
New South Wales rolls out mobile phone detection cameras - watchdogtimer
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-safety-roads/australias-new-south-wales-rolls-out-mobile-phone-detection-cameras-idUSKBN1Y50QX
======
technofiend
Anecdotally (I have no data or way to prove it) stop and go traffic seems
about 20-30% slower to me than when I first started driving. It's only in the
last few years have I literally seen people just sitting through a green
light, but now taking 10-15 seconds to start moving after the car in front of
you has is IMHO far more common.

Previously that was almost exclusive to dropping something on the floor,
getting distracted talking to people in the back seat, adjusting the radio, or
other things that were exceptions, not the rule. Now it's just failing to look
up from the phone in their lap.

------
akersten
This is some Orwellian shit. An 88 million dollar investment combined with
government-sanctioned Tom-peeping, to save an estimated 100 lives? That money
would go a lot farther invested in modernizing vehicle safety, requiring lane
assist features, etc. instead of fueling the surveillance state. I suspect
those pushing this kind of thing are more interested in a solution where they
can just defer all the hard work to "Artificial Intelligence" and avoid
collaborating on meaningful change.

~~~
megablast
I disagree. Cars are killing machines, and should be constantly tracked at all
times. Over a million dead every single year, 40k in the USA, and 3 every day
in Australia. And that does not include the indirect deaths from pollution,
urban sprawl, lack of exercise, etc....

> That money would go a lot farther invested in modernizing vehicle safety

Such a meaningless statement.

People shouldn't even be in cars most of the time that they are. In Australia,
we are addicted to cars, where a large part of the population can not move
without them. Disgusting.

~~~
akersten
> 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.

------
jen729w
Lots of negativity here so far so I’ll chip in and say that, as a cyclist,
motorcyclist, and pedestrian, I’m glad to see something happening.

Mobile phone use while driving has reached chronic levels. It’s a disgrace.
Yes, the police could spend their days trying to catch people. But they
aren’t, and if they do the letters in the tabloids excoriate them for it.

People have to stop using their phones while they drive. Maybe this will scare
them in to a behaviour change.

(I live in the state of Victoria. NSW is our neighbour.)

~~~
gravelc
This is coming to QLD too (along with $1000 fines), and I totally support it.
Whenever I'm cycling in traffic, I see plenty of people on their phones. The
worst is people swerving into bike lanes without looking - peripheral vision
seems to be completely lost when a driver's mind isn't on the job.

~~~
tempsolution
In Vancouver there is no such things as peripheral vision, but that is not due
to mobile phone use. Indicators are also optional. I am impressed how there is
not a crash every second. When you drive here with a bike you basically know
that any car will just cut your bike-lane at their convenience and turn right
at a traffic lite, right into your path...

------
bluenose69
I wonder if it will be more accurate than an officer's eyes.

Those eyes are not always the best. I was pulled over once for talking on my
cell phone. I told the officer that I had not been using the phone (which was
only for emergencies, and was buried in a backpack). He argued with me pretty
forcefully, until I invited him to check the call-list. My guess is that I was
rubbing my ear at the instant he glanced at my car going by.

~~~
jdnenej
The cameras take a photo which would very likely be reviewed by a human first.
And if the photo is very unclear you have some kind of proof to use unlike a
police officer saying they saw it.

~~~
nineteen999
It confirms that in the article:

"Images that the automated system identifies as likely to contain a driver
illegally using a mobile phone are verified by authorized personnel."

I wonder whether the system can tell the difference between the driver using a
mobile phone, and a front/back seat passenger using one.

------
ortusdux
Can it detect cookies?

[https://www.technobuffalo.com/man-gets-pulled-over-for-
eatin...](https://www.technobuffalo.com/man-gets-pulled-over-for-eating-
iphone-shaped-cookies-while-driving)

~~~
jimmux
That can still get you booked in NSW, if police decide that it's contributing
to dangerous driving.

Based on things I've seen during a morning commute, I hope it can detect bowls
of cereal, electric shavers, and open makeup cases as well.

------
_s
I think some context might help; Australia, or NSW already has pretty lengthy
requirements for getting a drivers license, plus fairly strict road rules.

You have to "log" over a hundred hours of driving as a learner, and then you
progress onto your "P" or probationary license; which is also in two stages,
which restricts what you can do.

After you make it through both the probationary phases, you then have a normal
(unrestricted) license.

NSW also issue's demerit points for offences; and for a little while now has
had "double" points for offences, plus a no-alcohol tolerance (blow anything
and you will likely loose your license).

The highest speed limit is also 110km/h on 3-4 lane free/high/motorways; but
generally dual-lane is around 60-80km/h, and in built up area's it's
40-60km/h.

This strictness is after decades of road deaths for drivers and pedestrians:
[https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/statistics/fatalityt...](https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/statistics/fatalitytrends.html)

It can be argued that advances in civil engineering and vehicles for
driver/pedestrian safety have had a far greater impact than road rules, but
causation/correlation etc. The introduction of mandatory seatbelts, airbags,
ABS, better roads / infrastructure would also line up nicely with the chart
but alas, that's not their narrative.

More recently - "distracted" driving incidents have been making the rounds,
and I'm not surprised that the state gov wants to jump on this. I was honestly
wondering why I've seen more police on foot at traffic lights waving down
drivers and fining them for using their devices over the past week or two, and
am not surprised to see this pop on the news either.

In Australia, NSW specifically is considered more of a "nanny" state - with
the lockout laws and so forth.

Personal opinion:

It's fairly easy to get a license here - it just takes a few years (or you
just make up your logbook as most youths do), and the testing standards are
fairly low compared to Western / Northern Europe.

Parents are generally teaching their younger ones to drive, so teaching
standards are incredibly varied and tend to be low.

Then there's also the allowance of almost all international drivers licenses
being valid for 3-months, which is rarely enforceable; so you have a few
drivers also unfamiliar with the road rules.

The money and effort would be far better invested in a more intensive exam,
and regular checks of skills / standards, plus providing alternative means of
transport.

This current push is just a gov-led posturing of "doing" something for the
next election cycle.

~~~
shermozle
Unfortunately the vast majority of drivers on the road didn't go through the
regime you describe to get a license.

My mother got her license in the 1960s in a town with dirt roads. Quick loop
of the main street, reverse park, hill start and the local copper gave her a
license. She's never been forced to learn the rules for traffic lights,
roundabouts, freeways, drink driving or any of the other modern amenities and
rules.

------
saagarjha
How do these work? I’m sure that with the angles and tinted windows involved,
these cameras would need to be quite invasive to be effective…

~~~
elil17
How can this camera be more invasive than a red light camera?

~~~
saagarjha
Red light cameras aren’t designed to look into your car.

~~~
SllX
They are when they’re designed to also identify the driver.

~~~
saagarjha
Why would such a thing be necessary when you can just grab the plates instead?

~~~
turboturbo
In some countries (such as Germany) you have to be able to identify the driver
in order to impose a fine. They actually send you a print-out of the picture
along with the fine

~~~
elil17
Then it’s still the same as a red light camera

------
Simulacra
Good thing I hold mine down below the dash.

------
dsfyu404ed
They could have just posted cops at problem intersections for a fraction of
the cost but cops are human and sometimes cut people a break when they deserve
one.

It's not about safety. It's about reminding people that if they step out of
line for any reason they will get whacked because the government is always
watching.

~~~
__d
Let's assume a police officer costs the state $88,0000 annually (including
salary, training, healthcare, equipment, etc). So $88M is 1000 additional
officer years.

It's possible a camera and its installation will cost up to $500,000 (it's a
government contract, after all). That would mean a camera needs to last 6
years to make it naively cheaper than an additional officer.

So ... I think the cost argument is more or less a wash. Cameras might last
longer than that. Or be a bit cheaper than that. They're probably able to
detect more offenses than a human, given their positioning.

I think there are more effective arguments to be made about the reversal of
the onus of proof, about security of the video imagery, etc.

~~~
sjy
I’m not too sure if you’re talking Australian or US dollars there, but the
_starting_ salary of a NSW probationary constable is A$73,609 [1]. I’d say
that means the total marginal cost of an additional police officer is around
double what you’ve indicated in Australian dollars (so if you were using US
dollars, it would probably be quite close).

[1]:
[https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/recruitment/the_career/general...](https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/recruitment/the_career/general_duties/working_conditions)

~~~
thundergolfer
I agree with 150k AUD being a closer estimate. Maybe 125k. Once you include
superannuation (big) and all other costs associated with maintaining an
average foot patrol officer their fully-loaded yearly expense is going to be
way more than 88k.

