Originally Posted by Ryan
Are you kidding me? You saw it on LA Law? I learned when I was about 4 not to beleive everything I see on TV.. You cannot take one accident out of millions to prove a point. My Dad worked 5 years on the FAIR team, and he's told me a bunch of times about how he figures out accidents, cars speeds ect.. With skids, where the vehicle struct something, where the person is afterwards (if their ejected).. Its alot of mathematical work but is accurate, and can be used it court.. Not every vehicle has airbags, so you can't soley rely on that to get you the info you need.. My dad had done many trials, using skids, measurements ect.. And its acceptable.. He lost maybe a couple out of hundreds..Some he doesn't even have to goto court because the evidence is so strong.. And in most cases the evidence isn't a stupid computer.. He had to goto a 3 month training course, and it wasen't on howto retrive a computer from the airbag.. They also use electronic measuring which is measuring where things are after the crash... I don't know where you got that hard earned knowledge from..
Skid marks are usually caused by the tires locking up. Locking up the wheels is the worst way to brake and is a sign of driver incompetence. Therefore, skid marks can tell you that the driver who left them is a moron, but their absence can't tell you a damn thing. Perhaps that is what he was getting at.