Slashdot Mirror
Washington Finds Computer Simulation Unreliable
Toadpipe writes "Washington State Court of Appeals reverses a conviction in which a computer simulation had been the main evidence. Quoting 'At issue was PC-Crash, a computer program distributed by Vancouver, B.C.-based MacInnis Engineering Associates. The program recreates traffic collisions using simulations and reconstructions.
"PC-Crash had not been validated for the purpose for which the evidence was offered, simulation and prediction of multiple-occupant movement within a vehicle during a multiple-collision accident," the Court of Appeals said in ordering a new trial. "There is no general acceptance in the relevant scientific community of the use of the PC-Crash program for the purposes to which it was put."' Here is
the Court's opinion."
GNAA WILL RULE THE EARTH
that's a fuck of a lot of assertions there.
can you back up any of this spewing, or are you relying on the groupthink participation to validate you?
Who's the victim?
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/
At least 38,252 in 2003, it would seem. That's just fatalities. Consider countless fender-benders, higher insurance all around, and endless traffic in every city, and everyone in the world is the victim.
Do you exceed the posted speed limit?
No. Do you? Why? Because everyone else does it? Because you're an above-average driver? Because in your infinite wisdom, you know the limit is set too low? Please, do tell.
What defines it as a crime when it hasn't yet been through due process?
The law defines what the crime is. Due process is there to determine the facts of the case, and whether the facts indicate a violation of the law. When you have a photo of an clear-cut violation, that process is somewhat redundant. It is still available, though. You can still challenge.
It's the job of the constabulary to enforce laws in person
And they are doing that, all day and every day.
just leads to people finding out where the cameras are that day, speeding everywhere except by the cameras.
As opposed to speeding everywhere, because there are no cameras?
Photo-radar is used for violations that are easy to distinguish. If you were exceeding the posted speed limit, then you were breaking the law. If you proceeded through an intersection when the light was red, then you were breaking the law. What exactly are you going to argue about? What do you need to remeber clearly? You already implied that you speed on a regular basis (which almost everyone does), so why do you want to know the specific occasion you were being cited for?
You put a lot of emphasis on having a person present for the trial. If you've ever heard jury instructions, material evidence is considered more valuable than witness testimony. A photo of the crime in progress is pretty good material evidence of a crime having beem comitted. The justice system is totally overloaded as it is, without having to do a full workup on every blatant moving violation. Even with cameras in place, enforcement is so spotty that there are very few people driving either safely or legally. Talk to the 38,000 people mentioned above.
Getting into a car is like getting on the Internet, people who are normally polite and intelligent turn into belligerant idiots. They are also so used to getting away with breaking the law, they think it is a travesty when they get cited.