The Laws of Physics Trump Traffic Laws 378
New submitter HeLLFiRe1151 sends this quote from Physics Central:
"Here's a practical application for your physics education: using math to successfully beat a traffic ticket in court. Dmitri Krioukov, a physicist based at the University of California San Diego, did just that to avoid paying a fee for (purportedly) running a stop sign. Krioukov not only proved his innocence, but he also posted a paper detailing his argument online (PDF) on the arXiv server."
I love that conclusion (Score:5, Funny)
As a result of this unfortunate coincidence, the O's perception of reality did not properly re ect reality.
It's too bad that statement cannot be quickly supported in many other cases.
Actually.. (Score:5, Informative)
It turns out that humans are really poor at estimating velocity unless they conform to Newtonian accelerations very closely.. While there has been a lot of research on these issues, I'd like to refer to one of my favorite papers, Sverker Runeson's 1975 paper "Constant velocity — Not perceived as such".
http://www.springerlink.com/content/nt61hh074k7123q5/ [springerlink.com]
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Actually.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Actually.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I figure that even if some of the points are technically accurate, they're presented with one hell of a slant.
Yep, it's offtopic - zealots have a habit of doing that - out of enthusiasm, jamming stuff in where it doesn't really fit the discussion.
honestly Officer, (Score:5, Funny)
Relative to my car, I was travelling at virtually 0 mph!
Re: (Score:3)
And this is the problem. when you're foot is moving 0.0 km/h, then you cannot be braking.
Re:honestly Officer, (Score:5, Funny)
So, wait, are you saying that you didn't even know where you were?
That's reckless driving right there.
Partially Blocked View (Score:5, Informative)
When another car partially blocked the officer's view of Krioukov's car momentarily, the officer could have missed the brief yet crucial timing of his stop. At least, that's Krioukov's version of the case.
Physics explained what the officer saw (or thought he saw) but another car explains what the officer didn't see (Krioukov stopping at the stop sign).
Re:Partially Blocked View (Score:5, Insightful)
We only have his word that he actually stopped. It would be more correct to say that another car explains why there are multiple scenarios explaining what the officer thought he saw. The only way this really relates to traffic (or other) laws is that western law specifically handles multiple scenarios by stating that the burden of proof is on the accuser to show that the scenario they outlined meets a requisite threshold. Physics is not trumping anything, it merely allows one to illustrate in this case some of those alternatives.
Re:Partially Blocked View (Score:5, Funny)
I swear Judge some where in the multiverse I stopped.
Re:Partially Blocked View (Score:5, Insightful)
by stating that the burden of proof is on the accuser to show that the scenario they outlined meets a requisite threshold
That threshold, in traffic court, is usually just the officer saying so... not actually proving it. So in this case physics effectively trumped SOP.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I'm sure the officer's face was red after hearing this explanation.
Re:Partially Blocked View (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Partially Blocked View (Score:5, Informative)
I can tell you as a career prosecutor that usually if you want to challenge something in court you need to make sure you imediately ask the court for a jury trial. Otherwise you won't get common citizens to try your case, but just a Judge who has a working relationship with the officers all the time. Experience shows that if a case is tried to a Judge you are most likely to be found guilty. Sadly I once had a Judge say at the end of a morning in court, "If I think they are not guilty, I give them a lower fine." Juries are always willing to let you off if you can give them any excuse to do so.
Re:Partially Blocked View (Score:5, Insightful)
But many of these cases are moving violations and not subject to jury trials. How do would one go about doing what you say in those cases?
Re:Partially Blocked View (Score:5, Interesting)
I tried to use math to defend myself recently when ticketed for using a cel phone in a school zone. As an aside, I was using it legally (hands free) and picked it up after I exited the school zone, the officer said, "you picked it up about 5 feet before the end of the zone."
It was a very, very interesting experience and I pretty much learned the point you just made AC. At the end of the day, in which I defended myself with math/physics the judge said, "I feel like I just had a college physics class. You know, there are two school zones on that street. You may have been in the zone, you may not have. I don't care, you have no business being on your phone on that street. You are free to appeal my decision.
The fine was an annoyance (like 150) but I found it a very interesting experience in how small suburbs within cities make money and how a person going in there to defend themselves has basically no chance.
Re:Partially Blocked View (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with his partially blocked view defense is he's claiming that his Yaris, is capable of over 1G accelleration from a stop. (10 m/s^2 is more than 9.8 m/s^2). That is supercar like acceleration, even to maintain only up to 20 MPH.
His whole paper is based on breaking the laws of physics for his Yaris, and hiding it so that the judge and officer don't notice.
Re:Partially Blocked View (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering that the crux of his argument (ignoring the smoke and mirrors angular velocity aside), was that he claimed he stopped and then accelerated back to the same speed as before all while he was hidden behind the other car, yes, it really matters. You fell for the same thing the judge did. The verbosity of the whole thing was all designed to hide the core claim, which is what I have said here.
Re:Partially Blocked View (Score:4, Informative)
he is doing some pretty wreckless sciencing too!
Not guilty your honour; Albert's famous 1905 paper was 3 pages long with no references.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
More importantly, it contains a false claim: It claims it proves innocence, while in reality it only disproved the evidence of guilt: It does not prove that he actually stopped, it only proved that the officer cannot know whether he did.
Re:We only have his word that he actually stopped (Score:4, Interesting)
At the risk of stating the obvious, if the defendant in this case had had a black box installed that could provide an accurate indication of his actions, he wouldn't have needed all that science (which of course many defendants who were similarly innocent could not have produced) to refute the officer's mistaken allegation.
Observations and facts are fine, it's one-sided observations and asymmetric access to analytic resources that tend to screw things up.
Re: (Score:3)
So you support the government monitoring you, because you are doing nothing wrong?
Sad state we have come to if more people feel as such.
Re:Partially Blocked View (Score:5, Insightful)
Physics explained what the officer saw (or thought he saw) but another car explains what the officer didn't see (Krioukov stopping at the stop sign).
The officer didn't observe him not stopping at the stop sign. The officer ASSUMED he did not stop based on the state of the car he observed before his was obstructed, and the state of the car he observed after it was no longer obstructed.
The officer should be disciplined for taking that shortcut and citing based on a supposed occurence that were not actually directly observed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Traffic cop is ultimately one of the most important law enforcement jobs in America. They serve more arrest warrants than anybody else and are the ones most likely to be visible to the population at large. Now, if the officer didn't see the car drive through without stopping, then the ticket shouldn't have been issued.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:go catch real crooks cops (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree with you about inappropriate policing priorities, I have to say I find your actions in abusing privileged access to a database to be more offensive than those of the person who broke into your car. Your friend at the DCJS who committed that "minor violation" should have been fired and prosecuted. The fact that you were right in the end does not justify the means, and we must never allow that kind of rationalisation to excuse abuse of public trust when officials have access to sensitive personal information.
Re:go catch real crooks cops (Score:5, Interesting)
Ugg... A police force may not be able to stop a "real" crime from occurring or even solve it once it has. But, It could be prevented by making the police in an area more visible. I.E. traffic tickets generate revenue for the police, safer roads for motorists, and deterrence for criminals. There are more benefits if you are willing to disband the mentality that the police are largely out there to waste your time and their own.
Generally speaking, highway patrol and state troopers will always cite you for an infraction. Town and city cops will let things slide depending on your attitude.
Re:go catch real crooks cops (Score:5, Interesting)
I.E. traffic tickets generate revenue for the police
And this I think is the biggest problem. It creates a conflict of interest. In my area in Pennsylvania, local cops have been setting up ENRADD devices, which are only legal in PA. These devices are basically two beams of light that your car breaks as it moves through, and based on the timing and the known distance of the two beams, they can tell how fast you were going.
Except that they can't. If the beams are set up in such a way that the first beam triggers on your wheel, and the second beam triggers on your bumper, it can greatly over-estimate your speed (they are only 3 feet apart, it can easily clock you at 60mph while you're doing 30mph). Also, being just beams of light, even if installed correctly, a car coming the opposite direction can be the trigger of the second beam, so that can also produce unreliable results.
They set these things up on the busiest roads, virtually guaranteeing they have a nonstop stream of revenue. They line up 5 or 6 patrol cars in a row to pick up people, and they have the tickets pre-filled out as much as possible (including date, officer name, location, direction of travel, and even the fine and ticketed speed). The only thing left to fill in is to copy over the drivers license and car info. They only ticket you for going 5 MPH over, then write in "Actual speed X MPH" according to presumably what the ENRADD device told them. This way there's no points on the ticket, and most people realize that paying a ~ $110 fine is a better use of their time than fighting the ticket in court (I for example am an hourly contractor, it would cost me more in lost productivity than simply driving to the court house, nevermind however many hours I might be inside).
I mentioned that they have 5 or 6 patrol cars issuing tickets - these are township level cops, in some townships that might be the entire police force, spending an entire day individually earning the police force a few thousand bucks per hour. The tickets are pre-dated, so you know they are going to issue every ticket in that stack before going home. The roads are the busiest roads, so they have the best chance of creating false positive readings.
It's absolutely unconscionable that the police force gets to keep the proceeds of their activity. It creates a mercenary mindset. These cops are going to be incentivized not to increase traffic safety, but to earn a profit. Ticket proceeds should be given to state social programs rather than benefit those who are tasked with enforcing the tickets. Likewise seized property and other form of proceed from police activity should not benefit the police force.
Re:go catch real crooks cops (Score:5, Informative)
In PA if the posted speed limit is LESS than 55 MPH you cannot be cited UNLESS your speed was AT LEAST 10mph over the POSTED limit.
Title 75 - VEHICLES
Chapter 33 - Rules of the Road in General
3368 - Speed timing devices.
(4) No person may be convicted upon evidence obtained
through the use of devices authorized by paragraphs (2) and
(3) unless the speed recorded is six or more miles per hour
in excess of the legal speed limit. Furthermore, no person
may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of
devices authorized by paragraph (3) in an area where the
legal speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour if the speed
recorded is less than ten miles per hour in excess of the
legal speed limit.
If they ticket you for 5mph over then FIGHT IT.
Oh, and KNOW THE LAW. LEO is last person on earth who you should place any trust in.
Citation please (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know how it works in the 1000s of other cities and towns, but in mine THE POLICE DON'T KEEP THE MONEY. The money from ticket revenues goes to the general fund, just like money from other enforcement fines [health dept, building dept, parking enforcement] and other fees [permits, parking, building, etc] and other revenues [property tax, state aid, grants, etc].
I've been involved in local politics for some time, and I've never heard of a police department that kept the ticket revenue. If you know of one, please provide a citation.
Re:go catch real crooks cops (Score:5, Informative)
I wish cops would just not pick people on the little tiny things and just let things slide, unless its BLOODY obvious.
Running a stop sign is not a tiny little thing. If the officer actually observed the complete failure to properly obey the STOP sign, a ticket should have been issued.
Cars failing to stop ARE a safety issue. And if the law was not being vigorously enforced, there are many jerks on the road purposefully ignoring STOP signs or red lights when they feel they can get away with it -- road safety would be much worse.
Lives are saved when people don't run stop signs because they're afraid of getting a ticket.
Re:go catch real crooks cops (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:go catch real crooks cops (Score:5, Informative)
In the UK all STOP signs are yeild signs, and you can fail your driving test for stopping unnecessarily. UK red lights are the other extreme (there is no 'right on red' allowance), if it's red, you shouldn't pass it except in an emergency.
WTF. That's not true. STOP means stop in the UK. GIVE WAY means yeild.
We'd never have "right on red", we drive on the wrong side of the street over here. Some lights have a left turn filter light (green left arrow that comes on while the main lights are still red).
Re:go catch real crooks cops (Score:5, Funny)
WTF. That's not true. STOP means stop in the UK. GIVE WAY means yeild.
True, but actual STOP signs are very rare - I can't think of one that I pass regularly (other than on barriers and roadworks where they mean "stop and stay stopped until someone takes the stop sign away"). In the US, equal-priority "4-way stop" junctions are ubiquitous where, in the UK, we'd probably have a roundabout, traffic lights or give one road priority and use "Give Way" signs on the others.
We'd never have "right on red", we drive on the wrong side of the street over here.
I think that maybe, just maybe, the GP actually knew this and thought the audience would be able to translate it into "left-on-red" for UK use. AFAIK in the US it is based on the 37th amendment to the constitution which states that every American citizen shall have the right to scare the bejezus out of Limey tourists on crosswalks (who were looking the wrong way anyway).
Re: (Score:3)
I can see no safety reason why one should have to wait for a light to turn green if there is no traffic coming. Come to a full and complete stop, and then proceed if it is safe to do so.
I can. Drivers in the US when reading the rule would read and understand "Come to a stop, then Proceed"
They would miss/ignore/fail to understand the "Full and complete stop" part, and they would miss/ignore/fail to understand the "if it is safe to do so" part.
Drivers already don't understand the "turn right on r
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish cops would just not pick people on the little tiny things and just let things slide, unless its BLOODY obvious.
Cops shouldn't let things slide they should just be more certain when they issue a ticket. IE they should not make an assumption about a violation, they should actually witness it (or get testimony from a witness). Ever been driving and wonder if someone on a cross street is going to stop? Unwittingly, many people that roll stop signs slow down cross traffic resulting in delaying when the 'roller' would be able to pull out if they had just stop so everyone knows what they are doing. People who only use
Re:Partially Blocked View (Score:4, Insightful)
And that the officer totally missed the difference in position between a car that sails through an intersection as opposed to one that both decelerates to a full stop and accelerates fully up to speed over a period of about 3 seconds,
Hmmm. Maybe...
But I'd really like to see this demonstrated. It would make an interesting project. Mythbusters?
Re:Partially Blocked View (Score:4, Insightful)
And that the officer totally missed the difference in position between a car that sails through an intersection as opposed to one that both decelerates to a full stop and accelerates fully up to speed over a period of about 3 seconds,
I wondered if someone would bring that up. The angular velocity profiles might look similar during the non-obstructed portions, but their integral will not. Could be that a clever prof just used physics to confuse the crap out of a layperson and get out of a "California stop" (ie, a little flash of red tail light, and proceed on your way) ?
Re:Partially Blocked View (Score:4, Interesting)
And that the officer totally missed the difference in position between a car that sails through an intersection as opposed to one that both decelerates to a full stop and accelerates fully up to speed over a period of about 3 seconds
His point is that there was no way to not miss the position, because the car that sailed in front was much bigger than his, and had completely occluded his car for a "significant" time (i.e. long enough to make it possible to stop-then-start and end up with the same speed as if he'd slowly cruised through).
I was going to try something similar... (Score:5, Interesting)
He handed me my ticket, and I went to the court hearing at the scheduled time, date, and location. In that county the first meeting is with the DA, you have no option to see a judge that day no matter how much you ask for it. That county was over an hour's drive from work, a place I had never visited prior to the date of the offense. The DA made me an offer; take a plea bargain - which would not be reported to my insurance so long as I was not ticketed in their county again for a year (and carrier a lesser fine) - or come back at a later date to plea my case before a judge.
I decided my time was worth more than that, and took the plea. I could have taken the second hearing to plead my case before a judge, but the amount it cost me to drive there and back, plus time taken off of work, was likely more than the small fine I paid them that day.
That said, congrats to the professor for so handily showing the error in the cop's measurement without making them look like a baboon.
Re:I was going to try something similar... (Score:5, Interesting)
I had a similar situation where I was stopped going 80 on the freeway. The problem was my Saturn couldn't have accelerated to 80 from the ramp. I presented the mathematical formula to the judge and the officer, showing that there was no way my car could do what he was claiming. They didn't care. I got the ticket anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You should have appealed to the newspaper. A headline of "xxx Court claims to be Above the Laws of Physics" would have been entertaining.
Re:I was going to try something similar... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which just proves that in many cases tickets are more of a revenue source than they are an enforcement mechanism.
Also the reason why they like to screw with yellow lights to make it harder to stop in time.
Re: (Score:3)
In my country the green light starts to blink a few seconds before yellow turns on and I start to brake when it does if I see that I won't make it to the intersection before the yellow light.
Also, the law is that if you are too close to the intersection (so you would need to slam on the brakes to stop before the line as opposed to stopping gradually), you can go even if the light already switched to yellow.
Tried it. (Score:5, Informative)
I once used physics to argue that a speeding ticket I received was bogus. I explained that even if I was traveling at the speed the officer claimed (unlikely in the underpowered subcompact I was driving, since I'd just gotten on the freeway), he could not have caught up with me and paced me at that speed in that short distance. I also suggested that a more likely explanation for the ticket was a bumper sticker which identified me as gay, and the fact that I was leaving a (peaceful) civil rights demonstration. (This was in the Midwest, in the 90s.) I was still found guilty, but the full fine and points on my license were not assessed.
Re: (Score:3)
Wonderous. Proving once again that the US legal system is above the laws of physics.
Would you happen to have the name of said Judge who committed this gaff?
Re:I was going to try something similar... (Score:4, Interesting)
I decided my time was worth more than that, and took the plea. I could have taken the second hearing to plead my case before a judge, but the amount it cost me to drive there and back, plus time taken off of work, was likely more than the small fine I paid them that day.
What should happen is the county should be required to fairly compensate you for your lost time, driving costs for both trips, and inconvenience (Including the inconvenience of having been pulled over), if you are found not guilty.
A portion of that should come from the officer's salary / annual bonus. Maybe then they would be more careful about making sure a crime was actually committed before stopping a vehicle and issuing a ticket.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I was going to try something similar... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I was going to try something similar... (Score:4, Informative)
Turns out there was a drug bust in a nearby apartment and they wanted an excuse to search my vehicle. I was sit on a curb with my hands on my head while they searched my car. They couldn't find anything so I was let go without even a ticket.
Um, since when is simple speeding probable cause for a full search of a vehicle?
If they don't ticket you there's nothing to fight so they get away with a blatant breech of the law.
It is even if they do, unless there is something noticeable to justify a search. My guess is they 'asked' you if they could search the vehicle, you were afraid, and you said something that amounted to 'yes'. Should that happen to me, I'll tell them to get a warrant. I'm guessing that if they ask to search the vehicle, they don't have cause and they know it.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm afraid it is _not_ a good idea to comply. Getting a warrant is an expensive proposition, and the officer will be harassed by their own superiors if they do it too much. By allowing a search, you give them opportunity to find, or for corrupt police, to plant evidence of other infractions. You may not have the time to participate in this civil resistance. But if you can protect your privacy, and help protect that of other innocent people by making a show of it, resisting such searches early, politely, and
Re: (Score:2)
I had a similar situation where I was pulled over for supposedly doing 50 in a 35 zone. The problem was, it was on a surface street during rush hour, and if anyone there was going over 30 at the time it would have been a miracle (or a flying car). The judge didn't care, and it was the cop's word against mine, so of course I lost.
Re: (Score:3)
Asking them to hand over video evidence is a little unfair (the cop would be spending the day burning CDs) but they should be compelled to show that there is evidence and not simply an opinion. Actually, the ideal would be to ban all opinion-based and eyewitness testimony from courtrooms.
Re:I was going to try something similar... (Score:4, Insightful)
Cry me a river. Tell them to be big girls, and cough up some objective evidence.
Tired of this constant bullsh*t in traffic court.
Re: (Score:2)
Asking them to hand over video evidence is a little unfair (the cop would be spending the day burning CDs) but they should be compelled to show that there is evidence and not simply an opinion.
They can use the printer in their car and hand you a sheet with the Youtube link to your ticketable offense.
Re:I was going to try something similar... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they'd spend 15s a day pushing the timestamp button, which each time would automatically attach the previous 30s of video to the electronic record for the citation.
Just because something would be time consuming to do with the *current* equipment doesn't mean that it would be time consuming with *proper* equipment.
Re: (Score:3)
Not quite unfair.
For one, the government is supposed to bear the burden of proof anyway.
And second, any expense in either materials or labor could just be included in the fine that is issued later.
JUDGE by SKYPE (Score:2, Interesting)
I want to see a future, where you immediately, go online with the cop to a live judge via skype on the ipad, so that there and then can decide if the cop is wrong, then the cop is to pay a fine.
I tell you, the whole justice system , plus the education system and the medical system needs a complete overhaul redesign and be 100% wireless.
Its way overdue for teachers to be obsolete, except helping the 'challenged' few, s burn those text books, put all courses online and exams online, and marking online, what a
Re:JUDGE by SKYPE (Score:5, Insightful)
Its way overdue for teachers to be obsolete, except helping the 'challenged' few, s burn those text books, put all courses online and exams online, and marking online, what a teachers for again? Keeping the peace? taking roll calls?
Making sure YOU took the test.
Re:JUDGE by SKYPE (Score:4, Interesting)
not sure if sarcasm, or real. But I'll bite.
Teachers are there to keep our sanity. Humans need social interaction. Physical interaction. Playing, meeting with other kids outside their neighborhood. Something a screen can't do. Regardless of anecdotic comments of random, anonymous slashdotters.
Quick summary of TFA (Score:2)
The cop had an obstructed view of his car by a car in front of his, he braked very hard, stopped briefly, and then started again. He then used fancy graphs with the judge. Cool, but according to him he didn't actually break any laws. F'n TFS.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
tl;dr: Bullshitter claims his $10k Toyota Yaris has better breaking and acceleration than a $60k sports car; court fails to realize that if bullshitter's car were capable of accelerating that fast, then he's guilty of a more expensive ticket for gunning it from the stop sign (display of acceleration is usually a larger fine than running a stop sign).
Also, I'm pretty sure most places have a minimum prescribed stopping time. Bullshitter's graphs do not have ANY stop time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
April Fools (Score:5, Informative)
The article was posted on April 1. (Need I say any more?) See the discussion on the PhysicsBuzz blog for details.
http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2012/04/physicist-uses-math-to-beat-traffic.html
This is an April Fool joke (Score:5, Informative)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0162 [arxiv.org]
The Proof of Innocence
Dmitri Krioukov
(Submitted on 1 Apr 2012)
A way to fight your traffic tickets. The paper was awarded a special prize of $400 that the author did not have to pay to the state of California.
If you think this really happened, find a citation for the case that doesn't end up back at this same article.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think this really happened, find a citation for the case that doesn't end up back at this same article.
The article is a citation; and it's not particularly newsworthy that someone successfully beat charges of running a stop sign, it's not surprising that there would be one article referring to it.
You have really shown no evidence that it was actually an April Fools joke. Until you go pull the public records, and find nothing, however, there is no reason to doubt the author's account on the m
Re:This is an April Fool joke (Score:5, Insightful)
I tried to argue a reckless driving ticket using math and physics when I was younger. I was in the right and proved it conclusively based on the officers statement, but the back-woods judge just changed the charge to a misdemeanor and fined me anyhow for "anything you might have done in my county". When I asked about appealing his decision, the judge pointed out that it would cost $300 and him being the only judge, he'd probably say the same thing next time. If the court's looking to collect some money, the court's going to collect that money one way or another.
Re: (Score:3)
Gravity and breasts (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Gravity and breasts (Score:4, Funny)
I've tried that, but I guess my man-boobs aren't generous enough.
Re: (Score:3)
Well considering how it tends to pull DOWN eyes, I'd argue they don't defy but rather enhance gravity. The cleavage-defining objects however do appear to defy gravity, but usually can only do so with the generous help of certain specially designed supports. Without such supports it's generally quite obvious how gravity is not defied at all.
Two counter examples (Score:3, Interesting)
a) a physicist professor (postdoc, well-known in his field worldwide) at my university was ticketed for speeding based on a radar gun reading. In court, he presented an analysis that showed that a radar gun reading would be inaccurate under the conditions where used. The judge determined that the analysis was irrelevant and fined the prof.
b) I was involved in an automobile accident. I was cited for running into the other car. A physicist friend of mine and I put together an analysis based on physics that showed that the other car had to have run into my car. It was pretty cool because it so closely matched what happened (physics works!). However, my insurance company, the prosecutor and my attorney all dismissed the analysis as irrelevant.
Utter Sophistry (Score:4, Insightful)
This argument is a shameless piece of sophistry.
It's central argument is "I did stop; a car just passed in front of me and you didn't see.". This is then expanded into 4 pages of unnecessary and probably disingenuous over-analysis.
The entire argument breaks down in FIG 5. Leaving aside this nonsense of measuring angular speed(The human brain interpolates just fine), the author compares two curves in which the equated angular speeds of the car do not translate into the same linear speed. Indeed, at the occlusion point at t~1.5 s, the car corressponding to the blue curve would be travelling at 15m/s, verses the car at constant 8m/s that it is being compared to.
And this is even before we begin talking about how the author is really comparing a car at constant speed to one which reverses back into the stop sign and then drives forward.
I think this kind of thing is described as "sophomoric", and in that that word describes a second year student who is full of their own knowledge with no concept of their own ignorance, I would have to label it as such. The cop was right, pay your ticket Mr. Krioukov, and don't darken the door of the maths department for a very long time.
His first sentence in the intro (Score:2, Funny)
"It is widely known that an observer measuring the speed of an object passing by, measures not its actual linear velocity by the angular one."
I would have found him guilty based on that sentence alone and fined him for gratuitous use of a comma and a blatant misspelling.
Re: (Score:2)
Misspelling? "By" instead of "but"? Wrong word, not misspelling.
Reminds me of something in my teens (Score:5, Interesting)
Quantum Physics trumps everything (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Quantum Physics trumps everything (Score:4, Funny)
So clearly, the officer is at fault. If he hadn't gone and observed the stop sign, it wouldn't have been there for you to run.
Me Too! (Score:4, Interesting)
Speed limit on the main street between myself and the nearest 24-hr convenience store half a mile away was 45 (I know, I should have walked. But all I wanted was to get it over with so I could sleep). I got pulled over for "drag racing" even though the streets were entirely empty other than myself and a cop waiting on a side road. To be fair, I was getting up to speed limit as quickly as possible so I could get it over with. But I was also "paced" at 60, which means he did not clock me but instead estimated my speed based on speeding up to catch up to me after turning off his side street. He included the streets where all this happened, so this gave me all the distances between incidences that I needed.
I used simple integrals to show the velocity/position relationship, along with the factory specifications of my car. End result is that the judge said he had no idea at all what I was talking about, and the ticket was dismissed because "it sounded right".
That seem a rather complicated way (Score:4, Insightful)
of arguing "I did stop, but the officer's view was obstructed by another vehicle and hence he couldn't have seen whether I did or did not" and having the officer agree that his view was obstructed.
And to Contest a Speeding Ticket... (Score:2)
Now that he has managed to use physics to get out of a ticket for allegedly running a stop sign, he can use an even simpler argument to get out of a speeding ticket, if he is traveling east to west.
Let's say he is going from Spokane, Washington to Seattle. Speed limit is 70 mph, and the cop determines he was doing 85.
All he would have to do is remind the officer that at Seattle's latitude, the Earth rotates west to east at a speed of 707 miles per hour. And since he was moving in the opposite direction of
The simple version (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah... (Score:5, Interesting)
If he did drive his car as in that graph, I'd hate to be a passenger in his car with those g-forces. Heck even if he took twice as long to slow as in those graphs it would be pretty unpleasant if he did that every time he stopped. Besides which most cars can only manage ~-0.8gs and that's being done by professional drivers in ideal conditions with no regard for tire life. I suspect if you stretched out the graph for a more realistic acceleration of -0.5gs it wouldn't look more damning than supporting of his argument.
Argument shouldn't work here. (Score:3)
The local laws in my area (Alberta, Canada) say you must stop and then *remain* at a complete stop for three seconds before proceeding. A delay that long would have been noticeable in spite of this argument. Are California's laws similar?
Re: (Score:3)
This would never fly in Texas (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, you don't know if I was "running a stop sig (Score:5, Insightful)
The vast majority of stop signs are stupid and should be replaced with yield signs.
Re:No, you don't know if I was "running a stop sig (Score:5, Funny)
I always get stuck trying to figure out why the triangle has so many sides. It does gives me something to do while I wait for it to turn green.
Re:No, you don't know if I was "running a stop sig (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. You guys over in the States put Stop signs at almost every intersection. Was surprising to me as an Australian the first time I drove over there ... in AU we tend to put stop signs only on the occasional intersection where the view of potential oncoming traffic is obstructed for some reason (e.g. there's a tall hedge along the side of the road until just before the intersection). But in the absence of any such obstructions, the ubiquitous Give Way (equivalent to US Yield) sign is used instead.
This, in combination with the considerably lower speed limits in suburban/residential areas, makes getting around suburbia in the US a lot slower than I was used to.
Re: (Score:2)
Like so: http://cardriving.com.au/Photo/Driving_straight_ahead_through_an_intersection_on_a_minor_road_Give_Way_sign.JPG [cardriving.com.au]
Re: (Score:3)
If you ever see the process for obtaining the driver license in U.S., you'll understand why they stick 'Stop' everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
Re:No, you don't know if I was "running a stop sig (Score:5, Informative)
In the UK, at least, stop signs are incredibly rare. (I live in a major city, and can only think of one, which is on private land not the main road system.) On the other hand, give-way signs (either triangles next to the road, or double-dashed-lines on the ground) are incredibly common; I think those are probably the equivalent of US yield signs, although I'm not sure how direct it is.
And 4-way stops are unheard of; in the UK, if something like that were needed, they'd put a mini-roundabout there instead.
Re:Big Bang (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you sure this isn't a plot line the Big Bang Sitcom?
No. This story is vaguely interesting.
Re:Don't mess with physicists! (Score:5, Funny)
Remind me to do that the next time we are in court.
"lightknight, you've been accused of speeding. How do you plead?"
"Your honour, let's talk firmware. I will show you, as a Computer Scientist, in hexadecimal, where the error in the code of that radar device exists."
"Case dismissed. Now, can you help us with our printer? It keeps printing blank pages."
Re: (Score:3)