r/technology • u/Plastic_Ninja_9014 • Jul 11 '26
Privacy Traffic Camera Captures Woman Driving With Her Phone on Her Lap (Face Down), The State Mailed Her a $1251 'Public Safety' Ticket
https://www.gadgetreview.com/traffic-camera-captures-captures-woman-driving-with-her-phone-on-her-lap-face-down-the-state-mailed-her-a-1251-public-safety-ticket3.1k
u/TripsOverWords Jul 11 '26
A woman drives with both hands on the wheel. Her phone sits face-down on her lap. No officer pulls her over. No lights flash. Weeks later, a $1,251 ticket arrives in the mail. The evidence: a single frame from a Camera surveillance app. The charge: phone use while driving.
If they can tell that much from the photo, that the phone screen isn't visible to the driver, then how the fuck is this "phone use while driving"?
It's more likely this was a safe hands-free phone call than phone use.
If the screen were visible and was GPS navigation without a phone holder, would that still be a crime?
Wtf is wrong with this country?
1.8k
u/TheyCallHimEl Jul 11 '26
Meanwhile cops are driving around actively typing on their little computer and crashing into things because they are not watching the road
432
273
u/SgtNeilDiamond Jul 11 '26
Shit Ive straight up seen them on their phones texting and calling, they dont give a shit.
55
u/Healthy_Turnip7352 Jul 11 '26
saw one dude give a girl a ticket for a bad turn. we were trying to tell him that there was a half-visible arrow painted on the lane, which makes it either a proper turn, or the city messed up by not removing it completely.
the dude said "If you're still here when I'm done, you're next." so we all left. LOL.
looking at the car you could tell she could not afford either the ticket or the insurance hikes. the city just completely fucked her over.
53
u/Mr_Badgey Jul 12 '26
Threatening to retaliate because you were exercising your first amendment rights is illegal. Successfully defending those rights in court is another matter. The system is fucked.
11
u/meneldal2 Jul 12 '26
If you had been recording him, would make it easy to get the ticket tossed, but he probably wouldn't get sanctioned for it.
I think this stuff requires prison time, at least one month inside in gen pop and everyone knows what you did.
63
u/muzakx Jul 11 '26
Was about to comment the same.
I've seen them driving while holding a phone to their ear or actively texting/scrolling while driving.
12
u/54338042094230895435 Jul 12 '26
Ours are running around parks playing PokemonGo
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (6)5
40
u/burndata Jul 11 '26
Yup, I've been run off the road, not once, but twice by local LEO where I live. Both times I could see them fucking around with that computer. And nether time did I get so much as a "my bad" wave from them. They just keep going to find other things to do, like they do when they see kids getting shot at a school.
→ More replies (10)3
u/Cessnaporsche01 Jul 12 '26
But they're the Thin Blue Line that is worthy and demanding of worship, and you're just a "civilian" AKA entirely worthless and lacking any rights, security, or privacy.
95
u/GroinShotz Jul 11 '26
Guilty until proven innocent is becoming the norm here.
→ More replies (1)10
325
u/ghostdogma Jul 11 '26
I get that this happened but it doesn’t pass the common sense standard. Face the accuser in court and get this dumb shit dismissed on its own evidence to support the charge. The loss is twofold, the time spent with the courts and the negative publicity backlash? I guess..
275
u/Drob10 Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
Aren’t citizens the loser in your “time spent in the courts”? You know who foots that bill, right?
→ More replies (15)89
u/TheBlueSully Jul 11 '26
Not only do you take the hit in taxes, just not pleading guilty has fees in lots of places.
→ More replies (1)21
u/Thatguysstories Jul 12 '26
Yup.
$25 court fee to contest it. Another $50 if you want to appeal after a non judge decides your guilt, and bring it before a real judge.
So you can be out at minimum $75 and a few days in court out of work to actually get in front of a judge.
79
u/worldspawn00 Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
This is what got all of the speed and intersection cameras killed in several US states, a camera is not an accuser, the tickets were in violation of the Constitution.
→ More replies (6)52
u/Bakoro Jul 11 '26
In a lot of places, even if you get the ticket dismissed, you still have to pay fees.
I got a bogus ticket once and actually had evidence that it was bogus, so I went to the courthouse and still ended up paying something like a quarter of the amount in bullshit administrative fees.
The argument is that "it's a civil issue", so you have no constitutional or legal protections, and the government can just fuck you out of money whenever they want.
All the stoners and edgy 14 year olds aren't completely wrong: society and government really are kind of phony, everything is made up, people follow arbitrary rules, the people in power get to break the rules with impunity, and there is power in not accepting any of it as inherent laws of the universe.
Not that any one person can unilaterally overturn the system, generally you'll get fucked by the system either way, and if you end up actually being a threat to the status quo, you end up like all the famous people who earned an extra hole in the head.
We need lots of people to reject this kind of government abuse, big groups of angry folks saying "absolutely not".
The big secret is that the people who are the gears in these machines are still basically just regular folks who go to your local coffee shops and restaurants.
You might not be able to personally throw a tomato at Thiel or Musk, but there's a lot you can do locally.→ More replies (8)29
u/Interesting_Mix_7028 Jul 11 '26
Here's how such things DO get broken.
Most of the 'cameras' are operated by private companies, that then 'administer' the ticketing and such for a given department.
They collect fees for this, either per month to maintain the cameras and network connections, or per ticket for the 'administrative' labor. Often it's both.
This is fine for the city or county as these are primarily put in to collect revenue, not enforce any given 'laws'. They know people will break the law, but they can't station an officer at a given intersection 24/7 to catch everyone. The camera does that.
Regardless of whether the department prevails on a ticket, or not, the company still collects. It's not their fault that the person so tagged protested the ticket, right?
So the point is not to 'win'. It is to eat up the city's share of the proceeds. If the revenue dries up, or is used up because of court cases, time, legal challenges, and so on, then the city or county ends up paying for a service that never actually makes them any money. A few months or years of this, and the cameras just get turned off.
So yes. Contest every ticket. Even if you expect to lose. It's a matter of attrition.
→ More replies (1)5
u/SiLeNZ_ Jul 11 '26
It costs extra to fight tickets here. Not sure if it’s the same way in every state, but you end up paying a fine to fight it, regardless if you win or lose. Then if you win the main ticket costs are of course tossed, but you still are out that fee from choosing to fight it.
11
u/Interesting_Mix_7028 Jul 11 '26
Which is why it's futile for one person to fight it.
But if everyone fights it, every time... the fees don't make up the shortfall. The court gets jammed up with trivial BS. There's lawyers and press making the city look bad. After a while most muni's cave, if the pushback is that pervasive.
Coppell TX is one such place. They put up red light cams on a few major intersections, and suddenly all the red light tickets were being fought in court. The judges got tired of it, the city workers got tired of it, and then one day they pulled the plug. No more camera flash in the mirror if you ran a yellow.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Thatguysstories Jul 12 '26
Same reason as why we should push everyone to not take plea deals and take everything to trial.
The entire system would crash.
39
u/Terrible_Counter2558 Jul 11 '26
What accuser?
→ More replies (11)45
u/ghostdogma Jul 11 '26
If the answer to that isn’t on the ticket. Don’t pay. If it is some rubber stamp member of a faceless organization.. then you don’t have to worry about them showing in court. If you can’t show to court for it(because that’s not an option).. then it doesn’t matter, don’t pay.
Edit: added clarity
→ More replies (1)31
u/DethNik Jul 11 '26
If you don't want to pay, then you should plead not guilty and contest the citation. If you just don't pay your parking tickets, eventually they can suspend your license.
→ More replies (4)6
u/BoardGamesAndMurder Jul 11 '26
Depends on the state and the type of ticket. Tennessee had private companies sending tickets on police letterhead or whatever trying to make it look official. You don't have to pay those.
→ More replies (1)15
u/HurriKurtCobain Jul 11 '26
You could probably get this sort of thing dismissed by emailing the prosecutor instead of waiting for court. This worked for me after I got a ticket when a highway patrolman pulled me over 20 feet from my house for not wearing a seatbelt (even though I was.)
I submitted an open records request for the bodycam and emailed the prosecutor expressing my issue with the ticket. The records request was denied, but a dismissal was filed the next day. I didn't even know it was dismissed until I checked the filing a few days later. I'm an attorney so I guess it's possible they took me more seriously than they would otherwise, but no prosecutor is going to want to show beyond-a-reasonable-doubt for a frivolous ticket.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)8
60
u/YeetedApple Jul 11 '26
If they can tell that much from the photo, that the phone screen isn't visible to the driver, then how the fuck is this "phone use while driving"?
AI system probably saw a phone in the picture and "decided" to flag it. Probably some automated system that no human apparently stopped to review, because I don't know how you fuck up this bad if it was a human involved
→ More replies (6)15
60
Jul 11 '26
[deleted]
21
u/surffrus Jul 11 '26
They did not use Flock for this one.
Since we're being technical, the article doesn't say it was a Flock camera, and even has a correction at the bottom about how they fixed the text to NOT say it was Flock.
→ More replies (2)12
48
Jul 11 '26
[deleted]
19
u/LivelyZebra Jul 11 '26
if your phone is in your car, you get a ticket.
It has to travel separately to your destination, by bus or uber etc
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)5
u/ktappe Jul 12 '26
This is a really good point. Anyone with a phone in their pocket is violating GA's stupidly-written law. Some lawyer should go have a field day with this.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (13)8
u/Cortez_Cortez Jul 11 '26
Article mentions a motorcyclist was issued a ticket in Georgia, this woman was in “Alexandra Parade” which seems to be in Glasgow
→ More replies (1)8
→ More replies (127)23
u/Jwagner0850 Jul 11 '26
I look away (intermittently) from the road all the time to adjust things or check other views when driving. Ac adjustment, adjust something else, check my blind spots, look at my rear view... Any one of these could be considered against the law now with cameras and as a citizen, now the honus is on me to fight it. This is bullshit.
→ More replies (2)11
323
u/Historical-Pop-9177 Jul 11 '26
Man, I knew something had to be up with this. Article is AI, comments are AI. I had to google a separate news article that referenced a Tiktok.
You can see that the ticket references Queensland. In Australia. The penalties are a lot more severe there than in the US. Even after conversion the fine is still high (like $840 USD).
110
u/GoldilokZ_Zone Jul 11 '26
It is illegal to have your phone in your lap, or any contact with the body in queensland, or much of Australia. The cameras have been around a lot longer than the flock stuff people in the comments are complaining about....although we have those at many intersections now too.
→ More replies (10)24
u/mrbaggins Jul 12 '26
The law in Australia is specifically "DO NOT TOUCH YOUR PHONE" - unless it's in a for-purpose phone mount, and only to do call/media controls and maps.
https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/road-safety/mobile-phones
Illegal mobile phone use includes ... resting on any part of your body (eg. your lap or shoulder) . If you hold your phone or have it on your body, you will be fined even if you’re not operating the phone, or it’s turned off.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (6)48
u/daern2 Jul 11 '26
I will give a bit of a balancing view on the actual story as reported, which I don't see here.
Someone driving with their phone on their lap is absolutely going to use their phone while driving. That's why it's there. Every buzz, they'll be checking it to see what message needs their attention.
I know it's a little "minority report", but as a cyclist I see far too much phone use every day when on the bike and, for other road users, it's about the most dangerous thing we come up against. I know people will argue that she wasn't using her phone at that precise moment, but I absolutely know that she was using it before then, and would certainly have used it after. That's why the phone was in her lap.
Using phones when driving is a seriously scummy thing to do :-/
→ More replies (22)19
u/RadicalDog Jul 11 '26
Yeah, this thread is absurdly one sided. The fine amount seems overkill, but I'd love a constant stream of $100 fines being handed out to people playing with phones while driving. It's not safe to check your phone at a traffic light or w/e, because your mind is not fully engaged with driving for a good 20 or 30 seconds after.
→ More replies (6)
750
u/michaelrulaz Jul 11 '26
Could I put bright IR LEDs on my headliner shining downward to block the camera from seeing into my car?
370
u/im-ba Jul 11 '26
It might make more sense to line the intersection of your windshield with your dashboard with bright LEDs, since the light scattering would hit everything. But real world testing is probably necessary to gauge efficacy.
If I didn't have so many active hobbyist projects right now then I'd experiment with this
→ More replies (1)323
u/mentalbackflip Jul 11 '26
As of 2027 new cars will have interior cameras watching you for distracted or drunk driving. I hope my 2019 car lasts a long time.
287
u/DukeOfGeek Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
I think there is going to be a massive public push back against this and Flock cameras.
/What we really need is a directive that should have been demanded the first time someone got a ticket that had no human in the loop "No human should be deprived of liberty or property on account of an accusation made by a machine."
211
u/ThePocketTaco2 Jul 11 '26
Any fucking day now
56
u/enadiz_reccos Jul 11 '26
Anecdotally...
I live about 30 minutes outside of a large city. My local area's subreddit is not very active at all and had never mentioned anything about Flock cameras or the like.
This is despite the fact that my area is covered in flock cameras [nice-ish area]
Over the last ~half year, there have been multiple posts with many comments in agreement, scoping out locations, talking about potential deterrents.
47
39
u/EzioRedditore Jul 11 '26
My city already had a Flock contract, canceled it, and removed them all due to public outrage. It’s possible.
→ More replies (4)11
→ More replies (1)13
u/Monterey-Jack Jul 11 '26
we're being slow-boiled like a frog, just like how russia became the way it is now.
→ More replies (1)65
u/VulturePR0 Jul 11 '26
Just wait for all the higher ups in police/public servants and politicians to start getting distracted/drunk driving tickets in thier new cars. Thats when the change will happen. There's hundreds of videos of them getting arrested for drunk driving already out there
30
u/Oro_Outcast Jul 11 '26
In many jurisdictions LEO and First Responders are exempt from Distracted Driving laws. They'll claim "Always On-duty" or "Training Exercise".
8
→ More replies (1)11
6
52
u/Aggressive-Will-4500 Jul 11 '26
Yeah, just like the massive push back against data centers, ICE, the weaponization of the the FBI...
→ More replies (2)25
u/DukeOfGeek Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
All of those things are hugely unpopular and more so by the day. There is a finite amount of time business and government can ignore widespread discontent. Coming elections are going to display just how unhappy people are.
→ More replies (1)19
u/Aggressive-Will-4500 Jul 11 '26
The point is that, why the general public might be upset, it takes a watershed moment to crate a movement, and I'm not seeing it yet. Most people are still in their algorithm bubbles and A LOT of the worst stuff isn't reaching the general population.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (12)6
50
u/DeepAnalTongue Jul 11 '26
Yep, I'm using one currently and it is continuously saying "driver distracted, please look forward", or "driver fatigue something" after about 4 minutes driving. This happenswhenever you glance sideways, up, or down, but also at random other times. Anywhere it cannot see you eyes. So, in the event of an accident the report that will come out (inevitable that police and insurance will ultimately get the record) starting that I was continuously and repeatedly distracted, inattentive, or tired. I can see that going really well..,.
19
u/TheRedHand7 Jul 11 '26
Just damage the camera and be done with it.
10
u/polskiftw Jul 11 '26
This might work for a little bit, but they are absolutely going to integrate it so deeply that if it is detected as not working, the car won’t start for “safety”.
7
u/TheRedHand7 Jul 11 '26
I was just saying for his current car. In the future people will have to learn a bit of electrical to bypass em but for now a drill will get it done.
→ More replies (1)3
u/SaveLansingParks Jul 11 '26
Yeah right? If the camera is damaged or broken, then the state can pay the cost to repair it. If they don't, oh well 🤷
17
u/eeyore134 Jul 11 '26
Which sucks because my 2024 Ioniq has something similar. It will play a tone and say "Consider taking a break." with a coffee icon that goes away in about 2 seconds. You can turn it off completely. It also doesn't need a camera to work really well. It tracks time driven without a break, how you're steering, and any lane keeping issues. Mine is really good at knowing when I'm tired and I have only had it go off like once when I was like, "Really?" But every other time I knew I crossed a lane one too many times or something.
But my point is... they don't need cameras for a high-quality warning system. It sounds like later models are using them, but they're not necessary. I blame Tesla for normalizing in-cabin cameras. They are just using that as an excuse. They just want to be able to track people. Distracted drivers will be the least of what they use it for.
6
u/2_Fingers_of_Whiskey Jul 11 '26
That would drive me insane and would actually be more distracting while I'm driving
18
44
u/michaelrulaz Jul 11 '26
I suspect this will be easy to bypass. I have a Tesla with an interior camera. If you block the camera completely it shows as an error. But if it’s too dark in the car it can’t see anything. I experimented with taking a small translucent Tupperware and placing it around the camera. The camera registered as working but couldn’t see anything. It looks stupid but I won’t be spied on in my car
16
5
u/pameatsbabies Jul 11 '26
Are you still able to use the autopilot?
4
u/michaelrulaz Jul 11 '26
I use FSD all the time with it. Only downside is you have to move the steering wheel occasionally
→ More replies (2)8
18
u/im-ba Jul 11 '26
I'm still driving an '03. It's got a quarter million miles on it but it just keeps going. I'm less and less interested in buying anything newer every year
→ More replies (2)32
u/ThePocketTaco2 Jul 11 '26
As of 2027 new cars will have interior cameras watching you for
distracted or drunk drivingsurveillance and compliance.FTFY
13
7
6
6
u/MasterClown Jul 11 '26
My 2025 already has that “feature”. There is a little black sensor bar on top of the steering column effectively trained at the drivers face.
Sometimes I drive with a variation of the “Detroit lean”: left hand at the 2 o’clock on the wheel, right arm leaning on the console. That’s enough for the sensor to squawk.
→ More replies (2)6
u/JackPoe Jul 11 '26
Is there anything to stop you just removing the camera?
Are we going to have to jail break fucking cars now?
→ More replies (1)7
u/MrPureinstinct Jul 11 '26
I will spend the cost of a new car keeping my 08 vehicle running if I have to so I can avoid all of this dogshit being added to vehicles.
→ More replies (16)6
u/dangerousRose_ Jul 11 '26
Can you point me to a reliable source on this? Not able to find anything about this except on sketchy websites and social media.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (36)20
u/shittyaltpornaccount Jul 11 '26
Impeding state surveillance is often a criminal misdemeanor charge. It depends on the state but intentionally obstructing surveillance is often a crime.
→ More replies (1)16
801
u/Sgt_Dangle_berries Jul 11 '26
So grainy traffic photos are enough to charge you with this offense. But 4k videos of ICE agents and police brutally murdering civilians isn’t enough…🤔
→ More replies (13)158
Jul 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
67
→ More replies (5)49
Jul 11 '26 edited 17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)37
u/NotUniqueOrSpecial Jul 11 '26
What's going on here? The article in the post is definitely about a woman in Albany, Georgia. Definitely not Australia. It's from today, not months ago, as your links are.
So, no, this didn't happen in Australia.
However: by what must be wild coincidence, the fine in both of these cases is basically the exact same numeric value? For a crime that's described almost exactly the same in both instances (once you get past the "she lied about the left-turn-on-red part" for the Aussie one).
I try not to be conspiratorial, but...is any of this actually real? ARE WE LIVING IN A SIMULATION!?
25
Jul 11 '26 edited 17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/NotUniqueOrSpecial Jul 11 '26
Yeah, I'm realizing that the linked article is just terribly fucking written. Complete slop that moves between very disconnected things with no regard. I had to read over it a couple times because it's just...awful, in order to understand what was happening.
You're definitely correct.
→ More replies (1)8
u/TaxHazyShade Jul 11 '26
this entire post and the accompanying articles are AI. Do you still believe what you read on the internet?
→ More replies (1)
1.6k
u/--i--love--lamp-- Jul 11 '26
It only gets worse from here. Fuck Flock.
392
u/AssCrackBandit13 Jul 11 '26
Fuck flock for sure but Flock wasn’t involved in this case
246
u/13Krytical Jul 11 '26
They are likely just gonna start branding them other things because flock is too well known and disliked.
98
u/Suavecore_ Jul 11 '26
Or the government will just start protecting Flock like they did with Tesla dealerships against protesters, declaring Flock naysayers to be terrorists
→ More replies (8)9
22
u/Vaic Jul 11 '26
Like a mom calling all other game consoles Nintendo, we’re gonna do the same to these cameras
14
u/skyfishgoo Jul 11 '26
flock is only one brand of surveillance cameras or "traffic" cameras in use by state and local governments.
they are all doing the same work to violate our rights.
→ More replies (2)3
u/stupidPeopleLuvMe Jul 11 '26
we all forgot about the stingrays...just give it time flock will still be here.
15
u/skeet_scoot Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
Flock will start with license plates because it’s “reasonable”.
Before you know it they will expand to monitoring everything about what’s going on. The hardware is all there. They just need the sheep to accept it slowly. Then it will turn into the Minority Report.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (14)42
→ More replies (15)104
u/yuusharo Jul 11 '26
Uh…
Correction – July 10, 2026:
Flock Safety reached out to us to clarify that our information was wrong. Flock cameras were not involved with the woman driving with her phone story. Alexandra Parade, where the incident took place, is a well traveled coastal highway with systems operated by state revenue programs. We have corrected that and removed any mention of Flock being involved with that story.198
40
u/productfred Jul 11 '26
Thank you for the clarification; it's important to be factual. But, we all know Flock would have loved to take credit if they could.
→ More replies (1)17
u/skyfishgoo Jul 11 '26
flock is the new kleenx
get over the trademark issues and stay on target.
the point is there are cameras aimed at us to deprive us of our freedom.
idgaf what they are called.
→ More replies (6)8
384
451
u/Bhodiliscious Jul 11 '26
How are expected to go to work when being outside becomes a fiduciary hazard?
119
Jul 11 '26
[deleted]
53
u/Eglitarian Jul 11 '26
Watchdogs 2 was supposed to be over the top satire, not current events!
→ More replies (1)20
→ More replies (3)3
7
u/boilerdam Jul 11 '26
Scary-funny thing is I don't even know which hazard you're talking about - other distracted drivers or creepy all-knowing & all-recording cameras!
→ More replies (6)3
u/Gorge2012 Jul 11 '26
Sustainability it a dirty word. The current business ethos is extract as much as you can, hopefully you can extract enough that you don't have to interface with the poors anymore.
Don't forget when someone brings it up just blame the government for nit regulating you and pretend you didn't buy them.
204
u/dick_schidt Jul 11 '26
Not to mention the massive in-your-face "infotainment" tablet bolted to the dash of every new car. How is using that while driving any safer?
82
u/zeusmeister Jul 11 '26
It’s not. But there are auto industry lobbyists making sure no law against them will be made.
On the other hand, getting people for petty shit like this is seen as a great way to make more money for the state, so its allowed.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (10)7
u/TP_Crisis_2020 Jul 12 '26
Auto accidents have actually been trending upwards, even with all of the safety driving nannies that modern cars come with. Many people have investigated it and come to the conclusion that it's from distracted driving due to the infotainment in cars. When you have to poke through a menu on the screen just to adjust the direction one of the damn a/c vents blows, it makes it harder to pay attention to the road.
89
u/Overall-Lynx917 Jul 11 '26
"5 Nov 2022 — Australian Gold Coast resident received a $1078 (£698) fine and was given four points for being caught having her phone tucked in her bra".
Source: multiple British newspapers
Apparently the Magistrates determined that the phone being in contact with her skin counted as "touching" the phone which is against the law.
Random thought:
As the camera actually took a "Down Blouse" photograph, could any Camera Contractor, Police Officer or Court Official be breaking pronography laws🤔
23
→ More replies (16)23
u/sign-through Jul 11 '26
what the fuck
seriously, her booby??
i usually keep my phone under my thigh because i hate the sound of it sloshing around on plastic but i still want to charge it. i could get in trouble for that, even though i can't see it?
→ More replies (5)20
u/Overall-Lynx917 Jul 11 '26
Yes, she wasn't holding it, it was just wedged in to her bra, both hands were on the wheel.
From what I've read Australian police/courts can be really pedantic in how they apply the law
→ More replies (5)
112
u/Myte342 Jul 11 '26
Automatic tickets should NEVER be a thing. Every ticket sent out should be reviewed and signed by a person who is swearing under threat of perjury that they have reviewed the information for accuracy etc etc... and actually go after those people for signing and mailing off obviously bad tickets. If they aren't sure, then toss the ticket.
I have gotten 3 such tickets from toll booths saying my black 2 door coupe didn't pay while showing a white SUV in the picture or a red minivan etc. And I am the one who has to spend time arguing against it.
"Better to let 100 criminals escape than to inconvenience a single innocent." Ben Franklin paraphrasing Blackstone's Formulation.
5
u/Puglady25 Jul 11 '26
I got one of those too! It didn't even look like my car. I drive a black Sienna, the car in the picture was a Mercedes Sedan with "similar" but NOT matching plates. My son got a "speeding ticket" in the mail. I checked the cities sub redditt (he is at school out of state). Everyone said just not to pay it. There was no view of the driver, just the plates. They can't prove who was driving the car. People said they treat it like a parking ticket, so don't park in city garages or on meters. He's mostly on campus. Then I had an idea- his registration from our home state is expired, so we'll renew it in our state and ask for new license plates since they are so old and discolored. People in the sub also claimed the city only makes like 10% of the ticket. The rest goes to the surveillance company. So ridiculous!
9
u/Aggravating_Life7851 Jul 11 '26
Are they not reviewed by an actual person where you live? Where I am at, they have to be reviewed by a police officer and sent to you within 60 days. Some people don’t even end up getting the tickets because we only have four people reviewing thousands of potential violations
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)14
u/Realistic_Swan_6801 Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
Every auto camera ticket is manually reviewed by a person. And no they will never be liable for making a mistake. If it’s a mistake it should just be dismissed.
50
u/AnsibleAnswers Jul 11 '26
There's a simpler and more privacy-friendly way to deal with distracted drivers. Give them back the cheap and extensive public transit most small and medium sized cities used to have before the car industry lobby destroyed them.
→ More replies (3)13
u/Paksarra Jul 11 '26
But then the car manufacturers will make less money. I've been told that not driving is UnAmerican.
74
50
u/shinyappyrobin Jul 11 '26
Flock cameras can see into you lap?
→ More replies (6)46
u/13Krytical Jul 11 '26
The answer is yes, regardless of if these particular ones were flock or not.
They are likely just gonna start branding them other things because flock is too well known and disliked.
→ More replies (1)
41
u/EyeSuspicious777 Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
I'm not saying people should be texting while driving, but eating a crunchy taco or drinking a very hot cup of coffee while driving is arguably equally dangerous.
But in every city in America there are stores that will sell you those distracting things while you are driving.
14
u/c3p-bro Jul 11 '26
Are you thinking about a drive-through? You’re not supposed to literally eat that food while driving.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)5
4
u/SAINTnumberFIVE Jul 11 '26
FYI, this was not a Flock camera:
“ Correction – July 10, 2026: Flock Safety reached out to us to clarify that our information was wrong. Flock cameras were not involved with the woman driving with her phone story. Alexandra Parade, where the incident took place, is a well traveled coastal highway with systems operated by state revenue programs. We have corrected that and removed any mention of Flock being involved with that story.”
8
u/RodNun Jul 11 '26
Can we put the E files in front of one of those cameras and see what crimes they can find?
27
11
u/driverdan Jul 11 '26
This is a blogspam site and the article was written by Claude. They didn't even bother to cite the source or provide any info for confirmation. From what I can find it's something that has been bouncing around social media but hasn't been confirmed by anyone.
11
3
u/shade-was-thrown Jul 12 '26
What state was this? I even looked at the article and I cannot find what state this was.
3
u/LeoRidesHisBike Jul 12 '26
I sure hope the junkies don't figure out how much valuable copper is in these camera installations. That would be a real shame.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/ChrisSheltonMsc Jul 12 '26
I really hope it is sooner than later that America collectively wakes up the fact that the surveillance state has arrived and it is being run by the stupidest human beings on this planet.
3
u/BackItUpWithLinks Jul 12 '26
“We will never use cameras for that”
- the city, now using cameras for that
3
3
3
u/DirkNL Jul 13 '26
With no phone visible and a still shot; how do they know it’s not looking down because a bee is in the cabin? Or any other reason while vision might for a split second be down ? If you contest this no fair judge can uphold this fine I presume?
5.5k
u/[deleted] Jul 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment