strange question about 1999 Taurus Wagon

[RyanF]

I REALLY need to find out how many metres it takes for a 1999 Taurus Wagon to accelerate from 0-70km/h.

The Reason: I just got a speeding ticket for going 70km/h in a 50 zone. Not only was I not doing this speed, I believe it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for me to be doing this speed based on the circumstances.

The Circumstances: 1) I started from a light at which I was stopped. 2) This light was just over 300 metres from the location of the cop. 3) He told me he got me going 70km/h at 168metres from his location . . . leaving only about 132metres from where I started for me to have reached 70km/h. 4) In three separate tests I have been unable to accelerate from 0-70km/h (with my foot to the floor from the start) on dry roads in under 195 metres. 5) The roads were snowy, which means it would have taken longer and further than usual to achieve any particular velocity.

The Problems: The problems with all this are 1) I don't have any official documentation to prove the acceleration capabilities of a 99 Taurus Wagon since Ford claims they have no reason to carry this information. 2) While I have found out on this site that the Taurus Wagon requires 10.6 seconds to go from 0-100km/h (and therefore presumably 7.42 seconds to go from 0-70km/h), I receive unrealistically low distance in metres when I use these numbers in a mathematical equation to determine how many metres it would take to reach 70km/h from a standing start since the equation does not take into account friction or the weight of the vehicle as well as wind resistance I would guess (the equation gave approximately 70 metres needed to reach 70km/h which is just completely wrong).

If anybody has this info for some strange reason . . . and even better if they have an official source for it (even how many metres to go 0-60km/h or even what speed a taurus wagon would reach at the quarter mile [400m] mark if one assumes a constant rate of acceleration) it would be much appreciated.

thanks in advance.

RyanF

[woohoo!]

Hmm... I don't have any stats, but if your Taurus runs 0-100 km/h in 10.6, I would assume the quarter-mile would take 17-18 seconds.

But... if you're sure you were not going 70 km/h, how fast were you going? If you were going over 50, you are "guilty" of speeding...

My opinion: don't fight it. pay the ticket and move on. I'm not saying this because I like to pay speeding tickets, I don't like it any more than you do. But not having any 'official' stats, or clear evidence that it was impossible to reach that speed in that distance, likely you will be turned down by the judge, who is probably the police chief's brother-in-law anyway, or whatever.

Have you ever been to court before for pleading not guilty for a speeding ticket? You've got a couple of minutes to plead your case, and once you've finished speaking, you cannot reply again. Are you willing to lose a day's salary to go there, and did you already notice that if you plead not guilty and go to court, and lose, your ticket virtually doubles in price?

It's frustrating, life is full of injustices... but you might as well just pay it, and unfortunately slow down...! :cry:

[RyanF]

Thanks for the reply.

I was actually going 50km/h or less (50 is the speed limit). Through my 4 experiments I've determined that I could pretty much just pass 50 within 132 metres if I gun it from the start on a dry road. On snow it takes further to reach 50km/h. I've also determined that I cannot reach 70km/h within 195 metres even when I'm flooring it from the start on a dry road. On snow it would obviously take longer.

As for court costs, the cost of the trial is automatically billed into the ticket, so I pay for fighting the ticket in court even if I don't fight it. If I lose, I don't pay any more.

As far as losing a day's salary . . . I work on fixed price to my clients and I'm self-employed. The only way I would lose money is if I don't get the work finished on time. A few hours out of the day won't cost me anything.

As far as going to court before . . . I went once to fight a ticket for going through a stop sign. I had done it, but I only did it because I didn't see the sign, which I didn't see because I was avoiding an elderly couple pulling out of their driveway who almost hit me cause they weren't watching where they were going. The cop didn't show up so the charges were dropped.

In spite of all these facts, I'm considering just paying it for the sole reason that I can't find any official stats on the performance of my car (since Ford claims they don't carry any performance stats in regard to speed). But the idea of paying someone for doing me the service of making a mistake and wrongly accusing me of something that I know very well I didn't do REALLY pisses me off.

What's to stop a cop from catching one person breaking the speed limit, pulling them over, walking back out into traffic, pointing the gun at someone else without resetting it, then pulling that person over and showing them the speed from the first car? Honesty? I doubt it. And that second person who hadn't been speeding would have no way to prove their innocence and would just have to pay up because the judge would take the cop's word over theirs.

I've been driving for 9 years without a single speeding ticket and now I have to pay for something I didn't do just to fill a cop's quota or cover for his mistake.

Ryan