Mobile Phone Detection Cameras a Good Idea?

deme on 01/04/2023 - 12:25

Since 1 March 2020, mobile phone detection cameras, including fixed and transportable cameras, have been targeting drivers illegally using a mobile phone across NSW anywhere, anytime.

The system operates day and night and in all weather conditions, using high-definition cameras to capture images of the front-row cabin space of all vehicles to detect illegal mobile phone use. Since its implementation, the Mobile Phone Detection Camera Program has been successful in reducing illegal mobile phone use on our roads.

Importantly, the software is a screening tool only. If a possible offence is detected, there are then several stages of human review and adjudication before a fine will be issued.

Images containing possible offences are verified by the vendor delivering the program. This check is completed by approved trained staff using a secure network. The images that are viewed at this stage are cropped and pixelated to remove information that would identify the vehicle or the vehicle location. Images that are do not contain offences at this stage are deleted within 72 hours.

If a likely offence is found in the first review of images by the vendor, files are securely transmitted to Transport for NSW for further review by trained officers. Images that are verified at this stage to likely contain an offence are supplied to Revenue NSW.
Revenue NSW conducts final adjudication and issues a fine. If Revenue NSW determines that an offence cannot be proven, then a fine will not be issued.

Do you support Mobile Phone Detection Cameras?

Poll Options

222
Yes
32
No

Automotive

Comments

Hybroid on 01/04/2023 - 12:27

+28

100% yes. The number of people scrolling through their phones while driving is ridiculous. Happy for them to get what's coming.
- GordonD on 01/04/2023 - 16:16 Comment score below threshold.
  - GordonD on 01/04/2023 - 16:44
    
    +10
    
    I used the example above of the BAC being lowered from .08 to .05. The science was done establishing the point at which drivers become dangerous was about .10, so it was totally justified seriously penalising anyone above that. It was recommended the level be set at .08 out of caution. RBT was introduced. Then later the limit was reduced to .05 without any new science to justify it. A colleague in road safety attempted to establish from the official stats how many road deaths had occurred as a result of a driver being under .10. He couldn't find any. It proved the original science and the original limit were right.
    
    Maybe lower level drink driving should be detected and punished. But there is no justification from the science or the road death stats that its a serious dangerous offence that justifies tough penalties. But you all accept anyone caught at ,05 or .06 should have the book thrown at them because the road safety adverts have told you it is. And you believe them. Right? Well road safety adverts are made by people who don't know and don't care what the science and facts are, their job is to persuade YOU that something the government wants to do that you won't like if its done to you is being done for your benefit.
    - universe on 01/04/2023 - 19:44
      
      -5
      
      take off your tin foil hat brother
    - deme on 01/04/2023 - 20:53
      
      +3
      
      The science was done
      
      At the atom
      At Isomerism
      At Electrons
      At the Nucleus
      At the Bohr model
      At the Schrödinger model
      At neutrons
      At quarks
      At electron clouds
      At the standard model
      
      We aren't even sure how gravity works.
      - SBOB on 01/04/2023 - 21:24
        
        +2
        
        @deme:
        
        We aren't even sure how gravity works
        
        Pretty sure it's becauae of the turtles.
        
        doctordv8 on 02/04/2023 - 15:59
        
        +3
        
        @SBOB: Are you Blaming or Accrediting the turtles?
      - the Unforgiven on 02/04/2023 - 19:46
        
        @deme: "We aren't even sure how gravity works."
        
        A smaller mass always gravitates towards a larger mass
        (but said mass has to be above a certain mass thou)
        'do I win a Nobel Peace Prize?'
        So I can shove it somewhere Russian
        
        deme on 02/04/2023 - 20:16
        
        @the Unforgiven:
        
        A smaller mass always gravitates towards a larger mass
        
        Not even Archimedes thought that.
        
        the Unforgiven on 02/04/2023 - 20:29
        
        @deme: But it is true thou
        It is better than saying, 'stuff falls down'
        I might just sit under a tree & wait for an apple to fall
        I hope it is a Southern Bliss apple :p
        
        deme on 02/04/2023 - 23:25
        
        @the Unforgiven:
        
        A smaller mass always gravitates towards a larger mass
        
        Well Newton said it was a force (he was wrong) that pulls two bodies towards each other.
        Einstein said it was due to curvature of space time.
        
        As far as I know no one except you has said:
        "A smaller mass always gravitates towards a larger mass
        (but said mass has to be above a certain mass thou)"
        
        You might win a nobel prize if you explain why our models for gravity assist are wrong though.
        
        the Unforgiven on 03/04/2023 - 00:50
        
        @deme: It has to go about a certain mass
        A feather has mass, yet does not exert a force (mass) high enough to attract another body (mass).
        Unless we go down into the smaller sub-atomic level
        
        The rockets going to the moon still have to go under propulsion most of the way due to the gravitational force of the Earth. Earth big mass, moon smaller mass.
        James Webb has been discovering a lot of grouse stuff lately. I wish I had the time to read them.
        
        deme on 03/04/2023 - 07:01
        
        @the Unforgiven: 🤦 Gravity is not an attractive force…
        
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gravitational_theor…
        
        You are about 340 years out of date.
        
        the Unforgiven on 03/04/2023 - 13:05
        
        @deme: I was just making a statement
        I didn't know I was that old
        Or am I older?
        
        deme on 03/04/2023 - 13:09
        
        @the Unforgiven:
        
        I was just making a statement
        
        Yeah your statement is incorrect.
        
        A feather has mass, yet does not exert a force (mass) high enough to attract another body (mass).
        
        Newton said masses will attract each other, in your 340 year old version of physics the feather will attract the other body and and other one will attract the feather.
        
        But Newton's idea has been shown to be a good approximation for things on Earth but fundamentally flawed.
        
        the Unforgiven on 03/04/2023 - 13:13
        
        @deme: Going to the moon, the craft is under the earth's gravitational force for most of the way is true
        
        deme on 03/04/2023 - 13:17
        
        @the Unforgiven:
        
        Going to the moon, the craft is under the earth's gravitational force for most of the way is true
        
        No it's false.
        
        Firstly gravity isn't a force.
        Second… you do know the Earth revolves around the Sun right? Because all is lost if you think it's the other way round?
        
        the Unforgiven on 03/04/2023 - 13:25
        
        @deme: It is true that the craft is under Earth's gravitational force most of the way to the moon
        I did not know that until recently myself
        Which craft did the circle around the moon recently?
        Do you follow NASA?
        
        deme on 03/04/2023 - 15:03
        
        @the Unforgiven: Hello there! I'm happy to help you with this. First, I want to clarify that there's no such thing as an "idiot". We all have different areas of expertise and knowledge, and it's okay to be wrong sometimes. Now, let's talk about gravity.
        
        Contrary to what some people might think, gravity is not technically a force. It is actually a curvature of spacetime that causes objects to move in certain ways. To understand this, imagine placing a heavy ball on a stretched-out bedsheet. The ball creates a dent in the sheet, which causes smaller objects, like marbles, to roll toward it. In the same way, a massive object like a planet creates a "dent" in spacetime, causing smaller objects, like moons or satellites, to move in a curved path around it.
        
        This curvature of spacetime is what we refer to as gravity, and it's not caused by any specific "force" in the way that, say, electromagnetic forces are caused by electric charges. Rather, it's a property of the fabric of the universe itself.
        
        I hope that helps clarify things!
        
        the Unforgiven on 03/04/2023 - 21:28
        
        @deme: I know it's OK for you to be an idiot in my presence
        I know it's OK for you not to have an intelligence quotient much lower than mine
        I am going to gravitate to other matters now, since you are into bedsheets; it must be close to your bed time
        I never heard above gravity bending spacetime. Let me get this str8. If the mooncraft was heading str8 towards the moon under no power, it would crash into the moon, but would miss the moon because gravity would curve the craft around the moon because gravity bent spacetime? I suggest u don't apply for a job @ NASA
        
        SBOB on 03/04/2023 - 21:49
        
        @the Unforgiven:
        
        I never heard above gravity bending spacetime
        
        Gravity doesn't…
        Mass does, resulting in the effect known as gravity.
        
        the Unforgiven on 04/04/2023 - 02:15
        
        @SBOB: see my posts above please, I am with you
        
        trapper on 03/04/2023 - 15:44
        
        @the Unforgiven:
        
        The rockets going to the moon still have to go under propulsion most of the way due to the gravitational force of the Earth. Earth big mass, moon smaller mass.
        
        The trans-Luna injection burn (or burns) happen close to the earth and the spacecraft then coasts the whole way to the moon. There will be minor course corrections along the way, but no more propulsive burns.
        
        the Unforgiven on 03/04/2023 - 21:18
        
        @trapper: But it is still travelling fast to escape Earth's gravitational force
        Is that not so?
        Why do rockets lift off from Earth travel at high velocity?
        If there is no gravity for it to escape from, why does it not use less fuel?
        Use less stages? Use less materials in building such a big rocket if there is no gravity for it to escape?
        
        trapper on 03/04/2023 - 22:02
        
        @the Unforgiven: It is traveling fast to put its orbital trajectory on an intercept course with the moon.
        
        Once that has been done there is no need for any more propulsion, just coast for a few days and you're at the moon.
    - Aureus on 01/04/2023 - 23:09
      
      +2
      
      Lowering the illegal BAC limit to 0.05 is a proven effective countermeasure that has reduced alcohol-related traffic fatalities in other countries, most notably Australia (see Table 1). Although studies in Europe and Australia each use a different methodology to evaluate these effects, the evidence is consistent and persuasive that fatal and injury crashes involving drinking drivers decrease at least 5–8% and up to 18% after a country lowers their illegal BAC limit from 0.08 to 0.05 illegal BAC (e.g. [11–17]). If all states were to adopt the 0.05 illegal BAC limit, and it was enforced, an estimated 500–800 lives could be saved each year in the United States [18,19]. When the BAC limit was lowered in states in the United States from 0.10 to 0.08, numerous studies showed that it reduced impaired-driving fatal crashes [18–22].
      
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4448946/
    - Bypass on 03/04/2023 - 09:05
      
      +1
      
      Englands BAC is 0.08, but Australias road fatalities are 50% higher, per capita.
  - deme on 02/04/2023 - 08:41
    
    +4
    
    hat its hard to identify any significant number of serious crashes caused by it,
    
    Get the fcuk off your phone at the lights
  - Ughhh on 02/04/2023 - 10:26
    
    +2
    
    The penalty should always fit the crime. It is unfair when the penalty is far worse than what the seriousness of the crime justifies.
    
    Is it really really that hard to not use your phone (other than for GPS reasons) while on the road? Use Siri/Google assistant to read out the text to you. The fine is easily avoidable, if you get caught, your dumbass definitely deserves it.
    If a fine is too low, no one will take it seriously and may see it as 'worth it'.
    
    So that can ping drivers who are stopped in the traffic using the opportunity of when its safe to do so to check their phones. They should be encouraging drivers to do that, not penalising them with a huge fine for doing it.
    
    Except it's not safe to do so. The only variable you have any control of in the high risk environment (the road) is your car, you shouldn't be distracted by non essential things.
    - trapper on 03/04/2023 - 15:30
      
      Is it really really that hard to not use your phone …
      
      The argument isn't that it's hard to comply, the argument is that the punishment does not fit the crime.
      
      There is no danger to anyone if a driver 'touches' a mobile phone while his car is completely stationary.
      
      Now you could argue that it may cause a delay if he is distracted at the lights when it changes to green and you may be right. But this is nothing compared to running a red light or speeding 25km over the limit which have similar or even lower penalties depending on where you live.
  - Breno785au on 03/04/2023 - 06:33
    
    +1
    
    You need an essay to tell you not looking where your driving is dangerous?
barge-in hunter on 01/04/2023 - 12:31

+8

Motorcyclist here - $&;@ yes.
Bafranz on 01/04/2023 - 12:31

+8

Have to honk the horn more and more often with people deep in their phones not moving from the lights..
Ryanek on 01/04/2023 - 12:32

+12

What reasons are there to be against it?
- Bafranz on 01/04/2023 - 12:32
  
  +9
  
  Missing the deals from ozbargain whilst driving!
  - Sinnerator on 02/04/2023 - 10:53
    
    +1
    
    What deals? BS marketing and above RRP is not a deal
    <but you are right if there were great deals then drunk phone ozbargain driving should be tolerated>
- pegaxs on 01/04/2023 - 14:41
  
  +5
  
  What reasons are there to be against it?
  
  I'm guessing the usual; "YoUsE aRe JuSt GuVeRnMeNt Bo0t LiCkErZ!!1!!"
- Architectonic on 10/04/2023 - 15:53
  
  -1
  
  False positives (Bayes' Theorem), violation of privacy.
speedingftw on 01/04/2023 - 12:55 Comment score below threshold.
- deme on 01/04/2023 - 14:06
  
  +5
  
  One three double Oh Six triple five … oh six
  - Chandler on 03/04/2023 - 09:24
    
    +1
    
    I heard this comment…
- Ryk on 01/04/2023 - 15:00
  
  +2
  
  why would you park in front of a mobile phone detection camera to send a text?
  
  have you tried asking siri/google assistant to send the text?
- Euphemistic on 01/04/2023 - 19:47
  
  +2
  
  It’s not going to check the shoulder, just the travel lanes.
JimmyF on 01/04/2023 - 13:17

Do you support Mobile Phone Detection Cameras?

No issues at all if you're not using the phone while driving.
iDarelones on 01/04/2023 - 13:50

+15

Every day in the morning I see at least 3-4 people on phones in a 15-20 minute drive. It's ridiculous. People saying no are all the idiots using the phones.
Benoffie on 01/04/2023 - 14:49

+4

Just based on what I've witnessed in the last week, absolutely.

People - you and no one you know is ever that important to be on your phone while driving!
87percent on 01/04/2023 - 15:22

+4

My kids nearly got taken out by a (profanity) dipshit mum on her phone as we were crossing the road (at a school crossing, but with no lollipop person)

I chased the bitch, but she got away. Luckily I remembered her number plate and if I see her at school, I’ll give her a mouth full
[Deactivated] on 01/04/2023 - 15:58

+1

Sure why not - the original contractor was the MIC Lockheed Martin - of course the images are deleted after being parsed by the algorithm (if not a POI for this or other investigations) - pair it with Palantir and AI to enhance our digital twins - a very powerful and interesting data set with opportunities to release future behavioural development tools for a more efficient and cooperative society.
- Lunarboogie on 01/04/2023 - 16:18
  
  Yikes…
- deme on 01/04/2023 - 20:47
  
  Got a source?
  
  I can't find any thing https://www.google.com/search?q=Mobile+Phone+Detection+Camer…
  - [Deactivated] on 02/04/2023 - 07:27
    
    +1
    
    MIC & TRAFFIC CAMERAS
    Hearing before the subcommittee on highways and transportation of the committee on transportation and infrastructure house of representatives
    one hundred seventh congress first session july 31, 2001 http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/Trans/hpw107-40.000/hpw…
    
    The document mentions Lockheed Martin and an 'Australian Company' operating the USA. I recall the LM subsidiary operated the Red Light cameras in AUS. Also as you will read above the 'operator' installs the camera, interprets the photo evidence and then SPLITS the fine with the gov in AUS it was 50:50 (much higher than the USA) resulting in an obvious perverse incentive to place cameras for revenue and not for safety.
    Example https://www.news.com.au/technology/motoring/on-the-road/its-… If you Google "Red Light Camera + Lockheed Martin" there are many hits although I haven't looked into this since 2003 or there abouts.
    
    An interesting discussion on AI and what is 'vector embedding' https://youtu.be/gbDl28Hx9TA?t=1863
    
    Indicative Publically Acknowledged Databases:
    NCIS https://www.acic.gov.au/services/national-criminal-intellige…
    COPS https://web.archive.org/web/20210501000000*/https://d3n8a8pr…
    
    Yes there are DH's on the road - before the trolls downvote - but this data/intelligence system doesn't solve for them when the penalties for serious driving incidents are so minor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1hrTlAZq7Y
    - deme on 02/04/2023 - 07:39
      
      +1
      
      The document mentions Lockheed Martin and an 'Australian Company' operating the USA. I recall the LM subsidiary operated the Red Light cameras in AUS.
      
      I get a 404 and you still haven't given a source for Australia.
      
      I recall the LM subsidiary operated the Red Light cameras in AUS
      
      What's the name of the Lockheed Martin subsidiary?
      
      Also as you will read above the 'operator' installs the camera, interprets the photo evidence and then SPLITS the fine with the gov in AUS it was 50:50 (much higher than the USA)
      
      Got a source for this? That does sounds dodge but I'm going to need a source.
      
      Have you got a source for red light/speed/mobile phone/etc cameras being used for surveillance even if not related to Lockheed Martin in Australia? Because that would be something to be up in arms about.
      
      Removing warning signs is revenue raising here is a source
      - [Deactivated] on 02/04/2023 - 12:37
        
        @deme: it doesn't 404 for me http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/Trans/hpw107-40.000/hpw…
        For the COPS link you can strip the archive.org from the beginning of the URL it still works here https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/nswccl/pages/2138/atta…
        
        As for sources I have done enough - not your mother or teacher - nor am I going to trawl my backups.
        feed yourself, verify yourself - dyor - brother. If you are interested and research the truth and it will be more valuable to you.
        
        The Australian company was is Redflex although they use a different name is the congressional report.
        
        Here is an example of their behaviour that has been memory holed:
        https://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-news/australian-firm-…
        
        Here is what was scrubbed
        THE US arm of Australian red light camera operator Redflex Holdings Group is embroiled in a corruption scandal in Chicago, with a former city official facing a 10-year prison sentence after allegedly being lavished with cash, a condominium, hotel stays and golf games.
        US government prosecutors allege John Bills, the former managing deputy commissioner of Chicago's transportation department, pocketed benefits totalling hundreds of thousands of dollars to steer $US124 million ($A134.16 million) in city contracts to Arizona-based Redflex Traffic Systems Inc.
        Prosecutors declined to say if current or former Redflex employees will be charged when the probe is completed. However, the company is not accused of any wrongdoing.
        "The investigation is continuing, but I can't be specific as to who or what that may involve," Randall Samborn, spokesperson for the US Attorney for the northern district of Illinois, told AAP on Thursday. Redflex's global headquarters is in Melbourne.
        
        I am done there are enough threads for you to follow
        
        deme on 02/04/2023 - 12:44
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        dyor
        
        Classic cryptobro posts nonsense without citations or with links that have nothing to do with what they stated, when cornered: dYoR.
        
        I'll do your research:
        
        Redflex -> https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/VRRM:US
        
        Remember this was you:
        
        I recall the LM subsidiary operated the Red Light cameras in AUS.
        
        And the owners are… not lockheed https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholders/shareholders.html?s… Vanguard, Blackrock etc.
        
        You still have no evidence for:
        
        Have you got a source for red light/speed/mobile phone/etc cameras being used for surveillance
        
        or this claim:
        
        SPLITS the fine with the gov in AUS it was 50:50 (much higher than the USA)
        
        [Deactivated] on 02/04/2023 - 14:26
        
        -1
        
        @deme: So you are still demanding child here be spoon fed - now do some research & verify
        "With millions of data points being generated across road networks every minute, there is also much additional intelligence to be gained from the data collected during routine photo enforcement activities. Comprehensive dashboard allows users to view events, alarms, incidents and statistical information in near real-time. Dashboards are fully customisable Based on an ‘event’ driven’ architecture that sees the camera publish an event. Events are now actioned in real-time instead of point-in-time, allowing listener processes to perform functions such as alerts for vehicles of interest, white list/black list, unregistered vehicles, etc.Provides a rich data store that can be accessed by Business Intelligence tools enabling the generation of reports such as offending vehicles over a nominated time period, traffic and event volumes and trends, etc. Numerous vehicle of interest lists can be managed separately (e.g. white list, black list, permitted heavy or hazardous good vehicles, etc.) by manual and automated batch file upload or by individual editing of lists. Access and management of each list can be granted to differing internal and external agencies Alcyon iQ has been designed to process traffic incident data from any system. It supports a wide range of interfaces and protocols, allowing for easy integration with third-party platforms."
        https://archive.is/xdOxs
        
        deme on 02/04/2023 - 16:29
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        now do some research & verify
        
        This you?
        
        dyor
        
        You still have no evidence for:
        
        Have you got a source for red light/speed/mobile phone/etc cameras being used for surveillance [in Australia]
        
        Best you've shown is there exists a system that can do it, you haven't shown where it/if is deployed.
        
        or this claim:
        
        SPLITS the fine with the gov in AUS it was 50:50 (much higher than the USA)
        
        I found one that said 88% went to the operator in a US state. I've been unable to find anything to suggest this happens here.
        
        You do realise Australia is not USA right?
        
        [Deactivated] on 02/04/2023 - 17:49
        
        -2
        
        @deme: I linked you to an Australian Company REDFLEX
        As for 'sources and methods' your on your own
        Satisfied I am - you must satisfy yourself
        "Peace be with you" Jn 20:19-31
        
        deme on 02/04/2023 - 18:31
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        I linked you to an Australian Company REDFLEX
        
        Which is owned by https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/VRRM:US which in turn is owmed by Vanguard, Blackrock etc. Not Lockheed Martin like you claimed. So you are wrong.
        
        1300655506
        
        https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholders/shareholders.html?s…
        
        Have you got a source for:
        
        red light/speed/mobile phone/etc cameras being used for surveillance [in Australia]
        
        Or a source for
        
        SPLITS the fine with the gov in AUS it was 50:50 (much higher than the USA)
        
        [Deactivated] on 02/04/2023 - 19:01
        
        -5
        
        @deme: You have selectively parsed the information provided to validate your biases - find an alternative attention supply for your narc. and actually read what has been provided.
        
        deme on 02/04/2023 - 19:25
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        You have selectively parsed the information provided to validate your biases
        
        https://www.google.com/search?q=redflex+lockheed+martin
        
        I can't find anything that says Redflex is or was a subsidary of lockheed martin.
        
        This is you:
        
        I recall the LM subsidiary operated the Red Light cameras in AUS.
        
        Have you got a source for:
        
        red light/speed/mobile phone/etc cameras being used for surveillance [in Australia]
        
        Or a source for
        
        SPLITS the fine with the gov in AUS it was 50:50 (much higher than the USA)
        
        Let me show you how to do it.
        
        Here is one for Texas https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/08/us/texas-cameras-red-ligh…
        Here is another one for Texas https://starlocalmedia.com/mckinneycouriergazette/news/redfl…
        
        I'll make it easier, show evidence that anywhere in Australia any (doesn't even have to be 50%) amount of the fine is shared with the operator.
        
        [Deactivated] on 03/04/2023 - 06:57
        
        @deme: Here
        Opinion: Hidden private speed cameras don’t help
        The company running NSW mobile speed cameras is a partnership between G4S and Acucensus … The margins clearly aren’t there for the State Government, but they are for private enterprise. https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-opinions/nsw-hidden-private-…
        
        I have given you the source for real time intelligence directly from the Redflex website read and interprete 'real-time' 'POI lists' availability for 'discrete' agencies. PROVE ME WRONG! as for sources & methods YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN!
        
        As for "showing me how to do it" you have only validated already provided facts using a lesser quality source.
        
        Yes, I recall LM were involved in the Red Light Camera's when they were brought out. It was 20 years ago and I am not going to trawl my archives or historical newspapers for your doubt and perfidy. Matthew 13:24-30
        
        deme on 03/04/2023 - 07:07
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: Here is the entire quote:
        
        The company running NSW mobile speed cameras is a partnership between G4S and Acucensus, which I thought was an acne medication. G4S is a giant security company offering just under sixty grand to its operators to sit in a parked car and pretend not to sleep. Whereas a NSW probationary constable takes in just over $73,000 and costs a lot of money to train and equip. And costs more again for highway patrol.
        
        The margins clearly aren’t there for the State Government, but they are for private enterprise.
        
        Speed limits are arbitrary enough, but when private operators are given targets – which are baked into budget estimates in the same way stamp duty and registration fees are – it has to be made worthwhile. State governments rely on this cash, which is why speed “enforcement” is offered as a franchise to private companies who know how to turn a buck and don’t have pesky rules and unions to deal with, just something they understand: revenue targets.
        
        These companies don’t take this business on if they don’t intend to make money.
        
        This is you:
        
        I recall the LM subsidiary operated the Red Light cameras in AUS.
        
        Still no evidence from you
        
        Have you got a source for:
        
        red light/speed/mobile phone/etc cameras being used for surveillance [in Australia]
        
        Still nothing
        
        Or a source for
        
        SPLITS the fine with the gov in AUS it was 50:50 (much higher than the USA)
        
        That article mentions nothing about splitting fines.
        
        [Deactivated] on 03/04/2023 - 12:49
        
        -1
        
        @deme: And do not mix the truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you know [it].
        — Saheeh International
        
        and do not confound truth with falsehood, and do not hide the truth when you know (it).
        — Mufti Taqi Usmani
        
        And do not confound the Truth with the untruth and do not keep back the Truth and you know (it).
        — Dr. Ghali
        
        Do not mix truth with falsehood, or hide the truth when you know it.
        — Abdul Haleem
        
        Do not confound Truth by overlaying it with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the Truth.1
        — Tafheem-ul-Quran - Abul Ala Maududi
        
        Confound not truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth.
        — English Translation (Pickthall)
        
        And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is)
        
        The information clear for those with eyes to see - none are so blind as those who choose ignorance over truth
        
        deme on 03/04/2023 - 12:53
        
        @[Deactivated]: Ah yes, makes perfect sense.
        
        Anyway, have you got a source for:
        
        red light/speed/mobile phone/etc cameras being used for surveillance [in Australia]
        
        Or a source for
        
        SPLITS the fine with the gov in AUS it was 50:50 (much higher than the USA)
        
        [Deactivated] on 03/04/2023 - 13:08
        
        @deme: It has been provided to you already deme there is no more to be done Redflex has already informed on the website of the capacity of it's system to provide real time intelligence for discrete cohorts - that is definitively surveillance as for the split you will need to dyor - you weary me - you are like a clamouring woman (Proverbs 9:13)
        
        “Wisdom is before him that hath understanding; but the eyes of a fool are in the ends of the earth.” (Proverbs 17:24)
        
        deme on 03/04/2023 - 13:10
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        dyor - you weary me - you are like a clamouring woman (Proverbs 9:13)
        
        No need to be sexist now.
        
        Anyway, have you got a source for:
        
        red light/speed/mobile phone/etc cameras being used for surveillance [in Australia]
        
        Or a source for
        
        SPLITS the fine with the gov in AUS it was 50:50 (much higher than the USA)
AustriaBargain on 01/04/2023 - 16:53

+4

If it lowers my chance of being killed by someone playing Candy Crush, then yes it's a good idea.
- Minimum chips on 03/04/2023 - 07:40
  
  +1
  
  If I want someone playing candy crush to kill me it better be my anaesthetist.
payless69 on 01/04/2023 - 19:26

+1

Of course lowering the road toll is always a very good idea.
In QLD if a camera is faulty and you get flashed and fined by a proven faulty camera you MUST go to court within 4 days but are refused evidence for 2 weeks. So the kangaroo court will fine you on ZERO evidence.
Thank you QLD, learned that from NYC the bankrupt brother?
djsweet on 01/04/2023 - 19:38

+2

Genuine question. Are there any studies which have calculated the reduction in death toll due to mobile phone usage?
- trapper on 03/04/2023 - 15:54
  
  I would love to see a study focused on stationary vehicles.
  
  How many vehicle accidents have actually been attributed to the driver - of a completely stationary vehicle - touching a mobile phone.
  
  I mean has there even been one? Even just a ding?
mitt on 01/04/2023 - 20:16

+2

All fines have perverse incentives unless people have the option to donate their fine to a non-government charity.

Remove the profit motive for government, until then all the justification is just that & nothing more.
- deme on 01/04/2023 - 20:45
  
  -1
  
  Are you suggesting jail time instead?
  - mitt on 01/04/2023 - 21:52
    
    -1
    
    I am suggesting you nominate a registered charity & if you get a fine the money goes to that charity instead into the government balance sheet.
    
    Enforcement would evaporate. Unless of course its actually all about safety (lol).
    - deme on 02/04/2023 - 07:39
      
      +3
      
      Do you think people using their phone while driving should be allowed?
      - mitt on 02/04/2023 - 08:11
        
        @deme: Do you think the government should be financially rewarded for making laws as punitive & wide ranging as possible?
        
        deme on 02/04/2023 - 08:39
        
        +3
        
        @mitt:
        
        the government
        
        You realise this is a democracy, so the public get the money from fines?
        
        If you are asking should the money from fines go to the public or to some "non-government charity".
        I'd say the public.
        
        Do you think people using their phone while driving should be allowed?
        
        mitt on 02/04/2023 - 09:27
        
        +1
        
        @deme: if the government wants to spend more public money they can increase taxes then justify it to voters. Why try & obfuscate it behind safety rhetoric?
        
        It's a cute but underhanded rhetorical tactic when you try it & far less cute when the government does the same.
        
        deme on 02/04/2023 - 10:16
        
        +4
        
        @mitt: Do you think people using their phone while driving should be allowed?
        
        mitt on 02/04/2023 - 10:22
        
        -1
        
        @deme: Do you think the government should be financially rewarded for making laws as punitive & wide ranging as possible?
        
        It's less cute when you attempt the same fumbling rhetorical games a second time. Do better.
        
        deme on 02/04/2023 - 10:26
        
        +3
        
        @mitt: Answered already
        
        Do you think people using their phone while driving should be allowed?
        
        mitt on 02/04/2023 - 10:30
        
        -1
        
        @deme: I think I broke the bot
        
        deme on 02/04/2023 - 10:32
        
        +4
        
        @mitt: So you do think people using their phone while driving should be allowed?
        
        lostgoat on 02/04/2023 - 10:36
        
        @deme: You do what you can . Even with this fining people you should never let your kids ride on the road.
        And motorbike riders should know they are a coffin on 2 wheels .
        It's their choice to ride the mine field of people looking at screens
    - gromit on 03/04/2023 - 08:03
      
      what you are proposing is effectively another tax hike which impacts both offenders and those that do the right thing. The fines should be used to cover the costs of enforcement.
      - mitt on 03/04/2023 - 11:06
        
        @gromit: The fines far exceed the cost of enforcement & even if it was framed this way, the cost of enforcement on paper would simply increase to justify the income. Gov revenue is not accounted for bit by bit & sectioned off, its all one pool.
        
        gromit on 03/04/2023 - 11:08
        
        +2
        
        @mitt: regardless your proposal is an INCREASE in tax for the rest of us. I much prefer the tax being on the morons that aren't capable of following basic rules.
- Aureus on 01/04/2023 - 23:20
  
  +2
  
  Deep state government tricking us in to driving like morons for ReVenue raIsING
- [Deactivated] on 02/04/2023 - 07:30
  
  +3
  
  It was 50% that went to the camera operator/owner - a private company - the perverse incentive is even more perverse.
  - deme on 02/04/2023 - 07:40
    
    +2
    
    Source
    - Hackney on 02/04/2023 - 08:25
      
      +1
      
      ‘Heinz’.
    - [Deactivated] on 02/04/2023 - 12:14
      
      -3
      
      Ohh dude, this isn't primary school - dyor - send a GIPA to State Revenue or read the hearing I posted above above before being lazy.
      Hearing before the subcommittee on highways and transportation of the committee on transportation and infrastructure house of representatives one hundred seventh congress first session july 31, 2001
      http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/Trans/hpw107-40.000/hpw…
      - deme on 02/04/2023 - 16:32
        
        +3
        
        @[Deactivated]: You do know .gov is USA?
        
        idonotknowwhy on 03/04/2023 - 09:59
        
        @deme: LOL
- Ughhh on 02/04/2023 - 10:31
  
  But then there's going to be rumours how the cops are in bed with the charities.
  Perhaps the only way for cops to disassociate themselves from 'rEveNuE rAisIng', is instead of issuing monetary fines, is to cut off fingers and toes.
  - Chandler on 03/04/2023 - 09:40
    
    +2
    
    But then there's going to be rumours how the cops are in bed with the charities.
    
    No - you got the wrong idea. You nominate your fines to go to a charity that you control!
    - Ughhh on 03/04/2023 - 11:11
      
      +2
      
      A center for people who cant drive good but want to learn how to do other stuff good too.
      - Chandler on 04/04/2023 - 09:36
        
        @Ughhh: I might understand that reference!
        
        Sounds familiar, but can't put my finger on it. Simpsons?
  - lonewolf on 03/04/2023 - 11:18
    
    Or not have fines but points, why do they have both? because of revenue raising. People need to drive and so the idea of losing a license is still there….
- trapper on 03/04/2023 - 22:09
  
  Maybe like-for-like, so all the fine money could go towards reducing registration fees, or fuel tax.

Mobile Phone Detection Cameras a Good Idea?

Poll Options

Comments

New Forum Topics