Italian judge rewrites kynematics?
Risottia
23-12-2008, 11:03
Wow. This was a case of speeding, verified by an automaton measuring the average speed of a car over a track of motorway. The so-called "tutor" measures takes the time of passage of the car on point A, then the time of passage of the car on point B some 20 km away, and calculates average speed.
The fine for speeding was invalidated by a judge. The motivation, though, is quite strange.
http://quotidianonet.ilsole24ore.com/2008/12/22/140462-giudice_multa_tutor_annullata.shtml (I found linkies in italian only)
"Il Giudice di Pace - continua Telefono Blu - ha affermato che qualora la violazione venga accertata mediante calcolo della velocità media e venga applicata tout court la sola riduzione del 5%, non vi è certezza dell’esatto superamento della velocità massima consentita e, pertanto, in tale situazione la contestazione effettuata è dubbia. Di conseguenza il verbale deve essere annullato."
translation: "the Giudice di Pace (a judge competent for minor questions) - says Telefono Blu (consumers' association) - said that, whenever the violation (of the Road Code) is ascertained through calculation of average speed, and only a 5% reduction is applied (that is, 5% tolerance for system errors), there is no certainity of the exact violation of the maximum speed limit, and because of that, in such situation the validity of the fine is dubious. Hence the violation report has to be invalidated."
To sum it up: the judge says that it could be possible for a car to run 200 km in 1 hour (give or take 5% of an hour, that is 3 minutes) without ever going faster than 130 km/h.
WTF. :p
A distance of 20 km from point A to point B? That's ridiculous...
They should use something smaller, like 20 meters!
Risottia
23-12-2008, 11:22
A distance of 20 km from point A to point B? That's ridiculous...
They should use something smaller, like 20 meters!
Actually no. This is done because if you measure on 20 m only, people could slow down in the 20 m where the measurement is taken, then resume speeding again. If you measure over long distances, people are forced to refrain from speeding over long distances.
Actually no. This is done because if you measure on 20 m only, people could slow down in the 20 m where the measurement is taken, then resume speeding again. If you measure over long distances, people are forced to refrain from speeding over long distances.
Don't inform people of how far the regulated distance is, problem solved.
Barringtonia
23-12-2008, 11:28
It's hard to decipher the meaning so I put this forward as a question, are there varying levels of fines for speeding dependent on how far over the limit you go?
In that case, I'd suggest his point is that one cannot know by how much the defendant broke the speed limit and therefore it's impossible to place a fine.
Where it's a shorter distance between A & B, one can be reasonably sure of the average speed, over 20km, the variance is too great.
That would be my guess given the limited information.
Risottia
23-12-2008, 11:29
Don't inform people of how far the regulated distance is, problem solved.
Eh... you underestimate the power of that nasty information spreader, the Internet. You place a hidden "autovelox" (instant speed measurement system) or a "tutor", within 6 hours most GPS navigators will report its position.
Risottia
23-12-2008, 11:32
It's hard to decipher the meaning so I put this forward as a question, are there varying levels of fines for speeding dependent on how far over the limit you go?
In that case, I'd suggest his point is that one cannot know by how much the defendant broke the speed limit and therefore it's impossible to place a fine.
Could be the case. Different fines for different amounts of speeding, though some different regulation are applied for automatized traffic surveillance.
Anyway, you know that he was AT LEAST speeding for the minimum amount of speeding.
Where it's a shorter distance between A & B, one can be reasonably sure of the average speed, over 20km, the variance is too great.
Hm? No, actually the longer is the distance the more accurate is the measurement of average speed (which is defined as the distance/time interval ratio... not the average of various measurement of the instant speed).
Barringtonia
23-12-2008, 11:37
Could be the case. Different fines for different amounts of speeding, though some different regulation are applied for automatized traffic surveillance.
Anyway, you know that he was AT LEAST speeding for the minimum amount of speeding.
Yes, but the law can be funny like that in that one can't assume these things. It would be unequal application if one assumed the least speeding.
Hm? No, actually the longer is the distance the more accurate is the measurement of average speed (which is defined as the distance/time interval ratio... not the average of various measurement of the instant speed).
I'm not sure, anyway, it can't tell whether someone sat within the speed limit for 15km and then went nuts for 5km or whether they were a little over the speed limit all the way.
This all depends on whether there's varying fines.
Christmahanikwanzikah
23-12-2008, 11:38
If you sped along at an average of 70 miles per hour, you'd travel the distance at around 51 seconds. However, if you waited for 30 seconds, then accelerated at a constant rate to a top speed of 240 mph, you'd reach the end in exactly 60 seconds. I think this is what is being stated here...
In your example (Not exceeding 130 km/hr over a 200km stretch), if one stopped for a period of time, and then continued at a speed over the limit, then they would be perfectly "legal." Thus, it's hard to know exactly at what rate the offender broke the law, even in the absurd case that people stop to purposely avoid traffic tickets.
Risottia
23-12-2008, 11:39
Yes, but the law can be funny like that in that one can't assume these things. It would be unequal application if one assumed the least speeding.
I can see your point... still I think it's somewhat... uhh... devious... are you perchance a lawyer?:D
Barringtonia
23-12-2008, 11:42
I can see your point... still I think it's somewhat... uhh... devious... are you perchance a lawyer?:D
No, a speeder :)
Cabra West
23-12-2008, 11:52
Italian judge...
It think there's your problem right there....
Risottia
23-12-2008, 12:00
No, a speeder :)
Well, I assume that you'll be spending your next holidays in Italy... the country of no speeding tickets! ;)
Risottia
23-12-2008, 12:01
It think there's your problem right there....
It could be. And maybe the judge even voted Berlusconi...
Vault 10
23-12-2008, 12:05
The judge is completely right. If you haven't explicitly caught the driver in the process of speeding, you have to assume he wasn't. There's a myriad of ways how a car could have ended up in point B.
The judge is completely right. If you haven't explicitly caught the driver in the process of speeding, you have to assume he wasn't. There's a myriad of ways how a car could have ended up in point B.Intact?
Cabra West
23-12-2008, 12:08
The judge is completely right. If you haven't explicitly caught the driver in the process of speeding, you have to assume he wasn't. There's a myriad of ways how a car could have ended up in point B.
Hurricane? Earthquake in combination with a rift and shift of the surface in question?
Not all that many, really, especially if we're talking about a straight line on an autostrada...
Hurricane? Earthquake in combination with a rift and shift of the surface in question?
Not all that many, really, especially if we're talking about a straight line on an autostrada...
You forgot teleportation.
You forgot teleportation.
Along with "Picked up by Godzilla and set down 200 m further down the road". For good reason, I imagine.
Along with "Picked up by Godzilla and set down 200 m further down the road". For good reason, I imagine.
Don't you watch TV?! its totally possible man!
Vault 10
23-12-2008, 13:34
Intact?
Yes.
Pick it up with a Hind and you get all 300 km/h.