Is AI generated content any different from a human reading a bunch of books or watching movies and being inspired by them to create something similar but not identical?
There’s nothing inherently dangerous about driving fast if it’s in accordance with driving to the conditions on the road. Driving too slowly is more likely to cause an accident by impeding the flow of traffic.
You know, rather that making something you could just look at the literal decades of legal history here. People have been contesting camera tickets since the 20th century and the article specifically notes that they retain the video footage long enough to cover the adjudication period where someone has the right to challenge the ticket and would have access to the recording for that purpose.
Where I live, every ticket arrives with a link to view the video. This has lead to really telling moments where people have ranted about the “trap” and some even share the videos, which reliably show them rolling through stop signs or red lights.
Sure, so if they try to change the law then you can sound the alarm but right now all you’re doing is warning people that things are exactly the same as they’ve been for decades.
> Also the fact that you’re only allowed to contest an allegation within an arbitrary amount of time hardly seems in concordance with natural justice.
Why? It’s common in many areas to say that you have a certain amount of time to appeal an error to avoid needing to keep records for minor issues for long periods of time. This was even more common in the past where you would have been relying on human memory more and some people would try to game the system by waiting & hoping that an officer wouldn’t be available or would have forgotten enough details. It’s hardly just to allow lawbreakers to get off by exploiting the error correction mechanism, either.
"A person who is ticketed would have access to the recording, Territo said, and the ability to challenge the violation — a process that can take months."
We’re a common law jurisdiction, laws are meant to be generalized to allow them to be interpreted and adapted depending on different circumstances, a lot of which are unforeseen at the time of creation of the law.
Ironic how seatbelts aren’t mandated on public forms of transport like trains and buses, yet one is required to wear them in one’s own vehicle. If it truly is based on safety then it should be an all or nothing approach to requiring seat belts on moving vehicles.
Transit has the same advantage as a back seat of private auto: a big non-windshield to crash into in the event of a crash. seatbelts are pretty great. the proliferation of airbags is the correct comparison.
The mass of a bus or train will happily cleave through wayward objects, so there will be less acceleration of your face into seat backs, poles, and other passengers. School busses to my knowledge do have padded seat backs, plus they're also up high, so they're more likely to go over sudden obstacles, increasing the stopping distance.
The safety of your three year old child is your responsibility. If your child is run over then it’s due to your lack of adequate supervision in the face of lack of capability of the child to avoid the accident and/or education of not to stand in the way of moving vehicles.
Where exactly would you draw the line where responsibility would lay on this hypothetical car driver if even running over a child would be someone else’s fault?
That’s a legitimate question. Does it need malicious intent otherwise it’s up to everyone to protect themselves from others and no one has a responsibility to mitigate harm?
