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

651–660 of 703 posts

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#651

Post by quickthrowman »

nubg wrote: post #260
quickthrowman wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

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.

I was not drunk, I haven’t had a drink in over 10 years and I’ve never driven drunk.

I did not say I was innocent of the violation because I was not innocent, I never claimed to be.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#652

Post by alsetmusic »

trogdor wrote: post #600
dragonwriter wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't like paltry sums like this. $300 is a significant financial impact to someone who's barely making ends meet, and absolutely nothing at all to a billionaire. One thing about daycares is that you will essentially never find "someone who's barely making ends meet" and "a billionaire" with kids at the same daycare, so a surcharge for out-of-normal-expectations service does not need to be designed to address bot…

> In fact, you'll probably not find a billionaire with kids at any daycare I grew up with the children of a multi-billionaire. His kids went to the same daycare as I did, and it wasn’t particularly fancy. Some ultra-wealthy people live fairly normal-looking lives.

Something I heard from someone who worked at the Palo Alto Apple Store two decades ago:

Steve Jobs's kids drew on an eMac with markers or something. He made them make an appoint for the store's Genius Bar and wait in line to have it looked at like everyone else. I don't know anything about how the staff tried to clean it or the outcome.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#653

Post by [deleted] »

no-name-here wrote: post #515
saltyoldman wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with any and all fees is that they go up as soon as the business notices simple patterns.

How is that a problem with “all fees” if the explicit intention is to limit a behavior that most people say we should somehow reduce?

[deleted]

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#654

Post by gus_massa »

_carbyau_ wrote: post #402
gus_massa wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the great patio11 said: > Raise the prices. Then raise the prices. Then when you're done with that, raise the prices.

Sure. Do it as an increasing-upon-recurrence, two part fee though. 1st offence = base fee 2nd offence = base fee + minimal % of wealth fee 3rd offence = base fee + higher % of wealth fee offences thereafter = goto 3rd offence until some breaking point condition like gaol/jail. Otherwise the rich will happily pay to do whatever the hell they want.

I prefer an exponential grow, it simplifies the calculations a lot and even Elon is only a few exponents order away from us.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#655

Post by _heimdall »

estearum wrote: post #635
_heimdall wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its usually much harder to decide what's good for society than its made out to be. Externalities matter, something can seem good for society today and turn out to have serious downsides that either weren't known upfront or didn't show up until later. With regards to authority here, this absolutely is a case of granting more power and authority to the state, or more specifically the state claiming it. The judge here s…

Yes I agree, we should consider all of those things. Considering all of those things, fully automated traffic enforcement in general is a clear net positive. > The judge here said its illegal to use redlight cameras in certain situations. Based on the prior comment, if California found a loophole so they can get to the same end by labeling it something different that is them functionally claiming new authority. The j…

> Sorry but this is just too surface-level of an understanding of how law actually works that I can't justify engaging with it.

This comes off a bit strangely when you go on to engage with the discussion. It seems unnecessarily dismissive.

Legal precedent within the US does not stop at state lines. A ruling in Florida is applicable present in California.

My argument here, though, isn't that California's approach is illegal or would be overturned if challenged based on this Florida precedent. My point was simply that the state, California in this case, is claiming effectively new authority by playing word games to get around precedent that could otherwise deem their use of traffic cams illegal.

I'm still not sure how you can so blanketly deem automated traffic enforcement a net good. There are a ton of details that would matter, from how its implemented and overseen to how tight or broad the authority is and what that means for future use of the same authority.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#656

Post by fusslo »

joshuamorton wrote: post #640
fusslo wrote: post #198

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…

Can someone link the order, I've searched heavily for it and it's not linked by an of the articles or findable easily.

https://cbs12.com/resources/pdf/cbe9aa52-7a29-407c-8bce-b1c7...

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#657

Post by pixl97 »

db48x wrote: post #645
pixl97 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Many areas in the USA actually have lots of roundabouts, and people there have figured them out just fine.

Texas for example must have too much lead in the water because people seem to chronically get them wrong.

Indiana drivers seem to much better in general with a lower incident rate of "omg that guy almost hit me".

With this said roundabouts that service a fixed area, such as a neighborhood without much cross traffic seem fine in general. Whereas roundabouts in areas that pick up new traffic are far more prone to incidents. And god help you if the roundabout is in a tourist area.

One of the problems with roundabouts in the US is there are too few of them so you're always running into someone who has never dealt with one before which increases the risk of unexpected behavior.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#658

Post by matheusmoreira »

troupo wrote: post #571
matheusmoreira wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Vehicles are not going to materialize out of nowhere and crash into you. At 60kmh a vehicle travels 16 meters per second. In freedom units: at 37mph a vehicle travels 54 feet per second. A vehicle will materialize out of nowhere and crash into you.

In my city there are segments where I can see several kilometers ahead, including the traffic lights and their associated roads and traffic.

If you can't understand the fact it's safe to run a red light when you can see the roads are clear for several kilometers ahead of you, then I simply don't know what else to say.

Even police does this while roaming about on patrol.

Honestly, these arguments sound like cartoon logic. Guy looks both ways and sees the roads are clear but on the exact second he starts to cross the street 10 cars materialize out of nowhere at 200 km/h and nearly run him over just to teach him a lesson. This isn't how the world works.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#659

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

pirates wrote: post #611
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government is already doing this using your phone.

Which proves that if they can, they will. So there’s no reason to give them more ways to do it.

The reason is that it increases traffic safety.

It's even possible to set the cameras up in such a way that they only store data when a traffic violation occurs. That would address the surveillance issue.

I have a strong sense that the primary objection people have to red light cameras is that they don't like getting caught running red lights, and that the surveillance argument is a rationalization, not the real objection.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#660

Post by matheusmoreira »

troupo wrote: post #620
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A vehicle will materialize out of nowhere and crash into you. God I hate these sort of responsibility shirking opinions and their peddlers. I do this several times a day in a major US city for close to a decade now and I've never had a close call closer than the "two people trying to pass each other in the hallway" routine with a driver trying to take a right on red. Vehicles and everything else on this rock flying…

> I do this several times a day in a major US city for close to a decade now and I I, I, I > Vehicles and everything else on this rock flying through space obey the same laws of physics. Yes. Yes they do. That's why some countries (e.g. Sweden) actually have this in drivers ed: how fast a vehicle travels, how long it takes for the driver to react, what the stopping distance is for a vehicle etc. They even teach thing…

Obviously. Don't take risks near pedestrians, near schools, near parked cars. Don't make assumptions in low visibility conditions where you can't actually see what's ahead of you. Use your judgement.
Post reply on HN