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

The Lowdown on Lidar

docs.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 284 posts

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#141

Post by omegaham »

MichaelDickens wrote: post #52
selectodude wrote: post #29

Earlier 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!"

The idea of a speed limit is sound. But there are organizations that work to game the system. A great example is the multitude of sleepy towns right next to highways. They have a police force that is exclusively utilized on the five miles (or less) of highway that officially fall within the town limits, writing tickets to people who pass through. For example, Lindale, Ohio has a population of about 170 people and collects about $800,000 a year from speeding tickets.

My mother got snagged in one of these in Virginia a while back - they have a hill where the speed limit drops from 65 to 45 at the bottom of it, with a specially planted copse of trees where the police sit with their detectors. A quarter mile down the road, they have a specially built parking lot for people to get their tickets. They even provide envelopes and stamps for people to send their checks! Nice people.

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#142

Post by Alupis »

curtis wrote: post #109
kudu wrote: post #83

Why 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.

I'd really like to see more transparency when it comes to title changes. The most recent case where one of my submissions had a title change mirrors what kudu is describing here: a meaningful (and I think accurate) title changed to a generic and vague one -- followed by a rapid decline in the rate of upvotes. I think there are legitimate reasons for title changes, and I think that the Hacker News mods generally do go…

> I'd really like to see more transparency

I agree. From the random weighting down of certain articles, to title changes, to just flat-out removing/flaging some posts... it seems HN is becoming a "whatever the Mod who happens to be on today feels like" site -- which really detracts from the awesomeness of HN -- I'm not looking for a gatekeeper news site - if I wanted that, I'd go to CNN or something.

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#143

Post by mortov »

Alupis wrote: post #108
mortov wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often (but not always) in the UK, the laser is accompanied by video footage which shows where the beam has been trained and it is a combination of both the video and laser reading (shows on the video) which is the evidence. (all tripod mounted - so I suspect many of the issues detailed are well known). Sounds like that would give good supporting evidence for a challenge. However, traffic violations is most places are…

how can a video possibly show where a laser is pointed at from > 1,000ft away? that seems unreasonable.

The video is required to zoom to show the driver of the vehicle as well for identification purposes. It prevents people claiming they were not the driver.

(e.g. it looks like this http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pictured-speeding-motor...)

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#144

Post by GHFigs »

kudu wrote: post #83

Why 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.

Alternate questions: Why do authors keep using generic and vague titles? Why do submitters keep submitting content with generic and vague titles?

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#145

Post by mortov »

mseebach wrote: post #138
mortov wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often (but not always) in the UK, the laser is accompanied by video footage which shows where the beam has been trained and it is a combination of both the video and laser reading (shows on the video) which is the evidence. (all tripod mounted - so I suspect many of the issues detailed are well known). Sounds like that would give good supporting evidence for a challenge. However, traffic violations is most places are…

In the UK, speed cameras seem to be accompanied by road markings: http://southport.qlocal.co.uk/southport/news_list/New_Speed_... I always assumed that the radar was only for deciding to take and submit the pictures, the actual speed measurement (especially if challenged) would be done using the markings on the road. That only requires the speed camera to have a reliable to 1/100 second clock which isn't exactly rock…

Static cameras have markings and 2 pictures are taken, normally 1/3 of a second apart. Activation is either radar or in-road inductive wiring. Neither are foolproof and pictures are supposed to be manually checked but often are not with results like this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-21264281 where a claimed 50mph was actually 18 mph)

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#146

Post by diminoten »

eric_h wrote: post #137
diminoten wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 original title is, indeed, misleading. The article is not about LIDAR specifically, but about how LIDAR is (mis)used in speed enforcement. IMO, the title change was warranted.

I think at this point your beef is with PG himself, or whoever he had write those guidelines.

The thing the mods are trying to avoid is link baiting, and they tend to err on the side of "no exceptions". I prefer this, as any other option may lead to more unintentional bias, or worse.

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#147

Post by Alupis »

mortov wrote: post #143
Alupis wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how can a video possibly show where a laser is pointed at from > 1,000ft away? that seems unreasonable.

The video is required to zoom to show the driver of the vehicle as well for identification purposes. It prevents people claiming they were not the driver. (e.g. it looks like this http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pictured-speeding-motor... )

That image may reasonably prove it was not a woman driving the vehicle, but no way can that prove it was the actual driver (or anyone's identity). It's way too blurry and pixelated. Also, a LIDAR beam shouldn't be pointed at a sloped window, so I doubt it actually proves where the beam was pointed at either.

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#148

Post by gknoy »

chiph wrote: post #26
thrownaway2424 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even half science, it's just a big slide deck of FUD padded with a healthy amount of entitlement.

Be honest with yourself: If you got a ticket where the indicated speed was massively different than the speed you were actually travelling, you'd fight it too. And you might do some research into the validity of the reading, as well. You'd especially do it in a state where the law says "x" mph over the limit and your license may get suspended (meaning you walk for 60 days). It'd be worth fighting for.

Especially if it were in a residential area where you had been deliberately careful. If I got a ticket saying that I'd been driving 40 in a 25 zone, when I had been carefully watching my spedometer at ~20s, I'd feel pretty wronged.

I'm not sure I'd have the resources to fight it, but I would certainly want to.

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#149

Post by gknoy »

darksim905 wrote: post #53
joncrocks wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think all he way trying to say that there are ways that a LIDAR gun could give a false reading, and there's no current incentive for law enforcement/manufacturers to ensure accuracy. In fact there's an incentive for both the manufacturer to emphasise accuracy based on successful prosecutions, and for police to emphasise accuracy to prevent large-scale contesting of tickets. They are used for law-enforcement, but pr…

Where are you people getting your information that they aren't available for public scrutiny? Has no one ever heard of Guys of LIDAR? http://www.guysoflidar.com/ Granted, they can't dump the firmware these devices use but they are very telling in what these detectors can pick up, can't, real world examples, and so on.

What stops them from dumping the firmware? Technical or legal limitations?

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#150

Post by Arjuna »

curtis wrote: post #109
kudu wrote: post #83

Why 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.

I'd really like to see more transparency when it comes to title changes. The most recent case where one of my submissions had a title change mirrors what kudu is describing here: a meaningful (and I think accurate) title changed to a generic and vague one -- followed by a rapid decline in the rate of upvotes. I think there are legitimate reasons for title changes, and I think that the Hacker News mods generally do go…

"I'd really like to see more transparency when it comes to title changes."

I think dang is working hard to be transparent about this topic. You can see a number of examples of this by reading through the following search result [1].

Cases in point:

He has reverted titles to their original form... "Ok, we'll change the title back again." [2]

He is open to suggestions...

"If anyone suggests a better title, I'll change it again." [3]

"That's a fair suggestion and we changed the title accordingly." [4]

"We'd happily change the title if someone can propose a more accurate and neutral one." [5]

[1] https://hn.algolia.com/#!/comment/forever/0/author%3Adang%20...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8050702

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7557464

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8104621

[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7959549

Post reply on HN