New Service Maps Speed Traps By Cell Phone 404
esocid writes "In a modern equivalent of flashing your headlights to warn other motorists of police speed traps, you can now warn fellow drivers with a cell phone or personal digital assistant about speed traps, red-light cameras, and other threats to ticket-free driving. And as you approach a known threat, you'll get an audio alert on your mobile device. The developer of Trapster, Pete Tenereillo, said the system, which requires punching in a few keys such as '#1' to submit information to Trapster's database, should comply with laws banning talking on cell phones. The free service can automatically detect location using mobile devices' GPS capabilities or tap their Wi-Fi and get location from a database run by Skyhook Wireless. Police officials that Tenereillo has talked to haven't complained about the service because it inevitably encourages drivers to slow down."
Unanticipated Use (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed. This could become the system of choice for the subset of people who need to know exactly where the police are running 'john' stings, drug sweeps, or just parked in a neighborhood.
I wonder what effect that could have?
Re:If getting drivers to slow down was the point.. (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, anytime I drive to Tampa, FL there is a crazy stretch of road where the speed limits go from 55->25->45->25 etc... where the police really do make money from the speed trap revenues. It's pretty amusing since people have put billboards up complaining about the ticketing on this stretch of road.
Re:Another way to avoid tickets (Score:3, Interesting)
that to me is wrong.. because a driver has no warning that they have shortened the yellow light - it should be standard..
i know people are going to say "well when it turns yellow you stop - no problem" but the yellow is so short that it is an issue.. not all cars can go form 35-0 in 30-40 feet not all cars have ABS to assist.. and god forbid it when it is raining.
doing things like that is deciteful
Re:So (Score:2, Interesting)
I want a site that lets me coordinate with others to piss these types off, say, by getting together and driving in formation at exactly the speed limit, blocking the bastards. Gater-baiter.com?
Anyone know where I can get paintball ammunition loaded with glass etching creme or paint remover?
Re:Another way to avoid tickets (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Another way to avoid tickets (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If getting drivers to slow down was the point.. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's just the easiest way to collect tickets. Point a radar gun, boom, and write ticket.
I see all kinds of more dangerous traffic infractions that almost no cop gives a damn about. Failure to use turn signals. Or this situation: you are on a normal two-lane two-way road at an intersection with a green light. You are at the forefront and want to make a left turn and the car opposite from you is in the same situation. There is a line of cars behind both of you. Most state laws would give the left-turners the right of way and both of you should be able to turn left simultaneously. What instead usually happens is that the cars behind you take to the shoulder (illegally in this case - going onto the shoulder is to avoid an obstacle, not traffic) and go around you, cutting the two turning left off from their right-of-way. This is where the law and (now) common practice collide.
Someone else mention the left lane as passing. It also recently became State law here that left was only to be used for passing and faster traffic. Not in practice. Most times I see some cas right next to each other neck and neck (and not even going fast) which leaves me wondering why the guy in the left lane even bothered going in the left lane... other than to block everyone else.
But cops sure do love keeping on writing the speeding tickets. I guess going slow negates the danger of not following any other rules:/
Re:Another way to avoid tickets (Score:3, Interesting)
Over in the UK, the requirements are that there need to be 4 serious injuries within 1km of the spot, and that the 85th percentile of the speeds needs to be above the legal limit.
However, statistically, the 85th to 90th percentile are the safest drivers (who drive according to what the road and conditions support at the time).
And also, given any arbitrary 2km stretch of road, given time, there will probably be enough serious injuries within that point to justify a camera.
The worst part of it is the 85th percentile rule. Now, given in an area where the road does actually support someone travelling at, say, 36 in a 30 limit (there are loads of roads like that), it's encouraged that speed cameras are placed there, as the 85th percentile of traffic speed is above the legal limit.
Now, in places where the 85th (and 90th) percentile are BELOW the speed limit (i.e. in a good, measured opinion of a likely very safe driver, this road is DANGEROUS at the legal limit), it is actually illegal to place a speed camera in the area.
These rulings basically make a cash cow out of the camera scheme, in that they'll capture a lot of safe drivers, doing safe speeds on a road that will safely support them doing just that.
They won't actually capture many people driving dangerously fast.
I put that, along with other issues to the safety cam group face to face, and the representatives had to concede my points were entirely valid. Which basically turns their whole safety message on it's head.
Speed cameras are basically following the traditional "Health and Safety" mentality. Don't think for yourself. You can't judge for yourself. Do as we tell you without thinking, and everything will be alright.
The biggest threat on the roads is exactly that mentality. You need to be able to judge what the road will really take as safe, not just follow the signs and take that as gospel. Speed limits are arbitrary, and set up to make general control easier (and as a general guideline, I agree with them). But trying to take a generalisation, and force specific compliance in every case is a really dangerous (and stupid) move.
Re:If getting drivers to slow down was the point.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Unanticipated Use (Score:5, Interesting)
The purpose of a police force isn't to bust people, it's to prevent crime. We keep forgetting this. If that goal can be achieved without someone going to jail and getting sucked into a system designed to keep them in it, I'm all for it (especially given the non-violent crimes you cite for example).
Re:Sigh (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If getting drivers to slow down was the point.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:If getting drivers to slow down was the point.. (Score:2, Interesting)
RDD-D (Score:5, Interesting)
They only detect the cheap radar detectors. There has been an electronic warfare in the civilian world with radar detectors (RDs) and radar detector detectors (RDDs). Moderate priced RDs have had RDD detection capability for awhile and will go into a stealth mode, temporarily disabling their main oscillator.
And of course, you have the professional level such as the Beltronics STi Driver or the Valentine 1 [valentine1.com] which have been hardened to prevent RF emissions detected by RDDs...
Re:That's exactly what a selfish driver would say. (Score:4, Interesting)
400 hours of extra work at $50 per hour = $20,000. (for simplicity, I count 1 hour of my leisure time lost equal to the cost of 1 hour work).
I paid, let us say, about $1000 in speeding tickets over that period of time.
$20,000 vs $1,000. Make your decisions.
Re:The Easiest Way to Ticket Free Driving is... (Score:2, Interesting)
I save 5-10 minutes a day by driving above the speed limit. In 20 years of work, that ~40,000 minutes. I don't know how valuable your time is, but my time is near priceless.
Re:That's exactly what a selfish driver would say. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:That's a violation (Score:1, Interesting)
Lots of tests on various radar detectors vs. lidar and radar.
(anon 'cause I moderated this thread too)
Re:So (Score:3, Interesting)
okay...
"but I usually drive 10-20 over the speed limit."
I think the people who are driving the speed limit, or slightly over, and you are closing up on at 20mph over the speed limit might disagree a bit with the "defensive" part there. If I drive 5 over the speed limit and somebody's popping up in my rear view mirror and getting noticeably closer with every glance, I'd consider you aggressive.
"Just once I would love to see a cop ticket the assholes who drive the speed limit in the left lane."
Although I certainly agree that if somebody is driving right at, or just above, the speed limit, should move to the right lane when possible, I don't quite understand why they would be 'assholes' for staying on the left. Presumably, it would only be an issue for those who very much wish to speed (to the point of deserving a hefty speeding ticket) or police/ambulances/firetrucks when they have a good reason to be speeding. I can only assume that the aforementioned 'assholes' that drive at the speed limit would be courteous and defensive enough to try move aside in those cases.
"They are the ones who are a safety problem because they piss off myself"
If a driver gets pissed off, and I do mean "pissed off" and not "slightly annoyed", by traffic circumstances, then I highly doubt they could maintain the "defensive" attitude in driving.
"and others who are trying to get by"
By, again, speeding - and not just a little, but 10-20mph.
"so then we do something stupid to put you behind us."
I didn't realize that others keeping to the speed limits, or slightly over, are an excuse for dangerous traffic behavior.
"I'm going to get around you eventually, whether I do so by passing safely on the left as intended or I have to zip around your dumb ass on the right."
Combined with the "we do something stupid", I seriously question whether your perspective on just who, exactly, is the "asshole" in traffic is just.
--
Now if you wish to argue that many speed limits are too low - agreed. There's no reason I can't go over the Dutch A28 motoway at 140km/h ('bout 87) instead of 120km/h ('bout 75) if the road is reasonably clear, visibility is good, and road conditions themselves permit it. That's why I have petitioned, along with many others, to have variable speed limits, indicated above the roads. The government is very receptive to the idea as they had plans for variable speed limit indicators for other reasons (fog, roadwork, construction work near roads, accidents, etc.) planned anyway.
Until such a time as this is implemented, however, I'll just politely blink my headlights if I'm going 10kph over the speed limit while somebody in front of me in the left lane is going exactly the speed limit and can move to the right lane safely. If they do not wish to move, so be it; I'm the one speeding, not them, I should incur the down sides to that behavior.
In the end, however, there are far too many people who always want to go faster than others. So whether the speed limit is raised from 70 to 90 in your case, many will just go 100 or 110 instead and complain about those going 95.