Automated Tire Tread Tickets!!!!1!!111!!!!!!??????

[hotrodalex]

Oh yeah, and would the cameras be able to tell that these tires are legal?

http://www.bfgoodrichtires.com/overview/g-force-r1/3824.html

[Eye of the Tiger]

Sooner or later we won't have traffic cops, just stupid cameras every 2 feet.

By then, I hope someone will have invented invisible paint. 

[dsred]

Believe it or not, I agree with the use of these things... but under slightly different conditions.

Instead of being fined, motorists caught with worn tires would be issued a "defect notice" directing them to replace the offending tires and return to the local PD for inspection within a certain timeframe to ensure that the work had been completed. If they didn't report THEN the fine would be issued.

[S204STi]

A much more useful tool would be annual safety inspections, such as are found in many eastern states, which includes an assessment of tire tread depth and remaining life.

This automated system seems like it couldn't possibly be foolproof.

[S204STi]

Believe it or not, I agree with the use of these things... but under slightly different conditions.

Instead of being fined, motorists caught with worn tires would be issued a "defect notice" directing them to replace the offending tires and return to the local PD for inspection within a certain timeframe to ensure that the work had been completed. If they didn't report THEN the fine would be issued.

That is far more reasonable, especially considering again that the system may not be flawless.

[Tave]

No kidding. Exactly like busted taillights and such.

Isn't it required by law to give someone a fix-it ticket before a fine?

[MX793]

No kidding. Exactly like busted taillights and such.

Isn't it required by law to give someone a fix-it ticket before a fine?

May vary by state, but I always thought that equipment violations usually got thrown out if you fixed the problem within so many days of being cited for a violation.

[Soup DeVille]

No kidding. Exactly like busted taillights and such.

Isn't it required by law to give someone a fix-it ticket before a fine?

Not in some states; and this system is for European use anyways, so...

?

[Tave]

Not in some states; and this system is for European use anyways, so...

?

I realize that. People were batting around the idea of its use in the States.

[Soup DeVille]

I realize that. People were batting around the idea of its use in the States.

I varies by state. In Michigan at least, if an officer sees a busted taillight on a parked car, its an equipment violation. If he sees a faulty taillight on a moving car on a public road- or other improper lighting- it can be a moving violation, and there's a fine and points whether you fix it or not.

[Tave]

Ouch. Out here they just give you a written warning, and after a certain amount of time (a week or two), you can be fined if they pull you over again and you haven't fixed it.

[sportyaccordy]

Yeah, I seriously doubt that system could be at all reliable.

Who cares??? It will definitely make a lot of money!

[Soup DeVille]

Who cares??? It will definitely make a lot of money!

It has to be hellaciously expensive. If it can't provide reliable evidence, you can't write tickets based on what it says.

[Byteme]

A much more useful tool would be annual safety inspections, such as are found in many eastern states, which includes an assessment of tire tread depth and remaining life.

This automated system seems like it couldn't possibly be foolproof.

Not 100%, but have you seen some of the automated quality control checking systems used in industry (watch a few episodes of How It's made)?  Some of those systems check hundreds or thousands of units a minute with near perfect accuracy.

I agree with annual inspections and also like dsred's idea of using this as a compliance tool instead of a revenue generator. 

[Soup DeVille]

Not 100%, but have you seen some of the automated quality control checking systems used in industry (watch a few episodes of How It's made)?  Some of those systems check hundreds or thousands of units a minute with near perfect accuracy.

I agree with annual inspections and also like dsred's idea of using this as a compliance tool instead of a revenue generator. 

There are several such systems at my place of work. The best of which checks 60,000+ parts per hour. It works very well when its properly set up- but that's a 200,000 dollar machine checking identical parts in a controlled environment that needs regular attention; and it checks them from about 4 inches away.

When it screws up, it causes a hell of a mess.

Its not trying to identify thousands of different tires randomly placed at varying speeds in wind, rain and sleet from a safe distance.

[Byteme]

There are several such systems at my place of work. The best of which checks 60,000+ parts per hour. It works very well when its properly set up- but that's a 200,000 dollar machine checking identical parts in a controlled environment that needs regular attention; and it checks them from about 4 inches away.

When it screws up, it causes a hell of a mess.

Its not trying to identify thousands of different tires randomly placed at varying speeds in wind, rain and sleet from a safe distance.

I'll bet it does.  What does it check?



I would believe it is possible to build a reasonably reliable machine to measure tire depth on a moving car.  The article pretty much says it has been built. 

Is it socially desirable to deploy them to generate revenue?  Not in my opinion.

Could it be useful in helping make the roads safer?  Yes. 

[ChrisV]

You know, as with everything road related, it would simply cost less in the long run to educate drivers better. And it would be more effective, as well.

[NomisR]

You know, as with everything road related, it would simply cost less in the long run to educate drivers better. And it would be more effective, as well.

Yeah but if you can't generate revenue from having more educated drivers.  Sure you can charge for educating them but it still won't be worth as much as ticketing everything and everyone.

[Byteme]

You know, as with everything road related, it would simply cost less in the long run to educate drivers better. And it would be more effective, as well.

Hey, you and I agree on this one. 

[Soup DeVille]

I'll bet it does.  What does it check?

Among other things, the sealing surface on soda bottles.  A stray fly landing on the lense will cause it to reject every single part- if somebody is right there watching it, no big deal- shut off the loading and wipe it off.

If not, well- do you have any idea what a pile of 30,000 20 oz bottles looks like?

[Byteme]

Among other things, the sealing surface on soda bottles.  A stray fly landing on the lense will cause it to reject every single part- if somebody is right there watching it, no big deal- shut off the loading and wipe it off.

If not, well- do you have any idea what a pile of 30,000 20 oz bottles looks like?

Interesting.  Thanks. 

I can only imagine what a mess 30,000 bottles would be.  Filled and uncapped or empty?

[GoCougs]

A lot of that industrial imaging inspection equipment however is 2D...

I think it would only work if tire makers included some sort of wear sensor that would signifying end of tire life; a marker that would easily be picked up by 1D laser or RF for example.

In short not an inspection, as the "inspection" would be taken care of by the sensor (that trips when exposed to oxygen?), leaving only a digital signal (i.e., good/bad) signal to be easily gotten by whatever tracking process.

[NomisR]

The thing also in, in automated manufacturing situations, the environment is more or less "controlled".  At least it's more so than the real world environment where you so so many different variables, it's impossible to have close to 100% accuracy. 

[Byteme]

The thing also in, in automated manufacturing situations, the environment is more or less "controlled".  At least it's more so than the real world environment where you so so many different variables, it's impossible to have close to 100% accuracy. 

True, and I can see the merit of a system that spots a bald tire or a tire with the cords showing through ande gives notice. 

Where I would be concerned is jurisdictions putting revenue before safety.  Just what constitutes an unsafe amount of tread left?  Tire manufacturer's recommendations.  Click and Clack saying measure the tread depth with a penny?  Some arbitrary measurement dreamed up by a beurocrat who doesn't even know how to check the oil in a car?

And I can picture a jusisdiction changing the standard to increase revenue.  Just like the length of yellow lights are changed when red light cameras are installed.

[280Z Turbo]

I just don't see the need for this period.

You could argue that a vehicle is harder to control in the rain/snow with less tread depth, but that's kind of a slippery slope. There's no laws currently requiring snow tires, 4WD, etc. in Michigan.

Why should I care if someone is running on worn tires in the middle of July when you can "run whatcha brung" in the winter?

[Byteme]

I just don't see the need for this period.

You could argue that a vehicle is harder to control in the rain/snow with less tread depth, but that's kind of a slippery slope. There's no laws currently requiring snow tires, 4WD, etc. in Michigan.

Why should I care if someone is running on worn tires in the middle of July when you can "run whatcha brung" in the winter?

You might care if the guy running his bald tires on a wet road loses control and slams into you. 

Just pointing out that someone's poor judgement on when to replace worn out tires can affect others.

[ChrisV]

He could slam into you without having worn tires. Hard compound tires don't stick any better in the wet, even with good tread.

An example: my RX7 with nearly new BF Goodrich Comp T/As woudl spin the tires easily in the rain, and was slippery to drive in the wet. With the "visibly bald" A008 RSIIs on it, it woudl NOT spin the tires and woudl launch and stil pull over .8Gs in the wet. A much softer compound that heated up even in the rain and squeegeed the water out. But which one would the general public and these tire cameras think were bald and unsafe in the rain?

[Byteme]

He could slam into you without having worn tires. Hard compound tires don't stick any better in the wet, even with good tread.

An example: my RX7 with nearly new BF Goodrich Comp T/As woudl spin the tires easily in the rain, and was slippery to drive in the wet. With the "visibly bald" A008 RSIIs on it, it woudl NOT spin the tires and woudl launch and stil pull over .8Gs in the wet. A much softer compound that heated up even in the rain and squeegeed the water out. But which one would the general public and these tire cameras think were bald and unsafe in the rain?

The tire cameras wouldn't catch an out of balance tire or a tire with a thrown belt or a tire with an improperly applied patch either.  That doesn't mean the camrea wouldn't have value though.

[280Z Turbo]

You might care if the guy running his bald tires on a wet road loses control and slams into you. 

Just pointing out that someone's poor judgement on when to replace worn out tires can affect others.

What if he's got full tread depth, but he's driving a Dodge Dakota pulling a trailer and then slams into you? Should we make Dodge Dakotas illegal since they're heavy and the brakes are shit?

[MX793]

True, and I can see the merit of a system that spots a bald tire or a tire with the cords showing through ande gives notice. 

Where I would be concerned is jurisdictions putting revenue before safety.  Just what constitutes an unsafe amount of tread left?  Tire manufacturer's recommendations.  Click and Clack saying measure the tread depth with a penny?  Some arbitrary measurement dreamed up by a beurocrat who doesn't even know how to check the oil in a car?

And I can picture a jusisdiction changing the standard to increase revenue.  Just like the length of yellow lights are changed when red light cameras are installed.

In NYS (and I suspect other places that have annual safety inspections), the minimum allowable tread depth is 2/32 of an inch.  This is also roughly the distance from the edge of a penny to the top of Lincoln's head (which is where they little tread depth checking method came from).