4 ms·

I don't get this line of reasoning. A police officer doesn't need to be present for code enforcement (ie. property inspections etc..). A police officer doesn'

by trgn 3y ago

I don't get this line of reasoning. A police officer doesn't need to be present for code enforcement (ie. property inspections etc..). A police officer doesn't need to be present for parking enforcement. A police officer doesn't need to be present for toll fee collection enforcement. Why should police then be present when violating traffic rules? What makes speeding or running a red light so meaningfully special that its enforcement cannot be automated, but violating parking rules can be? > The officer's presence would encourage safer driving at problematic intersections. Cameras would be the exact same type of encouragement, and not be nearly as disruptive or dangerous as a cop pulling someone over. What gives?

mjevans 3y ago
Cameras are treated as revenue streams, not safety improvement devices. That's the cover story that's sold to the public, and then it's not unheard of for the light timings to be adjusted to increase revenues rather than promote safety at the intersection. If an office is stated at an intersection it is an important issue. Similar in spirit to warrants as an important step in violating people's privacy.
- trgn 3y ago
  > Cameras are treated as revenue streams But that's just like your opinion man. > not safety improvement devices. But they are. Speed and red light cameras reduce injury and death. I want myself and my family to live in a city where we won't get randomly murdered or maimed. The carrot isn't working on drivers, it's time for the stick. > Similar to warrants It's not at all. A warrant is invasion of somebody's home because executive power has reason to belief crime is going on. A speed camera invades no-ones privacy, and just registers violations of traffic rules.
sagarm 3y ago
It's obvious--automated enforcement is effective and consistent, and drivers are used to breaking the rules because human enforcement is neither of those things.
- loeg 3y ago
  Also increasing the cost of enforcement is a good way to get less of it. mjevans clearly just doesn't want more traffic enforcement.
Ancapistani 3y ago
A person has to be present for all of those things - at least, if you want them to stand up to even the most casual challenge in a court of law. The Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution requires that to be the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause
- trgn 3y ago
  Is a person present with automated tolling? And wrt court challenge, I mean, the photographic evidence is right there, car running red light, can't be more clear. Why would it be dismissed? And Why does every crime need witness? Plenty of prosecutions on photographic or forensic 3videnc3 alone. Also, is traffic violation a crime (is it, genuinely asking (?)) Tbh, this often feel like people rummaging around the couch cushions for reasons (not saying you, link much appreciated, til)

by trgn 3y ago

mjevans 3y ago

Cameras are treated as revenue streams, not safety improvement devices. That's the cover story that's sold to the public, and then it's not unheard of for the light timings to be adjusted to increase revenues rather than promote safety at the intersection. If an office is stated at an intersection it is an important issue. Similar in spirit to warrants as an important step in violating people's privacy.

trgn 3y ago
> Cameras are treated as revenue streams But that's just like your opinion man. > not safety improvement devices. But they are. Speed and red light cameras reduce injury and death. I want myself and my family to live in a city where we won't get randomly murdered or maimed. The carrot isn't working on drivers, it's time for the stick. > Similar to warrants It's not at all. A warrant is invasion of somebody's home because executive power has reason to belief crime is going on. A speed camera invades no-ones privacy, and just registers violations of traffic rules.

sagarm 3y ago

It's obvious--automated enforcement is effective and consistent, and drivers are used to breaking the rules because human enforcement is neither of those things.

loeg 3y ago
Also increasing the cost of enforcement is a good way to get less of it. mjevans clearly just doesn't want more traffic enforcement.

Ancapistani 3y ago

A person has to be present for all of those things - at least, if you want them to stand up to even the most casual challenge in a court of law. The Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution requires that to be the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause

trgn 3y ago
Is a person present with automated tolling? And wrt court challenge, I mean, the photographic evidence is right there, car running red light, can't be more clear. Why would it be dismissed? And Why does every crime need witness? Plenty of prosecutions on photographic or forensic 3videnc3 alone. Also, is traffic violation a crime (is it, genuinely asking (?)) Tbh, this often feel like people rummaging around the couch cushions for reasons (not saying you, link much appreciated, til)