WongBo
WongBo
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 2126
Joined: Feb 3, 2012
April 18th, 2012 at 8:54:23 AM permalink
Read the article here


Read the proof here
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief. - Proverb.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
April 18th, 2012 at 9:35:07 AM permalink
Great paper, but one big flaw in the logic:
He slammed on the breaks when he sneezed, decelerating at roughly 10m/s^2. His argument relies on the fact that the only way the officer makes the cited mistake is if he also peeled out after the stop, accelerating at the same 10m/s^2 or similar.

If you're a Toyota Yaris-driving physics professor, and you've just sneezed and slammed on the breaks at a stopsign, do you then burn rubber afterwards? 10 m/s^2 is, as he said, 22.36 mph/s, and the Yaris is a 105hp engine. Can the Yaris even accelerate that fast? 0-22 in one second?

It sounds like he's admitting to reckless driving in an attempt to get out of a speeding ticket...
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
konceptum
konceptum
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 790
Joined: Mar 25, 2010
April 18th, 2012 at 9:38:43 AM permalink
For me, I would think the simple fact that there was an obscuring vehicle should be enough to get out of the ticket. He states that there is a vehicle between him and the police officer, and that even though that vehicle was there for only a short period of time, it just happened to be during the time that he came to the stop. But, regardless of how all of that sounds, if there is an intervening object between the police officer and his observance of what your vehicle did or didn't do, then that seems like it should be enough to throw out the ticket.
  • Jump to: