It didn’t take long to realize what that that “Photo Enforcement Program” letter from the City of St. Louis was all about. As I opened the letter, the only thing that occurred to me was to make sure whether the letter was for me (as opposed to my wife). It was for me. I had gotten nailed by the new photo traffic enforcement system that the City of St. Louis installed near my house. Over the past 30 years, I’ve received a total of 2 traffic tickets. I guess I was due.
I was pissed, of course. This was going to cost me $100 even though I didn’t do anything flagrant. I had rolled a right turn onto a high entrance ramp through a red light. This occurred at a traffic light 1/2 mile from my house. I had done it hundreds of times; hundreds of other safe drivers do it every day. My crime is that I failed to come to a complete stop before turning right to accelerate down that highway ramp. I was going about 5 mph around that corner. I remembered the strobe flash going off that day last week; at the time, I wondered whether it was aimed at me. Sure enough. I should clarify: I don’t always roll through that right turn. If ever there is any traffic in the area, or any pedestrians, I always come to a complete stop.
How the city would prove that I was moving around that corner instead of coming to a full stop. How could a mere photo determine that? Well, they don’t take just photos. They take a video of your car (in addition to photos). They also installed radar equipment to check your speed at all relevant times. When they send 
you the violation notice, they invite you to log onto the city’s website to watch yourself violating the law. I watched and I squirmed. I hadn’t stopped completely and the video was proof.
I then wondered whether I could call the prosecutor and try to bargain down the ticket. After all, no one wants a moving violation on his or her record (that causes your insurance premiums to skyrocket). The nefarious designers of this photo enforcement system have already figured that out too. They only charge you under a municipal law that provides that it is not a “moving violation” (even though I was charged with moving instead of stopping—don’t try to figure this out or it will make your head hurt). Since it wasn’t a moving violation, it’s won’t be worth your while to fight the ticket. 
In true moving violation cases, the prosecutor often reduces simple moving violations—such as speeding—down to non-moving violations such as “excessive vehicle noise” (again, don’t think too much or your head will explode) and you’ll end up paying about $100 anyway. Therefore, the new photo enforcement system is technologically smart and financially tempting for municipalities. Your only real option is to pay the money.
These photo enforcement systems are popping up everywhere and they are quite controversial. In my case, this system nailed me for something no police officer has ever questioned—the cops roll around that corner onto the high ramp too; I’ve seen it many times. In the case of people doing what I did, the system doesn’t make the intersection safer, and it will also cause traffic to clog up more.* Here’s a sample of the some justifications offered by a city that employs these devices and here are a list of the concerns regarding these photo enforcement systems. From the perspective of a city, there is no downside. From a city’s perspective, having a system like this is like having a license to print money.
I’m not feeling guilty tonight, even though I’m proven a law-breaker. Nonetheless, the new photo enforcement system will make me come to a full stop at that intersection. I will follow the letter of the law, even if it doesn’t make the intersection safer and even if it clogs up the traffic. It’s just not worth it to roll around that corner on a red light when it costs $100. From now on, I am aware that “the Man” will be watching me and I’ll be behaving. Not that the city is any safer because of it.
[*For those living in St. Louis, the intersection is at Grand at Highway 44.]
I feel much safer now, now that I know that Erich sticks to the traffic laws. 😀
Please enlighten me, things may be different in the US compared to Holland. From the first part I gather you ran a red light. Are there red lights in the US that are insignificant enough to be ignored?
In Holland the traffic lights are often switched to yellow when traffic is low (say 03.00h), so the intersection is still marked. Otherwise, the cameras detect you running the red and any excess speed when passing at green.
Speaking of Dangerous Intersections, <a herf="http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/along-for-the-ride/driving/2009/01/ten-most-dangerous-red-light-runners-of-2008/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here's a video compilation from some local red-light cameras.
I've seen that flash of light near the Grand and I-44 exchange. But I must not have been so egregiously malfeasant; no ticket in the mail. The light turned yellow when it was too late for me to stop on a wet road.
Same Bat Time, same Bat channel as Dan. I came to zero miles an hour on my speedometer but, the slush kept the car moving for another 10-15 feet (through the light!). I was even careful enough to have turned on my turn indicator, slowed, applied the brakes and attempted to have the vehicle come to a complete halt some 25-30 feet before the intersection to make a right turn on to Lafayette to get to I-44.
By the way, Erich, before your on-line confesssion there was not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt as to your "guilt."
Tell them to bugger off on their "photo enforcement!" What I saw in the back of a car, which license was not visible, was the back of a head. Good luck with that proof Baretta Breaths!
So now, a machine determines what's so at Grand and I-44 regarding alleged traffic violations, eh?
I'd like to question the witness, your Honor! Oh, no Sixth Amendment right to confrontation? Gee, too bad! BYE-BYE!
I'd like to challenge the ordinance which authorizes an illegal use of unidentifiable machines to make accusations against me for which I have no right to due process, confrontation or a fair trial by a jury of my peers in violation of Article I, Sections 2, 10, and 18(a) of the Missouri Constitution, and Amendments 4,5,6,7 and 14 of the US Constitution.
So now, in St. Louis, we have machines which along with cops, prosecutors, judges, and (maybe) juries decide what conduct constitutes a traffic violation? Big Nope here, dudes and dudettes!
The cost of these idiot machines could've put real officers on the street and deterred or solved real crimes, kudos to the nilwits which once again wasted our tax dollars in the illegal pursuit of more cash for the City!
Does anyone else here smell a class action?
Planeten: I admit I broke the law in the technical sense. I didn't come to a full stop. One of my points is that this is the way that many people enter the highway. It keeps the traffic moving at an often clogged intersection and (in 20 years) I'm never seen the police issue a ticket to anyone doing what I did.
I've been caught and I've already paid my $100 debt to society. I suspect, though, that many cities are now finding technical violations (in the name of revenue) where they never before cared. It's just too easy to not take the money.
financial crisis = government needs money
Traffic fines are a good source of income.
Actually, today in the news they said that the fines for traffic violation have doubled. Great governments think alike.
Here's a lot more background on photo traffic enforcement from the Riverfront Times:
Wow Erich! I am in the exact same boat as you. A month or so ago, I received the same ominous letter from the government, for the same pitiful violation: a rolling right-on-red. Like you, I logged on to see my offense recorded in video, a slight but unmistakable breaking of the law.
It worries me! As drivers, I suspect we all break the law. In Ohio at least, it is illegal for a police office to tail a vehicle for too long, as he would catch anyone commit some crime that way. How long before we have cameras tracking our every move on the road- not just at choice intersections? Will I someday groan as I receive a ticket for failing to use a turn signal, while driving on an empty street? Or for going a mile per hour over the speed limit on my secluded neighborhood street? Or anything else harmless and nit-picking? Horrifying!
My last cited moving violation predated these cameras; late 1980's. I turned left on green at an urban intersection on a Sunday morning. There wasn't another car in sight, but the officer showed me a faded "Left only on left arrow" sign. During rush hour, obeying the sign might prevent gridlock. Otherwise, no point to it. But a cop had it staked out on a drowsy Sunday. Presumably many folk were more rational then law-abiding.
Back then, one had to pay it in person downtown during banking hours. It was difficult to find a legal parking place within a mile of where I had to go in person to pay (the basement of the still-abandoned Opera House). Very inconvenient.
Now, you can pay by mail or online. About a third of the fee for the traffic camera tickets goes to the company that sold the service to the city. Now that's a racket!
Hmmm. There appears to be a temptation to exaggerate safety benefits in order to justify photo traffic enforcement.
looks like we'll see fewer people at traffic schools !
Many of the St. Louis City Officials responsible for photo traffic light enforcement are not paying their fines for their violations.
Money quote:
You should have taken a photo of $100 and sent it back in ….
I wanted to add my rolling right turn story though it was here is Los Angeles. I figured it was gonna be a heafty fine in the $150's I thought. I got the ticket and wished it was $150… it was $440.00!!! I cant believe it. There is no fighting it, after all they have the video as well. Just wanted to share the frustration.
Has anyone tried the argument Tim Hogan suggests above? Are there any pending class actions for this sort of thing? Are we just stuck paying these ludicrous fines?
(I got one recently for "running" a light that turned red while I was in the intersection – today, at the intersection next to the one I got my ticket at [this one doesn't have a camera], I sat behind a police officer while the light turned green for us, and nearly a second later a car came through the intersection. The officer didn't seem to think it a violation worth addressing.)
It does seem like the city (and ATA) needs to be penalized for this shameless abuse of power–it seems that they will forget that traffic enforcement exists to keep our citizens safe, not to victimize them. Unfortunately without monetary penalties to cities for abusing their citizens it seems cities will keep taking advantage.
It seems that without citizens defending themselves against government abuses of power (by forcing governments and companies like ATA through lawsuits to face financial consequences for their greed) these sort of problems will keep getting worse.
Erich, how can anyone be so naif; you don't pay $100 debt to society, you just made the rich and powerful establishment even richer. People in the world are still sleeping a long nap. It's time to wake up.
I thought an article in the RFT said that it was against our civil liberties for them to actually do this.True? What if I just trash it?
Tony, If you mean "trash" the camera, vandalism is punishable, even as a form of civil disobedience.
If you mean "trash" the ticket, then it will be followed by a summons. It is a form of legal contempt: More expensive to argue than to comply.
This one comes from Washington.I to have received the rolling right turn tickets,15 to be exact.Here's the twist,I found out from a collection company,but only on the first five,it wasn't until I called redflex that I found the others.It seems they overlooked the fact I use a P.O.box for mailing,and yes it is on file with DMV.Improper notice will be my defense when I get to court.Yes big brother is watching,but who's watching big brother???? And yes Curran there are law firms out there fileing class actions, Ive signed on as a representitive with one of them
We just received a Notice of Violation. We were not in that area on the date specified and the photo depicts a vehicle we do not own — with a license plate one number different than ours. I'll send in the affidavit of non-respnsibility, of course. I drive a rental so often that I assumed this was valid and just prepared to pay the fine. Glad I looked a little closer. This is sloppy work on the part of the photo enforcement personnel.
Brenda, that's nice for whoever the photo ticket was intended for. Someone else did the crime and you got send the fine. I got my picture taken this morning…I'm sure it will come in the mail some time soon. But the car is in my dad's name, but I don't know if he will be willing to pay the ticket. I suppose if I refused to pay it he will have to or face the consequences, but what an awful thing to do to dad.
A couple of things.
A town in Tennessee, near Nashville a few years ago began citing drivers for running yellow lights, using photo enforcement as evidence.
Recently, Tennessee lawmakers have started to consider a moratorium on traffic enforcement cameras due to the lack of any standard policies concerning the operation. One point to study is that the traffic citations are being issued by employees of a private company, which may be in violation of Tennessee law.
It is my understanding that no points can be assessed for these photo tickets and if you do not pay them, they can do nothing about it. There is debate about their constitutionality but no question they are a big money maker for municipalities. Myself, I rear ended a little lady who MASHED on her brakes after entering an intersection because she thought the camera was going to give her a ticket ! Of course the police don't record any 'incidents' related to this so that the cameras won't have to be removed.
allenb: Based on what I've been hearing, you are entirely correct. And yes, I've heard that there are a lot of rear-enders at photo-governed intersections for exactly the reason you've described.
Last night, my husband received this "photo enforcement traffic violation". $100 fine. This is the second time he got this. He's thinking of not paying this time. Atty. Vieth, is it a good idea not to? What will happen if he doesn't pay this $100 fine? Would he get into a bigger trouble?
CN: I suspect that these devices are illegal, based upon arguments that were raised by a state judge who recently contested a ticket (the City of St. Louis didn't pursue the case on appeal after Dierker apparently prevailed in traffic court at trial, after losing an earlier motion to dismiss- here's a description of the case http://www.timesnews.net/user_profile.php?profile… ). Notice how the traffic court judge sealed the court filed. Interest, given that Dierker undoubtedly wrote a well-reasoned argument that let to the dismissal–if it would be made public, it would be a likely prescription for victory by anyone receiving a photo ticket, at least where the driver of the car can't be identified by the photos, even though the car CAN be identified. The argument likely has to do with burden of proof. Many of the photo cameras don't show the face of the car's operator–therefore, whenever there is argument that someone other the defendant was driving (this is a big issue where the household has more than one person licensed to drive).
The real question, however, is whether you want to spend your valuable time and hard-earned money fighting a photo ticket rather than just paying the $100. I paid mine, even though I am an attorney and I wouldn't have had to pay out any fees to an attorney to handle the matter. I still thought it not worth my time to fight the ticket. I'd be happy to represent someone who wants to pay me to do so, but it might take a few dozen hours if the case were appealed. Even at $200 hour, this could amount to many thousands of dollars to fight a $100 ticket. Our you could represent yourself–everyone has the right to do so, if you're willing to risk the many legal pitfalls of litigating without legal training.
I got one of those photo tickets also and paid it before the due date only to have my bank return the payment because the City of St. Louis doesn't take electronic payments. Go figure with all this technology (photo cameras) they don't take electronic payments. So I either have to buy a stamp and mail it in or take the time out of my busy schedule to go to the court house and pay it. Either way the ticket has to be paid. I heard they can't do anything if you don't pay but knowing St. Louis they'll find a way to get you in the end. So to be safe, I would just pay the ticket and be aware of the photo cameras at the different intersections.