Need help... Got 2 tickets in 2 different counties...

[ouchie]

Help! I got 2 tickets from 2 red light cameras, one is in Garden Grove, CA and the other is in Culver City, CA.

1) I have 0 money to pay for more than $1,000 in tickets. It's $590 for Garden Grove and $640 for Culver City.

2) I read at some web site that I can ignore anything that comes from LA County, and some web site that says I cannot ignore tickets from Culver City which s a part of LA County.

3) I'm confused, I really don't want to screw things up!

Please help!

[ccdre]

I've had good luck with these guys: ticketkick.com ... I'm not affiliated with them in any way but they did save me $$ on couple tickets, one of them being red light camera (right turn, incomplete stop).

[NemesisX]

Originally Posted by ouchie

Hi,

I have $1500 (I know it is real small) on Apple right now, got it when it was $92. Should I just change it or just ride it?



Adee

You can sell your apple stock, pay for your tickets, and be on your way.

[cays]

Advice current as of 10/15/2014. GL.

http://www.laweekly.com/news/everyth...ickets-5146123

[cays]

City of Culver City, California - Expanded in Early 2015

Culver City, pop. 40,000, is in west LA, 3 miles north of LAX.

If you ignore a Culver City red light camera ticket (or a camera ticket from any other city in LA County), the LA County Court will not report it to the DMV. For more info, read the "Countywide Information," which is Docs Set # 2 on the LA County Documents page.

http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlig...tml#Countywide

[cays]

City of Garden Grove, California

Some of Garden Grove's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is a "Snitch Ticket."

http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlig...cket.htm#Fakes

[Sara]

Take out a signature loan or ask parents

[tdott]

Stop running red lights?

[Alfisti]

How the hell did you rack up such large fines. Fines in the US are pretty tame so you've done something serious bad, twice.

[ShopVac]

When I was 18 - I was above the law and didn't need to pay an $80.00 fine.

Needless, couldn't renew my license when it expired, thus couldn't get insurance for the car, thus couldn't get the car I had inspected.

From that, I drove for years without a license. Got to the point that some lady hit me in the back of my car...and I couldn't do anything about it, as I didn't want a cop to come and sort things out.

Long story short, I ending up paying it...years later. Don't go by my
example...I'm sure both counties can work out a payment plan for you. Outside of that, you may be able to fight these and get a reduced cost.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by ShopVac

When I was 18 - I was above the law and didn't need to pay an $80.00 fine.

Needless, couldn't renew my license when it expired, thus couldn't get insurance for the car, thus couldn't get the car I had inspected.

From that, I drove for years without a license. Got to the point that some lady hit me in the back of my car...and I couldn't do anything about it, as I didn't want a cop to come and sort things out.

Long story short, I ending up paying it...years later. Don't go by my
example...I'm sure both counties can work out a payment plan for you. Outside of that, you may be able to fight these and get a reduced cost.

What is there to fight? The citation comes in the mail with pictures of your car and your license plate. The first picture is of your car at the intersection tripping the inductive loop sensor in the pavement. This shot will also show the light is red. The next picture will be of your car going through the intersection with the light still red. The system records how long the light was red and how fast you were going.

In the jurisdictions around me, this type of ticket is non moving violation type infraction where you're only responsible for the fine with no points or official entry into your driving record. And if you're thinking about fighting it saying you weren't driving the car, the municipalities have that covered too. The registered owner would be responsible for naming the individual driving the car at the time of the infraction.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

How the hell did you rack up such large fines. Fines in the US are pretty tame so you've done something serious bad, twice.

I agree. Even the thieves in DC don't have those types of fines for automated red light cameras.

[ShopVac]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

What is there to fight? The citation comes in the mail with pictures of your car and your license plate. The first picture is of your car at the intersection tripping the inductive loop sensor in the pavement. This shot will also show the light is red. The next picture will be of your car going through the intersection with the light still red. The system records how long the light was red and how fast you were going.

In the jurisdictions around me, this type of ticket is non moving violation type infraction where you're only responsible for the fine with no points or official entry into your driving record. And if you're thinking about fighting it saying you weren't driving the car, the municipalities have that covered too. The registered owner would be responsible for naming the individual driving the car at the time of the infraction.

Well - need to do your homework if fighting. Some locations lowered the length of time on the yellow to gain revenue from the ticket cams. C&D had a whole article on them a while back. Needless, if the counties make the car owners pay - there's not much to say. Many of the one I've seen state that if you can show you were not the driver...they cannot make you pay the fine.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by ShopVac

Well - need to do your homework if fighting. Some locations lowered the length of time on the yellow to gain revenue from the ticket cams. C&D had a whole article on them a while back. Needless, if the counties make the car owners pay - there's not much to say. Many of the one I've seen state that if you can show you were not the driver...they cannot make you pay the fine.

Not around here. The registered owner is responsible for the fines unless the owner can name the driver who caused the infraction.

I think red light cameras have their purpose as someone who was a party to another driver blowing through a light and as an EMS professional pulling people from cars. But I don't like how it's obvious many municipalities have perverted the noble goal of the existence of these cameras with the shortening of the duration of the yellow light. It's actually had an opposite effect. Sure they get more infractions but they've also increased more collisions in these monitored intersections. Driver's that know there is a red light camera are slamming on their brakes to avoid blowing through the short yellow and causing an increase in rear end collisions.

[RickFLM4]

If you can take it to court, try challenging by asking who reviewed the video - a police officer or a third party contractor. Most municipalities in South Florida removed cameras when judges started ruling the video must be reviewed by a police officer. Of course, results in CA may (and probably will) vary.

When the cameras initially were installed here, there was almost no way to appeal. You had to appeal to the company selling the equipment / issuing the ticket and if you lost the fine increased. I have no issue catching blatant red light runners, but always thought that appeal procedure was bullshit. I got one of those tickets for making a right turn on red (with no traffic) because I didn't see the no turn on red sign. There aren't enough people that blow through red lights to warrant the cost of cameras all over the place and personnel to review each violation so they need to stretch what constitutes a violation that warrants such a big fine. In some instances where a cop may ignore a violation or issue a warning, you got a ticket with no real way to appeal. There was also wide variation by municipality when a ticket was issued. In some towns, they never issued right turn in red tickets and in others they issued them if you did not clearly come to a complete stop before turning on red.

[zx10guy]

I think DC has taken the red light violation one step further. If you cross the solid white line where you're supposed to stop on red, you're issued a red light violation regardless of whether you actually crossed into the intersection or not. The rationale is they're enforcing pedestrian safety by keeping drivers from encroaching into the crosswalks.

[VB5ER]

CULVERCITYCROSSROADS.COM and also quit running red lights, I might be timing the green coming the other way.

[EALm4]

you gotta get Waze or something lol

[ouchie]

I do have Waze, guess I was not listening at all

[SakhirM4]

Originally Posted by ouchie

Help! I got 2 tickets from 2 red light cameras, one is in Garden Grove, CA and the other is in Culver City, CA.

1) I have 0 money to pay for more than $1,000 in tickets. It's $590 for Garden Grove and $640 for Culver City.

2) I read at some web site that I can ignore anything that comes from LA County, and some web site that says I cannot ignore tickets from Culver City which s a part of LA County.

3) I'm confused, I really don't want to screw things up!

Please help!

Sell your car to pay for tickets. Solves both your "no money" problem and your "running red lights" problem. Problem solved

[Crimson92]

Originally Posted by SakhirM4

Sell your car to pay for tickets. Solves both your "no money" problem and your "running red lights" problem. Problem solved

+1

[cays]

No editorial comment here other than to state that bribery was the norm for these guys to get in everywhere. Fuck these motherfuckers.

Redflex Updates Investors On Bribery Charges
New legal filing alleges that Redflex won the Chicago, Illinois contract by out-bribing its competitor.

Redflex Traffic Systems could be on the hook for $383 million in damages in the Chicago, Illinois bribery trial. The Australian firm told investors on Tuesday that it was not just company executives in legal jeopardy. A newly amended federal lawsuit names the corporation as complicit in the false claims, fraud, civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment.

"Both the company [Redflex Holdings Limited] and Redflex Traffic Systems Inc will, in defending this legal action, make use of all available legal defenses," the firm said in a statement to the Australian Securities Exchange.

The charge against the company is straightforward. All companies involved in public contracts with the city of Chicago must certify that they will follow ethics rules and not bribe any city employees. Redflex certified under penalty of perjury that no bribery took place.

"Redflex Holdings Limited also repeatedly falsely certified on economic disclosure statements that no agents of Redflex Holdings Limited, during the prior five years, had bribed or attempted to bribe an employee of the city," Chicago Corporation Counsel Stephen R. Patton wrote.

Redflex did, in fact, bribe Chicago employees, as the former head of US operations admitted. According to city attorneys, deputy Chicago transportation commissioner John Bills offered Redflex an insider advantage over its competitor, Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), as long as Redflex opened its checkbook wide.

"Bills also said that ACS's representative had offered to pay Bills, possibly $100,000, if Bills helped ACS," Patton wrote. "Bills gave the information regarding ACS and instructed Redflex Traffic Systems Inc to 'step-up its game' in order to let Redflex Traffic Systems Inc know that his assistance was necessary to get the city contract."

According to the city, Redflex knew exactly what it was doing. Redflex Executive Vice President Aaron M. Rosenberg, who has also been turning state's evidence, explained that he worked closely with the Redflex board of directors in Australia discussing US sales plans, budgets and strategies. Top officials were pleased with the results.

It is common for red light camera contracts to have inexplicable provisions that benefit the camera vendor. The favorable provisions in Chicago's contract were the product of bribery.

"Although leasing the cameras was a lower cost option for the city, both in terms of initial expenditure and long-term maintenance and repair costs, [former Redflex US chief Bruce] Higgins directed Rosenberg to convince Bills to have the city purchase the cameras," Patton wrote. "The city's purchase of the cameras would help Redflex Traffic Systems Inc with cash-capitalization issues."

The city wants damages of $382,913,937, which is three times the $125,904,645 that Redflex pocketed from the contract, plus $10,000 for each of the 520 invoices that Redflex sent to the city. Each invoice contained material falsehoods and constitute separate offenses. Bills is pleading not guilty to the charges.