A Minneapolis,
Minnesota area judge has given red-light cameras a taste of their own medicine. Hennepin County District Judge Mark
Wernick has put the red light on the county's automated traffic signal cameras installed this past July.
The judge found legal fault with the county’s ‘Stop On Red’ program, which (like virtually all red-light camera programs) tickets the owners of the offending vehicles, not the drivers themselves. As Minnesota state laws put the responsibility for light violations on the driver, Wernick threw out the challenging ticket, saying that Minneapolis lacks the authority to make law an ordinance that would hold vehicle owners responsible.
The motorist who brought the case to court was represented by an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) volunteer attorney, Howard Bass, who argued that the ordinance was unconstitutional, though Judge Wernick didn’t comment on that facet of their case.
The city is mulling whether to appeal the decision, but the case could set an important legal precident nationwide, as it is estimated that as many as 160 other cities employ red light cameras.
[Source: Associated Press via KMSP Fox 9 News]
(Top tip, Jenni!)
New KITT Attack Mode revealed at Comic Con
London 2008: Honda OSM concept roadster says, "Cheerio!"
London 2008: Lotus unveils the Evora
2010 Chevy Camaro - Official Details and Images
2010 Chevy Camaro - LIVE from the reveal
In the Autoblog Garage: Aprilia RSV 1000 R
First Drive: Maserati Quattroporte S in Europe
First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S JCW
In the Autoblog Garage:2009 Nissan GT-R
North American Exclusive First Drive: Alfa MiTo
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Chicken @ Mar 16th 2006 10:08AM
Woohoo!!!!About time someone did something about those stupid cameras!
Pitranger @ Mar 16th 2006 10:08AM
At last a win for the common man. It's bad enough with all the other snooping the government does, at least you won't have to prove your *s*ole son was driving your car.
john @ Mar 16th 2006 10:13AM
Abouttime some judge did what was right these things are just put up to make money for the city , state, and county. Put cops on the roads and get the real speeders.
john @ Mar 16th 2006 10:13AM
Abouttime some judge did what was right these things are just put up to make money for the city , state, and county. Put cops on the roads and get the real speeders.
Mal Fuller @ Mar 16th 2006 10:30AM
"... but the case could set an important legal precident nationwide"
Why would that be since the ruling was based on Minnisota law and the judge "didn't comment" on the constitutional issue?
MikeW @ Mar 16th 2006 10:33AM
Forget the speeders, get the morons who just can not drive worth a damn. As nader says they are 'unsafe at any speed'
Time to have the US Supreme court strike down this money making venture nation wide.
Bob @ Mar 16th 2006 10:38AM
Apparently none of the previous posts have been hit by someone running a red light. Is it so bad to augment the police with cameras? It allows the police to spend their time fighting gangs, drug abuse and other more importnat issues than traffic violations. There is a simple solution, don't let you a**hole son drive the car if he is going to run lights and obey the laws yourself.
Alex K @ Mar 16th 2006 10:41AM
How are red light cameras possibly "snooping" or an "invasion of privacy?" You (or at least your car) are in full public view and chose to break the law, how is it different if you are caught by a cop vs. a black box with a camera? The fact that someone else could be driving your car seems like a problem with the system that should be fixed, not a reason to shut it down. If you lent the car to someone and they get a ticket, they should be able to claim full responsibility (if they aren't willing to, you lent your car to a jerk!).
Normally I'm a bleeding heart liberal who detests things like warrantless domestic spying, but this is way too basic - if you broke the law and got nailed, suck it up.
Mal Fuller @ Mar 16th 2006 10:51AM
Sorry #6,
Don't got no ***hole sons, do you?
Ryan @ Mar 16th 2006 11:43AM
". Apparently none of the previous posts have been hit by someone running a red light. Is it so bad to augment the police with cameras? It allows the police to spend their time fighting gangs, drug abuse and other more importnat issues than traffic violations. There is a simple solution, don't let you a**hole son drive the car if he is going to run lights and obey the laws yourself"
-Wow, someone loves government, just keep believing all that spoon fed crap.
Ryan @ Mar 16th 2006 11:46AM
" Apparently none of the previous posts have been hit by someone running a red light. "
-What part of "it broke state law" are you not understanding?
Brian @ Mar 16th 2006 12:06PM
"Apparently none of the previous posts have been hit by someone running a red light. Is it so bad to augment the police with cameras? It allows the police to spend their time fighting gangs, drug abuse and other more importnat issues than traffic violations. There is a simple solution, don't let you a**hole son drive the car if he is going to run lights and obey the laws yourself."
I've read various articles (e.g. Car and Driver's editor articles) that have pointed out the red light cameras have actually causes MORE accidents, mainly from people lighting up the brakes to avoid the red light. Not to mention that red light cameras never go where the most accidents occurr, but where they are deemed most profitable.
I have experienced this first hand in California where I was following a car and when the light turned yellow the driver I was following slammed the brakes so hard it left tread marks. Forget the fact that both of us would have still made the light, lets panic stop instead. Luckily, I was far enough back not to hit the car, but it was close.
So why stop at Red Light Cameras? How about little sensors on our cars that immediately write up a speeding ticket when you hit 66 in a 65? Why not a sensor that tickets you the minute a tail light, brake light or tag light goes out? I mean, it's the law right?
Mike @ Mar 16th 2006 12:08PM
#8 Although what you're saying makes a lot of sense, there are a few problems in the way that it is/was implemented in some areas of the country.
1. In Va, (where they have also turned off the cameras) the cameras were run by a contractor, who in lue of upfront payment, got a percentage of every ticket fine issued. So there was no incentive to ensure that the system was "fair" whatever that means.
2. A few studies found that the number of rear end collisions went UP at intersections with the cameras, because people would panic stop. I'd agree that it means people are following to close, but that's a different issue.
3. The goal should be to have accident free intersections (not generate revenue). Some studies appear to state that a longer yellow light handles this best.
If I get some time I'll take a look and try and find the studies I'm referencing. I think that some of them have even made it onto Autoblog.
Bob @ Mar 16th 2006 12:49PM
Ryan (#10 & 11) Don't get me wrong, I think the government micromanages us to death, but the cameras are an easy way to police intersections without using a lot of manpower. I think the intention is correct, maybe the means which it is being carried out needs to be adjusted. Secondly, there is no responsibility anymore. The only reason this post is here, was because someone broke the law (ran a light), but a found a loop hole. Doesn't matter that the person ran a light, just that he can weasel his way out.
Glenn @ Mar 16th 2006 1:22PM
I see you guys wrap your arguments in nice libertarian thought, but the end is you wan't the roads to stay generally as they are. That's a problem because of the utterly rediculous amount of people who DIE on our roads. It is rediculous. Longer yellows are a good idea (and I know some are longer in my area). But we also have to get those who knowingly and intentionally run reds.
There were more than 200,000 crashes caused by red light runners, resulting in 176,000 injuries and 934 deaths in 2003. All totally preventable; this isn't cancer.
Red light running is just unacceptable if you ask me, I'm all for the cameras. If the camera's don't stop the runners, fine. The money can help pay the police, firemen and paramedics that have to clean up after selfish idiots.
Cray @ Mar 16th 2006 1:31PM
I totally am against this ruling. Granted I understand where the ACLU is coming from, but in this case. The technology to cut down on traffic crime out weights any civil liberties regarding our privacy.
As for the whole @$$hole son thing, I think if you loan your car to someone, its your responsibility what happens if that person decides to commit a crime using your vehicle. There are plenty of room for technology to help prove that the driver isn't the owner. Such as having all cars with come with fingerprint access to start the ignition.
The whole point of these camera is not to take away our privacy, but to aid the police in tackling more serious crimes like gangs, drugs and homicides.
Car-la @ Mar 16th 2006 3:42PM
I think some of you misunderstood the essence of this ruling. The judge did not rule out the USE of cameras in Minnesota. What he did say is that using cameras the way that Minneapolis does is not according to the law. Minneapolis charges the owner of the vehicle, whereas state law commands that the driver be fined. That's the whole ruling.
"State law makes drivers responsible for red-light violations, and Minneapolis doesn't have the authority to pass an ordinance that holds car owners responsible, Wernick ruled."
What it means is that all Minneapolis has to do is to charge the driver, and they will be allowed to use the cameras. How they achieve that is another question. As stated in the article, the tickets were sent to the owners, who had the right to object, which sounds like a logical way to me. Since this is not allowed under this ruling, they'll have to find a way to fine the driver directly. I'm sure though, the government will come up with ways to fine the driver directly ;). And if not, all that's needed is a change of the state law to permit charging the owner.
So in effect, nothing has really changed. Except for the guy who won this case, and didn't have to pay his ticket.
Alex K @ Mar 16th 2006 3:49PM
Mike (#12) - Those are all surmountable problems with the system (even if the contractor one is appaling!). I hope that the states with darkened cameras are trying to work through the issues. As for rear end accidents going up, people in those areas would gradually learn that everyone will stop at red lights. If it took a few accidents and injuries for people to learn that, tough - again, they are breaking the law at their own peril.
To those who think that all tickets are just for raising revenue, would you rather spend the night in the slammer for running a red light? It's that or pay a fine. You might have to sleep on a wooden bench next to a criminal, but at least then you'd know they didn't make money off you...
WillDaThrill @ Mar 16th 2006 6:16PM
So does that mean parking tickets are unconstitutional as well? They do these things for a reason, to deter you from doing it. If someone else is breaking rules of the road in your car, wouldn't you want to be notified? It sucks but how else would you find out someone was using your car as an intersetion bullet or boot candidate?
Gary @ Mar 16th 2006 6:33PM
I have no objection IN PRINCIPLE to cameras, but we need a lot more restrictive laws on them. Things like:
You may not reduce the yellow time below [some engineer-determined value] after installing a camera.
The fines, after costs, go to the state general fund, not the authority in charge of deciding where to place them.
If accidents do not drop after 1 year of installation, out they go.