Photo-ticket for not coming to full stop
in [Drive]
|
From: Larrybud on 6 May 2010 06:50 gpsman <gpsman(a)driversmail.com> wrote in news:91823a78-bc2d-4a14-84db-aa98d8e56bd4 @g21g2000yqk.googlegroups. com: > On May 4, 11:48�am, Larrybud <larrybud2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote in >> news:65554ff7-5fe7-45ca-ad5a-c43beda46063@ >> 11g2000yqr.googlegroups.c >> om: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Apr 26, 11:52�am, Larrybud <larrybud2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote in >> >> news:2ae0ea3d-e0f4-4a62-8c08-f1c902a17b09 >> >> @f13g2000vbl.googlegroups. >> >> com: >> >> >> > On Apr 12, 7:33 am, Charles Packer <mail...(a)cpacker.org> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> On Apr 12, 12:10 am, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > I'd like to see those pictures. >> >> >> >> Done: >> >> >> > Thanks. >> >> >> >>http://cpacker.org/a1.jpg >> >> >> >>http://cpacker.org/a2.jpg >> >> >> >> In the first pic, she isn't past the white line. >> >> >> Why did the camera trigger at that time? >> >> >> > Because her speed was detected as 11 mph at the stop bar. >> >> >> > The evidence suggests not only the absence of a stop, but >> >> > any intent to stop, or to even slow to a sufficient degree >> >> > to comply with the most liberal spirit of the law defining >> >> > a stop. >> >> >> So let's do a little math. �11 mph is 16 feet per second. >> >> > Let's call it arithmetic. >> >> >> The two photos are taken 2.47 seconds apart (note the time >> >> for the "RED1", "Red2" etc). � �The car has travelled, what, >> >> maybe 12-15 feet in that time, when in fact, it SHOULD have >> >> gone about 38 feet at 11mph between those two photos. >> >> >> So what's wrong with this "picture"?? >> >> > You're not in it with a tape measure? >> >> > It looks like a Subaru Outback or similar size vehicle to me. >> > The length of the 2010 Outback is 15.68 ft. >> > http://www.cars101.com/subaru/outback/outback2010.html#dimensio >> >n >> s >> >> > It appears to me the front bumper is roughly 2 vehicle >> > lengths ahead in picture 594D. >> >> >> So the "evidence", as you like to call it, >> >> > The "evidence" suggests we are missing 2 pictures; 594B and >> > C. >> >> B and C were the license plate photos. > > Got any "proof"? > >> >> not only shows that the >> >> speed is wrong, but because of that, the conclusion is >> >> wrong. >> >> > Wrong. �Assumes constant velocity when in 594A the brake >> > lights are clearly lit. >> >> By defintion, velocity IS constant at a single point in time. > > Fascinating, but irrelevant. You're measuring velocity over > 2.47 seconds in fps yourself, Einstein. > >> > There is no escaping the fact that in 594A at R1 a velocity >> > of 16 fps is a failure to stop. >> >> And you have no proof that the vehicle didn't come to a stop. � >> That's the bottom line. > > I have "evidence", you have -none- beyond your ability to > imagine it, ridiculously. Only fools bandy about the term > "proof". > > You seem to be dancing around dying to say the vehicle must have > stopped because in neither photo is it moving. > > At the stop bar. where velocity is required by law to be 0, it > is instead indicated as 11 mph. Which I'm saying is inaccurate as demonstrated by the amount of time taken between the two photos. duh.
From: gpsman on 6 May 2010 09:40 On May 6, 6:50 am, Larrybud <larrybud2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote > > > At the stop bar. where velocity is required by law to be 0, it > > is instead indicated as 11 mph. > > Which I'm saying is inaccurate as demonstrated by the amount of > time taken between the two photos. duh. Duh? Where's your "proof" and my license plate photos? ----- - gpsman
From: Larrybud on 6 May 2010 10:54 gpsman <gpsman(a)driversmail.com> wrote in news:dbcfb441-1e41-4138- 8b37-349cc9ea96a4(a)k19g2000yqm.googlegroups.com: > On May 6, 6:50�am, Larrybud <larrybud2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote >> >> > At the stop bar. where velocity is required by law to be 0, it >> > is instead indicated as 11 mph. >> >> Which I'm saying is inaccurate as demonstrated by the amount of >> time taken between the two photos. �duh. > > Duh? > > Where's your "proof" and my license plate photos? My proof is common sense. Look at the original images that the OP posted. I'm not your image keeper.
From: gpsman on 6 May 2010 11:24 On May 6, 10:54 am, Larrybud <larrybud2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote in news:dbcfb441-1e41-4138- > 8b37-349cc9ea9...(a)k19g2000yqm.googlegroups.com: > > > On May 6, 6:50 am, Larrybud <larrybud2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote > > >> > At the stop bar. where velocity is required by law to be 0, it > >> > is instead indicated as 11 mph. > > >> Which I'm saying is inaccurate as demonstrated by the amount of > >> time taken between the two photos. duh. > > > Duh? > > > Where's your "proof" and my license plate photos? > > My proof is common sense. Then so is mine. > Look at the original images that the OP posted. You've declared their data false. By virtue of "common sense" you accept the timing data that supports your assertion and toss out the speed data that refutes it. > I'm not your image > keeper. You described their content. Show your "proofs" or shut up. ----- - gpsman
From: Larrybud on 6 May 2010 11:38
gpsman <gpsman(a)driversmail.com> wrote in news:d72968c5-9e89-4a6a-83d9-8ede36f56a73(a)40g2000vbr.googlegroups.c om: > On May 6, 10:54�am, Larrybud <larrybud2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote in >> news:dbcfb441-1e41-4138- >> 8b37-349cc9ea9...(a)k19g2000yqm.googlegroups.com: >> >> > On May 6, 6:50�am, Larrybud <larrybud2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote >> >> >> > At the stop bar. where velocity is required by law to be >> >> > 0, it is instead indicated as 11 mph. >> >> >> Which I'm saying is inaccurate as demonstrated by the amount >> >> of time taken between the two photos. �duh. >> >> > Duh? >> >> > Where's your "proof" and my license plate photos? >> >> My proof is common sense. > > Then so is mine. I have a better track record than your r.a.d. rantings. |