On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, David Cantrell wrote:

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 07:34:27PM +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

Or to spend the money on extra police or traffic wardens (or cameras) to
enforce traffic laws at key conflict points. And, since a minor but
significant fraction of cyclist casualties stem from cyclist errors, i
mean enforcing them against cyclists as well as motorists!

The latter would mean making cyclists identifiable, with number plates.
Good idea.

Only if you wanted to do it with cameras. If there were actual people,
they could stop them there and then.

Unfortunately, cameras won't work. Cameras can't spot an awful lot of
bad behaviour, such as silly lane changes, unless monitored by a person.

Current cameras don't. I wouldn't say that camera's can't - it's just a
matter of the right software. Software is unlikely to be good as a human
brain, but it can do some quite amazing and unexpected things. Have you
come across this gait analysis business, for instance? Basically, software
can extract enough unique information about the way someone walks to
uniquely identify them in a crowd. Big-brother-tastic! Detecting dangerous
lane changes would seem trivial by comparison.

And if you're going to have a person, why not just have them stand next
to the junction in question?

Well, because one person can monitor more than one camera. Also, is
suspect that one person can work longer and more productively in a
sheltered office environment than a wet and windy street corner.

Not that i'm against having more lawmen on the streets. That would be a
good thing. But it might noet be the optimal allocation of resources.

tom

--
It involves police, bailiffs, vampires and a portal to hell under a
tower block in Hackney.