The Traffic Accident Reconstruction Origin -ARnews-
|
The Traffic Accident Reconstruction Origin -ARnews-
|
|
Thank you for alerting us all to the consequences of not acting responsibility about this issue. The committees 'ruling' #98-02 states in part, quote "..that the use of station lines, determining angles, road slopes, and the use of survey equipment to measure accident scenes requires a licensed..." unquote, blah, blah, blah. Ya, right!
Personally, I am scheduled to provide a NARROWLY FOCUSED, SPECIALIZED, RELEVANT, and TOPIC SPECIFIC(as always) Forensic Mapping System training to a California police agency the week of Dec. 14th. In the nearly 10 years that I've been involved in working crashes myself with electronic instruments (total stations)or sharing with others some ideas on the "how to" for documenting collection coordinates to evidence points, we have maintained that NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY for electronically documenting crash/crimes scenes whereever they exist, which is documented and supported by numerous text books, studies, reports and papers.
Stockton (CA) PD reports that letters from the committee telling of ruling 98-02 has made it to all chiefs of police, Sheriffs, and directors of public safety agencies in California. Their attempt to regulate how police investigators and private folks MEASURE or determine ROAD SLOPES will surely fall short. They certainly don't speak for the people of their state.
Police investigators private reconstructionists have always, in one fashion or another, measured by whatever means was available-both electronically and manually-distances from/to various points of relevant evidence. The committee would now try to regulate those facts from the Judge or Jury, as reported by a trained investigator ... I think not!
Police investigators private reconstructionists have always, in one fashion or another, recorded the effects or condition of the roads' superelevation or crown for evaluating it's effects on a vehicle's dynamics. They would now try to regulate those facts from the Judge or Jury, as reported by a trained investigator ... I think not!
A ltr. was recently given to me by a member of the PA State Police where a s_rveyor in PA was bemoaning his plight in life and specifically slamming the manufacturers of electronic total stations for offering "police packages", he goes on to say quote "..this in my way of thinking is an infringement on our professional charter. How can a [cop] certify a measurement? My firm is involved in providing accident investigation surveys to [PDs, others]. If the [PD's] are allowed to persist with the development and use of their [AI] package, services tht we have traditionally provided will no longer be within the providence of our firms. I resent this intrusion and strongly suggest that the registration board and PSLS become involved ... in this issue ... if the [PD's] want to contract with a professional survey firm to certify and provide supervision for such plans, ... an appropriate compromise. I strongly suggest that any of the registered ... surveyors ... should offer their servic
es in defense of anyone in which this technology was employed by a [PD] not having professional oversight. In fact I will volunteer my time to testify AGAINST any [PD] other than the municipality in which I serve as Twp. Supervisor to discredit unsupervised and unprofessional surveys performed by [PD's] ... "unquote.
I read into this letter that police departments SHOULD NOT learn anything that deals with new technology, especially anything that might infringe on his firms income ... no matter THEIR education, experience, definition, and skills.
Several years ago, I did have a conversation with a committee member. He was a surveyor and quite rude once I ID'd myself and where I was coming from. The committee (Board) is comprised of surveyors and some of them do do work for atty.s that want an intersection or roadway "surveyed", for whatever purpose. They do have a monitary interest in this matter.
The 'ruling' has within its body various EXEMPTIONS. In fact, the FBI and ATF if measuring or determining angles would fall under their exemption clause. So too would the CHP if the scene were documented by a MAIT team member, since the composition of MAIT there includes a civil engineer -- whether or not he's present at the scene during the time of measuring, and in many many cases, they never review the final diagram.
It seems to me that it would have been so easy for an additional exemption ... were it not for their MONITARY interest in this issue.
I have e-mailed the Sokkia Corporation ([email protected]) and also the American Police Beat newspaper, widely read in Western states, ([email protected]) hoping to get their rejection of this issue and to publically support all law enforcement in this matter.
Like Ed, I encourage everyone to contact the Governor-elect of California as well at the Attorney General's office. If anyone knows any legislators, I'd suggest giving them a call too.
We will win over those who try to squelch or limit our abilities to do the very best job we're charged with. Write today ..... It's The Right Thing To Do.
Michael J. Capman
MJC Associates
P.O. Box 5
Kalamazoo, MI 49004
Mick Capman
[email protected]
For example, to continue this discussion look for a thread titled
URGENT MESSAGE: If you investigate accidents..
If this thread does not exist in the current archive, you can begin another one by using that title.