[HN Gopher] Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unc...
___________________________________________________________________
Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional
Author : 1970-01-01
Score : 247 points
Date : 2026-03-09 17:20 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (cbs12.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (cbs12.com)
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Seems the fact that it was a "red light camera" is completely
| irrelevant? The relevant part:
|
| > The defendant argued the statute unconstitutionally requires
| the registered owner to prove they were not driving -- instead of
| requiring the government to prove who was behind the wheel.
|
| Bit like having to prove you _weren 't the one breaking in_,
| rather than the police having to prove you were guilty.
|
| In light of this, seems like a no-brainer no one could disagree
| with.
| californical wrote:
| I see your point, but these are civil tickets rather than
| criminal charges. And since there's already many laws and
| regulations around owning a car, such as registration... isn't
| it trivial to say "you are responsible for a car that you
| register by default"
|
| In the same way, if your car fails emissions tests, you can't
| register it and it's the responsibility of the owner to ensure
| that their car meets emissions standards.
| true_religion wrote:
| But the risks that running a red light pose aren't civil in
| nature, so it feels like a perversion to use civil
| infractions as an excuse to get sloppy with enforcement.
| wat10000 wrote:
| The alternative would be an actual criminal record because
| you misjudged a yellow light.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| No more lending your car to a friend in need, no more letting
| your children learn to drive on your car or borrow it ever.
| Families must now own and insure a car for every individual
| driver because we can't be bothered to find robust solutions
| for traffic enforcement
|
| Shift the problem onto individuals, make it a burden for the
| public. Typical HN attitude
| n8cpdx wrote:
| Or you could ask your friends who borrow your car not to be
| dipshits who run red lights. If you get a ticket for your
| teen running a red light, you can have your teen pay for
| it. Might be a good learning lesson.
| floren wrote:
| But the reason for the ruling is that if your teen runs a
| red, YOU get points on your license.
| crote wrote:
| Not if the teen takes responsibility. So don't loan out
| your car to people who aren't willing to take
| responsibility for their actions. _Surely_ that 's not a
| massive burden?
| xeromal wrote:
| Is that just?
| californical wrote:
| Yes, vehicle ownership is a level of responsibility, I
| believe it is just to be accountable for what happens
| with it.
| iamnothere wrote:
| This is unjust BS and discriminates against poor
| families.
|
| Using this line of thinking, it will be a short time
| until you're responsible for what a criminal does with
| your stolen vehicle; after all, you failed to secure it.
|
| I hope you get exactly what you're asking for, and all
| the implications thereof (but in a state far from me). I
| feel certain you won't enjoy it.
| smelendez wrote:
| I mean, if your kid or friend gets a _parking_ ticket in
| your car you probably already pay it and collect from them.
|
| It doesn't seem that different to extend this to camera
| tickets.
| californical wrote:
| Driving cars is a dangerous activity that deserves higher
| levels of accountability and responsibility.
|
| It is commonplace to drive, but has high potential for
| danger and death. It seems ok to me to have a level of care
| required for owning a vehicle, and that includes being
| mindful of who you share your vehicle with.
|
| Same thing with guns - if you blindly lend a gun to an
| acquaintance and they shoot a school, you will absolutely
| be charged with some crimes, either accessory to murder or
| manslaughter, where you have to prove that you weren't
| being negligent by giving it to them. Guns are dangerous
| and owning them bears a higher level of responsibility to
| the owner.
|
| Vehicles kill more people, they also deserve responsibility
| to own. If somebody breaks laws with your vehicle, it's
| your responsibility by default unless you prove otherwise.
| freediddy wrote:
| If you read the article, you would see that issue addressed.
| The claim was that it wasn't civil, it was quasi-criminal
| which is why they had to follow due process.
| cucumber3732842 wrote:
| >I see your point, but these are civil tickets rather than
| criminal charges.
|
| Yeah that's what they said when ICE was unilaterally kicking
| in doors.
|
| The way I see it anything that would prompt the government to
| use violence upon you without you taking action to escalate
| deserves the same level of protection for the accused as a
| "real" criminal matter.
|
| Yes I'm aware this includes just about everything beyond
| library late fines and would break the system at least for
| awhile. Worth it. The government shouldn't be able to assess
| the same penalties (fines) and threaten the same enforcement
| actions (forfeiture of property, arrest for nonpayment, etc,
| etc) as they do in criminal matters and side step people's
| rights simply because they say it's civil. The rights and
| procedural protections are what they are not to prevent the
| application of a label, but to prevent abuse at the hands of
| the government.
| paulddraper wrote:
| Criminal offenses are punishable by incarceration.
|
| Civil offenses are not.
|
| ---
|
| Mild speeding, no seatbelt, broken taillight are civil.
|
| DUIs, reckless driving, hit-and-run are criminal.
|
| All vehicular offenses, but different punishments.
|
| ---
|
| Unauthorized immigration to the US is NOT punishable by
| incarceration. (It can result in deportation to the nation
| of origin.)
| cucumber3732842 wrote:
| >Criminal offenses are punishable by incarceration.
|
| And what happens if you don't pay civil (or criminal)
| fines? A bench warrant gets issued and you get arrested.
| And if you get a contempt charge in all this guess where
| you can go?
|
| The only "real difference" between a criminal offense
| where they "can" jail you but usually just fine you is
| procedural.
|
| I would rather catch a bullshit DUI than have a local
| building commissioner coming after me for some violation.
| They're both $10k problems, but with one of them you have
| "real rights"
|
| >Unauthorized immigration to the US is NOT punishable by
| incarceration.
|
| The problem wasn't what the statutory punishment is or
| isn't.
|
| The problem was the unilateral nature of it. Hence all
| the hoopla over warrant types, sloppy behavior, etc.
| joecool1029 wrote:
| Sort of. Basically you can fine the owner of the car and
| revoke the privileges of driving that car in a given state.
| Where it gets to be a problem is if the charge is against the
| 'driver' of the car and the state's not able to prove that.
| Normally, in courts we can face our adversary and cross-
| examine, etc. We hit this problem in NJ during the red light
| camera pilot program, I can remember a guy I worked with
| getting a ticket because his roommate borrowed a car and the
| front was hanging out a bit into the intersection.
|
| Some other thoughts: An illegally parked car can be fined,
| impounded, booted. Car with outstanding parking tickets can
| also have all of the above. But typically the driver wouldn't
| see points or a moving violation for any of these offenses.
| For example: NYC you can get blocking the box tickets written
| by parking enforcement but they don't carry the weight of a
| moving violation like a police officer's ticket would. (and
| if you don't pay it, it's not the driving privilege that's
| suspended in the state, it's the car itself that would be
| targeted for booting/impounding, etc)
| dolni wrote:
| If it's their vehicle and the vehicle wasn't stolen, the owner
| should know who was driving it. Courts do compel people to
| testify sometimes (when it is not self-incriminating).
| spullara wrote:
| They are not required to know who is driving their registered
| vehicle at all times, just that anyone that is allowed to
| drive it has a license.
| dolni wrote:
| What are some scenarios where a vehicle owner knows that
| the vehicle is being driven by someone with a license, but
| not who that person is?
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| You have one spouse and several children, and all of them
| have a license and are allowed to use the car?
| brewdad wrote:
| Your court date will be weeks after receiving the
| citation in the mail. Most families talk once in a while.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| The state is constitutionally unable to force you to
| testify against yourself because the judge ruled these
| tickets are quasi criminal
| riquito wrote:
| Happens all the time. You and your spouse do the same or
| similar route (e.g. bring child to school) and a month
| later you get a ticket. Who was driving that day?
| cromka wrote:
| Not the same. They know the car was yours so, by extension, you
| should be aware of its whereabouts at any given moment. If it
| wasn't you driving, you know who. An illegal activity was
| committed using your tool and you know who did it. They have
| every right to question you. If you do _not_ know, you testify
| as such, but then again you need to plausibly explain why was
| someone operating your car while you were not aware of it.
|
| > In light of this, seems like a no-brainer no one could
| disagree with.
|
| If someone shoots a person with your gun, you gonna say it
| wasn't you and expect them not to question any you further? Not
| very no-brainer, is it?
|
| This is how it works in Poland and, I assume, most/all of EU
| and the rest of the world.
| 0x3f wrote:
| They have the right to question, but I don't have to testify
| to anything, that's what the fifth ammendment is for.
|
| As usual, Europe doesn't care about internal consistency when
| it comes to rights. They just legislate (or rule) whatever
| 'works' for the current definition of 'works'.
|
| > If someone shot a person with your gun, you gonna say it
| wasn't you and expect them not to question you further? Not
| very no-brainer, is it?
|
| Nobody has said you can't be questioned.
| throwaheyy wrote:
| It's a very typically American opinion to argue that you
| don't have to be personally responsible for your actions if
| the law legally allows you not to.
| arijun wrote:
| When you say personally responsible, do you mean legal
| repercussions? Because, yes, that is definitionally what
| the law is. Or do you mean some extra-judicial
| responsibility? Because GP (and this whole chain, for the
| most part) is only talking about law.
| 0x3f wrote:
| The state is so powerful that inviduals should be given
| such affordances, and should be allowed the put the state
| to strict proof.
|
| Europe is a nonsense in this regard: you have rights,
| except all the special cases when you don't. You have a
| right to free speech, except for all the ways in which
| you don't. You have the right to silence, except when you
| don't.
|
| Which is also true in the US, after all they restrict
| obscenity as a form of speech. It's just that they have
| much fewer exceptions.
| elteto wrote:
| How very typical of non-Americans to misrepresent
| Americans!
| cromka wrote:
| > As usual, Europe doesn't care about internal consistency
| when it comes to rights.
|
| Sure. And you advocate that in exchange in US you get havoc
| on the roads because anyone can say "it wasn't me speeding
| 50 miles over the limit, bite me"? Is that the freedom you
| _want_?
| 0x3f wrote:
| The US has a comparable per-mile road fatality rate.
| There's no 'havoc'.
| cromka wrote:
| No, it doesn't! It's 2 to 10 times more! But that's
| irrelevant; what we're talking about here is a
| _hypothetical_ scenario where this gets challenged in
| Supreme Court and, as a result, police in US cannot
| assume fault in such cases.
| 0x3f wrote:
| > No, it doesn't! It's 2 to 10 times more!
|
| It's literally not.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffi
| c-r...
|
| > Belgium 7.3
|
| > Slovenia 7.0
|
| > US 6.9
|
| > France 5.8
|
| Never mind all the other countries that do have
| presumption of guilt, which are also comparable in per-
| mile road deaths.
|
| And the ones with presumption but which _are_ 10x worse.
|
| Allowing the presumption is very clearly not well-
| correlated with safety.
| crote wrote:
| You are conveniently leaving out some European countries,
| such as Norway being at 3.0 per 1B km.
|
| You are also conveniently leaving it the per-capita
| figures, with US being at 14.2 per 100k while countries
| like Norway, Sweden, and Finland being at 2.x, and Europe
| as a while being at 6.7.
|
| So sure, "10x more" might be an exaggeration, but "2x
| more" is fairly accurate and even a claim of "7x more" is
| arguable.
| 0x3f wrote:
| I haven't conveniently left out anything. I wrote my
| previous comments intentionally, and specified which
| statistic I was talking about. If you misread it, that's
| on you.
|
| I used this statistic because yours is like saying the US
| is richer than Switzerland, if you don't divide by the
| number of people. Pretty irrelevant.
|
| There is no point comparing a country that drives
| everywhere with a country that doesn't using a metric
| that doesn't account for this difference.
| Symbiote wrote:
| You named the two European countries higher than the USA,
| and ignored the 12 that are lower.
| 0x3f wrote:
| I presented the US' position in the list with the
| surrounding European countries, both higher and lower, to
| show that it sits in the cluster. It can be at the edge
| of the cluster, that's fine. The other person was
| claiming a 2-10x difference and, more importantly,
| blaming it on the 'havoc' that occurs without the
| presumption of guilt. The countries I listed have that
| presumption, and yet have comparable rates.
| antonvs wrote:
| > There is no point comparing a country that drives
| everywhere with a country that doesn't
|
| Unless the argument is that driving everywhere is a
| stupid and irresponsible way to operate a society.
| 0x3f wrote:
| Perhaps but seems irrelevant to a discussion that's
| around the question of policy as it relates to people who
| are already driving.
| db48x wrote:
| Sure, that would be sufficient probable cause for police to
| ask questions. But it's not sufficient evidence on which to
| write a ticket because we specifically wrote into our
| Constitution that the police must know and be able to prove
| who the guilty party is _before_ they write the ticket (or
| make an arrest, in the case of more serious crimes). Poland
| doesn't protect its citizens to the same degree, so what is
| acceptable there is not acceptable here.
| archontes wrote:
| In America, we have the fifth amendment, and the right not to
| divulge any information whatsoever unless we're granted
| immunity.
|
| It is enough to say absolutely nothing, and request the
| government to prove its case.
|
| If someone shot a person with my gun, I would invoke the
| fifth amendment, and ask the government to prove who did it
| beyond a reasonable doubt.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| In reality the way it would work is the prosecutor and
| police would use every bit of circumstantial evidence to
| construct a claim of motive, means, and opportunity. Then
| threaten you with a lengthy prison sentence if you are
| convicted.
|
| You're not going to roll on whoever really did it (assuming
| you know), and trust your fate to a jury understanding
| presumption of innocence, and being convinced of
| "reasonable" doubt, without you saying a word in your own
| defense? Most people would not unless they had an iron-clad
| alibi, but if they did, they wouldn't be getting charged in
| the first place.
| 0x3f wrote:
| There's a big difference in when you break silence
| though. Strategically, much better to keep it until all
| the facts are known to your side. At the start, the
| police/government have the informational advantage. In
| other countries, even delaying (but eventually speaking)
| can allow a negative inference to be drawn. The right to
| silence is important even if you eventually speak.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| The correct way to interact with the American legal
| system is never to talk at all unless you have a written
| immunity deal. Kids should learn to say "no
| questions/searches" and "slide the warrant under the
| door" from their parents.
| 0x3f wrote:
| Pre-lawyer it's never a good idea to talk. Post-lawyer
| often not either. But there are some rare cases you might
| negotiate a disclosure through your lawyer. For example,
| if they're about to ransack your home or get you fired
| from your job and you've got a rock-solid alibi.
| crote wrote:
| > If someone shot a person with my gun, I would invoke the
| fifth amendment, and ask the government to prove who did it
| beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
| Sounds nice on paper, but unless you have an absolutely
| airtight alibi that's a _great_ way to end up in jail. Oh,
| you were alone at home all night? Well, your neighbor is
| _pretty sure_ they heard you come home unusually late, and
| a witness saw someone who _kinda-sorta_ looked like you run
| away from the crime site, and the victim was _sorta-kinda_
| involved in your social circles, and there 's video of
| victim bumping into you a few weeks ago in a bar and you
| reacting in _what could be interpreted as_ an aggressive
| way - and it is _your gun_...
|
| Or you could tell them who you loaned the gun to. Your
| choice.
| archontes wrote:
| Sure, but that's a problem for my lawyer, not me.
|
| And sounds like a great way to plead guilty to a lesser
| crime, but IANAL.
| KingMachiavelli wrote:
| AFAIK Fith Amendment only protects against self-
| incrimination, you absolutely can be subpoenaed to testify
| against someone else and failing to produce truthful
| testimony is a crime.
| archontes wrote:
| You are correct, which is why that compulsion will be
| accompanied by immunity.
| cromka wrote:
| OK, but then you're testifying under oath _and_ lying,
| because it was you who did it, after all?
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| If you have an immunity deal and are asked to testify
| about a crime you committed under it, you admit to doing
| it and they can't prosecute you.
| cromka wrote:
| Gotcha.
| seemaze wrote:
| That's what I'd be afraid of
| singleshot_ wrote:
| How does the Fifth Amendment work in a civil context?
|
| Is it appropriate to compare murder and running a red light
| given what you know about the civil implications of 5A?
| SoftTalker wrote:
| It doesn't apply. The argument was that the red light
| violation was "quasi-criminal" and the judge agreed with
| that argument.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| > It is enough to say absolutely nothing, and request the
| government to prove its case.
|
| Only in criminal contexts. In civil contexts your silence
| can absolutely be an adverse inference. Usually these red-
| light cameras are civil penalties, not criminal (fines with
| no points). The judge here seems to be saying that these
| are "quasi-criminal" because, uhh, I guess there are
| penalties.
| pixl97 wrote:
| In some ways the government bringing civil charges
| against you is rather bullshitty and in many ways can be
| used against you in violation of your constitutional
| rights. Hence is the most likely reason the judge is
| calling it quasi-criminal.
| db48x wrote:
| Right, in effect the Judge ruled that while the state
| _calls_ it a civil matter, they treat it basically the
| same as any other criminal matter and therefore it is in
| fact a criminal matter. As we all know, a rose by any
| other name would smell as sweet.
| limagnolia wrote:
| Actually, the fifth amendment only protects your right not
| to incriminate yourself. So you may be called upon to
| testify against your will against some one else (With some
| limited protections for spouses and such). However, if you
| were in fact the one driving, you can plead the fifth, and
| they cannot use that fact against you to prove it was in
| fact you driving- they have to prove that independently.
|
| (EDIT: I should note that you also have a right to remain
| silent when questioned by the police- and since they won't
| know who to charge, there will likely not be a court case
| to call you to testify at)
| Drunk_Engineer wrote:
| > they cannot use that fact against you to prove it was
| in fact you driving- they have to prove that
| independently.
|
| 5th amendment protections are much weaker for civil cases
| though.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Note that in civil cases, such as a traffic ticket, the
| fifth ammendment doesn't apply to the same extent, and the
| standard of evidence is typically not "beyond reasonable
| doubt", it is "a preponderance of the evidence".
|
| Now, per the judge's ruling in this case, red light tickets
| are actually quasi-criminal, not purely civil, so the
| standards of criminal law might need to be applied.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| > If someone shot a person with your gun, you gonna say it
| wasn't you and expect them not to question you further
|
| Running a red light is not remotely equivalent to shooting
| someone with a gun, get a grip
| cromka wrote:
| OK, so now write a law that makes a distinction here. What
| do you end up with? EU law.
| multjoy wrote:
| The EU does not write traffic legislation, it leaves that
| up to the individual states.
|
| Unlike the US, the EU is a collection of fully sovereign
| countries.
| NetMageSCW wrote:
| "fully" is optimistic - being a member of the EU means
| giving up some sovereignty.
| cromka wrote:
| This was a mental shortcut, to exemplify EU vs US
| attitude in this case. I am from and live in one of EU
| countries, I am very well aware of that.
| Rapzid wrote:
| In oral arguments the supreme court uses hypothetical
| questions with extreme examples to explore the limits and
| constitutionality of law.
|
| Why shouldn't we?
| some_random wrote:
| The relevant law here is US constitutional law, not Polish
| nor EU law.
| cromka wrote:
| Did I say otherwise?
| hypeatei wrote:
| > If it wasn't you driving, you know who
|
| That's not necessarily true. What if it's a shared car in
| your family and you weren't home to see who took it?
|
| This comment is the tech equivalent to "falsehoods
| programmers believe about <thing>"... real life does not fit
| into such neat boxes.
| izacus wrote:
| Then you pay the ticket yourself or ask the family who did
| it so they can do it. This is normal across the world and
| really isn't a stretch to expect vehicle owners to figure
| out who's been driving dangerously with their car.
| hypeatei wrote:
| > This is normal across the world
|
| I'm not arguing it isn't, but the thought exercise is:
| does it make sense for the government to take people's
| money if the accused _can 't prove_ it wasn't them
| driving the car based on a police accusation (also with
| the threat of jail time if you don't pay)?
|
| I don't think that's "normal", personally.
| multjoy wrote:
| No, because in a functioning legislature the offence
| would be something like 'failing to disclose details', in
| the same way that refusing to participate in a DUI
| breath/blood draw would be a discrete offence.
| brewdad wrote:
| The photo will show the driver. Presumably, you recognize
| your partner and/or your children.
| eweise wrote:
| Four people in my family drive my car. I'm supposed to track
| that? sure.
| daveoc64 wrote:
| The standard for this in the UK is that you should make a
| reasonable effort to work out who was driving.
|
| e.g. checking your calendar/diary, looking through receipts
| or bank statements to work out where you likely were.
|
| There's also a requirement that a request for information
| is sent within 14 days for minor incidents like speeding or
| red light violations, so it's not like you have to work out
| who was driving on a Tuesday morning three years ago.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| That's not how it works in the United States. I was
| driving my (female) partner's car and received a
| citation. I gave the cop my license but he pulled the
| owner's (my female partner) driving record using her
| vehicle's license plate (is what I'm guessing happened)
| and issued her the citation instead of me. I was very
| excited since this meant I was going to get away without
| a citation.
|
| I gave her the citation and she called the cop who issued
| the citation and asked him who was driving at the time.
| He answered that a man was driving, and she told him he
| issued the citation to her, a woman. Her first name is
| one letter away from a male first name, so I'm guessing
| the cop saw it and assumed it was me and not her.
|
| He got frustrated and told her to go ahead and rip the
| citation up since he wrote it to the wrong driver, she
| told him she'd show up to court and the judge would
| instantly dismiss the ticket due to the officer pulling
| over a man and issuing the citation to a woman, so he
| canceled it. He didn't want to look like a complete fool
| in front of a judge.
|
| Not once did he ask who was actually driving because he
| knows she is never going to tell him and he can't force
| her to reveal that it was me.
| nubg wrote:
| Why not just drive under the speed limit and sober
| instead of giggling about avoiding penalties while
| endangering us all?
|
| Note that not once did you mention that you were
| innocent.
| happyopossum wrote:
| > and sober
|
| Why would you presume GP was drunk?
|
| Also, it's completely common and safe to drive slightly
| over the speed limit in some circumstances, and in many
| parts of the US it's exceedingly rare for people to drive
| _below_ the speed limit as you suggest. In many places
| the tickets are essentially written more for not seeing
| the cop and slowing down than for actually doing 78 in a
| 65.
| crote wrote:
| Your car, your problem. Either get someone to fess up, or
| take responsibility yourself and stop loaning it out.
|
| There really is no difference between "who drove through a
| red light" and "who scratched the bumper while parking"
| here - how do you currently solve the latter one?
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Except no, that is not how it works. People get moving
| violation tickets, not cars.
| crote wrote:
| This is exactly how it works in plenty of countries,
| actually! The US is the outlier here. In practice people
| have _zero_ trouble figuring out which family member was
| driving - just like they have no trouble getting a kid to
| fess up to scratching the bumper while backing up into
| their own garage.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| The burden is on you to explain why the US should do
| things the way other countries do. What's better for
| everyone about that? Why should we change our notion of
| justice to make you feel better about it?
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| > The burden is on you to explain why the US should do
| things the way other countries do. What's better for
| everyone about that?
|
| In short: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/
| thumb/e/ef/19...
| throwway120385 wrote:
| I know you'd like it to work that way, but it doesn't in
| most jurisdictions in the US.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > how do you currently solve the latter one?
|
| Same as parking enforcement. Goes against the car, not an
| individual. So the financial responsibility will be
| assigned, but no punishment.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| > but then again you need to plausibly explain why was
| someone operating your car while you were not aware of it.
|
| Why? IMHO, I shouldn't have to. It's the police's job to make
| sure they have the right person.
| circuit10 wrote:
| I think it's like this in the UK, you are required to either
| admit to it or inform the police who was driving at the time.
|
| For speeding there's a website where you can view photos and
| a certificate showing the equipment was calibrated recently,
| and you can admit or nominate another driver (or you can do
| it via paper forms)
| brigade wrote:
| Most of the world also doesn't have the same degree of
| protections against self-incrimination that the 5th amendment
| provides. If someone shot a person with my gun, while the
| police can obviously ask questions, in the US I have the
| right to not answer and force them to prove beyond a
| reasonable doubt who fired it.
| stefan_ wrote:
| You are missing a nuance. It is simply a separate offence (a
| misdemeanor) to not identify who was driving when the car was
| used to commit a violation.
|
| But also traffic cameras here generally take frontal
| pictures, so typically the only way you can get away with
| claiming it wasn't you is if they are very lazy / not
| interested in investigating further.
| elteto wrote:
| You don't need to explain anything to the government, that's
| why we have the 5th amendment. It is the government's job to
| bring charges against you and prove them beyond reasonable
| doubt. The government is right to investigate and ask
| questions to accomplish that and I am right to refuse to
| answer anything.
|
| It's basically "innocent until proven guilty". Red light
| cameras turn that assumption around since if your car gets
| ticketed it is assumed you are "guilty until proven
| innocent".
| cromka wrote:
| > You don't need to explain anything to the government,
| that's why we have the 5th amendment.
|
| As someone else said, this only works against self-
| incrimination? If you say it wasn't you then you need to
| testify or get prosecuted?
| brigade wrote:
| First, you have the right to say nothing at all; there is
| no requirement to incriminate someone else to protect
| yourself.
|
| Second, you can still generally invoke the 5th amendment
| during testimony even if you already claimed someone else
| did it. You aren't under oath until said testimony, so it
| still protects against you having to choose between
| committing perjury or self-incrimination, and doing so
| cannot be used as evidence of either.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| No, you don't always have the right to say nothing at
| all. Courts can compel testimony and punish you if you
| don't.
|
| And you plead the 5th after going under oath. And you
| can't just plead the 5th to any question. If the
| prosection puts you under oath and asks you your name,
| you can't plead the 5th to that
| brigade wrote:
| That's why I said generally - once testimony is
| compelled, it can no longer be used against you. And the
| definite exception for compelling your name is if the
| government already believes that _you_ committed a crime
| and is trying to figure out who you are, and you cannot
| articulate specifically why your name could be
| incriminating.
|
| 5th amendment protections _can_ include questions of
| identity, if the question of identity is relevant for
| incrimination. Like, if the government has a warrant for
| "Joe Smith", you're not required to testify whether
| that's you. It's usually a waste of time since could just
| prove it with the non-testimonial evidence that lead to
| your arrest, but the protection does exist.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| I think the argument is generally: nobody has a right to
| drive a car, it's something we permit by issuing a license
| and other regulations. One of the conditions is that the
| owner of a vehicle is ultimately responsible for it.
|
| The judge in this case disagreed, because the red light
| infraction was not a simple civil fine but quasi-criminal,
| e.g. points on drivers license, possibly resulting in
| suspension, etc.
| hrimfaxi wrote:
| You can own a car and not drive it. It can be stolen from
| you, anything.
|
| The structure of this whole thing is to avoid having to
| do an actual investigation. They could subpoena the car
| owner's phone records for instance. Instead they choose
| to hide behind bureaucracy and offer you an off ramp in
| the form of a lower payment to make it all go away.
| pixl97 wrote:
| If the owner is who is responsible for it, then make the
| ticket to the car and not an individual. State was
| attempting to play it both ways to tip the outcome in the
| states favor.
| youarentrightjr wrote:
| > I think the argument is generally: nobody has a right
| to drive a car, it's something we permit by issuing a
| license and other regulations. One of the conditions is
| that the owner of a vehicle is ultimately responsible for
| it.
|
| Do you know you can be licensed to drive a vehicle
| without owning one, and similarly, own one without being
| licensed to drive it?
|
| Why would the owner of the property be responsible for
| someone else's actions with that property?
| Symbiote wrote:
| Because they bought the most dangerous tool we have in
| common use, and society decided to make the law.
|
| The owner isn't responsible for the drivers actions, but
| they are required to name the driver. (Or declare the car
| stolen etc.)
|
| (At least in much of Europe.)
| tcmart14 wrote:
| I would say they could be, but its needs to under strict
| circumstances. Easiest is with guns, I loan you my gun
| knowing your going to go and use it to commit a crime,
| but that is covered under being an accessory. With cars,
| the only situation I can think of is if you loaned your
| car to someone you knew was drunk and was going to drive.
| Or you loaned me the car knowing I was going to use it as
| a get away vehicle in a bank robbery. But I assume the
| second case would also be covered under being an
| accessory to the crime.
|
| But for the purposes of traffic tickets, yea, its
| ridiculous. It also has a lot of faults. I got a traffic
| ticket from a red light camera for a car I owned when I
| was stationed in California. The ticket came to me in
| Oregon 5 years AFTER I traded that vehicle in (I traded
| it in right before moving to Oregon) and the traffic cam
| ticket was from Texas, a state I've never driven a
| vehicle in. My only presence in Texas has been being in
| the airport in Dallas. The ticket was also for a year
| prior to when I received it. So I hadn't owned it in 4
| years when it ran a red light in Texas.
| mothballed wrote:
| The 5th amendment with regard to self-incrimination only
| applies to criminal cases. When I represented myself in
| court for a speeding ticket the judge threatened me under
| pain of contempt that I had to testify against myself.
|
| Most camera tickets are either civil moving, or civil non-
| moving. Civil moving are against a person and civil non-
| moving are against the vehicle. Neither of which case does
| 5th amendment protect you from incriminating yourself, and
| neither of which does it require prove beyond a reasonable
| doubt.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Read the ruling. The judge says red light camera cases
| are quasi-criminal in the way they are handled even if
| nominally civil and thus can be subject to constitutional
| requirements including the protection of the 5th
| amendment.
| Vaslo wrote:
| Even if I know who, why would I ever give that information to
| the court?
| brewdad wrote:
| Because you'll be paying the fine if you don't.
| crote wrote:
| Let's say your friend borrow your car and drives through a
| red light. You don't _have_ to tell the court that it was
| them, but as the car owner you 'll be held responsible for
| what the car was used for if you don't.
| tuckerman wrote:
| It seems like that is not the case in Florida according
| to this judge.
| ratelimitsteve wrote:
| it's not true anywhere in america, at the very least.
| ratelimitsteve wrote:
| here's the thing about that: it's absolutely not true at
| all. once again, in the place where this ruling took
| place (and, therefore, the place we're talking about) the
| people who accuse you of a crime have to prove that it
| was definitely you that did it. an accusation doesn't put
| the burden of proof on you to prove that you didn't, or
| to find who actually did. this isn't a phoenix wright
| game, or an argument with your mom. if the state can't
| prove that it was you, then it wasn't.
| terminalshort wrote:
| Of course they are going to question you further. But they
| still do have to prove it to convict you. If the prosecution
| provides no evidence that you were the shooter other than the
| fact that you were the owner of the gun, then you are going
| to get off.
| smsm42 wrote:
| > you should be aware of its whereabouts at any given moment
|
| Says who? If the car is mine, I am free to do with it
| whatever I like (of course, excepting criminal acts). I do
| not owe anybody an account of what I - or the care - did at
| any particular moment. If the car was used in the commission
| of a crime, it's up to the prosecution to prove I had
| something to do with it. If they think I know who did it -
| prove it and prosecute me under the law. You can't just
| prosecute because you _think_ I _should_ know, that 's not
| how proper law works - otherwise every cop in the country
| would be 100% sure who they caught is the criminal - because
| why not, if it's enough for conviction, why work harder!
|
| > If someone shoots a person with your gun, you gonna say it
| wasn't you and expect them not to question any you further?
|
| They can question all they like, but to secure a criminal
| conviction, they must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that I
| was the person who did it. Otherwise you get no conviction.
| If they strongly suspect I did it, they would find a proof -
| but the fact that I owned a gun is not that proof (for one,
| guns can be easily stolen, and frequently are).
| jan_g wrote:
| But couldn't you then have the same argument for speeding
| tickets (or parking tickets)? Like, "I don't know who drove
| my car too fast or parked my car on the curb, so it's not
| my problem. The state should prove who did it.".
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Yes, and that is likely what will happen based on this
| ruling too, for parking tickets as well.
| ratelimitsteve wrote:
| > If it wasn't you driving, you know who.
|
| I don't have to prove who was driving. I don't have to prove
| I wasn't the one driving. The state has to prove that I was
| the one driving.
|
| >If someone shoots a person with your gun, you gonna say it
| wasn't you and expect them not to question any you further?
|
| I don't expect them not to question me further and that's not
| what this is about. This is about whether your car running a
| red light is proof, in and of itself absent any other facts,
| that you ran a red light in your car.
|
| >This is how it works in Poland
|
| This is not how it works in the US
|
| >I assume, most/all of EU and the rest of the world.
|
| You assume incorrectly
| electronsoup wrote:
| > but then again you need to plausibly explain why was
| someone operating your car while you were not aware of it.
|
| There is no such requirement.
| openuntil3am wrote:
| In Japan the driver's face needs to be clearly visible in the
| photo. At least that's what I've been told. I don't drive.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| > you should be aware of its whereabouts at any given moment.
|
| Why? Americans liberated themselves from this kind of
| relationship with the government hundreds of years ago.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| > They have every right to question you.
|
| Sure, but they have no right to issue you a ticket without
| proving you broke the law. Same as in the gun case: they have
| every right to question you, but they can't convict you for
| murder based solely on evidence that it was your gun that
| killed the victim.
| otterley wrote:
| A ticket (citation) is a promise to appear before a court,
| not a conviction of anything. Law enforcement can cite
| anyone with only reasonable suspicion than a crime or
| infraction has been committed.
| garaetjjte wrote:
| In Poland, ticket enforcement from speed cameras is about 50%
| (because if you don't accept it voluntarily, they need to
| file court case and burden of proof is on the government
| here, as with any other criminal case).
| ssl-3 wrote:
| Please don't project the laws and norms of Poland onto the
| US.
|
| The US is a very big place. And in this place, we have fifty
| (!) different states. That's fifty different sets of rules
| relating to owning and driving cars -- nearly twice as many
| as the EU has member nations.
|
| A Florida judge might decide that red light camera tickets
| are unconstitutional, while an Arizona judge might decide
| that they're completely OK. These two very different rulings
| can co-exist, without conflict, potentially forever.
|
| Each state doing their own thing independently of the others
| is just how we roll here.
|
| A sane and rational person might reasonably conclude that
| this situation is literally insane -- and they may be right!
| -- but it is this way anyway.
|
| (And it is this way by design.)
| sejje wrote:
| It's a bit like the EU, in that way.
|
| I don't believe the founders intended as much federal
| oversight as we currently have. It was supposed to be self-
| governing states with a few exceptions. So much of the
| constitution is to limit the feds.
| tacticalturtle wrote:
| The relevant part is that the judge declared traffic ticket
| proceedings "quasi criminal":
|
| > In the order, the court found that red-light camera cases,
| although labeled as civil infractions, function as "quasi-
| criminal" proceedings because they can result in monetary
| penalties, a formal finding of guilt, and consequences tied to
| a driver's record.
|
| Which seems to just relabel any fine from the government as a
| criminal matter?
|
| IMO when you register the vehicle for the right to drive on
| public roads, you are entering into an agreement that you will
| be responsible for following the rules of the road, and for
| lending the car to people who also do so.
|
| Similarly, if I register a firearm legally, and then lend it
| out to anyone who asks, regardless of whether they follow the
| law, I don't think it would be crazy to hold me financially
| responsible if a shooting happens with my gun.
| 0x3f wrote:
| Seems untenable because I can just lie to you about my
| intended use. I borrow your hammer to build a cabin. Oops, I
| actually used it to murder people. Enjoy the millions in
| damages.
| bootlooped wrote:
| The justice system can generally deal with gray areas like
| this. For example the parents of school shooters are
| usually not held liable for the crimes their kids commit.
| It depends on a lot of variables.
| pixl97 wrote:
| More states are enacting laws that directly charge the
| parents in these cases.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| example of a _very_ recent case:
| https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/04/us/colin-gray-verdict-
| mass-sh...
| 0x3f wrote:
| Seems more like jury nullification than new legislation,
| in this particular case
| pixl97 wrote:
| >I don't think it would be crazy to hold me financially
| responsible if a shooting happens with my gun.
|
| States have had to write laws for this to be a criminal
| matter. Before then it was a civil matter, but it was
| individuals against individuals and not state against
| individuals.
|
| >Which seems to just relabel any fine from the government as
| a criminal matter?
|
| It wasn't exactly about the fine, but points on a license I
| believe.
| maratc wrote:
| I think that _administrative charges_ do not need to clear the
| "beyond a reasonable doubt" bar -- that is reserved for
| criminal cases only. (So indeed, breaking in or killing.)
|
| "Preponderance of the Evidence" which is probably used for
| traffic cases means only "more likely than not" (or about 51%
| certainty).
| mikkupikku wrote:
| I don't see why the government should have to prove who was
| driving to issue a ticket, it's not like they have to prove who
| parked the car to issue a traffic ticket.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Parking tickets don't go on your driving record. They are
| just a tax on parking improperly.
| mikkupikku wrote:
| I thought the same was true of automated red light and
| speeding tickets too.
| pixl97 wrote:
| No, they are considered moving infractions in many
| states.
| Ekaros wrote:
| In Finland there is fun thing on that. There is both tickets
| by municipality where the ticket goes to keeper. But as
| private parking fines are contractual violations they need to
| track down or at least reasonably prove the person who
| parked...
|
| Still, seems to me that it is reasonable to prove who did
| such violation. Maybe photo could identify person. Or maybe
| other data could be requested like phone location data.
| Doesn't seem unreasonable or high hurdle. Probably not cost
| effective in every case.
| dangood wrote:
| This is such a strange argument, as any reasonable person
| should know or be able to find out who was driving their car at
| a specific point in time. But also easy to solve such absurd
| positions - Change the law to say the owner is responsible for
| any and all infractions and loses the right to ride and own a
| car for such infractions unless they identify another driver.
| But I don't see who wins in this scenario, it is much more
| logical and fair to go in with the aim to penalise the driver,
| and for this purpose ask the owner to confirm the driver.
| smsm42 wrote:
| Yeah, keeping this would be a dangerous precedent. If the state
| can presume you're guilty in a traffic case, why not extend it
| to other cases? Stuff like that is routinely used in legal
| arguments, "we are doing X so why can't we do Y which is
| essentially the same?" So say they'd go for "we have your phone
| located within the vicinity of where murder is committed, now
| prove you're not a murderer!" or "your license place was tagged
| next to the store that was robbed, now prove you didn't rob the
| store!"
|
| And yes, very likely some people would abuse it to get out of
| traffic tickets. I'd rather have that than constitutional due
| process protections eroded. We're not doing super-great on that
| anyway, we don't need to do worse, and if some scoundrel
| occasionally not paying traffic ticket is a price we have to
| pay to avoid that, I am fine with it.
| jonahhorowitz wrote:
| In California at least (I'm not sure about Florida law), you
| can go to court and state "the state hasn't proved that I was
| the driver," and if the photos are too blurry to show who the
| driver was, the state loses. You don't have to tell them who
| the driver was, just show that they don't have enough evidence
| that it was you. I believe this approach is more consistent
| with the constitution.[1]
|
| [1]:https://caticketking.com/help-center/photo-red-light-
| help/ph...
| mvdtnz wrote:
| > seems like a no-brainer no one could disagree with.
|
| I disagree completely. This is how speed and red light cameras
| operate in my country. If you weren't the one driving, it's
| straight forward to show that. The other party can admit to the
| offence or you can present evidence including the camera
| itself. The burden is low. Camera infractions do not carry
| license demerit points because of this ongerent uncertainty.
|
| What's the alternative? Use even more valuable police resources
| to issue these tickets? Or just not penalize dangerous
| infractions?
| pixl97 wrote:
| I mean this entire case was the state attempting to have its
| case and eat it too.
|
| These US states considered them moving infractions with
| points. Now the state must adjust by removing points or doing
| its due diligence.
| NetMageSCW wrote:
| >Or just not penalize dangerous infractions?
|
| Perhaps needing to show these are dangerous infractions
| should come first?
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| The logic is fine, but hit and runs just became a lot easier to
| get away with then no? Especially with tinted windows being so
| prevalent you very well might not even be able to give a
| description at all of the driver, and they can just later say
| they found their car like that.
|
| Probably a lot of other issues arise from that. If your car
| gets towed for being illegally parked, what if you just say you
| didn't park it there? Seems like a similar violation to a red
| light ticket.
| dolphinscorpion wrote:
| Hit and run is different; the car is insured, regardless of
| the driver. If criminal, they will interview to see if the
| owner was driving, who else had access to the car, and so on.
| litoE wrote:
| Florida must be using cheap cameras. My daughter got a red
| light ticket in Beverly Hills a couple of years ago. They
| mailed the ticket to her as the registered owner of the car,
| including the photographs from the cameras which showed that a)
| she entered the intersection on a red light, b) her car front
| and back showing the license plates and c) the face of the
| driver, establishing it was her. From her expression on the
| photograph you could tell she was saying "oh, shit!" She just
| paid it.
| seemaze wrote:
| Same here; tickets always include the photo of the driver. If
| the photo is unclear or differs from the registered owner,
| tickets are easily dismissed.
|
| However, I agree with Florida on this; the onus should be
| _not_ be on the accused to prove innocence after a citation
| is issued. Feels like a 'call us to unsubscribe' time-
| wasting dark pattern.
| paulddraper wrote:
| The article title is: "Judge dismisses red-light camera ticket,
| rules law is unconstitutional"
|
| Which is better than the HN title.
| socalgal2 wrote:
| There are plenty of laws where you do nothing and are still
| considered responsible.
|
| For one, that was Florida. In California there's the
| "Permissive Use" rule which means you are at least partially
| responsible for who you lend your car to. If they get in an
| accident, you can be held partially liable.
|
| There's also "Negligent Entrustment" if it can be proved you
| knowingly loaned your car or gun to someone intoxicated,
| unlicensed, etc...
|
| Businesses are generally supposed to take responsibility for
| their employees. That might sound obvious if the business is
| FAANG but it's far less obvious to a single person coffee-shop
| or flower stand who hires their first employee who then spills
| hot coffee on a customer.
|
| Parents are liable for their kids on many (most?) cases
|
| I think another is where a someone goes to bar, drinks too
| much, the bartender gets charged.
|
| Rather than just fight the cameras, what solution would you
| suggest? Just saying "more officer enforcement" doesn't seem
| valid as budgets are shrinking, applicants are shrinking, and
| people are dying from reckless drivers.
| 1shooner wrote:
| >"I've been ticketed here twice, and it's ridiculous because they
| it's just not fair," one driver said who didn't want to be
| identified. The person that does the determination when you ran
| the light, it's just a random. Whoever they want to pick, pick
| you to say, okay, you're gonna pay the ticket."
|
| This is the opposite of my understanding of red light cameras. I
| always considered the supposed impartial application of the
| traffic law as the main benefit.
| Retric wrote:
| Systems don't necessarily react based on the legal situation. A
| red light camera that's improperly installed, poorly
| maintained, etc could essentially act randomly from a drivers
| perspective.
| brewdad wrote:
| Which is why they are supposed to have a sworn officer review
| the camera footage. I have certainly had a camera flash me
| while waiting to turn right on red, still outside the
| intersection. They never sent me a ticket however since I had
| clearly not done anything illegal.
| crote wrote:
| ... which is why they are _supposed_ to be regularly
| calibrated by an independent third party - with tickets
| automatically being void if law enforcement can 't prove that
| it was functioning properly.
| Retric wrote:
| Sure in theory, in practice the incentives don't align for
| local governments to particularly care if these things
| actually work well.
|
| Here there was no attempt to photograph the driver rather
| than just assume the owner was responsible or would point
| to the responsible party.
| spankalee wrote:
| This is funny quote. Is the driver even disputing that they
| were the driver? They seem like they're just mad they got
| caught.
|
| Maybe they just stop running red lights?
| jotux wrote:
| I suspect this is some light with chronically-bad timing that
| gets run by tons of people every day. The camera is taking a
| photo with a bunch of vehicles in the frame and it's
| ticketing the one that had the license plate unobstructed,
| even if a few of the vehicles in the frame technically
| entered the intersection when the light was yellow.
|
| Sometimes lights are just so poorly implemented, and drivers
| pass through them so often, it feels like whoever designed
| the intersection was actively goading drivers into running
| the light.
| kstrauser wrote:
| My hometown got busted making yellow lights shorter than
| the legally required duration, then hitting drivers with
| tickets for running a red light they couldn't have safely
| and reasonably avoided.
|
| There are standards for this kind of thing, like if a light
| is on a road with a speed limit of X, then a yellow light
| has to last Y seconds. Imagine a yellow light that lasted
| .5s: you'd have to stand on your brakes and risk causing a
| rear end collision from the car behind you to even have a
| chance of not getting fined. That's the opposite of safety.
| My place wasn't _that_ bad, but a defendant successfully
| demonstrated that the yellow light he was tricked by was
| illegally short, and a judge basically threw out all the
| tickets from it and others.
|
| I mention this as just one example of specific light setups
| that suck. I bet you're right, and this is just a money
| grab from the local gov't.
|
| Read this if you want to be angry today:
| https://ww2.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-
| sho...
| morkalork wrote:
| Is this the case where instead of admitting to it, the
| municipality attempted to have the complainant prosecuted
| for practicing engineering without a licence?
| kstrauser wrote:
| No, that was Oregon's turn to be Embarrassment of the
| Week: https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-
| traffic-li...
| hnburnsy wrote:
| In same states they also mark the intersection start
| where the curb ends and not at the crosswalk starts, so
| you think since you passed the crosswalk under yellow you
| are safe to proceed but you have not yet entered the
| intersection.
| sixothree wrote:
| In my city they synchronized the light so that each one
| turns red just as the pack of cars is reaching it. To be
| clear the obvious implication I'm making is that they did
| this to increase the chance someone would run the light
| and increase revenue.
|
| This does mean that if you're in the front of the pack
| and go about 15 over the speed limit, you won't "catch"
| the red light.
|
| When you're not in the front of the pack it can be
| frustrating trying to travel just 3 or 4 miles with the
| red lights not even a full half mile from each other.
| Even late at night if you follow the speed limit, you are
| penalized. You will sit at every red light and look at
| the vast stretch of nothingness that has the right of
| way.
|
| If they didn't do this to generate red light revenue,
| they could have done this to generate more revenue from
| the gas tax they collect by making people start & stop
| more often, and from sitting in traffic longer. But I
| suppose both things could be true. And no, I won't accept
| any other plausible explanations (/s, but holy heck is
| government awful here).
| sejje wrote:
| I haven't run into those (I mostly drive in rural areas--
| in fact, there's no stoplight in my county) -- but I do
| run into some lights that just change in the middle of
| the night, for no reason, and then take a really long
| time to change back to green, despite not even a single
| car being present / going through.
| NetMageSCW wrote:
| Lights with sensors have a backup pattern of timed
| changes so that you won't get stuck at a light where the
| sensor isn't seeing your car.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| If someone is using your car they cant legally give you a
| ticket. If the picture taken doesnt clearly show you
| theoretically it needs to be dropped but of course thats not
| how it works in reality
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Seems silly. Just attach the ticket to the car itself and
| then the registered owner can handle obtaining payment from
| whoever was driving the car.
|
| If the registered owner wants to claim that someone stole
| their car or was operating it without permission then there
| can be some very hefty punishment for making false
| statements if it can be proved that it was actually the
| owner in the car.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| I believe the issue is that moving violations often give
| you points on your license. If it was just a fine I think
| they could put it on the car, but because the of the
| potential loss of a license they need to actually have
| evidence of a person committing the violation.
| MisterTea wrote:
| > Maybe they just stop running red lights?
|
| Some lights change timing depending on the time of day so
| e.g. rush hour might have different timing than midday or
| late night.
|
| I also believe there are and likely still are cases of
| malicious short yellow lights at camera intersections to
| increase revenue.
| mikkupikku wrote:
| That somebody got nailed twice suggests to me that they are at
| least making borderline yellow-light decisions, if not running
| the red outright. I doubt they actually know anything about how
| tickets are handed out, claiming it's just some guy handing
| them out at random is flagrant cope.
| mikrl wrote:
| In North America, from what I understand, the issue is that the
| authorities need to verify your identity in order to ticket you
| and traffic cameras don't do that whereas a police officer
| does.
|
| I agree the automated systems are impartial, but they cannot ID
| you without it becoming super invasive.
|
| In Europe and places with more omnipresent cameras, the laws
| are such that they can ticket you without needing to ID. The
| car gets the ticket so to speak.
| brewdad wrote:
| Many US states have switched to that approach. The ticket
| goes to the registered owner of the vehicle and no penalty
| points are attached. It's treated more like a parking
| citation than a traditional moving violation.
| tjohns wrote:
| It depends on whether the ticket is considered a criminal or
| civil matter in the US.
|
| For a criminal case, yes, they need to prove "beyond a
| reasonable doubt" - which would require that you are
| positively identified as the driver.
|
| For a civil case, they only need to prove by a "preponderance
| of the evidence" - which is a much lower standard.
|
| This is why tickets from red-light cameras in many states are
| zero-point citations. You're still charged a fine, but
| there's no finding of guilt attached to the offense, which
| keeps it away from being considered a criminal matter. (This
| is the same way parking tickets work.)
| forinti wrote:
| In Brazil, you can identify who was driving the car and they
| will get charged with the fine and get the points on their
| licence. You can do it all using an app on your phone. It's
| really simple.
|
| I don't know what happens if the other person denies it
| though.
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| What does "North America" have to do with Florida?
|
| I'm in Canada and they issue you a fine without any ID. It
| goes straight to the registered car owner. Simple as.
|
| The issue is that currently in FL there are points / demerits
| issued for violations, and these can cause the loss of a
| license, increases to insurance, etc. This is not a problem
| if an officer can ID you directly.
| burkaman wrote:
| This person is not articulating it well but I think they are
| complaining that the person identified as the driver is random.
| Presumably the camera can impartially identify a car running a
| light, but not necessarily who is driving.
|
| "I've been ticketed here twice, and it's ridiculous because
| they - it's just not fair. The person that - [let me start
| over] - the determination when you ran the light [of who is
| responsible], it's just a random whoever they want to pick ...
| [they] pick you to say, okay, you're gonna pay the ticket."
|
| Obviously it's not actually random, it just defaults to the
| vehicle's owner, but with a generous reading I think you can
| interpret the quote this way based on the context of the
| article.
|
| I think it's kind of irresponsible and lazy for the publication
| to use a verbatim verbal quote like this, when it isn't from
| someone notable who really needs to be quoted. If you don't
| understand what they're saying then don't put it in the
| article, and if you do understand then put in a sentence
| explaining what they're saying.
| b112 wrote:
| Everywhere I've been, the owner of the car gets the ticket,
| and it's up to them to figure out if they were driving, or if
| not them, collect from whomever they loaned the car to.
|
| No camera I've ever seen tries to figure out who the driver
| is.
|
| The logic is, it's your car, you're responsible for loaning
| it/owning it, so you get the fine. Don't like that? Don't
| loan your car out.
|
| The trade off is no points are deducted from a driver's
| license. It's a pure fine, because they can't prove you were
| driving.
|
| So the person just seems to be speaking gibberish to me.
|
| edit:
|
| More context...
|
| The same logic applies for parking tickets. No one cares who
| parked the car, the car's owner gets the ticket... not the
| person who parked it. While I dislike red light cameras, the
| logic holds.
| burkaman wrote:
| I've never gotten an automated ticket so I don't know what
| is normal. It doesn't seem insane to give it to the vehicle
| owner, but I can certainly understand feeling indignant
| about getting a ticket for something you didn't do,
| especially if it's a new process.
| stevehawk wrote:
| just means they will install more cameras to capture driver faces
| or buy cellphone data
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| Cellphone data is not sufficient to prove who is operating a
| vehicle
| jscomino wrote:
| Here's a novel idea: Let the citizens vote on whether they want
| red-light cameras or not.
| francisofascii wrote:
| I suspect the result would be dependant on the specifics. How
| much is the fine, and how much of a delay after the red
| triggers a ticket. Sounds like they are set at $158?
| 46493168 wrote:
| Palantir found their next contract for facial recognition.
| Palatir x Flock collab soon?
| db48x wrote:
| Steve Lehto has an analysis of the opinion:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VinCGmdj-jQ
|
| One interesting point is that the Judge also spent some ink
| criticizing the law because paying the ticket removes the ticket
| from your driving record. This means that habitual bad drivers
| can get away with the same infractions over and over again as
| long as they pay the fines quickly. This bypasses the State's
| points system that was designed to punish repeat offenders by
| taking away their license.
|
| I wonder how other state's red-light camera laws hold up? Do they
| have the same flaws or are they written better?
| reactordev wrote:
| Same flaws. It was all designed to make up for budget cuts and
| stayed when it made a dent. Once they got used to the money
| from it, they got complacent with how effective it actually
| was. This is Law Enforcement in America in a nut shell. They
| only care when they can't make their pension plan payments.
| Rather than go out there and police, they have staffing
| shortages and rely on the private sector to provide services
| that allow them to "police" from afar or by an algorithm.
| spankalee wrote:
| Wow, that's a huge problem with that red light camera program
| then. The drives that run red lights around me clearly don't
| care much for minor consequences. The point needs to be to
| identify the sociopathic drivers and get them off the road.
| jacquesm wrote:
| You mistakenly believe that these camera systems are not
| functioning exactly as intended: they're a revenue stream. If
| they ended up shutting down the offenders that revenue stream
| would dry up. The sociopath you've identified is called a
| whale instead.
| neutronicus wrote:
| Not in my jurisdiction - the biggest offenders know that
| there's no collection mechanism with any teeth, so they
| just ignore the fines [1].
|
| FWIW, despite all this the speed cameras have been
| effective at reducing average speeds at problem points.
|
| [1] https://www.wmar2news.com/homepage-showcase/how-md-
| drivers-w...
| neutronicus wrote:
| In my jurisdiction, the GP point is irrelevant because the
| biggest problem drivers just ignore the fines [1].
|
| It's very common to just have fake plates / registration,
| with the plan in the case of an accident to just bail out and
| run.
|
| [1] https://www.wmar2news.com/homepage-showcase/how-md-
| drivers-w...
| stronglikedan wrote:
| That's by design, and that's a good thing. Anything where the
| person actually driving the car can't be identified (i.e.,
| tickets given by camera as opposed to in-person) shouldn't have
| any long term affect on anyone's personal records.
| kamarg wrote:
| If you can't tell who was driving, you shouldn't be sending
| anyone a ticket.
| elliottkember wrote:
| You get a parking ticket regardless of who parked
| maest wrote:
| Loosely related:
|
| There is a driver in NYC who gets almost 300 speeding tickets
| per year. They've paid their fines, so they're allowed to keep
| driving. Apparently, since the fines come from speed camera,
| they can't revoke their license.
|
| https://www.jalopnik.com/1836395/worst-driver-in-ny-563-tick...
| shakahshakah wrote:
| New Jersey abandoned their red-light camera laws after ticket
| challenges involving yellow-light lengths. The length should be
| proportional to the posted speed limit (e.g. 5.5 seconds for 50
| mph), but many lights were found to have incorrect timing (e.g.
| 2.5 seconds for 50 mph).
|
| Also, I think at that time some questionable arrangements
| surfaced between the operators of the automated ticketing
| system(s) and the towns and/or counties involved.
| NetMageSCW wrote:
| My city seems to be fixing this by having yellow lights
| extend when it sees a car reasonably close to the
| intersection. And also helps by switching lights quickly
| based on car presence.
| chupchap wrote:
| In Australia you will get a fine and demerit points for
| speeding or for running through a red light. The points don't
| go away even if you pay the fine. If you go through a year
| without infractions, one point will be taken off. I think
| that's a fair system. More details here
| [https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boating-and-
| transport/demerit...] and here
| [https://www.primelawyers.com.au/traffic-law/speeding-
| offence...]
|
| Coming to the part about issuing fines to the registered owner,
| you can nominate a different driver online here, when replying
| to the fine. The person nominated need to accept this as well
| before it is taken off the person to whom the vehicle is
| registered to.
| analog31 wrote:
| This is going to be the year of refunds from the government.
| CapitalistCartr wrote:
| We have red light cameras here in Tampa. I don't know all the
| details of what it takes to make a right on red and not get a
| ticket, so I do exaggerated stops to be sure. I know what the law
| claims but that doesn't matter. The real law is the actual
| (proprietary) code rumning in the machine. Not what the law says.
| Not what the contract says. Not what the requirements say. Not
| what the programmer thinks the code does.
| thenewnewguy wrote:
| No, the real law is what's written by the Tampa/Florida
| legislature (or I guess you could say the "real real" law is
| judges' interpretations of what is written). While it may be
| inconvenient, if you are falsely issued a ticket while
| following the real law you can have the ticket thrown out.
| edoceo wrote:
| What kind of time and money and opportunity cost would it
| take to right this wrong?
| thenewnewguy wrote:
| I don't know for sure because I don't live in Tampa, but it
| is generally free (minus the opportunity cost of your time)
| for these types of tickets, no lawyer or other expense
| required.
| edoceo wrote:
| This is the correct take. And it's frustrating! To fix the
| problem an individual has to fight a huge, multi-party system
| (law, jurisdiction, police, tech-provider) - it's a (near)
| impossible feat for a person.
| dangood wrote:
| Sorry, but what is the concern, that you don't know when you've
| crossed a red light? Or that the software is too stupid to know
| when a light was red?
| lateforwork wrote:
| The problem with red-light cameras is that enforcement becomes
| robotic. Robots are perfect--they don't make mistakes (at least
| in theory), and they don't show leniency. If policing is done by
| robots, then humans are expected to be infallible.
| spankalee wrote:
| Subjectivity in applying the law is a huge problem, especially
| given how corrupt and violent police are. Red light cameras
| remove police from the equation for that infraction and apply
| the law evenly. They also scale in a way that police just
| can't, and that's extremely important for safety.
|
| I live in a city where red light running is an epidemic.
| Drivers flagrantly just don't stop, and it kills people all the
| time. Red light cameras - plus actually revoking drivers
| licenses, and then actually throwing people in jail for driving
| on suspended licenses - are the only way to fix this.
|
| It's far past time that drivers are no longer immune to
| consequences for violent, sociopathic behavior.
| NetMageSCW wrote:
| "all the time"
|
| When was the last person killed by someone running a red
| light? When was the time before that?
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| > If policing is done by robots, then humans are expected to be
| infallible
|
| The reality is that the people doing the policing are counting
| on humans not being infallible
|
| Fines have become an important revenue stream, that's why they
| are being automated.
|
| Now that this is becoming more widespread, there's a perverse
| incentive for governments to maximize the difficulty in
| avoiding fines. Lower the speed limit on roads designed for
| higher speeds for "safety", etc
| spankalee wrote:
| > that's why they are being automated
|
| There are many citizens, like me, _begging_ for red light
| cameras so something can be done about the rash of crashes
| and killings from willfully reckless drivers.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| Why would a willfully reckless driver care about a camera?
|
| In my experience preventative measures only work on people
| who are conscientious, they do not work on people who do
| not give a shit
| quickthrowman wrote:
| Is there proof that red light cameras increase safety? I
| would expect an increase in rear-end crashes after red
| light cameras are installed, with a slight decrease in
| fatal t-bone accidents.
|
| I wouldn't expect them to make driving safer for anyone, as
| enforcement doesn't do anything to moderate the behavior of
| people that just don't give a shit.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Fines have become an important revenue stream, that's why
| they are being automated
|
| Maybe we should legislate traffic fines out of existence, and
| just use points. Or at the very least the fines should
| _never_ go back in any recognizable way to the budget of the
| police doing the enforcement.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| > and they don't show leniency. If policing is done by robots,
| then humans are expected to be infallible.
|
| This is bad when applied to laws that were written with an
| exception of leniency and selectivity in enforcement, which is
| quite a lot of them. For running red lights though? I don't
| mind if the robots take you off the road automatically.
| lateforwork wrote:
| Running red lights? That's not all the cameras are used for.
| If are making a right turn on red and didn't come to a
| complete stop first you can get a ticket.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| Okay? Rolling through a red light is dangerous whether you
| do it straight or to the right. Hell, the latter probably
| kills more pedestrians. I don't really mind holding drivers
| to high standards.
| timeinput wrote:
| But why would you do that? Especially if you know there are
| robots enforcing that you come to a complete stop?
|
| There are many places that don't even allow rights (or
| lefts) on red.
|
| I got a right on red ticket once, and then I made it a
| point to obey the law -- especially at the intersections
| with the robots.
|
| For things like traffic laws especially (where there are
| very simple cut and dry rules), why is it okay to break the
| law, and why is it not okay for robots to enforce the law?
| NetMageSCW wrote:
| Why did you break the law, and why do you still break the
| law when you know you won't get caught?
| triceratops wrote:
| > If are making a right turn on red and didn't come to a
| complete stop first you can get a ticket.
|
| As you should.
| crote wrote:
| This is a complete non-issue. It's a _traffic light_ , you are
| supposed to stop when it turns yellow! The yellow _is_ the
| leniency. If you can 't manage to stop before it turns red, you
| are either: 1) speeding, 2) driving a vehicle with defective
| brakes, or 3) mentally impaired. In all three cases you are a
| danger to fellow road users.
|
| Besides, it's not a "the machine says so and not even the
| Supreme Court can overturn it" scenario. If there's genuinely a
| reason to cross into the intersection while the lights are red
| (such as there having been an accident, and a cop is
| temporarily managing traffic) the ticket _will_ be waived.
| Heck, there will probably even be photographic evidence of it!
|
| Most countries even have cops judge the tickets, just to
| already filter out those weird cases. The _registration_ is
| done by a robot, but the _policing_ is still done by a human.
| maxwell wrote:
| Huh? No, you don't stop if it turns yellow, you yield.
| vegadw wrote:
| Or you have a heavy, inbalanced object in your car you don't
| want sliding, something fragile in tow you don't want to have
| fast decelaration, or just don't have super-human reaction
| time since some light have extremely fast yellows.
|
| Or, a deer jumped out on the side and you briefly looked away
| at it.
|
| Or you could tell the driver behind you wasn't slowing down,
| so the safer option is to go.
|
| Or. Or. Or. Real life is messy, and there's a million reasons
| to go though a yellow instead of slowing down.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Most countries even have cops judge the tickets, just to
| already filter out those weird cases. The registration is
| done by a robot, but the policing is still done by a human.
|
| This is common in the US as well. The machine takes the
| picture, filters out the illegible ones, and sends the rest
| to an actual officer who will issue the ticket.
| crote wrote:
| Surely the obvious next step is to charge the _car itself_ with
| the crime of moving through a red light? Isn 't that what civil
| forfeiture was supposed to be for? You're not getting a ticket,
| we're just impounding your car until _someone_ bails it out...
|
| Besides, it neatly solves the whole responsibility problem for
| self-driving car!
| t1234s wrote:
| Having driven in the UK and coming back to the US I miss all of
| the roundabouts. Any reason (aside from contractor profits) towns
| use 4-way traffic light systems vs a roundabout and some yield
| signs?
| 0x3f wrote:
| Having driven in both, Americans don't take naturally to
| roundabouts and it would be difficult to teach all the existing
| drivers about them. Same in the UK when they add new rules:
| most drivers remain completely unaware of them.
| Detrytus wrote:
| There's nothing complicated about roundabouts: entering it is
| like joining the traffic from a parking lot/your own
| driveway, exiting it is like exiting a highway.
| 0x3f wrote:
| It's not exactly the same though
|
| You yield to traffic from the left, which mean someone from
| a leftward entrance has priority, but they can actually be
| blocked by other traffic. So you have to not only consider
| yielding to them, but also whether they are yielding to
| someone else, thus giving you space to go. I see this
| computation mess people up all the time.
|
| Also, judging intentions is much harder. On a multi-lane
| highway, it's very clear when someone is cutting across
| lanes to exit. And there's only one place they can be
| exiting. On a multi-lane roundabout, they might be taking
| the exit before your entrance, or the one after. Often
| people won't be signalling, or even giving incorrect
| signals.
|
| When joining as well, if I'm emerging onto a busy road with
| two lanes in the direction I'm going, I will probably
| accept joining when the nearest lane is clear, even if the
| next lane is not, as long as the cars there don't look to
| be moving into the nearest lane. On a roundabout people can
| peel off at any time, and you should really wait until
| there's a gap in all lanes.
| boc wrote:
| Traffic lights can be tuned to create "green waves" that allows
| for efficient flow of traffic along arteries through a city.
| You can adjust the timing throughout the day to help alleviate
| congestion. In rural areas, heavy machinery/commercial vehicles
| may need to make a very wide turn through the intersection.
| Traffic circles are fine for a lot of applications but they
| aren't strictly better than lights in all circumstances.
| 0x3f wrote:
| I don't see how that could possibly be true. The same flow
| has to be achieved either way, and lights will always have
| some margin of inefficiency in switching. Seems lights will
| always be strictly worse than roundabouts in this sense.
|
| There are also solutions for large vehicles where the center
| is raised but not impassible.
| pixl97 wrote:
| You over estimate the intelligence of the average American.
| I've lived in a few cities with a number of roundabouts and
| while I love them, the number of stupid people that panic
| and..
|
| -stop in the roundabout
|
| -stop before the roundabout and let their brain buffer for
| 30 seconds.
|
| -somehow go the wrong way in the roundabout
|
| -fail to yield to traffic in the roundabout
|
| Is way too damn high. It makes traversing one a high stress
| situation since you have no idea if grandpa grunt and run
| in to you is about to perform a confusion based terror
| attack on the traffic control device.
| snarf21 wrote:
| Space/land; you have to displace and buy the four corner
| properties ( _at least_ ) to put one in.
| wffurr wrote:
| Come to Massachusetts, we have a lot of roundabouts and even a
| few old style two lane rotaries.
| toast0 wrote:
| A perpendicular intersection uses way less area than a
| roundabout. That's the basic reason.
|
| Roundabouts have better throughput than a busy 4-way stop, but
| less throughput than a signaled intersection if the timing and
| sensing is reasonable (many signaled intersections don't have
| reasonable sensing). Roundabouts also have some pretty nasty
| worst case wait times; I'm really not looking forward to the
| state installing one near me on the approach to a car ferry; it
| won't be fun to wait for 200 cars to go by before you get a
| turn to go, and I expect long ferry lines to result in
| impatient people in the ferry line blocking the roundabout.
| Sometimes there's two hours between ferry loadings. Going to be
| some fun times.
|
| Personally, I find it challenging to both look ahead to the
| right to confirm I have room to enter the roundabout, look to
| the left to confirm there is no traffic that I need to wait
| for, as well as looking far left and right to ensure there are
| no pedestrians crossing soon. Signaled 4-way perpendicular
| intersections have worse outcomes when a participant doesn't
| follow the signalling, but indication of right of way makes it
| easier to confirm at a glance if it's safe to proceed.
| mchusma wrote:
| Red light running is bad...but I think the solution to this
| problem at this point is just "self driving cars". With some
| exceptions, I would just focus all jurisdictions on this future
| and avoid policy inline with a world full of self driving cars.
| Currently in the US, most places feel like you need a car, and
| many US laws are designed with this in mind. In 5 years, this
| will no longer be true, so laws should reflect:
|
| 1. No parking minimums 2. Less free parking (e.g. street parking)
| 3. Policy supportive of self driving cars 4. More aggressive
| removal of driver licenses for human drivers with repeat
| violations 5. More aggressive penalties for driving without a
| license.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| Most people like to drive and don't share your views, and it
| will be that way in five years too.
| triceratops wrote:
| I like to drive. I support taking asshole drivers' licenses.
| They ruin my driving experience.
| ayaros wrote:
| Florida did something good for once?
| spullara wrote:
| It seems like the law was poorly written. If it is civil,
| automated speeding tickets and red light tickets should be just
| added to the registration cost. If it is criminal, you definitely
| need to identify the person in order to prove they are guilty.
| arjie wrote:
| One thing that seems reasonable is to have car points and driver
| points. In the event of violations, both the vehicle and the
| driver are assigned points depending on detection. Then after a
| certain number of points, the vehicle is impounded with the owner
| able to have it stored at an appropriately licensed facility of
| their choice that ensures that the vehicle cannot be driven on
| public roads.
|
| Reporting vehicle theft etc. can provide immunity from points on
| the car.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| That seems extremely unreasonable, cops can prove who was
| driving at the time of the violation or they can not bring a
| case. If I lend my car to someone and they break the law, it's
| not the car's fault.
|
| I'm glad my state found these unconstitutional as well.
| arjie wrote:
| Well, objects used in the commission of a crime are
| frequently confiscated. That's not outrageous. If I lend
| someone my gun and they rob a bank, I will likely not get my
| gun back though "it's not the gun's fault". Automated
| machinery has the advantage that it is impartial and
| effective, and given that law enforcement costs a lot in
| these circumstances, and that chasing cars for small
| enforcement violations creates worse outcomes, it seems
| thoroughly reasonable to apply the crime to the detectable
| object.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Yep. Cars are horrifically dangerous and we treat them like
| toys. It's part of driver culture in the US and why we'll
| never design for public transportation.
| vaadu wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VinCGmdj-jQ He's a lawyer and
| describes it in excellent detail.
|
| One side issues the judge brought up is that no points go on the
| driver's record with a red light camera offense. The entire point
| of the points system is to get bad drivers off the road. But
| people can have numerous red light infractions and still keep
| their license.
| SilverElfin wrote:
| Great. Ban speed cameras next. They're just performative
| safetyism used as revenue sources or by activists on an anti car
| quest. But I actually suspect all of this will somehow be twisted
| into something neither side expects, which is mass surveillance
| and tech grift.
| octernion wrote:
| nah thankfully we are expanding speed cameras as they are
| proven to work (at least where i live in the bay area), unlike
| whatever right wing fantasy world you live in which they don't.
| good luck with your delulu world though
| SilverElfin wrote:
| They're only proven to unnecessarily slow the flow of traffic
| and create inconvenience for the majority of people, and
| revenue for mismanaged local governments. That's not a right
| wing thing, it's just reality. Not to mention I'm not sure
| how you're drawing this weird political association here in
| the first place.
| credit_guy wrote:
| I know this is not related to the legal merits of the case being
| discussed, but who runs a red light? In my experience, this is an
| infarction that occurs very infrequently. Speeding or illegal
| parking happen all the time, but running a red light? Most people
| are not suicidal.
|
| Edit: Nevermind, I think crossing on yellow and catching a tenth
| of a second of red counts as running a red light. If it does,
| it's something I did myself a few times (of course, all in the
| distant past, the statute of limitations has pased now ...)
| Glyptodon wrote:
| Where I live people run them routinely to make left turns. The
| light timing and spacing are bad, so at some intersections
| people will keep turning left long past the turn red. There are
| also several intersections where people cross but get stuck in
| the middle because another light has to change for traffic to
| move.
| loeg wrote:
| The worst drivers do it a lot more than good drivers.
| kamarg wrote:
| Where I live, it's common to see at least one person run a red
| at every major intersection and not just for left turns that
| couldn't be made due to cross-traffic. Quite often these
| drivers have expired temp tags which means they don't have
| insurance because you have to show you registered your vehicle
| to get insurance. Enforcement is awful so people have been
| trained to realize there's virtually no consequences to their
| bad habits. And if they do cause an accident, well it's not
| like the police will show up in time to stop them from driving
| off.
|
| In fact, it's so bad that parts of the metro are reinstating
| red light cameras this year despite having decommissioned them
| years ago for similar legal reasons as what Florida has run
| into.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >drivers have expired temp tags
|
| Then the state needs to start doing immediate impoundment of
| these vehicles. Add on massive fines before release of the
| car for repeat offenders and you'll see this dry up pretty
| quick.
| kamarg wrote:
| The city supposedly did an enforcement weekend on it last
| year. It was so ineffective that the state actually changed
| registration laws so that you pay the sales tax when you
| purchase a car at the dealership and then you get your
| plate in the mail. That doesn't go into effect until late
| this year and I won't be surprised if it gets pushed back
| before then.
| wffurr wrote:
| Running reds is a favorite pastime of Boston area drivers.
| Enter just after the yellow and buzz the pedestrians waiting,
| lurk in the middle of the road and make a left turn once
| oncoming traffic is stopped for the red, or just blow it for
| the hell of it.
| BrandonM wrote:
| > lurk in the middle of the road and make a left turn once
| oncoming traffic is stopped for the red
|
| In the jurisdictions I'm familiar with, this is the proper
| way to make a left-hand turn. Many intersections are designed
| such that this is the only realistic way to ever turn left
| (high traffic, no left arrow).
|
| Most red light rules are written against entering the
| intersection on red. If you're already in the intersection,
| you're allowed to safely proceed through and out of the
| intersection on red. That can be challenging, of course, if
| oncoming traffic is running the red light.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Depending on where you live it is very common. In chicago when
| they installed the cameras they lowered the yellow duration to
| like half a second so people were constantly running them for a
| while. Then running yellows became normalized, and just
| ignoring lights from bikers which drivers noticed, and now when
| traffic is low its not uncommon to see people just treat lights
| as stop signs if they think no one is coming.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Yep, the states acted like aunts to get more money and have
| made the whole system more unsafe for everyone.
|
| Anyone involved in those yellow light lowering schemes should
| have been criminally charged.
| stetrain wrote:
| Fairly common for me to see my light turn green and 2-3 more
| cars continue turning left in front of me through a red light.
| And not just yellow-light clippers, but cars that would have
| fully entered the intersection under a red light.
|
| I'm actually all for impartial enforcement of traffic rules via
| camera systems, but there are problems that need to be solved.
|
| - There need to be standards for evidence required to assign an
| infraction to a driver.
|
| - There need to be standards for setting yellow light durations
| to avoid municipalities reducing them to increase revenue
|
| - There needs to be protection against municipalities
| outsourcing the whole project to a private entity where there
| is a combined financial incentive from the private entity and
| the municipality to issue more tickets without adequate
| oversight.
|
| My town implemented red light cameras around 15 years ago and
| then took them back out. Locals noticed shortened yellow
| lights, and there were multiple issues found with how the
| private operator issued the tickets and with their contract
| with the municipality.
| neutronicus wrote:
| I live in Baltimore and straight-up running of reds is pretty
| common here.
|
| You can often do it pretty safely - stopped at a light with
| good visibility to see that there is no cross traffic. But also
| some people are just insane and blast through lights at 45
| without stopping.
|
| Cops haven't cared to enforce it for going on a decade.
| xeromal wrote:
| This is a silly example but in Los Angeles, there are hardly
| any protected left hand turns so the standard behavior is to
| wait for the light to turn red and two cars proceed before the
| next traffic group continues. Police even do this.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| San Francisco also has a good number of unprotected left
| turns. Cities are just asking for trouble.
| interestpiqued wrote:
| I mean I've run red lights but only because I live in a city
| and there are times where it would be impossible to turn left
| due to oncoming traffic. So you poke your nose out a bit so the
| other directions see you and turn when incoming stops but
| before new directions start.
| fckgw wrote:
| The vast majority of red light tickets are people not coming to
| a complete stop behind the line on right turns on red.
| shevy-java wrote:
| Interesting - the constitution protects people for so many years
| now.
| fusslo wrote:
| After reading the 21 page order, I do tend to agree with the
| judge
|
| The judge frames the red light camera scheme as a revenue
| generating scheme, not a public safety measure.
|
| Additionally, "A distinctive feature of the statutory scheme is
| its assignment of guilt to the registered owner rather than the
| driver of the vehicle". and "If there are multiple registered
| owners, the citation is issued to the 'first' registered
| 'owner'". and the person whom the citation was issued to must
| sign an affidavit that includes the name, address, dob, of the
| person who was actually driving. The judge says this
| "...abandon(s) centuries time honored protections of hearsay as
| substantive evidence.".
|
| "It is a foundational rule of constitutional due process that the
| government must prove every fact necessary to constitute an
| offense beyond a reasonable doubt before a person may be
| adjudicated guilty of a crime".
|
| "Although nominally civil, traffic infraction proceedings retain
| every substantive hallmark of criminal prosecution..." "under
| Feiock, such proceedings are sufficiently criminal in form and
| function to invoke the full protections of due process..." -
| that's probably the core of the reasoning here.
|
| "Section 316.074(1) provides in relevant part that "The driver of
| any vehicle shall obey..."" - the driver, not the registered
| owner.
|
| I highly recommend reading the order. It's easy to follow and
| aligns with my understanding of the law within the USA.
| moduspol wrote:
| Doesn't the same logic apply to parking tickets?
| Tactical45 wrote:
| And speed light cameras
| atomicUpdate wrote:
| What is a speed light camera?
| causal wrote:
| No. Parking is leaving your possession somewhere and should
| apply to the registered owner. It is not illegal to own a car
| that someone else used to run a red light.
| spunker540 wrote:
| No. Running a red light is when your possession crosses an
| intersection while the light is red, and should apply to
| the registered owner.
| Muromec wrote:
| Or is it?
| interestpiqued wrote:
| If I lend a neighbor my kitchen knife and they murder
| someone with it, should I be liable?
| vkou wrote:
| When subpoenaed, you'd be obligated to tell the court who
| you gave the knife to.
|
| But if you'd like to tell the fall, I'm sure some
| prosecutors wouldn't dig too hard to find the guilty
| party.
| interestpiqued wrote:
| It seems in this case they're not asking, they're
| accusing and saying I need to prove otherwise. I think
| that is substantively different
|
| Edit: subpoena is not a criminal charge afaik is what I'm
| saying
| gus_massa wrote:
| 3 year before the murder: You are probably fine, IANAL
|
| 10 minutes before the murder: Expect to get an accusation
| of accessory to murder, conspiracy to murder and a few
| additional tomes of the penal code. We all know you are
| innocent, but you should better find a good lawyer just
| in case instead of wasting your last free minutes arguing
| on the internet.
| moduspol wrote:
| I didn't leave my possession. I just owned a car that
| someone else left.
| hxorr wrote:
| But is it illegal to own a car that someone else parked in
| the wrong pkace?
| vkou wrote:
| If someone used the car without permission, they are guilty
| of theft.
|
| If they used the car with your permission, you should
| either be responsible for what they do with it, or be able
| to point to the person who was using it.
| degamad wrote:
| > If someone used the car without permission, they are
| guilty of theft.
|
| Sure, but I still don't know who they are, so I can't
| give their name over for either investigating the theft
| or reassigning the speeding/red light/parking fine.
| zoky wrote:
| Except that requiring you to testify in order to absolve
| yourself of guilt violates your Fifth Amendment right not
| to testify in a trial against you. It is up to the
| government to prove you did something, not up to you to
| prove you didn't.
| vkou wrote:
| You can not testify all you want, but you should still be
| on the hook for your vehicle getting tickets, just like
| you are on the hook for your vehicle accruing toll fees.
|
| If your car was magically stolen and returned, and you
| have no idea that it happened, or who could have done
| this... Well, that's certainly an interesting legal
| argument that you could make to a judge. I doubt he'll
| believe you.
| wifipunk wrote:
| Almost, except parking tickets are still typically civil
| "owner-liability" citations tied to where the car is parked,
| while red-light violations are intended to target the
| driver's conduct
| horsawlarway wrote:
| possibly, although I suspect the quote from above:
|
| > Although nominally civil, traffic infraction proceedings
| retain every substantive hallmark of criminal prosecution...
|
| Is going to matter here. A moving violation (ex: red light)
| is quite different from a non-moving violation (ex: parking)
| in how they're handled, and often how they're classified.
|
| Ex - my in state, a moving violation is a criminal
| misdemeanor, while a non-moving violation is entirely civil.
| devman0 wrote:
| Idk how Florida handles it but several states citations
| issued by red light cameras and those issued by officers
| are handled entirely differently for the exact reason you
| mention. Camera citations are entirely civil, you don't get
| points against your license. If a cop issues the ticket it
| does become a misdemeanor moving violation.
| bdangubic wrote:
| there is no state where a moving violation is criminal
| misdemeanor. _some_ moving violations may be CM but there
| are myriad of moving violations whose class /degree is not
| CM. CM is serious class/degree that if you are charged with
| it you better get yourself an attorney.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| That quote is from the judge's decision: he considers
| that moving violations are quasi-criminal proceedings,
| and as such, that the protections for criminal
| prosecution apply, unlike in purely civil cases.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Where is the line drawn for criminal vs civil in nature?
|
| It feels like any civil case brought against an
| individual by a government is quasi-criminal.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Do parking tickets result in "a formal finding of guilt, and
| consequences tied to a driver's record"?
| otterley wrote:
| No.
| SunshineTheCat wrote:
| I've followed a few cases surrounding traffic cameras that have
| been ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that individuals
| have the right to face their accuser.
|
| The question in those cases came down to if the operators of
| the cam can be considered "accusers."
|
| They widely considered that of course the cam itself didn't
| count as an accuser, but the question was how "automated" the
| system was. If there was a human who flagged it, the system was
| fine, if it was fully automated, they were unconstitutional.
|
| Many states don't share this opinion, but an interesting
| argument nonetheless.
| burningChrome wrote:
| They started putting them up in the midwest where I live. The
| interesting thing is if you get a ticket and just pay it?
| Nothing. If you get a ticket and you challenge it, the judge
| will immediately throw it out for the reason you pointed out
| or just dismiss it before it even gets to court by sending
| out a form letter saying they nullified the ticket, no reason
| to pay it.
|
| So in essence, if you know this is what they're doing, you're
| good. But they're not telling people so the money grift
| continues unabated and in place.
| giantg2 wrote:
| So if it's established as unconstitutional, couldn't you
| file a criminal complaint of official oppression against
| the members of whatever government approved the cameras
| since they are levying unconstitutional fines?
| jcranmer wrote:
| As an individual and not the government, you can't file a
| criminal action.
|
| You could file a civil action for violation of
| constitutional rights, but under Roberts, SCOTUS has
| basically been ripping out all of the mechanisms that
| would let you file such suits.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "As an individual and not the government, you can't file
| a criminal action."
|
| You can file with the police, if they take it. You can
| also file as a private criminal complaint in many
| jurisdictions. However, it's up to the DA to approve it
| most of the time. There can be an appeal process where a
| judge would make a determination.
|
| But yes, if the whole system is corrupt, then there's not
| much to do.
| empressplay wrote:
| If they invalidate every contested fine nobody has any
| standing to make a legal complaint.
| giantg2 wrote:
| They're only invalidating it if you fight it. The people
| who paid it and later realized it was unconstitutional
| may have standing.
| filoleg wrote:
| I don't have much meaningful info to contribute to this,
| but it is interesting to observe how the rollout of the red
| light cams happens in different places, and how it
| eventually turns out.
|
| IIRC there was a point in time roughly around ~2017 when it
| happened in Redmond WA (i.e., in the town that the
| Microsoft HQ is in). I might be off by a year or two, but
| it doesn't really change the overall point.
|
| TLDR: in under 2 years, that whole red light cam initiative
| got canceled and reverted, because the local stats showed
| that it just made things more dangerous on the roads (by
| significantly increasing the rate of rear-ending accidents
| at traffic lights).
| qingcharles wrote:
| Couldn't you say the same of drug testing spectrometers etc?
| The end operator of the equipment has to appear in court to
| testify to the proper operation of the machine. [0]
|
| [0] Unless the defendant waives that right and stipulates to
| the prosecutor's statement about the machine.
| tootie wrote:
| As someone who lives next to an intersection where cars
| routinely run red lights, this truly sucks and I hope it gets
| overturned. I understand the judge's reasoning, but running red
| lights is dangerous and we need much stricter enforcement.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I people are routinely running a red for a particular
| intersection, it seems likely that there is a design problem
| with the intersection or the signaling. Improving safety
| would be fixing the underlying problem.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| It's actually pretty common for some people to just run red
| lights when the road is really clear, especially at night.
| Best that could maybe be done would be to reduce visibility
| of cross traffic, so that the drivers can't tell from afar
| that the road they'll cross is clear - but this is likely
| to cause other kinds of risks.
| tootie wrote:
| They do it when the road is busiest actually. Just
| following the bumper in front of them instead of looking
| up.
| toast0 wrote:
| If people routinely run the red light, it seems like an easy
| case to post an officer to do traffic stops and issue
| tickets. AFAIK, tickets issued by a sworn officer are broadly
| constitutional.
| tootie wrote:
| There's a literal police station at the intersection and
| they don't pay any attention at all.
| otterley wrote:
| Are you bringing attention to this matter at your city
| council meetings? The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
| hamdingers wrote:
| California's new speed camera pilot (AB 645) explicitly solves
| for this.
|
| Tickets issued by these cameras are civil penalties issued to
| the owner of the vehicle, like parking tickets, rather than a
| criminal moving violation. This means the tickets are just as
| constitutional as parking tickets. It also means penalties are
| limited to fines and can't impact your driving privilege or
| insurance.
|
| Hopefully other states can follow this pattern. Consistent,
| low-impact enforcement is better at preventing unwanted
| behavior than the rare and severe but also capricious
| enforcement performed by human police.
| danesparza wrote:
| "It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't
| impact your driving privilege or insurance."
|
| Wow! So if you have enough money, it's cool to run as many
| red lights as you want?
| vkou wrote:
| What's the alternative? No rules at all? Immediate death
| penalty for anyone who runs a red in front of a cop?
| Seizing and auctioning off the car? Deporting the offender
| to Texas? Something else? Revoke their license?
| hamdingers wrote:
| I understand your criticism and it is fair, but this
| represents and improvement over the current state which is
| effectively no enforcement.
|
| They're speed cameras, not red light cameras, and the
| revenues go towards street improvements to reduce speeding.
| So you could speed as much as you can afford, but
| eventually you'll have bought enough traffic calming
| infrastructure it'll be prohibitively difficult to keep
| getting tickets.
| pfdietz wrote:
| Constitutional protections aren't trumped by mere issues of
| governmental convenience.
| hinkley wrote:
| These systems are still often too expensive to operate
| safely. Over and over again these systems have been seen as
| needing to break even rather than being treated as a public
| service. But if they actually work then incidence of red
| light violations should go down, and hopefully substantially.
| So whatever fines you expect to receive in the first months
| before drivers adapt are more revenue than you should see at
| one year or more.
|
| So when you start worrying about it as a cost center, then
| there is a perverse incentive to do things like shorten
| yellow lights. Short yellows have been proven to create more
| vehicular fatalities than people running red lights
| intentionally. And so the person who makes that decision to
| shorten yellows to boost tickets is effectively committing
| murder to keep the system "working". Which is disgusting.
| Ghoulish, even.
|
| It is literally better in such situations to simply dismantle
| the system than keep it running.
| hamdingers wrote:
| They are speed cameras, not red light cameras.
|
| That said, the bill addresses this category of abuse
| directly: if a speed camera fails to reduce 85th percentile
| speeds or violation volumes within 18 months it must be
| removed.
|
| There are also substantial limits on how the revenues can
| be spent. If you are interested in this topic it's worth a
| read: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClien
| t.xhtml...
| hinkley wrote:
| Good call. I consider the precedent set here to apply
| equally to both cases, and the stop light cases tend to
| be much more egregious, as I've telegraphed in my top-
| level comment.
| ggiigg wrote:
| Yea, that would be great then I can completely ignore them as
| I am not poor.
|
| It just turns speeding into something you can buy.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| While I agree with your sarcasm, this proposal is a least
| bad scenario: no enforcement is worse as there's less
| incentive to respect the lights.
|
| Sadly money and power buying freedom of law isn't
| restricted to road rules.
| ggiigg wrote:
| I would argue such enforcement does not need automation
| and such automation is often for revenue generation vs
| saftey focused.
|
| Also, I am a bit biased here after working at flock.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| Is there a non-automatic light enforcement other than
| placing a policemen at every light - which makes the
| light useless?
|
| Revenu generation is a bonus point: in my country taxes
| that incentive smokers to quit are directed to healthcare
| and most of the speeding tickets revenue goes to road
| maintenance and safety.
|
| I'd prefer a public handling but the trend is
| privatization with everything : from health to education
| to water treatment. Even military assets! IMHO red light
| tickets enforcement is as much important.
| bsder wrote:
| > While I agree with your sarcasm, this proposal is a
| least bad scenario: no enforcement is worse as there's
| less incentive to respect the lights.
|
| I disagree. This is acknowledging that these are revenue
| products rather than safety enhancement.
|
| If you want safety enforcement, _put a damn cop there_.
| It _WILL_ work. This isn 't hard. People are creatures of
| habit and you don't need to adjust the behavior of very
| many of them to make the whole group change.
|
| If you don't want to put a cop there, you don't want
| safety enforcement.
| sejje wrote:
| Well, it's red-light running. But I don't think even rich
| people will just breeze through every red and pay the
| fines; it'll add up quickly.
| ggiigg wrote:
| Yea, I think the chance of death will encourage them not
| to run every red light making mass surveillance
| unnecessary. The money is a noop for the rich in thus
| case.
| sowbug wrote:
| _Consistent, low-impact enforcement is better at preventing
| unwanted behavior than the rare and severe but also
| capricious enforcement performed by human police._
|
| It can also give permission for unwanted behavior. Cf. the
| Haifa study, where the rate of late pickups increased when
| daycares added a fine. One explanation is the fine turned a
| complex moral obligation into an ordinary financial
| transaction.
| gus_massa wrote:
| As the great patio11 said:
|
| > _Raise the prices. Then raise the prices. Then when you
| 're done with that, raise the prices._
| hamdingers wrote:
| Sure. Then the bill requires that all those fines you pay
| go towards street calming infrastructure, eventually making
| it physically impossible (or at least very uncomfortable)
| for you to continue speeding.
|
| Kind of like if enough parents paid the late pickup fee,
| eventually the daycare could afford a van for dropoffs.
| senordevnyc wrote:
| It seems like this rarely happens. The fines become
| another stream of income, and reliance on that income
| kills any incentive to fully eliminate the behavior the
| fines are ostensibly meant to discourage.
| hamdingers wrote:
| Given the many restrictions on how the income can be used
| in this bill, I find it unlikely that will apply here.
| Feel free to check back in at the end of the pilot.
| deepsun wrote:
| Haifa study result was only possible with small enough
| fines. Larger fines would solve that easily.
| jaredklewis wrote:
| The Haifa daycare study can't be used to extrapolate much.
|
| They fined parents (IIRC) ~$3 per late pickup. Rerun the
| study with a $300 fine and let's see how it pans out. It's
| an interesting finding, but that then people take it to
| mean that fines don't work (no matter their size) is
| insane.
| sejje wrote:
| I worked in childcare about 20 years ago, and we charged
| $1 per minute late.
|
| We had to keep two staff there, and they would split the
| fine.
|
| Many times we got stiffed.
|
| Edit: for reference, our fee was about $14/day to keep
| the kid, so it was a pretty stiff penalty.
| gambiting wrote:
| I mean as a much greater "study", look at the UK -
| government introduced fines for parents of kids missing
| school, and the rate of absenced _increased_ - because
| parents see it more as a cost that you just have to pay
| to go on holiday during school year.
| vrosas wrote:
| My daycare fines parents $5 _per minute_ of lateness.
| jakobobobo wrote:
| A $3 fine is a good portion of someone's disposable
| income and a $300 fine is not much of someone else's.. A
| civil penalty of that nature almost guarantees some part
| of the population will view it like the $3 fee.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| This is exactly why license points (leading to
| suspension) are better than fines.
|
| If the ticketing decision made by an automated camera
| system is deemed acceptable when issuing mere fines akin
| to parking tickets, but deemed unacceptable when issuing
| other penalties (which don't have this wealth inequity
| issue we are discussing now, at least not exclusively),
| that's effectively a poor tax.
| sejje wrote:
| Hopefully other states don't follow this pattern; I don't
| think the government should be installing surveillance
| arrays, even if it's "for the children" or public safety.
|
| Trading a little liberty for a little safety and all that.
| XorNot wrote:
| Is only said by those days intending to provide neither?
|
| Is said in place of using actual arguments or evidence?
| Larrikin wrote:
| The problem is ever since COVID the cops don't do their job
| and everyone drives terribly.
| estimator7292 wrote:
| Cameras aren't going to solve that.
|
| The "problem" being solved with cameras is "cops aren't
| generating enough traffic ticket revenue"
| infecto wrote:
| Would it not? I actually don't think I would mind
| speeding cameras and the like. Put a camera on every
| street and auto ticket every car.
| sejje wrote:
| I have noticed a severe uptick in bad semi-truck drivers
| on the interstate since COVID, I'll agree at least with
| that part.
|
| The local cops here have always just run plates for
| stolen vehicles. Getting a ticket is almost unheard of. I
| don't know what their deal is, but you can speed right
| past them in the other lane, or if they're just parked on
| the corner.
|
| I'm guessing you still can't pass them on a two-lane road
| without poking their ego.
| SteveNuts wrote:
| I am constantly amazed at how many people blatantly run
| red lights now. It used to be that people would sometimes
| press their luck on a yellow a little bit, but now it'll
| be red for several seconds and people will still just
| drive right on through.
|
| I'd _love_ if the police enforced this insanely dangerous
| behavior instead of trying to catch people going 10 over
| on the highway.
| infecto wrote:
| Maybe it exists but I wish there was more heavy hitting
| articles/research on this. I feel like an absolute grumpy
| old man but it feels drastically different compared to my
| younger years driving and I am only 40. These days I
| rarely see police on the side of the road ticketing and
| when I do it's usually on a highway. Never do I see
| people getting pulled over in city streets.
|
| My thesis has been an uptick on BS calls. Said
| differently the bad neighborhoods have gotten worse and
| funding for police is mismanaged.
| hamdingers wrote:
| These cameras are by definition still cameras triggered by
| radar or laser systems, they're inactive unless a speeding
| vehicle is present. Hardly the surveillance array you're
| imagining.
| sejje wrote:
| Well, they're putting up the flock cameras, too. We have
| four in a local small town.
|
| But I'm guessing you are only correct sometimes. I bet
| some of them can be live-viewed, or track license plates.
| observationist wrote:
| Or maybe not have automated surveillance robonannies playing
| gotcha games and pocketing money, often impacting those who
| can least afford it, over technicalities and arbitrary rules
| made up to benefit the people doing the collecting.
|
| The idea that AI enforcement won't be just as corrupt and
| capricious as any other form of government run extortion is
| bonkers. You're talking systems with less oversight than
| openclaw being run by people whose entire goal is to make as
| much money as possible, no matter the source. Private,
| unaccountable companies with effectively no oversight with
| the legal right to send you invoices for things you might or
| might not have done, and the cost for disputing it might well
| exceed the cost of just paying it and getting it over with.
|
| Why are Californians so hellbent on giving their money to the
| government, given the absolute shitshow that is their budget
| and track record? The only good things that have happened in
| California for decades comes out of private enterprise, but
| all the crazy nonsense is fostered and maintained, apparently
| quite vigorously, by elected governments.
|
| I'm furious that 10% of my federal income taxes end up going
| to California's bullshit, I can't imagine what it would be
| like having to live there.
|
| Seriously, it's bordering on levels of insanity right up
| there with thinking that Jefferey Epstein would make a great
| babysitter. Do people just not pay attention? Does the
| weather just make everyone complacent and docile?
|
| Speed cams and automated gotchas allowing the government to
| raid your pocketbook are a bad thing. There's no framing or
| circumstances where that's good.
| maxerickson wrote:
| _I 'm furious that 10% of my federal income taxes end up
| going to California's bullshit, I can't imagine what it
| would be like having to live there._
|
| Your taxes getting evenly distributed is one way to look at
| it. Another way to look at it is that removing California
| from the US would either increase your taxes or require
| reductions in federal spending.
| YokoZar wrote:
| Yes, California has long been a "donor state", ie one
| that pays substantially more federal tax revenue than
| gets spent there. This shouldn't be too surprising as
| it's much richer than average and the tax system is
| approximately progressive.
| observationist wrote:
| Removing California's corruption, ineptitude, and fraud
| would eliminate any problems I have with my tax dollars
| being sent that way.
| maxerickson wrote:
| Well that's my point. "sent that way" is not entirely
| fair. Your state is spending California tax dollars, or
| so, not the other way around.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> The idea that AI enforcement won 't be just as corrupt
| and capricious as any other form of government run
| extortion is bonkers. [...] Private, unaccountable
| companies with effectively no oversight_
|
| In the specific case this thread is about - that of red
| light cameras - presumably the camera produces a photograph
| showing a red light, a vehicle going through it, and the
| vehicle's license plate. Plus a video, showing the light
| was orange for the legally required amount of time, and
| showing the absence of any exceptional circumstances (e.g.
| ambulances).
|
| As law enforcement goes, that really seems like the least
| capricious, highest oversight law enforcement I can
| imagine.
| cucumber3732842 wrote:
| >Tickets issued by these cameras are civil penalties issued
| to the owner of the vehicle, like parking tickets, rather
| than a criminal moving violation. This means the tickets are
| just as constitutional as parking tickets. It also means
| penalties are limited to fines and can't impact your driving
| privilege or insurance.
|
| So what does this say about the legitimacy of having those
| fines affect your license and insurance when issues by a real
| flesh and blood cop?
|
| Sounds to me like that by default they shouldn't be affecting
| squat because there's an implicit "the cops will mostly only
| pull people over if it's unconscionably bad" filter going on.
| YokoZar wrote:
| Why can't they impact insurance? Are CA insurance companies
| prohibited from using non-criminal information when deciding
| who to cover or set rates?
|
| Given that they insure cars more than drivers, it seems kinda
| reasonable that they be allowed to look at tickets for cars.
| tschwimmer wrote:
| >It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't
| impact your driving privilege or insurance.
|
| If this is the case, what are the consequences of not paying
| the fine? I interpret your statement to mean that they can't
| prevent registration of your car. Can they tow you in SF for
| unpaid fines?
| htx80nerd wrote:
| >"The judge frames the red light camera scheme as a revenue
| generating scheme, not a public safety measure."
|
| In my own experience, when they took down the red light cameras
| in my area now people are not afraid to run red lights ~2 to ~3
| seconds after it's red. See this kind of thing on a regular
| basis. Every now and then there's a serious accident.
| giantg2 wrote:
| The objective evidence indicates that accidents tend to go up
| _after_ red light cameras go up, generally because the
| operators lower the yellow light time to increase fees.
| advisedwang wrote:
| Neither of you share any references for the objective facts
| you claim to be stating. At least link an article or a
| study.
| kshacker wrote:
| can this not be regulated? yellow light timing must not
| have changed for the last 12 months before adding cameras
| giantg2 wrote:
| Better to set it using a standard such as 1 second per
| 10mph of speed limit.
| hamdingers wrote:
| The objective evidence shows an increase in rear-end
| crashes but a reduction in injury and fatal crashes,
| offering a net overall benefit.
|
| Council et al., 2005 -- https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publicatio
| ns/research/safety/05048/...
| giantg2 wrote:
| This states that there are many variables they were not
| able to control for, such as the yellow light timing, as
| I previously mentioned. Warning signs were another major
| factor. There doesn't appear to be enough investigation
| into the protected left issue.
|
| This is pretty damning, in my opinion. AKA we did some
| cheap analysis on a small dataset, without confidence or
| effect size, and just agree with the people running the
| programs.
|
| "The intent of the multivariate regression analysis was
| to confirm the direction of the effect, not to establish
| effects with statistical significance or to assess the
| size of the effect. To undertake analyses for these purer
| purposes would have required a substantially larger
| database, much more precision in the estimate of economic
| effect at each site, and more accurate specification and
| measurement of the independent variables. For the
| purposes of this current investigation, it suffices that
| both the univariate and multivariate analyses are
| reasonably in accord with the perceptions that are
| commonly held by those involved in red-light-camera
| programs."
| advisedwang wrote:
| A speeding ticket is not a criminal charge. Criminal procedure
| and the rights for criminal defendants don't apply.
|
| The court says that criminal rules should apply because points
| are at stake, while civil penalties are usually restricted to
| fines, but I don't buy that argument. We have plenty of non-
| money civil remedies. Code enforcement departments can require
| changes to property. Family courts can make all kinds of
| requirements. It's not outside of constitutional bounds for a
| traffic rule to result in forfeiting a license without criminal
| proceedings.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "under Feiock, such proceedings are sufficiently criminal in
| form and function to invoke the full protections of due
| process..."
|
| This makes me question many existing civil things. Obviously
| child support, as in the case law. But also, things like red
| flag laws. It seems like any civil law that would apply
| criminal-type contemt penalties is unconstitutional.
| triceratops wrote:
| Red light camera fines, like all sin taxes, should be made
| revenue neutral.
| Drunk_Engineer wrote:
| By that you mean the fines should be made much higher, right?
| Because traffic crashes have a huge economic cost.
| triceratops wrote:
| Set the fines to any level, it doesn't matter.
|
| I only mean that all revenues collected from the fines must
| be distributed to the public at large. They must _never_ be
| treated as a revenue source for the government.
|
| Sin taxes are meant to reduce bad behavior - or incentivize
| good behavior. Ideally you'd collect $0 in red-light fines
| because everyone's following the law. If some politician's
| budget or private company's revenue stream depends on traffic
| fines they have adverse incentives. I don't want my city
| council member voting against traffic safety initiatives
| because it makes people better drivers and that means less
| money for some other city program.
| advisedwang wrote:
| Where does the fine money go? Building more red-light cameras?
| triceratops wrote:
| Back to taxpayers. Subtract only the cost of installing and
| maintaining the cameras and aggressively audit that annually.
| Cut everyone a check at the end of the year. Buy each
| household a pony. Have a _really_ good 4th of July fireworks
| display. It doesn 't matter, as long as the government can't
| spend it for any government program. (And actually the pony
| and fireworks programs might be susceptible to corruption -
| just send a check)
|
| Or in the case of a private company contracted to run the
| cameras, _don 't give a private company a contract to run the
| cameras._ At least not a contract where they get paid in
| proportion to the fines collected.
|
| No one should profit off bad behavior. No government
| program's funding should have to depend on people driving
| badly.
| limagnolia wrote:
| It should be noted that red light cameras were NOT found
| unconstitutional as a thing, BUT Florida (and many other states)
| implementation of them was. And I think the judge used very good,
| solid reasoning.
| devy wrote:
| NYC government has thought about the legality of red light
| cameras. What they made it legal is to have human law enforcement
| officers review ever single computer flagged speeding footages
| with zoom out license plates, putting enforcement officer's
| signature into the tickets mailed out. In the same ticket they
| also provided a signed affidavit from the red light camera
| technology vendor's technician who performs weekly technical
| maintenance to certify that the red light camera is functional
| proper at the designed technical specifications (violation speed
| was far exceeds the margin of errors of reported speed etc.)
| Thus, both signatures satisfied the legal due process in NY state
| law. And the red light camera tickets mailing out are legal and
| enforceable.
|
| Sources:
|
| 1. yes I got them before when I was driving a lot in Queens, New
| York City had legal counsel regarding fighting these red light
| camera tickets.
|
| 2. NYC government is quadrupling those cameras as it's a really
| cheap way to increase municipal revenue and reduce traffic speed.
| It's working if you drive in Queens NYC you will notice most
| traffic obey to the speed limits.
| https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/1q8fm89/nyc_to_quadrup...
| ecshafer wrote:
| > What they made it legal is to have human law enforcement
| officers review ever single computer flagged speeding footages
| with zoom out license plates, putting enforcement officer's
| signature into the tickets mailed out.
|
| Sound like, in typical NYC fashion, its also a great way to pad
| time for the NYPD and get some quid pro quo from their Union.
| kazinator wrote:
| > _" I've been ticketed here twice, and it's ridiculous because
| they it's just not fair," one driver said who didn't want to be
| identified._
|
| Of course they don't want to be identified after blankly
| admitting _they_ were ticketed; i.e. they were the one driving,
| in fact.
|
| Entitled prick: running red lights, and crying "unfair".
|
| > _The person that does the determination when you ran the light,
| it 's just a random. Whoever they want to pick, pick you to say,
| okay, you're gonna pay the ticket."_
|
| Complete nonsense; why is the article even quoting this mouth
| breather?
|
| These cameras work in terms of determining that the given vehicle
| was involved in the alleged violation. There is nothing random
| about it. It's not randomly pinning a drummed up allegation on
| vehicles not involved in a violation. The choice of pinning the
| ticket on the registered owner is also not random.
|
| Typically these systems take at least two shots, moments apart,
| one showing the vehicle not yet in the intersection (whose
| traffic light is clearly red) and then the same vehicle in the
| intersection a split second later, providing evidence that the
| vehicle entered the intersection on a red.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Before getting too excited - note that it's just a County Court
| Judge. So the ruling only applies in one of Florida's 67
| counties.
| jollyllama wrote:
| Stephen Ruth sends his regards.
| aschatten wrote:
| https://www.law.gmu.edu/pubs/papers/ls15_36
| richard_chase wrote:
| I was pulled over for having a non-obstructive frame on my
| license plate. The officer said they interfere with the red light
| cameras. He then presented me with a screwdriver and gave me the
| option of getting a ticket or taking it off. I took the
| screwdriver and he watched me take it off. I lost a freedom due
| to a shitty ml model.
| sejje wrote:
| Time to paint your rear-end chrome.
| NetMageSCW wrote:
| Just put it back on? In my state, that would not be a stoppable
| offense anyway if we had red light cameras (too easy to abuse).
| angry_octet wrote:
| This is a great argument for fines indexed to the price of the
| car, and non-linearly with speed and value and repeated
| occurrences.
|
| Fine = 2 ^v^2 ^n^2 ^p^2
|
| Where v is velocity % higher than the speed limit, n is the
| number of speeding occurrences in the past 12 months, p is the
| normalised price of the vehicle. Obviously these parameters could
| be tweaked.
|
| The result should be that frequent violations cost much more,
| cost is proportional to the increased danger, and rich people
| feel the cost of violations.
| dmix wrote:
| Or they can just hire more police and deter crime with actual
| hard work instead of building a nanny state running social
| experiments based on how nice your car appears.
| Arch-TK wrote:
| The US could be be such an amazing place...
|
| Meanwhile the solution to this problem in the UK is to reaffirm
| that you are in fact guilty by default unless by happenstance you
| are determined not to be by an unfairly chosen panel of blind and
| deaf mice.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-09 23:00 UTC)