Another alternative to speeding fines

beerwolf said:

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

Hmmm... ther would be a conceptual problem restricting use of the
vehicle as a passenger, say in a medical emergency with the car being
the only means of transport.

An implementation probem is that the system requires the car to
recognise the collar, either by querying it (collar passive) or the
collar constantly emmiting a signal. In both cases, a signal could be
passively blocked with a Faraday cage, and with the second case, there
could be unexpected interactions between the collar and other remote or
supceptible devices. (mobile phones and hospital machinery?)

It's a good idea, but I tend to belive that while technology makes
things easier and faster, it seldom solves problems in of iteself.

--
daveL

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 30 Jun 2006 07:34:40 +1000

beerwolf said:

A variation on impounding or immobilising cars. Fit the offending
driver with an electronic collar or bracelet, similar to those used
for home detentions. Put a transponder in the vehicle, that
prevents the vehicle being driven while the collar is in proximity.
This would deny the use of the vehicle to the offender, (even
as a passenger), but still allow its use by other family members.

Why as a passenger?

Perhaps have the transponder fitted to the steering wheel so that they
can't drive it, but can be a passenger.

Be a problem to have one that can't be masked off I suppose...

Zebee

beerwolf said:

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

You could make it blow their heads off (apologies to whoever wrote the
various sci-fi stories this has been in 🙂

Radio transmissions can be shielded fairly easily with a faraday cage
(tinfoil will probably do quite nicely).

"beerwolf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Yes.

What, all this for my 4kmh over? And my family is severely limited in what
they can do with me. You seem to be pi$$ing in the wind.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

Peter Signorini said:

"beerwolf" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

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

Yes.

What, all this for my 4kmh over? And my family is severely limited in
what they can do with me. You seem to be pi$$ing in the wind.

That was my thought. I can do 110 km/h on a twisty back road in WA barely
two lanes wide. In Vic at the same speed on the Princess Hwy, two wide lanes
each way with 2 metres of sealed shoulder, limited access, and 20 metres
separation from oncoming traffic, I'm a dangerous lunatic? Get real!

Theo

"beerwolf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

derrr, they'll just take a different car?

Theo Bekkers said:

That was my thought. I can do 110 km/h on a twisty back road in WA barely
two lanes wide. In Vic at the same speed on the Princess Hwy, two wide lanes
each way with 2 metres of sealed shoulder, limited access, and 20 metres
separation from oncoming traffic, I'm a dangerous lunatic? Get real!

Who, other than you, mentioned dangerous lunatic and who, other than
you, gave such a specific example of the type of offence for which the
OP thought the punishment should fit? While the original idea may or
may not have had merit, surely you're going to have to do a bit better
to refute his point than this rantette. Do a search on "logical
fallacies" when you've got time.

Graeme

Bleve said:

You could make it blow their heads off (apologies to whoever wrote the
various sci-fi stories this has been in 🙂

The red dye packs they use to mark money stolen from security vans
might do the job. Being red-faced for a week or two should be a large
disincentive (then again, it never seems to stop some Scots from
sunbathing on their annual holiday).

Graeme

Graeme Dods said:

Theo Bekkers said:

That was my thought. I can do 110 km/h on a twisty back road in WA
barely two lanes wide. In Vic at the same speed on the Princess Hwy,
two wide lanes each way with 2 metres of sealed shoulder, limited
access, and 20 metres separation from oncoming traffic, I'm a
dangerous lunatic? Get real!

Who, other than you, mentioned dangerous lunatic and who, other than
you, gave such a specific example of the type of offence for which the
OP thought the punishment should fit? While the original idea may or
may not have had merit, surely you're going to have to do a bit better
to refute his point than this rantette. Do a search on "logical
fallacies" when you've got time.

Since you snipped the bit you expect me to respond to, I'll have to do it
from memory. I believe he was suggesting that people who were speeding
should be electronically barred from being inside a vehicle. I would think
we only treat dangerous lunatics like that.

I was trying to point out that there are really stupid standards for
speeding which are totally unrelated to the actual risk and, as everyone
knows from personal experience, speed does not kill. I'm not dead yet.

Theo

"Graeme Dods" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Theo Bekkers said:

That was my thought. I can do 110 km/h on a twisty back road in WA barely
two lanes wide. In Vic at the same speed on the Princess Hwy, two wide
lanes
each way with 2 metres of sealed shoulder, limited access, and 20 metres
separation from oncoming traffic, I'm a dangerous lunatic? Get real!

Who, other than you, mentioned dangerous lunatic and who, other than
you, gave such a specific example of the type of offence for which the
OP thought the punishment should fit?

Re-read the thread title!

Beerwolf was suggesting a penalty for speeding, rather than a fine. No
specifics about what level of speeding. How was Theo's example illogical?

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

Theo Bekkers said:

Graeme Dods said:

Theo Bekkers said:

That was my thought. I can do 110 km/h on a twisty back road in WA
barely two lanes wide. In Vic at the same speed on the Princess Hwy,
two wide lanes each way with 2 metres of sealed shoulder, limited
access, and 20 metres separation from oncoming traffic, I'm a
dangerous lunatic? Get real!

Who, other than you, mentioned dangerous lunatic and who, other than
you, gave such a specific example of the type of offence for which the
OP thought the punishment should fit? While the original idea may or
may not have had merit, surely you're going to have to do a bit better
to refute his point than this rantette. Do a search on "logical
fallacies" when you've got time.

Since you snipped the bit you expect me to respond to, I'll have to do it
from memory.

If your memory is that poor, then perhaps you need to remove the "read
messages" filter in Outlook Express to refresh your memory.

Quoted message said:

I believe he was suggesting that people who were speeding
should be electronically barred from being inside a vehicle. I would think
we only treat dangerous lunatics like that.

Yes, but nowhere was it mentioned that this should be done for *all*
speeding offences (other than perhaps by Peter as a response to the
OP). You went on to misrepresent what the OP said and tried to knock
holes in the argument that way. To save you searching on "logical
fallacies" click on this link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Quoted message said:

I was trying to point out that there are really stupid standards for
speeding which are totally unrelated to the actual risk and, as everyone
knows from personal experience, speed does not kill. I'm not dead yet.

That may be true, but if you feel that a given speed limit is wrong,
then there are better ways of proving your point than by breaking it.

Graeme

Peter Signorini said:

Re-read the thread title!

No need, my memory hasn't got to Theo's level yet 🙂

Quoted message said:

Beerwolf was suggesting a penalty for speeding, rather than a fine. No
specifics about what level of speeding. How was Theo's example illogical?

In the same way that saying a life sentence is a deserved punishment
for some violent crimes, therefore someone who gives someone else a
black eye should get a life sentence. Beerwolf, as you say, hadn't got
specific, it was yourself and Theo who jumped on the "extreme
punishment for minor infringement" bandwagon. Given a recent thread on
this group <http://tinyurl.com/qlxqw>, which Theo contributed to, I
would think that extreme speeding may have been an influence in the
original post though that may be just my interpretation.

Graeme

Graeme Dods said:

In the same way that saying a life sentence is a deserved punishment
for some violent crimes, therefore someone who gives someone else a
black eye should get a life sentence. Beerwolf, as you say, hadn't got
specific, it was yourself and Theo who jumped on the "extreme
punishment for minor infringement" bandwagon

Well, when I read the first post I read it as an alternative penalty idea
for speeding, full stop. Potentially all speeding. There are some about who
are so indoctrinated with the 'speed is evil' mantra that they would take
that view.

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

But with clarification that it's for serious repeat offenders - yes, now the
idea may have more merit. Still don't agree with penalising a person's whole
family for the offenders own actions. Fines and loss of licence is bad
enough for the wife and kids, why turn the screws?

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

Peter Signorini said:

Graeme Dods said:

In the same way that saying a life sentence is a deserved punishment
for some violent crimes, therefore someone who gives someone else a
black eye should get a life sentence. Beerwolf, as you say, hadn't got
specific, it was yourself and Theo who jumped on the "extreme
punishment for minor infringement" bandwagon

Well, when I read the first post I read it as an alternative penalty idea
for speeding, full stop. Potentially all speeding. There are some about
who are so indoctrinated with the 'speed is evil' mantra that they would
take that view.

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

But with clarification that it's for serious repeat offenders - yes, now
the idea may have more merit. Still don't agree with penalising a person's
whole family for the offenders own actions. Fines and loss of licence is
bad enough for the wife and kids, why turn the screws?

I said "speeding", but I meant "serious traffic offence", of which high
range
speeding is an example, and 4kmh > limit is not. On reflection, a better
subject might have mentioned the phrase "where there is a high risk that
the offender will not comply with licence suspension". Impounding or
clamping the car is "turning the screws" to a worse degree than
electronically preventing the offender from travelling with his family,
who would still be able to drive. For that matter, Zebee's point about
putting it near the steering wheel is a good one, and would allow the
offender still to travel as a passenger. I'm all for limiting collateral
damage wherever that is possible.

FWIW, I'm with Theo and Peter about fines for low range speeding, and
I regard them as little more than voluntary taxation. Two or three times
a year I drive between Sydney and Melbourne, and always make a
point of checking my speed via the overhead readouts on the Hume Hwy,
if there's a clear piece of road ahead of me. I always hold the speedo
rock steady at 110, and invariably the readout shows me doing between
5 and 8kmh less. When I first started doing it, I thought my speedo was
inaccurate, and compensated. But I have seen this now in 3 different
cars, and have also checked my speedo (while someone else was driving)
using a GPS. It's the overhead readouts that are wrong.
Somebody more inclined to conspiracy theories than myself might
think that the authorities actually don't mind a bit if you drive past their
cameras at 5kmh over the limit.

--
beerwolf (remove numbers from email address)

Bleve said:

beerwolf said:

A variation on impounding or immobilising cars. Fit the offending
driver with an electronic collar or bracelet, similar to those used
for home detentions. Put a transponder in the vehicle, that
prevents the vehicle being driven while the collar is in proximity.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

You could make it blow their heads off (apologies to whoever wrote the
various sci-fi stories this has been in 🙂

Radio transmissions can be shielded fairly easily with a faraday cage
(tinfoil will probably do quite nicely).

Hmmm. Yes, you'd need 2 transponders which also poll each other,
and immobilise the car permanently if the polling stops. And 2 bracelets,
one on each wrist (or bracelet + collar), which poll each other and
explode if the polling stops. Unless, of course, you positioned both the
Faraday cages simultaneously.
</facetious>

--
beerwolf (remove numbers from email address)

Bleve said:

You could make it blow their heads off (apologies to whoever wrote the
various sci-fi stories this has been in 🙂

The canonical example that springs to mind is _The Running Man_, which was
based on a Richard Bachman (AKA Stephen King) book. But it's not that
uncommon an idea.
--
Dave Hughes | [email hidden]
Striker, listen, and you listen close: flying a plane is no different
than riding a bicycle just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the
spokes.

<SNIPPAGE>

--
Frank
[email hidden]
Drop DACKS to reply
"Theo Bekkers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:44a47ed8

Quoted message said:

That was my thought. I can do 110 km/h on a twisty back road in WA barely
two lanes wide. In Vic at the same speed on the Princess Hwy, two wide

lanes

Quoted message said:

each way with 2 metres of sealed shoulder, limited access, and 20 metres
separation from oncoming traffic, I'm a dangerous lunatic? Get real!

Theo

The sign says you can do UP TO 110km/h. It's up to you as a driver to assess
the conditions and drive accordingly. If you're doing 110km/h on a twisty
back road where you know it's unsafe to do that speed, yep - you're a
dangerous lunatic.

Frank

"beerwolf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Signorini said:

FWIW, I'm with Theo and Peter about fines for low range speeding, and
I regard them as little more than voluntary taxation. Two or three times
a year I drive between Sydney and Melbourne, and always make a
point of checking my speed via the overhead readouts on the Hume Hwy,
if there's a clear piece of road ahead of me. I always hold the speedo
rock steady at 110, and invariably the readout shows me doing between
5 and 8kmh less. When I first started doing it, I thought my speedo was
inaccurate, and compensated. But I have seen this now in 3 different
cars, and have also checked my speedo (while someone else was driving)
using a GPS. It's the overhead readouts that are wrong.
Somebody more inclined to conspiracy theories than myself might
think that the authorities actually don't mind a bit if you drive past
their
cameras at 5kmh over the limit.

--
beerwolf (remove numbers from email address)

Thanks for mentioning this! I've had exactly the same experience and, like
you, wondered if the speedo was wrong.

Liz

On 2006-06-30, beerwolf (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

FWIW, I'm with Theo and Peter about fines for low range speeding, and
I regard them as little more than voluntary taxation.

on the stupid, which I heartily endorse 🙂

Quoted message said:

Two or three times
a year I drive between Sydney and Melbourne, and always make a
point of checking my speed via the overhead readouts on the Hume Hwy,
if there's a clear piece of road ahead of me. I always hold the speedo
rock steady at 110, and invariably the readout shows me doing between
5 and 8kmh less.

As in your speedo was reading 110, and the camera was reading 102-105?
Yes, that is bad.

Quoted message said:

When I first started doing it, I thought my speedo was
inaccurate, and compensated. But I have seen this now in 3 different
cars, and have also checked my speedo (while someone else was driving)
using a GPS. It's the overhead readouts that are wrong.
Somebody more inclined to conspiracy theories than myself might
think that the authorities actually don't mind a bit if you drive past their
cameras at 5kmh over the limit.

The speed detection devices used in enforecement measure your velocity
in the line of sight to the camera extremely accurately -- the 0.0001%
kind of accuracy limits that are inherent in the crystal circuits
used. Then they have to make a cosine angle correction to that
extremely accurate line of sight velocity detection, because you are
not travelling directly towards the camera. The closer to the camera,
the higher the perpendicular velocity component is, that can't be
measured. So it looks like you are travelling slower than you really
are. So if the cosine correction is not applied (presumably
automatically by the camera decting the angle relative to the fixed
tripod, with the tripod aligned relative to the straight road), then
the reading you get from the camera is a lower limit, which is
precisely what you want when it comes to enforcement. But after the
correcion, they will have more or less the correct speed, and will be
able to fine you accordingly.

The overhead camera on your bridge, that is not used for enforcement
(unless there's two cameras or two lines that act as a standard
ruler), isn't going to be pointed like a gun at the direction of the
car, and just reads the speed of the biggest signal in its field of
view. It won't really know the correction angle to apply, so just
gets the raw line of sight reading, which will be lower than the real
speed you are travelling. The further you are from the camera, the
smaller the difference between the real speed and the measured speed.
Up close, and the angle might be out by 20°, and the speed will be out
by 1/cos(20°)=6%.

This is fine, because they are not used for enforcement, but it does
mean that people may think their speedos are reading too fast, and
hence speed up. Oh well, they get fined, too bad. Trust the speedo -
the vast majority of them are adjusted quite a lot better than the 10%
they are required to be, by law. If they aren't, then you deserve to
be fined for having a speedo so badly outside the defined limits.

It's not that they don't mind you being over the limit, it's the
technological limits based on trying to manufacture the largest amount
of cameras for display purposes, for the cheapest cost.

--
TimC
Shame on you! Don't you love her? Girls don't want Kmart specials, they
want carbon - either as diamonds or as CF bikes! -- Tamyka in aus.bicycle