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

Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 71 posts

Re: Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists

#31

Post by wpietri »

ohazi wrote: post #29
wpietri wrote: post #20

For the entrepreneurs here, I promise to order a $200 version of this. Ideally it'd just be a mount I'd drop my phone into so that I could, say, pair it with Bluetooth and have an app that simultaneously records video with overlaid range and GPS information. I would pretty much immediately start documenting the routes I ride.

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Bosch-130-ft-Laser-Distance-Measu...

Thanks, but it doesn't really match what either I or the article described. I'm not trying to measure a distance. I'm trying to prove to my city planners and my elected representatives that many drivers on particular routes are unsafe.

Re: Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists

#32

Post by wpietri »

pmorici wrote: post #28
wpietri wrote: post #20

For the entrepreneurs here, I promise to order a $200 version of this. Ideally it'd just be a mount I'd drop my phone into so that I could, say, pair it with Bluetooth and have an app that simultaneously records video with overlaid range and GPS information. I would pretty much immediately start documenting the routes I ride.

Why not make your own... https://www.sparkfun.com/search/results?term=ultrasonic

I like the thought of it, but I have a lot of fun hobby project ideas already. Realistically the amount of work it would take to make something good is a lot more than $200 of my time. But if one person makes 100 of these, maybe it's worth $20,000 of their time.

Re: Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists

#35

Post by sosuke »

dodders wrote: post #26
brianstorms wrote: post #16

Now if they'd only come up with some device to make sure cyclists stop at stop signs and red lights.

Now if only they'd come up with a device to make sure drivers stop at stop signs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GneVKDI_bEc

Well red light cameras can capture license plates, so all we need to achieve parity is legally require front and back license plates on bicycles. Seems reasonable, eventually inspection stickers too. Want to make sure brakes work, has working lights. More like motorcycle requirements perhaps?

Edit: just to frame, I did not watch the youtube video you linked to, I was just brainstorming out loud and I don't think anyone should run red lights

Re: Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists

#36

Post by raquo »

minikites wrote: post #5
nsxwolf wrote: post #4

If the police are measuring with ultrasonic rangefinders, then cars need them too. How are human drivers supposed to judge that distance? The article makes the analogy of trying to enforce speed limits without a radar detector. Fine, but cars have speedometers that give the driver the same information. We don't demand drivers just get a feel for how fast they are going.

We do ask people to guess whether or not they are committing DWI/DUI though, which is a huge problem in my opinion. Cockeyed.com sums it up better than I can: http://www.cockeyed.com/science/breathalyzer/breathalyser01.... > Monitoring blood alcohol levels is difficult. Holding people accountable for crossing the .08 limit is like holding them accountable for trespassing once they walk past a particular longitude. Th…

What's the problem with using a breathalyzer? Seems like a good investment if you want to drive after drinking often.

Re: Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists

#37

Post by jessaustin »

pmorici wrote: post #28
wpietri wrote: post #20

For the entrepreneurs here, I promise to order a $200 version of this. Ideally it'd just be a mount I'd drop my phone into so that I could, say, pair it with Bluetooth and have an app that simultaneously records video with overlaid range and GPS information. I would pretty much immediately start documenting the routes I ride.

Why not make your own... https://www.sparkfun.com/search/results?term=ultrasonic

If I make my own it's getting hooked up to a can of spraypaint, not to a camera. b^)

Re: Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists

#38

Post by gnoway »

minikites wrote: post #5
nsxwolf wrote: post #4

If the police are measuring with ultrasonic rangefinders, then cars need them too. How are human drivers supposed to judge that distance? The article makes the analogy of trying to enforce speed limits without a radar detector. Fine, but cars have speedometers that give the driver the same information. We don't demand drivers just get a feel for how fast they are going.

We do ask people to guess whether or not they are committing DWI/DUI though, which is a huge problem in my opinion. Cockeyed.com sums it up better than I can: http://www.cockeyed.com/science/breathalyzer/breathalyser01.... > Monitoring blood alcohol levels is difficult. Holding people accountable for crossing the .08 limit is like holding them accountable for trespassing once they walk past a particular longitude. Th…

France mandated breathalyzer kits in all cars a few years ago, although it has since been suspended[1].

[1] http://www.thelocal.fr/20130124/france-motorists-drivers-sus...

Re: Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists

#39

Post by jen729w »

rubyfan wrote: post #9

What I find more interesting than the device is a quote from the officer, "Their attitude will determine whether I issue a citation. If they take it and just throw it on the seat, then I know I wasn’t effective. Then in that case I would issue a citation." Does this seem extremely subjective and arbitrary to anyone else?

Honestly that sounds like excellent policing to me.

If we issue everyone with a ticket for the smallest infraction we end up alienating the public. I'm a law-abiding citizen; I want to help the police. If I'm pulled over for something fairly innocent - say, not quite leaving enough room for a cyclist - and I'm given a $150 fine, no questions asked, what that does not do is make me respect cyclists more. It makes me disrespect the police, the law, it angers me, it makes me far less likely to help the police in the (immediate) future.

If the officer explains the law to me and I take what he says on board, that's a better outcome for everyone. It's better for me (no ticket), it's better for cyclists (I'll leave more room), and it's better for the police (excellent public relations).

I speak as a daily cyclist, as someone who called my local police literally an hour ago to report a weirdly parked car, and as an ex-Englishman, now resident of Melbourne, Australia. We tend to get on with our police here; their street skills tend to be a bit "softer". I think that's fabulous.

Re: Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists

#40

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

prawn wrote: post #6
nsxwolf wrote: post #4

If the police are measuring with ultrasonic rangefinders, then cars need them too. How are human drivers supposed to judge that distance? The article makes the analogy of trying to enforce speed limits without a radar detector. Fine, but cars have speedometers that give the driver the same information. We don't demand drivers just get a feel for how fast they are going.

I do it by overcompensating so there is no chance I am too close to the cyclist. If there is not enough room (e.g., oncoming traffic) then I wait until there is an opportunity. I can't see cars broadly introducing this technology before we're not the ones driving them. FWIW, I worked on a "citizen jury" that recommended the adoption of the one-metre passing rule in my state. The default opposition on the jury was "wh…

I do the same thing. To me, a cyclist is a "car" in the sense that regardless of their actual road position I treat them like they're taking up the entire lane and look for a window to overtake them.

I guess in my head, I assume that a cyclist could hit a rock at any moment, fall over, and get caught under my tires. So I treat the situation like that is a realistic scenario even if perhaps it is not.

I wish cyclists would cycle more centrally in their lane. Cycling near the curve just results in bad drivers thinking they can ride side by side with a cyclist which they should not be doing...

Post reply on HN