hckrnws

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

My daycare fines parents $5 _per minute_ of lateness.

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.

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.

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.

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.

As the great patio11 said:

> Raise the prices. Then raise the prices. Then when you're done with that, raise the prices.

Haifa study result was only possible with small enough fines. Larger fines would solve that easily.

>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?

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.

The problem is ever since COVID the cops don't do their job and everyone drives terribly.

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.

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.

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.

Cameras aren't going to solve that.

The "problem" being solved with cameras is "cops aren't generating enough traffic ticket revenue"

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.

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.

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.

Is only said by those days intending to provide neither?

Is said in place of using actual arguments or evidence?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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/billNavClient.xhtml...

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

Removing California's corruption, ineptitude, and fraud would eliminate any problems I have with my tax dollars being sent that way.

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.

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.

"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?

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.

Constitutional protections aren't trumped by mere issues of governmental convenience.

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?

>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.

>"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.

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.

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/publications/research/safety/05048/...

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."

Neither of you share any references for the objective facts you claim to be stating. At least link an article or a study.

can this not be regulated? yellow light timing must not have changed for the last 12 months before adding cameras

Better to set it using a standard such as 1 second per 10mph of speed limit.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

"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.

If they invalidate every contested fine nobody has any standing to make a legal complaint.

They're only invalidating it if you fight it. The people who paid it and later realized it was unconstitutional may have standing.

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).

"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.

Doesn't the same logic apply to parking tickets?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I didn't leave my possession. I just owned a car that someone else left.

But is it illegal to own a car that someone else parked in the wrong pkace?

No. Running a red light is when your possession crosses an intersection while the light is red, and should apply to the registered owner.

If I lend a neighbor my kitchen knife and they murder someone with it, should I be liable?

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.

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.

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

Or is it?

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

Do parking tickets result in “a formal finding of guilt, and consequences tied to a driver’s record”?

No.

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

And speed light cameras

What is a speed light camera?

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.

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.

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.

There's a literal police station at the intersection and they don't pay any attention at all.

Are you bringing attention to this matter at your city council meetings? The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

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.

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.

They do it when the road is busiest actually. Just following the bumper in front of them instead of looking up.

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.

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.

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.

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)

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You are correct, which is why that compulsion will be accompanied by immunity.

OK, but then you're testifying under oath and lying, because it was you who did it, after all?

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.

Gotcha.

That's what I'd be afraid of

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.

> 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.

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.

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?

It doesn't apply. The argument was that the red light violation was "quasi-criminal" and the judge agreed with that argument.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

> 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?

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.

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.)

> 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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

Four people in my family drive my car. I'm supposed to track that? sure.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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?

> 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.

I know you'd like it to work that way, but it doesn't in most jurisdictions in the US.

Except no, that is not how it works. People get moving violation tickets, not cars.

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.

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?

> 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...

> 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).

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.".

Yes, and that is likely what will happen based on this ruling too, for parking tickets as well.

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).

The relevant law here is US constitutional law, not Polish nor EU law.

Did I say otherwise?

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)

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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

Even if I know who, why would I ever give that information to the court?

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.

It seems like that is not the case in Florida according to this judge.

it's not true anywhere in america, at the very least.

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.

Because you'll be paying the fine if you don't.

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

The photo will show the driver. Presumably, you recognize your partner and/or your children.

> 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.

> 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

In oral arguments the supreme court uses hypothetical questions with extreme examples to explore the limits and constitutionality of law.

Why shouldn't we?

OK, so now write a law that makes a distinction here. What do you end up with? EU law.

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.

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.

“fully” is optimistic - being a member of the EU means giving up some sovereignty.

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.

> 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?

The US has a comparable per-mile road fatality rate. There's no 'havoc'.

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.

> No, it doesn't! It's 2 to 10 times more!

It's literally not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-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.

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.

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.

You named the two European countries higher than the USA, and ignored the 12 that are lower.

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.

> 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.

Perhaps but seems irrelevant to a discussion that's around the question of policy as it relates to people who are already driving.

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.

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.

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.

How very typical of non-Americans to misrepresent Americans!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

The alternative would be an actual criminal record because you misjudged a yellow light.

>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.

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.)

>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.

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

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.

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.

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.

But the reason for the ruling is that if your teen runs a red, YOU get points on your license.

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?

Is that just?

Yes, vehicle ownership is a level of responsibility, I believe it is just to be accountable for what happens with it.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?

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?

You have one spouse and several children, and all of them have a license and are allowed to use the car?

Your court date will be weeks after receiving the citation in the mail. Most families talk once in a while.

The state is constitutionally unable to force you to testify against yourself because the judge ruled these tickets are quasi criminal

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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.

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.

More states are enacting laws that directly charge the parents in these cases.

example of a very recent case: https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/04/us/colin-gray-verdict-mass-sh...

Seems more like jury nullification than new legislation, in this particular case

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...

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.

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.

Parking tickets don't go on your driving record. They are just a tax on parking improperly.

I thought the same was true of automated red light and speeding tickets too.

No, they are considered moving infractions in many states.

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).

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.

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.

The article title is: "Judge dismisses red-light camera ticket, rules law is unconstitutional"

Which is better than the HN title.

> 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?

>Or just not penalize dangerous infractions?

Perhaps needing to show these are dangerous infractions should come first?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

If you can't tell who was driving, you shouldn't be sending anyone a ticket.

You get a parking ticket regardless of who parked

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.

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...

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.

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...

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!

>"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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

Is this the case where instead of admitting to it, the municipality attempted to have the complainant prosecuted for practicing engineering without a licence?

No, that was Oregon's turn to be Embarrassment of the Week: https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-li...

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).

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.

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.

> 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

... 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

> 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.

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.

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).

Time to paint your rear-end chrome.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Space/land; you have to displace and buy the four corner properties (at least) to put one in.

Come to Massachusetts, we have a lot of roundabouts and even a few old style two lane rotaries.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

https://www.law.gmu.edu/pubs/papers/ls15_36

Red light camera fines, like all sin taxes, should be made revenue neutral.

Where does the fine money go? Building more red-light cameras?

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.

By that you mean the fines should be made much higher, right? Because traffic crashes have a huge economic cost.

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.

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.

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 …)

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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.

The vast majority of red light tickets are people not coming to a complete stop behind the line on right turns on red.

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.

San Francisco also has a good number of unprotected left turns. Cities are just asking for trouble.

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.

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.

> 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.

The worst drivers do it a lot more than good drivers.

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.

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.

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.

Palantir found their next contract for facial recognition. Palatir x Flock collab soon?

> "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.

Stephen Ruth sends his regards.

Here's a novel idea: Let the citizens vote on whether they want red-light cameras or not.

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?

This is going to be the year of refunds from the government.

Florida did something good for once?

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.

just means they will install more cameras to capture driver faces or buy cellphone data

Cellphone data is not sufficient to prove who is operating a vehicle

Interesting - the constitution protects people for so many years now.

[dead]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

Huh? No, you don't stop if it turns yellow, you yield.

> 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.

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.

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?

Why did you break the law, and why do you still break the law when you know you won’t get caught?

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.

> 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.

> 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

> 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.

> 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.

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.

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

Then the camera lets us identify and take reckless drivers off the road.

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.

“all the time”

When was the last person killed by someone running a red light? When was the time before that?

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.

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.

What kind of time and money and opportunity cost would it take to right this wrong?

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.

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.

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?

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.

Most people like to drive and don't share your views, and it will be that way in five years too.

I like to drive. I support taking asshole drivers' licenses. They ruin my driving experience.