Fines can increase without hiring more people or buying more cars. Fines could be made proportional to income, at least one other country has already done that.
Why would they need to make a net profit? That standard isn't applied to anything else the police do. We already have traffic enforcement as well as many other police services paid via taxes. The argument that it costs too much to increase enforcement in any way doesn't really hold much water. Whether people want enforcement is a different story, but the point I brought up that you responded to is purely one of safety. We can debate all the myriad reasons why we can or can't change our cultural attitudes, but it's still true that increased enforcement of human drivers would have a far greater impact on overall safety than fine-tuning autonomous cars to break certain laws in certain locales.
Letting driverless cars break some laws or have "aggressive" driving profiles will never happen anyway, so it's moot. It would be too much liability for the car manufacturers. So how would you make roads safer?
>Fines can increase without hiring more people or buying more cars
Fair point.
>Why would they need to make a net profit?
At the end of the day the resources either come from somewhere else or it costs more taxpayer money. Yes, I agree it would improve safety.
>The argument that it costs too much to increase enforcement in any way doesn't really hold much water.
It does though because it is the only solution and the fact that is costs too much is the main reason it isn't done already.
>So how would you make roads safer?
That isn't my job and it isn't a pressing political issue in most places. If autonomous cars exacerbate the problem, they should lobby the state and local government to spend more on traffic enforcement to enable them to operate safely.
> It does though because it is the only solution and the fact that is costs too much is the main reason it isn't done already.
More spending is not the only solution. And cost is not the only reason we're not doing more. Despite my suggestions to increase fines, the people making and enforcing traffic laws are not out to make a profit, and they are sensitive to the costs to drivers.
Where I live, the state lawmakers mandated raising speed limits in opposition to the Highway Patrol's safety recommendation for lower speed limits and increased enforcement. The speeding laws and their enforcement are lax here because of politicians, regardless of the known safety consequences, and not because of costs.
> That isn't my job and it isn't a pressing political issue in most places.
This is a thread about car safety that we both chose to participate in. I would hope that in doing so, all participants might be willing to offer constructive ideas and not just criticism.
@Rotdhizon offered an idea, as did I. Since you suggest mine won't work, it's fair game to ask you for alternatives, isn't it?
FWIW, in my mind some kinds of "increased enforcement" don't involve punitive measures. "NSC estimates traffic fatalities in New York fell 3 percent last year and have dropped 15 percent over the last two years. Safety advocates say the decline may be due to New York City's push to eliminate traffic deaths by lowering speed limits, adding bike lanes and more pedestrian shelters." https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/14/traffic-deaths-edge-lower-bu...
Establishing spaces for peds & bikes is something that factors into the existing costs, and doesn't necessarily mean any more spending at all. The increased safety means that the state gets back some money that was spent on emergency services. Lowering speed limits doesn't cost anything.
>state lawmakers mandated raising speed limits in opposition to the Highway Patrol's safety recommendation for lower speed limits and increased enforcement. The speeding laws and their enforcement are lax here because of politicians
"Your comment seems to indicate you might not know how traffic laws are made or enforced. They are rarely touched by elected officials."
>I would hope that in doing so, all participants might be willing to offer constructive ideas and not just criticism.
People try to dismiss criticism by saying "well do you have a solution?" but that is fallacious and you can make a valid point without offering a different solution that addresses that point
Why would they need to make a net profit? That standard isn't applied to anything else the police do. We already have traffic enforcement as well as many other police services paid via taxes. The argument that it costs too much to increase enforcement in any way doesn't really hold much water. Whether people want enforcement is a different story, but the point I brought up that you responded to is purely one of safety. We can debate all the myriad reasons why we can or can't change our cultural attitudes, but it's still true that increased enforcement of human drivers would have a far greater impact on overall safety than fine-tuning autonomous cars to break certain laws in certain locales.
Letting driverless cars break some laws or have "aggressive" driving profiles will never happen anyway, so it's moot. It would be too much liability for the car manufacturers. So how would you make roads safer?