‘The Proof of Innocence’: Read the Math Problem That Got One Man Out of a Traffic Ticket
- Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:04am by
Liz Klimas
- Print »
- Email »
(Photo:Misteraitch/Flickr)
Remember when you used to gripe about doing mathematical proofs in high school arguing a lack of real-life applications for it to be worth your while? Well, here’s how one man got off the hook for traffic ticket he received by using a math problem.
University of California-San Diego physicist Dmitri Krioukov was pulled over and issued a ticket for running a stop sign. While many wouldn’t go through the hassle of actually fighting this ticket in court, Krioukov is an exception — and he came prepared. io9 reports that he presented a mathematical paper to prove his innocence, aptly named “The Proof of Innocence,” and convinced the judge of his case.
Here‘s the paper’s abstract:
We show that if a car stops at a stop sign, an observer, e.g., a police officer, located at a certain distance perpendicular to the car trajectory, must have an illusion that the car does not stop, if the following three conditions are satisfied: (1) the observer measures not the linear but angular speed of the car; (2) the car decelerates and subsequently accelerates relatively fast; and (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.
Krioukov further explains the detailed difference between linear and angular speed and how knowledge of such is crucial to making his case. He writes:
It is widely known that an observer measuring the speed of an object passing by, measures not its actual linear velocity by the angular one. For example, if we stay not far away from a railroad, watching a train approaching us from far away at a constant speed, we first perceive the train not moving at all, when it is really far, but when the train comes closer, it appears to us moving faster and faster, and when it actually passes us, its visual speed is maximized.
This observation is the first building block of our proof of innocence. To make this proof rigorous, we first consider the relationship between the linear and angular speeds of an object in the toy example where the object moves at a constant linear speed. We then proceed to analyzing a picture reflecting what really happened in the considered case, that is, the case where the linear speed of an object is not constant, but what is constant instead is the deceleration and subsequent acceleration of the object coming to a complete stop at a point located closest to the observer on the object’s linear trajectory. Finally, in the last section, we consider what happens if at that critical moment the observer’s view is briefly obstructed by another external object.
After a series of graphs and equations to prove his point, Krioukov concludes that “[Officer] O’s perception of reality did not properly reflect reality.” Krioukov writes that because his car was moving in a constant linear deceleration, came to a complete stop and then accelerated at the same speed, it appeared to not have stopped.
This figure from Krioukov's proof shows how the officer may have mistook the car running a stop sign. (Image: The Proof of Innocence/Dmitri Krioukov)
There are no hard feelings though. Krioukov writes in his paper several reasons why Officer O’s mistake was “fully justified,” including the fact that the officer was not measuring linear speed but was estimating via visual angular speed; the linear deceleration and acceleration of the car were relatively high; and another car had briefly obstructed the officer’s view.
Suffice to say, the court took Krioukov’s word — and mathematical proof — for it. Still, the local NBC affiliate (via Gizmodo) reports Krioukov saying not everyone should try to be as cheeky as he had been to get out of traffic violations. He said the situation surrounding the events that happened lined up perfectly for him to make his case.
So, did he really stop? NBC asked Krioukov this question and with a smile he replied, “Of course I did.”
Note: This story has been updated from its original posting to reflect that Krioukov is a professor at UC San Diego not UC-Davis as we mistakenly reported earlier. Thanks Blaze reader Dennis R. for pointing this out.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 587 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 378 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 378 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (129)
OldVet
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 12:28pmHe obviously wasn’t driving in south Chicago. If he had been, the Officer would validate the ticket by saying that no one checked his doors at the stop sign, therefore he had not come to a full and complete stop.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 2:09pmSo he’s saying that at the moment he was stopped, and his angular velocity was zero, another car was blocking the officer’s view. That defence really doesn’t require any math.
Report Post »13th Imam
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 3:27pmHe also helped Barry write Obamacare. Even if the dopes that voted for it, couldn’t comprehend this mumbo-jumbo, they would claim to understand it, as they are experts at everything. Barry is the same way. He knows everything about everything, specially economics. And the Constitution.And the Fluke Condom Curve.
Report Post »Hollywood
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 4:00pmNah. In Chi town the Cop would have taken 50 bucks cash, to settle the matter!
Report Post »JimCDew
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 4:13pm“So, did he really stop? NBC asked Krioukov this question and with a smile he replied,’Of course I did.’”(Relatively speaking)
Report Post »mcFirst
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 4:35pmor if person was related to any city official they would have certainly have stopped.
Report Post »Ranubis
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 5:21pmIf you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bull s#!t
Report Post »carlschulz
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 9:31pmI grew up in Illinois and we were taught in driver’s ed that you were required to be stopped for at least 3 seconds to be a “legal” stop.
Report Post »READRIGHTHERE
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 10:11pm@charles
Here in Utah I have an acquaintence who was actually issued a ticket for failing the three second rule. When I count to three it makes me laugh at how rediculous the law is. As if the time of the stop guarantees my awareness!
Report Post »earthbonz
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 10:28pmJZS….got me laughing.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:19pmearthbonz, thanks. My opinion is that he rolled through the stop sign, like 99.9% of the rest of us do when there is no oncoming traffic. My statistical point of view is that it is unlikely in the extreme that the guy actually came to a dead stop as the law requires, because virtually nobody does that when there are no cars coming. And, seriously, why would anyone do that? If you are an alert, responsible driver, stopping completely at an intersection when no one is coming serves no purpose.
Just the same, if this case promotes an understanding of math with even a single person, I’m for it.
Report Post »JimCarriesA1911
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 12:25pmBazinga
Report Post »LostInTheSpin
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 12:30pmLol…I was wondering if anybody was going to say that.
Report Post »grimmy
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 12:33pmFunny!
Report Post »MBA
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 1:09pmYou beat me to the Sheldon!
Report Post »ITGuy
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 1:22pmYup, that had Sheldon written all over it. But he would be in jail for condescending remarks to the judge.
Report Post »biohazard23
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 1:47pmYeah, and he would have missed another opportunity to meet Stan Lee.
Report Post »disgustedAmerican
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 3:13pmI bested you this time , Will Wheaton!!!
Report Post »john141714
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 4:04pmLOL I just bought all of the seasons of The big bang theory great show and perfect comment. LOL
Report Post »MittensKittens
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 12:06pmI can imagine when he brought this to court there were quite a few blank stares…no wonder he got off…baffle them with b*llsh*t
Report Post »GiveUsJustice
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 2:18pmI wouldn’t say so. I think this makes total sense. I wouldn’t bring all the fancy graphs though.
If an officer isn’t to the side of you, how can he tell you came to a complete stop? It’s nearly impossible without some other outside object right in front of you to gauge that.
Report Post »4xeverything
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 2:45pmLike a stop sign?
Report Post »LeadNotFollow
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:59am…
Many years ago, I was riding with my Mom, when she was ticketed for not coming to a “FULL” stop at a stop sign.
The officer said, that a “full” stop is when you stop the vehicle, the vehicle tilts quickly to the front, then tilts quickly back to the rear (lunge forward, then back).
He said her car only lunged forward, that she did not wait long enough for the car to rock to the rear before she proceeded to go through the stop sign. She didn’t fight the ticket. She paid it.
From that day on, I’ve paid attention to vehicles stopping at stop signs. At least ninety percent of drivers do not come to a “full” stop, unless there is a vehicle coming and they have to fully stop and wait for the other vehicle to pass.
Report Post »grimmy
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 12:37pm@Lead.
Report Post »I can take my F 250 crew cab p/u and come to a complete stop,and never have the veh. “lunge” to the rear.
drphil69
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 2:53pmIt will only lunge if you are hard on the brakes. I coast nearly to a stop, so no lunge forward or back.
Report Post »13th Imam
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 3:30pmThose at PMSNBC Lunge Forward,, but to the left
Report Post »Wornout
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 3:31pmI feel sorry for your brakes. My car never “lunges” to a stop or to accelerate. It wastes gas and brakes and is uncomfortable for passengers. The cop was wrong. A full stop means the wheels stop turning, count to 3 if you need to to feel safe, but this cop’s definition would not hold up in court.
Report Post »Brooke Lorren
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 3:31pmI can come to a full stop without having my vehicle go backwards, if my car decelerates slowly enough.
My car could sit there for a few minutes or more… if I wasn’t at a full stop, then the car would eventually move, I would suppose.
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 4:20pmWho cares if your car comes to a complete and total stop? Really, the purpose of any road sign or rule is to ensure safety of the citizens travelling on the road. If you roll to a 4-way intersection with a clear view and you clearly see that no cars, bikes, or pedestrians of any kind are approaching the intersection, then why can you not roll through it without having come to a “complete” stop? The only time that I completely stop is when there is competing traffica and the complete stop is the judge of who got there first and who will subsequently go through first. Of course, I live in Oklahoma though and in tie situations or even just close, the other driver and myself end up in a kindness battle royale each encouraging the other to go through first.
The reason and original intent of any law is to keep people safe. If the enforcement of a law does nothing to increase safety, then it is wasteful and fraudulent IMO.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:56amIf observing an intersection for this purpose always aim cruiser so that dash cam gives you video evidence.
Report Post »sasquatch08
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 4:03pmOr don’t if you usually lie to make your ticket quota…
Report Post »cemerius
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:54amUh Oh!! This man’s life is in danger now!! He broke the lawyer’s secret code of “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS”!!!
Report Post »clemV
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:43amWho cares about this? Wake up and demand real news, people! Rampant voter fraud in the Maine Caucus and beyond. Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QApII_DbDik
Report Post »Ming The Merciless
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 12:03pmThey don’t want you to know the real news out there – they‘ll ’entertain‘ you with these types of ’non-news’ stories to get you off the path. Glenn, Pat and Stu will ‘feed’ you the news – listen to them and vote for the guy they’re voting for.
As for me – Ron Paul 2012 or no one!
http://www.dailypaul.com
Report Post »Bombgod1
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 12:28pmSometimes it’s good to escape the realities of life, and to just sit back and enjoy a light hearted story.
The bad things are still out there, the black helicopters are still coming from you, the voices are still yelling at you, no matter how hard you try your still living in your mom’s basement and if you’re lucky you will have 100 face book friends by next week.
Life is too short to dance with ugly women.
Report Post »LostInTheSpin
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 12:33pmI see that crap every single day…good to lighten up and be entertained every once in a while. If you don’t like articles like this…THEN DON”T READ THEM!
Report Post »AmazingGrace8
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 1:04pmThis guy sounds like a boyfriend I had in the 60′s. He was a Physics Major (I attended a universary for awhile & not my bag & went to business school) but I found him to be very entertaining & he would come up with this kind of physics problem. I have never had a ticket/moving violation in my 50 yrs of driving..knock on wood…but use to be, a rolling-stop was called a California Stop. I am a very law-abiding citizen and I don’t want any trouble so when I do stop at a sign, I count 1-5 and then start up. Yeh, I know, hey lady get a life. Just doing my thing, man. Don’t want any trouble but if you are looking for trouble, I will respond. Have a great day!
Report Post »DagneyT
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:37amI got out of a ticket thanks to my bumper sticker, “If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?”
Report Post »LovethisWonderfulCountry
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 12:23pmLove it!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »tzion
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:35amWOW! And strangely enough I actually understood that. Weird but strangely enough it works.
Report Post »BlackCrow
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:32amI beat a speeding ticket buy proving the officer operating the radar gun has no indication of just what object’s velocity the radar is measuring. The cop insisted that he had 40 hours training in radar and that was sufficient to make him an expert in radar. I then produced transcripts showing 3000 classroom a journeyman’s course and 20 years experience doing nothing but radar repair and operation. Case dismissed.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 12:00pmI had a friend in Florida do the same thing. Except he was the cop and a former Marine Aircraft Radar Technician. Ate the lawyer alive to the point that it was actually funny. I got to see the video afterwards.
Report Post »supermansdad
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 1:28pmOnly proves 2 things.
1: The judge didnt know what he was talking about. Case law has repeatedly proven officers do NOT need to know the inner workings of the radar, only be familar with the operations of the unit and how to do a tuning fork test.
2: Officer was dumb enough to call himself an expert when it is not required.
Won out of stupidity not because you were or were not speeding. Congrats either way. Makes us do a better job of properly articulating the case and only issuing the citation when warranted.
Report Post »spfoam1
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:30amIf I had come up with something like that they would have tazed me in the court room and drag me off into a cell.
Report Post »Captain Crunch
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:37amAnd forced you to take Thorazine!
Report Post »hi
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 12:03pmHaha!! Funny!
Report Post »youdidthis
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:28amno victim,
no crime…fluke the bs laws.
dam tired of these quota driven so called police.
quota’s for tickets , misdemeanors and felonies…time to end the bs.
Report Post »blanco5
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 12:34pmTickets need to be called “revenue generators.”
Report Post »youdidthis
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 12:50pmTRUE,
Report Post »police are just revenue collectors.
Rowgue
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:26amThere isn’t anything there that proves his innocence. He offered up a questionably valid theory as to how somebody might accidentally think somebody ran a stop sign when they really didn’t. What he didn’t do was illustrate how that theory applies to his case specifically. This is just a judge that got tired of hearing a BS artist talk, and dismissed the case so he didn’t have to listen to him anymore.
Report Post »disque-0-duc
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 12:24pmyeah, but it worked and that was the goal of the defendant.
Report Post »romaddan
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 12:50pm@ROWGUE, Do not ever forget that our laws are NOT for us to PROVE our innocence, BUT for the government to PROVE our guilt – The defendant in this case caused enough doubt for the judge to throw it out. The government could not PROVE him guilty… Good on him.
Report Post »ThorLoser
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 12:56pmYou do not have to prove that you are innocent. They have to prove that you are guilty. Those are two completely different things. All you have to do, as a defendant is to give at least one other alternative possibility which will make something (in this case, observations) possible. Once there are two possibilities, since there is a presumption of innocence, you cannot be found guilty (unless they can prove that the alternative possibility is not actually possible in this case).
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 8:55pmYou have a severely perveted idea of how the law works. The burden is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not absolutely or with 100% certainty. The requirement is simply to present a case where any reasonable person can see that they are most likely guilty of the violation.
Simply presenting an alternative possibility is not sufficient to counter an eyewitness watching you commit the violation. You aren’t automatically found innocent as long as there is another possible explanation. You have to prove that there is reason to believe that other possible explanation might have actually happened rather than the one you’re accused of. That’s reasonable doubt.
Besides my point was in response to the article, which claims he “proved” his innocence. That isn’t what happened here.
Report Post »Spolic
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:26amHe was just being “Green.” By rolling the stop sign, he is saving gas and the environment.
Report Post »sawbuck
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:26amI think the judge (like me)was confused with the equation after the first paragraph .
But after the obvious example of what a person will do to beat a ticket, coupled with the most original argument the judge has ever seen ,he decided to give the professor a break and threw the ticket out…. Good for him
Moral to the story…????
Whoever said “ADVANCED MATH’ doesn’t apply to daily living ..was wrong…!
Report Post »LB
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:25amWas that article in English???
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 8:21pmNot to a typical Blaze educated reader
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:24amShedon Cooper… is alive… and at UCD!
Report Post »biohazard23
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:33amIs it Sheldon or Leonard? If the judge was a woman, then it certainly would not have been Raj, and Howard would have gone to jail just for being Howard.
Report Post »biohazard23
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:24amSince when did Sheldon Cooper learn how to drive?
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 12:07pmHe didn’t; he ran the Stop Sign! His math… is Formulamatic… and without varified Variables of the Actual Event as it took place!
Report Post »biohazard23
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 12:14pmHe must have still been upset after having to drive Penny to the hospital. It must have been traumatic for him. Plus, he missed meeting Stan Lee because of that!
Report Post »vic138
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:22amDork. Cops aren’t all stupid.
Report Post »Jethro212
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:29amMind you I have some friends that are cops, and they will tell you the following themselves… There are some seriously stupid police officers.
Report Post »marine249
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 1:14pm@ JET
I am a retried policer officer.
Mind you, I have some friends who post on the Blaze.
Report Post »They tell me that there are some seriously stupid trolls,
who post here.
spirited
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:22amGood for him!
6^>Count on an officer friendly radar gun next time.
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:20amScience, for the win.
Report Post »DeathRattle
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:19amThe judge’s decision was somewhere between dazzled with brilliance or baffled by B.S.
Report Post »liberalescheisskopf
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:17amOfficers are trained to watch the front wheel. If the wheel came to a stop or continued to roll, aka California stop.
Report Post »AmazingGrace8
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 1:11pmI am not a police officer but learned to watch the wheels/hubcap of a vehicle that has stopped at a light/stop sign and you are approaching & wondering if the vehicle has not seen you & will pull out from their stop.Little things do mean alot…the people who do not believe that…well, if they were in the jungle, they would be the first to be eaten!
Report Post »greg4fitness
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:17amAnd I bet that judge thought he had heard it all.
Report Post »Jackie Rogers, Jr.
Posted on April 16, 2012 at 11:17amHis argument is obvious.
Report Post »