4 ms·

How would you propose authorities stop people from using their phones while driving without: 1. Detecting when people are using their phone while driving? 2.

How would you propose authorities stop people from using their phones while driving without: 1. Detecting when people are using their phone while driving? 2. Imposing a penalty when people are caught? Applying a high fine for infringements is a good deterrent. It's definitely about safety as much (if not more) than revenue raising. If people don't want to give revenue to the government, it's simple - don't use your phone while driving.

fraudsyndrome 7y ago
Agreed. You have to draw the line somewhere and I can't believe people are actually arguing against this like they have a leg to stand on.
read_if_gay_ 7y ago
For these cameras (and speeding cameras, too) to be effective at all, you either: A) need a huge volume of them so people assume they will certainly get caught if they use their phone even just once B) place them at critical spots and make them very clearly visible e.g. via adding signs Otherwise, they're just hidden and rare enough that nobody actually changes their driving style. Now neither A nor B are the case. So what's their use besides making money? Also, why take money only? Off the top of my head, why not something like each time you get caught, you get a "buffered" 1-day driving restriction and once it adds up to some amount it's applied? Currently you can just speed all the time as long as you're not grossly over the limit. All you need to do is pay a little money which might be trivial for some people. A driving restriction might not be. These cameras obviously aren't implemented with safety as a priority. It's about money first and foremost. Safety is just a pretense. Same thing for govt surveillance and so on. It's surprising to me that the same excuse can be used over and over effectively.
jaimex2 7y ago
How about more highway patrol? You know, physical officers who can be anywhere instead of a camera on a pole thats well known. Speed cameras just cause people to behave in a single spot. Worse they usually backlog traffic because drivers brake when approaching them "just in case"

fraudsyndrome 7y ago

Agreed. You have to draw the line somewhere and I can't believe people are actually arguing against this like they have a leg to stand on.

read_if_gay_ 7y ago

For these cameras (and speeding cameras, too) to be effective at all, you either: A) need a huge volume of them so people assume they will certainly get caught if they use their phone even just once B) place them at critical spots and make them very clearly visible e.g. via adding signs Otherwise, they're just hidden and rare enough that nobody actually changes their driving style. Now neither A nor B are the case. So what's their use besides making money? Also, why take money only? Off the top of my head, why not something like each time you get caught, you get a "buffered" 1-day driving restriction and once it adds up to some amount it's applied? Currently you can just speed all the time as long as you're not grossly over the limit. All you need to do is pay a little money which might be trivial for some people. A driving restriction might not be. These cameras obviously aren't implemented with safety as a priority. It's about money first and foremost. Safety is just a pretense. Same thing for govt surveillance and so on. It's surprising to me that the same excuse can be used over and over effectively.

jaimex2 7y ago

How about more highway patrol? You know, physical officers who can be anywhere instead of a camera on a pole thats well known. Speed cameras just cause people to behave in a single spot. Worse they usually backlog traffic because drivers brake when approaching them "just in case"