Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Saturday October 20 2018, @11:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the Automated-Law-Enforcement dept.

Australian cities are working with several companies to install cameras to capture still images and video to detect drivers using mobile phones on the road to fine them in the same way automated speed cameras work. This is good news for local governments who desperately need an influx of cash in the wake of reduced intake from speeding fines. A recent report showed that there is limited evidence that cameras have led to a change in driver behaviour across the state by acting as a deterrent however it is expected that harshly fining drivers may work better than putting up signs informing drivers that speed cameras are installed ahead. The system for detecting mobile phone use in cars is currently being tested on the M4 motorway in Sydney.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 21 2018, @08:09AM (9 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 21 2018, @08:09AM (#751589) Journal

    Anyone who thinks that drunk driving isn't a problem is extremely dense. I'm not sure if you are making such a claim, or not.

    The laws have reached the point of absurdity, I'll grant that. I learned in my younger days that I had limits. Motorcycle riding will reveal those limits very quickly - you just aren't in control any longer. Today, there are no real opportunities to learn those limits. If you've had a beer, you are over the LEGAL LIMIT. You might still drive safely, but you've broken the law.

    The problem with unreasonably low limits is, just like the scare mongering videos about reefer madness, people quickly learn that the government is flat-out WRONG. Once people understand that the government is lying, they lose respect for the laws based on those lies. So, in a roundabout way, government is goading some people into drunk driving.

    For those reasons, the TESTING is bogus, and the laws themselves are bogus. Put the legal limit right back up where it was in the late 1980's, for the best results. .08 BAC is too damned high to be driving. .01 through .04 is probably safe for most people. .05 through .07 is dangerous, I think, but negotiable. At .1 BAC, your license should be revoked permanently, with no chance of ever getting it back.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Disagree=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 21 2018, @09:43AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 21 2018, @09:43AM (#751596)

    I've never had a problem with drunk riding.
    I've never ridden my motorbike while intoxicated.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 21 2018, @02:19PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 21 2018, @02:19PM (#751653) Journal

      I can accept that. But - define "intoxicated". You may have tied one on, last night, and this morning, you feel that you're ready to go. But, your BAC remains at - ohhhh - let's say 0.2. Is that "intoxicated", or not? Or, maybe you stopped to say hello and/or goodbye to a group of friends, where a drink was pressed upon you. You've had one drink, you know that you're not "intoxicated", but BAC is at 0.1.

      The law, here in the US, can be tricky. You don't have to be "intoxicated" to get a ticket for drunk driving anymore. It's even worse for commercial drivers. Take a dose of cough medicine, and you'll register - and you're busted. Or, eat several slices of nice fresh bread, you're busted again.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 21 2018, @03:59PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 21 2018, @03:59PM (#751685)

    The key word there is "related". Maybe the driver was sober, but driving his drunk friends home; maybe there was simply a spent six-pack in the trunk for last week's tailgating party; etc.

    Now, remove alcohol from the world, and at most, you'll reduce by the number of traffic-related deaths by 1/3; that leaves the vast majority of traffic-related deaths intact—2/3 of them will still be happening.

    The only person who is extremely dense is you.

    Alcohol is not a problem; falling asleep at the wheel is a problem (which is why drivers who happen to be "drunk" cross medians or run into fences), and just because alcohol makes you fall asleep does not mean that it makes someone else fall asleep.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 21 2018, @04:13PM (3 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 21 2018, @04:13PM (#751693) Journal

      You seem to be in a state of denial. The fatality rate on the highways is horrendously high. Every year, we have roughly as many fatalities on our highways, as out total losses during the Vietnam war. If people could just stop drinking when impaired, the fatality rate would drop ~1/3, by your own words.

      Note that I have not said "don't drink and drive". I much prefer that "drink responsibly" thing. People who can limit their drinking to one or two drinks, can probably drive safely with that quantity of alcohol in their systems. Alas - far too many people don't know how to limit their drinking. If they have been educated, then they lack either the judgement or the willpower to limit their drinking.

      I have little idea which category you belong in. You sound as if you may have been exposed to alcohol education - but maybe you weren't taught correctly.

      Know your limits. Seriously, know your limits. It isn't YOUR life at stake. The drunk almost always survives the crash. It's only when he wakes up that he learns that he has killed one or more other people. Know your limits, and don't test those limits.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 21 2018, @04:56PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 21 2018, @04:56PM (#751713)

        As I pointed out explicitly, it drop AT MOST 1/3; that number 1/3 is inflated around the key word "related". It's not 1/3 of said deaths are caused by drunk drivers; it's 1/3 somehow involve alcohol.

        Alcohol is NOT a problem; there are clearly much more serious problems when it comes to safety on the road.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 22 2018, @06:06AM (1 child)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 22 2018, @06:06AM (#751882) Journal

          https://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/ViewFactSheet.aspx?csid=24 [nih.gov]

          Read. Basically, deaths related to alcohol have been just about cut in half since 1980. About 60% of highway deaths were alcohol related in 1980. Today, you say they are about 1/3 of all deaths - that is roughly half, and the article confirms that.

          Allow me to reiterate that I am not in agreement with all the laws regarding alcohol. Some of them are just stupid knee-jerk bullshit. Laws today are written by the various states, not for the purpose of increasing safety, but for the purpose of securing federal funds.

          I encourage you to read about Candy Lightner. She's the woman who founded MADD - then later left MADD because the focus drifted away from drunk drivers, to fund raising. Today, MADD's position is that alcohol is evil, and they want to outlaw alcohol. I'm 100% with Lightner - MADD should be brought under control, and forced to focus on it's primary mission: drunk driving.

          https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/madd-founders-daughter-killed-by-drunk-driver [history.com]

          When police arrested Clarence Busch, the driver who hit Cari, they found that he had a record of arrests for intoxication, and had in fact been arrested on another hit-and-run drunk-driving charge less than a week earlier. Candy Lightner learned from a policeman that drunk driving was rarely prosecuted harshly, and that Busch was unlikely to spend significant time behind bars. Furious, Lightner decided to take action against what she later called “the only socially accepted form of homicide.” MADD was the result. (Charged with vehicular homicide, Busch did eventually serve 21 months in jail.)

          Now, you can make all the claims you like, you can grouse and complain about the laws. But, the facts support laws against drunk driving. Even more, the facts support being RESPONSIBLE. As outlined in the article, the same individual could be responsible for many accidents, including property damage, injuries, and even death, and they WERE NOT HELD RESPONSIBLE! The "good old boys" might be forced to spend a night in jail, after killing someone. That crap had to change.

          One more time, let me be clear. I don't agree with all the laws on the books today. Nor do I agree with MADD's agenda. But, I am 100% in agreement with Candy Lightner's goals.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22 2018, @06:36AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22 2018, @06:36AM (#751888)

            The problem is a lack of a enforcement of property rights due to the "old boys club" that naturally arises in a monopoly, especially a monopoly that is violently imposed.

            Whose more likely to know the boys in blue and the boys in the DA office and the boys on the bench? Well, the extrovert drinkers.

            The problem isn't alcohol or even driving under the influence; the problem is crashing (which results from falling asleep), and the problem is a lack of property rights (due to a lack of enforcement).

  • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday October 21 2018, @04:22PM (1 child)

    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Sunday October 21 2018, @04:22PM (#751697) Homepage Journal

    If you've had a beer, you are over the LEGAL LIMIT.

    In Colorado, perhaps a few other states, Australia, most of Europe. In most US states it only went down from .1 to .08. The average man can drink three beers in an hour without being over .08. And yes, when I reach .08 I know it. Penalties for things that can kill others SHOULD have harsh penalties!

    --
    mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22 2018, @11:16PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22 2018, @11:16PM (#752230)

      Australia has a limit of below 0.05 BAC, that means if you are at 0.05 you get in trouble.

      At that level you can't even feel a little bit tipsy.