A woman drives with both hands on the wheel. Her phone sits face-down on her lap. No officer pulls her over. No lights flash. Weeks later, a $1,251 ticket arrives in the mail. The evidence: a single frame from a Camera surveillance app. The charge: phone use while driving.

Automated camera companies market their devices as automated license plate readers — tools for catching stolen cars, flagging warrants, and aiding serious investigations.

Sold as a Crime Tool. Used as a Fine Machine.

  • Saryn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    From the way the image is described, there is no obvious reason to think the driver was distracted or otherwise impaired while driving. Moreover, the decision as to whether the driver was distracted by a phone wasn’t made by a law enforcement official. We most definitely don’t want to make this out to be “normal”.

    Did you even read the article? Even the title gives some of this away…

    • teuniac_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      It depends a lot on what the law says I’d say. Just like having an open container of alcohol in your car is illegal in many places, it’s not a bad thing per se if having a phone on one’s lap is treated the same way as if it’s being used.

      Unlike what the article says, phone use in a car is not seen as a minor traffic violation in many places. In the US literally hundreds of people die each year due to phone use while driving specifically.

      • Saryn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        I’ll tell you what I told the other guy because you clearly didn’t read the article carefully, as is obvious from your comment.

        Actually, I’ll word it a bit differently: based on the description of the image, show me beyond a reasonable doubt that there was ongoing “phone use”, as you just claimed. Those are your words, its what you just claimed, so you should have absolutely no issue explaining to me. Right?

        Well, that is unless you go back and reread the article and realize that you won’t be able to. Not in a reasonable, legally sound manner anyway.