Update: Although the STL city ordinance still exists (click), it looks like the Missouri law that was written exactly the same is OFF THE BOOKS! This makes the STL law ILLEGAL in the eyes of the state of Missouri! I'll have to do some digging. Note the rebuttable presumption clause in section 4b. Do some Googling on rebuttable presumption to see just how unconstitutional this really is. End of update
This is in response to the person who compared red light cameras to a parking ticket:
Look at the way the laws are written for parking tickets and the like. Apples and oranges. In the case of a parking ticket, the owner of the vehicle is responsible. And by having the registered vehicle, you understand this. The only exception is if the vehicle was stolen. If you can show your police report that you filed when your vehicle was stolen, you will not be responsible for your parking ticket.
In the case of a red light ticket, the driver is responsible, not the owner of the vehicle, although they issue the ticket to the owner. But you must prove that you were not the driver! Presumption of innocence goes out the window. This is unconstitutional.
If they were to take a picture of the driver and properly serve them with a summons (in person) instead of a threatening non-registered letter that poses as a summons (fraud), it would be different. No, I take it back. Because it's about REVENUE not public safety. I take exception to any kind of traffic policing that is about revenue as opposed to public safety.
Not sure who setup the site. It's pretty unprofessional but is backed by a few lawyers, one of which I know personally. It's the petition that counts though.
You won't win this battle. I've done too much research, in conjunction with a lawyer acquaintance of mine who is equally as pissed off about these. I'll debate all day, though, if you wish. Just make sure you know what you're talking about before you post.