I would think that a hearing would allow consideration and presentation of evidence if you were to have it, i.e. their own facial picture that is not you, or an alibi of not being anywhere near the intersection, etc.
I've found that most "don't care" when you are charged with anything, but if you have a chance to disprove the charge in a hearing and present the facts contrary, then you are afforded due process.
However, I do agree that failing certified mail or personally serving the notification is not proof that you were actually afforded the hearing opportunity, but most people do receive it in the regular mail under normal circumstances.
You would be incorrect. You could have been in another state, with receipts and other evidence to prove it, and you would still be responsible for someone else's actions. There a 6 defenses; the police told you to do it, you were speeding to get out of the way of a police car or ambulance or fire truck, you are driving a police car or ambulance or fire truck AND you were responding to a call, the driver did not have express or implied permission to drive the vehicle, your plate was stolen and that theft was reported in a timely manner, or you sold the car before the incident.
From the New Orleans ordinance:
A vehicle owner may prove by a preponderance of the evidence at the hearing that any of the following circumstances apply and thereby qualifies as an affirmative defense to the imposition of civil liability.
(1)The operator of the motor vehicle was acting in compliance with the lawful order or direction of a law enforcement or public safety officer;
(2)The operator of the motor vehicle violated the instructions of the speed limit sign in an effort to move out of the way of an immediately approaching authorized emergency vehicle;
(3)The motor vehicle was being operated as an authorized emergency vehicle under R.S. 32:24, and the operator was acting in compliance with R.S. 32:24;
(4)The motor vehicle was being operated by a person other than the owner of the vehicle without the consent of the owner, express or implied.
(5)The license plate depicted in the recorded image of the violation was a stolen plate and being displayed on a motor vehicle other than the motor vehicle for which the plate had been issued, if at the time of the violation the motor vehicle displayed a stolen plate, which must include proof acceptable to the hearing officer to prove that the theft of the vehicle or license plate had been timely reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
(6)The person who received the notice of violation was not the owner of the motor vehicle at the time of the violation