Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 142 posts

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#91

Post by dymk »

sergiotapia wrote: post #45
ctoth wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#92

Post by kypro »

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.

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#93

Post by barbazoo »

Verdex wrote: post #8

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ― C. S.…

> 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?

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#94

Post by lukasLansky »

rootusrootus wrote: post #55
contravariant wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 whe…

> 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 sa…

https://www.statista.com/chart/17194/pedestrian-fatalities-i...

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#95

Post by ftth_finland »

bluedino wrote: post #47
bluecalm wrote: post #18

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 ga…

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.

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#96

Post by flangola7 »

lisper wrote: post #57
kyralis wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 tomo…

Who decides which laws can be enforced by capture and imprisonment?

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#97

Post by flangola7 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #48
nodomain wrote: post #22

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.

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.

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#98

Post by flangola7 »

carapace wrote: post #80
hashstring wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What privacy? It's a public road?

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.

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#99

Post by obelos »

krisoft wrote: post #85
obelos wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

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.

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#100

Post by rwmj »

nodomain wrote: post #22

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.

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.
Post reply on HN