[mabbo]

Of all the places I'd expect negative reactions to this, I'm shocked HN is one of them.

This is automation of a dangerous job that is expensive to pay the labor costs of. That's our thing, folks! That's what tech is all about!

If you think the speed limits should be higher so you can drive faster, fine, but that's completely orthogonal to the point here.

Better enforcement of road laws, fewer police deaths from road accidents, lower cost to achieve these goals. I see this as entirely beneficial.

The only people complaining are the ones who want to disregard road laws because they don't care about the danger they pose to others, and like that there's barely any enforcement.

[ericmcer]

> The only people complaining are the ones who want to disregard road laws because they don't care about the danger they pose to others, and like that there's barely any enforcement.

It takes away my discretion. If I drive 60 in dense traffic and weave between lanes this system would mark me as legal but I would be putting other people in incredible danger. If I drive 75 on empty roads I would be marked as illegal and dangerous.

Sure people are irresponsible but these black and white automated solutions are scary and not smart enough to be throwing out $500+ fines. Plus with the insurance adjustment going 75 on an empty road could end up costing you $2000+ over a few years.

[airza]

I have to disagree. If the goal is to reduce pedestrian deaths… just make it harder to drive fast. Narrow lanes, speed bumps, continuous sidewalks… all the technology is there and CA is insanely wealthy. Why wire up a surveillance panopticon?

[lukas099]

I like traffic calming too, but sometimes people really do go faster than is safe, even on narrow, windy roads with obstacles. Also if they are used on the highway then traffic calming isn't that applicable.

I don't think you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're driving your licensed car on a public road anyways.

[mistrial9]

you have never dealt with crooked local law enforcement, it seems; or a local District Attorney who has an ex-wife; or the mysteriously calm, cool and collected insurance inspectors with perfect records.

money outside of the big city can make very unlikely partnerships

[lukas099]

I am not sure what you're getting at.

[ballenf]

> If you think the speed limits should be higher so you can drive faster, fine, but that's completely orthogonal to the point here.

But putting in place a system which distorts incentives around setting speed limits, seems like a bad idea.

Just like how yellow/caution light times were shortened where there were red light cameras. The financial incentives made intersections less safe.

Same with cameras. People learn where they are and engage in unexpected breaking to avoid fines.

And, btw, same argument could be made for cameras on sidewalks to do facial recognition and drug use.

Friction in law enforcement is a feature, not a bug.

[dpkirchner]

> The only people complaining are the ones who want to disregard road laws because they don't care about the danger they pose to others, and like that there's barely any enforcement.

I question whether or not this will lead to safer roads. It doesn't stop people from getting where they want to go at unsafe speeds, it just adds a toll that many will be happy to pay. It doesn't and can't always impact the actual driver, either, because the system can only fine the owner. There ya go, someone not interested in disregarding road laws.

[halfdan]

The way it works in Germany is that the fine will go to the owner. The owner can then accept the fine or identify who was actually driving when the offence was committed. In case this ends in the dispute the owner can be made to keep a record of all rides - with hefty fines should they not be accurate when a later offence occurs.

[lukas099]

It will lead to a reduction of speeding. And the people who do speed will at least pay for some of their negative externalities.

[dpkirchner]

Unfortunately I cannot read the article -- do the fines really go towards the victims of excessive speed (the negative externalities, like in a trust fund) or to the state general fund + company providing the hardware and software?

[lukas099]

I doubt that they go to the specific victims because that would require a ton of bureaucracy. But giving back to society at large is better than nothing.

[sublinear]

> This is automation of a dangerous job that is expensive to pay the labor costs of. That's our thing, folks! That's what tech is all about!

Automation can't solve what good government and good civil engineering can. This didn't roll all the way over to us because anyone sane actually thinks we're going to solve jack shit.

[lukas099]

Enforcement is part of good government and good civil engineering.

[sublinear]

Good civil engineering is invisible deterrence. Cities insist on putting overbuilt 4+ lane stroads in neighborhoods with speed limits set far lower than they're designed for. This is what causes people to speed. Speeding seems safe and ok until they run over a pedestrian and/or miss a stop or yield sign that is far out of the field of view of the driver. Stroads are also bad for pedestrian safety in general even if nobody is speeding because of the long crosswalks. A proper street would feel narrow for the driver and discourage speeding. Neither cameras nor speed bumps work as well as just reducing the lanes. One solution is road dividers, but they look ugly and are frequently damaged.

Good government shouldn't backseat drive civil engineers to make dumb decisions that hurt public safety.

[lukas099]

I agree that we shouldn't build stroads, but all of California is not going to remove their stroads overnight. In the meantime, enforcing the speed limit would be nice.

[Jiro]

>The only people complaining are the ones who want to disregard road laws because they don't care about the danger they pose to others, and like that there's barely any enforcement.

This assumes that speeding laws are mainly there to prevent danger to others.

That's not true.

[bootlickdev]

Surprisingly, law enforcement without compromise and expansion of the surveillance state aren't universal engineering values.