Rhode Island bill sees highway surveillance cams ticketing uninsured motorists

[Ulrich]

A Rhode Island legislative committee has approved a bill that would greatly expand the surveillance state through the deployment of license plate readers. For the first time in the US, these devices would be attached along Rhode Island highways and roads for the stated purpose of catching uninsured motorists from any state.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...red-motorists/

Discuss amongst yourselves; including the proposed revenue-sharing agreement, violations of privacy, potential 6th Amendment issues, technical issues generating false positives and the amount of the proposed fine vs. the expense to fight any ticket...

[Rocketman]

Can we also discuss the moral and legal obligations of having insurance in case someone is injured due to human negligence? In my opinion, there is no such thing as an accident. Nearly all traffic incidents involving collision or mechanical failure can be prevented. Perhaps animal collisions are the only ones not 100% preventable by humans, and even then if the fences are built high enough and robust enough, the deer/moose/dogs shouldn't be able to get in the road, but might.

[R.Murphy]

In a rather odd turn of events here, I must admit that I agree (mostly) with Sean.

Leastwise on the part that accidents are actually mistakes made by humans. And it's a rare occurrence that they are completely unavoidable. There is always some sort of cause which, had someone made a different selection, could have been avoided.

One must realize of course that this is the kind of thinking that only an engineer can love. *geek love*

I'm not going to engage in the discussion about rights and privacy and all the other stuff asked in the original post. No energy. Interesting topic, for sure, but I'm supposed to be finishing work so I can go home and pack! And I'm nowhere near done.

[Rocketman]

Well thank you Roseanne. Besides, how many people not from Rhode Island actually drive through Rhode Island? I mean, it's like a 15 minute trip so even if you go around it you're out 45 min max! So let's discuss the cost of 30 min worth of fuel vs. the cost of hiring a lawyer to get you out of a ticket that could have been avoided anyway if you only obeyed the law.

[Ulrich]

As was pointed out in the comments section of that article, there are apparently a number of states that allow you to pay an "uninsured vehicle fee" instead of getting insurance. Now, the wisdom of something like that aside, those opting to pay that fee are actually following the law. Yet I suspect that they would still receive a ticket which in turn would probably be less than the cost to fight it.

This bill, if it actually becomes a law and gets implemented, does nothing to improve safety. It's a pure revenue grab by the state.

[Geo02s2k]

I and my wife have both been hit by uninsured motorists. (It seems to be epidemic in Texas.) But I'm strongly against any surveillance measures and automated enforcement mechanisms. If there is a safety issue, monitor it, enforce it with officers, but more importantly, correct the engineering to make it safer. All red light, speed, and this type of camera installations are pure money grabs.

[Rocketman]

You can't engineer out stupid or lazy, but you can insure against its effects. I take that back....automated cars can probably become safer than human-operated ones.

[Geo02s2k]

You can't engineer out stupid or lazy, but you can insure against its effects. I take that back....automated cars can probably become safer than human-operated ones.

True, but the main problem that red light cameras claim to solve can be fixed with longer yellows and 4-way red lights.

[Rocketman]

I'll have to disagree with longer yellows. I don't think people run red lights because the yellow didn't provide ample warning. It's because they think they can squeeze through. A 10-second yellow will not make people slow down any sooner. You'll just have more people speeding up to beat the red. My opinion, of course.

[lacochino]

You cannot legislate against stupidity. And who is to say that the driver driving the car does not have insurance? I have borrowed a car. *I* have insurance. I know that insurance follows the car, but I also know that insurance follows the person to a degree. Until we start taking responsibility for ourselves, quit being such a litigious society, get the hell over ourselves and our past, this crap is going to continue. So I don't see anything changing for either a very long time, or ever.

[Rocketman]

You cannot legislate against stupidity.........Until we start taking responsibility for ourselves, quit being such a litigious society, get the hell over ourselves and our past, this crap is going to continue.

I'm sorry, but we're now in the 21st century. Such things as personal responsibility are no longer appropriate as we strive to be a more progressive society. People make mistakes, misjudge themselves, and can easily buy their way out of the ramifications of their decisions. That's normal and totally okay. No one is perfect.

[lacochino]

EeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeYEAH.

[griffon]

While I believe in the gummint staying the hill out of my life, I have been screwed too many times by low lifes who for whatever reason aren't insured.
I am "insurance poor" but have always have carried way,way more than minimum.
I think the asshoies should be fined and lose their cars for not having insurance.

griff

[griffon]

As was pointed out in the comments section of that article, there are apparently a number of states that allow you to pay an "uninsured vehicle fee" instead of getting insurance. Now, the wisdom of something like that aside, those opting to pay that fee are actually following the law. Yet I suspect that they would still receive a ticket which in turn would probably be less than the cost to fight it.

This bill, if it actually becomes a law and gets implemented, does nothing to improve safety. It's a pure revenue grab by the state.

Who, if not the gummint, is going to enforce the "must have insurance" laws?

[Geo02s2k]

Who, if not the gummint, is going to enforce the "must have insurance" laws?

The Government should enforce the laws, but I think it would be perfectly fair for them to seize any uninsured motorist's vehicle, if they are at fault in an accident, and sell it with the proceeds going to reimburse the injured party.

[MoS2000]

I think ANY method by which an uinsured motorist can be kept off the street, is a good one! However, the automated issuance of a ticket by the gummint (love that word!!) is definitely a money-grab. Perhaps the automated detection of an uninsured motorist (without an automated ticket) can be used as the trigger to police the rule? Such as, seize the vehicle which forces them to buy insurance AND retrieve the vehicle with a charge to cover the costs? Having said that, I'm sure there are cheaper ways to determine who is an uninsured motorist....

[The Mangonel]

Actually, if this had been in Washington State, maybe the idiot who hit my S (while carrying a fake insurance card) wouldn't have been on the street. I'm all for impounding their vehicle. If they can't afford the insurance, perhaps they should be using the bus.

[DJSS2K]

Sorry to here about your car. Just touching base to see what is going on. would like to try to make the next meeting. My s2000 is a red 2001.

[MoS2000]

Sorry to here about your car. Just touching base to see what is going on. would like to try to make the next meeting. My s2000 is a red 2001.

DJ!!! Good to hear from you. Hopefully, see you at the August meeting - I don't think Traci is back from her S2KDays trip, so we prolly won't have a July meeting. Keep watching this forum, and Traci will post a PNW Meet.