1/6/2003: Speeding duck

What the hell...?

With the subject line you could figure it out. In the town of Glueckstadt, Germany, the cops have set up radar and traffic cameras to automatically catch speeders.

And this was one of their catches, a duck - clocked at a speed of 39 km/h in a 30 km/h zone.

I'm so against automated ticketing, and not because a few birds might gum up the system. I'll just note that cameras have not, to my knowledge, done all that much to really prevent crime. They certainly aren't the magic bullet solution.

In the US, municipalities have tried putting cameras on traffic lights, catching people who are running the red light. They notice two things. One, revenue from traffic tickets goes way up. Two, safety goes way down.

Why: because locals learn to slam on their brakes to avoid getting ticketed, and voila: a dramatic rise in rear-end accidents at intersections.

Compare this to what happens in major cities during power outages, when there are no traffic lights. No accidents! People are suddenly forced to become considerate of others in order to make the system work; and guess what, they DO.

I agree w/ you that technology can hinder more than it helps sometimes, and I also am fervently against automated traps such as this. But I think that your blackout example is an extreme circumstance.

I think the blackout is more an example of human behavior: "hey, we're all in this crisis together".

Also, the modern city as it currently stands (dominated by car/truck traffic) absolutely needs traffic lights. Even the most basic of intersections gets completely backed up if the light isn't working, due mostly to the indecision of less-than-competent drivers when it's their turn to go.

Basically, we're going to have to continue to put up w/ bad drivers as long as teenagers, senior citizens and my wife continue to hold licenses.

</rant>

Here in San Diego, a judge tossed out a whole series of moving violations that were "written" by the red light cameras. Turned out the contract the city had with the supplier was deemed questionable.

Lockheed Martin, the system supplier, was being given a percentage of the fine from each ticket their system issued. This gave LM an incentive to move the sensors embedded in the street such that motorists were given less and less time to enter and then exit the intersection before the camera was triggered.

I was quite surprised that the city would do such a foolish thing as give a corporation a piece of the pie so directly and b) that a judge was actualy willing to call them on it.

My knowledge of the law is weak, but I was under the impression that there had to be an arresting officer who witnessed the infraction in order to issue a ticket to the infractor. Thus, I am not sure how these radar cameras or other automated means hold up legally, unless the arresting officer is the guy who comes out and changes the video tape every few days (or watches the video remotely, or whatever).

In localities with red light cameras (and I believe PA passed such a bill last session :-( ), they just change the law so no arresting officer is necessary. If they have a picture of you, you are guilty by definition. Justice doesn't figure into it.

I don't like it. If they want to catch me doubling the normal speed limit drunk through a red light in an active school zone, let 'em send out a cop to do it. It just ain't sporting otherwise.

Re: 1/6/2003: Speeding duck

Every now and again one of our local police departments puts out their "passive traffic safety device" ... one of those billboard thingies that tells you your speed as you pass it, and reminds you to slow down, etc.

This, however, usually backfires. Many people have this funny streak in 'em (I do anyway) that sees such a device as a challenge. How high can I make it go??? (Which is why it is NEVER a good idea to take a Breathalyzer to a party, incidentally).

Thus far I haven't encounted one of the officers hiding in a sidestreet just on the other side of one of these things, but I have seen some pretty impressive numbers on the billboard.

Well ... kinda like that ...

My most recent numbers were speed limit 25, my speed 67. (I didn't have a whole lot of running room. It was one of those curvy development streets ...)

" In the US, municipalities have tried putting cameras on traffic lights, catching people who are running the red light. They notice two things. One, revenue from traffic tickets goes way up. Two, safety goes way down.

Why: because locals learn to slam on their brakes to avoid getting ticketed, and voila: a dramatic rise in rear-end accidents at intersections. "

If people are getting rear-ended, don't blame it on the police. Someone isn't paying attention and/or driving too closely behind someone else.

Traffic fines are annoying, but running red lights is dangerous and there's no excuse for it. It's probably the most dangerous moving violation, right alongside running stop signs. Besides being rear-ended is not as fatal as t-boning someone.

Not that I don't find anything wrong with the Lockheed Martin arrangement.

I'm hoping they park one of those passive devices on my regular bicycling route, nothing burns calories like lawbreaking.

I remember (sorta) a bar in Allentown that had a breathelizer (sp?) in it, very bad idea.

Bullshit. The facts don't support red light running as an major problem or a major cause of accidents or injuries.
They found out they could cut red light violations 85% by increasing the yellow by 2 seconds but Lockheed Martin sued
and renegotiated their contract to increase their percentage of the fines.

[quote]Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Bullshit.Real mature, tiger.

The facts don't support red light running as an major problem or a major cause of accidents or injuries.

What exactly are these "facts"? Regardless, by your logic, since only a small percentage of airplane crashes are caused by bombs, we shouldn't use so much energy trying to find them.

They found out they could cut red light violations 85% by increasing the yellow by 2 seconds but Lockheed Martin sued
and renegotiated their contract to increase their percentage of the fines.

Read my post again. I never apologize and excused LM for their role. That's a separate issue and, frankly, a red herring in this debate.

No, they don't.

Not only do dad and mom drive like idiots too, but they often hire someone else to teach the kidling to drive. I think you still get a wee bit of a break on the new driver's insurance.

Actually, my mother stayed WELL away from the issue of teaching me how to drive and turned me over to my high school's driving instructor. My mom worked for the school and explained to him that it would not be a good idea for her to be in the car with me while I was learning. (it's STILL not a good idea, BTW; "Mom, just close your eyes and hang on").

I know all the right things to do, all the regs, and am actually a safe driver ... occasional passenger sphincter locks to the contrary. No accidents (*knock wood*).

Also, in addition to the two car length following distance I was taught, there's another rule of thumb that a lot of people either forget, didn't learn or outright ignore --- when at a stop, don't pull so close to another vehicle that you can't see their tires in entirety.

Actually, what I was taught was "pick some point ahead of you. watch the car before you cross that point. count one-one thousand two-one-thousand" to estimate a proper following distance at any speed.

I think that's how it went.

I've never rear ended anyone, so I guess I learned it okay.

You just described the two-second rule. Much easier than the car-length mathobatics. I use the rear-tire rule too, though my dad doesn't.

If we were all using the Segways, this wouldnt be a problem.

(I havent used the Segway in a post for a while so there it is)

I dunno about that ...

If we were all using Segways, then we'd likely have to learn a whole new batch of road rules. Might be a lot of confusion at first.

Imagine a 10 Segway pileup. And if someone forgot their helmet ... ooh, not pretty!

Also, a Segway would probably not be my first choice in a snowstorm. Unless they are coming out with an offroad edition anytime soon ...

On being ticketed

As far as I know, when you get a police citation, you are being invited to settle with the police. If you pay the fine, you won't be sued for your offense. Technically, there is no requirement that a police officer be there in person.

You can always choose not to pay your fine, and you probably will be duly charged in a court of law. Then it will be your word against the police's word. In the case of speed cameras, the jury will have to decide whether they think you were breaking the law on the basis of evidence from the speed camera.

Your call.

s.

They stuck one of those billboards on a local road (speed limit 25) near me. I think I managed to get it up to 32mph. On inline skates (didn't have my speed skates with me, alas)

Hey wait a minute! Russotto can outrun my Segway? I need to start designing a turbo kit or something, that's just not right.

Actually, slang, you might wanna try the inline skates. Get around a lot faster, with, well, okay, not LESS effort, but different effort. Could be ideal for you. I don't know if you've done this before.

Also, they are much less costly than the Segway. And you don't need to recharge them every couple of miles.

I've actually considered it from time to time (and was once able to make a fairly effective trip up and down one of the hallways here at work), but am relatively fearful of injury, especially now that I saw the most recent x-rays of my nearly healed hand ...

Work up the design on the turbo kit, anyway. I'll bet there'll be a demand for it ...

Segway looks a little like a chariot...

Crossing threads from Entertainment, here...since the Segway does resemble a small-platform chariot, perhaps we can add even more high tech to the gladiatorial contests we're designing by getting Segway to provide a couple dozen of these, and then we can have racing battles and save big money on the horses!

That will also save a lot of hassles from the PETA people.

At least until the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Segways gets up and running.

Carefully wording the hold harmless/liability control statements should suffice for the human, subhuman, and demihuman participants. (I've wondered about some of the contestants on stuff like Fear Factor. I don't think they're all quite human).

Good idea. I like it. The Segway is not nearly as frightening as a team of thundering horses but having people spraying boiling oil from a wand while riding one, that's scary !

Running people over with horses seems to be a lot more fun though. For that matter running people over with a moose sounds appealing too.

Anyway, the budget will determine the props.

Perhaps Segway would scale up the original model to chariot racing scale...more mass, more speed, more standing room for the hot oil gunner?

Jeeps turned into Humvees...any reason why Segways can't turn into Battle Wagons?

Brilliant. I'm glad I thought of it. Can you have some preliminary drawings on my desk by tomorrow so I can take credit for it at the design team meeting?

If they are being sneaky and not counting them as moving violations, that would be ... sneaky ... yes. I see so many imapatient drivers in downtown Seattle going through red lights that are a second old, they'd make a mint!

But if you want payback my Dad always says, "Wait 'til it's night, and throw rocks through their windows!"

I don't think he's actually done it, but it sounds most satisfying...

Quote:

Originally posted by Uryoces But if you want payback my Dad always says, "Wait 'til it's night, and throw rocks through their windows!" I don't think he's actually done it, but it sounds most satisfying...

Quote:

Originally posted by quzah I'm vegan. Hunting makes me sad. In general I'm not a big fan of things dying. I'm not fond of death in general... ...except when I'm shooting people in a game. Then it's fun. Time for some more Delta Force... Quzah.

Warning: No Useful Information Contained in This Post

See, there's a tradeoff. As 90-odd% Pure states, they reduce traffic deaths. At the same time, they increase property-damaging rearenders. Worth it?

Missed the point