NSW mobile phone detection cameras

[You Yangs]

Sooooo.....
How does the camera know if you're holding the Phone?
Does it take a photo of every vehicle and then trained monkeys sift through every image?
Would love to know!

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by You Yangs

Sooooo.....
How does the camera know if you're holding the Phone?
Does it take a photo of every vehicle and then trained monkeys sift through every image?
Would love to know!

Camera looks into the cabin from above.

AI matches shapes and movements to someone holding a phone.

Computer flags possible offences.

Trained monkey then confirms before issuing fine if required.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Camera looks into the cabin from above.

AI matches shapes and movements to someone holding a phone.

Computer flags possible offences.

Trained monkey then confirms before issuing fine if required.

What could possibly go wrong

[hayseed]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Camera looks into the cabin from above.

AI matches shapes and movements to someone holding a phone.

Computer flags possible offences.

Trained monkey then confirms before issuing fine if required.

I'm willing to bet they delete the "trained Monkey" Bit, & just issue the Fine. It'll be then up to you to dispute It..!!!

As case in Point... My Wife received a "Camera Detected" offence in the Mail. When She asked for the Pic. It was of a Car registered in another State bearing the same Rego Number...!!!

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by hayseed

I'm willing to bet they delete the "trained Monkey" Bit, & just issue the Fine. It'll be then up to you to dispute It..!!!

As case in Point... My Wife received a "Camera Detected" offence in the Mail. When She asked for the Pic. It was of a Car registered in another State bearing the same Rego Number...!!!

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to revenue raising inititives.

[lra]

Originally Posted by You Yangs

Sooooo.....
How does the camera know if you're holding the Phone?
Does it take a photo of every vehicle and then trained monkeys sift through every image?
Would love to know!

If I happen to be scratching my ear or nose while passing said camera, I wonder if the trained monkey will recognise that for what it is.

[Citroënbender]

I had cause to do a fair bit of suburban driving yesterday around Sydney.

A LOT of people still obviously using their phones with their hands. The cameras will make a motza if accurate!

Also I wonder how many fibbers will get caught out, after telling their spouse or parents they don't do it.

[jpd80]

Remember when dashes were like this



and sun visors fitted to the upper part of the windscreen..

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Remember when dashes were like this

image

and sun visors fitted to the upper part of the windscreen..

Umm, this implies that they're not fitted there anymore, mine are.

One on each side, twin overhead visors

[roKWiz]

Originally Posted by GasoLane

Umm, this implies that they're not fitted there anymore, mine are.

One on each side, twin overhead visors

Wouldn't get away with one of those US style Gangster visors.

[russellw]

Originally Posted by guzzis3

Wait! WTF ??? You have colour coded shackles in victoria ? FFS...

No. This was one of those urban myths going around about the police in various States pinging people for not having 'load rated' shackles, which are yellow. While they are recommended by several bodies (including the Caravan Industry Association) but as far as I am aware no State legislature requires their use and the NCOP certainly doesn't.

Originally Posted by b0son

That isn't saying much. DUI below 0.08 is fairly harmless (crash rates don't start going up until you reach this point), yet how many fines are handed out for 0.05-0.08 infringements?

Sorry but I'm not letting that piece of stupidity go unchallenged. Impairment has been proven to start at any level of alcohol absorption and the legally mandated level is only what is deemed 'acceptable risk' at the time. The fact that we were once 0.08 and are now 0.05 has no relevance and does not imply that levels between 0.05 and 0.08 are 'fairly harmless'. If you'd like links to the research then I'm happy to provide them.

[Citroënbender]

It’s one of the few “advances in technology” outside of curative medicine, that I’m looking forward to - a change in roadside enforcement abilities to recognise impaired driving as opposed to alcohol or a selected narrow range of drugs.

WRT the use of phones, I’d like to see how effective the cameras are in the face of those polarising visors and heavy tint to the sides. Will there soon be a sub-law for obstruction of a compliance system with implied guilt, such as the one for possession of a radar detector?

[marty351]

I agree with the above, except the mobile phone bit. Pointless to blame an everyday object that is used for just about every function in daily life, emergency contacts, payment systems, identification/s, internet access, medical requirements, etc. In this day and age, removing someone's phone could easily lead to a life threatening situation or even save someone from one. Besides, how would most people pay fines without a mobile computer with a phone function?

[b0son]

Originally Posted by russellw

Sorry but I'm not letting that piece of stupidity go unchallenged. Impairment has been proven to start at any level of alcohol absorption and the legally mandated level is only what is deemed 'acceptable risk' at the time. The fact that we were once 0.08 and are now 0.05 has no relevance and does not imply that levels between 0.05 and 0.08 are 'fairly harmless'. If you'd like links to the research then I'm happy to provide them.

You don't need to, I've seen them.

The problem is you need to understand the concept of relative risk in some sort of context. 0.08 is approximately double the relative risk, but relative to what? The risk of a crash compared to the average population. This crash risk is exceedingly small, 0.47 per 100,000,000 km travelled, equivalent to once every 111 lifetimes (assuming 15,000km (which is actually a little higher than the most recent ABS stats say) per year over a 60 year driving span). Doubling that risk is hardly taking your life in your hands. Arguably, it goes up by far more than that simply by going out on a rainy day.

Then consider other lawful behaviours that have no legal consequence but raise the crash risk, like driving tired. We don't require people who have worked multiple shifts to be driven home, or require private drivers to maintain a logbook of rest breaks for trips > 3hrs, etc. Hell, the crash risk of drivers over 75yo is equivalent to a BAC of 0.10, but they're still allowed to drive. This right is in fact fiercely defended by many.

Point is, there are a lot of behaviours or factors that impair drivers. Just because some can be easily policed doesn't mean those pinged for them are necessarily manifestly unsafe. IMO, the penalties should fit the risk, so a 0.05-0.08 would be an on-the-spot fine and you're on your way. Statistically at least, it doesn't warrant being dragged before the courts. And as I've mentioned elsewhere, it's hypocritical of the police when they refuse to attend actual crashes.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Citroënbender

It’s one of the few “advances in technology” outside of curative medicine, that I’m looking forward to - a change in roadside enforcement abilities to recognise impaired driving as opposed to alcohol or a selected narrow range of drugs.

The tech probably exists now. We have tech to detect lane departure or emergency braking … X strikes and the vehicle slows/shuts down for an hour? There'd be a lot of stopped cars by the side of the road....

[guzzis3]

Originally Posted by Citroënbender

It’s one of the few “advances in technology” outside of curative medicine, that I’m looking forward to - a change in roadside enforcement abilities to recognise impaired driving as opposed to alcohol or a selected narrow range of drugs.

We used to have that, it was called a white line

[russellw]

Originally Posted by b0son

Point is, there are a lot of behaviours or factors that impair drivers. Just because some can be easily policed doesn't mean those pinged for them are necessarily manifestly unsafe. IMO, the penalties should fit the risk, so a 0.05-0.08 would be an on-the-spot fine and you're on your way. Statistically at least, it doesn't warrant being dragged before the courts. And as I've mentioned elsewhere, it's hypocritical of the police when they refuse to attend actual crashes.

I'm not arguing that there aren't other factors but alcohol levels are certainly one of those and one which we can police. Some States (albeit only SA and WA) agree with you and don't suspend for low level offences choosing to issue a TIN instead.

If NSW drivers think these changes are bad, wait until you catch up with Victoria which not only offers a 90 day immediate suspension for a low level offence (which is also only 0.05-0.69) but also mandates all offending drivers attend a drink driver behaviour change program; enforces a Zero BAC requirement for a minimum of 3 years and insists drivers enter the alcohol interlock program for at least 6 months after their suspension ends. Total cost for a < 0.69 BAC offence is thus $2,880 of which only $496 is the actual fine!

[Citroënbender]

The NSFW government is crowing about how it detected “more than 3300 drivers” (attrib. ABC) using mobile devices in the first week after rollout.

It would be interesting to see how consistent the physical aspects of detected offences are, in other words how “smart” the cameras are in reality.

[marty351]

With figures like that, Auspost can justify their existence.

[Tassie f100]

Marty351 reckons taking someones phone could result in a life threatening situation.Well I say stiff ****.You know it is illegal,just DONT do it.Why put others in a life threatening position whilst you carry on a texting conversation,which no doubt can wait until you stop driving

[Warrenk]

It is a sad reflection about today's population that people believe that without their mobile phone it is just short of a disaster. I am one of those people that don't won't to be a statistic on the road as result of inattentive driver using a mobile phone, so with better detection and harsher the penalty the better. Qld has the right idea increasing fines to $1000 for anyone using a mobile phone. All they need to do as well is give them some of the same penalties that they give "hoon" drivers. Confiscation the phone for each offence with destruction after the 3rd offence.
Read an article in last week about what people fear. There was a tongue in cheek response that the youth of today biggest fear is a flat battery in their mobile phone.

[marty351]

Why not just put use of phone into hoon laws. 28 days for first offence and so forth. At least they'll have a phone to call an uber or partner/friend instead of a missing persons report because they can't be contacted. And since most people only ever use a phone number once saving it to phone memory, how are they going to contact anyone they know?
It's not the phone that's dangerous, it's the driver and car combination.

[roKWiz]

10 demerit points this Christmas hols for using it.

[Citroënbender]

Ten points! Not to mention the fine.

Would be interesting to see a sorted (by incident count) list of phone brands used by offenders.

[71cop]

Originally Posted by russellw

I'm not arguing that there aren't other factors but alcohol levels are certainly one of those and one which we can police. Some States (albeit only SA and WA) agree with you and don't suspend for low level offences choosing to issue a TIN instead.

If NSW drivers think these changes are bad, wait until you catch up with Victoria which not only offers a 90 day immediate suspension for a low level offence (which is also only 0.05-0.69) but also mandates all offending drivers attend a drink driver behaviour change program; enforces a Zero BAC requirement for a minimum of 3 years and insists drivers enter the alcohol interlock program for at least 6 months after their suspension ends. Total cost for a < 0.69 BAC offence is thus $2,880 of which only $496 is the actual fine!

Yes and all those fines, licence suspensions and everything else you mention do not matter to or stop those who choose to reoffend again and again, unfortunately.

[EBSXR6]

Originally Posted by 71cop

Yes and all those fines, licence suspensions and everything else you mention do not matter to or stop those who choose to reoffend again and again, unfortunately.

I have lost count of the number of news reports of people involved in serious accidents in Victoria, driving while disqualified, suspended or not licenced.

[roKWiz]

10 demerit points I guess it doesn't make much difference to all the drivers who no longer have licences. I often wonder how many actually have one.

[roKWiz]

Maybe so but If you except a drivers licence from a gov. road authority you except the laws governing what they can do and how they enforce them.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Fiji

I think it's an invasion of privacy. What if a girl is not wearing her bra and the cameras get a bit of downblouse

She gets to be famous on the interweb when the pics are leaked.

[Cav]