4 ms·

Traffic cameras identify the owner, the person who registered the vehicle, not the driver meaning there's no license to put points on. There is no points system

Traffic cameras identify the owner, the person who registered the vehicle, not the driver meaning there's no license to put points on. There is no points system (At least in NY) for registration to my knowledge.

nateguchi 6mo ago
In the UK, the owner is liable for identifying the driver at the time of the incident. This is how it works with e.g. rental cars. If the owner doesn't identify the driver, they get the points
- p_ing 6mo ago
  In the US, you have the right to face your accuser. Since that's not possible with a camera, photo-based enforcement becomes a non-moving violation. You can still point the finger at someone else when you get the ticket in the mail. Or just put a bunch of question marks in reply as it is on the State to prove their case, not for you to snitch on your own bad driving habits. At least that is how it works in the state I live in.
  - TheCoelacanth 6mo ago
    That's obviously not true. Camera evidence is used as evidence of crimes all the time. Security cameras would be utterly worthless if they couldn't. Right to face your accuser in that context means that you have the right to cross-examine relevant witnesses about how that camera evidence was collected and applied.
    - p_ing 6mo ago
      Please read the remainder of the thread. Context matters. Pedantry, not so much.
- MiiMe19 6mo ago
  That sounds like guilty until proven innocent.
  - iso1631 6mo ago
    Not really, you are asked who was driving. If you are driving: You say "Me", then they give you the points You lie, say it "Bob", then you're guilty of perverting the course of justice. They then write to Bob, If Bob agrees, then he's also guilty of perverting the course of justice, but most of the time you'll both get away with it. If Bob disagrees, then they look more into it. If you refuse to answer then you're guilty of not saying who was driving the car, a completely separate offence to the original speeding one, and one which is typically more serious In the US you can mow down a child, drive away, and despite people having your plates and giving them to the cops, they can't actually arrest you because it was only your car which was used to kill someone?
    - pavon 6mo ago
      That would run afoul of the right against self-incrimination in the US[1]. The government can't compel someone to admit they were driving, and can't punish people for refusing. The government has to provide proof they were driving. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self-incrimination https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self-incrimination
      - deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
      - jmm5 6mo ago
        Courts have held that people have less rights while driving then they do in other settings (such as walking down the street or as a passenger in a vehicle). For example, the doctrine of implied consent allows the government to compel you to submit to a blood alcohol test without a warrant. I wonder if something similar could be applied here. I certainly support civil liberties, but they need to be balanced against the government's strong interest in preventing the bloodshed that comes from the reckless operation of vehicles.
pavon 6mo ago
Seems like one solution could be that after a certain number of violations the registration is revoked. And it can only be re-registered under special registration that allows use by a single driver.

nateguchi 6mo ago

In the UK, the owner is liable for identifying the driver at the time of the incident. This is how it works with e.g. rental cars. If the owner doesn't identify the driver, they get the points

p_ing 6mo ago
In the US, you have the right to face your accuser. Since that's not possible with a camera, photo-based enforcement becomes a non-moving violation. You can still point the finger at someone else when you get the ticket in the mail. Or just put a bunch of question marks in reply as it is on the State to prove their case, not for you to snitch on your own bad driving habits. At least that is how it works in the state I live in.
- TheCoelacanth 6mo ago
  That's obviously not true. Camera evidence is used as evidence of crimes all the time. Security cameras would be utterly worthless if they couldn't. Right to face your accuser in that context means that you have the right to cross-examine relevant witnesses about how that camera evidence was collected and applied.
  - p_ing 6mo ago
    Please read the remainder of the thread. Context matters. Pedantry, not so much.
MiiMe19 6mo ago
That sounds like guilty until proven innocent.
- iso1631 6mo ago
  Not really, you are asked who was driving. If you are driving: You say "Me", then they give you the points You lie, say it "Bob", then you're guilty of perverting the course of justice. They then write to Bob, If Bob agrees, then he's also guilty of perverting the course of justice, but most of the time you'll both get away with it. If Bob disagrees, then they look more into it. If you refuse to answer then you're guilty of not saying who was driving the car, a completely separate offence to the original speeding one, and one which is typically more serious In the US you can mow down a child, drive away, and despite people having your plates and giving them to the cops, they can't actually arrest you because it was only your car which was used to kill someone?
  - pavon 6mo ago
    That would run afoul of the right against self-incrimination in the US[1]. The government can't compel someone to admit they were driving, and can't punish people for refusing. The government has to provide proof they were driving. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self-incrimination https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self-incrimination
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    - jmm5 6mo ago
      Courts have held that people have less rights while driving then they do in other settings (such as walking down the street or as a passenger in a vehicle). For example, the doctrine of implied consent allows the government to compel you to submit to a blood alcohol test without a warrant. I wonder if something similar could be applied here. I certainly support civil liberties, but they need to be balanced against the government's strong interest in preventing the bloodshed that comes from the reckless operation of vehicles.

pavon 6mo ago

Seems like one solution could be that after a certain number of violations the registration is revoked. And it can only be re-registered under special registration that allows use by a single driver.