this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023
11 points (100.0% liked)

City Life

2114 readers
1 users here now

All topics urbanism and city related, from urban planning to public transit to municipal interest stuff. Both automobile and FuckCars inclusive.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

hoping this catches on, pretty please CA...

i like the fact that the money can only go into maintaining the speed cameras or into making the road safer. those are both things desperately needed, especially in LA.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Andjhostet@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (12 children)

So, two concerns with this.

  1. Hasn't it been shown the cameras actually increase accident rates? Basically it makes people drive less predictably, by slowly really quickly when they realize there's a camera. I could be thinking of red light cameras, rather than speed cameras but I thought it was both.

  2. I'm pretty sure they aren't enforceable? If someone doesn't want to pay one it's super easy to get out of. Which ends up meaning that the people who need be held accountable, aren't. And the people that are decent drivers, continue to be decent drivers.

[–] dhork@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure they aren't enforceable? If someone doesn't want to pay one it's super easy to get out of. Which ends up meaning that the people who need be held accountable, aren't. And the people that are decent drivers, continue to be decent drivers

The problem is that any ticket that is issued solely based on a camera (like speeding or red light cameras) can normally only detect the car by its plates, while tickets are normally written against a driver. In some states, this means that points can't be assessed, and fines punish the poor more than the rich. In others, all the car owner has to do is submit an affidavit saying "I wasn't driving" to get out of it. If the owner is lying, that's perjury, of course. But who will bother checking into it?

A camera that is coupled with a law enforcement presence is much more enforceable, because you pull the car over and issue the ticket to the driver right there, using the camera data as proof.

[–] Pseu@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Hmm. When my boyfriend drove under a toll camera in my car, I called to explain that I wasn't the one driving at the time. The lady on the line asked if the vehicle was stolen, when I said no, she said I had to pay the fine and if I didn't, I may not be able to register my vehicle. Naturally, I paid the fine.

We have some precedent with red light cameras and the like repeatedly being held up. Courts are equipped to handle bad actors and if that becomes an actual problem, they're not going to just shrug if someone has 25 speeding violations that they're not paying. I could see this working once or twice, but if you're driving past that camera every day, it'll be a good idea to start obeying the law sooner rather than later.

[–] dhork@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

A toll is a more legitimate thing to "bill" to a car, though. The car was present, after all, and someone ought to pay. Now that tollbooths are going away, it's logical to bill whoever the car is registered to. (And, if the toll is not paid, it's the car that is "punished" by being ineligible to be registered, not the driver through fines or points).

If your boyfriend was speeding, though, and caught on camera, but the court said you were speeding instead, would you have just taken the fine for that, knowing it would also affect your insurance? I doubt it.

You're correct that people can only "get away" with stunts like I mentioned a limited number of times, particularly if they go in front of the same judge multiple times. But it's also a fact that if law enforcement can't prove you were the one driving, theres only so much they can do.

load more comments (10 replies)