IMO, only the operator of a vehicle should ever be responsible for moving violations, not the owner, and it also shouldn't be the owner's job to identify the operator. (In other words, I don't think you should ever be ticketed or fined for moving violations by any means other than being pulled over by a police officer.)
My license was suspended this summer for my failure to appear in court for a traffic infraction committed two hours away from me, by someone who clearly wasn’t me nor driving one of my vehicles.
Fortunately after hours of phone calls and weeks of waiting my record was cleared. I never got an answer as to how I became entangled, but losing your license is no joke. I was quite fortunate that everyone involved agreed it was a mixup; no lawyers in that county would take the case because they all had close connections to the prosecutor’s office.
Such a great example of our "AI dystopian present", precisely because it's so absurd.
After all, it would have been trivial to require that a real person review the footage, but no, that would actually cost money.
It's the same reason it's nearly impossible to get in touch with a human at Google when something goes wrong with your account. We're trying to pretend AI/ML systems will make better decisions, and faster, but they always fail catastrophically at the edge cases in ways humans never do.
> We're trying to pretend AI/ML systems will make better decisions, and faster, but they always fail catastrophically at the edge cases in ways humans never do.
The pretense is that AI can handle the bulk, routine cases. Not keeping enough people to handle the edge cases is the real mistake.
Something seems to get lost in translation from the premise of "increase efficiency and decrease your team size by letting the AI have a first pass at the data" and the execution of "well we have this fancy AI we can just fire everyone who used to touch this data"
This is going to be a long live/learn, refine process.
In this particular case, we should also pass it through another ML system that answers "are there any vehicles in this photo?", perhaps with a number plate in view (but without trying to read it).
In the USA, the automated traffic cameras seem to be having a hard time in court, in some jurisdictions. Around here the State Representatives tell people to wipe their arse with "Violation Notices" they get mailed by companies claiming to have the authority of some barely extant town.
So they have a new wrinkle: put the automated photography kit in someone's car, and pay them to sit and observe the machinery operate. Somehow this is supposed to serve as the same basis of authority as a publicly sworn peace officer who will be obligated to appear in court.
I get that little towns have budget problems and Bubba's brother needs another bass boat, but setting the example of making up and attempting to enforce your own laws like this is a bigger can of worms than they wanted to open.
Outliers in rural Georgia and Ohio notwithstanding, wealthy suburbs are a million times worse than small towns when it comes to using fines to generate revenue. They have so few "real problems" that they have the man hours to spare on boondoggles, they have more people to prey on, their governments are big enough to provide plausible deniability and anonymity to the people deciding to do these things and they have far more resources to throw toward whatever they are trying to do.
There is a little thing about having to have the ability to face your accuser in our constitution. When your accuser is an automated algorithmic system with the sole purpose of generating revenue not promoting public safety it will be hard to hold that up in court
Many companies that run these systems will drop the fine because it is less costly then fighting it in court as most people just comply, and they do not want to run the risk of some judge ruling the entire system unconstitutional (which IMO it is)
Couldn't you be accused by a prosecutor based on video evidence?
I get that having some private company collect fines directly would be bad, but couldn't they solve that with a simple manual review process by law enforcement?
In most area's of the US these traffic camera's are owned, operated, and controlled by a private company who use a revenue share model with the local city.
They are not operated by the police dept, nor does anyone in law enforcement review them.
The issue I've seen in most of these cases is that they have a difficult time proving who was in control of the vehicle at the time. The ticket is issued to the registered owner of the vehicle instead of the driver. So even if the prosecutor is the accuser based off video, that video evidence often isn't enough to determine who was the offender.
Maybe we should stop worrying about it and just fine the car owner. If implied consent laws are legal surely agreeing to be responsible for your own vehicle on public roads would also be permissible under the constitution.
Also, the systems in place for toll road entrances seem to be doing a good enough job. Why can't the same thing be implemented for traffic cameras?
That presumes people agree with the system in place for Toll Roads... I do not that is for sure, so I certainly do not want to expand that to other areas
I am not sure what you are talking about when it comes to implied consent, but in the US At least one is only responsible for their own actions, it is a dangerous precedent to set that a 3rd party should be liable for the actions of others, were by the state can just fine or even arrest someone with out proving them personally committed the offense
No that is not something I want to have applied to anything not even tolls or traffic laws
Yes, I think most places haven't caught up with this variant of capitalism where citizens are paid to enforce laws, bounty hunter style. This is going to be crazy.
You could be paid to have the speed radar placed inside your car at all time while on the road. If someone overtakes you at a given speed, it calculates that car's speed based on your own speed and knows the local speed limit based on GPS. The Good Citizen™ gets a salary proportional to how many tickets he helped deliver.
Most of the complaints I've seen about automated traffic cameras have been in big cities. Little towns seem to like still having the personal touch of a police officer in a patrol car run the traffic traps.
This is so funny. The AI system they have in place not only got the plate wrong but also confused the car with a woman. How did that go wrong? Regardless, the least they can do is have a human operator glance over the tickets about to be mailed out
Why incur the cost of a min-wage employee when you can just mail out all the tickets and make the recipients fight them for free? Heck, some percentage of them will just pay the tickets if you make the appeal process suck enough.
This is obviously a silly case but I think traffic cameras are one of the few places surveillance could actually be called for.
I'm not sure what the perfect system looks like, but the current system in the US seems broken. Not only is traffic enforcement a huge time waste for police, but traffic stops create an unnecessary hazard while failing to discourage dangerous driving.
For those who aren't aware, bus lanes like this are often the only roads passing through city centres in the UK. The surrounding area is often a pedestrian area, with the only traffic being buses, registered taxis and emergency vehicles (delivery and utility vehicles are allowed in the early morning). The alternative route for regular traffic would be a few miles longer - which could mean 30 mins or more at rush hour.
Vast majority of bus lanes are a dedicated lane down a multi lane road for pushbikes, buses, motorbikes (and for some stupid reason taxis). It effectively allows a bus with 50 people on to jump the queue.
In this particular case it is a "bus" only lane over the river, the diversion for non buses is less than a mile, and far less for almost any actual car journey (given that if you just wanted to cross the bridge you'd walk.
The far more problematic issue in Bath is the continued closure of Cleveland Place due to the bridge falling to bits.
The UK also have average speed zone cameras where the average speed is calculated across a long stretch of road, in Denmark I've only seen fixed speed cameras.
Cameras discourage dangerous driving even less, because automated systems tend to only look at superficial metrics (eg speed) rather than actual dangerous behavior such as rapidly darting between lanes or tailgating.
As far as traffic stops creating needless hazards, the solution there is simple - change the expectation for motorists to only pull over where there is enough room (so not just in the breakdown lane), and prohibit officers from carrying weapons on traffic stops. If a motorist escalates to violence, the correct answer is to retreat and form a new plan that reflects the changed circumstance and higher severity of crime, not to jump into playing Rambo.
You could pretty easily change that though. Having a cop drive around in a patrol car seems way less effective that if the same resources were used to pay someone to look at traffic cams and send out fines for dangerous driving.
I'm reminded of those arguments in favor of making supply chains ever leaner. In reality, cops sitting on the side of the road are on call and ready to go in case something else more important comes up. I'm certainly not defending cops sitting around playing Candy Crush while waiting for the radar's alarm to go off, but abstracting and outsourcing seems like the wrong way to go here.
Cameras also have a serious due process problem in that if you get a notification even one week later, you're unable to collect evidence to defend yourself. If it's a daily commute, you might not even remember the weather conditions.
Let's phase out camera based ticketing. But clearly, some drivers cannot be trusted to drive the speed limit, stop at red lights, or generally drive in a sensible manner. In many cases, it may happen accidentally, even to conscientious drivers.
Thankfully, we're living in modern times, and while autonomous driving is not there yet, we can use similar technology to prevent traffic violations. When you are on a public road with a speed limit, your car will simply not accelerate beyond the speed limit. When you are missing a red light, the car will not let you run it.
Of course, there are emergencies where you need to do these things: your pregnant wife is giving birth, you are Jack Bauer and preventing nuclear war. Activating the hazards disables the traffic assist. It also keeps a log of all violations and forwards it to the authorities, but since it's a medical or national security issue, nothing will come of it.
This cannot be done overnight, which is why there will be a generous period while the old system is phased out and the new system is debugged.
Nitpicking: This is very common in movies, but it's not how real life work. The first delivery takes a long time, probably two days with random isolated contractions that make sleeping very difficult. And after the 10 minutes interval between contractions, there is still plenty of time. Ask your medical doctors for recommendations and good time estimations. You don't want to have an unnecessary accident that day.
Third and fourth delivery may be faster. Don't get too complacent because the first one took so much. Also, ask your doctor about this.
PS: If you want to read another rant, I can write one about the "first word of the baby".
Here's a counter-rant ;-) : in many countries, you should actually talk to your midwife rather than the doctor. In France, this is a 5 year medical degree, and they will have the hands-on experience in thousands of births, rather than some doctor who read about it at college 20 years ago and has never actually seen one through, but for historical reasons is now in a hierarchical position to impose his 'knowledge'.
Well, it was intentional hyperbole. National security emergencies that warrant speeding are also exceedingly rare. I suspect most emergencies are of the I'm-late-for-work or I'm-missing-my-flight kind. Those are tragic, but sadly not actionable.
Obviously, a nitpicking PSA is nevertheless appreciated.
Of course, when it comes to human biology, YMMV...a LOT. When my brother-in-law was born, his mom had her first contraction, and he came out 45 minutes later. Her friends envy how damn quick her labor was.
The system described is entirely autonomous (no data leaves your vehicle) unless and until you declare an emergency. On the other hand, people already leave ample trails that let them be tracked. Still, I agree that mandating the use of technology that makes you trackable would bad.
The problem with that is who enforces the autonomous system? Who keeps it from sending data until you interact? Who stops it from being changed later on in newer models to do more?
Oh, I'm sure most people would agree with you, and the idea is kind of out there, but I'm sort of serious. In fact, it seems kind of insane to me that this isn't the status quo already, the technology has been there for a decade or more. I think that's when I first drove a car that had a warning light go off when I exceeded the limit, and I remember thinking "why is it even letting me drive this fast?". I'm less sure about the red lights, which requires technology beyond static maps and GPS, the kind of technology required for true autonomous driving (which incidentally will also respect the speed limit).
We have as a society decided we don't want people to drive faster than a sensibly derived speed, we already license cars to be road legal or not, and exact positioning is already utterly ubiquitous, put those things together and you have pretty much solved the problem of speeding. The only major issue is GPS accuracy -- e.g. what if on the highway your car thinks it's on a parallel slow-moving road. But you don't need perfect accuracy, you only need a reasonably accurate measure of inaccuracy and a fallback to the higher limit (or no limit).
The other major issue (and the reason why this won't happen anytime soon) is current car drivers being uncomfortable with their own property limiting their capability to drive beyond the speed limit, which most of them do as a matter of course, to which I say, tough luck, you're free to drive a non-limited car on private ground.
Note that none of this involves any central tracking of cars, in fact it's less invasive than the current system of monitoring using radar and cameras.
They had a laugh because it's funny the first time, but this type of error will cause nightmares if the problem is not dealt with quickly.
Serious question: what would it take to make it illegal to send false tickets?
I am not a lawyer, but I think falsely accusing someone of a crime can be a crime if it's "known to be false"
In this case it wasn't "known" to be false because there was no human checking things.. but the fact they (who?) sent the ticket means they assumed it was true.
Isn't "reckless disregard for the truth" often applicable in the same sorts of places that "knowingly false" is? If you know your AI makes mistakes like this, wouldn't letting it make accusations without a human checking them be reckless disregard for the truth?
I had to go to traffic court and defend myself from a parking ticket because a meter monitor typed in my license plate instead of the offender’s.
I had a valid permit for the space, so I was good to go. When I went to court, the person had actually taken photos of the other vehicle (with a completely different license plate).
Thing is - in both systems there are costly errors - human and technical. You have to look at the total cost of the system to figure out the net benefit to society.
47 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 89.9 ms ] threadFortunately after hours of phone calls and weeks of waiting my record was cleared. I never got an answer as to how I became entangled, but losing your license is no joke. I was quite fortunate that everyone involved agreed it was a mixup; no lawyers in that county would take the case because they all had close connections to the prosecutor’s office.
After all, it would have been trivial to require that a real person review the footage, but no, that would actually cost money.
It's the same reason it's nearly impossible to get in touch with a human at Google when something goes wrong with your account. We're trying to pretend AI/ML systems will make better decisions, and faster, but they always fail catastrophically at the edge cases in ways humans never do.
The pretense is that AI can handle the bulk, routine cases. Not keeping enough people to handle the edge cases is the real mistake.
Unfortunately, determining whether something is a routine case, is often not a routine case.
In this particular case, we should also pass it through another ML system that answers "are there any vehicles in this photo?", perhaps with a number plate in view (but without trying to read it).
So they have a new wrinkle: put the automated photography kit in someone's car, and pay them to sit and observe the machinery operate. Somehow this is supposed to serve as the same basis of authority as a publicly sworn peace officer who will be obligated to appear in court.
I get that little towns have budget problems and Bubba's brother needs another bass boat, but setting the example of making up and attempting to enforce your own laws like this is a bigger can of worms than they wanted to open.
Many companies that run these systems will drop the fine because it is less costly then fighting it in court as most people just comply, and they do not want to run the risk of some judge ruling the entire system unconstitutional (which IMO it is)
I get that having some private company collect fines directly would be bad, but couldn't they solve that with a simple manual review process by law enforcement?
They are not operated by the police dept, nor does anyone in law enforcement review them.
Also, the systems in place for toll road entrances seem to be doing a good enough job. Why can't the same thing be implemented for traffic cameras?
I am not sure what you are talking about when it comes to implied consent, but in the US At least one is only responsible for their own actions, it is a dangerous precedent to set that a 3rd party should be liable for the actions of others, were by the state can just fine or even arrest someone with out proving them personally committed the offense
No that is not something I want to have applied to anything not even tolls or traffic laws
You can fight the fine if it wasn't you in the car and if the picture they took of you is unclear or looks like someone else you can get out of it.
Assuming you're recognizable in the picture what's the issue with that?
You could be paid to have the speed radar placed inside your car at all time while on the road. If someone overtakes you at a given speed, it calculates that car's speed based on your own speed and knows the local speed limit based on GPS. The Good Citizen™ gets a salary proportional to how many tickets he helped deliver.
I'm not sure what the perfect system looks like, but the current system in the US seems broken. Not only is traffic enforcement a huge time waste for police, but traffic stops create an unnecessary hazard while failing to discourage dangerous driving.
In this particular case it is a "bus" only lane over the river, the diversion for non buses is less than a mile, and far less for almost any actual car journey (given that if you just wanted to cross the bridge you'd walk.
The far more problematic issue in Bath is the continued closure of Cleveland Place due to the bridge falling to bits.
As far as traffic stops creating needless hazards, the solution there is simple - change the expectation for motorists to only pull over where there is enough room (so not just in the breakdown lane), and prohibit officers from carrying weapons on traffic stops. If a motorist escalates to violence, the correct answer is to retreat and form a new plan that reflects the changed circumstance and higher severity of crime, not to jump into playing Rambo.
Cameras also have a serious due process problem in that if you get a notification even one week later, you're unable to collect evidence to defend yourself. If it's a daily commute, you might not even remember the weather conditions.
Thankfully, we're living in modern times, and while autonomous driving is not there yet, we can use similar technology to prevent traffic violations. When you are on a public road with a speed limit, your car will simply not accelerate beyond the speed limit. When you are missing a red light, the car will not let you run it.
Of course, there are emergencies where you need to do these things: your pregnant wife is giving birth, you are Jack Bauer and preventing nuclear war. Activating the hazards disables the traffic assist. It also keeps a log of all violations and forwards it to the authorities, but since it's a medical or national security issue, nothing will come of it.
This cannot be done overnight, which is why there will be a generous period while the old system is phased out and the new system is debugged.
Nitpicking: This is very common in movies, but it's not how real life work. The first delivery takes a long time, probably two days with random isolated contractions that make sleeping very difficult. And after the 10 minutes interval between contractions, there is still plenty of time. Ask your medical doctors for recommendations and good time estimations. You don't want to have an unnecessary accident that day.
Third and fourth delivery may be faster. Don't get too complacent because the first one took so much. Also, ask your doctor about this.
PS: If you want to read another rant, I can write one about the "first word of the baby".
Obviously, a nitpicking PSA is nevertheless appreciated.
Of course, when it comes to human biology, YMMV...a LOT. When my brother-in-law was born, his mom had her first contraction, and he came out 45 minutes later. Her friends envy how damn quick her labor was.
It's too bad we do not live in that word, and such technology would be used as a wedge to track your vehicle in whole.
Our cellphones once did not track us either.
We have as a society decided we don't want people to drive faster than a sensibly derived speed, we already license cars to be road legal or not, and exact positioning is already utterly ubiquitous, put those things together and you have pretty much solved the problem of speeding. The only major issue is GPS accuracy -- e.g. what if on the highway your car thinks it's on a parallel slow-moving road. But you don't need perfect accuracy, you only need a reasonably accurate measure of inaccuracy and a fallback to the higher limit (or no limit).
The other major issue (and the reason why this won't happen anytime soon) is current car drivers being uncomfortable with their own property limiting their capability to drive beyond the speed limit, which most of them do as a matter of course, to which I say, tough luck, you're free to drive a non-limited car on private ground.
Note that none of this involves any central tracking of cars, in fact it's less invasive than the current system of monitoring using radar and cameras.
https://www.techinasia.com/businesswoman-china-caught-jaywal...
These systems are far more accurate than humans, but if you want to cling to the fake facts they are not, cool.
When even these small amount of errors are gone and they are every part of your life then what will you do? Whatever they tell you I guess.
Serious question: what would it take to make it illegal to send false tickets?
I am not a lawyer, but I think falsely accusing someone of a crime can be a crime if it's "known to be false"
In this case it wasn't "known" to be false because there was no human checking things.. but the fact they (who?) sent the ticket means they assumed it was true.
I had a valid permit for the space, so I was good to go. When I went to court, the person had actually taken photos of the other vehicle (with a completely different license plate).
Thing is - in both systems there are costly errors - human and technical. You have to look at the total cost of the system to figure out the net benefit to society.