There's something profoundly unfair about red-light cameras, and I don't like them. In Minneapolis a county judge has ruled that the red-light cameras are unconstitutional, and from what I know about their operation in California the same principles may apply under our state constitution.
More than 26,000 people have received tickets under the city's Stop on Red ordinance, which presumes the owner was the driver during the offense. The owner must prove that someone else was driving to avoid a conviction.But District Judge Mark Wernick said the ordinance is invalid because it provides vehicle owners with less due process rights in court than the state statute. State law for a similar violation requires the state to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" who was driving. But Minneapolis' ordinance shifted the burden to the owners to prove their innocence.
And communities cannot have ordinances in conflict with state law, the ruling noted.
Studies show that red-light cameras produce only a modest reduction in accidents at intersections where they are employed, and that their primary effect is to reduce right-angle crashes in exchange for more rear-end crashes. The main reason they're employed is because they're an easy revenue stream for municipalities. As with many traffic laws and enforcement patterns, red-light cameras are more like a randomly applied tax than an actual safety program.
The ACLU has my thanks for bringing this lawsuit.
(HT: Glenn Reynolds.)
I agree 100%.
WooHoo!
The best thing about the loony liberals in Chapel Hill was that they voted to take them out. Actually caused the same # of accidents (fewer front-end, more rear-end)
I think this ruling is a bit of a stretch. If a car is registered to one person, was not reported lost or stolen, and the registered driver can't provide any evidence anyone else drove it, what is so "reasonable" about doubting that he was the driver after all? In any event, this ruling would not affect red-light cameras that also take the picture of the driver.
Michael, I disagree. And I'm saddened to see this case (like so many others, including Chapel Hill where I work) where actual safety benefits are traded for political pandering.
I am a researcher in the field of highway safety. Up until last year, I was undecided on the topic of red-light cameras. I had not seen a truly good study on the issue (i.e, accounting for selection biases, etc). But the same study that you cited (FHWA 2005) convinced me that red-light cameras are a good thing for safety. You and caltechgirl mention the fact that the cameras are reducing angle collisions (T-bones) while increasing rear-ends. One thing that should be pointed out is that there is a huge difference in the severity of these two types of crashes. Angle collisions are much more severe.
About the constitutionality of the red-light camera (RLC) program, I didn't see a mention of the fact that most RLC tickets are civil fines. The article made it sound like it is a criminal offense. I'm not sure how the Minneapolis program is set up, but the idea of "due process" seems like it would be much more applicable to a criminal ruling rather than a civil fine.
I hope we'll see more installations of red-light cameras in the future.
I usually want the government to butt-out, but what is involved is public safety upon the public way.
Who gets a parking ticket when a car is parked illegally? The owner, regardless of who actually parked the car illegally. The owner of a car should be held responsible for the way the car is operated, regardless of who is driving.
The reason people do not like speeding cameras and red light cameras is because they are speeding or running red lights and they want to do it with impunity. The arguments of liberty or due process are only the sad justifications of LAW BREAKERS.
Yes, these cameras are revenue makers, and why not? The people paying are either caught BREAKING THE LAW, or are lending their car to someone who is BREAKING THE LAW. Cameras are much more cost efficient and safe way for the police to enforce the law. If the cameras are successful, then the revenue will decrease.
If you do not like red lights and speed limits, then democratically act to repeal the laws. We will then have anarchy, but at least everyone will be operating on a level playing field.
Finally, the rear end collisions occur because drivers were going too fast in the first place and not leaving enough space between cars. Most of us need to adjust to less aggressive driving.