One 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?
Same flaws. It was all designed to make up for budget cuts and stayed when it made a dent. Once they got used to the money from it, they got complacent with how effective it actually was. This is Law Enforcement in America in a nut shell. They only care when they can’t make their pension plan payments. Rather than go out there and police, they have staffing shortages and rely on the private sector to provide services that allow them to “police” from afar or by an algorithm.
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.
Coming to the part about issuing fines to the registered owner, you can nominate a different driver online here, when replying to the fine. The person nominated need to accept this as well before it is taken off the person to whom the vehicle is registered to.
Right, many other countries let you point the finger at someone else. The problem is that in the US the government is not legally allowed to even issue a ticket unless they can prove that the person they are prosecuting is the guilty party. Merely being the owner of the car is not enough.
Right. I am completely aware that it works that way in many parts of the world, but in the United States of America it is unconstitutional _unless_ the state law makes it a completely civil infraction that is settled using a fine only. No points, no suspensions, no police interaction at all. Under Florida’s laws it is explicitly a misdemeanor for the _driver_ of a car to run a red light, so it is unconstitutional for a police officer or court to assume without proof that the _owner_ of the car was driving at the time the red–light camera took a photograph of the car.
I understand that this blows people’s mind. People in other parts of the world tend to think that they are just as protected from their government as we are in the USA, but the truth is that in practice their governments get away with a lot of crap that doesn’t fly over here. Sometimes our government gets away with some crap for a time, until the courts catch up. Sometimes the courts even make obviously wrong rulings. Judges are only human, so that is to be expected. But on the whole it’s a pretty good system.
> People in other parts of the world tend to think that they are just as protected from their government as we are in the USA
No one in a modern democratic country thinks this way. US is not a benchmark in any form other than grandstanding about rights. Government snooping and overreach is as much a problem in US compared to other countries.
The difference is that something as simple as a traffic rule violation is not linked to constitutional rights because the repercussions of over speeding and jumping a signal is a catastrophic and could lead to deadly accidents. The problem that was solved with the linked verdict was that the process of proving innocence was not easy and this could have been easily solved with process change, without all the legal wrangling. It is just legalese porn and an over complication.
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.
My city seems to be fixing this by having yellow lights extend when it sees a car reasonably close to the intersection. And also helps by switching lights quickly based on car presence.
> the Judge also spent some ink criticizing the law because paying the ticket removes the ticket from your driving record
Weird thing to point out, as in Florida, if you get any traffic citation, you just hire The Ticket Clinic for ~$80. If they don't get your ticket expunged or points eliminated, you get your money back. They don't lose often. You can keep racking up tickets, but not get any points, as long as you've got $80.
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.
Yes, there is a distinction. But it’s irrelevant in this case because you can be ticketed for either. The speeding ticket goes to the registered owner and there are no demerit points as there is no proof of driver identity.
No, there is a difference. Parking tickets are civil infractions that can only result in a fine (or in some cases a tow, but let’s not get lost in the weeds). Running a red light, on the other hand, is a moving violation committed by the _driver_ specifically, not the owner of the vehicle. Moving violations can result in criminal penalties. Sending a ticket to the owner of the vehicle and then making them defend themselves is unconstitutional.
Look, I get it. You guys are all European and think it’s perfectly normal to have to defend yourself when the government assumes that you are guilty. But here in the USA we have protections against that. The government _must_ assume that you are innocent until they can _prove_ that you are guilty. That includes not assuming that the owner of the vehicle was the one driving it, no matter how common that scenario is.
I’m not European. Many countries have speed cameras.
It differs how you’re caught. We treat a red light camera or speed camera violation as an infringement offence, like parking. If you’re pulled over, you can have your license suspended or be charged with reckless driving on the spot, because they know who you are.
There’s no case, and no guilt, just a penalty. It’s not about guilt but responsibility. You’re responsible for the car when it’s registered to you.
If you want an analogue, try carpool lane tickets. Same thing.
If your country’s law says that the owner of the car commits a crime if the driver runs a red light, then ticketing the owner makes perfect sense. But in Florida the law says that the _driver_ has committed the crime. Therefore the _driver_ must be ticketed, not the owner.
It’s not a crime, it’s an infringement (NZ) or civil infraction (FL), and there’s no criminal record associated. There’s a material difference between an infraction and a crime.
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.
You mistakenly believe that these camera systems are not functioning exactly as intended: they're a revenue stream. If they ended up shutting down the offenders that revenue stream would dry up. The sociopath you've identified is called a whale instead.
One 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?