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

121–130 of 142 posts

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

#121

Post by hashstring »

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?

I don’t live in a country where it’s as one-dimensional as: (public road) ⇒ ¬(privacy rights) and I value that.

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

#122

Post by TrueGeek »

nvm0n2 wrote: post #86
carimura wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

#123

Post by hashstring »

barbazoo wrote: post #61
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.

> 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. An…

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.

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

#124

Post by lisper »

flangola7 wrote: post #96
lisper wrote: post #57

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". 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?

When those kinds of things are handed over to AI automation the results are often dystopian as well (at least by my quality metric).

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

#125

Post by Brian_K_White »

matthewfelgate wrote: post #105
Brian_K_White wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#126

Post by mdp2021 »

jfindley wrote: post #110
mdp2021 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 cy…

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.

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.

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

#127

Post by flir »

TrueGeek wrote: post #122
nvm0n2 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Are you suggesting the overweight pay higher taxes?

A soft drinks industry levy, for example?

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

#128

Post by fingerlocks »

elil17 wrote: post #70
gorlilla wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

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.

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

#129

Post by sixstringtheory »

Verdex wrote: post #72
xnx wrote: post #36

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 max…

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.

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

#130

Post by sixstringtheory »

aimor wrote: post #60

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+…

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.
Post reply on HN