[john-h-k]

It does provide reasoning for the asymmetry:

> “Since e-bikes do not require a license, drivers of e-bikes can simply ignore their traffic summons with no repercussions whatsoever, making any enforcement futile,” the police spokesperson said. However, the new requirement that cyclists appear in court, or face an arrest warrant if they fail to, creates “a strong incentive to show up in court.”

[lesuorac]

I really don't follow this reasoning through.

Sure, e-bikes don't require a license but they are still operated by a person. The cases that are all listed are people over 18 who absolutely have forms of ID that they can present to the officer to establish where to send a fine to and who to collect it from if it goes unpaid.

It's literally just as strong as the court requirement. Like if they guy doesn't show up to court who are you going to arrest!?

[hennell]

It's not hard to follow - traffic summons system relies on the summoned having a license. They don't track people down or chase them, they enforce by voiding the license. They have no process for people who are driving without a license - they can't void other ID.

So they're using a court summons, because that relies on ID, and is enforced by tracking people down. Whether it is 'just as strong' or not depends on if the person has a driving license. If you don't the traffic summons has no power over you.

[lesuorac]

> traffic summons system relies on the summoned having a license.

It doesn't.

It just relies on being able to identify somebody. Whether that's a school photo or a drivers license doesn't matter. In this situation, the bicyclists likely were carrying identification so the cop could reasonable assume who they were issuing a ticket to.

Automated enforcements typically use the license plate and mail the traffic ticket to the registered owner but we're talking about a scenario where a cop has stopped somebody and in those cases the ticket go straight to that person who may not be the registered owner of the vehicle.

> They don't track people down or chase them

They do.

You will get an arrest warrant (eventually) if you don't pay your traffic tickets.

And as stated in the article, cops did chase bicyclists.

> They have no process for people who are driving without a license

They do.

If they didn't nobody would get a drivers license... It's generally not criminal to drive without a license but additional (criminal) charges might apply depending on the situation.

[IAmBroom]

If I run a red light on a bicycle, how is a camera going to record evidence where to send the ticket? Or a cop on foot, for that matter?

You're presuming there's an office on the spot AND the cyclist stops. The penalties for a car driver to run are heavy and likely: license plate tracks to the owner, and the cop identifies (or "identifies") the owner in court. On a bike? "Be on the lookout for a blue bike, and a guy wearing a yellow windbreaker."

[lesuorac]

I'm making no assumptions.

The article clearly states there was an officer present that stopped the bicycles.

But to your actual question. There's a trivial response of where is the camera going to send a court summons to? The article is about bicycles being issued court summons instead of tickets. My claim is that you can literally just send the ticket wherever you gave the summons to and when they proceed not to pay the fine you send a future court summons (later backed by arrest warrant) and increased fines to wherever you would've send the original court summons to.

[john-h-k]

I can't speak for the accuracy of it, I just thought it would be useful to provide the context

[lnjoe]

Adults are not required to carry ID’s - at least in the US.

[lesuorac]

Depending on the state you are.

If you are stopped because of a traffic violation (crime) in New York state you need to be able to identify yourself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

[bombcar]

Isn’t a ticket just a summons to court that you have an option to do something else (pay the fine)?

And if you don’t, you lose your license.

But there is no licensing for bikes or e-bikes, so the leverage they have isn’t there.

[consp]

It's also misleading as there is a natural penalty asymmetry. The penalty for crossing though red and getting hit by a car is death for any cyclist and a likely accident but very survivable for a car.

Around here the fines are equal in money but you can lose your license to drive a murder machine. (Sarcasm)

It might be worse if the allowed speeds around intersections and cultural preference to speed though red are higher. And by allowed speeds I mean natural speed through traffic calming.

[john-h-k]

> The penalty for crossing though red and getting hit by a car is death for any cyclist and a likely accident but very survivable for a car.

But the legal penalty is nothing to do with what risks you took. You could have the view that the state should punish making mistakes that can kill your (in which case the bike penalty would be higher), but I (and I assume most) people wouldn't say this.

The reason the penalty exists is to disincentivise the action. If people were truly rational with all these risks, the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.

It would be incredibly odd to suggest, say, that burglars should have lower sentences if they risked their lives while doing the burglary.

[consp]

I phrased it wrongly. My bad.

The point should have been: if you drive a machine which can result in deadly harm to others you should be more responsible and thus the fine heavier (no longer being allowed to use such machine). Try killing someone with a bike. Not impossible but more a challenge than with a car.

[ImPostingOnHN]

Being required to show up for court isn't a fine, it's a means to make sure that a fine can be enforced. Whichever vehicle you're using, running a red light is often* legally proscribed.

The severity of the penalty can be determined by legislators elected by the people. Some of those people may want to increase the fine amount for automobile drivers. That seems like an ok thing to want.

* - often, but not always -- I realize that some jurisdictions legalize varying forms of it for some vehicles

[lesuorac]

> But there is no licensing for bikes or e-bikes, so the leverage they have isn’t there.

You can arrest people for failing to pay traffic fines.

[john-h-k]

Presumably doing it via the ticketing system is simpler - so why would they use the more controversial & more complex system to do it if the other works?

Of course its possible this is just being draconian or whatever, but if I were a betting man I'd wager they are doing this because it is in some way necessary

Necessary does not imply fair, or correct, or anything. Just that I would be surprised if they are doing it if the simpler alternative works

[lesuorac]

Well, necessary in the sense that just writing traffic traffics has clearly not gotten cyclists to stop hitting pedestrians.