Another alternative to speeding fines

[TimC]

On 2006-06-30, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> That was my thought. I can do 110 km/h on a twisty back road in WA barely
> two lanes wide. In Vic at the same speed on the Princess Hwy, two wide lanes
> each way with 2 metres of sealed shoulder, limited access, and 20 metres
> separation from oncoming traffic, I'm a dangerous lunatic? Get real!

If WA can't enforce its laws, or can't come up with speed limits that
are reasonable, that's not Victoria's problem.

--
TimC
"I often hear people claim they perform skills better slightly drunk if
they learned that skill drunk. I wonder if that applies to Perl. Get good
and liquored up, dash off a few scripts, see how you like it." -Rob Chanter

 

[beerwolf]

TimC wrote:

> snip

> The overhead camera on your bridge, that is not used for enforcement
> (unless there's two cameras or two lines that act as a standard
> ruler), isn't going to be pointed like a gun at the direction of the
> car, and just reads the speed of the biggest signal in its field of
> view. It won't really know the correction angle to apply, so just
> gets the raw line of sight reading, which will be lower than the real
> speed you are travelling. The further you are from the camera, the
> smaller the difference between the real speed and the measured speed.
> Up close, and the angle might be out by 20°, and the speed will be out
> by 1/cos(20°)=6%.
>
> This is fine, because they are not used for enforcement, but it does
> mean that people may think their speedos are reading too fast, and
> hence speed up. Oh well, they get fined, too bad. Trust the speedo -
> the vast majority of them are adjusted quite a lot better than the 10%
> they are required to be, by law. If they aren't, then you deserve to
> be fined for having a speedo so badly outside the defined limits.
>
> It's not that they don't mind you being over the limit, it's the
> technological limits based on trying to manufacture the largest amount
> of cameras for display purposes, for the cheapest cost.

Thanks for the detailed explanation (retracts conspiracy antenna).

--
beerwolf (remove numbers from email address)

 

[K.A. Moylan]

In article <>, "beerwolf" <[email protected]> wrote:

> A variation on impounding or immobilising cars. Fit the offending
> driver with an electronic collar or bracelet, similar to those used
> for home detentions. Put a transponder in the vehicle, that
> prevents the vehicle being driven while the collar is in proximity.
> This would deny the use of the vehicle to the offender, (even
> as a passenger), but still allow its use by other family members.
> Tampering with collar/bracelet or the transponder could result
> in the emission of a "squawk" at some base station; alternatively
> the tampering could be made self-evident when the arrangement
> is uninstalled, and more severe penalties would then follow.
> Any problems with this concept?

Getting back to the technical solution:
What happens when the punished driver uses a different car?
It wont have a transponder & so the punishment fails.

I would attack the problem in a different manner.
Rather than special cars (fitted with transponder) ensuring that no
special transmitter is nearby, why not fit every car with a driver's
license reader? This would require licenses to be machine readable &
cars have the machinery to read them. I imagine something like a smart
card + reader. To use, the driver puts his/her license into the reader's
slot before starting the engine. The reader will hold the license until
the engine is turned off.

This has the advantages of:
* a car will only work for a licensed driver & ensure the driver is
licensed;
* a conditional license can have its conditions enforced (e.g. drive to
& from work, between the hours of 06:00 & 18:00, Monday to Friday);
* no interference from a bracelet being too close to the transponder.
This has the disadvantages of:
* it will take some time before it is common in the vehicle fleet & so
will not apply the punishment now (solution: retrofit cars the punished
driver is likely to drive with the readers);
* will add a fixed cost to all cars;
* probably be bypassable, like hot wiring.

What do you think?

Note: this is a technical solution to a problem of applying punishments.
It in no way addresses whether the punishment is appropriate or not.

--
K.A. Moylan
Canberra, Australia
Ski Club: http://www.cccsc.asn.au
kamoylan at ozemail dot com dot au

 

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2006-07-01, K.A. Moylan <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would attack the problem in a different manner.
> Rather than special cars (fitted with transponder) ensuring that no
> special transmitter is nearby, why not fit every car with a driver's
> license reader? This would require licenses to be machine readable &
> cars have the machinery to read them. I imagine something like a smart
> card + reader. To use, the driver puts his/her license into the reader's
> slot before starting the engine. The reader will hold the license until
> the engine is turned off.

So Junior sneaks into Mum and Dad's bedroom and pinches mum's (or dad's)
license.

You'd also need some sort of way of verifying that the individual
sitting in the driver's seat is the same individual named on the
license.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

 

[beerwolf]

K.A. Moylan wrote:

> I would attack the problem in a different manner.
> Rather than special cars (fitted with transponder) ensuring that no
> special transmitter is nearby, why not fit every car with a driver's
> license reader? This would require licenses to be machine readable &
> cars have the machinery to read them. I imagine something like a smart
> card + reader. To use, the driver puts his/her license into the reader's
> slot before starting the engine. The reader will hold the license until
> the engine is turned off.
>
> This has the advantages of:
> * a car will only work for a licensed driver & ensure the driver is
> licensed;
> * a conditional license can have its conditions enforced (e.g. drive to
> & from work, between the hours of 06:00 & 18:00, Monday to Friday);
> * no interference from a bracelet being too close to the transponder.
> This has the disadvantages of:
> * it will take some time before it is common in the vehicle fleet & so
> will not apply the punishment now (solution: retrofit cars the punished
> driver is likely to drive with the readers);
> * will add a fixed cost to all cars;
> * probably be bypassable, like hot wiring.

Last night I was speaking to an engineer who works in the biomedical
area with regard to traffic and vehicle safety. In his opinion the scenario
you describe is definitely in our futures, not just for offenders but for
all drivers, all the time. And there is already some technology being
trialled somewhere in Europe, that blips a variable speed limit into
an automatic speed regulator within the vehicle. Makes it impossible
to exceed the speed limit (unless you tamper).

To digress: He also said there is irrefutable evidence to show that
drivers would improve their chances of surviving a serious crash by
wearing a helmet while driving (or as passengers). Even a bicycle
helmet would change the odds significantly.
Thinking about it seriously (maybe only for country driving after
dark, when nobody can see the dorkiness within).

--
beerwolf (remove numbers from email address)

 

[Humbug]

On 02/07/06 at 10:02:50 beerwolf somehow managed to type:
<snip>
>
> To digress: He also said there is irrefutable evidence to show that
> drivers would improve their chances of surviving a serious crash by
> wearing a helmet while driving (or as passengers).

Years ago, before compulsory seat belts, someone had a look at the
actual cause of death in MV crashes in Australia and discovered that in
the vast majority of cases it was, wait for it, HEAD INJURY. He also
mooted helmets for all car occupants. I bet you can guess how well that
idea went down.

--

Humbug
Today is Pungenday, the 37th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3172

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 2 Jul 2006 10:14:43 +1000
Humbug <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Years ago, before compulsory seat belts, someone had a look at the
> actual cause of death in MV crashes in Australia and discovered that in
> the vast majority of cases it was, wait for it, HEAD INJURY. He also
> mooted helmets for all car occupants. I bet you can guess how well that
> idea went down.

Still is I believe. My understanding is that the majority of people with
head injuries in any hospital got them in a car crash. And that while
seatbelts and airbags help, front airbags can smash the head into side
pillars, and seatbelts don't stop the head hitting the pillar either.
Side airbags are in few vehicles and just to make life difficult they
require large pillars which means less vision.

Various doctors have been saying car occupants should wear helmets
for years. Of course as car users are the majority, and legislators
know from first hand experience how annoying it would be, the chances
of it being made compulsory are very small.

I believe that in WA it is illegal to wear a helmet in a car unless
you are competing in a sanctioned road race, just as it's illegal to
have a 4 point harness unless the car is registered as race-modified
and those cars are restricted as to when and where they are on the
road. So even if you were wanting to protect yourself better in your
tintop it's not possible...

(I also ocasionally wonder if those who go on about helmets on
pushbikes wear them when they are in a car and if not why not?)

Zebee

 

[Bleve]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> I believe that in WA it is illegal to wear a helmet in a car unless
> you are competing in a sanctioned road race, just as it's illegal to
> have a 4 point harness unless the car is registered as race-modified
> and those cars are restricted as to when and where they are on the
> road. So even if you were wanting to protect yourself better in your
> tintop it's not possible...
>
> (I also ocasionally wonder if those who go on about helmets on
> pushbikes wear them when they are in a car and if not why not?)

I broke a helmet in a rollover in a rallycar once. A light polycarb
motorbike helmet. I'm glad I was wearing it, the insides of cars are
full of unforgiving surfaces

 

[dave]

Bleve wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>
>>I believe that in WA it is illegal to wear a helmet in a car unless
>>you are competing in a sanctioned road race, just as it's illegal to
>>have a 4 point harness unless the car is registered as race-modified
>>and those cars are restricted as to when and where they are on the
>>road. So even if you were wanting to protect yourself better in your
>>tintop it's not possible...
>>
>>(I also ocasionally wonder if those who go on about helmets on
>>pushbikes wear them when they are in a car and if not why not?)
>
>
> I broke a helmet in a rollover in a rallycar once. A light polycarb
> motorbike helmet. I'm glad I was wearing it, the insides of cars are
> full of unforgiving surfaces
>

Especially rally cars. The roll cage is a bugger of a thing to hit
your head on.

One of the big criticisms made of motorcycle helmets is that the tests
for them require the helmet to survive two hard bangs at the same point.
THis is actually really unlikely in a motorcycle crash and better
absorbance of a single bang would very arguably result in a better
outcome. But its exactly what happens in a rally or race car crash when
your body is held by the race harness and your head bangs into the roll
cage a couple of times as the car rolls. So arguably motorcycle helmets
work better in car crashes than motorcycle crashes

Dave

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 1 Jul 2006 19:11:00 -0700
Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I broke a helmet in a rollover in a rallycar once. A light polycarb
> motorbike helmet. I'm glad I was wearing it, the insides of cars are
> full of unforgiving surfaces

heheh... sudden thought!

Compulsory helmets in cars are too hard a sell. Too many people
affected.

But 4WDs are known to have serious rollover problems.

Rollovers are one of the big causes of head injury.

So require puhsbike helmets for all occupants of vehicles deemed to
have a high rollover chance!

I expect that would mean anything with a CoG of a certain height, of
such an amount to catch all the Toorak Tractors.

I wonder if that would change the number seen in suburban streets?

Zebee

 

[dave]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on 1 Jul 2006 19:11:00 -0700
> Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I broke a helmet in a rollover in a rallycar once. A light polycarb
>>motorbike helmet. I'm glad I was wearing it, the insides of cars are
>>full of unforgiving surfaces
>
>
> heheh... sudden thought!
>
> Compulsory helmets in cars are too hard a sell. Too many people
> affected.
>
> But 4WDs are known to have serious rollover problems.
>
> Rollovers are one of the big causes of head injury.
>
> So require puhsbike helmets for all occupants of vehicles deemed to
> have a high rollover chance!
>
> I expect that would mean anything with a CoG of a certain height, of
> such an amount to catch all the Toorak Tractors.
>
> I wonder if that would change the number seen in suburban streets?
>
> Zebee

Hey. That would be a hard sell. But it might be fun to try it

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 02 Jul 2006 13:51:16 +1000
dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>> So require puhsbike helmets for all occupants of vehicles deemed to
>> have a high rollover chance!
>>
>> I expect that would mean anything with a CoG of a certain height, of
>> such an amount to catch all the Toorak Tractors.
>>
>> I wonder if that would change the number seen in suburban streets?
>
> Hey. That would be a hard sell. But it might be fun to try it

one of the reasons people buy the things is because of perceived
safety advantages. If they had to wear helmets would that change?

Zebee

 

[Euan]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> heheh... sudden thought!
>
> Compulsory helmets in cars are too hard a sell. Too many people
> affected.
>
> But 4WDs are known to have serious rollover problems.
>
> Rollovers are one of the big causes of head injury.
>
> So require puhsbike helmets for all occupants of vehicles deemed to
> have a high rollover chance!
>
> I expect that would mean anything with a CoG of a certain height, of
> such an amount to catch all the Toorak Tractors.
>
> I wonder if that would change the number seen in suburban streets?

Either that or helmet hair becomes _the_ in fashion hairstyle!
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[dave]

Euan wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>> heheh... sudden thought!
>>
>> Compulsory helmets in cars are too hard a sell. Too many people
>> affected.
>>
>> But 4WDs are known to have serious rollover problems.
>>
>> Rollovers are one of the big causes of head injury.
>>
>> So require puhsbike helmets for all occupants of vehicles deemed to
>> have a high rollover chance!
>>
>> I expect that would mean anything with a CoG of a certain height, of
>> such an amount to catch all the Toorak Tractors.
>>
>> I wonder if that would change the number seen in suburban streets?
>
>
> Either that or helmet hair becomes _the_ in fashion hairstyle!


It isn't already?

I am not a fashion icon?

Dave

 

[beerwolf]

dave wrote:

>>
>> Either that or helmet hair becomes _the_ in fashion hairstyle!
>
>
> It isn't already?
>
> I am not a fashion icon?
>
> Dave

I wear a fairly short crewcut. The hair under the helmet slots
sticks up, and the rest is flattened out. It looks as if I've got
wheel ruts running through my hair. I've been told people
pay a lot of money for that look.
Don't want the nose ring though.

--
beerwolf (remove numbers from email address)

 

[dave]

beerwolf wrote:
> dave wrote:
>
>
>>>Either that or helmet hair becomes _the_ in fashion hairstyle!
>>
>>
>>It isn't already?
>>
>>I am not a fashion icon?
>>
>>Dave
>
>
> I wear a fairly short crewcut. The hair under the helmet slots
> sticks up, and the rest is flattened out. It looks as if I've got
> wheel ruts running through my hair. I've been told people
> pay a lot of money for that look.
> Don't want the nose ring though.
>
Ahhhh
I 'AM' a fashion icon

relieved Dave

 

[Graeme Dods]

Peter Signorini wrote:
> Haing just a few months ago copped a speeding ticket for doing an alleged
> 4kmh over ($130? and 1 demerit) which I payed for, I'm certainly unimpressed
> by ideas like radio collars and prevention of even being able to travel in a
> car with your family. That seems an extreme position.

I was done for a similar mistake about a year or so ago (my first, and
hopefully last, ever traffic infringement). I'd been under the normal
limit, but over the temporary road work limit which I hadn't noticed,
so totally my fault (as most traffic infringements are).

As to preventing extreme offenders from being in the same car as their
family, I know of one guy who had his license suspended and his family
were relieved not to have to be driven by him (he was scarily bad). The
only problem was they had to put up with his back seat driving and
sarcy comments. So there may be a few people being volunteered by their
nearest and dearest for such measures!

Graeme

 

[K.A. Moylan]

In article <>, Stuart Lamble <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2006-07-01, K.A. Moylan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I would attack the problem in a different manner.
> > Rather than special cars (fitted with transponder) ensuring that no
> > special transmitter is nearby, why not fit every car with a driver's
> > license reader? This would require licenses to be machine readable &
> > cars have the machinery to read them. I imagine something like a smart
> > card + reader. To use, the driver puts his/her license into the reader's
> > slot before starting the engine. The reader will hold the license until
> > the engine is turned off.
>
> So Junior sneaks into Mum and Dad's bedroom and pinches mum's (or dad's)
> license.
>
> You'd also need some sort of way of verifying that the individual
> sitting in the driver's seat is the same individual named on the
> license.

Hmmm.

Rather like Junior pinching mum's or dad's credit card.
Junior should be able to guess most passwords that a parent would choose
& might physically be close enough to fool a cheap biometric reader.
(Does anyone know for sure?)
Junior might get away with it until he gets pulled over by a policeman,
or mum/dad notices that their license is missing.

In my defence, I was aiming for a pretty good solution, not a perfect
solution.

--
K.A. Moylan
Canberra, Australia
Ski Club: http://www.cccsc.asn.au
kamoylan at ozemail dot com dot au

 

[Graeme Dods]

K.A. Moylan wrote:

> Junior should be able to guess most passwords that a parent would choose
> & might physically be close enough to fool a cheap biometric reader.
> (Does anyone know for sure?)

The cheap biometric devices are, at the moment, fingerprint readers
and, er, fingerprint readers. These can be fooled by a number of fairly
simple methods, but the chances of Junior having a close enough
fingerprint resemblance to mater or pater to pass are vanishingly
small.

One of my numerous bits of computer equipment requires me to swipe my
finger across a reader before it turns on and even then it sometimes
doesn't think my left index finger resembles what it thinks my left
index finger looks like!

Graeme

 

[Liz]

"Graeme Dods" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> K.A. Moylan wrote:
>
>> Junior should be able to guess most passwords that a parent would choose
>> & might physically be close enough to fool a cheap biometric reader.
>> (Does anyone know for sure?)
>
> The cheap biometric devices are, at the moment, fingerprint readers
> and, er, fingerprint readers. These can be fooled by a number of fairly
> simple methods, but the chances of Junior having a close enough
> fingerprint resemblance to mater or pater to pass are vanishingly
> small.
>
> One of my numerous bits of computer equipment requires me to swipe my
> finger across a reader before it turns on and even then it sometimes
> doesn't think my left index finger resembles what it thinks my left
> index finger looks like!
>
> Graeme
>

Voice recognition seems to have similar issues. I remember my niece being in
tears when she was locked out of her personal treasure box because she
couldn't reproduce her own voice :-(

Liz