
Automation will drastically reduce police and city budgets - newman8r
https://founderpanel.com/articles/full/automation-will-reduce-police-budgets
======
mc32
Fines, in my estimation, should go to central coffers -then redistributed to
municipalities based on need.

Otherwise it has perverse incentives, or at least misincentivizes certain
kinds of policing. On the other hand, the state should not divert funds (you
know as they are wont to do with lottery monies, etc which start out as being
for education, or whatever, but then get put into a general fund and the gov
goes about and spends it on their hi-viz, lo-impact projects or play other
3-card Monty games with revenue.

~~~
hannob
> Otherwise it has perverse incentives, or at least misincentivizes certain
> kinds of policing.

Can you give specific examples? Because I can't think of any except "enforcing
traffic rules". And that's not a misincentive, it's a good incentive. And the
reality I see is that enforcement of traffic rules is extremely lenient
despite the profit cities could make, because it's unpopular with the car
driving population.

In my impression the vast comments of the form that fines are abuse come down
to: "I don't want to follow traffic safety rules, because I think they don't
apply to me."

~~~
citrablue
How about when traffic rules are created not for safety, but to maximize
revenue? 6 years ago, San Diego finally dropped red light cameras because they
were installed as a revenue generation device, not a safety device.

[https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sdut-
san-...](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sdut-san-diego-
red-light-cameras-filner-halts-2013feb01-story.html)

~~~
denkmoon
That's not exactly creating a traffic rule to maximise revenue. The traffic
rule, stop on red, previously existed. This is "just" about making revenue by
electing to enforce the traffic rule.

Which I have no problem with. Don't go through a red and the camera won't get
you. I really cannot feel too bad about entitled drivers feeling they can sail
on through because "it only just turned red".

~~~
citrablue
San Diego and the Lockheed contract team determined where to put cameras based
on where they thought the maximum revenue stream was, instead of danger to
others. One light -- at an intersection that is frequently gridlocked because
it's the most popular route out of the airport, which frequently has out of
town visitors -- generated nearly 50% of the revenue from the red light
systems.

It was clearly not about safety, but about selectively enforcing laws to
maximize revenue. That's why the city stopped doing it.

------
Mountain_Skies
Why do punitive fines go anywhere? Collect the fines and then reduce the money
supply by that amount. If the fine is collected via physical currency, destroy
the currency. If it is electronic, deduct the amount but don't add it back
anywhere. In essence every dollar will become very slightly more valuable but
so slightly that no one will have motive to push for fines to be collected for
their financial gain. Would the total amount of fines collected from all
punitive activities across the economy be large enough to have a significant
impact on the total money supply? My guess is no, but honestly don't know.

~~~
SllX
The types of governments that are typically collecting fines on a regular
basis don’t possess the authority to destroy money or lawfully affect the
money supply in any meaningful capacity.

~~~
Mountain_Skies
Require them to pass it up to the level where destruction of money is
possible.

~~~
SllX
The big problem with that idea, at least in the United States, is the States’
employees don’t actually _work for_ the Federal government, and requiring them
to pass fines collected upwards would violate the 10th Amendment. Nor is it
within Congress’ enumerated powers to seize the assets of the States or compel
services from each State. The States are also specifically prohibited from
having their own monetary policies, and thus have no incentive to cooperate
with a money destruction regime.

------
Causality1
Fines should be a way to reduce lawbreaking, not shake down the citizenry for
extra budget cash. Cities that rely on this despicable practice deserve to die
on the vine.

~~~
exabrial
_Should_ , in practice, no

------
jaimex2
Here in Victoria, Australia they love advertising that cameras are here to
save lives. In reality they generate $700 million in revenue for the state
yearly and do jack all to stop speeding or red light running - motorists just
learn where the cameras are and continue their habit.

Every couple of years the Police demand pay increases by parking and turning
their lights on where cameras are located. It's fascinating to watch.

------
anm89
If there is one thing I would never bet on it's the reduction of police
budgets.

~~~
arbitcoin
They'll just move to outright thievery, aka civil forfeiture.

------
purplezooey
Is it just me or is this way premature. First we'd have to have a lot of self
driving cars. Then they'd have to also avoid most fines. They might avoid
some, but might also create some new ones. This concern is 10-15 years away at
best. Housing is a far more urgent issue.

~~~
dreamcompiler
I had the same reaction. "self-driving cars will eventually be everywhere" is
true, but that "eventually" is a long time away.

------
sliken
I've got a Tesla, and while I use the autonomous driving approximately 0% of
the time, I do use the adaptive cruise control quite a bit.

It allows you to set a speed limit relative to the current speed limit, and of
course override it by stomping on the accelerator.

Can't say it's had any impact at all on how often I speed. I don't really see
an increase in autonmous driving will decrease tickets. After all on a busy
highway running at the speed limit will cause significant traffic issues and
pissed off drivers cutting you off.

~~~
thephyber
> I don't really see an increase in autonmous driving will decrease tickets.

This seems like you are thinking 1-2 years from now. I'm thinking 10-20 years
where the vast majority of cars will be autonomous-capable and most people
won't bother wasting their valuable time driving manually, just like we don't
have professional elevator operators anymore.

And FWIW, about 95% of the surface of a freeway is empty at any given time.
Fully-autonomous driving allows each vehicle to safely drive closer at speeds
and to use less slack during slower traffic. If anything, a human driver
should thank autonomous cars for increasing traffic density while maintaining
the same speed. Humans are the ones that cause lots of slack in traffic.

> pissed off drivers cutting you off

Not a wise move when fully autonomous cars are wired with cameras facing every
direction and recording capability.

Then again, I can imagine the inverse effect of this article where autonomous
car owners are paid a revenue-share for reporting evidence of a traffic
violation (like being cut off by a pissed off human driver).

------
nitwit005
Don't worry, all the delivery trucks will end up programmed to park illegally
because it's often impossible to find a legal parking space.

