Is AI to detect mobile phone use whilst driving flawed? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2019, 12:26:04 pm
content: https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/mobilephones/technology.htmlIn Australia it is perfectly legal to operate a ham radio whilst driving, whether it be just using mic or a HT's. But handle a mobile phone, and you get find several hundred dollars and lose demerit points on your driving record. New AI technology is being activatedthis weekendin New South Wales detecting people illegally using mobile phones. The statement in the link says the images will be verified by authorised personnel. My guess is most of them won't know the law about microphone usage, or HT's, or will misinterpret the image. Most, if not all, would have no idea what ham radio or for that matter CB is.In Victoria, the government (Vicroads) was caught milking innocent drivers at one intersection near Tullamarine Airport in 2011 and 2012, byknowinglyusing a camera they incorrectly adjusted to reap record revenues. Last year, a good friend of mine who delivers blood as a contractor was using mic on a UHF radio transceiver for work in his car. A cop pulled him over and issued a fine, despite knowing my friend had used a mic. My mate represented himself, and went to court THREE times, eventually wining the case, dropping the fine. The cop and the court seemed to go out of their way to make life hard for my friend, who lost three day's pay without any compensation and no apology.So if the AI system came to Victoria, I could see ham radio operators or CB operators being illegally prosecuted. So how can this new system discriminate between a mobile phone and another piece of equipment?

author: artag
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2019, 12:33:12 pm
content: Of course it's flawed.All uses of AI to make a judgement that can't even be properly defined and rely only on training data are flawed.But the salesmen, bean counters and politicians are a fatal combination : the bean counters want to save money and the politicians want to point the way without ever getting the blame. So they'll continue to spaff money away regardless of the consequences in the hope of future savings, as with the UK home office's liking for cctv id. It won't go until someone of different political colour needs to lose it and points at the costly uselessness.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2019, 02:50:45 pm
content: Where's the problem? 99.9% of the gadgets people press to their ear while drivingwillbe mobile phones. If you are a radio amateur and land in the 0.1% by getting incorrectly accused of mobile phone use, you will have to file an appeal. Given your amateur radio license and existing gear, you can easily support that with evidence.On the other hand, maybe you should reconsider your use of ham radio while driving? While it may be legal, I am pretty convinced that itisdistracting, so it might not be the best idea to use your transceiver while you are at the wheel.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2019, 03:25:30 pm
content: IMHO, if someone calling without hands free, or texting in the car, the airbag should be deployed.On the other hand I find automated fining to be absolutely disgusting.

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2019, 03:35:33 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on November 26, 2019, 12:26:04 pmIt can't. It probably can't even discriminate between a mobile phone and a hat, a different model of car it hasn't seen before, or a picture taken under different lighting conditions.Have a read...You Look Like A Thing And I Love You.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2019, 03:58:59 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on November 26, 2019, 03:25:30 pmYes, like those automated speed cameras and red-light cameras. Newfangled, devilish stuff...

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2019, 04:09:59 pm
content: Poor aussies, can't scratch an itchy ear no more?

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2019, 04:10:15 pm
content: We've had myriads of those already over here for years. Get ready for this, as they are probably going to be everywhere and for an increasing number of fining tasks.Since most of us in this forum live in democracies, we're supposed to have a say. Do we? Nope.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2019, 10:47:36 pm
content: Why do they even bother with the cameras/AI for this, when they could just look at the IP traffic/ location data from people's phones? (Hey, everyone else does... why not the Government?)

author: Refrigerator
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2019, 11:03:16 pm
content: Thanks to the aussies for beta-testing this, i guessSince the country i live in is falling behind in terms of "innovations" by a few years so we don't have to deal with it, yet.Also, what about truck drivers? Almost all of them have a radio.

author: jogri
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2019, 11:13:29 pm
content: Quote from: SilverSolder on November 26, 2019, 10:47:36 pma) It's a massive violation of data protection lawsb) How can you differentiate between the driver and passengers using a phone? Someone could have taken your phone and used it while you were driving.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 27, 2019, 02:06:52 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on November 26, 2019, 02:50:45 pmAgreed. If in the extremely unlikely event you get fined incorrectly, the photographs can be used to determine which device you were holding in your hand. It would be a trivial task for someone to determine the difference between a hand-held microphone with a flex cord held to the mouth vs. a mobile phone being held to the ear or in the lap. If the AI detected image/evidence is in doubt, an infringement notice won't be issued.Both fixed and mobile cameras were tested over a three month period earlier this year and captured over 100,000 drivers using their mobile phone illegally (out of 8.5 million images captured in total).I say bring it on. Use of a mobile phone while driving is inexcusable. Personally, I would go one step further: On the second offence, your phone gets seized by Police for 24 hours. On the third offence, it gets crushed.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2019, 02:49:43 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on November 26, 2019, 02:50:45 pmWhile I'm sure it is distracting, I don't think it's near as bad as having a phone conversation. Talking on a radio is somewhat asynchronous, one person will say something and then wait for a response, it's not continuous the way it is with a phone. Most people I think if they get to a tricky intersection or traffic backs up will hold off on replying to a radio call until their workload decreases. A phone conversation however is full duplex and people get completely wrapped up in it.Regarding hands-free, that's a joke. It's legal because it was easier to ban holding a phone in your hand than to get a law through that bans all mobile phone use but study after study (and my own personal experience) says that any safety difference is negligible, it's holding a real-time full duplex conversation with someone who cannot see when you need to focus and shut up for a moment that is the problem. Mobile phone use causes SO many accidents now that I would support an all out ban, along with making getting caught using one a criminal offense and causing an accident while using one a felony.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2019, 02:55:16 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on November 27, 2019, 02:06:52 amI can never support any form of asset forfeiture, it is nothing more than government sanctioned theft. What if the phone belongs to someone else? No reason they should have their asset destroyed because someone else was an idiot with it.Third offense should absolutely be a criminal offense, maybe even the second. It has gotten completely out of hand.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2019, 03:00:12 am
content: The statistics don't look so good:1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused by texting and driving.Texting while driving is 6x more likely to cause an accident than driving drunk.So the laws should really be even more severe than those relating to driving under the influence...

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2019, 03:01:03 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on November 26, 2019, 03:58:59 pmI did at one point support those and I still agree with the principal. Unfortunately the reality is that they are hardly about safety at all and mostly about revenue. More than one municipality has been caught turning down the amber light duration to increase revenue from red light cameras. Also both types of camera are owned and operated by private companies that get a substantial cut of the profit. On top of that it is virtually impossible to contest the ticket, you can't just go to court because it's not like a regular traffic ticket. The thing that really enlightened me is that several years ago there was an attempted citizen's initiative to get rid of the red light cameras in a nearby city and a city official was quoted as saying they need the revenue. They came right out and admitted it was not about safety by saying that.If an automated camera is going to be handing out tickets, there needs to be human oversight on the positives, and there should not be a private corporation owning, operating and raking in the profits on the machines. It needs to be about punishing drivers who break the rules, not extracting maximum profits from the population.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 27, 2019, 06:59:01 am
content: Quote from: james_s on November 27, 2019, 02:49:43 amYou are absolutely correct. Even having a conversation with people in the car can be just as distracting. Of course, this level of distraction varies from person to person, but we all know we have to appeal to the lowest common denominator.In Australia (at least in the state I live in), ALL mobile phone use (hands-free or otherwise) is banned for Learner and Provisional drivers (essentially for the first four years of driving).Quote from: james_s on November 27, 2019, 03:01:03 amThis seems like a fundamental failing of your legal system. Here, if you are accused of something (by way of charge or infringement notice), you always have the option to contest it in court. For a camera-issued infringement, the onus would be on the camera operator to prove that the camera was operating correctly, within parameters and had been tested/calibrated in accordance with the standards (which is easy to prove if in fact the camera has been maintained).

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2019, 07:09:39 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on November 27, 2019, 06:59:01 amI don't recall the details and I'm too lazy to look it up right now but it has something to do with the type of ticket that it is. Unlike a ticket you get from a police officer, the red light and speed camera tickets don't go on your driving record, they are just a fine. Somehow this allows them to get away with making it far harder to contest them.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2019, 01:04:36 pm
content: You can contest a red-light camera ticket in Florida but if you do then then they tack on an additional $275 "Court Cost" fee. Also, you had better have dammed good evidence because your word doesn't mean squat against the word of a police officer (pictures of red light violations aresupposedto have been verified by a PO before they're issued). Also in Florida, they don't care who was driving the car, if a violation is committed then the owner gets a ticket. So even if you could prove that at the time you were let's say serving on a submarine at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, you still get the ticket!The only red light ticket that I have EVER seen thrown out in Florida was one where someone who only owned a motorcycle and was ticketed when a red car ran a light. The PO certified that the MC owner was the violator, and the owner took that case to court and the court upheld it. It was only after all of it was posted in several large newspapers that the State's Attorney stepped in a dropped the charges, although how he could do thataftera conviction is beyond me.I agree that red light running and texting while driving is a huge problem but issuing tickets to random car owners isn't the solution! Cell phones already have GPS in them and it seems to me that it would be simple to add software to completely disable texting while they're moving. They should also be able to add a very low power transmitter to public transportation (buses and trains) that would over ride that and to reenable cell phones for passengers on those vehicles.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2019, 06:11:10 pm
content: The issue is that it's also legal for a passenger in a car to use a mobile phone and I don't really see that as being a problem, however due to the fact that people have proven over and over and over that they are incapable of ignoring their phone and focusing on driving, I've started to think it should be treated like alcohol. You cannot have an open container within reach of the driver (in the US at least) so likewise maybe we need to make it illegal to have an active mobile phone within reach of the driver. People had many, many chances to show they could use the technology responsibly and by and large they have utterly failed. People die because someone can't wait 20 minutes to reply to a trivial text message.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2019, 06:36:01 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on November 27, 2019, 01:04:36 pmThat would be a problem if you are a passenger in the car...This problem is not actually simple, when you start thinking about it.Perhaps the AI cameras are not actually the worst idea....

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2019, 07:13:49 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on November 27, 2019, 01:04:36 pmHint: Those speed and red light cameras capture the license plate, so the car owners are not selected entirely at random.And in this part of the world, the cameras capture a photo of the driver too, and if it is clearly not the owner, then the owner does not pay the fine. (The owner does get asked who was driving their car at the time, but strangely they often can't recall that...)

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 28, 2019, 12:57:04 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on November 27, 2019, 07:13:49 pmWe call those "owner onus" offences over here. Meaning that the onus is on the owner of the vehicle to nominate the driver (if it wasn't them). There is a separate offence if the owner fails to provide (or provides false information) relating to the driver of the car at the time of an offence (or alleged offence). Where this gets enforced quite a bit is during fail to stop crashes or Police pursuits where the driver is not immediately identified. The owner of the car is required by law to nominate who the driver was at the time of the incident. If they refuse or "can't remember", they can explain theirreasonsexcuses to a court. In addition, all traffic offences (whether it be camera detected, infringement notice issued by Police or a charge) go on your driving record but parking tickets do not. However youalwayshave the right of appeal to a court regardless of who or how an infringement/charge was served upon you.And I say, rightfully so. As the owner of a car, YOU are responsible for who gets behind the wheel, no one else. If you don't want people driving your car or you can't trust people to do the right thing, don't give them the keys. 99% of car owners are responsible and honest, it's the dodgy people who think the law doesn't apply to them that are generally who get caught up in this kind of thing.I don't know about you guys, but I know where my car and all the sets of keys are (and who has access to them) 100% of the time.

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2019, 01:44:10 am
content: In my neck you used to be able to just ignore traffic cam tickets. Unless you were served, in person, nothing would happen if you just shredded this notice. But 5 years back or so, this changed in my city. If you don't pay these tickets, your drivers license will get revoked.I have a fantasy that some idiot will use a drone to fly around and spray paint the traffic cams in his city, and then post the videos online. And that it will become a viral thing that stupid teenagers start doing all across the country. Then I can fake condemn their terrible actions.QuoteThis is a major problem. We're all paying for this in our insurance premiums. Harsher punishments for texting and driving might be less intrusive and problematic than this AI radio detection thing. And in the case of the ham radio thing, sure; almost no one uses ham radios or the like, anymore. But in this case, there should be some provision to prevent this which doesn't require a trip (or 3) to the courthouse.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2019, 06:16:04 am
content: Quote from: KL27x on November 28, 2019, 01:44:10 am

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 30, 2019, 10:59:01 pm
content: As of today, mobile and fixed mobile phone cameras will be operating (initially in "warning" mode for the first three months, the infringements will start to be issued). Unlike speed cameras in NSW, there won't be any warning signs which is excellent news.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2019, 11:27:45 pm
content: Do mobile phone signals have some kind of pre-amble you could use to find a direct path only ranges with local antennas for triangulation?Pattern matchers are good enough to find heads ... and if the phone is next to it, well ...

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 30, 2019, 11:34:15 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on November 30, 2019, 11:27:45 pmSometimes the simplest solution is the best one. When you start getting highly technical, you need experts to attend court to explain how it all works. It all gets very expensive, very quickly. Not to mention it has to be absolutely spot on, every time.In relation to mobile phone triangulation, it's something that is very tightly controlled. It's also not very accurate. Best cases you might get a "sector" with an area of 100-200 metres. This is why Emergency 000 usesPush MoLI.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2019, 11:37:04 pm
content: The simple solution is to simply accept accurate detection is not a simple problem and to just not do it then ... and accept you can't mitigate the accident rate in that respect.Simple, maybe not acceptable.

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 30, 2019, 11:38:39 pm
content: Peoples bad habits aren't easily arrested and I somehow suspect that sandwich shaped phone covers will be a thing, that or people will simply carry an empty fries bucket or coffee cup in order to avoid detection.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 30, 2019, 11:39:45 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on November 30, 2019, 11:37:04 pmThe current solution is quite simple. AI takes a photo and submits it for human triage. Human either determines the driver was or was not using a mobile phone. If a simple yes/no cannot be determined, it defaults to no.Quote from: Muttley Snickers on November 30, 2019, 11:38:39 pmYep, some people will always find ways around it (and go to great lengths to do so), rather than just stop using their phone. They eventually get caught.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2019, 11:44:13 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on November 30, 2019, 11:34:15 pmThat's with mobile phone towers though, they can't really depend on having a direct path signal ... an antenna aimed at oncoming cars can.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 01, 2019, 04:37:14 am
content: Quote from: Marco on November 30, 2019, 11:44:13 pmSure, but if the phone is not transmitting at the precise moment it passes by the detector? What then? The driver gets let off?What if it was the passengers phone?What if the driver has a second phone in their pocket that happened to be transmitting?What about the modems/telemetry devices embedded into a lot of new cars these days?There are too many unknowns. Direct observation is far simpler and easier to prove in court.