4 ms·

But society wants selective enforcement. Speeding laws are good when the stop that guy from endangering my kids. Or when they generate revenue from tourists.

But society wants selective enforcement. Speeding laws are good when the stop that guy from endangering my kids. Or when they generate revenue from tourists. Those same laws are awful when they inconvenience me.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
I think one of our greatest failures as a species is that we have yet to architect a society in which these sorts of double standards of personal belief have sufficient consequences to prevent people from engaging in them with the fervor and frequency that they do.
- CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
  I think one of our greatest failures as a species is the hubris of _thinking_ that we can "architect a society"
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    The organization of society is not outside our control. We've been architecting society for 1000s of years based on what has worked and what hasn't in years past. We aren't just along for the ride although that is a convenient excuse to do nothing and make no effort.
    - CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
      I wasn't necessarily suggesting to "do nothing and make no effort" - That's a strawman and false dichotomy. Sure, we can generally try to do more of what works and less of what doesn't. But usually the type of people who want to "architect society" end up being the worst type of "rules for thee but not for me" tyrants.
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        I think the Founding Fathers of the U.S. 'architected society' reasonably well in the 1770-1800 period?
        CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
        Tip-of-the-hat to our founders, for sure! But I'd say they were architecting a government, not a society. That's a very important distinction, and without it you can end up with some really destructive Statist/Authoritarian stuff. Regarding those first 25 years or so: Jefferson's attempt to ban slavery in 1784 failed by 1 vote. Then there was the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791 and then the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. So, nothing's perfect I guess...
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        I highly doubt they ignored considerations of how their envisioned government would affect future society and vice versa.
BowBun 4y ago
Maybe I'm just being contrarian to your comment, but I've always thought the US and other countries are silly for not automating basic traffic enforcement. Red light cameras should effectively catch 95%+ of people who blow through them. Speeding cameras (that are actually on, looking at you NYC) that are super visible are a known deterrent to speeding in Europe. Even parking - in some modern garages they have sensors to tell you when spots are full/empty. Why can't they use similar tech for parking tickets, street cleaning, etc? I feel like I wouldn't be upset about rule enforcement if I knew everyone was more or less following them. What makes me ignore rules is when I see people taking advantage of them over and over without repercussions. Then, introducing human elements where the cop gets to decide who to ticket adds a bunch of bias that we haven't been able to correct. It's one of the countless examples of humans over-complicating things to the point of dysfunction.
- dwringer 4y ago
  A lot of places in the US have tried out automated speed traps and red light cameras. Some still use them AFAIK. But what's common is that infractions are so widespread that there's a massive backlash and the programs get cancelled. There was an automatic speed trap on the interstate just south of Pittsburgh a few months ago, set up along side some temporary construction with reduced speed limits. A few weeks later there was a headline that it had generated so many tens of thousands of tickets that they were considering it an error and throwing out the tickets.
  - pandemicsoul 4y ago
    Not to mention they also cause accidents. People who see a red-light camera flash often hit the brakes, causing people behind them to rear-end them. There were a number of red-light cameras removed in the U.S. once it became clear they were snarling traffic on a weekly basis because of that.
- ben_w 4y ago
  We absolutely could do that. I don't know how US driving license work, but in the UK a speeding ticket gets you 3 penalty points on your license, where 12 points in 3 years gets you disqualified from driving: https://www.gov.uk/speeding-penalties https://www.gov.uk/speeding-penalties On this basis, the only people who would be allowed to drive a month after perfect enforcement starts, would be people who don't drive (plus the Queen because monarchy). (Outside the hypothetical, the imperfection of the UK's speed cameras is such that the only ticket I've received was for an event that happened six months after I sold the car).

throwaway0a5e 4y ago

I think one of our greatest failures as a species is that we have yet to architect a society in which these sorts of double standards of personal belief have sufficient consequences to prevent people from engaging in them with the fervor and frequency that they do.

CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
I think one of our greatest failures as a species is the hubris of _thinking_ that we can "architect a society"
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  The organization of society is not outside our control. We've been architecting society for 1000s of years based on what has worked and what hasn't in years past. We aren't just along for the ride although that is a convenient excuse to do nothing and make no effort.
  - CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
    I wasn't necessarily suggesting to "do nothing and make no effort" - That's a strawman and false dichotomy. Sure, we can generally try to do more of what works and less of what doesn't. But usually the type of people who want to "architect society" end up being the worst type of "rules for thee but not for me" tyrants.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      I think the Founding Fathers of the U.S. 'architected society' reasonably well in the 1770-1800 period?
      - CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
        Tip-of-the-hat to our founders, for sure! But I'd say they were architecting a government, not a society. That's a very important distinction, and without it you can end up with some really destructive Statist/Authoritarian stuff. Regarding those first 25 years or so: Jefferson's attempt to ban slavery in 1784 failed by 1 vote. Then there was the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791 and then the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. So, nothing's perfect I guess...
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        I highly doubt they ignored considerations of how their envisioned government would affect future society and vice versa.

BowBun 4y ago

Maybe I'm just being contrarian to your comment, but I've always thought the US and other countries are silly for not automating basic traffic enforcement. Red light cameras should effectively catch 95%+ of people who blow through them. Speeding cameras (that are actually on, looking at you NYC) that are super visible are a known deterrent to speeding in Europe. Even parking - in some modern garages they have sensors to tell you when spots are full/empty. Why can't they use similar tech for parking tickets, street cleaning, etc? I feel like I wouldn't be upset about rule enforcement if I knew everyone was more or less following them. What makes me ignore rules is when I see people taking advantage of them over and over without repercussions. Then, introducing human elements where the cop gets to decide who to ticket adds a bunch of bias that we haven't been able to correct. It's one of the countless examples of humans over-complicating things to the point of dysfunction.

dwringer 4y ago
A lot of places in the US have tried out automated speed traps and red light cameras. Some still use them AFAIK. But what's common is that infractions are so widespread that there's a massive backlash and the programs get cancelled. There was an automatic speed trap on the interstate just south of Pittsburgh a few months ago, set up along side some temporary construction with reduced speed limits. A few weeks later there was a headline that it had generated so many tens of thousands of tickets that they were considering it an error and throwing out the tickets.
- pandemicsoul 4y ago
  Not to mention they also cause accidents. People who see a red-light camera flash often hit the brakes, causing people behind them to rear-end them. There were a number of red-light cameras removed in the U.S. once it became clear they were snarling traffic on a weekly basis because of that.
ben_w 4y ago
We absolutely could do that. I don't know how US driving license work, but in the UK a speeding ticket gets you 3 penalty points on your license, where 12 points in 3 years gets you disqualified from driving: https://www.gov.uk/speeding-penalties https://www.gov.uk/speeding-penalties On this basis, the only people who would be allowed to drive a month after perfect enforcement starts, would be people who don't drive (plus the Queen because monarchy). (Outside the hypothetical, the imperfection of the UK's speed cameras is such that the only ticket I've received was for an event that happened six months after I sold the car).