Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Crime The Almighty Buck

Driverless Cars Could Cripple Law Enforcement Budgets 626

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Driverless Cars Could Cripple Law Enforcement Budgets

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:30PM (#47048763)

    So what's the next shakedown target in this game of "citizens vs government"?

  • Just Tack on a Fee (Score:1, Insightful)

    by mtrachtenberg ( 67780 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:31PM (#47048769) Homepage

    $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.

  • by Andrio ( 2580551 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:32PM (#47048791)

    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.

  • Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:32PM (#47048795)

    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'

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:34PM (#47048813)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:34PM (#47048817)

    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.

  • Supply and Demand (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:36PM (#47048843)

    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.

  • Oh no! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jandrese ( 485 ) <kensama@vt.edu> on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:36PM (#47048845) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • So what...? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:38PM (#47048863) Homepage

    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" [wikipedia.org].

  • by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:38PM (#47048865) Homepage

    current California law would have the person in the driver's seat responsible

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:39PM (#47048881)

    And direct and indirect public and private expenses due to traffic accidents will plummet saving much, much more than the speeding tickets could ever generate.

  • by rudy_wayne ( 414635 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:40PM (#47048885)

    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.

    There is no reason for any police to lose their job. Now the police can go back to doing what they are supposed to be doing. Traffic tickets aren't supposed to be a source of revenue. Every police office operating a radar gun and giving out traffic tickets is one less police officer available to go after real criminals.

  • by sir_eccles ( 1235902 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:40PM (#47048893)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:41PM (#47048901)

    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.

  • by Spy Handler ( 822350 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:41PM (#47048903) Homepage Journal

    So no more end-of-the-month speed traps by police departments to balance their budgets? Whatever will our police departments do for money?

    Wait, I've gotten speeding tickets before and I've always had to write the check to the city/county courthouse, not the police department.

  • by NewWorldDan ( 899800 ) <dan@gen-tracker.com> on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:42PM (#47048921) Homepage Journal

    Taxing EVs makes perfect sense. They still need roads to be built and maintained.

    Adding an enforcement fee for a car that doesn't need enforcement is just absurd. If the number of tickets being written drops because there are no more speeding cars and reckless drivers, then just reduce the size of the police force. You don't need patrol cops any more and that's a good thing. Instead of employing people as patrol cops, they can instead work as artists or scientists or something that makes the world better instead of being a necessary evil.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:44PM (#47048939)

    Unlike neoliberal economists I categorize economic activity by importance. Cops shaking down motorists for cash is a deadweight loss to the economy.

  • Need more cops (Score:4, Insightful)

    by linear a ( 584575 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:47PM (#47048987)
    $6.2 gigabucks/year is $300K/officer? That means 20,667 officers for the whole country. Methinks one or more numbers here is fudge.
  • by Totenglocke ( 1291680 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:49PM (#47049023)
    Why should a car that won't be committing traffic infractions pay a fee for traffic infractions? That doesn't even come close to making sense. That's like saying everyone who puts on a seat belt should pay an extra fee to make up for "lost revenue" from fewer tickets for not wearing a seat belt.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:49PM (#47049025)

    This. The revenue for cops should come from state/local taxes, the money for the roads should be through the DMV/licensing fees (like it is in most of the places I've lived). If these cops don't need to be out stopping petty speeding crimes, that makes them available to bust the *real* criminals: politicians.

  • So? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by azav ( 469988 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:50PM (#47049035) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by lgw ( 121541 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:51PM (#47049049) Journal

    The vast majority of road wear is from heavy trucks, mostly bringing stuff like groceries that we all need. The only reason we have a gas tax is because it's taxable. That's the only government process for deciding what to tax: is it reasonably practical to tax X? Yes? Then we're just arguing about the rate.

  • by TheCarp ( 96830 ) <sjc@NospAM.carpanet.net> on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:52PM (#47049067) Homepage

    Nah, they already trumped all that with terrorism. Why do you think we are looking at pot legalization in the next few years? The fact that the entire stance on pot was based on lies has been known for a long time. The fact that its safer than alcohol is pretty much uncontroversial, so what changed?

    Very simply the war on terror came along and gave them a reason to justify budgets like never before. Just the other day my wife and I were walking past the local park and saw a picnic basket on a blanket, with nobody anywhere around (it turns out to have been left by the bridal party off taking pictures nearby).

    As we walked past my wife joked "Downtown there would already be police investigating". We didn't get another 10 steps before 3 uniformed officers crossed the street and began walking into the park.... they barely made it to the blanket as the bridal party came back....but seriously.... investigating picnic blankets now? This is police work now?

    Don't know if you noticed, but the fatherland security money is flowing into these departments like gangbusters. They are getting all manner of new equipment.....all without actually having to do anything dangerous like....breaking into people's homes to raid them. All they have to do is wave their hands and say words like "credible threat" and its like magic.

    The common sense reasons that drug prohibition is a dismal failure are nothing new, nothing changed except...they realized they didn't need it.

  • by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:54PM (#47049087)

    Adding an enforcement fee for a car that doesn't need enforcement is just absurd.

    The way I read it, is its not an enforcement fee for a car that doesn't need enforcement. Its a $1000 tax on (I think) all cars to support local police municipal revenues so they can continue to pursue criminals where there isn't a net payoff at the end... like nearly all of them.

    Right now, it appears some of the revenue from traffic fines pays for the detectives investigating theft, arson, fraud, missing persons, murder, hunting with out a license, public urination, vandalism, and so on.

    Take away the traffic fines, and sure, you don't need nearly as much traffic enforcement, but they would also face a budget crisis within the rest of the department even if they let go of all the excess 'traffic enforcement' officers. Clearly that money to pay for regular police work is still going to have to come from somewhere. Raising local taxes is the obvious solution, whether its a tax-per-vehicle, or it gets added into property taxes, or whatever... its going to have to happen.

  • by CanHasDIY ( 1672858 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:56PM (#47049111) Homepage Journal

    That's actually a good point: since the occupants would have zero control over their vehicle, it would be trivial for LEOs to set up drive-through nudie scanners, redirect all traffic through them, then single out the cars that "appear to be carrying contraband" and put them on a separate track for an "enhanced" search.

    The fact that such a thing would be mind-bendingly unconstitutional will probably never even cross their minds, so long as the practice remains profitable.

  • by TheCarp ( 96830 ) <sjc@NospAM.carpanet.net> on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @03:04PM (#47049231) Homepage

    Riiiiiight.... because banning alcohol worked so much better. How about coming to their senses and respecting an individuals right to pursue happiness for themselves, whatever that means....and not outlawing the lifestyle choices of people who have done nothing to harm anyone.

    Dunno if you heard this one but "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" have always seemed like perfectly fine inalienable rights to me, we should work on implementing that inalienable part.

  • by Albanach ( 527650 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @03:05PM (#47049243) Homepage

    The figures are nonsense. There are 18,000 law enforcement agencies [bjs.gov] in the U.S.

    Whoever did the sums appears to have confused agencies with police officers, since that gives $344,444 per agency.

    There are about 461,000 sworn officers in local police departments, giving a revenue per officer of $13,449. Local police officers only make up 2/3 of the total number of officers in the US, so the actual revenue per officer is even lower.

  • by Your.Master ( 1088569 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @03:08PM (#47049273)

    If we dropped human drivers, speed limits could be increased in many cases (sometimes the design of the road itself is the limiting factor, and new roads would assume driverless conditions).

  • by BilI_the_Engineer ( 3618871 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @03:15PM (#47049351)

    and not outlawing the lifestyle choices of people who have done nothing to harm anyone.

    Careful, or you'll leave the door open for someone to say, "But they harm me indirectly by making me pay more in taxes, or cause me emotional harm."

    The problem with that is that it can be applied to just about every non-essential activity in existence. Want to go ice skating? What if you get hurt and cost tax payers money? And your family will be so sad! Oh, and how about, "These substances make people more likely to commit crimes, so they should be banned entirely." I love that one.

    Yeah, there's no direct harm of others happening, but authoritarian assholes don't care about that. Land of the free, home of the brave.

  • by GTRacer ( 234395 ) <gtracer308@nOsPAm.yahoo.com> on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @03:16PM (#47049367) Homepage Journal
    [...] smoking in public [...]

    Oh how I wish they were able to feasibly enforce already-in-effect statutes regarding smoking where prohibited and for littering. I've long said that if I had Powerball money, I'd hire dozens of off-duty cops to do nothing but stand visibly at major intersections writing littering citations for smokers who throw their butts out (usually lit) rather than stuff 'em in the ashtray.

    I'm also sick of people who smoke all the way to the entrance to a store and drop the lit end at the threshhold cos they couldn't be arsed to put it in the provided ashcan / pole thing because it's off to the side of the entrance.

    </endrant>
  • by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @03:29PM (#47049513)

    Right now, it appears some of the revenue from traffic fines pays for the detectives investigating theft, arson, fraud, missing persons, murder, hunting with out a license, public urination, vandalism, and so on.

    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.

  • by i kan reed ( 749298 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @03:32PM (#47049567) Homepage Journal

    An unexpected $250 fine REALLY hurts poor people. Taxation by citation is regressive and hell and is only tolerated because it protects safety(a little).

  • by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @03:35PM (#47049601) Homepage

    Driverless is not very accurate description of what is going on. Semi-autonomous seems a bit better but lacks marketing flash.

    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".

  • by Richy_T ( 111409 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @03:36PM (#47049609) Homepage

    Yes, life would be so much easier if we could just eliminate that whole legal system thing.

  • by Jody Bruchon ( 3404363 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @03:39PM (#47049659)
    Speeding being dangerous is a commonly believed myth. Speeding vehicles are safer in many respects, especially since other vehicles that notice a speeding vehicle do not question what the intent of said vehicle is since the actions being taken by it are obvious without any guesswork. Speeding drivers also have to pay closer attention to their driving task since they know they have less reaction time and have to keep a hawk's eye out for the cops.

    What is dangerous is what I refer to as "steering wheel attendants." People who are NOT giving the necessary attention to the driving task are very dangerous and are the biggest cause of traffic collisions by far. Speeding people have a lot of pressure to watch what they're doing; excessively casual drivers think they can fuck around because driving isn't exciting or interesting and seems to happen quite slowly...until an unexpected reaction is needed, and that's when the metal scrapes and the SUVs roll.

    Put your damn makeup and phone away and go 90 MPH in a 65 zone. You'll be shocked how much adrenaline and paranoia increase your attention span for what's going on around you.
  • by Ichijo ( 607641 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @03:43PM (#47049697) Journal

    Two other reasons for a gas tax are because it's less regressive than a sales tax, and because it provides the proper incentive not to consume more fuel than necessary (i.e., drive less or drive a more fuel-efficient vehicle). Driving less reduces the need for fewer lane-miles of road, and that saves us all even more money.

  • by tc3driver ( 669596 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @04:21PM (#47050145) Journal
    Wait just a moment here... Where does all our current funding go?

    I pay roughly 45% of my annual income in Taxes (split between state and federal), this is not including sales tax, fuel tax, property tax, and registration. With all of that added in (some via estimate) it is pretty easy to get that number to between 50 and 55%. I will never agree to a tax increase, ever. What we have here is a very poorly run situation, one where police are required to "tax" people from breaking silly laws and distracting the police from doing what they should be doing, stopping real crime.

    In a world where it takes an hour or more for police to come to my home after it has been robbed, yet you can drive around and see 10 speed traps, there is something wrong. Tickets should not be used as a source of income for the police departments, there should be no incentive for them to harass what are otherwise law abiding, tax paying citizens. "There is a person across town who is being murdered, and here is the officer writing a citation to someone who has never committed a real crime."
  • by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @04:53PM (#47050563)

    The war on drugs has turned large areas of the US into war zones
    and that is not a good thing.

    It is for the companies that are profiting by it.

  • by niftymitch ( 1625721 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @05:15PM (#47050849)

    The war on drugs has turned large areas of the US into war zones
    and that is not a good thing.

    It is for the companies that are profiting by it.

    Well it is more than just companies looking for profit.
    It is a collection of interests that all profit one way or another
    from a common outcome.

    The ones that bothers me most are the morally correctitude driven folk that
    want to save a soul by outlawing sin.

  • by jopsen ( 885607 ) <jopsen@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @05:48PM (#47051181) Homepage

    As it is now, people are forced to fight and win/lose, the system costs rise.

    Speeding tickets is the one place where plea bargins makes sense... So yeah consider that...


    On topic, this article is ridiculous.. most Americans won't be able to afford a new self driving car for years... So the poor will still have to pay tickets for many years to comes (you really have well rigged system for the rich).
    Either way, when self driving cars are dominating you'll also see other things, such as: fewer accidents, less time wasted in traffic, less wear and tear on the road. All things that save the state money.
    Not to mention all the productive hours people spending in traffic, where they could be productive, make money and generate even more taxes.


    Better transportation is probably good for the economy.

And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones

Working...