[mulmen]

Washington takes privacy and the presumption of innocence seriously.

You can read the relevant state law here: https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.63.170.

The cameras can't take pictures of the driver or occupants and court time is accrued when anyone other than the registered owner committed the infraction:

(f) Automated traffic safety cameras may only take pictures of the vehicle and vehicle license plate and only while an infraction is occurring. The picture must not reveal the face of the driver or of passengers in the vehicle. The primary purpose of camera placement is to take pictures of the vehicle and vehicle license plate when an infraction is occurring. Cities and counties shall consider installing cameras in a manner that minimizes the impact of camera flash on drivers.

An officer has to actually review the photos:

(g) A notice of infraction must be mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle within 14 days of the violation, or to the renter of a vehicle within 14 days of establishing the renter's name and address under subsection (3)(a) of this section. The law enforcement officer issuing the notice of infraction shall include with it a certificate or facsimile thereof, based upon inspection of photographs, microphotographs, or electronic images produced by an automated traffic safety camera, stating the facts supporting the notice of infraction. This certificate or facsimile is prima facie evidence of the facts contained in it and is admissible in a proceeding charging a violation under this chapter. The photographs, microphotographs, or electronic images evidencing the violation must be available for inspection and admission into evidence in a proceeding to adjudicate the liability for the infraction. A person receiving a notice of infraction based on evidence detected by an automated traffic safety camera may respond to the notice by mail.

So automated cameras don't scale and are only deployed where they are most needed.

[jdeibele]

Oregon has a slightly different approach: the photograph has to show the driver. They then mail a notice to the registered owner. The last I knew, it was possible to say "no, that's not me" without being required to say who it was. You do have to send in a copy of your driver's license so they can (presumably) compare the two photos.

https://www.portland.gov/police/divisions/photo-enforcement makes it sound like a business can pay the fine on behalf of the driver without having to reveal who the driver was.

The Arizona laws seem similar. There was a man who got 37 tickets, all while wearing a gorilla mask: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix-traffic/2...

In Oregon, all photos had to be reviewed by law enforcement until less than a year ago. https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2022/03/10/legislators-scrap...

Mobile speed cameras still have to be manned by a uniformed police officer. https://www.portland.gov/transportation/vision-zero/speed-ca... I have a bit of sympathy for that since I can imagine a person being threatened to remove the evidence.

[seanmcdirmid]

In Beijing, the infractions are attached to the vehicle, and you have to pay all your fines on the plate before you can renew your registration every year.

[lotsoweiners]

In Az we just crumple the letter up and toss it.

[Gigachad]

Seems like the solution here would be to station an officer at each major intersection permanently, and to fund it, take the operational cost and divide it out to those fined. So say it cost $100,000 for the day and 100 fines were given out, the fines are $1,000 each. This scales infinitely.

[mulmen]

A ruinously expensive ticket is likely an effective deterrent. So what do you do when this works and you get zero dollars to fund all those traffic cops because nobody ran any red lights?