Sunday, December 24, 2017

Police stops in era of self-driving cars

Over the past few months, there have been several articles about what might happen in an era of self-driving cars. Last year, the San Diego Union Tribune had an op-ed article by   titled: "Autonomous Vehicles Could Change Everything You Know About Traffic Stops"
I've thought about this a lot since I first heard about self-driving cars.  What will happen to our culture as we need fewer police due to self-driving cars?
As Adams & Rizer mentioned traffic stops for driving or vehicle problems are often pretenses for checking driver and passenger for other more serious offenses -- smuggling, drugs, kidnapping, weapons, immigration violations, car theft, escaped or wanted criminals etc.  Presumably the police have some success with these other arrests when stopping cars for these minor traffic offenses.  So if they can no longer do it, will there be more criminals getting away with crimes?  
What else might change in an era of self driving cars?


  • It seems that self-driving cars will probably be more expensive than the equivalent traditional car.  If those cars are more expensive, people may consider leasing or renting rather than buying cars.  They also might consider using services similar to Uber/Lyft to only use cars when they need them.  That will shift the capital cost to those companies and save users from those costs.  Citizens could then eliminate having parking garages.  They wouldn't need to hunt for parking spots or parking meters.  They would no longer need to register cars or buy insurance themselves. 
  • Police boredom -- Police will not have as many chores for traffic violations or helping with accidents -- will they be bored?  Or will governments consider reducing police budgets and the number of officers on duty?  With fewer highway patrol, and fewer infractions, we will need fewer courts, fewer judges, fewer court reporters, fewer balifs etc. 
  • Less Insurance, fewer car repairs - If there are fewer accidents, there will be fewer car repairs.  The cash flow through insurance companies and repair shops will be reduced.  
  • Parking enforcement -- If more people use self-driving services and not own their cars they won't need to find parking spots.  Uber-like services can park in large garages in last-in-first-out configurations, which will take up much less space than current parking arrangements.  Enforcement goes away as unneeded.
  • Fewer adversarial engagements - Now police seem to spend a lot of their time pulling people over for traffic infractions.  However with self-driving cars, we would think that most problems with speeding, illegal lane change, running stop signs or traffic lights will be eliminated.  If most of these adversarial situations are eliminated, will the public image of police improve?  
  • No DUIs --If we don't drive, but depend upon our self-driving cars, we can drink alcohol and "ride" without worrying about DUIs.  Police will no longer need to perform DUI checkpoints, or do sobriety tests for passengers in self-driving cars.  That will reduce their workload, for sure.  It will also help make for safer highways.  But, in some ways, the concern about DUIs may have a moderating effect on drinking.  If people no longer are worried about DUIs,  will that lead to more alcohol/drug abuse?
  • Market for Entertainment --If we don't have to drive cars, we will have more idle time in cars.  We can engage in more involved entertainment, such as video games, watching videos, texting, or studying.  The need for pure "audio-based" entertainment such as listening to music or talk radio might go away.    


The Transition to self-driving cars may take many years --while people.  Nostalgia lovers may keep current design cars forever.  Will they be banned from some roads?  Will they be required to install a chip?  

Police Violence Against Blacks

There was an article in today's LA Times  (by Makeda Easter and Richard Winton) about a 21 yr old black man, Christopher Ballew,  being beaten violently by two Pasadena police officers at an Alta Dena gas station on November 9th..  There were multiple videos of the police action and it sounds like the man was generally cooperating with the police.  But the police beat him with night sticks, broke his leg, and slammed his head onto the concrete.  The police claimed they stopped him because he was missing a front license plate and his tinted windows were too dark.
I have driven a car for 60 years, as has my wife.  My 3 kids have driven cars for about 20 years.  I  have never been pulled over for such infractions, nor has my wife.  I don't believe my three kids have ever experienced it and I really don't think I know anyone who has been treated by police that way.  Of course, we are white!  Even though I have always driven older cars with headlights or tail lights that fail from time-to-time or have other problems such as cracked windshields etc -- we have never been stopped!  On the other hand, it seems that many Blacks are stopped for "driving while black" --
I would expect that if I would have been pulled over for a broken tail light, the police would simply have handed me a ticket.  I may have complained about the stop and the ticket.  I may even curse the police --but I would expect they would be respectful anyway and write the ticket.  Why would they ever want to put me in handcuffs? 
In this case, the police claim that Christopher Ballew tried to grab their weapon (the night stick they were beating him with) -- and charge him with resisting arrest?  Are we, as citizens supposed to not defend ourselves when police are beating us?  Grabbing the stick seems to be the only defense we would have! 
The article says that the two police officers Lerry Esparza and Zachary Lujan remain on duty.  It seems to me that if anyone else did that violence they would be instantly locked up.  Why are these officers still free?  And why are they on duty?  I suspect that if they are charged with a crime, the DA will assign a very weak or inexperienced prosecutor to the case, and the prosecutor will be encouraged to go through the motions of prosecuting --but not try to win the case.  Prosecutors all have a serious conflict of interest in such a task, because if they might happen to win a case against an officer, they will never get cooperation from anyone in the police department again and their career would be ruined.  I believe that is why so many of the flagrant examples of police violence and killing seem to go unpunished.
I can see how neighborhoods can feel "under siege" by the police.  Some police departments are so well funded and heavily staffed (like Pasadena's?) that the officers have to search for excuses or pretenses to pull people over to arrest them.  Over the past few years there have been many police killings of citizens that started with seemingly trivial pretenses such as jaywalking (when there is no traffic in the street) or  riding a bicycle on a sidewalk as approaching home (when no people were on the sidewalk).  All of these seem to be occasions when police are looking for something to do --and they seem to pick on minorities when doing it.
I believe if the police worked to win the respect and gratitude of the citizens of these neighborhoods, they would get more cooperation and help to reduce crime.  I think if the police had pulled me over at any time for trivial pretenses, I might become angry with them.  I might, in fact, complain to the city police chief.  I would write to my City Council, and provide no support or help to my police force.  If I were repeatedly hassled by police as many black are, I just might consider organizing or participating in protests.