There is also the issue of respect for the law. Why should citizens respect the rule of law when their elected officials see it only as a tool to pick the pockets of their constituency.

Does that mean I get a refund?

Somewhere there's a website with pictures of these cameras after some rebel has placed a tire over them and lit them on fire. If I was on a jury of someone arrested for shooting or torching a traffic camera I'd stand up and clap (thus geting me expelled from the jury).

Additionally, officer-issued tickets tend to be in the $300 range, meaning those cited by cameras actually are getting off easier than those stopped by actual cops.

My problem is what if you were not the person driving? In Houston, the owner of the car gets ticketed regardless of who is driving.

So ... this is for an infraction, right?

Most states require that infractions be cited by the witnessing officer.

A camera photo is evidence of an infraction, not a witness to the event.

There are only two changes to the camera systems I'd require, before I'd consider them acceptable.

1. They must provide proof of who is driving.

2. The vendors who provide them must operate on a fixed contract, with a price set independent of the fines collected.

FWIW, the State of AZ does attempt to ID the driver - they take & show a high-res photo of the driver, and the citation carries the notice that if it isn't you, tell us who was driving your car.

The photo-posts with tires set afire are in England, who have had these a LOT longer than we have.

Around Phoenix, these things are not only a nuisance, they are a hazard, because some (but not all) drivers slow down to 10 under when they see them - with obvious result.

The key to the whole thing is that the photo fines are cheaper and don't go on your record. That's the real incentive to just pay the thing and not fight it (which is exactly what they need everyone to do in order to keep it profitable).

I posted about a similar scam near my old hometown. These things are all the rage now.

One distinct problem with photo radar cameras is that they deprive you of a vivid memory of the event, and therefore of your right to defense.

There are valid reasons to speed--sometimes it is necessary for safety. If you are pulled over by an officer while speeding, that cements the event in your memory. Choosing to contest the ticket before a judge, you would be able to argue your case with evidence--your clear memory of the event--to present to the judge. However, when receiving a photo radar ticket in the mail a week or two later, you probably have no particular memory of the event that caused you need to go faster, or if you do, it's already much dimmer in your memory. This puts the citizen at a severe disadvantage.

That seems like kind of a pyrrhic victory to me. All the city needs to do is change the ordinance to make the punishments equal to an officer-issued ticket, and they are back in business. Here in Texas, people are fighting the stoplight cameras with Due Process/Confrontation Clause arguments -- the right to face your accuser. This seems like a lot deeper argument, and should give a more permanent victory.