Re: Not quite
Well, in the US it is slightly different for each state. There was a big fight over the red light cameras in my state (Tennessee). In 2014 the state legislature passed a law clarifying what constitutes a red light violation and added the following to the law that defines a red light violation (T.C.A. § 55-8-110 ):
(e) It is not a violation of subdivision (a)(3), unless the front tires of a vehicle cross the stop line after the signal is red.
Sometime afterward, a judge ruled that:
1) The camera system in question only showed the vehicle in the intersection while the light was red, so was therefore incapable of determining if the front tires crossed the line before or after the red light was switched on as required by subsection (e).
2) It is a violation for the driver, but not for the owner, and the camera system does not identify the driver.
As a result, locations in Tennessee still have the camera systems and still issue tickets, but they cannot prosecute anyone who doesn't pay up. They still operate them, in other words, knowing that they can extort money out of the uninformed. Many (most?) people in Tennessee now just ignore the tickets and don't pay.
No doubt they are still in operation because people from other states driving through Tennessee don't know this tidbit of information that certainly didn't make national news. They certainly are not going to travel back to Tennessee to appear in court, so they just send in the money.
So, this story is a very good example of why an engineer should not attempt to be a lawyer. He's spent considerably time and energy showing mathematically that the amber light period should be increased, whereas a lawyer, not to be bothered with such things, would simply argue that the camera doesn't prove who was driving the car or that the car's front tires crossed the line in violation of the law.
Disclaimer: Both the law and the attitude of judges may be vastly different in Oregon than in Tennessee.