Red-light cameras ordered capped in Minneapolis; declared unconstitutional
 

Just wondering what you all thought of this since I know that many places (especially Los Angeles and New York) have many more red-light cameras than Minneapolis does.

I can see the case for them being unconsititutional based on due-process rights and habeas corpus.

EVen though this is just for the time being, I wonder if it will go through being permanent, and if it will spread elsewhere, especially to larger cities.

Considering that, as with any traffic violation, you are given the right to appear in court to dispute it, I don't see where due process is denied. And I don't think habeas corpus means what you think it means. A writ of habeus corpus ad subjiciendum is granted when someone in custody petitions to be seen before a judge to be released. Those cameras are pretty fancy, but they can't detain you.

Personally, I don't have a problem with red light cameras.

I go back and forth on them.

I like the idea, really, as Phoenix pretty much tops the country in red light running caused accidents. I hate sitting at a light that is green because the intersection takes 15 seconds to clear due to all the morons puching their way through the light that has been red for a while.

In Phoenix, though, they are pretty much a joke. They are mailed to you. Because they are mailed through an imperfect system and there is no witness that you actually received the ticket, you can throw them away with no penalty. Sometimes the city will decide to serve you, but often times it takes so long that the ticket is no longer valid.

I live right next to the first highway in the US to have speed cameras. That's causing an even bigger battle than on the red light cameras.

In Phoenix, the photo systems are required to have an image of the driver. If there is no clear image of the driver, then the ticket is not sent out. So, since the cameras are immobile and everyone knows where they are, many people are wearing masks as they drive or hold up a piece of newspapaer or some such thing to hide their face, and then the system doesn't work.

I'm all for stopping red light running. It's dangerous and stupid. But I don't think photo enforcement is practical because it simply doesn't work with all the ways to circumvent the system.

Actually, it was declared unconstitutional (if that's even the right term) according to Minnesota state law, not federal, and therefore may not be applicable elsewhere.

According to the article, the sticky point was that the cameras "ticketed vehicle owners, not drivers, a procedure that ran counter to the uniformity of Minnesota laws governing moving violations." Which is a bit different from saying "red light cameras are unconstitutional." I doubt this has posted on Westlaw yet, so I didn't bother looking it up, but it sounds from the article as if the city's laws conflicted with the state's laws, in which case state law wins. Nothing particularly exciting about that.

Besides - a due process claim? Over a traffic camera? I can't imagine a compelling substantive or procedural due process claim in this situation.

I can be pretty scared of Big Brother, but I have no problem with red light cameras. If I were caught by one I'd pay the penalty. I have no problem with the law "don't run a red light", and I'd feel liable if I were caught.

Speeding cameras are different to me because I don't agree with speeding laws.

Slope, this is slippery. Slippery meet slope.

I have a big problem with both the speeding and red light cameras.

At least in this part of the world they are run by a private contractor that gets a percentage of what the evil things make. While I'm all for capitalism I'm not sure law enforcement is the place for it. These are money makers plain and simple. Even after is was clearly shown that the cameras INCREASE the rate of accidents the city/sate will not give up the revenue. As the goverment continues to grow it's appetite also increases and we'll see a never ending stream of punitive fines like this which are not aimed at public safety or security but rather just serve to feed the beast.

Interesting. You therefore advocate obeying only the laws of society with which you agree? I am, of course, not taking into account any moral issues. Red light cameras and speeding cameras I would say are not different from one another morally.

I am not saying that I am a saint and do not ever violate the law - particularly in terms of speeding.

I just find it interesting that your opinion of the cameras varies on the type because of what laws you agree with.

Easy for you to say. You didn't lose your car in an auto accident that was red light camera related.

I did.

Last year in January I stopped on yellow to avoid going through the red light and was rear ended by a huge truck & lost my car due to frame damage.

What I think of red light cameras these days = :mad:

How is that the fault of the camera? Wouldn't that be the fault of the driver behind you who wasn't paying attention or was tailing you too closely?

I'm not sure that I understand what red light cameras had to do with this.

How is that redlight camera related? I stop at yellows all the time because that's what you're supposed to do. Despite popular belief, yellow does not mean "speed up to make it through". It means, "If you can stop now before the intersection, do it, if you can't stop, go on through." The dummy in the truck was probably following too closely and not paying attention. The camera didn't cause that.

It's the same issue I alluded to about red light cameras increasing accidents. People often either speed up in an attempt to clear the intersection or jam on the breaks for a yellow. Both can and do lead to an increase in accidents.

Or they cover their face as they go through the intersection. :p

Even if he was following too closely I still wouldn't have stopped if the intersection did not have cameras. I know what yellow means but I still would have just gone through (w/o speeding up) rather than try to avoid getting a traffic fine. I thought if I try to avoid the traffic fine I'd do the right thing. Considering the money I lost on the car, the money I paid for a rental, and other fees & debts I acquired. I now question that decision.

Just for the record, it wasn't a quick slam on the brakes.

Sorry, but annecdotal evidence isn't enough to sway me. No more than me trying to sway you by claiming that a red light camera might have prevented my mother's near-fatal accident in which a nurse ran a redlight and broad-sided her on the driver's side. The fact that she walked away with nothing but seatbelt bruises and airbag burns was a miracle of luck as well as Buick engineering (how would you like to have been my father who drove up to that same intersection a few minutes later to see his wife's car a complete wreck in the middle of it?).

Such incidents prove nothing other than that the individuals at fault were driving unsafely.

I wonder, Moonliner, about the statistics you mention regarding increased accident rates...do they take into account injury/fatality rates? Accidents involving people running red lights are likely to be side-impact or head-on collisions, which generally carry significantly greater risk of major injury. I think a few extra bent rear bumpers is a fair trade, and in time, that anomally would likely correct itself as drivers learn to correctly approach yellow lights.

That's exactly my position. Always has been. Why on earth would I ever obey laws that I don't agree with?


I makes my choices and I takes my chances.

Hard data? Sure thing... Deaths went up as well.

Washington Post "Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent" (Be sure to read the ENTIRE article and not just the hogwash part put out by "city officials".)

Colorado Study

I could go on but you can google more for yourself if you would like...

Anomally? I don't think you can count on that. How long have drivers had to "learn to correctly approach" stop lights? Over one hundred years and we still have daily accidents.

If Boston had red-light cams, Massachusetts would be the richest state in the union.
:D

A couple of years ago there was a big bruhaha here about the cameras. Mostly steming fromt he fact that the outside contractor was profiting from them.

This article is saying it cut down on accidents though -
http://www.calweb.com/kxtv10/news-st...RED-LIGHTS.htm

They took all of them out for a while but they're starting to come back. I don't have a problem with them but in one particular intersection near my house where they were installed, the intersection gets backed up as people slow to turn into a shopping center. You could enter the intersection on a green but get stuck and the the light would turn then flash you were caught.

And rightly so. You are never supopsed to enter an intersection unless you can get through it. If the light is green and the intersection is backed up, you're supposed to wait behind the line until you can get all the way through.

I disagree with red light cameras for one simple reason:

It shifts responsibility from the driver of the car to the owner of the car. At least with none of the systems I've seen is any attempt made to validate who is driving, and unlike with a smoggy car (which is the liability of the owner and not necessarily the driver) it is important. The camera only system involves a presumption of guilt (you have to go to court and prove you are innocent, even in the face of no actual claim you were driving the car) as opposed to a presumption of innocence (you have to go to court and force the prosecution to prove you were driving the car). In the bit I read last night, it was this presumption of guilt element that the court had trouble with.

A similar issue applies to speeding cameras that automatically generate tickets. I think speeding cameras and red light cameras are fine if used in conjunction with an actual intervention of issuance of the ticket on the spot. Let the intersection picture immediately show up on the computer in the police car (or traffic enforcement car) near the intersection who then pulls you over and issues a ticket to the driver.

If we're going to automate it, why not just require that all cars come with equipment that automatically issues you a ticket anytime you speed (easy enough for a car to determine in conjunction with speed-limit sensors embedded in the road) and a GPS-intersection light tie-in that allows the car to know if you were in the intersection after the light turned and then issue a ticket.

If these traffic violations are going to attach to the owner rather than the driver, and the obligation is on the owner to prove they didn't commit the violation rather than on the government to prove they did then we need to completely reevaluating how people interact with their cars (and who gets the points on their license if a car is owned by two people or a corporate entity?).

I received a ticket last year from a camera. When I received the wonderful photos of myself in the mail, I remember that there was a section on the form that asked if you (the registered owner) were the person driving the vehicle in the photo. I'm not sure what they do if you say that it wasn't you as I didn't get a chance to explore that option. It would appear however that an attempt was made to validate who was driving.

Did you miss the part about a clear picture of the driver being necessary before a ticket issues? That's precisely because you are off the hook as the owner if you show up with the photo and it's not a photo of you.




edited to add: MBC beat me to it. Heheh, maybe you don't even have to "show up," just respond with "I'm not sure if that was a bad hair day, but I'm pretty sure that's not me."

Yes, yes I do.

Following laws blindly doesn't keep us free OR safe.

Oh, and I agree - all the above accident instances have everything to do with bad driving and nothing to do with cameras.

I can understand the sentiment. But drawing a distinction between red light cameras and speeding cameras seems a bit odd to me.

Problem is the light was a really short green with an even shorter yellow for a left hand turn. The way the shopping center entrance was located you couldn't tell it was going to stick you out there until it was too late. For me it was just easier to not make a left there during busy times then I just didn't have to worry about it.

I think that having police on the streets does more good than having red-light cameras. Admittedly, I don't know how the budgets line themselves out, but I can see the argument being made that cameras can justify cutting down the police force.

I get worried in those in-between situations. Where you can't safely stop at yellow, but when going through the intersection the light turns red.

I do think that Alex (as well as the court) make the strongest point about having to prove that you are innocent. Innocent until proven guilty. If we want the system to be completely automated, there really is no way currently to positively identify the driver. And let's say that a camera did work in conjunction with a nearby squad car. What would be the point? The squad car can do that job without the camera. And from what I understand the cameras aren't cheap and a HUGE chunk of profits goes right back to the contractor.

Plus, don't people tend to drive better when they see a police car nearby? If someone doesn't know the camera even exists, it isn't going to do anything to correct a problem (however temporarily that may be). But if cops are around, people seem to be more alert and less sloppy about driving.

I've reread the linked article three times now and can't find anything about a photo of the driver being involved in the process. I may be skimming over it, though.

Here is the process described:

Again, this is a presumption that you are guilty unless you provide evidence to the contrary. This is the opposite of how it is supposed to work. Also it requires that the method of claiming your own innocence is to rat out another person.

When you contest a normal speeding ticket or other moving violation the process is still that the government must present a case proving your guilt. If the cop doesn't show up you don't even have to claim your innocence.

Now, if photos of the driver are available (and I'm willing to admit I may have missed this; though the protesting guy does say he wasn't the driver) then I'm willing to reconsider my position to some degree as long as nothing appears on your record until the state has made some due diligence effort to ensure that you were the one speeding (as opposed to just assuming the licensed owner is the person they have a picture of) and putting a moving violation on your record.

Alex, I think the problem in Minnesota is that no photo proving owner and driver identical is required. I was speaking, without specifying (oops), about California ... where, here in the Golden State, such photo confirmation of driver=owner is necessary.

They just put the first cameras in Modesto a few months ago, and it really has had an effect. I just don't drive through those intersections anymore. I don't think it will have an effect to curbing the bad drving in our city, that's for sure. You think LA is bad, wait until you drive my city, it has no crosstown Freeways or or expressways whatsoever and it just get's worse.

Bakersfield has the cameras popping up all over town, though mostly on my side of town.

Right after the first one went in, I was sitting, waiting for a green to turn left, when the lights changed. I watched cars lighting them up trying to stop in time. After a week it was hard to see where to stop because all of the skid marks covered the white paint. The City used to announce when a new camera goes up, but that stopped after the first year.

There is no proof that the owner of a car was driving when photographed by a red-light camera. They know there was a driver in the car. They know there is an owner of the car. They know that driver might be the owner, but they don't know for sure. If they do not investigate and prove the owner of the car is in fact the driver, and then they go ahead and charge the owner anyway, then the owner is being presumed guilty and being deprived of due process. Frankly I am surprised it has taken this long to get it stopped.

As I mentioned above, at least in CA, they do ask if you were driving the vehicle when they send you the citation. If you don't respond with information otherwise, then they assume you were the driver.

But they don't have to PROVE it's you.

In California, do they go against your Drivers License 'points' or insurance? That was one thing in Oregon when they installed the cameras for speed and red lights - they didn't count against as a moving violation that affected your insurance (Oregon doesn't do the points thing, or at least didn't when I last dealt with the DMV there).

Yes and yes, unless you opt for traffic school and it is available to you (as in, you haven't already been for a while.), then, there is no effect on your insurance or record.

If you do the traffic school route, it doesn't affect your insurance, but it is still on your DMV record.

It's no different than any other moving citation. By not appearing in court, you waive the right to challenge, but the right is there. If you exercise that right and appear in court, then the burden is on the agency that cited you to prove it.

California Vehicle Code
22526. (a) Notwithstanding any official traffic control signal indication to proceed, a driver of a vehicle shall not enter an intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without obstructing the through passage of vehicles from either side.

b) A driver of a vehicle which is making a turn at an intersection who is facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal shall not enter the intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without obstructing the through passage of vehicles from either side.


....

(f) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Anti-Gridlock Act of 1987.


I agree with this, and this is another reason why I agree with the cameras. There are a few intersections that it would take about 25 minutes to get through because the intersections were gridlocked due to people sitting in the intersections. Since they put the cameras up, they run so much smoother. At one time they were declared unconstitutional because the public was not given enough warning about the cameras. Either way I see it as a good deterrent. Just because it takes a bit longer is not a justifiable excuse in my books.
Katiesue-If the light is too short, then it is time to get involved locally and petition to have the timing changed at the city council, etc...

To be honest I solved the problem by just going a different way during peak traffic times. Then I didn't have to worry about it. They took the cameras down when they had the whole issue about them a couple years ago and they haven't come back yet.

Hawai'i tried the red light cams and speed cams several years ago. Both programs disappeared when several policemen and suits from the Dept of Transportation got tickets with their pictures on it in the mail.

Huzzah!

It is different. When you're pulled over and given a ticket they are citing the person they know was driving. When given based only on ownership of a license plate they cite the person they assume was driving.

And then, if you contest a ticket you're directly issued you don't have to prove your innocence before the police first prove their case. The assumption by the court is on innocence.

With the camera tickets, if you contest the police don't have to prove their case, you have to prove your innocence (by being able to prove you weren't driving and fingering the person who was; at least in the case linked here). This is a presumption of guilt by the court.

To me they are completely different things.

Okay, I didn't realize they shifted the burden of proof like that. That is a bit troubling.