Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists
http://arstechnica.com/?p=679617
70 comments
I do it by overcompensating so there is no chance I am too close to the cyclist. If there is not enough room (e.g., oncoming traffic) then I wait until there is an opportunity. I can't see cars broadly introducing this technology before we're not the ones driving them.
FWIW, I worked on a "citizen jury" that recommended the adoption of the one-metre passing rule in my state. The default opposition on the jury was "what if there isn't enough room?" Many didn't think to presume that give way rules could apply in this situation. No one raised your point about equivalent technology. I guess the difference is that I am good at estimating one metre but poor at estimating 60km/h.
FWIW, I worked on a "citizen jury" that recommended the adoption of the one-metre passing rule in my state. The default opposition on the jury was "what if there isn't enough room?" Many didn't think to presume that give way rules could apply in this situation. No one raised your point about equivalent technology. I guess the difference is that I am good at estimating one metre but poor at estimating 60km/h.
I do the same thing. To me, a cyclist is a "car" in the sense that regardless of their actual road position I treat them like they're taking up the entire lane and look for a window to overtake them.
I guess in my head, I assume that a cyclist could hit a rock at any moment, fall over, and get caught under my tires. So I treat the situation like that is a realistic scenario even if perhaps it is not.
I wish cyclists would cycle more centrally in their lane. Cycling near the curve just results in bad drivers thinking they can ride side by side with a cyclist which they should not be doing...
I guess in my head, I assume that a cyclist could hit a rock at any moment, fall over, and get caught under my tires. So I treat the situation like that is a realistic scenario even if perhaps it is not.
I wish cyclists would cycle more centrally in their lane. Cycling near the curve just results in bad drivers thinking they can ride side by side with a cyclist which they should not be doing...
Exactly. And beyond hitting a rock, they may have to adjust their line to dodge debris that would not trouble a car tyre.
As part of the jury, one member who was a cyclist showed me a first-person video of his commute overlaid with descriptions of why he changed his position when he did - it was very interesting, and the risk of being 'doored' was palpable. I think many drivers would benefit from seeing something like this.
As part of the jury, one member who was a cyclist showed me a first-person video of his commute overlaid with descriptions of why he changed his position when he did - it was very interesting, and the risk of being 'doored' was palpable. I think many drivers would benefit from seeing something like this.
Hear, hear. There have been times that I'm certain the cyclist I was waiting to pass was annoyed that I wasn't passing in city traffic but the law says three feet so I give them three feet. In the main it's because if I passed with less than three feet and something happened, including the cyclist losing control, I would, of course, be crucified by law enforcement and the cyclist, assuming they survived the incident.
We do ask people to guess whether or not they are committing DWI/DUI though, which is a huge problem in my opinion. Cockeyed.com sums it up better than I can:
http://www.cockeyed.com/science/breathalyzer/breathalyser01....
> Monitoring blood alcohol levels is difficult. Holding people accountable for crossing the .08 limit is like holding them accountable for trespassing once they walk past a particular longitude. The line is invisible. It is possible to determine your longitude, but it is awfully tricky if you don't own a sextant or GPS unit.
> Imagine if cars did not have speedometers, but speeding laws were still enforced with $2,000 police radar guns. It would be really difficult to tell how fast you were going, particularly (as is the case with blood alcohol levels), you had never experienced having your speed tested, nor had any real experience with what a particular speed (for example 55 mph) feels like.
http://www.cockeyed.com/science/breathalyzer/breathalyser01....
> Monitoring blood alcohol levels is difficult. Holding people accountable for crossing the .08 limit is like holding them accountable for trespassing once they walk past a particular longitude. The line is invisible. It is possible to determine your longitude, but it is awfully tricky if you don't own a sextant or GPS unit.
> Imagine if cars did not have speedometers, but speeding laws were still enforced with $2,000 police radar guns. It would be really difficult to tell how fast you were going, particularly (as is the case with blood alcohol levels), you had never experienced having your speed tested, nor had any real experience with what a particular speed (for example 55 mph) feels like.
There's two ways to ensure that you aren't inadvertently running afoul of drinking and driving laws: you can either not drink, or wait a large amount of time after drinking before you drive.
Same with passing bicycles - you can give them so much more than three feet that there's no chance that you're within three feet of them, or not pass them until there is that much room.
Three feet is the minimum. The expectation isn't that drivers should try to get as close to three feet without going over.
Same with passing bicycles - you can give them so much more than three feet that there's no chance that you're within three feet of them, or not pass them until there is that much room.
Three feet is the minimum. The expectation isn't that drivers should try to get as close to three feet without going over.
Should we treat speed limits the same way, so everyone drives around at a crawling pace?
You could do that. But most cars come with a handy dashboard-mounted speed indicator device, often in plain view of the driver - so you could use that to determine your car's speed instead.
You should, uh, read the whole thread, it's an analogy.
The comparison doesn't strike me as a very good one. There are no good, quick, easy ways of measuring how far from a cyclist you will be when you pass them, or your blood alcohol content (which is anyway only a crude proxy for level of intoxication, and besides is commonly measured by alcohol in one's breath, which isn't quite the same thing). That's why people are advised to err on the side of caution.
When it comes to speed, on the other hand, every car comes with a speedometer. Erring on the side of caution would not be a crime (the speed limit is a limit, after all, not a goal...), but it's far less necessary.
When it comes to speed, on the other hand, every car comes with a speedometer. Erring on the side of caution would not be a crime (the speed limit is a limit, after all, not a goal...), but it's far less necessary.
It's a pretty crappy analogy.
Would make everybody safer.
What's the problem with using a breathalyzer? Seems like a good investment if you want to drive after drinking often.
France mandated breathalyzer kits in all cars a few years ago, although it has since been suspended[1].
[1] http://www.thelocal.fr/20130124/france-motorists-drivers-sus...
[1] http://www.thelocal.fr/20130124/france-motorists-drivers-sus...
The 3 feet is a minimum. The idea is just to leave a reasonable amount of room. If someone passed a post at speed with only 3 feet of clearance they would be checking to see if their mirror was still there.
There are many laws like that, following too close comes to mind. If in doubt, wait to pass until you're sure you have room.
Following too close is rarely enforced, and it is a big problem. It appears like technology might help mitigate this one, radar-based systems are becoming more standard and several systems are designed to warn when you travel too close for a given speed. Additionally radar based cruise control means that even if you DO travel too close, the faster reaction of the system might avert a collision.
Yep, it's the cause of many accidents. I noticed that Tesla's new cruise control uses radar and adjusts the speed to maintain adequate distance [1]
[1]: http://arstechnica.com/cars/2015/05/review-teslas-new-model-...
[1]: http://arstechnica.com/cars/2015/05/review-teslas-new-model-...
As a cyclist I don't mind cars that are only two feet away, or even only one foot if they're not going that much faster than me. It'd be pretty awful to be ticketing people for only being 35" away (especially since riding in a 1" band is not feasible on most streets, so most of them wouldn't even be the car's fault), but on a lot of streets you could be pretty much continuously writing tickets for passing 6" away, and blaming a lack of instruments for that would be like blaming a broken speedometer for going 50 in a 25 zone.
Close distance passing may be more tolerable for experienced and fully competent cyclists, but it's still unnecessarily risky. And the risks are much higher for those with less sure bike handling skills: new and casual riders, and the very young. It's not uncommon to see these kinds of riders wobbling back and forth, "salmoning" their way down the road, obviously lacking good situational awareness.
There are just so many reasons why it's a good idea to give cyclists a wide berth, but perhaps they all come down to this: The extra space provides a more adequate margin for error in the event of unforeseen and emergency circumstances, for both driver and cyclist.
There are just so many reasons why it's a good idea to give cyclists a wide berth, but perhaps they all come down to this: The extra space provides a more adequate margin for error in the event of unforeseen and emergency circumstances, for both driver and cyclist.
Judging 45 miles per hour is a lot different (and difficult) than knowing how far three feet is.
I think the device is used partly as education, partly as a method for capturing the exact distance. It's less about "how far is three feet?" and more "I have proof you were closer than three feet".
I think the device is used partly as education, partly as a method for capturing the exact distance. It's less about "how far is three feet?" and more "I have proof you were closer than three feet".
What I find more interesting than the device is a quote from the officer, "Their attitude will determine whether I issue a citation. If they take it and just throw it on the seat, then I know I wasn’t effective. Then in that case I would issue a citation."
Does this seem extremely subjective and arbitrary to anyone else?
Does this seem extremely subjective and arbitrary to anyone else?
Honestly that sounds like excellent policing to me.
If we issue everyone with a ticket for the smallest infraction we end up alienating the public. I'm a law-abiding citizen; I want to help the police. If I'm pulled over for something fairly innocent - say, not quite leaving enough room for a cyclist - and I'm given a $150 fine, no questions asked, what that does not do is make me respect cyclists more. It makes me disrespect the police, the law, it angers me, it makes me far less likely to help the police in the (immediate) future.
If the officer explains the law to me and I take what he says on board, that's a better outcome for everyone. It's better for me (no ticket), it's better for cyclists (I'll leave more room), and it's better for the police (excellent public relations).
I speak as a daily cyclist, as someone who called my local police literally an hour ago to report a weirdly parked car, and as an ex-Englishman, now resident of Melbourne, Australia. We tend to get on with our police here; their street skills tend to be a bit "softer". I think that's fabulous.
If we issue everyone with a ticket for the smallest infraction we end up alienating the public. I'm a law-abiding citizen; I want to help the police. If I'm pulled over for something fairly innocent - say, not quite leaving enough room for a cyclist - and I'm given a $150 fine, no questions asked, what that does not do is make me respect cyclists more. It makes me disrespect the police, the law, it angers me, it makes me far less likely to help the police in the (immediate) future.
If the officer explains the law to me and I take what he says on board, that's a better outcome for everyone. It's better for me (no ticket), it's better for cyclists (I'll leave more room), and it's better for the police (excellent public relations).
I speak as a daily cyclist, as someone who called my local police literally an hour ago to report a weirdly parked car, and as an ex-Englishman, now resident of Melbourne, Australia. We tend to get on with our police here; their street skills tend to be a bit "softer". I think that's fabulous.
The grandparents wasn't questioning whether it makes sense to give warnings, he was questioning whether we really want officers on the street making gut-level decision about how sorry they think the driver was.
I certainly want the police officers I interact with to be capable of and practiced in the art of correctly making a gut-level decision. I would argue that the problem in the US is in choosing who we give that authority to.
I certainly agree that some people are better decision makers than others, and there's plenty to say about who we want to be employed as officers, but frankly I don't think I want any officers deciding whether to give out $100 tickets based on how blase someone puts a pamphlet on their passenger seat. Maybe if it was in a small culturally homogeneous town you could hope to makes a good read there, but otherwise I think there's just too much miscommunication.
Yeah that's kind of where I was going with that. It would be most ideal if the law was applied evenly and not arbitrarily.
I am all for protecting cyclists and pedestrians, however more laws enabling arrest and arbitrary execution of statue seems less desirable to me.
A clear line delineating between a cycling lane and vehicle lane would perhaps be a more effective safety method than employing a person to dispatch donated pamphlets using donated detection equipment. It seems like the line between a lobbying party and the execution of the law is blurred. In this case, its relatively innocuous however this kind of ambiguity of the intent of the law and the blurred line of its application is probably common.
I am all for protecting cyclists and pedestrians, however more laws enabling arrest and arbitrary execution of statue seems less desirable to me.
A clear line delineating between a cycling lane and vehicle lane would perhaps be a more effective safety method than employing a person to dispatch donated pamphlets using donated detection equipment. It seems like the line between a lobbying party and the execution of the law is blurred. In this case, its relatively innocuous however this kind of ambiguity of the intent of the law and the blurred line of its application is probably common.
Yeah, I don't see how pretending to read a pamphlet in front of the officer demonstrates understanding or future compliance.
Remorse is often considered in criminal matters. I don't see how this is any different.
I think this policing behavior is a mistake, but yours is the strongest argument for it. It actually makes me question the idea of judges trying to assess remorse.
Also, I would say there is a big difference between judges in court room and officers on the street. In a court room, the judge is going to have a substantial amount of time to assess the defendant, he's going to give the defendant feedback on the sorts of signals he's sending, and he's going to explicitly give the chance to demonstrate remorse to defendants who might think it's inappropriate, or don't have that sort of personality, or whatever. The officer on the street is just making a gut-level call which I don't trust; I think it would be dominated by things like how attractive the person is (both men and women), how generally agreeable/social they are, etc.
Also, remorse is usually used to lessen sentencing, but it's not typically used to decide if the defendant gets punished at all.
Also, I would say there is a big difference between judges in court room and officers on the street. In a court room, the judge is going to have a substantial amount of time to assess the defendant, he's going to give the defendant feedback on the sorts of signals he's sending, and he's going to explicitly give the chance to demonstrate remorse to defendants who might think it's inappropriate, or don't have that sort of personality, or whatever. The officer on the street is just making a gut-level call which I don't trust; I think it would be dominated by things like how attractive the person is (both men and women), how generally agreeable/social they are, etc.
Also, remorse is usually used to lessen sentencing, but it's not typically used to decide if the defendant gets punished at all.
Because it's asking the enforcers to become the judges. There's good reason those powers remain separate.
Enforcers make those kind of decisions all the time. Ever been "let go with a warning" for some other kind of violation?
Sure. Are you suggesting this is optimal or desired? It may be necessary due to realities, but that doesn't mean it should be encouraged.
In practice, I'd think you'd see lots of false negatives (people able to feign remorse and concern well enough) but not many false positives (if you can't even be bothered to pretend to care in the face of a ticket, you probably don't).
No more than anything else. If you're gonna be a dick, then there's a cost to that.
Now if they'd only come up with some device to make sure cyclists stop at stop signs and red lights.
Now if only they'd come up with a device to make sure drivers stop at stop signs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GneVKDI_bEc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GneVKDI_bEc
Well red light cameras can capture license plates, so all we need to achieve parity is legally require front and back license plates on bicycles. Seems reasonable, eventually inspection stickers too. Want to make sure brakes work, has working lights. More like motorcycle requirements perhaps?
Edit: just to frame, I did not watch the youtube video you linked to, I was just brainstorming out loud and I don't think anyone should run red lights
Edit: just to frame, I did not watch the youtube video you linked to, I was just brainstorming out loud and I don't think anyone should run red lights
Because adding surveillance placards to one of the few remaining untracked modes of transportation is a fantastic idea.
This "make cyclists stop" red herring persists because some drivers have developed stockholm syndrome with the large quantity of unnecessary traffic control devices that have been deployed by committee (most stop signs could be yields, most red arrows could not exist, and at least a third of stop lights could be simply eliminated).
Cyclists are much more in touch with the life and death reality of public roads, because even when following all traffic laws they can easily be killed. Competent cyclists treat red lights and stop signs as yields because there is no downside for anyone - just like drivers who do rolling stops.
And yes, incompetent cyclists exist just like incompetent drivers exist - if you want to defend yourself from being wrongly blamed for an accident with a self-endangering moron in any vehicle, get a dashcam.
This "make cyclists stop" red herring persists because some drivers have developed stockholm syndrome with the large quantity of unnecessary traffic control devices that have been deployed by committee (most stop signs could be yields, most red arrows could not exist, and at least a third of stop lights could be simply eliminated).
Cyclists are much more in touch with the life and death reality of public roads, because even when following all traffic laws they can easily be killed. Competent cyclists treat red lights and stop signs as yields because there is no downside for anyone - just like drivers who do rolling stops.
And yes, incompetent cyclists exist just like incompetent drivers exist - if you want to defend yourself from being wrongly blamed for an accident with a self-endangering moron in any vehicle, get a dashcam.
I just call it as I see it. And in every American city I have been in in the past ten years, I would say a good 95% of cyclists who come to a stop-sign intersection just run right through the stop sign never slowing down, regardless of whether there are cars at the intersection or not. Don't take my word for it, go out and watch. Go to any intersection in any city. Wait for a cyclist. Bingo. Next cyclist. Bingo. Try it. Basically almost all cyclists run stop signs. There is no red herring. It's the culture.
While I'm personally in favor of the Idaho Stop, the traffic laws are definitely enforced on cyclists in my locale. As I understand it, the police follow the same "logic" for bikes and cars, regarding where and when to direct actual enforcement efforts.
When bicyclists kill as many pedestrians as cars, that might be needed.
To me the best solution is to have dedicated lanes for two wheeled vehicles of up to 50cc or equiv on high traffic roads and then lane sharing on less congested and lower volume roads. Lane sharing in high volume roads is asking for accidents to happen, no matter the best intentions of drivers and cyclists alike. on roadways where the speed is over 25mph I think it'd be best to have dedicated lanes, if possible and lane sharing should be an interim solution during the transition (construction).
It would also mean all involved be subject to all road rules, like speed, distance, red lights and stop signs
It would also mean all involved be subject to all road rules, like speed, distance, red lights and stop signs
I realize this is quite an aside from the topic of the article, but... it's beautiful. It looks like something straight out of the "maker" movement: Appropriate use of off-the-shelf components, rugged enough for its use, "do things that don't scale" manufacturing, and probably appropriately designed for the anticipated number of units needed, numbering maybe a half dozen at most.
The whole thing seems fragile, both in terms of the physical properties and legalities. Some thoughts:
Cost: $1400 for $12 worth of parts obviously hacked together in a project box seems a bit much. While not for this specific application, it's a really common project for people starting out with Arduinos: Arduino+ultrasonic sensor+display and a beeper. Usually used as a parking distance alarm in a garage. In this case the police add their own GoPro for evidence purposes I assume. Hopefully it clearly shows the position of the bicycle as well, and that he was fully to the right of the lane at the time of the measurement.
Safety: Could the possibility of a citation for uncertain margins with a bicycle cause the same nervous reactions that red light cameras cause possibly increasing the number of accidents?
Prior art: My car has an ultrasonic backup alarm with display and beeper that serves this exact purpose (measuring distance before impact). That was done in 2002, so not at all a new idea.
Value as evidence: Isn't a common defense to speeding tickets the lack of recent calibration of the RADAR gun? This thing is probably subject to all manner of interference and inaccuracies.
Countermeasures: It could be easily jammed/confused by a transmitter designed for that purpose, and that should be legal since we're talking about audio frequencies, and inaudible ones at that. Ever see those ultrasonic deer transducers that go on the bumper? They don't work for deer, but they do emit sound in the ultrasonic range at certain speeds. I could see designing one specifically as a passive jammer mounted to the right-hand mirror.
My own experiences: I've biked thousands of kilometers in the US and been hit a few dozen times, nothing very serious. Some were my fault, most the driver's fault. None were malicious, just poor observations/judgement/conditions. I ride defensively and don't really care about these laws and behave as though they don't exist since it's not wise to count on the driver, and the driver shouldn't count on me either.
Cost: $1400 for $12 worth of parts obviously hacked together in a project box seems a bit much. While not for this specific application, it's a really common project for people starting out with Arduinos: Arduino+ultrasonic sensor+display and a beeper. Usually used as a parking distance alarm in a garage. In this case the police add their own GoPro for evidence purposes I assume. Hopefully it clearly shows the position of the bicycle as well, and that he was fully to the right of the lane at the time of the measurement.
Safety: Could the possibility of a citation for uncertain margins with a bicycle cause the same nervous reactions that red light cameras cause possibly increasing the number of accidents?
Prior art: My car has an ultrasonic backup alarm with display and beeper that serves this exact purpose (measuring distance before impact). That was done in 2002, so not at all a new idea.
Value as evidence: Isn't a common defense to speeding tickets the lack of recent calibration of the RADAR gun? This thing is probably subject to all manner of interference and inaccuracies.
Countermeasures: It could be easily jammed/confused by a transmitter designed for that purpose, and that should be legal since we're talking about audio frequencies, and inaudible ones at that. Ever see those ultrasonic deer transducers that go on the bumper? They don't work for deer, but they do emit sound in the ultrasonic range at certain speeds. I could see designing one specifically as a passive jammer mounted to the right-hand mirror.
My own experiences: I've biked thousands of kilometers in the US and been hit a few dozen times, nothing very serious. Some were my fault, most the driver's fault. None were malicious, just poor observations/judgement/conditions. I ride defensively and don't really care about these laws and behave as though they don't exist since it's not wise to count on the driver, and the driver shouldn't count on me either.
For the entrepreneurs here, I promise to order a $200 version of this. Ideally it'd just be a mount I'd drop my phone into so that I could, say, pair it with Bluetooth and have an app that simultaneously records video with overlaid range and GPS information. I would pretty much immediately start documenting the routes I ride.
Thanks, but it doesn't really match what either I or the article described. I'm not trying to measure a distance. I'm trying to prove to my city planners and my elected representatives that many drivers on particular routes are unsafe.
Laser would end up hitting a driver in the eye and causing a wreck.
Why not make your own...
https://www.sparkfun.com/search/results?term=ultrasonic
https://www.sparkfun.com/search/results?term=ultrasonic
I like the thought of it, but I have a lot of fun hobby project ideas already. Realistically the amount of work it would take to make something good is a lot more than $200 of my time. But if one person makes 100 of these, maybe it's worth $20,000 of their time.
If I make my own it's getting hooked up to a can of spraypaint, not to a camera. b^)
California has the same law. This is a great way to get tools into the hands of police to help them enforce the law and educate drivers.
And if you decide to ride in the middle of a lane while on a bike, should the car drive in the other side of the road to pass you? This tool is arbitrary and will not change the problem, lack of dedicated bike lanes.
They should. If you choose to pass a motor vehicle that is driving in front of you, and it's legal, you would cross the center line to do it. In Maryland, bicycles are considered vehicles so they should be accorded all the rights and responsibilities that go along with that designation. If the law says to give them three feet, you give them three feet even if you have to wait for the clearance to do it. I agree that bikes should have their own dedicated lanes but in the interim we have to deal with the law as it is. I used to drive a truck; I'm kind of a stickler for the rules.
Edit: As an aside, I'd rather have a bicyclist ride in the center of the lane as opposed to the side. I've had too many close calls where cyclists swerved out of the way of an opening door and closed the gap quickly.
Edit: As an aside, I'd rather have a bicyclist ride in the center of the lane as opposed to the side. I've had too many close calls where cyclists swerved out of the way of an opening door and closed the gap quickly.
They should. A bike is a slow-moving vehicle (like a tractor or horse-drawn carriage) and when you pass a slow-moving vehicle, you should not do it in their lane (exception -- bicycles and motorcycles may lane-split). You should do it just like passing a car (or a tractor, or a horse-drawn carriage) -- in the other lane.
In some jurisdictions it is even legal to cross a double yellow line to pass a bicycle, so you don't have that excuse.
In some jurisdictions it is even legal to cross a double yellow line to pass a bicycle, so you don't have that excuse.
This tool is not arbitrary.
> If you decide to ride in the middle of a lane while on a bike, should the car drive in the other side of the road to pass you?
Where I live, bicycles are vehicles. They are vehicles, and vehicles have the right to use the entire lane; Especially when there are no bicycle lanes.
> If you decide to ride in the middle of a lane while on a bike, should the car drive in the other side of the road to pass you?
Where I live, bicycles are vehicles. They are vehicles, and vehicles have the right to use the entire lane; Especially when there are no bicycle lanes.
You mean dedicated debris, door, and parking lanes? Bike lanes are a restriction on cyclists.
I agree that it would be great to have segregated bike lanes everywhere, but realistically that's not going to happen any time soon.
Why should they pass you? Or rather, why would it be any different than a slow driver?
How do you tell the difference between cars breaking the 3 foot rule, and cyclists breaking the 3 foot rule?
"Will this law prohibit a bicyclist from passing a car closely?
No."
https://bikeeastbay.org/GiveMeThree
No."
https://bikeeastbay.org/GiveMeThree
This seems arbitrary and dangerous. A car being passed may not notice the passing cyclist in his mirrors, and attempt a lane change. Forcing the 3 foot buffer on the cyclist as well gives a chance for both cyclist and car to notice and avoid the collision.
Cars not noticing cyclists in their mirrors before they change lanes is the fault of the driver, not the cyclist.
Motorists should always check their mirrors before changing lanes. There could also be other cars there.
The onus is on the two ton shielded metal vehicle, not the bicycle.
Motorists should always check their mirrors before changing lanes. There could also be other cars there.
The onus is on the two ton shielded metal vehicle, not the bicycle.
Obviously if the driver hits the cyclist, the driver is legally at fault. I am suggesting that the law anticipate the inevitable carelessness of drivers, and build in at least a small safeguard. I see no good reason not to make the cylists abide by a safe distance passing rule.
You check to see which one was doing the passing.
PA law is actually four feet, but given the width of bike lanes this is sometimes physically impossible.
The article makes the analogy of trying to enforce speed limits without a radar detector. Fine, but cars have speedometers that give the driver the same information. We don't demand drivers just get a feel for how fast they are going.