San Francisco Red Light Camera Tickets
UPDATE 10/19/2005: 9 months after the ticket, I got the appeal decision in the mail. I won!
Like many cities in California, San Francisco has been using Automated Enforcement Systems (a.k.a. “Red Light Cameras”) at many of its intersections for several years now. Although the stated purpose is (of course) for safety, the real reason is revenue. If you are the unlucky recipient of one of the citations in the mail (as yours truly recently was) then this website is for you. It explains your options and relates my experience with the San Francisco court system.
Your choices:
- The picture isn’t of you. The registered owner is who gets sent the ticket. If the picture is not of you, sign the attached affidavit saying that the picture isn’t of you. Don’t lie — you’re saying under the penalty of purjury that it’s not you in the ticket. DO NOT, however, TELL THEM WHO IS IN THE PICTURE. It’s their job to figure that out, not yours. Don’t rat out your friends and family.
- Pay it. If $371 is worth less to you than a lost morning in court, then just pay the ticket and move on. You may or may not want to do traffic school to keep the points from appearing on your license. While I’ve never done it myself, I hear the on-line version of traffic school is fairly painless.
- Trial + Traffic school. This is probably the best option for most people. Go to the clerk. Post bail (the amount of your ticket) and plead not-guilty. Get a time for trial. SHOW UP ON TIME. When the court session starts, the clerk will allow you to have your fine reduced to only $50 if you take traffic school (with a $30 fee). For a total of $80, you’re done and the points are not added to your license. NOTE: If you’ve already done traffic school in the past 18 months, you’re not eligible to do it again. Sorry.
- Plead not-guilty. Lots of options here. You can skip the arraignment and demand your right to a speedy trial (within 45 days) by going to the clerk and posting the $371 bond. Sometimes, due to the short notice, the officer isn’t properly subpoenaed and won’t know that he/she needs to testify against you (this happened in my case). If the officer doesn’t appear to testify, your case is dismissed. Or, the officer could already be in court to testify against other people and will realize that she needs to testify against you too, and will testify anyway (yep, this happened to me).Or, you can go to your arraignment and plead not-guilty there. This gives you the chance to make pre-trial motions. This makes the process very drawn-out — expect your trial date to be many months in the future.
Pleading not-guilty
NOTE WELL: This takes a lot of time and will really try your patience. DO NOT EXPECT TO WIN. In fact, you should expect to lose. Sorry, but the trial court for traffic and other infractions in San Francisco assumes GUILT. Moreover, the red light camera systems are considered infallible and therefore beyond reproach. AGAIN, YOU WILL LOSE.
Don’t waste your time
- People often say that with traffic cases you should plead not-guilty and take your chances that the officer won’t show up. (If the officer doesn’t show up, your case is immediately dismissed.) I would agree with this strategy for all non-red light camera tickets. However, from what I can tell, the officers assisting with the red light camera prosecutions do not have normal police “beats”, and instead have a desk job, probably in the same building. This means they have a high liklihood of showing up.
- If you are planning to contend that you don’t run red lights, you are a safe driver, and you’ve never done it before, do not waste your time. (Most murderers haven’t murdered anyone before, either.) You will be found GUILTY. Your fine will be lowered to $300, but they won’t grant you traffic school. You are better off taking the $80 buy-off deal mentioned above.
- If you are planning to contend that the light was really yellow and the camera was wrong or broken, DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. You will be found GUILTY. I promise. Don’t forget the the cameras are considered infallible by the trial court judge. Even if it was broken!
Argue the law
While the cameras themselves might be considered infallible, the city has errored in the way they are set up and operated. You should expect to LOSE at trial even if you object to the evidence on these grounds. HOWEVER, these MAY help you get your ticket overturned in appeal. That’s right, if you want any chance of winning, you will have to APPEAL. This takes a lot of time and energy. If you’re fed up and willing to put in the time it takes to appeal, then go ahead and plead not-guilty. Otherwise, don’t waste your time and take the $80 buy-out deal.
What to do:
- Buy the book Fight Your Ticket in California from Nolo Press. Make sure you get thee one specifically for California.
- Go to the Hall of Justice (850 Bryant St.) with a copy of your citation many weeks before your trial. Parking hint: You can park on 6th street after 9am. so show up at 8:59 and you’ll have all the free parking you want. Otherwise you might have to pay the garages that charge $6 for the first 1/2 hour. Go to the 5th floor, turn right at the hallway, and go to the end. This is the Police Legal department. Tell the friendly officers (really, they have always been very friendly in this office) that you want to fill out an “Informal discovery request”. They will give you a short form. Fill it out, and the City’s “Photo prosecution packet” will be sent to you. This is exactly what they will present at trial, which is always a good thing to have beforehand.
Issues:
(For a good overview of many of these issues, read Highwayrobbery.net).
- The city has not property issued warning tickets as required by 21455.5. CVC (California vehicle code) 21455.5 allows cities to put up Automated Enforcement Systems if they follow the guidelines set forth in the statue. One of the statutes is that “Prior to issuing citations under this section, a local jurisdiction utilizing an automated traffic enforcement system shall commence a program to issue only warning notices for 30 days.” While most cities (I believe San Francisco is included) took this to mean warning tickets only needed to be issued 30 days before the first camera in a city, a recent court ruling in Southern California mandated that EACH camera is succeptible to the 30-day rule. At trial, I suggest asking the prosecution’s witness (the officer) if they issued only warning tickets for the first 30 days of YOUR camera’s operation.
- CVC 21455.5 also has very strict requirement with respect to intersection signage. 21455.5(a) basically says the city has to label an AES-enabled intersection from all sides. There is one exception: if they choose not to label the intersection from all sides, then it can “posts signs at all major entrances to the city, including, at a minimum, freeways, bridges, and state highway routes.” Note that San Francisco DOES NOT post the required signs on major city entrances like bridges, freeways, and state highway routes. Instead, they choose to label major freeway exits. This is not compliant with the letter or the spirit of the law. While some AES-enforced intersections ARE labeled with signage in all direction, many are completely un-labeled meaning the city is falling back on the fact that they think they’ve labeled the “freeways, bridges, and state highway routes”. If you bring this up at trial (as I did) expect to LOSE. By bringing it up at trial, though, you can use it in your appeal.
- Interesting pre-trial motions. Present them at your arraignment. They probably won’t work, but might be useful ammunition during your appeal.
- Try to subpoena the camera’s “source code”. The camera is more than a camera. It’s a computer. You have the right to question your accuser in court. Your accuser is this computer. You should have the right to know exactly how it is programmed. If this motion is granted, you will probably never see the “source code” (it’s a trade secret) and therefore I would expect the prosecution to drop the charges. It’s worth a shot. It will probably help your case if you know how (ie have the credentials) to interpet any “source code” that you might receive.
- The camera is disallowed under California’s “Speed trap” laws. This is a very interesting one, and will take further research. CVC 40801 forbids speed traps in California. “What does this have to do with Red Light Cameras?” you might ask. Well, let me tell you. CVC 40801 says “No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person for any alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be used in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution under this code.” CVS 40802 says “A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.” What does this mean to you? Well, the Red Light Computer decided to take a picture of you because you were headed for the intersection at a rate of speed high enough to assume that you were going to go past the ’stop line’. It knew this because there are coils of wire in the pavement in each lane that are a set distance apart. It calculated your speed by securing the time it takes your vehicle to travel the known distance. Sound familiar? CVC 40801 now says they can’t use this evidence to prosecute you. But they did anyway, and now you have grounds to fight it. I didn’t try this angle, but I have a feeling you’ll LOSE if you do. But I want to hear about how it went, so write to me.
I’d love to hear from you. Write to me at aren /at/ thesandersens dotcom with your experiences.
August 31st, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Hi,
I just received my citation in the mail, it is four years after this was first published so tickets are up to $436. I had a question. I plan on going to court to go through with the “Trial+Traffic School method”. What if I AM guilty can I still plead not guilty and just expect to get the fine lowered. If I go to court and they ask me why I pleaded not guilty what to you say? I’m not sure this will work. I’m wondering if you could provide me with any details. The second bullet of “Don’t waste you time” seems to contradict “Trial + Traffic School”.
Thanks for any feed back and thanks for posting this blog its the only thing I’ve been able to find on the subject.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:50 pm
At the very beginning of the trial session I was at, they offered the lower fine and traffic school if you didn’t pursue the case.
September 27th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
I was visiting San Fran from Ohio for the first time and had a rental vehicle for five days. I had just got the car from the Airport and was headed to the hotel when I took a wrong turn in downtown San Fran. In my attempt to get to the hotel I remember going through a yellow light which switched to red as I went through and a “flash” of light appeared. A month after my return home I received a “affidavit processing fee” from Hertz via ATS Processing Services asking for $30.00, I’ve mailed the check and awaiting the “Red Light Violation”. However, I had been told that as long as I was already past the “white line/cross walk” that this should have precludes any violation. Please give me your thoughts. Thank you for your time, Rob
September 27th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
In theory, the cameras will not take a photo unless you crossed the “white line” too late. The photos will probably show that you didn’t make it in time. Hertz is already in receipt of the citation and I would expect you to get your copy soon.
There are some very interesting ways to fight it but none of them are useful if you’re in Ohio. You might just have to pay this one. Let me know what the citation shows when it arrives.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Hi, I recently got a red light ticket and was considering the signage argument from VC 21455.5 that you mentioned above. However, I noticed that you said that you lost at trial with that argument. But I also noticed that you won your appeal, so I curious if you won using that same argument or a different one. You help is appreciated!
October 7th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Matt: I won at appeal due to a technicality. The lower court didn’t submit the paperwork properly, and the appeals court threw out the case instead of trying it on its merits (or lack thereof).
October 8th, 2009 at 1:40 am
Do you know ahy thing about the 15 day requirement as per CVC 40518? My ticket was mailed after the ‘Respond to the court by date.’ In fact, it was mailed 30 days after the violation date. Any input?
October 8th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Keith –
I have lots of info on that. I fought a ticket on those grounds which was ultimately dismissed for other reasons. I’ll send you some info.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Hi – I recently got a red light ticket, however, the picture on the ticket as well as the picture online is extremely blurry. When I went to the court on my due date I told them that I would like a trial. At the court, the clerk asked me if I was driving the car and I told him that this was my car but that I cannot tell in the picture if that is me or not.
Are there other, better pictures that the police have at their disposal? How should I address this in court?
October 15th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Hey i received a rolling right ticket. I had no clue this was illegal, i always thought you had to yield, i just follow what i see other drivers do. Anyhow i was wondering if i could fight this because the law states that you have 15 days to mail the ticket certified mail. Well it took 16 days and there was no certified mail, i didnt sign for anything and there was no proof of delivery. Can i fight this, can you email me please?
October 17th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Hi, thanks for running this blog! I just got a red light ticket but since I changed my address I think I’ve only received one of the Citation reminders. Is there a way to look at the picture(s)/video online? Or do I have to go to court to get that information?
Thanks,
Daniel
October 19th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
I was in SF recently and in the right turn lane and realized that I saw a red light camera flashed infront of me. But I did not make a right turn and I was just happened to cross the white line about half car length. I did not make that right turn until the light turned green. It’s been a week and I have no receive anything yet in the mail because I had a rental car. I am not so sure if i violated the law and I was just crossed the white line just a little bit. Any thought? Thanks a bunch!
October 20th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Oleg: The police have better pictures. You can call the Red Light Enforcement division of the Police Department and ask to see them.
Anthony: I don’t recommend fighting your ticket.
Daniel: Call the courthouse clerk and ask them for the case #. Then call the Red Light Enforcement division and ask to see the photos. It might be too late, though. If you failed to appear at court, then you are guilty and have additional fines to pay.
Jason: Technically you ran the stop light. 1/2 car length is a lot. The camera takes two pictures within 1 second. You have a good chance of being forgiven if the second picture shows that you stayed on your side of the intersection. The tickets take up to 3 weeks to arrive, but will be further delayed because it was a rental car. If you haven’t heard anything in 2 months, you’re probably off of the hook.
October 20th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Thanks for the info Aren! It wasn’t that far off 1/2 car length. I think it was enough to trigger the line on the ground, so I think my front tires just stepped over it. How did you know the info about the camera takes two pictures within 1 second? And also I have chance to be forgiven? Do you think there’s also video camera recorded? I hope I won’t get it, it was just an accident that I just stepped over a line. Really appreciate your input!
October 24th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
HI Aren thanks for your help to people like me. Today I was in S.F and light was green.I was behind one car that was making left turn and I changed my line to right to pass that car and light suddenly changed to yellow when I was in the middle of intersection and camera took my photo when i was almost done crossing. What can you tell about it? What should I do? Thank you very much again.
October 26th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Jason: as far as I know, SF does not use video-enabled cameras. Wait 2 weeks. If you get nothing in the mail, then you’re off the hook
AlexM: from your description, it sounds like the cameras were taking pictures of someone behind you. The cameras only monitor the ’stop’ line. If you enter the intersection on a green or yellow light, the cameras won’t be interested in photographing you since there’s nothing illegal about that. Unless, of course, you get a citation in the mail in 3 weeks.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:30 pm
I received a right on red ticket. It was 2:46 in the morning and I was tired. Would the judge understand that and possibly let me off the hook?
You say that there is an option for traffic school (for which I am eligible) and I only have to pay an $80 fee…is that still the case?
Just looking for advice! Thanks!
November 1st, 2009 at 11:02 pm
The judge definitely will not dismiss the ticket for that reason. You will get a slight reduction in fine amount for showing up in court, though.
I haven’t heard if the $80 option is still being offered.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Aren -
thanks for keeping this site running and up-to-date. Lots of good info.
With regard to a San Francisco red light camera ticket:
On your reply of August 29, 2009, you indicate: “At the very beginning of the trial session I was at, they offered the lower fine and traffic school if you didn’t pursue the case.” I assume this relates to an earlier year (2005?).
Has anyone recently (late 2009) tried the “Trial & Traffic School” option with the court clerk on the trial date offering a reduced fine at the start of the court session? Does this still work? What was the “reduced” fine? (Currently fine is at $446 for a VC21453A citation).
Thanks!
November 9th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Has anyone else recently tried the “Trial & Traffic School” method?
Results?
November 12th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
I too just received a red light camera ticket – at Park Presidio and Lake coming out of the tunnel. i understand this is a very popular place for tickets. They got me at .3 seconds. I literally had no time to safely stop between the time the yellow light was actually visible and when it turned red.
Like the above poster, I’d like to get the $446 citation reduced. Do I contest the ticket via mail, then show up for the court date and hope they will offer a reduced fee? I’ll be happy to do online traffic school too. I live in Monterey, and don’t mind showing up once if it means getting $300 knocked off the violation.
November 13th, 2009 at 5:42 am
for some 2009 info on SF traffic court procedures, go to http://www.yelp.com/biz/traffic-court-san-francisco
There is a 3/2/09 post by Alan L that is fairly thorough in describing the traffic court process.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Hi Aren,
I was visiting SF and driving a Budget rental car on Sat Oct 17 in bumper-to-bumper traffic near Baker Beach. Normally I wouldn’t enter an intersection when there isn’t room to cross completely. However, in this case it was a very short T-shaped intersection and I was going with the flow of traffic when it came to a stop while I was inside the intersection. The light changed to red while I was in the intersection and I saw the camera flash.
Today I received a $25 Affidavit Processing Fee in the mail from ATS for Budget with a date of Nov 9. I haven’t gotten any sort of violation notice from SF, but I’m assuming that a processing fee means that a ticket has been issued. Is that a correct assumption? If I do get a ticket and fine assessment, I’m not going to fly back to CA to appear in court, but is there any possibility of getting the fine reduced, like attending online traffic school?
Thanks!
Cathy
November 17th, 2009 at 11:15 am
@Cap: Haven’t heard from anyone who has tried the “Trial & Traffic School” method lately.
@Mike: contact the courthouse clerk. Ask how to plead not-guilty via mail (and thereby forgo the arraignment), then show up for trial. They’ll probably make the best Trial + Traffic school offer immediatley before the session starts.
@Cathy: sounds very suspect. The camera’s aren’t designed to trigger in “stuck in the intersection” cases. Wait until you get the citation (assuming you ever do) and if it’s clear you were merely stuck in the intersection then you should do a trial by mail (trial by written declaration). You can’t attend online traffic school unless you’re a CA resident… and it doesn’t give you a discount anyway (it just keeps the points off of your license).
December 6th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
i got a flash this am, i was at 19th ave and sloat, i was rolling as the light was turning from red to green, nver actually going into the intersection, probably rolled to the cross walk, any thoughts whether i will get a ticket
i dont think i entered the intersection but the camera flashed twice
any thoughts?
December 6th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
I doubt you’ll get a ticket from what you described.
December 6th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Aren,
You seem to be the most knowledgeble on the whole red light camra, on the 26th of november I was making a right hand turn when the light was red, there are no postings of signs that say “no turn on red” anywhere at the intersection. When I turned I did slow down but the camera went off and on the 5th of december I got the ticket in the mail. First of all is it pointless to fight. Second does anyone know what the cost is for the violation. It happend in Stockton, CA the vehicle code is VC21453(a) description : failure to stop at Red Light. Let me know when you get a chance and anyone else for that matter that knows anything . Thank you.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Hi, I was at 19th Ave and Sloat on Thanksgiving night (Nov 26). I rolled into the intersection and stopped due to traffic back up. The light was yellow when I went into the intersection (so I honestly think). But when I was half inside and looked again it was suddenly red. There was a series of blinding white light at that moment. Probably 3-5 flashes, one of which hit me close when I was close to getting out of the intersection. I only realized several minutes later that that must have been a red light camera. I first thought it was a beamer from a construction site, since it was so blindingly bright. There was no car behind me in the intersection waiting to get out, but there are three lanes in one direction, there could have been cars in the other lanes behind me which I don’t remember. Anyway, I hope I won’t get a ticket. Wouldn’t I have noticed the first flash right upon entering the intersection? Which I didn’t notice anything then? How long does it take to get at ticket by mail to the North Bay Area and how long do I have time to respond? I will be out of the country on vacation from Dec 16-Jan2 with my whole family. Nobody will have access to our PO Box. The car is even in my husband’s name, so he would get the ticket in his name. Hopefully not. Thanks so much for your help.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
@Arielle — Doesn’t sound like the camera’s flashes were for you. A ticket will arrive within 15-20 days. Don’t worry about it, and if there’s one waiting for you when you get back… then we can figure out what to do.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Hi!
Great site!. Just got a red-light camera ticket. Making a right turn. Looked at the video and I do stop for a half sec. before turning.
I want to fight! I want to post bail and request a speedy trial. Just got my notice almost a month later. Do you think the speedy trial thing would work in my case? Looks like you did something similar… This is in socal
December 14th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
So I saw the light….got the citation in the mail…
However my situation is a little different. The picture is sort of blurry, and it was in a company vehicle. The citation went to the corporate office, who then forwarded it to me. My name is not listed on the citation, but the company’s. Our vehicle leasing department sent the citation to my address, and now what?
As others have asked, is the $80 option for traffic school + trial still available? $446 does not sound good to me…from San Fran’s court website, it doesn’t mention the option, though I doubt they would…any updates would be great!
December 14th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
@Jake: Tickets issued in company names are much easier to get dismissed. Email the editor of highwayrobbery.net for his informational document on the subject.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Aren,
My citation was for going Northbound on Park Presidio where I made a right turn onto Lake St.
I stopped briefly then proceeded to make my right turn. Again, there were no signs posted anywhere that there is no right turn on RED.
The photos show me stopping at 2.0secs in first photo. Then I was half into my turn at 4.1. Technically my car can reach up to 17mph in 1.x secs. Does this sound unreasonable to accuse me of a violation on those grounds?
December 15th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
@Sam: The camera read-out (assuming it’s a gatso camera) will tell you how fast you were going when you crossed the stop line. What does it say?
December 17th, 2009 at 11:49 am
I received a red light violation from an incident November 11 2009 in which it was not my Camry car and I was not the driver. The plate number in the photograph is from old plates turned in from my wife’s Toyata Avalon for personalized license plates in April 20, 2007. The Red Light Camera Clerk did not read down the DMV history profile correctly to ascertain these facts. I have stood in line twice at the Bryant Street San Francisco Traffic Division but no dismisal has been accomplished; instead I found out this morning the commissioner has to review the case and the date for that is Jan 4th, 2010.
Has mistaken identity happened before in your experience?
December 17th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
@Aren: There was a total of 4 photos.
1st – me behind the crosswalk with 2 other cars to my left the same
2nd – shows me halfway into the turn(speed shows 17mph)
3rd – license plate
4th – a blurry pic of my face
December 17th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
The second photo which shows the speed and me halfway into my turn. It shows 17mph.
December 17th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
@Arens: Furthermore… I can say my situation is also a “It’s not me” ticket. Any advice?
December 18th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Hi Aren,
I reside in So. California. I received a Redflex Red-Light Camera Ticket, making a left hand turn. The first photo registered a RED time of 0.08 while the second photo registered a RED time of 1.48 and Elapsed time of 1.39.
Are you aware of the full brightness or steady light defense mentioned on HighwayRobbery site. Any experience or thoughts on this. My late time of 8/100th of a second would adhere to their claim that my red light was not steady or in full illumination due to it takes at least one full second for the LCD to reach full brightness (steady) upon being triggered.
Thanks.
December 19th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
@Sam: sounds like a tough case. According to the camera equipement you crossed the stop line at 17 miles per hour. The judge won’t believe that you stopped. And as for your “it’s not me” defense — what do you mean? You said above that the photos were of you.
@Adam: I am familiar with that defense. I like the concept and it’s definitely worth a shot given how short your red light time was.
December 19th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Aren,
Thanks. One more question. Since my ticket is a photo red light ticket are you aware of a defendant’s rights in regards to subpoenas. Our town’s chief of police is the designated “Police Project Manager” in the city’s contract with Redflex. Since I can’t question a camara, I want to subpoena everyone involved with the Photo-Enforcement Project, from the police chief down to the Redflex personel involved in the evidence and processing of my ticket.
December 26th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
hi aren,
well, my ticket just came in the mail.
i remember the moment very clearly: i was heading westbound on harrison street about an hour before sundown — the angle of the sun at that hour put the traffic signal in TOTAL silhouette (it appeared black), plus the effect on my eyes was blinding. both of these factors made it impossible to discern the light color change.
the 1st photo — taken after the red light was on for .04 secs, if i’m reading the data correctly — shows me stopped before the 1st line of the crosswalk (meaning, not in the intersection), waiting for the stopped traffic in front of me to start moving again. you can see the stopped traffic on the other side of the intersection.
not sure if the photo link will work for you:
http://public.cite-web.com/ShowImage.asp?vFile=/PSSSQL_San/Sanfrancisco/Images/dep_136893/L2144E1D12172009154617I179121.JPG%20&vImageLable=Photo%20One%20%28Vehicle%20on%20the%20loops%29&vCitNum=za0258663
as soon as traffic in front of me started to move, i started to drive forward, unable to discern the traffic light color change because of the angle of the sun, & that’s when the photo was taken.
the 2nd photo shows me about 3/4 of the way through the intersection, with the front of my car about 1 foot from the crosswalk line:
http://public.cite-web.com/ShowImage.asp?vFile=/PSSSQL_San/Sanfrancisco/Images/dep_136893/L2144E1D12172009154617I179132.JPG%20&vImageLable=Photo%20Two%20%28Vehicle%20in%20the%20intersection%29&vCitNum=za0258663
my questions:
1) do you feel that my ‘angle of sun’ argument would hold water?
2) do you think a photo of the silhouetted traffic light would help? of course, it won’t be able to capture the blinding effect on my eyes, but i’m hoping it may capture the blackened, silhouetted traffic light. i was planning on going there around the same time of day to see if i could capture if on camera. unfortunately, the angle will have to be a little different since i’ll have to take it from the sidewalk.
3) why was the camera even activated (pic #1) since i’d not even crossed the 1st (outside) line into the crosswalk? it’s my understanding that the camera is only activated once you’ve crossed the 2nd line into the intersection.
ok. hoping you can shed some light on this.
thanx,
michele
December 27th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
@Michele –
1) As difficult as it is to see a stoplight when the sun is behind it, it is almost certain a judge would not dismiss the ticket based on that.
2) Probably not.
3) You’re required to stop before the crosswalk.
Never hurts to try, though, so let me know what happens.
December 28th, 2009 at 10:05 am
thanx, aren.
re: #3
what i’m wondering is why the 1st photo was taken since i HAD stopped before the crosswalk?
thinking this will further prove that i couldn’t see the light color, since i had actually stopped before the crosswalk (pic #1), and then proceeded (even though the light had already been red) when the cars in front of me started moving. does that sound plausible?
was looking around on here & didn’t see a bio. found you elsewhere (if it is indeed you) and you appear to have an engineering background). do you have a legal background, or are you simply someone who’s received a lot of traffic citations?
thanx again.
December 29th, 2009 at 8:54 am
@Michele –
I am not a lawyer and any advice on here should not be construed as legal advice. The advice here is probably worth just about what you’re paying for it.
The problem with the “I stopped” argument is that the camera’s computers (whether correctly or incorrectly) calculated your speed as 19 MPH when you crossed the closest line to the crosswalk. It will be next to impossible to convince the commissioner that you stopped.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Hi Aren,
Any thoughts or comments to my last question?
Thanks
December 29th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
@Adam — Oops, didn’t mean to let that slip through the cracks. I don’t know of the subpoena rights for traffic infractions. A quick search shows that you legally have the right, but that the court clerk can deny your request (which, if I had to guess, they will [aside from the ticketing officer, which is automatic]). But try it anyway… there’s a form online (assuming California). You have to pay them $35 + mileage.
January 9th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
I’m curious about the part about another driver using the car. What should the owner of the car expect for not naming the individual, given that their photocopied license is submitted and the drive was another gender, for example. Is this a loop hole in the system? Or will it only lead to more problems. Anyone?
January 10th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
@Rebecca –
You should expect the city to be happy to let you off of the hook, as long as you reveal who the driver was. Instead, you’ll have to go straight to trial (or a trial by written declaration) if you want to have it dismissed straight-away.
January 11th, 2010 at 12:43 am
Aren
Wow lots of information.
Question. How far through the intersection do you have to be to be safe? I was Approx in the middle of the crosswalk just as the light changed from yellow to red. Any thoughts info is appreciated, thanks
January 11th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
@Tim –
The law says the front of your car has to be behind the close side of the crosswalk (the stop line) when the light is red. The middle of the crosswalk is not a violation… unless the cameras are set up wrong or not working properly.
January 12th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Hi Aren,
In regards to Ca Vehicle Code 21455.5 (b) which requires the local jurisdiction to make a public announcement of the automated traffic enforcement system at least 30 days prior to the commencement of the enforcement program.
Do you have any knowledge or insight what constitutes “public announcement”? Are you aware of any cities which have or have not adhered to this code?
Thanks,
Adam
January 12th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Aren
Thanks.
January 14th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
@Adam –
Great question. Many cities have only announced the installation of the city’s first camera, via tv, radio, and newspapers. There is debate as to whether that’s sufficient, or each camera needs a warning. If you ask SF for the discovery packet, I believe they will tell you how they chose to comply.
Also check Highwayrobbery.net — it goes much more in-depth.
January 23rd, 2010 at 1:26 pm
hi!, really good web page. so i got a ticket for jumping a red light. the pictures are extremely blurry (it was kind of drizzling), can i choose “affidavit of non-availability”. Is there an extra fine if they rule its me after they checkout my license and recent photograph? Also can you please elaborate on the Trial + Traffic schol option. I am confused on how its different from Plead not guilty option. For Trial + Traffic, when do i go there and see the clerk?
January 23rd, 2010 at 10:03 pm
@Naren — You can try the “affidavit of non-liability,” but if it *is* you then you’re commiting perjury. In theory that could involve jail time if they can prove it. You also have to give up someone else’s name to use it.
For Trial and Traffic school, just go down to the courthouse now and wait in line to talk to the clerk. Plead not-guilty with the clerk, and get a Trial date. At trial, they will probably offer the traffic school option.
January 23rd, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Thanks Aren!
January 26th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
So I went to the clerks office today and told the guy behind the counter that I want a trial date. He told me I have two options.
1. Post the bail and get a trial date.
2. Dont post the bail and go to the court two times. Once for arraignment and second time for trial ..or something like that.
So I took option 1 and posted the bail. He gave me a receipt and a court date.
Did i pick the correct option? What are my next steps?
The citation I got through the mail said I could make an appointment to check out the pictures so I asked the clerk before I was leaving about where I could do that. He told me I can check them online and when i replied that they are not clear, he said its the same pictures they are going to show and I might have a chance of winning because the picture isnt clear. All this took less than 30 minutes, even though the “Smart Parking” garage guy was trying to rip me off 10$ by telling me it was 32 minutes. I almost paid and when I checked the time on the ticket and his machine it was just under 30 minutes. I paid him 5$ for the half hour. What a jerk.
January 26th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Hi I got a red light ticket in california and was wondering how to go about it. I am going to go to court to see if they can lower my bail amount but was wondering do all courts lower ur bail and give you traffic school if u ask. I think 500 bucks is way to much even though I am guilty. Can u help me need the bail to be reduced and I may need traffic school.
January 27th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
@Naren — Yep, you did the right thing. Your court date is a Trial. Go to trial — BE ON TIME. They will probably offer the whole room of defendents a deal before the judge appears… you have to decide whether you are going to take their deal (probably a very reduced fine if you do traffic school) or forgo that deal and argue the pictures just aren’t clear enough to convict you. Please report back afterwards — would like to know what your experience was.
@Bethany — Every court is different. Most will lower bail for you when you appear before a Judge, though.
January 27th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Is offering a deal pretty common? I am kind of paranoid because the clerk said i gave my right to traffic school by asking a trial date. i would be more than glad to take a reduced fine. from highwayrobbery.net i learnt that i could ask the judge if he was sure it was me from the pictures without agreeing to testify.
January 27th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
and yeah, i will post back on what i had to ..after the trial.
January 28th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
@Naren — Offering a deal before the trial starts is common. Once you’re at trial, the judge probably won’t let you do traffic school. If you lose, you’ll probably get a lower fine, but that’s it.
You can say the photos aren’t clear, etc., without taking the stand. If anyone asks if it’s you in the photo, you can say that per your 5th amendment right, you’re not going to testify.
January 31st, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Hello,
I just went through red light. I don’t have a front plate. does it take a picture of the back plate? The light changed so fast!
Thanks,
JP
February 1st, 2010 at 10:59 am
@JP: What city/intersection? If San Francisco, then probably not — most of the cameras in SF only take pictures from the front.
February 1st, 2010 at 8:56 pm
I got a camera red light ticket tonight at the intersection of ofarrel and franklin. it was yellow almost red when i was turning and i did see two flashes of light from the camera on the street corner.
if i do get a ticket, can u simplify for me what i need to do? i know uve explained the trial and traffic school option, but can even simplify it a bit more to me? what im getting is that i when i do get my citation or ticket, i go to the clerk and post bail (what does this mean?) and plead not guilty. and then u mentioned getting a time for the trial. will the trial be on the same day u show up to plead not guilty and post bail? AND who or what tells you when to go to the clerk to plead guilty?
im new to this so it’s kinda confusing for me.
thank you for this helpful site.
February 1st, 2010 at 9:42 pm
hi aren
i just read ur exchange with naren and that answered my questions.
a new question, however, is, how sure is it that they will offer a deal before trial starts? cos if they don’t offer a deal and the trial will start, what should one do now if they want the traffic school option?
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Hi Aren,
Do you have any information or insights about getting a traffic violation for making a (legal) right turn on red? The violation code is VC21453A and the description says “Fail to Stop at Red Signal.” The photos show my car at the crosswalk and then making the right turn. The red second says “0.4″
I believe I went into the turn on yellow and the light turned midway. Has anyone experience a similar situation? Also, are they still offering a deal before the trial in SF?
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:26 pm
hi Aren,
I saw a flash while crossing the intersection and I think I got caught by the camera, how long does it take for me to receive the ticket? how much is the fine now?
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:25 pm
@MIKE94118 — I can’t say for sure they still offer the deal; haven’t had anyone confirm it lately. Chances are they still do, though. If trial starts and they didn’t offer it, you can ask the judge for it as soon as your trial starts and hope they honor your request.
@Hal — The camera thinks you went into the intersection .4 seconds after the light turned red. Tough to fight that one.
@Alvin913 — The fine is around $480 I think. The ticket has to arrive within 15 days.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
i recently rolled through a stop light making a right turn and they caught me on camera.
my ticket is about $446 and i was wondering the best way to try and get the fine reduced. should i just plead guilty? or try and fight it ?
February 4th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
I was at Doyle drive this morning right where it turns into Lombard and I thought I saw the light turn green and went ahead. Then I saw the camera lights flashing and realized that the green light I saw was for the intersection in front of me not mine which was still Red. The distance between the intersections is so short that it is easy to be mistaken.
I went to work and the first 2 people I spoke to said they’ve both gotten tickets at the same spot for the same reason. I wasn’t in a rush at all this morning and thought I was obeying the law. It just doesn’t feel fair. Do I have any recourse?
February 7th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
hi aren,
thanks for the info, so if the ticekt does not arrive after 15 days, is it safe to say i did not get a ticket? i’ve asked some people and they said they had camera flashes too by geary and 12th avenue/presidio, and they never received a ticket in the mail. so it’s possible that they don’t issue these tickets to everyone depending on what the camera sees?
February 9th, 2010 at 9:42 am
@Kathleen — the best way to get the fine reduced the most is to follow my trial + traffic school suggestiom.
@Lenny — I’d recommend trial + traffic school. Arguing to the judge that the intersection is confusing (while true, from your description) will unlikely cause the dismissal of the ticket. I would suggest you follow up with the city on the safety of that intersection, though — sounds like a death waiting to happen.
@Mike — legally the city has 15 days to deliver the ticket via mail. If you don’t have one after 21 days, I think you’re off the hook. They definitely do not issue all violations — an officer reviews them and if they can’t see the driver well (or other circumstances) they won’t issue the ticket.
February 11th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
My husband just got notification for turning right after the light has turned red in SF. It was a legal right turn, but may have been a “rolling stop”. With pictures it is hard to tell. There are a couple things that I noticed about the citation. Should we fight it (Note- He received a true running red light ticket a few months ago in San Mateo and we already did traffic school for that). The ticket is $446.
1) The picture is fuzzy. I can tell it is him because I know how he sits in the truck.
2) There is no date on the Must respond to the court on or before date.
3) I can not find the intersection of NB Park presidio Blvd (Rt 1) @ Lake St on google maps. I am not sure how to get back there to take a look at the intersection to make sure it did not have a no turn on red sign- Would it say that on the citation?
February 15th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
@Nicole: The intersection is Park Presidio Blvd @ Lake Street. (NB) means he was travelling northbound on Park Presidio. Look at the 2nd image in the picture. It will say V=(some number). What does it say? That’s the speed he was going when the light was red; the city will use that as evidence to argue that he didn’t stop before making a right-hand turn on red. The no “respond to court” date is interesting… look at CVC 40518, it requires that the “time and place when, and where, the person may appear in court” be included on the letter you were sent. If it’s not there, you have reason to ask for dismissal (not that you’ll be granted it, but it’s an interesting strategy).
February 16th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Aren,
it’s me again. I finally got the red light ticket today. the picture is very fuzzy blurry. (do u the want the code to review the picture online?) I asked around and got different opinions. some told me that i can tell the judge that i wasn’t the driver but since I am the car owner, I still have to pay for the ticket. (if i say i wasn’t the driver, would the judge ask me who was it?) some just told me that I should just go to the traffic school to avoid all the trouble. What should I do man? and my ticket doesn’t have the date for the “respond to court”, what does that mean?
February 18th, 2010 at 12:21 am
@Alvin — first, I don’t recommend lying under oath. You don’t have to testify… if the judge asks you if it was you, who it was, etc., you can maintain your right to not testify. Or you can say you’re not sure that it’s you, if that’s the case. These are moving violations. Only the driver would be responsible for paying. The car owner is not.
I can’t tell you what to do. This blog outlines a lot of your options. If it were me, though, and there really was no ‘respond to court’ date filled out on the form (and they didn’t mention a date elsewhere), I’d just ignore the whole thing (save the ticket, though, you’ll probably need it later). It’s a big gamble though.
February 25th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Aren:
Infomative site. Thanks. I wonder if your car has no front license plate, does the camera photograph the rear of the car or just front grill and driver?
February 25th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
As far as I know, the cameras in San Francisco only take photos from the front. So without a front plate, you’re not going to get a red light camera ticket. (Though you might get a “parking” ticket for not having one.)
Cameras in other cities nearby take photos and video from both the front and rear.
February 27th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Hi, Feb 27 Sat around 2 am going home on Van ness and Bush. I completely stop at the red light, but i was looking down at my car’s dashboard green clock and thought the light turn green and hit the gas pedal. I back tracked and realize my mistake and stop in the middle section of van ness/bush for about 10 seconds, realizing what i did wrong. I think i didn’t see any flashes.How long you have to be sweat it out until i might get a ticket? how many days or week?
February 27th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
@hippo: If you don’t get a ticket in the mail after 3 weeks, you’re probably not going to get one.
March 4th, 2010 at 5:44 am
Hi, I was recently in SF and while driving southbound on Van Ness I saw a flash. It was mounted on a pole somewhere between Turk and Hayes. Are they new photo radars or was it something else?
March 4th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
@Bruno — as far as I know, there are no cameras on that stretch. The buses’ connections to the overhead wires sometimes cause sparks which flash brightly, which might explain it unless there’s a new camera installation.