4 ms·

> For example, if you get hurt by a red light runner, you should get paid by all the accident free red light tickets. This is referenced in the article, but if

by bmelton 10y ago

> For example, if you get hurt by a red light runner, you should get paid by all the accident free red light tickets. This is referenced in the article, but if there is an accident-free red light running incident, then there are no plaintiffs with standing to claim injury ergo there are no tickets issued (as there would be no one to issue them) ergo there would be no revenues. The idea that you can make a facial wrong into something just by putting the ill-gotten gains to better use than they currently are is undoubtedly somewhat more noble an act than what is currently done, but still ignoble as it is predicated on ignobility. Past that, your idea has pragmatic challenges. If the funds are placed into a trust or insurance policy, then they are not being used to fund the police and court systems that generate those funds, so the system cannot perpetuate itself without significantly raising the cost of the tickets to cover both the insurance policy funds and the regular maintenance fees, which makes a ticket expensive enough to be worth hiring an attorney to fight, meaning fewer fees collected, meaning fees would need be raised again to cover the cost of avoidance.

JoBrad 10y ago
> if there is an accident-free red light running incident, then there are no plaintiffs with standing to claim injury ergo there are no tickets issued (as there would be no one to issue them) ergo there would be no revenues. That's not what the article was about. Injury does not have to occur for you to get a ticket (and have to pay it) for running a red light. You have violated a regulation, and the city has standing. The article was about a different situation where there was no actual proof that Adam broke the law, yet he was being accused of exactly that.
- bmelton 10y ago
  No, injuries do not have to occur for you to get a ticket. Injuries do have to occur for one to have standing in a civil suit. If it is a criminal act, then you have the right to presumption of innocence, to confront your accusers, and the burden of proof is on the state to prove that it was indeed you who was driving at the time. As the article details, that is NOT how red light camera "crimes" are treated. To be fair, they aren't treated like civil violations either, which is the crux of the complaint. As citizens, we are supposed to have protections against a state who engages in such a fashion, but my point (perhaps poorly made before) is that in order to extend such protections to the citizenry for laws like this, the cost of the crime must go up substantially, as it is only by the current practice that these punishments can be so inexpensive to get away with. Someone upstream (I couldn't find it skimming) makes the point that it is only because these claims are so small that their punishments are tenable by the population, and I broadly agree with that. If a red light ticket were thousands of dollars, they'd be fought vigorously by everyone who got such a ticket, and it's quite likely that they'd be treated more like real cases than de rigueur as they are. If they were fought so vigorously, they might fall on claims of constitutionality, so it is imperative that the fines be kept low enough that nobody would engage with the massive undertaking of fighting them to a high enough level that matters.
  - mannykannot 10y ago
    I do not think cerium's suggestion requires that the beneficiaries need be regarded as plaintiffs in a civil suit, it merely suggests limits on the flow of funds. Other than that detail, I think you make some very valid points.
    - bmelton 10y ago
      I wasn't suggesting that the beneficiaries would be named plaintiffs, but that in order for the state to sue a red-light runner for running a red light, the state has to be a plaintiff, and if they cannot prove any injury from someone running a red light, then they have no standing to sue. Apologies if I didn't make that clear in my earlier posts.

by bmelton 10y ago

JoBrad 10y ago

> if there is an accident-free red light running incident, then there are no plaintiffs with standing to claim injury ergo there are no tickets issued (as there would be no one to issue them) ergo there would be no revenues. That's not what the article was about. Injury does not have to occur for you to get a ticket (and have to pay it) for running a red light. You have violated a regulation, and the city has standing. The article was about a different situation where there was no actual proof that Adam broke the law, yet he was being accused of exactly that.

bmelton 10y ago
No, injuries do not have to occur for you to get a ticket. Injuries do have to occur for one to have standing in a civil suit. If it is a criminal act, then you have the right to presumption of innocence, to confront your accusers, and the burden of proof is on the state to prove that it was indeed you who was driving at the time. As the article details, that is NOT how red light camera "crimes" are treated. To be fair, they aren't treated like civil violations either, which is the crux of the complaint. As citizens, we are supposed to have protections against a state who engages in such a fashion, but my point (perhaps poorly made before) is that in order to extend such protections to the citizenry for laws like this, the cost of the crime must go up substantially, as it is only by the current practice that these punishments can be so inexpensive to get away with. Someone upstream (I couldn't find it skimming) makes the point that it is only because these claims are so small that their punishments are tenable by the population, and I broadly agree with that. If a red light ticket were thousands of dollars, they'd be fought vigorously by everyone who got such a ticket, and it's quite likely that they'd be treated more like real cases than de rigueur as they are. If they were fought so vigorously, they might fall on claims of constitutionality, so it is imperative that the fines be kept low enough that nobody would engage with the massive undertaking of fighting them to a high enough level that matters.
- mannykannot 10y ago
  I do not think cerium's suggestion requires that the beneficiaries need be regarded as plaintiffs in a civil suit, it merely suggests limits on the flow of funds. Other than that detail, I think you make some very valid points.
  - bmelton 10y ago
    I wasn't suggesting that the beneficiaries would be named plaintiffs, but that in order for the state to sue a red-light runner for running a red light, the state has to be a plaintiff, and if they cannot prove any injury from someone running a red light, then they have no standing to sue. Apologies if I didn't make that clear in my earlier posts.