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.
Speed bumps may be more effective than radar traps.
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.
Yeah, it will. I saw a movie like this once. I think it had Charles Bronson in it.
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
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
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].
These systems are put in place to profit from a problem, or a perceived problem, or an invented problem, not to solve the problem.
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