In order for the red-light tickets to be valid, they must be hand delivered to you. Otherwise, courts have held they can't do anything to your driving record.

Lee, no camera ticket will be hand delivered. Therefore, they are all "fine only". Perhaps that is how they are constitutional, as they are not written to an individual, but the owner of the car. Still dicey, but you are still responsible for your vehicle unless it is stolen. T Ailshire, I would be intrested in what possible extenuation you may have for running a red light.

T-Bird -

Not necessarily. Personally, I try and avoid the intersections at all possible (mainly b/c of traffic).

But, Virginia law states:

"If the summoned person fails to appear on the date of return set out in the summons mailed pursuant to this section, the summons shall be executed in the manner set out in § 19.2-76.3. No proceedings for contempt or arrest of a person summoned by mailing shall be instituted for failure to appear on the return date of the summons."

So, in essence, if you fail to mail the ticket in, the ticket must be hand delivered. The Virginia Transportation Research Council sums up the loophole in the red light law.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-vdot.pdf

t
the situation: I was traveling north on US1, behind a big-rig hauling new cars. Traffic was heavy - not bumper-to-bumper-at-5mph, but heavy. The guy behind me had already stopped more than once way too close to my bumper in traffic, and was on a phone, not paying much attention. As I approached the light at Gibbon, I had a break in traffic to my right where I could safely get out of that lane. As I did so, the truck in front of me had to slow for traffic, and when I got around him, I realized the light was turning from yellow to red. Traffic was coming up on my tail; cross traffic had not begun.

There are those who could make the case if I didn't see the light turn yellow, I was following too closely in that traffic. I disagree. When I had to check mirrors, head check, ensure safe lane changing, pay attention to the dolt behind me, and avoid hitting a half dozen cars on a truck, all in a split second, something got lost.

I made a decision then that I might not make again - to pay instead of go to court - to avoid losing a day of work. I *did* commit the infraction, but there was mitigation. Since I firmly believe these cameras, both red-light and speed cameras, are ATMs for the city, I figured I could pay the bribe and go on about my business. I have since learned that had I ignored the mailed summons, I might never have been served (though my gut tells me Alexandria makes enough on these things that they can afford one person to deliver the summons).

Lee, are you a lawyer? If not, I would strongly suggest you don't hand out "legal" advice based on what you read on the internet. Your excerpted quote of the law simply states that you cannot be arrested or charged with contempt of court for not showing up on your court date. What will happen if you don't show up for court is that you will be found guilty in abstencia. You WILL then owe the fine, as you forefitted your right to a trial. And if you don't pay, it will go into collection the same as unpaid taxes. This will affect your credit and, if you continue not to pay, they will put a DMV hold on your regristration (the same as unpaid taxes), so you will not be able to register (and therefore insure) your car come next year. So, just because there are no additional legal ramifications, you cannot simply "ignore it" as you suggest. No matter how much you may object.

T Ailshire - that is a tough one. Around here, I'm sure many of us find ourselves in pickles like that. And sometimes safety trumps following the rules. If that rises to the level of extenuation I don't know. That is for a judge to decide. By strict definition, it probably does not as you point out. But if you went to court and argued the case, you may get a pass.

In my youth, I took one of those driver improvement classes in order to reduce the number of points against my license...The class (8 hours on a Saturday) was taught by a Virginia State Police Officer. One of the things he said I remember clearly. He said that your number one duty as an operator of a moving vehicle traveling on public roads is to avoid an accident at all costs. *EVEN IF THIS MEANS VIOLATING OR COMMITTING A MOVING VIOLATION* He clarified this and said that if you are approaching an intersection with a traffic light and you observe that the individual behind you is traveling in excessive speed and in your opinion, will not be able to stop at the ensuing now red traffic light without causing an accident by running into you from behind, it is your *DUTY* to avoid the accident even if this means navigating through the red light intersection if it is safe to do so.
A camera takes a picture in an instance of time. It's a binary system....yes/no, on/off, picture/no picture. The camera cannot take a picture of what happens before and after you commit the moving violation, it only takes a picture of the moving violation. The camera does not know that traversing through an intersection during a red light was the safest action. Yet, this simple observation is something any police officer can do easily. So if you get a traffic light ticket, claim that another driver was bearing down behind you and you safely navigated the intersection to avoid an accident!

I understand that completely, but to suggest that the cameras as a whole are a defunct idea is wrong in my opinion. If you were in said example where a car behind you was tailgating and you didn't feel safe to brake for the light, would it be fair to say they could adjust the camera angle to see if while you were running the red light the idiot behind you was 2 feet away? Or even compare the amount of time between pictures taken for both cars running the red light. If the camera registers like 0.02 seconds between shots then I feel they could throw yours out and go for the tailgater behind you.

As I said though, I understand what you are saying. As the tech currently stands, it needs to be better or nothing at all.

At least in Alexandria City, it's not county employees who process it. I had to send my fine OUT OF STATE.

Neither is a safety feature. Both are just ATMs.

PQ, you don't have to provide health insurance, vacations or retirement funds to a camera. Factor in those savings on top of the revenue generated and you will realize the cameras are here to stay, forever!
As for texting while driving, everyone has been told the 23X more dangerous level of texting while driving. Some choose to totally ignore the warnings because they consider themselves first and nobody else at all. We should be allowed to pull them over and smash their phone to pieces. After replacing a few phones, they will begin to realize that other drivers do not like them texting!

The tickets are also not valid unless they are hand delivered to you. Ignore it, and the City can't do anything unless they present the ticket to you in person.

http://firejimmoran.com/?p=6675

Lee, that is false. They will come after you and your car, just not your driving record. If you try that, good luck registering your car next year. Please don't hand out legal advice unless you have a clue as to what you're talking about.

T-Bird -

As stated above, there is a loophole in the law which not many people are aware of.

See: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-vdot.pdf

Our governments do not care about our safety. The only care about increasing revenue!

Ok, so you're trusting the govt to assume you are guilty without due process, and in order to prove your innocence you have to take a day off of work to try and prove it, but the judge will tell you that their cameras are x% accurate and to accept it. Sounds great! Love it! Sounds like due process to me!

Davew, do you not understand what due process is? You get a trial if you want one. That is due process. Why do you keep harping about no due process?

Nein, I understand completely what it means. I understand that, yes, you can take a day off of work, go to court, and yes you can argue these infractions; I never said any differently, did I? All I said was that you, as a citizen, are allowed due process, you are allowed as a citizen to be presumed innocent, until proven guilty. With a red light camera, you are mailed a ticket with the presumption of guilt, Is that incorrect? They send you a notice that says "hey, youre guilty of running this red light, pay up" And again, YES, you can go and argue it. You are letting a camera be the judge and jury, are you not? What happens when the camera is used to presume your guilt for something else? And you cannot argue that that it is another money making instrument for the govt; nothing about public safety

Davew, you do realize that when you recieve a ticket, it does not mean you're guilty. It means you've been served a summons for a violation. Guilt can only be determined by a judge. Since you can still go to court on a camera ticket, then it is not what you say. If the wording on the ticket says "you are guilty" than it is wrong.

I think we're all caught up in a spirit of the law vs letter of the law argument. Yes, I understand when you get a ticket, you can either just pay it, or take a half day off work, plead your case, and have the judge tell you "well officer so and so has been with the service for 12 years, and so by default we agree with what he says. Pay us our money; Next!" And yes, you're presumed innocent. When you get a red-light ticket, you have a completely automated process telling you you have the burden of proof to argue your case against what? A camera? Or a camera that's been in service for 12 years and never lied before? Do you not get the point that you don't "really" get to argue your point in court, because who are you arguing against, a camera? And again, if you think this is all about "your safety" and not taking more of your money, Google "speed cameras in Baltimore" google "shortened yellow lights" And see that the local govts have been gaming us for more money, and have actually increased rear-end collisions at traffic lights.

Davew - I "get" your point. Traffic court is a joke. That is universal. But as you yourself point out, it doesn't matter if your are issued a summons from an officer or a camera system. The argument is the same by the prosecution. So why is one ok with you and the others lacks due process? Honestlly, it sounds like your issue is with the court system and the fact that it doesn't meet your expectation of "due process". Unfortunately, the real court system and the TV "Law and Order" reality that most people think of are not the same. And either way, the prosecution has written and photographed evidence of your guilt, and you have none of your innocence. Think about it. Even on Law and Order, you would be found guilty.

Ok, so we kind of agree. I guess my issue is the automated element of it. No officer is witnessing you committing a crime; it's a camera. Who testfies against you? Yes, sure, you get "due process", alright. But at what point do we say "enough is enough"? We are going to soon have automated ticket handing out robots, and you can say "we'll, it's ok for red lights!" But how about 40 years from now when you get an automated spitting ticket, an automated farting in public ticket, an automated smoking ticket, an automated cursing ticket? Sure! You have "due process" by taking every second off of work to go argue in court. I guess that's my point.

While we may agree in some level, your conjecture is not even vaugely relavant. How can you equate spitting with running a red light? If there was ever a chance of those things happening, they would not happen because they do not raise to a general level of importance. Besides, since when do we not do something of real importance because of possible hypothetical consequences. Especially when it's whatever whacky and irrational consequence you can come up with like yours. Restricting law enforcement like that would be like prosecuting people for crimes they MIGHT commit. Or not issuing a drivers license because you MIGHT cause an accident, even though you have no record. Sorry, but that's a swing too far in the wrong direction, and Minority Report is not real.

What is not "vaguely relevant?" You know these cameras aren't an attempt by your noble government to increase your safety, or decrease accidents? Google commission paid to red light camera companies. Google Baltimore cameras giving tickets to people not violating the speed. The pictures, in places like San Diego, have been ruled inadmissible in court. My point again was that the govt, will use automated ticketing in any which fashion they please to make more money. Red lights are just the start. Spitting, sorry this is "vaguely relevant" and whacky, can spread communicable diseases, and could be argued one day that it is just as dangerous as someone running a red light. I could've argued to you 10years ago that the government would make it illegal to buy too much soda, and you would've said I have whacky ideas. Is it really that far-fetched to not believe what I am telling you?

Sorry Davew, but I'm all out of tin foil hats, so I do not believe what you say. You even justify your statements with some soda reference, which I'm sure where that comes from. I'm pretty sure I can buy however much soda I like down at Safeway, so yes, I would say that is a whacky idea. Again, I say that your expectations don't match up with reality. I hate to break it to you, but that doesn't mean that "reality" is wrong.

It is now apperant that your real poblem is a deep seeded fear of YOUR own government (FYI -assuming you're here, it's your government too), and that rational discussion of the subject will yeild no results. Besides that is off topic, I have no desire to discuss that with you, as I am not your therapist.

How many of them are caught by red-light cameras? Just askin'.

Frankly, I'd rather a criminal get away with a crime than law-abiding citizens give up their liberties to Big Brother.

There goes your fifth amendment.. Due process, the right to not incriminate yourself etc. awesome! I'm not doing anything wrong, so monitor me at all times :) until they decide you are doing something wrong, like voting for the wrong person, or saying the wrong thing, or not mourning quite enough for the loss of a leader. Have you heard of the fable of the frog in hot water? Stick him in there to cook him, and its already too hot, he jumps out. Put him in there, and slowly warm it up, he'll stay there til he's cooked.

And they've been shown to increase rear-end collisions because, like others have said, they decrease the yellow light (to make more money) and that guy in front of you realizes it last second, and slams on his brakes.

Davew you are not losing due process. You can have your day in court just like with any other ticket in Virginia. And how does it violate your rights against self incrimination? You are not required to say or admit to anything.

@Davew reston
Not only the Fifth amendment, but also the Sixth amendment! The right to confront and cross examine the accuser. If a Camera capturing a violation, who is the accuser? It can't be the police, because they didn't see anything. In fact, they don't even see the photographs until an employee of the camera company processes and reviews them first...so the police only sees what the camera company *WANTS* them to see!
Is the camera company the accuser? Well, they didn't see the violation either, only what the camera captured....So how about the camera? Is the camera the accuser? Good luck cross examining a camera!
So traffic cameras are a direct violation of our Sixth amendment rights pure and simple!

Dont you hate it when that pesky bill of rights gets in the way, where youre supposed to have the right to due process, and to not incriminate yourself. Lets automate it all so a camera is the judge and jury.

T, I guess you are also OK with Obama sending a drone to kill an American citizen who has been denied his right to a jury trial and to defend himself. You are part of the problem...

Davew, where in the bill of rights does it say you cannot be charged for a violation of the law that you committed in plain view in a public place? It is only a charge. You can admit blame, as with any charge, or you can contest it in court. And what does this have to do with self incrimination? You are not required to say anything or admit to anything.

I had to submit a NOTARIZED (i.e. $5) statement stating not only that I was not the driver, but who was. I also had to submit that person's DL number.

I do not expect privacy, but I expect to be able to confront an accuser, which one cannot do with a speed camera.

I would be surprised if a Virginia jurisdiction asked you to supply the driver's name since it is not required and there is no way they can send the driver a ticket under the law. If they are doing it, they are wrong.

So, basically you're saying that there are no punnishments to the violator, no consequences, no disincentivising to the driver for a traffic light camera violation? All you have to do is pay your money and all is forgiven?
So what you are saying is that traffic light cameras are nothing more than a money grab!
Huh! So if you have money, you can blow through all the red lights you want as long as you pay...well, what is it really....? It's not a fine, it's not a punnishement, no really punitive at all! You pay, you play! Sound like class warfare to me if you put it that way! Wealthy have more of the capability of running red lights with impunity than poor people....Hmmm, all this does is make me 1) want to be wealthy 2) hate the 1%ers even more!

Nein, he's telling you it happened; fine, call him a liar. That's exactly what ive been arguing with you; Yes you have due process according to the letter of the law, but you dont really, because not everyone can take time off of work, every time a camera says they are guilty of a crime, and put the burden of proof on them to argue their innocence, or requires them to submit affidavits, notarized statements, whatever. Ok, fine, there are no points; but would there not be if a cop witnessed you do it, pulled you over and wrote you a ticket? Again, it's a money making scam, and they make it a "nominal" offense so you don't take a half day off work to argue it, and just pay up. You can take a half day off work, argue it, lose anyway, and pay the fine too...

Jeez, Davew, you mean you ACTUALLY have to show up in court with evidence and stuff?!?!? You mean that you may actually have to defend yourself and refute their photographic evidence of you committing the offence?!? Why, how dare they! They should just take you on your word that (I'm sure) you didn't do it. And again, how is this any different than if an officer gave you a ticket? You would still have to produce evidence against the affidavit submitted by the officer. Are you expecting to discredit the officer with some Matlock-esque court drama? Because if you are, you have been watching way too much television.

Maria asked, "Can tailgating be enforced in anyway?"

I have actually asked this question of the Police, and the answer was less than satisfying, but quite understandable: there are nowhere near enough Police to adequately enforce laws against tailgating (aka "reckless driving," or "aggressive driving"). When you stop and imagine a typical scenario, let's say that a cop pulls over the tailgater. While he's going through the rigamarole (seeing license, registration, etc.), a hundred more tailgaters can zoom on by, and there is just nothing they can do. They DO have campaigns against aggressive driving where they go all-out over a period of two weeks or a month, concentrating resources in certain high-volume, high-risk areas, but they don't have anywhere near the manpower necessary to catch them all. It really is quite a dilemma. I'd be more in favor of the red-light cameras if they also showed the full situation, such as a car zooming through with another car very un-safely zooming right on through, much-too-closely, behind it. I'd then make sure the tailgater got the ticket.

Tailgating can be enforced as reckless driving.

Tailgaiting or following too closely is a traffic infraction, not a crime, and it is unlikely one would be charged or convicted for reckless driving even if they caused an accident. Also, it is not illegal to make a U-turn at an intersection, red light or not, unless there is a posted no U-turn sign. In fact, that is the only place it is legal to make a U-turn in cities and business districts.

Hi David,
Glad to see you are following this story and adding your thoughts here.

So David,
If I had a question to ask about my red light camera photo, who do I ask? The police, the company who makes the camera, the city council or perhaps the camera its self? Because the only thing to capture the incident at the time was a camera, and asking anybody else would be pointless...
I don't know about you, but I've asked many cameras questions and to this day, not a single one has answered back...Perhaps this is something we can put to Siri!

If a camera captures what it determines (using some secret algorithm) to be a red light violation, who is the accuser? Can I cross examine the programmer who wrote the code for the photo capture sequence? Can I cross examine the owner of the company who made and owns the camera? How about the employee, who in no way is duly appointed or deputized to make violation determinations. Can I cross examine him? Who do I cross examine in order to get a full *PICTURE* of the incident, before, during and after it occured? How are you, a member of the city council, protecting my Sixth amendment rights? (Look it up in Wikipedia if you need a refresher on what the Sixth amendment is)

Thanks for speaking up for the cameras. If we hired police officers to stop as many red-light runners and speeders as the cameras catch, it would be much, much more expensive.

In Virginia, there are strict standards for yellow light times based on speed limits and the people setting the timing for the lights don't benefit from the extra revenue so have no interest in shortening the cycles. Also, as David mentions above, accidents are monitored at these intersections and shortening the yellow time would increase the number of accidents defeating any argument for having the cameras.

@Nein Juan Juan

"In Virginia, there are strict standards for yellow light times based on speed limits"
Ha ha! your naivete is precious! You don't still believe in Santy-clause too, do you?
I can pull up *DOZENS* of articles where jurisdictions have indeed modified traffic light timing to benefit the maker of the camera...because they do indeed get a "cut" of the revenue generated from the tickets! In fact, just recently, there was a big stink about a local camera doing just that and all tickets it had generated had to be thrown out or refunded....Grow up!

BDZod, do you have any evidence that yellow lights are being shortened in Virginia? And, for that matter, are you willing to pay more in taxes to hire more cops to catch speeders and red-light runners? Cops are much more expensive than cameras.

Stoplights and traffic signals are "massive" safety hazards?
Stoplights by their very existence compel drivers to speed thru intersections?
LOL ! Remind me NOT to hire you as my lawyer next time I go to traffic court!

Roundabouts are a great idea for intersections between two-lane roads and other two-lane roads--I wish we would use them instead of four-way stops.

That's real smart. Instead of paying the fine (or signing the statement stating you weren't driving) wait for a summons so you can go spend half a day in court to do the same thing. Or do what I do, stop when the light is red.

What? Not another legal eagle weighing in the constitutionality of traffic signals and cameras?! Let's see how far these arguments will get you in Arlington County and D.C., shall we? I loathe those cams as much as anyone does, even tho I have never been captured on video transgressing. But Big Brother is here, and he wants to monetize your driving offenses to the max, just as law enforcement seeks to surveille you with drone cameras and Google ( and others) seek to appropriate your personal information and images of residence for google maps, etc.

In Virginia the people reviewing the images are required to be law enforcement (15.2-968.1).

The accuser in this case is the local prosecuter. And "accuser" and "witness" are not the same thing. You can go to court and "confront" him as much as you like. Sooo... not so much a violation.

No, it's to move to the right, where slower-moving traffic should be. But this is getting a little off topic...