I have written before that our legal system makes many decisions without any understanding of the scientific (or mathematical) principles involved.  And, because of that bad (as in wrong) decisions are made.

Let’s take a simple case first- one devoid of politics (but replete with the desire of localities to find sources of funding).  Of what am I talking?   Speed cameras and red light cameras.

Now, before you go and jump all over me, I understand the need to control the speed of drivers on our roads- and the absolute necessity to stop those who run red lights.   The former because there could be a problem- the latter because accidents will result.

But, let’s get real.  If every car on the road is moving at 64 miles per hour, it really means the locality has deliberately chosen the wrong speed limit for the road.

Since I live in metropolitan DC, I know the racket here.   The interstate highways have speed limits of 35 and 40 miles per hour.  (Yes, you read that correctly.)   Which is so different from than the interstate speed limit in the rest of the US, it’s not surprising that people speed (i.e, go 50 or 55 mph)- and that there are a dozen cars visible in that photoradar notice you receive with your $ 100 fine.   So, this is really not a scientific issue (except that the road was designed for 55 [or maybe 70] mph- and strictly a revenue enhancement issue (one that meets the Republican desire to not raise taxes, I might add ).

However, the issue that clearly involves science is when someone gets a ticket for not stopping prior to turning right on red.  The judges have no clue that when the front end of the car hits the asphalt, the driver has slammed on his brakes- and probably hit the requisite 0 mph.   This is especially true if the speed recorded by the locality’s devices was 14 mph- but some 50 feet before the corner and the required position to stop.

In the video below, the car in question was cited for not stopping prior to turning right- when the red light had been in effect for 0.9 seconds.  At the quoted 14 mph (as measured 60 feet from the corner), that meant the car moved 18.5 feet during that interval.   Oh, and the front end of the car bottomed out.  (We are talking about  the second car in the video.)

What that really means is the driver realized that the light turned red.  (My analysis assumed this realization was instantaneous. I know that’s not totally possible.)  And, slammed on his/her brakes.  The only way the car would bottom out at 14 mph is if the speed were to hit zero.  And, there is NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT that a car stop for 1, 2, or 30 seconds prior to turning right on a red light- just that the car reach a complete stop. (Of course, no one ever defined “complete stop”.)  But, it should be safe to assume that hitting zero (0) mph is a complete stop.

However, the clerks the localities hire (who lack a degree in technological areas) and the judges who are provided to hear such cases completely lack such  technical knowledge.  And, are, therefore, prone to find the driver guilty- without a shred of scientific basis.  So much for being considered innocent until proved guilty.

Now for the political case.  The US Supreme Court is about to rule on the gerrymandering of districts that is rampant in the US.   (The test case is the one from Arizona– and there are plenty of other regions that need adjudication.)   While maps are supposed to be redrawn every decade- and to be based upon the results of the census findings, the partisan process ensures that districts are drawn to reelect (or elect new choices for the next decade) as many folks who match the governing party requirements as possible.  Not quite the intent of the law.

If one were to draw such districts properly, one would assume that the party that developed the most votes would win the most districts.  But, as can be seen from various results listed below, that rarely happens.

And, if our judges understood statistics (I have a bridge for sale in Nevada…), they would know that a properly constituted series of districts would provide a logical set of results.   When one sorts out the election results according to the party line vote, the difference between the median and the mean (or average) vote should be pretty narrow.  (This is often called the zone of chance.)

When the votes have a large spread, it’s pretty clear the districts are gerrymandered. Which is what obtains in Pennsylvania and North Carolina in these examples.  But, not in Arizona.

But, there’s no guarantee that the Supreme Court will understand (wait— maybe, it’s that they don’t care about) the facts that are crucial to the development of the “law of the land”.