Need info on the Current Red LIght Camera laws

[vontar]

Need info on the Current Red LIght Camera laws.

 

I have been looking at LexisNexis however not finding what I thought i would.

 

I though last year the State passed a law not allowing new Traffic Cameras to be installed, yet Oak Ridge is talking about trying to bring them back.  Trying to dig up what I can on this.

 

I found this old article but it is from before anything was signed, that indicates they tried to do some last minute changes.

 

 

http://legacy.wbir.com/story/news/2015/04/22/bill-banning-speed-cameras-in-tennessee-headed-to-governor/26211225/

 

I found

55-8-198 and looked it up but did not find what i thought passed.

 

 

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/politics/state/story/2015/mar/19/tennessee-bill-banning-traffic-cameras-changed-so-it-wont-ban-traffic-cameras/294155/

 

 

"Today we're one step closer to driving red light camera operators out of Tennessee," he said in a statement. "Extending yellow lights to six seconds at these intersections will cut down on accidents and spare citizens the frustrations of these frivolous tickets."

Meanwhile, the House version of the original ban bill was amended and then sped through that chamber's Transportation Committee on a 9-7 vote. It bans all cameras although cities like Chattanooga, which currently have contracts with vendors. would be allowed to continue until their agreements expire.

The amendment makes the ban apply to city-owned and operated cameras as well.

 

 

 

So are they allowed to put in new ones or not?  If so what are they allowed and required to do.  If the City tries to put them in, I want to hold their feet to the fire so to speak and make sure every I is dotted and every T crossed.

 

 

 

We have some sneaky people in office.  People that work full time jobs just can't keep up with everything they are doing.  I think I need to run for office.

Edited April 20, 2016 by vontar

[macville]

All you need to know is that they can not do anything to you legally if you refuse to pay the ticket. Paying a ticket give out through a camera is solely an honor system thing...which I wish I knew years ago when I got a ticket for when I wasn't driving but I didn't know who was actually driving the van at the time.

[Sam1]

They can ban them, the cities will always fight it because they bring in so much money.  The law probably says no "new" traffic cameras, so they are buying used ones from other cities and installing them.

[DaveTN]

http://columbiadailyherald.com/opinion/columns/truth-about-tenn-traffic-cameras

[jgradyc]

Are there any of these cameras in the Brentwood, Cool Springs area? I see lots of traffic cameras and I routinely run them as they're changing to red. Let me know where the cameras are!

[gregintenn]

All you need to know is that they can not do anything to you legally if you refuse to pay the ticket. Paying a ticket give out through a camera is solely an honor system thing...which I wish I knew years ago when I got a ticket for when I wasn't driving but I didn't know who was actually driving the van at the time.

Link please??!!??

[Patton]

All you need to know is that they can not do anything to you legally if you refuse to pay the ticket. Paying a ticket give out through a camera is solely an honor system thing...which I wish I knew years ago when I got a ticket for when I wasn't driving but I didn't know who was actually driving the van at the time.

Not true, they suspend the license of the registered owner after so long. I know for a fact. I did hear of an interesting event. A woman got her ticket in the mail, went in and plead guilty, but stated she did not have the $50 to pay. Since at this point it is still considered a civil violation they decided any action to take was going to cost them far more than $50. I never heard what became of it but the last I heard they just forgot about it. That city that I worked in no longer has traffic or red light cameras.

[macville]

Not true, they suspend the license of the registered owner after so long. I know for a fact. I did hear of an interesting event. A woman got her ticket in the mail, went in and plead guilty, but stated she did not have the $50 to pay. Since at this point it is still considered a civil violation they decided any action to take was going to cost them far more than $50. I never heard what became of it but the last I heard they just forgot about it. That city that I worked in no longer has traffic or red light cameras.

 

 

Let me quote Rep Andy Holt about it, "Did you know that state law actually prohibits any negative actions being taken against your credit report, driver’s license or insurance if you choose not to pay the ticket? In fact, there is no enforcement mechanism at all."

 

When I look at 55-8-198 I see nothing that gives them any ability to suspend anyone's driver's license, nor actually collect any money. The ticket is actually a non-moving violation (like seatbelt, no vehicle registration) but they certainly carved out a nice lack if enforcement tools! So if you are right, show me where it says they can suspend someone's license for not paying.

[Patton]

Let me quote Rep Andy Holt about it, "Did you know that state law actually prohibits any negative actions being taken against your credit report, driver’s license or insurance if you choose not to pay the ticket? In fact, there is no enforcement mechanism at all."

When I look at 55-8-198 I see nothing that gives them any ability to suspend anyone's driver's license, nor actually collect any money. The ticket is actually a non-moving violation (like seatbelt, no vehicle registration) but they certainly carved out a nice lack if enforcement tools! So if you are right, show me where it says they can suspend someone's license for not paying.

I have heard that quote from him before, but truth is even if you went to court and lost you were no longer bound by even the $50 max fine. If you pled your case and was found guilty it was the typical $50 fine (because our city court judge was appointed and not elected), plus court fees, and it was a moving violation after that. I didn't see this happen but a few times. Most cases were dismissed, and I agree that most should have been. Our court clerk was the one who submitted the form to the department of safety and it was no different for a photo enforcement ticket or a standard ticket.

I met two people who came to visit concerning a notification from the department of safety about their suspended license. Believe it or not, but they were both very corgel and just wanted to know how to fix the situation. Both stated they had paid online and felt the payment must not have been received, and I actually believed them. If I recall it only took a few days after missing court for the suspension to take place.

Edit:
I text a friend and asked if he knew why or how we were able to suspend a license and he brought up a good point. The accused had their license suspended for failure to appear and not for the citation itself. Edited April 21, 2016 by Patton

[Sam1]

If you do decide to go to court, isn't the status quo to challenge it and make the company send someone in to represent the device?  That way it runs up the bill for the company.

 

Everyone needs to do that if you were to actually pay it.

 

The easiest solution is just run Waze on your phone, you'll get an alert when you get near something.

[bud]

.

Edited June 18, 2016 by bud

[peejman]

They can ban them, the cities will always fight it because they bring in so much money.  The law probably says no "new" traffic cameras, so they are buying used ones from other cities and installing them.

 

 

The irony is they don't actually bring in much money for the municipalities.  The cameras are leased and the camera company pockets most of the revenue.  The little extra money the city gets is offset by the increased administration and court costs because of all the extra pissed off people. 

[DWARREN123]

Don't run red lights!

[Sam1]

The irony is they don't actually bring in much money for the municipalities. The cameras are leased and the camera company pockets most of the revenue. The little extra money the city gets is offset by the increased administration and court costs because of all the extra pissed off people.

But 10% of $700,000 year for no work other than signing a document is still $70k/year more than they started with.

[monkeylizard]

I drive a lot for work, and everyone is always telling me to get Waze. I recently went to download it and found that Waze wants to collect so much personal data and to have access to so much private info like my contact list etc (so it can try and determine what I'm doing) that it's ridiculous.
Too bad this "free" app is just really a massive personal data mining/collection scheme. I guess that makes them no different than Google, facebook, etc.

 

Google owns Waze now so yeah, they're collecting massive amounts of data, but you don't have to give it access to your contacts list.

It will use your location services as long as the app is on, so just close it when you're done.

[peejman]

But 10% of $700,000 year for no work other than signing a document is still $70k/year more than they started with.

 

 

But $70,000/yr probably doesn't cover the the salary and benefits for 1 extra person to do that all that signing, much less the additional court costs for all those who contest the tickets.

[vontar]

i believe Oak Ridge got close to 50 percent. 

[Patton]

Where I have worked the company pays overtime for the officer to sit, retrieve, review footage, and show for court. I imagine there are some places that the officer's entire job is to work cameras , but then I don't know how that works.

[jgradyc]

Any of these cameras in Nashville/Brentwood/Cool Springs?

[quietguy]

Any of these cameras in Nashville/Brentwood/Cool Springs?

Metro doesn't have any, and I think the cameras in Brentwood and Franklin are only for monitoring traffic.  

[bud]

.

Edited June 18, 2016 by bud

[Sam1]

People worry too much about that stuff.  Everything you do or have done is already being recorded and stored, whether you agree to it or not.

[bud]

.

Edited June 18, 2016 by bud

[Ron_TN]

I'm 80....I've  had that problem solved form day one..I do not RUN RED LIGHTS.   Never had a speeding ticket either.  To be honest I've NEVER had a ticket.  Maybe luck has something to do with it.  Had a lady hit me in the rear while stopped at a red light.....LOL.....bet you'll never guess what she was doing while driving.  First and only accident I've ever had. 

 

"Slow down and smell the roses"

Edited April 22, 2016 by Ron_TN

[ou812]

http://m.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=29324#.Vxrsk59OnqA