If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Jalopnik)   Missouri plans to deter speeders by blasting 153 decibels of sound at them. What could go wrong?   (jalopnik.com) divider line 23
    More: Stupid, Missouri Plan, Missouri, long range acoustic device, crowd controls, Missouri Department of Transportation  
•       •       •

8851 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Apr 2014 at 1:20 AM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-04-12 07:22:19 PM  
4 votes:
I can see the lawyers lining up for the ensuing lawsuits now. Sudden loud noise startles a speeding driver and CRASH! Or, even better.....CARDIAC ARREST.
2014-04-13 12:29:41 AM  
3 votes:

Lsherm: Bathia_Mapes: I wonder how the construction workers feel about this. Being in a moving vehicle offers at least a small amount of protection from this much sound, but the workers actually working on the road surface would have little to no protection. I'm not even certain noise cancelling headphones would protect their hearing.

And of course there's the aforementioned chance that a startled driver might swerve and cause a crash. Concrete barriers and other vehicles would be bad enough, but there's always a chance they crash into some of the construction workers.

Seems to me that this would cause more problems than it would solve.

LRADs are directional.  The source point would probably be the construction site, so they would be at a lower risk.



That still won't prevent people from freaking out when loud sounds are blasted at their moving vehicles. This is a disaster waiting to happen.
2014-04-12 11:17:43 PM  
3 votes:
I wonder how the construction workers feel about this. Being in a moving vehicle offers at least a small amount of protection from this much sound, but the workers actually working on the road surface would have little to no protection. I'm not even certain noise cancelling headphones would protect their hearing.

And of course there's the aforementioned chance that a startled driver might swerve and cause a crash. Concrete barriers and other vehicles would be bad enough, but there's always a chance they crash into some of the construction workers.

Seems to me that this would cause more problems than it would solve.
2014-04-13 02:24:24 PM  
2 votes:
This is what you get when you hand non-lethal deterrents to police - they're misused. Tasers, so we don't have to kill people? Heck, we use those as "easy buttons" on everyone from jaywalkers to mental patients. LRADs, so we don't have to shoot into a crowd of rioters? Heck, we use those on possible speeders, just to scare 'em!
2014-04-13 01:43:09 AM  
2 votes:
And people definitely won't just drive faster to get away from the noise.
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-04-12 08:09:09 PM  
2 votes:
If you are startled by the sound and swerve into a FedEx truck knocking it into a bus full of school children, I will vote to hold MoDOT responsible if I am on your jury. But note that I don't live in Missouri and have never been selected to serve on any jury, so you might need a backup plan. Maybe a loudspeaker on top of your truck to shout back.  Or noise cancelling headphones.
2014-04-13 08:36:18 PM  
1 votes:
I don't understand how it could be legal to make noises loud enough to cause permanent hearing loss - even if that loss is only partial. It is illegal to punch someone, even though they can heal completely. For many people, no amount of lawsuit money in the world could make up for a life deprived of music and sound.
2014-04-13 11:37:12 AM  
1 votes:
Or maybe they could use that money to teach construction workers not to walk out into traffic.  Yes it usually is their fault when they die.

/butbutbut workin mans!
2014-04-13 11:09:10 AM  
1 votes:
Or they could just put up a cheap sign instead:
i.kinja-img.com
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-04-13 10:27:12 AM  
1 votes:
A wave can be focussed into a beam with divergence angle on the order of (wavelength / source width). Suppose you have a 300 Hz signal and a 3 meter emitter. The wavelength is 1 meter. The divergence angle is around 1/3 radian, within a small constant factor. That is too big to target a single car.

The emitter does not have to be a single object. Astronomers routinely make observations with radio telescopes spaced 10,000 km apart acting as a single antenna. ("VLBI") If MoDOT has a big array of death ray speakers they might be able to pick out one car. But I doubt they have the ability to track one car at 75 mph.

In the Northeast if they want people to drive slowly through work zones they use a pace car. Maine has done this. Massachusetts doesn't think speed really matters.

filter

Missouri cities have been using speed cameras, but only for revenue. The systems will shut down unless the legislature saves them. The cameras send a bill the the owner will no other consequences. That violates state law classifying speeding as a moving violation. The driver is responsible and gets license points on conviction.

When you tell local politicians that people will start losing their licenses and paying more for insurance if they break the law, they stop liking cameras as much.
2014-04-13 07:11:40 AM  
1 votes:
Don't forget that decibel is a logarithmic scale.  130db is enough to cause permanent hearing damage.  153db is many thousands of times louder than that.  Anyone inside the target car will become deaf.  People in the cars near it will also become deaf.  The highway workers this is supposed to protect will become deaf as well.

I bet the all powerful sign language lobby is behind this!
2014-04-13 05:59:10 AM  
1 votes:
Quick, someone get an LRAD to just give off the Brown Note at 153 dB. "Congratulations, you were speeding. Did baby make boom-boom in him pants?"

/Yes, I know there's no "brown note"
//But the idea is priceless
2014-04-13 05:47:22 AM  
1 votes:
Small problem with this little device: energy reflects until attenuated. So that  massive burst of sound is going to reflect off of every surface it hits (some will come through and alert the driver) and go in some direction. I would guess that the makers of this designed if for modern sedans, so they think this extra energy will be sent harmlessly into the sky...WRONG!

This is going to hit an SUV or a sports car and go who know where. Back at the workers? Over to another hard surface and back into traffic?

\the fail here is strong
\\and not just in the engineering
\\\but in the lack of public education that would let the bureaucrats approve this
2014-04-13 02:15:12 AM  
1 votes:

TerminalEchoes: Okay, so don't speed through construction zones. Problem solved. See how easy that was?


What if Cletus decides to turn on the LRAD because he wants to discuss last night's WWF Raw or whatever event that is instead of doing the Patriot's work?
2014-04-13 02:08:10 AM  
1 votes:

Mid_mo_mad_man: It's just BBQ. You don't have to eat it.


Abusing meat in that fashion will NOT go unchallenged Good Sir!
2014-04-13 01:58:49 AM  
1 votes:
How is this even legal? Why not mist muriatic acid in the air? That's harmless too. Those barrels and cones are f-ing muricans. They apply asphalt for your freedom.
2014-04-13 01:50:15 AM  
1 votes:
I'm tempted to call late April Fools on this one just due to the potential liability.

Do they simply set it up at the worksite to blast the entire oncoming highway any time there's a speeding vehicle on radar?  Or does LRAD have pinpoint accuracy?  Can the system track and target a specific vehicle?

What about nearby homeowners and businesses in the line of fire?  Or vehicles traveling in the other direction who happen to be in the line of fire?   Do they all get blasted also?

I can't wait for the first lawsuit involving a driver who was startled into a serious accident.  Especially one who was incorrectly targeted.  I've heard of logs maintained by dash-mount GPS units being used in court to successfully fight speeding tickets.  Seems like such a log might be useful here also.
2014-04-13 01:41:34 AM  
1 votes:

picturescrazy: Lsherm: Bathia_Mapes: I wonder how the construction workers feel about this. Being in a moving vehicle offers at least a small amount of protection from this much sound, but the workers actually working on the road surface would have little to no protection. I'm not even certain noise cancelling headphones would protect their hearing.

And of course there's the aforementioned chance that a startled driver might swerve and cause a crash. Concrete barriers and other vehicles would be bad enough, but there's always a chance they crash into some of the construction workers.

Seems to me that this would cause more problems than it would solve.

LRADs are directional.  The source point would probably be the construction site, so they would be at a lower risk.

As directional as lasers? Will it stop at the targeted car and not hit anyone else's car? What about the poor saps living near the highway?


That's what I was wondering. If someone were driving the speed limit and got passed by a speeder at the right time, would they drive straight into the directional sound?
2014-04-13 01:40:32 AM  
1 votes:

picturescrazy: Lsherm: Bathia_Mapes: I wonder how the construction workers feel about this. Being in a moving vehicle offers at least a small amount of protection from this much sound, but the workers actually working on the road surface would have little to no protection. I'm not even certain noise cancelling headphones would protect their hearing.

And of course there's the aforementioned chance that a startled driver might swerve and cause a crash. Concrete barriers and other vehicles would be bad enough, but there's always a chance they crash into some of the construction workers.

Seems to me that this would cause more problems than it would solve.

LRADs are directional.  The source point would probably be the construction site, so they would be at a lower risk.

As directional as lasers? Will it stop at the targeted car and not hit anyone else's car? What about the poor saps living near the highway?


Acoustics aren't EM, they're a mechanical wave. They'll never be as focused as lasers.

I'll bet they use several frequencies to combine at the target point in a burst of high energy interference while just being a moderate volume everywhere else. Maybe even infrasound.
2014-04-13 01:37:54 AM  
1 votes:
For anyone who thinks this is not a big deal, 150 decibels is enough to rupture eardrums. 153 decibels is roughly twice as loud.

https://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dblevels.htm
2014-04-13 01:34:17 AM  
1 votes:
Countermeasures:

img580.imageshack.us
2014-04-13 01:33:04 AM  
1 votes:

Lsherm: Bathia_Mapes: I wonder how the construction workers feel about this. Being in a moving vehicle offers at least a small amount of protection from this much sound, but the workers actually working on the road surface would have little to no protection. I'm not even certain noise cancelling headphones would protect their hearing.

And of course there's the aforementioned chance that a startled driver might swerve and cause a crash. Concrete barriers and other vehicles would be bad enough, but there's always a chance they crash into some of the construction workers.

Seems to me that this would cause more problems than it would solve.

LRADs are directional.  The source point would probably be the construction site, so they would be at a lower risk.


As directional as lasers? Will it stop at the targeted car and not hit anyone else's car? What about the poor saps living near the highway?
2014-04-13 12:11:59 AM  
1 votes:

Bathia_Mapes: I wonder how the construction workers feel about this. Being in a moving vehicle offers at least a small amount of protection from this much sound, but the workers actually working on the road surface would have little to no protection. I'm not even certain noise cancelling headphones would protect their hearing.

And of course there's the aforementioned chance that a startled driver might swerve and cause a crash. Concrete barriers and other vehicles would be bad enough, but there's always a chance they crash into some of the construction workers.

Seems to me that this would cause more problems than it would solve.


LRADs are directional.  The source point would probably be the construction site, so they would be at a lower risk.
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report