>From: Delvieron@aol.com
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.com
>To: extropians@extropy.com
>Subject: Re: camera tech for crime prevention
>Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 00:42:29 EDT
>
>Phil Osborn wrote:
>
><< My chief concern, however, as a motorcycle rider is that very few of the
> lights respond to my 630 pound bike. Thus, I am forced to run red lights
>or
> turn signals every day, or spend excessive time waiting for a car to
>trigger
> the light. A local bike shop owner was actually cited for this a few
>years
> ago and discovered that the law in CA actually takes this into account.
>If
> the light doesn't respond, then you have the right to proceed with
>caution,
> under CA's "reasonable person" basic driving law. >>
>
>Hmmm, maybe if we could add a basic pattern recognition program to the
>video
>cameras at the stop signals that could recognize a motorcycle and hook it
>to
>the light so it would trigger a change of the signal light, then we might
>change what is currently an adverse technology for motorcyclists into an
>asset for them. Of course, they could instead try and adjust the detectors
>for lighter loads, but it might be cheaper and easier to use the video
>instead of tearing up the intersections.
>
>Just a Thought,
>
>Glen Finney
>
Actually, the real solutions have been technically feasible for decades via
passive or active signalling devices on the vehicles themselves. With any
of several cheap, reliable technologies we could have really smart street
signals that would also respond to bicycles, skateboarders, and little old
ladies with walkers who need extra time.