Talk:Santa Monica Farmers Market crash

Questionable Figures
1000 feet in 10 seconds --> 68.18 miles per hour. This seems high if he was simultaneously crashing through stalls and plowing through a crowd. If the distance and time are correct, he must have been averaging over 60 mph and likely going well over that for part of the time.

This "1000 feet" and "10 seconds" seem like nice round numbers, but I don't know of any substantiation for this. Even if we have a source that mentions eyewitness accounts, that doesn't resolve the contradictions. Maybe we should just remove the "1000 feet" part. Or, if anyone is willing to word it in a way that avoids making it sound like original research, mention WITHIN the article that eyewitness accounts (if that's what "1000 feet" and "10 seconds" are based on) and speeds estimated by police experts (if they were the ones who made the estimates of vehicle speed) are in direct conflict. I welcome any ideas on how to resolve this. Thanks. Ufwuct 19:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your diligence. However I believe there are ample sources for the speed and distance, and one source for the approximate time. (Don't be lonely!) -Will Beback 21:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the sources. I don't know why I couldn't sources like that earlier.  It probably would've helped to look in the local paper, Santa Montica Mirror.  Anyway, I couldn't get the Jewish Journal source to load right now (I'm guessing that was the one that provided the "approximate" claim for the time).  "995 feet" (smdp.com source) sounds credible, if only because it's not rounded.  "60 mph" also sounds fine too, because so many sources have it--I'm supposing that the police must've done a reconstruction of the incident to determine that.  If you have any issues with the rewording, let me know.  Otherwise, I'll leave it as is. Ufwuct 23:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, the Jewish Journal includes this line:
 * ''And after watching those 10 to 15 seconds of horror, he said,..."
 * I's the only source I could find that included the number of seconds, though it gives a range, not a single value. -Will Beback 02:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Great. I've changed the wording to what I think reflects that quotation.  Thanks for your help.  Ufwuct 01:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Guilty
I just added a very key piece to this story, maybe this article should have references used instead of a list of sources at the end .--Bobak 18:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)