1. "high rate of speed" = acceleration which is greater at low speed so we're in agreement on this one.
you do or do not know how fast the car was going. Your statements on the speed of the AMG are your opinion, I would not make that fact.
2. I was belted during the June 11, 2006 CL55amg crash event. 1st responder depositions support that fact. MB also claimed that is why I survived while simultaneously claiming they will attempt to prove I was unbelted in a trial.
is this new data? did you mention this before? They will attempt to prove you were unbelted? show us.
3. An IIHS 40mph partial frontal crash test procedure and the application of max acceleration is not "subjective". Real tests, real results that MB claims will be identical to their test results. Yet at just 36mph more damage was done than at their 40mph test so why?
and this test is related to the accident how? again, how did you establish the speed of the vehicle? Post a pic of your original crashed vehicle, and the test crash next to eachother, and lets see if people agree the damage is more.
4. I did not author existing crash test standards belted or unbelted.
so? How is this relevant, you have yet to post actual data, just tell us you now have irrefutable data, and you posted a few pics and general videos. Post the data.
5. I did not make-up MB's claim the airbag deployment sequence occurs in "a few milliseconds" and nor did I make-up the 32ms it took for the airbags to commence deployment thru vinyl interior components during the Sept. 20, 2013 crash test.
so you demonstrated that it took 3.2% of a second to deploy. Your argument is that they lied to you describing it as a few milliseconds?
6. I did not make-up the unbelted driver dummy's impact against the windshield over a part-inflated airbag on Sept. 20, 2013 nor the fact that a lack of a seatbelt does not justify a delayed airbag deployment.
Once again, the airbag is the SUPPLEMENTARY
RESTRAINT SYSTEM. It is designed to work in assistance to the seatbelt, which is the primary tool for saving the drivers life. That there are testing data and specs for unbelted airbag deployment does not mean that the airbag should save someones life without the seatbelt.
7. I did not make-up the passenger dummy's seatbelt uncoiling during the Sept. 20, 2013 crash test (resulting in both knees smashing into the dashboard just as mine did on June 11, 2006). My lack of understand on this point is why I didn't file suit immediately (I logically convinced & blamed myself that I must have slid out of the shoulder harness while raising my left limbs to survive as the only one to break limbs on June 11, 2006). Like you, I also personally believe in the seatbelt's performance (a functional one of course).
give us the data that supports this. So far you talk about irrefutable data, and have yet to post this. convince people that you have a case.
8. Only one person experienced a wrongful death on June 11, 2006 (the driver).
the driver of the limo? I agree on that point. The driver of the AMG was not wearing his seatbelt.
9. The rear-seat passenger was found lying atop the center-console (my account and depositions of 3-first responders who removed him). His right shoulder did nick my seat-back as he speared head-first into the dashboard critically fracturing his skull.
yup, an actual fact.
10. I no longer need to discuss the details of my June 11, 2006 experience after having expended over $45,000 performing a motive-powered IIHS 40mph partial frontal crash test on Sept. 20, 2013.
not a fact. your entire argument is that this crash test supports your claims on the actual crash. because you spent a bunch of money does not mean the other crash is not relevant. Aren't you trying to build a trend? A fact would be that the details of the 06 crash and your 13' crash test are similar.
1. I believe there is an AMG employee that proposed to modify the occupant restraint systems (ie. SL Black series seats/belts from 2009 to 2010 model years), and was turned down by a manager or legal adviser over the fact no crash-test requirement dictated a standard considering exotic-motive power. While in fed court as a pro-se during 2009-2011, MB introduced an ethics board to identify any potential whistleblowers.
2. If one passenger can predict accelerations' affect on the airbag systems in one moment, an automobile manufacturer has an obligation to have designed for the same foreseable force regardless of test requirements. Versus denied the force altogether to a sole survivor.
3. AMG's signature modification is additional acceleration so it is appropriate to acknowledge its resulting forces upon occupant restraint systems (as NHRA has done so historically for many decades).
4. A manufacturer's neglect in design supersedes any driver's neglect in a collision.
Newton defined the force of acceleration in 1687 so to me the main question is not if acceleration needs to be acknowledged when designing occupant restraint systems, it's what to do about 14-years of AMG vehicles that'll fail an IIHS 40mph partial frontal impact test under motive power contrary to MB's claims there will be absolutely no affect/difference 'whatsoever'. Fortunately, that question and outcome are off my shoulders and on others.