Discussion
Judge dismisses red-light camera ticket, rules law is unconstitutional
lateforwork: The problem with red light cameras is that it is robotic. Robots are perfect--they don't make mistakes (in theory at least) and they don't forgive. If robots take over policing then humans will have to be infallible.
CapitalistCartr: 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.
embedding-shape: 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 like a no-brainer no one could disagree with.
dolni: If it's their vehicle and the vehicle wasn't stolen, the owner should know who was driving it. Courts do compel people to testify sometimes (when it is not self-incriminating).
spullara: [delayed]
cromka: 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 explain why was someone operating your car while you were not aware of it and have not reported it.> In light of this, seems like a no-brainer no one could disagree with.If someone shot a person with your gun, you gonna say it wasn't you and expect them not to question you further? Not very no-brainer, is it?This is how it works in Poland and, I assume, most/all of EU and the rest of the world.
0x3f: They have the right to question, but I don't have to testify to anything, that's what the fifth ammendment is for.As usual, Europe doesn't care about internal consistency when it comes to rights. They just legislate (or rule) whatever 'works' for the current definition of 'works'.
db48x: Steve Lehto has an analysis of the opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VinCGmdj-jQOne interesting point is that the Judge also spent some ink criticizing the law because paying the ticket removes the ticket from your driving record. This means that habitual bad drivers can get away with the same infractions over and over again as long as they pay the fines quickly. This bypasses the State’s points system that was designed to punish repeat offenders by taking away their license.I wonder how other state’s red–light camera laws hold up? Do they have the same flaws or are they written better?
reactordev: [delayed]
analog31: This is going to be the year of refunds from the government.
eweise: Four people in my family drive my car. I'm supposed to track that? sure.
archontes: In America, we have the fifth amendment, and the right not to divulge any information whatsoever unless we're granted immunity.It is enough to say absolutely nothing, and request the government to prove its case.If someone shot a person with my gun, I would invoke the fifth amendment, and ask the government to prove who did it beyond a reasonable doubt.
SoftTalker: In reality the way it would work is the prosecutor and police would use every bit of circumstantial evidence to construct a claim of motive, means, and opportunity. Then threaten you with a lengthy prison sentence if you are convicted.You're not going to roll on whoever really did it (assuming you know), and trust your fate to a jury being convinced of "reasonable" doubt, without you saying a word in your own defense?
cromka: > As usual, Europe doesn't care about internal consistency when it comes to rights.Sure. And you advocate that in exchange in US you get havoc on the roads because anyone can say "it wasn't me speeding 50 miles over the limit, bite me"? Is that the freedom you want?
spankalee: Wow, that's a huge problem with that red light camera program then. The drives that run red lights around me clearly don't care much for minor consequences. The point needs to be to identify the sociopathic drivers and get them off the road.
thenewnewguy: 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.
t1234s: Having driven in the UK and coming back to the US I miss all of the roundabouts. Any reason (aside from contractor profits) towns use 4-way traffic light systems vs a roundabout and some yield signs?
0x3f: Having driven in both, Americans don't take naturally to roundabouts and it would be difficult to teach all the existing drivers about them. Same in the UK when they add new rules: most drivers remain completely unaware of them.
jscomino: Here's a novel idea: Let the citizens vote on whether they want red-light cameras or not.
francisofascii: [delayed]
spankalee: 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.
ayaros: Florida did something good for once?
some_random: The relevant law here is US constitutional law, not Polish nor EU law.
cromka: Did I say otherwise?
mchusma: 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.
californical: I see your point, but these are civil tickets rather than criminal charges. And since there’s already many laws and regulations around owning a car, such as registration… isn’t it trivial to say “you are responsible for a car that you register by default”In the same way, if your car fails emissions tests, you can’t register it and it’s the responsibility of the owner to ensure that their car meets emissions standards.
bluefirebrand: No more lending your car to a friend in need, no more letting your children learn to drive on your car or borrow it ever. Families must now own and insure a car for every individual driver because we can't be bothered to find robust solutions for traffic enforcementShift the problem onto individuals, make it a burden for the public. Typical HN attitude
smelendez: I mean, if your kid or friend gets a parking ticket in your car you probably already pay it and collect from them.It doesn’t seem that different to extend this to camera tickets.
1shooner: >"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 the traffic law as the main benefit.
Retric: Systems don’t necessarily react based on the legal situation. A red light camera that’s improperly installed, poorly maintained, etc could essentially act randomly from a drivers perspective.
maest: Loosely related:There is a driver in NYC who gets almost 300 speeding tickets per year. They've paid their fines, so they're allowed to keep driving. Apparently, since the fines come from speed camera, they can't revoke their license.https://www.jalopnik.com/1836395/worst-driver-in-ny-563-tick...
burkaman: This person is not articulating it well but I think they are complaining that the person identified as the driver is random. Presumably the camera can impartially identify a car running a light, but not necessarily who is driving."I've been ticketed here twice, and it's ridiculous because they - it's just not fair. The person that - the determination when you ran the light [of who is responsible], it's just a random whoever they want to pick ... [they] pick you to say, okay, you're gonna pay the ticket."
dangood: This is such a strange argument, as any reasonable person should know or be able to find out who was driving their car at a specific point in time. But also easy to solve such absurd positions - Change the law to say the owner is responsible for any and all infractions and loses the right to ride and own a car for such infractions unless they identify another driver. But I don't see who wins in this scenario, it is much more logical and fair to go in with the aim to penalise the driver, and for this purpose ask the owner to confirm the driver.
brewdad: Which is why they are supposed to have a sworn officer review the camera footage. I have certainly had a camera flash me while waiting to turn right on red, still outside the intersection. They never sent me a ticket however since I had clearly not done anything illegal.
elteto: You don't need to explain anything to the government, that's why we have the 5th amendment. It is the government's job to bring charges against you and prove them beyond reasonable doubt. The government is right to investigate and ask questions to accomplish that and I am right to refuse to answer anything.It's basically "innocent until proven guilty". Red light cameras turn that assumption around since if your car gets ticketed it is assumed you are "guilty until proven innocent".
SoftTalker: I think the argument is generally: nobody has a right to drive a car, it's something we permit by issuing a license and other regulations. One of the conditions is that the owner of a vehicle is ultimately responsible for it.The judge in this case disagreed, because the red light infraction was not a simple civil fine but quasi-criminal, e.g. points on drivers license, possibly resulting in suspension, etc.
KingMachiavelli: AFAIK Fith Amendment only protects against self-incrimination, you absolutely can be subpoenaed to testify against someone else and failing to produce truthful testimony is a crime.
archontes: You are correct, which is why that compulsion will be accompanied by immunity.
cromka: OK, but then you're testifying under oath and lying, because it was you who did it, after all?
spankalee: This is funny quote. Is the driver even disputing that they were the driver? They seem like they're just mad they got caught.Maybe they just stop running red lights?
HDThoreaun: If someone is using your car they cant legally give you a ticket. If the picture taken doesnt clearly show you theoretically it needs to be dropped but of course thats not how it works in reality
0x3f: There's a big difference in when you break silence though. Strategically, much better to keep it until all the facts are known to your side. At the start, the police/government have the informational advantage. In other countries, even delaying (but eventually speaking) can allow a negative inference to be drawn. The right to silence is important even if you eventually speak.
cromka: > You don't need to explain anything to the government, that's why we have the 5th amendment.As someone else said, this only works against self-incrimination? If you say it wasn't you then you need to testify or get prosecuted?
mikrl: 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 car gets the ticket so to speak.
brewdad: Many US states have switched to that approach. The ticket goes to the registered owner of the vehicle and no penalty points are attached. It's treated more like a parking citation than a traditional moving violation.
stronglikedan: Most people like to drive and don't share your views, and it will be that way in five years too.
0x3f: The US has a comparable per-mile road fatality rate. There's no 'havoc'.
cromka: No, it doesn't! It's 2 to 10 times more! But that's irrelevant; what we're talking about here is a hypothetical scenario where this gets challenged in Supreme Court and, as a result, police in US cannot assume fault in such cases.
0x3f: It's literally not.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...> Belgium 7.3> Slovenia 7.0> US 6.9> France 5.8
hypeatei: > If it wasn't you driving, you know whoThat's not necessarily true. What if it's a shared car in your family and you weren't home to see who took it?This comment is the tech equivalent to "falsehoods programmers believe about <thing>"... real life does not fit into such neat boxes.
brewdad: The photo will show the driver. Presumably, you recognize your partner and/or your children.
b112: Everywhere I've been, the owner of the car gets the ticket, and it's up to them to figure out if they were driving, or if not them, collect from whomever they loaned the car to.No camera I've ever seen tries to figure out who the driver is.The logic is, it's your car, you're responsible for loaning it/owning it, so you get the fine. Don't like that? Don't loan your car out.The trade off is no points are deducted from a driver's license. It's a pure fine, because they can't prove you were driving.So the person just seems to be speaking gibberish to me.
burkaman: I've never gotten an automated ticket so I don't know what is normal. It doesn't seem insane to give it to the vehicle owner, but I can certainly understand feeling indignant about getting a ticket for something you didn't do, especially if it's a new process.
shakahshakah: New Jersey abandoned their red-light camera laws after ticket challenges involving yellow-light lengths. The length should be proportional to the posted speed limit (e.g. 5.5 seconds for 50 mph), but many lights were found to have incorrect timing (e.g. 2.5 seconds for 50 mph).Also, I think at that time some questionable arrangements surfaced between the operators of the automated ticketing system(s) and the towns and/or counties involved.
joshuamorton: > It is enough to say absolutely nothing, and request the government to prove its case.Only in criminal contexts. In civil contexts your silence can absolutely be an adverse inference. Usually these red-light cameras are civil penalties, not criminal (fines with no points). The judge here seems to be saying that these are "quasi-criminal" because, uhh, I guess there are penalties.
singleshot_: How does the Fifth Amendment work in a civil context?Is it appropriate to compare murder and running a red light given what you know about the civil implications of 5A?
SoftTalker: It doesn't apply. The argument was that the red light violation was "quasi-criminal" and the judge agreed with that argument.
mothballed: The 5th amendment with regard to self-incrimination only applies to criminal cases. When I represented myself in court for a speeding ticket the judge threatened me under pain of contempt that I had to testify against myself.Most camera tickets are either civil moving, or civil non-moving. Civil moving are against a person and civil non-moving are against the vehicle. Neither of which case does 5th amendment protect you from incriminating yourself, and neither of which does it require prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
jonahhorowitz: In California at least (I'm not sure about Florida law), you can go to court and state "the state hasn't proved that I was the driver," and if the photos are too blurry to show who the driver was, the state loses. You don't have to tell them who the driver was, just show that they don't have enough evidence that it was you. I believe this approach is more consistent with the constitution.[1][1]:https://caticketking.com/help-center/photo-red-light-help/ph...
izacus: Then you pay the ticket yourself or ask the family who did it so they can do it. This is normal across the world and really isn't a stretch to expect vehicle owners to figure out who's been driving dangerously with their car.
mvdtnz: > seems like a no-brainer no one could disagree with.I disagree completely. This is how speed and red light cameras operate in my country. If you weren't the one driving, it's straight forward to show that. The other party can admit to the offence or you can present evidence including the camera itself. The burden is low.What's the alternative? Use even more valuable police resources to issue these tickets? Or just not penalize dangerous infractions?
arjie: One thing that seems reasonable is to have car points and driver points. In the event of violations, both the vehicle and the driver are assigned points depending on detection. Then after a certain number of points, the vehicle is impounded with the owner able to have it stored at an appropriately licensed facility of their choice that ensures that the vehicle cannot be driven on public roads.Reporting vehicle theft etc. can provide immunity from points on the car.
quickthrowman: That seems extremely unreasonable, cops can prove who was driving at the time of the violation or they can not bring a case. If I lend my car to someone and they break the law, it’s not the car’s fault.I’m glad my state found these unconstitutional as well.
arjie: Well, objects used in the commission of a crime are frequently confiscated. That's not outrageous. If I lend someone my gun and they rob a bank, I will likely not get my gun back though "it's not the gun's fault". Automated machinery has the advantage that it is impartial and effective, and given that law enforcement costs a lot in these circumstances, and that chasing cars for small enforcement violations creates worse outcomes, it seems thoroughly reasonable to apply the crime to the detectable object.
jotux: I suspect this is some light with chronically-bad timing that gets run by tons of people every day. The camera is taking a photo with a bunch of vehicles in the frame and it's ticketing the one that had the license plate unobstructed, even if a few of the vehicles in the frame technically entered the intersection when the light was yellow.Sometimes lights are just so poorly implemented, and drivers pass through them so often, it feels like whoever designed the intersection was actively goading drivers into running the light.
kstrauser: My hometown got busted making yellow lights shorter than the legally required duration, then hitting drivers with tickets for running a red light they couldn't have safely and reasonably avoided.There are standards for this kind of thing, like if a light is on a road with a speed limit of X, then a yellow light has to last Y seconds. Imagine a yellow light that lasted .5s: you'd have to stand on your brakes and risk causing a rear end collision from the car behind you to even have a chance of not getting fined. That's the opposite of safety. My place wasn't that bad, but a defendant successfully demonstrated that the yellow light he was tricked by was illegally short, and a judge basically threw out all the tickets from it and others.I mention this as just one example of specific light setups that suck. I bet you're right, and this is just a money grab from the local gov't.Read this if you want to be angry today: https://ww2.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-sho...
pclmulqdq: If you have an immunity deal and are asked to testify about a crime you committed under it, you admit to doing it and they can't prosecute you.
Vaslo: Even if I know who, why would I ever give that information to the court?
crote: Let's say your friend borrow your car and drives through a red light. You don't have to tell the court that it was them, but as the car owner you'll be held responsible for what the car was used for if you don't.
hrimfaxi: You can own a car and not drive it. It can be stolen from you, anything.The police want to avoid having to do actual criminal investigation. They could subpoena the car owner's phone records for instance. Instead they choose to hide behind bureaucracy and offer you an off ramp in the form of a lower payment to make it all go away.
bluefirebrand: > If policing is done by robots, then humans are expected to be infallibleThe reality is that the people doing the policing are counting on humans not being infallibleFines 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
spankalee: > that's why they are being automatedThere 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: Is there proof that red light cameras increase safety? I would expect an increase in rear-end crashes after red light cameras are installed.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.
crote: 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?
HDThoreaun: Except no, that is not how it works. People get moving violation tickets, not cars.
crote: This is exactly how it works in plenty of countries, actually! The US is the outlier here. In practice people have zero trouble figuring out which family member was driving - just like they have no trouble getting a kid to fess up to scratching the bumper while backing up into their own garage.
bluefirebrand: 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
cromka: Gotcha.
throwaheyy: It’s a very typically American opinion to argue that you don’t have to be personally responsible for your actions if the law legally allows you not to.
elteto: How very typical of non-Americans to misrepresent Americans!
SilverElfin: 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: 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
bluefirebrand: > If someone shot a person with your gun, you gonna say it wasn't you and expect them not to question you furtherRunning a red light is not remotely equivalent to shooting someone with a gun, get a grip
cromka: OK, so now write a law that makes a distinction here. What do you end up with? EU law.
multjoy: The EU does not write traffic legislation, it leaves that up to the individual states.Unlike the US, the EU is a collection of fully sovereign countries.
true_religion: But the risks that running a red light pose aren’t civil in nature, so it feels like a perversion to use civil infractions as an excuse to get sloppy with enforcement.
wat10000: The alternative would be an actual criminal record because you misjudged a yellow light.
hypeatei: > This is normal across the worldI'm not arguing it isn't, but the thought exercise is: does it make sense for the government to take people's money if the accused can't prove it wasn't them driving the car based on a police accusation (also with the threat of jail time if you don't pay)?I don't think that's "normal", personally.
multjoy: No, because in a functioning legislature the offence would be something like 'failing to disclose details', in the same way that refusing to participate in a DUI breath/blood draw would be a discrete offence.
mikkupikku: I don't see why the government should have to prove who was driving to issue a ticket, it's not like they have to prove who parked the car to issue a traffic ticket.
Ekaros: In Finland there is fun thing on that. There is both tickets by municipality where the ticket goes to keeper. But as private parking fines are contractual violations they need to track down or at least reasonably prove the person who parked...Still, seems to me that it is reasonable to prove who did such violation. Maybe photo could identify person. Or maybe other data could be requested like phone location data. Doesn't seem unreasonable or high hurdle. Probably not cost effective in every case.
credit_guy: I know this is not related to the legal merits of the case being discussed, but who runs a red light? In my experience, this is an infarction that occurs very infrequently. Speeding or illegal parking happen all the time, but running a red light? Most people are not suicidal.Edit: Nevermind, I think crossing on yellow and catching a tenth of a second of red counts as running a red light. If it does, it’s something I did myself a few times (of course, all in the distant past, the statute of limitations has pased now …)
loeg: The worst drivers do it a lot more than good drivers.
openuntil3am: In Japan the driver's face needs to be clearly visible in the photo. At least that's what I've been told. I don't drive.
litoE: Florida must be using cheap cameras. My daughter got a red light ticket in Beverly Hills a couple of years ago. They mailed the ticket to her as the registered owner of the car, including the photographs from the cameras which showed that a) she entered the intersection on a red light, b) her car front and back showing the license plates and c) the face of the driver, establishing it was her. From her expression on the photograph you could tell she was saying "oh, shit!" She just paid it.
tacticalturtle: The relevant part is that the judge declared traffic ticket proceedings “quasi criminal”:> In the order, the court found that red-light camera cases, although labeled as civil infractions, function as “quasi-criminal” proceedings because they can result in monetary penalties, a formal finding of guilt, and consequences tied to a driver’s record.Which seems to just relabel any fine from the government as a criminal matter?IMO when you register the vehicle for the right to drive on public roads, you are entering into an agreement that you will be responsible for following the rules of the road, and for lending the car to people who also do so.Similarly, if I register a firearm legally, and then lend it out to anyone who asks, regardless of whether they follow the law, I don’t think it would be crazy to hold me financially responsible if a shooting happens with my gun.
0x3f: Seems untenable because I can just lie to you about my intended use. I borrow your hammer to build a cabin. Oops, I actually used it to murder people. Enjoy the millions in damages.
bootlooped: The justice system can generally deal with gray areas like this. For example the parents of school shooters are usually not held liable for the crimes their kids commit. It depends on a lot of variables.
youarentrightjr: > I think the argument is generally: nobody has a right to drive a car, it's something we permit by issuing a license and other regulations. One of the conditions is that the owner of a vehicle is ultimately responsible for it.Do you know you can be licensed to drive a vehicle without owning one, and similarly, own one without being licensed to drive it?Why would the owner of the property be responsible for someone else's actions with that property?
electronsoup: > but then again you need to plausibly explain why was someone operating your car while you were not aware of it.There is no such requirement.
stronglikedan: That's by design, and that's a good thing. Anything where the person actually driving the car can't be identified (i.e., tickets given by camera as opposed to in-person) shouldn't have any long term affect on anyone's personal records.
kamarg: If you can't tell who was driving, you shouldn't be sending anyone a ticket.
ApolloFortyNine: The logic is fine, but hit and runs just became a lot easier to get away with then no? Especially with tinted windows being so prevalent you very well might not even be able to give a description at all of the driver, and they can just later say they found their car like that.Probably a lot of other issues arise from that. If your car gets towed for being illegally parked, what if you just say you didn't park it there? Seems like a similar violation to a red light ticket.
Symbiote: [delayed]
carlosjobim: > you should be aware of its whereabouts at any given moment.Why?
cucumber3732842: >I see your point, but these are civil tickets rather than criminal charges.Yeah that's what they said when ICE was unilaterally kicking in doors.The way I see it anything that would prompt the government to use violence upon you without you taking action to escalate deserves the same level of protection for the accused as a "real" criminal matter.Yes I'm aware this includes just about everything beyond library late fines and would break the system at least for awhile. Worth it. The government shouldn't be able to assess the same penalties (fines) and threaten the same enforcement actions (forfeiture of property, arrest for nonpayment, etc, etc) as they do in criminal matters and side step people's rights simply because they say it's civil. The rights and procedural protections are what they are not to prevent the application of a label, but to prevent abuse at the hands of the government.
paulddraper: Criminal offenses are punishable by incarceration.Civil offenses are not.---Speeding, no seatbelt, broken taillight are civil.DUIs, reckless driving, hit-and-run are criminal.
pixl97: I mean this entire case was the state attempting to have its case and eat it too.These US states considered them moving infractions with points. Now the state must adjust by removing points or doing its due diligence.
HDThoreaun: Depending on where you live it is very common. In chicago when they installed the cameras they lowered the yellow duration to like half a second so people were constantly running them for a while. Then running yellows became normalized, and just ignoring lights from bikers which drivers noticed, and now when traffic is low its not uncommon to see people just treat lights as stop signs if they think no one is coming.
seemaze: That's what I'd be afraid of
SoftTalker: Parking tickets don't go on your driving record. They are just a tax on parking improperly.
mikkupikku: I thought the same was true of automated red light and speeding tickets too.
pixl97: No, they are considered moving infractions in many states.
fusslo: After reading the 21 page order, I do tend to agree with the judgeThe 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 'owner'". and the person whom the citation was issued to must sign an affidavit that includes the name, address, dob, of the person who was actually driving. The judge says this "...abandon(s) centuries time honored protections of hearsay as substantive evidence."."It is a foundational rule of constitutional due process that the government must prove every fact necessary to constitute an offense beyond a reasonable doubt before a person may be adjudicated guilty of a crime"."Although nominally civil, traffic infraction proceedings retain every substantive hallmark of criminal prosecution..." "under Feiock, such proceedings are sufficiently criminal in form and function to invoke the full protections of due process..." - that's probably the core of the reasoning here."Section 316.074(1) provides in relevant part that "The driver of any vehicle shall obey..."" - the driver, not the registered owner.I highly recommend reading the order. It's easy to follow and aligns with my understanding of the law within the USA.
pixl97: More states are enacting laws that directly charge the parents in these cases.
paulddraper: The article title is: "Judge dismisses red-light camera ticket, rules law is unconstitutional"Which is better than the HN title.
seemaze: Same here; tickets always include the photo of the driver. If the photo is unclear or differs from the registered owner, tickets are easily dismissed.However, I agree with Florida on this; the onus should be not be on the accused to prove innocence after a citation is issued. Feels like a 'call us to unsubscribe' time-wasting dark pattern.
boc: Traffic lights can be tuned to create "green waves" that allows for efficient flow of traffic along arteries through a city. You can adjust the timing throughout the day to help alleviate congestion. In rural areas, heavy machinery/commercial vehicles may need to make a very wide turn through the intersection. Traffic circles are fine for a lot of applications but they aren't strictly better than lights in all circumstances.
0x3f: I don't see how that could possibly be true. The same flow has to be achieved either way, and lights will always have some margin of inefficiency in switching. Seems lights will always be strictly worse than roundabouts in this sense.There are also solutions for large vehicles where the center is raised but not impassible.
pixl97: 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 roundaboutIs way too damn high. It makes traversing one a high stress situation since you have no idea if grandpa grunt and run in to you is about to perform a confusion based terror attack on the traffic control device.
idle_zealot: > 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: 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.
triceratops: > 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.
stetrain: Fairly common for me to see my light turn green and 2-3 more cars continue turning left in front of me through a red light. And not just yellow-light clippers, but cars that would have fully entered the intersection under a red light.
GuinansEyebrows: example of a very recent case: https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/04/us/colin-gray-verdict-mass-sh...
kamarg: Where I live, it's common to see at least one person run a red at every major intersection and not just for left turns that couldn't be made due to cross-traffic. Quite often these drivers have expired temp tags which means they don't have insurance because you have to show you registered your vehicle to get insurance. Enforcement is awful so people have been trained to realize there's virtually no consequences to their bad habits. And if they do cause an accident, well it's not like the police will show up in time to stop them from driving off.In fact, it's so bad that parts of the metro are reinstating red light cameras this year despite having decommissioned them years ago for similar legal reasons as what Florida has run into.
pixl97: >drivers have expired temp tagsThen the state needs to start doing immediate impoundment of these vehicles. Add on massive fines before release of the car for repeat offenders and you'll see this dry up pretty quick.
kamarg: The city supposedly did an enforcement weekend on it last year. It was so ineffective that the state actually changed registration laws so that you pay the registration fee when you purchase a car at the dealership. Then you get your plate in the mail. That doesn't go into effect until late this year and I won't be surprised if it gets pushed back before then.
californical: Driving cars is a dangerous activity that deserves higher levels of accountability and responsibility.It is commonplace to drive, but has high potential for danger and death. It seems ok to me to have a level of care required for owning a vehicle, and that includes being mindful of who you share your vehicle with.Same thing with guns - if you blindly lend a gun to an acquaintance and they shoot a school, you will absolutely be charged with some crimes, either accessory to murder or manslaughter, where you have to prove that you weren’t being negligent by giving it to them. Guns are dangerous and owning them bears a higher level of responsibility to the owner.Vehicles kill more people, they also deserve responsibility to own. If somebody breaks laws with your vehicle, it’s your responsibility by default unless you prove otherwise.
socalgal2: There are plenty of laws where you do nothing and are still considered responsible.For one, that was Florida. In California there's the "Permissive Use" rule which means you are at least partially responsible for who you lend your car to. If they get in an accident, you can be held partially liable.There's also "Negligent Entrustment" if it can be proved you knowingly loaned your car or gun to someone intoxicated, unlicensed, etc...Businesses are generally supposed to take responsibility for their employees. That might sound obvious if the business is FAANG but it's far less obvious to a single person coffee-shop or flower stand who hires their first employee who then spills hot coffee on a customer.Parents are liable for their kids on many (most?) casesI think another is where a someone goes to bar, drinks too much, the bartender gets charged.
red-iron-pine: What does "North America" have to do with Florida?I'm in Canada and they issue you a fine without any ID. It goes straight to the registered car owner. Simple as.The issue is that currently in FL there are points / demerits issued for violations, and these can cause the loss of a license, increases to insurance, etc. This is not a problem if an officer can ID you directly.
moduspol: Doesn't the same logic apply to parking tickets?
causal: 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.
limagnolia: Actually, the fifth amendment only protects your right not to incriminate yourself. So you may be called upon to testify against your will against some one else (With some limited protections for spouses and such). However, if you were in fact the one driving, you can plead the fifth, and they cannot use that fact against you to prove it was in fact you driving- they have to prove that independently.(EDIT: I should note that you also have a right to remain silent when questioned by the police- and since they won't know who to charge, there will likely not be a court case to call you to testify at)
garaetjjte: In Poland, ticket enforcement from speed cameras is about 50% (because if you don't accept it voluntarily, they need to file court case and burden of proof is on the government here, as with any other criminal case).
tsimionescu: > They have every right to question you.Sure, but they have no right to issue you a ticket without proving you broke the law. Same as in the gun case: they have every right to question you, but they can't convict you for murder based solely on evidence that it was your gun that killed the victim.
triceratops: I like to drive. I support taking asshole drivers' licenses. They ruin my driving experience.
triceratops: Then the camera lets us identify and take reckless drivers off the road.
kazinator: [delayed]
tootie: As someone who lives next to an intersection where cars routinely run red lights, this truly sucks and I hope it gets overturned. I understand the judge's reasoning, but running red lights is dangerous and we need much stricter enforcement.
hamdingers: California's new speed camera pilot (AB 645) explicitly solves for this.Tickets issued by these cameras are civil penalties issued to the owner of the vehicle, like parking tickets, rather than a criminal moving violation. This means the tickets are just as constitutional as parking tickets. It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't impact your driving privilege or insurance.Hopefully other states can follow this pattern. Consistent, low-impact enforcement is better at preventing unwanted behavior than the rare and severe but also capricious enforcement performed by human police.
danesparza: "It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't impact your driving privilege or insurance."Wow! So if you have enough money, it's cool to run as many red lights as you want?
vkou: What's the alternative? No rules at all? Death penalty for anyone who runs a red in front of a cop?
rootusrootus: > Fines have become an important revenue stream, that's why they are being automatedMaybe 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.
triceratops: Red light camera fines, like all sin taxes, should be made revenue neutral.
Drunk_Engineer: By that you mean the fines should be made much higher, right? Because traffic crashes have a huge economic cost.
Tactical45: And speed light cameras
atomicUpdate: What is a speed light camera?
crote: 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.
rootusrootus: > 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.
xeromal: This is a silly example but in Los Angeles, there are hardly any protected left hand turns so the standard behavior is to wait for the light to turn red and two cars proceed before the next traffic group continues. Police even do this.
hinkley: These systems are still often too expensive to operate safely. Over and over again these systems have been seen as needing to break even rather than being treated as a public service. But if they actually work then incidence of red light violations should go down, and hopefully substantially. So whatever fines you expect to receive in the first months before drivers adapt are more revenue than you should see at one year or more.So when you start worrying about it as a cost center, then there is a perverse incentive to do things like shorten yellow lights. Short yellows have been proven to create more vehicular fatalities than people running red lights intentionally. And so the person who makes that decision to shorten yellows to boost tickets is effectively committing murder to keep the system “working”. Which is disgusting. Ghoulish, even.It is literally better in such situations to simply dismantle the system than keep it running.
hamdingers: They are speed cameras, not red light cameras.That said, the bill addresses this category of abuse directly: if a speed camera fails to reduce 85th percentile speeds or violation volumes within 18 months it must be removed.There are also substantial limits on how the revenues can be spent. If you are interested in this topic it's worth a read: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
jollyllama: Stephen Ruth sends his regards.
throwway120385: The burden is on you to explain why the US should do things the way other countries do. What's better for everyone about that? Why should we change our notion of justice to make you feel better about it?
philipwhiuk: > The burden is on you to explain why the US should do things the way other countries do. What's better for everyone about that?In short: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/19...
pixl97: In some ways the government bringing civil charges against you is rather bullshitty and in many ways can be used against you in violation of your constitutional rights. Hence is the most likely reason the judge is calling it quasi-criminal.
db48x: Right, in effect the Judge ruled that while the state _calls_ it a civil matter, they treat it basically the same as any other criminal matter and therefore it is in fact a criminal matter. As we all know, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
devy: NYC government has thought about the legality of red light cameras. What they made it legal is to have human law enforcement officers review ever single computer flagged speeding footages with zoom out license plates, putting enforcement officer's signature into the tickets mailed out. In the same ticket they also provided a signed affidavit from the red light camera technology vendor's technician who performs weekly technical maintenance to certify that the red light camera is functional proper at the designed technical specifications (violation speed was far exceeds the margin of errors of reported speed etc.) Thus, both signatures satisfied the legal due process in NY state law. And the red light camera tickets mailing out are legal and enforceable.Sources:1. yes I got them before when I was driving a lot in Queens, New York City had legal counsel regarding fighting these red light camera tickets.2. NYC government is quadrupling those cameras as it's a really cheap way to increase municipal revenue and reduce traffic speed. It's working if you drive in Queens NYC you will notice most traffic obey to the speed limits. https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/1q8fm89/nyc_to_quadrup...
ecshafer: > What they made it legal is to have human law enforcement officers review ever single computer flagged speeding footages with zoom out license plates, putting enforcement officer's signature into the tickets mailed out.Sound like, in typical NYC fashion, its also a great way to pad time for the NYPD and get some quid pro quo from their Union.
spunker540: No. Running a red light is when your possession crosses an intersection while the light is red, and should apply to the registered owner.
interestpiqued: If I lend a neighbor my kitchen knife and they murder someone with it, should I be liable?
vkou: When subpoenaed, you'd be obligated to tell the court who you gave the knife to.But if you'd like to tell the fall, I'm sure some prosecutors wouldn't dig too hard to find the guilty party.
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."
