Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Minnesota's Getting the Picture

Not much blogging time today, but I did want to pass on a bit of good news from Minnesota that I hope will spread elsewhere: The state is giving refunds to people who have appealed their red-light camera cases because their state Supreme Court has ruled that the cameras are unconstitutional; refunds to thousands more people may follow:
n the spring, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the program violated statewide traffic laws. The court found that ticketing the owners of cars that were videotaped without proof of who was actually driving the car violated the rights of the owners. The photos did not show who was driving, but the owners had to go to court if they wanted to challenge the ticket.

"They automatically cited the owner, even if the owner wasn't driving," [an attorney representing several of the ticketed car owners] said.
I've expressed my displeasure with these cameras on manyl, many different occasions. My reasons are as follows: 1) Nobody has yet to convince me that the cameras are about safety and not about revenue, and 2) as someone who's endured a rear-end collision at a signalized intersection in the past, I'm concerned that this type of accident may increase even more than other types may be prevented.

And I'm also quite happy to see that, here in Garland, the city may even be" target="_new">cutting back on the cameras. From where I'm sitting, it's a step in the right direction.

"Are you Mom or Grandma?" "Umm...yes." A woman in Brazil, serving as a surrogate mother for her daughter, has given birth to her own grandchildren.

No comments: