Slashdot Mirror
Driverless Cars Could Cripple Law Enforcement Budgets
colinneagle writes "Google's driverless cars have now combined to drive more than 700,000 miles on public roads without receiving one citation, The Atlantic reported this week. While this raises a lot of questions about who is responsible to pay for a ticket issued to a speeding autonomous car – current California law would have the person in the driver's seat responsible, while Google has said the company that designed the car should pay the fine – it also hints at a future where local and state governments will have to operate without a substantial source of revenue.
Approximately 41 million people receive speeding tickets in the U.S. every year, paying out more than $6.2 billion per year, according to statistics from the U.S. Highway Patrol published at StatisticBrain.com. That translates to an estimated $300,000 in speeding ticket revenue per U.S. police officer every year. State and local governments often lean on this source of income when they hit financial trouble. A study released in 2009 examined data over a 13-year period in North Carolina, finding a 'statistically significant correlation between a drop in local government revenue one year, and more traffic tickets the next year,' Popular Science reported. So, just as drug cops in Colorado and Washington are cutting budgets after losing revenue from asset and property seizures from marijuana arrests, state and local governments will need to account for a drastic reduction in fines from traffic violations as autonomous cars stick to the speed limit."
Approximately 41 million people receive speeding tickets in the U.S. every year, paying out more than $6.2 billion per year, according to statistics from the U.S. Highway Patrol published at StatisticBrain.com. That translates to an estimated $300,000 in speeding ticket revenue per U.S. police officer every year. State and local governments often lean on this source of income when they hit financial trouble. A study released in 2009 examined data over a 13-year period in North Carolina, finding a 'statistically significant correlation between a drop in local government revenue one year, and more traffic tickets the next year,' Popular Science reported. So, just as drug cops in Colorado and Washington are cutting budgets after losing revenue from asset and property seizures from marijuana arrests, state and local governments will need to account for a drastic reduction in fines from traffic violations as autonomous cars stick to the speed limit."
So what's the next shakedown target in this game of "citizens vs government"?
$1,000 in road enforcement fees per driverless car.
This model's already being proposed for electric vehicles, on the grounds that they aren't paying fuel taxes. It's idiotic for EV's, since they serve an important purpose. But it's ideal for driverless cars.
Good.
Good /GrumpyCat
At least the car will be polite to the ticketing officer....
"Gee Officer, I don't know why this thing is speeding"
Saving the common people several billions a year would send nothing but good vibrations up the economic chain. Yeah, some cops may lose their jobs, but the billions extra that people would have every year means other jobs get created elsewhere.
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
The justice system and the police are primarily a revenue tool, to be unleashed as required, and controlled by factors other than the law.
And people wonder why the police are largely treated with mistrust and disdain.
If speeding tickets are just a shake down to pad out budgets, then the police are just flunkies, crooks and toll collectors.
Fuck the police.
Who needs them? They are basically worthless. Sure they are needed to help with the general order of society but the fact that their budgets are supported by the issuance and collection of monies from speeding tickets indicates a bigger problem - that the system is broken and needs to be re-worked.
There's no money lost here. Writing tickets didn't generate anything for the economy, other than perhaps the reduction in destruction of property. Clearly if driverless cars aren't breaking the laws, then that reduction is occurring in a much more efficient manner. Thus driverless cars are a net GAIN to the total economy, not a drain.
once driverless cars are illegal only criminals will...wait, uh, uh oh, looks like the police industry has a problem.
I like the technology, but I believe I will always want to be the driver of the vehicle. I love driving...
Without the ticket revenue, now way will governments allow this. Insurance companies, who have large lobbying powers, won't like it either, as they will lose out on surcharge revenue.
Less speeders means less traffic cops which means less need for traffic cops which means budget problem solved. Cops that exist to give traffic tickets will not be needed. After all, if traffic tickets pay their salary, and there are no more traffic tickets...sounds like supply and demand balancing things out just fine.
But, but what about our conflict of interest? How are we supposed to operate a law enforcement and public safety organization without making revenue collection part of enforcement? How are we going to make the system unfair if we start eliminating inherent conflicts of interest? It's totally unfair to the government, we must punish those people for not breaking the law by making them pay a fine. I mean that's what we already do in some states (like mine) to punish people who try to help the environment by driving green vehicles.
Seems to me that if enforcement actions are no longer necessary, then you won't need as big of a police force so the loss of revenue will be offset by not having to pay the salaries of all of those traffic cops. This is a non-issue.
I read the internet for the articles.
So no more end-of-the-month speed traps by police departments to balance their budgets? Whatever will our police departments do for money? Reminds me of the outcry when The National Maximum Speed Law was eventually disregarded by almost every state and they raised their respective speed limits back up to 65mph on most highways -- because lowering it to 55mph did nothing to reduce accidents. Oh, the funds staties lost.
Allow the local governments to charge more for faster lanes.
Oh, wait, they already do that in some localities.
So law enforcement budgets will be lower, but the need for law enforcement will also be lower because you won't have to pay as many cops to run around patrolling the roads and writing tickets. Plus there will be fewer injuries and less property damage due to reckless driving, which means less economic waste.
If law enforcement legitimately needs more money, then raise taxes and pay for it. People keep talking like it's bad for the economy to permanently address problems because we'll have fewer jobs consisting of temporarily patching those problems. It's just another variation on the "broken window fallacy".
The car is either driverless, or it isn't. Either the car maker is responsible, or the owner is.
But, really, who the hell is going to take liability for a device which says "I'm in charge of driving, you just sit there" right up until it goes into panic mode half a second before you impact with something and says "bummer dude, you're now in charge, evade quickly, liability transferred to passenger".
Sorry, but if I'm sitting there reading my newspaper or whatever, I'm not controlling the vehicle. If I'm responsible for controlling the vehicle, then I will actually be controlling the vehicle.
There's simply no room for a sudden shift in blame to the person in the drivers seat ... that makes no sense whatsoever.
And if the car suddenly loses its marbles and mows down a bunch of schoolkids, you think the cargo/passengers suddenly own responsibility for that?
This to me has always been the point at which driverless cars kind of fall apart, determining who is really in charge, and defining what that means.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
When people are convicted of crimes, they are to be punished. Tickets are that document of infraction (crime punishable by fine). More severe punishments are misdemeanors and felonies (punishable by fines and/or free lodging at the slammer). So when governments use tickets as revenue sources, something has gone wrong in judicial process (yes, so what else new?).
mfwright@batnet.com
... but have they tested it with a black dude in the driver's seat?
The question I'd like to see answered with data to back it up is how many time are officers out handing out moving vehicle violations vs. how much money do they bring in? If they weren't out spending time/budget on writing tickets, would additional work get done, or would there be superfluous staff that could be cut? I think it's important to have a well staffed police department should trouble occur, but if they are using tickets to increase their budget I question if they are just trying to support too much overhead.
I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
You know through taxes.
While you're at it how about properly funding schools through taxes rather than bake sales. Actually there are a lot of things that could benefit just by being properly funded by taxes.
More and more departments are buying more and more stuff they simply don't need. More and more departments are starting up SWAT teams they don't need. I'm sorry, a town of 5,000 simply doesn't need a special weapons and tactics unit. They just don't. Studies have shown that when departments start up special units, guess what? They want to use those units. These units get paid more. Police salaries are already too high in many places. Police administration salaries are ridiculously high, some over $250,000. Admin salaries should be capped below 100k. Police salaries should be capped at well under 100k. Public servants should never be getting rich. All public service jobs should be capped.
For too long, police and cities have begun to rely on the "revenue" from tickets and parking citations. Parking I can see somewhat. But too many places have quotas that police have to meet with giving out citations rather than actually policing. All cities should require police to walk their beats for the first few years like they used to. Police have gotten away from this and as a result, the streets are worse, no one knows anyone else, and the police don't have a vested interest like they once did.
Enough of this nonsense.
Sigh.
All states have to do is implement a driver's car tax.
I'm not a tax fan, by any means, but it seems to be the government's preferred choice for ruining society. I see no reason for it to not use this technique here.
Means less need for traffic cops. Maybe the police left will focus on real crimes instead.
Would it pull over if it sees the blinking lights / siren behind it?
Could you spoof it with a bunch of blinking xmas lights on the side of the road?
Either move them to other types of crimes or let them go. I don't see why law enforcement should be immune to downsizing. If it's essential to keep these guys on the force, it shouldn't be hard to make the case to the taxpayers.
If driverless cars so outnumbered regular cars that police forces weren't receiving income from traffic citations, then there would also be a corresponding decrease in the need for traffic cops. Instead of (as I see now) two or three police cars parked together watching for multiple speeders, you could get by with only one (or maybe one on alternating days). At some point it might even be more economical for police forces as the need for traffic cops diminishes and forces can dedicate their budgets to other divisions.
$6.2 gigabucks/year is $300K/officer? That means 20,667 officers for the whole country. Methinks one or more numbers here is fudge.
Godwin's Law tag
Its not idiotic. Building roads cost money. In many countries that is financed by fuel taxes.
The problem is "law enforcement" agencies using enforcement as revenue streams for cities and states.
This puts law enforcement against the very people they are supposed to serve and protect.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
Can't wait for the Republicans to force everybody to "upgrade" to their contributor's autonomous systems.
Apparently there is a strong case to be made that traffic fines are a covert source of taxation. Therefore we need to make laws that insure that the cities, states and counties lose a bit of money every time a ticket is written. We must insure that there is no financial motive for traffic law enforcement. This a a huge example of the rut that modern times impose upon us. Unfair, unreasonable, traffic enforcement just might be the only way we have to prevent criminal chaos from ruling the streets and businesses of our nation. I doubt that the public has any awareness of how laws actually cause crimes. Here is an example: A state makes laws that no felon may receive any form of welfare or public support. Next the courts rule that a felon will be released after 36 months in prison. Then the economy caves in and nobody can get a job. The felon is released on his due date. naturally he can not get any job at all. He also can not get Unemployment Insurance or any form of welfare. Society goes blind and pretends that the newly released inmate will just calmly starve to death in the rain without committing another crime. The inmates release carried a parole requirement that he work and have a place to live. They might as well have required him to walk on water. Then when he inevitably breaks the law the judge will point out how the felon has failed to reestablish himself in the community. That is even more absurd than it sounds as the parole officer would never allow the former convict to relocate himself in a county in which work was available. And booby prize of the century goes to the state of Utah where a 12 year old boy impregnated his 13 year old girlfriend. Then the state decides that since both were legally children they raped each other. I wonder whether for purposes of trial they will be tried as adults.
If the system is funded in large part by criminalizing a behavior so consistent and common that it can fund life-long full time salaries with benefits and pensions, then it's a system worth dismantling. Defending the need to criminalize otherwise law abiding adults for budgetary purposes is obscenely poor governing. If we, as a society, deem the crime important enough to stop, and it's rampant enough to be an epidemic, make an earnest effort to stop the crime. If it's really not that big of a deal, change the laws to reflect that. Riding the sweet spot where it's not enough of a penalty, consistently enough, to really dissuade people from doing it, yet it's enough to be profitable for the people exacting the fines, is unethically exploitative. If your government department needs funding, then get it through taxes, not extortion.
So this would be like those autonomous traffic light camera's issuing automatic tickets, which it totally about driver safety and totally not about the creation of a revenue stream.
Issuing speeding tickets should be about you know "law enforcement" and "public safety", not the generation of wealth.
In the new world we are heading, autonomous cars would likely be tamper proof (unless at a properly registered service prefecture), and should a seal be broken, its location would be immediately transmitted for mandated police violence action, who could then dispatch a drone to take care of it. Regular patrol, and even automated remote surveillance will be totally unnecessary, as that will all be taken can of by the car itself.
I've been ticketed twice for failing to stop at stop signs. On my bicycle.
So, all those bicyclists violating traffic laws, and all those pedestrians jaywalking, could be a major source of revenue.
It always amazed me that government organizations are allowed to roll fines and penalties into their operations budget. Doesn't that just force those who are tasked with stopping crime to rely on it as a source of revenue?
Just let highway patrol stop random vehicles and require drivers pay certain amount. For example there could be no blue car days when highway patrol would have the right to fine people just for being in a blue car. Fine amounts should be sufficient for law enforcement and local governments yet they should not irritate people too much. It would be like a reverse lottery. After all if people keep $100 a month for crap cable and another $100 for cell phone why can't they spend some money on a good cause? I think that random fines are awesome.
Because forcing people to buy a product that they don't want sounds a lot like Republicans....oh wait.
I guess with self driving cars they'll have to raise money the old fashioned way ... civil forfeiture.
Very likely the money saved on not having police officers driving around looking for people to issue tickets to would exceed the reduction in tickets paid. Not to mention the savings from reduced emergency activities because of fewer crashes due to driver failure.
Ergo, it's not a problem.
Easy, change the road signs over to captcha problems making it difficult for driver less cars to determine the speed limit or road instructions.
... police.
Not to worry, a number of replacements are being trained.
Why is this modded down? It always kills me when poor people and minorities who hate police commit petty crimes which only gives police power over them and then lines the law enforcement industries pockets with fines and fees. If you hate cops the best way to stick it to them is to stop committing crimes! I wish poor people would understand this but then again if poor people were smart they wouldn't be poor...
U.S. Highway Patrol. Any ideas who this is? I'm unaware of a Federal Highway Patrol.
Driverless is not very accurate description of what is going on. Semi-autonomous seems a bit better but lacks marketing flash.
I'd suspect that no matter what the 'driver' is going to be given the ticket, maybe the 'car' gets a copy too. Some investigation will have to be done (and laws updated) to determine fault (what is you live in a no fault state). Was the car in autonomous mode? Was the firmware/software current? Did the driver ignore a warning?
The expectations of the driver will also have to be defined. Can the driver fall asleep? How much attention must the driver pay to the vehicle's operation?
Lot's of questions, not problems
Some crazy math - according to this, as of 2008, there were between 700,000 and 1.2 million State and local police -
http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/forum/28/2-3summerfall2011/f_lawenf_census.html
Wikipedia puts it at 780,000 - I wonder where they got their figure of $300,000 per officer = 21,000 officers.?
Driverless car pulled over by driverless cop car and given a ticket.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
Driverless cars will minimize the number of accidents - saving the society enormous amounts (firedepartment, hospitals, ambulance, police, sick-pay etc etc etc)
If the government operations, police etc, are reliant on speeding tickets and other fines to operate then there is a serious problem with the funding model for that operation.
A very serious self interested model that should have been rejected from conception by a rational society.
Ok the civil structure is funded by fineing people for misbehaving. Means that the civil structure either requires that people misbehave or that people who are not misbehaving get ticketed anyways. The pressure will then be on the members of that structure to invent new ways to find people misbehaving and fine them.
A very broken system that will gear up and attack people for minor infractions. This system is broken and should be dismantled and shame on those who set it up in the first place.
This type of system is fairly irrational, but common, due to peoples inability to think that they might be the victims of such a penalty system.
You did not read the part where each cop generates 300000 in revenue. Cops in my area earn less than half of that.
It's not just about the money. Traffic stops are a major tool that police use in law enforcement. If they think someone is suspicious, they look for a traffic violation as an excuse to pull them over and investigate. Likewise, normal traffic stops give officers a chance to notice suspicious activity.
Someone should dig up the numbers for the percentage of arrests that begin with a traffic stop.
I'll Google that for me:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHT...
While there may not be solid data nationally, at least in this one area, traffic stops account for about a third of all arrests.
1. good... Our law enforcement is far to militarized as it is. Fewer MRAPs and Assault Rifles would do the police some good. Maybe they should have more patience and be a little less willing to start throwing stun grenades and spraying the room with lead if they couldn't afford vests.
2. The driver should receive the ticket. People will be modding their cars just like they do their phone. Give the driver the ticket, who will then call the car manufacturer for reimbursement if it was the manufactures fault. Blaming the manufacturer will lead the manufacturers to lock down the OS and lobby the feds to man modding it yourself. Which will be bad for innovation.
3. People wont own these cars. By the time this becomes "A thing" you'll just punch something up in your cellphone saying where you want to go and when, and a car will come pick you up at the appointed time. Once you're not driving, don't have to worry about the car being there when you need it, and can get a ride anywhere in the country you want to go, there will be very little reason to own a car anymore. I can easily imagine placing orders for the things you need from the grocery store, home depot, etc... and having it all delivered.
current California law would have the person in the driver's seat responsible
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Boy, the GOP must LOVE this idea because it reduces the size of government and frees up police for more important jobs
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
While the driverless cars might get less traditional tickets, I suspect police departments would merely which focuses onto other matters than are ticketable. Head/Tail Light out, ticket. J-walker, ticket. Parked slightly beyond the allowable limit, ticket. I'm sure it will hit their bottom line for a bit as they adapt, but they will adapt.
Combine this with the loss of revenue from fuel taxes by promoting everyone switching from gasoline to electric cars or other forms of transportations then what will be left in the budgets to maintain the transportation infrastructure. Not that some people figure that it won't really be needed after the culling of the population.
Think about all the lawyers that specialize in speeding tickets and DUIs that will go bankrupt!
Crippling a budget can also mean that costs go up. It would have been better stated that driverless cars result in less revenue for law enforcement. The car isn't doing anything that makes law enforcement more expensive.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
that the roads paid for by taxes and fees also serve an important purpose.
That was just too easy. I figured it would be a lot harder to get The Man to admit that traffic enforcement is at least as much a moneymaker as it is a public safety function. Everybody knew it, but it is refreshing to see it in black and white.
I am not a crackpot.
Oh great, now my car is treated like a person/corporation? Will my car pay for it's lawyer and insurance? Can my car get a job ridesharing and have a bank acc;t? "Car, loan me a dime...." - Futureself Boz Skaggs,
As a practical matter right now a speed limit of 55mph means keep it under 70mph, and 65mph limits mean keep it under 80mph. If these driverless cars keep to the posted limits it's going to cause a lot of traffic issues.
According to the insane logic of the writer of the article, we should be encouraging people to drive more dangerously and break the law more often, to bring in more 'revenue'.
I'm sure we will manage perfectly well when there are no more road 'accidents', when we no longer have hundreds of thousands of people EVERY YEAR being hospitalised because of the selfishness and stupidity of others - who happen to be drivers. People who speed are selfish dickheads, not only when they drive, but also when they are NOT driving. People who drive dangerously are selfish dickheads.
You mean we might have to find a way to fund law enforcement and road construction that doesn't inevitably lead to corruption?
That would be an interesting switch: new technology unintentionally solving problems rather than creating them.
is 20,773 cops NATIONWIDE, or 415 cops per state....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
...and you won't need all those cops when it's impossible to speed!
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
There does not seem to be any such agency or law enforcement group.
Which have nothing to do with cars. So why tax cars? Why not a general tax or a property tax or such?
Putting a $1,000 fee for transportation will really hurt a lot of poor people.
Simple Solution to eliminate traffic enforcement abuse:
1) 94% of the moneys from all fines from moving and non-moving traffic for each citation must go directly to the public elementary school closest in linear distance from the point of issue.
2) the local court can retain no more than 4% for court fees. The remaining 1% will go to the general fund for the city, county, or state employing the enforcing officer.
The rest takes car of itself...if 'safety' is the issue, cities will take it out of hide in taxes to pay for that action, or else limit the 'ticket and pay' scheme.
MISSION FUCKING ACCOMPLISHED
What like mandates for so called smart guns? Both major political parties pull the same crap and aim at their uneducated masses. The difference is the focal point they chose.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
Now they'll have more time to do their job (go after criminals)
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
The car is either autonomous, or it isn't. If it isn't autonomous, I'll drive it myself and be in control the whole time.
Semi-autonomous means we'll give you the illusion you're not in control, but we might randomly shift blame to you.
Either the car is 100% in control, or the driver is 100% in control. There is no gray area in which both are in control. There is no transition from "car in charge" to "human in charge".
It has to be all or nothing. Semi-autonomous is a huge bit of weaseling to say "we're mostly in control, but you're responsible". It can't be a fluid thing where once you've dozed off or started doing something related to not driving the car where all of a sudden you are in control and must react.
If you really think liability is going to be determined by what firmware the car is running, and who is responsible for updating it ... then I will tell you right now, driverless cars will forever be in the domain of a gimmick, but for which the actual laws aren't inadequate. And, if the laws aren't adequate, you either need to fix all of the laws, or basically say you can't have driverless cars.
Me, I'd refuse to take any responsibility for the vehicle, and wouldn't sit in an operators seat. Either the car has it and can handle it, or it bloody well can't.
And, until someone settles the legal questions of "what happens when I'm sleeping in my backseat with nobody to interact with the car", being in a legal gray area more or less nullifies anything supposedly useful about a "semi autonomous car".
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Think about living in a city. If I could "rent" a robot-car as easily or easier than a taxi then it might be worth it.
And I think it WOULD be easier with robot-cars and smart phones. I need a car with X capacity at this location at 7:30.
With good analysis it should be possible to get cars carrying people at least 80% of the time. So you only pay for the time you use it.
And with enough robot-cars on the road and reporting back to HQ about road conditions, congestion and such they should be the fastest means of inner-city travel.
If traffic citations are about safety, and we remove the element of human error from the process, we also need far fewer officers to patrol the roads. Therefore budget reductions from the loss of this revenue "should" not be difficult to handle. Except for the small towns that operate as speed traps simply for the revenue.
Of course this is not what will happen, they'll find other ways to retain revenue. Tolls for computer driven vehicles or the like.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
I don't think anyone's going to shed a tear if they run out of money.
As for sending them after criminals, I doubt they're qualified?
And/or, send the cops to places which have a lot of violent crime, where more police are actually needed. And even better, long-term - spend the money on schools, teachers and counselors, rather than jails, courts and cops.
Seems like this would not result in any change in police force sizes, but would dramatically effect which portion of the population is targeted for speeding. I can see rich people being the only ones that can afford driverless cars for many years, say 10 or 20 minimum, until some crappy second or third hand models are available at a price poor people can pay. Until all people are utilizing driverless cars the police will be forced to increasingly target cars with drivers.
It will be an incentive to ditch the steering wheel.
What the hell is that? There's no such thing.
Just because there are SOME driverless cars, doesn't mean there aren't speed-demons or impatient drivers. Until it gets to the point that every car is driverless AND there is no way to manually drive a car, people will definitely take over and do whatever it is they want.
The screenshot of what the Google car sees approaching a right turn (scroll almost halfway down the page) shows the car about to violate CVC 22100(a) and possibly also CVC 21717. So there are still some bugs to fix in Google's code.
Another company ought to build a robotic traffic enforcement cop as a way to check Google's work.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
not sure about the stats ... I couldn't find a "U.S. Highway Patrol" that StatisticBrain.com cites and they don't link to or specify a title of a report...
if their $6.2 billion figure is right, their $300,000 figure is way off, since that would translate into only 20,000 police officers. The FBI says there were 430,000 officers in 2012:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/71tabledatadecoverviewpdfs/tab71overview.pdf
If the $6.2 billion is right and the FBI's 430K is correct, that means just $14,000 per sworn officer, not $300,000.
This is creating a market for even tinier violins. I can't seem to find one small enough.
This has one big assumption that those that are speeding do so unintentionally. Given the freedom and love of driving we have, I don't see auto driving becoming mandatory. This also assumes there won't be a way to shut off auto-driving.
TL;DR There will still be plenty of opportunities for tickets.
All I have to say on the subject can be summed up with one word: Good!
Speeding is a BS racket anyway. Speed alone never hurt anyone contrary to what the current ad campaigns say. Excessive speed for the conditions and/or vehicle is the problem. Someone going 85 in a 65 MPH zone on a straight freeway with light traffic on a bright sunny day isn't going to magically cause an accident. Someone doing 45 in that same 65 MPH zone on a rainy day in heavy traffic could kill someone.
I've always thought there needs to be a definite separation from the funds from traffic tickets to the agencies and municipalities that enforce them. Traffic fines should not be a profit center to fund anything, except maybe better driver's education (or more mandatory classes for habitual offenders) to reduce the infractions. Our police departments are supposed to be there for our protection, to serve us. They aren't supposed to be revenue collectors for alternative taxes. I hate seeing police officers sitting somewhere running radar/laser speed checks when they should be out patrolling to reduce overall crime.
Automating the majority of our transportation infrastructure will allow us to let the police focus on what they should be focused on, and if we get to cut some fat from the departments in the process so be it.
It's not like driver less cars will come out on June 1st and by end of year the entire population will have one.
If they are collecting that much per officer on average, then the solution presents itself...
1) Start reducing police forces as the gradual introduction of driverless cars comes and requires less policing
2) Transition police self-support income to increased tickets in other areas such as littering, domestic issues and other activities to replace only the necessary income required to operate the police.
3) Local governments currently using ticket income (which is an abuse no matter how you look at it) have a gradual decline to seek efficiencies or other income.
Local governments financing themselves off of ticketing is essentially funding government via a stupid tax (stupid enough to drive too fast, get a ticket). So while I have mixed emotions about the kismet portion of that scenario, it's still not a fair and just solution.
Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
Our government officials are just a bunch of predators anyway. Massive fine gathering is just another sign of how governments do not listen to us at all. In my city I doubt anyone is calling in and complaining about rolling stops. But they are complaining about the $134 tickets they get for them. Yet people are complaining about the motorcycles without mufflers, yet the city and province never do anything about it. The reason is simple. While the vast majority of people hate noisy motorcycles (and cars) there is no politically active group to lobby government. But there is a politically active group of motorcycle whiners who blah blah and cry the moment any law is aimed at them.
But seeing that government actions can be predicted by assuming they actively hate us the question is how can officials (using existing rules) extort and bully money out of us? That is quite simple. We are all still going to be pedestrians so they will crank up the pedestrian law enforcement; as a you can't punch a bully using a rule book in the face. So they will use the bureaucrats eternal law enforcement mantra, "If you don't break the law then you don't have anything to worry about."
The solution seems obvious: DRIVERLESS POLICE CARS.
You're welcome!
If traffic enforcement becomes less of a need, then move part of the budget over to hire more detectives to solve crimes.
I wonder if they have implemented enough exception-handling in those driverless cars.
Does it detect flashing-lights behind it? The algorithm could be:
if (not in rightmost lane of freeway/road) {
safely merge 1 lane to the right (repeat until flashing lights not directly behind anymore)
} else {
safely pull off and stop on the side of the road, avoiding other stopped cars, people, debris, shoulderless areas/bridges, potholes, signs, cliffs, onramp/offramp areas
deploy robotic arm from driver-side window that hands officer license, registration, insurance.
}
Ummm... I think that was supposed to be $300,000 per precinct, not per officer.
Seems like there is already a middle ground with things like anti-lock brakes, or automatic collision avoidance systems that will break a car before a collision based on proximity sensors, or cars that will park themselves but otherwise won't drive around town. Basically many cars with some limited sensing capabilities are slowly becoming more autonomous at least for specific functions.
But I agree with your point about the benefit of a fully autonomous car being primarily if you can be a passenger and the car drives and not having to sit at the steering wheel ready to take control away from the computer and thus being legally responsible. A driver being at the wheel and responsible for the driving undermines the main purpose of a truly autonomous car.
What, you mean like people those people who chose to consume a plant in the privacy of their own homes?
Speedlimits are as relevant for driverless cars as horseshoes are.
Basically it has to pass the "snowstorm on the highway" or "torrential downpour on the highway" test. That is, you are driving along at 100km/h and hit a snow storm or torrential downpour. Visibility is poor, but vehicles are maintaining speed at around 50-70km/h. The lane markings are covered in snow. Stopping the car in a live highway lane to transition from "car in charge" to "human in charge" is not a viable option.
The driverless car owner, manufacturer, software developer?
Maybe they're just not programmed to stop for cops?
If a driverless car is carrying contraband, will it make illegal lane changes?
Less money from tickets mean less money for toys like tanks, drones, GPS trackers, microwave based crowd dispersion devices, etc.
It also means more cops actually doing useful things like preventing/solving crimes, directing traffic around accidents and broken lights, etc. You know, actually being a benefit to society for a change.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
Awww, too bad your *smash* taillight is out...
Stop signs painted with IR reflective paint as well as spectrum absorbive paint will make the cars see different signs rather than stop, running them..
Exactly, the cops will continue to be the crooks.
The police union is pretty powerful lobbying entity. They aren't going to allow their numbers to become diminished just because the taxes can't pay for them. Taxes will go up. New laws will be created to extort money from the populace. They will get their money.
In the 1980s there was a small suburban city in north central Texas that didn't even count fines in its city budget. Yes, they had some income from fines but it wasn't reliable enough to plan around.
For a variety of reasons possibly including a multi-city effort to crack down on school zone violators, enforcement went up and so did the reliability of fine revenue. From what I hear they now count estimated fine revenue in their budget just like most other towns.
Except for the school zones during school hours, this city is NOT a speed trap. I wouldn't call it a "speed trap" for school zones either as the cities that border it also participate in aggressive school-zone enforcement.
Fines should be split into two parts: "Incremental cost" and "fine."
The "incremental cost" part is the police officer's time from the time he turned on his lights until the time he became available to answer another call, plus the cost of running his car during that time, the cost of the dispatcher's time, etc. minus what the cost would have been if he was there waiting for you to violate the law but you did not. Since police officers are paid the same whether they are pulling someone over or not, this won't be very much.
The city should be able to keep this amount.
Everything else should be turned into cash and shredded or burned. Or alternatively, donated to a statewide or nationwide "charity fund" which only spends money on projects outside the state or country.
Why? To remove all incentives to enforce the law except the one that counts: Maintaining public safety.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=police+officers+in+us&a=*EHC.Occupation.PoliceOfficers33%21-3050-_*PoliceAndSheriffsPatrolOfficers33%21-3051-
$6.2 billion / 645000 U.S. officers = $9,612
How did they get $300,000?
We need an insurance based licensing scheme, as outlined here.
The issue could be framed equally usefully as "Public transportation could cripple law enforcement budgets". How silly.
The EV movement makes me somewhat sad, because we already have a solution for the "encourage people to use less gas" problem - public transportation. I would wager a significant portion of people would never drive if they had access to a functional public transportation system.
The problem in the US is that everything is so spread out public transportation is difficult and expensive to implement, and the infrastructure that we do have is geared around a massive fleet of personal vehicles. I almost wish the interstate highway system had never been implemented, because by now we would have reasonable public transportation instead.
At this point it's probably a pipe dream.
Wow, you are wrong on *SO* many levels, it's ridiculous. makes me really sad (for this community) that you got to +5!
Traffic tickets are a reason to distribute officers around the municipality. Every officer operating a radar gun and handing out traffic tickets is one MORE police officer available to go after real criminals, because they are in the area that needs protecting and are able to bring in income sufficient to pay the upkeep on their equipment (car included) and their compensation (salary + benefits). What, you didn't think cops with radar guns weren't allowed to respond to 911 calls or some such bullshit, did you? Hell, I've actually seen cases where a cop gets a call and drives off without ticketing the person they pulled over.
If cops aren't handing out tickets, then either they're sitting at the station - probably nowhere near as close to where the crime is happening as is the case today - or they're out on the roads in *way* smaller numbers, because there's no way the police departments can afford a similar number of equipment-and-compensation packages without the income from traffic citations.
Well, unless they increase income from somewhere else. Fighting serious crime doesn't actually pay much; most of what the cops confiscate either can't legally be resold or already has a legal owner. You can increase other sources of income - such as things like tire taxes (I like this one) or even general income taxes - to compensate for the loss from traffic citations, but then you're giving up the "saving the common people several billions per year" thing that you quoted.
Guess what, serious policing isn't free! In fact, it's quite expensive. Traffic patrols are the current way cops are even *able* to be in your neighborhood.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
But that is the interesting thing: tickets and fines are intended to discourage bad behavior that is slightly antisocial. (as opposed to murdering people, which is highly antisocial). With the advent of autonomous cars, mission accomplished. If you ticket the manufacturer, you incentivize them into creating a better, safer, product.
There will still be plenty of tickets to write for a long time, as until we are at 100% adoption, people will still break trafic laws. Also, I 'm sure that hacking the robodriver software will be a popular thing for teenagers to do in the next decade or two. That should be worth a huge fine, if you did it with intent to speed, race, or run people over, since a speeding ticket is generally intended to be a "2nd degree reckless endangerment" charge. It would give you ample proof of intent.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Let's see:
Collector cars: As time goes on they'll be seen less and less. Even today most of the really antique ones(Model T's, Stanley Steamers, and such) are normally trailered on the long distance routes.
Won't be able to afford: As time goes on, how long until it's they can't afford to NOT have an automatic car in order to enjoy the insurance cut?
Paranoid belief: They'd eventually get tickets for this, or get to enjoy higher insurance premiums due to the higher accident risk
Enjoy driving/in control: Enjoy your higher insurance costs, and I figure this would drop off as the newer generation finds driving themselves annoying(they'd rather be on their tablet or something), since they didn't grow up driving. I figure they'd be more likely to do their own driving on a track.
In the end, at some point the number of human-driven cars would drop to 'irrelevant'.
I don't read AC A human right
Actually do their job? Like prevent crime?
I know, CRAZY idea...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
That $300k number is just absurd. $6.2 billion in fines, divided by $300k per police officer, would imply only 21,000 police officers. There are 34,500 officers in New York City ALONE. Wikipedia puts the total at around 930k sworn officers with arrest powers (765k state/local, plus 44k part-time, plus 120k federal).
Even using only fulltime, and ignoring the Federal officers, would get you to about $8k, not $300k.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
FTA
" A Predator drone is not a better aircraft than a manned F-16 fighter, because it’s robotic. In fact, it's not a better aircraft at all. Drones are, without exception, the least impressive military vehicles in the sky. But they’re small, and cheaper to buy and deploy than a proper airborne killing machine. They’re “good enough” technology, if your mission is to assassinate a ground target, in a region where air defense technology amounts to running for cover. But pit them against traditional attack craft, or systems designed to down encroaching aircraft, and armed drones will excel only at becoming smoking ruins."
This seems very short sighted and confused. A missile which is autonomous can shoot down an F16. Automation and airframe design are very different.
Here (Ireland; and in the UK, I believe) the person with ultimate responsibility is the registered keeper of the car (basically the name and address on the car registration document). If that person lends the car to someone else, who then gets a speeding ticket, it's the registered keeper who gets the fine.
the bigger question.
What happens when cars are mandated to have a government backdoor that allows the government, any government to give them orders at any time.
imagine what this could do for dissent if your car simply is programed to drive to a specific location, lock doors, and then wait for someone to arrive and kidnap/arrest you, then drive back, unattened, somewhere unsuspicious, and delete log files.
The cops already lie about your speed or accidentally pull the wrong car over. They then rely on the judge to side with them in traffic court (where there is no written record and you have to pay a court fee no matter what the outcome).
How will driverless cars change anything?
Also, you can still get a ticket for:
1. Not wearing a seatbelt,
2. reckless driving (officer's judgement),
3. not signaling (officer's judgement),
4. driving "too fast for the conditions," (officer's judgement),
5. texting or talking on a cell phone while "driving,"
6. having a broken windshield, expired registration tag, etc.
So there will still be plenty of sources for revenue!
One ticket in 35 years of driving.
If you want to stick it to "the man", drive legally.
Apart from the absurd $300k number, the idea that this would cripple law enforcement budgets is in and of itself kind of silly. To get an idea of scale, the NYPD has a $4.6B budget, and 34,500 officers, or $133k/officer. Again, using just fulltime state/local officers (no part time, no federal), you're looking at 765k nationwide. Scaling the NYPD budget up (ballpark reasonable, NYPD faces higher costs for some things, but also scale benefits), you're looking at abour $100 billion/year. So, speeding ticket revenues are something like 6% of total nationwide police budgets.
Now, for some departments (places that have a lot of miles of road per officer), it's probably higher, but it's reasonable to assume that self-driving cars (doing the limit) will also result in fewer accidents, reducing the need for police accident response.
WHAT? Traffic enforcement *is* a source of revenue? Shocking! Here all that time I thought it was about the safety...
Either the car is 100% in control, or the driver is 100% in control. There is no gray area in which both are in control.
Never heard of Cruise Control?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Americans already pay for Police, Firemen, the Government and a whole lot more with their taxes. All this means is that Americans will have 6.2 Billion dollars back in their pockets where it belongs. The really huge bonus is one that this article doesn't even touch on. Police will now be able to stop wasting time and money trying to control traffic and can start doing their real job, fighting crime. There will be enough officers to finally go after every petty thief, criminal and crook. "I am sorry your cellphone with all your personal information was stolen sir, I will have an officer track it down immediately and punish the criminal" will be more then words in every theft victims fantasy world. Our courts, now free of the burden of countless traffic court hearings could start processing violent criminals in a timely and efficient manner. Give me my self driving, electric car with solar panel accessory for free charging and I'll be a happy man. Especially because after the sales tax and licencing the government has no reason to try to stick it's hands in my pockets anymore.
Good news, then is that the police will be able to focus on dealing with more significant crimes, such as breaking and entering, assaults, drugs, kicking puppies.
And you can help pay for them by the reduced healthcare costs, and maintenance of roadways...
Yup, in a brave new world we may end up having to reduce budgets... ah well.
First thing I thought after reading the summary was... less money to law enforcement budget == fewer cops. I don't see that as a bad thing.
Funding modelling is never a straight 1 to 1 scenario as put forward here. Local Government is able to redirect funding from health, as a result of fewer speed (and alcohol?) related accidents. Plus fewer dead / disabled people of driving age generally means more taxation dollars flowing back in to the economy. This can all be redistributed to allow for funding of local law enforcement as required.
You say "Either the car is 100% in control, or the driver is 100% in control. There is no gray area in which both are in control. There is no transition from "car in charge" to "human in charge"."
But clearly, you've never been in a car with bad ABS software.
Things like a gummed up speed sensor that kicks the ABS in when the car is going at speeds of 1-10 MPH for example.
You're in ...call it 50% control. While you paid good money for the ABS -- you paid for it if you slammed the break at inappropriate speeds. When you're at 10 MPH, you expect it to stop.
Software bugs happen, and in this situation -- I was in partial control.
I'm the Data Analyst/Advisor. Lately more the latter than the former. I'm working on democrat Todd Giroux's campaign for Governor.
He and I have had discussions about two things - recreational cannabis and autonomous vehicles and the impact it would have on law enforcement and corrections. Plus the tax advantages were RI to legalize recreationa cannabis before our neighbors. I also gave him a simple formula to ensure RI's sales tax remains competitive - take MA and CT rates, sum and average - then subtract 1 from the result. We'll ALWAYS be lower than either of the two states. And even in a race to the bottom - we still win.
Perhaps revenue correlates with need. If nobody is breaking laws, how much law enforcement do you need?
after all, that's what it's really about. " safety concerns " were just the cover story for it all.
Kind of like how electric cars are going to cut into that whole gas tax revenue stream. Thus do we get the idea of taxing us per mile driven :/
So what do we get for trying to consume less ? You know, do the right thing, save the whales, kids, whatever ? We get stuck with paying more out of pocket anyway.
ugh
When it comes to cars, San Francisco is a weird place. There's a "transit first policy" where high-rise condos are allowed only if they have less parking spaces than units. There's the parking meters that in my 'hood are more than 16 hours a day, 7 days a week - with a minimum $50 fine. The meter maids also ticket for not curbing your wheels - ON FLAT STREETS.
Overall, San Francisco generates ~10% of its annual budget - more than $100M per year - from various traffic enforcements. Autonomous vehicles will put the squeeze on the budget, the police budget, and the homeless budget.
You can't fight in here - this is the war room!
1) How many of these "driverless" cars are there operating?
2) What route(s) are these cars taking?
3) When are these cars taking the routes?
4) What are the offence statistics for other vehicles travelling on identical routes, in identical conditions at identical times?
They'll tax by GPS mile driven per axle, per time of day per traffic congestion fees. You just haven't thought of all the new ways to tax yet. Gas tax and speeding was simple, but have no fear, you're about to take it in the rear. :)
I hope they have a camera to take a picture of the face of the first officer that makes a "mistake" and tries to write one of these driverless cars a speeding ticket. With suites of sensors, accelerometers, LiDAR, radar, GPS there will be no doubt what the actual speed of the car was. Maybe we'll even get lucky and that whole "educated guess" court decision will get thrown out when an officer claims that a car was going 60 MPH when evidence from a dozen sensors prove it was actually going 35.
There is no virtue in an enforced morality.
One spectacular and tragic crash will ignite class action lawsuits and lemon law backlash. I'm willing to bet their fear of litigation will keep them fixing things.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
At times of the days you will get blowen away with trucks on your ass.
what if a driver less car kills someone then they can't hide under NDA's and fine print.
Let's say one drivers over an kid as it misreads them as being on the safe to drive over list?
"...autonomous cars stick to the speed limit."
Yes I predict that will become a major annoyance and discussion topic where local governments will be forced to raise the speed limits (at least for autonomous cars) on some roads. The speed limits are currently somewhat lower then they need to be as it is assumed that drivers will go 10 or so mph over. When autonomous cars start creating rolling road blocks because they actually drive 55 in a 55 zone or 35 in a 35 zone there will be pressure to raise the limits for them.
Every wrong attempt discarded is a step forward - T. Edison
The car is either autonomous, or it isn't. If it isn't autonomous, I'll drive it myself and be in control the whole time.
Let's try it on an airliner: "Either the airliner is autnomous, or it isn't. If it isn't autonomous I'll drive it myself and be in control the whole time."
Doesn't really work out. The pilot-in-command is always responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft, even when the aircraft is "flying itself". Now of course there are limits to this responsibility, if an engine falls off due to shoddy maintenance that's usually not considered a pilot error. But complex computer malfunctions are more often than not blamed on the pilot (too much so to my mind, but that's another question).
I foresee that we'll see the same development with "autonomous" cars (i.e. cars with advanced auto pilots). They'll do better on average than a human, but when the malfunction you (the "driver in command") will be left to pick up the pieces, if there are any pieces left to be picked up. As with piloting, you're average workload will decrease substantially, but when things to wrong, you now have a much more complex situation to deal with, and no time to do it. The maximum requirements on your performance actually increased even though the average decreased. If the NTSB can still say "pilot error" 99% of the time, then it'll be "driver error" 99% of the time with autonomous cars.
And like with aircraft you'll like it, since the average is long and dreary and malfunctions will be so few and far between that you can functionally ignore them.
"Sleeping in the back seat" will be just as much frowned upon as it would be in an airliner. Leaning back and having a cup of coffee would be about as far as you could stretch it.
Stefan Axelsson
All they have to do is put a super hefty cost on safety inspections/certificates or whatever gov. program they think up so profits still flow in. Police officers just need to switch their roles into driverless automobile inspectors lol. Probably would have saved me from getting pulled over for having a 'dirty' license plate once before(was far from hard to see like the officer had said).
It depends on the circumstances under which it can give up autonomy. For example, if a tree has fallen across part of the road, and police are directing traffic around it, it's hard for an autonomous car to deal with that. So it should pull over to the side of the road, come to a complete halt, and only give me control after I specifically tell it that I'm ready. If I'm drunk or distracted, I'm just going to sit there and call a friend to drive me home.
Well, in PA anyway, very little money goes to the police department with the tickets they issue. Funding for the police comes, primarily, from other sources - ie taxes.
Citations fall into many different categories that range from local ordinance violations to federal statute violations. When a citation is issued, there is the "Fine" and other "charges". The department does not get a whole lot of money from the fine as that money goes into collective pool at various levels of govt. This money is distributed to departments across each state of the union based on need. In other words, it supplements tax level funding of each department.
The charges, however, cover filing fees, ambulance fees, etc. A town can make more money enforcing local ordinances as they can control the fine and charges.
When I worked on a citation processing module in PA, the citations were reported to an organization called AOPC (association of police chiefs). They tracked each citation issued for reporting and accounting purposes. The process is supposed to be bi-directional with the disposition of each citation sent back to the departments records management system. No money changes hands here.
The actual citation and any monies collected locally are sent to the state...well, assuming they are not corrupt...for processing. This is one reason why Podunk little towns have so many ordinances as they can collect more on each citation. They have little control over state and federal citations, however.
I won't dispute that officers may be instructed to be on the lookout for certain types of violations -however, legally, "quotas" are not permitted. They are used to raise awareness - such as getting the message like to slow down, don't pass a school bus with flashing red lights, or to stop for people in crosswalks.
Other states might operate slightly differently in how citations are issued. The fact that the automated vehicles will reduce a small revenue stream may remain. But, I think any opportunity for an officer NOT to approach a car with a potentially dangerous occupant is something most officers would embrace. Their departments will still be funded by need and to combat the types of crimes prevalent in their community from taxes.
Finally, it is usually to your benefit to go to court - most officers would rather write you up on a lesser charge than screw you on insurance points.. They would rather you learn from your mistake (unless you put someone in immediate danger). So, be polite if pulled over and take it to court if you can afford the time. They know going to court is an inconvenience to you. Them? No so much. So, you get the message.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
I'd say that similar to passenger airbags and the spoiler on the Bugatti Veyron, you shouldn't be able to switch between autonomous and manual, while the machine is in motion.
I loved the game Wipeout 2097 when you got the Autopilot, because you could be heading straight for a wall, use it and somehow in complete defiance of physics you were safe and moving in the right direction again.
In the real world, the autopilot should only be able to activate from standstill, so as to be in complete control, and not be expected to take over in an emergency.
If all cars were autonomous, you wouldn't need to 'see' the other cars to know they were there. Car-to-car communication should be expected, allowing the lead car to tell trailing cars of an obstacle it encountered.
Driverless car property tax
Driverless car sales tax
Driverless car tax on computers in the driverless car
Driverless car inspection fee
Driverless car registration fee
Driverless car special license plate fee
Driverless car special giant sticker on the car telling everyone it's a driverless car
Driverless car state insurance liability risk pool
Driverless car special traffic court fees
Driverless car new law requiring defendants to hire trial experts from a list of state approved experts
Driverless car new impound fee when impounded for an accident
Driverless car new forensics analysis fee pretrial
Driverless cars will be a license to print money for state and local government. They will insure it's easily another $5,000 year to own one
I control when the cruise control is on or off, and what speed it is set to. If functioning properly, it behaves in a very simple and predictable manner. Since steering the car still requires my full attention I'm pretty much ready to take over the throttle at any time should the need arise. Though perhaps the argument could be made that I'm not 100% in control of any car that has an automatic choke...
Less enforcement measures could be needed. lowering the Resources required to enforce the laws.
* Less Staff
* Fewer vehicles (Cars, Heli's, planes, drones, motercycles, bikes, etc...)
* Reduced equipment
Seems to me it should just help them streamline their efforts to better things.
In theory, this should also help make the process less biased.
Don't forget potentially reduced court/legal fees.
6.2G/300K = 20.7K police officers. Somehow I think there are more than 20,667 police officers in the US.
Maybe they meant state highway patrols? The page on statistics brain says the source is "U.S. highway patrol" which is funny since last I checked the FBI has never issued a speeding ticket. Maybe park rangers issue tickets, but otherwise highway patrols are state entities. So, is the $6.2G only the total of tickets issued by state highway patrols? I haven't gotten a lot of tickets in my life (last one was 7 years ago) but more than once they were on local roads issued by local officers (you know, doing 50 in a 35mph zone). So, I'm really uncertain as to the accuracy of any of their numbers.
That aside, who cares? Not every state/local govt is Hampton, FL. http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/09/... Speaking of math, U.S. state governments combined spend about $1.5T a year. (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/) So $6.2G is less than 1% of just the state budgets. Not a big deal.
Anyway, more information = more ways to tax. Think of an autonomous car as a black box that not just records your driving but does your driving. http://www.abqjournal.com/3311... But in this case we really don't even need the black box. Simply raising the gas tax a few cents would easily make up the lost revenue. State and local fuel taxes were over $40B in 2011 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=401). Fed fuel tax revenue was over $25B in 2006 (wikipedia). So, ask yourself, would you mind paying a few cents more per gallon if it meant NEVER HAVING TO PAY A SPEEDING TICKET AGAIN?
All in all, a tempest in an, ahem, teapot.
Wouldn't speed limits either raise significantly or be abolished altogether in this self-driving future we are contemplating? If all cars can self-drive and can then be connected we would have a "minority report" type of transportation system in which cars can run together like a train. This would eliminate the need for speed limits. Also, why not just eliminate the personal car if you are going to be autoconnecting them all. Cars available as you need them. Oops! There's another industry lost.
I predict a overall decrease in traffic accidents as we start seeing the average speed on roads reflect the speed limit versus the average of 5 to 10mph or more that is common now.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
Google is wrong. In matters of collision avoidance, safe navigation and busting regulations, one human is always designated as captain of the ship, pilot in command, or driver of the car. He or she is responsible for monitoring even the most highly automated systems, and for overriding them if necessary. Saying the company manufacturing the vehicle should get the speeding ticket is like saying Smith and Wesson should do the time in homicide convictions.
Yep. 6.2G/300K = 20.7K police officers. Somehow I think there are more than 20,667 police officers in the US.
Maybe they meant state highway patrols? The page on statistics brain says the source is "U.S. highway patrol" which is funny since last I checked the FBI has never issued a speeding ticket. Maybe park rangers issue tickets, but otherwise highway patrols are state entities. So, is the $6.2G only the total of tickets issued by state highway patrols? I haven't gotten a lot of tickets in my life (last one was 7 years ago) but more than once they were on local roads issued by local officers (you know, doing 50 in a 35mph zone). So, I'm really uncertain as to the accuracy of any of their numbers.
That aside, who cares? Not every state/local govt is Hampton, FL. http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/09/...
Speaking of math, U.S. state governments combined spend about $1.5T a year. (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/) So $6.2G is less than 1% of just the state budgets. Not a big deal.
Anyway, more information = more ways to tax. Think of an autonomous car as a black box that not just records your driving but does your driving. http://www.abqjournal.com/3311... But in this case we really don't even need the black box. Simply raising the gas tax a few cents would easily make up the lost revenue. State and local fuel taxes were over $40B in 2011 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=401). Fed fuel tax revenue was over $25B in 2006 (wikipedia). So, ask yourself, would you mind paying a few cents more per gallon if it meant NEVER HAVING TO PAY A SPEEDING TICKET AGAIN?
All in all, a tempest in an, ahem, teapot.
There was a prophecy in the 1950s about the time when we would have driverless cars. Then, the end of the age would come. Christ would return.
period.
If we have universal healthcare this wouldn't be an issue. I guarantee that the vast majority of that money goes into healthcare.
Good - cut their budgets.
Boo Hoo... now maybe they actually do some REAL police work and figure out how to stop real criminals versus harassing a motorist for petty infractions just so they can pad their fat paychecks. I'd take an autonomous car any day an let it pimp me to work whilst I lay back and relax.
If you're using fines as if they were general revenue, you're doing it wrong. Don't expect people driving through to pay for your little shit town. That's what property taxes are for.
But with all those Law Enforcement folks that will be out of a job, maybe they can use the same advice the I got when the H1B Trade Schooled Geniuses showed up by the millions. "Go and retrain yourself." I've heard of a lot of people that studied to become hair dressers, and message theapists. It could be a good fit?
What will this do for drug trafficking if there is no reason to pull people over?
Driverless cars will have no effect in government finance in any jurisdiction that respects the Bill of Rights.
One of the most fundamental rights arising under the 9th Amendment (rights retained by the people) is the right to ethical government. Even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided whenever possible.
This right is doubly protected, as it can also be asserted under the 10th Amendment as a right retained by the people. Rights retained by the people being retained by the people, no entity of government can take away this right.
For the money resulting from fines of any kind (not just traffic violations) to go into the government budget is a prima facie violation of the right to ethical government.
Even if this money is ostensibly being used to pay for something other than the salaries of these people, it's still freeing up the money that is being used for that purpose. Directly or indirectly this money goes to pay the salaries of the police officers issuing the tickets, and the judges upholding them.
The salaries of these people need to be paid wholly from tax revenues.
Further, any use of these funds that brings a benefit to political parties or politicians participating in a given level of government also creates a conflict of interest, as these people are in a position to provide bonuses, promotions, and ot
Rights retained by the people being retained by the people, no entity of government can take away this right.her benefits to the police officers and judges.
The money from fines must be managed in a manner that a reasonable person would accept is reasonably free from conflict of interest. A government that respects the Bill of Rights will already do this. The executives and legal professionals in any other government are acting illegally and unethically, in violation of the oaths they swore to uphold the Bill of Rights. It is the jurisdictions that treat the Bill of Rights as toilet paper that will have problems with this.
I control when the cruise control is on or off, and what speed it is set to.
Nevertheless, while the cruise control is on, you are not in control of the car's speed (especially with the new-fangled cruise controls that sense the speed of the vehicle in front of you). Control of the vehicle is split between human operator and automated systems. Ditto with traction control, anti-lock brakes, automatic transmission, interval wipers, etc. The driver delegates a portion of control of the vehicle to automated systems every time they are activated. The driver is almost never 100% in control. The grey area where both are in control is getting wider and wider: self parking, automatic lane keeping, for example.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Still not seeing a downside.
Because their budget is clearly more important than the purpose of their job: safety. This new technology and advance would bring about a much safer driving system. Isn't that what police are for, protect and serve? Why not let the police force focus on more important tasks instead of scaring people with speeding tickets.
a driverless electric car that runs on solar panels charged from your house. off the grid and simultaneously sticking it to the police, the gas and oil companies. We can put all these out of work cops back to work picking and cleaning weed. SCIENCE!
Should governments be profiting and depending on revenue which requires citizens to break the law in order to maintain it. If so, is not the local government contributing to illegal activity and accidental property damage, injury, and deaths by not allowing driverless cars on the road since they would be inherently safer?
Food for thought.
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Yes!
What will the candle makers do when electricity takes over?
What will the horse trainers and carriage makers do when cars take over?
What will the printers and mail deliverers do when digital documents take over?
What will the highway patrol, taxi drivers, other drivers do when autonomous cars take over?
The world will improve. Other jobs will be available. Some individuals will have personal struggles, but the rest of the world will grow.
Poor police. I feel so sorry for them...NOT!
Camera detected speeding tickets can be MANY hundreds of dollars each where I live. For example, the lowest fine is $180 if you are 5-10km/hr above the limit. Pure revenue raising.
The promise of driverless cars will take decades. There may be some local communities that go driverless, but nationwide it will be a long time. And, the the revenue stream will just change. There will be less traffic cops, and more police elsewhere, or law enforcement. But it was prophesied that it would happen before the return of the Lord.
cops don't dare arrest 'real' criminals as they are all precious irreplaceable democrat voting resources ...
when is the last time a real criminal turned out to be an EWHMF...?
its just not feasible to reduce crime, that might cause the overburdened taxpayer to reduce the number of cops....