Police in England installed an AI camera system along a major road. It caught almost 300 drivers in its first 3 days.::An AI camera system installed along a major road in England caught 300 offenses in its first 3 days.There were 180 seat belt offenses and 117 mobile phone
I work in an adjacent industry and got a sales pitch from a company offering a similar service. They said that they get the AI to flag the images and then people working from home confirm - and they said it’s a lot of people with disabilities/etc getting extra cash that way.
This was about six months ago and I asked them, “there’s a lot of bias in AI training datasets - was a diverse dataset used or was it trained mostly on people who look like me (note: I’m white)?” and they completely dodged the question…
(this is definitely a different company as I am not in England)
Yes does the AI automatically send every taxi through or is it only when they are on the phone. Has the AI ever seen a taxi driver who’s not on the phone in order to check this?
“Hookay thanks for the presentation fellas, but lemme ask ya: Was your model trained only on iPhones or was a diverse palette of plastic Android phones from the last 15 years also taken into account?”
So my car is no longer a private space .
That ship has sailed a long time ago. Tons of cars on the roads now have built-in cameras. Cameras that are ultimately under centralized control of the car manufacturer.
Your car also isn’t a private space when the kid you just hit goes through your windscreen because you were doing 10 over the limit while looking at your phone
Would be nice if my privacy and road safety were related issues, but they are not.
It’s absolutely trivial to make a car that physically couldn’t exceed the speed limit, or would not start until the driver is secure, or the phone is stowed, or threat did not had multi level menus in touch screen nave.
instead they build infrastructure to have AI take and analyse photographs of us.
You need to give it a bit more thought.
Each individual driver is not entirelly self-contained in their motivations and the way they drive, with no influence from what happens to other drivers around them.
Privacy and road safety are definitelly linked, because there is a systemic effects to more effective enforcement of driving rules, both because drivers fear getting caught a lot more (because they know somebody who knows somebody who got caugh) and because people tend to drive like those around them (it’s one thing to be the rule breaker amongst widespread rule breaking, it’s another being the rule breaker amongst widespread rule compliance).
Now, privacy lowered for the sake of something other than enforcing the rules (or if there is an alternative way of achieving the same that does not break people’s privacy), that’s a whole different thing, but if the reason is to catch rule-breakers it will most definitelly lead to lives saved because there will be people who now drive within the rules because they fear getting caught who would otherwise have driven in ways that endanger others.
To quote you: “You need to give it a bit more thought.”
Your car is a private space for the most part—put up those fuzzy dice even if they could block your view. U wanna turn your music so high you can’t hear a siren? Go for it—for the most part. Your driveway and any road you wanna put on your property is also a private space.
A shared road is not private. That’s the issue here. The question for regulators and governments is: How do you make sure everybody is reasonably safe without recalling billions of cars to have the “trivial” changes you proposed?
Sometimes that’s good old fashioned seat belts. Sometimes that’s Ai. Could be a speed bump. Privacy really doesn’t apply here—you’re in a public space.
If a shared road is not private how come radar detectors are usually illegal? You are in public picking up radio signals. Clearly there is no expectation of privacy when you are sending out radio waves in a shared area.
Great point
Are parents letting kids play on motorways these days?
Doesn’t matter, you still can’t run them over
Yes I can, the AI is trained to detect users not wearing seatbelts and those being on their phones. Never has it seen my hydrogen powered snowplow-bearing vehicle that glides through street playing kids like a hot knife through butter at a summer bbq. Those photos shouldn’t get sent back for review.
deleted by creator
I’m surprised car companies haven’t already partnered with governments to have the vehicles themselves snitch on the occupants. Why install these camera systems all over the place when the vehicles themselves collect ridiculous amounts of data with greater accuracy? I’m sure the car companies would love the additional revenue stream and the governments would love the greater surveillance capabilities.
Probably because they wouldn’t see a dime of revenue from this. It would be a new law that just says they have to do it. At best, they would be allowed to pass the costs to customers somehow, likely through our plate registrations at the DMV.
It’s basically a no win for the car companies. Lots of ill will, increased chance of litigation, increased costs for building cars, all for nothing.
In fact, I bet the car companies lobbyists are the reason we don’t have this already.
Cause no one would buy a car from a company that does this
Companies will band together to force unpopular changes. They’re already doing it with ridiculous pay-to-unlock-features-already-on-the-vehicle-through-software features.
Yeah, but it doesn’t really benefit the automotive manufacturers to snitch on speeders.
The UK has never seen a dystopian nightmare they didn’t rush to embrace.
There is a strong authoritarian undercurrent in England.
Is the freedom to drive without feeling like you’re being watched more important than the prevention of texting while driving?
During my commute, it’s common to see people looking at their phones. I don’t know what the effect is without statistics, but seeing an accident along the way is a usual occurrence.
No. Your freedom to feel feelings is your problem. If you feel like you’re not being observed right now, your feeling is already wrong.
Yes, obviously. Ffs how is this post so full of authoritarian assholes who think more law enforcement (not even done by real people mind you, but by a machine with no sense of nuance or anything) is the solution to anything other than strengthening a fascist government?
Leaving traffic safety to human police, discretion often means racist biases and outcomes.
Computers end up racist as well.
It’s not authoritarian to use technology to improve people’s lives. If you’re in a public place, you’re subject to being photographed by any number of circumstances both human and machine. How to balance it so that it isn’t abused is a valid argument to have, but disregarding tech because it could run amok isn’t a reason to forsake it altogether.
Can’t believe people still have the audacity to text while driving. I prefer reading a nice relaxing book.
Or painting a nice landscape
I’ve seen a bus driver do this. No seriously. And it was the safer option. It was on one of those long desert stretches of road in Australia. No turns, interceptions, obstacles, or urbanization, and very little traffic for hundreds of miles.
It was better for the driver to read a book than to zone off bored near death. You could see incoming traffic miles away anyway so a few glances from time to time were enough.
It was funny when I spotted him and asked him “Are you seriously reading a book while driving?”.
inattentive driving should be considered gross negligence
I’m more concerned about error rates and false accusations
Doesn’t it say that each image is sent to a human for review before any charges are laid? Might not be the case forever, but at least for now it’s actually a human who ultimately decides whether or not to prosecute a driver.
That’s the important part for me. As long as the whole process isn’t automated I’m fine with it.
This has always been the case for road cameras in the UK from the start from when we first had speed cameras introduced, before they are sent out they are (supposed to be) reviewed by a person first to check for false positives.
There were 180 seat belt offenses and 117 mobile phone
and 300.000 drivers privacy got violated by a single offender. Someone should gve the AI a fine. Oh wait “privacy” is not a word in the English language anymore, it is just gibberish with no meaning.
You don’t have an expectation of privacy while driving on a public road and you never did.
I have an expectation of existing and having privacy because not everywhere is a camera. If you don’t have that expectation anymore, then that’s sad.
There is a huge difference between letting an AI check EVERY car ALL THE TIME, or police doing random checks on random roads. One is a privacy violation for some to find some people texting and driving and some people wearing no seatbelt, which then leads to more awareness of everyone about these issues. The other is treating all your citizens as potential “criminals” driving without seatbelt and texting and driving and therefore making it normal to violate everyones privacy.
A government that starts to treat all citizens like potential criminals all the time and put them on camera on every street and in their car and on public transport, in school and at work… is not a government that is on your side and wants to protect you, that’s a prison guard.
“Expectation of privacy” is a legal term with an agreed-upon definition that isn’t subject to your intuition or what you consider to be “sad”.
I know it is a legal term. It was meant to help protect peoples privacy, but got perverted to now mean that privacy only exists at home. That is sad and not understanding that it is sad, is even more sad.
Found the shitty driver
I’m not against this. I think the fact that car deaths are skyrocketing in the US and the UK is even more absurd since modern cars are supposedly “safer” with all of their safety tech. Plus how are people still doing this fucking shit when death from dangerous driving has been a thing in the news forever now? It’s like people need even more stricter rules to keep them in line instead of thinking like a reasonable adult.
I think deaths jumped a bit post COVID but I don’t think they are skyrocketing. Do you have a source?
I looked it up. They aren’t skyrocketing.
The numbers dropped due to lockdown, then bounced up and are stable.
I hate this cult of negativity - just make up how everything is getting worse in order to hand more power to the government.
The casual and bovine l way it all happen is disgusting.
People won’t put their damn phones away when they are driving.
There is a name for that sort, the safer the item is the more reckless the person becomes.
Yup, and some of these are quite serious. But a cop at the side of the road could stop these people instantly. These people won’t find out that they have broke the law for two weeks. Or they could just kill themselves/someone else/both half a mile up the road.
No they wouldn’t. You are telling me you could stop someone on the motorway instantly. You think a stationary cop at ground level would be able to spot a phone held below the window and have the reaction times to intiate a persute?
I never suggested any of this…alls I said was a cop at the side of the road could stop a car. I didnt say we couldnt have a copper parked up on a bridge as lookout or use these cameras.
It’s about detering behaviours, if people know these cameras are out there, they will be less likely to act like that to begin with as the risk of consequences is now higher.
He’ll yea use machines to strip people of their freedom and privacy in exchange for “safety” and “security”, that could never go wrong
I understand your pov but I feel it’s misplaced. You are in public in a vehicle. You are in public on a side walk. The same laws that have been used to record police are the same being used here. You have no expectation of privacy in public and if you are seen or recorded breaking a law that is on you.
The same laws that have been used to record police are the same being used here.
I don’t think you understand my point. It’s been made clear the First Amendment applies to filming anyone, including police, in public. Any policies that try to bypass that will be destroyed in court. Those same rules apply to all of us as well.
We can absolutely be recorded in public.
You know the Constitution has no power in the UK where this camera is right? Not that I’m opposed to it.
The post I responded to indicated the US and UK. Of course I know that we never invaded and subjugated the English. Clearly I was talking about the US, so ya got me. Pat yourself on the back.
Yeah, given the tech today this needs to be revisited at the very least
It won’t.
deleted by creator
Just because someone is in public doesn’t mean that they need to be under 24/7 surveillance by big brother. Isn’t England already infested with security cameras? The US is pretty lousy with them in some places and if I knew they were actively watching me I’d make a habit of breaking them, not praise them for helping to overpolice every square inch of the country
Again, if you can be seen in public you already are. Anyone is a witness to your crimes.
Again, if you can be seen in public you already are. Anyone is a witness to your crimes.
can you list out your crimes you committed today pls? We know you did, its impossible to have not. You might not know you did, but you did. We all saw it.
I haven’t committed any. Which is why I’m unconcerned.
you did
Allow me to rephrase that. If an authority figure wants to prosecute you for whatever reason, even if you’ve been perfectly “legal”, they will make up a crime you committed based on something they didn’t like about you. This driving-camera crap just gives them more opportunities.
I got ticketed not too long ago because a police officer thought I was texting when I wasn’t doing anything other than looking at Google Maps. You don’t have to have committed a crime. You just have to have yourself recorded in a way that looks like you might have committed a crime. There is a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE between those qualifiers, and it is ripe for abuse. Innocence doesn’t prove innocence, and proving innocence is what matters.
For reference, in Switzerland deaths/major injuries from traffic accidents have steadily dropped since the '70s. Thanks to, as you mention, better car safety tech.
But there has also been a great number of speed cameras and lower alcohol tolerance. Oh and new laws with income-relative fines, temporary to permanent loss of driving license, and even jail for the worst driving offenses probably cooling the jets of even the wealthier road maniacs.
100% agree. It flags infractions, you have people verify what was being flagged, due course follows.
I know this is gonna be a hot take, but I think there’s a huge opportunity to increase road safety using automation. Where I live the police have largely stopped bothering with minor traffic offenses due to problems with racial profiling, which solves the racial profiling issue but means that it’s very hard to drive so poorly you get pulled over.
It seems like simply ticketing people automatically for driving over the speed limit or running stop signs would be dirt cheap and massively improve driving standards. You wouldn’t even need to do facial recognition or anything, just use the same systems that are already in place for toll by plate to fine the vehicle owner.
I remember an opening to Seaquest DSV where the captain was riding his motorcycle to the base and a camera pops out of the ground, scans his plate, and he receives an email with the fine when he reached his destination. No other human involved, and this show was ~20 years ago.
It pains me to point out that it’s more like ~30 years ago. Rest in peace Jonathan Brandis.
Mellow greetings, citizen. This idea was a running gag in Demolition Man.
Enhance your calm, John Spartan.
Cornwall outsourced mobile speed cameras to a private company a while ago, and realised that they, and the company, we’re making money hand over just, and due to Cornwall’s number of tourists, much of that money was coming from outside Cornwall. This feels like a development of that idea. Ethics and everything aside, if they can find a way to roll this out further and increase the flow of money into the councils coffers, they will
Photos flagged by the AI are then sent to a person for review.
If an offense was correctly identified, the driver is then sent either a notice of warning or intended prosecution, depending on the severity of the offense.
The AI just “identifying” offenses is the easy part. It would be interesting to know whether the AI indeed correctly identified 300 offenses or if the person reviewing the AI’s images acted on 300 offenses. That’s potentially a huge difference and would have been the relevant part of the news.
The system we use in NL is called “monocam”. A few years ago it caught 95% of all offenders.
This means that AI had at most 5% false negatives.
I wonder if they have improved the system in the mean time.
Nobody cares about false negatives. As long as the number isn’t something so massive that the system is completely useless false negatives in an automatic system are not a problem.
What are the false positives? Every single false positive is a gross injustice. If you can’t come up with a number for that, then you haven’t even evaluated your system.
The system works with AI signaling phone usage by driving.
Then a human will verify the photo.
AI is used to respect people’s privacy.
The combination of the AI detection+human review leads to a 5% false negative rate, and most probably 0% false positive.
This means that the AI missed at most 5% positives, but probably less because of the human reviewer not being 100% sure there was an offense.
Look, I’m not saying it’s a bad system. Maybe it’s great. “Most probably 0%” is meaningless though. If all you’ve got is gut feelings about it, then you don’t know anything about it. Humans make mistakes in the best of circumstances, and they get way, way worse when you’re telling them that they’re evaluating something that’s already pretty reliable. You need to know it’s not giving false positive, not have a warm fuzzy feeling about it.
Again, I don’t know if someone else has already done that. Maybe they have. I don’t live in the Netherlands. I don’t trust it until I see the numbers that matter though, and the more numbers that don’t matter I see without the ones that do, the less I trust it.
The fine contains a letter, a picture and payment information. If the person really wasn’t using their phone, they can file a complaint and the fine will be dismissed. Seems pretty simple to me.
However, I have not heard any complaints about it in the news and an embarrassing amount of fines has been given for this offense.
For a post on a site like this that kind of anecdote is plenty to add to a conversation, and it does actually make me feel a tiny bit better about the whole thing, but when you lead with statistics you’re implying a level of research and knowledge that goes beyond just anecdotal. It’s not really fair to you or any of us, but using the numbers that sound good to avoid using the ones that reveal flaws is one of the most popular ways for marketing teams and governments to deceive people. You should always be skeptical of that kind of thing.
Heh. Heh heh. You think that you can… file a complaint, and get a fine dismissed just like that. Heh heh heh. God, you’re naive. Or stupid. Or a paid propagandist. Or just plain rich enough for your reaction to a fine to be ‘meh’.
Criminality is predicated on convenience. If it’s easy for an authority to throw out fines and hard for the populace to dismiss those fines, guess what’s going to happen? There’s going to be fines applied that shouldn’t have been, but that the people who are getting fined literally can’t put in the effort to get dismissed. And that’s not justice in the slightest. ‘Innocent until proven guilty’, you troll. Heard that phrase before??
Just wow.
I bet you do not live in The Netherlands. We have a standardized process to complain against a fine.
If the picture doesn’t prove with certainty that you were holding a phone, complain to the address in the letter or just don’t pay the €359 fine and talk to a judge about it.
How do they know that they caught 95% of all offenders if they didn’t catch the remaining 5%? Wouldn’t that be unknowable?
I suspect they sent through a controlled set of cars where they tested all kinds of scenarios.
Other option would be to do a human review after installing it for a day.
I think 95% were correct reports is what they mean. There could be a massive population of other offenders that continue sexting and driving or worse. One monocam won’t ever be enough we need many monocams. Polymonocams.
Welcome to the world of training datasets.
There are many ways to go about it, but for a limited number they’d probably use human analysts.
But in general, they’d put a lot more effort into a chunk of data and use that as the truth. It’s not a perfect method but it’s good enough.
The article didn’t really clarify that part, so it’s impossible to tell. My guess is, they tested the system by intentionally driving under it a 100 times with a phone in your hand. If the camera caught 95 of those, that’s how you would get the 95% catch rate. That setup has the a priori information on about the true state of the driver, but testing takes a while.
However, that’s not the only way to test a system like this. They could have tested it with normal drivers instead. To borrow a medical term, you could say that this is an “in vivo” test. If they did that, there was no a priori information about the true state of each driver. They could still report a different 95% value though. What if 95% of the positives were human verified to be true positives and the remaining 5% were false positives. In a setup like that we have no information about true or false negatives, so this kind of test setup has some limitations. I guess you could count the number of cars labeled negative, but we just can’t know how many of them were true negatives unless you get a bunch of humans to review an inordinate amount of footage. Even then you still wouldn’t know for sure, because humans make mistakes too.
In practical terms, it would still be a really good test, because you can easily have thousands of people drive under the camera within a very short period of time. You don’t know anything about the negatives, but do you really need to. This isn’t a diagnostic test where you need to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. I mean, it would be really nice if you did, but do you really have to?
You wouldn’t need people to actually drive past the camera, you could just do that in testing when the AI was still in development in software, you wouldn’t need the physical hardware.
You could just get CCTV footage from traffic cameras and feeds that into the AI system. Then you could have humans go through independently of the AI and tag any incident they saw in a infraction on. If the AI system gets 95% of the human spotted infractions then the system is 95% accurate. Of course this ignores the possibility that both the human and the AI miss something but that would be impossible to calculate for.
That’s the sensible way to do it in early stages of development. Once you’re reasonably happy with the trained model, you need to test the entire system to see if each part actually works together. At that point, it could be sensible to run the two types of experiments I outlined. Different tests different stages.
Just to clarify the result: the article states that AI and human review leads to 95%.
Could also be that the human is flagging actual positives, found by the AI, as false positives.
Yeah that’s a shame, would be really interested to know those numbers.
but digging out that info would involve journalism and possibly reporting something the cops wouldn’t like! We all know how that goes.
Meanwhile in New Orleans
https://www.fox8live.com/2023/07/26/nopd-use-facial-recognition-leads-zero-arrests-nine-months/
Am I the only one who considers the text on the camera car (“HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE”) a bad joke?
Oh, this can only end in tears.
And just by chance does anyone know what the damage is done to society by punishing victimless crimes?
Not wearing seatbelts and fucking around with a phone are hardly victimless crimes and those laws that punish such offenses were written in blood.
It is a suggestion when the people enforcing it do not follow the suggestion. At least where I am the definition is so lose that driving falls under distracted driving. And it is a victimless crime up until someone crashes into another, but hey, we have laws that say that is a crime (reckless endangerment). Putting extra layers on this and expecting people to fight every wrongful ticket is not a good idea.
You realise you’re applying what I’m assuming are US laws to a study based on English and Welsh laws, yes?
Distracted driving is not an offence, the use (or causing or permitting the use of) a mobile phone is an offence. For more broad issues, then charges of Careless (or even Dangerous) Driving would apply.
Plus your logic is so full of holes, it sinks faster than an Oceangate sub. You could use that angle to argue that throwing axes in a primary school is a victimless crime until someone gets hurt.
I am not from the US. And I have witnessed the full stupidity of her majesty’s (I will be cold in the ground before I recognise king sausage hands) courts work with distracted driving (I was on the receiving end).
Who is the victim of not wearing a seatbelt?
Is it one of those ‘you’re not allowed to do things that only affect you because we’re a society’ type things where we should ban video games and sweet foods too?
Other passengers in the car, for one. The driver losing consciousness due to hitting their head on the steering wheel or dashboard from an initial impact because of not wearing the seat belt now becomes an out-of-control vehicle that can involve anybody in the vicinity of the impact. There are plenty of victims if you just think for a sec.
What exactly happens with the car after the initial hit?
If the impact was not straight on, a car gets redirected, usually towards pedestrians and other cars. A still conscious driver can prevent more damage from occurring.
deleted by creator
I guess it could be argued that everybody via higher potential expense via NHS?
And the other part, mobile phones, is certainly not victimless crime.
I wonder constantly how in this day and age people still don’t use hands free either in-car, speaker, or BT systems if they really MUST be talking “all the time”.
Ah yes, the famously victimless crime of using your phone while driving. Honestly screw anybody who does that, they deserve to be ticketed each time, cause each time they might kill somebody.
I literally watched cops driving while on their phone everyday after it was made illegal. Nothing was done, Nothing changed, they hand out tickets while breaking the same rules. Might kill someone is a precrime, a issue with these tickets in this case is that without the AI camera nothing would have been seen. If someone crashes into anything while on their phone the chances it will be used in prosecution is low.
I don’t think texting while driving is a good idea, like not wearing a seatbelt. However this is offloading a lot to AI, distracted driving is not well defined and considering the nuances I don’t want to leave any part to AI. Here is an example: eating a bowl of soup while operating a vehicle would be distracted right? What if the soup was in a cup? What if the soup was made of coffee beans?
I have no idea what your example is trying to highlight, but it matters not - if it was a fringe case, then clearly you would either appeal the fixed penalty notice, or reject the FPN and put your argument to a court.
I am just pointing out that this is an issue that is very much a wedge shape. Not sure what you mean by fringe, and most never fight these tickets/can not afford the time in court to try.
I literally watched cops driving while on their phone everyday after it was made illegal. Nothing was done, Nothing changed, they hand out tickets while breaking the same rules.
I mean yeah, fuck the police :) Seems like we’re in agreement here.
Might kill someone is a precrime, a issue with these tickets in this case is that without the AI camera nothing would have been seen (literally victimless). If someone crashes into anything while on their phone the chances it will be used in prosecution is low.
Using your fucking phone while driving is the crime. This isn’t some “thought police” situation. Put the phone away, and you won’t get the ticket. It’s that simple. We don’t need to wait for a person to mow down a pedestrian in order to punish them for driving irresponsibly.
In the same spirit, if a person gets drunk and drives home, and they don’t kill somebody – well that’s a crime and they should be punished for it.
And if you can’t handle driving responsibly, then the privilege of driving on public roads should be revoked.
I don’t think texting while driving is a good idea, like not wearing a seatbelt. However this is offloading a lot to AI, distracted driving is not well defined and considering the nuances I don’t want to leave any part to AI. Here is an example: eating a bowl of soup while operating a vehicle would be distracted right? What if the soup was in a cup? What if the soup was made of coffee beans?
This is such a weird ad absurdum argument. Nobody is telling some ML system “make a judgment call on whether the coffee bean soup is a distraction.” The system is identifying people violating a cut-and-dried law: using their phone while driving, or not wearing a seatbelt. Assuming it can do it in an unbiased way (which is a huge if, to be fair), then there’s no slippery slope here.
For what it’s worth, I do worry about ML system bias, and I do think the seatbelt enforcement is a bit silly: I personally don’t mind if a person makes a decision that will only impact their own safety. I care about the irresponsible decisions that people make affecting my safety, and I’d be glad for some unbiased enforcement of the traffic rules that protect us all.
I mean yeah, fuck the police
But love police cameras and the police enforcing them?
Police cameras are not police. And the laws being enforced is also not police. Supporting them while not supporting the police force misuse of power is not a contradiction like you are implying.
BOOT LICKER
Fuck them and their law.
Then are you a criminal boot licker since you seem to hate nuance so much? Do you cheer for murderers and rapists everytime the police try to enforce the law?
The issue is this has no way to judge context, someone playing music on their phone though the car audio (super common now) tapping the phone to ignore a call is just as much a crime as texting a novel to an ex. And you are kidding yourself if you think almost every person driving for a living is not at some level forced to use their phone by their company (I was). This is just more AI solutions looking for a problem, I would much rather have someone pulled over when driving erratically then the person getting an automated ticket 3 weeks after mowing down a pedestrian.
someone playing music on their phone though the car audio (super common now) tapping the phone to ignore a call is just as much a crime as texting a novel to an ex.
They are all crimes. Set up your music before you go, or use voice command. Ignore the call with voice command or just let it go to voicemail. Lol. It’s not hard.
And you are kidding yourself if you think almost every person driving for a living is not at some level forced to use their phone by their company (I was)
This is a great of the strength of this system: this company will find its drivers and vehicles getting ticketed a lot, and they’ll have to come up with a way to allow drivers to do their jobs without interacting with their phones will moving at high speeds.
I would much rather have someone pulled over when driving erratically then the person getting an automated ticket 3 weeks after mowing down a pedestrian.
The camera doesn’t magically remove traffic enforcement humans from the road. They can still pull over the obviously drunk/erratic driver.
I am saying there is a difference between say looking at your phone and using your phone, both are crimes but both are not the same.
The companies just say “don’t break the law” then give you shit if you don’t update a ticket in 10 min (only can be done on a phone and the job requires driving 3 hours to the next place). They don’t care if you get a ticket, it does not come off their bottom line.
They don’t pull over people that are hard tickets, I see it way to often. They don’t pull people over when someone calls saying they are drunk.
This is just another excuse for the police to do even less but still make quota, and on top of that you are trusting a system that can not figure out how many fingers a human has on average.
There isn’t really a difference. Both are incredibly distracting and dangerous. It’s why both are illegal.
I do a LOT of driving. I consider phone use a bain. The law over here is you can only interact with 1 finger. This works quite well. If you need to hold your phone, you’re over focused on it. I can tap a few buttons, if required, and use voice control for most functions.
Anyone interacting with their phone enough to be caught by this is a danger to other road users. The solutions are so trivial that anyone not using them is being actively reckless, of the same level as drink driving.
However this is offloading a lot to AIIt’s offloading nothing because all it does is flag potential cases of violation of the law that are then reviewed by a human, the alternative is to take a picture of all cars and have humans review all of them.
Yes, as they currently scrutinize speed/stop cameras so well now…
Careful not to hurt your back carrying that goalpost!
Hey I want a person to write the ticket and not a camera/AI. Sorry for the old fashion idea.
A person is writing the ticket though…
You must be a troll.
I swear to you this is a real opinion as someone who had to drive a lot for work, I humbly think this is a bad idea.
Stop using your phone while driving. Problem solved.
Punish the companies that force employees to use the phone while driving, Use the officers to pull over dangerous drivers (phone or not), make the police set any example.
Really great dialogue and discourse going on in this post. Thank you everyone for your opinions and viewpoints. Definitely have a lot to think over on my current stance. Exactly what I was missing lately from the social media I’ve been consuming (actual discussions with merits both sides hold).
Why are people saying this is a hypersurveillance dystopian nightmare? Guys, you are still in public! The only difference between this and having police officers sitting there and looking is this is much cheaper and more efficient. The recordings are still being sent to a human being for review.
A day in your life must be horrible, friend.
The only difference between this and having police officers sitting there and looking is this is much cheaper and more efficient.
Sure, but that’s a huge problem, because the legal system wasn’t actually designed for perfectly efficient enforcement. It is important that people be able to get away with breaking the law most of the time. If all of the tens of thousands of laws on the books were always enforced we would all be in prison and bankrupt from fines. Some laws are just bad too, and the way they get repealed is when enough people get away with breaking them for long enough to build political momentum for it.
Also, it isn’t like they are going to stop at using scaled-up AI surveillance just to enforce seatbelt use and texting while driving, there is way too much potential for abuse with this sort of tech. For example if there are these sorts of cameras all over, networked together, anyone with access to them can track just about everything you are doing with no way to opt out. Even if you aren’t doing anything wrong the feeling that you are always being watched is oppressive and has chilling effects.
The problem is the whole “give an inch, they take a mile.” We don’t know what rights this may take away from us in the future. So in the now, always question
Yeah I understand this argument. In my mind there is no anonymity when driving, (and in my mind there shouldn’t be) and the responsibility you have as a driver have that makes this permissible.
A valid and reasonable point. The problem is that often it spills out of it’s original intent. The “think of children” argument springs to mind
