AI gonna get you 
A I that old chestnut!
People who get fined for using a phone, or for not wearing a seat belt, are those whoā¦wait for itā¦
are using phones, or aren`t wearing seat belts!
Of course being above the law themselves, the technology gets the āblameā for their crime.
Because investing in technology to tackle victimless crime is more easier
"At the time of the launch of the new tech cameras, Alison Hernandez, Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, said:
āWe know distracted driving is a common cause of collisions,ā¦ā - Correct.
āā¦which is exactly why it is illegal to use a mobile phone while driving.ā - Incorrect.
āSupt Leisk, who is the strategic roads policing lead with the force, said far too many people are still ignoring the rules. He added: "Using a mobile phone while driving is both dangerous and illegal.ā - Incorrect
It is known that holding the conversation is the most dangerous part of the using a mobile phone whilst driving but it is not illegal to use a mobile phone whilst driving - so long as you donāt touch it.
It would be nice if they knew the law before being the arbiter of it.
We should worry about this tech though.
As we know this is where it starts, not where it ends.
Note that they state:
āIf an offence has been correctly identified, the driver will either be sent a warning letter or a notice of intended prosecution.ā
This acknowledges the fallibility of the technology. In the early stages they will use humans to check the AI work, but you can guarantee once these systems are common place it will be up to you to spend time, effort & money defending yourself as the letters will be automatically sent out to every AI suspected offender.
The race for the money will leave justice by the wayside as always.
TruckDriverBen:
Because investing in technology to tackle victimless crime is more easier
Ah . . . but what if they have to pay a victims surcharge 
Franglais:
A I that old chestnut!People who get fined for using a phone, or for not wearing a seat belt, are those whoā¦wait for itā¦
are using phones, or aren`t wearing seat belts!Of course being above the law themselves, the technology gets the āblameā for their crime.
It would be nice if that were true - but it is not always the case.
Having had to defend myself against a false charge of using a mobile phone whilst driving I know of the effort it requires just to prove your innocence.
I also experienced the arrogance & smugness of officers who thought I would not defend the case because of the distance I would have to travel to prove my innocence. I can assure you AI will be programmed with generous leeway leading to false charges purely in order to make more money from people who cannot afford to defend themselves.
Many, many people pay parking fines for offences they have not committed, just because it is easier. This is known by the parking companies therefore they send knowingly false invoices out. The Police will do the same if the earnings are there.
Is it not just easier to not use touch your phone when driving whilst also wearing a seat belt? 
Seems like it saves potentially a lot of hassleā¦
toonsy:
Is it not just easier to not use touch your phone when driving whilst also wearing a seat belt?Seems like it saves potentially a lot of hassleā¦
It does, & I do that, but I have had to defend myself over a false claim therefore doing the right thing does not mean you will not be a victim.
There are a lot of dead innocent people murdered by the state - so many that Europeans now know that capital punishment is an unacceptable punishment.
Only last week a guy was released after decades inside all because a Podcaster took up his case & poured light into the darkness that is ājusticeā.
Jeez, ask Julian what he thinks of UK justice; ask Cliff Richard.
When the authorities dig in it takes a lot of effort to release yourself from their nefarious ways & it doesnāt always work.
Even when you have proved your innocence you have lost - time, effort, money, sleep.
Innocence is perceived - it is not a true state of being.
Maybe you have to take the long road to prove it to truly understand the situation?
TruckDriverBen:
Because investing in technology to tackle victimless crime is more easier
Aināt victimless though is it?
dailymail.co.uk/video/news/ ā¦ amily.html
forum member tipped me off on this oneāif youre the sort who forgets to wear seatbelts just strategically place a strip of black card behind seat top towards doorpost . from the front it appears youv allus a belt on
ScaniaUltimate:
toonsy:
Is it not just easier to not use touch your phone when driving whilst also wearing a seat belt?Seems like it saves potentially a lot of hassleā¦
It does, & I do that, but I have had to defend myself over a false claim therefore doing the right thing does not mean you will not be a victim.
There are a lot of dead innocent people murdered by the state - so many that Europeans now know that capital punishment is an unacceptable punishment.
Only last week a guy was released after decades inside all because a Podcaster took up his case & poured light into the darkness that is ājusticeā.
Jeez, ask Julian what he thinks of UK justice; ask Cliff Richard.When the authorities dig in it takes a lot of effort to release yourself from their nefarious ways & it doesnāt always work.
Even when you have proved your innocence you have lost - time, effort, money, sleep.Innocence is perceived - it is not a true state of being.
Maybe you have to take the long road to prove it to truly understand the situation?
No system is perfect.
The only way to avoid all false prosecutions is to prosecute no-one .
The technology is likely to be more accurate than prejudiced or incompetent humans.
Many, many people pay parking fines for offences they have not committed, just because it is easier. This is known by the parking companies therefore they send knowingly false invoices out. The Police will do the same if the earnings are there.
I doubt that especially the first bit, would love to see some evidence?
corij:
forum member tipped me off on this oneāif youre the sort who forgets to wear seatbelts just strategically place a strip of black card behind seat top towards doorpost . from the front it appears youv allus a belt on
I donāt think thereās much in the way of āforgettingā going on there, if your memory was that bad youād forget where you were driving to, and by putting some dodge in place youāre showing youāve done it deliberately.
A TM I know took up a new job, one of his first jobs was meeting the drivers and having a look at the trucks. He found one guy had the seatbelt deliberately wrapped around the headrest (with clear indications this was a permanent thing), and a dummy clip in the socket so that the truck wouldnāt beep at him. That became a sit down āchatā in the office - no tea or biscuitsā¦
ScaniaUltimate:
toonsy:
Is it not just easier to not use touch your phone when driving whilst also wearing a seat belt?Seems like it saves potentially a lot of hassleā¦
It does, & I do that, but I have had to defend myself over a false claim therefore doing the right thing does not mean you will not be a victim.
There are a lot of dead innocent people murdered by the state - so many that Europeans now know that capital punishment is an unacceptable punishment.
Only last week a guy was released after decades inside all because a Podcaster took up his case & poured light into the darkness that is ājusticeā.
Jeez, ask Julian what he thinks of UK justice; ask Cliff Richard.When the authorities dig in it takes a lot of effort to release yourself from their nefarious ways & it doesnāt always work.
Even when you have proved your innocence you have lost - time, effort, money, sleep.Innocence is perceived - it is not a true state of being.
Maybe you have to take the long road to prove it to truly understand the situation?
Yeah completely agree, itās a hard website to get out of. It just seems that mobile phone use is an odd hill to choose to die on when itās now so easy to prove either way as everything even down to screen interactions and keystrokes are recorded in the phone data.
Franglais:
ScaniaUltimate:
toonsy:
Is it not just easier to not use touch your phone when driving whilst also wearing a seat belt?Seems like it saves potentially a lot of hassleā¦
It does, & I do that, but I have had to defend myself over a false claim therefore doing the right thing does not mean you will not be a victim.
There are a lot of dead innocent people murdered by the state - so many that Europeans now know that capital punishment is an unacceptable punishment.
Only last week a guy was released after decades inside all because a Podcaster took up his case & poured light into the darkness that is ājusticeā.
Jeez, ask Julian what he thinks of UK justice; ask Cliff Richard.When the authorities dig in it takes a lot of effort to release yourself from their nefarious ways & it doesnāt always work.
Even when you have proved your innocence you have lost - time, effort, money, sleep.Innocence is perceived - it is not a true state of being.
Maybe you have to take the long road to prove it to truly understand the situation?No system is perfect.
The only way to avoid all false prosecutions is to prosecute no-one .The technology is likely to be more accurate than prejudiced or incompetent humans.
No ā¦the only way to avoid wrong prosecutions is to ensure they are 100% accurate, if there is any doubt, afaik we are still on an āInnocent until proven guiltyā policy last time I looked, so the benefit of that doubt should be given to the poor sod who is about to be nicked for doing nowt wrong.
Anybody caught using a phone without hands free is asking to get nicked, anybody who aināt wearing a belt must he a bit thick anyway considering how long the law has been in.
So basically itās their own stupid fault, and I aināt got a problem with it.
The only thing that bugs me is the police and authorities not admitting the real reason, or the main reason for all this type of stuff,.why tf can they not just be honest, anybody who does not suffer from terminal naivety knows the real score on ALL this cack.
I donāt think in absolute reality they give a stuff if I run off the road while using a phone, then go through the windscreen after not wearing my beltā¦that age old real reason, and usual subject of hidden agenda is always there on an 80% to 20% ratioā¦
youtu.be/t8iYGL_QrNI
robroy:
No ā¦the only way to avoid wrong prosecutions is to ensure they are 100% accurate, if there is any doubt, afaik we are still on an āInnocent until proven guiltyā policy last time I looked, so the benefit of that doubt should be given to the poor sod who is about to be nicked for doing nowt wrong.
Nope.
The UK law doesn`t require 100% proof.
It requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Not beyond any doubt.
If it was necessary to prove all cases 100% then no-one would ever be convicted.
As I said, nothing in the real world is perfect, and proof of guilt cannot be made 100%.
Would you be OK with 999 murderers walking the streets, because one innocent man might be falsely convicted?
Franglais:
robroy:
No ā¦the only way to avoid wrong prosecutions is to ensure they are 100% accurate, if there is any doubt, afaik we are still on an āInnocent until proven guiltyā policy last time I looked, so the benefit of that doubt should be given to the poor sod who is about to be nicked for doing nowt wrong.Nope.
The UK law doesn`t require 100% proof.
It requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Not beyond any doubt.If it was necessary to prove all cases 100% then no-one would ever be convicted.
As I said, nothing in the real world is perfect, and proof of guilt cannot be made 100%.Would you be OK with 999 murderers walking the streets, because one innocent man might be falsely convicted?
Ahh right weāre talking about murderers now,. and hereās me thinking we were talking simple traffic offences.
Tell ya what, I wonāt dignify that ridiculous statement with a reply so there ya go.
And Iām fully aware it does not have to be 100% that is the point I was making , it maybe should beā¦but not including terrorists, paedophiles, rapists or architects of genocide in case you were wonderingā¦and thanks for explaining the rule of law to me btw.
robroy:
Ahh right weāre talking about murderers now,. and hereās me thinking we were talking simple traffic offences.
Tell ya what, I wonāt dignify that ridiculous statement with a reply so there ya go.And Iām fully aware it does not have to be 100% that is the point I was making , it maybe should beā¦but not including terrorists, paedophiles, rapists or architects of genocide in case you were wonderingā¦and thanks for explaining the rule of law to me btw.
So, you want the impossibly high standard of 100% proof for a 50 quid fine?
But a lesser standard of proof, for life in prison?
Franglais:
robroy:
Ahh right weāre talking about murderers now,. and hereās me thinking we were talking simple traffic offences.
Tell ya what, I wonāt dignify that ridiculous statement with a reply so there ya go.And Iām fully aware it does not have to be 100% that is the point I was making , it maybe should beā¦but not including terrorists, paedophiles, rapists or architects of genocide in case you were wonderingā¦and thanks for explaining the rule of law to me btw.
So, you want the impossibly high standard of 100% proof for a 50 quid fine?
But a lesser standard of proof, for life in prison?
Yes please.
Except it is not only a Ā£50 fine for many motoring offences & they are 100% provable.
The point being we are not dealing with, murderers, rapists etc. but decent people who have transgressed a little in most cases.
It is fairer to let those we donāt have 100% proof of having committed an offence go unpenalised rather than allowing the authorities to put millions of innocent motorists to the trouble of proving their innocence.
I get that it is difficult to see the sense in this if you have never been falsely accused, but Iām sure once you have & have had to defend yourself then you would see things differently.
Of course we cannot take chances with possible murderers being free, therefore the ābeyond reasonable doubtā should apply in that situation for other peopleās safety.
I am sure you & I have committed minor offences this week in our driving & donāt feel we need to be punished (if I am wrong & you do, please hand yourself in (but please donāt try to convince me you have committed no offences!)).
Franglais:
robroy:
Ahh right weāre talking about murderers now,. and hereās me thinking we were talking simple traffic offences.
Tell ya what, I wonāt dignify that ridiculous statement with a reply so there ya go.And Iām fully aware it does not have to be 100% that is the point I was making , it maybe should beā¦but not including terrorists, paedophiles, rapists or architects of genocide in case you were wonderingā¦and thanks for explaining the rule of law to me btw.
So, you want the impossibly high standard of 100% proof for a 50 quid fine?
But a lesser standard of proof, for life in prison?
If you like Aye.
#cba.