Maybe the photo was blurry because you were going too fast.
A $40 fine?! I got caught by a red light camera in San Diego. According to it, I was in the intersection 0.8 seconds after the light turned red. The fine was $378.
If math hadn’t been already discredited in the eyes of the law, I could compute that to be $1.7 million per hour. It definitely wasn’t worth that much.
Now that is truly bizarre!
Well, sure. And did you account for redshifting as you approached the speed of light?
:eek:
How does California come such an odd number? Oh wait, California. Forget it. Maybe.
I’m pretty sure those speed camera photos are always black-and-white.
Here in DC the cameras go off at 6 mph over the limit.
Yeah, but that’s a conservative estimate.
But seriously, I think the OPs case would have been substantially strengthened if the argument had simply stated that based on the photographic evidence and the time stamps, the driver could have been going as slow as 22 mph (or whatever) instead of mentioning the “conservative” estimate of 34, or the possible range of speeds from 22 to 34 mph. Since clearly, based on imprecise time stamps, there’s no way the officer who examined and signed the ticket could conclude that the OP was driving at 34 mph as opposed to 22 (or whatever)… unless there was additional time data that was not presented as part of the ticket that was mailed out.
Or downshifting as he approached the red light?
I agree. That would have been a much better explanation than my attempt.
IME, pretty much anyone who takes the time to show up in court and contest a ticket will get the fine knocked down a bit.
Something to keep in mind if you get a ticket that’s well into three figures.
At least having the fine knocked down was an option. When my town had cameras, you had to pay in advance of the hearing. If the police department employee who heard your case refused to dismiss the city’s threat to sue you in civil court (technically that’s all the tickets were), the city just kept the money.
Kimmy, this surprises me, since an infraction, no matter how minor, is of a criminal-law nature – the state in its prosecutorial capacity vs, the accused. I’m not so much doubting your word as I am seeking clarificartion as to how this comes to be true.
So the fact that the equipment has been proven to be faulty by elementary school math is not something a judge, who has a flipping doctorate, is going to even consider? He’s just going to be stupid and hear “34 mph” and not even think about what was said?
No wonder our court system is so fucked up that we have to pay people on both sides to try and cheat to get people honest justice.
I did a bit of googling, and it seems that the burden of proof tends to be “beyond a reasonable doubt” in most states, but some have decriminalized traffic infractions – like Washington, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, and probably others (I got tired of looking at links).
“We have plenty of hearsay and conjecture, Your Honor. Those are kinds of evidence.”
The real lesson here being, run it past the folks here at the SMDB before you try a defense in court.
Here in NZ there’s only one photo. The camera calculates the speed by doppler radar (I think). So your distance/time calculation isn’t possible. When they first came in a bunch of tickets were voided because the police couldn’t prove the cameras had been properly (or recently) calibrated. They’re very particular about that now.
In High School I got to play with an old speed gun in physics class. You calibrated it using a tuning fork! Had lots of fun ‘measuring’ how fast we could bowl. None of us could match an international spinner…
I’m sayin!
Out of curiosity, do you honestly believe you weren’t speeding or do you acknowledge you probably were and just wanted to get out of it?
You said in the OP that you requested a hearing with the camera operator present. Did that happen?
If you are able, it would be interesting to have the two photos posted (with identifying information obscured, of course), and see if the Dope comes to the same mathematical conclusion you did.
You must be that law-talkin’ dude I’ve been hearing so much about.