
Hyundai’s 2015 Genesis will automatically brake for speed cameras - bane
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/185365-hyundais-2015-genesis-will-automatically-brake-for-speed-cameras-awesome-or-a-terrifying-misuse-of-technology
======
cstross
Fatal accident lawsuits in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Reasoning: people are going to rely on this to save them from speeding
tickets. So they're going to drive too fast. Meanwhile, other idiots who _don
't_ have it will also drive too fast. It's only a matter of time before
someone in a Genesis enters a camera zone and auto-brakes while another
speeding idiot on a cellphone is tail-gating them. Result: a high-speed pile-
up.

Something not-dissimilar happened with the first roll-out of ABS on cars;
drivers who knew their brakes were super-strong drove too fast and actually
ended up with a _higher_ accident rate, at least at first. But ABS was a pure
safety feature (to prevent your brakes locking up on a slippery surface or if
engaged too hard). This ... I lack words to describe how inadvisable I think
it is to seek to avoid a small fine in return for an elevated risk of high-
speed vehicle-to-vehicle collisions.

(The risk can be reduced if the Genesis has _rear_ facing radar to prevent
shunts, or begins to brake gently some distance ahead of the camera zone. It's
also mitigated if tail-gating idiots drive cars with adaptive cruise control
-- that maintains constant separation from the vehicle ahead regardless of
speed. But as not all cars have the latest features it'll take an automobile
generation for this stuff to spread out and become ubiquitous. Meanwhile,
sooner or later, people will die.)

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Seat belts and bicycle helmets cause the same phenomena: accident rate goes up
when introduced/required before going back to normal after people adjust their
risk taking to the increased safety envelope.

~~~
clearf
Do you have a reference to this? I've heard this argument before, but haven't
been able to find any hard stats.

~~~
avaloneon
The buzzword is "risk compensation". There's a whole article on Wikipedia
about it (and lots of studies) but, to make a long story short, "measures,
designed to improve traffic safety, may bring along negative consequences in a
way that individuals increase the riskiness of their driving behaviour because
they feel safer (Dulisse, 1997)"

~~~
apendleton
With cycling, in particular, it's not just individuals making judgments about
their own safety, either; a 2006 UK study shows that drivers passing cyclists
give helmet wearers less clearance, perhaps out of some subconscious sense
that they'd do better if they get hit, or maybe that, being risk-averse
helmet-wearers, they're less likely to lash out and do something unexpected.
(see
[http://www.helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm](http://www.helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm)
)

------
kijin
Every GPS unit sold in South Korea already come with a database of every speed
camera in the country, and the database can be easily updated every few weeks.
Connecting this to the speed controller is only the logical next step. I'm
actually surprised that it took Hyundai so long to connect the dots.

I don't know about the US and UK, but whenever the Korean police installs a
speed camera, they put up a clear warning sign 500-1000m before the camera.
There is absolutely no secret or surprise about the location of a speed trap,
and the police apparently doesn't care to catch drivers by surprise, either.
Someone probably figured out that drivers tend to slow down when they see the
warning sign, and do so gradually instead of suddenly since the actual camera
is still a quarter mile away. In other words, transparency about the location
of speed traps actually increases road safety, even though it probably reduces
police revenue.

~~~
hcarvalhoalves
> I don't know about the US and UK, but whenever the Korean police installs a
> speed camera, they put up a clear warning sign 500-1000m before the camera.
> There is absolutely no secret or surprise about the location of a speed
> trap, and the police apparently doesn't care, either.

Of course they care. That's why the sign is there.

The objective of a speed trap is to make drivers _slow down_ , not punish
them. If it's hidden and the driver _does_ get ticked it means it failed at
it's goal because you had a speeding car on the road anyway.

~~~
serge2k
Then these signs would be all over the states, and cops would be putting up
signs around their speed traps.

~~~
manicdee
In the USA, speeding tickets are about revenue, which is why they hide their
speed traps.

~~~
prawn
In the UK, fixed speed cameras are often preceded by warning signs. Not so in
Australia - I think we've had cases of them being hidden in roadside bins.
It's common to see a police car with speed gun behind bushes at the side of
the road.

------
sb23
This is going to confuse the hell out of people who buy it second hand in 10
years time, especially if the maps go out of date.

~~~
est
Well to be honest I was expecting something more advanced, like a military
grade LIDAR detector of optical lens & cams.

And some cams emit infareds so there are many means to detect them.

~~~
MrUnknown
Usually detecting them can be too late. They can clock your speed and take
your picture extremely fast and work in a very focused area usually.

The detector would have to catch "Scatter" from it from cars going through it
or whatever. Which, IR is emitted from many sources, so it couldn't be used as
a reliable way to detect it.

Also, a lot of the triggers are by video cameras. If you have ever setup any
basic home security system(Like Q-See), you can choose areas as "Triggers" for
recording. The operators of the cameras basically draw out areas that act as
trigger zones. See this as something of an example:
[http://rhythmtraffic.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/10/WebUI.jp...](http://rhythmtraffic.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/10/WebUI.jpg)

------
softgrow
I wonder how they did their market research to arrive at a position where it
avoids being detected breaching a limit but doesn't avoid breaching the limit
when there is no camera around. It seems a fairly cynical position to adopt to
appeal to a specific segment of the market. Seem very similar to a DUI
insurance policy that was briefly offered in Australia (you pay premiums,
caught out DUI, no problem, insurance pays).

I'd much prefer to have three options:

1 _Turned off_ \- I'll take responsibility for the vehicle myself and bear the
consequences myself

2 _Their proposal_ \- I'll let the machine avoid the tickets and when nobody
is looking do what I please

3 No speeding - The vehicle will never speed, _I 'll never get a speeding
ticket under any circumstances_, camera there or not, in fact Hyundai will pay
the fine as it will be simply impossible to incur one and they'll put their
money on the line to make sure the damn thing works.

------
jameshart
Surely if the intention of the car manufacturer was honest it would simply
prevent the car from ever exceeding the speed limit _anywhere_ , not just when
you're passing a speed camera. Just autobraking for cameras is a ridiculous
case of overfitting for the wrong fitness metric.

~~~
sliverstorm
Nobody, including the police, thinks that is a good idea. It isn't illegal to
make a pass over the speed limit, for example. Or if it is, it doesn't matter.

Judicious application of speed, including over the speed limit, makes the road
safer for everyone.

~~~
jameshart
"It isn't illegal to make a pass over the speed limit"

... I think you're probably mistaken. Seems unlikely the police will overlook
your driving at 50 in a 35 zone just because you're doing it on the wrong side
of the road towards oncoming traffic to pass someone dawdling along at 30.
That would be an odd loophole.

Also would suggest that freeway speed limits only apply in the 'slow' lane,
since all the other lanes are technically passing lanes....

~~~
sliverstorm
Ok, I didn't claim it's legal to make a pass at 200mph in a 35mph zone. I am
not about to look up the statutes, especially as they are different in every
state, but my memory is that at the end of the day speed is legally up to your
judgement and the officer's judgement.

95% of the time the posted speed limit is treated as "The Limit", but in
circumstances like passing we continue to use "judgement" as the metric, both
on part of us and the officer.

So if you pass at 70mph in a 35mph, an officer can say "That is reckless", and
if you pass at 40mph he can say "That is reasonable".

Remember, it behooves no-one for passing speeds to be +0.5mph. If you want to
overtake someone and you cannot have an appreciable speed differential, the
pass will take a very long time which is more risky.

------
apendleton
You could imagine drones of various kinds being pretty good at taking auto
speed readings while still being way cheaper than officers with radar guns. My
money's on that as the next strategy once fixed camera placements become
completely ineffective.

------
_pmf_
Of all the possible reasons to introduce intelligent breaking, this is the
worst. Risking accidents to save money equivalent to 3 large coffees?

~~~
kijin
That would depend on how quickly the brakes are applied. Hyundai ain't stupid.
They'll probably try to make it as smooth as possible so that the car behind
you has enough time to react. The occupants of the Genesis probably won't
appreciate a sudden jerk, either.

~~~
malka
Yeah, I mean the computer would be aware of the speed trap miles BEFORE
reaching it. It has plenty of time to a soft slow down of the car.

------
MadMoogle
So what happens when it detects a speed zone in the middle of winter when I'm
on a patch of black ice? The result is often a spinout resulting in totaling
the car on a guard rail or a tree or a snowbank. I'll pass. Braking and
acceleration are too important for maintaining road traction. Why would I
compromise that to avoid a speeding ticket?

------
jcr
First, get past the obvious benefit of a seemingly unfair advantage for
avoiding traffic tickets, such as reduced costs due to traffic fines or
insurance premiums.

Then get past the obvious harm of a seemingly unfair advantage for avoiding
traffic tickets, such as reduced freedom to drive "too fast" and reduced
revenues for law enforcement budgets [1].

The end result of tech like this (including the ultimate step of speed
governors preventing speeding) really _seems_ to be all of us sharing safer
roads, and fewer of us getting hurt or dying in traffic accidents.

This seems pretty good at first sight, but unfortunately, it leaves open one
problematic question; if everyone drove at the speed limit (and fully stopped
at stop signs/lights --feasible to enforce with tech), would there be fewer
accidents?

Also, I wonder if there would be more or less traffic congestion?

[1] [http://www.networkworld.com/article/2226966/opensource-
subne...](http://www.networkworld.com/article/2226966/opensource-
subnet/driverless-cars-could-cripple-law-enforcement-budgets.html)

~~~
softgrow
The odd thing is that once the automated/autonomous vehicles reach above the
10% level the consensus is (cant find a stellar ref but
[http://www.usfav.com/publications/TAVI_8-CapacityPinjari.pdf](http://www.usfav.com/publications/TAVI_8-CapacityPinjari.pdf)
will do for a start) that we'll see marked improvements beyond 10% expected in

\- less traffic congestion and increased roadway capacity beyond what can be
obtained with human drivers

\- 28% reduction in fuel usage on the whole fleet

\- marked reduction in crashes beyond a 10% reduction expected

~~~
jcr
Thanks for the link to that white paper. I've skimmed the intro, and then
skipped to the end for their conclusions. I'll read the whole thing later
tonight, but as expected, the conclusion states itself to be speculative,
without supporting data, and in need of more research. From the pdf:

> _" many experts speculate that the overall benefits outweigh the potential
> negative externalities."_

> _" Additional research is necessary on a number of aspects related to AVs,
> including ..."_

Like everyone, I _really want_ to believe having more automated and autonomous
vehicles on the road will result in fewer accidents, reduced congestion, and
other benefits, but all we really have at the moment is (seemingly well
reasoned) speculation since we lack supporting data. Until we have supporting
data from repeatable experiments, whether the speculated benefits will both
materialize outweigh the negative impacts should remain open questions. The
open questions will get answered, eventually, but it will take a few decades
and buying into the all the speculated hype at this early and unproven stage
is harmful.

I guess I'd rather be cautiously optimistic until we have more useful and
repeatable results.

------
thedrbrian
On the one hand this is fucking terrifying on the other I'm off to tag
everything with stupid speed limits. Five mph on the motorway and 70 outside
schools.

~~~
Alupis
I can't locate it now, but there was an article I read somewhere that talked
about the un-expected side-effects of speed cameras.

Was along the lines that people get used to where speed cameras are located
(along their daily commute, etc), and either slow-down in that one particular
area (positive effect), or slam on the brakes and cause accidents (negative
effect). Both resulting in fewer traffic citations, andd causing the cost-to-
maintain the cameras (often contracted to 3rd parties) to increase. Some
cities in the Bay Area of California have removed the camera inside the boxes,
stopped paying the contractor to maintain the cameras, and just left the metal
enclosures in place -- with the same results.

(maybe hidden moral - humans are creatures of habit?)

------
manicdee
So if I was a local council member, I'd be starting up a cyber warfare
division to deliberately insert false camera locations and remove legitimate
ones, along with a program of moving the actual cameras around on a random
rotation.

Well, that and ensuring that there are more marked police cars patrolling the
roads.

------
kimba
Stupid.

Speed cameras exist to stop idiots killing innocent people.

Yeah police profit. Who cares. They need all the help they can get with
crystal meth literally turning a fair slice of the world into psycho zombies.

~~~
MrUnknown
Speed cameras solely exist to generate profit. A road can, and does, have
speeders all day and not a single accident.

I'm still going to hit a person/car if they do something stupid on the road if
I am speeding or not.

If you need any supporting facts that they are only for profit, there is more
research in red-light cameras. They have shown that they can cause _more_
accidents because people try to avoid going through the intersection "just in
case" they don't make it all the way through and get a ticket. This causes
aggressive braking and accidents. It also doesn't help that a lot of states
will shorten the length of the Yellow light at these intersections to ensure
more people will go through them. Yay for safety.

As for speeding cameras, my state recently took one down due to backlash
because they installed a camera 100ft before a speed increase sign. The
"tickets" (I quote that because they are usually fines, and not really
tickets, and usually do not cause points to be put on your license if your
state has that system) included a photograph of their car passing the new
speed limit sign.

The state admitted no wrong doing, and believe it was a great spot to put the
camera. If I remember correctly it was in a 25mph zone that went to 45mph. It
would ticket cars upto the 45mph sign for going 30mph in a 25mph zone. While
"technically" correct, it's pretty obvious the motivation of wanting to put it
there.

edit: found it for you, [http://www.wtop.com/58/3423357/Police-question-
College-Park-...](http://www.wtop.com/58/3423357/Police-question-College-Park-
speed-cams-fairness)

~~~
YokoZar
More directly, there are devices that have been shown to increase safety far
better than speed cameras -- those electronic signs that ready your current
speed back to you (and flash if it's too high).

~~~
rezistik
The problem with fines and fees is that it puts a price on things, which is
why those electric signs work so much better than speeding cameras.

Sure, a $100, $200, or more ticket is expensive and a lot of money to some
people it allows the people who can afford it to easily rationalize the
behavior.

"It's only $200 bucks it's clearly not that big of an issue, if it was a real
danger it would be more expensive"

However the speed blinkers let you know you're doing something wrong and these
condition you to feel guilty therefore slowing down.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Most people don't worry about the speeding ticket cost, but the increased
insurance premium that goes with it.

~~~
rockpoodle
Agreed, insurance premium hikes are big compared to the fine. It's usually
cheaper to hire a lawyer...though that also costs more than the fine.

