Questions For The Maths Gurus

[Guest INASNT]

Someone get clocked by a NON-RADAR-EQUIPPED police vehicle huh?

Sounds like you're trying to work out if they were following you for long enough to get an accurate guesstimation of your vehicles speed...  That and they must have been going in the other direction when they saw you...

Am I close?

Good luck dude.

Adrian

Yep sorta.

Lot of BS the cops r claiming.

[predator]

Well the cop also has to explain the maths on the spot in the court room doesn't he? and justify how he was able to do this in his head with sufficient confidence to book the driver at the time.

If there was any uncertainty and the judge is cluey enough to see it could be a major flaw, I think Inasnt may be lucky?

BUT with Victoria being the way it is there is probably something enshrined like "the cop is always right, even if he has only done year 11 basic maths".

Isn't evidence by the copper *required* to be brought to court?? as in a radar reading or the like. If not it will be thrown out wouldn't it?? Or do they just need a valid justification as to how they believed the driver was doing?

Wouldn't they just change it to "dangerous driving" in the end, as that is more arbitary? Maybe if you present enough maths at them that is their backup plan "but but, in our opinion he was driving dangerously". And as we all know, that can mean anything. Either way i reckon they'll get you for something that can hurt.

[Rollin]

the important thing i need to know is how many meters it would take for a crapadore VT 6 to get to 130km/h and how many seconds, and how many meters and seconds to come to stop from that speed???

i believe that they actually do the quarter at a terminal speed of about 130km/h - the cop cars (V6 ones anyway - 8s are obviously quicker, say high 14sec or low 15) are slower as they have a cage in them, bullet proof vests, first aid kit etc etc etc, and NO extra power, no matter what anyone tells you. all the loosers on street commonwhores that go on about "cop chips" are full of crap.

so, if it was a 6 it would take about 400m or a little under to get to 130, if it was an 8 i would say about 300m?

stopping distance is a little harder - what you should do is get a leaflet from your equvalent of QLD transport and use that - you know the one about safe braking and following distances that says "at 100km/h, you cover x meters per second, and so therefore it takes y meters to stop" (they convienently forget to mention the million other factors that affect braking distance, but if its good enough for the gumbyment to use then its good enough for court i reckon) just expand that out to reach to 130 - braking g forces are more linear and easy to calculate i think? so if it takes 60m (or whatever) to stop from 100, just draw a graph on a piece of paper with speed on the vertical axis and distance on the horizontal axis, draw a line from 0 to where the 100kmh/60m lines intersect and then extrapolate from there.

a guy at work had copped the same kind of thing you are dealing with atm last year, the cops reckon they got him and about 20 other cars doing 160 in an 80 zone, but we worked out that for the cops to catch them from where they said they got them on radar to where the group got pulled over the cops would have had to be doing an AVERAGE speed of 300+km/h, (thats not allowing for acceleration or braking time) using the distance over time calc. a VX V6 wouldnt do 300km/h off a cliff with a 200km/h tailwind! and completely forgetting the fact that 300km/h in an 80 zone is just a tad excessive, no matter who you are or what you are driving!

[Guest INASNT]

Well the cop also has to explain the maths on the spot in the court room doesn't he? and justify how he was able to do this in his head with sufficient confidence to book the driver at the time.  

If there was any uncertainty and the judge is cluey enough to see it could be a major flaw, I think Inasnt may be lucky?  

BUT with Victoria being the way it is there is probably something enshrined like "the cop is always right, even if he has only done year 11 basic maths".

Isn't evidence by the copper *required* to be brought to court?? as in a radar reading or the like. If not it will be thrown out wouldn't it?? Or do they just need a valid justification as to how they believed the driver was doing?

Wouldn't they just change it to "dangerous driving" in the end, as that is more arbitary? Maybe if you present enough maths at them that is their backup plan "but but, in our opinion he was driving dangerously". And as we all know, that can mean anything. Either way i reckon they'll get you for something that can hurt.

As i said before, any other state other than vic and i could get out of this shit easy.

In court a cop doesent have to provide any evidence, they just get on the stand and spill their shit, and 90% of the judges believe them coz they still recon cops tell the truth all the time and are actually out on the roads to make them a better place

In my case they are using the speedo as a speed measuring device

[GoldZilla]

Go, buy/borrow a G-Tech meter or similar, get some track time, hire a Commonbore and do the tests yourself. Write down your results, bring the G-Tech to court with you (including the box, instructions, etc.) and see if they're willing to accept it.

The G-Tech measures 0-100km/h, 100-0km/h, and 0-100 and back to 0km/h, and gives readings for distances travelled as well, so it should serve your purposes pretty well.

[funkymonkey]

Usually if judges see that you've gone to a fair amount of effort they do take some active interest in your argument. Maybe ACA involvement?

[GTRgeoff]

Denham

good luck

Just remember not to tell the cops what your defence is specifically. Just that you wish to defend your innocence. Then hit them with the physics in court and see if they can deal with it.

If you do tell them they will bring expert witnesses to try to shoot you down and if guilty you will pay for their attendance.

PM me if you want to talk to a mech eng mate or mob 0408 124 767

[riggaP]

According to Wheels Jan 2003 an Auto Exec Cummywhore does 0-100km in 9.2sec and 0-400m in 16.6sec with a curb weight of 1567kg.

Hope that helps...

[Zagan]

You'll be hard pressed to defend yourself, if they got you on a radar then it won't matter how far down the road they get you as they have the radar speed to get you on.

It'd be like saying but I wasn't speeding and they only got me 10klms down the road but this radar detected you going this much over the speed at this point 10klms up the road....

Also if you have been follwed you'll find it hard pressed as well, as all cop cars have a computer that takes down the speed of the cop car all the time so they can tell what speed the cop car has been doing compared to your car.

On top of this, they make sure a cops car does perfect speeds on their dash board, so they can follow behind you and check your speed out if your going faster than 100klms then you'll find it hard to prove other wise.

Maths isn't really gpoing to save your ass because they'll get the data from the cop car for that period of time, and compare your data to their own.

The only real way would be to check to see if the speedo is out in the cop car and if it's out then the fine will probably be thrown out.

This is what happened to the WRX cop cars in VIC and NSW their speedos were out and after 2-3 years this was found out and all the speeding fines from the WRX's where they followed behind people were thrown out and the money refunded back.

This would be unlikly in a commonwhore cop car though.

[GTRgeoff]

Zagan

maybe the maths you know won't save you, but the maths I did at uni for my engineering degree will probably be similar to Denhams and he is probobly calculating whether the car actually had the ability to accelerate to the measured speed and hold it there for the distance to accurately measure him and then stop all in the distance that was actually travelled.

May be a technicality but it will be enough to thwart a cancelled license.

And for interest sake....this is a piddlingly easy problem to calculate if you work with the basic formulae all the time. Actually just year 12 math apparently, not that i went to yr 12......so how did I get to university wonders denham

[Zagan]

Zagan

maybe the maths you know won't save you, but the maths I did at uni for my engineering degree will probably be similar to Denhams and he is probobly calculating whether the car actually had the ability to accelerate to the measured speed and hold it there for the distance to accurately measure him and then stop all in the distance that was actually travelled.

Ok, let me get this right....

The guy is going to walk into court and say "Hey you know what I can't have been speeding because...... It takes a cop car 22.2 seconds to catch up to me..."

Taa Daa!!!!!

Speeding fine dropped off the face of the planet.

It wouldn't work like that, because

A) You have to PROVE that you weren't speeding.

B) Assuming that the guy wasn't done for a radar, Which I know the guys in QLD sit in cop cars in the middle of the highway and radar people and just knock'em off that way.

Then they just pull out and pull you over down the road and issue the fine to you or just pass it thruogh anyway.

Then it becomes a case of wheather you could prove that the radar is out or something at the point of where the radar was that could cause a problem.

C) A cop car would have to sit behind you for at least 5 to 10 mins before they can use the speed of the cop car compared to your own car to put down the fine.

You can use all the maths you want but depending on the way they have got you there's not much you'll be able to do about it.

Even if it was a speed camera and you say the pic is too blurry, and you goto court you pull out your crap printed letter photo and they pull out a super perfect A1 photo of your car in complete 3cm x 3cm detail of your rego plate.

Most of the cases where people get off is due to it being a first then they change the laws etc so you can't do that anymore.

Maths of a car may or may not apply to the cop car because they can easily tell what the speed is of the cop car, so all they need to do is look up the records they don't need maths to tell them what speed they were doing.

So because of that you should get the cop car in question checked out and if it's spot on your F****D

[Guest INASNT]

zagan

U dont know the whole story so most of what u have said is irrelavant!!

I wont go into detail of the situation, but they say they followed me between 2 streets which measure a x amout of distance, and the more i look into it the more they could not have been apparently near me and clocked me accuratley.

I have a lawyer, so the lawyer will cross question them and the more crap they say the better my maths calculations will make it impossible for them to have done what they said in the limited amouts of time and distance.

Also it was a unmarked car and they dont need to follow u for 5 minutes to be able to fine u, as u wouldnt be sitting on a set speed for that long.

Skylineoff

U dont have to tell the cops anything about your defence.

[GTRgeoff]

Denham

glad you have representation who knows your rights. Too many have said "I'll be fighting the fine because of X" and then pay for the expert witnesses after found guilty. Good luck mate. Hoping to see that nice machine about some more.

Zagan

an expert witness is usually an engineer or scientist who deals with this sort of thing a fair bit, much as I do in my job as the assistant chief engineer for defence armament systems. What is becoming evident here is the officer(s) have alleged an offence has been committed that they cannot physically prove. Have you heard of the young lady with the datto 120Y that was done by a fixed camera doing 160kmh and yet a race driver couldn't get the car to that speed? Eventually the fine was dropped. If you can physically prove that something could not have happened then the officers are in a little trouble. Pergury for one if they can't accept scientific evidence to the contrary.

So to answer you, you don't have to prove that you weren't speeding, just that they didn't stick to the rules in the pursuit of revenue raising. Don't feel offended that I'm not agreeing with you. Everything you say is fine for the uneducated, but there are areas of science that can be exploited, even regarding the laser and radar technologies, to avoid successful prosecution. In my job we deal with laser and radar a lot and they are not infallible. The beam of both is more a cone but also has multiple sidelobes that can interfere with the doppler signal giving a false reading. It's based on statistical theory and data gathering and is never 100% absolutely error free, so the evidence may indicate a high probability that it was your speed but that cannot be guaranteed....and there is the start of a case right there.

In the end it is blatant revenue raising by politicians addicted to speeding fine money and that is an indication of disgusting, unethical and corrupt government.

[Zagan]

zagan

U dont know the whole story so most of what u have said is irrelavant!!

I wont go into detail of the situation, but they say they followed me between 2 streets which measure a x amout of distance, and the more i look into it the more they could not have been apparently near me and clocked me accuratley.

I have a lawyer, so the lawyer will cross question them and the more crap they say the better my maths calculations will make it impossible for them to have done what they said in the limited amouts of time and distance.

Also it was a unmarked car and they dont need to follow u for 5 minutes to be able to fine u, as u wouldnt be sitting on a set speed for that long.

Skylineoff

U dont have to tell the cops anything about your defence.

Ah, You havn't read what I've writen.

All cop cars are calibrated to give the correct speed for their engine to trie size etc etc, the speed in the cop car is also recorded.

So all they have to do is follow you for a set preiod of time, this will allow them to guage your speed for that length of time, they will bring this into court to help them prove that you were speeding.

Your maths can say anything you want but you really have to prove that their speed record is incorrect, they can check the cop car in question about that also if the cop car comes up as being correct your maths won't save you.

This is how they get around your little maths thing in court.

I guess what I'm saying is that you have to prove that the speed they were doing was in-correct and it'll be hard to do as they will have proof of the speeds they were doing, do you have proof of what speeds you were doing?

Understand what I'm saying now.

Other people have used your idea before and some have won and others have lost.

See what happens I guess, it sucks but this is how things go.

[Zagan]

Zagan

an expert witness is usually an engineer or scientist who deals with this sort of thing a fair bit, much as I do in my job as the assistant chief engineer for defence armament systems. What is becoming evident here is the officer(s) have alleged an offence has been committed that they cannot physically prove. Have you heard of the young lady with the datto 120Y that was done by a fixed camera doing 160kmh and yet a race driver couldn't get the car to that speed? Eventually the fine was dropped. If you can physically prove that something could not have happened then the officers are in a little trouble. Pergury for one if they can't accept scientific evidence to the contrary.

 

So to answer you, you don't have to prove that you weren't speeding, just that they didn't stick to the rules in the pursuit of revenue raising. Don't feel offended that I'm not agreeing with you. Everything you say is fine for the uneducated, but there are areas of science that can be exploited, even regarding the laser and radar technologies, to avoid successful prosecution. In my job we deal with laser and radar a lot and they are not infallible. The beam of both is more a cone but also has multiple sidelobes that can interfere with the doppler signal giving a false reading. It's based on statistical theory and data gathering and is never 100% absolutely error free, so the evidence may indicate a high probability that it was your speed but that cannot be guaranteed....and there is the start of a case right there.

 

In the end it is blatant revenue raising by politicians addicted to speeding fine money and that is an indication of disgusting, unethical and corrupt government.

Ah, the expert may help, but again dosen't prove much either way.

The speed camera would have been out and thus the fine would have been thrown out and the money refunded plus all the out fines that were given out by that camera, I believe in VIC something like 70 cameras were found to be out and something around 8 million in fines were being refunded, that was a few months back.

Still though, wheather or not the car could have gotten to 160klms doesn't matter you have to prove you wern't speeding, she was able to prove that the car wasn't able to get to 160klms and thus couldn't be doing that speed at that time, and thus wasn't speeding.

This is the problem the cops are saying the guy was speeding and they have proof via their own car speed record, they can use this against the guy to prove he was speeding, and there's probably other methods as well.

So then the question becomes was the guy speeding in the first place, if not then prove you wern't speeding then......????

Radars I can understand having problems detecting speeds correctly but lasers would be different, they work so fast in milli seconds.

Just looking at some specs of a laser speed setector and it's 0.3seconds to get a reading, and has a +/- of 1.6klms not bad hey.

Anyway, I don't think your maths will stop the fine because they will prove their speed via their speed recordings and with your maths trying to prove their speed it wouldn't mean anything as they are trying to prove that you were speeding in the first place.

Which is the reason why I'm saying you have to prove that you couldn't have been speeding, it will be interenting to see what happens though either way.

I'm not fussed if he does or doesn't get the fine, I was just pointing out something to you, and he'll have to think about this as they will use this stuff if they can.

[Zagan]

Take a look at this,

http://www.stvincent.ac.uk/Resources/Physi...road/ladar.html

http://www.science.org.au/nova/060/060key.htm

http://www.science.org.au/nova/058/058key.htm

http://www.zipworld.com.au/~verysoft/speeding/#TACTICS

[GTRgeoff]

So to answer you, you don't have to prove that you weren't speeding, just that they didn't stick to the rules

I wont go into detail of the situation, but they say they followed me between 2 streets which measure a x amout of distance, and the more i look into it the more they could not have been apparently near me and clocked me accuratley.

I can't believe you are so caught up in needing to be right and yet you fail to read basic english, so I won't entertain you anymore other that to draw your attention to the above comments and to let you know that the South Australian study was found to lack objectivity and was false in it's findings.

The doubling of the probability of an accident for every 5 kays over the posted limit was laughed at by experts everywhere as there becomes a critical velocity that has a near infinite probability of crashing associated with it. But it is known fact that people have driven at these speeds and survived, therefore the theory is blatantly incorrect.

Personally I have not paid a fine in over 10 years. I drive to the conditions and go to the race track and drive at high speed to get my jollies. I don't support inappropriate speed anytime.

I will also suggest you look at www.roadsense.com.au to discover some of the cases where the authorities get it wrong.

INASNT's case is about technical application of the law and whether the police vehicle could physically achieve what they stated it did, not whether or not he was doing the speed stated. If they are found lying the case must be dropped. Engineering and Maths can prove this.

[Guest INASNT]

All cop cars are calibrated to give the correct speed for their engine to trie size etc etc, the speed in the cop car is also recorded.

So all they have to do is follow you for a set preiod of time, this will allow them to guage your speed for that length of time, they will bring this into court to help them prove that you were speeding.

where has u heard this? May be with a marked cop car but not a unmarked undercover car coz i was watching 2 cases similiar to mine with unmarked cars and the cops did not bring up this recorded speed crap or could say when the last time their cars speedos were calibrated.

Do u understand the concept of calibration?? coz i work with things that are calibrated to 0.000 and unless the cops are carrying around a calibration form from a nata approved lab (which bracks has been trying one to approve his BS fixed speed cameras, but none will touch as they all know they are faulty) their calibration is no where near 100% even in a proper cop car as calibration can be off even once an item is taken out of the calibration lab.

And everything comes down to physics and maths, it doesent matter what some speed recorder says, if its physically cant be done, then it is not possible to be done, unless the cops have found a way to rewrite the laws of physics and maths.

[Guest INASNT]

Also is there any websites i can get scientific tests of cars and stopping / accelerating times and distances?

[GTRgeoff]

The factory stated times are considered suitable as they are tested to a standard. If you were to use these figures they would have to physically test their vehicle to prove otherwise. Then there would be question of the cars modification state and legality if it were to exceed these factory figures for stated performance. Can't commit a crime to catch an offender.

Carpoint or (YUK) Wheels would give the detail you need.