531–540 of 642 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't you think it would be easier and cheaper to gatekeep than to build up an enforcement and judgement workforce.
The people that are good but dangerous drivers will drive well and safely during tests, so you won't catch them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Massachusetts, USA, red light cameras were illegal until very recently, due to a 70s era law specifying that a live policeman had to issue a citation for something like that. From well before traffic cameras were common.
We had a pilot program in NJ for them, they were universally hated. People would slam brakes on and be hanging over the edge into intersection and throw their car into reverse panicking to avoid the ticket, ended up causing a ton of new accidents so the program was never continued. In newark people shot at the cameras: https://www.nj.com/news/2012/08/shoot_out_the_red_lights_2_t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real issue is all the current bad drivers. A requirement to start re-testing normal people in addition to the elderly would be a large benefit to society.
> A requirement to start re-testing normal people in addition to the elderly would be a large benefit to society. 1) Are you going to fund that? Because it means a significant increase in testing examiners. 2) The data say over and over and over that the single best traffic safety enhancement would be to ban drivers until they are 21. People have to be in their 80s(!) before they are as bad as drivers in their teens…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In europe we use traffic cameras for this. Going through red light? A bill is in your mailbox automatically. No need for a whole police station.
Here in my country they removed the cameras in the second largest city after a trial period. It took too much effort to filter out police colleagues running a red (in police or civilian vehicles).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it too dystopian to have cars follow you around and report you to authorities? I can easily imagine some bad scenarios.
Yes it could potentially be very dystopian for human drivers. That doesn't mean it won't happen. Police departments could make a lot of extra money from the additional traffic tickets; there is a financial incentive for them to do this.
I live in one of the areas they are actively testing/training in. Their cars consistently behave better and more safely than most human drivers that I’m forced to share the road with. As semi-autonomous and autonomous cars become the norm, I would adore to see obtaining a drivers license ratchet up in difficulty in order to remove dangerous human drivers from the road.
be careful what you wish for, you are giving up your freedom to movement in the name of security. you might make the argument that you can hail a cab. that's more expensive than owning your own car and with self driving cabs you will lose your privacy when you use them. any movement between 2 points will always be recorded with at least video and as you are moving, someone else other than you can pinpoint your exact…
It is a privilege licensed by the State and regularly revoked through due process or expiry.
While your concern about mobility and privacy are valid, I would contend that public safety is what it’s to be weighed against. Some people really are better riders than drivers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people that are good but dangerous drivers will drive well and safely during tests, so you won't catch them.
We need a consistently reliable public transit system before we tell people they can't drive for one reason or another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Motorists __DO NOT COVER__ the costs of roads. Your existence as a motorist is entirely subsidized. The cost of driving is borne by government and society. Road infrastructure, maintenance, and space for cars is actually insanely expensive.
What do you think taxes on gasoline are for? You’re absolutely right, roadways are insanely expensive. That’s why it’s infuriating to see entire lanes expropriated for cyclists.
Complaining about cyclists getting bike lanes is like complaining about pedestrians getting footpaths.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would adore to see obtaining a drivers license ratchet up in difficulty in order to remove dangerous human drivers from the road. I think it would be far more effective to make it easier to lose your license than it would be to make getting the license more challenging. The absolute most dangerous drivers I see on the road aren't bad drivers in the sense that they're unskilled at controlling their car. I can't we…
> I think it would be far more effective to make it easier to lose your license than it would be to make getting the license more challenging. For your system to work, there would actually need to be cops watching traffic. Since the pandemic, some cities just don't have as many police watching the streets as they used to. For example, there is virtually no traffic enforcement in Austin now. You see the results with h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The woman is going to claim it’s a service animal. There’s no real rules about service animals—-and even where there are rules, like with learning disabilities, doctors and other professionals act like whores and sell their signatures to anyone with money. It’s widespread bad parenting for generations now. How can a store fight that?
> The woman is going to claim it’s a service animal. There’s no real rules about service animals I agree with your overall point, but there are actually rules about what types of behavior are unacceptable for service animals. Uncontrolled or disruptive barking is one of those unacceptable behaviors. The store would be entirely within their right to warn this person and remove the owner and/or ban the “service animal”…