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

MTA's A.I. bus cameras issue mistaken parking violations

nbcnewyork.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 114 posts

Re: MTA's A.I. bus cameras issue mistaken parking violations

#81

Post by JumpCrisscross »

rgovostes wrote: post #20

When I lived in California years ago I had a custom 2-letter plate. I gave the car to a relative who switched its registration to another state. Years later, I got a toll demand from an express lane around LA that had a false positive scan of my plate number—someone else’s partially obscured maybe? I argued the car was registered elsewhere and wasn’t driven in CA, and they denied the appeal. I asked for evidence but…

> with no appeals process

Wouldn't it have to hit a traffic court at some point?

Re: MTA's A.I. bus cameras issue mistaken parking violations

#82

Post by potato3732842 »

woodruffw wrote: post #78
potato3732842 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean delivery like box truck, not delivery like doordash. I was imprecise to lump them all together like that.

Sure, I suppose it could happen in that case. There's no public evidence of any such occurrence, however; most of the city's truck traffic is big companies, and I don't see why any driver would risk prison time to stave off an idling ticket that Amazon, etc. is just going to negotiate down in court anyways.

You live in different worlds.

Pretty much everyone who depends on small business in NYC hates the government and law enforcement of NYC and sees them as revenuers (Louis Rossman covers this in detail on his youtube channel, to mention someone who's respected here on HN). The idea that someone would help them for a cut is incredibly disgusting to most people who live in this world.

It's incredibly foreseeable that some guy in the cab of a box truck who's distracted with his dispatch iPad looks up to see some guy taking pictures, puts two and two together and puts the truck in drive. They don't hire middle class techies to drive these trucks. Your morals don't translate to onto some 20yo guy from Newark. And they also don't translate into his hotheaded 16yo helper who runs with a less than law abiding crowd and you didn't see come out of the building just behind.

Like I said, the risk ain't worth my life.

Re: MTA's A.I. bus cameras issue mistaken parking violations

#83

Post by JumpCrisscross »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #36
suzzer99 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inscrutable, impossible-to-win appeals processes seem to go hand in hand with automated enforcement mechanisms. Otherwise the financials don't work. This may be an area where govt needs to set some kind of standard of talking to a live human and getting a straightforward explanation of why an appeal is denied. EU will probably lead the way if it happens.

There's a toll road near me that always triple bills me. Am I really going to call and complain about $1.27 a few times a year?

> Am I really going to call and complain about $1.27 a few times a year?

If they're triple billing you, they're triple billing someone else. That's worth an attorney's time.

Re: MTA's A.I. bus cameras issue mistaken parking violations

#84

Post by bobthepanda »

potato3732842 wrote: post #60
bobthepanda wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the point of the cameras, to some degree, is to make the common violations stop happening. you don't really have a right to pull over anywhere you want in 'a busy downtown area'.

That's not really a compelling argument in a reality in which we allow people to just stop at the end of merge ramps because "whoops, poor/no planning".

Does one illegal or bad thing make another illegal thing okay? Why bother having any sort of laws or enforcement?

Re: MTA's A.I. bus cameras issue mistaken parking violations

#85

Post by JumpCrisscross »

potato3732842 wrote: post #75
doctorpangloss wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The person on the other end of the phone has near complete discretion and the process is still not auditable or verifiable to you. Does every administrative process have to go to a plebiscite or a Judge to be valid? Where do you draw the line?

There needs to be some mechanism by which the people can check the process. An elected official would likely suffice.

> elected official would likely suffice

For adjudicating traffic tolls? Why do you think election is going to produce a good outcome? Some jurisdictions would collect zero revenue while others would refuse any appeal on principle.

Re: MTA's A.I. bus cameras issue mistaken parking violations

#86

Post by bobthepanda »

HPsquared wrote: post #55
bobthepanda wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

also keep in mind this is automotive grade stuff in relatively harsh conditions (the front of a bus); it needs to be more rugged than your average camera

Surely it's just a dash cam with a button and maybe some kind of comms module. There are many mass-market dashcams with a 'record' button that saves a time period before and after pressing the button, it's pretty standard usage. The only new thing is sending the video on, and making sure the time/location are correct (many cameras do this via GPS already - standard usage). I'm not seeing what is so expensive or uniqu…

A bus goes through many more miles and hours of operation than the vast majority of cars. Most cars are parked for the vast majority of the day, and sometimes in covered garages.

And how long do those cameras last? The feds only fund bus replacements at twelve years or 500,000 miles.

Re: MTA's A.I. bus cameras issue mistaken parking violations

#87

Post by BobaFloutist »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #83
sidewndr46 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a toll road near me that always triple bills me. Am I really going to call and complain about $1.27 a few times a year?

> Am I really going to call and complain about $1.27 a few times a year? If they're triple billing you, they're triple billing someone else. That's worth an attorney's time.

Right, but it's not worth the parent's time.

Re: MTA's A.I. bus cameras issue mistaken parking violations

#88

Post by Rebelgecko »

HPsquared wrote: post #55
bobthepanda wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

also keep in mind this is automotive grade stuff in relatively harsh conditions (the front of a bus); it needs to be more rugged than your average camera

Surely it's just a dash cam with a button and maybe some kind of comms module. There are many mass-market dashcams with a 'record' button that saves a time period before and after pressing the button, it's pretty standard usage. The only new thing is sending the video on, and making sure the time/location are correct (many cameras do this via GPS already - standard usage). I'm not seeing what is so expensive or uniqu…

Some other factors to consider

* How many years of service are included (both for the data plan and just repairs when someone smashes a bus camera). Employing people to fix/replace cameras could easily cost hundreds of thousands per year

* Where does the video go? Redundant storage in geographically disparate areas?

* How long is video retained?

* R&D costs?

* Does the price include manual human review?

* There was also some drama where the 2 vendors sued each other, idk if that has any impact on the prices

* The tickets during the pilot made millions of dollars per year, do the cameras pay for themselves?

* How much efficiency are they gaining if the program results in fewer blocked busses?

Re: MTA's A.I. bus cameras issue mistaken parking violations

#89

Post by JumpCrisscross »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #87
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Am I really going to call and complain about $1.27 a few times a year? If they're triple billing you, they're triple billing someone else. That's worth an attorney's time.

Right, but it's not worth the parent's time.

> it's not worth the parent's time

I’m saying it might be. Being the lead plaintiff in even a threatened class can be lucrative.

That said, in their shoes, I’d write a letter to my state AG and copy my state legislative electeds and be done with it.

Re: MTA's A.I. bus cameras issue mistaken parking violations

#90

Post by BobaFloutist »

bobthepanda wrote: post #46
mistrial9 wrote: post #22

in other recent news, the Alameda County Transit system has enabled "AI" cameras on busses, that will auto-generate violations for civilian vehicles in the bus stop, in the new fast transit dedicated lanes, and who knows where else. In previous times, Alameda County special officers would issue $500 tickets for letting a passenger out of a private vehicle within a bus stop area. In case you don't know, the bus stops…

the point of the cameras, to some degree, is to make the common violations stop happening. you don't really have a right to pull over anywhere you want in 'a busy downtown area'.

That's true, though I would argue that, especially around regional transit hubs, at least some number of parking spaces should be converted to pickup/drop-off spaces (3/5/10 minute parking). It's inane how hard it is to find a legal place to drop people off at some BART stations, and surely it's worth sacrificing some small number of parking spots for?
Post reply on HN