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

171–180 of 284 posts

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#171

Post by scott_karana »

saosebastiao wrote: post #45
growse wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly because the cost/benefit just isn't there. In the UK, the data shows that speeding (excessive speed for the conditions above the speed limit) is the primary cause in single digit percentage of accidents. I believe there's data from 1996 and 2007 for this, will dig it out when I'm not on mobile. If you want to spend money on accident prevention, there's much better things to target than speeding.

I have yet to get into an accident, but I actively avoid walking across several streets in Seattle because of a combination of entitlement thinking (This road is mine because I'm in a car!), and pervasive speeding. I'm not the only one...I recently found out almost nobody on my side of a local road will cross the road due the same problem. The road, therefore, has become a barrier to commerce and has split a communit…

Hypothetically remove speeding from the equation, and keep the entitlement.

Would you feel safe crossing the road now?

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#172

Post by scotty79 »

mrfusion wrote: post #114

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.

I'm sure it was valuable lesson for you that law is not concerned with the truth as much as it is with order.

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#173

Post by randyrand »

Zelphyr wrote: post #37
ihaveajob wrote: post #12

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…

Unfortunately, because police departments are often (mostly?) funded by things like tickets[1], they actually have an incentive to care less about traffic safety in this case. If the goal was truly to get people to stop speeding the municipalities could increase fines to a level that actually serves as a deterrent. 1: I only have second-hand/anecdotal knowledge that these departments are funded by fines. Still, I bel…

I think the punishment should reflect the crime.

If fines and or punishments are used primarily as a deterrent, then why not just have huge punishments all over the place?

Do you see how that's immoral? Fines should be used as punishment, not deterrence (punishment is a form of deterrence, but is merely a side effect). If I decide to litter, it's because I think "this is not that big of a crime. I'm not harming people very much." It's not anyones natural moral instinct to think, "I would do this, but the penalty is to high" - we're conditioned to think that. But as is all to often, a lot of times people are not even aware that their actions may be illegal, or may not be aware the consequences are vastly harsher than the crime. Do you know what the penalty is for driving with one bad headlight? me neither. I hope its reasonable, especially when I make the decision to do it, but I base the decision off the fact that driving without a headlight does not seem that egregious of a crime.

So shouldn't our punishment system be base off the same thing that people use to guide their decisions? The results of our actions?

The answer is yes. I don't want to live in the world you are imagining. Even if there is no litter on the ground and no one speeds.

If you say, just inform everyone of the laws really really well so they know beforehand when making a decision, that is utterly impossible. Foreigners exist. People are busy. All laws are not even totally known to the lawmakers. It is an impossible task.

Back to your point: If the goal was to stop speeding, they would make it physically impossible to speed. Either by really pervasive robotic enforcement, or governors in cars. But they don't do that, they want the money.

Still, the punishment should reflect the crime, even in the robotic police world.

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#174

Post by scotty79 »

Karunamon wrote: post #39
throwaway888888 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a person turns into a sociopathic scofflaw as soon as he gets behind the wheel Boo this man! That is an ideological position, and I could easily apply the same blanket label of absolute sociopathy to law enforcement, and I'd be just as wrong. But there's a difference between a mechanized, automatic law enforcement system and a law enforcment system that is implemented as a practice performed by living human beings. T…

Sociopathic? Maybe not, but scofflaw? Most definitely. Drivers have a really hard time with really basic things. Speed limits, red lights, turn signals, proper lane etiquette, and other common courtesies. Every single one of those things has a law attached. People either forget or think that the law doesn't apply to them.

I'm a scofflaw every time when I approach the computer and/or (not) read terms and conditions or license.

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#175

Post by diminoten »

kareemm wrote: post #129
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.

> 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. 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 exam…

I'd rather be on a website that errs on the side of "no linkbait" than a website that allows too much linkbait.

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#176

Post by Karunamon »

scotty79 wrote: post #174
Karunamon wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sociopathic? Maybe not, but scofflaw? Most definitely. Drivers have a really hard time with really basic things. Speed limits, red lights, turn signals, proper lane etiquette, and other common courtesies. Every single one of those things has a law attached. People either forget or think that the law doesn't apply to them.

I'm a scofflaw every time when I approach the computer and/or (not) read terms and conditions or license.

As are most of us.. however there is no point at which ignoring the average EULA will endanger a life.

People who speed, hang out in the left lane, run red lights, don't signal their turns and lane changes, and so on are a danger to themselves and others.

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#177

Post by [deleted] »

saosebastiao wrote: post #120
pyre wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How is a ticket quota any different than a SLOC quota or a SLOC analysis in a performance review?. Quantity of tickets issued is a productivity metric, as flawed as it is. Their existence does not imply that tickets exist for revenue.

[deleted]

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#178

Post by fuzzythinker »

daniel_levine wrote: post #125
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.

The title has been changed to the title the original author used, which seems appropriate. I think HN's title modding is done to prevent rampant link baiting and other titling by 3rd parties, instead entrusting it with the original author

No, it's not appropriate here as the title only mentions "LIDAR", which I'm sure most of us have no idea what it means and won't care enough to read about it, whereas the original title gave context and desire to find out more.

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#179

Post by saosebastiao »

scott_karana wrote: post #171
saosebastiao wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to get into an accident, but I actively avoid walking across several streets in Seattle because of a combination of entitlement thinking (This road is mine because I'm in a car!), and pervasive speeding. I'm not the only one...I recently found out almost nobody on my side of a local road will cross the road due the same problem. The road, therefore, has become a barrier to commerce and has split a communit…

Hypothetically remove speeding from the equation, and keep the entitlement. Would you feel safe crossing the road now?

Safe(r), yes. Speeding decreases the chances you will die in a collision, and decreases reaction distance.

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#180

Post by crististm »

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…

Some wikipedia editors found a new home. Sometimes, people in a position of power, need some reassuring of that position by exercising the power. Most of the time however, the strong ones don't need that reassurance.
Post reply on HN