5 ms·

>"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 th

>"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 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo ago
    There are too many examples of them rubber-stamping.
- crote 7mo 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 7mo 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.
spankalee 7mo ago
This is funny quote. Is the driver even disputing that they were the driver? They seem like they're just mad they got caught. Maybe they just stop running red lights?
- jotux 7mo ago
  I suspect this is some light with chronically-bad timing that gets run by tons of people every day. The camera is taking a photo with a bunch of vehicles in the frame and it's ticketing the one that had the license plate unobstructed, even if a few of the vehicles in the frame technically entered the intersection when the light was yellow. Sometimes lights are just so poorly implemented, and drivers pass through them so often, it feels like whoever designed the intersection was actively goading drivers into running the light.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - kstrauser 7mo ago
    My hometown got busted making yellow lights shorter than the legally required duration, then hitting drivers with tickets for running a red light they couldn't have safely and reasonably avoided. There are standards for this kind of thing, like if a light is on a road with a speed limit of X, then a yellow light has to last Y seconds. Imagine a yellow light that lasted .5s: you'd have to stand on your brakes and risk causing a rear end collision from the car behind you to even have a chance of not getting fined. That's the opposite of safety. My place wasn't that bad, but a defendant successfully demonstrated that the yellow light he was tricked by was illegally short, and a judge basically threw out all the tickets from it and others. I mention this as just one example of specific light setups that suck. I bet you're right, and this is just a money grab from the local gov't. Read this if you want to be angry today: https://ww2.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/ https://ww2.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-sho...
    - morkalork 7mo ago
mikkupikku 7mo ago
That somebody got nailed twice suggests to me that they are at least making borderline yellow-light decisions, if not running the red outright. I doubt they actually know anything about how tickets are handed out, claiming it's just some guy handing them out at random is flagrant cope.
mikrl 7mo ago
In North America, from what I understand, the issue is that the authorities need to verify your identity in order to ticket you and traffic cameras don’t do that whereas a police officer does. I agree the automated systems are impartial, but they cannot ID you without it becoming super invasive. In Europe and places with more omnipresent cameras, the laws are such that they can ticket you without needing to ID. The car gets the ticket so to speak.
- brewdad 7mo ago
  Many US states have switched to that approach. The ticket goes to the registered owner of the vehicle and no penalty points are attached. It's treated more like a parking citation than a traditional moving violation.
- tjohns 7mo ago
  It depends on whether the ticket is considered a criminal or civil matter in the US. For a criminal case, yes, they need to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" - which would require that you are positively identified as the driver. For a civil case, they only need to prove by a "preponderance of the evidence" - which is a much lower standard. This is why tickets from red-light cameras in many states are zero-point citations. You're still charged a fine, but there's no finding of guilt attached to the offense, which keeps it away from being considered a criminal matter. (This is the same way parking tickets work.)
- forinti 7mo ago
  In Brazil, you can identify who was driving the car and they will get charged with the fine and get the points on their licence. You can do it all using an app on your phone. It's really simple. I don't know what happens if the other person denies it though.
- red-iron-pine 7mo ago
  What does "North America" have to do with Florida? I'm in Canada and they issue you a fine without any ID. It goes straight to the registered car owner. Simple as. The issue is that currently in FL there are points / demerits issued for violations, and these can cause the loss of a license, increases to insurance, etc. This is not a problem if an officer can ID you directly.
burkaman 7mo ago
This person is not articulating it well but I think they are complaining that the person identified as the driver is random. Presumably the camera can impartially identify a car running a light, but not necessarily who is driving. "I've been ticketed here twice, and it's ridiculous because they - it's just not fair. The person that - [let me start over] - the determination when you ran the light [of who is responsible], it's just a random whoever they want to pick ... [they] pick you to say, okay, you're gonna pay the ticket." Obviously it's not actually random, it just defaults to the vehicle's owner, but with a generous reading I think you can interpret the quote this way based on the context of the article. I think it's kind of irresponsible and lazy for the publication to use a verbatim verbal quote like this, when it isn't from someone notable who really needs to be quoted. If you don't understand what they're saying then don't put it in the article, and if you do understand then put in a sentence explaining what they're saying.
- b112 7mo ago
  Everywhere I've been, the owner of the car gets the ticket, and it's up to them to figure out if they were driving, or if not them, collect from whomever they loaned the car to. No camera I've ever seen tries to figure out who the driver is. The logic is, it's your car, you're responsible for loaning it/owning it, so you get the fine. Don't like that? Don't loan your car out. The trade off is no points are deducted from a driver's license. It's a pure fine, because they can't prove you were driving. So the person just seems to be speaking gibberish to me. edit: More context... The same logic applies for parking tickets. No one cares who parked the car, the car's owner gets the ticket... not the person who parked it. While I dislike red light cameras, the logic holds.
  - burkaman 7mo ago
    I've never gotten an automated ticket so I don't know what is normal. It doesn't seem insane to give it to the vehicle owner, but I can certainly understand feeling indignant about getting a ticket for something you didn't do, especially if it's a new process.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]

Retric 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo ago
  There are too many examples of them rubber-stamping.
crote 7mo 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 7mo 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.

spankalee 7mo ago

This is funny quote. Is the driver even disputing that they were the driver? They seem like they're just mad they got caught. Maybe they just stop running red lights?

jotux 7mo ago
I suspect this is some light with chronically-bad timing that gets run by tons of people every day. The camera is taking a photo with a bunch of vehicles in the frame and it's ticketing the one that had the license plate unobstructed, even if a few of the vehicles in the frame technically entered the intersection when the light was yellow. Sometimes lights are just so poorly implemented, and drivers pass through them so often, it feels like whoever designed the intersection was actively goading drivers into running the light.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- kstrauser 7mo ago
  My hometown got busted making yellow lights shorter than the legally required duration, then hitting drivers with tickets for running a red light they couldn't have safely and reasonably avoided. There are standards for this kind of thing, like if a light is on a road with a speed limit of X, then a yellow light has to last Y seconds. Imagine a yellow light that lasted .5s: you'd have to stand on your brakes and risk causing a rear end collision from the car behind you to even have a chance of not getting fined. That's the opposite of safety. My place wasn't that bad, but a defendant successfully demonstrated that the yellow light he was tricked by was illegally short, and a judge basically threw out all the tickets from it and others. I mention this as just one example of specific light setups that suck. I bet you're right, and this is just a money grab from the local gov't. Read this if you want to be angry today: https://ww2.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/ https://ww2.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-sho...
  - morkalork 7mo ago

mikkupikku 7mo ago

That somebody got nailed twice suggests to me that they are at least making borderline yellow-light decisions, if not running the red outright. I doubt they actually know anything about how tickets are handed out, claiming it's just some guy handing them out at random is flagrant cope.

mikrl 7mo ago

In North America, from what I understand, the issue is that the authorities need to verify your identity in order to ticket you and traffic cameras don’t do that whereas a police officer does. I agree the automated systems are impartial, but they cannot ID you without it becoming super invasive. In Europe and places with more omnipresent cameras, the laws are such that they can ticket you without needing to ID. The car gets the ticket so to speak.

brewdad 7mo ago
Many US states have switched to that approach. The ticket goes to the registered owner of the vehicle and no penalty points are attached. It's treated more like a parking citation than a traditional moving violation.
tjohns 7mo ago
It depends on whether the ticket is considered a criminal or civil matter in the US. For a criminal case, yes, they need to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" - which would require that you are positively identified as the driver. For a civil case, they only need to prove by a "preponderance of the evidence" - which is a much lower standard. This is why tickets from red-light cameras in many states are zero-point citations. You're still charged a fine, but there's no finding of guilt attached to the offense, which keeps it away from being considered a criminal matter. (This is the same way parking tickets work.)
forinti 7mo ago
In Brazil, you can identify who was driving the car and they will get charged with the fine and get the points on their licence. You can do it all using an app on your phone. It's really simple. I don't know what happens if the other person denies it though.
red-iron-pine 7mo ago
What does "North America" have to do with Florida? I'm in Canada and they issue you a fine without any ID. It goes straight to the registered car owner. Simple as. The issue is that currently in FL there are points / demerits issued for violations, and these can cause the loss of a license, increases to insurance, etc. This is not a problem if an officer can ID you directly.

burkaman 7mo ago

This person is not articulating it well but I think they are complaining that the person identified as the driver is random. Presumably the camera can impartially identify a car running a light, but not necessarily who is driving. "I've been ticketed here twice, and it's ridiculous because they - it's just not fair. The person that - [let me start over] - the determination when you ran the light [of who is responsible], it's just a random whoever they want to pick ... [they] pick you to say, okay, you're gonna pay the ticket." Obviously it's not actually random, it just defaults to the vehicle's owner, but with a generous reading I think you can interpret the quote this way based on the context of the article. I think it's kind of irresponsible and lazy for the publication to use a verbatim verbal quote like this, when it isn't from someone notable who really needs to be quoted. If you don't understand what they're saying then don't put it in the article, and if you do understand then put in a sentence explaining what they're saying.

b112 7mo ago
Everywhere I've been, the owner of the car gets the ticket, and it's up to them to figure out if they were driving, or if not them, collect from whomever they loaned the car to. No camera I've ever seen tries to figure out who the driver is. The logic is, it's your car, you're responsible for loaning it/owning it, so you get the fine. Don't like that? Don't loan your car out. The trade off is no points are deducted from a driver's license. It's a pure fine, because they can't prove you were driving. So the person just seems to be speaking gibberish to me. edit: More context... The same logic applies for parking tickets. No one cares who parked the car, the car's owner gets the ticket... not the person who parked it. While I dislike red light cameras, the logic holds.
- burkaman 7mo ago
  I've never gotten an automated ticket so I don't know what is normal. It doesn't seem insane to give it to the vehicle owner, but I can certainly understand feeling indignant about getting a ticket for something you didn't do, especially if it's a new process.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]