>>The only reason they aren't deemed unconstitutional is because technically they don't quite meet the qualification for being legal action as they are "merely" fines. Even though if you ignore the fines you face legal consequence.
YES, and,
It is not just the legal consequence of the fines for speeding. When you get a ticket, you get points against your license, and end up paying more in insurance, often for up to seven years.
If they want actual automated enforcement, make it a toll, like a congestion fee.
It is free to drive at the basic speed (e.g., 65mph on the highway), but higher speeds cost more, up to a limit where it becomes a criminal offense requiring an actual Law Enforcement professional involved. The speeds could even be adjusted for time of day, weather, and traffic. So, you want to go faster, stay in the fast lane, and pay $X/mph/mile.
With the average speeds on highways often over 75MPH, collecting $0.10/mph/mile over the limit would result in good revenues.
> When you get a ticket, you get points against your license, and end up paying more in insurance, often for up to seven years.
AFAICT this not the case in the vast majority of states that allow automated enforcement. Of the three I saw in that list that do: California replaced theirs with purely civil penalties earlier this year, and Arizona and Oregon require law enforcement officers to manually review and sign off on the ticket and offer legal avenues for you to respond.
https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/red-light-running/safety...
>With the average speeds on highways often over 75MPH, collecting $0.10/mph/mile over the limit would result in good revenues.
...assuming people don't change their behaviors.