Accident Recon

wjjlgreen · Newbie

Accident Recon

omegacrash · Veteran Member

If you are going to stay in the reconstruction field, an Engineering degree is helpful, especially with the physics aspects of the trade.
Do not quit your law enforcement job until your business gets established and you are comfortable with the income it is bringing in.   With the economy the way it is going, starting up a business is difficult but at least your law enforcement job is a paycheck every two weeks.
I just started my business about 6 months ago. I have had several clients but not enough where I feel I can retire early.   It takes some time to get established and get a good reputation with the attorneys and insurance companies.
Do your accident business on the side and see what happens. Get your engineering degree. I have a chemical engineer working for me and it's good to have someone who can answer the really tough questions.
Good Luck and be safe
Craig

ashman165 · Veteran Member

I'll second what the above poster said and add to that the following:

Start networking now. You'll want to know your local economy in the field before you get into it.

An engineering degree, absent any collision stuff, will serve you well in most cases. I would also mildly suggest that you look into double majoring since a degree in engineering puts you within a few classes of having a degree in maths or physics (depending on your school). It might be worth the extra term or two. This holds true just in general industry, but will serve you well with juries as well. A mathematician/engineer or physicist/engineer sounds better than just engineer. Ya dig?

wjjlgreen wrote:

I am currently a sworn LEO in SC and am on my department's accident recon team. I want to make a career out of recon and need to get out of law enforcement for family reasons. I already have my undergrad in Criminal Justice and am contemplating going back for a second, possibly Engineering. Any thoughts or opinions on what I should do?

omegacrash · Veteran Member

But don't forget, and this has already been established in several courts, an engineering degree does not automatically make a person a accident reconstructionist. Even with a degree, a person still must complete the usual accident investigation/reconstruction courses. There was a case where an engineer was called to testify in a case but he was not permitted to give expert testimony in alot of areas because he had no training in accident reconstruction. Don't ask which court because the name of the actual court case escapes me right now.

ashman165 · Veteran Member

omegacrash wrote:

But don't forget, and this has already been established in several courts, an engineering degree does not automatically make a person a accident reconstructionist. Even with a degree, a person still must complete the usual accident investigation/reconstruction courses. There was a case where an engineer was called to testify in a case but he was not permitted to give expert testimony in alot of areas because he had no training in accident reconstruction. Don't ask which court because the name of the actual court case escapes me right now.

I don't know that that is true as a matter of law, but I think judges have considerable leeway to dictate whom they'll certify as an expert.

If being an engineer isn't sufficient an education to qualify as an expert in a field heavily related to the maths and physics they studied, then surely no accident investigation class is sufficient.

That said, I'll just direct you to an earlier post of mine in which I said that the presence of a degree or certification is no more an indicator of the presence of knowledge than their lack is an indicator of its absence.

skids4u · Member

Just being an engineer would not qualify someone as an expert. Just as taking an AR course alone would not qualify. There is more to being admitted such as personal experience in the field, on going training, etc......

I know of one expert who doesnt even have a bachelors degree.........but has been involved in the field over 30 years and gets admitted every time.

The largest hurdle is being admitted for the very first time......after that its all down hill.

ashman165 · Veteran Member

It's quite true that being admitted for the first time is the most difficult.

However, such as I'm aware, the litmus test a judge must use is based on a person's experience, which you guys seem to discount education as.

Even if I never took a single collision dynamics course, I'm quite confident I'd get admitted each time I cared to testify.

You see, collision dynamics is essentially a field invented by mathematicians, physicists and engineers - not people who took an 80 hour course.

Maybe the engineer in question just works/is educated in a totally unrelated field - like computer engineering, or chemical engineering or some such thing.

mmiranda0811 · Member

I've worked with many attorney's that prefer law enforcement experience to an engineering degree. The LEO has the hands on experience that an engineer doesn't.

ashman165 · Veteran Member

mmiranda0811 wrote:

I've worked with many attorney's that prefer law enforcement experience to an engineering degree. The LEO has the hands on experience that an engineer doesn't.

As true as that might be, I don't see how that's relevant. Moreover, I don't accept your premise that engineers lack hands on experience. The reason I don't accept it simply is that it can either be true or not. Some engineers do have experience, others do not.

I also don't really accept your implied premise, which is essentially that experience directly translates into expert knowledge of a subject. It could be true that experience alone can do that. It can also be not true.

mmiranda0811 · Member

I will have to disagree with you. I certainly don't want a doctor operating on me that has no experience except what he learned in the classroom. The same with an investigator. Only one who has been in the field and done scene investigations can fully grasp the complexity of the reconstruction. A person who has never experienced a crash scene can never fully understand one.

BlueB · Veteran Member

The huge advantage of the LEO is they get to see the immediate aftermath ( and some times inreal time) of a huge range of impacts, many of which conform and can be reconstructed using various methods, likewise they see others which just seem to defy the rules (pedestrian impacted at high speed yet seems to have low injuries, the car with poor brake system yet still achieves adequate braking effect etc). This experience is difficult to be achieved in the volume and variety by the engineer to a similar degree.
That is not to say the engineer may not have an alternative and equally valid approach. Perhaps the biggest assett whether LEO or engineer or other is the openness to consider and explore the scenario to the best of their ability.

omegacrash · Veteran Member

A couple of comments here. Ashman is correct about one thing. Accident reconstruction was designed, and still is today, by engineers, physics experts, and other types of scientific experts who use their vast knowledge of physics, science and know how to design the methods of obtaining speeds, thrust diagrams, vector diagrams, and everthing else we use. This is an ongoing project that has been in the works for many years and will probably never stop. However, a person does not need to be an engineer or a physics expert to understand how and why a speed formula works or how a person moves within a vehicle during a crash. I do not have a degree but the State of Ohio says I am a Crash Reconstruction Expert because of the training I have received and my ability to properly apply the training I have learned. I didn't just go sit in a classroom and listen to lectures. I had to do practical work, testing, hands on training and other things to get this certification. Does having a degree help? Absolutly! And I admit this is my disadvantage in this field but it does not make me any less of an expert than anyone else.
A person testifying to something he has never done before, even though he has the background for it, will have a difficult time being accepted as an expert in a court of law. When I have testified, I have had to show and explain the training I have received as a reconstructionist. For example, when I explain how I drew a thrust diagram, I have to show that I have been trained in doing so and that the classroom work I did was acceptable. I would think that an engineer who has never done this in a classroom would have a difficult time in court with this. What it all comes down to is TRAINING. An engineer will make an excellent crash reconstructionist if he or she is trained properly in this field. A person without any type of degree will also make an excellent crash reconstructionist if he or she is trained properly and can explain his findings in court. Good comments from everyone. Good topic of discussion. I'm sure there will be a rebuttle.

-- Edited by omegacrash on Wednesday 22nd of April 2009 06:54:54 AM

-- Edited by omegacrash on Wednesday 22nd of April 2009 03:37:37 PM

ashman165 · Veteran Member

I know, I know. It's almost predictable that I'd have something to say, huh?

Mmiranda, your point is completely without merit and is largely based on a logical fallacy known as an argument from incredulity. Just because you can't imagine that someone can know what you know via a different route doesn't mean that it can't happen.

It's important to remember that the techniques police officers use are determined by physicists, engineers and mathematicians. Those are the gurus who taught it to the police officers. It doesn't then follow that the gang who came up with the techniques to teach cops what they know who are then certified as experts somehow aren't at least as equally qualified to be an expert. It's absolutely ridiculous to assert that this is the case.

If your assertion is correct that only being in the field can give one the proper appreciation, then why do you not draw the only logical inference there is from that? Namely, that those who came up with the techniques and formulae did go into the field and work it through. You see, in science, and even engineering, they just don't come up with stuff. That flies in the face of hundreds of years of progress we've made using a little something we now call the scientific method.

The quality of someone's testimony or expertise can't be so narrowly confined as to "only this" or "only that". There are many, many things that go into what makes one an expert. For instance, training.

All have mentioned it. This training is, in and of itself, the basis upon which police officers are able to go out and do a good job reconstructing crashes. Merely seeing a crash happen, or arriving here shortly thereafter doesn't make one an expert. I know this because the act of observing an event doesn't somehow imbue the seer with the mathematical and physics knowledge necessary to reconstruct what happened.

Moreover, it's quite a bit silly to say that you wouldn't let a doctor with "only" classroom training operate on you as no such doctor actually exists. It's even sillier to draw, as you did logically, that as a reason to say you wouldn't let an investigator operate on you. (You should really look into precisely what it is you're actually saying in addition to what it is you think you're saying.)

Blue, I'm not sure what these rules are that are seemingly defied when a pedestrian is struck and takes comparatively little damage. Perhaps this point you've made actually cuts against the argument you're making. It would only "seem" to defy the rules (of physics I suppose) to someone who doesn't have an intimate knowledge of them.

Basically, the idea is that nothing can violate the laws of the nature. So, if some event happened, then it must have conformed to the laws of the nature. Thus, the problem then becomes to find out how those laws applied themselves in whatever situation is at hand.

I am also unaware of any physicist who has been refused to be considered an expert in his field by any court of law because he didn't attend a 40 hour seminar for non-physicists - a seminar written and taught about a subject in which he is most assuredly an expert.

It seems there's some kind of resistance to formalized education in this post. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but the general tenet seems to be that: education is crap. All that matters is showing up sometime shortly after an event happens and you're suddenly an expert! I should like to remind you that the sheer breadth and depth of what a physicist knows about your line of work that you do not is quite staggering. After all, what you glossed over in a few training classes, the physicist has spent tens of thousands of dollars, and tens of thousands of hours studying in excruciating detail.

That isn't to say that one needs to know all of that to be a competent reconstructionist, because one needn't know all of that. But it's a rather peculiar degree of hubris to suggest that you know more about a field that was invented by a group of scientists and engineers than the general body of scientists and engineers themselves know.

omegacrash · Veteran Member

OK. Let me explain my comments with an example.
My brother-in-law is a chemical engineer with a masters in education. He works for my company on the side. He fully understands the speed formulae, the physics involved, and probably would be able to explain these things in court better than I. However, he has no training in reconstruction. Once he is trained, he will be a great asset to me and my company. Until then, I believe it would be questionable as to whether he would be accepted as an expert in this field. even though he has the education and the background because he lacks the training. He needs to be trained as a reconstructionist as well.
There is nothing in this world more important than an education. I still kick myself in the rear for not finishing. A reconstructionist with an engineering background is priceless. I know a reconstructionist with a masters in physics and he is definately worth his weight in gold. I'm not saying the job cannot be done without a degree, I'm proof of that. And I'm not saying an engineer cannot do the job without the training. He probably could. But, will it be acceptable in court without the training? and visa-versa. Can a reconstructionist's explaination of Newtons Laws of Motion be acceptable to a court even though he does not have a background in physics? HMMMM.
Craig

-- Edited by omegacrash on Thursday 23rd of April 2009 04:19:22 AM

ashman165 · Veteran Member

omegacrash wrote:

OK. Let me explain my comments with an example.
My brother-in-law is a chemical engineer with a masters in education. He works for my company on the side. He fully understands the speed formulae, the physics involved, and probably would be able to explain these things in court better than I. However, he has no training in reconstruction. Once he is trained, he will be a great asset to me and my company. Until then, I believe it would be questionable as to whether he would be accepted as an expert in this field. even though he has the education and the background because he lacks the training. He needs to be trained as a reconstructionist as well.
There is nothing in this world more important than an education. I still kick myself in the rear for not finishing. A reconstructionist with an engineering background is priceless. I know a reconstructionist with a masters in physics and he is definately worth his weight in gold. I'm not saying the job cannot be done without a degree, I'm proof of that. And I'm not saying an engineer cannot do the job without the training. He probably could. But, will it be acceptable in court without the training? and visa-versa. Can a reconstructionist's explaination of Newtons Laws of Motion be acceptable to a court even though he does not have a background in physics? HMMMM.
Craig

-- Edited by omegacrash on Thursday 23rd of April 2009 04:19:22 AM

Nothing I've said even remotely implies much of this. I've outright said that a degree in physics isn't necessary to do this job. Engineering is a bit tricky. Take your brother-in-law for example. He's a *chemical* engineer. His field isn't related to this as chemistry isn't physics. They're both science, but in the same way a biologist won't be designing elastic paints for aircraft so too will a chemical engineer not be determining the wing shape of the plane for which they're designing the pain.

At least pick fields that are related in your example. Essentially, you've said that you have a brother with a master's degree in an unrelated field. It would be no great surprise that his testimony on the mechanics of motion might not be accepted, particularly when there are innumerable people who do work in that very field. And are engineers.

It's worth noting that I use engineers because they're the closest thing to reconstructionists I can come up with off-hand. You see, engineering is a professional degree, not an academic degree. So, it's a type of "training" much like reconstruction is.

I suppose it's essentially this: even if I hadn't been a cop and gone through reconstruction classes, I doubt there's a court in the land I couldn't walk into with my education, standing alone, and be qualified as an expert. Without difficulty.

omegacrash · Veteran Member

Whatever.

-- Edited by omegacrash on Friday 24th of April 2009 02:08:16 PM

ashman165 · Veteran Member

omegacrash wrote:

Whatever.

-- Edited by omegacrash on Friday 24th of April 2009 02:08:16 PM

I think what was most impressive about your response, other than it being on the kind of level one would expect of a child, is that for all of its insight and complexity, you had to edit it to get out that refined, supremely witty riposte.

omegacrash · Veteran Member

I probaly should have left the first comment then. It had two words. You may have been more impressed with it, almost as much as you are with yourself.

BlueB · Veteran Member

It sounds so devisive and one upmanship that the AR community has not managed to get at least some baseline systems or concepts accepted by the courts, rather than having to prove every fine detail time and time again. Or is it some sort of income generator? There is a place for both the LEO AI/R and engineer based, and those who may not be engineers but still have a value in tryig to assess how an event unfolded. It is not just about physics and motion. That is just a part of an accident, and that is often why the LEO can have the advantage over the engineer. They have an understanding of not only the physics of the incident but also many of the other factros, whcih they can and should be able to give evidence upon. There are times when it seems to be egos whcih are being pitted in court rather than the evidence.

ashman165 · Veteran Member

BlueB wrote:

It sounds so devisive and one upmanship that the AR community has not managed to get at least some baseline systems or concepts accepted by the courts, rather than having to prove every fine detail time and time again. Or is it some sort of income generator? There is a place for both the LEO AI/R and engineer based, and those who may not be engineers but still have a value in tryig to assess how an event unfolded. It is not just about physics and motion. That is just a part of an accident, and that is often why the LEO can have the advantage over the engineer. They have an understanding of not only the physics of the incident but also many of the other factros, whcih they can and should be able to give evidence upon. There are times when it seems to be egos whcih are being pitted in court rather than the evidence.

I'm curious what these other things might be. Human factors? If that's the case, then *no one* can speak definitively about those; they can merely speak about percentiles. Yes, much of it deals with physics and the like, and necessarily so. The other factors can't be shown to be the case. Any conclusion based on data in the science world can be shown to support a conclusion. The remainder of the stuff is quite a bit less certain and is never "provable".

I do agree that it does seem somewhat divisive, but it's entirely a one-sided thing. Scientists don't really care that police officers do this. Science is an inclusive field which lets in anyone who's willing to do the work. Law enforcement is an exclusive field, and we like it that way. Much of law enforcement is an "us versus them" situation, which is necessarily divisive.

But I think you're misconstruing the nature of science, which is necessarily an iterative process - laws and theories are constantly tested. I don't see how it's out of line for each person submitting himself as an expert should have to prove each time that he's minimally competent to testify as an expert about something.

Omega, this has absolutely nothing to do with how full of myself I might actually be. It has a lot to do with your argument, which was based on a bad anecdote. I don't know of anyone who would even tacitly think a chemical engineer would be a good expert witness on a subject related to physics. Morever, his master's degree in education isn't at all helpful.

While you're surely free to sit there and think I'm some conceited jackass, that doesn't change the fact that your argument by example carries no water. It has no thrust to it, and what's worse is that it doesn't even pretend to be a relevant example.

Also, you seem to glaringly miss the point in my post in which I said that a degree in physics isn't necessary to do this line of work. The reconstruction classes are generally robust enough. But I do get a bit annoyed when police officers suddenly act as though it's scientists and engineers who are delving into these officers' exclusive club, when it's really not at all the case. Scientists, mathematicians, and even some engineers have created the field, which allows reconstructionists the opportunity to involve themselves in a world they otherwise likely would not.

And I frequently use this to my advantage in court. For instance, a lot of reconstruction deals with simple trigonometry. But ask the average investigator a series of questions on related issues, and they're oftentimes incapable of providing an answer. I would imagine this gives the jury pause that someone who's being portrayed as an expert somehow lacks the mathematical and physics knowledge related to the subject. Oftentimes the questions needn't be at all obscure.

For instance, were you asked on the stand to explain what the cosine is and how it relates, would you have a good answer? You might well indeed be able to answer that question, but many reconstructionists cannot. I've yet to meet a single scientist, engineer or mathematician who can't be able to answer that question in great detail falling down drunk. Is it really necessary that one be able to answer that question if asked? I don't know that it's necessary to be able to define it; however, I do know that if someone claiming to be an expert lacked the ability, I'd have a seriously hard time taking anything they say on the subject as authorative.

Take from this what you will.

omegacrash · Veteran Member

What it all comes down to is this. To testify as an expert witness, you have to have a background in what you are going to testify to and prove to a judge you know what you are talking about. Be it accident reconstruction, electronic speed measuring devises, or any other subject. BlueB is correct that there is no baseline system accepted by the courts. It's a free for all for the attorneys. Unlike radar and laser where there are certain aspects that an officer has to know and certain aspects he is not required to testify to. It's going to be different in each and every court who is accepted as an expert and who isn't until some type of guideline is established nationwide.

Hey Ashman. Truce?

ashman165 · Veteran Member

omegacrash wrote:

What it all comes down to is this. To testify as an expert witness, you have to have a background in what you are going to testify to and prove to a judge you know what you are talking about. Be it accident reconstruction, electronic speed measuring devises, or any other subject. BlueB is correct that there is no baseline system accepted by the courts. It's a free for all for the attorneys. Unlike radar and laser where there are certain aspects that an officer has to know and certain aspects he is not required to testify to. It's going to be different in each and every court who is accepted as an expert and who isn't until some type of guideline is established nationwide.
Hey Ashman. Truce?

I'm not sure why you're asking for a truce, but I suppose it's related somehow to your taking the arguments on the issues as something personal. They aren't.

But okay.

mmiranda0811 · Member

I apparently started a war here. I'm just saying that the attorneys I talked to said they would prefer an experience law enforcement officer over an engineer with no field experience.
As I stated in another discussion, I just completed a three day, vehicular homicide trial. The defense expert was a mechanical engineer. He has no L.E. experience and no field experience. I'm sure he is a good engineer but as an expert in the field of accident reconstruction, he was sadly lacking. So much so that the Judge did not accept the defense motion to have him accepted as an accident reconstructionist. When we talked to the jury after, they said they believed the officers over the engineer because the officers had the live experience that an engineer does not.
This is not to say that all engineers are not qualified to testify as experts. Some I have dealt with are intelligent, competant and have taken the time to educate themselves not only in the field of engineering but also accident investigation/reconstruction. They had gone into the field and investigated crashes on scene and not months or years later. These engineers have taken the time to ensure they have the credentials to testify as an expert, not (as one I interviewed frequently told me), "I'm an engineer. That's better than any law enforcement officer can say." Am I bias..sure. I have almost 30 years in law enforcement and I have met many ineffective and arrogant engineers who say they are engineers therefore that takes the place of real experience.
Once again, I'm not dogging the engineering field. I'm just saying my experience is that attorney's and jurys prefer experienced law enforcement officers over engineers with no real-world experience.

ashman165 · Veteran Member

mmiranda0811 wrote:

I apparently started a war here. I'm just saying that the attorneys I talked to said they would prefer an experience law enforcement officer over an engineer with no field experience.
As I stated in another discussion, I just completed a three day, vehicular homicide trial. The defense expert was a mechanical engineer. He has no L.E. experience and no field experience. I'm sure he is a good engineer but as an expert in the field of accident reconstruction, he was sadly lacking. So much so that the Judge did not accept the defense motion to have him accepted as an accident reconstructionist. When we talked to the jury after, they said they believed the officers over the engineer because the officers had the live experience that an engineer does not.
This is not to say that all engineers are not qualified to testify as experts. Some I have dealt with are intelligent, competant and have taken the time to educate themselves not only in the field of engineering but also accident investigation/reconstruction. They had gone into the field and investigated crashes on scene and not months or years later. These engineers have taken the time to ensure they have the credentials to testify as an expert, not (as one I interviewed frequently told me), "I'm an engineer. That's better than any law enforcement officer can say." Am I bias..sure. I have almost 30 years in law enforcement and I have met many ineffective and arrogant engineers who say they are engineers therefore that takes the place of real experience.
Once again, I'm not dogging the engineering field. I'm just saying my experience is that attorney's and jurys prefer experienced law enforcement officers over engineers with no real-world experience.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. You're saying the jury heard testimony from the engineer in the same breath that you're saying the judge wouldn't allow him to testify as an expert. Can you explain how it can be true that 1.) the judge wouldn't accept him as an expert, 2.) that he testified as an expert in the trial, and 3.) a person who wasn't recognized by the court as an expert in the field on which he was to testify was able to testify as an expert such that the jury heard his testimony anyway?

No, you didn't start a war. Things of this nature come up when people are very much attached to their opinions irrespective of the validity and soundness of those opinions. But the purpose of this place, in my view, (at least one of its purposes anyway) is for people who have differing points of view to come together and discuss them so that the bad ideas in the field get mitigated and the good ideas grow. That this will occasion heated discourse and snarky rejoinders is no great surprise given the nature of the human condition.

-- Edited by ashman165 on Friday 1st of May 2009 06:11:02 AM

mmiranda0811 · Member

My fault. He testified but not as an expert in accident reconstruction. He testified as an expert in mechanical engineering and brake systems. The defense attorney tried to get him endorsed as an expert in accident reconstruction but the judge wouldn't allow that portion.