Searching \ for '[OT]: detecting emergency vehicles. Radar fools &' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=detecting+emergency
Search entire site for: 'detecting emergency vehicles. Radar fools &'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: detecting emergency vehicles. Radar fools & '
2004\06\15@153324 by Robert Rolf

picon face
Dwayne Reid wrote:
>
> At 10:41 AM 6/15/2004, Harold Hallikainen wrote:
> >OK, WAY off topic, but MAYBE it could be done with a PIC... Is anyone
> >aware of a LEGAL transmitter that would trip consumer radar detectors? I'd
> >sure like to have one in my car as people pass me at 20 or 30 miles per
> >hour over the speed limit...
>
> Do a web search for "trolling for tailgates".  What you are describing is
> on-going serious fun for a few mental midgets on American highways.  I'm
> seriously considering joining the party <grin>.
>
> dwayne

An enterprising amateur radio operator in the Spokane WA area has
been selling gunn diode oscillators to the locals, who put them out
near the roads in their neighborhoods to slow down traffic since it
fools radar detectors into blasting on.

Given the recent discussions in our City about reducing the posted
residential speed limit, it might be a cheap solution.
You make this kind of stuff. Might be a nice niche product for you.

And the latest toy is  $100k van equipped with TV cameras and
image recognition software that checks license plates for status as
'stolen'. Found two stolen vehicles the first day of use. The insurance
industry expects to pay for it's cost within a few weeks (at $25 a write off).
Vicar is the trade name.

If EVERY red light camera were electronic, and vehicles could be yanked
from the road for more than a few violations, we'd quickly get rid
of the dangerous drivers, since you can't have a cop on every corner
but you can afford to have 4 cameras per intersection given the
low cost of today's computer/video technology.

Robert

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\15@153903 by Shawn Wilton

flavicon
face
It's not speeding that causes accidents, it's wreckless driving.  And
no, you can't equate the two no matter how hard you try.  I'm going off
Oregon State Police statistics fwiw (unpublished).

-Shawn



Robert Rolf wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\15@154732 by Robert Ussery

flavicon
face
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pic microcontroller discussion list [spam_OUTPICLISTTakeThisOuTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU]
>On Behalf Of Shawn Wilton

>It's not speeding that causes accidents, it's wreckless driving.  And
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>no, you can't equate the two no matter how hard you try.  I'm going off
>Oregon State Police statistics fwiw (unpublished).

Gotta love it... That's what makes English such a great language. One extra
"w" and the sentence makes no sense. <grin>

- Bob

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\15@155847 by Shawn Wilton

flavicon
face
You know what's really sad is that I've been spelling reckless with a w
for as many years as I can recall.



Robert Ussery wrote:

>>{Original Message removed}

2004\06\15@190344 by hilip Stortz

picon face
the transmitters you describe are highly illegal, and it's a federal
offense.  the police tried this when radar detectors first came out.
they were hooking speed guns to car batteries and hiding them on the
side of the road.  they were taken to court somewhere and it was ruled a
violation of their operating license.  it's also obnoxious as hell to be
putting out microwaves at everyone.  rf exposure is not good for you,
nidgets with cell phones are bad enough.  also consider the increased
likely hood of accidents as you are encouraging people to suddenly slam
on the brakes and creating a greater speed differential on the road as
those with radar detectors slow down and the majority with out them do
not.  speed differential correlates very strongly with accident rate.
you are actually endangering drivers, both those speeding with radar
detectors and those without them speeding or otherwise.

as far as the camera's, do you honestly want such a system?  if so
please move to singapore, you do not deserve to live in the U.S. and
clearly don't value your freedom or privacy.  how long do you suppose it
would take for such a system to be abused to track people's movement and
then harass those with "unusual" or "suspicious" movement patterns.  how
long before it is abused to black male people who see prostitutes or???
the police are sadly some of the least trust worthy people out there.
in NY state last year 3 fbi agents were arrested, they were collecting
sensitive information on wealthy individuals and then either black
mailing them or making the information public to manipulate stock prices
- after speculating on them (it somehow seems contrary to the function
of the stock market and economy that you can make money betting a
company will lose value).  seriously, city police are sadly some of the
most dishonest and dangerous people out there.  according to readers
digest (hardly a left wing publication, in fact rather conservative)
amongst blue collar workers police are the most likely to be child
molesters!  this from a study designed to determine which group of
people were best and worst in terms of trusting them for child care.
and, consider the cost of these systems, you could indeed have many more
properly trained police on the street for the same price.  they are not
cheap to operate.

in london england where they were dumb enough to put in a massive camera
system designed and sold as a counter terrorism measure a recent audit
found that the officers monitoring the cameras spend most of there time
electronically "stalking" or watching attractive young women!  hardly
what the citizens intended the system for.  the system has not caught
any terrorist with it's facial recognition software, but several false
positives have resulted in innocent people being harassed.  facial
recognition software is actually still very, very poor despite industry
claims otherwise.  reading license plates is easier, but you will still
get false positives.  how many innocent people have to be pulled over at
gun point before it's a bad idea?  how much freedom and privacy is it
worth?  it's true that in the uk petty crimes like muggings have gone
down, which is good, but i hardly think it's worth the lost privacy and
the probability of the system being abused by officers.  such systems
are extremely useful for dishonest officers who want to steal or rape
people, and sadly there are many such people who have badges.  a
surveillance society is not a good thing.  power corrupts, absolute, and
these are very powerful systems for abuse.  in fact i'd say they are
more useful for abuse than they are for legitimate law enforcement.
it's bad enough already.  right here in casper wyoming, where i live a
city cop was arrested last year, he was using police surveillance
equipment to spy on his ex girl friend, who was a county sheriffs
deputy!  and the deputy had a restraining order.  just imagine how he
could have followed or harassed her with a wide spread camera system
with license plate or facial recognition.  and it's not an isolated
occurrence, this type of thing happens all over, all the time.  the cost
to the individuals who's privacy is violated is a serious thing.  again,
i'd actually like to see more police, but they must be paid and trained
better, and they must be accountable to the people they police!

i actually trust the insurance companies not to abuse this equipment
more than i would trust the police, especially if it's in a mobil van
rather than a bunch of stationary points.  for one the the insurance
company expects results which reduces the time operators have to abuse
the system.

as far as yanking vehicles from the road for excessive violations, you
seem to misunderstand the law.  vehicles do not violate the law, drivers
do.  if someone violates the driving laws excessively their license is
revoked/suspended, not the vehicles.  do you really think it a good
thing to have other family members constantly pulled over or harassed
just because someone else used that vehicle to violate the law?  it's
very common for more than one person to drive a given vehicle at
different times.  do you honestly want people pulled over and harassed
several times on their way to the grocery store because of what a spouse
or child did?  do you really want to waste scarce police resources on
this rather than having them concentrate on pulling over people who are
seriously violating the law in real time?  do you have any idea of the
difference between real crime and minor offenses?  do you think the
police do or should have unlimited resources and powers?  if so, again
please move to china or singapore, you will like the fascism that is
sadly present in these countries.

today's computer and video technology is not cheap, it's not cheap to
install, or operate.  that takes people and computers and systems that
are maintained not by the police but by expensive third parties.  it's a
gross waste and misdirection of resources.  and it's just the type of
system that lends itself to easy abuse.

if you want to live in a surveillance society, move to china where half
the population is literally spying on their neighbors for the government
on a part time basis. where every apartment building has a "private"
citizen working and reporting directly to the government on any
suspicious activities, political or otherwise, of the residents, a
person who the residents feel obligated to invite to diner regularly to
demonstrate that they "have nothing to hide".  believe me, if you like
freedom you have a lot to hide in such a society.

current systems are already being grossly abused.  airlines have a "no
fly" list provided by the government, with bush and aschroft in power
those who have criticized them publicly have been put on this list.
people have been put on the no fly list for legal political activity
(dissent is the most important thing to have in a democracy), not
because they are a threat to the plane or other passengers, but because
those in power perceive them to be a poetical threat.  just imagine if
they could also target these people for more vigorous enforcement of
traffic laws and other misdemeanors.  do you understand the difference
between a violent felon and a non violent misdemeanor?  do you really
think we need to keep letting violent criminals out of prison early to
make room for non violent offenders?  do you really want a country with
political prisoners?  if so, get the hell out.  it's not "america love
it or leave it", it's "love freedom or get the hell out of the U.S.".
if you want a police state move to one, don't make a free state into
your fascist dream land (and i promise you you'll seen realize it's a nightmare).

besides, contrary to popular belief, giving up freedoms does not make
you more secure.  it simply moves the threat from the anonymous and
poorly funded to the known and well funded government.  this is not an improvement.

Robert Rolf wrote:
{Quote hidden}

----------

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\15@191630 by hilip Stortz

picon face
it still makes perfect sense, to those intelligent enough to have a
flexible parsing algorithm in their wetware.  it is a spelling error,
but a simple spelling error hardly makes something meaningless, except
possibly in court.

Robert Ussery wrote:
>
> >{Original Message removed}

2004\06\15@192505 by Dipperstein, Michael

face picon face
I didn't know that there was no 'u' in forty until I was 25.

-Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: pic microcontroller discussion list [.....PICLISTKILLspamspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU] On
Behalf Of Shawn Wilton
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 12:58 PM
To: PICLISTspamKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: [OT]: detecting emergency vehicles. Radar fools & Red light cams


You know what's really sad is that I've been spelling reckless with a w for as
many years as I can recall.



Robert Ussery wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\15@221454 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
My best friend from childhood was brain damaged when somebody ran a red
light and hit their mini he was 16.
He was in the tryout team for a major football team here and was a shoo in.
He is 24 now, lives with his mother and a full time carer, he cant see
properly,
he has learnt basically how to speak again (kinda) though so he is making
progress.
recently he has learnt to walk with the aid of a crutch, but is limited to
about 10 meters before he falls over.

you still want your freedom to run red lights?

if people obeyed the speed limit then they wouldn't be slamming their brakes
on when their radar detector went off.
if people obeyed the law then they wouldn't slam the brakes on when they
passed a cop on the side of the road either.
if people didn't run red lights my friend wouldn't be the near vegetable he
currently is.

People however are as a rule stupid.
A person can be smart, but people are stupid.
You need laws so that stupid people know what is common sense and actually
do it.

When Australians talk about speeding fines its different to what I have
heard of American fines.
a 0-15km/h ticket here is around $150
if you are doing 16km km over the speed limit on a long weekend or similar
you loose 6 points off your license and a $500 fine
licenses have 12 points and you gain 2 points per year up to 12.
30k over and its a $1000 fine.
As far as I'm aware we have one of the lowest rates of road deaths per
capita in the world. It seems to me that aside from Australians being
naturally better than everybody else it may have something to do with the
system working.

Americans seem to have funny ideas about freedom.
Free to shoot people and run them over in our SUV's.
Is it any wonder why your free state has such problems?

here is a counter argument to your spiel against red light cameras.
ok say the system is abused, 15 people per year are "harassed" unfairly cos
they I dunno drive oddly
now with a red light camera on every intersection (presumably doing plate
checks for stolen, unregistered, and wanted cars and checking for speeding)
you are going to cut the number of people running those reds and speeding
drastically no? now even if we say that only a small percentage of
fatalities and injuries are due to speeding, you have still removed those
fatalities and the other people who obey they law are no worse off. Now of
the 43,220 people who died in 2003 (in America) say 5% of those were speed
related and were stopped. you just saved 2000 lives.

now I know people are going to die on the roads, fact of life. My friend is
one of those statistics, and I still drive my car so don't bitch to me about
that. but don't get on your high horse talking "freedom" this and "spy's"
that until one of your friends or family has had their life and the lives of
their family destroyed, (the mother is now basically a full time nurse and
the sister couldn't hack it and moved 3000km away) by what you are saying
its your right in life to do.

I drive at the speed limit, not above, not below (unless the conditions
warrant driving slower). I obey all the road rules. If I can safely stop for
an orange light I do so. I am generally peaceful and relaxed. I am
courteous. after all those "freedoms" have been taken away yaknow what,
sometimes I get to places 10 minutes after friends who do speed, and
generally have a disregard for the road rules. but when I arrive I have a
clean conscience, I'm calmer and not stressed, and my fuel bill is around
half that of the other peoples.



{Original Message removed}

2004\06\15@222455 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
random "fakt" 27

"Fifty-eight percent of those killed weren't wearing seat belts, a source of
frustration for NHTSA administrator Jeffrey Runge, whose emphasis on seat
belt use helped achieve a record use rate of 79 percent last year. "

watch some medical shows based in real hospitals, look at what happens when
a "truck" (SUV) full of people come in thats been in some kind of accident
and half of them were wearing seatbelts. You can pick who was and who wasnt
generally by the number of medical people around them and if the person is
moving or not.

one I saw had a group of 6 teenagers who had been out galavanting around the
desert (fair enough thats fun no argument with that) when they rolled the
thing
half with half without belts. The worst injury to a seatbelt wearer was a
sprained wrist and sombody had a few stiches.
one guy without was ejected through the windscreen, the others were thrown
about inside the vehicle (thats where the seatbelted person needed their
stiches from) they had broken knees, arms, necks. The guy who was ejected
got off lightly and just had big chunks of skin ripped off his face and
upper body.

now when you have people smart enough to wear seatbelts without it being a
legal requirement then i'll aggree you dont need to regulate it.




{Original Message removed}

2004\06\15@222705 by David Koski

flavicon
face
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:15:03 +1000
Jake Anderson <EraseMEgrooveeespam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTOPTUSHOME.COM.AU> wrote:

> As far as I'm aware we have one of the lowest rates of road deaths per
> capita in the world.

But how many times to both cars on the island meet?;) Just kidding to make a
point: I would not conclude that it has anything to do with fines.

Regards,
David Koski

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\15@223742 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
note I said per capita. ;->
As Australia is nearing becoming the 53rd state what mechanism would you
propose for our road deaths?

thing is its a big island. my trip to uni was 60km each way each day and
that isnt all togther a long trip (still took under an hour so i cant
complain lol). So we do alot of driving ;->


{Original Message removed}

2004\06\15@224610 by Jinx

face picon face
> now when you have people smart enough to wear seatbelts
> without it being a legal requirement then i'll agree you dont
> need to regulate it

Trouble is, there'll always be people with the (rightly or wrongly)
bolshie attitude "no bloody government tells me what to do" with
regard to seat belts, crash helmets and other preventable health
issues

In that case, taking the extreme Libertarian point of view that
everyone is responsible for, and takes the consequences of, their
behaviour, do you enforce user-pays ?

IOW, you KNOW, unless you're exceedingly stupid or blinkered
(but we all make genuine mistakes or have lapses of judgement,
although the end result is the same) that if you speed and/or drink,
don't belt up and crash you'll probably be unnecessarily injured
and incur extra medical costs and use up resources. Should your
actions be a burden to others ?

And on top of immediate costs, you could also factor in things
such as lost productivity. How do you redress that ?

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\15@224818 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> > As far as I'm aware we have one of the lowest rates of road deaths per
> > capita in the world.
>
> But how many times to both cars on the island meet?;) Just kidding to make
a
> point: I would not conclude that it has anything to do with fines.

There speaks a man who's never seen Sydney, let alone Melbourne!
And the long intercity distances lead to higher distances per person per
year. About evens out I imagine.

Note that the majority of US road deaths occur in built up areas.


       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\15@224821 by Robert B.

flavicon
face
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jake Anderson" <grooveeespamspam_OUTOPTUSHOME.COM.AU>


> My best friend from childhood was brain damaged when somebody ran a red
> light and hit their mini he was 16.
> He was in the tryout team for a major football team here and was a shoo
in.
> He is 24 now, lives with his mother and a full time carer, he cant see
> properly,
> he has learnt basically how to speak again (kinda) though so he is making
> progress.
> recently he has learnt to walk with the aid of a crutch, but is limited to
> about 10 meters before he falls over.
>
> you still want your freedom to run red lights?

There is no "freedom" to run red lights.  It's clearly against the law in
virtually all jurisdictions and offenders should be prosecuted (or executed
IMO).  Again, if you read my message carefully you will see that I am not
defending red-light runners.  I'm defending the large potential for invasion
of privacy by such automated systems and the concentration of infinite
amounts of knowledge of citizens whereabouts within a single branch of
government.  The opportunities for abuse are rampant.

I don't run red lights, and I think it's tragic that people do.  Your story,
like many common arguments for the reduction of privacy, is very emotionally
moving.  The knee-jerk (and ultimately irresponsible) reaction to such a
story is to immediately try to stop any possibility of the recurrance,
regardless of the costs to the individual or society as a whole.  The
incident you've presented is indeed very tragic, and I am moved by it.  I
drive cautiously to avoid such situations.  But it is not grounds for
installation of large-scale systems that could be used (and most certainly
will be once installed) to invade law-abiding citizens privacy.

> if people obeyed the speed limit then they wouldn't be slamming their
brakes
> on when their radar detector went off.
> if people obeyed the law then they wouldn't slam the brakes on when they
> passed a cop on the side of the road either.
> if people didn't run red lights my friend wouldn't be the near vegetable
he
> currently is.

But people do, and no matter what is done to stop it there will always be
mistakes.

> People however are as a rule stupid.
> A person can be smart, but people are stupid.
> You need laws so that stupid people know what is common sense and actually
> do it.

People are not as a rule stupid.  You gotta believe that people are good at
heart, educatable, and have a deep rooted desire to be good.  Education is
the cure for what you call "stupidity", not laws.  I'm sure the person who
ran the redlight has wished every day of his life he hadn't done it.  In all
probability he didn't intend to.  Certainly if he had known the consequences
he wouldn't have.  People are human, and human errors account for stupidity
more than any lack of intelligence does.  Please don't be so disillusioned
with our race to really believe what you're saying.

{Quote hidden}

What problems are those again?  If you're talking about the price we pay for
the closest thing in this world to freedom, then I'll take those problems
any day.

> here is a counter argument to your spiel against red light cameras.
> ok say the system is abused, 15 people per year are "harassed" unfairly
cos
> they I dunno drive oddly
> now with a red light camera on every intersection (presumably doing plate
> checks for stolen, unregistered, and wanted cars and checking for
speeding)
> you are going to cut the number of people running those reds and speeding
> drastically no?
> now even if we say that only a small percentage of
> fatalities and injuries are due to speeding, you have still removed those
> fatalities and the other people who obey they law are no worse off. Now of
> the 43,220 people who died in 2003 (in America) say 5% of those were speed
> related and were stopped. you just saved 2000 lives.
> now I know people are going to die on the roads, fact of life. My friend
is
> one of those statistics, and I still drive my car so don't bitch to me
about
> that. but don't get on your high horse talking "freedom" this and "spy's"
> that until one of your friends or family has had their life and the lives
of
> their family destroyed, (the mother is now basically a full time nurse and
> the sister couldn't hack it and moved 3000km away) by what you are saying
> its your right in life to do.

It seems you're misunderstanding again.  I'm not saying anybody has a right
to speed or run redlights.  I'm saying that if the method of enforcement of
these laws leads to loss of privacy then its not worth it.

> I drive at the speed limit, not above, not below (unless the conditions
> warrant driving slower). I obey all the road rules. If I can safely stop
for
> an orange light I do so. I am generally peaceful and relaxed. I am
> courteous. after all those "freedoms" have been taken away yaknow what,
> sometimes I get to places 10 minutes after friends who do speed, and
> generally have a disregard for the road rules. but when I arrive I have a
> clean conscience, I'm calmer and not stressed, and my fuel bill is around
> half that of the other peoples.

I'm glad to hear you're a safe driver, and I do appreciate your comments.
With respect, I'm glad you enjoy living in Australia and it seems to suit
you well.  I, on the other hand, enjoy very much living here in the US with
all our "problems".  So the world spins.


> {Original Message removed}

2004\06\15@225855 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
so how do you stop people from breaking the law?
ask real nice?


-----Original Message-----
From: pic microcontroller discussion list
[@spam@PICLISTKILLspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of Robert B.
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 12:48 PM
To: KILLspamPICLISTKILLspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: [OT]: detecting emergency vehicles. Radar fools & Red light
cams


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jake Anderson" <RemoveMEgrooveeeTakeThisOuTspamOPTUSHOME.COM.AU>
<snip>

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\15@230518 by Robert B.

flavicon
face
In a state ruled "by the people, for the people", if a large majority of the
people are breaking a law then, to me, this indicates its a pretty good time
to take a closer look at what the problems really are, and to perhaps seek
alternate solutions.  Contact off list if you want more detail, or read the
earlier postings.  spamBeGonepiclistspamBeGonespamnerdulator.net


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jake Anderson" <TakeThisOuTgrooveeeEraseMEspamspam_OUTOPTUSHOME.COM.AU>
To: <RemoveMEPICLISTspamTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]: detecting emergency vehicles. Radar fools & Red light
cams


> so how do you stop people from breaking the law?
> ask real nice?
>
>
> {Original Message removed}

2004\06\15@231517 by hilip Stortz
picon face
i am truly sorry about your friend.  however, in all fairness, red light
camera's don't stop people from running red lights!  they can only catch
them after the fact.  this last fall a very good friend of ours was
killed when an idiot ran a stop sign at a "T" intersection (meaning they
were headed off the end of the road) and into the side of their jeep.
it killed him instantly, his wife was seriously injured and is still
facing a lot of rehab.  yeah, like i said, life's a F**king bitch
sometimes, if no one drove your friend would be fine, and so would both
of ours, but you don't get something for nothing!  as i said, all rights
are eventually paid for in blood, and it is truly, truly sad when that
payment is randomly extracted as it often is.  and we're not talking
about "15" people a year being harassed, or even 15 a day, were
potentially talking about a lot more people, and we're talking about
sustained harassment.

again, i'm really, really sorry about your friend, just as i'm sorry for
my friend and his wife, but bad things do happen in life, even if you
stop all the speeders and red light runners, or catch them afterwards.
chances are whoever ran that red light into your friend would have done
it in any case.  my second car was totaled by someone running a red
light in the second lane, they went right past at least 10 stopped cars
in the other lane and hadn't even slowed down, during full daylight, and
they weren't intoxicated.  had i been less lucky i would have been
seriously injured or killed, another driver nearly was.  if every
intersection in the city had a cop car and 100 cameras it still would
have happened.  i got lucky, i'm sorry your friend didn't.  i've also
nearly been run down exactly the same way, outside lane with many
stopped cars, someone bombing through in the center lane, i just
happened to look and stop, and the car went by within 6 inches of me!
if i had died, i still wouldn't want my friends arguing for these
systems which wouldn't have helped anyone.  i'm currently disabled,
largely due to another driver running a stop sign and plowing into me,
believe me, nothing would have stopped here other than her license
already having been suspended, and it may well have been the first time
she made that mistakes.  people make mistakes, when they make them in
cars people can and do get hurt or killed, i know this all too well
myself, but it's not something the legal system can fix effectively.
there are far, far more serious and correctable things society should be
worrying about, and motivation is important.

Jake Anderson wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2004\06\15@233142 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
At 11:04 PM 6/15/2004 -0400, Robert B. wrote:

>In a state ruled "by the people, for the people", if a large majority of the people are breaking a law then, to me, this indicates its a pretty good time to take a closer look at what the problems really are, and to perhaps seek alternate solutions.  Contact off list if you want more detail, or read the earlier postings.  piclistEraseMEspam.....nerdulator.net

Unfortunately, we are somewhere between that state, and the one described in "the marching morons"..  This is where I live: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_341.html

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\15@233802 by hilip Stortz

picon face
i agree people should wear seat belts, i don't agree that it should be
legally enforced.  i don't think you can or should even have the
government trying to protect people from being stupid.  to an extent,
it's evolution in action, and it's never, never pretty to watch but in
the long run it's a good thing.  now your friends and loved ones, by all
means, try and encourage them to be less stupid about safety, but in the
end if they insist on stupidity, let them, and hope they get lucky.  the
government is not my friend or loved one, they have no business even
suggesting what i should do to live long and prosper.

Jake Anderson wrote:
>
> random "fakt" 27
>
> "Fifty-eight percent of those killed weren't wearing seat belts, a source of
> frustration for NHTSA administrator Jeffrey Runge, whose emphasis on seat
> belt use helped achieve a record use rate of 79 percent last year. "
----------
> now when you have people smart enough to wear seatbelts without it being a
> legal requirement then i'll aggree you dont need to regulate it.
----------

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2004\06\16@000958 by hilip Stortz

picon face
what he is suggesting is per mile of road or per square mile, or km for
the more civilized, not per person.  highway deaths here in wyoming are
extremely low, per square mile, per linear mile, and per capita, and
people do speed a lot, but there isn't a lot of traffic and most of the
highways are well designed.  traffic density and road design have a lot
more to do with fatalities than speeding under good road conditions
does.  for that matter, drunk driving has a lot more to do with it than
speeding, and in many ways i'm glad to see that finally being taken more
seriously in the u.s.

Jake Anderson wrote:
>
> note I said per capita. ;->
> As Australia is nearing becoming the 53rd state what mechanism would you
> propose for our road deaths?
>
> thing is its a big island. my trip to uni was 60km each way each day and
> that isnt all togther a long trip (still took under an hour so i cant
> complain lol). So we do alot of driving ;->
>
> {Original Message removed}

2004\06\16@001015 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> my second car was totaled by someone running a red
> light in the second lane, they went right past at least 10 stopped cars
> in the other lane and hadn't even slowed down, during full daylight, and
> they weren't intoxicated.  had i been less lucky i would have been
> seriously injured or killed, another driver nearly was.  if every
> intersection in the city had a cop car and 100 cameras it still would
> have happened.


Almost certainly not.
People who do what you describe usually do that sort of thing all over.
With the camera regime that you suggest they would be picked up very very
quickly.


       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\06\16@004339 by hilip Stortz

picon face
no, i suspect and hope that people do learn when they have an accident,
but many people do not change their behavior because of a ticket, in
fact in some cases it aggravates the behavior, they may simply be more
selective about where they break the law, in which case the cameras have
only succeeded in teaching them to be a better criminal, useful training
should they ever do anything more serious than run a red light when
there isn't a real, actual immediate hazard in doing so.

Russell McMahon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\06\16@102210 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:33:49 -0600, Robert Rolf wrote:

> And the latest toy is  $100k van equipped with TV cameras and image recognition software that checks license
plates for status as 'stolen'

I'm sure it isn't that expensive here in Britain - a lot of Traffic Division police cars now have
always-running numberplate recognition systems that send look-up enquiries by radio for every car in view,
including passing the other way.  It flashes a message on the screen to the crew when something dodgy is
detected, including a "WhooWhoo" sound (like a police-car siren) when an arrestable offence is flagged (stolen
car, car owned by a suspect in some serious crime, reported hit-&-run etc.).  They seem to be catching a lot
of crooks like that these days!

Last week I saw a roadside setup with two cameras on a tripod, connected to a small van.  No speed-measuring
equipment, but one of the things it said on the van was "Report car tax cheats" so I assume they were looking
for cars that hadn't had their annual road-fund licence paid.  The two cameras were angled differently, one
looking down at the plate, the other straight at the windscreen, presumably to get evidence of who was
driving.  There have been adverts on television saying "we only need to check our computers" on this very
topic!

Cheers,

Howard Winter
St.Albans, England

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\06\16@103542 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 23:04:38 -0400, Robert B. wrote:

> In a state ruled "by the people, for the people"

Which state is this?  Every country/state I know of is ruled by politicians!  And the tendency of the breed is
to impose more control as time goes on, so they are "seen to be tackling the problems".

Who was it who said: "If voting could change anything, they'd ban it!" ?

Personally, I think that anyone who wants to run the country, should be banned from doing so...

Cheers,

Howard Winter
St.Albans, England

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2004\06\16@153326 by hilip Stortz

picon face
that's alarming.  they are potentially collecting a lot of data on
people's comings and goings and who is in the car both driving and
otherwise most likely.  a system very, very prone to abuse.  here in the
U.S. we don't collect road money that way, we collect it as a tax on
gasoline at the time it is sold, basically no easy way to cheat (unless
you are a farmer with fuel tanks in which case the fuel for your farming
doesn't have the road and highway tax added to it, though illegal it's
often used in cars as well).  california has gone one step further,
rather than worry about uninsured drivers there is a state tax on
gasoline used to provide insurance for all cars.  these are basically
good solutions, other than the problem of different vehicles getting
substantially different fuel economies and therefore tax rate per mile
driven, still it's more fair than most government systems.

Howard Winter wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2004 , 2005 only
- Today
- New search...