Comment by Aurornis

Comment by Aurornis a day ago

It’s amazing how effective even a slight amount of random law enforcement can be.

Several of the hiking trails I frequent allow dogs but only on leash. Over time the number of dogs running around off leash grows until it’s nearly every dog you see.

When the city starts putting someone at the trailhead at random times to write tickets for people coming down the trail with off-leash dogs suddenly most dogs are back on leash again. Then they stop enforcing it and the number of off-leash dogs starts growing.

pradn a day ago

Random sampling over time is substantially as effective as having someone enforce the law 100% of the time. It's something like how randomized algorithms can be faster than their purely-deterministic counterparts, or how sampling a population is quite effective at finding population statistics.

Reply View 8 replies

groggo 21 hours ago

It feels less fair though. When everyone is driving x mph over the limit but only you get pulled over, it sucks. So I agree for efficiency of enforcement, but I'd rather see 100% enforcement (automated if possible), with more warnings and lower penalties.

Reply View | 7 replies
- kirubakaran 20 hours ago
  
  It's only unfair if the innocent are punished. Lot of murders go unsolved. Does that mean the murderers that do get caught are treated unfairly?
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  groggo 16 hours ago
  
  That's a pretty extreme example, maybe the idea doesn't hold as much there. But yeah, if 99% of murders weren't prosecuted, the 1% who get charged might feel like they were singled out (and maybe they were, because of some bias or discrimination). Again, 100% enforcement is better.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- chrisweekly 21 hours ago
  
  It doesn't just "feel" less fair, it often is -- bc it's not truly random, it's selective enforcement which leads to things like "driving while black".
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- foobarian 20 hours ago
  
  The problem with 100% enforcement is it doesn't allow law enforcement any discretion, and then you end up having to actually officially change the speed limit which would probably never happen
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  groggo 16 hours ago
  
  Definitely true in practice, but I don't think we want discretion. What I mean though is as a deterrent, you can either have a "fair" fine that's enforced 100% of the time, or 2x the "fair" amount with 50% enforcement, etc. When it's 100x the "fair" amount with 1% enforcement, and you see everyone else not being enforced, it feels unfair.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  presentation 14 hours ago
  
  Traffic rules do require some discretion though - if eg you don’t allow crossing a double yellow line but a car is broken down blocking the lane, does that mean that the road is now effectively unusable until that car is towed? Lots of examples.
  But I’m with you on more enforcement. I’m totally fine with automated traffic cameras and it was working great when I was in China - suddenly seemingly overnight everyone stopped speeding on the highways when I was in Shanghai, as your chances of getting a ticket were super high.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- [removed] 21 hours ago
  
  [deleted]
  
  Reply View | 0 replies