Show HN: Report idling vehicles in NYC (and get a cut of the fines) with AI

There's no need for violence. In fact, the capital outlay would be inefficient.

If you want to curb speeding, the solution looks much the same: Pay reporters some portion of the fines collected from the speeder. You will very quickly see a cottage industry of Internet connected dashcams and on-board AI solutions spring up, because it's practically free money if you drive safely yourself for long enough. Pretty soon nobody will be speeding, simply because you never know who or what is watching.

This is a set of economic-legal policies I've been writing about here and there for a long time. It's great stuff.

You have it backwards. A perfect detection rate for crime makes it much more important that we define conservatively what we even consider to be a crime in the first place, and then what kind of punishment we levy upon it.

You also have it backwards because it already reliably makes society better for you. Take the case of Biogen employee Michael Bawduniak, who spent seven years documenting covert payments that steered doctors toward Biogen’s multiple‑sclerosis drugs illegally. When the United States Department of Justice settled the case for $900 million in 2022, Bawduniak received roughly $266 million, or about 30% of the federal proceeds, under the False Claims Act. It's a very similar mechanism, and anyone you may know who suffers from multiple sclerosis has likely had their treatment options materially improved thanks to Bawduniak's actions. But those kinds of actions only happen when you have the right mechanisms in place, to reward people who do the right thing.

Uh, did someone advocate for violence?

Modern people are so risk averse. Back in the day we would rob trains. These days society is the equivalent of a HOA - freedom is fast forgotten and trains go mostly unmolested except through that one bastion of liberty: Los Angeles. Society is full of tattletales and stool pigeons. A criminal society is a free society. Order is antithetical to expression.

Why? How do you draw the line between people who deserve to be "surveilled" (if you can even call it that in this case...) vs. people who don't?

You are entitled to your opinion of course but it just seems extremely arbitrary.

Well, I disagree, but I pick my battles carefully and would never risk turning someone against the False Claims Act to win such a small victory. Point conceded.

A speed trap is a kind of violence, yes. Have you ever hit one of those things at high speed before? Ouch.

EDIT: I've been away from the States for too long. I was indeed thinking about speed bumps, not traps. Traps are cameras, and they therefore get a thumbs up from me in the beautiful bounties-on-everything-we-care-about future.

a speed trap is a device that measures the speed of cars that drive by it. It's usually on the sidewalk or (as I proposed here) in a property adjacent to the street. You're not supposed to hit them.

Are you talking about speed bumps?

I don't have a good, rational answer.

I think the idea is vaguely that the upper-upper class statistically must've done something wrong or have the power to cause extreme harm, therefore it's okay to snitch on them but not your regular Joe.

I'm just espousing the standard American middle class views about freedom here. Not trying to argue they are sound or rational.

I am! Mea maxima culpa. Yes, I agree with you.

Even ignoring that misunderstanding, speed bumps can be absolutely great. They can‘t be installed everywhere since they also significantly slow down emergency services, but combine speedbumps and a crosswalk and you get a raised crosswalk, which is a great measure to increase pedestrian safety.

Peasant bounty hunting really concludes the picture of a nation slowly failing under applause and cheers.

That is entirely different type of crime. Do you let an AI write your comments?

My point is actually that the type of crime doesn't matter. If it's good enough to break up vast financial conspiracy networks, it's probably good enough for your bog standard aggravated assault cases or what have you, where people are a lot less skilled at avoiding detection.

Phrased like that, it's indeed problematic. But you should keep in mind that speeding is

1. A safety hazard

2. Causes high noise pollution

3. Measurably increases air pollution

Under these circumstances I feel like a citizen driven enforcement for the law is not quite bad as you are portraying it. I would even call it apploudable, because they increase the quantity of life for everyone in their neighborhood.

I think the poster does.

>There's no need for violence.

Then what what underpins the fines?

The problem here is the anonymity for the tipster. Like if you can't defend your actions by putting your name to them are they actions worth taking?

The guy who reports one person for driving 100mph over the limit can and ought to sleep soundly knowing society more or less agrees with his actions.

The guy who reports 100 people for going 1mph over the limit ought to be be worried. His actions are not something society generally thinks is a good thing.