I don't know if this was meant as a negative, positive, or neutral outcome of this, but I see it as positive.

Public parking isn't going anywhere, so if this program can pay for itself by increasing parking revenue, while decreasing costs that it takes to generate that revenue (IE, more efficient checking of meters), then all the other civic benefits this data/program can create come "free". Such as improving fire response times, while decreasing cost of services:

>It would be easier if we could use the traffic signals and street lights to clear the road from Point A to Point B, and then have the [streetlight] system detect how the fire truck is moving through the street, restoring traffic flow behind it. That would save us money on fire stations, because we build them based on response times. Improving response times means we might not need as many stations.

The cynics will say this is will be used as excuse to remove resources for fire fighters, but if it can be done responsibly, and the data shows that outcomes will improve (and that outcomes do improve after implementing), I'm all for it.

One of best ways to increase parking revenue would be to set up a system to automate parking fees (similar to automated tolling).

I would gladly pay the $1 fee to park for 30 minutes in my downtown. However, I often skip paying because of the hassle of walking to the pay station, waiting several minutes to complete the transaction, and then putting the receipt back in my car.

If they just detected by license and sent me a bill, they could have my money!

There is a system that does not auto-bill in Europe but solves your issue: there are apps in which you tag with your location and license plate information. You pay within the app and you can even “top up” from within some apps as well.

The only downside, as you would expect, is that you have a new app or two for every city you travel to. It works pretty well though, and it’s way better than having to hunt down a kiosk.

I’m actually pretty surprised that kind of thing hasn’t caught on more here. I’m sure there are at least a few cities in the USA that do it.

They could have your money if you did what you were supposed to do?

While we're at it, let's automate speeding tickets. Free up the police for other crimes.

That's hard to do in California (for good reason): for speed limits under 65 (and outside school zones) there's a presumption that drivers know what they're doing.

So the speed limit may be 25 but if the prevailing traffic indicates that everyone thinks 40 is OK then you can't get ticketed for keeping up with traffic.

I see this issue come up all the time in Palo Alto where I live: people want the speed limit enforced on, say, Embarcadero Rd, but if the the city were to do so they'd have to do a traffic survey which would actually tell them to raise the limit on the signs.

There was a wave of sensible lawmaking in California that was sadly abandoned in the Wilson+ era and has never come back.

+ I don't mean Wilson was the cause, though he was a bad one; he got elected in part because people forgot about being sensible in the regard.

>So the speed limit may be 25 but if the prevailing traffic indicates that everyone thinks 40 is OK then you can't get ticketed for keeping up with traffic.

oh! that probably explains why i never in the almost 20 years here got tickets in such a situation, and i thought that i'm just good at spotting police cars (and slamming on the brakes each time i see a one) - here they are much easier to spot because they don't hide cheetah style in roadside bush like the traffic policemen do back in Russia.

Also in Cal they can't use radar unless they've recently done one of those surveys and set the radar speed threshold based on the criteria I mentioned. And they have to post a sign warning you of radar use. Of course there's no rule saying they have to remove those signs once the survey has expired (3 years I think...) so those radar in use warnings are all over the place and you can't tell which are actually true :-(

Also in California "speed traps" are illegal: this is when a highway runs through a town or district and the district puts up a sudden "25 MPH" sign so they can catch out of towners and charge them money.

That's wild. They could fix the roads to calm traffic, such as add more lights and bumps.

They do, though it's hard to put a bump on an arterial road.

Adding too many lights and stop signs speeds traffic up rather than slowing it. Fortunately Cal. seems still (mostly) to hew to the "listen popular opinions to decide what to focus on; listen to actual domain experts to decide what action to take".

There's been a lot of work done in this area, with predictable backlash. I think the issue is that the most dangerous speeding is the kind which occurs in neighbourhoods and by schools ("50km/h in a 30km/h zone"). But the easiest to apply automatic enforcement against is highway speeding ("130km/h in a 100km/h zone"), so people legitimately complain that the enforcement isn't being applied where the danger is.

The worst of it is that all the infrastructure is in place already for average speed enforcement on toll roads, since you know when everyone gets on and off the highway and all their license plates. But isn't the whole point of a toll road that you pay for the privilege of being out of traffic and going as fast as you can? Who wants to pay for a toll transponder only to get a bunch of speeding tickets in the mail the next month?

I approve in principle but currently the speed limits, especially on freeways, are unreasonably low (and that's the reason everyone breaks them, including cops driving in non-emergency situations). If the speed limits are brought up to be consistent with traffic actual speeds then I am all for automated speed ticketing of people who go much faster than the natural speed of traffic.

That's one possible interpretation, mine would be that people will always speed slightly above the posted limit because they know the odds of being ticketed are small (up to some very high speed, at which point many vehicles and/or drivers would fail). By setting them lower we are basically playing with two variables - high speed (which means getting people and goods places faster) and high risk (of higher energy collisions with less time to react). Pushing either to their limit doesn't seem like a good idea...

Then drive around America more often. Pretty much wherever you go, whatever the highway sign posts, people go 75-85. That includes places where the speed limit is 55 and where it is 80.

The federal limit of 55 mph was set by Nixon during the gasoline shortages due to OPEC supply control. Clinton repealed it, so some states went up to 70 mph. Today we might consider enforcing them to help reduce carbon consumption (and collision fatalities).

Heck, maybe it's time to go back to 55 as a federal limit. Last I checked, most vehicles on the road get dramatically better gas mileage at 55. Rather, it gets exponentially worse as speeds increase past 60ish due to wind resistance.

That data was true back then, but is it true now? This is a legitimate question. Cars have changed a lot since then. They're mostly plastic, more aerodynamic, and engines are more efficient. So is 55 still the average optimal?

That would tend to fit with my upper limit idea - most people aren't capable of handling their vehicles much faster than that (or reacting to other vehicles doing unexpected things). Of course, when I do drive I'm often stuck in heavy traffic which is far slower than that, so it's more of thought experiment. That said, I'd personally be surprised if people would risk a citation for reckless driving to go 85mph in a 55mph zone.

Indeed. I believe there is an upper limit of comfort for most people (somewhere in the 80-85 mph) and if the limits were raised to 80mph and then enforced at that using automated methods I would support it.

If we charge companies for polluting, it's reasonable to charge individuals for consuming carbon at an unnecessarily high rate. I'd support automatic fees enforced as drivers hit 65, 75, etc. No limit, per se, just trying to internalize the externalities.

Hard limits are strange for things that are continuous and probabilistic. If we could set an automatic fee equivalent to the cost of increased risks, pollution, etc., it'd be a function of speed. Someday we'll have the technology to communicate that back to the driver as they change speed and location from urban to rural, go through construction zones, etc.

Of course, setting an appropriate gasoline tax, paid at the pump, would reduce the value of those fees.

So if i have a solar charged Tesla, i can drive as fast as i can?

I suppose the fee would correspond to increased risk, so it'd be cheaper than for someone who was driving a gas guzzler at the same speed. In the ideal (dystopia or utopia?) world, the fee would also take into consideration average rates of collision by vehicle type, perhaps your age, number of hours spent on the road that year, etc.

We already have a solution deployed: gas taxes.

They're not high enough. And while there are gasoline taxes at the pump, there are various subsidies on the extraction and refining part of the supply chain. I'm not sure the taxes cover the subsidies. It's a wealth transfer from consumers (the ones buying gas) to the producers (the ones receiving subsidy)

> That's one possible interpretation, mine would be that people will always speed slightly above the posted limit because they know the odds of being ticketed are small

Data doesn't back you up. In places where they have raised the speed limit, the overall flow speed does not increase correspondingly.

People drive at the speed they deem safe irrespective of the speed limit.

Speed limits usually are for the worst case scenario: an old car, foggy and rainy day.

Sure, and for most people these speed limits are inappropriate. Forcing everyone into the worst common denominator is not a good idea for automated systems.

No, you should drive extra below speed limit on days with low visibility or reduced control.

As long as the change we well advertised and gave people time to adjust norms, I would be all for it.

That's what OnStar's for, right?

And still they won't be able to help law enforcement track down the delinquent who broke your car window or worse.

The delinquent who broke your car window has a pretty good chance of not paying whatever fine he's given (and arresting him when they come across him after a bench warrant is issued still costs money, even if he does eventually pay). You will almost certainly pay your parking ticket promptly and without causing the system to incur additional cost. Going after generally law abiding normal people has a much better ROI.

I hope government doesn’t turn into that. The legal system is supposed to maximize justice, not revenue.

The United States does not maximize revenue in the slightest. We routinely use the justice system to unnecessarily prosecute and incarcerate the poor at a huge expense.

That's because you are looking at the United States as a whole.

This police department ticketed this person for something and gets the revenue of the ticket. All other effects are costs for other departments. Positive on the books.

This Justice processing department gets budgeted for processing the ticket. All other effects are costs for other departments. Positive on the books.

...

This Court department gets budgeted for filing a warrant for this poor person's refusal to pay. The capturing and holding of this person will be a cost for other departments. Positive on the books.

...

This prison gets paid for holding this prisoner, positive on the books.

Every department is doing things which benefit them and the costs for that specific action don't show up negatively (even if they spawn later actions in other departments that generate costs for them). Every department is doing right by itself in the moment, and millions of dollars are lost.

I think you're looking at that from the wrong perspective. It's definitely generating revenue for someone but I think you're picking the wrong someone.

For-profit prison systems and perverse incentives.

In the state of Oregon, they can't prosecute car thieves, unless they literally catch them in the process of breaking in. (or the thief confesses to stealing the car) All they have to say, is they borrowed it from a friend, and didn't realize it was stolen. Something like this might actually be welcomed in Portland to cut down on car theft (its one of the top in the nation, since they literally walk right back out of the police station 2 hours later)

https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2017/11/29/in-portland-you...

Right. It's OK to spy on everyone except the homeless and vagrants, because that might be offensive.

That will be driven by rfid enabled plates.

Many jurisdictions are already doing lpr driven ticketing. A guy drives down the street, he parks at the end and prints the tickets.

You don't even need RFID numberplates. The unique IDs broadcast by the (mandatory on new cars) tyre pressure monitoring sensors will do a pretty good job of uniquely identifying cars.

Most TPM systems work by comparing the difference in wheel speed using the ABS sensors though (lower pressure = lower diameter = higher wheel speed than the other 3 wheels = low air pressure warning).

Nice, I didn't know that!

Ah, no. They all work by having an air pressure sensor in the interior of the wheel.

The comment you're replying to refers to an indirect system: https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=...

I'm not under the impression that indirect is the most common system, as every car that I have owned has used a direct system.

Many vehicles are switching to indirect measurement (this is just my impression, I haven't exactly been tracking which years/models use what system). It's certainly cheaper, you only need to write the algorithm once. Early systems mostly used sensors. I'm not sure why they used sensors to begin with since it's not like there's been a big improvement in VR sensors (the thing used to track wheel speed) enabling more accurate measurement. I suspect that the unwieldiness of big engineering organizations plays a role.

Many TPMS sensors don't transmit after the car is stopped for a meaningful period of time (in order to extend the battery life).

Why send enforcement? Get a neural net to determine who is illegally parked, and automatically send a ticket.

The comments about "optimizing for law enforcement" (or something like that) were a dead giveaway as to who's driving the way this system will be implemented.