🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 08 Jul 1998 06:45:14 GMT, E. Faubion <in@the.sig> wrote:
>Dennis.Jensen@dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>
>>Earl, with these tests, were you braking with fully locked wheels in the 
>>non-ABS car?
>
>I've run deceleration tests in both?  Have you?  
>
>>A very basic rule of thumb for rubber on bitumen would be (for 
>>the case of typical materials used in road and tyre construction-please note 
>>the deliberate defining of conditions) is a CoF of 1.0 static and 0.8 kinetic.
>
>Based on tests or a swag?
>
>>Earl, it could be because lawyers do not have much of a clue about physics.
>
>Most don't.  They don't need to.   They hire people like me instead of
>a physicist with no investigative experience.  Something to do with
>credibility in front of the jury or some such thing.  
>
>And I did read the rest of your lengthy post but, unfortunately, I've
>no time to answer it point for point.   I will point out that I've run
>a number of skid tests, both with and without ABS and on many types of
>road surfaces and in varying weather conditions.  ABS does offer
>better braking but the difference in the c.o.f. isn't as high as some
>people think.  Its strongest asset is in retaining the driver's
>ability to steer during hard braking.
>
>>But if you went to court using a figure of 0.7 CoF to 
>>state that I was doing 80mph, and not 70mph, I would destroy your case.
>
>I take it your brother doesn't do many P.I. cases.  We work with a
>range of numbers, not an absolute.  No, you would not destroy my case,
>you would confirm it.  Engineers and physicists and other specialists
>are great in their fields but it is an error to assume they can step
>in and do an exhaustive investigation into a serious crash.  In this
>field experience is king.
>
>Here's a neat little summation written by an attorney who is also an
>ex-cop.
>
>====== begin quote ==============
>
>Whores and Advocates 101.
>
>The defense attorney is an ADVOCATE for his client.
>
>The plaintiff attorney is an ADVOCATE for his client.
>
>
>Whores and Advocates 201.
>
>The prosecutor (city/state/federal attorney) is an ADVOCATE for his
>client.
>
>
>Whores and Advocates 301.
>
>The experts may present the evidence in their clients best light
>
>
>Whores and Advocates 401.
>
>The POLICE are the ONLY ones CHARGED with seeking the TRUTH.

I guess this is right.  Judges aren't interested in the truth.

>
>
>Whores and Advocates 501 (POST-GRADUATE LEVEL).
>
>The POLICE are the only ones without a client.  They MUST be
>IMPARTIAL.  They seek only the TRUTH.

Wow, I always thought society was the police's "client."  Now we know they
are above the law.

>

Now show us the whores.

>=========== end quote ===========
>
>
>email address can be found at:
>http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/6123/


-- 
These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of Information Quest or 
Pebble In The Sky http://www.informationquest.com mailto:jgarry@nospameiq.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry   Remove nospam to reply.  
mailto:joel_garry@compuserve.nospam.com  "See your DBA?"  I AM the @#%*& DBA!