Don't operate mobile phones when driving in Australia

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
If all you do is touch a phone on the passenger seat then this would be an infraction of the law, so the number actually using a phone would be a fraction of 100k.

Governments like to create moral panics about narrowly-defined issues that they can intervene in easily, so mobile use is this year's topic.

From my point of view, and to repeat myself, it's the video surveillance that causes me the most concern.

IIRC, mobile use was legal in CA for years. Everyone did it (at least occasionally) and most drivers used mobiles quickly, safely and responsibly.
These draconian measures are simply a money grab by a failed government hungry for revenue.

Even after making it illegal. a significant number are still doing it.

During a three-month trial at two locations in metropolitan Sydney (Anzac Parade and the M4 Motorway), 100,000 drivers were detected using a mobile phone illegally among the 8.3 million vehicles caught on camera, the equivalent of more than $34 million in fines.​
Sophisticated software automatically detects if a driver is handling a phone. Filtered images are then checked by a human eye by NSW authorities before a fine is issued. Discarded images are deleted from digital files within an hour.​
 

Crocodile

Hall of Fame
Exactly WHO is the scapegoat? Practically everyone drives and has a mobile.
These exorbitant fines are commonly levied by the left as well, as a means of revenue generation.
Correct and usually the left like to punish the motorists the most, not the right, and the left are drunk on taxes and big government. Australia currently has many lefties in councils and governments making policy.
The right do tend to be stronger on law and order on certain things but this is nanny state stuff.
 

Crocodile

Hall of Fame
They do indeed play the Australian national identity 'race card', but that's not my jam.
It's the hard lefties that are the real racists, dividing everybody up into tribes. However you maybe right on some things, those in leftists States may not pay the fines because they can't even buy bread or toilet paper, but that's the system you like, try it some day.
 

Raul_SJ

Legend
This phone detection camera and AI software looks to be very accurate.
:unsure:


Is the system completely automated or does a human check the images?
  • The artificial intelligence software automatically reviews images and detects potential offending drivers, and excludes images of non-offending drivers from further action.
  • An authorised adjudicator will always check images to confirm that illegal mobile phone use has occurred before issuing a penalty notice.
  • This process is similar to other camera enforcement programs in NSW. All speeding and red-light offences that are captured by cameras automatically are adjudicated to verify details within the images, including number plates, before a penalty notice is issued.
  • The system has been designed to include strict security requirements. This includes ensuring that all images captured by the cameras that do not contain evidence of an offence are rapidly and permanently deleted.
 
Last edited:

Raul_SJ

Legend
You're all invited to New Jersey where Maggie's Law deems "driving while tired" to be a crime.
Maggies Law is fine as it clearly defines fatigue as 24 hours without sleep.

Drowsy Driving
Maggie's Law states that a sleep-deprived driver qualifies as a reckless driver who can be convicted of vehicular homicide. It's named in honor of a 20-year-old college student, Maggie McDonnell, who was killed when a driver -- who admitted he hadn't slept for 30 hours and had been using drugs -- crossed three lanes of traffic and struck her car head-on in 1997.

When the case went to trial, the jury was deadlocked. In a second trial, the defense argued that because there was no law against falling asleep at the wheel in New Jersey, the driver did nothing wrong. The judge accepted this argument, and the driver received only a suspended jail sentence and a $200 fine.

That decision prompted Maggie's mother, Carole McDonnell, to lobby for a law to punish drowsy drivers in New Jersey. Maggie's Law defines fatigue as being without sleep for more than 24 consecutive hours and makes driving while fatigued a criminal offense.
 

Raul_SJ

Legend
From my point of view, and to repeat myself, it's the video surveillance that causes me the most concern.
Video of non-offenders will automatically be deleted by AI within an hour. No human will see it.

How will privacy be protected?
  • Transport for NSW and Revenue NSW, the agencies responsible for the management and administration of camera programs and fines, have strict obligations to ensure the personal information of NSW road users is protected in accordance with statutory requirements.
  • Transport for NSW undertook consultation with the NSW Privacy Commissioner during the pilot and discussions have continued to ensure compliance with privacy principles.
  • The program will ensure only the minimum amount of data required to detect and enforce offences is retained.
  • Images captured by cameras will be reviewed automatically by artificial intelligence software; those which do not contain evidence of an offence will be permanently and irretrievably deleted, typically within an hour.
  • When a potential offence is detected, images will be pixellated and cropped before the images are adjudicated, prior to a decision being made to issue a penalty notice.
  • In common with all NSW traffic camera enforcement systems, strict data security measures are included in the scope of requirements for the program.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
One again, your ideological zealotry means that you can't see these efforts for what they are ... and that is entriely bipartisan ... and the NSW state governnment is right-wing.

Correct and usually the left like to punish the motorists the most, not the right, and the left are drunk on taxes and big government. Australia currently has many lefties in councils and governments making policy.
The right do tend to be stronger on law and order on certain things but this is nanny state stuff.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
These are the claims, but the reality will be entirely different if past legislation is anything to go by, and it is the right that is particularly good at violating freedoms on national security grounds.

Video of non-offenders will automatically be deleted by AI within an hour. No human will see it.

How will privacy be protected?
  • Transport for NSW and Revenue NSW, the agencies responsible for the management and administration of camera programs and fines, have strict obligations to ensure the personal information of NSW road users is protected in accordance with statutory requirements.
  • Transport for NSW undertook consultation with the NSW Privacy Commissioner during the pilot and discussions have continued to ensure compliance with privacy principles.
  • The program will ensure only the minimum amount of data required to detect and enforce offences is retained.
  • Images captured by cameras will be reviewed automatically by artificial intelligence software; those which do not contain evidence of an offence will be permanently and irretrievably deleted, typically within an hour.
  • When a potential offence is detected, images will be pixellated and cropped before the images are adjudicated, prior to a decision being made to issue a penalty notice.
  • In common with all NSW traffic camera enforcement systems, strict data security measures are included in the scope of requirements for the program.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
  • The artificial intelligence software automatically reviews images and detects potential offending drivers, and excludes images of non-offending drivers from further action.
  • An authorised adjudicator will always check images to confirm that illegal mobile phone use has occurred before issuing a penalty notice.
  • This process is similar to other camera enforcement programs in NSW. All speeding and red-light offences that are captured by cameras automatically are adjudicated to verify details within the images, including number plates, before a penalty notice is issued.
  • The system has been designed to include strict security requirements. This includes ensuring that all images captured by the cameras that do not contain evidence of an offence are rapidly and permanently deleted.
These are the claims, but the reality will be entirely different if past legislation is anything to go by, and it is the right that is particularly good at violating freedoms on national security grounds.
I'm assuming then, that this is what you are seeing already with what is in place now (and has been in place for quite some time)? With speeding and red light offenses?

Could you please cite your source? Just link is fine. No commentary needed.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
You are not even interested in the topic. You are just trotting out your boilerplate question.

How does your mother feel about this? You know, the one who could be killed by a texting driver.

I'm assuming then, that this is what you are seeing already with what is in place now (and has been in place for quite some time)? With speeding and red light offenses?

Could you please cite your source? Just link is fine. No commentary needed.
 
Last edited:

r2473

G.O.A.T.
You are not even interested in the topic. You are just trotting how your boilerplate question.

How does your mother feel about this? You know, the one who could be killed by a texting driver.
I'll walk you through it.

1) You claim that the video surveillance is the greatest cause for concern

If all you do is touch a phone on the passenger seat then this would be an infraction of the law, so the number actually using a phone would be a fraction of 100k.

Governments like to create moral panics about narrowly-defined issues that they can intervene in easily, so mobile use is this year's topic.

From my point of view, and to repeat myself, it's the video surveillance that causes me the most concern.
2) Though the video will be destroyed (as a matter of policy), you claim that this won't happen

These are the claims, but the reality will be entirely different if past legislation is anything to go by, and it is the right that is particularly good at violating freedoms on national security grounds.
3) Australia currently uses video and human review to enforce red light and speed laws

Video of non-offenders will automatically be deleted by AI within an hour. No human will see it.

How will privacy be protected?
  • Transport for NSW and Revenue NSW, the agencies responsible for the management and administration of camera programs and fines, have strict obligations to ensure the personal information of NSW road users is protected in accordance with statutory requirements.
  • Transport for NSW undertook consultation with the NSW Privacy Commissioner during the pilot and discussions have continued to ensure compliance with privacy principles.
  • The program will ensure only the minimum amount of data required to detect and enforce offences is retained.
  • Images captured by cameras will be reviewed automatically by artificial intelligence software; those which do not contain evidence of an offence will be permanently and irretrievably deleted, typically within an hour.
  • When a potential offence is detected, images will be pixellated and cropped before the images are adjudicated, prior to a decision being made to issue a penalty notice.
  • In common with all NSW traffic camera enforcement systems, strict data security measures are included in the scope of requirements for the program.
Can you see what I'm driving at, or should I make my argument more explicit still?

If you understand the argument as presented, could you please provide a source for your claims (i.e., that the video won't be destroyed, will be used for "nefarious" purposes, etc. Whatever it is you want to claim).
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
You are not even interested in the topic. You are just trotting out your boilerplate question.

How does your mother feel about this? You know, the one who could be killed by a texting driver.
Further, I have a hard time believing that you don't understand why I introduced "your mother is the one killed by a texting driver". Especially as I made my point explicit a few posts later.

To me, this heuristic (and similar ones) are useful thought exercises to determine if one's views will remain objective. Even if we introduce extreme subjective facts. In other words, if you are against this law, it shouldn't matter if your mom is killed by a texting driver. Even if that happened, you should still be against it (based on privacy, or whatever). Introducing your mother, in no way changes the privacy argument.

Do you understand?
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
I can see what you are driving at, and I don't just mean your unintended pun.

But these are claims made by authorities you are quoting, not evidence.

Could you provide me with the evidence for the claims you accept at face value?

I'll walk you through it.

1) You claim that the video surveillance is the greatest cause for concern


2) Though the video will be destroyed (as a matter of policy), you claim that this won't happen


3) Australia currently uses video and human review to enforce red light and speed laws



Can you see what I'm driving at, or should I make my argument more explicit still?

If you understand the argument as presented, could you please provide a source for your claims (i.e., that the video won't be destroyed, will be used for "nefarious" purposes, etc. Whatever it is you want to claim).
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
Your position in this TT world is absurd. People are texting on the run. They are not finishing term papers for a university course.

If you have a hankering for academic discourse, then take it to a university where your need will be well-satisfied.

And I do understand that you don't understand the rules that apply to different kinds of speech inside different linguistic communities.

Further, I have a hard time believing that you don't understand why I introduced "your mother is the one killed by a texting driver". Especially as I made my point explicit a few posts later.

To me, this heuristic (and similar ones) are useful thought exercises to determine if one's views will remain objective. Even if we introduce extreme subjective facts. In other words, if you are against this law, it shouldn't matter if your mom is killed by a texting driver. Even if that happened, you should still be against it (based on privacy, or whatever). Introducing your mother, in no way changes the privacy argument.

Do you understand?
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
I can see what you are driving at, and I don't just mean your unintended pun.

But these are claims made by authorities you are quoting, not evidence.

Could you provide me with the evidence for the claims you accept at face value?
Your position in this TT world is absurd. People are texting on the run. They are not finishing term papers for a university course.

If you have a hankering for academic discourse, then take it to a university where your need will be well-satisfied.

And I do understand that you don't understand the rules that apply to different kinds of speech inside different linguistic communities.
I didn't expect either of these responses from you.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
True, but what if they were killed by someone looking at a magazine, eating, or doing make-up? All just as dangerous if not more.
Yes what about maps? Do they have to be voice activated now?
Yep, that is what the law is saying. Why is a map not a distraction but looking at a text is?
I didn't expect you'd start cracking anti-PC jokes either after years of running with the bacon joke.

We all have to live with life's disappointments!
What if a driver is eating bacon? Are we not allowed to eat bacon anymore?
 

Enga

Hall of Fame
Safety is in direct contradiction to freedom. But a good balance is necessary. It's nice to see a country like Australia trying it out first just so we in the rest of the world can see what it's like. Honestly, Australia seems like a testing ground for lots of different ideas lately.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
Safety is in direct contradiction to freedom. But a good balance is necessary. It's nice to see a country like Australia trying it out first just so we in the rest of the world can see what it's like. Honestly, Australia seems like a testing ground for lots of different ideas lately.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
Quite a lot of re-writing went on here, indeed:

RICHARD ANDERSON: Very simply - and I'm paraphrasing here - but Ben Franklin essentially said at one point, those who would trade privacy for a bit of security deserve neither privacy nor security.

SIEGEL: Now, Anderson did say he was paraphrasing, but a few of you wrote in anyway saying, hey, that's not the quote. So we're going to clear things up right now. Benjamin Wittes, editor of the website Lawfare and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, joins us. Hi.

BENJAMIN WITTES: Hey.

SIEGEL: What's the exact quotation?

WITTES: The exact quotation, which is from a letter that Franklin is believed to have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, reads, those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
He was a dirty old man like Pell, but he didn't claim to be religious.

And you were talking about Australian politics, so I made a relevant shift to someone found legally guilty of a crime against children ... as opposed to your ideological hyperbole about Green baby-killers.

I still really don't know what you actually mean by this, just by the way?

How about Mao as a juxtaposition.
 

Crocodile

Hall of Fame
He was a dirty old man like Pell, but he didn't claim to be religious.

And you were talking about Australian politics, so I made a relevant shift to someone found legally guilty of a crime against children ... as opposed to your ideological hyperbole about Green baby-killers.

I still really don't know what you actually mean by this, just by the way?
[/QUOTE
Or you choose not see facts!
 

1HBHfanatic

Hall of Fame
This phone detection camera and AI software looks to be very accurate.
:unsure:


Is the system completely automated or does a human check the images?
  • The artificial intelligence software automatically reviews images and detects potential offending drivers, and excludes images of non-offending drivers from further action.
  • An authorised adjudicator will always check images to confirm that illegal mobile phone use has occurred before issuing a penalty notice.
  • This process is similar to other camera enforcement programs in NSW. All speeding and red-light offences that are captured by cameras automatically are adjudicated to verify details within the images, including number plates, before a penalty notice is issued.
  • The system has been designed to include strict security requirements. This includes ensuring that all images captured by the cameras that do not contain evidence of an offence are rapidly and permanently deleted.
I think its mostly BS..
I now wonder how many cups of coffe are gonna be photographed and submitted for human review prior to issuing the ticket in the mail,, haaaa

I do think handsfree driving is needed badly, and ASAP,, on all cars..

EDITED, oops I meant, HANDSFREE mobile phone, integrated to the vehicles sound system,,
 
Last edited:

Enga

Hall of Fame
I think its mostly BS..
I now wonder how many cups of coffe are gonna be photographed and submitted for human review prior to issuing the ticket in the mail,, haaaa

I do think handsfree driving is needed badly, and ASAP,, on all cars..
The software likely will be able to discern. Been working for a company lately that deals with this sort of "AI" image recognition. They have us going through hundreds of images helping the AI discern the difference between certain objects, and help it recognize "these pixels are this item category, and those pixels are that item category". With a high enough quality camera, and after enough repetitions, the software recognizes which patterns of pixels corresponds to what.

What I think is most likely is that a lot of people will be able to sneak by, by hiding the phone. That said, the software is probably also capable of discerning whether the human in the car is looking in the direction they're driving or not, and flag that for human review later.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
I'm not sure the current legislation would make such searches legal, but this may indeed be the next step given that the roll-out of new technology always brings demands for wider uses.

The article talks of 'sophisticated software automatically detects if a driver is handling a phone' via an interpretation of an image, which is then checked by a human.

That said, the software is probably also capable of discerning whether the human in the car is looking in the direction they're driving or not, and flag that for human review later.
 
Top