Hacker News Reader

Comment by justinsb | Hacker News Reader

Can anyone tell me why speeding tickets aren't enforced with video cameras (like red-light tickets are)? It would seem to be much more accurate, much easier to enforce, and much harder to dispute.

Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of speed limit laws, I do believe that consistent and efficient enforcement can only be a good thing.

View on HN

The goal of speeding tickets is revenue generation not lowering speeds. It's essentially random taxation on people who drive quickly.

Because of that they need mobile, disguisable, hand held units. Video from a handheld unit wouldn't be great for determining speed.

Now, they could easily create combination LIDAR-Video boxes and mount them above traffic for clear speed calculations. But then people would learn where they are and drive slowly at that location so it wouldn't generate any revenue.

In fact it might actually cause accidents because drivers might slam on the breaks when they get close.

> The goal of speeding tickets is revenue generation not lowering speeds.

This depends on the country. In the US and Canada it certainly can be and is a cash grab, but in Switzerland, for example, it's not. Fines are in place, but they are also almost always accompanied by deterrent measures as well. Going 120 km/h through a tunnel where the limit is 80 km/h can earn you a week in prison sleepovers (that is you have to go to the prison for the night) with all earnings for that week withheld as a fine. Also, there's a lot of stationary speedguns, which you can spot at a distance. I also saw semi-portable automated speedgun that was placed in a specific spot where people tended to go over posted 60 km/h limit. It stayed in place for a week and then was removed, presumably after the average speed dropped to the limit.

In Kansas City, Missouri, they installed a bunch of red light cameras and a bunch of false cameras (just boxes mounted on stoplights to look like cameras). The real ones and fake ones were published quickly (with whether they were real) and it had 2 major consequences. First, the traffic courts were quickly overwhelmed with challenges, and it became normal to wait 5-7 months before getting a court date for running a light. Second, several of the intersections with cameras saw a quick increase in accidents, as people were so terrified of a ticket that they would not worry about being rear-ended when stopping very abruptly.

In Ireland we have a system where you can contest any of these automated fines in court. The problem is that the fines and penalty points double should you contest and lose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_points_in_Ireland

How is that even legal? It seems like it would infringe on the requirement of due process anywhere in the world.

That's just a more formalized version of a plea bargain. (Whether plea bargains are just as much a due process violation is not part of my post.)

In an effort to force people that can't afford to pay a double fine from seeking justice through the legal system? Nice.

It's funny that they make it like a game. Actually it's a lot like challenging a word in scrabble.

Alternately, you could change your name to Prawo Jazdy.

Speeding would require the police to record/archive video, vs. just a single photo which contains both your car being behind the white line and the red light.

Also, the red light ticketing programs are often administered by private companies, without officers being involved. Speeding ticket video would need to recorded by the police.

All that said, I think its a great idea and the obstacles can surely be worked out.

Finally, a tip: if you are ever pulled over and you plan to dispute the arrest, request the officer's dashboard video ASAP. This will ensure it is preserved and available for you at trial; if you don't request it quickly enough it might not be available when you do. Don't count on it being around even a week - request it the very next day.

Because video cameras are arguably illegal. You can't face your accuser in court, therefore it should be thrown out.

Got a speeding ticket from one of these lovely cameras in the state of Iowa, then I was sent a bill from some company in Phoenix with bold threats that if I didn't pay the fine, it'd be submitted to a collection agency and negatively impact my credit score (because otherwise I'd just have not paid it. I'd happily live the rest of my life without ever entering Iowa where they could arrest me with a bench warrant)

It's corrupt, illegal and immoral. However, since I (like most people, I'd wager) don't have the time nor energy to fight, I paid my $200 fine and moved on.

Its just extortion, not even law enforcement.

"We saw you do this, pay us $50 and it goes away. No insurance report, no evidence, nobody knows."

Law enforcement does this all the time, so does the mob. Its not even worth it to fight it (economic speaking), the time you'll spend out of work, stressed, etc. Then if you get a lawyer involved. You'll end up spending >$300 in time and money to not spend $50.

This is a common myth.

The camera is not your accuser; the state is, using the camera as evidence of your violation.

It would be no different than a security camera catching you breaking into a building. The camera doesn't sue, the owner of the building does.

Moreover, I'd think it would be quite trivial to place the camera in the court room if any judge were to seriously consider that defense, while the camera furiously exerts its right to silence.

Testimony from a witness that no longer presents information when questioned isn't a very good witness.

The "right to face your accuser" refers to witnesses. The state is _always_ the prosecutor in criminal cases (in the US, IANAL).

So what happens when you are caught breaking into a building, and the camera is evidence of your crime?

This entire line of reasoning would completely destroy any kind of automated crime detection (security systems, security cameras), which is ridiculous on its face.

Further, what happens when you commit a crime where there are no witnesses? People are rightfully convicted of crimes based on "things" rather than the testimony of a person who saw it, regularly.

In order to introduce the video as evidence, they have to put somebody on the stand who will explain how the camera works and so on. And right there is your opportunity to confront them. You can ask all sorts of questions, like when was the last time they cleaned the lenses.

I'm going to need a source on that. I'm pretty sure a video can be entered as evidence without any actual witness to present it. Maybe you live in a state with unusual rules.

Google "entering evidence at trial" and then click on just about any of the first ten results. They all lay out roughly the same procedure.

> Further, what happens when you commit a crime where there are no witnesses?

Someone testifies as to what they've witnessed that makes them believe you are guilty, giving you a chance to question them about any flaws.

Okay. And how does a speed/red light camera preclude this?

IANAL but I don't believe it does. In a criminal trial introducing one as evidence would require some substantial effort (witnesses testifying to location, lack of tampering, etc), but I believe (again, IANAL) that generally states treat camera violations as civil, thus avoiding this work. Whether that's a good thing or not is a different question.

This is not a myth. The government wants people to think this because they don't want the veracity of the camera being questioned. That would be too fair for a system based on cash-register justice.

> Because video cameras are arguably illegal. You can't face your accuser in court, therefore it should be thrown out.

You can go to court and ask to challenge the evidence the camera has provided.

I think that's how it works in the UK. When the lidar detector catches you speeding it fires off a camera that takes 2 photos of the vehicle a set time apart. The car's progress is manually compared against a gauge painted on the road surface to see if you travelled far enough in the time between the 2 photos to have been speeding. This catches those times when a lidar detector gives a false positive.

One word: Discretion

"Confronting Automated Law Enforcement" http://robots.law.miami.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Shay-...

That's a pretty short summary of a 44 page document. Can you elaborate a little more?

Sure. Do you want to live in a world where every time you violate the letter of the law you're penalized? Before you answer, consider that you're going to have to keep 100-200 years of law hot in memory to ensure your daily compliance.

Why bother asking a question when you word it in such a biased way? Obviously my answer is yes, that is the world I want to live in.

Because that's a terrifying world to live in.

I am biased. To accept the idea of compliance with the law to the letter constantly is unreasonable. Roll 1-3 feet over the white stop line? Ticket. 1-2mph over the speed limit? Ticket.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com