[garciasn]

From the article:

It would make California the 19th state to install cameras that would automatically issue tickets to the owners of vehicles that are spotted exceeding the speed limit by at least 11 miles an hour.

[...]

The fines could be reduced if the vehicle owner is unable to pay.

[...]

“We’re out to change behavior. We’re not out to be punitive.”

---

So:

1. The unintended consequence is that more people may feel comfortable going 8-10 mph over the limit.

2. Those who can afford the $50 fine (which, knowing CA, is a big part of the population) without any other consequences will end up ignoring it and just paying the fee or using their significant wealth to fight the fees.

3. The rest of the people just won't pay it because they cannot afford it.

[throw310822]

> Those who can afford the $50 fine (which, knowing CA, is a big part of the population)

That's why fines should always be proportional to income. They are not the price of a product, they are the price that should make a behaviour equally unaffordable for everyone.

[Scoundreller]

I’d like to add a vehicle weight co-factor to the fines.

[Jiro]

By that reasoning, if you don't have a job, so being put in jail won't make you lose your job, you should be jailed longer to make up for the fact that jail harms you less. Likewise if you don't have children.

[throw310822]

The objection that perfecting something beyond what's practical would be unfeasible is not a good one against making it better within reasonable limits, right?

It's very difficult to quantify the harm that jail does to you. It depends on a lot of factors, some of which are entirely personal, and besides, jail has multiple functions (in short: dissuasion, retribution, prevention and re-education). A fine exists mostly for dissuasion, and has a very precise economical value that is easy to gauge on the income/ wealth of the person fined.

[badlucklottery]

> if you don't have a job, so being put in jail won't make you lose your job, you should be jailed longer to make up for the fact that jail harms you less.

I know you were being facetious but, due to how the US legal system works, if you don't have a job/income, you likely have worse legal representation, which means you get a worse plea deal, and do go to jail longer.

And having children/family to care for usually does affect sentencing.

So you inadvertently described the current system in the US.

[phil21]

This is precisely how it works in the US when it comes to most low level sentences.

Impact on career and family (kids, mostly) is a major consideration when it comes to sentencing. For better or worse.

[mint2]

It would be really nice to see the fines scale up with income, but as long as the tickets are valid for insurance pricing then racking up a couple tickets is still going to cost a lot more than $50 each. It will also make insurance pricing more fair as currently unsafe drivers mostly speed with impunity in cities like sf where traffic enforcement is nonexistent.

[phil21]

They don't typically count as a moving violation, since you have the right to face your accuser in court. As far as I understand the situation.

They are more like parking tickets than a speeding ticket.

I imagine this varies some by state, but I believe it to be a fundamental constitutional issue at play.

[tjohns]

The real impact of traffic tickets has always been the increased insurance rates, and after enough points you lose your license.

The fine is practically meaningless compared to what it does to your insurance rates.

[lukas099]

> more people may feel comfortable going 8-10 mph over the limit.

Is that more or less than the current status quo? I'm not in California but it sounds like everyone feels comfortable doing that anyways.

Also you can still enforce 1-10 mph over the old fashioned way.

> Those who can afford the $50 fine (which, knowing CA, is a big part of the population) without any other consequences will end up ignoring it and just paying the fee or using their significant wealth to fight the fees.

Doing this every time you speed would add up very quickly. Also if you're talking about middle class people $50 is not amount that feels like nothing to them.

> The rest of the people just won't pay it because they cannot afford it.

Like you said, this is a very small number of people that we probably don't need to be punished any more by society.

[nullc]

and companies who install the cameras win big, while people who don't have their sh*t together enough to fill out the required I'm-poor forms correctly get screwed.

[WeylandYutani]

I don't follow, does being poor give you a right to ignore the speed limit?

[nullc]

The fine article says that the fines will be reduced based on the speeder's ability to pay, comrade.

I'm dubious of schemes that have disparate impact based on the target's ability to bring about change-- good at politics and paperwork? reduced fine. Not so good? continued death by 1000 bureaucratic cuts.

I'm also dubious of schemes that have low to zero enforcement costs, since the allocation of enforcement resources is one of the most important protections to assure that state intrusion is being directed to matters of actual public consequence.

I'm all for ticketing drivers who are putting the public at risk, but if the risk they're creating isn't worth deploying a citing officer is it really worth the imposition on the recipient of the citation?

and I'm also pretty dubious of schemes with latency and ones where you'll get tripped up without random local knowledge. Go to visit a friend in another city then end up with a dozen fines and a suspended license before you know what hit you.

... and lets not even get into the latent surveillance potential, mass monitoring people's movements on an industrial scale at low marginal cost.

[mistrial9]

there is a company near UC Berkeley campus filled with people speaking some east slavic language, that has been making red-light cameras for at least ten years. They have expensive office space and no public signage.