'Speedcam Anywhere' App Allows Anyone To Submit Evidence of Drivers Speeding (totum.com) 323
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Totum: A new app will allow any member of the public to submit evidence of other drivers speeding to the police. Using AI to estimate the speed of a passing car, Speedcam Anywhere, has been created by a team of AI scientists with backgrounds in Silicon Valley companies and top UK universities, reports the Guardian. The hope is it will encourage police to take speeding more seriously while enabling residents, pedestrians and cyclists to document traffic crimes in their area.
However, the app's creators say they have been subjected to a vicious response, with many now scared to reveal their real identities due to the level of vitriol aimed at them by drivers. "We're getting quite abusive emails," Sam, the app's founder, told the Guardian on condition of anonymity. "It's a Marmite product -- some people think it's a good idea, some people think that it turns us into a surveillance state. "I can see both sides of that, but I think that if you're going to have speed limits, then it's the law that you obey them, and you should enforce the law. It's not a personal vendetta against anyone, it's just -- how do we make our roads safe? "There are 20,000 serious injuries on the roads every year -- how can we reduce them? And the way we reduce them is we make a deterrent to speeding."
The app has also faced other difficulties in getting off the ground. Google initially refused to allow it on the Play Store, claiming it wasn't possible to estimate the speed of a passing vehicle using AI alone, however this claim was later proved wrong. An iOS version has also been developed, but it has not yet been approved for distribution by Apple, who have not given a reason for the delay. "We're not sure why they would block a useful piece of technology, something that could save people's lives," Sam said. [...] Currently, the app cannot lead to drivers receiving speeding tickets, as the algorithm is yet to be vetted by the Home Office, meaning it is not legally a speed camera, although drivers could still be charged with 'dangerous driving' offenses if their behavior is deemed to be sufficiently negligent. Sam says he hopes use of the app will alert police to speeding hotspots, encouraging them to take more action against dangerous driving.
However, the app's creators say they have been subjected to a vicious response, with many now scared to reveal their real identities due to the level of vitriol aimed at them by drivers. "We're getting quite abusive emails," Sam, the app's founder, told the Guardian on condition of anonymity. "It's a Marmite product -- some people think it's a good idea, some people think that it turns us into a surveillance state. "I can see both sides of that, but I think that if you're going to have speed limits, then it's the law that you obey them, and you should enforce the law. It's not a personal vendetta against anyone, it's just -- how do we make our roads safe? "There are 20,000 serious injuries on the roads every year -- how can we reduce them? And the way we reduce them is we make a deterrent to speeding."
The app has also faced other difficulties in getting off the ground. Google initially refused to allow it on the Play Store, claiming it wasn't possible to estimate the speed of a passing vehicle using AI alone, however this claim was later proved wrong. An iOS version has also been developed, but it has not yet been approved for distribution by Apple, who have not given a reason for the delay. "We're not sure why they would block a useful piece of technology, something that could save people's lives," Sam said. [...] Currently, the app cannot lead to drivers receiving speeding tickets, as the algorithm is yet to be vetted by the Home Office, meaning it is not legally a speed camera, although drivers could still be charged with 'dangerous driving' offenses if their behavior is deemed to be sufficiently negligent. Sam says he hopes use of the app will alert police to speeding hotspots, encouraging them to take more action against dangerous driving.
And as we all know... (Score:5, Insightful)
...it's just not possible to fake video evidence, and even if it were, no one would ever use that ability for mischief.
Yes! (Score:4, Funny)
Finally. I can now really stick it to my neighbors AND have something to post on nextdoor.com. Get ready to see yourself doing 40 in a 35 on blast! This is like ice cream with sprinkles on Christmas day.
--
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. - Aesop
fuck off (Score:2, Insightful)
You control freak assholes. We only put up with speed limits because they're rarely enforced.
Re: (Score:3)
Instead you basically have to live in an area to know which ones make sense and which ones are complete bullshit that assume you're driving a Bronco II with a large mass strapped to the roof whose shocks haven't been changed since the 1st Bush administration. This is even true in e.g. scenic highways... you've just gotta know which "speed 20!" signs you can pass at 45
New Hustle Economy (Score:4, Interesting)
Defund the police (Score:2)
Re:New Hustle Economy (Score:5, Interesting)
Fyi, they did this in Shenzen, in China, for reckless driving. If you sent a video of someone driving recklessly, you could send it in via some app. Video would be reviewed and if it indeed was deemed reckless driving, the owner of the car would get a fine and you would get a certain percentage.
Turned out a fair few Chinese people made this into a money-maker. Go on the road, then irritate a random car to the point where they make a dangerous move because they're afraid to get hit or think you're a stalker or something. Cut that little bit of video out of your dashcam stream, put it into the app, and voila - instant income.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm fine with this (Score:2)
If used in residential areas, but not on highways
Re:I'm fine with this (Score:4, Funny)
I carry it in my car and take videos of everyone driving faster than me on the freeway. While I am driving. I am definitely making the world a safer place!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Around here we call that Tuesday.
Re: (Score:2)
If used in residential areas, but not on highways
I'm fine with speed limits being enforced anywhere at all. Speed limits are an instruction, not a recommendation.
Re:I'm fine with this (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm also not ok to use this for every possible traffic violation, it'll just devolve into a tool for little snitches, and/or a time waster for law enforcement. But serious, dangerous behaviour like tailgating, brake checking, running red lights: it would be nice if we could report that sort of thing. Behaviour that (in my neck of the woods) might get your license suspended or you might be sent to a remedial driving class, especiall for repeat offenders. So the goal should be to remove or re-train deangerous drivers rather than just issue fines.
I love this idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not all drivers are equally skilled. Speeding is probably ok on freeways, but less so on residential roads where people are walking. Consistent timings for making turns is a good thing however speeding is better than dying from driver fatigue - which is the second biggest cause of death after speeding.
Re:I love this idea (Score:4, Interesting)
speeding is better than dying from driver fatigue - which is the second biggest cause of death after speeding.
This.
I've driven twice around the world on German Autobahn, often going over 200 (km/h). I've also driven a steady 120 for hours in neighbouring countries. Make one guess which was more dangerous. (hint: I drive 200+ if the road is empty and allows for such speeds)
If I have to drive 500+ km I would much rather do it in Germany at night and be done with it in 2.5 hours, than in some other country for 4 hours of constantly fighting to stay awake. Been there, done that (and twice that distance a few times).
Re: (Score:2)
If I have to drive 500+ km I would much rather do it in Germany at night and be done with it in 2.5 hours, than in some other country for 4 hours of constantly fighting to stay awake. Been there, done that (and twice that distance a few times).
Australia, Northern Territory, too much distance, no speed limit. Unfortunately also kangaroos which are not pleasant to run into at any speed. Most distances between capital cities in Australia are 500+ km but also has brain dead speed limits - Autobahns are the Australian drivers dream!!!!
Re: (Score:3)
Northern Territory has had a maximum speed limit of 130 for some years now:
https://nt.gov.au/driving/safe... [nt.gov.au]
Too many people where going too fast on roads simply not designed for such speeds - they were and are not autobahns and even 130 is probably too fast, especially at dawn and dusk.
Kangaroos yes. And emus (surprisingly heavy) but it's the cattle and worse, camels, that are the big danger. Apart from the road trains and of course, drunk drivers in overloaded unroadworthy vehicles with far too many people
Re: I love this idea (Score:2)
I've also driven a steady 120 for hours in neighbouring countries.
To be fair, nobody except the Germans knows how to properly build and maintain Autobahns. Every German Autobahn I've been was restricted to 120 or below if the quality was comparable to those of Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic etc.
Just drive across the border going from Wels towards Passau, or from Czech Republic towards Dresden to know what I mean... :-)
Point being: to drive 200 km/h safely you need roads capable of sustaining that. Most countries don't bother (I wonder how many accidents neighboring stat
Re: (Score:2)
constantly fighting to stay awake
Why the Hell are you on the road if you are fighting to stay awake? Pull over, take a nap and continue your journey. Or take a train instead of driving long distances.
Re: (Score:3)
What the actual fuck?
Your argument against speed limits is that you only need to spend 2.5 hours at 200kmh constantly fighting to stay awake, not 4+ hours. Hells bells, if you're fighting to stay awake get off the road and certainly do not drive at 200 kmh!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Over 90% of the people speed over 90% of the time
Those sound like credible numbers. And since they are, something clearly needs to be done. Something like what this very article discusses.
Re:Awful idea (Score:5, Interesting)
In perfect contiditions:
Safe stopping distance from 60mph on most cars is roughly 250ft
Average headlight coverage for most cars is 180ft
60mph works out to 88fps.
Unless there's supplemental light, at 60mph you can't react to something coming into your view with enough time to safely react. Same kinds of problems if the road is curving and you can't see around it. 90% of drivers can't math to save their lives, or have any real sense of how those kinds of risks affect them or anyone else on the road, which is why we have speed limits in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
Walls have a tendency to not quickly run unto a highway.
There's a bunch of calculators out there. Play with them. Reaction time is the bigger factor compared to speed. Driving 70 vs. driving 60 is less important than being alert (1 sec reaction time) vs. being sleepy or distracted (2.5 seconds reaction time)
60mph / 2.5sec = 392 ft
70mph / 1 sec = 337 ft
(source: https://www.omnicalculator.com... [omnicalculator.com])
Re: (Score:3)
Reaction time is the bigger factor compared to speed.
Oh wow. It's almost like those two are related for stopping distance...
Now here's a thought experiment for you: do we a) selectively breed humans with better reaction times, or just slow them down a bit? Which is easier for you?
Re:Awful idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Reaction time is the bigger factor compared to speed.
Oh wow. It's almost like those two are related for stopping distance...
Now here's a thought experiment for you: do we a) selectively breed humans with better reaction times, or just slow them down a bit? Which is easier for you?
How about replace the slightly evolved monkeys behind the driving wheel with AI with reaction time measured in micro/nanoseconds?
Re: (Score:2)
These figures are waaay outdated. Modern tyres and brakes are far better.
According to tests by a British Insurance company:
Our tests are conducted from 60 mph, measuring the distance it takes the vehicle to come to a complete stop using onboard test instruments. ...
Average Stopping Distance by Category.
Category Average dry braking 60-0 mph, ft.
Full-sized pickups 140
Large SUVs 143
Average of all tested vehicles 132
Re: (Score:3)
Modern tyres and brakes are far better.
Laws are a) Not set for modern, they are set for low denominators. Like the 100s of slashdot users who are proud of not owning a car with fuel injection or one with crumple zones.
b) Not set to target a fixed death rate, so now that we have better tires and brakes it means we are reducing risk, it does not mean we should raise speed limits higher.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Awful idea (Score:2)
Oooh numbers! Here's some...
Numbers without understanding are like horsepower without wheels. Here, let me show you...
In perfect contiditions:
Safe stopping distance from 60mph on most cars is roughly 250ft
Average headlight coverage for most cars is 180ft
At 60 mph (roughly 90 km/h) you're either on a highway or an intetstate. You're having full beam on, unless there's someone on the streets already illuminating. That's roughly 300 m or more, or about 3x the distance you quoted (minimum), give or take.
Also, breaking distance numbers from the 1980s don't match those of modern cars by a large stretch. A VW Golf 7 (about 2t of weight) has a breaking distance of 35 m down f
Re: (Score:2)
That's assuming "come to a complete stop" is the only way to avoid an accident, and there's no prior warning of trouble ahead.
In many cases, an accident can be avoided by swerving around the obstacle instead of braking to a standstill. If the road is blocked (e.g. by a major collision), the people behind the collision see the collision happening so they start reacting before the roadblock has even formed.
And your numbers are off. Stopping distance from 60 mph is around 40 m, or 120 ft.
Re: (Score:2)
Over 90% of the people speed over 90% of the time.
The proposal was about the UK, where the traffic is so heavy that most of the time you can't even get up to the speed limit, even on motorways.
Re: (Score:2)
Over 90% of the people speed over 90% of the time.
Looking at the large percentage of drivers in urban areas who drive in rush hour I very much doubt this statistic.
As much as I hate speeders (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: As much as I hate speeders (Score:2)
Years ago one state had a method that you could write in with someoneâ(TM)s license plate and a description of what happened, and the police would use it to plan where they should do more enforcement, and theyâ(TM)d send a letter to the vehicle owner about the âoeincidentâ. Former Iâ(TM)m all for, latter seems like a good way to get someone in trouble with family or something.
Catch cops and politicians (Score:2)
The main use of this would be as evidence against police, politicians, and others who can make normal tickets magically vanish.
Which is why it was disallowed
The virtriol makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not just low. There are also things that only make sense if you consider them as traps. Like a 100 km/h section interrupted by a 70 km/h section for no apparent reason where you can already see the 100 km/h end of that section straight ahead. Lots of people don't slow down for what is obviously bullshit (you can accelerate again before you're done slowing down).
Re: (Score:2)
Better install an alcohol lock and a mobile network jammer in each car.
That will make a huge impact in accidents.
Re: (Score:2)
Speak for yourself and your own government. In most of the places around the world speed is set with direct relation to safety standards.
Also speed is not the primary cause of accident much like COVID wasn't the primary cause of death from people who died of it (that was their hearts stopping). It's a major contributing factor. If you think otherwise I invite you to google how many people have been run over by a car which was travelling at 0km/h.
There's nothing artificially low about speeds in much of Ameri
Re: (Score:2)
Here you go:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/sp... [dot.gov]
Quote from page 3:
> The survey of state practices showed no significant increase in speed-related fatalities in states that have adjusted
speed limits upward. No state has data that addresses the effectiveness of speeding sanctions and no speed reduction
practice is seen as the “most effective.” Fewer speed-related fatalities were seen in those states with commercial
vehicle speed and/or lane restrictions. No factor used to establish speed limits was
Re:The virtriol makes sense (Score:4, Informative)
Here you go: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/sp... [dot.gov]
Quote from page 3:
> The survey of state practices showed no significant increase in speed-related fatalities in states that have adjusted speed limits upward. No state has data that addresses the effectiveness of speeding sanctions and no speed reduction practice is seen as the “most effective.” Fewer speed-related fatalities were seen in those states with commercial vehicle speed and/or lane restrictions. No factor used to establish speed limits was found to be predominant
And it also said (from the literature review)
There is no clear consensus on the impact that raising or lowering speed limits has on the number of crashes; however, studies seem to show crashes decrease when speed limits are lower and increase or remain unchanged when limits are raised.
It does seem to imply that speed limits don't do much to prevent accidents, but speeding does cause accidents. I did like their comment
The connection between speed and the incidence of crashes is unclear. The connection between speed and the severity of crashes is straightforward and governed by the laws of physics
Re: (Score:3)
Reducing the traffic speed is not entirely free. In 2019, the average American worker spent 55.2 minutes per day commuting and there were 157.54 million people employed. Thus each day, at least 145 million hours were spent on the road. Reducing the traffic speed by 10% would increase that by 14.5 million hours. The US life expectancy is 78 years, or 690,000 hours. Thus the 10% speed reduction costs 21 whole lifetimes every single day (or 31 25-year-olds' remaining lives).
How does that compare with traffic a
Re: (Score:2)
Really I think you will find that most commuter traffic does not travel anywhere near the posted speed limit for the road due to congestion. As such changing the speed limit will have little impact on commuting times.
That said on heavily congested roads, reducing the speed limit actually decreases journey times. There are quite a few studies that prove this. Basically by slowing traffic down you reduce the chances of a phantom traffic jam developing.
So basically you calculation is badly flawed. I would add
Re: (Score:3)
Good to see that you justified your opinion using real data.
I'll take "Things never said at Mar-a-Lago" for $100 Alex.
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
How would I go about challenging my accuser? Do I get to analyze the code? Should I subpoena the developers or the narc doing the recording?
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine it would stand up in court unless you were doing such excessive speed that it was obvious just from looking. The system is not certified and the developers themselves say it only gives an estimate.
In fact even the equipment that the police use, such laser speed detectors, are highly unreliable and prone to error.
Here's an idea (Score:2)
If you're that concerned about speeding, vote to raise taxes enough to pay for additional police dedicated to enforcing the speed limit.
What's that old saying? (Score:3, Insightful)
Snitches get stitches...
It's amazing how far governments will go to NOT address the actual root cause of people who speed. Speeding is a symptom of something bigger. Could be poor time management (overloaded with crap needing to get done in a short period of time), could be the adverse reaction to dealing with bad / ignorant drivers, could be the driver has above average control of their vehicle, or how about artificially low speed limits? I'm not here to troll but personally I speed because of a mix of all the above conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the same country that thinks banning pocket knives will solve crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's that old saying? (Score:5, Insightful)
So essentially you speed because you have no personal responsibility (poor time management), are deluded about your l33t dr1ving sk1llz, and have a grievance against speed limits. Yeah, this app is made to catch people exactly like you.
If speed laws weren't meant to be observed (Score:2)
That wouldn't bother me if we created speed laws based on the public interest (balancing convenience and safety considerations) and posted signs to ensure drivers were fully informed.
Unfortunately, speed laws are often created as revenue sources with speed limits changing randomly and are enforced unevenly against out of town drivers. As such, I fear that such apps will be used to settle grudges with people who have the time to waste using them to nail their enemies for behavior we all engage in.
Re: (Score:2)
I fear that such apps will be used to settle grudges with people who have the time to waste using them to nail their enemies for behavior we all engage in.
Well, the more people are out of jobs, the more things we need to invent to keep them busy, lest they get ideas about social equality or question why the filthy rich can't survive on half their billions.
Proving it in court? (Score:5, Informative)
This is an interesting idea, that is ... full of holes.
Not sure about the US, but in the UK:
For starters, speed cameras are positioned in such a way, that there can be no doubt that a speeding offence is taking place.
You won't find one on a blind bend, for example.
You tend to find them on relatively straight, open stretches of road - sure, this is due to the technical limitations of standard equipment, but the rules are quite strict.
It is entirely possible to contest traffic offence notice and some have been successful in proving that the speed cameras weren't setup correctly - they probably were speeding, but some part of the law in terms of placement, wasn't followed.
It is rare for people to contest, most just admit it.
But where does that leave "citizen operated" speed cameras, in a court of law?
The amount of variables at play here is quite staggering, regardless of "AI" - and right now, I'd say, even if this type of evidence became acceptable, any half decent lawyer could get it thrown out of court, citing lack of evidence or potentially incorrect results due to prevailing conditions.
If I recall correctly, citizens can operate their own speed traps, if approved by a local authority.
These are not for prosecution purposes, but for research purposes.
If their research proves that people are regularly speeding on a specific road, they can approach traffic enforcement to find a solution, whether that be traffic calming, a speed camera or traffic lights.
The fact is, the entire enforcement system relies on a network of cameras - and in the UK, it is estimated that the vast majority of automated permanent ones, little yellow boxes, aren't even operational - they exist as a deterrent ... what if they _are_ operational?
Most speed fines over here, come from radar operated kit out of the back of a police van - and by law, the police have to be visible.
The chances of someone actually being pulled over by police in the UK for speeding, are vanishingly small.
But yeah, citizen operated speed cameras = never going to cut it - will get thrown right out of court, even if made acceptable as evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
And, specially relevant to this discussion, is cases have been thrown out because the speed camera did not have a current calibration certificate. Unless the government changed the law, IMHO there's no way any court could accept the evidence of anything but a purpose-made speed camera.
It's a bit of a nuisance - about 11pm every night a couple of idiots race up our street, which has parked cars, lots of houses. I'd love to leave a camera to video them; it would be easy to calculate their speed directly wit
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK they do sometimes hide cameras. Mobile ones in particular love to hide around blind bends.
The fixed ones usually have lines painted on the road at fixed intervals too. They take two photos a set time apart, with the first one just as the vehicle reaches the first white line. If it has passed the second white line in the second photo, it was probably speeding. Of course, due to different shape cars this method is somewhat unreliable.
The courts generally accept the cameras and mobile speed traps as
Re: (Score:2)
They take two photos a set time apart, with the first one just as the vehicle reaches the first white line. If it has passed the second white line in the second photo, it was probably speeding. Of course, due to different shape cars this method is somewhat unreliable.
The only footage I've personally seen from one of these, the camera was on the side of the road so the wheels of the vehicle were clearly visible. It was very obvious.
So when the government turns fascist (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything to keep us all at each other's throats.
There's an old joke, cuz like this: there's a rich man, a union man and a non-union man all sitting at a table with 13 cookies. The rich man quickly reaches down and gobbles up 11 of the cookies. He turns to the non-union man and says, "hey, better watch out, that guy's going to eat your cookie."
Re: (Score:2)
The Soviet Union did the same thing. They actively encouraged citizens to attack each other using the machinery of the law.
Did? Russia is doing it now encouraging people to report people who are talking about "war" in Ukraine.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything to keep us all at each other's throats.
If you're a danger to me I'll be at your throat regardless of the laws. That goes as much for sand blasting an asbestos sheet, dumping waste water in my yard, as it does for driving like a lunatic down my street.
Breaking laws (the thing which underpins modern society) means you deserve to get ratted out.
Also screw you for comparing maintaining safe streets to what was going on in the Soviet Union. Your strawman is bad and you should feel bad.
Re: (Score:2)
If the goal is simply to make people slow down, one of the most effective techniques is to simply place a yellow box by the side of the road. Drivers instinctively slow down when they see one, and by the time they realize it's not a camera the traffic is already moving more slowly.
Re: (Score:2)
If the goal is simply to make people slow down, one of the most effective techniques is to simply place a yellow box by the side of the road. Drivers instinctively slow down when they see one, and by the time they realize it's not a camera the traffic is already moving more slowly.
I've been told you can do the same thing with a beer can in Texas. By the time they realize it's empty they've slowed down...
Re: (Score:2)
Switzerland is a very well-functioning democracy.
The citizens there are incredibly keen to “narc” on their neighbors; but it has nothing to do with the law, simply the culture there. And it does serve to help create a more law-abiding society. It’s annoying for foreigners, but it also creates the environment that makes the country such an attractive place.
So yeah, I’m not sure that fascism and reporting crimes are directly linked.
Bugs (Score:3)
Demolition Man (Score:3)
"It's a Marmite product -- some people think it's a good idea, some people think that it turns us into a surveillance state. "I can see both sides of that, but I think that if you're going to have speed limits, then it's the law that you obey them, and you should enforce the law. It's not a personal vendetta against anyone, it's just -- how do we make our roads safe?
"It's the law" https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Of course there will be personal vendettas, they're asking people to submit the "evidence" right, it's not automatic and continuously sending off reports? Then it will be entirely personal. Who gets reported will vary depending on who's in the other car and what car it is, all relative to the reporter's opinion of what is good speeding or bad speeding that moment, based on their mood that day basically. "Fuck that BMW."
The article says that right now it's only able to be used by police to identify speeding hotspots, ok, they have tools for that, it's not a mystery to them. They have accident statistics, and if there aren't any accidents on a given road then what are we really doing again? Aggressive driving is what they should be looking for, not speeding. Narc on tailgaters, and that jackass weaving through traffic, that asshole that races up the left lane and you KNOW he needs to turn right, sign me up for reporting that. Drive like a lunatic, get narced. Speeding, ffs, seriously, safe driving is not a binary under over speed limit sign kind of thing, so get out of here with "it's the law".
srsly? (Score:5, Insightful)
"There are 20,000 serious injuries on the roads every year -- how can we reduce them?
By teaching people how to drive defensively. Sometimes, by teaching people how to drive at all.
The shit I've seen on the roads over the years, honestly, speeding isn't even in the top 10 of my concerns.
Also, by having police out on the road policing actually dangerous driving, instead of picking the low hanging fruits. Here's a real-life example: At the end of a long drive, I was stopped and fined by police because I didn't turn on the indicator light when exiting a roundabout. There wasn't another car behind me for quite a bit. Nobody was hurt or even remotely endangered. Frankly speaking, waving me out of traffic right after the roundabout was probably the most dangerous part of the whole thing. Policeman was standing there catching one after the next, probably making a couple hundred an hour. I wouldn't even be surprised if some of it went into his own pocket (so I paid by card and requested a receipt, just to piss him off).
On that same drive, I've seen at least three people cutting others off, overtaking on the right or doing some other shit that's actually dangerous. But to catch that you can't just stand comfortably at a well-picked spot and fine people for formalities. You have to actually be out there on the road doing your job.
Seriously. Police, do your job. I see at least a hundred things each year on the road where I think "if I were a police officer, I'd pull you over for that". And maybe one of those cases is speeding.
Re: (Score:2)
I was stopped and fined by police because I didn't turn on the indicator light when exiting a roundabout. ... Policeman was standing there catching one after the next, probably making a couple hundred an hour.
Police making quota / raising revenue for the city ... being "part of the problem".
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so glad the 7 police forces here are 6 forces for the 6 states and 1 federal force for the territories and 'serious' crime. There are no town, locality or city police forces in Australia. All the revenue from fines goes to the state govt.
Currently in Victoria a cop is facing charges for speeding, even though he was on his way to an accident involving other police, and had the training required to exceed the speed limit. And no-one was hurt by him.
Victoria is, though, notably harsh on speeding.
Re: (Score:2)
You make a great point, the US police system of towns having a seperate force from the State police invites abuse. In Australia as you say, state police work fine, having seperate town police staffed by long term locals is not a good recipe. Staff changeover helps eliminate biases.
Re: (Score:3)
You make a great point, the US police system of towns having a seperate force from the State police invites abuse. In Australia as you say, state police work fine, having seperate town police staffed by long term locals is not a good recipe. Staff changeover helps eliminate biases.
Even better in places like Pojoaque, NM. If you get caught speeding, you can challenge the ticket... in the reservation court. Guess how well that goes!
On the other hand, no one speeds on that part of the 84/285 or the 502 despite
Re: (Score:2)
What's going to suck is when your mom doxxes you. (Score:2)
She'll get busted for 5 over taking your kids to school, and that's it for you.
liability (Score:2)
Hmm... [scratches head] (Score:2)
"We're not sure why they would block a useful piece of technology, something that could save people's lives," ...
Not sure how taking/posting a video of someone (allegedly) speeding -- after the fact -- will save lives.
This kind of thing reeks of the recent Texas anti-abortion vigilante law that lets anyone, from any state, report anyone -- even a taxi driver -- helping someone get an abortion and collect $10k if it leads to a successful prosecution ...
Re: (Score:2)
Modern day lynching (Score:2)
Let's call the app Lynch 'em
Doesn't that seem dangerous? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Democratic Justice (Score:2)
Screw half measures and let's go the whole nine yards! Let's optimize the Trias Politica. 'Cause that surely with the knowledge we have nowadays we can do better. And handing in a few liberties for the greater good is the decent thing to do. And good ole AI will never be wrong.
Speeding, silly mistakes, nose picking, aesthetics, political orientation, silliness, pronouns, offensive livery, smell of body/breath, unappealing completion, political correctness... The list of offences we can perceive subjecti
Speeding... (Score:2)
People get taken to court for speeding because it's easy to prove and is an open and shut case, ...
Most people get prosecuted for it because of other bad driving that the police know they will have difficulty getting to stick in court
Middle Land Anywhere? (Score:2)
How about a "Middle Lane Anywhere" App? Anyone who has driven on UK Motor ways will know what I'm talking about. There's almost always someone driving in the middle lane (of 3) with the lane to their left (that's the "traveling" or "slow" lane in the UK) completely empty, or multiples of stopping distance before the next vehicle in that lane.
Yes it's against the law, but the police never enforce it and such an app just needs to record time, location and have the number plate visible.
Stitches (Score:2)
It's also a great way to present evidence (Score:3)
of the user fiddling with their smartphone while driving.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Modern America (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Modern America (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I want one for loud vehicles too.
Re: (Score:2)
Me too.
Re:Dumb (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, this app is probably shit, but if it worked and they gave the user 10% of the fine I'd be able to quit my day job and just sit in front of my house. In a residential area with a speed limit of 30kmph, but on a long straight line leading straight out of town and with 2 roads where bikers take laps... They just push on the gas right in front of my house. And when confronted, since they know they are in the wrong, they become immediately aggressive. Bunch of cunts who deserve to walk back home.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Dumb (Score:2)
No road markers so no go sordy
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla does the opposite thing with Tesla Insurance.
If you agree to let your Tesla share driving data, it will reward you for driving safely and not going over the posted speed limits by reducing your insurance premium down to 50% of the normal monthly cost.
Re: (Score:2)
it will reward you for driving safely
No, it won't -
not going over the posted speed limits
- because these things aren't the same thing.
I see plenty of dangerous driving out there that's not speeding. Cutting people off, overtaking on the right, turning into oncoming traffic or suddenly without telling people behind you (indicator), etc. etc. etc.
Speeding isn't what I worry about in other drivers. It's just a low-hanging, easily measured fruit to be picked, which is why police would rather put up a couple speedcams than actually drive on the road and watch for people being (dangerou
Re: (Score:2)
The defense just needs to ask "how did it reach the conclusion?" Modern AI cannot answer that question.
A lot of times you can, it just takes a lot of work. This is especially true if you still have the input video. This is an active area of NN research, so we get better at it all the time.
Re: (Score:3)
I would think this would be handled the same way as red light cameras are. The automated system identifies a situation that is potentially illegal, then an officer reviews the video to see if someone did run the red light. This system could be similar. The AI identifies a situation that shows someone speeding and an officer verifies it using additional tools (video analysis) that could be acceptable in court.
One thing that would be critical would be exacting time stamps on each frame of the video, or pro
Re: (Score:2)
Like this would ever hold up in court. The defense just needs to ask "how did it reach the conclusion?" Modern AI cannot answer that question. Instant benefit of the doubt.
Or simply because the witness (AI) failed to appear in Court.