You must log in or register to comment.

lost_in_life_34 t1_je9ghld wrote

I’m all for conservation of water and I think the traditional lawn is a waste of money and resources but most water use in California is from the senior rights holding farmers who do zero conservation


foodtower t1_jeff6j6 wrote

The part that's always left off from sentences saying "most water is used by farmers" is "to grow food"*. Key difference vs lawns, which makes turf a prime target for water use reduction.

*Only applies to farmers actually growing food. I agree that farming animal feed is wasteful.


lost_in_life_34 t1_jefgkth wrote

And they still don’t bother investing any money into conservation because they have those contracts from the 1800’s

And many crops they grow for human consumption are water intensive and not very nutritious


QristopherQuixote t1_je9dyze wrote

People seem to really hate automated enforcement of anything, including traffic cameras. If you break a law, it shouldn’t matter how you’re caught. If we can automate enforcement, compliance will improve over time and costs for enforcement go way down.

Imagine how many fewer traffic accidents we would have if enforcement were automated. If people knew they could never speed, run a light, or go through a stop sign without being fined, they would start behaving. However, this idea is extremely unpopular.


Squirrel851 t1_je9fuvo wrote

Years back instead of driving my diesel to NJ from SC I borrowed my buddies Tacoma. Driving up and in Maryland I go passed a white SUV with cameras attached to the front. His parents got the ticket even though they were nowhere near driving it.

Just because it's convenient, doesn't mean it's right.

Also speed cams and red-light cameras usually are private industry. Contracted by the city or county, they can charge whatever they want but have no state authority other than the go ahead to install the equipment and maintain it. Any revenue paid goes mainly to them, the city gets a cut.

All this to say, I'm all for automation, just wish people would get their greedy hands out of it.


mikk0384 t1_je9ics8 wrote

They can only identify the car. Then they send the ticket to the owner, and then the owner give the ticket to the rightful recipient. The only potential issue I see is if the vehicle is stolen, but that should have been reported to the police anyway.


Squirrel851 t1_je9knog wrote

Or the fact it's not up to a private citizen to deliver a ticket to a private citizen. Otherwise every Karen and Keith would be giving tickets to whoever they wanted. I'd you get the ticket in the mail then you either pay or you go to court over it. Judge reviews the picture or video, if they can't determine who it is then the ticket gets thrown out. You still have to pay court costs however.


mikk0384 t1_je9mggp wrote

>Otherwise every Karen and Keith would be giving tickets to whoever they wanted.

Nobody would accept them, and the judges can determine that it isn't theirs from the photo anyway. That's a pointless argument.

If you lend your car to someone and get a photo with the driver visible, it should be easy to get it moving. Chances are that you can even get a new photo of the person to verify your claim that it is them - you wouldn't lend your car to just anyone.

If someone speeds in someone else's car, I'd count that as a betrayal of trust. I wouldn't have any issues whatsoever giving them the ticket they earned for themselves. That I had to give it to them is just a result of me trusting someone I shouldn't have.


Squirrel851 t1_je9so1r wrote

They won't pursue someone else. They have bigger issues to deal with. It's either your ticket or it's not. But they send it to whoever is on file. Most of the time on the interstate cameras they are too far away to get a driver picture. So if you fight it, chances are you're going to win.


papsylon t1_jea30ub wrote

This whole chain is so ridiculous. In Germany as owner of a car you have to either pay the fine yourself or tell them who drove the car. Then they get the ticket sent to them. You can refuse both and maybe escape the fine. But then you can get ordered to keep a log of the drivers of the car.

I once received a ticket and claimed that I drove that day. I got a summons to the police station to make my statement since the picture evidence didn’t match to me being the driver. Because my wife borrowed my car that day and you could see it was a woman and not a man driving.


QristopherQuixote t1_je9id8o wrote

Private companies cannot issue traffic citations and charge whatever they want. A civil infraction has to come from a government entity with statutory limits on fines and the money has to go the government entity. Most camera systems are bid out to and implemented by private companies on behalf of either a state or local government.


kittenTakeover t1_je9yx85 wrote

The thing is that nobody wants full enforcement. The public doesn't want full enforcement of many laws because it would be a nuisance and most people break certain laws regularly. The law enforcement doesn't want full enforcement because partial enforcement allows them to continue their racket without public backlash shutting it down.


GrinningIgnus t1_je9fb2w wrote

I mean, I’ve had people ride my bumper through yellow lights and the camera captures my vehicle’s plates because of their noncompliance. Suddenly I have to jump through bureaucratic hoops bc of someone else’s noncompliance. And those hoops are allllll automated voice systems or extremely stupid chat bots that make you burn a solid 30 minutes before you’re allowed to talk to an actual person.

Not to mention that technology gets worse with each generation. The tech workforce is getting diluted with dummies. 15 years ago I didn’t have a deep burning hatred of user interfaces - they worked and were responsive. Now they crash reliably. How have we unsolved something as fundamental as a user interface? I keep a folder of software bugs that crop up during a normal work day, and that thing grows every single day.

There’re plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike forced automation. I agree that “I didn’t want to get caught” isn’t one. If automated solutions were done well, I’d love it. But they’re not.

There’re different complaints to be made for traditional law enforcement as well.

Everything sucks.


QristopherQuixote t1_je9g68n wrote

In the OP case, automated enforcement was based on the amount of water passing through a homeowner’s meter and the usage pattern. Pretty simple implementation of automated enforcement without many ways for it to screw up, and people still hated it.


lost_in_life_34 t1_je9gkkl wrote

Apple and google maps already have all the camera locations and warn you. Same with many dashcams and other apps


QristopherQuixote t1_je9hpny wrote

So... if there were more cameras, and people received more warning from apps and devices, wouldn't that increase compliance? The goal should be compliance, not revenue.


lost_in_life_34 t1_je9ivjm wrote

Those things are just as much about revenue and a shadow tax as much as safety if not more.

Too many cameras won’t be financially viable


QristopherQuixote t1_je9ko9g wrote

Since a traffic light costs no less than $50k to purchase and install and at least $2k a year to maintain, I think there's more money for enforcement cameras than you might think.


AlanzAlda t1_jecinvl wrote

Are there any studies showing a safety improvement with automated enforcement? I was pretty sure it increased the accident rate..


QristopherQuixote t1_jeclk1d wrote

Yes. I read several and the improvement is between 12 and 30% reduction in accidents. This is particularly true when speed limits are enforced.


Stampede_the_Hippos t1_jebob4k wrote

There are several logic issues here. People behave up to a point. After that, no amount of enforcement will act as a deterrent. Also, laws don't have the societal function you purport them to have. Mostly, laws are meant to keep a certain group of people suppressed. Here, the social norm is that people spend a certain amount of water. Once it became apparent the law was hurting the in-group, it was discontinued.


QristopherQuixote t1_jec7yct wrote

Logic errors? Hahahaha sure buddy.

Read the article. It was an experiment in automated enforcement. It was not meant to be permanent. The community did not change the law, only the enforcement model.


AutoModerator t1_je9cz3u wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.