3 ms·
While I agree with your sarcasm, this proposal is a least bad scenario: no enforcement is worse as there’s less incentive to respect the lights. Sadly money an
by aziaziazi 8mo ago
While I agree with your sarcasm, this proposal is a least bad scenario: no enforcement is worse as there’s less incentive to respect the lights.
Sadly money and power buying freedom of law isn’t restricted to road rules.
- ggiigg 8mo agoI would argue such enforcement does not need automation and such automation is often for revenue generation vs saftey focused. Also, I am a bit biased here after working at flock.
- aziaziazi 8mo agoIs there a non-automatic light enforcement other than placing a policemen at every light - which makes the light useless? Revenu generation is a bonus point: in my country taxes that incentive smokers to quit are directed to healthcare and most of the speeding tickets revenue goes to road maintenance and safety. I’d prefer a public handling but the trend is privatization with everything : from health to education to water treatment. Even military assets! IMHO red light tickets enforcement is as much important.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- ggiigg 8mo ago> California's new speed camera pilot (AB 645) explicitly solves for this. Your mixing up states. California's law from above comment is NOT about running red lights.
- amrocha 8mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- bsder 8mo ago> While I agree with your sarcasm, this proposal is a least bad scenario: no enforcement is worse as there’s less incentive to respect the lights. I disagree. This is acknowledging that these are revenue products rather than safety enhancement. If you want safety enforcement, put a damn cop there. It WILL work. This isn't hard. People are creatures of habit and you don't need to adjust the behavior of very many of them to make the whole group change. If you don't want to put a cop there, you don't want safety enforcement.