Number frame baffles cameras at traffic lights

When I read this article, at first it seemed to me, to say the least, strange. In their country of completely defeated democracy, some geek makes an absolutely illegal device, from the point of view of our common sense, and not only puts it at a source of heightened danger - a car, and moreover - is going to sell it in all North American states. But walking along the links, it turned out that the reason lies deeper and it does not even dislocate American legislation bordering on common sense and safety, and the other decision-making system and other attitude of citizens is more balanced and responsible.

---

Erroneous fines for driving a red light are infuriated by more than a dozen thousand drivers. Some of them had to fork out more than $ 500 for a red light, but now there is a way to start with an adjustable wrench to the money wringing machine.

Jonathan Dandrow developed noPhoto , making photos of automatic cameras useless.
')

Principle of operation of the device

The technology used in noPhoto is relatively simple. On top of the gadget, very reminiscent of the frame for the number, there is an optical element that detects the flash of a camera installed at a traffic light. The sensor triggers one or several flashes of xenon lamps mounted on the edges of noPhoto, and when the camera opens its shutter at a traffic light, the photo is flashed. Big Brother can't read your number.

How lovely.


It looks like a prototype assembled in a garage

The initial messages for the creation of noPhoto were two points, Dandrow says. On the one hand, he wanted to check whether he would really be able to collect something that works. He does not have an engineering education, but he always tugged and soldered something for the car, and also loved video cameras, and in noPhoto managed to combine both interests.

In addition, he is confident that the cameras at traffic lights, designed to fix the passage of red light, are a serious violation of the rights of the driver. As Gary Biller, president of the National Association of Motorists, recently wrote in the US News And World Report , cameras at traffic lights violate “several key principles of civil process rights” because “there is no reliable witness”, and therefore loses the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution in court. ” In many cities, these cameras are deactivated, but there are still a lot of them.

“I have many objections to the cameras,” continues Dandrow, “They are trying to circumvent the Constitution.”

In noPhoto itself there is nothing revolutionary. You can find radiation detectors in many places like Amazon and B & H Photo. The only thing unique in it is that it works from a much greater distance - about 150 feet in direct sunlight and even further in the dark.

“Distance was the biggest challenge,” says Dandrow.

NoPhoto also has a special scheme that prevents cameras that can produce multiple flashes. In these cameras, says Dandrow, the first flash is measuring and helps to set the exposure. If noPhoto responds to a measuring flash, then the camera can correct over-exposure.
To win in this cat-and-mouse game, noPhoto consistently increases the power output to make the photo completely indistinguishable.

Of course, there are problems with false alarms when the device can react to other light sources, such as daylight or oncoming traffic lights. To compensate, according to Dandrow, noPhoto has a filtering circuit that detects the difference between natural light and light from a camera flash at a traffic light. "With this technology, we managed to reduce false positives by 90 percent,"


Device in operation

Developed in the garage for two years, noPhoto may soon become a national product. Dandrow says he has a fully functional prototype built with the help of Advantage Electronic Product Development Inc , and the company plans to begin mass production of this device after it has been tested and certified. He even conducted a massive campaign on Indiegogo.com to raise funds for certification, which he said could cost $ 50,000.

To dispel fears, Dandrow published a note on the Indiegogo website, which says that noPhoto is completely legal because it does not close the number, and also made a video proving that the frame works at a stated distance.

If everything goes smoothly with the certification process, then Dandrow hopes to release noPhoto on the market in March. He believes that the cost of the device will be about $ 350 dollars, which is equivalent to a fine for traveling on a red light in many cities.

---

PS Comments of Americans in the discussion of the article are quite interesting:

Of course, the question of respect for other participants in the movement is immediately raised, about how such devices will be perceived by the police on the road, and will they not harm traffic safety? Here opinions are divided, someone believes that the presence of such devices on the car is bad, someone believes that nothing will change.

Other participants rightly notice that the cameras fixing the passage to the red light have long turned into machines for making money. In many American cities, the traffic lights are rebuilt so that the yellow light, instead of the set 5-6 seconds, lights up only two. And this means that a large number of drivers automatically get into violators. In addition, in the US, the rules of the road, by default, allowed to turn right to a red traffic light signal, provided that there is no interference to traffic participants crossing the intersection to their green - as if we had a green arrow in the additional section (by the way, Based on the American experience, there is a discussion about the possible resolution of such a maneuver on Russian roads), which means there is no guarantee that the camera will not record a legitimate maneuver as an offense.

"... I sometimes unfasten my seatbelt. Technically, this is a violation of the law, but fortunately most of the cops are not idiots, but most judges are not punitive. The problem with the cameras is that there is no policeman or judge who can establish mitigating circumstances "But there is a robot that decides whether you violated the law or not. And I have objections to this."

"... In Florida, this is not the case. Everything is being done there to stop all possible appeals, putting such fines on a more rigid timeframe and offering a number of incentives to those who, instead of proving their innocence in court, obediently pay fines. I don’t know one a person who managed to sue a fine, written by an automatic system, and I can not say that there is such a practice at all. "

"... My wife didn’t complete a full stop before making a right turn to red (there were no cars around, so she just slowed down and completed the turn) and it cost us $ 500. Then I got interested in this question and found out that 80% of the city’s income is formed due to the traffic regulations of the state of california, obliging the driver to make a mandatory stop before the right turn to the red light. Fortunately, very few people even go to the red light, but penalties for incorrectly executed right turn regularly enrich the system. not against cameras at traffic lights, but only if they are used to fix the passage of a red light through the entire intersection. "

"... You are innocent until your fault is proven. Automatic cameras make mistakes due to incorrect settings or system failures. How would you feel if the system, which could potentially make a mistake, claims that you are guilty? And are you guilty of After all, she does not even take into account such a provision of the law as public safety. There are perfectly legal and necessary situations on the road that may require you, for example, speeding for a short period. Can the camera properly assess such screens? ation? No. "

... "You can be a great driver, but at the same time get into the lens of the camera, fixing the passage to the red light. These cameras not only violate your rights, they often make mistakes. We, the citizens, need to counteract the police state. Especially when it persistently “protects” us from ourselves, motivating this by taking care of “our own good”. If these cameras can be used to catch lovers of fast driving and driving to red (and I wholeheartedly approve of the police’s efforts to apprehend such irresponsible drivers), it will not take long for the cameras to start recording people using the God’s right to put their lives at risk without wearing a helmet on a motorcycle or not wearing a belt.

I am not a damned slave - the state does not own me. If you allow the state to own you, that’s your business.

The same as for car numbers (I think I’m pretty obedient because I have a number on my car). It is a potential cash cow to raise money for the government and is * the only * reason for registering cars). The likelihood that you will not be caught, even if you have a flash installed on the frame for the number, is not at all obvious, at least no one has carefully studied this.

I accept this order of things. I am a very cautious and conscientious driver, traveling from 30,000 to 40,000 miles a year and not received a single fine since 1997. I can quite consider myself a professional. But I am a radical libertarian and there will never be love between me and the establishment.

If you think I'm an unruly gopnik ... well, I'm proud to be one!

And finally, an excerpt from the text of the very first link:

The subcommittee of the city council of Auckland postponed the final decision on the program of cameras fixing the passage on a red light .

The use of traffic control cameras in the town of Auckland is checked for legality and ethics after the subcommittee heard reports from the police and special consultants about the effectiveness of these cameras, as well as complaints from citizens about $ 500 dollars imposed by by the system.

After the townspeople were convinced that the cameras were used to collect money, and not to increase safety on the roads, and also after the Auckland police reported that the accumulated information on the utility of cameras was inconclusive, four city council members from the public safety subcommittee decided to postpone until February, the decision on the future fate of the controversial program is to allow it to continue to exist or to stop it altogether. Currently, the program involves 13 cameras working at 11 crossroads of the city (in Oakland, California, there are about 415 thousand people - av. Trans). The council requested more detailed information on the effectiveness of cameras fixing the passage to red light, in their ability to prevent accidents at Auckland intersections, taken in comparison with other traffic safety strategies, such as increasing the duration of the yellow traffic signal.