AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-66508840
141 comments
I wouldn't call "requiring drivers to not be using mobile phones" a "tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims". It's for the good of everyone else on the road, and, in the case of seatbelts, for the good of the rest of society that needs to deal with the burden of caring for unnecessary injuries due to failing to take such a basic precaution.
> the good of the rest of society that needs to deal with the burden of caring for unnecessary injuries
I understand that point of view but I do think it can be tyrannical to not let people live their lives even if they are making decisions that are bad for their physical health. In the US, obesity is a far greater burden on our health care system than people not wearing seatbelts. I still can't get behind fining people for overeating or something like that.
I understand that point of view but I do think it can be tyrannical to not let people live their lives even if they are making decisions that are bad for their physical health. In the US, obesity is a far greater burden on our health care system than people not wearing seatbelts. I still can't get behind fining people for overeating or something like that.
> even if they are making decisions that are bad for their physical health
Distracted driving is a risk to other people, obesity is not.
Distracted driving is a risk to other people, obesity is not.
the point is obesity is a risk in a different way because it stresses the healthcare system.
Healthcare systems can scale up to meet the extra demand, and obese people can be asked to pay more for their healthcare. That doesn't apply for phone driving/drunk driving/etc because you can't charge people more based on the risk that someone else might hit them.
We can’t staff for the current level of demand of our healthcare systems, how would we “scale up”?
Additionally, this article is about the UK where healthcare is paid through taxes. Are you suggesting the overweight pay higher taxes?
Additionally, this article is about the UK where healthcare is paid through taxes. Are you suggesting the overweight pay higher taxes?
> Are you suggesting the overweight pay higher taxes?
A soft drinks industry levy, for example?
A soft drinks industry levy, for example?
... and then use that money, exclusively, to expand medical training and build new hospitals? WITHOUT taking away any of the current funding for such programs?
Sure.
Sure.
I personally am against hypothecated tax. I think "tax A to pay for B" is a harmful rhetorical trick, linking two decisions that are actually orthogonal. I'd rather fund health because it's the right thing to do, and tax highly processed foods because it's the right thing to do (less certain on that second one).
Of course "we" can, there is simply no desire to do so in some countries.
The UK uses a nationalized essentially communist form of healthcare provisioning and then gives it away for free to anyone who turns up, legally or otherwise, so they should expect constant shortages. Nobody else uses that system for a reason. However the UK is unwilling to change, so it's not something you can generalize from. There are other places in the world where healthcare systems do scale up just fine and supply keeps up, because they provision differently.
BTW the UK government does impose all sorts of sin taxes on people already, and provides benefits based on health assessments, so tying tax levels to the outcome of similar health assessments isn't a big leap. But yes in reality it'll be countries with more flexible insurance systems that can calibrate things that way.
The UK uses a nationalized essentially communist form of healthcare provisioning and then gives it away for free to anyone who turns up, legally or otherwise, so they should expect constant shortages. Nobody else uses that system for a reason. However the UK is unwilling to change, so it's not something you can generalize from. There are other places in the world where healthcare systems do scale up just fine and supply keeps up, because they provision differently.
BTW the UK government does impose all sorts of sin taxes on people already, and provides benefits based on health assessments, so tying tax levels to the outcome of similar health assessments isn't a big leap. But yes in reality it'll be countries with more flexible insurance systems that can calibrate things that way.
No, that's not the point at all. Inattentive driving is a risk to others. Risk of death or life-changing injury.
> I wouldn't call "requiring drivers to not be using mobile phones" a "tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims".
You wouldn't, and I wouldn't, but someone else might.
This is the problem: who gets to decide? Today the people deciding the parameters for focusing the AI's attention might be benevolent and acting in good faith by your standard and mine, but who is to say that this will still be true tomorrow? Not everyone shares our quality metric.
You wouldn't, and I wouldn't, but someone else might.
This is the problem: who gets to decide? Today the people deciding the parameters for focusing the AI's attention might be benevolent and acting in good faith by your standard and mine, but who is to say that this will still be true tomorrow? Not everyone shares our quality metric.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong but to me it seems like the quote is in fact talking about "for the good of everyone else".
... and yet I feel this AI is "somehow" lacking in the other side of the equation. It's the government's duty to maintain the roads in a safe state (no potholes, no blocking the sidewalk forcing pedestrians onto the road, actually have correct signage, ...)
Strangely, while all of that is covered under the existing laws too, none of it gets covered by AI cameras.
Must be an oversight that will be corrected any second now ...
Strangely, while all of that is covered under the existing laws too, none of it gets covered by AI cameras.
Must be an oversight that will be corrected any second now ...
> I wouldn't call "requiring drivers to not be using mobile phones" a "tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims"
It's the mass surveillance that was called such.
> It's for the good of everyone else on the road
Nope, they too are subject to mass surveillance.
It's the mass surveillance that was called such.
> It's for the good of everyone else on the road
Nope, they too are subject to mass surveillance.
Two days ago I was running on a road that lacks sidewalks and was almost hit by a driver who was clearly texting and not paying attention. This is not tyranny for the good of its victims – it's protecting everyone else from a needless lack of care for the safety of others.
This is one of those quotes that sounds deep but is obviously untrue if you think about it for a bit. I suspect he would prefer “moral busybodies” to, I dunno, 1930’s Germany.
Substitute "robber baron" with "mid-century gangster" and you'd find it's quite accurate. Mind your own business, keep the peace, and you'll find little trouble. Moral busybodies, by definition, have to constantly meddle in your affairs; it's their sole source of life.
If I recall the essay, Lewis definitely believes that this applies to things like Nazi Germany or the USSR. The true believers in Arianism and communism thought they were doing good - they were creating this golden future for their people and/or the workers! So destroying everyone who was in the way was morally right (in their view).
It's fair to say that Lewis would prefer moral busybodies in Cornwall with speed cameras to either the KGB or the Gestapo. But he considers the Gestapo (specifically mentioned in the essay) to be the end state of what he's talking about when he made the quote.
The source is, IIRC, the essay "A Reply To Professor Haldane", which I found in the book "Of Other Worlds".
It's fair to say that Lewis would prefer moral busybodies in Cornwall with speed cameras to either the KGB or the Gestapo. But he considers the Gestapo (specifically mentioned in the essay) to be the end state of what he's talking about when he made the quote.
The source is, IIRC, the essay "A Reply To Professor Haldane", which I found in the book "Of Other Worlds".
He specifically says “those who torment us for our own good”. The Nazis believed what they were doing was good for their people, but I don’t think they had any illusions that “destroying everyone…in the way” was good for the people being destroyed.
Read the rest of the essay, not just the one paragraph. He means "our" in the sense of "us as a group", which may not translate into good for each individual in the group. (He also talks about using the term "liquidating" instead of "killing" as being a bad sign. "Liquidating" people may be good for the group, but it obviously isn't good for the individual.)
> It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
Oh what a slippery slope indeed. /s Instead of grandstanding, how do you suggest the law get enforced otherwise than partially automating checking if drivers are not driving blind for dozens of meters at a time?
Oh what a slippery slope indeed. /s Instead of grandstanding, how do you suggest the law get enforced otherwise than partially automating checking if drivers are not driving blind for dozens of meters at a time?
"dozens" is probably underestimating it. That's a 70mph road, so just over 31 metres per second.
The problem is that laws are an approximation of safety and well being. When laws were all we had, the delta between the laws and the actual thing we want (safety) was not something we spent a lot of time worrying about, because we couldn't detect the difference. The law couldn't be enforced anyhow.
The problem is as we get perfect enforcement, the delta does become visible. The reality is that when a road is set to 55 mph, that is not some sort of pronouncement from God that that is the one true speed that the road is safe at. It was just an approximation. But then we set up a camera that treats it as rigid ground truth, and now you can be nailed with a ticket if you're doing 56 miles per hour.
But does that help anyone? Was anyone unsafe because you were going 56 mph rather than 55? No, of course not. 55 was never the point. Nominally, safety was the point. Safety is not about going a single speed. There are days and conditions when 65 is practically as safe as 55. There are days and conditions where 65 may be safer than 55 (e.g., everyone around you is doing it on a multi-lane road, you're safer following along than stubbornly insisting on being 10 mph divergent). There are days and conditions where the safe limit may well be 15, or even 0. That's the real thing we want. But that's not what computers and AI give us. They give us rigid enforcement.
As society develops the capability to enforce laws rigidly, it will need to figure out that rigid enforcement isn't what we ever wanted. The laws were not themselves the end goal.
Unfortunately, this is going to be harder than it should be because this rigid enforcement creates and/or reinforces a power center in the people who will benefit from this rigid enforcement, both monetarily and through the additional power to selectively pardon people for what is de facto a brand new set of crimes, in the sense that the are a whole bunch of convictions that could never have occurred in the past. Modestly clever use of the pardoning process will allow them to hold on to that power for extended periods of time by using it to cover over the worst and most socially costly offenses (see also "Support via working out how to raise enough of a Twitter fuss to get the company's attention"; you can suppress outrage and even look magnanimous by pardoning the things that get into the news while hammering everyone else).
We will, of course, have to learn this the hard way.
The problem is as we get perfect enforcement, the delta does become visible. The reality is that when a road is set to 55 mph, that is not some sort of pronouncement from God that that is the one true speed that the road is safe at. It was just an approximation. But then we set up a camera that treats it as rigid ground truth, and now you can be nailed with a ticket if you're doing 56 miles per hour.
But does that help anyone? Was anyone unsafe because you were going 56 mph rather than 55? No, of course not. 55 was never the point. Nominally, safety was the point. Safety is not about going a single speed. There are days and conditions when 65 is practically as safe as 55. There are days and conditions where 65 may be safer than 55 (e.g., everyone around you is doing it on a multi-lane road, you're safer following along than stubbornly insisting on being 10 mph divergent). There are days and conditions where the safe limit may well be 15, or even 0. That's the real thing we want. But that's not what computers and AI give us. They give us rigid enforcement.
As society develops the capability to enforce laws rigidly, it will need to figure out that rigid enforcement isn't what we ever wanted. The laws were not themselves the end goal.
Unfortunately, this is going to be harder than it should be because this rigid enforcement creates and/or reinforces a power center in the people who will benefit from this rigid enforcement, both monetarily and through the additional power to selectively pardon people for what is de facto a brand new set of crimes, in the sense that the are a whole bunch of convictions that could never have occurred in the past. Modestly clever use of the pardoning process will allow them to hold on to that power for extended periods of time by using it to cover over the worst and most socially costly offenses (see also "Support via working out how to raise enough of a Twitter fuss to get the company's attention"; you can suppress outrage and even look magnanimous by pardoning the things that get into the news while hammering everyone else).
We will, of course, have to learn this the hard way.
I mean sure but they give us rigid enforcement because there's no universal and fair way to define what the "real" limit should be. Limits do get changed dynamically on motorways.
You can argue that with the ever greater digitization of cars there's a way out of that: use AI to monitor road conditions and dynamically adjust the speed limit, where those superseding limits are uploaded to a central server that in-car dashes can download from. As long as the limit only ever goes above the signposted limit, it can work. People with old cars just won't learn when they can go faster (except via smartphone maps).
You can argue that with the ever greater digitization of cars there's a way out of that: use AI to monitor road conditions and dynamically adjust the speed limit, where those superseding limits are uploaded to a central server that in-car dashes can download from. As long as the limit only ever goes above the signposted limit, it can work. People with old cars just won't learn when they can go faster (except via smartphone maps).
If I wasn't clear, yes, the problem is human, not technological. At least inasmuch as humans using the technology better could at least do better than they are now, even if they couldn't get to perfect.
But first we must pass through a period of time where it becomes evident to even the dumbest and most self-interested people that automated enforcement of essentially arbitrary approximations is not in the best interest of society, no matter how appealing it may sound on the surface. Inhuman law enforcement is inhuman.
But first we must pass through a period of time where it becomes evident to even the dumbest and most self-interested people that automated enforcement of essentially arbitrary approximations is not in the best interest of society, no matter how appealing it may sound on the surface. Inhuman law enforcement is inhuman.
Or better yet, school our children to be intelligent human beings that know how to use their judgement rather than implement some dystopian horror future where we are monitored by the all seeing busybodies assisted by AI.
I'm as libertarian as they come but honestly I can't get worked up about traffic cameras. We are tracked everywhere we go with our phones anyway, that battle is lost (and of course wearing a cap or mask in your car isn't illegal).
The type of AI surveillance that is truly dystopian is surveillance of communications and participation in public debates, with automatic financial punishment for wrongthink. That's where the puck is going and where focus is needed.
The type of AI surveillance that is truly dystopian is surveillance of communications and participation in public debates, with automatic financial punishment for wrongthink. That's where the puck is going and where focus is needed.
You cannot claim to be as libertarian as they come while simultaneously advocating(not simply accepting) an ever present panopticon.
I also consider myself as libertarian as they come; I refuse to accept the rapid decline in personal freedoms(including on the road) and will do what I can to resist it.
I also consider myself as libertarian as they come; I refuse to accept the rapid decline in personal freedoms(including on the road) and will do what I can to resist it.
Purist libertarians believe in having enough state-enforced rules to prevent people using violence against each other. The gap here is only between deliberate acts of violence and irresponsibility large enough to yield the same effect. Like, if someone gets drunk and punches someone else in the face, libertarians say the police should step in (which requires that they know it's happening). If that person gets drunk and then mows someone down in a car, it's not inconsistent to say police should step in there too.
So I can't quite tell if you're in favor of laws against things like drunk/distracted driving but don't want them to actually be enforced, or if you're against the laws themselves. I'm not sure it can be consistent to be for such laws but against the most obvious way of enforcing them.
I don't think libertarianism as a classical philosophy has much to say on the topic of surveillance, as it would be captured in having a minimal/small state anyway. But given that it does believe in enforced laws, I can't see where the prohibition against cameras comes from.
So I can't quite tell if you're in favor of laws against things like drunk/distracted driving but don't want them to actually be enforced, or if you're against the laws themselves. I'm not sure it can be consistent to be for such laws but against the most obvious way of enforcing them.
I don't think libertarianism as a classical philosophy has much to say on the topic of surveillance, as it would be captured in having a minimal/small state anyway. But given that it does believe in enforced laws, I can't see where the prohibition against cameras comes from.
Oh grow up.
Wearing a seatbelt isn't oppression you muppet.
Wearing a seatbelt isn't oppression you muppet.
Adults almost never use 'grow up' as an argument. They actually know what their argument is and say that.
Seatbelts are a great example of exactly the stated form of oppression through giving moral busybodies the power to be more than merely annoying with their presumptions and opinions about your life.
Seatbelts are a great example of exactly the stated form of oppression through giving moral busybodies the power to be more than merely annoying with their presumptions and opinions about your life.
Lol I wonder how much you cry when you see a fire extinguisher knowing it stops your right to die in a fire.
There is no equivalent rule that says you must wear a fire extiguisher whenever you enter a building.
Therea are building codes the require smoke alarms EXIST in any living space, and other codes that say any business or facility providing public or employee access to a space must HAVE extinguishers and other features.
Those would be equivalent to the regulations that car manufacturers must include seatbelts and other features and meet various standards in order to sell their products to the public.
I didn't suggest or even remotely imply anything like those codes.
Therea are building codes the require smoke alarms EXIST in any living space, and other codes that say any business or facility providing public or employee access to a space must HAVE extinguishers and other features.
Those would be equivalent to the regulations that car manufacturers must include seatbelts and other features and meet various standards in order to sell their products to the public.
I didn't suggest or even remotely imply anything like those codes.
If you don't want to wear a seatbelt don't ride on the public roads.
We live in a society.
We live in a society.
I don't think you understand what society means.
What you just demanded was antisocial. Meaning it was not an example of living and letting live, and getting along with your neighbor. It was an attempt to impose your will on your neighbor, without the excusing necessity of any shared resource or effect on yourself.
To illustrate the difference, I don't care if you wear a seatbelt or not.
I also think cars should be required to possess them as they are.
I even think it's at least arguably not automatically wrong to protect kids from some parents and require them for kids until they take over responsibility for themselves. That is a more complicated question not automatically right or wrong, because a lot of kids have been harmed under the banner of "protecting kids from parents", but there is at least a valid theory for it.
What you just demanded was antisocial. Meaning it was not an example of living and letting live, and getting along with your neighbor. It was an attempt to impose your will on your neighbor, without the excusing necessity of any shared resource or effect on yourself.
To illustrate the difference, I don't care if you wear a seatbelt or not.
I also think cars should be required to possess them as they are.
I even think it's at least arguably not automatically wrong to protect kids from some parents and require them for kids until they take over responsibility for themselves. That is a more complicated question not automatically right or wrong, because a lot of kids have been harmed under the banner of "protecting kids from parents", but there is at least a valid theory for it.
First, as a self-identifying muppet, I resent your using the term as a pejorative.
Second, and no longer tongue in cheek: You are definitely in violation of the HN guidelines. You can't comment like that here.
Second, and no longer tongue in cheek: You are definitely in violation of the HN guidelines. You can't comment like that here.
Won't obey the law.
Will obey the HN guidelines.
You freedom fighters are funny little creatures.
Will obey the HN guidelines.
You freedom fighters are funny little creatures.
The objection isn't to the wearing of seatbelts. The objection is to the future of AI surveillance being injected into every aspect of our lives.
Oh grow up. It's not being injected. It's enforcing the law which already exists.
Tired of people who shout authoritarianism as every minor implementation of AI or CCTV.
Tired of people who shout authoritarianism as every minor implementation of AI or CCTV.
> Adults almost never use 'grow up' as an argument. They actually know what their argument is and say that.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I do understand the privacy arguments, but there are thousands of people are being killed by drivers every day (many of whom aren't even in cars, they're walking or biking). Enforcing traffic laws is one of the only tools for fixing this that can be implemented quickly (as opposed to better urban design and public transit, which are better solutions in many other ways).
I feel like their should be room to advocate for responsible use of systems like this and good oversight of police departments.
I feel like their should be room to advocate for responsible use of systems like this and good oversight of police departments.
In the UK, where this is happening, that's simply not true. There were 1695 road fatalities in 2022 total. That's very different from "thousands a day".
I do not believe it is desirable (or practically possible) to eliminate all risk of death or injury from life, and increasingly orwellian surveillance measures to clamp down on every misdeed and ill advised risk does not, I think, make for a happier or freer society.
I do not believe it is desirable (or practically possible) to eliminate all risk of death or injury from life, and increasingly orwellian surveillance measures to clamp down on every misdeed and ill advised risk does not, I think, make for a happier or freer society.
The UK makes up less than 1% of the worlds population, so it does make sense that there are many more driving deaths globally than in the UK.
I can agree that complete safety is not practical or desirable.
But in our current society, simply walking down the street can get you killed by a driver. That is not freedom in my mind.
I can agree that complete safety is not practical or desirable.
But in our current society, simply walking down the street can get you killed by a driver. That is not freedom in my mind.
> That's very different from "thousands a day"
So you had us check. We hope it is now clear to you that you showed having misunderstood the poster: «thousands of people are being killed by drivers every day» does not imply "here".
But according to data,
( Road deaths over the long-term, 1900 to 2021 // Annual number of reported deaths resultant from any type of road accident. This includesvehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/road-deaths-over-the-long... )
taking 2019 (just to be sure of having more data), you are partially right: apparently not even half-a-thousand per day. But hundreds per day.
Top by Country: China: 172 ; USA: 99 ; Russia: 47 ; Turkey: 15 ; Japan: 11 ; S.Korea: 9 ; France: 9 ; Italy: 9 ; Germany: 8 ; Mexico: 8 ; Poland: 8 ; Uzbekistan: 6 ; Chile: 5 ; Kazakhstan: 5 ; Romania: 5 ; UK: 5 ; Canada: 5 ; Spain: 5 ; Australia: 3 ; Azerbaijan: 2 ...
Conclusions from those numbers, that is another matter.
So you had us check. We hope it is now clear to you that you showed having misunderstood the poster: «thousands of people are being killed by drivers every day» does not imply "here".
But according to data,
( Road deaths over the long-term, 1900 to 2021 // Annual number of reported deaths resultant from any type of road accident. This includesvehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/road-deaths-over-the-long... )
taking 2019 (just to be sure of having more data), you are partially right: apparently not even half-a-thousand per day. But hundreds per day.
Top by Country: China: 172 ; USA: 99 ; Russia: 47 ; Turkey: 15 ; Japan: 11 ; S.Korea: 9 ; France: 9 ; Italy: 9 ; Germany: 8 ; Mexico: 8 ; Poland: 8 ; Uzbekistan: 6 ; Chile: 5 ; Kazakhstan: 5 ; Romania: 5 ; UK: 5 ; Canada: 5 ; Spain: 5 ; Australia: 3 ; Azerbaijan: 2 ...
Conclusions from those numbers, that is another matter.
Putting an "AI" camera on a road in Cornwall, UK has no ability to affect how many people are killed on China's roads, and so it's deeply silly to use those numbers to try to justify doing so. There's far less invasive things that could be done to dramatically improve road safety in many of the countries you list.
Things like what? Traffic violence and risky behavior if a raising problem and it seems we don't have a solution for it despite many attemps. My view is that most of it comes from a small group of drivers. It's not "everyone speeds and uses their phone sometimes" but "there are people who speed recklessly and are on their phone most of the time". If you share my view then you want the camera in areas with the most traffic as the goal is to fish out and eliminate those dangerous drivers not punish sensible drivers who make mistakes sometimes.
Putting it on a major "safe" motorway is perfect. As you will have a chance to check most cars there. Being and to go at the speed limit where it seems safe (from inside the car anyway) to go faster is also the most important psychological trait for safe driving. Catching people who aren't up for that will improve safety in other places as well.
Putting it on a major "safe" motorway is perfect. As you will have a chance to check most cars there. Being and to go at the speed limit where it seems safe (from inside the car anyway) to go faster is also the most important psychological trait for safe driving. Catching people who aren't up for that will improve safety in other places as well.
Never said I support the activity.
But let us keep the logic terse. There are dead because of X, and if some practice P reduces X there will be some advocacy to have it adopted around. The numbers are just relative so largely irrelevant to the advocates.
But it is best to have them right so the lower instances summoned by "Millions!" and "One per million!" - out of context if a cost-risk-benefit with quantifications in all parts is not fully construed - can be avoided.
But let us keep the logic terse. There are dead because of X, and if some practice P reduces X there will be some advocacy to have it adopted around. The numbers are just relative so largely irrelevant to the advocates.
But it is best to have them right so the lower instances summoned by "Millions!" and "One per million!" - out of context if a cost-risk-benefit with quantifications in all parts is not fully construed - can be avoided.
>Last year there were 48 road deaths and 738 serious injuries on roads in the two counties.
Please let me know which of these deaths you are happy with.
Please let me know which of these deaths you are happy with.
Every camera system in my state (OH) has proven to be nothing more than a cash grab that mostly enriched the private entities that ran the cameras/administration.
They passed laws to allow it by crying safety; but then botched the entire deployment by being the greedy nepotistic politicians they are.
AI isn't suited to fix any of the underlying problems here.
[0]https://www.techdirt.com/tag/red-light-cameras/
They passed laws to allow it by crying safety; but then botched the entire deployment by being the greedy nepotistic politicians they are.
AI isn't suited to fix any of the underlying problems here.
[0]https://www.techdirt.com/tag/red-light-cameras/
If people are calling it a "cash grab," that means it's working in my opinion. Even a ticketing system contract was awarded in a corrupt manner (which is wrong of course - and the people involved in that should be prosecuted), every person who gets a ticket from one of those systems is someone who was going over the speed limit or running the red light and putting the lives of everyone around them in danger.
Not really. I got a ticket from a red light camera because I stopped literally inches past a thick white line that marks the end of the intersection. But this was at least three feet from the crosswalk. There was zero chance anyone could have been hurt my behavior.
The camera is not discerning in the slightest.
Fortunately the judge agreed and tossed my ticket, but I doubt many people go through the effort to contest them.
The camera is not discerning in the slightest.
Fortunately the judge agreed and tossed my ticket, but I doubt many people go through the effort to contest them.
It's puzzling to me why police need to be involved at all, save for possibly some sort of statutory restriction that ought to be removed. What is it about police's training that makes them uniquely qualified to process these images to determine that there's cause for a citation to be issued? This and other automated street safety tools are very valuable for public safety. But there's no reason these programs couldn't be operated by the transportation department or some such, reducing a lot of the privacy concerns rightfully stoked by involving the police.
> It's puzzling to me why police need to be involved at all
The police: "the civil force of a state, responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order."
If you gave this task to "transportation department or some such" they become the police. They become the civil force of a state, responsible for the prevention and detection of this specific crime.
Except of course if you boot up a brand new police force just for this task they will bumble around and make all the mistakes while they lean how to you know police.
> a lot of the privacy concerns rightfully stoked by involving the police
What privacy concerns does this raise which are not already raised by the 11,000 other automatic number plate recognition cameras in operation in the UK?
The police: "the civil force of a state, responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order."
If you gave this task to "transportation department or some such" they become the police. They become the civil force of a state, responsible for the prevention and detection of this specific crime.
Except of course if you boot up a brand new police force just for this task they will bumble around and make all the mistakes while they lean how to you know police.
> a lot of the privacy concerns rightfully stoked by involving the police
What privacy concerns does this raise which are not already raised by the 11,000 other automatic number plate recognition cameras in operation in the UK?
Police are given a monopoly on physical violence deployed by the State. The key element here is cordoning off that monopoly on violence to apply to situations where it is most likely to be necessary. They are not the sole arbiters of conformance with law and regulation. Many, many agencies cite citizens for misuse of the resources they manage and for other violations. Do police handle violations of environmental regulations? Police do not have a monopoly on investigation, either. Many agencies can and do conduct investigations that compile evidence that later gets turned over to a DA or similar law enforcement agent for starting a criminal case, if one becomes warranted.
If you tried to hand this off to the transportation department, it'd probably end up under the British Transport Police. Six and two threes really.
The Police are already tooled up to issue traffic citations. Tooling up the BTP to do the same task would just mean more money, and end you at the same result, no?
The Police are already tooled up to issue traffic citations. Tooling up the BTP to do the same task would just mean more money, and end you at the same result, no?
> good oversight of police departments
Where I'm from, the police actively resist oversight, and have not responsibly used many of the systems they already possess.
Where I'm from, the police actively resist oversight, and have not responsibly used many of the systems they already possess.
ur-whale(2)
I am looking to set up something like this in my neighborhood. I have a pretty good angle frpmy house. We live on a narrow street with parks on either side, a crosswalk, daycares, really a place where you want to pay attention and drive slowly. Yet every day I see people on their phones. I just don't get it. All it takes is one kid making a mistake and running on the road at the wrong moment. Happened couple of weeks ago at the crosswalk, luckily all three kids survived.
I'd like to set this up using off the shelf hardware to be able to demand more enforcement but also approach the people living here directly and if nothing helps. It's a heartbreaking situation that's waiting for something terrible to happen.
Edit: I'm a noob in some fields that are involved here (image classification, cameras, etc) so if anyone has a pointer for me, I'd greatly appreciate it
I'd like to set this up using off the shelf hardware to be able to demand more enforcement but also approach the people living here directly and if nothing helps. It's a heartbreaking situation that's waiting for something terrible to happen.
Edit: I'm a noob in some fields that are involved here (image classification, cameras, etc) so if anyone has a pointer for me, I'd greatly appreciate it
There is an important issue to be fixed here, yes.
It’s heartbreaking when this happens and I fully agree that there should be more checks in place to prevent this.
However, I am very glad that I live in a country where you are not allowed to record and process this because it’s a violation of my privacy.
I do not think that this is the solution.
It’s heartbreaking when this happens and I fully agree that there should be more checks in place to prevent this.
However, I am very glad that I live in a country where you are not allowed to record and process this because it’s a violation of my privacy.
I do not think that this is the solution.
> I am very glad that I live in a country where you are not allowed to record and process this
Hehe, I don't even know if I do but honestly I'd be happy to let it come to it. Sometimes it takes a little escalation to bring about change. For sure I'll have a look though to see what the law says here.
I know how selfish I am here but I value my kids' and my community's kids safety higher than other people's privacy. And it's not that I'd publicize the footage. Not even the offenders'. Yet :)
> I do not think that this is the solution.
I can't wait for someone to implement a "solution" because that usually requires people actually dying.
Hehe, I don't even know if I do but honestly I'd be happy to let it come to it. Sometimes it takes a little escalation to bring about change. For sure I'll have a look though to see what the law says here.
I know how selfish I am here but I value my kids' and my community's kids safety higher than other people's privacy. And it's not that I'd publicize the footage. Not even the offenders'. Yet :)
> I do not think that this is the solution.
I can't wait for someone to implement a "solution" because that usually requires people actually dying.
I understand where you are coming from and it doesn’t read like your goal is selfish.
Growing up my parents didn’t allow me near certain parts because of the risk of accidents, but I was fortunate enough to have a wide area to run around where it was much safer.
Even if you know who the offenders are, it’s not always directly solving the problem.
Take care and stay safe.
Growing up my parents didn’t allow me near certain parts because of the risk of accidents, but I was fortunate enough to have a wide area to run around where it was much safer.
Even if you know who the offenders are, it’s not always directly solving the problem.
Take care and stay safe.
What privacy? It's a public road?
I don’t live in a country where it’s as one-dimensional as: (public road) ⇒ ¬(privacy rights) and I value that.
Come now, dressing your point in logical symbols doesn't make it less churlish.
We're talking about people operating motor vehicles on a public taxpayer-funded way. Clearly the public has a right to see them do it?
In California at least there are laws that limit how darkly you can tint your windows, because driver visibility is recognized as part of safe driving, eh?
We're talking about people operating motor vehicles on a public taxpayer-funded way. Clearly the public has a right to see them do it?
In California at least there are laws that limit how darkly you can tint your windows, because driver visibility is recognized as part of safe driving, eh?
What is your point? I am saying that the country where I live does not work that way and I am glad that it doesn’t.
We’re not talking about _operating motor vehicles_. I am talking about the constant recording and processing of data captured in public places without a permit.
Privacy is not one-dimensional and it should not be.
We’re not talking about _operating motor vehicles_. I am talking about the constant recording and processing of data captured in public places without a permit.
Privacy is not one-dimensional and it should not be.
Just because you're in public doesn't give someone the right to record you. That might be legal in some places but not everywhere would tolerate that.
This is a complex one. On one hand, cracking down on distracted driving is absolutely a good thing. Thousands of people are killed by negligent drivers every year, and every single one is an unnecessary tragedy.
But, there need to be some guardrails on this program. The UK police have a habit of keeping massive amounts of data around for years, and storing it inappropriately. I have no doubt all of the images this system takes will end up on a public S3 bucket or left open on an insecure email server within the next decade.
For the Americans/Canadians, also consider that there are already a LOT of speed cameras in the UK already -- far more than there are across the ocean. The only new thing here is that instead of connecting it to a radar system, it's using computer vision to decide to fine somebody or not. It's new technology, but not really a paradigm change for the culture.
But, there need to be some guardrails on this program. The UK police have a habit of keeping massive amounts of data around for years, and storing it inappropriately. I have no doubt all of the images this system takes will end up on a public S3 bucket or left open on an insecure email server within the next decade.
For the Americans/Canadians, also consider that there are already a LOT of speed cameras in the UK already -- far more than there are across the ocean. The only new thing here is that instead of connecting it to a radar system, it's using computer vision to decide to fine somebody or not. It's new technology, but not really a paradigm change for the culture.
I don't think the privacy angle is strong, because it's on a public road.
In general, the idea of being tracked in public makes my skin crawl, but what sets me off is recent cars with GPS units. At least with a smartphone, I can leave it at home.
In general, the idea of being tracked in public makes my skin crawl, but what sets me off is recent cars with GPS units. At least with a smartphone, I can leave it at home.
>Although the cameras use AI to detect potential offences, all images are reviewed by a person, said Devon and Cornwall Police.
if this is true I really don't see a problem necessarily. AI is just being used as a tool not a decision maker, so long as humans are good about filtering out false positives. which for something as dangerous as driving I'm all for
if this is true I really don't see a problem necessarily. AI is just being used as a tool not a decision maker, so long as humans are good about filtering out false positives. which for something as dangerous as driving I'm all for
If it's just used for prosecuting things like the photo in the article and there's human review, I don't think I have a problem. This is a long way from instant Demolition Man-style tickets.
Hopefully this catches up. It's scary how normalized traffic violence and risking other's life is in our society. If there is one place where AI based automatic enforcement could instantly make life better it's traffic laws enforcement. I am looking for the day I can drive at a speed limit and not be a target of aggressive maniacs tailgating and dangerously overataking me or one I can go for a bike ride and not be game for speeding reckless drivers.
All this talk about scary surveillance and what not coming from people who offer no solutions for a huge problem at hand. Let's use the technology so the laws put there to protect lives are actually respected.
All this talk about scary surveillance and what not coming from people who offer no solutions for a huge problem at hand. Let's use the technology so the laws put there to protect lives are actually respected.
What about when you accidentally go 5mph over the speed limit?
5 mph is 8 km/h. That’s quite a lot.
Pay attention to your speed when you are driving. Most, if not all, modern cars have cruise control where you can set your speed if you are having trouble following the speed limits.
Pay attention to your speed when you are driving. Most, if not all, modern cars have cruise control where you can set your speed if you are having trouble following the speed limits.
5mph is nothing at many speed limits. 50, 60, 70, 80mph
Ideally cars would be equipped with speed limiters. Then the problem disappears. Until this happens, there are many other solutions like you only start paying fines until you do over some limit (like 12 per year) of such minor infractions. Let's not take the focus from the main point: there is currently huge problem with reckless drivers causing death of tens of thousands of people per year (in US alone).
I once heard a parable during a lecture about famed process expert W.E. Deming.
A bank's management was concerned that its tellers' cash drawer balances were often slightly off the expected counts. During spot checks, one drawer might be 25 cents over; another might be a few dollars short, and so on. Management thought this was symptomatic of sloppiness. To address the problem, they instituted a rule that all cash drawers had to be reconciled at the end of each day, and if there were a discrepancy, the teller would be disciplined.
After a few weeks, management asked for a report. Congratulations were given all around. Discrepancies had vanished entirely. Problem solved.
Eventually the real story surfaced. The tellers responded to the rule by creating a secret piggy-bank fund. If a drawer was over at the end of the day, the excess went into the fund. Deficits, likewise, drew from the fund. Thus, the books balanced perfectly at the end of each day. No other process changes occurred.
The lesson is that when you're trying to manage a process, you'll almost always see improvements in what you're measuring, but that does not mean that the root problem is solved. The number of tickets issued by these cameras will certainly go down, and police will use that number to justify more installations. In reality, drivers will start holding phones above their heads, wearing seatbelt-colored shirts, driving with the sunshade down, avoiding the routes with cameras, waving their arms around the cabin, and so on. The metric is number of tickets issued. Drivers and law enforcement will collaborate, conspire, and independently innovate for the exclusive goal of bringing that number down.
A bank's management was concerned that its tellers' cash drawer balances were often slightly off the expected counts. During spot checks, one drawer might be 25 cents over; another might be a few dollars short, and so on. Management thought this was symptomatic of sloppiness. To address the problem, they instituted a rule that all cash drawers had to be reconciled at the end of each day, and if there were a discrepancy, the teller would be disciplined.
After a few weeks, management asked for a report. Congratulations were given all around. Discrepancies had vanished entirely. Problem solved.
Eventually the real story surfaced. The tellers responded to the rule by creating a secret piggy-bank fund. If a drawer was over at the end of the day, the excess went into the fund. Deficits, likewise, drew from the fund. Thus, the books balanced perfectly at the end of each day. No other process changes occurred.
The lesson is that when you're trying to manage a process, you'll almost always see improvements in what you're measuring, but that does not mean that the root problem is solved. The number of tickets issued by these cameras will certainly go down, and police will use that number to justify more installations. In reality, drivers will start holding phones above their heads, wearing seatbelt-colored shirts, driving with the sunshade down, avoiding the routes with cameras, waving their arms around the cabin, and so on. The metric is number of tickets issued. Drivers and law enforcement will collaborate, conspire, and independently innovate for the exclusive goal of bringing that number down.
The most pressing question to me is: Why don't you wear a seat belt? How can humans be that stupid, sparing 1 second of time when entering the car? I really don't understand it.
I'm living in Northern Thailand and I'm wondering this daily. Thailand has about the most dangerous traffic in the world, lots and lots of people dying annually compared to the size of the population, but still constantly I see people, even with their kids, driving a motorbike without their helmets on. It's actually almost rare to see a good helmet, it's either nothing or a mostly useless bowl to avoid fines by the police. If I tell people I won't drive in some situation as I don't have my helmet, they'll just tell me there's no police on the way..
Though in here I think big part is religion - karma / Buddha protects good people, and most people feel they're good people, so their life is already protected, you'd just think they'd get it some day as the fatal road accident numbers are so high every year and everyone knows someone who was "a good person" but is now dead from traffic..
Though in here I think big part is religion - karma / Buddha protects good people, and most people feel they're good people, so their life is already protected, you'd just think they'd get it some day as the fatal road accident numbers are so high every year and everyone knows someone who was "a good person" but is now dead from traffic..
In my experience it is not generally an issue of laziness, it is more often a statement of ideology.
I think it is the former dressed up as the latter. Either way it's pathetic and childish.
My car beeps loudly if it is moving and it detects weight in the seat without the corresponding seatbelt. Can very occasionally be a problem if you put very heavy items on the back seat. I thought this was a normal feature of cars.
Big fan of automated enforcement with human review: red light running, speeding, distracted driving, tailgating, etc. More please!
> red light running
This is actually one of the interesting cases.
Some studies indicate that while red light cameras reduce the number of red light running, it also increases the amount of rear end collisions. Because people are afraid of getting a ticket they slam on their brakes.
Similarly, (iirc) there was some controversy about certain areas with red light cameras adjusting the length of yellow lights not to maximize safety, but to maximize ticket revenue. At the very least the wiki link includes:
> There is also concern that the international standard formula used for setting the length of the yellow phase ignores the laws of physics, which may cause drivers to inadvertently run the red phase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_light_camera
I don't think running red lights or otherwise driving recklessly is somehow our right or a good thing. However, there are side effects to these things and they don't necessarily make things universally better.
This is actually one of the interesting cases.
Some studies indicate that while red light cameras reduce the number of red light running, it also increases the amount of rear end collisions. Because people are afraid of getting a ticket they slam on their brakes.
Similarly, (iirc) there was some controversy about certain areas with red light cameras adjusting the length of yellow lights not to maximize safety, but to maximize ticket revenue. At the very least the wiki link includes:
> There is also concern that the international standard formula used for setting the length of the yellow phase ignores the laws of physics, which may cause drivers to inadvertently run the red phase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_light_camera
I don't think running red lights or otherwise driving recklessly is somehow our right or a good thing. However, there are side effects to these things and they don't necessarily make things universally better.
Good notes. I see a lot of these as symptoms of adjustment pains. Once a driver's expectation is that they will get a ticket, they will treat yellow lights as designed. They a notification to slow down, not speed up.
> [...] people are afraid of getting a ticket they slam on their brakes.
There should be some kind of warning before the red light comes on.
I've got it! A cell phone app. Whenever you're driving: the app sends your coordinates to the cloud, and every traffic light is also linked in via dirt-cheap IoT. Then, at some point between the light being green and red, the user is warned through a tweet, text, or email message that the red light will go on soon! They can navigate away from the video they were watching while driving, click through the terms of the website, adjust for their privacy preferences, take advantage of any offers that might pop up, and still find out a few seconds before the light turns red!
And then: because we know they'll be stopped at the light and for how long, we can show them a short video offering them valuable products and services right near where they are located! We can do this! Who's in?
There should be some kind of warning before the red light comes on.
I've got it! A cell phone app. Whenever you're driving: the app sends your coordinates to the cloud, and every traffic light is also linked in via dirt-cheap IoT. Then, at some point between the light being green and red, the user is warned through a tweet, text, or email message that the red light will go on soon! They can navigate away from the video they were watching while driving, click through the terms of the website, adjust for their privacy preferences, take advantage of any offers that might pop up, and still find out a few seconds before the light turns red!
And then: because we know they'll be stopped at the light and for how long, we can show them a short video offering them valuable products and services right near where they are located! We can do this! Who's in?
> Some studies indicate that while red light cameras reduce the number of red light running, it also increases the amount of rear end collisions. Because people are afraid of getting a ticket they slam on their brakes.
Sounds like some motorists received an expensive lesson on the topic of "What is a safe following distance, and why does it matter"
Sounds like some motorists received an expensive lesson on the topic of "What is a safe following distance, and why does it matter"
It seems obvious to me that running red lights has more severe risks than people stopping more abruptly at yellow lights. And since it's not illegal to slow down for a yellow light, but it is to tailgate someone, well... just don't do that, then.
There are plenty of ways to make it more obvious how long the yellow light will last and whether you can make it through before it turns red. The all-red grace period that wiki article mentions also makes sense to me.
I would say it is better to trade red-light-running collisions for yellow-light-stopping collisions. Just because you can't eliminate all collisions doesn't mean you do nothing. That's letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
There are plenty of ways to make it more obvious how long the yellow light will last and whether you can make it through before it turns red. The all-red grace period that wiki article mentions also makes sense to me.
I would say it is better to trade red-light-running collisions for yellow-light-stopping collisions. Just because you can't eliminate all collisions doesn't mean you do nothing. That's letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Adding timers to red lights seems like an obvious idea. You can even put them in the middle instead of yellow :)
I'm still surprised automated enforcement isn't more widespread. Where I live red light cameras are at almost every major intersection, speed cameras are on school roads and construction sites, school busses have ticketing cameras. But on the highway it's cops in cars (and supposedly aircraft) with radar/lidar. Thirty minutes a day on the highway is enough to know there's plenty of people undeterred from driving 40+ mph over the limit (20 mph over is enough to suspend your license after two strikes). I'd guess the 'math' (money, politics, initiative) doesn't work out, or maybe the tech is just rolling out very slowly and hasn't made it here yet.
I'm surprised as well. I visited Europe almost 25 years ago and they had automated speed cameras. In the US we've had speed limit signs that tell you how fast you're going for a long time now... adding a camera and network connection isn't rocket science. I assume it's entirely political.
I am not looking forward to a future filled with this type of surveillance.
I'm not too worried about this kind of surveillance.
What we're seeing here is surveillance of a public area, used for a clear goal, which is proportional (because texting while driving is insane) and is reviewed by humans, and has clear avenues for escalation when it makes a mistake.
The scary parts are the parts that such a system is capable of, but which are not made public. For one the article doesn't mention whether the data is used for anything else or if it is ever deleted. It's also not clear if there are plans to use it for less serious offences, or if the human review is going to be removed at some point.
What we're seeing here is surveillance of a public area, used for a clear goal, which is proportional (because texting while driving is insane) and is reviewed by humans, and has clear avenues for escalation when it makes a mistake.
The scary parts are the parts that such a system is capable of, but which are not made public. For one the article doesn't mention whether the data is used for anything else or if it is ever deleted. It's also not clear if there are plans to use it for less serious offences, or if the human review is going to be removed at some point.
> texting while driving is insane
I'm inclined to agree, but I would also love to see more detailed analysis. It is easy for everyone to jump on this particular bandwagon (I have found very few people willing to say that texting while driving is no big deal), but at the same time I see a lot of texting while driving happening every day. And while we do know it contributes to accidents, driving remains a relatively safe activity statistically given how dangerous it seems.
It's a little bit similar to the 'think of the children' argument, and it makes me uncomfortable when we use such justifications for massively increasing surveillance in a way that seems disproportionate to the problem we are trying to solve.
I'm inclined to agree, but I would also love to see more detailed analysis. It is easy for everyone to jump on this particular bandwagon (I have found very few people willing to say that texting while driving is no big deal), but at the same time I see a lot of texting while driving happening every day. And while we do know it contributes to accidents, driving remains a relatively safe activity statistically given how dangerous it seems.
It's a little bit similar to the 'think of the children' argument, and it makes me uncomfortable when we use such justifications for massively increasing surveillance in a way that seems disproportionate to the problem we are trying to solve.
> we use such justifications for massively increasing surveillance
Is it massively increasing surveillance? UK is full of speed cameras[1] and automatic number plate recognition cameras[2].
"Vehicle movements on UK roads are recorded by a network of 11,000 cameras that read around 60 million number plates daily."
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_speed_limit_enforcement_i...
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number-plate_recogni...
Is it massively increasing surveillance? UK is full of speed cameras[1] and automatic number plate recognition cameras[2].
"Vehicle movements on UK roads are recorded by a network of 11,000 cameras that read around 60 million number plates daily."
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_speed_limit_enforcement_i...
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number-plate_recogni...
That is a good point, though personally I do think there is a pretty significant escalation between reading number plates on the outside of the car, and pointing a camera inside the car to judge what is happening inside. I also think speed cameras are problematic, because they seem to be more effective at revenue generation than improving safety. We know how to design roads to make them safer implicitly, including ways to reduce the speed, without just pointing a camera at the cars and mailing out tickets a couple weeks later.
Why?
Good. It's time we took car violence seriously. Too many people driving around dangerously causing traffic jams from crashes, injuries and death and getting away with it.
To those who call it dystopian or authoritarian: go drive on your own private land. The roads are created by and shared by us as a society. If you don't like it you can always walk.
To those who call it dystopian or authoritarian: go drive on your own private land. The roads are created by and shared by us as a society. If you don't like it you can always walk.
I'm surprised by the early reactions here. Looking at the picture in the article, of a driver texting while the passenger holds the wheel (!!!), my first reaction is "OH YES PLEASE GET THESE INCREDIBLY IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS ASAP".
I don't want to die because some idiot is texting while driving. Whether these idiots are caught by a human looking attentively 24/7 or by a high-speed camera with an AI flagging possible violations and being reviewed by a human makes zero difference to me.
What exactly is wrong or dystopian here? AI bad? Cameras bad?
I don't want to die because some idiot is texting while driving. Whether these idiots are caught by a human looking attentively 24/7 or by a high-speed camera with an AI flagging possible violations and being reviewed by a human makes zero difference to me.
What exactly is wrong or dystopian here? AI bad? Cameras bad?
It's basically a slippery slope argument. Which is not completely unfair, police have a terrible track record when it comes to using technological means responsibly.
Police are using a bunch of technologies irresponsibly. Why not advocate for better oversight of police overall instead of trying to block them from using specific technologies?
[deleted]
An alternative perspective:
If a group has repeatedly shown that they will use their tools and power to oppress others, why give them tools that increase their odds of doing so?
If a group has repeatedly shown that they will use their tools and power to oppress others, why give them tools that increase their odds of doing so?
But what’s the slippery slope here? If we use AI effectively to catch texters, next we’ll… effectively enforce other traffic laws?
And police are already using technology in actually nefarious ways - technology that never had a positive use like this.
And police are already using technology in actually nefarious ways - technology that never had a positive use like this.
People here are concerned for the exact same reason they're concerned about on-device image scanning, they're not pro-pedophilia they're worried about the future uses of this capability.
Fair, but I think we’re ought to be much more concerned by surveillance of private messages on a communication app than we ought to be of surveillance of people’s activities on a public road. It ought to be understood that you might be observed while driving.
> What exactly is wrong or dystopian here?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are probably under the impression that this won't catch you doing something illegal? You might be surprised how extensive the laws are (and we add to them all the time), and many driving behaviors that you think are harmless are in fact technically illegal.
If, for example, we start sending people tickets every time they fail to stop before the stop line on the road, or don't come to a complete stop, we're going to need to install much larger mailboxes. Or people who speed 1 mph over the limit for 1 second. Or stay in the left lane a little too long while someone is waiting to pass. The possibilities are endless.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are probably under the impression that this won't catch you doing something illegal? You might be surprised how extensive the laws are (and we add to them all the time), and many driving behaviors that you think are harmless are in fact technically illegal.
If, for example, we start sending people tickets every time they fail to stop before the stop line on the road, or don't come to a complete stop, we're going to need to install much larger mailboxes. Or people who speed 1 mph over the limit for 1 second. Or stay in the left lane a little too long while someone is waiting to pass. The possibilities are endless.
>What exactly is wrong or dystopian here? AI bad? Cameras bad?
Well no, not by itself. The way I look at it, this is a precedence. It works, and there is not a lot of resistance. That's huge. And there will be next steps to this.
It doesn't take too many steps from here to a distopian surveillance state.
Well no, not by itself. The way I look at it, this is a precedence. It works, and there is not a lot of resistance. That's huge. And there will be next steps to this.
It doesn't take too many steps from here to a distopian surveillance state.
[deleted]
Not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing but I think the key complaint boils down to the level of granular invasiveness that this gives the government.
The fact that a govt couldn’t reasonably do this at this scale without computer vision being as advanced as it is just adds more AI skepticism flavor to the argument.
The fact that a govt couldn’t reasonably do this at this scale without computer vision being as advanced as it is just adds more AI skepticism flavor to the argument.
[deleted]
One definition of a dystopian society is a society where you cannot make mistakes. The good news is that every time one of these automated systems is implemented, too many politicians get caught and the laws get changed.
> One definition of a dystopian society is a society where you cannot make mistakes.
Except being awarded penalty points, or fined for doing something dangerous is not exactly "cannot make mistakes" is it? You do a stupid and dangerous thing, you are fined and hopefully you won't do it anymore. If you do it often enough your privilege of piloting a giant metal box around people is revoked.
Except being awarded penalty points, or fined for doing something dangerous is not exactly "cannot make mistakes" is it? You do a stupid and dangerous thing, you are fined and hopefully you won't do it anymore. If you do it often enough your privilege of piloting a giant metal box around people is revoked.
Yknow… I’ve never been thankful for my congressperson’s DUIs before.
I am surprised there are more people not wearing seatbelts than using mobile devices. I would have predicted the opposite, by a large margin. Wearing a seat belt is such an easy thing to do with great benefits.
You can't avoid the ubiquitous surveillance, it's here and it's only going to increase. (Your phone and your car both already know if you're driving and using them at the same time, and they both tell other people everything they know about you 24/7. This is already the case today.)
So the question isn't whether or not we have ubiquitous surveillance (we have it), it's how do we want to set and enforce policy?
This leads me to the oxymoronical-sounding idea of "humane tyranny". Since we cannot escape techno-tyranny we must make it humane.
So the question isn't whether or not we have ubiquitous surveillance (we have it), it's how do we want to set and enforce policy?
This leads me to the oxymoronical-sounding idea of "humane tyranny". Since we cannot escape techno-tyranny we must make it humane.
I'm from the UK. I'm very split on this.
On one hand I hate that people use their mobiles while driving, not because I particularly care if the driver wants to take that risk with their own life, but because they risk the lives of their passengers and other road users.
That said, the UK does not have a good track record when to comes to applying this technology reasonably in my opinion. We have similar cameras which catch people driving in bus lanes or in low emission areas in the UK, and while I often agree in principle with bus lanes and low emission areas, I feel like they're enforced unfairly and with a complete lack of context.
For example my city recently introduced a low emission area, the rules for which are not very clear and for some reason these low emission areas seem to primarily include high trafficked sparsely populated areas. A few weeks ago I had a family member drive down to visit me and they very briefly drove in one of these areas by accident and were hit with a £120 fine.
Point is there is not adequate warning for road users and the low emission areas haven't even been implemented in areas that are reasonable – such as those that are highly populated or have high foot traffic. I'd actually argue the low emission zone in my city is just an anti-car, revenue generating move, enforced via automatic license plate recognition cameras which have no appreciation for context.
Similarly here, I wonder how these camera might be used. Admittedly there are times I will remove my seat belt in the car such as to remove a jacket at stop lights, and although I never use my phone while driving I will sometimes pick it up and check notifications on the lock screen when it's safe to glance at it such as in slow moving traffic or at stop lights. I don't think doing this is any more dangerous than say fiddling with a car radio (which is perfectly legal), and it's very different from someone texting or holding their phone to their head while driving, but these cameras and the way they're enforced typically have no appreciation for this.
So I dunno... I guess if they're preventing cases such as the one shown in the article then great, but if they're going to be fining people £120 for glancing at their notifications at stop lights I'd rather they not exist. It's just going to effectively be another tax on working people who need to drive to / for work.
On one hand I hate that people use their mobiles while driving, not because I particularly care if the driver wants to take that risk with their own life, but because they risk the lives of their passengers and other road users.
That said, the UK does not have a good track record when to comes to applying this technology reasonably in my opinion. We have similar cameras which catch people driving in bus lanes or in low emission areas in the UK, and while I often agree in principle with bus lanes and low emission areas, I feel like they're enforced unfairly and with a complete lack of context.
For example my city recently introduced a low emission area, the rules for which are not very clear and for some reason these low emission areas seem to primarily include high trafficked sparsely populated areas. A few weeks ago I had a family member drive down to visit me and they very briefly drove in one of these areas by accident and were hit with a £120 fine.
Point is there is not adequate warning for road users and the low emission areas haven't even been implemented in areas that are reasonable – such as those that are highly populated or have high foot traffic. I'd actually argue the low emission zone in my city is just an anti-car, revenue generating move, enforced via automatic license plate recognition cameras which have no appreciation for context.
Similarly here, I wonder how these camera might be used. Admittedly there are times I will remove my seat belt in the car such as to remove a jacket at stop lights, and although I never use my phone while driving I will sometimes pick it up and check notifications on the lock screen when it's safe to glance at it such as in slow moving traffic or at stop lights. I don't think doing this is any more dangerous than say fiddling with a car radio (which is perfectly legal), and it's very different from someone texting or holding their phone to their head while driving, but these cameras and the way they're enforced typically have no appreciation for this.
So I dunno... I guess if they're preventing cases such as the one shown in the article then great, but if they're going to be fining people £120 for glancing at their notifications at stop lights I'd rather they not exist. It's just going to effectively be another tax on working people who need to drive to / for work.
Justice without mercy is cruelty. There's nothing good that can come from this kind of system.
From the article:
> The force, which is trialling the system, said if an offence has been correctly identified, the driver would either be sent a warning letter or a notice of intended prosecution, depending on the severity of the offence.
This is after human review.
> The force, which is trialling the system, said if an offence has been correctly identified, the driver would either be sent a warning letter or a notice of intended prosecution, depending on the severity of the offence.
This is after human review.
This is how it starts. Do you believe this status quo will be maintained for long? Or will it become good enough that human review will need to be requested? Then when it becomes sufficiently effective, will they lower the thresholds or broaden its scope? Experience says that's exactly what will happen.
Welp, found the bad driver.
I know the whole ‘break the law and you might get caught’ type thing but this is dystopian.
Laws will have to be adjusted to make this level of surveillance and enforcement tolerable.
No need for that, they will just prosecute when it's politically convenient
[deleted]
It is your civic duty to destroy each and every one of these if you find them out and about. They can't fix them all and will eventually give up. The west cannot become China. There is nowhere else to go.
Or, like, you could just not do things like texting and letting the passenger hold the wheel while you drive while blind people like me have to navigate around your one ton death machines. Crazy idea I know.
I don't do either of these things, ever, and still feel this level of automated surveillance is repugnant.
Alright, well drivers are still killing cyclists and pedestrians, so let us know when you have a better plan to make roads safer for those not in the one-ton metal boxes.
No, they'll catch it on camera and arrest you for destruction of public property
― C. S. Lewis
[My own thoughts, I feel are less effective and eloquent than Lewis'. I often feel that the expectations and rules of society don't make a lot of sense. Except for the extremely obvious, which frequently don't have explicitly stated expectations or rules due to being so obvious. My conclusion is that nobody else really gets it either; it's just that everyone else adjusts to this better than me. As we find ways to encode these nonsense rules into silicon and then aim it at everyone all the time, the end result will not be good for anyone.]