Red-light cameras ordered capped in Minneapolis; declared unconstitutional

[innerSpaceman]

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.

[NickO'Time]

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.

[Mousey Girl]

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.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

I think that having police on the streets does more good than having red-light cameras.
...
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.

Eh, yes and no. I am amazed at the number of people who still drive like idiots even with a fully marked black-and-white sitting in full view.

Uh, I didn't see it.

Yeah, whatever. Enjoy your ticket. You'd think people would pay attention, but they don't. At least the cameras are visible. They're hard to miss, actually. Big ugly things.

[The Shadoe]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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.

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.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

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.

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.

[Drince88]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

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).

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Drince88

In California, do they go against your Drivers License 'points' or insurance?

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.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Drince88

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

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.