Police Details, Cameras, & Enforcement Methods

[TallIsGood]

This statement is a perfect example of the slippery slope fallacy. This would be a perfect example to use in a logic textbook.

Fallacy?

Chicago is using it to raise funds (not enforce laws) https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chic...speed-limit-more-cameras-after-28m-fine-drop/

Washington D.C. and Chicago, which have come to rely on cameras to plug holes in the general revenue stream.

He even argues that camera revenue may itself create a perverse incentive to keep designing dangerous roads — and keep fining drivers who may not even know they’re exceeding a limit that’s set far lower than the design of the road suggests.

Is Automated Enforcement Making U.S. Cities Safer or Just Raising Revenue? — Streetsblog USA

Cities should treat automated enforcement as a temporary tool as they build out holistically safe places. We can't punish our way to safe streets.

usa.streetsblog.org

So the fines are used to raise money. Don’t have the intended effect of safer streets (because fines aren’t immediate) and cities have perverse incentives to design streets for revenue with lower limits than streets appear designed for.

 

[thepixelnation]

Fallacy?

Chicago is using it to raise funds (not enforce laws) https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chic...speed-limit-more-cameras-after-28m-fine-drop/

Washington D.C. and Chicago, which have come to rely on cameras to plug holes in the general revenue stream.

He even argues that camera revenue may itself create a perverse incentive to keep designing dangerous roads — and keep fining drivers who may not even know they’re exceeding a limit that’s set far lower than the design of the road suggests.

Is Automated Enforcement Making U.S. Cities Safer or Just Raising Revenue? — Streetsblog USA

Cities should treat automated enforcement as a temporary tool as they build out holistically safe places. We can't punish our way to safe streets.

usa.streetsblog.org

So the fines are used to raise money. Don’t have the intended effect of safer streets (because fines aren’t immediate) and cities have perverse incentives to design streets for revenue with lower limits than streets appear designed for.

First, using Chicago as a reference is pretty off base. They sold the rights to all of their parking spaces for 75 years.

Second, the Curry interviewed in the article works for the Fines and Fees Justice Center, a thinktank (?) that is lobbying against all Fines and Fees. He's going to argue against it. Curry even admits that red light cameras and speed cameras do reduce collisions and crashes respectively. The rest haven't been studied, so he says there's no evidence and we should pursue them.

Maybe we should talk to our representatives about what the safer streets we need look like rather than shutting down the possibility of a possibly helpful enforcement on an internet forum. That's the Slippery Slope Fallacy.