(3) Another thing we should define is what is "low speed?" While there are lots of papers out there suggesting different ways of quantifying it from dollar estimates to BEVs, I will suggest: "a collision related delta-v of less than 10 on the target vehicle in line on that car's X axis" as a good place to start. Now, from a real quantifiable perspective, we can work within a definition of what is a "low speed" crash.
(4) When you wrote: "There is also no connection between delta V and occupant injury" you are technically but only partially correct. What I was suggesting was there IS a connection between injury potential and delta-V relative to a sufficiently small delta-T. No, delta-V doesn't stand alone as a rating for collision severity, BUT in the context of the discussion of COLLISIONS, the notion that there is a definable and sufficiently short duration for the event IS significant. To that extent then, yes, delta-V - again within the context of collisions and sufficiently short duration - IS THE OBJECTIVE predictor of collision severity AND injury probability. SUBJECTIVE patient PERCEPTION is NEITHER quantifiable nor uniform and cannot, therefore, be considered a legitimate predictor of anything objective.
(5) You wrote: "You're right, symptoms do not prove causation. Causation is found more through clinical history, malingering tests, and belief in the patient. For those of us fortunate enough to be interested in crash test studies, engineering and physics, epidemiology, forensics, research methodology and medicolegal issues, then we would consider all of those things as well."
"...THEN we would consider all of those things AS WELL?"... (insert astonished gasp here) I contend that's in the wrong order. (I should really just stop here but I just can't bring myself to let that one slide...)
I take your first mention of the notion that "Causation is found more through clinical history, malingering tests, and belief in the patient" as being your primary "investigative technique" here, particularly since you finish that entry with the remaining list of "those (other) things AS WELL." The problem is, that each of those first listed bits of what I will call and you may quote me on as "interesting but largely irrelevant information" - they do NOT rise to the level of "facts" - is that they are wholly subjective. They are no more probative or reliable than the other subjective symptoms offered by the patient and are insufficient to justify an objective understanding, much less a realistic analysis, of a given event from the perspective of establishing the link between that event and a complaint of pain. In that SUBJECTIVE BELIEF system, you necessarily adopt the patient's account of the event. This is why the epidemiological studies are flawed and why there is this debate i
n the first place.
Not to misquote you, but given the percentages you suggest, you seem to be championing the side of the debate that people are at least "frequently" hurt in "low speed crashes." Forgetting the notion that we have yet to agree on what is an "injury," you are clearly writing here that you can still make the causal link based on the representations of the patient. That is not objective and therefore there IS STILL huge room for debate - and that's how we typically end up in the courtroom. The defense side looks at the same information and does NOT start with the notion that the patient is to be believed above all else. They are as equally entitled to their OPINION of the case as you but it is significant here that OPINIONS based on SUBJECTIVE patient provided information do not rise to the level of FACTUAL objectivity and THAT's where, among other things, the epidemiological approach to understanding this whole mess fails miserably.
The approach you suggest assumes the patient is not only truthful (without respect to the meaningless percentage of malingerers you suggest as noted above) but is a selectively reliable historian. I will not - CANNOT - rely on the patient's truthfulness for an objective analysis of the event because (a) that's what the judge or jury are there for and (b) their perception is the "truth" to them but may not be (and in most testing situations it's been easily demonstrated it IS NOT) what ACTUALLY happened. In this context, human perception is subjective and unreliable from a factual Collision Reconstruction perspective.
Example: I take a box of ants and dump them on the table and ask how many there are. You say "'X' many." The next guy says "'Y' ants" and the third guy has yet another perception of the number. Each respondent is answering from PERCEPTION which is based on a number of factors, not the least of which is how you each feel about ants running around the table loose. There are exactly 100 ants because I have COUNTED them, objectively, one at a time when I put them in the box to start with. That is precisely how many there are. Epidemiology relies on the false assumption that the complaining party is able to objectively quantify the event - ie: the number of ants - to the exclusion of those involved in similar events who do not complain (ants that walked off the table...) and may have a different perception of the event or injury. THAT's why the epidemiology in this context is flawed and that's why your approach as you detailed above - using the "clinical history, malingering tests,
and belief in the patient" is intellectually dishonest.
*****Don't get me wrong, from a treating physician perspective you MUST adopt a belief in the patient's representations about where it hurts and you must necessarily listen to their account of the event to have a starting place for treatment. BUT that does NOT rise to the level of an objective, factual reconstruction of the allegedly underlying or potentially related event nor should that be the basis of a reliable reconstruction. This is why it's a very, very bad idea for the treating physician - of any background - to try to also dabble in reconstruction and "wear both hats." By the same token, a reconstructionist trying to say THIS particular patient was or wasn't "hurt" in this way (relative to soft tissue injuries in particular)is stretching his experience and training not to mention his credibility; another bad idea.******
In that regard, when you write, "Doctors use many words and phrases that non-physicians have a difficult time understanding" we might also say that reconstructionists use words and phrases that non-reconstructionists may have a difficult time understanding and I think it evident here that reconstructionists hold facts, physical evidence and objective information to a different standard than doctors and other non-reconstructionists.
Adopting a patient's account, a lawyer's representations of their case and how the plan to prosecute or defend it, or the subjective estimates (guesses?) of eyewitnesses are all equally flawed, unreliable and not objective applications of science. It doesn't matter whether you give it an artificially "important" title like "clinical history" it still comes down to, as you wrote, a subjective "belief in the patient." That must not be confused with real, objective science. How many people have died from anthrax because the treating doctor thought - based on the patient's representations or the doctor's perception that no one would likely be exposed to the stuff - that it was "just" the flu or pneumonia? It isn't until scientific, objective tests are done that the real cause can be identified.
You write: "I'm in a car. I get hit from behind. I have no idea what the spee