3 ms·

> [1] "Some of the officers don't feel like they have enough, adequate time to do the traffic enforcement," Diaz says. > [2] Over the past two-and-a-half years

> [1] "Some of the officers don't feel like they have enough, adequate time to do the traffic enforcement," Diaz says. > [2] Over the past two-and-a-half years, the city of Seattle said over 400 police officers have left the department through retirement or resignation. The number of trained and deployable officers in 2022 is 954 Oh geez, losing 1/3 of your police force is quite a lot. Although this is through attrition as opposed to Seattle intentionally firing 1/3 of the force. (and also a metric about Seattle while the traffic metric is country wide). > [1] Seattle, too, has instructed officers not to pull cars over for certain non-moving violations, such as expired license tags and obstructions hanging from the rear-view mirror. Seems reasonable to me. Police cars have a dozen scanners on them nowendays anyways can just catch an expired tag in a parking lot when it's not moving. IIRC, you don't need a rear-view mirror to drive (honestly take a look at a truck, it would be obstructed anyways...) so that seems pointless to pull somebody over for anyways. > [1] As these new policies reduce "contacts" between police and citizens, some wonder if that has also reduced drivers' impression that they'll be stopped for more serious violations, such as running red lights. I'm not convinced 2020 changed anything on this. I've seen plenty of people run red lights in front of a cop car and get away with it. Cops love to blame Floyd but I've seen laziness for a long time before then. Like the article overly focuses on things like expired tags. I couldn't care less if a driver has an expired tag. I care significantly move if they can stay in their lane and that they don't run a red light / stop sign. [1]: The article [2]: https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle/mayor-bruce-harrell-new-seattle-police-recruitment-plan-staffing-reaches-30-year-low/281-e98429ee-fc88-47f6-8890-b961393e2047#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20officers%20within,on%20how%20to%20change%20course https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle/mayor-bruce....

everforward 4y ago
> Like the article overly focuses on things like expired tags. I couldn't care less if a driver has an expired tag. I care significantly move if they can stay in their lane and that they don't run a red light / stop sign. The argument is basically a restatement of Cesare Beccaria's [1]. His theory was that the certainty and swiftness of punishment is a greater deterrent than the severity of punishment. The idea is essentially that if people are immediately caught and given a small fine for minor infractions (like expired tags), then they will believe they'll be caught equally quickly for something more major (like running a red light) with greater punishment. They would be less likely to commit a serious infraction because of their experience with smaller infractions. There's probably some truth to it. I know a fair few drivers who drive terribly, but they've never gotten a ticket so they keep doing it. They might stop accelerating into yellow lights if they got a small ticket for something minor like failing to signal a lane change. Just as a reminder that there are actually people watching. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Beccaria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Beccaria
- gausswho 4y ago
  To certainty and swiftness, and to reduce burden on the police, I'd like to see an experiment: Cars that self-report for minor traffic infractions. Many new cars already phone home various information useful for profit. You'd get a debrief every time you stopped your car and an email with the bill. Could be eased in with a forgiveness threshold for the first N offenses. I would expect this to be effective, and very... unamerican.
  - everforward 4y ago
    It would definitely be interesting. My guess is that it wouldn't work if people were aware of which infractions could be automatically enforced. That's just a wild guess, though, I have nothing to back that up. One data point we do have is the "Broken windows theory" which NYC pursued. It's not exactly the same idea, but the implementation bears some similarities. It might be interesting to look at. I'm not going to speculate on it, because it's a contentious topic (disproportionately impacted poor people and minorities) and I'm frankly not well-versed enough to have a strong opinion either way.
  - subarctic 4y ago
    Reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8
    - gausswho 4y ago
      That was an enjoyable short, thank you. I see why you were reminded of it. I would normally be wary of the nanny slippy slide we are on, but could make exception for irresponsible driving enforced by the vehicles themselves instead of fallible humans.
- lesuorac 4y ago
  > The idea is essentially that if people are immediately caught and given a small fine for minor infractions (like expired tags), then they will believe they'll be caught equally quickly for something more major (like running a red light) with greater punishment. I think the theory breaks down completely though when they're not given a punishment for something major. Drivers know they can go 10~15 mph over the speed limit on a highway without getting pulled over so they do so. Drivers know they can run the first second of a red light so they will do so. You can pull people over for as many expired tags as you want but drivers know that running a red light won't get them pulled over so the expired tags won't scare them into thinking running a red light will.
PopAlongKid 4y ago
> I couldn't care less if a driver has an expired tag. I care significantly move if they can stay in their lane and that they don't run a red light / stop sign. Maybe there's a strong correlation? Similar to the broken window theory[0] "one un-repaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing." [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
- lesuorac 4y ago
  I invite you to read that wikipedia page and think long and hard about what it means. Because in the post you're writing this in response to explicitly called out running red lights as something that should be but isn't enforced. Running a red light is more of a broken window than expired tags are.
iggldiggl 4y ago
> IIRC, you don't need a rear-view mirror to drive (honestly take a look at a truck, it would be obstructed anyways...) Trucks, vans and other similar vehicles have bigger (and possibly even multiple) side mirrors to compensate for the lack of a rear-view mirror. With regular cars, for minimising the blind spots to the left and right it's preferable to cover the rear area mainly with the rear-view mirror, so that the side mirrors can be focussed more to the sides instead of also having to cover the rear area. (Possibly all the more so in North America, where convex or aspheric mirrors with a bigger field of view are mostly forbidden, especially on the driver's side.)
- mindslight 4y ago
  A passenger vehicle has the same mirrors as a passenger vehicle towing a large trailer that blocks rearward views. The universally applicable requirement is to not move in a direction without checking that you can. "Blind spot" is mostly a euphemism for "spot I was too lazy to check". Hassling someone over something hanging from a rear view mirror seems like the epitome of arbitrary nanny state nonsense that undermines respect for law enforcement in general. Similar to unreasonably low speed limits that criminalize most every driver, and let police think that doing their job means sitting on the side of the road playing Candy Crush until the radar gun makes a noise, rather than doing the work of catching actual road hazards like semi trucks that block the left lane trying to pass while going uphill.

everforward 4y ago

> Like the article overly focuses on things like expired tags. I couldn't care less if a driver has an expired tag. I care significantly move if they can stay in their lane and that they don't run a red light / stop sign. The argument is basically a restatement of Cesare Beccaria's [1]. His theory was that the certainty and swiftness of punishment is a greater deterrent than the severity of punishment. The idea is essentially that if people are immediately caught and given a small fine for minor infractions (like expired tags), then they will believe they'll be caught equally quickly for something more major (like running a red light) with greater punishment. They would be less likely to commit a serious infraction because of their experience with smaller infractions. There's probably some truth to it. I know a fair few drivers who drive terribly, but they've never gotten a ticket so they keep doing it. They might stop accelerating into yellow lights if they got a small ticket for something minor like failing to signal a lane change. Just as a reminder that there are actually people watching. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Beccaria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Beccaria

gausswho 4y ago
To certainty and swiftness, and to reduce burden on the police, I'd like to see an experiment: Cars that self-report for minor traffic infractions. Many new cars already phone home various information useful for profit. You'd get a debrief every time you stopped your car and an email with the bill. Could be eased in with a forgiveness threshold for the first N offenses. I would expect this to be effective, and very... unamerican.
- everforward 4y ago
  It would definitely be interesting. My guess is that it wouldn't work if people were aware of which infractions could be automatically enforced. That's just a wild guess, though, I have nothing to back that up. One data point we do have is the "Broken windows theory" which NYC pursued. It's not exactly the same idea, but the implementation bears some similarities. It might be interesting to look at. I'm not going to speculate on it, because it's a contentious topic (disproportionately impacted poor people and minorities) and I'm frankly not well-versed enough to have a strong opinion either way.
- subarctic 4y ago
  Reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8
  - gausswho 4y ago
    That was an enjoyable short, thank you. I see why you were reminded of it. I would normally be wary of the nanny slippy slide we are on, but could make exception for irresponsible driving enforced by the vehicles themselves instead of fallible humans.
lesuorac 4y ago
> The idea is essentially that if people are immediately caught and given a small fine for minor infractions (like expired tags), then they will believe they'll be caught equally quickly for something more major (like running a red light) with greater punishment. I think the theory breaks down completely though when they're not given a punishment for something major. Drivers know they can go 10~15 mph over the speed limit on a highway without getting pulled over so they do so. Drivers know they can run the first second of a red light so they will do so. You can pull people over for as many expired tags as you want but drivers know that running a red light won't get them pulled over so the expired tags won't scare them into thinking running a red light will.

PopAlongKid 4y ago

> I couldn't care less if a driver has an expired tag. I care significantly move if they can stay in their lane and that they don't run a red light / stop sign. Maybe there's a strong correlation? Similar to the broken window theory[0] "one un-repaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing." [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

lesuorac 4y ago
I invite you to read that wikipedia page and think long and hard about what it means. Because in the post you're writing this in response to explicitly called out running red lights as something that should be but isn't enforced. Running a red light is more of a broken window than expired tags are.

iggldiggl 4y ago

> IIRC, you don't need a rear-view mirror to drive (honestly take a look at a truck, it would be obstructed anyways...) Trucks, vans and other similar vehicles have bigger (and possibly even multiple) side mirrors to compensate for the lack of a rear-view mirror. With regular cars, for minimising the blind spots to the left and right it's preferable to cover the rear area mainly with the rear-view mirror, so that the side mirrors can be focussed more to the sides instead of also having to cover the rear area. (Possibly all the more so in North America, where convex or aspheric mirrors with a bigger field of view are mostly forbidden, especially on the driver's side.)

mindslight 4y ago
A passenger vehicle has the same mirrors as a passenger vehicle towing a large trailer that blocks rearward views. The universally applicable requirement is to not move in a direction without checking that you can. "Blind spot" is mostly a euphemism for "spot I was too lazy to check". Hassling someone over something hanging from a rear view mirror seems like the epitome of arbitrary nanny state nonsense that undermines respect for law enforcement in general. Similar to unreasonably low speed limits that criminalize most every driver, and let police think that doing their job means sitting on the side of the road playing Candy Crush until the radar gun makes a noise, rather than doing the work of catching actual road hazards like semi trucks that block the left lane trying to pass while going uphill.