Toll Evasion Violation - WHAT THE HECK?

This is your lucky day. My wife handles the appeals for theState for people who claimed to have been wrongly penalized for running tollbooths. Here are somethings to understand about the system.

1. ALLtoll booths have cameras here in the US and they’re set up to capture platenumbers only and state only. They may capture the fact you have a specialplate, or not. They almost never capture special colors or shades. If you havea special plate that has special symbols (like MD, etc) and it is blocked byyour license plate holder it doesn’t know the difference.
   
   
   
2. Sohow does all that affect you? Well when Joe Schmuck runs a toll and his plateis 1234 “Breast Cancer” plate, the machine captures 1234 only. The computerthen refers to their data base and captures the first 1234 in the data base.That is usually the traditional no frills plate. In some States there can be 20different plates with 1234. It automatically bills that dude. If Schmuck runsthe toll in another State that offended State contacts a representative in theappropriate State. That rep manually scans all the plates with those numbersand starts calling to find the culprit. Usually the dude admits it butsometimes they don’t. If the rep can’t figure it out they contact the offendedState and that State follows its procedure for this type of action.
   
   
   
3. Whatdo you do if you’re still accused? If it occurs in another State contact yourDMV and ask for assistance. If it occurs in another State appeal the decision.DON’T ignore it. Your driver license will be suspended and eventually you’llhave a warrant issued against you. When you’re finally stopped for a minorviolation you’ll be booked for driving without a license, etc.
   

SupraSabre said:

Yeah, our Red Light cameras disappeared for the same reason!

Click to expand...

OhioDeere said:

Here in Ohio if you contest an electronic citation they will drop it. Most of the time. Because they have to prove eyewitness to the event. They can harass you all they want but in the end you don't have to pay. Been there.

Click to expand...

There was a court case in Cleveland that ended up in the Ohio Supreme Court. Since not a lot of cameras will speak up in trial, the accused cannot confront his accuser and therefore cameras are deemed unconstitutional. I suspect that ruling has been felt in other states and is a contributing reason for some of them to have gone away. No doubt greedier states still use them, as well as states where the powers that be still feel that absent a court ruling in their state they can do as they please.

crossbowme said:

... When you're finally stopped for a minorviolation you'll be booked for driving without a license, etc.

Click to expand...

Oh, good, I have nothing to worry about then.... I haven't been stopped in over 40 years!

ST Gui said:

..........But most if not all of these cameras are leased from and controlled by vendors outside of the departments.............

Click to expand...

Yes, the deal in this neck of the woods with red light cameras is the vendor fronts the cost of the equipment and all of the ongoing operating costs. The municipality gets a cut of the ticket revenue. There are no demerit points as the identity of the driver is not known. There is an obvious conflict of interest with the vendor, bill now, collect revenue now and sort out problems later, if ever.

All intersections are clearly marked "Red Light Camera" and stats seems to indicate a reduced number of T bone accidents so there is some value to these cameras.

Our town doesn't use redlight cameras, however, every city operated light has a 1-3 second delay from the time one light turns red until the other traffic light goes green.

ReSTored said:

All intersections are clearly marked "Red Light Camera" and stats seems to indicate a reduced number of T bone accidents so there is some value to these cameras.

Click to expand...

My recollection of the intersections around here where they tried cameras is that although there are fewer serious accidents, the overall accident rate went UP. There are fewer T-bone accidents from red-light runners, but more rear-enders as people jam on their brakes to avoid the red-light camera.

ST_Jim said:

.....fewer T-bone accidents from red-light runners, but more rear-enders ....

Click to expand...

The former is one of the objectives of the red light camera. These are usually or more likely to be serious crashes, someone seriously injured, requiring a short or long term hospital visit and rehabilitation, or worse a death. If this type of crash can be avoided - good.

The latter are usually only minor injury crashes, or better still result in no injury. In Australia, this (apart from no crash at all) is the preferred outcome.

NB. In AUS, we also prefer the term "crash" over "accident".

ReSTored said:

Yes, the deal in this neck of the woods with red light cameras is the vendor fronts the cost of the equipment and all of the ongoing operating costs.

Click to expand...

Around here the city was on the hook for some of the expense and the selling point was that as revenue from violators exceeded a tipping point the city and state got money. In theory as the violations dropped below that point the cameras would no longer be cost effective. Otherwise there'd be no point in removing them as long as the installation and operation were meet applicable standards.

Williamson said:

The former is one of the objectives of the red light camera. These are usually or more likely to be serious crashes, someone seriously injured, requiring a short or long term hospital visit and rehabilitation, or worse a death. If this type of crash can be avoided - good.

The latter are usually only minor injury crashes, or better still result in no injury. In Australia, this (apart from no crash at all) is the preferred outcome.

NB. In AUS, we also prefer the term "crash" over "accident".

Click to expand...

This point is all too often overlooked in the argument against red light cameras. Rear end collisions (the local term) often do increase for a time but they usually subside. And if a collision is to occur then as you pointed out— better a rear-ender than a T-bone.

But every city's traffic engineers should have checked every installation to see that they conformed with state and federal traffic standards. Most often it was the vendor who shortened the times to increase the revenue.

I got a special notice from NJ as well. The problem with their story was the car, license plate and myself were in Germany for about a year preceding and still well after the date of the ticket. At the time I never have been to NJ. That took a letter from a General and my Congressman to get resolved.

In Illinois they changed the law, it was only a fine and the video is reviewed by a panel with strict limitations. If you were the owner of the car you were responsible. Rental companies have a document that you sign stating that you are responsible for any red light ticket received while you are in possession of the car. They will put it on your credit card before notifying you. In Illinois they can now fine you for stopping over the white line at an intersection with cameras. It's the opposite of Robin Hood, steel from the poor and give to the rich!!!

ReSTored said:

Yes, the deal in this neck of the woods with red light cameras is the vendor fronts the cost of the equipment and all of the ongoing operating costs. The municipality gets a cut of the ticket revenue. There are no demerit points as the identity of the driver is not known. There is an obvious conflict of interest with the vendor, bill now, collect revenue now and sort out problems later, if ever.

All intersections are clearly marked "Red Light Camera" and stats seems to indicate a reduced number of T bone accidents so there is some value to these cameras.

Click to expand...

A Federal Highway Administration study that looked at crash data from CA MD and NC, found wide ranging decreases in T-Bones from + 0.8% to - 40% and in all areas an increase in rear ends ranging from +7% to +38% Aggregate there was a decrease of 379 t-bones and an increase of 375 rear end collisions.

st1300r said:

.............. Aggregate there was a decrease of 379 t-bones and an increase of 375 rear end collisions................

Click to expand...

Well, my preference is that there would zero accidents, ( or collisions, crashes, unfortunate incidents, ....) but if I had to choose I guess fewer serious T-bones and more fender bender type rear endings is better.