Is Photoblocker spray really works?

[JCL]

My experience is anecdotal as well, and may not match other's.

I live in BC. All of the red light cameras are paid for by the provincial government, local governments, and the insurance company (we have one). All the revenue collected goes to the municipality. There is no third party with a profit motive.

Here, the owner gets the ticket. If they nominate another driver, and both drivers agree, it goes to that driver. If not, the owner pays.

There is due process, if you don't agree with the ticket you can dispute it, same as any other traffic ticket. You get your day in court. You do tend to be fighting uphill, however, if your only excuse is you don't remember. Other side has photographic evidence. However, if that photo is of a car that you don't own, or there is something wrong otherwise, the court is there to hear that.

We used to have a few cameras, rotated between many sites. You never knew which ones had cameras and film in them, even if there was a box on a pole. Now, we have digital cameras at high risk intersections. They are only activated during higher risk times based on accident history. And the locations of all cameras are published on the web. They are there as a deterrent to inattentive drivers, so if you read about it and slow down, you have just promoted yourself into the attentive category, is their logic.

The way our program exists, I support it. I wouldn't support a for-profit scheme (too many risks). I do think it is hard to police red light running (puts the officer at risk, and is very labour intensive). This is a more cost effective way, IMO. And I think that the consequences of running red lights are high, particularly for innocent parties since the data shows that most of those who are killed aren't drivers in the red light running vehicle.

I totally agree that execution is important. But most of the comments above are about poor execution, and innocent drivers. But the OP wrote that the driver in question was in fact guilty, IIRC.