rehmwa 2 #51 February 25, 2008 Quote >It's a way to get two lanes worth of traffic in one lane. I believe we already determined that it's a way to get 3 lanes of traffic into a 2 lane parking lot . Once they change the rule to "multiple LICENSED passengers" and kick off the soccor moms and their runts, then I'll take their intentions (at least) seriously. I'll still deny any logic to the outcomes of the effort, but at least I'll admit to a sincere, but misplaced, motivation. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
packerboy 3 #52 February 25, 2008 Quote These cameras are heat sensitive, so you need to walm up the dummy. I'm not saying that this would be impossible, but in traffic, with cars, in weather, vehicles of different size speed, made of different materials, with different engine sizes, people in different positions... it would be impossible to make the technology cheap enough to use for this purpose. Even it was implemented, I would feel more comfortable driving by myself in that lane knowing now that the cops are leaving the work to the cameras and you could destroy the reliability in a court of law. Precisely why photo radar doesn't work in Ontario. I would take it to court any day of the week. Prove that I was the one driving the car and I'll pay the fine. Can't do it, well I'm innocent untill proven guilty, and the only thing that you can prove is that I own the car, not that I was driving it. Simple argument. The only thing that kept it alive was the fact that most people wouldn't fight the tickets, they would just pay them. Edited to add: My avatar is a clearer picture than you would get from those cameras, and you'd have a hard time proving identity from that. That's why I use it as my avatar, no way could I do that! kidding: it is me, I can prove it! -------------------------------------------------- In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #53 February 25, 2008 Quote[ Precisely why photo radar doesn't work in Ontario. I would take it to court any day of the week. Prove that I was the one driving the car and I'll pay the fine. Can't do it, well I'm innocent untill proven guilty, and the only thing that you can prove is that I own the car, not that I was driving it. Simple argument. The only thing that kept it alive was the fact that most people wouldn't fight the tickets, they would just pay them. Precisely the reason photo radar does work in Ontario is because they don't have to prove you were driving, just that you own the car. In fact even if you can prove that I was driving it would still be your fine for the same way that if I get in an accident in your car it is your problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #54 February 25, 2008 > believe we already determined that it's a way to get 3 lanes of traffic into a 2 lane parking lot . . . Actually, in every incarnation I've seen, it's a way to turn 3 lanes of parking lot into 3 lanes of moving traffic (or at least 1 lane of moving traffic) - or - to turn 3 lanes of parking lot into 4 lanes of moving traffic. It's simple math. A lane carrying at least two passengers per car can move twice the people as a land carrying one person per car. A highway with 1 HOV and 2 regular lanes can carry 25% more people than a highway with 3 lanes of "regular" traffic - even though both cost the same and are the same width. The reason everyone hates it so much is that the lane is RIGHT THERE and they can't use it. If they had built an HOV-only highway where people couldn't see it, very few people would object - even though it would cost ten times as much. As a caveat, it should also be pointed out that no HOV or lane expansion program has had a significant impact on reducing traffic congestion in the long term (more than 2 years.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #55 February 25, 2008 nonsense, what you call 'simple math' is predicated on the assumption that the HOV lane is the only reason for more than one one person to get in a car. (only government intervention can make the masses drive together). Further, you are using the variable of # of people, rather than # of cars as your payoff metric. Which story do you want to go with? I'd still have issue even sight unseen, of a publicly paid road that has "special membership" (publicly paid access for the privileged) status. Just like we'd all be upset if only government employees got their own special roads. Though the gov employees would think it's a neat idea. Quoteno HOV or lane expansion program has had a significant impact on reducing traffic congestion in the long term no kidding - 1 - HOV is totally effectless and is only there as to placate the dull witted (and self centered yuppies) 2 - lane expansion is like moving into a bigger house to reduce clutter - one always moves too late for any effect - any now the move is even later because public transit and carpool lanes and similar ideas make the delays in road planning even worse again, if a community implements an HOV that takes into account only 'licensed' drivers, and then vigorously enforces it, then I'll give them credit for good intentions despite their poor thinking processes. In the meantime, they are poor ideas and a big waste of tax dollars. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
packerboy 3 #56 February 25, 2008 Precisely the reason photo radar does work in Ontario is because they don't have to prove you were driving, just that you own the car. In fact even if you can prove that I was driving it would still be your fine for the same way that if I get in an accident in your car it is your problem. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure they have not resurrected photo radar in Ontario. The reason it did not work before is as I mentioned as above. The government can not force you to pay a fine for something that someone else did. They cannot force you to pay for a fine simply because you own a car that was involved in speeding. In order for it to stand in a court of law, the legislation would have to change from what is was before. The reason your insurance is involved when someone else is driving your car is because you pay insurance for your car, not for yourself. Again, I could be wrong, but I am fairly certain there is no photo radar in Ontario. -------------------------------------------------- In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #57 February 25, 2008 I don't know whether or not there is PR in Ontario right now, but I do know it has stood up to court challenges of that nature in both BC and Alberta. What they cannot do is affect your driver's license in any way, but they can assign financial penalties to the owner of chattel any time they like; you can always escape the fine by relinquishing ownership of the vehicle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
packerboy 3 #58 February 25, 2008 Yes, I realize that this is different in Alberta. I used to have to slow down to pass the damn thing on the Deerfoot Trail. Good thing in Alberta, well at least in Calgary, is that you know where they are. If they are moved, you hear about it on the radio. In Ontario, the fines did not stand up in court to this defence, which is part of the reason they got rid of it. Personally I have to agree with the innocent untill proven guilty thing. It's the backbone of civilized law and order. I'm surprised noone in BC or Alberta has been able to take it all the way. Where do they draw the line? You lent someone your car and they used it to rob a bank. Your car was photographed outside the bank. Well you own the car so you must do the 15-life. Sounds rediculous sure, but it is the EXACT same principle. Unless of course they make it illegal to own a car that is speeding. Speeding is illegal because it is under Highway Traffic Act, which applies to persons under the care and control of a motor vehicle and occupants of that vehicle. -------------------------------------------------- In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #59 February 25, 2008 Your comparison of the bank robbery doesn't work because it is a crime. You cannot be charges with a crime off photo radar no matter how fast the car is clocked. Similarly if the car is stolen you can avoid fiscal responsibility for the photo-radar ticket. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #60 February 25, 2008 > what you call 'simple math' is predicated on the assumption that the >HOV lane is the only reason for more than one one person to get in a >car. (only government intervention can make the masses drive together). A 2007 study in Texas by the TRB showed that of all the people who carpooled, the ability to use the HOV lane was by far the main reason they did so. In DC and Houston, a phenomenon called "slugging" has arisen spontaneously to get better use out of HOV lanes. People will form a line of cars, and drivers yell out their destinations - and someone going there will get in and they will drive together. In SFO, there are 'casual carpool' sites where people can do the same thing. We've been developing new applications for ridesharing where someone with a cellphone can punch in where he's going, and drivers who participate in the program (and are going to the same place at the same time) get a ping. The program requires registration, which should help deal with the security issues any public rideshare program has. >1 - HOV is totally effectless and is only there as to placate the dull >witted (and self centered yuppies) A highway with HOV lanes carries more people for less money. (And believe it or not, you do end up paying for highways!) That's their primary benefit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #61 February 25, 2008 Hi Bill, What would be the finance model for your application? How would you share the cost of a ride? Also, if you are charging for a ift, does that make you a Taxi or MiniCab and then would you be subject to rules that apply to those people? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #62 February 25, 2008 > Hi Bill, What would be the finance model for your application? In which application? The cellphone one? Right now it's up to the driver to set a price (which he can do on a website.) We're also looking at the models of RideshareX and Ridester.com, which are more plan-ahead type systems - but have more systematic ways to set prices. The application itself would probably be sold via a BREW-type model (i.e. Verizon's Get It Now) so it would be a few $$ for the application to start off with. >lso, if you are charging for a ift, does that make you a Taxi or MiniCab Here in the US, no. It's similar to FAA rules - if you are sharing costs, it's a private ride. If you are charging for a ride, then it's commercial. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #63 February 25, 2008 Thanks Bill - sounds interesting and could have legs else where. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #64 February 25, 2008 In suburban Vancouver you can get a van owned by transit for pooling. Kind of a six person bus service for the neighbourhood with one guy designated the driver. http://online.ride-share.com/en/my/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #65 February 25, 2008 QuoteAlso, if you are charging for a ift, does that make you a Taxi or MiniCab and then would you be subject to rules that apply to those people? Well, thanks for ruining it for everyone. Expect California to start taxing that program too. "sharing costs" - yup, drive A is sharing his car and time, and rider B is 'sharing' his money. I guess it's ok to stiff the government out of revenue as long as people can feel the illusion of protecting her. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
