Citing Polluting Vehicles Using Roadside Sensors 104
Makarand writes "A regional southern Californian law will
soon allow installation of
roadside sensors to measure pollutants from tailpipes
as vehicles accelerate.
The sensors would then activate a camera to photograph the license plates of vehicles whose emissions are too high and the owner would be notified to bring his vehicle for a smog check.
This would ensure that if a vehicle has developed a problem and become a polluter, the owner cannot wait till the next smog check date to fix the problem. The plan is to have these sensors in place by year 2010. As of now, the state depends on the mandatory vehicle smog checks and the Highway Patrol and travelers to report smoking vehicles."
subject (Score:2, Funny)
Re:subject (Score:1)
2010? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:2010? (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember though that California Law exempts cars over 30 years old from the smog tests. My take is that although these older antiques will still be legal to use on the road, the owner will be required to at least maintain the vehicle to such an extent that it doesn't make one helluva mess wherever it goes.
I'm sure you've seen em.. just one car fogging up the entire area.. you would swear the guy is probably burning m
I am in shock and awed (Score:2)
Thank God I don't live in southern Califor
Re:I am in shock and awed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I am in shock and awed (Score:2)
Re: I am in shock and awed (Score:5, Informative)
AFAIK, a LASER directed on the chute and measuring the reflected spectrum deliver accurate data on various gases (CO,SO2...)
The external factors you have named maybe unpredictable, but are measurable and the systematical errors and statistical errors stemming from them can be measured and accounted for.
I may be wrong, I only remember it from something I've heard 5-10 years ago.
In that case, please enlighten me.
The report was something along this line:
Before such systems, govermental agencies checking the exhaust of plants had to build up an apparatus at the site (at the exhaust). The arrival of the agency at the site gave the operator the signal change the settings, so that they pass the inspection, which usually operated at a cheaper and less cleaner moed.
The (at that time) new system fitted into a van. They just had to drive some hundred meters near to the chute, with a line-of-sight, pointed the LASER at the exhaust and read the print-out, which listed the PPM of the pollutants.
Re: I am in shock and awed (Score:3, Informative)
Now, if the spectroscopic sensor were embedded in the tailpipe or mounted on the b
Re: I am in shock and awed (Score:2)
The next thing is, how does a moving car differ from a still standing plant with wind (In a small time intervall)?
And ho
Re: I am in shock and awed (Score:2)
Typical Californian Government plan (Score:2)
And as for this:
Many cities have cameras with sensors at traffic lights, which have led to a slew of motorist complaints.
Apples and oranges. Issuing a moving violation require
Re:Typical Californian Government plan (Score:2)
Keep in mind that, although the system may not be 100% accurate, it is not intended to be used to issue citations. It is only intended to identify probable violations and then call the owners of those vehicles in for an accurate test. This is in the interest of the people of California because it can improve their health and prevent them from losing federal funding due to exceeding air pollution limits.
Issuing a moving violation requires an arrest to be made. The camera is technically the arresting offic
Re:More persecution of the poor. (Score:1, Troll)
Sigh... go take an economics class sometime. Or read "Economics in one lesson" by Henry Hazlit. ITs short enough that you can get thru it.
IF you're bashing republicans, you haven't even begun to get a clue yet-- there is no difference between the republicans and the democrats. Both are socialist parties.
Liberals, however, have a particular affinity ofr persecuting the poor. Every liberal program out there causes poverty.
You just are so ignorant of economics that you blithely keep supporting them.
Re:More persecution of the poor. (Score:1)
Re:More persecution of the poor. (Score:1, Troll)
I might just do that, unfortunately, governent is a disease that has spread world wide... and the government here attacks places that don't conform to its wishes.
When you start respecting human rights, you'll hate the government as well.
At any rate, I have the right to be here. The government which has forsaken the constitution is illegitimate and should be shut down.
I have the moral high ground here.
RTFA (Score:2)
And what happens when you drive by a sensor 5 times a week and it sends you 5 citations at $50 or $100 a pop?
You're either a lier or you didn't even bother to RTFA. The system isn't intended to be used to issue citations. It's meant to be used to identify possible violations and then bring those cars in for an accurate test.
Re:RTFA (Score:2)
The other, related, issue is the accuracy of these devices. If I'm driving next to a car that's polluting, and I get ID'd by mistake, I'm out the money for the smog check. Is CA going to compensate me if I pass the smog check? Unlikely. I just don't see how they can b
Re:RTFA (Score:2)
Yes, that's a good point. That would be a good section of the bill to offer a concession. Something like: If the selected vehicle passes the smog inspection then the state eats the cost of the test. I have a feeling, though, that the system would be much more accurate than people seem to believe and that section would create a good incentive to make it even more accurate.
Take the advice in the subject line, okay? (Score:3, Insightful)
Given California's pollution problems, finding ways to remove the gross pollut
Due process (Score:1)
I still think it stinks as policy. Consider the difference between this scheme and red-light cameras. When a car goes through a red-light camera, the camera takes a picture of the car as it is going through the red light. The car has been "caught in
Re:RTFA (Score:1, Troll)
DOesn't matter if they only get one a week, they still can't afford to pay it, and so its persecution of the poor.
Re:RTFA (Score:2)
Hey idiot--
That a good point you have there. Maybe if you wear a hat no one will notice it.
I'm assuming the vehicles are not going to pass... and so they get all these citations.
If they don't pass then they should get a citation. What's wrong with giving someone a citation when they break the law, rich or poor?
Look, the whole concept of individualized, personal transportation is discriminatory to the poor. Our cities are designed around the car. Urban and subur
Re:RTFA (Score:2)
By the way, I love how my opposition of your persecution of hte poor shows my "lack of heart" for the poor. WTF? Logic? Hello? And of course you have to throw lies in there-- the "poorest of all can afford no transportation", oh boo hoo, anybody can afford a $500 toyota tercel from the 80s, anyone making minimum wage, that is. You're simultaneoustly advocating taking their cars away so that they can no longer afford them, and c
Re:RTFA (Score:2)
So, what your'e saying is that only people who can afford to buy cars made in the last 5 years should be allowed to work?
My, what a fascist you are. And an idiot.
hmm (Score:2)
Arizona has had this for years (Score:3, Informative)
Lifetime? (Score:2)
exemptions? (Score:2)
Assume the sensors work. Great, so you catch a pollutor... what next? They get a citation or recommendation in the mail. Is there a recourse or punishment for non-compliance, or do they just collect citations until their required emissions test?
Further, what about vehicles that are exempt from current emmisions tests, like Mack trucks. Semis and other large vehicles produce a lot more emmisions than smaller cars, and they're often exempt from emmisions tests (I'm not sure about California).
There are a
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
You really can walk 30 miles each way to and from work in under an hour?
Wow, you're amazing!
But I suspect you're a liar.
The average person walks 5 miles an hour...so that would be a bout 12 hours walking to and from work. With an 8 hour day that leaves 4 hours to sleep.
Not very practical.
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
ITs funny
You don't care.
You'd ratehr they be unemployed because you don't think they should be allowed to have cars.
Fascist. You don't know the meaning of the word libertarian.
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
You're just making shit up and presuming its true.
Not much point in arguing with someone who lacks any understanding of economics. (Blaming globalization for the loss of jobs is just ignorant.)
Anyway, the bottom line is you want to force peopel to live based on your idea of what their lifesyle should be. Typical socialist fascism.
You oppose human rights and there's no point in arguing with you about the details-- at the end of the day, you want to initiate violence on people who don't meet your approva
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:1)
after reading most of your postings I can see that you have a teenage-mentality emotional development which has never experienced anything in life. you are obviously angry at our government and unable to express yourself properly in debates. you blather on, offering no supporting evidence for
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:1)
But, really, what the hell do you know?
You're right, the average walking speed isn't 5 mph, its about 3-4 mph, which means it wouldn't take him 12 hours to walk to and from work, it would take him between 15 and 20 hours to get to work.
So yes, the guy was wrong, but his ballpark figure was right. now he only gets 4 to 9 hours a day to eat, sleep, and work. If he can walk 30 miles in an hour or 2,
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:1)
If you could not see the fact that BitGeek was all riled up and foaming at the mouth just to
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
Travel is a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT.
Uhm... why exactly doesn't the government have the right to licence cars and drivers? You drive on government owned roads don't you?
Environmental restrictions follow the same logic, just in a broader context. What would you say if I bought the property next to yours and started using dump toxic waste? Because you don't believe in environmental restri
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:1, Troll)
The government doesn't have the right because the constitution does not give them that right.
While the constitution covers the federal government, the states constitutions are generrally modeled after the federal one and most of them don't give the government that right either.
As to government owned roads-- that's bullshit-- they decreed themselves the monopolists of roads. We didn't consent to them owning them. And like all nationalized services they provide crappy service at a high price (like the pos
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
I think you are missing the point about what the government is - everybody with a vote is responsible for what the government does. They are not as efficient as we would like, but some things are simply better suited to government monopolies. Some things, like national
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
Government is a disease masquarading as its own cure.
You profess support for government provided "national defense".... so you must love that war we're involved with Iraq, eh?
If it weren't for government having taken over this job--- soemthing the founding fathers warned against! They EXPLICITLY wanted the national defense to not be part of the federal government! -- we wouldn't be adventuring out to settle our presidents personal score.
Everything government does, is a violation of human rights. Govern
Re:I used to think like you (Score:2)
You know, if your assertsions were correct, you could show errors in my thought process.
But instead, you make an assertion, and think its some sort of an argument. You don't seem to know the difference.
I had to reject traditional thinking when I found its errors to eventually work out for myself what is called libertarianism by you. (And, incorrectly, I might add.. why add "Big-L" when you don't know the distinction?)
You on the other hand, have nothing to offer but a personal attack-- no argument, no re
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
Government-provided national defense is allowed under the constitution. Going on the offensive in a dubious "war on terrorism" is not. The problem is politicians allowing popular opinion to drive unconstitutional public policy. Not only that, Congress was caught with their pants down with the PATRIOT Act. They are doing things that they think represent their constituencies rather t
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
You advocate the war on Iraq while opposing it. After all, the majority of the representatives from the party who's presidential candidate you voted for last election voted for the war on Iraq, and explicitly did so in violation of the constitution (Which requires a declaration of war).
The founding fathers, the framers of the constittuion, did not want a standing army! They were explicit on that. Get very clear- they did not want a standing army, no navy, no marines, no national guard. They wanted a mi
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
I don't know about that, being able to have a letter delivered anywhere in the country within a few days for only $.37 sounds like a pretty good deal to me. I've never had any problems with their service either. I highly doubt any private enterprise could compete at those prices (and yes, I'm aware that no one is doing it now because they're not allowed to; my point is that I doubt they could even if they
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:1, Troll)
Of course you doubt they could-- you have the undying faith in the government our socialist system indoctrinated you into having.
And so you do nothing, while you're right to have that letter delivered in 2 days instead of 10, for only $0.12 is usurped.
Furthermore, the argument can't be made that without the government doing it it wouldn't have gotten done--when the government took over this service and pushed everyone out, there were people already providing the service.
The reason the government took it
here's the book online (Score:2)
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
But travel by car is a PRIVILEGE!
The guy driving the smog-belching car is taking away MY right to breath non-toxic air, and my daughters right to normal brain developement uninhibited by carbon monoxide poisoning. You're god-damned right I support the taking away of his PRIVILEGE to drive that piece of crap.
Your right to swing your fist stops at my face. Never forget that.
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
No, travel by car is not a priviledge.
By your argument, free speech is a fundamental right, but to put that speech into a news paper that oyu own the press for is a priviledge.
You claim you have the right to stop people from publishing things you don't like to hear!
You're wrong--- free speech is a right, whether spoken or published.
Your claim that travel by car is polluting your air is not scientifically valid.
Teh vast majority of pollution in this coutry does not come from cars.
You guys always say "b
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
Stories about Mexico City and LA are decent examples. From a property rights point of view, there are strong arguments in favor of developing technology that pollutes as little as possible (not necessarily forced by legislation but by a fear of liability).
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
The free speech clause prohibits laws against actions based on the speech component of the action. It does not prohibit restrictions on non-speech components, such as using someone else's printing press without their permission, or blasting one's speech at 100 dB in a residential neighborhood at 3 in the morning. By your argumen
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
False.
I was not talking about driving someone elses car, I'm talking about driving my own car.
Therefore, the analogy is limiting your ability to print with your own printing press, not someone elses.
This right is protected by the constitution (in that the constituion does not give the government the right to regulate travel, and thus that right is retained according to the constitution.)
You either love it, or you want something like it. (Score:2)
The hidden assumption with regard to clean air regulations is that emissions of particulates, oxides of sulfur, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, VOCs and the like are
Re:You either love it, or you want something like (Score:2)
Check your premises.
What's the point of trying to argue against an argument based on false premises? There is none.
Course your audience, who never checks premises, confuses a logical conclusion from false premises to be "truth". I guess that's what you're counting on.
Just once I'd like to see a argument against libertarianism from someone who actually understood it.
The hidden assumption is not even an assumption at all, let alone hidden. It is a statement too broad to be true or false, as sometimes i
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
But I thought you had a Right To Travel, laws be damned?
In any case, I see you ignored the other analogy, of blasting your speech at a high volume, using amplification equipment that you own, of course. :-)
This right is protected by the constitution (in that the constituion does not give the government the right to regulate travel, and thus that right is retained according to the constitution.)
Which constitution ar
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
States cannot take away rights. The right to travel is a right guaranteed in the 9th ammendment.
Plus, its yet another really STOOPID idea, as I've pointed out already. And it will work to increase pollution, not decrease it.
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:1)
What right is California taking away here? The right to pollute? Is that guaranteed by the 9th Amendment too? Since you chose not to respond to my point that this has nothing to do with regulating travel, surely it can't be that...
Plus, its yet another really STOOPID idea, as I've pointed out already. And it will work to increase pollution, not decrease it.
It may very well be a stupid idea, but that do
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
The emissions standards in most states (and certainly california) have nothing to do with pollution. They are far more stringent than is reasonable.
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
We live in a representative democracy,in which citizens agree which rights to give to the inhabitants by chosing elected officials to decide on those rights.
Free speech is a right that people have chosen to give to other people. In this case, people have chosen to take away the right to drive around a car that pollutes the air. I'm not saying it's a morally just or enforcable move, I'm just saying this is what the people have chosen to do
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
You have apparently never read the constitution-- that's disturbing!
Citizens do not vote on rights... they do not have the moral authority, and the constitution DOES NOT ALLOW IT.
Rights are inherent, recognized by the constitution, but not granted by the constitution... and certainly cannot be voted away because a bunch of ignorant idiots decide they want to force peopel to live another way.
Get educated and grow up. You don't have the right to force people to live according to your lifestyle... so stop
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
This has worked very well in instances where rights were added (repealing prohibiltion, emancipation of slaves, voting rights) and has failed miserably when rights were taken away (federal income tax).
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
Some days I just love a good straw man. (Score:2)
Define "pollution". For some pollutants, cars produce the vast majority of what's emitted. If you bothered to look at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/trends98/appen dix_a.pdf [epa.gov] (which I found with a few minutes on the EPA website) you'll see that cars still emit a clear majority of all carbon monoxide emitt
Re:Some days I just love a good straw man. (Score:2)
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
You are creating rights-- you don't have the right to force people to live the way you want.
Your rights are not being violated by people living their lives their own way.
This is the problem with liberalism-- you have no clue what human rights really are and so you start creating pretend rights in an effort- ultimately-- to impose communism.
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
AH, I see, you hate people who can afford cars, and so you use this incident with one of them to justify persecuting those who can barely afford cars.
I don't see how smog sensors are going to punish the guy who you claim attacked you with his car.
But then, why should I expect logic? PRobably this is all jsut a class thing-- you hate people who can afford cars, or nicer cars than you. With liberals thats what it usually is.
At any rate, since you are the one who wants to persecute a class of people-- l
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
Yes, you think people should drive less.
Thats waht it boils down to-- forcing people to live according to your desires.
You shoudln't be paying taxes on roads you're not using-- so why don't we privatize roads?
This is the thing about government it takes over something that could be done privately and then pits people against each other for the payment of it.
IF we had private roads you would pay less cause you don't use them, and I would pay less because I would be paying a competantly managed company , r
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
Well, I'm glad to see we agree. Then if some private entity has a road that is causing massive amounts of polution and actual damages to neighboring property, then the neighbors can take it up with them.
Much better than a bunch of people in government trying to regulate what people do. Someone here said you shouldnt' be allowed to live 30 miles from work... totally rediculous.
The thing is government has been taken over by people who want to control other people-- and thus government has become immoral (
Sorry you lose the argument: Godwin!!! (Score:1)
see ya sucker
Veramocor declares support for RACISM. (Score:2)
You have conceded the argument because you are apparently too historically ignorant to make an actual counter argument.
The Nazis did exist. Godwins "law" is the resort of the ignorant and the racist who cannot handle making a counter argument.
Motes and beams in eyes (Score:2)
As to modes of transportation, at various times I walk, drive, bicycle, and take the bus. Mr./Ms. Bicy
Re:Motes and beams in eyes (Score:2)
Re:Your sig (Score:2, Insightful)
Furthermore, you still don't understand what libertarianism is.
And finally, the idea that cars force us into war is absurd.
That big government socialists like you have caused hte governmetn to go to war with iraq is irrelevant to my right to drive cars. You are responsible for oyur own acctions (And I guarantee you voted for a big government socialist last election. If you hadn't you'd understand what libertarian means.)
Re:Your sig (Score:3, Insightful)
The other day while driving home I was stuck behind an idiot with a shit exhaust system. After being behind him for more than 20 minutes I had the headache to end all headaches. Cars do harm you. Ask anyone who has been in an accident. Requiring that citizens do not go around harming each other is a basic function of government. Even ancient Sumer had
Re:Your sig (Score:2)
Yes, you would rather have other people carry guns and envoforce your will.
The difference between you and someone (not a libertarian) who carries a gun and shoots people when he doesn't get his way is that you don't have the guts to risk being shot back at-- -you'd rather have hired goons do it for you.
You have no clue how libertarians would solve the problem, and its a shame you've embraced socialism.
Re:Your sig (Score:2)
God how stupid you guys are.
Ok, so since if you eat way too much food you can be harmed, therefore we have to regulate food to prevent people from getting fat?
OH, wait, you guys are trying to do that.
You are in denial about reality-- even the real reasons we went to war in Iraq-- which are simple revenge, not oil. Simple economics competance would show you that.
Why do I respond to anonymous cowards? They never have two brain cells to rub together.
Re:Your sig (Score:2)
Re:Your sig (Score:2)
You're right, republicans are socialists... and there really isn't any difference between their brand and the democrats.. the democrats are a bit more communist and the republicans are a bit more nationalist (eg: fascist) but they are both socialist parties... really both manifestations of the one socialist party that has taken over the country.
You point out the conflicts-- but I think these are ironies due to ignorance.
IF people who wanted to help the poor actually understood economics, they'd realize th
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
Doesn't say so in the US Constitution, and I don't particularly agree with you. I agree that it is a valuable goal to allow people to travel unhindered, however:
* I don't really want the serial killer imprisoned at the local jail to have the freedom to travel where he wants.
* I don't really want random folks to have the ability to travel onto nuclear silo ground.
* I don't think that having completely open borders between all countries would be a good idea.
I can cla
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
Apparently you've never read the constitution, or you'd recognize that the constitution does not grant rights, it merely recognizes them.
It recognizes the right to travel in the 9th ammendment, part of the bill of rights.
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
Sure "it" does. That's because the government is all of us: government by the people and for the people. Our government is a way by which we agree how to behave towards one another. And you can bet that most people want cars licensed and polluters off the road.
Travel is a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT.
Freedom of movement is not the same as being allowed to drive whatever polluting gas guzzle
Re:Gotta Love that Government! (Score:2)
I'm glad to see you both oppose human rights and endorse government violations of them.
At least your consistent.
Seriously, though, if government was "of the people" than my simple disagreement would be all that's necessary to stop the process.
Instead of a government subserviant to the will of the people, we have a failed democracy that has let government get out of control.
A moral government would require unanimous consent. And if you think that means it would take a long time to get anything done-- yo