Red light camera ticket in Columbus, Ohio

[gavin310]

I was in Columbus on a business trip and there was this stupid intersection where about 20 feet after you got out of a left turn lane there was another stoplight that you could hardly see quick enough. Anyway, I just got a letter in the mail with a picture of the back of my car and license plate. There's no picture that shows me though. I know in some cities people have fought red light camera tickets and won because there wasn't a clear picture of the driver to prove it was them driving. I'm not about to fly back to Ohio to fight this, but I'm just wondering if that photo of the back of my car is enough to prove I was driving. It seems like they would need a photo of me driving it if there was not a police officer around to witness it. Thoughts?

Also, the ticket is only $95... not bad considering California's red light ticket prices. It's definitely better to get a ticket in a state that's not going bankrupt... much more affordable!

[jim532]

Hey 95 bux is 95 bux, I would try to find a way to fight it. This would be a good one for HandelontheLAW.com and click the "ask a Lawyer" link

[tacklejunkie]

The ticket is sent to the owner of the vehicle.
Since the owner of the vehicle owns it, it's their responsibility to see that the ticket is payed. Does not matter if someone else was driving your car.. it's still your responsibility. In this case, if I Was a judge I woud say "Don't let idiots drive your cars!"

My Aunt got a ticket for me going through a toll booth on accident once in her truck. How would they have known to send me the ticket? Whomever is the registered owner of the plates that broke the law, gets nailed.

I'm the last person to side with the law, but sounds lik they got ya man.
I'd argue the intersection was confusing. That's probably be a better route, but you're gonna need pics to prove it. (ever watch traffic court?)

[gavin310]

I'm guilty as hell, I'll admit it. I just don't like the idea of the police being able to ticket you without definite proof. I could have valeted my car and that was some college kid driving it. In California you get a picture of your face along with your ticket, which I think is the right way to do it. Just showing your car doesn't sit right with me.

[Sue]

I'm guilty as hell, I'll admit it.

So what's the point questioning/fighting it? You were in a different State, that has different laws regarding what's admissible in court.
Man up, pay up.

[gavin310]

So what's the point questioning/fighting it? You were in a different State, that has different laws regarding what's admissible in court.
Man up, pay up.

I ran the red light, yes, but I don't agree that they should be able to find me guilty without first proving it was, in fact, me who was driving the car. Say I valeted my car. One month later I receive a ticket in the mail with a picture of the car. I have no proof that I wasn't the one driving. I can't obtain proof. (They require you to prove who was driving the car if you claim it wasn't you.) I'm guilty in their books and fighting it will almost certainly be futile.

Now, looking at the intersection in Google street view, I can see a sign posted a little before the left turn lane that says "Prepare To Stop After Left Turn". Obviously this means I wasn't paying enough attention (I was watching the light and road,) but they wouldn't need to post that sign if there wasn't a problem with that intersection. Enough people have run through the light to warrant that sign, so instead of simplifying the intersection they put red light cameras out so they can ticket confused people who would normally be obeying the laws. We pay our local governments to build and maintain our roads. I'll admit when I'm wrong, the least they can do is admit when they're wrong.