When it comes to surveillance, the Brits are 5-10 years ahead of us. They credit the traffic camera system for a one-third decrease in motor vehicle deaths. We would probably see the system as too intrusive here, even though some cities have adopted red-light enforcement cameras similar to the British system.
But this story is interesting. Gas stations - or petrol stations - have a problem with people who pump fuel, then drive off without paying. Some stations here require pre-payment. But some of the Brit petrol stations installed cameras to read customers license plates as a deterrent. Now, the government wants to piggy back on those video cameras, looking for tax cheats.
From The Mirror:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cctv-at-petrol-stations-will-automatically-stop-758518 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cctv-at-petrol-stations-will-automatically-stop-758518)
CCTV at petrol stations will automatically stop uninsured cars being filled with fuel
Downing Street officials hope the hi-tech system will crack down on the 1.4million motorists who drive without insurance.
CCTV will automatically stop uninsured cars being filled up under new government rules.
Cameras at petrol stations will automatically stop uninsured or untaxed vehicles from being filled with fuel, under new government plans.
Downing Street officials hope the hi-tech system will crack down on the 1.4million motorists who drive without insurance.
Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras are already fitted in thousands of petrol station forecourts.
Drivers can only fill their cars with fuel once the camera has captured and logged the vehicle's number plate.
Currently the system is designed to deter motorists from driving off without paying for petrol.
So, if you owe back taxes, have any outstanding tickets, or perhaps even an overdue library book:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7040/6994242685_2d78c7da31.jpg)
Look for all the cameras at QT the next time you buy gas. It's similar to going to a casino, the only place you are not on camera is in the restroom.
And speaking of drive offs, stations in Tulsa still allow pump first then pay?
Yes, there is a large consultancy lobbying to have the Government give them many millions of pounds to leverage the private CCTV cameras in petrol stations to do this. The plate recognition was installed as the station owners' way of combating driveoffs. Don't ask me why they went that route, I don't know.
According to some locals, something about the way they handle auto registration there doesn't lend itself to requiring the owner show proof of insurance at the time of registration or renewal.
Meanwhile, here at home, we have police using ANPR systems to troll parking lots looking for cars to impound and to track "criminals," and the NSA has been violating federal law for a decade now by spying on (and archiving most all, apparently, they're up to a yottabyte now) domestic communications traffic. Oh, and we can't even see the interpretation of the Patriot Act that the FISC used to justify continuing to allow this because it's classified. Yes, they refuse to release even a redacted version of the legal opinion that allows the NSA to intercept all communications without a warrant even though the plain language of the Patriot Act allows that power only with respect to terrorism suspects. Apparently that's ok because "the law is public." Never mind that the public law seems to contradict the secret interpretation.
So pardon me if I chuckle politely at the statement that the British are ahead of us in surveilling their own people.
With the revelations of the past couple of weeks, I am beginning to think that the security state is a more pressing threat to our country than our economic troubles are.
And if you haven't done anything wrong or illegal you shouldn't be paranoid unless they are like one of my ex's friends that won't get a flu shot because they are implanting micro chips to follow people.
Quote from: dbacks fan on March 18, 2012, 05:04:49 PM
And if you haven't done anything wrong or illegal you shouldn't be paranoid unless they are like one of my ex's friends that won't get a flu shot because they are implanting micro chips to follow people.
Time for one of my favorites:
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
Quote from: dbacks fan on March 18, 2012, 05:04:49 PM
And if you haven't done anything wrong or illegal you shouldn't be paranoid
My sarcasm detector failed to trigger on this. I'm hoping it's just in need of recalibration, because I'd rather not spend my Sunday evening explaining why that line of reasoning is both specious and dangerous.
Quote from: nathanm on March 18, 2012, 06:09:42 PM
My sarcasm detector failed to trigger on this. I'm hoping it's just in need of recalibration, because I'd rather not spend my Sunday evening explaining why that line of reasoning is both specious and dangerous.
Save your breath nate, you've told all of us before.
Quote from: nathanm on March 18, 2012, 04:54:05 PM
So pardon me if I chuckle politely at the statement that the British are ahead of us in surveilling their own people.
With the revelations of the past couple of weeks, I am beginning to think that the security state is a more pressing threat to our country than our economic troubles are.
Well, the UK probability is ahead of us in sheer technology deployment, but even their top cops don't believe all the hype:
According to Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville, the officer in charge of the Metropolitan police unit. "CCTV was originally seen as a preventative measure," Neville told the Security Document World Conference in London. "It's been an utter fiasco: only 3% of crimes were solved by CCTV. There's no fear of CCTV". http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1If there's no real effect on crime, then why does the money keep rolling in to the contractors who build and maintain the cameras and databases?
The chief constable of Thames Valley police has heavily criticised a camera scheme which would have placed thousands of Birmingham Muslims under surveillance.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/government-computing-network/2010/oct/01/anpr-birmingham-thames-valley-muslims-report-01oct10
Project Champion was abandoned in June after an investigation revealed police had misled residents into believing that hundreds of counter-terrorism cameras installed were to be used to combat vehicle crime and antisocial behaviour.
In fact, the £3m project was intended to monitor people entering and leaving the predominantly Muslim suburbs.And a little closer to home...
The Associated Press learned that $135 million from the White House's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program, or HIDTA, was granted to police in New York and New Jersey alone since the program was initiated after September 11, 2001. But because there is little to no oversight governing the funding stream, neither local nor federal officials are sure exactly how that money was spent, or for which investigations equipment purchases made with the HIDTA money have been employed.
License plate tracking equipment purchased with HIDTA funds were used to surveil Muslims at mosques and to track the license plate numbers of worshipers coming and going. http://privacysos.org/node/494
Quote from: patric on March 18, 2012, 06:34:35 PM
If there's no real effect on crime, then why does the money keep rolling in to the contractors who build and maintain the cameras and databases?
There's a lot of money to be had in security theater. Just look at the TSA.
Quote from: dbacks fan on March 18, 2012, 06:20:39 PM
Save your breath nate, you've told all of us before.
Aren't you in Oregon now? Perhaps you should listen to your Senator:
QuoteWe believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted section 215 of the Patriot Act. As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows. This is a problem, because it is impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should say when the public doesn't know what its government thinks the law says.
This is completely unacceptable in a free country.
Quote from: dbacks fan on March 18, 2012, 06:20:39 PM
Save your breath nate, you've told all of us before.
So if you follow the line of reasoning that "if your not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about," I guess that means that you would have no problem with the cops coming into your place whenever they feel like it to search for any illegal or illicit activities. After all, if your not doing anything wrong... Perhaps we should start recording every phone call you make so that they can insure you're not a terrorist working on a plot. Simply put, if you feel that this is not an invasion of privacy and just a step to enforcing laws argue from that point, but don't try to pass of that whole if your not doing anything wrong bit.
Quote from: custosnox on March 18, 2012, 08:11:16 PM
So if you follow the line of reasoning that "if your not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about," I guess that means that you would have no problem with the cops coming into your place whenever they feel like it to search for any illegal or illicit activities.
That would be illegal search and siezure
QuoteAfter all, if your not doing anything wrong... Perhaps we should start recording every phone call you make so that they can insure you're not a terrorist working on a plot.
Yeah, I know, warrantless wiretaps autorized after 9/11
QuoteSimply put, if you feel that this is not an invasion of privacy and just a step to enforcing laws argue from that point, but don't try to pass of that whole if your not doing anything wrong bit.
If I am out in public I'm well aware of the monitoring that is going on, it's not like that is anything new. If a cop cruises a lot with ANPR device, and they find my stolen car great, they find the plate of a suspect in a crime, survale the car and get a warrant. For the most part, my right to privacy ends when I leave the confines of my house and go out into public.
Quote from: dbacks fan on March 18, 2012, 08:45:19 PM
For the most part, my right to privacy ends when I leave the confines of my house and go out into public.
Luckily, the Supreme Court disagrees (http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/01/opinion-recap-tight-limit-on-police-gps-use/). Too bad that the spectre of national security causes them to wet their pants and allow secret interpretation of the law. I'm perfectly fine with the facts involved in FISC decisions being kept secret inasmuch as is possible when releasing the interpretations of the law, but keeping the state of the law secret is reprehensible.
Quote from: dbacks fan on March 18, 2012, 08:45:19 PM
That would be illegal search and siezure
Yeah, I know, warrantless wiretaps autorized after 9/11
If I am out in public I'm well aware of the monitoring that is going on, it's not like that is anything new. If a cop cruises a lot with ANPR device, and they find my stolen car great, they find the plate of a suspect in a crime, survale the car and get a warrant. For the most part, my right to privacy ends when I leave the confines of my house and go out into public.
We allow them to search our person and effects without a warrant, and what the argument on that is, is that if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about. Same idea comes about when it comes to searching your car or whatever. As far as your right to privacy ending when you leave your home, you can feel that way if you want, but I prefer to still be protected by the bill of rights. That being said, what is in view of the public is in view of the public, regardless if it is seen by a cop sitting there watching or a camera in the same spot recording. It is one thing to use technology to observe what already is in view, it is another to take away a right on the idea that if your not doing anything wrong then you don't have anything to worry about.
Quote from: BKDotCom on March 18, 2012, 06:44:03 PM
There's a lot of money to be had in security theater. Just look at the TSA.
We have this going on every day...
(http://www.missfidget.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/TSA-Child.jpg)
Yes, the state security apparatus is running amok. Weird that we're saying that about the US over 20 years on from the collapse of the Soviet Union. [insert something about the banality of evil here]
Personally, I think red light cams would be a great idea since no one seems interested in enforcing traffic safety now other than writing citations AFTER a crash.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 19, 2012, 10:44:55 AM
Personally, I think red light cams would be a great idea since no one seems interested in enforcing traffic safety now other than writing citations AFTER a crash.
Either our priorities have changed, or our expectations have.
I can remember when police would be assigned to shopping centers every Christmas to help direct traffic.
Nowadays, they are still there, just not directing traffic.
ALPR surveillance cameras are not the same as red light cameras (which are notorious for increasing rear-end collisions) and are not nearly as effective at increasing traffic safety as are improving sight lines at intersections, lengthening yellow lights or using all-red delays in which all lights at an intersection simultaneously go red for a time.
Quote from: patric on March 19, 2012, 11:09:29 AM
Either our priorities have changed, or our expectations have.
I can remember when police would be assigned to shopping centers every Christmas to help direct traffic.
Nowadays, they are still there, just not directing traffic.
ALPR surveillance cameras are not the same as red light cameras (which are notorious for increasing rear-end collisions) and are not nearly as effective at increasing traffic safety as are improving sight lines at intersections, lengthening yellow lights or using all-red delays in which all lights at an intersection simultaneously go red for a time.
Inattentive drivers cause rear end collisions, not ALPR cams.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 19, 2012, 11:26:26 AM
Inattentive drivers cause rear end collisions, not ALPR cams.
Red light cameras cause some people to behave in unexpected ways, increasing danger for everybody.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 19, 2012, 11:26:26 AM
Inattentive drivers cause rear end collisions, not ALPR cams.
Given that we cannot even pass laws intended to prevent inattentive driving, we better make it so even inattentive drivers don't cause rear end collisions.
Quote from: nathanm on March 19, 2012, 11:30:16 AM
Red light cameras cause some people to behave in unexpected ways, increasing danger for everybody.
So do smart phones, lipstick, small children, vibrators, and chainsaws.
IMO, I see more and more people driving like complete assholes these days because, other than crashing, there's no recourse for their actions.
. . .far more. . .far more. Chances are you have been "tokenized."
Several retailers use advanced camera systems for marketing, predictive usage based inventory management, and the development of store layout and merchandising.
So smile when you enter and exit, because you're not only on camera, but you are also getting the distance between all of your facial features measured and chances are you have a special number. ;D
Quote from: Conan71 on March 19, 2012, 12:01:55 PM
So do smart phones, lipstick, small children, vibrators, and chainsaws.
IMO, I see more and more people driving like complete assholes these days because, other than crashing, there's no recourse for their actions.
Yep..watching people merge into traffic on 169 while on their cell phone is my biggest pet peeve. I've even gotten out of the habit of using the bluetooth unless necessary and either stopped on a side road or at a moment in my driving where my attention is driving straight ahead, and not worrying about an exit or merging onto lanes of traffic.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 19, 2012, 12:01:55 PM
IMO, I see more and more people driving like complete assholes these days because, other than crashing, there's no recourse for their actions.
I haven't really noticed an increase in stupid driving, just the same old stupid driving only now with a cell phone instead of a newspaper or whatever. Of course, looking at the stats shows that crashes are actually trending downward in Oklahoma.
Quote from: nathanm on March 19, 2012, 11:30:16 AM
Red light cameras cause some people to behave in unexpected ways, increasing danger for everybody.
Yes, they also cause many more accidents. Red light cameras are popping up all over. Oklahoma is lucky not to have 'em, they nail many innocent people who stop for the red light too far up front, or who make legal right turns on red lights. Columbus, Ohio is installing them all over from what I hear. They also have "speed cameras" in some states like Illinois, go a bit over a low set speed limit you get a ticket in the mail.
Quote from: sauerkraut on March 19, 2012, 03:20:33 PM
Yes, they also cause many more accidents. Red light cameras are popping up all over. Oklahoma is lucky not to have 'em, they nail many innocent people who stop for the red light too far up front, or who make legal right turns on red lights. Columbus, Ohio is installing them all over from what I hear. They also have "speed cameras" in some states like Illinois, go a bit over a low set speed limit you get a ticket in the mail.
You truly have no clue how a redlight camera system works.
Quote from: dbacks fan on March 19, 2012, 03:22:47 PM
You truly have no clue how a redlight camera system works.
He may not know how they work, but there are in fact documented instances of photo enforcement cameras triggering when they shouldn't. Presumably there are fewer instances these days, but I don't actually know because I haven't paid too much attention to them lately.
Quote from: nathanm on March 19, 2012, 04:03:03 PM
He may not know how they work, but there are in fact documented instances of photo enforcement cameras triggering when they shouldn't. Presumably there are fewer instances these days, but I don't actually know because I haven't paid too much attention to them lately.
I know that they do malfunction, but I was refering to his other comments about them being wrong, like a right on red.
About half way down the page........
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=12510.30 (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=12510.30)
Quote from: sauerkraut on March 19, 2012, 03:20:33 PM
Yes, they also cause many more accidents. Red light cameras are popping up all over. Oklahoma is lucky not to have 'em, they nail many innocent people who stop for the red light too far up front, or who make legal right turns on red lights. Columbus, Ohio is installing them all over from what I hear. They also have "speed cameras" in some states like Illinois, go a bit over a low set speed limit you get a ticket in the mail.
explain how they cause more accidents? If your obeying the law and not running lights there should be less accidents. Or do you have a source that you can cite for this phenomenon?
Quote from: custosnox on March 19, 2012, 04:17:26 PM
Or do you have a source that you can cite for this phenomenon?
(https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS4wxKeP8v3yUXP12Gc6HZOL8EMPLBlALD0V6DERtR80mGPNUO2gA)
Quote
Peoria's red-light cameras will stop snapping photos of violators Oct. 3.
The city will not renew its contract with Redflex Traffic Systems after learning from police that crashes at monitored intersections actually increased during the three-year pilot program.
Collisions at the four intersections with red-light cameras saw an average uptick of 29 percent, Peoria police said in a Tuesday presentation to City Council.
Red-light violations did drop during the pilot period from 2008 to 2010, an average of 64 percent, Police Chief Roy Minter Jr. said.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/09/14/20110914peoria-deactivate-red-light-cameras-brk.html (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/09/14/20110914peoria-deactivate-red-light-cameras-brk.html)
And on the opposite side
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/06/19/20110619phoenix-red-light-cameras.html (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/06/19/20110619phoenix-red-light-cameras.html)
Quote from: Townsend on March 19, 2012, 04:18:51 PM
(https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS4wxKeP8v3yUXP12Gc6HZOL8EMPLBlALD0V6DERtR80mGPNUO2gA)
Probably just freaks him out because it looks like a robot pointing a gun at him.
"Ahhhhh! Robot attack!"
(http://speedtrapahead.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/pewpewpew.jpg)
Quote from: custosnox on March 19, 2012, 04:17:26 PM
Or do you have a source that you can cite for this phenomenon?
I don't have one immediately at hand, but typically you see an increase of rear-end crashes as people slam on their brakes when the light turns yellow out of an abundance of caution. The cameras are effective at reducing t-bone type collisions, though. As far as injuries go, there are more injuries overall, but fewer of the life-threatening variety. Basically you trade a large increase in back and neck injuries for a small decrease in blunt force trauma injuries.
That's weak logic. If you're tailgating and hoping the car in front of you runs the yellow...yes... runs the yellow (because yellow is for when you're already in the intersection, not speeding up hoping to make it through before the people adjacent can react to their green light)....then yes you're going to rear end someone and pay dearly for it. Your second choice is a t-bone. Lay off the accelerator when approaching an intersection and neither one is likely.
It is not the fault of an "overly cautious" person who has enough time and judgement ability to stop at a yellow because he was able to observe that the green light was "old" and decided to not put others at risk by breaking the law. That's like complaining that people keep jumping in front of your bullets when you have target practice at the Wal Mart parking lot.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 19, 2012, 04:57:22 PM
That's weak logic. If you're tailgating and hoping the car in front of you runs the yellow...yes... runs the yellow (because yellow is for when you're already in the intersection, not speeding up hoping to make it through before the people adjacent can react to their green light)....then yes you're going to rear end someone and pay dearly for it. Your second choice is a t-bone. Lay off the accelerator when approaching an intersection and neither one is likely.
It is not the fault of an "overly cautious" person who has enough time and judgement ability to stop at a yellow because he was able to observe that the green light was "old" and decided to not put others at risk by breaking the law. That's like complaining that people keep jumping in front of your bullets when you have target practice at the Wal Mart parking lot.
I'll argue against that. While rear ends are the fault of those who follow too closely, trying to predict a yellow light is pointless. That is the point of a yellow light, to let you know that it is turning red. What dictates an "old" green light? Some intersections seem to change every thirty seconds, while others might as well only change once an hour. If the yellow has a proper delay, then you should be able to clear the intersection as long as you were close enough (depending on speed) that stopping would mean slamming on your brakes. The cameras are not causing the wrecks, the lack of understanding basic traffic principles is.
Quote from: custosnox on March 19, 2012, 05:06:27 PM
I'll argue against that. While rear ends are the fault of those who follow too closely, trying to predict a yellow light is pointless. That is the point of a yellow light, to let you know that it is turning red. What dictates an "old" green light? Some intersections seem to change every thirty seconds, while others might as well only change once an hour. If the yellow has a proper delay, then you should be able to clear the intersection as long as you were close enough (depending on speed) that stopping would mean slamming on your brakes. The cameras are not causing the wrecks, the lack of understanding basic traffic principles is.
If you can see the traffic light that is between 1/4 and 1/2 mile away and it's green, and you did not see it turn green, it's an old green and going to change. Also if you drive the same areas a lot, you learn the patterns of the lights if you are paying attention. Oh, wait a minute, I pay attention to my driving, so I know the patterns of the traffic signals. I need to eat, text, change the radio, look for a cd, read my mail when I drive so I can be like everyone else..........
Quote from: custosnox on March 19, 2012, 05:06:27 PM
I'll argue against that. While rear ends are the fault of those who follow too closely, trying to predict a yellow light is pointless. That is the point of a yellow light, to let you know that it is turning red. What dictates an "old" green light? Some intersections seem to change every thirty seconds, while others might as well only change once an hour. If the yellow has a proper delay, then you should be able to clear the intersection as long as you were close enough (depending on speed) that stopping would mean slamming on your brakes. The cameras are not causing the wrecks, the lack of understanding basic traffic principles is.
You're right about one thing, a lack of understanding of basic traffic principles is the problem. The reason epressway ,Merge, Yield signs and traffic circles cause Okies so much angst.
The yellow light is not the "accelerate" light. It is indeed to let you know the light is turning red and give you notice to stop. In fact, yellows are hazard warnings. If you are not exceeding the speed limit and tailgaiting you will have no problem in stopping. I routinely stop a large commercial vehicle, which I am forced to obey speed limits in because of an onboard camera and computer, easily all over town. Its hilarious to see people swerve around cars and accelerate into an intersection that is already "old" yellow just to see them again at the next light.
The concept of "old" lights is taught in commercial driving courses. An "old" green light is one that has been green for a long time and most people can instinctively feel it. They either speed up, coast or slow down when they judge its been green too long. I look for opposing traffic's behaviour like, has the protected left turn already expired meaning that lane will slow down. Is the pedestrian walk light still on? If I have no idea of the age of the light then I coast at the speed limit which gives me time to stop if necessary. That way I am predicting the yellow light rather than believing that it is random and known only by the gods of Sauer. I know many people do the opposite and speed up which is fine if you don't exceed the speed limit and have to panic stop or run the light. Driving too fast merely reduces your options.
An "old" yellow is just that. Its been yellow too long to run it. I see folks accelerate to run a light that has already turned yellow. Dangerous and shortsighted as traffic coming from the adjacent lanes are probably speeding as well and never stop to think someone might run a light that has been green so long for them. The faster you go the more your perception of time and distance is affected. Yellows are predictable but you have to be concentrating on driving, not on everything else.
The main reason cited for the uptick in rear-end collisions is someone starting through a yellow light, then loosing their nerve at the last second when they become aware of the traffic camera.
http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/increase-accidents
Quote from: AquaMan on March 19, 2012, 05:33:51 PM
You're right about one thing, a lack of understanding of basic traffic principles is the problem. The reason epressway ,Merge, Yield signs and traffic circles cause Okies so much angst.
The yellow light is not the "accelerate" light. It is indeed to let you know the light is turning red and give you notice to stop. In fact, yellows are hazard warnings. If you are not exceeding the speed limit and tailgaiting you will have no problem in stopping. I routinely stop a large commercial vehicle, which I am forced to obey speed limits in because of an onboard camera and computer, easily all over town. Its hilarious to see people swerve around cars and accelerate into an intersection that is already "old" yellow just to see them again at the next light.
The concept of "old" lights is taught in commercial driving courses. An "old" green light is one that has been green for a long time and most people can instinctively feel it. They either speed up, coast or slow down when they judge its been green too long. I look for opposing traffic's behaviour like, has the protected left turn already expired meaning that lane will slow down. Is the pedestrian walk light still on? If I have no idea of the age of the light then I coast at the speed limit which gives me time to stop if necessary. That way I am predicting the yellow light rather than believing that it is random and known only by the gods of Sauer. I know many people do the opposite and speed up which is fine if you don't exceed the speed limit and have to panic stop or run the light. Driving too fast merely reduces your options.
An "old" yellow is just that. Its been yellow too long to run it. I see folks accelerate to run a light that has already turned yellow. Dangerous and shortsighted as traffic coming from the adjacent lanes are probably speeding as well and never stop to think someone might run a light that has been green so long for them. The faster you go the more your perception of time and distance is affected. Yellows are predictable but you have to be concentrating on driving, not on everything else.
My point is, you don't know for sure how long a light is going to be green, and while there can be some clues like pedestrian signals, familiarity and time, there are always exceptions. If you try to predict when lights are going to turn yellow, what happens when they happen quick and you don't expect them? Simply put, drive normally, be prepared for them to change, when they do make a good judgment about proceeding through
If the increase in rear-end crashes where the speed variance may only be 10mph offsets the increase in high-speed side and head-on impacts, I'm all for it. Failure to stop at a red light crashes are potentially fatal, as opposed to a slower speed bumper crash.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 19, 2012, 05:33:51 PM
You're right about one thing, a lack of understanding of basic traffic principles is the problem. The reason epressway ,Merge, Yield signs and traffic circles cause Okies so much angst.
Agreed
Quote
The yellow light is not the "accelerate" light. It is indeed to let you know the light is turning red and give you notice to stop. In fact, yellows are hazard warnings.
Agreed
QuoteIf you are not exceeding the speed limit and tailgaiting you will have no problem in stopping.
One would think so but I'm not so sure. The TPD or a spokesperson occasionally get on TV to remind us that running a yellow is a ticketable offense, almost as much by only a few $ as running a red light. They then go on to state that
entering an intersection on a yellow is the violation. Sounds like yellow is the same as I was taught a red is. Do not enter an intersection at all, ever, if the light is yellow. Therefore, if the light turns yellow in front of you and you are not yet in the intersection, stop at all costs.
I was taught back in 1960s Driver's Ed that the yellow is the indication that the light is about to turn red. If you can reasonably stop, do so. Otherwise the light
should remain yellow long enough for you to clear the intersection.
One of my uncles had some difficulty with a manually (traffic control cop) in Philly many years ago when the cop intentionally turned the light red too quickly after turning it yellow. My uncle got a ticket. He tried to fight it in court but lost. A few weeks later, my uncle was at the same intersection and the same cop was there. The light turned yellow, my uncle executed a panic stop and halted in the middle of the intersection. The cop came over, recognized my uncle and told him to move on.
QuoteIt's hilarious to see people swerve around cars and accelerate into an intersection that is already "old" yellow just to see them again at the next light.
Some people are not too intelligent. I will, however, go around a few lone pokie okies if a safe opportunity presents itself. I recognize that traffic light roulette is not in my favor but stewing behind inconsiderate drivers ruins my whole day. If traffic is just backed up in general, I settle down and go with the flow.
QuoteThe concept of "old" lights is taught in commercial driving courses.
The concept of paying attention is good. Trying to predict a yellow is OK if you are familiar with the area. Slowing down enough while trying to predict a yellow will guarantee a yellow, or even red, if you slow down enough for you and everyone behind you. Today driving in to work on northbound Memorial from 111th to the Creek Tpk, I saw many green lights well ahead of me. At that time in the morning, they appear to be timed as I can frequently get from 111th to the turnpike without encountering more than one or two red lights if drivers don't slow in anticipation of a yellow or red. Sometimes I have to stop for a minor que delay but the lights are still green. Today with Spring Break traffic, I made it non-stop.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 20, 2012, 08:02:26 AM
Slowing down enough while trying to predict a yellow will guarantee a yellow, or even red, if you slow down enough for you and everyone behind you.
..
I don't advocate slowing down in anticipation of a yellow. I merely hold my speed or coast while judging whether it is going to change. If it changes within my stopping distance, I stop. If not I look around the intersection and pass through it, usually before the light has changed. Of course I am rarely speeding when approaching an intersection. It would be interesting to find out what the duration is of a yellow light and whether it varies around town or is based on the speed limit approaching the intersection. Any one know?
Sitting in a commercial vehicle gives you a lot better perspective visually and behaviorally. First, it is rare for a commercial driver to be ticketed for running a yellow or a red. They are in the business of driving and I believe their skills and practices mostly reflect that. They can lose their job and their CDL by making such mistakes. There are exceptions of course.
Secondly, people drive like they work. You start to notice which cars are aggressive, what they're wearing, what their personalized plates or bumper stickers say, the condition of their vehicle and what they are doing as they drive.
Red: Stop
Green: Go
Yellow: Go very fast!
Quote from: patric on March 19, 2012, 06:42:35 PM
The main reason cited for the uptick in rear-end collisions is someone starting through a yellow light, then loosing their nerve at the last second when they become aware of the traffic camera.
http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/increase-accidents
You simply cannot blame a mechanical object for poor decision making by motorists. Driving has become a passive or secondary activity to far too many motorists. Cars have become safer over the years so I think it's given drivers a certain sense of invincibility should they be in a crash. Too many drivers view drive time as an opportunity to chat with their mistress, text their boyfriend, or catch up on email rather than focus on the serious task at hand.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 20, 2012, 08:52:19 AM
You simply cannot blame a mechanical object for poor decision making by motorists.
Actually, you can. Understanding the human factors is how you increase safety. Yes, inattentive drivers as well as those who make the poor decision to slam on their brakes instead of proceeding through a yellow light are directly to blame, but that in no way means we should just throw up our hands and say there's nothing more we can do. The fact of the matter is that there are humans driving the vehicles. Humans who may be tired, distracted, or just plain stupid.
Quote from: nathanm on March 20, 2012, 12:03:43 PM
Actually, you can. Understanding the human factors is how you increase safety. Yes, inattentive drivers as well as those who make the poor decision to slam on their brakes instead of proceeding through a yellow light are directly to blame, but that in no way means we should just throw up our hands and say there's nothing more we can do. The fact of the matter is that there are humans driving the vehicles. Humans who may be tired, distracted, or just plain stupid.
I say we require drivers to be trained. Not a few hours in drivers ed when a teen, or taught by the parent, I mean actually trained.
Quote from: custosnox on March 20, 2012, 12:17:24 PM
I say we require drivers to be trained. Not a few hours in drivers ed when a teen, or taught by the parent, I mean actually trained.
Agreed. Driving is a privilege, not a right. More people need to respect the privilege.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 20, 2012, 08:31:14 AM
..
I don't advocate slowing down in anticipation of a yellow. I merely hold my speed or coast while judging whether it is going to change.
I almost always hold my speed. If it's an "old green", I expect a yellow more than if it's a "new green". There are some short greens around town and sometimes only a few cars get through before the light changes. I notice that sometimes in a que, I don't start to move until the light turns red. It's not so bad if there are 20 or so cars in front but it's really irritating if there's only a few cars and the delay is due to driver inattentiveness or drivers who wait for the car in front to completely clear the intersection (OK, mild literary license) before entering the intersection.
QuoteIf it changes within my stopping distance, I stop. If not I look around the intersection and pass through it, usually before the light has changed. Of course I am rarely speeding when approaching an intersection.
I also keep glancing in my mirror as I approach an "old green" and am prepared to say a ticket is less expensive than a guaranteed collision with the driver behind me. I don't try to base my driving on my ability to spot police cars so I too am rarely above the speed limit. As a BMW owner, I try to practice not using my turn signals whenever possible even while driving my Buick daily driver. (Just kidding.) If the mirrors are clear, I do occasionally dump the kleenex box on the passenger seat on the floor in front of it to avoid the ticket for entering an intersection on yellow. Gripe: If it is truly against the law to
enter an intersection on yellow, why have a yellow. Just go green to red.
QuoteIt would be interesting to find out what the duration is of a yellow light and whether it varies around town or is based on the speed limit approaching the intersection. Any one know?
I don't know but would also like to find out.
Quote from: custosnox on March 20, 2012, 12:17:24 PM
I say we require drivers to be trained. Not a few hours in drivers ed when a teen, or taught by the parent, I mean actually trained.
That and they need to do a tour of duty so to speak in a large metro area like LA, Phoenix, Chicago, Miami, NYC were yo have to pay attention to survive. (I know, wishful thinking)
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 20, 2012, 12:28:27 PM
I almost always hold my speed. If it's an "old green", I expect a yellow more than if it's a "new green". There are some short greens around town and sometimes only a few cars get through before the light changes. I notice that sometimes in a que, I don't start to move until the light turns red. It's not so bad if there are 20 or so cars in front but it's really irritating if there's only a few cars and the delay is due to driver inattentiveness or drivers who wait for the car in front to completely clear the intersection (OK, mild literary license) before entering the intersection.
I also keep glancing in my mirror as I approach an "old green" and am prepared to say a ticket is less expensive than a guaranteed collision with the driver behind me. I don't try to base my driving on my ability to spot police cars so I too am rarely above the speed limit. As a BMW owner, I try to practice not using my turn signals whenever possible even while driving my Buick daily driver. (Just kidding.) If the mirrors are clear, I do occasionally dump the kleenex box on the passenger seat on the floor in front of it to avoid the ticket for entering an intersection on yellow. Gripe: If it is truly against the law to enter an intersection on yellow, why have a yellow. Just go green to red.
I don't know but would also like to find out.
25 MPH -- 3.0 Seconds
30 MPH -- 3.5 Seconds
35 MPH -- 4.0 Seconds
40 MPH -- 4.5 Seconds
45 MPH -- 5.0 Seconds
50 MPH -- 5.5 Seconds
55 MPH -- 6.0 Seconds
http://www.shortyellowlights.com/standards/ (http://www.shortyellowlights.com/standards/)
I'm waiting for an answer from a friend who is in the traffic signals dept where I used to work as to where they get their guidelines from.
Quote from: custosnox on March 20, 2012, 12:17:24 PM
I say we require drivers to be trained. Not a few hours in drivers ed when a teen, or taught by the parent, I mean actually trained.
I am in full agreement with that. Sometimes it surprises me we don't license dogs. That said, we require pretty intensive training for pilots and planes still crash pretty regularly. Often due to stupidly designed equipment in the cockpit that ends up distracting them more than helping them.
RA, if Oklahoma law makes it illegal to enter the intersection on yellow, the law is in desperate need of change. The entire purpose of the yellow phase is to allow those who are already in the intersection or who are too close to the intersection to stop safely before entering the intersection time to clear the intersection before the light turns red. (after which they should have a 1-2 second all-red period to allow for the distracted or inattentive)
Quote from: nathanm on March 20, 2012, 12:42:40 PM
RA, if Oklahoma law makes it illegal to enter the intersection on yellow, the law is in desperate need of change. The entire purpose of the yellow phase is to allow those who are already in the intersection or who are too close to the intersection to stop safely before entering the intersection time to clear the intersection before the light turns red. (after which they should have a 1-2 second all-red period to allow for the distracted or inattentive)
I am just repeating what I have heard Police, TPD and/or OHP say on the TV. I too think it's both stupid and wrong and if true needs to be changed. It's possible "they" are just trying to get drivers to try to stop for the yellow but that is NOT what they are saying.
Quote from: nathanm on March 20, 2012, 12:42:40 PM
Sometimes it surprises me we don't license dogs.
As drivers?
Dogs are typically required to be "licensed" by their owners but it's really just an ownership tax.
The answer I got for yellow light length:
QuoteIt is an equation that takes into account the intersection width and the speed limit (plus grade change) so it can vary from intersection to intersection. A good rule of thumb is to check the speed limit and divide by 10. 45 mph should be around 4.5 second yellow and so on, but that can change with the size of the intersection. Short answer right?
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 20, 2012, 12:52:38 PM
As drivers?
Yes, as drivers. I think I've told the story of the time I was taking my written exam and I overheard a 16 year old complaining that since she had taken the test 7 times already they should just "give [her] the dang license." It disturbs me to think that she's almost certainly out there with a license in hand now.
Quote from: dbacks fan on March 20, 2012, 12:28:56 PM
That and they need to do a tour of duty so to speak in a large metro area like LA, Phoenix, Chicago, Miami, NYC were yo have to pay attention to survive. (I know, wishful thinking)
You mean like in DC where I almost got into a fist fight with another driver because I didn't turn right on red because I assumed the sign that said do not turn right on red applied to me as well?
Quote from: dbacks fan on March 20, 2012, 01:01:28 PM
The answer I got for yellow light length:
Thanks for the answer Dback. That will be helpful to know.
Quote from: custosnox on March 20, 2012, 01:36:43 PM
You mean like in DC where I almost got into a fist fight with another driver because I didn't turn right on red because I assumed the sign that said do not turn right on red applied to me as well?
I get some mean stares as well for not turning right on red in my commercial vehicle. A commercial vehicle can legally turn red on right but my company policy forbids it except in emergencies because of the increase in accident potential. Once again, the law allows you to turn right on red, unless otherwise posted, but it does not require you to turn right on red.
Quote from: nathanm on March 20, 2012, 12:42:40 PM
I am in full agreement with that. Sometimes it surprises me we don't license dogs. That said, we require pretty intensive training for pilots and planes still crash pretty regularly. Often due to stupidly designed equipment in the cockpit that ends up distracting them more than helping them.
Considering miles flown vs. number of crashes, aircraft accidents are really pretty rare.
Actually, what is more common is fuel exhaustion, flying into adverse weather conditions the pilot and/or aircraft is not suited for, spatial or situational disorientation, or a mechanical issue and the pilot either not being able to find or not choosing a suitable place to land.
Certainly, there are accidents where a pilot has consumed himself fiddling with breakers or something else in the cockpit during a mechanical emergency and simply forgot to keep flying the plane. I believe that was part of the cause attributed to the OSU 10 crash. As a pilot (though not active) I'd tend to disagree with your assertion that there is a lot of stupidly-designed equipment in the cockpit. If anything, there's far more attention placed on cockpit ergonomics in an aircraft than there is in a car.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 20, 2012, 01:48:23 PM
Considering miles flown vs. number of crashes, aircraft accidents are really pretty rare.
Yep, quite rare compared to auto accidents. I'd hope so, given the level of training, the number of safety systems, and the fact that the planes with the most people on 'em have ATC looking out for them. Clearly, we can do better for passenger vehicles by taking some lessons from aviation.
Quote
Actually, what is more common is fuel exhaustion, flying into adverse weather conditions the pilot and/or aircraft is not suited for, spatial or situational disorientation, or a mechanical issue and the pilot either not being able to find or not choosing a suitable place to land.
Most of which are often actually the result of poor cockpit design. I've read a lot of accident reports and the stupid things pilots do never cease to amaze me. And I'm continually surprised at how much text is devoted to how the aircraft systems were designed in a way that fights against the natural actions and responses of the human pilot or maximize the consequences of a small error, yet by the end it's almost always boiled down to "pilot error." To be fair, that is an accurate statement in most cases. Had the pilot done what he or she was supposed to (follow the checklist, avoid flying into known icing conditions in an aircraft not rated for such, etc) the crash wouldn't have happened. That misses the point, however. The reason why crashes are as rare as they are is that we don't say "oh, pilot error" and throw up our hands like we do with auto crashes, we investigate more deeply and figure out what other factors were involved. When it's easier to flip the right switch, you're a lot more likely to flip the right switch. That's what all the other verbiage is about.
Quote
If anything, there's far more attention placed on cockpit ergonomics in an aircraft than there is in a car.
Yes, there is, and what makes it terribly sad is that it's still AFU.
Not sure where you are reading that cockpit design is a significant culprit in airplane crashes. I can only think of one final report which squarely blamed poor cockpit design on pilot distraction: that was the John Denver crash where a fuel lever was placed in a very awkward position.
Here's the official database of aircraft incidents and accidents as compiled by the NTSB. They are charged with investigating and publishing the results of every single reportable accident or incident, including foreign incidents involving aircraft manufactured in the U.S. whenever those accidents are reported.
Take your pick, dates back to Jan. 1962. I think you will find that a very small percentage of these accidents were the result of poor cockpit design.
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/month.aspx
Sure, if you mean the primary cause. But instruments, switches, levers, and just about everything else in the cockpit are often cited as a factor in crashes. I'm far too lazy to go through the last 20 years of NTSB reports to get an exact number, but having read a fairly decent number of them over the years, I'm confident in making the statement that it's common.
I always find it funny when they say things like "Primary Cause: Pilot's failure to maintain adequate altitude and airspeed. Other factors: Engine fell off."
One thing that is not mentioned much is there are alot more cars on the roads than aircraft in the sky. If the sky was choked with as many aircraft as the roads are with cars, then flying would not be all that safe. Of course each plane has a hundred or so people on board and each car has between 1-4 people on board that needs to be figured in too.. BTW, Just think of the accidents if we really had "flying cars" teens would throw things out the windows, buzz houses, if two flying cars crashed over your house they would crash down on top. If we had real flying cars would a driver have a drivers license or need a pilot's license?
Quote from: dbacks fan on March 19, 2012, 04:06:31 PM
I know that they do malfunction, but I was refering to his other comments about them being wrong, like a right on red.
About half way down the page........
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=12510.30 (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=12510.30)
It's not a mal-function, it's designed to work like that.. If a driver does not stop exactly right it'll triger the camera for a picture and issue a ticket. if you stop too close to the cross walk you may triger the sensor thinking you ran the red light and it'll issue a ticket- same thing with right turns on red lights, you need to come to a 100% full stop behind the cross walk to turn on a red light, if it's any kind of "California" or "rolling stop" you'll get a ticket for a right turn on red. No doubt there are also different designs of red light cameras some may have sensors in the pavement and some with sensors on a post. The red light camera company gets part of the ticket money in many cases too. The idea of having the right to face your accuser in court does not apply to red light cameras. They are hard to beat in court. Google has alot of articles on this subject.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 20, 2012, 01:48:23 PM
Considering miles flown vs. number of crashes, aircraft accidents are really pretty rare.
Actually, what is more common is fuel exhaustion, flying into adverse weather conditions the pilot and/or aircraft is not suited for, spatial or situational disorientation, or a mechanical issue and the pilot either not being able to find or not choosing a suitable place to land.
Certainly, there are accidents where a pilot has consumed himself fiddling with breakers or something else in the cockpit during a mechanical emergency and simply forgot to keep flying the plane. I believe that was part of the cause attributed to the OSU 10 crash. As a pilot (though not active) I'd tend to disagree with your assertion that there is a lot of stupidly-designed equipment in the cockpit. If anything, there's far more attention placed on cockpit ergonomics in an aircraft than there is in a car.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=1&ved=0CEgQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Ds3QU8J8YJIc&ei=nuFoT-m7AoLz0gGtr-SKCQ&usg=AFQjCNFkwKoI_xztRSv2bLu6acMgdq-0Zw&sig2=B301yTg1cJdBaf8PHPJKeQ
I'm glad you said it. A non-pilot simply doesn't understand the gauges and instruments that pilots who fly 'under the hood' must use.
Next time you get a chance, fly in a single engine with an instrument rated pilot. Have him hand the yoke over mid-flight after he's fitted you with 'the hood'. You'll understand why that 'stupidly-designed equipment' exists. For without it, you'd be taking a dirt nap.
Better yet, listen to this. This is a guy who is not instrument rated and flies into IMC (instrument meteorological conditions).
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=1&ved=0CEgQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Ds3QU8J8YJIc&ei=nuFoT-m7AoLz0gGtr-SKCQ&usg=AFQjCNFkwKoI_xztRSv2bLu6acMgdq-0Zw&sig2=B301yTg1cJdBaf8PHPJKeQ
Quote from: sauerkraut on March 20, 2012, 02:45:42 PM
One thing that is not mentioned much is there are alot more cars on the roads than aircraft in the sky. If the sky was choked with as many aircraft as the roads are with cars, then flying would not be all that safe. Of course each plane has a hundred or so people on board and each car has between 1-4 people on board that needs to be figured in too.. BTW, Just think of the accidents if we really had "flying cars" teens would throw things out the windows, buzz houses, if two flying cars crashed over your house they would crash down on top. If we had real flying cars would a driver have a drivers license or need a pilot's license?
Holy cow.
Quote from: Hoss on March 20, 2012, 02:59:10 PM
Holy cow.
That reaction almost makes me tempted to actually read his post
Quote from: custosnox on March 20, 2012, 03:03:29 PM
That reaction almost makes me tempted to actually read his post
Don't do it. It musta went over Hosse's head. :)
Quote from: Gaspar on March 20, 2012, 08:41:12 AM
Red: Stop
Green: Go
Yellow: Go very fast!
http://movieclips.com/McGaF-starman-movie-yellow-light-go-very-fast/
Quote from: Hoss on March 20, 2012, 02:58:50 PM
Next time you get a chance, fly in a single engine with an instrument rated pilot. Have him hand the yoke over mid-flight after he's fitted you with 'the hood'. You'll understand why that 'stupidly-designed equipment' exists. For without it, you'd be taking a dirt nap.
Uh, was someone arguing that flight instruments are a bad thing? Or that they are perfect for that matter? My contention simply is that flying is so safe precisely because the FAA, NTSB, the airlines, and others have spent nearly a century figuring out the human factors and how the cockpit can be designed to work with the pilot rather than against him or her. We have nothing like that in the case of automobiles.
I should have avoided mentioning that even after all those years we're still not in the greatest shape on usability because it muddied my point.