Missouri Supreme Court struck down the ordinance governing red-light cameras in St. Louis

The state Supreme Court pretty much spelled out how a revised ordinance should look to get around the presumption issue.

They're like ants. They'll be back.

Hopefully not. I agreed the wording will be change. The burden of proof will be with local government to prove the driver identity. There should be point against the driver not a civil fine. If it really about safety not revenue. Roundabout will be prevent any RLC violation.

Too bad other state courts don't have similar rulings.

Absolutely!

If it was really about safety and not revenue, the city would be concerned about nabbing the actual driver.

The crux of the issue is this: the city needs to prove the defendant guilty. RLCs are based on guilty until proven innocent.

Exactly. The whole premise of the fine by mail is to bypass the legal process and defendant rights.

Just like parking tickets

do you ticket the owner of a car or the driver for parking or running a red light speeding or any violation , if you have tinted windows nobody can see who you are ! unless the car is used by a person illegally I believe the owner is responsible .

If you loan your car to another person and he/she wrecks your car, your insurance company will charge you and not the person driving. If the car is not insured and it involved another person you will have the police charge you and that person can sue you along with the driver.
Misery has a different constitution than Iowa for the Iowa Supreme court ruled the cameras were legal. Iowa's governor Braindead has stacked the DOT with anti camera people who changed the rules which are being challenged in court and the Supreme Court will have to rule again.
REMEMBER, it is the law breakers who pay the fines. We need more cameras not less.

Probably true most of the time. But Baltimore City shut down their speed cameras after the newspapers published the speed camera photos of cars that got speeding tickets while stopped at a red light. And this was after a "police officer" had "reviewed" the photos for "accuracy".

Is it any wonder that people are cynical? One of the bigger differences between Baltimore City and other jurisdictions is that Baltimore City provided the evidence to prove that they were sometimes cheating.

Do not blame the cameras for a policeman's bad behavior. A human issues the ticket.
In Des Moines it was reported that several people were double billed by the camera company. Instead of checking their checking account to see if the check cleared paid the ticket again. Blame the people not the camera.

You can blame the camera when it thinks stationary vehicles are speeding.

The real point is that most systems are designed such that there is no economically practical way to contest bad tickets. In fact in most cases you can not even demonstrate they are bad. Baltimore City provided the evidence to demonstrate the errors. Once it became a big story in the newspaper, it became clear that "errors" were pervasive. Sounds like there is no strong reason to assume other jurisdictions have less errors. But there is simply a lack of hard evidence to demonstrate errors elsewhere.

The ticket was issued by a human who supposedly looked at the photos or movie. Electronics make mistakes all the time. Just read some of the posts on this website about how their GPS screwed up.
The cameras in DSM take three quick photos to show that the car was moving which tells me that in your example the three photos proved that the car was stopped. Blame the person who reviewed them and still issued the ticket.
You would protest those tickets the same way you would protest a speeding ticket if it was wrong.

kind of interesting that some folks believe cameras make mistakes. They are inanimate objects. I did take some pics recently with my Nikon D5500, and do admit, most of the pics were wrong and did not depict what I took.

Once in a while, come back to reality. I've driven through rlcs for the past 5 years daily (except when on vacation or working from home), and never gotten a ticket. Probably all the erroneous tickets were lost in the mail (another misconception, the Postal Service does not lose mail).

You could protest if you wanted to spend half a day waiting around the court house for a $40 fine with no points and probably spend $20 for parking. The scheme was designed to be sure it NEVER made economic sense to contest a ticket.

Based on FIA requests, the newspaper determined that the tickets were being reviewed at a rate of 1 every 6 seconds, not accounting for lunch and bathroom breaks. In practice that apparently meant that the vast majority were never reviewed.

After it became newsworthy and people started contesting the tickets on principle, the dismissal rate exceeded 50%. Part of the reason the system was shut down was because the court costs for dismissed tickets (paid by the City) helped to make the entire scheme far less valuable as a revenue source.

It's nice how you think it is supposed to work, but everyone associated with the system was well incentivized to issue more tickets with less review. In the end it became apparent that issuing fair tickets was not part of the operation.

Some people spread nonfactual stories to make a point against the cameras.
Lets take Cedar Rapids Iowa:
It is not an all day ordeal:
As reported by the local TV station.
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa - Let's say you do get a ticket in the mail from an incident two or three weeks before involving one of Cedar Rapids ten traffic cameras. We'll see you were driving 68 MPH along I-380 at Diagonal Drive, where the speed limit is 55 (a common ticket).
If you want to contest, you are instructed to get in touch with the Cedar Rapids Police Department to schedule a hearing.
Our cameras were allowed inside these hearings, on select Thursdays starting at 6 p.m. We met with Melissa Jensen, a volunteer who serves as the judge and jury for the appealers. She has the images and even video evidence at her disposal.
The appointments are set up for every ten minutes, from 6 p.m. to as late as 9 or 9:30.
Jensen first sits down with a couple who does want to be identified. They bring three speeding citations with them, claiming one of their children is responsible for two of them. After listening to the man and woman for five minutes, Jensen keeps the first speeding citation, dismisses the second on the grounds that the first ticket had not yet arrived in the mail. A third citation is upheld as Jensen said the driver, going 16 over the speed limit, is still responsible.
This pattern continues throughout the night. Jensen clearly works to be reasonable with the appealers. She dismisses a red-light violation after a driver brought in proof the brakes were not functioning properly and the video showed the driver had the brake lights on at that moment.
Chief Graham also said the police department does not put any pressure on volunteers like Jensen in these hearings.
Attorney Ray Scheetz, of the Scheetz Law Firm, does have issues with the process of contesting these citations.
"The city makes it as difficult as possible to fight a citation that you might receive in the mail two or three weeks after it happens," said Scheetz.
He said he had a client from out-of-town who had an appointment later in the evening, at 8:20 p.m., but had to wait for an "hour and a half before he was heard".
"99.9% of the people aren't going to have the disruption for a $75 ticket and I think the city knows that," said Scheetz.
Scheetz also has problems with some of the placement of the cameras, in particular the 380/"H" Avenue Northbound location. That spot is in the final stretch where the speed limit is 55 right before it goes up.
"It is immediately before the signs for 60 miles an hour," said Scheetz. He also stressed the delay between a violation and when the ticket arrives in the mail means that details that lead to defenses can be lost.
"When you obtain your ticket three weeks later, you might have had a very good reason," said Scheetz. "Maybe you had to accelerate in that zone to avoid getting into a crash. You won't remember that three weeks later. If an officer was sitting there, you could explain it to him and it would be at his discretion."
Cedar Rapids city council member Chuck Swore, a vocal supporter of the cameras, doesn't buy that.
"It's not like we don't tell people they are there," said Swore. "Everywhere they are used, it's posted."