446
Police are not primarily crime fighters, according to the data
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
446 points (94.8% liked)
politics
19126 readers
1952 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Why not just automate traffic violations and remove 83% of police?
Some cities have been sued for doing that. You can't face your accuser in court if your accuser is a computer.
That doesn't sound right. The accuser is the state regardless, no?
what if your family member or friend was using your car? what if your car was stolen? also, some of those cameras will ticket for legal right on red.
they just catch plates and send a ticket in the mail to the registered owner. it's not great. source - i live in a city with these, though state law now means the city can no longer enforce tickets. also, the idea of camera/computer generated rosters of law-breakers is unsettling.
If your car was reported stolen, then you document that and get the ticket canceled. I don't see how the presence of a police officer changes anything about that.
I don't have a problem with the owner getting a ticket if someone else was driving. I also, again, don't see how that's relevant. It's not like the police officer is going to remember who was in the car.
The camera ticketing for something legal is a technical issue that should be fixed.
Sort of, the idea is that you can face the citing officer in court. Granted, all the officer has to do is lie and the judge is likely to side with them over a rando citizen, but that's the intent of the law.
I don't understand why that's important. The officer is just a biological camera. They're there to document what you did wrong.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/11/16/22785644/red-light-camera-tickets-right-turn-on-red-stone-park-michael-tock-bob-fioretti
Red light cameras, sure. It can be done fairly - not that it is everywhere.
Speed cameras just trap people new to an area. The people who live in an area learn to avoid them and thus they don't stop habitual speeders who are a danger. Plus they can't be everywhere.
The bias needs to be taken out of it. Police can't seem to stop themselves from racial profiling. Its like a compulsion.
I used to drive truck over the road, and I can attest to the fact that those red light cameras can also be made very deliberately unfair. The city of Hannibal, Missouri had these cameras at the intersection of Highway 61 and Red Devil, at the bottom of a steep hill. About 1/5 of a mile up the hill south of the intersection was a pole with a sensor on it set to about 12'6". I observed that any time any vehicle over that height passed that sensor, the light would trip to red. And it was set at a distance that a loaded semi would be all but guaranteed to run that light. Those of us who traveled that corridor with any frequency knew the sensor was there, and would try to want other drivers over the CB, but a lot of drivers had stopped routinely using the CB by then, so the light proved quite lucrative. At least, until it started causing wrecks from the trucks jackknifing in the intersection in the winter. That setup ran for three or four years before the city was dragged into court over it and forced to remove the red light cameras, though it was done in such a way as to question the enforceability of the tickets and without ever directly acknowledging that the cameras were set up to entrap commercial vehicles.
Gridlock cameras can be added to red light cameras, also reducing congestion policing costs.
Or they could just, not speed? And speed cameras can be everywhere. They cost up to $50k to deploy and collect to 2k+ fines per year (based in my location, this obviously varies wildly), so they run net positive. Rotating locations can also get after the habits of locals, though that's the 50k cost, I'd guess statics are cheaper.
If immediate reduction is most important than habit changing over time (i.e. a school zone or highway transition) speed linked red lights can achieve the effect. Such to say, if you drive over the limit, the light turns red. This forces you to stop and pisses off everyone behind you, providing social pressure. These are only in the pilot stage, so I don't know the real deployment costs.
Speed traps are called speed traps because the limit suddenly drops like 20-30 mph in a very short distance. Saying "just don't speed" completely ignores how speed traps work and why they exist .
Just realised this is a US politics forum, my insights my not be useful.
Speed cameras in my region require at least one warming sign and a sign on the camera itself, yet they still catch people (myself included...)
The short distance limit dropping sounds like a failure in road design if cars aren't naturally lowering speeds due to the changing streetscape.
Regardless, the point of enforcement (and the rules they informed) should be based on keeping roads safe, not "trapping" people. I'm sorry you have to go through that.
But I want to drive 65 in a 30 zone! It's a conspiracy by the deep state agenda 21 liberal fascist police to prevent me from doing that!
/S
Here in L.I it definitely is not done fairly. 9/10 times the cameras are only in low income neighborhoods... It's disgusting.