16 ms·

Setting aside the obvious dystopian next steps, I think the main problem with automated traffic law enforcement is that our laws are quite bad in the sense that

Setting aside the obvious dystopian next steps, I think the main problem with automated traffic law enforcement is that our laws are quite bad in the sense that they rely on enforcement being loose and somewhat subjective to even work at all. The speeds on various roads, the timing of traffic lights, the places one can park and for how long, etc, are not carefully planned or thought out enough to actually work if everyone were to strictly adhere to them. It all works because lots of people can briefly park in illegal places, choose reasonable times to speed, or reasonable moments to use the shoulder to go around obstructions, etc. Obviously you capture some craziness on the margin that you want to capture, but also on the margin is the fudging that makes the whole thing work at all.

mft_ 2y ago
I’m struggling to understand your point, or to imagine many examples which support it. I agree that brief minor parking infringements may occasionally make people’s lives more efficient; but I can’t think of any examples where traffic lights and speed limits need to be routinely disregarded?
- laweijfmvo 2y ago
  From what I remember of my CA driver’s license test (had to re-take the written test when I moved to CA), there is no actual speed limit in CA. The speed limit is “whatever conditions deem safe”. Maybe OP meant something like that?
  - aduffy 2y ago
    As someone who got their first drivers license in California, I can say with certainty that there are in fact speed limits.
  - acdha 2y ago
    You might want to review the handbook again. What you’re referring to is the basic speed law, which never trumps the absolute speed limits posted (or the special restrictions like the 15 mph railroad track law). Think of it as a clamped function: the speed limit is min(posted limit, safe speed under current conditions).
  - kelnos 2y ago
    No, that's not true (CA driver here too). The "whatever conditions deem safe" bit is something that can reduce the legal speed below the posted speed limit. It can never raise it above the posted limit. Even with no posted speed limit, there is an implicit limit in CA (differs based on the type of road and surrounding locale), and "conditions" can again only reduce that.
- xboxnolifes 2y ago
  It's sometimes safer to speed up 5mph over the limit to get through a yellow light, than to slam your brakes with someone behind you. It's frequently safer to speed to match people speeding around you then to match the stated speed limit (usually on freeways).
  - askvictor 2y ago
    These are both problems caused by poor driving (other peoples' in this case). Maybe with a traffic law panopticon everyone would drive better and these would disappear
    - mauvehaus 2y ago
      This is actually a problem with speed limits that don't match the road or alternatively, roads that aren't designed to incentivize people driving the intended speed. In theory, the speed limit should be set to the 80th or 85th percentile speed of traffic, and the road should be engineered so that the 80th percentile speed is appropriate to the surroundings. https://www.mikeontraffic.com/85th-percentile-speed-explained/ https://www.mikeontraffic.com/85th-percentile-speed-explaine... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming
      - XorNot 2y ago
        I'm extremely skeptical of this idea of "speed limits which don't match the road" unless people are arguing them down. Because the whole point is that people reliably overestimate their driving ability, and thus overestimate the safe rate of travel on a road. The road I live on displays this all the time, and that's just an advisory road: the speed limit going down the winding slope near my house is about 50 kmh...that is probably the absolute maximum you can navigate those turns at in perfect conditions, and in reality it's considerably slower - and there are steep embankments either side, so if you lose control your car is at the mercy as to whether or not a tree will stop it plunging over the edge. Anyway, there's been a fair number of damaged cars and one near miss from said creek plunge in the 2 years I've lived here.
- ta8645 2y ago
  It's not just about efficiency, it's also about quality of life. There is a reason that a cop has permission to use his judgement when deciding to write a ticket or not. Because life is better when we don't live under the oppression of draconian rule keepers all the time. Rules are meant to protect people, and as such are often specified in terms of the lowest common denominator, with the understanding that the system doesn't enforce them when they can be reasonably ignored, using good judgement. Life will be shittier for everyone if an army of self-empowered rule-loving busybodies get to expand their current powers beyond the realm of the HOA.
  - c22 2y ago
    Frankly I'd rather just get a ticket when I speed by a traffic camera than rely on the discretion of a random police officer who might just be looking for a pretense to search my vehicle or hassle me in some other way.
    - refulgentis 2y ago
      Jaywalking, to my ear, is a similarly universal & easy example for this not being universally desirable.
      - c22 2y ago
        It's probably not universally necessary to jaywalk. However, I am against this on the grounds of logistics. I understand and accept the need to have a license and display an identifier while operating a vehicle, but I think this would be an extreme requirement for people walking around (and possibly unconstitutional in the US?) And without this identifier, how will the system know where to send the citation? All things being equal though this doesn't even sound inherently bad. If every jaywalking infraction was cited we might democratically re-decide how much we want that law to be on the books.
        kelnos 2y ago
        And indeed, California no longer has strong jaywalking laws on the books. A cop can only cite you for jaywalking if you're crossing dangerously. Crossing on a red light, do-not-walk sign, or at a place where there isn't a crosswalk is no longer automatically considered jaywalking.
- repeekad 2y ago
  You clearly haven’t received a letter in the mail for $250 because a camera saw you barely not fully stop for a red light right turn at 3am with zero traffic A human in the loop needs to be the first line of defense, if an officer isn’t willing to be in the field to issue the ticket and show up in court to defend it then there shouldn’t be a ticket in the first place, full stop
  - askvictor 2y ago
    Were you in that much of a hurry to not be able to wait 30 seconds for the traffic light?
    - repeekad 2y ago
      That’s not the point, a surveillance state where the panopticon autonomously gives $250 tickets is the issue Rules aren’t meant to be cold hard algorithms to blindly punish people with; we wouldn’t automate a judge with an algorithm why is it somehow different to automate a police officer with one?
      - froggit 2y ago
        > Rules aren’t meant to be cold hard algorithms to blindly punish people with; we wouldn’t automate a judge with an algorithm why is it somehow different to automate a police officer with one? The role of enforcing certain laws can be easily fulfilled with simple algorithms as the logic required is on early grade school level. In this case it's something like: if "stoplight is red" and "car doesn't stop", then "driver gets ticket." That's all the algorithm has to do, super easy to automate. Automation allows for enforcement where it would otherwise not be cost effective, like when it's 3am and no one else is around. The judiciary, however, has to interpret all kinds of crazy edge cases that people come up with to try and get out of tickets for rolling stops or whatever legal case, for all laws, because every now and then someone has a valid case. That's a bit harder to do with a couple lines of code and some low cost hardware.
      - try_the_bass 2y ago
        Why is that not the point? You violated a law and received a penalty. You're not disputing that you violated said law, but are instead trying to justify it with "barely didn't stop" and "it's 3am and there is no traffic". Isn't the point that you got punished for doing something you would have gotten away with had no one been watching?
- Corrado 2y ago
  I was just discussing this with my wife while driving on the local expressway on a clear Saturday afternoon. The speed limit is 55 MPH but everyone was moving at 70 MPH without any issues. The road is wide and straight with limited on/off ramps and the faster speed felt very natural. This is a common occurrence on this road and everyone seems to abide pretty well. Sure, there is the occasional "idiot" doing stupid things (weaving in out of traffic, speeding up / slowing down, etc.) but for the most part it just works. The big problem is when a LEO is around. Everyone slows down to 55ish MPH and traffic backs up and people do weird things. However, I don't know the solution. If we raise the speed limit to 70 MPH does that mean that people will then feel comfortable going 80 or 90 MPH? If we lower the speed limit to 30 MPH will that cause everyone to only go 55 MPH? This piece of road just feels right and natural at 70 MPH; everyone seems to think so, if unconsciously. Will changing the laws "fix" this piece of road?
  - kelnos 2y ago
    The problem with speed limits in general is that they're not universally applicable. Darkness, fog, rain, snow, etc. can all change what the actual safe maximum speed is. So even with a posted 55mph speed limit, the maximum safe speed at a particular time might be lower (even considerably lower), and a LEO could cite you for going too fast even if you're driving under the posted limit. (I've been on the interstate in the snow where you'd be likely to get pulled over if you were going much over 25mph, even with a posted 65mph limit.) Driver skill and reaction time also plays a factor, but of course people are not so great at judging what their own specific safe speed is all the time. And all other things being equal, you're more likely to get into a crash if you're driving faster rather than slower, and the injuries you sustain will be worse at a higher speed. IIRC speed limits are often set at some percentile (85th?) of what all drivers would (theoretically) "naturally" drive if there was no posted limit. And, on highways, cops will often not pull people over for exceeding the speed limit by a moderate amount. Once, long ago, a cop told me that, absent adverse conditions or other unsafe behavior, he usually will not stop anyone unless they're going more than 10mph over the highway speed limit. And I expect if he were hiding in a speed trap that no one could actually see driving by, and everyone was going 70mph on your 55mph road, he'd probably just sit there and not bother anyone, unless they were doing something else that was unsafe. I guess this is a long winded way to say that there really is no single safe speed that applies to everyone, in every road condition. The law acknowledges this, and police often let you do your thing unless they believe you're actually doing something unsafe. The discretion and judgment calls can be a problem (biases, etc.), but I don't think a society where unavoidably "fuzzy" laws were always prosecuted would be a great society either.
- sokoloff 2y ago
  Properly set speed limits would not need to be routinely disregarded. We don’t have those right now (IMO).
rbalicki 2y ago
I would think that once enforcement becomes automated (and thus applies to those with resources, who currently get away with it), there would be a lot of pressure on the legislature (by those who currently get away with it) to make the rules better. Legislatures can move fast, but only when they're motivated. e.g. if every NYC taxi suddenly got a ticket every time they stopped in the street to pick up a passenger, those laws would be updated very quickly.
- clankyclanker 2y ago
  That seems optimistic. I would instead expect that those VIPs would be added to a table of folks who don't get tickets, codifying the current semi-formal process.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  If we're looking at pas examples, the reverse happens a lot more: rules and environments are made stricter with stronger passive enforcement to get rid of the infractions. Setting automated speed traps where drivers don't respect the limit, physically forcing lower speeds where traps didn't work or closing whole streets to regular cars to get rid of the problem altogether. The main issue isn't just the rules, and if the infrastructure has to be adapted as well, it's often cheaper to get rid of traffic than to rethink a system that work better in adversarial situations.
- concordDance 2y ago
  > there would be a lot of pressure on the legislature (by those who currently get away with it) to make the rules better. Making perfect rules is basically impossible, they'd be millions of pages long to fully capture all the caveats and exceptions. The world is fractals complex and so we rely on intelligent prosecutors and police not bothering to pursue things that are illegal but fine. It's just not worth it to try and make perfect laws.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  Wait, where are NYC taxis allowed to pickup people?
- 2y ago
soerxpso 2y ago
The loose laws you describe are a problem that needs to be solved regardless, because they allow for selective enforcement against specific people or demographics by police departments acting in bad faith. A law that everyone is technically breaking but is generally not enforced can be used to target ethnic groups, or individuals that a particular police officer has a personal vendetta against. It essentially turns the police into judges, because it gives them the guaranteed ability to get a conviction somehow against anyone they want. I assume a way for any civilian to activate those laws against any other civilian would result in the legal code being cleaned up quite quickly.
TomK32 2y ago
It's not laws that are bad, it's the infrastructure. Wide roads that give the driver the feeling that it is safe to drive a 60 mph when the sign says 45.
throwaway48476 2y ago
Often when they are meticulously designed it is for revenue generation and not safety.
jonny_eh 2y ago
Insurance isn't the same as law enforcement, not even close.

mft_ 2y ago

I’m struggling to understand your point, or to imagine many examples which support it. I agree that brief minor parking infringements may occasionally make people’s lives more efficient; but I can’t think of any examples where traffic lights and speed limits need to be routinely disregarded?

laweijfmvo 2y ago
From what I remember of my CA driver’s license test (had to re-take the written test when I moved to CA), there is no actual speed limit in CA. The speed limit is “whatever conditions deem safe”. Maybe OP meant something like that?
- aduffy 2y ago
  As someone who got their first drivers license in California, I can say with certainty that there are in fact speed limits.
- acdha 2y ago
  You might want to review the handbook again. What you’re referring to is the basic speed law, which never trumps the absolute speed limits posted (or the special restrictions like the 15 mph railroad track law). Think of it as a clamped function: the speed limit is min(posted limit, safe speed under current conditions).
- kelnos 2y ago
  No, that's not true (CA driver here too). The "whatever conditions deem safe" bit is something that can reduce the legal speed below the posted speed limit. It can never raise it above the posted limit. Even with no posted speed limit, there is an implicit limit in CA (differs based on the type of road and surrounding locale), and "conditions" can again only reduce that.
xboxnolifes 2y ago
It's sometimes safer to speed up 5mph over the limit to get through a yellow light, than to slam your brakes with someone behind you. It's frequently safer to speed to match people speeding around you then to match the stated speed limit (usually on freeways).
- askvictor 2y ago
  These are both problems caused by poor driving (other peoples' in this case). Maybe with a traffic law panopticon everyone would drive better and these would disappear
  - mauvehaus 2y ago
    This is actually a problem with speed limits that don't match the road or alternatively, roads that aren't designed to incentivize people driving the intended speed. In theory, the speed limit should be set to the 80th or 85th percentile speed of traffic, and the road should be engineered so that the 80th percentile speed is appropriate to the surroundings. https://www.mikeontraffic.com/85th-percentile-speed-explained/ https://www.mikeontraffic.com/85th-percentile-speed-explaine... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming
    - XorNot 2y ago
      I'm extremely skeptical of this idea of "speed limits which don't match the road" unless people are arguing them down. Because the whole point is that people reliably overestimate their driving ability, and thus overestimate the safe rate of travel on a road. The road I live on displays this all the time, and that's just an advisory road: the speed limit going down the winding slope near my house is about 50 kmh...that is probably the absolute maximum you can navigate those turns at in perfect conditions, and in reality it's considerably slower - and there are steep embankments either side, so if you lose control your car is at the mercy as to whether or not a tree will stop it plunging over the edge. Anyway, there's been a fair number of damaged cars and one near miss from said creek plunge in the 2 years I've lived here.
ta8645 2y ago
It's not just about efficiency, it's also about quality of life. There is a reason that a cop has permission to use his judgement when deciding to write a ticket or not. Because life is better when we don't live under the oppression of draconian rule keepers all the time. Rules are meant to protect people, and as such are often specified in terms of the lowest common denominator, with the understanding that the system doesn't enforce them when they can be reasonably ignored, using good judgement. Life will be shittier for everyone if an army of self-empowered rule-loving busybodies get to expand their current powers beyond the realm of the HOA.
- c22 2y ago
  Frankly I'd rather just get a ticket when I speed by a traffic camera than rely on the discretion of a random police officer who might just be looking for a pretense to search my vehicle or hassle me in some other way.
  - refulgentis 2y ago
    Jaywalking, to my ear, is a similarly universal & easy example for this not being universally desirable.
    - c22 2y ago
      It's probably not universally necessary to jaywalk. However, I am against this on the grounds of logistics. I understand and accept the need to have a license and display an identifier while operating a vehicle, but I think this would be an extreme requirement for people walking around (and possibly unconstitutional in the US?) And without this identifier, how will the system know where to send the citation? All things being equal though this doesn't even sound inherently bad. If every jaywalking infraction was cited we might democratically re-decide how much we want that law to be on the books.
      - kelnos 2y ago
        And indeed, California no longer has strong jaywalking laws on the books. A cop can only cite you for jaywalking if you're crossing dangerously. Crossing on a red light, do-not-walk sign, or at a place where there isn't a crosswalk is no longer automatically considered jaywalking.
repeekad 2y ago
You clearly haven’t received a letter in the mail for $250 because a camera saw you barely not fully stop for a red light right turn at 3am with zero traffic A human in the loop needs to be the first line of defense, if an officer isn’t willing to be in the field to issue the ticket and show up in court to defend it then there shouldn’t be a ticket in the first place, full stop
- askvictor 2y ago
  Were you in that much of a hurry to not be able to wait 30 seconds for the traffic light?
  - repeekad 2y ago
    That’s not the point, a surveillance state where the panopticon autonomously gives $250 tickets is the issue Rules aren’t meant to be cold hard algorithms to blindly punish people with; we wouldn’t automate a judge with an algorithm why is it somehow different to automate a police officer with one?
    - froggit 2y ago
      > Rules aren’t meant to be cold hard algorithms to blindly punish people with; we wouldn’t automate a judge with an algorithm why is it somehow different to automate a police officer with one? The role of enforcing certain laws can be easily fulfilled with simple algorithms as the logic required is on early grade school level. In this case it's something like: if "stoplight is red" and "car doesn't stop", then "driver gets ticket." That's all the algorithm has to do, super easy to automate. Automation allows for enforcement where it would otherwise not be cost effective, like when it's 3am and no one else is around. The judiciary, however, has to interpret all kinds of crazy edge cases that people come up with to try and get out of tickets for rolling stops or whatever legal case, for all laws, because every now and then someone has a valid case. That's a bit harder to do with a couple lines of code and some low cost hardware.
    - try_the_bass 2y ago
      Why is that not the point? You violated a law and received a penalty. You're not disputing that you violated said law, but are instead trying to justify it with "barely didn't stop" and "it's 3am and there is no traffic". Isn't the point that you got punished for doing something you would have gotten away with had no one been watching?
Corrado 2y ago
I was just discussing this with my wife while driving on the local expressway on a clear Saturday afternoon. The speed limit is 55 MPH but everyone was moving at 70 MPH without any issues. The road is wide and straight with limited on/off ramps and the faster speed felt very natural. This is a common occurrence on this road and everyone seems to abide pretty well. Sure, there is the occasional "idiot" doing stupid things (weaving in out of traffic, speeding up / slowing down, etc.) but for the most part it just works. The big problem is when a LEO is around. Everyone slows down to 55ish MPH and traffic backs up and people do weird things. However, I don't know the solution. If we raise the speed limit to 70 MPH does that mean that people will then feel comfortable going 80 or 90 MPH? If we lower the speed limit to 30 MPH will that cause everyone to only go 55 MPH? This piece of road just feels right and natural at 70 MPH; everyone seems to think so, if unconsciously. Will changing the laws "fix" this piece of road?
- kelnos 2y ago
  The problem with speed limits in general is that they're not universally applicable. Darkness, fog, rain, snow, etc. can all change what the actual safe maximum speed is. So even with a posted 55mph speed limit, the maximum safe speed at a particular time might be lower (even considerably lower), and a LEO could cite you for going too fast even if you're driving under the posted limit. (I've been on the interstate in the snow where you'd be likely to get pulled over if you were going much over 25mph, even with a posted 65mph limit.) Driver skill and reaction time also plays a factor, but of course people are not so great at judging what their own specific safe speed is all the time. And all other things being equal, you're more likely to get into a crash if you're driving faster rather than slower, and the injuries you sustain will be worse at a higher speed. IIRC speed limits are often set at some percentile (85th?) of what all drivers would (theoretically) "naturally" drive if there was no posted limit. And, on highways, cops will often not pull people over for exceeding the speed limit by a moderate amount. Once, long ago, a cop told me that, absent adverse conditions or other unsafe behavior, he usually will not stop anyone unless they're going more than 10mph over the highway speed limit. And I expect if he were hiding in a speed trap that no one could actually see driving by, and everyone was going 70mph on your 55mph road, he'd probably just sit there and not bother anyone, unless they were doing something else that was unsafe. I guess this is a long winded way to say that there really is no single safe speed that applies to everyone, in every road condition. The law acknowledges this, and police often let you do your thing unless they believe you're actually doing something unsafe. The discretion and judgment calls can be a problem (biases, etc.), but I don't think a society where unavoidably "fuzzy" laws were always prosecuted would be a great society either.
sokoloff 2y ago
Properly set speed limits would not need to be routinely disregarded. We don’t have those right now (IMO).

rbalicki 2y ago

I would think that once enforcement becomes automated (and thus applies to those with resources, who currently get away with it), there would be a lot of pressure on the legislature (by those who currently get away with it) to make the rules better. Legislatures can move fast, but only when they're motivated. e.g. if every NYC taxi suddenly got a ticket every time they stopped in the street to pick up a passenger, those laws would be updated very quickly.

clankyclanker 2y ago
That seems optimistic. I would instead expect that those VIPs would be added to a table of folks who don't get tickets, codifying the current semi-formal process.
makeitdouble 2y ago
If we're looking at pas examples, the reverse happens a lot more: rules and environments are made stricter with stronger passive enforcement to get rid of the infractions. Setting automated speed traps where drivers don't respect the limit, physically forcing lower speeds where traps didn't work or closing whole streets to regular cars to get rid of the problem altogether. The main issue isn't just the rules, and if the infrastructure has to be adapted as well, it's often cheaper to get rid of traffic than to rethink a system that work better in adversarial situations.
concordDance 2y ago
> there would be a lot of pressure on the legislature (by those who currently get away with it) to make the rules better. Making perfect rules is basically impossible, they'd be millions of pages long to fully capture all the caveats and exceptions. The world is fractals complex and so we rely on intelligent prosecutors and police not bothering to pursue things that are illegal but fine. It's just not worth it to try and make perfect laws.
throwaway2037 2y ago
Wait, where are NYC taxis allowed to pickup people?
2y ago

soerxpso 2y ago

The loose laws you describe are a problem that needs to be solved regardless, because they allow for selective enforcement against specific people or demographics by police departments acting in bad faith. A law that everyone is technically breaking but is generally not enforced can be used to target ethnic groups, or individuals that a particular police officer has a personal vendetta against. It essentially turns the police into judges, because it gives them the guaranteed ability to get a conviction somehow against anyone they want. I assume a way for any civilian to activate those laws against any other civilian would result in the legal code being cleaned up quite quickly.

TomK32 2y ago

It's not laws that are bad, it's the infrastructure. Wide roads that give the driver the feeling that it is safe to drive a 60 mph when the sign says 45.

throwaway48476 2y ago

Often when they are meticulously designed it is for revenue generation and not safety.

jonny_eh 2y ago

Insurance isn't the same as law enforcement, not even close.