Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oregon punished an engineer for criticizing red-light cameras. He fought and won

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 325 posts

Re: Oregon punished an engineer for criticizing red-light cameras. He fought and won

#261

Post by dragonwriter »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #100
manyxcxi wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Growing up in Oregon I was always annoyed by the slow as hell left lane campers. Having spent a half decade elsewhere and recently moving back it has escalated from annoyance to blood boiling seething rage. When I left Seattle, the state of WA was really making a push to get slowpokes out of the left lane with a media campaign and instituting tickets for people who are slowing traffic down. I LOVE the idea.

>hell left lane campers. It's 2017. We have cameras, "repeated failure to move right for faster traffic" should not be a hard ticket to write to a high standard of proof.

Neither should “speeding”, and if we were enforcing that, then much of the “faster traffic” wouldn't be in the first place, which would greatly reduce the need for “repeated failure to move right” tickets.

Re: Oregon punished an engineer for criticizing red-light cameras. He fought and won

#262

Post by googletazer »

pm90 wrote: post #176
manyxcxi wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Growing up in Oregon I was always annoyed by the slow as hell left lane campers. Having spent a half decade elsewhere and recently moving back it has escalated from annoyance to blood boiling seething rage. When I left Seattle, the state of WA was really making a push to get slowpokes out of the left lane with a media campaign and instituting tickets for people who are slowing traffic down. I LOVE the idea.

They recently passed a law in Texas that would fine these left-lane campers. I haven't noticed a change yet but hopefully eventually enough of these idiots get ticketed to send a message. Its incredibly infuriating; I can totally relate to your sentiment. But there's a special place in hell for those dummies who won't even listen when I blink my headlights, signalling politely to them to please leave the left lane. A…

>But the 20% that don't, I flip them off every time, since they fucking deserve it.

You're a prime candidate for anger management classes. If you get so stressed over something that minor, better get good insurance for your cardio problems later on.

Re: Oregon punished an engineer for criticizing red-light cameras. He fought and won

#264

Post by thomastjeffery »

aeorgnoieang wrote: post #255
thomastjeffery wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other problem is that they invade privacy. Having a camera constantly recording in a public area is not something that I find reasonable. Cameras do not announce their presence. Cameras do not get tired, or leave. Cameras made for law enforcement assume guilt.

I'm torn about this. Surveillance by people is expensive, grueling, and hard to hide. If I imagine police wanting to replace a team of people surveilling some person or people or place with a camera, I don't notice any outrage. It's more the ubiquity of surveillance that seems unreasonable, but, like a lot of things, there's no clear dividing line between what should be allowed and what should be prohibited. And it's…

Why do we need to constantly surveil people? What happened to trust?

When people do illegal things to other people or their property, that is when law enforcement should get involved.

We shouldn't just watch people waiting to see them do something that we have defined as "wrong". We should react to the things that people do wrong, and educate people about how to go about their lives without harming others.

> Surveillance by people is expensive, grueling, and hard to hide.

Laws are designed for a law enforcement body that has these inadequacies. If we start enforcing them in a different way that does not have these limitations, the aspects of those laws that were designed to make up for those inadequacies suddenly become harsh and constrictive.

Re: Oregon punished an engineer for criticizing red-light cameras. He fought and won

#265

Post by thomastjeffery »

CalChris wrote: post #260
thomastjeffery wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another more extreme, yet more common, example is structural engineering. We aren't even talking about structural engineering here. We are talking about an electrical engineer submitting comments regarding traffic. The only reason these are related is the word "engineer", which is ambiguous. The contents of this man's letter are not physically acting upon traffic. They were submitted to be considered by a group of…

> It's about a traffic light camera, which an electrical engineer would be able to understand significantly better than a layman I would go further and say that as a EE working in the field he would understand this issue better than a traffic engineer would.

By defining a "traffic engineer" as a title that demands license, we prevent discussion from other people.

I am very critical of the idea that a license should be required to discuss the traffic system that we all interact with.

Re: Oregon punished an engineer for criticizing red-light cameras. He fought and won

#266

Post by mywittyname »

overhang wrote: post #181
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The speed limit is irreverent. It's about relative speed between vehicles. Slower stays to the right. Slightly faster moves left to pass them as they come up behind them and moves right as soon as appropriate afterwards. Apply recursively for the number of lanes. The "I'm following the law, screw moving over for anyone " attitude when applied in the left lane is exactly the problem that's causing this discussion. >So…

Just as a thought experiment, imagine a line of 20 vehicles all traveling at a safe distance going the exact same speed--the legal maximum limit. Does this sound like a utopia to you, or a nightmare? Do you think this would make traffic more optimal, or would it cause untold safety issues? If somebody in the left lane is traveling at the legal maximum speed and it causes traffic to stack up behind them, does this cre…

The legal maximum in most states (65mph) is way too slow for ideal conditions. That speed was decided on during an era when cars were far less safe, capable and mechanically sound as they are now.

A typical family sedan in the late 70s had a double-digit top speed. And those "recommended" speed signs that say you should do 35mph around a corner, were actually accurate. If you dared to take a 35mph recommended speed corner at 36mph, your tires would be yelping.

In a modern car, you can take those casually take those corners at 55mph; aggressive cornering starts at double the posted speeds.

It's the same thing with the freeway. Going 80mph in a modern car is probably safer than a 1980s car was doing 65. Today's Civic has the cornering, acceleration and braking performance of a 80s Ferrari.

Re: Oregon punished an engineer for criticizing red-light cameras. He fought and won

#267

Post by mulmen »

cr0sh wrote: post #242
mulmen wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the age of big data optimizing for the right value will be our greatest challenge.

The question becomes "what is the right value?" Is it "optimise for most money and fewest/no crashes"? Or is it "optimise for fewest accidents"? I can almost guarantee it will be the first option that is selected.

Yes I should have phrased that as "In the age of big data selecting the value to optimize will be our greatest challenge."

Re: Oregon punished an engineer for criticizing red-light cameras. He fought and won

#269

Post by jgamman »

wonderwonder wrote: post #16

This is a pretty great way to stifle innovation and one of the most blatantly authoritarian programs I have seen. They are essentially saying that no one is allowed to advance technology within their state unless they adhere to their arbitrary rules including passing a test and "a work record of four years or more of technical work or engineering work under the supervision and control of a professional engineer." 4 y…

they never used to at the turn of the 19th/20th century. then innovative bridges collapsed killing lots of people. then they ensured minimum standards. makes sense for bridges/tunnels etc but it's not a free speech thing. kudos to the guy for battling it out.

Re: Oregon punished an engineer for criticizing red-light cameras. He fought and won

#270

Post by thomastjeffery »

takk309 wrote: post #248
thomastjeffery wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that traffic lights are not a complicated nuanced subject where there is one small set of correct methods, and a large subset of dangerous methods. Titles like "Medical Doctor" or "EMT" carry authority, because they require specific training, so that you know how not to kill someone while you are trying to help them. For these professions, it is necessary for the state to demand a set of requirements f…

Traffic signal timing is not a simple as it may appear. Yes, a signal that is all by its self may be easy to time. However coordinating a system with multiple signals and phasing plans can be complicated. Could any technically minded person learn how to do it? Absolutely. However, the same goes for almost any professional service. >Saying someone must be specific about what kind of engineer they purport to be is quit…

> You are essentially saying that any discipline of engineering is the same as any other.

No, but they are related, and any type of engineer will be trained to think like an engineer, which is really the only prerequisite for contributing to discussion about traffic design.

This man is not walking up to traffic lights and changing the timing, he sent a letter with his comments, and pointed out that he is an electrical engineer, which is how he is capable of understanding the nuances of traffic lights.

The problem is not that his idea was rejected, but that it was ignored. When we require licenses for broad things like "engineering ability", we prevent discussion on engineering topics.

> Simply calling oneself an engineer does not make it so.

Simply calling oneself an engineer is not harmful. I am not suddenly gaining authority by saying that I am a software engineer. I am, however, bringing to light years of self-education as a context for my understanding.

> There must be enforcement of titles that effect public health and safety.

That is a broad statement.

I agree that titles like MD or EMT that involve direct action that are likely to cause harm without proper training should be regulated, so that people can trust an individual who claims to be an MD or EMT to do the things that an MD or EMT does.

I disagree with the idea that no one is allowed to contribute to a discussion on topics related to public safety without a license. That is absurd.

Those who do the engineering likely should have a license, so that we can trust them.

Those who discuss engineering should not be limited to the ones who have a license.

Everyone should be able to discuss a topic without fear. Otherwise, engineers would not be able to hear from those who use their designs.

A software engineer that does not hear his or her users writes awful software. An engineer that designs something used by the public that does not hear his or her users is an awful engineer.

Post reply on HN