Slashdot Mirror
Stoplights to Mete Out Punishment?
gilrain writes "The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that traffic engineers have created a stoplight that deals with speeding. According to the article, 'It senses when a speeder is approaching and metes out swift punishment. It doesn't write a ticket. It immediately turns from green to yellow to red.' This is not just a prototype: it is in use now at an intersection in the Bay Area. Does stopping speeders before others serve a purpose other than petty revenge? Is it even safe to change expected stoplight patterns, especially for drivers in a hurry?"
That's good, instead of speeding, now they can speed *and* run a red light. I hope it's timed so that the light is far enough away that they have time to stop, and not run through it.
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
It would certainly piss me off if some guy was speeding ahead of me and caused the light ahead of us to turn red, stopping both of us. People on the road get mad at other drivers too often already; do we really need to give people another excuse to get mad at someone, blaming "that idiot speeder" for making them late?
I'd rather be lucky than good.
So when the light turns red early, does it give a green to the next in line? Sounds like a recipe for disater.
Speeding is a habit, and another related habit is that of running red lights quickly after a yellow (ie, its yellow when they see it, so it MUST be yellow when they go through it.) I've seen quite a few near misses because of people burning through a sudden red becuase they'd rather not have to slow down.
This will just mean more people running red lights. That could mean more accidents, or it may not, just like speeding causes accidents sometimes and sometimes it doesn't. The end result is that it doesn't really accomplish anything; it just converts the offense.
Well, y'know, there's that whole enforcement of the law thing. Unless that falls under 'petty revenge' in your book. One might also imagine that it'd be effective in encouraging the typical driver to actually obey posted speed limits (though I can't speak for the asshats who'll take it upon themselves to try and 'beat the system' by speeding faster or running the light.)
Is it even safe to change expected stoplight patterns, especially for drivers in a hurry?
Oh, heaven forfend that drivers be expected to pay attention to the road and traffic signals, especially so when they're in a hurry and thus simply have no choice but to violate traffic laws! Gee, officer, I just wasn't expecting that kid to cross the road--and I was in a hurry, so you can hardly blame me for it!
Just because it's easy to get away with speeding doesn't mean it's legal. Just because you're busy, late, or otherwise incapable of managing your life and time in a reasonable fashion doesn't mean that it's somehow more okay for you to speed than somebody who speeds for the hell of it. The fact that you can manufacture any number of scenarios detailing How This Can Go Wrong doesn't change the fact that the person triggering the system is violating traffic laws in the first place. Try following traffic laws. Seriously. You'd be amazed at how well the universe keeps from collapsing on itself when one follows the speed limit, signals lane changes, and maintains adequate braking distance.
On a side note, these aren't all that new--they have 'em in Alexandria, VA, and Bethesda has something similar (warning lights flash at you if you're going too fast.)
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Hear! Hear!
It's intrinsically wrong to punish other people for one person's crime. One idiot blazes through a bunch of traffic but everyone has to stop for his speed-induced red light? Aren't there enough causes of road rage already?
most people speed... but most people obey the traffic signals as well.
if the traffic signals stop rewarding speeders by making them miss a light, then the speeders will slow down.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Going to reply rather than moderate...
These lights are in heavy use in Northern Virginia. They are mostly in place around residential neighborhoods to keep speeds and road noise down. They also double as extra safety, as kids are around.
It's a lot easier to time crossing an intersection if you know that all the cars are going one speed or slower. This is true wether you are walking across it or making a turn in a car at said intersection.
The biggest concern are Kids. They are careless. They may look left then right, but if they see a car FAR off to the left, they won't pay any attention to it...even if it is going 90mph and will overtake them before they can cross the road.
up 12 days, 22:30, 2 users, load averages: 993.20, 994.21, 994.56
*makes note to limit user processes...
Not as dangerous as having a speeding car suddenly slam on the brakes to stop for the light.
The point is that they believe the risks involved in changing the light are outweighed by the potential that it will cause mass reform in regards to speeding. They think that this will save more accidents and lives by slowing everyone down.
I think this is poposterous. Not only will it not slow people down other than while approaching lights they've remembered do this, just to speed through even faster when they get close enough to get away with it. It's been proven by scientific studies that people are more likely to speed due to a stopsign or stoplight because the subconciously feel the need to make up for lost time.
There are far too many risks to just implement this willy-nilly. The parent brings up a good point with timing, how can you be sure you won't cause an accident by going red so quickly that they can't stop? People are not going to be prepared for this behavior, it's likely to cause mass confusion and accidents during it's implementation.
I'd rather see automated ticket-writing machines than this... as much as I'm against automated ticket-writing.
Jamon
I can count to 1023 on my hands. Ask me about #132.
Not to defend unsafe driving, but the reason that nearly everyone speeds is that many speed limits are set so such a low common denominator that you'd assume that brain-damaged chimpanzees were used as the baseline cases. Most people will drive a reasonable speed regardless of what's posted. There are always a few idiots that will drive at insane speeds regardless of what's posted.
The reason that they do this is that they're addicted to traffic ticket revenue, which is essentially a randomly-enforced "tax lottery" - especially in my area where average highway traffic moves at 80 MPH+ (I've been "going with the flow" along with two dozen other drivers at 95+ in the city). I'm just waiting for them to pair this up with red-light cameras and 2-second yellow lights for the ultimate in revenue generation...
Yes, this sounds cynical (and it is), but if these jackasses were really interested in little things like public safety then they'd probably put some actual effort into designing safe intersections, traffic interchanges, force land developers to plan traffic flow, setting speed limits that are reasonable, etc.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
And the documentation you mention would be...
Dr. Rick
- "It's such a fine line between clever and stupid" (Nigel Tufnel)
- Zort! (Pinky)
it is a behavioral punishment.
if you always get a negative reinforcement for an action, operant conditioning will cause the drivers to slow down. tickets and cops are not regular enough to train people to stop.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Many neighbors are so peeved with the popularity of the road that they didn't want a traffic signal at all at Montevino because it would allow traffic to flow better than the stop sign it replaced. At least the stop signs made speeding impossible and persuaded some commuters to steer clear, neighbors said.
So this new gadget becomes a stop sign for speeders, and actually smooths out traffic flow for the residents.
Seems like the local community wins with this new stop light/traffic signal.
GPL Deconstructed
Seriously, there is a better way. If you time the lights so that taking off from a step, smoothly accelerating to the speed limit and then maintaing the legal limit to the next light causes you to hit concurrent lights just as they turn green then it becomes useless to speed and all drivers get the best results by going the speed limits.
I'm not a civil engineer or city planner or anything, but I've seen well planned traffic light systems and I know what they look like. People move through stopping AS LITTLE as possible. It is easier on vehicles, safer for drivers, and much less stressful to drivers if they can just get up to speed and maintain it. This light is all for show as it will probably be more detrimental than helpful. It is just a way for local government to wave its dick without accomplishing... well, dick.
Except that:
In other words, it's fixing a problem that doesn't exist and is only meant to make people feel better.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
As long as it goes through the yellow cycle as well, how is this much different from a normal red light?
You're coming up to the intersection, the light changes, either because the cycle changes, or because a speeder has triggered it. br>
In neither case does the speeder (or anyone else) know where the signal is in its cycle.
So it changes as he approaches. Big deal.
without-warning red light
if you RTFA, it specifically says there is a yellow pahse before the red.
Having been rear ended for being observant, yes the jerk who isn't paying attention *is*at*fault*. I was rear ended by a pregnant woman who decided that "blowing though the yellow" was more valuable than a bit of caution. Unfortunately, there was a stalled car on the other side of the intersection, which I had to stop for, because traffic flow in the lane next to me wasn't giving me a break.
Mr. officer of course got an earful about how I "stopped suddenly" and there was no way she could stop that quickly. His response: "he did". She was cited and her Honda Accordian (yes, I know crumple zones are a safety feature, but boy they fold up real pretty) was totalled with her insurance company upset about an "at fault" accident. (So much so she tried to sue me, but the lawyer folded the instant he got the details of a stalled vehicle in the road).
Moral of the story: give yourself a safe stopping distance and you only have to worry about being rear ended by people who think they are too good to give *themselves* a safe stopping distance.
Sig under construction since 1998.
Unfortunately, there have been studies that show that drivers will drive at what they consider a safe speed regardless of the speed limit. Tickets are less of a deterrent and more of a revenue source for underfunded municipalities. Check out http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html (although you always have to consider the source in any study).
I see, so when you said "documented" you meant "could be documented, and I have theories about what the results would be if it was". I can see how you'd confuse the two. No point in actually doing the research when you can make up the conclusion, right?
That is exactly why I envision this working. It is Pavlovian-esque, subliminal, always present, and there is a direct link between action and consequence.
Normally when you speed nothing bad happens. You don't generally get stopped, you don't generally get a ticket. With a single punishment for every 300 times you do something, there is a disconnect.
With the light trick it happens every time. By trying to go faster you are forced to wait out the light so you get where you are going later than you would have had you driven the speed limit. Every time. Which sucks. So you learn. Fast.
People slow down in town without those pesky (and expensive) tickets, cops are free to go do real police work catching bad guys, damn - I think this is brilliant. Sure beats getting a $100 photo-radar ticket in the mail.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
It is punishment,
;-)
but it is not "negative reinforement." Negative reinforcement is removing something from the environment (Negative) to increase a behavior (Reinforcement).
This would be considered "Positive Punishment." Introducing something in the environment (Positive; in this case a ticket for running the red light) to decrease a behavior (Punishment; in this case speeding).
The changing of the light is the discriminative stimulus letting the driver know they are about to be punished if they run the light.
There ya go, 3 free Intro Psych credits
jeff
tickets and cops are not regular enough to train people to stop.
It doesn't matter. This will go over like a lead baloon. Cops don't want people to slow down. How would they raise revenue? If cops really wanted to stop speeders, all they have to do is drive one marked police car though the area at the posted speed limit. No one will pass them. Instead, they hide in alleys and behind bushes waiting to jump out and fine people. Isn't it obvious what their real motivation is?
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
If a driver is already "in a hurry" and speeding faster than much of the traffic, what on earth would make them say "ooh, the light turned yellow so I'd better stop at this intersection". Most speeders I know would just accelerate more to "beat the red light".
Safety-wise -- the only way this would be safe is if no other light change until the speeder either stops fully or exits the intersection (having run the light). If drivers in the other direction are given an early green, that would be a recipe for disaster.
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
Yeah sure you may be made late by a speeder.. on the other hand you may get a bonus green light from a speeder on the intersecting road.
I can also see this system training people to apply a burst of speed once they get to a certain point before the intersection, after the timing of the light has subconciously set in to the brain.
but can we define speeding?
While speed limits make sense in many situations, they don't always.
There are plenty of places that I can point to where speed limits are entirely too low. That is to say it is perfectly safe given normal driving conditions (no fog, dry or even slightly wet roads) to go 15-20 MPH over the posted speed limit.
This is both in town and out. In fact, I can say from my own experience, as someone who regularly "speeds" that about 95% of the time that I have had a close call with a pedestrian or another car it has not involved speed, but rather has involved crowded intersections where traffic is moving well below posted speed limits where it is needed for the driver to track moving objects in several places.
(Cars in 2 other lanes of trafic, and pedestrians walkin gou tinto the street with abandon etc)
The simple fact is that speed limits are usually sweeping "30 in the city" which are really only needed in certain places within the city. Most wide city roads are no more dangerous at 45 than they are at 30, except when traffic is too heavy to do 45 anyway, in which case it self limits to safe speeds anyway.
All in all I agree this is a fine solution to real speeding... but generally speaking I think that speed limits are set too low for normal conditions and I shudder to think what decreasing the speeds people drive in such a hevay handed and sweeping way will do to traffic around here during the time periods at the ends of rush hour where speeds are starting to naturally pick back up.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Now technology proposes to eliminate this source of revenue too? What the hell is wrong with these people, are they a bunch of communists?!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
most speeders I see tend to run the yellow light by flooring it as soon as it turns yellow. I would think this would increase speed!
because now they can write TWO tickets, one for speeding, and another one for running the red light.
The city will love this because they collect more money from fines.
The laywers will love this because they will have more clients who will pay more to try and get out of two moving violations instead of just one.
Great idea!
> cars are grossly overpowered
no... speed limits simply haven't kept up. sure, back in the day 35mph made sense in a lot of places. cars travelling faster than that were dangerous. today those same roads can be safely navigated at 45 or 50 mph thanks to improved vehicle technology.
as for the problem being that everyone speeds.. i think that's looking at it completely backwards. If everyone were driving the same speed, roadways would be a far safer place, even if that speed were 10 or 20mph over the posted limits. a river with a flat bed flows smoothly. random rocks jutting to the surface disrupt that smoothness. would you rather take a canoe down a smooth flowing river, or one with violent rapids?
drivers will always drive at whatever speed they feel appropriate. when you take that into account, it's only logical to adapt to those speeds so the roadways will be a safer place for all.
In Soviet Redmond, software programs you!
Just goes to show again how "sooo advanced" US is.
/. will post it as news. It is about time that /. administrators gets a world view and do some research before stories.
Yet
So in your admission, at least 20 times you have almost hit a person or another car, and at least one of those times it was at high speed.
Dump her. She has trust issues. I'm serious.
Do you also have synchronized lights?
Yes, of course. Occasionally, we also have little extra signposts which dynamically advise you of the correct speed ( < speed limit, obviously) to get the next light in time.
The two systems aren't contradictory, though, they complement each other fairly well. Synchronized lights work extremely well in urban areas with a lot of traffic, on main roads. The system referred to in this story works very well in rural areas, where there aren't that many traffic lights to start with.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
This is going to be intersting, especially for the pedestrians, who will get a green light so they won't be inconvenienced. (per the article)
So, the guy thats trying to beat the early red light , toasts the guy, who's getting a green corossing signal.
Great use of technology.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani