News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
If the reason to have speed traps is to get people to reduce their speed then that guy was literally getting people to reduce their speed.
The police need reformed because they try to get people to do bad as a way of making money.
That makes society literally worse instead of better.
Pretty telling that they're not really about safety when officers will speed after someone at 100+ cause they got their feefees hurt in the exact same area the speed trap is.
I mean if the police wanted to enjoy their job they each would get a day to park a cruiser up the street ... and then change into civilian clothes and sit in a lawn chair up the street drinking a beer smoking a cigar holding a sign saying "speed trap ahead" and then calling in anyone that ignores it with it being tracked by the squad car's camera.
that would be how you police if you want to have fun.
(this is my most brilliant idea ever. and i yield it freely to law enforcement)
People hate it, but as someone who leans towards fuck-cars, well sign-posted automated traffic cameras remove this problem. Stop cops from chasing people in cars like some dumb movie, and endanger both parties by parking on the freeway - just mail them a ticket.
So an automated speed trap is the solution? That's just a flat tax. And for the wealthy it's not even an inconvenience, just the cost of driving as they please.
It doesn't have to be. Speeding tickets probably should scale with wealth.
I kinda feel like speeding tickets don't interfere with the goal of getting drivers off the road, probably even help a little.
it is, yes. I don't think that's an issue because a lot of countries that use it also couple it with a system that if you continuously break the law there are further sanctions
It's not a flat tax you clown. Just don't speed
"Just don't speed"
Meanwhile in reality they can craft these traps to maximize revenue by doing things like changing speed limits for specific sections of the same road for no apparent reason other than to charge people for speeding.
In addition to your point, there are certain places (I'm looking at you, Houston) where a whole lot of people just have paper tags. They're all faked. So where are we sending those tickets?
There are also a load of unregistered motorcycles with plates from three owners ago. It's not their fault that no one bothered to register after that.
TXTag tried sending me bills for someone who bought my car after I traded it in. I proved it was no longer mine. They dropped those charges. Then it started over the next time whoever owns the car drove on their tollway. Went on for two years.
I'm sure long-term they will improve the system and things like this will happen less and less. I'm sorry that happened to you, but it doesn't mean the idea as a whole is bad.
I'm literally arguing against privatization in the adjacent post. Again, this is not productive discourse. "Burn everything down" isn't a realistic or helpful suggestion.
What you're describing may be an issue. I suspect it is a tiny minority of the speeding tickets written. The above poster is advocating for well advertised limits and automated ticketing. I think this is a very reasonable solution to an undeniable problem: driving is dangerous, speeding more so.
The situation your describing a contrived edge case and is not a valuable contribution to the discussion at this stage.
"Just don't speed" is, by and large, a very reasonable thing to ask of drivers.
Just because you can't see the obvious issue of deriving revenue (and thus eventually relying on it) from traffic violations, doesn't mean it's a contrived edge case. Here are a couple of articles to help you along: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/31/us/police-ticket-quotas-money-funding.html
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/red-light-camera-controversy/
I read the article second article, the first is paywalled. I still think cameras are a good solution. The argument in the article sounds a lot like "some police are bad, we shoud disband the police" or "some government officials are greedy, we should disband the government".
Frankly, it sounds like the real issue if that they have privitized the production and configuration of the traffic cameras. If there was legislation in place that ensured fair and consistent implementation of the devices much of the issues identified by the author would be moot.
Any system that we put in place to enforce rules can be abused by those in power, but that doesn't mean the system is bad or wrong. The reality again is that cars are dangerous, and I argue we should prioritize protecting the public.
It's easy to hop in a discussion and say "no that's bad", but a lot more productive to say "here's an alternative".
Privatization is an issue, but also cities or police departments that rely on such revenue will also push for systems that drive revenue since it is a significant portion of their budget. Here's another piece that explains it: https://www.npr.org/2023/05/09/1174962751/paved-paradise-examines-how-parking-has-changed-the-american-landscape
It's a pretty long piece which covers other aspects of parking, but if you start reading from this excerpt: "GRABAR: I think so. Essentially, parking enforcement serves as a subset of what is now known as revenue-driven policing. And the idea here is that cities take advantage of these parking laws to try and get as much money out of people as possible, but not in the way that you would think, right?" and onward, it covers how underlying problems aren't solved because the revenue derived from the existing situation is too convenient for the city. They even build around that by giving certain companies discounts on parking tickets because of how often they get them from just trying to do their job.
Lol. Let me introduce you to Lindale, OH.
the residents and the police are both happy with this solution and it exactly describes my proposal, but it seems like you're using this as proof it's a bad idea?
the only criticism is someone saying "it's a bit of a money grab," which - yeah, isn't that the point of capitalism? So is selling bread, water, electricity, internet, books...
but why I'm proposing it is because it decreases confrontation - in the context of someone being extra judiciously killed by police, so - which would you rather lose, $100? or your life?
It does nothing to increase safety. Mailing someone a citation after the fact does nothing to stop the crime as it is being done. And, as is the case in Lindale, it doesn't even make any money as a large majority of the recipients just throw them away.
which study are you referring to?
this one claims it increases safety https://www.rospa.com/media/documents/road-safety/speed-cameras-factsheet.pdf
i dont mean to be rude but are you absolutely sure you're speaking from a place of "I want to increase road safety in general with methods that actually work" and not from a place of "I don't want to pay a $100 fine?"
I'm speaking from a place of "I drive through Lindale and see this with my own eyes".
so we agree its a good thing?
from your source:
or are you arguing speeding in a 25mph zone is a good thing?
Are you not reading what I said? It doesn't make the area safer. Receiving a ticket WEEKS after the fact does nothing to prevent or curtail the dangerous behavior WHEN IT IS OCCURRING. And it doesn't make the actual street any safer because people slow down for that 100yd stretch then speed back up. Never mind the fact that a huge number of the tickets go straight into the trash.
wouldn't a decrease in tickets imply it is having an effect though?
and isn't slowing down in a dangerous area to speed a provable effect of its success?
isn't someone modifying their behavior after the fact better than not modifying it at all?
Or maybe the decrease in tickets is because of the giant billboard a local smoke shop erected saying "there's a speed trap here."
Dude, just admit that this speed camera is a blatant cash grab.
Ive admitted it three or four times. So for clarity, again, yes it is predicated on money. Yes, it is a cash grab. Yes it is a tax. It is a tax grab, it is a cash tax. It is a cash grab. I personally feel the term "cash grab" is a little loaded emotionally and isn't necessarily the best and most accurate way to describe it. But it seems you care a great deal about me saying the words, so I have said them. it is a cash grab.
All transactions are a cash grab. Name something that isn't. I have said from the start that the "cash grab" "tax" etc is part of the deterrent, but, to me, at least, that is better than death.
Furthermore - cops issuing tickets is a cash grab. Cops arresting people and them going to court and getting fined is a cash grab. Forfeiting your car is a cash grab. Paying to attend remedial driving school is a cash grab. We live in a capitalist society, everything is a cash grab.
I have from the start said that prevention (the cash grab) is part of the desired outcome, it is in my original comment. It is good to fine people who do bad things because it makes them do it less- as evinced by the sources I have provided - and it helps repay the cost of their antisocial behavior back to society.
Now that we are very clear that we both agree
it is a cash grab
why I think that cash grab is a good thing
that the good thing is the decrease in speeding
I am curious to hear why you think the cash grab - or to use my preferred nomenclature - a deterrent - is a fate worse than death?
Have you read anything I've been writing? It is does not deter speeding. Outside of the 100 yards the camera it's business as usual. People receive tickets AFTER THE FACT. It would be more effective to have actual police enforcing limits ON THE SPOT. They do not care about safety, they are literally just trying to generate money for themselves and their cronies.
"it does not deterrent speeding"
according to the facts I sourced above, it does.
according to your unsourced opinion with nothing to back it up except that you "live near there" - it doesn't. I'll change my opinion when you can provide some facts like I did. (although I retain the right to scrutinize and offer my opinion on those facts).
I disagree. You can enforce for every car with a camera, you can enforce 1 car with a person in another car - so by what metrics of efficacy are you holding this to? It seems like you're saying it's better to stop one person now than it is to stop thousands of people regularly.
If they don't care about safety, why is the person who doesn't care about safety better in person, with a gun, giving chase in a dangerous location?
If a person is speeding and unknowingly gets tagged by a speed camera, it doesn't stop their speeding at the time. Hence it is not about safety.
If someone is speeding then slows down just long enough to avoid getting tagged by the speed camera, then resumes speeding, it is not about safety.
If the tickets can be literally thrown in the garbage without a second thought and the issuing party can't do a thing about it, it is not about safety.
There are better ways to make people aware of their driving habits. A shitty unmanned speed camera is not one of those ways.
a) only true if not signposted, and I specifically said it should be. isn't cops stopping you also only a deterrent if you get caught at that time? if a camera is there permanently you know not to speed after getting caught, if a cop is there on Monday they might not be on Tuesday
b) we disagree, that's exactly what safety is to me. I don't wear a condom if I'm not having sex, and you don't need to slow down if you're in an area where you can go fast — are you assuming I mean to make people slow down on the freeway? i am not, i am talking about accident prone areas where slowing down would save lives
c) so don't make the tickets be able to be thrown in the garbage?
d) what are they, then?
You can just admit that you want intrusive observation that skips due process because it fits the narrative you want to force on everyone else.
It's okay.
I personally think it's a terrible idea.
this is what's known as a "straw man" — you used words I didn't to make a point I hadn't and then criticize the point you made up.
It's considered impolite.
A government agency is using a flimsy excuse to extort money from it's citizens, accusing people of a crime without due process... and you've made it clear that you think it's a worthy trade off for the illusion of safer roads.
I think you're drastically blowing speeding fines out of proportion and severely underestimating the cost and impact of bad driving.
I don't see why you can't do both.
Speeding tickets are a regressive tax. And they won't get people to hate cars, they'll get people to hate government.
they are a tax on speeding and that's a good thing because speeding causes greater strain on infrastructure.
also, everyone saying "but rich people won't be as affected" — but rich people aren't the majority and this issue occurs with the majority.