Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by M.:
Tangent - the statue atop the Old Bailey isn't blindfold.

M.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You don't solve bias in one direction by simply applying equal and opposite bias. You don't address a working assumption that in any encounter, the black person is at fault by replacing it with a working assumption that in any encounter, the white authority figure is at fault. That's not justice, that's just revenge.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But you don't assume the guilt of any particular individual

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You don't solve bias in one direction by simply applying equal and opposite bias. You don't address a working assumption that in any encounter, the black person is at fault by replacing it with a working assumption that in any encounter, the white authority figure is at fault. That's not justice, that's just revenge.

---

You don't solve bias by ignoring it. Some of the Ferguson police are Black so it's not always a White authority figure. If however, the Authority is unusually corrupt and does not care about justice, you would be foolish to rely on that authority to correct its own wrongs rather than lie.

The report shows a large number of people who have been fined and arrested on spurious charges of resisting arrest the system has been perverted into a tax farming revenue system.

Do you expect them and their neighbors to believe that system will correct its own excesses? I wouldn't. Instead they listen to whatever stories are given by random people who claim to have been there.

---

I honestly wonder how anyone got "just ignore the bias" out of anything I said.

And I wonder even more how anyone thinks "just believe every rumour that flies around instead" is a good solution.

One of the things that particularly amazes me about this case is the approach, both on and off the Ship, that says that the policeman's evidence isn't credible because he has a motive to slant his story a certain way. Well, duh. That's not the problem. The problem is failing to apply the same scepticism to the second guy that was stopped by the policeman, who just as obviously has a motive to slant his story a certain way.

This is exactly why things like physical evidence are so crucial. I don't basically believe this policeman because I think he has perfect recall or because he has no reason to exaggerate, I basically believe him because there's physical evidence to support key things such as that there was a struggle for his gun.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Palimpsest:




I honestly wonder how anyone got "just ignore the bias" out of anything I said.

---

quote:

---

But this is also what shits me. Politics is largely a fact-free zone. I am naive and idealistic enough to hope that the court system still has an interest in facts. I am even naive and idealistic enough to believe that politics, and public debate in general, should be interested in facts, but I'm well aware that it usually isn't.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

This is exactly why things like physical evidence are so crucial. I don't basically believe this policeman because I think he has perfect recall or because he has no reason to exaggerate, I basically believe him because there's physical evidence to support key things such as that there was a struggle for his gun.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Palimpsest:




I honestly wonder how anyone got "just ignore the bias" out of anything I said.

---

I got it out of what you didn't say. We all agree there are two conclusions of the report, but you focus on only the first; that the police officer should be acquitted. You only mentioned the second as far as claiming that people use it to claim that the first conclusion when made by the system is unreliable.

So, did I miss your comments about a system that the police, the court, the judge and the clerks office were biased and geared toward extracting fines rather than administering justice?

Earlier in the thread you said in defense of the Grand Jury presentation;

quote:

---

But this is also what shits me. Politics is largely a fact-free zone. I am naive and idealistic enough to hope that the court system still has an interest in facts. I am even naive and idealistic enough to believe that politics, and public debate in general, should be interested in facts, but I'm well aware that it usually isn't.

---

Do you believe that the court system in Ferguson demonstrated that still has an interest in facts? Did I miss a post where you discussed how your naïve ideals were wrong about the courts here?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Connect the dots. The findings confirm why people don't trust the authorities. Because they cannot be blindly trusted and that there still exists a strong bias. And too large a percentage of the time, they will be justified in their fears.

---

Certainly. No argument there. The findings on the systemic question (which as I understand it is separate to the report on the single incident) do confirm all that.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

This is exactly why things like physical evidence are so crucial. I don't basically believe this policeman because I think he has perfect recall or because he has no reason to exaggerate, I basically believe him because there's physical evidence to support key things such as that there was a struggle for his gun.

---

The physical evidence convinces me that Wilson's account was relatively correct after the confrontation began. It does not convince me that he did not set the tone for more violence than was necessary. It does not convince me that he was purely a respondent and not also an aggressor.
It also further convinces me that American cops are poorly trained* and too much reliant on their firearms.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want to ignore that and focus on the fact that I don't agree with the Ship's majority on the guilt of this particular policeman, that's your decision. I'm not going to waste my time trying to be answerable to selective reading. Frankly, if I want to talk about examples of bias, I only need refer to my own experience of people painting me as being on one "side" of this debate when all I've done for months on end is criticise the constant insistence on dividing everybody neatly into 2 categories.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

I am saying that, even if the final outcome is the correct one, it does not inherently make Wilson a blameless angel.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

But I still don't know what reliable evidence there is that in this particular incident he provoked Michael Brown.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

I think you have suspicions, which you are entitled to. And they are supported by Dorian Johnson's testimony. So I'll have one more go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Heck, you may be right about poor police officer training

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

but nobody is that stupid.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If a car door is opened in front of you, perhaps not violent. If a car door is opened into you, violent.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Eyewitness testimony is fraught with problems.

---

quote:

---

Witnesses Consistent with Prior Statment, Physical Evidence and Other Witnesses who Inculpate Wilson

There are no witnesses who fall under this category

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If a car door is opened in front of you, perhaps not violent. If a car door is opened into you, violent.

---

A car door can be opened into you only if you are standing right next to it. Why did Brown position himself there?

Moo

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do not disagree with your post B62.* Though I would qualify that the onus is greater on the abuser than the abused.

*other than the misguided respect.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

We could do this all day and not resolve anything.
What I am arguing is the beginning of any encounter can influence the tone of the encounter. And that the police, especially American police,** have a poor history of setting tone.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

The state is also thinking of reducing the maximum percentage of revenue the cities can get from traffic fines from 30% to 10% and is looking at cities which are already over the 30% cap.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Many of them have severe revenue problems. The solution is probably not one where the city can't afford a police force. Fixing this would require state-wide restructuring of taxes in ways that are not likely to happen. This problem can be seen quite clearly in how schools are financed locally.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
At some point we're also going to have to deal with the people who make a profit off of prisons and prisoners and really don't want the system to change.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

The kind of city that has a permanent cop lurking on the 300 feet of state highway within its boundaries to generate income is fairly rare.

---

quote:

---

Officials in nearby cities rejected any comparison to Ferguson.

“You don’t dismantle the whole house in order to kill one bug,” said Mayor Patrick Green of Normandy, who is black. He said that his police force had issued more citations since state agencies asked it to help patrol Interstate 70, and that the money had been used to pay for public safety. “Everyone’s saying, ‘Oh, no, that’s cities just taking advantage of the poor,’ ” he said. “When did the poor get the right to commit crimes?”

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
At some point we're also going to have to deal with the people who make a profit off of prisons and prisoners and really don't want the system to change.

---

Amen, amen, and amen.

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posted                         

quote:

---

What Is A Speed Trap?

When most people think about speed traps, they think about police hiding behind billboards or waiting to pick off motorists right where the speed limit changes.

However, there is a broader, more accurate definition that covers these situations and more:

A speed trap exists wherever traffic enforcement is focused on extracting revenue from drivers instead of improving safety, made possible by speed limits posted below the prevailing flow of traffic.

---

quote:

---

Detailed research by the U.S. Department of Commerce has shown that the safest rate of travel is a few miles per hour above the average traffic speed. Enforced speed limits set below that average speed are speed traps, sacrificing safety for revenue.

---

In other words, it's a set up.

BTW, the Speed Trap Exchange is where drivers can share info--so far, they've got more than 80,000 sites listed in the US and Canada.

(Anyone else thinking of the 70s(?) movie "Convoy", about long-haul truckers dealing with local law enforcement? )

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
That is completely arse backwards as a regulatory concept. You can't set a speed limit based on the flow of traffic. The flow of traffic is determined by a range of factors, including the speed limit.

---

quote:

---

When establishing a speed limit, the main premise is that most drivers are prudent and will voluntarily comply with a reasonable speed limit. To determine what is reasonable, engineers measure drivers' speed on a section of roadway, the speed at which 85% of drivers are at or below is the standard for determining a speed limit. A properly set speed limit will be within 3 miles per hour (±) of this observed speed. The posted speed limit will then be rounded to the nearest 5 miles per hour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And furthermore, in the jurisdictions I know about speed limits are not arbitrary, they are determined by a set of criteria.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Speed limit determinations rely on the premise that a reasonable speed limit is one that conforms to the actual behavior of the majority of drivers; one will be able to select a speed limit that is both reasonable and effective by measuring drivers' speeds. Speed limits set by E&TS [engineering and traffic studies] are normally set near the 85th percentile speed. The 85th percentile speed is the speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving, and statistically represents one standard deviation above the average speed.

Studies of the effects of establishing, raising and lowering speed limits include federal studies FHWA-RD-92-084 and FHWA-RD-98-154 (summaries can be found in Appendix D.1 and the full reports can be found at the FHWA web site). These studies demonstrate that the most effective attribute in establishing the speed limit is to determine the 85th percentile speed and set the posted speed close to that value. The empirical data in these studies demonstrates that setting the speed limit too high or too low can increase collisions. Speed limits that are set near the 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic are safer and produce less variance in vehicle speeds. Because of this, the 85th percentile is used to establish the upper limit of operating speeds that are considered reasonable and prudent.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
For newly constructed roads, I suspect they assign provisional limits, then do the engineering study.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

orfeo: How do you set a provisional limit?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

orfeo: How do you set a provisional limit?

---

Benchmarking. You look at similar roads, and you set the provisional limit equal to that.

Your new road is a country road with some curves. Most country roads with some curves have speed limit of 40 mph. So you set your provisional limit at 40 mph. In the first weeks, you fine no-one, but you do your engineering study.

You find out that unlike the other country roads with some curves, 70% of the cars go faster than 40 mph on your road. They may go 45, they may go 52, but a lot of cars don't obey the speed limit, more than at other country road with curves. So you set the permanent speed limit of your road to 50 mph.

Simples.

---

Why? Why do "most country roads with some curves have speed limit of 40 mph"? On what basis? How did they get that speed limit in the first place?

And okay, hands up who has actually seen these 'provisional' speed limits that only last for a few weeks?

I have no problem with the idea that what the traffic is actually doing can be used in a review of a speed limit. That is, in fact, something that comes into the Australian system. My point, though, is that it's simply not viable to use it as the starting point for a speed limit, and even this answer proves that. You have to begin with criteria that look at the road and the road environment, not driver behaviour. You are assessing the new road to compare it to existing roads and see which physical features it has in common.

And I just can't think of any evidence that people set 'provisional' speed limits with the expectation of immediately doing a study and committing to changing them based on the study. Those kinds of studies in fact only happen on particular roads, when something flags that a review is needed to check whether speed limit is appropriate.

If the American claimed system was confined to that - to using driver behaviour as a factor in a review - I wouldn't have a problem with it. But it's kind of obvious to me, given my profession, that you can't use driver behaviour as the primary basis for setting a speed limit when:

1. At the time you're setting the speed limit, there isn't any driver behaviour; and

2. The speed limit you set affects subsequent driver behaviour.

It's also interesting that the response to driver speeding (well, apart from taking advantage of the ability to repeatedly fine over 15% of the population) is to change the rule, not change the road to slow them down. The main road through my suburb - the one on which the guy killed his 2 passengers - has had some speed humps introduced onto it after exactly the same kind of percentile analysis. This is to increase the percentage of people complying with the 60km/h speed limit. At some point a little before that pedestrian crossing islands had also been added.

The American proposal would be to increase the speed limit, which would mean that a street with numerous driveways, curves, bus stops, a school zone, a scout hall and the entry point for the local supermarket would authorise people to drive their cars at a speed more likely to cause injury and death, to pedestrians in particular, if an incident occurred, and with increased stopping distances.



There is something fundamentally odd about taking the view that driver's behaviour ought to be judged purely by drivers, as if drivers are the only interest group and roads exist in some kind of vacuum instead of being surrounded by houses, people and even other roads. I know there's plenty of evidence of the level of influence of car companies in making America all about cars, but that's just ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous to take away the ability to say to drivers that their behaviour in a given situation simply isn't appropriate. That they've failed to exercise the necessary skills in driving. The 85th percentile system is like a teacher at the start of the semester saying "Hello class! We promise that 85% of you will pass this course! Even if none of you know shit!"

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posted                      

quote:

---

orfeo: Why? Why do "most country roads with some curves have speed limit of 40 mph"? On what basis? How did they get that speed limit in the first place?

---

quote:

---

orfeo: And okay, hands up who has actually seen these 'provisional' speed limits that only last for a few weeks?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

orfeo: Why? Why do "most country roads with some curves have speed limit of 40 mph"? On what basis? How did they get that speed limit in the first place?

---

By the same process.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
For newly constructed roads, I suspect they assign provisional limits, then do the engineering study.

---

How do you set a provisional limit? What's the basis for it? Putting "provisional" in front of it does nothing to solve the logical problem of finding a basis for deciding what that limit is going to be. All I'm going to ask you now is: how did you set the provisional limit on the new road?

---

quote:

---

And the next question is: how did that provisional limit influence driving behaviour for your study?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
You don't seem to get it - this is not a "logical" problem, it's a practical one.

---