Red light + Letting a friend drive in San francisco..

And go easy on the comments, It's my first offense and I'm really nervous

The ticket would be a lot, however, you may not have to pay it at all because the picture will be of your friend, not you, and I think the fine is on the person driving, not the owner of the car. As for the fact that he was unlicensed, don't worry about it, because "they" don't even know who he is. (I'm going easy because I have children who were not too long ago your age!)

It doesn't sound like you were stopped - so the ticket will go to the owner of the car (hopefully you) and will be just for running a red light. (Don't know what that is in SF, in NYC the fine is $100 to $300 for a first offense - which I hope this is.)

(But, DO not let an licensed person drive your car - since it can void your insurance - and likely end up with a suspension for you.)

Well one of the reasons I let him drive is because I was unfit to be driving myself.

Well I guess you just better pay it and let it go. I googled and from what I saw the fine seems to be over $300.

Haha, well thanks for your comments. They gave me much needed relief.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/Grand-Jury-gives-green-light-to-red-light-cameras-41475057.html

if thisi is how you travel please don't come back here to SF - we don't need unlicensed drunk tourists here.

@mztery, I don't think I said I was drunk. Please re-read what I did actually type and give me a proper comment.

what does

I was unfit to be driving myself


mean?

and you still let an unlicensedd driver drive a car and run a red light....

Lmfao... are you serious.

First of all did you read the actual problem?

Second, you're putting hate in a forum that's meant to be helpful. I'll drop it here.

nytraveler: "so the ticket will go to the owner of the car (hopefully you) and will be just for running a red light"

Not how it works here.

The photo of the driver must be identifiable and match the license of the person owning the car. Tickets aren't just sent based on the license plate.

Chesco1: It is very likely you won't get a citation since the police would have to match the red light photo to a non-existent license.

However -- I'm not sure what they would do when the photo does match the license of the passenger. You will also show in the photo. I think they'd consider it a non-match since you weren't driving.

Definitely learn a lesson here -- IF your non-licensed friend had hit someone running that red light, you'd be liable and could be facing vehicular manslaughter charges . . . .

"you're putting hate in a forum that's meant to be helpful"

Oh my goodness -- what if that non licensed driver had killed someone -- then you'd REALLY see some hate. You seem to think letting you friend drive was 'no big deal'.

sheesh.

(there were other options)

*sigh* Dangit. Well, I'll just have to wait and see what comes up.

I can't believe you're actually giving me this. I set that comment up because of mztery's disclosed "drunk" comment.

*Sigh*... when will people learn? I assume you know (and I assume you knew before you let your friend drive, you just took the risk)that letting an un-licensed driver drive your car is one of the stupedest things you can do. Here in NY, they can impound your car and give you a very hefty fine. Know that your irresponsibility can have very (very) dire consequences for you should the driver injure or kill someone. I've seen it happen. Keep that in the front of your mind.

The poster said in the very first post that he was nauseous from the driving....nothing about drinking at all.

And I think the poster knows that letting his unlicensed friend drive was a bad idea. So don't do it again, ok? (rap on knuckles)

I stupidly mis-typed "stupidest"... apologies for the typo.

Yeah, I have that in my mind, but what I want to know are the actual consequences. My little "relief" period ended. So not I'm keeping this serious. Besides, he IS a reliable driver. The only reason this happened was because of the tour bus that conflicted our view of the red light, and I doubt late braking would do any better.

I'm only saying this now because of the little hints and warning I just read from the previous commentors

Here you go:

San Francisco - Red Light Camera Units
San Francisco, California

CITY:
San Francisco

CITATION TYPE:
Red Light Camera Ticket

TICKET FINE:
$ 351

Red Light Cameras - Issues (State of CA)
If a camera does catch a vehicle running a red light, a citation is mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle. If that's you, you’ll have to pay a fine. You are allowed to see the photographs if you don't think you actually ran a red light. Some jurisdictions use a combination of photos and video cameras, and you can actually go online with the citation number and pull up a video of your car running the red light. If you weren't the one driving, you have two options: pay the fine and have a conviction go on your record, or tell the police who was driving that day. -End-

P.S. - Google is a wonderful thing...

"Besides, he IS a reliable driver. The only reason this happened was because of the tour bus that conflicted our view of the red light, and I doubt late braking would do any better."

Then he WAS TOO CLOSE TO THE BUS AND DRIVING UNSAFELY!!!! One does not enter an intersection unless one can see, and the exit is clear. Maybe if he had been licensed he would have known this (or maybe not since you don't seem to know it yourself)

He is UNLICENSED!!

What is it you don't understand. Stupid idea. You lucked out this time since he didn't hit anyone. But it seems you just don't get how stupid/unnecessary it was.

Oh - michelleNYC -- That IS good news

My comments were based on my home town in northern California where the photo must match the car's registered owner or no ticket is issued. Seems the city/county of SF does it differently. Maybe there is justice after all . . . .

*cough* janisj, you're putting too much accusations into your saying. He was not dangerously close to the bus, it was a three lane road and he was on the left side where you could see his mirror. If you don't know how big a tour bus can be compared to the length of SF streets. I don't think you should be arguing this. Besides, I wasn't nauseated enough to not be able to understand anything. Of course I would still be monitoring him while he was driving. It's only common sense right?

And @ michelleNYC, yeah thanks, I have been searching all over google. I just dont have enough sense where to look = =. Put that on my fault.

And at that conviction thing. What would be better to do, have a conviction on record or tell the police that it was my unlicensed friend who drove?

Chesco, I'm pretty darn close to retracting my "support", based on your comment that you would be "monitoring" him while he was driving.

PPS: California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 14604: Under Section 14604 CVC, the owner has a duty to assure the person driving their vehicle possesses a valid license; however, if you allow or permit anyone, including: your wife, son or daughter, or friend or relative, to drive your vehicle and that person does not have a valid driver's license, there is a possibility that the vehicle could be forfeited (taken from you by the state)and you will be responsible for towing and storage fees. You will not have access to the vehicle for 30 days.

Well, Chesco, you're not in a good place either way - but you did put yourself in that place. Pay the fine, watch your insurance premium go up, and learn your lesson. Or, tell the police you weren't the one driving, that you let an unlicensed driver use your car and receive additional fines or worse.

Well, monitoring isn't hard to do is it? I did have a bad case of nausea and I know that I was suited to drive. Besides, It's not like I was laying down. I still had a job to do even if I wasn't feeling up to snuff you know? It's like teaching someone how to drive without much of the teaching stuff. What I mean by monitoring is that I was just watching his driving.

So between the two choices, It's probably better to watch my insurance go up.

"He was not dangerously close to the bus, it was a three lane road and he was on the left side where you could see his mirror. If you don't know how big a tour bus can be compared to the length of SF streets. I don't think you should be arguing this."

Obviously he was too close to something since he could not see the light NOR the exit of the intersection. Maybe you need to re-read the vehicle code. It is illegal to enter an intersection unless the exit is clear. Since he could not see the lights it is most likely he couldn't see the exit either.

So between you and your unlicensed friend -- I think both of you should reconsider driving until you learn the rules of the road

michelleNYC, that MAY be the way it works in New York. But probably each state is a little different. Without some CA experience I don't know how you can say what will happen.

In Colorado, camera violations do not go against the driving record. It is simply a fine and no points against the license either.

Second, only the driver is photographed. A piece of the passenger may get in there but it is mainly the driver.

The owner of the car receives the citation. On the citation form the owner can dispute that they were driving the vehicle by signing a statement to that effect and enclosing a copy of the driver's license picture for proof. Second, the owner has the option of identifying the driver or checking a box which says something like, "I do not choose to ID the driver at this time." At least in Colorado it is the police responsibility to ID the driver, not you. Within a couple of weeks the ticket will be dismissed with the reservation that the police may continue to investigate and may reissue the citation should the driver be id at a later date. Never happens -- too many tickets to track.

Been through this a couple times because of a college son who lends his car (my car in title) to friends I don't know.

My guess is that he has little to worry about. But someone from CA will need to explain how the actually procedures work.

http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsticket.htm

So basically, I don't have much to say about this until I see what's on the ticket?

Pay the fine, pay the new insurance rate and
consider yourself lucky that this is all that
happened.

"Besides, I wasn't nauseated enough to not be
able to understand anything. Of course I would
still be monitoring him while he was driving.
It's only common sense right?"

I'd also think real hard about lecturing your
elders about common sense until you really
understand what it is and possess it. It seems
that your nausea was indeed enough to cause you
to "not be able to understand anything". Perhaps
it is simply your youthful lack of common sense
and an inability to understand the possible con-
sequences of your decisions that allowed you to
make such an error in judgement.

Common sense, had you applied it, would have
dictated that you relax until your nausea sub-
sided so you, the licensed driver, could con-
tinue to drive.

I know us 'old farts' seem to be coming down
kind of hard on you over this but it is only
because we've lived down the consequences of
our bad decisions or have lost friends and
loved who paid a high price for theirs. I
know this is probably falling on deaf ears but
these are things that still need to be said.

Good comments, peterboy. I still shutter and sometimes have "nightmares" when I recall some of the stupid things I did while driving in my youth - 40 years ago.

Stu Dudley

<<<I still shutter and sometimes have "nightmares" when I recall some of the stupid things I did while driving in my youth - 40 years ago. >>>

OMG, Stu, me too!!

In CA the ticket can not be assigned to the owner of the car. The picture taken will be compared with the photo DMV has of the registered owner. When it doesn't match the red light company, not the city or county of SF, will send a notice that looks official but is not. They will expect you to turn in your friend. You are not required by law to do that.

Here is information regarding what you will get in the mail. 18 months ago someone driving our car was photographed running a red light. I shredded the info. I've registered the car twice since. There are no repercussions from ignoring that notice.

Here is what the snitch ticket clooks like. It's the one I shredded:

http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsdocsHawth4Fake.html

Traffic School might be an obtion ... to avoid the ticket going on DMV record ...

Geez Fodors is good for a lecture but short on facts on this thread.

Don't worry about traffic school the ticket will not be assigned to you.

If you don't live in CA or don't know the laws in CA you should bow out of providing factual information on this thread.

If you are simply compelled to lecture then go right ahead. Simple enough to ignore.

Someone who gets nauseous driving probably shouldn't be driving a car.

And if you're sick and there is no other licensed driver you either stay where you are until you recover or call a friend with a license or call a cab.

There is NO excuse for letting someone without a license drive a car.

Didn;t know the rules ere different in SF - here is your car does it you're responsible unless you can prove someone else was driving - they;re definitely going to get someone for the crime.

* YMMV ...

Uh.. Suzie and fmp - I was quoting from California motor vehicle and other California traffic-related violations sites NOT NY. Common sense, no?

There is no way you can "monitor" someone who's driving. the only thing that counts is whose hands are on the wheel and whose feet on the pedals. Unless you plan on pulling the wheel out of someone's hands - "monitoring" while moving isn't possible.

In any case - you can't let someone without a license drive - no matter what the circumstances.

You seem to have a lot of excuses - but not really understand what you did wrong. Perhaps if they did seize your car you would get a wake up call.

I've lived in California all my life (60+ years). About 12 years ago, my car was stopped at a red light on El Camino Real (major street). I was rear-ended by another car. The Police arrived and talked to everyone & wrote an accident report. The driver of the other car did not have a licence. His car was confiscated and the driver had to find some other means home. The police officer provided us with the name & address of the person the car was registered to. The car was not registered to the driver. There was a passenger in the other car - he had to find another way home too (don't know if he had a license - police were not interested in him).

Found out later that the guy driving the other car "borrowed" it from his girlfriend - who was quite young & lived about 1 block from us with her parents. We live in a very "upscale" neihborhood. Boy seemed to be about 18 years old. The un-licensed driver & girlfriend filed a false claim with her insurance company - which the insurance company didn't believe for a minute because it completly contradicted the police report (their story said that I ran into their car while it was parked in a parking lot and the "boy" was not involved in the incident at all). After their insurance paid for all of our repairs, my guess is that her insurance and the insurance for her parents cars was cancelled. You can't drive in California without insurance. I'm also guessing that the daughter no longer had a car of her own.

Yep - don't let anyone un-licenced drive your car.

Stu Dudley

Stu, you live in an "'very' upscale neighborhood"? (Sorry, everyone - inside joke, because Stu and I live in the same neighborhood!)

Uh Michelle whether you cut and paste that form somewhere doesn't matter, that's not the law in CA. It's SF trying to intimidate drivers. Cities can't change the driving laws in CA. They can act like they can attach a moving violation to a car owner but they can't because the CA DMV won't do it. Also ther is no law compelling the owner to identify the driver. Uh.

Well from what I have read the SF Supes have passed a "law" if one is an illegal resident and are stopped by the SFPD driving a vehicle without a proper driver license (which also means no insurance) they will be allowed to contact a licensed driver to come and drive their vehicle away. Twenty minutes is the time limit which among other things makes me chuckle as I doubt most people contacted could arrive within twenty minutes. Otherwise the SFPD are to call into to their PD station to get instructions as to whether or not the vehicle should be impounded. So it appears if you drive in SF without a proper drivers license make sure you are an illegal resident evidently.

What is an "illegal resident"?

I don't understand your question, sf7307. An illegal resident is a person living in the USA without the proper documentation to do so. You should know that. It is a very common term.

What the SF supes did was to direct their police officers to allow drivers without a valid license to contact someone who does have one to come and get their vehicle so that it dces not get impounded. Not exactly in the same concept as ticketing a car owner vs the driver who ran the red light.

Not a law either. It's procedural.

And Suzie, does it have anything to do with being an "illegal resident" or does it apply to any driver without a valid license? (LI, I was questioning the term because 1) I didn't know if you meant an illegal resident of the United States or of San Francisco, and 2) I find it hard to believe they are singling out unlicensed drivers who happen to be illegal residents)

I think there were problems with COPS "pulling over" an (unknown to the COP) person who did not have a license. If the person was an illegal with no licence & no insurance, the illegal would often try to avoid the COP and take off on a dangerous high speed chase. The story I read said that the illegals felt that "running" was the best alternative, since their car was going to be impounded, they would be cited, and perhaps turned over to immigration (last action is doubtful - but I've heard that illegals don't want to take any chances). Of course, non-illegals might decide to flee too.

The new Police Chief felt that if the person without the license could have a chance to keep his car & not spend a ton of money in the process, he would be less likely to flee.

Stu Dudley

if you are that nauseous from a road trip (and I myself have had motions sickness on car rides so I know what it feels like) I would make a good guess that you are hung over from the night before.

mztery, sure but there could be many reasons Chesco1 was sick. As just one, maybe she's a girl and she's pregnant?

But I mostly wanted to post to say that we were in Los Angeles and got sent a ticket from the LAPD for a rental car. The infraction occurred a week after we left the state and the rental car agency put in the wrong dates for who had rented the vehicle.

Despite the picture clearly not matching my husband and our copies of our airline tickets etc, the police made us do a lot of hoops with the rental agency to get it cleared. Also the items we received were from LAPD not from a third party company. I would not ignore or shred it if I were you.

Chesco1 doesn't sound like an 18 year-old nor a first-time poster.

I call troll on this.

I only said to shred it if it was a snitch ticket. I provided a link to what the snitch ticket looks like. If the ticket says anywhere on it do not contact the court then it is NOT a ticket. It is a request for information. You are not required by law to submit that information.

sf7307:

Police will no longer impound cars the first time drivers are pulled over without a license.

The reason: Many such drivers are in the United States illegally - and thus unable to get a license - and the officials pushing the change think that impounding their cars is an unfair hardship.

Instead, unlicensed drivers will be given 20 minutes to phone a relative or other acquaintance with a valid license and insurance to pick up the car. If the driver doesn't have a cell phone, police will help him contact someone.

If no one shows up, then the cop is to call a supervisor to approve the tow.

A second offense within six months means an automatic tow. But, for those who stay clean for half a year, the clock starts over.

And again the unlicensed and uninsured driver will immediately be back on the road. A bad idea in my very strong opinion. And many licensed and insured drivers, those with low incomes, find it a hardship to pay for the legally required insurance and drivers license. I am disgusted with the leadership in SF. Saying that as someone who had family arrive in SF shortly after the Civil War.

Have the laws in CA regarding photo red light tickets changed in the last 10 years? I only ask because my experience was exactly as posted by michelleNYC.

My boyfriend (licensed) was driving my car in Los Angeles. As the registered owner, I was sent the ticket although the picture clearly showed a male driving the car. I had the choice of either accepting the driving violation myself or, if I was not the driver, provide the identy of the driver. I did not have the option of "not telling" and it would go away.

Are you sure? Did the ticket say Do Not Contact the Court? If so, it's a snitch ticket and you are not required to identify the person no matter what the document says. The link above that I provided will show you what the snitch ticket looks like. Just because the form said to identify the person doesn't mean you had to by law. Unless it was truly a ticket from an actual court then it's not a ticket.