According to French philosopher Emile Chartier, “Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it is the only one you have.” Chartier died in 1951, before les flics started using radar guns and fixed speed cameras to apprehend drivers exceeding the posted limit– regardless of the actual danger these motorists pose to themselves or other road users. Setting aside issues raised by indiscriminate government surveillance, Chartier would have been appalled by the single-minded fervor with which these devices have been applied. If you're looking for the logical extreme of the "speed kills" idee fixe, the UK provides it. Speed cameras are everywhere: real ones, fake ones, digital units, rear-facing, forward-facing, hidden, obvious, thousands of them. What's more camera vans (a.ka. "Talivans") roam the highways and byways, nabbing speeders from highway overpasses, country roads and city streets. The end result? No improvement in road safety and an enormous disaffection between the police and the population they're charged with protecting. Although the English are a generally passive people who hold to the idea that "if you're not doing anything wrong you don't have any reason to worry," there comes a point where enough is enough. Paul Smith of Safe Speed tells the tale.
Find Reviews by Make:
Robert, I like the European especially the German idea of speed. In the Country, you have no speed limits (on the autobahn) and your responsible for your own safety. In the city, where pedestrians, more traffic, etc. are present, they (the European gestapo) will cut you down even quicker than here for speeding or any kind of reckless driving. The rules are more flexible vis a vis speed, but where they matter in congested areas, they are enforced. By thew way it takes a year and cost thousands to get a German Drivers license. If you screw up, they will take it away permanently. The attidtude of driving ove there is closer to a private pilot over here. You are much more involved and competent, as is everyone else on the road. They also put more heavy freight on rail to lighten up the trucks (which are of a lower GVW than here).
This will be my last comment about podcasts. I have nothing against podcasts; as a matter of fact, I consider them to be an incredible tool for communication.
However, it should be just one tool in the box, not the only one.
I don’t have time to do nothing but listen to a podcast, and I read much faster than I listen.
Please consider using a voice-to-text program and then posting the text here for us text-heads to read.
CT: i just get it running and do other stuff while its playing; like emails, reading other news, etc. It save you time in that respect.
Good podcast btw.
Critical:
I’ve looked into voice recognition software for transcribing these podcasts and have found nothing that will work. Since you keep bringing it up, perhaps you have some special insight into the technology and can tell us what software we could use? Keep in mind it will have to meet ALL the following criteria:
1. Take a feed directly from an MP3 file, not just from a microphone.
2. Work without having to spend hours “training” the software to accurately recognize a voice, as the voices are different in each podcast.
3. Recognize at least two different voices in the same recording and annotate when the speaker changes.
4. Recognize voices spoken in a variety of accents (such as in this podcast).
5. Be able to run on a standard Intel-based microcomputer.
6. Produce files in a standard, editable format (preferably MS Word).
7. Operate with at least 98% accuracy.
Any suggestions?
“CT: i just get it running and do other stuff while its playing; like emails, reading other news, etc. It save you time in that respect.”
I do that with radio programs and podcasts of minor importance or of negligible content, such as most talk radio programs or presidential debates.
The items on this Web page, however, deserve and demand better.
Also, as Confucius once said, “”The mark of a genius is the ability to focus on one thing at a time.” Considering that I would like to be smart someday, I like to practice focusing.
“I’ve looked into voice recognition software for transcribing these podcasts and have found nothing that will work.”
Thanks for the information; I’m glad to know that you have already considered it. Because you have already checked into several programs, I won’t bring up the standard ones.
I know of someone who is extraordinarily knowledgeable in such things, and I have already passed along your requirements. If a program exists that will fit your specifications, he will know of it.
Of course, this means that I will need to make one post about this item. The note that precipitated your post was my second and was to be the last.
Re: Jerry Weber.
I totally agree, I live on a residential street with a speed limit of 25 miles per hours. There are bike lanes going both ways that are used all day by not just cyclists but runners and families out walking etc. (Our street is on a lake) But people use the street as a short cut and come through here at 50 plus miles per hour and don’t give a sh** whether they are zooming by kids and people out recreating. They are insane morons and they should be given double the normal fines for doing what they are doing in a residential zone. That being said I could never figure out the value in giving someone a speeding ticket on the expressway if they are driving safely, better to ticket drivers out there when they are driving recklessly. I would love to see the police put one of those cameras on our street with zero tolerance, the word would get out fast and that would be that no more speeding. I guess I value the life of some kid more than the RIGHT to act like a moron.
I’m building some software now that works with voice recognition and unfortunately the technology is not up to accurately transcribing a conversation from a speaker without being trained first. So you are right, the technology just isn’t there yet. However there may be a company out there that does this sort of service for a small fee. That might be worth looking into.
That being said I could never figure out the value in giving someone a speeding ticket on the expressway if they are driving safely, better to ticket drivers out there when they are driving recklessly.
I agree with that statement, but with one problem. In the U.S., people generally do not maintain their cars as necessary. Therefore, driving at 90 mph, while safe for a competent driver in a nice, well-kept car, is dangerous for some people in a 20 year old poorly maintained car with balding, under-inflated tires.
Just a thought…
Safe is ambiguous and subject to interpretation…. it is easy to falsely proclaim “sure thats safe” as a bystander or even as a passenger in a vehicle. Can you really say what is or isn’t safe with any accuracy and precisely where is the line between the two? There are plenty of drivers out there doing unsafe things which they believe are safe or within the bounds of acceptable risk.
I like to think of “safe” as retaining a margin for error which allows for a probable rate of error to occur without incident. My interpretation of “safe” means maintaining suitable following distances taking into consideration speed, conditions and driver skill level.
There are situations where the distinction between safe/unsafe is clear.
50mph in a 25 where there are pedestrians within range of being run down should the vehicle leave the paved surface under whatever circumstances is not safe.
There are sitiations where the distinction is not clear.
100mph in a 65 in minimal traffic on a cear and dry day is a grey area which is subject to the variables at hand. The most important variable is the driver and how experienced he/she is at driving at 100mph. (Just what does that mean) First few things which come to mind are:
-Seating positon (very important for obstacle avoidance)
-Hand position on wheel
-Focus on road as far ahead as possible
-Anticipation of vehicle behavior
-Familiarity with vehicle operation/dynamics at 100mph (turning, braking, accelerating, transitioning)
-Ability to identify potential dangerous situations.
How many drivers in the US are familiar with doing a panic stop at 100mph in their own car? When was the last time you tried threshold braking at 100mph in your car? Without calibrating your senses with your car’s peformance how can you even begin to say that you are being safe?
Many drivers spend sufficient time at 50-70mph to be familiar with how well their vehicle operates at those speeds… but the higher the speed the longer the stopping distance and the easier it is to unsettle a vehicle while doing an emergency lane change maneuver resulting in loss of control.
I don’t have a solution to this age old problem we call driving. For the time being I focus on keeping myself safe which means annual visits to road courses for training and exerience at high speeds. I’m also partial to an annual visit to a winter driving school for slideways practice and obstacle avoidance in low traction situations.
In 1848, French economist and statesman Frédéric Bastiat referred to perversions of government away from its just foundations as Lawful or Legalized Plunder.
— Pardon me, my cell phone is ringing —
In that spirit I think that Legalized Theft would be an apt term to explain what is happening with speed and stoplight cameras. Good luck to Mr. Smith.
William
I’m sure Rousseau would be dismayed in the fact that “70% percent” of people surveyed didn’t want speed camera enforcement. Clearly it is not the will of the people to be monitored and penalized by speed cameras…. yet the government still saw it fit to implement the cameras and continues to maintain operation of the cameras in spite of the concensus of the populus.
Looks like this speed camera thing is all about money and little else. Someone with a manufacturing business and good connections convinced the government to buy the stupid things. Now the government is compelled to keep them to try to save face and keep the extra revenue rolling in.
Here in the US, local municipalities pull the same game with speed enforcement. They set up speed traps with radar or VASCAR and spend a lot of time writing tickets, of which about half the funds go directly to them. In the state that I live the local cops in most areas have a reputation for this, whereas the state police tend to be more lenient and usually have other things they would rather spend their time on. Like maybe actual police work.
Fortunately, they won’t use cameras over here unless there is a change in the law. It’s too easy to get out of a speeding fine issued by an automated system that cannot provide positive documentation that the owner of the car was the one actually doing the driving when the transgression was recorded. So, for the most part there is usually a patrol car off to the side somewhere that can be seen, or whose presence can be determined by the behavior of other drivers, if you’re paying attention.
Very int eresting podcast, and I’m inclined to agree that these cameras are a detriment.
But I also agree with CT that podcasts are not very economical in terms of my time. If I had only found the topic moderately interesting as opposed to extremely interesting, I wouldn’t have bothered.
Speed is like guns to politicians: it becomes something to say that if we can jump on it, stop it absolutely by some Big Easy Fix, everything will be all right. It gives them the appearance of doing something; when in point of fact, life goes on the same without their so-called fixes.
Here in Seattle, the mayor has slashed the police force but installed those hideous revenue-raising cameras at intersections. But guess what? The past few months have seen absolutely horrendous crashes. Some crackhead whore, out on bail but who had refused to see her probation officer, yanked out a GMC Yukon and ran a stopsign at (an estimated) 80 mph – right into the driver’s side door of a Seattle police officer, killing him instantly.
Nine miles east of Seattle, in Bellevue WA a woman who while driving drunk 10 years ago, had killed a woman who was walking along the road (said woman and her husband were actually holding hands, and then suddenly, the husband noted she wasn’t there – instead was about 500 feet down the road), after serving an abbreviated prison term, was caught driving while drunk again; after she too ran a light.
Laws will not prevent criminals from having guns. And camera on poles will stop the people who shouldn’t drive from driving, running red lights needlessly and killing people. Enforce the traffic laws that are on the books, the old fashioned way: station traffic police at intersections where studies show accidents, especially fatal ones, are up. Do not use tickets – or stupid costly cameras – as revenue enhancers. Enforce drunk driving laws and make them like Swedens. And leave those people alone who know how to drive well.
Correction to last post: the second sentence in the last ‘graph should read, “cameras on poles will NOT stop the people who shouldn’t be driving…” Last in the same sentence, there should be a possessive, ei. Sweden’s.
I left the UK about 11 year ago just as the number of speed cameras started to grow. On more recent trips back the general ambience is one of cameras everywhere, not just at the roadside but atop buildings and watching one’s every move in public places (and in many private ones). I find it oppresive!
As the Safe Speed guy says I doubt there is any will to change this at the government level. UK governments get “addicted” to the income even when it doesn’t cover the full cost of a particular “safety” program. The citizens of the UK need somehow to get the police to change their position – that might force a re-think.
Lastly – I agree with the first poster. I like the German system.
As for the conversion software for speech-to-text, the technology just isn’t there yet.
We’ve been on the verge of adding OCR technology into a scanning operation where I work. The current solutions run at about a 98% accuracy rate. Sounds good, until you consider that at 500 to 700 words a page, that’s 10 to 14 errors a page. That’s a lot of error correction.
Could make for some pretty interesting transcripts!
“Looks like this speed camera thing is all about money and little else.”
Just like the practice of “speed traps” and “bulk speed sting” operations are used to raise money by cities/counties in the US.
They write tickets in the name of safety, because you speed. Not because you have an accident (not even to prevent one)
My freeway commute is spent at 15-25 mph over speed limit. I’m so used to it, I know all the spots where they hide, all the overpasses where they post the gun and all the ramps where the motorcycles are waiting.
Money revenue is alot more important than safety.
Money revenue is alot more important than safety.
I agree that some speed limits are not well thought out, but the law is the law. My brother is in law enforcement (narcotics) and about half their drug busts originate directly as a result of traffic stops. Recently, an officer stopped a man for speeding, and he had a dead body in the bed of his truck.
Also, Tim McVeigh was caught on a traffic stop as was the polygamist, Warren Jeffs. So traffic enforcement can serve other purposes as well.
However, I do believe that the current method of determining speed limits is, at best, inconsistent.
Also, Tim McVeigh was caught on a traffic stop as was the polygamist, Warren Jeffs. So traffic enforcement can serve other purposes as well.
Great. So just stop people randomly and check to see if they are doing anything illegal.
You paypahz, pleeez.
Gestapo-liscious!
When it comes to driving, efficiency, and speed, Germany is an enlightened country. I’m curious. Since we supposedly live in a “democratic” society, how is it that 70% of the population (a super majority) doesn’t want speed cameras, but they are overridden by the government?
Maybe if more Americans could do basic math they would realize something just doesn’t add up on the “democracy” here…
Great. So just stop people randomly and check to see if they are doing anything illegal.
Cut the crap!
McVeigh was stopped for no license plate, and Jeffs was stopped for no visible registration. They were NOT stopped randomly.
Maybe if more Americans could do basic math they would realize something just doesn’t add up on the “democracy†here…
The U.S. is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic. We elect representatives to vote on our behalf.
Germany is more enlightened to driving because they see it, properly, as a privilege and a responsibility. Americans think that driving is a right, but I think it is a privilege as well.
We have the right to move about freely, but not the right to transportation. In other words, there is nothing in the Constitution about a right to cars, trucks, buses, horses, donkeys, or bicycles.
this thread is somewhat old so I doubt anyone will respond, but criticalthinker said he can read faster than he can hear. that is impossible. He may be able read faster than RF et al can speak, but your retinal neurons are much slower (think refresh rate) than your ears.