Cameras to detect No Seatbelt/Use of mobile phone offenders?
Discussion
It seems the government are now proposing that scameras are going to be used to detect drivers using mobile phones or not wearing seatbelts. This was slipped into a television news programme yesterday.
Anyone else hear it?
Does this mean the demise of the BiB? Are they about to be replaced by policing by camera??
>> Edited by XMG5 on Tuesday 7th March 08:40
Anyone else hear it?
Does this mean the demise of the BiB? Are they about to be replaced by policing by camera??
>> Edited by XMG5 on Tuesday 7th March 08:40
It's on the front of the Groaniad this morning:
www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,1725229,00.html
www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,1725229,00.html
!
I don't think this is possible.
It's difficult to tell if someone is wearing a seatbelt from the picture of their car with your *eyes*, unless you have a good picture, even then you are relying on angles being right or a sequence of frames being available. The picture would need to cope with HGVs and Sports Cars for example.
Training a machine to do this is nigh on impossible.
It's one of the most difficult computing tasks there is. If you pick up a cup and view it from a different angle or in a different orientation it 'looks' completely different but your brain still sees it as a cup. To a computer it looks completely different depending on how you are looking at it, this is because pictures have no depth in them. This is horrendous *even* when you have a single object on a plain background !
Applying this to a seatbelt is a little easier as you know roughly where it is going to be and what it looks like - you can look for two parallel lines in a specific orientation, but still non-trivial. Mobile phones have exactly the same problem, except it is worse.
Even if you can do it the errors are horrendous, even compared to scameras ; speed detection via scameras is laughably trivial compared to the other forms of detection. What you would get with a system like this is it would either have too many false positives, or too many undetected positives.
It would make scamera errors seem trivial.
How do you do this ? You have to use people looking at pictures in the same way trafpol look at drivers.
And I'd rather have the trafpol, thank you, even if you only get one of them for five "picture checkers".
There is one other way. That is you install some form of RFID or similar which transmits a signal as to whether a seat is (i) occupied and (ii) belted, or alternatively a mobile phone is in use, i.e. your vehicle "tells on you"
Even then, how do you determine whether the driver or passenger is on a mobile ? You can't.
Conclusion: someone is empire building here.
It's difficult to tell if someone is wearing a seatbelt from the picture of their car with your *eyes*, unless you have a good picture, even then you are relying on angles being right or a sequence of frames being available. The picture would need to cope with HGVs and Sports Cars for example.
Training a machine to do this is nigh on impossible.
It's one of the most difficult computing tasks there is. If you pick up a cup and view it from a different angle or in a different orientation it 'looks' completely different but your brain still sees it as a cup. To a computer it looks completely different depending on how you are looking at it, this is because pictures have no depth in them. This is horrendous *even* when you have a single object on a plain background !
Applying this to a seatbelt is a little easier as you know roughly where it is going to be and what it looks like - you can look for two parallel lines in a specific orientation, but still non-trivial. Mobile phones have exactly the same problem, except it is worse.
Even if you can do it the errors are horrendous, even compared to scameras ; speed detection via scameras is laughably trivial compared to the other forms of detection. What you would get with a system like this is it would either have too many false positives, or too many undetected positives.
It would make scamera errors seem trivial.
How do you do this ? You have to use people looking at pictures in the same way trafpol look at drivers.
And I'd rather have the trafpol, thank you, even if you only get one of them for five "picture checkers".
There is one other way. That is you install some form of RFID or similar which transmits a signal as to whether a seat is (i) occupied and (ii) belted, or alternatively a mobile phone is in use, i.e. your vehicle "tells on you"
Even then, how do you determine whether the driver or passenger is on a mobile ? You can't.
Conclusion: someone is empire building here.
This is getting ridiculous.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
We seem to have a culture where because something is now technology possible it is seen as being a good idea. We'll all be "chipped" at birth before long.
Those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
We seem to have a culture where because something is now technology possible it is seen as being a good idea. We'll all be "chipped" at birth before long.
Those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither.
Interesting that the spokesman for Amenesty (Liberty?) doesn't mind. If all this spying isn't a threat to Civil Liberty what is?
And I like the quote about 7/7 - how would they have picked up the terrorists. They didn't have any labels on them?
Look for the story this has been put out to hide
And I like the quote about 7/7 - how would they have picked up the terrorists. They didn't have any labels on them?
Look for the story this has been put out to hide
Seatbelt camera, I'd like to see them prove it in court without a doubt. The only evidence I'd think could be used to prosecute would be the statement of a police officer anyway...
And seatbelts, who cares? If people choose to not wear them they are usually the only ones that pay, upfront anyway. Back seats, how can a camera see them at all?
Ah the joys of democracy, the very fact someone with a job in power at all came up with this idea, possible or not, is scary!
Anyone up for a jolly old revolt?
Dave
And seatbelts, who cares? If people choose to not wear them they are usually the only ones that pay, upfront anyway. Back seats, how can a camera see them at all?
Ah the joys of democracy, the very fact someone with a job in power at all came up with this idea, possible or not, is scary!
Anyone up for a jolly old revolt?
Dave
ashes said:
Interesting that the spokesman for Amenesty (Liberty?) doesn't mind. If all this spying isn't a threat to Civil Liberty what is?
And I like the quote about 7/7 - how would they have picked up the terrorists. They didn't have any labels on them?
Look for the story this has been put out to hide
I just spotted that quote, completely ridiculous.
Twunt from the government said:
"One of the good things about ANPR is that people are often multiple offenders so it would provide useful intelligence," he said. "Those responsible for 7/7 got to Luton station by car."
1. He's assuming they had invalid tax/insurance. If they did (which would sort of prove his stupid point) why doesn't he crow about it?
2. AND, so what if they had been caught on scamera for road tax evasion / calling other Jihadis on their mobiles? I’m sure the families of all those dead commuters will feel comforted by the fact that a fine + points was sent to the dead bombers address in the post 2 weeks after the event.
Mr Whippy said:
And seatbelts, who cares? If people choose to not wear them they are usually the only ones that pay, upfront anyway. Back seats, how can a camera see them at all?
Not necessarily. Anyway, choice to drive without wearing a seatbelt is sufficiently slapdash to suggest the rest of their driving is not up to scratch (remember that awful cow from the Road Rage programme??!) - therefore they are exactly the right people that need to come under scrutiny...
JJ
Plotloss said:
I also believe that this is impossible to implement from a technology point of view and therefore nothing more than low rent scaremongering.
It's a possibility it might be a loss leader for something else. This started in Thatcher's years and has now gone much worse.
Announce: We're going to be Fuel up by 50%
Population: OMG !!! OMG !!!
Announce2: Oh, no we're only putting it up *30%*
Population: Thank you Thank you, much better.
Raify said:
I’m sure the families of all those dead commuters will feel comforted by the fact that a fine + points was sent to the dead bombers address in the post 2 weeks after the event.
Nail --> Head
This has long been my major gripe with speed cameras - let's for the sake of argument assume that (as certain odd individuals assert) that exceeding a posted speed limit is dangerous in and of itself. If so, then what use is a camera? All it does is collect the evidence for later prosecution; it does nothing to limit the danger. A trafpol, on the other hand, would pull you over and stop the "danger" there and then.
Same for seatbelts - the only danger is to yourself, so why prosecute 2 weeks later when (a) the danger is past, (b) you didn't hurt yourself or (c) you're pushing up daisies?
Remarkable.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff