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.
The Lowdown on Lidar
121–130 of 284 posts
Re: The Lowdown on Lidar
#122Speed 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…
In France they have a system that sort of works like this, most/many highways are toll based. There are toll booths at regular intervals(every 100 miles or so). If your time between toll booths is below a certain time, they know you were speeding at some point. To get around this, my always speeding grandpere would just have us stop for gas, un cafe, etc right before each toll booth.
A camera records the traffic, a computer extract the plates. Then later you have the same setup, and they can then calculate your average speed between the two. The French name is "radar tronçon".
Re: The Lowdown on Lidar
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
In practice, they're actually very good for improving traffic flow on busy roads - because almost everyone is driving at the same speed, jams just don't form in the same way. The utilitarian argument for them is very strong.
Do you have evidence to back up that claim? It seems counterintuitive that slowing down the top few percent fastest drivers would improve traffic. If there's enough traffic to cause congestion wouldn't they be stuck behind slower drivers anyway?
Re: The Lowdown on Lidar
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about saving lives. It's about revenue generation.
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!"
Where I live, in Chicago, the speed limits are so low on some freeways that 91-98 percent of people are going over the speed limit, and the average speed is over 70mph. So everyone, including the police it seems, agrees that the speed limits here are not for my safety, but exist as a way for the officers to cherry pick essentially any car they want and write them a ticket.
Re: The Lowdown on Lidar
#125Why do HN mods keep changing the title from meaningful ones, which make the reader interested in the content, to generic, vague ones? You'll see that there's definitely a correlation between the moment that HN mods change the title and the post dropping off the top frontpage spot.
Re: The Lowdown on Lidar
#126Re: The Lowdown on Lidar
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what happens when you are caught breaking into a building, and the camera is evidence of your crime? This entire line of reasoning would completely destroy any kind of automated crime detection (security systems, security cameras), which is ridiculous on its face. Further, what happens when you commit a crime where there are no witnesses? People are rightfully convicted of crimes based on "things" rather than the…
In order to introduce the video as evidence, they have to put somebody on the stand who will explain how the camera works and so on. And right there is your opportunity to confront them. You can ask all sorts of questions, like when was the last time they cleaned the lenses.
Re: The Lowdown on Lidar
#128Speed 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…
Re: The Lowdown on Lidar
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
From the guidelines: > 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.
The submitter didn't do this.
> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait.
Guidelines != rules. Sometimes authors write poor headlines (this is a great example). The community benefits from headlines that are more descriptive of the article. Having mods change them back for consistency's sake harms HN more than it helps.
Re: The Lowdown on Lidar
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "right to face your accuser" refers to witnesses. The state is _always_ the prosecutor in criminal cases (in the US, IANAL).
So what happens when you are caught breaking into a building, and the camera is evidence of your crime? This entire line of reasoning would completely destroy any kind of automated crime detection (security systems, security cameras), which is ridiculous on its face. Further, what happens when you commit a crime where there are no witnesses? People are rightfully convicted of crimes based on "things" rather than the…
Someone testifies as to what they've witnessed that makes them believe you are guilty, giving you a chance to question them about any flaws.