Court ruling shuts down Springfield's red-light cams

AND they're going to dismiss all outstanding tickets, the News-Leader reports. You might remember that a former Missouri trooper had sued the city because the tickets were handled through an administrative court, not a criminal one, where the standard of proof is tougher and there are ways you can appeal.

Also, the trooper got his $100 ticket dismissed. It's not clear if Springfield will revamp its system. If they do, they'll have to upgrade things so that cameras can also record drivers. And there's a good chance that all of those people who've paid fines -- about $800K so far -- will want their money back.

The decision doesn't really affect Kansas City's system. The Missouri Supremes didn't find fault with red-light cameras themselves.

Comments

[Tim P]

..snicker..

[Tim P]

I like this quote... “On the other hand, my client believes that this case is about public safety. That’s what we’re interested in here,” he said. “If the community wants to solve this red light running problem, the very best way to do that is to increase the length of yellow caution light times.”

[Craig D]

Many people think these cameras are a swell idea but the thought of cameras recording misdemeanors and then people being convicted & fined on the basis of a picture horrifies me.

You are SUPPOSED to be convicted by a witness to your ill-deed - a witness you can cross-examine. No matter how compelling the evidence of a picture is, there are all sorts of malfunctions that can cause you to receive a ticket. A witness is able to distinguish between a true misdemeanor and malfunctioning equipment.

Not to mention that having these cameras encourages municipalities to actually SHORTEN the length of their yellow lights in order to maximize revenue. Springfield actually did this.

I am a safe driver. I rarely get a ticket and I have never received a red light ticket, but I don't subscribe to the foolish notion that 'if your not doing anything wrong you've got nothing to fear'. Putting cameras in public places in order to generate revenue by fining citizens gives me plenty to fear.

I am glad this has happened. If I EVER receive a ticket in the mail from one of these contraptions I will make it a point to plead not-guilty and demand to cross-examine the witness to my crime. If everybody did this instead of just paying the fine like they feel obligated to, these cameras would go away.

[wyomingsundancer]

Red light cameras if operated properly are good. Unfortunately in the U.S. this is not the case. They are set to record on a Yellow light violation. This teaches people to slam on their brakes creating more problems. Similar to the idea that if you saturate a residential area with stop signs -people will slow down. People don't slow down they just learn to run stop signs. The second problems with the cameras are that they are placed by a private company that is doing so to make money. As a result they (the private company) are going to cut corners to make that money. It's not about traffic safety but revenue.

[Davey Smith]

When we let any part of law enforcement or military be contracted to outside professionals we are going down hill in a hurry. The idea of justice is thrown out the window for sheer capitalisim.

[Fee]

Quit whining, babies.

Video is admissible as evidence. If surveillance video catched you defacing property, you're going to be convicted. In the case of these cameras, you CAN cross-examine the witness - it's called "requesting the calibration records".

Lengthening the time of a yellow light - people will still run the reds because people are still extremely impatient when it comes to driving. Talk about causing more problems...you'll have more people stopping to be safe while others rush to beat the red.

How come these comment boards are filled with people crying how wrong these cameras are, but there's not a single person on here who pleads his/her case about actually RECEIVING a red light ticket that was unjust? Now, make up your stories for rebuttal.

[WhoCares.]

I sort of agree with Fee. I dont get why people are so pissed off about these cameras. The only problem I see with them is after people have been trained to not run the light the revenue stream dries up.

[AFinn]

They can't introduce evidence if there is no one to lay foundation.

[Drasil]

I've never received a ticket for it. But, there are times I've entered an intersection while the light was green and it turned red before I could clear it (because of slow moving drivers (and I mean slooooow).) Sometimes I want to get out and push their cars across the intersection.

[Craig D]

I can tell you exactly why many people are so 'pissed' off. It's because the idea of a surveillance society is horrifying.

Studies have shown that lengthening the time of yellow lights saves lives, so the shortening of them is ONLY to make more money.

And a calibration record cannot be cross-examined. It will not show if the light malfunctioned or if the camera malfunctioned, or any number of other extenuating circumstances.

It's the willy-nilly 'if you've not done anything wrong you've nothing to fear' acceptance of these methods to catch lawbreakers that is the problem. Every time you allow the 'authorities' to exercise more control over us they take it and use it as leverage to seize even more control.

It's the job of the police to catch lawbreakers, not cameras set up by third parties to generate revenue.