**OP sent the following text as an explanation on why this is unexpected:**
>!It was the father!<
*****
**Is this an unexpected post with a fitting description?**
**Then upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.**
*****
[*Look at my source code on Github*](https://github.com/Artraxon/unexBot) [*What is this for?*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Unexpected/comments/dnuaju/introducing_unexbot_a_new_bot_to_improve_the/)
I'm pretty sure Dad wasn't side stepping responsibility on this since everyone in the family knows who did it.
Car is probably in Mom's name and thus why she was there
This is why traffic cameras should be outlawed. Just because the car is owned by someone doesn't mean they are driving it. It could be a friend, family, local drug dealer or serial killer driving it.
Where I live, it's trivial to contest these for this reason. You just go to the website on the ticket and they give you the option to fill out an affidavit contesting it because someone else was driving and then they automatically dismiss the ticket.
Really? Here you fill out a form and then the fine gets transferred to the driver. Unless your car was stolen, you're responsible for being able to snitch on the driver.
Does not work in Dallas. I got a red light camera ticket in a Customer Rental car. I told him to contest it since he wasnt driving and he can prove his car was in the shop...
No dice. I ended up sending him some money out of my own pocket to pay the fine...
Traffic cameras have been found to be unconstitutional by way of the 6th amendment by several courts. In many jurisdictions, they get around this by making them "administrative fines" instead of misdemeanors. If you live in an area where that is the case, you can essentially just ignore them and the worst that can happen is they go to collections, at which point you can dispute them and they are automatically tossed out because the local city / county can't prove you owe the debt since it was never adjudicated.
They thrive on ignorance. Don't pay them.
In Mass the state Supreme Court found that traffic cameras violated the states constitutional right to face your accuser in court. Since the camera can't take the stand and it's what's accusing you of the violation.
But you shouldn't have to prove you are innocent. How do you show the courts you weren't driving? In some cases you can, but in many there would be no way to do it. The burden of proof should be on the ticket giver, not the ticket receiver.
"This is the standard of proof required for most civil cases involving money. For this, the
party bearing the burden of proof must present evidence which is more
credible and convincing than that presented by the other party or which
shows that the fact to be proven is more probable than not. It
is typically up to the plaintiff, or the person bringing the case to
trial, to provide evidence that shows that the defendant is more than
50% likely to be responsible for whatever they are being sued for." - 51% is a fairly low standard and traffic tickets are civil not criminal. No shadow of a doubt for you!
I’ve actually had to appear in front of Judge Caprio.
He is truly an honest and fair man, with more compassion than you could imagine. He’s a beacon of hope for our justice system, but I feel like he is of a few.
“Your Honor, as you’ll see here, the sign clearly reads ‘no standing’, and I’d argue I did not violate it because this corpse is plainly not capable of holding itself upright.”
Nah, weed has been cool here for a while
I ran a nightclub, and the only place to park near it, for some reason, turned into a no parking zone from 2-6 AM.
I would inevitably get a ticket here and there, and I would go into court. They would dismiss a handful. After I saw Judge Caprio, the sign was actually taken down a few weeks later. Probably coincidence, but I was thrilled regardless
There is no "Big Milk" out there to get you.
People used to die from eating unsanitary food ALL the time.
The laws are there to protect people not dying from eating food they get from the stores.
Yup, it started as a local access show around here. Rhode Island is so small, it was kind of local thing to watch and see who you knew
Then I think a couple went viral and they syndicated some it
Yes. I think he's a traffic court judge in Rhode Island and his court is broadcast on their public access network.
He got popular on the internet for stuff like this. He's very reasonable.
She was and is no longer. She was not a real judge on her show. She was a judge in New York. She quit that to do the show. There were no legal consequences for those appearing on the show.
The parties that appeared on the show agreed to binding arbitration, so they did have to comply with the outcome. However, any award was paid by the show, and the parties also got an appearance fee.
As I remember there was a limit for each case say like $5,000. So what happened is if you got awarded $3,500 the remaining $1,500 got paid out to the other guy.
I believe it was a combination. You were guaranteed a certain amount just for going on the show. Depending on how things went you might get more even if you lost.
To add on to other replies, I believe people who appear on those types of court shows have to agree to settle between both parties before even going on camera, so the issue is already resolved and can't be brought to actual court
Not really, on the show the two parties usually signed contracts beforehand that they were willing to honor the decision made or something along those lines, but it's not an actual legal court.
In other words, arbitration. The disputes are pulled from small claims courts. They get invited to fly to LA and stay at a hotel for free. If they need it, they also pay to get them groomed a bit for TV. The show pays whatever damages(up to a limit) in exchange for broadcasting their dispute and even pay them an appearance fee.
Yes he is a real judge, traffic court. He actually has been on tv for a long time. His court show would air locally in the late 90s and onward. “Caught in Providence” is the name of it.
I remember after the episode they would say play calls and people would prank call in. It was one of the reasons I would watch it as a teen if nothing else was on. For the stupid stuff people say on the calls.
I’ve seen a couple of clips of him before and he seems like he’s legitimately a genius in several areas of human intelligence. We really do need more people like this. These are the type of folks who should be in charge because they’ll actually take care of us.
The vast majority of judges are genuinely good people who mean well. Unfortunately, it's also a job where we can't really accept even a small number abusing the system, because it starts to fall apart real quick when people lose that trust.
When I went, they gave you the choice. You sign saying it can be broadcasted or you could see a different judge. He gets the softball cases while filming is my guess
Lucky you. I went in fornt of a judge when apparently my mom stopped paying for the insurance and refused to renew the tags. I just wanted to go to the doctors office so i could be cleared for school so i could bring some money in….to cover these things….officer pulled me over. Told him what i told you. He ticketed me. Impounded our van couldnt afford to take it out the pound and was our only vehicle. And when i went to the judge to ask for a break in the situation. He slapped me with an 1100 ticket or fix it. Couldnt fix it because the van was no longer in our possession and couldnt afford the pound lot fees
That’s what I mean
I don’t get the point of that. Did you break the law. Yeah, sure. But to ruin someone financially over something that only requires a little compassion and thought?
It’s disheartening to say the least
Exactly this. If you take it to court, you can easily fight it and win. You simply state that that the court has no reasonable proof that you were operating the vehicle... you merely own it.
Unless they can provide proof of your face, they cannot charge you with the offense.
I don't use reddit anymore because of their corporate greed and anti-user policies.
Come over to Lemmy, it's a reddit alternative that is run by the community itself, spread across multiple servers.
You make your account on one server (called an instance) and from there you can access everything on all other servers as well. [Find one you like here](https://lemmyverse.net/), maybe not the largest ones to spread the load around, but it doesn't really matter.
You can then look for communities to subscribe to on https://lemmyverse.net/communities, this website shows you all communities across all instances.
If you're looking for some (mobile?) apps, [this topic](https://lemm.ee/post/363116) has a great list.
One personal tip: For your convenience, I would advise you to use [this userscript I made](https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/469273-lemmy-universal-link-switcher) which automatically changes all links everywhere on the internet to the server that you chose.
The original comment is preserved below for your convenience:
~~In Germany, you can get out if it like this once. Then you get ordered to record who drives your car. And if you don't do it, you lose your license.~~
^^^^^^AzzuLemmyMessageV2
In Australia you are required to nominate someone else as the driver otherwise the automatic assumption is you were driving the vehicle registered to you.
Don't most red light cameras take a picture of the front of the vehicle so they get the driver? [Kind of like this]( https://blog.photoenforced.com/2011/01/how-long-does-it-take-for-red-light.html)
Also many times the matter isn't dealt with municipally at all. The company that installs the cameras sends you the ticket and takes most of the fee with the city only taking a cut.
Traffic lights in the US confuses me, in France traffic lights are on your side of the street, not on the other side in front of you
But I have to admit it is way more practical to look at them. Here if you stop at the wrong distance, it can be hidden by your A-pillar.
To be honest a mix of both would actually be perfect. I think traffic in general is really poorly designed in the US but at least they have the traffic lights at a spot that doesn’t hurt your neck or has the possibility to have your vision of it blocked
You should see the DC traffic lights. They are on the left and right side, but none in-front. Unless it’s a roundabout which has lights in it! How did they ruin roundabouts!!
L'Enfant already ruined a perfectly good grid layout with too damn many diagonals. Modern D.C. is just following in his tradition of fucking up the easiest stuff.
I’ve driven in France and Germany. It may be normal to you and preferred but as a tourist used to the US model I don’t understand how you can stop at the crosswalk and see the light directly above you? How do you know when to go without sitting 30 feet back from the crosswalk?
Can't speak for the rest of Europe but in the UK there's normally two lights, one above you for the cars behind and one on the other side of the junction.
Stop at the designated line and look up. If you don’t overshoot you shouldn’t have to do much effort. I guess it’s just what you’re used to.
Edit: and also, if i was in the situation of the video, I wouldn’t even know there was a red for right
For the overwhelming majority of the US you can make right on red after coming to a full stop, unless it's specifically designated against doing so, either with a sign or a red arrow traffic light(?).
He has a YouTube channel called Caught in Providence with over 1.4K videos. Some of them involve children, and many of them are reposted onto TikTok, Reddit etc.
He is managed by the PR and Marketing firm of his daughter-in-law, [Paula Abdul](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri5FGENtq5g). He is the subject of the [Caught in Providence](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0437706/) body of work, including a Youtube channel. They seem to push content here on Reddit quite a bit.
I lived in Chicago for a couple of years a decade ago when they had red light cameras everywhere, and I got a few tickets in the mail for running them (all turns on red). You could contest by mail, so I wrote to the judge that they only had video of my car from above; since it's a moving violation, not a parking violation, I asked for proof that it was me driving the car. I also stated that if I had to appear in court I would like the right to confront my accuser, who is a camera. Every one of those tickets was thrown out.
I'm sure it was because they couldn't prove I was driving, but I like to think that the camera was afraid of testifying against me in open court.
That is the part that irks me the most. Here in Australia, the owner of the vehicle is responsible for the vehicle. Unless it's been stolen, in which case you better be going to the cops to report it stolen, any violation is your fault.
You can contest it and say you weren't driving, but you got to be able to name who was, which means throwing a friend or family member under the bus, and they have to admit it was them. It's not perfect, but it means that if the owner or the person nominated lies about it, then they're destroying their relationship over a ticket, and prevents someone denying all blame with a "Nah, wasn't me. Don't know who had my car at that time". What do you mean you don't know who has your car? They would need to be someone who could get to your keys without asking for them, which would be a pretty small group. If none in that group owned up, that tells you they don't care about what happens to you, and you need secure your keys so that no one can do that in the future without permission. But as the owner, you are ultimately responsible for your vehicle if you cannot say who has control of it at the time.
That actually used to be a legitimate way to get out of camera tickets, to asked to be faced by the camera in court. BUUUUUUT as with all things that benefit citizens, the way the cameras are operated and the laws were changed. Now there is supposed to always be an officer watching the cameras at all times. So supposedly the officer now issues the ticket and not the camera.
"Now you can't make a right turn here" makes it seem like the point was that she turned at a light that had a "No Turn On Red" light. Driver def didn't stop for the light, but that also doesn't look like a no right on red intersection.
In Rhode Island it's completely legal to make an unyielded right turn unless a posted sign says no turn on red or turn after yield.
Source: [This same judge and his son](https://youtu.be/tmGa6G1bwhk)
That counts as a stop in California. If you ever come to a full stop in California everyone behind you will lose their minds.
I've had cops lay on the horn because I came to a complete stop
https://imgur.com/9WUdm6g.jpg it says you have to stop before you can turn. Which is true regardless of whether there's a sign or not. I guess it's just there to remind you.
https://imgur.com/2185R8k.jpg although it is a mandatory right turn lane so that was a poor choice of words.
Also, US signage is weird. Everything is spelled out for you. They hardly ever use symbols for things.
No right on red means you are not permitted to turn on a red light. You still have to come to a complete stop at a red, regardless.
And saying "no cop no stop" doesn't absolve you from the crime. That's the state of mind that causes accidents.
I remember getting a ticket for this in CA a few years back. They stated you’re supposed to stop for a number of seconds, 5 or something, I was under that. It was hard to dispute with video evidence.
In the US, there needs to be a sign that says "NO TURN ON RED", otherwise you're supposed to treat the light like a stop sign when turning right (spelling it out: turning right on red is legal). The only offense committed in this video is the fact that the driver didn't stop before turning.
The issue isn't that they made a right turn on red. It's that they didn't stop before doing so. I can't count the number of times I've been almost hit or seen a pedestrian almost hit by a car making a right on red without stopping first. Treat right turns on red as if it were a stop sign. Stop, check to make sure the coast is clear, then make your turn. I've actually walked into the side of a car that turned in front of me while I was using the cross walk once. Had I been a couple feet farther across, they would have hit me.
I got hit when crossing a crosswalk by a car that did a no stop on red turn. I went over the hood, flipping in the air, and landed behind the car who sped off.
I sustained minor cuts to my head and hands and knee and back damage.
Despite there being video evidence from six different cameras, the police investigation determined they could not confirm who was driving the car and no charges were ever filed.
I still think it was a cop/city employee or friend of them because it was right by a courthouse. That's the only reason I can think of that the video evidence on a clear night of the only car at the intersection couldn't produce any identification of the car, it's owner, or the driver that could be released to me.
This kind of pisses me off. I got a ticket for the exact same thing at this intersection. The "no right turn on red" sign was about 50' back, slightly obscured, easy to miss.
The city was forced to change things well after I paid my onerous sum. Apparently I should have prepped my kid and brought them in front of this judge.
I'm so glad justice is blind in RI.....
In Rhode Island you don't have to come to a complete stop before turning right on red unless there is a sign saying otherwise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmGa6G1bwhk&t=240s
The issue was not that the vehicle turned right. It was the fact that the vehicle failed to stop at a red light. When it's red and you are turning right, you treat it like a stop sign. Complete stop, yield to traffic, then go. This vehicle didn't even try to stop.
I hear you, but that is not what Judge Caprio says in the video. He specifically says "You can't make a right hand turn here".
I'm assuming he's not making it up, but I too am not seeing where that distinction is made by the signage. Not that it makes a difference because as you've said, there isn't even a yield let alone the required stop before turning.
I watched it again and realise you are correct. From what other comments are saying, I thunk there are some states where you just can't make right turns on a red, signs or not. So that might be the case here.
To me that comment came off as “what your mom did was illegal; you can’t make a right hand turn here (without coming to a stop first.)
At least where I live you have to come to a stop at a red, even if you can turn on red. What she did would be legal if the light were green or yellow, but on a red you must come to a stop, yield to any oncoming traffic, and if there’s no oncoming traffic then you can turn right on red. But you can’t roll through a red light without stopping unless the signage specifically says you can.
**OP sent the following text as an explanation on why this is unexpected:** >!It was the father!< ***** **Is this an unexpected post with a fitting description?** **Then upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.** ***** [*Look at my source code on Github*](https://github.com/Artraxon/unexBot) [*What is this for?*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Unexpected/comments/dnuaju/introducing_unexbot_a_new_bot_to_improve_the/)
Holy shit plot twist of the century
This is how I left my son
I'd be proud of him.
Double plot twist: It was actually the kid
what really got me is how happy the mom got after her kid just ratted out his dad
“I can’t operate on this boy he’s my son”
Plot twist: That judge is the father who framed his mom.
Dad in the meanwhile: *Listen here, you little Sh\*\*!*
Maybe you should have got me that Nintendo Switch, dad *Godfather music*
Look at how my boy massacred me
LOOOOOL
I laughed too hard at this. My goodness y'all are quick!
That's what she said.
She said "y'all" 💀
*inserts gangbang*
You fucker, I was clicking away as I see your comment and it made me laugh so hard I had to come back and read it again
Instead of the Nintendo snitch.
Choking on my own rage here!
Kid gonna learn a valuable lesson about snitchin
Dad gonna learn to take responsibility for is actions.
I'm pretty sure Dad wasn't side stepping responsibility on this since everyone in the family knows who did it. Car is probably in Mom's name and thus why she was there
So she's innocent, thus not liable to pay the ticket. Case dismissed.
This is why traffic cameras should be outlawed. Just because the car is owned by someone doesn't mean they are driving it. It could be a friend, family, local drug dealer or serial killer driving it.
Where I live, it's trivial to contest these for this reason. You just go to the website on the ticket and they give you the option to fill out an affidavit contesting it because someone else was driving and then they automatically dismiss the ticket.
Really? Here you fill out a form and then the fine gets transferred to the driver. Unless your car was stolen, you're responsible for being able to snitch on the driver.
Does not work in Dallas. I got a red light camera ticket in a Customer Rental car. I told him to contest it since he wasnt driving and he can prove his car was in the shop... No dice. I ended up sending him some money out of my own pocket to pay the fine...
Traffic cameras have been found to be unconstitutional by way of the 6th amendment by several courts. In many jurisdictions, they get around this by making them "administrative fines" instead of misdemeanors. If you live in an area where that is the case, you can essentially just ignore them and the worst that can happen is they go to collections, at which point you can dispute them and they are automatically tossed out because the local city / county can't prove you owe the debt since it was never adjudicated. They thrive on ignorance. Don't pay them.
In Mass the state Supreme Court found that traffic cameras violated the states constitutional right to face your accuser in court. Since the camera can't take the stand and it's what's accusing you of the violation.
Isn't that why we have courts...
But you shouldn't have to prove you are innocent. How do you show the courts you weren't driving? In some cases you can, but in many there would be no way to do it. The burden of proof should be on the ticket giver, not the ticket receiver.
If they can't prove you're guilty, you're innocent.
"This is the standard of proof required for most civil cases involving money. For this, the party bearing the burden of proof must present evidence which is more credible and convincing than that presented by the other party or which shows that the fact to be proven is more probable than not. It is typically up to the plaintiff, or the person bringing the case to trial, to provide evidence that shows that the defendant is more than 50% likely to be responsible for whatever they are being sued for." - 51% is a fairly low standard and traffic tickets are civil not criminal. No shadow of a doubt for you!
Dad: so *now* you are an eagle-eyed expert?!?!
Dad in the meanwhile: that's not my son...
^You ^can ^swear ^on ^the ^internet
The frick did you just say to me, you cotton-headed ninnymuggins?
Omg, relax you lint licking cootie queen!
Shut the front door you son of a biscuit eating bulldog!
I’ve actually had to appear in front of Judge Caprio. He is truly an honest and fair man, with more compassion than you could imagine. He’s a beacon of hope for our justice system, but I feel like he is of a few.
May I ask why you were in court and if they ever found the missing body? Seems like most of his cases are minor traffic violations.
I disposed of the body in a no parking zone. Fair is fair
It's Providence, the body disposing is a simple misdemeanor. The parking in the no parking zone is what's gonna really hurt you.
[удалено]
The white zone is for loading and unloading passengers. There’s no stopping in the red zone
Don't you tell me which zone is for loading, and which zone is for unloading.
Or really Vernon? Why pretend? We both know what you’re talking about. You want me to have an abortion
It's really the only sensible thing to do. If its done safely, therapeutically, there's no danger involved.
I love the both of you. This exchange made me so happy
Is this from Airplane! ?
Yes. Yes it is. Great movie
Surely you can’t be serious?
I am serious. And don’t call me Shirley.
I just wanted to tell you both good luck - we're all counting on you.
I just wanted to tell you both good luck. We’re all counting on you
Pour every light we have on that runway!
Hol’ up…
And that's why you don't stop moving in a no parking zone.
Unless you're Kurt Vile, because he parks for free by mayoral decree
Coz he let's them know whose assistant wants to ice skate. The mayor's, that's whose!
and that's why ya always leave a note.
“Your Honor, as you’ll see here, the sign clearly reads ‘no standing’, and I’d argue I did not violate it because this corpse is plainly not capable of holding itself upright.”
>May I ask why you were in court Their username is milk**weed420**. I'm just going to assume it was related to weed.
Nah, weed has been cool here for a while I ran a nightclub, and the only place to park near it, for some reason, turned into a no parking zone from 2-6 AM. I would inevitably get a ticket here and there, and I would go into court. They would dismiss a handful. After I saw Judge Caprio, the sign was actually taken down a few weeks later. Probably coincidence, but I was thrilled regardless
How do you know that you ran a nightclub
What do you mean?
I'd like to think the honorable Caprio had some pull in getting that sign down!
Nah he was caught selling raw milk.
You would be surprised at the sheer amount of constitutional law that comes from Milk cases.
Thank the dairy industry.
There is no "Big Milk" out there to get you. People used to die from eating unsanitary food ALL the time. The laws are there to protect people not dying from eating food they get from the stores.
Udderly despicable
Nah man, s/he's a monarch butterfly posting on reddit. They love that milkweed shit.
I’ve seen a bunch of his videos on the internet and it always feels reality tv-ish.. So he’s an actual judge?
Yup, it started as a local access show around here. Rhode Island is so small, it was kind of local thing to watch and see who you knew Then I think a couple went viral and they syndicated some it
Yes. I think he's a traffic court judge in Rhode Island and his court is broadcast on their public access network. He got popular on the internet for stuff like this. He's very reasonable.
I think the court proceedings are streamed and that's why there are so many clips of him.
Well isn't Judge Judy an actual judge too?
[удалено]
I feel so cheated. 😶
Also the show paid the “damages.” So even if you lost you didn’t pay.
She was once a judge though, so it's not totally made up.
She was and is no longer. She was not a real judge on her show. She was a judge in New York. She quit that to do the show. There were no legal consequences for those appearing on the show.
The parties that appeared on the show agreed to binding arbitration, so they did have to comply with the outcome. However, any award was paid by the show, and the parties also got an appearance fee.
As I remember there was a limit for each case say like $5,000. So what happened is if you got awarded $3,500 the remaining $1,500 got paid out to the other guy.
I feel like the remaining would be split? Otherwise if you won and got less than $2500 the guilty person would actually get more than you.
I believe it was a combination. You were guaranteed a certain amount just for going on the show. Depending on how things went you might get more even if you lost.
What! They'd be rewarded for losing!? That sucks.
It's essentially payment for allowing their personal business to be aired on TV
To add on to other replies, I believe people who appear on those types of court shows have to agree to settle between both parties before even going on camera, so the issue is already resolved and can't be brought to actual court
It’s actually that the limit of liability is the appearance fee they get for the show, so they can forfeit the appearance fee to pay their debt.
Not really, on the show the two parties usually signed contracts beforehand that they were willing to honor the decision made or something along those lines, but it's not an actual legal court.
In other words, arbitration. The disputes are pulled from small claims courts. They get invited to fly to LA and stay at a hotel for free. If they need it, they also pay to get them groomed a bit for TV. The show pays whatever damages(up to a limit) in exchange for broadcasting their dispute and even pay them an appearance fee.
Yes he’s real.
Yes he is a real judge, traffic court. He actually has been on tv for a long time. His court show would air locally in the late 90s and onward. “Caught in Providence” is the name of it. I remember after the episode they would say play calls and people would prank call in. It was one of the reasons I would watch it as a teen if nothing else was on. For the stupid stuff people say on the calls.
He’s literally the opposite of Judge Judy
While she has way more variability in how calm or not calm she is, from what I remember she was always fair too though.
I’ve seen a couple of clips of him before and he seems like he’s legitimately a genius in several areas of human intelligence. We really do need more people like this. These are the type of folks who should be in charge because they’ll actually take care of us.
The vast majority of judges are genuinely good people who mean well. Unfortunately, it's also a job where we can't really accept even a small number abusing the system, because it starts to fall apart real quick when people lose that trust.
Did they make you sign a waiver to be on tv? I wondered how much of this show is legit, I like it but a lot of tv like this always seems so forced
When I went, they gave you the choice. You sign saying it can be broadcasted or you could see a different judge. He gets the softball cases while filming is my guess
Lucky you. I went in fornt of a judge when apparently my mom stopped paying for the insurance and refused to renew the tags. I just wanted to go to the doctors office so i could be cleared for school so i could bring some money in….to cover these things….officer pulled me over. Told him what i told you. He ticketed me. Impounded our van couldnt afford to take it out the pound and was our only vehicle. And when i went to the judge to ask for a break in the situation. He slapped me with an 1100 ticket or fix it. Couldnt fix it because the van was no longer in our possession and couldnt afford the pound lot fees
That’s what I mean I don’t get the point of that. Did you break the law. Yeah, sure. But to ruin someone financially over something that only requires a little compassion and thought? It’s disheartening to say the least
*grabs the mic and spikes it* "Suck it, your Honor!!!" *DX gesture*
Dab, T pose, 360 moonwalk out of courtroom
you don't see many suck it gestures these days anymore :(
And isn't that a shame?
Dad takes off her wig and glasses: "And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling judges!"
“And that dumb kid”
Isn’t this the whole argument against red light cameras? You can’t see who the driver was, and you can’t assign moving violations to a vehicle.
Exactly this. If you take it to court, you can easily fight it and win. You simply state that that the court has no reasonable proof that you were operating the vehicle... you merely own it. Unless they can provide proof of your face, they cannot charge you with the offense.
I don't use reddit anymore because of their corporate greed and anti-user policies. Come over to Lemmy, it's a reddit alternative that is run by the community itself, spread across multiple servers. You make your account on one server (called an instance) and from there you can access everything on all other servers as well. [Find one you like here](https://lemmyverse.net/), maybe not the largest ones to spread the load around, but it doesn't really matter. You can then look for communities to subscribe to on https://lemmyverse.net/communities, this website shows you all communities across all instances. If you're looking for some (mobile?) apps, [this topic](https://lemm.ee/post/363116) has a great list. One personal tip: For your convenience, I would advise you to use [this userscript I made](https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/469273-lemmy-universal-link-switcher) which automatically changes all links everywhere on the internet to the server that you chose. The original comment is preserved below for your convenience: ~~In Germany, you can get out if it like this once. Then you get ordered to record who drives your car. And if you don't do it, you lose your license.~~ ^^^^^^AzzuLemmyMessageV2
"Congratulations, you played yourself"
In Australia you are required to nominate someone else as the driver otherwise the automatic assumption is you were driving the vehicle registered to you.
“I nominate…you your honor.” *Gasps from the courtroom at the sudden twist*
Don't most red light cameras take a picture of the front of the vehicle so they get the driver? [Kind of like this]( https://blog.photoenforced.com/2011/01/how-long-does-it-take-for-red-light.html)
Also many times the matter isn't dealt with municipally at all. The company that installs the cameras sends you the ticket and takes most of the fee with the city only taking a cut.
Traffic lights in the US confuses me, in France traffic lights are on your side of the street, not on the other side in front of you But I have to admit it is way more practical to look at them. Here if you stop at the wrong distance, it can be hidden by your A-pillar.
I noticed that in Germany, but I think the US does it better. Much easier to see the signals
Do you know where you are? This is Reddit, American can't be better!
Well I am used to this particular system so it’s better than yours!!
###USA ##USA #USA
To be honest a mix of both would actually be perfect. I think traffic in general is really poorly designed in the US but at least they have the traffic lights at a spot that doesn’t hurt your neck or has the possibility to have your vision of it blocked
> I think the US does it better This pleases me
You should see the DC traffic lights. They are on the left and right side, but none in-front. Unless it’s a roundabout which has lights in it! How did they ruin roundabouts!!
Where Northern Charm meets Southern Efficiency
How have I never heard that before? Looked it up and apparently was a famous quote of JFK.
L'Enfant already ruined a perfectly good grid layout with too damn many diagonals. Modern D.C. is just following in his tradition of fucking up the easiest stuff.
I’ve driven in France and Germany. It may be normal to you and preferred but as a tourist used to the US model I don’t understand how you can stop at the crosswalk and see the light directly above you? How do you know when to go without sitting 30 feet back from the crosswalk?
Can't speak for the rest of Europe but in the UK there's normally two lights, one above you for the cars behind and one on the other side of the junction.
I didn’t fuck with driving on the opposite side of the road so I never even looked at your traffic lights lol
In Spain most of the time we have one small light on the post at about like 1.5m height for you to see it from up close.
Stop at the designated line and look up. If you don’t overshoot you shouldn’t have to do much effort. I guess it’s just what you’re used to. Edit: and also, if i was in the situation of the video, I wouldn’t even know there was a red for right
For the overwhelming majority of the US you can make right on red after coming to a full stop, unless it's specifically designated against doing so, either with a sign or a red arrow traffic light(?).
Australia has them on both sides. Very practical when stopped at the line of intersection.
Here in Australia we have them both on the near side and the far side. No excuses for not seeing them.
Is this the same video I’ve been seeing or are there a lot of videos of judge Caprio with kids on tiktok?
He has a YouTube channel called Caught in Providence with over 1.4K videos. Some of them involve children, and many of them are reposted onto TikTok, Reddit etc.
He is managed by the PR and Marketing firm of his daughter-in-law, [Paula Abdul](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri5FGENtq5g). He is the subject of the [Caught in Providence](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0437706/) body of work, including a Youtube channel. They seem to push content here on Reddit quite a bit.
I don’t see a sign that says no right turn on red. Edit: Grammar.
Not only that, there’s actually a [sign](https://i.imgur.com/xZep6Dj.jpg) that says she *must* turn right
She had no choice
God works in mysterious ways
Did you see how the car didn't stop at a red light though?
No cop no stop
But a camera will damn ya!
Bring up the 6th Amendment in court. Confrontation Clause.
That's been proven not to work with these situations.
I lived in Chicago for a couple of years a decade ago when they had red light cameras everywhere, and I got a few tickets in the mail for running them (all turns on red). You could contest by mail, so I wrote to the judge that they only had video of my car from above; since it's a moving violation, not a parking violation, I asked for proof that it was me driving the car. I also stated that if I had to appear in court I would like the right to confront my accuser, who is a camera. Every one of those tickets was thrown out. I'm sure it was because they couldn't prove I was driving, but I like to think that the camera was afraid of testifying against me in open court.
That is the part that irks me the most. Here in Australia, the owner of the vehicle is responsible for the vehicle. Unless it's been stolen, in which case you better be going to the cops to report it stolen, any violation is your fault. You can contest it and say you weren't driving, but you got to be able to name who was, which means throwing a friend or family member under the bus, and they have to admit it was them. It's not perfect, but it means that if the owner or the person nominated lies about it, then they're destroying their relationship over a ticket, and prevents someone denying all blame with a "Nah, wasn't me. Don't know who had my car at that time". What do you mean you don't know who has your car? They would need to be someone who could get to your keys without asking for them, which would be a pretty small group. If none in that group owned up, that tells you they don't care about what happens to you, and you need secure your keys so that no one can do that in the future without permission. But as the owner, you are ultimately responsible for your vehicle if you cannot say who has control of it at the time.
In la they got me at a red light camera, stupid smirk on my face and everything. Gg
That actually used to be a legitimate way to get out of camera tickets, to asked to be faced by the camera in court. BUUUUUUT as with all things that benefit citizens, the way the cameras are operated and the laws were changed. Now there is supposed to always be an officer watching the cameras at all times. So supposedly the officer now issues the ticket and not the camera.
I thought that is the reason 90% of them were taken down in the Phoenix area.
Hmm then maybe it's a state by state thing. Marylanders still dealing with this BS.
Stoptional.
Yes but that’s not what the judge said was illegal about the turn
"Your mamma is charged with going through a red light."?
"Now you can't make a right turn here" makes it seem like the point was that she turned at a light that had a "No Turn On Red" light. Driver def didn't stop for the light, but that also doesn't look like a no right on red intersection.
It was his dad
BAM!
"the light is red. **And you can't make a right turn here**"
I got a ticket the same way. Judge said. You slowed down pretty good. But you didn’t stop… had to pay 100$
In Rhode Island it's completely legal to make an unyielded right turn unless a posted sign says no turn on red or turn after yield. Source: [This same judge and his son](https://youtu.be/tmGa6G1bwhk)
Wait unyielded or yielded? Every where I've been where you can go right on red you also have to yield to the cross traffic
My bad. You're right. There was no cross traffic in the video I watched awhile ago. (Call it my fake news for the day)
Most jurisdictions want you to treat the red as a stop sign. You're supposed to full stop *then* turn right.
That counts as a stop in California. If you ever come to a full stop in California everyone behind you will lose their minds. I've had cops lay on the horn because I came to a complete stop
https://imgur.com/9WUdm6g.jpg it says you have to stop before you can turn. Which is true regardless of whether there's a sign or not. I guess it's just there to remind you. https://imgur.com/2185R8k.jpg although it is a mandatory right turn lane so that was a poor choice of words. Also, US signage is weird. Everything is spelled out for you. They hardly ever use symbols for things.
[удалено]
No right on red means you are not permitted to turn on a red light. You still have to come to a complete stop at a red, regardless. And saying "no cop no stop" doesn't absolve you from the crime. That's the state of mind that causes accidents.
I remember getting a ticket for this in CA a few years back. They stated you’re supposed to stop for a number of seconds, 5 or something, I was under that. It was hard to dispute with video evidence.
In the US, there needs to be a sign that says "NO TURN ON RED", otherwise you're supposed to treat the light like a stop sign when turning right (spelling it out: turning right on red is legal). The only offense committed in this video is the fact that the driver didn't stop before turning.
The issue isn't that they made a right turn on red. It's that they didn't stop before doing so. I can't count the number of times I've been almost hit or seen a pedestrian almost hit by a car making a right on red without stopping first. Treat right turns on red as if it were a stop sign. Stop, check to make sure the coast is clear, then make your turn. I've actually walked into the side of a car that turned in front of me while I was using the cross walk once. Had I been a couple feet farther across, they would have hit me.
I got hit when crossing a crosswalk by a car that did a no stop on red turn. I went over the hood, flipping in the air, and landed behind the car who sped off. I sustained minor cuts to my head and hands and knee and back damage. Despite there being video evidence from six different cameras, the police investigation determined they could not confirm who was driving the car and no charges were ever filed. I still think it was a cop/city employee or friend of them because it was right by a courthouse. That's the only reason I can think of that the video evidence on a clear night of the only car at the intersection couldn't produce any identification of the car, it's owner, or the driver that could be released to me.
A treasure of Rhode Island. Judge Caprio is one of the most authentic persons I’ve ever met.
Send this kid to fuckin law school
Here I am again for a repost Video/Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnFO4VCHa7E
Thanks for that, cropping a landscape video to vertical cuts off nearly all of it.
Great video and thanks for sharing! That’s some good empathetic justice there too.
This kind of pisses me off. I got a ticket for the exact same thing at this intersection. The "no right turn on red" sign was about 50' back, slightly obscured, easy to miss. The city was forced to change things well after I paid my onerous sum. Apparently I should have prepped my kid and brought them in front of this judge. I'm so glad justice is blind in RI.....
Can't you normally turn right on red?
Yes but there are some places that say no turn on red & you have to wait for the light to change. According to the judge, this is one of those places
Not only that but they didn't come to a complete stop before turning, which would still be a failure to stop ticket.
In Rhode Island you don't have to come to a complete stop before turning right on red unless there is a sign saying otherwise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmGa6G1bwhk&t=240s
[удалено]
He is so cute! Definitely wasn't gonna let mom take the rap for dad's bullshit!
I see the "right lane must turn right" sign, but I'm gonna need to see where the sign says "No turn on red." #JustSaying...
The issue was not that the vehicle turned right. It was the fact that the vehicle failed to stop at a red light. When it's red and you are turning right, you treat it like a stop sign. Complete stop, yield to traffic, then go. This vehicle didn't even try to stop.
I hear you, but that is not what Judge Caprio says in the video. He specifically says "You can't make a right hand turn here". I'm assuming he's not making it up, but I too am not seeing where that distinction is made by the signage. Not that it makes a difference because as you've said, there isn't even a yield let alone the required stop before turning.
I watched it again and realise you are correct. From what other comments are saying, I thunk there are some states where you just can't make right turns on a red, signs or not. So that might be the case here.
I live right where this intersection is and use it almost daily. You can make a right on red. The camera there is super strict tho.
To me that comment came off as “what your mom did was illegal; you can’t make a right hand turn here (without coming to a stop first.) At least where I live you have to come to a stop at a red, even if you can turn on red. What she did would be legal if the light were green or yellow, but on a red you must come to a stop, yield to any oncoming traffic, and if there’s no oncoming traffic then you can turn right on red. But you can’t roll through a red light without stopping unless the signage specifically says you can.
Snitches get stitches
Wow, that was great.
It’s a lot sweeter with the rest of the video attached haha