Hyundai’s 2015 Genesis will automatically brake for speed cameras
extremetech.com
extremetech.com
Reasoning: people are going to rely on this to save them from speeding tickets. So they're going to drive too fast. Meanwhile, other idiots who don't have it will also drive too fast. It's only a matter of time before someone in a Genesis enters a camera zone and auto-brakes while another speeding idiot on a cellphone is tail-gating them. Result: a high-speed pile-up.
Something not-dissimilar happened with the first roll-out of ABS on cars; drivers who knew their brakes were super-strong drove too fast and actually ended up with a higher accident rate, at least at first. But ABS was a pure safety feature (to prevent your brakes locking up on a slippery surface or if engaged too hard). This ... I lack words to describe how inadvisable I think it is to seek to avoid a small fine in return for an elevated risk of high-speed vehicle-to-vehicle collisions.
(The risk can be reduced if the Genesis has rear facing radar to prevent shunts, or begins to brake gently some distance ahead of the camera zone. It's also mitigated if tail-gating idiots drive cars with adaptive cruise control -- that maintains constant separation from the vehicle ahead regardless of speed. But as not all cars have the latest features it'll take an automobile generation for this stuff to spread out and become ubiquitous. Meanwhile, sooner or later, people will die.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerkes–Dodson_law
Safest car ever should have a sharp spike mounted in the center of a steering wheel and no safety belts.
I don't know about the US and UK, but whenever the Korean police installs a speed camera, they put up a clear warning sign 500-1000m before the camera. There is absolutely no secret or surprise about the location of a speed trap, and the police apparently doesn't care to catch drivers by surprise, either. Someone probably figured out that drivers tend to slow down when they see the warning sign, and do so gradually instead of suddenly since the actual camera is still a quarter mile away. In other words, transparency about the location of speed traps actually increases road safety, even though it probably reduces police revenue.
Of course they care. That's why the sign is there.
The objective of a speed trap is to make drivers slow down, not punish them. If it's hidden and the driver does get ticked it means it failed at it's goal because you had a speeding car on the road anyway.
If they are not putting signs in the US (I don't live there) they are failing, or the motivation is not safety but money.
There are of course issues with this (sudden braking when a camera is spotted can lead to accidents in itself, it punishes low income earners harder than high ones etc.), but I have noticed that in Australia, with relatively harsh speeding punishments and the majority of speeding cameras being hidden, there is a much lower incidence of speeding than in the US.
If the goal is to make people slow down in places where they really do need to slow down (e.g. before curves), visible warnings might be more effective.
Outside of large cities, most of Korea has a mountainous terrain. A highway with an official speed limit of 110km/h can be perfectly safe to drive at 130km/h in one stretch but dangerous to drive at 90km/h in another stretch just a few km away. So I think it makes sense for the Korean police to focus on making people drive more slowly in some places than in others. Maybe the priorities should be different in a large flat country like Australia.
The objective of a speed trap is money. Speed traps are a safety hazard. Causing drivers to slow down suddenly and then speed up again as soon as they pass the camera is significantly more dangerous than them driving at a constant higher speed. It also causes more pollution and consumes more fuel. Jurisdictions not interested in generating revenue don't install them.
And some cams emit infareds so there are many means to detect them.
The detector would have to catch "Scatter" from it from cars going through it or whatever. Which, IR is emitted from many sources, so it couldn't be used as a reliable way to detect it.
Also, a lot of the triggers are by video cameras. If you have ever setup any basic home security system(Like Q-See), you can choose areas as "Triggers" for recording. The operators of the cameras basically draw out areas that act as trigger zones. See this as something of an example: http://rhythmtraffic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/WebUI.jp...
I'd much prefer to have three options:
1 Turned off - I'll take responsibility for the vehicle myself and bear the consequences myself
2 Their proposal - I'll let the machine avoid the tickets and when nobody is looking do what I please
3 No speeding - The vehicle will never speed, I'll never get a speeding ticket under any circumstances, camera there or not, in fact Hyundai will pay the fine as it will be simply impossible to incur one and they'll put their money on the line to make sure the damn thing works.
Judicious application of speed, including over the speed limit, makes the road safer for everyone.
... I think you're probably mistaken. Seems unlikely the police will overlook your driving at 50 in a 35 zone just because you're doing it on the wrong side of the road towards oncoming traffic to pass someone dawdling along at 30. That would be an odd loophole.
Also would suggest that freeway speed limits only apply in the 'slow' lane, since all the other lanes are technically passing lanes....
95% of the time the posted speed limit is treated as "The Limit", but in circumstances like passing we continue to use "judgement" as the metric, both on part of us and the officer.
So if you pass at 70mph in a 35mph, an officer can say "That is reckless", and if you pass at 40mph he can say "That is reasonable".
Remember, it behooves no-one for passing speeds to be +0.5mph. If you want to overtake someone and you cannot have an appreciable speed differential, the pass will take a very long time which is more risky.
I agree, this is a terrible idea though.
Then get past the obvious harm of a seemingly unfair advantage for avoiding traffic tickets, such as reduced freedom to drive "too fast" and reduced revenues for law enforcement budgets [1].
The end result of tech like this (including the ultimate step of speed governors preventing speeding) really seems to be all of us sharing safer roads, and fewer of us getting hurt or dying in traffic accidents.
This seems pretty good at first sight, but unfortunately, it leaves open one problematic question; if everyone drove at the speed limit (and fully stopped at stop signs/lights --feasible to enforce with tech), would there be fewer accidents?
Also, I wonder if there would be more or less traffic congestion?
[1] http://www.networkworld.com/article/2226966/opensource-subne...
Yes.
Why is that a problematic question in the first place? It's physics.
It's not that simple. Example: Just before rush hour a significant number of cars get on the highway. If they travel at a lower rate of speed, fewer of them will have reached their destination as most businesses start to let out, which means there will be more cars on the highway rather than at their destination and therefore more traffic congestion. And traffic congestion is a primary cause of highway collisions.
That's clearly incorrect. Cars aren't going to magically appear in North Dakota just because you put in a twelve lane superhighway to nowhere.
What the data in question is actually explaining is that traffic congestion reduces traffic. When you remove the cause of the traffic congestion you get more traffic. But this isn't Zeno's Paradox. There is a finite number of lanes capable of handling all the traffic you would see when there is no traffic congestion.
- less traffic congestion and increased roadway capacity beyond what can be obtained with human drivers
- 28% reduction in fuel usage on the whole fleet
- marked reduction in crashes beyond a 10% reduction expected
> "many experts speculate that the overall benefits outweigh the potential negative externalities."
> "Additional research is necessary on a number of aspects related to AVs, including ..."
Like everyone, I really want to believe having more automated and autonomous vehicles on the road will result in fewer accidents, reduced congestion, and other benefits, but all we really have at the moment is (seemingly well reasoned) speculation since we lack supporting data. Until we have supporting data from repeatable experiments, whether the speculated benefits will both materialize outweigh the negative impacts should remain open questions. The open questions will get answered, eventually, but it will take a few decades and buying into the all the speculated hype at this early and unproven stage is harmful.
I guess I'd rather be cautiously optimistic until we have more useful and repeatable results.
Was along the lines that people get used to where speed cameras are located (along their daily commute, etc), and either slow-down in that one particular area (positive effect), or slam on the brakes and cause accidents (negative effect). Both resulting in fewer traffic citations, andd causing the cost-to-maintain the cameras (often contracted to 3rd parties) to increase. Some cities in the Bay Area of California have removed the camera inside the boxes, stopped paying the contractor to maintain the cameras, and just left the metal enclosures in place -- with the same results.
(maybe hidden moral - humans are creatures of habit?)
Well, that and ensuring that there are more marked police cars patrolling the roads.
Speed cameras exist to stop idiots killing innocent people.
Yeah police profit. Who cares. They need all the help they can get with crystal meth literally turning a fair slice of the world into psycho zombies.
I'm still going to hit a person/car if they do something stupid on the road if I am speeding or not.
If you need any supporting facts that they are only for profit, there is more research in red-light cameras. They have shown that they can cause more accidents because people try to avoid going through the intersection "just in case" they don't make it all the way through and get a ticket. This causes aggressive braking and accidents. It also doesn't help that a lot of states will shorten the length of the Yellow light at these intersections to ensure more people will go through them. Yay for safety.
As for speeding cameras, my state recently took one down due to backlash because they installed a camera 100ft before a speed increase sign. The "tickets" (I quote that because they are usually fines, and not really tickets, and usually do not cause points to be put on your license if your state has that system) included a photograph of their car passing the new speed limit sign.
The state admitted no wrong doing, and believe it was a great spot to put the camera. If I remember correctly it was in a 25mph zone that went to 45mph. It would ticket cars upto the 45mph sign for going 30mph in a 25mph zone. While "technically" correct, it's pretty obvious the motivation of wanting to put it there.
edit: found it for you, http://www.wtop.com/58/3423357/Police-question-College-Park-...
I can honestly say that 90% of the time, I probably am not sure what the speed limit of a road is that I am on. I naturally slow down in residential areas, and speed up for highways. Generally this is 75mph or so in my area with a speed limit of 65mph. If they raised the speed limit to 85mph, I personally wouldn't really like it and probably wouldn't drive that speed.
I've gotten only one speeding ticket in my life, and I have never been in any accidents of any sort. The speeding ticket was on a 2-lane straight road, in the middle of the day with barely anyone around, so I was more comfortable with going fast and didn't even know I was going that fast.
edit: if you're going to down vote me, at least add to the discussion and prove me wrong.
Sure, a $100, $200, or more ticket is expensive and a lot of money to some people it allows the people who can afford it to easily rationalize the behavior.
"It's only $200 bucks it's clearly not that big of an issue, if it was a real danger it would be more expensive"
However the speed blinkers let you know you're doing something wrong and these condition you to feel guilty therefore slowing down.