The interesting question here is whether this is within the intent of the legislature's escalating penalty requirement. The fine is so high because of a requirement that re-offenders pay escalating fines, on the theory that the first fine clearly was not enough of a deterrent. So his initial fine was low -- $150 or so -- but by the third one it was $900 or something.
To me, that's the problem here. As I read it, the escalating penalty requirement was meant to apply only if you keep re-offending after getting caught -- if the original fine was not enough deterrent. What the legislature apparently meant to cover was the guy who just wouldn't learn his lesson -- who would get caught, pay the fine, shrug, and do it again. Here, the guy ran three red lights -- which, alright, is pretty brazen. But he never re-offended after getting the first fine -- he just got three tickets at once. So is it right that the escalating penalty applied in this situation, where you don't have a repeat offender?
Well, that's the other curious thing. Apparently judges consider this sort of ticket writing to be "double-dipping" -- technically they're separate crimes, but if a guy runs three red lights in a row a judge usually won't allow three tickets. So all this guy had to do was contest the tickets, and he'd be off with the fine that a person might normally get for running a single red light -- the court likely would not treat him like a three-time loser. But he didn't want to contest the tickets in part because he really and truly was guilty. So the facte that he gets worse treatment by rightfully owning up to it and admitting guilty just seems backwards.