3 ms·

If we start pervasive automated enforcement of speed limits everywhere, it is most likely to hit poorer Americans as a regressive tax. We haven't redesigned ou

If we start pervasive automated enforcement of speed limits everywhere, it is most likely to hit poorer Americans as a regressive tax. We haven't redesigned our cities to be non-car centric, with good public transportation and street design that favors lower speeds. But we've got a bunch of people running around wanting to severely punish anyone breaking the speed limits (because "fuck cars" means holding individual people responsible for being born in a car-centric society). The result will be that one morning they'll wake up and have to deal with how much they've punitively hurt the working poor in this country. I guess that'll be okay though because that "in this house" rainbow flag in their window means that they care.

matsemann 2y ago
The poorest often don't own a car. Yet another way a car-centric society punishes them, as you often need a car to do normal functions. I don't get why car-proponents often push other groups in front of them to argue their case. Also see it all the time with parking. "You can't remove parking, think of HC parking!", "We will actually double the amount of HC parking and make the area more accessible when we remove other on-street parking", "oh". But not breaking the law when driving is something people are in full control of themselves. I don't buy the premise that it's a regressive tax. Yes, some laws disproportionately hit certain demographics, but not speeding is not one of those. > I guess that'll be okay though because that "in this house" rainbow flag in their window means that they care I'm not sure what you mean by that? Are you conflating lgbt stuff into a comment about cars and technological advancements in enforcement, or am I misunderstanding what you mean?
- lamontcg 2y ago
  > The poorest often don't own a car. The poorest may not, but the working poor are likely to be highly dependent on some cheap, old vehicle. > Yes, some laws disproportionately hit certain demographics, but not speeding is not one of those. WFH software developers are probably going to be hit a lot less than someone who needs to drive from where the cheap rents are to the job site every day. And that was a comment on performative liberalism. And the "if the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class" aphorism applies.
  - astrange 2y ago
    > And the "if the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class" aphorism applies. This is the kind of thing that's only repeated by slumming upper-class children, the same ones who live in Brooklyn, have leftist podcasts, and think it's actively good when you see someone smoking crack on the subway because it's "cool". Actual working class people don't like it when other working class people speed near them or commit crimes! (It's also a very American statement, because in other countries the upper class is not the people with the most money, it's the people with the most tradition and social status. Or they own a lot of land but are cash poor.)
    - sokoloff 2y ago
      > Actual working class people don't like it when other working class people speed near them Survey 100 working class Americans and ask if they think another working class American should receive a ticket for driving 65 in a 55 on an Interstate. I’d be shocked if even 5% of them wanted that outcome. 50 in a 25? Sure. 100 in a 55? Sure. But I doubt they want perfect enforcement, which is the topic being discussed here.

matsemann 2y ago

The poorest often don't own a car. Yet another way a car-centric society punishes them, as you often need a car to do normal functions. I don't get why car-proponents often push other groups in front of them to argue their case. Also see it all the time with parking. "You can't remove parking, think of HC parking!", "We will actually double the amount of HC parking and make the area more accessible when we remove other on-street parking", "oh". But not breaking the law when driving is something people are in full control of themselves. I don't buy the premise that it's a regressive tax. Yes, some laws disproportionately hit certain demographics, but not speeding is not one of those. > I guess that'll be okay though because that "in this house" rainbow flag in their window means that they care I'm not sure what you mean by that? Are you conflating lgbt stuff into a comment about cars and technological advancements in enforcement, or am I misunderstanding what you mean?

lamontcg 2y ago
> The poorest often don't own a car. The poorest may not, but the working poor are likely to be highly dependent on some cheap, old vehicle. > Yes, some laws disproportionately hit certain demographics, but not speeding is not one of those. WFH software developers are probably going to be hit a lot less than someone who needs to drive from where the cheap rents are to the job site every day. And that was a comment on performative liberalism. And the "if the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class" aphorism applies.
- astrange 2y ago
  > And the "if the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class" aphorism applies. This is the kind of thing that's only repeated by slumming upper-class children, the same ones who live in Brooklyn, have leftist podcasts, and think it's actively good when you see someone smoking crack on the subway because it's "cool". Actual working class people don't like it when other working class people speed near them or commit crimes! (It's also a very American statement, because in other countries the upper class is not the people with the most money, it's the people with the most tradition and social status. Or they own a lot of land but are cash poor.)
  - sokoloff 2y ago
    > Actual working class people don't like it when other working class people speed near them Survey 100 working class Americans and ask if they think another working class American should receive a ticket for driving 65 in a 55 on an Interstate. I’d be shocked if even 5% of them wanted that outcome. 50 in a 25? Sure. 100 in a 55? Sure. But I doubt they want perfect enforcement, which is the topic being discussed here.