Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
One of the best features Google Maps offers is incident reporting. Users have the ability to report anything from crashes to lane closures and more. Speed trap reports are particularly handy as they can alert you to the presence of a hidden police officer. A recent update, however, has replaced the “Speed trap” option with something new.
[...] It seems that Google is aware of this misnomer and is making a change to the option. In a new update, the tech giant has quietly removed “Speed trap” and replaced it with a more appropriate, if not generic, “Police” option. In addition, the “Police” option sits higher on the list than where the “Speed trap” option was located. This brings incident reports in line with what Google showed us in an announcement back in July.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by pTamok on Monday December 02, @09:00AM (4 children)
In the UK, the fixed camera-on-a-stick linked to a speed measuring radar are named 'safety cameras', although everyone calls them 'speed cameras'. They are safety cameras because they are (usually) placed at accident 'black spots', where more than a certain number of speed-related accidents have occurred over a statistically significant reporting period.
I think it is reasonable for mapping to display such locations, because the point is not to catch people speeding, it is to get the speeds down in the first place, to reduce the number and severity of accidents. If you slow down in anticipation of a camera on the map, the threat of being caught is doing its job - improving safety.
To be honest, the same should apply to locations where the police set up relocatable speed measuring devices: the point is to improve safety, and the police generally have certain roads where they know people tend to exceed the posted speed limit. Marking those places on the map as places where there might, potentially, be a camera, would be good, even if one isn't there on that day. Letting people know there is no camera there just encourages unsafe driving, and that should be disallowed.
If the police randomly enforce limits everywhere, without notification on mapping, then as you are never sure if your speed will be measured, you will tend to remain within the posted limits. Again, letting people know where a random site is that day is counter-productive.
I understand that some people are better drivers than others and could quite possible drive effectively at speeds higher than the posted limit e.g. rally drivers. But roads need to be safe for the least competant drivers capable of passing a driving test. Any fool can drive fast - just press a little harder on the 'go' pedal. It takes a lot of competence to drive fast without making roads less safe for others and yourself.
In France, it is illegal to share the locations of such speed check equipment on maps available to the general public.
It's fine that people want to drive fast: the problem is that doing so those driving beyond their own competence impose, on average, unreasonable costs on society.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Monday December 02, @09:49AM (3 children)
> because they are (usually) placed at accident 'black spots'
Indeed, by law speed cameras are only allowed in places where there have been accidents in the past.
> locations where the police set up relocatable speed measuring devices
I agree with some sentiments - however I note that in many cases the locations are set for measurability. In particular, the police need a long, straight, flat section of road with a lay-by, road bridge or other spot where they can set up. For relocatable speed cameras this means that the correlation with incident black spots is a much weaker one.
> those driving beyond their own competence impose, on average, unreasonable costs on society.
Agree. And most people - myself included - are terrible at assessing risk (especially where one accident out of many thousands of trips is all it takes to utterly devastate one or more people's lives).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by krishnoid on Monday December 02, @04:43PM
Hence, "defensive" driving [nsc.org].
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday December 03, @12:20AM (1 child)
Go long enough and everywhere will have an accident eventually.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by pTamok on Wednesday December 04, @08:45PM
That's why the criteria for placement of safety cameras include a statistical test to demonstrate that the accident rate is statistically significantly above the average - otherwise, as you say, everywhere will eventually be an accident location.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Username on Monday December 02, @10:48AM (5 children)
How are they reporting the GPS location of the speed trap while going 75 on a freeway?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aafcac on Monday December 02, @02:34PM
Hopefully, passengers, but the point is to have a rough estimate of where the cars are as modern equipment can identify speeders a fair distance out. Plus, the cars do get re-positioned and they don't have to park in exactly the same spot each time they reset after pulling somebody over.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DadaDoofy on Monday December 02, @03:46PM (3 children)
Can't speak to Google Maps - never used it, never will. To do this on Apple's platform while driving at 75 mph, you say "Siri, there is a speed trap ahead."
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by Username on Monday December 02, @04:11PM (2 children)
I'm too paranoid to trust an open microphone, so that thought never occurred to me.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DadaDoofy on Monday December 02, @05:38PM (1 child)
I'm too paranoid to trust that the microphone is ever not open.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02, @08:45PM
I don't even have a microphone to worry about (don't have a smart phone, older car).
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Monday December 02, @10:55PM (5 children)
I have a crazy idea, how about not speeding? Then you don't have to worry about speed traps at all. Bonus: you won't have to risk injuries/damages/death.
(Please check your survivorship bias at the door before replying.)
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 03, @02:11AM (4 children)
For genuine speed traps, they often catch people who are trying not to speed too. An example from Aztec, New Mexico got my father a long time ago. He was going down a sharp hill at 45 MPH and ran into a 25 MPH zone at the base with the officer right there to tag anyone who didn't slow down enough by the time they passed the sign.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday December 03, @06:04AM (3 children)
Perhaps, but your example is bad. You should not be going down a steep hill at 45 MPH because you wouldn't be able to control your speed, case in point, your father not being able to slow down in time.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 03, @02:28PM
I disagree, of course.
Keep in mind that usually law enforcement doesn't enforce speed limits right at the speed limit change either. It is typical throughout the country for people to still be over the speed limit by the time they get to the sign, but be at speed limit within a half a minute.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 04, @01:31AM
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday December 04, @03:04AM
More on this: while I bet there's some spectacular examples elsewhere in the world, particularly Europe, I can think of a simple counterexample in the US near Black Mountain, NC where Interstate Highway 40 ("I-40") descends steeply (for traffic traveling to the east) for several miles at 55 MPH. While I never did it, when I traveled that route (and controlling my speed just fine at 55 MPH), I was routinely passed by passenger cars going 60-65 MPH and clearly controlling their speed at those speeds.