Doesn't really sound like this is actually about safety.
I doubt these cameras can capture the photo do a decent quality on that angle for anything but standing or very slow moving cars
But I guess we can hope it will stop some people, even if there will be a lot of people caught that weren't really endangering anyone
I got front and rear dash cams after the 1st hit, to protect myself for insurance claims etc, and caught the following 2 + uncountable near-misses almost all of which were people using their phones, doing make-up, or at one point eating a bowl of cereal while driving.
People don't take it seriously at all, and having had a close family member killed by someone blowing a red light while playing on their phone, and my best mate killed by a truck driver mounting the footpath because he was checking his job computer, I'm 100% for stricter punishment against people who don't take driving seriously.
Mobile phones, drink driving, all of them can and do lead to people dying and should be treated as such.
They aren’t paying attention and when the light turns green they may either hit a pedestrian as they hurry to move , or not notice the green and be rear ended by a driver who expects them to begin moving.
https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/motorcyc...
I've seen an increase of motorcycle cops lane filtering at traffic lights, looking into the laps of the drivers. If there's a phone there, they're booked.
This has been the case for years. When people aren't paying attention they are pavlovian in staring forward when they notice movement around them. But this doesn't necessarily have to coincide with cell phone usage, just bad driving.
I've also started glancing left & right going through the green even if it's been green a while.
Once the traffic in front of me stopped suddenly, I stopped, and the truck behind me didn't and totaled my car, nearly killing me. Since then I glance in the rearview mirror when I have to stop hard, which paid off one day when I figured the guy behind me wasn't going to stop in time, I pulled off onto the shoulder, and he hit the car in front of me.
This is what I was taught when I learned to drive 20 years ago, and texting wasn't really a thing back then.
Perhaps, but I too frequently encounter the notion that having the legal right of way means one doesn't have to look. I've especially encountered this with bicyclists. Sometimes they'll tell me that it's ok because if someone hits them, they'll get a huge lawsuit judgement. I counter with what good is that if you're dead or crippled?
Some people I just don't understand.
This sounds like a different issue that can arise without phones being involved. Just because you look at your phone does not mean you need to be sheepish when you look back up. The problem is people are more worried about getting going than being safe.
> ...or not notice the green and be rear ended by a driver who expects them to begin moving.
If someone rear ends you when the light turns green that is 100% their fault. You can't start moving if the car in front of you is stopped. This has been the case long before the existence of phones.
Most collisions require two unsafe drivers. One to swerve out of their lane, another who thoughtlessly drive down the highway alongside another car; that sort of thing.
Vehicles can remain standing on a green for reasons like the engine having stalled, or there still being a pedestrian in front of them.
It is not comparable to doing something poorly considered for which there cannot be a good reason, like driving in someone's blindspot on the freeway for hundreds of meters, in low traffic.
If someone drives into a stationary car just because the lights go green they are an incompetent driver because they haven’t checked the road is clear before moving off.
The car in front could have stalled, the driver could have had a heart attack, a child could have run into the road 3 cars down and you can’t see them.
Anything could have happened and if you’re not prepared for that at all times YOU are not in control of your vehicle and hence a bad driver.
Too many drivers have cognitive dissonance of the form “I already know I’m an excellent driver, so it couldn’t possibly be my fault...” for every situation this why we need presumed liability.
That wouldn't be the front driver's fault at all. What if there's someone crossing the road in front of that person and they can't drive off. The person behind them shouldn't be so focused only on the color of the traffic light that they start moving the moment it turns green.
That'd be even more unsafe.
What? If you ever hit someone like that, I'd say you're ten times more dangerous than anyone texting.
apparently some cameras are fixed and some are mobile, but presumably they're checking cars that are both moving and stationary (if it so happens to be in view of the camera when/where it stops).
distracted driving is a real problem, and phones are a large part of that problem. genuine efforts at curbing distracted driving are welcome, as long as we don't have to trade away all our privacy in the process. i'm generally against camera surveillance for that reason.
in any case, continuing improvements in voice control will go a long way toward reducing distracted driving via mobile devices.
Actually studies have shown that people on (hands free) phone calls are also very distracted from the task of driving, driving slower than the traffic, around corners etc. [Haque et el at QUT. A small study in a simulator, but it certainly matches anecdotal observation... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00014... ]
Just tuning the radio or even listening to the radio can increase response times. Unsurprisingly, having children in the car can also significantly increase risk. [MUARC] Remember that next time you see a Baby On Board sign.
It'd have to be a lot of continuing improvements because at the moment, voice control is an absolute shitshow and IMO way more distracting than pushing predictable buttons.
At least once a week I see people who are too busy playing with their phones to realise all the cars in front of them had already driven off, the traffic light was now red again, and pedestrians were about to start crossing. The sudden realisation then makes them slam the accelerator without checking their surroundings first.
At the same intersection I witnessed an accident where the first driver in line was playing with their phone, got spooked by someone honking, and ran the red light straight into traffic.
It's like they're tricking themselves into thinking they're paying enough attention.
If you want to argue that they're not about revenue raising tell me why the Police here strike for pay rises by warning motorists of where the cameras are?
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/police-threaten-...
They've done this for at least 3 pay rises in the past and they actually have followed through.
1. Detecting when people are using their phone while driving?
2. Imposing a penalty when people are caught?
Applying a high fine for infringements is a good deterrent. It's definitely about safety as much (if not more) than revenue raising.
If people don't want to give revenue to the government, it's simple - don't use your phone while driving.
A) need a huge volume of them so people assume they will certainly get caught if they use their phone even just once
B) place them at critical spots and make them very clearly visible e.g. via adding signs
Otherwise, they're just hidden and rare enough that nobody actually changes their driving style. Now neither A nor B are the case. So what's their use besides making money?
Also, why take money only? Off the top of my head, why not something like each time you get caught, you get a "buffered" 1-day driving restriction and once it adds up to some amount it's applied? Currently you can just speed all the time as long as you're not grossly over the limit. All you need to do is pay a little money which might be trivial for some people. A driving restriction might not be.
These cameras obviously aren't implemented with safety as a priority. It's about money first and foremost. Safety is just a pretense. Same thing for govt surveillance and so on. It's surprising to me that the same excuse can be used over and over effectively.
Speed cameras just cause people to behave in a single spot. Worse they usually backlog traffic because drivers brake when approaching them "just in case"
Wow, what an ignorant statement. I get a lot of people like to drive without following the rules and think there should be no consequences. Even though driving a car is usually the most dangerous thing you will do today.