I don't agree with the license plate being covered, but that also doesn't give you the right to go and around rippingt hings off of people's cars.
It's not his property, leave it alone. This isn't any different than someone damaging your car because they disagree with something being displayed on it, or lack there of.
It's a small piece of plastic. A damaged car is generally expensive to repair, and "disagree with something being displayed" is very different than "intentionally obscures license plate".
You can't "both sides" and pretend to be neutral when your argument equates two incredibly different scenarios.
The fact that said car was used to break the law. Even if his actions were to be found illegal under current law, I'd say they should be explicitly allowed as a form of vigilantism.
Is there any indication he damaged the property by moving the piece of plastic? From the picture it seems like it was just wedged under a screw, so you could probably pull it off without causing any damage.
Maybe some other statute comes into play, buy criminal mischief doesn't seem fitting unless he, say, snapped it off.
Can you cite any laws, legal analysis, or newspaper in any US jurisdiction that describes moving a trashcan a short distance as criminal mischief, or any other crime?
> This isn't any different than someone damaging your car ...
Isn't it? That depends on whether, in that jurisdiction, the license plate is considered the vehicle registrant's property.
If that plate is the property of the state, and it is illegal for it to be covered by any sort of decal, then it's possible to regard the citizens as having the right to remove it.
Even if it is, it's not his responsibility, not his right?1
If I see someone speeding, should I jump in the road and tell them to slow down? If I see someone parked illegally, should I slash their tires? It makes no sense.
If the license plate is deemed public property, then removing the piece of plastic from it is like removing chewing gum from a picnic table. It is not comparable to slashing tires, because slashing tires is vandalism, whereas removing an illegal modification from a license plate is the undoing of vandalism. (I don't know why you would compare any of these to a reckless act endangering multiple lives, like jumping in front of a speeding car.)
Public property requires permissions for you to act upon. Do you, or the person in question have those permissions?
No.
Can I go and randomly fix potholes on public roads? Also, no. For anything public you also require permissions.Two wrongs dont make a right. Please, inform your self before these comments. Thank you.
Personally, I don't ever mess with other people's cars. But in the photo, the piece of plastic appears to be a portion of the broken license plate frame. I don't see how any damage was done at all.
No, it's the opposite. What leads to a "Russian" driving culture is people taking matters into their own hands.
I've lived in Europe. People love to be up and all about it, thinking they have the authority to do anything they want. We're in a civilized society here where we let the proper authorities take care of issues.
I'm a social ignoramus so wondering: is the cyclist in this case being a "Karen"?
I have little sympathy for the driver, but it does seem like the cyclist should have reported the driver to the police rather than taking the law into their own hands.
I'm glad the cyclist did something to raise awareness. Roads are a shared space with shared responsibilities. Valid, visible licenses plates are fundamental to public accountability for drivers of automobiles. They are there for everyone to see. There is no way that driver should be able to get away with obscuring his license plate, and I think the cyclist was within his rights to uncover the obscured license plate.
In this particular case I agree with you. But how would you write this into a law that citizens and police can reference to determine whether a particular action is ok or not?
"License plates are the property of the state and must be visible, unobscured, and attached only to the vehicle to which it is registered."
If the issue is a person removing a piece of tape covering a license plate, then really nothing happened. The citizen unobscured state property which is supposed to be visible. It would be like removing a sticker from a speed limit sign, or picking up litter.
If it's some other piece of plastic attached to the car itself, well IMO that's what courts are for. That cyclist goes before a judge and maybe some technical reading of the law interprets what he did as tampering with the vehicle. Another completely reasonable interpretation though is that the cyclist was making the shared roadway that the car was on safer for everyone else.
The police weren't justified in charging him for criminal mischief and I bet you it will get dismissed, and he'll win on a false arrest claim as well. Those should be starting points for your analysis.
> I'm a social ignoramus so wondering: is the cyclist in this case being a "Karen"?
No, I'd say it's more of an act of civil disobedience meant to draw attention to the casually corrupt practices of the NYPD. The driver is likely affiliated with government or the police department. Officers have been found doing it themselves.
Ahh, good point. The act itself I think was still civil disobedience, but the intent directed at the driver. Cyclist had more faith in the police than was justified.
Yeah, and the NYPD came and responded to him because he was most likely family of a cop. Do you seriously think if you called in one of these, the cops would respond? Let alone right away? They don't respond right away for actual road incidents, let alone something like this. And then their response when they showed up? That seemed proper to you?
It sounds like the person who obscured the license plate may have had some political clout (or been a friend of a cop). That is how the NYPD works these days.
These days? Please be specific, when was the NYPD not like this? Unless you're counting when the mob controlled the NYPD as separate from people with clout.
The NYPD union has negotiated an exemption from the requirements that most city employees have to live in the city (along with teachers and firefighters IIRC.)
I think this should be revisited in the next contract negotiation.
If automated plate recognition cameras fail to detect a plate, it should immediately flag a human reviewer and someone should be sent out to stop the car.
The automated system just gets a human to look at it. If the human can see it clearly obstructed, it calls for a search. The automation just cuts the search in to a manageable size
Why is your response so ridiculous? Wanting the police to pull over vehicles purposefully obstructing their license plates is incredibly reasonable. They are creating havoc on the streets of NYC and you are just making this ridiculous comparison for no reason...
But these systems are not used in real-time. Run a light, get a ticket in the mail weeks later, kinda thing.
If just one symbol is obscured, they could get the subset of plates that match on the other letters and numbers and then narrow it down by make and model, from the photo.
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are already being used in real time to detect stolen vehicles and vehicles associated with crime.
> Law enforcement agencies will often pre-load a list of license plates that the ALPR system is actively looking for—such as stolen vehicles and vehicles associated with outstanding warrants. Police officers can also create their own hotlists. If the ALPR camera scans a plate on the list, the system sends an alert to the officer in the squad car (if it's a mobile reader) or the agency (if it's a fixed reader). Some hotlists include low-level misdemeanors and traffic offenses. Some agencies use these hotlists to generate revenue by stopping citation scofflaws.
Police response times can be quick, for example, 5-10 minutes in Saratoga, CA.
> Response times will vary depending on current circumstances and the nature of the license plate match but are generally expected to occur within 5 to 10 minutes.
For folks outside NYC, there are a ton of cars that do this here and it generally never results in a ticket regardless of reports directly to the police or 311. It's done to dodge speed cameras, red light cameras, and tolls as well as to avoid being reported for reckless driving and accidents. The drivers who do this are generally the more dangerous ones. In NYC, under 15% of drivers who kill cyclists are arrested. Only 3% of hit and run cases are solved. 124 pedestrians, 50 motorcyclists, 19 cyclists and 15 people on mopeds and ebikes were killed in NYC last year.
> The drivers who do this are generally the more dangerous ones.
Let's call a spade a spade: the NYPD are the single worst offenders in almost all type of traffic and parking offenses (including obscured license plates). There are entire watchdog groups dedicated to documenting traffic-related NYPD abuses of power.
This is also why it's pointless to report violations, because 311 just sends it to the police, who take no action.
Anecdotally, members of the NYPD, celebrities, and politicians are all among the classes of people who are the most dangerous drivers in the city. It wouldn't surprise me if most of the "unsolved" fatalities have one of them on the other end.
No, I didn’t, though I suppose if you hadn’t looked at how ratings work on the indexes and made a particular wrong assumption about what “rank highly” indicated in this context, you might think that.
99% of them are cops, NYPD is full of manchildren who live with their parents on long island or staten island. Most of them believe they're above the law and that they don't need to pay the tolls to get into the city.
And local government officials run on platforms of vowing not to let police enforce these sort of actions. Not allowed to enforce speeding fines, parking fines, lack of license plate fine, public nuisance fines. I'm not sure what the end game is.
I understand the rationale that these indirectly target people of lower economic background, but is this sort of policy going to improve all this? Should we get our laws and standards down to the lowest common denominator? I'd love to hear balanced and convincing counter arguments, because the compassion card isn't quite convincing as is.
I admit to having been swayed by some of those arguments in the past, but the purely utilitarian case I feel has never been strongly made (and should be):
Are more people harmed in the process of police enforcing traffic laws (unlawful violence, egregious or excessive citation, etc.) than are harmed because of behavior enabled or exacerbated by unenforced traffic laws (running red lights, speeding, driving with lights off which result in property damage, injury, or death, or unlicensed vehicles used in other crimes, etc.).
Either way there is a social justice argument to be made, and I'm surprised I haven't heard a strong voice for enforcement, because my intuition is that more people are harmed in more broad economic terms when traffic violations are allowed to proliferate than those who would be harmed by interactions with police which run foul. It's just that when someone innocent gets unjustly murdered during a police interaction, it's such a horrific and newsworthy event and kind of distracts from regular, daily injustices (including traffic deaths). In a way kind of like mass shootings vs more regular low-grade gun violence.
When you drill into the social justice argument, at least some forms of them, the injustice is essentially that the poor are forced to drive and the bus service sucks. If you are concerned that the cost of registering a car, or paying tickets for expired plates, or repairing your headlights is outrageous and can cause a marginal person's financial life to spiral out of control, your first and best tool is better public transportation.
It would help if "public transportation" wasn't used synonymously with disgusting and dehumanizing "mass transit". I want to sit alone or with my co-travelers in a comfortable, sanitary pod that picks me up where and when I'm ready to leave and brings me just as close (or closer) to my destination as a car would.
> And local government officials run on platforms of vowing not to let police enforce these sort of actions. Not allowed to enforce speeding fines, parking fines, lack of license plate fine, public nuisance fines.
Seems like a mischaracterization to me. I have heard reducing pre-textual stops such as turning too wide or improper signal use, etc. Haven’t seen anything about not enforcing speed limits or allowing people to drive without a license plate.
Oakland is practically lawless. The police admitted they are understaffed and put out tips on how not to get carjacked, I was leaving a park and someone threatened me with a gun about 1.5 months ago.
Yep, my family has been a victim of assault with a deadly weapon (handgun) and OPD (almost) literally refused to take a report.
Called 911.
"Is this an emergency?"
"No this happened ten minutes ago in front of our house."
"Then you need to report it through the online crime reporting system" [click]
Um, ok. [report, report, report]
[next day]
Email from OPD says, report rejected because this kind of crime must be reported to an officer in person.
Called OPD.
"We'll send an officer"
[24 hours later]
Call again
"We'll send an officer"
[24 hours later]
[voicemail] This is officer XXX, I'm standing in front of your house, can you talk now? Here is my number (510) 555-4321, call me any time.
(I couldn't talk to him because I was away from my house)
[call the officer at the number he gave]
"The voice mail box at 555-4321 has not been set up, please try again later."
On and on. I finally gave up, which I think is the result they're shooting for. Talking to neighbors, I'm clearly not the only one with this experience. I'm a stupidity-over-malice kind of person but at this point I feel malicious compliance or malicious incompetence is not out of the question.
Not to be glib, but this is more or less what most voters want, isn't it? That is, in non-emergency situations, rather than confront people with an armed police response, to attempt to address it on a social level or with non confrontational approaches.
What were you hoping for the police to do in that situation? Do you have any number you can call to have a social worker take a report and look into the matter?
I was hoping the police would at least take a report. We had a description of the individuals, their vehicle, their MO, the location and time they carried out their attempted mugging. They rejected our detailed report, made an extremely lame attempt to contact us (only after our reinitiation) and then provided a dead end for follow-up. They're not even collecting data.
I was at the corner of Bancroft Ave and Hegenberger waiting at a light last year. I got passed on the right by two helmetless people riding an offroad ATV and all I could think was "I can't believe they are driving in the bike lane."
In Seattle, a number of people make a habit of leaving their car doors unlocked, just so the windows don’t get smashed in case of a ransacking. It happened to a family member just last week.
Cars are sacred property to some. I’ve known people who have been assaulted by drivers for daring to touch their precious vehicle as they are about to be ran over.
It seems like there was some favoritism towards a city employee, which if true would be bad. The person covering their license plate should face consequences regardless of their position or connections (and possibly even fired from their job).
But quite frankly this bicyclist is in the wrong here. In general, if you are going to put your hands on other people, or their stuff, you better be prepared to explain how doing so was necessary and that you had no alternative.
The only thing in danger here is city revenue (it's not like the fines were improving the driver's driving). This sort of busy-body vigilantism is tedious.
The NYPD arrests people for avoiding a $3 subway fare, but does nothing about defaced license plates which avoid much higher fines and tolls. It's lazy or corrupt (probably both) and actions like this are one way to draw attention to the situation.
What is your point? The NYPD makes a big deal about cracking down on fare evasion [1] but do nothing about defaced license plates and fake placards, in part because they and their friends are offenders.
> In general, if you are going to put your hands on other people, or their stuff, you better be prepared to explain how doing so was necessary and that you had no alternative.
He was prepared—he took photographs. The police reportedly ignored them.
The cyclist's actions were justified by the driver's illegal behavior. The cyclist needed to report a car with an obscured license plate. To do that, he needed to know the car's license plate. This is of course a catch-22, so the cyclist removed the obstruction in order to see the plate.
I could understand if both the driver and the cyclist were arrested (although I'd be very disappointed if the cyclist was actually charged), but arresting the cyclist and not the driver is nuts! Obscuring your license plate should be treated as a serious crime.
> That's just crazy vindictive, unless that was a company car.
From what I understand, the driver was a government employee. Flagrant violation of the law should be grounds for dismissal for any government employee.
>The only thing in danger here is city revenue (it's not like the fines were improving the driver's driving). This sort of busy-body vigilantism is tedious.
There's something like 9 deaths resulting from hit 'n' runs by cars with obscured plates just like this one, in NYC right now this past year. You could not be further from correct. Do you live in NYC? Do you have insight into how unsafe the streets are because of this exact conduct? Doesn't seem like.
> There's something like 9 deaths resulting from hit 'n' runs by cars with obscured plates just like this one, in NYC right now.
There were roughly 200 vehicle fatalities and 200,000 collisions for all of NYC in 2018. Numbers always benefit from context.
> Do you have insight into how unsafe the streets are because of this exact conduct?
Not because of this conduct. Dangerous driving may correlate with this conduct (and honestly covered plates should probably result in the car being forfeited) but it doesn't cause collisions.
Again, if you are putting your hands on other people or their stuff, you should be prepared to explain why it was necessary for you to take that action
>Not because of this conduct. Dangerous driving may correlate with this conduct (and honestly covered plates should probably result in the car being forfeited) but it doesn't cause collisions.
How do you know? You are in the mind of the people that drive like this? You have reason to believe that the fact that they can avoid repercussions does not leave them feeling entitled to undertake such conduct? Must be amazing to have such wisdom.
The reality is that you are being obtuse and a bad neighbor.
You sure ask a lot of questions, are you expecting answers to all of them?
Look, there's no mind-reading involved. What I am saying is that covering your license plate is clearly not the same as (for example) using your phone while driving - which clearly does casually related to traffic collisions.
You are correct that someone who covers their plates might feel free to take more risks, but it could just as well be that this person would be a terrible driver regardless.
>You sure ask a lot of questions, are you expecting answers to all of them?
You make a lot of assertions, should I expect you to substantiate any of them?
>Look, there's no mind-reading involved. What I am saying is that covering your license plate is clearly not the same as (for example) using your phone while driving - which clearly does casually related to traffic collisions.
Says who? You did a study? So you are giving up mind-reading for just outright conjecture, okay!
>You are correct that someone who covers their plates might feel free to take more risks, but it could just as well be that this person would be a terrible driver regardless.
They aren't mutually exclusive. You don't really seem to get it.
> You make a lot of assertions, should I expect you to substantiate any of them?
If you disagree, then make an argument. Don't pester people with questions.
> Says who? You did a study? So you are giving up mind-reading for just outright conjecture, okay!
Isolated demand for rigor. You asserted without evidence that obscuring plates cause accidents, yet demand evidence when I make the common knowledge observation that texting while driving leads to accidents.
Look, this is an internet forum, not an academic journal. If your only response is to demand empirical evidence there isn't anywhere for this conversation to go.
> They aren't mutually exclusive. You don't really seem to get it.
I didn't say they were mutually exclusive, just providing an alternative explanation. In the case of the driver from the article, given that he had already racked up thousands of dollars in fines before obscuring his plated, it is hard for me to imagine that he would feel anymore emboldened after. It sounds to me like he was just a bad driver.
>If you disagree, then make an argument. Don't pester people with questions.
The questions are the argument. They are the problems in your position that you have not answered that would be required for them to work. I don't need to offer up another alternatively entirely to make the cogent point that your assertion fails. This is just common sense. I have no idea why this needs to be explained to you.
>Isolated demand for rigor. You asserted without evidence that obscuring plates cause accidents, yet demand evidence when I make the common knowledge observation that texting while driving leads to accidents.
Well you dismissed my point just as readily... it's obnoxious, isn't it?
> Look, this is an internet forum, not an academic journal
Weird point from the guy demanding a sort of rigor about this whole situation that is so beyond the application of common sense I'm left a little bit confused as to what point you'd ever think you were making that wasn't merely academic.
A good idea would be to pool up every fine where a plate was obscured, and then every time the police find someone with an intentionally obscured plate, they get put in the group that has to pay off the whole pool of unassigned fines.
> But when they illegally cover their license plate so they can avoid tolls, evade red-light cameras and speed cameras, and generally put others at risk, we say go for it.
Nope. No. Don't.
It's bad to obscure your license plate. It's bad to vandalize other people's cars.
Surely this can't be that difficult to comprehend.
You can't grant yourself a pass to damage another person's property because of what you feel they intended to use it for, because of what you believe its value should be, because you don't like that they own or use cars, or because you have linked them to casually slaughtering countless people, the ruination of cities and destruction of society.
There are very limited circumstances in which you may take the law into your own hands. Being angry is not one of them.
Yes you can and you should. You like too many others are happy to sit idly by and watch the decay of society but some people actually have ethics and care more about keeping the community safe over “muh private property”.
Actually no that's incorrect, you can not give yourself a pass. You can attempt to cause damage of course, but surely even you can't be surprised with the consequences that might come from that.
And a lot of people think they have the correct ethics and idea of what is needed to keep communities safe, and believe they should be able to take the law into their own hands. I don't know if you'd be very happy with the outcome of everybody actually doing that.
Of course I'm not saying that you can legally do whatever you want. But ethically you very well can stop someone committing a serious crime. The guy in the article is an outstanding citizen for taking on personal risk to save others.
Cool, hold up, I dont like that Biden/Trump flag on your property because I believe he hasnt upheld his promises, and he's a shit president. He did do and so.
I'm going to rip it off, doing my civil duty, right? Not like there are any laws preventing me from doing it it.
Removing a piece of plastic whose only purpose is to obscure the license plate is not vandalism. If the drivers of these cars would like to learn what vandalism actually is, then I can think of plenty of people who are happy to demonstrate.
I get that it's annoying to see someone getting away with something. But that doesn't make it your right to address it however you see fit.
The point I'm trying to get across is that even though the other guy is wrong, that doesn't make it alright for you to do whatever you want in response.
The lawyer is doxxing the guy too. People really need to get a perspective on this kind of thing.
Driving with an obscured license plate is illegal and could get someone in real trouble. Obviously nobody would want to intentionally break that law. By removing such an unintentional obstruction they are doing the owner of the vehicle a favor - provided it doesn't damage the car itself, of course.
Similarly, if you see someone throwing trash out of their car, picking it up and depositing it in a trash can does not count as theft. Removing a third-party sticker from a traffic sign does not count as damaging it.
It's your moral duty to do something about these cars. The police are complicit in drivers killing people. Pulling the plastic off is the least you should do.
Most people aren’t mindless drones under complete control by the government. You can and should break the law when it’s the right thing to do. Manage your personal risk of course but in this case it seems very likely the guy in the article will win in the end.
That seems like a wild stretch... I guess you mean people with obscured plates feel more free to speed and/or drive dangerously, which will eventually lead to accidents and deaths?
That's rather attenuated to justify vandalizing someone's car. But even to the extent that's true, snapping off plastic bits obscuring license plates does nothing to help. The driver will either be unaware the bit was snapped off, in which case they will drive just as dangerously as before, or they will notice, and can simply replace the obscuring plastic piece, and continue to drive as dangerously as before.
It's a dangerous path to invent arbitrary moral justifications to do whatever you want. Let's say someone sees you pulling pieces off other people's cars. They might decide they have a moral right and duty to punish you. Say, subdue you and chop a finger off -- your just desert for laying a finger on other people's property. Does that sound good to you?
> That's rather attenuated to justify vandalizing someone's car.
Except it has nothing to do with vandalism. Vandalism is when you do damage to something, not when you're removing a bit of scotch tape, (nor when you spill tomato soup on a window, by the way).
In fact, small, easily reversible and non-damaging modifications to objects/buildings as a form of protest are actually protected by free speech laws in almost every democracy.
This is off topic, but these kinds of posts make me even more frustrated that Sam Bankman Fried who stole from me and millions of other people is not arrested, and all I got is ,,be patient he will''.
afaict this would be a serious offence in germany and also been taken very seriously. after all a license plate is essential to enforce law wrt any crime involving a car. so, i'm surprised to read several comments here about how this is common in the states.
this is quite common in Prague to avoid parking fees due to loophole in law, some go even so far to remove license plate completely while parking
OTOH Ukrainians park their cars everywhere in Czechia (CZ received most UA economic migrants per capita in world) without paid parking or straight up in illegal locations knowing there is no way to enforce fines outside EU and anyone being loud about it will be automatically labeled Putin lover
I’ve seen cars equipped with LED bars above and below license plates to camouflage them.
Nobody is making you drive. If you think you can get away with evading tolls and red lights, you shouldn’t be surprised if someone breaks that shit off your car. You deserve it. You want a lawless society, you might just get one.
You can always take the advice being offered here to vote, vote away the tolls and red light cameras if you don’t like them.
148 comments
[ 7.3 ms ] story [ 243 ms ] threadStill hope the underlying root cause gets addressed.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7gxa4/pba-card-police-court...
That's an expensive little piece of plastic
It's not his property, leave it alone. This isn't any different than someone damaging your car because they disagree with something being displayed on it, or lack there of.
You can't "both sides" and pretend to be neutral when your argument equates two incredibly different scenarios.
What gives you the right to touch their car?
Maybe some other statute comes into play, buy criminal mischief doesn't seem fitting unless he, say, snapped it off.
What right did he have to do that? Not his car or property, nor his job.
If I don't agree with the ruling of some judgement around banks, I don't go around breaking their windows and ATMs, right?
That's damage, regardless. If I go around and draw a very nice stick figure on a painting, versus throwing paint on it, are both not damaging?
Not his property, not his right.
And I never said otherwise. Which is why I opened my original post with a question about what actually happened.
Yes, both cases you mention are damaging something. A better example might be - is a person who draws on a sidewalk with sidewalk chalk damaging it?
If someone moves my trashcan on the street 2' to the right so they can park where it was, have they damaged it?
Can you cite any laws, legal analysis, or newspaper in any US jurisdiction that describes moving a trashcan a short distance as criminal mischief, or any other crime?
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/readingpa/latest/readi...
Isn't it? That depends on whether, in that jurisdiction, the license plate is considered the vehicle registrant's property.
If that plate is the property of the state, and it is illegal for it to be covered by any sort of decal, then it's possible to regard the citizens as having the right to remove it.
If I see someone speeding, should I jump in the road and tell them to slow down? If I see someone parked illegally, should I slash their tires? It makes no sense.
No.
Can I go and randomly fix potholes on public roads? Also, no. For anything public you also require permissions.Two wrongs dont make a right. Please, inform your self before these comments. Thank you.
If there is a tree fallen on my property, are you going to come and remove it, or do you expect me to do it?
I've lived in Europe. People love to be up and all about it, thinking they have the authority to do anything they want. We're in a civilized society here where we let the proper authorities take care of issues.
Go to the authorities. Thats why they are there. If you dont like it, take it up with them.
What is socially acceptable is not what is morally right, or wrong. Hundreds of years ago we tried witches based on assumptions.
I have little sympathy for the driver, but it does seem like the cyclist should have reported the driver to the police rather than taking the law into their own hands.
If the issue is a person removing a piece of tape covering a license plate, then really nothing happened. The citizen unobscured state property which is supposed to be visible. It would be like removing a sticker from a speed limit sign, or picking up litter.
If it's some other piece of plastic attached to the car itself, well IMO that's what courts are for. That cyclist goes before a judge and maybe some technical reading of the law interprets what he did as tampering with the vehicle. Another completely reasonable interpretation though is that the cyclist was making the shared roadway that the car was on safer for everyone else.
No, I'd say it's more of an act of civil disobedience meant to draw attention to the casually corrupt practices of the NYPD. The driver is likely affiliated with government or the police department. Officers have been found doing it themselves.
Didn't the driver call the police though?
You mean like with the license plate number?
Story says cyclist is a lawyer, so this was just job research.
Here's a poster from 1887: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Citizen_asking_Mayor...
I think this should be revisited in the next contract negotiation.
Problem solves itself, the vast militarization of our police force is justified, everyone happy.
If just one symbol is obscured, they could get the subset of plates that match on the other letters and numbers and then narrow it down by make and model, from the photo.
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are already being used in real time to detect stolen vehicles and vehicles associated with crime.
> Law enforcement agencies will often pre-load a list of license plates that the ALPR system is actively looking for—such as stolen vehicles and vehicles associated with outstanding warrants. Police officers can also create their own hotlists. If the ALPR camera scans a plate on the list, the system sends an alert to the officer in the squad car (if it's a mobile reader) or the agency (if it's a fixed reader). Some hotlists include low-level misdemeanors and traffic offenses. Some agencies use these hotlists to generate revenue by stopping citation scofflaws.
https://www.eff.org/pages/automated-license-plate-readers-al...
Police response times can be quick, for example, 5-10 minutes in Saratoga, CA.
> Response times will vary depending on current circumstances and the nature of the license plate match but are generally expected to occur within 5 to 10 minutes.
https://www.saratoga.ca.us/521/Automated-License-Plate-Reade...
Let's call a spade a spade: the NYPD are the single worst offenders in almost all type of traffic and parking offenses (including obscured license plates). There are entire watchdog groups dedicated to documenting traffic-related NYPD abuses of power.
This is also why it's pointless to report violations, because 311 just sends it to the police, who take no action.
The US actually scores very poorly for a major developed democracy, I don’t know why you’d say it ranks highly.
I understand the rationale that these indirectly target people of lower economic background, but is this sort of policy going to improve all this? Should we get our laws and standards down to the lowest common denominator? I'd love to hear balanced and convincing counter arguments, because the compassion card isn't quite convincing as is.
Are more people harmed in the process of police enforcing traffic laws (unlawful violence, egregious or excessive citation, etc.) than are harmed because of behavior enabled or exacerbated by unenforced traffic laws (running red lights, speeding, driving with lights off which result in property damage, injury, or death, or unlicensed vehicles used in other crimes, etc.).
Either way there is a social justice argument to be made, and I'm surprised I haven't heard a strong voice for enforcement, because my intuition is that more people are harmed in more broad economic terms when traffic violations are allowed to proliferate than those who would be harmed by interactions with police which run foul. It's just that when someone innocent gets unjustly murdered during a police interaction, it's such a horrific and newsworthy event and kind of distracts from regular, daily injustices (including traffic deaths). In a way kind of like mass shootings vs more regular low-grade gun violence.
Seems like a mischaracterization to me. I have heard reducing pre-textual stops such as turning too wide or improper signal use, etc. Haven’t seen anything about not enforcing speed limits or allowing people to drive without a license plate.
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/dont-roll-down-your-wind...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwSJJQqNBJs
"where she was approached by 3 males with guns who surrounded her vehicle and forced her out at gunpoint.
We're approaching 5400 car thefts so far this year in Toronto. That's a 50% increase from last year."
Btw, this is in a very nice, wealthy neighborhood.
Called 911.
"Is this an emergency?"
"No this happened ten minutes ago in front of our house."
"Then you need to report it through the online crime reporting system" [click]
Um, ok. [report, report, report]
[next day]
Email from OPD says, report rejected because this kind of crime must be reported to an officer in person.
Called OPD.
"We'll send an officer"
[24 hours later]
Call again
"We'll send an officer"
[24 hours later]
[voicemail] This is officer XXX, I'm standing in front of your house, can you talk now? Here is my number (510) 555-4321, call me any time.
(I couldn't talk to him because I was away from my house)
[call the officer at the number he gave]
"The voice mail box at 555-4321 has not been set up, please try again later."
On and on. I finally gave up, which I think is the result they're shooting for. Talking to neighbors, I'm clearly not the only one with this experience. I'm a stupidity-over-malice kind of person but at this point I feel malicious compliance or malicious incompetence is not out of the question.
What were you hoping for the police to do in that situation? Do you have any number you can call to have a social worker take a report and look into the matter?
But quite frankly this bicyclist is in the wrong here. In general, if you are going to put your hands on other people, or their stuff, you better be prepared to explain how doing so was necessary and that you had no alternative.
The only thing in danger here is city revenue (it's not like the fines were improving the driver's driving). This sort of busy-body vigilantism is tedious.
https://twitter.com/placardabuse
How many of those 375,000 people a day is the NYPD arresting?
[1] https://www.curbed.com/2022/04/nypd-fare-evasion-arrest-incr...
He was prepared—he took photographs. The police reportedly ignored them.
I could understand if both the driver and the cyclist were arrested (although I'd be very disappointed if the cyclist was actually charged), but arresting the cyclist and not the driver is nuts! Obscuring your license plate should be treated as a serious crime.
I agree that leaving the driver off the hook is nuts.
That's just crazy vindictive, unless that was a company car.
> if you are going to put your hands on other people, or their stuff
Serious question: whose property is a license plate in NYC?
> it's not like the fines were improving the driver's driving
The belief that one is operating with impunity can plausibly influence their behavior.
From what I understand, the driver was a government employee. Flagrant violation of the law should be grounds for dismissal for any government employee.
There's something like 9 deaths resulting from hit 'n' runs by cars with obscured plates just like this one, in NYC right now this past year. You could not be further from correct. Do you live in NYC? Do you have insight into how unsafe the streets are because of this exact conduct? Doesn't seem like.
There were roughly 200 vehicle fatalities and 200,000 collisions for all of NYC in 2018. Numbers always benefit from context.
> Do you have insight into how unsafe the streets are because of this exact conduct?
Not because of this conduct. Dangerous driving may correlate with this conduct (and honestly covered plates should probably result in the car being forfeited) but it doesn't cause collisions.
Again, if you are putting your hands on other people or their stuff, you should be prepared to explain why it was necessary for you to take that action
How do you know? You are in the mind of the people that drive like this? You have reason to believe that the fact that they can avoid repercussions does not leave them feeling entitled to undertake such conduct? Must be amazing to have such wisdom.
The reality is that you are being obtuse and a bad neighbor.
Look, there's no mind-reading involved. What I am saying is that covering your license plate is clearly not the same as (for example) using your phone while driving - which clearly does casually related to traffic collisions.
You are correct that someone who covers their plates might feel free to take more risks, but it could just as well be that this person would be a terrible driver regardless.
You make a lot of assertions, should I expect you to substantiate any of them?
>Look, there's no mind-reading involved. What I am saying is that covering your license plate is clearly not the same as (for example) using your phone while driving - which clearly does casually related to traffic collisions.
Says who? You did a study? So you are giving up mind-reading for just outright conjecture, okay!
>You are correct that someone who covers their plates might feel free to take more risks, but it could just as well be that this person would be a terrible driver regardless.
They aren't mutually exclusive. You don't really seem to get it.
If you disagree, then make an argument. Don't pester people with questions.
> Says who? You did a study? So you are giving up mind-reading for just outright conjecture, okay!
Isolated demand for rigor. You asserted without evidence that obscuring plates cause accidents, yet demand evidence when I make the common knowledge observation that texting while driving leads to accidents.
Look, this is an internet forum, not an academic journal. If your only response is to demand empirical evidence there isn't anywhere for this conversation to go.
> They aren't mutually exclusive. You don't really seem to get it.
I didn't say they were mutually exclusive, just providing an alternative explanation. In the case of the driver from the article, given that he had already racked up thousands of dollars in fines before obscuring his plated, it is hard for me to imagine that he would feel anymore emboldened after. It sounds to me like he was just a bad driver.
The questions are the argument. They are the problems in your position that you have not answered that would be required for them to work. I don't need to offer up another alternatively entirely to make the cogent point that your assertion fails. This is just common sense. I have no idea why this needs to be explained to you.
>Isolated demand for rigor. You asserted without evidence that obscuring plates cause accidents, yet demand evidence when I make the common knowledge observation that texting while driving leads to accidents.
Well you dismissed my point just as readily... it's obnoxious, isn't it?
> Look, this is an internet forum, not an academic journal
Weird point from the guy demanding a sort of rigor about this whole situation that is so beyond the application of common sense I'm left a little bit confused as to what point you'd ever think you were making that wasn't merely academic.
Nope. No. Don't.
It's bad to obscure your license plate. It's bad to vandalize other people's cars.
Both of these are true.
Drivers of HN sleep.
>Person flicks a bit of plastic obscuring a license plate:
WTF thats a REdLine stop that vandal!!!
You can't grant yourself a pass to damage another person's property because of what you feel they intended to use it for, because of what you believe its value should be, because you don't like that they own or use cars, or because you have linked them to casually slaughtering countless people, the ruination of cities and destruction of society.
There are very limited circumstances in which you may take the law into your own hands. Being angry is not one of them.
And a lot of people think they have the correct ethics and idea of what is needed to keep communities safe, and believe they should be able to take the law into their own hands. I don't know if you'd be very happy with the outcome of everybody actually doing that.
I'm going to rip it off, doing my civil duty, right? Not like there are any laws preventing me from doing it it.
Get off your high horse.
It is. It definitely is.
I get that it's annoying to see someone getting away with something. But that doesn't make it your right to address it however you see fit.
The point I'm trying to get across is that even though the other guy is wrong, that doesn't make it alright for you to do whatever you want in response.
The lawyer is doxxing the guy too. People really need to get a perspective on this kind of thing.
But by all means, do it anyway. I certainly wouldn't lift a finger to stop you.
Driving with an obscured license plate is illegal and could get someone in real trouble. Obviously nobody would want to intentionally break that law. By removing such an unintentional obstruction they are doing the owner of the vehicle a favor - provided it doesn't damage the car itself, of course.
Similarly, if you see someone throwing trash out of their car, picking it up and depositing it in a trash can does not count as theft. Removing a third-party sticker from a traffic sign does not count as damaging it.
Did they ask for help? No. Are you damaging the car? Yes. Are you intruding on others rights? Also yes.
Stop being so self-righteous.
You aren't an authority, nor has anyone asked you to be. This is no different than MOB mentality whre you think you have some kind of authority.
We have a government for a reason, to handle this kind of stuff. These people want more oversight, but at the same time, they don't want it???
Don't go around breaking other people's property because you don't like what they have. It's illegal.
Why do you get to decide what is right and wrong without a court of law? I thought we outlawed that ages ago.
That seems like a wild stretch... I guess you mean people with obscured plates feel more free to speed and/or drive dangerously, which will eventually lead to accidents and deaths?
That's rather attenuated to justify vandalizing someone's car. But even to the extent that's true, snapping off plastic bits obscuring license plates does nothing to help. The driver will either be unaware the bit was snapped off, in which case they will drive just as dangerously as before, or they will notice, and can simply replace the obscuring plastic piece, and continue to drive as dangerously as before.
It's a dangerous path to invent arbitrary moral justifications to do whatever you want. Let's say someone sees you pulling pieces off other people's cars. They might decide they have a moral right and duty to punish you. Say, subdue you and chop a finger off -- your just desert for laying a finger on other people's property. Does that sound good to you?
Except it has nothing to do with vandalism. Vandalism is when you do damage to something, not when you're removing a bit of scotch tape, (nor when you spill tomato soup on a window, by the way).
In fact, small, easily reversible and non-damaging modifications to objects/buildings as a form of protest are actually protected by free speech laws in almost every democracy.
Mate, we are all just trying to get somewhere safely.
OTOH Ukrainians park their cars everywhere in Czechia (CZ received most UA economic migrants per capita in world) without paid parking or straight up in illegal locations knowing there is no way to enforce fines outside EU and anyone being loud about it will be automatically labeled Putin lover
Nobody is making you drive. If you think you can get away with evading tolls and red lights, you shouldn’t be surprised if someone breaks that shit off your car. You deserve it. You want a lawless society, you might just get one.
You can always take the advice being offered here to vote, vote away the tolls and red light cameras if you don’t like them.
"This presumably City employee..."
Laws do not apply to the ruling class; laws apply to the working class.