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."
Thank God county Sheriff's can't get/use radar here. Still, it'll make going through towns that much worse.
I am dubious...
...when my Google car is driving itself above the speed limit?
It's only a matter of time before our own cars start giving us tickets like in the movie Fifth Element.
Fortunately South Carolina has Bubba.
Bubba comes in many shapes and sizes (mostly rotund). Bubba likes to shoot and shiny objects that Uncle Sam sets up alongside the road.
Bubba works for the good of mankind by filling full of holes things like street signs, street lights, and traffic cameras.
A speed limit sign, or deer-crossing sign you can just about still use even when it is full of holes. Speed cameras are pretty much useless after the first shot.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I tell the children when I see a policeman with a radar gun that "he's on a revenue drive."
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
But for some reason the pattern buffer is going to get confused a lot, and we're going to have a lot of interesting hybrid car/truck accidents. oh, the ensuing hijinks!
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
More likely: it's a demonstration by the manufacturer, where limits for red/yellow have been placed much lower than normal.
With regular speed limits, traffic would be zipping by so fast, you wouldn't be able to read the plates or the tags.
You should still follow posted speed limits, even if you don't agree with them. Instead of complaining about tickets, run for office or attend government meetings and propose changes.
-SaNo
Great idea big brother!
Better yet, let's put one in your head instead.
That way the police, government, your employer and your wife will always know where you are.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Instead of complaining about tickets, run for office or attend government meetings and propose changes.
Yeah, that'll work.
'Look, I know you get a sizeable amount of your revenue from taxing those who drive at more than X mph, but you really should stop because it's very silly.'
If staters were as concerned over highway safety as they are with speed, think of how wonderful our highways would be.
Speeding tickets bring in money. Improving roads to improve safety costs money.
QED.
Propose to raise income tax at the same time, so revenue stays the same.
Or, more fundamentally than that, do accidents increase with speed? Montana says no...
And does speed increase with speed limits?
I know in the UK there have been cases where increasing speed limits lead to reduced speeds on the roads; when the limit was set way too low people ignored it and drove as fast as they liked, whereas when the limit was raised to a sensible level they stuck to it.
S-300 SAM can track up to 100 and engage up to 12.
That's what would make speeding riskier.
How many targets that puny Cordon can engage at once?
Seems like a very complicated way to collect taxes.
A useful application would be to target those vehicles which are going more than 10% (or 10km/h or whatever) faster than everyone else. That would actually improve safety and make the highway system more efficient (homogenous traffic reduces braking/lane changes and increases throughput). However, that's not the primary goal of highway speed enforcement so it will never happen
When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
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"
Gee, a state with a million square miles and six cars doesn't find speeding to be a problem. Who'd a thunk it.
...It costs a billion dollars.
Read "acceptable range" as "tolerance of the measuring device". If they set a hard limit at the actual limit, they'd lose in court too often to make a profit.
This would actually be the optimal solution, because as soon as this becomes ubiquitous, some 18 year old with some time on his hands is going to crack the system to route all speeding messages to localhost, and send out nothing but dummy "everything's cool, no speeding detected" packets to the police database at whatever interval is required to verify that the system is still online, actual speed of the car be damned.
Simple solution. Stop speeding. If people didn't speed, then the government wouldn't get any ticket revenues, and would be forced to find another income source (such as a direct tax). Personally, I'm glad that there are so many morons out there who pay extra taxes in order to reach their destination a few minutes quicker. Less tax burden for me!
pro: Who hasn't been passed by a jerk going 15 (at least) over the limit and wished there were someone around to catch them.
con: Does anyone have 'perfect speed' all the time? Especially coming down hills or just going with the flow of traffic?
I've never seen my cruise control be more than about 2-3mph over whatever I've set it at, even on downward slopes.
Not every one.
The local camera trappers have scads of cases of people getting flashed daily, sometimes multiple times per day, even going at ridiculous speeds (they had one person doing 100-135 mph in a 65 zone in literally dozens of instances.)
P.S. You're not supposed to break the limit when overtaking, either.
I've seen toll roads do this as well. They give you a stamped ticket when you get on, and check it when you get off to determine how far you were on the road in order to determine your appropriate toll, and your average speed as well to determine if you need a ticket. Solution? Stop at one of the restaurants that are at service depots on the toll road for lunch, speeding all you want to get there and all you want on the way out. your average speed will still likely be less than the speed limit unless your lunch is 30 seconds or you're trying to top out a ferrari.
I actually wish they'd spend more time addressing your pro point. Rather than just making sure people aren't speeding, how about making sure people aren't passing people at too great a difference in speed? Or cutting people off with too little space?
First of all, what is the freaking speed limit on that road?
The only cars in the green are the ones coming to a stop in frame.
Second, I spotted one car with a green indicator accelerating away from a following car with a yellow indicator. So the thing isn't really discriminating accurately.
If I'm ever popped by this system, that piece of video will be my defense.
They also need to take current conditions into account (wet roads, fog, etc.) to determine if someone is breaking the basic speed law, even when they are driving below the posted speed limit.
And if they can do all that, they can objectively determine if you're tailgating (driving on a road too close to the vehicle in front, at a distance which does not guarantee that stopping to avoid collision is possible).
Because so many people tailgate according this definition, this technology has the potential to make roads a lot safer!
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
When will we get targetted EMP ? Is is there yet ? :)
GPS does not work all over and in cases it can say you are on a side road when you are on the highway next to it.
IIRC, speed does not increase the likelihood of an accident, but it does increase the severity when they occur.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
My impression is that it's mostly a speed tax and revenue generation. The studies seem to be conflicted on whether or not a speed limit is safer overall.
The only consensus is that when an accident happens, it's more likely to be fatal at higher speeds... No consensus on whether or not it actually reduces incidents. Some studies say that more deaths occur with higher speeds... But my 5 minutes of research isn't turning up much to answer the question clearly.
The tech side of me thinks the video is awesome -- display of speed and ANR result in real time. Pretty cool. The driver side of me thinks that I'm far more likely to get a ticket in the mail which I wouldn't be able to contest. After all, we have the vendor's *word* that the displayed speed and ANR results are accurate and true, but all of us engineers know that no design is perfect...
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
I've never seen my cruise control be more than about 2-3mph over whatever I've set it at, even on downward slopes.
This isn't meant for *just* rural roads.
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
If so I want a dozen of these in my city. On my drive into work this morning three cars zipped through the red light 2.5 seconds after it had changed. On my walk during lunch hour at another intersection I watch 2 more vehicles blow through the just-barely red before they entered the intersection.
Rather than citations, I'd like auto-cannons installed to gun down the offenders.
You should still follow posted speed limits, even if you don't agree with them. Instead of complaining about tickets, run for office or attend government meetings and propose changes.
You'd be better off talking to the engineers that work on the recommendations. They'll give you an intelligent response to any questions/suggestions and, as a bonus, you won't feel dirty for dealing with politicians directly.
because the packets from the GPS would be routed to LOCAL receivers whose position is known! If you sped to get to a city, you couldn't say you were in that city before the "normal" speed limit would get you there... so just broadcasting your speed, even if the speed is normal, would be a dead giveaway. Didn't think of that huh? :-)
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
This kind of defeats the purposes of speeding to begin with. Most of us don't do it for the fun of it, we do it because we're anxious to be where we are going.
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...
In New York State, passage on many of the highways requires tolls. Many of us use an electronic system called EZ-Pass to pay the tolls. It's especially pleasant to avoid having to roll down the window during the cold winter.
Instead of all this fancy monitoring gear, you could just look at the times from toll to toll. It would be impossible to prove that a vehicle was never speeding, but easy to prove that it definitely was speeding.
I already feel my environment is overly draconian so I've never been one to advocate such a system.
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
Not My car. 1972 Diesel with no electronics to speak of.
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
(sorry for the double post) Shoot, you could create this speeding system off of peoples cell phones.. They CAN'T be in city B from city A in less then X time, EVER, if they are law abiding. Cells registered in airport terminals get a special reset-until-next-update status. Damn... fuck them all with spiky baseball bats if this this ever happens! Moral: we ALREADY have those devices implanted...in our pockets.
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
have you never had to go 15 over so that you could get around that jerk who goes 10 miles under when in a no passing zone but the moment they enter the passing zone they speed up 5 to 10 over the speed limit to prevent people from passing.
Funny how in the end you still leave it to where money can be raised by the government.
Modify your plan to protect the privacy of the driver by:
Require all cars to have a GPS system that is always on, calculates the car's speed, checks the car's location against a database of published speed limits and keeps the car from being able to exceed the posted speed limit.
That would eliminate the need to report anything to the government.
The only downfall is no more revenue from speeding tickets.
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
Being able to target multiple vehicles is a huge differentiator. Otherwise, they're practically useless on a busy road. If your goal is to enforce speed-laws on a busy 4-lane highway, this will make a big difference.
You will know that targeted EMP is out there when there are no more high speed pursuits by police because they can just disable your car if they get close enough.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
You're paranoid.
well if you're going to be driving all day, you're going to stop to eat at some point anyway, what better time is there?
If you're going to do this, why not take it a step further and have the GPS system govern the max speed allowed in your vehicle? Maybe allow like 2 over the posted speed limit.. This would stop all speeding (and get rid of speeding tickets), but it's in the name of safety, right??
This space for rent, inquire within.
I actually wish they'd spend more time addressing your pro point. Rather than just making sure people aren't speeding, how about making sure people aren't passing people at too great a difference in speed? Or cutting people off with too little space?
Of course I agree. Simple speeding is a lesser danger on the road. It's just easier to spot speeders than unsafe driving practices (for a computerized camera)
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
If these work on acceptable ranges, will they also ticket drivers who are causing hazardous conditions by driving too slow?
Based on that video, I should just drive close enough to the car in front of me that half or less of my license plate is readable by the camera. Thanks for increasing road safety, automated ticket systems.
Although it would be resource intensive I think they still need to do driving tests that realistically assess driving skill and assign speed limits accordingly. That's the only way I would accept the new personal electronic vehicle speed monitoring systems that are starting to hit public use. Theoretically you could automate the testing by putting people in a simulator, and letting it judge their safe reaction speed.
I would appreciate having a higher ranked license than the person with the handicapped plates driving 10 mph under the speed limit in the left lane with their right turn signal on perpetually. (I only mention handicapped plates because with only one exception every single person with them I've seen has been a terrible driver in one way or another.)
require all cars to have a GPS system that is always on
How about no. No further explanation needed - just "no".
I get so fucking tired of assholes driving side by side and driving 7-10 mph below the posted speed limit.
If they're going to drive below the speed limit, fine, do it, just do it in the fucking far right hand lane.
Assholes.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
It is safest to pass quickly and get back into your lane. It's unsafe to pass at a differential of 2-3 mph ("micropassing") because you end up on the wrong side of the road for a long time, giving more opportunity for bad things to happen (an intersection approaching, other people pulling out to pass, the guy you're passing speeding up, etc.)
The earlier poster who gets angry when someone passes him quickly, is sadly symptomatic of a lot of so-called "good" drivers. They have to feel in control of the other traffic, or else they become angry and uncomfortable. The speed that they like to do is "perfect", anybody who wants to pass them should have left earlier, and anybody slow in front of them needs to start paying attention.
If it weren't on the road, we would call these people "control freaks". It's the same people who speed up when they see someone is trying to pass them. They don't give a crap about any other human being on the road, they only care that the lemmings behind them stay nicely in line behind.
If that poster is still reading: why does it make you so angry? What is wrong with someone going past? You're going to get to your destination at a pace you are obviously happy with , since you chose to go at the speed you are doing; so what is wrong with someone else getting to their destination at their pace? It doesn't affect you..
Your point is entirely valid, but I'd just like to point out that by the time Google Cars are available they will be able to read every street sign about as well as a human could (if they can't already), so sudden signage changes won't be an issue.
I think it would be interesting if self-driving cars were required to have some sort of black-box data recorder so that you could prove in court after an accident whether the software was at fault and what type of error occurred. If the thing blue-screened in the middle of an intersection, that could easily be pinned on the manufacturer, but if it was something like failing to obey the instructions of an officer, that would pretty clearly be the person's fault for not taking control in an unusual situation.
Ok, so what am I supposed to do when the flow of traffic is doing 70 on a 55mph road?
Slow down and risk causing a pile-up/snarl-up?
Or do the safe thing and keep moving with traffic?
Exactly... the rules and regulations are already in place. The government just figures they don't have to follow them, because they say so. Engineers already say they are too low, but no one listens to them, so why would they listen to me when there is some ninny on the street complaining that his/her kids can't play because of cars passing by so fast? HE/SHE feels it's too fast, so they politicos listen to her. How about keeping your damn kids off the friggen street?
"It's also capable of instantly measuring a car's speed and mapping its position"
A small point - but it is impossible to measure speed instantly.
Unless this uses a laser or similar technology to actually track the license plate, it's just another inaccurate revenue generator. /frank
You sound like you're saying that it would be OK if it was an accurate revenue generator?
Forget Montana... historical statistics say it's not so. Ever since the idiotic NMSL was repealed, the "common sense" crew was talking about thousands more deaths that were going to come from this. In realty, nothing like that happened even as states increased speed limits, nationwide. But let's not let data get in the way of a "good decision".
It may be a huge differentiator, but is it a useful one? If there are not many vehicles on the road, this feature isn't necessary. If there are many vehicles on the road, and they're all going the same speed, maybe TICKET ALL THE VEHICLES is not a defensible tactic. If there are many vehicles on the road, and only a few are going much faster than the others, I think what you really want is a patrol car -- or at least video -- to deal with what might be reckless driving.
And you can say for a fact that you've never exceeded the limit? How about when you go over a crest and the momentum tis you 3mph over? Game over, ticket. Right, so now you'll be so paranoid that you'll either drive 5 or 10mph under, or will constantly be watching your speedometer. Yeah, much safer. Make people fall asleep from the boredom or force them to take their eyes off the road.
"Kill people"... really? At worst, the car dies. The incompetence of the driver leading to further accidents and injuries is not a fault of the EMP, but the idiot behind the wheel. If you can't handle your vehicle when the car "dies" like that, you should have no right to drive.
Except studies have shown that for red light cameras some localities will shorten the yellow light timing to increase the number of tickets issued. So it's not quite as paranoid as it could be.
Also: Blackberry outage made roads safer. The usual arguments apply (correlation, causation, anecdotal).
It looks like the speed limit on that road is 40 km/hr (25 mph), which is pretty common for "residential" zones. Of course, seeing people go 65 km/hr (40 mph) in a 40 km/hr zone is pretty normal around here. So I don't think that the speed limit is artificially lowered for demonstration purposes. Also, the angle of the camera makes it look as if "green" cars are speeding away from "yellow" cars. I think that's just a case of perspective though.
Yea, because losing brake assist and power steering while in a maneuver is totally something can all handle unexpectedly with no practice.
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...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's why in most places you don't get a ticket if you're only 3 mph over. Also, most speedometers show a higher speed than the actual one.
So, by the time you get a ticket, the speedometer has to be quite a bit higher than the posted speed limit. It's not that hard stay under that, even without constantly watching the dial.
The Troopers where I am from have a saying. "Nine, your fine, Ten, your mine."
No matter where you go, there you are.
It's utterly pointless to complain because speeding is easy money for the police (and the city). Speed isn't usually the cause of accidents. What causes accidents is differences in speed. The other thing is that I see every damn day people tailgating en masse. To add insult to injury, they rarely use their turn signal when changing lanes, or when they do it's after they are already in the lane they are switching to.
Sadly, the police don't care one iota about tailgating or not using turn signals. I have never in my life seen a cop pull someone over for either of those violations but, in theory, they are just as illegal as speeding. It's selective enforcement for easy money.
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
Stop speeding. If people didn't speed, then the government wouldn't get any ticket revenues, and would be forced to find another income source (such as a direct tax).
While keeping the laws against speeding on the books and continuing to enforce them against everyone else who didn't stop speeding? Obsolete laws don't get repealed.
#OccupyInterstate Everyone drive 45 MPH in the 40-Minimum-to-75 MPH zones this Thanksgiving weekend!
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Nope. You have blind faith with people who will fuck you over if it's politically expedient.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
And will they be able to afford having 32 troopers standing by to give the tickets? Did someone do a cost benefit analysis on this or are we due for higher local taxes so the PD in the town BFE population 56 can afford to hire more officers AND afford this device to ticket those menacing speeders?
Or they'd reduce speed limits.
Man, you need to be modded up. People passing me aren't doing anything to me. It doesn't phase me in the slightest. The person who cuts me off just to prevent me from passing because they think it would be safer (or slamming on their brakes when you get a little too close to the guy doing 15 under in the "passing" lane), are the ones who are actually risking people's safety. Stop playing games! The rest of us are just trying to get from point A to point B. This whole country is filled to the brim with busy-bodies whose only method of elevating themselves is to bring other people down.
This is quite insightful. Thanks!
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
You should still follow posted speed limits, even if you don't agree with them.
Yeah, because driving around with some tw@ in an Audi following 6 inches from your rear bumper desperately blinking its lights at you and looking for the first opportunity to cut you up is so safe.
Or does that not happen in the USA when you try and observe the limit?
Or there's one stretch of road I know where the limit varies between 30, 40 and 50 umpteen times in the space of a mile, for no adequately observed reason. Don't bother watching the road - concentrate on remembering the speed limit and staring at your speedo.
Or what about roads with speed camera signs and no posted speed limit , at least on the stretch I drive (I think its 30, despite being quite wide with service roads on either side for the residents)?
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
but the same people who believe they have the right to speed are too self important to actually do anything as complicated as changing the laws.
While I wouldn't jump down the GP's throat, I agree with you. I tend to hate night time driving and do my best to avoid it. Night time driving and rain make it nearly impossible for anyone to see the street stripes around here. If I do end up driving home late, I do take my time and stick to the 35-40 mph speed limits in my area. The streets in my neighborhood in Atlanta are really narrow and curvy, even if they're 4 lanes. I just stick to the right and happily let everyone pass until I get where I'm going.
Also, I always slow down when some SUV with those F&$%^*#! shaky blue halogen lights pulls up beside me. Please take your strobe-light looking crap, pass me, and the the hell out of my mirror.
Also, I always slow down when some SUV with those F&$%^*#! shaky blue halogen lights pulls up behind me.
Word fail corrected. :-(
Also, what about asphalt-gray cars? It's a popular factory color available from most automakers.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Hmm.
I'm still wondering if putting a bunch of high intensity IR LEDs around my license plate, will 'blind' the CCD cameras these things are likely using?
CCDs are often placed behind IR cutoff filters. You phone probably does this, your digital camera as well, and I presume the commercial "speed" cameras too. Of course that will not stop the vendors selling LED license plate frames and other gadgets destined to be busted on a myth busters episode.
Not true. It depends on a multitude of factors, but in general as speed approaches the limits of the vehicle and driver's ability to maneuver around obstacles, the probability of an accident approaches 1. You wouldn't be prudent to try to drive through a forest at anything over a few MPH, for example. This limit, for the median car/driver on a given road, may be significantly higher than the posted speed limit, but it still exists. But you don't want to set the speed limit right at the average maneuverability limit anyway, because then the bottom half of drivers/vehicles are guaranteed to crash. You want to set it at about half that, which still guarantees some accidents, but not significantly more than any lower value > 0. With higher standards for vehicle roadworthiness and driver performance (namely through automation), you may be able to raise those limits a bit, but even with perfect driver performance there's still a physical limit to a vehicle's ability to overcome inertia and change direction.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Most modern cars, yes, but a carbed gas car would probably be fine (uses electrical systems but not electronics) and an MFI diesel would certainly be fine (doesn't even require electricity once started and warmed up).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
contrary to the propagandists, speed does not kill
I told that to a cop once after he gave me a ticket and said "Speed kills, remember that!" I asked politely enough "really? then why don't I see NASCAR drivers just keel over dead when they hit 100mph? Or should you say bad drivers speeding are what kills?" He just ignored me and said " Have a nice day!" I thought I made my point though.
I'm afraid the notion you made to the cop was probably not the notion you intended. :-)
It's not a nice experience, but yes you should be able to or you shouldn't be driving.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Clearly you don't drive on weekends between midnight and 3 am, during which time I have been stopped for failing to signal, wide turns, and even because "at first I thought your tail lights were out but I guess they are just a little dim." Of course all of these were accompanied by sobriety checks. I was once late for the first day of a new job after a cop pulled me out of morning rush hour traffic to cite me for having a 12-inch crack in my windshield. I am curious where you live.
They're working on it. Right now the insurance companies are trying to warm you up to the idea by offering potential rate drops if you look like their idea of a good driver.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
That was the stated goal of Mayor Danny Crosby of Coopertown, TN. They then raised it again because that made things less safe.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
It matters because I, going 77-in-a-70 in the slow lane, might get pulled over along with the guy going 92 in the fast lane.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Frankly, yes.
The arguments about speed limits being set too low, etc, are completely different than whether or not the measuring device is accurate. Current traffic radar is crap at being able to say with accuracy "THAT vehicle was doing 72 mph", and yet the courts treat the device as more-or-less infallible. Putting a high-resolution camera on it and reticles pointed at the license plate is simply lipstick on a pig - it promises even more accuracy than exists.
I don't have the same argument with laser radar systems - if someone built one with a high-resolution camera that showed the car's license plate with a little laser dot on it and an overlayed speed, I'd have no problem with it.
Of course, the Redflex photo radar systems installed in Phoenix freeways a couple years ago didn't use radar (they used timing loops in the ground), and I opposed them - but for different reasons. /frank
And the worms ate into his brain.
I bet it would be too hard to attach a can of spray paint (and a remote actuator) to a quad-rotor. If you're caught the legal fallout from vandalism is significantly less than from the unlawful discharge of a firearm.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
And does speed increase with speed limits?
I drive a road that goes from 55mph, to 60, 65 and then 70 as you leave the city. The flow of traffic is initially 75 because it's just shy of the biggest ticket (if you're going to risk the ticket, at least make it worth it). By the time the speed limit is 70mph, everybody has settled down to that speed because it's fast enough. More importantly, everybody is going the same speed.
It's also nice to use your concentration looking for road hazards, not cop hazards.
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
Example: Paradise Valley, Arizona. They reduced their roads from 45mph to 40mph because the law states that speed cameras do not have to post warnings at speeds below 45mph.
Yep, that one bit me personally, you're used to 45mph, so you go 50mph, whoops, the road is 40 so you're now doing 10 over despite the fact that the same road goes back up to 45 when you exit the city which since it's Phoenix is just Scottsdale, you don't even necessarily know you left PV.
Also, I fail to see how red light camera manipulation is irrelevant when it stands to reason that a city will rig traffic laws to ticket more people when it deems it good for the treasury. If they rig one system why wouldn't they limit another?
OK, well here's a question for you then.
Where are we supposed to learn this? My car doesn't let me pull the key out, which is required to effect the same. Simply shutting the engine off isn't enough, it will still do some work off the battery. Even if it could, practicing such in traffic is not only dangerous, but might actually be bad for the car.
I also don't recall ever being /practiced/ in this in Driver's Education. Sure, we talked about it, but they didn't have a killswitch like you might see on a trainer aircraft.
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...
Here is Arizona you will get a photo radar ticket for 3mph over if you're in a school zone. If you're on a road under 45mph you'll get 7mph over and if you're going over 45 you'll get 11mph. There is also the problem with speedometers requiring certain amounts of tire inflation which people routinely under inflate or over inflate their tires. My G37 speedometer always matches the public safety radar systems which display my speed. That's actually one of the ways I make sure my tires are inflated properly.
The more you know...
I only see cops pull people over for turn signal violations when they suspect it's a drunk driver. I have only seen one case where they did anything about tailgating and that was because some chick was tailgating and undercover cruiser.... that was kind of humorous.
In Australia (at least in NSW anyway) the registered owner of the vehicle is assumed to be the driver. Statutory declarations have to be signed etc if this is not the case. Not necessarily a good idea to sign an untrue stat dec either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Einfeld#Criminal_conviction
> 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."
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I live in Minneapolis.
Lets be real, they just pulled you over to see if you were drunk.
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
But, officer, I didn't drive through the intersection on red - I went around it, you know, wave-like?
Right. I wasn't implying that you could just drive 200MPH down any road you felt like, but rather on most roads with a posted limit of 55MPH, the accident rates for cars traveling at 55MPH and 65MPH are not different. Citing from memory here, but that's what I recall.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
You don't learn a lot of stuff you should know about driving a car as part of Driver's Education. Most drivers in the Americas are horribly undertrained but it's OK because the IIHS says driver skill doesn't help -_- There are defensive driving courses you can take to learn these things though.
There's not much to it though, basically your steering will start to feel like you're manually turning the rudder of a supertanker (not always true, but 90% of cars with power steering have it for a very good reason), and the brakes will require 4-10x as much force to operate once the reserve vacuum is depleted (you'll get 2-3 pumps of assisted braking once the engine shuts off). If you have an automatic car with a jumbo brake pedal, this is where you use both feet.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Agreed. I mostly use it for bathroom breaks; I make sure to drink lots of water before entering turnpikes. :)
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
My speedometer is my GPS. Doesn't depend on tire inflation.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I bet it would be too hard to attach a can of spray paint (and a remote actuator) to a quad-rotor. If you're caught the legal fallout from vandalism is significantly less than from the unlawful discharge of a firearm.
I think the fallout would be more from the downdraft from the rotors, scattering the paint onto the ground. Unless the paint can was attached to a long pole. Or perhaps a telescoping rod? Then it could fly fairly stably, extend to paint, then retract to go home. (I think we just invented a general-purpose graffiti machine!)
Also I think the current fortune is apt to this story:
There are two kinds of pedestrians... the quick and the dead. -- Lord Thomas Rober Dewar
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Radar can measure instantaneous speed using the doppler effect.
Arizona turned off its Janet Napalitano-implemented state highway photo radar system (we're sorry, rest of the country, for dumping her and her "screw privacy" views on you.) Despite the fearmongering that poured out from various pro-camera sources, the highways have NOT grown more dangerous without the cameras watching. If anything, this real world study is showing that the sheer drop in traffic volume due to the recession played a much larger role in accident reductions than the speed cameras ever did.
In the end, the cameras were proven to just be an ineffective way to collect a new sin tax from Arizona drivers. The rest of the nation should note of our experiences here and avoid falling into the same trap.
Bottom line: Speed cameras are nothing more than a sin tax that made some drivers feel good about themselves and gave them an avenue to get even with other more "aggressive" drivers.
BTW - People may still not like Jan Brewer (the governor of AZ) for various reasons (SB1070, etc.), but she clearly got it right when she cancelled that program.
But in general, posted speed limits aren't anywhere near either the limits of the vehicle or the driver's abilities. And that's just with your average car. There are cars -- and drivers -- fully capable of going a lot faster, quite safely, than than the statistics would lead you to presume. And there's the fact that when driving near one's limits, one tend to be paying a lot more attention, because one is enjoying one's self. Not that I'd expect the mothers of America to understand that.
Most speed limits are unmitigated bullshit.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No, let's not, seeing as it's one of the few places we actually have tested these ideas, and we have the results.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
But the authorities don't want 100% enforcement. They want people to keep on speeding so they can keep on bringing in that ticket revenue. If a few percent (Ideally the most dangerous few percent) of drivers get ticketed each month, no one's going to get worked up about speed limits. Bringing enforcement up to 100% would kill that cash cow almost immediately as drivers will slow down if they're guaranteed a ticket if they don't, and we'd see much more concerted actions to raise the limits to what people are doing out there anyway. Ironically, 100% enforcement would inevitably lead to less ticket revenue than they're getting now.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Well, if they're all breaking the law, I don't see a huge problem with ticketing them all. That doesn't make enforcement wrong, it makes the speed limit wrong or shows a culture of civil disobedience likely due to a lack of enforcement over time. So those issues aside, you'd want this over an army of patrol cars because it's cheaper and impartial. Continued development on these enforcement devices will result in better laws, safer roads, and fairer fines for everyone. It really isn't a bad thing.. At least until we get fully automated cars on the road to remove human error, I see better enforcement as a good thing.
Electronic control of throttle and fuel and transmission is becoming more common, as is single wheel braking for skid control. So think about a partially damaged controller causing maximum acceleration in second gear with the right front brake sporadically applied. Think about crashing through a store window after taking out pedestrians on the sidewalk.
Also realize that all the electronics in a modern car will retail for thousands of dollars, and that the organization responsible for a destructive EMP event will be in for a lot of lawsuits.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Greetings and Salutations...
As I have said for years....like it or not the speed limit is a law, not a suggestion, so, the best course of action is to adhere to it. If nothing else you will really piss off the guy with the testosterone overload behind you that is trying to blast by.
I have suggested that perhaps the best course of action would be for us to have regular tests to see how good a driver we are, and, set the maximum speed limit we can drive at. This info could be picked up by RFID readers posted along the roads and used to fire cameras if necessary. It should be easy enough to make it hard enough to bypass that the ordinary driver would not bother. There could be severe penalties set up for folks that DO bypass the system.
Also, we could force autonomous cars on folks, that could know the appropriate speed limit and limit the speed to that....
Or, for that matter we could simply remove all speed limits and accept the fact that there will be some collateral damage. Think of it as simply putting a bit of bleach in the gene pool to clean it up.
Or, for that matter we could make sure that all American drivers are well educated and trained on safe driving techniques...therefore removing much of the problems with speed limits, etc.
Regards
Dave Mundt
YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
Thanks for taking the time to read beyond the first sentence of my post.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Either that or he meant that it doesn't make him get shot by a ray gun from Star Trek.
"Set phasers to Road Rage."
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Ticketing everybody is a fine theory -- except that it is dangerous, and in some cases illegal, to travel much slower than the prevailing rate of traffic. I'm not going to hang out in the right lane going 55 if everyone around me is driving 70 (which is a common case where I live). Also, the people in charge of implementing these robo-police seldom use the technology on themselves; the usual laws require some human to review the citation for accuracy, and somehow citations for publicly owned vehicles are almost always rejected. As lots of other people have mentioned, there are far too many places where the speed limits are set artificially low to help enhance revenue. These systems might result in wider enforcement of laws, but it is naive to think they will somehow lead to better or more uniform enforcement.
Quantum tunneling through the intersection?
I'll feel safer riding with someone who glances at their speedometer and watches the road than I will riding with you fiddling with your GPS.
So, raised in the south, on the one hand, OF COURSE towns do this, they all do, but on the other hand, how clueless can you be? You see a town, you see speed limit signs going down, down, down, duh, of course it's a speed trap.
As long as you promise to box in the car of your representative to... Oh, that's right, they don't give a shit, as they're all in limos paid for by government contractors.
Well, hey, those are the breaks.
I don't fiddle with it (nor, I suspect, do most people who use this type of capability.) I also don't take my eyes anywhere near as far off the road as people do when they look at their in-dash speedo -- my GPS is a *lot* closer to my normal line of vision. The speed is right there on the display, all the time. It generally knows what the speed limit is for any particular stretch of road is, too. Helps if you miss a speed limit sign.
But hey, thanks for using your imagination to help you craft a snarky remark. Good to know that the theater of the mind isn't completely dead.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I read your post. I responded to the only part of it that wasn't pedantic nonsense, and I didn't call you on your ridiculous non-real world imaginings. Count yourself lucky.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
If there's a case where the prevailing traffic is grossly different from the law, that's exactly the sort of location where this could help the most. Those are the cases where trying to enforce things with individual patrol cars is difficult. In the seattle area, the cameras I've seen installed typically mail out warnings to offenders for the first few months. I would expect that to be the case in a situation like the one you described. You could also phase it in by lowering the ticketing limits gradually. For the first month, only violators who are 20 MPH in excess of the limit are ticketed, and only to a maximum of 5% of traffic volume. The rest get warnings describing how their infraction will soon be ticketed. Then gradually adjust down the variables. Ideally, you'd be installing these in areas where accidents are common, such as a variable speed-limit zone leading into a congested area. People *could* go 80 MPH but the limit is set to 40 when there's stop-and-go traffic up ahead. Once they know it's strictly enforced, they won't feel the need to race all the way up to the traffic jam. The result is fewer severe rear-enders. The goal is to improve traffic safety, not make money. I think it's silly to think that there aren't good approaches to improving safety. If you want to point out examples of misuse, that's fine.. but it doesn't really change my point, which was that this can be a very helpful and effective tool to improve traffic safety.
Instead of complaining about tickets, run for office or attend government meetings and propose changes.
Yeah, that'll work.
'Look, I know you get a sizeable amount of your revenue from taxing those who drive at more than X mph, but you really should stop because it's very silly.'
I would consider this a tax on the short. I know for a fact that when it comes to things like red light cameras, and other such things, that the camera cannot see my face. I have to slouch to look clearly out of the windshield on most cars. If this camera is up high enough to see across multiple lanes of traffic, then it's not going to be able to see my face!
My point was that you are just hand-waving to say that this could improve traffic safety. It seems much more likely to be a good way to extend the time and space spans of congestion, make people take longer to get from point A to point B, and increase local revenue on the backs of out-of-towners.
just wondering how this compares to range/distance camera systems, somewhat popular in several european countries. they basically grab your plates upon entering some distance and upon exiting (often on highways/autobahns). if you appear at the exit faster than possible by going at the speed limit + some minimal excess amount, you got mail. kinda nasty, can't slow down for the picture only :)
Rich
Most speedometers (dial type) can be read in the peripheral vision. My car has a digital numeric speedo, so it's likely like your GPS, but really far out of the line of sight. The way my car does it? Complete failure.
Keep in mind that you were the first to be dismissive about someone else's reasoning regarding relaxation of strict speed limits, so just consider mine retributive snark. Most people don't need to spring for a GPS receiver when a speedometer already in their car is fairly decent for measurement, and the general application of speed limit laws reflects this.
That said, do the following:
- Make sure it is legal to have the GPS receiver mounted on your windshield where you live. In some areas, this is illegal. I've received a warning.
- Try using GPS in a dense city area.
- Try out a car with a HUD. Kind of cool.
- See what speed your GPS receiver can max out at. I've had one report a speed of over 2300mph, in a car, which I think is badass.
Personally, I calibrate my speedo with GPS. It lets me know if my car is way off. With more modern cars, this is pretty rare.
But, yeah, I was dicking with you. I don't honestly think that you're a bad driver. Good GPS receivers can make a driver *far* more safe on the road.
In the USA, we theoretically (theoretically because in practice it does not always work that way) have the principle that we are innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof rests on the accuser. In other words, I don't have to prove that I'm innocent by signing a declaration. THEY have to prove that I'm guilty by showing that they know I am the one who was driving.
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
They are just cashing in on it.
Think of all the revenue loss if they prevented speeding? Municipalities would go [more] broke.
They do not wish to prevent people from engaging in the act of speeding.
Everyone should screw them over, and NOT speed. That would be justice.
On the other hand they might find some 4th Amendment violating way of making up the revenues.
Highway robbers, I say, screw 'em!
Speed limits are a voluntary highway tax, not a safety measure. This new technology will just make the government more efficient at collecting revenue.
If they really cared about safety, I'd say it's well within the grasp of 21st century technology to simply prevent vehicles from exceeding the speed limit for any given set of coordinates. Nobody wants that technology, because the government needs you to hang yourself with the rope they give you, so they can generate revenue, and people want to feel "free."
He wants his uncertainty principle back.
Speed limitation back in France is not only due to the road type but the environment too. For example going from Paris to Compiegne there are slices of 2*2 which are 90 kmh limited but drop to 50 kmh in town. Well used to be I haven't been there in a decade and a half.
If there is a city or a school or a crossing, even 2x3 lane will get seriously limited in speed, particularly if there were previous accident.
Those limitation are not tehre to "generate money" or "haphazardly". The problem is , people get angry seeing a 50 kmh or puzzled but never ask the Civil Road engineering departement *WHY* the speed limit on a 2*3 is 50 kmh. In my case, I did ask out of curiosity and the result I got are mentionned above. I have yet to see a stretch of road with low speed for no good reason. True the reason might not be known for your average car owner which would rather overspeed or swear under his breath than ask. But they are usually there.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I know for a fact that my speedometer, like most, shows a bit to much. In my case, rather exactly 10% too much. (Checked with multiple GPS-navigators)
So if I keep the speed limit with regards to my own meter, I can vary upwards with 12 - 15 km/h if the posted speed is 90 (where I live, speed cameras have a 5 - 10 km/h leeway), thus I don't have to be anxious.
It's rather easy to not go 15 km/h too fast if I'm the least bit active while driving.
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
Actual office present and pulling over a vehicle doesn't imply speed camera, it implies handheld radar.
So I don't know what you think is good about a big wobbly bag of human error sometimes with a bad attitude hand holding a precision instrument that has many failure modes and then using his digression at issuing you an infringement notice.
When enforcing a rule the enforcement methods should be consistent between cases. In this fixed and mobile speed cameras trump hand written tickets many times over. But maybe I'm just bitter because I'm a young man with a beard and not a young teary eyed blond with boobs larger than brains, and am thus more likely to get issued a ticket once pulled over.
Here in the UK, some councils have phased out speed cameras as a cost-saviung measure, i.e. it actually costs them overall rather tyhan being a money earner. And the GP is correct, if you strongly disagree with a law, do something about it, rather than whine or indulge in libertarian armed resistance fantasies.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Speed isn't usually the cause of accidents.
No, excess speed in the wrong circumstances is the cause of accidents. That's why they have speed limits.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Don't bother watching the road - concentrate on remembering the speed limit and staring at your speedo.
1. You should be aware of your speed at all times, regardless of speed limits.
2. You don't stare at your speedo, you flick frequent glances at it.
3. If the mental strain of remembering a speed limit is too much, you shouldn't be driving in the first place, as you are clearly as unsafe as a drunk driver.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Or, for that matter we could simply remove all speed limits and accept the fact that there will be some collateral damage. Think of it as simply putting a bit of bleach in the gene pool to clean it up.
Stupid, dangerous drivers kill other people than themselves, so just fuck off.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Bah ... it doesn't bother me, as long as these cameras still miss cars travelling at over 170 mph
First of all: If you don't want to be fined, obey the speed limits. No ifs, whens and buts - just do it.
Now, I'm sure most of us agree that a lot of traffic regulations are made by people who clearly don't get out much. If you have a stretch of road where everybody drives faster than the limit, it's quite obvious that the road is made for a higher speed than what's posted. Now, there's two basic reasons for a certain speed limit: Standards and special reasons. Standard rules should not be. They should be a guideline when determining the limit, not the generic one-size-fits-all limit. The special reasons usually include school zones and residential areas. But that's the easy, cheap and incorrect way of 'protecting the children'.
The right way is traffic lights, fences, pedestrian bridges or tunnels. Because a child should never occur on a busy thoroughfare. Running a child down going 35 or even just 20 mph is still going to hurt it. Reducing the speed limit instead of doing it the right way is a bad way to save a buck. Children will still be run over and the occasional speeder will most likely kill someone.
I don't remember who originally suggested it (back in the 60s-70s I think), but this idea is still very good: All long distance roads should be in tunnels when intersecting any form of settlement. These roads should facilitate auto-driving so the drivers can relax while packing the traffic optimally. The surface roads within settlements are 10 mph max and you shouldn't have have to drive more than ½ mile from surfacing from the tunnels to get to your destination. Most people would have underground parking, either a simple private garage (like we have on the surface today, just underground) or some shared parking as many businesses in downtown areas already have today. This way, the children are safe to play outside, even on the streets, and we don't have to fill every square inch between homes with roads and fast moving cars that will hurt children at some point.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
If they really cared about speeding, they would prevent it with throttles and/or audible warnings. (Yes, there are issues to be worked out there, but not insurmountable.) But no. They really care about collecting lots of fines, and being able to pull people over if they don't like the look of them.
People *IGNORING* those [limits] and not paying attention generate most of those [crashes] ([barring] the imponderable)
Bingo. A lack of observation leads to a lack of planning leads to increased risk.
such people should not be allowed to [possess] a car if they can't respect the local road law.
Then no one should be allowed to possess a motor vehicle, the law is absolute and everyone breaks it. Speeding is a specific offence written into law (in my country at least).
Sorry saying one get bored or want to go above the limit is no excuse.
It's not about "want", it's about "will" and human nature - everyone has an arousal state they are comfortable with and we do what we can to adjust the environment to suit that. You can be as pious as you like, but you can't escape your basic nature. This is why making the environment "feel" more dangerous works. Did you know Italy increase the limits to try and improve road safety? I have yet to see the stats to know if it worked. Interesting idea though and sort of ties in with what is seen on the unrestricted autobahns.
Don't want to respect the speed limit ? Go the FUCK on a ring circuit and speed there.
I agree with that, and this is deffo the case if one wants to race. Why people feel the need to do race/traffic light drag when using a circuit/strip is dirt cheap and much safer beats the hell out of me.
I bet [you] are the typical fucktard [who passes] pass me [at] double the [speed limit] in [the] city because I am going *only* at the 30 [km/h limit].
Nice ad hominem, really helps your case. I do my utmost not to speed in urban areas although I do not claim perfection (no one is perfect). All the points on my license are now expired (I deserved them when I got them). But am I some kind of born again angel? No. Show me someone who says they are and I'll show you a hypocrite with a massively over-inflated opinion of their own abilities.
I've even taken advanced training and, if you've not done it, I can thoroughly recommend it. Just beware of the observers with a god-complex and find a new group if they are all like that. Also buy a copy of the police driver's handbook (there's various one available depending on vehicle type and where you live) - a real eye opener.
If you wish to debate further, I'm happy to do so; but only if you keep a civil tongue in your head and post under a registered account. If you believe in what you say, person up and put your name to it.
>> Actual office present and pulling over a vehicle doesn't imply speed camera, it implies handheld radar.
There are several methods of measuring vehicle speed that do not involve the use of radar.
In any case, nothing in your post is even remotely true. There are several methods of measuring speed that do not require radar. But, modern handheld and vehicle-mount radars are nearly idiot proof, and include telemetry and photo evidence of how they were used to capture the speed, so any user error can be determined in court (although most defendants do not know how to file a discovery motion to get that evidence).
You would probably receive fewer tickets if you did not speed.
Don't bother watching the road - concentrate on remembering the speed limit and staring at your speedo.
1. You should be aware of your speed at all times, regardless of speed limits.
There's a difference between knowing your speed in terms of "too fast", "too slow" and knowing your absolute speed in mph. Personally, I trust the former rather more than the latter, since it takes account of traffic and conditions. There are plenty of places and situations where the posted speed limit is clearly too fast. NB: what's really pissing people off over speed limits is not people being nicked for doing 60 in a school zone, its people being fined for doing 36 in a badly-marked 30 zone (or unmarked because the streetlamps were less than 100m apart or whatever).
3. If the mental strain of remembering a speed limit is too much, you shouldn't be driving in the first place, as you are clearly as unsafe as a drunk driver.
There's such a thing as "cognitive load" - there's only so many things, however individually simple, that a mere mortal can concentrate on - and when you're driving, you're concentrating on a lot of things, almost all of which are more important than whether you're doing 29 or 32 mph.
Perhaps you missed out:
4. All drivers should be flawless supermen with similar qualifications to airline pilots and never drive when they're ill, tired or distracted. Of course, the first thing such professional drivers would ask for is a "co pilot" to provide a second pair of eyes, because everybody is fallible. Fine by me - then private cars would be uneconomical, we'd need better public transport and we could just get the bus everywhere.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
This also aptly describes the assholes that pass not one car when there is finally an opening, but THREE OR FOUR at time, not even knowing or caring what lies ahead of the slow vehicle. *This* is what gets people killed, but based on your tone, I suspect you also dabble in the fine sport of being ahead of everyone else.
It's clear that you have no real knowledge about how a car works. Try reading up on it a bit, before talking about damage to the car, or not being able to pull the key out. Fact is, shutting the engine off is "enough" for this test... when that happens, the ignition system is off, and the car won't "work off the battery".
As for "where are we supposed to learn this", why is it everyone else's job to teach you to take care of yourself? Go to an empty roadway or parking lot and practice. No one said to do this "in traffic" as you imply. Try to exercise a little personal responsibilty, and try reading and learning for yourself. If that's too hard, as mentioned by others, there are plenty of places to learn such things. Heck, there are even courses to teach you how to get into a skid, and out of one... it's not rocket science, but it does take a little initiative on your part. Sitting on your butt and saying "no one is teaching me" is not an answer.
Victoria Australia has 99+%* speed limit compliance on some highways and its accident count has been steady for a while and the deaths per distance driver has increased in step with the speed limit compliance. This year was on track for being worse than last year except the police decided to stop writing tickets as a protest for more money which resulted in an increase in speed and a drop in the accident rate.
They run a "Wipe off five" ads here which came from badly done report on crash rates out of South Australia university* that forget to take into account increased traffic density increasing accident rates. They claim by going just 5 km/h over the limit doubles the chance of an accident*. What they don't say is that is true for about 25 km/hr over the limit (as per Solomon quoted elsewhere here). They didn't point out that slowing down everyone increase tail gating which is something like 4000 times more likely to cause a death*.
Of course using traffic from Adelaide for any other city is like using traffic data from Billings Montana for Los Angles, Rome or Cairo.
Victoria currently has about 350 people a year die in traffic accidents*. World wide trends in stats show that number is somewhere between 20 and 100 high than it should be*. I figure the "wipe off five" campaign is killing an extra 30 people a year.
They use the distance over time cameras between Sydney and Melbourne in Victoria and have for years. The police stopped counting a number of single victim accidents in the road stats as well. Apparently stressing out drivers so bad they have a stroke and kill other people doesn't count as a "road accident" anymore since it was a "medical problem"
* data can be found on VicRoad's annual reports and crashstats web sites and backed up references found in a wonderful bit of fiction published by the Victorian Auditor-General.
That only means that they would lower speed limits or increase other tickets until profits are back up.
With higher standards for vehicle roadworthiness and driver performance (namely through automation), you may be able to raise those limits a bit, but even with perfect driver performance there's still a physical limit to a vehicle's ability to overcome inertia and change direction.
Personally, I would prefer we increase driver performance by actually training drivers beyond minimal competency. It is way too easy to get a drivers license in many places in the US. Drivers are not trained in accident avoidance, car control or skid control. Instead, it's pull out into traffic, change lanes, make a left turn against traffic, and Bam! you're a licensed driver! Increasing driver competence and confidence would go a long way towards traffic safety, and would be much more effective than these stupid cameras.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I do it for the fun of it. A turbo car with tight suspension and sticky tires is a blast to drive!
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I have never seen this happen. But if it did, I would just "lose" my toll ticket. It's a bit more on the toll, but much cheaper than a ticket.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I don't mind being passed at all. What I have a problem with is being tailgated. I've been rear-ended and I find people getting too close to be very distracting and uncomfortable, like when you're going 10-15 over the limit on a rural road and some asshat is less than a car length behind you. Or when you're stuck behind someone else on the same road and there's no option to pass and the guy behind you is right on your ass. I generally give the tailgater a brake-check and then slow down if he doesn't get the hint.
you know who the driver is [or] you are driving it
Hypothetically:
If I have a wife and a teenager who're both allowed to use the family car (fill it up before you bring it back) and I'm not at home 24 hours a day, no, I don't know who the driver is when your fancy camera took my car's picture. Too bad that picture doesn't show who the driver was, hmm?
And I won't do your detective work for you, officer (a.k.a. go asking everyone to try to find out who was driving it).
And you can't charge me for a crime I didn't commit, and if I did commit it, you'll have to have some evidence because I'm not testifying against myself.
And I very politely just told you to go fuck yourself, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Have a nice day, officer.
Come back with a picture showing who the driver was.
Doppler shift can not measure the speed but can be used to deduce the speed in most cases.
If that poster is still reading: why does it make you so angry? What is wrong with someone going past? You're going to get to your destination at a pace you are obviously happy with , since you chose to go at the speed you are doing; so what is wrong with someone else getting to their destination at their pace? It doesn't affect you..
It doesn't make me one tenth as angry as apparently one sentence from my end made you.
It's all a matter of degrees. You took my "throw away" statement and blew it up to -1 troll proportions. Who's the control freak now? ha!
But, seriously, read my post again. I'm not applauding the latest traffic camera. I hate traffic cameras and I would think the con I pointed out makes that clear. Do you really think I want some camera on me? No. Not if all it's going to do is ding me and anyone else for going 5.01 mph over the limit.
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
In any case, nothing in your post is even remotely true. There are several methods of measuring speed that do not require radar.
Yet the biggest stock of speed detecting devices in pretty much every police department around the world is the handheld radar. Their faults are many and you can google those if you want. Sure I'm more than happy for vehicle mounted cameras or other technologies. I'm a big proponent of fixed speed cameras and police doing whatever is necessary to stop some of the lunatics on the road.
I will not ever endorse a system with a fail human element in it, or a system which needs to be used very carefully in a controlled set of circumstances.
Actually just the other day there was news of a report which showed that judges are more lenient just after lunchtime when taking on parole cases. Thanks but not thanks. I'd rather be ticketed by a machine, not by a person. I'd rather rely on not speeding than good speaking skills to get me out of a ticket.
You would probably receive fewer tickets if you did not speed.
Wouldn't know. From a sample size of zero I don't have much to go by.
I think it's the new trendy thing to drive around with high beams on all the time.
Or maybe I'm just noticing it more because it's dark when I drive to work now. I'll be glad for the brief reprieve when DST ends next Monday. I'll be driving to work while it's light out for a while.