From: Robin Powell <rpowell@algorithmics.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 08:22:37 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: photographed license plates
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960810194513.13080C-100000@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
Message-ID: <96Aug13.165923edt.20481@janus.algorithmics.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>>>>> In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960810194513.13080C-100000@tipper.oit.unc.edu>, Simon Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu> writes:

    > In the UK they now use cameras to deter speeding; the cameras are 
    > triggered by vehicles passing by which exceed the speed-limit, so in 
    > theory it's only naughty people who get photographed. Interestingly 
    > enough, there are far more places with camera warning signs than there 
    > are actual cameras; the actual cameras are moved around at random. Even 
    > though most of the time there isn't a camera there, almost everbody 
    > seemed to slow down in the marked areas; probably because there's almost 
    > 100% chance of being caught if there is a camera there. 

In Ontario, they tried this on some of the major highways.  The most
interesting thing about it was that it was proved time and time again
that the technology was not up to snuff: there was an almost 0% chance
of being caught.  When the license plate wasn't obscured or unreadable
(which it usually was) the computerized mailing system made some
stupid mistake that allowed the person to get off if they challenged
it.

The interesting thing is that the project was scrapped for these
reasons when the next government came in, but studies showed that it
_succeeded_ in lowering peoples speed limits.  I personally drove
consistantly about 20-40km over the speed limit while this was in
effect, cuz I knew it sucked, but apparently I was in the minorty.

-Robin