Man Uses Physics to Fight $400 Traffic Ticket

[Rakido]

Dmirti Krioukov was issued a traffic ticket for failing to completely stop at a stop sign. Instead of paying the ticket or going to traffic school, the physicist fought the citation by writing a four-page paper explaining how the ticket he was given defies physics.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loca...147450815.html

[Brian Ellis]

In the late 1950s, I successfully argued a case for a friend who had been caught in a radar trap. He was finishing an overtaking manoeuvre and headed at an angle straight towards the radar and not parallel to the side of the road. It went to magistrate's court and I explained the cosine effect and, because the angle was not the same as the car used to check the radar before and after a speed trap was set up, the radar would read higher than the calibrated speed. The magistrate asked the cop whether this was true and. of course, he didn't have a clue and just stammered unintelligibly. The magistrate then asked him whether my friend had been pulling over to the left after overtaking. He said it was possible but he could not remember the particular incident as he had booked many cars that afternoon. Case dismissed as there was doubt and that he would not hear any more cases from the same speed trap.

[VJ]

Well, to me, the full stop sign is one of the most ridiculous signs... especially when they put them at places where you have clear visibility. I just fail to see the point of them: if you have no visibility, you will stop, regardless of whether or not there is a stop sign; if there is clear visibility, you see that you can continue. The only exception would be roads that give an impression of clear visibility, but don't have it (I know a couple of those), but those are quite limited.

Good one, Brian!

[cjolley]

Here is a link to the paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.0162v1.pdf

It's interesting.
But how on Earth did he get the cop to admit that there was a second car that obstructed the cop's view at exactly the time he would have stopped? 90% chance he would have been convicted here.

[VJ]

He did not have to have the cop admit that the view WAS blocked, just thqt it might have been blocked. When the cop stated that it could have been blocked, I guess tha qualifies as "reasonable doubt".

[cjolley]

He did not have to have the cop admit that the view WAS blocked, just thqt it might have been blocked.

Those two things are exactly the same in traffic court.
I'm surprised that the cop didn't just look the judge in the eye and swear his view wasn't blocked.

Though I suppose it's possible there was dash-cam evidence to be had.

[Dr Mordrid]

Many years ago I made a left turn in the sub and no sooner completed it than a motorcycle hit me in the rear. The bike was damaged but the guy dove & rolled in time to avoid the impact. The guy told the cop a BS story that I'd pulled out in front of him causing the impact, so I got the ticket. I took photos & measurements at the scene, got hold of the Michigan State Police skid mark analysis book, his driving record, and went to the pre-trial ready for war.

Problems: the 25 mph speed limit, his 100 foot skid mark, previous complaints by me about an identical bike speeding in the neighborhood, and him getting a ticket for doing 110 mph in a 45 mph zone not a mile from the sub.

After showing the prosecutor what a stupid case he'd been handed the (doughnut stuffed) bailiff laughed and asked "what are you, some kind of teacher?"

I slapped down my sheepskins, certifications, state & federal licenses, society cards, etc. and said "as a matter of fact, yes - among other things." Case dismissed.