Submitted by smurfyjenkins t3_126jvp7 in science
Reply to comment by QristopherQuixote in Automated enforcement of water conservation rules in Fresno, California led to a decrease in summer water use and violations of conservation rules (relative to households subject to in-person inspections). This program massively increased consumer complaints, ultimately causing its cancellation. by smurfyjenkins
Years back instead of driving my diesel to NJ from SC I borrowed my buddies Tacoma. Driving up and in Maryland I go passed a white SUV with cameras attached to the front. His parents got the ticket even though they were nowhere near driving it.
Just because it's convenient, doesn't mean it's right.
Also speed cams and red-light cameras usually are private industry. Contracted by the city or county, they can charge whatever they want but have no state authority other than the go ahead to install the equipment and maintain it. Any revenue paid goes mainly to them, the city gets a cut.
All this to say, I'm all for automation, just wish people would get their greedy hands out of it.
They can only identify the car. Then they send the ticket to the owner, and then the owner give the ticket to the rightful recipient. The only potential issue I see is if the vehicle is stolen, but that should have been reported to the police anyway.
Or the fact it's not up to a private citizen to deliver a ticket to a private citizen. Otherwise every Karen and Keith would be giving tickets to whoever they wanted. I'd you get the ticket in the mail then you either pay or you go to court over it. Judge reviews the picture or video, if they can't determine who it is then the ticket gets thrown out. You still have to pay court costs however.
>Otherwise every Karen and Keith would be giving tickets to whoever they wanted.
Nobody would accept them, and the judges can determine that it isn't theirs from the photo anyway. That's a pointless argument.
If you lend your car to someone and get a photo with the driver visible, it should be easy to get it moving. Chances are that you can even get a new photo of the person to verify your claim that it is them - you wouldn't lend your car to just anyone.
If someone speeds in someone else's car, I'd count that as a betrayal of trust. I wouldn't have any issues whatsoever giving them the ticket they earned for themselves. That I had to give it to them is just a result of me trusting someone I shouldn't have.
They won't pursue someone else. They have bigger issues to deal with. It's either your ticket or it's not. But they send it to whoever is on file. Most of the time on the interstate cameras they are too far away to get a driver picture. So if you fight it, chances are you're going to win.
This whole chain is so ridiculous. In Germany as owner of a car you have to either pay the fine yourself or tell them who drove the car. Then they get the ticket sent to them. You can refuse both and maybe escape the fine. But then you can get ordered to keep a log of the drivers of the car.
I once received a ticket and claimed that I drove that day. I got a summons to the police station to make my statement since the picture evidence didn’t match to me being the driver. Because my wife borrowed my car that day and you could see it was a woman and not a man driving.
Private companies cannot issue traffic citations and charge whatever they want. A civil infraction has to come from a government entity with statutory limits on fines and the money has to go the government entity. Most camera systems are bid out to and implemented by private companies on behalf of either a state or local government.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments