Judge Upholds Legality of Rochester Red-Light Camera Program

New York Law Journal ^ | November 8, 2013 | By John Caher

[Behind Liberal Lines]

A pilot program in which surveillance cameras were installed near traffic signals in Rochester to catch motorists running red lights has been upheld by a judge who rejected the constitutional challenges of an attorney whose vehicle was among those caught on camera.

The law, V&T §111-b, allowed the city of Rochester to install up to 50 cameras at intersections and authorized a civil fine of $50. Under the law, the owner, whether or not he or she was driving the vehicle, is liable for the fine but can sue the actual driver for indemnification. The statute makes clear that a finding of liability does not constitute a conviction or add points to one's drivers license.

[Supreme Court Justice J. Scott Odorisi] found the law strictly civil in nature and, consequently, subject to a lower level of due process protection.

Odorisi said the surreptitious surveillance is actually less intrusive than traditional traffic stops, where the motorist is asked to produce registration and insurance documents, and may be questioned by a police officer who has an opportunity to peer into the vehicle.

However, in a footnote Odorisi acknowledged the potential for abuse "that sweeping changes in technology may bring, and each such alleged over-stepping will have to be assessed on its own specific facts and circumstances." In another footnote, he recognized "the potential for negative workplace repercussions for a driver who uses his or her employer's vehicle in the private workplace and receives a red light infraction notice."

[Exton1]

Just call it a tax, and stop the semantics game.

[xzins]

It doesn’t, does it?

[j_tull]

I spend way too much time on the Massachusetts Turnpike. In some of the more rural areas,I am routinely passed by state cops like I am standing still, while going 75mph. They are doing triple digits, easily. If one happens to be in the left lane, they will tailgate you close enough that you can’t even see their headlights in your rearview mirror and stay there until you move. One of these days I’m gonna brake-check one of those A-holes.

[newnhdad]

Back in the 90’s, DC was complaining about paying for roads that the “suburban white people” use to come into “our city” to make money. They raised taxes on prepared foods and tried to get a commuter tax but it never made it past Congress. It seems they don’t have enough people that reside in the city to pay for their stuff.
So, fast forward to today, they have about 200 cameras all aimed at drivers coming in to the district.. this is their commuter tax that yields them $65,000,000 per year but, it’s done in the name of “safety”.

[a fool in paradise]

Odorisi said the surreptitious surveillance is actually less intrusive than traditional traffic stops, where the motorist is asked to produce registration and insurance documents, and may be questioned by a police officer who has an opportunity to peer into the vehicle.

More likely to actually stop a driver with an outstanding warrant (who may even be dangerous) than if you just mail the car owner a ticket.

[a fool in paradise]

[a fool in paradise]

In Houston, the law was repealed by voters using a ballot referendum. The city government HATED that. They even renegotiated the contract in favor of the privately owned red light camera company so that we would owe them money if we "broke contract".

Some surrounding communities still have them.

[a fool in paradise]

Records here show that the number of collisions actually increased. So much for “preventing accidents”.

[a fool in paradise]

Rear end collisions that is.

And when the number of accidents was low without the cameras, we were told it was because of high gas prices, weather, etc.

[Slings and Arrows]

Did you make that, or was it already around?

[a fool in paradise]

I found it online just now. There are also t-shirts and other graphics if you do some image searching.

[Slings and Arrows]

Ecclesiastes strikes again.

[deport]

Radar devices

Light Cameras

What’s next?

...Seat Belt Alarms

...Drivers License scan to start vehicle

etc

[a fool in paradise]

Some people are pushing for breathalyzers in all cars (prior charges/convictions or not).

Others are pushing for black boxes to record "pre-crash data" and others are pushing for GPS black boxes to tax your driving per mile of road use.

[qaz123]

you’re right...

But, why can’t normal, common sense folks run for office? Why does it always seem to be a bunch of greedy corrupt bastards?

[deport]

Many vehicles have had Event Data Recorders, EDR, for some years. More are being added
as time goes on. Here is some info which vehicles, models, etc. have them.
PDF files so you have to click open or download to see them.

www.rimkus.com/uploads/pdfs/Event_Data_Recorder.pdf

or the following

http://www.meaforensic.com/Portals/45635/docs/cdr_v10.0_vehicle_coverage_list_r1_0_0.pdf

[rockrr]

I think the narcissist comes first - which in short order becomes the greedy corrupt bastard.

[qaz123]

Well said.