AI cameras change driver behavior at intersections

Enforcement vs. Safety Trade-offs

• Many argue AI cameras exemplify “letter of the law” enforcement that optimizes metrics (tickets, complete stops) rather than real safety, invoking Goodhart’s law.
• Some drivers report that coping with enforcement devices (speed changes, cameras, bumps) distracts them from scanning for pedestrians.
• Critics note that intersections are often poorly designed (blocked sight lines, bad parking layouts), but it’s cheaper and more profitable to fine drivers than to fix infrastructure.

Stop Signs, Sight Lines, and Design Alternatives

• A recurring issue: if you stop at the stop line you often can’t see cross traffic, so people creep forward into crosswalks, undermining pedestrian safety.
• Commenters mention the “sight triangle” concept and say many local intersections violate design guidelines.
• Some propose better engineering: yields instead of stops where visibility is good, roundabouts, pedestrian-activated flashing beacons, smarter signal timing.

Rolling Stops vs. Full Stops

• One camp: rolling stops are fine if sight lines are good and no one is present; cameras should penalize only when pedestrians or cross-traffic are at risk.
• Opposing camp: rules must be written for average or impaired drivers; habitual rolling stops degrade attention and become dangerous, especially in school zones.
• Discussion touches on US vs. European practice: more yield-based priority rules and fewer 4‑way stops in parts of Europe.

Automated Enforcement, Incentives, and Surveillance

• Strong skepticism that systems are about safety rather than revenue or data: examples of camera programs that failed as ticketing tools but remained as surveillance/plate readers.
• Worries about mission creep into panopticon-style tracking (especially combined with facial recognition) and profit-motivated private enforcement.
• Some suggest reforms: remove revenue incentives, use points instead of fines, strict limits and audits—but others doubt any oversight will be trustworthy.

US vs. Europe: Broader Safety Context

• Thread notes higher US fatality counts and points to differences in:
  • Licensing rigor and training.
  • Car size (large SUVs/trucks).
  • Vehicle inspection regimes.
  • Urban form: longer driving distances, sprawl, weaker transit.
• There is disagreement on the right metrics (per capita vs. per distance driven) and on whether automated enforcement meaningfully addresses these root causes.

Vision Zero Debate

• Some see “Vision Zero” as useful directionally (20 mph mixed-use streets, separated infrastructure) and note a few European successes.
• Others view literal “zero deaths” as unrealistic and potentially misallocating funds once low-hanging safety improvements are exhausted.