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."
I second this. It's been proved time and time again that more guns in the middle east is always the answer.
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&q=radar+gun&cid=8215117706858258499&ei=ju9uTM7zGo-6NZK09JgP&sa=title&ved=0CA4Q8wIwATgA#p
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.
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.
Speed bumps may be more effective than radar traps.
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.
You cannot solve a social problem with technology, or strict laws.
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 ----
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
These systems are put in place to profit from a problem, or a perceived problem, or an invented problem, not to solve the problem.
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
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.
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