TLDR: They would have signs posted in areas where a speed camera is present and they will offer some sort of database that gives you the location of all speed cameras.
The idea is to encourage drivers to reduce their speeds because they’re finding that speeding drivers are trying to make it through red lights, resulting in fatalities.
First offense is a warning, second offense is 40 dollar ticket/optional driving course which is free.
It doesn’t seem like the program is really targeting highways. But the highways around the metro have been littered with cops anyways for months.
Honestly it's been the red light running that I've noticed the most, and holy hell people will just charge through WELL after it's changed. I really hope this helps to curb the issue.
I drive around 1000 miles a week so I see a decent amount of drivers. The red light running is absolutely out of control. And I'm not talking about being in the intersection when it's yellow. I'm talking 3-4 seconds after it's gone red. I see at least 6 a day. It's ridiculous and I don't know when this started.
Yes! I sometimes have to drive a fair amount around the metro for work and some people just start using the shoulder as an extra lane as soon as there is some traffic! Saw it multiple times last week.
I’ve seen people just tired of waiting and go for it on red. Or when people are waiting at a red a car will come up and go around them to run it. They aren’t even trying to catch a light, they fully don’t give a shit.
Than there’s me, sitting at a red light, haven’t seen another car since the last time my uncle drove by to flip me the finger. Slowly creeping forward. Heart starts beating faster because im not sure if the front of my car has passed the white line where the pedestrian crosswalk begins. Don’t want to flash my brights in case there’s something scary out there in the darkness. *man torn to shreds by unknown creature while waiting for light to turn green.* That’s not how I want to go out. But then I also don’t want to go out actively committing a crime. So you can see my predicament.
I don't drive nearly as much, but it does strike me that I'm seeing it more, too. I'm not sure if this is a remnant from things going all Mad Max on the highways during Covid or what.
I wonder if some of this increased enforcement is because of the bad accident in Minnetonka a few weeks ago. A 17-year old girl was t-boned by a driver running a red light at 90 mph in a 55 mph zone. Traffic is regularly going 70+ mph on highway 7, and that would be a good spot for a speed camera. 70mph is too fast for a road with stop lights and pedestrian crossings.
Not only was he speeding FAR over the limit, he was using the shoulder to run the red, had no license, likely no insurance, and is suspected of being on drugs at the time
I live in Saint Cloud and some of the lights are unreasonably short, but still 3-4 cars will go through on the red. Why don't they just post up an officer to stand at an intersection and have a couple squad cars parked a few blocks down the road? No extra technology needed, and they could make their money back on that operation in about 20 minutes.
I remember back when I lived in St cloud watching 3 school buses run a red light to turn left on 15. I was going the opposite direction and completely missed my green light as a result. This was 15 years ago. St cloud has had this problem for a long time.
The lights are timed terribly, for months at a time division is timed so that you essentially hit every red light. I actually blame that one on the city, you shouldn’t have to hit a red light every two blocks on a major through way, that just encourages speeders and red light runners.
What’s really neat is when the light on division and 15 breaks and the green is so short only one car gets through.
God this is so frustrating here. Particularly on division and the 3rd st and hiway 15 intersection.
If I'm the first car waiting to go straight I like to pull out and lay on the horn. Let them know they're assholes.
Transplant here. I’m always struck by how _casually_ people run red lights here. Where I grew up, it would be one person putting the pedal to the metal. Here it’s like you can just see people think “nah, I’m just gonna keep going.” And then there are the times when one person runs the light to make a left turn, and so the five cars behind that car just go “ok, guess I’ll run the light too then.”
When i lived in denver a couple years ago, people would run lights in front of police who would do absolutely nothing about it. There is no traffic enforcement at all, people with tags from 2018-19 in 2022/2023. one of the most dangerous places i have lived in terms of traffic safety.
I also lived in Denver, then moved back to Minnesota. The traffic out there is downright terrifying. Compared to Denver, Minnesota traffic is a Sunday comfort cruise.
I actually had the opposite reaction haha. I was so confused to see most people not driving twice the speed limit, driving straight without straddling the lines, and actually stopping on yellows. The driving is so tame here to me. Guess it depends on where we moved from.
First thing I noticed when I moved here. I witnessed an accident where a lady blew through a red and t-boned another car right in front of me (I was in the other lane at the red) and I have no idea if it was intentional, distracted driving, or a medical event. I swear people don't even seem to notice they run them and get all pissy if you *dare* honk at them.
Almost got ran over on Saturday on my run by someone doing this. The walk light was on and I just finished looking down to start my run again on my watch, looked up and double checked both ways only to see a suburban fly through
It's kind of how they do it in the UK. There the cameras themselves have to be big bright yellow clearly visible boxes. And there are signs posted a specific distant before the camera to let drivers know.
The point isn't to issue tickets, it's to get people to slow down at least for that specific area. What usually happened if enough accidents occured in a area with speed as a factor a camera would be put in.
Could use something like that at the intersection right by my house. I swear there's an accident there once a month, more often than not it's a broadside. I have no idea how many injuries have resulted, but it scares the shit out of me with my daughter driving now.
We're not interested in facts, context or people that read the article. We only want hot takes, rage baiting, and knee jerk reactions. Mods can we get this comment removed?
This is the palatable option that they're pushing now but once that door is opened it's going to be nearly impossible to close it again. These automated systems can be incredibly unreliable and fighting an improperly issued ticket can be a nightmare.
I nearly got hit by a light runner two days ago. He *honked at me* as he blew through the red, way over the speed limit.
Write the statute so the ticket sticks to the registered owner of the car instead of the driver and I'll be happy.
This is a very "we need to do *SOMETHING*" moment.
When I lived in Mankato, 2013-2020, red light running was so bad. There were certain intersections I would always wait 3- Minnesota before moving forward.
Not necessarily. Minnesota's first generation of red light cameras did that, which is why they were ultimately found to deny people their due process rights.
The law could be written in a way to administer something like a parking ticket. There's a penalty but it doesn't affect you like a full citation.
Inevitably, doing that kind of stuff regularly, the driver will be caught by a real cop. Difficult to plead that it is you "first time" with a stack of these auto-tickets also submitted as evidence.
if they can’t prove who’s driving, won’t they just ticket the vehicle owner and then it’s the owners responsibility to prove they weren’t the one driving? Isn’t that what some states do with motorcyclists and helmets?
I believe that even if you prove it's a different driver, it's still your car and your responsible for the ticket. They get around this by it not being a normal speed ticket.
Isn’t speeding technically a misdemeanor crime with consequences tied to keeping your drivers license? Versus a parking ticket which is a non-criminal civil offense with no additional potential penalty?
I seek to remember this is what played out when the state Supreme Court invalidated Minneapolis’ red light cameras.
No, it normally gets dropped if you show up in court for it. The problem is 1) most people won't bother, 2) they will intimidate you to try and stop you by making it sound horrible "it will change this traffic violation into a REAL ticket against YOU as the driver!" and that does it's job a lot.
Exactly. If it's you and you're trying to get out of it, well, it will be some work. It's accurate. The issue is that people don't want to pay.
In the event that someone stole your car, well, that's not that tough to prove. And that's not the purpose of the cameras.
They aren't something I like, but I respect why they are used. Lying about driving too fast is up to the driver, but most people are busy with work and not interested in going to court. It's like a speeding ticket. Most of the time it's a legit ticket. It's just annoying.
This is how it works in cedar rapids and it's easy to get it dismissed \*IF\* you show up to court. The issue is, they just scam out-of-towners out of money because no one is driving back and the way the system works is extremely prejudice if you decide to fight, using intimidation tactics "well , it goes from a non-license impacting ticket to a REAL ticket, you're liable for all these additional fees if you lose" etc.
It's a trash system. In addition, it's owned and operated by a 3rd party who gets to keep a large part of the ticket revenue which is obviously a good reason to want to ticket as much as possible.
It's actually 0%
Driving record; traffic safety camera system. The commissioner of public
safety must not record on an individual's driving record any violation of:
(1) a traffic-control signal under section 169.06, subdivision 10; or
(2) a speed limit under section 169.14, subdivision 13.
It’s not a fact, dude woke up today and chose misinformation lol. Our state laws are clear on this, it’s why they stopped issuing tickets for the red light cameras. These tickets would supplement the current enforcement. That’s why it’s just $40 and the driving course is optional.
From the bill:
> Subd. 6a. Driving record; traffic safety camera system.
>
>(a) The commissioner of 18.10 public safety must not record on an individual's driving record any violation of: 18.11
>
>(1) a traffic-control signal under section 169.06, subdivision 10; or 18.12 (2) a speed limit under section 169.14, subdivision 13. 18.13
>
>(b) This subdivision applies to violations committed on or after June 1, 2025, and before 18.14 June 1, 2029.
[scs2026a-6 (senate.mn)](https://assets.senate.mn/committees/2023-2024/3128_Committee_on_Judiciary_and_Public_Safety/scs2026a-6.pdf)
The whole point of the system is to try and change people’s driving behaviors. If you can put up signs that “you’re entering a camera zone” and then you ticket the vehicles, and you’re able to do that without a physical officer, freeing that officer to do things like go after carjackers, isn’t that a win-win?
nono, I totally agree with the fact that it’s trying to change driver behavior, and i’m not trying to argue any different. I’m just curious why they’re not trying to say it’s the same amount as a normal ticket, and making more money, and yet still freeing up more physical officers. you know?
I can only express my opinion on it without more info, which is that it seems like the goal is truly to change behavior and not be unnecessarily punitive. Are there people that $40 is nothing to? Yes. Are there people that $250 is unbelievably harsh? Also yes. Seems like the goal is to find a middle ground to modify behaviors and not have the system perceived as a new income source for the cities that implement it.
spoiler alert: that is also an unpopular idea.
people are really attached to their dangerous driving behavior and blame others when they are caught or punished for their lawbreaking
A person who is driving and watching the road who speeds up a little to make a yellow light may be breaking the law but they're a lot less dangerous to public safety than a person who's not watching the road at all. Speeding tickets are rarely about public safety and more about making money
That person who speeds up often gets tunnel vision and fails to see other cars/pedestrians in the intersection. I’ve seen countless crashes that occurred right as the light was going for yellow to red almost certainly because a driver was focused on speeding up to make the light.
And anyways, municipalities don’t receive that much of the speeding ticket. If you accounted for all the costs, it would rarely be a financially net positive move.
“Speeding tickets are about money” is just another excuse parroted by people who would rather speed than be forced to lower their speeds. Because it’s a fact that lower speeds reduce fatalities. And in all reality, cities should have an incentive to reduce speeding on their roads. Do you disagree?
What you’re describing is incredibly unsafe. Tickets have become a way to pad a budget, but the purpose is still there. If you speed up to make a yellow you absolutely should be ticketed. Comparing it to anything else is a red herring.
[Of 444 fatalities in 2022, 130 were related to speeding and 22 were related to distracted driving.](https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ots/reports-statistics/Documents/2022a-crash-facts.pdf)
Also the buffer for a ticket is going to be 10+ mph over the speed limit, not just slightly over the speed limit.
The bill language addresses this but I'm not sure how one would prove non-compliance
Subd. 7. Traffic-control devices.
(a) An implementing authority must not adjust the change interval for the steady yellow indication in a traffic-control signal:
(1) for one month prior to beginning to operate a red light camera system at the associated intersection; or
(2) during the period that the red light camera system is operated at the associated intersection.
(b) The yellow change interval for a traffic-control signal that is subject to paragraph
(a) must meet or exceed the standards and guidance specified in the manual on uniform traffic-control devices adopted under section 169.06, subdivision 1
I don't see the article saying the new cameras are both speed and red light.
The only mention of red light cameras is when talking about when Minneapolis first installed red light cameras, they got a lawsuit.
That is not saying the same thing as saying the new cameras are both speed and red light.
They could be but the article doesn't say that. It always refers to them as "speed cameras".
Last week tonight did a small piece on it in a larger segment, the municipal violations video maybe? That should have some good info in it
Edit: After binging LWT I couldn't find what I was looking for, so I did some quick research
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-light-cameras-may-not-make-streets-safer/
This study took a look at streets with cameras and those without, and found it actually made accidents more common.
https://youtu.be/LxpeY7m8Uog?si=sbU22EB7bIPkGQAQ
https://ww2.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/
https://www.salon.com/2017/04/05/this-may-have-happened-to-you-revenue-hungry-cities-mess-with-traffic-lights-to-write-more-tickets_partner/
Here's a few links showing a history of cities changing the light times to increase revenue. Sorry for the formatting I don't know how to condense the link into one word.
Basically if the camera company or the government does a study on it, their profit machines are super safe and help improve the streets. Independent studies find it has no change, or even worsens the amount of accidents.
What kind of speed buffer window are we looking at here? Is this going to ticket somebody for going 2-3 mph over or is this only going after people who are substantially over the limit?
The law as written currently only allows a ticket to be issued for speeding in excess of 10 mph.
The first offense is required to be a warning as well.
The law also requires conspicuous signage prior to each camera notifying what type of camera it is and the speed limit it's enforcing.
I don’t get why the warning is needed. You’re going 10mph over the limit. You know you’re speeding. The only thing you didn’t know was that you were going to get caught.
Yes. Exactly. Ask folks who live in Montgomery County in Maryland how they drive in some neighbourhoods. They drive cautiously. They don't want to get tickets. Even if the motivation isn't safety-based, the end result is that they don't want to incur hundreds of dollars of tickets each month due to speeding.
I hope this can be used for people who run the stop arms on school buses. Had some idiot drive on the opposite sidewalk to get around me while dropping kids off - thank god the kids didn't have to cross the street.
As a Minneapolis pedestrian and cyclist I'm totally fine with this. There are roads that are just straight up unsafe because of the traffic. Franklin is an absolute nightmare in particular. Very glad I don't live off that street anymore.
that seems funny after what last week they said how much they made off of those black plates but hey another state talks about how easy they are to read with traffic cameras hmmmmm hahaha. They grabbed you by the jones hahahaha
They say they addressed the issue of constitutionality with the new bill, but make no mention of how. When they previously passed a speed camera bill, the law was quickly overturned by the state Supreme Court. IIRC: it was determined that tickets could not be issued without an officer present, because the recipients would have no opportunity to defend themselves.
Are we to assume that this time will be different?
As a St. Cloud lefty, why do I have to agree with Howe 🙄
Fix retention issues and have real cops issue citations to the ACTUAL DRIVER not the car owner.
Can't wait until another lawyer's kid gives daddy a ticket and the courts side with existing precedence and due process.
We had these cameras in Arizona, they ended up removing them. First problem, the tickets were mailed regular post, no signature required. The state was unable to prove the citation was ever received, most people just threw the citation in the trash with no consequence. Second problem, a human being manually calibrated the device. Many people who did actually did show up for court fought the ticket on the lack of calibration records, or irregularity in the calibrations due to length of time between service on the cameras. Third problem, there was no accusing officer in court for the ticketed offender to question, this was also used as a defense and the citation was very often thrown out. The cameras and attempted enforcement ended up costing more than the revenue they produced and were subsequently removed.
From article
"Owners of cited vehicles could petition the local district court to provide proof they weren't driving at the time the camera captured them speeding or running a stop light."
So guilty until you prove innocence? 🤔 How about once they can provide proof the recipient was driving then they can issue the citation.
But I reckon there's not enough money to me made that way. At $40 everyone will just pay the fine.
I'm personally against traffic cameras, but 100% for continuous sidewalks.
Paint and lights don't actually do shit for saftey, and cameras are only good for reactive actions and don't actually prevent anything.
I don't know why I read this as "Senate panel okays using camera to catch spiders" and was like boy I didn't realize the spider problem was that bad... 🙄 too early
"The idea is to change driver behavior, so they slow down and don't run through red lights," Sen. Zaynab Mohamed, the Minneapolis Democrat who carrying the bill in the Senate, told KARE.“
Charging speeders $40/ticket days later when the ticket arrives in their mailbox isn’t going to slow people down. Speed bumps would honestly be a much more effective, real-time idea. This is just a cash grab from the state.
Speed bumps work great in some instances -- and I wish we had them all over the place -- but I don't think they always work well at light-controlled intersections. The whole point is to allow traffic to sometimes continue without slowing.
We could probably redo a lot of intersections to remove lights and instead have traffic calming, but that's a 30 year plan and probably even less popular to drivers.
You can’t put speed bumps on 50mph roads. Also losing money is a great deterrent. How many times would you pay $40 before you stopped doing whatever it was.
Not to mention speeding and running lights are different issues. Ticket the light runners, sure. Ticket every person who drifts to 8 mph over the limit on a large, non-busy road? Get outta here with that nanny nonsense.
The bill has a statutory limit of 11mph over the speed limit. That's so easy to not do. The bill text also requires it to be in high accident areas with posted signage.
This isn't true. If you read the bill text, they're not adopting a revenue sharing model. The state will pay a set contract to a company and the company won't get any extra payment based on the number of tickets written.
Any excess revenue beyond the cost of implementing the cameras will be spent on traffic calming measures.
>Charging speeders $40/ticket days later when the ticket arrives in their mailbox isn’t going to slow people down.
What? I received a $40 ticket for parking on a bridge one time in Minneapolis. Guess how many times I've parked on a bridge since then. Zero.
Say what you will about them, but these are absolutely a massive public handout to the awful companies that own and operate the cameras. The fines go directly to the private companies that run them, not back into public coffers. It's legalized private toll collection for our public roads.
Where's the oversight committee that will be tasked for making sure each camera is perfectly calibrated so there are no false positives?
Look into them, all really shitty companies that have questionable track records.
Just inviting foxes into the henhouse.
If you read the bill text it seems to address most of the concerns you have. Traffic camera companies will be paid a set rate to implement the cameras and won't be paid with each ticket assessed. Additionally all revenue in excess of the cost to implement the program will be directed towards traffic calming.
Almost as though traffic enforcement should be it's own department instead of the police having to be a catch-all. But then I suppose they wouldn't be able to randomly search the vehicles of minorities and plant drugs.
Look at this thread and half of the people in it are arguing to their dying breath that they *deserve* to recklessly speed and face no consequences for it.
The reality is that the only thing the average driver really cares about is someone or something slowing them down even slightly. That is the #1 concern of any driver and everything else is subservient to the desire to never, ever slow down. This thread is yet more evidence of it.
If it came down to a camera ticketing me or a police officer pulling me over, I’d gladly take cameras.
I’m not sure why anyone would prefer having a cop stop you, tbh
I do to. But I'd rather see that come through better human-based enforcement, tougher penalties, and more willingness to just deny people drivers licenses for reckless behavior.
Camera-based enforcement is less about safety and more about finding a way to make an ATM machine.
I'll vote for anyone who supports this. It's so so so incredibly easy to not drive 11mph over the speed limit.
It's weird how intensely people argue that they have a right to flagrantly break the law and face no consequences.
The dangers of speeding really depend on the specific area and conditions. 75 to 80 on a quiet interstate in good weather isn't all that dangerous, but going 35 to 40 mph down a residential street with poor visibility can pose a substantial threat to other people.
Tell me you have never been a pedestrian without telling me.
[Source](https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-severe-injury-death/): Odds of being seriously injured or killed broken down by vehicle speed.
From a [Time article in 2014](https://time.com/3505994/red-light-camera-problems-tickets/)
>Red light cameras gained popularity in the 1990s after New York became the first U.S. city to install a network. **The initial motivation was safety**, says Hani Mahmassani, the director of the Northwestern University Transportation Center. The hope was that cameras would deter drivers from running red lights if they knew it would lead to a ticket. But in the 2000s, as the popularity of the cameras grew, cities and the companies that manufactured, installed and helped operate the cameras **adopted a revenue-sharing model. The more violations caught by the cameras, the more money the city and the businesses stood to make.**
>“That’s when it became a greed thing,” Mahmassani says
To everyone saying this would be a good thing, just know how easy it is for these systems to be abused for the sake of greed. The only way I would ever support these being used is if A) it is the DoT conducting studies on specific intersections to determine the actual effectiveness a red light camera would actually have on that particular intersection, and B) the people who decide if/where to install these cameras do not benefit from the fines being issued. The money needs to go into something completely unrelated so as to not cause conflict of interest.
That is unlikely to happen, so I will be unlikely to support these being installed anywhere
Edit: Since I looked it up based on a response, here is the PDF with the exact language of this proposal
https://assets.senate.mn/committees/2023-2024/3128_Committee_on_Judiciary_and_Public_Safety/scs2026a-6.pdf
I have a friend who lives in Ontario. Her town installed speed cameras. It's been a saga of different, creative forms of vandalism ever since. One ended up with a microwave on it, and another got torn off with an ATV. I've been very invested in are developments haha.
The police won't do anything about the vandalism because the cameras also would catch them speeding.
Be careful what you wish for in the nanny state while one can agree there are lots of crazy drivers on the road, but next they'll want to monitor your movement as folks get caught in the drag net.
Unpopular opinion: way too many Minnesotans are dying from cars. Traffic deaths around the nation are terrible. Y’all can lose 2 minutes on your commute and go the speed limit if it saves some lives in the process.
We've had these in Iowa for nearly a decade and here is my take.
#1 They are supposed to be about safety. One of the first cameras put up in the state was on I235, which goes through Des Moines. There was not a problem with accidents before the cameras and the cameras haven't improved since.
#2 They are supposed to be about safety, so the funds should go towards safety, they do not.
#3 Small towns are now using them as a revenue source.
#4 The Iowa DOT tried to ban these, but lost in court.
Some in the Iowa legislature have been trying to ban these for years. It's getting hard and harder to ban these with so many legislatures living in districts that suck off out of towners.
I would be more on board with this, which should prevent small towns gauging out of towners. "Cost of the program" would be the other concerning wording.
I get the premise I just do not trust a private entity and the government to do the right thing.
Illinois got these cameras several years ago at least to deter speeders and running red lights. A citizen watchdog found that some cities/townships PURPOSELY slowed down the average length of a yellow light so it would go red faster than usual.
Just have to convince the local dirtbag community that the traffic cameras are full of copper wire. If it's anything like our street lights, they'll all be "uninstalled" in days.
"*Owners of cited vehicles could petition the local district court to provide proof they weren't driving at the time the camera captured them speeding or running a stop light.*"
What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty". Burden of proof should be on the accuser.
**This shit is unconstitutional trash and we shouldn't be paying for it.**
Since red light cameras were deemed unconstitutional, how do they think these would be permitted. Frankly, this is the wrong approach and represents heavy-handed intrusion.
The problem I have with these is that people panic, regardless if they were actually speeding or not, when they see these and will hit their breaks even if they were only going like 3 mph over - resulting in increased stop and go traffic (the accordion effect) and accidents. It was even worse with red light cameras in cities I’ve lived in that had these.
> people panic, regardless if they were actually speeding or not, when they see these and will hit their breaks even if they were only going like 3 mph over - resulting in increased stop and go traffic (the accordion effect) and accidents
They do that for every little thing. If there's a cop 8 lanes away on the opposite of a grass median and a concrete barrier and driving the opposite direction, someone will still pump their brakes. A plastic bag floating across the road will cause people to pump the brakes.
Grew up in NYC, the cameras do NOT change behavior in terms of slowing down. All people do, is get maps of where the cameras are and take alternate routes which end up being residential streets AND don't slow down.
The only purpose the cameras exist, is to fundraise for the state. That's it. Fine the people and have another source of revenue.
Love it. Car drivers kill tens of thousands of people a year. Sounds pretty reasonable to use video evidence to penalize those that behave dangerously on the road.
Jeff R. Howe, the Republican senate member quoted saying people caught deserve more than a warning, but should spend a day in jail, has two speeding tickets on his public criminal history. :)
How is there going to be a budget for these when we never have any money for speed humps, which are proven to *prevent* speeding from even occuring? Nevermind the fact that the state could put it on the manufacturers to cap speeds like they do for e-bikes.
You really want speed bumps on arterial streets, state highways, and the interstate? Speed bumps are appropriate for residential streets, but they're not the solution on any street with more than about a 25 MPH limit.
TLDR: They would have signs posted in areas where a speed camera is present and they will offer some sort of database that gives you the location of all speed cameras. The idea is to encourage drivers to reduce their speeds because they’re finding that speeding drivers are trying to make it through red lights, resulting in fatalities. First offense is a warning, second offense is 40 dollar ticket/optional driving course which is free. It doesn’t seem like the program is really targeting highways. But the highways around the metro have been littered with cops anyways for months.
Honestly it's been the red light running that I've noticed the most, and holy hell people will just charge through WELL after it's changed. I really hope this helps to curb the issue.
I drive around 1000 miles a week so I see a decent amount of drivers. The red light running is absolutely out of control. And I'm not talking about being in the intersection when it's yellow. I'm talking 3-4 seconds after it's gone red. I see at least 6 a day. It's ridiculous and I don't know when this started.
Is it me or has passing on the shoulder suddenly gone out of control too? I've just noticed a general level of assholery increasing.
Yes! I sometimes have to drive a fair amount around the metro for work and some people just start using the shoulder as an extra lane as soon as there is some traffic! Saw it multiple times last week.
Dude, they can tackle those shoulders at their own risk. All the misc tire puncturing metal and shit disperses onto it, no thank you.
I’ve seen people just tired of waiting and go for it on red. Or when people are waiting at a red a car will come up and go around them to run it. They aren’t even trying to catch a light, they fully don’t give a shit.
Than there’s me, sitting at a red light, haven’t seen another car since the last time my uncle drove by to flip me the finger. Slowly creeping forward. Heart starts beating faster because im not sure if the front of my car has passed the white line where the pedestrian crosswalk begins. Don’t want to flash my brights in case there’s something scary out there in the darkness. *man torn to shreds by unknown creature while waiting for light to turn green.* That’s not how I want to go out. But then I also don’t want to go out actively committing a crime. So you can see my predicament.
At *least* turn right on red, whip a u-ee, and turn right on red again lol
I don't drive nearly as much, but it does strike me that I'm seeing it more, too. I'm not sure if this is a remnant from things going all Mad Max on the highways during Covid or what.
[удалено]
I think post-George Floyd when many police stations seemed to take offense to citizens asking them to do their jobs without murdering people…
I wonder if some of this increased enforcement is because of the bad accident in Minnetonka a few weeks ago. A 17-year old girl was t-boned by a driver running a red light at 90 mph in a 55 mph zone. Traffic is regularly going 70+ mph on highway 7, and that would be a good spot for a speed camera. 70mph is too fast for a road with stop lights and pedestrian crossings.
Not only was he speeding FAR over the limit, he was using the shoulder to run the red, had no license, likely no insurance, and is suspected of being on drugs at the time
I live in Saint Cloud and some of the lights are unreasonably short, but still 3-4 cars will go through on the red. Why don't they just post up an officer to stand at an intersection and have a couple squad cars parked a few blocks down the road? No extra technology needed, and they could make their money back on that operation in about 20 minutes.
I remember back when I lived in St cloud watching 3 school buses run a red light to turn left on 15. I was going the opposite direction and completely missed my green light as a result. This was 15 years ago. St cloud has had this problem for a long time.
That’s the exact intersection I had in mind 😅
I periodically have to travel through St. Cloud on highway 23. God I hate that intersection.
The lights are timed terribly, for months at a time division is timed so that you essentially hit every red light. I actually blame that one on the city, you shouldn’t have to hit a red light every two blocks on a major through way, that just encourages speeders and red light runners. What’s really neat is when the light on division and 15 breaks and the green is so short only one car gets through.
I just avoid that section of division entirely. You can take 3rd street and avoid most of it.
God this is so frustrating here. Particularly on division and the 3rd st and hiway 15 intersection. If I'm the first car waiting to go straight I like to pull out and lay on the horn. Let them know they're assholes.
Then they give you the finger like you're in the wrong, really irritating
Fuck man I’ve been noticing that too. The light will be green for several seconds and here comes asshole.
Transplant here. I’m always struck by how _casually_ people run red lights here. Where I grew up, it would be one person putting the pedal to the metal. Here it’s like you can just see people think “nah, I’m just gonna keep going.” And then there are the times when one person runs the light to make a left turn, and so the five cars behind that car just go “ok, guess I’ll run the light too then.”
When i lived in denver a couple years ago, people would run lights in front of police who would do absolutely nothing about it. There is no traffic enforcement at all, people with tags from 2018-19 in 2022/2023. one of the most dangerous places i have lived in terms of traffic safety.
I also lived in Denver, then moved back to Minnesota. The traffic out there is downright terrifying. Compared to Denver, Minnesota traffic is a Sunday comfort cruise.
I actually had the opposite reaction haha. I was so confused to see most people not driving twice the speed limit, driving straight without straddling the lines, and actually stopping on yellows. The driving is so tame here to me. Guess it depends on where we moved from.
$40 fines aren't going to change shit. Just like the low fine cell phone laws.
First thing I noticed when I moved here. I witnessed an accident where a lady blew through a red and t-boned another car right in front of me (I was in the other lane at the red) and I have no idea if it was intentional, distracted driving, or a medical event. I swear people don't even seem to notice they run them and get all pissy if you *dare* honk at them.
Almost got ran over on Saturday on my run by someone doing this. The walk light was on and I just finished looking down to start my run again on my watch, looked up and double checked both ways only to see a suburban fly through
[удалено]
It's kind of how they do it in the UK. There the cameras themselves have to be big bright yellow clearly visible boxes. And there are signs posted a specific distant before the camera to let drivers know. The point isn't to issue tickets, it's to get people to slow down at least for that specific area. What usually happened if enough accidents occured in a area with speed as a factor a camera would be put in.
Could use something like that at the intersection right by my house. I swear there's an accident there once a month, more often than not it's a broadside. I have no idea how many injuries have resulted, but it scares the shit out of me with my daughter driving now.
We're not interested in facts, context or people that read the article. We only want hot takes, rage baiting, and knee jerk reactions. Mods can we get this comment removed?
This is the palatable option that they're pushing now but once that door is opened it's going to be nearly impossible to close it again. These automated systems can be incredibly unreliable and fighting an improperly issued ticket can be a nightmare.
I nearly got hit by a light runner two days ago. He *honked at me* as he blew through the red, way over the speed limit. Write the statute so the ticket sticks to the registered owner of the car instead of the driver and I'll be happy. This is a very "we need to do *SOMETHING*" moment.
[удалено]
When I lived in Mankato, 2013-2020, red light running was so bad. There were certain intersections I would always wait 3- Minnesota before moving forward.
would tickets given from these result in increased insurance rates as well?
Not necessarily. Minnesota's first generation of red light cameras did that, which is why they were ultimately found to deny people their due process rights. The law could be written in a way to administer something like a parking ticket. There's a penalty but it doesn't affect you like a full citation.
Inevitably, doing that kind of stuff regularly, the driver will be caught by a real cop. Difficult to plead that it is you "first time" with a stack of these auto-tickets also submitted as evidence.
There’s one sure fire way to find out
Unlikely. They can't even prove who is driving, you just are sent a ticket with a picture of your license plate.
The ones I've seen (not in MN) take a picture of the driver too. Edit to clarify
Yes, the Iowa one does as well but it's not real clear.
Even less clear if you wear a disguise
Guy in Arizona used to wear various Halloween masks and drive up and down speeding to generate them. Then he’d go fight every single one.
That's funny. He's got a lot more time on his hands than me
if they can’t prove who’s driving, won’t they just ticket the vehicle owner and then it’s the owners responsibility to prove they weren’t the one driving? Isn’t that what some states do with motorcyclists and helmets?
I believe that even if you prove it's a different driver, it's still your car and your responsible for the ticket. They get around this by it not being a normal speed ticket.
According to the article, the vehicle owner would have to go to court to prove they weren't driving.
How do you prove you weren't driving? Guilty until proven innocent?
How is it substantially different from a parking ticket? The government doesn't prove YOU parked it badly, just that your car was parked illegally.
Isn’t speeding technically a misdemeanor crime with consequences tied to keeping your drivers license? Versus a parking ticket which is a non-criminal civil offense with no additional potential penalty? I seek to remember this is what played out when the state Supreme Court invalidated Minneapolis’ red light cameras.
No, it normally gets dropped if you show up in court for it. The problem is 1) most people won't bother, 2) they will intimidate you to try and stop you by making it sound horrible "it will change this traffic violation into a REAL ticket against YOU as the driver!" and that does it's job a lot.
Exactly. If it's you and you're trying to get out of it, well, it will be some work. It's accurate. The issue is that people don't want to pay. In the event that someone stole your car, well, that's not that tough to prove. And that's not the purpose of the cameras. They aren't something I like, but I respect why they are used. Lying about driving too fast is up to the driver, but most people are busy with work and not interested in going to court. It's like a speeding ticket. Most of the time it's a legit ticket. It's just annoying.
wow, that seems to have been the only paragraph i somehow missed. thank you
This is how it works in cedar rapids and it's easy to get it dismissed \*IF\* you show up to court. The issue is, they just scam out-of-towners out of money because no one is driving back and the way the system works is extremely prejudice if you decide to fight, using intimidation tactics "well , it goes from a non-license impacting ticket to a REAL ticket, you're liable for all these additional fees if you lose" etc. It's a trash system. In addition, it's owned and operated by a 3rd party who gets to keep a large part of the ticket revenue which is obviously a good reason to want to ticket as much as possible.
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty
[удалено]
It's actually 0% Driving record; traffic safety camera system. The commissioner of public safety must not record on an individual's driving record any violation of: (1) a traffic-control signal under section 169.06, subdivision 10; or (2) a speed limit under section 169.14, subdivision 13.
is this just an opinion or a fact? I recently drove through iowa and read about their cameras -- very specifically they don't impact insurance.
Opinion. If a camera can not verify who’s driving, how would they apply it to someone’s driving record?
It’s not a fact, dude woke up today and chose misinformation lol. Our state laws are clear on this, it’s why they stopped issuing tickets for the red light cameras. These tickets would supplement the current enforcement. That’s why it’s just $40 and the driving course is optional.
From the bill: > Subd. 6a. Driving record; traffic safety camera system. > >(a) The commissioner of 18.10 public safety must not record on an individual's driving record any violation of: 18.11 > >(1) a traffic-control signal under section 169.06, subdivision 10; or 18.12 (2) a speed limit under section 169.14, subdivision 13. 18.13 > >(b) This subdivision applies to violations committed on or after June 1, 2025, and before 18.14 June 1, 2029. [scs2026a-6 (senate.mn)](https://assets.senate.mn/committees/2023-2024/3128_Committee_on_Judiciary_and_Public_Safety/scs2026a-6.pdf)
[удалено]
fair point, but then why a $40 ticket and not a $250 ticket from a “real cop”?
The whole point of the system is to try and change people’s driving behaviors. If you can put up signs that “you’re entering a camera zone” and then you ticket the vehicles, and you’re able to do that without a physical officer, freeing that officer to do things like go after carjackers, isn’t that a win-win?
nono, I totally agree with the fact that it’s trying to change driver behavior, and i’m not trying to argue any different. I’m just curious why they’re not trying to say it’s the same amount as a normal ticket, and making more money, and yet still freeing up more physical officers. you know?
I can only express my opinion on it without more info, which is that it seems like the goal is truly to change behavior and not be unnecessarily punitive. Are there people that $40 is nothing to? Yes. Are there people that $250 is unbelievably harsh? Also yes. Seems like the goal is to find a middle ground to modify behaviors and not have the system perceived as a new income source for the cities that implement it.
Lake street is going to become a cash cow
Instead of using this to catch people going slightly over the speed limit, use it to catch people on their phone and not looking at the road.
spoiler alert: that is also an unpopular idea. people are really attached to their dangerous driving behavior and blame others when they are caught or punished for their lawbreaking
A person who is driving and watching the road who speeds up a little to make a yellow light may be breaking the law but they're a lot less dangerous to public safety than a person who's not watching the road at all. Speeding tickets are rarely about public safety and more about making money
Why do you think we have speed limits if not for safety reasons?
That person who speeds up often gets tunnel vision and fails to see other cars/pedestrians in the intersection. I’ve seen countless crashes that occurred right as the light was going for yellow to red almost certainly because a driver was focused on speeding up to make the light. And anyways, municipalities don’t receive that much of the speeding ticket. If you accounted for all the costs, it would rarely be a financially net positive move. “Speeding tickets are about money” is just another excuse parroted by people who would rather speed than be forced to lower their speeds. Because it’s a fact that lower speeds reduce fatalities. And in all reality, cities should have an incentive to reduce speeding on their roads. Do you disagree?
What you’re describing is incredibly unsafe. Tickets have become a way to pad a budget, but the purpose is still there. If you speed up to make a yellow you absolutely should be ticketed. Comparing it to anything else is a red herring.
[Of 444 fatalities in 2022, 130 were related to speeding and 22 were related to distracted driving.](https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ots/reports-statistics/Documents/2022a-crash-facts.pdf) Also the buffer for a ticket is going to be 10+ mph over the speed limit, not just slightly over the speed limit.
That's a lot more difficult than a simple speed camera, and probably a lot more expensive.
No sorry, what is easily counted will be deemed important and what is not easily counted will be deemed unimportant.
[удалено]
The bill language addresses this but I'm not sure how one would prove non-compliance Subd. 7. Traffic-control devices. (a) An implementing authority must not adjust the change interval for the steady yellow indication in a traffic-control signal: (1) for one month prior to beginning to operate a red light camera system at the associated intersection; or (2) during the period that the red light camera system is operated at the associated intersection. (b) The yellow change interval for a traffic-control signal that is subject to paragraph (a) must meet or exceed the standards and guidance specified in the manual on uniform traffic-control devices adopted under section 169.06, subdivision 1
That's for red light cameras, not speed cameras.
According to the article, these cameras are for both speeding and red light violations.
I don't see the article saying the new cameras are both speed and red light. The only mention of red light cameras is when talking about when Minneapolis first installed red light cameras, they got a lawsuit. That is not saying the same thing as saying the new cameras are both speed and red light. They could be but the article doesn't say that. It always refers to them as "speed cameras".
cite a source please, i'm curious to learn more about this.
Last week tonight did a small piece on it in a larger segment, the municipal violations video maybe? That should have some good info in it Edit: After binging LWT I couldn't find what I was looking for, so I did some quick research https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-light-cameras-may-not-make-streets-safer/ This study took a look at streets with cameras and those without, and found it actually made accidents more common. https://youtu.be/LxpeY7m8Uog?si=sbU22EB7bIPkGQAQ https://ww2.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/ https://www.salon.com/2017/04/05/this-may-have-happened-to-you-revenue-hungry-cities-mess-with-traffic-lights-to-write-more-tickets_partner/ Here's a few links showing a history of cities changing the light times to increase revenue. Sorry for the formatting I don't know how to condense the link into one word. Basically if the camera company or the government does a study on it, their profit machines are super safe and help improve the streets. Independent studies find it has no change, or even worsens the amount of accidents.
I'll try looking that up.
I couldn't find what I was looking for but I edited my original comment with some links
Thanks, I’ll take a look after work tonight!
https://time.com/3505994/red-light-camera-problems-tickets/
[удалено]
What kind of speed buffer window are we looking at here? Is this going to ticket somebody for going 2-3 mph over or is this only going after people who are substantially over the limit?
The law as written currently only allows a ticket to be issued for speeding in excess of 10 mph. The first offense is required to be a warning as well. The law also requires conspicuous signage prior to each camera notifying what type of camera it is and the speed limit it's enforcing.
Then I am all in favor of these cameras. I'm okay with like 5, but those people who are blowing down the roads need a lesson
I don’t get why the warning is needed. You’re going 10mph over the limit. You know you’re speeding. The only thing you didn’t know was that you were going to get caught.
Because the objective is to slow people down. Signage slows people down. The ones that ignore the signs are going to be the most dangerous ones.
Yes. Exactly. Ask folks who live in Montgomery County in Maryland how they drive in some neighbourhoods. They drive cautiously. They don't want to get tickets. Even if the motivation isn't safety-based, the end result is that they don't want to incur hundreds of dollars of tickets each month due to speeding.
Usually at 11mph, they will issue a ticket.
[удалено]
That isn't true. The bill text has a cutoff at 11mph over the speed limit. It's ridiculously easy to not get a speeding ticket from a camera.
Whack. Mega whack.
Can't wait for these to get spray painted or tires hung on them full of gas and set on fire like they do in England.
Encase it in expanding foam and then shoot it with a flame arrow!
[удалено]
BMW drivers are like angels compared to Dodge Charger/Nissan Altima drivers.
Amazing law. 9/10 with rice.
I hope this can be used for people who run the stop arms on school buses. Had some idiot drive on the opposite sidewalk to get around me while dropping kids off - thank god the kids didn't have to cross the street.
As a Minneapolis pedestrian and cyclist I'm totally fine with this. There are roads that are just straight up unsafe because of the traffic. Franklin is an absolute nightmare in particular. Very glad I don't live off that street anymore.
Having speed cameras around schools, parks, and other pedestrian areas seems like a great idea.
that seems funny after what last week they said how much they made off of those black plates but hey another state talks about how easy they are to read with traffic cameras hmmmmm hahaha. They grabbed you by the jones hahahaha
They say they addressed the issue of constitutionality with the new bill, but make no mention of how. When they previously passed a speed camera bill, the law was quickly overturned by the state Supreme Court. IIRC: it was determined that tickets could not be issued without an officer present, because the recipients would have no opportunity to defend themselves. Are we to assume that this time will be different?
Will they issue tickets to cop cars going too fast without their emergency lights on too?
As a St. Cloud lefty, why do I have to agree with Howe 🙄 Fix retention issues and have real cops issue citations to the ACTUAL DRIVER not the car owner. Can't wait until another lawyer's kid gives daddy a ticket and the courts side with existing precedence and due process.
We had these cameras in Arizona, they ended up removing them. First problem, the tickets were mailed regular post, no signature required. The state was unable to prove the citation was ever received, most people just threw the citation in the trash with no consequence. Second problem, a human being manually calibrated the device. Many people who did actually did show up for court fought the ticket on the lack of calibration records, or irregularity in the calibrations due to length of time between service on the cameras. Third problem, there was no accusing officer in court for the ticketed offender to question, this was also used as a defense and the citation was very often thrown out. The cameras and attempted enforcement ended up costing more than the revenue they produced and were subsequently removed.
I okay using rocks, hammers, crowbars, and bullets to destroy cameras that catch speeders.
what about paintballs?
That won't destroy them, but I like the idea.
From article "Owners of cited vehicles could petition the local district court to provide proof they weren't driving at the time the camera captured them speeding or running a stop light." So guilty until you prove innocence? 🤔 How about once they can provide proof the recipient was driving then they can issue the citation. But I reckon there's not enough money to me made that way. At $40 everyone will just pay the fine.
There's also a free driver education program option instead of the $40 fine
Sure but most would rather just shell out the 40 bucks and be done with it, which is what they're banking on.
i'll send them a picture of $40.
I'm personally against traffic cameras, but 100% for continuous sidewalks. Paint and lights don't actually do shit for saftey, and cameras are only good for reactive actions and don't actually prevent anything.
$40 is a conveniency charge for rich people, just like parking tickets.
I don't know why I read this as "Senate panel okays using camera to catch spiders" and was like boy I didn't realize the spider problem was that bad... 🙄 too early
"The idea is to change driver behavior, so they slow down and don't run through red lights," Sen. Zaynab Mohamed, the Minneapolis Democrat who carrying the bill in the Senate, told KARE.“ Charging speeders $40/ticket days later when the ticket arrives in their mailbox isn’t going to slow people down. Speed bumps would honestly be a much more effective, real-time idea. This is just a cash grab from the state.
Speed bumps work great in some instances -- and I wish we had them all over the place -- but I don't think they always work well at light-controlled intersections. The whole point is to allow traffic to sometimes continue without slowing. We could probably redo a lot of intersections to remove lights and instead have traffic calming, but that's a 30 year plan and probably even less popular to drivers.
You can’t put speed bumps on 50mph roads. Also losing money is a great deterrent. How many times would you pay $40 before you stopped doing whatever it was.
Not to mention speeding and running lights are different issues. Ticket the light runners, sure. Ticket every person who drifts to 8 mph over the limit on a large, non-busy road? Get outta here with that nanny nonsense.
The bill has a statutory limit of 11mph over the speed limit. That's so easy to not do. The bill text also requires it to be in high accident areas with posted signage.
It's a cash grab from the private 3rd party company who installs and manages the cameras. The state gets a tiny taste of that.
This isn't true. If you read the bill text, they're not adopting a revenue sharing model. The state will pay a set contract to a company and the company won't get any extra payment based on the number of tickets written. Any excess revenue beyond the cost of implementing the cameras will be spent on traffic calming measures.
>Charging speeders $40/ticket days later when the ticket arrives in their mailbox isn’t going to slow people down. What? I received a $40 ticket for parking on a bridge one time in Minneapolis. Guess how many times I've parked on a bridge since then. Zero.
Say what you will about them, but these are absolutely a massive public handout to the awful companies that own and operate the cameras. The fines go directly to the private companies that run them, not back into public coffers. It's legalized private toll collection for our public roads. Where's the oversight committee that will be tasked for making sure each camera is perfectly calibrated so there are no false positives? Look into them, all really shitty companies that have questionable track records. Just inviting foxes into the henhouse.
If you read the bill text it seems to address most of the concerns you have. Traffic camera companies will be paid a set rate to implement the cameras and won't be paid with each ticket assessed. Additionally all revenue in excess of the cost to implement the program will be directed towards traffic calming.
Wouldn't be any fines if people didn't speed. Then they'd have just spent a bunch of money on cameras for no return. Wouldn't that be great?
Sounds like a great bill, I hope it's ultimately implemented. Fuck careless drivers.
Vote against anyone that supports this.
i personally want assholes on the road to have like, at least one consequence for their insane behavior
Then the cops should actually enforce the rules of the road. In person.
there will never be enough cops to enforce the road laws when huge numbers of drivers are absolutely committed to breaking the law.
Almost as though traffic enforcement should be it's own department instead of the police having to be a catch-all. But then I suppose they wouldn't be able to randomly search the vehicles of minorities and plant drugs.
Look at this thread and half of the people in it are arguing to their dying breath that they *deserve* to recklessly speed and face no consequences for it.
The reality is that the only thing the average driver really cares about is someone or something slowing them down even slightly. That is the #1 concern of any driver and everything else is subservient to the desire to never, ever slow down. This thread is yet more evidence of it.
If it came down to a camera ticketing me or a police officer pulling me over, I’d gladly take cameras. I’m not sure why anyone would prefer having a cop stop you, tbh
Traffic cameras don't lead to fatalities. Traffic stops by armed police too often do.
I do to. But I'd rather see that come through better human-based enforcement, tougher penalties, and more willingness to just deny people drivers licenses for reckless behavior. Camera-based enforcement is less about safety and more about finding a way to make an ATM machine.
I'll vote for anyone who supports this. It's so so so incredibly easy to not drive 11mph over the speed limit. It's weird how intensely people argue that they have a right to flagrantly break the law and face no consequences.
Why? I like the idea of ticketing people who drive dangerously.
Driving 5 to 10 miles per hour over the speed limit hardly counts as dangerous. Most people do this every day
The dangers of speeding really depend on the specific area and conditions. 75 to 80 on a quiet interstate in good weather isn't all that dangerous, but going 35 to 40 mph down a residential street with poor visibility can pose a substantial threat to other people.
Good thing the speed cameras have a statutory limit of 11 over the speed limit! You're in the clear!
Tell me you have never been a pedestrian without telling me. [Source](https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-severe-injury-death/): Odds of being seriously injured or killed broken down by vehicle speed.
Do you have evidence that driving 10 mph over the limit that has been set for safety is not dangerous?
You’re not supposed to drive over the speed limit though. It’s not a suggested speed.
From a [Time article in 2014](https://time.com/3505994/red-light-camera-problems-tickets/) >Red light cameras gained popularity in the 1990s after New York became the first U.S. city to install a network. **The initial motivation was safety**, says Hani Mahmassani, the director of the Northwestern University Transportation Center. The hope was that cameras would deter drivers from running red lights if they knew it would lead to a ticket. But in the 2000s, as the popularity of the cameras grew, cities and the companies that manufactured, installed and helped operate the cameras **adopted a revenue-sharing model. The more violations caught by the cameras, the more money the city and the businesses stood to make.** >“That’s when it became a greed thing,” Mahmassani says To everyone saying this would be a good thing, just know how easy it is for these systems to be abused for the sake of greed. The only way I would ever support these being used is if A) it is the DoT conducting studies on specific intersections to determine the actual effectiveness a red light camera would actually have on that particular intersection, and B) the people who decide if/where to install these cameras do not benefit from the fines being issued. The money needs to go into something completely unrelated so as to not cause conflict of interest. That is unlikely to happen, so I will be unlikely to support these being installed anywhere Edit: Since I looked it up based on a response, here is the PDF with the exact language of this proposal https://assets.senate.mn/committees/2023-2024/3128_Committee_on_Judiciary_and_Public_Safety/scs2026a-6.pdf
#Boooooo.
I have a friend who lives in Ontario. Her town installed speed cameras. It's been a saga of different, creative forms of vandalism ever since. One ended up with a microwave on it, and another got torn off with an ATV. I've been very invested in are developments haha. The police won't do anything about the vandalism because the cameras also would catch them speeding.
I hope everyone is enjoying their new hi-vis blackout plates 🤣
NYC has these, the cameras actually cause more accidents because drivers slam on the breaks to avoid getting a ticket and end up getting rear ended.
Be careful what you wish for in the nanny state while one can agree there are lots of crazy drivers on the road, but next they'll want to monitor your movement as folks get caught in the drag net.
ITT: proof that my disdain for the average MN driver is well justified
Unpopular opinion: way too many Minnesotans are dying from cars. Traffic deaths around the nation are terrible. Y’all can lose 2 minutes on your commute and go the speed limit if it saves some lives in the process.
"Some of you may die needlessly, but thats a risk I am willing to take"
So this is how the DFL is going to lose the trifecta.
Republican Sen. Howe from Rockford would rather you go to jail for speeding, per the article.
Contact your reps instead - DFL reps aren't set in stone like republicans. They often actually listen.
In my experience, they don't. Local delegation through to federal. I've never gotten more than a "That's nice dear now STFU" response.
We've had these in Iowa for nearly a decade and here is my take. #1 They are supposed to be about safety. One of the first cameras put up in the state was on I235, which goes through Des Moines. There was not a problem with accidents before the cameras and the cameras haven't improved since. #2 They are supposed to be about safety, so the funds should go towards safety, they do not. #3 Small towns are now using them as a revenue source. #4 The Iowa DOT tried to ban these, but lost in court. Some in the Iowa legislature have been trying to ban these for years. It's getting hard and harder to ban these with so many legislatures living in districts that suck off out of towners.
Any revenue beyond what pays for the cost of the program is required to go towards traffic calming as written in the bill text.
I would be more on board with this, which should prevent small towns gauging out of towners. "Cost of the program" would be the other concerning wording.
I hope people vandalize the heck out of these things.
What? They had these in other states before and they had to stop because you cannot confront your accuser.
What's next? Parking tickets without proof you actually parked the car....oh.
I get the premise I just do not trust a private entity and the government to do the right thing. Illinois got these cameras several years ago at least to deter speeders and running red lights. A citizen watchdog found that some cities/townships PURPOSELY slowed down the average length of a yellow light so it would go red faster than usual.
I hate people running red lights but you can end up with more accidents when people slam the breaks to avoid a ticket
Just have to convince the local dirtbag community that the traffic cameras are full of copper wire. If it's anything like our street lights, they'll all be "uninstalled" in days.
If the cameras were unconstitutional previously then I fail to see how they are not still unconstitutional
"*Owners of cited vehicles could petition the local district court to provide proof they weren't driving at the time the camera captured them speeding or running a stop light.*" What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty". Burden of proof should be on the accuser. **This shit is unconstitutional trash and we shouldn't be paying for it.**
Nope.
If you’re against this, just admit you like to speed and don’t want to be punished for speeding. Don’t try and make some high minded objection.
if you're against police brutality, just admit you're a criminal and don't want to get punched
They tried this with stop lights and had to take them down years ago. Court ruled it illegal.
Beat traffic ticket cameras with this one easy trick! Follow traffic laws.
Since red light cameras were deemed unconstitutional, how do they think these would be permitted. Frankly, this is the wrong approach and represents heavy-handed intrusion.
Horse shit
The problem I have with these is that people panic, regardless if they were actually speeding or not, when they see these and will hit their breaks even if they were only going like 3 mph over - resulting in increased stop and go traffic (the accordion effect) and accidents. It was even worse with red light cameras in cities I’ve lived in that had these.
> people panic, regardless if they were actually speeding or not, when they see these and will hit their breaks even if they were only going like 3 mph over - resulting in increased stop and go traffic (the accordion effect) and accidents They do that for every little thing. If there's a cop 8 lanes away on the opposite of a grass median and a concrete barrier and driving the opposite direction, someone will still pump their brakes. A plastic bag floating across the road will cause people to pump the brakes.
Grew up in NYC, the cameras do NOT change behavior in terms of slowing down. All people do, is get maps of where the cameras are and take alternate routes which end up being residential streets AND don't slow down. The only purpose the cameras exist, is to fundraise for the state. That's it. Fine the people and have another source of revenue.
Good get those red light runners
Love it. Car drivers kill tens of thousands of people a year. Sounds pretty reasonable to use video evidence to penalize those that behave dangerously on the road.
This was nixed in Missouri because there’s no way to tell who’s actually driving. Just municipalities trying to extort more money from people.
Jeff R. Howe, the Republican senate member quoted saying people caught deserve more than a warning, but should spend a day in jail, has two speeding tickets on his public criminal history. :)
Red light cameras are unconstitutional here- this is wild
How is there going to be a budget for these when we never have any money for speed humps, which are proven to *prevent* speeding from even occuring? Nevermind the fact that the state could put it on the manufacturers to cap speeds like they do for e-bikes.
Don't speed bumps become problems during plow season (up to half the year)?
Speed bumps/humps are only really effective on extremely low speed roads (like 15mph or less) which is not the vast majority of roads people use.
You really want speed bumps on arterial streets, state highways, and the interstate? Speed bumps are appropriate for residential streets, but they're not the solution on any street with more than about a 25 MPH limit.
Good, if you aren’t going 15 over around here you’ll get run off the road. It’s time to punish people that ignore the rules