This is so true. You stand a far greater chance of getting a ticket towards the end of a month then at the beginning. This is because the cops are trying to make those supposedly illegal, non-existent quotas that we all know they really have, whether they are official or not. At the beginning of the month you are far more likely to get off with a warning or not get stopped at all for a minor infraction than at the end of the month.

I've also noticed that your chances of getting stopped and ticketed are much greater if you're driving an expensive car or you have out-of-state license plates.

I noticed cute girls get less tickets

There are also known "speed traps" around my area where they sit on the boarder where the posted speed changes from 50 to 25 and constantly ticket people in that zone. Another place I always see them is at the bottom of a steep hill with a twisting turn - it's like shooting fish in a barrel and they write tickets as fast as they can write them. Of course it has nothing to do with public safety but rather raising funds for the department and municipality. Oh, and my favorite is a stretch of road posted 45 that crosses a very large marsh and there is nothing there but swamp grass for a couple of miles. The troopers love to cruise up and down and target oncoming traffic because they know people treat it like a highway and do at least 60mph. It's a cash cow and they raise a lot of ca$h off of that stretch. It does make a mockery out of traffic enforcement.

Of course the insurance companies cash in as well because as soon as they get wind that you got one of those tickets they can jack up rates and really cash in as well. In fact my local police department receives "grants" from the insurance industry lobby group that include upgraded laser and radar equipment, computers and training to increase "revenue." Traffic enforcement by police has basically replaced taxes as a major source of income for the city. It's like a lottery in reverse and is a big money making scheme.

Also, in my city when you go to challenge the traffic ticket you have to meet with the city attorney and plead your case. Of course you don't get to see an actual judge unless you pay the $200 fee for a jury duty and go through the hassle of a full trial. When I went in for a speeding ticket the city attorney said he could knock off a demerit and $50 off of the fine but he wasn't empowered to go any further - no matter the circumstances. So, basically they make it so difficult to challenge a ticket that just about nobody does. It certainly isn't justice to be sure...

The irony here? That the speed traps you describe are actually making the roads less safe so those a**hole cops can squeeze more money out of their citizens.

Not too different than redlight cameras that shorten yellow light times and generally result in higher accidents near lights where they're installed. Safety be damned in order to disguise a tax as a ticket.

Speeding doesn't cause accidents, bad drivers cause accidents...

If the speeder can't see the two white lines across the road and that black and white Charger watching, he deserves all the tickets he gets just for driving and not paying attention. If you really knew the law, you'd find exemptions and limitations on speed timing methods.

Bob and JS: Not really... The evaluations don't have to do with the number of tickets written, and the fact is, this goofball didn't stop, but he went the judge didn't want to mess with it....

MANOFMANYTRADES-2683208 I hope you're not being serious dude. Speed and aggressive driving are the top 2 causes for MVA's. Bad drivers exhibit both of these characteristics. I travel the highway alot and if there is one consistent hazard, its A$$ holes who think that no one else should be there to be in their way when they drive 10 - 30 mph over the posted limit. This sort of infantile behavior is a real menace to those who want to obey the law and not jeopardize fellow motorists.

The most difficult area to change is aggressive driver behavior and selfish attitudes.

• Excessive speed
• Frequent and/or unsafe lane changes
• Failure to signal
• Tailgating
• Failure to yield the right of way
• Disregarding traffic controls
• Impaired driving
• If you regularly exhibit 2 or more of these behaviors, you're an A$$ hole.

PS: The judge should have enforced the ticket + court costs+driving school. How many accidents have been caused at that particular intersection for failing to stop.

Amazing! According to this guy's equations, he was approaching the intersection at 226 mph, came to a screeching stop in 10 sec, then accelerated again from 0 to 226 mph. It just looked like he ran a stop sign travelling at a constant 22 mph.

Good thing he stuck to angular velocity rather than linear velocity in his argument.

I bet you're one of those people that goes 45 MPH in the left lane of the interstate.

John, speed limits and driving laws have been created for the lowest common denominator of humans. Thinking 10mph over the speed limit (which in my state is only brings me to 65mph) is too fast just means you probably arent competent enough to be driving in the first place.

Then by your own definition you're not intelligent enough to be driving a tricycle much less a motor vehicle. Fix your own state laws. I've been cutting morons like you out of smashed cars for a very long time. Always sucks to watch someone bleed to death before you can get them out of a car that hit something/anything going 80+ mph. The only competency issues here are yours. "Oh but that will never happen to me". Moron.

makememad Ummm no. Being cautious does not make someone stupid. There ARE other people on the roadway besides you. Perhaps you fit into the characteristics I mentioned above. That's on you and no one else. No one wants to deal with a driver going well under the posted limit in the passing lane of a highway. That's a whole other hazard that can be just as deadly as someone driving with their hair on fire. Trying to excuse bad behavior by coming up with some extreme example is weak. But hey, maybe that's how you roll.

The big problem with traffic safety today is not really one of speeding- it's people not paying attention to their driving.

Don't believe me? Delve into your states highway accident rates - 85-90% of accidents are caused by driver inattention, whether on the highway or local streets. Speeding is involved in about 2% of all accidents.

Europe has a lower accident rate than we do - they have almost NO speed limits on their highways (try Paris to Germany sometime....) , BUT when they have them they are more spectacular, usually one car only. If you are driving in Europe, you are paying close attention to people all around you.

So, put down the phone, the coffee, and the eyeshadow and pay attention.

Having said all of that, my big peeve with speed limits is that most of them are based on 1950-60s auto technology - way too "simple".

Ummm no. Being cautious does not make someone stupid.

Not if you're doing it in the slow lane. If you're being passed on the right, then YOU'RE the unsafe one.

I can agree with some of what you say and we all see it every single day. Cell phones, messing with kids in a moving vehicle, eating and/or drinking, women putting on makeup especially in the morning, are all factors. Not sure where you got that 2% figure. Try these links:

www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/enforcement/pdf/809839.pdf go to the conclusions section.

http://alerts.nationalsafetycommission.com/2007/01/speeding-triples-chances-of-auto.php

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/speed_limits.html

There is overwhelming evidence to support conclusions that speeding, aggressive driving and failure to observe traffic lights and/or stop/yield signs are the leading causes of most accidents and the majority of fatal accidents. When you throw inattention into the mix with excessive speed....be somewhere else.

If you cant Dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull@!$%#.

ReligiousWrong Dude, can you not comprehend what you read? Read the ENTIRE comment before you open your mouth and remove all doubt that you're clueless.

I'm surprised you're able to drive at all with that enormous stick up your a$$.

John-351853

You left out the self righteous douches that bust their a$$ to get in front of you, just so they can slow the lane (the left lane) down and give themselves more space in front of them. Then everytime the drivers behind them have a chance to overtake, they speed up until the gap is gone. Intentionally provoking an unsafe driver (all for the sake of "regulating" traffic speed) is just as dangerous as being an unsafe driver.

My other personal favorite are the people that purposely get into the fast lanes because they are the clearest, most open lanes, just so they can make a phone call or text somebody. And they drive alongside the car to their right so no one else can pass or get in front of them. These people actually think THEY are the safe ones just because they aren't speeding or weaving in and out of lanes!!!!

.... also file this under intentionally provoking unsafe or impatient drivers.

Couldn't agree more Lolly. Happens all the time.

green beagle...you are so wrong it is funny...my uncle is a county sheriff and he has told me about the quota he has to complete. More cops don't mean safer streets or less crime..it means more revenue for the county...period.

makememad I see a nerve was struck :-) Given your comments and moniker, I can only assume you need anger management classes. But hey, if you can fly in the face of reason to support your own bad habits, who am I to try to change your mind? You absolutely fit into the criteria I mentioned above and we all know what that makes you behind the wheel of a car.

I agree with you completely John. I find it absolutely ridiculous that my comment was collapsed for suggesting that people actually drive safely. Absurd.

You people can be reckless if you want, but YOU suffer the consequences when you crash into me and get to pay for my car and any subsequent medical bills. Just hope that nobody dies, right?

Mandy-2148207 Well Mandy, you should know there's no cure for denial. I voted for your comment based on its merit. There are just enough morons who want things like your opinion to go unexpressed.Personal responsibility is often ignored when some people get behind the wheel of a car. Selfishness and impatience often rule and sometimes people just plain old don't pay attention to how fast they're going or to the circumstances of the road. The whole "its only me" notion is often the explanation for unsafe driving but unless you're living in the middle of nowhere, that's just not the case. No one has the right to put someone else's life in jeopardy just because they think they own the road. Its a public road!!!

Hi John. Obviously you're a first-responder who is forced to deal with the results of the actions of these morons. My wife works in a hospital...she sees them right after you, unless they go straight to the morgue.

Not to refute what you're saying, (it's 100% correct) but there was a study released some years ago by AAA that I found too logical to dispute. It was called "Prevailing Speed". It basically said to forget the speed limits except where the road is just too unsafe to go any faster (ie. curvy, not banked correctly, densely populated, school zones, etc.). If everyone is going forty, then it's safe. If everyone is going seventy, then it's safe. The danger comes when some ass tries to go seventy when everyone else is going forty. That's obvious. But it is also dangerous when someone is determined to go forty when everyone else is going seventy. Everybody hears about the speeders and how dangerous they are. Nobody hears about the ones we refer to as creeps and how dangerous THEY are. Lolly brought up some examples of how they instill road rage in other drivers. According to that AAA study, it's absolutely true. I got my license in 1968, and have never had an accident. Neither has my wife. I got one ticket in the Eighties on a back country road. There was nothing but forest here, no population at all, but it was hilly and curvy. The road went for fifteen miles and had only two areas with passing room. I had worked all day with fiberglass insulation, I was hot, itchy, and all I could think about was getting home to my shower. I was behind a creep going no faster than 25 while the road was 40. At the first passing zone, the smallest one, a car (the only one that afternoon) was coming in the opposite direction. At the next one, there was nothing coming, and as I tried to pass, the a$$hole sped up to 50+. Rage set in, and I passed the SOB doing almost 70. Right around the corner after the passing zone was a cop, and I couldn't have slowed down to the 40 MPH speed limit even had I seen him. Almost though, my ticket was for 47 in a 40 zone, a 7 MPH difference. What really frosted my butt was the knowledge that had I not gotten past this a$$hole, he would NOT have been stopped for going 25 in a 40, a 15 MPH difference. I always maintained, before the AAA study confirmed it, that drivers like him are just as unsafe as driver who speed a few miles over the limit, and should ALSO be ticketed. But they're not, except on interstates. I just wish the cops were a bit more even handed with their ticketing.

One more pet peeve...school buses. They stop these days at practically every house (when I was 12-13, I really DID have to walk about 2 miles to get to the nearest bus stop! Not anymore!). And they're out there in the morning rush hour. I sometimes get stuck behind them with 20-25 other cars. Why is it not a rule that when they see 10-15 cars caught up behind them, they not just turn their flashers off at one of their stops, after all the kids are safely on the bus, and wave us by? There's 20-25 really irate drivers stuck behind them, just waiting till they finally get by this thing. More road rage trying to get to work!

I completely agree with your comments. There is no doubt that some drivers can cause frustration to the point of rash behavior. And I agreed with Lolly's comments above just for the record. All I'm saying is that on city streets and intercity highways, people need to exercise better judgement with regard to traffic laws. The majority of accidents I respond to require alot of damage and a driver trapped and often times seriously injured. Speed, inattentiveness and failure to obey traffic signs and/or construction zones is the hands down leading cause and often times in combination with each other. This guy beat a ticket for which he was guilty with total BS. How about, if you're smart enough to rationalize that load of crap, find a way to rationalize obeying the law.

With regard to making one's life a lil less stressful, don't hit that snooze button that 3rd time. If I give myself an extra 5 or 10 minutes to get to work, I can drive relaxed and show up for work a happier camper. You'll live longer in more ways than one.

Exactly John. With regards to that snooze button comment...because of those school buses at rush hour, I was occasionally a few minutes (less than five) late for work. I used to say "It's those damned school buses!" One day my boss (I was a manager, so this was the #2 guy) said, "Well, why not just leave your house 5 minutes earlier?" It was too logical, I couldn't argue it. Except for two cases of car trouble over the years, I was never late again! True story.

By the way, my 21 Y/O son plans on becoming a paramedic. I told him, "That's great...just prepare yourself for the things you are going to see!"

John

I can see from your egotistical rants you are a know-it-all (or think you do) who gets off trying to inflict your point of view on others. Having never met me, you have absolutely no idea what kind of driver I am. As a matter of fact, I guess I must be a pretty safe driver considering that in 35 years of driving i have never gotten so much as a parking ticket, much less been involved in an accident. So stick that in your tailpipe and smoke it moron.

Many muni's are now adjusting speed limits to match prevailing speeds. They monitor and will adjust upwards. So for those of you who speak from a different hole than your mouth, speed limits are not based on the lowest common denominator. Quit spewing garbage and trying to sell it as fact.

@Mandy . . . . just think where you would be right now if George Washington just "followed the rules." Why can't you and others like you understand that sometimes the rules are wrong! geeeeeeeeezzzz

not ones that keep you from killing everyone else on the road.

I don't understand. Was this supposed to be smart? Funny?

I believe, O ye reading challenged one, this would fall under the rubric: SARCASM!

Apparently yet another vaunted graduate of the New Age American School System, who couldn't see sarcasm if it came dressed as Bozo the Clown and did an Irish gig in front of their eyes.

It was the power of a pair that got him off.

Science, it just works!

"No one gives a @!$%# about a 400 dollar speeding ticket. Neither would a God."

"Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God." -- Luke 12:6

The physics question is: What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow (and is it African or European)?

It would appear that this officer had been blinded by science!

OMG!

There really is a Dr. Sheldon Cooper!!! (The Big Bang Theory) LOL!!!!

This reminds me of an episode in which Sheldon refused to apologize to the judge.......It didn't work out to well for him when he found himself in jail..........He was quick with an apology when he saw where the toilet was......LOL........Big Bang Theory what a funny show.

Thanks for the link. I thought it was interesting that a physics professor was able to argue the ticket and I wanted to see exactly how he did it.

The MSNBC article included a useless link in the middle of the story that reads "Read NBCSanDiego's. com's coverage of the physicist's fight". That link leads to a story that was, word-for-word, identical to what MSNBC published.

I won a speeding ticket case in San Diego with the same argument. I was the chief engineer for a group of radio stations at the time, and the judge found my argument reasonable enough to dismiss.

I voted you up, Buffaloe, so please tell us, WERE you really speeding, or not? I gotsta know!

(It seems that certain symbols do not show up in comments and have the effect of omitting text in between...the last full paragraph should read...)

In short, if this was Mythbusters...his claim would be Busted because he makes a claim beyond the physical capabilities of his car's maximum published acceleration of 2.46 m/s^2 AND according to his graph in Figure 5, his stop was instantaneous and infinitesimally small as at times t less than 0 he was rapidly deceleration at 10 m/s^2 and at t greater than 0, he was accelerating at a physically impossible for his car 10 m/s^2 and only at time t=0 was he actually stopped which technically, is no duration of time and cannot constitute a Full Stop coming completely to rest within a time frame that is observable by any living human.

He just got lucky and with lots of arm waving and bad science, caused enough logical confusion to get away with it.

The defendant gambled that the state would not hire an expert witness, at a rate of $260 - $300 per hour, to rebut his testimony and prosecute the traffic violation. There may be flaws in his logic, but I think he's a pretty smart defendant.

Also read it, and I agree with you. There is absolutely no way a Yaris can make that acceleration.

His paper is based on the introduction of incorrect numbers and omission of others. Notice how he tries to present an argument for the rate of deceleration, but don't try and present one for rate of acceleration. (Because if he goes into too much detail of that, anybody whose ever driven a car would pick up on that an go: "Wait a second, cars don't accelerate even close to their rate of maximum deceleration. (At least not THAT car).")

His argument boils down to a very simple one:

I stopped and go'd - you couldn't see that because there was a car in the way! Sure... if it's a Tesla behind a Peterbilt somebody can buy that; Yaris behind a Subaru, not so much.

What he did was to make the 'Yaris behind Subaru' sound plausible by disguising the obvious logical falicy through a process of hiding incorrect numbers in an overly complex argument. (aka. a flat-out lie).

The only reason that this worked, is because the judge or prosecuter couldn't fully understand the argument, or maybe they understood it and found the humour in the approach, so let the guy off.

Does this really count as Peer Review or "Citations" count indexing? (Comment, Pun, Question)

JRS while you start to make plausible arguments, there needs to be a few adjustments to your rebuttal.

You need only take and adjust DK's, diagrams and perform calculations using your estimates, by laying these figures side by side, what you are saying will be clear, (the exercise of doing so will also self-check your estimates).

The conclusion is best seen in Figure 5, where the delta t's are show on the X axis in seconds. (This from an engineer's/statistical view could be called "sensitivity analysis", and by way of including both vehicles shows the reviewer who was looking for this form of validation was present in compact form. The curves plotted with various relevant values of slight differences should illustrate a 2 second vs. 1 second window). If you conclusion remains intact, then we can make a judgment on other factors.

The judges' conclusion and the argument coincide with the fact that the officer's view of the offense was impaired, not in the least by a vehicle passing by in front of the offending vehicle. The stop sign only appeared in the left lane, seems an odd traffic arrangement, not entirely standard, had it applied to both lanes it seem that the 2nd vehicle didn't stop either, so why would the offenders vehicle being the background be of concern to the officer. This stop sign possibility could be resolved, but other questions are possible, such as was the officers car moving, did the officer blink, had the officer seen the quick minded driver before. None matter so much as an obscured view.

The DK paper roughly combines high school physics, with first year calculus, using a bit of trigonometry, and the classic solving maximum with second derivative set to zero. In this it a fine example of elementary physics, and as far as social justice would be concerned, DK spent more than $400 preparing this paper.

The papers style is the familiar classic form, an engineer's calculation, would need elaboration, making them unsuitable for scientific publication. Including simple checks like demonstrating unit cancelation, including plotting equations, and independent calculations.

Because comments made on newsvine are anonymous, they are not made between individuals, who know each other; consequently they deteriorate into distasteful diatribes, duels made with witless remarks shot wildly until there's no light to be seen. While this is amply documented and the worst possible form of communication, it has never dawned in the creators and sponsors or advocates of newsvine, that it appeals to the primate instinct to attack everything including civil behavior. If this is not the purpose of newsvine creators it surely is the effect. Here we see the result of this ancient hostility.

It was possible to have read the proof of innocence, and seen some of the remarks DK made, and ignore them as wit, that has taken place of friendly and more direct discourse; these would have never seen the light of day in an old fashioned peer review. These are modern times, and having only one joke per semester would not be survivable.

If you remove the newsvine type denigration from your rebuttal, it would start to sound plausible, and need some work on the asymmetric acceleration assumption. But as we must guess your true intention from what you have written it is clear that it is an attack with preemptive prejudice on the rational, well presented and complete arguments as seen throughout DK's paper. This proves your intention, not to see the obvious and simple truth, but hide behind 8th grade non-contributory arguments.

Then the knaves come out, and rebut more than stated facts, primate aggression and so forth, as follows:

"Having read though the paper" … This stakes claim to credibility but the obvious problem of a view obscuring evidence more likely to convince the judge was not "read".

"I am not convinced of his story" ... Having gained credibility it now wasted on claiming there was a story, when in fact it was laid out not as story but a series of logical events, lest we forget that the article's author and its conduit to newsvine also a story of motive, interest and understanding being incomplete.

"seems kind of "arm-wavy" to me" … The pot calling the kettle black.

"and a lot of equations that while they theoretically would work, do not reflect reality to use his phrase" … Equations are mathematics, and are the only form of proof in any science, so the calling something "theoretical" that is not is familiar sarcasm, three times over.

… In short, the court was hoodwinked … Quite the contrary DK stated this assumption (asymmetry) quite clearly, and it is implied, but remarks documented. It is quite right that asymmetry be questioned, but it would need to be graphed in the same way, Figure 5, adjusted to show the right side lengthened while the left side shortened. The theory remains the same and single second or time at steak. The court likely made its decision on other evidence more obvious.

… "claimed rate of acceleration... which is a stronger argument that (that) the claim is false. … Now, this is quite an extreme … rate of deceleration …
but it will not be argued here. … It is either an argument about (de)acceleration or it not, false is not the operative word … shows differing results is operative.

… "these conditions by the author's admission must be valid in order to accept his argument that the officer was in error." … Symmetrical validity aside it not an admission it is an assumption, so stated clear and valid … the officer need not be in error, just unable to observe by and obscuring 2nd car.

… "Did the author sneeze and make it go faster? Where did this extra energy come from...because it did not come from the engine?" … The judge would likely rule this comment out of order, the prosecution need not repeat comments made earlier.

… "In short, if this was Mythbusters ... published acceleration of 2.46 m/s^2 AND … The paper did not state the book value of its acceleration.

… "his stop was instantaneous and infinitesimally small … The claim was yours, and your extrapolations only.

… "he was accelerating at a physically impossible for his car 10 m/s^2 … This was his assumed deceleration as any car nan stop faster than it can accelerate, it would not stay on the road if this were not true.

… "stopped which technically, is no duration of time and cannot constitute a Full Stop coming completely to rest within a time frame that is observable by any living human." … You claim impossible, infinitesimal happen and then conclude that was not observable, but these are misreading from the Figures not from your figures. Simple the evidence that was not observable was due to a 2nd car being in the way.

… "He just got lucky and with lots of arm waving and bad science, caused enough logical confusion to get away with it." … It not DK that sought to obscure the scientific process, it is you, waving your arms, bad science and causing logical confusion enough fill horse barn.

But as we must guess your true intention from what you have written it is clear that it is an attack with preemptive prejudice on the rational, well presented and complete arguments as seen throughout DK's paper. This proves your intention, not to see the obvious and simple truth, but hide behind 8th grade non-contributory arguments.

@ Rich...

Interesting response. However, your attempt to refute my rebuttal focused mostly on the language I used and very little on the science used in the rebuttal. It would behoove you in the future to understand the science of both parties prior to attempting to side with the claim of the first party. The paper by the first party claiming that the stops and starts happened so quickly that the Police Officer did not see them are full of logical fallacies and irrational arguments once applied to the real world. Attacking the language used in the rebuttal does not change the science behind the rebuttal nor does it make the 1st party correct.

My only intention is to call out bad science. As a geophysicist myself from the other side of the country, it is true that I have a bias towards bad science as any good scientist must have. A scientist must stand for truth and never misuse science, even to get out of a traffic ticket. In one sense, I would be one of the peers to review the article that was written by the 1st party and as such, feel compelled to call into question erroneous arguments presented within both the text and figures. Since it appears that some people may think there was an attempt to obscure the scientific process, I will restate the logic and science behind the rebuttal and let the science stand on it's own.

The fact that the 1st party made some well presented and complete arguments is irrelevant given that the arguments can only be theoretical and not apply in the real world in which the 1st party was acting. In the theoretical paper, the author demonstrated that it is possible to confuse constant linear velocity with starting and stopping (postulate 2 of the abstract) relatively fast. The theoretical argument was never in question. What is in question is the fact that the author never took the necessary next step to apply this argument to the real world and the car that he was driving. If the theoretical argument is applied to the real world, then his claim is patently false.

From the figures of the author's paper as well as the text itself, the author states that in order for the Police Officer to believe that car1 (the Toyota Yaris) did not stop and was passing at a constant linear velocity (measured in angular velocity), that car1 must have quickly decelerated and accelerated during the time of the obstruction, which the author states was double t=1.31 s. The three conditions that must be met in order for the author's argument to hold water are clearly stated in his abstract. This yields approximately 2.62 seconds to be the time of the obstruction for both deceleration and acceleration.

The author states in section IV that deceleration of his car1 was the maximum at 10 m/s^2. The author also provides a figure (Fig. 5) which graphically outlines the times of total observation by the observer, the times of obstruction indicated by the dashed lines, and the change in angular speed of both deceleration (from time -tp to t=0) and acceleration (from time t=0 to +tp). The simple fact is that the arguments appear to work on paper because they do not account for the physical limitations that must be imposed once the equations are applied to the physical world.

Figure 5 is the most telling because it illustrates what is stated in the text, that the deceleration and acceleration must happen quickly. From Figure 5, the acceleration rate must be exactly the same as the deceleration rate to yield the same, but opposite signed, change in angular velocity. The only way to create a figure as in Figure 5 is if deceleration equals acceleration. The mirror image around time t=0 would indicate that the only difference before time t=0 to after time t=0 is the sign of the acceleration.

The author does not state directly the rate of acceleration in the text which is a necessary omission on the author's part to support his claim as if the true acceleration been included, inclusion would have damaged his argument. I necessarily include the maximum acceleration (2.46 m/s^2) that the car he was driving is capable of based on published data of the acceleration for the Toyota Yaris. Determining the maximum acceleration that the Toyota Yaris is capable of is basic mathematics and it differs remarkably from the claimed acceleration of 10 m/s^2. If the author allows that the true acceleration of his car was not 10 m/s^2, then Figure 5 as plotted cannot exist for the acceleration clearly indicated by the Figure indicates that (positive) acceleration above t=0 is the same as the (negative) deceleration below t=0. However, the author does not state the acceleration but instead provides a figure (Fig. 5 and also comparatively Fig. 2 and 3) that indicate equal rates of deceleration to acceleration to appear as constant linear velocity. Thus, the claim is that his car must have accelerated at 10 m/s^2 is physically beyond the limits of maximum acceleration (2.46 m/s^2) that his car, the Toyota Yaris, is capable.

Second, the inference that the time of stopping was "instantaneous and infinitesimally small" is not without merit. By the author's own admission, the time of obstruction was only 2.62 seconds for which a 2295 lb Toyota Yaris had to rapidly decelerate from what appears to be a constant linear speed of about 18mph, come to a complete stop, and then rapidly accelerate to appear again at 18mph. The total time of deceleration and acceleration was 2.62 seconds from the text and from Figure 5, we can see that at ALL times from -tp to t=0, car1 was decelerating and at ALL times from t=0 to +tp, the car as accelerating. This gives the change of sign of velocity from Figure 5 to occur only at time t=0, not before nor after. As such, mathematically, then the only time that one could conceivably be at a "Full Stop" was at time t=0 as there is still a measurable velocity both before and after t=0. Measuring from the height of the peaks does not count as a Full Stop does not include the time needed to decelerate and accelerate back to the perceived speed. Therefore, because we observe only a full stop at t=0, there is no conjecture to this argument that the duration of time of the full stop, having occurred at only t=0 was instantaneous and infinitesimally small. A car being in the way is irrelevant as the author provided all the information needed on the graph in Figure 5.

In short, the author of the 1st party did not demonstrate that his car (the Toyota Yaris) came to a complete stop. The author only demonstrated that it is theoretically possible to come up with numbers to make this claim but if the second and necessary step was taken to apply these arguments to his car, the claims would have shown to be full of logical fallacies such as defining a full stop to only occur at t=0 or that rapid deceleration from a speed and rapid acceleration back to the same speed occurred in a time span of 2.62 seconds which is a physical impossibility for the car he was driving in both the time actually required for his Toyota to get back to 18 mph and the true maximum acceleration of his car of 2.46 m/s^2 well below the claimed 10 m/s^2.

In the future, if one wants to refute a rebuttal, focus on the science and mathematics and less on the language. Also, attempting to interpret the intentions behind an argument based on the language used rather than focus on the science and mathematics is contemptuous and has no place in scientific discussion. If there is something wrong with the science of the rebuttal, then I would accept clarification or a rational argument that would refute the science. However, even though I have provided several rational arguments, not one was properly addressed (nor refuted) and instead, the intentions behind the rebuttal were attacked.

Lastly, to avoid being extremely dry, and to get people to actually read these comments, it is sometimes necessary to include humor (asking if sudden acceleration came from sneezing) to modern cultural references (Mythbusters) into the discussion. After all, the comment section is not a scientific journal and a general public forum for which the same standards as the primary literature are not always applied.

I once used the exact opposite argument at a light, also with success. I ran an "orange" light, (with maybe a tint more red than yellow in it :)), and got pulled over.

My defense was I couldn't have safely stopped at the speed I was going.

The lights down the street are "synchronized" for driving at 90 km/h and the speed limit was 60 km/h. However, everybody knows that the lights require you to do 90 km/h down that particular road to clear them in one shot - so everybody does 90 km/h, and the speed limit isn't ever enforced. I wasn't really concentrating, so did maybe around 80 or 85 that night, so I caught most of the initial lights as green, then started to catch a few yellows and then the "orange".

So after I got pulled over for running the red, I mentioned to the officer that I didn't think I would have been able to safely stop in time. The officer argued "You would have been able to stop unless you were speeding, which I don't think you were, where you?".

So I went back the next day, and timed the light synchronization (and also how long it stays at yellow) with a stop watch, and showed I wouldn't have been able to clear the previous set of lights if I WASN'T doing 85, and that I would have ended up in the middle of the intersection if I stopped at 85 the moment I saw yellow (adding 1 second for response time).

Since the officer in the meeting with the prosecuter/magistrate/judge (I have no idea who that was... some person who works in the police station :) ) said he saw me clear the previous lights fine, I got off free. (With a tongue-in-cheek warning not to speed anymore...)

Got to love Africa :).

Few police departments require any college at all much less a degree that requires any math or science. I would bet you could get a job in some areas without a high school diploma.

My husband received a ticket last November where the officer said he had followed us for more than two miles (he named the intersection where he first saw us, I measured) on two different streets and had to drive 52 mph to catch up to us. The first street has a 40mph limit (3/4 mile) and the second has a 45mph limit (remaining distance). He claimed that since he had to go that fast to catch up to us, he can't imagine how fast we were going and put on the ticket that we were going 52mph. Made no sense, but since my husband was going overseas (non-military) the following week, he completed a class on line and paid the fine. Now, I suppose I could break out my old algebra books and find the formula to calculate our speed, but if he had a top speed of 52, then we couldn't have been going a significant amount above the speed limit.

WHOLLY CRAP, it JUST occurred to me that in our state you don't pay a fine for 6mph or less over the limit and THAT's where the 52 MPH came from - 51 MPH or under would not have garnered a fine. Son of a bitch!

Yeah, might be useful if they respond to Neighborhood Watch alerts with a little more alacrity...

Gee... apparently breaking traffic laws and getting caught is now considered getting "screwed over"

If you can't follow the rules of the road. You shouldn't be on the f-ing road.

I don't want my life in danger because you feel you have the selfish right to drive like a jacka$$

Obviously you have not had much experience with LEOs. Even when I have needed their help and call,ed they screwed me over.

I am sure there are good LEOs, I've just never met one and would believe this explanation before I gave your statement any credence.

Restricting speed is supposed to decrease accident rates by increasing reaction time. A more important factor, however, is the competence of the driver. I know some excellent drivers that speed all the time, and I know some horrible drivers that never speed. It seems that the speed limit is set to accommodate the poorest drivers. It's obviously useless to delegate speed controls to the driver's discretion since there are so many people lacking common sense in this country. Personally, I wish there was more laxity with speeding and harsher punishments when speeding actually does cause an accident...punish the bad drivers, not the speeders. Incidentally, many roads are actually designed to safely handle traffic 15 mph higher than the posted speed limit.

I find that speeders, along with other types of aggressive drivers often don't notice the accommodations that other drivers make for them. These types of driving behavior require extra attention from others on the road, leaving less room for attention to other traffic obstacles. They're generally unaware of their own existence as a road hazard to other drivers, and instead tend to feel that the other drivers are the problem.

I also find that those with plenty of time to reach their destination tend to have much more patience on the road. If you leave on time, there's no need to speed. People who speed outside of the adolescent/emerging adult-superman thrill-seeking phase tend to have other issues going on in their lives that cause them to dehumanize other drivers and minimize the enormous responsibility of pummeling hundreds of pounds of metal down the road: other drivers become simply cars blocking their way, instead of real people with lives of value.

Mostly this is city/county figures its not worth the legal costs even if they win. A good lawyer can use all the governments own regulations against them to cause them incur costs for lots of paper. But the city wins in the long run because many innocent people pay the fine because it is cheaper than paying the costs to win