Stoplights to Mete Out Punishment? 995
gilrain writes "The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that traffic engineers have created a stoplight that deals with speeding. According to the article, 'It senses when a speeder is approaching and metes out swift punishment. It doesn't write a ticket. It immediately turns from green to yellow to red.' This is not just a prototype: it is in use now at an intersection in the Bay Area. Does stopping speeders before others serve a purpose other than petty revenge? Is it even safe to change expected stoplight patterns, especially for drivers in a hurry?"
Old Tech (Score:5, Informative)
Another solution looking for a problem (Score:5, Informative)
As far as speeding tickets goes, it is a doucmented fact that traffic laws are not for safety but revenue generation. This bad boy will probably pay for itself in no time and continue to reap dividends for years to come.
Combine the "smart" light with the auto ticket-giving camera (don't need to pay for the copy to write tickets!) and city budget problems will be cured overnight. Oh, and when people get smart and start slowing down, just decrease the yellow-light time and watch your profits rise!
America: Best profit-making government money can buy.
If this is new it ain't very new (Score:2, Informative)
Excellent plan! (Score:4, Informative)
As for running red lights, cameras can mete out punishment for that, too.
In my city (Score:5, Informative)
While the timming is off in this case, I find it an excelent system to keep me within the speed zone that they approve of.
Re:Stoplights say a lot about the people (Score:5, Informative)
Are you insane? You ever been to Rome?
Re:Another solution looking for a problem (Score:4, Informative)
Pick a city, any city. Check out NTSB stats on that city's traffic accident rates. Now check out that city's municipal revenue from the traffic courts. For bonus points, do a time series.
Correlate, interpret, conclude.
Re:Bad Idea... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stoplights say a lot about the people (Score:4, Informative)
One possible reason for the red-yellow-green sequence is that in many European jurisdictions, drivers are required to take their manual transmission completely out of gear, rather than simply keeping the clutch in. The yellow light warns them to get the car in gear so they'll be ready to go when it's green. Not as relevant in these days of cheap automatic transmissions, but it's the sort of thing that's tough to just get rid of.
Lights can render speed limits irrelevant (Score:2, Informative)
We have them in sweden - they work very well (Score:2, Informative)
The only differense is that they idle red 4-ways, as soon as somebody comes close, a sensor notices it. After the time legal speed would require, it goes green (unless crossing trafic is in a green of course
Re:what about other drivers? (Score:3, Informative)
Laws against speeding are stupid. See this report by the US Department of Transportation [ibiblio.org].
In a nutshell: people ignore speed limits and drive the speed they feel is safe, regardless of what the speed limit is.
As a result of this, it can be inferred that speed limits (for the most part--though there are exceptions) are set unreasonably low and as such serve no true purpose other than to generate revenue. It seems to me that laws that exist for no other reason than to fund their own enforcement shouldn't exist.
And for those that say speeders cause accidents--read the report I linked to. It begs to differ.
--
Will
Re:Another solution looking for a problem (Score:3, Informative)
2)http://www.roadsense.com.au/homepage.html
Qo
3)http://www.motorists.com/issues/speed/fhwa_re
-Ouote "Based on the sites selected for this study, it appears that highway agencies have a tendancy to set speed limits slightly below the average speed of traffic"
-Ouote "There is not sufficient evidence in this dataset to reject the hypothesis that crash experience changed when posted speed limits were either raised or lowered." Translation - The raising or lowering of speed limits did not have any effect on automobile accidents.
And the beat goes on....
Re:Aww, unfair to speeders! (Score:3, Informative)
What kind of idiotic statement is this? Simple math proves that faster speeds equate to less time spent in travel.
Suppose you're driving to a city 400 miles away. At 60 mph, it'll take you 6.67 hours to get there. If you go 15 mph faster, you'll get there in 5.33 hours, which amounts to a 1.34-hour savings. Do you really want to sit in your car that much longer on a long trip?
The using more gas part is incorrect too. Fuel consumption is fairly complex, and is different for every vehicle, depending on aerodynamics, gearing, engine design, etc. Many vehicles get better fuel economy at speeds over 60.
It's not the first time... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Timing it right could be tricky (Score:3, Informative)
Re:automatic transmissions (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Another solution looking for a problem (Score:3, Informative)
www.hwysafety.com [hwysafety.com]
Re:what about other drivers? (Score:4, Informative)
Something better here in Brazil (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Timing it right could be tricky (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Speeding in perpindicular directions? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:California (Score:4, Informative)
And here's a general idea: Next time you feel yourself getting really INDIGNANT and ANGRY about something you don't UNDERSTAND, you might want to stop and think about it, or maybe look into it, before posting a BLITHERING SCREED that makes you look like an ignorant [slashdot.org] nitwit.
Welcome to BELGIUM ! (Score:1, Informative)
It actually jumps to red when you're approaching it too fast. This red light has no other goal then slowing down speeders.
Fine for me, but if I'm approaching it at 49kmph and the driver behind is driving just a little too fast I'm being punished for respecting the law.
Re:Timing it right could be tricky (Score:2, Informative)
How about this:
At 40mph, 9 in 10 pedestrians struck by cars are killed.
At 30mph, half are killed.
At 20mph, 9 in 10 survive.
Seems like a pretty compelling statistic to me. As you state, pedestrians can wander out in front of you whatever speed you're doing, but if you end up hitting them, surely it's better to be doing 20mph than 40mph?
Yes, you could argue that maybe at 1mph, 999 out of 1000 would survive, which is even better, but obviously a practical limit has to be established, and given the dramatic change in numbers above, it would seem to lie around 20-30mph.
This applies just as strongly on an apparently deserted city road at 2am as during the day, probably more so, as you're probably even less likely to anticipate that lone pedestrian suddenly jumping out at you.
So I'd argue that the numbers above should apply to anywhere there are likely to be pedestrians, ie: urban areas. Freeways/motorways on the other hand, could reasonably be expected to be clear of pedestrians at all times, and hence subject to much higher limits.