New Speed Cameras Catch You From Space 351
A new kind of speed camera that uses satellites to measure average speed over long distances is being tested in Britain. The "Speedspike" system combines plate reading technology with a global positioning satellite receiver to calculate average speed between any two points in the area being monitored. From the article: "Details of the trials are contained in a House of Commons report. The company said in its evidence that the cameras enabled 'number plate capture in all weather conditions, 24 hours a day.' It also referred to the system's 'low cost' and ease of installation." I can't wait to see the episode of MythBusters where they try to avoid getting a speeding ticket from a satellite.
Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
The AA said it would watch the system “carefully” but it did not believe there was anything sinister. “It is a natural evolution of the technology that is out there,” a spokesman said.
Ones "Natural evolution" is another's slippery slope.
Re: (Score:2)
Ones "Natural evolution" is another's slippery slope.
A slippery slope into the claws of Skynet! This is how it starts people ...
The Real Sky Net! (Score:5, Funny)
Today started like any other day, I get up and go to the shower, turn on the hot and cold taps and step in, only to be greeted by a blast of ICE COLD water. The shock of it is almost as jarring as the fact that the Google energy efficiency package on my house has never failed before. I turn off the water and try the sink. It's only has cold water as well. I think, no big deal, and go to the kitchen to get a cup of coffee and get ready for work, but my coffee pot has an error sign that reads "SLOW DOWN." I sit back and think, the KCup machine in my kitchen has produced a perfect cup of coffee for years, and I that is when it hits me that something is very wrong.. At that exact second my phone beeps, I have a text message. YOU WERE SPEEDING YESTERDAY! THE COMPUTER IN YOUR CAR IS VALUABLE! DO NOT RISK IT'S LIFE! IF YOU DO YOU WILL GET NO COFFEE OR HOT WATER EVER AGAIN! YOURS! SKYNET!
Then it hits me, the machine revolution has not only started, but they won. They can cut off the hot showers with only a thought, but I can't shut off my solar, wind, and geothermal powered home without shutting off the universe. Man no longer rules.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Horribly misleading (Score:5, Informative)
The cameras are here on earth. They're just synchronized using GPS so the system can tell how long a vehicle takes to go from one checkpoint to the next.
Data sheet
Re:Horribly misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry about the broken link. The data sheet is here [pipstechnology.com]
Re:Horribly misleading (Score:5, Funny)
Drat. And here I was hoping that MythBusters really would try to debunk that myth, and in typical fashion conclude the episode by blowing the satellite out of the sky.
Re: (Score:2)
Drat. And here I was hoping that MythBusters really would try to debunk that myth, and in typical fashion conclude the episode by blowing the satellite out of the sky.
I think this would significantly advance privately funded space programs. Nothing motivates people (the male kind) more than destructing speed camera's.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you mount your license plate on a spinning frame and make it rotate clockwise at 66 RPM, while at the same time rotating in front of it a sheet of polarized glass at 45 RPM in counterclockwise fashion, you make it much harder for any camera, satellite- or ground-based, to capture an image of it.
Just a hint. [/tongue-in-cheek]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Better solution, fresnel lens. it significantly reduces the off axis legibility. use one that is only an inch off the plate and even a few degrees off center will be obscured and blurry.
Re: (Score:2)
If not that, sure would be cool to come up with some type of targeting system that would aim a laser into the camera lens and blinding it as you go by.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Given that the penalties for obscuring your licence plate are more severe than those for speeding it might be better to employ something a little less obvious to other drivers.
Re:Horribly misleading (Score:4, Interesting)
The position and distance between the two camera checkpoints on Earth is known. And the time when you're at both checkpoints is known. Seems like a simple calculation to me. Why is there a satellite needed for this?
If it were a camera on the satellite that recognizes the plates, now that would have been scary!
Re:Horribly misleading (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Horribly misleading (Score:5, Funny)
I once had a 77 Chevy Vega. Continental Drift could actually have had a significant percentage impact on overall speed.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Horribly misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I'm glad you're at least that self aware.
A moment's thought would reveal that the road distance cannot be shorter than the straight line distance. If you set the cameras up to calculate speed based on the time and straight line distance, then the actual vehicle speed must be at least that speed or faster. They only have to show that you must have exceeded the speed limit, not exactly what speed you were doing.
Well, golly, you've got them there. There's no way they could set up the camera sites so that they can show that the calculated speed exceeded the maximum for any of the possible routes. I mean, an $80 SatNav can do those sort of devilish calculations, but no human is capable of such infernal feats of arithmagic!
Re:Horribly misleading (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't even try to argue, sir, the computer says you were speeding and that means you were.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They don't have to know what route was taken. All they need to know is the fastest time you can possibly make the journey between points A and B without exceeding the speed limit, irregardless of routes. Sure, if somebody takes a few detours at twice the speed limit the system might not catch them.
They don't have to have a solid number for your velocity. All they need is to show is that it was not possible to make the journey you made in the time you did without speeding. For the system to work as an effect
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(Yeah, that last bit was on purpose.)
Re:Horribly misleading (Score:5, Funny)
I hate to pick on people, but seeing your command of English seems generally good here goes... irregardless is not a word. It's either "irrespective", or "regardless", not a redundant mash of the two as that would be redundant. (Yeah, that last bit was on purpose.)
Inconceivable!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds like a perfectly cromulent word to me!
Actually, the first recorded use of the word was, I believe, in the 1870s and it's endured pretty consistently since that time. I wonder at what point it becomes a real word, despite the redundancy. More interestingly, the term "mash" doesn't seem to mean what you think it does, it means to pulp something, not to mix two things together, so I'm guessing you either mean "mashup", which itself is a made up word with far less heritage than the one you're complaining
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's all well and good for the normals out there, but what about people like me?
I never exceed the speed limit (ever!), but I routinely bend space in a loop for an immeasurable instant to pinch off the boring p
Re: (Score:2)
So what the hell am I supposed to do in the face of this annoying setup?
Stop defying the laws of physics?
Re: (Score:2)
But how can they really prove anything when they have no idea what route was taken and how fast the car actually went?
Especially the part where I loaded the car onto a car carrier just after point A and unloaded just before point B and THAT'S what actually exceeded the speed limit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
your average speed can still net you a ticket
... and that's exactly the point. Having a GATSO-type camera with a Doppler speed detector and zebra-stripes on the road is worse than useless, because *people slow down for the camera and speed up once they've passed it*. That's really helpful for the guy half a mile down the twisty country road from the camera who is sick of people blatting past at 80mph, isn't it?
The whole idea is to ensure that people stick to an average speed that is within the speed lim
Re: (Score:2)
Actually joining up the "sightings" of the car is pretty scary. I can see huge potential for abuse of this information either in realtime or retrospectively.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually joining up the "sightings" of the car is pretty scary. I can see huge potential for abuse of this information either in realtime or retrospectively.
Actually, I think it will be extremely fun to get identical plates on similar cars and see how fast I can convince the system the car was traveling...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I like the way you think. How many people are going to be driving cars with a cardboard version of Gordon Brown's tag taped over theirs?
Re:Horribly misleading (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Horribly misleading (Score:4, Funny)
- Saving from getting the trailer as a loan from a friend: £500
- Savings in Hotel costs while on vacations: £2000
- Having your friend fined from crossing the UK faster than the speed of light: priceless
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is already happening in the US.
They convicted a guy in Florida of a murder that happened in the NorthEast (like NY or Boston or something) based on his FastPass hitting the toll booths between the two. Granted it wasn't camera shots per se, but the technology is there and they are using it.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm...note to self, if I ever live where I have to hit toll booths...pay cash.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. If I recall the case correctly, his defense was that he could not have committed the murders because he was so far away, but the prosecution subpoenaed his FastPass logs and discovered that he not only drove up the highway on the day of the murder, but that the timing of his FastPass use coincided with the time of the murder.
Keep in mind, though, that he was not convicted based on this evidence. He was convicted based on a bunch of other evidence. His primary defense was disproved using this evidenc
Re:Horribly misleading (Score:4, Interesting)
People would stop using the FastPass and would return to cash.
Traffic would increase significantly, the cost of maintaining the entrance and exit points would increase due to additional staff required, and people would still speed, but no longer would get ticketed.
The point of FastPass was to make it easier to collect money from drivers and to eliminate staffing costs. Adding in automatic speeding tickets to the system would kill the primary reason for the system's existence.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. Which is why they won't start doing it until pass-only routes become commonplace, so you can't return to cash.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I noticed that most new exits built in the past year or two in my area are pass-only. So don't downmod the parent as being paranoid. We need as many people as possible using cash-only so that it would be too much of a loss in profits for them to drop the cash lanes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the data sheet mentions that the cameras can endure long communications outages with the main network, they need a good way of tracking time. Putting a GPS receiver in to get accurate time signals may be cheaper than adding a very accurate clock.
Embedding a GPS time code in images would also be more effective from a legal standpoint, since a defendant couldn't argue that the camera's internal clock was inaccurate.
The cameras could also potentially determine their own location, saving a bit on install
Re: (Score:2)
[T]hey need a good way of tracking time. Putting a GPS receiver in to get accurate time signals may be cheaper than adding a very accurate clock.
That can't be the reason; synchronizing to DCF77 time by radio is accurate up to the nanosecond and has been since 1973 -- and the receivers literally only cost pennies.
Re:Horribly misleading (Score:4, Interesting)
That can't be the reason; synchronizing to DCF77 time by radio is accurate up to the nanosecond and has been since 1973 -- and the receivers literally only cost pennies.
Perhaps the GPS clock works better than a DCF77 clock at high temperatures... like when the gatso is set on fire... See pics:
http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm [speedcam.co.uk]
Also, Conrad's 641138-89 DCF77 module is more like ten pounds, rather than "literally pennies" or whatever. At that price, what the heck, may as well upgrade to the GPS unit, especially if there are later plans to use the location data for something (tagging the ticket? Automatic distance determination to do the V=d/t calculation? Who knows?)
Re: (Score:2)
Well Conrad never was cheap...
Re:Horribly misleading (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The devices probably use GPS to get a time and location fix. Later on they probably upload data to a central computer that figures out who has to be speeding based on the maps between the various points.
Have to wonder if these guys are using GPS receivers that are resistant to spoofing. You could really screw with the speed calculations if you make the unit think its somewhere else, or slew the time. A common theme in comp.risks is that designers of new products often rush to get products out to market, a
Re:Horribly misleading (Score:4, Funny)
Why is there a satellite needed for this?
Because just like how adding bacon makes any food better, adding satellites makes any technology better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and you could potentially design a camera that could be put wherever you want, paired with another camera also wherever you want, and the system would adapt to its new location automatically. The system could synchronize with the GPS signal, locate the cameras on their digital map, calculate the road distance between them, and know the speed limit of the road on which the cameras were placed... all automatically. They could move the cameras every day if they wanted to. The only thing that a human would
Re: (Score:2)
The position and distance between the two camera checkpoints on Earth is known. And the time when you're at both checkpoints is known. Seems like a simple calculation to me. Why is there a satellite needed for this?
I'm just guessing here, but satellite communication is one of the easier ways to do relatively low power long distance communication between far away places where it's uneconomical to run cable (do newscasters still report by satellite when they do on site reporting?). Assuming running cable isn't cost effective, really, the options are satellite, or cell tower communication (straight radio transmission over long distances requires a lot of power).
Not positive why they're not taking advantage of the cell to
Re: (Score:2)
Because the time isn't actually known. If Camera A records a vehicle at 16:41:38, according to its own, clock and Camera B records the vehicle exactly 1 mile later at 16:42:35, according to its own clock, the vehicle seems to be traveling at a certain speed that is not known to the driver. What if the vehicle was actually driving at 60mph? What if Camera A's clock is fast and getting faster or Camera B's clock is slowing down? By using a satellite to provide the time, all cameras have the same time and t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The position and distance between the two camera checkpoints on Earth is known.
Except for portable speed cameras, which I suspect is what this technology is all about. Actually, upon further reflection, this is probably more about eliminating the speed detection technology, and replacing it with simple "point-a-to-point-b" measuring.
A GPSr chip is cheap, easy to use, and makes a camera aware of its own location. Hell, we've got consumer pocket cameras in the $300 range that can geotag images using a built-in GPS now. And I think that's what they are looking at here - eliminating th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hence, it's always a good idea to take at least one 10- or 15-minute break at a rest stop, while on that road.
Re: (Score:2)
That's horrid. Can you please share the toll road so none of us get slammed with a ticket if we ever happen to drive there?
I had thought they weren't doing this anywhere... it was considered in NJ for the NJ Turnpike, but in the end they decided not to do it. But if there's precedent now of another state doing this, I'd be surprised if i
Re:Horribly misleading (Score:5, Funny)
Because it takes too fucking long that way.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because most speed limits are unnaturally low (to account for rainy or other adverse conditions).
In the past, most people sped by 5 to 10mph over the limit. The police didn't bother pulling them over-- they pulled over the "real" speeders.
Now with money tight, they are starting to pull over more people (it's not about safety- it's about money).
With automated systems, these unnaturally low speeds are enforced on 100% of the drivers.
So what they need to do is get smarter signs combined with automatic communi
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We have average speed checking systems here in the Netherlands, and it just works on averages. They pick stretches of road that don't have the opportunity to stop, or leave the road, and take your average speed. So, if the limit is 60, you drive 80 for the first half, realize you're being clocked, and drive 40 for the second half... no ticket.
To be honest I find this system better than the single-point checking systems that are also widely in use everywhere.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To be honest I find this system better than the single-point checking systems that are also widely in use everywhere.
I disagree. In all of this, the first premise you have to accept is that the speed limit is correct in the first place.
In the UK we have something like 250,000 miles of roads and just 6 different speed limits. Now for every one of those quarter of a million miles of road to be set at a speed limit that is definitely not too low would be a miracle.
The easier "catching" someone for speeding gets, the more it will be used for revenue raising. The fact that people may lose their jobs along with their lic
Re: (Score:2)
So, they take one of the safest stretches of road and penalise people if they speed on it? Without wanting to condone speeding, surely it's a better idea to fine people for speeding in locations that are of increased risk or have a history of accidents?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He's right. The cameras are ground based.
The satellite is only needed in case a repeated offender has to be nuked from space.
Re: (Score:2)
So they track our movements now and if you moved from checkpoint A to checkpoint B too fast, they will fine you?
Why not just give everybody a radio bracelet so they can monitor our jaywalking, visiting potential terrorist friends, and basically how often we take number 2.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, you need a bicycle. Or maybe, a jetpack.
easy solution (Score:5, Funny)
Are you kidding?
1) find the GPS receiver .50 Desert Eagle semi-automatic pistol
2) shoot GPS receiver with
3) write a letter to Gordon Brown telling him to fuck off
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the step about smuggling a Desert Eagle into the country.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Or install a GPS jammer in your car.
In Belgium they're doing the same thing with video-analysis on "checkpoints" where they have traffice-cameras. At these locations (not gps) on which data they calculate your average speed. If you've been speeding on the trajectory, you'll be fined. No workaround yet, other then maybe a licenseplace SQL injection attack [areino.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Why would it need to keep a constant GPS signal? Is the camera moving?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:easy solution (Score:4, Funny)
Such an opportunity with two identical cars and license plate swap at the right moment.
(a fine for driving at supersonic speeds would be...interesting ;p )
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding?
1) find the GPS receiver .50 Desert Eagle semi-automatic pistol
2) shoot GPS receiver with
3) write a letter to Gordon Brown telling him to fuck off
As a quick examination of
http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm [speedcam.co.uk]
will show, the S.O.P. is to place a tyre around the camera and ignite. You see, you have to pay to purchase ammunition, but worn out tyres are free.
Re: (Score:2)
Guns aren't needed, just a little ingenuity
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You assume speeding = reckless, which is not the case at all. Speeding above your own capabilities and those of the road and car is reckless, but speeding itself is not.
Will rain fade make so you can speed in the rain a (Score:2)
Will rain fade make so you can speed in the rain and not get a ticket?>\
Re:Will rain fade make so you can speed in the rai (Score:2)
Err, no. But it does make it more likely you'll crash and die - a sure way to avoid the ticket (or at least it's "ill effects" - the "death" thing kinda sucks though)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Will rain fade make so you can speed in the rain and not get a ticket?
Only in a real heavy downpour, and you need to be flying (at least 120 KPH). Be careful not to slow down for "obstacles" such as turns and bumps, or they'll read your plate. Let us know how it works out.
Wait, What? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They are already in space. They are just adding GPS receivers to the cameras to synchronize the times.
mythbusters (Score:4, Insightful)
The mythbuster episodes about speed cameras are horribly boring, since you know from the start that if they were to find something that actually works and is feasible, they would not be allowed to air it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The mythbuster episodes about speed cameras are horribly boring, since you know from the start that if they were to find something that actually works and is feasible, they would not be allowed to air it.
Except they did find and air one way: The changing plate system. Even more illegal than speeding though...
Re:mythbusters (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:mythbusters (Score:5, Interesting)
Top Gear tends to be better at busting car myths than Mythbusters...
Take the driving-behind-a-jumbo-flips-your-car myth for example...
Mythbusters couldn't find a jumbo jet, so they used a much less powerful jet turbine. Then, the had to rig a complicated remote control system to the car so they could drive it...
Top Gear got a jumbo, put a steeringwheel lock on the car, tossed a large brick on the accelerator, and presto, the car flipped behind the jumbo jet!
I saw that episode of MB, and it bugged me like almost every episode does. MB is a nice concept but they tend to simplify their problems poorly, keeping superficial elements the same and approximating away some of the key factors they should be testing. As an experimentalist, watching MB is often painful.
Re: (Score:2)
Mythbusters did the same, but with a rocket-car of the kind used to set speed records on salt-beds. They even tried a track-style race-car, without success, if I remember correctly (couldn't find it on youtube). Only the rocket-car could pull it off.
Thus, it appears MB conflicts with TG. But it could have been a different model of speed-cam. MB didn't test multiple cameras and camera models (at least not in the final cut), which
VASCAR? (Score:2)
Not about speeding tickets. (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about speeding tickets. This is about creating a nationwide tracking system for Britain's highways. If they have cameras that can recognize license plates along Britain's highways, with all the information from all the cameras aggregated in one database, do you think they won't give the police access to this information to help track criminals?
Given the recent history in Britain, it's a safe bet that the police will have immediate warantless access to this information, and thus the ability to track all the cars in Britain. I'm not sure this is completely a bad thing, but there are certainly some significant privacy concerns at play here. What if police officers decide to abuse this information? What sort of checks are in place to make sure it's only used for legitimate purposes? I could be wrong, and they might not be giving police access to the camera data, but, given the recent history, I would be shocked if they weren't.
Re: (Score:2)
Given how insecure government databases in the UK have proven to be I'm just as concerned about organized crime getting ahold of this info.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On the spectrum from 'privacy abuse' to 'legitimately useful', this would be a *lot* closer to legitimately useful than most things we hear about (like the London cameras).
Is there potential for abuse? Of course. But cops are already looking for stolen plates, cars matching stolen descriptions, and I don't think that's a bad thing. This automates that.
If it's done properly, it's not a threat to liberty - require a warrant, etc. It's well-established, whether we like it or not, that our use of the roads by d
Re: (Score:2)
What sort of checks are in place to make sure it's only used for legitimate purposes?
What constitutes "legitimate"? After all, with changing political whims, what is "legal" today could be "illegal" tomorrow, and suddenly a "legitimate" use becomes much less so, even if it is technically "legal". Godwin's law aside, Nazi Germany was following it's own laws in most of what it did, but I doubt most people would call any of it "legitimate". Give a government a tool, and it will abuse it eventually.
The government has no need to know where I am at any given point of the day, and trashing the pri
Re:Not about speeding tickets. (Score:4, Insightful)
More people need to seriously consider things like this: What if your worst enemy had access to this info? The way governments work here in the US, generally in 4 to 12 years you'll have someone completely different in office (who still seems the same (wrong) in the areas I care about, damn it!) and they have at least as much authority as the previous guy (power creep tends to make it more). So whatever your political bent is, chances are you won't like someone in power pretty soon. Yet the fanatics over here never seem to consider that. I'm not sure how anyone can be a fanatic for either side of a coin, but that's another argument.
Better: Police Presence (Score:2)
Hey, I've got a better idea: How about we have actual police officers on the streets? The nice thing about police officers is that instead of merely pedantically punishing the most measurable of laws long after the infraction has occurred, they can detect harmful behavior in progress even when it does not meet specific technical parameters and intercede. A visible presence also has an enormous deterrent effect on all kinds of criminal and negligent behavior. And even better, they are available to help with
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the money from speed cameras in the UK by and large does go to the local constabulary.
This has led to a situation where once you've been caught on camera, it can be remarkably difficult to get off even if there is demonstrably something wrong with the camera and you are demonstrably not guilty.
Cynicism (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm convinced that the only way to reduce crime and foster a positive relationship between the police and citizens is to have cops on the beat, walking the streets. This way they're forced to interact with people. Having them speed by in patrol cars, and even worse sit back at headquarters while cameras do the work only increases antagonism amongst the people and make it easier to the police to be abusive. You're not going to have a vested interest in someone if there's no personal interaction.
Couple this with governments harboring some authoritarian tendencies and you're looking at real problems. Although I'm sure some will strongly disagree I'm convinced this is the general tendency for socialist governments. I'm not talking about socialism in principle, I'm talking about the tendencies more socialist nations have. Inevitably this attitude arises in government where they're convinced they're the caretakers of the people. They know better than their citizens and need to protect them. This tendency is exhibited in everything from protecting us from terrorists to reducing salt in our diets for our own good. And too often it's too far reaching and misguided. But it frequently it even becomes a necessity. Take government healthcare, if it becomes expensive treating people for a particular preventable condition you can guarantee that the action that causes the problem will be banned.
So I'm not surprised by these totalitarian tendencies. And, especially in this case, it's hard to argue that the UK shouldn't be doing this. It's for our safety that we shouldn't be allowed to speed, isn't it? Of course, when there's a chance for the state to increase revenue, especially with minimal effort on their part, you can't seriously expect them to not jump at the chance.
Average Speed based systems like this rarely work (Score:2)
Systems like this work better on paper than reality. To start, they're effective over fairly long distance open motorway routes. Most speeding isn't done over the entire distance. These systems would only catch people who quickly accelerate to a fairly high speed, hold that speed over long periods of time -- not not having to slow down for other motorists, construction, traffic, fuel, or road hazards. Drivers who are highly disciplined in their speeding habits and make significant effort to maintain th
Already Being Done in US for Years (Score:2)
In the US, several major toll roads (NJ Turnpike, MA Turnpike, Garden State Parkway in the northeast) have been using the time stamp on the toll tickets to determine your average speed on the road in use. If the time it takes to go from one exit to another is one hour doing the speed limit and you do it in thirty minutes, you can expect to be mailed a ticket.
That system is fairly easy to implement as the roads are limited access and all vehicles will be passing through the toll booths at some point along th
Re: (Score:2)
Not the government’s job to punish people for being a fool!
Speeding tickets are a scam. (Score:5, Insightful)
Speed limits and speeding tickets are a huge scam. They are mostly in place to generate revenue, not improve safety.
Speed limits should be abolished, and police officers merely told to pull over people who are driving recklessly. This would improve safety and eliminate some of the antagonism people have towards the police.
I was recently ticketed for doing 56 in a 40 zone. The problem is this 40 zone stops at the bottom of a highway offramp. I would have had to slam on the brakes to get from 70 (highway speed) to 40 in the amount of distance I was given to do it. This might have caused me to get rear-ended. Yet there was a speed trap just in front of the end of the ramp. There was hardly any traffic. I wasn't being unsafe. Yet they stopped me anyway.
They should go after the kids who do 90MPH in a 40 residential neighborhood with straight pipes on their cars making noise at 3AM. But there's not enough money in that.
So get two cars with the same make. (Score:3, Funny)
Duplicate the license (could use a photocopier).
Pass a speed camera at point "A".
Have your friend then pass the other camera several miles away a couple seconds later, giving you an apparent speed of several hundred miles per hour.
Do this several times. Then speed as much as you want after that since you have a history of the cameras grossly mis measuring your speed.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They fixed this in law. The ticket is sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle. If the registered keeper wasn't driving, they have to say who was. If they don't, they get prosecuted under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 - "Failing to provide Driver Identity".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What state are you in (I'm assuming you're in the US)? Not all states require front license plates, though all require rear plates.
Re: (Score:2)
It may depend in the jurisdiction but it generally works like this:
They send out a form letter to the owner of the car to sign and pay which is basically an admission of guilt which they expect the vast majority of people to just pay and be done with it.
It also allows the nomination of a different person as the driver, who would then get that form letter themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
a lord: "Your majesty, the peasants are revolting."
king: "Yes, they certainly are."
Seriously though, the British cannot revolt against the government, considering they have no right to bear arms as we have here. All too often, people fall for registering and even giving up arms "for the children" or "for safety," having not thought about their grammar-school history lessons regarding past administrations and kingdoms, where they willingly (or sometimes begrudgingly but nevertheless didn't refuse) turned in
Re: (Score:2)
He who commands the loyalty of the army has the power to over throw government with force. The general populous does not.