111–120 of 284 posts
Well, he fought with half science: he came up with a set of testable hypotheses, but didn't actually run any of the tests. I guess that's as scientific as cosmology :-)
It's not even half science, it's just a big slide deck of FUD padded with a healthy amount of entitlement.
Speed radars are good for speed traps, but not so great to prevent speed related incidents. They share the same fatal flaw with all other single-point speed meters: You can just slow down for a minute, while you pass by the speed trap, and then speed up for the rest of your trip. Instead, a 2-point speed meter (i.e. license plate readers every few miles, measuring time between matching reads) system is superior becau…
> I can't believe [average speed detector is] not implanted at least in all interstate freeways. They are very common in Australia. It takes a photo of your license plate, then another 10km (or whatever) down the freeway. If the two photos are less than x seconds apart, you get a speeding ticket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OR it could be because speeding isn't that dangerous and the current limits on most roads don't represent what speed people actually drive at or what speed people could safely drive at. It's different on residential streets, but on freeways I think the way Germany handles it is better. Speeding tickets (and most traffic violations really) are not about safety or curbing behavior they're about generating revenue for t…
Speeding is extremely dangerous. It's ludicrous to argue otherwise. A third of crashes (including fatal crashes) involve speeding, and the faster you are driving the more likely you are to die or fatally injure another. Also, changing the speed limits on roads have been studied and it doesn't make a humongous difference. The government usually sets the speed limit at slightly lower than the average speed people actua…
Come court day, I got all dressed up, stood up when called and started my arguments ... and the judge simply cut me off after two sentences and said "guilty".
I'm surprised this guy was allowed to present his whole argument and it actually convinced a judge.
When I was a teenager I tried to fight a speeding ticket, and prepared a presentation like this with several good points (I think). Come court day, I got all dressed up, stood up when called and started my arguments ... and the judge simply cut me off after two sentences and said "guilty". I'm surprised this guy was allowed to present his whole argument and it actually convinced a judge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What was the previous title? The current one is the same as the name of the provided link. If you don't like the title, blame the author. Mods, afaik, are just trying to follow the rule that the submission should reflect the title of the article.
The title I first saw was: Josh Bloch Fights a LIDAR Speeding Ticket (with Science) Which is much better than the currently edited version.
1. Josh Bloch is an author of particular interest to this community.
2. When I searched to see if the page had already been submitted, I noted that recent HN posts on LIDAR were on technical laser ranging (e.g. in mapping applications), not on speed enforcement.
3. I thought it was an article that would be of interest to HN readers, so I thought they would be well-served by an appealing link title which conveyed the content and tone of the presentation and invited a click.
When I was a teenager I tried to fight a speeding ticket, and prepared a presentation like this with several good points (I think). Come court day, I got all dressed up, stood up when called and started my arguments ... and the judge simply cut me off after two sentences and said "guilty". I'm surprised this guy was allowed to present his whole argument and it actually convinced a judge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The title I first saw was: Josh Bloch Fights a LIDAR Speeding Ticket (with Science) Which is much better than the currently edited version.
I submitted the link with the title you note for the following three reasons: 1. Josh Bloch is an author of particular interest to this community. 2. When I searched to see if the page had already been submitted, I noted that recent HN posts on LIDAR were on technical laser ranging (e.g. in mapping applications), not on speed enforcement. 3. I thought it was an article that would be of interest to HN readers, so I th…
> Please don't do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase or exclamation points, or adding a parenthetical remark saying how great an article is. It's implicit in submitting something that you think it's important.
and
> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait.
Speed radars are good for speed traps, but not so great to prevent speed related incidents. They share the same fatal flaw with all other single-point speed meters: You can just slow down for a minute, while you pass by the speed trap, and then speed up for the rest of your trip. Instead, a 2-point speed meter (i.e. license plate readers every few miles, measuring time between matching reads) system is superior becau…
Definition of a speed trap: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d17/vc40802.htm
Speed traps are prohibited: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d17/vc40801.htm
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speed limit laws don't exist to generate revenue. They exist to disincentivize speeding. If speed limit laws didn't exist, can you imagine lawmakers saying, "We need more money. Hey, I know! Let's charge people money for driving over a certain speed!"
The laws aren't put into place with the "let's generate revenue" mentality, but their enforcement is definitely done with respect to that mentality. If it's all about getting people to slow down, then: 1) Why aren't law enforcement more focused on getting people to slow down than writing tickets? 2) Why do traffic cops have monthly quotas for tickets? 3) In places where monthly quotas are against the law, why do 'per…