likeajohndeer obviously did not read my post. I sped up to avoid getting hit by a semi. A police officer would never give a ticket to someone who avoids getting in a car crash, but I got one because I avoided it in the wrong area. When I contested the ticked I was told, a month after the incident, that there wasn't enough evidence in the picture to prove my case. The city ordnance says the owner of the vehicle is liable for the ticket, that is how they get away with giving you a ticket even if you are not the driver, and because it is not a criminal charge you do not have to be proven guilty. All they need to ticket you is a picture of your car. Although you don't receive a criminal charge, when you go to contest the ticket they treat you like you are guilty of something, and they leave you no evidence to prove you aren't.

They claim these cameras are to help prevent accidents, however I contested my ticket because I sped up to avoid an accident, a semi turning in to my lane and hitting me, and they said there wasn’t enough evidence in the pictures to show the semi turned on their signal. When a semi turns on their signal and you are next to them you get out of the way. Obviously you couldn’t see the semi’s signal it is only a picture of the one lane, and it’s a still picture. It’s supposed to be a unbiased third party deciding if you are at fault, but all he did was ignore anything I said and come up with any excuse to say I was still at fault. Where do they get these “Unbiased Third-parties”? Your options are to pay the ticket, contest the ticket and have some unreasonable person come up with reasons why you are still at fault, or pay the ticket and appeal it in small claims court. These cameras were not put in for safety they were solely put in to take peoples hard earned money.