| | |
|
BrandonGeFirstPaper 9 - 01 Mar 2010 - Main.MatthewZorn
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | charge people $1,000 for littering or $500 for driving under-loaded
in HOV lanes, or for speeding in construction zones, you make even
sporadic enforcement very effective, because the fines are larger | |
<
< | than many drivers' cars are worth. You also create a good reason for | >
> | than many drivers' cars are worth.
Effective by what means? Effective, as in actually deterring the behavior? I think there is ample evidence to show that when the probability of something occurring is sufficiently small (as I imagine it is in HOV lanes), humans discount the probability of its occurrence entirely. I have not looked specifically at San Jose's HOV program. I have, however, seen that students will plagiarize and cheat academically, even when facing extremely harsh penalties, because the probabilities of being caught are almost non-existent.
Of course, the real solution to HOV lane cheating isn't trying to change social norms or instituting Draconian punishments. The solution is to install cameras to watch the HOV lane. I realize the essay deals with this idea, however, I think it vastly underestimates the extremely potent deterrent effect of cameras. If you are from the same part of Maryland that I am, you will know first hand what cameras will do to people when they come near (when the probability of something occurring is sufficiently small, we often discount the probability of its occurrence entirely). Stopping HOV lane cheating is simple--just park an empty cop car in a shoulder near the HOV lane and create the illusion of enforcement. -mz - 01 Mar 2010
You also create a good reason for | | | the Highway Patrol to make enforcement of these rules a significant
priority. That plus some points on the license, endangering the
ability to make a living in a place that so utterly requires each | | | prevent behavior quite effectively. No significant littering happens
on Highway 1, and at least in my experience with Silicon Valley
traffic, HOV violation is very uncommon conduct. | |
<
< | | >
> | | | | I think more statistics would be crucial to making this point about Sporadic Enforcement, whichever way it goes. The simple Risk calculation of Punishment*Likelihood isn't very informative. Most people aren't great at math, and even if they are it isn't all that influential. Sporadic Enforcement plus Heart Stopping fines seems to be the strategy used by the RIAA, and the consensus is that it is totally ineffective. Perhaps even counterproductive, as it turns public sentiment against them. I realize that traffic fines are much less sporadic than that, and that high fines give the Police incentive to increase enforcement, but I'm not prepared to assume, based on logic and an anecdote, that the strategy "works". Most data and metrics are subject to the criticism below, but it would give you some basis to begin your comparison. - Stephen Severo | |
<
< | So maybe you're right | >
> | So maybe you're right | | | and maybe you aren't: perhaps there's data showing that San Diego
does better than San Jose by some measurement we might be interested
in (though it probably wouldn't do by some other measure of equal |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |