Hacker News Reader

Comment by thrownaway2424 | Hacker News Reader

So you sympathize with people who can't be bothered to observe posted traffic regulations?

No, I don't really sympathize with people who get caught there very much nor did I say I did. But I sympathize far less with the cop who is doing way more to endanger my safety than the other drivers are, all in the name of scoring some easy stops to meet an obvious quota.

For visual reference, this is the intersection:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.917322,-117.2356...

The people getting popped for right hand turns are the ones to the left in this image. The cop sits under that bridge in the shadow area without any lights on, taking up over half of the rightmost (leftmost from this view) lane. The difference in brightness between daylight and under that short overpass bridge is very high.

And despite all these tickets being issued in the name of 'safety', people still continue to slightly miss the yellow, not quite come to a complete stop before turning right, and fail to make a snap judgement correct 100% of the time. The accident rate remains fairly constant or goes up as the city rakes in millions (and the company that makes the camera gets theirs as well, which can be used to lobby for more cameras).

100% enforcement of traffic laws calculated with machine precision is mindbogglingly stupid, and proponents willfully bury their heads in the sand regarding the conflict of interest and the eventual outcome of such an arrangement. So yes, I sympathize with people committing what amounts to normal human error, and despise those who seek to profit off of it.

100% enforcement of traffic laws would be a great thing. A wise man once said, "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."

He's not sympathizing with those people, he's pointing out the police officer that can't be bothered to observe posted traffic regulations.

he's pointing out the irony cops endangering traffic safety in supposed aim of improving traffic safety

Is there a reason to believe that the police are trying to improve _traffic_ safety at this place? Perhaps they are trying to prioritize _pedestrian_ safety. That is, after all, why most no-turn-on-red signs are installed in California.

Seems extremely unlikely that they suddenly realize they need to increase pedestrian safety at the end of each month. I've been working there for about a year and the pattern of never being there and then suddenly appearing at the end of the month is unmistakable.

I had previously thought such rigid quotas were mostly urban legend until I saw the pattern repeat over and over with my own eyes.

When looking at the map that was posted two things are clear to me:

1. Blocking 3/4 of one of the lanes under the bridge is a danger to both motorists and pedestrians. 2. I highly doubt there are many pedestrians at this intersection. It is basically an industrial park and the road dead ends a block away.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com