Beware, speeders! Cameras coming to I-170

On Mar 20, 8:51*am, Rich Piehl
> wrote:
> On 3/20/2010 12:06 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:15:18 -0500, Rich > *wrote:
> >> On 3/19/2010 3:49 PM, AZ Nomad wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:55:28 -0400, lil abner<> * wrote:
> >>>>http://www.stltoda...
>
> >>> Take it to a local newsgroup. *Most people in this international
> >>> newsgroup don't give a flying **** about I-170 or even have a clue
> >>> or care about where it even runs.
>
> >> Why a local newsgroup? *It fits under road and driving just fine.
> > And of no interest to at least 95% of readers.
>
> > Local newsgroups are ones like mn.general, etc.
>
> I'm not a regular in rad, but I know in MTR much of what is posted,
> while only having direct impact of a local nature, is of interest to
> others around the country who are roadgeeks and do find what is going on
> in other parts of the country on a local basis interesting and informative.

I'd have to agree, RAD would have been a better fit.

On 3/20/2010 12:01 PM, My Land of Misery wrote:
> On Mar 20, 8:51 am, Rich Piehl
> > wrote:
>> On 3/20/2010 12:06 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:15:18 -0500, Rich > wrote:
>>>> On 3/19/2010 3:49 PM, AZ Nomad wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:55:28 -0400, lil abner<> wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.stltoda...
>>
>>>>> Take it to a local newsgroup. Most people in this international
>>>>> newsgroup don't give a flying **** about I-170 or even have a clue
>>>>> or care about where it even runs.
>>
>>>> Why a local newsgroup? It fits under road and driving just fine.
>>> And of no interest to at least 95% of readers.
>>
>>> Local newsgroups are ones like mn.general, etc.
>>
>> I'm not a regular in rad, but I know in MTR much of what is posted,
>> while only having direct impact of a local nature, is of interest to
>> others around the country who are roadgeeks and do find what is going on
>> in other parts of the country on a local basis interesting and informative.
>
> I'd have to agree, RAD would have been a better fit.

But he's not even saying RAD. He's saying an STL or MO usenet group

On Mar 20, 12:01*pm, My Land of Misery > wrote:
> On Mar 20, 8:51*am, Rich Piehl
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On 3/20/2010 12:06 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:15:18 -0500, Rich > *wrote:
> > >> On 3/19/2010 3:49 PM, AZ Nomad wrote:
> > >>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:55:28 -0400, lil abner<> * wrote:
> > >>>>http://www.stltoda...
>
> > >>> Take it to a local newsgroup. *Most people in this international
> > >>> newsgroup don't give a flying **** about I-170 or even have a clue
> > >>> or care about where it even runs.
>
> > >> Why a local newsgroup? *It fits under road and driving just fine.
> > > And of no interest to at least 95% of readers.
>
> > > Local newsgroups are ones like mn.general, etc.
>
> > I'm not a regular in rad, but I know in MTR much of what is posted,
> > while only having direct impact of a local nature, is of interest to
> > others around the country who are roadgeeks and do find what is going on
> > in other parts of the country on a local basis interesting and informative.
>
> I'd have to agree, RAD would have been a better fit.

Rather see it here also; if someone posted something similar for
another interstate in another metro area, it might be remembered when
one is planning a trip that passes through that area.

lil abner wrote:
> http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...A?OpenDocument

> Signs advising where the cameras will be go up March 29. For the first two weeks, drivers will get warnings in the mail. After that, they will get $100 fines. Just like red light cameras, drivers will not have points assessed to their driving record.

So, said another way, if everybody pays money into the road system like
they should be doing, the road will be speed-derestricted? Of course,
because if the cost of driving in the Americas were increased through
petrol taxes and licensing expenses, there would be less need to use
underposted speed-limits to increase revenue for the governments.

I wonder if a camera to catch Left Lane Blockers is also being considered.

Alexander Rogge wrote:
>
> I wonder if a camera to catch Left Lane Blockers is also being considered.

How do you measure it? How do you record it in such a way that an
enforcement officer can sign off on it?

--Andy

Andrew Tompkins wrote:
> Alexander Rogge wrote:
>>
>> I wonder if a camera to catch Left Lane Blockers is also being
>> considered.
>
> How do you measure it?

If there is no car ahead of the LLB, and the LLB is not going
significantly-faster than the traffic to its right, that driver is very
likely an LLB. It's like a regular speed-camera, except that the
software considers the speed of traffic in the adjacent lane.
Additionally, the software could consider the speed of approaching
traffic in the passing lane. If the traffic behind the suspected LLB is
moving faster, and the software detects that the suspected LLB has not
yielded and has resulted in slower traffic speeds in the passing lane,
that driver could be identified as an LLB.

On 3/25/2010 14:05, Alexander Rogge wrote:
> Andrew Tompkins wrote:
>> Alexander Rogge wrote:
>>>
>>> I wonder if a camera to catch Left Lane Blockers is also being
>>> considered.
>>
>> How do you measure it?
>
> If there is no car ahead of the LLB, and the LLB is not going
> significantly-faster than the traffic to its right, that driver is very
> likely an LLB. It's like a regular speed-camera, except that the
> software considers the speed of traffic in the adjacent lane.
> Additionally, the software could consider the speed of approaching
> traffic in the passing lane. If the traffic behind the suspected LLB is
> moving faster, and the software detects that the suspected LLB has not
> yielded and has resulted in slower traffic speeds in the passing lane,
> that driver could be identified as an LLB.

That describes a situation. An annoying situation, to some people (to
me, far worse is drivers that pull into somebody's blind spot (on either
side) and matches speed), but it is not an illegal situation in a lot of
states.
--
Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu.

Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Eppure si rinfresca

ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml

Alexander Rogge wrote:
> Andrew Tompkins wrote:
>> Alexander Rogge wrote:
>>>
>>> I wonder if a camera to catch Left Lane Blockers is also being
>>> considered.
>>
>> How do you measure it?
>
> If there is no car ahead of the LLB, and the LLB is not going
> significantly-faster than the traffic to its right, that driver is very
> likely an LLB. It's like a regular speed-camera, except that the
> software considers the speed of traffic in the adjacent lane.
> Additionally, the software could consider the speed of approaching
> traffic in the passing lane. If the traffic behind the suspected LLB is
> moving faster, and the software detects that the suspected LLB has not
> yielded and has resulted in slower traffic speeds in the passing lane,
> that driver could be identified as an LLB.

The 'likely' and 'could' language are non-starters. Subjectivity
written all over it. In this type of application, the control system
either fires the camera or it doesn't. No himming and hawing.

The only time that a system of this type can sense that a trailing
driver wants to travel faster than a leading one and is being blocked
from doing so is when the trailing driver is being forced to slow down
because of the leading driver (and not for some other reason) and the
leading driver has a place to move right. This happens over a
relatively short section of the freeway, which means that the
emplacement has to be placed in the right place to catch it, or the
entire length of the hwy has to be wired for this. Neither would pay
for the system itself, the first not catching enough instances and the
second being too costly itself even catching all the instances on the hwy.

--Andy

On Mar 25, 10:17*pm, Andrew Tompkins > wrote:
> Alexander Rogge wrote:
>
> The only time that a system of this type can sense that a trailing
> driver wants to travel faster than a leading one and is being blocked
> from doing so is when the trailing driver is being forced to slow down
> because of the leading driver (and not for some other reason) and the
> leading driver has a place to move right.

Ay, there be a lot 'o rubs.

The propensity of motorists to follow too closely in other than light
traffic can make unobtrusive lane changes impossible.

This condition is often extended far beyond necessary by impatient
motorists passing the slower traffic on the R without allowing them to
gain space to make a more comfortable lane change and get out of the
way.

Should an automated system cite LLBs, or the motorists who tailgate
them, then cut off the vehicle in the lane to the R and tailgate the
new vehicle to their front until if/when they can cut off the LLB...?

One man's LLB is often a driver in a similar hurry but maintaining a
reasonable and prudent following distance.

Superdriver cuts him off and he reestablishes his following distance
only to prompt the replacement tailgater to wonder 'what is this idiot
is doing', pass on the R and cut him off.

Course we can't have actual cops patrolling for LLBs, everyone (paying
enough attention) would operate in a more orderly manner, or at least
they try. According to my anecdotal observations they aren't worth a
**** at that either.

They often appear to not know what the **** to do when they are
suddenly jarred from their habitual manner of operation.
-----

- gpsman

"Alexander Rogge" > wrote in message
...
> lil abner wrote:
>> http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...A?OpenDocument
>
>> Signs advising where the cameras will be go up March 29. For the first
>> two weeks, drivers will get warnings in the mail. After that, they will
>> get $100 fines. Just like red light cameras, drivers will not have points
>> assessed to their driving record.
>
> So, said another way, if everybody pays money into the road system like
> they should be doing, the road will be speed-derestricted? Of course,
> because if the cost of driving in the Americas were increased through
> petrol taxes and licensing expenses, there would be less need to use
> underposted speed-limits to increase revenue for the governments.
>
> I wonder if a camera to catch Left Lane Blockers is also being considered.


Just do what I do, drive with your sun visor in the right position
so the camera cannot get a clear shot of your face. They have
to be able to identify the driver, and all you have to do is
have your sunvisor in just the right position so the camera
cannot get a clear picture of you.