bicycle speed camera? Time to remove my rego plates
Seriously though, how will they be able to prove a speed with a time/distance measure that is cost effective? They would need some sort of timing machine similar to the speed/safety cameras for motorists. Then they have to track the rider. There is far too much weaving traffic on the bridge to be able to use sensors or cameras to track speed. Other than that, I can't see someone operating a stopwatch holding up in court!
Have you ever seen the "Police aerial speed patrol" signs on freeways in NSW? Have you ever noticed that for about 5km after those signs there are white lines painted across the lanes exactly every 500m? The cops fly overhead and time how long it takes from one line to the next, they can then easily calculate your speed and get the cops on the ground to pull you over and book you (not sure if they are allowed to just send you the ticket in the mail, considering all the extra signage required around speed cameras in NSW).
Basically, if you have a measured distance (with certified accuracy), and a stopwatch (again, would have to be certified as calibrated), then you can easily prove the average speed to a court.
The flip side of this is, if you accurately measure these and provide enough evidence to the cops (eg calibration certificates, video proof showing car and stopwatch) then theoretically it should be possible for the cops to fine them based solely on your evidence.
Yeah, that is sort of my point. To be able to hit start on a stopwatch from 400 odd metres away accurately will take some practice! Unless of course they split up and radio through a start time. But then it will be tough for them to predict which rider to target and they only get to do one rider at a time. The aerial view on highways can pinpoint a few speedy cars before they hit the area and then measure.
Accuracy isn't too much of an issue... At 10k/h it takes exactly 144 seconds to travel 400m. They should easily be able to keep their error to less than four seconds, so if they time you at 140 seconds or faster then you could be proven to have exceeded 10k/h.
Yes, they would only be able to do one rider at a time, but news would spread really quickly. Plus they would probably have a reasonable deal of accuracy with who they chose.
Does the revenue from the aerial speed patrols cover the running costs (fuel, plane maintenance, etc)? And those cops couldn't be easily deployed on ground if something major cropped up elsewhere (or do they use choppers?).
Maybe the next technology helping them bust the cyclists is facial recognition systems; picks up each cyclist at time T1 entering one end of the bridge, stores the facial data, picks up each cyclist leaving at T2 on the other side, analyses facial data, compares time difference and bingo. Or have it at different points along the bridge for finer fining.
Of course, it would need to identify a cyclist as opposed to a ped jogging, so the latter could get away with going faster (perhaps by identifying the presence of a helmet (but then how to ID the lidless?)).
But not all rules are created equal, and not all offences are of equal severity. If the cops were also policing the green Bike Lanes for wayward peds, I could see some justice in it.... but cyclist offences are VERY low hanging fruit in this area and it's not creating a substantial public good. The endless reports of police ignoring serious threats to rider safety in the Moron Motorist thread imply to me that the cops are being a pain in the arse. Where are the reports of helmetless head trauma? Where are the peds getting knocked down by bikes doing 15kmh?
There is a reason there are no reports. It's not happening!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot]