Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More nanny, surveillance state BS. You people rage against authoritarianism while supporting tools to accelerate its success.

Requiring people to obey traffic laws is authoritarianism? You might want to google "authoritarianism" and read more about what it means.

DP. I'd also suggest research into the tactics employed by authoritarian regimes. Surveillance of the mundane is among that most enabling of such.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More nanny, surveillance state BS. You people rage against authoritarianism while supporting tools to accelerate its success.

It gets people who are breaking laws meant to increase safety. If you don't break the law, you don't get a ticket. Driving is a privilege not a right. You don't have a right to make others less safe.

DP. Balance is important.

Laws such as those against speeding and the societal norms from which some sprung were created under the auspices of a different enforcement regime. Unless there is significant evidence that utilizing more advanced enforcement technology results in actual safety increases, the increased incidence of enforcement action that results is likely to be overly punitive to the law's intent. Meanwhile, even if determined to improve safety in a meaningful way, that would have to be balanced against the personal intrusion and other effects of the technology utilized, including the propensity towards things like misusing the technology for discriminatory or political purposes, creating societal ticket revenue dependence, etc.

Anonymous wrote:More nanny, surveillance state BS. You people rage against authoritarianism while supporting tools to accelerate its success.

Requiring people to obey traffic laws is authoritarianism? You might want to google "authoritarianism" and read more about what it means.

Anonymous wrote:More nanny, surveillance state BS. You people rage against authoritarianism while supporting tools to accelerate its success.

It gets people who are breaking laws meant to increase safety. If you don't break the law, you don't get a ticket. Driving is a privilege not a right. You don't have a right to make others less safe.

More nanny, surveillance state BS. You people rage against authoritarianism while supporting tools to accelerate its success.

I'll never understand why people text while driving. I see people doing it on the beltway all the time. It's so dangerous, and frankly it seems rather stressful to try to type a message while driving. Cameras are a good first step.

People need to take a drivers education course before they apply for a license.

Anonymous wrote:Speaking as a DC rez, i generally trust that the speed cameras and red-light work as intended, when they aren't glitching. (Looking at you, camera at Connecticut and Nebraska that is habitually confused.) I cannot say the same for stop sign cameras. The tech just doesn't seem to work right.

I live by the stop sign camera at Whitehaven & 37th. It's very famous: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/05/31/stop-sign-camera-northwest-washington/

They recalibrated the camera so it's not as sensitive. I drive through this sign a few times per week and I now just automatically stop at this sign well behind the white line and count to three. My muscle memory has adapted.

Folks really need to use Google Maps or Waze every time they drive. It's not optional, even if you know the route by memory.

This is a tax on (1) rideshare drivers glued to their phone and (2) private school moms in big SUVs who insist on texting with their hand (rather than using the very nice CarPlay and Android systems in their $75K+ vehicle).

I approve.

Speaking as a DC rez, i generally trust that the speed cameras and red-light work as intended, when they aren't glitching. (Looking at you, camera at Connecticut and Nebraska that is habitually confused.) I cannot say the same for stop sign cameras. The tech just doesn't seem to work right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of looking for phones, why don't they use the AI cameras to detect cars that are swerving between lanes, stopped at green lights, and traveling below the pace of traffic?

My MIL can all those things without looking at her phone!

Much harder to prove that you're breaking the law. In contrast, using a cell phone in your hands is unquestionably illegal.

But holding a phone isn’t illegal, just like holding a coffee isn’t. How can they prove I’m using it versus holding it?

Anonymous wrote:Instead of looking for phones, why don't they use the AI cameras to detect cars that are swerving between lanes, stopped at green lights, and traveling below the pace of traffic?

My MIL can all those things without looking at her phone!

Much harder to prove that you're breaking the law. In contrast, using a cell phone in your hands is unquestionably illegal.

Instead of looking for phones, why don't they use the AI cameras to detect cars that are swerving between lanes, stopped at green lights, and traveling below the pace of traffic?

My MIL can all those things without looking at her phone!

> The technology would not be able to detect someone watching a video on a device in a cell phone holder or a Tesla screen, Maheshwari said.


$TSLA to the moon!

Anonymous wrote:I don't want to hear about another ticketing device being installed and the streets have huge crater size holes in them! What are they using this money for?? It's ridiculous! Create technology to address that first. I am so tired of dodging potholes while I drive and if I pop my tire the county makes it very hard to file a claim!

Have you ever reported a pothole? I report them through 311 and MDDOT (they are responsive for routes like 355) and they are fixed in 1 biz day. They don’t know about the holes unless you tell them. Try reporting it and see what happens rather than just complain online.