legalpretzel t1_ivovy43 wrote on November 9, 2022 at 3:18 PM

Reply to comment by SmartSherbet in For the love of God, stop blocking intersections at traffic lights by [deleted]

The right to confront your accuser, as granted by the MA state constitution, is vitally important and is one of those things that might seem irrelevant until it’s you or your loved one being accused.

https://www.riaclu.org/en/news/traffic-cameras-if-you-arent-mad-about-them-you-should-be

CA and UT both found that the traffic camera companies charge per violation and therefore are incentivized to increase profits (makes sense).

RI allows them. The car’s owner is fully on the hook for the cost of the ticket ($95) regardless of who was driving the car. Your friend/kid/husband/roommate/mom borrows your car and scores you 3 tickets on a short drive but you can’t afford to pay them? You’re sent to collections and there goes your credit. Wage garnishment is not fun.

SmartSherbet t1_ivp337s wrote on November 9, 2022 at 4:05 PM

I mean this sincerely: what's the alternative? Your friend/kid/husband/roommate/mom borrows your car, injures a biker running a stoplight, and nobody is held responsible because no cop was on the scene?

I don't dispute there are technical issues that need to be ironed out with cameras. But it's worth looking at how those could be addressed rather than rejecting the concept. There are equity concerns at the heart of them, you're right. But there are other equity concerns about not doing anything that to me bear equal consideration - without real traffic enforcement, anybody who's not driving is a target for harm with no accountability to the drivers responsible. The status quo is not okay.

In general, I also think "if you own a car, you are responsible for what people do with it" isn't a terrible approach to making our streets safer. If we had cameras, there's no reason the laws couldn't be written to avoid the worst-case outcome you list there.Scaling the fines by income would be great starting place.