Physicist uses his expertise to get out of traffic ticket

TheZ

A UCSD physicist used his knowledge and a little creativity to get himself out of a $400 traffic ticket.
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.
Using his knowledge of angular and linear motion, Krioukov prepared a paper for the judge in his case and was able to argue – and prove – his innocence.
The paper explained how what the officer “thought” he saw, he didn’t really see, according to the laws of physics.
“Therefore my argument in the court went as follows: that what he saw would be easily confused by the angle of speed of this hypothetical object that failed to stop at the stop sign. And therefore, what he saw did not properly reflect reality, which was completely different," said Krioukov.

Before others try the “physics defense” in before a judge, Krioukov warned that it took a perfect combination of events for his argument to legitimately hold up.
By the way, when asked if he really did stop at the stop sign, the physicist stuck to his argument.
“Of course I did,” he said with a smile.
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/UCSD-Physicist-400-Traffic-Ticket-147450815.html

FloatingVoter

smartass.....(oh yeah, and much respect):)

bazz26

Jedi mind tricks, perhaps?

ShadowHearth

I heard this on news last night . Was quite funny.

FairPlay to him.

Here is a link to the paper he wrote: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.0162v1.pdf (I had to right click and save before i could view it)

Some serious calculations going on :cool:

TheZ

TheZ wrote: »

...........By the way, when asked if he really did stop at the stop sign, the physicist stuck to his argument.
“Of course I did,” he said with a smile.
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/UCSD-Physicist-400-Traffic-Ticket-147450815.html

Sounds like a lieing bastad tbh.

Anan1

I'd love a better explanation of his defence.

firefly08

I don't understand all the maths but he seems to be saying that as he approached the stop sign, the cop's view was briefly obstructed by another vehicle. When the obstruction was gone, the cop observed him moving away from the stop sign. Based on the speed he was seen approaching the sign, and the speed he was subsequently seen driving away, and the time that elapsed in between, the cop concluded that he didn't stop.

By rights all he ought to have to do is establish that at the point where he should have stopped, the cop could not see him. But I think the cop was operating a bit like those speed cameras - if you're seen at a certain place at a certain time, then you're seen at another place a certain time later, you must have broken the law to get there in that time.

Even if he didn't stop I don't blame him, they put stop signs in the most unbelievably stupid places in the States.

Del2005

firefly08 wrote: »

Even if he didn't stop I don't blame him, they put stop signs in the most unbelievably stupid places in the States.

Yeah at junctions.

Better than here where the traffic lights swing around the roads and then let the pedestrians cross, all with only 1 car at the lights.

firefly08

Yeah at junctions.

Better than here where the traffic lights swing around the roads and then let the pedestrians cross, all with only 1 car at the lights.

Well I wouldn't say junctions are necessarily stupid places to put stop signs. But in America, not only do they put them where yield signs are appropriate, but they put them in places where even yield signs would not be necessary - junctions that explain themselves. Like the one in this case. The guy is going straight on, not making any turns, not crossing the path of other vehicles - and yet he's supposed to stop. Why? Cars coming up the perpendicular road have to stop anyway - I know from experience there is probably a stop sign for them too. (Also retarded - why stop if there's no traffic?). But as if that wasn't bad enough, the defendant in this case would have to stop and wait for the other driver to go first, even though the other driver had to stop anyway. Now that's stupid, but when you consider the situation where there is no one coming from that perpendicular road, then having to stop regardless, when you want to go straight on or turn right, is beyond merely stupid, it goes to a whole new level.

In Ireland, the driver coming from the perpendicular road would typically see a yield sign, and would stop if necessary. The defendant would see no sign at all and would simply drive on.

Del2005

firefly08 wrote: »

Well I wouldn't say junctions are necessarily stupid places to put stop signs. But in America, not only do they put them where yield signs are appropriate, but they put them in places where even yield signs would not be necessary - junctions that explain themselves. Like the one in this case. The guy is going straight on, not making any turns, not crossing the path of other vehicles - and yet he's supposed to stop. Why? Cars coming up the perpendicular road have to stop anyway - I know from experience there is probably a stop sign for them too. (Also retarded - why stop if there's no traffic?). But as if that wasn't bad enough, the defendant in this case would have to stop and wait for the other driver to go first, even though the other driver had to stop anyway. Now that's stupid, but when you consider the situation where there is no one coming from that perpendicular road, then having to stop regardless, when you want to go straight on or turn right, is beyond merely stupid, it goes to a whole new level.

In Ireland, the driver coming from the perpendicular road would typically see a yield sign, and would stop if necessary. The defendant would see no sign at all and would simply drive on.

They are all ways stops and work very well once people follow the rules. We also have stupidly placed Stop signs, but the difference is that no one obeys them here.

A country that puts traffic lights on roundabouts can't really criticise a country that doesn't have this issue. As the four way stops allow each road to go in turn when it gets busy.

zenno

Fair play to him, 10/10 for angular motion physics, great stuff. :pac:

Our man in Havana

Could you imagine that argument being made before some yokel district court here?

zenno

This is seriously complicated.

The Proof of Innocence
Dmitri Krioukov1 pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.0162.pdf