Red-light cameras ordered capped in Minneapolis; declared unconstitutional

[alphabassettgrrl]

I dislike the cameras, in part because if *I* run a red, there's a reason for it, but I won't remember that reason a month later when I get the ticket in the mail. Getting pulled over by a cop will not only allow me to plead my case on the spot and maybe get only a warning, but I'll remember it if I have to.

I did have one go off on me but I had a guy right on my tail and it was wet, so safer to continue through the intersection rather than try to stop. That *would* have been an accident. I saw the flash and was waiting to see if they'd ticket me. They didn't, for which I am pleased.

[Alex]

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?).

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

At least with none of the systems I've seen is any attempt made to validate who is driving.

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.

[innerSpaceman]

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."

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Interesting. You therefore advocate obeying only the laws of society with which you agree?

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.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

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

Anarchy Now!

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Yes, yes I do.

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

[katiesue]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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.

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.

[The Shadoe]

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.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

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.

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:

Under Photo Cop, which started in July, a picture was taken of the offending car's license plate and a citation was sent to the owner. The owner could contest it by demonstrating that the car's title had been transferred or by giving police the name of the person who was driving at the time.

If the person fingered as the driver denied being at the wheel, the ticket was reissued to the owner. If the owner still denied responsibility, the matter was supposed to go to court.

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.