 |
| Photo by Tripp. |
Rather than pay the $400 fine, Krioukov decided to put his skills to use and wrote a paper explaining his theory. The four-page paper, titled "The Proof of Innocence" is posted online.
- Krioukov claims that his car might have appeared to have not stopped at the stop sign, proved three conditions are true. What are these three conditions?
- Krioukov frequently uses the term "angular speed." What does he mean by this, and how is it related to linear speed?
- News articles about the issue have been posted by the Los Angeles Times and (a different version) by Fox News. Read about the situation and comment on whether or not, in your opinion, Krioukov should have to pay the $400 fine.
I dont think that he should have to pay the $400 fine. He obviously proved the physics behind it. If the judge thought that he shouldnt of had to pay it then neither do I.
ReplyDelete1)
ReplyDelete*"The ovserver needs to measure the angular speed of the car.
*The car decelerates and accelerates relativly fast.
*There is a short time obstruction of the observer's view of the car by an external object...(another car) at the moment when both cars are near the stop sign."
1. Brief obstruction of view, constant linear acceleration and deceleration, and constant linear speed.
ReplyDelete2.Angular speed, also called rotational speed, is a quantitative expression of the amount of rotation that a spinning object undergoes in a certain amount of time. Angular Speed is a vector quantity, it has 2 components,one speed component and direction.
Since Lil Wayne and Ness answered number one and two, I will add onto number 3. I agree with Liv. He shouldn't have to pay the $400 fine because he obviously backed up his reasoning with graphs and logical equations. He made it clear to the judge and the officer that it may have looked like he didn't stop, however scientifically, he did. He did a very good job backing up his situation, even without a lawyer. Overall, he shouldn't have to pay the $400 fine.
ReplyDelete-Hannah Zwiernik
I agree, he backed himself up very well, he put in the time and effort to show his innocence.
Delete(1) the observer measures not the linear but angular speed
ReplyDeleteof the car
(2) the car decelerates and subsequently accelerates relatively fast
(3) there is a short-time obstruction of the observer's view of the car by an external object
-------------------------------------
Angular Speed is the rate of rotation an object undergoes in an amount of time.
-------------------------------------
I agree that Krioukov shouldn't of had to pay the $400 dollar ticket. He obviously convinced the judge and the police officer that accused him of not stopping that he did infact stop. The police officer just did not have a good view on the stop itself.
1. According to the article, the car could have appeared to not stop if these three conditions are true:
ReplyDelete(1) the observer measures not the linear but angular speed
of the car; (2) the car decelerates and subsequently accelerates relatively fast; and (3) there is a
short-time obstruction of the observer's view of the car by an external object, e.g., another car, at
the moment when both cars are near the stop sign.
3. I don't think Krioukov should have to pay the $400 fine because he proved to everyone that he did actually stop at the stop sign.
ilovesports,
ReplyDeleteDid he prove that "he did actually stop at the stop sign," or did he prove that it is physically possible that he stopped and that the officer might have not been able to see him stop?
He proved that he could've stopped at the stop sign when actually he probably didn't stop and ran through the stop sign.
DeleteInitially, I was agreeing with Hannah's statement when she said that the man did stop and shouldn't have to pay the fine. Now that I rethink it and read some of the other comments again, it is very possible that the man was able to stop, but didn't; and that the police officer might not have been able to see him stop if he did, so the officer wouldn't have known the difference if he did actually stop or not.
DeleteHe did back up everything with physics showing how the police officer was wrong for issuing the ticket., that possibly he did stop. But hat I am confused about is how can people be sure that he did? When fighting the ticket, even though it has been proven that the police officer isnt 100% accurate, how do we know that he did actually stop. I feel like he should have to pay the fine.
ReplyDeleteHALIE FOULKS
I disagree that he should have to pay the fine. If he is willing to go to all that trouble and formulate a rather sound theory, as in it is well supported. Then he should be let off the ticket. I especially liked his point on how angular speed will affect how one perceives
ReplyDeletei think that he should not have to pay the fine. physics proved that he did stop and then go at the stop sign so he should not get a ticket for not stopping at a stop sign.
ReplyDeletemason smeznik
I think that Dmitri Krioukov deserves the ticket. I think that even though he proves the physics behind it, he did not actually prove that he stopped. He gives a lot of time and effort to get out of the ticket, but i believe he is just trying to get out of the $400 fine.
ReplyDeleteAlso...the three conditions are.. that the police officer would need to measure the angular speed of the car, the car slows down but accelerates relatively fast, and there could have been an obstruction by another car when stopping:)
i agree with baberuth17 about the three conditions being that the police would need to measure the angular speed of the car, the car slows down but accelerates quickly and there could have been an accident cause of him not making a complete stop.
ReplyDeletemason smeznik
I think that he proved that someone could in fact stop at a stop sign and to a police officer at the right angle it could appear that he did not stop. However I don't think he ever actually proved that he himself did stop. I am torn because he went through a lot of work to prove that someone could stop and a police officer would not see it, which makes me think he doesn't deserve the ticket. Although he never proved anything about his particular case... So I think he deserves the ticket.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. The three condtions that must be true are the observer measures not the linear but angular speed of the car, the car decelerates and subsequently accelerates fast, there is a short time of obstructive of the obsever's view of the car by an external object, e.g., at the moment when both cars are near the spotlight.
ReplyDelete2. Angular velocity is the rate of change of angluar displacemetn with respect to time.
3. I agree with Hannah and Liv that he shouldn't have to pay the $400 fine. He shouldn't have to pay the fine because he obviously felt that he was wrongly accused of not stopping. Also he went to the great extent of using graphs and equations to prove he is right.
Thanks for the comments this week!
ReplyDelete