Law enforcement in NYC has a revanchist attitude towards the actual citizens of the city. Most of the city's police live outside of the city[1][2] and drive into work, which puts them directly at odds with the average resident.
This attitude extends into every facet of NYC's law enforcement, which is why most of the city's actual petty crimes (illegal parking, dangerous driving, obscured plates) go unreported: everybody knows that the police simply don't care.
Edit: So that I'm not just kvetching, here are some things that I think would improve the situation:
* Allow citizens to report 53' trailers and other illegal vehicles (e.g. obscured plates) in exchange for a cut of the fines, similarly to how the city uses citizens to report idling violations[3].
* Require all uniformed NYPD to attain a post-secondary decree (rather than a partial degree at a rock-bottom GPA, as currently required). Similarly, require them to pass a fitness test similar to the NYFD's.
* Require all uniformed NYPD to live in the city, and restructure their patrols to emphasize the neighborhoods they live in. Minimize in-car patrol time in favor of foot patrols and Japanese style police booths.
[1]: https://gothamist.com/news/majority-nypd-officers-dont-live-...
[2]: Notably, civilian employees of the NYPD (and most NYC civil servants) are actually required to maintain residency in the city. This is purely a carveout for the police.
[3]: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/nyc-anti-idling-la...
There are definitely some tradeoffs with having police officers or firefighters live and work in the same neighborhood. Does being familiar with the local troublemaker help or hurt the police response? Does going to the grocery store and seeing the family of someone you couldn't save make you feel like staying home? Or maybe you do see the people you did help.
This is a good point. I think it demonstrates a pretty drastic difference in scope between (ordinary) police and firefighter job requirements: a cop might go their entire career without firing their weapon, while a firefighter's job is almost entirely defined by situations where multiple people might die.
Put another way: I think it's perfectly reasonable for fightfighters to not want to work in the neighborhood they live in, given the severity of the average incident they respond to. I don't think this applies to beat cops, any more than it does to mailmen.
(The other point is also great: there's an argument that cops are more likely to feel territorial or even more violent if they live in the same area as someone they've branded a "troublemaker." I don't have a good answer to this.)
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/05/us/new-york-city-crime-wave-2...
The cop shrugged, asked “what am I supposed to do about it?” and walked the other way.
I’m sorry if this seems anecdotal, but this story has had a lasting impact on my opinion of the NYC police. I vouch that there is no hyperbole on this story, neither my brother nor myself want this to be true, and we couldn’t think of any justification for the officer’s apathy. I consider this single incident to be a stain upon the NYPD, and an embarrassment to any American - I don’t usually get worked up about systemic injustice or what it’s worth.
It's also true that the city is safer. The city was already "safe" relative to the 1970s and 1980s by 2000, and it's only gotten safer since[1]. You can see that some crimes ebb and flow and that assaults, in particular, haven't changed that much over the last 20 years.
To conclude with my own anecdote: on the year I was born, the city's murder rate was over 3 times higher than the current rate (our supposed "crime wave of 2022"). The neighborhood I grew up in was considered a bad one; it's now one of the most expensive in the city. The neighborhood I live in now was considered "too dangerous to enter" by the city's "respectable" population; it's now gentrified and "hip." Crime hasn't disappeared! But it is much, much less common.
[1]: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_...
I assume people get this idea from the media, but it's not true--crime rates in NYC are significantly less than that of most other US cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
A pandemic-related uptick (that has affected the country as a whole) doesn't change the fact that the cops from St. Louis are dealing with a murder rate about 20x what we have in NYC.
It's totally normal for smaller towns and villages across Germany (and Austria and (?) Switzerland) to have mostly volunteer fire services.
"the predominant number of Germany's 1,383,730 firefighters are members of voluntary fire brigades" [0]
AKA standard trailers. Enjoy having a logistics framework where you are incompatible with the primary mode of semi freight in the rest of America.
The lack of enforcement on this element is a testament to pragmatism.
Every major city in the US places length restrictions on vans and trailers; most are even stricter than NYC's. Here are Newark's, for example[1]. Most cities actually enforce these laws to no perceptible detriment.
If you actually lived in NYC, you would know that the current absence of enforcement is the exact opposite of pragmatism: these trucks simply cannot safely navigate most NYC streets (even the modern ones that go in straight lines). Even if you ignore unnecessary accidents and injuries, they're just plain inefficient due to their size and unwieldiness on the city's streets.
If the trailers weren't at all useful then you'd see about as many of them as you see horses. The market would simply flush them out.
Also the code you cited in Newark doesn't mention length that I can find, can you quote where you're referring to? Not saying it isn't there, but I see weight requirements but not length.
>If you actually lived in NYC
Do you live in every borough? If one is not able to speak about somewhere where they do not live, (which is a fallacy I reject) then you recognize you can't speak for the other boroughs and therefore cannot make a sweeping statement that covers all boroughs of NYC.
You have this exactly backwards. Manhattan's streets are, on average, much safer for trucks to navigate: they're wider, on a standard grid, and have uniform lights and speed zones. The outer boroughs don't have uniform grid plans (take a look at central Brooklyn or Queens on a satellite map: it's all carriage roads) and have much less consistent traffic light coverage. There are exceptions to this (FiDi in Manhattan, for example), but it's the overall pattern.
The irony is that Manhattan is the best case for trucks in the city, but is also the borough with any enforcement whatsoever. For example: trucks are almost completely banned on West End Avenue, and I never saw one (beyond movers) in the 20 years that I lived there.
And to be clear: I'm not saying that trailers aren't useful. They clearly are. I'm saying that they're not efficient in the sense that the city would be better served by fleets of smaller trucks, and that they're a social harm in the sense of the externalities they bring with them.
> I see weight requirements but not length.
You're right, sorry: Newark's are weight, not length (although I would be remiss to note that an empty 53' trailer truck ways significantly more than 4 tons).
> Do you live in every borough?
I have lived the city my entire life, permanently in two boroughs, and have spent many years commuting in and through the other three. You can treat it as overconfidence if you like, but I feel qualified to make these claims based on about two decades of cycling and car travel.
Hilariously I haven been told the exact opposite by another resident who lives in Manhattan. It's safe to say your viewpoint is hotly contested by some residents of Manhattan themselves.
In addition to the concern of other commenters of how this could affect their interactions with the community for the worse, I'd be really worried about how our law & order could be affected by intimidation of off-duty police.
There's 100,000+ arrests per year in New York City [1], thousands of them for extremely violent or dangerous crimes. I can only imagine the retaliation that gangs could have on officers who make arrests, or refuse to turn a blind eye.
[1] https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_...
What makes it particularly galling is that they also oppose automated enforcement of traffic laws. Officially it is because it would take away jobs (that they are not doing, since traffic enforcement in NYC leaves a lot to be desired), and unofficially because the police themselves benefit from the discretion exercised by fellow officers refusing to enforce laws on their colleagues.
Getting rid of the job gets rid of the people with experience, so it can be a one way switch.
Normally solving a problem with a robot creates more jobs. There are speed cameras, but still you have hidden manually operated speed traps and it frees up resources for drug and alcohol testing.
Because a capitalist economy is rooted in self-interest. Labour bodies have power to shape the economy, and they represent the interests of their members, who don't want to lose their jobs.
Plus, people are not perfect market actors with such little empathy that they are willing to abandon their colleagues for a bit more workplace efficiency. So if you know that Bob in your office will be fired due to automation, and you like Bob (and worry you are next), you're going to oppose automation.
Propaganda will make sure this won't even reach the average citizen.
There was an attempt to defund police, and that went down with the electorate like a lead balloon.
It's the moralizing religious right and the jackbooted ivory tower left types (both of whom think they know exactly how other people should live) that want lots of policing.
history of police: the NY police force stared when one politician got his street gang made official.
So the police have a cultural heritage.
And on the other side,the city isn't a bunch of people who basically agree (or think they basically agree) on what is right and wrong, then use the law to enforce this. Counter-example, Sweden from circa 1000 to 2000 AD. (Sweden still thinks it is this, but has growing issues with immigrants from non-nordic cultures)
Watch an open-air market for stolen goods. Watch the impunity. See how City Hall and SFPD respond. https://youtu.be/dykaJjegDEY
There is no suitable excuse for this, at all, full stop.
I mean... what the fuck is that "yeah we have so many leads to follow up". Dude. Take a hundred officers, cordon off the area and fleece everyone. It isn't that hard. And what the fuck was that "we want police to focus on bigger things"?! Like, camera crews get robbed on highway heists? At gunpoint? Doesn't get much bigger than that!
Chain convenience stores and grocery stores will reliably list their prices for each item
No, but the self checkout machine will, as long as the item has a UPC code.
Wouldn't raising awareness of the illegal activity be the easier thing to do?
[0]: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2006/new-york-city-adm...
(I only looked briefly, maybe I misunderstood)
I very much doubt nothing can be done - this is just a matter of (political) will and appropriate enforcement.
Here in MA we also have a law that says that items for sale must be priced. The law must have teeth, because all big stores have dedicated price scanners spread out through the store. The scanners can be used to check the price of any item, in case a price tag was not applied. In general, price tags are present, even in small corner stores.
They’ve been getting away with this practice for decades.
Also, why are US duty free shops garbage compared to European ones? It's double price at the airport in contrast to the local shops, whereas in EU you can often buy things with a heavy discount at the airport.
I've browsed the tax-free shops in European airports, it's... disappointing. They will bump up the price from retail anyway because people assume it's a good deal, and they'll focus on premium / luxury goods one wouldn't normally buy.
I mean at the same time, you wouldn't find said premium / luxury goods on the high street either, nor an enthusiastic salesperson having you try fancy whiskeys at nine in the morning, so that's a plus on these tax free shops, lol.
UK duty free (pre COVID) also seemed to be slightly better priced in contrast to high street
Comparing a basic Gordens gin, at Copenhagen Airport it's 6DKK (€0.80) less than at a typical supermarket, 165 vs 171DKK/litre. However, the price in Sweden is about 260DKK/litre, and I assume the target market in that airport is Swedes.
VAT. The answer is VAT.
Of course US has something like triple salary in tech at least, making their purchase power generally much better.
Is your cable/internet/etc contract fixed price for the duration of the contract or they can add any “fees” when they feel like it?
They have a captive pool of customers and can squeeze them for as much as they like. What are you gonna do? Leave through security to go join the real market? All before your connecting flight? Shut up and pay $10 for 500ml of water.
And even if they had been posted.. it is still not the price you would pay at the till, because you know, reasons.
https://educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/price-labelling-and-accur...
You'll note that if they put price stickers on the product, things are more lax.
And if they put nothing, you report it. And yes, it is enforced.
It is trivial to handle this stuff. Simple.
And it is enforced.
Growing up, and living with this, I find it trivial to deal with.
Literally, no one here cares. Couple this with the fact that some don't pay tax, it can make it more difficult.
(Native Canadians don't pay tax. And as a business, many items are tax exempt, if they are for resale. )
You're trying to solve something that isn't a problem. This is because it is cultural.
All haggling is done on the basis of pre-tax.
You know in Canada, we used to have built in taxes on textiles, levied at the distributor too. We got rid of it, an replaced it (and others) with a tax at the cashier.
This is because, if you buy product from out of province, or out of country, it is easier to decouple the tax.
You may not agree, but so what? We prefer it. It is how we do business.
Every time I buy something from amazon in the UK, to ship to me in Canada, I get told the wrong price, because silly VAT is built in.
So when I Google for competitive quotes, UK businesses appear to have wildly inflated pricing.
No, it is because it is cultural you perceive the lack of the basic information about the item (the price you would pay) as a completely normal situation.
Sure, both US and Canada tax situation is a horrid mess, but at least you could know the final price if you don't have any exemptions and whatever. And if you have them you would pay less than on the full price tag. But no, both Americans and Canadians imagine some silly excuses why they can't (and hence don't want - in this order) at least to have both pre-tax and "default" tax prices on the tags.
And when I say silly - I mean it, the probably the best response I've got was "Because it would be too costly for Walmart to do so, they have too many shops - they would need too many new tags to replace". Literally. On my question how do they manage to replace their tags now (especially when there is special offers, seasonal offers, holiday offers or just a plain price changes) and how this would be a problem for a company with US$13.67 *billions of NET income* I've got just downvotes and silence.
And the most astonishing thing is what many seriously think there is no way to compute the tax beforehand to print it on the tag. On the reasonable question why then it could be computed at the till and how many times a day the tax policy change ("But they would need to change the tags so often!" - same people) I again receive the silence at best or "It is how we do things."
> amazon in the UK, to ship to me in Canada, I get told the wrong price, because silly VAT is built in.
Well yes, Amazon.co.uk is mainly for people in UK so of course they would prefer to see how much THEY would pay, not £249.00 on the tag and suddenly £281.3240 at the checkout.
I didn't buy from UK for a decade, but last time I checked you would see the VAT cost at the total, eg at apple.com/uk/shop just now: £949.00 Total Payments for your device include VAT of approx. £159.00.*
Some world-wide oriented sites just show both VAT and VAT excluded prices.
I could make some quip about math skills, but I know people in the EU, etc aren't lacking. Which is why this is cultural.
Well... welcome to the world? You'll have the same issue traveling to South America, Europe, Asia. When you travel and end up in a country where you don't speak the native language, communication gets more difficult. This is a non-issue.
If someone speaks 10.43 to me in German, I have no idea.
Here in suburban DC, the latter is rare and the former is the norm. That said, we don't have much in the way of bodegas - it's all chain markets from 7-11, Sheetz, etc up to the big grocers.
This seems to be a really common refrain for a lot of problems these days.
You can shop only at stores that do post prices, even if that means travelling some distance or paying higher prices. You could open your own store and be sure to post prices. You could organize a protest in front of stores that don't post prices. You could form a volunteer service that posts prices for stores.
Obviously, these things require various levels of effort from you. They may or may not be worth it to you.
But "there's nothing really that can be done" usually translates to "there's nothing really I am willing to do."
https://twitter.com/mnolangray/status/1520134999164395521
Obviously there's much that could be done to make the city safer, and it does seem there was an uptick in certain types of crime during the pandemic (though not localized to NYC in any way). I'm just wary of people's intuitions about things like crime, which have historically been divorced from reality.
Also, there's a media campaign by conservatives to say that 'liberal cities are dangerous' (and to dog whistle race issues). Somehow, Miami and Texas cities never come up.
The "broken window" approach to law enforcement started a reversing trend. Seems like that approach has been dropped again, and the old New York is coming back.
Yeah, may be, but the bulk of the cost was borne by minorities, poor and otherwise vulnerable people [1]. "Broken windows" only works for everyone in a fair way when police is held accountable for their actions and systemic injustice gets combatted in parallel - otherwise it will only serve to entrench the interests of the White, rich population.
I'm far from being a liberal but that guy objectively didn't show manners, so why should the man on the street..
> The "broken window" approach to law enforcement started a reversing trend.
It's a popular claim but AFAIK here's no evidence of that and it's one of those claims that was repeated without anyone looking at the most basic data: Crime dropped nationwide, both in places that used 'broken window' policing and without it. It's like today, where gun crime has increased relatively evenly everywhere, red states and blue, urban and rural areas, but certain political media campaigns have successfully associated it with a certain political group and cities (and by implication, a certain minority). Also, 'broken windows' often amounted to 'harass and drive away people that wealthy white people don't like'.
The "make low effort comments about leaded gas and crime crowd" would take issue with that statement.
Seems like everyone wants to take credit for the crime decrease in the 90s.