Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government Transportation Privacy Your Rights Online

Multi-Target Photo-Radar System To Make Speeding Riskier 506

mrquagmire writes with this excerpt from Engadget: "Go easy on the gas, Speed Racer, because Cordon is on its way. Developed by Simicon, this new speed sensor promises to take highway surveillance to new heights of precision. Unlike most photo radar systems, which track only one violator at a time, Simicon's device can simultaneously identify and follow up to 32 vehicles across four lanes. Whenever a car enters its range, the Cordon will automatically generate two images: one from wide-angle view and one closeup shot of the vehicle's license plate. It's also capable of instantly measuring a car's speed and mapping its position, and can easily be synced with other databases via WiFi, 3G or WiMAX."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Multi-Target Photo-Radar System To Make Speeding Riskier

Comments Filter:
  • Re:You Lose (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 0123456 ( 636235 ) on Monday October 31, 2011 @03:15PM (#37898674)

    Instead of complaining about tickets, run for office or attend government meetings and propose changes.

    Yeah, that'll work.

    'Look, I know you get a sizeable amount of your revenue from taxing those who drive at more than X mph, but you really should stop because it's very silly.'

  • Revenue or Safety? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Lev13than ( 581686 ) on Monday October 31, 2011 @03:19PM (#37898736) Homepage

    Seems like a very complicated way to collect taxes.

    A useful application would be to target those vehicles which are going more than 10% (or 10km/h or whatever) faster than everyone else. That would actually improve safety and make the highway system more efficient (homogenous traffic reduces braking/lane changes and increases throughput). However, that's not the primary goal of highway speed enforcement so it will never happen

  • Re:Oh Lord. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by blair1q ( 305137 ) on Monday October 31, 2011 @03:20PM (#37898756) Journal

    The 85th percentile of what?

    Oh, of the speed people are going because of where the speed limit is set.

    All speed limits are initialized to federal standard guidelines.

    Almost never is a speed limit changed, except when the local OCD mommies get a hair up their ass and lower a perfectly good 50 to 35 for a 24/7 school zone, or a 40 to a 25 because their similarly brain-addled kids can't be trusted to stay the fuck out of the street.

  • Re:Oh Lord. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pieroxy ( 222434 ) on Monday October 31, 2011 @03:21PM (#37898780) Homepage

    I would be tempted to say that if you can't speed anymore, then the device has done its job. Supposedly, speed limits are here for the good of the people.

    Now, if only those speed limits were defined in a sensible fashion. How many times have I seen 2x 3 lanes highway limited at 50kph ? (I live in France)

    I'm sure in the US there are also those places where the speed limits are just... insanely ridiculous.

    So, when it was down to getting caught by the occasional police officer hidden in the bushes, the game was fair. If those automated radars become commonplace, then for the game to remain fair, they *must* revisit speed limits in most places. Because if we have to respect those speed limits *everywhere*, driving is going to become a PITA pretty soon. And nobody will benefit from this.

  • Re:You Lose (Score:2, Insightful)

    by artor3 ( 1344997 ) on Monday October 31, 2011 @03:24PM (#37898828)

    Simple solution. Stop speeding. If people didn't speed, then the government wouldn't get any ticket revenues, and would be forced to find another income source (such as a direct tax). Personally, I'm glad that there are so many morons out there who pay extra taxes in order to reach their destination a few minutes quicker. Less tax burden for me!

  • Re:Oh Lord. (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31, 2011 @03:25PM (#37898844)

    How about because going above the speed limit isn't inherently unsafe. Many areas are nothing more than speed traps designed for maximum revenue, not maximum safety.

    Try some 'civility' you nanny-state, big brother, big government nut.

  • by Old Wolf ( 56093 ) on Monday October 31, 2011 @04:00PM (#37899368)

    It is safest to pass quickly and get back into your lane. It's unsafe to pass at a differential of 2-3 mph ("micropassing") because you end up on the wrong side of the road for a long time, giving more opportunity for bad things to happen (an intersection approaching, other people pulling out to pass, the guy you're passing speeding up, etc.)

    The earlier poster who gets angry when someone passes him quickly, is sadly symptomatic of a lot of so-called "good" drivers. They have to feel in control of the other traffic, or else they become angry and uncomfortable. The speed that they like to do is "perfect", anybody who wants to pass them should have left earlier, and anybody slow in front of them needs to start paying attention.

    If it weren't on the road, we would call these people "control freaks". It's the same people who speed up when they see someone is trying to pass them. They don't give a crap about any other human being on the road, they only care that the lemmings behind them stay nicely in line behind.

    If that poster is still reading: why does it make you so angry? What is wrong with someone going past? You're going to get to your destination at a pace you are obviously happy with , since you chose to go at the speed you are doing; so what is wrong with someone else getting to their destination at their pace? It doesn't affect you..

  • by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Monday October 31, 2011 @04:10PM (#37899482) Homepage

    It may be a huge differentiator, but is it a useful one? If there are not many vehicles on the road, this feature isn't necessary. If there are many vehicles on the road, and they're all going the same speed, maybe TICKET ALL THE VEHICLES is not a defensible tactic. If there are many vehicles on the road, and only a few are going much faster than the others, I think what you really want is a patrol car -- or at least video -- to deal with what might be reckless driving.

  • by Maltheus ( 248271 ) on Monday October 31, 2011 @04:23PM (#37899682)

    If police would just enforce the keep-right-except-to-pass law, 90% of the traffic problems go away within a year. It would do a hell of a lot more to reduce speeding too, as most of that is born out of a desire to not get stuck behind one of the assholes you mentioned.

  • by Maltheus ( 248271 ) on Monday October 31, 2011 @04:37PM (#37899896)

    Man, you need to be modded up. People passing me aren't doing anything to me. It doesn't phase me in the slightest. The person who cuts me off just to prevent me from passing because they think it would be safer (or slamming on their brakes when you get a little too close to the guy doing 15 under in the "passing" lane), are the ones who are actually risking people's safety. Stop playing games! The rest of us are just trying to get from point A to point B. This whole country is filled to the brim with busy-bodies whose only method of elevating themselves is to bring other people down.

  • Re:Oh Lord. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anthony Mouse ( 1927662 ) on Monday October 31, 2011 @06:16PM (#37901056)

    I'm surprised that fuel consumption, being a big national issue, hasn't gained traction with the speed limit people. The state next to mine even recently increased their speed limits on a major road from 65 to 70, so all those SUVs can go even faster and burn even more fuel (no engine technology in the world will save you from speed-squared drag).

    Lowering the speed limit is an extremely inexact way to reduce fuel consumption. Plenty of people will simply ignore it as they do already, and to the extent that they don't, you create a disincentive for people to buy vehicles that consume less fuel because their gas-guzzling monster truck won't hit them as hard in the pocket book at a lower speed. If you want to reduce fuel consumption then you raise the gas tax. Then if I still want to drive fast, I can buy a car that gets 30MPG at 80MPH and everybody's happy.

    I also think that all those people who speed on their commutes must have failed math, because going 75 instead of 70 only saves you a theoretical 100 seconds (not even 2 minutes!) over 30 miles, which is generally erased by slowdowns at an interchange or a traffic light. Going 75 versus 65 only saves you 220 seconds - less than four minutes - over 30 miles. About the only time speeding makes sense is on very long trips or if every second counts.

    And driving 85 instead of 55 will save you more than 10 minutes. Each way. If you're commuting five days a week that's a hundred hours a year. I don't know anybody who couldn't use an extra hundred hours a year.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31, 2011 @06:26PM (#37901156)

    And most likely he's intentionally riding your bumper because you won't get the fuck out of his way, and he's wishing for a front mounted nuke to vaporize you completely. Seriously, it won't kill you to speed up an extra 5-10 km/h to get your passing done and move the hell over.

  • by Maltheus ( 248271 ) on Monday October 31, 2011 @07:03PM (#37901500)

    while I'm cruising at 70mph in the "fast" lane

    That's precisely the problem. Even if you're driving faster than everybody on the road, nobody should be "cruising" in the left hand lane. It's for passing only and that's the law in a lot of places.

    If you think changing lanes is so dangerous, then yes, you probably should stay in the right lane all the time. Because it's really not that big a deal for thet vast majority of drivers. Some people aren't comfortable behind the wheel and that's ok, but you shouldn't make everyone else pay for it (especially when there's a sign every mile telling you to get out of the way).

"Life begins when you can spend your spare time programming instead of watching television." -- Cal Keegan

Working...