Interesting that your use of "solves for this" is with regards to the end result of being able to write more red light tickets. In my view, the courts solved this by deeming at least certain uses of red light cameras illegal.
Automated traffic control is objectively one of the most pro-social things we could possibly ever create. Yes it is good if more red light cameras exist and face fewer legal challenges.
> the courts solved this by deeming at least certain uses of red light cameras illegal.
This is incorrect. The court in Florida said certain arrangement of the statutory basis (a different one than in CA) for red light cameras is illegal.
You're coming with the assumption that pro-social is a universal goal, and that it is objectively good.
I'm not even disagreeing with you here, but that's a huge assumption yo make and you are granting pretty broad authority to the state in the name of that goal. Where do you draw the line of power the state shouldn't have despite it using the authority today towards pro-social goals?
Yes I do think things that are good for society are objectively good insofar as "objectively good" has any meaning at all.
Automated traffic enforcement isn't "granting" any new authority whatsoever to the state. The state already has the authority, it just uses it unfairly and imperfectly enough to fail to produce meaningful deterrence.
> Where do you draw the line of power the state shouldn't have despite it using the authority today towards pro-social goals?
I draw the line at the point where their power becomes not-pro-social, of course.
You and I can argue about what's pro-social or not (which this clearly is), but not whether pro-social things are good or not (which they clearly are).
Its usually much harder to decide what's good for society than its made out to be. Externalities matter, something can seem good for society today and turn out to have serious downsides that either weren't known upfront or didn't show up until later.
With regards to authority here, this absolutely is a case of granting more power and authority to the state, or more specifically the state claiming it.
The judge here said its illegal to use redlight cameras in certain situations. Based on the prior comment, if California found a loophole so they can get to the same end by labeling it something different that is them functionally claiming new authority. The judge says its illegal, the state says no its not we can do this anyway.
Yes I agree, we should consider all of those things.
Considering all of those things, fully automated traffic enforcement in general is a clear net positive.
> The judge here said its illegal to use redlight cameras in certain situations. Based on the prior comment, if California found a loophole so they can get to the same end by labeling it something different that is them functionally claiming new authority. The judge says its illegal, the state says no its not we can do this anyway.
Sorry but this is just too surface-level of an understanding of how law actually works that I can't justify engaging with it.
Not only are California and Florida totally different jurisdictions, but even if they weren't, different statutory bases for the same effective policy can have different levels of legal defensibility or constitutionality. It's not just possible, but in fact quite common for policies to be struck down and then reintroduced with (effectively) a different argument for its validity, and for the new policy (same policy, different argument supporting it) to be valid.
Understanding how laws and the judiciary actually work is truly fascinating stuff and I hope your confusion about this apparent contradiction (which it's not) actually piques your curiosity to dig deeper.
> Sorry but this is just too surface-level of an understanding of how law actually works that I can't justify engaging with it.
This comes off a bit strangely when you go on to engage with the discussion. It seems unnecessarily dismissive.
Legal precedent within the US does not stop at state lines. A ruling in Florida is applicable present in California.
My argument here, though, isn't that California's approach is illegal or would be overturned if challenged based on this Florida precedent. My point was simply that the state, California in this case, is claiming effectively new authority by playing word games to get around precedent that could otherwise deem their use of traffic cams illegal.
I'm still not sure how you can so blanketly deem automated traffic enforcement a net good. There are a ton of details that would matter, from how its implemented and overseen to how tight or broad the authority is and what that means for future use of the same authority.
No, their use of “solves for this” is with regards to disincentivizing an incredibly dangerous habit that randomly kills the most vulnerable bystanders in the vicinity at the rate of many thousands per year
You're misrepresenting. The article is about red light camera tickets and the GP is specifically describing how California got around this legal issue in the way they write tickets in their new camera pilot. They mention nothing of bystanders or their vulnerability.
