CA Bill AB-645

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It would be nice if every car was like a Tesla with a bunch of cameras. Anything egregious would just get sent to the local police of what the driver did or for anything it picks up that other drivers or pedestrians do.

God I hope this is was sarcasm.

[Lantanafrs2]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

God I hope this is was sarcasm.

Schwabs agenda.

[FR-S2GT86]

These are revenue-generating schemes disguised as public safety measures.

One can prove this by standing on the sidewalk next to the road 200 feet ahead of the trap, with a large sign warning drivers of the speed trap ahead. See how soon you get harassed by law enforcement lying to you, telling you that it's illegal to warn drivers of the trap. (Which it is NOT, as it is a form of protected speech, given to us by the first Amendment to the US Constitution.)

If it was TRULY for public safety, law enforcement would simply leave you alone, as you standing there with the warning sign will have the effect of people slowing down as to not get a speeding ticket in the first place.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

God I hope this is was sarcasm.

Why not? Imagine being able to follow flash robbers or kidnappers after taking someone. Are you committing crimes? Even if you were concerned about your personal life somehow being leaked, are you sleeping around on your woman, involved in insurance fraud pretending to be injured, playing hookie from work? Why do you care?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by FR-S2GT86

These are revenue-generating schemes disguised as public safety measures.

One can prove this by standing on the sidewalk next to the road 200 feet ahead of the trap, with a large sign warning drivers of the speed trap ahead. See how soon you get harassed by law enforcement lying to you, telling you that it's illegal to warn drivers of the trap. (Which it is NOT, as it is a form of protected speech, given to us by the first Amendment to the US Constitution.)

If it was TRULY for public safety, law enforcement would simply leave you alone, as you standing there with the warning sign will have the effect of people slowing down as to not get a speeding ticket in the first place.

I'm sure cops most often will just leave and try a new area unless they are ****s.

Would you flash your headlights to warn people who are doing donuts in an intersection that cops are coming? Would you warn people breaking into cars that cops are coming? Would you warn people vandalizing property that cops were coming? If not then why would you warn people traveling 10+ over the speed limit in a high risk area that a cop is up ahead? What if the person you warned was a drunk driver tightening up their driving a little, but around the corner from a cop they go plowing and killing someone? Let the cops do their job. Speed if you want, but I don't think the world would be a better place if everyone was warned about cops around the corner. Can't you see that as a problem.

[new2subaru]

I'm certain that I don't want to live life in a goldfish bowl. This is what's being described here. There's already far to many useless cameras working.

A thief doesn't give a shit if cameras are running or not. They put up their hoody and wave. Or better yet, put on a N95 and wave.

On one hand we don't prosecute shoplifters, let them walk right out of stores, but lets put cameras up everywhere and monitor the Joe public. So ironic lol

Waste of time and money again...

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by new2subaru

I'm certain that I don't want to live life in a goldfish bowl. This is what's being described here. There's already far to many useless cameras working.

A thief doesn't give a shit if cameras are running or not. They put up their hoody and wave. Or better yet, put on a N95 and wave.

On one hand we don't prosecute shoplifters, let them walk right out of stores, but lets put cameras up everywhere and monitor the Joe public. So ironic lol

Waste of time and money again...

Well, this is a speed camera pilot program, and I was referring to cars that already have camera vision for autonomous driving, sentry, etc like Teslas, so it wouldn't be necessary to put cameras everywhere when cameras would already be everywhere. We have Amber Alerts to enable eyes to be on the lookout for the cars of child kidnappers, so I just see this as adding more eyes.

There is nothing stopping anyone from putting up a camera or going out on the street and filming people. Everything gets plastered on social media. I think the idea of being around cameras is little different than being around a busy city with eyes watching. The difference is the cameras might be used to do some good.

You say thieves will just wear a hoodie and mask. Are they never going to go home and take off their mask? I linked car camera system like the TED Talk video I posted above would be capable of potentially following these people back to their home address or into an identifiable car. What if the car that doesn't have a license plate isn't traceable because they take a ride through the country, but three days later the distinct combination of custom wheels and fender dent identifies the car on someone's camera, and they can make an arrest. This will happen someday for sure.

[new2subaru]

You may catch some but is it worth all of the effort? Monitoring Joe public is a false sense of security.

More visible officers are needed and punishments that suit the crime. We're becoming a lawless society and cameras do not work. It won't matter if they're attached to cars lol Monitoring Joe public is a waste of money. It's also not the kind of society I would like to live in.

Why have vehicle thefts soared. We have all the tech to deter it yet it continues. All tech used against crime will be beaten. It's common knowledge. It's needed in some cases but the criminals will find a way to get around it.

"some thieves use advanced techniques, remotely copying the settings of an electronic key fob and overriding the vehicle’s onboard diagnostic system"

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/vehicl...port-1.6443514

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/new-trick...onto-1.6234708

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/...004001-eng.htm

Anyways, I'm off on vacation this morning and once there will see very few humans and there will be no cameras unless attached to a moose.

[FR-S2GT86]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I'm sure cops most often will just leave and try a new area unless they are ****s.

Would you flash your headlights to warn people who are doing donuts in an intersection that cops are coming? Would you warn people breaking into cars that cops are coming? Would you warn people vandalizing property that cops were coming? If not then why would you warn people traveling 10+ over the speed limit in a high risk area that a cop is up ahead? What if the person you warned was a drunk driver tightening up their driving a little, but around the corner from a cop they go plowing and killing someone? Let the cops do their job. Speed if you want, but I don't think the world would be a better place if everyone was warned about cops around the corner. Can't you see that as a problem.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't support the belief that prosecution for victimless crimes will do anything to significantly curb actual crime in the long run.

This topic was originally about speed traps, nothing else. With the absence of any other crime or civil infraction, when you speed, who IS your victim? And please note that I am not asking who MIGHT BE your future victim.

If for some reason, whether or not it's your fault, you are involved in an accident while you are speeding, and if there is a direct victim involved (such would be the case of a personal injury), or an indirect victim involved (such would be the case of property damage or the loss thereof to the owner of the property itself), other than yourself, then, and only then, it should be determined if the act of speeding was the direct cause of the victims' loss. If it is, then yes, I believe one should be fined or prosecuted for speeding, since now there is a victim, where prior to the injury, there was not.

However, I still believe that warning drivers ahead of the actual speed trap will have a greater effect of causing people to reduce their speed than the fine itself, which, in my own personal opinion, is the secondary intention of what the trap has been placed there for. The primary intention is to generate revenue for the state.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by FR-S2GT86

I'm sorry, but I simply don't support the belief that prosecution for victimless crimes will do anything to significantly curb actual crime in the long run.

This topic was originally about speed traps, nothing else. With the absence of any other crime or civil infraction, when you speed, who IS your victim? And please note that I am not asking who MIGHT BE your future victim.

If for some reason, whether or not it's your fault, you are involved in an accident while you are speeding, and if there is a direct victim involved (such would be the case of a personal injury), or an indirect victim involved (such would be the case of property damage or the loss thereof to the owner of the property itself), other than yourself, then, and only then, it should be determined if the act of speeding was the direct cause of the victims' loss. If it is, then yes, I believe one should be fined or prosecuted for speeding, since now there is a victim, where prior to the injury, there was not.

However, I still believe that warning drivers ahead of the actual speed trap will have a greater effect of causing people to reduce their speed than the fine itself, which, in my own personal opinion, is the secondary intention of what the trap has been placed there for. The primary intention is to generate revenue for the state.

+1
i know we've all seen the statistics of 'speed kills', but we all seem to ignore a lot of other factors that are always at play.

the first real question that people are scared to talk about are creating and establishing realistic speed limits, but also creating roadways that reinforce those realistic limits.

a few roads near me growing up are dead straight for over 10 miles, and 5 lanes wide(2 lanes each way, with a turn lane in the middle). early on, they were a 45mph speed limit. now there's added sidewalks that few use, and some growing residential area's off the the sides that used to be corn fields, and they spontaneously dropped the speed limit to 35.

with no alterations to the roadway, traffic still flows at 40-50mph through that road. but we're blaming the drivers/traffic, not the roadway for that, despite the entire rest of our legal/roadway system creating laws reinforcing the concept that we as people/drivers/citizens have zero self control, and laws are set to the lowest common denominator.

the reality is that the speed isn't the problem. it's the roadway design.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by new2subaru

You may catch some but is it worth all of the effort? Monitoring Joe public is a false sense of security.

More visible officers are needed and punishments that suit the crime. We're becoming a lawless society and cameras do not work. It won't matter if they're attached to cars lol Monitoring Joe public is a waste of money. It's also not the kind of society I would like to live in.

Why have vehicle thefts soared. We have all the tech to deter it yet it continues. All tech used against crime will be beaten. It's common knowledge. It's needed in some cases but the criminals will find a way to get around it.

"some thieves use advanced techniques, remotely copying the settings of an electronic key fob and overriding the vehicle’s onboard diagnostic system"

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/vehicl...port-1.6443514

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/new-trick...onto-1.6234708

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/...004001-eng.htm

Anyways, I'm off on vacation this morning and once there will see very few humans and there will be no cameras unless attached to a moose.

Again, I don't really think this is monitoring. Sending a bunch of police into the public is more of a move to a police state than passive monitoring that is selective to criminals. Sentry Mode in a Tesla is videoing, but is there to capture crimes--not everyone. It is not how people use it. They don't sit at home and just watch the video, but an AI could be constructed to pull critical video and divert it to the proper authorities.

Every Tesla is already "monitoring the public", so imagine if twenty percent of cars were Teslas or like Tesla in cameras then the system is already in place. All that is needed is redirecting of video to proper authorities. If you haven't watch Wam Bam Tesla Cam then you should to see what I mean. The video is very, very motivating for most police officers because it is the type of hard evidence they need to make an arrest or citation. They know it will hold up in court, and it won't be a "he said she said" situation.

I don't know what tech we have to deter theft. Any car can be towed away in seconds and used for scraps. Teslas can be remotely turned off, has sentry modes, has updates that will be bricked in a stolen car, has GPS to find it, etc. but anyone motivated can still get the job done. I think it is just harder when a system is linking everything. Imagine if the car thieves steal one car only to get videoed by hundreds of cars on their escape.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by FR-S2GT86

I'm sorry, but I simply don't support the belief that prosecution for victimless crimes will do anything to significantly curb actual crime in the long run.

This topic was originally about speed traps, nothing else. With the absence of any other crime or civil infraction, when you speed, who IS your victim? And please note that I am not asking who MIGHT BE your future victim.

If for some reason, whether or not it's your fault, you are involved in an accident while you are speeding, and if there is a direct victim involved (such would be the case of a personal injury), or an indirect victim involved (such would be the case of property damage or the loss thereof to the owner of the property itself), other than yourself, then, and only then, it should be determined if the act of speeding was the direct cause of the victims' loss. If it is, then yes, I believe one should be fined or prosecuted for speeding, since now there is a victim, where prior to the injury, there was not.

However, I still believe that warning drivers ahead of the actual speed trap will have a greater effect of causing people to reduce their speed than the fine itself, which, in my own personal opinion, is the secondary intention of what the trap has been placed there for. The primary intention is to generate revenue for the state.

Replace speeding with any other crime, and you might just have a bias on the matter. Clearly you don't think doing donuts in intersections is fine because it is victimless. How far could we take things? Would attempted murder also be a victimless crime (the bullet missed)? Would driving under the influence of alcohol be a victimless crime?

Again, this is a pilot program with small fines or no fine. As a pilot, it won't be a huge revenue stream, and if putting speed cameras up everywhere means people slow down because they think they will get a ticket, even if only one in ten camera actually worked then yes, that is the point--people will fear getting a ticket. Traffic will slow which will also slow speeders too.

We could do other things to slow traffic that other countries do besides speed traps like narrow roads, curves, speed bumps, etc. In my town, they started putting bumps on the road in patches to reduce the number of people doing donuts because it is harder to do donuts with bumps on the road. It made a big difference near my house.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

+1
i know we've all seen the statistics of 'speed kills', but we all seem to ignore a lot of other factors that are always at play.

the first real question that people are scared to talk about are creating and establishing realistic speed limits, but also creating roadways that reinforce those realistic limits.

a few roads near me growing up are dead straight for over 10 miles, and 5 lanes wide(2 lanes each way, with a turn lane in the middle). early on, they were a 45mph speed limit. now there's added sidewalks that few use, and some growing residential area's off the the sides that used to be corn fields, and they spontaneously dropped the speed limit to 35.

with no alterations to the roadway, traffic still flows at 40-50mph through that road. but we're blaming the drivers/traffic, not the roadway for that, despite the entire rest of our legal/roadway system creating laws reinforcing the concept that we as people/drivers/citizens have zero self control, and laws are set to the lowest common denominator.

the reality is that the speed isn't the problem. it's the roadway design.

I've watched several videos from this guy's channel. He talks about city design. Our cities are poorly designed in general. We have huge retail centers separated by miles of roadways and highways to suburbs (R2 housing). The roads are made for people to travel fast like you said. The problem is that the wide lanes and roads give us a false sense of safety and security. Speed dramatically increases the forces in a crash (1/2mv^2) and distance to stop, so even if something has multiple lanes or wide lanes, that doesn't really mean someone can stop in time for a child running into the street or a bicycle crossing the road or someone backing out of their driveway. It provides a little shoulder space, but less speed would be better. As the video says, we tend to respond only when things are bad with speed bumps, a new traffic sign, lowering the speed limits.

As a former EMS worker of four years, an ED Tech of ten years, and now as an orthopedic nurse, and as a person familiar of the car community, someone could say that I have seen the good, the bad and the ugly on both sides. My brother is a cop too. I'm aware of what speed does to bodies and lives when people try to play race cars too much on the street. It is one thing to hammer it on some empty canyons, but there is no point in flying around like people do in traffic, whether that is speed at 10+ over the speed limit in city areas (not talking highways), weaving, following closely, etc.

[dpfarr]

Looking back at the Hong Kong protests and the mass arrests through their surveillance in 2019/2020. There’s no argument that biometrics have progressed even in the four years since then.

Someone proposed a test about holding a sign to warn about speed cameras. In the same number of years, it’s been made painfully aware that cops don’t serve and protect. Their job is persecution. I don’t trust them now, their monopoly on violence is not under threat.

All of which is to say, further limiting the power to someone controlling the technology for biometric surveillance because you need fewer people managing that if you have the AI doing most of the work. Why the fuck would you want to invest into that for the purpose of safety or justice?