Great sense of humor. With all the due respect that the ex CJ of the Australian High Court is entitled to, we are NOT in agreement with the statement made (at 06:54) that “the speed at the top of a SPINNING wheel purported to be twice the speed of the wheel in the middle” is PERTINENT to the calculation of the SPEED measured by a radar gun pointed at the entire mass (i.e. front wheel + chassis + rear wheel + rider) of a motorcycle traveling in a straight line. Any qualified radar technician would be more than happy to inform lawyers who are NOT technically-minded that the calculation of the SPEED at which a moving object is traveling in a straight line is based on the distance traveled by the said moving object (which distance is calculated by subtracting the shorter distance of the moving object from the radar gun as detected by the 2nd beam from the longer distance of the moving object as detected by the 1st beam). This calculation is done over a preset time lapse in a fraction of a second between the two beams. This preset time lapse is programmed into the radar gun during its calibration (accuracy is 100% as far as precision is concerned). If D = S x T, Speed (S) is = to D divided by T. Any automotive engineer would be more than happy, also, to inform lawyers who are NOT technically-minded that the distance traveled by the outer circumference (C = pi x D) of a wheel (i.e. rim + tire) when in contact with the bitumen of the road, is proportionate to the diameter of the said wheel. This is why when a factory fitted smaller wheel (e.g. a 15” diameter wheel) is replaced post purchase with a larger wheel (e.g. a 17” diameter wheel) WITHOUT re-calibration of the vehicle's speedometer, the reading displayed on the vehicle’s speedometer would be incorrect (albeit minimally - but never shows twice the real speed of the vehicle).
The diameter of a circle (or a wheel) is known to be twice the length of its radius. When a wheel spins around the hub on which it is mounted, and which hub is at the epi center of the wheel - i.e. in the middle of it - the hub doesn’t only spin but also moves together with the entire mass of the motorcycle. Also, the speed of the spinning hub moving in lateral motion together with the entire mass of the motorcycle certainly is not (invariably) half the speed at the top of the wheel as is purported to be the case.
Give us all a break. This guy has been living in a dream world if he thinks that things were difficult financially e.g. his statement "the salary was pretty ordinary" when he was on a judge's salary and had a few children and a part time working wife. It shows just how out of touch with reality he has been for so many years despite his comparative massive income compared to those on lower wages or the ordinary wage and supporting children.
The documentation that the CJ has read about “Two moving objects in the same beam could produce confusing results” is clearly misinterpreted. What was meant in that literature was: “two SEPARATE moving objects in the form of TWO INDIVIDUAL MOVING OBJECT MASSES” that are present in the same field of a radar beam could produce confusing results. It certainly DID NOT mean two separate moving “objects” within the ONE SAME OBJECT MASS. It is factual that a larger moving object like e.g. a truck, bus or van that happens to be present in the same field as that of the desired target (car or motor bike) when a radar beam is pointed at the target, would produce an inaccurate reading. This is a clear indication that the chances of Australian people having justice done by an Australian court of law are very slim on account of the judiciary (even at High Court level) being so totally out of touch with modern technology.
Rachel Mc Kenzie- Just shows you have lawyers present issues with no real deep understanding of the concepts involved and no care about the real justice of the outcome. It's just a farce and an insult to the wider community that these people are wiling to do so without conscience.
Great sense of humor. With all the due respect that the ex CJ of the Australian High Court is entitled to, we are NOT in agreement with the statement made (at 06:54) that “the speed at the top of a SPINNING wheel purported to be twice the speed of the wheel in the middle” is PERTINENT to the calculation of the SPEED measured by a radar gun pointed at the entire mass (i.e. front wheel + chassis + rear wheel + rider) of a motorcycle traveling in a straight line. Any qualified radar technician would be more than happy to inform lawyers who are NOT technically-minded that the calculation of the SPEED at which a moving object is traveling in a straight line is based on the distance traveled by the said moving object (which distance is calculated by subtracting the shorter distance of the moving object from the radar gun as detected by the 2nd beam from the longer distance of the moving object as detected by the 1st beam). This calculation is done over a preset time lapse in a fraction of a second between the two beams. This preset time lapse is programmed into the radar gun during its calibration (accuracy is 100% as far as precision is concerned). If D = S x T, Speed (S) is = to D divided by T. Any automotive engineer would be more than happy, also, to inform lawyers who are NOT technically-minded that the distance traveled by the outer circumference (C = pi x D) of a wheel (i.e. rim + tire) when in contact with the bitumen of the road, is proportionate to the diameter of the said wheel. This is why when a factory fitted smaller wheel (e.g. a 15” diameter wheel) is replaced post purchase with a larger wheel (e.g. a 17” diameter wheel) WITHOUT re-calibration of the vehicle's speedometer, the reading displayed on the vehicle’s speedometer would be incorrect (albeit minimally - but never shows twice the real speed of the vehicle).
The diameter of a circle (or a wheel) is known to be twice the length of its radius. When a wheel spins around the hub on which it is mounted, and which hub is at the epi center of the wheel - i.e. in the middle of it - the hub doesn’t only spin but also moves together with the entire mass of the motorcycle. Also, the speed of the spinning hub moving in lateral motion together with the entire mass of the motorcycle certainly is not (invariably) half the speed at the top of the wheel as is purported to be the case.
Give us all a break. This guy has been living in a dream world if he thinks that things were difficult financially e.g. his statement "the salary was pretty ordinary" when he was on a judge's salary and had a few children and a part time working wife. It shows just how out of touch with reality he has been for so many years despite his comparative massive income compared to those on lower wages or the ordinary wage and supporting children.
The documentation that the CJ has read about “Two moving objects in the same beam could produce confusing results” is clearly misinterpreted. What was meant in that literature was: “two SEPARATE moving objects in the form of TWO INDIVIDUAL MOVING OBJECT MASSES” that are present in the same field of a radar beam could produce confusing results. It certainly DID NOT mean two separate moving “objects” within the ONE SAME OBJECT MASS. It is factual that a larger moving object like e.g. a truck, bus or van that happens to be present in the same field as that of the desired target (car or motor bike) when a radar beam is pointed at the target, would produce an inaccurate reading. This is a clear indication that the chances of Australian people having justice done by an Australian court of law are very slim on account of the judiciary (even at High Court level) being so totally out of touch with modern technology.
Rachel Mc Kenzie- Just shows you have lawyers present issues with no real deep understanding of the concepts involved and no care about the real justice of the outcome. It's just a farce and an insult to the wider community that these people are wiling to do so without conscience.