QSO TODAY AMATEUR RADIO PODCAST
  • Podcasts
    • QSO Today Podcast Archive >
      • Download Podcast List as PDF
      • Sortable Podcast List
      • Downloadable Episodes CSV File
      • Complete List of Podcasts - Libsyn
      • iTunes List of QSO Today Episodes
  • Blog
    • Eric's News Links
    • Eric's Favorite Podcasts
  • Transcripts
  • Expo Videos
  • Donate
  • Subscribe
  • About
    • Contact >
      • Apple Reviews
    • Talk Groups
    • Whitelist
    • Ham Radio Calendar
    • Ham Radio Event Google Calendar
  • Login

Practical Problems to solve

2/11/2017

2 Comments

 
Picture

​Last week, Karen and I had our day in court as a result of Karen being rear-ended in an accident last year.  There were no witnesses to prove that she hadn’t hit the van in front of her before being hit from behind. The insurance company of the owner of the truck which hit her would not pay for the damage to the front of her car.  According to the insurance company representative it was an “open and shut case”.

Except, that it wasn’t open and shut, because there was no accident until she was hit from behind and we wanted justice.  We waited over a year for our day in court, even though we thought our chances of winning anything were slim. 

Without witnesses, I suggested to Karen that this was really a physics problem. We had to demonstrate that she was hit hard enough to be pushed a few meters into the van in front of her. She enlisted three physics students from the boys’ high school, where she teaches, to work on the problem.  We gave them the vehicles’ weights and speed. They made utilized formulas that they had been studying for four years, filling up three white boards with the all of their calculations. 

After they were finished we both agreed that we could not interpret their results without them going to court with us. With special permission from the school, we had three 12th grade physics students come to small claims court with us.  One of the boys spoke.  He explained the calculations they had made which showed that the truck had pushed Karen’s car approximately 3.8 meters on impact.  His testimony was confident and mature causing the insurance representative to want to settle with us.

We were all changed by this experience, especially the boys.  They came away with the idea that justice was done in this Jerusalem court and that their hard work and study had practical applications. We too were moved by their diligent work and brilliant testimony before the judge.  Of course, with WhatsApp, the entire school knew of their victory in court and what they had done for their teacher. 

What does this have to do with amateur radio, you might ask?  As hams we have a lot of practical knowledge that has far reaching implications. We take our theoretical knowledge and apply it on a daily basis and I owe my amateur radio background to looking at this as a problem to be solved. These physics students had the opportunity to take their knowledge from the white board to the court room to help solve a real life problem.  As hams, we can influence others to dig deeper, to try new things. While we express ourselves through electronics and radio, our approach to problem solving is very practical and far beyond just our hobby.

73, Eric 4Z1UG

2 Comments
Joe
6/19/2017 04:07:08 pm

wow! good work!

You are fortunate that your State does not include legislation that covers such an occurance!

In Ontario, getting hit from behind and "pushed into" the vehicle in front of you is -as crazy as this sounds- a LEGISLATED 100 % at fault law! No amount of physics, witness or otherwise will remove your own liability from hitting the person in front on you!

This applies to our Insurance Act, and is not only related to traffic charges. ( A charge can be waived, but fault is not)

Can such legisation be changed? With insurance companys becoming more and more powerful, it seems unlikely-especially in a country founded and "run" by Bank and Insurance companies, like Canada.

This is a good warning to watch for any propsed change in your own State's legilation -especilly in "no fault" States. Your case proves the unfairness of "legislated fault law". Thank you!

see Ontario "fault determination law":
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900668

Reply
Jason
7/24/2019 09:40:13 am

9.4 seems to be what you are referring to in the law you cite. In this example, Karen would be 0% at fault, not 100%. It's pretty straight forwardly explained.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Picture
    Picture
    Subscribe to Blog

    Author

    Eric Guth, 4Z1UG / WA6IGR, is the host of the QSO Today Podcast, and an amateur radio operator since 1972.  Eric has lived and worked in Israel since 2000. 

    Archives

    April 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    November 2019
    November 2017
    August 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    February 2016
    August 2015
    July 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014

    Categories

    All
    Clubs
    Elmer
    Kids In Ham Radio
    Microwave
    Podcast Tools

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly