Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Sherman A1

(38,958 posts)
Thu May 24, 2012, 11:05 AM May 2012

Judge rules against St. Louis red light cameras

ST. LOUIS (KMOV) -- Another judge has ruled that the St. Louis red light cameras are unconstitutional. Circuit Judge Theresa Burke ruled the city’s tickets violate the driver’s right to due process. She threw out the case against State Senator Jim Lembke.

Attorney Bevis Schock represented Lembke and says this is just further proof the cameras should not be allowed.

A previous ruling by Circuit Judge Mark Neil also cited due process as reason the red light cameras are unconstitutional. But Judge Neil’s ruling went farther saying there is no state legislation that grants the cities the right to use red light cameras. That ruling is now being appealed by the city to the Court of Appeals.

More at
http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Judge-rules-against-St-Louis-red-light-cameras-153332705.html

Maybe this will be the start of a trend

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

obamanut2012

(26,348 posts)
2. Good -- huge money-making scam
Thu May 24, 2012, 11:53 AM
May 2012

I loathe people who run lights, but the cameras don't help, and often ticket the wrong car! It's also a third-party moneymaker.

Sherman A1

(38,958 posts)
3. I think we all dislike folks that run red lights
Thu May 24, 2012, 12:02 PM
May 2012

but, due process is important and I agree that it's just a money maker for both the municipality and the company who runs the cameras.

yellowcanine

(35,738 posts)
4. I have mixed feelings on this. Some red light cameras do save lives by making it less likely people
Thu May 24, 2012, 12:08 PM
May 2012

will run red lights - even lights where there are no cameras. However, particularly with the advent of speed cameras, many jurisdictions are clearly using them just to make money. The worst abuse in in the school zone cameras. "School zone" is very loosely interpreted sometimes and and can include colleges as well as having the cameras operate at hours which clearly are not school hours.

If the wrong car is ticketed it should be fairly easy to fight, particularly for a red light camera. There are generally two pictures of the car, one entering the intersection and one in the intersection. So it is relatively easy to tell whether the car entered the intersection after the light turned red. I actually successfully fought a red light camera one time because while my front wheels did cross the stop line, I clearly did not enter the intersection and the judge agreed and threw out the ticket.

Bake

(21,977 posts)
5. Save lives? Really? Any proof of that?
Thu May 24, 2012, 12:23 PM
May 2012

I don't think they do. Prove me wrong. They're just another way the STATE -- Big Brother -- overpowers us, the people. A money-maker for the city.

One can justify almost any state action by saying it "saves lives." But at what cost?

Bake

yellowcanine

(35,738 posts)
6. Yeah. Insurance Institute Studies say yes.
Thu May 24, 2012, 12:42 PM
May 2012
http://www.stltoday.com/news/traffic/along-for-the-ride/ride-red-light-cameras-boost-safety-insurance-study-finds/article_c004fd54-e4f8-5231-8847-e67309ef7634.html

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/05/14/red-light-cameras-are-both-legal-and-life-saving

Yes there are studies that show increased rates of rear end collisions from red light cameras. But those are mostly early on when motorists were not yet used to the cameras and secondly, it is serious injuries and fatalities, not number of collisions, which matter most. And the long term data shows a decrease in numbers of collisions and a decrease in fatalities. And as a person who walks as well as drives I can tell you I definitely feel much safer in intersections where there are red light cameras. That is not data, I know but it does seem to be real.

yellowcanine

(35,738 posts)
10. Why not? They have the data and have to pay for the losses.
Thu May 24, 2012, 01:24 PM
May 2012

What reason would they have to report inaccurate results? They don't benefit if the red light cameras do not work as advertised. In fact, they lose, because red light camera violations cannot be used to identify high risk drivers, while tickets issued by police can. And red light cameras means fewer red light tickets are issued by police.

tabbycat31

(6,336 posts)
7. What about using dummy cameras?
Thu May 24, 2012, 01:14 PM
May 2012

That way they're not actual cameras but people think they're there.

I know this works in stores when it comes to deterring shoplifting.

yellowcanine

(35,738 posts)
11. Dummy cameras would not work for commuters unless real cameras were substituted in randomly.
Thu May 24, 2012, 01:28 PM
May 2012

It would not take long for regular commuters to figure out there was no camera there. Real cameras flash and people would see cars running the light with no flash.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Judge rules against St. L...