9 ms·

AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

32 points by rwmj 3y ago

tmaly 3y ago
I am not looking forward to a future filled with this type of surveillance.
- contravariant 3y ago
  I'm not too worried about this kind of surveillance. What we're seeing here is surveillance of a public area, used for a clear goal, which is proportional (because texting while driving is insane) and is reviewed by humans, and has clear avenues for escalation when it makes a mistake. The scary parts are the parts that such a system is capable of, but which are not made public. For one the article doesn't mention whether the data is used for anything else or if it is ever deleted. It's also not clear if there are plans to use it for less serious offences, or if the human review is going to be removed at some point.
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    > texting while driving is insane I'm inclined to agree, but I would also love to see more detailed analysis. It is easy for everyone to jump on this particular bandwagon (I have found very few people willing to say that texting while driving is no big deal), but at the same time I see a lot of texting while driving happening every day. And while we do know it contributes to accidents, driving remains a relatively safe activity statistically given how dangerous it seems. It's a little bit similar to the 'think of the children' argument, and it makes me uncomfortable when we use such justifications for massively increasing surveillance in a way that seems disproportionate to the problem we are trying to solve.
    - krisoft 3y ago
      > we use such justifications for massively increasing surveillance Is it massively increasing surveillance? UK is full of speed cameras[1] and automatic number plate recognition cameras[2]. "Vehicle movements on UK roads are recorded by a network of 11,000 cameras that read around 60 million number plates daily." 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_speed_limit_enforcement_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_speed_limit_enforcement_i... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number-plate_recognition_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number-plate_recogni...
      - rootusrootus 3y ago
        That is a good point, though personally I do think there is a pretty significant escalation between reading number plates on the outside of the car, and pointing a camera inside the car to judge what is happening inside. I also think speed cameras are problematic, because they seem to be more effective at revenue generation than improving safety. We know how to design roads to make them safer implicitly, including ways to reduce the speed, without just pointing a camera at the cars and mailing out tickets a couple weeks later.
    - lukasLansky 3y ago
      https://www.statista.com/chart/17194/pedestrian-fatalities-in-the-us-by-year/ https://www.statista.com/chart/17194/pedestrian-fatalities-i...
- matthewfelgate 3y ago
  Why?
jameskilton 3y ago
Justice without mercy is cruelty. There's nothing good that can come from this kind of system.
- kyralis 3y ago
  From the article: > The force, which is trialling the system, said if an offence has been correctly identified, the driver would either be sent a warning letter or a notice of intended prosecution, depending on the severity of the offence. This is after human review.
  - voakbasda 3y ago
    This is how it starts. Do you believe this status quo will be maintained for long? Or will it become good enough that human review will need to be requested? Then when it becomes sufficiently effective, will they lower the thresholds or broaden its scope? Experience says that's exactly what will happen.
- ctoth 3y ago
  Welp, found the bad driver.
yawnxyz 3y ago
Police should also held to the same standards and be prosecuted for breaking the same laws in the same ways
- js4ever 3y ago
  And of course politics as well ...
baggy_trough 3y ago
Laws will have to be adjusted to make this level of surveillance and enforcement tolerable.
- johngladtj 3y ago
  No need for that, they will just prosecute when it's politically convenient
ausbah 3y ago
>Although the cameras use AI to detect potential offences, all images are reviewed by a person, said Devon and Cornwall Police. if this is true I really don't see a problem necessarily. AI is just being used as a tool not a decision maker, so long as humans are good about filtering out false positives. which for something as dangerous as driving I'm all for
- zelos 3y ago
  If it's just used for prosecuting things like the photo in the article and there's human review, I don't think I have a problem. This is a long way from instant Demolition Man-style tickets.
stranded22 3y ago
I know the whole ‘break the law and you might get caught’ type thing but this is dystopian.
Verdex 3y ago
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ― C. S. Lewis [My own thoughts, I feel are less effective and eloquent than Lewis'. I often feel that the expectations and rules of society don't make a lot of sense. Except for the extremely obvious, which frequently don't have explicitly stated expectations or rules due to being so obvious. My conclusion is that nobody else really gets it either; it's just that everyone else adjusts to this better than me. As we find ways to encode these nonsense rules into silicon and then aim it at everyone all the time, the end result will not be good for anyone.]
- kyralis 3y ago
  I wouldn't call "requiring drivers to not be using mobile phones" a "tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims". It's for the good of everyone else on the road, and, in the case of seatbelts, for the good of the rest of society that needs to deal with the burden of caring for unnecessary injuries due to failing to take such a basic precaution.
  - johnnyworker 3y ago
    > I wouldn't call "requiring drivers to not be using mobile phones" a "tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims" It's the mass surveillance that was called such. > It's for the good of everyone else on the road Nope, they too are subject to mass surveillance.
  - wuliwong 3y ago
    > the good of the rest of society that needs to deal with the burden of caring for unnecessary injuries I understand that point of view but I do think it can be tyrannical to not let people live their lives even if they are making decisions that are bad for their physical health. In the US, obesity is a far greater burden on our health care system than people not wearing seatbelts. I still can't get behind fining people for overeating or something like that.
xedrac 3y ago
One definition of a dystopian society is a society where you cannot make mistakes. The good news is that every time one of these automated systems is implemented, too many politicians get caught and the laws get changed.
- dartos 3y ago
  Yknow… I’ve never been thankful for my congressperson’s DUIs before.
- krisoft 3y ago
  > One definition of a dystopian society is a society where you cannot make mistakes. Except being awarded penalty points, or fined for doing something dangerous is not exactly "cannot make mistakes" is it? You do a stupid and dangerous thing, you are fined and hopefully you won't do it anymore. If you do it often enough your privilege of piloting a giant metal box around people is revoked.
ggambetta 3y ago
I'm surprised by the early reactions here. Looking at the picture in the article, of a driver texting while the passenger holds the wheel (!!!), my first reaction is "OH YES PLEASE GET THESE INCREDIBLY IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS ASAP". I don't want to die because some idiot is texting while driving. Whether these idiots are caught by a human looking attentively 24/7 or by a high-speed camera with an AI flagging possible violations and being reviewed by a human makes zero difference to me. What exactly is wrong or dystopian here? AI bad? Cameras bad?
- contravariant 3y ago
  It's basically a slippery slope argument. Which is not completely unfair, police have a terrible track record when it comes to using technological means responsibly.
  - elil17 3y ago
    Police are using a bunch of technologies irresponsibly. Why not advocate for better oversight of police overall instead of trying to block them from using specific technologies?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Infinitesimus 3y ago
      An alternative perspective: If a group has repeatedly shown that they will use their tools and power to oppress others, why give them tools that increase their odds of doing so?
  - voisin 3y ago
    But what’s the slippery slope here? If we use AI effectively to catch texters, next we’ll… effectively enforce other traffic laws? And police are already using technology in actually nefarious ways - technology that never had a positive use like this.
- 3y ago
bluecalm 3y ago
Hopefully this catches up. It's scary how normalized traffic violence and risking other's life is in our society. If there is one place where AI based automatic enforcement could instantly make life better it's traffic laws enforcement. I am looking for the day I can drive at a speed limit and not be a target of aggressive maniacs tailgating and dangerously overataking me or one I can go for a bike ride and not be game for speeding reckless drivers. All this talk about scary surveillance and what not coming from people who offer no solutions for a huge problem at hand. Let's use the technology so the laws put there to protect lives are actually respected.
- bluedino 3y ago
  What about when you accidentally go 5mph over the speed limit?
  - ftth_finland 3y ago
    5 mph is 8 km/h. That’s quite a lot. Pay attention to your speed when you are driving. Most, if not all, modern cars have cruise control where you can set your speed if you are having trouble following the speed limits.
    - bluedino 3y ago
      5mph is nothing at many speed limits. 50, 60, 70, 80mph
  - bluecalm 3y ago
    Ideally cars would be equipped with speed limiters. Then the problem disappears. Until this happens, there are many other solutions like you only start paying fines until you do over some limit (like 12 per year) of such minor infractions. Let's not take the focus from the main point: there is currently huge problem with reckless drivers causing death of tens of thousands of people per year (in US alone).
sergiotapia 3y ago
It is your civic duty to destroy each and every one of these if you find them out and about. They can't fix them all and will eventually give up. The west cannot become China. There is nowhere else to go.
- dymk 3y ago
  No, they'll catch it on camera and arrest you for destruction of public property
- ctoth 3y ago
  Or, like, you could just not do things like texting and letting the passenger hold the wheel while you drive while blind people like me have to navigate around your one ton death machines. Crazy idea I know.
  - sergiotapia 3y ago
    I don't do either of these things, ever, and still feel this level of automated surveillance is repugnant.
    - dymk 3y ago
      Alright, well drivers are still killing cyclists and pedestrians, so let us know when you have a better plan to make roads safer for those not in the one-ton metal boxes.
nodomain 3y ago
The most pressing question to me is: Why don't you wear a seat belt? How can humans be that stupid, sparing 1 second of time when entering the car? I really don't understand it.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  In my experience it is not generally an issue of laziness, it is more often a statement of ideology.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    I think it is the former dressed up as the latter. Either way it's pathetic and childish.
- bayesianbot 3y ago
  I'm living in Northern Thailand and I'm wondering this daily. Thailand has about the most dangerous traffic in the world, lots and lots of people dying annually compared to the size of the population, but still constantly I see people, even with their kids, driving a motorbike without their helmets on. It's actually almost rare to see a good helmet, it's either nothing or a mostly useless bowl to avoid fines by the police. If I tell people I won't drive in some situation as I don't have my helmet, they'll just tell me there's no police on the way.. Though in here I think big part is religion - karma / Buddha protects good people, and most people feel they're good people, so their life is already protected, you'd just think they'd get it some day as the fatal road accident numbers are so high every year and everyone knows someone who was "a good person" but is now dead from traffic..
- rwmj 3y ago
  My car beeps loudly if it is moving and it detects weight in the seat without the corresponding seatbelt. Can very occasionally be a problem if you put very heavy items on the back seat. I thought this was a normal feature of cars.
yabones 3y ago
This is a complex one. On one hand, cracking down on distracted driving is absolutely a good thing. Thousands of people are killed by negligent drivers every year, and every single one is an unnecessary tragedy. But, there need to be some guardrails on this program. The UK police have a habit of keeping massive amounts of data around for years, and storing it inappropriately. I have no doubt all of the images this system takes will end up on a public S3 bucket or left open on an insecure email server within the next decade. For the Americans/Canadians, also consider that there are already a LOT of speed cameras in the UK already -- far more than there are across the ocean. The only new thing here is that instead of connecting it to a radar system, it's using computer vision to decide to fine somebody or not. It's new technology, but not really a paradigm change for the culture.
- psd1 3y ago
  I don't think the privacy angle is strong, because it's on a public road. In general, the idea of being tracked in public makes my skin crawl, but what sets me off is recent cars with GPS units. At least with a smartphone, I can leave it at home.
barbazoo 3y ago
I am looking to set up something like this in my neighborhood. I have a pretty good angle frpmy house. We live on a narrow street with parks on either side, a crosswalk, daycares, really a place where you want to pay attention and drive slowly. Yet every day I see people on their phones. I just don't get it. All it takes is one kid making a mistake and running on the road at the wrong moment. Happened couple of weeks ago at the crosswalk, luckily all three kids survived. I'd like to set this up using off the shelf hardware to be able to demand more enforcement but also approach the people living here directly and if nothing helps. It's a heartbreaking situation that's waiting for something terrible to happen. Edit: I'm a noob in some fields that are involved here (image classification, cameras, etc) so if anyone has a pointer for me, I'd greatly appreciate it
- hashstring 3y ago
  There is an important issue to be fixed here, yes. It’s heartbreaking when this happens and I fully agree that there should be more checks in place to prevent this. However, I am very glad that I live in a country where you are not allowed to record and process this because it’s a violation of my privacy. I do not think that this is the solution.
  - barbazoo 3y ago
    > I am very glad that I live in a country where you are not allowed to record and process this Hehe, I don't even know if I do but honestly I'd be happy to let it come to it. Sometimes it takes a little escalation to bring about change. For sure I'll have a look though to see what the law says here. I know how selfish I am here but I value my kids' and my community's kids safety higher than other people's privacy. And it's not that I'd publicize the footage. Not even the offenders'. Yet :) > I do not think that this is the solution. I can't wait for someone to implement a "solution" because that usually requires people actually dying.
    - hashstring 3y ago
      I understand where you are coming from and it doesn’t read like your goal is selfish. Growing up my parents didn’t allow me near certain parts because of the risk of accidents, but I was fortunate enough to have a wide area to run around where it was much safer. Even if you know who the offenders are, it’s not always directly solving the problem. Take care and stay safe.
elil17 3y ago
I do understand the privacy arguments, but there are thousands of people are being killed by drivers every day (many of whom aren't even in cars, they're walking or biking). Enforcing traffic laws is one of the only tools for fixing this that can be implemented quickly (as opposed to better urban design and public transit, which are better solutions in many other ways). I feel like their should be room to advocate for responsible use of systems like this and good oversight of police departments.
- jfindley 3y ago
  In the UK, where this is happening, that's simply not true. There were 1695 road fatalities in 2022 total. That's very different from "thousands a day". I do not believe it is desirable (or practically possible) to eliminate all risk of death or injury from life, and increasingly orwellian surveillance measures to clamp down on every misdeed and ill advised risk does not, I think, make for a happier or freer society.
  - elil17 3y ago
    The UK makes up less than 1% of the worlds population, so it does make sense that there are many more driving deaths globally than in the UK. I can agree that complete safety is not practical or desirable. But in our current society, simply walking down the street can get you killed by a driver. That is not freedom in my mind.
  - matthewfelgate 3y ago
    >Last year there were 48 road deaths and 738 serious injuries on roads in the two counties. Please let me know which of these deaths you are happy with.
  - mdp2021 3y ago
    > That's very different from "thousands a day" So you had us check. We hope it is now clear to you that you showed having misunderstood the poster: «thousands of people are being killed by drivers every day» does not imply "here". But according to data, ( Road deaths over the long-term, 1900 to 2021 // Annual number of reported deaths resultant from any type of road accident. This includesvehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/road-deaths-over-the-long-term https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/road-deaths-over-the-long... ) taking 2019 (just to be sure of having more data), you are partially right: apparently not even half-a-thousand per day. But hundreds per day. Top by Country: China: 172 ; USA: 99 ; Russia: 47 ; Turkey: 15 ; Japan: 11 ; S.Korea: 9 ; France: 9 ; Italy: 9 ; Germany: 8 ; Mexico: 8 ; Poland: 8 ; Uzbekistan: 6 ; Chile: 5 ; Kazakhstan: 5 ; Romania: 5 ; UK: 5 ; Canada: 5 ; Spain: 5 ; Australia: 3 ; Azerbaijan: 2 ... Conclusions from those numbers, that is another matter.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
xnx 3y ago
Big fan of automated enforcement with human review: red light running, speeding, distracted driving, tailgating, etc. More please!
- Verdex 3y ago
  > red light running This is actually one of the interesting cases. Some studies indicate that while red light cameras reduce the number of red light running, it also increases the amount of rear end collisions. Because people are afraid of getting a ticket they slam on their brakes. Similarly, (iirc) there was some controversy about certain areas with red light cameras adjusting the length of yellow lights not to maximize safety, but to maximize ticket revenue. At the very least the wiki link includes: > There is also concern that the international standard formula used for setting the length of the yellow phase ignores the laws of physics, which may cause drivers to inadvertently run the red phase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_light_camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_light_camera I don't think running red lights or otherwise driving recklessly is somehow our right or a good thing. However, there are side effects to these things and they don't necessarily make things universally better.
  - xethos 3y ago
    > Some studies indicate that while red light cameras reduce the number of red light running, it also increases the amount of rear end collisions. Because people are afraid of getting a ticket they slam on their brakes. Sounds like some motorists received an expensive lesson on the topic of "What is a safe following distance, and why does it matter"
  - diydsp 3y ago
    > [...] people are afraid of getting a ticket they slam on their brakes. There should be some kind of warning before the red light comes on. I've got it! A cell phone app. Whenever you're driving: the app sends your coordinates to the cloud, and every traffic light is also linked in via dirt-cheap IoT. Then, at some point between the light being green and red, the user is warned through a tweet, text, or email message that the red light will go on soon! They can navigate away from the video they were watching while driving, click through the terms of the website, adjust for their privacy preferences, take advantage of any offers that might pop up, and still find out a few seconds before the light turns red! And then: because we know they'll be stopped at the light and for how long, we can show them a short video offering them valuable products and services right near where they are located! We can do this! Who's in?
irrational 3y ago
I am surprised there are more people not wearing seatbelts than using mobile devices. I would have predicted the opposite, by a large margin. Wearing a seat belt is such an easy thing to do with great benefits.
aimor 3y ago
I'm still surprised automated enforcement isn't more widespread. Where I live red light cameras are at almost every major intersection, speed cameras are on school roads and construction sites, school busses have ticketing cameras. But on the highway it's cops in cars (and supposedly aircraft) with radar/lidar. Thirty minutes a day on the highway is enough to know there's plenty of people undeterred from driving 40+ mph over the limit (20 mph over is enough to suspend your license after two strikes). I'd guess the 'math' (money, politics, initiative) doesn't work out, or maybe the tech is just rolling out very slowly and hasn't made it here yet.
- sixstringtheory 3y ago
  I'm surprised as well. I visited Europe almost 25 years ago and they had automated speed cameras. In the US we've had speed limit signs that tell you how fast you're going for a long time now... adding a camera and network connection isn't rocket science. I assume it's entirely political.
matthewfelgate 3y ago
Good. It's time we took car violence seriously. Too many people driving around dangerously causing traffic jams from crashes, injuries and death and getting away with it. To those who call it dystopian or authoritarian: go drive on your own private land. The roads are created by and shared by us as a society. If you don't like it you can always walk.
carapace 3y ago
You can't avoid the ubiquitous surveillance, it's here and it's only going to increase. (Your phone and your car both already know if you're driving and using them at the same time, and they both tell other people everything they know about you 24/7. This is already the case today.) So the question isn't whether or not we have ubiquitous surveillance (we have it), it's how do we want to set and enforce policy? This leads me to the oxymoronical-sounding idea of "humane tyranny". Since we cannot escape techno-tyranny we must make it humane.
kypro 3y ago
I'm from the UK. I'm very split on this. On one hand I hate that people use their mobiles while driving, not because I particularly care if the driver wants to take that risk with their own life, but because they risk the lives of their passengers and other road users. That said, the UK does not have a good track record when to comes to applying this technology reasonably in my opinion. We have similar cameras which catch people driving in bus lanes or in low emission areas in the UK, and while I often agree in principle with bus lanes and low emission areas, I feel like they're enforced unfairly and with a complete lack of context. For example my city recently introduced a low emission area, the rules for which are not very clear and for some reason these low emission areas seem to primarily include high trafficked sparsely populated areas. A few weeks ago I had a family member drive down to visit me and they very briefly drove in one of these areas by accident and were hit with a £120 fine. Point is there is not adequate warning for road users and the low emission areas haven't even been implemented in areas that are reasonable – such as those that are highly populated or have high foot traffic. I'd actually argue the low emission zone in my city is just an anti-car, revenue generating move, enforced via automatic license plate recognition cameras which have no appreciation for context. Similarly here, I wonder how these camera might be used. Admittedly there are times I will remove my seat belt in the car such as to remove a jacket at stop lights, and although I never use my phone while driving I will sometimes pick it up and check notifications on the lock screen when it's safe to glance at it such as in slow moving traffic or at stop lights. I don't think doing this is any more dangerous than say fiddling with a car radio (which is perfectly legal), and it's very different from someone texting or holding their phone to their head while driving, but these cameras and the way they're enforced typically have no appreciation for this. So I dunno... I guess if they're preventing cases such as the one shown in the article then great, but if they're going to be fining people £120 for glancing at their notifications at stop lights I'd rather they not exist. It's just going to effectively be another tax on working people who need to drive to / for work.
sowbug 3y ago
I once heard a parable during a lecture about famed process expert W.E. Deming. A bank's management was concerned that its tellers' cash drawer balances were often slightly off the expected counts. During spot checks, one drawer might be 25 cents over; another might be a few dollars short, and so on. Management thought this was symptomatic of sloppiness. To address the problem, they instituted a rule that all cash drawers had to be reconciled at the end of each day, and if there were a discrepancy, the teller would be disciplined. After a few weeks, management asked for a report. Congratulations were given all around. Discrepancies had vanished entirely. Problem solved. Eventually the real story surfaced. The tellers responded to the rule by creating a secret piggy-bank fund. If a drawer was over at the end of the day, the excess went into the fund. Deficits, likewise, drew from the fund. Thus, the books balanced perfectly at the end of each day. No other process changes occurred. The lesson is that when you're trying to manage a process, you'll almost always see improvements in what you're measuring, but that does not mean that the root problem is solved. The number of tickets issued by these cameras will certainly go down, and police will use that number to justify more installations. In reality, drivers will start holding phones above their heads, wearing seatbelt-colored shirts, driving with the sunshade down, avoiding the routes with cameras, waving their arms around the cabin, and so on. The metric is number of tickets issued. Drivers and law enforcement will collaborate, conspire, and independently innovate for the exclusive goal of bringing that number down.

32 points by rwmj 3y ago

tmaly 3y ago

I am not looking forward to a future filled with this type of surveillance.

contravariant 3y ago
I'm not too worried about this kind of surveillance. What we're seeing here is surveillance of a public area, used for a clear goal, which is proportional (because texting while driving is insane) and is reviewed by humans, and has clear avenues for escalation when it makes a mistake. The scary parts are the parts that such a system is capable of, but which are not made public. For one the article doesn't mention whether the data is used for anything else or if it is ever deleted. It's also not clear if there are plans to use it for less serious offences, or if the human review is going to be removed at some point.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  > texting while driving is insane I'm inclined to agree, but I would also love to see more detailed analysis. It is easy for everyone to jump on this particular bandwagon (I have found very few people willing to say that texting while driving is no big deal), but at the same time I see a lot of texting while driving happening every day. And while we do know it contributes to accidents, driving remains a relatively safe activity statistically given how dangerous it seems. It's a little bit similar to the 'think of the children' argument, and it makes me uncomfortable when we use such justifications for massively increasing surveillance in a way that seems disproportionate to the problem we are trying to solve.
  - krisoft 3y ago
    > we use such justifications for massively increasing surveillance Is it massively increasing surveillance? UK is full of speed cameras[1] and automatic number plate recognition cameras[2]. "Vehicle movements on UK roads are recorded by a network of 11,000 cameras that read around 60 million number plates daily." 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_speed_limit_enforcement_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_speed_limit_enforcement_i... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number-plate_recognition_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number-plate_recogni...
    - rootusrootus 3y ago
      That is a good point, though personally I do think there is a pretty significant escalation between reading number plates on the outside of the car, and pointing a camera inside the car to judge what is happening inside. I also think speed cameras are problematic, because they seem to be more effective at revenue generation than improving safety. We know how to design roads to make them safer implicitly, including ways to reduce the speed, without just pointing a camera at the cars and mailing out tickets a couple weeks later.
  - lukasLansky 3y ago
    https://www.statista.com/chart/17194/pedestrian-fatalities-in-the-us-by-year/ https://www.statista.com/chart/17194/pedestrian-fatalities-i...
matthewfelgate 3y ago
Why?

jameskilton 3y ago

Justice without mercy is cruelty. There's nothing good that can come from this kind of system.

kyralis 3y ago
From the article: > The force, which is trialling the system, said if an offence has been correctly identified, the driver would either be sent a warning letter or a notice of intended prosecution, depending on the severity of the offence. This is after human review.
- voakbasda 3y ago
  This is how it starts. Do you believe this status quo will be maintained for long? Or will it become good enough that human review will need to be requested? Then when it becomes sufficiently effective, will they lower the thresholds or broaden its scope? Experience says that's exactly what will happen.
ctoth 3y ago
Welp, found the bad driver.

yawnxyz 3y ago

Police should also held to the same standards and be prosecuted for breaking the same laws in the same ways

js4ever 3y ago
And of course politics as well ...

baggy_trough 3y ago

Laws will have to be adjusted to make this level of surveillance and enforcement tolerable.

johngladtj 3y ago
No need for that, they will just prosecute when it's politically convenient

ausbah 3y ago

>Although the cameras use AI to detect potential offences, all images are reviewed by a person, said Devon and Cornwall Police. if this is true I really don't see a problem necessarily. AI is just being used as a tool not a decision maker, so long as humans are good about filtering out false positives. which for something as dangerous as driving I'm all for

zelos 3y ago
If it's just used for prosecuting things like the photo in the article and there's human review, I don't think I have a problem. This is a long way from instant Demolition Man-style tickets.

stranded22 3y ago

I know the whole ‘break the law and you might get caught’ type thing but this is dystopian.

Verdex 3y ago

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ― C. S. Lewis [My own thoughts, I feel are less effective and eloquent than Lewis'. I often feel that the expectations and rules of society don't make a lot of sense. Except for the extremely obvious, which frequently don't have explicitly stated expectations or rules due to being so obvious. My conclusion is that nobody else really gets it either; it's just that everyone else adjusts to this better than me. As we find ways to encode these nonsense rules into silicon and then aim it at everyone all the time, the end result will not be good for anyone.]

kyralis 3y ago
I wouldn't call "requiring drivers to not be using mobile phones" a "tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims". It's for the good of everyone else on the road, and, in the case of seatbelts, for the good of the rest of society that needs to deal with the burden of caring for unnecessary injuries due to failing to take such a basic precaution.
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  > I wouldn't call "requiring drivers to not be using mobile phones" a "tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims" It's the mass surveillance that was called such. > It's for the good of everyone else on the road Nope, they too are subject to mass surveillance.
- wuliwong 3y ago
  > the good of the rest of society that needs to deal with the burden of caring for unnecessary injuries I understand that point of view but I do think it can be tyrannical to not let people live their lives even if they are making decisions that are bad for their physical health. In the US, obesity is a far greater burden on our health care system than people not wearing seatbelts. I still can't get behind fining people for overeating or something like that.

xedrac 3y ago

One definition of a dystopian society is a society where you cannot make mistakes. The good news is that every time one of these automated systems is implemented, too many politicians get caught and the laws get changed.

dartos 3y ago
Yknow… I’ve never been thankful for my congressperson’s DUIs before.
krisoft 3y ago
> One definition of a dystopian society is a society where you cannot make mistakes. Except being awarded penalty points, or fined for doing something dangerous is not exactly "cannot make mistakes" is it? You do a stupid and dangerous thing, you are fined and hopefully you won't do it anymore. If you do it often enough your privilege of piloting a giant metal box around people is revoked.

ggambetta 3y ago

I'm surprised by the early reactions here. Looking at the picture in the article, of a driver texting while the passenger holds the wheel (!!!), my first reaction is "OH YES PLEASE GET THESE INCREDIBLY IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS ASAP". I don't want to die because some idiot is texting while driving. Whether these idiots are caught by a human looking attentively 24/7 or by a high-speed camera with an AI flagging possible violations and being reviewed by a human makes zero difference to me. What exactly is wrong or dystopian here? AI bad? Cameras bad?

contravariant 3y ago
It's basically a slippery slope argument. Which is not completely unfair, police have a terrible track record when it comes to using technological means responsibly.
- elil17 3y ago
  Police are using a bunch of technologies irresponsibly. Why not advocate for better oversight of police overall instead of trying to block them from using specific technologies?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Infinitesimus 3y ago
    An alternative perspective: If a group has repeatedly shown that they will use their tools and power to oppress others, why give them tools that increase their odds of doing so?
- voisin 3y ago
  But what’s the slippery slope here? If we use AI effectively to catch texters, next we’ll… effectively enforce other traffic laws? And police are already using technology in actually nefarious ways - technology that never had a positive use like this.
3y ago

bluecalm 3y ago

Hopefully this catches up. It's scary how normalized traffic violence and risking other's life is in our society. If there is one place where AI based automatic enforcement could instantly make life better it's traffic laws enforcement. I am looking for the day I can drive at a speed limit and not be a target of aggressive maniacs tailgating and dangerously overataking me or one I can go for a bike ride and not be game for speeding reckless drivers. All this talk about scary surveillance and what not coming from people who offer no solutions for a huge problem at hand. Let's use the technology so the laws put there to protect lives are actually respected.

bluedino 3y ago
What about when you accidentally go 5mph over the speed limit?
- ftth_finland 3y ago
  5 mph is 8 km/h. That’s quite a lot. Pay attention to your speed when you are driving. Most, if not all, modern cars have cruise control where you can set your speed if you are having trouble following the speed limits.
  - bluedino 3y ago
    5mph is nothing at many speed limits. 50, 60, 70, 80mph
- bluecalm 3y ago
  Ideally cars would be equipped with speed limiters. Then the problem disappears. Until this happens, there are many other solutions like you only start paying fines until you do over some limit (like 12 per year) of such minor infractions. Let's not take the focus from the main point: there is currently huge problem with reckless drivers causing death of tens of thousands of people per year (in US alone).

sergiotapia 3y ago

It is your civic duty to destroy each and every one of these if you find them out and about. They can't fix them all and will eventually give up. The west cannot become China. There is nowhere else to go.

dymk 3y ago
No, they'll catch it on camera and arrest you for destruction of public property
ctoth 3y ago
Or, like, you could just not do things like texting and letting the passenger hold the wheel while you drive while blind people like me have to navigate around your one ton death machines. Crazy idea I know.
- sergiotapia 3y ago
  I don't do either of these things, ever, and still feel this level of automated surveillance is repugnant.
  - dymk 3y ago
    Alright, well drivers are still killing cyclists and pedestrians, so let us know when you have a better plan to make roads safer for those not in the one-ton metal boxes.

nodomain 3y ago

The most pressing question to me is: Why don't you wear a seat belt? How can humans be that stupid, sparing 1 second of time when entering the car? I really don't understand it.

rootusrootus 3y ago
In my experience it is not generally an issue of laziness, it is more often a statement of ideology.
- flangola7 3y ago
  I think it is the former dressed up as the latter. Either way it's pathetic and childish.
bayesianbot 3y ago
I'm living in Northern Thailand and I'm wondering this daily. Thailand has about the most dangerous traffic in the world, lots and lots of people dying annually compared to the size of the population, but still constantly I see people, even with their kids, driving a motorbike without their helmets on. It's actually almost rare to see a good helmet, it's either nothing or a mostly useless bowl to avoid fines by the police. If I tell people I won't drive in some situation as I don't have my helmet, they'll just tell me there's no police on the way.. Though in here I think big part is religion - karma / Buddha protects good people, and most people feel they're good people, so their life is already protected, you'd just think they'd get it some day as the fatal road accident numbers are so high every year and everyone knows someone who was "a good person" but is now dead from traffic..
rwmj 3y ago
My car beeps loudly if it is moving and it detects weight in the seat without the corresponding seatbelt. Can very occasionally be a problem if you put very heavy items on the back seat. I thought this was a normal feature of cars.

yabones 3y ago

This is a complex one. On one hand, cracking down on distracted driving is absolutely a good thing. Thousands of people are killed by negligent drivers every year, and every single one is an unnecessary tragedy. But, there need to be some guardrails on this program. The UK police have a habit of keeping massive amounts of data around for years, and storing it inappropriately. I have no doubt all of the images this system takes will end up on a public S3 bucket or left open on an insecure email server within the next decade. For the Americans/Canadians, also consider that there are already a LOT of speed cameras in the UK already -- far more than there are across the ocean. The only new thing here is that instead of connecting it to a radar system, it's using computer vision to decide to fine somebody or not. It's new technology, but not really a paradigm change for the culture.

psd1 3y ago
I don't think the privacy angle is strong, because it's on a public road. In general, the idea of being tracked in public makes my skin crawl, but what sets me off is recent cars with GPS units. At least with a smartphone, I can leave it at home.

barbazoo 3y ago

I am looking to set up something like this in my neighborhood. I have a pretty good angle frpmy house. We live on a narrow street with parks on either side, a crosswalk, daycares, really a place where you want to pay attention and drive slowly. Yet every day I see people on their phones. I just don't get it. All it takes is one kid making a mistake and running on the road at the wrong moment. Happened couple of weeks ago at the crosswalk, luckily all three kids survived. I'd like to set this up using off the shelf hardware to be able to demand more enforcement but also approach the people living here directly and if nothing helps. It's a heartbreaking situation that's waiting for something terrible to happen. Edit: I'm a noob in some fields that are involved here (image classification, cameras, etc) so if anyone has a pointer for me, I'd greatly appreciate it

hashstring 3y ago
There is an important issue to be fixed here, yes. It’s heartbreaking when this happens and I fully agree that there should be more checks in place to prevent this. However, I am very glad that I live in a country where you are not allowed to record and process this because it’s a violation of my privacy. I do not think that this is the solution.
- barbazoo 3y ago
  > I am very glad that I live in a country where you are not allowed to record and process this Hehe, I don't even know if I do but honestly I'd be happy to let it come to it. Sometimes it takes a little escalation to bring about change. For sure I'll have a look though to see what the law says here. I know how selfish I am here but I value my kids' and my community's kids safety higher than other people's privacy. And it's not that I'd publicize the footage. Not even the offenders'. Yet :) > I do not think that this is the solution. I can't wait for someone to implement a "solution" because that usually requires people actually dying.
  - hashstring 3y ago
    I understand where you are coming from and it doesn’t read like your goal is selfish. Growing up my parents didn’t allow me near certain parts because of the risk of accidents, but I was fortunate enough to have a wide area to run around where it was much safer. Even if you know who the offenders are, it’s not always directly solving the problem. Take care and stay safe.

elil17 3y ago

I do understand the privacy arguments, but there are thousands of people are being killed by drivers every day (many of whom aren't even in cars, they're walking or biking). Enforcing traffic laws is one of the only tools for fixing this that can be implemented quickly (as opposed to better urban design and public transit, which are better solutions in many other ways). I feel like their should be room to advocate for responsible use of systems like this and good oversight of police departments.

jfindley 3y ago
In the UK, where this is happening, that's simply not true. There were 1695 road fatalities in 2022 total. That's very different from "thousands a day". I do not believe it is desirable (or practically possible) to eliminate all risk of death or injury from life, and increasingly orwellian surveillance measures to clamp down on every misdeed and ill advised risk does not, I think, make for a happier or freer society.
- elil17 3y ago
  The UK makes up less than 1% of the worlds population, so it does make sense that there are many more driving deaths globally than in the UK. I can agree that complete safety is not practical or desirable. But in our current society, simply walking down the street can get you killed by a driver. That is not freedom in my mind.
- matthewfelgate 3y ago
  >Last year there were 48 road deaths and 738 serious injuries on roads in the two counties. Please let me know which of these deaths you are happy with.
- mdp2021 3y ago
  > That's very different from "thousands a day" So you had us check. We hope it is now clear to you that you showed having misunderstood the poster: «thousands of people are being killed by drivers every day» does not imply "here". But according to data, ( Road deaths over the long-term, 1900 to 2021 // Annual number of reported deaths resultant from any type of road accident. This includesvehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/road-deaths-over-the-long-term https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/road-deaths-over-the-long... ) taking 2019 (just to be sure of having more data), you are partially right: apparently not even half-a-thousand per day. But hundreds per day. Top by Country: China: 172 ; USA: 99 ; Russia: 47 ; Turkey: 15 ; Japan: 11 ; S.Korea: 9 ; France: 9 ; Italy: 9 ; Germany: 8 ; Mexico: 8 ; Poland: 8 ; Uzbekistan: 6 ; Chile: 5 ; Kazakhstan: 5 ; Romania: 5 ; UK: 5 ; Canada: 5 ; Spain: 5 ; Australia: 3 ; Azerbaijan: 2 ... Conclusions from those numbers, that is another matter.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

xnx 3y ago

Big fan of automated enforcement with human review: red light running, speeding, distracted driving, tailgating, etc. More please!

Verdex 3y ago
> red light running This is actually one of the interesting cases. Some studies indicate that while red light cameras reduce the number of red light running, it also increases the amount of rear end collisions. Because people are afraid of getting a ticket they slam on their brakes. Similarly, (iirc) there was some controversy about certain areas with red light cameras adjusting the length of yellow lights not to maximize safety, but to maximize ticket revenue. At the very least the wiki link includes: > There is also concern that the international standard formula used for setting the length of the yellow phase ignores the laws of physics, which may cause drivers to inadvertently run the red phase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_light_camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_light_camera I don't think running red lights or otherwise driving recklessly is somehow our right or a good thing. However, there are side effects to these things and they don't necessarily make things universally better.
- xethos 3y ago
  > Some studies indicate that while red light cameras reduce the number of red light running, it also increases the amount of rear end collisions. Because people are afraid of getting a ticket they slam on their brakes. Sounds like some motorists received an expensive lesson on the topic of "What is a safe following distance, and why does it matter"
- diydsp 3y ago
  > [...] people are afraid of getting a ticket they slam on their brakes. There should be some kind of warning before the red light comes on. I've got it! A cell phone app. Whenever you're driving: the app sends your coordinates to the cloud, and every traffic light is also linked in via dirt-cheap IoT. Then, at some point between the light being green and red, the user is warned through a tweet, text, or email message that the red light will go on soon! They can navigate away from the video they were watching while driving, click through the terms of the website, adjust for their privacy preferences, take advantage of any offers that might pop up, and still find out a few seconds before the light turns red! And then: because we know they'll be stopped at the light and for how long, we can show them a short video offering them valuable products and services right near where they are located! We can do this! Who's in?

irrational 3y ago

I am surprised there are more people not wearing seatbelts than using mobile devices. I would have predicted the opposite, by a large margin. Wearing a seat belt is such an easy thing to do with great benefits.

aimor 3y ago

I'm still surprised automated enforcement isn't more widespread. Where I live red light cameras are at almost every major intersection, speed cameras are on school roads and construction sites, school busses have ticketing cameras. But on the highway it's cops in cars (and supposedly aircraft) with radar/lidar. Thirty minutes a day on the highway is enough to know there's plenty of people undeterred from driving 40+ mph over the limit (20 mph over is enough to suspend your license after two strikes). I'd guess the 'math' (money, politics, initiative) doesn't work out, or maybe the tech is just rolling out very slowly and hasn't made it here yet.

sixstringtheory 3y ago
I'm surprised as well. I visited Europe almost 25 years ago and they had automated speed cameras. In the US we've had speed limit signs that tell you how fast you're going for a long time now... adding a camera and network connection isn't rocket science. I assume it's entirely political.

matthewfelgate 3y ago

Good. It's time we took car violence seriously. Too many people driving around dangerously causing traffic jams from crashes, injuries and death and getting away with it. To those who call it dystopian or authoritarian: go drive on your own private land. The roads are created by and shared by us as a society. If you don't like it you can always walk.

carapace 3y ago

You can't avoid the ubiquitous surveillance, it's here and it's only going to increase. (Your phone and your car both already know if you're driving and using them at the same time, and they both tell other people everything they know about you 24/7. This is already the case today.) So the question isn't whether or not we have ubiquitous surveillance (we have it), it's how do we want to set and enforce policy? This leads me to the oxymoronical-sounding idea of "humane tyranny". Since we cannot escape techno-tyranny we must make it humane.

kypro 3y ago

I'm from the UK. I'm very split on this. On one hand I hate that people use their mobiles while driving, not because I particularly care if the driver wants to take that risk with their own life, but because they risk the lives of their passengers and other road users. That said, the UK does not have a good track record when to comes to applying this technology reasonably in my opinion. We have similar cameras which catch people driving in bus lanes or in low emission areas in the UK, and while I often agree in principle with bus lanes and low emission areas, I feel like they're enforced unfairly and with a complete lack of context. For example my city recently introduced a low emission area, the rules for which are not very clear and for some reason these low emission areas seem to primarily include high trafficked sparsely populated areas. A few weeks ago I had a family member drive down to visit me and they very briefly drove in one of these areas by accident and were hit with a £120 fine. Point is there is not adequate warning for road users and the low emission areas haven't even been implemented in areas that are reasonable – such as those that are highly populated or have high foot traffic. I'd actually argue the low emission zone in my city is just an anti-car, revenue generating move, enforced via automatic license plate recognition cameras which have no appreciation for context. Similarly here, I wonder how these camera might be used. Admittedly there are times I will remove my seat belt in the car such as to remove a jacket at stop lights, and although I never use my phone while driving I will sometimes pick it up and check notifications on the lock screen when it's safe to glance at it such as in slow moving traffic or at stop lights. I don't think doing this is any more dangerous than say fiddling with a car radio (which is perfectly legal), and it's very different from someone texting or holding their phone to their head while driving, but these cameras and the way they're enforced typically have no appreciation for this. So I dunno... I guess if they're preventing cases such as the one shown in the article then great, but if they're going to be fining people £120 for glancing at their notifications at stop lights I'd rather they not exist. It's just going to effectively be another tax on working people who need to drive to / for work.

sowbug 3y ago

I once heard a parable during a lecture about famed process expert W.E. Deming. A bank's management was concerned that its tellers' cash drawer balances were often slightly off the expected counts. During spot checks, one drawer might be 25 cents over; another might be a few dollars short, and so on. Management thought this was symptomatic of sloppiness. To address the problem, they instituted a rule that all cash drawers had to be reconciled at the end of each day, and if there were a discrepancy, the teller would be disciplined. After a few weeks, management asked for a report. Congratulations were given all around. Discrepancies had vanished entirely. Problem solved. Eventually the real story surfaced. The tellers responded to the rule by creating a secret piggy-bank fund. If a drawer was over at the end of the day, the excess went into the fund. Deficits, likewise, drew from the fund. Thus, the books balanced perfectly at the end of each day. No other process changes occurred. The lesson is that when you're trying to manage a process, you'll almost always see improvements in what you're measuring, but that does not mean that the root problem is solved. The number of tickets issued by these cameras will certainly go down, and police will use that number to justify more installations. In reality, drivers will start holding phones above their heads, wearing seatbelt-colored shirts, driving with the sunshade down, avoiding the routes with cameras, waving their arms around the cabin, and so on. The metric is number of tickets issued. Drivers and law enforcement will collaborate, conspire, and independently innovate for the exclusive goal of bringing that number down.