AI Powered Mobile Phone Detection Cameras....Can Anyone Hate These?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- When it comes to automated fires for traffic offences like speed cameras, it always brings arguments. That is because at both extremes there are fair and valid points to be made. A good example of speed cameras is what they are intended for VS. where they put the cameras. However, when it comes to automated cameras looking for people using their phones while driving I can see no good argument against them, can you?
CHANNEL SUPPORT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
► PATREON : / spicy110
► PAYPAL Donations: goo.gl/A5v0yU
► CLOTHING MERCH & MORE: recklesspromot...
► KEY TAGS: motoloot.com/s...
Thank You for supporting this channel, It is your ongoing support that makes this channel possible and means I do not need to take sponsored ADs.
SOCIAL MEDIA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instagram: / spicy110_official
Twitter/X: / spicy110sm
Facebook: / spicy110
Facebook community group: / spicy110
PRODUCTS I USE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A list of products I use is available on Amazon.
www.amazon.co....
Business inquiries ONLY:
If you are interested in having a product featured or sponsoring the channel.
Please contact me here spicy110business@yahoo.com
I think the point has nothing to do with the phones, because yes that's a cause that people most people can universally agree on. The issue is an AI-driven camera pointing into your car, and the privacy invasion that comes of it. It's a question of what that database of footage will be used on, what it'll train the AI to look for next. Is it doing facial recognition at the same time, is it tracking further metrics about the people it sees, once the model knows what a hand is and how to track what it's holding, what will that be used for next? We're already a constantly surveyed nation with cameras on everything from supermarket tills to ATMs, and this is yet another level further. And it's not like it's stopping crime, as anyone who's been a victim of anything will tell you how utterly uninterested the police are.
So yeah, no-one has an issue with going after phone users. Lots of people do, however, take issue with this further step into not being able to move through and exist in the world without observation. You could also say that the cameras being used for something like phones is a great way to get the technology off the ground without too much backlash, a 'boiling the frog' method to increased surveillance.
Why can't they do that with the massive network of cctv they already have? The camera is just a camera, it's the software that is doing the work so it could be applied to every camera around.
@@spicy110 They can and almost certainly will, hardware allowing, but most general purpose cameras aren't aimed straight into cars. They're usually getting a higher overview of the street which only shows them the car roof. They're also not openly at least using this sort of AI/ML, call it what you will, and I'm sure people would object to it in other places too.
Totally agree, although I see you already have one who does not! Still see loads of people using phones whilst driving, they know it is wrong, last one thought I was filming (light flashing on my comms system) begged me not to send in the footage... If they ever offer a fee to the submitter, I will be out with a camera everyday!
Teachers pet in school?
@@DSN262 No got my first job aged 7, never bothered with education.
@@DSN262and bullied
They brought it on themselves . Good .
I agree with _almost_ everything here. In the UK, the taxpayer pays for public servants who have to go round picking up the pieces resulting from people not wearing seatbelts and helmets.
Also, with the machine learning stuff, there needs to be human oversight on every hit to prevent false positives.
Other than that, spot on. 👍
I got loads to grumble about, about these new cameras and loud exhausts, but it's just bitching about arseholes who don't know or don't care to know how to drive properly. The cameras are great. The reaction bad drivers have towards them can be fucking dangerous though.
I think the issue is more about police not policing the law. The law and fines are basically a scare tactic. People realised that they can get away with if because nobody is going to catch them. If police would be stricter with the laws and fines, you'd see less people doing stupid crap like this.
The issue with people not looking properly is caused by DLVA are making the car driving tests easier. Motorcycle riding tests are difficult and examiners are a lot stricter. For examples, car instructors teach people not to turn the indicator while turning because "who do you indicate for".
I would disagree with the seatbelt thing. If a driver doesn't put their seatbelt on they won't start driving more cautiously. They shown no indication of being a responsible driver. If they don't care for their own safety they are definitely don't care about my safety.
The AI cameras are a good addition. I have seen more people on their phones in the city, doing 40 in a 20 because of it. Bring them in I'd say
just adding my two cents to this discussion
I hate the prevalence of phone use whilst driving and the mayhem it’s causing but AI is not a golden bullet. I have concerns that it will be given godlike confidence levels in courts when they may be fallible.
I don’t know about the technology but I know I don’t trust the authorities currently. I would prefer education personally but I realise some people are extraordinarily resistant.
Personally, I abide by the rules because I don’t think I could live with the guilt of my killing somebody by way of my negligence.
For a false positive would it not just be a case of looking at the images? You can appeal any fine.
Totally agree with all the points you said great video 👌
A really common thing in dashcam videos of bad driving is car and lorry drivers using their mobile phones and driving erraticly. So yes this is something that needs to be controlled. Instead of just a fine, confiscate their phone and take away their phone number. The point of the trials is to see how much manual checking we need to do to verify that is is a phone in someone's hand. It could be done like traffic cameras - the fine gets sent to you with a photo, so you can challenge it and get a human to review the photo.
Do you use any ear protection when riding ?
Honesty no.
@@spicy110Thank you
yes easy
in oz you cant even show the driver your screen if your the passenger so who gets fined
and how is looking at a map any different to checking the side mirror while moving
I agree with a very good deal of what you say Spicy but absolutely 100% disagree with you saying that if somebody wants to drive with no seatbelt or ride with no helmet then it's only themselves at risk. Yes, it is mostly physically no more dangerous for others but what about the absolutely debilitating and life long psychological trauma of witnessing somebody's brain being smashed open all over the road?
To be clear I totally agree, you took me a little literally, but at least you got the point I was making. Sadly all what you said still happens if someone uses their phone while driving and kills someone. But in that case an innocent person dies.
I see your reasons for people driving more carefully if there were no mandatory laws on seatbelts or helmets, BUT;
That assumes we are ourselves the only reason for our accidents… what I mean is that if I drive without a helmet, I’m screwed if someone runs into me, and that part I don’t have (that much) influence in weather it happens or not.
But even if I just by myself run off the road, I’ll still probably be more of a burden on the medical system if I’m not protected in the way that is mandatory now (regardless of if we are talking about seatbelts or helmets), so for the medical economy, we should keep the laws on that, I think…
I was not suggesting it should change, it was just an example of a thing that won't harm anyone else physically. "That assumes we are ourselves the only reason for our accidents" yes of course again the point is some people do not like any rules or laws, regardless to the harm they can do to others so I am trying to cover all people. Look at the comments, people seem to think people using phones is worth the risk rather than having a camera take a photo of them.
@@spicy110 sorry, didn’t mean to imply you advocated for the laws to change, that was just to comment on your example…
But I’m with you on that people shouldn’t have anything against the cameras to detect phone use!
The amount of drivers i see on mobile phone's is ridiculous, its about time if you get caught, should be a ban from driving for life, and the vehicle scrapped.
Car makers should take accountability too
mobile phones simply should not be able to work while the vehicle is moving.
If phones are so bad, why aren't the legislational bodies telling manufacturers to pack it in with the touchscreens?
I've seen truck drivers driving with multiple sheets of paperwork spread over their steering wheel. I don't see how there should be so much fuss over someone briefly using a phone when they're stopped at traffic lights, for all that they aren't watching where they're going, they also aren't going anywhere. If that's such an issue then there should also be bottle of pop cameras, bag of haribo cameras, and a ban on cup holders.
Just because you're stationary in a queue doesn't mean you can sit there and be totally unaware of what's going on around you. You won't notice cyclists and motorcycles filtering through from behind, you won't see blue lights (sometimes silent with no sirens) trying to make their way through. If someone needs to contact you urgently, you have bluetooth systems to receive a call, anything else should fucking wait until the end of your journey.
@@fenrir7969 totally unaware of what's going on to such an extent you wouldn't notice an emergency vehicle? How mentally taxing do you find it to send a message?
When you aren't moving you aren't a risk to anyone filtering.
Lights without siren isn't an emergency, they're transporting a patient or similar. When in an actual emergency situation but can't get through - due to traffic issues such as red traffic lights and nobody being able to move - they turn their sirens off as nobody can move to let them through.
I don't get why people need a phone when they drive, but i don't like these. I understand where you're coming from, but the argument that 'we are always tracked anyway' doesn't wash, because that's wrong too. The constant CCTV is bad, this is also bad.
Yep I get that view, leads to the question, on that basis why are people not trying to get all cctv taken down?
@@spicy110 i think it's just complacency, if it was something the gov. announced today, then people would be unhappy, we've just got used to it.
In a public place you should have no expectation of privacy. Anyone and everyone can photograph and film you and your vehicle in public without needing a reason. If you want privacy you'd have to walk everywhere in a balaclava.
@@fenrir7969 There's a difference between Karen from number 12 and the government.
I ride motorbikes and regularly have to accommodate poor car and van driving but this seems to be even more intrusion on our privacy. We need to focus on ensuring our roads have the appropriate speed limits and remove all the variable speeds from our motorways where possible. And ban all these subcontractor speed vans that in some cases park where there is little risk to the public but maximum chance of catching someone doing 56mph on a 50mph dual carriage way in the countryside (you would think I was speaking from experience). And almost all the roads in my area are now 20mph which is ridiculous. I agree that people should not be using mobiles while driving but if it is such a problem then they should have a national advertising campaign. Having the ability to film inside everyone’s car is ridiculously intrusive.
The thing is its a camera on a stick, I'm not sure why they are worse then normal cctv cams? But many seem to agree.
its just 1 step closer to having china's ai camera system and a social credit score. im all for stopping bad drivers but i dont think integrating ai is the way as its just a stepping stone to use for future restrictions.
Isn't a credit score like a social score which we already have.
@@steve00alt70a credit score works on your ability to repay debt owed.
china's social credit score is based on socially desirable actions, like paying taxes or purchasing Chinese products; it declines if a person engages in behaviours that the State Council deems dishonest or otherwise problematic, such as committing crimes or making negative statements about the government.
even a comment on social media effects your score.
deffo worth a look into dude.
@@steve00alt70 they also have cameras with ai, that detect when workers get up from the chair or stop working on the computer and dock pay accordingly.
it detects children's attention in classrooms and punishments dealt if they fall below a set level.
This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
depends how they work, if the phone is on the mount on the windowscreen and the someone gets caught for recentering google maps or pressing the green button to answer a phone call, I think 2/3 taps on a phone is very similar to one or two taps on a tomtom or the inbuilt bluetooth system however if they detect the phone in the drivers hand or actually texting, I think that is more than reasonable.
I have checked in to this, as long as you are say answering a call on hands free or pressing a couple of buttons on a phone in a cradle its fine. You just can't be distracted from driving, I.e writing out a text on that phone while driving.
The specific offence that deals with mobile phone use while driving states the electronic device (so not just phones are caught by this law) must be in your hand. If the device is in a cradle you can press as many buttons as you like, it essentially becomes the same as a part of your dashboard, however, if you become distracted by it (or your dashboard for that matter) you can still be done but for a different offence (likely driving without due care or attention).
I'm not sure I have a complaint other than that it would cost an incredible amount of money. What if there's a false positive, and we are fined for no reason at all? True, there's the privacy aspect of it too. Saying that, while on the bike in the morning, I have seen at least two drivers eating bowls of cereal on the way to work. It would be great to see that as a fine sent through the post to someone. 'Reason for penalty: Cornflakes and driving.'"
The issue with these cameras is going to be false positives. Image recognition algorithms (which isn't AI, no matter what the PR fluff) have come a long way, but this is a big ask. It has to pick out a phone from the surrounding environment, which on modern cars will include other screens, determine that the phone is being held in someone's hand, and that it's the driver holding the phone. A huge amount of manual validation would be needed to weed out the false positives, but that won't happen because people cost money. So these systems will spray out fines to innocent people, who will have to appeal it (denied, of course) then get a lawyer involved to fix things.
Phone use when driving is a huge, huge problem. But I don't see technology being able to fix it any time soon.
I think software can and will be able to do this by itself over time. Existing machine learning software is surprisingly good at certain specific things, particularly google's image recognition. Recognising limbs was mass market back in 2010 with xbox's kinect, and digital cameras have always been very bad at photographing digital screens - I'm sure that would help the differentiation.
But before that I think you are right in that it would only be fair if a human reviewed every claim before sending out, at least until the accuracy can be shown at a certain level.
Following on from that you made a good point of the right and proper method being overlooked when it comes to cost cutting, which made me a bit sad.
Let's hope it's not done that way as it is so hard to challenge parking tickets or other fines (such as bus lanes) as you often have to refuse payment (if payment removes the right to appeal) and may have to go through court even if you are right. Usually if you do challenge it's on the blind hope that they give up on coming for you rather than hoping you go through the full process of proving your innocence.
There's also the task of left hand drive vehicles as the driver being on the other side could be falsely identified as a passenger and the passenger falsely identified as a driver.
@@fenrir7969 Good point! I thought this must be a very small minority, but it doesn't nullify the problem. I guess the steering wheel should be visible.
Also a number plate check through the relevant systems (and they must be capturing the number plate to be issuing the fine) should be able to differentiate this too.
Ultimately if it went to court this would be an open and shut defence, but of course none of us want the obvious false positives going to court.
The great thing about this is it's all for our safety, our government really cares about it's citizens
Bit of a mixed bag on this for me - I have no objection to the concept of using cameras for enforcing against using phones, however the execution in this instance feels extremely invasive. It'd be one thing if these cameras were designed to work at a similar angle to, say, speed cameras, but they're effectively designed to look down into the car at an "unnatural" angle.
Put another way, how would you feel if train/tube stations introduced surveillance systems that focused almost exclusively on the crotch of people using those transit systems for whatever reason?
While I may not have a general expectation of privacy while driving a vehicle on a public road, I would *not* expect that to extend to someone intentionally seeking to take photos of peoples crotches, public space or not.
Motorcyclist with a helmet cam, dash cam, even something like a static speed camera style (without that extreme angle), would all be fair game to my mind, but this system just feels creepily invasive. 🤷🏼♂
True, that was my first thought too. I think if the software were designed to delete everything that's *not* flagged as a possible, then then in turn delete everything that's confirmed as not relevant by a human, then the only images saved would be (ostensibly) those evidencing an (alleged) offence.
At that point it's as relevant as photo evidence on a parking or driving ticket; you want it, as it's the only way you'll have the evidence with which to defend it.
The idea of a camera looking inside your car is a bit weird, but I like the concept of catching people using their phones. If its actually effective, I look forward to seeing what sort of effect it will have. Maybe it's virtue signalling like you say, but its a good point - if bikers can't really use their phone whilst riding and we're all fine, then why is it car drivers feel the need to?
On places for speed and noise detecting cameras, I reckon they are most important in cities and villages. Just look at the curves of deaths versus speeds. Above 20 mph the death and serious injury rate increases quickly. So keeping speeds low in those places is really important. On faster roads, there are places where people drive faster than their skill level as it looks safer than it will be ahead. That is why we have 50 mph speed limits on some roads.
As for noise, there are health effects on people who live in places with a lot of traffic noise, affecting their hearing and their mental health. I wonder is visiting Americans speak so loudly because they live in places full of cars. So once again, we often need quiet streets but there are other places where noise doesn't matter.
I seen myself a 2 handed txter the other day. Craziness
I've said it before instant ban and lose the rights to own another license. The call or text they was sending was not worth the risk to life they are causing to other road users. clearly fines are not working as i still see idiots texting while driving or holding a phone to their face on a call. But we all know what the government is really after and that's the revenue from fines so will never happen
I'd love to see official statistics of vehicular accidents caused by distraction [aka mobile phone] from insurers/police etc [even if it's only assumed mobile phone use [because not many would fess up to the truth]]
^I can be out riding for less than 2 hours off peak and there's too many drivers still using their mobile whilst driving ^
There is no excuse unless you are being chased by a 6'6" lanky motorcycle rider with a weapon on or around Hayling Island [you know the sort Texas Chainsaw come Freddy Krueger come Michael Myers type] 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
^sorry Spicy^
I spent £60 on a helmet bluetooth headset [mainly for music, occasional navigation and the odd once in a green moon phonecall from some offshore call centre trying to sell me something] - cagers can, if needed, buy similar equipment for less than £20..........jeeez most cars have bluetooth as standard [see above] yet still illegally use their mobiles.
Interesting European survey on the cause of accidents.
How about this one also? In a recent UK survey, 22% of 17-34 year olds thought it was alright to consume a class A drug such as cocaine or ecstasy and drive. It wasn't a massive sample (2000) but disturbing nevertheless. I've lost count of cars that I've followed on my bike where I can smell cannabis from a open window and it beggars belief that people should think smoking a psychoactive drug is also fine.
Perhaps a bigger survey is needed to see what what the problem is, more education and more random police stops/tests before more of us are wiped out on the road by this attitude?
I wonder if aiming these at car height might risk missing the cabs of big lorries. If so there's a chance that even a perfectly working solution misses a large part of the problem. Hopefully they've thought of that while setting them up.
"Loud pipes saves lives" is a load of bull. However, me passing through a village is nothing compaired to the constant noise of planes going over all day and big Dave two doors down has been mowing his lawn for three hours now.
Ive eaten a kebab while riding
Hey, man! Will you be doing a review of the Vmoto Stash? There are NO reviews in English yet! Hopefully you can get your hands on one. Cheers from Lima, Peru! :)
If I can get one, yes, it looks interesting! Best way for that to happen is if people ask them to lend me one.
Fines dont really stop people. What stops them using their phone in hand is an annoying audible warning sound that detects if you have the phone out of the cradle. Just like the seatbelt warning sound.
Agreed; instead, driving suspensions would stop people driving with their phones. Literally.
Also people sometimes ignore the seatbelt warning noise, I have seen it especially with wilfully bad drivers who don't care for various other driving imperatives too. Hurts me more than them it seems, which is the same imbalance if you get hit by someone on their phone, I suppose.
Camaera's snooping inside your car is far more invasive than a speed camera / ANPR camera... next it will be looking through your bedroom windows...
How have you made the jump from catching people using mobile phones while driving, which has killed many people? To a camera facing in a private property? 🤔
@@spicy110 the road to hell is paved with good intensions. All of the measures put in place to protect end up turned against the people for surveillance or taxation.
@@nathancrazyleg All you people are the same. Why don't you focus on the problems we actually have, things the government are actually trying to do, such as remove certain group's access to Healthcare, "disapply" parts of the european convention on human rights and making laws to overwrite a court's decisions so they can spend millions of pounds sending 200 asylum seekers to some african country half the population couldn't point out on a map, all whilst people are increasingly unable to feed themselves or heat their homes despite working full time.
there are problems with the government, police and justice system, but some theoretical "what if they turn crazy like in that one book" isn't one of them.
@@spicy110 Slow incremental encroachment the same way we went from CCTV for security in shops and streets to biometric scanners to buy a loaf of bread as is now the case in most supermarkets...
@@spicy110 Have you never noticed how it's always one little invasion of privacy that leads to another and then another...
We need to slow the techno fascist state, not encourage it...
Today they check seatbelts, tomorrow it is facial recognition to ensure compliance with 15 minute city stuff...
Even hands free calls are distracting, I've been let go from some driving jobs because I refuse to use the phone at all while driving
Anyone remember flipping through those big CD books looking for some music to play? I once ate a huge box of freshly cooked greasy chicken wings whilst driving. There are always people who wont be paying attention on the road.
Using a phone is bad but putting large tablets in the car is ok. Putting screens on delivery bikes is okay. Adding modes and buttons and tech to fiddle with is OK. I dunno smells like a money making scheme to me.
I know exactly what you mean, back in the 90s people did all sorts of things in their cars while driving. But here are a few facts, it was the deaths that pushed the laws. There were a lot fewer cars on the roads in the 90s and we had 5000 road deaths a year. Now we have a heap more cars and less than 2000 deaths a year. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain
@@spicy110 Ah maybe to clarify, I agree with what your saying on the danger of driving while distracted using phones. What I'm trying to say is that I don't entirely believe that the cameras are for safety and more that the government are using safety as a reason to generate more money through fines.