New iPhone Apps Help Drivers Beat Speed Traps

Ponca City, We love you writes "Two mobile applications, NMobile and Trapster, are providing drivers with up-to-date maps of speed-enforcement zones with live police traps, speed cameras or red-light cameras. Each application pulls up a map pinpointing the locations of speed traps within driving distance and an audio alert will sound as vehicles approach an area tagged as harboring a speed trap. Both applications rely on the wisdom of the crowds for their data with users reporting camera-rigged stop lights and areas heavily populated with radar-toting police officers via the iPhone or their web-based application, creating the ultimate speed trap repository available to you when you need it most — while you're driving. To thwart false alarms and eliminate inaccuracies, Trapster enlists its community of nearly 200,000 members to rank speed traps on their accuracy. NMobile founder Shannon Atkinson declined to provide detailed data, though he did estimate that 'well over 1,000' users had downloaded the application since it became available last week. The company insists they've received only positive feedback from law enforcement officials and police officers regarding their products. 'If the application gets people to slow down, I think it's generally considered to be a good thing,' said Atkinson."

Comments

Illegal Tool

[nurb432]

When tools are banned.. oh, nevermind...

Re:Illegal Tool

[Anonymous Coward]

+5 porn!

Re:Illegal Tool

[cayenne8]

Hmm....will this also work for DWI checkpoints?

Too Many Traps

[iamhigh]

The problem I have seen with most attempts to list speed traps, is that eventually damn near every street in a city, or every few miles on a highway could end up on there.

But maybe it will result in some speeders slowing down all the time.

Re:Too Many Traps

[TheRealMindChild]

This is just a misunderstanding of the system. Truly, a cop can grab you for speeding anywhere. However, a system like this should be for "speed traps". That is, a consistent place where cameras/cops can almost always expect to be found. I possibly might even take it a step further and classify a speed trap to be a place where you would never think of being nailed, like when the speed limit drops from 55 to 35 at the bottom of a 70 degree slope.

Re:Too Many Traps

[sakdoctor]

1. Teflon coat a slope
2. Lower speed limit on said slope
3. Speed camera at the bottom
4. Profit!

Re:Too Many Traps

[Anonymous Coward]

You joke, but many Southern (USA) small towns are full of things like this. The speed limit may be 70 on a highway, but as it enters one of these towns it will drop suddenly to 30 or 35, often around a curve with little warning.

The small-town cops collect money from travelers but don't ticket locals. It really is a sort of highway robbery.

Re:Too Many Traps

[Anonymous Coward]

As an added bonus, it's much easier to clean up the carnage at the bottom when somebody gets pancaked underneath a semi trailer.

Re:Too Many Traps

[repvik]

Not that I support the tactics, but you should be driving so that you are prepared for anything around the next corner, be it a speed limit drop or a mad cow.

Re:Too Many Traps

[Ethanol-fueled]

Agreed, it's how the smaller towns make their money. Good luck fighting the tickets in their court!

In my city, a big one in Southern California, I've seen plenty of "speed traps" but I've never see one twice in the same place.

As far as cameras are concerned, they're almost always at intersections and people shouldn't be speeding through those anyway! By the way driving while viewing a cell phone is illegal here even though everybody still does it.

Re:Too Many Traps

[Anonymous Coward]

That's okay: when you reach the bottom of a 70 degree slope, your speed generally decreases rather abruptly to zero.

Re:Too Many Traps

[Macrat]

Drive up Hwy 101. Between King City and Salinas the Monterey division of the CHP usually have a half dozen cars doing nothing but sitting with radar guns waiting to see who doesn't notice the speed limit change to 65.

Re:Too Many Traps

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Rome,_Ohio

Re:Too Many Traps

[WillDraven]

While I agree that you should be prepared for anything that may be obstructing the roadway, that white sign halfway hidden behind a bush as you turn a corner is exactly where your attention should NOT be. If you're having to look away from your vehicles path of travel while making a turn and then rapidly decelerate, you're being dangerously distracted from the much more important task of making sure you're not going to run into anything.

The original purpose of speed limits was to protect people on and around the roadways. Then someone got the bright idea to regulate them to try and reduce fuel consumption. Now they've become so perverted that they seem to only exist in many places as a revenue source for local towns, and in causing drivers to spend more time looking at signs on the side of the road and their speedometer, they actually cause the roads to be LESS safe.

Re:Too Many Traps

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, because if the cow is healthy, you'll die from the collision only, not the disease too

Re:Too Many Traps

[Korin43]

You shouldn't need to slam on your breaks to slow down though. Braking from 70 to 35 is a huge waste of gas. They should give some sort of warning so people can just coast down to the new speed limit.

Re:Too Many Traps

[SuperMog2002]

I think that's where the rating system is supposed to come in to play. I've driven from Dallas to Houston and back more times than I care to count. There's one particular town just after the speed limit drops from 70 to 65 headed north that, every single time I drive through there headed north (and only north), someone's getting a ticket. Oftentimes, two people are. That would would probably get reported in many times, and thus would get a nice high rating.

Most of my trips, that's the only place I see any cops between Dallas and Houston. While I probably have seen someone pulled over at each town on the trip at least once, it's pretty rare that I see any at all, much less at a particular town. Those probably wouldn't get reported as traps often, and so would get a low rating.

Re:Too Many Traps

[xaxa]

While I agree that you should be prepared for anything that may be obstructing the roadway, that white sign halfway hidden behind a bush as you turn a corner is exactly where your attention should NOT be.

In the UK they've recently (last few years) been painting speed restrictions in less-expected places (like on the approach to a small village along a fast, empty road) like this directly on the road. No need to look away. (another picture). It also reduces sign clutter.

Re:Too Many Traps

[AmberBlackCat]

All they have to do is make the speed trap locations expire in 24 hours. As people drive past the speed traps, they can stop texting and report the speed trap. Then the next day, if the speed trap is still there it will get reported again. If they really want this to work, they should make it so you can report a speed trap in 1 tap of your iPod screen and it uses GPS data to report the location about 1 block behind you.

Re:Too Many Traps

[slashtivus]

Washington state has one of those along their Lewis and Clark highway along the Columbia river. It is a curvy road where you get used to going slow / fast, followed by a long straight steep hill with a small over-pass, where there is usually a cop.

I've never been caught by it, but I can see how it could be very easy to get a ticket there.

They should put in some rumble strips if it were really about safety vs. income.

Re:Too Many Traps

[slashtivus]

Wisconsin mostly had well placed 'Speed Zone Ahead' signs that are pretty clear indicator that you need to let off the gas. About as reasonable as one could expect.

Re:Too Many Traps

[jonbryce]

In Scotland they have 300/200/100 yard warning signs before the speed limit changes in the villages. I guess that must reduce the number of tickets people get.

In my view a good speed cop is one that never tickets anyone because everyone is obeying the speed limit.

Re:Too Many Traps

[mgblst]

Bullshit, speeders always say this. It is never their fault, they were caught out by the system.

Yes, it is funny that the speed limit drops when you enter a town. Why do they do that? Obviously a deliberate attempt to catch speeders, nothing to do with safety in the town.

Re:Too Many Traps

[mgblst]

If you can't drive without being able to pay attention to signs on the road, then you should not be driving. You are spouting nothing but standard driver rubbish talk. Trying to justify your speeding by painting yourselves as some sort of victim.

Re:Too Many Traps

[canadian_right]

Were I live the cops call the local tv and radio stations so the stations can ANNOUNCE where speed traps are. The cops don't do this everyday or every time, but mainly when they are doing a big driver safety campaign.

All traffic fines go into general revenue for the Province so there is no incentive for speed traps meant to just collect fines. Most speed traps go up where there are a lot of accidents, or the locals complain about too many cars speeding. Most rush hour radio traffic reports include any speed traps reported by drivers, and I've never heard of there being more than 2 or 3. This is in a city of about 1.5 million.

Re:Too Many Traps

[canadian_right]

Our highways have signs warning of up coming speed changes. It is unsafe to suddenly change speed on a highway. Isn't there a similar requirement on USA highways?

Re:Too Many Traps

[lysergic.acid]

i hate those places. coming back from Yosemite i had to drive through like 8 of those small towns that the highway passed through. it's such a huge waste of gas slowing down to 30, then speeding back up to 70, then slow back down again and again.

i mean, why did they have to build their town right on top of the highway? why couldn't they just build an exit junction that you can turn off of like normal cities have? having the highway pass through your town and making every vehicle slow down just so they can speed back up again in 2-3 minutes is incredibly annoying and inconsiderate. at least if it were a big city you can argue that having the highway pass right through the city is justified by the convenience it provides to the large local population. but these towns literally have less than a thousand people living in them.

the other thing i don't understand is why they have all these tiny rural towns scattered along a single ~200 mi. stretch of the highway out in the middle of nowhere. wouldn't it make more sense to just consolidate the populations into a single normal-sized city? it would be much more efficient transportation-wise, and it would create a more robust/sustainable, and thus healthier, local economy.

Re:Too Many Traps

[Free the Cowards]

You should always be in a position to where you can make a crash stop and come to a halt before hitting anything beyond the current range of your vision. However, a speed limit sign does not merit a crash stop! I should not have to slam on my brakes, cause undue wear and tear to my vehicle, and in traffic risk people behind me not being as prepared as I am to brake just because some small town enjoys fleecing people for speeding fines.

Re:Too Many Traps

[hairyfeet]

Bingo! a real speed trap is where the cops have rigged the game to drum up revenue, and is usually associated with a small popcorn fart of a town nearby. A good example I have ran afoul of is heading from LR to Memphis on the old highway system. You'll run across a speed trap set up halfway through the trip in a little town called Wiener,which is a fitting name because the cops there are dicks. They have it drop from 55 to 25 in about a block, maybe a block and a half, and where the 25MPH sign is placed you won't see it unless you know it is there.

Of course you could fight it, but who is going to drive that distance to try to argue with a judge who gets his salary from that sign? But a national map with all those real speedtraps listed would be a great idea. Might help with asshatery like the town I listed above.

Re:Too Many Traps

[adolf]

Not to play Captain Obvious here or anything, but:

The only thing waiting for you at the end of a lengthy 70 degree slope is death.

Re:Too Many Traps

[Meski]

Agreed, it's how the smaller towns make their money. Good luck fighting the tickets in their court!

Good luck getting me to front up to your court when I've returned home (to Australia)

Re:Too Many Traps

[MidnightBrewer]

If you're driving so fast that looking at a speed limit sign actually creates a hazard, then you're probably already speeding, anyway. They actually do take those things into account when they lay out speed limits and post signs.

Re:Too Many Traps

[Joe Tie.]

And you sound like someone who's never outside of a major city. It's not at all uncommon for signs in rural areas to be 100% obscured by plants. The locals know about it, they weren't planned that way, but it happens.

Re:Too Many Traps

[Anonymous Coward]

at least in australia, there are guidelines for where they can place speed cameras (which they dont always follow, but still)

im pretty sure, putting cameras at the bottom of a hill is one of the things they arent supposed to do

Re:Too Many Traps

[MaskedSlacker]

You just described the road that runs off the Pajarito Plateau away from Los Alamos National Lab into Santa Fe County.

I hate Santa Fe Sherriffs.

Re:Too Many Traps

[Cor-cor]

Obviously isn't helping improve driving skills much. The second bloke's on the wrong side of the road!

Re:Too Many Traps

[plantman-the-womb-st]

On state non-restricted access highways there is no such requirement, and the speed limit can be determined by the local municipality. It's not uncommon at all to be driving along at 55mph and see a sign that says speed limit 25. And according to most state's laws, the speed limit is in effect not at the point in the road where the sign *is* but at the point where it is visible. Yes, many small towns (population a few hundred or less) in rural America use this as their sole source of municipal income.

Re:Too Many Traps

[Manetheran]

This happens universally wherever you have small towns in the country. This happens notoriously in country Australia as well. The only place I've been where it doesn't is England, but they give you about a mile warning to slow down, and their speed cameras are in bright yellow boxes, also signposted.

Re:Too Many Traps

[icebrain]

I'd suspect those towns were there long before the highway was ever thought about.

Re:Too Many Traps

[Harold Halloway]

From the many feature films I've seen, the small-town cops in the Deep South don't actually collect any money from travellers. Rather they prefer to kidnap/rape/bugger/squeal/play banjos at/murder the travellers.

Re:Too Many Traps

[coinreturn]

i mean, why did they have to build their town right on top of the highway? why couldn't they just build an exit junction that you can turn off of like normal cities have?
Are you really that dense? The town was there LONG before the road was a 65 MPH highway. The town was there when the road was a beat-up dirt track. When the state increases the speed allowed on the highway by re-doing roads, they opt NOT to put in an exit interchange because it is very expensive. They just hook up to the local municipality's main street. It is not the town's fault.

Re:Too Many Traps

[coinreturn]

And you sound like someone who's never outside of a major city. It's not at all uncommon for signs in rural areas to be 100% obscured by plants. The locals know about it, they weren't planned that way, but it happens.
Bullshit. You've been watching the movie 10,000 Maniacs or some other TV too much. I've been all over the US in rural areas and urban areas (I've driven across country many times). Almost always, there are warning signs about upcoming speed limit changes. You're just too busy texting your friends too notice.

Re:Too Many Traps

[cellurl]

I don't know where crowd-data does more than give you busywork.

While busywork is fun, you might also consider an advanced cruise-control (ACC)

I use a Speederaser. Cheap, universal. Everyone hates it until they try it. It helps you relax, trust me, you won't miss your rage...

It is nice to see Microsoft doing something that I suspected Google was doing. Competition is good. -cellurl

Re:Too Many Traps

[Uberbah]

You bullshit. The big city you just left has the same type of roads as the podunk town you're driving through, only they have 10x the traffic and yet their speed limit is 20 mph higher. Traffic fines are about revenue generation first and safety a very distant second, especially in small towns next to highways.

Re:Too Many Traps

[g0rAngA]

Now they've become so perverted that they seem to only exist in many places as a revenue source for local towns, and in causing drivers to spend more time looking at signs on the side of the road and their speedometer, they actually cause the roads to be LESS safe.

Agreed. My favourites are "school zones", an area around a primary or secondary school with a speed limit of 40km/h between 0800-0930 and 1430-1600. That's 40 no matter what the usual limit is. I've seen open highways with a school zone on it, and the limit going from 110 to 40.

They've just started putting in speed cameras that can enforce these variable speed limits, and they're making a fortune.

All the while, the traffic keeps it eyes on their speedos, and off the roads with the unpredictable kidlets running around, the ones that you need to keep a close eye on.

It makes me sick to my stomach

Re:Too Many Traps

[CardiganKiller]

Hahah, I remember seeing 5 people pulled over on that road all at once. It's just too much fun to swing around that last bend!

Re:Too Many Traps

[SilentResistance]

1. Teflon coat a slope 2. Lower speed limit on said slope 3. Speed camera at the bottom 4. Profit!

Or...
1: Install red-light cameras at intersections with dangerously-short yellow light times
2: Profit!
This isn't a joke.

Re:Too Many Traps

[sponglish]

In other words: When you least expect it -- expect it.

Unless, of course, it's the Spanish Inquisition.

Re:Too Many Traps

[navylostboy]

pshhh NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition

Re:Too Many Traps

[kyliaar]

As far as I know it is illegal to drive with a cell phone to your ear. I do not think it is illegal to look at the screen. This is one of those poorly written laws that covers one particularly bad behavoir but leaves the door open for related ones even more dangerous, such as texting.

Re:Too Many Traps

[Anonymous Coward]

If you bypass a small town they get really mad about losing the revenue from travelers stopping to make purchases.

Re:Too Many Traps

[pipingguy]

Good point, but a good driver being prepared to brake heavily coming out of a corner (because of a speed reduced sign) doesn't prevent someone following too close behind from rear-ending you. If there is a *legitimate safety reason* to brake heavily in such a situation that's different.

Re:Too Many Traps

[repvik]

You can't possibly be responsible for what the idiot behind you in traffic does. Him driving like an asshole doesn't make it OK for you to do so too.

Re:Too Many Traps

[pipingguy]

I agree, but my point is that arbitrarily changing a speed limit right after a blind corner (in order to catch "speeders") causes a potential accident situation. My assumption is that both the leading and following car are driving at the speed limit before and into the curve.

Re:Too Many Traps

[MaskedSlacker]

They sit at the bottom of the hill with 20 cars in the center lane by that gas station and pull every car over some afternoons.

Bastards got me.

Re:Too Many Traps

[badkarmadayaccount]

Even when the sign is in the metaphorical "file cabinet in a locked basement bathroom with a "Warning leopard" sign on the door"? Even when the friggin' town shouldn't be in the middle of the highway?

More driver distraction

[clang_jangle]

Like the streets aren't dangerous enough without every iPhone user fiddling with their toy trying to "beat the system" while piloting a two ton juggernaut on public streets.

Re:More driver distraction

[MilesTails]

Like the streets aren't dangerous enough without every iPhone user fiddling with their toy trying to "beat the system" while piloting a two ton juggernaut on public streets.

Yeah because speech alerts are really distracting. Did you even read the articles?

Re:More driver distraction

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Did you even read the articles?

Evidently, you are new here.

Re:More driver distraction

[clang_jangle]

Yeah because speech alerts are really distracting. Did you even read the articles?

I really did actually, and I noticed that voice alerts are a feature. However, voice alerts != voice control. And I've seen plenty of people start plotting their trip several minutes after they leave the house while driving.

Re:More driver distraction

[larry bagina]

let's see you read the article while trying to first post while piloting a 2 ton juggernaut on public streets while mixing another jack and coke.

Re:More driver distraction

[coolsnowmen]

But this has nothing to do with planning a trip. GPS puts you on a map without you telling it ahead of time. When you are close to a reported speed trap, it tells you. That is no different than any other auditory clue. There is no control needed.

Re:More driver distraction

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you think these iPhony toting idiots won't be trying to post new information to the web sites when they see a cop they just passed? Of course they will.

Re:More driver distraction

[noidentity]

Like the streets aren't dangerous enough without every iPhone user fiddling with their toy trying to "beat the system" while piloting a two ton juggernaut on public streets.

Yeah because speech alerts are really distracting. Did you even read the articles?

This guy was probably posting from his iPhone while driving, and skipped the article for safety reasons.

Re:More driver distraction

[KDR_11k]

Speech alerts that tell you to slow down immediately? Many people will probably just hit the brakes without a warning to the following cars.

Re:More driver distraction

[MousePotato]

Yeah because speech alerts are really distracting.

Well, the less distracted, the better.

Personally, I'd think that a great app for iphones would be one that shuts the damn thing off when it realizes your driving.

Re:More driver distraction

[Anonymous Coward]

So said someone who registered 22nd after the "new guy" registered. Did you just register to say that?

Re:More driver distraction

[ozphx]

Also, like Slashdot isn't crowded enough without an article for each reimplementation of common apps on iPhone. For fucks sake, its just a phone with a touchscreen!

Re:More driver distraction

[ozphx]

Who should be following at a safe enough distance to be able to stop themselves. In any sane country if you hit me from behind, then its your fault for not keeping your distance.

Re:More driver distraction

[KDR_11k]

In any sane country braking for no reason is endangering traffic so you're both at fault.

Re:More driver distraction

[ozphx]

In any sane country braking for no reason is endangering traffic so you're both at fault.

So in "any sane" country if I see something potentially dangerous I should decide not to slow down because:
a) My insurance covers hitting some kid stepping out in front of me, and
b) I'll never be able to prove to the stupid asshole's (ie: your) lawyer that I actually saw anything.

How about you just learn to drive and shut your whore mouth until you have thought things through? Its idiots like you trying to make laws that causes the kind of epic fail in IP we are experiencing.

Thought of running for government?

Re:More driver distraction

[Anonymous Coward]

Speech alerts are indeed distracting, especially when you're driving too fast. Do you want to end up like Mr Haider?

Re:More driver distraction

[Anonymous Coward]

Er... that's his post number you're looking at. His /. ID is 2015, which compared to the parent's ID of 1413987 more than qualifies him to ask that question. He registered 1411971 people before the other guy did.

Re:More driver distraction

[KDR_11k]

The lawyer would have to prove that you didn't see anything, only possible if there are some really reliable witnesses (especially police) watching or a recording.

Re:More driver distraction

[yodleboy]

How about you just learn to drive and shut your whore mouth until you have thought things through? Its idiots like you trying to make laws that causes the kind of epic fail in IP we are experiencing.

awwwww looks like someone's got a case of the Mondays!

deeeeeep breath. relaaaaaaaaax.

Re:More driver distraction

[g0rAngA]

It annoys me that people view this sort of thing as 'beating the system'. The police know the score, at least. The more people know about where the speed traps are, the more likely they are to slow down for them.

Speed traps are there primarily as a safety thing (at least they are here). They're very annoying and I'd love to pretend that they're just revenue-raisers, but they're not.

In such a circumstance, the best thing to do is give as much exposure as possible to the locations of them. A better way than putting it on iPhones would of course be to have warning signs on the road. Give people enough warning and they'll slow down for the danger-area (if they weren't already observing the limit), and your goal is acheived.

Re:More driver distraction

[Anonymous Coward]

The app also relies on users to report speed traps and traffic cameras, which does require fiddling with their toy.

Re:More driver distraction

[ozphx]

Then what the hell is the point if everyone can get off by saying "Oh I thought I saw movement out the corner of my eye".

This is the situation in Australia (and I expect the UK) by the way. Its the tailing car's responsibility to keep a safe following distance. If the lead car can perform an emergency stop, and you cannot do likewise without hitting them - then you were not leaving a safe enough gap for the conditions.

Thats the law/precedent. If you hit someone from behind your insurance company will not bother to fight it, and you'll be lucky to avoid a ticket.

Driver education suggests a two-second gap in normal conditions. Thats pretty much close enough - any closer and you are driving like a fucking retard anyway.

Re:More driver distraction

[badkarmadayaccount]

I did, you insensitive clod!

Obstruction of Justice charge in...

[EmagGeek]

5....
4....
3....
2....
1.... .....

Re:Obstruction of Justice charge in...

[Thiez]

Explain how this is obstruction of justice?

Re:Obstruction of Justice charge in...

[Anonymous Coward]

A little offtopic, but apropos your sig, chain-letters and social experiments. Last night I've sent an sms to one of my ex girlfriends:

"(Xx)~~~~ ...in memory of all the sperms that sunk into the bedding -- send it to your favorite ex girlfriends/boyfriends"

Surprisingly, it did came back to me. What I've learned is that now I know that I've slept with that girl from whom it came back.

breaker breaker

[Anonymous Coward]

damn you, iphone. now you've gone and made the CB obsolete

Re:breaker breaker

[Barryke]

My take on it was "how on earth .. is this news?"
(yes, read the article)

In other news i teached my dog to stay away from milk, by trowing a iphone at his head. Tremendous potential, that iphone.

No flaming please, i perhaps do own one. Almost.

Re:breaker breaker

[LandDolphin]

Nah,
The CB will still be there to alert drivers of rouge cops that won't be in the iPhone database.

Re:breaker breaker

[derfy]

Hopefully it will also alert for cops without makeup on.

Ha

[clarkkent09]

'If the application gets people to slow down, I think it's generally considered to be a good thing,' said Atkinson."

Isn't the whole idea of this app to allow people slow down just before the speed trap? If they drive slowly all the time then they don't care about speed traps in the first place

Re:Ha

[zappepcs]

There is an ancillary benefit. While what you say seems on face value to be true, anything that gets drivers to pay more attention to the road and traffic on it will increase safety. Even if that attention is somewhat fleeting, it will help. Public service minded police do not mind as long as you do slow down. There are those that want to catch you to fill the bank account with booty from fines, but for the most part people and police just want safe roads.

Re:Ha

[Anonymous Coward]

When driving at work I see no reason to speed (working with craft so I drive a lot) since I get paid in the car as well, but the only time I got caught speeding was last year about this time, on a straight road (as straight it can be) with my mind on something else (was speaking on the phone actually, but I usually stop for that).

This road was as clear in the countryside with no houses next to the road, just countryside stuff.

And there was a 70km/h bit (~45mph) when there "should" have been 90 (~65) in my opinion. I got caught doing 90.

I sure saved up for that ticket (I'm no angel when it comes to speed) for the last 10 years so I can't really complain, but then again, this app would have helped me and I would be morally fine with it, because this was a trap, not in front of a school or something important.

Re:Ha

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two categories of speed traps. One is one mostly intended to get money (this is one just after a turn at the bottom of a hill where the speed limit suddenly drops 10 miles an hour without any actual safety reason). Honestly a cop interesting in public safety won't care if you slow down second before that one and speed back up after. The other one, though, is the one where people often get into accidents because it's actually a dangerous place. If you slow down for *that* one, and then speed back up, you really are significantly safer.

Re:Ha

[Anonymous Coward]

on a straight road (as straight it can be)

because this was a trap, not in front of a school or something important.

So there was nothing stopping you from seeing any signs or changes in speed limits.

There are a lot of reasons for changes in speed.. maybe the road tends to ice up in certain weather, strong cross winds.. whatever.

Re:Ha

[MMC Monster]

Actually, what will happen is that people will drive faster when the phone says they are not near a speed trap.

Re:Ha

[Anonymous Coward]

or maybe its for revenue generation. ever think of that ?

Re:Ha

[KDR_11k]

There's also random probing so people always fear there might be a speed trap nearby and won't race like mad until they reach a known trap location. Probably not enough of that though.

Re:Ha

[Director of Acronyms]

I can't believe I had to scroll so far before I found someone who had thoguht of this...

Re:Ha

[Anonymous Coward]

I have seen specific road signs indicating safe speeds to travel on said roads during bad weather. It would be trivial to add them there.

Re:Ha

[Unnngh!]

Along the same lines, I don't think that people doing 10-15 MPH over the limit and suddenly slowing down to 10 under across all lanes is a good thing. This is usually what I see, and if I want to do the speed limit, and I don't normally speed, I have to slow down and get in a dangerously tight pack of traffic because of the trap. At least, that's how it usually works around D.C. Cops mostly just enjoy the power trip and fucking with people's heads. There is little in the way of civil service in the traffic policing I've seen.

Re:Ha

[mgblst]

Bullshit. I hear this all the time, from people using these tactics, when they aren't spouting of at about how unfair speed traps are, and that they are just revenue raisers.

Re:Ha

[Erikderzweite]

As this application is trust-based it can be used (by police too) to slow down speeders at close to no cost -- no need of moving expensive equipment around or purchasing extra speed traps, just mark some streets on the map.

Integrate with in-car navigation?

[Stiletto]

What would really be nice is for such a system to integrate with your in-car navigation system. I'd love to have a list of known speed traps overlaid geographically on the moving map, perhaps with a warning 5 minutes before you approach one.

Such a system could probably pay for itself within months, in the same way a good RADAR detector pays for itself.

Re:Integrate with in-car navigation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the article - that's exactly what this service was designed for. Trapster has been around well before this iPhone app came along. I used it this summer when making a 15+ hour drive to Michigan for a music festival. I plotted my course, then fed it to Trapster, which then created a customized list of speed trap POIs for my TomTom. I fed the list into my GPS, assigned a big red box for an icon, a loud, ominous gong for an alert, and told it to notify me when I was roughly 1 mile away.

My trip was uneventful, but the occasional BONGGGG! did keep my lead foot in check... (mostly ;))....

Re:Integrate with in-car navigation?

[jeremyp]

That would be a fantastic idea wouldn't it.

That must be why my sat nav has had such a database of speed cameras in it for the last two years.

Re:Integrate with in-car navigation?

[mobby_6kl]

I was going to post exactly the same thing. The only reason this is on slashdot is that the IPHONE is involved, and so the story is automatically valid news and not a slashvertisement.

My two year old Garmin also does pretty much exactly what the OP's describing, it will show an icon and play a sound when you're approaching a speed trap. Of course, since it doesn't have any wireless capability, the listed speed traps are mostly stationary speed cameras. I'd imagine newer models would be able to update the database often enough to catch all the cops hiding behind the bushes.

Re:Integrate with in-car navigation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just drive the speed limit - that will 'pay for itself' one hell of a lot faster than some stupid radar detector or even some lame 'cheat the system' iPhony application. Don't speed, don't worry about speeding tickets or speed traps.
 
Learn to drive safely and legally dorks of the world!

Re:Integrate with in-car navigation?

[Tony Hoyle]

Tomtom have been doing this for years.

Re:Integrate with in-car navigation?

[AceofSpades19]

Or you could just drive at the speeeding limit, thats such an amazing idea isn't it?

Re:Integrate with in-car navigation?

[marcog123]

This is already available for Garmin products in South Africa (not sure about other countries). I use it and it works great. I've never found a speed trap that wasn't covered, and the warning is far more prominent if you're over the speed limit.

Re:Integrate with in-car navigation?

[KDR_11k]

Our nav system just gives a speech warning when you go over the limit but obviously some people only want to know about the limit when a trap is nearby...

Re:Integrate with in-car navigation?

[jo_ham]

The Tom Tom One here in the UK already does this. It's not a new idea by any stretch of the imagination, but it's the first time it's been done on a phone I guess.

While the primary function of the Tom Tom is as a navigation system, it has optional extras that you can sign up for, like real-time traffic alerts that it picks up (via info texted to your phone) that allows it to automatically pick a route around blocked roads etc, and it also has a list of known speed traps that it can warn you about, including up-to-date lists that you can download over the net and upload to it via USB.

Re:Integrate with in-car navigation?

[Stiletto]

Wow, I must be behind the times then. Thanks for the info!

Re:Integrate with in-car navigation?

[jonbryce]

You can run Tom Tom on a Windows Mobile phone. I do, and it beeps at me every time I approach a revenue camera.

Re:Integrate with in-car navigation?

[dunkelfalke]

i use such a system for 5 years already with my windows mobile navigation software (except for the live update, though, because the data connection fees are too high) so the idea is nothing new.

Re:Integrate with in-car navigation?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

The only reason this is on slashdot is that the IPHONE is involved, and so the story is automatically valid news and not a slashvertisement.

Slashvertisement? I dunno. I think Slashdot posts about Apple so that it can generate ad-revenue from all the people clicking 'reply' so they can bitch about Slashdot posting Apple stories. I doubt Apple paid Slashdot to run the story about Apple pre-rejecting Opera.

Re:Integrate with in-car navigation?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what? FUCK YOU!

The rest of us non-sheeple are fucking sick and tired of your fucking stupid fucking "just follow the speed limit" shit.

We're going to continue to drive at reasonable speed, and we're not going to pay any attention to those "speed limits" you idiots keep blathering on about.

Fuck you.

Radio stations did something similar before

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the 90s in one of the Baltic countries, some radio stations let drivers phone in location of speed traps.

Of course, soon enough the law caught up with that and reporting of police locations because illegal.

However, that didn't phase the station operators a bit. They just requested that people report location of individuals in blue uniforms, using cars with bright flashing lights and shooting microwave radiation at passing cars. No mention was "police" or "speed trap" or anything specific was allowed.

Re:Radio stations did something similar before

[kanweg]

This is still done in the Netherlands. Nothing stealthy/sneaky about it. The police even pre-announces a couple of roads where they're going to check.

Bert
Driving within the speed limits saves on gas too.

Re:Radio stations did something similar before

[RAMMS EIN]

In the Netherlands, reporting the locations of speed traps isn't illegal, and all pop-music radio stations report the locations. There are even companies that have this as their core business.

Re:Radio stations did something similar before

[Unordained]

Driving within the speed limits saves on gas too.
Please see previous /. discussion: Fuel efficiency and slow driving?

Re:Radio stations did something similar before

[kanweg]

I've the fuel economy meter on permanently.

And I passed my physics classes with excellent grades.

Bert

Re:Radio stations did something similar before

[KDR_11k]

In Germany it's normal but since radio stations list at most 4-5 I suspect that's just to remind people that there are speed traps around rather than tell them all the places where traps are located.

Re:Radio stations did something similar before

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a pretentious dick.

And I still like to taste the cock after it is pulled from my ass hole ; )

Bert

Re:Radio stations did something similar before

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it would have been easier for the police to just call in tips about speed traps that didn't exist. That way people slow down more overall.

Re:Radio stations did something similar before

[ian_mackereth]

This is common practice in Australian cities' radio stations.

The police originally complained and lobbied to prevent it, but then a clever top cop in Melbourne started getting his troops to call in reports of radars all over the place.

Not so many as to completely invalidate the system, just enough to make drivers who took the warnings seriously to think that there were ten times as many speed traps on the road as there actually were, and drive accordingly!

Re:Radio stations did something similar before

[BillyGee]

In 2008, in the "Baltic" country of Estonia, some radio stations let drivers phone in the location of speed traps and the announcers let the listeners know in the form of "you can meet our fine patrols at .... and ...." and several variations. I thought this was standard everywhere?

Re:Radio stations did something similar before

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, most posts that say they get better gas mileage anywhere significantly above 65mph are ridiculous. You especially know they're misinformed if they use their RPMs as indication as when the car is driving more efficiently or not. RPMs aren't the biggest contributor to gas usage, but wind resistance. Most cars, especially older ones, but most definitely includes current vehicles, are most efficient in the 55-65mph range. Some are slightly higher, but if someone says their car is most efficient at 80mph, they honestly don't have a clue what they're doing.

Re:Radio stations did something similar before

[canadian_right]

That is a common practice here in Vancouver BC. The cops even phone in sometimes if they are doing a big safety campaign. Most local radio includes the current rush hours speed traps. And it's legal. Free speech and all.

Re:Radio stations did something similar before

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't imagine how awfully common this is around these here parts. Damn individuals in blue uniforms, using cars with bright flashing lights and shooting microwave radiation at passing cars.

And when they catch you, you have to bribe your way out of the confrontation. Damn pirates in blue uniforms!

Re:Radio stations did something similar before

[jack2000]

Silly me, I forgot to login...

Re:Radio stations did something similar before

[davidphogan74]

I can honestly say I respect that approach by law enforcement. It's somewhat more honest than I'd expect.

Re:Radio stations did something similar before

[Alarindris]

There was a speed trap set up about a mile down from my friends house out in a rural area. He put up a big sign in his yard saying something like "Slow down, speed trap ahead." Lasted a whole day before the cops came, ticketed him (for what I don't remember) and made him take it down.

Re:Radio stations did something similar before

[Splintax]

Here in WA, not only are the locations of speed cameras advertised on the radio, the locations are actually published on the WA Police website.

Re:Radio stations did something similar before

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, radio stations listing a few spots is normal in Germany. This however would be illegal as any other 'device' that could allow you to know where speed traps are located. Just like navigations systems with this feature, they put it all in the same category as the radar scanners and can actually confiscate your device and fine you for it. They don't even need to catch you with it running, it is enough if the device can be 'made operational quickly'. (This raises the question how they can prove that you have the app of course. If the app was hidden well enough, they might have a hard time with that.)

Re:Radio stations did something similar before

[KDR_11k]

If it's hidden well enough they won't even know they'd have to stop you, will they?

Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[argent]

They always manage to get some police officer to say "if NewSpeedTrapThingy makes people slow down, we're all for it". Doesn't matter what the thingy is, from radar detectors and people talking on CB Radio onwards... is there actually any research indicating that people with radar detectors or whatever drive slower, on average, after they start using these tools? Or is this just official bravado?

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Macthorpe]

I've always assumed they mean "We can't stop you using this, so we're going to pretend it helps."

I wish people would just, you know, drive slower without having to be forced to, but I guess that's wishful thinking.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[larry bagina]

I just wish speed limits were designed for modern cars and modern traffic, not increasing revenue.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[The Man]

More likely it's that if they say they don't like it, everyone will see that they are acknowledging that "speed enforcement" is mostly about generating revenue. Since they can't be seen to acknowledge that fact, they have to pretend it's about safety, in which case these tools probably do help even if only in a few spots (and speed traps are sited more often than not in places where excessive speed really might be unsafe).

Bottom line: when cops stop saying stuff like this, it's time to get outta Dodge. Then they're no longer even pretending to be accountable to their nominal employers.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[LordKaT]

When cops start obeying the law, I will.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[ColdWetDog]

I just wish speed limits were designed for modern cars and modern traffic, not increasing revenue.

Unfortunately speed limits are designed for the modern driver. You've all seen them - drivers with the attention span of a crack-addled squirrel and the reflexes of a hypothermic snail. These folks really shouldn't be going fast. In fact, they should stay in their driveway playing with all the little gizmos in the car.

Hey, this would solve a bunch of problems: Oil consumption, traffic congestion, road rage. Buying more gizmos will help the economy. In fact, everyone should go out and buy a new, shiny, gizmo-laden car.

And leave it in their driveway.

I'm calling Senator Obama right now....

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Macthorpe]

Please tell me that you're being sarcastic.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Aranykai]

Perhaps its our driving instruction and licensing procedures in the US that are at fault. Go look up what they have in Poland. You have to drive on a skidpad during one test even!

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Anonymous Coward]

Police like these things because relatively few people are going to be using it. Of those who will use it, they'll speed somewhere else and might still be caught. It doesn't cost much, if any, ticket revenue.

It's the radar detectors we can't stand. Detectors don't require that you pay much attention to them. Most people will slow down immediately when it goes off, whether they were speeding or not.

Law enforcement officers are all for road safety. Nobody likes cleaning up road pizza, especially when the ingredients weren't old enough to vote. At the same time, if everybody were to suddenly begin obeying all traffic laws, a large portion of the annual budget goes out the window.

The large number of officers patrolling most cities and highways aren't there for safety reasons. If we wanted to slow down the general flow of traffic, there'd be a police car sitting very visibly on the shoulder every few miles. Reassign the two guys flying the airplane with a stop watch, sell the plane itself and it would be easy to pay for that. At least, until the revenue from traffic citations drops sharply.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[LordKaT]

Consider the crap that the beat cops pull on a daily basis around here, no I'm not.

Pulling a U-turn when a sign clearly states otherwise, flicking your lights so you can go through a red light - then turning them off and parking at a diner for your break.

Cops here also have a bad habit of just grabbing people and their objects with no regard for the law. This has happened to me twice. The first time I explained to the cop that if he didn't release me I would be more than happy to defend myself - which got me arrested, but subsequently released - and the second time I reminded the office that I find the rough grabbing of my arms to be an aggressive act - he backed off.

I've also witnessed a cruiser fishtail a vehicle in the middle of the night, without pursuing him. No lights, no siren, nothing. The guy ran a red light, and the cop fishtailed him, THEN put his siren on. The guy in the car was arrested for failure to stop, failure to comply, and some other things. He was shocked - SHOCKED - when I showed up with a video of the event at court on behalf of the defendant.

The city dropped the case and last I heard the man is pursuing civil action.

This shit happens a lot more than is reported. Quite frankly, I think most cops need to be purged from their respective authority systems and shipped to clown college.

so, yes, when cops start obeying the law, so will I. Until then, fuck them.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Macrat]

You must not drive in California. You'll never see anyone from "law enforcement" driving slower than the speed limit. Especially when they are late for lunch.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Splab]

Yeah because no one is driving around in a 20 year old hunk of junk Honda.

And claiming speed limits are designed for revenue is just down right retarded, no one has to speed, just make sure you get out of the door in time - most of us can manage.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Macthorpe]

I'm not challenging that, I'm challenging the idea that breaking the law is fine and dandy just because someone else does.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[LordKaT]

You're either reading too much into my statement, or you're a fucking moron.

I don't really understand where you think I'm executing illegal U-turns, speeding, or fishtailing other people because they run red lights. I've never stated that I did any such things, in fact I'm outright denying it right now.

But, hey, you seem to think the statement "when cops start obeying the law, so will I" is a statement of fact. If that was the case, I would've killed a few cops with a taser by now.

Just for reference - since you seem to be unable to think beyond statements - I have not, and have no desire to kill people.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Nyeerrmm]

The biggest problem I find is when they are in fact accountable to their nominal employers... the citizens of the shit-hole town you have to drive through. Where I live, what I'd classify as a large town (~60,000 people including students, I think), the police tend to look for excessive speeding, running red lights, and drunk driving... and except for the new red-light cameras that have been installed (the company that installs them takes a share of the profits and requires the yellow lights to be no longer than a certain period of time... I smell corruption), it all tends to be based largely on public safety... particularly on Friday/Saturday nights. But.. I got pulled over driving through a small (maybe 1000 person) town this Friday night, as I was going from the 70 zone into the 55. By the time the cop flipped his lights I was going the speed limit of the town, I began to slow down as soon as I saw the speed limit sign, and there was no one on the road, it being midnight. By any reasonable expectation I was obeying the spirit of the law and was in no way a risk to public safety. But there was no leniency, I know fighting it in the town's court would be a waste of time, because it is primarily a source of revenue for the town. For further evidence, I give you their fine schedule: 1-5mph over the limit warrants a $165 fine, while my 15mph over is $195. And they're not my cops, I can't hold them accountable for their abusive actions. This is Texas, which tends to reserve most things to the local governments, so there isn't much the state can do, and I'm not sure that's a good idea anyway. When driving anywhere from here, there is no way to avoid these kind of towns. I'm just not sure I see a good solution, beyond expecting people to be better than they are, or bringing down federal regulations which my gut tells me is almost always the wrong way.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[ColdWetDog]

Perhaps its our driving instruction and licensing procedures in the US that are at fault. Go look up what they have in Poland. You have to drive on a skidpad during one test even!

We have lots of skid pads to practice on here. We just don't bother segregating them from the rest of the roadway. More efficient that way.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[eweu]

I just wish speed limits were designed for modern cars and modern traffic, not increasing revenue.

As long as the Lincoln Town Car is still on the road then I think the posted speed limits are just fine thankyouverymuch. Most cars on the road have crap suspensions and are poorly braked. Since I have to drive with those cars around me, I'd rather it be slowly.

You can find HPDE track days everywhere now. If you want to drive fast, do it there.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Anonymous Coward]

you are quite naive. There is much evidence out there that the primary consideration in setting speed in at least half if not more of the instances is revenue generation. The first thing you hear about when a sensible speed INCREASE is discussed is how much "revenue will be lost."

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an Englishman who just took his California driving test - I literally couldn't believe how simple it was. The practical consisted of less than ten minutes driving round the block, with no maneuvers other than reversing along a kerb. At no time did I leave a 30 mph zone and parts were even 20mph. How does this in any way test the ability of person to safely handle a car? Especially in the land of the freeway?

It's been 12 years since I took my UK test, which was far more strenuous, and I understand it's been strengthened since then too.

You let 16 year olds get behind the wheel of a 2 ton death mobile with no real qualification and then wonder why things go wrong?

Having said that, after logging several thousand miles around CA, I would pick driving here over the UK any day of the week. Whilst there is the occasional moron it is nothing compared to the sheer aggression of those driving in England.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Archangel_Azazel]

Sort of like seatbelt laws?

I was driving in Portland OR a few years ago and got stopped...STOPPED mind you... for not wearing my seatbelt. It was something like a $175 ticket. I opted to go to the "Seat Belt Awareness Class", got to see some really amusing videos, and then told that even if I don't care about my own safety, I should think of the firemen, paramedics, etc. that have to remove me from the vehicle. I asked the instructor why it was anyone's business but my own if I decide to wear my seatbelt. She threatened to have me removed...and to keep the $80 I paid for the class in ADDITION to having me pay the original fine.

It amazes me that we pass laws like this, all because some soccer mom lost her precious little boy/girl in a terrible auto accident because they were drunk and not wearing their seatbelt while driving 100MPH down a country road. fffft.

A_A

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Anonymous Coward]

So we're going to eliminate ALL older cars? ALL older and younger drivers?

That will be fine. Can you have it done by Wednesday? I have a long trip planned.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Splab]

I'm pretty sure you are the same coward replying to my other post, please show some links backing up your claims.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm calling Senator Obama right now....

That's President-Elect Obama to you.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[LaskoVortex]

Clearly I'm the moron, because you made a statement and I assumed you actually meant what you said.

To clarify, in case its a little opaque for you--the statement "when cops start obeying the law, so will I" means that cops represent the government entity that creates laws. When cops break these laws, the government entity effectively breaks its own laws. If that government entity turns a blind eye to this law breaking, it has sacrificed any and all of its moral authority. Moral authority is the only absolute authority any law can have. When this moral authority is gone, then the populace has no absolute reason to obey any law and can and *should* break laws they disagree with or don't like. This is one of the corner stones of civil disobedience and it is an important component of democracy. So quit being righteous and try to think about the motivation about what people say.

When you see people blatantly breaking the law and you are aware of abuse by the police at the same time, you might consider whether that particular municipality has let its moral authority slip. I'm waiting for your righteous rebuttal before I provide half a dozen real world examples of this effect in action. But make sure you are very indignant and condescending when you rebut, or it won't be worth my time.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Macthorpe]

I agree that unjust laws should be broken so that they can be challenged. That is absolutely 100% NOT what this is about. Just laws should be upheld regardless of whether the police do or not, and they should be held accountable when they don't.

If he'd said "I don't agree that the speeding law is a just law, so I will break it", then I wouldn't disagree. However, he said "Police don't follow traffic laws, so I won't", which he has since informed me he didn't mean and I'm stupid for thinking he did.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[KDR_11k]

Speed limits are designed around the safety of the area you're passing through and other people there, not the speed your car is capable of or what you think is a safe speed (because almost all drivers suffer from delusions of grandeur when it comes to their own ability).

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks or acknowledging your idiocy. most idiots dont recognize the fact.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[LaskoVortex]

I'm challenging the idea that breaking the law is fine and dandy just because someone else does.

No, breaking the law is fine and dandy depending on who that someone else is. It makes a big, big difference. If it means that you won't pay your taxes if Joe the Plumber didn't, then that isn't fine and dandy. But if you don't want to pay your taxes when the government does not reciprocate with representation, then not paying your taxes is fine and dandy and should be expected. I hope you understand the difference. If not, I can point you to a good American history textbook. Or are you some kind of anti-American pinko commie who doesn't understand why the USA was created?

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[KDR_11k]

When you get into an accident and didn't wear the seatbelt the damage you suffer is much greater than otherwise. If the accident is someone else's fault that someone will have to pay your much higher medical bills (or, more likely, your funeral and damages to your family). If you want an automatic no seatbelt = your fault rule you get a lot of uglyness with the reconstruction afterwards since you have to be sure who wore a seatbelt, who didn't and whose just failed to work in order to even find out who pays (and what priority that should have if e.g. the other guy was driving with 0.12% blood alcohol).

The firemen, paramedics, etc are required by law to help you, they can't just leave you to die because you're a dumb fuck who didn't wear his seatbelt. So it's not your own business no matter how much you want to claim it is and I don't think you'd want anyone to just shrug you off when you have a life-threatening injury.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[jo_ham]

I just recognised this guy as the troll who didn't understand my simple sentence structure in yesterday's Mac/MS thread.

Try and keep it to single syllable words and shy away from any potential source of sarcasm as he'll interpret it as a written confession.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[LaskoVortex]

If he'd said "I don't agree that the speeding law is a just law, so I will break it", then I wouldn't disagree.

This shouldn't be a requirement. All it requires to give one moral grounds to break a law is to have evidence that a government entity has no moral authority to enforce the law to begin with. The power to reject the moral authority of a governing institution is the principal power of the people in a democracy and is their greatest threat against law breaking by those who govern them, including the police.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Macthorpe]

Please feel free to link where that happened, and I'll clarify for you.

I asked GP whether he was being sarcastic, and he said no. Good job on the /. stalking though, I look forward to reading your posts more often.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[chrb]

drivers with the attention span of a crack-addled squirrel and the reflexes of a hypothermic snail. These folks really shouldn't be going fast.

The funny thing is that 99% of drivers would agree with you, whilst not realising that they are probably included in that group. Unfortunately, nobody is perfect, and mistakes do happen. A mistake at a lower speed is usually less costly in terms of injury and life. In contrast, leaving 5 or 10 minutes earlier for a trip to get there on time really isn't that big a deal - we waste more than that on slashdot every day.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Macthorpe]

I completely disagree with you. I don't believe that lack of law enforcement, on moral grounds or otherwise, is sufficient excuse to break that law.

I also think you're confusing a 'government entity' breaking the law with single witness incidents of people who work for that entity breaking the law.

Then again, maybe I'm not catching your drift on this one. I've been modded to hell already for having this opinion so I might as well quit while I'm very, very behind.

P.S. in response to your other comment, I'm not American. Maybe this is where the ideological difference comes in to play.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[jo_ham]

Hey, we're all trolls sometimes.

I'm pretty sure it was the Xerox thing were I came back at you with some sarcastic quip about the Recycle Bin.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Anonymous Coward]

You let 16 year olds get behind the wheel of a 2 ton death mobile with no real qualification and then wonder why things go wrong?

Oh, we don't wonder - we know what happens, and want it that way. It's part of our secret eugenics program, you see.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Macthorpe]

Yeah, fair enough. I know a lot of the stuff I said up the page is technically troll-ish, but I stand by the general point I made.

I remember the Recycle Bin thing now, I was in the zone and sarcasm tends to zoom over my head when I'm in the mood to make a point :)

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Acecoolco]

I wish people in America actually knew how to drive. Get off the cell phone and drive... NO, texting can WAIT... I was in an accident by a black woman, driving her friends car, while she was speeding and on her cell phone... She ran a red light - and hit me... Officer arrived on scene and she received fault, she then claimed racial discrimination and the officer turned around and gave me fault... Like what the heck?? I am not racist at all, I even voted for Obama :-)

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[LaskoVortex]

Yes I think you aren't getting it--it might be the political environment in which you were raised. But I also think the mods have been unfair to you. Another cornerstone of democracy is to respect differences of opinion. In fact, I had to give up 5 mod points I already doled out in this thread to enter this discussion.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's President-Elect Obama, you insensitive clod!

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[timbos]

... Go look up what they have in Poland. You have to drive on a skidpad during one test even!

On several occasions I have had the 'pleasure' of experiencing driving in Poland. I have to say that it is - without doubt - the scariest driving that I've ever seen anywhere in the US, Europe or Far East.

Everyone treats the road like a racetrack, there is a mix of really slow trucks and speeding cars, few people seemed to obey the speed limit and 'no overtaking' signs, in fact some of my colleagues were nearly mown down by someone trying to drift his car round an intersection in Krakow.

On one journey, I remember overtaking a line of trucks (I was the passenger of a Pole) and dipping into the space between two of them for a second to allow someone to pass in the opposite direction, before continuing the overtaking manoeuvre.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Erikderzweite]

Another example from Germany -- drivers license is hard to get here, full education may cost up to 2000 EUR (2500 USD). Practical includes driving on the highway as well as in 30 km/h zone.

Many young people therefore fly to the USA to get their license there -- cheaper and *much* easier. From what I've heard the questions are really moronic...

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[josecanuc]

So... College Station or Lubbock?
Reisel's the worst small town for that kind of stuff.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir, you are a hero. :(

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Free the Cowards]

Those drivers are already ignoring the speed limits anyway, so what purpose do they serve?

Around here, the speed limits on the highways are 55. (In a big city.) Whenever volume hasn't reached the point of causing a jam, the actual speeds vary anywhere from 55-60 in the far right lane to 70-80 in the far left lane. I've never seen the police actually pull anyone over. I've seen them on the side of the road with the lights flashing talking to a driver in another car, so apparently they do pull people over, but I've never seen it actually happen. I can only assume that they don't start pulling people over until past 80 miles per hour.

Given that a huge number of drivers are going 70+, and the police ignore them, what purpose does a 55MPH speed limit on these roads serve?

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[soren100]

How did you manage to get a video of the event? I have heard of people putting in automatic video systems in their car, but I am wondering how easy and convenient this is - or did you sit there with a camera recording the police?

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[ozphx]

Well you are a dick. In Australia seatbelts are mandatory because we don't want your broken arse taking up hospital space that could be used on someone less stupid.

Not sure how this fits in with Americas failure at a health system.

Hint: Airbags don't fucking work properly if you aren't wearing a seatbelt - they will not save your stupid life.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Anonymous Coward]

define: fishtail?

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Mattsson]

You mean limits should be lower, since modern traffic is full of bad drivers driving huge cars while fiddling with all their in-car gadgets? =)

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[shutdown -p now]

Speed limits are designed for the safety of everyone involved, and that includes pedestrians. Keep in mind that kinetic energy grows as square of speed, and actual damage suffered from a hit grows even faster than that. So, yes, those extra 10 km/h can make a very big difference for an unlucky guy hit by a car, and noticeable difference for collisions between vehicles, as well. In particular, for speeds of impact above 50 km/h, chance of surival for a pedestrian is nearly zero.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Muad'Dave]

I drove 1300+ miles in Scotland, and found that the drivers there were very competent and courteous, even on Prince's Street in downtown Edinburgh. I didn't see any real aggression, just people driving with a purpose. No idiots stopping in the roundabouts, everyone knew the rules, and there weren't any problems. As a US driver, I studied the rules and actually too a sample online driver's test for Scotland (and passed, FYI) before going over there. _I_ didn't want to be the idiot on the roads.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Uberbah]

Speed limits are designed for the safety of everyone involved, and that includes pedestrians.

No, they're designed for generating revenue. Otherwise, speed limits would be based on the 85th percentile and enforcement would be based around dangerous areas as opposed to busy areas. "Safety" is merely the marketing term they use for another sin tax.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Uberbah]

Unless you have a few million dollars and are self-insured, other policy holders with your auto/health insurance company will be footing the bill for your dumb ass. And even if you do have millions of dollars and are self-insured, other drivers don't want your dumb ass hitting their car after you're ejected from your seat in an accident. So stop being a tool and wear your damn seat belt.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[Maniac-X]

The problem isn't so much whether or not the laws are unjust themselves... but the fact that those who are supposed to enforce them do not uphold them themselves... and are not nearly often enough held accountable for that.

Re:Sergeant Stronginthearm says...

[shutdown -p now]

No, they're designed for generating revenue. Otherwise, speed limits would be based on the 85th percentile

If most drivers want to go at that speed, it doesn't mean that speed is inherently safe. It is safer to stick to it for a driver in the flow, yes, but it may still be a very unsafe speed for pedestrians (anything above 50 km/h is unsafe in a city, except for highways with no pedestrian access!).

Revenue stream

[Xistenz99_2000]

I am sure that there are some that want people to slow down at the speed traps, however speed traps are intended to collect revenue for the city that they are in. Traffic tickets are one of the easy ways an officer can collect 140 dollars within 15 minutes for the city and supply his paycheck without doing any hard work.

Re:Revenue stream

[Xistenz99_2000]

I would also like to add that I go hit by a speed trap in a small town at 4 in the morning, I received 2 tickets, 1 in a 30 mph zone and the other in the 55 mph zone. That added 16 points to my license for 1 speeding incident. I argued in court that the officer should have stopped my at the 30 mph zone because there was a mile in between mph changes, but they ruled against me. 16 pts. and I wasn't drunk, just driving fast in small town when 0 people were on the road. These violations and ticketing makes me skeptical of the whole safety factor, I was speeding and I admitted as much in court, but my hatred and distrust for traffic officers is warranted becasue of this and other instances.

Re:Revenue stream

[Splab]

Hope they revoke your license ASAP.

Idiots like you should be kept off the road. So it's the middle of the night and that allows you to disregard other peoples safety because _you_ feel no one should be out driving/running/biking at that time?

Well then smart ass, why are you out?

When you crash - and you will - please make sure you hit the nearest tree rather than some poor innocent bystander.

Re:Revenue stream

[Anonymous Coward]

however speed traps are intended to collect revenue for the city that they are in.

Which is great. Honestly, taking money from people who routinely break safety laws regarding an extremely dangerous piece of equipment, and using that money to fund government services, e.g. schools, is a great idea. We should do more of it. And if you have a problem with that, stop fucking speeding. It's illegal and dangerous to others, and you are a complete asshole if you do it.

Re:Revenue stream

[maxume]

Well, how fast were you going? These parts, 10 over is only a couple of points, so to get 16 points, you must have been going ~80 mph. That means you are angry that it took the officer, based on what you say, about 45 seconds to pull you over. Of course, if you were a good way through the mile you are talking about, he had even less time than that.

Re:Revenue stream

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they revoke yours. You have no concept of safety at all and are completely naive to buy government reasoning without any question. There is much evidence to support that the system is mostly about revenue generation.

If people were really concerned about safety and accomodating as many driving styles without any incident, people would start obeying the "slower traffic keep right" laws and signs out there. ...and really...shouldn't you look before you cross a street?

Re:Revenue stream

[Xistenz99_2000]

When I die you can laugh at my funeral is all I can say to your unintelligent tirade.

Re:Revenue stream

[jo_ham]

It's not an unintelligent tirade from the person that replied to you - it was quite eloquent, if a little angry.

I totally agree with him - you were exceeding the speed limit by some distance (ie, totally ignoring it - it;s not like you were a few mph over that you can put down to trying to obey the limit but just being a little on the fast side), and the only justification you give is that it was the middle of the night so "no one was on the road".

How can you possibly stand by that statement as a justification for driving over the limit, getting caught, and then claiming it was unfair that you got the book thrown at you? Can you say with 100% certainty that you won't hit anyone out at that time? perhaps taking a walk, or driving, or parked by the side of the road on their phone, or maybe someone coming the other way doing the same as you.

If you were doing the speed limit, you have a lot more time to react to changes in the road, be it an animal in the road, a person walking or a slower car. Regardless of whether you think you're "safe" at X speed, you cannot deny that you can stop the car more quickly and react more quickly at (X minus 15mph), which just so happens to be the speed limit.

Re:Revenue stream

[Kagura]

I can't believe some of the shit I've seen on the highway at night in North Carolina. It scares the hell out of me when I drive by somebody that feels like it's perfectly okay to be walking just barely off the highway at 11pm. You can't see them until they are just a few seconds away, and then there is barely any time to react or give them extra room. That's just in the middle of *nowhere* on a highway. In one of the small rural towns that you go through (few thousand people, tops) there's all the more chance that somebody is out walking or some high schoolers are riding their skateboards or something, or that family's SUV is pulling out of the gas station and didn't see your 65mph car coming around the corner.

There's a reason some speed limits exist.

Re:Revenue stream

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you die a terrible death, you faggot nigger.

Re:Revenue stream

[Uberbah]

If it were really about safety, you'd have speed limits set by the 85th percentile, and not by arbitrary zoning. If it were really about safety, they would increase yellow light times and put cameras in dangerous intersections first, instead of busy intersections with quick yellow lights. If it were really about safety, you wouldn't see cops routinely violate traffic laws whilst patrolling.

Moving violations are about revenue generation first, and safety a very distant second. They're a sin tax, no different than what they have on cigarettes or alcohol.

it works both ways, so look at the bottom line

[v1]

'If the application gets people to slow down, I think it's generally considered to be a good thing,' said Atkinson

It gets them to slow down when there's a speed trap because they want to avoid the high probability of a ticket.

BUT, it also gives them the confidence to speed more when they don't believe there's a speed trap.

So it works both ways: It helps increase the "deterrent factor" of the speed traps, but lowers the overall effectiveness of discouraging speeding in general, in the process.

In the end it's probably about a wash for changing the amount of speeding going on. The only thing that's changing is the money that was going to speeding tickets is now going to the authors of the app. And of course since that's what's really important isn't it, we've gotta put a stop to it don'cha know?

Re:it works both ways, so look at the bottom line

[eltonito]

I'm not sure users of such software are going to drive any faster outside of the tagged zones. In most places I drive the average traffic flow outpaces the posted speed limit by 10-15MPH. The POI's I have on my GPS for speed traps and red-light cameras aren't to help me speed/run red lights, they are to reduce my chances of getting a ticket. I find it even more helpful when I am driving in a new city or unfamiliar area. I generally go with the flow of traffic, but if I get an alert I slow down about 2MPH to make myself less of an obvious target in middle of the herd. I rarely speed up more than I slowed down after I get through the tagged zone.

Besides, there's always a sprinter in the herd that decides the flow is for chumps, and weaves in and out of traffic while going 20-25MPH over the speed limit. I think those are the folks who would exploit it to drive faster in non-tagged zones but I rarely see any technology on their dashboards that might assist their speeding habit. I assume it is because the idiot demographic aren't exactly early adopters.

Legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was a kid, I remember my dad got pulled over. After passing a speed trap, he was flashing his headlights at oncoming traffic to alert them. Soon after he was pulled over and ticketed for this. It was apparently illegal...

Re:Legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'd assume the reason it's illegal to flash your headlights at oncoming traffic is that it's distracting the drivers. Distracted drivers -> higher risk of accidents. So your dad was just being an asshole in a way that happened to be illegal.

This is officer 419...

[Hertne]

my iPhone has me listed as being here. I'm going to move up the street a couple miles.

On a side note, could these be considered illegal in certain places, classified as a radar radar detector

obstructionofjustice tag?

[Digital Vomit]

"obstructionofjustice" tag? Really?? This is getting people to slow down...

Re:obstructionofjustice tag?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, right. You know what really gets people to slow down? Getting too many tickets and having their license suspended.

Which is what's supposed to happen when you recklessly put other people's lives at risk on a regular basis.

If this new app works as advertised, speed demons can now get away with breaking the law by only slowing down when they approach a speed trap. So yes, this should absolutely be classified as obstruction of justice.

Re:obstructionofjustice tag?

[JamesRose]

Yes, becuase the 200metres in view of the speed trap is so much more important than the other 10 km of the driver's journey where they're flooring it because they know there's no speed cameras. This will make people speed up, not slow down. If the drivers are driving too fast they should be punished- whether there's a speed camera around or not. Now it would be completely different if schools and playgrounds and roads with blind corners were flagged because it would be DANGEROUS to go fast around them.

Re:obstructionofjustice tag?

[Ant P.]

This is obstruction of justice for the RIAA's definition of "justice". Which just so happens to be the definition shared by far too many traffic police.

Great police tool!

[Ecuador]

Now all the police has to do is rate their actual speed traps low and catch the iPhone speeders!

I mean, I always said that Apple users would not pass a round of natural selection, this could be an example ;)

Re:Great police tool!

[eltonito]

Yes, that's exactly what they has to do.

Or maybe the cops would just pull over the other 93.5678% of the speeding population that doesn't own an iPhone.

Re:Great police tool!

[Ecuador]

Naah. The 6.4322% of smug iPhone-owning speeding population is the one that deserves to be caught :D

Re:Great police tool!

[NotmyNick]

Or maybe the cops would just pull over the other 93.5678% of the speeding population that doesn't own an iPhone.

Why would they give up the revenue from that 6.4322% of the population that has so visibly demonstrated a willingness to be parted with their money? ;~)

Indeed PD Greed Needs Speedsters to Speed

[GMonkeyLouie]

I like that way of looking at it. It won't really affect police departments in my area that much because, as this is a college town, the police focus on handing out PAULAs (possession of alcohol under legal age) as their cash cow, but could the mainstreaming of speed trap avoidance tech potentially have huge impacts on some county's cash flow through their police departments?

Not that you could even realistically dam this river.

On another note, I saw an ad for a "radar detector detector detector" a few years ago. It's amazing what lengths people will go to in order to speed without ticket paranoia.

Re:Indeed PD Greed Needs Speedsters to Speed

[maxume]

If you are in the wrong pool (young, nice car, recent ticket, collision), a ticket can easily add hundreds of dollars to your insurance costs. If you are going to speed anyway, the detector is an investment.

(I don't have any evasion devices and don't make speeding a habit, but I know of other people's experience)

Re:Indeed PD Greed Needs Speedsters to Speed

[Macrat]

If you are rich, you sign up for "traffic school" and the point never appears on your license.

Positive feedback my ass!

[Anonymous Coward]

The company insists they've received only positive feedback from law enforcement officials and police officers regarding their products. 'If the application gets people to slow down, I think it's generally considered to be a good thing,' said Atkinson."

Riiight. The main purpose of speed traps, photo radar and red light cameras is not to improve safety, but to generate revenue.

Where I live (Toronto, Canada), motorists have actually been ticketed for warning drivers about speed traps: http://www.wheels.ca/article/asset/167046

However, the ticket for warning is complete BS - if you actually go to a judge, the judge will throw it out, since there is no law against warning other drivers. Of course, you have to take time off work to fight it, which is more expensive than paying (for some of us).

Speed up

[Bezultek]

In California the problem isn't people driving too fast, it's people driving too slow. By all means, slow down when the conditions merit it. But why must people drive stop before turning, go slow because there is an accident on the other side of the freeway, etc?

I appreciate anything that keeps the traffic moving. What we really need is an app to disable the speed trap.

Re:Speed up

[Anonymous Coward]

That's everywhere, not just california.

Try getting stuck behind 3 lanes of 35mph cars in a 75mph zone because someone is getting a ticket on the other side of the divided road

Re:Speed up

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

..."go slow because there is an accident on the other side of the freeway, etc?"

Because it's dangerous to drive fast when you're gawking out the side window to get a good view of the carnage you're passing. Actually, that's too optimistic -- it's probably because they can't get a good look if they're going fast.

Re:Speed up

[shutdown -p now]

But why must people drive stop before turning

Because they need to check for the upcoming traffic, and they know they don't have Superman reflexes and spotting ability?

I'd rather have people drive more cautious than needed than more reckless than they can handle. The cost of the former is, at most, a few minutes lost. The cost of a latter can be a human life.

Re:Speed up

[Anonymous Coward]

70 mph is speeding ? here in soviet germany speeding starts at 140mph.

Crazy Idea

[RAMMS EIN]

``the ultimate speed trap repository available to you when you need it most while you're driving.''

Or you could just not drive so fast you would get a ticket. I know, I am totally out of touch with reality and my ideas are correspondingly crazy. But I'll happily take a few minutes extra travel time and have a relaxed ride, because I don't have to worry about law enforcement and other drivers slowing me down.

Re:Crazy Idea

[Nyeerrmm]

Unfortunately, there are situations when its not really about that... its small towns that have sudden speed drops and try to take advantage of it. Take the speed trap town I hit a couple of nights ago. The speed limit dropped from 70 to 55, I saw the sign as I was about to pass it (it was night, I didn't have my high-beams on), and began to slow down just as I passed into the zone. I didn't see the cop until I was in the middle of the town, at the proper speed limit (I think it was 35), when he turned on his lights and I noticed the car that had pulled out behind me was a cop.

He ticketed me for 15 over without any questions, no acknowledgement of the fact that I was in the process of obeying the limit, just didn't feel like slamming on the brakes, hurting my car and ruining my gas mileage. The fact that the 1-5mph over fine is $165, should be more than clear that this is not about public safety, but about trying to extract money from the people driving through. They finally put in a nicer convenience store that I was planning to stop at, not going to now... however, I think the $200 they made off the ticket is more than any loss of business the town as a whole will lose now. Also, though I don't recall exactly how the signs were arranged, I wouldn't be surprised if they set up the speed limit signs so that they were hard to see.

So yes, sometimes it is an issue of people needing to slow down, however, it isn't always... it's small towns using one of their biggest resources, the highways that go through them, to generate revenue at the expense of those traveling through.

Re:Crazy Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

you probably are. heres a novel idea - how about driving at a safe speed so that you dont get rear ended and annoy other drivers while slowing down for speed traps like everyone else ? most speed limits are waay below safe speed limtis so if you are driving below the speed limit youre driving too slow and unsafe for conditions.

Re:Crazy Idea

[Wrath0fb0b]

Or you could just not drive so fast you would get a ticket. I know, I am totally out of touch with reality and my ideas are correspondingly crazy. But I'll happily take a few minutes extra travel time and have a relaxed ride, because I don't have to worry about law enforcement and other drivers slowing me down.

I fully acknowledge your preference for that particular driving style. Now, would you acknowledge my preference to get where I'm going at a speed that I find comfortable without being hassled all the time? Or do you expect me to agree that your preferences are acceptable but mine, alas, are not?

Re:Crazy Idea

[iangoldby]

I completely agree.

I was once front passenger with a friend driving back from Scotland. He is quite a strong character and has a car that could reach 150 mph without breaking into a sweat. He likes to set the cruise control to 90 (legal limit 70), and on this occasion he asked me to help keep an eye out for speed traps.

I have to say that I was completely at a loss. I felt morally obliged to help since he was giving me a lift, but at the same time deeply uneasy at the thought of helping him to cheat the system.

As it happened, I am so unused to watching for speed traps that he was the one who spotted all of them anyway.

Re:Crazy Idea

[Renraku]

1. A few extra minutes of travel time.

2. Safety risk if other drivers are mostly going above the speed limit (Atlanta highways, for example)

3. There'll always be people going ten under that you have to pass, and since you're such a good driver, you're not going to speed in the passing lane..causing severe traffic flow problems behind you.

4. If people can get away with it, people will do it. If there were snipers on every bridge with anti-material rifles that shot every car that was speeding, no one would speed. However, since a cop can pull over one person at a time, and often there aren't 40 cops at each speed trap...

5. Most speed limits are WAY TOO LOW for their roads. Some highways engineers developed to be traveled on at 70MPH are marked down to 45MPH to improve revenue and 'safety'

Re:Crazy Idea

[durdur]

Every time this topic comes up I hear a list of excuses for speeding. But IMHO speeding is just a bad habit and most of the excuses are lame. And none of them will fly if you find yourself in front of a traffic court judge.

Re:Crazy Idea

[mgblst]

Yes, who would expect a town to have a lower speed limit than a highway, that is just madness. Why should I, as a driver, have to think about stupid stuff like that. I don't give a shit about some stupid people in a town, who happen to be crossing the road. Screw em. It is me who is the victim. I have a right to drive like a maniac, with no concern to anyone else. It is the american way!

Re:Crazy Idea

[Nyeerrmm]

I apologize, I guess I didn't make my point clearly enough. It is well within the town governments right and responsibility to set speed laws and enforce them within their city limits. My problem is when they abuse those laws for the primary purpose of revenue generation.

If the goal was public safety the officer would have noticed that I was slowing down as he clocked me, and continued to slow down to obey the speed limit of the town, respecting the laws put in place by the town in which I was a guest. While I was technically going faster than the speed limit, there's a reason why the speed limits are imposed a little outside of town, to allow people to slow down in time, and fulfill the public safety goals of those laws. It's not as though I were blazing down Main street at 70mph.

Again, I'm sorry, I never meant to imply I have no respect for the laws of a small town.

Re:Crazy Idea

[Free the Cowards]

Sometimes you can't see the town until you're practically on top of both the town and their deliberately hidden speed limit sign. You consummate asshole.

Re:Crazy Idea

[RAMMS EIN]

Having been in the States, I know you are right. They can and do put in place ridiculous and hard to notice restrictions, with the apparent aim of generating revenue. I believe the problem here is that the police actually _can_ generate revenue by dealing out tickets (and have to, according to what I've heard). This, of course, provides an incentive for them to fine people as much as possible as often as possible. I don't think that's a good idea, so I think the way the police are paid should be changed.

Re:Crazy Idea

[RAMMS EIN]

Addressing your points one by one:

1. A few extra minutes of travel time.

This is a disadvantage, but I feel it's offset by having a more relaxed trip. This is personal preference, though.

2. Safety risk if other drivers are mostly going above the speed limit (Atlanta highways, for example)

The safety risk is there, but only if the speed difference is so great that the speeding drivers from behind can't slow down in time. Since they are exceeding the speed limit, I hold that the blame for this risk fits squarely on their shoulders.

3. There'll always be people going ten under that you have to pass, and since you're such a good driver, you're not going to speed in the passing lane..causing severe traffic flow problems behind you.

That is to say, assuming there are people behind you who are exceeding the speed limit. The "traffic flow problems" you speak of are that they can not continue to travel at the speed they wanted to travel at, but instead have to stick to the speed limit. Which, actually, they are legally required to anyway. In the end, them having to slow down is caused as much by my sticking to the speed limit as by their exceeding it. And, well, they will just have to excuse me for not wanting to break the law so that they can go faster than what is allowed.

``4. If people can get away with it, people will do it. If there were snipers on every bridge with anti-material rifles that shot every car that was speeding, no one would speed. However, since a cop can pull over one person at a time, and often there aren't 40 cops at each speed trap...''

Yes. People will speed. I concede that.

``5. Most speed limits are WAY TOO LOW for their roads. Some highways engineers developed to be traveled on at 70MPH are marked down to 45MPH to improve revenue and 'safety'''

Agreed. If you want to raise those speed limits, I'm with you. If you want to change the system so that there is no more incentive to maximize income from traffic fines, I'm definitely with you.

Meanwhile, though, I will continue to comply with existing laws, and I won't feel a whit of sympathy for people who get annoyed because they want to exceed the speed limit and I don't. It's not my fault that the speed limits are what they are, and the speed difference between them and me is their own choice.

Re:Crazy Idea

[wiz_80]

The point is not to beat a single ticket in front of the judge or locally applicable authority. The point is that the concept itself of "speeding = bad" is simplistic and, not to put too fine a point on it, wrong.

All measurements below in km/h, since that is what the limits are set in where I live and where I do most of my driving.

The "historic centre" of the city I live in has the limit set to 30. I always respect this, as "historic" means medieval sight-lines and surfaces, which in turn means that you can't see more than a short way ahead and can't brake anyway.

On the other hand, there is a blanket limit of 50 on all of the rest of the city, including one particular road which is a two-lane dual-carriageway, fenced off from other streets, no traffic lights, pedestrian crossing, sidewalk or roundabout. The traffic police, of course, are often found there, as it is perfectly safe to do more than twice the 50 limit - but this will lose you your licence and gain you a hefty fine.

On the motorway there is a blanket 130 limit, enforced by average-speed systems. However, no distinction is made between doing 130 in rush-hour traffic, which is idiotic and dangerous but legal, and doing 190 at 3 AM when there is nobody else on the road, which is perfectly safe (barring atmospheric conditions or bad vehicle maintenance) but highly illegal, licence-losing and nicely revenue-generating for the traffic cops.

As long as the system is set up so dishonestly, I will drive to the conditions and to my abilities, and only refer to the speed limits for fine-avoidance purposes. Of course, if I do get caught I realize that I don't have a leg to stand on, legally speaking, but I don't think that affects my moral point at all.

Re:Crazy Idea

[zolaar]

They finally put in a nicer convenience store that I was planning to stop at, not going to now...

Next time, consider going into the store anyway and telling the shopkeeper what happened and why you're not going to buy anything from him. Wouldn't hurt to do this at all the shops on the strip in question (if you have the time).

If enough people did this, the law might just eventually change.

Actually, it decreases security

[iris-n]

A scientific study showed that the deadliest parts of the road are those immediately after the speed traps [citation needed]. Of course, when they are publicly displayed (as they are required by law to be in Brasil).

Although I can't remember the source, it does make sense, as people generally slow down just before the speed traps, and accelerate after. Thus, you're just creating a zone in the road where everyone is accelerating, thus having less handling and increased likelihood of crashes.

Of course, that would only happen in this case if a significant percentage of the drives uses the service, which I find unlikely.

-ster

[Trillan]

The -ster suffix seems to have evolved to mean "We acknowledge at some level that this will probably get us shut down sooner or later."

Best way to beat a speed trap

[Anonymous Coward]

If everyone observes the speed limit, eventually it will become very unprofitable for cops to spend their time giving tickets.

Less cops with radars equates to less speed traps.

Federal, County and Cities make huge profits off of criminal behavior. Supposly getting $100 per inmate per day in jail, this in turn causes cops to act criminal and aggressive in getting more inmates "into the system" for profit.

Many states use this as a form of state industry, and with a poor economy, is only going to get worse.

No witnesses, no evidence, be polite and keep your mouth shut.

Stop rebelling and just pretend to be playing the lawful game.

What you do in secret is your business, if you keep it that way.

Phone.com

[rthille]

I'm no fan of Phone.com, but they had a similar app years ago. We heard about it via the corporate (!) announcement when we (Software.com) merged with them. I thought it made the company look like a bunch of fucktards, but what do I know.

Re:Phone.com

[Gothmolly]

If you worked at a place called "software.com" then you probably WERE a bunch of fucktards.

Re:Phone.com

[rthille]

Well, Software.com was started in the early 90's to sell software over the internet, but the 4 guys who started it consulted to pay the bills before the whole internet thing took off. They were setting up sendmail for someone when they decided that 'they could do it better'. That spawned Post.office a pretty nice mail system that was very easy to configure & run, though not super scalable. They merged with Accordance and created InterMail Mx, a _seriously_ scalable mail server system that would run distributed across a cluster and handle millions of subscribers without breathing hard. So no, we weren't a bunch of fucktards.

But you, posting on Slashdot from your mom's basement, you're another story.

Bollocks to that

[JamesRose]

Locating speed cameras means people can slow down to avoid a fine and then speed up again- not slow down to be safer. If they were truly trying to help people drive safer how about "WARNING! SCHOOL AHEAD" or "WARNING HIDDEN EXIT AHEAD", no, because slowing down for a speed camera is more rewrd than slowing down and driving safely around risky areas.

Re:Bollocks to that

[Anonymous Coward]

"Locating speed cameras means people can slow down to avoid a fine and then speed up again- not slow down to be safer. If they were truly trying to help people drive safer how about "WARNING! SCHOOL AHEAD" or "WARNING HIDDEN EXIT AHEAD", no, because slowing down for a speed camera is more rewrd than slowing down and driving safely around risky areas."

Hi, I'm the one of the developers for NMobile, one of the mentioned apps.

We are adding this sort of data to the app. I think the article noted we plan to add road work and accident data for version 1.1. Certainly we will be adding more of this sort of data wherever we can find it. The idea behind this app isn't cheating speed traps, it's all about driving safely.

Re:Bollocks to that

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

What would be really useful, rather than having to rely on some electronic gizmo bleeping, would be some sort of indication at the side of the road - perhaps a large metal plate with some writing on it attached to a pole?

Re:Bollocks to that

[Uberbah]

Easy: because traffic fines have little to do with enforcing safe driving, and a whole lot to do with generating revenue. They should just be honest about it and call it a sin tax like they do for alcohol or cigarettes.

Re:Bollocks to that

[JamesRose]

Yes but the electronic warnings can be made much more relevant, ie, No warning for a school at 2 AM in the middle of summer.

Speep-ups

[microhard_googler]

And i thought the heading implied an improvement in running time of applications which were slowing down due to driver bottlenecks(i.e speed traps for drivers)

Corrected title

[quattr0]

New Apps Help Drivers Beat Speed Traps for Blackberry, iPhone and Nokia N95

There you have it. Even in alphabemodel orders.

In other news

[Aranykai]

Local police have found a new way to setup surprise speed traps. It stems from an application on the popular iPhone that allows drivers to avoid known speed traps. Now officers just avoid these locations and catch the drivers before or after they exit the alleged "safe zones".

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlikely. Local police are usually restricted by the geography and speed zones to where they set up their traps. For instance I saw one at the bottom of a hill, which also happens to be a school zone. Putting it before or after is unlikely to generate as many tickets.

Re:In other news

[shutdown -p now]

Putting it before or after is unlikely to generate as many tickets.

Well, as GP pointed out, it's much more likely now with this release, isn't it?

Speed traps are old news anyway

[lagfest]

Stretch control is the new hotness.

On a freeway, set up ANPR cameras on all the ramps, and bust the drivers on their average speed.

Re:Speed traps are old news anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought I was done being tortured by the mean value theorem when I left highschool!

Pretty intresting concept.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty interesting concept, although doubtful this will be very useful in the long run as another user already noted the maps will eventually all be hot spots. I do think it would be great if car manufactures started to implement radar detectors with all GPS equipped models. I would like to see some sort of distributed radar alert system. I think it could essentially work like this : Car A, B, and C, are on hypothetical highway, car A is leading a mile or so in front of B, and C. I would like to see the systems pick up the radar from car A, and send an alert beacon to all the vehicles on hypothetical highway that are equipped with the same system, with the radar location pinpointed on the GPS navi display.

Re:Pretty intresting concept.

[xaxa]

Pretty interesting concept, although doubtful this will be very useful in the long run as another user already noted the maps will eventually all be hot spots. I do think it would be great if car manufactures started to implement radar detectors with all GPS equipped models. I would like to see some sort of distributed radar alert system. I think it could essentially work like this : Car A, B, and C, are on hypothetical highway, car A is leading a mile or so in front of B, and C. I would like to see the systems pick up the radar from car A, and send an alert beacon to all the vehicles on hypothetical highway that are equipped with the same system, with the radar location pinpointed on the GPS navi display.

If they're going to do that, then I'd like to see an option for the car to receive the speed limit of the road and limit the car to that, and 70mph (for the UK anyway, obviously other countries vary) anyway.

Not completely new

[Anonymous Coward]

Both of those apps aren't NEW as stated in the the title. Trapster has been out for almost 2 months, although NMobile is only 1.5 weeks old.

And, they're stupid.

[Bozdune]

I agree, speeding tickets are a bullshit money maker 90% of the time. But think about it -- how stupid are they, using these old fashioned methods? Why not get serious and raise some real money?

I live in Massachusetts. The Mass Pike (I90) is a limited access highway with toll stations on all on/off ramps. Your time on is clocked. Your time off is clocked. By DeMoivre's Theorem, if your average speed is greater than the speed limit, you must have exceeded said speed limit at some point. So, just hand everyone a ticket as they leave the highway, if their average speed was X% higher than the posted speed limit (65) (or mail them one if they use EasyPass).

Here's a related revenue generation idea: triple the rent for all the McDonald's etc. on the I90 service plazas. Hell, open a bunch of new service plazas. People who want to speed will stop (they'll have to, unless they want a ticket). Here's another idea: for a buck, they can feed their turnpike ticket into a machine and it will tell them when it's safe to continue at the posted speed limit without getting a speeding ticket. Idiots who can't do arithmetic will be feeding dollar bills into these machines day in and day out.

Re:And, they're stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the Mean Value Theorem, not DeMoivre's Theorem.

Re:And, they're stupid.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So, just hand everyone a ticket as they leave the highway, if their average speed was X% higher than the posted speed limit (65) (or mail them one if they use EasyPass).

Which will have all kinds of unintended side-effects. Like people stopping 100 feet before the exit and waiting for 30 seconds, "just to be sure" they don't get a ticket. And people deciding they would rather take the back roads instead of the turnpike. Things like that. Depending on their specific response, as little as a handful of people per day could seriously screw up the system of commuting. And since commuting, not ticketing, is the reason for the existence of the turnpike, I don't see your ideas being particularly successful.

Re:And, they're stupid.

[iangoldby]

Here in Nottingham we have average speed cameras all the way around the ring road. As you suggest, the system is impossible to beat - you simply cannot get from one end to the other in less time than it would take at the legal speed limit, without paying a fine.

As a result, compliance is almost 100%. The system doesn't make any money. In fact it costs considerably more to administer than it brings in by fines.

I personally think this is an excellent system. The council cannot be accused of installing 'revenue cameras'. Everyone obeys the law. There are no cheats (you know, the ones who have the speed trap gadget on their dashboard and endanger everyone by slamming on the brakes at each camera, but never get caught) and everyone is equal.

Similar systems are now being introduced along motorway road works too.

And contrary to what a few other respondents suggest, nobody stops just before the exit camera '"just to be sure" they don't get a ticket', and nobody takes the back roads - they are even slower. It just works - in every respect other than making revenue for the authorities, which is how it should be.

Re:And, they're stupid.

[Bozdune]

I stand corrected.

Re:And, they're stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a result, compliance is almost 100%. The system doesn't make any money. In fact it costs considerably more to administer than it brings in by fines.

A single speed camera in Nottinghamshire has caught almost 76,000 motorists in five years - £4.2m in fines

Even funnier is the doublespeak from the camera company about how they measure success of a camera, without answering the obvious question of how successful this camera has been by their official criteria.

Re:And, they're stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Point of Clarification:

    I do believe you mean the Mean Value Theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_value_theorem.
Police did hand out tickets for this, many years
ago... but the practice was thrown out by the
courts. I forget the grounds.

Re:And, they're stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and how much does it cost to install and operate the cameras, and carry out all the related administrative tasks? Just because you can point to money coming in, it doesn't mean the government has profited from them.

Re:And, they're stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Route 2 is much better drive. Plus, west of Orange, there's only 2 places where speed traps are common.

Re:And, they're stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that well over 15,000 violations per year is far from "almost 100%" compliance.

Re:And, they're stupid.

[iangoldby]

That article from the BBC is from 2005 - three years ago when the cameras were still quite new.

Here's an article from the Times: Drivers will have no escape from new speed cameras. It's not the one from the BBC from a few months ago that I was looking for, but it makes the point. One penalty per 10000 drivers is near 100 per cent compliance in my book.

Here's another article: Speed Really Does Kill. As the article acknowledges, people don't like the evidence, but

On a section of the M1 with a contraflow system in place casualty numbers fell by half when a simple pairing of average speed cameras - the precursor to the new system - was installed.

In Nottingham, average speed cameras appear to have delivered a 53 per cent long-term reduction in deaths and serious injuries on one stretch of dual carriageway, and a 75 per cent casualty reduction on another. Data from similar projects in Northampton and South Yorkshire are even more impressive.

But for those still unconvinced, there is some consolation. Where average speed cameras have been tried, compliance is so high that the revenue to local authorities from fines is virtually nil.

Re:And, they're stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

That article from the BBC is from 2005 - three years ago when the cameras were still quite new.

According to the cited article, the cameras were 5 years old in 2005.

One penalty per 10000 drivers is near 100 per cent compliance in my book.

And what was the compliance rate before hand?

In Nottingham, average speed cameras appear to have delivered a 53 per cent long-term reduction in deaths and serious injuries on one stretch of dual carriageway, and a 75 per cent casualty reduction on another. Data from similar projects in Northampton and South Yorkshire are even more impressive.

Percentages are meaningless without actual numbers. A 75% reduction in casualties? That could easily mean 4 broken legs per year before the cameras and 1 broken leg after the cameras. It is interesting that the person writing the article is pro-camera, yet relies on questionable statistics and suspicious wording -- grouping deaths and serious injuries into a single percentage, almost as if the hard numbers would reveal a flaw in her argument.

Re:And, they're stupid.

[iangoldby]

One penalty per 10000 drivers is near 100 per cent compliance in my book.

And what was the compliance rate before hand?

My point is that 1 penalty in 10000 drivers is near 100 per cent compliance. To be specific, it is 99.99 per cent. Thus the evidence backs up my previous assertion, which was questioned.

Given this, it is easy to believe that the cameras are not a generator of revenue for the authorities. The final quote I took from the Times article also confirms this.

It's not often that I have such clear evidence to back up something I wrote on Slashdot. Make the most of it ;-)

In Soviet UK ...

[DrogMan]

Speed, er "safety" cameras are everywhere - but most of the time they're fixed, so there exists databases of "point of interest" to download into most GPSs. (Along with the speed the camera is set to). Even the mobile/temporary ones are usually at known locations, so they're included too. So anyone with a GPS who gets caught speeding deserves what they get... We've also had average speed cameras for a while now too - number plate recognition (ANPR). I deal with these using cruise control, but it really irritates me when people decide "OMG, what speed have I been doing..." then slow down to a crawl 250 metres before the next camera... And I'm sure that as the variable ones are video, they'll just get added to the total surveillance society we're sleepwalking into...

For revenue ? This is so stupid

[aepervius]

If people RESPECTED the FRIGGING speed limit, no matter what their opinion are on what the maximum speed should be at that place, then there would be NO revenue. The problem is that people think they are ENTITLED to have whatever the speed they think they can handle. I am on my side pretty sick of getting nearly killed once per year by stupid idiot which think law don't apply to them. Please : put a speed radar at every corner street....

Re:For revenue ? This is so stupid

[Archangel_Azazel]

Actually, I think I'm entitled to drive SAFELY. Unless of course you think that driving a Yukon XL at 40 while cutting 4 cars off doing a triple lane change is "safe"...I mean, he WAS doing under the posted speed limit right?

--"I am on my side pretty sick of getting nearly killed once per year by stupid idiot which think law don't apply to them"--

How about 4-5 times a *DAY*? Then again, I see the police speed like hell all the time for no reason (no lights, sirens, etc. people get out of their way by habit...and they just accelerate) Someone else in this thread mentioned seeing police flip their lights on just to get through a red light and things like that... happens all the time around here. We like to call our police the "Toilet Paper Department" (I live in a city that starts with a "t") because they're just shitty around here. /end rant

A_A

Re:For revenue ? This is so stupid

[Xistenz99_2000]

I agree with you 100%, keep on ranting

Re:For revenue ? This is so stupid

[jo_ham]

So just because someone cuts up 4 cars in a 3-lane change doing less the the speed limit somehow means that it's ok for you to drive faster than the speed limit because you don;t do that?

It's not eye for an eye out there - if a cop sees someone pull that sort of thing they will pull them over for dangerous driving, even if they were *gasp* under the speed limit.

Re:For revenue ? This is so stupid

[Stiletto]

SO, if the speed limit was changed to 5MPH, it's unreasonable to believe you're entitled to drive faster?

Speed limits are set arbitrarily and have absolutely nothing to do with safety.

Re:For revenue ? This is so stupid

[Gendou]

I am on my side pretty sick of getting nearly killed once per year

If you find yourself in near-accidents this frequently, the bad driver is probably you.

Proposing a new name...

[Neodudeman]

Should be called the Pocket Akbar,

because, when it doubt, it's probably a trap.

Re:Proposing a new name...

[Muad'Dave]

Should be called the Pocket Akbar, because, when it doubt, it's probably a trap.

And my tongue can't repel radar of _that_ magnitude!

good strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Just drive a bit slower than the fastest driver on the road.

At a light edge forward like you are going to take off, then start normally. Many times someone will take the bait and tear off. If you can, let another driver clear the road for you!

Re:In Soviet UK ...

[Tony Hoyle]

Not that you need a database... they're painted in flourescent yellow FFS. You'd have to be speeding *and* blind to miss them. And all the 'warning speed camera' signs leading up to them.

Also there's a 10%+3mph leeway on the cameras so you don't get hosed if you're a couple of mph over for some reason.

People slowing down is a big problem - the one near us has near permanent skid marks leading up to it as boy racers seem to try to brake at the last minute. Surprisingly there have been comparatively few accidents.

http://advices-blog.blogspot.com/

[Anonymous Coward]

I am absolutely surprised with this fact

Price of a speeding ticket?

[geekmux]

"The company insists they've received only positive feedback from law enforcement officials and police officers regarding their products. 'If the application gets people to slow down, I think it's generally considered to be a good thing,'"

Don't get me wrong, slowing down is a good thing overall, but I'm wondering how LE will feel in a year or two when revenue from speeding violations drops 400%, thereby slicing into departmental budgets?

And you thought gas prices were bad last year? Wait until they readjust the prices due to decreased revenue and you pay $350 for that parking ticket. Pay me now, or pay me later...

Re:Price of a speeding ticket?

[Free the Cowards]

Supporting a government budget on the basis of fines collected from illegal activities is reprehensible. It's an obvious conflict of interest and I'm frankly amazed that people allow it to be done at all.

not new ...

[Anonymous Coward]

the articles are distracting. it's more fun to rant.

Skyping the iPhone.

[Ostracus]

How timely. iPhone and apps. I'd like to have a cellular phone with Wi-Fi for the home. However for some reason Skype isn't available on the iPhone. Anyone know of a viable solution?

Re:Skyping the iPhone.

[BubbaJonBoy]

You should do better research - there are many ways to Skype on the iPhone.

Re:Skyping the iPhone.

[Ostracus]

Without jailbreaking the phone?

Re:Skyping the iPhone.

[BubbaJonBoy]

Well that's one way of course - but look for a free app, Fring, that allows Skype calls.

Re:Too Many Functionally Illiterate Posters

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me one case where "there/their/they're", "your/you're", "it's/its" is ambiguous is ANY usage (as in, the purpose of the grammar changes with different usage of these words), and I will show you an internet of people using proper grammar.

HINT: NEVER GONNA HAPPEN

Re:In Soviet UK ...

[jo_ham]

That's what gets me about the whole thing - hate rags like The Daily Mail go on and on about "law abiding citizens" like "doctors, lawyers and judges" are being "vicitimised" by the police with speeding fines from cameras instead of catching "real criminals" (no joke, they actually went with that as a story), yet the speed cameras have warning signs before them, very well posted speed signs, and to top it all off, they are Bright Fucking Fluorescent Yellow and the law states that they can not be put up where they are impossible to see (ie, they can't be behind a sign, or behind a tree).

The conclusion to draw, as you did, is that if you can't see a speed camera in the UK, or complain that you got caught by one, is that you must not be paying attention to the road, so what the hell are you doing driving a car?

I'm not one of those people that monitors my speed every 5 seconds, but I generally stick to the limits (more more carefully in urban areas, slightly more relaxed on country roads - ie, I think I'm much like most motorists) and I've never been caught by a speed camera or a mobile speed van, even in areas I've never driven before.

All this moaning that they're "nothing but tax collecting boxes" is just people complaining that they were too stupid to see the box and slow down. Or they could just drive at or very close to the posted speed limit and not get a ticket.

People have no grounding to complain about cameras taxing "the hard done to British motorist" because, by definition, they only fine you if you break the law in the first place!

This information is public in sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a site that lists all speed cameras in Sweden, you can look at a map or download a excel spreadsheet with coordinates for the cameras.

http://www.vv.se/templates/page3wide____16018.aspx

This is the site of the Swedish road administration. Not a community driven site.

Same with manual speeding controls, they are announced before on the swedish police own website. Of course most people don't know about it or even if they do, probably don't check it regularly. I certainly don't.

http://www.polisen.se/inter/nodeid=31072&pageversion=1.jsp

Here's and idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just drive the speed limit? People are always finding better ways to be assholes.

Only 35 round pedestrians, how terrible

[fantomas]

How terrible that you're not allowed to drive at 70 in small towns where people cross roads, old people and kids walk to the shops, etc.

Fair call there should be some warning - but isn't approaching a town a warning that a speed reduction might be coming up? Or do you have towns where the speed limit is 70 so potentially there could be confusion to drivers what the speed limit should be?

Re:Only 35 round pedestrians, how terrible

[Free the Cowards]

I'd like to know what area you live in where the precise boundary of a town can be sighted from so far off.

Around where I live, there are these things called hills and trees which often prevent me from sighting a collection of dwellings until I am essentially in it. A drastic change in speed limit with no warning placed in the right location will have me driving at what appears to be a safe speed for conditions and terrain, and suddenly have to heavily brake for the changed speed limit.

If they want to lower the speed limit in town, fine. Post the sign in a place which gives me sufficient warning to slow down smoothly.

Re:Only 35 round pedestrians, how terrible

[fantomas]

Good point, some clarification needed on my behalf. In the UK (where I live) there's a set of guidelines that the road agencies have to adhere to with their signage anywhere in the country on public roads. So if you're moving from 70mph roads to a town boundary, there should be a clear sign at a fiar distance indicating the town is coming up, and a clear sign indicating that the speed limit is changing. See this doc: apparently it's the "Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB)" which includes instructions for local authorities and construction contractors on where to place road signs.

If you take your driving test, you get tested on The Highway Code which explains from a driver's point of view where you will find signs and what sort of warning you'll get of changing road conditions.

I am assuming that in your country (the USA?) there's a similar set of documents. Mind you it sounds like you're implying it's not as well thought out, or local authorities don't adhere to sensible standards?
 

Re:Only 35 round pedestrians, how terrible

[Free the Cowards]

As a federal system, the US is considerably more complicated. I honestly don't know exactly how it's set up. There are nationwide federal standards, but they probably aren't comprehensive and won't apply to all roads. Roads are owned/maintained by either the individual states or the individual counties, and sometimes they're built using federal money with certain strings attached like maintaining federal standards on those roads, so you can see where it gets kind of complicated.

Beyond the standards, there's also the enforcement of them. A town might put up a deliberately difficult speed limit change and get away with it because there are no applicable standards which say they can't. Or such a thing might actually be illegal but nobody's enforcing that fact. Either way, you as the driver are screwed.

The US tends to put more power into local governments than many places. This is actually a good thing in many ways, but stupid fee-grabbing town governments are one of the downsides to it.

You should help

[Anonymous Coward]

To make sure people are alert, when traveling at highway speeds, jam on the brakes in front of them. They will appreciate your keeping them alert.

Won't work

[tkrotchko]

Speed cameras will gladly ticket all the drivers, and you won't realize until too late.

Gee, what a brilliant idea

[Mac_8100_g3]

Because obeying traffic laws is such a waste of time.

Re:Too Many Functionally Illiterate Posters

[geminidomino]

Ingo: Werewolf!
Fredrick: Werewolf?
Igor: There wolf.
Fredric: What?
Igor: There, wolf. There, castle.

Sounds familiar

[Golddess]

Hmm, now where have I heard about this Trapster product before?

Alternate solution

[Anonymous Coward]

You could operate your vehicle at a safe and lawful speed.

who cares?

[speedtux]

Are we going to get a separate Slashdot story every time some iPhone developer or Apple clones an application that people on other platforms have been using for years?

Or speed, but with some common sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the problem is those who insist on speeding, but not knowing when, where, and to what level it's appropriate.

Parking lots: There's usually nothing posted. But don't go any faster than what a normal person can jog. (10MPH) Don't drive like an asshat where the space is tight, people are walking around carting stuff, and SUVs/Vans making visibility hell for anyone else. If you're being a tool and hit somebody, I will gladly vouch for the soccer mom backing up her minivan or the guy whose shopping cart you hit.

Residential streets: Don't speed. If little Timmy rides out carelessly on his big wheel it's still going to be your fucking fault. Too many blind corners, driveways, and random shit on the roadsides to actually speed in a safe manner. If there's a lot of parked cars or signs of kids (yard toy clutter) it's actually better to go a bit slower than what is posted.

Major city streets with moderate traffic: Give/take 5mph. Go with the flow.

Boulevards/local highways: Up to 10 over. Again, see what's reasonable with the flow.

Interstates/major highways: Up to about 15 over. But if you're pushing much past 70MPH, you're usually on your own. (If lane rules were enforced and roads maintained, I actually wouldn't have any problems allowing for autobahn speeds. But this is the States, and the majority occasionally ruins things. So 70MPH or so seems to be the defacto top end even when it's not the posted speed.)

Exceptions: Construction zones or traffic jams. Not worth the risk of trying to get around stuff to go faster. Just tough it out as it drags along like everyone else. Shitty quality roads probably fall under this category too, but those tend to enforce their own speed limit without much thought involved.

Bad weather: Again don't speed. If you can't see jack shit or have borderline control of your vehicle at the posted limit, what is the logic in going faster? Slow down if you need to, and even turn on your hazards if someone is approaching too fast in your rear view mirror.

If you follow these rules of thumb, and limit your speeding to go mostly with the flow - there's usually no problems. And you don't need a gadget either, the area of red tail lights up ahead should give a nice clue to coast down. The exception is if you're riding at 3AM on empty highways where you could shoot through Dodge, then you might need a gadget.

From my own personal experience, I find the biggest cases of ass-hattery are those who go 45 MPH on a 65MPH interstate, yet also insist on going 45MPH in a 25MPH residential area. If anyone has their licence pulled, it should be those people. And why they're allowed to drive in the first place is beyond me.

Stupid Stupid Stupid.....

[IHC Navistar]

Great, just great.

Now, when someone speeds through a speed trap, they:

1) Pick up their iPhone

2) Boot the application, and root through the menus to enter all the information: login information, date, time, location, type of trap, city, state, country, what type of road, department, details of where the cop is located, etc. .....All while DRIVING down the street/freeway etc. So now to warn others about a speed trap (provided they have an iPhone AND are traveling the same route you are), you have to drive AND do all the above mentioned steps.

Keep in mind, you may have avoided the speed trap, but now you place yourself at a *GREATLY* increased risk of an accident. Not to mention that using your iPhone, or cell phone, while driving can be considered illegal in many, many places now.

Also, speed traps move like crazy. They may b there one minute, and gone two minutes later.

A cheap radar detector would be much better.

Re:Stupid Stupid Stupid.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheap radar detectors are sadly not an option for many of us. I live in Ontario, Canada, in the land of fewer freedoms. Our Highway Traffic Act, the major (and endless) law governing all things roadish, has an entire section on how any "speed measuring warning device" is illegal, and using one will cost you a couple hundred bucks and three points off your licence (equivalent to a moderate speeding fine). I also found out the hard way, recently, that OPP cruisers who have speed traps set up also have detector-detectors and an uncanny ability to guess which car is about to donate a radar detector to the state. :-(

F$%&ing Cobra - the package even SAID it was invisible to detectors. Not the ones used up here, apparently...

In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

iPhone beats and traps you

it DOES NOT matter

[aepervius]

You can do civil disobedience if you want for stuff where the security of nobody else is involved , protest as much as you want, but if speed is set to 5mph on ALL road even speedway, you are BY LAW requested to respect it. That you feel entitled to break the law because you think you can drive safely at higher speed does not matter. In a CIVIL society you respect the law. If you can't do that you can as well go live away from the civil society. Just like burning a red light, going through a stop, parking haphazardly, etc.... Fact is, law are there to be respected. If you want to have them overturned there are legal way to do it. But braking the law and endangering other is not the way. As for "no safety involved" can you say that for *ALL* road at *ALL* speed limit in *ALL* condition and *ALL* environment ? Hint : you can't I can demonstrably show you at least 1 place where lowering the speed limit lowered the number of accident. And it might be that SOME speed limit are set to low, but YOU are not well placed to decide that on the fly for any road. By disrespecting speed limit you are possibly endangering other.

Re:it DOES NOT matter

[Hittman]

Big Brother just LOVES little sheep like you.

Orange and apple

[aepervius]

Comparing a car driving randomly and un-securely/haphazardly with over speeding is not the same. By your own type of stupid comparison i am entitled to burn all red light if I think it is safe. Fact is, you are entitled to RESPECT THE LAW and RESPECT THE SAFETY of OTHER. As for the police doing stupid shit, you are aware that they have to respect the SAME road law as you, as long as they have no light ? Note the number of the car and escalate to the court. Get people do the same. But breaking the law (speed limit) just because other people are doing stupid shit is really unbelievably uncivil and un-caring.

Personally I think if you are caught over speeding you should get your driving license removed for minimum 3 month. You just indeed proved you are not responsible enough to respect driving law.

Add iPhone to old idea - Profit!

[wiz_80]

How is this news? My old Navman GPS unit had this years ago. There is a CSV file, regularly updated, with the locations of fixed cameras and of regular stops. Importing the CSV file adds these locations as points of interest (PoIs), which are highlighted with a sound, an icon (different icons for fixed and mobile traps) and a distance indicator.

Of course we now have wunnerful average-speed systems, so it's a bit pointless these days, but that's a whole other rant.

This is all based on .it, so YMMV - or should that be Y*K*MV?

Again, nothing new!

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely nothing new... We've had this on real GPS equipped PocketPCs since... 5 years?

Get a life...

Just what we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

even more people pecking away at their phones while speeding!

Driving the limit is "suspicious behavior"

[LanMan04]

I read an interview with some highway patrol/state police chief/captain (I can't find the link, someone help me out) that stated that driving the speed limit was considered a suspicious behavior, just like avoiding eye-contact with the officer and other behavioral cues are considered suspicious

Read that again and let it sink in. The law is violated so often that police TARGET law-abiding citizens because the police think the law-abider is trying to stay "under the radar". You can get pulled over for not breaking the law.

That is fucking ridiculous.

But is this legal...

[Muad'Dave]

...in Virginia? Radar detectors are illegal here, so can the police now seize your iPhone because it can be used to avoid a ticket?

Re:In Soviet UK ...

[Uberbah]

One problem with your rant: speed limits have little to do with enforcing safety, and a whole lot to do with generating revenue. They're really a sin tax just like you'll find on cigarettes and alcohol.

Increase in sales of iPhone in the police communit

[root777]

If I was a cop, I would go get an iPhone, subscribe to this service, wait for a "vigilante" to report me, shift position, profit from the next guy speeding away

!new but...

[anonieuweling]

This is not new.
On almost any Windows-mobile compatible device you can run tomtom and with a POI file it can warn you, in advance, for speedtraps, cafes, malls, etc. So if the data would be interchangable this could be a win-win situation for both iPhone and TomTom users.

I always thought

[SCHecklerX]

...it would be a good idea to have red lights, emergency vehicles, construction vehicles, whatever send radar signals that would be seen by radar detectors. Then as you are approaching something that requires your attention, you would be alerted. A good use for increasing safety by what officials consider an evil technology that is already ubiquitous.

yet another thing I should patent....

Hmmmmm.....

[IHC Navistar]

"``the ultimate speed trap repository available to you when you need it most while you're driving.''"

It should read:

"``the ultimate repository of outdated speed trap information available to you when you need it most while you're driving.''"

Seeing as how cops frequently change places when monitoring speeds, the information in their "repository" becomes useless faster than you are driving.

This is just what women need!

[BBTHEMAN]

Great, so so now I will get behind a woman looking at her phone, instead of talking on it...