Red-light cameras ordered capped in Minneapolis; declared unconstitutional

[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. 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.

[Isaac]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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

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 =

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by zapppop

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 =

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

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

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

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.

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by zapppop

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.

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.

[Isaac]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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.

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.

[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).