111–120 of 227 posts
No fancy technology is needed. All they need is inspectors on motorbikes riding between cars that are stopped at traffic lights. Large number of people are using their phones when waiting at the lights. A motorbike inspector riding between cars would make an infinite number of catches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially when a officer on the street corner will do the job (and prevent a ton of other petty law violations) just as well without being Orwellian about it. Edit : Do the down-voters care to explain how a networked camera system is somehow better or less orwellian than a human cop?
1. A camera can't shoot you--seeing as this thread is about cameras in US cities, and police brutality is an issue here, I don't want a bunch of power-hungry cops with a license to murder on every corner of every US city. That sounds both insanely wasteful and also dangerous. 2. I really don't understand how having a cop on the street corner is any better than the "Orwellian" camera. In both cases, you're being watch…
Hmm; that feels a dishonest argument - I would expect HN audience to understand the differences between the two without being prompted. One of them will record the observation, store it potentially indefinitely, and enable unfathomable correlations for unfathomable purposes.
If it's really not clear, I would venture most people being OK with cop but not OK with a camera, feel that an honest cop may notice a particular law being broken right now, but a network of cameras may notice all kinds of things that are not illegal, as such, but may still be used against you.
(not to say that I disagree with your premise of US Cops being more dangerous than cameras; just that it shouldn't take much effort to have a basic understanding about other perspectives)
Good. People in Australia don't take driving seriously. I spend a lot of time on the road, and have lived all over Australia, and the one defining thing I've found in common all over the country is that people are WAY too casual about driving. Sydney and Melbourne being the worst by far, with it being so bad it has become entertainment[0] On any given commute you'll see dozens of people playing with their phone while…
Good. People in Australia don't take driving seriously. I spend a lot of time on the road, and have lived all over Australia, and the one defining thing I've found in common all over the country is that people are WAY too casual about driving. Sydney and Melbourne being the worst by far, with it being so bad it has become entertainment[0] On any given commute you'll see dozens of people playing with their phone while…
I can’t figure it out though, they have some strict standards getting a license, red p’s for 12-24 months + 120 logbook hours, then green p’s where they are restricted to dangerous below highway speeds so have drivers aggressively overtaking them. Despite this, standards seem far lower than Europe.
The horn thing is really annoying, often the person being beeped can’t move forward anyway due to traffic across a junction and people are just being impatient but sometimes it’s the other way and people are just day dreaming at junctions when the light changeover is quick so you ha e to go.
It seems car first. Cross a road in Europe a car a few hundred meters down the road will back off the accelerator slightly when they see you and let you cross. Australia they see a pedestrian and will speed up as it’s their road and the light is green, they’ll speed up to the point they are deliberately trying to hit you.
Speed limits are annoying here. For such a big country it’s really difficult to travel big distance like you can in Europe or the US. Most people on the highway drive 100km/h as lots of police and the limit is 110. Also everyone will do 100km/h in the outside lane, inside lane doesn’t exist for most people as that’s where the p players are doing 90 and they are afraid of overtaking. It’s also odd as when you pass someone going well below the limit, a minute later they’ll aggressively speed up, fly past, then 5 minutes later they are slowed down and you are overtaking them again when you have kept a constant speed.
I’ve found driving in Northern Africa and Asia far less frustrating than Australia and those countries are bit of a free for all, especially Ho Chi Minh. It’s easier in those countries as no one follows any rules and you know that, AU being 50/50 you just have no idea what drivers are going to do and makes it harder to judge.
Good. People in Australia don't take driving seriously. I spend a lot of time on the road, and have lived all over Australia, and the one defining thing I've found in common all over the country is that people are WAY too casual about driving. Sydney and Melbourne being the worst by far, with it being so bad it has become entertainment[0] On any given commute you'll see dozens of people playing with their phone while…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case, the fault assignment correctly identifies as unsafe that driver who started moving and rammed a stopped vehicle immediately in front.
The stopped vehicle at a green light also increased the probability of collision. Most collisions require two unsafe drivers. One to swerve out of their lane, another who thoughtlessly drive down the highway alongside another car; that sort of thing.
Vehicles can remain standing on a green for reasons like the engine having stalled, or there still being a pedestrian in front of them.
It is not comparable to doing something poorly considered for which there cannot be a good reason, like driving in someone's blindspot on the freeway for hundreds of meters, in low traffic.
So they're ramping up the detection of people using their phones while waiting for the traffic light to turn green? Doesn't really sound like this is actually about safety. I doubt these cameras can capture the photo do a decent quality on that angle for anything but standing or very slow moving cars But I guess we can hope it will stop some people, even if there will be a lot of people caught that weren't really end…
I lived in NSW (the state in the article) for a while, and had my car rammed into from behind 3 times in 2 years while I was stopped at a red light, all 3 times the drivers admitted they were checking their phone and hadn't noticed the light go red or me stop. They're not even shy about it, and the casualness at which people use their phones in cars is shocking. I got front and rear dash cams after the 1st hit, to pr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. A camera can't shoot you--seeing as this thread is about cameras in US cities, and police brutality is an issue here, I don't want a bunch of power-hungry cops with a license to murder on every corner of every US city. That sounds both insanely wasteful and also dangerous. 2. I really don't understand how having a cop on the street corner is any better than the "Orwellian" camera. In both cases, you're being watch…
>>I really don't understand how having a cop on the street corner is any better than the "Orwellian" camera. In both cases, you're being watched Hmm; that feels a dishonest argument - I would expect HN audience to understand the differences between the two without being prompted. One of them will record the observation, store it potentially indefinitely, and enable unfathomable correlations for unfathomable purposes.…
I would expect you to not be so condescending. The comment I replied to didn't make any sort of actual argument; it's just a statement. Therefore, I don't understand how they reached their conclusion.
> One of them will record the observation, store it potentially indefinitely, and enable unfathomable correlations for unfathomable purposes.
Right, and the other will not record the observation, potentially beat you or shoot you, and if you take it to court, have their word trusted against yours almost universally by a jury, leaving you absolutely no recourse when you lose the case because the police officer may or may not have lied in their report.
> just that it shouldn't take much effort to have a basic understanding about other perspectives
Sorry I'm so dumb, I guess?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe they mean riding a motorcycle in the gap between two lanes of traffic, thus "filtering" through the static traffic to the front.
It's worth noting that this is legal in some places. Not everyone on HN may be aware of that. I know I was surprised when I first saw it.
So they're ramping up the detection of people using their phones while waiting for the traffic light to turn green? Doesn't really sound like this is actually about safety. I doubt these cameras can capture the photo do a decent quality on that angle for anything but standing or very slow moving cars But I guess we can hope it will stop some people, even if there will be a lot of people caught that weren't really end…