Hacker News Reader

Comment by taeric | Hacker News Reader

I confess I was expecting to not care for this. I'm not sure how any of it should be surprising, as it seemed fairly straight forward analysis of the tools.

That said, this was a ridiculously fun read. More detailed than expected for some parts, and always informative. I'm glad it did not come across as anti speed detectors. Really more of a "know the limitations."

View on HN

I hope he realizes this, as much as I hope everybody else realizes this, that the only reason why he got the violation reduced was because he brought his attorney on board. Anybody who lives in California whose contested a ticket knows that 9/10 times (if not even more than that) judges side with the officers -- whether they have a strong case or not -- the State of California certainly doesn't want it's residents to get any ideas.. if you know what I mean.

I wonder if his attorney cost more than the actual citation? Most people can't afford lawyer fees, so cops in California get away with this small stuff all the time without any fuss, whether they were liable or not. Congrats Joshua Block -- BTW I loved "Effective Java"!

I'm surprised they exonerated him, considering his driving history...

Turns out he apparently blew a red light with his Boxster in 2010 and hit another car:

http://attitudeofgratitude.typepad.com/attitude_of_gratitude...

That's a strange story. According to the blogger's version og the incident, he was struck an injured by someone clearly breaking the law. Why wasn't the other driver detained by police and arrested?

I managed to win 3 tickets in CA (over a period of about 9 years) using trial by written declaration. In fact one of them was using a very similar argument to OPs. It's a bunch of work as I painstakingly assembled my case with loads of supporting evidence but I think it's important to stand up for yourself.

Admittedly all 3 cases were dismissed because the officer didn't bother to write a response but TBWD is a lot cheaper than lawyering up and does sometimes work.

What if there was an online tool to help you assemble your case? Do you think more people would fight tickets?

There's more than just the citation cost, though. A ticket that involves points will come with a corresponding insurance premium increase for at least a few years.

> I wonder if his attorney cost more than the actual citation?

Doesn't really matter -- getting a[nother] point on your license can be more costly log-term (insurance rates, having to re-take drivers test, etc).

Often (but not always) in the UK, the laser is accompanied by video footage which shows where the beam has been trained and it is a combination of both the video and laser reading (shows on the video) which is the evidence. (all tripod mounted - so I suspect many of the issues detailed are well known). Sounds like that would give good supporting evidence for a challenge.

However, traffic violations is most places are about revenue raising so anything which reduces the opportunities - like accuracy and fairness - are unlikely to get much of a look in.

edit: for clarity, it looks like this http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pictured-speeding-motor...

also referenced in my reply below.

In the UK, speed cameras seem to be accompanied by road markings:

http://southport.qlocal.co.uk/southport/news_list/New_Speed_...

I always assumed that the radar was only for deciding to take and submit the pictures, the actual speed measurement (especially if challenged) would be done using the markings on the road.

That only requires the speed camera to have a reliable to 1/100 second clock which isn't exactly rocket science.

Static cameras have markings and 2 pictures are taken, normally 1/3 of a second apart. Activation is either radar or in-road inductive wiring. Neither are foolproof and pictures are supposed to be manually checked but often are not with results like this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-21264281 where a claimed 50mph was actually 18 mph)

Someone did manage to appeal because they'd incorrectly painted the markings too close together. You have to check everything ! :D

how can a video possibly show where a laser is pointed at from > 1,000ft away? that seems unreasonable.

The video is required to zoom to show the driver of the vehicle as well for identification purposes. It prevents people claiming they were not the driver.

(e.g. it looks like this http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pictured-speeding-motor...)

That image may reasonably prove it was not a woman driving the vehicle, but no way can that prove it was the actual driver (or anyone's identity). It's way too blurry and pixelated. Also, a LIDAR beam shouldn't be pointed at a sloped window, so I doubt it actually proves where the beam was pointed at either.

I don't see how it could even prove it was not a woman driving. I'm barely comfortable asserting that it shows a human face.

Josh Bloch is always entertaining, watch some of his video talks or read some of his books. He has a couple really good talks on GoogleTechTalks youtube channel.

Me too. Though I would've been over the moon if he'd said he wore his "Back off man. I'm a scientist." shirt to court.

Agreed, this was such a treat to read. Love when science sets the sales brochures straight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com