Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional • Hacker News Board

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#701

Post by account42 » Wed, Mar 18, 2026, 12:01 PM UTC

dhosek wrote: post #560

kingofmen wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

X% of net worth is still a bigger deal to someone with a net worth of $20 than to someone with a net worth of $20M, even though the latter may get some sticker shock. And it's possible (if rare) to have a reasonably middle-class lifestyle and an actually negative net worth. Presumably you would not make it possible to pay off student loans by repeatedly violating a red light, although it would be very funny.

You’d be surprised at the numbers of people living middle-class lifestyles with negative net worth. Credit card debt, car loans (with a too-small down payment, a car purchase can easily cause one’s net worth to decline the second you take delivery on the car), underwater mortgages, not to mention student loans.

A car purchase should mean the car counts towards your new net worth. So if it makes your net worth negative you either had almost none to begin with or paid much more for the car than it is worth.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#702

Post by _carbyau_ » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 3:27 AM UTC

buzzerbetrayed wrote: post #474

_carbyau_ wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How about you prove your claim by providing some evidence that the richer you are the more speeding tickets you get. Otherwise you're solving for a problem that doesn’t exist.

I made no such claim that such occurs. But I want to align societal incentives appropriately so that it shouldn't.

You may note that a first offence makes no difference.

It's only 2nd offences have a token minimal % - which should put a rich person on notice that such can occur.

It's only 3rd and further offences that could seriously differentiate rich vs poor in penalty.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#703

Post by fennecfoxy » Mon, Mar 23, 2026, 11:08 AM UTC

Orygin wrote: post #697

fennecfoxy wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You say it yourself that everyone just speeds up after the camera ...because they know where it is and there are so few of them... Humans are very good at trying to get away with things. The only way to solve speeding is for people to receive the fines, receive the points on their license. They only speed because they're selfish fucks and because it's so easy to get away with it.

So put cameras everywhere? What a privacy nightmare.

So with existing speed cameras your solution for your supposed privacy is what? Standing between the cameras?

As always the problem is never with the technology it's the stupid human part of the system that's the problem. The fact that is technology is misused to surveil people illegally that the repercussions for a biz involved (because all those taxpayer dollars gotta go into private biz!) then that company maybe receives a slap on the wrist, a fine that's maybe 1-2% of their revenue if that, and all the execs get off scot free.

Not to mention all those in government/well to-do "won't somebody please think of the children" would still love for such systems to be used to monitor people.

I guess yeah, you're right. Humans cannot be trusted not to fuck each other over. If we surveil to prevent dangerous driving people will use it for bad. If we don't surveil then people will speed and kill others with their cars.

Our species is lose-lose.