3 ms·

Because the purpose of the fine isn’t the money, it’s getting you to be more safe. If they can achieve that with a friendly chat then isn’t that better for ever

Because the purpose of the fine isn’t the money, it’s getting you to be more safe. If they can achieve that with a friendly chat then isn’t that better for everyone?

actionablefiber 4y ago
Do we achieve that in the status quo, though? Where I live, driving 10 miles over the speed limit at all times is the price of entry and if you do less than that, you'll sooner or later run into a motorist who gets aggressive with you. Speeding is a constant issue and people are constantly crashing cars into buildings and people. I have never seen police enforcement make a meaningful difference in safe driving. I've never seen police proactively enforce pedestrian/cyclist safety or remove cars from the bike lanes. Safety is a matter of correctly engineering streets and roads so that dangerous driving feels viscerally unnatural and uncomfortable. The only thing that it seems to accomplish is A) giving police a way to arbitrarily bring down the hammer on people they don't like while shielding their friends and relatives, and B) fleecing motorists by setting up speed traps at places engineered to encourage speeding rather than re-engineering the roads for calming.
renewiltord 4y ago
No. If he always chats with a Chris, but always tickets a Rene, that isn't better for everyone.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  We have discretion build into our society for a reason. Judges, juries, police, all exercise discretion.
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    I think perhaps we're finding that the efficiencies we build into a system are vulnerabilities abused by unfriendly actors. If I'm going to be treated as second class, you had better be, too.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      It's not about efficiency - it's about justice. If you're against discretion then you're against basics of our society like trial by jury. And if you can't trust these people to use discretion sensibly and fairly then you shouldn't be trusting them to do anything.
      - karmelapple 4y ago
        I think I can be against a single person's discretion and judgment and still be in favor of things like trial by jury. A trial by jury is multiple people collectively judging on something after taking some time to consider the whole story. A single officer in the field deciding, within a few minutes, whether you should pay a $200 fine seems very different to me. Although a speeding ticket, and what typically goes in front of a jury, is also usually magnitudes different.

Because the purpose of the fine isn’t the money, it’s getting you to be more safe. If they can achieve that with a friendly chat then isn’t that better for everyone?

actionablefiber 4y ago

Do we achieve that in the status quo, though? Where I live, driving 10 miles over the speed limit at all times is the price of entry and if you do less than that, you'll sooner or later run into a motorist who gets aggressive with you. Speeding is a constant issue and people are constantly crashing cars into buildings and people. I have never seen police enforcement make a meaningful difference in safe driving. I've never seen police proactively enforce pedestrian/cyclist safety or remove cars from the bike lanes. Safety is a matter of correctly engineering streets and roads so that dangerous driving feels viscerally unnatural and uncomfortable. The only thing that it seems to accomplish is A) giving police a way to arbitrarily bring down the hammer on people they don't like while shielding their friends and relatives, and B) fleecing motorists by setting up speed traps at places engineered to encourage speeding rather than re-engineering the roads for calming.

renewiltord 4y ago

No. If he always chats with a Chris, but always tickets a Rene, that isn't better for everyone.

chrisseaton 4y ago
We have discretion build into our society for a reason. Judges, juries, police, all exercise discretion.
- renewiltord 4y ago
  I think perhaps we're finding that the efficiencies we build into a system are vulnerabilities abused by unfriendly actors. If I'm going to be treated as second class, you had better be, too.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    It's not about efficiency - it's about justice. If you're against discretion then you're against basics of our society like trial by jury. And if you can't trust these people to use discretion sensibly and fairly then you shouldn't be trusting them to do anything.
    - karmelapple 4y ago
      I think I can be against a single person's discretion and judgment and still be in favor of things like trial by jury. A trial by jury is multiple people collectively judging on something after taking some time to consider the whole story. A single officer in the field deciding, within a few minutes, whether you should pay a $200 fine seems very different to me. Although a speeding ticket, and what typically goes in front of a jury, is also usually magnitudes different.