16 ms·

Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

• embedding-shape 8mo ago
  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.
  • deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  • californical 8mo ago
    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.
    • true_religion 8mo ago
      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 8mo ago
        The alternative would be an actual criminal record because you misjudged a yellow light.
        • LorenPechtel 8mo ago
          If the yellows are set correctly there should be very little of misjudging. You see yellow, if you can reasonably stop you do so. Judging only is an issue when you're going below the speed limit.
          • wat10000 8mo ago
            “If you can reasonably stop” needs to be judged and can be misjudged.
    • bluefirebrand 8mo ago
      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 enforcement Shift the problem onto individuals, make it a burden for the public. Typical HN attitude
      • n8cpdx 8mo ago
        Or you could ask your friends who borrow your car not to be dipshits who run red lights. If you get a ticket for your teen running a red light, you can have your teen pay for it. Might be a good learning lesson.
        • floren 8mo ago
          But the reason for the ruling is that if your teen runs a red, YOU get points on your license.
          • crote 8mo ago
            Not if the teen takes responsibility. So don't loan out your car to people who aren't willing to take responsibility for their actions. Surely that's not a massive burden?
            • xeromal 8mo ago
              Is that just?
              • californical 8mo ago
                Yes, vehicle ownership is a level of responsibility, I believe it is just to be accountable for what happens with it.
                • iamnothere 8mo ago
    • freediddy 8mo ago
      If you read the article, you would see that issue addressed. The claim was that it wasn't civil, it was quasi-criminal which is why they had to follow due process.
    • deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
    • cucumber3732842 8mo ago
      >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 8mo ago
        Criminal offenses are punishable by incarceration. Civil offenses are not. --- Mild speeding, no seatbelt, broken taillight are civil. DUIs, reckless driving, hit-and-run are criminal. All vehicular offenses, but different punishments. --- Unauthorized immigration to the US is NOT punishable by incarceration. (It can result in deportation to the nation of origin.)
        • cucumber3732842 8mo ago
          >Criminal offenses are punishable by incarceration. And what happens if you don't pay civil (or criminal) fines? A bench warrant gets issued and you get arrested. And if you get a contempt charge in all this guess where you can go? The only "real difference" between a criminal offense where they "can" jail you but usually just fine you is procedural. I would rather catch a bullshit DUI than have a local building commissioner coming after me for some violation. They're both $10k problems, but with one of them you have "real rights" >Unauthorized immigration to the US is NOT punishable by incarceration. The problem wasn't what the statutory punishment is or isn't. The problem was the unilateral nature of it. Hence all the hoopla over warrant types, sloppy behavior, etc.
          • 8mo ago
    • joecool1029 8mo ago
      Sort of. Basically you can fine the owner of the car and revoke the privileges of driving that car in a given state. Where it gets to be a problem is if the charge is against the 'driver' of the car and the state's not able to prove that. Normally, in courts we can face our adversary and cross-examine, etc. We hit this problem in NJ during the red light camera pilot program, I can remember a guy I worked with getting a ticket because his roommate borrowed a car and the front was hanging out a bit into the intersection. Some other thoughts: An illegally parked car can be fined, impounded, booted. Car with outstanding parking tickets can also have all of the above. But typically the driver wouldn't see points or a moving violation for any of these offenses. For example: NYC you can get blocking the box tickets written by parking enforcement but they don't carry the weight of a moving violation like a police officer's ticket would. (and if you don't pay it, it's not the driving privilege that's suspended in the state, it's the car itself that would be targeted for booting/impounding, etc)
    • deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
  • dolni 8mo ago
    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 8mo ago
      They are not required to know who is driving their registered vehicle at all times, just that anyone that is allowed to drive it has a license.
      • dolni 8mo ago
        What are some scenarios where a vehicle owner knows that the vehicle is being driven by someone with a license, but not who that person is?
        • yjftsjthsd-h 8mo ago
          You have one spouse and several children, and all of them have a license and are allowed to use the car?
          • brewdad 8mo ago
            Your court date will be weeks after receiving the citation in the mail. Most families talk once in a while.
            • HDThoreaun 8mo ago
              The state is constitutionally unable to force you to testify against yourself because the judge ruled these tickets are quasi criminal
        • riquito 8mo ago
          Happens all the time. You and your spouse do the same or similar route (e.g. bring child to school) and a month later you get a ticket. Who was driving that day?
  • cromka 8mo ago
    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 plausibly explain why was someone operating your car while you were not aware of it. > In light of this, seems like a no-brainer no one could disagree with. If someone shoots a person with your gun, you gonna say it wasn't you and expect them not to question any 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 8mo ago
      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'. > 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? Nobody has said you can't be questioned.
      • throwaheyy 8mo ago
        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.
        • arijun 8mo ago
          When you say personally responsible, do you mean legal repercussions? Because, yes, that is definitionally what the law is. Or do you mean some extra-judicial responsibility? Because GP (and this whole chain, for the most part) is only talking about law.
        • 0x3f 8mo ago
          The state is so powerful that inviduals should be given such affordances, and should be allowed the put the state to strict proof. Europe is a nonsense in this regard: you have rights, except all the special cases when you don't. You have a right to free speech, except for all the ways in which you don't. You have the right to silence, except when you don't. Which is also true in the US, after all they restrict obscenity as a form of speech. It's just that they have much fewer exceptions.
  • tacticalturtle 8mo ago
    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 8mo ago
      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 8mo ago
        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.
        • pixl97 8mo ago
          More states are enacting laws that directly charge the parents in these cases.
          • GuinansEyebrows 8mo ago
            example of a very recent case: https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/04/us/colin-gray-verdict-mass-shooting-parents https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/04/us/colin-gray-verdict-mass-sh...
  • maratc 8mo ago
    I think that administrative charges do not need to clear the "beyond a reasonable doubt" bar -- that is reserved for criminal cases only. (So indeed, breaking in or killing.) "Preponderance of the Evidence" which is probably used for traffic cases means only "more likely than not" (or about 51% certainty).
  • mikkupikku 8mo ago
    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.
    • SoftTalker 8mo ago
      Parking tickets don't go on your driving record. They are just a tax on parking improperly.
      • mikkupikku 8mo ago
        I thought the same was true of automated red light and speeding tickets too.
        • pixl97 8mo ago
          No, they are considered moving infractions in many states.
    • Ekaros 8mo ago
      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.
  • dangood 8mo ago
    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.
  • smsm42 8mo ago
    Yeah, keeping this would be a dangerous precedent. If the state can presume you're guilty in a traffic case, why not extend it to other cases? Stuff like that is routinely used in legal arguments, "we are doing X so why can't we do Y which is essentially the same?" So say they'd go for "we have your phone located within the vicinity of where murder is committed, now prove you're not a murderer!" or "your license place was tagged next to the store that was robbed, now prove you didn't rob the store!" And yes, very likely some people would abuse it to get out of traffic tickets. I'd rather have that than constitutional due process protections eroded. We're not doing super-great on that anyway, we don't need to do worse, and if some scoundrel occasionally not paying traffic ticket is a price we have to pay to avoid that, I am fine with it.
    • LorenPechtel 8mo ago
      Yup. Camel's noses should always be shot. Otherwise they creep in more and more. Some examples that come to mind: Look how the exception for searches at border crossings has expanded. The use of actions against licenses for behavior that has nothing to do with the license. The use of permits to get companies to do things only marginally related to the purpose of the permit. The encouragement of universities to expel those accused of criminal acts--just because the punishment isn't jail should not mean the state can hand it off to a kangaroo court. Pressuring financial companies to cut ties with disliked things. (For example, getting Steam to remove games with any whiff of incest. Either declare them illegal or don't take action against them!)
      • smsm42 8mo ago
        You can add using banks as a leverage to suppress legal but "undesirable" activities - see Operation Choke Point.
        • LorenPechtel 8mo ago
          How is that not covered by my last example?
  • jonahhorowitz 8mo ago
    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/photo-red-light-defenses/ https://caticketking.com/help-center/photo-red-light-help/ph...
  • mvdtnz 8mo ago
    > 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. Camera infractions do not carry license demerit points because of this ongerent uncertainty. What's the alternative? Use even more valuable police resources to issue these tickets? Or just not penalize dangerous infractions?
    • pixl97 8mo ago
      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.
    • NetMageSCW 8mo ago
      >Or just not penalize dangerous infractions? Perhaps needing to show these are dangerous infractions should come first?
  • ApolloFortyNine 8mo ago
    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.
    • dolphinscorpion 8mo ago
      Hit and run is different; the car is insured, regardless of the driver. If criminal, they will interview to see if the owner was driving, who else had access to the car, and so on.
  • litoE 8mo ago
    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.
    • seemaze 8mo ago
      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.
      • hunter2_ 8mo ago
        If the law is such that the owner is guilty regardless of who was driving, but the owner can opt to reassign the fine to the driver if they have the willingness and the evidence to do so, then proving innocence isn't really what's happening if the driver opts to do it. That said, if merely being the owner of a tool is sufficient to be guilty of whatever infraction someone else performs with said tool, that has 2 problems beyond the whole "proving your innocence" debate: 1. Why stop climbing up the chain at the current owner when you could keep climbing and say it's all the fault of the manufacturer? I jest, but this illustrates why, despite my first paragraph, it's indeed only sensible that the driver be at fault, so the government must prove who was driving. 2. Why treat cars differently from, say, weapons?
        • seemaze 8mo ago
          The whole point is that the law is not such that "owner is guilty regardless". This is the weaponization of bureaucracy to maximize profit. The cost to issue a legally dubious citation is substantially less than the cost to refute it. It also happens to fall afoul of the right to due process, as realized by the state of Florida.
  • paulddraper 8mo ago
    The article title is: "Judge dismisses red-light camera ticket, rules law is unconstitutional" Which is better than the HN title.
  • socalgal2 8mo ago
    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?) cases I think another is where a someone goes to bar, drinks too much, the bartender gets charged. Rather than just fight the cameras, what solution would you suggest? Just saying "more officer enforcement" doesn't seem valid as budgets are shrinking, applicants are shrinking, and people are dying from reckless drivers.
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• 1shooner 8mo ago
  >"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 8mo ago
    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.
    • brewdad 8mo ago
      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.
      • LorenPechtel 8mo ago
        There are too many examples of them rubber-stamping.
    • crote 8mo ago
      ... which is why they are supposed to be regularly calibrated by an independent third party - with tickets automatically being void if law enforcement can't prove that it was functioning properly.
      • Retric 8mo ago
        Sure in theory, in practice the incentives don’t align for local governments to particularly care if these things actually work well. Here there was no attempt to photograph the driver rather than just assume the owner was responsible or would point to the responsible party.
• stevehawk 8mo ago
  just means they will install more cameras to capture driver faces or buy cellphone data
  • bluefirebrand 8mo ago
    Cellphone data is not sufficient to prove who is operating a vehicle
• jscomino 8mo ago
  Here's a novel idea: Let the citizens vote on whether they want red-light cameras or not.
  • francisofascii 8mo ago
    I suspect the result would be dependant on the specifics. How much is the fine, and how much of a delay after the red triggers a ticket. Sounds like they are set at $158?
• 46493168 8mo ago
  Palantir found their next contract for facial recognition. Palatir x Flock collab soon?
• db48x 8mo ago
  Steve Lehto has an analysis of the opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VinCGmdj-jQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VinCGmdj-jQ 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?
  • reactordev 8mo ago
    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.
  • spankalee 8mo ago
    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.
    • jacquesm 8mo ago
      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.
      • neutronicus 8mo ago
        Not in my jurisdiction - the biggest offenders know that there's no collection mechanism with any teeth, so they just ignore the fines [1]. FWIW, despite all this the speed cameras have been effective at reducing average speeds at problem points. [1] https://www.wmar2news.com/homepage-showcase/how-md-drivers-with-va-tags-are-getting-away-with-thousands-in-unpaid-speeding-tickets https://www.wmar2news.com/homepage-showcase/how-md-drivers-w...
• analog31 8mo ago
  This is going to be the year of refunds from the government.
• CapitalistCartr 8mo ago
  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.
  • thenewnewguy 8mo ago
    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.
    • edoceo 8mo ago
      What kind of time and money and opportunity cost would it take to right this wrong?
      • thenewnewguy 8mo ago
        I don't know for sure because I don't live in Tampa, but it is generally free (minus the opportunity cost of your time) for these types of tickets, no lawyer or other expense required.
  • edoceo 8mo ago
    This is the correct take. And it's frustrating! To fix the problem an individual has to fight a huge, multi-party system (law, jurisdiction, police, tech-provider) - it's a (near) impossible feat for a person.
  • dangood 8mo ago
    Sorry, but what is the concern, that you don't know when you've crossed a red light? Or that the software is too stupid to know when a light was red?
• lateforwork 8mo ago
  The problem with red-light cameras is that enforcement becomes robotic. Robots are perfect—they don’t make mistakes (at least in theory), and they don’t show leniency. If policing is done by robots, then humans are expected to be infallible.
  • spankalee 8mo ago
    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.
    • NetMageSCW 8mo ago
      “all the time” When was the last person killed by someone running a red light? When was the time before that?
      • tmtvl 8mo ago
        Well, in 2019 an estimated 840 people died in the U.S.A. by red light running (<https://ncsrsafety.org/stop-on-red/red-light-running-fatality-map-2019/ https://ncsrsafety.org/stop-on-red/red-light-running-fatalit...>). That's about 2.3 people a day, so last person killed by someone running a red light was statistically about 10.5 hours ago, the last one before that about 21 hours ago.
  • bluefirebrand 8mo ago
    > If policing is done by robots, then humans are expected to be infallible The reality is that the people doing the policing are counting on humans not being infallible Fines 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
• crote 8mo ago
  Surely the obvious next step is to charge the car itself with the crime of moving through a red light? Isn't that what civil forfeiture was supposed to be for? You're not getting a ticket, we're just impounding your car until someone bails it out... Besides, it neatly solves the whole responsibility problem for self-driving car!
  • seydor 8mo ago
    The car is then required to do X number of self driving rides for free until the total amount is paid off
• t1234s 8mo ago
  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 8mo ago
    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.
    • Detrytus 8mo ago
      There’s nothing complicated about roundabouts: entering it is like joining the traffic from a parking lot/your own driveway, exiting it is like exiting a highway.
      • 0x3f 8mo ago
        It's not exactly the same though You yield to traffic from the left, which mean someone from a leftward entrance has priority, but they can actually be blocked by other traffic. So you have to not only consider yielding to them, but also whether they are yielding to someone else, thus giving you space to go. I see this computation mess people up all the time. Also, judging intentions is much harder. On a multi-lane highway, it's very clear when someone is cutting across lanes to exit. And there's only one place they can be exiting. On a multi-lane roundabout, they might be taking the exit before your entrance, or the one after. Often people won't be signalling, or even giving incorrect signals. When joining as well, if I'm emerging onto a busy road with two lanes in the direction I'm going, I will probably accept joining when the nearest lane is clear, even if the next lane is not, as long as the cars there don't look to be moving into the nearest lane. On a roundabout people can peel off at any time, and you should really wait until there's a gap in all lanes.
    • unselect5917 8mo ago
      The only difference is Americans aren't yet used to them because they're uncommon. You fix that by making them common. It's not like there's a genetic difference in Europe that makes them capable of roundabouts and Americans not.
• mchusma 8mo ago
  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.
  • stronglikedan 8mo ago
    Most people like to drive and don't share your views, and it will be that way in five years too.
    • triceratops 8mo ago
      I like to drive. I support taking asshole drivers' licenses. They ruin my driving experience.
    • mchusma 8mo ago
      I’m skeptical. The average cost of car ownership is $0.69 per mile without insurance, $0.25 per mile to store it, and $0.49 per mile in societal costs (death, injuries, delays due to accidents). So about $1.43 per mile. I do not enjoy driving, so would add more cost per mile, maybe some would want to pay more but I do t see that much joyriding outside of teenagers and classic car enthusiasts, so I don’t think those that do it for pleasure is a large population. Tesla cybercab is targeting $0.20 per mile. Waymo projections are $0.40 per mile by 2030. Assuming both hit $0.50 and are twice as safe, this is basically $0.75 per mile. I don’t see may paying more to drive themselves. And I think as society there will be non economic reasons human driven cars get banned. Like MADD but for human cars. So I expect 5 years and human cars will not make sense in many cases, 10 years new human car sales to be <50% current levels, 15 years you start seeing bans. 20 years bans common.
• ayaros 8mo ago
  Florida did something good for once?
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• spullara 8mo ago
  It seems like the law was poorly written. If it is civil, automated speeding tickets and red light tickets should be just added to the registration cost. If it is criminal, you definitely need to identify the person in order to prove they are guilty.
• arjie 8mo ago
  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 8mo ago
    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 8mo ago
      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.
      • pixl97 8mo ago
        Yep. Cars are horrifically dangerous and we treat them like toys. It's part of driver culture in the US and why we'll never design for public transportation.
• vaadu 8mo ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VinCGmdj-jQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VinCGmdj-jQ He's a lawyer and describes it in excellent detail. One side issues the judge brought up is that no points go on the driver's record with a red light camera offense. The entire point of the points system is to get bad drivers off the road. But people can have numerous red light infractions and still keep their license.
• SilverElfin 8mo ago
  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 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    • SilverElfin 8mo ago
      They’re only proven to unnecessarily slow the flow of traffic and create inconvenience for the majority of people, and revenue for mismanaged local governments. That’s not a right wing thing, it’s just reality. Not to mention I’m not sure how you’re drawing this weird political association here in the first place.
• credit_guy 8mo ago
  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 …)
  • Glyptodon 8mo ago
    Where I live people run them routinely to make left turns. The light timing and spacing are bad, so at some intersections people will keep turning left long past the turn red. There are also several intersections where people cross but get stuck in the middle because another light has to change for traffic to move.
  • loeg 8mo ago
    The worst drivers do it a lot more than good drivers.
  • kamarg 8mo ago
    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 8mo ago
      >drivers have expired temp tags Then 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.
• knowitnone3 8mo ago
  [dead]
• shevy-java 8mo ago
  Interesting - the constitution protects people for so many years now.
• fusslo 8mo ago
  After reading the 21 page order, I do tend to agree with the judge The 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.
  • moduspol 8mo ago
    Doesn't the same logic apply to parking tickets?
    • Tactical45 8mo ago
      And speed light cameras
      • atomicUpdate 8mo ago
        What is a speed light camera?
    • deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
    • causal 8mo ago
• triceratops 8mo ago
  Red light camera fines, like all sin taxes, should be made revenue neutral.
  • Drunk_Engineer 8mo ago
    By that you mean the fines should be made much higher, right? Because traffic crashes have a huge economic cost.
    • triceratops 8mo ago
      Set the fines to any level, it doesn't matter. I only mean that all revenues collected from the fines must be distributed to the public at large. They must never be treated as a revenue source for the government. Sin taxes are meant to reduce bad behavior - or incentivize good behavior. Ideally you'd collect $0 in red-light fines because everyone's following the law. If some politician's budget or private company's revenue stream depends on traffic fines they have adverse incentives. I don't want my city council member voting against traffic safety initiatives because it makes people better drivers and that means less money for some other city program.
  • advisedwang 8mo ago
    Where does the fine money go? Building more red-light cameras?
    • triceratops 8mo ago
      Back to taxpayers. Subtract only the cost of installing and maintaining the cameras and aggressively audit that annually. Cut everyone a check at the end of the year. Buy each household a pony. Have a really good 4th of July fireworks display. It doesn't matter, as long as the government can't spend it for any government program. (And actually the pony and fireworks programs might be susceptible to corruption - just send a check) Or in the case of a private company contracted to run the cameras, don't give a private company a contract to run the cameras. At least not a contract where they get paid in proportion to the fines collected. No one should profit off bad behavior. No government program's funding should have to depend on people driving badly.
• limagnolia 8mo ago
  It should be noted that red light cameras were NOT found unconstitutional as a thing, BUT Florida (and many other states) implementation of them was. And I think the judge used very good, solid reasoning.
• devy 8mo ago
  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_quadruple_intersections_with_red_light/ https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/1q8fm89/nyc_to_quadrup...
  • ecshafer 8mo ago
    > 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.
• kazinator 8mo ago
  > "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. Of course they don't want to be identified after blankly admitting they were ticketed; i.e. they were the one driving, in fact. Entitled prick: running red lights, and crying "unfair". > 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." Complete nonsense; why is the article even quoting this mouth breather? These cameras work in terms of determining that the given vehicle was involved in the alleged violation. There is nothing random about it. It's not randomly pinning a drummed up allegation on vehicles not involved in a violation. The choice of pinning the ticket on the registered owner is also not random. Typically these systems take at least two shots, moments apart, one showing the vehicle not yet in the intersection (whose traffic light is clearly red) and then the same vehicle in the intersection a split second later, providing evidence that the vehicle entered the intersection on a red.
  • protocolture 8mo ago
    >Of course they don't want to be identified after blankly admitting they were ticketed; i.e. they were the one driving, in fact. In context of this article, being ticketed does not require to be the person driving.
    • kazinator 8mo ago
      You don't say things like "I was ticketed here twice" if it was someone else using your car.
• bell-cot 8mo ago
  Before getting too excited - note that it's just a County Court Judge. So the ruling only applies in one of Florida's 67 counties.
• jollyllama 8mo ago
  Stephen Ruth sends his regards.
• aschatten 8mo ago
  https://www.law.gmu.edu/pubs/papers/ls15_36 https://www.law.gmu.edu/pubs/papers/ls15_36
• richard_chase 8mo ago
  I was pulled over for having a non-obstructive frame on my license plate. The officer said they interfere with the red light cameras. He then presented me with a screwdriver and gave me the option of getting a ticket or taking it off. I took the screwdriver and he watched me take it off. I lost a freedom due to a shitty ml model.
  • sejje 8mo ago
    Time to paint your rear-end chrome.
  • NetMageSCW 8mo ago
    Just put it back on? In my state, that would not be a stoppable offense anyway if we had red light cameras (too easy to abuse).
    • vincston 8mo ago
      Well if this abuse is common the fines should rise. How would you enforce it otherwise?
• angry_octet 8mo ago
  This is a great argument for fines indexed to the price of the car, and non-linearly with speed and value and repeated occurrences. Fine = 2 ^v^2 ^n^2 ^p^2 Where v is velocity % higher than the speed limit, n is the number of speeding occurrences in the past 12 months, p is the normalised price of the vehicle. Obviously these parameters could be tweaked. The result should be that frequent violations cost much more, cost is proportional to the increased danger, and rich people feel the cost of violations.
  • dmix 8mo ago
    Or they can just hire more police and deter crime with actual hard work instead of building a nanny state running social experiments based on how nice your car appears.
    • angry_octet 8mo ago
      I can see that you have sand in your underpants about getting infringements for breaking the law. It is obviously uneconomic to have very expensive police officers enforce traffic crime when automated cameras are so effective. What you are really arguing for is individual exceptionalism for rich people to violate speed limits. It isn't a "social experiment" to deter crime, and calibrating punishment to have an actual deterrent effect has a long precedent. If it is "nanny state" policy to set speed limits that penalise repeat offenders and hoons in high powered cars, you will find it has broad community support.
• Arch-TK 8mo ago
  The US could be be such an amazing place... Meanwhile the solution to this problem in the UK is to reaffirm that you are in fact guilty by default unless by happenstance you are determined not to be by an unfairly chosen panel of blind and deaf mice.
• gozucito 8mo ago
  Fun fact! This is the second time red light camera tickets have been successfully challenged. I believe the first time it was because the photos were processed out of state. Apparently it didn't stick!
• ProllyInfamous 8mo ago
  These are already unconstitutional in Tennessee — yet the private company still sends out violation notices (with a payment address). Nothing happens if you don't pay them; state congressmen have burned their own citations publicly.
• donatj 8mo ago
  Minnesota is in a strange place where they were ruled unconstitutional, and they disappeared for many years. Now they are back, and to get around that they are not a misdemeanor, aren't a ding against your license or insurance, and you're under no obligation to pay them.
• engelo_b 8mo ago
  The ripple effects for automotive liability will be interesting to watch here. For a long time, insurance companies have viewed these citations as an easy signal for high-risk behavior. If that signal is now legally 'poisoned fruit' in Florida, it likely makes the move toward private telematics tracking your actual braking and speed via apps even more inevitable for the carriers. They are going to want that risk data one way or another, and private tracking bypasses the due process issues of municipal cameras.
• _slih 8mo ago
  whether you want a network of cameras tracking every vehicle through every intersection is a different question that nobody voted on
• natas 8mo ago
  the judge probably also got a ticket
• rudhdb773b 8mo ago
  The issue with police departments trying to maximize fine revenue has a simple solution.. pass a law that says all fines go directly to the treasury. A similar law could eliminate most of the problems with civil forfeiture.
• jibal 8mo ago
  The HN title is factually incorrect. As the article's title and text state, it was Florida's specific law that was declared unconstitutional, and not because of red light cameras.
• fennecfoxy 8mo ago
  Lmao why. Stop driving through red light, stop speeding. Ya fuckers. In the UK it's ridiculous, barely any speed cameras and those that are there are clearly marked (legally have to be). Everyone just slows down for the speed cameras and then start speeding again after. I've actually heard people say that the above is effective because it makes people slow down where it's important. Or, you know how about people just don't fucken speed in general? If it were up to me they'd be everywhere, totally unmarked and all revenue from fines would go to charitable causes to rule out the "but they just do it for da money!11" bs - no, they're doing it to stop people speeding and killing someone for fuck's sake. Stop speeding.
  • Orygin 8mo ago
    Except cameras don't increase safety. You say it yourself that everyone just speeds up after the camera. Getting a ticket also does nothing to prevent you from speeding in the first place (the ticket does not arrive to you instantly, you're still speeding on the road). Road safety is an infrastructure problem, but it is always easier and cheaper to just put a camera and collect money. While designing roads that you cannot go too fast, and actually building them cost money. They just want the cheapest option to say "we did something". Not the safest.
    • presentation 8mo ago
      One time when I was living in Shanghai, I accidentally took the train to the wrong airport and had to take a cab to the other one. The cabbie was driving on the highway right at the speed limit, and I was worried I wouldn’t make my flight. I asked him if he could rush a bit, but he replied that he would not speed because 100% he would get a ticket. It only doesn’t work if the system is half assed. But I agree that in low speed pedestrian areas, the built form is a better solution, but knowing you will get caught is also effective (if you accept the privacy tradeoffs).
      • Orygin 8mo ago
        It is effective if there are cameras everywhere, meaning you are tracked and spied on everywhere you go. I'd prefer we spend a bit more on the road infrastructure than live in a surveillance hell.
• vincston 8mo ago
  Its baffling to me how the US cannot handle their traffic laws. How is there any doubt in running a red light? Why can they not let common sense handle it? Just fine the car owner without question. Car owners will think twice borrowing their cars. Easy detection, less bureaucracy. And hopefully safer streets.
  • theragra 8mo ago
    Read other comments. It is not so simple. Traffic lights often are configured wrongly, when yellow light is too short. So, violations are used to profit from cases when the driver could not have been stopped. In such system, it is better to be safe than sorry.
• oompydoompy74 8mo ago
  Good. If you aren’t there to catch me it didn’t happen. The last thing we need is even more of a surveillance state. They should be illegal federally.
• globular-toast 8mo ago
  In the UK this is simple. If you want to operate a motorvehicle on the public highway you need to register it. Part of this is that the vehicle will have a registered keeper: the person responsible for knowing who is driving the vehicle and when. If you want to operate a vehicle on the road, you must accept the responsibility that comes with being a registered keeper. More and more I'm seeing people taking privileges wherever they can but completely shirking responsibility. There is a name for a person who pushes the boundaries but takes no responsibility: a child. How do we get people to understand that someone needs to take responsibility in this world? If it's not the adults then who will?
• whalesalad 8mo ago
  I think every jurisdiction who has ever deployed these has come to the same conclusion. I remember paying $500 for a red light ticket in Glendale CA in around 2012 and a year or two later they were outlawed.
• sharpshadow 8mo ago
  It’s a common practice to avoid penalties like losing your driving license due to traffic violations by declaring that you haven’t been driving the vehicle during the incident and it was somebody else which has to agree to this and let’s say gets a monetary compensation. It works like that here in Germany, it sounds like it works in a similar way in the US. Penalizing the owner of the vehicle regardless of the driver would be less ideal for society in my opinion.