3 ms·

So, they found no evidence of corruption, and everybody was speeding through the town. Maybe the system should be fixed to avoid obvious conflicts of interest,

by mrpopo 3y ago

So, they found no evidence of corruption, and everybody was speeding through the town. Maybe the system should be fixed to avoid obvious conflicts of interest, but this rather looks like another case of failed US infrastructure. There shouldn't be a highway cutting straight through a village with no protection.

CoastalCoder 3y ago
I see this as a failure of responsibility on the part of the drivers: The rules were clear, and well-justified, but the drivers chose to ignore them. (I recognize that this position is tied to my personal views on civics and ethics, so I don't expect people to agree with me.)
- mrpopo 3y ago
  Drivers still have personal responsibility, I absolutely agree with that. Regardless, any infrastructure where drivers can transgress rules easily is bad infrastructure. This is the case here. The highway runs straight through, the protection is non-existent (not a single fence), signaling is just small panels (no road markings, no overhead signs, no blinking bright lights), access to the highway is done via stop signs. This is a blatant cheap job that shouldn't be fixed with police patrols and speed trap town rumors.
- jbstack 3y ago
  The rules may be clear and well-justified, but due process exists for a reason. The state should still have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that you actually broke those rules, and the decision as to whether the burden of proof has been met should not be made by someone who stands to gain something by deciding in the affirmative. "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_parte_McCarthy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_parte_...
  - CoastalCoder 3y ago
    Is there doubt about due process in this situation? Or are you arguing more generally about the low bar for administrative law-based sanctions in the US?
- rsynnott 3y ago
  It's both. It's a poorly designed road, but also given that it is a poorly designed road, drivers should obey the rules. Having the mayor act as judge seems absurd; I'm really, really surprised that the state allows that. All very feudal.
  - pas 3y ago
    it's a nice stretch of straight road. the town is a mere nuisance from the perspective of the motorist passing through. after all in 99.9% of cases nothing would happen if folks would just maintain their speed.

by mrpopo 3y ago

CoastalCoder 3y ago

I see this as a failure of responsibility on the part of the drivers: The rules were clear, and well-justified, but the drivers chose to ignore them. (I recognize that this position is tied to my personal views on civics and ethics, so I don't expect people to agree with me.)

mrpopo 3y ago
Drivers still have personal responsibility, I absolutely agree with that. Regardless, any infrastructure where drivers can transgress rules easily is bad infrastructure. This is the case here. The highway runs straight through, the protection is non-existent (not a single fence), signaling is just small panels (no road markings, no overhead signs, no blinking bright lights), access to the highway is done via stop signs. This is a blatant cheap job that shouldn't be fixed with police patrols and speed trap town rumors.
jbstack 3y ago
The rules may be clear and well-justified, but due process exists for a reason. The state should still have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that you actually broke those rules, and the decision as to whether the burden of proof has been met should not be made by someone who stands to gain something by deciding in the affirmative. "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_parte_McCarthy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_parte_...
- CoastalCoder 3y ago
  Is there doubt about due process in this situation? Or are you arguing more generally about the low bar for administrative law-based sanctions in the US?
rsynnott 3y ago
It's both. It's a poorly designed road, but also given that it is a poorly designed road, drivers should obey the rules. Having the mayor act as judge seems absurd; I'm really, really surprised that the state allows that. All very feudal.
- pas 3y ago
  it's a nice stretch of straight road. the town is a mere nuisance from the perspective of the motorist passing through. after all in 99.9% of cases nothing would happen if folks would just maintain their speed.