• Turbofish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      But your accuser wouldn’t be the camera it would surely be whoever happens to be in charge of reviewing those cameras.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • HedonismB0t@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.