The ACT Government has just announced that from 3 November, “ACT traffic cameras will detect and issue infringements for seatbelt offences".

Let’s hope that the ACT approach will show more sensitivity than in Queensland, where citizens risk a fine of $1251 and four demerit points every time they step into their cars and drive past a camera operated seatbelt detector.

The risk of this fine is hardly ever because drivers and passengers are not wearing a seatbelt, but because the image captured by the camera may suggest that they are “not wearing a seat belt properly adjusted” – even if they are.

What stinks is that, as with Robodebt, the penalty is likely to be applied to those who have committed no offence. Further, like with Robodebt, the process of establishing innocence has been made so onerous that most people choose to suck it up – paying the fine and wearing the consequence of the lost points (which in many cases can also mean loss of licence.)

The issue with the cameras is that the photos produced are often over-exposed and of dubious quality, and the seatbelt cannot be seen, even if the driver or passenger is 100% certain the belt was being worn correctly. In many cases, the lack of detail in the image is interpreted as the absence — or incorrect wearing — of the seatbelt.

Fighting the case is extremely onerous and expensive. It can mean at least two trips to court (which may not be located where you live) with the possibility of even more trips because of last-minute postponements by the prosecution; it means bringing additional witnesses if they have provided any material evidence, such as statutory declarations or technical advice about the photos; it means being subjected to intensive cross-examination by the prosecutorial team; and it also means being threatened with substantial additional costs penalties of up the $12,000 for government expert witnesses.

For those interested in more detail see 1 and 2.

For those interested in first-hand accounts of victims of this Robodebt Mark Two, see this story.

In March this year the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties wrote to the Queensland Minister for Transport and Main Roads, Brent Mickelberg, detailing their concerns with the seatbelt legislation and its application in Queensland. Some of these concerns included:

• “The presumption in favour of the prosecution is misinterpreted by the courts and/or is effectively insurmountable according to that interpretation; (The QCCL concern is that regardless of the frequent poor quality of the photographic image provided as evidence, magistrates appear to base their decision on the legally-endorsed algorithm which has concluded that the “seat belt is being worn incorrectly.”)
• “The accuracy of the technology and the Acusensus’ (the technology provider) testing methods do not justify the readiness with which the human reviewers are issuing infringements; (Unlike the history of much camera-based detection used in Australian road safety, no evidence has been published or provided by Acusensus to demonstrate the accuracy of the detection system, nor will the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads make public the ‘business rules’ used by its officers in the interpretation of the photographic evidence.)
• “Compliance with the provisions in question requires breaches of other road safety laws and obligations; (department lawyers and magistrates have told those who complain about being fined for their passengers not wearing their seat belts, that it is the driver’s responsibility at all times to ensure all passengers are wearing their belts correctly. This required supervision is apparently concurrent with navigating a car on a busy freeway. Apart from creating an extra danger to road users, the QCCL also concludes that ’to make the driver liable for an adult passenger’s conduct is unfair and offends basic principles of criminal responsibility’) and
• “the penalty is excessive compared to similar schemes in other jurisdictions and road offences with comparable fines in Queensland.” (Queensland penalties are two to three times higher than in other states and are compounded by the stated threat from department prosecutors that disputing the penalty in court could incur additional costs.)"

The QCCL sums up the whole sorry saga by saying:

“To replace the judgment of the bench with that of a machine is to render absurd the concept of ‘fair trial according to law’ as it has always been understood in Australia.”

Tens of thousands of Queenslanders have been — and continue to be — wrongly fined large sums. Many have lost their licences and some have lost their employment. The system is causing a great deal of stress and distress to individuals and families, Will there be any accountability – and by whom?

The growing controversy has raised other issues:

• The entire process is loaded against the person claiming innocence, requiring navigation of confusing websites, multiple trips for personal court appearances, often long distances away, and the ever-present threat that the penalty can be made much higher.
• The statistical anomalies, such as the higher percentage of fines for passengers (63% in 2022 and 2023) when the majority of trips are in vehicles with a single occupant.
• Does the law (and road accident research generally) treat women unfairly? Many of those penalised are women who place the belt either between or to the side of the breasts, because it causes discomfort. Hence the belt may not track in the straight line which the AI system is trained to see. The pictures of “correct seatbelt wear” on the Acusensus and Queensland TMR websites almost always depict lean male bodies. Should more seatbelt research be undertaken taking gender and body shape into account? With obesity rates skyrocketing in Australia, it would be interesting to know if the AI detection system was ever validated with people of all girths and statures. In fact, a seatbelt case in the ACT Supreme Court ruled “the requirement that a seatbelt be properly adjusted means that it is adjusted in a manner appropriate to the size, shape and physical condition of the person wearing it”. (Maroney V Wojcicka. Supreme Court of the ACT – Court of Appeal 15 May 2003.)

When this issue first gained publicity almost three years ago, it seemed like an early harbinger of the dangers of an increasing reliance on AI.

While there is little sign yet of the Queensland Government showing any inclination to act in a way that cuts off what must be a great little earner for state coffers, the government and government officials should remember that it took several years to bring the much larger and more egregious Robodebt scheme down.

The irony of Queensland also happening to be the state that hosted the Robodebt Royal Commission, where public officials and politicians had their reputations shredded for failing to apply basic principles of fairness and justice, should also be worth reflection.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.