6 ms·

No, speeding cameras don't have the same problems as US police folk. That could be improved by having less shitty police. But that's not to say cameras don't ha

No, speeding cameras don't have the same problems as US police folk. That could be improved by having less shitty police. But that's not to say cameras don't have problems. Often they take grainy photos, and only a photo. Still images aren't proof that you were speeding, just proof that something triggered the camera. Plenty of things can trigger it, including software faults. Additionally it creates a horrible incentive for local government as a revenue stream with little to no incentive to fix something. Speeding cameras are unmanned, cheap, and just make money. And contesting a speeding camera ticket is so much more difficult than issuing it. All of this makes it easy to undermine due process.

BoorishBears 6y ago
Leave it to HN to miss the forest for the trees in such spectacular fashion. I'm not saying speeding camera are perfect, I'm saying if police weren't allowed to pull people over I would face less discrimination and avoid situations where armed people approach me prepared to shoot me for moving Compared to that grainy pictures is a joke. You're talking about false positives, do police not have false positives, and more importantly, hundreds of false negatives? The false negatives are what allow them to discriminate so readily, when most traffic is breaking a law it's easy to pick who you want. - And perverse incentive for speeding is only a problem with cameras? Is that also a joke? You think police departments don't have even worse incentives to stop people and seize their goods with little recourse? That's in addition to getting to write tickets? When 20% of a cities prosecution budget comes from forfeiture like Philadelphia's did in 2018 it should be no surprise cops are extremely happy to pull people over for reasons other than public safety... And contesting a speeding camera ticket is so much more difficult than issuing it? What does that even mean, is spending a day to multiple days contesting a speeding ticket not harder than it is for an officer to write a ticket? Even when the officer doesn't show up to court you've spent at least a day, if not more fighting it. - Of course, speeding tickets regardless of source show the true reality of our culture, that money changes the rules. So you can just pay an attorney who knows the judge personally and somehow your infraction is less serious...
- ppseafield 6y ago
  > I'm saying if police weren't allowed to pull people over I honestly don't see how installing speeding cameras prevents this. Could you elaborate for me what you mean here? > And perverse incentive for speeding is only a problem with cameras? Is that also a joke? No? But speeding cameras can issue a lot more tickets per day without needing to sleep, draw benefits, pension, etc. This particular incentive scales much more quickly for cameras. > You think police departments don't have even worse incentives to stop people and seize their goods with little recourse? That's in addition to getting to write tickets? Also no? I don't think I implied that. If anything, speeding cameras can free up officer's time to do worse things, e.g. asset forfeiture as you mentioned. > And contesting a speeding camera ticket is so much more difficult than issuing it? What does that even mean, is spending a day to multiple days contesting a speeding ticket not harder than it is for an officer to write a ticket? Time for officer to write a ticket / time for ticket recipient to contest Vs. Time for camera to write ticket / time for ticket recipient to contest. It takes a lot longer for an officer to write a ticket. As a result, the asymmetrical effort of ticketing vs. contesting or otherwise dealing with tickets is significantly worse at scale.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    > Time for officer to write a ticket / time for ticket recipient to contest > vs > Time for camera to write ticket / time for ticket recipient to contest. Think about this for a second. The numbers are not very different because the denominator is so much larger than the numerator The camera and officer are vastly different but they both pale in comparison to the time in court. And the time in court is what ruins the most vulnerable people! Average traffic stop is 20 minutes from stop to citation say 5 minutes for the camera. (Most times manual verification is required by law) If you compare 20 minutes to 5 minutes, it sounds like a mountain for time... Last time I fought a ticket (before I wised up to the fact paying the judge's friend who is a lawyer reverses time in such a way you never sped?) it took 2 full days off work. 1 day to wait in line so I plead not guilty, 1 to actually contest, and officer was a no-show. So compared to 16 hours, the difference between 1 second and 20 minutes is meaningful only for a moment. Especially when you consider, not everyone has a job where they can just take 2 days off. The police target people who cannot afford the ticket, and cannot afford the two days off. They are literally stuck between a rock and a hard place - This all buries the real issue I mention in another comment. You're comparing ticket to ticket, but they're not the same. If an officer stops you they can give you a warning because they like your tone (you speak like them, or you're kind of pretty, or you don't look the type who'll do this again). Or they can give you a reduced speed. Or they can give you an additional ticket because you they don't like your tone, or rather... you didn't full stop at that stop sign. The other cars going through it didn't either, but they weren't the marks. Or they can say they smell weed and start pushing the boundaries of your rights and take advantage of the fact they target the populations with the least experience with their legal rights due to systemic failings in education You compared time for the camera to time for the officer. How many innocent people do you think took plea deals sending them to jail for what started as a traffic stop? That would still be free today if a camera had sent a ticket by mail? - Your other comments also imply a lack of understanding in the role traffic stops play in modern policing. Not being able to stop people for speeding and even other minor traffic infractions would remove so much power from them that they consider it a non-starter (having cameras doesn't mean they can't stop people for speeding it needs it's own legislation) You say it frees up time for stuff like asset forfeiture... traffic stops are the leading springboard for all of these ills: https://leelofland.com/josh-moulin-the-importance-of-traffic-stops/ https://leelofland.com/josh-moulin-the-importance-of-traffic... In part because traffic stops combined with extremely dense traffic laws have essentially turned driving into an invitation for stop and frisk. Cops do not hide the fact they tail people to create invitations to stop them. It is all to easy to find even the most law abiding citizen break a law. And additionally in part because the leeway cops have during a traffic stop is immense, and they're extremely well versed in taking advantage of ambiguity in people's rights and even basic psychology such as fearing police, into getting into people's lives well past a ticket. Compared to all this, cameras end up having shortcomings that police have, but with a fraction of the terrible abuse that can come from it. - Also, this isn't the point of the comment, but cameras don't sleep, but they can be turned off. Here in New York City speed cameras are not on 24/7. They only operate during school opening and closing hours when kids are likely to be coming and going And not every state allows them everywhere (in fact I don't know of any that do, but some might). Virginia, notorious for some of the most brutal speed enforcement in the country (https://insurify.com/insights/states-with-the-most-speeding-tickets-2020/ https://insurify.com/insights/states-with-the-most-speeding-...) only allows them in school zones and highway construction. Legislation that would attempt to limit where police go would be almost untenable, but legislation limiting speed cameras is popular with motorists and much easier to pass (it's sad but true, it's easier to convince motorists to be anti speed enforcement than anti overpolicing)

BoorishBears 6y ago

Leave it to HN to miss the forest for the trees in such spectacular fashion. I'm not saying speeding camera are perfect, I'm saying if police weren't allowed to pull people over I would face less discrimination and avoid situations where armed people approach me prepared to shoot me for moving Compared to that grainy pictures is a joke. You're talking about false positives, do police not have false positives, and more importantly, hundreds of false negatives? The false negatives are what allow them to discriminate so readily, when most traffic is breaking a law it's easy to pick who you want. - And perverse incentive for speeding is only a problem with cameras? Is that also a joke? You think police departments don't have even worse incentives to stop people and seize their goods with little recourse? That's in addition to getting to write tickets? When 20% of a cities prosecution budget comes from forfeiture like Philadelphia's did in 2018 it should be no surprise cops are extremely happy to pull people over for reasons other than public safety... And contesting a speeding camera ticket is so much more difficult than issuing it? What does that even mean, is spending a day to multiple days contesting a speeding ticket not harder than it is for an officer to write a ticket? Even when the officer doesn't show up to court you've spent at least a day, if not more fighting it. - Of course, speeding tickets regardless of source show the true reality of our culture, that money changes the rules. So you can just pay an attorney who knows the judge personally and somehow your infraction is less serious...

ppseafield 6y ago
> I'm saying if police weren't allowed to pull people over I honestly don't see how installing speeding cameras prevents this. Could you elaborate for me what you mean here? > And perverse incentive for speeding is only a problem with cameras? Is that also a joke? No? But speeding cameras can issue a lot more tickets per day without needing to sleep, draw benefits, pension, etc. This particular incentive scales much more quickly for cameras. > You think police departments don't have even worse incentives to stop people and seize their goods with little recourse? That's in addition to getting to write tickets? Also no? I don't think I implied that. If anything, speeding cameras can free up officer's time to do worse things, e.g. asset forfeiture as you mentioned. > And contesting a speeding camera ticket is so much more difficult than issuing it? What does that even mean, is spending a day to multiple days contesting a speeding ticket not harder than it is for an officer to write a ticket? Time for officer to write a ticket / time for ticket recipient to contest Vs. Time for camera to write ticket / time for ticket recipient to contest. It takes a lot longer for an officer to write a ticket. As a result, the asymmetrical effort of ticketing vs. contesting or otherwise dealing with tickets is significantly worse at scale.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  > Time for officer to write a ticket / time for ticket recipient to contest > vs > Time for camera to write ticket / time for ticket recipient to contest. Think about this for a second. The numbers are not very different because the denominator is so much larger than the numerator The camera and officer are vastly different but they both pale in comparison to the time in court. And the time in court is what ruins the most vulnerable people! Average traffic stop is 20 minutes from stop to citation say 5 minutes for the camera. (Most times manual verification is required by law) If you compare 20 minutes to 5 minutes, it sounds like a mountain for time... Last time I fought a ticket (before I wised up to the fact paying the judge's friend who is a lawyer reverses time in such a way you never sped?) it took 2 full days off work. 1 day to wait in line so I plead not guilty, 1 to actually contest, and officer was a no-show. So compared to 16 hours, the difference between 1 second and 20 minutes is meaningful only for a moment. Especially when you consider, not everyone has a job where they can just take 2 days off. The police target people who cannot afford the ticket, and cannot afford the two days off. They are literally stuck between a rock and a hard place - This all buries the real issue I mention in another comment. You're comparing ticket to ticket, but they're not the same. If an officer stops you they can give you a warning because they like your tone (you speak like them, or you're kind of pretty, or you don't look the type who'll do this again). Or they can give you a reduced speed. Or they can give you an additional ticket because you they don't like your tone, or rather... you didn't full stop at that stop sign. The other cars going through it didn't either, but they weren't the marks. Or they can say they smell weed and start pushing the boundaries of your rights and take advantage of the fact they target the populations with the least experience with their legal rights due to systemic failings in education You compared time for the camera to time for the officer. How many innocent people do you think took plea deals sending them to jail for what started as a traffic stop? That would still be free today if a camera had sent a ticket by mail? - Your other comments also imply a lack of understanding in the role traffic stops play in modern policing. Not being able to stop people for speeding and even other minor traffic infractions would remove so much power from them that they consider it a non-starter (having cameras doesn't mean they can't stop people for speeding it needs it's own legislation) You say it frees up time for stuff like asset forfeiture... traffic stops are the leading springboard for all of these ills: https://leelofland.com/josh-moulin-the-importance-of-traffic-stops/ https://leelofland.com/josh-moulin-the-importance-of-traffic... In part because traffic stops combined with extremely dense traffic laws have essentially turned driving into an invitation for stop and frisk. Cops do not hide the fact they tail people to create invitations to stop them. It is all to easy to find even the most law abiding citizen break a law. And additionally in part because the leeway cops have during a traffic stop is immense, and they're extremely well versed in taking advantage of ambiguity in people's rights and even basic psychology such as fearing police, into getting into people's lives well past a ticket. Compared to all this, cameras end up having shortcomings that police have, but with a fraction of the terrible abuse that can come from it. - Also, this isn't the point of the comment, but cameras don't sleep, but they can be turned off. Here in New York City speed cameras are not on 24/7. They only operate during school opening and closing hours when kids are likely to be coming and going And not every state allows them everywhere (in fact I don't know of any that do, but some might). Virginia, notorious for some of the most brutal speed enforcement in the country (https://insurify.com/insights/states-with-the-most-speeding-tickets-2020/ https://insurify.com/insights/states-with-the-most-speeding-...) only allows them in school zones and highway construction. Legislation that would attempt to limit where police go would be almost untenable, but legislation limiting speed cameras is popular with motorists and much easier to pass (it's sad but true, it's easier to convince motorists to be anti speed enforcement than anti overpolicing)