CAUTION- New Police Tool !!!!!!! - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

blackmercedes · #1 02-23-2003, 10:48 PM

Lockheed Martin doesn't have the same deal in Canada that they do in the US. Hopefully, it'll remain that way.

mikemover · #2 02-24-2003, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by blackmercedes
Yellow light intervals are often decreased when red-light cameras are installed. This is a revenue grab, pure and simple. And it actually INCREASES the number of crashes. Revenue-addicited government agencies couldn't care about that, though.

We need better driver training/testing. We need graduated licensing. We need re-testing at periodic intervals. We need mandatory jail time for first time drunk driving. Notice that those things actually COST money, and raise little in the way of revenues. Safety? Find me a municipal government truly interested in safety...

Dammit, John...stop saying things that I AGREE with!

This is no fun!

Mike

PaulG · #3 02-24-2003, 04:06 AM

Guys,

At least you have a Constitution to use to argue against these Human Rights issues............

No such luxuries here........but the cameras are still spreading like mobile phones through a High School.

yal · #4 02-24-2003, 07:01 PM

The real insidious thing about the cameras is that they can easily be abused by the police. For example once the camera achieves its goal to reduce the number of offenders on a stretch of road, especially on a local road where the majority of drivers have gotten wise to the camera, the revenue from the instrument will begin to drop. Then, as described by some people on this thread, the police start to manipulate things to keep the revenue coming in like changing locations of said camera or delaying and speeding up the lights to entrap drivers.
In NY we have had several cases in which police officers were reprimanded for using their technical knowledge for and access to traffic signal boxes to entrap drivers. The moveable camera placed in a vehicle is the same kind of thing, or has the potential to be used in this way, if you ask me and should be banned or challenged in court.
Couple these cameras with ticket quotas and a public that is fearful of license seizures linked to tickets not paid and you've got yourself one beautifully running revenue generating machine.

Meanwhile drunks and suspended license drivers get a slap on the hand and a get out of jail free card....after all we got to keep them out there generating revenue

yal · #5 02-25-2003, 12:09 PM

Man you people in the UK and Europe are being monitored to death

See below. Notice how this technology is introduced as a way to reduce crime and benefit the consumer in the long run

A Radio Chip in Every Consumer Product
By CLAUDIA H. DEUTSCH and BARNABY J. FEDER
NYTIMES.COM (go there to see the whole article)

Here's a tip to thieves: If you are bent on stealing packages of Gillette Mach3 razor blades, go someplace other than Tesco's Newmarket Road store in Cambridge, England. There, a "smart shelf" continuously queries tiny radio chips embedded in the packages it holds, and senses the silence when one is removed. The system may soon be programmed to alert security when several are taken at once, Greg Sage, a Tesco spokesman, said.

And, yes, Procter & Gamble will notice if a case of Pantene shampoo does not make it to the Wal-mart Supercenter in Broken Arrow, Okla. Its truck is equipped to monitor signals continuously from chips hidden in each case. If any case stops sending its "Hi, I'm still here" signal, a monitor in the "smart truck" will record exactly when and where.

Such technology, known as radio-frequency identification — the same techniques that enable an electronic sensor to record data from an E-ZPass tag or an office door to open for people with chip-equipped cards in their pockets — could one day stymie pilferers. But it is also capable of doing much more for commerce. Beyond Gillette and Procter & Gamble, companies as diverse as International Paper and Canon USA are teaming up with retailers and customers to apply R.F.I.D., as it is known, to tracking products from the time they leave an assembly line to the time they leave the store.

The companies are tagging clothes, drugs, auto parts, copy machines and even mail with chips laden with information about content, origin and destination. They are also equipping shelves, doors and walls with sensors that can record that data when the products are near. "We want to track all of our merchandise, and that includes items that people are unlikely to steal," William C. Wertz, a spokesman for Wal-Mart Stores, said.

Chip manufacturers are busily spreading that gospel. "That need to have the right product on the right shelf in the right store at the right time — ultimately, that's what will drive our business," said Karsten Ottenberg, a senior vice president at Philips Semiconductor, the leading maker of radio frequency chips and a unit of Royal Philips Electronics.

Early tests are encouraging. For three months in 2001, Gap tested radio frequency tags on denim clothes at a store in Atlanta. Sales jumped because the tags prevented the store from running out of popular items, and the tags made it quicker to find any items in stock.

Typically, 15 percent of shoppers leave clothing stores without getting what they want; during the test, fewer than 1 percent of Gap shoppers left empty-handed.

Radio frequency identification still has too many kinks, however, to be an immediate panacea for retailers. Cordless phones, two-way radios, local wireless networks and other communications devices that are widely deployed in factories, warehouses and stores can interfere with the signals. And, although radio tag readers can, under ideal conditions, identify well over 100 tagged items every second from quite a distance, radio waves have a hard time penetrating metals and liquids — something that Procter & Gamble is addressing with the Pantene test.

And costs are still prohibitive. The electronic tags cost at least 30 cents apiece; most experts think anything above 5 cents is too expensive to be widely used for individual packaged goods. Prices would have to fall to less than a penny for virtually everything in stores to be tagged. Sensors, which can be either hand-held or built into walls, can cost $1,000 each.

But costs are coming down fast. Alien Technology, for one, says that it can now sell radio frequency identification tags profitably at 5 cents each for orders of a billion tags or more. Just last month, Gillette said it would buy up to 500 million tags over the next few years from Alien.

But Alien's manufacturing capacity is currently just a small fraction of what it would need to fill orders over a billion quickly. And experts warn that while the silicon chips continue to shrink in size and fall in price, making the attached antennas small enough and cheap enough is much harder.

Moreover, most retailers say they are reluctant to invest in the technology until product tags are universally readable, as bar codes are today. That means that every retailer, manufacturer and carrier must agree to standards, and use tags and sensors that speak the same language.

"It's one thing to say something is a great technology, but quite another to say that you're ready to scrap existing systems to accommodate it," said Daniel Butler, vice president for retail operations at the National Retail Federation, a trade association based in Washington.

Consumer privacy is also an issue. It would be easy to combine credit card data with information from the retail chips to know who bought what, and when — and, conceivably, track the product even after it left the store.

EricSilver · #6 02-25-2003, 02:15 PM

Good thread.

I worked for the private firm in the DC metro area (a Lockheed subsidiary) analyzing red light and radar camera data for DC, Fairfax, VA and Alexandria, VA.

There are a fixed number of cameras rotated among different locations so that drivers don't necessarily know where they all are, or will assume they are in the same place all the time and drive carefully in that area. (If you live in No. Virginia, you may know that drivers have been conditioned to slow down and clear the left lane of westbound Rt. 66 between Fair Oaks and Centreville in anticipation of the two State Police cruisers that are usually, but not always, sitting together on the median. The same shift in behavior occurs where people know there is a camera – whether it is actually there or not.)

I would agree that DC sees them as a source of revenue, which really sucks ass. Alexandria does not -- they have only two cameras, in fact – and use them for safety reasons. As for Fairfax, I am unsure. And as annoying as the cameras may be, they do indeed work to decrease incidents of red light running and speeding. (And the private firm is paid a flat rate – their revenue is not based on the number of tickets issued.)

More important, drivers have a LOT of leeway. Only about two thirds (if that many) of the violators photographed are actually mailed summonses. Reasons range from impossible to read plates, to judgment calls by the photo reviewer that suggests there was justification or extenuating circumstances for the violation. Even if you are caught, it is still a free ride; just pay the fine and you are done. There are no points, no insurance company notification. If, however, a cop pulls you over, there will be points for sure.

FYI: Those beige plastic license plate covers do NOT work to hide your plate. Indeed, they make it easier for the camera to read your plate by reducing the reflection of the flash. (Use a digital camera to take a flash photo of the back of your car, and then try to read the plate in the pic. 9 times out of 10, you can't.) The only thing that does work is an invisible aerosol spray that makes your plate super-reflective, completely blinding the camera.

EricSilver · #7 02-25-2003, 02:29 PM

>>When the light turns yellow you'd DARNED well better slam on
>>the brakes to stop if you don't want a ticket.

In my time analyzing camera data, I never saw a photo with a yellow light. You can still run the yellow, but if the light turns red before you pass under it, you are probably busted. Just check your rear view mirror for the two flash strobes.

There are actually two photos that a decision is based on (and which I believe you receive in the mail with your ticket.) They record your speed, location and the time at the first and second camera flashes. Given those facts, you are armed to begin some creative BS-ing.

If you are indicating 60 mph, you're f**ked. If you are crawling through, for whatever bizarre reason, at say 5 mph, and are not too deep into the intersection, you can probably successfully argue that you came to a full stop or had some other credible reason for your action. But in all likelihood, that ticket would be tossed before it could even get to you in the first place.

If there is a large truck or SUV directly in front of you, simply point out that your view of the traffic light was obstucted, and given the choice of stopping abruptly or following traffic in front of you, you chose to err on the side of caution, and cruised on through.

EricSilver · #8 02-25-2003, 02:41 PM

I should add that in DC/VA (not sure about MD) you get a 10 mph cushion on radar cams. In a 55 zone you are busted at 64 or 65.