4 ms·

The Proof of Innocence (2012)

26 points by BerislavLopac 3y ago

tim-fan 3y ago
I appreciate the rigour, but it sounds like the argument is just "I did stop but you didn't see it"
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  I think it's "You can't prove it didn't happen this way."
  - LordDragonfang 3y ago
    Certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt.
    - nerdponx 3y ago
      Note that in the USA, civil lawsuits are determined based on the standard "preponderance of evidence" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt". That is, "P(guilty | data) > 0.5" instead of "P(guilty | data) > 0.999". Therefore, don't try this in small claims court.
xxdiamondxx 3y ago
In case you missed the little button on the left: "TL;DR In 2012, Dmitri Krioukov, a physicist at the University of California, San Diego, faced a $400 fine for allegedly running a stop sign. Instead of accepting the fine, Krioukov crafted an academic paper titled "The Proof of Innocence" to argue his case in court. Surprisingly, the judge was convinced and acquitted him. Krioukov shared his paper online with a subtitle, "A way to fight your traffic tickets," humorously noting that the paper earned a special prize of $400, which he didn't have to pay to California. The paper discusses a scenario in which if a car stops at a stop sign, an observer (e.g., a police officer) located at a specific distance perpendicular to the car's trajectory might perceive the car as not stopping under specific conditions. These conditions are: 1 - The observer measures not the linear but angular speed of the car. 2 - The car decelerates and subsequently accelerates relatively quickly. 3 - There is a short-time obstruction of the observer's view of the car by an external object (e.g., another car) at the moment when both cars are near the stop sign. Disclaimer: the paper was submitted on April 1st, 2012, so there's a non-zero probability this could a be joke by Dmitri :) Either way, it's a good paper."
- daniel-cussen 3y ago
  [dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
murphyslab 3y ago
Better to post a link to the paper on arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0162 https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0162 Note also that the Fermat's Library copy is version 1 of the paper; it was subsequently updated and version 2 is available on arXiv.
m3kw9 3y ago
Is this used by traffic lawyers to fight tickets?

26 points by BerislavLopac 3y ago

tim-fan 3y ago

I appreciate the rigour, but it sounds like the argument is just "I did stop but you didn't see it"

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
I think it's "You can't prove it didn't happen this way."
- LordDragonfang 3y ago
  Certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt.
  - nerdponx 3y ago
    Note that in the USA, civil lawsuits are determined based on the standard "preponderance of evidence" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt". That is, "P(guilty | data) > 0.5" instead of "P(guilty | data) > 0.999". Therefore, don't try this in small claims court.

xxdiamondxx 3y ago

In case you missed the little button on the left: "TL;DR In 2012, Dmitri Krioukov, a physicist at the University of California, San Diego, faced a $400 fine for allegedly running a stop sign. Instead of accepting the fine, Krioukov crafted an academic paper titled "The Proof of Innocence" to argue his case in court. Surprisingly, the judge was convinced and acquitted him. Krioukov shared his paper online with a subtitle, "A way to fight your traffic tickets," humorously noting that the paper earned a special prize of $400, which he didn't have to pay to California. The paper discusses a scenario in which if a car stops at a stop sign, an observer (e.g., a police officer) located at a specific distance perpendicular to the car's trajectory might perceive the car as not stopping under specific conditions. These conditions are: 1 - The observer measures not the linear but angular speed of the car. 2 - The car decelerates and subsequently accelerates relatively quickly. 3 - There is a short-time obstruction of the observer's view of the car by an external object (e.g., another car) at the moment when both cars are near the stop sign. Disclaimer: the paper was submitted on April 1st, 2012, so there's a non-zero probability this could a be joke by Dmitri :) Either way, it's a good paper."

daniel-cussen 3y ago
[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

murphyslab 3y ago

Better to post a link to the paper on arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0162 https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0162 Note also that the Fermat's Library copy is version 1 of the paper; it was subsequently updated and version 2 is available on arXiv.

m3kw9 3y ago

Is this used by traffic lawyers to fight tickets?