The prosecution presented radar evidence that the vehicle was speeding. The defense presented faulty evidence from a source that was not capable of measuring speed.
NO... the PROSECUTION presented ALL OF the evidence. The defense merely proved that the prosecution's evidence contradicted itself.
If you go into a courtroom and supply contradictory evidence, it should not be surprising in the least that your case gets thrown out. Claiming that the evidence that contradicts your case - evidence which YOU PROVIDED - is (conveniently) "inaccurate" while the evidence that supports your case is still reliable is disingenuous and a good way to make yourself look really, really stupid.
Basic math may be basic math, but sufficiently-incompetent engineers and programmers can design and build a system for which basic math does not seem to apply. And that system can then be used to generate several-hundred-dollar fines.
Doesn't matter for our purpose here. The processors are simply not fast enough to do all of this work in parallel on two shot bursts.
Well... your argument also hinges on the assumption that it's impossible to make a copy of the time off the CPU's clock at the precise time that the CCD's data is copied into the memory buffer, or at a known and constant time offset.
CCDs and clocks are just constantly changing, you know. So it's impossible to take a snapshot of BOTH? They're just digital bytes. Store a few bytes worth of clock data, and you can piddle with the pixels at your leisure.
Correct, the fact that the vehicle in question was there at the time is not disputed by the defendant, because it definitively proves that the vehicle was not speeding.
Well, regardless of the stated reason for taking two photos, if you have two timestamped photos showing a certain distance traveled in that time, it follows that you ought to be able to accurately calculate the speed of the vehicle.
But the radar is a calibrated and certified device. The cameras weren't.
BULL SHIT. Whose ass did you pull that out of? Hell, if ever was there a time, this is it: Citation needed.
If the entire device - radar, camera, and the electronics that timed it all - was NOT calibrated and certified before it was accepted for use in a government contract, a class-action lawsuit is in order.
The whole thing relies on the camera's accurate timing to nab the correct car, not the one in front of or behind it. If the time stamps aren't accurate, you fail to prove that his vehicle was there at that time, nor that it was the vehicle which set off the speed sensor. Case dismissed.
None of the environmental concerns that you mention are likely to be significantly different from one picture to the next when they're approximately 1/3 sec. apart. How many people actually speed while it's raining so hard that you can't see properly? And if there is standing water on the road whenever it rains, the solution is to move the camera or fix the road so there is proper drainage.
Well, the prosecution presented their evidence already, didn't they?
He's trying to refute that evidence.
He has proven that the prosecution's evidence is inaccurate.
If I can't trust you to design a system to accurately mark the times at which two photos were taken, why should I trust you to design a system that accurately records the speed of a vehicle?
All I'm saying is the evidence the defense provided does not prove him NOT Guilty.
He doesn't have to prove that he's not guilty, you jackass. He has to prove that the evidence that's being offered against him isn't reliable enough to prove that he IS guilty. And he has proven that.
"So, what you're trying to tell me is that your conflicting evidence proves that the defendant is guilty because the evidence that indicates that he isn't is simply 'inaccurate', and despite how inaccurate you claim your camera was, you expect me to believe that the radar is reliable in what is obviously a grossly incompetent design?"
Yeah, that one would go over real well with a judge.
If there is doubt on the reliability of the evidence, you cannot convict.
CCDs do not impose time stamps. CCDs dump images to into shared working memory.
Yeah, because it's REALLY FUCKING HARD to copy a couple of bytes of data off an accurate clock when you're copying a few megabytes worth of data off the CCD.
If the timestamp indicates the time down to 1/1000th of a second, it should indicate that the picture was taken within a certain reasonable percentage of that time. If the system is incapable of determining the time which the photo was taken with that accuracy, it is misleading to do so, i.e. false.
And apparently it can be done in the UK, so like I said - they're doing it wrong, their pictures are horribly flawed and the timestamps are incorrect, and they should be inadmissible as evidence.
So what I'm taking from this story is that this guy got over 40 tickets in the mail, *none* of them actually encouraging him to slow the frak down.
I know we hardly ever RTFA around here, but you obviously did and you still didn't figure out that he's a "business owner" and the tickets were issued to his "company trucks"?
Um, "instantaneous speed" is a continuous function and its maximum slope is based on how much inertia the vehicle has and how good its brakes or engine are. In a time frame that is sufficiently small, "average speed" MUST be virtually identical to "instantaneous speed".
You don't add a time stamp to a JPEG picture. You add a time stamp to raw pixels. I.E. the raw data from the CCD. This should take essentially no time whatsoever. If the time stamp on the picture isn't within a few milliseconds of when the CCD captured the image, you're doing it horribly wrong. Then you encode the JPEG and write it to disk.
The photos are clearly intended to prove that the vehicle was at that place at that time. If the vehicle was not at that exact place at that exact time, they are inaccurate and should be inadmissible in court.
No, they are saying he was able to decelerate 15 MPH in the ~50 foot distance between where his vehicle was when it was supposedly clocked, and where it was when its photo was snapped.You RTFA.
Optotraffic representatives said the photos are not intended to capture the actual act of speeding, and are taken nearly 50 feet down the road from sensors as a way to prove the vehicle was on the road.... “Their speed is not measured by the photos. The speed is measured before the photos are taken.”
Of course, that does bring up the question of why they need 2 photos if they aren't using them to determine the vehicle's speed.
A material which performs well under tension also tends to convert shear into tensile forces and transmit those tensile forces throughout its length, unless there's some good reason why it can't.
I can't rip apart even a fairly thin sheet of something like aluminum (no, not aluminum foil, real sheet metal). I can cut through it with ease with even a moderate pair of scissors though.
Keep in mind that you're using a set of levers to greatly multiply your force.
Slashdot Mirror
Shush, quit bringing reality into his hypothetical scenario.
The prosecution presented radar evidence that the vehicle was speeding.
The defense presented faulty evidence from a source that was not capable of measuring speed.
NO... the PROSECUTION presented ALL OF the evidence. The defense merely proved that the prosecution's evidence contradicted itself.
If you go into a courtroom and supply contradictory evidence, it should not be surprising in the least that your case gets thrown out. Claiming that the evidence that contradicts your case - evidence which YOU PROVIDED - is (conveniently) "inaccurate" while the evidence that supports your case is still reliable is disingenuous and a good way to make yourself look really, really stupid.
Basic math may be basic math, but sufficiently-incompetent engineers and programmers can design and build a system for which basic math does not seem to apply. And that system can then be used to generate several-hundred-dollar fines.
Doesn't matter for our purpose here. The processors are simply not fast enough to do all of this work in parallel on two shot bursts.
Well... your argument also hinges on the assumption that it's impossible to make a copy of the time off the CPU's clock at the precise time that the CCD's data is copied into the memory buffer, or at a known and constant time offset.
CCDs and clocks are just constantly changing, you know. So it's impossible to take a snapshot of BOTH? They're just digital bytes. Store a few bytes worth of clock data, and you can piddle with the pixels at your leisure.
Correct, the fact that the vehicle in question was there at the time is not disputed by the defendant, because it definitively proves that the vehicle was not speeding.
Well, regardless of the stated reason for taking two photos, if you have two timestamped photos showing a certain distance traveled in that time, it follows that you ought to be able to accurately calculate the speed of the vehicle.
But the radar is a calibrated and certified device. The cameras weren't.
BULL SHIT. Whose ass did you pull that out of? Hell, if ever was there a time, this is it: Citation needed.
If the entire device - radar, camera, and the electronics that timed it all - was NOT calibrated and certified before it was accepted for use in a government contract, a class-action lawsuit is in order.
I guarantee you it was.
The whole thing relies on the camera's accurate timing to nab the correct car, not the one in front of or behind it. If the time stamps aren't accurate, you fail to prove that his vehicle was there at that time, nor that it was the vehicle which set off the speed sensor. Case dismissed.
None of the environmental concerns that you mention are likely to be significantly different from one picture to the next when they're approximately 1/3 sec. apart. How many people actually speed while it's raining so hard that you can't see properly? And if there is standing water on the road whenever it rains, the solution is to move the camera or fix the road so there is proper drainage.
Well, the prosecution presented their evidence already, didn't they?
He's trying to refute that evidence.
He has proven that the prosecution's evidence is inaccurate.
If I can't trust you to design a system to accurately mark the times at which two photos were taken, why should I trust you to design a system that accurately records the speed of a vehicle?
All I'm saying is the evidence the defense provided does not prove him NOT Guilty.
He doesn't have to prove that he's not guilty, you jackass. He has to prove that the evidence that's being offered against him isn't reliable enough to prove that he IS guilty. And he has proven that.
"So, what you're trying to tell me is that your conflicting evidence proves that the defendant is guilty because the evidence that indicates that he isn't is simply 'inaccurate', and despite how inaccurate you claim your camera was, you expect me to believe that the radar is reliable in what is obviously a grossly incompetent design?"
Yeah, that one would go over real well with a judge.
If there is doubt on the reliability of the evidence, you cannot convict.
CCDs do not impose time stamps.
CCDs dump images to into shared working memory.
Yeah, because it's REALLY FUCKING HARD to copy a couple of bytes of data off an accurate clock when you're copying a few megabytes worth of data off the CCD.
If the timestamp indicates the time down to 1/1000th of a second, it should indicate that the picture was taken within a certain reasonable percentage of that time. If the system is incapable of determining the time which the photo was taken with that accuracy, it is misleading to do so, i.e. false.
And apparently it can be done in the UK, so like I said - they're doing it wrong, their pictures are horribly flawed and the timestamps are incorrect, and they should be inadmissible as evidence.
So what I'm taking from this story is that this guy got over 40 tickets in the mail, *none* of them actually encouraging him to slow the frak down.
I know we hardly ever RTFA around here, but you obviously did and you still didn't figure out that he's a "business owner" and the tickets were issued to his "company trucks"?
I think you mean -4.
Um, "instantaneous speed" is a continuous function and its maximum slope is based on how much inertia the vehicle has and how good its brakes or engine are. In a time frame that is sufficiently small, "average speed" MUST be virtually identical to "instantaneous speed".
So they're tampering with the evidence by putting false timestamps on the photos.
I don't buy that. If one is blurry, both will be blurry... it's at a fixed focal distance and the car's speed is essentially the same in both of them.
You don't add a time stamp to a JPEG picture. You add a time stamp to raw pixels. I.E. the raw data from the CCD. This should take essentially no time whatsoever. If the time stamp on the picture isn't within a few milliseconds of when the CCD captured the image, you're doing it horribly wrong. Then you encode the JPEG and write it to disk.
The photos are clearly intended to prove that the vehicle was at that place at that time. If the vehicle was not at that exact place at that exact time, they are inaccurate and should be inadmissible in court.
No, they are saying he was able to decelerate 15 MPH in the ~50 foot distance between where his vehicle was when it was supposedly clocked, and where it was when its photo was snapped.You RTFA.
Optotraffic representatives said the photos are not intended to capture the actual act of speeding, and are taken nearly 50 feet down the road from sensors as a way to prove the vehicle was on the road. ... “Their speed is not measured by the photos. The speed is measured before the photos are taken.”
Of course, that does bring up the question of why they need 2 photos if they aren't using them to determine the vehicle's speed.
Well - obviously CO2 is not flammable. Burning = oxidizing, and CO2 is fully oxidized already.
but that "very short segment" part truly matters.
A material which performs well under tension also tends to convert shear into tensile forces and transmit those tensile forces throughout its length, unless there's some good reason why it can't.
I can't rip apart even a fairly thin sheet of something like aluminum (no, not aluminum foil, real sheet metal). I can cut through it with ease with even a moderate pair of scissors though.
Keep in mind that you're using a set of levers to greatly multiply your force.
Shearing force is basically just tensile force acting on a very short segment of the material.