5 ms·
Consistent, low-impact enforcement is better at preventing unwanted behavior than the rare and severe but also capricious enforcement performed by human police.
by sowbug 7mo ago
Consistent, low-impact enforcement is better at preventing unwanted behavior than the rare and severe but also capricious enforcement performed by human police.
It can also give permission for unwanted behavior. Cf. the Haifa study, where the rate of late pickups increased when daycares added a fine. One explanation is the fine turned a complex moral obligation into an ordinary financial transaction.
- gus_massa 7mo agoAs the great patio11 said: > Raise the prices. Then raise the prices. Then when you're done with that, raise the prices.
- _carbyau_ 7mo agoSure. Do it as an increasing-upon-recurrence, two part fee though. 1st offence = base fee 2nd offence = base fee + minimal % of wealth fee 3rd offence = base fee + higher % of wealth fee offences thereafter = goto 3rd offence until some breaking point condition like gaol/jail. Otherwise the rich will happily pay to do whatever the hell they want.
- buzzerbetrayed 7mo agoHow about you prove your claim by providing some evidence that the richer you are the more speeding tickets you get. Otherwise you're solving for a problem that doesn’t exist.
- no-name-here 7mo agoI read the grandparent comment's point as being about suggesting %-based fines. > prove your claim by providing some evidence that the richer you are the more speeding tickets you get. How/where did the grandparent comment claim that the rich get more speeding tickets? Even if the rich speed at a lower rate, would that make %-based fines a negative improvement? > a problem that doesn’t exist My assumption was the speeding is a problem no matter whether rich or poor, and that both exist. Is there disagreement there? Instead, I think their point was that even a $100 fine for a poor person may impact their ability to pay for groceries, childcare, etc, whereas for someone who has $10 million, etc., even a $1,000 fine will not impact their ability to pay for groceries, childcare, etc as they still have $9,999,000.
- cindyllm 7mo ago[dead]
- JasonADrury 7mo agoExpensive cars tend to accelerate faster, and it can be vastly harder to feel the speed. It would be unsurprising if up until some limit there was a correlation between wealth and the frequency of getting speeding tickets.
- _carbyau_ 7mo agoI made no such claim that such occurs. But I want to align societal incentives appropriately so that it shouldn't. You may note that a first offence makes no difference. It's only 2nd offences have a token minimal % - which should put a rich person on notice that such can occur. It's only 3rd and further offences that could seriously differentiate rich vs poor in penalty.
- gus_massa 7mo agoI prefer an exponential grow, it simplifies the calculations a lot and even Elon is only a few exponents order away from us.
- Spooky23 7mo agoAnd then when you do that, get thrown out of office.
- hamdingers 7mo agoSure. Then the bill requires that all those fines you pay go towards street calming infrastructure, eventually making it physically impossible (or at least very uncomfortable) for you to continue speeding. Kind of like if enough parents paid the late pickup fee, eventually the daycare could afford a van for dropoffs.
- senordevnyc 7mo agoIt seems like this rarely happens. The fines become another stream of income, and reliance on that income kills any incentive to fully eliminate the behavior the fines are ostensibly meant to discourage.
- hamdingers 7mo agoGiven the many restrictions on how the income can be used in this bill, I find it unlikely that will apply here. Feel free to check back in at the end of the pilot.
- underlipton 7mo agoRandom thought: this also accurately describes the financialization of home ownership. It was supposed to provide stability in shelter, and instead created a market that's completely unaffordable to the prime home-buying generations, in favor of protecting those who've come to depend on unconscionable valuations. No one, gun to their head and hand on a Bible, should defend a status quo where the only way to afford a median house is to have twice the median income.
- sowbug 7mo agoDon't make me say "roundabout."
- underlipton 7mo agoThere are multiple well-researched and practical interventions that can be done to make driving safer for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. Implementation in the US is regularly scuttled by insane self-styled experts who "audacity" their way to public trust and influence, inexplicably. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forester_(cyclist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forester_(cyclist)
- deepsun 7mo agoHaifa study result was only possible with small enough fines. Larger fines would solve that easily.
- jaredklewis 7mo agoThe Haifa daycare study can’t be used to extrapolate much. They fined parents (IIRC) ~$3 per late pickup. Rerun the study with a $300 fine and let’s see how it pans out. It’s an interesting finding, but that then people take it to mean that fines don’t work (no matter their size) is insane.
- sejje 7mo agoI worked in childcare about 20 years ago, and we charged $1 per minute late. We had to keep two staff there, and they would split the fine. Many times we got stiffed. Edit: for reference, our fee was about $14/day to keep the kid, so it was a pretty stiff penalty.
- mh- 7mo agoWell, If the staff got stiffed on the fee "many times", and the parents were allowed to bring their kid back.. the place didn't charge $1 per minute late. They just bluffed and got called on it. (apologies for the immediate edit, changed my wording)
- sejje 7mo agoIn some cases they weren't allowed back, but it was rare. Most people paid up when the director got involved.
- brigandish 7mo ago> Many times we got stiffed. I understand that you could not keep the child till you were paid (kidnapping and ransom shouldn't be a business plan!), but you could refuse them future service until they paid.
- sejje 7mo agoI couldn't, as a staffer--but yes, the organization could, and they did a couple of times that I know of. One person had a $180 fine (half of that was mine) and they were asked not to come back when they refused to pay it. Smaller amounts were ignored.
- seanmcdirmid 7mo agoI don't see how that is viable when the fine for late pickup is $6/minute.
- maest 7mo agoIncrease the punishment for repeat offenders, ultimately suspending their license. This is very common outside of the US, btw.
- ExoticPearTree 7mo ago> It can also give permission for unwanted behavior. Cf. the Haifa study, where the rate of late pickups increased when daycares added a fine. One explanation is the fine turned a complex moral obligation into an ordinary financial transaction. You know what they say: a fine makes something legal for an amount of money. And for daycares, I think a lot of parents saw it just like that: a cheap way to keep the kid away from them for longer.
- furyg3 7mo agoI grew up in Fremont, CA, which pioneered the use of red-light cameras and terrible red-light camera practices (e.g. shortening yellow light times to increase revenue and giving a cut of the fines to the companies installing cameras). I hated cameras, the idea of speed cameras felt like big brother, and the basic principal of attributing a violation to a car and not a person (and thus requiring a person to rat out the driver) felt like a huge civil rights issue. I then moved to Amsterdam and became the biggest fan of continuous, always-on ANPR speed cameras. On some freeways, your car is recorded at certain checkpoints and EVERYONE driving over the speed limit ALWAYS gets a fine. Why? Because they are properly implemented (only high-risk areas), very well communicated (tons of signage), consistently applied (no crying your way out of a ticket, no racial profiling), purpose targeted (you get a speeding ticket, not a bunch of other fines at the whim of a cop), and correctly incentivized (ticket revenue does not immediately go to the local police or city).
- tda 7mo agoThe best thing about the average speed cameras is that between the checkpoints all cars drive at almost exactly the same speed. No one trying to overtake, just 5 lanes of traffic at 1km/h below the speed limit
- cestith 7mo agoSo the flow of traffic is actually better overall, rather than bunching up in one or two lanes while the fastest of the fast lane blows by?
- Gibbon1 7mo agoI don't have a phrase to describe this concept. But it's when we blame one thing for a problem caused by another. Because placing the blame where is belongs is inconvenient. You create a transport system where you're mixing incompatible modes of transport and carnage is what you get. What I see is instead of placing the blame on that everyone wants to place the blame on someone anyone else based on whatever moral anxiety they have. Consider some people are drunks, you create a system where they have to drive you get drunk drivers. Don't want a bar walking distance from your quiet suburban neighborhood, again drunk drivers. Zoning that separates businesses and stores from low density housing. Driving, accidents. Mix pedestrian, bicycle, bus and car traffic, you get carnage. No one really wants to blame the system and spend money to fix it. So blaming other individuals is what we do.
- Frieren 7mo ago> One explanation is the fine turned a complex moral obligation into an ordinary financial transaction. Income proportional fines solve the problem. The fine should be a deterrent, but not create crippling debt. That is impossible without taking into account the income of the infractor.
- 15155 7mo agoSounds like a great reason to keep all of your income in a corporation in a state with favorable privacy laws and then have very little on paper.
- Frieren 7mo agoTax evasion always looks like a good idea until a non-corrupt goverment gets elected and the tax office goes after you.
- 15155 7mo agoThis isn't legally "tax evasion", it's well-established law: corporations have some degree of personhood, and as a corporate officer, I am allowed to disburse payments to those in my employ as I deem fit. Individual states have very little authority to look into foreign (other state) corporations. Good luck contending with stare decisis and all of the implied interstate commerce issues to try and prevent this.