4 ms·

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 know

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?

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?