Attorney Decodes Numbers On Redlight Camera Photo To Prove That The Light Was Green
from the why-isn't-the-light-in-the-photo? dept
We've seen all sorts of stories about various cities shortening the timing on yellow lights to try to get more money from redlight cameras, but here's a twist. Up in Portland, apparently they'll send you a ticket even if you didn't run a red light at all! Reader Josh sends in the story of a lawyer who was surprised to get an automated ticket as he didn't remember running a red light at all. Of course, the photographic "proof" just happens to not show the actual light (convenient!). However, there were various numbers on the images, and he had to decode what those numbers meant to prove that he hadn't actually run the light:The first photo shows Ginsberg's Volkswagen a few feet before the crosswalk at Southwest Fourth Avenue and Jefferson Street. Using a key provided by the city, Ginsberg learned that the coding stamped at the top of the photo indicates the light had been red for 24.9 seconds. Ginsberg got a signed letter from a city signal engineer, stating that the light remained red for 25 seconds -- one-tenth of a second after the photo was snapped.Then apply a little basic math:
The next photo taken about two seconds later shows Ginsberg's car in the middle of the intersection, but the same coding now reads 00.0 -- indicating the light is no longer red. It's green. It does not resume counting until the light turns red again..
A code on the second photo indicated he was traveling 15 mph. In one-tenth of a second, Ginsberg calculated he traveled less than 2 1/2 feet -- his front wheels wouldn't have reached the crosswalk.The police originally defended the ticket claiming -- falsely -- that the light was a 26 second light. However, after the case was dismissed, in a video the police admitted it was human error, but insisted that this was the only time this ever happened:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: redlight cameras
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: to laura
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same standard for speed guns?
If nothing else, having a video of the offending instance in today's tech land wouldn't be that hard and would provide the necessary proof in most cases.
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know what this means....
There will be a mad rush to prevent private citizens from obtaining said key in order to get to the information needed to challenge red light tickets like this person did.
Like laura says I would not be surprised if that information suddenly became a trade secret that cannot be shared.
Even more proof that the main goal of red light cameras is safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You know what this means....
Huh? I'm confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You know what this means....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You know what this means....
There should have been a big ole "NOT" in there.
It just so happens that it was a typo that could be explained away as sarcasm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Showing pictures of a car in an interestion with the words "red" (or anything else) superimposed by a computer proves nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looks like…
The police might have had more luck tearing up the ticket voluntarily and charging him with unsafe driving (if that's an offence where he is).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looks like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looks like�
You read it wrong. He's going 15 mph in the *second* picture. Not coming up to the redlight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Looks like�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Looks like����¯�¿�½������¢������¯������¿������½��
Since 1 mile = 5280 feet and 1 hour = 60 minutes = 3600s and since he traveled [less than] 2.5 feet in 0.1s: 2.5'/0.1s = 25ft/s. 25ft/s x 3600s = 90000 ft/h. 90000ft / 5280 = 17.05mph. The same math says that at 15mph the actual distance travelled in 0.1s is 2.2 feet which is consistent with both the statement and the camera data.
Therefore, he had to be in motion travelling ~15mph at the time the first photo was recorded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Looks like
He is saying that he *was* traveling 15mph in the second picture. And if he ran the red light, which was only red for another .1sec, and thus was going 15mph in the first picture. Then he would have only been 2.2ft from his staring position in the first picture. And because he was much further along then that it is obvious that the light was long ago green.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Looks like
Time A: The 1st photo is taken. The light as been red for 24.9 seconds.
Time B: 0.1 seconds later - the light turns green. There is no photograph of this.
Time C: "about two seconds" after the first photo was taken. This is when the second photo was taken showing the car in the intersection.
Ginsberg used math to show that in the 0.1 seconds between Time A and Time B he could not have travelled far enough to enter the intersection and therefore didn't run the red; by the time he DID enter the intersection, the light had changed.
My point was that while Ginsberg's math is correct, he also implicitly admits that he was approaching the red light at 15mph. Given the distance to the intersection in the photo, that implies that he had no intention of stopping for the red and was attempting to time his entry into the intersection to coincide with the light changing. That practice may not be explicitly illegal but it is generally unsafe and could have resulted in a dangerous driving charge which, in light of Ginsberg's own math might have stuck.
I hope that clarifies my point and I'm sorry if it wasn't clear in my earlier comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Looks like
"A code on the second photo indicated he was traveling 15 mph. In one-tenth of a second, Ginsberg calculated he traveled less than 2 1/2 feet..."
I think you are taking it all too literally. Keep in mind, these are the words of the reporter in the news story, not a verbatim transcript of the words used by the lawyer to defend himself. Likely his argument was that it would be impossible, at a speed of 15mph, to fully enter the intersection in 0.1 seconds.
Is it not reasonable to assume that a driver will accelerate once a light turns green. IMO, I also think it is reasonable to assume that a driver could accelerate from even a full stop to 15mph in about 2 seconds without being unsafe. In this case, given the amount of traffic seen approaching the intersection in the photos, it is likely he was breaking, with the intent to stop, but the light changed to green before he reached a full stop, giving him a "head-start" to reaching 15mph in 2 seconds. 15mph could hardly be considered "blowing through" the intersection, anyway.
Of course, we could theorize all day, but without ordering a complete copy of the court records we have no way of knowing the exact wording the attorney used to defend himself. I, personally, am not willing to assume that the casual phrasing of a news article is 100% accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Looks like
The red light camera vendor is the sole source of the information provided to the police who only receive two snapshots with a timestamp created by the red light camera vendor. Would you not at least consider the possibility of hanky panky with the timestamp?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a resident of Portland...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drop in the bucket
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Drop in the bucket
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a source of revenue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If a police officer pulled you over, you would be able to possibly explain the circumstances to the officer and you would be able to recall the situation if you wanted to fight the ticket in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Don't They?
Oh, BTW, if you go through downtown Portland maintaining a speed between 11 & 15mph you'll hit all green lights. Lots of people do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Don't They?
I know because I got several after I sold my car. Before the plates where taken off it.
The intersection camera boxes, the speed signs, and anything not on the top of the pole in the intersection seems to get vandalized around here. Nobody ever seems to see the people doing the vandalizing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]