Slashdot Mirror
Multi-Target Photo-Radar System To Make Speeding Riskier
mrquagmire writes with this excerpt from Engadget:
"Go easy on the gas, Speed Racer, because Cordon is on its way. Developed by Simicon, this new speed sensor promises to take highway surveillance to new heights of precision. Unlike most photo radar systems, which track only one violator at a time, Simicon's device can simultaneously identify and follow up to 32 vehicles across four lanes. Whenever a car enters its range, the Cordon will automatically generate two images: one from wide-angle view and one closeup shot of the vehicle's license plate. It's also capable of instantly measuring a car's speed and mapping its position, and can easily be synced with other databases via WiFi, 3G or WiMAX."
How about you just don't speed, you jack-off...
Research has repeatedly shown that the safest drivers are around the 85th percentile by speed. If lots of people are breaking the speed limit, then it's set below that level. If the limit is set below that level and you drive below it, you're a more dangerous driver than many of those who are speeding.
Then WHEN this has been implemented for a while... and tickets go up.... and there is no difference at all in accidents or deaths....
can we THEN admit that we have hit the point of diminishing returns wrt enforcement vs actual safety?
We keep seeing more rules or better enforcement... and yet.... don't seem to see corresponding improvements in safety. In fact, the only improvements in real safety that I have seen, have all come from safety devices in cars, like air bags.
We saw it in NY, when talking on phones was banned, and a study was able to verify that yes, people really were switching to headsets or not talking... more than a 60% drop in OBSERVED use...but.... no change at all in deaths or accidents. Yet somehow... that was explained away as not having any meaning (because if the report doesn't say we need more enforcement and more penalties, then its clearly not valid right?)
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Speed Limits are arbitary limits which do not take into account
- Weather
- Vehicle type: are you a sports car or a truck
- Driver skill / fatigue
I think most western countries have passed the sweet stop of punative surveilance vs safety 10 years ago. It is now about revenue raising for states that are cash strapped. The cordon system takes this to a new level. In fact I thought of developing a system like this, and thought no, as it doesn't do the public any good.
What would be better is a fine system that is relative to risk. eg Lets say you had a GPS speed tracker (ingnore the big brother issues for this example). You get 'fined' (taxed) 1c for every km you exceed the speed limitby 1-10km/hr. 10c 11-20km/hr. $1 21-30km/hr. $10 31-40 km/hr. $100 41-50km/hr. $1000 51-60km/hr. then add a linear factor for vehicle type.
Insurance companies make these type of calculations all the time. There is no reason why government could not calculate the monetary cost of speeding (ie increased accident rate caused by speeding). Of course, this sort of thinking is way outside the box for a goverment and will never happen (and they would balls up the calculation), and we will have to live with $150 fines for exceeding the speed limit by 10% on a downhill slope.
46137
Do you know how I can tell you've never driven in "reasonable and prudent" Montana? There are no speed limits except for trucks. So therefore, how could the posted speed limit be 65?
http://www.us-highways.com/montana/reasonable.htm
http://www.us-highways.com/montana/mtspeed.htm
However, that law doesn't appear to be in effect anymore. reasonable and prudent was literally, what you and the officer agree is a safe speed due to the conditions. If it is 80, go 80.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States#Montana
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Depends on the autobahn, only some are unrestricted.
It used to be (here at least) that the speed of a road was set at close to the 85th percentile (no one wants to read that the speed limit is "46.8734mph", so there's a bit of rounding).
When the hand-wringers got all uppity about a few bad crashes (hello, random cluster) the limits were reduced. This was hailed as the answer due to the lower accident rate next year (oh, hi there Regression to the Mean). Then there were a few more accidents (cluster), speed cameras brought in, accidents dropped again and the hand-wringers went away happy. Until the next cluster of course.
Meanwhile the various councils and private companies/partnerships who run the cameras realised they were cashing in big-time. So more cameras went up, more limits lowered, more money made; all was good with the world if you were a civil servant (or an importer of cameras, as some "expert" witnesses were...bias, really?) until the cracks began to show.
i.e. people started to ask why regression to the mean hadn't been accounted for? Why other measures were not tried first? Why cameras were place in areas without a history of speed related accidents? Where was the money going? Why was speed the only focus? etc.
Then, of course, there is a bit of human psychology. Negative reinforcement is one. You break the limit, nothing happens, so you feel safe to break the limit again.
The limit feels too low, so you start to do other things (e.g. tailgate, make more lane changes, whatever) to try and bring the state or arousal back to a level you feel comfortable with. Or you stick to the limit and nod-off due to boredom. Crunch.
Trials have been done with removing traffic lights, road markings and other measures to make roads "feel" more dangerous. Result? Drivers took more care. Problem is these measure cost money to implement and raise no revenue.
And finally, there is my one of my pet hates. Moronic parents who *MUST* drive their brat to the school gates. There are the same hand-wringing excrement who campaign for cameras and cause major problems by double-parking and disgorging their progeny into traffic. Here's an idea: park away from the school and WALK your little precious to the gates. Not only will that ease congestion, but you can take the time to teach them road safety (assuming you know any). And let's face it, it's probably the only exercise the wee bugger will get.
The best thing they could do is bring back the traffic police. But then a trained traffic officer does on raise revenue, they merely help make roads safer, catch criminals and save lives. What does that matter when one has beans to count, eh?
FYI: Montana was coerced by the federal government to switch from reasonable and prudent to fixed limits by the threat of losing federal highway funds.
Interesting read about accident rates related to the reasonable and prudent years.
Summary for the tl;dr crowd:
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Or they can get you to plea to a non-moving violation. I didn't properly stop at a stop sign once (did a rolling stop) and got a ticket. The judge told me to go speak with the prosecutor who immediately offered me a deal to lower it to a non-moving violation (parking on the pavement). My choices were then a) Try to fight the ticket, possibly losing and getting a fine plus points on my license, or b) accept the plea in which case I pay a smaller fine and have no points added. I picked b.
In hindsight, it's the perfect setup for the government. They don't need to do whatever administrative work is needed to do to add points to your license (contacting insurance companies and the like), they don't need to deal with people fighting the tickets, and they tend to collect the somewhat smaller payments right away.
Oh, and since that day, I come to full stops at all stop signs. Not getting a second ticket for that!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.