For example, if you get hurt by a red light runner, you should get paid by all the accident free red light tickets.
This is referenced in the article, but if there is an accident-free red light running incident, then there are no plaintiffs with standing to claim injury ergo there are no tickets issued (as there would be no one to issue them) ergo there would be no revenues.
The idea that you can make a facial wrong into something just by putting the ill-gotten gains to better use than they currently are is undoubtedly somewhat more noble an act than what is currently done, but still ignoble as it is predicated on ignobility.
Past that, your idea has pragmatic challenges. If the funds are placed into a trust or insurance policy, then they are not being used to fund the police and court systems that generate those funds, so the system cannot perpetuate itself without significantly raising the cost of the tickets to cover both the insurance policy funds and the regular maintenance fees, which makes a ticket expensive enough to be worth hiring an attorney to fight, meaning fewer fees collected, meaning fees would need be raised again to cover the cost of avoidance.
That's not what the article was about. Injury does not have to occur for you to get a ticket (and have to pay it) for running a red light. You have violated a regulation, and the city has standing. The article was about a different situation where there was no actual proof that Adam broke the law, yet he was being accused of exactly that.
As the article details, that is NOT how red light camera "crimes" are treated. To be fair, they aren't treated like civil violations either, which is the crux of the complaint.
As citizens, we are supposed to have protections against a state who engages in such a fashion, but my point (perhaps poorly made before) is that in order to extend such protections to the citizenry for laws like this, the cost of the crime must go up substantially, as it is only by the current practice that these punishments can be so inexpensive to get away with.
Someone upstream (I couldn't find it skimming) makes the point that it is only because these claims are so small that their punishments are tenable by the population, and I broadly agree with that. If a red light ticket were thousands of dollars, they'd be fought vigorously by everyone who got such a ticket, and it's quite likely that they'd be treated more like real cases than de rigueur as they are. If they were fought so vigorously, they might fall on claims of constitutionality, so it is imperative that the fines be kept low enough that nobody would engage with the massive undertaking of fighting them to a high enough level that matters.
Other than that detail, I think you make some very valid points.
Apologies if I didn't make that clear in my earlier posts.
That's a great idea. But that means taking that revenue from fines out of the government's general fund. Or it means engaging in a shadow-booking shell game where the fine revenue goes both to (a) showing the government's general fund books are balanced and (b) is somehow earmarked for making restitution to victims.
Your suggestion requires long-term honest bookkeeping from a government. I believe that makes it infeasible, sorry to say.
Otherwise, one of the greatest acts of civil disobedience is to advocate perfect compliance with the law.
I'd also allow projects that remediate the offense. E.g., for red light violations, I'd allow red light fine monies to fund studies of various intersections to see if e.g., the yellow light duration needs to be made longer, etc.
Or e.g., fines from moving violations in general could go towards improving transportation so that people can safely move about in a hurry.
With enough offenses, the person's license can be suspended or revoked.
That removes the revenue aspect from traffic enforcement, but still will lead to eventual license suspensions for repeat offenders.
Personally, I would like to see fines tied to Income.
In my county, of Marin, the wealthy drive like they don't have a care in the world. They don't care if they get a ticket. It's just a part of driving? "Oh well?"
The help--they know a $500 ticket might ruin their year, or put a dent in next months rent? It's not fair.
Plus--towns, counties realized 25 years ago that fees, and fines on all levels are a legal way to tax.
I'll spill the beans on Marin County. Just don't drive through it on a Friday, or Saturday night, after 10:30 p.m. Cops assume everyone drinks like they do on their days off, or at parties.
San Anselmo is basically a speed trap. If you aren't white and look wealthy, be prepared for a pull over for no reason, or a really debatable ticket.
San Rafael is o.k.; they have real crime to attend to.
Ross, Greenbrae, Kentfield, Corte Madera, Novato, and Sausalito are just Revenue Collection Squads.
(Your tech wealthy bosses usually end up living here, if they make it big, and you might be invited to a hootenanny?)