Building a Traffic Radar System To Catch Reckless Drivers? 483
cbraescu1 writes "I live in a city with a population in the millions (someplace in the Middle East; the country is not important), and I am mad as hell. The car traffic is going from bad to worse, and I'm sick of all the car accidents that keep happening (we have one of the biggest accident and mortality rates per km of road or per 1,000 vehicles). I just witnessed a car accident a few hours ago, and in the last few months I've given first aid at two other car accidents, all happening within 500 meters of each other. Today's victims escaped alive, but the motorcycle driver who was responsible fled and the police weren't equipped to catch him. There are laws, but not much willingness to enforce them, and no traffic lights at all. After speaking with some of my friends, we decided to take the issue into our own hands: build a traffic radar system able to capture a vehicle's speed, install it at our own expense, and share the generated penalties with the city government (all subject of their approval, of course). We want to start on the main avenue (more than 15 km) and to 'roll' the income from the penalties into covering new streets (so that perpetrators will basically finance the system). We're not rich and we will not ask for our money back. We just need to make the system start and we're confident the penalty fees will cover its spread. So, I'm asking Slashdot: what would be a workable way to build such a system? It must withstand drivers claiming the system is cheating, high temperatures, high levels of humidity, and crappy electricity. Any suggestions would be appreciated. This is about technology saving lives — literally."
Why this is a bad idea. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a terrible idea, because if it's successful it will be used to track people's movements by corrupt officials.
Traffic Lights? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One additional improvement (Score:4, Insightful)
Any suggestions would be appreciated (Score:5, Insightful)
Move.
No seriously, the real issue is training/caring, not more policing. If your population is too dumb to be trained how to drive responsibly or don't care about their follow man as a rule, its time to move elsewhere.
Wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone in the mid-east is mad as hell? they deuce you say~
"s I've given first aid at two other car accidents, "
good for you, well done.
" we decided to take the issue into our own hands: build a traffic radar system able to capture a vehicle's speed, install it at our own expense, and share the generated penalties with the city government (all subject of their approval, of course"
It can be done. You will need several traffic engineers, radar specialists, and about 100 million dollars. . . . and it still won't be perfect, and require law enforcement to use it. Don't forget you will need cameras, people to review the data, maintain the system.
I know everyone thinks keeping a city running is easy and cheap, but it is neither.
You don't need a technical solution, you need at social one.
You need to get the police enforcing the laws, you need to get a system with minimal corruption, you need to educate drivers on why they need to obey the laws, you need people to shame bad drivers.
You can do that for a lot less money and time then the technical solution you proposed.
yes, I do know what I'm talking about.
Re:Force them to slow down (Score:3, Insightful)
You really expect to get your "share"? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are laws, but not much willingness to enforce them, and no traffic lights at all.
Let me get this straight. The police aren't enforcing the existing laws. There's no political infrastructure to install and maintain traffic lights.
Who is going to collect the fines? You aren't.
Why do you think the police will collect the fines? They aren't enforcing existing traffic laws.
In the unlikely event they do so, what makes you believe they will give you your share? It's more than likely to go directly into someone's pocket.
It sounds like your problem goes far beyond enforcement of traffic laws. And until that problem is addressed, it's unlikely that any technological solution will help.
Can't enforce what is ignored. (Score:4, Insightful)
Start by calling then car wrecks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Speed Bumps (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Force them to slow down (Score:5, Insightful)
And now I am not moderating anymore. I used to agree with you, but then someone pointed out that this is not nearly as good of a solution as it seems. Apparently, all it takes is one trip in an ambulance over a few speedbumps and you'd see things differently. A non-discriminating solution that slows all traffic to 5-10 miles an hour on a city road is an overkill.
Speeding != bad driving (Score:3, Insightful)
Speeding does not necessarily equal bad driving.
If anything, speeding is a subset of bad driving -- for people who are already bad drivers.
You need to lobby your local government to more heavily regulate/test drivers.
There is no technological solution that can take the place of that.
Re:Wait (Score:3, Insightful)
what you are talking about is vigilantism (Score:5, Insightful)
the problem with vigilantism is it is not accountable, except to the vigilante, whose principles may be quite out of whack
you can complain about the abuses of the police all you want, but the police, at least in theory, serve the people. of course they can be corrupt, but this is a structural failure that can be remedied by the government. if the government is unwilling or unable to control the police, then your country is screwed anyways, so start building molotov cocktails
vigilantism can never be reviewed, criticized, or policy changed. plus, the usual guys who like the idea of vigilantism and are attracted to the idea are of a sort of personality that has serious psychological issues with control and power and dominance, and are therefore exactly the wrong kind of person you want to be enforcing anything. yes, people with the same sort of psychological issues are also attracted to becoming cops, but at least with the police, there exists (again, at least in theory, where it doesn't exists its a failure of policy and execution of the government) a feedback system that can weed out such people
i'm sorry, but vigilantism sucks, and is not a solution to anything. the only valid solution is to kick your government in the ass to fix the failures in your society that make the idea of vigilantism seem remotely appealing at all
Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? (Score:4, Insightful)
Catching speeders imposes no new restrictions - it's just about enforcing the rules that are already in place.
Which may or may not - probably the latter - make the roads any *safer*.
The question is whether the objective is increasing safety or increasing compliance.
Re:Traffic Lights? (Score:3, Insightful)
I know this sounds a bit "morbid"... but how did the motorcycle operator make it out of that situation alive if they were the cause of the accident? I mean, if I were in a car and I had a choice of hitting a motorcycle who [cut me off/drove in front of me/etc.] and hitting a truck or some other car... I'm not going to do any favors for the motorcyclist.
I do pay extra attention to motorcyclists on the road... don't get me wrong. But if they "caused" the accident, they better damn well be lying on the ground hurt or dead.
Re:One additional improvement (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, reckless driving and speed are two different things. Speed makes little difference if you don't drive intelligently or are distracted and unfocused.
Bingo!
You can drive like an idiot without even approaching the speed limit. A lot of accidents could be avoided if only one party was paying attention. Sure, there is generally someone who is responsible, but it's been my experience that driving defensively and assuming that everyone is out to get you goes a long way. Don't just go speeding through green lights, pay attention to the traffic that's supposed to be stopped. Watch cars up ahead that are waiting to turn out, because it could be right in front of you. Don't drive in clusters, whether right beside, behind, or in front of others. People can do a lot to limit their exposure to accidents, that's to be sure.
Re:Traffic Lights? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know it sounds like typical western arrogance to suggest it, but I think the example of major cities in Europe and North America is informative here. You'll see that people will (mostly) honor traffic lights, but they will (mostly) ignore speed limits. It's probably because traffic light violations are (pardon the expression) black and white: either the light was red, or it wasn't, and a simple still camera can prove it one way or the other. By comparison, speed is more difficult to determine and prove (as anyone who has beaten a speeding ticket can confirm). The notion that radar guns and cameras will be effective in convicting perpetrators in a chaotic traffic environment is naive.
No, it's because they understand that not obeying traffic lights is nearly inescapably dangerous, whereas speeding is frequently not dangerous at all.
The majority of accidents happen at under the speed limit. The strictest speed enforcement in the world won't help when people are driving recklessly, or too fast for the conditions [but not over the speed limit].
You have _never_ in your life shipped code. (Score:3, Insightful)
Much less built out anything other then a non-working prototype.
I can tell just by reading your comment.
Moron.
Re:Can't enforce what is ignored. (Score:3, Insightful)
Go Goetz 'em!
These systems are not what you think (Score:5, Insightful)
Counterintuitive (Score:3, Insightful)
You can check the studies, the state here in the USA that removed speed limits reduced traffic accidents.
When the speed limits were put back in, accidents increased again.
In my state, officials openly admit speed enforcement generates revenue. The figure was a significant proportion of the state budget.
It's not for safety, it's an indirect tax.
If you look at the hard data on accidents, the vast majority occur at low speeds.
I have yet to be at fault in an accident, but I have been hit multiple times. Each time it was at low speed. Each time it was due to a driver not paying attention.
As much as I hate to say it, if you consistently have accidents in a situation, a study might reveal WHY accidents occur there. If it were do to speed, all our police officers, ambulance drivers, firemen and race car drivers would all be dead by now.
As others have pointed out, I'm afraid the technical solution won't be to fine fast drivers who avoid accidents, but to change the circumstances encouraging accidents.
Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? (Score:4, Insightful)
Reducing speed doesn't ensure a decrease i accidents though. It doesn't work in other cities because municipalities get all hell-bent on enforcing speed limits instead of enforcing more important, accident reducing laws like illegal lane changes and failure to yield.
Speeding tickets = increased driving safety is one of the most egregious logical fallacies I can think of.
Re:Can't enforce what is ignored. (Score:3, Insightful)
All I want is to make it easy and FREE for the government to start enforcing the traffic laws. They just do not have the money for these equipments. What I wants it a self-replicating system of such traffic radars, with a revenue sharing system where the government pays nothing, earns part of the generated fines, and our share goes toward installing new radars.
Okay, and everyone has a valid mailing address too, so they can receive the ticket. Oh, and there's plenty of judges to hear those who wish to dispute the ticket. Oh, and everyone has a current license plate which connects the vehicle to the household and then the driver. Oh, and I'm sure there's a system in place to catch those who do not pay their tickets, like not being able to renew their drivers' licenses because all the drivers have current licenses too.
Oh, and why speeding? Why not 'failure to yield' or 'do not pass on the right' (assuming driver sits on the left side of the car) or 'failure to signal turn' or 'pedestrians have right-of-way' or 'driving the wrong direction on a one-way street'?
Re:red light cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly a case of the following driver not driving with due care and attention, or of not leaving a proper gap between them and the preceding vehicle?
Are you saying it would be perfectly acceptable for a rear-end shunt if the first car slammed on the brakes because a child suddenly ran out in front of it?
At least with [most] traffic lights the following driver should be able to see them and should know that they may change and that the preceding driver may slam their brakes on [in Toledo, OH] and so prepare for this by easing off the gas slightly and increasing the gap slightly (more if there is a following vehicle that is too close to them) in readiness to brake if necessary.
Re:Um... shouldn't traffic lights come first? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you haven't already realized, Slashdot is a terrible place to ask this kind of question. People here have a strong individualistic, anti-government slant.
Anyway, I think the best thing you can do is install some red lights, then post police officers in motorcycles around these lights. Every time they see someone break the red light rule, flag them down and give them a ticket. At first the officers will be constantly busy and will be raking in a lot of revenue. Word will spread fast, and eventually you will see people obeying the rules, at least in the intersections where police are known to be. Videotape the intersection with an HD camera for documentation. Later you can buy radar guns for the traffic officers.
You have to make sure the money from tickets goes to the general fund, NOT the police department. Otherwise this will cause all sort of problems.
Beyond that, you should hire a company (or start your own) that can work with you and the city council to implement technological solutions like red light cameras and speeding cameras. The best solution however, is policing because it is proven and the simplest to implement off the bat.
Re:Road to hell... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:speeding vs reckless driving (Score:3, Insightful)
I refuse to live somewhere with speed bumps. They disrupt travelling too much, damage the car (even at low speeds), cause increased pollution, increased noise and damage nearby housing.
There are other traffic calming measures that are far superior for the road users and for the local population.
Re:Can't enforce what is ignored. (Score:1, Insightful)
[Warning: I am the original poster] All I want is to make it easy and FREE for the government to start enforcing the traffic laws. They just do not have the money for these equipments. What I wants it a self-replicating system of such traffic radars, with a revenue sharing system where the government pays nothing, earns part of the generated fines, and our share goes toward installing new radars.
Here's how it will work.
1. Your new system will "catch" someone doing something.
2. You will have to report it to the police.
3. They will have to investigate, and if they conclude a law was violated they might issue a ticket.
4. Either of the following happens:
a) Which means they will then have to track that person down to give them the ticket, which is also their notice to appear in court.
b) If they can't be found then the court has to issue a notice to appear, and they have to serve it to the person.
5. Person appears in court. This means that the officer who investigated your complaint will have to appear.
6. If the person contests the ticket, then things get really really fun. You see, at this point (possible as part of step 5) they will probably file a request for discovery.
a) You will probably have to also appear in court.
b) Your system will probably get thrown out as evidence unless you put it through a multi-million dollar testing, review, and approval process. Even then it's "iffy".
c) You might actually be required to bring your equipment to court to fulfill part of the Discovery process.
Now there are several things being assumed which still might cause you some grief. For example:
- If the person who was driving the car is not the owner, the police have to track that person down instead.
- There is a possibility that the person might file a civil suit against you, especially if any of your information is inaccurate or unprovable.
And now for the fun. You might be a 'concerned citizen' but I'm sure there are plenty of people you would piss off by doing this. So...
They can "fight back". You aren't law enforcement, so they can bother the crap out of you and "impede" you abilities to monitor them... legally. This could be anything from electronic "jamming" style devices all the way to having a bunch of people show up and bother the crap out of your techs doing the maintenance.
All I want is to make it easy
It will NEVER be easy.
and FREE for the government
It will NEVER be free for the government.
to start enforcing the traffic laws. They just do not have the money for these equipments.
If it's simply a matter of money for the equipment, you can donate money to the department, along with equipment. You can also volunteer your own time to them. If that's all that's preventing them from enforcing the laws on the books then that will solve the problem.
However, there is a good possibility that they don't have the time. Not just time and people to enforce the law, but also to appear in court and everything that goes with it, including lawyers.
It's possible that some of the traffic laws either don't need to, or just plain shouldn't, be in effect.
For example, in my town there's a 2-block stretch of road which is technically 25mph, but on either end it is 35mph. No schools or any other reason for it to be there, so nobody enforces it or pays attention. The city just doesn't feel like spending money for new signs and to officially conduct a required "speed impact" test. (at one point it was pure residential and got swallowed up by surrounding commercial and industrial properties)
And as one final wrench in your proverbial gearbox- in many places it's actually against the law for any money generated by traffic fines to go anywhere but directly into the general fund.