GPS Used As Defence In Radar Speeding Case 464
James Thigpen writes "There is an article over at Ars Technica about an accused speeder contesting his speeding ticket based on his car's built-in GPS system's records. According to the article his car says he was going slower than the radar gun clocked him at. Contesting a ticket based on GPS data has never before been tested in court."
used in Taiwan (Score:5, Informative)
Radar and GPS were in check in California (Score:3, Informative)
Testing in UK court case and GPS won (Score:2, Informative)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/7033353.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Are you serious? (Score:3, Informative)
Speed = Distance / Time (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Speed = Distance / Time (Score:5, Informative)
1. What is the time the GPS device averages over? On the devices I've seen it updates about every second. Unless you have a REALLY nice car you're not going to go from 65 to 90 and back down for long enough to average 65 over that kind of time.
2. At least one state (MA) and perhaps others have laws that require your AVERAGE speed over some distance (I believe MA is 1/4 mi) to be over the limit for a speeding ticket.
Re:Speed = Distance / Time (Score:2, Informative)
First, when the GPS unit itself calculates the speed, it records your instantaneous velocity, not an average. It calculates this using the doppler shift present in the GPS signals picked up by the unit, not from how far the unit has travelled.
Second, even the cheapest GPS units I've seen update at least once per second.
Third, the delay, or time offsets of the arrivals of signals from the GPS sattelites are exactly how a GPS unit calculates it's velocity and position. Once a GPS reciever has got a "lock" on its location (usually within first minute or five from startup), the position and velocity calculations it records are for the exact moment they are reported, not for some time in the past.
This link [hamradio.si] discusses alot of the theory behind how GPS works.
Re:This could only be the first step (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This could only be the first step (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Video Evidence (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This could only be the first step (Score:2, Informative)
This is an old story by the way. I can't remember when I first read it but it must have been months ago.
Re:GPS more accurate than radar? (Score:3, Informative)
GPS and such. (Score:1, Informative)
I have a portable unit and software that tracks and logs speed. I do not recall offhand what the polling interval is though. I think at best I can get every few seconds (it may be less--it is average speed and delayed, so it will be how fast I was just going.) If you have a car that can accelerate very quickly try going from a dead stop to high speed as fast as possible. It will not mirror your speedometer. It will follow it. It is taking average speeds after you have begun moving. So when your speed is 30mph it is still calculating using 0+30/time. Fluctuations in speed cause pretty big changes. Again with the vehicle with a transmission designed for quick acceleration: accelerate as quickly as possible to 100mph and then bring the vehicle to a complete stop (disengage ABS if present). The numbers will not be anywhere near the actual speeds. Decrease your polling by 5 seconds and repeat. Do that a few times (it probably is not good for the car.) Better still compare these number with those from RADAR and LIDAR systems.
The gun is only calculating based on really one thing (doppler effect.) Angles and shit can affect numbers, but really it is measuring the speed. The polling interval is still much, much smaller. If it is lidar it could be 1/1000 of a second.
Either way we are looking at an average speed, but the interval during which it is calculated would vary and have a huge effect on the numbers.
This is all before we take into account the security of the data. So, yeah, maybe he did and maybe he did not. But GPS is not as amazing as people think. I guess RADAR is not either. But do not just be hating because you is worried about the man putting you down.
VORAD units have been used this way (Score:5, Informative)
Eaton VORAD units, which are a phased-array anti-collision radar for trucks, have been used to provide evidence in favor of the truck driver. [etrucker.com] The VORAD units track individual car-sized targets, and provide range, range rate, and azimuth. Range and range rate are quite good; azimuth isn't that accurate. The control unit keeps track of recent events ten minutes before a collision, and also has speed info available. The latest versions can interface with GPS and other vehicle systems. This allows detailed accident reconstruction.
It's most useful where an accident resulted when someone drove in front of a truck. [etrucker.com] The VORAD record shows not just what the VORAD-equipped vehicle was doing, but what the other vehicles were doing.
Actually, I know 2 ppl who have contested; lost (Score:3, Informative)
Your Mileage May Vary (Score:5, Informative)
In most jurisdictions, such traffic cases are considered civil and the standards for evidence are different than those of criminal cases or what you may see on 'Law & Order'. The judge is free to weight the officers evidence more highly than yours and presume it to be correct unless you can show overwhelmingly that it is not. Sort of like being guilty until proven innocent.
Furthermore, courts have quite a bit of latitude to allow or deny the admissibility of data as evidence. For example: Radar is quite accurate (it reads the speed of an object quite close to its actual speed) but not very selective (it might be reading the speed of something else, or interpret some RF noise as speed). Take the boilerplate testimony that an officer reads about 'calibrating the gun with a tuning fork' and all the b.s. about standards traceability. None of this is necessary, as the most common source of errors are due to poor selectivity. But it sure sounds great in court.
In fact, calibrating a radar gun with a tuning fork is a good demonstration of its susceptibility to AM noise. An ideal radar gun should only measure frequency shift due to the Doppler effect and reject the sort of modulation that a tuning fork creates. After all, the instantaneous velocity of its tines is dependant on its amplitude and the average velocity is zero (unless you throw it). But no court would hear such an argument, as it would undermine their entire traffic enforcement/revenue collection program. And, as a civil case, they are not required to consider it.
Re:Speed = Distance / Time (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Speed = Distance / Time (Score:4, Informative)
Let's go over some basics:
a) There is no such thing as "instantaneous velocity" - as velocity is a function of time.
Corrolary: You can
And the problem with the radar/lasar guns is indeed that, because they try calculate "near-instantaneous velocity" they are very *very* susceptible to error, particularly at the ranges the police often try use them at (hundreds of metres).
b) Noticing a doppler shift in waves from a (relatively) stationary source would require that you have a non-zero velocity relative to the source (ie the distance between you and the source change). I'm reasonably sure this velocity would be immeasurable from a consumer car in a GPS over a short period of time and, further, that any measurable doppler would be due far more to the
I.e. I havn't done the calculations (it's not just linear, cause any doppler will be induced by the curvature of the earth, not directly by the car's speed), but you're talking about measuring doppler due to
So I call bullshit, unless you show me the numbers to prove otherwise.
Sorry but you are wrong (Score:4, Informative)
The time between samples is what's important here. If it's only a few seconds then there's a good case for innocence. If on the other hand it's 30 seconds or a minute, the cop with the radar gun wins. BTW, it is the radar gun that uses doppler to measure speed.
--
This space for rent
Kalman Filter estimate (Score:2, Informative)
GPS receivers use Doppler to track the signal being received from the SVs; but that is the Doppler from the relative velocity between each of the SVs and the GPS receiver.
(I used to work on a military GPS system.)
SMD vs GPS (Score:4, Informative)
Like it or not, the radar gun is a more accurate speed measuring device than a GPS.
Re:Radar and GPS were in check in California (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Video Evidence (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, speed limits are often arbitrary and designed to trap drivers. But claiming that speed limits are never related to safety is foolish, and claiming that speeding is not at all dangerous is also foolish. Higher speed increases both your reaction distance and the severity of any mistakes. Increasing either of these reduces safety.
I'm glad I don't have to share the road with you.
UK Stuff (Score:3, Informative)
In the UK the speed camers are checked by hand (or at least are ment to). They do this by taking 2 photos from the camera at a set time interval. On the road by the camera there is meant to be a lot of little white marks which are big enough to see in the camera and are spaced at
Though i know this system is sometimes ignored by police int he uk
Also in the UK (at least n.ireland) the police are meant to run a test car though speed traps a few times documenting it and keeping a tape etc.. If they fail to produce a copy of the documentation on this to you at the scene if you ask for it then they dont have a case if oyu push it to court.
Another thought about safty on the road is around where i live they have started putting in speed bumps everywhere. Which is meant to slow the traffic down to improve safty. Slow it donw it does. It also annoys the crap out of people driving over bumps all the time and it makes the safty problem worse. Since all the traffic is now slower no gaps form in it so people can no longer cross the road when its busy whichout taking higher risks which is exactly the opposite they were traying to prevent.
Its amazing what the UK goverment can come up with.
Not Going To Work (Score:5, Informative)
Simply put: This is not going to work.
The system is rigged against fighting speeding tickets. Even if you've got the money to pay for evidence collection, expert witnesses, and everything else -- BEFORE your trial -- you'll still lose. The justice system will protect the police from having even one ticket investigated, because it calls into question other tickets the officer may have written using the same or similar equipment; a very large expense. It just won't happen.
Here's a TRUE story, as related to me by my friend who drives commercial truck:
My friend was pulled over by a police officer for "speeding" and given a ticket for 75 in a 65. Only one small problem here: The area in Ohio where he received the ticket was absolutely flat, and his truck is GOVERNED at 68. Exceeding 68 miles per hour on a flat road is literally IMPOSSIBLE for his truck, so says the manufacturer of the engine and the manufacturer of the vehicle. Understandably, my friend was very upset at receiving such an obviously bogus ticket, and decided to fight it.
Nice thing for my friend, engines in big trucks have computers to track fuel usage, speed, etc. over time. Getting the data from the engine is a matter of taking it to the service center, hooking up a computer, and getting a printout. He obtained this printout and showed it to me; it's so simple my grandmother could easily see his truck hadn't gone over 68 at any point during the data recording. The dates were clearly marked; it showed on the day in question, the truck did not go anywhere near 75.
Armed with this and people willing to testify that the truck's governor was functional and the printout was accurate, he attempted to fight the ticket. He was informed that he would have to pay all of the trial costs up front ($10,000) before the trial began, and even if he won, he wouldn't be able to get reimbursed for this expense. So basically, it came down to a choice: Swallow pride and pay the $350 ticket, or pay $10,000 to prove he was in the right and get the ticket voided on the basis of the evidence.
Sadly, but wisely, my friend opted for the former. Proving his case was not worth the extra $9650 it would cost to do so.
Take note: Traffic court is rigged against regular people. If the highwaymen in blue try to rob you, just give up the money; losing your time, energy, and sanity over government sponsored theft will just victimize you more.
Re:Video Evidence (Score:3, Informative)
In the UK you can most definitely contest a speeding ticket [bbc.co.uk]. In fact you can in France [sudouest.com] and Spain [spainlawyer.com] too. What makes you think the legal systems in Europe are so unjust?
(Note that the Spanish link mentions fees of €930. You don't have to pay that to contest a ticket, that's just what some lawyer wants to charge for assisting you... seems lawyers are the same the world over ;-)
Re:Video Evidence (Score:3, Informative)
Yikes. Who told you nonsense like that ?
Of course you can contest your speeding tickets over here. Heck, the appropriate advice is printed on the ticket you get by mail. However, since we've got a "loser pays" court system over here, you'd better be ready to cough up the court costs in addition to your fine when you lose. Also, police here are quite good at making sure that their speeding tickets are valid. So no ticketing someone for going 3 km/h over the limit and such crap - if you get a ticket, you were, after subtracting appropriate tolerances, _really_ going quite a bit above the limit.