←back to thread

597 points achristmascarl | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
vinkelhake ◴[] No.44987373[source]
I live in the bay and occasionally ride Waymo in SF and I pretty much always have a good time.

I visited NYC a few weeks ago and was instantly reminded of how much the traffic fucking sucks :) While I was there I actually thought of Waymo and how they'd have to turn up the "aggression" slider up to 11 to get anything done there. I mean, could you imagine the audacity of actually not driving into an intersection when the light is yellow and you know you're going to block the crossing traffic?

replies(13): >>44987402 #>>44987434 #>>44987566 #>>44987773 #>>44987794 #>>44988469 #>>44988487 #>>44988623 #>>44989128 #>>44989185 #>>44989296 #>>44992865 #>>44993957 #
setgree ◴[] No.44987402[source]
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…

replies(11): >>44987457 #>>44987497 #>>44987533 #>>44987639 #>>44987665 #>>44987768 #>>44987936 #>>44988163 #>>44988214 #>>44988298 #>>44988999 #
chrisshroba ◴[] No.44987497[source]
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.
replies(10): >>44987653 #>>44987850 #>>44988100 #>>44988152 #>>44988170 #>>44988205 #>>44988345 #>>44988790 #>>44988794 #>>44998180 #
rahkiin ◴[] No.44987653[source]
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.
replies(11): >>44987777 #>>44987978 #>>44988024 #>>44988141 #>>44988156 #>>44988222 #>>44988281 #>>44988291 #>>44988721 #>>44989145 #>>44989876 #
mothballed ◴[] No.44988156[source]
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.

replies(7): >>44988311 #>>44988372 #>>44988586 #>>44988725 #>>44988728 #>>44988780 #>>44989657 #
peteey ◴[] No.44988780[source]
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...

replies(1): >>44990106 #
AngryData ◴[] No.44990106[source]
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?
replies(2): >>44990453 #>>44991512 #
andelink ◴[] No.44990453{3}[source]
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?
replies(1): >>44991064 #
AngryData ◴[] No.44991064{4}[source]
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.
replies(1): >>44991480 #
jakelazaroff ◴[] No.44991480{5}[source]
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.
replies(3): >>44992830 #>>44995931 #>>44997071 #
1. mothballed ◴[] No.44995931{6}[source]
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.

replies(1): >>44998174 #
2. jakelazaroff ◴[] No.44998174[source]
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.

replies(1): >>44998701 #
3. mothballed ◴[] No.44998701[source]
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.