Red light camera

[jcgriff2]

​

In the midst of a round trip road-trip to Philadelphia Saturday night in my continued effort to help keep "Paige Alerts" at a minimum left me wondering whether or not I was photographed for Cherry Hill, NJ's sole red light ticket camera at Rt. 70 & Springdale Rd & if I was -- does it matter?

I was driving West on NJ Rt 70; stopped at the light when the strobe lights went off. I said "$%^&* - I think I just got a red light ticket". Paige immediately said "NO - you stopped; it wasn't you". She could be right, I thought, as I looked out over the 12 lanes of traffic approaching the intersection. IDK and ATM am unable to yet obtain further info from NJ DMV or Cherry Hill. The image of my front bumper allegedly being 2-3" over the white-line at a Palm Desert, CA, intersection along with the $476 fine incurred in 2009 is still & likely will be forever etched in my brain.

After looking at a few articles this morning, I am now more uncertain as to the question "If I did. . . does it matter?" and wondering what kind of legal quagmire I have stepped into now.

Red light camera company agrees to $4 million settlement​

Read More:

Posted on February 17, 2013 by Bob Ingle

You won’t be hearing much about this from the mayors, police chiefs and others who defend red light cameras. The Courier-Post reports a red-light camera operator has agreed to pay up to $4.2 million to settle a class-action suit brought by motorists in 18 New Jersey towns. The cameras’ operator, American Traffic Solutions of Scottsdale, Ariz., would pay for the partial refunds. The municipalities are not contributing to the settlement. (The settlement does not cover red-light camera tickets issued in Cherry Hill and Stratford, which are the subject of a separate lawsuit. Red-light cameras in Cherry Hill are operated by Redflex Traffic Systems of Phoenix.) ATS admits no liability under the proposed settlement, but says it is offering the payment in order to avoid “protracted and expensive litigation.”

The state Department of Transportation in June told 21 towns to stop writing tickets based on red-light cameras due to a concern over the timing of yellow lights. The DOT lifted that suspension in July, clearing the way for thousands of motorists to receive delayed summonses. The class-action lawsuit alleged the cameras had been operated illegally since the program began in December 2009, because townships failed to conduct required inspections. ATS had no role in timing the traffic lights, but only operated the camera system.

All the time this was going on, motorists were assured everything was operating as it should. An Assembly committee was hearing proposed changes to the red light camera experiment last week but nothing happened because so many people with their hands out for your money showed up to object. They say it is about safety but it is about milking motorists for as much money as they can get. Any mayor or cop chief who says they are about safety is lying trough their teeth. And if you believe this is really an experiment they don’t the outcome of, you’re new to New Jersey. You keep electing these clowns, they keep demonstrating why you shouldn’t.

This should become a part of the governor’s race.

http://blogs.app.com/politicspatrol...amera-company-agrees-to-4-million-settlement/

NJ Red Light cameras - 6/30/2012 - http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/seeing_red_cherry_hill_faces_f.html
Cherry Hill, NJ, Red Light camera - http://www.cherryhill-nj.com/faq.aspx?TID=20

Ticket price = $85 if guilty plea entered + -0- (zero) points on driver's license.

I honestly do not know if I was the one in focus or not at that intersection on Saturday night. I do wonder why the camera is active given the pending lawsuit for that particular camera, not to mention the recent $4.2 MM settlement by the other vendor.

Could it be the ~$1 million revenue/11 months..?

"The primary focus of the red light program has been ensuring not only the safety of our residents, but all pedestrians and motorists traveling through the township," the statement read.

In the 11 months between May 26, 2011, and April 30, 2012, 17,529 red light violations had been issued at the intersection of Route 70 and Springdale Road, township officials said.

Cherry Hill received $934,634, while the state got $170,936 and camera vendor Redflex Traffic Systems of Arizona was paid $157,870, officials said, opening a window into the financial breakdown of how fees are disbursed.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/seeing_red_cherry_hill_faces_f.html
​

Sentence #1 is the usual response from towns and cities across the Nation. :r1:

 

[Wrench97]

The first law suit settled costing the cities/towns/townships nothing as 0$ so why wouldn't they still be operational the town has nothing to lose and $$ to gain.

I do disagree with the article on one point however there are some safety benefits, I know I as well as most if not all our drivers pay closer attention to the lights we know have cameras knowing you're going to see the ticket in the mail..................

On a side note I received one of those letters in the mail a couple of years ago to which the wife was happy to inform me about right up until the part that had a picture of her driving the car then all of a sudden it wasn't fair :lol:

 

[bassfisher6522]

On a side note I received one of those letters in the mail a couple of years ago to which the wife was happy to inform me about right up until the part that had a picture of her driving the car then all of a sudden it wasn't fair :lol:

Now that's priceless and a Kodak moment, if every I heard one. It's funny how the blame game instantly stops when the wife's are confronted with hard physical evidence to the contrary. But then again...we end up paying for it one way or another...well I always end up paying for it in my house...LMAO

 

[jcgriff2]

On a side note I received one of those letters in the mail a couple of years ago to which the wife was happy to inform me about right up until the part that had a picture of her driving the car then all of a sudden it wasn't fair :lol:

Priceless.

 

[Temmu]

the catch is, a driver gets the ticket, not a car. cars don't speed or run red lights, people do.

had a friend successfully argue that in court. "someone" was driving his car, but not him. judge had to throw the ticket out.
further, judge demanded to know ~who~ was driving the car. friend said he wasn't legally obliged to provide the court evidence.
(it was his son driving...)

 

[jcgriff2]

You haven't been in my car yet! :)

 

[Wrench97]

You'll like this one JC > Judge: Town's speeding cameras are '3 Card Monty' scam

 

[jcgriff2]

Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman on Thursday ruled that the village's ordinance violated due process. He issued an injunction barring its enforcement.

That is one brave county court judge!

I'm sure we'll see this kicked up to the appellate court.