# Red light camera countermeasures technology **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 24, 2003, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-camera-countermeasures-technology/220804 "2003-12-24T06:14:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-camera-countermeasures-technology/220804/41 "2003-12-27T04:22:09Z")
I’d like to see **flex727** and **KP** fight this out – maybe not a single arithmetic equation, but why “graduate level”? ---
**Author:** ![flex727](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/258eb7/32.png) [@flex727](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flex727)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-camera-countermeasures-technology/220804/42 "2003-12-27T21:21:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Balthisar \* > \*\*…why “graduate level”? \*\* Well, reading this thread snapped me back to what I remembered as a graduate level physics class in Mechanics. Turns out it was an upper-level undergraduate class (hey it _was_ over 20 years ago :eek: ). This exact problem was a homework assignment for that class. I also mis-remembered the math required - calculus, not diff eq. [Emily Latella] Nevermind! [/Emily Latella] ---
**Author:** ![KP](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/a9adbd/32.png) [@KP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KP)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-camera-countermeasures-technology/220804/43 "2003-12-28T00:56:36Z")
I know where flex727 is coming from. Many factors can be considered, but… _You only need higher math to calculate emergency stops!_ A safe duration _ **for a yellow light** _ can be obtained by dividing the speed limit by a reasonable deceleration [e.g. 3 m/sec^2). If a light requires a 1-gee deceleration that turns loose objects or passengers (I’ve always enjoyed loose passengers of the feminine persuasion, myself) into projectiles I believe that a judge will see that it is unsafe. In fact, you probably don’t need math at all, just the state/federal mandated braking/signal tables. Remember: it’s the _driver’s_ responsibility to reduce to an [unspecified] “safe speed” for their load and road conditions [[US Federal Guidelines](http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/)] [[Ontario’s guidelines, based on a deceleration of 3 m/sec^2](http://www.sankey.ws/lights.html)] Personally, I wouldn’t even risk introducing a calculus derivation in traffic court – or criminal court, for that matter. If forced to present higher math, I’d get an expert to testify that they had done the equations, instead) How much will a calculus solution differ from a basic approximation at velocities under 45 mph, given that a court will probably only heed 1 (or maybe 0.5) second units on math of your devising? [Few intersections even have a speed limit that high. Maybe they are more common (or less well marked) eslewhere in the nation, but I’ve always seen warning signs and/or speed limit drops hundreds of yards ahead of any red light on higher speed highways.] Granted, there are potential issues. However, as a realistic matter, if the yellow light is too short for a safe stop, it’s too short for a safe stop for _everyone_ and _most_ people will be forced to run the light, not just the fraction who are complaining now. If it is too short for you, specifically (say you’re driving a U-Haul full of bricks) then it is your job to go slow because, well, you’re driving a U-Haul full of bricks. Surely you don’t expect them to change the speed limits and traffic lights to make everyone drive like they’re hauling bricks? ---
**Author:** ![LemonThrower](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d2c977/32.png) [@LemonThrower](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LemonThrower)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-camera-countermeasures-technology/220804/44 "2003-12-28T19:21:47Z")
a better solution would be for local governments to curtail spending. Government should spend its citizens’ money only on essential government functions. Then it would not have to charge $271 for a speeding ticket. Also, I am aware of no law making it illegal to spray a clear liquid on your license plate, or to protect your license plate with a clear casing. I have seen no cite to such a law on this thread, either. Even if such a law exists in Maryland, its dubious it exists in many other states. Why would such a law exist except to protect government revenues from red light cameras, which are a recent invention? ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-camera-countermeasures-technology/220804/45 "2003-12-28T19:41:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by LemonThrower \* > **Also, I am aware of no law making it illegal to spray a clear liquid on your license plate, or to protect your license plate with a clear casing. I have seen no cite to such a law on this thread, either.** You have now: [Washington state](http://www.dol.wa.gov/vs/tr-replacement.htm): > [@](#): > > …any type of license plate cover is illegal. “We’ve seen many different covers, some tinted and some clear. But they are all illegal because they reduce the plate’s reflective abilities.” [Minnesota](http://www.hometownsource.com/trooper/questions/2003/july/9licenseplate.html): > [@](#): > > It is unlawful to cover any assigned letters and numbers or the name of the state of origin of a license plate with any material whatever, including any clear or colorless material that affects the plate’s visibility or reflectivity. Shall I continue? ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-camera-countermeasures-technology/220804/46 "2003-12-28T20:41:26Z")
::: Checks scorecard::: Let’s see the score is now **Q.E.D.** 2 **LemonThrower** 0 ---
**Author:** ![LemonThrower](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d2c977/32.png) [@LemonThrower](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LemonThrower)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-camera-countermeasures-technology/220804/47 "2003-12-28T21:29:06Z")
I stand correct but remain doubtful that this is illegal “in most states” as stated by KP, simply because this is a recent phenomenon. No need to get personal, either. ---
**Author:** ![PlanMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/2bfe46/32.png) [@PlanMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlanMan)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-camera-countermeasures-technology/220804/48 "2003-12-28T22:10:25Z")
No cites, but I would imagine that there may be some laws in response to ‘camera-evading’ treatments or covers of license plates; however, I would think that most/some states would already have laws to ensure the visibility and readability of license plates - to counteract the mud treatment mentioned earlier. The need for law enforcement, and everyday citizens, to see a plate number clearly was not created by red-light cameras. It is in the public interest for a witness to be able to say a “blue Nova, tag #123-ABC ran over the group of nuns escorting handicapped children, then sped away” ---
**Author:** ![netscape\_6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8c91f0/32.png) [@netscape\_6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/netscape_6)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-camera-countermeasures-technology/220804/49 "2003-12-29T00:17:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by LemonThrower \* > \*\*a better solution would be for local governments to curtail spending. Government should spend its citizens’ money only on essential government functions. Then it would not have to charge $271 for a speeding ticket. > \*\* I think the there should be a law that the goverment should have to donate all the traffic fines it collects to charity. That would end the dangers to safety that these trick lights are. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-light-camera-countermeasures-technology/220804.md?page=2)