Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

cbs12.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 703 posts

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#121

Post by brewdad »

hypeatei wrote: post #31
cromka wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 "... real life does not fit into such neat boxes.

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

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#122

Post by 0x3f »

cromka wrote: post #113
0x3f wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#123

Post by brewdad »

Vaslo wrote: post #80
cromka wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

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

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#124

Post by arjie »

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.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#125

Post by crote »

lateforwork wrote: post #19

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.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#126

Post by SoftTalker »

mikkupikku wrote: post #79
embedding-shape wrote: post #2

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…

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.

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

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#127

Post by quickthrowman »

arjie wrote: post #124

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…

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.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#128

Post by brewdad »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #102
dolni wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#129

Post by crote »

Retric wrote: post #36
1shooner wrote: post #4

>"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…

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.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#130

Post by pclmulqdq »

0x3f wrote: post #91
SoftTalker wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

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.
Post reply on HN