511–520 of 703 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Automated enforcement where fines are anchored to the KBB value of the car is The Way Enlightenment and utopia across that simple bridge
Devil's advocate: billionaire driving a beater (I'm not a billionaire, but I drive a beater)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure if it was COVID or the social movements around the same time like defund the police. Here in Seattle when defunding the police was suggested the police department threatened to close the precinct in a large residential area. Basically they attempted to extort the voters. I think the police have realized that crime is good for them because the more of it voters see the more they think police are needed.
Vilify them, defund them, restrict them, reduce the number of officers to the lowest level in 30 years, and then when crime increases in the next few years .. was it maybe because of everything that was just done? No, that's not it, it's a grand conspiracy across every police officer in Seattle who coordinated/decided to be evil together and intentionally let crime spread. Yup, that all checks out.
After reading the 21 page order, I do tend to agree with the judge The judge frames the red light camera scheme as a revenue generating scheme, not a public safety measure. Additionally, "A distinctive feature of the statutory scheme is its assignment of guilt to the registered owner rather than the driver of the vehicle". and "If there are multiple registered owners, the citation is issued to the 'first' registered…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
California's new speed camera pilot (AB 645) explicitly solves for this. Tickets issued by these cameras are civil penalties issued to the owner of the vehicle, like parking tickets, rather than a criminal moving violation. This means the tickets are just as constitutional as parking tickets. It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't impact your driving privilege or insurance. Hopefully other states can…
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.
This is very common outside of the US, btw.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My daycare fines parents $5 _per minute_ of lateness.
The problem with any and all fees is that they go up as soon as the business notices simple patterns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the same. They know the car was yours so, by extension, you should be aware of its whereabouts at any given moment. If it wasn't you driving, you know who. An illegal activity was committed using your tool and you know who did it. They have every right to question you. If you do not know, you testify as such, but then again you need to plausibly explain why was someone operating your car while you were not aware…
> but then again you need to plausibly explain why was someone operating your car while you were not aware of it. Why? IMHO, I shouldn't have to. It's the police's job to make sure they have the right person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, vehicle ownership is a level of responsibility, I believe it is just to be accountable for what happens with it.
This is unjust BS and discriminates against poor families. Using this line of thinking, it will be a short time until you’re responsible for what a criminal does with your stolen vehicle; after all, you failed to secure it. I hope you get exactly what you’re asking for, and all the implications thereof (but in a state far from me). I feel certain you won’t enjoy it.
Also I mentioned criminal vs civil penalties being treated differently - I don’t believe the same scenarios apply to both. AND if you can prove that you lent a car to someone who got you a speeding ticket, then it’s on them - just that the owner of the car is responsible by default.
I hate these arguments that doing anything to restrict the deadliest machines in history is impossible because it discriminates against the poor. It doesn’t. But having a society where driving is the only option does, so I am all in favor of alternatives. But I also think that we should improve safety for cars when possible as well
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it not? I actually don’t think I would mind speeding cameras and the like. Put a camera on every street and auto ticket every car.
My city does it. It sucks ass. It’s a 70% vendor / 30% city revenue share and people avoid the city and use side streets to avoid the main avenues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting that your use of "solves for this" is with regards to the end result of being able to write more red light tickets. In my view, the courts solved this by deeming at least certain uses of red light cameras illegal.
No, their use of “solves for this” is with regards to disincentivizing an incredibly dangerous habit that randomly kills the most vulnerable bystanders in the vicinity at the rate of many thousands per year
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting that your use of "solves for this" is with regards to the end result of being able to write more red light tickets. In my view, the courts solved this by deeming at least certain uses of red light cameras illegal.
Automated traffic control is objectively one of the most pro-social things we could possibly ever create. Yes it is good if more red light cameras exist and face fewer legal challenges. > the courts solved this by deeming at least certain uses of red light cameras illegal. This is incorrect. The court in Florida said certain arrangement of the statutory basis (a different one than in CA) for red light cameras is ille…
I'm not even disagreeing with you here, but that's a huge assumption yo make and you are granting pretty broad authority to the state in the name of that goal. Where do you draw the line of power the state shouldn't have despite it using the authority today towards pro-social goals?