Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation that will allow San Francisco, Los Angeles and four other cities to use speed cameras to increase pedestrian safety.
Good!! When we visited the UK literally no one speeds. It’s so much safer!
They use average speed cameras. One at point A another a few miles down the road at point B. If you get there faster than the possible posted speed limit, boom, speeding ticket.
Our taxi driver in the UK pointed out that many of the speed cameras average the vehicle speed between two points several miles apart. The speed limit also changes based on traffic. Literally nobody was speeding.
In the UK you absolutely do have your right to face your accuser it’s just not in some magic constitution it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist though as a law.
But as has already been pointed out to you the accuser isn’t the traffic camera, it’s the police. If you speed the camera takes a picture of you, it looks you up in a database and it sends you a fine. If you then want to contest the fine then the police will review the footage, in some cases they will drop the charge at this point, otherwise it goes to court. So in any scenario where it goes to court a human will have looked at the footage, and therefore the human will be your accuser.
Arguing that you should be allowed to speed regularly just because of a technicality is stupid (and probably won’t work as a legal defence) and isn’t in the spirit of the law.
We’re taking about California, which has already automated red and speeding traffic enforcement in places like San Francisco and they send the tickets with zero human review.
That’s the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard. “Your accuser” is fucking physics. You can’t travel 10 miles in 5 minutes at 60 miles per an hour. Reviewed by a human.
Good!! When we visited the UK literally no one speeds. It’s so much safer!
They use average speed cameras. One at point A another a few miles down the road at point B. If you get there faster than the possible posted speed limit, boom, speeding ticket.
Our taxi driver in the UK pointed out that many of the speed cameras average the vehicle speed between two points several miles apart. The speed limit also changes based on traffic. Literally nobody was speeding.
People do speed an awful lot on residential roads where there are never are any cameras, but yeah other than that it’s not too bad.
What you do get is reckless driving though so, swings and roundabouts.
deleted by creator
None of that is true.
In the UK you absolutely do have your right to face your accuser it’s just not in some magic constitution it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist though as a law.
But as has already been pointed out to you the accuser isn’t the traffic camera, it’s the police. If you speed the camera takes a picture of you, it looks you up in a database and it sends you a fine. If you then want to contest the fine then the police will review the footage, in some cases they will drop the charge at this point, otherwise it goes to court. So in any scenario where it goes to court a human will have looked at the footage, and therefore the human will be your accuser.
Arguing that you should be allowed to speed regularly just because of a technicality is stupid (and probably won’t work as a legal defence) and isn’t in the spirit of the law.
We’re taking about California, which has already automated red and speeding traffic enforcement in places like San Francisco and they send the tickets with zero human review.
Right, but I’m just pointing out that what you said about the UK is not true, in the UK you do have the right to face your accuser.
I then explained why that is not an issue with speed cameras.
But your accuser wouldn’t be the camera it would surely be whoever happens to be in charge of reviewing those cameras.
That’s the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard. “Your accuser” is fucking physics. You can’t travel 10 miles in 5 minutes at 60 miles per an hour. Reviewed by a human.