5 ms·

We have the same problems everywhere in NYC. We have an unbelievable number of police on the force (corresponding to much higher crime levels of the past), yet

We have the same problems everywhere in NYC. We have an unbelievable number of police on the force (corresponding to much higher crime levels of the past), yet there's very little traffic enforcement. People routinely drive recklessly, enter areas they're not supposed to, park illegally in travel lanes, bike lanes, or sidewalks, etc., and there's little risk of anything happening. Even worse, we have a huge placard abuse crisis where many tens of thousand of different government employees (cops, firefighters, teachers, city workers, etc.) get these ridiculous placards that essentially make them immune to parking enforcement, even when driving their personal vehicles in non-emergencies. The police (who largely live outside the city and drive to work) thus see this as one of their perks and they are loath to do anything to fix it. So the only solutions that will work are those that don't require the police to do their job. We need red light cameras at every intersection and speed cameras on every road (they'd very quickly pay for themselves), and we need physical protection installed everywhere so that cars cannot even enter bike lanes or drive up onto sidewalks. It's sad that this is what it's come to, but absent getting a non-car-based police force who live in the city who are actually interested in protecting us against drivers, I don't see it changing.

certifiedloud 7y ago
There is placard abuse, and also little risk of of penalty for parking illegally?
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Yes. The placard abuse vehicles are essentially immune, while other vehicles rarely get tickets that are nowhere high enough in cost or frequency to prevent the behavior.
farisjarrah 7y ago
I'm all for stronger traffic enforcement as much as the next concerned citizen, but honestly things like surveillance/speed/red light cameras don't actually make anyone safer. If you google "Red Light Cameras Safety" You'll see plenty of articles like this one that state plenty of reasons why these cameras don't help as much as initially thought. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-light-cameras-may-not-make-streets-safer/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-light-cameras... Instead, it would probably be much more effective to fine people for these transgressions as a percentage of their income. A $500 speeding ticket or a $100 parking ticket isn't really going to bother a person driving a $140,000 Tesla as much as its going to bother someone who is driving a $1500 Toyota Camery. We can probably actually continue to have the police selectively enforcing like they do now, but if people actually fear the consequences of breaking boneheaded traffic laws because they'll have to pay $15000 for a speeding ticket, then they'll be a lot less likely to break those laws.
- Brendinooo 7y ago
  This is an interesting argument, but I've heard it said that the 8th Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines could make such legislation difficult to implement. United States v. Bajakajian[0] is in play here. > Thus the Court declared that, within the context of judicial deference to the legislature's power to set punishments, a fine would not offend the Eighth Amendment unless it were "grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant's offense". A $15,000 speeding ticket is absolutely disproportional to the gravity of the offense of speeding, unless you find a way to argue that the offense is greater because of the net worth of the person committing it. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#United_States_v._Bajakajian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United...
  - soneil 7y ago
    I don't think anyone is arguing that the offense is greater - I think they'd argue they're putting the "proportion" back in proportional - making the fine proportional to the income, so that it has more equal impact.
    - Brendinooo 7y ago
      I understand, I'm just saying that there is text in the Constitution that says you can't do that. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." If speeding is an equal offense for all people, then fining someone more for it would be excessive. I saw a source that believes it's a solvable problem, but any conversation about this issue has to solve that problem.
      - soneil 7y ago
        I think we'd just have to have a chat about the definition of what's excessive? Fining me $1m for something would be excessive, fining AT&T $1m for the same thing would be trivial. "excessive" is relative. The GPDR is an example of what I mean; where fines are written as €x or y% of revenue, whichever is higher - which is intended precisely to make fines proportional. There's little sense levying the same dollar fine against Google and my local corner shop - a figure that Google wouldn't notice would destroy the other.
dr_dshiv 7y ago
I recommend installing AI systems to autoticket infractions. It's the only way the humans will learn.
- dr_dshiv 7y ago
  Also, consider the huge profits to be made from automating policing! People are already accustomed to redlight cameras, so it won't be weird to start ticketing them for other things. They did break the law, after all. If we just install cameras in all public thoroughfares, where people don't have privacy assumptions, we could easily use facial recognition to automatically punish aberrant behavior. Big money -- and we make the city safer by catching criminals. Win win!
greglindahl 7y ago
> we need physical protection installed everywhere so that cars cannot even enter bike lanes This is very effective at saving lives, and more enforcement is no substitute.

certifiedloud 7y ago

There is placard abuse, and also little risk of of penalty for parking illegally?

CydeWeys 7y ago
Yes. The placard abuse vehicles are essentially immune, while other vehicles rarely get tickets that are nowhere high enough in cost or frequency to prevent the behavior.

farisjarrah 7y ago

I'm all for stronger traffic enforcement as much as the next concerned citizen, but honestly things like surveillance/speed/red light cameras don't actually make anyone safer. If you google "Red Light Cameras Safety" You'll see plenty of articles like this one that state plenty of reasons why these cameras don't help as much as initially thought. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-light-cameras-may-not-make-streets-safer/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-light-cameras... Instead, it would probably be much more effective to fine people for these transgressions as a percentage of their income. A $500 speeding ticket or a $100 parking ticket isn't really going to bother a person driving a $140,000 Tesla as much as its going to bother someone who is driving a $1500 Toyota Camery. We can probably actually continue to have the police selectively enforcing like they do now, but if people actually fear the consequences of breaking boneheaded traffic laws because they'll have to pay $15000 for a speeding ticket, then they'll be a lot less likely to break those laws.

Brendinooo 7y ago
This is an interesting argument, but I've heard it said that the 8th Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines could make such legislation difficult to implement. United States v. Bajakajian[0] is in play here. > Thus the Court declared that, within the context of judicial deference to the legislature's power to set punishments, a fine would not offend the Eighth Amendment unless it were "grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant's offense". A $15,000 speeding ticket is absolutely disproportional to the gravity of the offense of speeding, unless you find a way to argue that the offense is greater because of the net worth of the person committing it. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#United_States_v._Bajakajian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United...
- soneil 7y ago
  I don't think anyone is arguing that the offense is greater - I think they'd argue they're putting the "proportion" back in proportional - making the fine proportional to the income, so that it has more equal impact.
  - Brendinooo 7y ago
    I understand, I'm just saying that there is text in the Constitution that says you can't do that. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." If speeding is an equal offense for all people, then fining someone more for it would be excessive. I saw a source that believes it's a solvable problem, but any conversation about this issue has to solve that problem.
    - soneil 7y ago
      I think we'd just have to have a chat about the definition of what's excessive? Fining me $1m for something would be excessive, fining AT&T $1m for the same thing would be trivial. "excessive" is relative. The GPDR is an example of what I mean; where fines are written as €x or y% of revenue, whichever is higher - which is intended precisely to make fines proportional. There's little sense levying the same dollar fine against Google and my local corner shop - a figure that Google wouldn't notice would destroy the other.

dr_dshiv 7y ago

I recommend installing AI systems to autoticket infractions. It's the only way the humans will learn.

dr_dshiv 7y ago
Also, consider the huge profits to be made from automating policing! People are already accustomed to redlight cameras, so it won't be weird to start ticketing them for other things. They did break the law, after all. If we just install cameras in all public thoroughfares, where people don't have privacy assumptions, we could easily use facial recognition to automatically punish aberrant behavior. Big money -- and we make the city safer by catching criminals. Win win!

greglindahl 7y ago

> we need physical protection installed everywhere so that cars cannot even enter bike lanes This is very effective at saving lives, and more enforcement is no substitute.