[John Lee Pettimore]

i was driving around the other night and had a few automotive/police related thoughts pop into my mind & then converge into a speed reduction safety idea.

i was thinking about how when people see a crown vic, they slow down, even if it's not a cop. (can't tell from a distance) and how some police forces have even used cardboard cutouts of police cars to deter speeding.

then there's those speeder reader signs... you drive by a construction site and they display your speed, flashing the number if you're going too quick. the problem with these things is that if you see a bunch of cars go by the sign ahead of you, the sign flashing & no cop around to pull them over, then you may find yourself tempted to punch the gas and see just how high a number you can post. i know this is true for me every once in a while.

sooo, what if those two were to be combined? i bet it'd reduce speeding a LOT, w/o the cost of manpower to monitor traffic... but also w/o the potential speeding ticket revenue, either.

here's how i'd envision it working..

crown vic gets parked up alongside the highway, fitted with some sort of RF receiver module to accept a signal from a radar gun/speeder reader sign thing or whatever.

someone passes the radar gun over the limit & instead of displaying the number on a sign, which can encourage speeding as i pointed out above, the gun sends a wireless signal to the crown vic which receives it & then depending on the speed read, does various things..

ie very minor 5-10 over the limit & maybe the crown vic taillights come on and blip a couple times - driver sees a crown vic on the side of the road and slows down to a legal speed.

definitely over the limit at 10-20 over & the taillights blip while the red & blues come on and blip for a 1/4 second 2 or 3 times.

20-30 over & add in that the red & blues stay on solid and the headlights come on and the spotlight shines out on the lane as the offender passes the crown vic & the siren comes on for a few seconds.

30+ over and all the same happens + a signal sent to the local pd who may wish to dispatch an officer one or two exits ahead to see if they can pull over said speeder to prevent any sort of high speed accident as well as nail him for the maximum speed fines allowable under local laws.

i'd be willing to bet that the system would be pretty effective, especially since it'd be mobile and could be put up at random locations and times. people would slow down seeing a crown vic w/ red & blues, i guarantee it... but, it'd potentially be such an effective safety system for speed deterrent that people in the areas where it was deployed might learn to drive at or near the speed limit all over the region, resulting in lost ticket revenue not only at the site of the system but also all over surrounding areas.

and then it becomes a question of whether traffic cops are in place for public safety and speed deterrent, or for the often suggested but rarely admitted to purpose of generating ticket revenue for the police force/city/county/state... so, would the police actually want to use a system that worked to achieve their "goals" of reducing speeding rates? or would they say "f that, no way we're even trying it... could you imagine how many fewer tickets we'd be able to write if we ever did that!" hrmmmm...

 

[leaftye]

then there's those speeder reader signs... you drive by a construction site and they display your speed, flashing the number if you're going too quick. the problem with these things is that if you see a bunch of cars go by the sign ahead of you, the sign flashing & no cop around to pull them over, then you may find yourself tempted to punch the gas and see just how high a number you can post. Except there is a well-hidden cop ahead, you get pulled over and beat like a d-bag.

Another idea.

 

[John Lee Pettimore]

lol

except the automated system could reduce speeding & increase safety while the officer is free to go catch a real criminal instead.

 

[Super 180s]

Why not just install a bunch of unmarked fixed speed cameras?

 

[Golfotron]

Haha I always try to do that when I pass speed traps (try to go as fast, without getting pulled)
It's almost like the LEO is a sleeping lion and you run past it and it stirs in it's slumber

Man if roads had proper speed limits, then it wouldn't be a problem

 

[John Lee Pettimore]

Why not just install a bunch of unmarked fixed speed cameras?

photo radar?

because i hate those damned revenue centres, that's why.

they're all about collecting money & hardly do a damned thing to reduce speeding & increase safety.

whereas the idea posted above is focused solely on safety & reducing speeding vs. collecting ticket revenue with no regard for actually reducing speeding or increasing safety.

that's why not.

 

[ssmscott]

There is almost no reason to encourage people to go any slower than they already are. Cars are certainly capable of maintaining the posted speed limits and in almost every case capable of much more speed.

The problem is mainly with people not paying attention while driving. Encourage people to pay attention to driving instead of whatever else they are doing.

That is all.

 

[John Lee Pettimore]

easy to go fast, hard to control, even harder to stop.

speed limits have nothing to do with modern cars abilities to go fast, and a lot more to do with drivers abilities to control them & slow and stop them.

obviously slower speeds = more time to react and control, slow, or stop.

and i like driving fast, btw. but i don't think most highway speeds are unreasonably slow. especially in the usa. here, 90kmh is probably the most common highway speed limit - ~55mph, whereas if i cross the border from bc into washington state the highway speed limits are 70mph (123kmh) which is much more reasonable considering cars' abilities these days, but certainly not painstakingly slow & in dire need of an increase.

 

[leaftye]

photo radar?

because i hate those damned revenue centres, that's why.

they're all about collecting money & hardly do a damned thing to reduce speeding & increase safety.

whereas the idea posted above is focused solely on safety & reducing speeding vs. collecting ticket revenue with no regard for actually reducing speeding or increasing safety.

that's why not.

Okay, let's take revenue out of the equation. Since it's about safety, it makes sense to only apply it in congested areas. For the first "warning", hit them with a paint ball. Second time, ice. Increase hardness and velocity of projectile in subsequent violations until the problem is neutralized. When and if congestion goes away, move the warning system elsewhere. For fun, randomly surprise-tase violators off the streets...okay, this could be a revenue source if good drivers are allowed to do the tazing.

 

[John Lee Pettimore]

Okay, let's take revenue out of the equation. Since it's about safety, it makes sense to only apply it in congested areas. For the first "warning", hit them with a paint ball. Second time, ice. Increase hardness and velocity of projectile in subsequent violations until the problem is neutralized. When and if congestion goes away, move the warning system elsewhere. For fun, randomly surprise-tase violators off the streets...okay, this could be a revenue source if good drivers are allowed to do the tazing.

this is perhaps the single dumbest thing i've ever seen you post.

enforce speed limits via physical violence & potentially fatal random tazings... yeah, that's a completely viable plan. :screwy:

 

[Doedrums]

Okay, let's take revenue out of the equation. Since it's about safety, it makes sense to only apply it in congested areas. For the first "warning", hit them with a paint ball. Second time, ice. Increase hardness and velocity of projectile in subsequent violations until the problem is neutralized. When and if congestion goes away, move the warning system elsewhere. For fun, randomly surprise-tase violators off the streets...okay, this could be a revenue source if good drivers are allowed to do the tazing.

Awesome. :laugh: