4 ms·
That's not a terrible idea but once again you run into the issues of reliability and budget. At the end of the day you need to convince city officials to spend
by slayed0 12y ago
That's not a terrible idea but once again you run into the issues of reliability and budget. At the end of the day you need to convince city officials to spend what little money they have remaining in their budget on your new system because it offers a greater value than all of their other proposed upgrades to the city AND that what you have is as reliable or better than the current system they have in place. This means asking them to trust a small company they've never heard of to manage the transit systems for their city and potentially drop contracts with companies that they have been working with for a very long time (remember this is politics). Also keep in mind that software or hardware failure in these systems could result in multiple fatalities. I'm not trying to be a naysayer, it's just important to recognize that getting something like this implemented is not as easy as convincing consumers to try/buy your product.
The best bet would probably be to get a forward-thinking city to experiment with this in a small area and then go from there.
- WalterBright 12y agoThe city already has no problem funding cameras mounted on every traffic light, and all kinds of other surveillance equipment. A generic, self-adapting light controller would work for probably 90% of intersections. I'm hard pressed to see how it would be that expensive. It would not be hard to put in a physical interlock so both lights could not be simultaneously green, regardless of what the software commands. I don't believe this is a significant fatality risk.
- elsyx 12y agoI would assume mounting cameras on traffic lights is an easier sell to a city, since they can be marketed as a revenue generation device.