•

Police in England installed an AI camera system along a major road. It caught almost 300 drivers in its first 3 days.

Police in England installed an AI camera system along a major road. It caught almost 300 drivers breaking the law in its first 3 days.

https://www.businessinsider.in/thelife/news/police-in-england-installed-an-ai-camera-system-along-a-major-road-it-caught-almost-300-drivers-breaking-the-law-in-its-first-3-days-/articleshow/102857077.cms

The AI system, designed by tech company Acusensus, takes photos of passing vehicles and flags those with potential offenses.

Police in England installed an AI camera system along a major road. It caught almost 300 drivers breaking the law in its first 3 days.

Police in England installed an AI camera system along a major road. It caught almost 300 drivers in its first 3 days.::An AI camera system installed along a major road in England caught 300 offenses in its first 3 days.There were 180 seat belt offenses and 117 mobile phone

231 comments

MaxPower

•

Photos flagged by the AI are then sent to a person for review.

If an offense was correctly identified, the driver is then sent either a notice of warning or intended prosecution, depending on the severity of the offense.

The AI just "identifying" offenses is the easy part. It would be interesting to know whether the AI indeed correctly identified 300 offenses or if the person reviewing the AI's images acted on 300 offenses. That's potentially a huge difference and would have been the relevant part of the news.

tmRgwnM9b87eJUPq

•

The system we use in NL is called “monocam”. A few years ago it caught 95% of all offenders.

This means that AI had at most 5% false negatives.

I wonder if they have improved the system in the mean time.

https://nos.nl/artikel/2481555-nieuwe-slimme-camera-s-aangeschaft-om-appende-bestuurders-te-betrappen

zephr_c

•

Nobody cares about false negatives. As long as the number isn't something so massive that the system is completely useless false negatives in an automatic system are not a problem.

What are the false positives? Every single false positive is a gross injustice. If you can't come up with a number for that, then you haven't even evaluated your system.

tmRgwnM9b87eJUPq

•

The system works with AI signaling phone usage by driving.

Then a human will verify the photo.

AI is used to respect people’s privacy.

The combination of the AI detection+human review leads to a 5% false negative rate, and most probably 0% false positive.

This means that the AI missed at most 5% positives, but probably less because of the human reviewer not being 100% sure there was an offense.

zephr_c

•

Look, I'm not saying it's a bad system. Maybe it's great. "Most probably 0%" is meaningless though. If all you've got is gut feelings about it, then you don't know anything about it. Humans make mistakes in the best of circumstances, and they get way, way worse when you're telling them that they're evaluating something that's already pretty reliable. You need to know it's not giving false positive, not have a warm fuzzy feeling about it.

Again, I don't know if someone else has already done that. Maybe they have. I don't live in the Netherlands. I don't trust it until I see the numbers that matter though, and the more numbers that don't matter I see without the ones that do, the less I trust it.

tmRgwnM9b87eJUPq

•

The fine contains a letter, a picture and payment information. If the person really wasn’t using their phone, they can file a complaint and the fine will be dismissed. Seems pretty simple to me.

However, I have not heard any complaints about it in the news and an embarrassing amount of fines has been given for this offense.

zephr_c

•

For a post on a site like this that kind of anecdote is plenty to add to a conversation, and it does actually make me feel a tiny bit better about the whole thing, but when you lead with statistics you're implying a level of research and knowledge that goes beyond just anecdotal. It's not really fair to you or any of us, but using the numbers that sound good to avoid using the ones that reveal flaws is one of the most popular ways for marketing teams and governments to deceive people. You should always be skeptical of that kind of thing.

CalvinCopyright

•

Heh. Heh heh. You think that you can... file a complaint, and get a fine dismissed just like that. Heh heh heh. God, you're naive. Or stupid. Or a paid propagandist. Or just plain rich enough for your reaction to a fine to be 'meh'.

Criminality is predicated on convenience. If it's easy for an authority to throw out fines and hard for the populace to dismiss those fines, guess what's going to happen? There's going to be fines applied that shouldn't have been, but that the people who are getting fined literally can't put in the effort to get dismissed. And that's not justice in the slightest. 'Innocent until proven guilty', you troll. Heard that phrase before??

tmRgwnM9b87eJUPq

•

Just wow.

I bet you do not live in The Netherlands. We have a standardized process to complain against a fine.

If the picture doesn’t prove with certainty that you were holding a phone, complain to the address in the letter or just don’t pay the €359 fine and talk to a judge about it.

Tywele

•

How do they know that they caught 95% of all offenders if they didn't catch the remaining 5%? Wouldn't that be unknowable?

lasagna

•

Welcome to the world of training datasets.

There are many ways to go about it, but for a limited number they'd probably use human analysts.

But in general, they'd put a lot more effort into a chunk of data and use that as the truth. It's not a perfect method but it's good enough.

Hamartiogonic

•

The article didn’t really clarify that part, so it’s impossible to tell. My guess is, they tested the system by intentionally driving under it a 100 times with a phone in your hand. If the camera caught 95 of those, that’s how you would get the 95% catch rate. That setup has the a priori information on about the true state of the driver, but testing takes a while.

However, that’s not the only way to test a system like this. They could have tested it with normal drivers instead. To borrow a medical term, you could say that this is an “in vivo” test. If they did that, there was no a priori information about the true state of each driver. They could still report a different 95% value though. What if 95% of the positives were human verified to be true positives and the remaining 5% were false positives. In a setup like that we have no information about true or false negatives, so this kind of test setup has some limitations. I guess you could count the number of cars labeled negative, but we just can’t know how many of them were true negatives unless you get a bunch of humans to review an inordinate amount of footage. Even then you still wouldn’t know for sure, because humans make mistakes too.

In practical terms, it would still be a really good test, because you can easily have thousands of people drive under the camera within a very short period of time. You don’t know anything about the negatives, but do you really need to. This isn’t a diagnostic test where you need to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. I mean, it would be really nice if you did, but do you really have to?

tmRgwnM9b87eJUPq

•

Just to clarify the result: the article states that AI and human review leads to 95%.

Could also be that the human is flagging actual positives, found by the AI, as false positives.

echodot

•

You wouldn't need people to actually drive past the camera, you could just do that in testing when the AI was still in development in software, you wouldn't need the physical hardware.

You could just get CCTV footage from traffic cameras and feeds that into the AI system. Then you could have humans go through independently of the AI and tag any incident they saw in a infraction on. If the AI system gets 95% of the human spotted infractions then the system is 95% accurate. Of course this ignores the possibility that both the human and the AI miss something but that would be impossible to calculate for.

Hamartiogonic

•

That’s the sensible way to do it in early stages of development. Once you’re reasonably happy with the trained model, you need to test the entire system to see if each part actually works together. At that point, it could be sensible to run the two types of experiments I outlined. Different tests different stages.

jopepa

•

I think 95% were correct reports is what they mean. There could be a massive population of other offenders that continue sexting and driving or worse. One monocam won’t ever be enough we need many monocams. Polymonocams.

tmRgwnM9b87eJUPq

•

I suspect they sent through a controlled set of cars where they tested all kinds of scenarios.

Other option would be to do a human review after installing it for a day.

MotoAsh

•

but digging out that info would involve journalism and possibly reporting something the cops wouldn't like! We all know how that goes.

Aurenkin

•

Yeah that's a shame, would be really interested to know those numbers.

eric5949

•

Expansion of the surveillance state, you go uk.

eestileib

•

The DEA in the US has surveillance on every highway exit. If you drive on an interstate, you are logged.

Voyajer

•

Maybe in high population areas, most exits don't have any infrastructure nearby. Hell a lot barely have signs and just dump you into not much more than a back road.

RaoulDook

•

There is also a disturbing "community policing" (SURVEILLANCE) program being pushed by cops called FUSUS that allows cops to look at the cameras and their recordings of businesses, schools, churches etc. Their network of cop-viewable private surveillance cameras is already large in the USA and starting to expand to the UK. I found out when they asked to put one of their boxes in my company's network to have access to our cameras. We told them "NO."

This means Big Brother is really watching now, literally watching us on (potentially) any camera in public.

Tangent5280

•

Wait really? Via cameras?

Pika

•

yea, in fact most toll booths are camera operated up north here now, they click a picture of the plate then mail you the toll bill + added expenses for the mail in system. Annoying af but it's either that or get EZ pass(or not use the turnpike).

it flashes multiple times on the way through so I'm sure it grabs a front picture as well

Meowoem

•

I love threads like these because it really shows how flexible opinions are, post about ai surveillance state and everyone is against it but post about car drivers getting fined for not wearing a seatbelt and everyone loves it.

plumbercraic

•

This is a weird phenomenon. Feels a bit like how focusing on "welfare queens" / "dole bludgers" can pave the way for similar privacy erosion (and welfare cuts) even though its a tiny percentage of the people. Seems a short hop away from "if you've got nothing to hide...."

SCB

•

Except in this case being a poor driver actively puts others at risk rather than just being a drain on tax money.

realharo

•

Seatbelts I don't really care about, because with that people mostly just affect themselves (or others in the same car), but for other infractions it makes sense.

The real issue is whether you can trust that the data will only be used for its intended purpose, as right now there are basically no good mechanisms to prevent misuse.

If we had cameras where you could somehow guarantee that - no access for reason other than stated, only when flagged or otherwise by court order, all access to footage logged with the audit log being publicly available, independent system flagging suspicious accesses to any footage, etc. - it wouldn't be too bad.

Compared to all the private cameras that exist in cars these days...

afraid_of_zombies

•

You know the best way to not have absolute power corrupt? Not have absolute power.

If you collect this data there is degree of probability that eventually it will be abused. If you don't collect this data there is zero chance.

Some > none

Good government is about assuming the worse and decided if you are willing to endure that. If the absolute worse humans you can imagine were put into office how much bad can they do?

echodot

•

Surely the ultimate come away from that is will not ok with people breaking the law and we're not ok with AI taking people's jobs. There is no conflict here

Meowoem

•

So you think most people like the idea of a surveillance state automaticly enforcing it's every whim with perfect efficiency?

I'm pretty sure that's something pretty much universally disliked

InvertedParallax

•

You don't know many authoritarian.

Course, they only think this should apply to everyone elae.

echodot

•

I don't think I said that did I

Thorny_Thicket

•

In it's current form it's good technology. It's all fine as long as you're chasing after crimes we all agree are bad* It's the slippery slope I'm worried about. Just a matter of time untill this is going to be used for something malicious we don't agree with.

*I don't care if front seat passengers wear a seatbelt or not as long as they're adults.

i_r_n00b

•

The slippery slope is what makes this not okay. It's a completely unnecessary invasion of privacy in the guise of "safety".

I'd love to see some statistics showing that these things are anything other than an additional tax on the drivers. This is bad for everyone and it desensitizes you and opens the door to further surveillance I'm the future.

steltek

•

"Slippery slope" is a common argument but usually flawed. In this case, driving is an extraordinarily regulated privilege and despite that, it still results in massive deaths and permanent life changing injury every year. In the US, car crashes are the number one cause of death for children. It's difficult to draw a line between expanding driving enforcement to gross losses in privacy like many here are envisioning.

It also ignores the benefits to civil rights. Again, I don't know about the UK but in the US, traffic enforcement by police is very unevenly applied. Minorities routinely get their privacy violated on pretexts while cops don't even pay lip service to the rules.

afraid_of_zombies

•

I am just waiting for the article in the year that shows this system falsely reports darker skin people as breaking the law more often. It sees their hand and decides that the hand looks like a black cellphone or something.

Just like literally every other automated system with a camera that evaluates people.

khalic

•

Permanently Deleted

flamingarms

•

Just as an aside, gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the US; vehicle collisions are now 2nd, due to gun violence increasing and vehicle collisions decreasing.

echodot

•

It isn't though.

It isn't unnecessary invasion of privacy. You have no expectation of privacy when driving around on public streets, and to say you're allowed to break the law and use personal privacy as an excuse is absurd.

bladerunnerspider

•

While I don't disagree with the statement around privacy in public, I would encourage you to temper that thought with the realization that when that was developed we did not have the ability to be everywhere at once with cameras or fly drones over people's homes or track cellphones with GPS or use computers to process this information.

This information can and has been abused.

Maybe we should change our expectations to SOME privacy in public.

afraid_of_zombies

•

If there was no expectation of privacy why do governments get upset about window tinting and license plate laser blocking and radar detectors? It should be no different than curtains, shutters, and any other form of passive radio.

afraid_of_zombies

•

Yeah people say this but it isn't really true. If I was following, posting logs, taking photos, posting online those photos and logs of some kid in your family I am pretty sure this would bother you. Way back in my uni days there was an incident about someone doing that to the coeds on campus. The school was able to stop it solely because he used the school computer not by some legal mechanism.

You only think you have no expectation of privacy when no one tries to violate it.

echodot

•

Happens to celebrities. The reason it doesn't happen to me is I'm not very interesting.

But it been annoying isn't really the point it's not how the law works. I don't make the law, I'm just pointing out that how the law works, and under the law you have no expectation of privacy in public.

steltek

•

A beautiful strawman. This is about driving and traffic enforcement by the government, not creepy campus stalking by a crazy person.

There is no conceivable reality where the government will publicly post your movements for everyone to see based this system. None.

afraid_of_zombies

•

Does expectation of privacy disappear if there is no abuse? I wonder because expectation of privacy is about belief not based on motivations or integrity of others.

steltek

•

You're still beating up that strawman. Expectations of privacy change based on context. Driving = no. Walking around = yes.

At least in the US, I believe this is actual legal case law so I'm not making stuff up here.

afraid_of_zombies

•

I am not okay with this. Seatbelt wearing is a private matter. Yes, I wear mine.

ours

•

The issue is these people getting into accidents requiring preventable extensive medical help is not just a private matter.

afraid_of_zombies

•

Very well. Maybe we should start fining people for being fat or not working out or not eating enough veggies.

Leave it to the car insurance companies to take a great idea like universal healthcare and use it to restrict our rights.

echodot

•

I'm sorry but I don't agree that just because you want to do something means you should have an automatic right to do that thing. Freedom to do what you want has to be tempered against the damage that is done to society by you doing that thing.

Yeah take not wearing a seatbelt, the damage to society, the amount of money society has to expend if you mess up and crash is a lot higher if you're not wearing a seat belt than if you were. Given that the damage to society, the amount of money your actions cost to fix, I think it's acceptable that the ability to not wear a seatbelt is a restricted freedom.

We don't all live in a universe where every action we take has no consequences. Every time you decide to be an idiot, you are not just affecting yourself, but everyone else as well.

Take smoking in public, that freedom has been restricted in most countries in the world because quite a lot of people don't want to have to breathe in your smoke. It's not about you, it's about how your actions affect everyone else.

Selfish people don't like this because they think that they should be allowed to be a jackass to everyone and no one else should have the right or authority to prevent them from doing that. The jackasses are by default not operating within the established rules of civilisation, they wish to be independent of it but still make use of it.

And to put it technically, they can sod off.

NuPNuA

•

It's actually not in the UK, it's the law and it's the responsibility of the driver to make sure they're being worn.

Pyr_Pressure

•

I just wish they would have one where I live to fine all the people using the HOV lane who aren't supposed to be

Then we watch the numbers plummet and see there's only actually 5% of people using the lane and finally see how useless the hiv lane is so we can just make it a regular third lane.

steltek

•

The HOV lane is supposed to look empty. If it was packed full of cars, carpooling wouldn't have any advantage because you wouldn't go any faster.

Solemn

•

It doesn't work that well around here, cause there's inevitably that one car that refuses to go faster than the rest of the traffic that it's separated from. Or slows down to 10mph when the rest of the highway is stop and go, despite there being a barrier. Then someone gets rear ended because no one was expecting the lane to be going 10mph (and were on their phone), and the accident closes down the lane entirely

Basically, by me, the HOV lane is slower than traffic 90% of the time. Even in stop and go, because that lane is actually the one containing the accident causing the traffic.

steltek

•

Well, uhh, sounds like you could use some more traffic enforcement there. Maybe with AI and cameras ;)

TheCraiggers

•

I thought the advantage of carpooling was saving money on gas and car maintenance. Also, environment.

afraid_of_zombies

•

I am not pro seat belt laws. It is your life and you should be able to throw it away if you want.

PlexSheep

•

Not wearing a seatbelt reduces the security of others. If you want to throw it away, that's a different matter and should not be handled through seat belt laws.

afraid_of_zombies

•

Please show me the multiple double blind studies that you used to arrive at that conclusion.

PlexSheep

•

Source: I fucking made it up.

But isn't it simple logic? Maybe a driver pulls the wheel a bit too hard, due to having no belt loses balance, boom, he hits someone.

afraid_of_zombies

•

It might be "logical" but I prefer evidence-based policy. Especially when we are restricting individual rights.

What if it was something you cared about? What if I don't know your favorite form of music was going to be criminalized, would you accept "logical" as justification?

echodot

•

That is a ridiculous straw man arguement and the fact you came up with it basically indicates you have no actual interest in a proper debate.

We are taking not wearing a seat belt against restricting music.

One of them has real obvious reasons for restricting it decreases everybody else's safety by you not wearing a seatbelt.

There is no public safety consideration for banning a particular genre of music.

It is appropriate to impose limited freedom restrictions in cases where not doing so would result in potential issues for other people.

For example you are not allowed to play excessively loud music after a certain amount of time because that affects other people. But music is not banned outright and a genre of music would never be banned outright because that would be obviously ridiculous.

If you're going to have this conversation at least be reasonable.

afraid_of_zombies

•

Answering questions is easier than attacking questions.

ParsnipWitch

•

People not wearing seatbelts unnecessarily binds medical personal and costs money in healthcare when there is an accident.

There is no rational reason of why someone should refuse to wear a seatbelt beyond "I just don't want to". It's different from more complex matters like being fat or not going to the dentist or whatever. And yes, there is actual research that shows that some behaviour is more complex than other behaviour.

ikidd

•

The UK has never seen a dystopian nightmare they didn't rush to embrace.

Mrkawfee

•

There is a strong authoritarian undercurrent in England.

Boiglenoight

•

Is the freedom to drive without feeling like you're being watched more important than the prevention of texting while driving?

During my commute, it's common to see people looking at their phones. I don't know what the effect is without statistics, but seeing an accident along the way is a usual occurrence.

Agent641

•

Can't believe people still have the audacity to text while driving. I prefer reading a nice relaxing book.

ours

•

I've seen a bus driver do this. No seriously. And it was the safer option. It was on one of those long desert stretches of road in Australia. No turns, interceptions, obstacles, or urbanization, and very little traffic for hundreds of miles.

It was better for the driver to read a book than to zone off bored near death. You could see incoming traffic miles away anyway so a few glances from time to time were enough.

It was funny when I spotted him and asked him "Are you seriously reading a book while driving?".

portalsentinel

•

Or painting a nice landscape

nutsack

•

inattentive driving should be considered gross negligence

EndlessApollo

•

Yes, obviously. Ffs how is this post so full of authoritarian assholes who think more law enforcement (not even done by real people mind you, but by a machine with no sense of nuance or anything) is the solution to anything other than strengthening a fascist government?

Andy

•

Leaving traffic safety to human police, discretion often means racist biases and outcomes.

PsychedSy

•

Computers end up racist as well.

Boiglenoight

•

It's not authoritarian to use technology to improve people's lives. If you're in a public place, you're subject to being photographed by any number of circumstances both human and machine. How to balance it so that it isn't abused is a valid argument to have, but disregarding tech because it could run amok isn't a reason to forsake it altogether.

Natanael

•

I'm more concerned about error rates and false accusations

ItsMeSpez

•

Doesn't it say that each image is sent to a human for review before any charges are laid? Might not be the case forever, but at least for now it's actually a human who ultimately decides whether or not to prosecute a driver.

MrQuallzin

•

That's the important part for me. As long as the whole process isn't automated I'm fine with it.

darreninthenet

•

This has always been the case for road cameras in the UK from the start from when we first had speed cameras introduced, before they are sent out they are (supposed to be) reviewed by a person first to check for false positives.

surewhynotlem

•

No. Your freedom to feel feelings is your problem. If you feel like you're not being observed right now, your feeling is already wrong.

EndlessApollo

•

ITT a bunch of people who have never read an ounce of sci fi (or got entirely the wrong message and think law being enforced by robots is a good thing)

echodot

•

But the law isn't enforced by robots the law is enforced by humans. All that's happening here is that the process of capturing transgressions has been automated. I don't see how that's a problem.

As long as humans are still part of the sentencing process, and they are, then functionally there's no difference, if a mistake is being made it will be rectified at that time. From the process point of view there isn't really any difference between being caught by an automated AI camera and being caught by a traffic cop.

davidalso

•

Although completely reasonable, I fear that your conclusion is inaccessible for most folks.

And as a pedestrian, I'm all for a system that's capable of reducing distracted driving.

lateraltwo

•

How to disincentivize a motorist public is to make driving a stressful affair- currently, it's other people. Soon, it'll be catalogs of minor infractions caught, at the millisecond intervals they occur in, forever and the bill to pay it showing up every single week for the rest of your driving lives. Odds are it's going to be scrapped, made a Boogeyman for a while, and then come back every time people get testy about gas prices

afraid_of_zombies

•

The trick to get people to not drive as much is to make public transportation easier not driving hard. All you accomplish by making driving hard is punishing the group of people who have the least agency.

Let me guess, you are urban planning.

afraid_of_zombies

•

You have never had to dispute one of those tickets I assume.

Almost a decade ago I got one in the mail for a city that is about 9 hours away from my house. I am going thru the dispute process and being told repeatedly that "I am tired of people claiming that it wasn't them" with me suggesting that if their system worked they would most likely get fewer calls. Pure luck I noticed that the date is the exact date my daughter was born and thus the only way I could have been in that city is if I had somehow left my wife while she was in labor and managed to move my car 9 hours away. Once I pointed that out and that I could send them the birth certificate they gave up.

The problem with these systems is that they are trusted 100% and it becomes on the regular person to prove their innocence. Which is the exact opposite of what the relationship should be. If I get issued a ticket, it should be on the state to produce the evidence, not on me to get lucky.

echodot

•

If you read the article it makes it clear it wouldn't get that far.

It goes to human operator who looks at the picture and says whether or not they can actually see a violation on the image. So it wouldn't get as far as an official sanction so you wouldn't have to go through that process.

afraid_of_zombies

•

I am sorry am I talking to myself? I just gave you a literal example of this not working.

EndlessApollo

•

It's going to disproportionately target minorities. ML* isn't some wonderful impartial observer, it's subject to all the same biases as the people who made it. Whether the people at the end of the process are impartial or not barely matters either imo, they're going to get the biased results of the ML looking for criminals so it's still going to be a flawed system even if the human element is OK. Ffs please don't support this kind of dystopian shit, Idk how it's not completely obvious how horrifying this stuff is

*what people call AI is not intelligent at all. It uses machine learning, the same process as chatbots and autocorrect. AI is a buzzword used by tech bros who are desperate to "invest in the future"

Bonskreeskreeskree

•

Sounds like youd support precrime too. Stop licking boots

echodot

•

What the hell is precrime?

ikidd

•

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Minority_Report

Minority Report

CrayonRosary

•

Calling an image recognition system a robot enforcing the law is such a stretch you're going to pull a muscle.

EndlessApollo

•

*what people call AI is not intelligent at all. It uses machine learning, the same process as chatbots and autocorrect. AI is a buzzword used by tech bros who are desperate to "invest in the future"

joxese3341

•

Permanently Deleted

EndlessApollo

•

Face recognition data sets and the like tend to be pretty heavily skewed, they usually have a lot more white people than poc. You can see this when ML image filters turn black people into white people or literal gorillas. Unless the data set properly represents a super diverse set of people (and tbh probably even if it does), there's going to be a lot of race based false positives/negatives

joxese3341

•

Permanently Deleted

EndlessApollo

•

That might be the case tbh, but either way that would be bad and discriminatory. I might just be overthinking it, it might not actually be that bad, but I know discrimination like that is super common when it comes to how recognition-based ML is trained

ParsnipWitch

•

But how is that different or worse from a human sitting at the side of the road and writing down number plates for example?

CrayonRosary

•

The image recognition system detects a cell phone being used and snaps a photo, records the plate number, etc. How exactly does that lead to racism?

atzanteol

•

According to Sci-fi organ transplants will lead to the creation of monsters who will kill us all for "tampering in God's domain."

Maybe fiction isn't the best way to determine policy...

afraid_of_zombies

•

Worked for Gattaca. GINI pretty much only exists because of it.

RoyalEngineering

•

Yeah!! Now they got them new fangled pooters in cars too!! No thank U Night Rider!!

ShittyRedditWasBetter

•

I for one base ALL my global policy on sci Fi novels 🤦‍♂️

Since the writers are on strike we can have them just write the entire legal code as the writers of black window are actually taken seriously beyond nerds for once.

HellAwaits

•

Permanently Deleted

SeaJ

•

I think deaths jumped a bit post COVID but I don't think they are skyrocketing. Do you have a source?

letsgocrazy

•

I looked it up. They aren't skyrocketing.

The numbers dropped due to lockdown, then bounced up and are stable.

I hate this cult of negativity - just make up how everything is getting worse in order to hand more power to the government.

The casual and bovine l way it all happen is disgusting.

RaoulDook

•

Exactly right. Anytime the police or other government authorities want to put more surveillance into our lives, the only answer should be HELL NO.

EndlessApollo

•

He'll yea use machines to strip people of their freedom and privacy in exchange for "safety" and "security", that could never go wrong

xT1TANx

•

I understand your pov but I feel it's misplaced. You are in public in a vehicle. You are in public on a side walk. The same laws that have been used to record police are the same being used here. You have no expectation of privacy in public and if you are seen or recorded breaking a law that is on you.

FlyingSquid

•

The same laws that have been used to record police are the same being used here.

About that...

xT1TANx

•

I don't think you understand my point. It's been made clear the First Amendment applies to filming anyone, including police, in public. Any policies that try to bypass that will be destroyed in court. Those same rules apply to all of us as well.

We can absolutely be recorded in public.

Wakmrow

•

Yeah, given the tech today this needs to be revisited at the very least

xT1TANx

•

It won't.

NuPNuA

•

You know the Constitution has no power in the UK where this camera is right? Not that I'm opposed to it.

xT1TANx

•

The post I responded to indicated the US and UK. Of course I know that we never invaded and subjugated the English. Clearly I was talking about the US, so ya got me. Pat yourself on the back.

maynarkh

•

What first amendment?

EndlessApollo

•

Just because someone is in public doesn't mean that they need to be under 24/7 surveillance by big brother. Isn't England already infested with security cameras? The US is pretty lousy with them in some places and if I knew they were actively watching me I'd make a habit of breaking them, not praise them for helping to overpolice every square inch of the country

xT1TANx

•

Again, if you can be seen in public you already are. Anyone is a witness to your crimes.

Blimp7990

•

Permanently Deleted

xT1TANx

•

I haven't committed any. Which is why I'm unconcerned.

Blimp7990

•

Permanently Deleted

CalvinCopyright

•

Allow me to rephrase that. If an authority figure wants to prosecute you for whatever reason, even if you've been perfectly "legal", they will make up a crime you committed based on something they didn't like about you. This driving-camera crap just gives them more opportunities.

I got ticketed not too long ago because a police officer thought I was texting when I wasn't doing anything other than looking at Google Maps. You don't have to have committed a crime. You just have to have yourself recorded in a way that looks like you might have committed a crime. There is a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE between those qualifiers, and it is ripe for abuse. Innocence doesn't prove innocence, and proving innocence is what matters.

ours

•

For reference, in Switzerland deaths/major injuries from traffic accidents have steadily dropped since the '70s. Thanks to, as you mention, better car safety tech.

But there has also been a great number of speed cameras and lower alcohol tolerance. Oh and new laws with income-relative fines, temporary to permanent loss of driving license, and even jail for the worst driving offenses probably cooling the jets of even the wealthier road maniacs.

30mag

•

Permanently Deleted

MonkderZweite

•

I think the fact that car deaths are skyrocketing in the US and the UK is even more absurd since modern cars are supposedly "safer" with all of their safety tech.

SUV vs. Bicycle: cyclist dead.

topinambour_rex

•

Not for UK, cyclists is the only category which stay the same between 2022/2021.

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/report-reveals-number-of-deaths-on-british-roads-increase-by-8-percent/

Then using UK, one of the countries with the lowest deathtoll on the roads in Europe, beside the US, is a bit of a stretch.

SouthEndSunset

•

Yup, and some of these are quite serious. But a cop at the side of the road could stop these people instantly. These people won’t find out that they have broke the law for two weeks. Or they could just kill themselves/someone else/both half a mile up the road.

NuPNuA

•

It's about detering behaviours, if people know these cameras are out there, they will be less likely to act like that to begin with as the risk of consequences is now higher.

PooCrafter93

•

No they wouldn't. You are telling me you could stop someone on the motorway instantly. You think a stationary cop at ground level would be able to spot a phone held below the window and have the reaction times to intiate a persute?

SouthEndSunset

•

I never suggested any of this...alls I said was a cop at the side of the road could stop a car. I didnt say we couldnt have a copper parked up on a bridge as lookout or use these cameras.

graphite

•

100% agree. It flags infractions, you have people verify what was being flagged, due course follows.

Voli

•

There is a name for that sort, the safer the item is the more reckless the person becomes.

madge

•

I work in an adjacent industry and got a sales pitch from a company offering a similar service. They said that they get the AI to flag the images and then people working from home confirm - and they said it's a lot of people with disabilities/etc getting extra cash that way.

This was about six months ago and I asked them, "there's a lot of bias in AI training datasets - was a diverse dataset used or was it trained mostly on people who look like me (note: I'm white)?" and they completely dodged the question...

(this is definitely a different company as I am not in England)

echodot

•

Yes does the AI automatically send every taxi through or is it only when they are on the phone. Has the AI ever seen a taxi driver who's not on the phone in order to check this?

RoyalEngineering

•

“Hookay thanks for the presentation fellas, but lemme ask ya: Was your model trained only on iPhones or was a diverse palette of plastic Android phones from the last 15 years also taken into account?”

CookieJarObserver

•

Fuck ai and cameras and uk.

ilikekeyboards

•

FUCK CAMERAS. THAT'S WHY I VOTED BREXIT. SO I CAN TEXT AND DRIVE, NOT LIKE THESE BAGUETTE LOVING SISSIES

Bonskreeskreeskree

•

Monitor my internet and tell me what I can do harder daddy

CookieJarObserver

•

What?

Valmond

•

I hope it's sarcasm

ilikekeyboards

•

It is sarcasm. Britsbongs are too indebted to hang on sync and they'd rather sniff nitrous under a bridge

zepheriths

•

Meanwhile in New Orleans

https://www.fox8live.com/2023/07/26/nopd-use-facial-recognition-leads-zero-arrests-nine-months/

thegreenguy

•

Why are people saying this is a hypersurveillance dystopian nightmare? Guys, you are still in public! The only difference between this and having police officers sitting there and looking is this is much cheaper and more efficient. The recordings are still being sent to a human being for review.

SquishyPandaDev

•

The problem is the whole "give an inch, they take a mile." We don't know what rights this may take away from us in the future. So in the now, always question

PooCrafter93

•

Yeah I understand this argument. In my mind there is no anonymity when driving, (and in my mind there shouldn't be) and the responsibility you have as a driver have that makes this permissible.

SquishyPandaDev

•

A valid and reasonable point. The problem is that often it spills out of it's original intent. The "think of children" argument springs to mind

chicken

•

The only difference between this and having police officers sitting there and looking is this is much cheaper and more efficient.

Sure, but that's a huge problem, because the legal system wasn't actually designed for perfectly efficient enforcement. It is important that people be able to get away with breaking the law most of the time. If all of the tens of thousands of laws on the books were always enforced we would all be in prison and bankrupt from fines. Some laws are just bad too, and the way they get repealed is when enough people get away with breaking them for long enough to build political momentum for it.

Also, it isn't like they are going to stop at using scaled-up AI surveillance just to enforce seatbelt use and texting while driving, there is way too much potential for abuse with this sort of tech. For example if there are these sorts of cameras all over, networked together, anyone with access to them can track just about everything you are doing with no way to opt out. Even if you aren't doing anything wrong the feeling that you are always being watched is oppressive and has chilling effects.

Snapz

•

A day in your life must be horrible, friend.

r00ty

•

My main problem with this is, that this becomes like the huge online behemoths like youtube etc. I think most people have seen incidents where youtube cancelled a channel or applied copyright incorrectly, and getting a human to review things is next to impossible. The reason is clear, the sheer amount of content breaching the rules is too big to cost efficiently deal with by humans.

One camera catching 300 people in 72 hours. We don't see how many it triggered, how many were reviewed and found to be false positives.

The problem is going to be if a whole police force takes it up, or it goes national. The amount of hits generated would be far beyond the ability to confirm with humans. I see it going a similar way to youtube. They just let the AI fine people. You report it as wrong, so they send your petition to another AI that pretends to be human and denies you again. The only way to clear things up is to take it to court. But, now the court system is being flooded so they deny people the right to a court case and the fixed penalties will be automatically applied.

This is the dystopia I fear. Actually catching people committing driving crimes? I don't have a problem with that. Aside from maybe the increasing number of driving crimes coupled with the knowledge these cameras exist could lead to less concentration while people make sure they're sitting upright, looking attentive, eyes straight ahead hands at 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock. Did I indicate for that lane change back there? I guess that remains to be seen.

Myro

•

Haha, that's a scary thought. But not unreasonable. Fine first and let the recipient proof they are not at fault,fighting through a series of AI entities.

r00ty

•

"You're through to the AI's AI Manager how may I reject your complaint?"

Cataphract

•

Really great dialogue and discourse going on in this post. Thank you everyone for your opinions and viewpoints. Definitely have a lot to think over on my current stance. Exactly what I was missing lately from the social media I've been consuming (actual discussions with merits both sides hold).

Treczoks

•

Am I the only one who considers the text on the camera car ("HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE") a bad joke?

Tolstoshev

•

This will get shut down the first time some politician gets caught receiving road head and the pictures leak.

jvanostrand

•

@L4s People don't want to get caught breaking the law. Perhaps others wouldn't like fighting false positives.
Solve that with lower fines and a suitably easy way to challenge them.

hark

•

I'm surprised car companies haven't already partnered with governments to have the vehicles themselves snitch on the occupants. Why install these camera systems all over the place when the vehicles themselves collect ridiculous amounts of data with greater accuracy? I'm sure the car companies would love the additional revenue stream and the governments would love the greater surveillance capabilities.

jeremy

•

Cause no one would buy a car from a company that does this

hark

•

Companies will band together to force unpopular changes. They're already doing it with ridiculous pay-to-unlock-features-already-on-the-vehicle-through-software features.

chronically_crazy

•

Yeah, but it doesn't really benefit the automotive manufacturers to snitch on speeders.

TheCraiggers

•

Probably because they wouldn't see a dime of revenue from this. It would be a new law that just says they have to do it. At best, they would be allowed to pass the costs to customers somehow, likely through our plate registrations at the DMV.

It's basically a no win for the car companies. Lots of ill will, increased chance of litigation, increased costs for building cars, all for nothing.

In fact, I bet the car companies lobbyists are the reason we don't have this already.

randon31415

•

Drive Safe with Statefarm!

Asifall

•

I know this is gonna be a hot take, but I think there’s a huge opportunity to increase road safety using automation. Where I live the police have largely stopped bothering with minor traffic offenses due to problems with racial profiling, which solves the racial profiling issue but means that it’s very hard to drive so poorly you get pulled over.

It seems like simply ticketing people automatically for driving over the speed limit or running stop signs would be dirt cheap and massively improve driving standards. You wouldn’t even need to do facial recognition or anything, just use the same systems that are already in place for toll by plate to fine the vehicle owner.

cheeseburger

•

Mellow greetings, citizen. This idea was a running gag in Demolition Man.

JoseALerma

•

Enhance your calm, John Spartan.

randon31415

•

I remember an opening to Seaquest DSV where the captain was riding his motorcycle to the base and a camera pops out of the ground, scans his plate, and he receives an email with the fine when he reached his destination. No other human involved, and this show was ~20 years ago.

ManosTheHandsOfFate

•

It pains me to point out that it's more like ~30 years ago. Rest in peace Jonathan Brandis.

TheBiscuitLout

•

Cornwall outsourced mobile speed cameras to a private company a while ago, and realised that they, and the company, we’re making money hand over just, and due to Cornwall’s number of tourists, much of that money was coming from outside Cornwall. This feels like a development of that idea. Ethics and everything aside, if they can find a way to roll this out further and increase the flow of money into the councils coffers, they will

Wirrvogel

•

There were 180 seat belt offenses and 117 mobile phone

and 300.000 drivers privacy got violated by a single offender. Someone should gve the AI a fine. Oh wait "privacy" is not a word in the English language anymore, it is just gibberish with no meaning.

reverendsteveii

•

You don't have an expectation of privacy while driving on a public road and you never did.

Wirrvogel

•

I have an expectation of existing and having privacy because not everywhere is a camera. If you don't have that expectation anymore, then that's sad.

There is a huge difference between letting an AI check EVERY car ALL THE TIME, or police doing random checks on random roads. One is a privacy violation for some to find some people texting and driving and some people wearing no seatbelt, which then leads to more awareness of everyone about these issues. The other is treating all your citizens as potential "criminals" driving without seatbelt and texting and driving and therefore making it normal to violate everyones privacy.

A government that starts to treat all citizens like potential criminals all the time and put them on camera on every street and in their car and on public transport, in school and at work... is not a government that is on your side and wants to protect you, that's a prison guard.

reverendsteveii

•

"Expectation of privacy" is a legal term with an agreed-upon definition that isn't subject to your intuition or what you consider to be "sad".

Wirrvogel

•

I know it is a legal term. It was meant to help protect peoples privacy, but got perverted to now mean that privacy only exists at home. That is sad and not understanding that it is sad, is even more sad.

alienanimals

•

Found the shitty driver