Camera-based violations are typically civil instead of criminal. AKA pay fines instead of getting points on your license or facing jail time.
If you want the jet-black cynical take, this is because repeat offenders are better for the municipal budget than turning them into non-drivers.
A more measured take is that it’s very hard to prove who was driving just based on these cameras, so while the registered owner can be civilly responsible for what their vehicle did, it’s a bigger challenge and expense to prove that they’re criminally responsible.
In Australia we have a point system, each driving offence (whether caught by a cop or a robot) deducts points, reach zero points and you lose your driver’s licence
Camera-based violations are typically civil instead of criminal. AKA pay fines instead of getting points on your license or facing jail time.
If you want the jet-black cynical take, this is because repeat offenders are better for the municipal budget than turning them into non-drivers.
A more measured take is that it’s very hard to prove who was driving just based on these cameras, so while the registered owner can be civilly responsible for what their vehicle did, it’s a bigger challenge and expense to prove that they’re criminally responsible.
In Australia we have a point system, each driving offence (whether caught by a cop or a robot) deducts points, reach zero points and you lose your driver’s licence
People on a handful of points become very careful
Best of all money won’t save you
that is NOT true, get a business owned car, they pay a fine only, no points.
Fine based system like Australias are designed to punish poor people, if not we’d be using the Finnish system that’s linked to your earnings.
roll the dice, who knows, maybe with dozens of incidents of cutting through the school zone they’ll never hit some kid. why not.