Tennessee Town Releases Red Light Camera Stats

SonicSpike links to what he calls "a transparent look at some statistics released by a small town's red-light camera program," writing "Specifically, in the last fiscal quarter, 7,213 incidents were recorded, 2,673 incidents were rejected by the reviewing officer, and 662 incidents were not processed due to technical issues or lack of information. All in all 3,878 citations were issued between April 1 — June 30 in a town of 17,000 residents. Interestingly enough there are two nearby cities claiming that individuals 'have no presumption of innocence' when accused by the red light cameras." Fines for no-harm-no-foul rolling stops bug me, and remind me of Gary Lauder's suggestion to merge stop signs and yield signs.

Comments

no-harm no-foul

[topham]

No problem.

No-harm, no foul. However, you fuck up, spend life in prison. seems reasonable to me.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[0123456]

I think it sucks that even such draconian measures don't get people to STOP RUNNING THE DAMN RED LIGHT!

There's only one method I'm aware of which has been proven to reduce the number of people running red lights: increasing the duration of the amber light. Red light tickets merely increase accidents on the approach to the light as people slam on the brakes to stop and idiots go into the back of them.

But North American stop lights are a disastrous design anyway.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[schon]

The problem with just increasing the length of yellow is that people will eventually become accustomed to longer yellows, and still run the red.

A better idea is to keep the yellow the same duration, and install a countdown timer: 20 seconds before the light turns yellow show a countdown to the yellow light.

They've been installed in my city at a few intersections - they were originally intended for pedestrian signals, but they work *really* well for drivers - it tells you exactly how much time you have to make the light, and you can start slowing down earlier.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Captain Splendid]

Yaah, they're called roundabouts. Problem is, they're too confusing for yanks apparently. No skin off my nose, but you did ask.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[jimmyfrank]

"Hey look kids, there's Big Ben, and there's Parliament. "

Re:no-harm no-foul

[causality]

I think it sucks that even such draconian measures don't get people to STOP RUNNING THE DAMN RED LIGHT!

There's only one method I'm aware of which has been proven to reduce the number of people running red lights: increasing the duration of the amber light. Red light tickets merely increase accidents on the approach to the light as people slam on the brakes to stop and idiots go into the back of them.

But North American stop lights are a disastrous design anyway.

I know a good way to stop people from running the red light. Increase the duration of the amber light. Put a countdown timer (like an LED display) telling the driver exactly how long until the yellow light turns red. Then have a hydraulic system that very quickly raises a heavy steel plate in front of the place where a car is expected to stop for the red light. The steel plate lowers back into the ground when the light turns green so that cars can safely roll over it.

Problem solved! Of course this would adversely impact ticket revenues...


Incidentally -- watch someone take this post seriously. I should have omitted this line to see how many would.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[dgatwood]

"Hey look kids, there's Big Ben, and there's Parliament. "

Re:no-harm no-foul

[kryliss]

Actually ticket revenue could remain the same but ticket the idiot who hit the barricade $500 or more dollars because they "damaged" government property by scratching the paint.... New paint job $10, have unskilled monkey... er uhm.. state worker repaint said barricade, $10. $480 profit.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

I agree with your solution with one additional step - after the light has turned red and the steel plate is raised up, but before the light for the other direction can turn green, the center of the intersection should open up like a trap door and dump in to a pit all the cars who entered an already full intersection so they wouldn't have to stop for the red light and wait for their turn. I'm not sure what should be in the pit -- hungry tigers, or maybe a pool filled with ill-tempered sea bass - either of those would be fine.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Posting=!Working]

The problem with just increasing the length of yellow is that people will eventually become accustomed to longer yellows, and still run the red.

Interesting theory, but not one that agrees with the studies I've read. Citation definitely needed.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[commodore64_love]

>>>have a hydraulic system that very quickly raises a heavy steel plate in front of the place where a car is expected to stop for the red light.

That's great until you have an ambulance or firetruck that needs to get to an emergency in a hurry, and the metal places are blocking them. They have a similar idea (physical barriers) for railroad crossings but it often doesn't work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOnpYCQLCuY

Re:no-harm no-foul

[jemtallon]

Actually, roundabouts have become very popular in my hometown (Fargo, ND) because they are much safer when roads are icy. At a 4-way stop or a traffic light, if your car slides it goes into traffic. Our roundabouts have a small hill in the middle so if the car slides it hits a curb and eventually some dirt to stop it. It's much safer. And most are designed to be beautiful as well as functional.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[dgatwood]

Agreed about the signs. I love having those. I'd love it even more if there were a timer right in the center beside the stoplight with big numbers.

That said, I think you're wrong about drivers adjusting to the longer yellows. Humans don't estimate time very well beyond a few seconds unless they are actively counting. Thus, unless drivers got into the habit of ignoring the yellows entirely and slowing down on red, drivers adjusting isn't likely beyond about seven or eight seconds. And there have been studies that bear that theory out, IIRC, though I'm too lazy to search for them right now.

The other thing that significantly improves safety as far as light timing goes is having a second or two of "all ways red" before giving the green light to the other direction. The first thing I noticed about traffic lights when I came to California from Tennessee was that in California, there was often no delay at all before the cross direction turned green. No surprise that California had to implement the stupid red light cameras to cut down on the T-bone crashes, which in turn, increased the rate of rear end collisions. It's all completely predictable by anyone with the slightest bit of common sense, really.

There's one other really simple thing that cities can do: mark outer limit lines on the asphalt. After all, assuming cars are traveling at the speed limit, you can trivially calculate how far they can travel in the yellow time. Subtract the length of a typical vehicle, subtract the width of the intersection, measure that distance away from the intersection, and mark an obvious line (maybe we should standardize on a particular color so that it has meaning) that goes all the way across the street.

By doing this, drivers know that if they haven't reached that line when the light turns yellow, they need to stop, and only if they have passed that line do they need to judge stopping based on their speed. Admittedly, if you're traveling under or over the speed limit, an outer limit line is less useful, but it at least gives you a general ballpark. And it costs a lot less than electronic countdown timers.... Combine them with longer yellow lights and even a second of "all ways red", and things will improve significantly.

Such outer limit lines also have the convenient effect of being an affirmative defense if cities later decide to shorten yellow light timing to try to raise red light camera revenue (not to mention making it almost certain that they will get caught if they attempt to do so without first repaving the road). But I digress.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Faluzeer]

Hmmm

It is not the roundabouts that are dangerous, it is the morons that are abusing them that are dangerous.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Mr. Freeman]

Technical problems: They're usually too small to safely take at speed so they slow everything down even with perfect drivers.

People problems: There's a lot of dipshit drivers that don't obey the line dividing the lanes within them so you end up having to brake/swerve to avoid some moron that's cutting into your lane. Also, some morons think that there's an implied stop sign before a roundabout and will stop even if there's no traffic present. This strikes me as odd considering the number of people that roll through real stop signs.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Kreigaffe]

Yes, saving 5 seconds of your time 99% of the time is sure great. It's that 1% of the time you cause an accident which causes *everyone* to lose many minutes of their travel, and potentially causes you and/or others to lose their *LIFE*.. that's what really throws things off.

Stop at the fucking stop sign. You want to save 5 seconds, run to and from your car instead of walking. I find it amusing yet depressing that people are concerned about shaving a few seconds off their travel when driving their car -- potential risks be damned! -- but when it actually would require physical effort on their part to move faster -- moving faster than a slow crawl when walking -- those same people won't step up to the plate.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[bl968]

That's a BS argument and has been refuted in the real world and has resulted in accidents at the intersection in question being reduced significantly.

"The data show that the percentage of last-to-cross vehicles clearing the intersection (T+0.2) seconds or more past the yellow onset was not appreciably changed by the extension of the yellow phase." - The Influence of the Time Duration Of Yellow Traffic Signals On Driver Response, Stimpson/ Zador/ Tarnoff, ITE Journal, November 1980

"Research has consistently shown that drivers do not, in fact, adapt to the length of the yellow." - Determining Vehicle Change Intervals - A Proposed Recommended Practice", ITE, 1985

"Olson and Rothery reported in 1972 that their research showed that drivers were "virtually" certain to stop if their required deceleration rate was less than 8 feet per second squared and virtually certain to continue if the deceleration rate required was in excess of 12 feet per second squared" - Determining Vehicle Change Intervals - A Proposed Recommended Practice", ITE, 1985

"The average implied deceleration rate of the group with the highest crash rate was slightly over 13 feet per second squared, and the deceleration rate for the group with the lowest crash rate was 8.5 feet per second squared" - "Effect of Clearance Interval Timing on Traffic Flow and Crashes at Signalized Intersections", Zador/ Stein/ Shapiro/ Tarnoff, ITE Journal, November 1985

Increasing Yellow signal times is proven to work, but I don't object to them also requiring a prepare to stop timer as well.

Try reading the studies these cameras increase not decrease accidents, the accidents cost more to repair, are more likely to injure people involved, and perversely are more likely to result in a fatality.

Start here...

http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2007/05/15/traffic-enforcement-cameras-lead-to-increased-accidents-injuries-and-deaths/

the move on to

http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/09/23/red-light-cameras-in-the-volunteer-state-unsafe-unconstitutional-and-unnecessary/

and a oldie but goodie...

http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/09/23/red-light-cameras-in-the-volunteer-state-unsafe-unconstitutional-and-unnecessary/

I started out leaning towards being pro-camera figuring like most people they are a good thing, then I started doing research to prove the point I wanted to make. I had to change my views on the matter and oppose them.

It's all about the money honey! These cameras are nothing but a dangerous revenue generating scheme.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[bl968]

err the last link above should have been http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/finalreport.pdf

Re:no-harm no-foul

[HermMunster]

I was watching (a rare event for me) a Sunday morning news segment (that was quite long) about red light cameras. I picked up some interesting information.

For instance:

1) The cameras are not owned by the Cities that use them. The cameras are rented and a portion of the fines collected are pocketed by the companies that own the cameras.

2) Most Cities proudly reduce the yellow light duration to 3 seconds. Those companies that own the cameras require that the Cities reduce the yellow to 3 seconds, otherwise they'll pull the cameras out. The fines must also be within a certain threshold or those companies owning the cameras will pull them out.

Before pleading guilty remember to check the City ordinances on how long those yellow lights are supposed to be.

3) The cameras must yield a certain number of tickets or the cameras don't make money. So, they reduce the yellow duration, or they put more cameras up.

4) There's at least initially, a substantive increase in rear end accidents.

5) The red light cameras make a significant amount of money for the Cities with little to no discernible increase in traffic safety. Most cities refuse to produce the factual statistics showing the results.

6) Most people that dispute the tickets should dispute them and ask that the Judges reduce the fine.

7) Residents should ask to have the proposals for red light cameras put on the ballot before the City does so; and they should set the maximum fine to equal the lowest ticket fine possible. In most communities that's $20.00 whereas if that's not made part of the ballot then fines are around $150.

8) Most red light camera tickets/fines don't go on your driving record nor on your insurance record.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[quacking duck]

The other thing that significantly improves safety as far as light timing goes is having a second or two of "all ways red" before giving the green light to the other direction. The first thing I noticed about traffic lights when I came to California from Tennessee was that in California, there was often no delay at all before the cross direction turned green. No surprise that California had to implement the stupid red light cameras to cut down on the T-bone crashes, which in turn, increased the rate of rear end collisions. It's all completely predictable by anyone with the slightest bit of common sense, really.

Interestingly this doesn't happen in Quebec, where there is no "all ways red" (at least in the cities of Montreal and Gatineau), but there is in the province of Ontario. Drivers in Ontario routinely blow through red lights, because they know there's a safety buffer of a second or two. Meanwhile in Montreal, home to some of the most aggressive drivers in North America, almost no one blows a red because they know there's no buffer.

There's one other really simple thing that cities can do: mark outer limit lines on the asphalt. After all, assuming cars are traveling at the speed limit, you can trivially calculate how far they can travel in the yellow time. Subtract the length of a typical vehicle, subtract the width of the intersection, measure that distance away from the intersection, and mark an obvious line (maybe we should standardize on a particular color so that it has meaning) that goes all the way across the street.

Absolutely, and in most multi-lane roads this is exactly what they do here. Supposedly it's to indicate the point after where no lane changes should be made before entering an intersection (the white dashed lane separators turn solid), but I've timed these and they are indeed fairly good guides as to whether you'll make it into the intersection before it goes red, if you're going the speed limit.

Pedestrian countdown timers are also being installed in many intersections, also very effective. And about time too; timers were in many cities I visited in China almost 15 years ago.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[garyebickford]

You remind me of an incident that I watched some years ago at an intersection between two major six-lane boulevards. A guy driving a very new Porsche noted the light change and quickly stopped. The guy in the 20 box truck behind him ... didn't. There was no way the truck was going to stop that fast. He pushed the Porsche all the way into the middle of the intersection. The guy in the Porsche jumped out of his car, and - the only time I've ever seen this - was jumping up and down and screaming in the middle of the intersection, literally "hopping mad". I doubt there was a printable word from his mouth in several minutes. I was amused. :) I'm bad. :(

Re:no-harm no-foul

[jschen]

Actually, roundabouts have become very popular in my hometown (Fargo, ND) because they are much safer when roads are icy. At a 4-way stop or a traffic light, if your car slides it goes into traffic. Our roundabouts have a small hill in the middle so if the car slides it hits a curb and eventually some dirt to stop it. It's much safer. And most are designed to be beautiful as well as functional.

Sure, that's great if you happen to slide into the roundabout when no one's going by. But what if you slide whine on the roundabout into someone waiting to get into the roundabout? Or if you slide into the roundabout as someone's going past? And with everyone now needing to do some turning (not just the people changing roads), there should be more risk of sliding. Seems to me like you've just traded one problem for another.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Quirkz]

Hm. My town has a couple of roundabouts, and I find them exceptionally dangerous in winter. Instead of being able to drive straight through the intersection, you're forced to drive in a big, looping arc where it's easier to skid out of control. And if someone's in the roundabout and you need to yield, you still risk sliding into traffic if you can't slow down or stop properly.

Plus neither drivers nor pedestrians seem to be able to use them properly, which dramatically increases the risk of collisions.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[commodore64_love]

>>>It is not the roundabouts that are dangerous, it is the morons that are abusing them that are dangerous.

So then why bother to replace the redlights, if the new idea can also be abused, and therefore no more effective?

Yield signs

[kehren77]

Fines for no-harm-no-foul rolling stops bug me, and remind me of Gary Lauder's suggestion to merge stop signs and yield signs.

I too am bugged by rolling stop fines. However the biggest problem I see with merging stop signs with yield signs is that some people tend to believe that a yield sign means they just need to try to merge with traffic, not stop and yield right of way.

Re:Yield signs

[rotide]

That's because the morons who make decisions to put yield signs at the end of _on_ ramps onto major interstates create a system where you learn to ignore them.

If you actually stop and yield to traffic on an interstate, one of two things will happen. Either you will be stopped forever, or you will be plowed into by the guy behind you.

Now, on normal roads, at least I yield to traffic when I see them. I know they have their place, but interstate on ramps, no.

Re:Yield signs

[radish]

But they _don't_ mean "stop and yield right of way" they mean "prepare to yield, stopping if necessary". If there's nothing to yield to, you don't have to stop (obviously) - likewise if there is traffic but you can yield without stopping (for example by just slowing down) that's OK too.

It depends on your definition of "merge" but if there's a steady stream of traffic with large enough gaps between the vehicles and I can merge without causing the car approaching to get too close to me or to have to slow down, I think I've satisfied the requirement of yielding.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Peach Rings]

The point is that they have to prove you did it. Fundamental tenant of criminal justice, etc.

Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[kbreak]

So, the big question is, "did the redlight cameras reduce accidents or increase them?" Here in Los Angeles, a TV station got ahold of the records, and in most cases, accidents *increase* at camera intersections.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[rtaylor]

The stats for some of my cities intersections clearly show a decrease in the T-Bones and an increase in rear-endings. Stats are not public.

If you believe T-Bones are the more fatal of the two, then the trade-off is likely appropriate. Note, light timing did not change and there are 100+ intersections with camera boxes but only a handful actually have a camera installed (randomly rotated).

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[mbone]

This is not about public safety, it's about raising money for the municipality. Period.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[MrBB]

There are quite a few black tire marks leading into the intersections that are camera enforced where I live... The winter here is ESPECIALLY dangerous where ice + snow + fear of a ticket = scary situations. I actually avoid areas that are camera enforced. I have heard of studies that show a decline in local economy because of these systems.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[kbreak]

link: http://blog.motorists.org/la-red-light-cameras-increase-accidents/

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[MozeeToby]

On the other hand if you just want to reduce all accidents you make the yellow light longer. Almost 0 cost, and actually effective. On the other hand it doesn't generate thousands of dollars in revenue for the police department so it's a no go.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Also, don't short-change people with the filters.

Near where I live there are several junctions with right turn filters (I live in the UK, we drive on the correct side of the road so a right-filter is precious). The entire cycle of the lights is around 3 minutes, the right filter is about 15 seconds tops (it may only be 10). As such, people jump the red because they want to get through the junction without having to wait another 3 minutes. Someone stalling can cost everyone the entire cycle, someone not being in gear with the handbrake off can easily cost 20% of the available time.
If people weren't being left with only a 12th or less of the total cycle in which to use the junction, they may be less inclined to jump the light.

Another one is where, at peak times, one road just gets dropped from the cycle. By the time the people in that road have seen where their light should have gone green staying red for the third time, they start to assume that the lights are broken and push into the junction anyway.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[cynyr]

lets see, cost of 1 tbone, 2 cars, driver of the tboned car's medical bills, any lost productivity due to injury or death.
Cost of a rear end, 2 cars repair bills(easily the cost of a car with modern cars), medical bills for the whiplash of the hit driver, lost productivity due to injury/death.

Hmm seems to have a similar cost, just that one might have a higher death rate. On a side note, are your yellow times long enough to account for all legal driving conditions? legal min tread tires, just legal brakes, .07 BAC(or .09 depending on your state), and 2" of freezing rain followed by 2 feet of fresh snow at the speed limit? if not, your yellows need to be longer or you need to install a "count down to yellow" counter, to warn drivers of when the light will be red/yellow.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[Misch]

Washington DC says no. 1998-2003 study shows that at red light camera intersections, collisions more than doubled, Injury and fatal collisions increased by 81%, and t-bones increased by 30%.

At intersections without red light cameras over the same time period, collisions up by 64 percent; injury and fatal crashes rose 54 percent; and broadside collisions rose 17 percent.

Source

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[SleazyRidr]

Then of course is the case where you get rear-ended which pushes you into the intersection, where you get t-boned.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[clang_jangle]

Yes, and we all know how infallible those revenue-generating ticket machines are. Also your local government would *never* cheat...

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Qzukk]

If the light is red and you drive past it, how can you in any way claim to be innocent?

Do the cameras actually show the light in the picture? Are the cameras positioned so you can actually tell if the vehicle is over the line or not?

If the camera doesn't show that the light is red, how do you know that the light isn't malfunctioning and taking the picture while yellow or green?
If you can't see whether you're over the line or not, how do you know that you actually ran it?

I drive through several of these things every evening on my way home. I've never seen one flash while the light is green or yellow, but I get flashed by them all the time while I'm coming to stop at a red light (I've seen them go off in the middle of a red light when nobody's even moving). I guess someone must review the picture to make sure the car photographed is actually in the intersection because I've never gotten a ticket.

Running red lights is no joke.

[Sheetrock]

Especially now that people text while driving, it's probably a good thing that we're bringing automation to bear on traffic problems.

They could do more to prevent problems than to catch people after the fact, I think. They're able to drop crossing guards on railroad tracks and tollbooths; why not set them up at every practical intersection as well? There's some good talk out there about adding a breath test to the steering columns of every vehicle, but how about in-car interference of the cellphone frequency?

I think we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg on what can be done here to ensure safety.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Yakasha]

If the light is red and you drive past it, how can you in any way claim to be innocent? Bear in mind that red light cameras don't tend to trip below about 5mph, so "I just pulled into the junction to let the ambulance past" won't fly.

Just a few:

• The city improperly shortened the timing on the yellow light.
• The date on the camera is wrong.
• The camera violates anti-wiretapping laws
• My brakes were broken
• That isn't my car

no-harm no-foul my a**

[cruff]

Fines for no-harm-no-foul rolling stops bug me

Perhaps you have never been side swiped by someone who failed to stop at a red light or stop sign? It can be much worse when you are a pedestrian, bicyclist or motorcyclist without a steel cage to protect you. You might think differently then.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[Myopic]

Hmmm. Does that fit under no-harm-no-foul? To me it seems like swiping a person would violate the "no harm" part of the phrase.

I guess I don't really think that strict enforcement of absolutely full stops at stop signs (or right turns at red lights) increases the safety of pedestrians. If it does, then it is probably "worth it"; but if it doesn't, then it certainly isn't. I'm not a traffic professional so I can't really say.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[kehren77]

Okay, I'm not advocating the complete running of stop signs or traffic lights. I'm saying that rolling stops for stops signs (ie you get to the stop sign, make sure nothing is coming and continue on before your vehicle has come to a complete stop) aren't a big deal.

Just down the road from me there was a 3 way intersection that was cut down to a straight through road. But they left the stops signs up as a way of slowing traffic through that area. That sort of crap shouldn't happen and people definitely shouldn't be ticketed for doing a rolling stop in that location.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[Beardo the Bearded]

I've been biking to work for 15 years. I assume every car is going to run every stop sign. I also assume that every intersection contains at least one car that is going to turn in front of me without signalling, slowing, or checking.

Guess how many times I've been hit?

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[ceoyoyo]

So if nobody gets hurt (this time) it's okay?

The problem with rolling stops is that they turn into slow-down-a-bits, and it's much harder to look around for pedestrians or bicycles when you're still moving forward. Just stop and look.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[Beardo the Bearded]

Close. I've only been hit once, and that was by another bike.

I take a fair bit of time tuning my bike and pay special attention to the brakes. I can stop from full speed (20-30km/h) in about a length - length and a half. Yep, that fast. The tires grip and the brakes have a hair trigger. (You want to talk contact patches?)

I stopped dead cold when a car wasn't decelerating fast enough (there's a bike trail that has a few side-streets crossing it; there are stop signs for car traffic, but I trust them as far as I can throw them, and given that they are bolted to signposts that are cemented into the ground, that is "not at all") and I was rear-ended by a 90-pound woman on a road bike. She tacoed her front wheel and broke the clip for one of my lights. She was drafting behind me and didn't call out to let me know.

I then accidentally ended up blinding her because when I turned to ask her if she was okay, I gave her 2W of Blaze right in the eyes. (I call that light "The Intimidator"; you don't want to know about "Dr. Throw")

I wonder how many...

[RingDev]

were cops?

I'm not sure about Tennessee, but in my small town, the local cops treat most laws or the road with little regard. Rolling stops, speeding, high speed/reckless driving. Heck, I had to file a complaint one evening after a cop damn near ran into a group of young boys walking down the side walk. Apparently, pulling over to the curb and calling them to the car, or getting out and approaching them were the lesser options when compared to flooring it and jumping the curb to park on some company's apron to block the side walk. His excuse was that someone had reported their teen daughter missing and the officer thought the boys might know where she was.

Or heck, when I was working 3rd shift years ago, we used to have two squad cars that would run 1/8th mile laps around the block in front of my work place. They would turn on the lights, but no sirens, then scream up and down the divided business road.

Just last night on the drive home I saw a cop come to a complete stop and make a 7 point turn IN THE MIDDLE OF A BRIDGE, blocking traffic in both directions on a 55mph high way during rush hour. If he had driven 100 feet, he could have pulled into a country lane and done his turn faster and with out obstructing any traffic.

Then again, I guess if you can just brush away any pics of cops blowing lights due to 'technical issues', there won't be many of them getting tickets.

-Rick

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[lisany]

The photograph IS the proof.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[cosm]

If the light is red and you drive past it, how can you in any way claim to be innocent?

Many ways. It could have been wild kids putting printouts of my plate on theirs, and then blowing threw the lights so that I could be mailed the ticket, it could be a computer error (those never happen), it could be foul play, maybe a database problem. The prevailing assumption from this line of rationale is that even though technology progresses, nothing is absolute. And if you are willing to risk your criminal history, driving record, insurance cost, etc against an electronic system sold to people who haven't been known to be the most honest with matters of money and law, well good sir, keep pissing it away.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Re "Presumption of innocence"

[Rene S. Hollan]

This only applies in criminal cases in U.S., and a number of other jurisdictions.

A lot of states have made traffic offenses civil offenses, where a preponderance of evidence is the standard.

Re:Re "Presumption of innocence"

[Myopic]

I'm not a lawyer, but I think "preponderance of evidence" is a lower standard for "beyond a reasonable doubt". Presumption of innocence is a different concept which would apply to both standards of evidence. Can a lawyer please say for sure?

Re:Re "Presumption of innocence"

[DRJlaw]

The three common standards of proof are "preponderance of the evidence," "clear and convincing evidence," and "beyond a reasonable doubt." The first essentially boils down to it being more likely than not that the fact is true; the third is the classic televised standard in criminal cases (which is not as high as some on Slashdot believe); and the second is the subject of innumerous articles and court rulings because it's in the squishy middle. Burdens of proof establish permissible degrees of uncertainty concerning 'the absolute truth.' There are other standards of proof, but they tend to be lesser procedural hurdles intended to short circuit weak cases or undue intrusions on liberty.

A presumption is not a standard of proof. A presumption establishes who 'wins' in the event that no side satisfies the burden of proof. A presumption of innocence establishes that the defendant in a criminal case is innocent unless all of the elements of the criminal case have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A presumption of validity in a patent case establishes that the patent owner can collect damages from an infringer unless the patent is affirmatively shown to be invalid. Presumptions work against that ancient rhetorical trick, "prove that I'm wrong" (or "prove that you're not guilty," or what have you), where someone flips the burden of proof to the other side.

The court rulings referenced in the summary shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. There are civil offenses such as parking violations, property maintenance violations, zoning violations, etc. and there are criminal offenses where you at least nominally risk some form of deprivation of liberty (conventionally, detention in a jail or prison). Almost all civil actions use the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, although statutes or courts occasionally require clear and convincing evidence. Essentially all criminal actions use "beyond a reasonable doubt," but that is not absolutely required -- it became a consensus in the U.S. well after the bill of rights was enacted. If you want to require your town to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that your neighbor let his grass grow taller than 12 inches, seek a change in the law, but you'll quickly find that it's unworkable.

The "presumption of innocence" angle is a canard. The "presumption of innocence" has a specific meaning which invokes the criminal law, right to jury, and "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof. An abstract presumption of innocence still applies in these cases -- nobody is being fined without photographs of the vehicle and the violation.

As a side note, under some of these laws, nobody has to prove that the person being fined was driving the car. The fine is to the owner of the car (don't want a fine, don't let people borrow the car) or maybe even to the car. I don't practice in this area, so I can't point to specific laws. Constitutional protections are very narrow, despite appearances to the contrary. Most protections are established by statute and are political. If you don't like them, get up and change them.

But people stopped doing rolling stops!

[CLorox]

The article doesn't state how many residents of the town were ticketed as opposed to out of town drivers passing through, but lets pretend it did. Nearly 50% of people in this town flagged, and a little under a quarter were ticketed.... in 3 short months? Not sure how many were drivers from outside the town, but that is a ridiculous sum. Change the law or scrap the camera, this is not working and is a burden to the citizens. I wonder how many traffic collisions will occur because people are slamming on the breaks trying to avoid getting ticketed.

How many of these drivers were traveling at a safe posted speed limit and caught a yellow on a rainy day and had no choice but to either enter a skidding sliding stop or get a ticket. and now due to their unfortunate luck have the added benefit of fighting this in court. Burden to the court, burden to the citizen and a significant expense of time and money. What a racket.

Re:But people stopped doing rolling stops!

[Necreia]

The article doesn't state how many residents of the town were ticketed as opposed to out of town drivers passing through, but lets pretend it did. Nearly 50% of people in this town flagged, and a little under a quarter were ticketed.... in 3 short months? Not sure how many were drivers from outside the town, but that is a ridiculous sum. Change the law or scrap the camera, this is not working and is a burden to the citizens. I wonder how many traffic collisions will occur because people are slamming on the breaks trying to avoid getting ticketed.

How is it not working? People violating the law are being caught and fined as appropriate. The problem/complaints seem to stem from it working too well. Also according to the article, people who were not violating the law were not given tickets. To quote: "more than 41 percent of the total recorded incidents were rejected. Although most were still violations of state law, they were considered very close calls or were due to such reasons as vehicles stopping a short distance over the stop bar that did not pose a traffic hazard, vehicles moving out of the way of an emergency vehicle, plates that were unidentifiable and weather related issues."

...How many of these drivers were traveling at a safe posted speed limit and caught a yellow on a rainy day and had no choice but to either enter a skidding sliding stop or get a ticket. and now due to their unfortunate luck have the added benefit of fighting this in court...

In inclement weather, or other situations in which the speed limit is too high to drive safely, then it's the drivers responsibility to low down to safe speeds. If the driver couldn't react (for whatever reason) and stop for a red light, then they were going too fast under the circumstances. The Green->Yellow->Red timings are not arbitrary, and are based on good weather conditions and acceptable reaction time expectations. If you can't stop for a red light, you'll not stop for a pedestrian. In short, they are going too fast and deserve the ticket.

Re:But people stopped doing rolling stops!

[blueg3]

If you have to slam on your brakes to stop in the amount of time it takes a traffic light to change from yellow to red, you're going too fast for the conditions.

Re:But people stopped doing rolling stops!

[Culture20]

...How many of these drivers were traveling at a safe posted speed limit and caught a yellow on a rainy day and had no choice but to either enter a skidding sliding stop or get a ticket. and now due to their unfortunate luck have the added benefit of fighting this in court...

In inclement weather, or other situations in which the speed limit is too high to drive safely, then it's the drivers responsibility to low down to safe speeds. If the driver couldn't react (for whatever reason) and stop for a red light, then they were going too fast under the circumstances. The Green->Yellow->Red timings are not arbitrary, and are based on good weather conditions and acceptable reaction time expectations.

The point of a lot of these camera articles is that the timings are not (as you said) arbitrary, and are instead purposefully shortened to create revenue. Decades of driving experience have taught people that 20mph in a 30mph zone while it's raining is okay, but a shortened amber time is like having a pedestrian jump out in front of you from the side of the road, not safely using the crosswalk. The only way to protect against that is to drive 5mph everywhere at all times.

Traffic Cameras are Free Money...

[Anonymous Coward]

The amazing thing is that the "fines" are $50, and do not get counted against your driving record, no matter how many you get, due to the state constitution... It doesn't allow blatant ripoffs.

You know none of the current politicians had a hand in crafting it, lol.

Our state constitution makes it illegal for them to charge more than $50 also.

The "Speed/Traffic" cameras in nearby Oak Ridge, (which used to be a nice place, but is now Crack Alley) have at least three digits; it's become a game to see who gets the highest number. :)

165 in a 25 zone? that's $50 please. :)

It costs $167 to contest one of these tickets. Due process, anyone? Remember the golden rule, "the guy with the gold gets to make the rules."

I don't spend money or time in places with these cameras; if enough people have that attitude, they will go away. Hopefully before the town does.

Farragut is the rich section of Knoxville; Snobs, Bimbos, and teenagers driving/wrecking their BMW's daily, lol.

You don't want to see the poor section of Knoxville; look up "Shannon Christian" on Knoxnews.com :(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[Local ID10T]

and you have the right to face your accuser so you can get out of these tickets pretty easily. If everyone would start to fight them in court the amount of money to run them at a loss would get rid of them pretty quickly.

See the second link in the summary...
The court filing obtained says offenders "are not entitled to a trial by jury, a presumption of innocence or a heightened burden of proof."

Screw em

[lisany]

As someone who has almost been run over by morons failing to stop at a stop sign and red light I endorse red-light and stop sign cameras. I say put the cameras at every intersection and raise the penalty for not stopping at stop signs or red lights.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[cosm]

And what happens if I own the exact same model of car, same color, same look and feel, and somebody drives through that light with a well done forgery of the innocent persons plates, landing them a ticket, with the picture as 'proof' and all.

Oh but the picture shows them guilty. They must have done it. Don't be so willing to throw away the "Innocent until proven guilty" clause to the heralding of new technology. Because that just means you will see ten-fold increase in convictions by 'no presumption of innocence', as you have happily given away your right to fight by not voting the county-city-state 'tards out who made it all possible.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Gordonjcp]

As the article specified, they DO catch "rolling stops"

If you're rolling, you haven't stopped. If the light is red, you must stop. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

Are you fucking kidding me?

[grasshoppa]

Merge stop and yield? That's one of those ideas that sound awesome, until you consider that people will be involved.

We are just getting round abouts where I live, and people are constantly stopping at those things when no one is there, or trying to go even though they don't have the right away.

People are idiots, and couldn't handle such a suggestion.

I partially stand up

[egandalf]

There is no such thing as a rolling stop - you either stop or you don't. You either break the law, or you don't. Not harming someone or their property doesn't make it any more legal to disobey rules of the road.

This whole concept reminds me of the George Carlin bit about staying seated until the plane comes to a "complete stop." There is no such thing as a partial stop. If you roll through a light, get caught and fined, at least own up to it. Any driver who does this knows they are taking the risk, knows it's against the rules, and, while I'm not saying they deserve to get caught, should at least take personal responsibility if they do.

I roll through stops sometimes, though I do try to make a conscious effort to not do so. I also speed - and have no shame in doing it. If/when I get caught, I accept the consequences unless I have what I feel is a justifiable reason for what I did.

Re:I partially stand up

[interkin3tic]

There is no such thing as a rolling stop - you either stop or you don't

Yes, you've spotted an oxymoron, good job and all, but it's not actually "rolling on through" either. There is a significant difference between a car driving past a stop sign at 30 mph and a car that slows down to 5 mph at the stop sign: one of those gave the driver enough time to make sure they weren't going to t-bone a car or smash a person, satisfying the intended function of a stop.

It's a widely accepted term, the fact that literally it doesn't make much sense doesn't matter.

Re:I partially stand up

[burquedout]

But slowing down to 5mph is often slow enough to determine if you have right of way or not and continue through. The fact that it's equally illegal is the stupid thing, there is no reason to come to a complete stop other than the law. The law needs to be changed in my opinion.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[mangu]

If the light is red and you drive past it, how can you in any way claim to be innocent?

If the man was alive and you killed him, how can you in any way claim to be innocent?

What you are saying is that if someone is murdered and the security cameras point at you a trial is not needed.

In the case that you were trying to say that running a red light is not as bad as murdering someone, therefore the standards of fairness should be set lower, then the US Constitution has something to say about that. The Sixth Amendment says you have a right to trial by jury in any criminal case. If it's a civil case the Seventh Amendment says there's a right to trial by jury whenever the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars.

Don't like that? Change the Constitution, there's a well-defined procedure for doing it.

Re:A little reality please

[Skjellifetti]

My sister ran into a motorcycle cop while making a left turn where the normal left lane was blocked off - that's where the cop was driving. She was ticketed. But she went to court armed with a state law book that showed that what the cop did (driving in the blocked off lane) meant that he had forfeited the right-of-way. Judge tossed the ticket. You can beat them, but it takes work.

Maybe just enhance Yield signs and use them more

[Myopic]

I have long thought that a majority (not all, not even most, but more than half) of stop signs should be replaced by yield signs which specifically list the speed to which you should slow down. For instance, we all do rolling stops because, honestly, it's almost always safe to do so. You rarely see people doing it at blind intersections with unclear views (I don't see that, anyway). Almost all intersections have very good visibility and slowing down to 5mph is perfectly safe. Some intersections, 10mph will be good enough; some, 2 or 3mph is good enough. On a small number of intersections require a full absolute STOP to make the intersection safe.

(Please note, I followed the link but could not watch the video. I was hoping for a text summary but there was none. If he said exactly what I said, then I'm silly and apologize.)

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[maxume]

Are you really so sure they aren't just targeting intersections where they have more problems, rather than the people that live near those intersections?

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[cosm]

The photograph IS the proof.

Hi,

We're from The National Enquirer. We would like to make you an offer.

Sincerely, The National Enquirer

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[operagost]

If one photograph is all we need to prove guilt for all crimes, then with one copy of Photoshop and a few minutes, I can rule the world.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

The photograph IS the proof.

If the driver is not positively identified then it is only proof of the vehicle's role in the infraction; not the identity of the perpetrator.

Automated Speeding is another...

[IgnitusBoyone]

In Louisiana these things are always used to also give out speeding tickets for (they claim 11 over, but my wife received one for 7 so I personally think its 6mph). Might sound bad as I have had to pay tickets from these things, but I disagree in handing out speeding tickets through automated systems. This Article cites a reviewing officer, but to my knowledge the system in place where I live uses company employees and not police officers to review the video's. Anyways I have no problem with ticketing anyone who runs a stop sign its a dangerous act that you can't expect cops to witness enough to enforce the law. However, I can't say I like the idea of ticketing a car and not a driver, but at least they have a spot on the ticket to transfer the ownership of the ticket to the driver.

I do have problems with getting speeding tickets from them with out the benefit of the doubt or consideration to the flow of traffic and day of the week. In a big city normally the roads are so busy its not possible to speed when it would be really dangerous to do so, but it is possible to run red lights. However, on the weekdays or early in the morning when no one is on the road its easy to forget that some parts of a five lane road are 35MPH and be caught going 42MPH. They do not release the stats here that often, but it was reported by the local news (for what ever that is worth) that the five camera's in my area produced more revenue then the traffic tickets issued by the regular police force during the first year of operation. As I can't find the quote right now online I will have to take that fact with a grain of salt, but worth mentioning.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[MozeeToby]

There are legal requirements for the length of the yellow that are dependent upon the speed limit on the road. The city violating those requirements would significantly weaken their position that you could have avoided going through the red light. Taken to the logical extreme, imagine the city shortens the yellow light to 0 seconds and then fines everyone for going through on red.

Camera date is the weakest of his arguments, but it does point to general problems within the system and chain of evidence. If nothing else, if the camera says you were at intersection X at 1pm on Tuesday and you can prove that you and your car were somewhere else it weakens their case considerably.

Police departments have recently been using wiretap laws to argue that it is illegal to film them in public. This is simply turning that argument around on them, more in protest to their not wanting to be filmed than an argument to your innocence. Still a point worth mentioning since the argument has worked for others (the police) in the past.

Broken brakes would result in a fix-it ticket, generally little to no fine if you provide proof that the issue has been professionally repaired. Yes, this is absolutely a valid defense assuming that it is true.

Stolen plates, you let someone borrow the car, stolen car... all situations which would end up with you getting a ticket that for an action that you never performed. You might have to prove that one of these was the case, but it is a valid argument.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[twoallbeefpatties]

The photograph IS the proof.

I've gotten hit twice in the past year on making legal right-hand turns on red lights. The first one I thought it so obvious that I was making a legal right turn that I requested a hearing without my presence, figuring that the judge would get it. They still charged me. For the second one, I'm waiting to get my hearing date. Either way, I think that sometimes the "proof" can be logically disputed.

Off Topic

[networkzombie]

I always stop at intersections with cameras, but because some intersections have them and other do not, I take the intersections that do not have them less seriously. No red light camera, no traffic, and no cops, means drive through. I feel if they want to force their authority down my throat on some intersections, say by giving me a ticket because I missed the yellow by less than 1 second or inched into the crosswalk, then I can practice my free will at unmonitored intersections by yielding rather than stopping.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[RackinFrackin]

Some states are considering banning red light cameras altogether, so there is clearly plenty of cause for concern about the issue.

At least one state has already done it.

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[Grishnakh]

and you have the right to face your accuser so you can get out of these tickets pretty easily.

I should also add that in the trials I've seen, it's been stated that you have no right to face your accuser. That's a criminal court thing. These tickets are civil matters, so there is no such right, only "preponderance of the evidence". And a simple photo is all the evidence they need.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Beardo the Bearded]

Back when they still had photo radar here, they were fishing in a 50km/h zone, then went out to the highway. They forgot to change the speed up to 80km/h and everyone who went past the van got a ticket.

They refused to overturn the tickets until someone went to the local media pointing out that there was a Jersey Barrier in the background, showing that it was in fact on the highway. As far as I know, you still had to go to court to get the tickets overturned, one at a time.

Revenue Generation in a down economy

[wirehead_rick]

This is just a simple way for localities to make up lost revenue for a decreasing tax base in an economic downturn. Speeding tickets are on the rise too.

It's just another case of there are so many damn laws you can't help but break some everyday. It's just govt. doesn't choose to fine you until the coffers get low. They let you break the law (speeding and the such) so you get into the habit and then bam - crackdown! Instant revenue stream.

My favorite way to get back is to absolutely refuse to turn right on red at any light with the cameras. I don't care how many people I piss off. I'll sit there all freakin' day long. If it's in your local municipality and you support the camera then you get to wait behind my paranoid ass. Serves ya right.

Re:I was caught recently

[Myopic]

Indeed. The lesson is don't go do that small town, especially when you want to buy goods and services. It's even more helpful if the local business owners know why you have been 'driven' away from their stores.

I propose we remove all redlight cameras

[netsavior]

Obviously they don't work.

The obvious solution is RED LIGHT SPIKE STRIPS.

Severe tire damage has 3 awesome consequences:
1) no court proceedings
2) no appeals
3) stimulates local economy

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[causality]

I'm not sure where you've been for the past 150 years but photography is not new.

Who do you think has to prove innocence when the likeness of a man with no twins is caught on film shooting someone? I'd say a photograph is very compelling evidence and I'm pretty sure the courts agree, but, IANAL.

I heard a story about a guy who got nailed by a red light camera when they were new. The camera captured a photo of his vehicle and license plate going through the intersection. A printout of this photo was mailed to his home address along with the traffic ticket. He wanted to protest the use of cameras. Let's assume the fine was $100. So he takes five $20 bills and lays them out on a table. He snaps a photo of the $100 and mails that to the courthouse with a note asking that they accept his payment.

Several days later, he receives another piece of mail from the police. It contains a photo of handcuffs. So he promptly stops by the courthouse and pays the ticket with actual currency.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[cosm]

While this is true in some jurisdiction, statements like:

A motion responding to two $10 million lawsuits in Hamilton County chancery court says a camera infraction that carries a $50 civil penalty has a lower standard of constitutional protection than criminal offenses....

...The court filing obtained by the Chattanooga Times Free Press says offenders "are not entitled to a trial by jury, a presumption of innocence or a heightened burden of proof.

are not very reassuring for the future of the proliferation of these devices, and further spin-offs that use the same automate-print-fine process.

Re:A little reality please

[Surt]

Which is depressing, considering how well established it is that police officers widely engage in fraud, lying, etc. In much, much higher percentages than the rest of the population.

Why not?

[Posting=!Working]

I can't believe that every one of these cameras has not been hit by a paintball gun already. Simple, quiet, effective, makes them cost more than they're worth, and although certainly illegal, pretty easy to get away with (if you shoot at 4 am and when your light is green.)

What ever happened to civil disobedience? So very few are willing to make a stand anymore.

Re:Why not?

[Posting=!Working]

Walk up to the intersection wearing a hood and large sunglasses. Or shoot from a long distance, they're not using super-high resolution zoomable cameras. There's many other simple ways to get a paintball onto the camera without being noticed.

Wipers don't wipe off paint too well (think bird poop and your windshield without washer fluid.) And you could always freeze the paintballs and take out the wiper (glass, lens, and maybe the whole camera.)

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[drsmithy]

If the camera doesn't show that the light is red, how do you know that the light isn't malfunctioning and taking the picture while yellow or green?

I can't speak for the US cameras, but they *should* be built with a physical connection that prevents the camera from activating unless the light is red.

If you can't see whether you're over the line or not, how do you know that you actually ran it?

Because they don't activate until the light is red. If your picture is taken by one, it's because you ran the red (more accurately, because you crossed the line after the light was red and the camera was activated) - it's not possible for the camera to take a picture otherwise because it's not active.

Cameras take multiple pictures that are reviewed. Just stopping over the line probably won't net you a fine (thought it's usually illegal). You'll almost always need to be caught on multiple pictures actually driving through the intersection to get fined.

It shouldn't take anyone of even average intelligence more than a few minutes to come up with a system that's immune to nearly every type of false positive. The handful of scenarios that can't be accounted for should be easily identifiable and defendable in court.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Itninja]

According to Snopes.com, this is actually a truw story:
http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/handcuff.asp
Warning for non-NoScript users: site has many pop-ups, pop-unders, and various other unpleasant scripts....

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[garyebickford]

wasn't that a prank some kids in the UK did last year? IIRC they printed out copies of the school principal's license, pasted it over their own licenses and then blew through stop lights all over town. He had like 50 tickets for running lights and speeding. I think they wore disguises for obvious reasons.

Re:A little reality please

[Surt]

Here's two for you:

http://www.policecrimes.com/

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/22/us/new-york-police-often-lie-under-oath-report-says.html?pagewanted=1?pagewanted=1

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Mitreya]

The first one I thought it so obvious that I was making a legal right turn that I requested a hearing without my presence, figuring that the judge would get it. They still charged me.

Sorry, what? A hearing without your presence? Are you not aware that any hearing/lawsuit is an automatic win for one party if the other party does not show up?? That's why the recommend going to contest your tickets even if you are fully guilty - if the accusing officer does not bother to show up, you automatically get the ticket tossed.
Also, you would lose because you are showing lots of contempt for the judge by not showing up and he would actively look for a way to screw you over.

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[Rich0]

The thing that drives me nuts is that you aren't entitled to a trial by jury unless you're facing at least six months in prison on a single count. However, in civil trials either party is entitled to a trial by jury if the amount in dispute is over $20. So, you can put somebody in prison for 10 years by charging them with 30 counts with a sentence of 4 months per count and they don't get a jury trial. However, if you break your friend's video game you can drag them in front of a jury to duke it out.

Does that seem just a little out of whack to anybody else? IMHO people should be entitled to a jury trial for any offence whatsoever. By all means have them pay a fee for the jury's time if they are found guilty (loser pays system), but maybe we'd have fewer silly 25mph speed zones if juries had to agree to the fines.

Likewise the state should have to reimburse the accused for lost time when they're found innocent of a crime. These days simply being accused of a crime and having the gall to defend yourself is about all it takes to face financial ruin.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[gerardrj]

So if I borrow your rolling pin from the kitchen then bludgeon you neighbor with it, you are the one that should be held responsible because its your rolling pin?
Unless of course you report the rolling pin stolen.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[MaufTarkie]

That's why the recommend going to contest your tickets even if you are fully guilty - if the accusing officer does not bother to show up, you automatically get the ticket tossed.

That's not always the case. I got issued a speeding ticket in Washington over a decade ago. I was given the same advice regarding the officer needing to be present, so I went to court to contest (since I felt I was simply matching the speed of everyone else on the freeway, but was singled out). When I got to court, I was informed by the judge that the ticket (and the writeup) was the only evidence needed; the accusing officer did not have to be present. He read the ticket out loud for the court, which included the other point I was going to bring up to try to weasel my way out of the ticket: if he calibrated his radar gun before and after his shift. He had.

Luckily, the judge gave me a break and waved the ticket due to a paperwork technicality he could have kept to himself if he really wanted to.