City honking ordinance triggers what transportation psychologists call the prohibition effect and what drivers call ‘what prohibition’
NYC Council Votes to Make Manhattan a ‘No Honking Zone’; Honking Immediately Increases 40 Percent
NEW YORK, NEW YORK — The New York City Council passed legislation Wednesday designating all of Manhattan below 96th Street a No Honking Zone, imposing a $350 fine for unnecessary horn use in what Council Speaker Adrianna Martinez called “a historic step toward a more liveable, quieter city” and what happened in the 48 hours following the law’s passage suggests was received by Manhattan drivers as a personal challenge.
For related London satire and commentary, see Bohiney Magazine and The London Prat.
The Law
Local Law 2024-89 defines unnecessary honking as any use of a vehicle horn except to prevent imminent collision and establishes a $350 first-offence fine, $500 for subsequent violations. Enforcement will be conducted by NYPD traffic officers and a network of acoustic sensors the city plans to install at 200 key intersections to detect and record honking events for subsequent citation issuance. Council Speaker Martinez presented the law at a press conference at which she was periodically interrupted by honking from the street outside, which she addressed by continuing to speak at slightly higher volume. She noted that New York City receives approximately 40,000 honking complaints annually and that traffic noise is a significant contributor to stress, sleep disruption, and cardiovascular health issues in dense urban environments. All of this is true. The question is whether a fine changes the behaviour of a population that has honked through dozens of previous honking ordinances, none of which achieved measurable noise reduction, and all of which are still technically on the books.
The British have a specific vocabulary for the policymaker who introduces the same type of law that has not worked before with the expectation of different results. British swear words and their proper applications include this category precisely, with prat occupying a specific position in the register for the confident legislator whose relationship with the evidence base is optimistic rather than analytical.
The Data
NYPD traffic enforcement data for the 48 hours following the law showed a 40 percent increase in honking incidents at monitored intersections. Transportation psychologists at NYU called this “consistent with documented prohibition effects.” The Council Speaker’s office called it “a temporary anomaly.” The psychologists noted that awareness of the law was extremely high and the increase appeared to reflect deliberate rather than uninformed behaviour. “These are people who know about the law. They are honking in full knowledge of the law. That is a different situation than not knowing.” A Midtown taxi driver with nineteen years in Manhattan offered the most practically informed perspective: “The fine is real. The sensors are real. I understand. But when the light turns green and nobody moves, something has to happen. The horn is what happens. I am not going to sit there.” He honked once, demonstratively, and then immediately said “that was to prevent a collision” with an expression suggesting he was aware this was not strictly accurate. The acoustic sensor network records audio events above a certain decibel threshold, timestamps them, and cross-references with camera footage to identify the vehicle. Citations are issued by mail. Civil liberties advocates have raised questions about a citywide audio recording network. The city says sensors do not store continuous audio. The ACLU is reviewing this claim. The sensors are going up. British slang use of bird and other terms and top British slang both include vocabulary for the specific enforcement situation of a law that everyone is technically breaking in real time, which the British have navigated in pub closing laws, speed limits, and jaywalking regulations for generations, with comparable results.
The Acoustic Network in Practice
The acoustic sensor network, when fully operational, will generate citations by mail for honking events captured on camera. The practical challenge is that the gap between the honk and the citation — estimated at three to six weeks for the first wave of mailings — means that the deterrent effect of the fine is temporally separated from the behaviour it is meant to deter by enough time to allow the recipient to have completely forgotten the specific honk in question. New York drivers honk an average of several times per commute. The probability of connecting a citation arriving in six weeks to a specific honk at a specific intersection on a specific morning is, in practice, approximately zero. The acoustic network is real. The citations will be real. The connection between citation and behaviour change remains, as a theoretical matter, to be established at a future date.
The city’s enforcement history on previous honking ordinances provides relevant context. Between 2012 and 2019, the NYPD issued an average of 167 honking citations per year citywide, against an estimated 140,000 honking incidents per day in Manhattan alone. This represents an enforcement rate of approximately 0.000001 percent, which is either a very focused deployment of limited resources or a meaningful indication of practical enforceability. The acoustic sensor network is intended to change this ratio. Whether it does will depend on whether the gap between the honk and the citation — weeks rather than seconds — creates the deterrent effect the programme assumes, a question that behavioural economics has addressed in other contexts with findings that are, at best, cautiously optimistic.
For more satirical commentary, visit Waterford Whispers News.