Your friend was touring Northern British Columbia in a car. It was getting late and your friend noticed a large shadow leap out onto the road ahead. The brakes were slammed on and the car attempted to skid to a stop. Your friend claims it was a moose frozen in the headlights (as they tend to do). Just before the car stopped it struck the moose taking its legs out. It collapsed onto the car. The car was totalled. Fortunately, your friend was insured. Pictures were taken of the damage, the moose, and the location. Police were notified and reports were filed. Unfortunately the insurance company was not so willing to replace the damaged vehicle. It was stated on their report that the accident could have been avoided had there not been excessive speeding. Insurance is said to have based this decision on the length of the skid marks at the sight. Your friend needs your help. She assures you that she was not speeding and feels that this is simply a case of “guilty by age” (she just recently got her license). You are to help her construct a solid case against the insurance company that proves that she was not speeding (and not driving recklessly) How do CS investigators use skid marks to analyze an accident scene?.