Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M

You're misrepresenting the results of the study. The study recommended the continuation of the program. The rear-end collisions were less severe than types of collisions it reduced, it was a safety improvement overall.

From the findings section of the actual study (emphasis mine):

>Quantitative studies conducted in this project demonstrate significant safety benefits of the current RLC program. As a result, it is appropriate to recommend continuation of the program. Most of the intersections have experienced an improvement in safety, particularly in terms of severe angle and turn crashes, albeit with an accompanying increase in less severe rear-end crashes. The safety benefits extend beyond the immediate vicinity of the RLC intersections, evidenced by a significant spillover effect. However, some intersections appear to experience no significant safety impact. Recognizing that crashes are the result of complex interactions amongst many factors, and subject to considerable randomness, these deviations should be used as opportunities for detailed investigation and learning to design and deploy more effective automated enforcement programs

http://www.transportation.northwestern.edu/docs/research/RLC...

Similar benefits have been demonstrated in other cities. Doesn't mean it will work in every city, but there is evidence it works in Chicago.

The stalling was infrequent, not constant. I'm sure a lot of things are technically illegal, but it would depend on the state.

>Because your explanation sounds awfully like "Very sorry, office – I'm kinda in a hurry because I want to get rid of this body in the back before it starts smelling".

What? I'm starting to regret even sharing this story. :)

If it makes you feel any better, it was a small town, so the mechanic and local cops were friends. Seeing as I would've literally been pulled over outside of the mechanic's garage, and that common sense was in my favor anyways, I'm sticking with the 98% probability of getting off.

I would perhaps phrase that as "citing the study released by an impartial third-party, not by the people who are engaging in the moral hazard and trying to justify their behavior" instead.

Even if you don't actually want to go to court, you can usually still write an answer. Then you can still propose a settlement more favorable to you by mail, if the case isn't dropped outright. Why pay $100 if you could pay $20 plus postage stamps?

The automated enforcement would completely fall apart if the contractor had to spend money on skilled human labor for every citation. So every time you get a ticket from a robot, write an answer, and request source code for the robot's software as discovery. People pay because they don't want the hassle, but when you just send in a check for automated traffic enforcement tickets, you are paying the Dane-geld, and will never be rid of the Dane.

  "We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
    No matter how trifling the cost;
  For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
    And the nation that plays it is lost!"  --R. Kipling, "Dane-geld"

(Not a lawyer. Not legal advice.)

in your murder example, you would still need to be arrested by a physical person in a police uniform, you would have some interaction with an agent of the state.

when you get a ticket in the mail, who is your accuser? Whose name is on the ticket? what is their badge number? how do i lodge a complaint against this officer? Who is expected to show up in court to prosecute this case?