91–100 of 156 posts
Reading the actual response from his police managers I think what is more needed are the "Abolish Qualified Immunity Act" and the "Cleanup Thoroughly Police Corruption Act" , in addition to the "Hire Professional And Responsible Police Officers Act".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I go faster than usual, I always slow down around other traffic. So if the law accounted for that, that would be nice. It seems silly to be pulled over if you're the only one on the road. However I can understand that slower speeds can reduce catastrophic results if a tire blows. I suppose it's akin to wearing seatbelts: As long as you're driving reasonably around other traffic and only speeding when you're by y…
I would say you are rationalizing as is the parent of your reply, whose own reply is now invisible as it's been dv into oblivion. Statistically if you speed the chances of a mishap increase. It's just a fact of observation. You are making a rationalization that statistics don't apply to you, and HN has judged you accordingly.
> You are making a rationalization that statistics don't apply to you
I reread my comment, and I don't see that at all.
The only thing I said about me is that sometimes I drive faster than usual, which is not even an admission of exceeding the speed limit.
Most of the time I set my cruise control to the speed limit, and it is surprising how many people I pass that way.
> The expert, former cop turned criminal justice professor Michael Alcazar, said Giovansanti should face “serious discipline.” But that’s not happening — an NYPD spokesperson shrugged off the suggestion of punishment because Giovansanti’s tickets are “not related to his job or his duties in the department.” This angers me. Police officers are granted special privileges that ordinary citizens are not, and should be he…
The same way we can trust an overweight doctor, a depressed therapist, a housecleaner who doesn't make their bed, or me to verify code I push to corporate repos even while I vibecode apps at home for fun without paying attention. I don't understand the basis for applying this standard to cops.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I live near a middle school in the suburbs and it may come as a surprise but kids are frequently crossing a busy street using a regular, unprotected crosswalk.
No amount of child deaths and dismemberments are enough to deny me the right to get to where I'm going 30 seconds faster. Don't you know how important I am?
Has he ever hit something or someone? If the answer is no, then speeding laws are too strict and must change.
When I go faster than usual, I always slow down around other traffic. So if the law accounted for that, that would be nice. It seems silly to be pulled over if you're the only one on the road. However I can understand that slower speeds can reduce catastrophic results if a tire blows. I suppose it's akin to wearing seatbelts: As long as you're driving reasonably around other traffic and only speeding when you're by y…
We already have a precedent of compelling parents to pay child-support.
I don’t know if I’m really advocating for a nanny state, but last month I went to the funeral of a friend that was driving without a seatbelt and was alone on the road. Now his pregnant wife has to raise their child alone.
I guess what I’m trying to say is: Wear a seatbelt.
You may not have any concern for your own safety, but there’s probably somebody who does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Bicyclists must be mandated to wear light-colored high-visibility clothing, reflective gear, and a helmet, otherwise their bicycle should be confiscated. The leading cause of death for car occupants is head injuries, I assume you believe that all car occupants must wear a helmet. All cars needless to say need to be bright orange Any infringement should have the car crushed.
I actually absolutely believe that all cars should be brightly colored. It doesn't have to be orange. It is an easy win. As for helmets in cars, yes, it's a particularly good idea for small cars that have a lower collision safety score. An appropriate helmet should be used that does not obstruct viewing mirrors or the blind spot. Pedestrians too can benefit from a helmet.
If a car is designed so that no amount of adjusting can get rid of the blindspot, then that car should be illegal (Chevy Malibu).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would run afoul of the right against self-incrimination in the US[1]. The government can't compel someone to admit they were driving, and can't punish people for refusing. The government has to provide proof they were driving. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self-incrimination
Courts have held that people have less rights while driving then they do in other settings (such as walking down the street or as a passenger in a vehicle). For example, the doctrine of implied consent allows the government to compel you to submit to a blood alcohol test without a warrant. I wonder if something similar could be applied here. I certainly support civil liberties, but they need to be balanced against th…
Most of these systems take a photo of the car, which you can often use to verify who the driver was. For serious offenses you could chose to investigate who was driving and issue a normal ticket rather than an administrative fine. You can create laws about window tinting levels (where they don't already exist), and if you can't identify the driver because the car is violating those laws you can revoke the registration.
You could also institute a point system for vehicle registrations, where if an offense cannot be assigned to a person, it is assigned to the vehicle, and after points exceeded a certain limit the registration is revoked.
I don't know about NYC in particular, but in many jurisdictions a major reason that red-light cameras are treated like administrative fines rather than civil or criminal offenses is to avoid full due-process rights, making it harder to contest the fine, and saving money by making everything automated. Our safety is more important than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I go faster than usual, I always slow down around other traffic. So if the law accounted for that, that would be nice. It seems silly to be pulled over if you're the only one on the road. However I can understand that slower speeds can reduce catastrophic results if a tire blows. I suppose it's akin to wearing seatbelts: As long as you're driving reasonably around other traffic and only speeding when you're by y…
Does the person have children? If so then the law benefits more than just the driver, even if they are the only one on the road. We already have a precedent of compelling parents to pay child-support. I don’t know if I’m really advocating for a nanny state, but last month I went to the funeral of a friend that was driving without a seatbelt and was alone on the road. Now his pregnant wife has to raise their child alo…
However, should it be illegal for someone with no dependants?
> The expert, former cop turned criminal justice professor Michael Alcazar, said Giovansanti should face “serious discipline.” But that’s not happening — an NYPD spokesperson shrugged off the suggestion of punishment because Giovansanti’s tickets are “not related to his job or his duties in the department.” This angers me. Police officers are granted special privileges that ordinary citizens are not, and should be he…
The same way we can trust an overweight doctor, a depressed therapist, a housecleaner who doesn't make their bed, or me to verify code I push to corporate repos even while I vibecode apps at home for fun without paying attention. I don't understand the basis for applying this standard to cops.
If I don't trust my therapist, I can ignore them and find a new therapist.
If I don't trust my housekeeper, I can fire them and hire a new housekeeper.
If I don't trust a police officer, it doesn't matter. If they detain me and order me to step out of my vehicle, I have to comply under threat of the law and violence. I don't get to only listen to police officers whom I trust.
That is why they must be held to a higher standard, because they wield elevated authority not granted to ordinary citizens.
A police officer who has demonstrated such a reckless disregard for the law and safety can not be trusted as a police officer to uphold the law.
Has he ever hit something or someone? If the answer is no, then speeding laws are too strict and must change.
I am of two minds about it. On one hand, speeding alone when done by a mature highly-attentive driver isn't really dangerous no matter the limit, because the driver has enough expertise to know what his personal limit ought to be. The residual risk is more from immature drivers, the mistakes of other cars, cyclists, and pedestrians. I have been on both sides of it. I have been the speeder who can drive very safely, a…
It is actually somewhat amusing that you worded this as "ought to be" rather than "is". Because one of the big problems with most drivers is they have an overly inflated idea of how competent they are at driving (I am not so churlish as to exclude myself from the category). And our system does nothing to bring drivers' beliefs about their capabilities in line with their actual capabilities--drivers are tested generally once on their competence [1], and that pass result then gets to hold for several decades, physical or mental decline notwithstanding.
> I settle for a middle position, which is that the speed limit should be no less than 35 mph on most streets
Most residential streets are not safe to travel at 25 mph, let alone 35 mph. There's a line of parked cars in the shoulders, children playing in the driveways, sidewalks, and street? Yeah, if you're traveling 35 mph, you've got no hope of stopping in time (recall that stopping distance goes to the square of speed).
> Moreover, I think that all pedestrian collisions, no matter how small, must be investigated thoroughly, with a hard action taken to minimize such an incident.
We already know how to minimize collisions. The top 3 actions to take are a) reduce speed limits, b) redesign roads to be narrower to make drivers less comfortable traveling at speed, and c) ban right turns on red.
> Bicyclists must be mandated to wear light-colored high-visibility clothing, reflective gear, and a helmet, otherwise their bicycle should be confiscated.
Why? It's not like wildlife like bears, moose, or deer that wander onto the roads wear such gear, and a "mature highly-attentive driver" should be equally aware of such dangers.
[1] And to be honest, even that is somewhat generous a statement.