New Answer To Idiots Who Use Mobile Phones Whilst Driving

Transport
161

What’s the alternative?

Does the innocent community of 98.8% accept their increased risks, financial losses, injury and deaths caused by not policing the 1.2%?

Is this example of surveillance really a punishment?

The same could be said of photo ID for passports or drivers license.

In your own home privacy is well defined. The same legal principle does not apply in public?

P.S.
There are other alternatives available through technology including the direct policing of speeding, unlicensed driving, and mobile phone use. All can be achieved through application of mobile and GPS technology to every vehicle, including maximum speed limiting, and biometric recording of the vehicles driver.

What value do we place on personal freedom and privacy/anonymity when in public vs the loss of life of innocent victims caused through failures of others to act responsibly?

Systems for prevention are far more preferable to any system of accountability after the fact. The community relies heavily on the second option.

Which is best?

2 Likes
162

Exactly. Which is why I do not support speed traps hiding in the bushes which belatedely send out fines in the hope the speeding driver has not killed themselves or anyone else in the meantime as opposed to high visibility proactive policing.

And thankfully we are not China as their version probably doesn’t simply shoot images.

2 Likes
163

Perhaps the best form of speed trap is one visibly every 500m along the roadside.

There is a need for a decision on who will fund the system. Those that speed or those that don’t?

Alternately all vehicles could be locked to 110kph or less based on GPS location.

The community could step up to the plate and dob in drivers, supported by dash cam footage. Although that seems to be a not so Australian way of solving the problem.

I guess we all pay the price of early automotive manufacturers and fuel suppliers promoting the freedom of the open road as if it was a birth right. It’s not anything like a right, and better described as a permission for shared use for those who follow the conditions of use.

I’m accepting the cameras are not obvious, as are the unmarked police cars. They are no problem for the 99% of road users who are alert and observe the speed restrictions.

2 Likes
164

Various alternatives have been discussed in this topic already, which topic is now quite mature. The government will do what the government wants to do regardless.

Totally a question of perspective. You may think not at all - or you may think 100%.

From my perspective, the surveillance state is expanding, year after year, and all surveillance is at least somewhat ick.

Looking at the example photos they are definitely way more intrusive than existing speed cameras. That will normalise it, ready for even greater intrusion in the future.

1 Like
165

Although in this case the government has chosen to metaphorically hide the cameras for photographing inside the car in the bushes.

1 Like
166

The expansion of the surveillance state is about much more than road safety and mobile phone use though.

The surveillance state has been around in one form or another for as long as there have been centralised structures for leadership or control of populations. The methods used have continued to develop, and individuals of interest expand.

Is the blame solely in the hands of the state, or equally attributable to those amongst us who fail to conform?

It’s not only the state that cannot be relied upon or trusted unconditionally by the community.

3 Likes
167

Maybe the later. If everyone conformed and abided by the law, then in this case there would be no need for the proposed surveillance/monitoring to catch drivers using mobile phone users out.

A bit like speeding, if no one sped, there wouldn’t be the need to speed monitoring technologies such as lasers, cameras, time measures or radars.

Imaging the savings to the community if everyone conformed and what the money could otherwise be spent on.

2 Likes
168

Mobile phone use while doing most anything can result in harm, be it walking or driving or just talking to an X and getting one’s dander up.

Be that as it may, the so-called solutions to every misdeed, danger, possible danger, and supposedly possible danger has been to enact ever more laws with ever more fines. Reality is that the harm rate will never go to zero because humans are what we are.

The costs of surveillance including development, owning, operating, catching, and prosecuting is non-trivial. One may reasonably question how many harm-events are avoided by that versus how many people are caught and fined. Any answer would be conjecture. But as with many of our laws we seem almost unique in the world at legislating anything that does or could cause harm.

In the case of seat belts it seems a clear win; bicycle helmets not so much - while they sometimes save a head they also contraindicate many of us cycling for pleasure or exercise. In Heidelberg Germany a few weeks ago the bicycle parks near stations were epic and some riders had helmets and some did not and some were commuting and some not.

A phone in a hand takes ones attention off the wheel and possibly the street. Is it best to prosecute someone who is responsible for a harm-event who was using their phone (texting, talking, or watching a video) rather than establishing a world first surveillance system whereby there are reports of the cameras confusing chocolate bars with phones?

Talking and especially arguing with a fellow occupant in a car is also distracting as often as not. History has decided not to prosecute them nor legislate against talking excepting for special cases such as P drivers and passengers in some jurisdictions.

What price is legislating everything about everything when the main demonstrable result is revenue for failing to comply with rules, be they well meaning or arbitrary? It is a long used retort ‘if you don’t do the crime you don’t do the time’ but with the numbers of laws, discretionary application of some laws, and technical nature of infringing others and especially those that may not make much sense to a significant part of the community, I wonder why we are happy with it all when the costs-benefits are weighed up.

Is theoretically preventing a single harm-event (eg) per week worth the laws, fines, and imposition on the other 99% 24x7?

Those who use mobiles while driving may be idiots, but ‘we’ do so many idiotic things, often with great enthusiasm and zeal where does (or does?) the government’s hand need to stop?

2 Likes
169

The excuse varies all the time so yes not just about road safety. More often than not it’s “national security” or “pedos” or “the children”. “Road safety” is a bit of variety.

However we stand on the precipice of being able to truly realise Orwell’s vision.

In the sense that only they make laws, yes.

The surveillance state is most definitely not only to be blamed on the government however, as corporate surveillance is similarly out of control (and sometimes intertwined with government surveillance).

1 Like
170

Whilst driving to Dan Murphy’s today, I wondered why a ute a few vehicles ahead of me was dwadling along slowly, but after it changed lanes twice without indicating, the reason was obvious.

The idiot was busy looking at its mobile phone and paying absolutely no attention to the road desspite having a passenger who could have looked at the phone.

NSW has lead the way, as usual, but hopefully Qld will soon catch up.

Whilst heading home in a 80km/h zone, I was passed by a ute doing at least 100km’h.

I thought he might have slowed down when he approached the new fixed speed & red light camera on the highway but he didn’t.

I was stopped by the first red light and the second one turned red before he reached it but he simply kept on going.

Looks like he will be getting the daily double in the mail very shortly.

3 Likes
171

A post was split to a new message: Mobile phones news post

173

And then there are those who don’t even need a mobile phone to be dangerously distracted.

1 Like
174

Driver looked fatigued.

175

Some NSW drivers better start preparing for a “happy new year”.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/mobile-phone-detection-cameras-to-start-targeting-drivers-by-years-end/7bb75013-6b08-4394-8147-36b13a01eee7

176

An article regarding the result of using a mobile phone whilst driving.

Two persons killed and a mobile phone user who is facing serious consequences.

1 Like
177

And another one.

178

Seems lucky to avoid jail but clearly the “new answer” of ever more surveillance cameras is not the answer. They aren’t going to have surveillance cameras on every stretch of road throughout Australia (as this was country Victoria).

2 Likes
179

the way ‘we’ go there will eventually be an ADR requiring surveillance cameras be mounted in every vehicle sold, with automatic weekly uploads to ‘Fines Victoria’ and its interstate cousins for sending everything from mobile use to speed infringements. It will make these days of speed and red light and mobile phones cameras look like a free for all.

3 Likes
180

Back in 1998, I read an article in one of the national newspapers regarding the technology that had already been developed for automated traffic fines.

It comprised smart licences to operate vehicles, online roadside cameras and automated debiting of bank accounts.

The article stated that whilst the technology already existed, the politicians were not game enough to legislate it in face of the fully expected backlash.

2 Likes
181

The same level of existing technology is also capable of keeping the driver up to date with speed limits and numerous other safe driver behaviours. The technology could assist or insist on certain driver responses.

Perhaps the reasoning for it not appearing as a standard accessory is the same?

Alternately, given the motor industry preference to charge thousands to include a $200 GPS enabled tablet in the dash, the lack of political will might be a saviour. More of one, when the lack of performance and out of date maps of many such OEM products are considered.

A third excuse not to might be the resultant general hit to state revenue, with a likely freeing of the burden on courts for minor traffic complaints, leaving a whole lot more time for police to seek out genuine evil and corruption?

2 Likes