4 ms·

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.

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.
  - mantap 7y ago
    With respect, the US is hardly an example to be followed when it comes to road safety. It comes down to whether you believe driving is a right or a privilege. If you believe it's a right then this does seem like an invasion of privacy. If you believe it's a privilege then there's nothing more objectionable about this than having a CCTV camera in your workplace.
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      > With respect, the US is hardly an example to be followed when it comes to road safety. can't argue with that, point taken. > It comes down to whether you believe driving is a right or a privilege. If you believe it's a right then this does seem like an invasion of privacy. If you believe it's a privilege then there's nothing more objectionable about this than having a CCTV camera in your workplace. this part I do disagree with. cctv at work can only record what I do at work. I grudgingly accept that my employer gets to ensure that I don't steal company property or do other bad stuff at work. I'm also fortunate enough that I can choose to work for a company that doesn't have cctv in the office. on the other hand, putting cameras all over the road gives the government the technical ability to track pretty much everywhere I go. they might not be allowed to do this legally, but it's funny how "mistakes" tend to happen in these situations. if I lived in a part of the world where public transportation was truly good enough that I didn't need a car, I might have a different opinion on road surveillance. what I'm really getting at is this: unless I have done something specific to attract this attention, I should be able to go about my day-to-day life without the government surveilling me. for what it's worth, I see an awful lot of cameras in public transit when I visit NYC and london. is public transit also a privilege?
amaterasu 7y ago
Seconded it not being about safety. In Victoria, traffic infringement revenue is included in the state budget. I'm assuming that the NSW government does the same, so at $344-$457AUD per offence, this is likely just another revenue generating exercise.
- megablast 7y ago
  > Seconded it not being about safety. Drivers love pulling out this stuff for every fine, whether speeding, DUI or this. It is ridiculous. We get it, you don't feel you need to follow the rules.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    sometimes it is painfully obvious that it is about revenue, even at the expense of safety: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2008/04/red-light-camera-monkey-business-may-be-a-national-trend/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2008/04/red-light-camera-mon...
    - lopmotr 7y ago
      Why shouldn't it be for revenue? I'd much rather road taxes be paid for by dangerous drivers than uniformly by everyone. Hell, they don't even have to be dangerous. If you could jump through some hoops to reduce your tax, then good! That means people who care about their money will pay less and people who have more important things to do will subsidize them. Just like supermarket coupons. In the case of those mistimed traffic lights, people who don't want to pay can just enter intersections more cautiously, as long as they know how it works. As long as it is a fine for dangerous activity, then it could even be paid personally to some well known individuals instead of the government! That might be an even better incentive to drive safely if you feel a strong personal sense of unfairness at being fined. There's no excuse for driving through red lights, speeding, or using a phone while driving. Anybody who can't help themselves doing these things is incompetent at driving and can protect themselves from fines by abstaining. People who occasionally make a mistake are still dangerous, but they won't pay many fines either so it's not a big problem for them to be fined once or twice in their life.
__d 7y ago
Let's assume a police officer costs the state $88,0000 annually (including salary, training, healthcare, equipment, etc). So $88M is 1000 additional officer years. It's possible a camera and its installation will cost up to $500,000 (it's a government contract, after all). That would mean a camera needs to last 6 years to make it naively cheaper than an additional officer. So ... I think the cost argument is more or less a wash. Cameras might last longer than that. Or be a bit cheaper than that. They're probably able to detect more offenses than a human, given their positioning. I think there are more effective arguments to be made about the reversal of the onus of proof, about security of the video imagery, etc.
- ACow_Adonis 7y ago
  I imagine 88,000 per officer is understating officer cost in nsw. To be fair, I've also assumed that 'it's not about safety' is a literal tabloid letter to the editor style comment, and I almost have a knee jerk assumption that anyone who uses that line hasn't actually done any math (and isn't inclined to).
- sjy 7y ago
  I’m not too sure if you’re talking Australian or US dollars there, but the starting salary of a NSW probationary constable is A$73,609 [1]. I’d say that means the total marginal cost of an additional police officer is around double what you’ve indicated in Australian dollars (so if you were using US dollars, it would probably be quite close). [1]: https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/recruitment/the_career/general_duties/working_conditions https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/recruitment/the_career/general...
  - thundergolfer 7y ago
    I agree with 150k AUD being a closer estimate. Maybe 125k. Once you include superannuation (big) and all other costs associated with maintaining an average foot patrol officer their fully-loaded yearly expense is going to be way more than 88k.

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.
- mantap 7y ago
  With respect, the US is hardly an example to be followed when it comes to road safety. It comes down to whether you believe driving is a right or a privilege. If you believe it's a right then this does seem like an invasion of privacy. If you believe it's a privilege then there's nothing more objectionable about this than having a CCTV camera in your workplace.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    > With respect, the US is hardly an example to be followed when it comes to road safety. can't argue with that, point taken. > It comes down to whether you believe driving is a right or a privilege. If you believe it's a right then this does seem like an invasion of privacy. If you believe it's a privilege then there's nothing more objectionable about this than having a CCTV camera in your workplace. this part I do disagree with. cctv at work can only record what I do at work. I grudgingly accept that my employer gets to ensure that I don't steal company property or do other bad stuff at work. I'm also fortunate enough that I can choose to work for a company that doesn't have cctv in the office. on the other hand, putting cameras all over the road gives the government the technical ability to track pretty much everywhere I go. they might not be allowed to do this legally, but it's funny how "mistakes" tend to happen in these situations. if I lived in a part of the world where public transportation was truly good enough that I didn't need a car, I might have a different opinion on road surveillance. what I'm really getting at is this: unless I have done something specific to attract this attention, I should be able to go about my day-to-day life without the government surveilling me. for what it's worth, I see an awful lot of cameras in public transit when I visit NYC and london. is public transit also a privilege?

amaterasu 7y ago

Seconded it not being about safety. In Victoria, traffic infringement revenue is included in the state budget. I'm assuming that the NSW government does the same, so at $344-$457AUD per offence, this is likely just another revenue generating exercise.

megablast 7y ago
> Seconded it not being about safety. Drivers love pulling out this stuff for every fine, whether speeding, DUI or this. It is ridiculous. We get it, you don't feel you need to follow the rules.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  sometimes it is painfully obvious that it is about revenue, even at the expense of safety: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2008/04/red-light-camera-monkey-business-may-be-a-national-trend/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2008/04/red-light-camera-mon...
  - lopmotr 7y ago
    Why shouldn't it be for revenue? I'd much rather road taxes be paid for by dangerous drivers than uniformly by everyone. Hell, they don't even have to be dangerous. If you could jump through some hoops to reduce your tax, then good! That means people who care about their money will pay less and people who have more important things to do will subsidize them. Just like supermarket coupons. In the case of those mistimed traffic lights, people who don't want to pay can just enter intersections more cautiously, as long as they know how it works. As long as it is a fine for dangerous activity, then it could even be paid personally to some well known individuals instead of the government! That might be an even better incentive to drive safely if you feel a strong personal sense of unfairness at being fined. There's no excuse for driving through red lights, speeding, or using a phone while driving. Anybody who can't help themselves doing these things is incompetent at driving and can protect themselves from fines by abstaining. People who occasionally make a mistake are still dangerous, but they won't pay many fines either so it's not a big problem for them to be fined once or twice in their life.

__d 7y ago

Let's assume a police officer costs the state $88,0000 annually (including salary, training, healthcare, equipment, etc). So $88M is 1000 additional officer years. It's possible a camera and its installation will cost up to $500,000 (it's a government contract, after all). That would mean a camera needs to last 6 years to make it naively cheaper than an additional officer. So ... I think the cost argument is more or less a wash. Cameras might last longer than that. Or be a bit cheaper than that. They're probably able to detect more offenses than a human, given their positioning. I think there are more effective arguments to be made about the reversal of the onus of proof, about security of the video imagery, etc.

ACow_Adonis 7y ago
I imagine 88,000 per officer is understating officer cost in nsw. To be fair, I've also assumed that 'it's not about safety' is a literal tabloid letter to the editor style comment, and I almost have a knee jerk assumption that anyone who uses that line hasn't actually done any math (and isn't inclined to).
sjy 7y ago
I’m not too sure if you’re talking Australian or US dollars there, but the starting salary of a NSW probationary constable is A$73,609 [1]. I’d say that means the total marginal cost of an additional police officer is around double what you’ve indicated in Australian dollars (so if you were using US dollars, it would probably be quite close). [1]: https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/recruitment/the_career/general_duties/working_conditions https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/recruitment/the_career/general...
- thundergolfer 7y ago
  I agree with 150k AUD being a closer estimate. Maybe 125k. Once you include superannuation (big) and all other costs associated with maintaining an average foot patrol officer their fully-loaded yearly expense is going to be way more than 88k.