Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by tomrod | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

tomrod

> And it will reduce that kind of insanely dangerous driving.

We need proof of that. It turns out to be legally thorny.

- Is the driver recognizable and is the owner?

- What is the penalty for non-payment?

- What if the driver obfuscates their license plate?

- What if that state has released license plates that aren't readable?

- What about police vehicles? Can they drive 90 mph with no blinker?

- What about military vehicles? Can they drive 90 mph with no blinker?

- What if the car is registered with diplomatic immunity?

- What if the car is getting away from another car driving 90 mph with no blinker?

- What if the system fails and says everyone is driving 90 mph?

- What if the system is hacked, and/or deepfakes added to political enemies?

- What if the system catches a fly flying by and attributes its catch to a car driving 1,000 mph?

- Will humans audit the system?

- Can we trust those humans that audit the system?

View on HN

> - Is the driver recognizable and is the owner?

Does it matter? Either the owner authorized the unsafe driver and can pay the fine or the car was stolen and the fine should be waived.

> - What is the penalty for non-payment?

The same as it is now for unpaid speeding tickets.

> - What if the driver obfuscates their license plate?

Then regular police cars that drive near them should notice this, pull them over and fine them.

> - What if that state has released license plates that aren't readable?

That seems like a weird thing for a state to do.

> - What about police vehicles? Can they drive 90 mph with no blinker?

Yes

> - What about military vehicles? Can they drive 90 mph with no blinker?

Probably not.

> - What if the car is registered with diplomatic immunity?

Then you issue a ticket and they don't pay it. See New York and UN parking tickets for an example.

> - What if the car is getting away from another car driving 90 mph with no blinker?

Then they both get tickets.

> - What if the system fails and says everyone is driving 90 mph? > - What if the system is hacked, and/or deepfakes added to political enemies? > - What if the system catches a fly flying by and attributes its catch to a car driving 1,000 mph?

These questions all seem to think this is new, unreliable technology. Photo radar has existed and been used for decades.

> - Will humans audit the system?

Probably.

> - Can we trust those humans that audit the system?

Do you trust the humans issuing speeding tickets now?

Exactly. Many of your responses identify the ongoing ambiguity, to say nothing of the oversight required or the pat clarity an engineer mistakenly sees as a solution versus what a lawyer would tear apart using existing precedent, policy, and appeal to natural rights and precedent.

Responsibly implementing technology solutions in a human-centered system needs more precision than the holes a random internet commentator can poke and a random interrogator can gloss over. In many US states, red light cameras have been de-fanged with a variety of excuses, perhaps most importantly highlighting that the law doesn't work precisely.

These are already existing problems. Are there no speed cameras and red light cameras in the US?

In Sydney there is now a system that will track drivers attention and if you get caught looking at your phone while driving you get a fine.

Sure, we can make a list of thorny questions for literally any proposed change to any law or system. Ah, the wonders of rhetoric! But I'm going to bet that these problems can be largely overcome, as most problems are overcome for most basic functions of civilization.

> I'm going to bet that these problems can be largely overcome

Many could be improved as technical systems, but trust in red light cameras and similar automated solutions isn't high. Good luck reverting many US states that have all but outlawed them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_light_camera#Decrease_sinc...

Most organizations have three things: people, policy, and technology. Pissing off the people with technology gets a lot of backlash.

The issue here being that these "problems" lead to increased revenue for the controlling entities, so there is little motivation to "overcome" them

Well, except that every implemented speed camera system definitely not only hasn’t solved those problems, but also doesn’t seem to contribute to actual safety either.

You speak as if no better system could ever be implemented so we should just throw our hands in the air. I thought these threads were full of engineers.

Keep in mind your fellow commenters are also drivers who have an inherent bias to maintain the status quo. If anything, they're probably BMW and Tesla drivers, too...

You act like a technical solution is the appropriate one, or enough people want to solve the problem that you’d get any interest in solving it.

Genuinely curious, are you not familiar with the existing concept of a speed camera? There are answers to all of these questions from jurisdictions near you I'm sure, if not the very one you're in or one you've driven in.

Yes, but typically legally untested, which is my premise.

To make a bit of a silly analogy, you could make a policy that every child born on 11/22 is to be sent to the salt mines upon age 8, but that doesn't mean it's going to work as an implemented policy. You could even try to solve for edge cases like children moving, children moving into the jurisdiction from other jurisdictions, children born during day or night, etc. etc. The minutia of the policy and their local implementations don't change the underlying legal or ethical questions.

Legally untested? Nobody ever contended their speeding ticket because they weren't the ones driving or for any of the other reasons you mentioned?

Maybe you're right, maybe speed cameras aren't the solution. Maybe we should address it from the other direction — the cars themselves. Simply stop producing cars that can go faster than the legal limit.

- Does not matter. If my someone driving my car fails to pay the toll, the state sends me the letter. If I want to dispute it, I can take it to court.

- More financial penalties.

- Can't enforce what isn't enforceable.

- See above

- Yes

- They are exempt.

- They can explain that in court.

- The state makes a lot of money, then.

- That would be a crime.

- Fine the fly.

- No. Save the taxpayer dollars.

- No. But that's true with anything that's government-related.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com