MO State Appeals Court Panel,

 

Ruled that most municipal Red Light ordinances, including Ellisville, are not enforceable.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/state-and-regional/missouri/mo-...

--
"As life runs on, the road grows strange with faces new - and near the end. The milestones into headstones change, Neath every one a friend." - James Russell Lowell Garmin StreetPilot C330, Garmin NUVI 765T, Garmin DriveSmart 60LMT

Hmm, that's an interesting

Hmm, that's an interesting development. I wonder how many other states that logic might apply to?

And yet, other states have

And yet, other states have ruled differently.

One of the BIG problems in the U.S. is that the motor vehicle laws are set by each state and are sometimes quite different from each other.

--
I never get lost, but I do explore new territory every now and then.

What???

Why is that a problem, KenSny, much less a BIG problem? There ARE standards that all traffic laws must meet, most of which are common sense standards. No traffic law infraction can be punished by capital punishment. But there is room within those limits for each state to make it's own laws. A 55 mph state speed limit might make sense in a built up area like NJ, but 80 mph makes more sense in NV. Requiring every state to be the same stifles creativity. Who knows what solutions might have been developed for the oil crisis if the federal government hadn't required all states to lower their speed limits to 55 mph, there by removing any incentive to find a different solution.

St. Louis RLC not affected

In another article from the paper.

Quote:

“Unlike Ellisville, the city’s program allows vehicle owners to refute that they were driving at the time of the violation. Also unlike Ellisville, the city’s ordinance makes no mention of whether the state will assess 'points' for a red light cameraviolation, a matter the city’s program has left up to the state,” the statement said.

The ruling Tuesday says Ellisville’s ordinance is in conflict with state law because it tickets the owner of a vehicle that runs a red light, instead of the driver.

--
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w

a bit of misconception

jackj180 wrote:

Why is that a problem, KenSny, much less a BIG problem? There ARE standards that all traffic laws must meet, most of which are common sense standards. No traffic law infraction can be punished by capital punishment. But there is room within those limits for each state to make it's own laws. A 55 mph state speed limit might make sense in a built up area like NJ, but 80 mph makes more sense in NV. Requiring every state to be the same stifles creativity. Who knows what solutions might have been developed for the oil crisis if the federal government hadn't required all states to lower their speed limits to 55 mph, there by removing any incentive to find a different solution.

The federal government did not require the states to lower the speed limit to 55. That was left to the states. The incentive was that federal highway funds were tied to the state's compliance. If the state didn't comply, they were not eligible for federal funds. So each state having a speed limit greater than 55 lowered theirs. There was at least one state that raised their maximum limit though. Alaska had a 50 MPH limit on its highways and raised it to comply with the federal mandate.

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

still

Box Car wrote:
jackj180 wrote:

Why is that a problem, KenSny, much less a BIG problem? There ARE standards that all traffic laws must meet, most of which are common sense standards. No traffic law infraction can be punished by capital punishment. But there is room within those limits for each state to make it's own laws. A 55 mph state speed limit might make sense in a built up area like NJ, but 80 mph makes more sense in NV. Requiring every state to be the same stifles creativity. Who knows what solutions might have been developed for the oil crisis if the federal government hadn't required all states to lower their speed limits to 55 mph, there by removing any incentive to find a different solution.

The federal government did not require the states to lower the speed limit to 55. That was left to the states. The incentive was that federal highway funds were tied to the state's compliance. If the state didn't comply, they were not eligible for federal funds. So each state having a speed limit greater than 55 lowered theirs. There was at least one state that raised their maximum limit though. Alaska had a 50 MPH limit on its highways and raised it to comply with the federal mandate.

wasn't there still one state that told them forget it even with that, and they ramped up the penalty even more.

55 MPH in 1974

In Montana the troopers issued $5 waste of energy tickets instead of speeding tickets. When Congress allowed speed limits to increase, Montana took down all the speed limit signs on the four-lanes.

--
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w

They are legal in Iowa.

Not all state constitutions and laws are the same.
Since the Iowa State Supreme Court found them legal in the state, the anti camera faction has been trying to change the laws so as to ban them. Since our Governor Braindead got caught speeding in Texas twice has also tried to ban them. He failed with the legislature so he appointed enough members to the DOT and are setting new unattainable rules in their use on Federal and state highways. It will again be discussed by the next legislature.

I was wrong

Sorry,
I thought that issuing a mandate backed up by a threat was the same as a requirement. Guess I'm wrong, thanks BoxCar for pointing that out.

Close

jackj180 wrote:

[I was wrong]
Sorry,
I thought that issuing a mandate backed up by a threat was the same as a requirement. Guess I'm wrong, thanks BoxCar for pointing that out.

It is close - that is true - but not quite the same.

States often make decisions not to follow regulations issued by various federal government agencies. The agencies may not have been given "stick" authority but can use a "carrot" to encourage compliance.

Interesting concept - States Rights.

You might want to read more at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights

We got rid of State Cams in Arizona

Now if we could just do same with local cams, but they need the revenue for all the free bene's for the bums so that will never happen! Bums out number the tax payers in Pima County and that's is the only job they have is to vote in and keep the bene suppliers!!

It is called Democracy

windwalker wrote:

Now if we could just do same with local cams, but they need the revenue for all the free bene's for the bums so that will never happen! Bums out number the tax payers in Pima County and that's is the only job they have is to vote in and keep the bene suppliers!!

Obviously if the bums out number the tax payers then it is majority rules. If one wants to change the rules then one should take the case to the public and change the minds of some of the bums.
This last election I have heard losing candidates tell their supporters that in losing we sent a message to "someone". The only message they sent was "I lost and the majority did not believe in my message". A majority of 1 vote rules.

Democracy derailed

I'm referring to California Prop 8.

--
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w

It is a violation of the Constitution.

Some people have a narrow vision of the Constitution and judges.
Lets take the Sioux Nation in the Dakotas. If there was a conflict between the Natives and the interloping white man, a vote would in every case go against the Natives for there are more white people than the Natives in the area.
The judges must determine if that vote is fixed for one side and violating equal protection under the Constitution.
Driving is a privilege and not a right so different standards exist than the above mentioned case so there is no equal protection under the Constitution. Each state sets its rules and one can only complain if they were not prosecuted fairly under the statue.

bad

kurzemnieks wrote:

Some people have a narrow vision of the Constitution and judges.
Lets take the Sioux Nation in the Dakotas. If there was a conflict between the Natives and the interloping white man, a vote would in every case go against the Natives for there are more white people than the Natives in the area.
The judges must determine if that vote is fixed for one side and violating equal protection under the Constitution.
Driving is a privilege and not a right so different standards exist than the above mentioned case so there is no equal protection under the Constitution. Each state sets its rules and one can only complain if they were not prosecuted fairly under the statue.

example, if the infraction took place on the reservation, the outcome would not be as you described.

Minority is equal

blake7mstr wrote:
kurzemnieks wrote:

example, if the infraction took place on the reservation, the outcome would not be as you described.

Nope. I used this as an example for some who do not know the USA Constitution.
The judges are there to prevent discrimination by the majority against the minority.
Instead of Indians lets talk about the Jews of Michigan. There was a basic rule that Jews were not allowed to buy homes in certain exclusive areas of Detroit.
The judges took control and changed the real estate market by declaring this unconstitutional and everyone has a right to live where they want irregardless of color or religion.
With this I still state that each state has the right to set its traffic laws and until someone finds where it conflicts with the Constitution the state law shall prevail.