Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets

nyc.streetsblog.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 156 posts

Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets

#111

Post by avidiax »

alwa wrote: post #88
haritha-j wrote: post #19

I don't understand, doesn't NY have a points system for driving licenses? In most places you could speed at most half a dozen times before you lose your license.

They do! But their speed cameras can’t establish the identity of the human who was driving, at least to a legally sufficient standard. While I imagine it’s reasonable to assume “one vehicle per licensed driver” across much of America, that assumption seems much less reliable in NYC, where space is at an extreme premium and large families often share space. Can’t punish Mom for Dad’s speeding habit just because the ca…

In parts of Europe, it's a crime in and of itself to fail to identify the driver of a vehicle. Under that system, if the vehicle is registered to you, you can be charged criminally for its conduct, and even if you prove you weren't behind the wheel, you can be charged criminally for failing to identify the actual driver.

Driving isn't a game. It's the most deadly daily activity, and while I'm not sure I want Euro-style speed enforcement, it shouldn't be something that you can just shrug off, especially 30%+ over the limit in a low speed area.

Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets

#112

Post by avidiax »

BobBagwill wrote: post #54

If you can't arrest the human, arrest the vehicle. The vehicle is obviously guilty, and is not protected by the right to confront its accusers, which are also machines. Of course, with the advent of AI-enhanced surveillance and "smart" cars, we have have to have a separate traffic court for machines. Then snowflake SJW machine-huggers will demand a machine Bill of Rights ... Nevermind. ;-)

This would be an interesting use of civil forfeiture.

Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets

#113

Post by FireBeyond »

wahern wrote: post #62
ceejayoz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In NYC, cops' friends are also exempt. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/16/nyregion/mathew-bianchi-n...

In California cops, family members of cops, and related personnel (e.g. police union officials) can get a special insignia on their license. So when they're pulled over and are asked to present their license....

The FOP (Fraternal Order of Police). Also a thing in NY and NJ.

Fun facts... the insignia you put on your license or on your car also has a thing like a registration tab... The FOP says its "to show your ongoing support", everyone else with a room temperature IQ knows its "to show you're 'paid up' on your protection money for the year".

Oh, and some enterprising souls have created "counterfeit" FOP insignia and stickers and other regalia (or for those tabs), and sold them on eBay... only to have the weight of the police union's attorneys come down on them with cease and desists, etc.

Biggest gang, etc.

Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets

#114

Post by TulliusCicero »

alwa wrote: post #88
haritha-j wrote: post #19

I don't understand, doesn't NY have a points system for driving licenses? In most places you could speed at most half a dozen times before you lose your license.

They do! But their speed cameras can’t establish the identity of the human who was driving, at least to a legally sufficient standard. While I imagine it’s reasonable to assume “one vehicle per licensed driver” across much of America, that assumption seems much less reliable in NYC, where space is at an extreme premium and large families often share space. Can’t punish Mom for Dad’s speeding habit just because the ca…

You can always just target the vehicle, since the vehicle was obviously involved.

Except in cases where the vehicle was stolen, then it was driven by one of the owners or by someone the owners permitted to drive the car. Either way, the owners are responsible on some level. Maybe not to the level of jail, but certainly to the level of paying off fines (initially), and eventually having the car seized (if the number of tickets is extremely high, as in this case).

Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets

#115

Post by nemomarx »

rationalist wrote: post #98
addled wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree with wearing seatbelts. I always wear mine. In fact, I hate the feeling of not wearing it. I like to be positioned securely in one spot when driving. However, should it be illegal for someone with no dependants?

At a certain narrow point, what's the use of carving out a particular class of people from a general "use seatbelts in cars" law?

I suppose logically though someone with no dependents who signed some sort of waiver could be allowed, but it complicates enforcement measures quite a lot either way.

Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets

#116

Post by tedd4u »

strongpigeon wrote: post #52
raybb wrote: post #42

That's absolutely horrifying... Relatively small increases in speed dramatically increase the stopping distance and as such the danger of driving. Especially with a huge truck like that. That's why Amsterdam (with much more food traffic) has recently reduced speed limits a lot. > At 30km/h, the stopping distance of a car is 13 metres. At 50km/h it’s more than double at 27 metres. That 20km/h reduction is the crucial…

What you're saying is all true, but typically road design influence driving speed more than anything. Changing speed limits rarely has an impact on that (at least in the US).

One thing that may also help: an Amsterdam local told me that virtually all drivers there (and their parents/kids) are cyclists _also_, and so have more empathy for bikes and tend to operate motor vehicles safely them.

Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets

#117

Post by Tade0 »

kennywinker wrote: post #77
Tade0 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> escalating multiplier for reoffense within the same category of offense with a cool down period of a few years if they don't break the law. My country - Poland - implemented this part a couple of years ago. Specifically a reoffense in the same category within two years results in a higher tier fine - about twice the usual amount. Fines were also adjusted for inflation after over 20 years of being nominally the same…

Jesus christ, 140kph?!? That’s fast. Max speed limit where i live is 120kph and that feels too fast for most roads.

It was increased from 130km/h in the 21st century.

What's surprising/weird/hilarious is the traffic fatality rate before and after the change:

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Poland/mortality_traffic_ac...

I'll let you google when that was so as not to spoil it.

Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets

#118

Post by tverbeure »

nslsm wrote: post #84
tverbeure wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you apply the same reason to drunk driving? If not, why?

…yes? My point is if someone can break the law 547 times and no one is affected then the law is stupid.

Your point is wrong.

The offender may be an exceptionally alert driver who doesn't get into an accident, unlike the average person (and statistics show that higher speed results in a higher accident rate.) You also ignore the claim made by the article that it is not known how many accidents are made by the offender, because the license plate data isn't available. Or the fact that the offender is a cop and we all know how they tend to be treated differently by other cops.

Maybe you want to system where the speed limit is variable and based on some driving aptitude test. What could possibly go wrong with that.

Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets

#119

Post by jrflowers »

iso1631 wrote: post #58
MiiMe19 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like guilty until proven innocent.

Not really, you are asked who was driving. If you are driving: You say "Me", then they give you the points You lie, say it "Bob", then you're guilty of perverting the course of justice. They then write to Bob, If Bob agrees, then he's also guilty of perverting the course of justice, but most of the time you'll both get away with it. If Bob disagrees, then they look more into it. If you refuse to answer then you're gu…

>In the US you can mow down a child, drive away, and despite people having your plates and giving them to the cops, they can't actually arrest you because it was only your car which was used to kill someone?

Not quite. In the US you get in trouble for driving off, but drivers that wait for the police to show up and then blame the child that they mowed down have a decent shot at having zero consequences, especially if the child was riding a bicycle.

https://nextcity.org/features/how-much-is-a-cyclists-life-wo...

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/livable-city/la-oe-schultz-p...

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/opinion/why-drivers-get-a...

Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets

#120

Post by FireBeyond »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #35
tantalor wrote: post #25

What is the point of this article? > Like all drivers in New York State, Giovansanti is immune to consequences as long as he pays the $50 tickets So he's allowed to do this. Why are we talking about it?

Setting aside any concerns about cops being examples, public servants, etc, I'm shocked the NYPD's insurance doesn't have a problem with it. My wife worked for a County government agency in Ohio. Her job duties included driving. She was required to report all traffic citations or crashes, regardless of when they occurred (during or outside of work hours), to the County and sign an affidavit annually attesting to such…

Was a firefighter, same. And not so much a "threshold of violations in a year" but "clean driving record for three years at time of hire, and maintained."
Post reply on HN