Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
1788 messages, Last post on Nov 14, 2009 at 3:43 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: vcheng (Mar 06, 2009 8:39 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Mar 10, 2009 6:20 am) One thing is clear: Our system, imperfect as it is, is still WAAAAAAAAY better than any other out there. We do still need tools of government, and that includes enforcement, incuding speed limits. I think we need to consider OBD3-GPS rather than photo radar. That technology has its own concerns, but there might be a way to make it work within the framework of our Constitution.
|
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Mar 10, 2009 6:54 am) Given that some States might consider GPS for charging for miles travelled on roads and the proposed federal medical citizen data base, our Constitution may be violated in near future. Photo radar pales as an issue compared to these items. With photo radar, one is not asked "why" you were on a certain road and speeding. With GPS, a pandora box could be opened whereby govt could ask "why" you put on the miles that you do "and" why were you going to certain places.
|
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Mar 10, 2009 7:41 am) The only difference is that in one system, the surveillance is done by instruments on the roadside and operated by a private contractor, and by on-board instruments paid for the the vehicle owner in the other. Once a system of photo radars is in place, the addition of ANPR technology is a simple software upgrade, and will for all purposes be sufficient to track vehicles in real-time just like on-board OBD3-GPS. (I have posted links in previous posts for anybody interested.) In any case, the effect of such ubiquitous traffic monitoring systems has far-reaching effects, way beyond mere traffic safety. We as a society may not like where we end up if we start down this particular road I have no doubt. As an example, the use of ANPR technology leads itself very nicely to automated sureveillance of the entire population at all times as stated in this interesting document: http://whereismydata.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/police-anpr-2004-2009.pdf (and for those not interested in wading through the entire document, although recommended, it is item #18 on page 9 of 23) Of course, the rationales of if you have nothing to hide and this will target only criminals are all arguments that have been used and abused before. And of course, once the tools are in place, mission creep like this: http://www.info4security.com/story.asp?sectioncode=9&storycode=4120257&c=2 is very easy. And if you think that is not possible here, please read up on our own proposed OBD3-GPS. And as an example of what the system might look like in the USA, please see: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2472.asp. However, this quote demonstrates the many many uses of photo radar and ANPR technology very nicely: from: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/07/19/headgheadgheadg-200-9146- - 6-21368951/ (not quoted completely) ..... Superintendent Liane James from South Wales Police’s Roads Policing Unit said: “With ANPR (automatic number plate recognition), there is literally nowhere to hide – we use mobile as well as fixed units, meaning criminals can never second guess when we are watching. “ANPR technology means we can identify people wanted for a whole range of offences, from possession of drugs to benefit fraud and disqualified drivers.” ........... Do we really want photo radar and ANPR to lay the basis of such a society? And no, I am being perfectly serious. 
|
|
|
Technology improves ALL the time, so we can enjoy systems like this, all for our safety and protection of course. from: http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/view_press_release_printer_friendly.php?rID=5730- - 2 July 18, 2008 SmartReg Guardian SmartReg Guardian mobile license plate reader SMARTREG GUARDIAN THE WORLD'S MOST ADVANCED MOBILE VEHICLE PLATE RECOGNITION SYSTEM FOR POLICE ENFORCEMENT -- PARKING AND TRAFFIC TECHNOLOGIES, international supplier of ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) systems, today announced the official release of SMARTREG GUARDIAN, the world's most advanced standalone mobile vehicle plate recognition system for police enforcement. -- /24-7PressRelease/ - DUBLIN, IRELAND, July 18, 2008 - SMARTREG GUARDIAN is a compact, "point and capture", digital camera system designed to automatically read vehicle license plates for intelligence monitoring, surveillance and enforcement. The system permits police enforcement agencies to rapidly deploy vehicle recognition cameras anywhere, anytime without any special setup or configuration requirements! Traditional license plate recognition systems (ANPR) systems in use today, typically operate from within the police vehicle or from a fixed installation. SMARTREG GUARDIAN's simple "plug and play" design, offers a new level in portability and flexibility not seen before in the industry. Both compact and lightweight, the system is small enough to fit inside a briefcase. SMARTREG GUARDIAN is powered from a compact battery source allowing the system to operate in both urban and rural locations, independent of an existing mains power supply or fixed telecoms. Integrated IR illumination ensures that the system operates both day and night. Vehicle data, recorded by the system, is transmitted wirelessly, either locally, to a mobile display terminal, laptop or handheld device, or remotely, via GPRS, to a regional office for processing. Integrated GPS ensures that all recorded images are geographically tagged to identify the location of the vehicle for evidential purposes. With multiple systems working together, SMARTREG GUARDIAN can also be used to provide average speed measurements and real-time vehicle statistics. SMARTREG GUARDIAN is compliant to the UK police NAAS standards. GRAHAM FOGARTY (MANAGING DIRECTOR): "ANPR continues to provide a very effective policing tool in denying criminals access to the roads. With SMARTREG GUARDIAN, police enforcement and traffic agencies can rapidly deploy systems to a given location and receive real-time information on all vehicle activity instantaneously. Particularly in the run up to the London Olympics, we believe SMARTREG GUARDIAN will play a vital role in crime prevention and the monitoring of criminal activity.. About Parking and traffic technologies PARKING AND TRAFFIC TECHNOLOGIES specialise in the development, design and manufacture of intelligent systems for vehicle related markets. We provide traffic information, traffic calming and enforcement technologies to the traffic, police and parking authorities. From traffic sensors to back office systems, we provide our customers with a comprehensive end-to-end solution. Through continuous investment in technology and development, we continue to serve both the domestic and international markets. |
|
|
or may be, we all need to protect the environment with OBD3-GPS, in addition to keeping us safe: http://www.me.umn.edu/~byronr/vw/obd3.txt OBDII is a very sophisticated and capable system for detecting emissions problems. But when it comes to getting motorists to fix emission problems, it's no more effective than OBDI. Unless there's some means of enforcement, such as checking the MIL light during a mandatory inspection, OBDII is just another idiot light. Currently under development are plans for OBDIII, which would take OBDII a step further by adding telemetry. Using miniature radio transponder technology similar to that which is already being used for automatic electronic toll collection systems, an OBDIII-equipped vehicle would be able to report emissions problems directly to a regulatory agency. The transponder would communicate the vehicle VIN number and any diagnostic codes that were present. The system could be set up to automatically report an emissions problem via a cellular or satellite link the instant the MIL light comes on, or to answer a query from a cellular, satellite or roadside signal as to its current emissions performance status. What makes this approach so attractive to regulators is its effectiveness and cost savings. Under the current system, the entire vehicle fleet in an area or state has to be inspected once every year or two to identify the 30% or so vehicles that have emissions problems. With remote monitoring via the onboard telemetry on an OBDIII-equipped vehicle, the need for periodic inspections could be eliminated because only those vehicles that reported problems would have to be tested. On one hand, OBDIII with its telemetry reporting of emission problems would save consumers the inconvenience and cost of having to subject their vehicle to an annual or biennial emissions test. As long as their vehicle reported no emission problems, there'd be no need to test it. On the other hand, should an emissions problem be detected, it would be much harder to avoid having it fixed -- which is the goal of all clean air programs anyway. By zeroing in on the vehicles that are actually causing the most pollution, significant gains could be made in improving our nation's air quality. But as it is now, polluters may escape detection and repair for up to two years in areas that have biennial inspections. And in areas that have no inspection programs, there's no way to identify such vehicles. OBDIII would change all that. According to Mark Carlock with California's Air Resources Board, the technology exists now to make OBDIII possible. "The idea is to streamline the inspection process by only inspecting those vehicles that really need it." Carlock says the technology to do so is "no big deal." But he concedes that it would be the model year 2000 at the soonest before OBDIII might actually be required on new vehicles. A prototype system built by GM Hughes Electronics has already been evaluated by ARB that uses a roadside transmitter to interrogate vehicles as they pass by. The system uses ultra low power 10 milliwatt receiver stations and 1 milliwatt transmitters (which is about 1,000 times less power than a typical cellular telephone) with a broadcast frequency of 915 Mhz. The system is reportedly capable of retrieving information from 8 lanes of bumper-to-bumper traffic whizzing by at speeds up to 100 mph! When the vehicle receiver hears the query signal from a stationary or portable roadside transmitter, it transmits back an answer in the form of the vehicle's 17-digit VIN number plus an "okay" signal or any trouble codes that may be present. The information can then be used to identify vehicles that are in violation of clean air statutes so a notice can be sent that repairs and/or smog testing is required. Or, the information could be used on the spot to identify vehicles for a pullover roadside emissions check or issuing an emissions citation. The projected cost of such a system would be $50 per vehicle, says Carlock, based on similar transponders that are in use for electronic toll collecting. The transponders are about the size of a small calculator. The same basic approach could also be used with existing cellular phone links (local station networks) and/or satellite systems. To keep motorists from tampering with or disabling their telemetry systems, vehicles could be interrogated randomly or on a scheduled basis to monitor their condition. The OBDIII telemetry could also be combined with global positioning system (GPS) technology to document or monitor the whereabouts of vehicles. Orbiting 11,000 miles above the earth's surface are 24 military satellites that make up the Navstar global positioning system. By timing radio signals from these satellites, the position of a vehicle, boat or plane anywhere on the earth can be fixed within a few meters. The GPS system is currently used by many fleets for tracking the whereabouts of their vehicles as well as by onboard navigation systems for pinpointing a vehicle's location on an electronic map. The advantages of using a satellite based telemetry system for OBDIII rather than a roadside system are: * Greater coverage of the entire vehicle population for more accurate surveillance. Vehicles could be monitored and queried no matter where they were, even while sitting in a garage or driveway. There'd be no way to avoid the watchful eye of the emissions police. * Being able to locate vehicles that are in violation of clean air statutes, either for "demographic studies" or to track down and arrest violators. * Being able to monitor the whereabouts of vehicles for purposes other than emissions surveillance such as recovering stolen vehicles (like today's LoJack anti-theft system), keeping tabs on suspected drug dealers, gang members and other undesirables. * Being able to disable vehicles that belong to emission scofflaws by transmitting a secret code. Law enforcement officers might also be able to use such a code to disable a vehicle fleeing from a crime scene or one that belonged to someone with a backlog of unpaid traffic violations. The specter of having Big Brother in every engine compartment and driving a vehicle that rats on itself anytime it pollutes is not one that would appeal to many motorists. So the merits of OBDIII would have to be sold to the public based on its cost savings, convenience and ability to make a real difference in air quality. Even so, any serious attempt to require OBDIII in the year 2000 or beyond will run afoul of Fourth Amendment issues over rights of privacy and protection from government search and seizure.
|
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Mar 10, 2009 8:34 am) Does the government have the right to snoop under your hood anytime it chooses to do so, or to monitor the whereabouts of your vehicle? These issues will have to be debated and resolved before OBDIII stands a chance of being accepted. Given the current political climate, such drastic changes seem unlikely. Another change that might come with OBDIII would be even closer scrutiny of vehicle emissions. The misfire detection algorithms currently required by OBDII only watch for misfires during driving conditions that occur during the federal driving cycle, which covers idle to 55 mph and moderate acceleration. It does not monitor misfires during wide open throttle acceleration. Full range misfire detection will be required for 1997 models. OBDIII could go even further by requiring "fly-by-wire" throttle controls to reduce the possibility of misfires on the coming generation of low emission and ultra low emission vehicles. So until OBDIII winds its way through the regulatory process, all we have to worry about is diagnosing and repairing OBDII-equipped vehicles and all the non-OBD vehicles that came before them. I could go on, but here is one story I'd rather you read for yourself if so inclined: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/2718124/Watch-out-theres-a-spy-in-your-car.h- tml |
|
|
I'll save you a few mouse clicks. from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/2718124/Watch-out-theres-a-spy-in-your-car.h- - - - tml Watch out, there's a spy in your car With a link to the computer under the bonnet, your satellite navigation system could soon be issuing orders rather than guidance, as Mark Hales reports By Mark Hales Last Updated: 3:15PM BST 04 Oct 2002 The debate about road pricing via satellite (Motoring, August 3) may have a resolution rather sooner than Prof David Begg (Chairman, Commission for Integrated Transport - for) and Austin Williams (Chairman, Transport Research Group - against) have suggested. Begg's earnest proposition was that technology could help solve traffic congestion, a problem that afflicts us all and is rapidly reaching epidemic proportions. Williams's more cynical account said that not only was the suggestion flawed technically, but that its use could also constitute an illegal invasion of civil liberty. There was also the mention of Big Brother - in the Orwellian rather than the Channel 4 sense - which was once the best metaphor for official invasion of that liberty by stealth, and for reasons other than our own benefit. But rather like any debate about speed cameras, it is always difficult to advance the argument against when greater safety is the stated aim. And if the road pricing/global positioning system (GPS) could be shown to be feasible and the benefits distributed responsibly and fairly, it would again be hard to advance the "no" argument. The trouble is - as Williams just avoided saying - the public doesn't trust a political establishment that behaves increasingly like a business. Big Brother, Big Business. Like the pigs on Animal Farm, it's becoming hard to tell the difference. The chances are that automatic road charges via satellite won't happen just yet, or at least not as an imposition by the state. But since most people on the inside believe the Government has decided to do it anyway and the only question is how long it will take to sway public opinion, the administration might yet have no need of its usual gyroscopic tactics. Most of the necessary technology is already fitted to modern cars and the politicians could simply keep quiet and let the market do the job for them... This not so novel notion occurred to me during a recent visit to the Lotus factory, where I was to drive one of the high-performance Elise MkII variants. I had asked Chief Powertrain Engineer Mike Summerfield why it had taken so long to introduce the higher performance version when the engine technology was almost identical to that of the previous model. Lotus are also freelance boffins and contract engineers for a great many of the planet's major motor manufacturers, and the response was that refining the on-board diagnostics (OBD) took so long these days. A minor upgrade such as extracting another 10 horsepower from the engine could take anywhere between 12 and 18 months because they simply can't take the risk of false alarms when the legislation is so tight. In addition, said Summerfield, "it has to work anywhere the driver might take the car: altitude, temperature, anywhere. It all has to be tested." When you discover that just three sparks missing out of 100 will cause the emissions to go out of limits and a consistent 20 could damage the catalytic converter you begin to see that the margin for error is not great. The current OBD level required by legislation for new petrol-engined cars sold in Europe is EOBD (the Euro version of the US OBD2) which is primarily concerned with emissions, but it was nevertheless surprising to discover that only about 40 per cent of the engine's management is concerned with control, while the other 60 per cent is purely diagnostic. In other words the larger percentage is there to flag up when emissions are about to exceed the permitted levels and to record the conditions which existed at the time. Cars fitted with EOBD are not yet due for MoT testing but at some time in the near future the machine that sticks a catheter up the exhaust to taste the poison will no longer be required. Instead, the MoT man will go the modern route and plug in his computer, whereupon the numbers will scroll on to his screen. Which, of course, sounds like progress. But as Summerfield also explains, that only says whether the car is compliant at the time of the MoT, or if it has been out of limits at some time before. The real problem - as they have discovered in America - is to get the driver to do something about excessive emissions. "The car doesn't feel any different," says Summerfield, "in fact in some cases it might feel livelier. And while some people pay attention to a light on the dashboard, there are a lot who don't." One option is to switch the engine into a "get you home mode" so that the car feels bad and the driver is motivated to get it fixed. Another is OBD3 - which is at present under discussion in America for possible legislation by 2010. This will link OBD2 with a GPS unit, which knows its position anywhere on the planet, and a mobile phone - an uncannily similar arrangement to that advanced by Begg as a means of road pricing. In America, however, the idea is that the engine management sends a message to the mobile, which calls the manufacturer. The manufacturer then knows what the problem is and where you are, and flashes a message on the screen to say where you should go to get it fixed in the minimum time. In times of lesser crisis, it could also tell you simple things like when a service or an MoT test is due, and so on. Again, this sounds like progress, but you don't need to be a genius to work out the implications. Simple ones like a message on the navigation screen, accompanied by husky female tones: "Your car will need a service in 300 kilometres - may we recommend JB Smith of Newark", is only a short step to a frenetic: "Greeeat deals on new cars. We are already willing to offer you £10,000 for yours because we see it has only covered 8,623 miles, 8,624, 8,625" Or: "Lose weight the easy way, while you sleep", or even: "Meet singles. Try dating the easy way". All the delightful entreaties you thought you had left behind with your fax and email - and I should mention that the last two were copied direct, not made up. contd.
|
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Mar 10, 2009 8:45 am) But the other implications are rather more disturbing. The OBD would know you covered a total of 30 miles at speeds between 40 and 150mph on Tuesday August 14, sufficient to get a motorcyclist imprisoned earlier this year. The GPS, however, would also know you were at Silverstone, so no immediate problem there. But then a letter arrives in the post. "Dear Sir. It has come to our notice that you have either removed your catalyst or it has failed and the tyres have a rolling diameter of 250cm rather than the approved 268mm. Please sign and return the enclosed Statutory Off Road Notification. Your car is not legal for road use until it has been recertified at an approved facility. The fee for this is £400. You have 14 days to comply or risk a fine of £10,000". As one who has already been fined because he didn't realise the authorities wanted to know his car was off the road, and who this week received an invitation to pay £60 for breaking a speed limit he hadn't even realised was in place, this sounds more like realism than petulant cynicism. And as Summerfield says, most people don't realise that if an airbag detonates on a car fitted with OBD2, the essential details - including road speed - will be recorded. That is information the manufacturers need to make sure the device has functioned correctly. Hard to take issue with that, but, as with the breathalyser, an accident is good reason for the authorities to demand any information normally required by consent. Civil liberties again. "OBD is there for a very good reason," adds Summerfield, "and it's the legislation which drives manufacturers to make it more clever. The old variety just told you a wire had fallen off, whereas the new tells you why it fell off. But to improve the product, we need to record what the car was doing, how fast it was going and where you were. That is all essential information which at the moment we don't have access to." Summerfield is also convinced that it won't be legislation that creates the access. It will be the market which drives the telematics side, and by this he means the addional mobile communications and the link to satellite navigation. Items, he says, that manufacturers won't fit unless people want them, because of the cost. Since even middle-spec cars are now fitted with satellite navigation and, as Begg points out, more than 90 per cent of the population has a mobile phone, it's already clear what people want. And given the public appetite for new technology, it's fair to assume that they will want telematic linking, which will be be presented as a wizzy gizmo at minimal additional cost. "The information is already there in most modern cars," concludes Summerfield, "it's just a case of processing it." It's also a case of who processes it and for what reason, which is where we came in. You can't really argue with anything which makes travel safer, cleaner or cheaper. And we might be better off if stolen cars could be disabled before the police have to chase them. Or if cars could link up and travel as a train on one lane of the motorway. The possibilities are many and available sooner rather than later. The real question is, do you trust the people who might administrate them? |
|
|
Well, here is a nice glimpse of our motoring future: (Please note that these are somebody else thoughts, identified here only as SFC) Submitted by SFC (not verified) on Thu, 2008-07-31 10:29. "I think your overall approach to categorizing the future possibilities is excellent. However, I think you have underestimated a couple of downsides. First, the fear of loss of privacy and increased govt control will be massive, and there will be plenty of people who will play upon that fear for their own ends. At present, there are many areas of the country where the majority (in some cases the vast majority) of drivers are breaking the law on a regular basis (see LA freeways whenever they aren't a parking lot). This is usually, but not only, the speed limit. The idea that a car will not go faster than the speed limit will irritate a large portion of the population, especially given the arbitrary and often ignorant way speed limits are set today (far too low, often with revenue generation in mind, or in the false belief that it will significantly alter safety statistics). Without a vastly more realistic regulation policy for the roadways, law abiding robocars will be shunned by many. The idea of being tracked precisely by your car's communications with the road network will also scare those curious enough to look into it. One only need look at OBD3 and GM's work on car to car networking to see the near term direction of this path. I agree that people are already traced and observed far more than they realize (credit cards, cell phones, cameras, etc.), but many are not conscious of it. I think it will be much more difficult to minimize that concern with the road network and vehicles you envision. In the end, I think a significant proportion of the population will eventually adopt such vehicles for convenience, cost reasons (such as higher legislated fees for non-robo vehicles - I'm sure that many govts will use that as a "nudge" to get people into more easily controlled transport), and other factors. Let's face it, most consumers are very herd oriented (sheep?). But barring the legislation out of existence of human driven vehicles, a significant portion of the population will want to continue driving themselves without outside inteference." |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
