Photo-ticket for not coming to full stop
in [Drive]
|
From: Larrybud on 26 Apr 2010 11:52 gpsman <gpsman(a)driversmail.com> wrote in news:2ae0ea3d-e0f4-4a62-8c08-f1c902a17b09 @f13g2000vbl.googlegroups. com: > On Apr 12, 7:33�am, Charles Packer <mail...(a)cpacker.org> wrote: >> On Apr 12, 12:10 am, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: >> >> > I'd like to see those pictures. >> >> Done: > > Thanks. > >> http://cpacker.org/a1.jpg >> >> http://cpacker.org/a2.jpg >> >> In the first pic, she isn't past the white line. >> Why did the camera trigger at that time? > > Because her speed was detected as 11 mph at the stop bar. > > The evidence suggests not only the absence of a stop, but any > intent to stop, or to even slow to a sufficient degree to comply > with the most liberal spirit of the law defining a stop. So let's do a little math. 11 mph is 16 feet per second. The two photos are taken 2.47 seconds apart (note the time for the "RED1", "Red2" etc). The car has travelled, what, maybe 12-15 feet in that time, when in fact, it SHOULD have gone about 38 feet at 11mph between those two photos. So what's wrong with this "picture"?? So the "evidence", as you like to call it, not only shows that the speed is wrong, but because of that, the conclusion is wrong.
From: Josh on 26 Apr 2010 12:18 On 26 Apr 2010 15:52:22 GMT, Larrybud <larrybud2002(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >gpsman <gpsman(a)driversmail.com> wrote in >news:2ae0ea3d-e0f4-4a62-8c08-f1c902a17b09 >@f13g2000vbl.googlegroups. >com: > >> On Apr 12, 7:33�am, Charles Packer <mail...(a)cpacker.org> wrote: >>> On Apr 12, 12:10 am, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > I'd like to see those pictures. >>> >>> Done: >> >> Thanks. >> >>> http://cpacker.org/a1.jpg >>> >>> http://cpacker.org/a2.jpg >>> >>> In the first pic, she isn't past the white line. >>> Why did the camera trigger at that time? >> >> Because her speed was detected as 11 mph at the stop bar. >> >> The evidence suggests not only the absence of a stop, but any >> intent to stop, or to even slow to a sufficient degree to comply >> with the most liberal spirit of the law defining a stop. > >So let's do a little math. 11 mph is 16 feet per second. > >The two photos are taken 2.47 seconds apart (note the time for the >"RED1", "Red2" etc). The car has travelled, what, maybe 12-15 >feet in that time, when in fact, it SHOULD have gone about 38 feet >at 11mph between those two photos. > >So what's wrong with this "picture"?? > >So the "evidence", as you like to call it, not only shows that the >speed is wrong, but because of that, the conclusion is wrong. Yup. Still photos *may* be sufficient evidence of certain violations: 1) A normal RL violation, where it's illegal to cross the line on red -- two photos, both showing the light red, one with the car before the line and one are sufficient. 2) Speed violations where the time between two points of a known distance is greater than the time at the legal speed. But they are *not* evidence of a right-on-red violation, because it's perfectly legal to be moving at any given instant, and there's no evidence the car wasn't stopped at the line (in the ticket above, it's pretty clear that the car *was* stopped at some point, given the discrepancy between the alleged speed and the distance/time) Video evidence should be *required* for all violations, especially nebulous ones like right-on-red, stop signs, etc. If that makes it too costly, tough. Speed radar is fallible (angles, larger faster vehicles nearby, etc). A human police officer is generally required to at least pretend that they've estimated the speed and confirmed with the radar; I don't know why these machines aren't subject to the same. Requiring video (including a requirement that it be made available easily, without having to visit a far away police station in person, etc) would give the victims of tickets like this a chance to verify the allegations and make their defense. It also allows humans to deal with the exception cases (if an ambulance comes screaming through the intersection right after a driver carefully moves through to get out of the way, the ticket should be dismissed, for example). Please, please, please fight this citation; we need to get precedents for proper evidence requirements established. Josh
From: gpsman on 26 Apr 2010 12:53 On Apr 26, 11:52 am, Larrybud <larrybud2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote in > news:2ae0ea3d-e0f4-4a62-8c08-f1c902a17b09 > @f13g2000vbl.googlegroups. > com: > > > > > On Apr 12, 7:33 am, Charles Packer <mail...(a)cpacker.org> wrote: > >> On Apr 12, 12:10 am, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > > >> > I'd like to see those pictures. > > >> Done: > > > Thanks. > > >>http://cpacker.org/a1.jpg > > >>http://cpacker.org/a2.jpg > > >> In the first pic, she isn't past the white line. > >> Why did the camera trigger at that time? > > > Because her speed was detected as 11 mph at the stop bar. > > > The evidence suggests not only the absence of a stop, but any > > intent to stop, or to even slow to a sufficient degree to comply > > with the most liberal spirit of the law defining a stop. > > So let's do a little math. 11 mph is 16 feet per second. Let's call it arithmetic. > The two photos are taken 2.47 seconds apart (note the time for the > "RED1", "Red2" etc). The car has travelled, what, maybe 12-15 > feet in that time, when in fact, it SHOULD have gone about 38 feet > at 11mph between those two photos. > > So what's wrong with this "picture"?? You're not in it with a tape measure? It looks like a Subaru Outback or similar size vehicle to me. The length of the 2010 Outback is 15.68 ft. http://www.cars101.com/subaru/outback/outback2010.html#dimensions It appears to me the front bumper is roughly 2 vehicle lengths ahead in picture 594D. > So the "evidence", as you like to call it, The "evidence" suggests we are missing 2 pictures; 594B and C. > not only shows that the > speed is wrong, but because of that, the conclusion is wrong. Wrong. Assumes constant velocity when in 594A the brake lights are clearly lit. There is no escaping the fact that in 594A at R1 a velocity of 16 fps is a failure to stop. ----- - gpsman
From: Larrybud on 4 May 2010 11:48 gpsman <gpsman(a)driversmail.com> wrote in news:65554ff7-5fe7-45ca-ad5a-c43beda46063@ 11g2000yqr.googlegroups.c om: > On Apr 26, 11:52�am, Larrybud <larrybud2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote in >> news:2ae0ea3d-e0f4-4a62-8c08-f1c902a17b09 >> @f13g2000vbl.googlegroups. >> com: >> >> >> >> > On Apr 12, 7:33 am, Charles Packer <mail...(a)cpacker.org> >> > wrote: >> >> On Apr 12, 12:10 am, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > I'd like to see those pictures. >> >> >> Done: >> >> > Thanks. >> >> >>http://cpacker.org/a1.jpg >> >> >>http://cpacker.org/a2.jpg >> >> >> In the first pic, she isn't past the white line. >> >> Why did the camera trigger at that time? >> >> > Because her speed was detected as 11 mph at the stop bar. >> >> > The evidence suggests not only the absence of a stop, but any >> > intent to stop, or to even slow to a sufficient degree to >> > comply with the most liberal spirit of the law defining a >> > stop. >> >> So let's do a little math. �11 mph is 16 feet per second. > > Let's call it arithmetic. > >> The two photos are taken 2.47 seconds apart (note the time for >> the "RED1", "Red2" etc). � �The car has travelled, what, maybe >> 12-15 feet in that time, when in fact, it SHOULD have gone >> about 38 feet at 11mph between those two photos. >> >> So what's wrong with this "picture"?? > > You're not in it with a tape measure? > > It looks like a Subaru Outback or similar size vehicle to me. > The length of the 2010 Outback is 15.68 ft. > http://www.cars101.com/subaru/outback/outback2010.html#dimension s > > It appears to me the front bumper is roughly 2 vehicle lengths > ahead in picture 594D. > >> So the "evidence", as you like to call it, > > The "evidence" suggests we are missing 2 pictures; 594B and C. B and C were the license plate photos. > >> not only shows that the >> speed is wrong, but because of that, the conclusion is wrong. > > Wrong. Assumes constant velocity when in 594A the brake lights > are clearly lit. By defintion, velocity IS constant at a single point in time. > There is no escaping the fact that in 594A at R1 a velocity of > 16 fps is a failure to stop. And you have no proof that the vehicle didn't come to a stop. That's the bottom line.
From: gpsman on 4 May 2010 15:06
On May 4, 11:48 am, Larrybud <larrybud2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote in > news:65554ff7-5fe7-45ca-ad5a-c43beda46063@ > 11g2000yqr.googlegroups.c > om: > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 11:52 am, Larrybud <larrybud2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote in > >> news:2ae0ea3d-e0f4-4a62-8c08-f1c902a17b09 > >> @f13g2000vbl.googlegroups. > >> com: > > >> > On Apr 12, 7:33 am, Charles Packer <mail...(a)cpacker.org> > >> > wrote: > >> >> On Apr 12, 12:10 am, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > I'd like to see those pictures. > > >> >> Done: > > >> > Thanks. > > >> >>http://cpacker.org/a1.jpg > > >> >>http://cpacker.org/a2.jpg > > >> >> In the first pic, she isn't past the white line. > >> >> Why did the camera trigger at that time? > > >> > Because her speed was detected as 11 mph at the stop bar. > > >> > The evidence suggests not only the absence of a stop, but any > >> > intent to stop, or to even slow to a sufficient degree to > >> > comply with the most liberal spirit of the law defining a > >> > stop. > > >> So let's do a little math. 11 mph is 16 feet per second. > > > Let's call it arithmetic. > > >> The two photos are taken 2.47 seconds apart (note the time for > >> the "RED1", "Red2" etc). The car has travelled, what, maybe > >> 12-15 feet in that time, when in fact, it SHOULD have gone > >> about 38 feet at 11mph between those two photos. > > >> So what's wrong with this "picture"?? > > > You're not in it with a tape measure? > > > It looks like a Subaru Outback or similar size vehicle to me. > > The length of the 2010 Outback is 15.68 ft. > >http://www.cars101.com/subaru/outback/outback2010.html#dimension > s > > > It appears to me the front bumper is roughly 2 vehicle lengths > > ahead in picture 594D. > > >> So the "evidence", as you like to call it, > > > The "evidence" suggests we are missing 2 pictures; 594B and C. > > B and C were the license plate photos. Got any "proof"? > >> not only shows that the > >> speed is wrong, but because of that, the conclusion is wrong. > > > Wrong. Assumes constant velocity when in 594A the brake lights > > are clearly lit. > > By defintion, velocity IS constant at a single point in time. Fascinating, but irrelevant. You're measuring velocity over 2.47 seconds in fps yourself, Einstein. > > There is no escaping the fact that in 594A at R1 a velocity of > > 16 fps is a failure to stop. > > And you have no proof that the vehicle didn't come to a stop. > That's the bottom line. I have "evidence", you have -none- beyond your ability to imagine it, ridiculously. Only fools bandy about the term "proof". You seem to be dancing around dying to say the vehicle must have stopped because in neither photo is it moving. At the stop bar. where velocity is required by law to be 0, it is instead indicated as 11 mph. If you cannot understand that most fundamental of traffic code you are unqualified to have an opinion, and nothing good can come from expressing it. ----- - gpsman |