11 ms·

California's new speed camera pilot (AB 645) explicitly solves for this. Tickets issued by these cameras are civil penalties issued to the owner of the vehicle

California's new speed camera pilot (AB 645) explicitly solves for this. Tickets issued by these cameras are civil penalties issued to the owner of the vehicle, like parking tickets, rather than a criminal moving violation. This means the tickets are just as constitutional as parking tickets. It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't impact your driving privilege or insurance. Hopefully other states can follow this pattern. Consistent, low-impact enforcement is better at preventing unwanted behavior than the rare and severe but also capricious enforcement performed by human police.

danesparza 7mo ago
"It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't impact your driving privilege or insurance." Wow! So if you have enough money, it's cool to run as many red lights as you want?
- vkou 7mo ago
  What's the alternative? No rules at all? Immediate death penalty for anyone who runs a red in front of a cop? Seizing and auctioning off the car? Deporting the offender to Texas? Something else? Revoke their license?
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - danesparza 7mo ago
    Wow dude. Calm down. "What's the alternative?". Maybe a more thoughtful law. Perhaps a scaled fine system? (The second fine costs 2x the first fine, the third fine costs 3x the first fine, etc) Maybe after 10 fines you get a point on your license? Maybe the state has to prove it was you driving so they setup more (but discreet) cameras at intersections?
    - cucumber3732842 7mo ago
      I say we set the delay to red and green to be 0 state wide and use the cameras to fine people who don't start moving within a short amount of time after they get green. Betcha red light running drops like a rock after that.
- hamdingers 7mo ago
  I understand your criticism and it is fair, but this represents and improvement over the current state which is effectively no enforcement. They're speed cameras, not red light cameras, and the revenues go towards street improvements to reduce speeding. So you could speed as much as you can afford, but eventually you'll have bought enough traffic calming infrastructure it'll be prohibitively difficult to keep getting tickets.
  - danesparza 7mo ago
    "They're speed cameras, not red light cameras..." Thank you for this clarification and the additional detail you provide! It sounds like the money collected by fines has to go to more traffic calming infrastructure - which is a pretty big deal.
- pfdietz 7mo ago
  Constitutional protections aren't trumped by mere issues of governmental convenience.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
hinkley 7mo ago
These systems are still often too expensive to operate safely. Over and over again these systems have been seen as needing to break even rather than being treated as a public service. But if they actually work then incidence of red light violations should go down, and hopefully substantially. So whatever fines you expect to receive in the first months before drivers adapt are more revenue than you should see at one year or more. So when you start worrying about it as a cost center, then there is a perverse incentive to do things like shorten yellow lights. Short yellows have been proven to create more vehicular fatalities than people running red lights intentionally. And so the person who makes that decision to shorten yellows to boost tickets is effectively committing murder to keep the system “working”. Which is disgusting. Ghoulish, even. It is literally better in such situations to simply dismantle the system than keep it running.
- hamdingers 7mo ago
  They are speed cameras, not red light cameras. That said, the bill addresses this category of abuse directly: if a speed camera fails to reduce 85th percentile speeds or violation volumes within 18 months it must be removed. There are also substantial limits on how the revenues can be spent. If you are interested in this topic it's worth a read: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB645 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
  - hinkley 7mo ago
    Good call. I consider the precedent set here to apply equally to both cases, and the stop light cases tend to be much more egregious, as I've telegraphed in my top-level comment.
- LorenPechtel 7mo ago
  Yup. Cameras "improve" safety in intersections--but not overall. It's just displaced. I would have thought the displacement reduced the severity but the injury data says otherwise. It's a case of removing the top and bottom stair. As you say, it encourages short yellows. I am aware of having "run" one red light in my life--got ticketed for it. The yellow timing was set as short as legally permitted--a driver had a narrow window to decide go or stop. Unfortunately, what happens when neither is an option? I was in the left turn lane and past the decision point. I was already slowing when the light went yellow, I saw it and knew there was absolutely nothing I could do about it. There's also the problem that a huge number of red light tickets are issued to people who "run" red lights in a completely normal and safe manner: making a right turn on red. Car #1 stands as far forward as they can without being in the cross traffic path, the other cars line up behind. First car goes, the rest move forward. Nobody pays attention to the stop line--but the camera does. In the real world, neither speed nor red light cameras pay for themselves except when something about the situation causes a problem--and it would be better addressed by fixing the true problem. Likewise, I have never seen a cop watching a situation for offenders unless there was something out of sync between the law and the road. Half of the traps I've seen over the years have disappeared when the root cause was fixed.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
ggiigg 7mo ago
Yea, that would be great then I can completely ignore them as I am not poor. It just turns speeding into something you can buy.
- aziaziazi 7mo ago
  While I agree with your sarcasm, this proposal is a least bad scenario: no enforcement is worse as there’s less incentive to respect the lights. Sadly money and power buying freedom of law isn’t restricted to road rules.
  - ggiigg 7mo ago
    I would argue such enforcement does not need automation and such automation is often for revenue generation vs saftey focused. Also, I am a bit biased here after working at flock.
    - aziaziazi 7mo ago
      Is there a non-automatic light enforcement other than placing a policemen at every light - which makes the light useless? Revenu generation is a bonus point: in my country taxes that incentive smokers to quit are directed to healthcare and most of the speeding tickets revenue goes to road maintenance and safety. I’d prefer a public handling but the trend is privatization with everything : from health to education to water treatment. Even military assets! IMHO red light tickets enforcement is as much important.
      - deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
      - ggiigg 7mo ago
        > California's new speed camera pilot (AB 645) explicitly solves for this. Your mixing up states. California's law from above comment is NOT about running red lights.
    - amrocha 7mo ago
sowbug 7mo ago
Consistent, low-impact enforcement is better at preventing unwanted behavior than the rare and severe but also capricious enforcement performed by human police. It can also give permission for unwanted behavior. Cf. the Haifa study, where the rate of late pickups increased when daycares added a fine. One explanation is the fine turned a complex moral obligation into an ordinary financial transaction.
- gus_massa 7mo ago
  As the great patio11 said: > Raise the prices. Then raise the prices. Then when you're done with that, raise the prices.
  - _carbyau_ 7mo ago
    Sure. Do it as an increasing-upon-recurrence, two part fee though. 1st offence = base fee 2nd offence = base fee + minimal % of wealth fee 3rd offence = base fee + higher % of wealth fee offences thereafter = goto 3rd offence until some breaking point condition like gaol/jail. Otherwise the rich will happily pay to do whatever the hell they want.
    - buzzerbetrayed 7mo ago
      How about you prove your claim by providing some evidence that the richer you are the more speeding tickets you get. Otherwise you're solving for a problem that doesn’t exist.
      - no-name-here 7mo ago
        I read the grandparent comment's point as being about suggesting %-based fines. > prove your claim by providing some evidence that the richer you are the more speeding tickets you get. How/where did the grandparent comment claim that the rich get more speeding tickets? Even if the rich speed at a lower rate, would that make %-based fines a negative improvement? > a problem that doesn’t exist My assumption was the speeding is a problem no matter whether rich or poor, and that both exist. Is there disagreement there? Instead, I think their point was that even a $100 fine for a poor person may impact their ability to pay for groceries, childcare, etc, whereas for someone who has $10 million, etc., even a $1,000 fine will not impact their ability to pay for groceries, childcare, etc as they still have $9,999,000.
sejje 7mo ago
Hopefully other states don't follow this pattern; I don't think the government should be installing surveillance arrays, even if it's "for the children" or public safety. Trading a little liberty for a little safety and all that.
- XorNot 7mo ago
  Is only said by those days intending to provide neither? Is said in place of using actual arguments or evidence?
- Larrikin 7mo ago
  The problem is ever since COVID the cops don't do their job and everyone drives terribly.
  - estimator7292 7mo ago
    Cameras aren't going to solve that. The "problem" being solved with cameras is "cops aren't generating enough traffic ticket revenue"
    - infecto 7mo ago
      Would it not? I actually don’t think I would mind speeding cameras and the like. Put a camera on every street and auto ticket every car.
      - Spooky23 7mo ago
        My city does it. It sucks ass. It’s a 70% vendor / 30% city revenue share and people avoid the city and use side streets to avoid the main avenues.
        BenjiWiebe 7mo ago
        Are the speed limits set unreasonably low? Otherwise one could always try abiding to the speed limit.
observationist 7mo ago
Or maybe not have automated surveillance robonannies playing gotcha games and pocketing money, often impacting those who can least afford it, over technicalities and arbitrary rules made up to benefit the people doing the collecting. The idea that AI enforcement won't be just as corrupt and capricious as any other form of government run extortion is bonkers. You're talking systems with less oversight than openclaw being run by people whose entire goal is to make as much money as possible, no matter the source. Private, unaccountable companies with effectively no oversight with the legal right to send you invoices for things you might or might not have done, and the cost for disputing it might well exceed the cost of just paying it and getting it over with. Why are Californians so hellbent on giving their money to the government, given the absolute shitshow that is their budget and track record? The only good things that have happened in California for decades comes out of private enterprise, but all the crazy nonsense is fostered and maintained, apparently quite vigorously, by elected governments. I'm furious that 10% of my federal income taxes end up going to California's bullshit, I can't imagine what it would be like having to live there. Seriously, it's bordering on levels of insanity right up there with thinking that Jefferey Epstein would make a great babysitter. Do people just not pay attention? Does the weather just make everyone complacent and docile? Speed cams and automated gotchas allowing the government to raid your pocketbook are a bad thing. There's no framing or circumstances where that's good.
- maxerickson 7mo ago
  I'm furious that 10% of my federal income taxes end up going to California's bullshit, I can't imagine what it would be like having to live there. Your taxes getting evenly distributed is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that removing California from the US would either increase your taxes or require reductions in federal spending.
  - YokoZar 7mo ago
    Yes, California has long been a "donor state", ie one that pays substantially more federal tax revenue than gets spent there. This shouldn't be too surprising as it's much richer than average and the tax system is approximately progressive.
cucumber3732842 7mo ago
>Tickets issued by these cameras are civil penalties issued to the owner of the vehicle, like parking tickets, rather than a criminal moving violation. This means the tickets are just as constitutional as parking tickets. It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't impact your driving privilege or insurance. So what does this say about the legitimacy of having those fines affect your license and insurance when issues by a real flesh and blood cop? Sounds to me like that by default they shouldn't be affecting squat because there's an implicit "the cops will mostly only pull people over if it's unconscionably bad" filter going on.
YokoZar 7mo ago
Why can't they impact insurance? Are CA insurance companies prohibited from using non-criminal information when deciding who to cover or set rates? Given that they insure cars more than drivers, it seems kinda reasonable that they be allowed to look at tickets for cars.
tschwimmer 7mo ago
>It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't impact your driving privilege or insurance. If this is the case, what are the consequences of not paying the fine? I interpret your statement to mean that they can't prevent registration of your car. Can they tow you in SF for unpaid fines?
- bombcar 7mo ago
  I assume they meant you can't lose your license (or get "points" that your insurance company can use to charge you more). I would fully expect that any unpaid fines would be added to next year's registration, and if you don't register and pay, you're driving an unregistered vehicle.
lokar 7mo ago
AIUI, calling a law civil vs criminal and/or limiting penalties to fines only are not always enough to remove the protection of due process.
valiant55 7mo ago
PA did this with construction zone cameras. I'm not sure where that landed because its been a while since I've seen one. I successfully appealed my ticket to the magistrate. It initially started as a pilot program and the law requires signage which during the pilot was quite inconspicuous. After the launch the sign was changed to a tiny little thing, about 1/5 the size of the pilot program. I was going 5 over the reduced speed limit, in the slow lane with rush hour traffic. That thing must've issued thousands of tickets.
- bobthepanda 7mo ago
  The problem is that you need to have decent legislators and hold them accountable, and unfortunately we seem to be backsliding on making that happen.
exabrial 7mo ago
What do you mean other states follow this? Of course not. It’s a nuisance, not a safety measure.
whycome 7mo ago
There's the timing aspect of it as well. As it stands, you only find out about your 'offense' weeks after the fact. If it were a human interaction (eg speeding/police stop) you'd know right away and still have the relevant information in mind to understand the charge and maybe defend. The ability to know and defend should be critical to any charge. K
_heimdall 7mo ago
Interesting that your use of "solves for this" is with regards to the end result of being able to write more red light tickets. In my view, the courts solved this by deeming at least certain uses of red light cameras illegal.
- estearum 7mo ago
  Automated traffic control is objectively one of the most pro-social things we could possibly ever create. Yes it is good if more red light cameras exist and face fewer legal challenges. > the courts solved this by deeming at least certain uses of red light cameras illegal. This is incorrect. The court in Florida said certain arrangement of the statutory basis (a different one than in CA) for red light cameras is illegal.
  - _heimdall 7mo ago
    You're coming with the assumption that pro-social is a universal goal, and that it is objectively good. I'm not even disagreeing with you here, but that's a huge assumption yo make and you are granting pretty broad authority to the state in the name of that goal. Where do you draw the line of power the state shouldn't have despite it using the authority today towards pro-social goals?
    - estearum 7mo ago
      Yes I do think things that are good for society are objectively good insofar as "objectively good" has any meaning at all. Automated traffic enforcement isn't "granting" any new authority whatsoever to the state. The state already has the authority, it just uses it unfairly and imperfectly enough to fail to produce meaningful deterrence. > Where do you draw the line of power the state shouldn't have despite it using the authority today towards pro-social goals? I draw the line at the point where their power becomes not-pro-social, of course. You and I can argue about what's pro-social or not (which this clearly is), but not whether pro-social things are good or not (which they clearly are).
      - 7mo ago
class3shock 7mo ago
That sounds fine except the part where private companies have cameras everywhere surveilling us, directly tied into dmv records to identify us, and then do whatever they want with that data. And not on a random store front or a persons front door but the major roads we all must use. Even forgetting that, all this means is people that don't care about getting a ticket, either because they won't pay or it's a such a small amount to them that they don't care. just do what they want. Nothing is being "enforced", just taxed.
sjtgraham 7mo ago
But AB 645 is designed to punish and deter rather than compensate, which creates a genuine constitutional vulnerability under California's Article I, Section 16 jury trial guarantee. The structural problem is that revenue goes to program costs and traffic calming, not to anyone harmed by speeding, which makes the fines punitive in character under any substance-over-label analysis. The lack of DMV points and criminal record weakens the argument somewhat, but under California's substance-over-label approach those omissions aren't dispositive. They merely show the legislature knew how to stay on the civil side of the line, not necessarily that it succeeded. If a court finds the penalties punitive in character, the owner-liability structure becomes a compounding problem: California's state due process protections are arguably more robust than federal, and imposing a punitive fine on a registered owner without proof they were driving, while burden-shifting exculpation to them looks increasingly difficult to sustain.
- joshuamorton 7mo ago
  Everything you've said applies to parking tickets too. You can't prove that the owner parked the vehicle. Tha owner is ultimately civily liable if the vehicle is parked in a way that it shouldn't be. Extending that same civil liability to the active operation, as opposed to only the consequences of active operation, seems perfectly reasonable.
  - sjtgraham 7mo ago
    The key difference is a parking ticket isn't $500.
    - joshuamorton 7mo ago
      The mentioned fines are $1-200, which is in the same range as parking tickets. I think the best argument is that license points are criminal in nature, but I don't really buy that.
      - joshuamorton 7mo ago
dotancohen 7mo ago
So to work around civil protections in law, California now does not consider speeding to be an offense that should impact one's driving privilege or insurance? Just so they could collect that sweet fine money?
ihavekids 7mo ago
I don't this is is as cut and dry as you're making it seem. See SEC v. Jarkesy. The Supreme Court decided that, when the SEC seeks civil penalties for securities fraud, the defendant has the right to a trial by jury pursuant to the Seventh Amendment.
bikesharing 7mo ago
[dead]
_blk 7mo ago
...and just like parking tickets they shouldn't exist on govt property
quietbritishjim 7mo ago
In the UK, speeding fines are also backed by "points" added to your license - get enough of them and you lose your license altogether for a while. It's similar in at least some other European countries. That is a definite punishment for anyone that cares enough about driving that they were doing it in the first place, while also clearly not being revenue generating (in fact it prevents future fine revenue). I'm not sure that would wash in the car-centric States though (but it would make it an even juicier punishment). But since you don't get banned immediately, it's potentially low-impact on a per-ticket basis.
- SturgeonsLaw 7mo ago
  Australia has this too. It helps with the problem that a fine alone is negligible enough for the wealthy that the road rules would effectively not apply to them.
- mixdup 7mo ago
  Points on your license are already a thing in most states in the US
abcd_f 7mo ago
> can't impact your driving privilege Unlike improper parking, running red lights should impact said privilege as potential consequences are way more serious.
- throwaway2037 7mo ago
  You raise an interesting counterpoint. What if the red light violation ticket issued by an automated camera remains a civil penalty, but it is very large, like 1,500 USD? At some point, the number gets so high that it effectively impacts your driving privilege. Of course, I would expect these new civil penalties to be challenged in court as being "dual purpose".
Xelbair 7mo ago
Congratulations, you've put subscription on running red lights.
owlstuffing 7mo ago
> California's new speed camera pilot (AB 645) explicitly solves for this... like parking tickets That makes the Florida judge's framing of red light cameras as a revenue generating scheme even more applicable. More than that, it ambiguates the crime.

danesparza 7mo ago

"It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't impact your driving privilege or insurance." Wow! So if you have enough money, it's cool to run as many red lights as you want?

vkou 7mo ago
What's the alternative? No rules at all? Immediate death penalty for anyone who runs a red in front of a cop? Seizing and auctioning off the car? Deporting the offender to Texas? Something else? Revoke their license?
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- danesparza 7mo ago
  Wow dude. Calm down. "What's the alternative?". Maybe a more thoughtful law. Perhaps a scaled fine system? (The second fine costs 2x the first fine, the third fine costs 3x the first fine, etc) Maybe after 10 fines you get a point on your license? Maybe the state has to prove it was you driving so they setup more (but discreet) cameras at intersections?
  - cucumber3732842 7mo ago
    I say we set the delay to red and green to be 0 state wide and use the cameras to fine people who don't start moving within a short amount of time after they get green. Betcha red light running drops like a rock after that.
hamdingers 7mo ago
I understand your criticism and it is fair, but this represents and improvement over the current state which is effectively no enforcement. They're speed cameras, not red light cameras, and the revenues go towards street improvements to reduce speeding. So you could speed as much as you can afford, but eventually you'll have bought enough traffic calming infrastructure it'll be prohibitively difficult to keep getting tickets.
- danesparza 7mo ago
  "They're speed cameras, not red light cameras..." Thank you for this clarification and the additional detail you provide! It sounds like the money collected by fines has to go to more traffic calming infrastructure - which is a pretty big deal.
pfdietz 7mo ago
Constitutional protections aren't trumped by mere issues of governmental convenience.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]

hinkley 7mo ago

These systems are still often too expensive to operate safely. Over and over again these systems have been seen as needing to break even rather than being treated as a public service. But if they actually work then incidence of red light violations should go down, and hopefully substantially. So whatever fines you expect to receive in the first months before drivers adapt are more revenue than you should see at one year or more. So when you start worrying about it as a cost center, then there is a perverse incentive to do things like shorten yellow lights. Short yellows have been proven to create more vehicular fatalities than people running red lights intentionally. And so the person who makes that decision to shorten yellows to boost tickets is effectively committing murder to keep the system “working”. Which is disgusting. Ghoulish, even. It is literally better in such situations to simply dismantle the system than keep it running.

hamdingers 7mo ago
They are speed cameras, not red light cameras. That said, the bill addresses this category of abuse directly: if a speed camera fails to reduce 85th percentile speeds or violation volumes within 18 months it must be removed. There are also substantial limits on how the revenues can be spent. If you are interested in this topic it's worth a read: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB645 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
- hinkley 7mo ago
  Good call. I consider the precedent set here to apply equally to both cases, and the stop light cases tend to be much more egregious, as I've telegraphed in my top-level comment.
LorenPechtel 7mo ago
Yup. Cameras "improve" safety in intersections--but not overall. It's just displaced. I would have thought the displacement reduced the severity but the injury data says otherwise. It's a case of removing the top and bottom stair. As you say, it encourages short yellows. I am aware of having "run" one red light in my life--got ticketed for it. The yellow timing was set as short as legally permitted--a driver had a narrow window to decide go or stop. Unfortunately, what happens when neither is an option? I was in the left turn lane and past the decision point. I was already slowing when the light went yellow, I saw it and knew there was absolutely nothing I could do about it. There's also the problem that a huge number of red light tickets are issued to people who "run" red lights in a completely normal and safe manner: making a right turn on red. Car #1 stands as far forward as they can without being in the cross traffic path, the other cars line up behind. First car goes, the rest move forward. Nobody pays attention to the stop line--but the camera does. In the real world, neither speed nor red light cameras pay for themselves except when something about the situation causes a problem--and it would be better addressed by fixing the true problem. Likewise, I have never seen a cop watching a situation for offenders unless there was something out of sync between the law and the road. Half of the traps I've seen over the years have disappeared when the root cause was fixed.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

ggiigg 7mo ago

Yea, that would be great then I can completely ignore them as I am not poor. It just turns speeding into something you can buy.

aziaziazi 7mo ago
While I agree with your sarcasm, this proposal is a least bad scenario: no enforcement is worse as there’s less incentive to respect the lights. Sadly money and power buying freedom of law isn’t restricted to road rules.
- ggiigg 7mo ago
  I would argue such enforcement does not need automation and such automation is often for revenue generation vs saftey focused. Also, I am a bit biased here after working at flock.
  - aziaziazi 7mo ago
    Is there a non-automatic light enforcement other than placing a policemen at every light - which makes the light useless? Revenu generation is a bonus point: in my country taxes that incentive smokers to quit are directed to healthcare and most of the speeding tickets revenue goes to road maintenance and safety. I’d prefer a public handling but the trend is privatization with everything : from health to education to water treatment. Even military assets! IMHO red light tickets enforcement is as much important.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    - ggiigg 7mo ago
      > California's new speed camera pilot (AB 645) explicitly solves for this. Your mixing up states. California's law from above comment is NOT about running red lights.
  - amrocha 7mo ago

sowbug 7mo ago

Consistent, low-impact enforcement is better at preventing unwanted behavior than the rare and severe but also capricious enforcement performed by human police. It can also give permission for unwanted behavior. Cf. the Haifa study, where the rate of late pickups increased when daycares added a fine. One explanation is the fine turned a complex moral obligation into an ordinary financial transaction.

gus_massa 7mo ago
As the great patio11 said: > Raise the prices. Then raise the prices. Then when you're done with that, raise the prices.
- _carbyau_ 7mo ago
  Sure. Do it as an increasing-upon-recurrence, two part fee though. 1st offence = base fee 2nd offence = base fee + minimal % of wealth fee 3rd offence = base fee + higher % of wealth fee offences thereafter = goto 3rd offence until some breaking point condition like gaol/jail. Otherwise the rich will happily pay to do whatever the hell they want.
  - buzzerbetrayed 7mo ago
    How about you prove your claim by providing some evidence that the richer you are the more speeding tickets you get. Otherwise you're solving for a problem that doesn’t exist.
    - no-name-here 7mo ago
      I read the grandparent comment's point as being about suggesting %-based fines. > prove your claim by providing some evidence that the richer you are the more speeding tickets you get. How/where did the grandparent comment claim that the rich get more speeding tickets? Even if the rich speed at a lower rate, would that make %-based fines a negative improvement? > a problem that doesn’t exist My assumption was the speeding is a problem no matter whether rich or poor, and that both exist. Is there disagreement there? Instead, I think their point was that even a $100 fine for a poor person may impact their ability to pay for groceries, childcare, etc, whereas for someone who has $10 million, etc., even a $1,000 fine will not impact their ability to pay for groceries, childcare, etc as they still have $9,999,000.

sejje 7mo ago

Hopefully other states don't follow this pattern; I don't think the government should be installing surveillance arrays, even if it's "for the children" or public safety. Trading a little liberty for a little safety and all that.

XorNot 7mo ago
Is only said by those days intending to provide neither? Is said in place of using actual arguments or evidence?
Larrikin 7mo ago
The problem is ever since COVID the cops don't do their job and everyone drives terribly.
- estimator7292 7mo ago
  Cameras aren't going to solve that. The "problem" being solved with cameras is "cops aren't generating enough traffic ticket revenue"
  - infecto 7mo ago
    Would it not? I actually don’t think I would mind speeding cameras and the like. Put a camera on every street and auto ticket every car.
    - Spooky23 7mo ago
      My city does it. It sucks ass. It’s a 70% vendor / 30% city revenue share and people avoid the city and use side streets to avoid the main avenues.
      - BenjiWiebe 7mo ago
        Are the speed limits set unreasonably low? Otherwise one could always try abiding to the speed limit.

observationist 7mo ago

Or maybe not have automated surveillance robonannies playing gotcha games and pocketing money, often impacting those who can least afford it, over technicalities and arbitrary rules made up to benefit the people doing the collecting. The idea that AI enforcement won't be just as corrupt and capricious as any other form of government run extortion is bonkers. You're talking systems with less oversight than openclaw being run by people whose entire goal is to make as much money as possible, no matter the source. Private, unaccountable companies with effectively no oversight with the legal right to send you invoices for things you might or might not have done, and the cost for disputing it might well exceed the cost of just paying it and getting it over with. Why are Californians so hellbent on giving their money to the government, given the absolute shitshow that is their budget and track record? The only good things that have happened in California for decades comes out of private enterprise, but all the crazy nonsense is fostered and maintained, apparently quite vigorously, by elected governments. I'm furious that 10% of my federal income taxes end up going to California's bullshit, I can't imagine what it would be like having to live there. Seriously, it's bordering on levels of insanity right up there with thinking that Jefferey Epstein would make a great babysitter. Do people just not pay attention? Does the weather just make everyone complacent and docile? Speed cams and automated gotchas allowing the government to raid your pocketbook are a bad thing. There's no framing or circumstances where that's good.

maxerickson 7mo ago
I'm furious that 10% of my federal income taxes end up going to California's bullshit, I can't imagine what it would be like having to live there. Your taxes getting evenly distributed is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that removing California from the US would either increase your taxes or require reductions in federal spending.
- YokoZar 7mo ago
  Yes, California has long been a "donor state", ie one that pays substantially more federal tax revenue than gets spent there. This shouldn't be too surprising as it's much richer than average and the tax system is approximately progressive.

cucumber3732842 7mo ago

>Tickets issued by these cameras are civil penalties issued to the owner of the vehicle, like parking tickets, rather than a criminal moving violation. This means the tickets are just as constitutional as parking tickets. It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't impact your driving privilege or insurance. So what does this say about the legitimacy of having those fines affect your license and insurance when issues by a real flesh and blood cop? Sounds to me like that by default they shouldn't be affecting squat because there's an implicit "the cops will mostly only pull people over if it's unconscionably bad" filter going on.

YokoZar 7mo ago

Why can't they impact insurance? Are CA insurance companies prohibited from using non-criminal information when deciding who to cover or set rates? Given that they insure cars more than drivers, it seems kinda reasonable that they be allowed to look at tickets for cars.

tschwimmer 7mo ago

>It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't impact your driving privilege or insurance. If this is the case, what are the consequences of not paying the fine? I interpret your statement to mean that they can't prevent registration of your car. Can they tow you in SF for unpaid fines?

bombcar 7mo ago
I assume they meant you can't lose your license (or get "points" that your insurance company can use to charge you more). I would fully expect that any unpaid fines would be added to next year's registration, and if you don't register and pay, you're driving an unregistered vehicle.

lokar 7mo ago

AIUI, calling a law civil vs criminal and/or limiting penalties to fines only are not always enough to remove the protection of due process.

valiant55 7mo ago

PA did this with construction zone cameras. I'm not sure where that landed because its been a while since I've seen one. I successfully appealed my ticket to the magistrate. It initially started as a pilot program and the law requires signage which during the pilot was quite inconspicuous. After the launch the sign was changed to a tiny little thing, about 1/5 the size of the pilot program. I was going 5 over the reduced speed limit, in the slow lane with rush hour traffic. That thing must've issued thousands of tickets.

bobthepanda 7mo ago
The problem is that you need to have decent legislators and hold them accountable, and unfortunately we seem to be backsliding on making that happen.

exabrial 7mo ago

What do you mean other states follow this? Of course not. It’s a nuisance, not a safety measure.

whycome 7mo ago

There's the timing aspect of it as well. As it stands, you only find out about your 'offense' weeks after the fact. If it were a human interaction (eg speeding/police stop) you'd know right away and still have the relevant information in mind to understand the charge and maybe defend. The ability to know and defend should be critical to any charge. K

_heimdall 7mo ago

Interesting that your use of "solves for this" is with regards to the end result of being able to write more red light tickets. In my view, the courts solved this by deeming at least certain uses of red light cameras illegal.

estearum 7mo ago
Automated traffic control is objectively one of the most pro-social things we could possibly ever create. Yes it is good if more red light cameras exist and face fewer legal challenges. > the courts solved this by deeming at least certain uses of red light cameras illegal. This is incorrect. The court in Florida said certain arrangement of the statutory basis (a different one than in CA) for red light cameras is illegal.
- _heimdall 7mo ago
  You're coming with the assumption that pro-social is a universal goal, and that it is objectively good. I'm not even disagreeing with you here, but that's a huge assumption yo make and you are granting pretty broad authority to the state in the name of that goal. Where do you draw the line of power the state shouldn't have despite it using the authority today towards pro-social goals?
  - estearum 7mo ago
    Yes I do think things that are good for society are objectively good insofar as "objectively good" has any meaning at all. Automated traffic enforcement isn't "granting" any new authority whatsoever to the state. The state already has the authority, it just uses it unfairly and imperfectly enough to fail to produce meaningful deterrence. > Where do you draw the line of power the state shouldn't have despite it using the authority today towards pro-social goals? I draw the line at the point where their power becomes not-pro-social, of course. You and I can argue about what's pro-social or not (which this clearly is), but not whether pro-social things are good or not (which they clearly are).
    - 7mo ago

class3shock 7mo ago

That sounds fine except the part where private companies have cameras everywhere surveilling us, directly tied into dmv records to identify us, and then do whatever they want with that data. And not on a random store front or a persons front door but the major roads we all must use. Even forgetting that, all this means is people that don't care about getting a ticket, either because they won't pay or it's a such a small amount to them that they don't care. just do what they want. Nothing is being "enforced", just taxed.

sjtgraham 7mo ago

But AB 645 is designed to punish and deter rather than compensate, which creates a genuine constitutional vulnerability under California's Article I, Section 16 jury trial guarantee. The structural problem is that revenue goes to program costs and traffic calming, not to anyone harmed by speeding, which makes the fines punitive in character under any substance-over-label analysis. The lack of DMV points and criminal record weakens the argument somewhat, but under California's substance-over-label approach those omissions aren't dispositive. They merely show the legislature knew how to stay on the civil side of the line, not necessarily that it succeeded. If a court finds the penalties punitive in character, the owner-liability structure becomes a compounding problem: California's state due process protections are arguably more robust than federal, and imposing a punitive fine on a registered owner without proof they were driving, while burden-shifting exculpation to them looks increasingly difficult to sustain.

joshuamorton 7mo ago
Everything you've said applies to parking tickets too. You can't prove that the owner parked the vehicle. Tha owner is ultimately civily liable if the vehicle is parked in a way that it shouldn't be. Extending that same civil liability to the active operation, as opposed to only the consequences of active operation, seems perfectly reasonable.
- sjtgraham 7mo ago
  The key difference is a parking ticket isn't $500.
  - joshuamorton 7mo ago
    The mentioned fines are $1-200, which is in the same range as parking tickets. I think the best argument is that license points are criminal in nature, but I don't really buy that.
    - joshuamorton 7mo ago

dotancohen 7mo ago

So to work around civil protections in law, California now does not consider speeding to be an offense that should impact one's driving privilege or insurance? Just so they could collect that sweet fine money?

ihavekids 7mo ago

I don't this is is as cut and dry as you're making it seem. See SEC v. Jarkesy. The Supreme Court decided that, when the SEC seeks civil penalties for securities fraud, the defendant has the right to a trial by jury pursuant to the Seventh Amendment.

bikesharing 7mo ago

[dead]

_blk 7mo ago

...and just like parking tickets they shouldn't exist on govt property

quietbritishjim 7mo ago

In the UK, speeding fines are also backed by "points" added to your license - get enough of them and you lose your license altogether for a while. It's similar in at least some other European countries. That is a definite punishment for anyone that cares enough about driving that they were doing it in the first place, while also clearly not being revenue generating (in fact it prevents future fine revenue). I'm not sure that would wash in the car-centric States though (but it would make it an even juicier punishment). But since you don't get banned immediately, it's potentially low-impact on a per-ticket basis.

SturgeonsLaw 7mo ago
Australia has this too. It helps with the problem that a fine alone is negligible enough for the wealthy that the road rules would effectively not apply to them.
mixdup 7mo ago
Points on your license are already a thing in most states in the US

abcd_f 7mo ago

> can't impact your driving privilege Unlike improper parking, running red lights should impact said privilege as potential consequences are way more serious.

throwaway2037 7mo ago
You raise an interesting counterpoint. What if the red light violation ticket issued by an automated camera remains a civil penalty, but it is very large, like 1,500 USD? At some point, the number gets so high that it effectively impacts your driving privilege. Of course, I would expect these new civil penalties to be challenged in court as being "dual purpose".

Xelbair 7mo ago

Congratulations, you've put subscription on running red lights.

owlstuffing 7mo ago

> California's new speed camera pilot (AB 645) explicitly solves for this... like parking tickets That makes the Florida judge's framing of red light cameras as a revenue generating scheme even more applicable. More than that, it ambiguates the crime.