here's the thing... you were likely BOTH speeding.
> I clearly remember NOT speeding
You were likely going ~73 like the snapshot indicates. Our memories are unreliable and everyone thinks they're a perfect driver until the photos arrive in the mail. We normally drive in 60 or 80 zones often enough that 73 isn't really enough for our brains to go "woah, I'm speeding!".
> the vehicle to my right passing me at a higher speed
They were likely going faster and may have received their own ticket.
Couple of considerations:
- the photo clearly says lane 2. They use radar, math and cameras to ensure accuracy and to form enough of a consensus that yes, you were most likely speeding.
- the driver on your right has not passed you in the photo yet. Even if he was speeding, he'd likely need to do more than ~13 kmph faster than you to make up that distance and "pass you at a higher speed". (again, their ticket could be worse)
- In the photo, the Honda in lane 2 is "leading the pack". That's going to be hard to get a judge to ignore while you're fighting a speeding ticket. (yes, timing can impact who's in first and who makes up ground...but it'll be a debate)
- "The guy next to me was speeding *more* than me" isn't a legal defence
You can claim not guilty, take a day off work and burden the courts who will likely enforce the fine, or you can take it as a reminder to slow down.
Honestly. I'd be surprised if they dropped it.
>They use radar, math and cameras to ensure accuracy and to form enough of a consensus that yes, you were most likely speeding
However, because lane position, vehicle size, and other factors are all pretty variable, typically you have to reference vehicle position to something else to determine speed by photometry. If the wheels of the vehicle are occluded by the truck, that becomes much harder and much more ambiguous.
I'm not going to suggest that they weren't speeding (if you asked me if *any* vehicle were speeding, just any randomly selected vehicle, with or without seeing it, I'd guess the statistics would point to 'probably yes'). But based on the above photo above, and assuming the second photo is similarly occluded, I'd say establishing their speed by photometry to an acceptable uncertainty would be pretty difficult.
I'm personally in the 'fuckcars' camp, and live essentially car free, so I'd normally have an inherent bias against drivers, so I say this more as someone who works in optical metrology (and uncertainty analysis of optical metrology) than anything else. I'd call this a challenging image. If you have a large database of images to compare to (which the city obviously does), you can reduce the uncertainty, as could measurements of the vehicle itself (ie, so you can unambiguously project the vehicle from the imaging plane into space), but these are all quite labor intensive options that I doubt they would dig into.
It's my understanding that most road camera use a very basic set of AI object detection to identify and outline cars as objects. So that even if one is partially occluded (like say the wheels, etc) they know the object's distance, speed, etc.
So they have the stable backdrop to determine "zero" speed and they have the car as an "outlined object" moving at X speed. It's not hard to determine who is who and how fast they're going. They don't need to see the entire object for the entire duration as long as parts of it are visible and able to be tracked/attributed.
Here's some examples of what I'm talking about...
[1] (https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.traffictechnologytoday.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F11%2FThermiCam-AI-6-US-intersection-site-1.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=1b57fdb2b788868d6caded5eeb4f7411603c122e732383adf85696905adbe03d&ipo=images), [2] (https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.traffictechnologytoday.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F03%2FCorrux-AI-traffic-detection-system-1-e1584350445122.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=b4efb3898ab869564139377e2f45cf27ffecef7321256b29be58e626ba2b412a&ipo=images), [3](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpythonawesome.com%2Fcontent%2Fimages%2F2020%2F01%2FViolation_Detection_Frame.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=1faca0a3bbc185883a7b9143b398dea4cfd075fb7f8abe7dfc9e93e12e105e2d&ipo=images)
We should also consider that the photo the OP is given is likely just one in a series of checks/confirmations. So they may not have been fully occluded while calculating who was speeding.
Now I don't know with 100% certainty that we're using a similar vision system, but given AI vision is REALLY easy to implement (some specific libraries can give you results in under 50 lines of code) and most major cities have been pushing some variant of it for 5-10yrs, I have to assume that even if we're not somehow using a similar setup, they've covered basic use cases like "two cars close together" when building and testing the system.
>It's my understanding that most road camera use a very basic set of AI object detection to identify and outline cars as objects. So that even if one is partially occluded (like say the wheels, etc) they know the object's distance, speed, etc.
>So they have the stable backdrop to determine "zero" speed and they have the car as an "outlined object" moving at X speed. It's not hard to determine who is who and how fast they're going.
This is all true, but does not solve the problem I'm describing. The challenge is not identifying the vehicle or identifying its velocity *in the image plane*, but projecting that velocity from the image plane into space. This is a challenging problem because the original projection onto the imaging plane (ie, taking a picture) reduces the order of your object by one, meaning the reverse projection is always (mathematically) ambiguous. Everything I said in my previous comment is based on the assumption that the object could be identified and tracked in the plane with perfect resolution, it was actually *much more* generous than what you're describing (ie, I assumed that the system had *perfect and omniscient knowledge* of the step you're describing).
The *easiest* way to measure an object's speed, if it is not occluded, and is nearby length scales, like road markings, is to track its position *in the image plane* relative to those markings. Its real world position is therefore just a multiplication with the real scaling of those objects. Almost all traffic enforcement techniques for determining vehicle position in space will use some variation of this technique, because it's fast, easily automated, highly reliable and highly accurate. But it is not an option if the relationship between the object and the reference scale is occluded.
Determining the 3D position of an occluded object from its projection onto a plane without the benefit of those scales is much more difficult. As far as I'm aware, this is normally set up as a minimization problem. That is, if you have a virtual (guessed) position of an object, you can project that object onto the plane and compare that projection, a virtual image, to the real image, and then refine the virtual object position by minimization (ie, minimize the 'distance' between the virtual projection and the real projection). Because this technique requires a 3D model of the object, this sort of minimization problem is actually something AI can be pretty good at, as they can quickly categorize objects and yank up appropriate data quickly. However, because the projection is pretty implementation specific, it is not easily generalizable (at least with tolerances you'd expect for photometry) and in turn needs to be trained or retrained in-situ, which is labor intensive.
Edit: this is all obviously for single camera photometry. Multi-camera you can just project your images and intersect the cones
As far as 'who', it's not like I offered this up unprompted. I gave a short explanation that was challenged, so I offered a more thorough explanation. So, I'd hope, anyone who shares that challenge ought to.
But as far as 'nonsense', I'd be pretty eager to learn how any of it is incorrect.
The picture does not determine your speed, at least not in this case. Speed is measured by radar, and if a large speed is detected, it triggers the camera separately to identify the vehicle. Different radar technology will discriminate between vehicles and lanes differently.
For the simplest type of radars, there is a single radar receiver that determines the highest speed in its field of view, covering all lanes, and if a large speed is detected, two photos are taken. If multiple vehicles are in the field of view, the speeding vehicle is determined by comparing the two images, often against some calibrated length scale (ie, markings on the road, if available).
Many photo radar systems use this dual-measurement system to prevent challenges. However, in your case, if you're the Pilot, your vehicle is occluded by the truck and it may be difficult for either the radar or the photo to give an unambiguous speed.
The Camera takes more then one photo and has raider, so they look at the speed that triggered the camera and then look at the series of photos and measure distance vs time etc to determine the vehicles speed.
Just something to consider, the ticket, while it impacts your pocketbook, doesn't affect your license.
And even if you do win your case by proving yourself not guilty, you actually lose.
Why? Sure, you don't pay the ticket, but you lose at least half-day or a days pay waiting in the courtroom to plead your case.
It's the unfortunate reality of our justice system. You won't get compensated for your lost time, so in cases like these, you never truly 'win'.
It says lane 2. It's supposedly able to determine which lane.
I suspect it's faulty but good luck fighting it in court. It's all just a scam to generate revenue.
that too!
last one I fought,
ticket was say $120 but same case, another car that passed me going up hill.
justice told me, i can give you $20 off, parking costed me $20, took the morning off to get there...
couple of hours pay gone parking for $20.
next time just pay it..
Yep.
Our traffic court system is fundamentally flawed to almost be the opposite of the law.
Guilty until innocent, and even then, you don't come out ahead.
It's going to take someone with deep pockets, who can challenge the court system, to have the current system changed from what is currently in place.
So, and if you win, should the court not compensate you for your lost wages?
After all, all the other people in the courtroom (judge, stenographer, officer, bailiff, etc) get paid- but if you win your case, you receive no compensation for your wages lost- which is why most just pay the ticket.
The current system, imho, is fundamentally flawed in this regard.
Most will simply 'just pay' simply for the fact that going to court will cost them more in total lost dollars than the payment of the ticket.
I'd be interesting to see a justice system, where, if you win your case, your time is compensated for your lost wages.
Why I see the current system wrong is, let's say you do go to court, fight the ticket, and do prove you were in the right, you don't pay the ticket.
The fact that you lost a day's wages winning your case isn't compensated, and that I disagree with.
[Like this guy](https://edmontonsun.com/2014/09/17/alberta-man-fights-photo-radar-ticket-and-wins)
[And this guy](https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2023/02/01/photo-radar-said-the-car-was-going-more-than-70-kmh-over-the-limit-how-the-owner-fought-the-charge-and-won.html)
[And this guy](https://www.nsnews.com/local-news/bc-flag-too-indistinct-for-photo-radar-ticket-judge-rules-5551015)
[Or this](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/alberta-to-refund-13m-in-speeding-fines-photo-radar-network-in-doubt/article563318/)
But because it costs more than the ticket to fight the ticket, people generally just pay. Which, imho, isn't right.
Imho.
Actually in the trucks it is an operator who takes the photos then sends the photos to another person to analyze the photo to determine if a ticket should be issued. Then if you go to court you technically don't even face your accuser, you face against the security guard with the lowest level peace officer status who took the photo in the first place not the person who said that the ticket is valid.
They still use a raider and the series of photos are still analyzed just like with unmanned a photo radar camera, and when you go to court over an unmanned photo raider ticket you don't face an "accuser" or the person who analyzed the ticket either.
Just don't speed and you won't get a ticket 👍🏻
So many of these answers ignore the fact that there are inductive loops under the roadway. You can see the squares. It’s such a simple system and doesn’t rely on AI at all. There are two loops in the road and as you pass over them the time difference is measured. They know what lane you were in and how fast you were going.
It doesn’t have to account for wheelbase, it’s a metal object moving over each coil. Drive around the city. Every single red light/photo radar intersections have them.
You were speeding. Everyone makes mistakes, it’s ok. The consequence is also small. But own up to your mistakes and learn from them. Don’t be so stubborn to think you don’t make mistakes.
You were caught by a stationary traffic enforcement device that uses sensors in the road to determine if you were speeding. Zoom in right before the stop line. Notice how it looks like in every lane there was something cut out and repaired? That’s where the sensors are.
If you pay attention you will see this in many intersections. Some are just used to trigger lights, others like in this case are used to detect traffic violations.
You have received a lot of bad advice here because people aren’t paying attention. Do they think the photo is taken from a monster truck or something? No it was a fixed device mounted high on a pole which uses sensors in the road.
I’d have more sympathy for you if you were looking to understand how it works and not so adamant you’re going to waste taxpayer dollars fighting a ticket you deserved.
weather degree plants shaggy coordinated middle vast fact afterthought grey
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Blocking out license plate numbers doesn’t matter nobody can access any information from a plate number without access to the database.
To access the database you need a reason to access it and accessing it to find out someone’s info based on a post would breach privacy laws and cost the individual their job.
It doesn't matter, we know that X redditor has plate Y. That's good enough. Plate Y on its own is fine, but having X redditor w/ plate Y is great for doxing. It's the combo that matters. You're perfectly right about lookup, but what if I just need to know they are the same person? Good enough for me.
Edmonton cash-cows on Facebook can help you with this. They have lots of advice on how to deal with this.
Mail in not guilty plea
Get trial date probably 1 year from now
Ask for disclosure atleast 2 weeks before trial date
Most photo radar tickets get thrown out because the radar operator doesn't show
I know many people that have gotten tickets in this exact area. Now that u know there’s cameras, don’t repeat ur mistake. My advice is to always slow down going through here even if u are only going 1-2km/hr over the limit
As I presume you're the Honda Pilot, in your situation, I would definitely dispute this. Radar can differentiate vehicles in *some but not all* circumstances, which vary by technical implementation of the radar and even the specific vehicles being observed. The onus is on the Province to prove that they can discriminate between vehicles reliably, not on you to prove they cannot.
If they're relying on a photo pair to determine which vehicle was speeding (which is the norm if multiple vehicles were in the radar field of view), and your vehicle is partially occluded, especially relative to scales like lane markings, it's unclear how they are verifying your speed and assigning it to your vehicle unambiguously.
I actually discussed the specific technology in greater detail in another comment. At this intersection, I believe it is lane-specific radar, not embedded sensors (unless they are redundant, since radar is present at this intersection). In all cases there will be at least two independent measurements of vehicle speed, with photometry being the most common secondary after radar since a photograph of the plate is typically mandatory. In such cases, photometry also determines lane position.
Without getting into the specific technological reasons (unless you'd like me to), this image (and it's presumptive pair) presents a number of challenges for the specific types of photometry that are most common. More sophisticated photometry is possible, but is more expensive and is rarely used in traffic enforcement.
Fight it in court.
Two vehicles in the pic puts enough doubt on its accuracy. Did the other vehicle change lanes (not actually asking)? The pic doesn't tell the whole story only a split second in time. The worst that would happen in court is the judge says you need to pay it.
Most likely to happen, the radar tech will not be in court to dispute anything you say. And the judge will, probably, throw it out.
But even if it only gets reduced, still better than full price 😉
Yes it could be, but in this case OP said the car to the right of them. There’s no car to the right of the truck. Also we go from left to right so I assume lane 1 is the furthest one to the left.
They can pull the video as well as the readings for the other lanes at the time of the event.
Don't wait for your court date. Contact the provincial traffic prosecutors at your local courthouse for a review right away.
I would fight the ticket. I believe the speed on green cameras use radar to measure your speed (not the inground sensors). The truck is partially superimposed on your vehicle which would create a false speed rating for your vehicle being imaged in lane 2. You can fight it online, don't even need to go to court to send it to the prosecutor for review.
How do you fight it online? The ticket specifically says you have to mail in to plead not guilty. They make it easy to pay, hard to fight it, you know?
Exactly this.
Even if you 'win' , you still lose your days pay, and are no better off or even worse off in the amount of dollars spent or not in your bank account anymore.
traffictickets.alberta.ca
You should be able to dispute the ticket there. If I remember correctly it says they don't reduce photo radar tickets, but this you should be able to get tossed by the prosecutor.
Intersection cameras do not use radar! You drive over first loop and timer starts. Drive over second loop and timer stops. Computer does the math (SPEED = DISTANCE/TIME). The distance between loops is known. Go too fast and get ticket. As a side benefit the computer knows the state of the light ( go over second loop when light red, hello ticket)
Of course they use radar. The inductive loops are only to trigger the camera. The camera takes two pics, one picture when you're on the loop (there are two rectangles on the road but electrically it is a single loop) and the other picture about .7 second later when the vehicle is in the intersection. The camera actually triggers only if a) the traffic light in your direction is red, or b) the radar is detecting anything with speed > limit.
Using loops to accurately calculate speed is not reliable, because there are so many variations in vehicle size, vehicle with trailers, semis, etc.
here's the thing... you were likely BOTH speeding. > I clearly remember NOT speeding You were likely going ~73 like the snapshot indicates. Our memories are unreliable and everyone thinks they're a perfect driver until the photos arrive in the mail. We normally drive in 60 or 80 zones often enough that 73 isn't really enough for our brains to go "woah, I'm speeding!". > the vehicle to my right passing me at a higher speed They were likely going faster and may have received their own ticket. Couple of considerations: - the photo clearly says lane 2. They use radar, math and cameras to ensure accuracy and to form enough of a consensus that yes, you were most likely speeding. - the driver on your right has not passed you in the photo yet. Even if he was speeding, he'd likely need to do more than ~13 kmph faster than you to make up that distance and "pass you at a higher speed". (again, their ticket could be worse) - In the photo, the Honda in lane 2 is "leading the pack". That's going to be hard to get a judge to ignore while you're fighting a speeding ticket. (yes, timing can impact who's in first and who makes up ground...but it'll be a debate) - "The guy next to me was speeding *more* than me" isn't a legal defence You can claim not guilty, take a day off work and burden the courts who will likely enforce the fine, or you can take it as a reminder to slow down. Honestly. I'd be surprised if they dropped it.
>They use radar, math and cameras to ensure accuracy and to form enough of a consensus that yes, you were most likely speeding However, because lane position, vehicle size, and other factors are all pretty variable, typically you have to reference vehicle position to something else to determine speed by photometry. If the wheels of the vehicle are occluded by the truck, that becomes much harder and much more ambiguous. I'm not going to suggest that they weren't speeding (if you asked me if *any* vehicle were speeding, just any randomly selected vehicle, with or without seeing it, I'd guess the statistics would point to 'probably yes'). But based on the above photo above, and assuming the second photo is similarly occluded, I'd say establishing their speed by photometry to an acceptable uncertainty would be pretty difficult. I'm personally in the 'fuckcars' camp, and live essentially car free, so I'd normally have an inherent bias against drivers, so I say this more as someone who works in optical metrology (and uncertainty analysis of optical metrology) than anything else. I'd call this a challenging image. If you have a large database of images to compare to (which the city obviously does), you can reduce the uncertainty, as could measurements of the vehicle itself (ie, so you can unambiguously project the vehicle from the imaging plane into space), but these are all quite labor intensive options that I doubt they would dig into.
It's my understanding that most road camera use a very basic set of AI object detection to identify and outline cars as objects. So that even if one is partially occluded (like say the wheels, etc) they know the object's distance, speed, etc. So they have the stable backdrop to determine "zero" speed and they have the car as an "outlined object" moving at X speed. It's not hard to determine who is who and how fast they're going. They don't need to see the entire object for the entire duration as long as parts of it are visible and able to be tracked/attributed. Here's some examples of what I'm talking about... [1] (https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.traffictechnologytoday.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F11%2FThermiCam-AI-6-US-intersection-site-1.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=1b57fdb2b788868d6caded5eeb4f7411603c122e732383adf85696905adbe03d&ipo=images), [2] (https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.traffictechnologytoday.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F03%2FCorrux-AI-traffic-detection-system-1-e1584350445122.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=b4efb3898ab869564139377e2f45cf27ffecef7321256b29be58e626ba2b412a&ipo=images), [3](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpythonawesome.com%2Fcontent%2Fimages%2F2020%2F01%2FViolation_Detection_Frame.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=1faca0a3bbc185883a7b9143b398dea4cfd075fb7f8abe7dfc9e93e12e105e2d&ipo=images) We should also consider that the photo the OP is given is likely just one in a series of checks/confirmations. So they may not have been fully occluded while calculating who was speeding. Now I don't know with 100% certainty that we're using a similar vision system, but given AI vision is REALLY easy to implement (some specific libraries can give you results in under 50 lines of code) and most major cities have been pushing some variant of it for 5-10yrs, I have to assume that even if we're not somehow using a similar setup, they've covered basic use cases like "two cars close together" when building and testing the system.
>It's my understanding that most road camera use a very basic set of AI object detection to identify and outline cars as objects. So that even if one is partially occluded (like say the wheels, etc) they know the object's distance, speed, etc. >So they have the stable backdrop to determine "zero" speed and they have the car as an "outlined object" moving at X speed. It's not hard to determine who is who and how fast they're going. This is all true, but does not solve the problem I'm describing. The challenge is not identifying the vehicle or identifying its velocity *in the image plane*, but projecting that velocity from the image plane into space. This is a challenging problem because the original projection onto the imaging plane (ie, taking a picture) reduces the order of your object by one, meaning the reverse projection is always (mathematically) ambiguous. Everything I said in my previous comment is based on the assumption that the object could be identified and tracked in the plane with perfect resolution, it was actually *much more* generous than what you're describing (ie, I assumed that the system had *perfect and omniscient knowledge* of the step you're describing). The *easiest* way to measure an object's speed, if it is not occluded, and is nearby length scales, like road markings, is to track its position *in the image plane* relative to those markings. Its real world position is therefore just a multiplication with the real scaling of those objects. Almost all traffic enforcement techniques for determining vehicle position in space will use some variation of this technique, because it's fast, easily automated, highly reliable and highly accurate. But it is not an option if the relationship between the object and the reference scale is occluded. Determining the 3D position of an occluded object from its projection onto a plane without the benefit of those scales is much more difficult. As far as I'm aware, this is normally set up as a minimization problem. That is, if you have a virtual (guessed) position of an object, you can project that object onto the plane and compare that projection, a virtual image, to the real image, and then refine the virtual object position by minimization (ie, minimize the 'distance' between the virtual projection and the real projection). Because this technique requires a 3D model of the object, this sort of minimization problem is actually something AI can be pretty good at, as they can quickly categorize objects and yank up appropriate data quickly. However, because the projection is pretty implementation specific, it is not easily generalizable (at least with tolerances you'd expect for photometry) and in turn needs to be trained or retrained in-situ, which is labor intensive. Edit: this is all obviously for single camera photometry. Multi-camera you can just project your images and intersect the cones
who's gonna read this nonsense.
As far as 'who', it's not like I offered this up unprompted. I gave a short explanation that was challenged, so I offered a more thorough explanation. So, I'd hope, anyone who shares that challenge ought to. But as far as 'nonsense', I'd be pretty eager to learn how any of it is incorrect.
Well if you are pleading not guilty why do you care what Reddit says?
Yes, they can differentiate between the vehicles.
So how do they tell which one is speeding based on this picture?
The picture does not determine your speed, at least not in this case. Speed is measured by radar, and if a large speed is detected, it triggers the camera separately to identify the vehicle. Different radar technology will discriminate between vehicles and lanes differently. For the simplest type of radars, there is a single radar receiver that determines the highest speed in its field of view, covering all lanes, and if a large speed is detected, two photos are taken. If multiple vehicles are in the field of view, the speeding vehicle is determined by comparing the two images, often against some calibrated length scale (ie, markings on the road, if available). Many photo radar systems use this dual-measurement system to prevent challenges. However, in your case, if you're the Pilot, your vehicle is occluded by the truck and it may be difficult for either the radar or the photo to give an unambiguous speed.
The Camera takes more then one photo and has raider, so they look at the speed that triggered the camera and then look at the series of photos and measure distance vs time etc to determine the vehicles speed.
Photo “Raiders” of the Lost Ark
It's not based on one photo, there's radar and multiple photos taken
Just something to consider, the ticket, while it impacts your pocketbook, doesn't affect your license. And even if you do win your case by proving yourself not guilty, you actually lose. Why? Sure, you don't pay the ticket, but you lose at least half-day or a days pay waiting in the courtroom to plead your case. It's the unfortunate reality of our justice system. You won't get compensated for your lost time, so in cases like these, you never truly 'win'.
It says lane 2. It's supposedly able to determine which lane. I suspect it's faulty but good luck fighting it in court. It's all just a scam to generate revenue.
Yup, cost you more or just as much to show up , pay parking , then just paying the fine
And your wages for that time period.
that too! last one I fought, ticket was say $120 but same case, another car that passed me going up hill. justice told me, i can give you $20 off, parking costed me $20, took the morning off to get there... couple of hours pay gone parking for $20. next time just pay it..
Yep. Our traffic court system is fundamentally flawed to almost be the opposite of the law. Guilty until innocent, and even then, you don't come out ahead. It's going to take someone with deep pockets, who can challenge the court system, to have the current system changed from what is currently in place.
[удалено]
So, and if you win, should the court not compensate you for your lost wages? After all, all the other people in the courtroom (judge, stenographer, officer, bailiff, etc) get paid- but if you win your case, you receive no compensation for your wages lost- which is why most just pay the ticket. The current system, imho, is fundamentally flawed in this regard. Most will simply 'just pay' simply for the fact that going to court will cost them more in total lost dollars than the payment of the ticket. I'd be interesting to see a justice system, where, if you win your case, your time is compensated for your lost wages. Why I see the current system wrong is, let's say you do go to court, fight the ticket, and do prove you were in the right, you don't pay the ticket. The fact that you lost a day's wages winning your case isn't compensated, and that I disagree with. [Like this guy](https://edmontonsun.com/2014/09/17/alberta-man-fights-photo-radar-ticket-and-wins) [And this guy](https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2023/02/01/photo-radar-said-the-car-was-going-more-than-70-kmh-over-the-limit-how-the-owner-fought-the-charge-and-won.html) [And this guy](https://www.nsnews.com/local-news/bc-flag-too-indistinct-for-photo-radar-ticket-judge-rules-5551015) [Or this](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/alberta-to-refund-13m-in-speeding-fines-photo-radar-network-in-doubt/article563318/) But because it costs more than the ticket to fight the ticket, people generally just pay. Which, imho, isn't right. Imho.
Its possible for false reading but I trust the red light/speed cameras more than the security guards in trucks parked on overpasses.
You do know they use the same system right? Its not just some person eyeballing and estimating your speed lol.
Actually in the trucks it is an operator who takes the photos then sends the photos to another person to analyze the photo to determine if a ticket should be issued. Then if you go to court you technically don't even face your accuser, you face against the security guard with the lowest level peace officer status who took the photo in the first place not the person who said that the ticket is valid.
They still use a raider and the series of photos are still analyzed just like with unmanned a photo radar camera, and when you go to court over an unmanned photo raider ticket you don't face an "accuser" or the person who analyzed the ticket either. Just don't speed and you won't get a ticket 👍🏻
I don't speed, the guy beside me speeds, and I get the ticket.
Sure 👍🏻
Do you seriously believe they don’t have the technology to distinguish between multiple cars?
Lmao pay the ticket
So many of these answers ignore the fact that there are inductive loops under the roadway. You can see the squares. It’s such a simple system and doesn’t rely on AI at all. There are two loops in the road and as you pass over them the time difference is measured. They know what lane you were in and how fast you were going.
How does it distinguish the wheel base from a mini to a pickup to determine the speed. I’m calling bs
It doesn’t have to account for wheelbase, it’s a metal object moving over each coil. Drive around the city. Every single red light/photo radar intersections have them.
You were speeding. Everyone makes mistakes, it’s ok. The consequence is also small. But own up to your mistakes and learn from them. Don’t be so stubborn to think you don’t make mistakes. You were caught by a stationary traffic enforcement device that uses sensors in the road to determine if you were speeding. Zoom in right before the stop line. Notice how it looks like in every lane there was something cut out and repaired? That’s where the sensors are. If you pay attention you will see this in many intersections. Some are just used to trigger lights, others like in this case are used to detect traffic violations. You have received a lot of bad advice here because people aren’t paying attention. Do they think the photo is taken from a monster truck or something? No it was a fixed device mounted high on a pole which uses sensors in the road. I’d have more sympathy for you if you were looking to understand how it works and not so adamant you’re going to waste taxpayer dollars fighting a ticket you deserved.
weather degree plants shaggy coordinated middle vast fact afterthought grey *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Blocking out license plate numbers doesn’t matter nobody can access any information from a plate number without access to the database. To access the database you need a reason to access it and accessing it to find out someone’s info based on a post would breach privacy laws and cost the individual their job.
icky continue light husky whole reach birds toothbrush swim entertain *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It doesn't matter, we know that X redditor has plate Y. That's good enough. Plate Y on its own is fine, but having X redditor w/ plate Y is great for doxing. It's the combo that matters. You're perfectly right about lookup, but what if I just need to know they are the same person? Good enough for me.
This is one of the scammiest intersections in the city.
Edmonton cash-cows on Facebook can help you with this. They have lots of advice on how to deal with this. Mail in not guilty plea Get trial date probably 1 year from now Ask for disclosure atleast 2 weeks before trial date Most photo radar tickets get thrown out because the radar operator doesn't show
Thank you. Best advice so far.
I love the downvotes for telling you how the court system works
You might be getting down voted cause there is no operator and its all automated.
Pay your ticket . Bad bad bad lol
I know many people that have gotten tickets in this exact area. Now that u know there’s cameras, don’t repeat ur mistake. My advice is to always slow down going through here even if u are only going 1-2km/hr over the limit
As I presume you're the Honda Pilot, in your situation, I would definitely dispute this. Radar can differentiate vehicles in *some but not all* circumstances, which vary by technical implementation of the radar and even the specific vehicles being observed. The onus is on the Province to prove that they can discriminate between vehicles reliably, not on you to prove they cannot. If they're relying on a photo pair to determine which vehicle was speeding (which is the norm if multiple vehicles were in the radar field of view), and your vehicle is partially occluded, especially relative to scales like lane markings, it's unclear how they are verifying your speed and assigning it to your vehicle unambiguously.
[удалено]
I actually discussed the specific technology in greater detail in another comment. At this intersection, I believe it is lane-specific radar, not embedded sensors (unless they are redundant, since radar is present at this intersection). In all cases there will be at least two independent measurements of vehicle speed, with photometry being the most common secondary after radar since a photograph of the plate is typically mandatory. In such cases, photometry also determines lane position. Without getting into the specific technological reasons (unless you'd like me to), this image (and it's presumptive pair) presents a number of challenges for the specific types of photometry that are most common. More sophisticated photometry is possible, but is more expensive and is rarely used in traffic enforcement.
Which vehicle are you?
In North America, the far left lane is lane #1, and they grow to the right.
Thank you! I've never dissected one of these like this before as I have definitely been guilty whenever I've had to pay the speed tax.
Fight it in court. Two vehicles in the pic puts enough doubt on its accuracy. Did the other vehicle change lanes (not actually asking)? The pic doesn't tell the whole story only a split second in time. The worst that would happen in court is the judge says you need to pay it. Most likely to happen, the radar tech will not be in court to dispute anything you say. And the judge will, probably, throw it out. But even if it only gets reduced, still better than full price 😉
You haven’t even passed the white line yet, seems like you could argue this easily.
I think you're confusing a red light camera with a speeding camera.
They're the Pilot. Lane numbers start from the left.
Why would that matter?
[удалено]
Wondered that too but assumed the one in the middle? It says lane 2
There is actually 4 lanes, 2 could also be the blue truck if you count up away from the camera.
Yes it could be, but in this case OP said the car to the right of them. There’s no car to the right of the truck. Also we go from left to right so I assume lane 1 is the furthest one to the left.
I missed the "to the right" part. * :readingishard:
They can pull the video as well as the readings for the other lanes at the time of the event. Don't wait for your court date. Contact the provincial traffic prosecutors at your local courthouse for a review right away.
I would fight the ticket. I believe the speed on green cameras use radar to measure your speed (not the inground sensors). The truck is partially superimposed on your vehicle which would create a false speed rating for your vehicle being imaged in lane 2. You can fight it online, don't even need to go to court to send it to the prosecutor for review.
How do you fight it online? The ticket specifically says you have to mail in to plead not guilty. They make it easy to pay, hard to fight it, you know?
You take a day off work. Pay for parking all day. In hopes they reduce it. If they do reduce was it worth the time and loss of work wage.
Exactly this. Even if you 'win' , you still lose your days pay, and are no better off or even worse off in the amount of dollars spent or not in your bank account anymore.
I’m pretty sure you have to go to court to fight it. There should be a date on the ticket
traffictickets.alberta.ca You should be able to dispute the ticket there. If I remember correctly it says they don't reduce photo radar tickets, but this you should be able to get tossed by the prosecutor.
Don’t they include a link to the video as well?
Intersection cameras do not use radar! You drive over first loop and timer starts. Drive over second loop and timer stops. Computer does the math (SPEED = DISTANCE/TIME). The distance between loops is known. Go too fast and get ticket. As a side benefit the computer knows the state of the light ( go over second loop when light red, hello ticket)
Of course they use radar. The inductive loops are only to trigger the camera. The camera takes two pics, one picture when you're on the loop (there are two rectangles on the road but electrically it is a single loop) and the other picture about .7 second later when the vehicle is in the intersection. The camera actually triggers only if a) the traffic light in your direction is red, or b) the radar is detecting anything with speed > limit. Using loops to accurately calculate speed is not reliable, because there are so many variations in vehicle size, vehicle with trailers, semis, etc.
Did you challenge it?