[w10-1]

When reasonable restrictions are needed, I particularly dislike unreasonable ones that make a show but wouldn't pass.

> A recipient of assistance under Title 23, United States Code, may not use automated license plate readers for any purpose other than tolling

This one-liner amendment is its own poison pill: it will also outlaw traffic enforcment, cameras used to ticket people who run red lights or speed, since neither are tolling.

Sponsors from both parties, but the effect is anti-Democratic. Currently per rough search:

- 9 states prohibit speed and red-light cameras - 8 Republican (and Maine)

- 5 states expressly permit speed cameras - 4 Democrat (and Tennessee) (CA permitting red-light)

Obviously this reduces revenues (in democratic cities) and also drives police/traffic employment. Perhaps ICE abuse and union employment motivates the Democratic sponsor (Jesus "Chuy" García - parents are Teamsters, himself in a retail union). I would have encourage him to permit the use for tolling AND traffic enforcement.

[JohnMakin]

> This one-liner amendment is its own poison pill: it will also outlaw traffic enforcment, cameras used to ticket people who run red lights or speed, since neither are tolling.

How did traffic enforcement work before these systems?

[tptacek]

Worse and more racistly.

[IAmBroom]

If "worse" means "far less frequently", yes. It required salary hours devoted to watching a single traffic light, or running a particular speed trap.

A city parking lot near me just switched to license-plate readers, and operates far later than local on-street parking - meaning they'll catch almost all parking violations there, and lure in unsuspecting people who think it isn't taking tolls that late.

[tptacek]

I don't like them, I get why everyone hates them so much, but they do displace human quota-driven traffic enforcement that was heavily racially biased.

As I get older, I have less and less patience for the traffic libertarian I used to be. Lax traffic enforcement kills a huge number of people in the US; it's the single largest component of our reduced life expectancy.

(To be clear, for other readers, we are talking about red light cameras, not ALPRs. ALPRs like Flock generally can't be used for traffic enforcement!)

[nine_k]

Maybe it's the point. Maybe the idea is to make it obviously not pass, frame the entire idea as unreasonable, and thus prevent the topic from being discussed again for long enough. Deliberately throw the unwanted baby with the proverbial bathwater.

[JohnMakin]

I don't know about this framing. It's a reasonable thing to accept a small theoretical increase of traffic accidents resulting from less enforcement (which could be compensated for in other ways) to lose a massive, invasive surveillance state mechanism from a nation that is becoming increasingly hostile to its own citizens.

In fact, the traffic argument was the original poisoned pill - once those went in, everyone was fine with the gains, until LEO's and the government, assisted by nearly unregulated private companies were like "well, we already have the data..."

[tptacek]

Yep.

[vitally3643]

Traffic cameras and automated ticketing systems should be unconstitutional. If you are facing legal consequences for something, you have the constitutional right to face your accuser. Obviously that precludes any and all automated systems.

The only reason they aren't deemed unconstitutional is because technically they don't quite meet the qualification for being legal action as they are "merely" fines. Even though if you ignore the fines you face legal consequence.

If a jurisdiction wants to ticket drivers, they should be constitutionally mandated to have a person with authority out on the street writing tickets. It should not be acceptable for an automated system to hand out monetary and legal damages entirely unsupervised and unaccountable. That flies directly in the face of constitutional rights.

[toss1]

>>The only reason they aren't deemed unconstitutional is because technically they don't quite meet the qualification for being legal action as they are "merely" fines. Even though if you ignore the fines you face legal consequence.

YES, and,

It is not just the legal consequence of the fines for speeding. When you get a ticket, you get points against your license, and end up paying more in insurance, often for up to seven years.

If they want actual automated enforcement, make it a toll, like a congestion fee.

It is free to drive at the basic speed (e.g., 65mph on the highway), but higher speeds cost more, up to a limit where it becomes a criminal offense requiring an actual Law Enforcement professional involved. The speeds could even be adjusted for time of day, weather, and traffic. So, you want to go faster, stay in the fast lane, and pay $X/mph/mile.

With the average speeds on highways often over 75MPH, collecting $0.10/mph/mile over the limit would result in good revenues.

[enragedcacti]

> When you get a ticket, you get points against your license, and end up paying more in insurance, often for up to seven years.

AFAICT this not the case in the vast majority of states that allow automated enforcement. Of the three I saw in that list that do: California replaced theirs with purely civil penalties earlier this year, and Arizona and Oregon require law enforcement officers to manually review and sign off on the ticket and offer legal avenues for you to respond.

https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/red-light-running/safety...

[gruez]

>With the average speeds on highways often over 75MPH, collecting $0.10/mph/mile over the limit would result in good revenues.

...assuming people don't change their behaviors.

[toss1]

Indeed!

And then it would be a win for the advocates of everyone slowing down, which was never achievable with ordinary enforcement that claims to be about safety but is actually about revenue.

Plus, this would almost definitely be on a price/demand curve. If the price is too high, almost everyone will change behavior to avoid getting billed, i.e., they'll "sell" very few speeding tickets. If the price is low, almost everyone will go fast because they can afford it like they afford parking when they arrive. There will be some optimum that maximizes revenue.

They could even bend the price curve to optimize revenue but minimize real excess speeds. E.g., $0.10/mph/mile»65mph for 69-77mph, then 77-88 it's $0.40, and over that it's $1.50.

If the goal is to change behavior, this would do it, as the cost would be very reliable, not just taking your chances with a human-issued ticket with a big fine and insurance consequences for years. You really need to get to that meeting? OK, is it worth 15 miles x $1.50 x (90-65mph) = $562, or is it better to stay below 87mph and pay only $132? And if it's raining so they doubled the rates, almost no one will do it.

OFC the actual values would differ from these examples, but it seems like a far better system. And they can well and truly decide between revenue vs desired speed. They could even have algorithms to increase rates in zones that see higher accident rates and decrease tolls in areas seeing fewer accidents.

[enragedcacti]

If you have to shakily walk backwards into a D- explanation of the concept of a civil offense, maybe you shouldn't remark on the constitutionality of enforcing them.

[gruez]

>If you are facing legal consequences for something, you have the constitutional right to face your accuser. Obviously that precludes any and all automated systems.

Usually they work around that issue by having a cop manually review the footage after.

[cyberge99]

That just time shifts the incident. Is there any legal precedent for “time shifted crime” versus “innocent until caught?”

[gruez]

> Is there any legal precedent for “time shifted crime” versus “innocent until caught?”

Why wouldn't this work? If you robbed a house while nobody was around, and later caught you thanks to surveillance footage, do you think you'll be able to argue it doesn't count because the cop wasn't around?

[SAI_Peregrinus]

> Obviously that precludes any and all automated systems.

What if it's not an automated system? The automated system merely takes pictures of your license plate & face, then some human decides whether those pictures are evidence you broke the law. They go to court, since they're your accuser.

[pandaman]

>If you are facing legal consequences for something, you have the constitutional right to face your accuser.

That's not true. The Sixth Amendment, which talks about the right to face one's accuser is explicitly referencing criminal prosecution only.