JB - The June 11, 2006 accident is now just a spark to this all. MB denying acceleration and my performance of a slightly modified standard IIHS crash test takes precedence now.
why does their denial take precedence?
You are refusing to comprehend the fact that I DID NOT recreate the June 11, 2006 accident on Sept. 20, 2013.
If you did not try and recreate it, why was the driver dummy unbelted? leaving one dummy unbelted seems counterproductive to your new goals. It makes your entire test about the seatbelt instead. You have mentioned that you drove around in the test AMG to determine the downshift speed, which you then applied as the speed you must have crashed in in the accident.
Whats clear is you recreated some of the facts accident (unbelted driver), threw in some of your opinions on what you believe must have happened, and crashed a car. Now you state that was not the intention.
For your information I hold depositions claiming both myself and the driver were belted. I personally believe in using a seatbelt at all times. But when spending $45k and 4-months of my life on this crash test of course I'm going to consider existing seatbelt standards above my personal beliefs, and apply/test for them accordingly.
In post 5 of this thread, you said-
The driver and the rear-seat passenger of the Mercedes Benz CL55 did not have their seatbelts on.
Who provided this deposition, and why hold on to that when its obviously wrong?
The industry already accepts that under no circumstances at a mere 36mph should an occupant's head spear thru the windshield as the driver test dummy did. Have you asked yourself 'shouldn't the airbag deploy between the driver and windshield?'
show us the industry airbag without seatbelt specifications. you need to substantiate this, id like to see what the standards actually are
Versus deprecating my name with random attacks that prove you may not even be reading any words I type. You're going straight over them and having a discussion with yourself. How on earth can you claim I'm on a vendetta for the driver and rear-seat passenger? What would even prevent the rear seat passenger's death?!! The driver, I did watch him brace outward for an airbag that slammed the back of his head against the ceiling afterwards (see 10x14cm hemorrhage to occipital scalp at Realcompany.org - Dedicated to Simple Truth - Home
). That's undeniable data BTW JB....... Still not fighting for him (that's nuts).
Hurt is one thing. Ravaged and death is another. Legal plunder is also another thing. I'm also not representing the dead driver. Just myself. However we cannot ignore his critical injuries and his steering wheel pushed inside the dashboard (at Realcompany.org - Dedicated to Simple Truth - Home
). If an airbag was timely deployed how does one push thru it to cause such damage?
by not wearing their seatbelt.
You're still refusing to comprehend my mission has nothing to do with the dead driver's name. How do you even accuse me of playing the "sorrow" card? I was actually surprised Scudetto mentioned a loss of a friend this late but do appreciate his objectively fair, unbiased logic. Please have little bit more respect for others. Simple physics and concentration on crucial points does not make me 'arrogant' as you claimed. It makes me objective and respectful of not only others, but existing standards independent of my personal beliefs.
I take it you haven't read through the thread in a while then
Let's summarize my Mission Statement:
1. MB acknowledge the force created by acceleration when designing their AMG occupant restraint systems (or any exotic powered vehicle). This requires re-certification from their base-model sedan systems since 99% of AMG models are conversions, not ground-up performance designs.
2. Auto insured medical coverage is not dropped when arbitrating lost wage claim.
3. Survivors and deceased' family members are notified of a case report and/or attorneys are disbarred automatically when they fail to retrieve and transmit the case report (step 1.....and reason why I didn't file suit until after realizing something went wrong with my seatbelt.....cause I too personally believe its importance while also regarding/respecting standards later learned of).
4. Corporations are criminalized for denying essences their industry is based on (ie. Doctor cannot claim sterilization before surgery is not necessary; Structural engineer cannot deny an object's weight resulting in a measurable load/force; Accountant cannot deny existence of IRS; Auto-manufacturer cannot deny acceleration).
5. Crash test standards are amended to include an exotic vehicle's motive power.
1. Why would they? its already been thrown out, you haven't created any new compelling evidence that counters this humiliating chain of events-
perfectly summarized in post 128. you already made a spectacle of yourself in this crusade. There is no new legal avenue, this test is interesting, but does not conclusively show anything new, and you haven't posted the specific stuff that would convince people, despite claiming its very convincing.
There will be no 'frivolous lawsuits that will follow.' They won't face public humiliation. Daimler AG has been through much bigger 'threats' during their history as a corporation. You're simply a tiny sardine in a huge ocean of litigation. Corporations like Daimler are in litigation all the time over all sorts of issues big and small (not only with consumers, but with vendors, suppliers, dealers, governments, financial institutions, investors, etc..)
It's going on six years now. And the court closed the case for trial by granting the motion for summary judgement in Daimler's favor. You were late filing your objections and although the court decided to overlook that, it reveals that you really need to hire a law firm to do the work for you. But the court also ruled that you failed to provide expert testimony. You keep saying that 'anybody can see the flaws' yet the court disagreed. The court used Fitzpatrick v Currie (along with numerous other case law citations) which shows that "expert proof is imperative." You never showed any data or test results, etc.. The court claimed you simply "opined" what happened in the accident and with no expert testimony.
If this accident had strong merit in respect to liability, then a law firm would have grabbed it and taken it on. There would have been good money in it for them. But clearly there was no merit and so you tried to do this yourself without legal representation. The court also said that your bachelor's degree in engineering and experience in designing "groundwater remediation systems" was a far cry from automotive design and engineering and did not qualify you to be an expert witness or make any claims. And it's kind of bizarre that you actually told the court that to introduce any expert witnesses before a trial would "insult them and their time." You never realized that there is such a thing as pretrial discovery where both sides have access to testimony. Your seat belt claim is preempted by federal law, and so that went nowhere either. You couldn't prove the safety act's savings clause. You really needed lawyers (and expert witnesses) to go anywhere with this. It's a classic example of a blind David fighting Goliath. You were in over your head (you tried to represent yourself in another suit against an entity in Florida and lost that one, too.) The case is not really going anywhere, despite the latest claim that you filed once again.
2, 3, 4, and 5 seem to have nothing to do with the car corporation. Some may be good ideas, though I doubt it given the trend of this thread which appears more about getting people back that you think hurt you
If you believe my mission statements are not appropriate than please tell us why. If you believe another crash test 'needs to be performance' than please do it and show us the results. My test achieved exactly what it need to. Now I have to achieve my mission statements. If you wish to talk about your personal opinions regarding seat belt usage then please create a new thread and seek your own mission.
This entire thread is a prime example of the importance of a seatbelt. You've made that case for everyone already.