This scheme would reduce ticket revenue, though. And if criminal scofflaws have to pay, good, fuck ‘em. The New York taxpayers shouldn’t take on the burden. They could avoid the cost trivially.
Comment on This is crazy. Why don't you just take their car ?
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Because ticketing is a revenue stream.
What, you thought police ticket people to… protect the general public?
SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 1 day ago
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 1 day ago
But it would be offset by the massive and recurring income from installing and maintaining the devices by a third party.
Let’s see who the companies providing these services are owned by.
Like when ticket cameras in vans became a thing 25 years ago: 80% of the “ticket” went to the camera van company. I say “ticket” because in many US jurisdictions only a police officer can issue a ticket, so these were unenforceable as tickets.
States had to update their laws to add “civil fees” as a thing just for such cameras.
SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 1 day ago
Oh, my heavens, a THIRD PARTY! /s
Yes, these devices cost money to produce, install, and operate. Don’t want to pay for one? Stop breaking the law.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I knew someone who ran a similar program for DUIs.
It probably wouldn’t be a revenue stream for the government.
A private company would buy the equipment and charge the government AND the speeder for the costs, maintenance and monitoring.
Usually when there is a big push for these kinds of enforcement systems, the person pushing for it already has a friend of family member who just happens to do exactly that.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Oh.
Wonderful.
Even better.