Car Crash Report
Karen Hernandez
Feb. 05, 2014
Period ½
Automobile Collision:
Conclusion and Results
On November 13, 2011 on a Sunday night roughly around 7:45 an accident occurred on Freeport Blvd. The accident involved two cars colliding with one another. The parties involved are both legal Americans, party one is a male named Kenny who is a banker and the second party is a retired female by the name of Susan. Both parties’ claim a different story about the accident and it is up to us to find the true story behind the collision.
According to driver 1 (Kenny) he is telling the truth. His story indicates that driver 2 (Susan) was backing out of a parking spot when Kenny collided into her. This story does not reason with the facts that Mr. Bond provided with us. According to the evidence that was provided skid marks of 14 meters were measured as well as shards of glass from the cars were scattered around the area of impact. Kenny’s story does not match up with Mr. Bond’s evidence that he found on the scene of the collision.
Party 2 (Susan) tells us another story. According to Susan (driver 2) she was at a stop at an intersection causing Kenny not to stop on time thus colliding into Susan. This story matches with the evidence that was provided because of the circumstances. Susan was at a stop when Kenny, being a distracted driver, could not brake on time thus colliding into Susan and causing the skid marks of 14 meters.
With our calculations and research we can prove that Susan is telling the truth. The skid marks show us that due to the length of them Kenny had to be driving more than the speed limit causing the momentum of the crash to be greater than average. The faster he was going the more momentum was created and exchanged with. The assumptions that we made were fairly simple and direct. We got our numbers from the information that was provided to us by Mr. Bond and from our own research. The calculations that we conducted throughout this research shows us the momentum of each person in the vehicle, normal force, friction force, there momentum combined, and the distance that they travelled throughout the collision.
With the evidence that was provided to us by Mr. Bond we came with the conclusion that Susan is telling the truth. Kenny does not want to be found guilty for the accident because it would mean him paying the consequences towards the collision which is why he made up his cover story to justify the crash. Susan is telling the truth and hopefully this trial goes to show that every lie gets uncovered sooner or later and it is important to not be distracted while driving.
Feb. 05, 2014
Period ½
Automobile Collision:
Conclusion and Results
On November 13, 2011 on a Sunday night roughly around 7:45 an accident occurred on Freeport Blvd. The accident involved two cars colliding with one another. The parties involved are both legal Americans, party one is a male named Kenny who is a banker and the second party is a retired female by the name of Susan. Both parties’ claim a different story about the accident and it is up to us to find the true story behind the collision.
According to driver 1 (Kenny) he is telling the truth. His story indicates that driver 2 (Susan) was backing out of a parking spot when Kenny collided into her. This story does not reason with the facts that Mr. Bond provided with us. According to the evidence that was provided skid marks of 14 meters were measured as well as shards of glass from the cars were scattered around the area of impact. Kenny’s story does not match up with Mr. Bond’s evidence that he found on the scene of the collision.
Party 2 (Susan) tells us another story. According to Susan (driver 2) she was at a stop at an intersection causing Kenny not to stop on time thus colliding into Susan. This story matches with the evidence that was provided because of the circumstances. Susan was at a stop when Kenny, being a distracted driver, could not brake on time thus colliding into Susan and causing the skid marks of 14 meters.
With our calculations and research we can prove that Susan is telling the truth. The skid marks show us that due to the length of them Kenny had to be driving more than the speed limit causing the momentum of the crash to be greater than average. The faster he was going the more momentum was created and exchanged with. The assumptions that we made were fairly simple and direct. We got our numbers from the information that was provided to us by Mr. Bond and from our own research. The calculations that we conducted throughout this research shows us the momentum of each person in the vehicle, normal force, friction force, there momentum combined, and the distance that they travelled throughout the collision.
With the evidence that was provided to us by Mr. Bond we came with the conclusion that Susan is telling the truth. Kenny does not want to be found guilty for the accident because it would mean him paying the consequences towards the collision which is why he made up his cover story to justify the crash. Susan is telling the truth and hopefully this trial goes to show that every lie gets uncovered sooner or later and it is important to not be distracted while driving.