8 ms·

New South Wales rolls out mobile phone detection cameras

32 points by watchdogtimer 7y ago

saagarjha 7y ago
How do these work? I’m sure that with the angles and tinted windows involved, these cameras would need to be quite invasive to be effective…
- elil17 7y ago
  How can this camera be more invasive than a red light camera?
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    Red light cameras aren’t designed to look into your car.
    - SllX 7y ago
      They are when they’re designed to also identify the driver.
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        Why would such a thing be necessary when you can just grab the plates instead?
        turboturbo 7y ago
        In some countries (such as Germany) you have to be able to identify the driver in order to impose a fine. They actually send you a print-out of the picture along with the fine
        elil17 7y ago
        Then it’s still the same as a red light camera
        SllX 7y ago
        To prove that the owner of the car or at least the person registered to it really was driving the car at the time. Now full disclosure, I don’t drive, but of my buddies that do, one received a ticket last year here in California in the mail that had a picture which clearly identified her (and me, I was in the passenger seat). If she fought the ticket, presumably they could pull this photo out and show that yes, she was in fact driving her own car. She didn’t fight the ticket.
        krilly 7y ago
        There was a political scandal in the UK when a politicians wife took points on her license for him, to prevent him getting a driving ban. The camera that clocked him only checked numberplates. She grassed on him a decade later and went to jail for her trouble. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/11/chris-huhne-vicky-pryce https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/11/chris-huhne-vicky...
        toast0 7y ago
        If you want to assign driving record penalties to the driver of the vehicle, you need to identify the driver. If it's like a parking ticket, you can do that against the car.
        megablast 7y ago
        It shouldn't be this way. The owner should be responsible, and it is up to them to find the driver.
        detaro 7y ago
        Then you get stuff like one of the other comments linked, where people get someone else to take the punishment for them.
        Enginerrrd 7y ago
        Because the liability falls on the driver, and that is not always the owner of the car.
        megablast 7y ago
        Because then the owner denies driving it. Now, in some states they handle this sensibly, and the driver has to get the "driver" to own up or they are responsible. In other states, it is on the state to find the driver.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- potentialverand 7y ago
  > The high-definition cameras use artificial intelligence to spot drivers, regardless of the weather or the time of day. > The portable versions will be mounted on trailers and operate across the state. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-22/mobile-phone-detection-cameras-rolling-out-nsw-december/11536664 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-22/mobile-phone-detectio... This article has an image
- rad_gruchalski 7y ago
  Who cares how invasive these are. A car is being driven in a public setting. There should be zero expectation of privacy. And I say this as a driver.
- anonymfus 7y ago
  > tinted windows involved In Australia tinting is not allowed on the front windshild, and front side windows must be at least 35% transparent (according to https://www.polyfilm.com.au/window-tinting-laws https://www.polyfilm.com.au/window-tinting-laws ) which is quite enough for modern cameras during the day.
akersten 7y ago
This is some Orwellian shit. An 88 million dollar investment combined with government-sanctioned Tom-peeping, to save an estimated 100 lives? That money would go a lot farther invested in modernizing vehicle safety, requiring lane assist features, etc. instead of fueling the surveillance state. I suspect those pushing this kind of thing are more interested in a solution where they can just defer all the hard work to "Artificial Intelligence" and avoid collaborating on meaningful change.
- netsharc 7y ago
  If there can be 2 timelines, I'm sure the 100 families in this timeline will be happy in 2022 that their loved one didn't die. Plus, how many injuries and economic damage were there?
- megablast 7y ago
  I disagree. Cars are killing machines, and should be constantly tracked at all times. Over a million dead every single year, 40k in the USA, and 3 every day in Australia. And that does not include the indirect deaths from pollution, urban sprawl, lack of exercise, etc.... > That money would go a lot farther invested in modernizing vehicle safety Such a meaningless statement. People shouldn't even be in cars most of the time that they are. In Australia, we are addicted to cars, where a large part of the population can not move without them. Disgusting.
  - tempsolution 7y ago
    Agreed. Cars should mostly be banned from any urban & sub-urban spaces, replaced by fully automated public transportation. Most people should not be allowed to drive a car, as they are physically incapable of safely operating it.
  - akersten 7y ago
    > Over a million dead every single year, 40k in the USA, and 3 every day in Australia. No one is contesting this, and it's good context for visualizing the supposed 100 deaths/year reduction that this $88mm investment would achieve. We'd still be at ~1 million dead per year. > Such a meaningless statement. I gave a precise example immediately following the introduction of the high-level concept. I'm not sure how that's hard to grasp. > People shouldn't even be in cars most of the time that they are. Ok, but not an argument that this is an effective use of 88 million taxpayer dollars. You could probably prevent more deaths by spending that money campaigning for people to drive less resulting reduction of overall number of drivers, compared to these ridiculous cameras. > Cars are killing machines, and should be constantly tracked at all times. I prefer a proactive approach to safety (better, safer, smarter cars) than a reactive approach (better punishment). Besides, the overwhelming majority of auto incidents are accidental. How will surveillance prevent those? It's solving the wrong problem. Think of the end game of either option. With true self-driving cars, mobile phone use won't be an issue. But if we make this monitoring acceptable now, the cameras and surveillance will remain. Don't let the Overton window shift.
bluenose69 7y ago
I wonder if it will be more accurate than an officer's eyes. Those eyes are not always the best. I was pulled over once for talking on my cell phone. I told the officer that I had not been using the phone (which was only for emergencies, and was buried in a backpack). He argued with me pretty forcefully, until I invited him to check the call-list. My guess is that I was rubbing my ear at the instant he glanced at my car going by.
- jdnenej 7y ago
  The cameras take a photo which would very likely be reviewed by a human first. And if the photo is very unclear you have some kind of proof to use unlike a police officer saying they saw it.
  - nineteen999 7y ago
    It confirms that in the article: "Images that the automated system identifies as likely to contain a driver illegally using a mobile phone are verified by authorized personnel." I wonder whether the system can tell the difference between the driver using a mobile phone, and a front/back seat passenger using one.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
They could have just posted cops at problem intersections for a fraction of the cost but cops are human and sometimes cut people a break when they deserve one. It's not about safety. It's about reminding people that if they step out of line for any reason they will get whacked because the government is always watching.
- ACow_Adonis 7y ago
  Have you done the math and checked their performance against each other? Not a cop, but worked security back in my uni days (and our company was contracted out to provide a couple of mobile speed cameras) and I have to say I found those kind of shifts (where you're paid to do a repeated menial task in public and there's no way to slack off) were the WORST. I'd want that automated ASAP.
- onethought 7y ago
  They do put police at problem intersections, and will continue to do so. It is about saving lives. Anyone who’s worked close to car crash first responders knows that mobile phones have become a big contributor. How is this different to speed cameras, from a “surveillance state” stand point?
  - xfitm3 7y ago
    It is not about saving lives, and mobile phone distractions are not as bad as you think. Statistics are commonly misused. Speeding kills your pocketbook 2 explores this in depth, fact checking accident statistics in BC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzmVCSfRR38 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzmVCSfRR38
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    in all the US states I'm familiar with, speed cameras issue tickets against the vehicle, not the driver. the owner of the vehicle gets a fine but no points against their license. usually the camera is aimed in such a way that you can't see the driver in the photo, or the quality just isn't good enough to reliably identify them. so they tend to be a lot less intrusive than a camera that would need to see what's going on inside the vehicle. from the other comments, I gather speed cameras in some european countries may be more intrusive and actually identify the driver. > It is about saving lives. this is always the justification given for surveillance, and as always, it is unsatisfying. the bar for pointing cameras at the general public, most of whom have not yet done anything wrong, should be a lot higher. if it's truly a public safety crisis, we should be able to justify hiring some more traffic cops.
ortusdux 7y ago
Can it detect cookies? https://www.technobuffalo.com/man-gets-pulled-over-for-eating-iphone-shaped-cookies-while-driving https://www.technobuffalo.com/man-gets-pulled-over-for-eatin...
- jimmux 7y ago
  That can still get you booked in NSW, if police decide that it's contributing to dangerous driving. Based on things I've seen during a morning commute, I hope it can detect bowls of cereal, electric shavers, and open makeup cases as well.
technofiend 7y ago
Anecdotally (I have no data or way to prove it) stop and go traffic seems about 20-30% slower to me than when I first started driving. It's only in the last few years have I literally seen people just sitting through a green light, but now taking 10-15 seconds to start moving after the car in front of you has is IMHO far more common. Previously that was almost exclusive to dropping something on the floor, getting distracted talking to people in the back seat, adjusting the radio, or other things that were exceptions, not the rule. Now it's just failing to look up from the phone in their lap.
_s 7y ago
I think some context might help; Australia, or NSW already has pretty lengthy requirements for getting a drivers license, plus fairly strict road rules. You have to "log" over a hundred hours of driving as a learner, and then you progress onto your "P" or probationary license; which is also in two stages, which restricts what you can do. After you make it through both the probationary phases, you then have a normal (unrestricted) license. NSW also issue's demerit points for offences; and for a little while now has had "double" points for offences, plus a no-alcohol tolerance (blow anything and you will likely loose your license). The highest speed limit is also 110km/h on 3-4 lane free/high/motorways; but generally dual-lane is around 60-80km/h, and in built up area's it's 40-60km/h. This strictness is after decades of road deaths for drivers and pedestrians: https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/statistics/fatalitytrends.html https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/statistics/fatalityt... It can be argued that advances in civil engineering and vehicles for driver/pedestrian safety have had a far greater impact than road rules, but causation/correlation etc. The introduction of mandatory seatbelts, airbags, ABS, better roads / infrastructure would also line up nicely with the chart but alas, that's not their narrative. More recently - "distracted" driving incidents have been making the rounds, and I'm not surprised that the state gov wants to jump on this. I was honestly wondering why I've seen more police on foot at traffic lights waving down drivers and fining them for using their devices over the past week or two, and am not surprised to see this pop on the news either. In Australia, NSW specifically is considered more of a "nanny" state - with the lockout laws and so forth. Personal opinion: It's fairly easy to get a license here - it just takes a few years (or you just make up your logbook as most youths do), and the testing standards are fairly low compared to Western / Northern Europe. Parents are generally teaching their younger ones to drive, so teaching standards are incredibly varied and tend to be low. Then there's also the allowance of almost all international drivers licenses being valid for 3-months, which is rarely enforceable; so you have a few drivers also unfamiliar with the road rules. The money and effort would be far better invested in a more intensive exam, and regular checks of skills / standards, plus providing alternative means of transport. This current push is just a gov-led posturing of "doing" something for the next election cycle.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
jen729w 7y ago
Lots of negativity here so far so I’ll chip in and say that, as a cyclist, motorcyclist, and pedestrian, I’m glad to see something happening. Mobile phone use while driving has reached chronic levels. It’s a disgrace. Yes, the police could spend their days trying to catch people. But they aren’t, and if they do the letters in the tabloids excoriate them for it. People have to stop using their phones while they drive. Maybe this will scare them in to a behaviour change. (I live in the state of Victoria. NSW is our neighbour.)
- gravelc 7y ago
  This is coming to QLD too (along with $1000 fines), and I totally support it. Whenever I'm cycling in traffic, I see plenty of people on their phones. The worst is people swerving into bike lanes without looking - peripheral vision seems to be completely lost when a driver's mind isn't on the job.
  - tempsolution 7y ago
    In Vancouver there is no such things as peripheral vision, but that is not due to mobile phone use. Indicators are also optional. I am impressed how there is not a crash every second. When you drive here with a bike you basically know that any car will just cut your bike-lane at their convenience and turn right at a traffic lite, right into your path...
- ACow_Adonis 7y ago
  Absolutely. (Though I live in the same place :p). The car driving culture throughout Australia is objectively pretty toxic. And I don't mean the addiction to cars + suburbia (that's a whole other topic). I just mean the general entitlement and objective hostility to any other community member, road user, or alternative use for roads/resources. Anyone who's spent any time as a cyclist, motorcyclist, pedestrian will know not only that sense of entitlement, but also probably have been the target of active hostility and intimidation. Mobile phone use while driving is objectively dangerous, and God forbid such standards be enforced while driving a dangerous chunk of metal on a public good.
- 7y ago
Simulacra 7y ago
Good thing I hold mine down below the dash.

32 points by watchdogtimer 7y ago

How do these work? I’m sure that with the angles and tinted windows involved, these cameras would need to be quite invasive to be effective…

elil17 7y ago
How can this camera be more invasive than a red light camera?
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Red light cameras aren’t designed to look into your car.
  - SllX 7y ago
    They are when they’re designed to also identify the driver.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      Why would such a thing be necessary when you can just grab the plates instead?
      - turboturbo 7y ago
        In some countries (such as Germany) you have to be able to identify the driver in order to impose a fine. They actually send you a print-out of the picture along with the fine
        elil17 7y ago
        Then it’s still the same as a red light camera
      - SllX 7y ago
        To prove that the owner of the car or at least the person registered to it really was driving the car at the time. Now full disclosure, I don’t drive, but of my buddies that do, one received a ticket last year here in California in the mail that had a picture which clearly identified her (and me, I was in the passenger seat). If she fought the ticket, presumably they could pull this photo out and show that yes, she was in fact driving her own car. She didn’t fight the ticket.
      - krilly 7y ago
        There was a political scandal in the UK when a politicians wife took points on her license for him, to prevent him getting a driving ban. The camera that clocked him only checked numberplates. She grassed on him a decade later and went to jail for her trouble. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/11/chris-huhne-vicky-pryce https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/11/chris-huhne-vicky...
      - toast0 7y ago
        If you want to assign driving record penalties to the driver of the vehicle, you need to identify the driver. If it's like a parking ticket, you can do that against the car.
        megablast 7y ago
        It shouldn't be this way. The owner should be responsible, and it is up to them to find the driver.
        detaro 7y ago
        Then you get stuff like one of the other comments linked, where people get someone else to take the punishment for them.
      - Enginerrrd 7y ago
        Because the liability falls on the driver, and that is not always the owner of the car.
      - megablast 7y ago
        Because then the owner denies driving it. Now, in some states they handle this sensibly, and the driver has to get the "driver" to own up or they are responsible. In other states, it is on the state to find the driver.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
potentialverand 7y ago
> The high-definition cameras use artificial intelligence to spot drivers, regardless of the weather or the time of day. > The portable versions will be mounted on trailers and operate across the state. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-22/mobile-phone-detection-cameras-rolling-out-nsw-december/11536664 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-22/mobile-phone-detectio... This article has an image
rad_gruchalski 7y ago
Who cares how invasive these are. A car is being driven in a public setting. There should be zero expectation of privacy. And I say this as a driver.
anonymfus 7y ago
> tinted windows involved In Australia tinting is not allowed on the front windshild, and front side windows must be at least 35% transparent (according to https://www.polyfilm.com.au/window-tinting-laws https://www.polyfilm.com.au/window-tinting-laws ) which is quite enough for modern cameras during the day.

akersten 7y ago

This is some Orwellian shit. An 88 million dollar investment combined with government-sanctioned Tom-peeping, to save an estimated 100 lives? That money would go a lot farther invested in modernizing vehicle safety, requiring lane assist features, etc. instead of fueling the surveillance state. I suspect those pushing this kind of thing are more interested in a solution where they can just defer all the hard work to "Artificial Intelligence" and avoid collaborating on meaningful change.

netsharc 7y ago
If there can be 2 timelines, I'm sure the 100 families in this timeline will be happy in 2022 that their loved one didn't die. Plus, how many injuries and economic damage were there?
megablast 7y ago
I disagree. Cars are killing machines, and should be constantly tracked at all times. Over a million dead every single year, 40k in the USA, and 3 every day in Australia. And that does not include the indirect deaths from pollution, urban sprawl, lack of exercise, etc.... > That money would go a lot farther invested in modernizing vehicle safety Such a meaningless statement. People shouldn't even be in cars most of the time that they are. In Australia, we are addicted to cars, where a large part of the population can not move without them. Disgusting.
- tempsolution 7y ago
  Agreed. Cars should mostly be banned from any urban & sub-urban spaces, replaced by fully automated public transportation. Most people should not be allowed to drive a car, as they are physically incapable of safely operating it.
- akersten 7y ago
  > Over a million dead every single year, 40k in the USA, and 3 every day in Australia. No one is contesting this, and it's good context for visualizing the supposed 100 deaths/year reduction that this $88mm investment would achieve. We'd still be at ~1 million dead per year. > Such a meaningless statement. I gave a precise example immediately following the introduction of the high-level concept. I'm not sure how that's hard to grasp. > People shouldn't even be in cars most of the time that they are. Ok, but not an argument that this is an effective use of 88 million taxpayer dollars. You could probably prevent more deaths by spending that money campaigning for people to drive less resulting reduction of overall number of drivers, compared to these ridiculous cameras. > Cars are killing machines, and should be constantly tracked at all times. I prefer a proactive approach to safety (better, safer, smarter cars) than a reactive approach (better punishment). Besides, the overwhelming majority of auto incidents are accidental. How will surveillance prevent those? It's solving the wrong problem. Think of the end game of either option. With true self-driving cars, mobile phone use won't be an issue. But if we make this monitoring acceptable now, the cameras and surveillance will remain. Don't let the Overton window shift.

bluenose69 7y ago

I wonder if it will be more accurate than an officer's eyes. Those eyes are not always the best. I was pulled over once for talking on my cell phone. I told the officer that I had not been using the phone (which was only for emergencies, and was buried in a backpack). He argued with me pretty forcefully, until I invited him to check the call-list. My guess is that I was rubbing my ear at the instant he glanced at my car going by.

jdnenej 7y ago
The cameras take a photo which would very likely be reviewed by a human first. And if the photo is very unclear you have some kind of proof to use unlike a police officer saying they saw it.
- nineteen999 7y ago
  It confirms that in the article: "Images that the automated system identifies as likely to contain a driver illegally using a mobile phone are verified by authorized personnel." I wonder whether the system can tell the difference between the driver using a mobile phone, and a front/back seat passenger using one.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

They could have just posted cops at problem intersections for a fraction of the cost but cops are human and sometimes cut people a break when they deserve one. It's not about safety. It's about reminding people that if they step out of line for any reason they will get whacked because the government is always watching.

ACow_Adonis 7y ago
Have you done the math and checked their performance against each other? Not a cop, but worked security back in my uni days (and our company was contracted out to provide a couple of mobile speed cameras) and I have to say I found those kind of shifts (where you're paid to do a repeated menial task in public and there's no way to slack off) were the WORST. I'd want that automated ASAP.
onethought 7y ago
They do put police at problem intersections, and will continue to do so. It is about saving lives. Anyone who’s worked close to car crash first responders knows that mobile phones have become a big contributor. How is this different to speed cameras, from a “surveillance state” stand point?
- xfitm3 7y ago
  It is not about saving lives, and mobile phone distractions are not as bad as you think. Statistics are commonly misused. Speeding kills your pocketbook 2 explores this in depth, fact checking accident statistics in BC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzmVCSfRR38 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzmVCSfRR38
- leetcrew 7y ago
  in all the US states I'm familiar with, speed cameras issue tickets against the vehicle, not the driver. the owner of the vehicle gets a fine but no points against their license. usually the camera is aimed in such a way that you can't see the driver in the photo, or the quality just isn't good enough to reliably identify them. so they tend to be a lot less intrusive than a camera that would need to see what's going on inside the vehicle. from the other comments, I gather speed cameras in some european countries may be more intrusive and actually identify the driver. > It is about saving lives. this is always the justification given for surveillance, and as always, it is unsatisfying. the bar for pointing cameras at the general public, most of whom have not yet done anything wrong, should be a lot higher. if it's truly a public safety crisis, we should be able to justify hiring some more traffic cops.

ortusdux 7y ago

Can it detect cookies? https://www.technobuffalo.com/man-gets-pulled-over-for-eating-iphone-shaped-cookies-while-driving https://www.technobuffalo.com/man-gets-pulled-over-for-eatin...

jimmux 7y ago
That can still get you booked in NSW, if police decide that it's contributing to dangerous driving. Based on things I've seen during a morning commute, I hope it can detect bowls of cereal, electric shavers, and open makeup cases as well.

technofiend 7y ago

Anecdotally (I have no data or way to prove it) stop and go traffic seems about 20-30% slower to me than when I first started driving. It's only in the last few years have I literally seen people just sitting through a green light, but now taking 10-15 seconds to start moving after the car in front of you has is IMHO far more common. Previously that was almost exclusive to dropping something on the floor, getting distracted talking to people in the back seat, adjusting the radio, or other things that were exceptions, not the rule. Now it's just failing to look up from the phone in their lap.

_s 7y ago

I think some context might help; Australia, or NSW already has pretty lengthy requirements for getting a drivers license, plus fairly strict road rules. You have to "log" over a hundred hours of driving as a learner, and then you progress onto your "P" or probationary license; which is also in two stages, which restricts what you can do. After you make it through both the probationary phases, you then have a normal (unrestricted) license. NSW also issue's demerit points for offences; and for a little while now has had "double" points for offences, plus a no-alcohol tolerance (blow anything and you will likely loose your license). The highest speed limit is also 110km/h on 3-4 lane free/high/motorways; but generally dual-lane is around 60-80km/h, and in built up area's it's 40-60km/h. This strictness is after decades of road deaths for drivers and pedestrians: https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/statistics/fatalitytrends.html https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/statistics/fatalityt... It can be argued that advances in civil engineering and vehicles for driver/pedestrian safety have had a far greater impact than road rules, but causation/correlation etc. The introduction of mandatory seatbelts, airbags, ABS, better roads / infrastructure would also line up nicely with the chart but alas, that's not their narrative. More recently - "distracted" driving incidents have been making the rounds, and I'm not surprised that the state gov wants to jump on this. I was honestly wondering why I've seen more police on foot at traffic lights waving down drivers and fining them for using their devices over the past week or two, and am not surprised to see this pop on the news either. In Australia, NSW specifically is considered more of a "nanny" state - with the lockout laws and so forth. Personal opinion: It's fairly easy to get a license here - it just takes a few years (or you just make up your logbook as most youths do), and the testing standards are fairly low compared to Western / Northern Europe. Parents are generally teaching their younger ones to drive, so teaching standards are incredibly varied and tend to be low. Then there's also the allowance of almost all international drivers licenses being valid for 3-months, which is rarely enforceable; so you have a few drivers also unfamiliar with the road rules. The money and effort would be far better invested in a more intensive exam, and regular checks of skills / standards, plus providing alternative means of transport. This current push is just a gov-led posturing of "doing" something for the next election cycle.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

jen729w 7y ago

Lots of negativity here so far so I’ll chip in and say that, as a cyclist, motorcyclist, and pedestrian, I’m glad to see something happening. Mobile phone use while driving has reached chronic levels. It’s a disgrace. Yes, the police could spend their days trying to catch people. But they aren’t, and if they do the letters in the tabloids excoriate them for it. People have to stop using their phones while they drive. Maybe this will scare them in to a behaviour change. (I live in the state of Victoria. NSW is our neighbour.)

gravelc 7y ago
This is coming to QLD too (along with $1000 fines), and I totally support it. Whenever I'm cycling in traffic, I see plenty of people on their phones. The worst is people swerving into bike lanes without looking - peripheral vision seems to be completely lost when a driver's mind isn't on the job.
- tempsolution 7y ago
  In Vancouver there is no such things as peripheral vision, but that is not due to mobile phone use. Indicators are also optional. I am impressed how there is not a crash every second. When you drive here with a bike you basically know that any car will just cut your bike-lane at their convenience and turn right at a traffic lite, right into your path...
ACow_Adonis 7y ago
Absolutely. (Though I live in the same place :p). The car driving culture throughout Australia is objectively pretty toxic. And I don't mean the addiction to cars + suburbia (that's a whole other topic). I just mean the general entitlement and objective hostility to any other community member, road user, or alternative use for roads/resources. Anyone who's spent any time as a cyclist, motorcyclist, pedestrian will know not only that sense of entitlement, but also probably have been the target of active hostility and intimidation. Mobile phone use while driving is objectively dangerous, and God forbid such standards be enforced while driving a dangerous chunk of metal on a public good.
7y ago

Simulacra 7y ago

Good thing I hold mine down below the dash.