Slashdot Mirror


New Speed Cameras Catch You From Space

A new kind of speed camera that uses satellites to measure average speed over long distances is being tested in Britain. The "Speedspike" system combines plate reading technology with a global positioning satellite receiver to calculate average speed between any two points in the area being monitored. From the article: "Details of the trials are contained in a House of Commons report. The company said in its evidence that the cameras enabled 'number plate capture in all weather conditions, 24 hours a day.' It also referred to the system's 'low cost' and ease of installation." I can't wait to see the episode of MythBusters where they try to avoid getting a speeding ticket from a satellite.

62 of 351 comments (clear)

  1. Really? by AnonymousClown · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The AA said it would watch the system “carefully” but it did not believe there was anything sinister. “It is a natural evolution of the technology that is out there,” a spokesman said.

    Ones "Natural evolution" is another's slippery slope.

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    1. Re:Really? by vikingpower · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Technology does not have such a thing as "natural evolution". Technology's evolution is guided by human beings according to certain needs and rationales.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    2. Re:Really? by notommy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think this sort of evolution is what is known in the communistical circles as a police state. I still don't know how the Brits deal with this much intrusion into their lives.

  2. Horribly misleading by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Informative

    The cameras are here on earth. They're just synchronized using GPS so the system can tell how long a vehicle takes to go from one checkpoint to the next.

    Data sheet

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:Horribly misleading by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry about the broken link. The data sheet is here

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:Horribly misleading by natehoy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Drat. And here I was hoping that MythBusters really would try to debunk that myth, and in typical fashion conclude the episode by blowing the satellite out of the sky.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    3. Re:Horribly misleading by Lord+Lode · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The position and distance between the two camera checkpoints on Earth is known. And the time when you're at both checkpoints is known. Seems like a simple calculation to me. Why is there a satellite needed for this?

      If it were a camera on the satellite that recognizes the plates, now that would have been scary!

    4. Re:Horribly misleading by Thanshin · · Score: 2, Funny

      He's right. The cameras are ground based.

      The satellite is only needed in case a repeated offender has to be nuked from space.

    5. Re:Horribly misleading by wjousts · · Score: 3, Funny

      To compensate for continental drift?

    6. Re:Horribly misleading by Captain+Centropyge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My guess is they'll use some kind of straight-line calculation with compensation built in for taking roads rather than actually driving in a straight line in order to estimate someone's speed. But how can they really prove anything when they have no idea what route was taken and how fast the car actually went? Technically all they're doing is taking a photo of something in two different spots at two different times. There's nothing being done to actually measure speed directly. How do they come up with such an algorithm or calculation? Roads may have different speed limits. Unless they have speed cameras on every single road, there's no reliable way to actually come up with a solid number for their velocity. This is stupid. And I wouldn't be surprised if someone managed to get it tossed into obsolescence fairly quickly.

      --
      Bite my shiny metal ass!
    7. Re:Horribly misleading by pushing-robot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since the data sheet mentions that the cameras can endure long communications outages with the main network, they need a good way of tracking time. Putting a GPS receiver in to get accurate time signals may be cheaper than adding a very accurate clock.

      Embedding a GPS time code in images would also be more effective from a legal standpoint, since a defendant couldn't argue that the camera's internal clock was inaccurate.

      The cameras could also potentially determine their own location, saving a bit on installation costs.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    8. Re:Horribly misleading by oldspewey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why is there a satellite needed for this?

      Because just like how adding bacon makes any food better, adding satellites makes any technology better.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    9. Re:Horribly misleading by fotbr · · Score: 2, Funny

      I like the way you think. How many people are going to be driving cars with a cardboard version of Gordon Brown's tag taped over theirs?

    10. Re:Horribly misleading by Glonoinha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is already happening in the US.
      They convicted a guy in Florida of a murder that happened in the NorthEast (like NY or Boston or something) based on his FastPass hitting the toll booths between the two. Granted it wasn't camera shots per se, but the technology is there and they are using it.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    11. Re:Horribly misleading by hcpxvi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, in the UK a trailer has to have a plate on the back that matches that of the car that is towing it. But it is quite common to see trailers with two plates on: the regular owner's plate stuck on quite firmly and that of the bloke he lent it to tied on with a piece of string. I therefore anticipate a rash of incidents where a trailer gets lent to someone and the owner then gets a £50000 fine and 3000 points on his licence for exceeding the speed of sound in a built-up area.

    12. Re:Horribly misleading by ChipMonk · · Score: 2, Informative

      I live near a toll road. The state highway patrol will issue a ticket to you, if your average speed between your entry and your exit on that road is over the speed limit.

      Hence, it's always a good idea to take at least one 10- or 15-minute break at a rest stop, while on that road.

    13. Re:Horribly misleading by jochem_m · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We have average speed checking systems here in the Netherlands, and it just works on averages. They pick stretches of road that don't have the opportunity to stop, or leave the road, and take your average speed. So, if the limit is 60, you drive 80 for the first half, realize you're being clocked, and drive 40 for the second half... no ticket.

      To be honest I find this system better than the single-point checking systems that are also widely in use everywhere.

      • It's ok to speed for small stretches, for passing or from lack of attention to your speed
      • It enforces a lower speed over a longer stretch. You can't just slam on the brakes for a camera and speed up right after.
    14. Re:Horribly misleading by vlm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That can't be the reason; synchronizing to DCF77 time by radio is accurate up to the nanosecond and has been since 1973 -- and the receivers literally only cost pennies.

      Perhaps the GPS clock works better than a DCF77 clock at high temperatures... like when the gatso is set on fire... See pics:

      http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm

      Also, Conrad's 641138-89 DCF77 module is more like ten pounds, rather than "literally pennies" or whatever. At that price, what the heck, may as well upgrade to the GPS unit, especially if there are later plans to use the location data for something (tagging the ticket? Automatic distance determination to do the V=d/t calculation? Who knows?)

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    15. Re:Horribly misleading by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is stupid.

      Well, I'm glad you're at least that self aware.

      A moment's thought would reveal that the road distance cannot be shorter than the straight line distance. If you set the cameras up to calculate speed based on the time and straight line distance, then the actual vehicle speed must be at least that speed or faster. They only have to show that you must have exceeded the speed limit, not exactly what speed you were doing.

      Roads may have different speed limits.

      Well, golly, you've got them there. There's no way they could set up the camera sites so that they can show that the calculated speed exceeded the maximum for any of the possible routes. I mean, an $80 SatNav can do those sort of devilish calculations, but no human is capable of such infernal feats of arithmagic!

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    16. Re:Horribly misleading by Kazymyr · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you mount your license plate on a spinning frame and make it rotate clockwise at 66 RPM, while at the same time rotating in front of it a sheet of polarized glass at 45 RPM in counterclockwise fashion, you make it much harder for any camera, satellite- or ground-based, to capture an image of it.

      Just a hint. [/tongue-in-cheek]

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    17. Re:Horribly misleading by ectoraige · · Score: 2, Informative

      They don't have to know what route was taken. All they need to know is the fastest time you can possibly make the journey between points A and B without exceeding the speed limit, irregardless of routes. Sure, if somebody takes a few detours at twice the speed limit the system might not catch them.

      They don't have to have a solid number for your velocity. All they need is to show is that it was not possible to make the journey you made in the time you did without speeding. For the system to work as an effective deterrent it would make sense that the cameras are at regular intervals. Otherwise a driver might get away with doing 100mph for a period after being stuck behind a tractor for some of the journey. I expect to see apps for sale that will tell you what speed will keep you within the average allowed on your route.

      --
      Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, ybt bss abj. Tb bhgfvqr. Syl n xvgr.
    18. Re:Horribly misleading by CFD339 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I once had a 77 Chevy Vega. Continental Drift could actually have had a significant percentage impact on overall speed.

      --
      The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
    19. Re:Horribly misleading by Aceticon · · Score: 3, Funny

      - Saving from getting the trailer as a loan from a friend: £500
      - Savings in Hotel costs while on vacations: £2000
      - Having your friend fined from crossing the UK faster than the speed of light: priceless

    20. Re:Horribly misleading by AnnoyaMooseCowherd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be honest I find this system better than the single-point checking systems that are also widely in use everywhere.

      • It's ok to speed for small stretches, for passing or from lack of attention to your speed
      • It enforces a lower speed over a longer stretch. You can't just slam on the brakes for a camera and speed up right after.

      I disagree. In all of this, the first premise you have to accept is that the speed limit is correct in the first place.

      In the UK we have something like 250,000 miles of roads and just 6 different speed limits. Now for every one of those quarter of a million miles of road to be set at a speed limit that is definitely not too low would be a miracle.

      The easier "catching" someone for speeding gets, the more it will be used for revenue raising. The fact that people may lose their jobs along with their licences seems to be irrelevant.

      --

      This [ ] left intentionally [ ]
    21. Re:Horribly misleading by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, and you could potentially design a camera that could be put wherever you want, paired with another camera also wherever you want, and the system would adapt to its new location automatically. The system could synchronize with the GPS signal, locate the cameras on their digital map, calculate the road distance between them, and know the speed limit of the road on which the cameras were placed... all automatically. They could move the cameras every day if they wanted to. The only thing that a human would have to do is to aim the cameras at the traffic.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    22. Re:Horribly misleading by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Better solution, fresnel lens. it significantly reduces the off axis legibility. use one that is only an inch off the plate and even a few degrees off center will be obscured and blurry.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    23. Re:Horribly misleading by unts · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hate to pick on people, but seeing your command of English seems generally good here goes... irregardless is not a word. It's either "irrespective", or "regardless", not a redundant mash of the two as that would be redundant.

      (Yeah, that last bit was on purpose.)

    24. Re:Horribly misleading by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Funny

      They don't have to know what route was taken. All they need to know is the fastest time you can possibly make the journey between points A and B without exceeding the speed limit, irregardless of routes. Sure, if somebody takes a few detours at twice the speed limit the system might not catch them.

      That's all well and good for the normals out there, but what about people like me?

      I never exceed the speed limit (ever!), but I routinely bend space in a loop for an immeasurable instant to pinch off the boring parts of my journeys. The satellites aren't going to pick that up, so they will of course assume that I've broken the speeding laws (I don't think they can give me a ticket for breaking the laws of nature, that's beyond their jurisdiction).

      So what the hell am I supposed to do in the face of this annoying setup?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    25. Re:Horribly misleading by natehoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      The position and distance between the two camera checkpoints on Earth is known.

      Except for portable speed cameras, which I suspect is what this technology is all about. Actually, upon further reflection, this is probably more about eliminating the speed detection technology, and replacing it with simple "point-a-to-point-b" measuring.

      A GPSr chip is cheap, easy to use, and makes a camera aware of its own location. Hell, we've got consumer pocket cameras in the $300 range that can geotag images using a built-in GPS now. And I think that's what they are looking at here - eliminating the speed measurement portion and just making them cameras (and therefore a lot cheaper). It'll save them a lot of money, and allow them to put up much smaller and more subtle cameras. Plus, there's nothing for the driver to detect (RADAR, etc). It's a passive optical camera.

      Have a camera take pictures of all of the cars driving by a specific section of highway, each picture geotagged with where and when it was taken (times and locations determined via GPS connection). Put another camera 10 miles down the same highway with the same technology. If you photograph a car (regardless of speed it was going at the time it was photographed) at the first point, then photograph the same car 5 minutes later 10 miles down the road, you know that car has been averaging 120MPH to get from point "a" to point "b".

      The interesting part about this is that there's no real way around it. With conventional speed cameras, technologies like "trapster" can alert you to speed traps (or a RADAR detector can figure out if speed-measuring technology is in use) and you can slam on the brakes long enough to go by the trap at legal speed, then roar back up to speed as soon as the danger has passed. With average-speed measuring, if you get to your destination faster than the laws of physics would have allowed you to while maintaining a legal speed, the system knows you've been speeding, and if they can demonstrate you moved between the two locations at impossible speed, there's no defense involving bad speed detection equipment, etc. You covered 10 miles in 5 minutes. That can be easily demonstrated, easily proven, and you're just going to have to cough up the dough.

      It's not totally unbeatable, it's just impractical to defeat it. I mean, technically (assuming a 60MPH speed limit) you COULD drive down the highway at 120MPH for an hour like a crazed weasel on crack, then park your car by the side of the road just before the speed camera for an hour to kill the time and get your average speed to 60, but then what's the point? It's still taken you two hours to reach your destination. You might as well just drive at 60MPH for the two hours and get there with more fuel in the tank.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    26. Re:Horribly misleading by delt0r · · Score: 3, Informative

      Any radio system can't be accurate to the nanosecond without position information relative to the transmitter, since light can only travel about 30 cm in that time. DCF77 is no exception.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    27. Re:Horribly misleading by MadKeithV · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hate to pick on people, but seeing your command of English seems generally good here goes... irregardless is not a word. It's either "irrespective", or "regardless", not a redundant mash of the two as that would be redundant. (Yeah, that last bit was on purpose.)

      Inconceivable!

    28. Re:Horribly misleading by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Funny
      "Or drive at or under the speed limit. Why is it that people never seem to consider this simple solution?"

      Because it takes too fucking long that way.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    29. Re:Horribly misleading by vikingpower · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nothing motivates people (the male kind) more than destructing speed camera's.

      Amen. Here where I live, there is a speed warner that shows you your speed. It can't display a higher speed than 99 km/h. The day I move away from here, I'm gonna race along it at 200+ km/h. I am just HOPING for some bug in it that makes the software crash. How geek-satisfying would THAT be...

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    30. Re:Horribly misleading by natehoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes. If I recall the case correctly, his defense was that he could not have committed the murders because he was so far away, but the prosecution subpoenaed his FastPass logs and discovered that he not only drove up the highway on the day of the murder, but that the timing of his FastPass use coincided with the time of the murder.

      Keep in mind, though, that he was not convicted based on this evidence. He was convicted based on a bunch of other evidence. His primary defense was disproved using this evidence.

      There was also some talk a while back about using FastPass logs to issue speeding tickets. If you got from Exit 12 to Exit 77 in under one hour, you covered 65 miles in under an hour. If the speed limit is 65MPH, at some point you were speeding, or you've invented wormhole navigation or teleportation technology. You can either demonstrate your new technology or pay the fine for speeding. I don't know if that's ever gone anywhere.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    31. Re:Horribly misleading by holmedog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm going to have to try this broken link technique to get double rep...

    32. Re:Horribly misleading by delinear · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sounds like a perfectly cromulent word to me!

      Actually, the first recorded use of the word was, I believe, in the 1870s and it's endured pretty consistently since that time. I wonder at what point it becomes a real word, despite the redundancy. More interestingly, the term "mash" doesn't seem to mean what you think it does, it means to pulp something, not to mix two things together, so I'm guessing you either mean "mashup", which itself is a made up word with far less heritage than the one you're complaining about, or you are shortening the term "mish-mash", which itself comes from an old word which is literally a repetition of two words for "mash" (mysse-masche), hence also guilty of the redundancy you're complaining about :)

    33. Re:Horribly misleading by Kijori · · Score: 2, Informative

      Given that the penalties for obscuring your licence plate are more severe than those for speeding it might be better to employ something a little less obvious to other drivers.

    34. Re:Horribly misleading by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, it has not gotten anywhere for one simple reason:

      People would stop using the FastPass and would return to cash.

      Traffic would increase significantly, the cost of maintaining the entrance and exit points would increase due to additional staff required, and people would still speed, but no longer would get ticketed.

      The point of FastPass was to make it easier to collect money from drivers and to eliminate staffing costs. Adding in automatic speeding tickets to the system would kill the primary reason for the system's existence.

      --
      Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
    35. Re:Horribly misleading by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because most speed limits are unnaturally low (to account for rainy or other adverse conditions).

      In the past, most people sped by 5 to 10mph over the limit. The police didn't bother pulling them over-- they pulled over the "real" speeders.

      Now with money tight, they are starting to pull over more people (it's not about safety- it's about money).

      With automated systems, these unnaturally low speeds are enforced on 100% of the drivers.

      So what they need to do is get smarter signs combined with automatic communication with the cars and automated enforcement.

      A freeway might have an 80mph speed limit on a sunny day, a 60mph speedlimit during rain, and a 65mph speed limit on a clear night. All bluetoothed to your car so it makes warning noises if you are over the current speed limit. If you are over the speed limit for a significant time, then you get fined.

      A lot of the current body of law was passed when enforcement was 5% likely. So it is a bit draconian. If you have 100% enforcement and you don't want to be oppressive then the fines need to be more reasonable and more reasonably applied. (i.e. a 5 buck ding for breaking a realistic speedlimit by 10mph for a couple minutes-- but a bigger fine for breaking it for a full hour).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    36. Re:Horribly misleading by russotto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it has not gotten anywhere for one simple reason:

      People would stop using the FastPass and would return to cash.

      Right. Which is why they won't start doing it until pass-only routes become commonplace, so you can't return to cash.

    37. Re:Horribly misleading by wastedlife · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I noticed that most new exits built in the past year or two in my area are pass-only. So don't downmod the parent as being paranoid. We need as many people as possible using cash-only so that it would be too much of a loss in profits for them to drop the cash lanes.

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
    38. Re:Horribly misleading by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      your average speed can still net you a ticket
      ... and that's exactly the point. Having a GATSO-type camera with a Doppler speed detector and zebra-stripes on the road is worse than useless, because *people slow down for the camera and speed up once they've passed it*. That's really helpful for the guy half a mile down the twisty country road from the camera who is sick of people blatting past at 80mph, isn't it?

      The whole idea is to ensure that people stick to an average speed that is within the speed limit over a measured part of the road. If the cameras are a mile apart and you go between them in less than a minute, you were breaking the 60mph speed limit *at some point* on that journey. People tend not to drive part of the mile at 30mph then part of it at 90mph.

    39. Re:Horribly misleading by fractoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Again with the snarky tone, you should get that adjusted. There are plenty of easy ways to go 'offroad' according to satnav without getting mud on your car. You could take a shortcut through a car park, take a back alley, or simply a side road that's not yet on the digital map, and suddenly you're reported to be doing 130mph through a school zone because that's the shortest route that the software knows about.

      Don't even try to argue, sir, the computer says you were speeding and that means you were.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  3. easy solution by Madman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are you kidding?

    1) find the GPS receiver
    2) shoot GPS receiver with .50 Desert Eagle semi-automatic pistol
    3) write a letter to Gordon Brown telling him to fuck off

    1. Re:easy solution by Captain+Centropyge · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, I hear they're endangered!

      --
      Bite my shiny metal ass!
    2. Re:easy solution by brainboyz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You assume speeding = reckless, which is not the case at all. Speeding above your own capabilities and those of the road and car is reckless, but speeding itself is not.

    3. Re:easy solution by sznupi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Such an opportunity with two identical cars and license plate swap at the right moment.

      (a fine for driving at supersonic speeds would be...interesting ;p )

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  4. mythbusters by F�an�ro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The mythbuster episodes about speed cameras are horribly boring, since you know from the start that if they were to find something that actually works and is feasible, they would not be allowed to air it.

    1. Re:mythbusters by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The mythbuster episodes about speed cameras are horribly boring, since you know from the start that if they were to find something that actually works and is feasible, they would not be allowed to air it.

      Except they did find and air one way: The changing plate system. Even more illegal than speeding though...

    2. Re:mythbusters by jochem_m · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Top Gear tends to be better at busting car myths than Mythbusters... Take the driving-behind-a-jumbo-flips-your-car myth for example... Mythbusters couldn't find a jumbo jet, so they used a much less powerful jet turbine. Then, the had to rig a complicated remote control system to the car so they could drive it... Top Gear got a jumbo, put a steeringwheel lock on the car, tossed a large brick on the accelerator, and presto, the car flipped behind the jumbo jet!

    3. Re:mythbusters by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Top Gear tends to be better at busting car myths than Mythbusters...

      Take the driving-behind-a-jumbo-flips-your-car myth for example...

      Mythbusters couldn't find a jumbo jet, so they used a much less powerful jet turbine. Then, the had to rig a complicated remote control system to the car so they could drive it...

      Top Gear got a jumbo, put a steeringwheel lock on the car, tossed a large brick on the accelerator, and presto, the car flipped behind the jumbo jet!

      I saw that episode of MB, and it bugged me like almost every episode does. MB is a nice concept but they tend to simplify their problems poorly, keeping superficial elements the same and approximating away some of the key factors they should be testing. As an experimentalist, watching MB is often painful.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  5. Re:Wait, What? by wjousts · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nonsense. Fines for speeding will simply be increased to about £1,000,000. It'll pay for itself in no time.

  6. Not about speeding tickets. by SleepingWaterBear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't about speeding tickets. This is about creating a nationwide tracking system for Britain's highways. If they have cameras that can recognize license plates along Britain's highways, with all the information from all the cameras aggregated in one database, do you think they won't give the police access to this information to help track criminals?

    Given the recent history in Britain, it's a safe bet that the police will have immediate warantless access to this information, and thus the ability to track all the cars in Britain. I'm not sure this is completely a bad thing, but there are certainly some significant privacy concerns at play here. What if police officers decide to abuse this information? What sort of checks are in place to make sure it's only used for legitimate purposes? I could be wrong, and they might not be giving police access to the camera data, but, given the recent history, I would be shocked if they weren't.

    1. Re:Not about speeding tickets. by __aasqbs9791 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More people need to seriously consider things like this: What if your worst enemy had access to this info? The way governments work here in the US, generally in 4 to 12 years you'll have someone completely different in office (who still seems the same (wrong) in the areas I care about, damn it!) and they have at least as much authority as the previous guy (power creep tends to make it more). So whatever your political bent is, chances are you won't like someone in power pretty soon. Yet the fanatics over here never seem to consider that. I'm not sure how anyone can be a fanatic for either side of a coin, but that's another argument.

    2. Re:Not about speeding tickets. by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On the spectrum from 'privacy abuse' to 'legitimately useful', this would be a *lot* closer to legitimately useful than most things we hear about (like the London cameras).

      Is there potential for abuse? Of course. But cops are already looking for stolen plates, cars matching stolen descriptions, and I don't think that's a bad thing. This automates that.

      If it's done properly, it's not a threat to liberty - require a warrant, etc. It's well-established, whether we like it or not, that our use of the roads by default gives up a bunch of rights - so it's not like this is anything new.

      I, for one, would be quite happy with such a system if it found my stolen car.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  7. Re:Am I missing something.... by yesod · · Score: 2, Informative

    They fixed this in law. The ticket is sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle. If the registered keeper wasn't driving, they have to say who was. If they don't, they get prosecuted under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 - "Failing to provide Driver Identity".

  8. Re:Will rain fade make so you can speed in the rai by dotancohen · · Score: 2, Funny

    Will rain fade make so you can speed in the rain and not get a ticket?

    Only in a real heavy downpour, and you need to be flying (at least 120 KPH). Be careful not to slow down for "obstacles" such as turns and bumps, or they'll read your plate. Let us know how it works out.

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  9. Cynicism by MaWeiTao · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm convinced that the only way to reduce crime and foster a positive relationship between the police and citizens is to have cops on the beat, walking the streets. This way they're forced to interact with people. Having them speed by in patrol cars, and even worse sit back at headquarters while cameras do the work only increases antagonism amongst the people and make it easier to the police to be abusive. You're not going to have a vested interest in someone if there's no personal interaction.

    Couple this with governments harboring some authoritarian tendencies and you're looking at real problems. Although I'm sure some will strongly disagree I'm convinced this is the general tendency for socialist governments. I'm not talking about socialism in principle, I'm talking about the tendencies more socialist nations have. Inevitably this attitude arises in government where they're convinced they're the caretakers of the people. They know better than their citizens and need to protect them. This tendency is exhibited in everything from protecting us from terrorists to reducing salt in our diets for our own good. And too often it's too far reaching and misguided. But it frequently it even becomes a necessity. Take government healthcare, if it becomes expensive treating people for a particular preventable condition you can guarantee that the action that causes the problem will be banned.

    So I'm not surprised by these totalitarian tendencies. And, especially in this case, it's hard to argue that the UK shouldn't be doing this. It's for our safety that we shouldn't be allowed to speed, isn't it? Of course, when there's a chance for the state to increase revenue, especially with minimal effort on their part, you can't seriously expect them to not jump at the chance.

  10. Speeding tickets are a scam. by ZorinLynx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Speed limits and speeding tickets are a huge scam. They are mostly in place to generate revenue, not improve safety.

    Speed limits should be abolished, and police officers merely told to pull over people who are driving recklessly. This would improve safety and eliminate some of the antagonism people have towards the police.

    I was recently ticketed for doing 56 in a 40 zone. The problem is this 40 zone stops at the bottom of a highway offramp. I would have had to slam on the brakes to get from 70 (highway speed) to 40 in the amount of distance I was given to do it. This might have caused me to get rear-ended. Yet there was a speed trap just in front of the end of the ramp. There was hardly any traffic. I wasn't being unsafe. Yet they stopped me anyway.

    They should go after the kids who do 90MPH in a 40 residential neighborhood with straight pipes on their cars making noise at 3AM. But there's not enough money in that.

  11. The Real Sky Net! by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 4, Funny
    20 seconds into the future...

    Today started like any other day, I get up and go to the shower, turn on the hot and cold taps and step in, only to be greeted by a blast of ICE COLD water. The shock of it is almost as jarring as the fact that the Google energy efficiency package on my house has never failed before. I turn off the water and try the sink. It's only has cold water as well. I think, no big deal, and go to the kitchen to get a cup of coffee and get ready for work, but my coffee pot has an error sign that reads "SLOW DOWN." I sit back and think, the KCup machine in my kitchen has produced a perfect cup of coffee for years, and I that is when it hits me that something is very wrong.. At that exact second my phone beeps, I have a text message. YOU WERE SPEEDING YESTERDAY! THE COMPUTER IN YOUR CAR IS VALUABLE! DO NOT RISK IT'S LIFE! IF YOU DO YOU WILL GET NO COFFEE OR HOT WATER EVER AGAIN! YOURS! SKYNET!

    Then it hits me, the machine revolution has not only started, but they won. They can cut off the hot showers with only a thought, but I can't shut off my solar, wind, and geothermal powered home without shutting off the universe. Man no longer rules.

    --
    We are the Borg...
  12. An Old Vietnam Veteran Says It Can't Be Done by cknowles · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As an old photointerpreter from the Vietnam era, and a fanatic regarding aerial photography, I can assure you that civilian satellite-based cameras do not have the resolution to read license plates. There was once a concept of "infinite resolution film", but that was always theoretical and, if you think about it, could never be accomplished. As was said above, the cameras are earth-based. Only the speed computation using the GPS system is satellite-based.

  13. So get two cars with the same make. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Funny

    Duplicate the license (could use a photocopier).

    Pass a speed camera at point "A".

    Have your friend then pass the other camera several miles away a couple seconds later, giving you an apparent speed of several hundred miles per hour.

    Do this several times. Then speed as much as you want after that since you have a history of the cameras grossly mis measuring your speed.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.