Photo-Radar Ticket Dispute

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I do. 64Gb is the biggest card my StreetGuardian supports.

Could you have multiple cards and rotate through them?

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I filed an online request for dispute and within 10 minutes received a reduction offer to $287. Honestly, I felt like being in a flea-market. I am thinking of going to court and explaining the situation to the judge but I will only have my story to tell and nothing to substantiate is (although the offending truck is visible in the photo). Had anyone done that successfully or unsuccessfully? Please share your experience.

My dad got a red light ticket over the winter and decided that he'd plead his case downtown to see if he could get a reduction. His original amount and the reduced amount look similar to what you were offered, so it could be a standard amount.

He didn't really have much of a case, aside from the roads were a bit icy and he wasn't speeding. Sort of a "that's a lot of money, and I wasn't driving recklessly, etc." His smart assed son interjected "but dad, running red lights IS reckless, isn't it?" He felt that the reduction was fair and just paid it.

Unless the photos provide a real boost to your case, and it doesn't sound like they do, I'm not sure that you'll have any better luck at the courts building.

[Jacks]

Curious.

Photo tickets don't carry any demerits or go on your driving record. I wonder if you take it to court and end up convicted, even with reduced penalty, will it count on your record?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Curious.

Photo tickets don't carry any demerits or go on your driving record. I wonder if you take it to court and end up convicted, even with reduced penalty, will it count on your record?

There are no demerits assessed on any photo radar tickets in Alberta (yet) regardless of the payment/hearing route you take.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

There are no demerits assessed on any photo radar tickets in Alberta (yet) regardless of the payment/hearing route you take.

I can't see them ever causing demerits, you can prove who is driving.

[EVERLAST]

If you fight it make sure you get demerits NOT taken off / or applied ? To your license and pay the darn thing if you have to .

[TorqueDog]

Nowhere in Canada will a photo enforced speed or red light offense carry demerits, as they're rear-facing cameras and all 'registered owner' tickets.

Aside: Photo enforcement tickets in the UK issue points to the license of the registered owner, but will be transferred to the driver if the owner identifies who was driving at the time. They can also use front-facing cameras as they have semi-permanent number plates on their vehicles, front and rear. What's even worse is that the number of points received will double from 3 to 6 if the owner refuses to identify the driver. Thank f--k we're not in that predicament.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Nowhere in Canada will a photo enforced speed or red light offense carry demerits, as they're rear-facing cameras and all 'registered owner' tickets.

Aside: Photo enforcement tickets in the UK issue points to the license of the registered owner, but will be transferred to the driver if the owner identifies who was driving at the time. They can also use front-facing cameras as they have semi-permanent number plates on their vehicles, front and rear. What's even worse is that the number of points received will double from 3 to 6 if the owner refuses to identify the driver. Thank f--k we're not in that predicament.

Holy crap that is not cool. Rat on someone or else we'll punish you worse.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Nowhere in Canada will a photo enforced speed or red light offense carry demerits, as they're rear-facing cameras and all 'registered owner' tickets.

Aside: Photo enforcement tickets in the UK issue points to the license of the registered owner, but will be transferred to the driver if the owner identifies who was driving at the time. They can also use front-facing cameras as they have semi-permanent number plates on their vehicles, front and rear. What's even worse is that the number of points received will double from 3 to 6 if the owner refuses to identify the driver. Thank f--k we're not in that predicament.

So, say, "It's me" and take the 3, or identify who is supposed to take the 3. But refuse to say who was driving and you take 6?

Or do front facing cameras allow them to take a pic of the driver and they can say, "We know it's not you, so both you AND the other person will be your responsibility unless you point out who takes full responsibility?"

[TorqueDog]

Depends if you were caught with a front-facing camera or not. If it's front-facing, I don't think the registered owner would need to identify the driver.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by EVERLAST

If you fight it make sure you get demerits NOT taken off / or applied ? To your license and pay the darn thing if you have to .

It irritates me that removing demerits is a common plea.

Insurance rates are based on a statistical performance of drivers. Drivers who get more tickets are part of a cohort that gets more claims.

By allowing people to put in time to remove demerits you put more higher risk drivers in the low risk pool and make my insurance rates more expensive.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

If they already reduced the fine that's likely the best you will get as when you go to court the only outcome you should expect is a reduction for a ticket like this. I'm going to court later this month for a speeding ticket and there are two possible outcomes. The officer will not show up and I get off (happens more than half the time) or the officer shows up, we discuss the ticket (these guys usually can't remember anyway) and I get a reduction. This has been the way it's been for me for decades.

I honestly can't remember where I read it now, but I could have sworn I heard that tickets being thrown out because a cop didn't show was no longer a thing?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I honestly can't remember where I read it now, but I could have sworn I heard that tickets being thrown out because a cop didn't show was no longer a thing?

If the officer doesn't show, tickets are still thrown out. The problem is that police officers are paid to be there, so the likelihood of them not showing up is low.

Originally Posted by GGG

It irritates me that removing demerits is a common plea.

Insurance rates are based on a statistical performance of drivers. Drivers who get more tickets are part of a cohort that gets more claims.

By allowing people to put in time to remove demerits you put more higher risk drivers in the low risk pool and make my insurance rates more expensive.

Right, but the interests of government and the insurers are not aligned.

The government just wants the revenue from the ticket, they really aren't concerned with your insurance rate being accurate for your driving history. You are, because that history influences your rate. It's a useful bargaining chip that the government has to offer a path of least resistance, being you pay for the ticket now and drop any chance of contesting in court (which would considerably reduce the net profit from the ticket) and you don't get dinged on your driving history.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

If the officer doesn't show, tickets are still thrown out. The problem is that police officers are paid to be there, so the likelihood of them not showing up is low.

Right, but the interests of government and the insurers are not aligned.

The government just wants the revenue from the ticket, they really aren't concerned with your insurance rate being accurate for your driving history. You are, because that history influences your rate. It's a useful bargaining chip that the government has to offer a path of least resistance, being you pay for the ticket now and drop any chance of contesting in court (which would considerably reduce the net profit from the ticket) and you don't get dinged on your driving history.

The government should be interested in traffic safety not revenue. If the whole concept of fines improve driving performance works then reducing demerits is not in the interests of government.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by GGG

The government should be interested in traffic safety not revenue. If the whole concept of fines improve driving performance works then reducing demerits is not in the interests of government.

Should be, but they aren’t.

That’s why photo enforcement (which carries no demerit penalty) is so much more popular. I haven’t seen a manned police speed trap in nearly three months in any of the hot-spots, it’s all photo enforcement. The fact that photo enforcement programs are not a bonus but money that cities are actually relying on for their budgets should tell anyone their actual purpose. A successful photo enforcement program would be an ever-receding revenue generator as it successfully reduces speeding and makes roads safer; in other words, it should get closer to being a cost center over time if it really works. Instead, it is designed to be as predatory as possible to be as profitable as possible. Only reason Edmonton is facing a shortfall from photo enforcement is because the province decided to take a much larger slice of the pie with the new photo enforcement legislation. The City of Speed Traps wasn’t prepared for that.

So yeah, the government should be interested in traffic safety, but they pretty clearly aren’t, at least certainly not as their primary motivator for traffic enforcement programs. They just want your money and will try to make it as appealing as possible for you to quietly pay them and go away, instead of reducing their profit margins by contesting the ticket through the courts.