3 ms·

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 pressu

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?
backtoyoujim 2y ago
"Better" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. In my town they took down the automated red light ticket machines on many corners because people quit running the lights. So the machines weren't gathering monies in tickets yet they still cost the city to have them. Better needs to mean something other than gather revenue. And it don't with automated things.

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?

backtoyoujim 2y ago

"Better" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. In my town they took down the automated red light ticket machines on many corners because people quit running the lights. So the machines weren't gathering monies in tickets yet they still cost the city to have them. Better needs to mean something other than gather revenue. And it don't with automated things.