First line of the article says he is supposed to protect New Yorkers. That is not true. Police have successfully lobbied for decades and have absolutely no mandate to protect anyone but themselves. They loudly and clearly stated that their job specifically exists to enforce the status quo and to bulldoze through anyone in the way. They don’t want to help anyone. They don’t want to protect anyone. It’s in their job description and their training not to.
Receiving 547 fines in the mail over 4 years means he’s treating speeding as a paid subscription. Strange that they don’t cancel his driving licence. In Canada, we have points, so this wouldn’t stand. I don’t think we could have even 5 tickets in 1 year without losing our licence.
License points are a thing in some US states too
Even in Canada, tickets from traffic cameras don’t cost points. The vehicle owner is responsible for paying the fines, but without being able to prove that the owner was the one driving they can’t add demerits.
Uk here. Failing to advise who the driver was can get the owner 6 points and likely a driving ban.
Perfect example of policing in America. Their primary mission as a force is to protect themselves at all costs just like any other gang or criminal organization.
Fun fact! The police are the largest gang of armed robbers in the country, collectively stealing more money than all other armed robberies and burglaries combined, and it’s totally legal for them
Civil asset forfeiture is one of those things where when you hear about it your first reaction is that it must be some fringe conspiracy theory because there’s no way the police could get away with something like that, right? But no, it really is that bad and it’s done completely in the open. Cops can just steal your shit out of “suspicion” and the process of getting it back is deliberately labyrinthine and difficult.
Can you prove your inherited grandmother’s engagement ring actually belongs to you? Receipt please! Oh you don’t have one. It’s ours to auction off now!
And the father of civil asset forfeiture was DNC centrist darling and father of the Israeli genocide of Palestinians himself, Joe racist-dipshit biden, who belongs in prison along with trump and many other american politicians.
https://mises.org/mises-wire/joe-biden-father-drug-wars-asset-forfeiture-program
Well that’s sadly educational. Thanks for the info.
I first read about it years ago and you captured my reaction perfectly.
Taking all the lemon pound cake
Tbf, it tastes so nice
It makes the sherriff wanna put down his gun… and cut him a slice…
That’s their secondary mission. Their primary mission is to terrorise the populace into submission.
If I was American, I would be a lot more than mildly infuriated about the pedocratic police state that is the US. But I am not American, so mildy infuriated fits perfectly for me I guess.
As an (US)American, I wake up every morning screaming into the Void.
Then the Void requests a subscription fee.
I’m not legally allowed to sleep until I’ve paid the Void, one way or another.
I wake up every morning thanking whatever god wants to listen that I wasn’t born American.
I bet that cop abuses their spouse.
there’s a polymarket for that.
Tell me again how traffic cameras make us safer and we can totally trust them to be applied objectively for public safety and no other purpose?
They aren’t for safety…they are totally for revenue.
With regards to school zones, specifically, if they cared about safety, they would be putting in mechanisms to slow traffic naturally. Raised crosswalks. Rotaries. Narrower lanes. Crossing guards.
They don’t put any of those in.
A couple towns over from me, they just put a brand new highschool right on the intersection of two major state highways, about 1/4 mile from the interstate. If they cared about the kids, they’ve put the school in a less busy area to begin with.
But instead, they demo’d an old pedestrian bridge that was keeping kids off the road for crossing, and set up a speed cam and issuing tickets in the spring before the school even opened.
And of course the school zone creates a bottleneck for people exiting the highway in rush hour, with ripple effects well down the freeway.
Fucking assholes.
But at least Theil gets paid. Most of the money doesn’t even go back to the city. What a ducking ripoff.
I’m surprised no one has challenged you on this. (I agree with your point, but people do tend to defend cameras zealously)
Wait, I’m a zealous camera defender, what am I missing?
The one they put up temporarily by my kid’s school noticeably calmed traffic near it (myself included—I’m not perfect).
I thought of different ways to word a response and then I saw another user put it perfectly already:
If the goal is to reduce speeding, road design plays more of a factor more than cameras.
A fine means that it’s a revenue grab.
I would just also add that anecdotally they don’t seem to slow many people down in my city. I have gotten at least 5 speed camera tickets since I moved here, and every time I was going the speed of traffic and was unaware a camera even exists there. This city also has a huge problem with horrific driver behavior that goes unaddressed. I’ve seen some of the craziest shit ever here but I’ve yet to see anyone pulled over for a reason that didn’t appear to be related to a “worse” crime, as in they’re searching the person’s car and it looks like they’re about to go to jail. So I have to believe that the primary concern is making money, and if they work overall (providing the data people always tout) it’s a coincidence/accident. Most of that money goes to corporations too so even if you wanted to argue it doesn’t matter if money is the main driving force, you have that additional layer of the whole thing being corrupted from the start by capitalism.
Tear them all down.
Just because they are corrupt cops above the law dosen’t mean that speed cameras dosen’t work. Hidden cameras that are only there to “catch” speeders are pretty stupid, but cameras with warning about their proximity work very well to slow down drivers before conflict points
Not every mechanism of society needs to be built around fear of punishment. In fact, i would say that none should be in and ideal society. There are numerous ways to not instill fear in people every second of every day. It even would make a healthier society if people didn’t live in perpetual fear of the state.
A camera says nothing about punishment and everything about social accountability. Some people simply need a reminder or are new to an area as well.
Social accountability is a euphemism for punishment. Someone is engaging in a behavior that is discouraged and so when they do that something is done to them that they don’t want to happen. In this case a camera simply automates fining people.
People who need a reminder or are new to an area especially benefit from better road design or cheaper alternatives (where I live some residential streets have concrete planters that make the road wind and force you to slow down). For a person new to an area especially, the speed camera functionally serves as an expensive toll for driving the speed the road is designed for, but one you receive in the mail a few weeks later.
Good speed reduction should make speeding look and feel reckless ro everyone, including someone who’s never been there before and didn’t see the speed limit. Good design is intuitive.
I don’t agree that its possible to make everyone feel personally at risk when speeding.
If people want to be around other people then social accountability is required. Whether you want to call it punishment or not, we have to have ways to signal to each other what we find okay and what we don’t. I dont agree with deceptive setups designed to maximize income for a city, so I do agree with most of what you are saying, I just think ultimately punishment needs to be there for some people.
You can make it so reasonable drivers feel the safe speed to drive is the speed you want them driving.
Ultimately speed cameras are surveillance for civil infractions, which I disapprove of, and they’re popular because they can function as revenue generation.
I don’t disapprove of punishment for those engaging in reckless driving, but I’ve seen so many places where speed limits and fines are treated as the end all be all of traffic enforcement rather than the final step.
truck drivers are synonymous with speeding and drunk driving, and usually driven by meatheads.
It’s specifically Ram truck drivers for the drunk driving part, most DUIs of any make and model by a long shot.
they cant park either. smh
It’s always exactly who you expect
I’m picturing some John wick character who legitimately finds himself in tons of car chases and ticking time bomb scenarios
Don’t normalize automated driving enforcement, ALPRs and police surveillance tech. I get the spirit of this story that the watchers should be held accountable, but when the electric eye is on us we’re all criminals. The surveillance state needs to die
Without reading, I’ll read it after this, but I’m zero percent surprised. Only people I’ve seen buy ram trucks are ones who do not care about others and want to be seen as big and tuff.
Hell the vast majority of truck drivers too, sorry not sorry folks but you do not need a truck to drive to your office daily, or to drive the family around, you got it as a status symbol. RAM drivers are just the worst of them all.
Only people I’ve seen buy ram trucks are ones who do not care about others and want to be seen as big and tuff.
The brodozer phenomenon is real and lamentable.
At the moment I am getting a reprieve from it. I moved to a small agricultural town* where the pickups are actually work trucks. Hay bales, animal feed bags, and farm dogs in the bed. It makes this grinch’s heart grow a little larger.
*actually just a Census Designated Place
There are many people in my highly liberal and progressive PNW town that drive trucks. The majority seem to be decent people based on my interactions on the road with them as a pedestrian and cyclist.
I do agree most people don’t need trucks, and it’s more of a performative masculinity thing, or maybe that’s just what they’ve been conditioned to like.
We as an American people have been conditioned for decades that we need larger and bigger vehicles when we absolutely don’t. This is because smaller cars have stricter regulations thanks to the “light truck” loophole in the CAFE standards. It’s literally less regulated, and thus highly profitable to get people to buy trucks instead of cars. The masculine thing, the “It’s safer because it’s bigger”, the “I need space for my family” - it’s all generated by marketing teams for car companies to convince each of us that we need a bigger (and less regulated) car.
When really… we don’t. We don’t at all, and it choosing a truck whether it’s intentional or not, is a selfish move. It’s large, it’s unnecessary, wasteful, it’s proven extremely deadly to pedestrians, bicyclists, and children. Choosing a vehicle like that is inherently accepting that you are risking other people’s lives, and that’s why I’m so against them.
Ignorance is excusable, but once informed then it’s no longer ignorance.
deleted by creator
Hey, well here’s one that bought one with a 2 seat cab, to haul drywall and various construction materials.
Why didn’t you buy one with a lower height but the same load capacity? Safer and makes loading stuff easier.
Us Australians look at weird American raised utes and scratch our heads in puzzlement. You’ve got a higher driver position, granted, but it’s also a higher centre of gravity, it’s harder to park in garages and underground car parks, it’s harder to see pedestrians, it’s harder to load stuff into the tray, etc.
You clearly aren’t just driving it to look pretty, like many people that we both probably get annoyed by. What’s the story?
The fact that they never brought the Holden Ute over to the US as a new El Camino is frustrating.
We came close, it was gonna be brought over as a Pontiac like with the Commodore/G8, but then that brand went away.
And we wonder why GM needs bailed out all the time.
I think it’s pricing
I got a friend who bought a RAM last year. he was previously hauling construction equipment in his partner’s crossover and his own sedan. a pickup was an appropriate buy
HOWEVER he got a RAM (thankfully no LED headlights, though they are mounted way too high still), and tbh I’m not really sure what his alternatives were. “small” pickups like the Maverick are too small, and expensive
also he’s like 6’4" 250+lb so he physically needs a bigger cabin lol
They also have more size configuration options, per model. RAM is one of the only brands that offer single cabs and 8 foot beds, for example.
Honestly, it just seemed like the best option. Admittedly, it’s also fun to drive, but yes parking can be a pain. But where I live accommodates it pretty well.
If you do it about once a week or more, then you do need it. If you need it any less than once a week, congrats it’s a status symbol. How do I know? Because the numbers don’t lie, and if you only actually haul monthly - or even every 2 weeks, it’s actually phenomenally cheaper to rent a truck from either a rental shop or something Home Depot. Trucks are crazy expensive, their fuel already was astronomical before, and now it’s even worse. It’s much much cheaper to have a modest sedan/van than it is to own a truck.
Speaking of vans, it’s actually more spacious and more carrying capacity to own a decent van than it is to own a truck. Go ahead, test out my knowledge. Vans have more carrying capacity, better fuel mileage, they’re closer to the ground so they’re easier to load, and they’re even covered so you don’t need a topper or tool box that takes up even more space.
So in short, if you haul less than once a week, you should have rented and saved a few dozen thousand dollars. If you haul more frequently than weekly, you probably should have bought a van.
They even put the ram logo on it.
All of europe gets on fine without comfort pickups. They’re just a stupid, impractical design.
Even if you did need a bed, look at this sucker, dual cab and a decent bed that tips!
And both of these are friend-shaped so they don’t absolutely annihilate the people they hit.
Wait, hold up. In the picture, is that the actual size of that truck? Or has the size been exaggerated?
Fuck the police
comin’ straight from the underground
ACAB
Hopefully one day a fully loaded semi truck explains to him the error of his ways.
I don’t wish that on the semi driver. They don’t get paid enough to have therapy for the kind of trauma you get from turning another person into paste. And also probably losing their CDL over it.
That’s fair. But by this point I can’t trust the bastard to become entangled with a street light.
This highlights some pretty lax road traffic law tbh.
Not being able to suspend a licence because they were caught on a camera is fucking moronic.
After over 500 times it seems more appropriate to revoke and never allow reapplication
Here, after that many proven violations, the car itself would’ve been impounded.
This would seem to be the better route. Unless the owner has reported the vehicle stolen, they certainly know who is driving it and should still be responsible for letting the other person drive. Sorry, snitch them out if you don’t like thousands in fines. Deliberately using “you can’t prove it was me” while racking up fines with the expectation of getting away with it has to have some limits.
The cameras in north america typically aim at the plates and not the driver themselves, so there is plausible deniability for who was driving making the lisence difficult to suspend. That said, there is no good reason they can’t suspend the registration or impound the vehicle itself regardless of who was driving.
In the UK you are legally required to say who was driving at the time.
If you refuse then you get the blame.
Your friend can be driving the vehicle, they know the vehicle sped, but not who was actually driving. So demerits aren’t issued.
Where I am the owner of the vehicle can either reveal the true identity of the driver or they will cop the demerit points them selves.
The demerits will always be issued. *there is a loop hole for company vehicles where by the company can pay double the fine, but may also be subject to 5k fine if they don’t take reasonable steps to ID the driver.
That doesn’t sound like a very friendly system, that’s against basic rights. You shouldn’t be faulted for someone else’s actions.
It’s up to you to get the money from your friend, that’s risky enough to let them drive. If you’re gonna be responsible anyways, there’s literally no point in letting someone else drive your vehicle.
That’s not a system we should be promoting.
Your vehicle = your responsibility.
I don’t see the issue.
People still game the system to some extent, by making an agreement with mates to take demerits for them.
Yes, hence why the fine goes against the vehicle. You didn’t commit a moving violation, so to be giving demerits for something you didn’t do is a slap to your rights lol.
And your bottom comment is exactly why the system shouldn’t exist…
What country is this anyway? I’m gonna avoid going there.
If the penalty is only monetary, then for the wealthy they just become minor inconveniences.
I would prefer not to be the victim of vehicular murder when I am walking across an intersection because some rich arsehole is late for the polo and a several thousand dollar fine is meaningless to them.
You JUST said they can pay someone to take their demerits dude… the system doesn’t work, it provides the loophole for that guy to continue doing it regardless.
Now the government is complicit. And you would be locking up and taking rights away from innocent people too. Great system.
