Register to reply

Infrared cameras for detecting people inside cars

by chipcruiser
Tags: cameras, cars, detecting, infrared, inside, people
Share this thread:
chipcruiser
#19
Mar18-10, 02:23 AM
P: 5
Quote Quote by Mech_Engineer View Post
The project is difficult but not impossible. It's doubtful you'll be able to detect 100% of people in vehicles, but you can probably see if there are ones in the front seats using a night vision camera in the near-infrared spectrum.
Unfortunately that is not good news I guess. We would be OK with being pessimistic by accounting for people when they are not actually in the car and hence missing out on some potential carpool violators. But missing out people in back seats would be pretty bad, since that would open up problems that commuters would complain that they actually had a person sleeping in the back seat etc, but were still tagged.

I wonder if there are more expensive non IR options...
dr dodge
#20
Mar18-10, 06:41 AM
P: 336
I have watched this post and have a single observation.
This gets dangerously close to violating personal rights, and subverting criminal law
If I get a ticket, based upon false or true data, I still do not get to go to court and
"face my accuser" as is required by law
there is no accuser
Its my opinion that if you want to monitor a persons activity, you are assuming all persons are guilty just by monitoring them
stop light cameras, auto speed detectors are in this catagory.

if its such a problem, hire A PERSON (which would provide a job) and have them do the work, not a mindless automated machine
sorry, end of rant

dr
mgb_phys
#21
Mar18-10, 08:01 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 8,954
Quote Quote by dr dodge View Post
if its such a problem, hire A PERSON (which would provide a job) and have them do the work, not a mindless automated machine
Not just a person, a whole team.
3-4 highway dept people to flag down each car,
a police officer to request the warrant
a judge to sign the warrant
a lawyer for each side
a legal junior to go to starbucks
another legal junior for the other lawyer to get their starbucks (confilict of interest)
coffee guy for the highway people (union rules)

The demand for hi-vis vests alone would mean a return to full employment.
Of course the fines wouldhave to go upto $1M to cover this.
Mech_Engineer
#22
Mar18-10, 08:44 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Mech_Engineer's Avatar
P: 2,242
Quote Quote by chipcruiser View Post
Unfortunately that is not good news I guess. We would be OK with being pessimistic by accounting for people when they are not actually in the car and hence missing out on some potential carpool violators. But missing out people in back seats would be pretty bad, since that would open up problems that commuters would complain that they actually had a person sleeping in the back seat etc, but were still tagged.

I wonder if there are more expensive non IR options...
If you had a set of cameras on the side wall, and a camera in front looking through the windshield, you will probably be able to see people in the back seat as well. I'm not sure how window tint would affect the camera though.

You're right that it will be tough to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was only one person in the car.

Quote Quote by dr dodge View Post
I have watched this post and have a single observation.
This gets dangerously close to violating personal rights, and subverting criminal law
If I get a ticket, based upon false or true data, I still do not get to go to court and
"face my accuser" as is required by law
there is no accuser
Its my opinion that if you want to monitor a persons activity, you are assuming all persons are guilty just by monitoring them
stop light cameras, auto speed detectors are in this catagory.
I don't think it's just danegerously close, many perceive them to be "big brother" incarnated. It has been shown that red light cameras and speed cameras don't help make the roads safer either. Red light cameras reduce red light running, but increase rear-endings because people are desperate to stop. Speed cameras are fixed, and people just slow down before and speed up after passing one.

In the HOV lane case, cars could just move out of the lane before and re-merge after a camera system. Additionally, in California for example certain vehicle are allowed to drive in the carpool lane with only one occupant. Hybrids and electric vehicles for example, which means the camera system would need to be able to recognize certain kinds of vehicles.

You have to decide before you start, it there really a problem, and would this solve it? Are there really so many people using the HOV lane illegally that an automated detection system is needed? Couldn't there just be police officers checking from time to time?

Quote Quote by dr dodge View Post
if its such a problem, hire A PERSON (which would provide a job) and have them do the work, not a mindless automated machine
sorry, end of rant

dr
I think a person is much less likely to be able to discern if there are multiple people in a vehicle than a multi-angle camera. Especailly at night.
dr dodge
#23
Mar18-10, 11:59 AM
P: 336
Quote Quote by Mech_Engineer View Post
I think a person is much less likely to be able to discern if there are multiple people in a vehicle than a multi-angle camera. Especailly at night.
I agree, but the person fulfills the requirement as "accuser"

dr
Mech_Engineer
#24
Mar18-10, 01:32 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Mech_Engineer's Avatar
P: 2,242
Quote Quote by dr dodge View Post
I agree, but the person fulfills the requirement as "accuser"

dr
Having an in-person "accuser" is a non-issue. Most red light cameras for example list the accuser as either the city or an assigned police officer which reviews the video and/or pictures. Just because there is no in-person witness to the event does not mean recorded video or pictures cannot be used as evidence of a crime taking place. Just like red-light cameras or speeding cameras, the evidence collected by the camera would probably have to be reviewed by an official before fines are sent out.
dr dodge
#25
Mar18-10, 01:45 PM
P: 336
yes thats true, but the reason they can get away with it is because the camera infractions are local ordinance violations (civil court like a dirty yard)
then no matter who was driving the car, the owner of the car is guilty
no fighting it, but its not a moving violation, either

ok,
I have hijacked the thread, and this is not the time or place for me to rant about "civil liberties, big bro (and their holding company)

(nice discusssion though, thanks)

dr


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Forget electric cars, what about try to design photonic cars? General Discussion 17
Optics and Cameras Introductory Physics Homework 3
If visible light have so much more energy than infrared, why does infrared feels hot? General Physics 15
VOTE PF Photo Contest - People, People Who Need People General Discussion 15