Do you think the following prediction is accurate? I think we are well on way with speed/redlight cameras, black boxes in cars, electronic banking, GPS, cellular telephones, etc. My prediction:
All cars must be equipped with a monitoring device.
Before your car will even start, you must have a minimum balance in a special account.
If any traffic law violation is detected, the fine is automatically and immediately deducted from your account.
The scary part is that young people will accept this as normal and wonder why old people are so freaked out by it.
No, I doubt this is accurate. If self-driving cars become feasible, that will be the default and there will be extra pressure and liability on those who choose to drive manually. That’s my prediction.
Item 1 is happening with creeping technology. Item 3 is part of the ISTEA program under IVHS.
Most of the features of ISTEA exist on cars and highways today. The major one missing is automated infraction billing. No politician will back such a program.
My personal thoughts and hope is it might work the other way, become less strict as some traffic controls may be found to cause more accidents, injuries and deaths with increased AI-autonomous driving and other data collection. I’m sure there will be something like a finding that violating a traffic law is proven safer than following it and a AI car will follow the safer path, as it would be wrong, not to.
Also to the point when cars can drive equal or safer than a person (and have this proven), and can take over, wouldn’t traffic laws be then meaningless if the AI has to follow what is safest as primary over the law? Additionally why should there be any penalty for DWI if the car is driving and also proven safer than even unimpaired humans.
I think and hope a lot of this drive by fear where one can be basically pulled over for no legit reason will go away to a point of drive reasonable and not be bothered.
Excellent point. Automatic infraction billing eliminates the need for pulling anybody over. Of course there would have to be a red line where enough infractions nullify your license and the cop pulls you over and impounds the car.
Seems like a definite due process violation with the fine automatically deducted. No trial, no chance to explain. It may be a Fifth Amendment violation, but I see inherent weaknesses in that argument.
My tolls are automatically deducted. I suppose there’s a procedure to challenge that (“I didn’t drive on that road that day!”) The red light and school zone infraction cameras in Seattle don’t appear on your driving record, so perhaps due process requires less than if it was a criminal offense or traffic violation.
What if they said it’s not a speeding “violation” but a speeding toll? Your car exceeds 65 mph, and you’re billed $15. Exceed 75 mph and the toll is $100.
I think that would be quickly slapped down by a judge. A toll is a payment for services. A required payment for doing X, when X is deemed bad and punishing you to the exclusion of others is almost certainly a penalty, even if a civil penalty, which would require due process. Just calling it a toll doesn’t make it a toll. You could get around the 8th Amendment all day—no, these aren’t “fines,” they are tolls.
I guess the distinction would be if there was a payment for a service. May I pay for the privilege to drive 100mph on the road and then after payment be unmolested by the police? That seems like a toll. If I am going to constantly be monitored and fined/tolled/billed then that seems like a deterrent and a penalty.
Would #3 violate that whole innocent until proven guilty thing? Of course civil asset forfeiture does that already, & around here the bond to fight a traffic ticket is the amount of the fine…unless you call them up & give them a sob story, it which case they’ll waive it.
What about the case of parents with identical twin teenagers. You knew one of them borrowed the car but those pics don’t show near enough detail to tell who that is. it’s unfair to harshly penalize me because my sibling usually drives like a jerk.
I’ve read the long-term goal of self-driving vehicles is to do away with traffic control devices. each car will transmit it’s position, direction, & speed & cars will be able to carefully weave thru an intersection with out stopping or hitting any other vehicle. Of course this would require pedestrians / cyclists to clip on some type of transmitter so that they’re ‘read’ as part of the traffic flow, too.
The first year of vehicle registration is cheap. No substantial barriers to obtaining one. Every year after that, the price is hiked enormously. Ten grand a year, something stupid like that.
But so long as the Government Tracking Doohickey in your vehicle detects no unsafe driving, that cost ticks consistently downwards. By the time renewal comes around, safe drivers wouldn’t be paying any more than they pay now. Maybe even a lot less.
Every squealing stop, every unsafe lane change, every minute of speeding, every red light blown through would pause that ticking timer, increasing your overall liability at the end of the year.
And the thing about it is this: the cost is tied to the vehicle. If a particular Kia Sorento was a terror on the road in 2022, it’s got to pay more to stay on the road in 2023. And if dad is a terrible driver, maybe don’t let him borrow the car.
If my insurance can give me discounts for safe driving, I don’t see why the government can’t do the same.
Definitely sounds like a due process problem TODAY. But what about the future? Things change, including the law. Hence my comment about old people freaking out.
The ISTEA legislation funded exploring the legal issues. A major hurdle was to establish that the owner of the car is legally responsible for it’s use. It doesn’t make any difference who was driving, you are responsible.
Automatic tolling was a number one goal of ISTEA. And now it’s pretty universal,
It’s kind of a God machine. If your car went through the toll booth you are guilty (owe the fee). There is no question of innocence.
All of the red light cams / speed cams that I’m familiar with are financial penalties only; what you mentioned in your previous post was nullifying/suspending a license; there’s a big world of difference between the two; especially when it comes to shared vehicles when you can’t determine who the driver was.