3 ms·

"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 man

"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]

"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]