The Traffic Accident Reconstruction Origin -ARnews-

Re: Accuracy of rounding caution

Jim Willey (AxdntRecon@AOL.Com)
Sun, 7 Feb 1999 22:16:52 -0500 (EST)

Bruno, thanks for your comments. I agree with you completely and that was my point I guess I just got too wordy. I originally used just .02 and then rechecked it using .0273 and immediately found the disparity between the two figures. My example or 44 feet traveled at .02 = 11.6 seconds and at at .0273 = 10 seconds. I calculated that to a difference of 16%. As far at the truck it made a difference of 117 feet closer to the point of impact at the time the equipment was visible.
Jim Willey
AxdntRecon@AOL.Com

NOTE: You are reading in an archived session of ARnews. It is possible that this topic is still being discussed. To see if this topic is still active, or of there were any more recent posts on this topic, check later archives of ARnews.

If there is no current post, and you would like to add to this topic, link to the Current ARnews Discussion and begin a new thread. Be sure that if you are starting a new post that the thread title does not contain the abbreviation RE: Placing RE: at the beginning of a new post will confuse Hypermail and prevent others from answering your post in the future.

For example, to continue this discussion look for a thread titled

Accuracy of rounding caution

If this thread does not exist in the current archive, you can begin another one by using that title.