> What fraction of people who are in traffic accidents leave the scene in their vehicle before the police get there, but get found later because their license plates were known?
As a cyclist who continually sees stories of aggressive car behaviors being reported and acted on because the cyclist had cam footage of the license plate I'd say the fraction is close to 100%.
So yes, it is a trade-off and in this case I agree with the OP that is is worth it.
> As a cyclist who continually sees stories of aggressive car behaviors being reported and acted on because the cyclist had cam footage of the license plate I'd say the fraction is close to 100%.
My anecdotal evidence, for what it's worth (which is not much in either case), is exactly the opposite: in every traffic accident I have been involved in, neither I nor anyone else left the scene.
(Btw, when you say "aggressive car behaviors", are these things that actually caused harm?)
As far as actual data that would be strong enough to justify imposing public policy on everyone, I don't think it's there.
> In 2020, 26.3% [1] of cyclist fatalities were caused by hit-and-runs.
How many of the hit and run drivers were caught because of the license plates on their vehicles? That's the relevant data for this discussion. I don't see it anywhere in the article you referenced.
In 100% of cases I've seen where camera evidence compelled the police to act after a cyclist had been a victim the fact the licence plate was visible was the factor that made the police act.
> My anecdotal evidence, for what it's worth (which is not much in either case), is exactly the opposite: in every traffic accident I have been involved in, neither I nor anyone else left the scene.
You probably aren't the problem here. To generalise broadly on the cases I've seen the issue was usually caused by drivers who decided their aggressive instincts would be best served by running cyclists off the road.
These people don't stop after doing it because they believe their actions are appropriate.
(The other common case is people running cyclists off the road when they don't realise they are there. Generally these people don't stop either).
Our common law legal system does a pretty good job of that already. For example:
> Threatening behaviour included or excluded?
See the legal definition of assault.
> "Likely to cause harm" or "intending to cause harm" included or excluded.
"Likely" is excluded in common law if that's all you have, because, as I said in response to another post upthread, actual facts trump guesses. "Intending" falls under assault if, roughly, the intent is perceived by the target.
> Is running off the road OK if no material harm?
Again, see the legal definition of assault.
> What if they have a heart attack 20min later due to stress?
How would you prove, in a legally sufficient sense, that the heart attack was due to whatever happened 20 min earlier?
I'm not proposing "caused actual harm" as the standard because I just made it up. I'm proposing it because it is the standard that our common law legal system has used for the vast majority of its history. It's only fairly recently that nanny state legislators started thinking (incorrectly, in my view) that they were smarter than centuries of common law jurisprudence.
As a cyclist who continually sees stories of aggressive car behaviors being reported and acted on because the cyclist had cam footage of the license plate I'd say the fraction is close to 100%.
So yes, it is a trade-off and in this case I agree with the OP that is is worth it.