4 ms·

On one hand, this seems quite pathetic. On the other hand, do you really want cops to have traffic ticket quotas? I don't know what the answer is, but I doubt

On one hand, this seems quite pathetic. On the other hand, do you really want cops to have traffic ticket quotas? I don't know what the answer is, but I doubt it's "hire 500 more traffic cops."

sofixa 4y ago
> I don't know what the answer is Automated enforcement? Cameras checking for speeding, red light running, etc. are trivial and already existant. That makes enforcement better, with more coverage, faster, cheaper and removes any selection bias (that looks like my friend's car, I'll not stop them to write a ticket for speeding).
- echelon 4y ago
  So we can be tracked more than we already are? A lot of people probably don't give a damn about surveillance, but think about all the future politicians who are having their entire lives recorded. "I know where you were on August 6th. You might want to vote X unless you want everyone else to know." The more we build, the easier it is to press further with it.
  - peter422 4y ago
    If your car is on public roads in a dense city like SF it is so easy to track already with existing infrastructure this is a moot point.
    - echelon 4y ago
      Put license plate scanners everywhere and it'll be game over. Deploy it in one city, and soon everywhere else will follow. I don't trust those in power not to abuse this.
      - peter422 4y ago
        It already exists.
- peter422 4y ago
  You legally can’t have cameras that give speeding tickets in California. It’s quite annoying as they’d save so many lives because speeding is the primary factor in most accidents (and makes any accidents worse).
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  How about a hard no to that.... >That makes enforcement better No it does not, it has problems with constitutional issues (being able to face your accuser) and owner of the vehicle is not always the driver, and under an innocent until proven guilty system it is on the state of PROVE you were the driver, many automated systems flip this and assume the owner is the driver and if you were not you are liable until you inform the state who was the driver. None of that should be allowed in a free society,and I am not willing to give up essential liberty for traffic safety That is all with out going into the innumerable ways traffic systems are already abused for other purposes than just traffic enforcement
- erik_seaberg 4y ago
  Better enforcement gets abused for revenue. Limits get slower than the consensus speed causing lane changes. Yellow lights get shortened causing panic stops.

On one hand, this seems quite pathetic. On the other hand, do you really want cops to have traffic ticket quotas? I don't know what the answer is, but I doubt it's "hire 500 more traffic cops."

sofixa 4y ago

> I don't know what the answer is Automated enforcement? Cameras checking for speeding, red light running, etc. are trivial and already existant. That makes enforcement better, with more coverage, faster, cheaper and removes any selection bias (that looks like my friend's car, I'll not stop them to write a ticket for speeding).

echelon 4y ago
So we can be tracked more than we already are? A lot of people probably don't give a damn about surveillance, but think about all the future politicians who are having their entire lives recorded. "I know where you were on August 6th. You might want to vote X unless you want everyone else to know." The more we build, the easier it is to press further with it.
- peter422 4y ago
  If your car is on public roads in a dense city like SF it is so easy to track already with existing infrastructure this is a moot point.
  - echelon 4y ago
    Put license plate scanners everywhere and it'll be game over. Deploy it in one city, and soon everywhere else will follow. I don't trust those in power not to abuse this.
    - peter422 4y ago
      It already exists.
peter422 4y ago
You legally can’t have cameras that give speeding tickets in California. It’s quite annoying as they’d save so many lives because speeding is the primary factor in most accidents (and makes any accidents worse).
phpisthebest 4y ago
How about a hard no to that.... >That makes enforcement better No it does not, it has problems with constitutional issues (being able to face your accuser) and owner of the vehicle is not always the driver, and under an innocent until proven guilty system it is on the state of PROVE you were the driver, many automated systems flip this and assume the owner is the driver and if you were not you are liable until you inform the state who was the driver. None of that should be allowed in a free society,and I am not willing to give up essential liberty for traffic safety That is all with out going into the innumerable ways traffic systems are already abused for other purposes than just traffic enforcement
erik_seaberg 4y ago
Better enforcement gets abused for revenue. Limits get slower than the consensus speed causing lane changes. Yellow lights get shortened causing panic stops.