Questions For The Maths Gurus

[Steve]

Go INASNT, good luck, I am barracking for you - too many coppers that seem to think their word is law - stick it to 'em!

[Zahos]

Actually 215m is with ideal road conditions and ideal high perfomance tires operating at maximum efficiency. Realistically that formula yields about >240m for minimum stopping distance for tires on an everyday driven street car.

Even better....

[Guest INASNT]

exactly, and the cops didnt accelerate directly to 130 clicks either, so their whole statement is BS, which will all come out in court

Has zagan got it yet?

[Guest INASNT]

Ok talked to lawyer about all these calculations and to actually include it as evidence i would have to get an expert from monash automotive division or similiar to attend the court session for the day which would cost me around $1500 for the day. *** that i told him.

The evidence can still be used but as cross referencing when asking the cops questions and as verbal statement to the judge to put that reasonable doubt in his mind.

It suxs that the cops can just say they used their speedo to get speed reading (even tho they couldnt remeber if it was a digital or analogue speedo) when no commodore exec comes with a digital speedo ever but we have to bring experts in to prove our innocence. It aint innocent until proven guilty, its ur quilty and have to spend your time and $$ to prove ur innocence. Ya cant win.

[GTRgeoff]

Basic linear mathematics mate. If what they say (bitchface hoohoo ) isn't physically achievable then you have them on a stick. I don't see how they can justify requiring a stinking academic. Some of us actually practise this sh(t quite regularly instead of practising secret handshakes and reinventing the wheel. None of the Unis in Melb could even offer me the research master of engineering I wanted in automotive engineering.

Ask some embarassingly simple questions and use a noted text on dynamics and notebook computer with graphical mathematics module and watch her wilt.

[Revhead]

Good luck mate, sounds like you have a fair chance if you get a decent judge, and your lawyer does a good job of explaining the physics.

I agree with the statement toward the beginning - just get a bone stock VT Exec (even if you have to hire one, much cheaper than $1500) and try it for yourself. Take it to the drags, flash the lights or something at 130 and get a friend to time you from takeoff to when the lights flash. In the VT's there is a 'debug' mode that will show the trip meter to 10m, instead of 100m, so if you change it to that before your run, you could use the braking area at the track to measure stopping distance. Slow down to 130, make a note of what the trip meter says, then stand on the brakes. It might be worth asking the officials for a solo pass and mention that you'll be doing this though.

Anyway, if it helps, when my car was near-stock, I ran 14.180 (@ 161.15km/h) and was doing 126.34km/h at half track, in 9.233 seconds - so it'd be around 10 seconds for 130km/h.

[dan_the_man]

  INASNT said:

And now i have the proof. Plus this pig wasent even a tmu ****, she works for the sexual crimes section, so i dont know wft speed detecting skills she has.

Me and my lawyer have named her bitch face

[Roy]

Good luck at getting off, when do you find out?

I remember when you first posted about this ages ago...only i seem, to recall the facts were a little different then.

...just stick with the means they used to quantify the offence are flawed...accusing Police of intentionally lying in court doesnt normally go down to well...better let the facts/science shows that ppls accounts are unreliable, that includes the accounts of police

...You were speeding, they saw that, and probably didnt understand the context in which you were speeding, probably didnt see you overtake them, know how long you had been speeding for.... just saw you wizz by and that was good enough for them to book you.

By the letter of the law they are probably entitled to book you for that, if they have used statements based on assumptions then the science you are bringing into court will most likely get you off...

Me being one to always defend the police service, but not always the police officer, they arent to know what you had been doing 2 seconds earlier, let alone 30 seconds earlier etc etc, and wrong of them to assume too much..

Good luck with the whole thing...you need you licence for the Friday at Winton

[ferni]

Yeah i'd put the officer on the stand, ask her what her story is, hope she says 'i speed up to 130, then braked to turn down the street he turned down'

then you repeat what she said and say are you sure?

then you explain how that wouldn't be possible in a VT Commondore etc...

'so are you still sure thats what happened, did you have a magic wand that helped you stop quicker too?'

[Guest INASNT]

  ferni said:

Yeah i'd put the officer on the stand, ask her what her story is, hope she says 'i speed up to 130, then braked to turn down the street he turned down'

then you repeat what she said and say are you sure?

then you explain how that wouldn't be possible in a VT Commondore etc...

'so are you still sure thats what happened, did you have a magic wand that helped you stop quicker too?'

I wish i could call her a lying bitch in court and abuse her, but its very hard to call a cop a lyer in court and have the judge stay on your side. You have to ask them questions and make the bullshit come out in her answers.

I dont think i will get totally as i have to bring down the measured speed from

130 km/h to 110 km/h or under which will be hard to do as there are 2 cops againt me.

[GTRgeoff]

They have written you up for 130kmh, and if that is untrue (see cannot prove it), or you are found not guilty I am not sure they can reduce the charge and try for a lower penalty. It's called double jeapordy, but I won't stake my meager reputation on it.

Besides, how honest would "LYING" cops look then?

[Roy]

Does getting the recognised speed dropped to 110km/hr help you... i assume this was a 60km/h zone... 110/km/hr you are still goosed....

Technically i think Geoffs right, if they charge you with 130km/hr and cant substantiate that speed, they are not likely to waste anyones time by laying another charge, based on statements that have been found to be unreliable hoping to get you for a lesser speed.

If you were doing 110km/hr (what was the speed limit?) and you have been toasted for 130km/hr, isnt it like 1/2 dozen of one, 6 the other? You were visibly still speeding, they arent lying as so much as mistaken about your speed, its very subjective, as your argument has pointed out, they would have been better to get you for 0-15km/h over.

... i take the 20km/h is the difference between 130 & 110km/h means keeping or losing your licence.

Sounds like a sh1t fight, hope it all works out, courts are creepy places.

[Guest INASNT]

it was a 80 zone, and if the judge isent convinced of me speeding at that speed he will lower the speed but i will still get a fine and most prob 6 months loss of license. I did not go in saying i wasent speeding, because i was and to tryin to say i wasent speeding at all against 2 cops is just plain stupid and the judge would just laugh at me before i could say anything.

[riggaP]

  INASNT said:

Ok talked to lawyer about all these calculations and to actually include it as evidence i would have to get an expert from monash automotive division or similiar

You are a qualified engineer I beleive, which suggest that you have brains. If the maths are really that simple, and they seem to work logically, couldnt you just quote a physics text book and present it yourself? You could then try and explain that an "expert" is not required because they have gained and apply their knowledge based on Newton's laws which are in these books etc?

[Zagan]

I see YOU still don't get it.

Your speeding, your going in and saying you were speeding, all the cops have to do is prove your car can do the speed and that you were speeding at that time and why and how.

The judge isn't going to give a **** about the cop car because it doesn't matter as they would have had to speed up to give you the fine anyway, other wise you wouldn't have it in your hand.

You'd need the expert to prove that in the space of time and over the road that YOUR car couldn't have done the speed that is stated on the fine.

Do you understand what the go is, you have been served a fine and that means by law that you were doing what ever it has writen on it and you have acepted that the fine is valid, you can contest it but the fine is still standing.

I'm not a laywer by the way, but the law is sometimes cut and dry.

Your can cross ref the cops but the cops can say we were doing the speed limit at the time 3 other cars were also doing the speed limit your car was fling by 1 or 2+ cars way above the stated speed limit for the road.

And bang'o your maths suddenly means what on the cop car, again?

I don't know exactly how or what your going to say to them, but it'll either make it easy for the judge to rule or make you look like a dickhead, or get you out of it.

[Zagan]

  riggaP said:

You are a qualified engineer I beleive, which suggest that you have brains. If the maths are really that simple, and they seem to work logically, couldnt you just quote a physics text book and present it yourself? You could then try and explain that an "expert" is not required because they have gained and apply their knowledge based on Newton's laws which are in these books etc?

You can't be your own expert in your own court trial, the expert would be baised.

[Steve]

Zagan, I think YOU dont get it.

He is fighting the speed THEY say HE was doing - which is what the fine was for.

IF he can prove that the speed they say he was doing was wrong, they MUST dismiss the case against him.

Would you gladly wear a speeding fine for 50kph over the speed limit if you were doing 20kph over the speed limit? Porbably by the sounds of your post.

  Quote

Do you understand what the go is, you have been served a fine and that means by law that you were doing what ever it has writen on it and you have acepted that the fine is valid, you can contest it but the fine is still standing.

maybe in some back wood third world country, but in case you havent noticed, this is a free society, where you can challenge anything you dont believe is valid.

  Quote

I'm not a laywer by the way, but the law is sometimes cut and dry.

dont have to be a rocket scientist to work that one out.

[Steve]

  Quote

You can't be your own expert in your own court trial, the expert would be baised.

can you tell me of where the precedent has been set?

probably not, because its a feed of hot c0ck.

[pinoi_boi_r33]

lol at zagan, Y r u so infatuated about being right??? Let it go man...

[GTRgeoff]

Denham

it's pretty big of you to actually be prepared to go in and wear the consequences of your actions, but still fight for a fair hearing regarding the actual speed you were travelling at. You've got my vote mate. I hope the magistrate appeciates your ethical stand in light of the fact you are prepared to lose your licence regardless of the outcome.

People like you make the police more ethical and open to public scrutiny.....I applaud you on your impressive display of character.