Every criminal citation (yes traffic tickets are criminal citations) must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. More importantly, to bring the charges in the first place, there must be probable cause that a particular person committed the particular offense. Tell me, if you borrowed your sister’s car for a road trip and had an ounce of meth with you, do you think it would be fair for her to be charged with possession? Obviously that’s an extreme example compared to the question at hand, but the Bill of Rights applies them equally. In fact, other states have found traffic citations based on cameras to be unconstitutional for the same reason. DISCLAIMER: I’m fine with the cameras themselves remaining; they could be valuable for gathering evidence of who’s at fault in a wreck...and who ran a red light IF you have other evidence to corroborate the identity of the driver. But the LPN alone? Nah
I also think these cameras should remain. They are already installed. Just stop giving tickets. Gather the data and if an accident occurs, use it as evidence. Just like any other security cam footage.
It's different in the UK. They issue the citation to the owner of the vehicle, then the owner identifies the driver. That's the way it should be. That's also the way some US jurisdictions handle red light cameras. They treat them as parking tickets. Fine only, no criminal citation. I don't get why Americans are so lax about traffic safety.
Well, I don't think I really believe that, at least with what I know so far. T-bone accidents in intersections are pretty severe, and one of the most common causes of accidents is red-light running. So, if they aren't interested in it to improve public safety, they should be. But if what you say is true, no problem. If you set the rules to take out the profit incentive (vendors are paid fee-for-service, excess revenues given to charity or something), then revenue-minded municipalities won't bother with it. Only cities that see it as a public good in itself would be interested. But you're right about autonomous vehicles. That'll make the whole thing moot when you take the human out of the driver's seat.
Had the cities sold it as a safety/evidence thing, maybe people would have bought into it. But greedy people gonna greed.
I'm a fan. No expectation of privacy on public roads. The government doesn't care where I go. Police need to be more helpful when it comes to traffic surveillance. I've never been able to get police assistance for surveillance footage of any accident.
The safety benefits outweigh the capitalist aspect. Are we really more upset that a company profits off traffic violations compared to the lives these cameras saves?
Except that the RLCs are LESS safe, as has been clearly indicated in this discussion. ... and which is more important to you: safety? or freedom? Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. (no - I'm not saying that we should be free to run red lights. I'm saying that we mustn't become a society that is constantly policed by automated machinery)
The studies show less injuries and less deaths at intersections with red light cameras. I'm in favor of traffic enforcement, automated or not. It's the most dangerous thing we do on a daily basis.
Not sure if this is the same thing, but I just got a ticket from the Harris County Toll Road Auth for going through the EZ Pass without a EZ Tag sticker (I was lost one day) and its from last May with my old car, I am going to pay it but does this fall in the same category?
