[Pfhreak]

Hmm... I disagree. Speed limits are important. So are various other laws that require human judgement to interpret.

There's a reason we have 'judges' -- the law will never cover all corner cases, and the law needs to set boundaries that are sometimes ok to override. You need a human in the loop evaluating various interpretations and keeping those interpretations current with societal expectations. (And those humans absolutely should not be the police.)

[roenxi]

> Speed limits are important. So are various other laws that require human judgement to interpret.

What is there to interpret about a speed limit? If someone is going faster than the speed limit they are breaking the law. Add an error bar for equipment accuracy and the case is as closed as anything can be in life.

We don't want judges making decisions unless it is strictly necessary. That is where racism/sexism/classism/etc start entering the legal system. Judges are empowered to judge, but it'd be better if they can keep it to a minimum,

[sokoloff]

> If someone is going faster than the speed limit they are breaking the law.

In some (many?) jurisdictions, posted speed limits are not absolute limits but are rather evidence for the judiciary to consider when deciding whether the driver was operating a motor vehicle faster than what was reasonable and proper. (Faster than reasonable and proper being the actual law that has possibly been broken.)

Removing judicial discretion in favor of zero-tolerance laws is a step in the wrong direction I believe.

[jimmydorry]

Speed cameras can be poorly calibrated / setup, there can be multiple cars in frame and they ticket them all, it can be a different person driving, the OCR on the license plate can fail and pick a different car, the officer may have tampered with the evidence, the car may have been stolen, etc.

All of these require due process for something as simple as a speeding ticket.