[jdsnape]

I asked because it wasn’t blindingly obvious, and I genuinely want to understand.

Taking the traffic enforcement then - we’re talking about a dangerous piece of machinery that you’re allowed to operate in a public place under certain conditions in order to reduce the risk to others. One of those conditions is speed. It seems blindingly obvious to me that if a society agrees those conditions it should also enforce them?

[FridayoLeary]

Yes but speed cameras quickly turn into a revenue source for greedy councils. It's hard to tell how much they actually care about speeding offences and doing what they think they can get away with.

As a general rule these things start with sincere intentions but often devolve into cynical exploitation. So if you weigh the benefits of speed cameras against the suffering they cause i think you would find they aren't a good thing.

Getting to your original question i think many people don't trust that their face and fingerprint scans will be used in a way that would be in the publics interest. Its more likely that the authorities would find a way to use that data against you.

[gregjor]

How exactly do you weigh the “suffering” — I would call it inconvenience or annoyance — of traffic fines against bodily harm caused by dangerous drivers? A fine versus a hospital stay or worse?

[FridayoLeary]

I'm honestly not sure what the balance is, but there is a point where one bad accident is worth less then many speeding tickets. It's obvious when you think about it- otherwise the speed limit would be 20 mph everywhere.

I'm really not sure where and how you draw the line but i do think we should err on the side of less surveillance. That's the predominant view on hn.

[gregjor]

I agree that I prefer less surveillance. But I have little sympathy for people who break the law and put others at risk. We all lose some freedom because of a relative few who put their “rights” above the public good.

Rather than rampant surveillance I would support confiscating the car and cancelling the license of reckless drivers on the second offense, and DUIs on the first offense.

[owebmaster]

> That's the predominant view on hn.

Only in the doge side of HN

> I'm honestly not sure what the balance is, but there is a point where one bad accident is worth less then many speeding tickets.

No amount of speeding tickets is worth one kid killed by a drunk driver.

[atmavatar]

>> That's the predominant view on hn.

> Only in the doge side of HN

That's hardly true. I'm pretty far from the doge end of the spectrum, but I want as little surveillance as possible (ideally: only via court order).

You need only read about what impact a simple census question about religious affiliation had in the 1930s/40s to realize that information about yourself can very quickly be used for very dark purposes.

We've already seen stories about red states using data from social media and phone apps to target women who may have gotten abortions.

I can think of plenty of not so great ways red light camera data can be (and probably already is being) used for things completely outside the scope of merely automating speeding and red light crossing tickets.

[FridayoLeary]

Did you read the article?

>No amount of speeding tickets is worth one kid killed by a drunk driver.

In an idealised plane of existence i agree with you, but real life is about finding the right balance.

[jjav]

> Yes but speed cameras quickly turn into a revenue source for greedy councils.

This has been widely documented for red light cameras. Red light cameras are politically much easier because approximately nobody thinks blatantly running red light is ever acceptable (vs. speed limits which have a wide range of debate on what the correct number should be).

So, towns install red light cameras. And initially, it's good! Then when the town gets used to the revenue stream, they want more money. How to get more? They shorten the yellow light more and more and more so they can artificially increase the number of people "running the red light". What started as a good plan to punish people who blatantly run the light, becomes a gotcha trick programmed to maximize revenue at the cost of safety (rear end accidents increase substantially after people become trained to panic brake at yellow lights due to the excessively short time).

[ozlikethewizard]

[Citation needed]

[SlightlyLeftPad]

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/why-are-...

[ndsipa_pomu]

> The next time you approach that intersection, you slam on your brakes when the light turns yellow, fearful of another ticket. Only this time, the car behind you slams into you.

I don't understand how people can come to any conclusion other than blaming the following driver for not maintaining a safe distance. It's generally impossible to predict when the driver in front may have to perform an emergency stop (e.g. kid running into the road) and you have to leave enough room when following so that you don't crash into them if they need to stop. Surely this is just a basic driving skill?