The explanation then given is a basic, but little understood, fundamental of the presentation of a visibility study in court. A visibility study depicts what is available to be seen by a person with normal, unimpaired vision under defined conditions similar enough to those at issue to provide relevant information about levels of visibility, lines-of-sight, timing of visibility, and to demonstrate expert witness(es)' opinions.
· Human Factors
Policies can be very difficult to change, and advocates of change who claim a logical or scientific foundation need valid, reliable, and convincing data. An example of the process is the policy of regulating truck drivers' hours of service in order to reduce motor vehicle crashes.
Jurors jumped as the wild boar in the motorcycle headlights suddenly filled the large screen in front of them.A week later they awarded the motorcyclist several million dollars against Caltrans for not mitigating a chronic wild pig problem on Highway One in Monterey County. The jury found that the motorcyclist had a 0.10 blood alcohol level and was negligent, but that our HD-video visibility study showed that even an unimpaired driver could not have seen the pig in time to avoid it.
A standard can be defined as a document issued by a recognized agency, and dealing with design and/or safety requirements relating to a specific product or type of activity. Such agencies include the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (051-IA) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). OSHA standards are generally legally binding for an employer, while ANSI standards are generally of an advisory nature. The term "industry standard," however, is ordinarily taken to have a broader meaning, including formal standards as just defined, and also including designs and procedures not required in formal standards, though prevailing in a specific industry, and which represent generally accepted custom and practice.
When a person becomes aware of a dangerous situation, a time-interval must elapse before he can take defensive action against it. This time interval, commonly called the reaction time, has been found to be about 0.7 second for all normal persons, regardless of their background and training. This suggests that the reaction time depends on some basic aspect of the human physiology-involving the brain, nervous system, and muscles-which does not vary much from person to person.
It was a dark and lonely night – as your client, a middle aged man, drove along an unfamiliar country road, watching out for deer that often jump out in front of cars at that time of year. Soon after the road curved to the right he realized that a disabled car with no lights on was angled across the road in front of him.
Back in graduate school, the Psychology Department chair at MIT liked to tell his classes about the three Laws of Nature: the Law of Falling Bricks, the Law of Falling Cats, and the Law of Falling People. Physicists have formulated the precise laws that describe how a brick falls from a table to the floor. Biologists have discovered how cats fall differently from bricks, twisting reflexively to always land on their feet. But what laws completely describe a person falling from a roof? This is the challenge of behavioral scientists.
To err is human; to design is divine. Forensic Human Factors specialists help lawyers analyze the root cause of an accident by determining who erred and why. Human factors applies research from a number of fields to design and evaluate things that people use in work and everyday activities
All psychiatric reports evaluate something, but not always the same thing. For example, eligibility for benefits, or fitness to do a job. To make sense of the report, the reader must determine what is being evaluated and how it is being done
In civil cases where emotional distress is alleged, it often occurs that the plaintiff’s attorney designates the treater as his expert. Usually the argument is that the plaintiff’s own therapist has spent many more hours with the plaintiff than the defense expert and therefore "knows" the plaintiff better. The treater often agrees with this reasoning