Ran a red light camera - seeking advice

I've been caught by a red light camera before. The first time I ran it was after the light had been red for 0.6 seconds. I took the early resolution route, plead guilty, and got it reduced from $325 to $125.

You would think I'd have learned my lesson but I just got another one in the mail. This time I ran the light 37.1 seconds after it turned red. I know... I'm an idiot. There were no other cars on the road, I was talking to/looking at my girlfriend sitting beside me instead of paying attention and it was pure carelessness on my part even though I didn't mean to run the light. I was going 48 km/h.

Now because I ran the light with so much time after it turned red, I'm wondering if I should try early resolution again or just pay the full fine? I read about there being a very very very small percentage (0.3%) of people who "fight" these tickets actually get their fines increased. Would these be people that plead not guilty? If I plead guilty and tried to get it reduced, do you think the judge would see I ran it 37 seconds after and not reduce it or increase it?

How should I proceed? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Try early resolution again, see what they give you. Keep us informed.

bream wrote:

Now because I ran the light with so much time after it turned red, I'm wondering if I should try early resolution again or just pay the full fine? I read about there being a very very very small percentage (0.3%) of people who "fight" these tickets actually get their fines increased. Would these be people that plead not guilty? If I plead guilty and tried to get it reduced, do you think the judge would see I ran it 37 seconds after and not reduce it or increase it?

Early resolution and trial are two very different things. Worst case at early resolution is they refuse to offer you a plea deal and you're stuck with the full fine. If you actually insist on having a full trial, the Crown could then request an increased fine. Unless you actually have some defence, I see no reason to go to trial.

Stanton provided the best answer you'll get.

Worst thing that can happen from the early resolution is that they aren't willing to budge. At that point you can either:

(a) pay the fine and call it a day or;

(b) request a trial.

Nothing is going to change until a trial starts. There's no need to stress. Red light camera tickets don't have any impact on insurance. Either you get a cheaper fine or you don't. Once you pay, you never have to worry about it again. It's one of the easier tickets to deal with.

Thanks a lot for the comments.

I had no intention of pleading not guilty and fighting it. I was just unsure that if I tried an early resolution they would see that I blatantly ran a red 37 seconds after it turned as opposed to a couple seconds as most cases seem to be and then increase my fine as a result. I didn't want to waste my time if that were likely to happen but if there is no chance they increase it then I will try the early resolution again and see what happens. Hopefully I save $200 like last time!

bream wrote:

I've been caught by a red light camera before. The first time I ran it was after the light had been red for 0.6 seconds. I took the early resolution route, plead guilty, and got it reduced from $325 to $125.

You would think I'd have learned my lesson but I just got another one in the mail. This time I ran the light 37.1 seconds after it turned red. I know... I'm an idiot. There were no other cars on the road, I was talking to/looking at my girlfriend sitting beside me instead of paying attention and it was pure carelessness on my part even though I didn't mean to run the light. I was going 48 km/h.

Now because I ran the light with so much time after it turned red, I'm wondering if I should try early resolution again or just pay the full fine? I read about there being a very very very small percentage (0.3%) of people who "fight" these tickets actually get their fines increased. Would these be people that plead not guilty? If I plead guilty and tried to get it reduced, do you think the judge would see I ran it 37 seconds after and not reduce it or increase it?

How should I proceed? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

For the sake of us all , you should stay off the road. You come across as a smug, arrogant and uninformed person. If this ridiculous story is actually true, I hope you sort things out fast.

bream wrote:

Thanks a lot for the comments.

I had no intention of pleading not guilty and fighting it. I was just unsure that if I tried an early resolution they would see that I blatantly ran a red 37 seconds after it turned as opposed to a couple seconds as most cases seem to be and then increase my fine as a result. I didn't want to waste my time if that were likely to happen but if there is no chance they increase it then I will try the early resolution again and see what happens. Hopefully I save $200 like last time!

Nothing feels better than saving you hard earned money. Good luck!

Hi,

Sorry for replying in this thread. I just did not want to create another red light camera thread. I just have a couple of questions, hoping someone could answer. I got one of these tickets in the mail, and requested an early resolution. Got my early resolution notice this week, and my meeting is in a few weeks. My question now is:

1. If I just pay off the full fine now, am I still expected to attend this early resolution meeting. Is it still going to go on my driving record and affect insurance, because I requested early resolution?

2. If I do attend this early resolution, and plead guilty to a reduced fine, is the prosecutor or judge going to put me down as the driver of the vehicle, and insurance will find out?

Right now, I am not too concerned about the fine or reduced fine as much, either way I see myself paying something. Just curious if insurance will find out.

No, red light camera tickets never appear on your driver's abstract. You can freely attend an early resolution meeting or take the ticket to trial secure in the knowledge that no mater what it will never appear on your driving record and your insurance company will never hear about it.

I believe, if not mistaken, that the REASON they can't report red light camera convictions on your driving record is because the convicted person is the OWNER of the vehicle (based on the licence plate), not necessarily the driver. If not the driver, a negative report to the owner would be unfair if not unconstitutional. The same used to apply to photo-radar, which I believe is part of the reason why it fell out of favour. Just viewed as a cash cow.

2 questions/ comments .....

Jumping a red light, IMHO is FAR more dangerous than speeding or possibly any other offense. Because your blasting through an intersection, when another flow of traffic

is going. the OP said it was a good half a minute.. so he just "didnt" miss it it was well hard on. If you jump a light like that, I personally think it shuld be treated as a major offence.

So, IS it an offence or not? If it is it WILL effect your insurance.

So if I just drive around jumping red lights, all I'll get is a fine and a clean licence?

Benzer6 wrote:

I believe, if not mistaken, that the REASON they can't report red light camera convictions on your driving record is because the convicted person is the OWNER of the vehicle (based on the licence plate), not necessarily the driver. If not the driver, a negative report to the owner would be unfair if not unconstitutional. The same used to apply to photo-radar, which I believe is part of the reason why it fell out of favour. Just viewed as a cash cow.

also as the OP went through a well gone red, should that be dangerous/careless driving as well?

bobajob wrote:

2 questions/ comments .....

Jumping a red light, IMHO is FAR more dangerous than speeding or possibly any other offense. Because your blasting through an intersection, when another flow of traffic

is going. the OP said it was a good half a minute.. so he just "didnt" miss it it was well hard on. If you jump a light like that, I personally think it shuld be treated as a major offence.

So, IS it an offence or not? If it is it WILL effect your insurance.

So if I just drive around jumping red lights, all I'll get is a fine and a clean licence?

Benzer6 wrote:

I believe, if not mistaken, that the REASON they can't report red light camera convictions on your driving record is because the convicted person is the OWNER of the vehicle (based on the licence plate), not necessarily the driver. If not the driver, a negative report to the owner would be unfair if not unconstitutional. The same used to apply to photo-radar, which I believe is part of the reason why it fell out of favour. Just viewed as a cash cow.

bobajob wrote:

2 questions/ comments .....

Jumping a red light, IMHO is FAR more dangerous than speeding or possibly any other offense. Because your blasting through an intersection, when another flow of traffic

is going. the OP said it was a good half a minute.. so he just "didnt" miss it it was well hard on. If you jump a light like that, I personally think it shuld be treated as a major offence.

So, IS it an offence or not? If it is it WILL effect your insurance.

So if I just drive around jumping red lights, all I'll get is a fine and a clean licence?

Benzer6 wrote:

I believe, if not mistaken, that the REASON they can't report red light camera convictions on your driving record is because the convicted person is the OWNER of the vehicle (based on the licence plate), not necessarily the driver. If not the driver, a negative report to the owner would be unfair if not unconstitutional. The same used to apply to photo-radar, which I believe is part of the reason why it fell out of favour. Just viewed as a cash cow.

It depends how you are caught. If you are caught by a red light camera they can only charge the owner of the vehicle. Sine they can't positively identify the driver they don't add points or make an entry on the vehicle owner's driving abstract, they only assess a fine. Now if you are pulled over by a police officer the officer can identify you as the driver so 3 points will be added to your licence and the ticket will appear on your drivers abstract and be visible to your insurance company.

bobajob wrote:

also as the OP went through a well gone red, should that be dangerous/careless driving as well?

This depends on the situation. If the indecent occurred at 3am and there were no other drivers around then no, careless or dangerous would not apply. On the other hand if the driver went through the red, ran over a group of school children in the cross walk and caused a six car pile up then maybe careless or dangerous driving would be appropriate.

ahh ok, I get that, makes sense.

In the UK, capitol of speed/red light cameras

It's slightly different, the registered "owner" of the car gets a ticket, he has to then confirm if he or another was driving.

This came up a few times regarding something regarding human civil rights or something.

But either way, the registered owner of the car gets a ticket, he's usually a$$ raped if he gets to court, so unless he KNOWS somone else was driving

he cops it plus 3 points

daggx wrote:

bobajob wrote:

2 questions/ comments .....

Jumping a red light, IMHO is FAR more dangerous than speeding or possibly any other offense. Because your blasting through an intersection, when another flow of traffic

is going. the OP said it was a good half a minute.. so he just "didnt" miss it it was well hard on. If you jump a light like that, I personally think it shuld be treated as a major offence.

So, IS it an offence or not? If it is it WILL effect your insurance.

So if I just drive around jumping red lights, all I'll get is a fine and a clean licence?

Benzer6 wrote:

I believe, if not mistaken, that the REASON they can't report red light camera convictions on your driving record is because the convicted person is the OWNER of the vehicle (based on the licence plate), not necessarily the driver. If not the driver, a negative report to the owner would be unfair if not unconstitutional. The same used to apply to photo-radar, which I believe is part of the reason why it fell out of favour. Just viewed as a cash cow.

It depends how you are caught. If you are caught by a red light camera they can only charge the owner of the vehicle. Sine they can't positively identify the driver they don't add points or make an entry on the vehicle owner's driving abstract, they only assess a fine. Now if you are pulled over by a police officer the officer can identify you as the driver so 3 points will be added to your licence and the ticket will appear on your drivers abstract and be visible to your insurance company.