Speedcam Anywhere – catch speeding drivers from your smartphone(speedcamanywhere.com)
speedcamanywhere.com
Speedcam Anywhere – catch speeding drivers from your smartphone
https://speedcamanywhere.com/
134 comments
>anything which normalises surveillance by citizens on citizens is a death spiral for society
FWIW, speeding causes actual deaths of members of society
But I don't think this is the solution. The solution is better road design (road diets, narrower lanes, etc)
FWIW, speeding causes actual deaths of members of society
But I don't think this is the solution. The solution is better road design (road diets, narrower lanes, etc)
Speeding isn't the cause, reckless driving is. Just because someone was speeding at the time of the accident doesn't mean it was the cause. Reckless out of control driving is the cause, speeding is the symptom.
Bingo. "Reckless driving" is a much better term, but it's more contextual than a lot of authoritarians and administration-types like. 25MPH can be reckless in specific scenarios. 120MPH can also be safe in specific scenarios. You need context to decide.
>speeding causes actual deaths of members of society
Ok? Heart disease kills more, from which obesity is a factor. How about I make an app that encourages users to snap pictures of people in public (totally legal) who are eating a big mac?
If we save even one life, it's worth it right?
On the other hand, maybe deploying technology at scale to encourage random people to police others is bad.
Ok? Heart disease kills more, from which obesity is a factor. How about I make an app that encourages users to snap pictures of people in public (totally legal) who are eating a big mac?
If we save even one life, it's worth it right?
On the other hand, maybe deploying technology at scale to encourage random people to police others is bad.
>How about I make an app that encourages users to snap pictures of people in public (totally legal) who are eating a big mac?
You eating a big mac isn't a threat to me, my family or my friends.
This attempt to portray all speeding as some kind of victimless morality crime is truly bizarre. Speeding is more akin to firing a gun into the air and then crying "Why are you persecuting me? I'm not harming anyone"
You eating a big mac isn't a threat to me, my family or my friends.
This attempt to portray all speeding as some kind of victimless morality crime is truly bizarre. Speeding is more akin to firing a gun into the air and then crying "Why are you persecuting me? I'm not harming anyone"
This is not a charitable response. Vehicles accidents often harm the innocent in a random fashion (the only way to avoid being impacted by dangerous drivers would be to never go near a road) but the victim of heart disease is also the perpetrator in your case.
The perpetrator might be the primary victim, but what about dependents? Collectively as a society we’re all harmed by the sky high heart disease death toll. It makes COVID look like a picnic, but we do so little about it.
I agree with your last sentence, but of course we can't instantly redesign any road at any time, and so there is a standard, orthodox method of setting speed limits which is the 85th percentile of the speeds people actually drive at.
From a random document summarizing the process:
"With the definition of 85th percentile speed, it would seem that the signed (posted) speed limit of a street would be highly influential in determining the 85th percentile speed, however the exact opposite is the case. A deeper dive into 85th percentile speed helps to reveal why it is a major consideration in determining a street’s posted speed limit. As described above, the 85th percentile speed defines the speed that 85 percent of drivers will drive at or below under free-flowing conditions. Most people don’t drive according to the posted speed limit, but account for the visual aspects of the street and a ‘feel’ for the street. The visual factors that influence speeds can include:
• Lane and shoulder configurations, widths, and presence of curbs
• Presence of vertical and horizontal curves
• Sight distance and obstructions
• Presence of surrounding developments to the street
• Access management characteristics and medians/turn lane configurations"
"This uniformity of vehicle speeds increases safety and reduces the risks for vehicle collisions. When vehicles deviate from a standard speed, either faster or slower, the potential for crashes increase, whether caused by a slow car in a rear end collision or a fast car completing lane changes to maneuver through slower traffic. By setting the speed limit to the 85th percentile speed this uniformity is achieved and safety is increased."
https://www.lincoln.ne.gov/files/sharedassets/public/ltu/tra...
From a random document summarizing the process:
"With the definition of 85th percentile speed, it would seem that the signed (posted) speed limit of a street would be highly influential in determining the 85th percentile speed, however the exact opposite is the case. A deeper dive into 85th percentile speed helps to reveal why it is a major consideration in determining a street’s posted speed limit. As described above, the 85th percentile speed defines the speed that 85 percent of drivers will drive at or below under free-flowing conditions. Most people don’t drive according to the posted speed limit, but account for the visual aspects of the street and a ‘feel’ for the street. The visual factors that influence speeds can include:
• Lane and shoulder configurations, widths, and presence of curbs
• Presence of vertical and horizontal curves
• Sight distance and obstructions
• Presence of surrounding developments to the street
• Access management characteristics and medians/turn lane configurations"
"This uniformity of vehicle speeds increases safety and reduces the risks for vehicle collisions. When vehicles deviate from a standard speed, either faster or slower, the potential for crashes increase, whether caused by a slow car in a rear end collision or a fast car completing lane changes to maneuver through slower traffic. By setting the speed limit to the 85th percentile speed this uniformity is achieved and safety is increased."
https://www.lincoln.ne.gov/files/sharedassets/public/ltu/tra...
> FWIW, speeding causes actual deaths of members of society
It's more the culture and actions that go around it. Speeding's bad when you're not paying attention. Even driving slowly is bad if you're in the overtake lanes. I think it's much more about paying attention to one's sorroundings. I'm not saying this should apply near residential homes, but I do speed on highways because I can go fast and I only overtake through the left-most lane; I use blinkers, I light cars to let them know. I don't overtake in curves. I don't put people in danger. I don't go through yellow/reds. But to be honest, my situation is probably far more different that in the US, I live in Mexico. Most people here do speed and there's barely any authority to stop vehicles from speeding.
It's more the culture and actions that go around it. Speeding's bad when you're not paying attention. Even driving slowly is bad if you're in the overtake lanes. I think it's much more about paying attention to one's sorroundings. I'm not saying this should apply near residential homes, but I do speed on highways because I can go fast and I only overtake through the left-most lane; I use blinkers, I light cars to let them know. I don't overtake in curves. I don't put people in danger. I don't go through yellow/reds. But to be honest, my situation is probably far more different that in the US, I live in Mexico. Most people here do speed and there's barely any authority to stop vehicles from speeding.
Exactly. I'm finding it very hard to follow HN's rules and not engage in personal attacks against the developer in this thread. It's hard to put into words the disdain I feel towards the kinds of people who build things like this.
We really need better platforms than what we have now, these types of people deserve to hear what we really think of them, instead of being protected by "moderation".
We really need better platforms than what we have now, these types of people deserve to hear what we really think of them, instead of being protected by "moderation".
> Firstly, anything which normalises surveillance by citizens on citizens is a death spiral for society.
Do you also condone citizens witnessing other crimes and doing nothing or is your opinion limited to dangerous driving only?
Do you also condone citizens witnessing other crimes and doing nothing or is your opinion limited to dangerous driving only?
"Crimes"
Next up, hunting drug users, people who get abortions, jaywalkers, the homeless, etc.
Hyperbole? Yeah, duh, but also the reality a significant portion of society wants to realize. Don't enable these people.
Next up, hunting drug users, people who get abortions, jaywalkers, the homeless, etc.
Hyperbole? Yeah, duh, but also the reality a significant portion of society wants to realize. Don't enable these people.
We are talking about speeding drivers here. The worst case scenario is that they get a small fine and may modify their behaviour as a consequence. Let's not descend into extremes.
[Scene 1, police station conference room]
"Yeah, our app has a full database, plate and facial recognition, geolocation, everything. We're on around 10 million devices in the state right now"
"How hard would it be to add a button to report drug users too? You said you had facial recognition and GPS?"
"Oh completely trivial, we'll just add a field to the schema and another ui element..."
"Yeah, our app has a full database, plate and facial recognition, geolocation, everything. We're on around 10 million devices in the state right now"
"How hard would it be to add a button to report drug users too? You said you had facial recognition and GPS?"
"Oh completely trivial, we'll just add a field to the schema and another ui element..."
[deleted]
>We are talking about speeding drivers here.
And? "Speeding" as is experienced in the life of the daily American is a joke. Tens, if not 100+ million Americans "Speed" every day.
Remember that speeding is just 1 MPH over the limit, and that limits are set to unrealistically low levels all over the country for purposes ranging from revenue generation to empowering racial discrimination.
And? "Speeding" as is experienced in the life of the daily American is a joke. Tens, if not 100+ million Americans "Speed" every day.
Remember that speeding is just 1 MPH over the limit, and that limits are set to unrealistically low levels all over the country for purposes ranging from revenue generation to empowering racial discrimination.
>Do you also condone citizens witnessing other crimes and doing nothing or is your opinion limited to dangerous driving only?
Not the person you're replying to but yes, for all civil infractions and most criminal ones for which there is no readily identifiable victim.
Not the person you're replying to but yes, for all civil infractions and most criminal ones for which there is no readily identifiable victim.
You're making a rather large and unsupported assumption that "speeding" is dangerous.
In the overwhelming majority of cases it is not. 10-100M people in the US speed every day. "Speeding" as a term makes no distinction between the common 5-10 over and doing 120 in a 75.
Meanwhile US speed limits are incredibly low, and treat a sports car on an open dry road the same as an 80,000lb semi on wet tarmac.
In the overwhelming majority of cases it is not. 10-100M people in the US speed every day. "Speeding" as a term makes no distinction between the common 5-10 over and doing 120 in a 75.
Meanwhile US speed limits are incredibly low, and treat a sports car on an open dry road the same as an 80,000lb semi on wet tarmac.
One of the most common deaths in the US is from traffic accidents and 26% of all fatalities have speeding as a contributing factor or ~10000 per year (https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding).
There it is, "speed as a factor" (or in this case, a variant).
This is a classic law enforcement trope. I'm sorry but no-shit "speed" is a factor in a collision, so is the strong nuclear force. Stating such a thing proves nothing towards:
1) If someone was _actually_ speeding, as often the precise speed is totally unknown at the point of impact/accident. A cop that rolls up to a car impacted on a tree has no idea if they were doing 50 or 60 in a 55, but you can bet the farm they'll check the "speed as a factor" box.
2) If the accident would have happened had they been traveling 5MPH slower (speeding vs not speeding)
3) If the person would have survived at 65MPH vs 70. Remember that survivability has a cut off point, you're dead. Hitting a concrete wall head on at 65MPH is 100% lethal, 70MPH doesn't make any difference with respect to "survivability".
Couple all this with speed limits being insanely low throughout the US and routinely exceeded by 10+ MPH, no-shit that it's "a factor" in the majority of collisions... everyone does it. That's garbage data.
This is a classic law enforcement trope. I'm sorry but no-shit "speed" is a factor in a collision, so is the strong nuclear force. Stating such a thing proves nothing towards:
1) If someone was _actually_ speeding, as often the precise speed is totally unknown at the point of impact/accident. A cop that rolls up to a car impacted on a tree has no idea if they were doing 50 or 60 in a 55, but you can bet the farm they'll check the "speed as a factor" box.
2) If the accident would have happened had they been traveling 5MPH slower (speeding vs not speeding)
3) If the person would have survived at 65MPH vs 70. Remember that survivability has a cut off point, you're dead. Hitting a concrete wall head on at 65MPH is 100% lethal, 70MPH doesn't make any difference with respect to "survivability".
Couple all this with speed limits being insanely low throughout the US and routinely exceeded by 10+ MPH, no-shit that it's "a factor" in the majority of collisions... everyone does it. That's garbage data.
I mean, speed is the obvious issue with road safety. It increases stopping distance by a large amount, at 50km/h (~30mph) you're not even stopping while you already at a standstill at 30km/h (~20mph). If everyone drove at 10km/h almost no fatal accident would happen (probably mostly old people reversing into others).
According to german data, reducing the speed limit from 50km/h (~30mph) to 30km/h (~20mph) reduces heavy injuries and deaths by 60-70% (https://www.vsf.de/fileadmin/inhalte/public/06_Engagement/te...) and decreases fatalities after a collision with a pedestrian from 80% to 30%. That's not quite mad max, but still very bad.
We know that even for interstates speed limits have an large effect (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000145759...), with deaths rising by ~15% after the speed limit was increased from 55mph (afaict, for urban interstates it was mostly raised by 10mph, with average travel speed only changing slightly). So even at those speeds there is a very noticable effect on deaths.
If these numbers apply to speed limits, it's obvious that they should also apply to speeding. Even more so, it makes it clear that setting the speed limit higher has an pretty large effect on safety, so people do use the speed limit as a guide (with, as you said, often some amount of additional speed), so raising the speed limit seems like a very bad idea.
All the figures I've seen for US speed limits seem in line with most of the speed limits commonly used in Germany, which are more on the high side for the EU. I don't know how you come to the conclusion that they're amazingly low.
According to german data, reducing the speed limit from 50km/h (~30mph) to 30km/h (~20mph) reduces heavy injuries and deaths by 60-70% (https://www.vsf.de/fileadmin/inhalte/public/06_Engagement/te...) and decreases fatalities after a collision with a pedestrian from 80% to 30%. That's not quite mad max, but still very bad.
We know that even for interstates speed limits have an large effect (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000145759...), with deaths rising by ~15% after the speed limit was increased from 55mph (afaict, for urban interstates it was mostly raised by 10mph, with average travel speed only changing slightly). So even at those speeds there is a very noticable effect on deaths.
If these numbers apply to speed limits, it's obvious that they should also apply to speeding. Even more so, it makes it clear that setting the speed limit higher has an pretty large effect on safety, so people do use the speed limit as a guide (with, as you said, often some amount of additional speed), so raising the speed limit seems like a very bad idea.
All the figures I've seen for US speed limits seem in line with most of the speed limits commonly used in Germany, which are more on the high side for the EU. I don't know how you come to the conclusion that they're amazingly low.
The problem with most of this data is that it is preposterous on its face.
Really, 30mph car impacts with pedestrians had an 80% fatality rate?
What about 45, 75, and 150 MPH? Should we analyze those as well, or should we realize how silly this all is?
The solution has always been to physically isolate pedestrian traffic from vehicles at anything above trivial speeds. 30-45mph car traffic on a flat plane with joggers and moms pushing strollers is stupid. These aren’t hard problems to solve, we’d just rather spend $15 Billion on our 14th aircraft carrier instead of pedestrian bridges/walkways/tunnels/elevated roadways etc.
No one is suggesting obvious interface points like airport drop off/pickup lanes allow 75mph traffic. The point is that for the VAST majority of roads in the US pedestrian traffic is nonexistent and speed limits are 20-30% too low. So low even the cops don’t really enforce them (unless you’re black or the officer has a quota to meet).
We have huge stretches of flat, controlled access, well maintained super highways stuck at 1950’s speed limits (65MPH). Yet when we talk about fixing this all we hear about is how someone killed a bus full of nuns doing 70 in a 25mph school zone. Otherwise rational people seem entirely incapable of nuance when it comes to the speed discussion.
Really, 30mph car impacts with pedestrians had an 80% fatality rate?
What about 45, 75, and 150 MPH? Should we analyze those as well, or should we realize how silly this all is?
The solution has always been to physically isolate pedestrian traffic from vehicles at anything above trivial speeds. 30-45mph car traffic on a flat plane with joggers and moms pushing strollers is stupid. These aren’t hard problems to solve, we’d just rather spend $15 Billion on our 14th aircraft carrier instead of pedestrian bridges/walkways/tunnels/elevated roadways etc.
No one is suggesting obvious interface points like airport drop off/pickup lanes allow 75mph traffic. The point is that for the VAST majority of roads in the US pedestrian traffic is nonexistent and speed limits are 20-30% too low. So low even the cops don’t really enforce them (unless you’re black or the officer has a quota to meet).
We have huge stretches of flat, controlled access, well maintained super highways stuck at 1950’s speed limits (65MPH). Yet when we talk about fixing this all we hear about is how someone killed a bus full of nuns doing 70 in a 25mph school zone. Otherwise rational people seem entirely incapable of nuance when it comes to the speed discussion.
> Or should we realize how silly this all is?
Why? It's an important question to have data on. It's essential to designing neighborhoods
> The solution has always been to physically isolate pedestrian traffic from vehicles at anything above trivial speeds
How in residential roads? By installing overpasses everywhere (they suck for pedestrian traffic and accessibility), installing traffic lights everywhere (they're already way to common in America and really suck for traffic flow) or do the same thing other countries have done, which is to slow drivers down (by design & by law) in residential roads.
The first two options are also pretty expensive, can take a lot of land and many counties already suffer financially from their road infrastructure.
In general, roads with speed limits above 30mph are not common inside urban environments in germany (with quite a few exceptions, especially for large arteries, which are often being put underground or getting their speeds reduced).
Installing sidewalks more commonly in the US would already be great, but this data is from germany, where a street without a sidewalk is an uncommon (although not totally rare) occurrence.
Having >30mph traffic inside urban areas is mostly stupid. It increases land use, costs, discourages anything other than car use and is really dangerous. There should be at most only a handful of roads with higher speeds in cities with >500.000 people.
> US pedestrian traffic is nonexistent
There are somewhat obvious reasons for that, among them hostile road design & high speeds. It's close to suicide to try to walk anywhere in many places in the US.
> So low even the cops don’t really enforce them
I don't know if you've looked at other countries, but enforcing speed limits, especially in such a way to act as an effective deterrent, isn't commonly done (with exceptions like switzerland).
Regarding the highways: That's the reason I've searched for data in the US regarding the change of the speed limit from 55mph to ~65mph, which has a very significant (but not as large as in residential roads) effect. I can't imagine further increasing it not having a similar effect. That also shows that the speed limit does have a somewhat large effect on travel speed (at least in the top end), because otherwise there wouldn't be that many issues.
I'd also be interested in changes for the average travel speed in the US, because it doesn't increase as much as you'd think in the >100km/h in many european places, even without significant amounts of speeding, due to cars scaling really badly at density with higher speeds.
Why? It's an important question to have data on. It's essential to designing neighborhoods
> The solution has always been to physically isolate pedestrian traffic from vehicles at anything above trivial speeds
How in residential roads? By installing overpasses everywhere (they suck for pedestrian traffic and accessibility), installing traffic lights everywhere (they're already way to common in America and really suck for traffic flow) or do the same thing other countries have done, which is to slow drivers down (by design & by law) in residential roads.
The first two options are also pretty expensive, can take a lot of land and many counties already suffer financially from their road infrastructure.
In general, roads with speed limits above 30mph are not common inside urban environments in germany (with quite a few exceptions, especially for large arteries, which are often being put underground or getting their speeds reduced).
Installing sidewalks more commonly in the US would already be great, but this data is from germany, where a street without a sidewalk is an uncommon (although not totally rare) occurrence.
Having >30mph traffic inside urban areas is mostly stupid. It increases land use, costs, discourages anything other than car use and is really dangerous. There should be at most only a handful of roads with higher speeds in cities with >500.000 people.
> US pedestrian traffic is nonexistent
There are somewhat obvious reasons for that, among them hostile road design & high speeds. It's close to suicide to try to walk anywhere in many places in the US.
> So low even the cops don’t really enforce them
I don't know if you've looked at other countries, but enforcing speed limits, especially in such a way to act as an effective deterrent, isn't commonly done (with exceptions like switzerland).
Regarding the highways: That's the reason I've searched for data in the US regarding the change of the speed limit from 55mph to ~65mph, which has a very significant (but not as large as in residential roads) effect. I can't imagine further increasing it not having a similar effect. That also shows that the speed limit does have a somewhat large effect on travel speed (at least in the top end), because otherwise there wouldn't be that many issues.
I'd also be interested in changes for the average travel speed in the US, because it doesn't increase as much as you'd think in the >100km/h in many european places, even without significant amounts of speeding, due to cars scaling really badly at density with higher speeds.
Yes, the faster you drive the more likely an accident will occur and the more deadly it might be... That is a separate issue than "speeding"
Why? The issue with speeding is that ... you're driving faster. And as I've laid (at least somewhat) the speed limits the US commonly employs are sane as a choice and also very common in other countries.
A huge issue is that american residential roads are way overbuilt, further encouraging speeding. A lot of residential roads in Central Europe have specific provisions encouraging and forcing drivers to slow down. The residential streets in America sometimes look like a small, two-lane, highway regarding their width and straightnes.
A huge issue is that american residential roads are way overbuilt, further encouraging speeding. A lot of residential roads in Central Europe have specific provisions encouraging and forcing drivers to slow down. The residential streets in America sometimes look like a small, two-lane, highway regarding their width and straightnes.
More speed equals less stopping power and control and more injury and death. Period. I agree speed should not be our only focus regarding road safety and speed limits should be increased. But let's not play make-believe about the dangers of driving faster.
>less stopping power
True, but I think it’s better said as longer stopping distance. This is fine though. The speed limit should be the speed that no reasonable person would exceed, but what we have in the US is in fact the speed no reasonable person would drive. Again, the cops don’t even enforce the posted limits until +10 because they’re so low. That’s not ok.
>more death
Not really. Death clips the risk function. You can’t go above 1.0. An airliner nose diving into the ground (like that one recent case) is equally fatal at 300, 400, and 500MPH. No one is suggesting slowing planes to save lives.
Similarly, a concrete wall teleporting to 150ft in front of you is going to kill you on a highway at 60, 70, and 90 MPH. The goal therefore is to prevent spontaneous debris from entering the roadway, and of course keep relative speeds among motorists as low as possible. Impacts with stationary objects should always be sloped, for example a guard rail and not a bridge support column.
That’s how you actually save lives, not something ridiculous like capping all transit to 25mph.
True, but I think it’s better said as longer stopping distance. This is fine though. The speed limit should be the speed that no reasonable person would exceed, but what we have in the US is in fact the speed no reasonable person would drive. Again, the cops don’t even enforce the posted limits until +10 because they’re so low. That’s not ok.
>more death
Not really. Death clips the risk function. You can’t go above 1.0. An airliner nose diving into the ground (like that one recent case) is equally fatal at 300, 400, and 500MPH. No one is suggesting slowing planes to save lives.
Similarly, a concrete wall teleporting to 150ft in front of you is going to kill you on a highway at 60, 70, and 90 MPH. The goal therefore is to prevent spontaneous debris from entering the roadway, and of course keep relative speeds among motorists as low as possible. Impacts with stationary objects should always be sloped, for example a guard rail and not a bridge support column.
That’s how you actually save lives, not something ridiculous like capping all transit to 25mph.
[deleted]
I believe the ideal use case for this app is on residential streets where the chances of impact with a pedestrian or child playing are sufficiently high to warrant a low speed limit? Anyone who chooses to exceed this limit in such an area IS driving dangerously.
I am guessing your defence of speeding relates to less populated areas where the chances of hitting a pedestrian are pretty much zero?
I am guessing your defence of speeding relates to less populated areas where the chances of hitting a pedestrian are pretty much zero?
>I believe the ideal use case for this app is on residential streets where the chances of impact with a pedestrian or child playing are sufficiently high to warrant a low speed limit?
Case in point. Many neighborhoods have 15mph limits and speed bumps. Everyone drives 25-30 plus and it's far from mad-max. We live in a world where exceeding this particular "limit" by 60% is not only safe, it's common.
On first glance it just seems stupid, but on deeper inspection the real goal of these systems becomes obvious. If everyone is speeding, you can arbitrarily pull over anyone at any time with legal justification. These types of selective enforcement schemes are how bias slips in to what should be deterministic systems.
Case in point. Many neighborhoods have 15mph limits and speed bumps. Everyone drives 25-30 plus and it's far from mad-max. We live in a world where exceeding this particular "limit" by 60% is not only safe, it's common.
On first glance it just seems stupid, but on deeper inspection the real goal of these systems becomes obvious. If everyone is speeding, you can arbitrarily pull over anyone at any time with legal justification. These types of selective enforcement schemes are how bias slips in to what should be deterministic systems.
Well, almost all reasons to enforce the speed limit (playing kids, pedestrians) have been eliminated over the years. But increasing the speed limit now will probably not reduce speeding, since residential roads in the US are way overbuilt.
Speeding is probably one of the reasons why there are almost no pedestrians and kids on suburban streets now.
Speeding is probably one of the reasons why there are almost no pedestrians and kids on suburban streets now.
This is another thing I hate about the term "speeding". It makes no distinction between someone doing 55 in a 15mph neighborhood with playing kids, and someone doing 90 on an autobahn-tier controlled access highway with no traffic.
> We live in a world where exceeding this particular "limit" by 60% is not only safe, it's common.
It's funny how there are so many road accidents caused by people with this very same attitude. Since it isn't their poor driving that's at fault, obviously, what do suggest is?
It's funny how there are so many road accidents caused by people with this very same attitude. Since it isn't their poor driving that's at fault, obviously, what do suggest is?
I'd argue distracted driving is far more causative than the speed limit.
Remember that my 60% claim was someone doing 25 in a 15 in a neighborhood. 15 mph is unreasonably slow in even the worst-case scenario.
The real speed-do-not-exceed in my neighborhood is 35MPH, but instead of setting that and enforcing even 1MPH over they set the speed limit to 15 hoping people actually go 25-30.
My argument is that this system is stupid and should be reformed.
Remember that my 60% claim was someone doing 25 in a 15 in a neighborhood. 15 mph is unreasonably slow in even the worst-case scenario.
The real speed-do-not-exceed in my neighborhood is 35MPH, but instead of setting that and enforcing even 1MPH over they set the speed limit to 15 hoping people actually go 25-30.
My argument is that this system is stupid and should be reformed.
[deleted]
Shouldn't be needed this kind of app. But if it is really needed (traffic related deaths are a big component of the total deaths, and you should count also other bad outcomes of traffic accidents), then it might not be a so bad idea. Yes, ripe to be abused, but the other side abuses too. And the abuse of one side may or not end in a speeding ticket, while from the other side may end killing you or leaving you disabled for the rest of your life.
No no no it's a terrible idea full stop and I've been in car accidents before. In fact I had someone roll a car into my front garden a couple of years back.
The problem is reckless incompetence, ego and ignorance behind the wheel.
Reporting the guy who rolled through my fence to the police and then them allowing him to keep driving because he requires driving to earn a living is where the problem is. He should have forfeited his right to get behind a wheel there and then and had to live with the consequences. I'm sure he's probably killed someone by now.
The car was doing under the speed limit when it was rolled into my garden.
The problem is reckless incompetence, ego and ignorance behind the wheel.
Reporting the guy who rolled through my fence to the police and then them allowing him to keep driving because he requires driving to earn a living is where the problem is. He should have forfeited his right to get behind a wheel there and then and had to live with the consequences. I'm sure he's probably killed someone by now.
The car was doing under the speed limit when it was rolled into my garden.
> Thirdly, this will create a lot of noise for law enforcement agencies which may mask other higher priority crimes.
If it becomes accepted as an automated solution where either a very quick human check or no human check is required, it would reduce their burden.
If it becomes accepted as an automated solution where either a very quick human check or no human check is required, it would reduce their burden.
> if it becomes accepted as an automated solution where either a very quick human check (e.g. that the wheel locations are indeed correctly identified) or no human check is required, it would reduce their burden
To put it politely, please take off the rose tinted spectacles.
Incase it had escaped your observation, a whole industry has sprung up where specialist lawyers make themselves available to challenge speeding tickets.
These speeding tickets are challenged on technicalities.
These technicalities relate to ?
That's right, issues with CALIBRATED fixed or mobile speed detection equipment, operated and maintained by trained individuals.
Typically the crux of the legal challenge is built around ?
Yes, that's right. Issues with the calibration of said equipment.
So, the chances of law enforcement issuing fines based upon "evidence" of speeding based on something that some random app on someone's phone has spat out ?
Yes, that's right. Zero, zilch, nada.
To put it politely, please take off the rose tinted spectacles.
Incase it had escaped your observation, a whole industry has sprung up where specialist lawyers make themselves available to challenge speeding tickets.
These speeding tickets are challenged on technicalities.
These technicalities relate to ?
That's right, issues with CALIBRATED fixed or mobile speed detection equipment, operated and maintained by trained individuals.
Typically the crux of the legal challenge is built around ?
Yes, that's right. Issues with the calibration of said equipment.
So, the chances of law enforcement issuing fines based upon "evidence" of speeding based on something that some random app on someone's phone has spat out ?
Yes, that's right. Zero, zilch, nada.
Unfortunately what that all REALLY means is that this system will only catch/charge speeders who also happen to not be able to afford a lawyer to challenge it or take the time off to take it to court.
Yes. To be fair all low value financial punishments are ethically reprehensible on this ground. They don’t dissuade anyone with money because the consequences are low or easy to appeal and people who are poor are punished harder. This ends up in a situation where punishment causes an even larger cultural divide or pushes people to other crime to make ends meet.
Lot of assumptions here on measurements which really make this laughable. You need the following to make the measurement have any sort of validity:
Assuming simple s = d/t
1. The wheelbase data source is accurate. (d)
2. The vehicle type identification is accurate (d)
3. The centre of the wheels is identified correctly (d)
4. The wheels being on the same vehicle are identified correctly (d)
5. The measurement resolution is limited by pixel resolution so the image needs to be large enough to not lead to quantization errors (d + t)
6. The direction of travel of the vehicle is accurately determined (rate of motion is different if car moving away) (d)
7. The rotation of the vehicle is accurately measured (wheelbase compressed if turning away from the camera) (d)
8. The phone's camera is digitizing frames at the same rate without jitter (t)
9. The video source is actually coming from an actual camera and has not been modified by the user to incriminate them (d+t)
10. The camera isn't being moved in sympathy with the reference frame (d+t)
11. The reference frame is identified correctly (d+t)
12. the correct set of wheels on the vehicle are identified (d)
13. The shape of the lens of the camera (wide angle lens distortion) (d+t - possible calculus fun there)
I'd take the other arguments apart but I don't think I need to.
Edit: keep finding more problems with this.
Assuming simple s = d/t
1. The wheelbase data source is accurate. (d)
2. The vehicle type identification is accurate (d)
3. The centre of the wheels is identified correctly (d)
4. The wheels being on the same vehicle are identified correctly (d)
5. The measurement resolution is limited by pixel resolution so the image needs to be large enough to not lead to quantization errors (d + t)
6. The direction of travel of the vehicle is accurately determined (rate of motion is different if car moving away) (d)
7. The rotation of the vehicle is accurately measured (wheelbase compressed if turning away from the camera) (d)
8. The phone's camera is digitizing frames at the same rate without jitter (t)
9. The video source is actually coming from an actual camera and has not been modified by the user to incriminate them (d+t)
10. The camera isn't being moved in sympathy with the reference frame (d+t)
11. The reference frame is identified correctly (d+t)
12. the correct set of wheels on the vehicle are identified (d)
13. The shape of the lens of the camera (wide angle lens distortion) (d+t - possible calculus fun there)
I'd take the other arguments apart but I don't think I need to.
Edit: keep finding more problems with this.
Don't forget, a defendant has the right to subpoena the device that took the video/measurement. Users should be aware that they can essentially lose control of their phone during this process.
There's a reason most police departments forbid personal devices from being used to collect evidence in most circumstances.
There's a reason most police departments forbid personal devices from being used to collect evidence in most circumstances.
And potentially a right to subpoena the source code to the software in some circumstances I believe.
(6) and (7) are not assumptions - the angle you are looking from doesn't make a difference, the time taken between each wheel crossing the same part of the image is the same.
What happens if the plate is incorrectly read? I have had this with my old vehicle leading to being fined for entering a car park but not leaving it.
I disagree with points 6 and 7 entirely. You can observe wheelbase compression standing on a tight bend with your eyes which are fairly low precision.
Also throw an extreme scenario on the table. If you're travelling at 70mph, that is 31m/s or 1m image resolution for a 30fps video. If your wheelbase is 3m that's a resolution of three frames to pass which is well below any threshold where a credible measurement is possible as you convert from discrete to continuous time.
Of course that brings in the problem that lower speed resolution is probably better so I should probably be driving around at 70mph in a 30mph in my 6x6 Land Rover 130 (sorry couldn't resist that).
I think there are too many assumptions to make a reliable measurement within a tolerance for the purpose described. The existing measurement devices have to be calibrated and must be operated within certain constraints to make an accurate measurement otherwise the information is inadmissible. Your app doesn't contain 1/10th of the assurance or competency that would be required. All it does is allow really annoying people to annoy people.
I disagree with points 6 and 7 entirely. You can observe wheelbase compression standing on a tight bend with your eyes which are fairly low precision.
Also throw an extreme scenario on the table. If you're travelling at 70mph, that is 31m/s or 1m image resolution for a 30fps video. If your wheelbase is 3m that's a resolution of three frames to pass which is well below any threshold where a credible measurement is possible as you convert from discrete to continuous time.
Of course that brings in the problem that lower speed resolution is probably better so I should probably be driving around at 70mph in a 30mph in my 6x6 Land Rover 130 (sorry couldn't resist that).
I think there are too many assumptions to make a reliable measurement within a tolerance for the purpose described. The existing measurement devices have to be calibrated and must be operated within certain constraints to make an accurate measurement otherwise the information is inadmissible. Your app doesn't contain 1/10th of the assurance or competency that would be required. All it does is allow really annoying people to annoy people.
[deleted]
Have you joined any local community Facebook groups? Neighbours (vigilantes) posting about neighbours speeding/illegally parking their cars/noise issues or other mundane HOA violations doesn't deter anyone from these actions, if anything it creates a ton of fighting and drives communities apart.
You know what would also reduce their burden... Not getting speeding complaints from some random app.
How are you achieving the ANPR? I'd have thought that would add a fairly significant cost.
Counting on one's crime not being discovered by keeping odds of detection low is a loosing battle. I think it's better to work towards laws, enforcement and punishment that make sense.
So, I don't want to use a system like this to generate actual fines.
I want to embarrass people who are speeding through my neighborhood at 2x the local speed limit, just because they can. In some cases, including school buses.
Uploading only the most egregious cases to YouTube on an automated basis would make me happy.
I want to embarrass people who are speeding through my neighborhood at 2x the local speed limit, just because they can. In some cases, including school buses.
Uploading only the most egregious cases to YouTube on an automated basis would make me happy.
> Firstly, anything which normalises surveillance by citizens on citizens is a death spiral for society.
The new SaaS is Stasi as a Service.
The new SaaS is Stasi as a Service.
That’s a great analogy. Even if it is slightly depressing.
> anything which normalises surveillance by citizens on citizens is a death spiral for society.
Citation needed. I'd argue that without surveillance we wouldn't even have society. We'd just have warlords and anarchy
Citation needed. I'd argue that without surveillance we wouldn't even have society. We'd just have warlords and anarchy
This is ridiculous. Society doesn’t require surveillance.
we didn't really. we got society by people watching out each other and reporting strangers and infractions to the authorites. Before that it was each person for themselves (not society)
We had society long before surveillance.
Humans are intrinsically revenge driven scolds and gossips. Evolutionary psychology, monkey sphere, and all that. We should leverage that, not deny it.
This terrific app is a good step towards closing the feedback loop, establishing a direct line from a transgressive behaviour to social condemnation, punishment, and perhaps ultimately banishment.
As Libertarian demiurge Robert A. Heinlein has taught us: A well-armed society is a polite society.
This terrific app is a good step towards closing the feedback loop, establishing a direct line from a transgressive behaviour to social condemnation, punishment, and perhaps ultimately banishment.
As Libertarian demiurge Robert A. Heinlein has taught us: A well-armed society is a polite society.
I think America disproves Heinlein.
Well now, this looks like it's just going to escalate roadrage interactions not decrease them. As if there's not enough tempers boiling over for very little reason, let's make an app to give busybodies even more to scream about.
Next can we get a lawn length measurement app?
Next can we get a lawn length measurement app?
Speeding kills and seriously injures people. Being afraid someone's going to go unstable doesn't make it any less so.
Your lawn, despite having a such neighbourhood zoning laws that dictate maintaining a lawn, specifically a lawn, or preventing washing lines, as much as an oddity as they are for someone alien to them, does not. Not a good comparison.
Your lawn, despite having a such neighbourhood zoning laws that dictate maintaining a lawn, specifically a lawn, or preventing washing lines, as much as an oddity as they are for someone alien to them, does not. Not a good comparison.
It also tends to kill the person doing the speeding, which is something they probably know, and they choose to do it anyway. Seeing that as an opportunity to inject yourself into an enforcement role does not seem like a decision designed to actually improve safety for everyone.
Some areas in China had a program like this. Turn people in, get a payment from the local government. What you would see is people going out, intentionally driving badly near other drivers in an effort to get them to speed away or make an illegal move just to get away from them, or to even start road raging in return and then they would start recording after the fact.
Finally, the last time I looked at the data, the correlation between speed and pedestrian deaths was not at all clear. Time of day was a much stronger point of correlation. The majority of pedestrian deaths happen after sun down and on the sides of road types you would not expect. I'm not sure how arming people with this rather unsocial technology is going to solve this exact problem.
Some areas in China had a program like this. Turn people in, get a payment from the local government. What you would see is people going out, intentionally driving badly near other drivers in an effort to get them to speed away or make an illegal move just to get away from them, or to even start road raging in return and then they would start recording after the fact.
Finally, the last time I looked at the data, the correlation between speed and pedestrian deaths was not at all clear. Time of day was a much stronger point of correlation. The majority of pedestrian deaths happen after sun down and on the sides of road types you would not expect. I'm not sure how arming people with this rather unsocial technology is going to solve this exact problem.
> It also tends to kill the person doing the speeding
Most definitely not true when the speeding motorist hits a pedestrian or a cyclist.
Most definitely not true when the speeding motorist hits a pedestrian or a cyclist.
This is only a problem because of our absolutely crap-tier city design.
5,000lb, 100+mph (capable) motor vehicles are in an entirely different class than pedestrians and cyclists. They really should have segmented transit options.
5,000lb, 100+mph (capable) motor vehicles are in an entirely different class than pedestrians and cyclists. They really should have segmented transit options.
The reality on the ground is that
1) pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers have to share space
2) speed limits aren't enforced on drivers
3) drivers that hit pedestrians at 40mph kill 50% of their victims; at 25mph, they only kill 10%.[1]
(1) is further exacerbated by the fact that any attempt to create space for pedestrians and cyclists by necessity requires repurposing space optimized for vehicles, and drivers oppose this tooth and nail.
An app is a crap solution, but anything that might help hold dangerous drivers accountable helps.
[1] https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-seve....
1) pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers have to share space
2) speed limits aren't enforced on drivers
3) drivers that hit pedestrians at 40mph kill 50% of their victims; at 25mph, they only kill 10%.[1]
(1) is further exacerbated by the fact that any attempt to create space for pedestrians and cyclists by necessity requires repurposing space optimized for vehicles, and drivers oppose this tooth and nail.
An app is a crap solution, but anything that might help hold dangerous drivers accountable helps.
[1] https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-seve....
>Speeding kills and seriously injures people.
No, delta-speed kills and seriously injures people. I was stoped on an off ramp yesterday in traffic with cars passing feet from me going 55+ mph. This was FAR more dangerous than being in a group of cars going 85mph in good conditions on a controlled access superhighway.
US speed limits are a joke and aren't even taken seriously by the people whose job it is to enforce them. Most of the US lets you go 10+ over with near-zero chance of police interdiction.
No, delta-speed kills and seriously injures people. I was stoped on an off ramp yesterday in traffic with cars passing feet from me going 55+ mph. This was FAR more dangerous than being in a group of cars going 85mph in good conditions on a controlled access superhighway.
US speed limits are a joke and aren't even taken seriously by the people whose job it is to enforce them. Most of the US lets you go 10+ over with near-zero chance of police interdiction.
> No, delta-speed kills and seriously injures people.
Both are dangerous. I've heard the delta-speed argument a lot before and its proponents do a good job explaining why it's bad, but the fact is that absolute speed does matter a lot too. Plus, delta-speed practically equals speed when a vehicle collides with a relatively stationary object like a pedestrian or a cyclist.
Both are dangerous. I've heard the delta-speed argument a lot before and its proponents do a good job explaining why it's bad, but the fact is that absolute speed does matter a lot too. Plus, delta-speed practically equals speed when a vehicle collides with a relatively stationary object like a pedestrian or a cyclist.
>Plus, delta-speed practically equals speed when a vehicle collides with a relatively stationary object like a pedestrian or a cyclist.
If your road/city/transportation system is _routinely_ creating high delta-speed (and delta-mass) interactions then it is poorly designed.
As I said elsewhere I have nothing against bikes, but I do have a bone to pick with people who suggest cars/bikes/pedestrians belong on the same grid such that they routinely interface with one another.
If your road/city/transportation system is _routinely_ creating high delta-speed (and delta-mass) interactions then it is poorly designed.
As I said elsewhere I have nothing against bikes, but I do have a bone to pick with people who suggest cars/bikes/pedestrians belong on the same grid such that they routinely interface with one another.
> As I said elsewhere I have nothing against bikes, but I do have a bone to pick with people who suggest cars/bikes/pedestrians belong on the same grid such that they routinely interface with one another.
Do you believe that for roads with speed limits 25 mph or below?
Do you believe that for roads with speed limits 25 mph or below?
A random person standing on the side of the road filming cars driving by doesn't stop speeding, it just distracts an already speeding driver. It potentially makes the situation worse.
I believe the plan is that the person filming can send the footage/evidence to the police and then the driver/owner would be fined.
collisions kill people, not speeding tbh
that's not even entirely tongue in cheek either. speeding is very rarely the cause of collisions imo. As a disclaimer, I also believe drivers are solely responsible for accidents rather than phones taking partial responsibility when texting and driving is applicable, so maybe I am not aligned with the public on this subject in general
that's not even entirely tongue in cheek either. speeding is very rarely the cause of collisions imo. As a disclaimer, I also believe drivers are solely responsible for accidents rather than phones taking partial responsibility when texting and driving is applicable, so maybe I am not aligned with the public on this subject in general
Is there a lawn length measurement app?
I'd honestly be interested in that.
I want a cognitive dissonance app where I can report people who are for strict enforcement of some random laws that deal with one issue but want lax enforcement of laws that deal with another.
As a cyclist, I see a lot of dangerous driving, and a lot of hypocrisy with regards to the law on the roads. Unfortunately, I'm seeing some of that hypocrisy in the comments here.
Here's a good example of the hypocrisy: A lot of drivers speed and will tell you that speeding is safe, even a victimless crime. To them the real problem are people like cyclists who run red lights. Yet I have watched probably hundreds of cyclists run red lights and few did so without first checking that the road was clear. Fact is, unless one is brazenly stupid, running red lights in practice is almost always safe. Note that I'm not saying someone should run red lights or that doing so is always safe! (I don't run reds.)
The problem with both speeding and running red lights is that the even though most of the time nothing bad will happen, I think people who do such things underestimate the chances that a bad thing will occur, and don't make a good cost-benefit analysis for that reason. Wishful thinking explains why both happen. The small amount of time saved from speeding or running red lights isn't worth the carnage in my view. And the amount of time saved from speeding is indeed small, particularly given how much time one spends at stoplights. As a cyclist I'd see a lot of drivers speed to the next stoplight... only for me to catch up with them so in practice they weren't going much faster than a cyclist. The bottleneck frequently is not speed when in motion. (Factor in time spent finding parking and the comparison to cyclist is frequently worse, as cyclists can usually park much closer.)
To be clear, I follow the law in my local jurisdiction to the letter. I have no patience for speeding drivers or cyclists who run red lights, for example. And in my experience the only people who don't like misbehavior on the road from any road users are cyclists, particularly the ones who wear hi-viz clothing.
Here's a good example of the hypocrisy: A lot of drivers speed and will tell you that speeding is safe, even a victimless crime. To them the real problem are people like cyclists who run red lights. Yet I have watched probably hundreds of cyclists run red lights and few did so without first checking that the road was clear. Fact is, unless one is brazenly stupid, running red lights in practice is almost always safe. Note that I'm not saying someone should run red lights or that doing so is always safe! (I don't run reds.)
The problem with both speeding and running red lights is that the even though most of the time nothing bad will happen, I think people who do such things underestimate the chances that a bad thing will occur, and don't make a good cost-benefit analysis for that reason. Wishful thinking explains why both happen. The small amount of time saved from speeding or running red lights isn't worth the carnage in my view. And the amount of time saved from speeding is indeed small, particularly given how much time one spends at stoplights. As a cyclist I'd see a lot of drivers speed to the next stoplight... only for me to catch up with them so in practice they weren't going much faster than a cyclist. The bottleneck frequently is not speed when in motion. (Factor in time spent finding parking and the comparison to cyclist is frequently worse, as cyclists can usually park much closer.)
To be clear, I follow the law in my local jurisdiction to the letter. I have no patience for speeding drivers or cyclists who run red lights, for example. And in my experience the only people who don't like misbehavior on the road from any road users are cyclists, particularly the ones who wear hi-viz clothing.
Yeah no, this is not how roads works. I don't care if you're a pedestrian, cyclist or driver, if you're following the letter of the law you are causing problems for the other two. All three of these groups routinely ignore laws on a situation specific basis and with local variations. And that selective compliance with the law is what constitutes normal traffic flow. To robotically follow the law in spite of this is ill-advised because it makes your actions less predictable to every other traffic participant.
Cyclists (unfairly, IMO, but that's beside the point) catch shit for rolling signs and lights because it's a toss up whether they will or not and that really inhibits the ability of everyone else around to plan accordingly. Cars don't get crap for speeding because their actions are still predicable allowing everyone else to plan accordingly. Likewise nobody cares when pedestrians jaywalk as long as they don't surprise other traffic when they do it. And nobody cares when cyclists roll stop signs when they time it so that their actions are compatible with the other traffic in the stop.
Frankly, I think the cyclist expectation problem will solve itself when cycling becomes a normal way of commuting and not a lifestyle and fitness thing.
Cyclists (unfairly, IMO, but that's beside the point) catch shit for rolling signs and lights because it's a toss up whether they will or not and that really inhibits the ability of everyone else around to plan accordingly. Cars don't get crap for speeding because their actions are still predicable allowing everyone else to plan accordingly. Likewise nobody cares when pedestrians jaywalk as long as they don't surprise other traffic when they do it. And nobody cares when cyclists roll stop signs when they time it so that their actions are compatible with the other traffic in the stop.
Frankly, I think the cyclist expectation problem will solve itself when cycling becomes a normal way of commuting and not a lifestyle and fitness thing.
> All three of these groups routinely ignore laws
This is a lot more common when the local traffic laws are kind of insane. It sounds from later in your post that you're thinking of a North American context. In the UK there's no such thing as jaywalking. It's not illegal, but also it's also not even a word. The proliferation of stop signs is also a very North American thing. I live in Canada and 4-way stops are almost everywhere. In London, I would be hard pressed to find 4 stop signs along the entire length of my commute.
We don't need less enforcement of traffic laws, we need more sensible traffic laws (and highway engineering).
This is a lot more common when the local traffic laws are kind of insane. It sounds from later in your post that you're thinking of a North American context. In the UK there's no such thing as jaywalking. It's not illegal, but also it's also not even a word. The proliferation of stop signs is also a very North American thing. I live in Canada and 4-way stops are almost everywhere. In London, I would be hard pressed to find 4 stop signs along the entire length of my commute.
We don't need less enforcement of traffic laws, we need more sensible traffic laws (and highway engineering).
Anyone creating a large database of license plates coupled with location and timestamp needs to be extremely careful. That kind of data at scale can be used for all kinds of privacy abuses and needs to have rigorous checks and balances.
Using just that data you can often determine occupation, religion (what church/synagogue/etc. do you park at), potential medical issues (do you regularly drive to a specialist?), Do you have a drug or alcohol problem (Drive as well as a whole host of other PII, including networs off associates.
Police make broad, sweeping requests with subpoenas. (And there are plenty of other abuses that come outside of law enforcement and the state) How equipped are you to deal with the practical and ethical ramifications of you succeed?
Using just that data you can often determine occupation, religion (what church/synagogue/etc. do you park at), potential medical issues (do you regularly drive to a specialist?), Do you have a drug or alcohol problem (Drive as well as a whole host of other PII, including networs off associates.
Police make broad, sweeping requests with subpoenas. (And there are plenty of other abuses that come outside of law enforcement and the state) How equipped are you to deal with the practical and ethical ramifications of you succeed?
I'm a cyclist who often rides with a helmet camera due to misbehavior from drivers, including speeding. Does the app only allow one to measure speeds in video recorded in the app, or could I upload a short clip of an offending vehicle from a separate camera?
In the past I've measured speed by manually counting how many frames it takes a vehicle to pass landmarks, but this can be time consuming.
In the past I've measured speed by manually counting how many frames it takes a vehicle to pass landmarks, but this can be time consuming.
[deleted]
I love riding bikes in neighborhoods, trails, a greenway-like city paths. Despite it being perfectly legal, I have a hard time finding people who choose to "share the road" with 5,000lb cars going 45+mph anything but crazy.
You're rolling the dice every time someone overtakes you. At least in a car I have some of the best engineering available dedicated to protecting me (crash test engineers are gods). Do you value your life so little?
You're rolling the dice every time someone overtakes you. At least in a car I have some of the best engineering available dedicated to protecting me (crash test engineers are gods). Do you value your life so little?
I rarely ride on roads with speed limits 45 mph or faster. I can't recall riding on roads with speed limits above 35 mph in recent memory, in fact. And 5000 lbs is quite heavy as that's more than a F150.
Many non-cyclists' perceptions of what is safe differ greatly from reality. For instance, passing can be dangerous, but intersections are where the vast majority of the risk are. And it also shows that a lot of dedicated bike infrastructure is designed to address perceptions of what's unsafe rather than what is actually unsafe. A lot of "protected" bike lanes in my view increase risk because they make the cyclists less visible at intersections.
I recommend looking at websites like https://bicyclesafe.com/ for a more realistic view of the risks of cycling and how to reduce them. My own style of riding makes the top 4 collisions there unlikely (I often "take the lane" as appropriate to improve how visible I am), though I do have issues with various types of right hooks. I'm not sure whether those can be avoided as I ride with hi-viz gear and try to be as visible as possible otherwise.
Many non-cyclists' perceptions of what is safe differ greatly from reality. For instance, passing can be dangerous, but intersections are where the vast majority of the risk are. And it also shows that a lot of dedicated bike infrastructure is designed to address perceptions of what's unsafe rather than what is actually unsafe. A lot of "protected" bike lanes in my view increase risk because they make the cyclists less visible at intersections.
I recommend looking at websites like https://bicyclesafe.com/ for a more realistic view of the risks of cycling and how to reduce them. My own style of riding makes the top 4 collisions there unlikely (I often "take the lane" as appropriate to improve how visible I am), though I do have issues with various types of right hooks. I'm not sure whether those can be avoided as I ride with hi-viz gear and try to be as visible as possible otherwise.
What am I gonna do, tell them they won? Never.
Fair chunk of discussion earlier this week on a submission discussing the app¹.
¹ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30906561
¹ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30906561
FYI, this is not legal in Switzerland and most likely Germany. Your footage will not be accepted by the police or authorities and you may have the person depicted in the footage go after you for violating their privacy.
Capturing speeders and red light runners is the job of the state.
Red light cameras are very expensive in Switzerland because they need to be certified to be accurate.
Capturing speeders and red light runners is the job of the state.
Red light cameras are very expensive in Switzerland because they need to be certified to be accurate.
One of the development team here - if anybody tries it and has feedback it would be very welcome!
I care less about speeding and more about other traffic violations (running red lights, turning right from a lane other than the right lane, ....)
Have you talked to the law enforcement agencies? Will they actually use the footage?
Have you talked to the law enforcement agencies? Will they actually use the footage?
[deleted](1)
You can submit evidence like this to the Police in the UK and they may act on it.
Incidentally, I was involved in a heated discussion with someone the other week about her poor parking. Turns out she sent webcam footage to the police and I received a letter saying I had been reported for a public order offence but there was not sufficient evidence to act further.
Raising ones voice isn't yet an offence I am pleased to report.
Incidentally, I was involved in a heated discussion with someone the other week about her poor parking. Turns out she sent webcam footage to the police and I received a letter saying I had been reported for a public order offence but there was not sufficient evidence to act further.
Raising ones voice isn't yet an offence I am pleased to report.
My experience in the US is that video alone is not sufficient to get a bad driver arrested. I'm a cyclist, and I was able to get a driver arrested for some misbehavior through a combination of helmet cam video and the fact that they were driving for Uber at the time so Uber's GPS placed them at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime. The driver plead guilty to a misdemeanor. This surprised one local bike activist who seemed to think the local police wouldn't do anything regardless of the amount of evidence.
> My experience in the US is that video alone is not sufficient to get a bad driver arrested.
That's because "bad driving" is not a crime. You probably got that person charged with fleeing the scene of an accident or some kind of road rage charge. Depends on what happened.
That's because "bad driving" is not a crime. You probably got that person charged with fleeing the scene of an accident or some kind of road rage charge. Depends on what happened.
The police didn't care about the bad driving, just that the driver tried to stab me. That's despite the fact that I think the driver nearly running me over was more dangerous than their attempt to stab me!
They should market this to the nosy busy-bodies on NextDoor.
Can anybody explain why they would install an app like this? What ever happened to people minding their own business?
Can anybody explain why they would install an app like this? What ever happened to people minding their own business?
I imagine if you live on an urban street where (say) kids walk to school and there are various selfish drivers who regularly speed, this could be rather useful.
I don't see how this helps. What would be useful is for you (and your neighbors) to report the issue to the city and have them install speed bumps and maybe have a speed trap setup. Not everything needs an app.
What percentage of American communities do you think the police force or council would do either of those things on the basis of a request? In Oakland it took years after multiple fatalities at crosswalks for there to be enforcement and road works.
Okay, but all this app does is add a middle man, and that's just going to slow things down. If the city is ignoring complaints and fatalities, why would they pay more attention to this app?
As much as I dislike the survelience aspects, police operated red-light and speed cameras are already a thing. An app isn't going to fix the problem that your police don't care.
As much as I dislike the survelience aspects, police operated red-light and speed cameras are already a thing. An app isn't going to fix the problem that your police don't care.
>What percentage of American communities do you think the police force or council would do either of those things on the basis of a request?
What percentage of communities are rich suburbs that have more money and staff than they really have a use for.
And IMO just covering that small % of communities would satisfy 99% of people making these requests.
What percentage of communities are rich suburbs that have more money and staff than they really have a use for.
And IMO just covering that small % of communities would satisfy 99% of people making these requests.
Fair point, though at the same time I don’t see how this app would help any more or less.
How does "reporting to the city" differ from "reporting to the police"? Where I come from the reports to police do influence things like speed traps and speed bumps.
This is probably an unpopular opinion but the police should be involved in that case. Now I know they hardly come out for even big crimes but I still believe citizens should not be trying to be the speed limit police.
You're right. As I read in 1984, surveillance by the citizens, on the citizens, was a very effective tool for maintaining control.
You're already being recorded by a dozen surveillance doorbells and cheap outdoor cameras when you walk outside your house, in a normal middle-class neighborhood, these days :-/
For whatever reason, a bunch of other tech-crap has caught on only unevenly, but those seem to be fairly common everywhere.
For whatever reason, a bunch of other tech-crap has caught on only unevenly, but those seem to be fairly common everywhere.
There is no such thing as "minding your own business" on public roads. You had better be minding everyone's business.
I dream of a world where either speed limits are removed entirely or speed limits are enforced so well and penalized so strongly that no-one attempts to speed.
Speed limits are this weird thing where the rule is de facto strict (most driving manuals will say that drivers need to drive at or slightly below the speed limit), but de jure a recommendation (as most will drive at the speed they feel most comfortable in the situation at hand).
Law enforcement agencies _could_ install more speed traps and automated speed checkers, but any politician advocating for that will be run out of their city (despite it enforcing a law that's already in place).
Law enforcement agencies _could also_ spend more resources on prosecuting and catching speeders, but there are n-many more important things they could be doing with their staff, many agencies are strapped for funds, and many courts are backlogged to the ages with pending cases.
Law enforcement agencies _could also also_ make speed detectors highly illegal and revoke the licenses of anyone that has one on their dash or in their person, but see above as to why that hasn't happened.
Thus, we get our current system, where people break the law by default, harass folks (like me) who want to drive at the speed limit, openly advocate for cheat devices to prevent getting caught (Waze's police scanning feature; radar detectors; etc.) and then slow to a crawl whenever they see a police offer who is usually already busy ticketing someone.
A solution like this that is cheap, works anywhere in most situations, and auto-tickets (or auto-revokes) people when caught would be awesome.
What would also be awesome is if we just removed speed limits entirely. If people are going to break the law by default, then maybe it's a bad law.
I live next to an eight-lane highway that's dead straight for tens of miles that has a 60-mph speed limit set on it . It used to be 75-mph, but Houston lowered speed limits across the city to tackle their horrible smog problem. I would love to drive this at 85-mph, since we have an electric car that's zero emissions, but if I do that, that's points on my license, a driver's responsibility fee, and mandated defensive driver training. That doesn't stop the oodles of people that go this fast anyway, but it stops me, since my time is valuable and I'd rather spend the money on other things. I know that removing the speed limit increases the chance of a chucklehead driving their car at 160-mph, but those people would drive insanely fast anyway!
Speed limits are this weird thing where the rule is de facto strict (most driving manuals will say that drivers need to drive at or slightly below the speed limit), but de jure a recommendation (as most will drive at the speed they feel most comfortable in the situation at hand).
Law enforcement agencies _could_ install more speed traps and automated speed checkers, but any politician advocating for that will be run out of their city (despite it enforcing a law that's already in place).
Law enforcement agencies _could also_ spend more resources on prosecuting and catching speeders, but there are n-many more important things they could be doing with their staff, many agencies are strapped for funds, and many courts are backlogged to the ages with pending cases.
Law enforcement agencies _could also also_ make speed detectors highly illegal and revoke the licenses of anyone that has one on their dash or in their person, but see above as to why that hasn't happened.
Thus, we get our current system, where people break the law by default, harass folks (like me) who want to drive at the speed limit, openly advocate for cheat devices to prevent getting caught (Waze's police scanning feature; radar detectors; etc.) and then slow to a crawl whenever they see a police offer who is usually already busy ticketing someone.
A solution like this that is cheap, works anywhere in most situations, and auto-tickets (or auto-revokes) people when caught would be awesome.
What would also be awesome is if we just removed speed limits entirely. If people are going to break the law by default, then maybe it's a bad law.
I live next to an eight-lane highway that's dead straight for tens of miles that has a 60-mph speed limit set on it . It used to be 75-mph, but Houston lowered speed limits across the city to tackle their horrible smog problem. I would love to drive this at 85-mph, since we have an electric car that's zero emissions, but if I do that, that's points on my license, a driver's responsibility fee, and mandated defensive driver training. That doesn't stop the oodles of people that go this fast anyway, but it stops me, since my time is valuable and I'd rather spend the money on other things. I know that removing the speed limit increases the chance of a chucklehead driving their car at 160-mph, but those people would drive insanely fast anyway!
>Speed limits are this weird thing where the rule is de facto strict (most driving manuals will say that drivers need to drive at or slightly below the speed limit), but de jure a recommendation (as most will drive at the speed they feel most comfortable in the situation at hand).
Not really relevant, but I think you have the terminology backwards. The written rule is "de jure". The true behavior is "de facto".
Not really relevant, but I think you have the terminology backwards. The written rule is "de jure". The true behavior is "de facto".
lol i knew something was off about my response. Thanks!
Near me, someone was worried about speeding cars on a particular road and their complaint got a device installed that measured the time between cars driving over two spaced sensors.
This collective data was then used to guide decisions on whether speed bumps or other enforcement measures were required.
Feels like something this app could possibly do too if a spare tablet or phone could be left in position for a while.
This collective data was then used to guide decisions on whether speed bumps or other enforcement measures were required.
Feels like something this app could possibly do too if a spare tablet or phone could be left in position for a while.
At least here in the US, police don't really care about minor speeding. I don't see them pursuing the crime just because someone provides a video. The legalities of issuing the ticket without validating driver identity vary from state to state, but in many states it's not feasible.
Who is going to tell them speed limits are set artificially low to generate revenue from fines?
[deleted]
There's a lot of other problems with everyone else's attitude in this thread.
There's an awful lot of fundamental attribution error. "Everyone else gets into accidents because they're morons, I'm a safe driver so I can handle speeding".
One problem is that you're not likely to have an accident when you're driving at your best, you're likely to have an accident when you're driving at your worst. So its more likely when you're going through a messy breakup or divorce or stress at the job, haven't had enough sleep, etc. That shitty driver may very well be you on a bad day (and this may be one of the worst times of your life that you've had for a decade.
The next problem is that even if you're a good driver and you're not otherwise at fault the speed limits are there to limit the damage when other people fuck up and get into accidents with you. If someone turns left in front of you without right of way and causes a collision, both of you will do better if you're not traveling that fast.
Similarly those kinds of situations can be caused by speeding because the human optical system is very crappy at judging closing velocity and things like that. Your car doesn't have a bubble over it displaying its current speed like this was some kind of video game. And other road users are allowed to make assumptions that your rate of speed is reasonable for the road and conditions. The people who drive fast and road rage about getting cut off are often creating that problem themselves.
And then if you're excusing speed limits, what else are you excusing? Do you not come to complete stops at stop signs when you don't see anyone there? Do you always signal even when you don't think anyone is around to see it? Do you come to a stop before the pedestrian crosswalk? Do you tailgate? Do you have the mistaken and backwards belief that traffic goes faster when people tailgate? Do you feel that you need to tailgate in order to avoid being "cut off" and that this has any measurable effect on the time when you get to your destination?
If you think speeding doesn't matter you probably believe some or all of these which means that the bad driver who shouldn't speed so they don't cause accidents may really be you.
So yeah the point of speed limits isn't necessarily about your or your mad skillz and fancy traction control in your expensive car, its about limiting the kinetic energy if someone else makes a mistake around you.
Speed absolutely matters because all of us make mistakes, and mistakes shouldn't be a death penalty for anyone. If you think your $200k car gives you the right to drive 15 mph over the limit in residential neighborhoods, and some dumbass kid who runs out in the road deserves to die for it, then you might be a sociopath.
And really GIVEN how horribly irresponsible everyone attitudes in this thread are around speeding, that makes me quite okay that we're going down this path towards decentralized surveillance. You all don't even recognize that there's any kind of a problem with velocity and kinetic energy. I sort of don't care if your rights and privacy get invaded at this point because a lot of you in this thread are pretty awful.
If we can't reach an agreement to be responsible and think about the welfare of others, then bring on the decentralized nanny state where we're all tattling on each other I guess.
There's an awful lot of fundamental attribution error. "Everyone else gets into accidents because they're morons, I'm a safe driver so I can handle speeding".
One problem is that you're not likely to have an accident when you're driving at your best, you're likely to have an accident when you're driving at your worst. So its more likely when you're going through a messy breakup or divorce or stress at the job, haven't had enough sleep, etc. That shitty driver may very well be you on a bad day (and this may be one of the worst times of your life that you've had for a decade.
The next problem is that even if you're a good driver and you're not otherwise at fault the speed limits are there to limit the damage when other people fuck up and get into accidents with you. If someone turns left in front of you without right of way and causes a collision, both of you will do better if you're not traveling that fast.
Similarly those kinds of situations can be caused by speeding because the human optical system is very crappy at judging closing velocity and things like that. Your car doesn't have a bubble over it displaying its current speed like this was some kind of video game. And other road users are allowed to make assumptions that your rate of speed is reasonable for the road and conditions. The people who drive fast and road rage about getting cut off are often creating that problem themselves.
And then if you're excusing speed limits, what else are you excusing? Do you not come to complete stops at stop signs when you don't see anyone there? Do you always signal even when you don't think anyone is around to see it? Do you come to a stop before the pedestrian crosswalk? Do you tailgate? Do you have the mistaken and backwards belief that traffic goes faster when people tailgate? Do you feel that you need to tailgate in order to avoid being "cut off" and that this has any measurable effect on the time when you get to your destination?
If you think speeding doesn't matter you probably believe some or all of these which means that the bad driver who shouldn't speed so they don't cause accidents may really be you.
So yeah the point of speed limits isn't necessarily about your or your mad skillz and fancy traction control in your expensive car, its about limiting the kinetic energy if someone else makes a mistake around you.
Speed absolutely matters because all of us make mistakes, and mistakes shouldn't be a death penalty for anyone. If you think your $200k car gives you the right to drive 15 mph over the limit in residential neighborhoods, and some dumbass kid who runs out in the road deserves to die for it, then you might be a sociopath.
And really GIVEN how horribly irresponsible everyone attitudes in this thread are around speeding, that makes me quite okay that we're going down this path towards decentralized surveillance. You all don't even recognize that there's any kind of a problem with velocity and kinetic energy. I sort of don't care if your rights and privacy get invaded at this point because a lot of you in this thread are pretty awful.
If we can't reach an agreement to be responsible and think about the welfare of others, then bring on the decentralized nanny state where we're all tattling on each other I guess.
This is seriously terrible. Gross
If someone ever admits to me that they have this app installed. They will not hear another word from me. I can't risk them hearing the words I say and reporting them to the government.
If I ever get a speeding ticket sourced from this app. I will be challenging it to the maximum using as much court time as I can. I will also be joining politics with the goal of making possession of this app a crime.
If I ever get a speeding ticket sourced from this app. I will be challenging it to the maximum using as much court time as I can. I will also be joining politics with the goal of making possession of this app a crime.
Weak little people love stuff like this -- it gives them power they could never hope to have to interfere with the lives of better people who they live in envy of.
[deleted]
Firstly, anything which normalises surveillance by citizens on citizens is a death spiral for society. On top of that the £14.99 for 1000 credits approach empowers only the lunatic classes of society who would consider that as a price worth paying to get people into trouble.
Secondly, I have problems with the accuracy claims here which are presented disingenuously. The measurement of vehicle wheelbase and the system clock and frame rate is seen as the reference with no mention of the issues with accurately measuring that nor issues like frame stalling and jitter.
Thirdly, this will create a lot of noise for law enforcement agencies which may mask other higher priority crimes.