Using Cell Phones to Track Traffic

msh210 writes "The AP has reported (with additional information from KMOX-AM) that the Missouri Dept. of Transportation will be teaming up with a private company to track in-use cell phones on Missouri highways and state roads in an effort to monitor traffic flow. Individual information will not be stored, they say -- only the aggregate will be studied, using "sophisticated" math. (See also findlaw.com's commentary on privacy concerns. "

what?

[conJunk]

is it just me, or does this sound like a complete waste of money? privacy concerns aside (i'm not convinced there are any), what will this accomplish that video cameras don't already do?

so we'll use mobile phone signals to monitor traffic? seems heaps less efficient that actually looking at real traffic volume...

Slippery Slope

[Renraku]

This time next year:

"Your honor, the defendant's cell phone was detected half an hour after the crime was committed, heading away from the crime scene along I-85 doing 65MPH. Clearly, he was speeding to try to get away from the crime scene."

hypocritic

[p2sam]

Aren't they a bit hypocritic when they discourage cell phone use on the road on one hand, and then try to use cell phone usage to track traffic?

Privacy concerns

[Mostly a lurker]

The concept of tracking cell phone movements to assist in optimising traffic flow seems to me a good one. I expect other similar good ideas to be forthcoming. Surely, there ought to be technological solutions to allow tracking while reliably protecting individual privacy. Perhaps, each cell phone could generate a short term session identifier (24 hours in duration and not tied in an obvious way to the phone number) for use in such tracking applications? It might also be feasible to allow paranoid phone owners to opt out.

What they will find out...

[TheOtherAgentM]

is that cell phones are the cause of much traffic. People on cell phones slow down or even get into accidents.

Re:what?

[honeypotslash]

They must be trying to get people to stop using cell phones while driving by making them paranoid that they are being tracked.

Be careful what you assume

[LaughingCoder]

So then, a bus full of high school teenagers with cell phones will look like a major traffic jam?

Skewed Results

[rubberbando]

The makeup of the passengers of a vehicle could greatly effect the results.

Think about it, a car full of teenagers will show several cell phone signals versus a car full of seniors or nuns which would probably have 0 cell phones inside.

missing the point...

[PoPRawkZ]

You don't have to be using the cell phone for the cell phone to be used to monitor traffic. There is no hypocrasy here as nobody is promoting talking on cell phones while in traffic. Also, with monitoring such a large number of signals, I find it hard to believe they will be able to simultaneously figure out who is speeding. That would require multiple triangulations on each signal, requiring a much larger infrastructure. We can put away our fears of Big Brother for the moment.

Re:I'll save them some money

[windows]

Traffic might be predictable somewhat in Saint Louis. I used to live there. I know this.

That being said, I do see some uses for this. I can't count the number of times I've seen the 70 backed up in rural Missouri because of accidents. Maybe it's not that much use in the city of Saint Louis, but it might be worthwhile in, say, Montgomery or Callaway counties which the 70 runs through.

Re:what?

[Surt]

I think you got that backward: a cell phone detector can only count cell phones. For example, a bus with 18 people using cellphones on it is not 18 cars. A video camera, on the other hand, can tell you exactly how many cars are on the road, and what types and sizes, and their speeds.

Re:what?

[thelexx]

"privacy concerns aside (i'm not convinced there are any)"

Really. Would you like a personally assigned police officer to trail you around 100% of the time you aren't in your house or on your lawn, taking notes on what you are doing? Once pervasive enough, remote surveillance accomplishes the same exact thing. A velvet cage is still a cage.

Re:Ever more glad I don't have a cell phone

[marcsiry]

Lucky you! Now you can go back to the exciting days of sitting at home because you are 'expecting a call!'

You get to be one of those fortunate jobhunters who 'wait by the phone!'

For some bizarre reason, when my cellphone goes off I am somehow able to ignore it... in fact, I rarely pick up my phone for any caller unless it's someone I *really* want to speak with. No caller ID? You're welcome to leave a voicemail that I may review at some point in the future.

To me, a cellphone is an enabling technology- it enables me to make and receive phone calls at my convenience. It does not force me to take work calls after hours, nor does it force me to answer it everytime it rings in a movie theater. Those are human behaviors that I can control. I guess if you can't control your own behaviors, then getting rid of the technology that enables bad behaviors is the only answer...

Incredible waste of money and invasion of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Kansas City, they've installed cameras at many of the intersections on the Kansas side of town. These cameras are for monitoring traffic flow, which is absurd because KC has very little traffic congestion. I lived in Washington for years, where there was traffic all over town during many hours of the day. In Kansas City, the highways are clogged during the predictable rush hours, but at other times it's incredibly easy to get around.

I understand that St. Louis has some severe traffic problems, but why do we need this technology to tell us what we already know? That when you drive to and from work at the same time as everybody else you will get stuck in traffic.

This money could better be spent on improving bus service and convincing employers to stagger work hours.

Re:Better idea

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Someone should, using "sophisticated" math, figure out the the stories most duped are the ones that get the most comments... More comments = more page reloads/serves and more ad revenue....
Does no one else notice this? Stories about some small niche thing with limited interest gets posted once, and only once. Anything that engenders comments mentioning A: Big Brother, B: Bush/Repubs or Democrats or C: Europe/Asia/America/France (especially france) sucking get posted again and again. Because guess what, even trolls count as a page view for Ad reporting.
So there is the answer to the dupe question- It isn't funny- it is just business.

Re:what?-Under pressure.

[bdcrazy]

IDOT in the chicago area uses microwave and inductor loop detectors to determine traffic flow and has been doing this for a long time. If you want up to the minute traffic flows, you can go to http://www.gcmtravel.com/ [gcmtravel.com]

Already in place in other states

[Anonymous Coward]

The wireless carrier I work for is already working on harvesting this kind of data to trend traffic patterns for the DOT in multiple states.

SONNOVA!!!

[His name cannot be s]

I worked for a company in 2000 where we had done exactly this.

We built an entire set of services around tracking cellphones and the first thing we demo'd was a videowall anon tracking cell users on freeways.

We did a bunch of work for the NRC (National Research Council) here in Canada and got a grant to study it further.

Then the bubble burst, VC funding dried up and they sold off their assets.

*sigh*

What about airplanes?

[jmcwork]

What happens when someone on an airplane turns on their phone? Does it it look like some car is doing 500 mph cross-country?

Re:what?

[mspohr]

A cell phone tracker can tell how fast traffic is moving by knowing how fast each particular phone traveled from point A to point B. You don't really need to know how many cars/busses/trucks are on the road. You only need one cell phone traveling to tell the speed of the traffic which is the important information here.