Sounds more like technobabble. That "freak combination of events" it took for the defense to work probably involved a judge with a hangover and a cop not showing up for court. Because unless a car has spinners and bald tires, it's easy to account for relative motion when determining if it's fully stopped by the wheels. That's why cops flipped out about spinning rims in a lot of states a few years ago.
Yeah, read that, doesn't add up. He's only demonstrating a 30 inch margin of obstruction, in which he claims he decelerated, stopped for the required traffic check, and resumed speed, in a car with awful braking distance and mediocre acceleration for its weight. Remembering that by his own claim the other vehicle was already moving when he entered the obstructed range. He accounts for the obstructing vehicle being stationary, and it still only gives him a fraction of a second's window in his graphs, a fraction of a second in which he comes to a full stop from speed, maintains a stopped position for several times the duration of the window, and then resumes speed.
If the officer was where he claims he was - in line of sight along the left side of the road even with the stop sign, then his car was literally parked on somebody's lawn or a sidewalk and facing the wrong way, and the actual likely position of the cop car, two car widths to the right, creates a much different view of things, where his car would leave the zone of obstructed view before it's required to come to a full stop, reducing his already fractional second window to zero. If his story is taken at face value, the front of the car would be visible to the officer. If you remember the fact that he forgets two paragraphs in, that the larger car was accelerating away from the stop, then his car would be visible behind it while it leaves if he slowed, even without coming to a full stop, remaining obstructed would require him to maintain speed.
The only explanation that adds up is that he came up in the second lane, saw another car going the same direction had already established right of way, and took advantage of the fact that his lane would also remain clear because of the car already entering the intersection. Not a particularly uncommon maneuver, and actually quite safe in this configuration as the car next to you bears the highest risk and the hypothetical third car would be at fault in a collision, but still illegal.
Finally got a chance to read the analysis and... I don't buy it.
In his defence he claims the Yaris was blocked by the Outback but in reality the Outback isn't a very large or a very high car at all, while the Yaris is short but has a very distinct side profile.
Yes the Outback is a bit higher than perhaps some passenger cars but does not obstruct in a way a Murano or a Audi Q series (SUVs) would.
Unless the Outback's windows were close to 100% tinted the Yaris's hatchback shape would stick out like a sore thumb through it. Last I checked the Outback is a wagon-like vehicle with a lot of window area so looking through the car wouldn't be a problem at all.
Infact it is IMO a crucial driving skill to observe objects on the road not by their immediate appearance but to try and see through or around them to judge actual traffic conditions. It's the reason why very dark windows are illegal in certain countries (though I'm not sure for the writer's state.)
I would think that as a seasoned traffic officer, the policeman would have a superior judgment in this instance and there could have been no scientific way for the PD to argue back about the 'instinct' involved during traffic observations.
So IMHO this case was won by virtue of out-confusing whoever was the judge. A fun read nonetheless, but its a defence I would throw out if I ever encountered such in my day job.
As for the comment that a Yaris shouldn't be able to brake and accelerate so rapidly as to hide behind a Outback... maybe he was the kind to drive small cars with a iron foot. You know, max acceleration and max braking at all times. I do that for small cars and motorcycles and some of them can be surprisingly quick LOL.
Surprisingly quick, yes, but his window, by his claim, is 0.4 seconds to stop, 0.4 to accelerate, and that leaves 0.0 of actual stop. That's preternaturally fast, not to mention still technically a rolling stop and illegal.
Also, on the obstruction note, something I didn't consider in my other post, Outbacks are also quite open - the last several models have had windows almost to the rear post. There's a useful trick to seeing the situation around you on the road: Aside from some vans and commercial vehicles, most cars have huge gaping holes you can see through. Tinted windows will only really hide the unlit interior, sunlit objects on the other side of the car are at least visible in outline.
So instinct shouldn't even have been at play here - the officer could have clearly seen the roof of the car through the windows from his supposed location. But I stand by the fact that he didn't need to - the location in the charts doesn't make sense, and the likely correct location paints a very different picture.
That reminds me of a comic strip where the characters tried to talk their way out of a ticket for running a red light by claiming that relativistic blueshift had made it appear green to them. The cop ended up busting them for going 400 million miles per hour over the speed limit.
That reminds me of a comic strip where the characters tried to talk their way out of a ticket for running a red light by claiming that relativistic blueshift had made it appear green to them. The cop ended up busting them for going 400 million miles per hour over the speed limit.
Comments
Full paper can be found at the second source link, or right here.
If the officer was where he claims he was - in line of sight along the left side of the road even with the stop sign, then his car was literally parked on somebody's lawn or a sidewalk and facing the wrong way, and the actual likely position of the cop car, two car widths to the right, creates a much different view of things, where his car would leave the zone of obstructed view before it's required to come to a full stop, reducing his already fractional second window to zero. If his story is taken at face value, the front of the car would be visible to the officer. If you remember the fact that he forgets two paragraphs in, that the larger car was accelerating away from the stop, then his car would be visible behind it while it leaves if he slowed, even without coming to a full stop, remaining obstructed would require him to maintain speed.
The only explanation that adds up is that he came up in the second lane, saw another car going the same direction had already established right of way, and took advantage of the fact that his lane would also remain clear because of the car already entering the intersection. Not a particularly uncommon maneuver, and actually quite safe in this configuration as the car next to you bears the highest risk and the hypothetical third car would be at fault in a collision, but still illegal.
In his defence he claims the Yaris was blocked by the Outback but in reality the Outback isn't a very large or a very high car at all, while the Yaris is short but has a very distinct side profile.
Yes the Outback is a bit higher than perhaps some passenger cars but does not obstruct in a way a Murano or a Audi Q series (SUVs) would.
Unless the Outback's windows were close to 100% tinted the Yaris's hatchback shape would stick out like a sore thumb through it. Last I checked the Outback is a wagon-like vehicle with a lot of window area so looking through the car wouldn't be a problem at all.
Infact it is IMO a crucial driving skill to observe objects on the road not by their immediate appearance but to try and see through or around them to judge actual traffic conditions. It's the reason why very dark windows are illegal in certain countries (though I'm not sure for the writer's state.)
I would think that as a seasoned traffic officer, the policeman would have a superior judgment in this instance and there could have been no scientific way for the PD to argue back about the 'instinct' involved during traffic observations.
So IMHO this case was won by virtue of out-confusing whoever was the judge. A fun read nonetheless, but its a defence I would throw out if I ever encountered such in my day job.
As for the comment that a Yaris shouldn't be able to brake and accelerate so rapidly as to hide behind a Outback... maybe he was the kind to drive small cars with a iron foot. You know, max acceleration and max braking at all times. I do that for small cars and motorcycles and some of them can be surprisingly quick LOL.
Also, on the obstruction note, something I didn't consider in my other post, Outbacks are also quite open - the last several models have had windows almost to the rear post. There's a useful trick to seeing the situation around you on the road: Aside from some vans and commercial vehicles, most cars have huge gaping holes you can see through. Tinted windows will only really hide the unlit interior, sunlit objects on the other side of the car are at least visible in outline.
So instinct shouldn't even have been at play here - the officer could have clearly seen the roof of the car through the windows from his supposed location. But I stand by the fact that he didn't need to - the location in the charts doesn't make sense, and the likely correct location paints a very different picture.
Link: http://galactanet.com/comic/view.php?strip=39
Lol that is cute