> Over a million dead every single year, 40k in the USA, and 3 every day in Australia.
No one is contesting this, and it's good context for visualizing the supposed 100 deaths/year reduction that this $88mm investment would achieve. We'd still be at ~1 million dead per year.
> Such a meaningless statement.
I gave a precise example immediately following the introduction of the high-level concept. I'm not sure how that's hard to grasp.
> People shouldn't even be in cars most of the time that they are.
Ok, but not an argument that this is an effective use of 88 million taxpayer dollars. You could probably prevent more deaths by spending that money campaigning for people to drive less resulting reduction of overall number of drivers, compared to these ridiculous cameras.
> Cars are killing machines, and should be constantly tracked at all times.
I prefer a proactive approach to safety (better, safer, smarter cars) than a reactive approach (better punishment). Besides, the overwhelming majority of auto incidents are accidental. How will surveillance prevent those? It's solving the wrong problem.
Think of the end game of either option. With true self-driving cars, mobile phone use won't be an issue. But if we make this monitoring acceptable now, the cameras and surveillance will remain. Don't let the Overton window shift.