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

521–530 of 703 posts

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#521

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

mikrl wrote: post #60
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…

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 c…

I guess the car could require inserting a driver's license in order to start, and then store records of who was driving at what time.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#522

Post by jojobas »

causal wrote: post #222
moduspol wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the same logic apply to parking tickets?

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.

Surely the framing is "we the people allow you to operate this (otherwise illegal) dangerous vehicle on public roads, on the condition that by default you are responsible for whatever transgressions".

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#523

Post by Nursie »

cromka wrote: post #10
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…

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…

> They know the car was yours so, by extension, you should be aware of its whereabouts at any given moment.

People's spouses and kids drive their cars. I've lent cars to friends before. Unless you've got some kind of log book, you might not know (or even remember) who was driving at any given moment or location.

> you need to plausibly explain why was someone operating your car while you were not aware of it.

This is the point of the judgement, under US law it seems that you don't need to plausibly explain anything, the authorities need to be able to show who was driving as the penalty is pseudo-criminal.

> I assume, most/all of EU and the rest of the world.

Under UK law which is much less definite about the state proving who was driving, one must make a good faith effort to identify the driver. But my Father got into a situation that took months to resolve when a speeding ticket arrived. The photograph of the driver didn't capture the head and was otherwise too blurry to identify from the body. It's a month after the fact on a road they both drive down frequently, and they only have one car. Was it him or his wife driving? Nobody knows.

The primary vehicle owner is not allowed to just assume responsibility for the ticket, because the liability for the offence is with the specific driver. Giving the wrong information is an offence itself, because people have tried those sorts of tricks to (for example) give penalty points to their spouse and avoid a ban.

So ... what do you do?

It's possible to take such cases to court in the UK and receive a not-guilty verdict if the vehicle owner can show a good faith effort has been made to identify the driver but there is no reasonable way of doing so.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#524

Post by matheusmoreira »

kmoser wrote: post #504
matheusmoreira wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correct action is to understand why certain barriers were erected in your way before attempting to demolish them. If you don't understand, just respect the barrier. If you understand, you know if, when and under which conditions it can be safely bypassed. Use your judgement. Jaywalking laws were also written in blood. People break them every single day regardless because they have eyes and can look both ways to d…

And yet, jaywalking pedestrians get killed daily, despite their best attempts at determining whether it's safe to cross. The problem with allowing drivers to use their best judgment as to whether it's safe to continue through a red light (after stopping) is that a non-zero percent of those drivers will fail to judge the situation correctly, especially during an edge case they rarely encounter.

It's impossible to get hit by cars if there are no cars around you. Vehicles are not going to materialize out of nowhere and crash into you. They are going to be funneled into your path by the roads. If you look at the road and see zero traffic, then you cannot be hit by traffic. Even if you run a red light.

Obviously, if you can't see the road where the cars will come from, then you cannot know if there are any cars coming towards you in a potentially intersecting trajectory.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#525

Post by themafia »

giantg2 wrote: post #310
htx80nerd wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"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.

So the objective evidence indicates that yellow light timing is the most important factor in reducing accidents.

Why are we discussing cameras?

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#526

Post by TulliusCicero »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #405
advisedwang wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. All of which are an affront to people's rights. The fact that we use a "special word" (civil) for the categ…

> All of which are an affront to people's rights.

Rights are not unlimited.

You don't have some inherent human right to ignore building codes, or to retain full custody of your child in the event of a divorce.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#527

Post by protocolture »

cromka wrote: post #10
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…

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…

>They know the car was yours so, by extension, you should be aware of its whereabouts at any given moment.

Lol your "Tool" analogy breaks down here.

Its not the responsibility of the defendant to prove their innocence, no matter how you want to twist it.

> expect them not to question any you further

Wow. No one expects you to not be questioned, but for questioning to take place before punishment because duh.

Build a case, test it. Not issue fines based on an assumption.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#528

Post by 1123581321 »

BenjiWiebe wrote: post #518
Spooky23 wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My city does it. It sucks ass. It’s a 70% vendor / 30% city revenue share and people avoid the city and use side streets to avoid the main avenues.

Are the speed limits set unreasonably low? Otherwise one could always try abiding to the speed limit.

Most US cities have lower posted speeds than average drivers’ perception of safe speeds.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#529

Post by protocolture »

triceratops wrote: post #472
LorenPechtel wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real world, sin taxes lead to sin.

Explain. Is this like "guys walking with rifles in the woods cause deer"?

I mean, thats also a thing in abstract.

We have this issue with imported deer, that the local hunters will gladly reduce their population, but not to zero. And baits and other methods are prohibited. Deer were likely imported for hunting, and hunters effectively protect the species from eradication by killing off their competition (roos mostly), and permitting them to breed within limits. Not to mention trying to protect them politically.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-05/hunters-call-for-end-...

So yeah, guys walking with rifles in the woods cause deer.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#530

Post by eweise »

rootusrootus wrote: post #262
crote wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does the car get points on its record?
Post reply on HN