Slashdot Mirror


Building a Traffic Radar System To Catch Reckless Drivers?

cbraescu1 writes "I live in a city with a population in the millions (someplace in the Middle East; the country is not important), and I am mad as hell. The car traffic is going from bad to worse, and I'm sick of all the car accidents that keep happening (we have one of the biggest accident and mortality rates per km of road or per 1,000 vehicles). I just witnessed a car accident a few hours ago, and in the last few months I've given first aid at two other car accidents, all happening within 500 meters of each other. Today's victims escaped alive, but the motorcycle driver who was responsible fled and the police weren't equipped to catch him. There are laws, but not much willingness to enforce them, and no traffic lights at all. After speaking with some of my friends, we decided to take the issue into our own hands: build a traffic radar system able to capture a vehicle's speed, install it at our own expense, and share the generated penalties with the city government (all subject of their approval, of course). We want to start on the main avenue (more than 15 km) and to 'roll' the income from the penalties into covering new streets (so that perpetrators will basically finance the system). We're not rich and we will not ask for our money back. We just need to make the system start and we're confident the penalty fees will cover its spread. So, I'm asking Slashdot: what would be a workable way to build such a system? It must withstand drivers claiming the system is cheating, high temperatures, high levels of humidity, and crappy electricity. Any suggestions would be appreciated. This is about technology saving lives — literally."

483 comments

  1. Why this is a bad idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a terrible idea, because if it's successful it will be used to track people's movements by corrupt officials.

    1. Re:Why this is a bad idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a terrible idea, because if it's successful it will be used to track people's movements by corrupt officials.

      Well yes, but perhaps not the way you think. After the first sufficiently serious infraction followed by a successful conviction, the "tracking problem" becomes trivial: "Is prisoner 271828 in his cell?"

    2. Re:Why this is a bad idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a terrible idea, because if it's successful it will be used to track people's movements by corrupt officials.

      Well yes it will, but perhaps not the way you'd expect. After capturing the first sufficiently serious infraction leading to a successful conviction, the "tracking problem" becomes trivial: "Is prisoner 271828 in their cell?" The driver's mean free path akin to that of grenade shrapnel diminishes to zero.

  2. Re:One additional improvement by psyque · · Score: 4, Funny

    I second this. It's been proved time and time again that more guns in the middle east is always the answer.

  3. Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So let me get this straight. The goal is to spend your money on catching speeders rather than installing traffic lights? Really?

    --
    If you rip a child away from it's parents, and you put the child in a suite in the Ritz, you're still a f'ing monster.
    1. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by attonitus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Catching speeders imposes no new restrictions - it's just about enforcing the rules that are already in place. So presumably it requires much less effort from the politicians / authorities, which makes it a more achievable objective for this guy, who's just a private citizen.

    2. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What you're saying makes sense, except that it sounds like the asker doesn't work for the government and essentially wants to be a vigilante.

      That is to say, he probably doesn't have the authority to install traffic lights, but he might be able to gather data proving someone is breaking the laws.

      Not a great solution, but maybe sometimes you see a problem and you want to do what you can.

    3. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Funny

      I suggest you come over here for a couple of days.

      There's plenty of pre-assembled cameras on our street corners, help yourself....

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by Rei · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that the government would be more than happy to receive the donation of traffic lights.

      --
      If you rip a child away from it's parents, and you put the child in a suite in the Ritz, you're still a f'ing monster.
    5. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      But how does installing a traffic light generate money to put in more traffic lights?

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    6. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight. The goal is to spend your money on catching speeders rather than installing traffic lights? Really?

      I'm with this guy. You punish AFTER you inform, and if you don't have traffic lights you don't have controlled intersections -- and that means you have chaos.

      Anything you do will have to have government buy-in, or it's just plain ol' thuggery. (yes, you might wind up with just government-approved thuggery. But you also might end up with law and order.) Unless you're going to fundamentally change the nature of automobiles, you should start with basic traffic signals and road patterns. They are FAR cheaper and FAR more effective than some unevenly applied Orwellian scheme.

    7. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the OP is talking about Cairo, I can safely say there are absolutely no rules.

    8. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by bwayne314 · · Score: 1

      Traffic lights also don't finance themselves... the goal of the OP is to "seed" a busy street, and then grow the system to eventually cover a large area.

    9. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      Traffic lights also don't finance themselves... the goal of the OP is to "seed" a busy street, and then grow the system to eventually cover a large area.

      They do if they have red-light cameras installed.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    10. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by drsmithy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Catching speeders imposes no new restrictions - it's just about enforcing the rules that are already in place.

      Which may or may not - probably the latter - make the roads any *safer*.

      The question is whether the objective is increasing safety or increasing compliance.

    11. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      >I'm with this guy. You punish AFTER you inform, and if you don't have traffic lights you don't have controlled intersections -- and that means you have chaos.

      Why does this even matter? If the OP gets this working and actually collecting the fines doesn't prove to be a suicide mission, they're going to make more money if they punish before informing.

    12. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you have not seen traffic in a lot of countries. People completely ignore traffic lights as the norm. It will not magically make people change their current behavior.

    13. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speed activated road spikes. Best solution I reckon.
      Camera with good OCR and point A on a stretch of road, another at the end of it. Accurate clock between the two. Compare licence plates at each camera, if the time between the two means the vehicle exceeded the spped limit, fine them.
      Or forced sale of whatever they were driving, proceeds to go to pedestians medical bills who have been hit by speeding drivers.

    14. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is about saving lives

      Oh, and here I thought this was about your sharing income from speed cameras, something routinely done by companies which make a ton of money at the expense of poor motorists. You can also get traffic light cameras too, after you donate the traffic lights. We expect you to make a fortune with your not new "inventions" to save lives.

    15. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by cbraescu1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The goal is to spend your money on catching speeders rather than installing traffic lights?

      [Warning: I am the original poster] The goal is to start a "pay for itself" infrastructure of radars (and later on traffic lights) in order to reduce the accidents and the fatalities.

      The traffic lights won't be respected (they are virtually unknown, and whenever they are installed nobody cares about them. SO the only practical solution is to have "something" which will make drivers pay if speeding. Sooner or later their own wallets will slow them down.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    16. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      [Warning: I am the original poster] 100% true, I can't dream of changing anything. But I think I can persuade them to enforce existing laws, as long as this won't require any money from the government (on the contrary, it's supposed to bring them revenues, since it's a revenue sharing model, with our share going to finance new radars, thus making the system self-replicating).

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    17. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      [Warning: I am the original poster] Once drivers understand speeding is gonna them money, they will slow down (thus reducing car accidents and fatalities). If it works like this everywhere in this world, it will also work in my city.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    18. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      [Warning: I am the original poster] I have no will to become a local Charles Bronson :-)

      My idea is to offer the government a revenue-sharing system, with the government taking a part of the fines and our share being reinvested in new radars.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    19. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by stewbacca · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Reducing speed doesn't ensure a decrease i accidents though. It doesn't work in other cities because municipalities get all hell-bent on enforcing speed limits instead of enforcing more important, accident reducing laws like illegal lane changes and failure to yield.

      Speeding tickets = increased driving safety is one of the most egregious logical fallacies I can think of.

    20. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by murdocj · · Score: 1

      And yet it works... get a reputation as a speed trap, people slow down, accidents go down.

    21. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      [Warning: I am the original poster] The goal is not to make a fortune, but make a system that can self finance and self replicate. We are *putting* money in, not taking.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    22. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      [Warning: I am the original poster] Once drivers understand speeding is gonna them money, they will slow down (thus reducing car accidents and fatalities). If it works like this everywhere in this world, it will also work in my city.

      Firstly, no it doesn't. This is especially true if it's only a monetary fine and not some sort of other points-based, lose-your-license scheme. Believe me, I come from Australia - which has probably the strictest and most widespread speed enforcement in the western world, particularly in Victoria and NSW - yet road safety is no better here than it is in other, similar, countries.
      Secondly, the strictest speed enforcement in the world will not make the roads safer if they are full of reckless drivers. This is particularly true when you're talking about pedestrian fatalities.

    23. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hold on guys. This person C. Braescu is romanian, the city in must be Bucharest. The traffic accidents, traffic lights, etc are red herrings.

      Scam artists from Eastern Europe, Russia are to be seen often on the net, and they exploit the naivite of the western reader.

      Be aware, Romania, Russia, China, etc have poverty, corruption, instability - but they have good brains.

    24. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by LandGator · · Score: 1

      Likely you would need enabling legislation to allow traffic citations by such devices to have the force of law. Here in Oregon, it has been rolled out city by city over several years and still the legislature will not allow it statewide. The legislation would need to specify which court handles appeals; would the court object?

      --
      There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
    25. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      For fuck's sake man, it's not a revenue stream.
      The outcome is people slowing down, not a monetary stream.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    26. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      No they don't, there's no legal ticket being issued.
      It's mailed, with no issuing officer.
      Hell, they're thrown away by most people. At least the smart people. In the USA that is.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    27. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by CalSolt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you haven't already realized, Slashdot is a terrible place to ask this kind of question. People here have a strong individualistic, anti-government slant.

      Anyway, I think the best thing you can do is install some red lights, then post police officers in motorcycles around these lights. Every time they see someone break the red light rule, flag them down and give them a ticket. At first the officers will be constantly busy and will be raking in a lot of revenue. Word will spread fast, and eventually you will see people obeying the rules, at least in the intersections where police are known to be. Videotape the intersection with an HD camera for documentation. Later you can buy radar guns for the traffic officers.

      You have to make sure the money from tickets goes to the general fund, NOT the police department. Otherwise this will cause all sort of problems.

      Beyond that, you should hire a company (or start your own) that can work with you and the city council to implement technological solutions like red light cameras and speeding cameras. The best solution however, is policing because it is proven and the simplest to implement off the bat.

    28. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      > For fuck's sake man, it's not a revenue stream.

      Ahahahahaaha.

      Yeah, right.

    29. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Secondly, the strictest speed enforcement in the world will not make the roads safer if they are full of reckless drivers. This is particularly true when you're talking about pedestrian fatalities.

      Yeah, pedestrians suffer when all your attention is focused on trying to spot hidden speed cameras. And despite what the law says, the fuckers never put 'em in plain sight. If you got flashed by one hidden behind trees / streetlamps you could probably beat the charge in court due to it being improperly set up.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    30. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by fractoid · · Score: 1

      You don't have to pay red light camera tickets? They're not enforced?

      Here in Australia we have this thing called the "fines enforcement agency". Any fine from an overdue parking ticket to a fine for riding on a train without a ticket to a red light camera or speeding fine will be sent to the agency and if you don't pay within a month they have the power to suspend your drivers' license.

      I'm moving to where you live.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    31. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      That's not true, unless you can show me something that proves that slowing people down decreases accidents. All it does is slow people down, which causes more traffic density, which increases the chances of accidents.

      I'm not saying that speeding prevents accidents, I'm merely saying that the speed-causes-accidents fallacy is overstated.

      If you REALLY want to see accidents go up, put in unrealistically slow speed limits AND an unnecessary stop light.

    32. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by olafva · · Score: 1

      Redflex will be happy to solve your problem
      as they've done elsewhere.
      Police departments can even reduce staff by implementing Redflex.

      --
      What's past is NOT ALWAYS prologue for the future!
    33. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      There are literally hundreds of studies that demonstrate that higher speeds are correlated with a larger number of car accidents. This is particularly true in crowded urban environments and general access highways.

      The other big issue regarding speeding in urban environments is that not only does it increase the risk of accident, but it increases the impact of the accident as well -- the energy involved in a 60 mph crash is double a 40 mph crash. So when some idiot drives 60 mph on a sidestreet and hits a parked car, he's more likely to hurt himself and other and will likely cause much more damage.

      The top 6 causes of US car accidents are, in order: distraction (including rubbernecking), fatigue, drunk driving, speeding, aggressive driving and weather.

      Also, speed limits have minimal or no measurable impact on traffic density. In the US, traffic density is generally a byproduct of too much road infrastructure. Read about the impact of the Triborough Bridge on NYC traffic in the 1930's for an illustrative example.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    34. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Of course somebody doing 60 down a residential street is an idiot. But giving somebody a ticket for doing 28 in that same place when the speed limit is 25 is really, really stupid, and does nothing for safety.

      I think I see a pattern forming in this thread. Just because many of us argue for sane, logical, rational approaches that speed limits are artificially low for revenue purposes, doesn't mean we advocate reckless speeding.

      And, I'd like to see your sources. I concur with "distraction", but I've commonly heard that "failure to yield" is the top cause of accidents--like the girl who turn left right in front of me (coming the opposite direction of me).

      Finally, in your list of causes, speeding is sort of a catch-all that law enforcement uses. Ok, so I'm going 75 in a 70 zone and don't stop in time and cause a fender bender. Was it because I was going 5 mph over the limit? If I was going slower would I have stopped in time? Nobody knows, so it's all chalked up to "speeding". I got a speeding ticket once when I ran into the side of somebody (turned out to be their fault, and they dropped my ticket) because, and I quote, "you were obviously speeding, because if you weren't you would have been able to stop in time". Arghhh. Yes, because when somebody makes an illegal left turn right in front of me and I have 25 feet to go from 30-zero (to include reaction time), I should have been going 15 instead of 30.

    35. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      This article is about someone in a third world country who is literally witnessing death and mayhem on his front step and wants to shame the local police into doing something about it. Some folks are skewing the comments to talk about how speedtraps suck, etc.

      Some municipalities abuse speed laws for revenue purposes, and some cops write dumb tickets such as your scenario. That's why we have courts.

      If you don't believe that speeding is a major factor in car accidents, Google for articles citing NHTSA. Look at the numbers yourself and make your own judgement.

      Also consider that you may be a driver with better skills than average. My wife's a great driver... I'd happily hold an uncovered cup of hot coffee while she drives. I'm an awful driver, and my passengers would be chugging the coffee down before I put the car in drive.

      There are many drivers on the road who are dumb, illiterate or otherwise inept. Do you trust their judgement?

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    36. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      If you don't believe that speeding is a major factor in car accidents, Google for articles citing NHTSA. Look at the numbers yourself and make your own judgement.

      I have. That's why I'm so eager in sharing my judgement that the numbers don't match the reaction. Speed is not a significant cause of accidents.

      There are many drivers on the road who are dumb, illiterate or otherwise inept. Do you trust their judgement?

      Agreed. No, I don't trust their judgement, but there isn't much I can do about that. I also understand that going 42 in a 35 is no big deal, even for the most judgement-challenged of us.

      Look, my point is that, 1) speed is not as significant of a causation as commonly thought (but is significant when it comes to the extent/potential of damage/injury, but more importantly 2), that we overreact and apply rules that are disproportionate to the risk involved. Worse yet, 3) we apply rules that are meant to tackle erroneously correlated problems instead of the real problem (i.e. failure to yield, not paying attention, etc.).

    37. Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  4. Road to hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's no worse tyrant than one doing it for you own good.

    1. Re:Road to hell... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Really? So that's worse than the one that just really likes feeding people feet first to the woodchipper? That's just Libertarian bullshit used to justify why they don't have to share.

    2. Re:Road to hell... by dwiget001 · · Score: 1, Informative

      And that, is a bunch of bull. I am a Libertarian and, in my experience, the Libertarian point of view is more along the lines of "It's my (and your) personal decision on whether or not to share". *Enforced* sharing, under threat of duress, punishment, fines, jail sentences, etc. *is not* sharing. Taxes for things that pay for things or services that a particular individual never uses falls into the category of *enforced* sharing. Get the government out of things it not constitutionally mandated to do, cut the size of government, put more money in people's pockets (as a result) and let them decide where and how they want that money spent. The U.S. Federal government, in particular, is and has done a piss poor job spending your and my money. Oh, and our kid's and grand kid's money too.

    3. Re:Road to hell... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Also, all libertarians I know actually value human life and rights (opposed to what some people [GP] would like you to think.) Someone feeding other people into a chipper is definitely violating human rights. There is a point where you can have all the rights you need as long as those rights don't infringe upon the rights of the others.

      Unfortunately, there are those people that think they have to take away most of those rights enforce their own.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    4. Re:Road to hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. A Utopian society where everybody wants to do the right thing. Unfortunately, that's about as likely to work as a dictator that just wants to do the right thing. There's a reason society runs moderate and not extreme. Its because the extremes don't work.

    5. Re:Road to hell... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Yeah. A Utopian society where everybody wants to do the right thing."

      The irony is that communisim is predicated on the same fantasy, they just define "the right thing" differently.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:Road to hell... by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      ahhaha you've just tried to validate a bad choice by a strawman scenario that never happens ahahah
      God, how lame.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    7. Re:Road to hell... by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Extremism in another form.
      You've just attempted to paint the idea as an extreme in order to paint todays world as right.
      Wow... you sure shoot high. You were happy with a C in class weren't you?
      "honey, our honeymoon is good enough in Niagra Falls, we don't have to do anything too expensive..."

      Mediocrity rules.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    8. Re:Road to hell... by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So holding a gun to someones head, taking the fruit of their labor, taking a generous cut for yourself then distributing the remaining proceeds to the "deserving" (More so than the person who actually earned it I suppose) is the "right thing". Strange how the "right thing" has so much in common with a protection racket. "Nice life you have there, be a shame if something were to happen to it"

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
  5. Frickin by mark72005 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    sharks/lasers

  6. ummm by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:ummm by russ1337 · · Score: 2, Informative

      that was exactly my thought. Purchase off the shelf. Making your own will cost more, be less reliable and require calibration etc. my search found many products, including the speed board that these guys sell. http://www.stalkerradar.com/

    2. Re:ummm by dduberfourpres · · Score: 1

      I think there is no way that you're going to be able to spread this system. If the system is even mildly expensive then people will realize what's going on fast enough (no pun intended) that after a few days nobody'll be speeding on that road and you won't get enough money for the next set up. While they will go the designated speed on that road/stretch/whatever, they'll make up the time by going faster on the others.

  7. Traffic Lights? by machxor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wouldn't it make sense to install traffic lights first? Seems like some order on the road rather than chaos would reduce the accident rate much more than ticketing speeders (who will likely just continue to speed). Either way there are commercial products available for this application. Sorry I have no links but in southern California red light cameras are all over the place. Our neighbors in Arizona also have "portable" speed cameras that they trailer to locations where speeding is an issue.

    1. Re:Traffic Lights? by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      Traffic lights are far more expensive and time-intensive to set up than a simple radar+camera setup- plus the radars can (directly) pay for themselves unlike a traffic light. Maybe if he catches enough reckless drivers, the government will get enough money together to install traffic lights, but those radar setups would still be helpful. He also mentions a hit-and-run driver: a traffic light may reduce such accidents, but his radar data could help track down the person, and a conviction on that might remove a lot of these dangerous drivers from the road for a long while (depending on how the legal system works over there).

    2. Re:Traffic Lights? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      We've got a few up here in WA state as well, they work pretty well. It's basically a way of putting people on notice that the police are aware of the speeding and can start ticketing anytime, without actually needing to assign anybody to it unless it becomes necessary.

    3. Re:Traffic Lights? by tverbeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know it sounds like typical western arrogance to suggest it, but I think the example of major cities in Europe and North America is informative here. You'll see that people will (mostly) honor traffic lights, but they will (mostly) ignore speed limits. It's probably because traffic light violations are (pardon the expression) black and white: either the light was red, or it wasn't, and a simple still camera can prove it one way or the other. By comparison, speed is more difficult to determine and prove (as anyone who has beaten a speeding ticket can confirm). The notion that radar guns and cameras will be effective in convicting perpetrators in a chaotic traffic environment is naive.

      Meanwhile, this sounds like a great opportunity to practice some grassroots democratic activity on a subject that you have a chance of getting people behind: genuine public safety. Start educating the public about the traffic injury/fatality rates, and petition the government to do something sensible about it. Like traffic lights. Governments - even corrupt and lazy ones - do respond to public pressure on issues like this: ones with no ideological or political agenda,* which have the potential to make them look good to the masses, and maybe give them an opportunity to impose a little public order (which isn't always a bad thing). In any case, neither approach (traffic controls or speed-radar-vigilantism) will do one damn bit of good if the community doesn't support it. Not passively, but actively supporting it. You need a movement, not tech toys.

      *Aside from pissing off any libertarianists in the population, but that's something that both left and right agree on :)

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    4. Re:Traffic Lights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      IN some places like China or Brazil where I've been, traffic lights do exist and to every motorist they're "optional." Just find youtube videos with keyword "traffic" + country, and you see them running the light (Vietnam, Thailand, India, France). The problem, like the OP states, is that there's no officers to *enforce* the law. They'd much rather investigate murders, kidnappings, or most likely, nothing at all (aka, street patrol).

      The fact that Americans follow the light signals was a surprise to me when I first moved to the states.

    5. Re:Traffic Lights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you suggesting that Libertarians oppose traffic lights?

    6. Re:Traffic Lights? by jmnugent · · Score: 1

      > "Maybe if he catches enough reckless drivers..." Not sure how that's possible. Private citizens don't have any power to "enforce" traffic laws. Even if all he did was record camera-radar evidence.. he'd have to submit it to the local Gov to get them to enforce it, and it seems like they've already proven themselves incompetent to enforce it. So, I'm not sure what the solution is here. At some point/level, you HAVE to get the local government to either cooperate or be competent at producing a solution to the problem. In a city of millions, private citizens don't stand a snowballs chance in hell of micro-managing traffic.

    7. Re:Traffic Lights? by nschubach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know this sounds a bit "morbid"... but how did the motorcycle operator make it out of that situation alive if they were the cause of the accident? I mean, if I were in a car and I had a choice of hitting a motorcycle who [cut me off/drove in front of me/etc.] and hitting a truck or some other car... I'm not going to do any favors for the motorcyclist.

      I do pay extra attention to motorcyclists on the road... don't get me wrong. But if they "caused" the accident, they better damn well be lying on the ground hurt or dead.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    8. Re:Traffic Lights? by nschubach · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Didn't you know? Libertarians are basically anarchists... yeah, they like to kill babies for the fun of it and they feel it's their right to violate the liberty of others to feed their own. /sarcasm

      Damn, I hate people who are ignorant about what Libertarianism actually is.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    9. Re:Traffic Lights? by drsmithy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know it sounds like typical western arrogance to suggest it, but I think the example of major cities in Europe and North America is informative here. You'll see that people will (mostly) honor traffic lights, but they will (mostly) ignore speed limits. It's probably because traffic light violations are (pardon the expression) black and white: either the light was red, or it wasn't, and a simple still camera can prove it one way or the other. By comparison, speed is more difficult to determine and prove (as anyone who has beaten a speeding ticket can confirm). The notion that radar guns and cameras will be effective in convicting perpetrators in a chaotic traffic environment is naive.

      No, it's because they understand that not obeying traffic lights is nearly inescapably dangerous, whereas speeding is frequently not dangerous at all.

      The majority of accidents happen at under the speed limit. The strictest speed enforcement in the world won't help when people are driving recklessly, or too fast for the conditions [but not over the speed limit].

    10. Re:Traffic Lights? by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      Well the guy said he intends to fund expansion of this project through fees collected, implying law enforcement might be cooperative. Given all the cops have to do is look at the video and look up the license plate, and the police get money out of it, the job should appeal to both corrupt and lazy cops. The work to get the system working and the police behind you on it should be less than what you need to get traffic lights installed (which require a bunch of politicians cooperating and spending money solely for public good).

      I'm not saying his project will be easy to pull off, or necessarily even feasible. I'm just saying some random guy asking for traffic lights sounds like a fool's errand in comparison.

    11. Re:Traffic Lights? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "The majority of accidents happen at under the speed limit"

      You don't see the logical fallacy there?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:Traffic Lights? by tftp · · Score: 1

      Well the guy said he intends to fund expansion of this project through fees collected, implying law enforcement might be cooperative.

      In a society of laws this will not fly. The ticket will be challenged in court, and the judge will have no other option but to dismiss it. The camera is not calibrated, is not certified, is not professionally maintained - how can you fine someone based on readings of your personal gadget? Even professionally installed and maintained devices, like speed guns and cameras and alcohol meters, are constantly challenged in US courts.

      Furthermore, the owner of the camera may be counter-sued for harassment, and may be ordered to remove private devices from the public property.

      If the society is not of laws, then nothing will work. The summons and fines will be summarily ignored, and the cameras will be vandalized or stolen. If that's the case, the OP needs to work on making his society better, more civil, because this helps not just on the road but everywhere. Vigilantism will not work because the vigilante has no legal right to do what needs to be done. He would be probably the first and the only guy arrested, especially if he is unfortunate enough to photograph a car driven by an important official.

    13. Re:Traffic Lights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Traffic lights are far more expensive and time-intensive to set up than a simple radar+camera setup- plus the radars can (directly) pay for themselves unlike a traffic light.

      Not if it is a pay-as-you-go traffic light. Toll transponders have paved the way for drivers to be taxed at many points along a given route.

    14. Re:Traffic Lights? by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      [Warning: I am the original poster] The motorcycle hit a couple who was crossing the street. Once the man hit the ground, he was also hit by a taxi. All traffic stopped and in the confusion, with everyone running to help the victims, the motorcycle guys just sneaked out and run away. The policemen had no radio stations to alert anyone.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    15. Re:Traffic Lights? by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      The country is not a democratic one, so any attempt to do grassroots activity will end up in jail (for locals) and being send abroad (for me). The government has much bigger issues to care (for example providing electricity and water to an ever increasing population, or finding subventions for the basic food for more than half the population).

      I don't need a movement, sorry. I need tech toys which will cost nothing for the government to accept, and which will bring money to self-replicate.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    16. Re:Traffic Lights? by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      [Warning: I am the original poster] People here do not use lights at night, never signal left or right, cross even 4 lanes if they want to turn. People don't use safety belts and very often they drive with their 3-yo in their lap. There are no traffic lights in the country (maybe 100, maybe 200).

      So the only thing that will stop them from killing pedestrians and other traffic participants is to aim at their wallets.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    17. Re:Traffic Lights? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      The majority of accidents also happen at intersections as well. Sorry, no citations, just 20+ years of traffic engineering interest. Speed is generally not relevant in the cause of accidents (but is important in the severity of accidents).

      You are right. People don't run red lights (generally) because the risk is high, whereas driving 70 in a 55 carries generally no risk.

    18. Re:Traffic Lights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe when the libertarians pull their heads out of their asses long enough to figure out how to apply their naive dogma to the real world and what a train wreck that would be, people will stop paying attention to their adolescent drivel long enough to learn what it was about.

    19. Re:Traffic Lights? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Where's the fallacy? He's rebutting the innuendo that speeding is the main cause of accidents. if most accidents happen under the speed limit, then they weren't attributable to speeding.

      If anything, the guy wanting to set up speed radars to prevent accidents is the one with the logical fallacy.

    20. Re:Traffic Lights? by daveime · · Score: 1

      I think he was trying to make the point that it doesn't matter if you are going 50 or 100, it's the sudden change in velocity to 0 that does most of the damage.

      Something like falling out of an aeroplane, it's not the height that kills you, it's the bloody ground.

    21. Re:Traffic Lights? by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      Naive nonsense.

      If they are that reckless, do you think they will suddenly become thoughtful just because somebody tried to get some money out of them? Fines are like bribes: you pay them and you go out and keep doing whatever you want.

      The only way to get people to stop doing _____ is to make ______ socially unacceptable. As long as you live in a culture where traffic laws are a joke, no one will take them seriously. You need your community to support your position. You need to make it scandalous to drive dangerously.

      There are often serious fines for speeding in the US. People do it anyways, because it's only money. Hardly anyone will criticize you, or make fun of you for driving 75mph on a 55mph road. The fines do no good; they are a joke. Every meaningful advance in traffic safety here has come because of education. People explained why wearing seatbelts was a good idea. Why talking on the phone or texting while driving is unsafe. Some people still do it, but they are criticized for it. They are ashamed to admit they do it. Until that is true where you live, your efforts to simply ask for money from those who drive dangerously - like you're selling them a license to kill - will accomplish nothing.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    22. Re:Traffic Lights? by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      You've already failed. If you don't have popular support for what you're trying to do, no technology is going to help you.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    23. Re:Traffic Lights? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      [Warning: I am the original poster] People here do not use lights at night, never signal left or right, cross even 4 lanes if they want to turn. People don't use safety belts and very often they drive with their 3-yo in their lap. There are no traffic lights in the country (maybe 100, maybe 200).

      That merely reinforces my point. Speeding is an incidental problem here. You're not going to save many lives when people are just plain reckless, especially when pedestrians are involved. You're as dead being hit by a car at 80km/h as you are at 120 - it's purely a matter of luck at that stage.

    24. Re:Traffic Lights? by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      [Warning: I am the original poster] I want less accidents and less *fatalities*. if you get hit by a car at 20 mph, you have chances of survival. if you get hit at 70mph, not so much. Especially if your body will land between other hundreds of cars also speeding.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    25. Re:Traffic Lights? by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      [Warning: I am the original poster] I people don't think, their own wallets will make them think. Yes, in the long term (10-20 years), making speeding and reckless driving socially unacceptable will win the war.

      But right now, the battle has to be win as fast as possible.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    26. Re:Traffic Lights? by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      [Warning: I am the original poster] The city limit is 50 km/h. There are still chances of survival. If the cars are driving at 90 km/h... much less.

      I don't want a magical solution. I just want less accidents and less deaths.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    27. Re:Traffic Lights? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      I think he was trying to make the point that it doesn't matter if you are going 50 or 100, it's the sudden change in velocity to 0 that does most of the damage.

      No, I wasn't. I was trying to make the point that when most accidents happen, the vehicle(s) is(are) travelling at less than the posted speed limit. Ergo, even brutally strict - and especially automated - enforcement of the legal limit generally achieves nothing (in terms of road safety), because it doesn't stop people driving recklessly, or too fast for the conditions.

    28. Re:Traffic Lights? by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      [Warning: I am the original poster] Your optimism is so refreshing :-)

      I don't need popular support, it already exists. Most of the people are pedestrians and they are overwhelmed by the traffic issues. What I need is a technology cheap enough for us to buy it, offer it to the government, then buy it again and again from generated fines.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    29. Re:Traffic Lights? by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      [Warning: I am the original poster] I want the system under government control. No Charles Bronson thing :-)

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    30. Re:Traffic Lights? by radish · · Score: 1

      Because most people spend most of their time driving below the limit, it follows that most accidents will occur under the limit. It's like saying that more people fall over while walking normally vs hopping on one leg so we should all hop everywhere. If you were to show that more accidents occurred per-minute-driven at below-limit speeds vs above-limit speeds, then that might be interesting.

      There's also the little fact that an accident at below 40mph is far, far less likely to kill someone than one at over 40mph, so again - a more interesting measure is probably not the number of accidents but the number of fatalities, or if you prefer, dollar value of damage caused (including medical costs).

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    31. Re:Traffic Lights? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Better training and harsh penalties for driving without a license.

      Seizure of the car, fines like $500-2000 dollars.

      Like in some US states, 200-500 dollar fines for texting.

    32. Re:Traffic Lights? by daveime · · Score: 1

      I'm 50:50 on this one ...

      While speed might not be the CAUSE of most accidents, it sure makes a hell of a difference to the impact ... hence my tongue in cheek comment above.

      Hit someone at 20 or 30 and both drivers will probably have stiff necks and sore chests from the seatbelts (assuming they were wearing one), and some minor damage to the vehicles. Hit someone at 50 or 60, and they'll be extracting what remains of your corpse from a Prius compacted down to the size of a microwave.

      Having said that, I always drive at the prevailing speed of the other traffic. That way I don't get tailgated by boy racers, nor do I end up running into the back of some old dear who can't see over the dashboard and insists on going 50 in a 70 zone (and in the overtaking lane).

    33. Re:Traffic Lights? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      You don't see the logical fallacy there?

      Er, no ?

    34. Re:Traffic Lights? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      What he didn't say is that most FATAL accidents happen over the speed limit. No numbers to prove that, but I'd bet on it. Okay, will here's a reference that says 1/3rd.

      http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-and-safety-guideline/excessive-speed-is-a-factor-in-one-third-of-all-fatal-crashes.html

    35. Re:Traffic Lights? by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Never assume, it only creates a fictitious situation.
        The fact that he's asking this in an Ask Slashdot article is reason enough to tell me it's not someone with much clout...

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    36. Re:Traffic Lights? by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Why the hell is this ranked "Offtopic"?
      If this is "Offopic", even saying "Libertarian" would be "Offtopic" in any other post, christ.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    37. Re:Traffic Lights? by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, most libertarians will dismiss you as a naysayer (and disturbingly generic individual) and pat you on the head to move along with your daily waffling.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    38. Re:Traffic Lights? by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      Step 1: Buy radios
      Step 2: Sell radios to police.
      Step 3: ???
      Step 4: Profit!

    39. Re:Traffic Lights? by drydem · · Score: 1

      If you want an inexpensive solution which will be financially self-sufficent then install a toll road. Create multiple barrier queues to pay automated/manned toll booths (if there is an unemployment in the area make sure the toll booth is manned). Make the toll equal to ONE OR TWO coins(so paying the toll is quick and easy), charge more for large commerical vehicles because they can pay more, have a police officer behind the toll gate in radio contact to catch toll violators ( a toll violation fine should be $$). Setup an emergency lane for fire/rescue vehicles, police vehicles and military vehicles who are allowed to pass freely. Just paying the toll will slow down all the vehicles. Use all the toll's net revenues to improve the roads by hiring people from the area.No radar. no lidar. no traffic light. Just space and people. However if you want a high tech solution look here.... http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/poltmpl.asp?url=/content/POL/districts/FSB/sod/speed/Speed.asp It's expensive. It's hi tech. Employment opportunities are limited. It operates 24/7 365 days a year with no labor disputes. Is it effective at lowering speeds? Yes. Is it financially sustainable or profitable for the government? That is still being debated because it depends on contract details and the resulting revenues. Early reports indicated that after one or two years the revenue from fines from a fixed camera/radar speed trap unit drop off as drivers all learn to slowdown. Well placed random camera/radar/laser speed traps can consistently generate more money over time but are more expensive if manned. However, if your only priority is to lower speed and save lives then the only way to get vehicles to slow down is to post swarning signs of a upcoming speed trap enforcement area with either a fixed or random enforcment. hth. Washington DC Area Driver

    40. Re:Traffic Lights? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Well, that's the only valid thing said about speed in this entire post.

      That's why most sane people don't do 70 mph in residential areas. It also highlights the stupidity of 45 mph zones in the US that could easily be 80mph zones (most of the western half of the country).

    41. Re:Traffic Lights? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      The police had no radio?

      Getting radios to the police might be a more effective use of your money. I don't think they are as expensive as what you are proposing, either.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    42. Re:Traffic Lights? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I'll be rude and pessimistic here, but it sounds a lot like Darwin needs to flex his muscles over your drivers...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    43. Re:Traffic Lights? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Hit someone at 50 or 60, and they'll be extracting what remains of your corpse from a Prius compacted down to the size of a microwave.

      I must admit I couldn't find any statistics, but I would expect that - outside of corner cases like direct head-on hits - you're more likely than not to survive crashing in a modern vehicle like a Prius. Assuming you're wearing a seatbelt of course.

    44. Re:Traffic Lights? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      While exact speed maybe immaterial for many accidents, but in a case where the driver notices the pedestrian at a 20 feet distance :

      1. At higher speeds, it is difficult to notice things, because more things are passing you per unit time. There comes a limit of speed of observing your surroundings - it is different for different people in different states of mind. So maybe one would notice the pedestrian at 20 feet distance if driving at 80km/h, but at 17 feet distance when driving at 120 km/h in otherwise similar conditions.

      2. Lot of safe driving is anticipation. E.g. there is a cross-road meeting your highway - expect someone slightly careless to come from that cross-road. The faster you go, the less time to notice the cross-road and prepare for it. The faster such observations have to be made, the less concentration is spared for a pedestrian 20 feet away from the driver.

      3. Stopping distance obviously increases by speed. I think you already know the details here.

      Now, how is that "purely a matter of luck" here ?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    45. Re:Traffic Lights? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Now, how is that "purely a matter of luck" here ?

      Firstly, because the stopping distance from 80km/h is about 180 feet - with about 50 of that being reaction time. If you don't notice someone until they're 20 feet away, then you're going to hit them at either 80km/h or 120km/h - at which point survival is going to be almost completely an issue of luck (the survival rate for pedestrian accidents over about 60km/h is essentially zero).

      Secondly, because driving 80km/h in high-volume pedestrian areas isn't speeding, it's recklessly dangerous driving. People prepared to do that are not thinking rationally enough to be deterred by a fine.

      Thirdly, because my comment was based on the assumption of hitting a pedestrian at that speed. Not the obligatory artificially constructed scenario you are using where the vehicle travelling at whatever speed you want to be used pulls up a foot short of the child running out for a ball.

      Finally, because the only rational conclusion to your argument is that we return to the system of every car having someone in front of it waving a flag and ringing a bell.

    46. Re:Traffic Lights? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      If you don't notice someone until they're 20 feet away

      Well, my bad. I chose a very short distance as an example - though none of my points depended upon this figure. Say 100 or 200 feet. In fact stopping is not always necessary to save the day - once sufficiently slow and controlled you may be able to swerve. Again, lower speed - lower danger, more time to react and less panic - keep the mind working.

      Secondly, because driving 80km/h in high-volume pedestrian areas isn't speeding, it's recklessly dangerous driving. People prepared to do that are not thinking rationally enough to be deterred by a fine.

      Nobody here is talking about "high-volume pedestrian areas". No idea where you brought that from. I hope you are not trying to imply that only pedestrians on "high-volume pedestrian areas" are entitled to safety.

      People prepared to do that are not thinking rationally enough to be deterred by a fine.

      Well, that is fine. I was replying to your dismissal of (high) speed as a hazard.

      Thirdly, because my comment was based on the assumption of hitting a pedestrian at that speed.

      I know that, but that is an impractical assumption. In an overwhelming majority of cases, the driver would know that he is going to hit a pedestrian at least a few milli-seconds before actually hitting. Even if he does not notice this until after hitting - high speed may be a cause of this not noticing. That is what my post described - not sure if you read it to understand or just to rebut on irrelevant points. The story should start from the point when he does notice, and reasons why he notices late or not at all. So in fact, it is your assumption that is artificial.

      I don't remember mentioning any child or a ball.

      Finally, because the only rational conclusion to your argument is that we return to the system of every car having someone in front of it waving a flag and ringing a bell.

      In fact that "conclusion" is not rational at all. I just want to prove that however inconvenient it may sound, high speed does increase number and intensity of accidents.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    47. Re:Traffic Lights? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Nobody here is talking about "high-volume pedestrian areas". No idea where you brought that from.

      Because pretty much every single example that's been used about how dangerous speeding is, has referred to pedestrians being killed. The only reasonable conclusion seems to be that the discussion is about high pedestrian areas, since they generally aren't waltzing out onto arterial roads and freeways without looking.

      The focus on nearly the entire discussion in this, and other, threads has been about danger to pedestrians. If that doesn't imply a pedestrian-dense area, I don't know what does.

      Well, that is fine. I was replying to your dismissal of (high) speed as a hazard.

      I never said high speed wasn't a hazard.

      I know that, but that is an impractical assumption. In an overwhelming majority of cases, the driver would know that he is going to hit a pedestrian at least a few milli-seconds before actually hitting. Even if he does not notice this until after hitting - high speed may be a cause of this not noticing.

      No. Inattentiveness is the cause of not noticing a pedestrian.

      That, or the pedestrian deliberately and recklessly moving in front of the vehicle. Not all the blame should lie with the car in these situations.

      That is what my post described - not sure if you read it to understand or just to rebut on irrelevant points. The story should start from the point when he does notice, and reasons why he notices late or not at all. So in fact, it is your assumption that is artificial.

      That is a ridiculous condition that merely reinforces my point. If a driver doesn't see a pedestrian, it's because he's not paying attention, or doing something else wrong. To ignore those *critical* factors and focus solely on speed - which, as I said earlier, is largely an incidental factor at that point - is disingenuous at best.

      I don't remember mentioning any child or a ball.

      Your example was a pedestrian very suddenly stepping in front of a vehicle traveling at speed. It's a variation on a theme. Generally doing exactly what you are doing - describing a situation where only vehicles traveling at the speed you think they should be are "safe", and anyone else is "dangerous".

      In fact that "conclusion" is not rational at all.

      It is when the only argument you're trying to make is "slower == safer".

      I just want to prove that however inconvenient it may sound, high speed does increase number and intensity of accidents.

      If that were true then the fastest roads would be the most dangerous and have the most accidents. Neither of these things are true.

    48. Re:Traffic Lights? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Because pretty much every single example that's been used about how dangerous speeding is, has referred to pedestrians being killed. The only reasonable conclusion seems to be that the discussion is about high pedestrian areas, since they generally aren't waltzing out onto arterial roads and freeways without looking.

      But not a single example mentioned anything about high-volume pedestrian areas. That addition can surely be attributed to your own ingenuity. And sure, roads (in Middle-East, and everywhere else too) can be classified into arterial roads, freeways, and completely pedestrian free roads. Thanks, I was not aware of that.

      The focus on nearly the entire discussion in this, and other, threads has been about danger to pedestrians. If that doesn't imply a pedestrian-dense area, I don't know what does.

      I repeat - pedestrians exist in non-pedestrian-dense areas.

      I never said high speed wasn't a hazard.

      May I remind you of your statement

      Speeding is an incidental problem here. You're not going to save many lives when people are just plain reckless, especially when pedestrians are involved. You're as dead being hit by a car at 80km/h as you are at 120 - it's purely a matter of luck at that stage.

      ?

      To this, I replied that speed does add to chances of drivers not noticing pedestrians, and being unable to stop once they notice pedestrians. It is not an incidental problem. You are yet to address the arguments I made for this.

      No. Inattentiveness is the cause of not noticing a pedestrian.

      Your inattentiveness to my post is the cause of not noticing my arguments that described how speeding causes a driver to not notice a pedestrian.

      If a driver doesn't see a pedestrian, it's because he's not paying attention, or doing something else wrong.

      To ignore those *critical* factors and focus solely on speed

      I do not focus solely on speed. If my post did, it was because you dismissed (high) speed as a significant factor that causes accidents. It is called staying relevant to the subject.

      describing a situation where only vehicles traveling at the speed you think they should be are "safe", and anyone else is "dangerous".

      I don't say that. I say - the slower you drive (other things remaining constant) - the safer it would be for the kind of accidents that were being discussed. Again, reasons are mentioned in my post. You have not addressed those reasons yet.

      In fact that "conclusion" is not rational at all.

      It is when the only argument you're trying to make is "slower == safer".

      I still don't see how "every car having someone in front of it waving a flag and ringing a bell" is rational.

      I just want to prove that however inconvenient it may sound, high speed does increase number and intensity of accidents.

      If that were true then the fastest roads would be the most dangerous and have the most accidents. Neither of these things are true.

      High speed increases the "number and intensity of accidents", but so do a variety of other factors too. Since we are discussing speed, I do not mention them for fear of writing a multi-thousand-page book on Slashdot. In addition to reading a post before replying, you desperately need a Logic 101 course -

      Factor A increases the chance of event X - does not mean that maximizing factor A maximizes the chance of event X. Because other factors B, C and D also increase/decrease the chance of event X which are not currently under discussion.

      thanks

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  8. Re:One additional improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's wrong with speeders? My X-34 land speeder can do 250 km/h so I should be going that fast.

  9. the better alternative by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Recently I took a trip to Adidas Abba Ethiopia. 7 Million people on a mountain top with 2 stoplights in the whole city. The price of gas however was $8/liter. No one drives reckless when gasoline is $8/liter. I didn't see a single accident while I was there.

    1. Re:the better alternative by hedwards · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually that's probably a side effect of them not having traffic control devices in place. Because the devices don't exist, they can't be missed and consequently nobody can assume that the other party is going to stop. I remember a study a while back which dealt with signage, the conclusion was that too many traffic control devices was usually worse than too few. As long as there was a strong standard for how to handle 4 way stops common sense went quite a long ways toward making the roads safer.

    2. Re:the better alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adidas Abba Ethiopia

      Addis Ababa

      Shit I sure hope you were just trying to be funny.

    3. Re:the better alternative by knarf · · Score: 4, Funny

      Adidas Abba Ethiopia

      I had no idea the Ethiopian government had sold the name of their capital to the peddlers of sports shoes and middle of the road music or fish picklers.

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
    4. Re:the better alternative by Kvasio · · Score: 1

      Adidas Abba? Isn't it the SAP Bose region?

    5. Re:the better alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At $8 a litre, I'd be surprised if you saw many cars either.

    6. Re:the better alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the difference, actually, between Christians and Muslims. Yes, I've lived in both. Muslims believe, very strongly, in Allah's will. It makes absolutely no sense to westerners, but a fundamental part of their culture is that if Allah wills you to get through the intersection, then you will get through the intersection. Conversely, if you die in a traffic accident, Allah willed that you die in a traffic accident. I thought it was racist bullshit the first dozen times I heard it, but after a few yeras, I realized what an intrinsic part of their culture it is. Mashallah is more than just squiggles on a paper.

    7. Re:the better alternative by Zardus · · Score: 1

      This always happens to me when I'm typing on a phone -- the autocorrect will correct away properly spelled but obscure words into pretty much randomness.

      But it's still quite funny :-)

      --
      You can mod your friends, you can mod your nose, but you can't mod your friend's nose.
    8. Re:the better alternative by shentino · · Score: 1

      What if Allah's will is that you keep your eyes peeled and wants you to use the good brains he gave you?

    9. Re:the better alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Allah would have made you a Christian.

    10. Re:the better alternative by watookal · · Score: 1

      I saw this kind-of work in Vietnam. At many of their large intersections everybody "just goes". They slow down and kind of weave through. It works well most of the time, but I did see 5 scooter accidents (none too serious, though) in the couple of weeks I was there. Their roads are *very* busy though, so those numbers would be a lot lower in a less-populated country.

    11. Re:the better alternative by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Nah, Westernes totally understand it. There's no understanding issue there, trust me.
      It's just that it removes common sense and logic from the picture, is all. You know, every action having an equal and opposite reaction... consequences and repercussions, and the such.
      Now that we're on the same page, let's move on.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    12. Re:the better alternative by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      I see overzealous taxation helps the health of the population!

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    13. Re:the better alternative by WarwickRyan · · Score: 1

      This was trialled in Germany and Netherlands a couple of years ago:

      ahref=http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2143663,00.htmlrel=url2html-12417http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2143663,00.html />

    14. Re:the better alternative by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Gee, this sounds a lot like Christianity several hundred years ago...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    15. Re:the better alternative by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      It's the difference, actually, between Christians and Muslims. Yes, I've lived in both.

      I have never figured out how to live in a Christian or a Muslim. Entering them for a while is fine, but live inside them? Sounds crazy.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    16. Re:the better alternative by idji · · Score: 1

      Addis Abeba has certainly more that 2 traffic lights. Here are 3 on google maps. Cars don't stop behind a pedestrian crossing when there are no lights.

    17. Re:the better alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recently I took a trip to Adidas Abba Ethiopia.

      You mean Addis Ababa, no doubt... Unless Adidas just bought out the Ethiopian capital...

    18. Re:the better alternative by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 0

      You just told me accidents are caused by poor people.

  10. Private technological gizmos by dfetter · · Score: 1

    will never replace rule of law.

    --
    What part of "A well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    1. Re:Private technological gizmos by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. No, wait...

    2. Re:Private technological gizmos by pz · · Score: 3, Informative

      will never replace rule of law.

      My understanding is that the story submitter is trying to provide the police / government with a means to enforce the law. You'll note the phrase, "but the motorcycle driver who was responsible fled and the police weren't equipped to catch him," implying that the police do not have sufficient means.

      You'll also notice that the summary states, "build a traffic radar system able to capture a vehicle's speed," and "[t]here are laws, but not much willingness to enforce them," and hopes with the hypothetical new system that fines will be levied. This, along with the general tone and explicit suggestion of rolling fines into additional technology, would all suggest that the submitter is looking to bootstrap rule of law.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    3. Re:Private technological gizmos by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      You've clearly never heard of guns.

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    4. Re:Private technological gizmos by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      [Warning: I am the original poster] I don't want anything private. I want the system to be installed with government consent, as a revenue sharing system, with our share being reinvested in installing new radars.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    5. Re:Private technological gizmos by cbraescu1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, I want to work WITHIN the existing legal framework, by bootstrapping its enforcing. The radars are not some Charles Bronson vigilante tech toys, but should be installed with government consent under a revenue sharing agreement.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
  11. Force them to slow down by pjt33 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Speed bumps may be more effective than radar traps.

    1. Re:Force them to slow down by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking caltrops.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Force them to slow down by psyque · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean like this one in Dubai? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8c40dee8ec

    3. Re:Force them to slow down by russ1337 · · Score: 1

      I live in a city with a population in the millions (someplace in the Middle East; the country is not important)

      private citizen wants to put down speed bumps. Best to do it at night when it's cooler and the roads are less busy.

      A couple of guys pouring cement onto a lump on the road in the middle of the night is not suspicious at all..... except to the predator flying overhead...

    4. Re:Force them to slow down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dips are better, compression and rebound damping are tuned mostly for small movements and bumps, dips will be much more jarring.

    5. Re:Force them to slow down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      install cameras in high accident areas and record the insanity.... this will raise awareness and (might) bring shame to the city (officials) who are not enforcing the laws.... if enough really tragic videos go "viral" maybe a news story will be done about it...

    6. Re:Force them to slow down by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Drive the frost heaves of the Alaska Highway once.

      Bumps do a damned good job of slowing you down or jarring the hell out of you.

    7. Re:Force them to slow down by Almandine · · Score: 1

      And pair those speed bumps with rumble strips so that the drivers can stay in their lanes.

    8. Re:Force them to slow down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dips are better, compression and rebound damping are tuned mostly for small movements and bumps, dips will be much more jarring.

      But you can bypass dips by going fast enough, and if you run through bumps at high speeds you're going to really damage the suspension (or the chassis itself on sport suspension).

      Perhaps you're thinking about different things.. the bumps here would pretty much remove 5 cm from your track tuned car bottom, even if you were driving 0.0001 km/h.

    9. Re:Force them to slow down by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Speed bumps are great, especially since you can tune them to the speed that you're expecting on the road. Jarring isn't a good idea, if you've got people speeding, jarring them could very easily send them into a crowd of pedestrians, which is presumably not the intention of getting traffic under control.

    10. Re:Force them to slow down by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Speed bumps may be more effective than radar traps.

      And now I am not moderating anymore. I used to agree with you, but then someone pointed out that this is not nearly as good of a solution as it seems. Apparently, all it takes is one trip in an ambulance over a few speedbumps and you'd see things differently. A non-discriminating solution that slows all traffic to 5-10 miles an hour on a city road is an overkill.

    11. Re:Force them to slow down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a bonus, you can hide a few dead bodies too!

      Err...wait, just how made are you??

    12. Re:Force them to slow down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOW ! Feel sorry for the Lamborghini driver though.

    13. Re:Force them to slow down by bwayne314 · · Score: 1

      Totally awesome! I bet that lambo driver is going to be paranoid about how fast he is going, and watching the road EVERYWHERE now ... which is a good thing imo.

    14. Re:Force them to slow down by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      You want to give a government that can't enforce the laws they have an automatic ticket writing system which they will then use to write tickets for those who can afford to pay but cannot afford to fight. Marvelous.

      How the US does it is a terrible mix of mandated corporate monopolies, confiscatory taxes and fines based on a confusing number of laws spread across an insane number of jurisdictions and some jack booted thuggery. I don't recommend it.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    15. Re:Force them to slow down by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Ahhh ... idiots suggesting speed bumps ... you know what happens when you put down speed bumps?

      2 things ... people don't want to drive there, so they avoid the area. Means all property values fall, residential or commercial because you've made the area less desirable to everyone.

      Second, in between the speed bumps ... you'll have a lot of pissed off people gunning it to spit you. They'll end up hitting some little kid because the kid wasn't working and they were blinded by rage because of your retarded speed bumps.

      I'm sure you'll tell me how its the drivers fault for not controlling his rage ... or the kid's fault for not looking ... the end result is STILL a dead or mangled child.

      Suggesting speed bumps as a solution to any problem is about like suggesting the cure to lung cancer is to stop breathing.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    16. Re:Force them to slow down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an Arab country.

      I suggest jarring speed bumps that only cover one side of each traffic lane.

      Perhaps with a deep pothole in the other traffic lane.

      Fuck it. I suggest anti-tank mines.

    17. Re:Force them to slow down by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm not so sure that's a good speed bump. It looks like more of a ramp which will cause more accidents (cars flying into other cars, losing control.) Effective speed bumps would damage only the car violating the speed.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    18. Re:Force them to slow down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't it be cheaper and faster to lay down some of these: http://www.hoax-slayer.com/fake-potholes.shtml

      They may only work once per driver, but it will be a while before every driver on a street knows about them and the drivers behind that driver have to slow down too.

    19. Re:Force them to slow down by Zerth · · Score: 1

      Not speed bumps, just grind in some rumble strips. Even better if you can tune them to curse in the local language when you exceed the speed limit. Or play cookie-monster-metal.

    20. Re:Force them to slow down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, speed bumps are remarkably ineffective.

      Try this sometime, when there's no one around and it's safe. Take the speed bump at the speed the bump installers wanted to achieve, which is dead slow. Your vehicle will lurch uncomfortably.

      Next, try the bump at a speed that is around double dead slow, say 10-15 mph (roughly 20 kph). Your shocks will take the impact, the chassis does not move. No lurching!

      Speed bumps are a good example of a negative incentive system.

    21. Re:Force them to slow down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it you've concluded that speed is the cause of the accidents?

      Based on your assumption everyone in Germany should be dead since the autobahns have no speed limit.

      Could it be that it's not speed that kills but bad driving?

      There are a lot of things to take into account when determining the safe speed: weather conditions, road conditions (e.g. density of traffic, visibility), the capabilities of your car (brakes, tyres etc) and so forth.

      Sadly there are a lot of morons who think speed is the be all and end all of road safety and who come up with stupid ideas like speed bumps that reduce fuel efficiency and fuck up your suspension.

      With your shallow thinking you'd be ideal for a job in the public sector.

    22. Re:Force them to slow down by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Not that many corporate monopolies and the ones that exist are new. For example, I'm in Alaska and there are no speed cameras, no red light cameras, nothing like Gatso in Europe.

      As for the jurisdictions, yes the US has alot of them, it's how the US works legally. Cities, counties, states all deal with local issues.

      Better than everything being handled at the Federal level, for instance, traffic laws for Southern California wouldn't work all that well in Alaska. Moose avoidance, chains from September to May, mandatory stopping at an accident scene.

    23. Re:Force them to slow down by drolli · · Score: 1
    24. Re:Force them to slow down by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      How about a lifted ambulance with a beefy off-road suspension, like the kind they use in off-road truck racing, with a front skid plate? That way the ambulance could take the bumps at full speed...hehe.

    25. Re:Force them to slow down by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Alaska isn't exactly a great example state for traffic devices....
      It's like Florida being used as a measurement of snowfall in North America. Alaska is an entirely unique place.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    26. Re:Force them to slow down by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Logged in this morning to see 15 replies, but yours is by far the best point. I can't recall whether we went over any speed bumps the time I went to hospital in an ambulance: what I do remember is the roundabout. But I can well believe that they could be uncomfortable.

      I'm curious about "5-10 miles an hour", though. Where I learnt to drive the correct speed for the bumps was 20-25. You could almost take them in 3rd gear. (In fact, I did take one in 3rd gear in my driving test without any discomfort, but at the speed I was going 2nd would have been better).

    27. Re:Force them to slow down by Tor · · Score: 1

      This is the shortest, sweetest and most constructive reply I read in this discussion! :)

      One problem I can see is that as a private citizen, the OP probably does not have authority to build speed bumps, without prior permission from whatever government entity is responsible for that stretch of street/road.

      As a private citizen, (s)he also probably cannot expect that any radar (s)he installs will be "validated" by the city government for the purpose of gathering evidence against speeders. (Too many potential ways that data could be manipulated unless gathered in an official way).

      At least that's how it would be in the western world. I do not know much about the Middle East in general, much less about particular places and formal/practical government regulations.

    28. Re:Force them to slow down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the UK, speed cushions are more common. They slow down cars, while allowing emergency services vehicles to pass at speed (due to the larger distance between their wheels).

    29. Re:Force them to slow down by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      I'd assume that depends on how much shoch you can tolerate. We have pillow-shaped speed bumps (about as long as a car but with enough space at the sides for motorcyclists to easily pass through). You can drive over them at 30 km/h with no problem unless your car has been lowered or you have a bad suspension. However, doing so does induce a noticeable jolt.

      I could imagine that ambulance drivers would want to avoid anything that unneccessarily exerts force on the patient. Driving over a speed bump at regular cruising speed would apply. Therefore it seems more reasonable to either slow to a crawl when passing over speed bumps or choosing a route that avoids them altogether, at least as long as a patient is in the ambulance. Both of these approaches waste time.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    30. Re:Force them to slow down by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Yes, EXACTLY like that.

      Teach those fuckers to pay attention. If they didn't see the speedbump in time enough to slow down (or at all) they deserve the damage.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    31. Re:Force them to slow down by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Alaska has metro areas that would work just fine for traffic cameras, red light cameras, Gatso type ticketing systems on the highway.

    32. Re:Force them to slow down by ndogg · · Score: 1

      I was in the hospital a little while back for an injury, and on the way there in the ambulance, I could feel every little bump we went over even though we never went over a speed bump, and it was very painful.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    33. Re:Force them to slow down by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Emergency vehicles aren't -- or at least shouldn't be -- built for style. A large road clearance, large suspension travel, and good design is all it takes to pass over a proper speed bump at reasonable velocities.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    34. Re:Force them to slow down by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      So do SUVs. WHich are much unsafer when the driver loses control because he didn't pay attention to the road. While the people in sporiter vehicles get fucked, ven though in general, theyare more atentive drivers, by virtue of respecting he driving experience as such, and not treat it as chore, trying to mask it in a traveling palas.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    35. Re:Force them to slow down by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I don't think speed bumps like that are a good idea. Did you see the one car in that video that lost control and swerved into the other lane? Last thing you need is other people getting hurt or killed because of the speed bumps.

    36. Re:Force them to slow down by zmooc · · Score: 1

      Speed bumps are also extremely effective in injuring bicyclists and doubling the amount of car exhaust due to unneccessary braking and accelerating (in my country even to the point that speedbumps singlehandedly cause pollution levels to cross acceptable thresholds in populated areas!). Though it's clear that they slow traffic down on average, there's hardly any evidence to back the idea that they also prevent accidents.

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
  12. Re:One additional improvement by 2.7182 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why bother with all the infrastructure? Just install a monitor in the car and when the speedometer goes too high, charge his/her credit card.

  13. Enforcement? by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

    If there was any will of the authorities to enforce speed laws, they'd do something. Apparently there isn't so what are you going to do about that? Vigilantism?

    1. Re:Enforcement? by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      The government is poor, and busy with more basic necessities: water, electricity and food for an ever growing population. Hint: the policemen did not have radio stations.

      What I envision is a revenue sharing agreement with the government, where the radars pay for themselves and any profits are being reinvested in more radars.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
  14. Misdirected efforts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You cannot solve a social problem with technology, or strict laws.

    1. Re:Misdirected efforts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People speed because there's too much distance between point A and point B... points A and B usually being the driver's house and job.

    2. Re:Misdirected efforts by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. He gets it. This is a social problem, and requires a social solution.

      ORGANIZE.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    3. Re:Misdirected efforts by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      And the best part is he actually thinks that either the local police who aren't enforcing the laws currently will suddenly jump on the opportunity to enforce it with these "technological" measures while at the same time giving the money collected back to them to use to expand the system or that he's going to create his own private police force to collect fines. Both are highly unlikely and either is likely to end up with one result, the OP going to jail or being harassed by the police who don't like their failings pointed out.

      You can't correct a social problem with technology. Your problem is that your people don't care. They aren't getting government to serve the people, they aren't obeying the laws and there are no consequences for lawbreakers. Corruption and bad government cannot be fixed without the people. Now given that you are in the middle east there is a very good chance that your country isn't a democracy. In a normal democracy I would suggest doing what you can to fix the real problem, which is to mobilize the people to petition the government, but if you aren't in a democracy, publicizing the failings of government could be highly dangerous to your health.

      You want to fix the traffic problem, first you need to fix the social problem that generated it and only you know how to fix the daunting problem of altering your government and culture.

    4. Re:Misdirected efforts by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Technology can improve many situations viewed as social. Population increasing too fast? Free 24 hour television. People crapping in the street? Public toilets and sewers. People racing through residential neighborhoods? Build controlled-access highways that attract fast drivers, modify local streets to make speeding difficult and unpleasant.

      With enough money, properly applied technology can help. Sometimes.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  15. Fast cars + the Middle East by DoubleParadoxx · · Score: 0

    You'd think they could afford to install some stop lights in Dubai...

    1. Re:Fast cars + the Middle East by dragisha · · Score: 1

      http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/traffic-transport/fatality-rates-on-dubai-roads-drop-considerably-1.531042

      Google is your friend, as it usually goes.

      Also - original poster wrote so long a post, one can only hope he spent third of that time on Google.

      --
      http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
  16. Any suggestions would be appreciated by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Move.

    No seriously, the real issue is training/caring, not more policing. If your population is too dumb to be trained how to drive responsibly or don't care about their follow man as a rule, its time to move elsewhere.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Any suggestions would be appreciated by uniquename72 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not sure why you were modded Off Topic. Yes, "Move" isn't much of a solution considering that driving tests all over the country are something of a joke. But the OP's problem really is a lack of driver skill and education, not lack of law enforcement. The roads near where I work are crawling with cops, yet there are accidents ALL. THE. TIME.

      The test to be allowed to pilot a 2-ton metal projectile down a poorly constructed, crowded roadway is among the easiest you'll take in your life. This is not okay.

      OP should consider lobbying for stricter driving tests. That would have roughly the same possibility of success (nearing zero), but at least it's a way to solve the problem.

    2. Re:Any suggestions would be appreciated by 0m3gaMan · · Score: 1

      Wow. This whole thing is like The Dawn of Man for cinema enthusiasts and V1 owners.

    3. Re:Any suggestions would be appreciated by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Oh, for fucks sake. He's trying to improve his situation over there (albeit somewhat naive, you can just buy traffic radars). But no, your answer to this problem is that he should move? Move away from his nice apartment, friends, family etc. etc. just because the street he lives on is unsafe? It's like all those replies from people that if one part of you job sucks you should get another job. If you take that into the extreme, you will always have to move, since nothing is perfect.

      Living conditions everywhere are a set of variables. You will always like one part better than the other. If you don't like anything, you will try and up the score or look for a place with a better score.

    4. Re:Any suggestions would be appreciated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the OP's problem really is a lack of driver skill and education, not lack of law enforcement. The roads near where I work are crawling with cops, yet there are accidents ALL. THE. TIME.

      It's often a result of piss-poor street planning, signage, etc. Traffic congestion is actually the number one cause of collisions- and is usually in turn a result of poor planning and in most cases a direct result of speed limits which are too low for the situation. When traffic backs up people get pissed. They take chances turning and pulling out which they normally wouldn't take, but after 10 minutes of waiting they say "fuck it" and make a break. It causes traffic to stop and start suddenly, making it unpredictable for pedestrians.

      This sounds like a typical case of some busy-body seeing accidents, and not understanding anything about traffic, sociology, or roadway engineering immediately resorting to the solution of "Damn kids driving too fast I'll slow them down, yessireeeee that'll fix it all".
      Fix the roads, you'll fix most of the problem. You'll never fix all of it.

    5. Re:Any suggestions would be appreciated by fru1tcake · · Score: 1

      Stricter driving tests are great, but they are all but useless if there are resource issues when it comes to enforcing the laws. What's to say that people won't just drive unlicensed? Secondly, just because you CAN drive safely doesn't mean you WILL. A driver might pass the strictest of tests, but put him in a fast car with a few mates and you can see different quality of driving altogether.

      --
      It's not a bug, it's a lepidopter!
  17. A man more wise than me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone suggested putting spikes in place of air bags on steering wheels. Sounds like the wankers on the roads near you need to discover just how dangerous their driving its too other road users.

    By the way, unless you're a police officer you probably won't get anyone to pay any fine you impose. Unless you intend too extort it out of them...?

  18. Out Source It by DontScotty · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Find a country willing to provide

    lower quality services for less money -

    then when they continue the downward trend,

    complain about the cost of returning the

    services to the local level to improve the quality.

    3) Profit !

    1. Re:Out Source It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps you

      could try to

      use less carriage

      returns.

  19. It's not that simple by jhutchins · · Score: 1

    Just capturing speed is going to do very little to alleviate bad or aggressive driving. Speed can reduce reaction time and increase impact. It's often cited as a contributing factor in accident analysis, but often simply as a "check all the usual boxes" habit. ( http://www.tarcanfel.org/~hutchins/speed/speed.htm)

  20. First define "Reckless" by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

    Is Reckless speeding? Weaving in and out of other cars? Sudden/frequent lane changes?

    Do you need video of the vehicle driving recklessly in order to prosecute?

  21. Forget the radar trap... by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

    Just toss a spike strip across the road. That ought to slow things down.

  22. two ways to do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Traffic camera systems are already commercially available.

    or......

    It's not hard with blob detection.... not hard at all using the opensource aForge libraries (google it). Just track the movement of the blob across the cameras frame and calculate the speed based off of that. Adjust the geometry for each site, and off you go.

    1. Re:two ways to do it by iggie · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of libraries for doing this kind of thing (object tracking). Doing it with video processing is definitely the way to go though, because other than a camera and a substantial computer (or FPGA or GPU), its all software which is freely replicated, and easier to come by if you have more people with time and talent than money. Its also a lot harder to fool. Radar is basically obsolete, limited to speed only, and easy to dispute. If you track objects (cars), you can also factor in rapid acceleration/deceleration, extreme lane-changes, other things that you can update with software, like accident detection even. The OCR on the license plate is only to figure out who to send the ticket to. The speed, acceleration, etc is all done by tracking the whole car(s). Its a nice project for state-of-the-art geekery, and will have lots of non-traffic-related applications. If the only video that makes it out of the system are the snippets containing violations as determined by software, it could be made hard to use this system for general people tracking. Hard being a relative term, of course.

      Oh, and its Cairo, right? No traffic lights, no enforcement, reckless speeding, sea of pedestrians. Its gotta be Cairo.
      Libertarians need to spend a week or two in Cairo to see how their ideas work in practice. Its not all bad, actually. Just extreme. I love Cairo.

  23. Re:One additional improvement by scosco62 · · Score: 1

    And sand. With oil. Recipe for world peace.

  24. Laws first by RichMan · · Score: 1

    First you need a law that says if you can get a "calibrated" radar reading and a picture you can issue a ticket to the owner of the vehicle.

    Note that with the radar photo thing you cannot identify the driver. You need a law that says you can issue a ticket to the vehicle owner by mail or the equivalent and you do not need an officer actually chasing down the speeding vehicle.

  25. Wait by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Someone in the mid-east is mad as hell? they deuce you say~

    "s I've given first aid at two other car accidents, "

    good for you, well done.

    " we decided to take the issue into our own hands: build a traffic radar system able to capture a vehicle's speed, install it at our own expense, and share the generated penalties with the city government (all subject of their approval, of course"

    It can be done. You will need several traffic engineers, radar specialists, and about 100 million dollars. . . . and it still won't be perfect, and require law enforcement to use it. Don't forget you will need cameras, people to review the data, maintain the system.

    I know everyone thinks keeping a city running is easy and cheap, but it is neither.

    You don't need a technical solution, you need at social one.

    You need to get the police enforcing the laws, you need to get a system with minimal corruption, you need to educate drivers on why they need to obey the laws, you need people to shame bad drivers.

    You can do that for a lot less money and time then the technical solution you proposed.

    yes, I do know what I'm talking about.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Wait by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 1, Troll

      This is bullshit. Typical western capitalist viewpoint. You don't need a dozen specialists and millions of dollars to create a traffic monitoring system. You need some off the shelf hardware and a few people willing to work on it till it functions properly. First off, you don't use radar. At all. You use cameras and lasers. (IR band preferably). Second, it doesn't take an engineer to build a gizmo.

      They say necessity is the mother of invention. THEY are right. If it's needed, it can probably be done, and done well no less. This guy isn't trying to invent a new technology. He's wanting to use existing technology to do something other people have already done.

      A simple run down of a possible build out, right off the top of my head... casing, power supply (backup?), 1 video camera (any camcorder will work, or specialized cameras are an option), 1 or 2 IR lasers with rangefinding capability, a thin client control system with data capture and Wifi or cellular link. Well shit, we're done with hardware. Now all you need is proper software, most of which already exists and would simply need to be modified. I could build a unit like this, that could clock your speed through it's field of view, capture your cars image, the license plate and maybe the drivers face. I could build it for maybe 500$ each unit, probably figure 1000$ just to be safe. Where I come from this sort of thing is a weekend project. Getting it implemented as a part of the legal system would be the hard part.

      If installing traffic enforcement cameras costs millions of dollars, it's because of bureaucracy and waste. Not because the actual system cost is really that high. My understanding is that most of that cost in the US comes from built in contract padding and kick backs, and the legal obligations that our litigious society requires. Such things are allowed to continue because people like you think that's the only way it can work. You are wrong.

    2. Re:Wait by Jeff+Carr · · Score: 1

      You need to get the police enforcing the laws, you need to get a system with minimal corruption, you need to educate drivers on why they need to obey the laws, you need people to shame bad drivers.

      Bogota hired a few hundred mimes about 6 years ago to make fun of people breaking traffic laws. It was reported to be quite effective actually as the people were more apt to change their behavior because of shame then because of fines. Probably much cheaper than radar as well.

      --
      The television will not be revolutionized.
    3. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cause Portland is a model traffic plan

    4. Re:Wait by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Probably a great way of getting rid of 100 mimes in "traffic accidents" too.

    5. Re:Wait by spire3661 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have no idea what is involved in a civil engineering project such as this. Sure any technically minded jackass can slap together technology, but we hire engineers for a reason. Engineers think of all the things that the normal person wouldnt and plan for it. It takes planning and effort to design a system such as this if you want it to work long term and be a proper civil project. You have no idea the costs of hardened, field tested equipment that would be needed to do this.Yes, you could make a system that could to the job but for how long? How much is maintenance? will there be interference issues, will your design stand up to multiple climates, varying temperatures, dirty power etc. Western civil design is the way it is for real PRACTICAL reasons, not because we love waste.

      --
      Good-bye
    6. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, I do know what I'm talking about.

      Oh, good. Now that I know that, I will re-read your post with the underlying confidence that this comes from a credible source.

    7. Re:Wait by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 1

      If you prefer to believe that you aren't capable of designing and implementing such a system, that's fine. I know differently. If you would like to believe that it costs multiple million dollars to install a traffic light, or a stop sign, you are free to believe that, and your local government appreciates the support.

      Get a job in the civilian engineering fields, or better yet, government, and tell me that the waste isn't astronomical after you've dealt with it for 10 years.

    8. Re:Wait by thewise1 · · Score: 1

      Sure, in a place where you don't give people due process to challenge their tickets, yeah. Building some fly by night hobbyist traffic monitoring system will be ok. In a western capitalist country, we get (generally, still) due process, the ability to defend ourselves in court, and we also understand that the whole point of speeding tickets is usually revenue generation for the municipality, state, county, etc. We also understand that while our police tell us it's all for our safety, the real problem is speed DIFFERENTIAL, not speed itself (generally) and thus we just set speed limits below the natural speed of the road, and cash in on the revenue.

    9. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, I do know what I'm talking about.

      i strongly believe you do.

      i'm not quite as convinced that you know what he's talking about, though. I thought he was more than hinting at something that sounded a touch vigilante, but, I'm not sure. I wasn't able to develop a "confident visual" from the summary,... or to understand *exactly* what he was trying to do,... i'm not completely certain he was either.

      He may certainly be "mad as hell," but my reading was that he was concerned and was prepared to do something more than write a letter or make a phone call,... i could be wrong,... it's happened before.

          Perhaps, you/we might ask him a question or two (just to be certain), we understand what the situation is....

      1) What's the posted speed limit?

      2) How frequent are intersections, and (how) are they "controlled/moderated"?

      3) Is there a median?

      4) How many lanes?

      5) Is it a straight away or does it wind?

      6) Are the accidents recurring in the same places?

      7) Any chance of a picture/diagram (or a google aerial) that might show us what we're dealing with?

      8) Any idea why the "authorities" haven't intervened already? .... ... eh,... wadda i know

      regards,
      uncle g

    10. Re:Wait by geekoid · · Score: 1, Troll

      wow, just wow. You are suffering from arrogance of ignorance.
      where did you study civil engineering?

      You really have NO CLUE how complex a city is, none what so ever.You have your little shallow view and assume everything you dont' understand is stupid.

      People like YOU hold back civilization.

      I'm not tlaking about new technology.

      ahh, your so ignorant.

      "?), 1 video camera (any camcorder will work, or specialized cameras are an option)"

      it needs to survive for long periods out doors. It also need IR, and it needs to have a good lens, and it needs to be maintained.
      you fuck twad.

      "Well shit, we're done with hardware"
      or rally? how ar you going to power it? is the nearby power source designed to take on more load? is the power supply in the case able to handle sudden spikes and dirty power?

      "1 or 2 IR lasers with rangefinding capability"
      IR? how the fuck ar tyou going to ensure your not blinding people? You do realize the power and range needed, right? of course you don't because your about as smart as a back od socks.

      You could not build a reliable unit for less then 1000 dollars, closer to 5 AND you still need to pay to have it done. PLUS you will need thousands of them. at least 4 on each corner.

      "If installing traffic enforcement cameras costs millions of dolla"

      putting in enough for a city with a million people would.

      "My understanding is that most of that cost in the US comes from built in contract padding and kick backs,"
      you understanding is SHIT, you ignorant fuck.

      " Such things are allowed to"
      ah, a strawman. of course your only argument is a logically fallacy, you poor excuse for a limp wristed cum stain.

      "You are wrong."

      no, I am not. This shit is expensive to implement Cities are complex... very complex Everything is working in conjunction with everything else.

      "Where I come from this sort of thing is a weekend project. "

      What magical place do you come from where you can design, build, lay infrastructure, install, hire people to maintain it, hire people to support the data in a weekend?

      god you are stupid

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Wait by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I worked in the private sector for over 20 years, I have worked in the public sector for the last 5. The The public sector has FAR LESS WASTE then any company. far less. In fact, in the US you can go to a library and look at the accounting records for the government and see for your self the budget numbers.

      everyone I work with..every single one, works very hard on reducing costs while maintainable the needs of the citizens.

      And stop confusing the issue.
      The issue is to build a city wide electronic reporting system for cars that aren't driving correctly. That cost millions of dollars if you want something that's going to be operational for years. Remember, governments need to think in the terms of decades, not quarters.

      We are not talking about put in a single traffic light or stop sign. And yeah, if some tried to say it cost a million dolalrs to put in a stop sign, they would be fired.
      I'm talking real engineers, workers and management, not politicians.

      Yeah, there are problems, but nothing where you imply, you fucking ignorant troll.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:Wait by tftp · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there are problems, but nothing where you imply

      He can start with routing cables (hundreds of miles of them) to his cameras. That is sure to be cheap and easy, to tunnel under multiple roadways, among other (likely unmarked) pipes and cables. Just don't cut any of those, though, that will be expensive. Those cables ought to terminate somewhere, so those locations need to be purchased and outfitted. He also needs to secure rights to lay his cables where they need to be, since probably homeowners will be unhappy if someone digs a trench across their lawn. All that needs to be done (and tested!) before the first camera goes up.

      But of course doing any of that without the city's approval and involvement is beyond stupid. I'm just pointing out that the hidden, underground infrastructure is often overlooked by eager enthusiasts. They declare the project done as soon as their code calculates the blob's speed correctly (+- 10 mph, that is, depending on the position of the Sun. Yes, that won't fly in any court.)

    13. Re:Wait by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "If you prefer to believe that you aren't capable of designing and implementing such a system, that's fine. I know differently."

      No, you don't

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    14. Re:Wait by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      [Warning: I am the original poster] You're talking about a developed society with rule of law, civil rights and an army of lawyers.

      I'm talking about a developing country with a semi-democratical regime without money for fancy radars when water is scarce and more than half of the population need food subventions.

      So I want *ONE* radar that can pay for itself and then for new radars. Two radars then will pay faster for a 3rd one. And so forth.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    15. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like someone is having a bad day.

    16. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know it is possible to criticize and refute points without being an ass. Calling someone an "ignorant fuck" is not refuting the point it just shows how much of an ass you are. This should not have been modded insightful, more likely troll. Your language makes you sound like a teenage kid trying to act tough. Learn to write and debate more intelligently. Not everyone that disagrees with you is a troll. Learn to have some respect for others.

    17. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this modded troll? If you disagree with it post your opposing point of view. The moderators are being retarded today.

    18. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You email says dad in Portland. Do you teach your children to treat their peers like you do on slashdot? If so you are dooming them to a life of friendlessness and joblessness since no one will want to be around them.

    19. Re:Wait by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      You have to be 16, or work in some rundown garage somewhere....
      I couldn't help but to laugh at what you posted there, that was hilarious!

      Thanks for the comedy :)

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    20. Re:Wait by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      No, he's training your kids to disassociate from you.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    21. Re:Wait by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      100 million for the 1st camera?

      The original poster wants to build a system that bootstraps itself from the speed fines generated from *one* camera.

      You're from the US or another developed country I presume. Tell me, in your nation, don't they have one-camera speed traps that providing an income stream for a local municipality?

      That's what the original poster wants, but he's driven by safety, not income.

      Read original poster's reiteration of his intent:
      http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1761302&cid=33321286

    22. Re:Wait by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      While others have already pointed out that:

      1. You are the awesome combination of arrogance and ignorance (of the issue being discussed).
      2. The original poster is just asking for the first camera.

      I'd like to add:
      1. In "Middle-East", a city with a few million people typically does not have thousands of traffic signals, let alone thousands of "important" traffic signals. Cities in Middle-East (and most of Asia except extreme North Asia e.g. Russian part) are much-much more densely populated than a typical US / Canadian city. It is very likely that concentrating the effort on about 5 signals would deliver great results to start with. Because maybe 60% of the traffic passes through those 5 signals.

      2. Since it is kind of volunteer-work - why would you expect him to "hire" people for maintenance? If some camera malfunctions, people would notice (maybe it sends SOS signals, maybe some volunteer monitors periodically, whatever), volunteer goes and fixes it, or sends or takes a technician there and pays him ad-hoc. Maybe there are delays in repair of the camera - but it is still better than now because there is no camera to malfunction and be repaired.

      You are not only immensely exaggerating the magnitude of the problem, you are also by far over-emphasizing the need for "perfect" solution.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  26. big brother stay home by Eyezen · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "Any suggestions would be appreciated."

    Here's a suggestion do whatever you want in your country but keep you and your idea the fuck away from the USA.

  27. Israel by Webs+101 · · Score: 1
    Israeli drivers are nuts, and that's coming from a Montrealer.

    This query has to be coming from Israel, probably Tel Aviv.

    --

    "Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward

    1. Re:Israel by sconeu · · Score: 1

      An Angeleno agrees with you on that, and this is someone who drives the 5 and the 405 semi-regularly during rush hour.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:Israel by Wumpus · · Score: 1

      Tel-Aviv has plenty of traffic lights and a reasonable level of law enforcement.

      From what I've seen in other countries in the area, Israeli drivers are still kinda tame, though.

    3. Re:Israel by dmesg0 · · Score: 1

      It's about Cairo, Egypt.

    4. Re:Israel by Sovetskysoyuz · · Score: 1

      My former roommate grew up in Kuwait, and has awesome stories like guys doing doughnuts in the middle of major intersections and hanging out the windows, or seven lanes of traffic on a road that only has four lanes. He saw the same thing in other Mid-East countries. His conclusion is that they're all crazy.

    5. Re:Israel by mishehu · · Score: 1

      I always seem to get nailed by mishteret tnuAh (traffic police) every time I go home for a visit, and always for something dumb (like I nearly missed an exit from the ayalon and ended up crossing the i-tnuAh as a result...) I did used to think that we drive like nuts in Israel, but then I took a trip to Vietnam. My recommendation: if you go to F.E. or S.E. or even S. Asia, make sure you have a good insurance policy with you...

    6. Re:Israel by arikb · · Score: 1

      Israeli drivers are nuts, and that's coming from a Montrealer.

      This query has to be coming from Israel, probably Tel Aviv.

      Except that in Israel the electricity isn't crappy and there are a lot of street lights in all but the most rural communities. Driving laws are enforced... although not as strictly as I would have liked.

      And although the people do drive like nuts, very aggressive and have a tendency to road-rage, motor vehicle related fatalities are lower than the US

    7. Re:Israel by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      [Warning: I am the original poster] The city I am talking about has more people than half of Israel. And is not even the biggest city in the country.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    8. Re:Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nahhh... Can't be Israel

      I live in Israel and I first thought it's Israel but:
      Hundreds of digital speed cameras (Gatso) are going to replace the antiquated film speed cameras (Google translation): http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=iw&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calcalist.co.il%2Flocal%2Farticles%2F0%2C7340%2CL-3414460%2C00.html&sl=iw&tl=en
      Also, being in the past a Volunteer Traffic Cop in Israel, the police here are (mostly) not corrupt, speed laser equipped cops are all over the place, and there are lots and lots of traffic lights, red light cameras and speed bumps are all over the place.

      The problem is that (as other posters noted) not technology nor speed cameras will not stop reckless drivers.

      The hundreds of new speed cameras will only serve as an indirect tax.

  28. Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by Biff+Stu · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Think of all the tax dollars you're saving. Remember, the nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I’m from the government and I’m here to help."

    1. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      The next person that says "teabagger" and then equates the tea party with something it doesn't even stand for is going to instantly burst into flames. I swear this is going to fucking happen. Just try it!

    2. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, the nine most terrifying words in the English language...

      ...are, "Biff Stu is about to say something."

    3. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      "I'm" is two words. Then again, I guess it just goes to show that most teabaggers are homeschooled...

      No, "I'm" is one word, and the OP is not a "teabagger" (else he would not be referring to himself with the pejorative term "teabagger").

      Just goes to show that most critics of the Tea Party movement lack basic spelling and reading comprehension skills. Should we blame that on the public school system, or are we done with ridiculous and sweeping generalizations for the day?

    4. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by geekoid · · Score: 1

      they called them selves tea baggers, and some still do. So it's there own damn fault..ignorant fucks.

      Teabaggers want to cut taxes no matter what...they also want more services. so yeah, they're stupid.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      Lies. A single tea partier holding a sign referencing "tea BAGGING" is not the same thing as that person labeling the GROUP "teabaggers". If you have any credible proof that any tea partier referred to themselves as "teabaggers" I'd love to see it. If you were to say that tea partiers used the word teabag first in any context related to their group then you *might* have a case... although I am pretty sure I can troll the internet and find some earlier example of someone on the left derisively referring to them as such. Oh...and exactly what services do they want more of? Unless of course you are referring to the government actually doing its job of protecting the borders....

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    6. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you retarded or Klingon? Apostrophe is not a letter in English, and "I'm" is not a word - it's a written contraction of "I am", which is two words.

    7. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      Apostrophe is not a letter in English, and "I'm" is not a word - it's a written contraction of "I am", which is two words.

      Wow. Public school it is, then.

      A contraction is, by its very definition, multiple words made into a single word. "I am" is two words. The contraction "I'm" is one word. Google it, genius. Better yet, ask a fifth grader.

    8. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      The government has basically one job. Provide security. This includes defense, police, fire, paramedic, and border security. That's it. Anything else you can cut and I won't shed a tear. You are the ignorant one here.

    9. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Pro tip: If you can't handle one fucking epithet, you don't deserve to be in a protest movement.

      G-20 protesters get beaten, shot, gassed, tasered, cuffed, charged, indicted and convicted for their beliefs, and they're soggy little pinko commies. What the fuck are you bitching about again?

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    10. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's good to know that there's no right to travel, as the government should do things like "roads" which are unrelated to security. And good to know that things like treaties, explicitly defined in the Constitution, should never be used for trade or to do useless things like make it so that an American traveling abroad can drive in other countries by joining the international drivers license pact. After all, that's not security related, so we should repeal it. We should sell off the entirety of Washington DC as well, as owning property is unrelated to security. We may need to lease back the buildings at inflated prices, but that's called "free market" and is more important than sanity. Security was a very small part of what the Constitution laid out, so the teabaggers must also want to change the Constitution because, even as written, it gives way too much power to the government. The power to create copyright? That's unrelated to security, all copyright should be repealed as well.

      When I hear teabaggers talk, I always wonder what IQ level is so low the person is too stupid to breathe. I think it's about an IQ of 40. I don't know why that thought pops in my head every time I hear a teabagger speak, but it does for some reason.

    11. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by jpapon · · Score: 1
      Don't forget education... The government shouldn't be providing that either, it's just a waste of money. I think the University of Phoenix can fill in nicely.

      I just can't wait until curriculum's become sponsored. I can't wait to have my kids tell me the glorious part big oil played in the development of the United States, or how Walmart embodies the American ideal.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    12. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by khallow · · Score: 1

      G-20 protesters get beaten, shot, gassed, tasered, cuffed, charged, indicted and convicted for their beliefs, and they're soggy little pinko commies. What the fuck are you bitching about again?

      They're also people who couldn't hold a real job, if someone nailed it to their ass. In other words, they don't (or can't) have anything better to do than career protester. The Tea Party for the most part have jobs, families, etc and hence, have to make sacrifices to protest. They should get more respect.

      As to the various tribulations listed above, remember, if you blatantly commit crimes (real crime like vandalism, assault and battery, arson, etc, not just disagreeing publicly with the current orthodoxy) openly on the street, you reap the rewards, especially the indicted and convicted parts.

    13. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      They're also people who couldn't hold a real job, if someone nailed it to their ass. In other words, they don't (or can't) have anything better to do than career protester. The Tea Party for the most part have jobs, families, etc and hence, have to make sacrifices to protest. They should get more respect.

      That, right there, is one beautiful fucking sentence. The seals are so tight on your little bubble!

      As to the various tribulations listed above, remember, if you blatantly commit crimes (real crime like vandalism, assault and battery, arson, etc, not just disagreeing publicly with the current orthodoxy) openly on the street, you reap the rewards, especially the indicted and convicted parts.

      Pertinent to the discussion we were having...how? Focus, man.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    14. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by khallow · · Score: 1

      That, right there, is one beautiful fucking sentence

      Thank you. I stayed up all night coming up with that then I ran it through lint to clean it up. And I find it a bit interesting given your interest in bubbles, Captain, that you casually insult the "Tea Party" protesters with the term "teabagger" without seeming to have a clue why they're cranky.

    15. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, where did I betray my ignorance as to why Teabaggers are cranky? I know quite well why they're cranky.

      You really do have a problem staying on topic.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    16. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, where did I betray my ignorance as to why Teabaggers are cranky?

      Every time you post. You have yet in any of your posts to acknowledge the reason for the name "Tea Party". It's not to give you a zillion opportunities to make vulgar jokes. At its core, it's a tax protest.

    17. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Oh, I get it now. Your narrow definition supersedes other Teabaggers's definition, and my own. Got it.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    18. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by khallow · · Score: 1

      Oh, I get it now. Your narrow definition supersedes other Teabaggers's definition, and my own. Got it.

      You have yet to say anything about it other than rude insults. So I don't know if you have a definition or not. And it's not a monolithic movement so it really doesn't matter if my definition differs from other peoples' definitions. At least, it's not like asking marketers what "joy" means.

    19. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      My favourite part about this whole is that you have a huge problem with the epithet "Teabaggers", but didn't even flinch when I called you wimps. I've long held a suspicion that even the most rabid Teabagger knows exactly just how fat, lazy and well-off they really are.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    20. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by khallow · · Score: 1

      My favourite part about this whole is that you have a huge problem with the epithet "Teabaggers", but didn't even flinch when I called you wimps.

      It's because you know what "teabagging" really means. I can correct libel, I can't fix willful ignorance. If I got upset every time an Internet Tough Guy called me a "wimp", I'd never post again. Moving on, you have yet to say any of relevance and just chip in pathetic insults. You had your chance and you wasted my time. Congrats, if that was your intention.

      As a last item, I hope the Tea Party wins big in 2010 and 2012. We're going on ten years of excessive spending, stupid ideology, and corruption. Would be nice to cut that back to levels the US can deal with. The Tea Party isn't a miracle cure, but I think it will get the job done well enough.

    21. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Moving on, you have yet to say any of relevance and just chip in pathetic insults.

      Ding! We have a winner!

      The Tea Party isn't a miracle cure, but I think it will get the job done well enough.

      At best: Nothing.
      At Worst: It's Ross Perot all over again, baby! Wooooh!

      Good luck.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    22. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by khallow · · Score: 1
      Looks like it's "Pick on Marc" day for me. This is the last one for now.

      It's good to know that there's no right to travel, as the government should do things like "roads" which are unrelated to security. And good to know that things like treaties, explicitly defined in the Constitution, should never be used for trade or to do useless things like make it so that an American traveling abroad can drive in other countries by joining the international drivers license pact. After all, that's not security related, so we should repeal it. We should sell off the entirety of Washington DC as well, as owning property is unrelated to security. We may need to lease back the buildings at inflated prices, but that's called "free market" and is more important than sanity. Security was a very small part of what the Constitution laid out, so the teabaggers must also want to change the Constitution because, even as written, it gives way too much power to the government. The power to create copyright? That's unrelated to security, all copyright should be repealed as well.

      The more successful argument here is that a lot of government is implied. If government provides security then it has a legitimate interest in transportation. How can you respond to a disaster or a military attack, if you can't get there? And security is a broad term that could easily be extended to justify installing joystick controllers on every US citizen. After all, if government doesn't control your every move, then you can't possibly be secure.

      Instead of "security", I prefer to think of government as the insurer of last resort. That is, when the shit hits the fan, government has the power to muster society to deal with the mess. That still implies a lot of necessary roles and latitude, but it also means that there should be a first resort which isn't government.

      Ultimately, the US approach has been to grant in a written contract government selected powers for fairly broad roles while simultaneously delineating the rights that citizens and people have.

      The problem is that since these roles are broadly defined, a lot of approaches are at least partly compatible with the Constitution (especially, with a loose interpretation of the Constitution), but not with each other.

      So anyway, we have a pile of people in the so-called "Tea Party" who happen to generally agree on issues of taxation, public spending, and government power reduction. So what does that have to do with your so-called right to travel? In today's world, there are plenty of places in the US where I am not allowed to travel. Some of these are because I'd be trespassing or causing harm to others (like driving on the sidewalk). Others are because I physically can't do it (eg, drive up to the top of Denali). So what is this right to "travel"?

      Also, roads are not magic. There's no reason a private business couldn't make and maintain a road, especially since most such roads and their maintenance are already contracted to private businesses.

      Second, the Washington DC argument is just retarded. The US owns a lot of real estate outside of Washington DC and it only pays rent on a small part of it. They could hand DC back to Maryland and still operate as they do today. Even if government weren't allowed to own property, they can as you point out, still rent it. Just because it'd be somewhat more expensive for the government isn't a compelling argument.

      Security was a very small part of what the Constitution laid out, so the teabaggers must also want to change the Constitution because, even as written, it gives way too much power to the government. The power to create copyright? That's unrelated to security, all copyright should be repealed as well.

      So did the previous poster claim that his version of government was the standard one for all tea party people? Didn't look it to me. I also doubt he has an issue with modifying the Constitution to fit his desired model of government. Copyright also is a poor example because of current abuse (105 year duration copyright in the US now).

    23. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The more successful argument here is that a lot of government is implied. If government provides security then it has a legitimate interest in transportation. How can you respond to a disaster or a military attack, if you can't get there? And security is a broad term that could easily be extended to justify installing joystick controllers on every US citizen. After all, if government doesn't control your every move, then you can't possibly be secure.

      I'd quickly counter that with "security" being a much worse version of "interstate commerce." There's nothing that can't be considered "security." Oh, we need to give subsidies to corn farmers. Not for "interstate commerce" reasons anymore, but because being able to feed our people, and so "security" is the reason. There's almost nothing I can think of that someone couldn't come up with some argument of why that's "security" related.

      Instead of "security", I prefer to think of government as the insurer of last resort. That is, when the shit hits the fan, government has the power to muster society to deal with the mess. That still implies a lot of necessary roles and latitude, but it also means that there should be a first resort which isn't government.

      If the government can do it and will be called on to do it, then why not work to make it as good as possible and rely on it? Banks don't get private deposit insurance, then have the government as a backup, with every dollar insured twice in case of a bank failure. They have FDIC insure the money once and only once, and that's far more efficient than the government having to run the FDIC as it is today with an extra layer of private insurance between the banks and the true failsafe of the FDIC. If the government can/should do it at all, they should do it the best they can, not try to stay out of the way but still be there, wasting money with duplication of effort and essentially endorsing private failure because of the corporate welfare that would be in place.

      Ultimately, the US approach has been to grant in a written contract government selected powers for fairly broad roles while simultaneously delineating the rights that citizens and people have.

      The powers were laid out. The government can't do anything not explicitly listed there. Then, some people decided that governments are bad at doing only what they are supposed to, and added the Bill of Rights as amendments because they shouldn't be necessary. There were precious few places in the Constitution where there existed the power to take away the rights listed. But the government worked hard on finding how. And now we rely on the Amendments as the source of power for the people, rather than a redundant subset of the rights the government should be recognizing.

      The problem is that since these roles are broadly defined, a lot of approaches are at least partly compatible with the Constitution (especially, with a loose interpretation of the Constitution), but not with each other.

      People don't interpret the Constitution loosely or narrowly or whatever. They take their personal beliefs and twist the Constitution to fit them. I know of no constitutionalists. That is, there is no party that follows it. Just parties that assert that their beliefs are constitutional with statements of "our party requires less stretching on this one clause, so we are more right" and such. They take their personal or party beliefs and then use whatever rhetorical means necessary to make it look like a Constitutional mandate. Both major parties. All the minor parties. They claim to follow it, but I'd assert that, at best, they lead it.

      So anyway, we have a pile of people in the so-called "Tea Party" who happen to generally agree on issues of taxation, public spending, and government power reduction.

      And we have a pile of people that have similar stated views in the Libertarian party, the Republican party, and even the Democratic and Green parties. Everyone wants the lo

    24. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by khallow · · Score: 1
      I'd quickly counter that with "security" being a much worse version of "interstate commerce." There's nothing that can't be considered "security." Oh, we need to give subsidies to corn farmers. Not for "interstate commerce" reasons anymore, but because being able to feed our people, and so "security" is the reason. There's almost nothing I can think of that someone couldn't come up with some argument of why that's "security" related. I guess I'll have to punch a wall to show how violently I agree with the above. ;-)

      If the government can do it and will be called on to do it, then why not work to make it as good as possible and rely on it? Banks don't get private deposit insurance, then have the government as a backup, with every dollar insured twice in case of a bank failure. They have FDIC insure the money once and only once, and that's far more efficient than the government having to run the FDIC as it is today with an extra layer of private insurance between the banks and the true failsafe of the FDIC. If the government can/should do it at all, they should do it the best they can, not try to stay out of the way but still be there, wasting money with duplication of effort and essentially endorsing private failure because of the corporate welfare that would be in place.

      Because it's cheaper and more efficient to do it privately first. For example, most things these days are not just double insured, but triple insured. The insurance company insures the property, the reinsurer insures the insurer, and government insures the reinsurer.

      The powers were laid out. The government can't do anything not explicitly listed there. Then, some people decided that governments are bad at doing only what they are supposed to, and added the Bill of Rights as amendments because they shouldn't be necessary. There were precious few places in the Constitution where there existed the power to take away the rights listed. But the government worked hard on finding how. And now we rely on the Amendments as the source of power for the people, rather than a redundant subset of the rights the government should be recognizing.

      That just goes to show that the original assumption that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary was in error.

      That's my set response to those who claim property rights are the basis of personal rights. If the government sold all its land, then you can't ever travel. You'd have to get permission from private people to travel, and that's never guaranteed. When you fully capitalize the country, many rights, like travel, disappear. And there is a right to travel. It was not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but one reason was that it was so assumed (restrictions on travel are a relatively recent invention, mainly because enforcing them would have been impossible previously) that it wouldn't have crossed their minds to put it in. Just like there's no right to breathe or even live. It's so inherently stupid to think otherwise they wouldn't have considered putting it in the Constitution. But many of the "personal liberty" groups, if they got everything they asked for, would remove the ability to leave your own home without permission from another private party. So, any platform that removes the right to travel is absurd. And no, the right to travel isn't the right to trespass. If you really need an explanation of the difference, I'll give it to you. But the right to go somewhere you have permission to be and trying to be somewhere you don't have permission to be are unrelated ideas (though you are right in that if the Libertarians or teabaggers get everything they've said or hinted they wanted, you'd have to trespass to visit friends or family, unless you got explicit permission from lots of private parties, probably with some cost, to pass through their land.

      Or you could pay a toll on the road made by someone who bought right of ways through all this land and get where you're going. Keep in

    25. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Because it's cheaper and more efficient to do it privately first. For example, most things these days are not just double insured, but triple insured. The insurance company insures the property, the reinsurer insures the insurer, and government insures the reinsurer.

      You are asserting that doing something multiple times with companies who take 50% off the top for overhead is more efficient than doing it once with an organization that doesn't work to maximize profits? I assert you are wrong.

      Your assertion that government will get bigger needs some sort of evidence.

      Bah, I give up. You make up random and counterintuitive assertions without proof, like the government being more expensive will be smaller, and then when I make assertions like a larger budget will, by definition, mean a larger government, you demand evidence? You've made up your mind and sealed it in concrete. I assert there is no proof I could ever give that would convince you. As such, this can never be a discussion, only a lecture by you about how I'm wrong.

    26. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by khallow · · Score: 1

      You are asserting that doing something multiple times with companies who take 50% off the top for overhead is more efficient than doing it once with an organization that doesn't work to maximize profits? I assert you are wrong.

      Yes, I am. There's two reasons. First, the insurance company has most of the overhead and makes most of the profit. Second, you invoke an organization that doesn't work to maximize profit. Those sorts of groups are inherently more inefficient since they don't have the profit motive to keep them straight.

    27. Re:Sounds like a teabagger's wet dream by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Those sorts of groups are inherently more inefficient since they don't have the profit motive to keep them straight.

      You assert such things without proof when you ask me for my proof. Having worked for a number of non profits (and at least one billion dollar company), I would assert that non-profits are much more efficient than for-profit organizations. But really what it comes down to is the smaller the company, the more efficient. The size of an organization harms its efficiency more than whether it's for or non profit. But then, I'd also point out that if you consider the identical functions (just the fund management) the Social Security Administration is almost 10 times more efficient than the private sector for the same thing. So feel free to assert whatever you want about your personal opinion. I'll just point out that you are hypocritical when you assert your opinion as fact without evidence when you demand evidence from others, as well as simply being wrong (at least in some cases).

  29. Already been done by icebike · · Score: 1

    Speed cameras are already installed in many systems.

    Unless you plan on doing something new here, like catching "Reckless drivers" as your title implies as opposed to simple speeders there is nothing to discuss here.

    There are companies that specialize in this. But that does not mean that any city is going to sanction a vigil-anti approach using private cameras of questionable certification maintained by non-certified private enterprises, producing tickets that will not survive the first court challenge.

    (Cities issue contracts to companies to install cameras of questionable reliability, manned and operated by people of questionable certification, with debatable motives).

    I sincerely doubt an open source approach would get very far here. Better to use the legal means at your disposal.

    Take up a collection to buy cams fro the city or launch a ballot proposition to have the city hire it done.

    Find a way to divert the funds from the police or the courts into parks or libraries, and make sure the contractor is paid on a fixed fee basis, and does not have any incentive to rig the system to generate more tickets.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:Already been done by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      [Warning: I am the original poster] I don't want a vigilante thing, I want a revenue sharing agreement with the city government (equivalent of the city hall in the US).

      The government doesn't have enough money to subsidize the basic food for more than half of the population, and goes to extremes to solve water and electricity shortages. And it's way too bureaucratic to hand them any money.

      So ONE speed radar which can generate speeding tickets will pay for itself then for a second radar. And so forth.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
  30. Is it going to solve anything? by Synon · · Score: 1

    What's the end game here? You want to build a system that captures vehicale's speed and the repurcussions of speeding. For what purpose? If your government is unwilling to enforce current laws, how will this change anything? We have speed cameras here in Arizona, they even supply some nice big signs that say "Speed enforcement camera ahead - 1/2 miles". Everyone on the road slows down to the speed limit for the camera and then continues on their way doing 15mph over once they have passed. It's a great way to generate revenue from drivers not familiar with that route, but I doubt it makes the road any safer. In fact, in some cases less safe, I've had people slam on their brakes in front of me to make sure they don't get a ticket.

  31. You really expect to get your "share"? by ptbarnett · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are laws, but not much willingness to enforce them, and no traffic lights at all.

    Let me get this straight. The police aren't enforcing the existing laws. There's no political infrastructure to install and maintain traffic lights.

    Who is going to collect the fines? You aren't.

    Why do you think the police will collect the fines? They aren't enforcing existing traffic laws.

    In the unlikely event they do so, what makes you believe they will give you your share? It's more than likely to go directly into someone's pocket.

    It sounds like your problem goes far beyond enforcement of traffic laws. And until that problem is addressed, it's unlikely that any technological solution will help.

    1. Re:You really expect to get your "share"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately I tend to agree with this.

      Suppose you set it up like the common automated (or semi-automated) speed traps in widespread use now. You have a camera that takes a picture of a license plate when it detects a speeder. So far so good.

      Now you have to cross-reference your license plate numbers with the licensing registry system. This may be a problem if you have bad or incomplete data. However let's assume this goes well.

      You mail the fine out to the vehicle owner. Are they going to pay, challenge the fine, or ignore the ticket entirely? My guess is the latter. If the country has a lax enforcement regime, what incentive structure is going to ensure compliance? These systems basically depend upon a 90+% voluntary compliance by the populace. If there's already widespread disregard for minor offences by the police, I'd predict that will continue. The citizens will be aware of that and they are likely to take advantage.

      Sorry to be a downer. Maybe you'll prove me wrong!

    2. Re:You really expect to get your "share"? by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      [Warning: I am the original poster] They have no means to enforce the laws.

      By agreeing on a profit sharing system, the government will have an enticement to go after the speeders.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    3. Re:You really expect to get your "share"? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      All that, AND you gotta wonder about this Great Leap For^H^H^HBackward into a surveillance society, without the tedious intermediate steps pioneered by other 'modern' nations.

      I predict that given the OP's city's current state of enforcement, all that would happen is that such a system would become a handy means for corrupt cops to extract money from whomever they pleased.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:You really expect to get your "share"? by fru1tcake · · Score: 1

      In my state (South Australia) people are contracted to use speed cameras. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or a cop, to use one. Many people claim that the speed cameras tend to be located where many people speed, but not in the places where speeding is most dangerous - i.e., they are there purely for raising revenue for the state. Whether or not this is true, it is apparent that there is money to be made out of enforcing speed limits. The author is simply approaching this from a perspective of social entrepreneurship, which could well work if he can demonstrate that they provide a service (speeding offence detection) that the police are currently not equipped to do themselves, that can at the same time provide revenue for the police if they cooperate and subcontract out these services. As it is potentially self-funding it has more going for it than a lot of other suggestions, which tend to cost more while providing no additional revenue.

      --
      It's not a bug, it's a lepidopter!
  32. Can't enforce what is ignored. by GiveBenADollar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ok, so there is no enforcement for the laws in place, but a citizen wants to start his own enforcement. Yeah, I see this working out. It's not like there are no laws, then ignorance or naivety on the part of the government could be claimed, but there are laws that are ignored. This means the government willfully ignores the laws, and as such has something to gain by ignoring them. Could be laziness, could be corruption, could be any number of reasons, but in the end if they cared about the laws enough to let someone else enforce them then they would be enforcing them in the first place.

    1. Re:Can't enforce what is ignored. by RackinFrackin · · Score: 5, Funny

      ..., but a citizen wants to start his own enforcement. Yeah, I see this working out.

      Yeah, it will. I saw a movie like this once. I think it had Charles Bronson in it.

    2. Re:Can't enforce what is ignored. by attonitus · · Score: 1

      If its just laziness, this could be enough to embarrass the authorities into improving enforcement. Of course, if it's corruption then it's unlikely that his cameras are going to last very long.

    3. Re:Can't enforce what is ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, if it's corruption then it's unlikely that his cameras are going to last very long.

      The corrupt people will make sure they get a cut. Automated money extraction from the population, what could be more attractive to them?

    4. Re:Can't enforce what is ignored. by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      If their reason for not enforcing the laws is laziness (or lack of enforcing agents) then I see no reason that a concerned citizen can't come up with a way to enforce them autonomously like this.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    5. Re:Can't enforce what is ignored. by Alien1024 · · Score: 1

      This means the government willfully ignores the laws

      Not necessarily; maybe they just don't have the resources to enforce them. Making laws is cheap, enforcing them is expensive.

    6. Re:Can't enforce what is ignored. by freelunch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ..., but a citizen wants to start his own enforcement. Yeah, I see this working out.

      Go Goetz 'em!

    7. Re:Can't enforce what is ignored. by cbraescu1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      [Warning: I am the original poster] All I want is to make it easy and FREE for the government to start enforcing the traffic laws. They just do not have the money for these equipments. What I wants it a self-replicating system of such traffic radars, with a revenue sharing system where the government pays nothing, earns part of the generated fines, and our share goes toward installing new radars.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    8. Re:Can't enforce what is ignored. by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All I want is to make it easy and FREE for the government to start enforcing the traffic laws. They just do not have the money for these equipments. What I wants it a self-replicating system of such traffic radars, with a revenue sharing system where the government pays nothing, earns part of the generated fines, and our share goes toward installing new radars.

      Okay, and everyone has a valid mailing address too, so they can receive the ticket. Oh, and there's plenty of judges to hear those who wish to dispute the ticket. Oh, and everyone has a current license plate which connects the vehicle to the household and then the driver. Oh, and I'm sure there's a system in place to catch those who do not pay their tickets, like not being able to renew their drivers' licenses because all the drivers have current licenses too.

      Oh, and why speeding? Why not 'failure to yield' or 'do not pass on the right' (assuming driver sits on the left side of the car) or 'failure to signal turn' or 'pedestrians have right-of-way' or 'driving the wrong direction on a one-way street'?

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    9. Re:Can't enforce what is ignored. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      And who cares if you roll over a few innocents in the process, right?
      There's a reason why laws don't give people the right to start in the investigation business without a license. How would you safeguard the fourth amendment (or equivalent where you live)? How would you prevent the system from being used for other purposes? What would prevent the operator from setting the speed limit at 1 mph and take a photo of all cars? Perhaps all cars going to a gay bar or mosque? How do you identify the operator of the car, and not just the owner of the license plate? How do you remove photos of underage people? Or emergency vehicles?

      If you hadn't given any of this a thought, and wanted to give the whole job to the police, then you're not really helping -- you're generating more work, which will necessarily divert resources from other operations. It's fine that people want to help, but vigilantism and unlicensed investigation isn't the way to go. Nor do I get warm fuzzies over more Big Brother mentality and hollowing out the 4th amendment.

      How about you just donate your time, skills or money to the city, and let them decide where it would be the most useful? Don't you trust them to find the best way to use your generosity? Then how the hell can you trust them with more surveillance equipment? Just asking...

    10. Re:Can't enforce what is ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is speeding enforced more strongly than other traffic violations?

      It's easy to catch someone speeding: rolling stop, failure to signal, etc require the officer to be at the place where the violation occurs. Speeders will pass by the speed trap.
      It's very easy to prosecute as the violation is quantifiable: posted speed limit is X, defendant was traveling at Y miles per hour.
      It's a violation of commission rather than omission: a conscious decision generally has to be made to exceed the speed limit enough to get pulled over. Blowing a stop sign could happen simply because the sign was missed.
      It's dangerous: Despite what most people who speed regularly believe, speeding significantly increases risks. The highways and cars are not engineered for significantly over the speed limit. Stopping time is significantly increased. Ability to safely navigate a curve is reduced. Kinetic energy increases as the square of velocity, so doubling speed means there is four times as much energy to disperse in a collision. Other drivers may not expect someone speeding, or be able to react quickly enough to safely alter driving patterns. It's one thing if the risks are only increased for the speeder, but they are also creating a hazard for everyone else on the road.
      Finally, people who speed generally violate many other traffic laws. They have already exhibited a willingness to break the law for fun or convenience. If you enjoy the thrill of high speed, head down to a track and do it right. If you constantly find yourself running late and speeding to try to make up time, that's your fault, not the people you are putting in harm's way by speeding.

    11. Re:Can't enforce what is ignored. by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Chuck Norris thinks that it was Chuck Norris who was in it.

    12. Re:Can't enforce what is ignored. by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      No, it was Sylvester Stallone. No, Steven Seagal. No, Jean-Claude Van Damme. Damn, I meant Bruce Willis. I mean... (Head explodes).

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    13. Re:Can't enforce what is ignored. by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Funny

      (Head explodes)

      No, that was someone else.

    14. Re:Can't enforce what is ignored. by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      Is there a law which makes the owner of the car responsible for speeding violations? If not, then you'll need to prove who was driving. Does the law accept photographic evidence from civilians? Does a policeman have to witness a violation of speed limits?
      And I think that you're describing are called "speed cameras", because they photograph speeders. Radar can only detect speed, not whether one is driving well.

    15. Re:Can't enforce what is ignored. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      [Warning: I am the original poster] All I want is to make it easy and FREE for the government to start enforcing the traffic laws. They just do not have the money for these equipments. What I wants it a self-replicating system of such traffic radars, with a revenue sharing system where the government pays nothing, earns part of the generated fines, and our share goes toward installing new radars.

      Here's how it will work.

      1. Your new system will "catch" someone doing something.
      2. You will have to report it to the police.
      3. They will have to investigate, and if they conclude a law was violated they might issue a ticket.
      4. Either of the following happens:
      a) Which means they will then have to track that person down to give them the ticket, which is also their notice to appear in court.
      b) If they can't be found then the court has to issue a notice to appear, and they have to serve it to the person.
      5. Person appears in court. This means that the officer who investigated your complaint will have to appear.
      6. If the person contests the ticket, then things get really really fun. You see, at this point (possible as part of step 5) they will probably file a request for discovery.
      a) You will probably have to also appear in court.
      b) Your system will probably get thrown out as evidence unless you put it through a multi-million dollar testing, review, and approval process. Even then it's "iffy".
      c) You might actually be required to bring your equipment to court to fulfill part of the Discovery process.

      Now there are several things being assumed which still might cause you some grief. For example:
      - If the person who was driving the car is not the owner, the police have to track that person down instead.
      - There is a possibility that the person might file a civil suit against you, especially if any of your information is inaccurate or unprovable.

      And now for the fun. You might be a 'concerned citizen' but I'm sure there are plenty of people you would piss off by doing this. So...
      They can "fight back". You aren't law enforcement, so they can bother the crap out of you and "impede" you abilities to monitor them... legally. This could be anything from electronic "jamming" style devices all the way to having a bunch of people show up and bother the crap out of your techs doing the maintenance.

      All I want is to make it easy

      It will NEVER be easy.

      and FREE for the government

      It will NEVER be free for the government.

      to start enforcing the traffic laws. They just do not have the money for these equipments.

      If it's simply a matter of money for the equipment, you can donate money to the department, along with equipment. You can also volunteer your own time to them. If that's all that's preventing them from enforcing the laws on the books then that will solve the problem.

      However, there is a good possibility that they don't have the time. Not just time and people to enforce the law, but also to appear in court and everything that goes with it, including lawyers.

      It's possible that some of the traffic laws either don't need to, or just plain shouldn't, be in effect.
      For example, in my town there's a 2-block stretch of road which is technically 25mph, but on either end it is 35mph. No schools or any other reason for it to be there, so nobody enforces it or pays attention. The city just doesn't feel like spending money for new signs and to officially conduct a required "speed impact" test. (at one point it was pure residential and got swallowed up by surrounding commercial and industrial properties)

      And as one final wrench in your proverbial gearbox- in many places it's actually against the law for any money generated by traffic fines to go anywhere but directly into the general fund.

    16. Re:Can't enforce what is ignored. by strewelpeter · · Score: 1

      Its the same all over the ME and the reason is simply that no one cares what happens because its all the will of God and anyway if they die they are going to heaven. Inshallah

  33. Abrams A1 by kharchenko · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... put one at each end of your main road and you can ticket whoever you want.

  34. If you are building from scratch by pinkfalcon · · Score: 1

    See if you can find some used or re-purposed phone BNU boxes - the kind that hang outside on telephone poles...

    when I was working in telecoms, we had to test those things in rain, heat, cold, rifle and shotgun impacts, generic vandalism, you name it....

    --
    Real SUV's don't have cupholders
    It's 5:42 A.M., do you know where your stack pointer is?
  35. It's not enough for Cairo. by dmesg0 · · Score: 1

    One such system on Bor Saeiad st. in Cairo won't help. You'll needs hundreds to make a difference. And nobody will care anyway.

  36. beh by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    Well lets go through the roll call of early North America and how we got to the transportation system we do today.
    Lotsa cars/buggies/horses - mass chaos
    Solution: Install traffic system(person or machine driven).
    People fail to heed traffic system.
    Solution: Use law enforcement that wants to enforce traffic laws, or specialized traffic divisions enacted via municipal code.
    Issue: People pay fines, disposable income increases, issues begin to creep up.
    Solution: Higher fines or scaled fines to correct bad behavior.

    Traffic radar is a terrible system, it fills coffers, and doesn't correct behavior. The best system are some type of law enforcement that does, wants, and actively is involved in ensuring that the roads are safe. And is someone who will admonish the driver in some way with a physical presence. This system begins to fail when the system itself is highly corrupt however. Most ME countries suffer from this issue, so you're going to have an uphill battle.

    So in the end? The best system is people who want to do the job to make the streets safer, because it has a direct impact on them. Not machines.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
    1. Re:beh by ebuck · · Score: 1

      Total agreement.

      Instead of trying to catch the culprit, shame the culprit into being a responsible citizen. With a catch the culprit solution, you don't solve the problem; because, if the reckless drivers thought they were going to cause accidents that might take their lives, they wouldn't be driving recklessly.

      Offer to set up a "driving awareness" program with the local law enforcement and go school-to-school teaching the children the consequences of poor driving behavior. Deliver the message that it's not just enough to be a good driver; because, good drivers get killed every day due to the other "bad" drivers out there. You have to be a driver that doesn't rely on their skill to get out of a jam, but a driver that relies on their skill to be nowhere near a potential problem.

      Present statistics, call on the goodness of the fellow man, and paint a picture where past accidents (providing explicit examples) would have been avoided if only someone had followed a few basic defensive driving rules.

      Schools are a good way to reach a lot of children; and, children talk to parents. Mosques, Churches, and Synagogues can reach some of the adults directly; there's not going to be a religion that discourages poor driving. Perhaps with a polished enough delivery, you may even be able to get your message on the local television stations.

      When people see bad driving as killing their future, they will drive more defensively; and, they will put more pressure on those who drive badly. Right now, it is an anything goes driving culture; but, resist the urge to punish. The people who are the worst offenders don't even consider punishment, as they don't even consider that they could be caught in an accident (because they are too good to make a mistake). The way to fix those people is to indicate that no matter how good you are as a driver, you must drive slowly and carefully because "the other guy is an idiot that thinks he's the best driver in the world"

    2. Re:beh by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      [Warning: I am the original poster] I can't afford the best system, because it's not within my reach. But I can afford machines.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    3. Re:beh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As mysidia (191772) said, Vandalism will wreck your plan. And the vandals will be as pissed as you, and will see your guns and cameras as an intrusion to their freedom, and will justify their actions against the "evil one".

      Unfortunately I have no better solution to offer.

  37. Speed is only one factor by vslee · · Score: 1

    Speed is only one factor in "reckless driving". Driving aggressively, following closely, disregarding signs / streetlights / other laws are other factors. Some are easier to measure / capture in an automated fashion than others.

  38. High Speed != Recklessness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you intend on addressing the issue of drivers whose reckless driving is due to lack of speed or situational awareness?

    Frankly, if all drivers simply obeyed these simple rules, there would be significantly fewer traffic issues:
    1. If there is a vehicle driving fewer than 5 car lengths behind you, where you are not approaching a traffic control device (stop sign, etc) and the vehicle is getting closer... move one lane to your right. If there is no passing lane, pull off the side and let the vehicle pass before continuing.
    2. If you are approaching a vehicle from behind, where you are not approaching a traffic control device... move one lane to your left. Spend no longer than 10 seconds in the area 2 car lengths in front of and behind the car you are passing (while in the left lane). Merge back into the right lane when out of this area.
    3. Raise the minimum speed limit (weather permitting) to the current speed limits on highways; if a driver wishes to drive slower than the minimum, they are free to utilize local roads.

    Crazy right? Pay attention to what's going on around you, don't try to police other people's driving and control your own vehicle. Just using these rules allows people to travel safely at higher speeds on a regular basis.

  39. Start by calling then car wrecks by noidentity · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Start by calling these car wrecks, not "accidents". The latter term nicely hides the carnage behind a nice innocuous word.

  40. Re:One additional improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's wrong with speeders? My X-34 land speeder can do 250 km/h so I should be going that fast.

    I'm not sure which is worse. The fact that was such a geek Star Wars reference, or that I recognized it as such.

  41. Toll system by haystor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Whenever I drive on the tollway, I think tolls should be charged based on lane changes. You'd get left lane changes for free. Every left lane change after that would cost. That means you'd be able to get into the left lane once and it would charge anyone who insists on weaving back and forth between lanes to speed themselves up by a few seconds at the cost of slowing everyone down.

    Getting passed while in the left lane would put the charge on the person in the left lane if they weren't doing the limit. Those who want to pass to drive 80 in a 55 can just pay extra to drive like madmen.

    More fees to be charged for exiting if you weren't in the rightmost lane for the last half-mile.

    --
    t
    1. Re:Toll system by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      I love this idea. I want it!

    2. Re:Toll system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The flip side of any "charge extra to drive like an idiot" plan is that the rich will still drive like idiots, and innocents will still be among the casualties in the inevitable accidents.

      Plus, if you had the technology to monitor their driving that much, then merely applying the existing laws about speeding and reckless driving would do the same. And most such laws actually have teeth vs repeat offenders (up to losing your license, losing your car, and jail time), whereas fees alone are no deterrent to some.

  42. Average speed cameras by attonitus · · Score: 1

    In the UK, reduced speed limits due to road-works on motorways are often policed using average speed cameras. These use number-plate recognition to identify cars as they pass cameras at two or more points, then calculate the average speed based on the distance between the points. The advantage of this as a home-brew solution is that you could build it with off-the-shelf equipment - no radar units needed. There's also no need to paint lines on the road or to calibrate a radar unit. It's also possibly more effective - there's no point slowing down just for the trap and then accelerating away again and it's passive, so radar detectors don't work. You'd need some license-plate recognition software, but I imagine there are free or cheap solutions available for that now. You'd need to ensure that your jurisdiction allowed you to photograph cars on a public road and store details of their number plates and you'd need to find a way to convince a court of the fidelity of the time-stamps on the photos (maybe have an OTS unprogrammable GPS unit sitting in view of the camera?).

    1. Re:Average speed cameras by attonitus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Open source number plate recognition software appears to exist. Now all you need is a couple of cameras and a server. In fact, you don't even need a real-time link to the server. You could store the photos on the camera and then process them off-line.

    2. Re:Average speed cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would easily work. You know the distance between the cameras and you store when the pictures are taken.(Time difference)/(distance)=average speed

      I do see one issue though. What happens if somebody claims the clock on one camera to be out of sync with the other one. This would question if the time difference and hence the calculated speed. The real question is how to ensure the timestamps to be good enough to work in court. It doesn't matter if the clocks are set correctly if it can't be proven and somebody claims them to be off (innocent until proven otherwise).

      I know for a fact that The Netherlands use this system which means they figured out how to solve this issue. However I don't know how they did it.

  43. it's LITERALLY NOT what you claim it will be by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    Your solution is a radar when cops don't even bother to try and catch the culprits in a place with NO traffic lights even?

    Sure, right, I believe there is a form for this on the Internet, the kind that gives you a bunch of checkboxes to fill in and then at the end gives you the result why your solution is not 'practical, politically/economically viable, etc.'.

    By the way, seems to me what would happen to ANY radar/camera in a place like this is that it will be stolen in moments or destroyed some other way.

  44. The country is important by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    "I live in a city with a population in the millions (someplace in the Middle East; the country is not important)"

    Some folks that I worked with did a mobile pilot project in a Middle East country to control speeding. One of their "discoveries" was that the higher you were up on the political ladder in the country, the lower your license plate number. And that number, really determined, whether you got a ticket for speeding or not.

    So with a system of government like that, you can dump all your monitoring stuff into /dev/null.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  45. Dear anonymous by onyxruby · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately you have probably initiated a different conversation than you intended. In principal you have a fair question and the location really shouldn't matter for your question.

    All that being said, you have given a bit of a mystery as the name of the city that you are talking about. This being slashdot people are going to start querying for cities in the middle east with a population of a few million. They will than expand this with those large cities in the middle east that have the highest traffic and mortality rates per 1000 KM. Following this it will be narrowed down by those with a main avenue in excess of 15 KM. Just for good measure it can than be narrowed down even further with the consideration of high humidity.

    You'll probably have more luck if you can embarrass people into complying. A number of police departments have posted pictures online of traffic scofflaws with success. You could also do as they are in India and have people post pictures of violations on facebook. All told I think a public education campaign might work best as fixed traffic signals increase accident rates (see studies from the UK for reference) and would probably not have the affect you are looking for. Kudos for providing first aid though, too many can't be bothered.

  46. What about the legal part? by tnnn · · Score: 1

    If I understand correctly, you are trying to build some kind of a static radar gun. I'm afraid that legal part of this venture is much more tricky than the technical stuff. In most countries I've visited, such a device must be officially approved and regularly calibrated. Have you checked if your device has to pass any tests to be allowed to produce evidence? What you must also consider is the way it will record offenders - it's likely this is also subject to some legal requirements. And then comes the support part - someone has to support it (which can be a pain under working conditions you mentioned) and someone has to take the evidence from it and issue a speeding ticket - in Poland, where I currently live, police was forced to hire new workers just to be able to send tickets to some offenders (plus keep in mind that there must be a way to identify them in a reasonable time frame). A lot of things to consider (and check) before you even start planning the tech part of this idea :)

  47. An idea I have used before by Haffner · · Score: 1

    An idea that I used when I helped my friend try to set up a wireless, no-collar alarm system for his pets involved multiple cameras that were set up to triangulate position, and track it as it moved between cameras. His goal was to play an alarm any time the cats got near the fish, or got into his room, or when his dogs got past their fence, etc. Disclaimer: we never really got it working well, but we got it working sometimes.

    The system worked fairly simply: The cameras were stationary and usually ~10 ft high. They would detect motion sources, and then the system would calculate the angle from the wall to the object. This data then was used to determine which other camera(s) could see the object. As soon as one camera detected it, other cameras would try to find it to triangulate its location. Location then got plotted on a 2d graph of the property (no walls, just a large grid) and was moved around accordingly.

    I did much of the coding in java, mainly using some apis I found for motion detection. I calculated angles based on the object's position on the screen. The toughest part (that we overcame) was how to pass objects off between camera zones. We found that for things to run smoothly, we needed 3 cameras on the zone change so that the animal was always seen by 2 cameras. The system worked great indoors, with only 1-2 pets, but outside didn't work at all due to too much motion noise. Ultimately, we scrapped the tracking project and just went with motion detecting cameras that would go off whenever a pet moved within a certain area of the frame.

    To make this relevant to you, I would think that this system would be much easier to implement using cars. Motorcycles could be a bit of a problem, but still, there's one vehicle moving and it's much bigger (and faster) than everything else. All you'd need is 2 layer camera coverage on every square cm of road, and then some math running to calculate speed. The biggest problem here, I bet, would be powering all the cameras (although if you're in the Middle East, I bet you could use solar).

    --
    "Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
  48. Re:Speed Bumps by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Plus speed bumps have the added bonus of wrecking and perhaps killing all those pesky motorcyclists! (I was kind of assuming from the description that he wasn't talking about a sub 20 mph area.)

  49. I also... by yurtinus · · Score: 1

    ...would like a pony.

    --
    +1 Disagree
  50. No doubt, and I'll be by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

    Installing radar jammers in the front and rear of my car, just in case our law enforcement gurus get any ideas.

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
    1. Re:No doubt, and I'll be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NSW (Australia) state government has an answer for that: if the police (think they) detect emissions from a radar jammer or radar detector, they can legally search your car. We're talking rip the seats out and slash the upholstery search here, not "excuse me sir, I'll just be taking a look in your glove compartment if you don't mind" here. And since the police are the only people in public who are armed (the law says so after all) you can't just shoot them for being pricks.

    2. Re:No doubt, and I'll be by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Jammers?

      I don't think you understand how they work, then...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  51. I have something else for you to think about by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Vandalism

    And pissed off "vigilantes" who got a ticket issued by the system, who decided they wanted to take it out on the camera.

    It just takes one jerk with a shotgun to put a hole in your plan quite literally.

    So just ruggedness against the weather and bad electricity isn't the only concern here.

    You might want to think about surveillance monitoring for security as well, IR camera, and a robust data uplink, so at least you have a chance of getting a picture if anyone decides they want to try to tamper with the system.

    1. Re:I have something else for you to think about by Sovetskysoyuz · · Score: 1

      Spy sappin mah sentry camera!

  52. How about making smarter vehicles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All vehicles should be required to have sensors that prevent crashes by drunk or bad drivers.

  53. Don't try to solve social problems with Technology by hawguy · · Score: 1

    High technology is not likely to solve something that is actually a social problem. People in your country are accustomed to driving any way they like with impunity. Installing speed cameras in a few places is not likely to change their behavior. More likely, your camera is going to end up getting run down by a car (or with a bullet hole through the lens if it's mounted away from the side of the road). Are these tickets going to be legally enforceable under your country's legal system?

    If you're determined to use technology to solve the problem, instead of trying to use a high tech method to punish drivers to alter behavior (especially when the punishment comes long after the infraction), look into low-tech methods like installing speed humps to reduce speed (which are not the same as speed *bumps* which are actually felt less the faster the car is traveling).

    There are many other traffic calming measures that can be employed, like narrowing streets, using traffic circles, etc. These have the advantage that they are completely passive and work against all drivers, not just the ones honest enough to want to avoid a ticket.

  54. Re:One additional improvement by AaronLS · · Score: 2, Informative

    Your biggest challenge will not be finding a solution, but getting the solution implemented. You will deal with a lot of officials who are ignorant, arrogant, or just don't care about human life as much as you do. Even when they do care, you have to deal with their ignorance. They will likely not lean on experts for advice, but instead rely on the local computer guy Bob for advise, or they will shell out big bucks to a local consulting firm where their acquaintance works, even though that firm has no experience in the task at hand.

    If you want this to succeed, you will probably have to spend the rest of your life trying to become the head of your Department of Transportation or maybe Highway Safety, or whichever department has authority over the other. So that you can ensure first hand and with authority, that the solution is implemented correctly.

    What you are proposing is a pilot project, and at the most you will get a "huh, that's cool." and that will be about as far as you get.

    I don't mean to be overly negative, but I have been down this road before, and that fact is the people you will deal with are 9-5 people and all they really care about, despite their huffing and puffing, is how long till it's 5 o'clock.

    BTW, reckless driving and speed are two different things. Speed makes little difference if you don't drive intelligently or are distracted and unfocused.

  55. red light cameras by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    red light cameras

    1. Re:red light cameras by Randseed · · Score: 1

      ...which increase accidents at the intersections. This has been said by the DOT. Why? Because usually what happens is the city reduces the yellow light time, then gets people who are in the middle of the intersection. As a result, people slam on the brakes when the yellow light turns, and there are more rear-end collisions. Toledo, OH is a perfect example.

    2. Re:red light cameras by Ciggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      people slam on the brakes when the yellow light turns, and there are more rear-end collisions

      Clearly a case of the following driver not driving with due care and attention, or of not leaving a proper gap between them and the preceding vehicle?

      Are you saying it would be perfectly acceptable for a rear-end shunt if the first car slammed on the brakes because a child suddenly ran out in front of it?

      At least with [most] traffic lights the following driver should be able to see them and should know that they may change and that the preceding driver may slam their brakes on [in Toledo, OH] and so prepare for this by easing off the gas slightly and increasing the gap slightly (more if there is a following vehicle that is too close to them) in readiness to brake if necessary.

      --

      A rose by any other name would smell as sweet;
      A chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell
    3. Re:red light cameras by arkane1234 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Clearly a case of the following driver not driving with due care and attention, or of not leaving a proper gap between them and the preceding vehicle?

      I take it your new to this whole driving experience.
      If your driving through a green light, your just casually driving. It's not Formula 1 racing, it's driving. Suddenly, the light turns yellow, and almost instantly the person who was going 45 mph in front of you has laid every ounce of their weight onto their anti-lock brakes. Suddenly, the 45 mph vehicle in front of you has decelerated to 10 mph in almost a blink of time. What do you do? First, you have to be cognizant of it which take s a touch of time. Second, you have to move your foot from the accelerator pedal to the brake pedal. Keep in mind, you're already in deficit for time here since the person in front of you has already started performing the deceleration probably 1/4 to 1/2 a second before this time. Now, a million factors come into play: do your tires have better traction than the person in front of you? Does your vehicle have a softer suspension than the vehicle in front of you which allows the vehicle to travel on a different axis while braking for a short period of time before bottoming and allowing the vehicle to absorb that energy into the braking system and tires.

      I'm sure by now I don't need to go into any more details, and you can see that from the beginning it's obvious that it's a losing situation. Yellow lights are there for a reason, and the lights need to have a gap to tell a driver that the red light is coming, along with allowing them to decelerate in a safe & prudent fashion without risking another individuals property or life.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    4. Re:red light cameras by tibit · · Score: 1

      I only hope you drive an automatic transmission car with one foot on the brake, and another on the accelerator. The only way such cars are to be driven. You admitted yourself that doing it single-footed costs you time and braking distance. Just don't do it. This stupidity is all over the place, and you'd think people would wise up. Same goes to how people adjust their side mirrors. On many cars, the correct setting is pretty much to rotate the mirror outwards almost to the stop. Voila, no blind spot.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    5. Re:red light cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope that when you lose your license it wasn't because you killed someone I care about. The whole problem can be alleviated by giving adequate following distance, minimum of two second travel time. If you know that your car does not have the ability to stop quickly in an emergency, it is your responsibility to get your car repaired or not drive it on public roads. If a child runs out in traffic, and the car in front of you stops but gets pushed into the kid because you were following too closely to see what was going on and following too closely to react, then you have committed vehicular manslaughter. And remember that most inmates have children of their own and don't take nicely to child murderers.

      Oh, and by not tailgating you will be far less stressed out, but still get to your destination within a fraction of a second of what you would have by driving like an asshat and endangering other people's lives. In fact, I oftentimes make better time in traffic than a tailgater because I can see around the car in front of me and anticipate traffic patterns and optimize merging and lane switching. Note I said optimize, rather than the haphazard blind merges the stereotypical tailgater necessarily performs which are just as likely to put them in a lane that is about to stop as gain that quarter of a second.

    6. Re:red light cameras by lobf · · Score: 1

      No, you shouldn't need split-second response time when driving. You should be predicting what the traffic is going to do and keeping a safe distance from cars in front of you. You aren't going to save any significant amount of time driving through a city speeding and tailgating.

    7. Re:red light cameras by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I drive an automatic transmission because my left knee is fucked. So no, I'm not going to leave myself crippled by using my left foot to brake.

      I'll continue to give myself adequate stopping distances and well maintained brakes.

    8. Re:red light cameras by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? No, you drive an automatic transmission with the right foot working both pedals as needed. Once you've perceived a threat it takes no longer to move your right foot 2 inches than it does to press the brake with your left foot.

      You and GP are missing a vital fact: anticipation. For one, if you know the light has been green for a while, you are expecting it to go yellow and so you're already prepared for the loser in front of you to brake. For two, when the light goes yellow, it changes for you and the guy in front of you at the same time, and so you can start braking just as soon as he does.

      "The only way such cars are to be driven" is WHILE PAYING ATTENTION TO THE WORLD AROUND YOU. There's no other way to (safely) drive.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    9. Re:red light cameras by Some+Bitch · · Score: 1

      Clearly a case of the following driver not driving with due care and attention, or of not leaving a proper gap between them and the preceding vehicle?

      I take it your new to this whole driving experience.

      I take it you've never driven in Europe, certainly the UK and I believe most of the rest of Europe if you rear end someone it's automatically deemed to be your fault. If the person in front of you slams on the brakes for no reason with no warning and you hit the back of them you were too fucking close or not paying attention, end of story. Either leave a safe gap or get off the roads, we don't need more shit drivers.

    10. Re:red light cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just like the insurance companies saying to rural dirvers, "Hit the deer."

      If you hit the child, then you are exonerated from having to prove any issues with causing the accident from a sudden stop.
      Dead deer, dead child = proof that you had an object in the road.

      Just hit the kid. His parents should be taking care of him... if they allow him in the street, they'll allow him to be next decades petrol station robber...

    11. Re:red light cameras by lobf · · Score: 1

      Ugh. You should be ready to slam on the brakes at any time. Don't ride so close that if you have to come to a sudden stop you'll hit the person in front of you. Just leave space. I love how people come up with these scenarios where it's less their fault for driving dangerously. If you hit someone in front of you, you were being unsafe. End of story.

    12. Re:red light cameras by tibit · · Score: 1

      Once you've perceived a threat it takes no longer to move your right foot 2 inches than it does to press the brake with your left foot.

      Nope, not true, sorry, tested it myself. Maybe, somehow, it's true for you, but I doubt it.

      As for anticipation: that's precisely what I'm doing. I'm anticipating that I may need to react very quickly. I don't know what your driving experience is, but I suggest you visit Boston, MA, and drive there for a bit. There is little in the way of anticipation when you're driving in a completely new environment -- it's mostly reactive driving. Sure, it'd be ideal if I'd sit down for a couple of hours, familiarize myself with the route to be taken from satellite imagery and Street View, memorize everything, and go from there. But then I'd have no time to post on Slashdot, for one.

      You also seem to make up my words: I have never said that paying attention is somehow unnecessary. You need both: you need to pay attention, and you need to give yourself the quickest reaction time possible.

      There is a reason race drivers use both feet. They don't do it for kicks. It gives them a real advantage when it comes to safety and performance on the track. Same advantage applies in normal driving conditions.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    13. Re:red light cameras by tibit · · Score: 1

      First of all, I'm neither routinely speeding nor tailgating. Yet, when you're on a congested freeway, where traffic is moving maybe at 25 km/h, good luck not tailgating -- the distance between cars is maybe a quarter of car's length, and if you need to switch lanes you have to push yourself around. This is a cultural thing, so if you're in a blessed place where this is unnecessary, consider yourself lucky.

      A week ago I drove in a place where if there is any distance from the car in front of you, people will cut you off with a foot or two to spare. And where you will be driving in circles, or getting anywhere but closer to your destination if you are not aggressive and pushy. Had I taken the cab, the only difference would be that I'd be a passenger for a driver who'd do the same.

      OTOH, when I was in Sydney, the cab driver there was absolutely reckless simply because that's how he was -- there was no reason for it, and the roads were almost empty. I don't drive like that.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    14. Re:red light cameras by tibit · · Score: 1

      I forgot to add: that's also the reason why, for a suitably experienced driver, a car with automatic transmission has a potential of being safer -- there is an order of magnitude less deadtime between braking and acceleration. This gives you a real safety advantage when switching langes on a congested road -- whether it's a freeway or not.

      An alternative would be a stick shift with automatic clutch, but those aren't all that popular.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    15. Re:red light cameras by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      Hehe, I'm from sydney, moved to Dallas, TX, been here about 8 years, and I still tailgate a little, and all the DFW people I know think my driving is 'reckless'.
      However, I've never had an accident where I was at fault. I think learning to drive in a city like sydney (or, I assume New York, Tokyo, etc) teaches you how to drive both defensively and aggressively, and makes you a far safer driver. Also, my only accident was when I turned left, and someone ran a red light and clipped me.
      I'll admit, though, I consistantly speed about 5m over the limit, and have never been booked for it, something I could never get away with in Sydney.
      So far as the guy stating about using one foot for the brake and the other for the accellerator, I hate drivers like that.
      As mentioned, key to safe driving is being aware of everything around you, and every time I see a car with brake lights on speed up it grates on my nerves. Not because it harms me just due to the idiocy of it and the damage they're doing to their car.
      If cars were ment to be driven with one foot on teh brake and the other on the accellerator (like some race cars) then they'd be designed for it (like those race cars) and not have a foot rest for your left foot, and the pedals to the right a bit.
      Then again, I also far prefer manual transmission. I always feel so much more in control.
      Harder and harder to get manual these days, however. We're living in the go-cart generation.
      Perhaps we should just add 2' rubber bumpers on all the cars and limit the speed to 5mph?

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    16. Re:red light cameras by tibit · · Score: 1

      So far as the guy stating about using one foot for the brake and the other for the accellerator, I hate drivers like that.

      Pray explain why. It only makes me safer, since I save critical time and thus braking distance! Externally, you couldn't even tell that I'm doing that. I'm not saying that I depress both accelerator and the brake simultaneously as a matter of routine -- I never said that. When I need to brake instantly (for safety), I can depress the brake without worrying about accelerator, and I don't waste time getting my foot of one pedal and moving it to the other.

      As for the "damage" to the car: umm, what? If one occasionally brakes while the engine is applying a bit of torque to the drivetrain: so what. The brake force is only moderately increased, it has a small effect on brake wear. Calling brake wear "damage to the car" is distortion at best, if that's what you meant.

      I have done some instrumentation on my car, and both driveshafts are instrumented with torque sensors (it's a front drive car), as well as brake pressures (individually to each actuator, and the pedal pressure). Especially for you I just looked at the logs. In the last 720 hours (30 days) I drove 732 miles. There was positive torque supplied to the wheels for about 1.5% of the time any brake system pressure was above 10 psi (an arbitrary cutoff). I hardly can call it driving with the brake and accelerator both depressed. The average torque supplied to the wheels with brake pressure above 10psi was below 10% of the peak torque over the same time period.

      As for the ergonomics: if things were as rosy as you imply, you wouldn't have people routinely slamming accelerator instead of the brake. Having both feet in the right place helps with that, I'd think.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    17. Re:red light cameras by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      I never specifically said you were the typical 2 foot driver.
      In fact, from my experience, both you and your vehicle set-up are atypical to what I see.
      Then again, I only see the bad drivers, I assume the good drivers are driving as the car was designed to be driven, I could be wrong.
      Perhaps everyone else on the road is driving with a foot on each pedal, and most of them are managing to do OK.
      I also said "Not because it harms me", not "Because it is unsafe" as it's not really unsafe.
      But I am still pretty sure (no car expert, not claiming to be one) that cars are not designed to have gas and brake applied at the same time (which, I believe, is why you are supposed to use one foot for both, to ensure that doesn't happen)
      Again, not a car expert. Perhaps cars are suppposed to have both applied simultaniously, and it's just a design flaw with how the pedals are set up.
      In any event, I think the 'reaction time' saved by driving with a foot on each pedal is barely significant compared to teh benefits of being aware of your surroundings (Which you did state were beneficial, but seemed to think the 2 offt method was just as important, which is where I strongly disagree).
      Being an aware, defensive driver and not driving stupidly (which is seperate to driving aggressively, though not mutually exclusive) is the key to not getting in accidents. Not only accidents of your own fault, but even most accidents that would be someone else's fault.

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    18. Re:red light cameras by tibit · · Score: 1

      Cars are designed to have brake systems absorb energy. The brake system is pretty oblivious as to where the energy comes from, as long as it can dissipate it while maintaining its performance (think of brake fade). If you drive like I do, that's not a problem. So there.

      I don't know who would be a "typical" two foot driver, and why such a stereotype would be somehow a bad driver. I'd presume people who do it are the ones who know what they are doing in the first place, given the widespread myth (you're the case in point) that occasional application of perhaps significant positive engine torque and brakes at the same time will somehow damage the car.

      Never mind that on automatic cars there is residual positive torque applied to the brake system at all times, unless you shift to neutral every time you are coming to a stop. My car happens to do it, but only because I modified it that way -- purposefully trading off transmission and engine mount longevity for having quieter time when stopped. Had I reverted to a firmware load that doesn't do that, I couldn't simply use the sign of driveshaft torque to extract the figures I mentioned in parent post. I'd need to chose a cutoff that's above idle torque.

      The reaction time saved by driving an automatic car using both feet is in addition to everything else. You can't lose by giving yourself more time. As for being aware of the surroundings: doesn't matter much if you've got dense traffic where 90% of the cars are pretty much tailgating. The only safe thing your situational awareness could tell you is to stay home. If you can't, you have to give yourself whatever advantage you can.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    19. Re:red light cameras by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      Well, for one thing, your car, as you said, is modified. For another thing, are you telling me that cars are intended to be used with both brakes and acceleration applied at the same time, that this is not counterintuitive?
      As for damaging the car, well, of course it does. as mentioned, every time you apply breaks you are adding wear and tear, simply driving a car wears it out over time. And as thus, cars are designed to minimise this damage, not exacerbate it.
      In fact, newer designs hook into the braking to recapture the energy for (later, not simultanious) use in acceleration. You're going to be hard pressed to convince me that it is ever a good idea to both brake and accelerate at the same time.
      As for the reaction time gained in seeing the need to slow down, your brain processing this into an automatic reaction and finally the gain by using either your right or left foot to apply pressure to the brake, which is rarely fast, hard, and immediate) I'm thinking that the risk of not easing up fast enough on the accelerator (or forgetting to do so entirely) would make it much worse to use both feet than to using one, and even assuming you did ease off the accelerator just as fast, that (possible) split fraction of a second is of negligable value.
      I, instead, factor my reaction time into my driving and ensure I don't need a fraction of a second extra to avoid an accident.
      In fact, I prefer a to plan for a large fraction of a second (or even whole seconds) of reaction time for any possible problems, which is why I drive aware of my environment, rather that resting a foot on each pedal and thinking I have it all under control.
      I also am wondering why I keep posting replies to this that really deserve to be modded 'redundant', so I'll stop now :)
      You drive your way, I'll drive mine, and hopefulyl we'll never cross paths on the open road :)
      GL and have fun out there.

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    20. Re:red light cameras by icebrain · · Score: 1

      Whether the drivers should know better or not isn't the issue. The fact is, it happens. The system should account for what actually happens, not what should happen.

      In this case, shortening yellow times results in accidents partly because people are following too closely. We all know people shouldn't follow that closely, and in a perfect world, they wouldn't. But in reality, they do, so we should design the system so that it works even if people are being bad drivers.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    21. Re:red light cameras by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      That sounds great in theory. Please never drive in Chicago, Illinois or Atlanta, Georgia here in the States. On a six-lane-wide stretch of highway you must often be less than a car and a half behind the car in front of you at speed. If you're any farther back than that, some jackass will rev his engine and put his car within that two-car lengths you allowed him, giving you at best half a car length of play once he does it.

  56. So you want to turn your road into a toll road . by mrsportacus · · Score: 1

    Oh the Sheriff of Nottingham returns!

    You want to take a public road, install a system to enforce a speed law and have the proceeds return to you? That is no different then what highway brigands did during the middle ages. However if you must you can install your own system, after its up and running you can then adjust the system to issue tickets when ever you want. Need a little extra cash for the kids college, just a quick tweak and there you go, instant money tree!

    I am sure you have enough cash to get the bond or insurance to cover the litigation your group will face every time it issues a ticket. You have the money to have your system calibrated by an independent third party every time you issue a ticket? The money to pay the lawyers to defend the tickets in court?

    Petition your local government to install a traffic light or a few speed bumps.

  57. Crowdsource it by macraig · · Score: 1

    There's plenty of eyes already on the road who see these reckless drivers in action, and could catch them red-handed. How about we "crowdsource" it and put all those people to good use? They're already pissed-off by these reckless drivers and possibly motivated enough to actually volunteer.

  58. Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do people even bother asking /. for advice when these are the responses that they get?

  59. A dissenting voice by watanabe · · Score: 1

    Unlike many people posting here, I've traveled enough to understand what you want to do, and why it is likely to work, and I applaud you!

    That said, England is full of these devices, and I would suggest you buy one rather than roll your own. My quick searches didn't turn anything up, but I know they exist, as there are websites devoted to pictures of people burning them down in England. : ).

    For slashdotters with complaints about this:

    A fine can be sent automatically. Social circumstances in much of the Middle East make automated fining likely to gain far higher compliance than police or traffic lights could. Of course senior government officials won't pay their tickets, duh. That doesn't change how likely it is to help the man/woman on the street.

  60. Jumping to solutions? by meburke · · Score: 1

    Yup, this sounds like a clear case of jumping to solutions. The problem is stated as a solution, rather than the difference between the way things are and the way you would like them to be.

    On the other hand, getting rich off reckless drivers sounds like a classic case of privatization of law enforcement. Good entrepeneurial thinking.

    Which is more important to you?

    If you are interested in actually improving driving conditions, try analysing the problem using a reliable problem-solving/troubleshooting approach. I recommend "The Thinker's Toolkit" by Mason Jones http://www.amazon.com/Thinkers-Toolkit-Powerful-Techniques-Problem/dp/0812928083 . If you are interested in making money off the enforcement of public safety, this book may still be a great help.

    --
    "The mind works quicker than you think!"
  61. Great Idea would just change this: by lastrogue · · Score: 0

    The upkeep on the proposed system would be insane, it sounds like you should make the proposition to the government to assist in funding of the installation and then place you on a payroll for upkeep of the system and monitoring/reporting to authorities. You might just do the upkeep and let officials track offenders and deliver citations. other citizens taking the law into their own hands and handing out penalties doesn't sound like a recipe for peace or non-violent interactions.

  62. Re:One additional improvement by psyque · · Score: 1

    Troll!? I was trying to be funny :(

  63. Behold by ISoldat53 · · Score: 0

    The USA in fifty years.

  64. Vigilante with a Radar Gun by tekrat · · Score: 1

    If you really want to make a statement, dump the Radar Gun and get yourself a real gun. Find a nice secluded spot and when you see a recless driver coming towards you, put a bullet through his windsheild. Or pop a tire. Either way, he gets the message.

    If you're saying you're in the Middle East, chances are the people doing the reckless driving are wealthy because they are driving large, armored vehicles and are generally immune to small arms fire. So, even with a decent rifle, you're unlikely to be killing anyone, so, you don't need to worry about that, but the expensive glass getting replaced on a regular basis will cause them to slow down. Maybe. Either that, or they will find out hwo you are and kill you for laughs.

    So really, the Middle East and Detroit aren't all that different. There's a lot of gun fire, women can't go outside without escorts, and everyone drives like jerks. And the rich people have their own laws that they don't have to follow, while the poor have to put up with the corrupt officials.

    Everywhere it's the same...

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  65. The old and the bold. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ask anyone living in England how well static systems such as these work (The ones that vandals haven't smashed, cut down, lit on fire, or covered the cameras with paint).

    Most 3rd world countries that I've visited seem to need to work out their problems with basic infrastructure and police corruption before you can start dealing with problems with drivers.

    Even here in the US the daily carnage on the roads is amazing in quantity, though not nearly as spectacular (people with death wishes on scooters).

    Personally I view the death on our motorways as the last great bastion of natural selection for the human race. Generally the idiotic manage to kill themselves more often than not. Why fight it?

  66. Your radar... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

    ... like all police radar, will only catch fast drivers, not bad drivers. It will be great at raising revenue but it will have little to no beneficial effect on safety.

    In general you can't solve social problems with technological means. Get your government to focus on better driver training, better highway engineering. Possibly try raising fines and penalties for genuinely reckless behavior, and put more cops on the street in problem areas.

    1. Re:Your radar... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      In general you can't solve social problems with technological means....better highway engineering

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:Your radar... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      (Shrug) That's just to say that poor highway engineering can bring out antisocial behavior in the best of drivers.

  67. Speeding != bad driving by hessian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Speeding does not necessarily equal bad driving.

    If anything, speeding is a subset of bad driving -- for people who are already bad drivers.

    You need to lobby your local government to more heavily regulate/test drivers.

    There is no technological solution that can take the place of that.

    1. Re:Speeding != bad driving by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Even if speeding is a subset of bad driving, it is the one that is the least dangerous. More dangerous things include: Lane sharing, changing lanes while pushing existing cars out of them, failure to yield, failure to signal, failure to pull over or just plain stop when an emergency vehicle is approaching you, driving in the shoulder/emergency lane... and on and on. Basically everything is more dangerous then speeding and most of those things are impossible to enforce without actual police on the streets enforcing them.

    2. Re:Speeding != bad driving by hellop2 · · Score: 1

      If speeding is a subset of bad driving, then all speeding is bad driving.

      --
      How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
    3. Re:Speeding != bad driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In cities such as Damascus, Syria, they can't drive faster than 50km/h because they drive 6 lanes wide on a road made of 4 lanes. Everyone keeps cutting without signals, slowng down traffic. Many people also have radar detectors in their car. Accident rate is quite high. Fortunately it's often minor because they drive so slow.

    4. Re:Speeding != bad driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      driving too slow is also a subset of bad driving.

  68. Airbags by gilesjuk · · Score: 0

    Replace airbags with big metal spikes, in the event of an impact you are almost certainly going to die.

    Car safety allows drivers to drive faster and take more risks. Cars are too easy to drive, too smooth, too quiet and so some people have no problem with driving fast. If you got up to 70mph and your car sounded like it was going to fall apart you would back off the speed.

    Adjusting driver behaviour requires adjustments to the cars, not more policing.

  69. Great idea but... by Orphis · · Score: 1

    So imagine, you manage to build a radar with a camera. Now, how will you catch all the people without a valid license plate ? I've traveled a little in those countries and they either have no plate, a funny invalid plate, and unreadable one or an old invalid one they never changed. Well, the governmental organizations have valid license plates, but I don't think they'll ever pay anything ;-) So before using tech to make the roads safer, I would first ask the police to ensure every driver has a valid driving license, papers, a valid plate, isn't drunk or high. Basic work and it will help a lot better !

  70. More technical details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shuddup about what is and isn't a good idea for him. Who cares if he can't solve his social ends with technology - I want to know how to build a traffic system that can interpret radar data. Talk about Kalman filtering and shit, this is news for nerds, not sociologists.

  71. Re:One additional improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because there are no circumstances in which a car speedometer could go higher than the road limit legally.

    And there is only one speed limit for all the roads.

    Think it through.

  72. can't be done by Surt · · Score: 1

    No automated system can beat the 'drivers claim it is cheating'. If your laws don't explicitly allow mechanical surveillance of this kind, you are out of luck. Even very expensive red light camera systems in the US lose in court basically every time they are challenged.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  73. what you are talking about is vigilantism by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the problem with vigilantism is it is not accountable, except to the vigilante, whose principles may be quite out of whack

    you can complain about the abuses of the police all you want, but the police, at least in theory, serve the people. of course they can be corrupt, but this is a structural failure that can be remedied by the government. if the government is unwilling or unable to control the police, then your country is screwed anyways, so start building molotov cocktails

    vigilantism can never be reviewed, criticized, or policy changed. plus, the usual guys who like the idea of vigilantism and are attracted to the idea are of a sort of personality that has serious psychological issues with control and power and dominance, and are therefore exactly the wrong kind of person you want to be enforcing anything. yes, people with the same sort of psychological issues are also attracted to becoming cops, but at least with the police, there exists (again, at least in theory, where it doesn't exists its a failure of policy and execution of the government) a feedback system that can weed out such people

    i'm sorry, but vigilantism sucks, and is not a solution to anything. the only valid solution is to kick your government in the ass to fix the failures in your society that make the idea of vigilantism seem remotely appealing at all

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:what you are talking about is vigilantism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, I know you think it is "style" or something - but if you want readers to take your posts seriously, consider using the "shift" key every now and then.

    2. Re:what you are talking about is vigilantism by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      [Warning: I am the original poster] I am sorry for not being clear enough: what I want is a government sanctioned system, with a revenue sharing agreement. Vigilantism can't work.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    3. Re:what you are talking about is vigilantism by AndyCanfield · · Score: 1

      i'm sorry, but vigilantism sucks, and is not a solution to anything. the only valid solution is to kick your government in the ass to fix the failures in your society that make the idea of vigilantism seem remotely appealing at all

      --

      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it

      Anybody else notice the ethical inconsistancy between his pronouncement and his signature? The only valid solution is to obey this law and perhaps change it, and your moral duty to ignore that other law.

    4. Re:what you are talking about is vigilantism by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Of course it can. Have you ever participated in a "Neighborhood Watch" program. They're wonderful. They cooperate with the police, who help provide training, set guidelines and local patrol routes where the watches are most likely to be helpful. They don't do arrests, they call the police for that. They do report broken street lights, unlocked doors, and blocked streets that would interfere with emergency vehicles: their best weapon against crime is a notebook (and these days, a cellphone with camera). And they have certainly changed policy, for example as more women participate and sensitivity to date rape and harassment has increased. It's a great way to get to know your neighborhood, and your neighbors who actually care about where they live.

      Vigilantism is often described as you are saying, as a dirty word to describe citizens enforcing their politics randomly, without coordination or cooperation with governmental authority or the rest of the community. But political acts like vote monitoring, youth activities such as midnight basketball, and other programs are often "vigilantism" at their best, forms of local support that encourage neighborhood support and awareness rather than criminal enforcement. Even wandering around a city with tape measures and a wheel chair and making sure all the restaurants and public buildings are handicapped accessible could be considered vigilantism, and I've certainly participated in that. (Our participant who lives in a wheelchair was exhausted by the nd of the day, but he reported later that we did get quite a few blocked or badly designed doors fixed.)

    5. Re:what you are talking about is vigilantism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      vigilantism can never be reviewed, criticized, or policy changed. plus, the usual guys who like the idea of vigilantism and are attracted to the idea are of a sort of personality that has serious psychological issues with control and power and dominance,

      So are politicians. At least vigilantes are financially independent.

  74. Screw Radar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two webcams pointed perpendicular to the road 5-15m apart will be more accurate and cheaper than a radar. Just make sure you have good heavy(as in hard to move) points of references for the cameras and elevate them enough to capture all lanes. Then it's a few downloads of python libraries, a bit of basic algebra, and some tests and your good to go.

  75. Don't bother by RNLockwood · · Score: 1

    The hardware has already been developed and deployed in cities around the world. Southern California has lots of intersections where cameras will take pictures of cars going though red lights. I've heard of other places that can even detect rolling stops. I encountered what you are talking about in Brasilia, Brazil, about 13 years ago. They were pretty smart in that more structures to place cameras/radars were constructed than the number of cameras/radars they had. Drivers all knew where the structures were, would slow down, and then speed up again. I was told that after a couple of years a new mayor was elected and he forgave all the citations.

    I don't think you could afford all the testing of a home brew system and I suspect that the law would need changing to allow cittions from the cameras.

    --
    Nate
  76. Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it is Cairo, Egypt. They have pretty bad traffic.

  77. Radar Triggered RPGs with followup ticket in mail. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    I heard that RPGs are pretty available in the Middle East.

  78. You need a much lower tech solution by kindbud · · Score: 3, Informative

    Topes are what they call speed bumps in Mexico (the word means "limit"). They are usually found on the highway as you approach a village, though large cities will put them at strategic places to control traffic speed. They are very effective. They do not require vigilance from law enforcement. They work even if the government is corrupt. They are cheap. They require little maintenance.

    Topes

    Topes in Yucatan (including photos of ganada falsos used as topes)

    --
    Edith Keeler Must Die
    1. Re:You need a much lower tech solution by sdguero · · Score: 1

      In my experience, topes are used by poor people to stop vehicles and beg for money. They normally string a rope with a sign in the middle that says "alto" and women and children run up to the window begging for money. When we were there, we drove through the ropes. IMO a couple of white boys stopping in a $10k vehicle in the middle of nowhere Mexico is not the best idea.

    2. Re:You need a much lower tech solution by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      [Warning: I am the original poster] What about ambulances?

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    3. Re:You need a much lower tech solution by Target+Drone · · Score: 1

      What about ambulances?

      Use a Speed Cushion. You can also buy prefab rubber ones that just need to be bolted down to a street.

  79. I see what the problem is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we have one of the biggest accident and mortality rates per km of road or per 1,000 vehicles

    Switch to English units from metric and watch that number go down a notch or 2 almost overnight. And while you're at it, you can quit comparing your stats with the other colonies.

  80. Re:One additional improvement by morari · · Score: 2, Insightful

    BTW, reckless driving and speed are two different things. Speed makes little difference if you don't drive intelligently or are distracted and unfocused.

    Bingo!

    You can drive like an idiot without even approaching the speed limit. A lot of accidents could be avoided if only one party was paying attention. Sure, there is generally someone who is responsible, but it's been my experience that driving defensively and assuming that everyone is out to get you goes a long way. Don't just go speeding through green lights, pay attention to the traffic that's supposed to be stopped. Watch cars up ahead that are waiting to turn out, because it could be right in front of you. Don't drive in clusters, whether right beside, behind, or in front of others. People can do a lot to limit their exposure to accidents, that's to be sure.

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
  81. Hmmm..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to question if the goal is really to build a traffic radar system, or get some cheap radar technology for some other purpose.

    Beyond that, I have personally constructed such items and I'm aware that if you search the Internet diligently you'll find plans that actually work for 'radar guns' but I think you should have to work for it...possibly because of the first concern.

    Further beyond that, I have to wonder from the first 2 items if you really have the increasingly larger knowledge and devotion to manufacture, operate and enforce a system on a large scale. It's not trivial. Even data collection comes at a price. At some point you'll need to collect that data after all. Additionally such devices require calibration and the tools to do so may not be cheap enough or even available for loan from the local ham radio operators.

    In the end, I'd like to suggest something slightly less complicated. Cheap RF transmitters, laser diodes (think laser pointers) and a 'photoswitch' that detects when the beam is broken. Put the sensors a known distance apart and you can determine the speed of the object based on the time between the breaks in the laser beam. Use a cheap microcontroller or a basic CMOS counter and you have the basic components. Add a camera to that and you can see who/what broke the beams.

    I'm comfortable making the above suggestion because it barely qualifies as a high school level electronics project.

  82. Adjust your perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you really need to do is adjust your perspective. Visit Boston for a while and I guarantee you that the driving everywhere else will feel sane and safe in comparison. Seriously, I've driven all over the world, from Mexico to India, to Australia, to Brazil to Indonesia to... Nowhere did I feel as unsafe as when I was living with the absolutely moronic drivers of Boston. The driving there isn't simply bad, or irresponsible (although it is both), it is literally homicidal. So just drive there for a couple weeks and then go home and you won't be worried anymore.

  83. As a Skeptic, I say you'll all fail by socz · · Score: 1

    As an optimist, I wish something like that would work. But your problem is not the people themselves, it's the culture. I had a mini flame war without meaning to make it flame because someone misunderstood me. I'll use what I'm VERY familiar with: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, North America. I learned while working there for a minute that you don't "follow the rules, you follow the cars." This means everything they do. If they don't completely stop at a stop sign, then you roll through it as they did when it's your turn. If you see they make 4 lanes out of 2, you do the same. And when those 4 lanes swerve like a freakin snake, you better freakin swerve too. Why swerve? Well, if you want a flat tire from those sink holes they call pot holes, keep going straight! So it's the culture that has to change. In Down Town Los Angeles people in their Porche's don't care for speed limits or red lights. While the *majority* of people won't have these cars nor money, they do congregate in this area because of their type of work. So, that many people with that mentality isn't a good thing, and guess what? Money isn't going to "teach them."


    As stated many times, I am a biker. Or, as my friends say, "an every day rider." In doing so I've seen a lot of things, and I understand why many people say "you have to be crazy to ride a bike." The problem with trying to "punish bad drivers" is that it'll fail just as punishing "bad people who break laws and get caught" does. You can't stop it. And don't make any allusion to that because the problem doesn't disappear, it just move somewhere else.

    Now, my idea, as stated before, for my problem is to equip both marked and unmarked 'law enforcement vehicles' with the same system parking enforcers have, but also an augmented system. Here are the basics:
    a) Scan license plates on passing or being passed by other vehicles. Their windshields need to have HUD in order to make this effective.

    b) Data will be categorized by priority. A red border around a vehicle is high priority: wanted by law, yellow, some sort of mark on the license plate, could stop legall but maybe not a priority issue, green speeders and reckless drivers. MANY more colors for other things.

    c) Next, depending on the color of issue, the registered cars owner could receive a warning OR a citation in the mail. I would refuse to accept anything less than a system that gives out no less than 2 warnings BEFORE imposing fines or penalties. That way people "get a chance to learn to obey the rules of law." That way, people also don't get f'd by laws that are not brought to our attention. Other owners though, will be immediately pulled over AND fined. Known and repeat offenders even have their vehicles impounded on the SPOT. Regular speeders in excess of 20 MPH of posted speed limit or who have had "other serious moving violations."

    d) Owners can contest the fine at the same cost of said fine. So, if you get a ticket in the mail for your 3rd offense of going 85 in a 65 MPG zone and its for say, $100, you CAN contest it paying $100, then if the judge says it was wrongly issued you're only out $100. But, if you are found guilty, then you're out $100 + $100 = $200. Helps keep waste down in the court.

    e) Now, with time tables established, those who break more serious laws will have their licenses suspended and eventually permanently revoked.

    Harsh right? Well, when you've been almost killed more times than you have fingers on 1 hand, you *might* feel the same way. The biggest crime in those peoples lives are that they would have killed me, and not even have known it.


    And oh yeah, I have more! I'll throw it up on my blog sometime. Maybe someone will steal that idea and make it happen!

    --
    My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    1. Re:As a Skeptic, I say you'll all fail by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      you CAN contest it paying $100, then if the judge says it was wrongly issued you're only out $100.

      Fuck you, buddy. If it's a wrongly issued ticket, I expect to pay exactly $0. Maybe an apology and a suitable remuneration for my time and effort contesting said ticket would be nice as well.

      Back in Realityland, a bond system might work. Pay $100 and get it back if you win.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    2. Re:As a Skeptic, I say you'll all fail by socz · · Score: 1

      you CAN contest it paying $100, then if the judge says it was wrongly issued you're only out $100. Fuck you, buddy. If it's a wrongly issued ticket, I expect to pay exactly $0. Maybe an apology and a suitable remuneration for my time and effort contesting said ticket would be nice as well. Back in Realityland, a bond system might work. Pay $100 and get it back if you win.

      So, what is the life of your loved one worth to you? $100? $50? 3 hours and a days wages? Just for a minute, don't think of what you *could* lose, but think of what you *could keep.*

      I know that a lot of people would react the way you do, and honestly so would I... not having lived what I have. But ask people who have lost loved ones to drunk drivers or people speeding what they'd pay to get their loved ones back...

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
  84. A much cheaper solution by ADRA · · Score: 1

    Add speed bumps into the road. Depending on how fast the road speeds are supposed to be, you can make the bumps smoother for faster areas and higher for slow traffic ones (like before what should be a 4-way stop / light).

    --
    Bye!
  85. You have _never_ in your life shipped code. by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Much less built out anything other then a non-working prototype.

    I can tell just by reading your comment.

    Moron.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  86. Targeting the wrong people always helps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Reckless doesn't mean speeders.
    2. The best drivers drive in something like the 87th percentile of speed (A study I read in dead tree media). Yep, they are speeding.
    3. While even my local state patrol says "Speed is the number 1 cause of accidents." this is completely false unless by speed you mean that one of the vehicles in a crash had to have speed >0 AKA be moving. 20 years of studying crashes and watching people crash says that the #1 cause is inattentive driving or putting things where they do not belong.
    4. Speeders are a created villain that you have decided to go after (In Germany they drive much faster than we do here so speed is not the issue).
    5. You need to target bad drivers. Those who commute in the passing lane, those who don't use turn signals, those who turn to the wrong lane, those who roll through stops or ignore them completely, those who drive distracted, those who impede traffic, etc. These are the people who do not pay attention or put things where they do not belong.

    So if you actually want less death you need a legal solution not a technological solution.
    1. Police target bad drivers not speeders and drunks. Vehicle profiling should also be used.
    2. change drunk driving laws to cover all inattentive driving. If talking on a cell phone while driving impairs you as much as the legal alcohol limit it should be targeted and penalized in the same way.
    3. Lobby for heavy penalties for turning to the wrong lane, improper signal use/no signal use, commuting in the passing lane, and all the other things that indicate that the person either doesn't know how to drive or is driving impaired, impeding traffic, rolling through stops, etc. By heavy penalties think DWI penalties.
    4. Penalties for LTV drivers should be double as they are way more dangerous to other drivers.
    5. Let the fines from the bad drivers buy HD video cams for police dashboards to increase conviction rate.
    6. Push for regular drivers tests for licensed drivers, to make sure their skills are current.

    People like going after invented villains like speeders because then they feel that themselves are not the problem. When you target the bad drivers you target most people, so enjoy getting any laws created that target the majority.

    I should note that while speeding doesn't cause as many accidents as other things, the more speed a vehicle has the more energy it will deliver in a crash and the more damage that will be done. Of course with energy you can look at a LTV that weighs 2x what a car does and do the energy calculations yourself.
    You could just lobby for lower and lower speed limits but what this will lead to is "Every child Left Behind" applied to roads. Get the bad drivers off the roads, do not dumb things down for them. Do not make everyone else drive at their level.
    The other problem with lower and lower speed limits is that you get higher and higher speed deltas between the fast and slow drivers.

  87. Process then Product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's great that you want to do something but you have this the wrong way round.

    If there is no political will to enforce the current laws then that is the first problem that needs to be solved. Start lobbying the city authorities - show them how much accidents cost the economy and line up some people to remind them of the devastating social cost. Show them how a multi-pronged enforcement program could be revenue neutral (probably best not to suggest positive - once the government starts relying on revenue like this they stop making good decisions). Use statistics from first worlds countries to show that these enforcement programs do reduce the rate of death and accidents over time.

    Some of the measures you might want to consider along the way include:
    - Demerit points program so repeat offenders lose their right to drive.
    - Variable fines tied to income (stop the rich from flouting the law because the fines aren't large enough to worry them - possibly not required if you use demerit points).
    - Mandatory seat belt and motor cycle helmet laws.
    - Advertising campaigns that remind people of the very personal and tragic outcome of road accidents.
    - Improved driver education for younger drivers and increased licensing standards.
    - Child restraint standards.
    - Random drug and alcohol testing (maybe not such an issue for middle east).

    Then there is the issue about how you make the road system safer. Many safety improvements are about engineering rather than changing attitudes.
    - Traffic lights and signalling
    - Segregated Carriageways
    - Improving vehicle safety standards
    - Speed limits determined by engineering expertise rather than popular poll
    - Wider shoulder and run off areas on roads.
    - Re-engineering intersections
    - etc etc

    And yes, part of such a program might be fixed and possible mobile radar/laser with cameras (mind you if your registration scheme is not robust enough a camera is of zero use).

    If that all sounds like a lot of work then yes it is. Now some civil libertarians will no doubt jump in and use some ridiculous stats to try and point out why you shouldn't do this, or that etc etc. Most first world countries have been using some combination of such programs to reduce the impact of road trauma for some time with a great deal of success.

    As is usually the case with social programs it is difficult to take a scientific measurement of which parts of a program contribute the most (because you don't really ever get apples/apples comparisons) but something is being done correctly. For example here in Australia in absolute terms deaths in MVAs have fallen from around 3300 in 1982 steadily and continously to around 1400 per annum - in the same time Australia's population has increased from around 15mil to 21mil. So in deaths per 100,000 the rate has dropped from approximately 22/100,000 in 1982 to around 6.5/100,000.

    Across the border from where I live is the little city of Queanbeyan - around 25,000 people - it's greatest claim to fame at the moment is being the home of Formula One driver Mark Webber. That entire city represents approximately how many lives have been saved since 1982 in Australia through some combination of the road safety program.

    And to be honest - deaths is just the tip of the iceberg. For every 1 person killed there are 4 people whose lives are destroyed through injuries which change their lives forever. Acquired brain injuries, spinal injuries, amputations etc etc.

    I applaud you for showing enough concern to want to do something. Build some allies - that's what you need. Show the authorities just how appalling the loss of life is over time. Help them build a revenue neutral program to show they can afford to start addressing the problem. Then you can buy your rader ;-)
     

  88. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me guess... DUBAI!!!

  89. I have a better idea by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    Get these people, we will call them police, to patrol where these accidents occur and give tickets to people who behave recklessly. That way the people who get the ticket cannot weasel out of it by saying the automated system is not reliable and is just being used to make money and if there is an actual problem these "police" can be there to help!

  90. License Plate Recognition Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  91. I see TONS of problems here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...for example, the motivation of the writer:

    "This is about technology saving lives — literally."

    He states this just after stating this:

    "...we're confident the penalty fees will cover its spread."

    When money is involved, things get REAL backwards. Like Rei said above, the focus should be on the real problems: the people, and the lack of traffic lights. People can be educated. If they don't obey the rules of society that are designed for their physical wellbeing, they likely get injured and in some cases, remove their influence from the community permanently. Not that that would be a good thing, but PEOPLE should be the ones responsible for their own stupidity, not the government, because when the government steps in, liberties are lost.

    Don't do it unless you support the same political structures that Stalin and Hitler were the front men for.

  92. Not really a technology challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The question of cheating or lying is based on your ability to enforce the speeds you capture, thats a matter of lobbying the local government which is actually your biggest issue. i'm kind of lost in what your actually after technology-wise.....how on earth do you plan to enforce this? Do you want a speed triggered camera that grabs a license plate photo? If so, there are several manufacturers, just buy the first one if you think it'll catch on, happing all over the US now. Sorry to say but if you even have to ask this question your probably not capable of building a system to do it yourself. If you want to research it, you don't need a radar specialist at all, you need a dopler radar front end, which you can buy as a module or you could just buy a radar gun used in baseball or a police issue model, rig it into a computer (may need a microcontroller doing some glue work) and have the computer attached to a high speed camera capable of resolving a license plate (the camera is by and far the largest expense in all likelihood). There will of course be some work to glue it all together but nothing a EE undergrad couldn't figure out.

  93. I'm from the middle east too.. by meekg · · Score: 1

    So you live in the middle east and want to build and operate your own radar system. Are you sure you're not just visiting there?

  94. a cheaper alternative.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..are speed bumps! Coupled with some signs suggesting motorists should slow down for them..

    This won't generate revenue.. but you could always start a nearby towing service at the same time and profit from the one's who didnt heed the warnings :)

  95. bad idea.. how about just speed bumps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Radar does not make the roads safer.... education does.. radar and speed traps only generate revenue and annoy people.

  96. i prefer the colorful term "sleeping policeman" by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    they're even called, somewhere, a "slow child" (laff):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_bump

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  97. Reliablity vs Cost vs Scalablity by Cyclloid · · Score: 1
    This falls into the realm of the problem: "I want it to be reliable, scalable, and be cheap."

    You really only get to choose at most 2 out of the three.(there is the possibility that it could have none of the above)

    Issues
    --------------------
    Electricity
    • Primary source: power grid
    • Secondary source: solar power/battery (battery can recharge off of solar power or power grid when possible)

    Humidity

    Unfortunately I'm not familiar with how humidity affects radar. But one option is to do is include humidity readings with the violation. Then do a large amount of testing at various speed/humidity to produce a error margin look-up for a given humidity. (this may result in the minor offenders to escape the fines(speed is within the error margin of speed limit), but you will get the major offenders)

    Cheating

    Well unless the source code for the system(s) that you purchase is open source you can't prove it one way or the other. Only other choice is to buy it from a reputable vendor.

  98. i'm sure that are a few dudes somewhere who can drive 90 mph all the time and never get in accidents... yet

    i'm also sure there are plenty of dudes who say they can drive 90 mph all the time, out of a mix of testosterone, machismo, bravado, and bullshit, but can't

    can you tell the difference?

    look: the faster you drive, the greater your chance for crashing. so society picks a speed limit, and lives are saved

    yes, a few supermen out there, now have their styles cramped. and for those superman, i have nothing but sympathy and tears for this heavy, heavy burden you must bear

    truly life is so not fair to the supermen... or at least the hubristic assholes who kill other people because they think of themselves as supermen

    obey the speed limits, asshole. you're no fucking superman

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:yes by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      so society picks a speed limit, and lives are saved

      Errrr...the municipality picks an artificially low speed limit and tickets are written.

      The next time you are on the highway and the speed limit drops to 55 from 70 for no apparent reason, keep your speed at 70 mph. I guarantee you that you'll come out at the other end just fine. Or, try this....next time the highway speed limit is 70, go 75 and watch the death and destruction NOT ensue.

    2. Re:yes by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Are they really artificially low? Personally, I don't believe that, I think you made that up to have an excuse to speed. If there is no apparent reason for you to slow down, there might be a reason that's less detectable.

      We were driving on a highway in Italy when we had to take an exit. Right in front of the traffic was an irritating sign that said "60" (that's km/h). No traffic, excellent view, no rain, no loose laying stones, even slightly tilted the right way. So we went in at 75 - only to find out that that kind of tarmac was obviously not build for high temperatures. We found that out when the wheels tried to break away from under us. Fortunately the driver was experienced with drifting so the small rental was kept on the road, but that was one speed sign that certainly was doing it's job.

      Maybe there is a school nearby. Maybe it's a place that is accident prone. Maybe the people just had enough of all the noise from fast traveling cars. You can't see those things while driving. And yes, there are lots of reasons why in a particular situation the sign does not make sense. But as long as traffic signs are not qualified to estimate when they should be enforced or not, society has to enforce them. We certainly can't let each driver decide for himself - in that case having traffic signs would be moot.

    3. Re:yes by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Are they really artificially low? Personally, I don't believe that, I think you made that up to have an excuse to speed.

      Yes. Let me provide an entire bucket of anecdotal evidence:

      My wife is an Actuary. Determining the risk of ensuring a driver is unnecessarily complicated by arbitrary speed limits and zealous law enforcement. They teach this in school, and it's on the actuarial tests.

      I live in Texas, with 75 mph speed limits. I travel between Austin and San Antonio, easily driving 80-85 mph, while being passed by most people. The conditions are fine for 80-90 mph, yet the max federal limit is 75. There is NOTHING on I-35 requiring 75 mph limit, no bad tarmac, no school, no whatever...just an arbitrary federal limit.

      The mere fact that our city streets are littered with 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 mph zones, regardless of the neighborhood, road size/condition, population density proves that speed "limits" are completely arbitrary. If 30 mph is the speed that kills, then why aren't all speed limits everywhere 30? What if its 40? What if its 25? It's all arbitrary (here in the US at least..in the UK, I found it to be even more restrictive with binary speed limits...slow in towns and fast on the motorways..which I actually prefer).

      When dangerous conditions are present, I'd prefer they post signs like they do for curves and off-ramps...you know the yellow signs that post a SUGGESTED speed (that are conservatively low, to account for people with poor vehicle control or hard to control vehicles). Those are generally very close to realistic speeds. I drive a low to the ground sporty car, and can easily handle 45 mph offramps at 60 mph, but I don't, because the suggested speed probably has more to do with the merging conditions ahead. That makes sense. A random 50 mph zone on a flat country road that is posted as 45 or 70 elsewhere makes NO sense.

    4. Re:yes by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      You missed the GP's point. It is obviously arbitrary - because there is no way to precisely determine how much speed you can handle at all times on this particular stretch of road. That includes all of your own states of mind(angry, frustrated, lust-sick etc.), and all the states of the road (trafficky, dark, pedestrian-y at particular times). Even if they did determine that, the speed limit would be different for different people at different times. Such signs which read differently to different people would be difficult to put up.

      So we go to some conservatively (and arbitrarily, of necessity) defined speed limits - same for everyone at all times. Conservatively because a particular bigshot's haste is less important than someone's life. Since these speed limits depend on the official in charge and is subjective - at some places you would find the speed limits less suffocating than others. This is only to be expected. I don't see you providing a solution either.

      Come to think of it - that the society lets most of its people drive is itself an arbitrary decision. Since so many people die every year of road accidents, the society could easily have decided that only "Government"-trained, dedicated drivers will be allowed to chauffeur everyone around. But the value of letting most people drive was considered greater than the few lives that would (perhaps) be saved this way. But then, the privilege of driving license comes with some restrictions. Speed limit is one of them. Others are the chemicals you are allowed to have in your body (again arbitrarily decided), state of your car to be declared fit for driving (same) etc.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    5. Re:yes by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      All valid points. However, you are missing the main point that speed is not the primary factor in urban related accidents. Not paying attention and failure to yield (i.e. running into somebody because you didn't see them, or you didn't understand the rules of the road).

      Lowering speed limits does not change this, as people do a fine job running into each other at or below the speed limit already.

      I provide no solution, because the "problem" of speeding isn't the problem in this case that needs a solution. So it is sort of implied when I rag on public officials' lust to enforce revenue measures that my solution would be to stop obsessing about speed and start ticketing bad drivers. I could issue more tailgating, impeding traffic, and failure to yield tickets in one day than I could speeding tickets in a month.

    6. Re:yes by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      However, you are missing the main point that speed is not the primary factor in urban related accidents.

      I am not missing that point - actually that is a separate point altogether. We were discussing speed limits and their arbitrariness. There surely are other, more important factors in accidents. But why bring that while discussing speed and speed limits?

      Now, city administrations are fond of speed limits for various reasons. You know them all, so I'll just very briefly mention them
      1. Easy to put speed limit signs.
      2. Good source of revenue - occasionally place cops with speed determining machine and collect a handy sum.
      3. After the accident - easy to blame the driver. Generally forensics can give an idea about the speed of the vehicle after the accident.
      4. After the fact of the accident (say, fatal) - it is easy to lament that if the vehicle were any slower the accident would not have been fatal.

      I could issue more tailgating, impeding traffic, and failure to yield tickets in one day than I could speeding tickets in a month.

      Completely agree in a perfect world. But all these traffic offences are a lot more difficult to monitor by dumb people and dumb machines. How do you propose to hand out convincing tickets? Hiring thousands more smart cops in a million-strong city might be out of budget. So, the smaller but easier to solve problem gets the emphasis. Now, where have I heard that before :) ?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    7. Re:yes by hmallett · · Score: 1

      ..in the UK, I found it to be even more restrictive with binary speed limits...

      You're telling me! Even on the open road with a 1000110 speed limt, people still drive at 1010000 or 1011010. Personally I'm fine dawdling along at 111100. Except for that time I did 10010110.

  99. "The country is not important" -- sorry, wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the US we have radar detectors, speed traps, traffic lights, plenty of police officers, reasonably well-marked lanes (compared with the rest of the world), all the trappings of a fairly sophisticated automobile system.

    And yet, the worst drivers in the world are found in Massachusetts, USA. Worse than Rome, worse than all the places with reputations of crazy driving, per insurance company and other statistics.

    The location you are in DOES MATTER. If the people don't abide by simple rules of the road, all the technology you throw at it isn't going to make much difference.

  100. This is a technical problem not a social one. by jishak · · Score: 1

    Many people have written that this is a social problem not a technical one. Here's why they are wrong.

    I have been to Egypt on many trips and have seen firsthand the problems described above. In egypt, there is rampant corruption in the government. That trickles down to all agencies. The people who pay taxes do not get anything in return. Nobody obeys traffic laws there. People frequently cram 6 cars into the equivalent of 3 lanes of traffic. People believe the lines are for decoration. In the areas where there are traffic lights, nobody obeys them. The only person people obey is soldier with the machine gun directing traffic. They are groomed with the understanding that as long as they don't piss him off they get away with everything else.

    What people are asking him is to essentially revolutionize the government and make it work. The people only understand money. If you have money, you get what you want. If you don't, you end up with the above situation.

    As an example, a number of years ago I witness a car accident on a busy street which backed up traffic for miles. It was between a guy on a motorcycle and a guy in a car. The two drivers started fighting in the middle of the street and a crowd of people developed. The soldier didn't care about the people involved or the damage to the vehicles. He pointed his gun at the crowd and told them to move the cars or else. The crowd moved the vehicles on the sidewalk and they to got on the sidewalk. The fight continued but traffic started moving again.

    For your technical solution, there are going to be lots of caveats. In Egypt, for example people will steal just about anything. I have seen people steal electricity, phone lines, natural gas, side-view mirrors on cars just about anything. If you create this system, theft will be a big issue. If you can guarantee that know one will steal your system that is your first hurdle. Soldiers in egypt are paid so little that they may not care for your system - especially if the guy who broke the law will pay them a bribe directly on the spot versus paying a fine to a higher up agency where he will never see his cut.

    If you can start with the block that you live on and mount webcams (*note -- In egypt, this will run you afoul of the government and the soldiers regardless of your intent!) on your building to prevent theft then you can log all the cars coming and going. This would make it easier to identify who the parties in the accidents are in case someone flees.

    Speedingwise, I have seen stories of how people take apart optical mice and use them as sensors. There is probably a cheap way to rig this to give you timings of start/stop points. You could then time how long it takes a vehicle to cross two of these sensors to determine rate of travel. If you take snapshots of the clock time at both locations, you could do a look up against the snapshots from your webcam. Or you could use this to determine when to take snapshots on the webcam.

    This is basically how the toll road cameras work here in the states. Even if the driver gets away, you can at least identify the driver in the future.

  101. That's what I do for a living. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I work for a company that does automated traffic enforcement similar to what you are talking about. Having said that, obviously those systems already exist and making your own would be putting yourself in competition with some big players who are advanced beyond anything you could put together with private funds.

    This is not a fun business and you will automatically be super-unpopular just for being associated with it. People don't like getting tickets; they REALLY don't like getting tickets from automated systems. If there is enough public backlash then the politicians or officials involved will feel the heat for it and cut your program. People will dislike your company, too, just for being in the business and offering your services to the government (programs are always set up according to the government's specifications and so government employees actually issue the tickets - we perform the legwork to make everything else possible). They will definitely resent that you make a profit (even if you haven't made one yet).

    Now you should start to sense that a huge part of this business is dealing with governments, bureaucracies, legal maters, public opinions, lobbying, etc. It is integral to everything, including the technical aspects your operation. I can tell you that I have seen entire programs die overnight as a result of court rulings.

    Once you get a working traffic unit, clear the initial legal hurdles, and establish a program, you can look forward to the operational necessities of the business. These include installing and maintaining traffic sites, processing violations internally, making and maintaining software with which to processes and handle those violations internally and externally (by your clients), running a call center, handling payments, printing and mailing notices, possibly arranging court dates or interfacing with external court systems, and working with various third parties like banks for lockbox accounts, credit card providers, collections agencies, and postal services.

  102. legal? by DaveGod · · Score: 1

    Is there any kind of legal backing for the scheme? I'm from UK but I'd be amazed if you can just stick up a speed trap and issue penalties in "someplace in the Middle East". Even if you're allowed to stick the cameras up, you can't enforce the penalties until given legal privilege to do so. You say "the country is not important" and you couldn't have it more wrong. Government roads, government controlled, it's all about the country. If you were in the UK I'd say simply write to your MP then if nothing happens set up a pressure/lobby group.

    The technology is easy, there's the "GATSO" speed cameras that just sit on a pole. "SPECS" systems are more of an investment but monitor speed over the distance rather than just cause everyone to brake just for the camera. I'm not sure speed traps are going to resolve the stated issues however, I'd hesitantly wager a guess that your starting point would be setting up a major charity running national road safety and awareness education campaigns.

  103. These systems are not what you think by okmijnuhb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These systems are put in place to profit from a problem, or a perceived problem, or an invented problem, not to solve the problem.

  104. Re:One additional improvement by 2.7182 · · Score: 1

    It was a joke. But throw in a little GPS and you could do it.

  105. Here's a solution... by kylben · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Take your technological solution to a social problem idea, and all that freedom-degrading, corruption-enhancing, abuse-inviting, wont-work-anyway gadgetry you just developed and shove it straight up your ass. I'm glad as hell you don't live in my country, we've got enough petit-tyrants wandering around inventing new ways to milk everyday people out of every penny they can get a mindless bureaucratic system to squeeze from us. You cannot dispense justice from a vending machine.

    --
    Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
  106. At first, I assumed... by rivaldufus · · Score: 1

    you were talking about Boston, but then I realized it was Middle east and not northeast.
    I don't think anything can be done. Many people are horrible drivers. A certain percentage is very afraid of driving and clog up the road with their uncertainty. Another set believes that driving's just like a video game, and that signals, proper distance between cars, and basic courtesy are inconvenient and optional.
    There is nothing that can be done, I'm afraid. Honestly, if they made drivers "qualify" for different types/sizes of vehicles, accidents would be reduced. But, everyone values their time over safety.

  107. Counterintuitive by RJFerret · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You can check the studies, the state here in the USA that removed speed limits reduced traffic accidents.

    When the speed limits were put back in, accidents increased again.

    In my state, officials openly admit speed enforcement generates revenue. The figure was a significant proportion of the state budget.

    It's not for safety, it's an indirect tax.

    If you look at the hard data on accidents, the vast majority occur at low speeds.

    I have yet to be at fault in an accident, but I have been hit multiple times. Each time it was at low speed. Each time it was due to a driver not paying attention.

    As much as I hate to say it, if you consistently have accidents in a situation, a study might reveal WHY accidents occur there. If it were do to speed, all our police officers, ambulance drivers, firemen and race car drivers would all be dead by now.

    As others have pointed out, I'm afraid the technical solution won't be to fine fast drivers who avoid accidents, but to change the circumstances encouraging accidents.

    1. Re:Counterintuitive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can check the studies, the state here in the USA that removed speed limits reduced traffic accidents.

      When the speed limits were put back in, accidents increased again.

      In my state, officials openly admit speed enforcement generates revenue. The figure was a significant proportion of the state budget.

      It's not for safety, it's an indirect tax.

      If you look at the hard data on accidents, the vast majority occur at low speeds.

      I have yet to be at fault in an accident, but I have been hit multiple times. Each time it was at low speed. Each time it was due to a driver not paying attention.

      As much as I hate to say it, if you consistently have accidents in a situation, a study might reveal WHY accidents occur there. If it were do to speed, all our police officers, ambulance drivers, firemen and race car drivers would all be dead by now.

      As others have pointed out, I'm afraid the technical solution won't be to fine fast drivers who avoid accidents, but to change the circumstances encouraging accidents.

      The USA is NOT a valid comparable for a mid-eastern/emerging market economy. Accidents at High Speeds do happen all the time. I and most of my family have been in accidents involving reckless drivers barreling down a road at high speeds.

      I LIVE in an EM, and have lived in the states; the difference in driving attitudes / social consciousness is huge.
      People speed because its fun, no one is going to stop them, and generally they don't think of their fellow citizens.

      Sadly for a country like he is describing - you need activists (not vigilantes) who do exactly what he is talking about. It helps create the building blocks which can finally be used to create the sort of culture where rules matter.

    2. Re:Counterintuitive by OneMadMuppet · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the US, but in the UK all of those people require a special license before they're put in a position to drive fast. There's a huge difference between someone who's trained to drive fast and someone who THINKS they can drive fast.

    3. Re:Counterintuitive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can check the studies, the state here in the USA that removed speed limits reduced traffic accidents.

      When the speed limits were put back in, accidents increased again.

      Do you have any links to prove this statement?

      I have a link proving the opposite (that speed kills)
      Speed statistics (Google translation)

      First graph (based on official numbers):
      blue = people killed in traffic
      green = number of vehicles

      It shows a clear link between speed and number of killed people. The number of killed people is reduced around 30% with the introduction of speed limits, the drop a bit more when the speed limits became lower and there is an increase when people suddenly stopped obeying the speed limits.

      Until anybody have evidence to the opposite I will still claim that the higher the average speed is, the more people will get killed.

  108. Radar? by w0mprat · · Score: 1

    Use a high definition video feed. Speed can be calculated from angles, measured distance to objects near the car. For best results capture traffic from several different angles. This can be done in software with human back up. Software can quite easily pick out moving objects from a static background.

    This would be massively more indisputable in court than radar.

    Does your country have laws about following distance? This is a huge and often over looked contributor to accidents.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
  109. More details from the original poster by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

    I am sorry for not making things more clear: what I want is not a Charles Bronson vigilante thing. I want a system that is approved by the city government (the equivalent of a city hall in the EU or USA) and operated on a revenue sharing basis (therefore the city will have a financial incentive in allowing it to run).

    Our share of the generated speeding tickets will be reinvested in new radars, thus making the system self-financing and self-replicating.

    I don't want a city wide system, costing millions of dollars. I want *ONE* radar installed on the main road. This first radar will sooner or later pay for itself then will generate the funds to buys a 2nd radar. Now, having 2 radars installed, generating the money for the 3rd radar will be faster. Got my point?

    I don't want a complicated system that needs uber professional engineers and urban managers. I want a rugged, simple radar + camera that can be used to identify which car went faster than X speed. Once we have *ONE* such radar, the tickets can be issued. Once drivers learn their speeding is affecting their wallets, they will obey at least the speed limits (thus decreasing the number of accidents and therefore the number of fatalities).

    Yes, I am aware there are some American companies offering radar guns etc. But a radar + camera seems to cost in excess of $10,000, and that's a huge sum for us and for the speeding tickets to cover. I believe with an Open Source approach we can build one such system with much less money, therefore decreasing the time it takes to finance installing a new one from funds obtained through fining speeders.

    --
    Catalin Braescu
    Ofaly.com
    1. Re:More details from the original poster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radar guns seem to cost under a thousand for a "police" gun http://www.opticsplanet.net/decatur-genesis-handheld-directional-police-tarffic-radar-gun.html
      I think part of the cost is probably the manufacturer certifying the error rate so it survives challenge in court. Simple "sports" radars are 1-200 dollars, so open source may have credibility problems.
      Adding a digital camera doesn't seem hard, a few more hundred dollars, it would be neat to set up the optics to superimpose the speed on the picture.

      The basic sucess in the us has been the city realizing that the cost of gun plus police officer is much less then the revenue from traffic fines, making it a source of revenue. For this to work however, you have to have a system where traffic fines are actually paid. Does that happen in your city?

  110. logic and reason by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    in which you think a completely unrelated point: that cops try to pad municipal budgets with law enforcement tricks, disproves the actual point: that speeding kills people

    all you have done is changed the subject matter you moron

    meanwhile, back on topic: show the fuck down you asshole, so you don't kill anyone in your hubristic ignorance

    capisce?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:logic and reason by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Could I suggest you go and do the research on this matter? Artificially low speed limits cause more accidents, not fewer.

      People will drive at a speed they consider to be safe for the road, the car they're driving, the weather conditions, the other traffic on the road and how they feel. The speed limit is just one other consideration.

      Speed limits are arbitrary. Correct speed limits are based on a large number of factors and those factors change over time.

      The speed limit for the clear visibility, empty road and modern car I'm driving is identical to the speed limit for the foggy night in a 50s tin can. My speed would be very different under each condition and the speed limit just isn't a massive factor.

    2. Re:logic and reason by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      in which you think a completely unrelated point: that cops try to pad municipal budgets with law enforcement tricks, disproves the actual point: that speeding kills people

      Um, no...running into things with your car kills people. Speed is generally irrelevant. Look at a typical day's accident reports in Austin, TX. How many are attributed to speed or stopping distance? Not very many. There are always a few, "following too closely" ones, that could be argued to be attributable to speed, but those are rarely ticketed for speeding (because you can follow too closely under the speed limit...see I-35 during rush hour, where speeds rarely top 35 in a 70 zone). So, they were under the speed limit, but they were driving too fast to stop in time?

      all you have done is changed the subject matter you moron

      meanwhile, back on topic: show the fuck down you asshole, so you don't kill anyone in your hubristic ignorance

      capisce?

      Yes, because I've killed so many people during my debilitating bouts of hubris.

      See, I just disproved your 3rd grader logic by using 4th grader logic.

      And by the way, the majority of accidents in the US occur at intersections, where cars are just starting to accelerate, or are slowing down. Speed is not an issue. People's stupidity and the ridiculously easy licensing in this country is to blame.

  111. Don't even try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know exactly the city you are talking about.
    And I know exactly the problem, and you can't solve it.
    The government has ordered about 7 Billion USD approximately for the next few years to solve the problem, and the government as well as everyone know that 7 Billion Dollars won't solve it, yet, they are willing to spend it. FFS, it's a country that you can't acquire a driving license without bribing everyone from the janitor to the officer, your driving test is already done if you pay 10 dollars, if you don't pay them, you fail even if you are a nascar champion.
    This problem is out of the scope of /. and the whole science/technology AFAIK.

  112. thanks for the clarification

    you want to be deputized

    very old american wild west type stuff

    good luck ;-)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  113. Answers please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well hell, can anyone just answer the poor guy's question instead of lecturing him on all the side issues?

    "So, I'm asking Slashdot: what would be a workable way to build such a system? It must withstand drivers claiming the system is cheating, high temperatures, high levels of humidity, and crappy electricity. Any suggestions would be appreciated. This is about technology saving lives — literally."

    1. Re:Answers please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, here's your answer. If this homebrew piece of shit actually holds up in a court of law, then the Middle East is even more fucked up than we've all been told.

  114. Re:One additional improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because speeding has never been the problem?

  115. Priorities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps you should worry about misogynist scumbags in your corner of the world who gouge out womens' clitorises in the name of keeping them pure, or deal with the fuckheads who think killing their daughters for bringing "shame" upon their family is perfectly acceptable. Your society has very SERIOUS problems with the way women are viewed and treated. They are not your property, douchebag. Until you realize this, I'm afraid I cannot muster any sympathy for you. You deserve whatever comes your way - especially if it's an out-of-control bus.

  116. Become a very vocal concerned citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think your best bet is to become a very vocal "concerned citizen" (possibly even doing it anonymously) and essentially shaming citizens, public officials, or public servants into changing their ways. You may be able to organize a group and protest peacefully if your government and citizens allow. Setup a blog and distribute flyers to spread the word. Good luck and be careful and secure.

  117. Re:Speed Bumps by arth1 · · Score: 1

    This is why well-constructed speed bumps have a pass-through for bikes on the curb side.

    At a place I worked, speed bumps were installed, but they were so short that they worked against their purpose. It didn't take long before everyone with an SUV figured out that instead of slowing down from 25 mph to a crawl, one could speed up to 40+, and take the speed bump on the suspension without feeling any discomfort.

    When properly constructed, yes, speed bumps reduce the speed. But whether they also reduce the number of accidents is debatable. It's not speed in itself that is the problem, but drivers going at a faster speed than they can safely control their vehicle at. And a speed bump reduces not only the speed, but the safe speed too. Going at a relatively slow speed over a speed bump can be more dangerous than going twice as fast without it, if it turns the driver's focus towards the speed bump instead of the child walking out between two cars. Or if the driver misjudges the speed bump, and goes over it too fast, losing control of the vehicle for a second or two. Then it would have been safer if the sleeping policeman hadn't been there in the first place.

  118. Re:One additional improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a law that if someone breaks a traffic law, you're legally entitled to shoot them. An armed society is a polite society, right?

  119. Building lasers to burn out traffic cameras? by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Next on "Ask Slashdot"... Building lasers to burn out traffic cameras?

    "I live in a city with a population in the millions (someplace in the Middle East; the country is not important), and I am mad as hell. There are vigilantes who are going from bad to worse, and I'm sick of all the revenue collection schemes they keep hatching. So far, they've delivered thousands of tickets, and it hasn't done anything to address the accident and mortality rates. After speaking with some of my friends, we decided to take the issue into our own hands: build an infrared CO2 laser system able to fry the traffic cameras, install it on a van at our own expense, and rescue our fellow citizens from these vigilantes and the corrupt city government officials. They are currently in a mode where they are reinvesting their extortion money in increasing the size of their racketeering operation, so now is the time to stop them. We're not rich and we will not ask for our money back. So, I'm asking Slashdot: what would be a workable way to build such a system? It must have an invisible beam not observable by the extortionists or the general public, which might cause word to get back to the extortionists. Any suggestions would be appreciated. This is about technology stopping criminals -- literally."

    -- Terry

  120. Already such a product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The police in my area have such a device; It's called a 'Stealth Staff'. It's battery powered, has a DVR built in and has radar and an automatic camera built in. They just screw it to a telephone pole and it does the rest on its own. You can even get it powered off of solar cells.

  121. agreed by Alan+R+Light · · Score: 1

    Well, actually I could reduce this traffic problem with an application of technology, but the original poster said his overarching purpose is to save lives.

    But seriously, I visited Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates two years ago, and the drivers there are the worst I've seen anywhere - and I've been a lot of places. They are not merely bad drivers but extremely aggressive drivers. It's like they have a death wish or something - which may be understandable, seeing as they are forced to live with themselves.

    Now I'm reflecting on the myriad places I've been and the bad drivers thereof - Lima, Bucharest, Chicago, Washington D.C., Johannesburg, Guayaquil - there were some bad drivers in these places, but there's at least an order of magnitude difference between any of those and Abu Dhabi. If Abu Dhabi resembles other middle eastern cities in terms of traffic, I certainly sympathize with the OP. Still, I don't see a technological solution - at least, not one that lets the bastards live.

  122. Build a better solution by sigmabody · · Score: 1

    Probably an option you haven't considered, but for you consideration...

    You might think about approaching the problem from a different direction than standard law enforcement, which is both ineffective and costly. For example, you might consider that speeding doesn't cause accidents; bad driving causes accidents, and the two are usually only incidentally related. Trying to police speeding is like trying to improve school test scores by kicking out all the children with a certain hair color: you might get lucky, and you might kick out some people with bad scores, but your metric isn't really related to the problem you're trying to solve.

    Instead, maybe consider being part of a solution instead of just piling on more ineffective big-government type solutions, and focus on what causes bad driving, such as distractions, lack of social responsibility, lack of training, or road rage, as examples. Try working on some solutions to those problems, which you might actually be able to influence, and leave the bloated bureaucratic one-size-fits-all bad-idea "solutions" to the organizations that specialize in them (ie: the government).

    Just a thought.

  123. Re:One additional improvement by Alan+R+Light · · Score: 1

    This would actually work, if we could give guns to all the women in the middle east.

  124. Forget Radar by Confused · · Score: 1

    That sounds a lot like the traffic in Riyadh.

    I would rather forget about radar and laser and go with a license plate reader. Install two of them between two spots and you get the average speed over this stretch of road. That's a lot worse than just measuring a single point on the way. Where I live they installed a few of those and as a customer, I must say I hate them worse then the radar boxes. Which means, they must be more efficient.

    Also from a technical point of view, realising them is a lot cheaper and easier to do if you like to tinker. No need for radar, laser etc, you just a need a camera with decent optics, a computer and probably an infrared light source to illuminate the plates better - all of which is available for reasonable amount of money. The rest is software and can be done in your living room.

    You will need to play around with image recognition, specially as the Hindi digits often found on Arabic license plates aren't often handled by standard OCR-readers. But that makes an interesting project. And the good part is, that you won't need 100% accuracy, any correct reading will be a success. I think they published a few years ago that the license-plate readers have a success-rate between 80% and 90%, which is good enough.

    As to the accidents, a simple traffic camera will help catching resolving accidents and identify the involved parties.

  125. Re:Speed Bumps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plus speed bumps have the added bonus of wrecking and perhaps killing all those pesky motorcyclists! (I was kind of assuming from the description that he wasn't talking about a sub 20 mph area.)

    Ah no, it makes them go faster.

    Seriously.

    When on a bike, your eyes light up when you spot a speed hump. You open the throttle, hit the bump, the suspension compresses, rebounds, and launches you over to the other side. My favorite bit of road has five (!!) in a row - awesome!

  126. Re:Speed Bumps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why well-constructed speed bumps have a pass-through for bikes on the curb side.

    That's for storm water to flow thru.

  127. Community Enforcement by Mendy · · Score: 1

    (This is a UK-viewpoint, also I just know about this from the Local Government IT side - I'm not a Traffic Engineer)

    What we do is offer to issue these to community groups who some basic safety training and are told to be clear if asked that they are not issuing penalties. The "concerned members of the public" then sit out with the device and it keeps a log of the speeds recorded. They then return this to us and the log is used as evidence alongside their submission to decide if a more formal study is carried out possibly leading to traffic calming measures. Showing people they're exceeding the speed limit often helps in itself and one of the possible things done to help is a static version of this device that still doesn't issue penalties. The devices also have the ability to be set with a limit to how fast they show on the screen to prevent people using them to show off.

    I wouldn't suggest trying to build a device yourself, there are often cases reported where the suspect has been acquitted due to the device being incorrectly calibrated and I imagine everyone would try this angle when they found it was something done by amateurs. That said some people seem to do fine with just a hair dryer...

  128. Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sir are an idiot.
    Shoot yourself in the head.
    Speeding is fun.

  129. Bootstrapping a traffic control business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The key to any entrepreneurial endeavour is of course to make someone else pay the bill.

    1) Create a GREAT relationship with local, regional and national authorities.
    2) Make a business plan.
    3) Convince some established manufacturer of radar equipment to do a free test installation, against exclusive right to sell equipment if the business plan works out.
    4) Profit.

    I am from Sweden. Authorities here have a "Vision Zero", which means zero deaths per year in traffic. 2009 358 out of 9.3 million people died. Ten years earlier 580 out of 8.9 million died. The target for 2020 is 220.

    One strategy used to reach the goal is automatic speed cameras. The ones deployed are built by http://www.sensys.se/. They have a lot of installations worldwide. You probably have nothing to lose by contacting them!

  130. Answering OP's questions by david_craig · · Score: 1

    I'm disappointed that there have been so many comments suggesting anything but help on speed camera (possibly because they are unpopular devices). Speed cameras do have the potential to reduce speeds around accident black spots, assisting in the number of injuries and fatalities. Speed cameras can also be considerably cheaper to implement than traffic lights and provide a revenue stream to fund maintenance.

    In terms of preventing disputes of pictures taken by cameras I would suggest that you look at techniques used in the UK. There they take two photographs of any speeding vehicle at precisely timed intervals. There are marking on the road to show distance so the two images can be used to prove that the vehicle covered the distance stated on the ticket.

    Another item I would recommend is that all digital evidence is signed with a digital signature to show it has not been tampered with. In Australia md5 hashes were used to show an image had not been tampered with, and that allowed someone challenge the ticket successfully in court as the defendant was able to demonstrate that someone could have easily replaced both the image and hash (as anyone can create an md5 hash, but a digital signature requires the private key).

    Tamper proofing is also very important (expect attacks on cameras with many items). I strongly recommend mounting cameras on high poles (at least 2.5m, basically beyond the swing of a baseball bat) to reduce vandalism.

    Mobotix make some excellent cameras, and while they are not designed to function as speed cameras they are programmable and offer and excellent api. Additionally, they function extremely well in bad weather conditions due to having no moving parts. They also make vandal resistant cameras and I have personally hit one of their cameras repeatedly with a sledgehammer and it continued to function throughout. I've also used them without issues in the top end of Australia where the temperature can exceed 45C and there is often high humidity.

    1. Re:Answering OP's questions by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Rather then use radar you'd probably be better going with a camera system and IR lamp (for working at night). To fit your requirement you're probably going to have to go with a solar powered system with a battery which all has to be tamper proof. You probably want all these systems to be connected some how so that they can feed live data in which case you're need some kind of mesh networking capability.

      I'd start with the following OSS projects..
      OLSR - For the mesh networking.
      iSpy - For the motion detection, plus you'll probably have to modify this project a lot to compute speed.

      You're going to have to encrypt the communication. If your goal is to get the government to install these then I would first talk to the police and government because you may end up making something that is totally useless for them.

      Your biggest challenge is going to be with the hardware. Making it cheap enough, and most importantly low power is going to be a REAL challenge.

      With all that said. Wouldn't it just be cheaper to pay people to go out with radar guns then come up with something automated?

  131. speeding vs reckless driving by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Cameras only catch speeding, and actually encourage reckless driving.

    UK police accident stats: TRL323 for example

    excessive speed (includes over the limit *and* too great for the conditions; rain/fog etc): Generously, somewhere round 15% of accidents in the UK definitely, probably or even possibly include excessive speed as a component. The largest component by far is inattention ~25%, then comes failure to judge ~20% other road users and looking but not seeing ~20%, all of which are simply reckless driving.

    Install speed bumps (you can even buy them on ebay) rather than cameras. Cheap to install and maintain and they do cause people to slow down, but more importantly, they make drivers pay attention to the road or they destroy the vehicle suspension. They also don't require police enforcement or law courts to be effective. If you set them far enough apart, drivers will be able to make reasonable progress, but will be physically incapable of exceeding the limit and will have to pay attention.

    It's called traffic calming and it (road design) has a much larger effect on accident rates than cameras.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:speeding vs reckless driving by Cederic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I refuse to live somewhere with speed bumps. They disrupt travelling too much, damage the car (even at low speeds), cause increased pollution, increased noise and damage nearby housing.

      There are other traffic calming measures that are far superior for the road users and for the local population.

    2. Re:speeding vs reckless driving by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      I refuse to live somewhere with speed bumps

      I'm sure everyone would miss you terribly when you left.

       

      --
      Deleted
    3. Re:speeding vs reckless driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See some bumpers there is in france, they force to slow down but don't pose as much risk than classical bumpers in case the driver doesn't slow down:
      http://www.ouest-france.fr/of-photos/2009/09/26/na11_2573338_2_px_470_.jpg
      http://www.frontier-pitts.fr/images/produits/ralentisseur/coussin1p.jpg
      http://www.itraque.fr/documents/annonces/20090520082801e064.jpg

      here is a blueprint:
      http://www.sitinao.com/schemas/famille/ralentisseur.jpg

      The biggest advantages of this type of bumpers is motorcycles and scooters are less encombered and can just slow a little to drive around the bumper.

    4. Re:speeding vs reckless driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such as...

    5. Re:speeding vs reckless driving by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>15% of accidents in the UK definitely, probably or possibly include excessive speed..... Install speed bumps (you can even buy them on ebay) rather than cameras

      Correlation is not causation. Since virtually all Americans speed, it's obvious that speeding will be part of the accident, but is that what *caused* the accident? In my experience - no. Most accidents are caused by rapid lane changes or zig-zagging. i.e Reckless driving.

      I speed all the time and yet have never had an accident in my twenty year history. Why? Because I keep lots of space between the car in front, and I stay in my lane (no lane changes == no potential for mistake). You can drive fast AND be safe at the same time, simply by not being reckless.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:speeding vs reckless driving by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Speed bumps can be designed to be effective and not harm cars. The common bumps are very abrupt: a foot or two long and a few inches high. At even moderate speed they're hard on cars and passengers. Good bumps might better be described as humps: they're 5 to 20 feet long and only uncomfortable if you exceed their design speed by about 25%. Taken at the design speed, they do no damage.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    7. Re:speeding vs reckless driving by 16Chapel · · Score: 1

      "Because I keep lots of space between the car in front"

      This. Can't say I approve of "I speed all the time" but it's tailgating that really causes problems (at least on a highway). I've seen people in vans & trucks driving 1 or 2 metres behind the car in front at 90+ mph, even when the car in front obviously has better braking. Very dangerous.

  132. Set them far enough apart by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    1. Police and ambulances kill people too. I've seen a couple of occasions where an emergency vehicle driver clearly "on a mission" has caused further accidents.
    2. You put them where they are necessary, not everywhere. The average speed can be kept reasonable if they are set far enough apart.

     

    --
    Deleted
  133. Speed bumps are not about speed by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    They are about driver attention.

    That was a perfectly clear road, reasonably well lit, with good road conditions. Did the drivers even see what was ahead? No, they didn't even attempt to slow down. They simply, weren't paying attention to the road, and lack of attention is the primary cause of accidents, not excessive speed.

     

    --
    Deleted
  134. Motorcyclists pay more attention to the road by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    And hence have lower accident rates per passenger mile than those who solely drive cars. It's a feature of continually being a victim of attempted murder.

       

    --
    Deleted
  135. Wow.... Just wow.... by RichiH · · Score: 1

    Maybe I am misunderstanding things, but...

    You will install speed traps on streets that are not your property, fine people who are not your slaves and presumably enforce the fines with the help of a local mob? At least you will share your profits with some politicians who are corrupt enough to let this happen, though.

    I agree that you obviously have a problem in your city and things should be improved, but your approach is horribly, horribly, horribly wrong. There are way too many reasons why, but it seems the other posters have done a decent job listing them, already. I will limit myself to listing one:

    If you can simply do what you want, what stops anyone else from stealing your speed traps, damaging them, charging protection money for their well-being or just killing you and using your skulls as bowling balls?

  136. Good for you by Peter+(Professor)+Fo · · Score: 1
    Ignore the twerps who claim speeders don't kill, what you need is traffic lights etc. They are recycling folk mythology. However what that response should tell you, which you knew already, is that motorists consider it their right to break the law. Therefore don't expect to make many friends.

    My advice is don't try to reinvent the wheel, there are many proven suppliers of portable kit of various sorts. Having said that you would need to show things like you trained the operators and had checking systems in place. The cost of kit then becomes small in relation to the cost of ensuring it is used properly.

    As law enforcement really relies on deterrent (Oh dear there might be a speed check and I might lose my licence as a result) this has to be an issue that gets through the skull of drivers. Here is how I suggest you go about your mission:

    • Research some statistics - This will involve more than Googling, You'll have to ask hospitals, city authorities and the ministry of transport etc. You can also do some sums on the cost to the economy of accidents.
    • Find out what the police actually do. See if you can get them on your side. I expect there are plenty of police officials who would like a juicy grant to buy new shiny toys. Ask if you can see what they do in practice. (Perhaps they are hamstrung by politics, red-tape etc. that you might be able to pressurise the city/ministry about.)
    • Build a support base - Presumably there are a few people that are 'mad' and say 'something must be done'.
    • Get involved with politics - Have a clear agenda. Have a bunch of embarrassing facts. Get up to speed on public relations. Print tee-shirts etc.
    • GET ON THE TV - when you have something to say and a solution and know your ground enough to challenge the lazy powers that be. The television is the universal medium.
    • Also you may be able to link up with existing organisations (but be VERY careful - some will be worse than useless with devious agendas) For example are there orphanages, sick-societies, employers organisations who would give you quotes to support your campaign, tell their members what a good job you're doing and even support you in other ways.

    To conclude. Good objective. Good to have a go. Wrong method. This is much more about getting people to support improved road safety than a radar camera. Once you've got started you will find many other issues apart from speeding that affect road safety and by then you and your mates (yes you'll have to form an organisation - with a name, web page, contact number for the press etc.) will be the experts as nobody else has bothered to get stuck-in and make a noise. Good luck

  137. Stop your dumbass replies already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He asked how to make a radar speed trap system. He didn't ask for you half baked, armchair philosopher, amateur, basement dwelling, anarchist overview of his idea. So get stuffed.

    If you don't know how to make a radar system for a speed trap then I am not sure you have any right even looking at Slashdot. Go and play down the park and leave the rest of us to deal with the technical stuff.

  138. Marketing.. not technical by Noctris · · Score: 1

    I agree with the majority here. If you really want to work towards a solution, marketing is probably going to work better then building speedcams without law enforcement standing behind you.You need sensibilisation.

    A couple of things you could do:

    work together with driving schools to inform new drivers of the dangers. Don't do this soft. For example: here in Belgium we had a famous emergency room doctor film a bunch of accidents caused by speeding, Driving under influance etc. They didn't only show the wrecked cars but also: victims being reanimated, limbs of people that were torn off in the accident, dead bodies etc.. They had a every high shock level and many parents and people protested this campaign with following results:

    The campaign hit the local (and some international) media Over and over and over.. as long as the discussion and protest was going on ( = bonus coverage)
    The protests went away when after a couple of years, we were seeing results being: A LOT less casualities with young drivers ( which the campaign was aimed against.. people between 18 and 21 which only just got their license and crashed due too speeding or something)

    Another campaign can be directed towards the "already driving" people.. even there shock effects can work. And you can try to get them where it hurts: You could die, your kid could be killed or crippled at those speeds..etc.. try to get a feel of what would effect them.. cause simply saying "you could have an accident" doesn't do it.. you must SHOW them

    and last but not least: get governement involvement.

    The campaign for the young drivers was started privately but the organisation doing it, grew out to become a part of the governements traffic department. Get their attention, you can even "taunt" the government and law enforcement a bit in your campaigns (which happened here too) so the population will start to pressure them for doing something about it. once you get the first people paying attention and they start to notice and think: " why is our government not doing anything about this", it will start to lead a life on it's own...

    when that is starting, THEN is the time to start talking about technologic solutions with traffic lights and speedcams.. cause before this, when in the law and mind of people these things are not official , they will be ignored resulting in an even worse situation than it already is..

  139. Same in Austria and Italy by Noctris · · Score: 1

    You can check the studies, the state here in the USA that removed speed limits reduced traffic accidents.

    When the speed limits were put back in, accidents increased again.

    In my state, officials openly admit speed enforcement generates revenue. The figure was a significant proportion of the state budget.

    It's not for safety, it's an indirect tax.

    If you look at the hard data on accidents, the vast majority occur at low speeds.

    I have yet to be at fault in an accident, but I have been hit multiple times. Each time it was at low speed. Each time it was due to a driver not paying attention.

    As much as I hate to say it, if you consistently have accidents in a situation, a study might reveal WHY accidents occur there. If it were do to speed, all our police officers, ambulance drivers, firemen and race car drivers would all be dead by now.

    As others have pointed out, I'm afraid the technical solution won't be to fine fast drivers who avoid accidents, but to change the circumstances encouraging accidents.

    Well, everyone knows that in germany you can drive at unlimited speeds at some parts of the "Autobahn".. but recent tests in Austria and Italy, where they raised the maximum speed on a part of road to 150 Km/h (austria) and unlimited (italy), the accidents dramatically DECREASED.

    Why ? well.. if you are driving jolly 120 Km/h ( regular speed limit in most countries here) and someone is passing you at 150 Km/h, you don't expect him to be driving this quickly and might misjudge when changing lanes thinking you have the room and time to do so.. when you KNOW that he could be driving that speed, cause it is allowed.. you will be a lot more carefull. The same goes for driving at higher speeds.. as someone who drives quite a lot in Germany, i can tell you that you are paying a lot more attention when driving 180 Km/h or faster, then when you are "cruising" at 120 Km/h fiddeling with your ipod, phone, whatever...

  140. Brainwashed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your city is in the Middle East. Unless you're talking about Tel Aviv then the population is Muslim. Whether or not you kill someone with your car is the will of Allah, so no technology can help you.

    If you want to fix the problem, get everyone to convert to Christianity.

  141. hell with it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well placed snipers to put rounds through the engines of the dumb asses that drive like crazy.

    give it two months and see if your problem goes away.

    much cheaper than the tech you are asking for :-p

  142. you intend to enforce this how? by Uzik2 · · Score: 1

    Why would anyone pay you? If they're willing to ignore laws and the police don't care one of them might be willing to come and destroy your equipment. Or hurt you. Speed bumps seem like a much better solution to me.

    --
    -- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
  143. Re:One additional improvement by Zemran · · Score: 1

    A radar gun attached to a machine gun instead of a camera. Shame about the unfortunate pedestrians nearby but they are just collateral damage...

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  144. Re:One additional improvement by Zemran · · Score: 1

    I am not paranoid, I just learnt to drive in the middle east....

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  145. Hello mister Pampered Westener by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    The problem both you and the original poster and most on this forum have is this: Some areas of the world have no traffic rules. India has a simple rule, do not cross rails at the station. People do and people die. Constantly, daily. Why? Culture mostly. It can be very hard to grasp this if you follow some rules instinctively.

    Do you jump from the rail platform on to the rails to save you have to go through a tunnel less then a hundred meters away? No? Why not? Because it is the law or because some laws do actually make sense? Do you wear a helmet on a motorcycle because it is the law or because you think it actually makes sense? Do you not drive on the wrong side of the road because some cop might catch you or because you don't fancy plowing into another car at 200km/h?

    Simply installing traffic lights is NOT going to convince people to obey them. Only when the culture has changed to see that the traffic lights are NOT there as restrictor but as an enabler (traffic flows more smoothly allowing everyone to pass the junction more smoothly) will the traffic light start to work.

    Frankly having been to such places, I think the guys changes are hopeless. It just doesn't fit with how people think. In India, if you get killed in traffic, it is bad karma, NOT you stepping in front of a speeding train that did it. Life just doesn't have the same value. Not that you have to look far for such attitudes. The west prefers SUV which kill more people then 9/11 each year including kids and never consider smaller vehicles which don't cause such injuries. Bull bars? Say bye bye to any kid hit with it.

    Traffic, where humanity takes a nose dive. get used to it or start patrolling the roads with a machine gun.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  146. Re:One additional improvement by pacinpm · · Score: 1

    There is much simplier solution: bumbers. If your only concern is speed it's a perfect one too. Completely passive. Cheap. Unavoidable. And the best part: drivers enforce speed limit by themself.

  147. Aren't there already speed cameras? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Such systems already exist. Use one of them. Don't reinvent the wheel.

  148. What you really need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is to get the government to mandate (like seat belts and airbags) a radar/speed based collision system in all cars. Your car sends radar beams (like the Mercedes) out the front and controls your speed to what is a 3 second gap. Also, have them mandate that all speed limit signs also broadcast the speed out so that when your car passes, it will read this speed and LIMIT your vehicle to this speed, until you pass a sign with a higher or lower limit.

    Also, why do cars (in America, at least) need to be able to reach speeds over 70-75 MPH? Most roads are limited at those speeds anyways. Also, why do we need to go from 0 to 60 MPH so fast? When are you ever on a street with a stop sign/light that has a speed limit of 60.

    If we remove free will from diving we can save lives. Think of the children.

  149. surveilance or enforcement... by zezidud · · Score: 1

    I live in the US, but uncivilized behavior on the road is a problem here too, especially in Florida where Joe Pickup Truck will side-swipe you off the road if you don't let him bully his way in front of you. My first take on this is that speed is only one of the vehicle behaviors that cause accidents and is probably simplest to detect. Weaving through traffic is probably detectable too though a bit more complex. Following too closely is a fairly easy one, again. To carry it a step farther, with enough research funding you might even detect characteristic signs of aggressive behaviors or alcohol-related unsteadiness, etc. You might add facial recognition so good that the system "knows" the name and sexual preference of every driver on the road. (I've read that this sort of thing is coming pretty soon.) So, you can likely capture the occurrence of various types of traffic events, and record individual reaction times of all vehicles involved or affected, and follow the chain of small actions by which the initial traffic event propagates into a multi-vehicle accident. The consequences of car accidents are so horrible that all of this kind of surveillance seems justifiable, but would it not be better to have a government that protects the citizenry by means of adequate enforcement and traffic lights, highways designed for safety and a social ethic of civility? I do understand something about the situation in many places in the Middle East where the governments tend not to be responsive to people's needs. (Join the club! Instead of healthcare we got the war in Iraq!) Good luck!

  150. Re:Speed Bumps by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

    We'll just start (or keep) riding supermotos.

    Speed bumps? I only see wheelie indicators :-)

    --
    Eat the rich.
  151. Since you're probably Muslim... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more of you that die, the better. The civilized world has moved beyond wife-beating and executing homosexuals. If you'd all just martyr ourselves already, civilization would not miss you (despite our current President's best efforts to help you improve your self-esteem by reminding you that you "invented" the alphabet). You are a parasitic and oppressive culture. Good riddance to you all.

  152. In Qatar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Qatar there is already a mixed radar system working all around the country.

    There are some typical photo radars installed on each intersection on Doha and every few km on the roads... If you are speeding, you see a flash and you get a nice photo and a ticket.

    But the most efficient radar is a stealth one. It is installed on the road lighting poles and it takes continuous pictures. If the time a car takes to reach the next camera is too low... Bingo! You have an infraction. No flash, no warning...

    This is being quite efficient in Qatar... Now the only issue is to teach drivers some manners... But that's another story...

     

  153. Speed is not the problem, you moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has been PROVEN numerous times that speed in and of itself
    does not cause traffic deaths.

    There is no need for new devices or new laws. There is only a need for
    existing laws to be enforced. The laws concerning driving while impaired,
    the laws about driving too slowly in the fast lane, etc. are what need to
    be enforced. Oh, and the use of cell phones by drivers needs to end.
    The job of the driver is to DRIVE. And the sad truth is that in the US, any idiot
    is allowed to drive and because of this driving IS very dangerous. But forcing
    adherence to speed limits will not in and of itself reduce traffic accidents. Like I said, you
    need to learn more about the subject before you attempt to become "super traffic cop".

    And you also might want to study what happened in Arizona with the speed cameras. Among
    other things, speeding did NOT stop, and the people of the state were quite vocal in their desire to
    remove the cameras. Speed is not the problem : lousy drivers are the problem.

  154. If it's a junction, and low cost.. by malkavian · · Score: 1

    Try a good old roundabout to help out.
    Very low cost, and really helps focus the driving; Doesn't get rid of all bad drivers, but helps.

    If it's not a junction, then you're likely out of luck. Speeding is very rarely the cause of accidents. Bad and careless driving is; That doesn't conveniently show up on a cheap camera.

  155. A swiss company already makes one by capedgirardeau · · Score: 1

    Trafistar SR590 - Quote: "can simultaneously monitor the speed of 22 cars in four lanes, not just the normal two. It can also spot nine other driving misdemeanors.

    Drivers who tailgate or trespass into bus or cycle lanes, who fail to give way to pedestrians or to traffic to the right, who overtake in a dangerous manner, fail to halt at a stop sign or who make an unauthorized turn have been warned.

    The SFr80,000 ($77,000) device, made by Zurich firm Multanova, is equipped with the latest 3D tracking radar technology, which allows it to pinpoint the precise position of each vehicle and follow its movement. "

    --
    Wax on, wax off baby!
  156. Radar not required. Speed is distance over time. by ralph.corderoy · · Score: 1

    Have each camera note time and number plate. Have known distances between cameras. Work out average speed the car must have travelled. If above limit then fine driver. No radar required.

  157. Sharks with Lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a bunch of sharks with lasers. You can train them to shoot the tires of reckless drivers. Repeat offenders just might get a later to the eye.

  158. Re:Speed Bumps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are you talking about? As a motorcyclist I can tell you that not only do speed bumps not make me wreck, I don't even need to slow down for them as much as cars do. In fact, when I'm traveling at a reasonable speed I often don't have to slow down at all.

  159. Don't punish the speeders! by xmvince · · Score: 1

    Don't punish the speeders! It's not speeders that are the problem, it's people not looking before they go. So many times people just assume the roads are safe and they go without looking both ways. If anything, people going too slow are more of a problem as they block traffic and cause jams. Also, the roads over in the middle east are horrible! Way too thin!