Driverless cars could cripple law enforcement budgets

[Morris Minor]

Had not realized how big and direct police departments' stakes are in the drug & speeding industries...

------------------------------
Shortly after the state of Washington voted to legalize recreational marijuana late last year, opponents made a very interesting, if somewhat counterintuitive, argument against legalized pot – law enforcement would miss out on the huge revenue stream of seized assets, property, and cash from pot dealers in the state.

Justice Department data shows that seizures in marijuana-related cases nationwide totaled $1 billion from 2002 to 2012, out of the $6.5 billion total seized in all drug busts over that period. This money often goes directly into the budgets of the law enforcement agencies that seized it. One drug task force in Snohomish County, Washington, reduced its budget forecast by 15% after the state voted to legalize marijuana, the Wall Street Journal reported in January. In its most fruitful years, that lone task force had seen more than $1 million in additional funding through seizures from marijuana cases alone, according to the report.

More...
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/driverless-cars-could-cripple-law-enforcement-budgets

[MX793]

Kind of like how recent strides in fuel economy, along with increasing popularity of hybrids/EVs, have been hurting revenues collected via fuel taxes...

[12,000 RPM]

ALWAYS follow the money.

[Morris Minor]

I propose a new bill.

All fines, asset seizure proceeds etc. from enforcement activities of all agencies at federal state and local levels shall go into the country's overseas aid fund, and benefits from such fines and seizures shall not derive to said agencies either directly or indirectly.

[hotrodalex]

$1B over 10 years spread out across the entire country is practically nothing for each department.

[bing_oh]

$1B over 10 years spread out across the entire country is practically nothing for each department.

If my quick calculations are correct, it comes down to about $216.91/per full-time sworn officer/per year (assuming 2008 DoJ stats that put the number of sworn full-time officers in the US at around 461,000). Not a very impressive amount.

[Soup DeVille]

Well. Between this and electric cars cutting into the fuel taxes, were pretty much hosed...

[Rupert]

If my quick calculations are correct, it comes down to about $216.91/per full-time sworn officer/per year (assuming 2008 DoJ stats that put the number of sworn full-time officers in the US at around 461,000). Not a very impressive amount.

Of course, the distribution isn't even, but I'm pretty OK with police getting less money because fewer people are breaking the law.

[bing_oh]

Of course, the distribution isn't even, but I'm pretty OK with police getting less money because fewer people are breaking the law.

No, in actuality many departments would probably be getting less. Considering that something like 80%+ of all departments in the US are classified as "small police departments" (ie, 50 officers or less), not to mention those officer stats only take into account full-time sworn officers (many very small departments rely on part-time and even unpaid reserve officers for manpower, increasing those overall numbers), the money we're talking about is, in all reality, pretty insignificant. And, that's the point...while the article makes it sound like big money involved, it's really not. It's probably not enough money for the average department to even feel it in a normal yearly budget.

[Rupert]

But the departments that might feel it are the bigger ones in bigger cities with more people.

Whatever, it's an academic difference, like I said.

[MX793]

Well. Between this and electric cars cutting into the fuel taxes, were pretty much hosed...

They'll just do what NY does and start setting up more revenue collection, I mean "vehicle safety", checkpoints on main roads to try to snag people for equipment violations or out of date plates/inspection.  I encountered one yesterday while on the bike where they pulled every motorcyclist coming through off the road onto a pull-off area and went over our helmets, licenses, registrations, and inspection stickers.  Probably looking for illegal/loud mufflers too, though most of the bikes that were there when I was were quieter models.

[FlatBlackCaddy]

Legalized marijuana and self driving cars would probably bankrupt most law enforcement agencies, unless they are willing to cut back on personnel and just employ what they need to enforce serious laws instead of generate revenue.

On the plus side, think of all the lives this would save. Less cops would probably mean less police shootings.

[Laconian]

Why can't we just pass levies and pay for LEOs with tax money directly? Collecting so much money through punitive means ruins lives unnecessarily in the process.

[bing_oh]

Why can't we just pass levies and pay for LEOs with tax money directly? Collecting so much money through punitive means ruins lives unnecessarily in the process.

Um, the vast majority of police departments are paid for with tax dollars. I've tried to explain this before (with it either falling on deaf ears or with someone ending up calling me a liar), but most of the fines from traffic and criminal violations don't go to police departments...they go to the courts and the state governments. I believe that my department gets something like 5% of the fine from your average citation...not even enough to cover the cost of the officer's salary and the gas it took to issue it. The only department in Ohio that I can think of that gets a significant amount of funding from fines would be the Ohio State Highway Patrol (and even they don't operate solely from those fines, getting much more cash from BMV fees, despite the fact that their primary job is traffic enforcement).

Punitive fines are...punitive. That's the intent, to punish and deter.

[Raza]

Um, the vast majority of police departments are paid for with tax dollars.

So my taxes do pay your salary. 

[bing_oh]

So my taxes do pay your salary.

Well, no, not yours...unless you moved into my city and I didn't know it.

BTW, my favorite comeback for that particular comment is, "Well, I pay taxes too, so this one's on me" as I toss them in the back of the cruiser (yes, I've said it).

[Raza]

Well, no, not yours...unless you moved into my city and I didn't know it.

I did and you don't.  BAM!

BTW, my favorite comeback for that particular comment is, "Well, I pay taxes too, so this one's on me" as I toss them in the back of the cruiser (yes, I've said it).

That's actually a good one.  You're cleverer than I gave you credit for, Bing.

[GoCougs]

Well. Between this and electric cars cutting into the fuel taxes, were pretty much hosed...

lol - not even. Fascism knows no bounds - the Planners would come up with a new more "appropriate" theft (er, tax) system.

[GoCougs]

Why can't we just pass levies and pay for LEOs with tax money directly? Collecting so much money through punitive means ruins lives unnecessarily in the process.

That's how it works in my (small) town. The % from tickets and fines is miniscule, and I don't really even think it's part of the budget, as it's unpredictable.

[sparkplug]

when a driverless car committs infraction who pays the fine.

[bing_oh]

when a driverless car committs infraction who pays the fine.

I'd assume the person in control of the vehicle. Obviously, the law isn't written for driverless vehicles at this point, but I would assume that states will generally still require a licensed, competent driver to be in a position of control in a driverless vehicle in case of a malfunction.

[Soup DeVille]

I'd assume the person in control of the vehicle. Obviously, the law isn't written for driverless vehicles at this point, but I would assume that states will generally still require a licensed, competent driver to be in a position of control in a driverless vehicle in case of a malfunction.

I would assume there is always going to be a person who is presumed to be the "operator" regardless of how much operating is actually being done.

It's conceivable that one day it may be common for parents to bundle up their infants, and just press the "go to grandma" button, but that's a ways off.

[dazzleman]

I'd assume the person in control of the vehicle. Obviously, the law isn't written for driverless vehicles at this point, but I would assume that states will generally still require a licensed, competent driver to be in a position of control in a driverless vehicle in case of a malfunction.

From what I understand, the Google car doesn't have manual override.  It has no steering wheel and no brakes.

[bing_oh]

From what I understand, the Google car doesn't have manual override.  It has no steering wheel and no brakes.

I can't imagine states making it legally permissible for that kind of vehicle to be on the roads at this point...especially not mixed in with traditional human-operated vehicles. Like Soup said, maybe, someday, such a vehicle will  be commonplace, but I don't think it will fly in the first generation of "driverless" vehicles.

[Soup DeVille]

From what I understand, the Google car doesn't have manual override.  It has no steering wheel and no brakes.

Done more to prove the concept rather than a practical concern.

[dazzleman]

I can't imagine states making it legally permissible for that kind of vehicle to be on the roads at this point...especially not mixed in with traditional human-operated vehicles. Like Soup said, maybe, someday, such a vehicle will  be commonplace, but I don't think it will fly in the first generation of "driverless" vehicles.

I don't think I'd drive a car without manual override.  Computers get stuck and fail too often to completely trust one to drive a car without the ability to take control if it fails or fucks up.

I wouldn't want a driverless car anyway.  I enjoy driving and I don't want to be turned into a machine-controlled zombie.

[Soup DeVille]

I don't think I'd drive a car without manual override.  Computers get stuck and fail too often to completely trust one to drive a car without the ability to take control if it fails or fucks up.

I wouldn't want a driverless car anyway.  I enjoy driving and I don't want to be turned into a machine-controlled zombie.

There are definitely times when it would be handy, even I'll admit that. One of Toyota's engineers recently theorized that driverless cars would result in a net increase in energy consumption and an increase in congestion and commute times: because people wouldn't care about a long commute anymore because they could do whatever they wanted to while commuting. That makes a lot of sense to me.

But yes, I'd want a manual over ride: and a real one at that. A lot of automated industrial machines have several steps of "manual" control: the ones that give you the most control are often password protected and reserved for maintenance or engineering personnel. I'd suspect that the manual over ride on a self driving car would be more like a semi-automatic mode.

[12,000 RPM]

Fully automatic cars are, to a large degree, a pipe dream. What we will actually see very soon are farther reaching driver assistance aids. Carlos Ghosn breaks it down here:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/07/ghosn-presents-2020-autonomous-drive-roadmap/

Autonomous Drive is about relieving motorists of everyday tasks, particularly in congested or long-distance situations. The driver remains in control, at the wheel, of a car that is capable of doing more things automatically. Self-driving cars, by comparison, don't require any human intervention — and remain a long-way from commercial reality. They are suitable only for tightly-controlled road-environments, at slow speeds, and face a regulatory minefield

So cops don't have to worry... their "revenue first, safety never" moving violations racket is safe for now.

[r0tor]

I belive driverless cars will also make suicide bombers obsolete... maybe they can hang out with the cops and have some donuts

[Soup DeVille]

I belive driverless cars will also make suicide bombers obsolete... maybe they can hang out with the cops and have some donuts

Suicide bombers have always been obsolete technologically. Martyrdom is the motivating factor there.