Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of...

Posted by: tfabris

Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of... - 07/09/2003 17:04

Well fuck.

The're using laser in Oregon now.

Fuck fuck fuck.

Watch yourselves in the mountainous sections of Douglas County south of Eugene.

Shit shit shit.
Posted by: pgrzelak

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of... - 07/09/2003 17:12

Uh, using laser for what?

Edit: Duh. Nevermind. My mind is just working a bit slowly in preparation for a return to the office tomorrow.
Posted by: xanatos

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 07/09/2003 17:13

Speed Traps?

How big was the ticket Tony?
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 07/09/2003 18:28

too big...
Posted by: RobotCaleb

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of... - 07/09/2003 18:43

holy tony
such language. im scared to even ask how big the ticket is
Posted by: drakino

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 07/09/2003 21:26

Total speeding ticket bill for the trip to QCon, $395

I'm done driving on roadtrips.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 07/09/2003 21:38

I think the worst part about it is that I still have to drive back... Argh.

At least I have the empeg to keep me entertained on what is now going to be an interminably long journey...
Posted by: drakino

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 07/09/2003 22:00

I got both of mine going to QCon as well, so I had the drive back ahead of me.

The first one I fully admit I was doing the speed he got me at. The second one, I really think the guy tagged the car in front of me, then pulled me over. I was in the left lane, moved to the right when I saw his lights, and he pulled right behind me. The part that really sucks is that where it happened, it would take me about 9 hours to drive there again to fight it. If I had the GPS logs off my Garmin, I'd consider it, but the track log was cleared from when I drove back.

Highways in this country suck.
Posted by: msaeger

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 07/09/2003 22:14

It's your tax dollars at work
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 07/09/2003 22:24

Insult to injury, it's not my tax dollars.

Unless you consider the speeding fine a tax, then yeah.
Posted by: andym

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 08/09/2003 04:25

Do you get endorsements on your licence in America? Over in the UK it's not the fine I worry about, it's the points. If I got caught speeding twice this year I'd probably have to sell my new car as the insurance would probably double.

Having my new car has almost taken the fun out of driving it, as soon as I have a nice straight piece of road instead of booting it and having some fun I find myself looking out for Gatsos, Truvelos, Specs, policemen hiding behind trees, etc. scared shitless I could get caught for doing 33 in a 30. Even worse you could drive down a long stretch of road doing 33 and go from having a clean license to being banned, as systems like the truvelo don't even tell you they've caught you!
Posted by: loren

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 08/09/2003 06:08

I just ordered my Valentine One detector, due to almost getting tagged on the way home the other night. Thank god for the Camero doing 110 in front of me! Most of the CHP up in Marin where most of my commute is use the pacing method, so it's easy to avoid a ticket if you are aware of your surroundings, which you damn well better be if you are going over the speed limit.

But with Laser... you're pretty much screwed. If you heard the laser blip on your detector, you can pretty much assume you are about to be pulled over.

Sorry to hear it Tony. With the speeds i've witnessed you going... i bet it was a biggy. =\
Posted by: g_attrill

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 08/09/2003 06:39

Or even worse for new drivers in the UK is that you have a six point limit for the first two years of driving. That means TWO speeding tickets and you are a gonner. In some parts of the country you could easily get this in a single short journey. As soon as you get six or more points you lose your licence and have to start from scratch again - apply for your provisional licence (several weeks), get a test date (6 weeks+ unless you phone around to get a cancellation) etc.

I was pretty scared for my "probationary" period but luckily I didn't get any. If I had got one I would have been damn careful until my two years were up!

Gareth
Posted by: andym

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 08/09/2003 06:51

It's almost as if the government doesn't want people to use their cars! Don't get me started on the whole satellite monitoring stuff, we could be here all day!
Posted by: Roger

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 08/09/2003 07:04

I was pretty scared for my "probationary" period but luckily I didn't get any.

My neither. My 2 years just ran out, so I can worry less about getting done for speeding. There have been a couple of times that I've been hammering along the M11 and, in my mirror, seen a police car screaming up behind me, siren going, lights flashing, which has been a little worrying. Obviously, I frantically pull over to the inside lane and shed about 40mph in speed.

Fortunately, both times they were in a hurry to get somewhere else, and I'm not sure that they noticed how fast I was going -- I was keeping up with the flow of traffic, anyway .
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 08/09/2003 08:55

Do you get endorsements on your licence in America?
Yes, although they're not called that; they're just points.

One thing I've noticed in posts you Brits have made about auto insurance is that you seem to understand it. In the US, it's all kind of a mystery. You just kind of have to try around and see what rates different companies will give you and then choose one and hope that their lack of physical presence is outweighed by the price or that their price is outweighed by the (vaguely) good service. And there doesn't seem to be any direct correlation between license points and rates. Or between anything and rates. I just got a new Volvo S60R to replace my 1987 BMW 325. For now, both cars are on my insurance. When I got the new car, my rates went down. I'm actually paying less by getting a new car. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Posted by: drakino

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 08/09/2003 10:13

Do you get endorsements on your licence in America? Over in the UK it's not the fine I worry about, it's the points.
Depends on the state here. In Colorado, we have a point system, but only Colorado tickets will impact my points. Texas is aparently implementing a points system here shortly.

Also, points here are assigned based on age. 16-18, 18-21 then 21 and over have different amounts of points.
Posted by: DLF

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 08/09/2003 10:31

points here are assigned based on age. 16-18, 18-21 then 21 and over have different amounts of points.
 You've got to be making that up! Can that really be true? And how do you explain me living here and not knowing that, other than brain damage?
Posted by: andy

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 08/09/2003 10:36

I'd say that the UK car insurance market is just as confused as the US. I have and MX5 (Miata). I know plenty of other people who are:

- younger than me
- have more valuable MX5s than me
- live in more "risky" areas

Yet for some reason they get lower insurance quotes than me. It makes no sense.
Posted by: Mach

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 08/09/2003 11:11

I believe points are assigned the same for all ages but suspension occurs at a lower level based on age.

6. Point System.
I. Point Accumulation. A driver's license is subject to suspension if they accumulate either 12 points within 12 consecutive months or 18 points with 24 consecutive months. For provisional drivers, suspension would occur if they accumulate either 9 points within 12 consecutive months, 12 points within any 24 consecutive months or 14 points from the time the provisional license was issued. In the case of minor drivers, suspension would occur if they accumulate either 5 points within 12 consecutive months or 6 points from the time the license was issued. For chauffeurs, suspension would occur if they accumulate (while in the course of employment) either 16 points in 1 year, 24 points in 2 years or 28 points in 4 years. §42-2-127(1)(a)

II. Point Schedule. The following points are assigned for speeding violations. Three (3) points for going 5 to 9 MPH over either the reasonable and prudent speed or the 75 MPH maximum limit. Four (4) points for going 10 to 19 MPH over either the reasonable and prudent speed or the 75 MPH maximum limit. Six (6) points for going 20 MPH or more over either the reasonable and prudent speed or the 75 MPH maximum limit. Three (3) points are assessed for a failure to reduce speed when a special hazard exists. And, 3 points are assessed for other moving violations. No points are assessed for going 1 to 4 MPH over either the reasonable and prudent speed or the 75 MPH maximum limit. §42-2-127(5)(f) & (r) Important. No points can be assessed against a person's driving record if the original citation was issued via an "automated vehicle identification system." §§42-2-127(5.5) & 42-4-110.4(3)


http://199.79.179.45/people/injury/enforce/stspdlaw98/COspeed.htm
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 08/09/2003 11:24

Yet for some reason they get lower insurance quotes than me.
And, even though I strayed from it, my real thesis was that you seem to have some idea about how many tickets/points will get you how much of an increase. Just, in general, the fact that you can speak intelligently about it in posts while not being an insurance professional puts you head-and-shoulders above Americans.
Posted by: DWallach

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 08/09/2003 12:21

I just got a new Volvo S60R to replace my 1987 BMW 325. For now, both cars are on my insurance. When I got the new car, my rates went down. I'm actually paying less by getting a new car.

One possible explanation might be related to how often they need to pay claims on Volvos versus BMWs. Insurance people play all kinds of statistical games to determine how likely you (married? with children? how old?) are to wreck your car (what kind? how often wrecked?) given where you live and what wrecks tend to cost there.

Of course, the actuarial tables they use are proprietary, and if there's a bug in there, it's not like they're going to let you challenge it. Your only recourse is to buy insurance from somebody else. In wfaulk's case, it looks like he wins because they see his car as a Volvo (safe, boring) rather than a balls-to-the-walls extreme sportscar (to which I can personally attest... thanks Bitt!). I know that, back when I spent some time on one of the BMW chat boards, a common thread was that somebody moved to BMW from a cheaper Japanese sportscar and observed their rates drop. BMW drivers, one might infer, tend to wreck their cars less often than owners of cheap Japanese sportscars.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 08/09/2003 12:31

But the point you miss is that I had two cars on my insurance. I deleted neither and added a brand new car (as opposed to fifteen years old for the other two cars) and the rates went down. So I had the exact same insurance as before, plus some, and it costs less.

That's equivalent to going to the store to buy two hamburgers for $5 and being told that if you also purchase this filet mignon, you can get all three for $4.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 08/09/2003 12:36

That's equivalent to going to the store to buy two hamburgers for $5 and being told that if you also purchase this filet mignon, you can get all three for $4.
With the difference being that you might be able to eat both hamburgers and the filet (depending on how much you can pack down in a sitting). You can't drive more than one car at a time. Still seems strange though.
Posted by: sn00p

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 08/09/2003 13:45

..hehe..they're probably hurrying their way down to cambridge services on the A14 for a mcdonalds...my mate was going to work in huntingdon and he saw these 2 cop cars with lights flashing flying down the A14, he was quite suprised when he got to mcdonalds for a breakfast and saw the coppers in the queue....that really takes the p1ss.....

Adrian
Posted by: andy

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 08/09/2003 13:53

So I had the exact same insurance as before, plus some, and it costs less.

In the UK you can get the case where if you are a bloke and add your wife/female partner as a second driver can lower your premium.
Posted by: genixia

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 08/09/2003 14:04

LOL. That reminded me of something I saw the other day - 2 cars blatently blew through a red light, right in front of 2 state troopers who were waiting in a left turn lane on the other side of the road. I was chuckling to myself about just how busted they were until I realised where the cops were going.

On my right was the Dunking Donuts. (This is the same DD where I've previously seen _seven_ cop cars sat outside at the same time)
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 08/09/2003 14:11

if you are a bloke and add your wife/female partner as a second driver can lower your premium
Nope. Everything else exactly the same.
Posted by: andy

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 08/09/2003 14:21

You misunderstand me Bitt, I wasn't suggesting a change that you hadn't told us about had effected your premium. I was giving example of another at oddity that can come about when you are seemingly adding more risk to the policy.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 08/09/2003 14:23

Sorry. I understood that, even if my response didn't reflect it. Just clarifying that that wasn't the case for me.
Posted by: DWallach

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 08/09/2003 15:01

I had two cars on my insurance. I deleted neither and added a brand new car

Theory 1: Those with spare cars tend to wreck less often than single-car owners.

Theory 2: Volvo owners tend to wreck less often, no matter whether they have a second car or not.

Theory 3: Rates are determined first from your primary car (presumably, the Volvo) and then tweaked for your secondary car. After all, you can only drive one car at a time, and you'll mostly be driving the primary car.

At the point that you sell the BMW, you'll get to test these theories. If your rates go up, then theory 1 might be true. If your rates don't change, then theory 2 might hold. If your rates go down, then theory 3 might rule the day.
Posted by: DLF

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 08/09/2003 17:15

I think Theory 3 is at least partly correct; but I'm also pretty sure it would depend on whether you're th only driver listed for both cars....
Posted by: boxer

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 09/09/2003 08:58

You can add your daughter to your policy for a song in the UK, and yet if she tries to get her own quote as a new driver it's either unobtainable or unaffordable - why?
Posted by: jmwking

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 09/09/2003 09:07

In the States, adding a new, teen driver to your policy runs your rates way up. My brother-in-law added his 17 year old son last year and trebled his insurance rate. In my nephew's first week with his license, he got in his first wreck (after the insurance had already gone up). And he's a good, responsible kid.

Since teen drivers have disporptionate numbers accidents, I wonder if they give insurance companies the heebie-jeebies or a cash cow...

-jk
Posted by: robricc

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 09/09/2003 09:16

I pay about $4,500 per year for auto insurance.

The facts:
Age: 22
Sex: Male
State: NY
Cars: 2
Car1: Saab 9-3 Viggen with good coverage
Car2: Isuzu Trooper with bare-minumum coverage
Points on license: None
Moving Violations: None on current record
Non-moving Violations: 1 (seatbelt)
Accidents on current record: None
10% Insurance reduction course: Taken 5 months ago (I used to pay nearly $6,000)

Insurance sucks.
Posted by: andy

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 09/09/2003 11:50

I pay £530 a year in the UK (with my wife as a second driver).

Age: 32
Wife's age: 43
Sex: Male
Cars: 1 (but access to wife's car)
My car: Mazda MX5 1.8i
Wife's car: Ford Fiesta 1.4
Points on license: None
Points on wife's licence: 3 (recent speeding fine, 70mph in a 60mph limit)
Accidents on current record: None
Accidents on wife's current record: 3 (one her fault, head on crash)

Yet adding my wife to the policy still reduces the premium by 5%, go figure...

P.S. If I ever get round to adding a second car to my fold (either TVR Tuscan or Ultima GTR kit car) then my insurance will probably go up to something over £2,000 a year.
Posted by: morrisdl

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 09/09/2003 12:16

You can try getting a quote from Liberty Mutual. Every couple years I shop around for insurance, and they have been the cheapest for my combination of vitals for the last 7 years. Much cheaper than Gieco, Progressive, and state farm for me anyway.

I think you can do it online, or you can call my agent Pat Tehin at (585) 424-6050 x230 - I dont think he would mind some free advertising. I am no way profiting from this, honest. I think all the insurance companies are crooks!
Posted by: robricc

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 09/09/2003 12:30

I used to be covered by Liberty Mutual under my father's policy. It is likely I would not go back to them because their agents (at least the office in New City, NY) are total lazy bastards. I would have to hound them constantly to get things done.

I have progressive now and it is like night and day. If I want a car on my policy, someone always answers the phone and does it right away. Taking cars off is just as easy. Just fax over the receipt the DMV gives you after surrendering your plate. It gets taken care of without talking to anyone. Excellent service.
Posted by: morrisdl

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 10/09/2003 09:16

Agreed about the agents (Pat included). But, I thought that was an industry wide problem.
Posted by: andy

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 10/09/2003 09:45

I have the same problem with insurance brokers in the UK. I have tried using a broker a couple of times instead of going direct. The same thing happened both times:

- first year, got a good quote from the broker (but then only a few pounds better than my renewal from previous insurer)
- renewal notice comes through in the second year, 10-15% higher than the year before
- I get pissed and contact a few insurers direct, get a better quote than last year's broker's permium
- because I'm pissed at the broker screwing me over I don't contact him and just take the lower direct quote
- broker phones me later and asks why I didn't renew with him
- I say "Because you were too expensive" and say how much I paid direct
- broker says "Well, we could have beaten that if you had told us"
- I say "Well why didn't you quote me a lower figure in the first place"

As far as I can see insurance brokers are useless.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 10/09/2003 09:57

The're using laser in Oregon now.

Yep. Bummer, man. I didn't think Oregone did data-sharing with California, though. Do they?

Returning from Boston, I had a discussion with a very nice RCMP gent in one of the flatter western provinces -- something about 136 in a 110. Very interesting, Coming in the opposite direction, he pulled out from behind an uphill semi and shot me as I (traveling downhill) hit the brakes. He then drove across the deep grass median and hit the lights. No mistaking his interest. Wellll, was I ever glad that I broke down recently and blew a whole $9 on WA vanity HAM plates. I got out of our meeting with a QSL card (written on a RCMP warning).

He was driving a little Chevy, and no sign that I could see of his gear, 'tho I will say it seemed pretty accurate.

Good news for some folks that there are not so many police out there.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 10/09/2003 10:21

Very interesting story.

Too bad I didn't get nailed by a nice one. There was absolutely no chance with this guy, and trust me, I tried. He was very officious, with a total "stick up his butt" attitude. He looked, spoke, and acted like someone who was a cop only because the USMC special forces was full-up on the week that he applied.

In addition to the fact that it was clearly a revenue-generating laser trap, as opposed to someone just driving along patrolling and noticing a speeder. Or as opposed to someone sitting there having a donut and doing the crossword behind a billboard while the continuous-wave radar bleeps occasionally.

See, the thing about laser is that you have to be sitting there, absolutely still, holding the unit in your hand, looking through the viewfinder, actively targeting vehicles' license plates and pulling the trigger. In his case, he was hiding very cleverly (I didn't see him until he dropped in behind me, and I was looking for cops), aiming his little laser gun and clicking the trigger looking for the "big score".

So if they're using the laser gun, then they really mean it.

On the way back a couple days later, I saw the same cop, in the same spot, with someone else pulled over. He was simply tax collecting, I had no chance.

I also saw a motorcycle cop a few miles later with a laser unit in his hand, using his other arm to steady the aim like you would with a pistol. Inside a construction zone of course, because the fines are double in that case.

Is there any place on the web that has a US national click-in database to report where the cops tend to have speed traps? I've got a concept in my head for how I'd handle one, and if no one else has one up, I want to create it. It would be graphically and functionally similar to the USGS earthquake mapping system, except the data would be collected from user reports rather than from automated stations.
Posted by: genixia

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 10/09/2003 10:25

Hehe. It's kinda obvious;

www.speedtrap.org
Posted by: g_attrill

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 10/09/2003 10:53

For young people in the UK it pays to drive an unpopular car - eg. VW Golf's and Vauxhall Novas are very expensive, as is any car with an engine > 1.4ish, but Fiats, Volvo's etc cost pretty much the same for a much nicer car.

I found that LHD American imports were no more expensive than a crappy Nova, but much more fun :-) As a young new driver, getting *anything* insured for £600 would have been a challenge let alone an IROC-Z! Ok it's a pain to park, and the local petrol station attendants know me by name but what the hey!

I spoke to somebody recently who was 35 and insured a brand new Corvette Z06 for under £400 ($650) fully comprehensive!

Gareth
Posted by: andy

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 10/09/2003 11:00

In the UK you also get the oddity where small secondhand cars can often cost more than the next size car up does secondhand. I'm told that this is because the smaller secondhand cars are in more demand because there are lots of first time drivers queuing up to buy them and they neither want (or could afford the insurance) on larger cars.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 10/09/2003 11:55

Hehe. It's kinda obvious;
www.speedtrap.org
Argh, they're doing it all wrong. It's just freaking lists you have to sift through. That's useless.

What it needs is a map that graphically shows how recent the activity was recorded and the frequency of the activity, like this.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 10/09/2003 11:57

Well, then you're not duplicating anyone's efforts. Go do it right.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 10/09/2003 12:05

But they've already got the good URL.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 10/09/2003 12:21

How about www.effin-cops.org?
Posted by: matthew_k

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 10/09/2003 12:21

Yeah, when I drove to orgeon this summer one of the people I visited warned me about how evil they can be. Apperently they're known for sitting with thier laser gun underneath the hood of a car which appears to have broken down at the side of the road. Also, having out of state plates means that you won't show up in court AND they're getting money from thos damn californians who keep moving up there and raising housing prices.

Matthew
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 10/09/2003 12:23

LOL
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 10/09/2003 12:34

You should do it Tony, I'm sure people would use it if it was easy enough to understand. The only question is, can you do your own FAQ?
Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 10/09/2003 13:49

Also, while you're at it, make it so that we can download the database into our favorite gps program so that it warns us when we are aproaching a speed trap.

I'd expect you could have it running next week in your "copious free time"™
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 10/09/2003 13:54

Oh, but of course!
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 11/09/2003 00:03

one of the flatter western provinces [...] out there
Out there would be southern Alberta, in the case of this picture, probably somewhere between Lethbridge (where I lived, up to Grade 7), and Pincher Creek. The western provinces only look flat if you grew up around the Rockies. Manitoba is flat. Essex County, in Southern Ontario is FLAT. After living in this latter for 7 years, I assure you, Saskatchewan has hills.

I went on a road trip with a friend of mine, back in about '94. We averaged 140km/h from Winnepeg through to Lethbridge. The great thing about driving there is that people actually check their rearview mirrors, and if they see you coming up behind, will pull over onto the shoulder to let you pass.

(So... how close am I on that picture?)
Posted by: MarkH

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 11/09/2003 03:34

In Japan, we have a nice carve-up where the government sets insurance rates centrally, and all the companies follow them. So no need to phone around, as the quote will be the same. (Actually, this is starting to crumble a little bit with the advent of foreign owned companies trying to get in to the market, but the majority of people are still on standard rates). However, given that you can still claim for theft even if you left the car unlocked and the keys in the ignition, it's not so bad.

In Hong Kong, there seems to be an undeclared cartel (oops, I mean allegedly), which occasionally decides en masse that certain cars just aren't suitable. So one year, the annual premium for my Moderate European Sports Car went from about $1800 to over $9000. This for a car worth less than $60,000, and me a very safe and careful driver (well, according to their records, anyway). So I had to drop from fully comp to third party only.

Tony, this won't make you feel any better, but there are essentially no speed traps here. (Mostly because there's only about one road where you can break the limit anyway).

Regards

Mark
Posted by: DWallach

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 11/09/2003 09:04

I've thought a fair bit about speedtrap registries, with my own history of getting speeding tickets, and I'm convinced they're useless. What's to stop the cops from adding a ton of false positives to the database? Even if the data is good, it's still worthless.

Real world example: I can detail for you all the places on I-10, near my house, where I've seen radar or laser speed traps. If you add them all together, it says you just can't speed there at all. I-10, for a few miles anyway, is five lanes wide in each direction, so traffic naturally speeds up there, and that's where the cops hang out. Given that warning, would you drive (a) the 60mph posted speed limit, (b) the 75-80mph flow of traffic, or (c) the 90mph that you can do quite safely when it's not rush hour?

What we really need is real-time surveillance of speed traps. I was driving in Munich, and my passenger (a native German) was translating the radio for me. After the usual weather and traffic reports, they were happily saying where the photo radar traps were located that day. Give me that, and I'll tune to your radio station in a flash. Even better, let's get satellite surveillance. Why should the Feds have all the fun to themselves? Modern high-resolution satellites should be good enough to identify the locations of police cars. I'll pay $10/month for them to beam that data to an in-car GPS navigation system.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 11/09/2003 10:18

Out there would be southern Alberta, in the case of this picture, probably somewhere between Lethbridge (where I lived, up to Grade 7), and Pincher Creek. The western provinces only look flat if you grew up around the Rockies. Manitoba is flat. Essex County, in Southern Ontario is FLAT. After living in this latter for 7 years, I assure you, Saskatchewan has hills.

I am guilty, perhaps, of conflating my RCMP experience with that picture....which I *found* on the Internet....yes, I remember now, I found it on the 'Net!!

I hesitate to risk identification of the RCMP HAM, but I have to agree. Saskatchewan has some rolling hills.

I went on a road trip with a friend of mine, back in about '94. We averaged 140km/h from Winnepeg through to Lethbridge. The great thing about driving there is that people actually check their rearview mirrors, and if they see you coming up behind, will pull over onto the shoulder to let you pass.

Yes, rear-view consciousness and passing behavior improved (on average) dramatically once I got out of Oregon/Washington. Not perfect, but much better. I generally try to make sure I don't have more than a 5-10 MPH differential when passing. If you keep to that -- slow down a bit to avoid inducing heart attacks -- folks on the plains don't seem to get their nose out of joint.

(So... how close am I on that picture?)

Like I say, I found that picture on the Internet, so I can't be 100 percent sure, but from the looks of it my guess is that you are pretty close --- but the road signs in that pic don't look like they are written in Canadian. So I'd guess somewhere just south of Southern Alberta. Looks like somebody trying to calibrate/verify their outboard odo.

(edit: Boy did I misspell Saskatchewan....again!)
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 11/09/2003 11:15

I've thought a fair bit about speedtrap registries, with my own history of getting speeding tickets, and I'm convinced they're useless. What's to stop the cops from adding a ton of false positives to the database?
 Good point, and I thought a lot about that before even saying anything here.

First of all, false entries in the database are a problem regardless of who's putting them in there. Whether it's cops or script kiddies with nothing better to do, false data is definitely an issue.

There are some things that can help work around this...

- If the database is popular enough and has enough entries, and if the method for graphing the data is done well, the good data will overwhelm the bad data. On a properly designed map, the bad data would look like faint noise compared to the good data.

- To prevent a concerted effort to overwhelm the system with focused non-noisy bad data, authentication methods would be used that identified each user submitting data. In much the same way that other online services with lots of users try to prevent people from creating a bunch of accounts using automation. Then, each user would be limited to reporting a certain number of speed traps in a given time period, so that a single user can't fill up the system with his own reports.

Given that warning, would you drive (a) the 60mph posted speed limit, (b) the 75-80mph flow of traffic, or (c) the 90mph that you can do quite safely when it's not rush hour?
 Up to you. The important thing is that that section of road would be shown as a "hot spot" on the graph. If time-of-day really is a factor, that could possibly also be indicated somehow on the graph, for instance with a different type of color.
Posted by: genixia

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 11/09/2003 13:09

You should also include a TOS that explicitly prohibits the posting of falsefied data. Log IPs, require a valid email for signup etc. Use some weak encryption (ROT13) on the database, so that a valid login is required. (Make the DMCA work for you!) Heck, if you so wanted, you could explicitly prohibit access to any law enforcement officials. (Whilst this probably wouldn't actually stop them reading the site, it would give them a big disincentive to post false information - to do so would be tantamount to admitting cracking into your system.)

Hmm... maybe false entries by law enforcement officers could be construed as entrapment. Any lawyers in the house?
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 11/09/2003 13:22

To be honest, I'm not really worried about law enforcement trying to falsify the database. In the past, I've seen local police departments specifically notify local radio stations where the speed traps were going to be on any given day in the interest of safety and such.

I'm more worried about script kiddies trying to explore the database's failure modes.
Posted by: genixia

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 11/09/2003 14:03

I'm more worried about script kiddies trying to explore the database's failure modes.
Better not tell d33zy about it then.
Posted by: frog51

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 22/09/2003 05:36

I just got a top quote from Zurich for my Scooby - £515

Age: 32
Wife's age: 30
Sex: Male
Cars: 1 (but access to wife's car)
My car: Subaru Impreza 2.0 Sport 5 dr
Wife's car: Fiat Punto 1.4
Points on license: 6
Points on wife's licence: none
Accidents on current record: One, small, my fault (well - a large dog's really, but he ain't taking the rap)
Accidents on wife's current record: none

Adding my wife to my policy reduced the premium by 14%, but adding me to my wife's reduced her premium by 18% - gotta love those actuaries, huh?
Posted by: mwest

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 22/09/2003 06:14

Were you driving in someone's yard when you hit the dog? Was Guiness involved? How can hitting a dog be your fault?
Posted by: andy

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 22/09/2003 15:13

If you hit a dog and you don't know who the owner is then you are going to have to claim off your own insurance for any repairs (to the car, not the dog). This in the UK at least would be classed as your fault (because the end result was that all the cost of the claim was borne by your insurer).

I believe that if you know who the dog belonged to then in theory you (or our insurance company) could go after the owner to recover the costs. Dogs (in UK law) are classed as under control of their owners, meaning that the owners can be held liable for the dog's actions. Cats on the other hand are classed as uncontrollable and you aren't liable for their actions.

I now feel compelled to say, IANAL...
Posted by: mwest

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 22/09/2003 15:19

As far as I know in the US....
...livestock are the driver's fault unless the owner is persistently negligent in keeping them fenced.
...dogs with tags are the owner's fault, without are considered a road hazard.
...cats get you a discount.
Posted by: FlibblE

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 02/10/2003 08:48

Same here. I usually drive a Trans Am, but while I'm re-doing the engine, someone gave me a Nova (Vauxhall, not Chevy) they were throwing out; I couldn't believe that all the insurance quotes I was getting were more expensive than the Trans Am (5L v 1.2L!).

I guess it has something to do with the 'enthusiast' rating - over here I'm less likely to be a boy-racer in a Trans Am than in a Nova!
Posted by: frog51

Re: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of. - 02/10/2003 10:02

The dog was big and brown and roaming freely. I didn't chase after it to find tags, partly as I was more concerned about removing the bollard which had attached itself to the underside of my car (removing both exhaust downpipes in the process, thus making my little 2 litre flat four sound very much bigger)

So as far as insurance is concerned, all my fault.

Akkkk!