Hacker News Reader

Comment by setgree | Hacker News Reader

Semi-related, but just once in my life, I want to hear a mayoral candidate say: “I endorse broken windows theory, but for drivers. You honk when there’s no emergency, block the box, roll through a stop sign — buddy that’s a ticket. Do it enough and we’ll impound your car.”

Who knows, maybe we’ll start taking our cues from our polite new robot driver friends…

View on HN

This always astounds me about cities who have a reputation for people breaking certain traffic laws. In St. Louis, people run red lights for 5+ seconds after it turns red, and no one seems to care to solve it, but if they'd just station police at some worst-offender lights for a couple months to write tickets, people would catch on pretty quickly that it's not worth the risk. I have similar thoughts on people using their phones at red lights and people running stop signs.

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.

https://www.nyc.gov/site/finance/vehicles/red-light-camera-v...

NYC is ramping up on this as well.

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.

Put a single live policeman in front of 100 camera screens

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...

Thankfully sawzalls are cheap and plentiful so people can use much safer practices to disable/remove them:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/parkside-drive-speed-...

I bet if you come back after they've removed the old one but before they install the new one you can wreck the threads on the threaded anchors by impacting the wrong size higher grade nut on.

The comments is written as if you specifically advocate for this. Why?

Hitting the brakes and getting rear ended is barely even a crash compared to T-boning someone or plowing over pedestrians

I didn't say that. I said they'd panic and throw their vehicle into reverse. Cars/trucks can take the hit, motorcycles/bicycles not so much.

Huge skepticism that bicycles and motorcycles were getting backed into in any appreciable quantities.

How many people you willing to put in the hospital to prevent people from technically running reds on the yellow-red transition?

> in 2023, 1,086 people were killed in crashes that involved red light running

https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/red-light-running

So let's use that as an upper bound.

How many people were killed by these backups you're talking about?

If not that then rear-ended, here's the state's report on how red light cameras increased accidents: https://dot.nj.gov/transportation/about/publicat/lmreports/p...

That's an insufficient yellow phase rather than a camera problem. Not sure why NJ would think their population are special snowflakes that can't deal with red light cameras otherwise.

Italians?

Sounds like NJ has some terrible drivers

Before they were common, yes, but they existed in active use back in the 1960s in the Netherlands: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_enforcement_camera

In most the USA, or at least Arizona, you have to serve someone. Just dropping something in a mail box doesn't mean dick. The very people that invented the traffic cameras up in Scottsdale were caught dodging the process servers from triggers from their own camera.

Another words, you have to spend hundreds of dollars chasing someone down, by the time you add that on to how easy it is to jam up the ticket in court by demanding an actual human being accuse you, it's not the easy win some may think. You're basically looking at $500+ to try and prosecute someone for a $300 ticket.

NY is not Arizona. They have the plate and send the fine to whomever the vehicle is registered to. If the fine isn't paid they flag the plate and impound the car if it's driven in their state.

In CO we have automatic traffic cameras, and to my knowledge they just mail you the ticket, which is usually only a fine (and no license points). Its one of those “automatic plea” tickets where if you fight it, you fight (and risk conviction on) the actual offense, while if you just pay the ticket it will automatically get downgraded to a less serious offense (IE parking outside the lines).

This isn't true we've had plenty of programs where red light camera tickets were rolled out.

Voters just really don't like them.

They were rolled out but the mailed tickets are legally meaningless, someone has to actually hunt you down within a short timespan (I think 90 days) to create any binding requirement to address it.

   A mailed citation from a photo radar camera is not an official ticket and does not need to be responded to unless it has been formally served to you.

https://rideoutlaw.com/photo-radar-tickets-in-arizona-a-comp...

Arizona also did stakeouts to try and catch this guy:

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32806142

Not in New Jersey. I visited my parents and didn’t stop for a full three seconds before making a right on red on a deserted road at night and they fined my dad.

In FL, a speed camera can give a car's owner can a ticket without needing to know he was the driver. Your perspective is not true nation wide.

"The registered owner of the motor vehicle involved in the violation is responsible and liable for paying the uniform traffic citation issued for a violation"

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...

That seems completely fucked to me. Charging people who aren't guilty of any crime with a crime because somebody else was driving their car?

What would be the alternative? Just get who was driving your car to pay you back for the fine. If they are not accountable/honorable enough to back you back, then why were you letting them drive your car in the first place?

The same "alternative" that there is to every other crime in existence, proving the person you charged with a crime actually committed the crime. The default is suppose to be innocence, not guilty. It is the state's responsibility or problem to prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not a citizen's responsibility to prove their continued innocence at all times.

I mean, the state obviously has photo evidence. So you need to show that either the photo was taken in error, that it misidentified your vehicle or that you weren't the legal owner at the time.

I got a couple of them like 20 years ago. Picture was terrible. I just through the ticket in the trash and never thought about it again.

That's absolutely hilarious. They take a photo of something approximating your vehicle that shows your plate number, toss it in a mail system that loses more than 0.5% of the class of mail used, then according to another poster in NY they impound your car after all this.

Anyplace with the slightest adherence to the rule of law requires the state to positively identify an actual person, not a vehicle owned by a person, that is responsible for a moving violation. And then personally serve that person rather than just coming up with this absolute bullshit excuse that an unreliable mail system with a letter dropped god knows where somehow is legal service.

A couple things wrong here:

1. Camera-issued tickets are not moving violations

2. Your car will not be impounded for failure to pay (maybe unless you have many, many unpaid tickets)

If the photo is bad, you can dispute it! That isn't presumption of guilt, it's the legal system working exactly as intended: one side presents their evidence, and the other side has a chance to respond.

Even if USPS loses 0.5% of mail (I am skeptical; that seems crazy high) the state sends at least three notices, so the chances of you missing every notice of your infraction is something like one in a million.

Only by the most ridiculous fiction is running a red light or speeding not a moving violation. They've intentionally pretended like it's not to get around the due process involved.

They have a photo of a car, but the car cannot commit a crime all on its own, someone has to be driving it. And if you have no idea who is driving when you charge them you are inevitably going to be charging innocent people.

When the police come across a car that's parked illegally, do you think they should need to wait around and figure out exactly who left it before issuing a ticket? Of course not; the vehicle owner is responsible for ensuring it's parked legally.

In the same way, it's the vehicle owner's responsibility to make sure their car is not driven through a red light. If they abdicate that responsibility, they aren't innocent!

What do you mean by people who aren't guilty? The infraction here is allowing your vehicle to run a red light.

How do you allow a vehicle to run a red light that you aren't driving?

Easy:

1. Allow someone else to drive your vehicle

2. That person runs a red light

Your responsibility as the vehicle owner is to either not do step 1, or only do it for people whom you trust will not do step 2.

You don't even have to 'allow' them. Either you could live in a community property state, where your spouse, even a spouse who has initiated divorce against you, legally also owns the vehicle that is in your name. Or someone could steal it. Or someone could steal or duplicate your plates and put it on a nearly identical car, which happened to a friend who had to spend years fighting all the tickets that were mailed to him when an entirely different car (same make/model) used his same plate numbers.

If you can show that your vehicle or plates were stolen, you won't have to pay the ticket; in NYC that is explicitly listed as a possible defense [1].

The spouse thing honestly seems fine — it just means that you're both responsible for paying the ticket, rather than you alone — but if you have an issue it's with the property laws, not the red light cameras.

[1] https://www.nyc.gov/site/finance/vehicles/red-light-camera-v...

My friend "showed" the plates were not his (he couldn't prove the car wasn't stolen because it wasn't -- they only copied his plate) but they kept sending him tickets because apparently it only counts for one ticket. They wanted him to go through a laborious process every time. I think he finally just stopped challenging them because it took too much time, and probably can't go to that state again unless he wants his car seized.

Sounds like the issue here is that the police aren't doing their job!

I live in AZ, try driving on Lincoln in Paradise Valley. Everyone is going at 40mph because of the speed cameras. Most people don't want to be fugitives.

I sometimes use Tatum with PV's speed vans parked on the side of the road to head towards downtown Phx and, yes, the common speed is definitely around 40. But pretty much as soon as past McDonald and on 44th St, I resume the the normalized 7-8 mph over the posted limit because I know there are no more speed cameras.

Which proves the speed cameras in PV work...

It's just a process server, not cops. It's just the equivalent of a glorified delivery man looking for you. The general counsel, an executive, and the employees in general of ATS (the company that does the traffic cameras in most of AZ and I think much the USA) dodge the process servers when they get caught by their own cameras. The people that understand how the process works don't seem too bothered being a "fugitive" as it's all a nothing-burger and if you get caught all it means is you need to hire a lawyer to make it go away or pay the ticket.

We have them in the US too, but it varies widely by jurisdiction because they're regulated at the state level and policed at the local level.

Oh and it's not a bill, it goes through the legal system so people have the right to argue it in court if they want.

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).

Ah that is easy here. 1) civilian vehicles never get leeway 2) we know the license plates of all police cars so we just filter it. Or actually only do so when they use proper permission to run a light

Simpler

Plate lookup returns state/municipal as the owner -> ticket gets discarded.

Sweden: Their locations are public. There is even an official API.

They are mostly located in sane places.

Apps like Waze consume this API and warn drivers if they’re at risk of getting caught. It’s the deterrence/slowdown at known risky spots they’re after, not the fine, I guess.

I heard that apps warning drivers this way are illegal in Germany?

Aside: what's up with the traffic speed cameras in Sweden? It feels like they're not designed to catch anybody. In my recent drive there it seemed like most of the cameras were in an 80 zone just before it switch to 50 for a tiny town. They wouldn't catch a typical driver who does something like 10 over everywhere -- they would likely have already started slowing down for the 50.

In my city in Canada, that camera would be in the 50 zone.

I think the general idea is strategic speed shaping before spots where lethal accidents are likely.

So nudging, sort of. There’s a lot of public support for that.

Because the point is to slow the traffic down, not to extract revenue from the peasantry.

Same as the difference between an obvious speed trap and a "gotcha" speed trap.

But does it slow people down? I doubt it has significant effect. Very few people are going to be going over 80 a few meters in front of a 50 sign. You essentially are only catching people who are doing close to double the upcoming speed limit. Those who are willing to do that should be getting much more severe punishment than a speeding ticket.

They do.

The typical driver who does something like 10 over everywhere is probably not the biggest safety hazard.

When I lived in a small town in Sweden, the problem was that at night some drivers would blow down the country roads and straight through the small towns at crazy speeds assuming that there was nobody around. On some nights/weekends there were also zero police on duty in the whole municipality, they would have to be called in from a neighboring, larger, municipality.

The problem with traffic cameras in the US was that they became outsourced revenue enhancement rather than public safety.

The cameras would get installed at busy intersections with lots of minor infractions to collect fines on rather than unsafe intersections that had lots of bad accidents. And then, when the revenue was insufficient, they would dial down the yellow light time.

Consequently, and rightly, Americans now immediately revolt against traffic cameras whenever they appear.

(San Diego was one particularly egregious example. They installed the cameras on the busy freeway interchange lights when the super dangerous intersection that produced all the T-bone accidents was literally one traffic light up the hill. This infuriated everybody.)

Try driving anywhere in the world that's not Western Europe or The USA and you'll quickly see how advanced even our worst cities are when it comes to traffic.

Last time I was in China drivers simply go through four way intersections at top speed from all directions simultaneously. If you are a pedestrian I hope you're good at frogger because there is a 0% chance anyone will stop for you. I really wonder how self driving cars work because they must program some kind of insane software that ignores all laws or it wouldn't even be remotely workable.

It is kinda funny watching people complain here after visiting almost anywhere in Asia. Can't speak for Japan or Korea though.

I've never been to SK, but in Japan things are -- unsurprisingly, as one might guess -- very orderly. For the most part (in cities at least) you don't jaywalk, even when there are no cars on the road.

Same in Korea, just on the other side of the road, very polite and professional, no one breaks rules for the most part, even in Major Cities.

I know a lot of foreigners like Japan for motorcycling specifically because you can "white line" in most places, and the drivers are attentive.

The one quirk I thought was most interesting was Crab Angle Stops or when at a T shape stop lights that have an additional stop light 20 feet further from the intersection. Sometimes the cars will align diagonally to allow more traffic per light and let whoever is in front have a better angle to see traffic on small roads with poor visibility. Then when the light turns green the diagonally aligned cars move back to normal.

Like ////// to - - - - - -

Officially, the 道路交通法 (Road Traffic Act) doesn’t say “you must angle.” It just requires drivers to stop at the line and confirm safety before entering.

The diagonal stop is more of a local driving custom (practical adaptation) rather than a codified rule.

When I was living in China I got used to crossing large streets one lane at a time. Pedestrians stand on the lane markers with cars whizzing by on either side while they wait for a gap big enough to cross the next lane. It's not great for safety, to put it mildly, but the drivers expect it and it's the only way to get across the road in some places. I was freaked out by it but eventually it became habit.

Then I came back to the US and forgot to switch back to US-style street crossing behavior at first. No physical harm done, but I was very embarrassed when people slammed on their brakes at the sight of me in the middle of the road.

People are risking their lives and the lives of others, and a fine is supposed to be the thing that finally gets them to comply?

This is what the points system is for.

Any individual infraction might only be a small fine, but it adds points to your license. Collect enough points and you risk license suspension.

I’ve known a couple people who got close to having enough points for license suspension. They drove perfectly for years.

That sounds reasonable to me. Everybody makes mistakes, but nobody should be consistently making grievous mistakes capable of causing serious injury or death to other motorists on a regular basis.

I'm less concerned with a little speeding than I am with blowing through lights and stop signs.

I think in most areas with cameras where fines are automatically assesed to the vehicle owner (who is not necessarily the driver), there are no points. That way it's just a civil penalty and the burden of proof is low. "We have a photo" is enough.

You've got me: I believe that people respond to financial incentives. I don't think this is a radical position.

Yes.

If they run a red light today there is some small chance they will injure/kill someone.

If they run a red light with a camera, there is a 100% chance they will receive a ticket.

The key factor is not the magnitude of the penalty (i.e. whether someone dies or they receive a fine) but the chance that they will encounter the penalty.

Wait, so all the sibling comments are actually proposing bringing NYC traffic to a gridlock?

New startup idea just dropped.

It’s amazing how effective even a slight amount of random law enforcement can be.

Several of the hiking trails I frequent allow dogs but only on leash. Over time the number of dogs running around off leash grows until it’s nearly every dog you see.

When the city starts putting someone at the trailhead at random times to write tickets for people coming down the trail with off-leash dogs suddenly most dogs are back on leash again. Then they stop enforcing it and the number of off-leash dogs starts growing.

Random sampling over time is substantially as effective as having someone enforce the law 100% of the time. It's something like how randomized algorithms can be faster than their purely-deterministic counterparts, or how sampling a population is quite effective at finding population statistics.

It feels less fair though. When everyone is driving x mph over the limit but only you get pulled over, it sucks. So I agree for efficiency of enforcement, but I'd rather see 100% enforcement (automated if possible), with more warnings and lower penalties.

It doesn't just "feel" less fair, it often is -- bc it's not truly random, it's selective enforcement which leads to things like "driving while black".

Unpopular opinion, but I actually like traffic enforcement cameras. They don't know what race you are, and they never end up escalating to using lethal force.

It's only unfair if the innocent are punished. Lot of murders go unsolved. Does that mean the murderers that do get caught are treated unfairly?

That's a pretty extreme example, maybe the idea doesn't hold as much there. But yeah, if 99% of murders weren't prosecuted, the 1% who get charged might feel like they were singled out (and maybe they were, because of some bias or discrimination). Again, 100% enforcement is better.

The problem with 100% enforcement is it doesn't allow law enforcement any discretion, and then you end up having to actually officially change the speed limit which would probably never happen

Definitely true in practice, but I don't think we want discretion. What I mean though is as a deterrent, you can either have a "fair" fine that's enforced 100% of the time, or 2x the "fair" amount with 50% enforcement, etc. When it's 100x the "fair" amount with 1% enforcement, and you see everyone else not being enforced, it feels unfair.

Traffic rules do require some discretion though - if eg you don’t allow crossing a double yellow line but a car is broken down blocking the lane, does that mean that the road is now effectively unusable until that car is towed? Lots of examples.

But I’m with you on more enforcement. I’m totally fine with automated traffic cameras and it was working great when I was in China - suddenly seemingly overnight everyone stopped speeding on the highways when I was in Shanghai, as your chances of getting a ticket were super high.

I completely agree. Here in DC, we have sporadic enforcement of things like fare evasion, reckless moped driving, unlicensed food trucks, and speeding on the shoulder of the highway. It definitely helps somewhat.

I think (or at least I hope) St Louis is primarily focused on reducing their sky-high murder rates. But who knows.

Phone while stopped at a red light is explicitly legal here. I don't think it's been a problem?

What the actual rules are matter far less than that traffic is predictable. Like in Boston it's typical for a few cars to get into the intersection to take a left, traffic goes around them in both directions and only on the change to red to they go. Not technically legal but normal. 4-way stops where nobody stops and everyone times their roll unless there's a reason to. Also not technically legal but normal. Nobody with an opinion worth caring about complains about these things. Blowing lights many seconds after they've changed is still wild IMO.

Blocking the box is a ticket in London. It works.

Edit: let me clarify: there is a camera on every intersection which automatically gives a ticket to everyone who blocks for >5sec. That works.

It is in NYC also, except it's entirely unenforced. We need a lot more red light cameras.

The nominal regulations on automotive behavior is pretty sufficient throughout the US, the main problem is that in most parts of the country traffic law may as well be a dead letter.

> It is in NYC also, except it's entirely unenforced.

It's enforced in the worst congested zones, the intersections around tunnel entrances and midtown, but as I said in my other comment usually by parking enforcement not NYPD.

A workaround in the law is to throw your turn signal on if stranded in the box, this doesn't count as blocking the box.

It is in NYC as well and it's usually enforced by parking enforcement (doesn't carry points but it has a steep fine), if NYPD writes it also comes with points but in my experience they'd rather let the walking ticket printers do it.

I paid a ticket for this in NYC.

Great! and if enforcement were consistent, rule-breaking behavior would probably decline:

> Quick, clear and consistent also works in controlling crime. It’s not a coincidence that the same approach works for parenting and crime control because the problems are largely the same. Moreover, in both domains quick, clear and consistent punishment need not be severe.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/09/wh...

> Who knows, maybe we’ll start taking our cues from our polite new robot driver friends…

I think this could be an interesting unintended consequence of the proliferation of Waymos: if everyone gets used to drivers that obey the law to letter, it could slipstream into being a norm by sheer numbers.

Here in Washington DC, we've installed a variety of different kinds of traffic cameras. And the local police engage in targeted enforcement actions against things like driving on the highway shoulder or recklessly operating a moped. It makes a difference. An unexpected upside is that the regular police spend a lot less time catching speeders and stop sign runners, which frees them up for more serious situations.

If you look into the fleet size serving Waymo service areas, it's remarkably small. But because they work 24/7 they serve up a lot of rides, punching way above their weight in terms of market share in ride hailing.

Their effect on traffic and how drivers behave will be similarly amplified. It could turn out to be disastrous for Waymo. But I suspect that low speed limits in New York will work to Waymo's favor.]

Real question for waymo will be snow and ice, or do they just get parked in that situation when demand is highest?

I've seen reports that they've been testing Driver 6 in snowy places like around Lake Tahoe and the upper Midwest last winter. I suppose this year we'll find out how well that went.

Ultimately I wouldn’t support this level of snitching (especially in our current political env) but I’ve had the idea of:

A bounty program to submit dash cam video of egregious driving crimes. It gets reviewed, maybe even by AI initially and then gets escalated to formal ticket if legit. Once ticket is paid, the snitch gets a percentage.

Again, I am fundamentally against something like this though, especially now.

Snitching... Please. We're not in the school playground any more. We're talking about taking responsibility when it comes to operating a vehicle in public. There's a huge imbalance of power when it comes to car use especially and we need to restore the balance. People need a recourse against irresponsible and bad drivers.

do you actually know every specific vehicle code and regulation everywhere you drive? I constantly remark to my dashcam about people breaking the law in my jurisdiction.

Would you be bothered if someone was following you all day, making recordings every time you didn't signal for exactly 5000ms before a lane change, or 300' before a turn? how about not stopping for a full three seconds, or driving an extra 100' in the left lane than necessary?

three felonies a day

No I wouldn't be bothered because I actually do those things. As should anyone driving.

And they're not felonies, they're cheap tickets that probably won't even add points to your license.

Three felonies a day: ISBN 978-1594035227

and i'm sorry, i can't take anyone seriously that claims they both know and always follow every vehicle code, wherever they are and wherever they travel. I do understand it allows one to shake their head in disdain for the unwashed cars driven by the lesser drivers of our society.

I can follow anyone, including federal agents, local and state law enforcement, CDL drivers; i will catch something that is a violation of the vehicle code.

If you live anywhere near the gulf coast, i'd be happy to tail you for a couple of days and point out every violation you make.

there's a big leap between "every vehicle code" and something as simple as "using a turn signal properly" and "not camping in the left lane"

my list of possible infractions was non-exhaustive if you'll excuse the car pun.

NYPD cops don't like enforcing traffic violations: https://i.redd.it/w6es37v1sqpc1.png (License holders and drivers on the road are up in the same period that summonses are down, too. Traffic is up since pre-covid.)

Now that I live in Toronto we face the same challenges. Politicians may introduce traffic laws to curb dangers and nuisances from drivers, but police refuse to enforce them. As they don't live in the city, cops seem to prefer to side with drivers over local pedestrians, residents or cyclists who they view antagonistically. Broken window works for them because they enjoy harassing pedestrians and residents of the communities they commute into.

So there is a bigger problem to solve than legislation.

Part of the problem is we have police doing far too many jobs. We need to separate out traffic enforcement, mental health responses, and other works into their own focused units. Especially the mental health responses, as far too often police refuse to or (at best) don't know how to de-escalate in those situations.

Bringing a gun and a taser to every problem guarantees that a lot of problems will be "solved" with the wrong tools. It's impossible to train enough people to carry guns and tasers and use them wisely.

It’s also expensive training and on-going cost when you add it all up.

Canada budgeted the cost of arming its border officers at ~$1 billion.

In the first 10 years, they fired them 18 times. 11 were accidents and the rest were against animal, usually to euthanize it rather than defend.

Works out to ~$55 million per bullet.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cbsa-border-guards-guns-1.4...

I agree we need to separate these responsibilities, but when it comes to mental health response, the police themselves are often opposed to alternatives, even while they complain that they're not mental health providers and often can't do anything in those types of situations.

In my city, we've had an underfunded street response program for a few years now, but a lot of people (including a lot of people who don't live here) see it as antagonistic to police and police funding, when really it should just be part of a holistic system to address social issues.

It makes no sense to me that the people who ostensibly care the most about addressing crime and "disorder" on the streets are often the most oppositional to programs that might actually address some of the underlying issues (not all of course, but some).

The current Democratic nominee and frontrunner for NYC mayor plans to do exactly that! He plans to create a Department of Community Safety to take over mental health responses from NYPD.

As a paramedic, multiple times I've watched police walk into a mental health emergency that we were handing satisfactorily, to everyone's contentment, patient, family, bystanders...

... and escalate it into a law enforcement situation.

One situation sticks in my mind. Person had broken a glass bottle on a curb. Family member was sweeping and cleaning that up while we dealt with laceration and planning for in-patient help (they were off their meds).

LE shows up, and immediately starts yelling aggressively at the patient about the broken glass, liability for any tires, injuries. Patient makes some comments back, so LE gets in his face and yells more, leads to patient trying to push off a bit and saying "get out of my face", cop is arresting him for assaulting a police officer.

Only with me and my partner talking to the Sergeant who showed up shortly after did it get de-escalated, but better believe the cop (and even the Sergeant) weren't happy with us about it.

Police quiet quitting and arbitrarily choosing what laws they feel like enforcing is a huge problem.

The most effective fix vis a vis traffic is simply automating so much of it with speed averaging cameras and intersection cameras and taking police out of the equation and retasking them to more important things that only they can do.

Don't police have quotas any more? 40 years ago everybody knew not to speed at the end of the month because a cop that would normally give you a warning for a small speed infraction would give you a ticket instead so they could make this month's quota.

Isn't that what speed cameras are about? Seem a lot more efficient and cheaper. I got a few tickets, nothing too serious just ran the yellow a little too close and 40 in 25. And if def changed my behavior

In many places outside the USA they just use cameras for box blocking, stop sign rolling, speeding...and there is a system for honking also. But many in the states think automation here is too Orwellian.

We have all of those things in the states too. Just not ubiquitous.

We don't have much of it, not compared to Europe or Australia. This is a solved problem, but we don't want to solve it.

They do that in NY too. The worst offenders inevitably have fake/defaced/covered/no license plates. That should be cracked down on very hard but the police and prosecutors are strangely reluctant.

A sound solution in general, but the majority of police and firefighters and government employees with a connection to law enforcement cover their license plates with magnetic 'leaves' and so on. It's an undocumented perk for government employees.

If only Mitch Hedberg was still alive: https://youtu.be/zonQXdmIlqQ?si=EBrpJiCk2XlhGJIs&t=97

We don't go after moving violations anymore (in NYC) because the driver might have a bad reaction. True story.

>We don't go after moving violations anymore (in NYC) because the driver might have a bad reaction. True story.

Who is "we"? And it's not a "true story." In fact, the NYPD issued almost 52,000 moving violation summonses in July 2025 alone and more than 400,000 year to date.[0]

If 400,000 moving violation summonses just this year is your "true story" about moving violations not being issued to avoid "bad reactions", do you believe in the tooth fairy and santa claus as well?

Or are you referring to the policy that NYPD cars shouldn't endanger the lives of everyone by engaging in high-speed chases on city streets?[1] Which is a completely different thing.

[0] https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/traffic_data/m...

[1] https://nypost.com/2025/01/15/us-news/nypd-cops-ordered-not-...

Edit: Clarified prose.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com