http://retiredpublicsafety.com/wp/red-light-cameras-over-the-line

Red Light Cameras: Over the Line
Posted on September 15, 2011 by Paul Henry

Did this vehicle's owner get a ticket? I hope not.

The above photo is cropped from some video I shot with a cell phone camera on US 27 at Capital Circle in Tallahassee on August 25, 2011. When going through the intersection a week earlier, I had noticed the camera flash units going off for the other side when no vehicles were moving. I noticed the same thing on August 25, so I parked and shot some video:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax7xVglRH0k&feature=player_embedded

The short time I was there that afternoon, I saw the camera's flash unit go off for a vehicle that stopped past the line (the one in the photo above) and then again a second time when no one was moving.

I was of the opinion that no tickets were issued for vehicles that stopped over the white line as observed above. The white line is referred to in statute as the "stop line". A local TV station recently reported on a poll in Tallahassee showing slightly more people approved of them than did not. This brought forth a slew of comments. One in particular got my attention:

I got a red light ticket last January because I crossed the white line, actually made the stop, early morning, pouring rain. I was doing 29mph in a 45 zone at the time. The weather conditions listed on the citation? Clear. You can see on the video it's raining! Fought the ticket, lost. A human cop would never have issued that ticket! Robots controlled by computer programs equal a nightmare most of you can't even imagine.These red light cameras have got to go.

This prompted me to read the applicable law. I'll summarize this as best possible:

In the camera statute (316.0083), a notice of violation can be issued for violations of s. 316.074(1) or 316.075(1)(c)1.
 
s. 316.074(1) is a catch-all traffic control statute and does not mention intersections. Here's the text of s. 316.075(1)(c)1.:
(c)Steady red indication.—
1.Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown…
 
The "stop line" is mentioned in 1. a. Note that it is only used as a reference in making right turns on red:
a.The driver of a vehicle which is stopped at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or, if none then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the intersection in obedience to a steady red signal may make a right turn, …
 
As with any law, you must know the definition of an intersection for those that do not have crosswalks. It is defined in s. 316.003(17):
(17)INTERSECTION.—
(a)The area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curblines; or, if none, then the lateral boundary lines of the roadways of two highways which join one another at, or approximately at, right angles; or the area within which vehicles traveling upon different highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict.
(b)Where a highway includes two roadways 30 feet or more apart, then every crossing of each roadway of such divided highway by an intersecting highway shall be regarded as a separate intersection. In the event such intersecting highway also includes two roadways 30 feet or more apart, then every crossing of two roadways of such highways shall be regarded as a separate intersection.
 
Utilizing this definition, a "stop line" 'violation' is indeed not a violation of s. 316.075(1)(c)1. unless the vehicle entered either the boundary line of cross traffic or  "the area within which vehicles traveling upon different highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict".
 
For those that say "Just don't run the light", I'd ask them to look at the above photo and determine if a ticket is warranted. In 23 years of traffic enforcement (not so much later on when I was in an investigative/management capacity) I never wrote a ticket for someone failing to stop at a stop line. On occasion, I would see someone stopped too far back to cycle the light and get out of my patrol car to wave them forward to the line. What's even more insidious about this statute is that you can be in violation of it if you stop behind the line and creep forward- still not crossing it. I see this often especially in vehicles with automatic transmissions. Recall the statute says "shall remain standing until a green indication is shown".
 
Would anyone actually get a ticket for this? Let's hope not, but if  you follow "the letter of the law" then they certainly could.
 
The red light camera issue in Florida appears to be controversial and divisive, mainly over the safety vs. revenue argument. If we take that out of the equation and concentrate on the legal and operational aspects, we can find common ground. This is what the Motorist Rights Restoration Act (MRRA) does  http://www.liberty2010.org/documents/MRRA_Summary_Bill_V1_packet.pdf. What it does not do is ban red light cameras. If someone gets a ticket in the mail and desires to pay it, they can. The MRRA merely places these violations on a level playing field with other traffic violations in court and other police equipment. Ask yourself these basic questions:
■When you are accused of wrongdoing, is it up to you to prove yourself innocent or the government to prove you violated the law?
■Would you oppose the right to a hearing once a ticket is mailed, or would you favor requiring a second ticket be issued after a 30 day time frame had passed? Contrast this to the speeding ticket an officer just gave you- one of your options is a court hearing.
■Would you argue against the police being required to have their radars checked by a third party every 6 months? I'd hope not, as this has been the law for decades (s. 316.1905).
 
The MRRA is a reasonable solution to this controversial problem, and it does not ban red light cameras. Please ask your legislator to support it.

About Paul Henry
Paul has a law enforcement background, having served as a Florida Deputy Sheriff and State Trooper for over 25 years until he retired. Paul worked many levels and positions within the FHP, from road patrol trooper to traffic homicide investigator, then sergeant with homicide squad oversight. His last 5 years were as a lieutenant in criminal investigations, where he investigated numerous internal, ID Theft, commercial vehicle theft, and driver license/title fraud cases. Paul is best known for the September 2003 capture of Florida's most wanted fugitive Walter Rhodes, who was involved in the 1976 murders of Trooper Phillip Black and Constable Donald Irwin in South Florida. Rhodes had absconded from parole and was hiding in Washington State under a false identity. After retirement, Paul wished to pursue his automotive hobby and be left alone, but saw an increasing amount of waste in government as well as the government's increasing involvement in our private lives and liberty, so he became politically active and remains so today.

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Title
Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Email
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (registered users only)
	Add Comment Preview