Hacker News Reader

Comment by iamjdg | Hacker News Reader

While he is a legal expert and I am not, I think he is missing the point. If everyone ran red lights there would be chaos and public safety would be at risk. Traffic cameras are a deterrent that save municipalities lots of money not having to employ officers to act as deterrents. But a deterrent has to have a real consequence (people pay fines and other people hear about this) to work. He is using a small technicality to make a point about a huge issue of liberty which wastes tax payer money and will put the public at greater risk, cannot he do this through another means?

View on HN

> If everyone ran red lights there would be chaos and public safety would be at risk.

And yet, the vast majority of road rules exist without any remote automated enforcement mechanism, and there isn't chaos, and for the most part, the public is safe.

Using absolute worst-case extreme examples which has no bearing on reality is not a good way to make policy or law.

I'm just commenting based on my experience. I lived in Germany for 2 years and knowing traffic cameras were there made me a safer driver, taking less chances. Now being back at home in Canada, I noticed how my behaviour has changed knowing there was less probability I would be caught.

Have you ever driven in Italy? I have, and in my opinion that experience was bordering chaos. A small difference in how traffic laws are enforced makes a huge difference in how drivers behave.

Using as an example a simple tool which saves money and is effective in detering drivers from taking more risk to make a point about big issues of freedom and liberty is wasteful and not very effective.

After reading the article, it seems like cities could make the problem go away if they changed it from a hybrid criminal-civil matter to a purely civil case. Make it an infraction more like a parking ticket and I think it would be constitutional, wouldn't it?

Due process is not a "small technicality".

If you can be charged with a crime, but the standard of proof is significantly lower than what it normally is in a criminal trial, that's a very bad thing with large potential for abuse, no matter how you slice it.

Really? You think he doesn't understand why traffic cameras are put in place?

Good share. I think I can find numerous studies claiming traffic cameras being effective and non-effective Lenin varying places from numerous organizations with varying degrees of bias. So I will refrain from that arms race.

I should clarify my opinion encompasses both red light and speed cameras.

I know when traffic cameras are used never 100% of violations caisght on camera are used. The jurisdiction has to experiment on the % of violations enforced. Too many and the public gets angry and votes you out of office. Too little and it is not a deterrent. So in some cases, these municipalities where they have been deemed not effective have neglected to do this optimization and started with a % too low of enforcements.

People just assume traffic cameras are a cash grab. But the purpose is to deter bad driving behaviour at a lower cost than having officers in the field. Fines are the stick, but if it means money for municipities to reinvest that into the city, then great. For each city, there will be a threshold of % violations enforced before it be comes effective.

> So I will refrain from that arms race.

You're right - there's data to show cameras can make some intersections safer and make other intersections less safe. It isn't simple. There's also some pretty clear cases where the cameras were strictly a cash grab. Cities have been caught shortening the yellow light duration when they don't meet their revenue numbers.

So I don't think you can start with the assumption that traffic cameras make us safer. If they don't necessarily make us safer AND the criminal process is unconstitutional, it gets easier to oppose the way they are used.

That is dirty shortening the yellow duration, I certainly would not support that.

No, I am sure he understands this. But I question his decision to use this incident to make a point about a big issue of law, freedom, and libery. He obviously thought it was acceptable and effective to do so. I think it was wasteful and ineffective and attacks a simple tool which saves money and is effective.

> attacks a simple tool which saves money and is effective

I won't argue that traffic cameras are good news from a revenue perspective, but I'm not sure it's effective. Check out:

https://www.motorists.org/issues/red-light-cameras/studies/.

The references on that page make the argument that cameras increase the number of accidents.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com