Drones: Coming Soon To the New Jersey Turnpike?

redletterdave writes "The FAA predicts 30,000 drones will patrol the US skies by 2020, but New Jersey drivers could see these unmanned aerial vehicles hovering above the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway much sooner than that. New Jersey lawmakers from both Republican and Democratic parties have introduced a number of bills to tackle the drones issue before the federal government starts issuing the first domestic drone permits in September 2015."

Comments

Frosty Piss

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our hovering unmanned overlords!

Re:Frosty Piss

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Union, hovering unmanned overlords; welcome you!

Re:Frosty Piss

[jklovanc]

Unmanned is am misnomer. Even if the pilot is on the ground there is still a person involved with controlling the drone. Calling a drone "remotely manned" is much more accurate.

Re:Frosty Piss

[symbolset]

Symbolset school of linguistics here: If there is no person inside the aircraft it is an "unmanned" craft, commonly given as "drone". If there is a human inside and nominally in control of the aircraft it is a "plane". If there are one or more humans inside but none in control it is a "manned drone" or "passenger drone".

Whether an AI is a person is still subject to debate. The of aircraft by a person is assumed, except in UFO situations. Whether UFO controllers exist or are persons is also open to debate.

Re:Frosty Piss

[ebno-10db]

Symbolset school of linguistics here: If there is no person inside the aircraft it is an "unmanned" craft, commonly given as "drone". If there is a human inside and nominally in control of the aircraft it is a "plane". If there are one or more humans inside but none in control it is a "manned drone" or "passenger drone".

How about "flying thing".

Re:Frosty Piss

[SpectreBlofeld]

Until we identify it, it's a UFO...

Re:Frosty Piss

[nobodie]

Well fortunately this is happening in New Jersey, not in the USA

Risk vs. Reward?

[dgatwood]

How often do these things fall out of the sky, and does the added revenue offset the lives lost when they do?

Just saying.

I tend to think that drones should be used only in unusual circumstances, where unusual is translated as "high reward and low risk." Locating a lost hiker in a national park qualifies. Raising traffic fine revenue does not.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[ArcadeNut]

In addition to that, what is it going to do with an already over stressed Air Traffic Control system?

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[houbou]

You haven't seen the drivers on the Garden State Parkway. Speed Limit varies from 55 to 65 mph where there is no construction happening and people typically average 75 mph, many easily go 80 mph. In the short term, these drones will catch a lot of offenders. I'm pretty sure of that.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean it is about revenue? not safety?

I submit that if people are regularly going 75 in 55 zones and there are not massive pileups every week then the speed limit is set too low. Why would they do that?

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[xaoslaad]

How is that different than anywhere else in the country, (where traffic isn't backed up) in the morning. I do 70 and feel like I'm in the way and going to be run off the road.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[afidel]

And yet people aren't dying at an alarming rate on the turnpike or any other interstate highway, the roads and cars are built to handle at much higher speeds than are posted in the U.S. Hell, 20 years ago cars sucked compared to today but I was able to drive a fairly normal sedan at 100mph on the autobahn without incident. What we really need to do to improve safety isn't to crack down on speeding, it's crack down on distracted driving, a week doesn't go buy that some idiot on a cellphone or putting on their makeup doesn't come within second of crashing into me (defensive driving and ABS for the win).

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[ShanghaiBill]

In addition to that, what is it going to do with an already over stressed Air Traffic Control system?

These drones can be easily programmed to keep clear of any airports, flight paths, and other restricted areas. There are plenty of good reasons to be concerned about drones, but this isn't one of them.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[BitterOak]

How often do these things fall out of the sky, and does the added revenue offset the lives lost when they do?

Ummm, the whole point of drones is, they're unmanned. There may be loss of money when they fail, but not life.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[OhPlz]

How often do these things fall out of the sky, and does the added revenue offset the lives lost when they do?

Ummm, the whole point of drones is, they're unmanned. There may be loss of money when they fail, but not life.

You're assuming that they don't hit anything when they fall out of the sky.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[ShanghaiBill]

you mean it is about revenue? not safety?

Of course it is about revenue. Governments need revenue to operate. A tax on speeders seems like a good way to do it.

I submit that if people are regularly going 75 in 55 zones and there are not massive pileups every week then the speed limit is set too low. Why would they do that?

Because if they raise the limit to 75, people will drive 85. Americans have been conditioned to believe that the "real" speed limit is at least 10 mph over the posted limit.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[flayzernax]

Also Americans are unwilling to adjust to a slower safer speed when necessary. Inclement whether, snow, ice, fog. Nope speed limits 55, better go 65 when there's deer and the fog is thick enough that your headlights don't max out their beam distance.

The universe is a fairly forgiving place though when it comes to that kind of stupidity en-masse. Except for those tragic times when an avoidable accident could be avoided.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Darkness404]

So in other words the best way to steal money is from people doing victimless "crimes"? Lets put a tax on breathing! Think of all the money the government could raise!

The real issue (assuming we have government provided roads) should be safety.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Alex Pennace]

Because if they raise the limit to 75, people will drive 85. Americans have been conditioned to believe that the "real" speed limit is at least 10 mph over the posted limit.

That is an interesting point so I did some research. I found FHWA Report No. FHWA-RD-92-084 (one source of which is at http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html but other copies agree) that says "The results of the study indicated that lowering posted speed limits by as much as 20 mi/h (32 km/h), or raising speed limits by as much as 15 mi/h (24 km/h) had little effect on motorist' speed."

I'm curious if you had any citations to confirm your statement.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[dgatwood]

Because if they raise the limit to 75, people will drive 85.

And it would probably still be safe....

Americans have been conditioned to believe that the "real" speed limit is at least 10 mph over the posted limit.

Because it usually is. As far as I'm concerned, the law should simply say, "You may not travel at a speed that is unsafe for the current road conditions." Anything demanding strict conformance to a posted number (rather than driving at a speed that feels safe) is just asking for people to ignore the law... or worse.

The worst example of a highway safety law is California's 65 MPH law. Except for a few roads where it is specifically posted at 70 MPH, it is illegal to drive faster than 65 MPH in California, period. All other speed limits are flexible, depending on driving conditions. What this means is:

• If I speed in a 50 zone, if everyone is going 64 (even if that is verging on unsafe), you can potentially argue your way out of the ticket.
• If I go 66 in a 65 zone, even if everyone else is going 66, you can't argue your way out of the ticket.

So if you're running behind and trying to decide where to exceed the speed limit, you're better off speeding on the city street portions of your trip (where there are pedestrians) or the windy highways from hell (CA SR-17 with its constant switchbacks) than on the relatively safe 65 MPH stretches. In short, by any rational interpretation of California traffic laws, the 65 MPH maximum speed law is actively making the roads less safe, because on the roads where speeding would provably pose the least additional risk, the law restricts your speed in the strictest way possible, and on the roads where speeding would provably pose the most additional risk, the law restricts your speed in the most lax way possible.

And people wonder why I think traffic laws are almost entirely written by idiots.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[c0lo]

you mean it is about revenue? not safety?

Of course it is about revenue. Governments need revenue to operate. A tax on speeders seems like a good way to do it.

What exactly does operate means? Is it by chance "spend a imperial fuckton of money on drones to catch a few drivers that will quickly learn to adapt?" followed by "raise taxes to pay back the wasted fuckton"?

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[dgatwood]

How often do these things fall out of the sky, and does the added revenue offset the lives lost when they do?

Ummm, the whole point of drones is, they're unmanned. There may be loss of money when they fail, but not life.

You're assuming that they don't hit anything when they fall out of the sky.

Which, on the New Jersey Turnpike, is about as likely as a polar bear on the New Jersey Turnpike.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Kahlandad]

you mean it is about revenue? not safety?

Of course it is about revenue. Governments need revenue to operate. A tax on speeders seems like a good way to do it.

Exactly! How else are they going to pay for those 30,000 new drones?

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[acedotcom]

illegal to the point that you would have to have the biggest balls ever to use one. its like shining a high powered laser pointer at a police helicopter levels of stupid right there.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[j3p0]

  We live under an approach to Logan Airport (BOS), about 20 years ago a British Ariways flight loses a chunk of its flap, which is a flat- ish piece of wing-shaped aluminum that weighed maybe 100 lbs. Tumbles down a few thousand feet and bounces off the roof of a house about 300 feet away from mine. bounces again off the family car and lands on the driveway. Family is inside having a holiday dinner, family includes a couple of attorneys BTW. You can probably guess how this turned out for them.

My wife asks me if we're insured for that sort of thing, I say "Sweetie...we only need insurance if our house hits their plane."

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[hb253]

Because if they raise the limit to 75, people will drive 85. Americans have been conditioned to believe that the "real" speed limit is at least 10 mph over the posted limit.

Nope. Most will drive at at the speed the road was designed for. The minority of idiots will drive stupidly no matter what laws are in effect.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[dgatwood]

There are many differences:

• Manned planes have a person who can actively steer them to minimize collateral damage if they're going down.
• Manned planes are required by law to comply with maintenance schedules designed to ensure safety.
• Manned planes are not (usually) controlled by a computer that can be vulnerable to software bugs.
• Manned planes are not (usually) vulnerable to EMPs or random stray cosmic rays.
• Manned planes are not made en masse by the lowest bidder.
• Manned planes are inherently limited in number by the number of available pilots and the salary of those pilots.

Need I continue?

This is not to say that drones won't have fewer accidents per vehicle (assuming a single pilot who could have a heart attack), but if you can buy the drones for a few hundred bucks apiece, you can potentially deploy tens of thousands of them for less money than a single manned aircraft (over the long term). So even tiny failure rates can pose a very serious problem.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they fly less than 500ft (and most do) then they are not in the Air Traffic space.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[PopeRatzo]

In the short term, these drones will catch a lot of offenders.

"Catch"?

Oh. I was sorta hoping for the COD4-style Predator drones. There was a lady in a blue MDX, talking away on her cell phone who cut me off on the Eisenhower this morning. I immediately thought how nice it would be if I could call down a drone strike on her with my smartphone.

So that's NOT what this story is about?

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[AthanasiusKircher]

That's an interesting study, but I'm not sure it answers the GP's assertion directly. From the study:

This study was conducted to examine driver behavior and accident effects of raising and lowering posted speed limits on nonlimited access rural and urban highways. While much research in recent years has focused on the effects of the 55 and 65 mi/h (89 and 105 km/h) speed limits on limited access facilities, the major emphasis of this research is on streets and highways that were posted between 20 and 55 mi/h (32 and 89 km/h)

In other words, this is isn't really a interstate highway speed study. Such studies are out there, but this isn't one of them. They may have drawn similar conclusions, but we should look at a study that actually addresses speed limits like 65 MPH and 75 MPH on limited access roads.

In my experience (which admittedly is just anecdotal), highway drivers are more conscious of speed limits -- and potentially wanting to push them as much as possible -- than random drivers around town. If I'm not on a limited access road and trying to dodge pedestrians and cyclists and random people turning left everywhere, those sorts of things will probably feed into my sense of a "natural speed limit" more than anything else.

Whereas if I'm on an open straight limited access road, the only things preventing my speed from rising are (1) traffic, (2) my willingness to drive at high speeds, and (3) the posted limit.

Also, I would note that the linked study doesn't have details on how long-term any of these changes were. All it says is:

Repeated measurements were made at 14 sites to examine short - and long-term effects of speed limit changes.

I'd expect that driver speed wouldn't adjust that much on lower speed roads for reasons I already mentioned, but even if it could, the "herd mentality" of people used to driving those routes probably would require quite a bit of time (maybe years) for speeds to gradually move as more drivers take the time to notice the new limit. Once a certain percentage of people start noting the new limit that's 10 MPH higher and start driving a little faster, the traffic patterns could change. I've certainly noticed this myself on some interstate highways that raised speed limits. Maybe I missed it, but I can't tell how long-term this study was, so I'm not sure how to evaluate its data. (Furthermore, there's a lot of cherry-picking of numbers -- 85th percentile in this fact, 75th in that fact, 50th in this fact, 99th or 1st in another... it's difficult to get a sense of what the data might really have shown. I'm not saying the study is bad, but it's hard to evaluate based on your link.)

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Austerity Empowers]

With 3D printed surface to air missiles, every day!

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Nyder]

You haven't seen the drivers on the Garden State Parkway. Speed Limit varies from 55 to 65 mph where there is no construction happening and people typically average 75 mph, many easily go 80 mph. In the short term, these drones will catch a lot of offenders. I'm pretty sure of that.

And it bothers you that drivers drive a bit faster when traffic conditions permit it? Do you get mad when there is construction and people have to drive at 45 mph?

Is there children walking along side this "Parkway" that people speed on? School zones? Stop lights? No? STFU.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[R3d M3rcury]

As far as I'm concerned, the law should simply say, "You may not travel at a speed that is unsafe for the current road conditions." Anything demanding strict conformance to a posted number (rather than driving at a speed that feels safe) is just asking for people to ignore the law...

This always sounds like a good idea. Here's the problem, though: Who decides that the speed was unsafe?

Obviously, you wouldn't be driving at an unsafe speed. So you're cruising down that rain-slicked highway at 85 MPH and everything is fine until some other idiot who doesn't believe 85 MPH is a safe speed shows up in front you doing 50. As you slam into the back of him, you think, "This isn't my fault! It's that idiot driving 50 MPH! I was perfectly safe until he showed up!"

Yes, in an ideal world, we would all drive at a safe speed and be respectful of each other. But the reality is that you have different people with different driving abilities and different cars with different capabilities and the whole idea that everybody on the freeway can be trusted to "do the right thing" is completely absurd. That's why you need to have an arbitrary number.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[icebike]

In addition to that, what is it going to do with an already over stressed Air Traffic Control system?

What added revenue?
How are these going to generate revenue from a thousand feet up without the help of another officer on the ground to actually issue the ticket?
Bar codes on every car roof?

These are going to cause more accidents than they prevent as every driver will be rubber necking th sky instead of watching the road.
Just ban them instead of going down that road.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Nyder]

you mean it is about revenue? not safety?

Of course it is about revenue. Governments need revenue to operate. A tax on speeders seems like a good way to do it.

...

We could legalize drugs. It would not only get rid of the whole "war on drugs" problem, and earn a decent revenue for the government. Would reduce the cost of prisons and courts, and a whole bunch of other wasted costs we have because of it.

Would bring in a bit more money then fining speeders.

 

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[icebike]

Rf jammers are nothing at all like lasers you idiot.
You can hide them in the bushes, on roof tops, or every 5th car.
When even a $5 jammer can crash a $20k drone its a losing battle.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[girlintraining]

In addition to that, what is it going to do with an already over stressed Air Traffic Control system?

The ATC system is "over stressed" because of large numbers of commercial flights, of which the majority are shipping. UPS, DHS, FedEx... they all have larger fleets than any commercial airline you're flying.

Drones don't need runway clearances, etc., and as long as they maintain flight separation (vertical and horizontal) in controlled airspace they're a non-event. ATC could care less -- they probably wouldn't even be on radar anyway, since to my knowledge they don't carry transponders. Remember that guy who decided to go hook up a bunch of weather balloons and float through the LAX holding pattern? Their first indication of trouble was a pilot radioing that he saw some guy with a shotgun float by the window sucking down a beer.

Controllers don't usually look at the actual radar. It's all transponders. You could fly an aircraft carrier through the flight corridor and it would go unnoticed by ATC until someone called it in. -_-

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Runaway1956]

What is a "safe speed" anyway?

Speed limits are NOT set to safe speeds. They are set to maximize revenues. The 85th percentile was the standard, before politicians got involved in speed limits. Open up a highway, and post no speed limits at all. Monitor the speeds at which people travel. After a period of time, set the speed at the 85th percentile, and you have a safe speed. In the case of a blind curve or something, you should post a lower limit as a warning.

Enforcing the law just because it is the law is moronic. Change the law.

One of the first lessons of leaderships is, "Never give an order that you know will not be obeyed." Ask any military officer of NCO/petty officer.

You know, I know, everyone in America knows that the nationwide 55 mph limit was ignored while it was in effect. Ditto with many speed limits around the nation.

Go back to the 85th percentile, then aggressively go after people who break THAT law. Stop robbing people for conforming to the flow of traffic.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[dgatwood]

Umm... we're not talking about commercial airlines here. That's an entirely different universe. The comparison was between drones and traffic aircraft, which almost certainly are not fly-by-wire. They're usually either small airplanes (e.g. Cessna) or small helicopters.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[drinkypoo]

My car is more than 20 years old and the American cars of today still don't handle as well. The 300M for example got a fucked-over E-class front end. I have an S-class. The cars of today can bite my choad.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[dgatwood]

How are these going to generate revenue from a thousand feet up without the help of another officer on the ground to actually issue the ticket?
Bar codes on every car roof?

License plate readers. That part isn't even hard.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[drinkypoo]

Highway 17 is perfect and beautiful compared to highway 175. If somehow human nature changed and the dickweeds who aren't fast would get the fuck out of the fast lane, it would be one of the best highways ever. Back before all the fucking valleys moved into my hometown, it was one of the best highways ever. Okay, so it had a couple of sections with undefined camber, but you shouldn't push your car too hard on roads you don't know, period. Also, it's not very windy at all. The 101, that's windy. Or did you mean winding? Because 9, that's winding.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Runaway1956]

"Also Americans are unwilling to adjust to a slower safer speed when necessary."

Citations?

I've driven professionally. And, I drive as fast as just about anyone. But - I drive for conditions. In the millions of miles that I have driven, I've seen some memorable wrecks caused by morons who didn't understand the laws of physics. But, overall, Americans are quite willing to slow down for snow, ice, rain and low visibility.

There are exceptions, like the California freeways. Seems that everyone is afraid to slow down for fog, because they'll be rear ended. That, plus they seem to assume that the roadway is clear ahead of them. But, overall - Americans are willing to slow down when necessary.

I would hazard a guess that we have roughly the same percentage of morons driving to fast for conditions as can be found in Europe, Asia, or anywhere else. Aside from regional idiosyncracies, the biggest problem is that weather conditions can change without warning, catching drivers by surprise. When black ice forms, there is no warning, no perceptible differences occur - suddenly, everyone is left with no control, and inertia takes over. The ditches are littered with cars then.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[icebike]

So you postulate the drones flying at an altitude of less than 20 feet?

Because if you can read license plates well enough to issue tickets from 50 feet above the roadway just mounting cameras on light poles would suffice. But that really doesn't work and license plates do not have to be readable from above.
.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[drinkypoo]

You are too late with your helpful suggestion. Obamacare is a tax on everyone who lives. Doesn't matter if *you* do not need insurance. Big Brother knows best.

We all pay into fire services so that when someone else's house is burning, it gets put out, because burning houses are toxic and because they might light our house on fire. We pay into society because if society burns down we all fail.

Whether Obamacare is a good implementation is another question, I personally think the answer is no. Whether national health is a good idea, however... if you don't think so, you need to come down off your ivory tower and take a look at what is going on in this country. Unless you really are of the mindset that we should simply let the unproductive die, in which case I hope you die of ass cancer.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[dgatwood]

Unless they're on the approach path near an airport. When planes fly over I-880 in San Jose, for example, I'm pretty sure they're way below 500 feet in HAAT. There is basically no safe altitude for a UAV over that stretch of road, unless the UAV is piloted by a real person, coordinating with ATC.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[dgatwood]

This is why you post a speed. That speed dictates what is typically safe. If your car is well maintained and the road is wide open and dry, you can go a bit over that. If the road is wet and you have bald tires, you'd better go more slowly.

Who decides that the speed was unsafe?

Whoever is patrolling that stretch of highway, and has footage showing you swerving between lanes at 85 while the rest of the cars are going 50. For the most part, roads self-regulate, and cars tend to run along at about the same speed. Having a few cars going 10 MPH slower to obey an arbitrary posted speed limit actually results in a significantly higher risk of accidents than having everyone going 10 MPH over the limit, on the average.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[tftp]

Who decides that the speed was unsafe?

In addition to what you already explored, there is yet another aspect. What vehicle are we talking about? A low-riding Corvette is probably capable of better handling at speed than a tall, box-like RV that tows a couple tons of an SUV. That yellow sign "40" that you see before the switchback, who does it apply to? The answer is obvious, of course - the sign is designed for the worst possible vehicle that can venture onto a public road. My car can take these turns at about +10 mph over the recommended speed - but if you go higher then you start hearing noises from the tires that indicate slipping, and that can quickly lead to loss of control. A sports car, with softer tires and lower center of mass, can do much better (just look at F1 cars.)

This results in a situation when the speed limit signs lose meaning. They are not even informative, unless you are driving a 10 ton truck or a double-decker bus. Most drivers use modern cars that are stable at higher speeds.

The most logical solution would be to assign speed groups to specific stretches of roads; the only exception is when the speed is limited by visibility. Each speed group would then be mapped into the physical speed of a given vehicle. Bad vehicles will calculate lower speed, but sports vehicles will be allowed to go faster. Perhaps the easiest way to accomplish that is by using GPS. If the GPS has a black box then it could calculate the maximum speed for your car, and record the actual speed - and warn you with some sound when you go faster. If you don't have the GPS then you drive the speed that is posted, as it is today.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[dgatwood]

You need trained pilots/operators and still are limited by range.

AFAIK, most newer UAVs are autonomous, including takeoff and landing. They require an operator only when they discover something that warrants a person's attention. You could quite literally run these things up and down the road all day, and your only personnel costs would be the person examining the suspicious footage to write the tickets and the person filling them up with fuel.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[0111 1110]

Americans are well known as some of the slowest and most terrified drivers in the world. Fast is subjective. What is fast to one person is slow to another. It's almost funny, but more pathetic, to watch all the cowardly slow drivers putting around deathly afraid of an accident.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[dgatwood]

Highway 17's biggest problem is that they allow trucks and buses on it.

• The car speed limit is 50. Most cars drive 50-65, with the most common speed being about 55, but with 65+ being not uncommon.
• The truck speed limit is 35.

So, there's a 30+ MPH difference between the fastest and slowest vehicles. Anything more than about a 15 MPH speed difference translates to a very, very unsafe road.

When you get a truck going 35 in the right lane, all the cars who want to go 50 have to pass in the same fast lane as the cars who want to go 65. Half of them are scared to pass, and end up passing a 35 MPH truck at 40 MPH, creating a cascading backup that can stretch for miles. The other half are angry that they can't go 60+. It is in this sort of backup that accidents are likely to occur, particularly when changing lanes to pass the slow vehicle.

By comparison, 175 might be curvy, but AFAIK (I've never driven that road) it has only one lane in each direction, and where it is unsafe, it is obviously unsafe, so people don't drive like morons. In much the same way, highway 9 is a curvy nightmare, but the problem spots are clearly marked, and people generally respect the road. What makes 17 so bad is that what looks like a halfway decent road really isn't. :-)

Also, it's not very windy at all. The 101, that's windy. Or did you mean winding?

Windy (long "I") is a synonym for winding. :-)

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[dgatwood]

No, the 85th percentile is a good limit as a baseline. You should aggressively go after people who are driving above... say the 99th percentile. Enforcing any law that 15% of people break is generally a bad idea.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Anonymous Coward]

What you want is a kenetic energy limit. Small light cars can go fast, bug trucks must go slowly.
You also must have STRICT lanne discipline with ruthless enforcement. But I'd like enforcement of lane discipline right now.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[ShanghaiBill]

I would hazard a guess that we have roughly the same percentage of morons driving to fast for conditions as can be found in Europe, Asia, or anywhere else.

Your guess would be wrong. American roads are among the safest in the world. There are a few countries in North Europe that are better, but nearly everywhere else is far worse. Citation:List of countries by traffic related death rate. When you look at this chart, you should ignore the meaningless raw death rate (many countries have few cars) and instead look at the number of deaths per 100k cars or number of deaths per billion miles driven.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[tftp]

We all pay into fire services so that when someone else's house is burning, it gets put out, because burning houses are toxic and because they might light our house on fire.

Yes, and that is a sensible decision; the same would be made by a commune of independent homeowners. The chance of fire igniting in any given residence is the same for all residences, and the danger is also about the same. So it would make plenty of sense to divide the risk equally.

However this wouldn't be such a simple case if one of your houses is a hovel that is occupied by a druggie who cooks meth while smoking.

In case of healthcare, risks are not equal. Far from it. There are many reasons - genetical, behavioral, occupational, and probably more - why the risks are not equal.

The danger is also not equal to all members of the set. If member A breaks a leg, this results in no danger to member B. His leg is not going to get broken, or even bruised. There is no incentive to pay into the common fund.

There is also yet another reason. Some people have their own arrangements for their healthcare. For example, their trust fund may pay, or their wealthy parents, or they themselves may sit on a couple million dollars, or they have their own insurance arrangements that have nothing to do with anything or anyone else (like having a family diamond ring that is easy to sell if need be.)

Not everyone is obsessed with careful preservation of their precious life either. We can see that among many high risk behaviors (tobacco, drugs, alcohol, crime, thrill-seeking, dangerous sex practices, etc.) IMO, if these people want to risk their life, it's their right - and I don't need to pay up when another gangbanger shows up with a couple new 9mm holes in his stomach.

This inequality is exactly what is undermining the national healthcare. The spectrum of health-related behaviors is too wide. I personally could be persuaded to join a mutual insurance group that contains members just like myself - with the same risk, with the same chance of getting into trouble, and with the same income (that defines how much we all pay into the common fund.) But I have no interest in joining the club if it includes everyone. If smokers want to insure themselves against lung cancer (and finance the treatment when they ultimately need it) - I'm all for it, as long as I have nothing to do with them.

Unless you really are of the mindset that we should simply let the unproductive die, in which case I hope you die of ass cancer.

Well, I'm not into that kind of thing. But it is a complicated question - what to do with unproductive members of the society? Many writers explored this, but there is no working solution.

As you mention, one solution is just to let them fend for themselves - and die, if they are unsuccessful. This is how it was for most of the recorded human history. Perhaps we lost more than a few good men this way. We'll never know how, unless someone can be bothered to go back and fork the timeline. Today, though, in this "enlightened" society, it is considered un-PC to let people die.

If you just want to feed the needy homeless people, that is relatively simple. A human cannot eat more than he can eat, and basic food is cheap enough. A handful of pasta per day will keep a man alive, and that costs what, 50 cents, including the cooking?

But if you want to *treat* such people ... well, that is a far more complex problem. There is no upper limit on medical expenses. In fact, they tend to go to infinity. The only limit to that is lack of funds. All humans, rich and poor, die from something that could be prevented, treated, or at least delayed for a day, or a week, or a year. But they die when they die, because they didn't get that treatment - it was too expensive, or simply impractical.

Now take an average homeless man. He is likely to have some serious, maybe even untreatable, diseases. Often these are of psychiatric nature, but they c

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[ShanghaiBill]

We could legalize drugs.

Colorado and Washington already have, and since the sky hasn't fallen like all the chicken-littles predicted, more states will likely follow. Legalization might be on the ballot this fall in California.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[OhANameWhatName]

I'm curious if you had any citations to confirm your statement

3 DUI's

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[stanlyb]

The company that starts to sell "Kill one drone, win $1000" game would became the next Google in guns :D

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cameras on poles aren't able to accurately judge a vehicle's speed

Rubbish.

Cameras on pole A (one near the ground, to read license plates, and one at the top of the pole, for accurate location info, and maybe to catch vandals working over the one near the ground) simultaneously take a picture every time a car passes through a target zone in front of it (using e.g. ultrasound ranging sensor, light curtain, whatever, to detect it); similar cameras on pole B 100m up the road do the same. If a picture of the same car is taken by both camera clusters within ~3.6 seconds, it's going over 100km/h, and since both cameras are aimed, and the target zones are set, to ensure best visibility of the license plates, we'll be able to tell whether it's really the same car, or an identical car with different plates. To compute the exact speed, we must consider the position in the top camera's view -- but since it's looking almost straight down, parallax is negligible, so you just measure the distance along the roadway (for bonus points, have reflectors in the roadway at precisely known spacings, use these both for initial calibration and to defend the accuracy of the measurement in court) in each picture and add/subtract to the 100m baseline.

And yeah, when some dumb-arse says "that's just an average speed, you can't prove I ever traveled that exact speed", we call a high school maths teacher as an expert witness to explain the mean value theorem.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[They'reComingToTakeM]

"Cameras on poles aren't able to accurately judge a vehicle's speed"

They can in the UK, where they're networked together and know how far apart they are.
If you show up at camera #2 before camera #1 told it you'd be there, that's a ticket.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the entire list of services provided by speed traps:

• 0: Revenue generation

I triple checked but I can't find "safety" anywhere in that list.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[flayzernax]

Meh depends on where your at and what your doing. I routinely see drivers race each other only to catch up to them 2 minutes later at the red light. People don't drive very efficiently where I am at.

I would agree that in general the over all speed limit could be adjusted up about 15-20 mph. But that would require everyone in general understanding that speed was closer to vehicle and human limitations then the current speeds which leave room for error.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[flayzernax]

Also, roads and interstates would need to be redesigned as well as traffic flow.

There are very few autobahn like places in the more densely populated areas. And I personally still drive a vehicle that performs poorly at 65mph. I would not want to drive it at 85-90 or even 100mph. I avoid the interstate with it, but there is one trip that requires a few miles on interstate. There's no way around it. On the other hand every American should have access to cheap safe efficient cars that can easily do 120mph. But that won't happen in this century.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Jonner]

You haven't seen the drivers on the Garden State Parkway. Speed Limit varies from 55 to 65 mph where there is no construction happening and people typically average 75 mph, many easily go 80 mph. In the short term, these drones will catch a lot of offenders. I'm pretty sure of that.

So, you're saying the reward is a dramatic decrease in transportation time efficiency?

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[deimtee]

In Victoria (AU) it's an absolute limit. 1 km/h over the limit is fined.
And you can't really challenge in court, because the law specifically defines the cameras / radars / lasers etc. as "accurate scientific instruments". Any contrary evidence as to speed is over-ruled.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[deimtee]

Oh the irony. Or did you mean, "safely pull over and stop, and then use my smartphone to call down a drone strike" ?

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[symbolset]

You're really going to hate the RC world in the next few years.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Smauler]

They can.... but when you've got 30,000, what's the chances just one gets hit by something and goes a little haywire.

I'm _not_ being melodramatic here.... just looking at the percentages. If it can be shown they have 0.001% odd failure rate per year (that is, not just crashing to the ground), then we'll have 30 per year doing odd failures.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[hajus]

How would such a business plan make money?

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Alioth]

But one of the least safe amongst developed countries. The US has a worse rate than Italy, and Italian drivers have one hell of a reputation for being bad. It's also worse than Spain which has a similar reputation to Italy, and double the accident rate per 100k cars than the UK and Germany (which has autobahns without speed limits).

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Alioth]

You obviously have never driven in Houston.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[mrvan]

Interesting wiki link, thanks!

If you compare the US with mostly "developing" nations, you are right, and I would guess that a lot of them are caused by bad roads, bad cars, and really bad driving, the latter presumably caused by easy to get licenses and bad policing.

If you compare the US to some OECD countries, the picture is different:

Country / deaths per 100k vehicles / deaths per 1B miles
USA / 15 / 8.5
Germany / 7.2 / 7.2
Netherlands / 7 / 5.6
Switzerland / 7 / 5.6
Sweden / 7 / 5.1
Belgium / 17 / 10.8
Italy / 12 / ?
Poland / 18 / 23.5
Serbia / 43 / ?
Egypt / 188 / ?
India / 315 /
Nigeria / 1042 / ?

So, the US has twice the per-vehicle death rate of countries like the Netherlands (really crowded), Germany (really fast driving), Switzerland (mountain roads and inclement weather) and Sweden (low population density). The per-mile deaths are higher (but not so much higher) than germany, and still a lot higher than the smaller countries. Even southern European countries like Italy but also Spain and France (both around 10) have less deaths/vehicle, even though people have "interesting" driving habits there. Unlisted countries like Sweden, the UK, denmark etc. are mostly similar to the Netherlands / Germany. Belgium is a weird outlier, as they are quite similar to the Netherlands in a lot of respects but have a much higher death rate.

Eastern (central) european countries like Poland but especially Serbia are a lot worse, and it seems to loosely correspond with economic development. If you look at countries like Egypt or India it becomes pretty bad, and a lot of African countries have >1000 deaths per 100k vehicles, e.g. a >1% annual death rate for vehicle owners. (That means that if you drive for 30 years, there is a chance of a fatal accident of around 25%... yikes!)

From the list above, it seems that there is a rough predictability of the danger of traffic based on national income and maybe population density, but the US is certainly on the "wrong end" of the prediction, comparable to Germany or Sweden in terms of wealth and population density, but with much higher death rates.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[kinkozmasta]

All other speed limits are flexible, depending on driving conditions.

This is not true and based on a misinterpretation of the law. From the California DMV website:

Driving faster than the posted speed limit or driving faster than safe for current conditions on any road is dangerous and illegal.

I happen to agree that certain speed limits or laws are in sync with practical driving considerations, your argument about irrational laws "actively making the roads less safe" is completely off base.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup - the quality and condition of the car makes a huge difference. My fairly ancient but well-maintained BMW feels safe & smooth at 90mph. My sister's falling-apart Hyundai station wagon, on the other hand, is frightening to drive at 65mph.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[MrMickS]

Highway 17's biggest problem is that they allow trucks and buses on it.

• The car speed limit is 50. Most cars drive 50-65, with the most common speed being about 55, but with 65+ being not uncommon.
• The truck speed limit is 35.

So, there's a 30+ MPH difference between the fastest and slowest vehicles. Anything more than about a 15 MPH speed difference translates to a very, very unsafe road.

Interesting comment, and perhaps it related to a GP about US drivers. In the UK trucks have a speed limit of 60 (though most are limited to 56) on the motorways, and the car speed limit is 70, though there is typically traffic moving at 80-85 in one lane at least. This would translate to these roads being very, very unsafe when in fact they are the safest group of roads in our network. Now, we do have good lane discipline on our motorways, undertaking is illegal and the vast majority don't even contemplate it, which may contribute to these speed differentials working. The point I'm trying to make is that its how you drive rather than speed differential that makes your Highway 17 an unsafe road.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[peragrin]

The autonomous long duration drones your talking about are literally small planes. They will not be allowed not take off from conventional airfields all by themselves. they might fly most of the day by themselves using preprogrammed routes but someone will still have to be in a control room watching the controls and camera's.

The smaller autonomous drones like the parrot have really short flight times of 20-30 minutes. that is only about long enough to chase a single suspect around the block, and they won't travel fast enough if they get into a car.

Lastly you have maintenance more flight time, is more maintenance. Police cars get overhauled a lot. Drones will require even more. Not only that but you need specialized aircraft mechanics to do the work on them. Because the first drone to fall from the sky and wipe out somebodies living room, because someone didn't check a spar for structural integrity will cause all sorts of problems.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[g1powermac]

I seriously wonder where on the GSP or NJT you can actually go 80mph without traffic or toll booths slowing you down. Having lived in NJ for a major part of my life, I rarely recall ever having the opportunity to go that fast.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[AmiMoJo]

the roads and cars are built to handle at much higher speeds than are posted in the U.S. Hell, 20 years ago cars sucked compared to today but I was able to drive a fairly normal sedan at 100mph on the autobahn without incident.

US roads are nowhere near the standard of autobahns. You also have to consider that you are not the only road user and some people might want to do 50 or 60mph on the same road (big trucks going up hill, for example). On an unfamiliar road there might be hazards you are not aware of that resulted in the speed limit being lower than appears necessary.

The reason speed limits are seemingly low is because people like you don't understand them.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderate size drones could fly at low altitudes that have no effect on other air traffic. They also can be programmed to fly slightly beside a road instead of right overhead. Thus any sudden emergency would not drop the drone onto traffic.
                      Sure traffic revenue would rise but better yet we should be able to remove drivers from the road who should not be allowed to drive. I have seen drivers out of a fit of temper, who deliberately run red lights in high speed, high flow intersections. The probability of repairing a personality with that kind of defect is so low that a very, long term or life long loss of license from one incident is warranted. We also have high speed chase situations that are too dangerous and the criminal escapes. With a good supply of drones we should be able to lock onto a driver and follow him until he can be safely stopped. High speed chases are a daily event in south Florida. We actually could make good use of armed drones here as well. There are enough escape attempts from violent crimes to justify the use of some sort of grenade or small missile able to destroy a car.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[mog007]

Colorado and Washington have only legalized marijuana. It's a good first step, but the war on drugs is still raging in those states.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[penix1]

If they fly less than 500ft (and most do) then they are not in the Air Traffic space.

Which completely ignores helicopter traffic... (News, police, medical air lifts, etc...)

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[ebno-10db]

Here's the entire list of services provided by speed traps:

• 0: Revenue generation

I triple checked but I can't find "safety" anywhere in that list.

Nonsense. They help to safely ensconce our public servants in their jobs.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[drinkypoo]

Highway 17's biggest problem is that they allow trucks and buses on it.

It really isn't. The biggest problem is that they allow idiots who can't drive on it. What we need is a graduated licensing system, many people would be unable to drive into Santa Cruz at all. A plan with no drawbacks.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[PFactor]

Not to pick nits, but you should really use metric units in your measurements. 1 imperial fuckton = 1 metric asston.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[drinkypoo]

Yes, and that is a sensible decision; the same would be made by a commune of independent homeowners. The chance of fire igniting in any given residence is the same for all residences, and the danger is also about the same. So it would make plenty of sense to divide the risk equally.

No, this is not even vaguely true, because all houses do not occupy the same space. Thus, your comment is based on a falsehood.

In case of healthcare, risks are not equal. Far from it. There are many reasons - genetical, behavioral, occupational, and probably more - why the risks are not equal.

The risks are not even understood, they cannot be calculated. But we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that when some people are sick it increases the risk for everyone else, just like when one person's house burns, it increases the risk for everyone else. It does not increase it equally as you assert in either case. In fact, the more times I read you saying that, the more sure I am that you have something wrong with you.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[afidel]

If you're not passing then you should be to the right so the slower traffic argument is wrong. As far as the condition of the roads, that's mostly correct but you don't have to have perfect roads to travel faster than 60, I should know I do at least one 1,000+ mile trip per year and cruise at 85 most of the time outside of cities.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Runaway1956]

I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstood the 85th percentile.

When there is no speed limit posted, people drive what they think is safe. Roughly 85% are going to drive safe speeds, or slower than safe speeds. Another 5 to 10% are going to push things a little bit. That top 5% is pushing things more than just a little. So, you watch the highway, to see how fast people are going, then set the speed limit to the 85th.

Most of those 5 to 10% who were pushing things a little bit, will VOLUNTARILY SLOW DOWN to the new speed limit. First, the difference probably isn't much - they don't feel very inconvenienced, if at all. Second, keep in mind that there WAS no speed limit - now there is one. MOST people will make some attempt to obey a sensible speed limit.

That remaining 5%? They knew all along that they were pushing things. With the imposition of a speed limit, they are likely to slow down, and conform to the flow of traffic. If not - then they'll pay the ticket.

In such a case, the flow of traffic will be at or near the posted speed limit. Contrast that with what we see around most cities. 40% or less is actually doing the speed limit. Doing the speed limit actually makes you a hazard, because your car is the ONLY ONE going that slow.

Or, to state the same thing in a different fashion - any time the majority of traffic is going over the speed limit, the posted limit is WRONG.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Anonymous Coward]

These drones can be easily programmed to keep clear of any airports, flight paths, and other restricted areas. There are plenty of good reasons to be concerned about drones, but this isn't one of them.

Recently, our local power utility improperly programmed one of our substations to believe that it had half the capacity that it really does. It kept shutting down unexpectedly, taking down the surrounding neighborhood. What makes you think these drones will be any different?

If they want to go through DOD level software proof, evaluation, testing, and auditing that's one thing, but a 20k-30k drone like the Canucks just used to find that guy with an on-board computer isn't likely to cut the mustard.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[gstoddart]

How would such a business plan make money?

Private donations? The idea of drones doing constant overwatch isn't going to make many people happy.

Because, of course, sooner or later this gets used for speeding tickets and all of the inevitable mission creep something like this will undergo.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Thornburg]

Great info and analysis, but you made one mistake.

The stats are traffic related fatalities per 100k vehicles per year. A nation with 1000 deaths per 100k vehicles per year does not equal a 1% annual death rate for vehicle owners, or the cumulative 25% over 30 years. The reason is that not all of the traffic related deaths are of vehicle owners, or even vehicle drivers. There are passengers and pedestrians as well. In countries with low average per capita income (or other economic indicator of your choice), the average number of passengers per vehicle tends to be higher. I don't have a study to link to prove this. Sorry.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Runaway1956]

I'm making a note for my round the world motorcycle tour:

DO NOT visit Ethiopia or Togo or Liberia - - -

Those countries give even more credence to the philosophy that a biker doesn't WANT to be seen.

(To clarify, a biker should never assume that he is visible. He should assume that the idiot in the car or the truck doesn't see him, and will wait until the worst possible moment to take the bike's lane. There's no point in wearing hi-vis clothing, because that only encourages the cagers to challenge you for your portion of the road.)

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[MagicM]

Americans have been conditioned to believe that the "real" speed limit is at least 10 mph over the posted limit.

Actually, it's the other way around. American speed-limit-setters have been told to post a speed limit that is at least 10 mph below the maximum speed people actually drive. More or less.

Or, from wikipedia:

The speed limit is commonly set at or below the 85th percentile speed (being the speed which no more than 15% of traffic is exceeding) and in the USA is typically set 8 to 12 mph (13 to 19 km/h) below that speed.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, I've got a 12 year old Pontiac that would happily do autobahn speeds. (Tires are also speed rated for what the speedometer goes up to, and everything is maintained well enough to trust it at such speeds.) And a few sections of interstate around here could be considered good enough for it. Given nice summer weather and light to no traffic, I'd personally have no problems cruising at 3 digit speeds. But since 55 is what the legal limit is, 75 is about as fast as I'm willing to go, otherwise the state troopers will take a particular interest.

Most of the problem (other than road quality and times of heavy traffic) is the local law makers. They seem to get their skivvies in a knot when anyone proposes raising the official speed limit from the official 55MPH to 70MPH which is what the defacto often is.

Most of the problems here isn't speed (although it's the most over-hyped factor), but rather risky and reckless behavior (weaving through traffic and cutting off other cars and/or tailgating), or inattentive driving. (Put away that damn phone!)

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[drinkypoo]

Now, we do have good lane discipline on our motorways, undertaking is illegal and the vast majority don't even contemplate it, which may contribute to these speed differentials working.

Do your cops actually pull people over for failure to yield the passing lane? It's illegal to clog it here, but they never ever pull anyone over for it.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[drinkypoo]

Yes, we know. Everything was better when you were younger. Movies, music, cars...... yawn.

Cars were not universally better. There were simply better cars available. Most cars sucked then, too. The problem is, all cars are now built like shit. The engines are better, but the rest is crap. So great, now we have better engines while the rest of the car still sucks, that'll end well.

Movies and music on the other hand, have you seen what passes for imagination today?

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[flayzernax]

Pretty much agreed with all that there. It's rather more noticeable here.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[flayzernax]

Try a 1990's ford pickup. I had a 81 BMW that the car was in poor shape, but the tires and suspension was still in fine shape and the engine ran fine. But some models are just poor or deteriorate to a point where maintenance and a nice set of tires does not cut it anymore.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[operagost]

Is your car's speedometer an "accurate scientific instrument"? How about the gas pedal, and its linkage? How about your foot: the bones, tendons, and muscles?

Expecting a driver to maintain an exact speed to the MPH, much less the km/h, is stupid.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Bigby]

Generally speaking, I go 9-10 over the speed limit. But this is a chicken-egg scenario. Am I going 9-10 over the speed limit because they set the speed limit 10 mph too low on purpose? Or do I go 9-10 over what they post? It is a combination of both.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Bigby]

OH and i80 in PA can easily support that and maybe 100mph. But many stretches of i70/i76 in PA cannot take 55mph. NJ highways are awful (not design, but road quality). If you can't trust that there isn't a massive pothole, it isn't good to be driving really fast.

When on the Autobahn, I noticed a lot of preventative maintenance during the day. Guys going around picking up debris. The roads were clean and no structural issues. Most roads are lined with trees or 30 ft walls. This makes crosswinds less of a factor...because they are VERY noticeable when going 100mph+.

There are a lot of improvements needed in the US to support such high speeds. And not just one time improvements...but constant monitoring. You can't have a shredded tire in a lane and expect someone to see it and react appropriately at really high speeds.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[X0563511]

... and that is why aircraft have transponders, and airports have radar and spotters.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[X0563511]

It's there to enforce the speed limit. Your argument is against speed limits, not law enforcement.

Last I checked, the police don't set the speed limit, they just make sure you obey it.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[X0563511]

It's hard to have a fatal accident when traffic is moving 5mph when it actually moves.

I have actually been there, in Rome, in traffic. People act insane, yes - but again it's hard to kill yourself when your car is moving slower than you can run.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[businessnerd]

Does that mean that the several miles of the turnpike that run parallel to the Newark airport runway can now be considered "Little Autobahn"? For those unfamiliar with the area, planes litterally take of an land right next to the turnpike. When I'm flying into EWR, I know we are in our final approach when I can see the turnpike.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[deimtee]

Is your car's speedometer an "accurate scientific instrument"? How about the gas pedal, and its linkage? How about your foot: the bones, tendons, and muscles?
Expecting a driver to maintain an exact speed to the MPH, much less the km/h, is stupid.

What I meant was, in the context of the law, you cannot challenge the reading on the device. Legally it is defined as absolutely correct.
Doesn't matter if you think you were doing 40 in a 60 zone. If the radar or laser says you were doing 61, then the law says the radar is correct. Arguments that the device was wrong are simply not allowed in court.

Your speedo is not considered a scientific instrument, and they don't care what it was reading.
It's your job to stay under the limit by enough that variation in speed doesn't take you over. They even run ad campaigns encouraging people to drive 5km/h under the limit.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Firethorn]

Expecting a driver to maintain an exact speed to the MPH, much less the km/h, is stupid.

Except that isn't the expectation. It's called a speed limit for a reason. You're expected to not exceed it. You can drive as far under it as you want unless a minimum speed limit is posted(such as 40mph on a lot of freeways).

Here in the states we have so many artificially low speed limits that people pay little attention to them, and as a result the cops generally don't bother people unless they're going faster than 5 to 10 over*, or otherwise driving stupidly.

I think I've heard about Victoria. They say the best way to get a bad law changed is to enforce it strictly - then the average people will rise up and force it's change. But in any case I've heard that Victoria has the highest rate of speed compliance, but they've paid in having the highest rate of gridlock and such. Turns out that you need a certain percentage of speeders in order to maintain good traffic flow.

Part of the problem here in the USA is that traffic departments don't follow DOT rules. For example, there's the speed limit rule - the speed limit should be: Take the 90th percentile speed(IE 90% of drivers drive at this speed or less) with NO speed limits, and round up to the nearest 5 mph. IE if the 90th percentile works out to be 53.7 mph, it would be a 55 mph zone. Many areas disregard this, some completely, with the most common being that they round down instead. They shorten the yellow to get more camera fees, etc...

*I'm in an area where they'll start stopping you at 6+ over

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[coyote_oww]

I'd like to see a chart detailing all the difference between the countries - would cut down speculation and assumption a lot. Off the top of my head, i can think of a few other contributing factors for differences in driving/driving related deaths:

1) difference in driving population
            a) lower/higher test/competency requirements
            b) age of drivers (do some countries have younger/older drivers, the two most accident prone demographic groups)
            c) literacy in signage (or the non-requirement of literacy for countries using more international text-free signage)
            d) driving culture (how much social approval for drugged or distracted driving, how proud are people of their driving skills)
                                          (proud of driving skills may not corelate with actual low death rates...suspect the corelation is elsewhere)
            e) average passengers (expect huge correlation, more passengers is more potential casualties, and more distraction for drivers)
2) Driving environment
            a) physical road conditions (average age/maintanence level, build level (dirt, gravel, undivided highways, divided, limited access, etc)
            b) weather (snow/ice frequency, etc)
            c) pedestrian culture (india vs new jersey)
            d) traffic law culture (how strict is average adherence - india vs germany)
            e) isolation of roads (how bored will drivers get)
            f) average speeds (urban and rural, vs speed of accidents)
            g) gas prices
            h) availability of alternate transportation (get shy, uncertain drivers off the road)
3) Vehicles
          a) average age
          b) average maintenance level (particularly tires)
          c) safety features (some evidence suggests a negative correlation for some features)
          d) power/weight averages (don't think this would correlate)

Anyone got a data source that would cover these factors?

I've watched a bit of "... worst drivers" shows, and they seem to pick set of drivers for each series where they have one driver for each stereotype bad driver type. (shy, aggressive, dominating passenger) plus a few genuine idiots. Be interesting to see if some countries do a better job of filtering one or another stereotype (genuine idiots being the most irredeemable type).

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[danlip]

The main problem with your argument is that we are already paying for the treatment of the hobo and the gangbanger, and we always have been. We don't let people die on the curb outside the hospital. The costs are factored into the medical bills and insurance of those who can pay. And for most diseases it is far cheaper to do preventative treatment or early treatment. So universal healthcare saves everyone money.

Many doctors declare that they are closing up their practices before Obamacare kicks in.

citation? (and anecdotal quotes from a few right-wing nut-cases saying they will close their practices don't count, because in most cases they won't close their practices (just like none of them moved to Canada when Obama got elected), and even if one does it is just one person, not statistically significant.)

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[coyote_oww]

Not really true - most conditions are not communicable. Gunshot wounds - no. Alcohol/drug abuse - no. Cancers, heart disease (the two biggies) - no (mostly, a few cancers might be communicable). Diabetes - no. The communicable stuff is the hardest to treat, public health or no, but not because of cost. Vaccines are cheap to free, anyone should be getting them as a child right now, unless your parents are irresponsible, but we're having issues with compliance. Likewise, compliance is a problem with antibiotic regimes (gotta take the whole thing), and not exposing other members of the public (remember that TB patient flying around the country?).

"Obamacare" (and medicare, mostly) is not about public risk, it's about the social decision of who you think you are responsible for taking care of. We're already dealing with communicable stuff as well as we can, within the personal freedom constraints we have set for ourselves. We aren't forcing people to take their pills or shots, or stay out of the sun, not skydive, stay home in their closet, etc (mostly).

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[cayenne8]

How about a HERF gun....pop them with that and they just fall out of the sky...

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[coyote_oww]

Must factor in tires. Tires can only go so fast before they come apart. Higher speed is higher stress, and this is not a linear function. Tires themselves are rated for what they can handle, but you have to calculate in degredation with age. Beyond about 75mph, your going to start running into older tires failing. At those speeds, it can be catastrophic.

Problem number 2 is enforcement. Everyone dreams up a scheme where they can drive faster, but it the rule is not fairly simple and obviously easy to enforce, the top speed for the fastest car becomes the top speed for everyone, including idiot kids in badly maintained clunkers with ancient tires, coming the other way down the road toward you.

Further, this doesn't account for driver quality (including temporary impairment, drunk, tired, etc). Too many people don't recognize impairment and slow down (or not drive altogether). Higher speed limits mean they have even less reaction time before they cause damage.

Gotta get the bad cars and bad drivers off the road before you change speed limits.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[tftp]

The main problem with your argument is that we are already paying for the treatment of the hobo and the gangbanger, and we always have been. We don't let people die on the curb outside the hospital.

Yes, and an AC also mentioned ERs. Yes, we do pay for those. And that is fine with me - even though many people (from the right-wing nut-cases category that are righter and winger and nutter than myself, somehow :-) say that illegal immigrants abuse ER. Closing ER to those people is not a solution; the country isn't even supposed to have illegal immigrants. But if anyone,legal, illegal or in between, needs an urgent help, the ER should be available for them. ERs don't do long term treatment anyway; anyone who depends on ER for their healthcare will get only what he pays for - a painkiller instead of a surgery, for example.

The problem with mandatory insurance is that it takes away my freedom of association and my free will to purchase - or not purchase - goods and services. Don't we have a name for a person who has to pay a fixed sum of money every year for some remote public good?

The "taxpayer" is not the right word - taxes are calculated as percentage of taxable activity, and you are free to do it or to refrain. Don't like gas taxes? Don't drive. Don't like income taxes? Earn under the threshold, or don't work at all. Don't like property taxes? Don't own property. And so on. You can set up a tent on some BLM property and live there, using bow and arrows to hunt for your food - and you won't have to pay any taxes.

Mandatory healthcare is not tied to your activities; it is tied only to the fact that you are alive - and you have to pay to someone else for that fact. In return, presumably, you will get medical treatment when you need it. But what if you don't want that treatment? What happened to your freedoms? They are gone. You are now just a slave; only instead of working on a plantation you are required to pay your dues in cash - and your master doesn't want to know where you get that cash.

One would say "but hold on, your money is used to treat others, those who don't earn enough, don't you want to help them out?" My answer is "perhaps." I can donate $100 or even $200 per year to such a charity, outside of whatever income and property taxes I'm already paying. But I don't want to donate thousands of dollars per year - this is a significant chunk of my own income! This whole thing is way too expensive.

The costs are factored into the medical bills and insurance of those who can pay.

There is a big difference between "can pay" and "wants to pay." I have no objection against the former category - those are people on honest disability, who cannot work enough to survive. But there are way too many people who just don't want to pay; plenty of outwardly healthy people, for example, are walking back and forth at intersections and begging for money from drivers who wait for green light. It takes a lot of physical health to work a whole shift at the intersection! I'd be dog tired after a day like that, but those guys take it and come next morning for more. This is where the freedom of association comes into play - I may want to share the burden (and the risk) with one group, but not with the other.

It is actually interesting to see such a panhandler on one side of the road and an honest, working sandwich man on another. The latter earns far less, but he is *working* - he is doing something that someone considers useful; he increases the wealth of the society. The former does nothing that would be useful to the society; he leeches from it.

citation?

Citations come from many sources, but since they can be always labeled as "right-wing nut-cases," the statement is unprovable. Until you need a doctor, that is, and cannot find one.

By the way, I was born - and lived for several decades - in a country with universal healthcare. It was a disaster. The healthcare was financed with our taxes; but what

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[dgatwood]

There are two problems with using fixed cameras for speed measurement. First, in California, where I live, the law explicitly forbids doing that. Second, they can only compute your average speed. In a congestion situation, you might easily miss ticketing someone who is running 15 under the limit for a while, then fifteen over when a lane clears, then back to 15 under. So as I said, cameras on poles aren't able to accurately judge a vehicle's speed.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[voice_of_all_reason]

Yep, that'll work perfectly and without incident

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[tftp]

If you're fine with paying for ERs then you should be fine with paying for preventative medicine

I also heard that eating at McDonald's is not as good for your health as dining in the creme de la creme restaurant. Should we pay hobos to eat there? Surely, if they are eating well they will be healthier, n'est-ce pas?

But of course one always has to draw a line somewhere. We are just haggling about where that line ought to be. We are not the only ones with an opinion on the subject.

That doesn't invalidate the concept of socialized medicine.

Most attempts to establish socialized medicine failed, and people died as result (there are several mechanisms of that.) Does that experience invalidate the concept? No. But if you don't change the ways of doing it you will get exactly what others have gotten before you.

Outcomes in the US are pure shit for most citizens

But they have a say in that. One can always sell their house to pay for a top notch heart surgery, for example. Try that in Zimbabwe. In the old USSR you had no control over your healthcare; if there is a treatment available but your doctor doesn't care about it or about you, you will die. There may be a good surgeon somewhere else, but you will be cut up by a drunkard with shaky hands and foggy memory; and when you die you just become a statistic. I don't really want to argue this from the position of appeal to authority, but I was there and I saw all that, firsthand. Many americans, who never set foot outside of their continent, just don't know how lucky they are. That makes them vulnerable to sweet lies of populists who tell them that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. But it is not. You will learn that, eventually, but it will be too late.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[tftp]

And second, home ownership has been dropping precipitously. My landlords own multiple properties but almost all of them are mortgaged

I'm happy to confess that I am an exception from that rule, in every part of it.

You do realize that Cubans have similar outcomes to Americans in spite of being theoretically vulnerable to all the stuff you're talking about, right?

I have never been to Cuba. Going there from USSR was impossible, and going there from the USA is illegal. Funny that.

Hugo Chavez perhaps has a different opinion about quality of Cuban healthcare. Not easy to ask him now, though.

I understand that his particular case is not a sure indicator of anything. People die in the USA all the time - and wealthy people too, like Steve Jobs. To compare Cuban healthcare with the US one you need to go there and see it for yourself. But it is against the law. Does anyone even remember why the law is in place? Aren't those Fidel's men freedom fighters, or whatever we call "our" SOBs? Do you know what was the final straw that broke the back of USSR? It was the free flow of information. Fidel probably has a secret shrine to US Congress that protected him for all these years. Socialism works best in isolation, just like in North Korea - and the border fence is against crossers from either side.

I personally think that the law must be cancelled, and everyone should be free to go to Cuba and see for themselves how bad (or how good!) the situation is over there. Truth is always the best strategy.

But with regard to "outcomes," did you ever know why 100% of immigrants from USSR have bad teeth? That's the outcome of the socialized healthcare. USSR had no such job even as a dental hygienist; no ultrasound machines; no Plax even, and no electric toothbrushes (until the end of 1980's when import started showing up.) If you must go to a dentist, you will not get an anesthetic in most cases. The drill is not a modern high-RPM one, but the old one from 1930's. There was no UV-cured filling material, no composite crowns... steel and ceramic is all that is available; and gold, if you are rich. As I said, the treatment is *minimal* - just to keep the worker ant alive, if practical. Read this and weep. If that's not enough, read this too. Google is full of those horror tales because *everyone* in USSR had to go through these "procedures."

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[Do You Smell That]

...your first point may be valid (but really? *this* is what the laws spend time protecting?)... but your second point is handled already by the GP's HS math teacher reference. Or, your own post, which points out that in order to break the average speed >= speed limit rule, your speed must either always equal the speed limit, or have exceeded it at some point.

If you need an in-depth lesson (sans actual math), I recommend the first few lectures from http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/Courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=1413 .

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[strikethree]

Because if they raise the limit to 75, people will drive 85.

Citation needed.

Americans have been conditioned to believe that the "real" speed limit is at least 10 mph over the posted limit.

Personal opinion does not qualify. Regardless, speed limits are absurd anyways. Speed advisories should be used and dangerous driving should be punished severely.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[drinkypoo]

I understand that his particular case is not a sure indicator of anything. [...] But with regard to "outcomes," did you ever know why 100% of immigrants from USSR have bad teeth?

Do you understand that particular case is not a sure indicator of anything, either?

As I said, the treatment is *minimal* - just to keep the worker ant alive, if practical.

That's what you get here if you're poor, too. The fillings are silver, with mercury behind them. The amount of mercury put behind each tooth must be treated as a toxic spill if it goes onto the floor instead of in your mouth, and autopsies prove that much of the mercury leaves the tooth by the time you're dead. Mercury is bioaccumulative and it's in your face, and it tends to be released when heated which is when it's most dangerous. I have 11 of these fillings that I got when I was poor and they were covered by the public dime. I look forward, now that I have some money, to going to Mexico to have them replaced with something less toxic because it is literally cheaper for me to go there and have the work done including lodging than it would be to have it done here in the USA if I had dental insurance, which I don't. And last time I did, there were literally no dentists taking patients in my county who would accept my insurance, nor in the nearest neighboring county!

The simple fact is that most Americans are not receiving anything more than the barest minimum health care to keep them from rioting.

Re:Risk vs. Reward?

[terrycarlino]

Actually this is not true. There are many places in the United States where professional commercial fire companies are used. You pay them ahead of time for fire protection. If your house catches fire they come put it out. If your neighbor's house catches fire who did not pay, they come and make sure your house doesn't catch fire, but let your neighbor's burn. Also many places in the U.S. have volunteer fire departments. They raise funds for equipment via a variety of methods (including fish fries and bake sales) and all of the labor is volunteer. Sometimes the local government will chip in on equipment or pay a single fire professional to lead the department.

Hellfire Enema

[stevegee58]

I've seen one or two drivers on the Turnpike that could have used a Hellfire missile up the tailpipe.

Re:Hellfire Enema

[mjwx]

So the question is,

Will these drones be targeting tailgaters? If not, when can this feature be implemented.

Re:Hellfire Enema

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Oh yes and if someone can set them up to get people who don't indicate before they turn, I'll put in an order for a half dozen. I don't work for the government or any municipal authority but I think I can keep the show running long enough for the message to sink in.

Re:Hellfire Enema

[NoImNotNineVolt]

If by tailgaters you mean left-lane-dicks, then I'm right there with you.

Re:Hellfire Enema

[mjwx]

If by tailgaters you mean left-lane-dicks, then I'm right there with you.

No, by tailgaters, I mean tailgaters.

Apologies to Simon and Garfunkel

[QRDeNameland]

...counting the drones on the New Jersey Turnpike

we've all come to mourn for America...we've all come to mourn for America.

Too late - local papers are using them now

[WillAffleckUW]

It's too late, the local Seattle paper The Stranger is already using drones in public, under both the First Amendment (free press) and Second Amendment (Right To Bear Drones).

Wake up and smell the privacy-disabled future!

(caveat - Canadians have privacy rights, and technically the Washington State Constitution has strong privacy rights - but there are still drones)

Too effiecient

[EmperorOfCanada]

Many laws today if taken to their logical extreme are pretty stupid. But the two things that tend to ameliorate their implementation is that there are limits to how many police can do so many things along with that the police themselves(usually) use common sense. So if you are zipping down the road going 68 in a 65 zone most police won't bother with you along with the fact that there are a limited number of police.

But with more and more policing becoming automated it is possible that you will drive, as you usually do, from home to work and arrive to discover that you have $10,000 in fines. Every time you bumped up over the speed limit, even for a few seconds, gets you another $500. Every time you didn't come to a complete stop (as in not moving at all) at a stop sign $150. Not to mention the zillion stupid laws that most people, including policemen, don't even know; so every time you didn't signal 150 feet before turning another $150. Did you jaywalk to cross the quiet street to go into work? $300!

Right now the robotic systems are fairly stupid and can only monitor basic concepts like the physics of automobiles. But both their information gathering ability (have every traffic light make a record of all license plates.) along with their analytical ability (you are acting suspicious) is only going to get better and is going to give the police more and more probable or actual cause to arrest, fine, and detain us.

Applying information theory can allow people to see all kinds of interesting things but will also throw up many false positives. Your driving habits might overlap with a series of murders/robberies.

Then you get into who will have access to this information. If you join a political group fighting against the robotization of policing the police might suddenly take great interest in your movements and without much effort make life hell by say the above $10,000 worth of fines every time you drive.

I don't see this as a bizarre conspiracy so much as the mathematics of how our laws are created and then implemented are going to become incompatible with robotic policing. Right now the lawmakers are inclined to grease the squeaky special interest groups. They pass laws that they know will rarely, if ever, be implemented but quiet down the self righteous special interest groups. Just look at most drug laws in the western world. These are most definitely not the laws of the majority but those of a small group of stick-up-the-ass whiners. Now picture a world where all their existing stupid laws are enforced rigidly and nearly as often as the supposed offenses.

In other news...

[VortexCortex]

The future looks bright for Hardware and Software hackers alike, with new self driving and self flying targets and deployment platforms.

I mean, really...

Oh come on

[Bruce Perens]

Mounting things to light poles is 10,000 times more practical.

Re:Oh come on

[moeinvt]

Traffic control is probably just a pretense for the acquisition of drones that can easily be re-deployed or weaponized. They are also much harder to vandalize than cameras.

can"t drive 90mph anymore

[alen]

i hit 92mph last week week on the way back from philly

... What about Art ?

[careysb]

(not Garfunkel). I'm an amateur videographer and have combed Vimeo and other sites for artistic videos, a number of which were taken from various flavors of "drones". Is this now illegal ?

Okay, enough is enough

[MoronGames]

We are turning into a nanny state, and we need to put a stop to it. There are no reasonable arguments for spying on people with 30,000 drones.

To combat such measures against American citizens, we need to start developing plans to take these things out of the sky. Perhaps we can do this by interfering with their radios, causing them to crash, shooting rockets at them, shooting at them with conventional firearms (while wearing a mask of course), or chasing them down with other drones and ramming into them. We need to be able to easily, cheaply, and effectively stop them. Of course, and I think it goes without saying, I'm NOT advocating that people actually do any of these things, but we still need to discover the best way to do it before it's too late.

Re:Okay, enough is enough

[Darkness404]

We've already passed the point of being a totalitarian state I'm afraid. The battle has already been lost. I mean,the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, the supposedly "independent" IRS just got caught targeting opposition groups for extra auditing, and they seized the records of the AP.

So just to recap, we've got:

A sky high incarceration rate
A tax regime which targets the opposition
Numerous foreign wars that don't make us safer
A lack of a free press
Etc.

The war is lost. The drones are just the icing on the tyranny cake. The US has really reached the point of no return, instead of trying to change it, I think its time to get your ass and assets out of the control of the US.

Re:Okay, enough is enough

[bignetbuy]

The problem is the average citizen can't, legally, get his/her hands on some SAMs. Plus, do you know how much a Stinger costs on the second-hand market? There is the whole import problem too. A directional EMP (if there is such a thing) would probably rank in the top ten list of weapons Joe Citizen is NOT allowed to own. Shooting them isn't an option either. Most are too high, too fast, and shooting at them with automatic weapons would draw massive amounts of attention.

Passive measures are probably the best we've got for now. Safety in numbers. Do your naughty business in cities or underground.

Re:Okay, enough is enough

[Darkness404]

Yeah, but I don't see anything good coming out of that (aside from the fact that its dramatically cut down on my target shooting because I can't seem to find any .22 bullets anywhere for a reasonable price, let alone reasonably priced .223 bullets for my AR, at least prices haven't gone up for my .416 Rigby...).

Despite all the rhetoric from the neocons, when they come for their guns, they will turn them over. http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2012/7/30/when-they-come-for-your-guns-you-will-turn-them-over.html

Re:Okay, enough is enough

[Darkness404]

The only way that elections can change anything for the better is if the majority wants a better future. In the US (and most other countries if not all others!) this is not the case. Look at the statistics of people on welfare, disability, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, social security, etc. These people will naturally never vote against such measures and will instead vote for increases in such benefits (I mean, who wouldn't want more money if they didn't have to pay for it!). Now, look at the number of people who get their salary from stealing it from the rest of us (everyone in the military, public schools, state government, federal government, city government, county government, etc.) for these people, an increase in taxes is necessary for them to get a higher salary, thus they will vote to get a higher salary (as anyone else would).

Mix that in with people who simply don't vote, aren't informed, can't vote (due to them being under 18, or having their basic rights stripped away by government) and you've got a recipe for disaster.

You cannot vote your way out of tyranny when you have more people taking from the system than paying in.

Re:Okay, enough is enough

[stenvar]

Corporations are only one of many special interests enriching themselves at the expense of others. And as with all these special interests, it's only a subset of corporations that are enriching themselves, while many contribute positively. Same with most of the other groups. As long as people like you believe propaganda about this or that supposed enemy, you're part of the mass of people responsible for this.

Re:Okay, enough is enough

[stenvar]

The reason not much is happening is because, despite all these problems, the majority is actually still getting a better future. Wasting money on the military, on bailouts, or on disability-as-early-retirement may be wasteful, but it isn't so bad as to seriously affect most people's standard of living seriously.

Re:Okay, enough is enough

[WGFCrafty]

Your cynicism is bullshit. Go to a real police state where they won't let you leave, you're insulting those people that can't leave. There is also only state press. The US has a state press... NPR, besides that it is free. A massive violation of press freedom is something to watch, rand closely, yet it is not the same as not being able to say what you want.

The system is not irreparably broken, with enough will it can be changed. You've already lost with your bullshit attitude so either shoot yourself, tie yourself up because the interrogators are on their way, or suck it up and point out what can be done to fix things, or prevent them from getting worse; and despite your baseless whining, things can get A LOT FUCKING WORSE.

Re:Okay, enough is enough

[bignetbuy]

Ok, so you can buy a portable EMP that can impact electronics 1-2M away. Assuming you upped the power source enough to reach that Reaper drone at anywhere from 10k to 50k high, you might be good to go. Of course, you'd probably need a full-sized tractor trailer to haul the power supply.

As for shooting them, if a drone is flying at 100m, yes, it might be vulnerable to small-arms fire. Though, with your shotgun, you'd probably only get one shot before the drone, moving at an average of 200mph, is out of range.

Then again, most drones, at least the ones the public has seen in combat, aren't stupid enough to fly so low.

Re:Okay, enough is enough

[moeinvt]

I agree that we're not living in a full fledged tyranny. However, don't you think that the government has given itself all of the powers it needs to implement tyranny under the veil of law and order?

Given the "indefinite detention" provisions of the 2012 NDAA, I can easily imagine a scenario where people participating in an angry demonstration or a food riot are labeled "terrorists" and arrested en masse.

Aren't they also amassing the necessary weapons and equipment? Seriously, why did the Ministry of Homeland Security purchase 2700 mine-resistant armored vehicles, 1.6B rounds of hollow point ammo and at least 7000 military rifles? What are they preparing for? I can only imagine that they are gearing up for some sort of widespread civil unrest.

Re:Okay, enough is enough

[NoImNotNineVolt]

A tax regime which targets the opposition

Really. Because that's what it is when the IRS lends extra scrutiny to organizations that oppose the very idea of taxation?
Have we really become so politically correct that being rational is something one can be demonized for?
Are we so dishonest with ourselves that we can say with a straight face that the IRS looking out for tax cheats is "targeting the opposition"?

If we are...

[Darkness404]

If we are to have a government, its primary job should be for providing for the safety of its citizens, not creating "crimes" to milk for revenue. And an (unarmed!) drone can be used for both. A drone would be great for search and rescue operations, unfortunately, with the track record of government, it will most likely be used to help kidnap people for growing plants and for breaking arbitrary speed limits.

Re:If we are...

[moeinvt]

"If we are to have a government, its primary job should be for providing for the safety of its citizens..."

I could not disagree more. The job of government should be protecting the LIBERTY of its citizens from those who would infringe upon it. For example, a foreign invader.

A police state with ubiquitous surveillance, an army of drones, armed soldiers walking the streets, random checkpoints, "stop and frisk" powers and a population too terrified to step out of line in the slightest manner is nice and "safe".

Law of Unintended Consequences

[Smerta]

Security in these things, from what I understand, is pretty shabby.

So what's going to happen? Civilians will resent being monitored and harassed by drones. They will start trying to figure out ways to confuse, disrupt and hack drones. There is this wonderful thing called the internet. Information tends to spread on the internet. Smart researchers will speak at Black Hat & Defcon about fuzzing, confusing and otherwise disrupting drones (which they have every right to do). And this information will eventually find its way to the battlefield.

My personal opinion is that regardless of which administration or party is in power, the trend towards more control, monitoring and scrutiny is irreversible. Unfortunately.

target practice

[stenvar]

Just make (keep?) it legal to use any drone over public land or your private property for target practice, and the problem will quickly take care of itself.

Re:target practice

[R3d M3rcury]

Years ago, all you people voted to ban private ownership of surface-to-air missiles. "Why would you need a surface-to-air missile?" you asked. "Duck Hunting? That's just crazy!"

Well, look who's laughing now!

(For the humor impaired, this is intended to be funny.)

Re:target practice

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

I think the real problem was you only needed one or two missiles, but SAMs Club always sold them in bulk.

Killer Mobile App?

[JimtownKelly]

With location-tracking, I feel like a sitting duck. Now I don't even want a smartphone.

My most interesting experience

[OhANameWhatName]

Is riding on the autobahn in heavy, heavy traffic. 5 lanes, no speed limits. The left lane was doing 70kph, second left 80, 90, 100 and the right lane was 'as fast as you want'. If someone in the right lane saw somebody bearing down on them, they switched one lane to the left and let them past. But you hardly saw anyone driving above 120, and I didn't see a single soul above 130. The car doing 130 was a brand new Porsche on a flat straight stretch of road ... a perfectly safe speed for such a car.

All lanes moved smoothly, if you needed to change lanes .. just flip on the indicator and the next person let you in. Nobody cutting people off, driving aggressively or getting frustrated. Everyone was driving very sensibly and patiently, with 60% of the people driving slower than what the marked speed limits would say if you were in Australia.

If you can drive however fast you want .. you make a conscious decision on how fast you want to drive. Give someone a limit and they react to that limit. Either by driving right on it, exceeding it or being aggressive toward others driving in their own way in relation to the limit.

Speed limits are a mechanism of control. They're designed to fill your head with ideas that you otherwise wouldn't have were you thinking without limits. The limits don't limit the speed of the car, they impact the mind of the driver. The more troubled the mind of the driver, the greater the impact of the limit. Roads are unsafe because of the impact of speed limits on drivers, not because of drivers exceeding speed limits.

Take the red pill.

Re:My most interesting experience

[kannibal_klown]

Here in the US, the speed limits vary state-to-state and region-to-region. In New Jersey, many of the highway speed limits are 65mph (~104kph). On said highways, NOT during rush hour, people in the "fast lane" tend to go at least 80+mph (~128kph). At least, when there's 3+ lanes. When there's only 2 lanes, the sheer amount of traffic often prevents going that fast. And rush hour prevents it from traffic as well.

Unfortunately, people also stay in the fast lane going UNDER the speed limit and don't want to move over. Even if you flash your brights at them. I don't mean they're "only" going 5mph over the limit, I mean they're doing 55mph in a 65mph highway, on the fast lane. Which of course is highly infuriating, especially when there are speed limit signs every couple of miles and a "left-lane-for-passing-only" sign every 5 miles or so.

Said people are especially infuriating, when they're keeping pace with the truck next to them and said truck is letting tiny bits of debris fly off. So you can't pass them and thus are getting pelted with bits of gravel / rubber / wood / etc.

Re:My most interesting experience

[ebno-10db]

Is riding on the autobahn in heavy, heavy traffic. 5 lanes, no speed limits. The left lane was doing 70kph, second left 80, 90, 100 and the right lane was 'as fast as you want'. If someone in the right lane saw somebody bearing down on them, they switched one lane to the left and let them past. But you hardly saw anyone driving above 120, and I didn't see a single soul above 130. The car doing 130 was a brand new Porsche on a flat straight stretch of road ... a perfectly safe speed for such a car.

I think you confused your left with your right ...

The OP confused nothing, which explains why he found it his "most interesting experience".

Will somebody please RTFA for once?

[rockout]

The summary is mostly to blame here, because it leads you to believe the exact opposite of what's happening in the NJ state legislature - namely, that the bills introduced are all to RESTRICT drone usage in NJ. Even the least restrictive proposal seeks to require a warrant for their use and outright bans them for use in traffic or speed limit violation instances. The most restrictive seeks to ban them completely from the state.

Thanks for jumping the gun, everyone, and assuming that there's going to be speeding tickets handed out via drones in NJ. Blame slashdot if you want, but in the end, you're the morons for not RTFA.

Re:Will somebody please RTFA for once?

[kermidge]

And that's a big "Yay!" for New Jersey; even the least restrictive bill is not too bad.

But I'm still boggled by the FAA's prediction - 30,000 drones in just 7 more years? U.S. is a large country and all, but _30,000_? Sure, only a fraction, maybe 5 or 6 thousand might be aloft at any given time, and there's a lot of cities and border length to cover, fire watch, etc. That's still a lot of freaking drones, seems like.

Re:Will somebody please RTFA for once?

[Alioth]

It's entirely probable. There are already way more radio controlled models than this number in the US. Many drones are really just standard radio controlled models with a few extra bits added (for instance on one "Police will be using this drone" article on TV, it was quite clearly just a 600 class electric RC helicopter - airframe cost of about $300, probably total build cost for RC use around $900 with top of the range gear - with some extra stuff on it). Given the low potential cost of many things that will count as a drone, 30000 might be a low estimate.

Re:Will somebody please RTFA for once?

[ebno-10db]

And that's a big "Yay!" for New Jersey; even the least restrictive bill is not too bad.

As a New Yorker it's simply unthinkable for me to say anything positive about New Jersey, but I'll come as close as I can. While NJ is the nation's toxic waste dump, the changes caused by the mutagenic agents may, on extremely rare occasions, produce people with some sense.

Re:Will somebody please RTFA for once?

[kermidge]

That's some good info, thanks. It's been years since I even tried to keep up with the RC scene. From a strictly tech standpoint this is some neat and amazing stuff, bringing off-the-shelf parts and craft into new uses depending on sensors and software. From the standpoint of a citizen, it has some very chilling prospects to go along with the benign applications.

Re:Will somebody please RTFA for once?

[kermidge]

Thanks for my first good laugh of the day! Yeah, nice to see a bit of sense break out, even from dem.

Start building anti-aircraft weaponry

[kilodelta]

I'm talking HERF here. Pretty hard to do EMI protection when you lack a real ground. Just fry the communications on the things and they'll cease to be a useful tool to the pigs that run them.

Smile, mistress!

[bjb]

I was talking about "Photo Cops" this weekend while driving on the Garden State Parkway and saying "if they ever introduced [photo cops] on the GSP, people would be screwed." Referring, of course, to the fact that it is a 55 mph road and everyone was driving 70.

They tried having photo cops on Route 80 in NJ back in the late 80's or early 90's (don't quite remember) and it was simply a camera sticking out of the back of a van. Trip the speed limit, take a photo of the driver, mail summons to person. From what I remember at the time, it caused a bit of an uproar after a few politicians got pictures of them driving with their mistress and the summons envelope being opened by their wife.

Speed enforcement is fine; it keeps people relatively sane with their driving habits. I personally feel that the dangerous ones on the road are the ones who are driving more than 5-10 mph away from the average that everyone else on the section of road is driving. But sometimes you have a clear shot where there is nobody around you and goosing it up several mph to gain some time isn't that big a deal. If an automaton is going to penalize me without any context, that's where I draw the line.

South Carolina H.3514 to Restrict Police Drones

[EmagGeek]

Thankfully I live in a State that has at least some semblance of constitutional restraint in mind.

Hopefully the legislature will pass this bill quickly, as it restricts police drone use to that which is specifically authorized by a warrant, related to a known specific criminal act.

"The bill would allow law enforcement to use drones only when a court has agreed that there are grounds to collect evidence relating to a specific instance of criminal wrongdoing, or in emergencies. Requiring a neutral arbiter to sign off on drone use assures the public that this new technology will be used consistently with our values."

Move right to go faster??

[coyote_oww]

I have doubts. Per this link http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tra_dri_sid_of_the_roa_lef_or_rig-driving-side-road-left-right Germany is a right-hand drive state (along with most of the continent). For the most part, you drive faster toward the center, e.g. left lane is the passing lane.

I suspect your Australian left-side-driving brain turned things inside out.

For the American audience, these speed are not remarkable:
70kph ~= 42mph
80 ~= 48
90 ~= 54 (the "slow" highway speed limit)
100 ~= 60 (typical is 65mph/108kph)
120 ~= 72 (occassionally 75mph/124kph)
130 ~= 78

In NV, there are stretches of road where the limit is 75mph (and that is unenforced due to the 2 patrol car/day schedule, see Top Gear s12e2). 80mph is routine for many parts of California (in spite of a 65mph limit). 130kph sound fast to an American who can't do metric conversions, but it really isn't that fast in practice. You'll see a few people doing 90mph in those situations. 100mph+ is considered unreasonable by about 98% of the population in almost all scenarios. (that would bet 160kph)

On the other hand, a town near me has a school on the highway through town, and that has a limit of 15mph (22kph). And it is effectively enforced by the population going that speed (so no bad actors could go through there faster due to the traffic jam). Hehe, one of our managers got a ticket for 30mph through there yesterday, and he regarded it as a fair cop.

I miss America

[grenadeh]

Remember when we lived in America?