Comic Genesis Forums

I got a photo enforcement ticket and soon realized that what they called a “Failure to stop on red” was actually a legal “Right on red.” Thus, I decided to create and animation about it. I wrote a script than used audiocity to record each voice in small clips, which helped get the animation in sink. The animation was done in Photoshop’s Imageready and the final project was combined in MS movie maker.
I’m interested to know if this video proves my point. The key features I plan on using to win my court case are: speed = 17 mph, and yellow strip on my turn light. Also I like to know what you think about the animation techniques used and the quality of the work in general.

the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nL-TMGpr0qg

Did you stop before turning?

if he was going 17 mph, I'm going to say no, he did a rolling stop, which does count as a failure to stop at a red light.

I doubt it's any comfort, but it could be worse.

People often make that call; say the police wrongfully gave them a ticket, or the machines gave them a ticket wrongfully at stop signs, or on right at reds. They seem to forget you have to STOP completely. 0 mph or 0 km/h. You know, when the car ceases moving, and everyone jerks forward a little before falling back in their seats. This includes turning right (or left on one way streets) on reds.

Next time, do a barrel roll.


But seriously, you plan to use that as evidence for your case in court? In that case, the "quality of your work" makes it seem awfully childish, something I wouldn't be using in such a serious environment.

Not court room material in my opinion...

guess I'm gonna sound a little mean, but it wasn't entertaining at all. after a minute or so in, I turned it off.

answers:

I think I did stop, realized I could make a right, and then took off. The turn is up a hill. Going straight is the last stop before hitting the freeway. My speed would of been alot higher, if I did not stop.

I don't plan on using this vid in court, but I do plan on using the ticket and pointing out the 2 main things that prove my point. (speed and turn signal).

The animation is technically not bad. I didn't much care for the presentation and thought it was kind of childish. The only thing I had trouble understanding was the last 10-15 seconds where you did a voice that isn't at all clear what you're saying.

I think if you go to court you will lose, especially if you highlight the turn signal and speed.

1) The photo is not delayed; when you reach the intersection, if you have a measurable speed when the light is red, your photo is snapped right then and there. Ergo, at the moment of the photo, you were doing 17mph.

2) You are AT the white line you are supposed to stop behind, in the photo.

17mph just isn't a rational speed you can explain away. If you were the first in line, you would have had to come to a stop behind the white line. So you couldn't have accelerated that fast in what... five feet? If you were second or further back in line, you still must by law stop at the white line, before turning right. And again, 17mph in five feet? Not likely.

If you had been going 2mph, you'd have a much better case. But I don't see you explaining your way out of this one. Clearly, you didn't plan to stop at the red light; you slowed down considerably, and then intended to cruise into the right turn. But that's not legal; it's no great crime and we all do it, but you happened to get caught at it.

Pay the fine.

I use this logic:

I break the road rules (intentionally or unintentionally) more often than I get caught. If on an occasion I get penalised for something I did not do, then it evens out with all the times I did do something wrong and didn't get caught.

I don't know what the law is in your local area, but around here if you challenge a ticket and are found innocent, no problem. But if the judgement isn't in your favour, then you need to pay the fine, pay an additional fine plus court expenses.

So I agree, just pay the fine.

If I were jury, I'd find the video unconvincing (due to it being largely just a zoom-in on your citation.)

An animation of a car approaching a stoplight, making the required stop, and then making a right turn, with a camera snapping its picture at the right moment and then a comparison of the animated picture with the real picture might be more convincing, though of course more difficult.

It needed more romantic interest. And maybe a comic-relief sidekick... and definitely an explosion. All told, it's maybe my second or third favorite traffic-citation based comedy film of the summer. Raging Inferno of Failure to Signal gets top billing, but Son of Expired Parking Meter - Part II! was right up there.

Tim wrote:Next time, do a barrel roll.


But seriously, you plan to use that as evidence for your case in court? In that case, the "quality of your work" makes it seem awfully childish, something I wouldn't be using in such a serious environment.

Dunno about laws in USA but this is correct here.

I love photoenforcement. It tickets the car owner not the driver. So if you want to have a lot of fun with someone you don't like, borrow their car and see how many phototickets you can aquire. Make a game outta it. Have some fun, this works with ex's too.

Cleary you all seem to agree that I need to prove I stopped. Thus I took the time to understand the black box info in each picture.

The first picture states at beginning of violation:
Red time passed is 3.7 seconds.
Yellow light time was 4 seconds long.

The second picture states:
Time between pictures is 1.49 seconds
Speed = 17 mph (yes, speed is found in second picture NOT first).
Red time passed is 5.2 seconds.

It does not state margin of error, but every thing has one. Now 3.7 seconds is enough time to stop and take off from red light, especially if when I came to a complete stop while the light was still yellow. As for 17 mph after 1.49 seconds is not fast. Have you ever looked at your speed during take off?
What else am I missing?

*rolls up his sleeves*

-=-=-=-=-
The first picture shows you at a red light, just behind the white line where you should be stopped. At the time of that picture, the light had been red for 3.7 seconds. Your turn signal is on.

YOUR BRAKE LIGHTS ARE NOT ON.

This means that you came to a stop for the red light, then took your foot off the brake, and accelerated away before the picture was taken. If you're to be believed.

Here's the thing - you're AT the point you're supposed to be stopped at, 3.7 seconds after the red light. So either you came to a stop some good distance behind the light (giving you the space and time necessary to accelerate away), or you had just at that moment chosen to take your foot off the brake, and accelerate.

We can work these out.

Let's say that you had, as you suggest, stopped some time beforehand, and then accelerated into your turn. If we say that you stopped for 1 second of the 3.7 seconds (a minimum stop, but at least a legal one) that gives you 2.7 seconds to accelerate. Now, you aren't driving a dragster, and you aren't in any rush... so we'll give you a 5ft/s/s acceleration. That's comfy and actually kind of slow (about 3.5 miles an hour, per second).

Your average velocity through the 2.7 seconds you have to get you to that white line is 6.75 feet/second == .5*(V0+V1) When you multiply 6.75 by the 2.7 seconds you could drive, that's 18.22 feet.

You must have, if you are to be believed, stopped 18.22 feet behind the white line, in order to have accelerated and coincidentally have found yourself at the white line when that photo was taken.

This certainly explains why the camera would take your picture - you were going 13.5 feet/second at the white line. That's in your favor. But, you illegally stopped on the road (negligent driving), and failed to stop at the intersection. So that's two tickets now for you.

Ah, but maybe you had the whole 3.7 seconds to accelerate. Doesn't matter, average velocity goes down, but time goes up. Ditto the reverse - stay at the red longer, and your time drops, but average acceleration goes up to compensate - you were going 17mph by the time of the second picture remember.

The other option is that you just took your foot off the brake when the picture was taken, making your velocity at that moment zero. In that case, the final speed you achieved 1.5 seconds later is 17mph.

That's good acceleration for a little four-banger like your car. 17mph is 16.62 feet per second. That's just over 0-60 in 5 seconds flat. That's on par with factory stock Corvettes, and a full third faster than my kick-ass MonteCarlo Z34 ever could do.

Here's some stats on 0-60 acceleration: http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/ ... times.html

Ok, so you have an eight cylinder, 450 horsepower engine in your... what is that thing anyway? In your... car.

Those look like 15 inch tires, about 6 inches wide. That's 31 rpm, or about 17 G's of force on your tire surface. TELL me you wouldn't be smoking those tires. Actually, those tires aren't rated for that kind of acceleration. You'd probably blow them out. There's a reason Corvettes have big tires.

In short:

1) Either you stopped 15-20 feet behind the light, which is illegal, then accelerated towards the light and blew through it, which is illegal (because you must stop at the white line regardless) OR

2) You accelerated at a velocity your car cannot accelerate at, equal to flooring it on a stock Corvette, and did this while intending to turn and while not smoking your tires (or causing them to explode outright) OR

3) You simply rolled through the light.

Since #1 involves you getting a second ticket and in any case involves you actually EARNING the ticket you are fighting, and since #2 is a physical impossibility, #3 becomes the only logical answer.

You rolled through the light.

Pay the ticket.

Noise Monkey wrote:SCIENCE'D

RIIIIIICHAAAAAARRRRRDS!

this seems like a waste of time for all involved. He's/she's not listening, and wants to sing an dance him/her being innocent. then let the judge douse his/her dream. The judge will not engage in debate, he'll/she'll say "fined" and be done with it.

Sorry, I don't know why I even came to look at this thread a second time. its quite depressing.