Classic Errors in Accident Reconstruction: Real Experts vs. Fakes, Fools, and Frauds
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51501/jotnafe.v10i1.509Abstract
As litigation has mushroomed in the 1970s and 807s, more and more varied types of people have proclaimed their expertise to practice motor-vehicle accident reconstruction. A vast number of those who have claimed to be experts have nothing more than a high-school education and a short course in accident reconstruction. Unfortunately, the courts, more often than not, have qualified these people as experts. Another large group of practitioners are college educated, but come to accident reconstruction by way of education and experience in non-related fields such as chemistry, nuclear physics, aeronautical engineering, air-conditioning design, plastics manufacture, and other distant disciplines. These people usually know the basic physics associated with accident reconstruction, but often do not appreciate or understand the idiosyncrasies of motor-vehicle collisions. But, they too are usually qualified as experts by the courts.Published
1992-01-01
How to Cite
Glennon, John C. 1992. “Classic Errors in Accident Reconstruction: Real Experts Vs. Fakes, Fools, and Frauds”. Journal of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers 10 (1). https://doi.org/10.51501/jotnafe.v10i1.509.
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Copyright (c) 1992 National Academy of Forensic Engineers
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All rights © Journal of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers.
Full statement regarding the author's license of copyright to the NAFE is shown on the Copyright section of the Submissions Page.