Seat Belt Cameras: Where They’re Being Used and What You Need to Know

With advancements in technology, automated enforcement of traffic laws is becoming more common. One significant development is the use of AI-powered seat belt detection cameras. These cameras are designed to catch drivers and passengers who are not wearing their seat belts, helping improve road safety.

Where Are Seat Belt Cameras Being Used?

New South Wales, Australia

New South Wales (NSW) has implemented seat belt detection cameras since July 1, 2024. These cameras, initially designed to catch mobile phone use while driving, now also detect seat belt violations. Within the first three weeks of enforcement, more than 11,400 penalties were issued, with around 75% related to seat belt non-compliance. Fines for not wearing a seat belt in NSW can reach $410, and offenders receive at least three demerit points. (Source)

United Kingdom

The UK has been trialing AI-powered seat belt and phone detection cameras in several regions, including Greater Manchester, Durham, Humberside, and Cornwall. These cameras, developed by Acusensus, analyze vehicle interiors and flag violations. In Greater Manchester, a five-week trial recorded over 3,200 offenses. Offenders receive a notice, and penalties vary based on the violation. (Source)

How Do Seat Belt Cameras Work?

These cameras use AI technology to scan vehicles and identify whether occupants are wearing seat belts. High-resolution images are analyzed, and potential violations are flagged for human review before fines are issued. This ensures accuracy and reduces false positives.

Penalties for Not Wearing a Seat Belt

Penalties vary by location, but they typically include:

• Fines: Ranging from $100 to over $400 in some areas

• Demerit Points: Accumulating points can lead to license suspension

• Driver Responsibility: In many regions, drivers are responsible for ensuring passengers are buckled up

Why Is This Important?

Seat belts reduce the risk of fatal injuries by up to 50% in car accidents. Automated enforcement ensures compliance and enhances road safety by discouraging reckless behavior.

Final Thoughts

With AI-powered seat belt cameras becoming more common, it’s essential to always buckle up. These cameras are already in place in Australia and the UK, and more regions may follow suit. Staying informed and adhering to seat belt laws can help you avoid fines and, more importantly, save lives.

For more details, check out the full reports on NSW’s seat belt camera enforcement and the UK’s AI camera trials.

Are Judges Throwing Out Red Light Camera Cases? What You Need to Know

Red light cameras have been a point of controversy in cities across the United States for years. While municipalities argue these automated systems improve road safety and reduce traffic violations, many drivers see them as a cash grab. Recently, there's been a growing trend across various jurisdictions: judges are throwing out red light camera cases. But why is this happening, and what does it mean for drivers who’ve received a ticket?

Why Are Red Light Camera Tickets Being Dismissed?

Several legal and constitutional issues have prompted courts to toss out red light camera tickets. Some of the most common reasons include:

1. Due Process Violations

Many drivers argue that red light camera tickets violate their right to due process. Tickets are often issued to the vehicle owner, regardless of who was driving. In several cases, judges have ruled that this method fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Improper Issuance by Private Companies

In some jurisdictions, the companies operating red light cameras are private, not governmental agencies. Judges have dismissed cases on the grounds that only law enforcement has the authority to issue traffic citations — not third-party contractors.

3. Lack of Proper Evidence

Courts have also rejected red light camera tickets where the evidence (e.g., video or still images) was blurry, inconclusive, or did not clearly establish a violation.

4. Failure to Properly Serve Notice

Some cities fail to follow the correct legal procedures when notifying drivers of a red light camera violation. If a driver doesn't receive timely or accurate notice, a judge may dismiss the case.

Cities Where Judges Are Dismissing Red Light Camera Tickets

While this varies by location, there have been noteworthy developments in cities like:

• Chicago, IL – Judges have thrown out thousands of tickets due to improper notification procedures.

• Los Angeles, CA – The city stopped enforcing red light camera tickets after courts frequently sided with drivers.

• Cleveland, OH – Courts ruled the program unconstitutional unless a police officer issued the citation.

• New Miami, OH – The village was ordered to refund millions in red light camera fines after courts deemed the system illegal.

Can You Fight a Red Light Camera Ticket?

Yes — and more people are winning than ever before. Here's how:

1. Request a Court Hearing

Don’t automatically pay the fine. Contest the ticket in court, where you can argue your case and possibly have it dismissed.

2. Challenge the Evidence

Ask for photographic or video evidence. If the quality is poor or the violation is unclear, the judge may rule in your favor.

3. Cite Precedent Cases

If you live in an area where courts have recently ruled against red light camera programs, referencing those decisions can strengthen your defense.

4. Consult a Traffic Attorney

Many lawyers specialize in traffic cases and offer free consultations. An experienced attorney can identify legal flaws in your ticket.

Are Red Light Cameras Being Phased Out?

Some cities have responded to legal pushback and public outcry by removing red light cameras altogether. Others have restructured their programs to ensure legal compliance. However, many municipalities still rely on them as a revenue source — so knowing your rights remains essential.

Final Thoughts

If you’ve received a red light camera ticket, don’t assume you have to pay it. Increasingly, judges are throwing out red light camera cases due to constitutional concerns, improper evidence, and flawed enforcement practices. Understanding the legal landscape can help you make informed decisions — and possibly beat the ticket altogether.

How to Fight a Red Light Camera Ticket: Use Short Red Times to Your Advantage

Think you have no defense for a red light camera ticket? Don’t give up just yet. Many drivers believe that once they receive a red light photo ticket, it’s an automatic fine—but that's not always the case. If you were unable to stop safely due to a short yellow or red light interval, you may still have a valid legal argument.

Can’t Stop in Time? That’s a Defense

One of the most overlooked but powerful defenses to a red light ticket is the argument that you could not stop safely without endangering yourself or others. For example, if the yellow light duration was too short and you were already too close to the intersection, slamming on the brakes could have caused a rear-end collision or led you to skid into traffic—especially in bad weather.

How to Check the “Late Time” on Your Ticket

Look carefully at your red light camera ticket. On a Redflex photo ticket, for example, the “late time” is typically displayed on a black bar above or near the photo—usually on the right-hand side. This late time indicates how long the light had been red when you entered the intersection.

If your late time is extremely short, such as 0.1 seconds, you could argue that it was virtually impossible to stop in time. Even in dry conditions, stopping safely within that window is difficult—add rain or slippery roads, and it becomes even more dangerous.

Example:

A late time of 0.1 or 0.2 seconds means you entered the intersection just a fraction of a second after the light turned red. Would a full stop have put you or others at greater risk? That’s the core of your defense.

What If No Late Time Is Shown?

If your ticket doesn’t display a late time, don’t worry—you may still be able to make an informed estimate based on traffic conditions shown in the photo. For instance:

• If other vehicles are seen turning or driving through the intersection at the same time you were,

• Or if cross-traffic hasn't yet started moving,

…it suggests the light had only just turned red, and your violation may have been minimal.

Important note: If you were making a right turn, this defense may be less effective. Most right-turn violations are triggered after the light has turned fully red, and rolling through without stopping is more difficult to justify.

Why Short Red Times Matter

Many cities and counties use grace periods before their red light cameras trigger a violation. While there’s no federal requirement, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recognizes that:

• A 0.3-second grace period is common,

• And a 0.5-second grace period is considered the international standard.

If your ticket shows a red time under 0.5 seconds, you have a stronger argument. A red time of 0.3 seconds or less may significantly increase your chances of getting the ticket dismissed or reduced, especially if the court recognizes these timing standards.

Final Tips to Fight a Red Light Photo Ticket

• Always check the late time on your red light camera ticket.

• Photograph the intersection to show sight lines and stopping distances, if needed.

• Mention weather or road conditions that made safe stopping harder.

• Research your city’s red light camera policies—some include automatic grace periods.

Conclusion

A red light camera ticket doesn’t always mean you’re guilty. If you were caught in a split-second decision with a short red light duration, you may have a solid legal defense. Review your ticket carefully and consider your options—especially if the late time is under 0.5 seconds. Knowing your rights and the timing standards used in traffic enforcement could make all the difference in keeping your record clean.

How to Use Red Light Camera Video Footage as Evidence

Red light cameras are becoming increasingly common in cities across the United States, capturing thousands of traffic violations daily. But beyond issuing tickets, this footage can also serve as powerful evidence in legal and insurance disputes. Whether you're fighting a citation or proving your innocence in an accident, understanding how to access and use red light camera video footage can make a significant difference. Here's everything you need to know.

What Is Red Light Camera Video Footage?

Red light cameras are automated enforcement systems placed at intersections. When a vehicle runs a red light, the system captures high-resolution images and short video clips of the violation. These clips typically show:

• The vehicle before entering the intersection

• The traffic light status at the time

• The vehicle in the intersection after the light turned red

• A timestamp and location marker

This footage is often used by municipalities to issue citations, but it can also be requested and used as legal evidence in court.

Why Use Red Light Camera Footage as Evidence?

Red light camera footage can be instrumental in:

• Disputing a traffic ticket: If you believe the citation was issued in error, the footage may support your claim.

• Proving fault in a car accident: Video evidence can show which vehicle had the right of way.

• Supporting an insurance claim: Insurers may accept camera footage as reliable proof of events.

• Defending against wrongful accusations: If you’re wrongly blamed for an incident, the footage may exonerate you.

How to Obtain Red Light Camera Footage

1. Identify the Camera Location

Determine the intersection where the red light camera is located. This is typically stated on the citation, or you can check with the local Department of Transportation (DOT) or police department.

2. Contact the Appropriate Agency

Red light cameras are usually managed by local law enforcement or traffic enforcement offices. Submit a request to:

• The city or county traffic enforcement division

• The police department’s records unit

• The state’s Department of Transportation

Ask specifically for video footage and still images from the red light camera at the specified date and time.

3. Submit a Public Records Request

In most jurisdictions, traffic camera footage is considered public record. File a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request or a state-specific public records request. Include:

• Your full name and contact information

• The date, time, and location of the incident

• License plate number (if applicable)

• Reason for your request

4. Act Quickly

Camera footage is usually only stored for a limited time—often 30 to 90 days—unless there's an ongoing investigation. The sooner you request the footage, the better.

How to Use the Footage in Court or Claims

A. In Traffic Court

If you're contesting a red light ticket, you can request that the court review the footage. Some jurisdictions provide an online portal to view and download this evidence.

B. In Civil Court (e.g., Car Accident Lawsuits)

You or your attorney can submit the footage as evidence during litigation. Be sure it is authenticated (officially verified) and accompanied by a statement or affidavit from the agency that supplied it.

C. For Insurance Claims

Provide the footage to your insurance adjuster to support your claim or defense. This may help speed up the claims process or reduce disputes over liability.

Legal Considerations and Admissibility

• Chain of custody: You may need to show the footage has not been tampered with.

• Authenticity: Footage should come directly from the city or agency to ensure it's admissible.

• Privacy laws: In some states, certain privacy laws may apply, but generally, footage captured in public spaces is allowed in court.

Final Thoughts

Red light camera video footage can be a game-changer in resolving legal or insurance matters. Acting quickly, following the correct process, and understanding your rights can ensure that this digital evidence works in your favor.

Updated Red Light and Speed Camera Fine Information by State

As a driver, understanding the laws and fines associated with red light cameras and speed cameras is crucial for maintaining good driving habits and avoiding unexpected expenses. This article provides an updated overview of the fines and points associated with red light and speed camera violations across the United States. Please note that these fines can vary by municipality, so it’s essential to check local regulations for the most accurate information.

Red Light Camera Fines and Points

The table below summarizes the current fines and points for red light camera violations in each state:

State	Red Light Camera Fine ($)	Red Light Camera Points
Alabama	$100	No Points
Arizona	$165-$250	2 Points
Arkansas	No Programs	-
California	$490	1 Point
Colorado	$40-$80	4 Points
Delaware	$75-$230	-
District of Columbia	$150	0 to 2 Points
Florida	$200	-
Georgia	$70	No Points
Hawaii	$77	-
Illinois	$100-$500	20 Points
Indiana	No Programs	-
Iowa	$45-$150	-
Kansas	No Programs	-
Louisiana	$100-$140	No Points
Maryland	$100	No Points
Michigan	No Programs	-
Minnesota	No Programs	-
Mississippi	No Programs	-
Missouri	$100	-
Nevada	No Programs	-
New Jersey	$85	No Points
New Mexico	$75	-
New York	$50-$100	No Points
North Carolina	$50-$100	3 Points
Ohio	$100-$200	-
Oklahoma	No Programs	-
Oregon	$260-$1,000	-
Pennsylvania	$100	No Points
Rhode Island	$75	-
South Dakota	No Programs	-
Tennessee	$50	No Points
Texas	State Ban	-
Virginia	$100-$200	0 to 4 Points
Washington	$124-$250	No Points
West Virginia	No Programs	-
Wisconsin	No Programs	-

Speed Camera Fines and Points

In addition to red light cameras, many states also have speed camera programs. Below is a summary of speed camera fines and points across the states:

State	Speed Camera Fine ($)	Speed Camera Points
Alabama	-	-
Arizona	$165-$250	2 Points
Arkansas	-	-
California	-	-
Colorado	$40-$80	4 Points
Delaware	-	-
District of Columbia	$50-$300	0, 3, 4, 5 Points
Florida	-	-
Georgia	-	-
Hawaii	-	-
Illinois	$250-$500	20 Points
Indiana	No Programs	-
Iowa	$45-$150	-
Kansas	No Programs	-
Louisiana	-	-
Maryland	$40-$1,000	No Points
Michigan	No Programs	-
Minnesota	No Programs	-
Mississippi	No Programs	-
Missouri	-	-
Nevada	No Programs	-
New Jersey	-	-
New Mexico	$75	-
New York	$90-$1,200	No Points (Possible Jail Time)
North Carolina	-	-
Ohio	$100-$200	-
Oklahoma	No Programs	-
Oregon	$110-$2,000	-
Pennsylvania	-	-
Rhode Island	-	-
South Dakota	No Programs	-
Tennessee	$50	No Points
Texas	-	-
Virginia	-	-
Washington	$124-$250	No Points
West Virginia	No Programs	-
Wisconsin	No Programs	-

Important Notes

• Local Variations: Keep in mind that this information can vary widely by municipality within each state. It’s essential to verify specific details with local laws or law enforcement agencies.

• Changes in Regulations: Traffic laws and fines can change frequently. Drivers should regularly check for updates in their state or locality to stay informed.

• Safe Driving Practices: To avoid the potential of incurring fines or points on your license, always adhere to traffic signals and speed limits, and practice safe driving habits.

By understanding the fines and points associated with red light and speed camera violations in your state, you can better navigate the roads and make informed decisions as a driver. Always stay updated on your local traffic laws to ensure a safe and compliant driving experience.

First Court Case of Photo Evidence Dismissed: A Landmark Decision in Traffic Enforcement

 

In a groundbreaking legal development, the first court case involving photo evidence from automated traffic enforcement systems has been dismissed, raising questions about the future of red light and speed camera tickets. This landmark decision may have significant implications for how cities enforce traffic laws and the validity of photo evidence in court. Here’s what you need to know about this case, the reasons for its dismissal, and what it could mean for drivers and municipalities alike.

What Happened in the Case?

The dismissed case involved a driver who received a citation for a traffic violation captured by a red light camera. The defendant contested the ticket, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove that they were the one driving the vehicle at the time of the violation. This led to a court hearing where the validity of the photo evidence was scrutinized.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court dismissed the case based on several key factors:

1. Insufficient Evidence: The primary reason for the dismissal was the court's determination that the photo evidence alone did not conclusively identify the driver. In many jurisdictions, the law requires that the state prove who was driving the vehicle at the time of the offense, and mere photographic evidence is often not enough.

2. Technical Issues: Concerns were raised about the accuracy and reliability of the camera system used to capture the evidence. The defense argued that technical malfunctions or miscalibrations could lead to incorrect citations, which ultimately affected the validity of the evidence presented.

3. Lack of Proper Notification: The court also considered whether the driver was adequately notified about the citation and the subsequent legal processes, which can impact a defendant's ability to contest the ticket.

Implications of the Dismissed Case

The dismissal of this case sets a precedent that could have wide-ranging implications for traffic enforcement practices:

1. Increased Scrutiny of Photo Evidence: Courts may become more critical of the reliance on photo evidence in traffic cases, particularly in situations where the identity of the driver cannot be definitively established. This could lead to more cases being dismissed if similar arguments are made.

2. Changes to Traffic Camera Programs: Municipalities may need to reassess their photo enforcement programs, ensuring that they have robust protocols for capturing and presenting evidence. This might include implementing additional measures for identifying drivers and maintaining the accuracy of camera systems.

3. Impact on Revenue from Traffic Tickets: If more cases are dismissed on similar grounds, cities could see a decline in revenue generated from red light and speed camera citations. This might prompt local governments to reconsider the use of automated enforcement systems or make changes to how they operate.

4. Legal Precedent for Future Cases: This decision could serve as a reference point for future cases involving photo evidence, leading to a wave of similar dismissals across the country. Other drivers may feel encouraged to challenge their citations, knowing that the validity of photo evidence is under scrutiny.

What Drivers Should Know

If you receive a traffic citation based on photo evidence, here are some steps you can take:

• Review the Evidence: Carefully examine the details of the ticket and the evidence provided. Check for any discrepancies or technical issues.

• Consult Legal Advice: If you believe you have a case for dismissal based on the validity of the evidence, consider seeking legal counsel experienced in traffic law.

• Stay Informed: Keep abreast of any changes in local traffic enforcement policies and laws regarding photo evidence. Awareness of your rights can help you navigate the legal system more effectively.

Conclusion

The dismissal of the first court case involving photo evidence marks a significant moment in traffic enforcement history. As more drivers challenge the validity of citations based on automated systems, the legal landscape surrounding traffic laws may continue to evolve. This case serves as a reminder for municipalities to ensure that their enforcement practices are fair, transparent, and compliant with the law. As a driver, understanding your rights and the implications of this landmark decision is essential for navigating the complexities of traffic citations.

Are Cities Required to Use Warning Signs for Photo Enforcement?

Photo enforcement, which includes red light cameras and speed cameras, has become a common method for monitoring traffic violations and enhancing road safety in many cities across the United States. However, a significant question arises: Are cities required to use warning signs for photo enforcement? In this article, we will explore the regulations surrounding photo enforcement signage, the rationale behind their use, and what it means for drivers.

Understanding Photo Enforcement

Photo enforcement refers to the use of automated cameras to capture images of vehicles that violate traffic laws, such as running red lights or exceeding speed limits. These systems have gained popularity as a way to reduce traffic accidents and enforce regulations more efficiently. However, their implementation raises concerns about transparency and fairness.

The Role of Warning Signs

Warning signs play a critical role in informing drivers about photo enforcement measures in place. These signs typically alert motorists to the presence of cameras, ensuring they are aware of potential consequences for violating traffic laws.

Are Warning Signs Legally Required?

The requirement for warning signs related to photo enforcement varies significantly by state and municipality. Here’s an overview of the general landscape:

1. State Regulations: Some states have established laws mandating that cities must post warning signs to inform drivers about the presence of red light and speed cameras. These regulations aim to ensure transparency and reduce the element of surprise when drivers receive tickets.

2. Local Ordinances: Even in states without specific mandates, local municipalities may adopt their own regulations requiring warning signs. This can vary widely depending on the local government's stance on photo enforcement.

3. Best Practices: Many traffic safety advocates recommend the use of warning signs as a best practice, arguing that they enhance driver awareness and compliance with traffic laws. By informing drivers of the presence of cameras, cities can promote safer driving behavior.

Here’s a table summarizing whether warning signs for photo enforcement are required in each state. Keep in mind that regulations can change, and it's essential to check local laws for the most accurate and up-to-date information.

State	Warning Signs Required?
Alabama	No
Alaska	Yes
Arizona	Yes
Arkansas	No
California	Yes
Colorado	Yes
Connecticut	Yes
Delaware	No
District of Columbia	Yes
Florida	Yes
Georgia	No
Hawaii	Yes
Idaho	No
Illinois	Yes
Indiana	No
Iowa	Yes
Kansas	No
Kentucky	No
Louisiana	No
Maine	No
Maryland	Yes
Massachusetts	Yes
Michigan	No
Minnesota	No
Mississippi	No
Missouri	No
Montana	Yes
Nebraska	No
Nevada	Yes
New Hampshire	Yes
New Jersey	Yes
New Mexico	Yes
New York	Yes
North Carolina	Yes
North Dakota	No
Ohio	Yes
Oklahoma	No
Oregon	Yes
Pennsylvania	Yes
Rhode Island	No
South Carolina	Yes
South Dakota	No
Tennessee	Yes
Texas	No
Utah	Yes
Vermont	No
Virginia	Yes
Washington	Yes
West Virginia	No
Wisconsin	No
Wyoming	No

Notes:

• Local Variations: Some states may have local ordinances or municipalities that require warning signs even if the state does not.
• Check for Updates: Always verify with state and local traffic authorities for the most current information regarding photo enforcement and signage requirements.

This table serves as a general guideline and is subject to change based on legislative updates or municipal decisions.

Rationale Behind Warning Signs

The rationale for using warning signs for photo enforcement includes:

• Transparency: Informing drivers about the presence of cameras fosters transparency in traffic enforcement, reducing potential feelings of unfairness or entrapment.

• Safety: Warning signs can encourage drivers to adhere to traffic laws, which ultimately contributes to safer roadways for all users.

• Public Trust: Providing clear communication about enforcement measures can enhance public trust in local government and law enforcement agencies.

The Debate Surrounding Warning Signs

While many support the use of warning signs, there are also arguments against them:

• Effectiveness: Critics argue that the presence of warning signs may lead to drivers only obeying the law when they see a sign, rather than promoting consistent safe driving behavior.

• Revenue Generation: Some believe that requiring warning signs may reduce the effectiveness of photo enforcement systems, as drivers may alter their behavior only when they see the signs, leading to fewer citations and potential revenue loss for municipalities.

Conclusion

Whether cities are required to use warning signs for photo enforcement largely depends on state regulations and local ordinances. While some states mandate their use, others leave the decision to individual municipalities. Regardless of the legal requirements, the presence of warning signs can enhance transparency, promote safer driving habits, and foster public trust in traffic enforcement measures.

For drivers, understanding the regulations surrounding photo enforcement and the use of warning signs is crucial. Staying informed not only helps avoid costly tickets but also contributes to safer roads for everyone. Always check local traffic laws and be aware of your surroundings when driving through areas with photo enforcement.

2010 Court Decision 

People v. Park (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th Supp. 9, is a recently published case that can be cited and used as precedent (pre-decided cases on the same subject) for all future red light camera tickets, and luckily courts are to adhere to precedent under the legal principle of Stare decisis (not unsettle things which are settled).

Park addresses the issue of warning requirements.

In Park, the defendant was ultimately found not guilty of violating VC§21453 because the photographs depicting the defendant’s vehicle moving through a red light were gathered through an automated enforcement system whereby the issuing City of Santa Ana had not issued warning notices for “each new camera” installed in the city. This published court decision stands for the rule that the issuance of warning notices for the first camera installed in the City, and not for subsequent new cameras, does not satisfy the requirements set forth in VC§21455.5 (b). Typically cities are required to issue a thirty-day warning period which apparently did not happen.

If it comes up at your trial that the city that issued your ticket did not send warning notices for the camera which took your picture or for each new camera installed in the city, only the first one, then be sure to cite this case (case cite is People v. Park (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th Supp. 9) as the reason why the case against you should be dropped. 

How is Photo Editing Being Changed by AI?

AI is revolutionizing the field of photo editing in several ways. Here are some ways in which AI is changing photo editing:

Map of Rochester, New York Red Light Cameras Removed

Map of red light cameras removed in Rochester, NY

Rochester, New York, has removed a red-light camera program. The program aims to improve traffic safety by deterring red-light violations and reducing the number of accidents at intersections. Up to 50 intersections in Rochester, New York have been turned off.

Under the program, cameras were installed at selected intersections throughout the city. These cameras were capable of capturing images and videos of vehicles that run red lights. When a violation occurs, the recorded evidence is reviewed by law enforcement officials to determine if a citation should be issued.

 

AI Cameras Being Used to Detect Phone Usage In Cars

The use of AI cameras to detect phone usage in cars is an emerging technology that aims to address the issue of distracted driving. These cameras are designed to monitor and analyze driver behavior, specifically focusing on detecting when drivers are using their mobile phones while operating a vehicle.

AI-based camera systems utilize computer vision and machine learning algorithms to analyze real-time video footage and identify signs of distracted driving, such as drivers holding and using their phones while driving. These systems can distinguish between different activities, like making a phone call, texting, or using social media, and can trigger alerts or notifications when a violation is detected.

The deployment and use of AI cameras for detecting phone usage in cars can vary depending on local laws and regulations. Some jurisdictions have implemented or are considering implementing these systems as a means of improving road safety and enforcing distracted driving laws. However, it's important to note that the implementation and acceptance of such technologies can differ between regions, and privacy concerns may also be a factor to consider.

As with any emerging technology, it is advisable to refer to local laws, regulations, and official sources in your jurisdiction to understand the current status and legality of using AI cameras to detect phone usage in cars. Additionally, monitoring developments in this field and staying informed about the latest advancements can provide a more accurate understanding of how this technology is being utilized.

Australia put up the first phone-detecting cameras in New South Wales over the weekend. The move is part of a broader plan to reduce roadway fatalities by 30 percent by 2021 — especially as new technologies continue to exacerbate the issue of distracted driving. “It’s a system to change the culture,” NSW Police Assistant Commissioner Michael Corboy told Australian media las week.

There’s nothing incredibly new about the cameras themselves. But they’re networked to an artificial intelligence that determines whether or not someone behind the wheel is using their phone. Suspect images are then forwarded to authorized personnel to be verified as truly criminal.

New South Wales wants to put up 45 portable cameras over the next three years, moving them occasionally to keep people on their toes. For the first three months, starting now, offending drivers will only receive warning letters in the mail. The penalty then becomes a $344 AUD ($233 USD), which gets a bit higher in school zones, and some points on their license (again, more in a school zone). Minister for Regional Roads Paul Toole said the program will progressively expand to perform an estimated 135 million vehicle checks on NSW roads each year by 2023.

Critics of the plan are worried that the cameras sacrifice privacy for negligible safety gains. There have also been fears that the courts could become overwhelmed by drivers disputing bogus claims if the system isn’t spot on with its detection.

While numerous outlets are calling this a world’s first, the Netherlands recently put a similar system in place to catch distracted drivers. China also has a system like this (a rather expansive one) and intends on connecting it to its social credit score program early next year.

“The NSW Government is serious about reducing our state’s road toll and rolling out mobile phone detection cameras is another way we will do this,” explained Minister for Roads Andrew Constance. “As we enter a notoriously dangerous time of the year on our roads I want all drivers to know that if you use your mobile phone while behind the wheel of a vehicle in NSW you will have a greater
chance of being caught, anywhere at anytime … Some people have not got the message about using their phones legally and safely. If they think they can continue to put the safety of themselves, their passengers and the community at risk without consequence they are in for a rude shock.”

Red Light Camera Warning Signs

Ever wonder why there are warning signs for red-light cameras at some intersections but not all? According to VC§ 21455.5(a) (1), “Warning signs must be posted at each camera-equipped intersection and visible to traffic approaching from all directions, or at all the main entrances to town including, at a minimum, freeways, bridges, and state highway routes." The purpose of the law is obviously to make sure that drivers are warned in all instances where there is red light camera enforcement, and the seemingly most obvious way to warn a driver is to post a warning sign say overhead on a traffic signal head, but the law doesn’t require it.

The law does require that warning signs be posted, but the law gives cities the choice in where to post the signs and the law is vague as to how CLOSE to the intersection the signs have to be posted (provided the city decides to post the signs at the intersection). According to the Cal Trans design, the signs must be at least 30 inches wide by 40 inches high and 6 feet off the ground but there is no requirement as to the distance a sign must be posted in relation to an intersection. Warning signs will not always be posted right at an intersection so drivers should be on the lookout for such signs when entering a city or exiting from a freeway off-ramp. If you do get a red light photo ticket you should go back and search for warning signs and if you can’t find anywhere they are supposed to be or the signs are there but they are not the right size or are blocked or damaged in such a way that they are not visible, then take photographs so you can dispute the ticket. If the signs weren’t posted in accordance with the law (VC§ 21455.5(a) (1) ) then as a result you weren’t given the required notice and more importantly, a foundational requirement (warning signs) for the camera enforcement system is lacking. - blog Submitted by ticketbust.com, helping drivers contest and dismiss their traffic tickets.

Related articles: 

Photo Enforced Sign Meaning

Option Not to Identify Driver "Snitch Ticket"

The next time you get a snitch ticket in the mail, you may be able to check off "none of the above" when asked to identify who was driving your car when it ran a red light if a new bill passes the legislature.  This is known as a snitch ticket. 

The state Senate unanimously passed SB 1303 on May 31. Sponsored by Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, the bill tightens the rules for deploying red-light cameras and makes it easier to challenge so-called "snitch tickets."

SB 1303 also takes steps to preserve the legal right to remain silent if asked to identify the driver of a car photographed by a camera.

Whenever a red-light camera snaps a photo that isn't clear enough to identify the driver. According to the police, that's about 25 out of every 100 shots. The snitch tickets go to the vehicle's registered owner in hopes of making an identification.

There's no legal obligation for the registered owner to identify the driver, something the current form glosses over. It also tells recipients they must fill out and return the form -- again, not true. 

The goal of the proposed changes is to clearly indicate that you have the option to not identify the driver. The revised form would be used in all jurisdictions with red-light cameras and gives the vehicle's owner several check-box options, including one that states "none of the above" to account for situations where you may either not recognize the driver or not want to identify him or her. It also never states the form must be completed and returned.

What to Do After Being Involved in A Car Accident with Another Driver

The number of road traffic accidents has increased dramatically in the last several years. Unfortunately, they are the leading cause of death by injury or permanent severe injuries globally. Being involved in a car accident can be a scary and confusing experience. Although it is not a nice thought, car accidents may happen to all of us for several reasons.  Therefore, it is always better to be safe than sorry and to know exactly what you should do in such a situation. Your immediate actions, after the accident has happened, could have a significant impact on its long-term fallout. Whether it is a gentle sideswipe or a major collision and whether it is your fault or the fault of the other driver, taking the right steps may help you prevent an already bad situation from getting even worse.

Stop and Remain Calm

No matter how minor you think that the car accident is, you must stop. It is not only the best thing for your safety but failing to do so is also an offense under the Road Traffic Act. Immediately after the collision has happened, you need to make sure that your car’s engine is switched off and your hazard lights on to alert other road users of your presence. Under no circumstance, one driver who has been involved in a car accident should leave the scene. Being involved in a road accident may also trigger confusing feelings that may influence the person involved to react in anger or fear. Therefore, you need to remain as calm as possible to properly deal with the situation that you are involved in.

Keep Safety First and Call for Medical Assistance If Needed

First and foremost, after suffering a car accident you have to make sure that you have sustained no injuries in the crash. Keep in mind that the adrenaline may make your emotions run high so you may not feel any pain immediately. Before moving outside of the car, check yourself thoroughly so that you avoid any risk of aggravating any unnoticed injury. Next, ensure that no one else involved in the accident has suffered any severe injury which could put their lives in danger and trigger a worse come out of the crash. In case you discover that there are any injuries that need urgent medical attention, do not make any move until the medical assistance arrives. Due to the adrenaline and the confusing emotions that you may feel, you may be unable to adequately assess the situation. Therefore, it is better to seek professional help than to put others or yourself in danger.

Determine the Fault and Assess the Damage of Your Vehicle

Once you have ensured that no person has suffered any severe injury, you need to take the steps for finding the right solution for your situation. You should start by checking your car for damage. It is important to ensure that the damages have not transformed your vehicle into danger for you and the other traffic participants. Assess the damage of your vehicle to understand what the reparation of it may imply. Determining the fault is vital to be done immediately. For anything but the most minor collisions, it is best to call the police. Although the accident does not involve any victim, the police have the authority to determine exactly whose fault it is and has to pay for the damages. In states like Maryland, which is an “at-fault” state, understanding the legal implications of fault in car accidents is crucial. Maryland is an “at-fault” state, and knowing your rights and responsibilities can significantly impact the outcome of any claims or legal actions that follow. However, if you decide that you and the other driver may solve the conflict without having to take any legal actions, you need to exchange contact details with the other driver. Beware the hit and run drivers who do not stop and leave the accident scene immediately."  To determine who you are dealing with and if you may trust the other driver, ask for their phone number. Performing a reverse phone lookup is the best solution to find out who the other driver is. All you have to do is to search the number and get all the relevant information associated with it such as social media accounts, address history, and even more. If you find any suspicious detail which makes you unable to trust the other driver, it is better to call the police to take the situation under control.

Photograph and Document the Accident

Documenting the accident scene may prove to be extremely helpful in the following actions after the crash. The other driver, the environmental conditions, or even weather conditions may change what has really happened. Take photographs to all the damages of all vehicles which have been involved in the accident. In your documentation include photos that reveal the overall context of the crash including road conditions, intersection site, traffic signs, and traffic lights. Keep a record of all pertinent information concerning the incident including the time, date, and location of the accident, involved parties, witnesses, and even the police officers who have arrived at the scene.

Use Other Transportation Method to Leave the Scene

After you have taken care of all the details and steps that you immediately need to take after being involved in a car accident, all you want to do is to leave the scene and relax after the confusing experience.  Certainly, you do not feel comfortable with leaving your car at the scene of the collision and use another transportation method to get back home. However, it is the wisest idea to consider for several reasons. First of all, you may have failed to adequately assess the damage that your vehicle has suffered. Therefore, once you leave on the road again, your car may become a real danger both to you and to the other traffic participants. Even if the accident seems to be only a gentle sideswipe, your vehicle may have suffered more serious damages which may be difficult to notice immediately. It is better to use another safe transportation method and have your vehicle checked by a professional before you start the engine again and run it on the road.

What Do License Plate Reader Cameras Do?

Traffic Monitoring Cameras

License Plate Recognition (ALPR) cameras originated in Europe where it is called Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). In North America, they are called “license plates” instead of “number plates”.  Mobile ALPR is a vehicle-mounted solution primarily used by law enforcement, asset recovery (stolen vehicles), and parking management.  Fixed ALPR cameras are mounted on traffic poles and used for law enforcement and asset recovery.

Here are the laws in 50 States regulating automatic license plate readers.

Tracking Cyclist Who Run Red Lights

Apparently, cyclists in Australia are deliberately flouting road rules by running red lights and endangering other road users. Most escape prosecution because they cannot be identified.  There is no number plate or similar form of identification on a bicycle and facial recognition is not possible because the traffic safety camera takes photographs from the rear.

Red light camera photographic evidence provided by Police shows cyclists are snapped running through red lights but avoid any penalty - otherwise incurred by motorists - unless police are on the scene.  Cyclists in Australia have a greater chance of being picked up for not wearing a helmet, with 14,798 fines handed out in the past five years. In the same period, 2207 were booked for not having the correct lighting and equipment. Police issued 690 fines to cyclists ignoring traffic signals from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2011, but many more escaped the law.  Read full story.   

Red Bank City Council May Dump Cameras

Drivers in Red Bank may be about to breathe a sigh of relief; the town is just one meeting away from getting rid of its much unloved red light cameras. The controversial cameras, which have been labeled as cash-grabbing machines by the general public since their introduction, have fast been losing support from Red Bank’s officials as they apparently put visitors off coming to the city.

Red Bank’s Mayor Milliard said that motorists were choosing to stay away from the city, which has become well-known for its red-light camera installations, for fear of being unfairly ticketed at red lights. Many residents and visitors alike had previously complained to the city council that they were being fined by the over-zealous machines when making honest mistakes or misjudgments driving through traffic signal systems at interchanges. As a result, visitors have said they’d sooner bypass the city of Red Bank, rather than visit it as they did not want to be fined.

“Hurting the city”

Mayor Monty Milliard, who also voted against a 12-year contract extension with American Traffic Solutions in 2010, said that he wanted people to visit Red Bank, not avoid it. "I have had over 100 conversations with residents and business owners, all who say that the cameras are hurting the city.”

Therefore, the Mayor has called for an official vote to cancel Red Bank’s red-light camera contract at the next meeting of the city’s commissioners on September 4. The Mayor has, however, warned the public that, if the vote to remove the cameras is passed, the earliest they can be taken down is the first day of next year. The city authorities would also need to give contractors 90 days notice.

Safety features or cash-grabbers?

It has been seven years since the unpopular red-light cameras were installed into three intersections on Dayton Boulevard (Morrison Springs Road, Signal Mountain Road and Ashland Terrace), the main road serving the city of Red Bank. The cameras, which are owned and run by American Traffic Solutions, were initially intended to act as a safety feature. It was claimed that many drivers were jumping red lights and, as a result, were causing road traffic accidents. The cameras capture photographic evidence of any driver passing through a red light and then issue a fine. However, many drivers have since complained that the cameras are overzealous, often issuing fines unfairly. Cash-strapped motorists have accused the city’s authorities of using them as cash cows, unjustly penalizing them in order to increase revenue.

Milliard, who has been vehemently opposed to the cameras since their 2005 installation, has also confirmed that revenue from fines being issued due to driving infractions has fallen significantly. This is due to a new law passed in 2011 by the Tennessee General Assembly that won’t allow issuing of a ticket for failing to come to a complete stop at a traffic signal before initiating a right turn. Also, a large proportion of the revenue generated from fines is handed over to American Traffic Solutions each month; in 2008-9, Red Bank made just over $579,000 from tickets but handed over around half of that to the Arizona-based company.

Outcome unclear

Whether or not the vote to remove the cameras will be successful or not is unclear. Two commissioners that have long been in favor of the cameras, Floy Pierce and Ruth Jeno, will both be voting. The pair both voted to extend the red light camera contract back in 2010, but could the passing of the new legislation have swayed their opinion?

Removal will be welcome

One thing is for sure, the general public will be echoing Mayor Milliard’s sentiment on the cameras. At a time when the cost of driving is at an all-time high, many people argue that red light cameras raise that cost even higher. Particularly vulnerable are young drivers, who already have higher insurance premiums to cover. Not only are they faced with extortionate fines to pay, but this could also then impact on their driving records, making young drivers insurance harder to obtain. It is clear that a vote next week to remove the city’s cameras will be a welcome piece of news for Red Bank’s drivers.

San Juan Capistrano Removing Cameras

The San Juan Capistrano City Council voted unanimously Wednesday not to renew the city's $232,000 annual contract with American Traffic Solutions. Since the cameras' installation in 2001, traffic tickets through the program have generated as much as $400,000 in revenue over expenses for the city. The tickets carry fines of about $500 each. The city was facing declining revenue and souring negative public opinion.

The decline in citations and a growing number of legal challenges have cut revenue by more than half within a year, officials say. The red-light program is projected to lose about $40,000 this year. Red-light camera citations will cease after Sept. 29. The city will extend its contract with American Traffic Solutions through December to finish processing tickets already in the system.

The cameras photograph the car and the driver, and tickets are issued by mail based on the vehicle's license and registration information. But an appellate court decision has made it more difficult for cities to defend automated citations, causing some to reevaluate their use of the cameras. An appellate panel of Orange County Superior Court judges ruled in 2010 in the appeal of a red-light ticket that photos and video submitted by police were inadmissible as evidence. The panel said the photos and video were hearsay because no officer actually saw the driver run the red light.

The Laguna Woods City Council will consider terminating its red-light camera program at its Wednesday meeting as well.  Read the full article. 

Waterloo, Ontario Cameras Net $1.6 Million

16 Waterloo region cameras are generating lots of revenue in Canada. The Waterloo, Ontario region budgeted for revenue of $1.4 million for the red light camera but actually received $1.6 million. A record 7,258 tickets were issued last year to motorists who ran a red light at 16 busy intersections equipped with red-light cameras, netting the region $1.6 million in revenue. In most cases, motorists pay the fine once they see the photographs, Sawdon said. 

Connecticut Getting Red Light Cameras?

A Connecticut bill, which was repeatedly described as a work in progress, creates a pilot program allowing towns with populations exceeding 48,000 to install the cameras. The cameras will photograph the license plates of vehicles running red lights or otherwise breaking the law. Owners of vehicles photographed would be issued infractions of up to $50 by mail. According to the bill’s fiscal analysis, the cameras will cost towns between $50,000 and $75,000 for installation and maintenance. However, towns can expect an increase in revenue depending upon how many people are ticketed and how many of them pay the fines.

Have a Ticket With an Unclear Photo of You?

What should you do when a photo enforced camera ticket has an unclear photo of you?

Those red light camera tickets you receive in the mail can be tricky to deal with. Many find themselves stuck with a ticket that says they were the driver but doesn’t actually have clear photo of the driver’s face.

If you receive a ticket in the mail that says you were the driver but it doesn’t have a clear picture of your face it can be frustrating because without a clear picture how can you even tell yourself if it was you driving? There is a way you can send in a form saying that someone else was the driver, but with a blurry picture how can you tell who it is.

You could of course go into court and let a judge see for himself that there is no possible way you could be identified as the driver based on the picture on the ticket. You could also explain to a judge that you can’t identify anyone else as the driver because of the poor picture quality. But going into court can be a hassle and scary for some, so it’s much easier to handle situations like this without going into court, with a Trial by Written Declaration. Using a Trial by Written Declaration you can explain the situation and even include a recent photograph of yourself for the judge to use as a comparison to the picture of the driver on the ticket. In situations like this there is a good chance your ticket will be dismissed.

Contributed by ticketbust.com, helping drivers contest and dismiss their traffic tickets.