To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets

In general when the stakes are higher and the ambiguity of outcome is less clear, secondary signals become more important.

Concretely: I don't give a shit if my housecleaner doesn't make their own bed as long as they make mine; the outcome I need is easy to verify and the stakes are fairly low so the secondary signal doesn't matter very much. Conversely, I care a lot if the therapist I'm relying on to help me manage my depression is visibly unable to manage their own; the outcome I need has a slow feedback loop and the stakes are high so I'm much more likely to rely on secondary signals like "is this person able to manage their own mood successfully?"

If I don't trust my therapist, I can ignore them and find a new therapist.

If I don't trust my housekeeper, I can fire them and hire a new housekeeper.

If I don't trust a police officer, it doesn't matter. If they detain me and order me to step out of my vehicle, I have to comply under threat of the law and violence. I don't get to only listen to police officers whom I trust.

That is why they must be held to a higher standard, because they wield elevated authority not granted to ordinary citizens.

A police officer who has demonstrated such a reckless disregard for the law and safety can not be trusted as a police officer to uphold the law.

Because those other examples don't involve breaking the law.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious: society holds breaking the law to be more serious than being fat or not making your bed.

Now, speeding is very much a lesser form of breaking the law...but then again, very few people have literally hundreds of speeding tickets.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CROW_Design_Manual_for_Bicycle...

Driving isn't a game. It's the most deadly daily activity, and while I'm not sure I want Euro-style speed enforcement, it shouldn't be something that you can just shrug off, especially 30%+ over the limit in a low speed area.

Except in cases where the vehicle was stolen, then it was driven by one of the owners or by someone the owners permitted to drive the car. Either way, the owners are responsible on some level. Maybe not to the level of jail, but certainly to the level of paying off fines (initially), and eventually having the car seized (if the number of tickets is extremely high, as in this case).

Because he doesn't need to nor should he respond to a blogger? We continually point out that no one should ever talk to the police, the same absolutely goes for the media, particularly when you're a civil servant.

Statistically if you speed the chances of a mishap increase. It's just a fact of observation. You are making a rationalization that statistics don't apply to you, and HN has judged you accordingly.

We already have a precedent of compelling parents to pay child-support.

I don’t know if I’m really advocating for a nanny state, but last month I went to the funeral of a friend that was driving without a seatbelt and was alone on the road. Now his pregnant wife has to raise their child alone.

I guess what I’m trying to say is: Wear a seatbelt.

You may not have any concern for your own safety, but there’s probably somebody who does.

The leading cause of death for car occupants is head injuries, I assume you believe that all car occupants must wear a helmet.

All cars needless to say need to be bright orange

Any infringement should have the car crushed.

Why does it need to be so contrived when there's empirical evidence from many other countries in the world about measures which do make traffic safer for everyone involved? Why can't the USA look at that and implement what has worked? It doesn't even need to do the heavy lifting, it's been done, just improve measures which have already saved countless lives in other countries...

Or don't and keep killing 30-50k people every year in traffic.

> School zones and other low-speed zones are a complete moneygrubbing racket because we already use schoolbuses which have protections.

What does this even mean? Does every kid ride a bus where you are? Do your school buses have seat belts and crumple zones?

The problem is the vast majority of drivers overestimate their skills and underestimate the risks. Many people are also emotional drivers and will drive faster when angry or stressed. A great combo.

> I settle for a middle position, which is that the speed limit should be no less than 35 mph on most streets, with heavy mandated use of automated collision avoidance systems.

So what are you going to do about all the millions of existing cars out there without collision avoidance systems?

Given all this, the easiest solution is for people to drive the speed limit, especially in urban areas with pedestrians and bicyclists.

If you really want to gas it, go to a racetrack or buy a motorcycle and donate your brain.

It is actually somewhat amusing that you worded this as "ought to be" rather than "is". Because one of the big problems with most drivers is they have an overly inflated idea of how competent they are at driving (I am not so churlish as to exclude myself from the category). And our system does nothing to bring drivers' beliefs about their capabilities in line with their actual capabilities--drivers are tested generally once on their competence [1], and that pass result then gets to hold for several decades, physical or mental decline notwithstanding.

> I settle for a middle position, which is that the speed limit should be no less than 35 mph on most streets

Most residential streets are not safe to travel at 25 mph, let alone 35 mph. There's a line of parked cars in the shoulders, children playing in the driveways, sidewalks, and street? Yeah, if you're traveling 35 mph, you've got no hope of stopping in time (recall that stopping distance goes to the square of speed).

> Moreover, I think that all pedestrian collisions, no matter how small, must be investigated thoroughly, with a hard action taken to minimize such an incident.

We already know how to minimize collisions. The top 3 actions to take are a) reduce speed limits, b) redesign roads to be narrower to make drivers less comfortable traveling at speed, and c) ban right turns on red.

> Bicyclists must be mandated to wear light-colored high-visibility clothing, reflective gear, and a helmet, otherwise their bicycle should be confiscated.

Why? It's not like wildlife like bears, moose, or deer that wander onto the roads wear such gear, and a "mature highly-attentive driver" should be equally aware of such dangers.

[1] And to be honest, even that is somewhat generous a statement.

The laws says if you do this, you owe a fine. If you pay the fine, it's following the law.