Do you really want to live in a society where we're monitored for even the slightest infractions at all times and automatically punished regardless of any circumstances that might explain the behavior?
The idling regulations are based on real harm, and the reporting requirements include things like recording video to prove that the car you're reporting didn't start idling in the last 5 seconds, but has, in fact, been doing that for 3 minutes or longer, or 1 minute or longer adjacent to a school.
More info here: https://www.nyc.gov/site/dep/environment/idling-citizens-air...
You have to actually submit a 3:01 (or 1:01) minute video as part of the report for that to be actionable.
And, yes, I would really, really want to live in a society where unnecessary idling is not allowed. And if I was living next to a street corner where that happens regularly, I would be on that street corner recording videos any time I'd have free time, and more, if I had babies, who are especially vulnerable to air pollution, living with me.
I would really, really want to live in a society where we aren't being monitored by cameras for every single minute of every day the moment we step outside our homes
Punishment likelihood depends on how likely the crime is to be detected in the first place. Older societies such as medieval Europe or Qing dynasty era China used the death penalty for so many seemingly minor things, and this formula was a big part of why. State authorities at that period of human history had a very low chance of actually detecting something like forgery. So in order to deter criminals they had to ratchet up just how big the potential punishment actually was if you did get caught.
Conversely, as our societies have improved their ability to detect crimes, our stomach for policies like “Forgery is punishable by death” has rightfully taken a nosedive. So, yes, the trend I've seen across the centuries suggests to me I might well prefer to live in a society where the detection rate is higher than it currently is. There's no reason to suspect we've hit upon the optimal point for human flourishing where we are now.
Is maximum law enforcement a power we want any State to have?
If these laws are used to sidestep prohibitions on what government is not allowed to do, i'd say they are a bad thing. If they are used to enforce bad laws, we need to get rid of the bad laws. If they are used to help enforce laws we all agree are good, that seems like a good thing.
Having grown up in the city and gone to a public school where over half of my peers had asthma from the heavy truck route next to our playground, I welcome any kind of financial realignment between drivers (especially commercial drivers) and their behavior.
Well, history shows us that any system that grants a power to government eventually expands beyond its original use. So you will forgive me for thinking it's a bad idea to start
Also basics driving rules like zip merge will make traffic better.
But I also recognize that people are human and make mistakes. I've missed turns before and had to make a decision between a slightly risky u-turn or being stuck going the wrong way for a while. I chose the u-turn after doing my best to ensure I wasn't going to put anyone else at risk
Should I be fined for that?
How about speeding? Basically everyone speeds right? Let's just auto fine everyone for that all the time.
> But I also recognize that people are human and make mistakes.
But you can't make a mistake while making an illegal U-turn?
> I chose the u-turn after doing my best to ensure I wasn't going to put anyone else at risk
> Should I be fined for that?
Yes. Why do you think that you shouldn't be fined for that?
> How about speeding? Basically everyone speeds right? Let's just auto fine everyone for that all the time.
I'm all for it. What is your problem with that?
I want to see much better parking on the outside of town with easy and safe travel to inside like light rail and bikes. All of this is possible if we take back what's been given to cars.
The biggest problem with drivers is they don't take responsibility for what they're doing. It creates a status quo where they feel empowered to do what they like and the rest of society bends to that. We have opportunity to force them to take responsibility which will reset that balance. It doesn't take much. When you realise you'll be driving at 20mph max and yielding priority to normal people everywhere driving suddenly won't seem so attractive. None of this is new restrictions on driving, it's just what they should have been doing anyway.
How do you feel about constant monitoring of trains or aeroplanes? If a train driver crosses a red signal it's straight to prison. When your actions can have such an impact on individuals and societies then your individual right to privacy is invalid.
It seems to me it is a probe.
If it is accepted for cars, then it moves on to people.
Then it is used by ICE to pay rewards for handing over people Donald has decided are illegal.
Cars are currently a huge power imbalance that needs to be evened out.
But, sure, some people will want to use the same technology to create new imbalances or further existing ones. That doesn't mean the technology itself is bad.
I recall reading about it years ago because some enterprising individuals decided that the revenue from catching random violations in-the-wild wasn't enough, so they started to deliberately create dangerous situations, where breaking a traffic law (which would then be recorded and submitted for a reward) was the only safe option for the victim. Unfortunately I haven't been able to quickly find a source to back this up.
There's a whole literature on this topic in economics under mechanism design. They've been a longstanding research interest of mine, I consider it almost like the land value tax of legal enforcement by this point.
Absolutely. And make sure to give the violator full contact details for the person(s) who reported them. Better yet, set up sites in isolated areas for the violators to "pay" the reporters.
What could go wrong?