Red Light Cameras coming to an Intersection Near You

[Adam W]

But it doesn't bother me, for $40 just get a loover and don't worry about it.

I didn't know what that was, so I googled it. Pretty clever. Are those legal?

[Charles Hunter]

Whether devices like the Loover are legal depends on interpretation of Florida Statue 316.605
Possibly relevant language

in such manner as to prevent the plates from swinging, and all letters, numerals, printing, writing, and other identification marks upon the plates regarding the word “Florida,” the registration decal, and the alphanumeric designation shall be clear and distinct and free from defacement, mutilation, grease, and other obscuring matter, so that they will be plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front.

This just says visible from 100 feet - doesn't specify whether this is at ground level, or from an elevated position - as an enforcement camera would be placed. Looks like something else to enrich lawyers asserting these (and similar) devices do not violate the law.

Link to FS http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.605.html

[ChriswUfGator]

Whether devices like the Loover are legal depends on interpretation of Florida Statue 316.605
Possibly relevant language

in such manner as to prevent the plates from swinging, and all letters, numerals, printing, writing, and other identification marks upon the plates regarding the word “Florida,” the registration decal, and the alphanumeric designation shall be clear and distinct and free from defacement, mutilation, grease, and other obscuring matter, so that they will be plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front.

This just says visible from 100 feet - doesn't specify whether this is at ground level, or from an elevated position - as an enforcement camera would be placed. Looks like something else to enrich lawyers asserting these (and similar) devices do not violate the law.

Link to FS http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.605.html

No need to enrich anyone, seems clear enough to me...

It says "from the rear or front" of the vehicle, not "from above" the vehicle.

And I'd love to hear you explain how this is somehow the lawyers' fault, I think you'd have a hard time finding one who's in love with the idea of sticking police cameras all over the place. I think it's a terrible idea, and I don't think they should be installed, as I've already noted above. How's it my fault if they do it anyway? WTF, seriously?

[Adam W]

Whether devices like the Loover are legal depends on interpretation of Florida Statue 316.605
Possibly relevant language

in such manner as to prevent the plates from swinging, and all letters, numerals, printing, writing, and other identification marks upon the plates regarding the word “Florida,” the registration decal, and the alphanumeric designation shall be clear and distinct and free from defacement, mutilation, grease, and other obscuring matter, so that they will be plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front.

This just says visible from 100 feet - doesn't specify whether this is at ground level, or from an elevated position - as an enforcement camera would be placed. Looks like something else to enrich lawyers asserting these (and similar) devices do not violate the law.

Link to FS http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.605.html

Sounds pretty legal to me, then. If the cameras become common enough, they'll probably just change the law to make loovers, et al illegal.

[Charles Hunter]

Chris - My point was not that the statute was written to enrich lawyers, but that as jurisdictions begin to charge vehicle owners who have obscuring devices with violation of this part of the statute, lawyers will challenge those citations, thus making money (unless y'all are going to do it out of the goodness of your hearts, pro bono).  I did not say it was The Lawyers' fault.  Just another revenue stream, until the court or legislature decide the legality of Loovers (etc.).

And the point you made will be one of the points to make when challenging such a citation.  At what angle above horizontal is the view no longer from the "rear", but from "above"? 

Just an observation about the law - the "device" I see quite often obscuring part of license plates is an FOP or similar "I support cops" badge or sticker.  Do these drivers get ticketed?

Oh, and I am leaning "against" red-light cameras.  One problem has been cited here - the vehicle is in violation, there is no way to know who was driving.  Also, I am leery of the "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you shouldn't object" argument.  Leads to all kinds of abuse.

[ChriswUfGator]

Anytime the state overreaches its authority, lawyers get involved. That's why the first step in a Shakespearean revolution was "first, kill all the lawyers." I'm curious, when a certain segment of the population are pretty much uniformly opposed to something, which is a state overreach, and the government does it anyway, then why is it vulgar that they are entitled to put food on their table? Like every other thing a local government does doesn't enrich an army of paid consultants, sycophants, politicians, etc.?

Why is it that the last backstop of your civil liberty is expected to live under bridges lest they be deemed some kind of morally defective human being? I'm actually quite curious to hear your logic here. The ABA and every state bar where these things have been implemented has been opposed to the concept. Which, as you noted, is against our self-interests. But that's the position, because it's right. And you still toss out that comment. I'd really love to have you explain your logic.

[Charles Hunter]

OK, Chris, I concede ... it was a cheap shot on my part.
I do not begrudge you, or any lawyer, making money.  I was trying to note that, because local governments searching for new revenues, will implement red light cameras, which will bring lawsuits, which will provide income to attorneys contesting the law - protecting our rights.

Seriously, intent was not to slam lawyers, but to say this gov't action is inviting law suits.

[I-10east]

If I'm not mistaken, it look like they have some cameras (most likely in-op right now) along MLK Parkway, roughly from Myrtle to Division. It's not the red light cameras that I'm worried about, it's those damn pesky hiding traffic police that will give you a ticket for doing 55 in a 54! I'm admittedly a lead footer on the highway, and I went to court to clear up a ticket, and a cop give someone else a ticket (the judge read it out loud like WTF!) for going 71 in a 65, I'm like are you kidding me? Boy, that was really some 'unsafe' driving! These cops are crazy, and they'll give you a ticket for anything!!!I stay chillin at the crib most of the time to avoid tickets, they got me kinda paranoid! LOL 

[Charles Hunter]

Those "cameras" mounted on the traffic signal supports are detectors to tell if there are cars near the light - they replace those burred loops in the pavement.  Engineer friends tell me the camera-like detectors are more reliable, but they are not "cameras" that take pictures.  Think about it, how could a camera mounted on the same pole as the traffic signal take a picture of a car going under it on red?

[Noone]

  I was trying to note that, because local governments searching for new revenues, will implement red light cameras, which will  provide income to
/quote]

CH, I know I'm busting up your true quote but with the reorg 2012-212, 2012-213 The new Authority will be looking for a total takeover of the parking revenue. So how will this be broken down if at all to address the areas outside of the reorg for this fractured potential future revenue stream?

[I-10east]

Those "cameras" mounted on the traffic signal supports are detectors to tell if there are cars near the light - they replace those burred loops in the pavement.  Engineer friends tell me the camera-like detectors are more reliable, but they are not "cameras" that take pictures.  Think about it, how could a camera mounted on the same pole as the traffic signal take a picture of a car going under it on red?

My bad, yeeeesh. Thanks for making me feel like a dummy. With that said, you do have a good point though. LOL

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

How about the larger scheme of things:  when the tag is ran through the system, wheter manually or through a data recognition software, what other fines can be charged to the car?  Expired Tags, no registration decal, stolen vehicles, etc...

Or can they ONLY issue a ticket for the red-light?

[Charles Hunter]

Good question NRNW.  Or if you have any outstanding warrants?

[Dog Walker]

Or if the car has been reported stolen?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

What about the tags listed with Amber & Silver alerts?