4 ms·

> our findings suggest that compared with enforcement by police officers, appropriately located automated technologies, such as speeding cameras, could help red

by xnx 2y ago

> our findings suggest that compared with enforcement by police officers, appropriately located automated technologies, such as speeding cameras, could help reduce selective enforcement of traffic violations. Every stoplight should be a speeding, red-light running, and missing tags enforcement camera.

haliskerbas 2y ago
Shall we chuck in facial recognition too, just in case you half-inched a pack of gum at the Tesco self-checkout?
- kypro 2y ago
  Tesco self-checkout already has facial recognition connected to other local stores (including those of other major supermarkets), so this probably isn't needed. If you were stupid enough to steal a pack of gum (some of my family are) you'll quickly find iyou're unable to buy groceries from any store in your area [1]. [1] https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/blog/the-spectator-has-your-local-shop-blacklisted-you/ https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/blog/the-spectator-has-your-l...
chrislongss 2y ago
You forgot tracking. Tracking and recording every trip you take.
- xnx 2y ago
  Everyone's phones already collect and sell this information. If it's useful, and the citizens vote for it, why shouldn't cities collect this data? It already happens on toll roads
  - chrislongss 2y ago
    Maybe we should strive to make it illegal for companies to collect and sell phone data instead of allowing more mass data collection?
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      > companies Different from the government (in theory). In the US in particular, any data that is generated from a tax-dollar-paid system is by default public information that can be requested either by FOIA or a state-equivalent law. I think that is a qualitative difference that makes this genuinely worth considering. Imagine if Google et. al. were legally required to make their location data publicly available. I mean, assume that were the case from the inception of the idea to gather that data because that's how it is with governments in the US. (Granted, there are further considerations around the potential for abuse, especially when considering victims of domestic violence/abuse. But the idea is far more palatable than what we currently have with large corporations.)
      - Carrok 2y ago
        You consider it _more_ palatable that every trip you take could potentially be publicly accessible information?
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
        > than what we currently have with large corporations Let’s be clear: the current situation is that every trip I take is privately accessible information that is sold for pennies but otherwise difficult to access; critically, there is no obligation for the information to be shared. Yes, this is a far less palatable situation than if such data is simply and plainly public: the gatherers, in this case governments, would have an obligation to share it with the subjects of the data. I’d personally prefer no data collection, but that’s just where my vote goes. Unfortunately, in this hypothetical my vote was the less popular one: > If it's useful, and the citizens vote for it, why shouldn't cities collect this data?
kube-system 2y ago
That is cost prohibitive. I'd rather replace red lights with traffic circles.
mjamesaustin 2y ago
Red light cameras increase the rate of rear ends, sometimes dramatically, as drivers unsafely brake to avoid the fine.
- asoneth 2y ago
  My understanding is that this sort of rear-end crash generally tapers off as a sufficient number of local drivers become accustomed to driving safely instead of racing to make it through a yellow light. But even if it doesn't, it might still be a reasonable tradeoff. A higher number of minor rear-end crashes (typically between unsafe drivers) might be acceptable if it helps to reduce more t-bone crashes that are more likely to be fatal.
  - Tostino 2y ago
    In Pasco county FL it didn't taper off. We just had a huge increase in collisions until they took the cameras down. https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/red-light-cameras-bring-minimal-safety-additions/2133212/ https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/red-light-camera...
    - asoneth 2y ago
      Fatalities seems like a more relevant safety metric than collisions. "IIHS research examining large U.S. cities with red light camera programs found significant reductions in citywide fatal red light crash rates (and fatal crash rates of all types) at intersections with traffic signals, including intersections that didn’t have a camera. ... Cities that discontinue their programs tend to feel the sting. The fatal crash rate was 30% higher in cities that shuttered their red light camera programs." https://www.amica.com/en/resources/auto/safety/ways-red-light-camera-safety.html https://www.amica.com/en/resources/auto/safety/ways-red-ligh... But the data do indicate that the benefits of automated traffic enforcement vary widely by community. I suspect any of poor road design, reckless driving culture, or local corruption that prioritizes income over safety can lower their net utility, and some combinations of those might even make their utility net negative.
- 2y ago
slt2021 2y ago
you described a life under techno-fascism
- clown_strike 2y ago
  You see techno-fascism, others here see a business opportunity.
- kypro 2y ago
  Not really. It's like this in many cities in the UK.
- woah 2y ago
  Every subway gate should be a ticket checker
  - dullcrisp 2y ago
    Fascist!
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  Is that the term for a uniform, unbiased, automated enforcement of law? Do we prefer that speeding should only be punished when the wrong kind of people do it? Perhaps encourage everyone to make a habit of breaking the law, so that we can use it against them when they say something we don't like?
  - slt2021 2y ago
    >uniform, unbiased, automated enforcement of law? the only uniform thing would be data collection, loss of privacy, and being a victim of gov-t oppression. "unbiased" - depends on the bias inherent to the training dataset and enforcement algorithm. Areas with more sensors will get more enforcement. what if you a victim of false positive? you wont be able to appeal to "unbiased automated enforcement" just look at recent events, when Trump just stripped some students of their greencards and deported them with 0 due process. or took a guy with some random tatoo and sent one way to El Salvador...
dullcrisp 2y ago
I don’t like the authoritarian-sounding phrasing here, but upon consideration, would this method of enforcing traffic laws really be much worse than having people with guns chasing people down at high speeds?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  > would this method of enforcing traffic laws really be much worse than having people with guns chasing people down at high speeds? Yes. People don't scale the way computers do.
  - dullcrisp 2y ago
    Hmm there might be a third rail that I don’t want to touch here. Pardon the phrasing.
  - xnx 2y ago
    A traffic camera never planted drugs in my car.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      This is still possible even with cameras running recognition software at every intersection.
djoldman 2y ago
Yes, but a couple problems: 1. Where to put them? In Chicago these cameras unfortunately end up being a regressive tax. 2. What to do with the money? Anytime we give the government money from things like this, we create weird incentives. I've been wondering lately what it would be like if we required all the fees to be returned to the federal treasury / burned... no incentives!
- xnx 2y ago
  > 1. Where to put them? In Chicago these cameras unfortunately end up being a regressive tax. Everywhere. Starting with highest volume intersections. > 2. What to do with the money? Anytime we give the government money from things like this, we create weird incentives. Good concerns to have. I'm less concerned with bad incentives (e.g. vs. civil asset "forfeiture") because the enforcement is automated. There can still be bias in roll-out of the cameras, but this wouldn't be the same degree. > I've been wondering lately what it would be like if we required all the fees to be returned to the federal treasury / burned... no incentives! I like that thinking. This makes everyone's money worth ever so slightly more. (which is also minusculey regressive)

by xnx 2y ago

haliskerbas 2y ago

Shall we chuck in facial recognition too, just in case you half-inched a pack of gum at the Tesco self-checkout?

kypro 2y ago
Tesco self-checkout already has facial recognition connected to other local stores (including those of other major supermarkets), so this probably isn't needed. If you were stupid enough to steal a pack of gum (some of my family are) you'll quickly find iyou're unable to buy groceries from any store in your area [1]. [1] https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/blog/the-spectator-has-your-local-shop-blacklisted-you/ https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/blog/the-spectator-has-your-l...

chrislongss 2y ago

You forgot tracking. Tracking and recording every trip you take.

xnx 2y ago
Everyone's phones already collect and sell this information. If it's useful, and the citizens vote for it, why shouldn't cities collect this data? It already happens on toll roads
- chrislongss 2y ago
  Maybe we should strive to make it illegal for companies to collect and sell phone data instead of allowing more mass data collection?
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    > companies Different from the government (in theory). In the US in particular, any data that is generated from a tax-dollar-paid system is by default public information that can be requested either by FOIA or a state-equivalent law. I think that is a qualitative difference that makes this genuinely worth considering. Imagine if Google et. al. were legally required to make their location data publicly available. I mean, assume that were the case from the inception of the idea to gather that data because that's how it is with governments in the US. (Granted, there are further considerations around the potential for abuse, especially when considering victims of domestic violence/abuse. But the idea is far more palatable than what we currently have with large corporations.)
    - Carrok 2y ago
      You consider it _more_ palatable that every trip you take could potentially be publicly accessible information?
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
        > than what we currently have with large corporations Let’s be clear: the current situation is that every trip I take is privately accessible information that is sold for pennies but otherwise difficult to access; critically, there is no obligation for the information to be shared. Yes, this is a far less palatable situation than if such data is simply and plainly public: the gatherers, in this case governments, would have an obligation to share it with the subjects of the data. I’d personally prefer no data collection, but that’s just where my vote goes. Unfortunately, in this hypothetical my vote was the less popular one: > If it's useful, and the citizens vote for it, why shouldn't cities collect this data?

kube-system 2y ago

That is cost prohibitive. I'd rather replace red lights with traffic circles.

mjamesaustin 2y ago

Red light cameras increase the rate of rear ends, sometimes dramatically, as drivers unsafely brake to avoid the fine.

asoneth 2y ago
My understanding is that this sort of rear-end crash generally tapers off as a sufficient number of local drivers become accustomed to driving safely instead of racing to make it through a yellow light. But even if it doesn't, it might still be a reasonable tradeoff. A higher number of minor rear-end crashes (typically between unsafe drivers) might be acceptable if it helps to reduce more t-bone crashes that are more likely to be fatal.
- Tostino 2y ago
  In Pasco county FL it didn't taper off. We just had a huge increase in collisions until they took the cameras down. https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/red-light-cameras-bring-minimal-safety-additions/2133212/ https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/red-light-camera...
  - asoneth 2y ago
    Fatalities seems like a more relevant safety metric than collisions. "IIHS research examining large U.S. cities with red light camera programs found significant reductions in citywide fatal red light crash rates (and fatal crash rates of all types) at intersections with traffic signals, including intersections that didn’t have a camera. ... Cities that discontinue their programs tend to feel the sting. The fatal crash rate was 30% higher in cities that shuttered their red light camera programs." https://www.amica.com/en/resources/auto/safety/ways-red-light-camera-safety.html https://www.amica.com/en/resources/auto/safety/ways-red-ligh... But the data do indicate that the benefits of automated traffic enforcement vary widely by community. I suspect any of poor road design, reckless driving culture, or local corruption that prioritizes income over safety can lower their net utility, and some combinations of those might even make their utility net negative.
2y ago

slt2021 2y ago

you described a life under techno-fascism

clown_strike 2y ago
You see techno-fascism, others here see a business opportunity.
kypro 2y ago
Not really. It's like this in many cities in the UK.
woah 2y ago
Every subway gate should be a ticket checker
- dullcrisp 2y ago
  Fascist!
mitthrowaway2 2y ago
Is that the term for a uniform, unbiased, automated enforcement of law? Do we prefer that speeding should only be punished when the wrong kind of people do it? Perhaps encourage everyone to make a habit of breaking the law, so that we can use it against them when they say something we don't like?
- slt2021 2y ago
  >uniform, unbiased, automated enforcement of law? the only uniform thing would be data collection, loss of privacy, and being a victim of gov-t oppression. "unbiased" - depends on the bias inherent to the training dataset and enforcement algorithm. Areas with more sensors will get more enforcement. what if you a victim of false positive? you wont be able to appeal to "unbiased automated enforcement" just look at recent events, when Trump just stripped some students of their greencards and deported them with 0 due process. or took a guy with some random tatoo and sent one way to El Salvador...

dullcrisp 2y ago

I don’t like the authoritarian-sounding phrasing here, but upon consideration, would this method of enforcing traffic laws really be much worse than having people with guns chasing people down at high speeds?

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
> would this method of enforcing traffic laws really be much worse than having people with guns chasing people down at high speeds? Yes. People don't scale the way computers do.
- dullcrisp 2y ago
  Hmm there might be a third rail that I don’t want to touch here. Pardon the phrasing.
- xnx 2y ago
  A traffic camera never planted drugs in my car.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    This is still possible even with cameras running recognition software at every intersection.

djoldman 2y ago

Yes, but a couple problems: 1. Where to put them? In Chicago these cameras unfortunately end up being a regressive tax. 2. What to do with the money? Anytime we give the government money from things like this, we create weird incentives. I've been wondering lately what it would be like if we required all the fees to be returned to the federal treasury / burned... no incentives!

xnx 2y ago
> 1. Where to put them? In Chicago these cameras unfortunately end up being a regressive tax. Everywhere. Starting with highest volume intersections. > 2. What to do with the money? Anytime we give the government money from things like this, we create weird incentives. Good concerns to have. I'm less concerned with bad incentives (e.g. vs. civil asset "forfeiture") because the enforcement is automated. There can still be bias in roll-out of the cameras, but this wouldn't be the same degree. > I've been wondering lately what it would be like if we required all the fees to be returned to the federal treasury / burned... no incentives! I like that thinking. This makes everyone's money worth ever so slightly more. (which is also minusculey regressive)