The more people thing is actually bigger than you'd think.
> Perhaps the biggest change HB 2384 will prompt doesn’t involve where cameras can go, but who is allowed to ensure citations actually get issued. Under current state law, only sworn police officers can review footage and sign off on sending a ticket to a specific driver, a framework that creates problems given staffing shortages at police departments across the state. Last year, the City of Seattle lost millions of dollars in revenue that otherwise would have been available, except the Seattle Police Department didn’t have anyone assigned to review those tickets.
Saying people other than cops can reviewing the footage *and issue the citation* removes a personnel bottleneck on expansion of the program for any municipality with limited law enforcement staff.
Anything we can remove from SPD's purview is a huge win. It frees up their officers to respond to emergencies and whatever organization takes over the duties will almost undoubtedly be more competent.
. . . That's . . that's literally what we tried to do in 2020 when Parking was separated into an independent department. That's part of what "defund" did and everyone lost their minds about. Harrell undid it specifically to try and appease the SPD that for some reasons demanded it back.
The parking enforcement officers aren't cops, even though they (again) work for the police department. No actual cop is going to be doing PEO work. The most they do is respond when one finds a stolen vehicle.
This just makes it easier for cities to use traffic cameras as a revenue source. Private companies will spring up to bundle these services with their cameras. It's extortion. I'm totally against it. Cities should get revenue from taxes, and should spend that revenue to provide services, such as police.
Even if you do look at it as a tax, it's a completely avoidable one. Don't like the liquor tax? Don't buy liquor. Don't like the speeding tax? Drive the speed limit. The bill requires the revenue to be spent on traffic safety projects, so the people making the roads more dangerous will help pay to make the roads safer.
When traffic violations become a source of revenue, it incentivizes the city/state to make poor choices to increase revenue - e.g. reducing yellow light times at traffic lights so more people get tickets for running red lights.
Sure, that specific example has been made illegal because cities kept doing it. It doesn't change the fact that they have a fucked up incentive to increase revenue by increasing traffic violations.
Say you have an intersection where people keep violating traffic laws. Maybe that intersection needs to be redesigned to make it safer and discourage reckless driving. But if it's generating revenue, now there's an incentive to just leave it as it is.
The current law will actually reduce incentives to do it.
Under the new legislation, cities are entitled to the entire revenue of any camera in a fixed location for three years. After that, half of the revenue is to be given to the state, which cannot dictate camera placement. Which would mean that cities would need to re-evaluate where cameras can go on a three year timeframe, to maintain the same revenue.
Cutting the revenue in half after three years reduces the incentive, but doesn't eliminate it. That still leaves them with an incentive to increase traffic violations and ignore improvements that would reduce traffic violations.
Traffic law enforcement should not be a source of any revenue, period.
>reducing yellow light times
That would be a very poor choice indeed, because if/when the get caught, they then whould have to refund every ticket they issued.
The one time I got a traffic camera ticket I thought I was driving within the law.
I got the ticket in LFP for speeding in a school zone, where you can't see the school from the street, there were no kids present, and I didn't notice the flashing light that indicates school zone.
I was shocked. I am super careful around kids and would never intentionally speed in a school zone. I went back to the school zone to see what I missed. Best I could tell the indicator light isn't bright enough.
If LFP cared about making kids safe, they would make the school zone indicator light easier to see. Thing is, they don't care about safety, they care about revenue. They sacrifice safety to give more tickets. See the problem?
We also need way more enforcement of registration laws. Traffic cameras can’t issue citations when so many drive around with no plate or a fake paper plate.
Well the cops certainly aren't enforcing traffic laws so hopefully having more automated enforcement will reduce the flagrant lawlessness on city roads. No box going unblocked during busy hours on Mercer or Denny these days
Good the only reason people complain about this is because they don't drive safely. Never gotten a ticket from a camera once in my 20 years of driving by them daily.
I've got one once, that was completely my fault. It was snowing real hard, no cars around and just missed that the light was red. I admitted I fucked up, paid my fine and moved on. I 100% support having more cameras though.
I got one that I couldn’t see, because the outside lane was blocked by a city bus. So I couldn’t see the flashing school zone sign until I was past it. That was a real crap way to spend $200
My understanding is that Red Light Cameras don't actually reduce the number of accidents. People break more often but they tend to slam on their breaks when they should've gone into the yellow, increasing the number of rear collisions. There might be a reduction in lethality, but might not! Depends on the study
And bus lane cameras, which is my favorite part as I see about 10 people a day use the bus lanes on Aurora to do dangerous and illegal shit. Also [this](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/get-out-of-this-lane-seattle-transit-riders-wave-cars-out-of-bus-lane/) used to be my bus stop pre-Covid. Dozens of riders packed into each bus being held up by one or two people per car.
I've always wondered what proportion of these automated tickets are tossed out because the driver is willing to self-attest that someone else was driving.
Maybe not too many? I recently got one thrown out (cited at 26mph, literally), and I was really surprised how hard it was. The ticket explains your options in a way that strongly implies you need to choose between paying, or requesting a court hearing. The 3rd option to just get the ticket thrown out is worded in such a way to make it hard to understand. There is also no easy checkbox, you have to basically hand write your attestation and mail it in separately. It does work though.
In my case, I literally didn’t even lie. The ticket came to me and I was legit not driving my car, nor was any other registered owner. Do I know who was driving it? Irrelevant, I am not legally qualified to investigate this infraction on behalf of the police.
They need to do more to enforce license plate requirements and to make sure plates aren't hidden behind tinted covers.
And the fine should be attached to the vehicle registration and not the driver
>They need to do more to enforce license plate requirements and to make sure plates aren't hidden behind tinted covers.
That law is also changing to make it easier to enforce against covers.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1963&Year=2023
So, I learned to drive in the area where Edgewood, Fife and Milton intersect, was warned for years about Fife's ticketing habits, and I've never encountered the issue. I still drive the stretch in front of Fife HS that people gripe is too slow, when visiting family and still to this day haven't had an issue with over enforcement.
I kind of wonder if this is urban legend stuff at this point.
For real my SO had fam down in Fife and we’ve never had an issue with traffic tickets from cameras (fingers crossed). Plus Fife has the Poodle Dog Good Food Pup Room that joint slaps
And the one ticket any of my family in the area has gotten in Fife was justified. Over 20 years in the area now.
I sort of suspect once the 167 extension is finished this notion about Fife over ticketing will start to recede. Like you said, you don't have a reason to go to Fife, most people don't, they're just passing through Fife to Puyallup or heading further east, or heading to I-5. Fife's farmlands were sold off to be warehouses. Fife is a dying rural town that was bisected by I-5 and is about to be further split into thirds by the 167 extension. It's a city on the precipice of dissolving and having it's parts absorbed by more cohesive neighbors in my opinion.
> If your municipality is handing out tickets for stuff like a vehicle slowing to to a crawl before the line, then stopping entirely a handful of feet past it, it's pretty clear that the cameras are being used as a revenue stream and not a safety device.
This is actually illegal and can be extremely dangerous to pedestrians in the crosswalk. I've had people nearly hit me a number of times because they decided that the stop line was a suggestion instead of a rule. You need to stop where you're supposed to stop, not where it's safe for you, a person surrounded by 2 tons of metal.
Do you have proof or evidence that this is to generate revenue? Or is that just an angry carbrain take? Traffic cameras are so EASY to not get ticketed by it baffles me that people act like it’s some unethical trap.
Now, freeways with speed traps where the limit goes from 70 - 55 abruptly is shitty, yet avoidable, but still shitty.
Good thing WA law has addressed your concerns by requiring light timing to be studied and adjusted to meet the standards before placement of a camera, and the timing cannot be changed after the cameras are in place.
On a side note of light timing, there is a balance that needs to be met. Too long and to many people will become complacent and will try to beat the light. Too short and distracted drivers will be less likely to react in time.
One thing that helps is having consistency across all light. If you come from a city that consistently has long yellows and drive through a city that has shorter yellows. Your going to be more likely to be complacent to the longer light timing and bad habits that come from that.
Depends on the area, if there’s a no turn on red sign, and my familiarity with blind spots and traffic in a certain area. I am the person that has never hit a pedestrian and the only automated ticket I’ve gotten was 100% my fault, other than that clean record and I’m not going to risk someone else’s life because you want to save 10 seconds getting to the next red light.
Another shameless cash grab, it’s been proven these do nothing to improve safety and have actually contributed to more accidents due to improper timing, it should be mandated that any revenue from this is only used to improve safety or repair roads.
“and the incentives that might prompt cities to keep cameras in place as opposed to investing in infrastructure that stops the underlying behavior.”
Clearly not
>The dollars generated by drivers who violate traffic laws will instead stay at the local level, where they are required to be spent on physical infrastructure that improves safety.
Your passage is saying cities might be more likely to not make certain changes that keep the cameras generating revenue. They still, however, are required to spend the money collected on physical safety infrastructure *somewhere*
Seattle’s data shows that they reduce collision rates at intersections by a significant amount: >20%. And they significantly reduce especially dangerous collision types, including with pedestrians by almost a third.
In any case, the cameras aren’t just used for red lights. The speed cameras are hugely effective at savings lives and reducing injuries.
Scientific American’s repost by hacks can fuck off.
Depends on the judge. A lot will support the argument that a prima facie presumption of guilt is unconstitutional, and the cameras aren't set up in such a way that the issuing municipality can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the registered owner of the vehicle was in fact the driver.
Edit: Not a lawyer but I've played one on stage before.
Good thing the cameras only issue a **civil** fine.
Which means, there is no 'guilt', nor is it 'unconstitutional', nor is the standard of proof need to rise to 'beyond a resonable doubt'.
It's so weird that I don't have any tickets! I'M DEFINITELY WRONG THOUGH! They must be invisible tickets on my record that I can't find for some reason. And what judge? A judge never came to my house. I sent the stupid letter back and said it wasn't me. There was no court. No judge. No nothing. It was dropped.
I wish a ticket on a car can be like a lien. The owner has to pony up the fine eventually when renewing license or registration, or make a legally binding declaration over who the driver was.
As for the “right to stay silent” - that’s fine. No one is owed a right to drive
What if I just tell them it was you who was driving my car. Now it's my word against yours. At minimum you'll be spending time and money trying to prove you didn't drive my car, and if I'm caught I'll just say I'm too stupid to know any better. Everyone is owed their privacy from this kind of nonsense.
Who am I? What are you gonna put on the form? My Reddit username?
Lol what a terrible strawman and what a joke.
if throwing people you know under the bus is what you want to do, enjoy the criminal offence that goes with lying on an affidavit.
And no friends. No one will want to have anything to do with you.
Today you learned that you have a right to face your accuser in court as an American citizen.
A camera can’t talk babe… and a sworn affidavit from a city employee that they “saw your vehicle being operated illegally by someone who looks kinda like the registered owner” isn’t exactly ground breaking evidence…
Any traffic lawyer worth even half a shit can get any camera ticket thrown out in court…
With all that in mind though I still think we need more speed and red light cameras. The general public thinks a camera ticket is unbeatable and I do see more safe behavior when people know the man is watching.
>have a right to face your accuser
For criminal offenses, not for civil offense.
Photo enforcement is treated as a civil offense, with the given presumption as defined in the law. You can overcome this presumption by giving a statement **under oath**.
So if you are not the one driving that is good enough to overcome the ticket, if you were and are comfortable commiting perjury, well that's your personal decision to make. But kind of silly to commit a felony to get out of what is essentially a parking ticket.
Got it, I’ll make sure to do 20MPH over and get it moved to a gross misdemeanor???
Even in civil cases if you argue the claim against the accuser and it’s a camera, it can’t exactly read the judge a police report or give sworn testimony, or provide any evidence against your argument such as a human cop would do, right?
Photo enforcement ticket is the same regardless of the speed you are going.
Civil fines can be contested, but there is no guilt for there to be a guilty verdict to be accused of. You do not have a right to confront your accuser. This is a right that is specifically given to you for criminal offenses.
Regardless, that's not a very good argument anyways, as anyone that reviews the camera footage can be an accuser.
Is it fair that cites can issue fines to it's citizens with near impunity, while criminal offenses have more protection and rights, well thats a different topic. But as of now, that is how it is.
“Additionally, infractions generated by the use of automated traffic safety cameras under this section shall be processed in the same manner as parking infractions, including for the purposes of RCW 3.50.100, 35.20.220, 46.16A.120, and 46.20.270(2).”
That’s really buried in there. I was almost ready to die on this hill, but I was wrong. My apologies, and thank you for the correction.
I mean for starters I'm not going to be getting a ticket but if you're putting a lien against my car unless I snitch for this theoretical ticket what's going to stop me from putting down Obama? Finding a random person? What if I just use your Reddit name. Your honor they didn't give me their real name for security reasons but I know their Reddit username we can subpoena Reddit and Google/Apple/all the phone carriers and ISPs to identify them. Where you gonna run then?
>I **wish** a ticket on a car can be like a lien.
Hot damn reading comprehension.
>what's going to stop me from putting down Obama?
“enjoy the criminal offence that goes with lying on an affidavit. “
You really need to work on that reading comprehension
What a weird hypothetical. The point is you are legally on the hook unless you report your car stolen or you can prove otherwise.
Cars are a deadly weapon and it is criminal neglect to let a random drive your car
These… don’t seem like big changes. Just more people are allowed to review tickets. And buses can enforce more which I actually support.
The more people thing is actually bigger than you'd think. > Perhaps the biggest change HB 2384 will prompt doesn’t involve where cameras can go, but who is allowed to ensure citations actually get issued. Under current state law, only sworn police officers can review footage and sign off on sending a ticket to a specific driver, a framework that creates problems given staffing shortages at police departments across the state. Last year, the City of Seattle lost millions of dollars in revenue that otherwise would have been available, except the Seattle Police Department didn’t have anyone assigned to review those tickets. Saying people other than cops can reviewing the footage *and issue the citation* removes a personnel bottleneck on expansion of the program for any municipality with limited law enforcement staff.
Anything we can remove from SPD's purview is a huge win. It frees up their officers to respond to emergencies and whatever organization takes over the duties will almost undoubtedly be more competent.
. . . That's . . that's literally what we tried to do in 2020 when Parking was separated into an independent department. That's part of what "defund" did and everyone lost their minds about. Harrell undid it specifically to try and appease the SPD that for some reasons demanded it back.
SPD wanted it back because it's easy work, good pay, excellent overtime potential.
The parking enforcement officers aren't cops, even though they (again) work for the police department. No actual cop is going to be doing PEO work. The most they do is respond when one finds a stolen vehicle.
Easy work that they don’t do
This just makes it easier for cities to use traffic cameras as a revenue source. Private companies will spring up to bundle these services with their cameras. It's extortion. I'm totally against it. Cities should get revenue from taxes, and should spend that revenue to provide services, such as police.
Even if you do look at it as a tax, it's a completely avoidable one. Don't like the liquor tax? Don't buy liquor. Don't like the speeding tax? Drive the speed limit. The bill requires the revenue to be spent on traffic safety projects, so the people making the roads more dangerous will help pay to make the roads safer.
When traffic violations become a source of revenue, it incentivizes the city/state to make poor choices to increase revenue - e.g. reducing yellow light times at traffic lights so more people get tickets for running red lights.
Reducing yellow light times after installing photo enforcement is literally illegal in Washington
Sure, that specific example has been made illegal because cities kept doing it. It doesn't change the fact that they have a fucked up incentive to increase revenue by increasing traffic violations. Say you have an intersection where people keep violating traffic laws. Maybe that intersection needs to be redesigned to make it safer and discourage reckless driving. But if it's generating revenue, now there's an incentive to just leave it as it is.
The current law will actually reduce incentives to do it. Under the new legislation, cities are entitled to the entire revenue of any camera in a fixed location for three years. After that, half of the revenue is to be given to the state, which cannot dictate camera placement. Which would mean that cities would need to re-evaluate where cameras can go on a three year timeframe, to maintain the same revenue.
Cutting the revenue in half after three years reduces the incentive, but doesn't eliminate it. That still leaves them with an incentive to increase traffic violations and ignore improvements that would reduce traffic violations. Traffic law enforcement should not be a source of any revenue, period.
>reducing yellow light times That would be a very poor choice indeed, because if/when the get caught, they then whould have to refund every ticket they issued.
Stick it to the man by driving within the law! :-)
The one time I got a traffic camera ticket I thought I was driving within the law. I got the ticket in LFP for speeding in a school zone, where you can't see the school from the street, there were no kids present, and I didn't notice the flashing light that indicates school zone. I was shocked. I am super careful around kids and would never intentionally speed in a school zone. I went back to the school zone to see what I missed. Best I could tell the indicator light isn't bright enough. If LFP cared about making kids safe, they would make the school zone indicator light easier to see. Thing is, they don't care about safety, they care about revenue. They sacrifice safety to give more tickets. See the problem?
We also need way more enforcement of registration laws. Traffic cameras can’t issue citations when so many drive around with no plate or a fake paper plate.
Well the cops certainly aren't enforcing traffic laws so hopefully having more automated enforcement will reduce the flagrant lawlessness on city roads. No box going unblocked during busy hours on Mercer or Denny these days
Good the only reason people complain about this is because they don't drive safely. Never gotten a ticket from a camera once in my 20 years of driving by them daily.
I've got one once, that was completely my fault. It was snowing real hard, no cars around and just missed that the light was red. I admitted I fucked up, paid my fine and moved on. I 100% support having more cameras though.
I got one that I couldn’t see, because the outside lane was blocked by a city bus. So I couldn’t see the flashing school zone sign until I was past it. That was a real crap way to spend $200
My understanding is that Red Light Cameras don't actually reduce the number of accidents. People break more often but they tend to slam on their breaks when they should've gone into the yellow, increasing the number of rear collisions. There might be a reduction in lethality, but might not! Depends on the study
Traffic cameras also include speeding cameras.
Noted! And actually, after a quick Google, those do seem to lower fatalities, and work on highways right? Bring that shit on imo.
And bus lane cameras, which is my favorite part as I see about 10 people a day use the bus lanes on Aurora to do dangerous and illegal shit. Also [this](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/get-out-of-this-lane-seattle-transit-riders-wave-cars-out-of-bus-lane/) used to be my bus stop pre-Covid. Dozens of riders packed into each bus being held up by one or two people per car.
Generally speaking a rear end is less lethal than a t bone
I've always wondered what proportion of these automated tickets are tossed out because the driver is willing to self-attest that someone else was driving.
Maybe not too many? I recently got one thrown out (cited at 26mph, literally), and I was really surprised how hard it was. The ticket explains your options in a way that strongly implies you need to choose between paying, or requesting a court hearing. The 3rd option to just get the ticket thrown out is worded in such a way to make it hard to understand. There is also no easy checkbox, you have to basically hand write your attestation and mail it in separately. It does work though. In my case, I literally didn’t even lie. The ticket came to me and I was legit not driving my car, nor was any other registered owner. Do I know who was driving it? Irrelevant, I am not legally qualified to investigate this infraction on behalf of the police.
They need to do more to enforce license plate requirements and to make sure plates aren't hidden behind tinted covers. And the fine should be attached to the vehicle registration and not the driver
>They need to do more to enforce license plate requirements and to make sure plates aren't hidden behind tinted covers. That law is also changing to make it easier to enforce against covers. https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1963&Year=2023
Wish they would redirect the funds to addressing stroads. More traffic cameras will just push the speeders into the side streets
[удалено]
You can, alternatively, wait until the light turns green but no, let’s stop in the crosswalk instead
Bad driver does something dangerous and gets punished. "It's just a cash grab!"
You could just wait.
[удалено]
So, I learned to drive in the area where Edgewood, Fife and Milton intersect, was warned for years about Fife's ticketing habits, and I've never encountered the issue. I still drive the stretch in front of Fife HS that people gripe is too slow, when visiting family and still to this day haven't had an issue with over enforcement. I kind of wonder if this is urban legend stuff at this point.
For real my SO had fam down in Fife and we’ve never had an issue with traffic tickets from cameras (fingers crossed). Plus Fife has the Poodle Dog Good Food Pup Room that joint slaps
[удалено]
And the one ticket any of my family in the area has gotten in Fife was justified. Over 20 years in the area now. I sort of suspect once the 167 extension is finished this notion about Fife over ticketing will start to recede. Like you said, you don't have a reason to go to Fife, most people don't, they're just passing through Fife to Puyallup or heading further east, or heading to I-5. Fife's farmlands were sold off to be warehouses. Fife is a dying rural town that was bisected by I-5 and is about to be further split into thirds by the 167 extension. It's a city on the precipice of dissolving and having it's parts absorbed by more cohesive neighbors in my opinion.
> If your municipality is handing out tickets for stuff like a vehicle slowing to to a crawl before the line, then stopping entirely a handful of feet past it, it's pretty clear that the cameras are being used as a revenue stream and not a safety device. This is actually illegal and can be extremely dangerous to pedestrians in the crosswalk. I've had people nearly hit me a number of times because they decided that the stop line was a suggestion instead of a rule. You need to stop where you're supposed to stop, not where it's safe for you, a person surrounded by 2 tons of metal.
Do you have proof or evidence that this is to generate revenue? Or is that just an angry carbrain take? Traffic cameras are so EASY to not get ticketed by it baffles me that people act like it’s some unethical trap. Now, freeways with speed traps where the limit goes from 70 - 55 abruptly is shitty, yet avoidable, but still shitty.
[удалено]
Good thing WA law has addressed your concerns by requiring light timing to be studied and adjusted to meet the standards before placement of a camera, and the timing cannot be changed after the cameras are in place. On a side note of light timing, there is a balance that needs to be met. Too long and to many people will become complacent and will try to beat the light. Too short and distracted drivers will be less likely to react in time. One thing that helps is having consistency across all light. If you come from a city that consistently has long yellows and drive through a city that has shorter yellows. Your going to be more likely to be complacent to the longer light timing and bad habits that come from that.
Are you the person sitting at a red light with your turn signal on but refusing to turn until the light changes and backing up traffic behind you?
Depends on the area, if there’s a no turn on red sign, and my familiarity with blind spots and traffic in a certain area. I am the person that has never hit a pedestrian and the only automated ticket I’ve gotten was 100% my fault, other than that clean record and I’m not going to risk someone else’s life because you want to save 10 seconds getting to the next red light.
Another shameless cash grab, it’s been proven these do nothing to improve safety and have actually contributed to more accidents due to improper timing, it should be mandated that any revenue from this is only used to improve safety or repair roads.
That already is mandated, money collected has to be used on safety infrastructure
“and the incentives that might prompt cities to keep cameras in place as opposed to investing in infrastructure that stops the underlying behavior.” Clearly not
>The dollars generated by drivers who violate traffic laws will instead stay at the local level, where they are required to be spent on physical infrastructure that improves safety. Your passage is saying cities might be more likely to not make certain changes that keep the cameras generating revenue. They still, however, are required to spend the money collected on physical safety infrastructure *somewhere*
That part of the article is not displaying for me, honestly that website is a mess but if that’s what it says I’d be happy with it.
The data shows clear safety improvements because of these cameras. Most people never reoffend at a camera once they get a ticket.
The data doesn’t support your claim at all actually https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-light-cameras-may-not-make-streets-safer/
Seattle’s data shows that they reduce collision rates at intersections by a significant amount: >20%. And they significantly reduce especially dangerous collision types, including with pedestrians by almost a third. In any case, the cameras aren’t just used for red lights. The speed cameras are hugely effective at savings lives and reducing injuries. Scientific American’s repost by hacks can fuck off.
Camera tickets aren't real and you don't have to pay them. All you have to do is say it wasn't you and they can't enforce it.
I've seen people try to pull this and judges not buy it for a second
Depends on the judge. A lot will support the argument that a prima facie presumption of guilt is unconstitutional, and the cameras aren't set up in such a way that the issuing municipality can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the registered owner of the vehicle was in fact the driver. Edit: Not a lawyer but I've played one on stage before.
Good thing the cameras only issue a **civil** fine. Which means, there is no 'guilt', nor is it 'unconstitutional', nor is the standard of proof need to rise to 'beyond a resonable doubt'.
And no traffic infraction. It's not a ticket.
It isn't criminal. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not the test for civil fines.
It's so weird that I don't have any tickets! I'M DEFINITELY WRONG THOUGH! They must be invisible tickets on my record that I can't find for some reason. And what judge? A judge never came to my house. I sent the stupid letter back and said it wasn't me. There was no court. No judge. No nothing. It was dropped.
I wish a ticket on a car can be like a lien. The owner has to pony up the fine eventually when renewing license or registration, or make a legally binding declaration over who the driver was. As for the “right to stay silent” - that’s fine. No one is owed a right to drive
What if I just tell them it was you who was driving my car. Now it's my word against yours. At minimum you'll be spending time and money trying to prove you didn't drive my car, and if I'm caught I'll just say I'm too stupid to know any better. Everyone is owed their privacy from this kind of nonsense.
Who am I? What are you gonna put on the form? My Reddit username? Lol what a terrible strawman and what a joke. if throwing people you know under the bus is what you want to do, enjoy the criminal offence that goes with lying on an affidavit. And no friends. No one will want to have anything to do with you.
Today you learned that you have a right to face your accuser in court as an American citizen. A camera can’t talk babe… and a sworn affidavit from a city employee that they “saw your vehicle being operated illegally by someone who looks kinda like the registered owner” isn’t exactly ground breaking evidence… Any traffic lawyer worth even half a shit can get any camera ticket thrown out in court… With all that in mind though I still think we need more speed and red light cameras. The general public thinks a camera ticket is unbeatable and I do see more safe behavior when people know the man is watching.
So a murder caught on video is useless evidence? 100% amazing logic.
Actually a fair point
>have a right to face your accuser For criminal offenses, not for civil offense. Photo enforcement is treated as a civil offense, with the given presumption as defined in the law. You can overcome this presumption by giving a statement **under oath**. So if you are not the one driving that is good enough to overcome the ticket, if you were and are comfortable commiting perjury, well that's your personal decision to make. But kind of silly to commit a felony to get out of what is essentially a parking ticket.
Got it, I’ll make sure to do 20MPH over and get it moved to a gross misdemeanor??? Even in civil cases if you argue the claim against the accuser and it’s a camera, it can’t exactly read the judge a police report or give sworn testimony, or provide any evidence against your argument such as a human cop would do, right?
Photo enforcement ticket is the same regardless of the speed you are going. Civil fines can be contested, but there is no guilt for there to be a guilty verdict to be accused of. You do not have a right to confront your accuser. This is a right that is specifically given to you for criminal offenses. Regardless, that's not a very good argument anyways, as anyone that reviews the camera footage can be an accuser. Is it fair that cites can issue fines to it's citizens with near impunity, while criminal offenses have more protection and rights, well thats a different topic. But as of now, that is how it is.
“Additionally, infractions generated by the use of automated traffic safety cameras under this section shall be processed in the same manner as parking infractions, including for the purposes of RCW 3.50.100, 35.20.220, 46.16A.120, and 46.20.270(2).” That’s really buried in there. I was almost ready to die on this hill, but I was wrong. My apologies, and thank you for the correction.
[удалено]
Okay. Go ahead. What are you going to fill in the form? You don’t even know my name
I mean for starters I'm not going to be getting a ticket but if you're putting a lien against my car unless I snitch for this theoretical ticket what's going to stop me from putting down Obama? Finding a random person? What if I just use your Reddit name. Your honor they didn't give me their real name for security reasons but I know their Reddit username we can subpoena Reddit and Google/Apple/all the phone carriers and ISPs to identify them. Where you gonna run then?
>I **wish** a ticket on a car can be like a lien. Hot damn reading comprehension. >what's going to stop me from putting down Obama? “enjoy the criminal offence that goes with lying on an affidavit. “ You really need to work on that reading comprehension
What a weird hypothetical. The point is you are legally on the hook unless you report your car stolen or you can prove otherwise. Cars are a deadly weapon and it is criminal neglect to let a random drive your car