Top
Best
New

Posted by 1970-01-01 5 hours ago

Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional(cbs12.com)
196 points | 296 commentspage 3
analog31 5 hours ago||
This is going to be the year of refunds from the government.
ayaros 4 hours ago||
Florida did something good for once?
shevy-java 2 hours ago||
Interesting - the constitution protects people for so many years now.
stevehawk 5 hours ago||
just means they will install more cameras to capture driver faces or buy cellphone data
bluefirebrand 5 hours ago|
Cellphone data is not sufficient to prove who is operating a vehicle
knowitnone3 3 hours ago||
[dead]
SilverElfin 3 hours ago||
Great. Ban speed cameras next. They’re just performative safetyism used as revenue sources or by activists on an anti car quest. But I actually suspect all of this will somehow be twisted into something neither side expects, which is mass surveillance and tech grift.
octernion 3 hours ago|
nah thankfully we are expanding speed cameras as they are proven to work (at least where i live in the bay area), unlike whatever right wing fantasy world you live in which they don't. good luck with your delulu world though
SilverElfin 1 hour ago||
They’re only proven to unnecessarily slow the flow of traffic and create inconvenience for the majority of people, and revenue for mismanaged local governments. That’s not a right wing thing, it’s just reality. Not to mention I’m not sure how you’re drawing this weird political association here in the first place.
lateforwork 5 hours ago||
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.
crote 4 hours ago||
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.

vegadw 2 hours ago|||
Or you have a heavy, inbalanced object in your car you don't want sliding, something fragile in tow you don't want to have fast decelaration, or just don't have super-human reaction time since some light have extremely fast yellows.

Or, a deer jumped out on the side and you briefly looked away at it.

Or you could tell the driver behind you wasn't slowing down, so the safer option is to go.

Or. Or. Or. Real life is messy, and there's a million reasons to go though a yellow instead of slowing down.

rootusrootus 2 hours ago||||
> 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.

This is common in the US as well. The machine takes the picture, filters out the illegible ones, and sends the rest to an actual officer who will issue the ticket.

maxwell 3 hours ago|||
Huh? No, you don't stop if it turns yellow, you yield.
idle_zealot 4 hours ago|||
> and they don’t show leniency. If policing is done by robots, then humans are expected to be infallible.

This is bad when applied to laws that were written with an exception of leniency and selectivity in enforcement, which is quite a lot of them. For running red lights though? I don't mind if the robots take you off the road automatically.

lateforwork 4 hours ago||
Running red lights? That's not all the cameras are used for. If are making a right turn on red and didn't come to a complete stop first you can get a ticket.
timeinput 2 hours ago|||
But why would you do that? Especially if you know there are robots enforcing that you come to a complete stop?

There are many places that don't even allow rights (or lefts) on red.

I got a right on red ticket once, and then I made it a point to obey the law -- especially at the intersections with the robots.

For things like traffic laws especially (where there are very simple cut and dry rules), why is it okay to break the law, and why is it not okay for robots to enforce the law?

NetMageSCW 13 minutes ago||
Why did you break the law, and why do you still break the law when you know you won’t get caught?
idle_zealot 4 hours ago||||
Okay? Rolling through a red light is dangerous whether you do it straight or to the right. Hell, the latter probably kills more pedestrians. I don't really mind holding drivers to high standards.
triceratops 2 hours ago|||
> If are making a right turn on red and didn't come to a complete stop first you can get a ticket.

As you should.

bluefirebrand 4 hours ago|||
> If policing is done by robots, then humans are expected to be infallible

The reality is that the people doing the policing are counting on humans not being infallible

Fines have become an important revenue stream, that's why they are being automated.

Now that this is becoming more widespread, there's a perverse incentive for governments to maximize the difficulty in avoiding fines. Lower the speed limit on roads designed for higher speeds for "safety", etc

rootusrootus 2 hours ago|||
> Fines have become an important revenue stream, that's why they are being automated

Maybe we should legislate traffic fines out of existence, and just use points. Or at the very least the fines should never go back in any recognizable way to the budget of the police doing the enforcement.

spankalee 4 hours ago|||
> that's why they are being automated

There are many citizens, like me, begging for red light cameras so something can be done about the rash of crashes and killings from willfully reckless drivers.

quickthrowman 4 hours ago|||
Is there proof that red light cameras increase safety? I would expect an increase in rear-end crashes after red light cameras are installed, with a slight decrease in fatal t-bone accidents.

I wouldn’t expect them to make driving safer for anyone, as enforcement doesn’t do anything to moderate the behavior of people that just don’t give a shit.

bluefirebrand 4 hours ago|||
Why would a willfully reckless driver care about a camera?

In my experience preventative measures only work on people who are conscientious, they do not work on people who do not give a shit

triceratops 2 hours ago||
Then the camera lets us identify and take reckless drivers off the road.
spankalee 4 hours ago||
Subjectivity in applying the law is a huge problem, especially given how corrupt and violent police are. Red light cameras remove police from the equation for that infraction and apply the law evenly. They also scale in a way that police just can't, and that's extremely important for safety.

I live in a city where red light running is an epidemic. Drivers flagrantly just don't stop, and it kills people all the time. Red light cameras - plus actually revoking drivers licenses, and then actually throwing people in jail for driving on suspended licenses - are the only way to fix this.

It's far past time that drivers are no longer immune to consequences for violent, sociopathic behavior.

NetMageSCW 11 minutes ago||
“all the time”

When was the last person killed by someone running a red light? When was the time before that?

CapitalistCartr 5 hours ago||
We have red light cameras here in Tampa. I don't know all the details of what it takes to make a right on red and not get a ticket, so I do exaggerated stops to be sure. I know what the law claims but that doesn't matter. The real law is the actual (proprietary) code rumning in the machine. Not what the law says. Not what the contract says. Not what the requirements say. Not what the programmer thinks the code does.
thenewnewguy 4 hours ago||
No, the real law is what's written by the Tampa/Florida legislature (or I guess you could say the "real real" law is judges' interpretations of what is written). While it may be inconvenient, if you are falsely issued a ticket while following the real law you can have the ticket thrown out.
edoceo 4 hours ago||
What kind of time and money and opportunity cost would it take to right this wrong?
thenewnewguy 4 hours ago||
I don't know for sure because I don't live in Tampa, but it is generally free (minus the opportunity cost of your time) for these types of tickets, no lawyer or other expense required.
edoceo 4 hours ago|||
This is the correct take. And it's frustrating! To fix the problem an individual has to fight a huge, multi-party system (law, jurisdiction, police, tech-provider) - it's a (near) impossible feat for a person.
dangood 4 hours ago||
Sorry, but what is the concern, that you don't know when you've crossed a red light? Or that the software is too stupid to know when a light was red?
mchusma 4 hours ago|
Red light running is bad...but I think the solution to this problem at this point is just "self driving cars". With some exceptions, I would just focus all jurisdictions on this future and avoid policy inline with a world full of self driving cars. Currently in the US, most places feel like you need a car, and many US laws are designed with this in mind. In 5 years, this will no longer be true, so laws should reflect:

1. No parking minimums 2. Less free parking (e.g. street parking) 3. Policy supportive of self driving cars 4. More aggressive removal of driver licenses for human drivers with repeat violations 5. More aggressive penalties for driving without a license.

stronglikedan 4 hours ago|
Most people like to drive and don't share your views, and it will be that way in five years too.
triceratops 2 hours ago||
I like to drive. I support taking asshole drivers' licenses. They ruin my driving experience.