Live data from Hacker News

AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

bbc.co.uk

131–140 of 142 posts

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

#131
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?

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.

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

#132
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.

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.

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

#133
post #72
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…

Adding timers to red lights seems like an obvious idea. You can even put them in the middle instead of yellow :)

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

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh grow up. Wearing a seatbelt isn't oppression you muppet.

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.

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

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Adults almost never use 'grow up' as an argument. They actually know what their argument is and say that.

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

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

#137
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

... 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.

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

#138
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.

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 ...

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

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

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

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 othe…

If you don't want to wear a seatbelt don't ride on the public roads.

We live in a society.

Post reply on HN