Re:Data journalism busts speeding cops, wins Pulitzer
by talmand on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @11:13AM
(#5564915)
My reasoning in that speed traps are for revenue generation instead of safety is over the thought that a visible police presence on the road would more likely cause people to slow down and obey traffic laws. Hiding to ambush a speeder is the same tactic used by a highwayman out for money.
Re:Data journalism busts speeding cops, wins Pulitzer
by fnordfnordfnord on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @03:48PM
(#5566658)
I agree. You might also consider the fact that any machinery capable of selectively recording red-light violators, is also capable of warning other drivers, yet such a feature is absent from any that I have seen.
Re:Data journalism busts speeding cops, wins Pulitzer
by fyi80 on Tuesday April 16, 2013 @11:08PM
(#5562434)
> And, machines tend to have no discretion.
This a feature, that protects and racism and classism.
Re:Data journalism busts speeding cops, wins Pulitzer
by fnordfnordfnord on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @07:53AM
(#5563882)
> that protects and racism
You've got a point.
>and classism.
Meh, I'm not so sure about that one, and really, in both cases it depends where the machines are sited.
> Unless you wanna have robots do it instead
Not really. It's been shown time and again that greedy authorities will compromise on public safety to optimize profit. And, machines tend to have no discretion. Nor is any applied by the authorities. If you show up to an intersection at two am, with nobody in sight, stop, look and proceed safely through a red light, you get the same citation that some jerk gets who blows through on a busy day.