AI-powered cameras installed on Metro buses to ticket illegally parked cars

When i read these implementations, one thing I think about is the British post office scandal, also known as Horizon IT scandal[1].<p>These technologies are probabilistic with some nonzero chances of error which can&#x27;t always be easily detected. These are implemented by people with some knowledge of the tech used (and hopefully the understanding of error), but are to be used by people who expect the output to be 100% true. I do not know how they would deal with tech errors which do not look like errors, but feel like there should be more cognizance about this and expectations should be set accordingly. Same goes for any facial recognition tech deployed by authorities.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;British_Post_Office_scandal" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;British_Post_Office_scandal</a>

I&#x27;m of the belief that if a law exists but isn&#x27;t being enforced, the only correct course of action is to eliminate the law or start enforcing it. Otherwise, you enforce the law inconsistently, and you reinforce the notion that laws don&#x27;t need to be followed.<p>Technology can help with consistent enforcement. Stop light cameras, in my experience, are more impartial and objective than police officers.<p>Where I live in the U.S., crime is prevalent. Many laws are flouted by criminals and rarely enforced by the police or district attorneys. The system has become a farce. It&#x27;s better to enforce the laws consistently, or if they&#x27;re not needed, to eliminate them.

The big problem with all this automated enforcement is they only end up punishing honest people. Kind of like continually raising fares while doing zero about fare evasion.<p>The police should crack down hard on: license plate covers, fake license plates, fake temporary plates, etc. I suggest seizing the vehicles as contraband. Then I might support more automated enforcement. Until then, I don’t.

wish they&#x27;d ticket traffic violators, not just parked cars. Cars running red lights, cars driving in lanes they aren&#x27;t supposed to be in. Cars turning in places that are illegal to turn at. Cars speeding. Cars stopped in crosswalks. I see these daily. I&#x27;m happy to submit camera footage if it means tickets and enforcement.

What are the chances the video feed is just being sent to India like Amazon’s “just walk out” technology

Do they really need 100 cameras?<p>Just 5 cameras driving about the city all day ought to catch enough violators that anyone habitually parked in a bus lane will be caught and will stop doing it.<p>I could understand 1 camera per route maybe if the busses physically always stay on the same route.

There are now CCTV vehicles driving around some boroughs of London scanning for parked cars. I strongly believe that this breaks the spirit of the law as it was originally conceived and implemented.<p>In most areas, local residents allowed for and voted for controlled parking zones primarily to prevent commuters or tourists parking all day&#x2F;week and to reduce things like car storage by dealerships. Basically, to ensure that parking was actually available for residents, to make the best of a scarce resource.<p>I don&#x27;t believe that the intent was ever to penalise someone parking for 15-30 minutes to have a coffee or to shop, to drop off parcels, to make tradesmen have to pay to park when working, etc. Perfect enforcement is punitive, and reduces the utility of the road network overall.<p>My personal opinion is that these surveillance schemes are radicalising a lot of people and turning them against their elected officials. Discretion fosters trust in power.

Let’s say that the city of LA theorizes that enforcement of parking via these cameras will be cash flow positive; assuming the $11M contract size, 100 cameras and 5 years at face value you’d expect each device to bring in $60&#x2F;day to break even.<p>Seems like a good deal for the city if they fine someone at least twice a day per device.

“ Once a recording is made, it will be submitted to L.A. Department of Transportation where a human will assess whether a ticket should be issued.”<p>I’m seeing too many comments jumping to conclusions before reading this paragraph. A human will check the footage and make a final call

LA is so late to the game. NYC already does this and they do it without AI. Buses have cams. Anyone who drives in bus only lanes gets a ticket. Any cars parked in bus stops get tickets and a whole lot of honking.

Why is this AI? License plate scanning technology has been around for decades. Toll booths use them everywhere.

I’m all for requiring a human to give out tickets of all or any kind.

What about programmatic speed ticketing? Either we care to enforce these laws impartially or we want to use them to give cops the ability to exercise their discretion, tertium non datur.

This is such a public transit power move

Dystopic world we&#x27;re living in, and many of us here on this very forum have helped built it.

Anzeigenhauptmeister just lost his Hobby :(