News: RFID tags to be used in this years Little 500 bicycle race in Bloomington, Indiana



On 10 Mar 2006 08:37:55 -0800, "jerry in vermont"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>With a good crew, you "know" who won. Its an art for
>sure, but you just can tell. But you cant get the deeper results cause
>you cant get a clean view of the line. Of course, once in a great
>while you get a photo finish and need a camera.
>
>past 3rd shouldnt matter anyway, unless its pro. and pro races get the
>spendy camera set ups so its a non issue.


With a good crew-meaning assigned crew and people you know at the
start-finish, you can go 40-50 deep. Its just a matter of everyone
knowing how to release their first 'set' and doing the next. Then you
use overlapping numbers to get complete sequences.

So you end up with 4-5 people with 4 or 5 sequences each, check lapped
status off your Chief Judges race notes and fill out the results. You
can do 10 across sprints and, like I said, 50 deep with the right
group.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
In article <[email protected]>, Curtis L.
Russell <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 10 Mar 2006 08:37:55 -0800, "jerry in vermont"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >With a good crew, you "know" who won. Its an art for
> >sure, but you just can tell. But you cant get the deeper results cause
> >you cant get a clean view of the line. Of course, once in a great
> >while you get a photo finish and need a camera.
> >
> >past 3rd shouldnt matter anyway, unless its pro. and pro races get the
> >spendy camera set ups so its a non issue.

>
> With a good crew-meaning assigned crew and people you know at the
> start-finish, you can go 40-50 deep. Its just a matter of everyone
> knowing how to release their first 'set' and doing the next. Then you
> use overlapping numbers to get complete sequences.
>
> So you end up with 4-5 people with 4 or 5 sequences each, check lapped
> status off your Chief Judges race notes and fill out the results. You
> can do 10 across sprints and, like I said, 50 deep with the right
> group.


I remember racing, and picking finishes, back in the pre camera days. I
remember endless hours spent with several riders gathered around the
officials fighting over who came in in front of whom. I remember guys
who made a career out of talking their way into the lower prize
positions. The funny thing is once we started using video cameras to
place riders some people who almost always ended up in the prizes
suddenly never seemed to be able to place in the money. When they
protested that they were in the top 10 we would review the camera and
sure enough they were in like 15th or 16th place. I"m sorry but I have
never seen a gorup of people who could pick a 50 rider bunch sprint
accurately. I've seen situations where 5 very well practiced officials
couldn't get the top 3 right in a very close sprint. Video camera
aren't perfect but they are much better than human judges.
 
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 10:11:06 -0800, Casey Kerrigan
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I remember racing, and picking finishes, back in the pre camera days. I
>remember endless hours spent with several riders gathered around the
>officials fighting over who came in in front of whom. I remember guys
>who made a career out of talking their way into the lower prize
>positions.


We'll have to aree to disagree. I agree to the extent that the video
camera is usually better now, simply because fewer and fewer officials
try to learn to call order well, so the odds of getting that group
that can do it together at any one race is unlikely.

And if an official can't get the top 7-8 right after a few spring
training races, short of a photo finish, then the official isn't
trying IMO.

-Curtis
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 16:46:43 GMT, "dr news"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Davey: As new technology, for sure, it isn't new. But its use in day-to-day
> >is just now seeing the dawn of light. A recent UPS advertisement has a desk
> >in the middle of the road advising a trucker that he is lost. When asked
> >how they knew, he said the rfid tags on the packages told em.

>
> That is a scary advertisement. Nice to know that someday (soon) we'll
> be tracked all the time by things we carry around.
>
> JT
>
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************



Another good reason not to own a modern car. They track everything,
especially if you have On-Star. I've been hearing anecdotal stories of
insurance companies refusing payment based on data extracted from the
on-board management systems which track and/or control speed, braking
etc... Then with the satelite tracking stuff there's a record of
everywhere you went.
Not for me just on general principles.
Bill C
 
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 10:11:06 -0800, Casey Kerrigan
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I remember racing, and picking finishes, back in the pre camera days. I
>remember endless hours spent with several riders gathered around the
>officials fighting over who came in in front of whom. I remember guys
>who made a career out of talking their way into the lower prize
>positions. The funny thing is once we started using video cameras to
>place riders some people who almost always ended up in the prizes
>suddenly never seemed to be able to place in the money. When they
>protested that they were in the top 10 we would review the camera and
>sure enough they were in like 15th or 16th place.


"I was definiting 8th. I counted the guys in front of me.
Definitely."

"That's funny, the video clearly shows these eight other guys."

"OK then, I was definitely 9th. Definitely."

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
In article <100320061011061395%[email protected]>,
Casey Kerrigan <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Curtis L.
> Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 10 Mar 2006 08:37:55 -0800, "jerry in vermont"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >With a good crew, you "know" who won. Its an art for
> > >sure, but you just can tell. But you cant get the deeper results cause
> > >you cant get a clean view of the line. Of course, once in a great
> > >while you get a photo finish and need a camera.
> > >
> > >past 3rd shouldnt matter anyway, unless its pro. and pro races get the
> > >spendy camera set ups so its a non issue.

> >
> > With a good crew-meaning assigned crew and people you know at the
> > start-finish, you can go 40-50 deep. Its just a matter of everyone
> > knowing how to release their first 'set' and doing the next. Then you
> > use overlapping numbers to get complete sequences.
> >
> > So you end up with 4-5 people with 4 or 5 sequences each, check lapped
> > status off your Chief Judges race notes and fill out the results. You
> > can do 10 across sprints and, like I said, 50 deep with the right
> > group.

>
> I remember racing, and picking finishes, back in the pre camera days. I
> remember endless hours spent with several riders gathered around the
> officials fighting over who came in in front of whom. I remember guys
> who made a career out of talking their way into the lower prize
> positions.


---
Judge: How is it we always rank you lower than you say you
finished?
---
Judge: If you used that breath to race harder, you would
finish higher.
---
Judge: Because we do not like you.
---
Judge: So fire me.

> The funny thing is once we started using video cameras to
> place riders some people who almost always ended up in the prizes
> suddenly never seemed to be able to place in the money. When they
> protested that they were in the top 10 we would review the camera and
> sure enough they were in like 15th or 16th place. I"m sorry but I have
> never seen a gorup of people who could pick a 50 rider bunch sprint
> accurately. I've seen situations where 5 very well practiced officials
> couldn't get the top 3 right in a very close sprint. Video camera
> aren't perfect but they are much better than human judges.


--
Michael Press
 
Curtis L. Russell wrote:

> And if an official can't get the top 7-8 right after a few spring
> training races, short of a photo finish, then the official isn't
> trying IMO.


getting the field behind the sprint is the easy part. but when there's
six guys at the line within a bike length, there's no way you can place
all six in the correct order without a camera since some will be
obscuring the others.

everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. i'm not the best at
resolving a close finish, but i can usually get a pretty deep finish
order. so, my experience is hit or miss. with a tape recorder i usually
can get the entire field placed, but in a tight sprint bets are off and
i need some backup.

plus there is a bias that tends to make judges call the nearer rider
the winner; so if you can, in a sprint choose your line closest to the
line judge and you may end up with a better placing.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

> Another good reason not to own a modern car. They track everything,
>especially if you have On-Star.


Not a problem. Antennas break, or get disconnected.

>I've been hearing anecdotal stories of
>insurance companies refusing payment based on data extracted from the
>on-board management systems which track and/or control speed, braking
>etc... Then with the satelite tracking stuff there's a record of
>everywhere you went.


IIRC there is legislation in the works to protect your privacy. It makes
the car owner the owner of the data in the computer. The data cannot be
accessed without your consent or a search warrant.
--------------
Alex
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

>With a good crew-meaning assigned crew and people you know at the
>start-finish, you can go 40-50 deep. Its just a matter of everyone
>knowing how to release their first 'set' and doing the next. Then you
>use overlapping numbers to get complete sequences.
>
>So you end up with 4-5 people with 4 or 5 sequences each, check lapped
>status off your Chief Judges race notes and fill out the results. You
>can do 10 across sprints and, like I said, 50 deep with the right
>group.


Sometimes you will miss sprinters who are on the pickers far side. Especially
when there are two, or more, other sprinters closer to the pickers. A voice
recorder really helps.
------------------
Alex
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

>getting the field behind the sprint is the easy part. but when there's
>six guys at the line within a bike length, there's no way you can place
>all six in the correct order without a camera since some will be
>obscuring the others.


This is a problem when you are picking without a camera.

>everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. i'm not the best at
>resolving a close finish, but i can usually get a pretty deep finish
>order. so, my experience is hit or miss. with a tape recorder i usually
>can get the entire field placed, but in a tight sprint bets are off and
>i need some backup.


Some people have amazing ability at picking the winners and then also
going deep.

>plus there is a bias that tends to make judges call the nearer rider
>the winner; so if you can, in a sprint choose your line closest to the
>line judge and you may end up with a better placing.


I don't know if this is true, but being closer to the judge does make
sure you will be seen. I have helped picked races where I completely missed
someone on the far side. We sorted things out afterwards.
--------------
Alex
 
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:18:02 -0500, Alex Rodriguez <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>
>> Another good reason not to own a modern car. They track everything,
>>especially if you have On-Star.

>
>Not a problem. Antennas break, or get disconnected.
>
>>I've been hearing anecdotal stories of
>>insurance companies refusing payment based on data extracted from the
>>on-board management systems which track and/or control speed, braking
>>etc... Then with the satelite tracking stuff there's a record of
>>everywhere you went.

>
>IIRC there is legislation in the works to protect your privacy. It makes
>the car owner the owner of the data in the computer. The data cannot be
>accessed without your consent or a search warrant.
>--------------
>Alex


I think all of this is nonsense at this point. There are two separate
issues, neither tied together at this point AFAIK, but probably will
in the near future.

GPS tracking is most prevalent in fleet use and the tracking is less
by insurance and far more by the owner. My brother uses it all the
time with the fleet of semis that report to him. Yep, he knows when
his drivers get to a particular point, he knows how long they stay
(either because they have mandatory rest periods or because they are
supposed to be on the road and moving) and they have alerts built in
(not enough mandatory stops, stopping too long in certain areas where
hijacking is a known problem, etc.). OTOH, the record keeping data
moves through three stages in his system and keeping it available to
support logs is NOT the norm, as you pay for the increased storage of
data. He does get his eventually in CD form, but he pays extra.

The same type system is bing made available in two types of pilot
programs in the U.S. for individuals. One has made headlines and is
now comercially available I believe, and is marketed to parents of
teens. The storage of info is minimal and it is primarily a real-time
way to check on where they are located. You have info on speeding,
etc. for the last trip and the info belongs to the parent, but they
don't keep much that would be evidence in court or for insurance
purposes.

Several insurance companies are also doing the same, and it is a
voluntary program that starts with you getting a discount on your
insurance for signing on. As in voluntary.

Most of the privacy concerns right now are about the proposed black
box programs about. These are proposed as a way to address safety
concerns, the information kept would be a loop, with old info being
erased as new info is added, and there are laws to prevent use of the
data in the specific case. They are trying to split the difference
between your insurance company cherry picking reimbursements versus
the state being able to use the data in the case of extreme negligence
in a criminal case. I'm guessing it will all end up being disallowed
as evidence in most states. In any event, currently this is collected
from on-board sensors, not GPS, although I'm sure it may be included
at some point. Since they want consistent data, GPS would at most be
supllementary.

The sheer volume of info and the difficulty in culling that info for
useful data makes an off-site storage of universal GPS data unlikely
in the near future. If the cooperation and compliance among the
various state and federal authorities is typical, you have no real
worry at all. Since most people do not have GPS at this time, no one
is using this other than those fleets. Why track spotty information on
the chance of finding out something the court would probably rule out
anyway?

And the only people with black boxes had them added and know about it.
There are probably others that suspect it highly - you can tell them -
they're wearing aluminum (aluminium) about their heads to keep the
aliens from taking control.

Some day they will be right. Some day you will look at the governor of
California and think the only explanation of much of what he or she
does would be aliens beaming rays. But not today. I'm almost sure of
it...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
 

Similar threads