Comment by vitally3643
3 days ago
Traffic cameras and automated ticketing systems should be unconstitutional. If you are facing legal consequences for something, you have the constitutional right to face your accuser. Obviously that precludes any and all automated systems.
The only reason they aren't deemed unconstitutional is because technically they don't quite meet the qualification for being legal action as they are "merely" fines. Even though if you ignore the fines you face legal consequence.
If a jurisdiction wants to ticket drivers, they should be constitutionally mandated to have a person with authority out on the street writing tickets. It should not be acceptable for an automated system to hand out monetary and legal damages entirely unsupervised and unaccountable. That flies directly in the face of constitutional rights.
>>The only reason they aren't deemed unconstitutional is because technically they don't quite meet the qualification for being legal action as they are "merely" fines. Even though if you ignore the fines you face legal consequence.
YES, and,
It is not just the legal consequence of the fines for speeding. When you get a ticket, you get points against your license, and end up paying more in insurance, often for up to seven years.
If they want actual automated enforcement, make it a toll, like a congestion fee.
It is free to drive at the basic speed (e.g., 65mph on the highway), but higher speeds cost more, up to a limit where it becomes a criminal offense requiring an actual Law Enforcement professional involved. The speeds could even be adjusted for time of day, weather, and traffic. So, you want to go faster, stay in the fast lane, and pay $X/mph/mile.
With the average speeds on highways often over 75MPH, collecting $0.10/mph/mile over the limit would result in good revenues.
> When you get a ticket, you get points against your license, and end up paying more in insurance, often for up to seven years.
AFAICT this not the case in the vast majority of states that allow automated enforcement. Of the three I saw in that list that do: California replaced theirs with purely civil penalties earlier this year, and Arizona and Oregon require law enforcement officers to manually review and sign off on the ticket and offer legal avenues for you to respond.
https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/red-light-running/safety...
>With the average speeds on highways often over 75MPH, collecting $0.10/mph/mile over the limit would result in good revenues.
...assuming people don't change their behaviors.
Indeed!
And then it would be a win for the advocates of everyone slowing down, which was never achievable with ordinary enforcement that claims to be about safety but is actually about revenue.
Plus, this would almost definitely be on a price/demand curve. If the price is too high, almost everyone will change behavior to avoid getting billed, i.e., they'll "sell" very few speeding tickets. If the price is low, almost everyone will go fast because they can afford it like they afford parking when they arrive. There will be some optimum that maximizes revenue.
They could even bend the price curve to optimize revenue but minimize real excess speeds. E.g., $0.10/mph/mile»65mph for 69-77mph, then 77-88 it's $0.40, and over that it's $1.50.
If the goal is to change behavior, this would do it, as the cost would be very reliable, not just taking your chances with a human-issued ticket with a big fine and insurance consequences for years. You really need to get to that meeting? OK, is it worth 15 miles x $1.50 x (90-65mph) = $562, or is it better to stay below 87mph and pay only $132? And if it's raining so they doubled the rates, almost no one will do it.
OFC the actual values would differ from these examples, but it seems like a far better system. And they can well and truly decide between revenue vs desired speed. They could even have algorithms to increase rates in zones that see higher accident rates and decrease tolls in areas seeing fewer accidents.
If you have to shakily walk backwards into a D- explanation of the concept of a civil offense, maybe you shouldn't remark on the constitutionality of enforcing them.
>If you are facing legal consequences for something, you have the constitutional right to face your accuser. Obviously that precludes any and all automated systems.
Usually they work around that issue by having a cop manually review the footage after.
That just time shifts the incident. Is there any legal precedent for “time shifted crime” versus “innocent until caught?”
> Is there any legal precedent for “time shifted crime” versus “innocent until caught?”
Why wouldn't this work? If you robbed a house while nobody was around, and later caught you thanks to surveillance footage, do you think you'll be able to argue it doesn't count because the cop wasn't around?
>If you are facing legal consequences for something, you have the constitutional right to face your accuser.
That's not true. The Sixth Amendment, which talks about the right to face one's accuser is explicitly referencing criminal prosecution only.