8 ms·

AI cameras change driver behavior at intersections

58 points by sohkamyung 1y ago

mindslight 1y ago
Another example of draconian enforcing the letter of the law in the name of making things "safer", then Goodhart's lawwing themselves into thinking they're succeeding. At least for myself, when I've got to deal with some kind of traffic control device and optimize my driving around that (say a speed bump), it takes my view/attention/focus away from looking for pedestrians elsewhere. There's also the general problem with stop signs that if you do stop before the line as you're technically supposed to, then most times you can't actually see oncoming vehicle traffic. So most people stop over the line where they will be able to see, which means they're not planning on stopping where pedestrians walk. But fixing intersections is expensive meticulous work, while fining drivers for dealing with what they've been given is profitable. If this were targeted at flagrant violations with warnings for a percentile of marginal cases (ie getting people who don't stop at all, and warning those who strain the idea of a rolling "stop"), then I could see it. But as it's worded, and as speed/red light cameras have been implemented, it just seems like another dynamic of a dystopian hellhole.
- TheJoeMan 1y ago
  The issue you’re highlighting is called the sight triangle. There are supposed to be restrictions on maximum landscaping height, etc, so you can see from the stop bar. Unfortunately many smaller crossings violate this. For example see fig. 71 at https://highways.dot.gov/safety/other/older-road-user/handbook-designing-roadways-aging-population/chapter-7-intersections https://highways.dot.gov/safety/other/older-road-user/handbo...
- kenjackson 1y ago
  > There's also the general problem with stop signs that if you do stop before the line as you're technically supposed to, then most times you can't actually see oncoming vehicle traffic. In these cases there's usually some other violation that is occurring, e.g., cars parked too close to the intersection, or shrubbery not properly cut back. As you note, the result is often they have to go beyond the stop sign. Even worse, I often end up so far in the street that if there was a car that was within its lane, but on the right-most side of it, they'd hit me (fortunately most drivers are aware enough to stop).
  - mindslight 1y ago
    Sure, or the "violation" is by the city who would have to spend money to fix the intersection, thus they're incentivized to ignore it. I think the general problem is that the presence of the stop sign and the 80-99% case (depending on the area/intersection) being to only worry about cars creates a type of blindness to pedestrians when they are there. Rather than these devices, I would say it would be more effective to install flashing lights on or around the stop sign, that turn on to signal a pedestrian is crossing. (of course that would now be a bit of an uphill battle owing to the signs with the lights that flash all the time)
    - ryandrake 1y ago
      Yea, then we have flashing lights all over the place and people become blind to them, too.
      - mindslight 1y ago
        I recognized that in my last parenthetical sentence, as we've now got stop signs that flash all the time for similar "must do something" reasons. My point was specifically to only draw attention when it's warranted, to avoid that kind of fatigue. Like I think the crosswalks with flashing yellow lights when pedestrians are crossing are ridiculous overkill, but they don't add to my oversignage fatigue because they only demand that attention when the attention is needed.
- graemep 1y ago
  > hen Goodhart's lawwing themselves into thinking they're succeeding. At least for myself, when I've got to deal with some kind of traffic control device and optimize my driving around that (say a speed bump), it takes my view/attention/focus away from looking for pedestrians elsewhere. I find that most with unexpected speed limits. Speed bumps are actually on the road and the road surface something you should be looking at anyway. I was recently on a stretch of road where the speed limit kept changing from 20 to 30 and back very frequently, and there were speed camera signs. That was distracting. Another common issue in the UK is what feel like random speed limit changes when moving from one local authority to another. Its not uncommon for the speed limit to rise just before a junction or roundabout. > But fixing intersections is expensive meticulous work, while fining drivers for dealing with what they've been given is profitable. Yes, it is, but the problem is often that it was not well thought out in the first place. Doing it right first time would not cost more.
webdevver 1y ago
whenever a cop car is around, everyone becomes grandma and starts driving 5 under. very annoying.
SoftTalker 1y ago
Nothing wrong with a "rolling stop" if the sight lines are good and there are no pedestrians or crossing traffic. The point of a stop is to allow traffic to cross the intersection in a safe and orderly fashion. If you slow down, and verify that everything is clear, then that objective is achieved even if you don't come to a complete stop. If these cameras were smart enough to issue citations when pedestrians or cross-traffic is present I could support it. But issuing a citation at a deserted intersection when no risk is created is just absurd.
- tempodox 1y ago
  It's just optimizing the reward function. The traffic ticket maximizer is the paperclip maximizer's sibling.
- wat10000 1y ago
  The problem is that you can't always tell that there are no pedestrians or crossing traffic unless you take enough time to come to a complete stop. There are plenty of stop signs where that's not true, but also plenty where it is, and it's not always clear which one it is to the driver. I think the right fix here isn't total enforcement nor relaxed enforcement, but relaxed signage. If sight lines are good enough that it's safe to roll through, that should be a yield, not a stop. Stop should mean, you actually need to come to a complete stop to safely navigate this intersection. Then you can enforce it without qualms.
  - ygjb 1y ago
    Signage is ineffective in addressing short term environmental or visibility impacts. Sure, it might be easy to see during the day with clear visibility. What about at night? Fog? Snow or rainstorm that is restricting visibility? Some dropped a storage pod on the road that obstructs the view of everything except a yield sign?
    - BobaFloutist 1y ago
      Those limitations aren't restricted to intersections, if someone doesn't know how to safely drive in fog they'll be just as unsafe the rest of the time as when approaching an intersection with a yield instead of a stop sign.
pj_mukh 1y ago
Jokes on them, my city doesn’t enforce cars without license plates very commonly visible [1]. So these plate readers are useless and people are regularly getting murdered on the streets with little to no consequences and to hit and run is the most advantageous position. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/oakland/comments/4wdd57/whats_the_deal_with_all_the_cars_without_license/ https://www.reddit.com/r/oakland/comments/4wdd57/whats_the_d...
- el_benhameen 1y ago
  While I don’t doubt that OPD is ignoring plateless cars, that thread has outdated info. CA now does require temp plates, most places seem to be pretty good about enforcing the rule, and seeing a plateless car now seems (to me) to be a pretty good indicator that the person driving it is up to no good. My city further East in the East Bay is not exactly great about enforcing most traffic laws, but you’ll rarely see a car without a plate or temp these days.
- Animats 1y ago
  That's being tightened up in some states. Texas no longer allows temporary paper license plates. The seller has to provide a plate.
maeln 1y ago
As an aside, the U.S got roughly twice the number of fatal crash than the E.U [1][2], despite the E.U having ~100 millions more people. There is a clear need to change a lot of things, whether it be (automatic) enforcement, redesigning infrastructure, and driver mentality. [1] https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/deta... [2] https://transport.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/eu-road-fatalities-drop-3-2024-progress-remains-slow-2025-03-18_en https://transport.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/eu-road-fata...
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  EU has much higher training and licensing requirements in general. In the US a 15 year old can get a learner's permit and start driving (with an adult) the same day. They can be licensed to drive on their own at 16 by passing a fairly cursory written exam and a short road test. No formal/classroom instruction is required.
  - AlexandrB 1y ago
    Roughly the same in Canada. I wish we had more stringent testing, including periodic re-testing (especially over 60).
    - MaKey 1y ago
      For Germany there is even a subreddit about old people crashing into things: https://www.reddit.com/r/RentnerfahreninDinge/ https://www.reddit.com/r/RentnerfahreninDinge/ Sadly it will be next to impossible to implement re-testing at a certain age as old people are the majority of the voters.
  - mh- 1y ago
    Like everything in the US, those rules vary by state, and this is incorrect for at least those that I'm familiar with.
    - vel0city 1y ago
JohnMakin 1y ago
In southern CA, traffic cameras were rolled out in tons of cities at basically every major intersection. They were a huge headache, did effectively nothing but waste taxdollars, and were scrapped for the purpose of issuing tickets. Except they weren't actually scrapped. They now feed data into several location-for-sale data brokers' pool which is queried by police. You're a little bit of a fool if you think this is about about "safety." Imagine the current license plate scanner tech combined with advanced facial recognition - if this isn't happening somewhere already - and tell me with a straight face cops aren't more excited about that dystopian future than stopping a few fender benders and generating meager city revenue (which they won't see anyway). The dead giveaway to all these blatantly dishonest "safety" measures is they always, nearly without fail invoke safety "for the children." After all, who could be against that?
- samrus 1y ago
  Itd be great if this sort of system could be trustworthy. How could that be done. Public data? But then that opens the data stream up to criminals who could stalk people and stuff. Third party audits? Who do you trust to do that? NGOs?
  - crmd 1y ago
    Remove the municipal revenue motive: no fines, only points on the license, with an option to plead not guilty in traffic court like a normal police interaction.
    - sokoloff 1y ago
      Points on the license probably requires more surveillance in order to prove who was driving rather than just that this particular vehicle violated a traffic law.
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  They don't even pretend it's about safety anymore. Flock cameras are all over the place and were never installed on the pretense of issuing citations or enforcing safety. It's all about tracking who is coming and going.
chasd00 1y ago
didn't get past the "Unblinking eyes could lower the vehicular death toll". The unblinking eye is there to maximize citations, end of story.
- samrus 1y ago
  Incentive structures need to be alligned better. Its so disheartening to see tech that works fine in europe fail in the US because of corruption and negative motivations. What incentive structure could make these things be more benficial than just money grabbing? Laws that revenue from citations must be spend for direct public benefit only? With public audit?
  - 0dKD 1y ago
    dude, i like the style of your comments! i feel like id like you. incentives rule the world. this is the perfect example of a situation where id love to see more than an anonymous profile and lurk on who you are!
grogenaut 1y ago
If they actually cared about safety they'd license it to auto manufacturers and let people roll stop signs when it's safe and warm them when it's not. Or just put cheap traffic lights everywhere to speed up traffic. This is about earning revenue for municipallitues with micro enforcement zones. (note/edit) I'm talking about flashing lights in the cab like when my car thinks I need to break. Forcing me to break unless I'm about to kill someone. Or just re-thinking the stop sign. The point of stop signs is they're effing cheap. If you're going to put AI cameras on all of them that is no longer cheap, could you not just turn them into lighted intersections that give the green to the right person and remove confusion and detect or have slappers for the pedestrians and just smooth out traffic everywhere? Or is the unsaid thing that stop signs are actually smoother because well you can roll them using your human brain to make decisions?
- samrus 1y ago
  I feel like private companies enforcing when you can and cant move at a stop sign is a libertarian hellscape. This isnt alot better, but at least its a provate vendor that gets data to the government who then decide to cite whats supposed to be dangerous behavior. Theres obviously corruption there, but these people are at least somewhat beholden tp the public through local elections and stuff. The toyota executives are not
  - ryandrake 1y ago
    Private companies enforcing the law with a profit motive is always a recipe for awfulness. Literally every other solution (including just not enforcing) is going to be a better one.
mullingitover 1y ago
> But instead of automating the entire setup, local governments review potential infractions before any citations are issued, ensuring a human is always in the loop. IIRC, California abandoned automated traffic enforcement systems like these in the past because at the end of the day they were revenue negative. Having a human in the loop reduces the false positive rate, but drives up operating expenses to the point that it isn't sustainable.
- readthenotes1 1y ago
  Oddly enough, policing as a business leads to some undesirable outcomes.
  - mullingitover 1y ago
    I think there's also the problem that the non-fiscal outcomes of red light cameras are mixed. There's this DOT research showing that red light cameras likely decreased right-angle collisions, but increased rear end collisions[1]. Studies weren't conclusive, but they seem to point to red light cameras not being a slam dunk that makes their deployment a no-brainer. [1] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/
    - readthenotes1 1y ago
      "slam dunk" I see what you did there
- samrus 1y ago
  Public services arent supposed to generate a profit, they are supposed to serve the public. If the system prevents people from being run over then its well worth the money
SoftTalker 1y ago
Wondering what the opinion is about "Vision Zero." My little town is all over this. I think it's a bad idea. Goals should be realistic, and I think it's unrealistic to get to literally zero traffic deaths. There will always be random events leading to accidents and you can spend as much money as you want but you will never be able to prevent them all. At some point you're committing statistical murder by spending money that could be better used on ther things.
- michael1999 1y ago
  This post is about ticketing people who run stop signs. Is that the kind of price you consider too high?
  - SoftTalker 1y ago
    No, certainly there is low hanging fruit. Just that "Vision Zero" isn't a realistic goal. I would have chosen a different name and goals to avoid pedantic debate on whether it's achievable.
    - thunderfork 1y ago
      [dead]
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  Vision Zero is based on a simple principle: if cars are driving less than 20mph a pedestrian collision is highly unlikely to be fatal. So they set a speed limit of 20mph on any mixed use street, and create separated pedestrian/cyclist infrastructure for any street with higher speed limits. The latter is super expensive, but it's what you need if you want usually zero fatalities and to go faster than 20mph. Actually zero all the time is impossible, of course. It's possible that a 5mph collision with a frail pedestrian will kill them. So Norway and Sweden sometimes have a fatality. But a goal of "zero pedestrian fatalities most years" is actually feasible for polities with fewer than 10 million citizens.
- aljgz 1y ago
djoldman 1y ago
Technology is not the roadblock here. People don't want automated ticketing, so governments don't implement it. In addition, there are many laws that aren't enforced and would generate instant outcry if they were. For example: it's illegal for someone of any age to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk, as opposed to the roadway, in many cities (in some cities it's the opposite).
- readthenotes1 1y ago
  It is generally illegal in the USA to be accused of a crime without being "confronted by the witnesses against him". Red light cameras foundered on that obligation since they were generally run out of State and fly the camera operators in was not cost effective. Also, just because your car broke the law doesn't mean you did, which was another defense that worked. I'm surprised that the citations aren't thrown out...
  - djoldman 1y ago
    If someone takes someone else's property without anyone seeing the act except a video camera, the video may be admitted as evidence. Moving something into evidence that isn't testimony from a living breathing human is commonplace. A lawyer has someone attest to the authenticity and/or provenance of the item.
thrill 1y ago
> “Ultimately, we hope our technology becomes obsolete,” says Maheshwari. They may, but once something becomes a revenue stream, their successors won't.
pacificmaelstrm 1y ago
[flagged]
hlws 1y ago
Comments about rolling stops might ignore the fact that traffic lights are not only for safety, but they also work as a traffic distribution system. Where I live there are many common stop lights that are taken as suggestions and they cause huge gridlock issues in other streets.
- mmmlinux 1y ago
  If you have drivers that are taking stoplights as "suggestions" aka running stop lights. Those drivers themself are going to be a bigger contributor to the gridlock problem than this perceived cause, as they clearly have no regard for any traffic laws.
kazinator 1y ago
> First implemented in Sweden in the 1990s, Vision Zero has already cut road deaths there by 50 percent from 2010 levels. Curious sentence, that.

58 points by sohkamyung 1y ago

Another example of draconian enforcing the letter of the law in the name of making things "safer", then Goodhart's lawwing themselves into thinking they're succeeding. At least for myself, when I've got to deal with some kind of traffic control device and optimize my driving around that (say a speed bump), it takes my view/attention/focus away from looking for pedestrians elsewhere. There's also the general problem with stop signs that if you do stop before the line as you're technically supposed to, then most times you can't actually see oncoming vehicle traffic. So most people stop over the line where they will be able to see, which means they're not planning on stopping where pedestrians walk. But fixing intersections is expensive meticulous work, while fining drivers for dealing with what they've been given is profitable. If this were targeted at flagrant violations with warnings for a percentile of marginal cases (ie getting people who don't stop at all, and warning those who strain the idea of a rolling "stop"), then I could see it. But as it's worded, and as speed/red light cameras have been implemented, it just seems like another dynamic of a dystopian hellhole.

TheJoeMan 1y ago
The issue you’re highlighting is called the sight triangle. There are supposed to be restrictions on maximum landscaping height, etc, so you can see from the stop bar. Unfortunately many smaller crossings violate this. For example see fig. 71 at https://highways.dot.gov/safety/other/older-road-user/handbook-designing-roadways-aging-population/chapter-7-intersections https://highways.dot.gov/safety/other/older-road-user/handbo...
kenjackson 1y ago
> There's also the general problem with stop signs that if you do stop before the line as you're technically supposed to, then most times you can't actually see oncoming vehicle traffic. In these cases there's usually some other violation that is occurring, e.g., cars parked too close to the intersection, or shrubbery not properly cut back. As you note, the result is often they have to go beyond the stop sign. Even worse, I often end up so far in the street that if there was a car that was within its lane, but on the right-most side of it, they'd hit me (fortunately most drivers are aware enough to stop).
- mindslight 1y ago
  Sure, or the "violation" is by the city who would have to spend money to fix the intersection, thus they're incentivized to ignore it. I think the general problem is that the presence of the stop sign and the 80-99% case (depending on the area/intersection) being to only worry about cars creates a type of blindness to pedestrians when they are there. Rather than these devices, I would say it would be more effective to install flashing lights on or around the stop sign, that turn on to signal a pedestrian is crossing. (of course that would now be a bit of an uphill battle owing to the signs with the lights that flash all the time)
  - ryandrake 1y ago
    Yea, then we have flashing lights all over the place and people become blind to them, too.
    - mindslight 1y ago
      I recognized that in my last parenthetical sentence, as we've now got stop signs that flash all the time for similar "must do something" reasons. My point was specifically to only draw attention when it's warranted, to avoid that kind of fatigue. Like I think the crosswalks with flashing yellow lights when pedestrians are crossing are ridiculous overkill, but they don't add to my oversignage fatigue because they only demand that attention when the attention is needed.
graemep 1y ago
> hen Goodhart's lawwing themselves into thinking they're succeeding. At least for myself, when I've got to deal with some kind of traffic control device and optimize my driving around that (say a speed bump), it takes my view/attention/focus away from looking for pedestrians elsewhere. I find that most with unexpected speed limits. Speed bumps are actually on the road and the road surface something you should be looking at anyway. I was recently on a stretch of road where the speed limit kept changing from 20 to 30 and back very frequently, and there were speed camera signs. That was distracting. Another common issue in the UK is what feel like random speed limit changes when moving from one local authority to another. Its not uncommon for the speed limit to rise just before a junction or roundabout. > But fixing intersections is expensive meticulous work, while fining drivers for dealing with what they've been given is profitable. Yes, it is, but the problem is often that it was not well thought out in the first place. Doing it right first time would not cost more.

webdevver 1y ago

whenever a cop car is around, everyone becomes grandma and starts driving 5 under. very annoying.

SoftTalker 1y ago

Nothing wrong with a "rolling stop" if the sight lines are good and there are no pedestrians or crossing traffic. The point of a stop is to allow traffic to cross the intersection in a safe and orderly fashion. If you slow down, and verify that everything is clear, then that objective is achieved even if you don't come to a complete stop. If these cameras were smart enough to issue citations when pedestrians or cross-traffic is present I could support it. But issuing a citation at a deserted intersection when no risk is created is just absurd.

tempodox 1y ago
It's just optimizing the reward function. The traffic ticket maximizer is the paperclip maximizer's sibling.
wat10000 1y ago
The problem is that you can't always tell that there are no pedestrians or crossing traffic unless you take enough time to come to a complete stop. There are plenty of stop signs where that's not true, but also plenty where it is, and it's not always clear which one it is to the driver. I think the right fix here isn't total enforcement nor relaxed enforcement, but relaxed signage. If sight lines are good enough that it's safe to roll through, that should be a yield, not a stop. Stop should mean, you actually need to come to a complete stop to safely navigate this intersection. Then you can enforce it without qualms.
- ygjb 1y ago
  Signage is ineffective in addressing short term environmental or visibility impacts. Sure, it might be easy to see during the day with clear visibility. What about at night? Fog? Snow or rainstorm that is restricting visibility? Some dropped a storage pod on the road that obstructs the view of everything except a yield sign?
  - BobaFloutist 1y ago
    Those limitations aren't restricted to intersections, if someone doesn't know how to safely drive in fog they'll be just as unsafe the rest of the time as when approaching an intersection with a yield instead of a stop sign.

pj_mukh 1y ago

Jokes on them, my city doesn’t enforce cars without license plates very commonly visible [1]. So these plate readers are useless and people are regularly getting murdered on the streets with little to no consequences and to hit and run is the most advantageous position. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/oakland/comments/4wdd57/whats_the_deal_with_all_the_cars_without_license/ https://www.reddit.com/r/oakland/comments/4wdd57/whats_the_d...

el_benhameen 1y ago
While I don’t doubt that OPD is ignoring plateless cars, that thread has outdated info. CA now does require temp plates, most places seem to be pretty good about enforcing the rule, and seeing a plateless car now seems (to me) to be a pretty good indicator that the person driving it is up to no good. My city further East in the East Bay is not exactly great about enforcing most traffic laws, but you’ll rarely see a car without a plate or temp these days.
Animats 1y ago
That's being tightened up in some states. Texas no longer allows temporary paper license plates. The seller has to provide a plate.

maeln 1y ago

As an aside, the U.S got roughly twice the number of fatal crash than the E.U [1][2], despite the E.U having ~100 millions more people. There is a clear need to change a lot of things, whether it be (automatic) enforcement, redesigning infrastructure, and driver mentality. [1] https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/deta... [2] https://transport.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/eu-road-fatalities-drop-3-2024-progress-remains-slow-2025-03-18_en https://transport.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/eu-road-fata...

SoftTalker 1y ago
EU has much higher training and licensing requirements in general. In the US a 15 year old can get a learner's permit and start driving (with an adult) the same day. They can be licensed to drive on their own at 16 by passing a fairly cursory written exam and a short road test. No formal/classroom instruction is required.
- AlexandrB 1y ago
  Roughly the same in Canada. I wish we had more stringent testing, including periodic re-testing (especially over 60).
  - MaKey 1y ago
    For Germany there is even a subreddit about old people crashing into things: https://www.reddit.com/r/RentnerfahreninDinge/ https://www.reddit.com/r/RentnerfahreninDinge/ Sadly it will be next to impossible to implement re-testing at a certain age as old people are the majority of the voters.
- mh- 1y ago
  Like everything in the US, those rules vary by state, and this is incorrect for at least those that I'm familiar with.
  - vel0city 1y ago

JohnMakin 1y ago

In southern CA, traffic cameras were rolled out in tons of cities at basically every major intersection. They were a huge headache, did effectively nothing but waste taxdollars, and were scrapped for the purpose of issuing tickets. Except they weren't actually scrapped. They now feed data into several location-for-sale data brokers' pool which is queried by police. You're a little bit of a fool if you think this is about about "safety." Imagine the current license plate scanner tech combined with advanced facial recognition - if this isn't happening somewhere already - and tell me with a straight face cops aren't more excited about that dystopian future than stopping a few fender benders and generating meager city revenue (which they won't see anyway). The dead giveaway to all these blatantly dishonest "safety" measures is they always, nearly without fail invoke safety "for the children." After all, who could be against that?

samrus 1y ago
Itd be great if this sort of system could be trustworthy. How could that be done. Public data? But then that opens the data stream up to criminals who could stalk people and stuff. Third party audits? Who do you trust to do that? NGOs?
- crmd 1y ago
  Remove the municipal revenue motive: no fines, only points on the license, with an option to plead not guilty in traffic court like a normal police interaction.
  - sokoloff 1y ago
    Points on the license probably requires more surveillance in order to prove who was driving rather than just that this particular vehicle violated a traffic law.
SoftTalker 1y ago
They don't even pretend it's about safety anymore. Flock cameras are all over the place and were never installed on the pretense of issuing citations or enforcing safety. It's all about tracking who is coming and going.

chasd00 1y ago

didn't get past the "Unblinking eyes could lower the vehicular death toll". The unblinking eye is there to maximize citations, end of story.

samrus 1y ago
Incentive structures need to be alligned better. Its so disheartening to see tech that works fine in europe fail in the US because of corruption and negative motivations. What incentive structure could make these things be more benficial than just money grabbing? Laws that revenue from citations must be spend for direct public benefit only? With public audit?
- 0dKD 1y ago
  dude, i like the style of your comments! i feel like id like you. incentives rule the world. this is the perfect example of a situation where id love to see more than an anonymous profile and lurk on who you are!

grogenaut 1y ago

If they actually cared about safety they'd license it to auto manufacturers and let people roll stop signs when it's safe and warm them when it's not. Or just put cheap traffic lights everywhere to speed up traffic. This is about earning revenue for municipallitues with micro enforcement zones. (note/edit) I'm talking about flashing lights in the cab like when my car thinks I need to break. Forcing me to break unless I'm about to kill someone. Or just re-thinking the stop sign. The point of stop signs is they're effing cheap. If you're going to put AI cameras on all of them that is no longer cheap, could you not just turn them into lighted intersections that give the green to the right person and remove confusion and detect or have slappers for the pedestrians and just smooth out traffic everywhere? Or is the unsaid thing that stop signs are actually smoother because well you can roll them using your human brain to make decisions?

samrus 1y ago
I feel like private companies enforcing when you can and cant move at a stop sign is a libertarian hellscape. This isnt alot better, but at least its a provate vendor that gets data to the government who then decide to cite whats supposed to be dangerous behavior. Theres obviously corruption there, but these people are at least somewhat beholden tp the public through local elections and stuff. The toyota executives are not
- ryandrake 1y ago
  Private companies enforcing the law with a profit motive is always a recipe for awfulness. Literally every other solution (including just not enforcing) is going to be a better one.

mullingitover 1y ago

> But instead of automating the entire setup, local governments review potential infractions before any citations are issued, ensuring a human is always in the loop. IIRC, California abandoned automated traffic enforcement systems like these in the past because at the end of the day they were revenue negative. Having a human in the loop reduces the false positive rate, but drives up operating expenses to the point that it isn't sustainable.

readthenotes1 1y ago
Oddly enough, policing as a business leads to some undesirable outcomes.
- mullingitover 1y ago
  I think there's also the problem that the non-fiscal outcomes of red light cameras are mixed. There's this DOT research showing that red light cameras likely decreased right-angle collisions, but increased rear end collisions[1]. Studies weren't conclusive, but they seem to point to red light cameras not being a slam dunk that makes their deployment a no-brainer. [1] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/
  - readthenotes1 1y ago
    "slam dunk" I see what you did there
samrus 1y ago
Public services arent supposed to generate a profit, they are supposed to serve the public. If the system prevents people from being run over then its well worth the money

SoftTalker 1y ago

Wondering what the opinion is about "Vision Zero." My little town is all over this. I think it's a bad idea. Goals should be realistic, and I think it's unrealistic to get to literally zero traffic deaths. There will always be random events leading to accidents and you can spend as much money as you want but you will never be able to prevent them all. At some point you're committing statistical murder by spending money that could be better used on ther things.

michael1999 1y ago
This post is about ticketing people who run stop signs. Is that the kind of price you consider too high?
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  No, certainly there is low hanging fruit. Just that "Vision Zero" isn't a realistic goal. I would have chosen a different name and goals to avoid pedantic debate on whether it's achievable.
  - thunderfork 1y ago
    [dead]
bryanlarsen 1y ago
Vision Zero is based on a simple principle: if cars are driving less than 20mph a pedestrian collision is highly unlikely to be fatal. So they set a speed limit of 20mph on any mixed use street, and create separated pedestrian/cyclist infrastructure for any street with higher speed limits. The latter is super expensive, but it's what you need if you want usually zero fatalities and to go faster than 20mph. Actually zero all the time is impossible, of course. It's possible that a 5mph collision with a frail pedestrian will kill them. So Norway and Sweden sometimes have a fatality. But a goal of "zero pedestrian fatalities most years" is actually feasible for polities with fewer than 10 million citizens.
aljgz 1y ago

djoldman 1y ago

Technology is not the roadblock here. People don't want automated ticketing, so governments don't implement it. In addition, there are many laws that aren't enforced and would generate instant outcry if they were. For example: it's illegal for someone of any age to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk, as opposed to the roadway, in many cities (in some cities it's the opposite).

readthenotes1 1y ago
It is generally illegal in the USA to be accused of a crime without being "confronted by the witnesses against him". Red light cameras foundered on that obligation since they were generally run out of State and fly the camera operators in was not cost effective. Also, just because your car broke the law doesn't mean you did, which was another defense that worked. I'm surprised that the citations aren't thrown out...
- djoldman 1y ago
  If someone takes someone else's property without anyone seeing the act except a video camera, the video may be admitted as evidence. Moving something into evidence that isn't testimony from a living breathing human is commonplace. A lawyer has someone attest to the authenticity and/or provenance of the item.

thrill 1y ago

> “Ultimately, we hope our technology becomes obsolete,” says Maheshwari. They may, but once something becomes a revenue stream, their successors won't.

pacificmaelstrm 1y ago

[flagged]

hlws 1y ago

Comments about rolling stops might ignore the fact that traffic lights are not only for safety, but they also work as a traffic distribution system. Where I live there are many common stop lights that are taken as suggestions and they cause huge gridlock issues in other streets.

mmmlinux 1y ago
If you have drivers that are taking stoplights as "suggestions" aka running stop lights. Those drivers themself are going to be a bigger contributor to the gridlock problem than this perceived cause, as they clearly have no regard for any traffic laws.

kazinator 1y ago

> First implemented in Sweden in the 1990s, Vision Zero has already cut road deaths there by 50 percent from 2010 levels. Curious sentence, that.