Mythbusters fail to foil the speed camera
Last night's episode of Mythbusters was wonderfully auto related. The show's hosts, Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman, take on the myth that a speed camera can be foiled. They attack the myth from various angles, including testing various types of license plate covers that claim to obscure one's plate from the prying eyes of a roadside speed camera. Of course, every mailorder plate cover fails miserably. The real myth behind this segment, however, is that one can drive so fast that a speed camera will be unable to snap a pic before the car moves out of frame. They begin with an average car, the late-model Dodge Neon. On an abandoned airforce runway the Neon manages to hit 100 mph, clearly not fast enough to foil the camera. Their best shot is with a Lamborghini Murcielago, but they make the mistake of using a drag strip this time that doesn't offer enough room to get up to speed. A professional driver manages to reach about 140 mph, though it's still snapped with ease. Their conclusion is that the speed camera cannot be foiled just by going faster. Really? The Top Gear crew actually managed to foil a speed camera back in their first on-air episode back in 2002, when a TVR Tuscan S driven by the Stig passed a speed camera at over 170 mph, and the camera never went off (check the video here). Now, speed camera technology has no doubt advanced in the past five years, so perhaps the Mythbusters crew is still right and it is impossible to beat a speed camera in 2007.
Adam and Jaime have so much fun testing cars that at the end of the show they implore their viewership to send in more auto-related myths. You can do so here, and tell them Autoblog sent you. Maybe we can get a walk-on roll or something.
We've left some surprises if you still plan to watch the show, which will now enter the pantheon of Mythbusters reruns on the Discovery Channel, and can also be downloaded as a torrent here (NSFW).
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Glenn 12:12PM (3/08/2007)
Thanks for the spoiler.
Reply
MikeW 12:16PM (3/08/2007)
It is ILLEGAL to receive tickets in the mail. It is in violation of the 5th amendment of the US constitution, and most state constitutions.
So an illegal law isn't a law at all.
Fight tyranny!
Reply
T 7:12PM (3/10/2007)
so who gets a ticket when the camera snaps a pic with two vehicles in it?
Reply
T 12:26PM (3/08/2007)
so who gets a ticket if the camera catches two cars in the same pic?
Reply
beanspants 12:28PM (3/08/2007)
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Doesn't look like the 5th amendment has anything about the presentation of tickets via the mail to me.
Reply
SherbornSean 12:31PM (3/08/2007)
In what world is a Dodge Neon considered an "average car"? Kazahkstan?
Reply
Raúl 3:12PM (3/08/2007)
Average? Ha!
Reply
Yayaja 12:42PM (3/08/2007)
I'm always skeptical about the "how to break the law and get away with it" mythbusters shows. If they really did find a way to fool a breathalyser, foil a speed radar, or find a way to beat a speed camera, would they even be allowed to air their discoveries? Doing so would no doubt make the roads more dangerous for everyone, and so they would probably see it as a moral obligation, otherwise you would have idiots barreling down the highway at 200 mph. Either that, or the tests and the results are controlled by the police. Imagine if they did find a way to beat the breathalyser, surely that would lead to more people driving drunk, even though cops have more then one way to determine that you are too drunk. In the end, I don't think mythbusters will EVER show you exactly how to break the law without getting caught, and so every episode that "tests" it should be disregarded.
Reply
Yeti 12:05PM (5/27/2007)
Firstly, it's in the public intrest to publsh ways to beat legal procedures - then the loophole can be closed.
Secondly, they didn't even try it properly, as it's already been shown that at 170mph, you won't get flashed. They didn't go that fast.
and lastly, isn't it ironic that the person who invented the Gatso camera, Maurits Gatsonides, invented it to photograph himself driving thorugh corners in rallies so he could drive FASTER!
don'tworryboutit 12:53PM (3/08/2007)
In my opinion, it doesn't get much more average than a dodge neon. What would you propose as an average car Sean?
Reply
UpIrons 12:49PM (3/08/2007)
I'll have to watch the show but did they test those license plate sprays that supposedly make it impossible for a red light camera to get a pic of your plate?
Reply
oren 12:50PM (3/08/2007)
so they didn't prove anything...
http://www.montrealvip.com/montrealgrandprix.html
Reply
Ray 12:54PM (3/08/2007)
One of the main problems (besides not having enough room for the Lambo to get up to speed) was that the Mythbusters used some sort of homemade contraption that involved a Nikon SLR and a radar gun whereas the Top Gear guys used an actual speed camera that you would encounter on the road.
Reply
Buzzsaw 1:08PM (3/08/2007)
Walk-on roll? Is that like an egg roll?
Reply
Gary Blomquist 1:34PM (3/08/2007)
Thought this was done quite some time ago on Myth Busters.
Reply
benp 1:40PM (3/08/2007)
About the Nikon SLR, speed cameras actually use standard hardened digital camera parts now days and it wouldn't surprise me if what is inside the box is really a nice DSLR camera. The speed camera that I got to see the guts in 2004 while touring a factory used a Cannon CCD that was out of the D20 DSLR with a custom Lens.
Also, about them finding a solution to a breathalyser, if you read how they work, it would be very hard to disguise the results without putting in your mouth that would be so painfully obvious the cop would laugh and make you take it out. Breathalysers look at the alcohol content in your breath, not inside your mouth as many people think. The only time they are off is when people stupidly try to use mouthwash or breath strips and hold some of that in their mouth. That just gives much higher result and shows you are obviously trying to mess with the test.
The reason I know this is that in my senior year in high school, I did a state science project testing the breathalyser, and tried to see if there was any way of messing with the results. My friend and I tried almost all the stuff that the mythbusters tried, and then some, and nothing changed the results for the better. In fact, the idea that putting baking soda in your mouth beforehand and blowing it down into the breathalyser is what killed it, and ended up costing us 220 dollars to have it repaired before sending it back to the manufacturer.
Reply
MikeW 1:50PM (3/08/2007)
Did you miss 'nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; '
No due process of law. There is no accuser, no evidence, no nothing.
Reply
Mike 1:43PM (3/08/2007)
I have to agree with don'tworryboutit, Neons are extremely common, what world do you live in that their not an average car?
Reply
Pete 2:01PM (3/08/2007)
@mikew
not to stand up for lazy police depts but they do have an accuser-the city-and evidence-the speed cam photo. what they don't have is proof that u were driving the car. there's still reasonable doubt if they don't have ur face in the photo. which means u'll either have to present evidence or a witness at the hearing as an alibi.
Reply
Pete 2:16PM (3/08/2007)
actually i should have said "lazy police depts" AND money-grubbing cities
Reply