How to beat the Photo Enforced Camera...

The Photo Enforced camera is a perfect example for the phrase, "Passive Aggressive" which is used to justify having Photo Enforced intersections.

The passive is pretending that they are concerned about safety, because if they were, they would put a sign up that says, "No Right Turn on Red" but they don't.

The aggressive here, is that they put a fine ahead of safety and allow turns on reds which account for the most tickets served at an intersection.

There are more chances of failure by allowing turns, because technically you're supposed to stop equal with the other cars instead of what most do and drive into the Crosswalk.

The reason people do this is because to the left of them is a car and to the right of them is some kind of an obstruction, both of which are obstructions.

You either have someone that has grown bushes or trees around the corner disabling a good view of pedestrians, and the car beside you blocks your view to the pedestrians and cars that are coming.

This is the Right Hand Turn debacle, and should they or shouldn't they disable the ability to turn right at intersections with lights.

Let us help them with this question...ENABLE IT NOW! and start with intersections that have high pedestrian activity and or/Photo Enforced intersections.

It's the "Vision Zero" program. "Vision Zero Action Plan is the City's foundation for ending traffic deaths and injuries on our streets".

They know that by putting 5 words up that say "No Right Turn on Red" solves this, but why would they, can't make no money that way boss :-P

sidenote: We want to enforce two rules for writing. The punctuation behind quote 2 i.e. "Test",
it's the comma behind quote 2 that doesn't need to be there. If the sentence continues then let the second quote imply the comma otherwise only apply the period. The second is the Emoticon, let the emoticon reflect the comma punctuation also, but this time allow the emoticon exception to the  tense, ie. period, question mark, exclamation mark and let the sentence and the emoticon speak for itself, or rather "Imply" ;-)

Anyway, the reason they are going around with this issue is because some people want to make money and some people are struggling with an understanding, and what is that understanding...how do we justify implementing Vision Zero...

Well here is the solution you are looking for..."Electric Cars". Electric Cars are silent and people are used to hearing a car come up to the corner, but with electric there isn't any noise.

That is the future and as such will increase accidents and fatality rates at an intersection if they don't apply 5 little words, "No Right Turn on Red" solution.

If we didn't have electric cars on the road then we would understand not enforcing this law, but since we have electric "driverless" Google cars on the road then it's time to come together on an issue.

However, that being said, is not why you are here, the answer you are looking for is how do I get out of a photo enforced ticket...

There are two ways, one is a little harder because it's hard to see the unknown, but still it would be to test the device that gave you a ticket...

You'll question the type of technology it uses and you'll question when the last time it was serviced, but if this is up to date, you'll lose by default,

The second way is to go directly into the solution and say..."I Wasn't Driving".

When you are ticketed they will send you a video of your car making the infraction and if the camera that picked you up was behind you and not in front of you you'll be able to get the case dismissed no questions asked.

If you were driving and you said you weren't will only describe the type of person you are because the swear in is different, they typically say, Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth so help you GOD...I do, but not in Photo Enforced. All they do now is hold you at your word.

Do you swear to tell the truth...I do? ;-)

Since you have a video of what is going to be shown in court will allow you time to create an argument, instead of having to think of one on your feet.

It's kind of like a Discovery of sorts that Lawyers get that provide behind the scenes footage like, Cops statements and video if any.

The reason they dismiss the case is because they can't see your face and the court is bound to proving beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you choose the method of "I Wasn't Driving" and you were driving, you'll be telling a lie, so it's what you can live with will decide how you answer the Judges questions.

The problem with this solution is that nothing gets fixed :-( other than you getting out of the ticket and fine :-) but if you speak up your voice will be heard, a ticket will be prevented and a life will be saved...and that's a fact!

...okay, there is a third option that will maintain your integrity by using the courts rules to your advantage...

The Court has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty and you don't want to lie by saying "I wasn't Driving" so the solution is to have the court prove that you are guilty.

You'll be able to receive a discovery of your court case before you ever step into court that will give you all the information you'll need to build your defense.

You do not have to admit your guilt unless the court brings forth new evidence that implicates you beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you got a lawyer you'll need to be completely honest with them and admit that you were driving, but that testimony you give to your lawyer will never surface as long as the evidence can't support it.

Although, you won't need a lawyer and you won't ever need to admit anything if you just follow the golden rule of making the state carry the burden of Proving Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that you are guilty.

This way you maintain your integrity, you show the court that the system is flawed and you get your case dismissed...and that's just one more fact 4'ya ;-)