Is Your GPS Naive?

mi writes "Many GPS devices today will try to scan the FM bands for traffic advisories in the area to display on their screens. The signals, however, are neither authenticated nor encrypted, and one can — with commonly available electronics — construct a device to broadcast bogus advisories. Possible codes range from "bullfight ahead" to "terrorist attack"..."

Comments

An even better application:

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

"Speed trap ahead."

Re:An even better application:

[RealSurreal]

Here in the UK I think you'd find it more efficient to broadcast a message when there wasn't a speed trap ahead.

Now, why would there be...

[jamestheprogrammer]

Why would you have a "terrorist attack" code for a traffic warning system? Okay, so I can see how maybe they might close off streets for emergency personnel, but couldn't you just leave the code at that - "Roads Closed"? I mean, if you go telling drivers that there's a terrorist attack ahead of you, they're going to panic, freak out, and maybe get into a car wreck.

Re:Now, why would there be...

[HerrEkberg]

That's the point of the "terrorist attack" code. Terrorists use it to create havoc, panic and destruction.

Re:Now, why would there be...

[UbuntuDupe]

Yeah, good point. But WE are smarter than them. So ... hm, what to do. OH!!!! I know! If there's ever a terrorist attack, all of the news networks should just ignore it entirely! That way people will be in complete ignorance that it's happened. (I mean, except maybe for eyewitnesses calling friends and relatives, but that can easily be banned.)

I mean, informing people about terrorist attacks is just playing into their hands.

Re:Now, why would there be...

[hattig]

I don't think they'd panic.

They'd merely alter their route so they could meerkat the carnage as they drove past. Heavens Forbid that they miss the chance to see such a disaster with their very own eyes, driving past at 10mph looking to the side rather than straight ahead. Wow, is that a dead body? That's something to tell the kids tonight!

Re:Now, why would there be...

[RMH101]

BECAUSE IT'S NOT A TRAFFIC WARNING SYSTEM! IT'S *RDS*.
RDS exists to allow FM radios in cars to do fun stuff like retune to a national station as you move around and the frequencies change. It also allows radio broadcasts to be flagged as "traffic" so your radio can automatically tune in and play traffic broadcasts to you.
In other words, its function is to usefully and automatically tune your FM radio to a new frequency.
The NBC "terrorism" broadcast flag is designed so that in the godawful scenario where something Real Bad happens, everyone's RDS-equipped FM radio will tune into the announcement and you'll be aware of it. AFAIK, the NBC flag on RDS broadcasts is non-discretionary - i.e. your radio *will* tune to it regardless of user input. You *can* tune away from it when you realise that the continual 4 minute countdown of incoming nuclear attack is dragging you down and you'd rather spend the remaining 3m30s of your life listening to "Freebird" whilst doing coke off your passenger...

Alternatives

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be much more fun to try for "Jelly wrestling ahead" and watch people panic TOWARDS the area.

encryption cant help..

[vasanth]

the writer seems to think encryption can solve this problem, encryption cant help here as the system is unable to communicate back to negotiate the setup, and if the signals are encrypted with a predetermined key it will be susceptible to replay attacks... how different is this to a common radio channel telling its listeners that there's been a terrorist attack etc? the issue seems to be more of a hype than a real concern...

Re:encryption cant help..

[WolfWithoutAClause]

It [i]could[/i] work if public key encryption was used for authentication, and the messages were timestamped and geolocated to prevent replay attacks.

Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[khasim]

If there isn't one specifically for "speed trap", then re-purpose one of the lesser used code. I'd recommend "bullfight" just because there will be very few instances of its legitimate usage.

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[portforward]

Or alternatively, you could just drive the speed limit.

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[arivanov]

How uninspiring and unoriginal. Based on my recollections from a brief encounter with Ohio cops 16 years ago I am not surprised in the slightest.

They should come here across the pond to introduce themselves to the most recent inventions in motorist taxation like:

The "Accident Assistance Van" and "Yellow Speed Camera Partnership Van". Both are in use by Sussex police and anyone driving along the A14 and A12 can see them on regular basis.

These vans can be parked with a laser speedgun + CCTV pointed through a window (back, side and front), can be parked behind a hedge with the same laser speedgun + CCTV as the only thing visible on a tripod cabled to the hidden van and most importantly can drive at 3 mph under the speed limit and record the speeds of all who overtake them showing van speed and overtaking vehicle speed.

I have seen them used in every single one of these modes of operation. In fact, out of all my A14 journeys in the last month there has been only one where I have not seen one them. None of them has proper police markings.

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[springbox]

Contrary to the opinion of nearly every jerkwad driver on the interstate, approaching 100 MPH is not "reasonable" or safe.

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[Loconut1389]

Interstate 35 through most of Iowa is 70 MPH (as of a year or two ago, yay!) - but you hit Ankeny (going south from Ames) and it goes to 65, and then you get about 2 miles before des moines and it goes to 55 without any real change in environment (eg for no real reason). When you've been going 70, 55 is hard to do sometimes- or easy to not notice you're going nearly 20 mph over.

I don't mind them hiding, but it does suck when you're going 62 in that stupid 55 section. Most won't get you for 5 mph, but 7 seems to be the magic number most places I've been/been stopped.

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[Deagol]

Some of us actually *do* drive the speed limit. I sure do. Not necessarily because I think the limits/laws are just, but I'll be damned if I'm giving any more of my money to the State or my damned insurance agent. And I plan my trips accordingly.

To that end, not much brings a smile to my face more than driving at the speed limit on cruise control (which I always do) in the passing lane, and pissing-off some Type-A driver who thinks he can sleep in 30 minutes later before his morning commute and make up for it by breaking the law. No, I don't habitually sit in the passing lane, but riding my ass is not going to influence me to go over the speed limit as I inch past that 18-wheeler that's going 74 MPH on the interstate when I'm going 75. If anything, someone tailgating me is usually treated to my slowing down -- one 1-MPH click on the cruise control panel at a time. :)

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[icebrain]

I never said 100mph was safe or reasonable... but there are many, many places where the road can (and does, every day) handle traffic safely at 70-75 instead of the posted 55, or 45-50 instead of a posted 35 (excluding residential areas). Many of these restrictions are due to arbitrary laws that say, in essence, "speed limits must be X within Y miles of a city", with no regard to the actual road or what it could safely handle.

Look up the video sometime of when a bunch of college students lined up across I-285 in Atlanta and did the posted speed limit (55). Traffic backed up for MILES behind them.

A much bigger threat than pure speed is people who don't pay attention, and realize "Oh crap, that's my exit, four lanes away!" and proceed to cut across said four lanes. Or those who don't bother to check their blind spots when changing lanes, or don't realize that their lane is ending, or don't signal... or insist on driving slow in the left lanes.

And again... if the purpose of limits really was to promote safety, cops wouldn't have to hide. And there would be no penalty for warning others of a speed trap, either. They don't arrest you for saying to someone, "don't rob a bank, the police will get you!" so why should saying "don't drive fast, you'll get a ticket" be any different? Oh, wait, then the local government won't get its traffic fine revenue... and God forbid that the residents pay for their government themselves...

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[NMerriam]

To that end, not much brings a smile to my face more than driving at the speed limit on cruise control (which I always do) in the passing lane, and pissing-off some Type-A driver ... for it by breaking the law.

Of course you realize that you, too, are breaking the law. Yielding to faster-moving traffic in the leftmost lane is required by law in most states -- it makes no difference whether you think the other person is going "too fast", you're still causing a safety hazard, and I know several cops who love to give out tickets to people who are causing unnecessary hazards like that.

The speed of safe travel is not an absolute thing, when you're dealing with groups of people the safest speed to be traveling is "however fast everyone else is going", even if it is in excess of the posted limit, and traffic laws do generally reflect that.

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[5of0]

Linkage for I-285 video:
http://cut-to-cure.blogspot.com/2006/03/cant-drive -55.html
Direct to video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-536655206 7462745475&q=%22meditation+on+the+speed+limit%22

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[icebrain]

Slow drivers in the left lane probably cause more multi-car (ie, besides themselves) accidents than speeders do, because it forces so many people to slow down, dodge them, change lanes, etc. I've seen plenty of near-accidents caused by a slow person in the left lane, but I have never seen one caused by someone merely driving fast on a road that could support it (assuming they didn't do something stupid, like weave between traffic or cut someone off). I see no harm in letting someone going faster pass you on the left, but trying to take it on yourself to be a traffic enforcer may very well be putting your life in danger. I was once riding in a rear-facing station wagon seat when the driver decided to do the speed limit in the left lane in Atlanta, and I have never felt more scared in my life, seeing all of those cars fly at me and dodge at the last second.

I'd like to try something with people that insist the speed limit is always right. I'd like to take several minutes of video (shot from a driver's perspective) on different roads where traffic routinely exceeds the limit by a significant amount (10+). Black out the speed limit signs, and play it to those people. Ask them if they feel that traffic is moving too fast, or at a good speed. If they say it's moving at a decent speed, tell them the actual speed limit and see if they change their minds. (alternatively, cover the signs up, then have them drive the course and see how fast they go. this probably won't work if they're familiar with the area, though.)

As far as getting such things changed, many of us have tried to talk to the pertinent elected officials and such. However, it must be something in the water at the city council buildings (and I guess this is true of all governments, regardless of size), since once they get elected, the will of the populace that elected them seems to be completely forgotten. Very few city councils are going to want to raise speed limits to reasonable values because they don't want to give up the revenue stream.

I propose that all money from certain miscellaneous traffic offenses like speeding, seat belt violations (for adults only, not children), and red light cameras, be collected into a national- or state-level fund. The money would be held in an account, and only disbursed for certain good causes (disaster relief, maybe, or scholarships, or something like that). The idea is that we need to remove the financial incentive for local governments to issue such citations. The money needs to be placed completely out of their reach, with no possible way for them to get hold of it directly, or they just see it as a treasure chest. Maybe then, they will start enforcing for safety rather than revenue.

I've never been to Germany, but as I understand it, they don't have nearly as many problems with accidents on their autobahns, and their speed limits are much higher. Then again, in order to drive you have to actually prove that you can. Here, the driver's test is little more than "can you go around the block without hitting anything?" There are millions of people out driving in this country that really shouldn't be driving anything more than a bicycle, like the lady who was going down the highway behind me two weeks ago, _reading_a_book_ while she was driving. I'm thinking it's easier and cheaper (not to mention more lucrative) for governments here to set low limits for everyone, in the hope that the stupid drivers will survive their accidents, rather than make the driving standards tougher.

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[wolrahnaes]

US 20 here in Ohio has a few areas where it's a 4 lane divided highway, all but identical to Interstate 80 a few miles north, but the speed limit is 45 for no good reason. Corn fields on the right, corn fields on the left, nothing but fucking corn and the ever-present Highway Patrol cars in the median. Along the same route there are also some useless speed trap towns where the speed limit is 25 because one house happens to be close. Again, this is on a 4 or sometimes 5 lane highway and of course there are almost more cops than residents in these towns.

I don't care where the road runs, speed limits should be set by taking a normalized average of the speed people drive on it and then rounding to the nearest 5. On I-80, this would put the limit at either 80 or 85 and the majority of US 20 at 65 or 70, dropping down to 45 or 50 in the towns. There's no reason any marked road should have a limit lower than 35, nor should a 4+ lane road ever go below 45.

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[fractoid]

Do you really expect someone to go out to each road, and try and determine the fastest allowable speed? It is a lot easier (cheaper) just to say, every one of these roads has X for a speed limit. Oddly enough, they don't seem to mind putting in the effort to *police* speed limits.

If we assume that each road will have a speed trap on it at least once, then they've *already got* the data to determine an appropriate speed limit as per the 85th percentile rule. Interestingly, as Wikipedia notes, "a review of available speed studies demonstrates that the posted speed limit is almost always set well below the 85th-percentile speed by as much as 8 to 12 mph (see p.88)." This indicates that in a vast majority of cases, speed limits are set according to political rather than safety concerns.

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[Firethorn]

If every on the interstate is going 70 and the posted limit is 55, driving 70 is dangerous.

I think that you meant drive 55 would be dangerous

Studies have shown that differences in speed are more dangerous than high speeds alone.

If everybody else is doing 70, you're safest doing 70 as well.

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[icebrain]

Training should be something like what you go through to be a pilot--you aren't allowed full privileges until you've proven you know how to handle things. Granted, there are still stupid pilots out there, but the percentage is much lower than for drivers.

I think the reason so many people get short fused when driving is that they get nervous. And they get nervous because they can't process things fast enough, or multitask well enough. They lose situational awareness (SA), which is essentially the knowledge of what's going on around you (or they never develop any SA to begin with). Any fighter pilot will tell you that losing SA in combat will get you killed--quickly. Losing it on the road can do that, too. And to top it off, many people just don't have the coordination or reflexes to handle machinery like this. They have to consciously think about controlling the car, modulating their pedal inputs, and basic driving.

To jump back to the flying example: When I started flying, I could only keep track of a few things at a time. I sometimes missed things, and probably survived a couple things just by luck. Just making the airplane go where I wanted it to was a conscious effort. Even getting to this point took 45 hours of instruction, practice, and studying. I got the license, but didn't do much flying on my own for a while.

Then, my dad and I finished building our airplane. It was a much higher-performance model than what I was flying before (think tuned sports car vs. a Camry), but there were some critical differences: our plane is more responsive, so it doesn't have to be manhandled around like the old Cessna did; it has a bubble canopy instead of car-like windows (easier to look around), and my "instructor" was much more experienced (my dad has 10k+ hours). I started flying with him every chance I got.

Then one day, something changed. I realized that I didn't have to consciously think about how to fly the plane any more. Instead I could just make the plane go where I wanted it to as an extension of myself, leaving my higher mental functions able to keep track of where all the _other_ airplanes were, where I was, and what was happening around me. Now, after 150 hours of flying, I can lead a four-ship formation around, handle the radio communications, navigate, and still fly the airplane. And even then, I'm required (like all other pilots) to have some form of recurrent training or examination at least once every two years (or more often, depending on what you fly). It's actually gotten to the point where I find flying easier than driving, and I have a lot more experience with the latter. There are fewer idiots in the air, because the system catches them and keeps them on the ground. Pilots don't fly in bad weather until they get the specific training and checkride that they need to do so (well, a few try, but the results are usually fatal).

The lesson applies to driving, too. It takes time and good instruction before someone is really capable of handling everything that comes at them on the road. Ideally, Unfortunately, the vast majority of people never get that instruction or experience, they don't learn from it, or they just physically can't handle it. And I guess therein lies the conundrum. Cars are nearly essential in this country, unless you live somewhere with good public transit, and making it harder to get a driver's license means a lot of people will be stuck with no way to get to work or the grocery store. On the other hand, making the driving test so lax that nearly anyone can pass also puts a lot of lives in jeopardy unnecessarily. Which one is more important to you? I certainly don't know.

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[NMerriam]

Why should I move over (at my expense!) for some jackass to be able to put me and everybody else at risk?

Because you're putting everybody else at risk more than he is? Or was that a rhetorical question?

Me, I'm personally happy to cruise along in the righthand lane in my non-aerodynamic vehicle that is lucky to go 75 downhill with a tailwind. For some reason going out of my way to break the law, annoy others, and risk my own safety for no reason whatsoever just never occurred to me.

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Do you have any idea how bad an idea it is to break other traffic laws to enforce the speed limit?!
Speed limits are somewhat arbitrary. Getting out of the way of someone who wants to pass you is prudence. You do not want someone hitting your rear bumper at 80 mph!

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[JWSmythe]

It's funny that you say that. I've been legally driving for 18 years (and a few before that, shhh). I've managed to be in 4 car accidents. I take speed limits to be a guideline of how fast I should be driving. Knowing the max speed is 65mph on a highway, but having effectively unlimited visibility ahead of me and empty roads, I tend to go faster. Lets say more than 50% of my driving has been over the speed limit.

The 4 accidents I've been in have all been low-speed accidents (under 40mph). 3 of which were driver or vehicle failure ahead of me. The only other one was at about 20mph, with a poorly designed, poorly lit road, that I was unfamiliar with.

I guess I'll have to spell out the first 3.

1) Bumper tag between 4 cars ahead of me. Unable to stop for the suddenly stopped vehicle ahead of me.

2) Truck on intersecting road ran stop sign, stopped IN the intersection. Very interesting demonstration of the transfer of kinetic energy. (I stopped, he went in the direction I was traveling)

3) Truck, no brake lights, locked up tires rear-ended stopped vehicle ahead of him. Unable to stop.

If I'm rolling along at say 100mph (for the sake of the previous poster), I'm on open road, with good visibility, and I'm generally away from all the other drivers. I stay in the gaps in traffic, just so no one can screw up around me. If I didn't gain speed, I'd be in with the other drivers, and I frequently see how well that goes.

But, speed should always be adjusted by the skill of the driver, the capability of the vehicle as loaded, and the road conditions. Even my car, which I know can handle over 150mph, if it's loaded with something (usually computers or whatever my project of the week is), I'll be the guy doing 50mph in the 55mph zone, because the car needs more room to decelerate or swerve, should the need arise.

I once drew up a plan, which I thought could be enacted nationally. Both vehicles and drivers should be tested not only for basic ability, but maximum ability. If you've shown proficiency in being able to safely handle a vehicle at over 100mph AND your vehicle is safely capable of handling those same speeds, the license plates should indicate the same.

If I'm licensed for the highest level, but I'm driving an old pickup, I would be limited to the capability of my vehicle.

Highway lanes would also be marked according to the vehicles that are allowed to use them. Take a 6 lane highway (one direction) for example.

Red license plate can only do up to 55mph.
Yellow license plate can do up to 75mph.
Green license plate can do up to 120mph.
Black license plate sets it's own safe maximum speed (driver judgement)

The right three lanes would be accessable to all vehicles, but only up to 55mph (lowest common speed)

The center lanes would be yellow, green, and black, max speed 75

The left two lanes would be green and black.

Experienced and competent drivers would already know to give way to the faster vehicle (hmmm, shouldn't that be a law now or something?)

Violations would be more severe for the higher rated drivers, or driving outside of your designated late. For example, if a red license car is doing 45mph down the far left lane (grandma on the freeway, just like we see every day), they'd have a huge penalty. Likewise, someone with a black license car doing 150 in a red lane would be severely punished (losing the high-speed privilege, or their license entirely for X period).

It'll never happen though. People will still freak out about good drivers in fast cars going fast down their fast lanes. Law/Code enforcement will lose out on their normal income. But, people would be able to ge

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[JWSmythe]

    Adjust your driving accordingly.

    Crown Victoria (2006/2007 models)
        max speed 120/130mph (dependant on gearing)
        0-60 8.7 sec

    Highway - open, available exits

    If you're traveling at 60mph, it would take them about 15 seconds to match your speed (leaving the side of the road). That puts 1/4 mile between you and the patrol car before speed is matched.

    If you're traveling at 120mph, it would take them about 15 seconds to get to 60mph, at which you're already 1/2 mile away. It's an unknown period before they reach max speed, but most sedans of that size that I've driven, the top end is tough. Say another 30 seconds to pass 100. You're more like 1 mile away.

    But, when you see the patrol accelerating hard to match your speed, do you slow down? You could. You're going to get a ticket.

    Push it up to 150. Now there will be no closing speed. The gap will always get larger. Then take the exit of your choice when you're out of view, and taken an alternative route.

    Of course, this is the day you're wishing you hadn't bought a fire engine red Ferrari, driving through Sticksville.

    If you're driving a common-enough looking car, you're home free. If you're driving something half-way unique that couldn't be identified when you passed his stopped patrol car at 120mph (what'd that bumper sticker say?), there's nothing to really worry about. It won't necessarly be him looking for you. Ya, radio ... faster than ... blah blah.

    People are generally law abiding. They hit the brakes when they see the cop, and pray to not get the ticket. It doesn't matter. He already got you on radar. You're still screwed when you stop. Well, assuming he catches up with you.

    Don't be the idiot on cops though. I love the ones who get in a one-car wreck running from the cops. Those are people who shouldn't have been driving anywhere near as high as the speedlimit in the first place. :)

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[metamatic]

It's funny that you say that. I've been legally driving for 18 years (and a few before that, shhh). I've managed to be in 4 car accidents. I take speed limits to be a guideline of how fast I should be driving. Knowing the max speed is 65mph on a highway, but having effectively unlimited visibility ahead of me and empty roads, I tend to go faster. Lets say more than 50% of my driving has been over the speed limit.

The 4 accidents I've been in have all been low-speed accidents (under 40mph). 3 of which were driver or vehicle failure ahead of me.

1) Bumper tag between 4 cars ahead of me. Unable to stop for the suddenly stopped vehicle ahead of me.

[...]

3) Truck, no brake lights, locked up tires rear-ended stopped vehicle ahead of him. Unable to stop.

So in 2 of your 4 accidents, you were driving too fast, and were unable to stop when something bad happened in front of you. Hence, you rear-ended someone. Presumably the insurance company held you to be at fault. You might have been driving at low speed in absolute terms, but you were clearly driving too fast--or leaving inadequate stopping distance, if you want to look at it that way.

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[DrSkwid]

I've been driving for 20 years and in my time :

I've done 100mph in a 30 zone.
Driven at 8x legal alcohol.
Overtaken in the wrong lane.
Fallen asleep at the wheel.
Done 140mph on the motorway (70 mph limit).
Driven under the influence of drugs.
Driven 10 miles to work using peripheral vision only.
Taken part in street races.

And I have 0 tickets (except for 2 parking tickets) and NEVER caused an accident.

What's your point ?

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[thefirelane]

And there would be no penalty for warning others of a speed trap, either. They don't arrest you for saying to someone, "don't rob a bank, the police will get you!" so why should saying "don't drive fast, you'll get a ticket" be any different?

Do you honestly not understand the difference? Telling someone to drive the speed limit is still legal... however, you are warning people who are already breaking the law, that they will be caught.

I assure you, if someone already has robbed a bank, and you tell them to go a certain way to avoid a cop... you will be prosecuted.

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[Paulrothrock]

Highway speed limits were originally instituted to save fuel. If you drive between 55 and 60 on the highway you'll get about 10% better gas mileage. Having had to drive 40 miles each way for work each month, I figured this out very quickly.

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[AndersOSU]

If you drive between 55 and 60 you'll get better fuel economy if you're driving a 70s era car with a carburetor... Since the invention of fuel injectors this is much less true.

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[mysticgoat]

Pity drivers' ability and attention span haven't kept pace...

Mod parent up.

Sane speed limits are based on the limits of human reaction times, the physics of inertia and friction, and patterns of traffic density, types of vehicles, and frequency of exceptional events (like toddlers chasing after balls that bounce into the street). Since signage cannot be changed on a minute by minute basis, posted speeds are often lower than what would be safe for the moment. That does not make them unreasonable, nor does it suggest that the driver, from his very limited point of view, should be deciding when he can break the speed limit and get away with it.

If and when a slashdot reader gets a license to drive, it binds him to a social contract that requires him to accept these limits. If he violates that contract, he needs to face sanctions. Those around him should also take note that this person does not abide by his agreements and is a risk in other areas, such as employment agreements, production of code that is free of time bombs and backdoors, etc, etc.

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[owndao]

Before trying this, note that police radios convey information at 186,282 mps -- a good bit faster than any of the current means of human conveyance.

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[operagost]

Makes you wonder why Magnum, P.I. bothered with a Ferrari at 35 MPH.

Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

I think a better use of technology would be having speedlimits broadcasted so you could know. A lot of times the signs will be be hidden behind a big overgrown tree or bush, or purposely hard to see. If your car could just alert you that you're approaching the speed limit (and preferably only you, and not do anything other than sound a buzzer and light something), I think there would be less accidental speeding.

Re:Remember Boston

[arthurpaliden]

Because the device has batteries, wires and flashing lights so therefore it must be a terrorist device, hence the code.

Re:great potential

[billlion]

I think people are missing the point. It is just data sent over RDS, standard FM radio in cars have this not just Sat Nav systems. Also the original post is inaccurate. Its not Global Positioning System (GPS systems), it is car Sat Nav units, they use GPS+ mapping and routing software to give directions, GPS gives you position (lat long and altitude), and often from that speed and heading etc are calculated.

Re:Advertising tool...

[zCyl]

But I can also see this becoming an annoying advertising tool.

I doubt it. You can also broadcast bogus FM radio station signals containing your own advertisements, because News Flash: FM radio is also not authenticated.

But in the U.S. the FCC regulates these sort of things, and would not take kindly to you broadcasting all over the spectrum without authorization.

The evil bit

[gr8dude]

Hmm.. works exactly like the evil bit. In fact, I'm sure that when they broadcast "terrorist code", somewhere in a lower-level function the evil bit is set too!

Re:Advertising tool...

[Dun Malg]

Years ago (going on 30 years ago, now), I used to hitch-hike. It was safe then. Please. It's still just as safe as it always was (i.e. perfectly safe, unless you're unlucky or alone and female). You think the odd itinerant serial killer didn't used to pick up and murder hitchhikers in the 70's? I can cite you DOZENS of hitchhiker murders from the 70's. The only difference now is that you hear about it on the news, and advances forensic science have led to more conclusions of "definitely murdered hitchhiker", rather than the old separate results of "family in Oregon never hears from hitchhiker again" and "police unable to ID body found by Hwy 8 in Ohio".

Sounds familiar...

[Tim Browse]

...I still think this is funnier.

Re:IT'S SPELT NAÏVE!

[Goaway]

"ï" is not an "umlauted i". "Umlaut" is a feature of German and other related languages, where "i" is never umlauted. English does not have umlauts at all. It uses the double-dot symbol to mark a diaeresis, not an umlaut.

This is been a lesson in nitpicking, you fucker.

Re:Shouldn't this have been tagged with HAHA alrea

[Dun Malg]

This does show how unreliable the GPS system is. No it doesn't, you dunce. This hack really has fuck-all to do with GPS. It's a hack of the TMC protocol, which is a terrestrial FM radio signal.

This could be useful

[Rix]

Construction crews could warn people of their presence around corners or hills, neighbourhoods could set up a "children playing" zone, et cetera.

Speed-laws are not reasonable

[mi]

If you have an issue with the speed limits in your town, please contact your local elected officials. Have you ever been to a city council meeting?

In too many localities police will usually let a local resident off with a warning while ripping others off. This keeps local residents (who attend council meetings) content, and brings easy revenue (people from afar are very unlikely to challenge the tickets in local court) to the town. This selective enforcement gets documented occasionally and is a real bane of highway travel.

NJ's Governor Corzine just had a nasty accident, because his driver (a State trooper, no less) was going 91 in a 65 mph zone (Governor's vehicle can only do that in an "emergency"). The governor will take months to recover, because the moron was not wearing his seatbelt. Neither the hypocrite trooper (who had a similar accident a few years ago), nor the hypocrite governor are expected to be punished by law, although tens of thousands drivers are fined in NJ for the same (and lesser) offenses every year — most of them without causing an accident.

The speed laws are not reasonable — they take neither car's age and quality nor the driver's experience and health into consideration. What's too fast for an inexperienced 17- or half-blind 70-year-old driving a Buick is unreasonably slow for a healthy middle-aged driver driving a BMW...

Re:that's not what they told me

[DarkFencer]

No - you have no obligation to go over the speed limit. You do have an obligation (in almost all states - I'm not sure if Virginia is one of them) to get the hell out of the left lane except when passing. If you're sitting in the left lane while you're not passing you are more of a problem then those who are speeding (at least those only going a reasonable amount over the limit).

That being said - I usually drive the speed limit exactly (65 usually) since its better for fuel efficiency than doing 75, 85, etc.

Re:that's not what they told me

[NMerriam]

in Virginia traffic school, which I had to attend at age 16 over half my life ago. They said you do not have any obligation to move or go faster than the speed-limit whatsoever. This was from the county-enforced state-approved course taught AT the courthouse. Honestly, I think your type are assholes. But I'm too tired for a flame war right now so I will probably ignore your response.

you should probably be a little more careful about who you're repying to when throwing around "your type are assholes" responses, since I assume you were intending that for the original poster and not me. (Especially if you're trying to avoid getting into flamewars.)

And FWIW (I did live in Virginia for much of the last decade), the state law does require you to allow overtaking vehicles the left lane if they provide an audible signal that they want to pass http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+co d+46.2-842. Every state I've ever lived in or looked up the rules for, some similar law has been on the books.

But you agreed to stick to them

[Namarrgon]

police will usually let a local resident off with a warning while ripping others off

OK, unfair/discriminatory/whatever, sure. But "ripping others off"? Did they break the speed limit or didn't they?

a real bane of highway travel

I would have said "unsafe drivers" were more of a real problem. A ticket when you break the speed limit may be annoying, but having your family wiped out by (e.g.) a drunk driver or a trucker pushing his alertness limits or a speeding NJ Governor, now THAT's a problem.

The speed laws are not reasonable -- they take neither car's age and quality nor the driver's experience and health into consideration.

True enough. Of course, it gets complicated if you try to write legislation that codifies something as subjective as car quality and driver experience. The commonly accepted approach is to set the limits at a reasonably low average and to let the cop use his/her discretionary judgment. Perhaps your own car or apparent experience are not sufficiently reassuring - or perhaps the cops have just seen too many middle-aged corpses in wrecked BMWs.

You & I can argue about where the limits are set, but it's pointless. The roads are common property, the rules for sharing them are the rules we agreed to abide by when we got our licenses, and there really aren't many times when one simply must drive that fast (hint: they usually involve sirens and flashing lights).

you're the problem

[nanosquid]

They said you do not have any obligation to move or go faster than the speed-limit whatsoever.

Your primary obligation is to drive safely and avoid accidents. In most cases, that means that you don't have to go faster than the speed limit, but you still have to heed "slow traffic keep right".

Honestly, I think your type are assholes.

I stay with traffic flow, and I haven't gotten a moving violation in the 20 years I have had a license. And if you drive too slow in the left lane, I keep a safe distance.

Nevertheless, I have my opinion about people like you, and let me say: you're the asshole. It's people like you who put some intellectual game ahead of the safety of people around them. You know full well that you will get some bumper-hugging type-A personality behind you who doesn't keep safe distance from you, and when you two have an accident on the highway, you're going to take other people with you and block traffic for hours. You're just as much a "type-A" personality as the person who speeds, and you're just as dangerous. It's just that you're passive-aggressive instead of simply aggressive.

The only safe thing to do is that if the guy behind you isn't keeping a safe distance, you get out of the way. If you don't, you endanger yourself and everybody around you needlessly.

Re:that's not what they told me

[fluffy99]

Well you're wrong. At least according to the State law you're supposed to keep right http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+co d+46.2-804 and yield to faster traffic http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+co d+46.2-842.1 . According to the State Police this includes when that traffic is exceeding the speed limit http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/022006 /02092006/166829 . Why you might ask? Because slow drivers in the left lane increase road rage incidents and cause more accidents.