Print 44 comment(s) - last by DJ Brandon.. on Oct 12 at 1:35 AM

  (Source: Universal Pictures)
The new automated traffic fine system incorporates sensors built into vehicles and Communication and Information Technologies (CITs)

If you're the type of driver that leans more toward offensive rather than defensive driving, you might want to take it easy on the speeding and pay attention to those stoplights -- systems to automate traffic fines are in the making. 
Researchers from the Universidad Carlos III Madrid's (UC3M) Information and Communication Technology Security Group have been working on the E-SAVE project, which aims to use IT to improve traffic regulation. 
The new automated traffic fine system incorporates sensors built into vehicles and Communication and Information Technologies (CITs). The new system has three main components: a mechanism that allows drivers to report others while maintaining anonymity and authenticity; a way for sending the notification of a fine directly to the vehicle in question, and a mechanism that allows the offending driver to create electronic evidence in order to defend him/herself in the case that they receive a notification. The offending driver can do this by "asking" surrounding drivers with sensors to be witnesses to the scene. 
The whole system is based on vehicle-to-vehicle communication via sensors, where cars can trade information in the flow of traffic and allow for crimes to be reported. 
A huge aspect of the new system is to keep driver information confidential so that credentials are not stolen or abused. It's also important that driver information is updated and accurate for the purpose of sending fines correctly. The team is doing this through a project called PRECIOUS, where cryptographic methods of anonymous authentication and zero knowledge tests are used. This rids the duplication of information. 
The system will be tested in "the coming months."

Source: Universidad Carlos III in Madrid (UC3M)

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

This is BULL$#+!.
By Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer on 10/9/2012 9:00:48 PM , Rating: 5
Seriously. What the f--k is this? Someone's going five under, you go to pass them, they speed up (they do it every single time), so you have to speed up to finish passing them...and right when they hit the speed limit, they report you. These are the same dickweasels who then proceed to ride your rear end for the next three miles, like suddenly you're the one in their way.

Hell no.

RE: This is BULL$#+!.
By CloudFire on 10/9/2012 9:20:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'd imagine there would be a timer limit to when you get fined. So probably 15-30 seconds on a timer that alerts you when you are going over the speed limit. It wouldn't make sense to insta-fine people. Perhaps the timer decreases if the drive in question is exceeding the speed limit often during the drive. I'm curious how this would play out (if ever).

RE: This is BULL$#+!.
By Spuke on 10/10/2012 12:09:12 AM , Rating: 2
Speed cameras don't even pass PUBLIC scrutiny nevermind legal. And they think people will bone up to even MORE intrusive methods? LMAO! This is dead before release.

RE: This is BULL$#+!.
By inperfectdarkness on 10/10/2012 3:58:41 AM , Rating: 2
I seriously hope they're not pulling government funds for this reserach. Next thing you know, we'll be getting fines for not doing a courtesy flush or for leaving the toilet seat up.

Why are people so blind to the idea that personal responsibility is the one key factor which drives economic prosperity?

RE: This is BULL$#+!.
By nolisi on 10/10/2012 12:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
If that were true, then you wouldn't have companies cooking books, ponzi schemes, outright theft, or businesses using undocumented workers.

Personal responsibility doesn't drive economic prosperity- profit motive does. Profit motive can encourage people to participate in economics responsibly, creating growth for everyone.

Profit motive, unfortunately, can cause people to do the very things that destroy wealth and undermine economic prosperity.

With that said- I don't support the idea that *individuals* should be constantly monitored. Driving has inherent risks because of large amounts of moving mass. While we can record things like speed, distance and movement, cannot record everything such as whether a truck dropped rocks on the road or a neighboring driver is brandishing a gun. It is also possible (and common) for people to make bad decisions in a perfectly safe manner (according to numbers), and still cause incidents.

I'm in favor of spending money to protect individuals (seat belts, blind spot monitoring, airbags, sufficiently strong frame), but let's not spend money to create another revenue generating system for the state, which will do nothing to curtail the bad habits of drivers- especially those whose finances aren't even modestly impacted by a traffic fine. Traffic fines have failed to curtail bad drivers.

RE: This is BULL$#+!.
By dgingerich on 10/10/2012 2:50:10 PM , Rating: 2
If there weren't people who are so lazy they don't bother to think when they get involved in things, situations like that wouldn't even happen. Things like "Really? I can double my money in a year?" and "There's no risk of losing my money in this investment?" and "I can make money without having to pay out anything?" If they'd just stop and think, they'd know those situations don't exist. The world just doesn't work that way.

Unfortunately, there are just too many lazy/stupid (same thing, really) people in the world. People don't bother think think, so they fall for things like Ponzi schemes, Nigerian scams, and "international lottery" schemes. They fall for this, and these things work, because people are being stupid.

Let them get caught in the schemes. It will weed out some who just shouldn't be allowed to procreate. They'll become homeless and they bloodlines will die out.

If you know a company is a ripoff, don't invest in them. (Citibank and Capital One, for example.) People investing in a company should be held responsible for the behavior of that company, and if the company is involved in criminal behavior, the company should be totally broken down and all assets sold off to pay restitution. The investors shouldn't get squat back.

If a company you're working for is a ripoff, either to their employees or their customers, quit and go elsewhere. I've done that numerous times.

As for driving safety, I'm all for revocation of licenses for certain people, like the idiot in the BMW X5 I see driving along the shoulder nearly every day on my way home from work, or the stupid old man constantly going 45 in a 65 zone. (I've been hit from behind 6 times because someone was going too slowly ahead of me and someone else came up behind me too fast. I call it getting caught between an a-hole and an idiot, and both of them are to blame.) Fines don't do squat to deter people, but removing their ability to drive would. There's too freaking many people on the road as it is, and most of them too stupid to drive right. Driving is a privilege, and it should stay that way. I say get some of these idiots off the road, permanently.

RE: This is BULL$#+!.
By mackx on 10/10/2012 5:11:43 AM , Rating: 2
whether it's a good idea or not - i've heard of people jamming the brakes on during a situ like that. then claim injury on the person behind them who clearly didn't give enough space between vehicles.

the claim to see a deer running past or some such.

RE: This is BULL$#+!.
By Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer on 10/10/2012 11:00:49 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but I'm not trying to cause an accident (unlike the guy who is now behind me). I'm just trying to go to work.

RE: This is BULL$#+!.
By fic2 on 10/10/2012 8:39:33 PM , Rating: 2
Guy that did that in CO got put in jail because he ended up killing the person behind him. The guy that got killed was driving in the left lane. Guy that killed him passed him, got in the left lane then slammed on his breaks. I forgot how many years he got but I wonder if he thinks it was worth it now - although I am sure he still blames the guy he killed.

RE: This is BULL$#+!.
By Saldrin on 10/10/2012 7:09:20 AM , Rating: 5
Hardware stores will report record sales of wire cutters.

RE: This is BULL$#+!.
By Shadowself on 10/10/2012 9:08:48 AM , Rating: 2
Or a thriving set of mechanics (even if it has to develop into a black market version) that remove this capabilities from cars.

RE: This is BULL$#+!.
By drycrust3 on 10/10/2012 4:29:46 PM , Rating: 2
Just like it's a crime in most countries to drive a car without a registration plate, my guess is someone will feel the need to make it a criminal offense to disconnect this without proper authority.
You may actually find that they also have subtle ways of making it "worth your while" to have one during the transition phase, such as giving you more red lights than if you don't have the gizmo fitted, increasing the cost of whatever standing vehicle taxes you have in America, or that there will be a unit connected to your local gas station petrol pump, meaning it won't dispense fuel to you unless you have a working unit in the car.
Other things will be automated parking fees, so that as soon as you park your car a machine will start to charge you, and if you don't have the gizmo then it will alert the parking wardens to come along and ticket you.
Of course, if your car happens to be stolen you'd think the police would get a minute by minute report as to where your car is and which bank it was parked outside ... but the cynics would say you will probably incur fines because the unit was disconnected illegally, parking charges for two minutes it was parked outside of the bank, and then fines for the illegal speed it was driven away from the bank.

RE: This is BULL$#+!.
By conquistadorst on 10/10/2012 9:37:00 AM , Rating: 2
I definitely see this happen to me all the time. But how do you know they weren't already accelerating? I mean, if you have a faster car, of course you're going to appear to be going faster. But I drive a Civic, it takes awhile to get up to 75mph, especially if I'm not burning through gas with the pedal to the metal heh... if that's the case, not sure how you can expect everyone to accelerate just as fast as you do? Anyway, there's really no real good reason to get so upset about it, chill out, easy on the road rage bro.

RE: This is BULL$#+!.
By Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer on 10/10/2012 11:09:16 AM , Rating: 2
Ha ha, trust me, they aren't. It's almost always a situation where I've been behind them long enough to know they aren't going to stop driving like someone's grandmother. Well, until you pass them, and suddenly they're drafting you. There's no mistaking the fact that they're simply driving like @$$holes. :-\

I mean, hell, I drive a Volvo (albeit a Volvo with an occasionally very useful turbo heh heh), and I'm all for driving in a manner that doesn't trash your gas mileage. But that's not what's going on here.

RE: This is BULL$#+!.
By fic2 on 10/10/2012 8:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
I remember a few years ago driving down a 4 lane each way divided highway. I was in the 2nd to the right lane. There was one other car within eyesight. Where was he? Right on my ass - couldn't even see his license plate. What did I do? I slowly slowed down. After about 2 miles we were both doing 45 (from 65). He finally noticed how slow we were going and passed me.

RE: This is BULL$#+!.
By Schrag4 on 10/10/2012 12:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
In your scenario the slow-accelarator that got passed should either slow down briefly to create distance if he wants to go the same speed or he should pass the fast-accelerator. No need to ride someone's bumper in that situation.

To the OP, I totally agree with you. These people will speed up once you get over to pass them, and then once you get back into the slow lane behind them they slow back down. It happens quite often, and it makes me wonder if I'm the only one on the road that uses cruise control.

RE: This is BULL$#+!.
By Souka on 10/10/2012 11:56:33 AM , Rating: 2
I believe, in the state of Washington you can pass a 15mph over the speed limit.

So in your case, they'd get a ticket and you wouldn't (unless you're 15mpt over during the passing)

RE: This is BULL$#+!.
By nerdcore on 10/10/2012 3:51:39 PM , Rating: 2
"Fogie Bloomer, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute."

RE: This is BULL$#+!.
By DJ Brandon on 10/12/2012 1:35:39 AM , Rating: 2
Very good point sir. Reading this article made me sick =(... Only going to get worst.

I read one a while back(don't rip me apart I don't know how true this is) saying they wanted to connect iPass tolls so if you get passed point A at 1pm and point be at 145 pm they would know at some point you were doing 98 mph which then would give you a ticket.

How about....
By Talon75 on 10/10/2012 5:36:42 AM , Rating: 2
Instead of focusing on my regulations and ways to screw people over for a buck on the basis of "safety", how about we invest in education and solve the problem from the get go... Say for example, let's stop giving drivers licenses away like they are candy...

Or better yet, put that technical know how into an automated driving system or something else equally cool....

RE: How about....
By Dr of crap on 10/10/2012 8:28:28 AM , Rating: 2
Really, you're going to educate the little old lady that can't see over the steering wheel and only goes 50 mph on the freeway marked at 60 mph, or all those morons that stay in the left lane the WHOLE way home no matter what????

Nice try!
The automated driving has some merit. But you'll never get a majority to jump on that bandwagon either.

RE: How about....
By Stuka on 10/10/2012 12:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, you will... or they don't get their license. Finland is a model on this. You pay a bunch of money, you get a bunch of instruction (vehicle handling, crash avoidance, foul weather control), and if you care about your $2000+ you will pay attention and pass the course the first time.

Driving is a privilege, it says so on page one in the manual. We need to start regulating it more like a privilege.

RE: How about....
By fic2 on 10/10/2012 8:47:29 PM , Rating: 2
They don't stay in the left lane the whole way home. Usually about 20 feet from their exit they cut across the 3-4 lanes to barely make it nearly killing several people on their way.

RE: How about....
By NellyFromMA on 10/10/2012 8:39:56 AM , Rating: 2
Sad thing is, the American economic engine demands as many people as popssible go out and work. Thing is, if you can't transport yourself you're immediately relegated to a much narrower set of life options.

Honestly, the bottom line is, we give licenses to people with little to no training and do not even evaluate whether or not htey are responsible in any way shape or form or competetent.

Obviously, if we restrict the people who have licenses to people are are competent, public and private revenues go way down and the ramifications sweep out much farther than that.

We think things like fines will nudge idiots into place, but we've seen that doesn't work in any situation. That's the problem.

RE: How about....
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 10/10/2012 12:00:06 PM , Rating: 1
Personally, I think car makers can simply install the same annoying flashing lights and dings for speeding/traffic like they did with seatbelts. You're more inclined to wear your seatbelt, not because you want to, but because the damn car doesn't shut up.

With today's 'cars that park themselves,' there's clearly a sensor/camera to determine objects in the front and back. That said, there should be a new 'you can move the fuck over to the right lane now' flashing light and a door bell ding to accompany it!

Same with speeding. I had a gps system that would ding when I was 10 over the speed limit. And it self adjusted based on the gps (so like when roads jumped from 55 to 35, etc..). Kinda handy, but annoying too. The point being, it still got my attention.

Laws fix nothing.... but annoying sounds and flashing lights fix everything!

RE: How about....
By Spookster on 10/10/2012 1:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
That's an interesting idea. Aural and visual cues have always been an effective means of guiding or controlling both humans and animals for decades. Obviously it works for seat belts as you mentioned.

One problem with all of this...
By cyberguyz on 10/10/2012 10:28:05 AM , Rating: 2
One of the problems with automated systems such as this is that (at least in North America) a person has the right to face his accuser. If people are pinging this information around and raising charges against you, they have to be available to appear in court EVERY TIME to prosecute those charges. They are the plaintiff. If they don't show up, evidence or no evidence, the case gets thrown out. Remember it is not the D.A. or Crown prosecutor that is accusing you - it is the person that submitted that infraction that accused you.

If the person getting the 'automated fine' is going to be a sheep and pay the fine (which sadly will be the majority) then this could work. But if enough people actually go into court and fight the charge, this idea will go down the the toilet really fast.

Remember this little bit of info the next time you get dinged by a red-light camera ;)

RE: One problem with all of this...
By 91TTZ on 10/10/2012 10:42:19 AM , Rating: 2
That's only for criminal cases. It doesn't apply to traffic laws.

By Shadowself on 10/10/2012 10:43:40 AM , Rating: 2
Additionally, each state in the U.S. has different laws governing "citizen's arrest" circumstances and what is allowed versus what is not allowed. In some states a "citizen's arrest" can only be performed in the case of the arresting person both having actually witnessed the event AND the event had to have been a felony.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that the states will be able to get together and formulate some consistent, legal framework that covers these possible cases to allow individual citizens to "write tickets".

Kill the auto industry
By chmilz on 10/10/2012 2:03:50 AM , Rating: 3
In some dystopian hypothetical future, if this ever happened, I'd never buy a new car again. I imagine millions of others that would otherwise be interested would forego that opportunity as well. Auto industry would either throw the tech out the window or decline substantially.

RE: Kill the auto industry
By Shadowself on 10/10/2012 9:07:40 AM , Rating: 2
My exact initial reaction.

By Cront on 10/9/2012 8:59:02 PM , Rating: 4
Hacked and private information exposed in 5...4...3...2...

Why not simply use speed governors?
By 91TTZ on 10/10/2012 10:45:51 AM , Rating: 2
I see a lot of research being done to find new ways to report people for traffic violations. The claim is that this is about "safety". Yet I find it odd that they're against using technology to prevent people from breaking the law. In other words, they want you to be able to speed and they want your car to automatically report you for it. Why not use a simple speed governor to prevent people from speeding in the first place?

The answer is money. If people actually were forced to drive safer it would dry up an enormous revenue source. This isn't about safety, this is about automatic payments.

By drycrust3 on 10/10/2012 6:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
Totally agree. As I understand it, most Japanese vehicles with an engine management system are actually governed ... at a very high speed e.g. 190 km/hr. There isn't any logical reason why all vehicles sold to most people in a country aren't automatically limited, prior to sale, to something like the legal speed limit plus a small amount. Most of the buses in the bus company I work for are governed, so it isn't as though this is particularly onerous.

Hacked in 5 minutes.
By danjw1 on 10/10/2012 6:35:14 AM , Rating: 2
This will be hacked and be very unenforceable. It is waste of the grant money. At least in the country we have a right to question our accuser, so the anonymity of reporting would be out.

Big brother
By Orwell-1984 on 10/10/2012 8:19:03 AM , Rating: 2
Big brother is watching you!

By Lucky Bob on 10/10/2012 9:25:59 AM , Rating: 2
I'm reminded of this experiment done on the 285 perimeter road around Atlanta where the posted speed is 55 and the average speed is 70+.

Won't ever happen
By tayb on 10/10/2012 9:41:24 AM , Rating: 2
People get really upset about stuff like this but it's just an idea and it won't ever happen. Every single car would have to have this for it to be plausible and even if you get around that monumental hurdle you still have tons of issues such as driver distraction, privacy, two people on the road, etc. This won't ever happen.

I believe that congestion will lead to the end of traditional American commuting before anything like this could ever happen.

Increased stalking on the horizon
By ctodd on 10/10/2012 9:55:29 AM , Rating: 2
I can see people stalking their local police or someone they don't like. Someone is bound to break the law.

I can also see where you can frame people by putting your breaks on and forcing them into a situation where they are driving too close.

Why not simply use speed governors?
By 91TTZ on 10/10/2012 10:55:18 AM , Rating: 2
I see a lot of research being done to find new ways to report people for traffic violations. The claim is that this is about "safety". Yet I find it odd that they're against using technology to prevent people from breaking the law. In other words, they want you to be able to speed and they want your car to automatically report you for it. Why not use a simple speed governor to prevent people from speeding in the first place?

The answer is money. If people actually were forced to drive safer it would dry up an enormous revenue source. This isn't about safety, this is about automatic payments.

Screw With People
By btc909 on 10/10/2012 2:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
So if someone pisses me off I can rat on them and pick an expensive violation? Or vs. versa of course? Can't imagine why in several cities near me most of these AZ based red light cameras were pulled out. Why, losing a ton of money. Expensive to pay this AZ company to run these cameras plus many "violators" never paid the ticket.

New ways to tax.
By drycrust3 on 10/10/2012 4:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
The whole system is based on vehicle-to-vehicle communication via sensors, where cars can trade information in the flow of traffic and allow for crimes to be reported.

This could easily be incorporated into traffic light systems, which already have things like data links to city council central computerised systems, meaning that as vehicles go past a traffic light system it can ask them for things like its current speed and recent highest speed. This could easily become a nice way of taxing vehicles.

By Beenthere on 10/9/2012 10:43:38 PM , Rating: 1
Not likely to happen and all the cars involved would need to have the appropriate hardware to even think of such foolishness.

We do NOT need MORE driver distractions to "improve road safety"...

I'm all for ticketing speeders but this ain't the means to achieve improved vehicular safety. Try actually TEACHING people how to properly drive first, not just how to pass an absurdly inadequate driving test.

Chronic speeders should lose their license in addition to stiff fines. Driving is a privilege, not some God given right.

Oh dear...
By NicodemusMM on 10/9/12, Rating: 0
"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki