state law."

The court also struck down the "rebutable presumption" doctrine that lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the country.

"The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court concluded. "Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid."
http://www.thenewspaper.c...6/1688.asp

unless the registered owner overcomes the presumption in RCW 46.63.075,

Quoting RCW 46.63.075

I saw a story on the news where a US soldier who was stationed in Iraq got 3 red light tickets. The car was being stored at his parents house. The town where the tickets where given where 1 hour away from the parents home. They did not drive the car-they stored the car. The camera picture is read and when it is read it was read wrong. It mistaken an "i" for an "l" in the licence plate. The picture clearly showed a brown truck, the soldier's car was a sports car in black.

kewlschool said:

I saw a story on the news where a US soldier who was stationed in Iraq got 3 red light tickets. The car was being stored at his parents house. The town where the tickets where given where 1 hour away from the parents home. They did not drive the car-they stored the car. The camera picture is read and when it is read it was read wrong. It mistaken an "i" for an "l" in the licence plate. The picture clearly showed a brown truck, the soldier's car was a sports car in black.

yeah a simular thing happend in the Dallas area. The ticket was pretty far from where the owner lived and the car was different. Finaly they relized the photo was too low rez and they miss ided the plate.

That reminds me the cameras at the intersection near work went nuts Friday, the flash was going off left and right, no one was making any redlight violations.

got one a year ago, it cost $500