Right on Red

[Super Mateo]

I've been honked at for the sin of stopping at a red light before turning right.

So have I.  I've also been honked at for choosing not to turn on red; I do not turn on red at red light camera controlled intersections.

Why not? Unless a sign specifically prohibits RTOR, no camera will be taking your photo, so long as you stop first. If it takes a photo, dispute it. No need to be paranoid about it.

That's not true.  The cameras in the Chicago suburbs photograph any car that crosses the stop bar on red.  It's common knowledge around here that those tickets are impossible to fight, as well.  There are many people that are doing that now, too.  You can't take any chances around here.  Those things exist only to take money away from us.  If you have ever driven in Chicago or it's suburbs, you'll understand.

[jakeroot]

I've been honked at for the sin of stopping at a red light before turning right.

So have I.  I've also been honked at for choosing not to turn on red; I do not turn on red at red light camera controlled intersections.

Why not? Unless a sign specifically prohibits RTOR, no camera will be taking your photo, so long as you stop first. If it takes a photo, dispute it. No need to be paranoid about it.

That's not true.  The cameras in the Chicago suburbs photograph any car that crosses the stop bar on red.  It's common knowledge around here that those tickets are impossible to fight, as well.  There are many people that are doing that now, too.  You can't take any chances around here.  Those things exist only to take money away from us.  If you have ever driven in Chicago or it's suburbs, you'll understand.

You should have said that in your original comment, then ("I do not turn on red at red light camera controlled intersections in Chicago). Because, to me, you're describing a preposterous situation, where a camera is ticketing you for performing a legal maneuver.

Also, why are they impossible to fight? Just tell them you weren't the driver. Or at very least, show them the video where you stopped first. They're the easiest tickets to fight. How many other tickets provide video evidence?

[catch22]

It wasn't legal in most of the US until 1978, but did most people do it anyways before that?  Or was it completely unheard of?

Short answer:  Yes, they did, at least from my experience.

Longer answer:  I've lived in Michigan most of my life.  I've had a driver's license since 1969.  In the early 1970s, I started working for the local phone company as an installer in Detroit.  Driving from job to job, I quickly learned that in many parts of town that traffic control devices of all sorts were considered superfluous.  I couldn't begin to tally the number of times I saw people ignore red lights, blow stop signs, consider yielding as an affront to their personal liberty, etc.  I got real paranoid driving, real fast. I managed to escape after 10 years of that with only one accident (was rear-ended at a stop light).

Oddly enough, I can still recall my first RTOR the day the law went into effect in 1976*.  For those familiar with Detroit streets, it was from the NB Southfield Freeway service drive onto EB Puritan.  Felt weird as all get-out.

* Google News archive story about the new RTOR law in Michigan:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=110&dat=19760327&id=DZRaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MEoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5571,5905744

[jeffandnicole]

I've been honked at for the sin of stopping at a red light before turning right.

So have I.  I've also been honked at for choosing not to turn on red; I do not turn on red at red light camera controlled intersections.

Why not? Unless a sign specifically prohibits RTOR, no camera will be taking your photo, so long as you stop first. If it takes a photo, dispute it. No need to be paranoid about it.

That's not true.  The cameras in the Chicago suburbs photograph any car that crosses the stop bar on red.  It's common knowledge around here that those tickets are impossible to fight, as well.  There are many people that are doing that now, too.  You can't take any chances around here.  Those things exist only to take money away from us.  If you have ever driven in Chicago or it's suburbs, you'll understand.

You should have said that in your original comment, then ("I do not turn on red at red light camera controlled intersections in Chicago). Because, to me, you're describing a preposterous situation, where a camera is ticketing you for performing a legal maneuver.

Also, why are they impossible to fight? Just tell them you weren't the driver. Or at very least, show them the video where you stopped first. They're the easiest tickets to fight. How many other tickets provide video evidence?

In big cities, traffic court is so painful to deal with that most people just pay the ticket. Even trying to fight it is gonna cost a fair amount in parking fees and a day off from work, which for some people means an unpaid day off.  Judges aren't generally very accommodating - they want you in and out quickly.

Its not right, but it's part of dealing with big cities. If these tickets were easy to fight, more would be doing it.

Besides...I've seen videos on YouTube where people swear they stop,  but the video clearly shows they are still moving. Sure, people will agree with them, but it's like they're saying yeah you slowed down "enough" so it should count as a stop. Judges deal with that crap all day, so when someone truly innocent comes along they are just lumped in with the "no, slowing down enough isn't the same as stopping" group.

If someone is truly innocent, they need to know how to bring video evidence with them to show to the judge. Most just say "I stopped" and thing their word is good enough.

[vdeane]

And that assumes there is no surcharge simply for going to traffic court.  In some states (such as Massachusetts), that can be more than the ticket.  And that assumes that these cases even GO to traffic court.  In many places, it's considered a civil violation, and in many places, these go to kangaroo courts where one is presumed guilty until proven innocent (the standard for a civil violation is "more likely than not", NOT "beyond all reasonable doubt", and the camera is assumed to be right unless you can PROVE beyond all reasonable doubt otherwise).  And no, they don't care if you were driving the vehicle at the time or not.  And it's assuming the camera took a video that shows all the facts.

It's not just Chicago ticketing for legal maneuvers, btw.  In Albany, there recently was controversy where people turning right on a green arrow got ticketed.

Now that you've pre-countered my argument...  I do maintain that the risk in a car turning right on red is greater than a cyclist blowing through an intersection.  The damage done by another vehicle crashing into the right-turn offender definitely has greater potential for injury than the bicycling offender.  A bicycle going 15 mph hitting a couple of pedestrians going 3 mph is a far cry from a motor vehicle going 35 mph hitting another motor vehicle at any speed.

And if the cyclist gets hit because they're blowing through the intersection?  I'm not sure even the courts would assign fault to the cyclist, and you can bet your life that the press and cycling advocates won't.

[jeffandnicole]

And if the cyclist gets hit because they're blowing through the intersection?  I'm not sure even the courts would assign fault to the cyclist, and you can bet your life that the press and cycling advocates won't.

Here's what I determined via reading news articles:

When a Ped or bicyclist gets hit: Instant coverage.  Vague details.  Story almost always says "Charges against the driver are pending" or "Investigation is ongoing".  This is very true in the smaller papers.  For big city papers, not every incident will have a story.

If the driver is at fault: At least one, and probably several, follow-up stories will be written and posted.

If the pedestrian or bicyclist is at fault:  Crickets.

If you're to do a search in a local paper, take note of all the stories written when someone first gets hit, versus followup stories.  One is rarely if ever written when the ped or cyclist is at fault.

[RobbieL2415]

An example of "restricting" is something that ought to be familiar to forum member "AlexandriaVA"–in the City of Alexandria, it's very common to see signs reading "No Turn on Red When Pedestrians Are Present." A bunch of lights near the Whole Foods on Duke Street have those, and they're specifically intended to address one of the concerns he's raised. I sometimes find those signs annoying because some drivers not used to them overlook the "when pedestrians are present" portion, but whatever.

I've encountered similar signage in Long Island. I am not a fan of it due to the highly ambiguous meaning of "when pedestrians are present". Does that mean no turn on red when there are pedestrians in or waiting to enter the crosswalk? No turn on red when there are pedestrians near the crosswalk, even if they're walking away from the intersection? No turn on red when there are any pedestrians in sight at all?

This sort of sign smells to me like an opportunity for easy revenue enhancement, and I'm sure some of the drivers declining to turn on red at them are doing so because they smell the same thing.

I've seen people refuse to turn right on red when the "walk" signals are on.

[jakeroot]

In big cities, traffic court is so painful to deal with that most people just pay the ticket. Even trying to fight it is gonna cost a fair amount in parking fees and a day off from work, which for some people means an unpaid day off.  Judges aren't generally very accommodating - they want you in and out quickly.

Right, which is why you bring the video on your phone or something; get in and get out, quick. Traffic court is not that painful. Trust me, I've been there.

Besides...I've seen videos on YouTube where people swear they stop,  but the video clearly shows they are still moving. Sure, people will agree with them, but it's like they're saying yeah you slowed down "enough" so it should count as a stop. Judges deal with that crap all day, so when someone truly innocent comes along they are just lumped in with the "no, slowing down enough isn't the same as stopping" group.

If the video doesn't show you stopping, then you rightly deserved the ticket. But really, we're not talking about slowing down to turn here. My concern here is that people aren't turning on red because they think the camera will give them a ticket. I'm saying, that's insane. And I've never heard of that happening before. Seriously, find me an article. I don't care if its Chicago or not. Most of Chicago's red light cameras are connected to short yellow intervals and rolling right turns, the latter of which is not a legal maneuver.

In many places, it's considered a civil violation, and in many places, these go to kangaroo courts where one is presumed guilty until proven innocent (the standard for a civil violation is "more likely than not", NOT "beyond all reasonable doubt", and the camera is assumed to be right unless you can PROVE beyond all reasonable doubt otherwise)

That's because most people are guilty of most civil violations. But that doesn't change the fact that you are, under US law (last I checked), innocent until proven guilty.

Also, kangaroo courts? What the hell are those? Last two tickets I got were parking tickets. I reported to my county courthouse.

EDIT: It's worth mentioning that camera tickets are reviewed by humans before being sent to the registered owner. There is no "camera is assumed to be right" action here at all.

And no, they don't care if you were driving the vehicle at the time or not.

Can't speak for other states, but in Washington, they can't legally ticket you without proof that you were driving the vehicle (RCW 46.63.075 ~2).

It's not just Chicago ticketing for legal maneuvers, btw.  In Albany, there recently was controversy where people turning right on a green arrow got ticketed.

How many of those ticketed had to report to court? If it's a technical glitch, it's not your fault.

[1995hoo]

In quite a few states, the ticket goes to the registered owner. Virginia and DC law both explicitly require that the photos be of the REAR of the vehicle. (In Virginia it's easy to get out of one if you weren't driving. You file an affidavit or declaration saying you weren't driving, and you need not rat out the person who was. I don't know about DC procedure there. Doesn't matter to me, the only time anyone else drives my cars is the mechanic, who isn't in DC, or my wife if we visit my parents in Fairfax and I drink too much.)

[jakeroot]

In quite a few states, the ticket goes to the registered owner. Virginia and DC law both explicitly require that the photos be of the REAR of the vehicle. (In Virginia it's easy to get out of one if you weren't driving. You file an affidavit or declaration saying you weren't driving, and you need not rat out the person who was. I don't know about DC procedure there. Doesn't matter to me, the only time anyone else drives my cars is the mechanic, who isn't in DC, or my wife if we visit my parents in Fairfax and I drink too much.)

"Affidavit" being the key word here. You don't need to report to court to fight the ticket.

[1995hoo]

"Affidavit or declaration." The declaration is easier because it doesn't have to be notarized as long as you follow the proper format and use the required language.

[vdeane]

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/09/ticketed-la-driver-guilty-until-proven-innocent/
http://wjla.com/news/local/ticketed-d-c-drivers-guilty-until-proven-innocent-inspector-general-s-probe-finds-106909
http://www.winknews.com/2015/04/01/red-light-ticket-fraud-or-a-mistake-naples-couple-wants-answers/
http://www.mddriversalliance.org/p/arguments-against-speed-cameras.html

[jeffandnicole]

Can't speak for other states, but in Washington, they can't legally ticket you without proof that you were driving the vehicle (RCW 6.63.075 ~2).

Reread that law again. They can legally ticket you.

Here's the portion of the statute you're refering to. 

(2) This presumption may be overcome only if the registered owner states, under oath, in a written statement to the court or in testimony before the court that the vehicle involved was, at the time, stolen or in the care, custody, or control of some person other than the registered owner.

That clearly states that you can beat the ticket by saying you weren't driving the car. That absolutely does not state the cop has to determine you were driving the car before issuing you the ticket.

[jakeroot]

That clearly states that you can beat the ticket by saying you weren't driving the car. That absolutely does not state the cop has to determine you were driving the car before issuing you the ticket.

Err, fine. They can ticket you (and almost always do), but the ticket is automatically void unless the registered owner was the driver at the time.

FWIW, though I know you already noticed, the actual RCW is 46.63..., not 6.63...for anyone else who cares.

[jeffandnicole]

That clearly states that you can beat the ticket by saying you weren't driving the car. That absolutely does not state the cop has to determine you were driving the car before issuing you the ticket.

Err, fine. They can ticket you (and almost always do), but the ticket is automatically void unless the registered owner was the driver at the time.

FWIW, though I know you already noticed, the actual RCW is 46.63..., not 6.63...for anyone else who cares.

Again, no, it's not automatically voided.  You have to write or appear in court staying under oath you weren't the driver.

You're acting as if the driver has the upper hand here and the court has to prove you violated the law. That's not the case. And I'm going to think that it's not a slam dunk win if you try to claim you weren't the driver either.

[US 41]

I don't turn right on red at "camera controlled" intersections either. I'm sure not taking any chances.

[jeffandnicole]

I don't turn right on red at "camera controlled" intersections either. I'm sure not taking any chances.

Too many were doing that in NJ as well. Since the cameras were turned off after the 5 year "test" period to analyze the results (which is now incredibly at the 16 month mark), most people are comfortable turning right on red again without fear of a ticket.

[1995hoo]

A few months ago there was a news article about people complaining that the red-light cameras in Montgomery County, Maryland, issue tickets to people who stop before turning on red but who fail to stop behind the line. While I'm not generally a fan of camera-based enforcement, if there is going to be camera enforcement I don't have too much sympathy for those people.

[theline]

It wasn't legal in most of the US until 1978, but did most people do it anyways before that?  Or was it completely unheard of?

Short answer:  Yes, they did, at least from my experience.

Longer answer:  I've lived in Michigan most of my life.  I've had a driver's license since 1969.  In the early 1970s, I started working for the local phone company as an installer in Detroit.  Driving from job to job, I quickly learned that in many parts of town that traffic control devices of all sorts were considered superfluous.  I couldn't begin to tally the number of times I saw people ignore red lights, blow stop signs, consider yielding as an affront to their personal liberty, etc.  I got real paranoid driving, real fast. I managed to escape after 10 years of that with only one accident (was rear-ended at a stop light).

Oddly enough, I can still recall my first RTOR the day the law went into effect in 1976*.  For those familiar with Detroit streets, it was from the NB Southfield Freeway service drive onto EB Puritan.  Felt weird as all get-out.

* Google News archive story about the new RTOR law in Michigan:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=110&dat=19760327&id=DZRaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MEoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5571,5905744

I've been driving a bit longer than catch22, which means over a decade before RTOR was enacted. I've lived in Indiana all my life.

My observation is that drivers were no more likely to RTOR than they were to go straight or left on red. A red light was a red light. Of course, there are and always have been people who are too impatient to wait at a red light at 3 AM, but the right turn wasn't a factor. I would have never even thought about disobeying a red light.

Come to think of it, there used to be occasions when a signal would get "stuck" and drivers would treat them like stop signs. This was not that unusual when the switching equipment was mechanical.

[dvferyance]

I wish it was just illegal everywhere. It annoys me to have to worry about no turn on red signs. Make the law more consistent it makes sense.

[Brandon]

I wish it was just illegal everywhere. It annoys me to have to worry about no turn on red signs. Make the law more consistent it makes sense.

Why?  RTOR makes perfect sense, just be observant for the signage.

[Duke87]

Also, why are they impossible to fight? Just tell them you weren't the driver.

Worth noting that this is not a valid defense in every jurisdiction that has cameras. In NY, a ticket from a red light or speed camera is legally equivalent to a parking ticket and the registered owner of the vehicle is liable regardless of who was driving.

It's worth mentioning that camera tickets are reviewed by humans before being sent to the registered owner.

In theory.

In practice, how likely is that human going to take their job super seriously, or even know what they are doing? Somehow I don't trust the schlub tasked with reviewing camera violations to not be lazy and rubber stamp them, or to have the situational awareness to realize that (for example) there's a green arrow and the person turning right without stopping doesn't deserve a ticket.

If there's one thing I've learned in life it's that the majority of humans are incompetent at performing tasks which require them to think. Those that aren't are overqualified for tasks like reviewing camera tickets and won't be found in such a role.

[Bruce]

Right-on-red really shouldn't be legal in urban areas. Or anywhere with a pedestrian traffic of more than 1 per day. Too many people just blindly roll into the intersection past the stop line and block the crosswalk while looking for an opening in traffic, completely ignoring pedestrians that need to use that narrow sliver of paint to not walk into traffic.

[RobbieL2415]

Right-on-red really shouldn't be legal in urban areas. Or anywhere with a pedestrian traffic of more than 1 per day. Too many people just blindly roll into the intersection past the stop line and block the crosswalk while looking for an opening in traffic, completely ignoring pedestrians that need to use that narrow sliver of paint to not walk into traffic.

People do this at stop signs too, though.

[jeffandnicole]

Right-on-red really shouldn't be legal in urban areas. Or anywhere with a pedestrian traffic of more than 1 per day. Too many people just blindly roll into the intersection past the stop line and block the crosswalk while looking for an opening in traffic, completely ignoring pedestrians that need to use that narrow sliver of paint to not walk into traffic.

Maybe they could invent some sort of sign where turning on red would be prohibited where traffic engineers believe motorists should not turn on red. It would say "No Turn On Red".