Brian Panish Follows Up w/ Crash Expert About Grossman & Erickson SUV Speeds

Added: 2026-05-22

[00:00:00]Mr. Castanada, we were asked about all the hours that you had to work. Did you incur a lot of time your firm traveling to Las Vegas to inspect the fraudulent vehicle?

[00:00:14]>> Yes.

[00:00:15]>> Did you then get that data, take it back to your office and do work and spend more hours on the fraudulent data that Mr. Ericson produced >> uh on the wrong vehicle inspection? Yes.

[00:00:26]>> And did Mr. Ericson or Mr. Brun offer to pay you back for all the time and money you incurred when the fraud that Mr. Ericson perpetrated on everyone >> relevance and leading >> not to my knowledge.

[00:00:41]No, >> sir.

[00:00:45]If Scott Ericson his vehicle had a maximum speed, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, 173 mph, >> I believe it's capable of that, but it may be uh limited.

[00:00:59]>> So, if he's going 98 throttle, his car is going to go a lot faster than 80 miles an hour. Is that true or not true?

[00:01:08]>> Oh, it's capable of doing that. Yes.

[00:01:12]>> And >> have you seen any expert in this case retain one anyone who disputes the speeds that you have Mr. Ericson traveling?

[00:01:26]>> No.

[00:01:26]>> Ambiguous location >> overall?

[00:01:29]>> No.

[00:01:30]>> Did Mr. Braun does he have an expert witness that you reviewed his information?

[00:01:34]>> Yes.

[00:01:34]>> What is his name?

[00:01:36]>> Uh Jeff Sue.

[00:01:37]>> And did Mr. Sue estimate the speed of Miss Grossman just like you did.

[00:01:42]>> Yes.

[00:01:43]>> And did he agree or disagree with all your opinions in that regard?

[00:01:46]>> He agreed.

[00:01:47]>> And did Mr. Sue calculate what Mr. Ericson's speed was based on the videos and the other data?

[00:01:53]>> Yes.

[00:01:53]>> And what did he did he agree or disagree with your speeds? What were his?

[00:01:57]>> His range is 70 to 78 for Ericson.

[00:02:01]>> So his range, Mr. Braun's expert, Mr. Ericson's expert range 72 to 78. at the time of the videos after passing the crosswalk, right? I >> I believe he offered 70 to 78 was the range.

[00:02:15]>> 70 to 78, even higher than the speeds you have >> on the high end. Yes.

[00:02:19]>> Yeah.

[00:02:21]>> Now, and did you read his deposition?

[00:02:25]>> I did.

[00:02:26]>> Did he have any criticism whatsoever of your methodology, work, or opinions in this case? I I believe that his only criticism, as I understood it, was that we couldn't know the exact position of the Ericson vehicle um as it traveled through the crosswalk.

[00:02:49]>> And he didn't try to an analyze that, did he?

[00:02:51]>> I didn't see any analysis on his part.

[00:02:53]>> And he said he wasn't tasked with analyzing the client, Mr. Ericson, in his deposit. Did he say that or not? I'm leaving overall.

[00:03:01]>> He did. Yes.

[00:03:03]>> And that's the only expert that you're aware of on reconstruction hired by Mr. Brun on behalf of Mr. Ericson. Is that your understanding?

[00:03:11]>> Yes.

[00:03:14]>> Now, I want to go to the edr uh exhibit. When Miss Pal was questioning you, she didn't want to let you read the whole exhibit.

[00:03:24]I believe that was 590. Is that what it was? What is the uh edr >> the bos thing that the uh five >> you remember Miss Palm approached you and said just read that one sentence don't read the rest.

[00:03:43]>> Yes.

[00:03:44]>> And she didn't let you read the rest.

[00:03:46]>> Yes.

[00:03:46]>> Okay. So I'm going to let you read the rest so we have a complete picture. So if we can find it while they look for that we'll come back.

[00:03:56]Oh, I have 590 on my notes. Let's try 590.

[00:04:07]And Bob, while he's doing that, the EDR data that you were Mr. Braun just asked you about, is there any question in your mind that that data is completely accurate for the work that's done in this case?

[00:04:22]>> Yes.

[00:04:23]>> No question. No question about it. Um, and I believe the slide would be part of the slides we've been showing. Slide number 33.

[00:04:33]>> Okay, we can put that up.

[00:04:35]>> Okay, that's fine. Change >> we need to change back from the Elmo, I think.

[00:04:38]>> No, it's okay.

[00:04:40]>> Formally slide 33.

[00:04:44]>> So, this is the exhibit that Miss Hal had you read the one sentence on.

[00:04:54]Maybe >> put up the set exhibit >> right here.

[00:05:11]Okay. So, could you tell us what Miss >> Can he Can he go up there, your honor?

[00:05:18]>> Yes.

[00:05:19]>> Can you take the pointer? Show us what miss. We could blow up the one on the right.

[00:05:24]>> Uh >> on the left, I mean.

[00:05:27]>> Yes. Uh the the hold on. Can you can you make that larger? Just >> Yeah. Not that part.

[00:05:33]>> Okay.

[00:05:34]>> The other one.

[00:05:36]>> No, that this is No, he was in the right one. You just need to scroll down.

[00:05:39]>> It's not my fault.

[00:05:41]>> Okay.

[00:05:41]>> Okay. So, Miss H came and said, "Oh, I want you to read one sentence." What sentence did she have you read?

[00:05:48]>> Yes. This is the first page of the crash data retrieval report for the Grossman vehicle. And I indicated that it was the general information. She had me start at this word they.

[00:05:58]>> Well, why don't you read that?

[00:06:01]>> It reads, "They are not intended to provide specific information regarding data interpretation."

[00:06:09]>> Okay, read the next sentence.

[00:06:11]>> The next sentence reads, "Event data should be considered in conjunction with other available physical evidence from the vehicle and scene.

[00:06:22]>> Read the first sentence that she didn't want you to read.

[00:06:26]>> SRS control module data. That means the airbag control module limitations are intended to assist in reading event data that has been imaged from the vehicle's SRS supplemental restraint system control module.

[00:06:42]>> Is that what you did?

[00:06:44]>> Yes, exactly. in this sentence that she had you read is that when you put it in context, what does that mean?

[00:06:53]>> Well, it means what what the manufacturer tells you and every manufacturer tells you, hey, this is event data. We're reporting what we've recorded, but don't take it in a vacuum and run with it. You have to do your own analysis, your own investigation, your own validation. And that's essentially what we undertook uh to do that tedious and uh extensive rigorous analysis to be able to validate the data. Okay, you can take your seat. I want to go back to your deposition where she only read part of the answer. Court said I could read the whole answer when I put you on the stand. She only read, you remember, she just read a part of your answer.

[00:07:33]>> Yes. So, let's go back to page 30, line 20, and let's go all the way through your answer to 31, line 23, and let's get the complete picture.

[00:07:45]>> An objector on it. It's out of context.

[00:07:49]>> It's an improper use as a deposition.

[00:07:56]>> So, I'm starting page 30.

[00:08:05]Actually, I got to start on line 20 on page 29.

[00:08:09]Okay.

[00:08:10]>> I'm sorry. What? Give me the page.

[00:08:12]>> 29 20 through 31 20.

[00:08:20]I wrote three.

[00:08:25]>> Same objection >> over question.

[00:08:29]Okay. Is there is there an airbag deployment common in pedestrian versus vehicle accident?

[00:08:46]Answer. You know, it depends, council.

[00:08:50]I've seen some where I don't expect an airbag deployment and there is one. I've seen others where there is greater damages and there's no deployment. It has to do with the crash poles. I think that means pulse, but and it has to do a lot with the sensors. It has to do with the vehicle's programmed algorithm. So, there's a lot of factors. I don't think it's just a general setting for all vehicles on the road. Question is, it for this particular vehicle, is there any is there an impact speed that you would expect an airbag deployment?

[00:09:26]answer. It's not a speed council. The way from everything I've done, all the training I've had been to, and all the work I've done, what I've learned is that determining discriminating sensors are not looking for an impact speed, nor are they looking specifically for a delta V. What they're programmed to check is the jerk that the vehicle is feeling. So just like acceleration is the sorry the derivative velocity with respect to time the jerk is the chain in acceleration with respect to time. So it's actually looking for what change in acceleration within a set period of time in this particular vehicle. The data limitation I think dumbs it down to say that if a vehicle experience a experiences a dash dash a delta v of a certain value within a certain amount of time it's essentially going to command a deployment. The jerk analysis, for lack of a better word, do we have the question? I'm sorry. The jerk analysis, for lack of a better word, do we have any way to quantify what that would have triggered in your opinion the airbag employment deployment? Answer. Well, I think we'd be kind of guessing, council, if you will. Maybe I can simplify things for you by getting over to the data limitations in the vehicle event data.

[00:10:57]Let me see. I wish you would have I wish you would have asked me the question about this 4 days ago when I had it all memorized. I can't locate it here, but I know I just read it recently. Here we go.

[00:11:11]If you look here as page two at the top, the event be begin is initiated by the change in longitudinal velocity equals or exceeds 8 kil kilm hour over a time of 20 milliseconds. So there's the criteria to get the event to begin. And then8 kilmters per hour is 0.5 miles hour. So if you have that change in velocity within 20 milliseconds, which is I think something that has a higher likelihood of occurring at a higher velocity for the vehicle travel, then there's going to be enough for the vehicle to essentially sense that there's a sufficient jerk to cause the system to either wake up or have all systems go. And was that what you were trying to answer Miss H about?

[00:12:10]>> Ask an answer.

[00:12:11]>> Overall, >> yes.

[00:12:17]>> Miss H also asked you questions about speed bumps setting off airbags. Remember those questions?

[00:12:25]>> I do remember the speed bump questions.

[00:12:27]>> And did you consider those children to be the same as speed bumps like she asked you?

[00:12:33]>> Argumentative >> overall.

[00:12:36]No, it's a whole different type of interaction.

[00:12:40]>> Does a child weigh more than a speed bump?

[00:12:44]>> Well, a speed bump council is part of the road that is adhered. It's actually a solid rigid part of the asphaltic surface. Uh, and any interaction with it is going to be mostly absorbed by the vehicle suspension system because the forces are essentially acting vertically relative to the tires. So you got the pneumatic tires and the suspension system. A child or a pedestrian impact is an an essential longitudinal load acting on the front of the vehicle. It's two completely different accelerations to consider.

[00:13:17]>> So running over a speed bump, is that the same as running over two children at 73 mph?

[00:13:24]>> No.

[00:13:28]Yeah.

[00:13:30]>> Miss Hal asked you questions about the MercedesBenz malfunctioning. Do you remember those questions? The pedestrian awareness system.

[00:13:39]>> Yes.

[00:13:39]>> Okay. So, she asked you about the inaccuracy of the data, the EDR, right?

[00:13:46]Suggested it was inaccurate.

[00:13:47]>> Now, she suggested you there was a defect in the MercedesBenz that occurred. Is that what she was questioning you about?

[00:13:54]>> Objection mistakes. uh questions >> over >> I believe her questions were about the pedestrian sensing and avoidance >> and she asked you well why didn't that work to suggest that would that help someone like Rebecca Gman traveling between 80 and 73 miles an hour in avoiding a pedestrian >> over I'm sorry I didn't hear the objection >> it was argumentative >> over Mercedes-Benz is very clear in stating its limitations that That safety system has limitations and the limitations are that when vehicles are traveling at speeds in excess of 40 or mid 40 mph, it it can't work. In other words, the sensors can't detect objects far enough ahead to initiate a response that would function. So, in essence, everything goes out once you achieve speeds of of 70 mph with respect to pedestrians.

[00:14:52]>> Did you see any evidence? whatsoever in this case that the MercedesBenz driven by Miss Grossman in any way was defective.

[00:15:04]>> No.

[00:15:07]>> Do drivers cause defects in vehicles?

[00:15:11]>> No.

[00:15:12]>> Sustain answer.

[00:15:15]>> Mr. Braun asked you about how far away Mr. Ericson's vehicle was when Rebecca Gman hit the boys and you said the issue is the time, not the distance. Could you please explain what you were saying?

[00:15:29]>> Sure. I think sometimes, well, let's put it this way.

[00:15:33]Vehicle motion pertains to a distance of travel relative to time. That in essence is the definition of velocity. So it's very simple to take an instance in time and say at this point in time look at the gap between the vehicles and it's noteworthy because we know the distance.

[00:15:54]What's more important is how fast those 234 ft were covered and at those speeds we're talking about 2.1 seconds of time.

[00:16:03]And that is really the importance because if you extrapolate backwards you have a very similar gap right before impact. And and sir, let's just go back to 73 m an hour. How many feet per second does a car travel?

[00:16:24]>> 107 ft per second.

[00:16:27]>> So at 73 m an hour, how long does it take to travel 200? What was the number? 234 >> 34 feet at 73 m an hour. How long does it take to travel that distance?

[00:16:44]>> It's 2.18 seconds.

[00:16:48]>> 2.18 seconds. And was there any way in your opinion that those boys could do a Carl Lewis and sprint across the crosswalk and avoid that in 2.1 seconds?

[00:17:00]making a big >> I think I've addressed that previously and I don't expect those boys in rollerblades and uh skateboard to be able to move that distance within that time.

[00:17:14]>> And I I don't know if it was Mr. Braun or Miss Hong asked you questions about whether Rebecca Gman could see the mother and the young son Jacob. Do you remember those questions?

[00:17:27]>> I do. And do you remember as part of your work in this case reviewing the testimony of Rose Wiltshire, a friend of Miss Grossman who is exchanging text messages worthther her after the collision.

[00:17:45]>> I I vaguely remember that council.

[00:17:47]>> Well, I want to read you. I want you to assume that Miss Wilshire testified.

[00:17:55]Is it yesterday?

[00:17:57]Yes. Yes.

[00:17:58]>> Yesterday she got a text >> that she got a text from Rebecca Gman which stated, "I do take accountability that I turned my head to the right probably one or two seconds longer than I should have when I saw a woman crashing on rollerblades on the right side of the road. I didn't know it that night, but it was the mom.

[00:18:27]This grabbed my attention and it probably would anyone else. You recall that testimony, sir?

[00:18:35]>> Vaguely. Yes.

[00:18:36]>> And that is Rebecca Gman telling her friend that she saw Mrs. Cander and her son. Is that your understanding of that testimony?

[00:18:44]>> That would comport very well. And that would be inconsistent with the position that's being taken in this case that she never saw anyone.

[00:18:53]>> Objection, your honor. Mistakes evidence.

[00:18:57]>> That would be in contradiction to uh her state or her testimony. Yes.

[00:19:06]How long after the impact with normal breaking would it have taken Rebecca Gman to stop >> 2017 is it 2017 >> her MercedesBenz AMG >> objection vague and Kenn >> the same >> on which basis Kenmore.

[00:19:33]>> Oh, he he this is deposition.

[00:19:35]>> He's not Kenmore. He he give all these calculation. Have you have you before calculated these things in this case, Mr. Cassinator?

[00:19:43]>> I have made these things >> sustain rephrase.

[00:19:49]>> At your deposition, did you had you made calculations for how long it would take to stop a vehicle with moderate light and emergency braking? That's a different question.

[00:20:02]Just yes or no?

[00:20:04]>> I believe I have counsel. Okay.

[00:20:07]>> Did anyone ask you those questions in your deposition?

[00:20:11]>> Again, I don't have it committed to memory, but I I seem to recall and I don't recall specifically for this case, but I've done that frequently.

[00:20:20]>> Okay.

[00:20:21]>> Um I will say council and >> don't don't say anything yet.

[00:20:30]I do want to argue on this and we go for we come back to it because I don't believe it's appropriate Kimmer objection.

[00:20:36]>> Well, you either have a basis you can show me or or not.

[00:20:41]>> Yeah, >> we do.

[00:20:43]>> We do.

[00:20:46]>> I don't think commentary. Let me see it.

[00:20:53]>> Let's go to the first one. How long would it have taken Rebecca Gman when he struck the two boys with moderate breaking to stop her vehicle?

[00:21:08]>> Dru moderate braking at 0.40 gs would be an applicable value.

[00:21:21]Um, it's greater than just a casual brake, but it's not full emergency braking. So, from 73 miles per hour at 4gs, it would take her 446 ft to break the vehicle to a stop.

[00:21:42]>> And that's with what you call moderate braking.

[00:21:44]>> Correct.

[00:21:45]>> What about with emergency braking? How long would it take? Emergency braking in this vehicle could generate about 0.80 gs and likely higher, but for purposes of calculations, we'll use 0.80 gs.

[00:22:15]In that type of braking application, she could break her vehicle to a stop in 223 feet.

[00:22:22]>> So moderate was how much?

[00:22:24]>> 446.

[00:22:26]>> Emergency >> 223.

[00:22:28]>> And how far away did her car end up when it was finally stopped?

[00:22:33]>> Uh 172 ft downstream.

[00:22:43]>> DNA evidence. You were asked questions about that. In over the 4,000 accidents you've investigated, you ever do any DNA evidence?

[00:22:53]>> No, I'm not qualified to do that kind of work.

[00:22:55]>> Is that Was there any question in your mind when you saw the vehicle? The body fluids that were on the vehicle came from someone other than the Iscander boys?

[00:23:06]>> No, there was no question in my mind. It It had to have come from them. And has anyone ever in this case to your knowledge stated that that body fluids, not blood, body fluids of the boys on the cart was someone else's?

[00:23:23]>> No.

[00:23:32]>> Let's look at 408101.

[00:23:41]I wanted council have some questions on that.

[00:23:50]And by the way, by the way, what Mr. Braun was saying, you had a new PowerPoint. you changed your PowerPoint to comply with the orders that the court gave regarding what evidence could be used and what evidence couldn't because I called you and said you need to comply with these orders, right?

[00:24:09]>> Yes.

[00:24:09]>> So, you didn't just make up a new PowerPoint like was suggested in that question to add new information that wasn't in there, did you?

[00:24:17]>> I didn't do that.

[00:24:19]>> You removed stuff that was produced at your deposition because of court rulings.

[00:24:23]>> Yes.

[00:24:40]Excuse me.

[00:24:42]>> Did you say something? I heard you.

[00:24:45]>> Miss Hall.

[00:24:46]>> I served you.

[00:24:52]>> Parking vehicles in the sight.

[00:24:55]There's no way to know whether somebody was parked at the time or came later and parked or wasn't there at all. There's no way for you to know that. Is that >> uh other than reading a deposition that would indicate that somebody was parked?

[00:25:09]No, there would be no other way for me to know.

[00:25:11]>> And the police didn't have photographs that documented what vehicles were parked before the collision came and before they responded to the injuries.

[00:25:21]>> That's correct.

[00:25:32]With respect to Mr. Ericson, council asked you questions of Mr. Ericson, he didn't hit the boys, right?

[00:25:39]>> Correct.

[00:25:40]>> But in your opinion, did Mr. Ericson's actions, speed, racing, etc. contribute to the cause of the death of the boys?

[00:25:50]>> It's a legal conclusion >> overall.

[00:25:53]I think the relatively close proximity of his vehicle with respect to Miss Grossman and his arrival at the crosswalk, as I've mentioned previously, may have had an effect as to what the young boys would have considered available for them to be able to clear or not.

[00:26:10]>> Escape route, >> if that's considered escape route, yes.

[00:26:14]>> In other words, whether or not they can achieve traveling beyond the point of impact to clear the path of travel. And did you see any evidence from any witnesses in this case other than Mr. Ericson that they were not traveling at a high rate of speed, revving their engines, racing?

[00:26:33]>> Over.

[00:26:34]>> I believe the witnesses that were privy to watching the vehicles all indicated that they were traveling at high speeds um ranging in my recollection from 70 to 100 miles per hour.

[00:26:48]And if somebody have you been involved in street racing cases before?

[00:26:52]>> I've investigated and analyzed u cases where people are racing. Yes.

[00:26:58]>> And as part of that racing, have you assessed the issue of whether they were doing racing?

[00:27:04]>> Objection. Beyond the scope of this witness's designation >> can beyond the scope of the >> which which decide what you're going to >> it's both the canmer and behind his designation >> on which grounds you show what was your Let me race the video that council was showing you was the purpose of that video to show what Scott Ericson or Rebecca Gman's view was on the date in question.

[00:27:56]>> Unbiguous is too much video.

[00:27:57]>> It's the same. The truck the truck video.

[00:28:00]>> What was the purpose of the video that council took you through?

[00:28:04]>> Well, we saw several videos. There were the >> one the last one with the camera mounted on top of the truck.

[00:28:11]>> Yes. Uh the purpose of that video, and I alluded to earlier during my the first portion of my testimony, as you might recall, we're digitizing the accident site with a mobile laser scanner, and that's what we're doing to try to recreate a digital version of the roadways on approach to the intersection and pass. We mount a camera on the roof of our truck or at the upper end of the windshield looking forward just so that we memorialize the objects as they exist so that when we're processing the scan data, we know exactly where we are along the roadway. It has no other useful means for us other than a visual or video documentation for us to reference when we're processing scan data. And did in your review of Mr. Ericson's deposition testimony, did he ever say anything was blocking his view of the boys?

[00:29:09]>> I don't recall him stating that there was anything blocking his view of the boys.

[00:29:13]>> And you don't know what Miss Gross will withdraw that question.

[00:29:17]>> Did you find that?

[00:29:23]>> Let's take a take a two-minut break. I'm going to have uh Miss Rico collect your questions. Make sure your seat numbers are on the questions.

[00:29:37]No, no, don't pass them down.

[00:29:46]>> Quick, does that refresh your recollection?

[00:29:49]>> It does.

[00:29:50]>> Tell us about what you testified to.

[00:29:52]Well, I testified specifically to the speeds of the vehicles captured in the video. We have the first vehicle that goes through the surveillance video traveling at 39.6 or so miles hour. Then the next vehicle goes by about 46. And then we have the Ericson vehicle coming in at 73. And then we have Grosswind's vehicle coming in about 52.7 52.6.

[00:30:21]But that's after she's break post collision. We know from the EDR data she's been approaching at 81 up to 81 miles per hour. So based upon the analysis of all the data we have and obviously extrapolating in backwards from when the video is capturing the cars and Mr. Ericson's testimony.

[00:30:47]We can come up with speeds for Ericson and Grossman in the 80 mile range which just by comparison would exceed the speed of the other traffic which have been captured by at least a factor of two with respect to the first vehicle um that we saw in the video um and slightly less than two for the second vehicle captured in the surveillance video.

[00:31:11]>> Okay. Thank you.

[00:31:13]>> Thank you.

[00:31:17]like to read from the witness's deposition page 99, line 19 through 100, line 10.

[00:31:36]>> Well, this is beyond the scope of his work. Hold on.

[00:31:41]>> Uh, what's the end point?

[00:31:46]90. I'm sorry. 100 line 10.

[00:31:49]>> It's not impeaching.

[00:31:51]>> It is impeachment.

[00:31:52]>> It has to be. It's not proceed.

[00:32:01]>> So 199.

[00:32:10]>> Do you recall in your deposition that you were asked a question?

[00:32:15]I'm not reading it. I'm asking him a question.

[00:32:17]>> Okay.

[00:32:18]>> Do you recall in your deposition, sir, that you were asked whether you had done a reconstruction on the slides for the first period of time of a line of sight. You remember that?

[00:32:31]>> This is beyond the scope of what I asked. Yeah.

[00:32:39]Isn't it true that the you did not perform a line of sight analysis, but instead you showed you prepared a video where you showed the car in your in your example, our car traveling through the course and through the crosswalk.

[00:32:57]>> Beyond discussion and sustained.

[00:32:59]>> Thank you.

[00:33:00]>> Disregard the question. Judge, >> I have one question if you'll permit it.

[00:33:03]>> No.

[00:33:05]All right.

[00:33:08]So, I'm holding you for lunch just to ask your questions and then I'll get you out of here. Um, is there a surveillance video prior to the collision?

[00:33:22]Uh, if there was, would that be more helpful slash accurate to calculate Mr. Ericson's speed >> there?

[00:33:33]I'm not aware of any videos capturing the vehicles going by before they arrive at the intersection, but in the kind of work that I do, the more information you have, the better.

[00:33:44]So, if there were a video, it would allow us another level of information to be able to reconstruct positions and speeds.

[00:33:52]>> Next question. After the black SUV crossed the front of them, almost striking their mom and brother, would Mark and Jacob still be traveling 3 mph, or would that cause Mark and Jacob to slow down or stop them in the spot where Miss Gman struck them with her vehicle?

[00:34:16]So that's a great question, but it really gets into what the boys can independently recognize and interpret and that that goes more to the psychology of their state of mind at that point in time. Mathematically, what I can tell you is that the speed is based on an estimate. So, for all I know, having the Ericson vehicle go in front of him may have may have caused them to slow down from a higher speed or try to speed up from a slower speed. We just don't know those fine details and they're not around to tell us.

[00:34:50]How far approximately was the Grossman car at 2 seconds from impact?

[00:34:56]Um, when her foot came off the brake, off the accelerator, >> how far was the gross spin vehicle 2 seconds?

[00:35:09]>> 2 seconds from impact when her foot came off the accelerator.

[00:35:43]at 2 seconds before She's located the the front of her vehicle would be 228 ft from impact >> for the 3m per hour speed used for the kids. How does that compare with average kid walking speed?

[00:36:05]>> That's a great question. Um there's a lot of studies pertaining to pedestrian walking rates and it really depends on age. you know, an adult uh healthy male will walk at a faster rate than an 80 year old man with arthritis, for example. But the values typically associated with an adult male are in the 5t per second range. And as it pertains to the young boys, I have them at 3 miles per hour, which is 4.5 feet per second. So slightly slower than an adult male. Um, I believe a young boy their age would likely be walking at an average speed of about 4 feet per second, which would be closer to 2.7 2.8 mph.

[00:36:57]Um, finally, if Miss Grossman was traveling 45 miles an hour, how long in feet, uh, would she travel with moderate braking?

[00:37:10]And then with emergency braking to a stop, I guess.

[00:37:15]>> Uh, Okay.

[00:37:48]at from 45 milesPH the veh the if moderate braking is applied at point4 gs it would only take 85 ft to bring the vehicle to a complete stop.

[00:38:03]Uh I'm sorry that's emergency braking 85 ft to a complete stop. Uh so 0.80 gs.

[00:38:11]If instead you have moderate braking at 0.40 four zerogs it would take 170 feet to break the vehicle to a stop.

[00:38:22]This goes back to the uh my earlier testimony as pertaining to the faster a vehicle is traveling, the longer the breaking distance to a stop at any given rate.

[00:38:38]>> All right. Thank you, sir.

[00:38:41]>> Thank you.

[00:38:56]I'll I'll apologize later because that takes up even more of your lunch time.

[00:39:00]Um, but we do our best to not go into uh the lunch hour. Uh, do not talk about the case amongst yourselves or with anyone else. We'll see you back here.