Automation is going to change our way of life beyond recognition. It will affect nearly every aspect of society and the regulation of traffic laws will be no different.
We can already see the beginnings of the mechanization of driving law enforcement which offers a glimpse of what the future will hold. We need to be careful about which innovations we adopt because some of them pose a serious threat to our Charter rights.
Automation of motor insurance
There was news this week that ICBC has launched its scheme to monitor the driving behaviour of new drivers using telematics technology. The initiative will see up to 7,000 people with fewer than four years of driving experience have a smart tag installed on their windshield which pairs with a smartphone to monitor their behaviour.
ICBC will then analyze the data from each person’s device, such as speeding, braking patterns and even distracted driving, to calculate their risk level. People with lower risk scores will be entitled to discounted insurance rates.
It sounds like an episode of Black Mirror. For those who are still reluctant about surrendering their privacy to a faceless corporation, there is an added incentive: participants are rewarded with gift cards to retailers and restaurants.
“Automation could completely change our interaction with driving law enforcement in the near future.”
While the technology is undoubtedly impressive, instead of marveling at what it can do, we should be asking, should we be using it?
The ability of insurance companies to see into your car raises the issue of privacy. If everyone had one of these devices installed in their vehicles, for example, wouldn’t this be an invasion of our privacy? It’s easy to say, “well I’m a good driver, I’ve got nothing to hide”. But do you really want something in your car that tattles on you when you make a mistake? Say you’re driving to conditions, your braking pattern might be more erratic than it would be under normal circumstances. Although it is actually safer to change your braking pattern in some cases, this could count against you.
Automation of speed enforcement
It was recently announced that speed enforcement cameras at 35 BC intersections have been switched on and are going to be issuing tickets. There is no actual human involvement in the process as it is all done by automated devices. Because there is no actual police officer to see who is driving, the tickets get issued to the registered owner of the vehicle.
It remains to be seen whether this system is going to hold up in court. Until now, speeding convictions have required a human element. Police officers needed to be present to visually identify the driver. The evidence from a speed monitoring device is then used to confirm their visual estimation and reasonable belief that a driver was speeding.
Another issue with the automation of speed enforcement is the government’s refusal to reveal the threshold at which tickets will be issued.
As pointed out by Acumen Law Corporation’s Kyla Lee, not telling people the threshold could be dangerous because drivers might slam on the brakes when they see a camera, creating a hazard for drivers behind them or they might lose control of their vehicle.
The lack of a ticketing threshold also leaves the government open to a legal challenge. Anyone charged with an offence is entitled to know the evidence against them. If you don’t know the threshold you cannot mount a proper defence. It’s so important that your right to full disclosure of evidence is protected under Section 7 of the Charter.
Here are the locations of the 35 intersections in BC with speed enforcement cameras.
Robocops
Automation could completely change our interaction with driving law enforcement in the near future. An engineering firm has given another glimpse into the potential future of roadside policing. It has developed a robot that extends from a police car to the driver’s window to give people tickets. The automaton has a camera, printer and a screen where the driver can see the officer sitting in his car. It also deploys a row of spikes underneath the vehicle to foil any escape attempts.
The engineering firm says the purpose of the robot is police safety but if RoboCop taught us anything, the ethics of mechanical law enforcement are questionable, to say the least.