The Laws of Physics Trump Traffic Laws

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."

Comments

Partially Blocked View

[WrongSizeGlass]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[TapeCutter]

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:Partially Blocked View

[maxwell demon]

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.

April Fools

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[1u3hr]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0162

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.

Actually..

[wanax]

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/

Tried it.

[tverbeek]

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:Quick summary of TFA

[jeremy85mai]

TL;DR TL;DR: Throw numbers at people who don't understand what the numbers mean, and you can convince anyone of anything

Re:go catch real crooks cops

[mysidia]

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:I was going to try something similar...

[Mr. Underbridge]

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:No, you don't know if I was "running a stop sig

[ais523]

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:go catch real crooks cops

[Dark$ide]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[stomv]

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.