Slashdot Mirror
Using Cellular Traffic to Monitor Traffic Jams
An Anonymous Coward writes "The BBC has this story about Scots company Applied Generics and their plan to use cellphone location data to determine where there are traffic jams and (presumably) generate (and sell?) evasive routing tactics for drivers. They are using both passive cellular traffic (what you get when the phone is switched on) and active (drivers phoning up to say they'll be late - in standing traffic, I hope) to look for clusters of immobile cellphones along major routes. The whole idea has a sort of "why didn't I think of that?" neatness. Personally I wouldn't mind my own traffic being used wholesale (aggregated with thousands of other users), but how do other /.ers feel about a company profiting from data emitted by the cellphone that they paid for?"
Next in the same series: using cell locations to guide missiles to achieve more casualties. The high-tech way of saying "shut-up!".
They use this to determine if you've been speeding?
:)
"Jim, this guy only took 5 minutes between node 1 and node 2, he must have been travelling over the speed limit!"
Oh well, I guess they've secured funding for this project that way
> It relies on the fact that, when switched on,
:)
> cellphones are in regular communication with
> the nearest base station, giving a precise
> location for the phone.
> As the user moves around, their phone sends
> signals to other base stations, allowing the
> network's computer to log their route.
Depends what you mean by "precise". By monitoring signal strength at all nearby antennas very carefully, you could get a reasonable fix on the UE location (but throw in a couple of tall buildings, and accuracy starts to go out the window). Currently the base stations will do this monitoring just well enough to ensure proper inter-cell handoff. That doesn't require getting an "accurate" fix on your location at all. If it were possible, it would already be done as an alternative to (e.g.) GPS.
On a large motorway (or interstate, or autoroute, or whatever you have in your country), this would probably work very well. In an urban area with lots of interconnected roads and lots of buildings (full of stationary people at their desks), I don't think you'll be able to pinpoint the jam to any useful accuracy.
Still, might serve well as an "early warning" system, so you can decide where to send the traffic helicopters.
These sigs are more interesting tha
> The general rule is: add road capacity, and
:)
:) BTW I don't own a car and neither does my wife; we take the train to work because it's cheaper and safer.
> more people will drive.
At best, this applies only up to a point. At worst, it's a myth - and a dangerous one. Roads aren't just for car drivers! They're also for cyclists, motobikes and buses. The congestion problem in London (UK) is particularly acute to the extent that the administration is trying to introduce tolls for entering the city centre.
How can they persuade more people to ditch their cars and use public transport? By providing reliable bus and underground services. No-one uses London buses in rush hour, because they're too slow. Why? Because there's so much traffic on the roads, caused by the people who won't take the bus... the only way to break the cycle is to reduce congestion. This means reducing the density of traffic, either by (a) removing cars from the roads, or (b) making the roads bigger, or (c) both of the above.
In London at least, roads don't "cause traffic" as you suggest. No-one in their right mind would try driving in/through London if they didn't absolutely have to.
The issue with cyclists is the same. Nobody want to cycle in central London because it's so dangerous. Why? Because of all the traffic... and so on. Why don't more people walk, instead of driving half a mile down the road? Because the roads are lethal for pedestrians and the pelicon crossings take forever to change. Why? because of all the tra....
Of course, any move to impose congestion charging / extra taxation / higher petrol prices or whatever are met with huge resistance from motoring groups. But by continuing to overuse their cars, they only make the situation worse for themselves.
OK, time to stop my off-topic ranting. I just get irate about these things.
These sigs are more interesting tha
is to cut my commute in half by buying loads of second-hand cell phones and packing them into a fleet of station wagons strategically driven by hired teenagers.
Speaking as one of those "people", we do not commute using public transport because there generally is no "serious" alternative avaiable. In Washington DC, the metro is just dandy, if you count beeing packed into a sardine can and standing for 30 min to an hour a nice way to commute. Not to mention the lack of parking after 7 am at all the major sububian stations. and the close to $12 round trip cost for parking and fare
It is FAR cheaper, and takes less time (20 min) for me to drive into DC, and get two parking tickets a week then it is to take the Metro.
When a real commuting alternatives are available I would use it, until then stop blaming the commuter, they are in their cars for economic and time saving reasons. Why should the sacrifice thier time and money?
Raise the price of gas and lower the cost of public transport, and make it more efficient/convinient, then we can talk.