I like the general idea, and I’ve been surprised this hasn’t taken off elsewhere, eg citizen videos for traffic violations like blocking intersections, it seems these should be ROI positive for the city to implement (lower enforcement costs, more ticket revenue).
I really don't understand why anyone would want this
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?
New York City doesn't do this for "even the slightest infractions at all times".
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.
> And, yes, I would really, really want to live in a society where unnecessary idling is not allowed
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
In Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach, Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker showed crime can be discouraged if the expected punishment outweighs the reward. Expected punishment has not one, but two important factors: How big the punishment is, and how likely the punishment is to actually be levied.
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.
In China, mass and profoundly intrusive State surveillance supports your Social Score and is used by the State to enforce compliance and "desirable" behaviour.
Is maximum law enforcement a power we want any State to have?
This isn’t for chewing gum on the Subway. It’s for a specific kind of scofflaw activity that no society would tolerate were it not for the presumptive shield of goodness that surrounds drivers in this country.
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.
> It’s for a specific kind of scofflaw activity
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
I get your take and agree with the sentiment BUT I don't think this somehow requires "automatic punishment". Also, if the laws are there then I tend to think they should be enforced. Maybe this kind of thing will empower places to drop some of the laws most folks agree are "slightest infractions".
This sounds reasonable but I think it's a bit optimistic
I don't think "increased government ability to enforce rules and collect fines" is likely to lead to less rules
I would love to be proven wrong
I agree with you on every thing you wrote here
I would like to live in a society where everyone is strictly following traffic regulations. Almost every rule there is written with someone's blood.
Also basics driving rules like zip merge will make traffic better.
Me too!
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.
This isn't about constant monitoring of people, it's about cars. I'm all for constant monitoring of cars within towns. They bully and intimidate and generally ruin places for everyone else. There needs to be strong incentives for people to not drive cars right into cities, with appropriate alternatives, of course.
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.
> This isn't about constant monitoring of people
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.
Yes, care must be taken. These kinds of measures should only be taken when an existing power imbalance is already in place. We have laws to stop these imbalances, for example you can't use your might to force and coerce people. Do you think it's wrong for someone to be able to report an assault?
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.
Some countries are already doing this, for example Vietnam and China.
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.
This is why optimal policy design has the fines get paid directly from the violator to the reporter. That brings its own quirks, but they're all surprisingly tractable with other market mechanisms.
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.
>This is why optimal policy design has the fines get paid directly from the violator to the reporter.
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?