accident reconstruction journal

Transcription

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER, 2010
VOLUME 20, NO. 6
INSIDE: EDR Delta-V Reliability and Restitution Values for Six Crash Tests
Case Study: Farmer Dies When Tractor Rear-Ended by a Semi
Braking Rates for Students in a Motorcycle Training Program
Crash Testing and Evaluation of Breakaway Signs
Pedestrian Walking Speeds in Crosswalk Study
ARJ and AIQ Subject Index 1989 - 2010
Toyota Lawsuit Updates
ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION JOURNAL
VOLUME TWENTY, NUMBER SIX
TOYOTA SPEED-UP CASES WON'T BE DISMISSED, JUDGE SAYS
A federal judge tentatively ruled today that he will reject most of
Toyota Motor Corp.'s first major legal challenge to class-action lawsuits
filed against the automaker by car owners over sudden acceleration.
Car owners' lawyers provided sufficient evidence to allow their
cases to go forward, U.S. District Judge James V. Selna in Santa Ana,
Calif., said in a tentative ruling posted on his court's Web site. Selna heard
arguments today over Toyota's motion to dismiss class-action, or group,
lawsuits claiming economic loss linked to sudden acceleration.
“It is true that plaintiffs do not generally allege the precise dollar
value of their losses, but that level of specificity is not required at this
pleading stage,” Selna wrote in his 63-page ruling. “It is enough that they
allege a tangible loss that can be proved or disproved upon discovery.”
Selna said he would issue a final ruling by the U.S. Thanksgiving
holiday on Nov. 25.
The economic-loss lawsuits, combined for pretrial filings and
rulings before Selna, claim Toyota drove down the value of vehicles by
failing to fix or disclose defects that triggered unintended acceleration.
Federal suits claiming death or injury caused by such episodes are
also combined in the Santa Ana court.
P.O. Box 234, Waldorf, MD 20604
Telephone/Fax: 301/843-1371
E-mail: [email protected]
VICTOR CRAIG - EDITOR
Individual Subscription Rates:
1 Year - 6 issues
U.S.A. $ 49.00
U.K.
£ 28.00
Canada $c 59.00
3 Years - 18 issues
U.S.A. $ 119.00
U.K.
£ 69.00
Canada $c155.00
2 Years - 12 issues
U.S.A. $ 89.00
U.K.
£ 49.00
Canada $c109.00
Back Issues - each
U.S.A. $ 5.00
U.K.
£ 4.00
Canada $c 8.00
Technical Article Review Committee:
Dennis R. Andrews, PhD
Wade Bartlett, PE
Samuel Brown, PE, PhD
Kyle Clark
Jeremy Daily, PhD
John C. Glennon, PE, PhD
Rudolph Limpert, PE, PhD
Richard Ratcliffe
Cherry Hill, NJ
Rochester, NH
Houston, TX
Naples, FL
Tulsa, OK
Overland Park, KS
Park City, UT
Huntingtown, MD
The Committee assists the editor in the review and evaluation of readersubmitted technical articles for consideration of publication in both Accident Reconstruction Journal and Accident Investigation Quarterly. Not all
members review every article that is selected. The editor would like to
express his appreciation to the committee for its dedication and hard work.
Toyota over the last year has recalled more than 15.43 million
vehicles around the world for a variety of problems, including 10.2 million
for unintended acceleration issues.
In September 2009, the automaker announced a recall of 3.8
million Toyota and Lexus vehicles because of a defect that may cause floor
mats to jam accelerator pedals. The company later recalled vehicles over
defects involving the pedals themselves.
Toyota disputed the claims of economic loss at today's hearing.
The vehicles have “produced as promised,” Cari Dawson, a Toyota
lawyer, told Selna.
“These cars have not malfunctioned, their owners have not had to
pay any money for repairs or retrofit, and they have not suffered any loss,”
she said.
Dawson argued that economic loss can't be “speculative” based on
losses that the owners may never suffer if they don't sell their cars or if
Continued on page 58
INDEX
New UCF SGA Campaign Tackles Distracted Driving ....................................... 2
Porsche Patrol Car ............................................................................................... 2
Court: Daewoo Korea Is Liable for US Damages ................................................ 3
UK Owner of Segway Dies Driving One Off Cliff .............................................. 3
Mass. Distracted Driving Bill Heads To Governor's Desk ................................... 3
Teen Drivers Involved in Fewer Fatal Car Crashes ............................................. 4
Safety: Distracted Driving as a Medical Condition .............................................. 4
FHWA Issues New Guidance on Pavement Friction ........................................... 4
Yamaha Motor Corp Wins Four Lawsuits ........................................................... 4
New Sensor from Continental Increases Pedestrians' Chances of Survival .......... 5
Upcoming Events ................................................................................................ 6
AAA: Teens Don't Get Enough Supervised Driving Experience ......................... 7
Test Your Skill .................................................................................................... 8
CEO of Kia Motors Resigns Over Recalls .......................................................... 8
Allstate Sues Toyota Over Acceleration Claims .................................................. 9
Editorial: Federal Study of Antilocks Junk Science ............................................. 9
LaHood Applauds New Kansas Primary Seat Belt Law ...................................... 10
Pedestrian Walking Speed in Crosswalk Study ................................................... 11
The CMF Clearinghouse: A Handy Safety Tool .................................................. 16
Braking Rates for Students in a Motorcycle Training Program ........................... 19
Farmer Dies When His Tractor Was Rear-Ended by a Semi ................................ 21
EDR Delta-V Reliability and Restitution Values for Six Crash Tests .................. 27
Toyota Recalls 1.5M Vehicles Worldwide .......................................................... 28
Crash Testing and Evaluation of Breakaway Signs ............................................. 31
Will Your Next Car Be a Smartphone? ............................................................... 46
Montana Drinking and Driving Culture at Crossroads ......................................... 46
ARJ and AIQ Subject Index 1989 - 2010 ............................................................ 49
Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation ...................................... 60
Additional News Reports .................................................................................... 61-64
Copyright 2010, Accident Reconstruction Journal. All rights reserved.
Note: This notice does not apply to those news items already copyrighted
and received through wire services or other media, or federal research
reports already in the public domain.
Accident Reconstruction Journal, ISSN 1057-8153, USPS 008283, is
published bimonthly at 3004 Charleton Court, Waldorf, Maryland 206022527. Second class postage paid at Waldorf, Maryland. Postmaster: Send
address changes to Accident Reconstruction Journal, P.O. Box 234, Waldorf,
MD 20604-0234.
2
NEW UCF SGA CAMPAIGN TACKLES DISTRACTED DRIVING
For young adults, a cell phone is part of
their everyday life from text messaging, status
updates to checking e-mails on the go. But these
popular devices are also becoming part of a
statistic that UCF's Student Government Association hopes to reduce.
UCF's SGA hosted a rally outside the
Student Union to kick off a new campaign targeted against distracted driving by students. The
"Put Down Ur Cell Fone" campaign featured
support from the Florida Highway Patrol, Florida
Department of Transportation, the Orlando
Magic, UCF administration, and Senator Lee
Constantine.
"Texting and driving is very dangerous,
and we want to make students more aware of this
so that they can be more safe while driving,"
SGA Vice President Taylor Lochrane said. He
also says students will benefit by knowing that
texting while driving is the same as driving
under the influence.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, individuals younger
than 20 years old had the highest proportion of
distracted drivers at 16 percent, followed by the
20-to 29-year-old age group at 12 percent.
At 22 years old, Nicole Hughes described
a life to the audience that most young adults
experience daily. She also told a story of how her
life changed when she was hit while walking
across a crosswalk by a distracted driver who ran
a red-light.
"Don't take your life for granted, if you
have to use it, put it down," Hughes said. Ten years
later, she remains paralyzed on her right side.
SGA's purpose of the week-long campaign
is to decrease the statistics and educate students
about the dangers of such a common routine.
Former Magic player Bo Outlaw says the
campaign is a great cause. Speaking to a group of
students outside the Student Union, he says his
younger son lead to his change in phone use.
"If you really got to text that bad, just
pull over or wait till you get to a stop light to send
the message," Outlaw said.
Students received free t-shirts for signing the distracted driving campaign petition.
Students waiting in line agreed that texting while
driving is a problem.
UCF student Autumn Daumen says she
has seen people swerve on the road while using
their phone. She also said texting is a lot easier
for students than actually calling someone because it doesn't waste minutes from your plan.
"I think some kind of law should be taken
into consideration," Daumen said.
Those three seconds it takes students to
send a text message is very dangerous says
Florida Highway Patrol Sergeant Kim Montes.
"If you are driving 55 mph and look
down at your phone for three seconds, you have
traveled the length of a football field with your
eyes off the road," Montes said.
NerdWorld, a Orlando based mobile solutions company, recently launched a
SafeTexting application for Blackberry phones.
The app uses GPS technology to automatically
activate controls that will allow or deny texting
and phone calls while the car is in motion. An
iPhone and Android version will be released by
the end of the year.
"Our hope is that this campaign prevents
accidents that result from distracted driving and
makes the university a safer environment for
everyone," Lochrane said.
- WDBO News
PORSCHE PATROL CAR
Austrian police are testing a Porsche 911
as a traffic control as a traffic control car to help
prevent motorists from speeding. A spokesman
said, "The preventative effect is excellent. Drivers just need to see it parked alongside the road
and slam on the brakes."
- Road & Track
3
COURT: DAEWOO KOREA IS LIABLE FOR U.S. DAMAGES
Even though Daewoo dropped out of the
U.S. market in 2002, the remnants of liquidated
Daewoo Motor Co. in South Korea still are
liable for damages incurred in product liability
lawsuits, a California superior court jury ruled.
An appeal is likely from Daewoo's Korean parent company and GM Daewoo & Technology Co.
In denying its liability, Daewoo Korea
attempted to foist responsibility onto the bankrupt husk of its U.S. subsidiary, Daewoo Motor
America.
Daewoo Motor America, now known as
StarPoint USA, is the national representative for
300 service points for the 185,000 Daewoo
vehicles sold in the United States from 1998
through 2002.
StarPoint was forced from the retailing
business when General Motors bought some of
Daewoo's automotive assets in 2003 and decided that Chevrolet, not StarPoint, would be the
retail channel for its Korea-made vehicles.
GM Daewoo bought Daewoo's hard assets but not the Daewoo U.S. distribution chain.
StarPoint COO Ben Rainwater said there
was no way StarPoint could address consumers'
liability claims.
"Daewoo Korea sold their automobiles
to U.S. dealers and consumers here in the U.S.
market," he said.
"It is not reasonable that they should be
able to pull out of the U.S. market and turn their
back on it, claiming no responsibility for or
liability to those Daewoo vehicles that they sold
here."
The judgement comes after seven years
of litigation. International legal reciprocity codes
mean a U.S. court judgement should be recognized and enforced in South Korea, Rainwater
said.
No monetary amount has been assigned
to Daewoo's potential liabilities.
The remaining shell of Daewoo's Korean parent amounts to a handful of people
selling properties to pay creditors pennies on the
dollar.
But as long as the suit is in process,
Daewoo is prohibited under South Korean law
from fully liquidating, Rainwater said.
The suit originally rose in a product
liability case filed in 2003 by Michelle Bandy,
who was involved in a car accident and who
alleged that there was a design defect with the
Daewoo vehicle.
Bandy sued all Daewoo entities involved
in the manufacturing and sale of the car, and
Daewoo Korea refused to defend and indemnify
StarPoint for any product liability lawsuit.
Lawyers representing Daewoo's Korean
parent company could not be reached for comment.
Jay Cooney, a spokesman for GM
Daewoo, called the judgement a "non-issue" and
said GMDAT would take part in appealing the
ruling. Cooney declined further comment.
- Automotive News
UK OWNER OF SEGWAY CO. DIES DRIVING ONE OFF CLIFF
The British tycoon who owned the Segway
company died after accidentally riding a rugged
version of the two-wheeled machine off a cliff and
into a river, according to published reports.
Jimi Heselden, 62, plunged into the River
Wharfe while checking on the grounds of his
estate in northern England, the Telegraph reported. He was riding on a "rugged country
version" of the scooter, the paper said.
"Police were called at 11:40 a.m. yesterday to reports of a man in the River Wharfe,
apparently having fallen from the cliffs above,"
a spokesman for West Yorkshire Police said
today, according to British media reports.
"A Segway-style vehicle was recovered.
He was pronounced dead at the scene," the
spokesman said. "At this time we do not believe
the death to be suspicious."
Police confirmed the body of Heselden,
a multimillionaire philanthropist who founded
defense company Hesco Bastion, was found in
the river, the Guardian reported.
He was found five miles from a factory
in Leeds where he made his fortune from defense contracts for Afghanistan and Iraq. His
top-selling innovation was a wire basket filled
with earth and water that was better than sandbags in protecting troops from missile and mortar attacks, the paper said.
Authorities are investigating whether the
death was due to driver error or a problem with
the scooter, the Daily Mail reported.
[Recently], Heselden became one of the
United Kingdom's most generous philanthropists, making a $15.7 million donation to a
charity he established in 2008, the Daily Mail
said. He had previously given about $20 million
to the same organization.
Heselden was worth about $260 million
and ranked 395th on the Sunday Times Rich List,
according to reports.
In December, Heselden bought the U.S.
company that makes the battery-powered
Segway, which uses gyroscopes to stay upright
and is controlled by the direction in which the
driver tilts. He was said to be testing a crosscountry version of it at the time of his death.
- AOL News
MASS. DISTRACTED DRIVING BILL HEADS TO GOVERNOR'S DESK
The Patrick administration said it is studying legislation that would make it illegal to drive
while texting and that would ban teenagers from
using cellphones while behind the wheel.
“The governor has been supportive of
efforts to make our roads safer and looks forward to reviewing the bill,'' Juan Martinez,
Patrick's spokesman, said in an e-mail statement.
the Senate unanimously passed the bill,
the last legislative action needed before Patrick
can sign – or veto – the measure that supporters
call a "safe driving bill.''
The House gave its approval earlier on a
150-1 vote.
“Everyone knows cellphones are a distraction and that texting while driving is especially dangerous,” Senate President Therese
Murray said in a statement. “I hope this legislation will dissuade people from putting themselves and others at risk.”
According to Murray's office, the ban on
texting while driving applies to all drivers. A
violation would not lead to an insurance surcharge, but police would be authorized to stop
someone they see texting while driving.
Junior operators – a driver under the age
of 18 – are banned from the use of cellphones,
including the hands-free version. A first offense
would be a 60-day license suspension.
The measure would also shield health
care providers from liability if they report a
patient they consider a risky driver to the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
It would also require anyone 75 or older,
to renew their licenses in person and to take an
eye exam every five years.
"We took a comprehensive approach to
making our roadways safer by trying to take the
distractions out … to focus people on driving as
opposed to other things that distract them,'' said
Senator Steven A. Baddour, Senate chair of the
Transportation Committee.
- The Boston Globe
4
TEEN DRIVERS
INVOLVED IN FEWER
FATAL CAR CRASHES
SAFETY: DISTRACTED
DRIVING AS A MEDICAL
CONDITION
FHWA ISSUES NEW
GUIDANCE ON PAVEMENT FRICTION
Far fewer people are dying in car crashes
with teens at the wheel, but it's not because
teenagers are driving more cautiously. Experts
say laws are tougher, and cars and highways are
safer.
Fatal car crashes involving teen drivers
fell by about a third over five years, according to
a new federal report that credits tougher restrictions on younger drivers.
The number of deaths tied to these accidents dropped from about 2,200 in 2004 to 1,400
in 2008, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention said.
The CDC looked at fatal accidents involving drivers who were 16 or 17. There
were more than 9,600 such incidents during
the five-year span, and more than 11,000
people died, including more than 4,000 of the
teen drivers and more than 3,400 of their
passengers.
The report is being published in the CDC's
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
The rate of such fatal crashes has been
declining since 1996. Experts credit a range of
factors, including safer cars with air bags and
highway improvements, which reduce the risk
of death.
The number of nonfatal accidents involving drivers 16 and 17 years old has been
dropping as well - by 31 percent from 2004
through 2008, according to government figures.
Experts say a chief reason is that most
states have been getting tougher on when teens
can drive and when they can carry passengers.
"It's not that teens are becoming safer,"
said Russ Rader, spokesman for the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety, an Arlington,
Va.-based research group funded by auto insurance companies.
"It's that state laws enacted in the last 15
years are taking teens out of the most hazardous
driving situations," such as driving at night or
with other teens in the car, he said.
Graduated driver's licensing programs,
as they are called, began appearing in 1996, and
49 states now have them.
The CDC found that Wyoming had the
highest death rate, with about 60 traffic fatalities
involving 16- and 17-year-old drivers per
100,000 people that age. New York and New
Jersey, which have rigorous driving restrictions
on teens, had the lowest rates, about 10 per
100,000.
Wyoming's driver's license laws are laxer
than other states. For example, 16-year-olds are
allowed to drive until 11 p.m., or later, while
other states set the driving curfew at around 9
p.m.
- Tulsa World
Family doctors routinely ask their patients whether they smoke, watch their diet,
remember to fasten their seat belt.
Now, in an essay in The New England
Journal of Medicine, a doctor suggests adding a
question to that litany: Do you drive while
texting or talking on a cellphone?
The physician, Dr. Amy N. Ship, a primary care doctor and assistant professor at
Harvard Medical School, called on her colleagues to initiate these discussions, saying they
are well worth the time and effort.
“This is such an easy way to keep people
healthy — it’s prevention, and it’s such lowlying fruit,” Dr. Ship said in an interview, adding:
“As physicians, we have an opportunity
to counsel patients. It’s an enormous power, and
we should take advantage of it.”
In her essay, Dr. Ship says she often
initiates the discussion by asking about texting
while driving, using that as an opening to mention that talking on the phone actually causes
more accidents. When patients ask why a phone
conversation should be any more dangerous
than talking to a passenger in the car, she said,
she talks about the difficulties of multitasking.
“When patients aren’t convinced,” she
said, “I ask them, ‘How would you feel if your
surgeon talked on the phone — hands free, of
course — while operating?’ ”
- The New York Times
A new technical advisory issued by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on
June 17, 2010, Pavement Friction Management
(T 5040.38), provides guidance to State and
local highway agencies on managing pavement
surface friction on roadways. The new advisory
supersedes FHWA Technical Advisory 5040.17,
Skid Accident Reduction Program, which was
issued on December 23, 1980.
The advisory outlines the purpose of a
pavement friction management program, which
is to minimize friction-related vehicle crashes
by ensuring that new pavement surfaces are
designed, constructed, and maintained to provide adequate and durable friction properties, as
well as by identifying and correcting sections of
roadways that have elevated friction-related crash
rates. Pavement friction management also includes collecting and analyzing pavement friction, crash, and traffic data to ensure the effectiveness of the engineering practices being used.
Another vital aspect of a friction management program is prioritizing the use of resources so that the program can be carried out
cost effectively.
Guidance on constructing pavement surfaces with good friction characteristics, including
adequate wet pavement friction, can be found in
FHWA Technical Advisory T 5040.36, Surface
Texture for Asphalt and Concrete Pavements.
This Advisory is available at
www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/t504036.cfm.
Also covered in the new Technical Advisory are such topics as test equipment for measuring pavement friction, the identification and
classification of roadway locations with elevated
crash rates, how to prioritize projects for improving pavement friction, the appropriate frequency and extent of friction testing on a highway network, and how to determine a pavement
friction management program's effectiveness.
Additional reference materials on pavement friction management and measurement are highlighted as well.
FHWA's Pavement Friction Management
Technical Advisory is available online at
www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/t504038.cfm. For
more information about pavement friction management, contact Mark Swanlund at FHWA, 202366-1323 (email: [email protected]).
- FHWA Focus
YAMAHA MOTOR
CORPORATION WINS
FOUR LAWSUITS
Yamaha Motor Corporation has successfully defended three product liability lawsuits
involving its Rhino off-road vehicle.
On August 11, a jury in San Bernardino
County, California rejected the plaintiff’s claims
and awarded no damages in an accident case
involving a Yamaha Rhino. The case was Lewis/
Hernandez vs Yamaha.
This followed another jury decision in
favor of Yamaha on July 26 in a case in Orange
County, California. The jury has rejected
plaintiff’s claims regarding the Rhino’s design,
finding no defect in the Rhino.
On August 12, a jury in Tallapoosa
County, Alabama rejected the plaintiff’s claims
and returned a unanimous defense verdict for
Yamaha in the case Mathis vs Yamaha. The case
involving an accident on a Yamaha Rhino in
Alexander City.
On Friday, October 22, a jury in Mont-
gomery, Alabama rejected plaintiffs' claims and
returned a unanimous defense verdict in the case
McMahon vs Yamaha, another case involving
an accident on a Yamaha Rhino. A jury once
again rejected plaintiff’s claims the Yamaha
Rhino was defectively designed.
Sources: Yamaha Motor Corp., Business Wire
NEW SENSOR FROM CONTINENTAL
INCREASES PEDESTRIANS'
CHANCES OF SURVIVAL
IN AN ACCIDENT
In 2009, more than 4,000 people lost their lives in pedestrian/motor vehicle accidents across the United States. Another
59,000 pedestrians were injured. International automotive supplier
Continental today introduced a unique pedestrian protection system that fundamentally enhances the protection of pedestrians on
the roads. The system features a novel type of air hose connected to
two pressure sensors which builds flexibly into the bumper.
"The sensor reliably recognizes collisions with pedestrians
and supplies the safety systems with the information they need to
trigger protective measures," said Scott Morell, passive safety
engineering director for Continental's North American region.
Within 10-15 milliseconds of an impact, the active hood of the
vehicle is triggered and raised by special actuators. This prevents
the pedestrian who has been hit from being severely injured or
killed by the impact with the hood and underlying engine block. The
extra space provided between the hood and engine can considerably
mitigate the consequences of the accident.
In a collision, sensors detect the change in pressure in the
plastic hose
Until now, fiber optics or acceleration sensors have been
used as the sensors for detecting collisions with pedestrians. The
pressure hose sensor, which Continental has developed in partnership with Daimler, is a new system offering a range of advantages,
for example it is easy to integrate into any vehicle because it can be
flexibly adapted to the shape of the chassis. "This means that there
are no restrictions on vehicle developers if they alter a vehicle's
design – as part of a facelift, for example," said Morell. "What's
more, the system's technology is extremely robust and offers high
resolution and strong signal quality, which boosts the reliability of
crash detection."
The crash sensor consists of a hose that is laid across the
entire width of the car in its front bumper. The hose is situated
directly behind the foam block that is fitted at the front of the
vehicle to absorb energy. Standardized pressure sensors are
installed at either end of the air-filled pressure hose. The same
type of sensor is used to activate side-impact airbags. When a
vehicle collides with an obstacle, the resulting pressure exerted
on the hose through the front bumper and foam block creates a
typical waveform that is detected by the two sensors at the ends
of the hose and forwarded to an airbag control unit. Crash
algorithms in the analysis software and speed information from
the vehicle's information network enable the type of collision to
be identified in a hundredth of a second. The signal relay time
even allows conclusions to be drawn about the location of the
impact, for example the front right-hand corner or the middle of
the vehicle. This enables the rapid activation of protection
systems, which are most effective in accidents in urban traffic
with a pre-crash speed of no more than 34 mph and a crash speed
of between 12 and 18 mph.
Particular challenges for the sensor system include reliability and the ability to detect a collision between the vehicle
and a pedestrian – regardless of whether the person is a small
child or a grown man. The sensors must, with the highest degree
of reliability, ascertain 'no-fire' situations in which the protection systems must not be activated under any circumstances.
Such situations include bumping the curb with the front spoiler
or hitting a small animal.
- PR Newswire
5
6
UPCOMING EVENTS - Through October 2011
Accreditation Commission for
Traffic Accident Reconstruction
Contact:
800/809-3818
Event:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Testing for Acceditation
January 21, Orilla, Ont., Canada
January 26, Hershey, PA
January 26, Kansas City, MO
January 27, Blythewood, SC
February 18, Seattle, WA
February 22, Chesterfield, MO
April 1, Salt Lake City, UT
April 18, Springfield, MO
April 20, Kansas City, MO
April 27, Willoughby Hills, OH
April 30, SanJose, CA
May 10, Seattle, WA
June 16, Cedar Rapids, IA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Advanced Traffic Crash Investig'n
$895
Jan. 24 - Feb. 4, Scottsdale, AZ
April 11 - 22, Jacksonville, FL
Sept. 26 - Oct. 7, Jacksonville, FL
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Traffic Crash Reconstruction
$895
April 25 - May 6, Jacksonville, FL
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Inspection and Investigation of
Commercial Vehicle Crashes
$695
Feb. 28 - March 4, Jacksonville, FL
March 28 - April 1, Scottsdale, AZ
Aug. 29 - Sept. 2, Jacksonville, FL
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Investigation of Motorcycle Crashes
$695
February 7 - 11, Scottsdale, AZ
March 21 - 25, Jacksonville, FL
October 17 - 21, Jacksonville, FL
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Pedestrian & Bike Crash Invest'n
$695
March 7 -11, Scottsdale, AZ
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Energy Method and Damage Analysis
$725
May 23 - 27, Murfreesboro, TN
Event:
Occupant Kinematics for the Traffic
Crash Investigator
$725
March 14 - 18, Marietta, GA
Engineering Dynamics Corp.
Contact:
Machelle Palomo 503/644-4500 x115
Event:
Date/Loc:
EDC Simulaions Course
January 24 - 28, Burbank, CA
Event:
Date/Loc:
2011 HVE Forum
------------------------------------------------------------------Inst. of Police Technology & Management
Contact:
904/620-4786
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
At-Scene Traffic Crash Investigation
$895
March 21 - April 1, Murfreeboro, TN
March 28 - April 8, Jacksonville, FL
September 12 - 23, Jacksonville, FL
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Event:
Event Data Recorder Use in Traffic
Accident Reconstruction
$695
March 14 - 18, Jacksonville, FL
March 21 - 25, Scottsdale, AZ
Event Data Recorder Use in Traffic
Accident Reconstruction - Update
$495
A.C.T.A.R.* TEST
PREPARATION KIT
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Includes a tutorial with
practice problems, plus a
2-part practice test of equal
size and comparable difficulty.
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Digital Photography for Traffic Crash
Investigations
$695
March 28 - April 1, Marietta, GA
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Human Factors in Traffic Crash Recon.
$725
March 21 - 25, Marietta, GA
June 6 - 10, Murfreesboro, TN
Event:
Special Problems in Traffic Crash
Recosntruction
$695
May 2 - 6, Jacksonville, FL
COST: $99
Send check/money order/
dept. purchase order to:
Accident Reconstruction Journal
P.O. Box 234
Waldorf, MD 20604
* This kit is a product of Accident Recon. Journal and
is not produced or endorsed by ACTAR itself.
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan State Univ. / Rec*Tec
Contact:
www.rec-tec.com
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Crash3 - Linear Momentum - SMAC
$375
March 23 - 25, New Orleans, LA
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
World Class Turcks
$975
March 27 - April 1, New Orleans, LA
------------------------------------------------------------------Michigan State Univ.
Contact:
517/355-3270
Event:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
AI - 1
January 24 - 28, Garden City, MI
February 7 - 11, East Lansing, MI
March 28 - April 1, Auburn Hills, MI
September 12 - 16, Garden City, MI
Event:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
AI - 2
January 17 - 21, Clinton Twp., MI
Feb. 28 - March 4, Garden City, MI
March 21 - 25, East Lansing, MI
May 16 - 20, Auburn Hills, MI
October 12 - 16, Garden City, MI
Event:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
AI - 3
February 15 - 16, Clinton Twp., MI
April 5 - 6, Garden City, MI
May 10 - 11, East Lansing, MI
June 21 - 22, Auburn Hills, MI
Event:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
AI - 4
February 14, Clinton Twp., MI
April 4, Garden City, MI
May 12, East Lansing, MI
June 23, Auburn Hills, MI
Event:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
AI - 5
Event:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
AI - 6
Event:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
AI - 7
March 21 - 25, Clinton Twp., MI
May 9 - 13, Garden City, MI
June 15 - 17, East Lansing, MI
October 3 - 5, Auburn Hills, MI
Event:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
AI - 8
April 25 - 27, Clinton Twp., MI
June 6 - 8, Garden City, MI
Event:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
AI - 9
January 10 - 21, East Lansing, MI
September 19 - 30, Clinton Twp., MI
Event:
Date/Loc:
AI - 11 & 12
7
Event:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
AI - 13
February 14 - 18, Garden City, MI
March 7 - 11, East Lansing, MI
Event:
Date/Loc:
AI - 14
Event:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
AI - 17
April 18 - 20, East Lansing, MI
June 27 - 29, Garden City, MI
Event:
Date/Loc:
AI - 18
Event:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
AI - 20
May 23 - 27, East Lansing, MI
October 10 - 14, Garden City, MI
Event:
Date/Loc:
AI - 24
------------------------------------------------------------------Northwestern University Center for Public Safety
Rudy Degger and Associates
Contact:
www.rudydegger.com
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Basic Traffic Collision Investigation
$273
January 25 - 28, Concord, CA
March 1 - 4, Concord, CA
April 26 - 29, Concord, CA
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Intermediate Traffic Collision Invest.
$505
February 7 - 11, Concord, CA
May 2 - 6, Concord, CA
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Advanced Traffic Collision Investigation
$616
June 13 - 24, Concord, CA
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Traffic Collision Reconstruction
$770
March 14 - 25, Concord, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact:
800/323-4011 or 847/491-7245
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Crash Investigation 1
$975
March 7 - 18, Evanston, IL
Contact:
Prof. Development 724/776-4970
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Crash Investigation 2
$975
March 21 - April 1, Evanston, IL
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Side Impact Occupant Safety and CAFE
Member: $1184 Non-member: $1315
February 21 - 22, Troy, MI
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Vehicle Dynamics
$775
April 11 - 15, Evanston, IL
Event:
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Math and Physics Workshop for Crash
Reconstruction
$775
Frontal Impact Crash Occupant
Safety and CAFE
March 3 - 4, Troy, MI
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Traffic Crash Reconstruction 1
$1050
October 18 - 29, Evanston, IL
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Traffic Crash Reconstruction 2
$850
November 1 - 5, Evanston, IL
May 2 - 6, Evanston, IL
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Traffic Crash Reconstr'n Refresher
$500
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Heavy Vehicle Crash Reconstruction
$875
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Pedestrian/Vehicle Crash Reconstruction
$575
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Event Data Recorder Technician
$200
November 16, Evanston, IL
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Event Data Recorder Technician Field
$375
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Society of Automotive Engineers
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Brake Testing for Passenger Cars and
Light Trucks
February 21 - 22, Troy, MI
Vehicle Dynamics for Passenger Cars
and Light Trucks
March 23 - 25, Troy, MI
--------------------------------------------------------------Texas A & M Univ. - TEEX
Contact:
800/423-8433
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Advanced Collision Investigation
$470
Jan. 24 - Feb. 4, Bryan, TX
March 21 - April 1, Baytown, TX
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Advanced Collision Investigation
$835
October 18 - 29, Hot Springs, AR
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Date/Loc:
Collision Reconstruction
$835
January 3 - 14, Conroe, TX
February 14 - 25, Humble, TX
June 6 - 17, Baytown, TX
Event:
Cost:
Date/Loc:
Collision Reconstruction
$835
January 10 - 21, Van Buren, AR
.
#
#
#
AAA: TEENS DON'T GET
ENOUGH SUPERVISED
DRIVING EXPERIENCE
Traffic crashes are the leading cause of
death for teenagers between the ages of 15 and
18 across the nation.
A new study from the AAA Foundation
for Traffic Safety suggests one of the reasons
teenaged drivers are some of the most vulnerable drivers on the road is because parents aren’t
spending enough time practicing driving with
their teens.
During the study, the AAA Foundation
placed cameras in the vehicles of 50 families to
monitor teenage drivers and their parents during
the supervised driving phase.
The study found the average amount of
weekly driving varied greatly among families
ranging from 20 minutes to five hours.
Overall, teens averaged about an hour
and a half of supervised driving each week.
Most of the supervised driving occurred
during routine trips along the same routes, with
few teens gaining significant experience in challenging situations, such as driving during heavy
traffic or in inclement weather.
A statistic, AAA Foundation President
and CEO Peter Kissinger says the best way for
teen drivers to become responsible drivers is by
driving in a variety of settings. “Starting early
and practicing often can make the crucial difference between being a tentative novice driver or
one capable of handling challenging and unavoidable driving scenarios.”
About 70 percent of parents from the
study reported opportunities for driving with
their teen were limited by the busy schedules of
the parents and teens.
According to the Ohio Insurance Institute one in three drivers under the age of 16
crashed and one in seven drivers between the
ages to 16 and 20 crashed in 2008.
The Nation Highway Traffic Safety Administration says inexperience is what makes
teens some of the most vulnerable drivers on the
road.
The state of Ohio has a graduated driver’s
license system (GDL). The state requires six
months of supervised driving before a teen is
eligible for a license. During this stage of GDL,
parents need to make sure their teens see enough
practice in a variety of driving situations, including frequent practice with driving at night,
in bad weather, through heavy city traffic, on
rural highways and on busy interstates.
Parents should also share their driving
“wisdom” to help their teen spot potential dangers that aren’t obvious. Teens need to also need
to be taught how to drive defensively and to
anticipate the unexpected, such as running red
lights.
- nbc4i.com
8
TEST YOUR
Solutions begin on page 62.
1. A truck is traveling at 56 mph [90 kph]. A car is travelling in the
opposite direction at 71 mph [114 kph]. The distance between them is 950
feet [290 m]. If they both maintain constant speed, how much time will
elapse before they collide?
2. A bus stops at an intersection. It then accelerates at a moderate rate of
0.12 g's for 30 feet [9.3 m], and is then struck broadside by another vehicle.
How fast was the bus going at impact?
3. The car that struck the bus in Problem 2 was traveling at a constant rate
of 42 mph [68 kph]. How far from the point of impact was the car when
the bus began to accelerate?
4. A motorcycle skids 76 feet [23.2 m] with only the rear wheel skidding
(drag factor = .35). It then skids 21 feet [6.4 m] with both wheels sliding
(drag factor = .80). It then slides 128 feet [39.0 m] on its side (drag factor
= .53). Determine the speed of the bike at the start of the one-wheel skid.
5. A Camaro is drag racing another vehicle when it goes out of control,
hits a curb, and goes airborne. As it leaves the ground it scrapes the top
off a small dirt mound. The scrape is measured and found to correspond to a take-off slope of 7% for the car. The horizontal distance of
the jump is 75 feet [22.9 m]. There is no change in elevation from takeoff to landing. Determine the take-off speed of the Camaro.
SKILL
6. An automobile begins to yaw on a banked curve. The critical speed
scuff mark laid down by the outside front tire was measured with a 60 foot
[18.3 m] chord and found to have a middle ordinate of 13 inches [33 cm].
The LEVEL coefficient of friction is 0.82. Along the scuff mark the surface is level. Determine the speed of the vehicle.
7. 4025-pound [1826 kg] V-2 is stopped at a traffic signal when it is struck
in the rear by 4678-pound [2122 kg] eastbound V-1. After impact V-1
travelled east 29 feet [8.8 m] at an average drag factor of 0.52. After
impact V-2 travelled east 40 feet [12.2 m] at an average drag factor of 0.40.
Calculate the impact speed of V-1.
8. For the collision in Problem 7, recalculate V-1's impact speed using
dissipation of energy. V-1 has an average of 7.5 inches [19 cm] of crush
on its front. V-2 has an average of 15 inches [38 cm] of crush on the rear.
Use the following Campbell equations:
S in mph, CAVG in inches:
V-1 front:
V-2 rear:
ebs = 1.40*CMAX + 7
ebs = 1.15*CMAX + 5
S in kph, CAVG in cm:
V-1 front:
V-2 rear:
ebs = 0.89*CMAX + 11
ebs = 0.73*CMAX + 8
CORRECTION:
In the July/August issue, problem 3, the speed of the car should
have been given as 45 mph [72 kph].
CEO OF SOUTH KOREA'S KIA
MOTORS RESIGNS OVER RECALLS
Chung Sung-eun, vice chairman and chief executive of South
Korea's second largest automaker, has quit, according to company spokesman Michael Choo.
"His resignation comes in the light of the recent global recall issued
by Kia Motors," Choo said, without elaborating.
Kia is the sister company to Hyundai Motor. Together they form
Hyundai Kia Automotive Group, the world's fifth largest auto company.
Chung's decision to resign contrasts with the management decisions made at Japan's No. 1 automaker, Toyota Motor (TM), which saw
its reputation for quality and safety wither in recent months after recalls
of about 10 million cars worldwide to fix an array of problems, mostly
related to unintended acceleration.
Despite the massive recalls, no heads have rolled at Toyota,
although top management's pay was cut 10% and some executives,
including President Akio Toyoda, forfeited bonuses.
South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported that Hyundai Chairman Chung Mong-koo asked Chung to step down in order to take
responsibility for the recalls, the Associated Press reported. Neither Choo
nor Hyundai Motor spokeswoman Song Meeyoung could confirm the
report.
Last week, Kia recalled about 100,000 cars for defective wiring
that controls mood lighting, including 35,000 Kia Sorento and Soul
models sold in the U.S. Defective soldering may short out and possibly
result in a fire, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website.
Federal safety investigators also said they were beginning an
investigation into a report of steering problems in a 2010 Soul model. The
complaint claims steering components broke apart resulting in a complete
loss of steering.
- DailyFinance
9
ALLSTATE SUES TOYOTA OVER ACCELERATION CLAIMS
Allstate Insurance Co has sued Toyota
Motor Corp, seeking to recover more than $3
million the insurer and affiliates paid in claims
for accidents linked to unintended acceleration
in Toyota vehicles.
The lawsuit, filed [recently] in Los Angeles Superior Court, marks a relatively new
front in the wave of U.S. civil litigation piling up
against the Japanese automaker for economic
losses stemming from complaints about Toyotas
that have sped out of control and crashed.
"We are expected to be one of several
insurance companies that are taking this action,"
Allstate spokeswoman Christina Loznicka told
Reuters.
Echoing claims in a major class-action
consumer suit pending in federal court against
Toyota, the Allstate complaint says the automaker long ignored evidence of acceleration
problems in its vehicles and failed to install a
brake override system that would have prevented accidents.
The Allstate action asserts, as have other
lawsuits, that acceleration flaws were rooted in
a defect in an electronic throttle system Toyota
introduced in the 1990s, and that Toyota "essentially hid the problem" instead of recalling the
cars or changing the design.
"This has resulted in numerous claims of
instances of property damage and injuries, including in some instances fatalities," the suit says.
Claims paid by Allstate and affiliates to
policy-holders or third parties for accidents involving unintended acceleration in Toyotas total more than $3 million, according to the suit.
That sum is a fraction of the $10 billion
in total potential U.S. civil liability Toyota is
estimated to face overall from unintended acceleration. But similar suits from other insurance
carriers are bound to multiply the effect of such
subrogation claims.
Toyota spokesman Steven Curtis said the
company had not seen the Allstate complaint, but
"based on reports we believe the unfounded alle-
gations in this suit have no basis."
Toyota has insisted the only defects causing its vehicles to speed out of control were illfitting floor mats and sticking gas pedals -- both
addressed in safety recalls encompassing 5.4
million U.S. vehicles.
The automaker has staunchly denied that
an electronic glitch of any kind is to blame for its
acceleration problems.
But the unprecedented magnitude of the
recalls has damaged Toyota's once-sterling reputation for safety and reliability in its largest market.
Toyota's North American manufacturing
arm said on Monday that consumer complaints
regarding unintended acceleration have dropped
80 percent since April, when it instituted a new
approach to handling those complaints.
The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration is investigating reports that as
many as 89 crash deaths since 2000 may be
linked to unintended acceleration in Toyota cars.
- Reuters
EDITORIAL: FEDERAL STUDY OF ANTILOCKS IS JUNK SCIENCE
A poorly designed government study of
antilock brakes threatens to lock up the wheels of
an effort to require this safety feature on all new
motorcycles. Relying on flawed methods, the authors fail to find any significant effect on crash risk
from antilocks. A broad spectrum of research by
the Institute and others has found otherwise.
More than 5,000 motorcyclists were
killed in crashes in 2008. Such deaths continued
to grow in recent years despite an overall drop in
traffic deaths. More people have started riding
motorcycles, with bike registrations nearly doubling from 2000 to 2008. Given that surge, it’s
important to look for ways to make riding safer.
Brakes are a good place to start because
stopping a motorcycle is much more complicated than stopping a car. Most motorcycles
have separate controls for the front and rear
brakes, and braking too hard can lock up a
wheel, causing a fall. Improper braking has been
shown to be a common cause of crashes.
Antilocks help by automatically reducing brake
pressure when a lockup is about to occur and
increasing it again after traction is restored.
The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) announced in its 200911 agenda that it was considering an antilock
requirement for motorcycles. The Institute
strongly urged the agency to adopt the rule and
reiterated this in a recent letter to the agency,
warning that the new study should be ignored
because it contributes nothing reliable to what’s
already known about the benefits of antilock
brakes on motorcycles.
The agency’s own studies have shown
that motorcycle antilocks reduce stopping distances on the test track. Other studies have
quantified the benefits using crash reconstructions. Two recent statistical analyses from the
Institute and the affiliated Highway Loss Data
Institute provide even more support for motorcycle antilocks.
Institute researchers found that motorcycles with antilock brakes are 37 percent less
likely to be involved in fatal crashes than bikes
without antilocks. The researchers looked at
crashes from 2003 to 2008 and measured the
exposure of both types of motorcycles by looking at vehicle registrations. A separate analysis
of insurance claims found that motorcycles with
antilocks have 22 percent fewer damage claims
per insured vehicle year than the same models
without antilocks.
“There’s ample evidence that motorcycle
antilocks prevent crashes and save lives,” says
Institute president Adrian Lund. “Unfortunately,
NHTSA decided to do its own study using a
flawed methodology. The agency should disregard its latest findings, which only serve to
muddle the issue.”
NHTSA’s report is an apparent response
to the Institute’s study of fatal crashes. The
authors point out that Institute researchers weren’t
able to control for possible differences in the
riding habits of people who buy motorcycles
with antilocks compared with people whose
bikes don’t have the feature.
But the government researchers didn’t
consider the Highway Loss Data Institute analysis of collision claims. This study does take into
account factors known to affect crash rates including rider age and sex and a bike’s location,
and the findings still show a significant benefit
of antilocks. Instead, the government research-
ers tried to solve the problem by comparing
crashes that would be affected by antilocks with
a control group of crashes in which antilocks are
deemed irrelevant. The problem, Lund says, is
that the categories are hardly clear-cut.
Agency researchers performed 2 versions of their analysis using different definitions
of the control group. First, they defined this
group strictly as crashes in which a motorcycle
was stationary or moving very slowly. However, such crashes are so rare that, as the researchers themselves acknowledge, it’s hard to
draw any conclusions from them.
In the second version of NHTSA’s analysis, the control group includes all crashes in
which a motorcycle rider wasn’t at fault but the
driver of another vehicle was. In this case, the
methodological problem is the inclusion of many
crashes in which antilocks are anything but
irrelevant. For instance, a rider going straight
who has to brake suddenly to avoid hitting
someone improperly turning left from the opposite lane wouldn’t be at fault, although antilock
brakes could save the life of a rider in this
situation.
“It’s hard to find many crashes in which
effective braking is irrelevant,” Lund says. “The
agency’s attempt to analyze the issue this way
adds nothing to what we know about antilocks
and certainly doesn’t refute earlier studies showing the benefits of antilock brakes.”
“Motorcycle antilock braking systems
and crash risk estimated from case-control comparisons,” along with the Institute’s letter to
NHTSA, is available at regulations.gov, Docket
No. NHTSA-2002-11950.
- IIHS Status Report
10
U.S. TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY LAHOOD APPLAUDS
NEW KANSAS PRIMARY SEAT BELT LAW
Kansas now eligible for more than $11
million in federal funds U.S. Transportation
Secretary Ray LaHood today applauded Kansas
for enacting a new primary seat belt law that is
expected to save lives, reduce serious injuries
and cut medical and other economic costs by
more than $70 million.
The new Kansas law enables police officers to stop and ticket the driver of any passenger car if either the driver or front seat passenger
is observed not wearing a seat belt. This law also
applies to anyone under age 18. According to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), seat belt use is the most effective
protection against serious crash injuries, reducing the risk by 50 percent.
"We are pleased that Kansas has joined
those states that have adopted primary seat belt
laws to save lives," said Secretary LaHood.
"Wearing a seat belt can make the difference
between life and death in a crash, so always
buckle up on every trip, every time.”
NHTSA Administrator David Strickland
added, “We applaud Governor Mark Parkinson
and the state legislature for stepping up to the
plate to make Kansas roads safer. Seat belts have
saved more lives than any other piece of safety
equipment in the American automobile, but they
only work when you wear them.”
NHTSA estimates that, with the passage
of its primary belt law, Kansas will increase its
belt use by approximately nine percent, cut
annual fatalities in passenger cars and light
trucks by eight percent and reduce serious injuries.
Traffic crashes cost the nation about
$230 billion each year in medical expenses, lost
productivity, property damage and related costs.
Kansas pays $1.9 billion of these costs, $700 for
every resident of Kansas, each year.
The new law makes Kansas eligible to
receive $11 million in federal incentive funds
from the Department of Transportation. Primary
seat belt laws have a proven track record of
increasing state seat belt use rates. In 2009, the
average seat belt use rate in states with primary
enforcement laws was 11 percent higher than in
states with secondary enforcement laws.
With the addition of Kansas, 31 states,
the District of Columbia, American Samoa,
Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands have primary seat
belt laws.
- DOT press release
This comprehensive database of motor vehicle dimensions and weights, designed to be used in accident
reconstruction, is immune to challenge in court by other lawyers or engineers because the data comes directly
from each vehicle manufacturer.
Our Standard Data Sheet (40 data points) Includes:
AAMA Widths and Lengths
AAMA Height & Ground Clearance Measurements
AAMA Curb Weight
AAMA Tire & Wheel Size
AAMA Optional Equipment Weights
Additional Information Available:
AAMA Headlamp Data
Recall Information
Acceleration Speeds/Distances
Braking Distance
VIN Number Analysis
AAMA Interior Dimensions
Manufacturing Materials Used
Center of Gravity Calculations
Pricing Structure:
$48.00 Standard Data Sheet
$28.00 Mini Data Sheet (12 data points)
$15.00 VIN Analysis
$15.00 Interior Dimensions
Supplement Information Provided at No Extra Charge
Same Day Service No Extra Charge
Interior & Exterior Line Drawings and Dimensional
Explanations at No Extra Charge
MOTOR VEHICLE DATA
12106 Waywood Drive
Twinsburg, OH 44087
Phone Orders: 330/963-0130
Fax Orders: 330/963-7737
11
PEDESTRIAN WALKING SPEED
IN CROSSWALK STUDY
By: Frank Carson
INTRODUCTION
Pedestrian walking speed is a parameter
often needed for time/distance analyses in traffic
accident reconstruction cases. A walking speed
of 3 mph (4.4 ft/sec) or 4 ft/sec (2.7 mph) is
typically assumed for a healthy, adult pedestrian,
based studies published in this periodical and
elsewhere. [Ref. 1 - 5]
Pedestrian walking speed is also widely
used as input for many transportation engineering
applications, such as determining required gap
sizes and pedestrian signal timing. The U.S.
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
[Ref. 6] assumes a pedestrian walking speed of
4 ft/sec (1.2 m/sec) or slower by pedestrians
such as the elderly, people using wheelchairs or
other assistive devices, and others.
The purpose of this study was to provide
data that would corroborate or possibly contradict previous studies, and to see what effect
variable factors such age, gender, etc., would
have on expected pedestrian travel speed.
METHODOLOGY
The study was conducted at a major
sports complex. A crosswalk was measured,
and found to be 39 feet in length from curb to
curb. The roadway was of asphalt construction
and the path that the pedestrian walked was
straight and level. The data, as it was collected,
was entered onto a form and then transferred to
a simple spreadsheet for analysis.
The pedestrians were timed using a Timex
Triathlon digital stopwatch. The watch was
started when the pedestrian’s foot left the curb
and stopped when the pedestrian’s trailing foot
came up onto the curb at the end. Pedestrians
were timed prior to the beginning of the sports
event and before the crowds became so dense
that a pedestrian’s walking speed may have been
effected by them walking within crowds across
the roadway.
Only pedestrians who walked a straight
line and were walking alone (not holding hands
with another person, etc.) along the measured
path were timed unless otherwise noted. Special
instances, such as a person walking with a cane,
were noted by a numeric code. The key to these
numeric codes is visible at right. It was possible
for a pedestrian to have required more than one
note. For example, a person limping and using
a cane would merit two separate codes.
There was no precipitation falling dur-
ing any of these measurements. The road surface was dry, except for the samples taken on 9/
18/2004 at which time the roadway on which the
pedestrians walked was wet from an earlier rain.
No pedestrians who appeared to be im-
paired by alcohol or other drugs were included
in the study. The decision to exclude a pedestrian from the study was based on the author's
experience as a law enforcement officer for 16
years, and his training as a Drug Recognition
TABLE 1 - Individual Walking Speed Measurements
Date
Race
Sex
Age
Time
Dist. (ft)
ft/sec
mph
8/14/2004
8/14/2004
8/14/2004
8/14/2004
8/14/2004
8/14/2004
B
W
W
W
W
W
M
F
F
F
M
M
35
22
35
40
25
40
8.75
8.43
8.75
9.69
8.43
9.69
39
39
39
39
39
39
4.46
4.63
4.46
4.02
4.63
4.02
3.04
3.16
3.04
2.75
3.16
2.75
Note
1
1
1
1
1
1
8/14/2004
8/14/2004
8/14/2004
8/14/2004
8/14/2004
8/14/2004
8/14/2004
8/14/2004
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
F
F
F
F
M
M
M
M
30
48
48
55
17
25
40
60
8.49
8.47
8.47
9.71
8.31
8.49
8.31
9.71
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
4.59
4.60
4.60
4.02
4.69
4.59
4.69
4.02
3.13
3.14
3.14
2.74
3.20
3.13
3.20
2.74
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
9/18/2004
8/14/2004
8/14/2004
8/14/2004
9/18/2004
8/14/2004
9/3/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
B
W
W
W
B
W
W
W
W
M
M
M
M
M
F
M
F
M
70
48
70
38
55
50
50
25
65
30.02
13.19
23.65
9.58
5.64
8.87
9.45
11.07
8.01
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
1.30
2.96
1.65
4.07
6.91
4.40
4.13
3.52
4.87
0.89
2.02
1.12
2.78
4.72
3.00
2.82
2.40
3.32
3
3
3
4
5
5
5
6
6
12/12/2004
8/28/2004
8/28/2004
1/2/2005
9/3/2004
9/18/2004
W
W
W
B
W
B
M
M
M
F
F
F
8
9
12
60
55
45
5.27
5.49
4.36
15.29
10.18
7.59
39
39
39
39
39
39
7.40
7.10
8.94
2.55
3.83
5.14
5.05
4.85
6.10
1.74
2.61
3.51
7
7
7
8
8
9
10/31/2004
12/12/2004
8/14/2004
8/14/2004
W
W
W
W
M
M
F
M
25
30
40
40
8.11
7.29
12.16
12.16
39
39
39
39
4.81
5.35
3.21
3.21
3.28
3.65
2.19
2.19
10
11
6,2
6,2
Code Descriptions:
1.
3.
5.
7.
9.
11.
Holding Hands
Walking with Cane
Motorized Wheelchair
Running
Wearing High Heels
Pulling Rolling Suitcase/Briefcase
2.
4.
6.
8.
10.
Walking Side by Side
In Wheelchair – Operated by Hand (Rider)
Overweight/Obese
Limping
Pushed in Wheelchair
12
TABLE 1 - Individual Walking Speed Measurements (Continued)
Date
Race Sex
Age
Time Dist. ft/sec
mph
12/12/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
A
A
A
F
F
F
25
30
35
8.94
11.43
8.10
39
39
39
4.36
3.41
4.81
2.98
2.33
3.28
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
10/31/2004
1/2/2005
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
8/14/2004
9/18/2004
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
19
20
20
20
20
22
23
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
28
28
10.49
11.56
8.82
10.87
7.71
9.57
8.47
9.21
8.07
10.35
7.97
10.91
9.23
11.10
9.61
7.69
3.96
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
3.72
3.37
4.42
3.59
5.06
4.08
4.60
4.23
4.83
3.77
4.89
3.57
4.23
3.51
4.06
5.07
9.85
2.54
2.30
3.02
2.45
3.45
2.78
3.14
2.89
3.30
2.57
3.34
2.44
2.88
2.40
2.77
3.46
6.72
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/3/2004
12/12/2004
9/27/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/3/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
1/2/2005
9/3/2004
9/18/2004
9/3/2004
9/18/2004
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
30
30
32
35
38
40
45
48
48
50
50
56
60
62
63
9.27
9.92
8.89
10.47
10.16
10.74
8.89
11.59
9.87
10.70
9.89
10.97
9.00
12.05
11.07
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
4.21
3.93
4.39
3.72
3.84
3.63
4.39
3.36
3.95
3.64
3.94
3.56
4.33
3.24
3.52
2.87
2.68
2.99
2.54
2.62
2.48
2.99
2.30
2.70
2.49
2.69
2.43
2.96
2.21
2.40
8/14/2004
9/3/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
12/5/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
9/18/2004
8/28/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
9
10
10
12
15
15
15
15
16
17
19
19
11.17
11.93
8.99
7.86
12.58
9.23
9.23
9.27
8.35
9.69
9.57
12.59
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
3.49
3.27
4.34
4.96
3.10
4.23
4.23
4.21
4.67
4.02
4.08
3.10
2.38
2.23
2.96
3.38
2.11
2.88
2.88
2.87
3.19
2.75
2.78
2.11
8/14/2004
9/3/2004
9/27/2004
9/27/2004
9/18/2004
9/3/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/27/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
20
20
20
20
21
22
22
22
23
23
24
25
25
10.23
9.4
9.3
12.39
8.33
7.85
8.64
7.19
8.49
10.28
12.93
10.27
9.77
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
3.81
4.15
4.19
3.15
4.68
4.97
4.51
5.42
4.59
3.79
3.02
3.80
3.99
2.60
2.83
2.86
2.15
3.19
3.39
3.08
3.70
3.13
2.59
2.06
2.59
2.72
Date
Race Sex
Age
Time Dist. ft/sec
mph
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/27/2004
10/31/2004
9/3/2004
9/18/2004
8/14/2004
9/3/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
28
30
30
35
38
9.35
7.53
7.53
8.27
8.74
11.80
7.97
8.43
6.21
9.49
8.71
11.07
10.06
8.07
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
4.17
5.18
5.18
4.72
4.46
3.31
4.89
4.63
6.28
4.11
4.48
3.52
3.88
4.83
2.85
3.53
3.53
3.22
3.04
2.25
3.34
3.16
4.28
2.80
3.05
2.40
2.64
3.30
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/27/2004
10/31/2004
1/2/2005
9/3/2004
9/27/2004
9/18/2004
1/2/2005
8/28/2004
9/18/2004
9/27/2004
9/27/2004
12/12/2004
9/18/2004
8/14/2004
8/14/2004
9/27/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
9/18/2004
10/31/2004
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
42
43
44
45
48
48
50
50
50
52
55
55
55
56
60
60
63
68
70
8.99
9.13
9.76
8.73
10.70
9.15
7.73
8.95
12.1
8.99
11.38
9.52
7.46
10.55
11.15
10.58
9.41
9.59
10.38
9.32
9.80
9.73
9.25
9.14
10.77
11.77
14.16
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
4.34
4.27
4.00
4.47
3.64
4.26
5.05
4.36
3.22
4.34
3.43
4.10
5.23
3.70
3.50
3.69
4.14
4.07
3.76
4.18
3.98
4.01
4.22
4.27
3.62
3.31
2.75
2.96
2.91
2.73
3.05
2.49
2.91
3.44
2.97
2.20
2.96
2.34
2.79
3.57
2.52
2.39
2.51
2.83
2.77
2.56
2.85
2.71
2.73
2.88
2.91
2.47
2.26
1.88
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
H
H
M
M
30
35
9.19
9.30
39
39
4.24
4.19
2.89
2.86
1/2/2005
10/31/2004
12/12/2004
1/2/2005
9/3/2004
1/2/2005
8/28/2004
8/28/2004
8/28/2004
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
9
15
15
15
16
18
19
19
19
8.03
9.48
8.60
11.17
10.18
9.67
9.35
7.63
10.19
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
4.86
4.11
4.53
3.49
3.83
4.03
4.17
5.11
3.83
3.31
2.81
3.09
2.38
2.61
2.75
2.85
3.49
2.61
9/27/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
1/2/2005
8/28/2004
8/28/2004
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
20
20
20
20
20
20
22
22
9.19
8.74
7.33
9.00
6.81
9.53
9.88
9.61
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
4.24
4.46
5.32
4.33
5.73
4.09
3.95
4.06
2.89
3.04
3.63
2.96
3.91
2.79
2.69
2.77
13
Date
Race Sex
Age
Time Dist. ft/sec
mph
9/3/2004
9/18/2004
9/27/2004
9/3/2004
8/14/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
22
22
22
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
7.28
8.80
8.45
6.74
7.78
9.07
9.01
8.09
8.01
8.53
8.50
9.78
9.47
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
5.36
4.43
4.62
5.79
5.01
4.30
4.33
4.82
4.87
4.57
4.59
3.99
4.12
3.65
3.02
3.15
3.95
3.42
2.93
2.95
3.29
3.32
3.12
3.13
2.72
2.81
9/3/2004
10/31/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
9/27/2004
9/27/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
8/28/2004
9/27/2004
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
28
30
30
30
30
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
38
38
8.48
8.19
8.11
9.12
8.64
9.89
10.63
7.79
8.33
8.35
10.75
8.39
8.09
10.19
11.73
9.29
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
4.60
4.76
4.81
4.28
4.51
3.94
3.67
5.01
4.68
4.67
3.63
4.65
4.82
3.83
3.32
4.20
3.14
3.25
3.28
2.92
3.08
2.69
2.50
3.42
3.19
3.19
2.47
3.17
3.29
2.61
2.27
2.86
9/3/2004
9/27/2004
12/12/2004
1/2/2005
12/12/2004
9/3/2004
9/3/2004
10/31/2004
12/12/2004
1/2/2005
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
40
40
40
40
43
45
45
45
45
45
8.34
9.24
9.51
8.88
8.29
9.82
9.09
7.77
8.36
11.13
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
4.68
4.22
4.10
4.39
4.70
3.97
4.29
5.02
4.67
3.50
3.19
2.88
2.80
3.00
3.21
2.71
2.93
3.42
3.18
2.39
8/28/2004
8/28/2004
9/3/2004
9/3/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
12/12/2004
9/27/2004
10/31/2004
9/27/2004
9/3/2004
8/28/2004
9/3/2004
9/3/2004
1/2/2005
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
55
55
60
63
65
65
65
65
9.27
10.79
8.52
9.09
12.87
10.50
12.01
8.97
8.43
9.77
9.69
9.91
11.25
10.03
10.12
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
4.21
3.61
4.58
4.29
3.03
3.71
3.25
4.35
4.63
3.99
4.02
3.94
3.47
3.89
3.85
2.87
2.47
3.12
2.93
2.07
2.53
2.22
2.97
3.16
2.72
2.75
2.68
2.36
2.65
2.63
1/2/2005
9/3/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
W
W
W
W
W
W
M
M
M
M
M
M
5
6
8
8
8
8
11.39
9.70
8.27
8.33
7.83
9.67
39
39
39
39
39
39
3.42
4.02
4.72
4.68
4.98
4.03
2.34
2.74
3.22
3.19
3.40
2.75
Date
Race Sex
Age
Time Dist. ft/sec
mph
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
8/14/2004
1/2/2005
9/3/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
8
8
8
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9.08
12.33
8.33
9.09
8.29
9.27
9.77
10.45
9.07
8.83
8.29
10.35
10.49
9.45
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
4.30
3.16
4.68
4.29
4.70
4.21
3.99
3.73
4.30
4.42
4.70
3.77
3.72
4.13
2.93
2.16
3.19
2.93
3.21
2.87
2.72
2.55
2.93
3.01
3.21
2.57
2.54
2.82
9/27/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
9/27/2004
12/12/2004
9/27/2004
8/14/2004
9/27/2004
9/27/2004
12/12/2004
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
7.87
8.91
9.87
7.08
8.84
8.59
8.68
9.00
9.53
9.59
8.01
9.25
9.61
10.20
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
4.96
4.38
3.95
5.51
4.41
4.54
4.49
4.33
4.09
4.07
4.87
4.22
4.06
3.82
3.38
2.99
2.70
3.76
3.01
3.10
3.06
2.96
2.79
2.77
3.32
2.88
2.77
2.61
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
10/31/2004
9/27/2004
W
W
W
W
W
M
M
M
M
M
17
17
17
18
19
8.46
9.27
8.19
8.07
8.54
39
39
39
39
39
4.61
4.21
4.76
4.83
4.57
3.14
2.87
3.25
3.30
3.12
8/28/2004
9/27/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
9.06
8.05
9.00
7.57
7.88
7.69
9.05
7.34
8.17
8.07
7.93
8.31
8.16
10.39
10.80
9.02
8.47
8.27
8.27
7.19
9.57
7.86
8.65
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
4.30
4.84
4.33
5.15
4.95
5.07
4.31
5.31
4.77
4.83
4.92
4.69
4.78
3.75
3.61
4.32
4.60
4.72
4.72
5.42
4.08
4.96
4.51
2.94
3.30
2.96
3.51
3.38
3.46
2.94
3.62
3.26
3.30
3.35
3.20
3.26
2.56
2.46
2.95
3.14
3.22
3.22
3.70
2.78
3.38
3.08
8/28/2004
9/27/2004
9/27/2004
8/14/2004
W
W
W
W
M
M
M
M
22
22
22
23
8.87
9.87
8.69
9.09
39
39
39
39
4.40
3.95
4.49
4.29
3.00
2.70
3.06
2.93
14
Date
Race Sex
Age
Time Dist. ft/sec
mph
8/28/2004
8/28/2004
9/3/2004
9/3/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
12/5/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
8.85
8.37
9.18
9.71
8.28
8.98
10.09
7.33
8.73
8.92
10.23
8.13
8.40
8.49
9.04
8.67
8.73
10.8
8.10
9.49
9.61
9.37
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
4.41
4.66
4.25
4.02
4.71
4.34
3.87
5.32
4.47
4.37
3.81
4.80
4.64
4.59
4.31
4.50
4.47
3.61
4.81
4.11
4.06
4.16
3.01
3.18
2.90
2.74
3.21
2.96
2.64
3.63
3.05
2.98
2.60
3.27
3.17
3.13
2.94
3.07
3.05
2.46
3.28
2.80
2.77
2.84
9/27/2004
8/28/2004
9/3/2004
9/3/2004
9/27/2004
W
W
W
W
W
M
M
M
M
M
27
28
28
28
28
10.03
9.19
8.06
8.64
9.58
39
39
39
39
39
3.89
4.24
4.84
4.51
4.07
2.65
2.89
3.30
3.08
2.78
8/28/2004
9/3/2004
9/27/2004
9/27/2004
9/27/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
8.29
9.88
9.81
9.58
9.63
8.03
6.87
9.83
10.48
8.45
10.53
12.99
8.77
8.25
7.93
11.40
8.03
8.69
9.09
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
4.70
3.95
3.98
4.07
4.05
4.86
5.68
3.97
3.72
4.62
3.70
3.00
4.45
4.73
4.92
3.42
4.86
4.49
4.29
3.21
2.69
2.71
2.78
2.76
3.31
3.87
2.71
2.54
3.15
2.53
2.05
3.03
3.22
3.35
2.33
3.31
3.06
2.93
8/28/2004
8/14/2004
9/3/2004
9/27/2004
9/27/2004
9/27/2004
12/12/2004
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
32
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
9.10
6.62
7.68
9.43
8.95
8.55
11.22
9.79
8.88
8.45
8.07
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
4.29
5.89
5.08
4.14
4.36
4.56
3.48
3.98
4.39
4.62
4.83
2.92
4.02
3.46
2.82
2.97
3.11
2.37
2.72
3.00
3.15
3.30
8/14/2004
8/28/2004
9/3/2004
W
W
W
M
M
M
40
40
40
8.40
7.03
7.93
39
39
39
4.64
5.55
4.92
3.17
3.78
3.35
Date
Race Sex
Age
Time Dist. ft/sec
mph
9/27/2004
9/27/2004
9/27/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
10.60
10.29
7.23
8.06
9.32
8.98
8.43
9.30
8.30
9.10
7.22
8.09
9.51
7.77
10.98
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
3.68
3.79
5.39
4.84
4.18
4.34
4.63
4.19
4.70
4.29
5.40
4.82
4.10
5.02
3.55
2.51
2.59
3.68
3.30
2.85
2.96
3.16
2.86
3.21
2.92
3.68
3.29
2.80
3.42
2.42
9/3/2004
9/27/2004
9/3/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
W
W
W
W
W
W
M
M
M
M
M
M
42
42
45
45
45
45
13.77
13.42
7.64
9.04
8.92
10.89
39
39
39
39
39
39
2.83
2.91
5.10
4.31
4.37
3.58
1.93
1.98
3.48
2.94
2.98
2.44
8/28/2004
9/3/2004
9/3/2004
9/3/2004
9/3/2004
9/27/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
12/12/2004
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
9/3/2004
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
52
8.55
10.51
10.23
9.30
9.17
11.19
9.07
9.07
9.33
9.13
9.87
8.08
9.54
9.63
9.28
8.99
9.59
11.63
9.36
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
4.56
3.71
3.81
4.19
4.25
3.49
4.30
4.30
4.18
4.27
3.95
4.83
4.09
4.05
4.20
4.34
4.07
3.35
4.17
3.11
2.53
2.60
2.86
2.90
2.38
2.93
2.93
2.85
2.91
2.70
3.29
2.79
2.76
2.87
2.96
2.77
2.29
2.84
9/3/2004
9/18/2004
8/14/2004
10/31/2004
1/2/2005
8/28/2004
10/31/2004
10/31/2004
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
1/2/2005
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
55
58
60
60
60
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
9.66
11.07
9.20
8.99
8.89
12.15
10.52
12.59
10.69
11.33
10.55
9.92
10.89
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
4.04
3.52
4.24
4.34
4.39
3.21
3.71
3.10
3.65
3.44
3.70
3.93
3.58
2.75
2.40
2.89
2.96
2.99
2.19
2.53
2.11
2.49
2.35
2.52
2.68
2.44
8/28/2004
8/28/2004
8/28/2004
9/27/2004
8/28/2004
W
W
W
W
W
M
M
M
M
M
66
67
70
72
74
9.76
11.17
9.96
10.10
15.84
39
39
39
39
39
4.00
3.49
3.92
3.86
2.46
2.73
2.38
2.67
2.63
1.68
4.28
2.92
Average
Expert and EMS provider.
Ages of pedestrians were estimates, based on the training and
experience of the author.
ANALYSIS
Three hundred ninety-one measurements were taken. They are
compiled in Table One. The average speed of all 391 tests was 4.28 ft/
sec or 2.92 mph.
As expected, the were no appreciable differences in the data when
grouped by ethnicity. Gender did not appear to be a factor either, with
virtually identical speeds observed for both males and females.
Age did appear to affect speed. Children younger than 11
generally moved slower than 4 ft/sec. Pedestrians in their late teens
walked the fastest of any age group, clocking in at an average of 4.7 ft/
sec. Adults whose age estimates ranged from 21 to 50 collectively
averaged almost exactly 4.0 ft/sec. Pedestrians in the 51 to 65 age range
had an average walking speed of 3.3 ft/sec, as did those estimated to be
66 years of age or older. (The latter group excluded two elderly
pedestrians walking with the aid of a cane.)
There were eleven special instances, such as limping or walking in
high heels, documented in this study. The only code groups that applied to
more than 3 pedestrians were #1 and #2, 'holding hands' and 'walking side
by side' respectively. The presence of these two activities did not appear
to cause pedestrian speeds to deviate significantly from the norms.
REFERENCES
1. Montufar, J., J. Arango, M. Porter and S. Nakagawa,
"Pedestrians' Normal Walking Speed and Speed When Crossing a Street,"
Accident Reconstruction Journal, May/June, 2009.
2. Fitzpatrick, K., M. A. Brewer, and S. M. Turner. "Another
Look at Pedestrian Walking Speed." In Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1982, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp.
21-29.
3. Smith, S. L., "Pedestrian Velocity Trials," Accident
Reconstruction Journal, January/February, 2000.
4. Knoblauch, R., M. Pietrucha, and M. Nitzburg. "Field Studies
of Pedestrian Walking Speed and Start-Up Time." In Transportation
Research Record 1538, TRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1996, pp. 27-38.
5. Idaho State Police, "Pedestrian Walking and Running Velocity
Study," Accident Reconstruction Journal, March/April, 1991.
6. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways. CD-ROM, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2003,
pp. 4E-l to 4E-9.
Frank Carson is a reconstructionist with the Prince Georges
County (Maryland) Police fatal accident investigation unit.
Victor Craig, ARJ editor, contributed to the data analysis and
write-up of this article.
WEDDING DEEP-SIX’D
Following an argument between a couple who had been partners
for seven years, future wedding plans have been sunk—along with the
prospective groom’s clothes, CDs, DVDs, and van. Police in Whitehaven,
England, arrested the former bride-to-be for aggravated vehicle-taking
without consent, reports The Associated Press, after she packed her
partner’s possessions into his van, drove to the harbor and released the
handbrake. The ex-groom was left only with the clothes he was wearing.
- Road and Track
15
16
THE CMF CLEARINGHOUSE:
A HANDY SAFETY TOOL
by Katy Jones, Karen Yunk, and Daniel Carter
The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), State departments of transportation
(DOTs), and other stakeholders continue to make
progress in reducing highway fatalities across
the Nation, with deaths per vehicle mile traveled
(VMT) falling every year except 1 over the last
15 years. In 1994 and 1995, for instance, there
were 1.73 fatalities per 100 million VMT, but
that number dropped to 1.25 deaths per 100
VMT in 2008, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Continuing to achieve further reductions
in traffic fatalities will require even more effective, data-driven investment decisions. Practitioners now have many resources and tools
available to help them identify potential safety
improvements and decide which ones to implement. One such resource is crash modification
factors (CMFs), multiplicative factors used to
compute the expected number of crashes that
might occur after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site. The concept is not
new, as efforts can be traced back to the 1970s to
develop tabular summaries of accident reduction factors, or ARFs, as they were called at that
time. Over the years, researchers have developed thousands of CMFs to estimate the expected safety improvement associated with
implementation of various countermeasures.
The CMF represents a valuable piece of
information for safety professionals. A CMF of
less than 1.00 indicates an expected decrease in
the number of crashes, while a CMF greater than
1.00 indicates an expected increase in crashes.
For example, imagine that an intersection is
experiencing 20 angle crashes and 40 rear-end
crashes per year. If a DOT implements automated red light running enforcement cameras,
which have a CMF of 0.67 for angle crashes, the
agency might expect to see 13 angle crashes (20
x 0.67 = 13) per year after implementation. If the
same countermeasure also has a CMF of 1.45 for
rear-end crashes, the DOT might expect to see
58 rear-end crashes (40 x 1.45 = 58) per year. By
performing these calculations, engineers can
weigh the relative costs and benefits of installing various countermeasures and inform
decisionmakers about the solution(s) most likely
to improve overall safety at a given location.
Research continuously identifies new
CMFs, but they are useful only if easily available to practitioners. Recognizing the growing
need for a centralized location to store and
provide easy access to the CMFs, FHWA recently launched the Web-based Crash Modification
Factors
Clearinghouse
(www.CMFClearinghouse.org). As of August
2010, the clearinghouse provides access to more
than 2,500 CMFs for over 700 countermeasures,
as well as guidance to help transportation professionals use CMFs to improve their decisions
about road safety. The site also features information on training and cost-benefit analyses.
"The Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse provides an easy way for practitioners
to use the latest knowledge as they make important safety improvement decisions on their roadways," says FHWA Executive Director Jeff
Paniati. "It also provides links to other important
safety resources, such as the new [American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)] Highway Safety
Manual."
Building the Clearinghouse
In November 2008, FHWA began developing the CMF Clearinghouse. The agency
worked with a variety of potential users, such as
State DOT personnel and local engineers, to
develop the content, design, and functionality of
the Web site. Based on this indepth user feedback, FHWA structured the clearinghouse to
include several key features. First, the site includes a rating system to inform users of the
reliability of CMFs. Second, the site lists both
CMFs and crash reduction factors (or CRFs),
which are estimates of the percentage reduction
in crashes. Plus, the site is home to assorted
educational materials that are updated regularly.
The clearinghouse also coordinates closely with
information covered in AASHTO's Highway
Safety Manual, which is a key document practitioners use to facilitate roadway design and
operational decisions based on explicit consideration of their safety consequences.
The initial collection of CMFs in the
clearinghouse came from several sources: research conducted to develop AASHTO's Highway Safety Manual, FHWA's Desktop Reference for Crash Reduction Factors, and studies
identified at the 2009 Transportation Research
Board annual meeting. After drawing on existing compilations of CMFs to populate the clearinghouse upfront, FHWA now updates the site
quarterly as new CMFs become available.
Studies have shown that providing continuous milled-in shoulder rumble strips (with a
CMF of 0.21) like those shown here can lead to
a 79 percent reduction in crashes.
FHWA identifies additional CMFs for
the updates through literature searches and user
submissions, and then reviews all potential new
CMFs to determine their applicability for the
clearinghouse. The review process has two parts.
First, a preliminary review identifies and records
key information about studies with potential
relevance to the clearinghouse. This step records
information such as the study title and publication date, countermeasures investigated, study
methodology, sample size, and locations used
for data collection. Second, a critical review
then evaluates each CMF and determines an
appropriate quality rating. After FHWA assigns
a rating, the CMF goes live on the clearinghouse
Web site.
Rating CMF Quality
The CMF Clearinghouse includes all
documented CMFs, which can vary widely in
quality and reliability depending on the study
design, number of sites included in the analysis,
and other factors. For this reason, the potential
users who were consulted requested that the
clearinghouse include a system to indicate the
dependability of each CMF. In response, FHWA
developed a quality rating system utilizing stars
-- the more stars, the better the quality of the
CMF.
FHWA bases the quality rating on a
CMF's performance (that is, the quality of the
study that developed the CMF) in five categories: study design, sample size, standard error,
potential bias, and data source. The performance
in each category is rated as excellent, fair, or
poor. For example, a study that employed a
statistically rigorous design with a reference
group, such as empirical Bayes (a method by
which predicted crashes are compared to actual
crashes to determine the safety effect of the
countermeasure), would receive a rating of excellent for study design. If the study employed a
simple before/after design, it would receive a
lower rating relative to study design. However,
study design is only one category. If the study
also had a large sample size or widespread data
source, it would receive high scores for those
categories. Scores across all five categories are
combined to produce the star quality rating for
the CMF.
The quality rating system applies criteria
that are intended to be as objective as possible,
but ratings still entail a degree of subjectivity
and judgment. "Users of the clearinghouse should
take into account all the information presented
for a CMF and should not substitute the star
quality rating for sound engineering judgment,"
says Ray Krammes, technical director, FHWA
Office of Safety Research and Development.
Although the star quality rating provides
Continued on page 64
19
BRAKING RATES FOR STUDENTS IN A
MOTORCYCLE TRAINING PROGRAM
By: Wade Bartlett and Charlie Greear
INTRODUCTION
When evaluating the ability of a motorcyclist to stop in a given situation, the reconstructionist needs to select an appropriate braking rate, or drag factor. Though most modern
motorcycles can approach or exceed 1g on dry
clean pavement, most riders can not, and expecting them to is unreasonable. This article will
present some new data on rider capabilities, and
compare it to previously published research on
the capabilities of both novice and skilled riders.
STAR PROGRAM
The state of Idaho operates a motorcycle
training program called the Skills Training
Advantage for Riders (STAR) at three skill
levels: Basic I (B-I), Basic II (BII), and
Experienced (EX).
The Basic I program is for riders who are
new to motorcycling, with virtually no
experience, and is conducted on STAR training
motorcycles. These bikes are typically 250cc or
smaller, with front disc and rear drum brakes.
The Basic II program is for riders who
are returning to motorcycling or those who have
ridden on dirt, but not on the street, i.e., riders
with some experience but not much on street
cycles. These riders also use the program’s
training motorcycles.
The Experienced program is for riders
who have been riding for more than one year,
and is conducted us ing the riders’ own
motorcycles. More information on the Idaho
STAR program can be found online at http://
www.idahostar.org/.
to produce the histogram shown in Figure 1, and
the probability plot shown in Figure 2. The very
clear linearrelationship shown in Figure 2
indicates that the data is normal.
ANALYSIS
TESTING
The conclusion of each level of class
includes a riding skills test, which incorporates
a stopping test. Riders are instructed to approach
the stopping area at a steady speed of 15 to 20
miles per hour. Just prior to the braking area,
they are manually timed through a 44 foot long
timing chute. Riders are instructed to effect a
maximum braking stop as they exit the timing
chute. The rider’s distance to stop is logged, as
well as their time through the chute. Riders who
brake early are asked to try again.
It was arranged to record and collect the
time through the chute and measured stopping
distance for 100 students in each of thethree
programs. Results in each group included some
average stopping values in excess of 1.05g,
which were discarded as unrealistic, and easily
explained as riders who began their braking
prematurely, but not so much as to have alerted
the instructor to it.
The resulting three data sets were almost
indistinguishable, as shown in Table 1, and in
fact are not statistically different.
The three groups of data were combined
Figure 1: Histogram of data set comprised of all results
under 1.05g, with normal curve superimposed.
Previously, Ecker [1] as well as Vavryn
& Winklebauer [2] have published results
conducted under similar conditions with riders
on their own machines. Despite the more complex
data collection systems utilized by those
researchers, the Idaho STAR data compares
very well with their results, as shown in Table 2.
Bartlett, et al [3] published results of testing
conducted with trained and experienced policeriders, and showed slightly higher results than
any of these groups. Though not explicitly
broken out in that paper, the IPTM data shows a
slight increase in average deceleration as speed
increases. This is commonly seen in such testing,
TABLE 1: Summary Statistics
for STAR Program Riders
B-I
B-II
EX
Average
0.60
0.64
0.61
Std. Dev.
0.16
0.14
0.14
Count
94
96
98
Figure 2: Probability plot showing good agreement
with the linear “normal” probability assumption.
20
as the initial sub-optimal braking portion of the
event becomes a smaller and smaller portion of
the overall event.
The application of this work to accident
reconstruction should not be viewed as a means
to interpret speed based on skidmarks. Skidding
friction values, to be used when there are marks
to measure, have been discussed at length in
other articles and publications. Rather, this data
should be applied to those circumstances when
one is attempting to evaluate how a rider performed or could have performed, given
situationally appropriate time and distance limitations based on the scene and circumstances of
the event under consideration. For instance,
when calculating if a novice rider could have
stopped in time given a different approach
speed, it is unreasonable to assume that the
rider should have slowed at a rate of 0.75g, as
that value is significantly better than an average novice rider’s performance. In fact, 65%
of novice riders demonstrated stopping rates
of just 0.48 to 0.75g.
CONCLUSIONS
Essentially all modern motorcycles are
capable of generating decelerations approaching
TABLE 2: Comparison Between STAR Results
and Other Published Data from Similar Testing
Average
Drag (g)
Standard
Deviation (g)
Count
Target
Speed (mph)
STAR (all)
0.60
0.15
288
15 - 20
Ecker
0.64
0.12
274
37
Vavryn (novice)
0.57
0.10
32
31 - 37
Vavryn (experienced)
0.66
0.14
134
31 - 37
IPTM (experienced)
0.73
0.15
57
20
IPTM (experienced)
0.74
0.15
74
30
IPTM (experienced)
0.78
0.13
55
40
or even exceeding 1g on dry pavement. But
average riders can not be expected to approach
that level of braking, even when tested in nonthreatening parking lot environments with
some opportunity for practice.
REFERENCES
1. Vavryn, K., and M. Winklebauer,
"Braking Performance of Experienced and
Novice Motorcycle Riders – Results of a Field
Study," International Conference on Traffic &
Transport Psychology, 2004.
2. Ecker, H., J. Wassermann, G. Hauer,
R. Ruspekhofer, M. Grill, "Braking Deceleration
of Motorcycle Riders," International Motorcycle
Safety Conference, 2001.
3. Bartlett, W., A. Baxter, N. Robar,
"Motorcycle Braking Tests: I.P.T.M. Data
Through 2006," Accident Reconstruction
Journal, July/August 2007.
Wade Bartlett is the owner of Mechanical
Forensics Engineering Services, LLC. He may
be contacted through his web site, http://
www.mfes.com.
Charlie Greear is a reconstructionist
with Thorn Consulting Services. He may be
contacted at [email protected].
#
#
#
21
FARMER DIES WHEN HIS TRACTOR
WAS REAR-ENDED BY A SEMI
- The N.I.O.S.H. F.A.C.E. Report
INTRODUCTION
On April 30, 2007, a 53-year-old male
farmer died when the John Deere 3020 tractor
he was operating on a dry, two-lane road was
struck in the rear by a semi truck. MIFACE
was notified of this incident via a newspaper
clipping.
On January 30, 2008, MIFACE
researchers spoke with a family member about
the incident. During the course of writing this
report, the police and medical examiner reports
were reviewed. The pictures used in this report
are courtesy of the responding police
department. The decedent was a lifetime
farmer. He raised 300-400 head of sheep and
goats. He had been actively involved in many
agricultural organizations and educational
endeavors. He owned several styles of tractors,
including cabbed tractors having rollover
protection structures (ROPS) and seat belts.
The family member indicated that all of the
agricultural equipment that required a SMV
emblem was equipped with a SMV emblem.
INVESTIGATION
The decedent had completed the
morning chores and had set up and tested the
corn planters in the field. After completing
these tasks, the decedent traveled on his John
Deere 3020 to pick up a port-a-box wood
wagon from another farm location. This tractor
was not a cabbed tractor and was not equipped
with a ROPS and seat belt. The tractor was
equipped with a worn, faded SMV emblem
(Figure 2). Two travel routes to the location of
the port-a-box wagon were available, a less
traveled, dirt road, longer “back road” route
and a more traveled, paved, shorter “direct”
route. The decedent chose the shorter, more
direct route.
He attached the port-a-box wagon,
which had a retro-reflective SMV emblem
attached to the rear (Figure 3), and proceeded
home via the direct route at approximately
2:00 p.m. The road upon which he was traveling
when he was struck had a dry, blacktop surface
with paved shoulders that transitioned to
gravel, and then grass ditches. The roadway
was straight at the crash location; there were
no hills, curves or dips in the road. The posted
speed limit was 55 mph. There were no traffic
control devices, fixed objects, or vision
obstructions in the area or near the roadway.
Post-incident scene measurements
taken by the responding police department
indicate that the farm tractor extended 3 feet
2 inches into the northbound lane. The
decedent was driving the tractor with the
tractor’s right tire on the eastern most edge of
the pavement at the shoulder. Approximately
5 feet 10 inches of northbound travel lane
was left between the road’s centerline and the
left side of the tractor.
Both the decedent and a semi truck
hauling an empty milk tanker were traveling
northbound (Drawing 1). A tractor driver,
also traveling northbound was approximately
one-half mile behind the decedent. This tractor
driver stated in the police report that the semi
approached his tractor, so he moved to the
right hand far shoulder of the roadway. The
semi driver slowed down and passed him in
the southbound lane, waved as he passed, and
then moved back into the northbound lane.
A vehicle driver traveling in the
southbound lane stated in the police report
that he observed both the farm tractor and
semi approaching him. He indicated he moved
off of the road slightly to give the semi room
to pass his vehicle.
The police report contained a
transcribed interview of the semi truck driver.
The driver indicated he came on duty at
midnight and had made some runs. He had a
brief nap, got some fuel, and picked up an
empty milk tank. During the police interview
at the scene, the driver indicated he was tired
and was planning to rest at the next farm
where he was scheduled to stop, which was
approximately 45 minutes away. The driver
indicated that he had slowed down as he was
entering the town’s limits and looked down
because he was going to get a drink out of his
cooler, and when he looked back up, the
decedent’s tractor was right in front of him.
The semi driver stated he swerved but
indicated he didn’t have time and was too
close to be able to avoid a collision. The right
front of the semi cab struck the left rear
corner of the wagon and then struck the
tractor, causing the wagon and tractor to
become separated and the tractor to roll over
several times. The semi driver was unsure if
he applied the truck’s brakes. Witnesses stated
in the police report that they did not observe
any pre-impact braking on the part of the
semi driver, which was confirmed by visual evidence
and measurements taken by police at the scene.
Most of the damage was on the right rear end
of the tractor, which was contact damage. The 3-point
hitch was broken off from the tractor and the right rear
tire was broken off from the rim and axle. The left rear
tire had fresh rubbings where it had rubbed on the
semi milk tanker.
The semi and milk tank jackknifed. The semi
cab came to a resting position facing a southeasterly
direction with the bulk milk tank facing almost directly
north. Skid marks from the point of impact to the point
of rest showed the semi skidded to the left and back
towards the right. There were braking marks on the
road from the point of impact to the resting point from
the semi cab and milk tank. There were several
scrapes and gouges in the area where the skid marks
began. In examining the post impact skid marks, it
appeared that the semi caused what is known as “skip
skids” as it braked after impacting with the tractor.
The post impact skip skids lead to the rear drive axels
of the semi cab. There were also skip skids leading to
the rear of the semi’s milk tank.
The decedent’s tractor flipped and landed in
the ditch upside down on the east side of the road with
Figure 1 - Overhead photo of incident scene
22
the front end facing southeast (Figure 4). Part of
the wagon was on the east side of the road with
the front facing in a southwest direction; the rest
of the wagon was northeast of the wagon bed in
a yard. The decedent was ejected from the tractor
and was lying on the ground between the semi
milk tank and the tractor. There were skid marks
from the tires of the tractor and wagon also on
the road veering off to the right. Post impact tire
marks for the tractor were also observed. There
was a large tractor tire mark that began directly
on the fog line for northbound traffic, and then
proceeded between the fog line and the gravel on
the east side of the roadway. This tire mark led
directly to the area of the first portion of the
wagon.
Neighbors nearby began to assist the
decedent after the impact occurred as he was
lying on the roadway. A witness working in his
yard called 911 after observing the impact. He
rendered aid to the decedent, asking another
neighbor for blankets to cover the decedent to
minimize shock. This witness asked the truck
driver to shut off his vehicle and for neighbors to
shut off the tractor. EMS arrived, and this Good
Samaritan stepped back and let emergency
responders provide medical care for the decedent.
A neighbor asked if the semi driver was OK and
he indicated that he was. The semi driver was
going to call 911, but a passerby told him that
911 had already been called.
Contact damage on the semi cab was
mainly on the right front of the engine block
area, which tore off the fender and half of the
fiberglass hood. The right front passenger tire
was pushed back and bent. The engine had
boards stuck through the radiator and pieces of
wood inside the engine compartment. There was
red paint transferred from the wagon. The steel
front bumper of the semi cab was bent and
crumpled under the engine area.
Police estimated the speed of the semi at
the time of collision between 52 and 55 mph.
CAUSE OF DEATH
The cause of death as listed on the death
Drawing 1. Police drawing
of incident scene
Figure 2. Police photo after the incident
showing SMV emblem affixed to the tractor
certificate was multiple trauma secondary to a
motor vehicle accident. Toxicological results
were negative for alcohol and illegal drugs.
RECOMMENDATIONS/DISCUSSION
Truck Drivers:
Ensure adequate rest and minimize
distractions while driving.
The driver stated to the responding police
that he was tired. It is unknown if the driver of
the semi had received the required hours of rest
prior to driving the semi the day of the incident
because MIFACE could not obtain the driver’s
logbook. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) blames driver fatigue
for 31% of all truck driver fatalities. Also unknown
was the time of the day or night he rested and the
quality of rest he experienced, as these two factors
can affect an individual’s alertness. Driving while
drowsy/sleepy decreases the alertness level of a
driver and may easily lead to paying less attention
to the task of driving. As illustrated by this
tragedy, it is imperative that drivers ensure that
they are alert and that their attention is focused
on driving. The National Sleep Foundation http:/
/www.sleepfoundation.org/ (Link updated 9/23/
2009) offers tips and a wealth of information
about sleep, drowsy driving, and web links for
more information on drowsy driving. The Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/outreach/
driver-safety/driversafety.htm has many
resources drivers may access to learn about the
importance of drowsy driving.
Another factor in this incident was that
the driver was distracted (looking in his cooler)
and by the time he looked up, he did not have
adequate reaction time to take evasive maneuvers.
The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety http://
www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/distraction.pdf
defines distraction as “when a driver is delayed
in the recognition of information needed to
safely accomplish the driving task because some
event, activity, object, or person within or outside
the vehicle compels or induces the driver’s
shifting attention away from the driving task.”
Distractions can occur outside of the vehicle and
inside of the vehicle.
The need to minimize distractions, such
as eating and drinking in the car are well
publicized, but often not heeded by drivers, with
Figure 3. SMV emblem on wagon
23
tragic results. Under panic conditions the
stopping distance for a truck is dramatically
greater than a car. Pavement conditions such as
wet or hot conditions also increase the distance
with some charts suggesting doubling or more
of the distances.
Agricultural Community:
Use less busy alternate routes when
available when operating agricultural
equipment on the road, especially during high
traffic volume hours. Farmers cannot control
the actions of the motoring public, thus operating
agricultural equipment, on public roads should
be considered a high-risk farming activity.
Farmers can take actions to minimize their
exposure to and increase their visibility to the
motoring public. Michigan traffic crash data
for 2006 compiled by the Michigan State Police
found that a total of 151 crashes involving farm
equipment were reported on Michigan roadways
during 2006. Of these crashes, four resulted in
fatalities with one driver of the farm equipment
killed. 2007 farm equipment crash data was not
available at the time of writing this report.
When determining the travel routes to
be taken when traveling on the road with
agricultural equipment, farmers should consider
both the route and volume of traffic and the
time of day in relation to personal and equipment
safety concerns. The most direct route may be
the fastest route, but may not be the safer route.
The safe route may be one that takes more time.
The time of day also is critical to
agricultural equipment on-the-road operation.
The crash described in this report occurred
between noon and 2:59 p.m. Michigan traffic
crash data indicates that the highest percentage
of all time periods (22%) of fatal crashes
involving semi trucks occurred during this time
period, as well as the highest percentage of
injury crashes (21.1%). For all vehicles, 16%
of all crashes and 12% of all fatal crashes
occurred during the hours of noon to 2:59 p.m.
The time period during a “normal” workday
according to the 2006 crash data with the fewest
crashes was 9:00 a.m. to 11:59 a.m.
Upgrade old slow moving vehicle
(SMV) emblems to the new retro-reflective
SMV emblems.
A SMV emblem is a reflective orange
triangle bordered with red that warns other road
users that the vehicle displaying the sign is
traveling slower than the normal speed of traffic.
The American Society of Agricultural Engineers
(ASAE) has developed new recommendations
for lighting and marking equipment (ASAE
S276.6, January 2005). Although the SMV
emblems meeting the old ASAE standard are still
available, MIFACE encourages owners of
implements of husbandry operated on the
roadways to purchase SMV emblems meeting the
new recommendations. SMV emblems meeting
the recommendations in ASAE 276.6 are in
packages labeled with S276.5 or a higher number.
The new SMV emblems have
fluorescent material aiding daytime visibility
and reflective material aiding nighttime
visibility (Figure 5). Replacing worn SMV
emblems is important because the orange
fluorescent center portion of the SMV emblem
fades and turns color over time, changing from
orange to yellow, pink or white. This portion is
the most vulnerable to light and moisture
degradation because fluorescent dyes
decompose.
Retro-reflective material as found in
the outer border of the SMV emblem reflects
the headlights of vehicles approaching from
the rear at night. Retro-reflective material holds
up longer than fluorescent material. The retroreflective readings on SMV emblems meeting
the new ASAE standard are over ten times
greater than most of the readings on SMV
emblems currently in use. Figure 5 shows a
comparison of older and newer SMV emblems.
The SMV on the left is a new sign under the old
standard, the SMV in the middle is a new sign
under the new standard, and the SMV on the
right is an old sign under the old standard.
When available, use rollover protective
structures (ROPS) and seatbelt equipped
agricultural equipment when operating on
the road.
The decedent owned cabbed tractors
that had ROPS and seat belts. Cabbed tractors
must be equipped with at least one rear view
mirror. It is likely he would have taken evasive
maneuvers if he was able to see the semi
bearing down on him in the rear view mirror. If
the crash still occurred, he would have had a
greater chance of surviving the crash if he had
been belted in the cab as he would not have
been thrown onto the roadway by the force of
the collision.
Retrofit older tractors with properly
designed, manufactured and installed ROPS
and seat belt when available.
Older tractors can be equipped with
rollover protection structures and seatbelts.
Rollover protection structures (ROPS) have
been required by federal and state law for all
tractors used by employees (with limited
exception) in agricultural operations that were
built after October 25, 1976. There are two
basic types of ROPS for farm tractors: protective
frames (two- or four- post structures attached
to the tractor chassis) and protective enclosures
(cabs or enclosures built around a protective
frame).
ROPS are designed to help limit a tractor
overturn to 90 degrees and to provide the
operator a “zone of protection” (Figure 6). The
operator must stay within this zone. The
operator will not be protected by the ROPS
during an overturn if the operator is not wearing
a seatbelt. Without a seatbelt, the operator may
be totally or partially thrown off the tractor.
The seatbelt keeps the operator within the
“zone of protection” provided by the ROPS.
Even inside a cab, seat belts are important to keep
the operator from being thrown against the frame,
through a window, or out a door. Therefore, when
an older tractor is retrofitted with a ROPS, approved
seatbelts must also be installed. Seat belts may or
may not be included with an available ROPS
package.
Some tractors cannot be retrofitted with a
ROPS/seatbelt according to the manufacturer or
the cost of the retrofit is excessive in relation to the
value of the tractor. In these cases, MIFACE
recommends that the farm owner not use such
tractors and consider renting or leasing a tractor
equipped with a ROPS/seatbelt, appropriate
equipment for performing the work and
discontinuing the use of the non-ROPS/seatbeltequipped tractor. Seat belts should not be used on
tractors that do not have ROPS.
The National Farm Medicine Center in
Marshfield, Wisconsin maintains “A Guide to
Agricultural Tractor Rollover Protective
Structures.” This webpage lists manufacturers,
models, and approximate costs of obtaining retrofit
ROPS for almost all types of tractors. Another
option for owners of older tractors to obtain
information about ROPS retrofits is to contact their
local extension office or tractor dealership. ROPS
should be certified to meet at a minimum the
standards and regulations of various agencies that
ensure that the frame or enclosure is designed to
provide overturn protection. ROPS should not be
manufactured in the farm machine shop. OSHA
Figure 4. Tractor upside down
after being struck by semi
Figure 5. Comparison of SMV emblems
24
requires that ROPS are labeled/marked, therefore,
tractor owners should look for a label on the frame
or enclosure stating it meets rollover protection
standards. Per the Marshfield Clinic website, a
foldable ROPS/seatbelt and a rigid ROPS/seatbelt
unit is available from John Deere for the tractor
being driven by the decedent. The Marshfield Clinic
ROPS webpage can be accessed at the Internet
address: http://www.marshfieldclinic.org/NFMC/
?page=nfmc_rops_guide.
Install side view mirrors and construct/
purchase appropriate temporary flashing warning
lights and attach them to a tractor if not so equipped
when the tractor is operated on the road.
Roll-over protection, safety hitch, SMV
emblem, rear-view mirrors, signal lights, hand
signals, clearance lights and/or reflectors are all
aids to safety on the highway. If a piece of equipment
that is not equipped with a cab is used on the road,
consider mounting a base for a detachable rear
view/side view mirror to enable you to see what is
coming up behind you. The mirror mounting shall
provide a stable support for the mirror, and shall
provide for mirror adjustment by tilting in both
Figure 6. Operator Zone of Protection
when wearing seat belt
Figure 7. Orange mailboxes on
southbound side of roadway
horizontal and vertical directions. Having
mirrors that are properly adjusted will enable
the operator to monitor traffic and view how
the towed machinery is traveling. It is essential
to know at all times what is happening around
you when operating tractors and other
machinery. The mirrors should extend beyond
the sides of any towed or self-propelled
machine to provide optimum visibility.
Farm implement owners should look
at the new lighting and marking standard that
is required for all implements manufactured
after January 1, 2007 as a model for lighting.
Michigan Motor Vehicle Code (MVC) 257.688
provides that SMV emblems be mounted on
the rear of the vehicle, broad base down, not
less than three feet nor more than five feet
above the ground and as near the center of the
vehicle as possible. The use of this reflective
device is restricted to use on slow moving
vehicles specified in this section, and use of
such reflective device on any other type of
vehicle or stationary object on the highway is
prohibited. On the rear, at each side, red
reflectorsor reflectorized material visible from
all distances within 500 to 50 feet to the rear
when directly in front of lawful upper beams
of headlamps.
Michigan MVC section 684a provides
that an implement of husbandry shall comply
with the following, which are incorporated by
reference:
(a) ANSI/ASAE S276.6 JAN2005,
Slow-Moving Vehicle Identification Emblem.
(b) ANSI/ASAE S279.12 DEC02,
Lighting and Marking of Agricultural
Equipment on Highways.
Older tractors (those manufactured
prior to January 1, 2007) are required to be
equipped with at least one lighted lamp
exhibiting a white light visible from a distance
of 500 feet to the front of the vehicle and with
a lamp exhibiting a red light visible from a
distance of 500 feet to the rear of the vehicle.
Michigan MVC section 257.698(f))
states that a vehicle towing an implement of
husbandry or an implement of husbandry may
be equipped with flashing, rotating, or
oscillating amber lights. Amber is the only
color permitted for this application. Adding
this lighting to the towing vehicle or to the
implement of husbandry being towed would
increase the visibility of the equipment to
other vehicle drivers. Red reflective material
on the outboard edges is required for all
implements. Department of Transportation
(DOT) truck tape can be applied to comply
with this requirement.
Municipalities:
Municipalities in rural areas should
consider the visual confusion and distraction
that may be experienced by vehicle drivers
such as when newspaper holders attached to
mailboxes are the same colors as an SMV
emblem and/or SMV emblems are used as
markers.
The MIFACE researchers recreated the
travel route of the decedent. Although the
photograph does not do it justice, it was very
apparent that the orange paper boxes affixed to
either mailboxes or free standing used to store
delivered papers could provide visual confusion
to any vehicle operator who was driving on the
road (Figure 7). Although the paper boxes were
located primarily on the southbound side of the
road, as the researcher was looking on the
northbound lane in the distance, the orange
color blended into the roadway.
In rural communities especially, where
there is increased interaction between
agricultural vehicles affixed with the orange/
red SMV emblems and regular vehicular traffic,
the SMVs must be able to be easily
distinguishable from the surrounding travel
area. Additionally, other safety indicators, such
as orange vests runners may wear or orange
flags used on bikes may be diluted when there
is a great deal of “orange” in the area.
SMV emblems illegally mounted on
fixed objects such as trees or mailboxes and/or
used as driveway indicators in the road rightof-way also minimize the impact of seeing a
SMV emblem on a piece of equipment. This
misuse of the SMV emblem is a violation of
Section 688 of the Michigan Motor Vehicle
Code.
MIFACE encourages communities to
assess potential visual cue confusion issues,
such as orange paper delivery boxes and
illegally mounted SMV emblems. MIFACE
encourages communities to mandate that objects
on the side of the road be of a color that cannot
be confused with the colors of warning symbols,
such as slow moving vehicle emblems. These
objects should be removed and replaced.
Communities should also direct their
enforcement agencies to inform the public about
the misuse of SMV emblems as markers and
ensure the SMV removal.
States and Federal Government:
States and the Federal government
should modify drivers’ training material and
drivers’ tests to include SMV emblem
interpretation, types of vehicles on which a
SMV emblem is found, and the proper safety
procedures to use when approaching and
passing a SMV-marked vehicle.
Agricultural equipment, most
construction equipment, and other special
vehicles are required to display the SMV when
operating on a public road. Many young drivers
have no contact with any of these types of
vehicles and are not aware of how they are
moved on the road. Older drivers may recognize
the SMV emblem but the prolific illegal use of
the emblem as driveway markers has diluted its
effectiveness over time. All drivers should be
made aware of the hazards associated with
25
SMV marked vehicles, those vehicles right to
use the road, and the penalties for injuring of
killing the operator of those vehicles.
The MVC at Sec. 601c states that (1) a
person who commits a moving violation that has
criminal penalties and as a result causes injury to
a person operating an implement of husbandry
on a highway in compliance with this act is
guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by
imprisonment for not more than one year or a
fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both, and (2)
a person who commits a moving violation that
has criminal penalties and as a result causes
death to a person operating an implement of
husbandry on a highway in compliance with this
act is guilty of a felony punishable by
imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a
fine of not more than $7,500.00, or both.
REFERENCES
1. Murphy, Dennis J and Shufran,
Jennifer L. "Rx forSMV Highway Safety: Be
Conspicuous." Pennsylvania State University.
Document reference from National Ag Safety
Database. http://www.nasdonline.org/document/
29/d001545/rx-for-smv-highway-safetybeconspicuous.html (Link updated 10/5/2009)
2. Legault PhD, Malcolm L. Farm "Safety
and Health Week (September 15-21, 2002) Not
Just for Farmers Anymore: Part I – Agricultural
Producers." National Education Center fro
Agricultural Safety (NECAS). http://
www.nasdonline.org/document/199/d000148/
national-farm-safety-andhealth-week-notjust.html (Link updated 1/12/2010)
3. Michigan Farmers Transportation
Guidebook, January 2008. Michigan State Police.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/
FarmersTransportationGuidebook2008_224593_7.pdf
4. “A Guide to Agricultural Tractor
Rollover Protective Structures.” National Farm
Medicine Center in Marshfield, Wisconsin. http:/
/www.marshfieldclinic.org/NFMC/
?page=nfmc_rops_guide
5. "Farm equipment needs to be more
visible! Be Seen and Be Safe" is sponsored by
the Edgecombe, Greene, Johnston, Nash, Pitt,
Wayne, and Wilson Centers of the North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service and the North
Carolina State Highway Patrol with funding
from the North Carolina Tobacco Trust Fund
Commission. http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/
johnston/bsbs/visible.html
6. National Highway Traffic and Safety
Administration (NHTSA). Wisconsin
Department of Transportation, Safety and
Consumer Protection. "Driver Behaviors." http:/
/www.dot.state.wi.us/safety/motorist/behaviors/
7. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
The Role of Driver Distraction in Traffic Crashes.
May 2001. http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/
distraction.pdf
8. National Sleep Foundation. http://
www.sleepfoundation.8. org/ (Link updated 8/
5/2009) Mich. St. Police. Michigan Traffic Crash
Statistics. http://www.michigantrafficcrashfacts.org/
9. Michigan FACE Program MIFACE
(Michigan Fatality Assessment and Control
Evaluation), Michigan State University (MSU)
Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 117
West Fee Hall, East Lansing, Michigan 488241315;
http://www.oem.msu.edu/
MiFACE_Program.aspx.
This information is for educational
purposes only. This MIFACE report becomes
public property upon publication and may be
printed verbatim with credit to Mich. St. Univ.
DO DRINK AND DRIVE
A Dutch scientist is encouraging people
to drink and drive....on a racetrack. Young
drivers who take the special driving lessons are
asked to drink alcohol until they reach the drunk
driving limit, then go onto the track where they
attempt a slalom course, parking and an emergency stop. According to the scientist, in the 10
years the course has been running, every single
person has failed the test.
- Road & Track
27
E.D.R. DELTA-V RELIABILITY AND
RESTITUTION VALUES FOR SIX LOW
AND MODERATE SPEED COLLINEAR
CENTRAL CRASH TESTS
By: Andrew Rich, Bill Wright, and Michelle L. Fish-Rich
Abstract
In April of 2010 a series of six low- and
moderate-speed collinear central crash tests were
conducted. The test vehicles contained
instrumentation capable of documenting the crash
pulse, approach and departure speeds. The
resulting data set was used to calculate
coefficients of restitution. The well-known
behavior of restitution as a function of closing
speed was confirmed.
Those results and some implications for
the reconstructionist follow. Furthermore, the
bullet vehicles carried “ride-along” General
Motors Event Data Recorders (EDRs) that sensed
acceleration and calculated delta-V. While the
EDR generally documented shorter crash pulses,
the EDR-calculated delta-V was found to be
very similar to the delta-V determined with the
independent instrumentation.
Introduction
Restitution is the tendency of damaged
vehicle parts to return to their pre-damaged
state. It is obvious that very small forces applied
to a vehicle will result in no residual damage
after the crash forces are removed. This
phenomena occurs because all materials have an
associated property called elasticity, which is
the object’s resistance to deformation. The ability
of a vehicle part to return to its original shape
depends on the material involved, the design of
the particular part, and the amount of force
involved.
There are several methods with which
restitution may be quantified. The most common
is the kinematic definition of restitution, which
compares the ratio of the closing speed of two
vehicles immediately before impact to their
departure speeds just after impact. That
relationship is given by:
e
=
v2 - v 1
--------V1 - V 2
for two colliding objects, where
e is the coefficient of restitution
V1 is the scalar initial velocity of the first object
before impact
V2 is the scalar initial velocity of the second
object before impact
v1 is the scalar final velocity of the first object
after impact
v2 is the scalar final velocity of the second
object after impact
Procedure
In a series of tests conducted at IPTM’s
2010 Special Problems in Accident
Reconstruction Conference, a series of increasing
low and moderate closing speed collinear central
collisions were conducted. All of the crashes
consisted of a stationary target vehicle that was
struck on the rear bumper by the front bumper of
a moving bullet vehicle. The bumpers were
constructed from high density foam. The moving
bullet vehicle was driven into the collision. All
of the collisions were collinear with 100%
overlap. The brakes of the target vehicle were
not set, and the transmission was placed into
neutral to avoid the necessity of considering
external impulses. The vehicles used were a
1999 Suzuki Esteem and a 2000 Pontiac Grand
Am.
Four tests were conducted on Wednesday,
April 26, 2010 and three tests were conducted on
Thursday, April 27, 2010. On Wednesday, the
bullet vehicle was the Suzuki Esteem. Permanent
damage was done to both vehicles after the last
test on Wednesday, so the roles were reversed
and the Pontiac was used as the bullet vehicle on
Thursday.
Each vehicle was equipped with a 50G
accelerometer that was attached to the right
front floor pan, and a differential GPS was
secured to the roof. The accelerometer data was
sampled at 1000 Hz and the GPS data was
sampled at 5 Hz by a Vericom Computers
VC4000DAQ. The GPS data was plotted on the
same axis as the accelerometer data. The last
GPS data point that occurred before the crash
pulse was used as the impact speed.
The post-impact speeds were determined
from integrating the Vericom crash pulse data
with respect to time to determine the change in
velocity (delta-V). The integrated delta-V was
TABLE 1: Crash Test Data
Closing
Speed
(mph)
Delta V
Bullet
(mph)
Delta V
Target
(mph)
EDR
Bullet
Delta V
(mph)
Calculated Calculated
Coefficent Accelerometer
Bullet
Target
of
Delta t
Departure
Departure
Restitution
(ms)
Speed (mph) Speed (mph)
W1
3.088
2.485
2.200
N/A
0.603
2.200
0.517
140
N/A
W2
5.741
4.640
3.825
4.61
1.101
3.825
0.475
135
90
W3
9.430
7.032
6.000
7.68
2.398
6.000
0.382
129
110
W5
17.627
12.488
10.054
13.16
5.139
10.054
0.279
126
110
T2
10.490
6.276
8.062
6.25
4.214
8.062
0.367
124
110
T3
15.060
8.470
10.756
7.64
6.59
10.756
0.277
93
70
EDR
Delta t
(ms)
28
taken to be the post-impact velocity of the
target vehicle, and the delta-V of the bullet
vehicle was subtracted from the bullet
vehicle’s impact speed to determine its postimpact speed.
In addition to the Vericom data
acquisition system, the vehicles serving in
the bullet role were also equipped with a
ride-along EDR (Event Data Recorder). The
EDRs that were selected sensed chassis
acceleration and then calculated delta-V.
Delta-V data was retrieved via the Bosch
Crash Data Retrieval tool. The EDRs were
attached to the right front floor pan.
Results
Table 1 shows the results for six of
the crash tests. The test numbers that begin
with a W were performed on Wednesday
and the test numbers that begin with a T
were conducted on Thursday. No
accelerometer data was collected for test
T1, so that test was not included in Figure 1.
The crash pulse for test W1 was not sufficient
to enable the algorithm of the EDR, so no
EDR data was available for that test. Figure
1 is a scatter plot of coefficient of restitution
vs. closing speed.
Conclusions
1. The maximum coefficient of
restitution found in these tests was .475,
which occurred at a closing speed of 3.280
mph.
2. The widely-accepted behavior of
restitution was corroborated; i.e., the smaller
the closing speed, the greater the restitution;
and the larger the closing speed, the smaller
the restitution.
TOYOTA RECALLS 1.5M VEHICLES WORLDWIDE
Toyota Motor is recalling 740,000
cars and sports-utility vehicles in the U.S.
and nearly 600,000 units in Japan to repair
a seal on the vehicles' brake master cylinder
3. When using momentum to calculate
departure speeds or delta-V for small closing
speed collisions, restitution, and external
impulses such as ground forces must be
considered (restitution approaches unity).
4. The crash pulses documented by
the EDR were found to be slightly shorter
than the length of the pulse documented by
independent crash instrumentation. This
artifact is thought to be the result of different
response times for the EDR and Vericomlogged accelerometers.
5. Despite this difference in crash
duration, the delta-V calculated in all of the
“ride along” EDRs agreed to within 1 mph
of the independent crash instrumentation.
6. One implication for the reconstructionist is that EDR delta-V data should be
checked against the delta-V calculated in a
conventional momentum analysis.
7. Given a suitable crash such as
these inline collisions and longitudinal only
delta-V EDRs, the EDR documented deltaV is a reliable, independently determined
value for delta-V.
The authors would like to thank Rick
Ruth, Russell Strickland, Rick Jobe, Albert
Baxter, David Brill, Daniel Vomhof III, and
the students who attended the 2010 IPTM
Special
Problems
in
Accident
Reconstruction Instrumentation class for
their contributions to these crash tests.
Restitution (unitless)
0.5
y = -0.0177x + 0.5642
R2 = 0.9647
0.4
0.3
0.2
0
4
8
12
16
Closing Speed (mph)
Figure 1: Plot of Coefficient of Restitution v Closing Speed
20
that may leak fluid and impair braking performance.
Affected models sold in the U.S. include 2005 to
2006 Toyota Avalon sedans and 2004 to 2006 Toyota
Highlander (nonhybrid) SUVs as well as 2004 to 2006
Lexus RX330 SUVs, and 2006 Lexus GS300, IS250, and
IS350 sedans, Toyota said in a statement posted on its
website.
The automaker said in some instances a seal in the
brake master cylinder may dry out. Should that happen,
brake fluid could leak from the master cylinder onto the
brake booster, illuminating a warning light on the instrument panel, Toyota said.
Should the vehicles continue to be operated without refilling the brake fluid container, drivers will begin
to notice that the brake pedal feels "spongy," and braking
performance may decline, Toyota said.
Toyota and Lexus dealers will make necessary
repairs to the recalled vehicles at no charge to vehicle
owners, the company said. Owners of affected vehicles
will be notified by regular mail beginning early next
month.
In Japan, the recall involves 599,029 vehicles
across 11 model lines. Those models may also have a
problem with faulty fuel pump wires. About 200,000
additional vehicles sold in other countries are also subject
to the recalls, CNN International reported.
A third problem, related to defective speedometers, affects two additional models totaling nearly 2,000
cars in Japan, Toyota said. No accidents have yet been
reported as a result of any of the defects, the company said
in twin filings submitted with Japanese regulators.
Tough Year For Recalls
The recalls are the latest in a string of such actions
by Toyota this year. Less than two months ago, the
automaker said it would recall about 1.13 million Corolla
and Matrix compact cars in North America due to engine
stalling, following an investigation by federal safety
officials.
Toyota's biggest recall so far this year involves
two separate campaigns to repair some 8 million cars in
the U.S. to prevent unintended acceleration, caused by
sticky gas pedals or bulky rubber floor mats that can pin
accelerator pedals to the vehicles' floor.
Earlier this month, Toyota said it had repaired
80% of the vehicles with the sticky pedal issue and 58%
of those with floor mat problems. Federal investigators,
however, are still looking into other causes, including
electronic interference, that may result in Toyota vehicles accelerating uncontrollably.
The sticky pedal recall was the subject of a record
$16.4 million fine assessed by U.S. regulators in April for
Toyota's failure to quickly disclose what it knew about
the defect.
The numerous recalls have taken their toll on
Toyota sales. Once the No. 2 supplier of vehicles to the
U.S. market, Toyota has fallen behind once third-place
Ford Motor (F) for much of the year.
Toyota also faces massive lawsuits related to its
quality woes. They include a claim brought by a group of
Toyota stockholders who allege the automaker concealed
problems related to unintended acceleration in its vehicles.
- Daily Finance
31
CRASH TESTING AND EVALUATION
OF BREAKAWAY SIGNS
By: Roger P. Bligh and Wanda L. Menges
INTRODUCTION
Small roadside signs provide important information to motorists.
The proximity of these signs to the edge of traveled way makes them
susceptible to being struck by errant vehicles that inadvertently encroach
onto the roadside. To reduce the hazard associated with these crashes, the
sign supports are designed to “breakaway” from their foundation upon
impact with a vehicle.
The crashworthiness of a sign support system must be evaluated
before the design can be used on the nation’s highways. This evaluation
is typically accomplished through full-scale vehicle crash testing. National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 contains
the recommended procedures for testing and evaluating sign supports and
other roadside safety features (1). This document contains the test matrices,
impact conditions, evaluation criteria, and reporting requirements for
assessing the impact performance of a breakaway support structure. If the
design of a system is altered in response to changing needs in the highway
environment, it may be necessary to reassess its compliance with current
vehicle testing criteria.
Background
It is not unusual for parts of Texas to experience hot, dry
weather, particularly during the summer months. During periods of
drought, Texas counties enact burn bans that prohibit any form of outside
burning to help limit the risk of an uncontrolled fire. The counties
expressed a desire to the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to
post advisory signs on the roadside to alert motorists when a burn ban is
in effect. For obvious economic reasons, the preferred method of
implementation is to append the burn ban notification signs to existing
sign support structures.
The most commonly used sign support system in Texas is the
triangular slip base. It is a multi-directional breakaway design that uses
three bolts tightened to a prescribed torque to clamp. One plate is attached
to a rigid foundation and the other is attached to the bottom of the sign
support through various methods. When the impact force applied by a
vehicle exceeds the frictional clamping force, the upper plate “slips”
relative to the lower plate and the support structure is “released” from its
foundation. The released sign support system rotates over the impacting
vehicle.
The Texas triangular slip base and its variations have been
subjected to extensive crash testing and evaluation in accordance with
NCHRP Report 350 guidelines (2,3,4,5,6). It has performed well in testing
and has been used successfully in the field for many years.
TxDOT policy requires a minimum mounting height of 7 ft to
the bottom of the sign panel. The Texas slip base system has traditionally
been used for sign panels having an area greater than 10 square feet. Less
expensive sign support systems, such as a wedge anchor system, are
typically used for smaller sign areas of 10 square feet or less.
The current Texas slip base system utilizes two different types
of support posts: a 2-7/8-inch outside diameter (O.D.), 10 British Wire
Gage (BWG) steel tube that has a nominal wall thickness of 0.134 inches
and a 55,000 psi minimum yield strength, and a 2-1/2-inch nominal
diameter (2-7/8-inch O.D.), schedule 80 pipe that has a nominal wall
thickness of 0.276 inches and a minimum yield strength of 46,000 psi. The
10 BWG tube support can be used for sign areas up to 16 square feet, while
the schedule 80 pipe support can be used for larger sign areas up to 32
square feet.
There are many variables that can affect the impact performance
of a slip base sign support system (and breakaway supports in general).
These variables include but are not limited to the size and weight of the
sign substrate, the sign mounting height, and the type of support post. As
the size, weight, and mounting height of a sign panel increase, the center
of mass and mass moment of inertia of the combined sign support system
also increase. The released support system will rotate about its center of
mass, and the higher the center of mass the higher the probability that an
impacting vehicle can travel under the rotating support without secondary
contact to the roof or windshield. Increasing the mass moment of inertia
decreases the rotational velocity of the support structure after activation,
which can give an impacting vehicle more time to travel under the support
before any secondary contact occurs.
Appending a burn ban sign to an existing slip base sign support
at a height less than 7 ft can effectively lower the center of mass (i.e., point
of rotation) of the sign support system and possibly degrade its impact
performance. Use of a lightweight sign substrate can minimize the effect
of the secondary sign on the overall properties of the sign support system.
However, given that this practice could be adopted statewide, TxDOT
decided that further research of the proposed burn ban sign application was
needed.
Objectives/Scope of Research
The objective of this research was to evaluate the impact
performance of a Texas slip base sign support system with a burn ban sign
appended to the support below the primary sign at a mounting height less
than 7 ft. The impact performance of the burn ban sign support
configurations was evaluated through full-scale crash testing. The crash
testing was performed in accordance with the requirements of NCHRP
Report 350.
To minimize the effect of the burn ban signs on the inertia
properties of the sign support system, a lightweight aluminum composite
material was chosen as the sign substrate. Two different sizes of burn ban
signs were considered: a 24 inch by 24 inch sign and a 30 inch by 36 inch
sign. The smaller 24 inch by 24 inch sign is intended to simply communicate
that a burn ban is in effect. The larger 30 inch by 36 inch sign would
additionally indicate the name of the county when needed.
As discussed earlier, the Texas slip base system is used with a
wide range of signs on two different types of supports. To qualify the burn
ban sign for use on most if not all slip base support systems installed across
the state, the research plan included identifying and testing the most
critical sign configuration. If successful, the burn ban sign could then be
used on the tested configuration as well as any less critical configurations.
The most critical configuration would be the system incorporating the
smallest, lightest primary sign, because the appended burn ban sign would
have more influence on the overall inertia properties (e.g., center of mass)
of that system. A review of district practices by the Traffic Operations
32
Division noted that some districts were using the Texas slip base for all
small signs, even those having an area less than 10 square feet. The
motivation behind this practice was to reduce inventory associated with
multiple types of supports and simplify maintenance training and operations.
This being the case, the smallest, lightest sign panel used with the Texas
slip base support is a 24 inch by 24 inch aluminum confirmation sign.
The practice of using small confirmation signs on slip base
supports raised some concerns. Researchers at the Texas Transportation
Institute (TTI) are not aware of any crash testing of slip base supports with
signs this small. The center of mass (i.e., point of rotation) of such a system
would be significantly lower than those associated with most of the tested
systems.
The lower point of rotation could cause secondary contact with
the roof and/or windshield that would not occur with systems incorporating
larger sign panels. Thus, a secondary objective was to investigate the
impact performance of the Texas slip base with sign panels having an area
as small as 4 square feet.
The remaining chapters of this report describe the full-scale
crash testing and evaluation of different sign support configurations with
burn ban signs attached below the primary sign, and present
recommendations regarding implementation and future work.
CRASH TEST PROCEDURES
Test Facility
The TTI Proving Ground is a 2000-acre complex of research and
training facilities located 10 miles northwest of the main campus of Texas
A&M University. The site, formerly an Air Force base, has large expanses
of concrete runways and parking aprons well suited for experimental
research and testing in the areas of vehicle performance and handling,
vehicleroadway interaction, durability and efficacy of highway pavements,
and safety evaluation of roadside safety hardware. The site selected for
construction and testing of the sign supports evaluated under this project
was the edge of an out-of-service aircraft parking apron. The apron
consists of an unreinforced jointed-concrete pavement in 12.5 ft by 15 ft
blocks nominally 8 to 12 inches deep. The apron is over 50 years old, and
the joints have some displacement but are otherwise flat and level.
Crash Test Conditions
The recommended test matrix for breakaway support structures,
such as the Texas slip base, consists of two tests:
NCHRP Report 350 test designation 3-60: This test involves
an 1808-lb passenger vehicle (820C) impacting the support structure
at a nominal speed of 22 mi/h and an angle ranging from 0-20 degrees.
The purpose of this test is to evaluate the breakaway, fracture, or
yielding mechanism of the support, as well as occupant risk.
NCHRP Report 350 test designation 3-61: This test involves
an 1808-lb passenger vehicle (820C) impacting the support structure
at a nominal speed of 62 mi/h and an angle ranging from 0-20 degrees.
The test is intended to evaluate vehicle and test article trajectory and
occupant risk.
Researchers performed both the low-speed and high-speed tests
on a slip base system with a 24 inch by 24 inch burn ban sign attached
below a 24 inch by 24 inch confirmation sign. However, only the highspeed test was performed during subsequent evaluation of slip base
systems with 30 inch by 36 inch burn ban signs, as the high-speed test
proved to be the more critical test.
All crash test, data analysis, and evaluation and reporting
procedures followed under this project were in accordance with guidelines
presented in NCHRP Report 350.
Evaluation Criteria
The crash tests performed under this project were evaluated in
accordance with NCHRP Report 350. As stated in NCHRP Report 350,
“Safety performance of a highway appurtenance cannot be measured
directly but can be judged on the basis of three factors: structural
adequacy, occupant risk, and vehicle trajectory after collision.”
Accordingly, researchers used the safety evaluation criteria from Table
5.1 of NCHRP Report 350 to evaluate the crash tests reported herein.
CRASH TESTS ON 24 INCH BY 24 INCH BURN BAN SIGN
Test Article
Figure 1. Vehicle/Installation Geometrics for Test 452108-1.
The support post was a 2-1/2-inch diameter (2.875-inch O.D.)
schedule 80 steel pipe with a minimum specified yield strength of 46,000
psi. This support was considered to be more critical in terms of evaluating
occupant compartment deformation associated with secondary contact
with the roof and windshield because of its greater mass and lower center
of mass compared to the same system mounted on a 10 BWG steel tube.
A 24 inch by 24 inch by 0.080 inch thick aluminum sign panel was attached
to the schedule 80 support using two 2-1/2-inch sign bracket mounting
clamps and 15/16-inch diameter by 1 inch long bolts. The mounting height
to the bottom of the confirmation sign was 7 ft.
A 24 inch by 24 inch by 0.080 inch thick lightweight composite
burn ban sign panel was attached to the schedule 80 support in the same
manner as the confirmation sign using two sign bracket mounting clamps
spaced 18 inches apart. The composite sign consisted of a high-density
polyethylene (HDPE) core sandwiched between two outer sheets of
0.010-inch thick, 5052 aluminum. A 3-inch offset was used between the
two sign panels, making the mounting height to the bottom of the burn ban
sign 4 ft-9 inches.
33
The upper slip base assembly consists of an integral collar and
triangular base plate cast from American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) A536 Grade 65-45-12 ductile iron. The 0.535-inch thick collar
is perpendicular to the base plate and has a 2.93-inch diameter hole to
accept the 2.875 O.D. pipe support.
To help prevent the pipe from rotating inside the collar during
service and the casting from slipping off the pipe during an impact, the slip
base assembly is secured to the end of the schedule 80 pipe using three
0.625-inch diameter set screws equally spaced around the perimeter of the
collar and torqued to 65 ft-lb using a torque wrench with an Allen head
adaptor.
The lower slip base plate was welded to a 36-inch length of 3inch nominal diameter schedule 40 pipe. The pipe stub was embedded in
a 12-inch diameter by 42-inch deep concrete footing installed in NCHRP
Report 350 standard soil. The distance from the ground surface to the top
face of the lower triangular slip plate was 3.5 inches. The triangular slip
base was oriented such that the upstream side was perpendicular to the
direction of impact. A 30 gauge galvanized steel keeper plate was placed
between the upper and lower slip plates. A washer was placed between the
bolt keeper plate and upper slip plate to reduce the contact area between
the plates. The two slip plates were clamped together using three 0.625
inch diameter × 2.5-inch long, ASTM A325 bolts that were tightened to
a prescribed torque of 40 ft-lb. High strength washers were used under
both the head and nut of each bolt. Photographs of the completed sign
support installation are shown in Figure 1.
Test 452108-1 on the Schedule 80 Steel Pipe Support with 24 Inch by
24 Inch TXDOT Burn Ban Sign
system was installed was 8.6 percent. Weather conditions at the time of
testing were as follows: Wind speed: 16 mi/h; Wind direction: 190 degrees
with respect to the vehicle (vehicle was traveling in a northerly direction);
Temperature: 60°F; Relative humidity: 59 percent.
Test Description
The 1995 Geo Metro, traveling at an impact speed of 21.7 mi/
h, impacted the 2-1/2-inch diameter schedule 80 support 6 inches from the
vehicle centerline offset to the driver’s side. At 0.012 s, the support began
to move toward the field side, and the front bumper was crushed to the
front edge of the hood. The top slip plate began to move at 0.054 s, and the
support lost contact with the lower slip plate at 0.066 s. The support began
to rotate counterclockwise in front of the vehicle at 0.069 s. At 0.241 s, the
vehicle lost contact with the support while traveling forward at a speed of
17.6 mi/h. As the vehicle continued forward, the top of the sign panel
contacted the top of the windshield at 0.405 s, and the support remained
in this position until the vehicle went out of view of the camera.
Damage to Test Installation
Damage to the sign support installation is shown in Figure 2.
The base showed no movement in the ground. The keeper plate and one
bolt remained at the base, one bolt came to rest 12.5 ft downstream of
impact, and the third was resting 57.5 ft downstream of impact. The sign
panels and support came to rest under the vehicle, which came to rest 92.5
ft downstream from the point of impact.
Vehicle Damage
Figure 3 show the damage to the exterior and interior of the
Test Vehicle
A 1995 Geo Metro, shown in Figure 1, was used for the crash
test. Test inertia weight of the vehicle was 1784 lb, and its gross static
weight was 1953 lb. The height to the lower edge of the vehicle bumper
was 15.75 inches, and the height to the upper edge of the vehicle bumper
was 20.25 inches. The vehicle was directed into the installation using a
cable reverse tow and guidance system and was released to be freewheeling and unrestrained just prior to impact.
Soil and Weather Conditions
The test was performed on the morning of March 5, 2008. A total
of 0.8 inches of rainfall was recorded three days prior to the test. Moisture
content of the NCHRP Report 350 standard soil in which the sign support
Figure 2. Installation after Test 452108-1.
Figure 3. Vehicle after Test 452108-1.
34
vehicle, respectively. The front bumper, hood, radiator, and radiator
support were deformed. The windshield was cracked near the roof line, but
there was no hole. Maximum exterior crush to the vehicle was 6.3 inches
on the front of the vehicle at a point 6 inches left (toward the driver side)
of centerline. No occupant compartment deformation occurred. Exterior
crush measurements are shown in Figure 4.
Occupant Risk Factors
Data from the accelerometer, located at the vehicle center of
gravity, were digitized for evaluation of occupant risk. In the longitudinal
direction, the occupant impact velocity was 5.6 ft/s (1.7 m/s) at 0.415 s, the
highest 0.010-s occupant ridedown acceleration was 0.2 g from 0.440 to
0.450 s, and the maximum 0.050-s average acceleration was -3.0 g
between 0.018 and 0.068 s. In the lateral direction, the occupant impact
velocity was 0.7 ft/s (0.2 m/s) at 0.415 s, the highest 0.010-s occupant
ridedown acceleration was 0.2 g from 0.428 to 0.438 s, and the maximum
0.050-s average acceleration was -0.4 g between 0.062 and 0.112 s. Figure
3.10 presents these data and other pertinent information from the test.
Assessment of Test Results
An assessment of the test based on the applicable NCHRP
General Information
Test No. ................................................. 452108-1
Date ......................................................... 03/05/08
Test Article
Type ................................................. Sign Support
Name ......................... TxDOT Slip Base with Sign
Installation Height .............. 7 ft to bottom of top sign
Key Elements ..... 2.5-in schedule 80 pipe support
with slip base and two 24 x 24-in
aluminum sign panels
Soil Type, Condition ............... Standard Soil, Dry
Test Vehicle
Model ............................................1995 Geo Metro
Mass Curb ................................................ 1,762 lb
Test Inertial ............................................. 1,784 lb
Gross Static .............................................. 1,953 lb
Report 350 safety evaluation criteria is provided below.
Structural Adequacy
B. The test article should readily activate in a predictable
manner by breaking away, fracturing, or yielding.
Result: The slip base sign support with 24 inch by 24 inch burn
ban sign readily activated by slipping away at the base as designed.
(PASS)
Occupant Risk
D. Detached elements, fragments, or other debris from the test
article should not penetrate or show potential for penetrating the occupant
compartment, or present an undue hazard to other traffic, pedestrians, or
personnel in a work zone. Deformation of, or intrusions into, the occupant
compartment that could cause serious injuries should not be permitted.
Result: The detached sign support traveled with the vehicle and
came to rest under the vehicle. The support did not penetrate nor show
potential for penetrating the vehicle, or to present undue hazard to others
in the area. No occupant compartment deformation occurred. (PASS)
F. The vehicle should remain upright during and after collision
although moderate roll, pitching, and yawing are acceptable.
Result: The 820C vehicle remained upright and stable throughout
Impact Conditions
Speed ................................... 21.7 mph
Angle .......................................... 0 deg
Exit Conditions
Speed ................................... 17.6 mph
Angle .......................................... 0 deg
Occupant Risk Values
Impact Velocity
x-direction .......................... 5.6 ft/s
y-direction .......................... 0.7 ft/s
THIV ........................................ 6.2 kph
PHD .......................................... 0.3 g
ASI ............................................ 0.26
Ridedown Decelerations
x-direction ............................. 0.2 g
y-direction ............................. 0.2 g
Vehicle Damage
VDS ..................................... 12-FL-4
CDC ................................. 12-FLEN3
Max Crush .... 6.3 in
L ......... 11.8 in
C1 ......... -1.6 in
C2 ........ 1.2 in
C3 .......... 2.4 in
C4 ......... 6.3 in
C5 .......... 2.0 in
C6 ......... 0.8 in
Post-Impact Behavior
(during 1.0 sec after impact)
Max. Yaw Angle (deg) .................... -1
Max. Pitch Angle (deg) .................... 1
Max. Roll Angle (deg) .................... -1
Test Article Debris Scatter
Laterally Left ........................... 12.5 ft
Laterally Right .............................. 0 ft
Figure 4. Summary of Test Results and Sequential Photographs, Test No. 452108-1.
35
the collision period. (PASS)
H. Occupant impact velocities should satisfy the following:
Longitudinal and Lateral Occupant Impact Velocity – m/s
Preferred
Maximum
3 [9.8 ft/s]
5 [16.8 ft/s]
Result: Longitudinal occupant impact velocity was 5.6 ft/s, and
lateral occupant impact velocity was 0.7 ft/s. (PASS)
I. Occupant ridedown accelerations should satisfy the following:
Longitudinal and Lateral Occupant Ridedown Accelerations – g
Preferred
Maximum
15
20
Result: Longitudinal ridedown acceleration was 0.2 g, and
lateral occupant ridedown acceleration was 0.2 g. (PASS)
Vehicle Trajectory
K. After collision, it is preferable that the vehicle’s trajectory
not intrude into adjacent traffic lanes.
Result: The 820C vehicle did not intrude into adjacent traffic
lanes. (PASS)
N. Vehicle trajectory behind the test article is acceptable.
Result: The vehicle came to rest 92.5 ft downstream (behind)
the test installation. (PASS)
The following supplemental evaluation factors and terminology,
as presented in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) memo
entitled “ACTION: Identifying Acceptable Highway Safety Features,”
were used for visual assessment of test results (7). Factors underlined
below pertain to the results of the crash test reported herein.
a. None
b. Superficial
c. Substantial, but can be straightened
d. Substantial, replacement parts needed for repair
e. Cannot be repaired
Test 452108-2 on the Schedule 80 Steel Ppipe Support with 24 Inch by
Test Vehicle
The test was performed on the afternoon of March 5, 2008. A
total of 0.8 inches of rainfall was recorded three days prior to the test.
Moisture content of the NCHRP Report 350 standard soil in which the sign
support system was installed was 8.6 percent. Weather conditions at the
time of testing were as follows: Wind speed: 13 mi/h; Wind direction: 180
degrees with respect to the vehicle (vehicle was traveling in a northerly
direction); Temperature: 72°F; Relative humidity: 41 percent.
Test Description
Passenger Compartment Intrusion
1. Windshield Intrusion
a. No windshield contact
b. Windshield contact, no damage
c. Windshield contact, no intrusion
d. Device embedded in windshield, no significant intrusion
e. Complete intrusion into passenger compartment
f. Partial intrusion into passenger compartment
2. Body Panel Intrusion:
yes or no
Loss of Vehicle Control
1. Physical loss of control
2. Loss of windshield visibility
3. Perceived threat to other vehicles
4. Debris on pavement
Physical Threat to Workers or Other Vehicles
1. Harmful debris that could injure workers or others in the area
2. Harmful debris that could injure occupants in other vehicles
No threat to others in area.
Vehicle and Device Condition
1. Vehicle Damage
a. None
b. Minor scrapes, scratches or dents
c. Significant cosmetic dents
d. Major dents to grill and body panels
e. Major structural damage
2. Windshield Damage
a. None
b. Minor chip or crack
c. Broken, no interference with visibility
d. Broken or shattered, visibility restricted but remained intact
e. Shattered, remained intact but partially dislodged
f. Large portion removed
g. Completely removed
3. Device Damage
Figure 3.5. Vehicle/Installation Geo before Test 452108-2.
36
vehicle centerline offset to the driver’s side. At 0.005 s, the support began
to move toward the field side, and the front bumper was crushed to the
front edge of the hood. The top slip plate began to move at 0.012 s, and the
support lost contact with the lower slip plate at 0.020 s. At 0.081 s, the
vehicle lost contact with the support while traveling at a speed of 61.1 mi/
h. As the vehicle continued forward, both sign panels contacted the roof
just above the windshield at 0.108 s. The pipe support contacted the roof
at 0.113 s and began to crush the roof at 0.118 s. At 0.187 s, the pipe support
lost contact with the roof of the vehicle.
Damage to the installation is shown in Figure 6. The base
showed no movement in the ground. The keeper plate came to rest 28.5 ft
downstream from impact and 30 inches to the right of centerline. One bolt
remained at the base, one bolt came to rest 12.5 ft downstream of impact,
and the third was resting 51 ft downstream of impact. The confirmation
sign panel separated from the support came to rest near the support and
confirmation sign panel, which came to rest 150 ft downstream from
impact.
Vehicle Damage
Damage to the vehicle is shown in Figure 7. The front bumper,
grill, hood, radiator, and radiator support were deformed. Maximum
exterior crush in the frontal plane at the front bumper was 9.8 inches. The
windshield was shattered downward from the roofline, but there was no
loss of visibility. Two small cuts were noted in the roof, the largest
measuring 0.6 by 1.6 inches. The roof was deformed downward a
maximum of 5.1 inches on the exterior of the vehicle and deformed into
the occupant compartment 5.0 inches. Exterior crush measurements are
shown in Figure 8.
Data from the accelerometer, located at the vehicle center of
gravity, were digitized for evaluation of occupant risk. In the longitudinal
direction, the occupant impact velocity was 5.2 ft/s at 0.443 s, the highest
0.010-s occupant ridedown acceleration was 0.4 g from 0.444 to 0.454 s,
and the maximum 0.050-s average acceleration was -3.1 g between 0.001
and 0.051 s.
In the lateral direction, the occupant impact velocity was 2.3 ft/
s at 0.443 s, the highest 0.010-s occupant ridedown acceleration was 0.7
g from 0.844 to 0.854 s, and the maximum 0.050-s average acceleration
was -0.6 g between 0.026 and 0.076 s. Figure 8 presents other pertinent
information from the test.
Structural Adequacy
Result: The slip base sign support system with 24 inch by 24
inch burn ban sign readily activated by slipping away at the base as
designed. (PASS)
37
Occupant Risk
came to rest along the path of the vehicle. The support did not penetrate
nor show potential for penetrating the vehicle, or to present undue hazard
to others in the area. Maximum occupant compartment deformation was
5.0 inches in the roof area. (PASS)
Result: The 820C vehicle remained upright and stable during
and after the collision event. (PASS)
I. Occupant impact velocities should satisfy the following:
Preferred
Maximum
3 [9.8 ft/s]
5 [16.8 ft/s]
General Information
Test No. ................................................. 452108-2
Date ......................................................... 03/05/08
Test Article
with slip base and two 24 x 24-in
aluminum sign panels
Test Vehicle
Model ............................................1998 Geo Metro
Mass Curb ................................................ 1,773 lb
Test Inertial ............................................. 1,812 lb
Gross Static .............................................. 1,980 lb
Preferred
Maximum
16
20
Result: Longitudinal ridedown acceleration was 0.4 g, and
lateral ridedown acceleration was 0.7 g. (PASS)
Vehicle Trajectory
Result: The vehicle did not intrude into adjacent traffic lanes.
(PASS)
Result: The vehicle came to rest behind the test installation. (PASS)
as presented in the FHWA memo entitled “ACTION: Identifying Acceptable
Highway Safety Features,” were used for visual assessment of test results.
Factors underlined below pertain to the results of the crash test reported
herein.
Impact Conditions
Speed ................................... 62.5 mph
Angle .......................................... 0 deg
Exit Conditions
Speed ................................... 61.1 mph
Angle .......................................... 0 deg
Impact Velocity
x-direction .......................... 5.2 ft/s
y-direction .......................... 2.3 ft/s
THIV ........................................ 6.2 kph
PHD .......................................... 0.7 g
ASI ............................................ 0.26
x-direction ............................. 0.4 g
y-direction ............................. 0.7 g
Vehicle Damage
VDS ..................................... 12-FL-4
CDC ................................. 12-FLEN3
L ......... 11.8 in
C1 .......... 6.3 in
C2 ........ 7.1 in
C3 .......... 9.8 in
C4 ......... 8.3 in
C5 .......... 4.7 in
C6 ......... 3.5 in
Max. Yaw Angle (deg) .................... -6
Laterally Left .............................. 1.0 ft
Laterally Right ........................... 2.5 ft
38
yes or no
1. Vehicle Damage
a. None
a. None
Figure 9. Test Article and Vehicle before Test 452108-3.
3. Device Damage
a. None
b. Superficial
CRASH TESTS ON 30 INCH BY 36 INCH BURN BAN SIGN
TEST ARTICLE
Figure 9 shows details of the test installation used for evaluation
of the 30 inch x 36 inch burn ban sign. The type of support post differed
in the two tests. In test 452018-3, the support was a 2-1/2-inch diameter
(2.875-inch O.D.) schedule 80 steel pipe with a minimum specified yield
strength 46,000 psi. This support was initially considered to be the more
critical of the two supports in terms of evaluating occupant compartment
deformation associated with secondary contact with the roof and windshield
because of its greater mass and lower center of mass. In test 452018-4, the
support was a 2-7/8-inch outside diameter (O.D.), 10 British Wire Gage
(BWG) steel tube with a 55,000 psi minimum yield strength. Because of
its lower mass moment of inertia, this support will have a greater rotational
velocity, which could possibly result in a higher impact force at a point
more forward on the vehicle.
In both tests, a 24 inch by 24 inch by 0.080 inch thick aluminum
sign panel was attached to the support using two 2-1/2-inch sign bracket
mounting clamps and 15/16-inch diameter by 1-inch long bolts. The
mounting height to the bottom of the confirmation sign was 7 ft.
A 30 inch wide by 36 inch tall by 0.080 inch thick lightweight
composite burn ban sign panel was attached to the support in the same
manner as the confirmation sign using two sign bracket mounting clamps
spaced 18 inches apart. The composite sign consisted of a high-density
polyethylene (HDPE) core sandwiched between two outer sheets of
0.010-inch thick, 5052 aluminum. A 3-inch offset was used between the
two sign panels, making the mounting height to the bottom of the burn ban
sign 3 ft-9 inches.
The upper slip base assembly consists of an integral collar and
triangular base plate cast from ASTM A536 Grade 65-45-12 ductile iron.
The 0.535-inch thick collar is perpendicular to the base plate and has a
2.93-inch diameter hole to accept the 2.875 O.D. support.
To help prevent the pipe from rotating inside the collar during
service and the casting from slipping off the pipe during an impact, the slip
base assembly is secured to the end of the schedule 80 pipe using three
0.625-inch diameter set screws equally spaced around the perimeter of the
collar and torqued to 65 ft-lb using a torque wrench with an Allen head
adaptor.
The lower slip base plate was welded to a 36-inch length of 3inch nominal diameter schedule 40 pipe. The pipe stub was embedded in
a 12-inch diameter by 42-inch deep concrete footing installed in NCHRP
Report 350 standard soil. The distance from the ground surface to the top
face of the lower triangular slip plate was 3.5 inches. The triangular slip
base was oriented such that the upstream side was perpendicular to the
direction of impact. A 30 gauge galvanized steel keeper plate was placed
between the upper and lower slip plates. A washer was placed between the
bolt keeper plate and upper slip plate to reduce the contact area between
the plates. The two slip plates were clamped together using three 0.625inch diameter × 2.5-inch long, ASTM A325 bolts that were tightened to
a prescribed torque of 40 ft-lb. High strength washers were used under
both the head and nut of each bolt. Photographs of the completed sign
support installations for tests 452108-3 and 452108-4 are shown in Figure
9.
39
Test 452108-3 on the Schedule 80 Steel Pipe Support with 30 Inch by
Test Vehicle
was 15.75 inches, and the height to the lower edge of the vehicle bumper
The test was performed on the morning of March 24, 2008. A
total of 1.3 inches of rainfall was recorded six days prior to the test.
time of testing were as follows: Wind speed: 3-6 mi/h; Wind direction: 80
degrees with respect to the vehicle (vehicle was traveling in a northerly
direction); Temperature: 56°F; Relative humidity: 36 percent.
Test Description
vehicle centerline offset to the driver’s side.
Shortly after contact, the support began to deform/move toward
the field side. At 0.009 s, the top slip plate began to move, and the support
lost contact with the lower slip plate at 0.0660 s. The support began to
rotate counterclockwise in front of the vehicle at 0.019 s. At 0.060 s, the
vehicle lost contact with the support while traveling at a speed of 58.3 mi/
h. As the vehicle continued forward, the upper sign panel contacted the
roof at 0.090 s. The support lost contact with the vehicle at 0.170 s.
from the support and came to rest 58 ft downstream of impact and 28 ft to
the left of centerline. The 24 inch by 24 inch confirmation sign panel and
support came to rest 149 ft downstream of and directly in line with the
point of impact. The brakes on the vehicle were applied 160 ft behind the
test installation, and the vehicle subsequently came to rest 322 ft downstream
from impact.
Vehicle Damage
Figure 11 show the damage to the exterior and interior of the
vehicle, respectively. The front bumper, hood, radiator, and radiator
support were deformed. The windshield was cracked near the roof line, but
there was no hole. Maximum exterior crush in the frontal plane at the front
bumper was 6.0 inches at a point, 6 inches to the left (toward the driver’s
side) of centerline. Maximum occupant compartment deformation was 5.6
inches in the roof area. Exterior crush measurements are shown in Figure
12.
Data from the accelerometer located at the vehicle center of
gravity were digitized for evaluation of occupant risk. In the longitudinal
direction, the occupant impact velocity was 3.9 ft/s (1.2 m/s) at 0.516 s, the
highest 0.010-s occupant ridedown acceleration was -0.2 g from 0.956 to
0.966 s, and the maximum 0.050-s average acceleration was -2.5 g
between 0.000 and 0.050 s. In the lateral direction, the occupant impact
velocity was 1.6 ft/s (0.5 m/s) at 0.516 s, the highest 0.010-s occupant
ridedown acceleration was 0.2 g from 0.638 to 0.648 s, and the maximum
0.050-s average acceleration was -0.5 g between 0.130 and 0.180 s. Figure
12 presents other pertinent information from the test.
showed no movement in the ground. The keeper plate and bolts came to
rest near the base. The 30 inch by 36 inch burn ban sign panel separated
40
Structural Adequacy
Result: The slip base sign support with 30 inch by 36 inch burn ban
sign readily activated by slipping away at the base as designed. (PASS)
Occupant Risk
came to rest along the vehicle path. The support did not penetrate nor show
in the area. The sign panel and support deformed the roof 5.6 inches into
the occupant compartment. (PASS)
General Information
Test No. ................................................. 452108-3
Date ......................................................... 03/24/08
Test Article
w/slip base, one 24 x 24-in and one
30 x 36-in aluminum sign panel
Test Vehicle
Model ............................................1997 Geo Metro
Mass Curb ................................................ 1,876 lb
Test Inertial ............................................. 1,865 lb
Gross Static .............................................. 2,035 lb
Result: The 820C vehicle remained upright and stable throughout
the collision period. (PASS)
J. Occupant impact velocities should satisfy the following:
Preferred
Maximum
3 [9.8 ft/s]
5 [16.8 ft/s]
Preferred
Maximum
17
20
Result: Longitudinal ridedown acceleration was -0.2 g, and
lateral occupant ridedown acceleration was 0.2 g. (PASS)
Vehicle Trajectory
lanes. (PASS)
Impact Conditions
Speed ................................... 62.0 mph
Angle .......................................... 0 deg
Exit Conditions
Speed ................................... 58.3 mph
Angle .......................................... 0 deg
Impact Velocity
x-direction .......................... 3.9 ft/s
y-direction .......................... 1.6 ft/s
THIV ........................................ 4.8 kph
PHD .......................................... 0.3 g
ASI ............................................ 0.21
x-direction ............................ -0.2 g
y-direction ............................. 0.2 g
Vehicle Damage
VDS ..................................... 12-FL-4
CDC ................................. 12-FLEN3
L ......... 15.7 in
C1 .......... 0.6 in
C2 ........ 1.6 in
C3 .......... 5.1 in
C4 ......... 5.5 in
C5 .......... 3.5 in
C6 ......... 1.6 in
Max. Yaw Angle (deg) .................... -2
Laterally Left ........................... 28.0 ft
41
Result: The vehicle came to rest 322 ft downstream (behind)
the test installation. (PASS)
herein.
yes or no
The test was performed on the afternoon of March 24, 2008. A
total of 1.3 inches of rainfall was recorded six days prior to the test.
time of testing were as follows: Wind speed: 9-10 mi/h; Wind direction:
180 degrees with respect to the vehicle (vehicle was traveling in a
northerly direction); Temperature: 64°F; Relative humidity: 27 percent.
Test Description
h, impacted the 2-7/8-inch O.D., 10 BWG steel tube support 6 inches from
the vehicle centerline offset to the driver’s side. Shortly after contact, the
support began to move toward the field side, and the front bumper was
1. Vehicle Damage
a. None
a. None
3. Device Damage
a. None
b. Superficial
Test 452108-4 on the 10-Gauge Steel Pipe Support with 30 Inch by 36
Inch TXDOT Burn Ban Sign
Test Vehicle
Figure 13. Test Article and Vehicle before Test 452108-4.
42
crushed to the front edge of the hood. The top slip plate began to move at
0.004 s, and the support lost contact with the lower slip plate at 0.017 s.
At 0.063 s, the vehicle lost contact with the support while traveling at a
speed of 61.9 mi/h. As the vehicle continued forward, both sign panels
contacted the roof just above the windshield at 0.089 s, and the support
contacted the roof at 0.097 s. At 0.175 s, the support lost contact with the
roof of the vehicle.
showed no movement in the ground. The keeper plate and bolts came to
rest near the base. The 30 inch by 36 inch burn ban sign panel separated
from the support and came to rest 71 ft downstream of impact and 9 ft to
the left. The 24 inch by 24 inch confirmation sign panel and support came
to rest 213 ft downstream of impact and 4 ft to the left of centerline. The
vehicle came to rest 466 ft downstream and 37 ft to the left of the point of
impact.
Vehicle Damage
Damage to the vehicle is shown in Figure 16. The front bumper,
grill, hood, radiator, and radiator support were deformed. Maximum
exterior crush in the frontal plane at the front bumper was 5.9 inches. The
windshield was shattered downward from the roofline, but there was no
loss of visibility. The roof was deformed downward a maximum of 5.5
inches on the exterior of the vehicle and deformed into the occupant
compartment 4.8 inches. Exterior crush and occupant compartment
measurements are shown in Figure 17.
Data from the accelerometer located at the vehicle center of
gravity were digitized for evaluation of occupant risk. In the longitudinal
direction, the occupant impact velocity was 3.3 ft/s at 0.673 s, the highest
0.010-s occupant ridedown acceleration was -0.2 g from 0.914 to 0.924 s,
and the maximum 0.050-s average acceleration was -1.5 g between 0.000
and 0.050 s.
In the lateral direction, the occupant impact velocity was 0.0 ft/
s at 0.673 s, the highest 0.010-s occupant ridedown acceleration was 0.3
g from 0.760 to 0.770 s, and the maximum 0.050-s average acceleration
was -0.4 g between 0.128 and 0.178 s. Figure 17 presents other pertinent
information from the test.
Structural Adequacy
Result: The slip base with 2-7/8 inch O.D., 10 BWG steel tube
sign support with 30 inch by 36 inch burn ban sign readily activated by
slipping away at the base as designed. (PASS)
Occupant Risk
came to rest along the vehicle path. The support did not penetrate nor show
in the area. The sign panel and support deformed the roof 4.8 inches into
the occupant compartment. (PASS)
Result: The 820C vehicle remained upright and stable during
and after the collision event. (PASS)
K. Occupant impact velocities should satisfy the following:
Preferred
Maximum
3 [9.8 ft/s]
5 [16.8 ft/s]
Preferred
Maximum
18
20
Result: Longitudinal ridedown acceleration was -0.2 g, and
lateral ridedown acceleration was 0.3 g. (PASS)
Vehicle Trajectory
lanes. (PASS)
Result: The vehicle came to rest behind the test installation.
(PASS)
herein.
yes or no
1. Vehicle Damage
a. None
a. None
3. Device Damage
a. None
b. Superficial
43
In the low-speed test, the support readily activated by slipping
away at the base as designed. The released sign support traveled with the
vehicle and came to rest under the vehicle. The support did not penetrate
nor show potential for penetrating the vehicle or to present undue hazard
to others in the area. No occupant compartment deformation occurred. The
820C vehicle remained upright and stable throughout the collision period.
Occupant risk factors were within the preferred limits specified in NCHRP
Report 350. The vehicle came to rest 92.5 ft downstream (behind) the test
installation and did not intrude into adjacent traffic lanes.
In the high-speed test, the support also readily activated by
slipping away at the base as designed. The released sign support traveled
with the vehicle and came to rest along the path of the vehicle. The support
did not penetrate nor show potential for penetrating the vehicle or to
present undue hazard to others in the area. Maximum occupant compartment
deformation was 5.0 inches in the roof area resulting from secondary
contact with the released sign support system. The 820C vehicle remained
upright and stable during and after the collision event.
Again, occupant risk factors were with the preferred limits
specified in NCHRP Report 350. The vehicle came to rest behind the test
installation and did not intrude into adjacent traffic.
After analyzing the results of the testing on the slip base sign
support system with 24 inch x 24 inch x 0.080 composite burn ban sign,
the researchers determined that the high-speed test was the more critical
test. Therefore, only this test was performed on the remaining burn ban
sign support configurations that were evaluated.
Schedule 80 Steel Pipe Support with 30 inch by 36 inch Burn Ban Sign
In a high-speed test (NCHRP Report 350 Test 3-61) of a slip base
sign support system with a 2-1/2-inch nominal diameter schedule 80 steel
pipe support, a 24 inch by 24 inch by 0.080 inch thick aluminum
confirmation sign mounted at a height of 7 ft, and a 30 inch by 36 inch by
0.080 inch composite burn ban sign mounted at a height of 3 ft-9 inches,
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary of Test Results
Schedule 80 Steel Pipe Support with 24 inch by 24 inch Burn Ban Sign
Two tests were performed on a slip base sign support system
with a 2-1/2-inch nominal diameter schedule 80 steel pipe support, a 24
inch by 24 inch by 0.080 inch thick aluminum confirmation sign mounted
at a height of 7 ft, and a 24 inch by 24 inch by 0.080 composite burn ban
sign mounted at a height of 4 ft-9 inches.
Figure 15. Test Article and Vehicle during Test 452108-4.
Figure 16. Vehicle after Test 452108-4. Note: Photographs were
taken after vehicle was removed from test site. Movement jarred the
windshield loose from the top of the windshield/roof frame.
44
the system readily activated by slipping away at
the base as designed. The released sign support
traveled with the vehicle and came to rest along
the vehicle path. The support did not penetrate
nor show potential for penetrating the vehicle or
to present undue hazard to others in the area. The
sign panel and support deformed the roof 5.6
inches into the occupant compartment. The 820C
vehicle remained upright and stable throughout
the collision period. Occupant risk factors were
within the preferred limits specified in NCHRP
Report 350. The 820C vehicle came to rest 322
ft downstream (behind) the test installation and
did not intrude into adjacent traffic lanes.
10-Gauge Steel Pipe Support with 30 inch by
36 inch Burn Ban Sign
In a high-speed test (NCHRP Report
350 Test 3-61) of a slip base sign support system
with a 2-7/8-inch outside diameter, 10 BWG
steel tube support, a 24 inch by 24 inch by 0.080
inch thick aluminum confirmation sign mounted
at a height of 7 ft, and a 30 inch by 36 inch by
0.080 inch composite burn ban sign mounted at
a height of 3 ft-9 inches, the system readily
activated by slipping away at the base as designed.
The released sign support traveled with the
vehicle and came to rest along the vehicle path.
The support did not penetrate nor show potential
for penetrating the vehicle or to present undue
hazard to others in the area. The sign panel and
support deformed the roof 4.8 inches into the
occupant compartment. The 820C vehicle
remained upright and stable during and after the
collision event. Occupant risk factors were within
the preferred limits specified in NCHRP Report
350. The 820C vehicle came to rest behind the
test installation and did not intrude into adjacent
traffic lanes.
Conclusions
The slip base sign support systems
with attached burn ban signs satisfied the impact
performance evaluation criteria of NCHRP
Report 350. In the three high-speed tests
General Information
Test No. ................................................. 452108-4
Date ......................................................... 03/24/08
Test Article
Key Elements ..... 2.87-in O.D. 10 BWG tube support
w/slip base, one 24 x 24-in and one
30 x 36-in aluminum sign panel
Test Vehicle
Model ............................................1998 Geo Metro
Mass Curb ................................................ 1,772 lb
Test Inertial ............................................. 1,812 lb
Gross Static .............................................. 1,989 lb
performed on different burn ban sign
configurations, secondary contact of the sign
support system with the roof resulted in
substantial deformation of the occupant
compartment ranging in magnitude from 4.8
inches to 5.6 inches. These deformation levels
are less than the 6-inch roof deformation
threshold established by FHWA based on
accepted testing of various breakaway sign
support and luminaire poles. However, they are
significantly greater than roof deformations
typically associated with impacts of slip base
sign support systems.
After examination of the test results,
the extent of roof deformation is primarily
attributed to the use of a slip base with a small,
4 square foot aluminum confirmation sign rather
than the addition of the burn ban signs to these
systems. It was concluded that the small size and
light weight of the confirmation sign substrate
decreased the height of the center of mass and
mass moment of inertia of the support system.
This adversely influenced the trajectory of the
Impact Conditions
Speed ................................... 62.1 mph
Angle .......................................... 0 deg
Exit Conditions
Speed ................................... 61.9 mph
Angle .......................................... 0 deg
Impact Velocity
x-direction .......................... 3.3 ft/s
y-direction .......................... 0.0 ft/s
THIV ........................................ 3.9 kph
PHD .......................................... 0.3 g
ASI ............................................ 0.13
x-direction ............................ -1.5 g
y-direction ............................. 0.4 g
Vehicle Damage
VDS ..................................... 12-FL-4
CDC ................................. 12-FLEN3
L ......... 15.7 in
C1 .......... 1.2 in
C2 ........ 2.0 in
C3 .......... 5.5 in
C4 ......... 5.5 in
C5 .......... 3.9 in
C6 ......... 2.0 in
Max. Yaw Angle (deg) ...................... 3
Max. Roll Angle (deg) ...................... 2
Laterally Left .............................. 9.0 ft
45
support post and increased the severity of
interaction with the vehicle by lowering the
point of rotation and increasing the rotational
velocity of the released support post.
Historically, and primarily due to
economic considerations, slip base sign supports
have only been used for larger sign panels (e.g.,
area greater than 10 square feet). With an increase
in the size of the sign panel, there is a
corresponding increase in the sign panel weight
and length of the support post, both of which
tend to increase the height of the center of mass
and mass moment of inertia. This increases the
height of the point of rotation and decreases the
rate of rotation of the released support, which
tends to shift the point of secondary contact
further rearward on the vehicle and decrease the
severity of this contact. In tests of the Texas slip
base with a 16 square foot plywood sign panel
mounted at a height of 7 ft from the ground to the
bottom of the sign, the released sign support
system rotated above the impacting vehicle
without any secondary contact at all (3,4).
A recent review of district practices
by the Traffic Operations Division noted that
some districts were using the Texas slip base for
all small signs, even those having an area less
than 10 square feet. The motivation behind this
practice was to reduce inventory associated with
multiple types of supports and simplify
maintenance training and operations. Thus, the
smallest, lightest sign panel being used with the
Texas slip base support is a 24 inch by 24 inch
aluminum confirmation sign. Until this project,
TTI researchers were not aware of any crash
testing of slip base supports with signs this
small.
Although the slip base support with 24
inch by 24 inch aluminum confirmation sign
was found to satisfy NCHRP Report 350 impact
performance requirements, it may be appropriate
to limit the minimum sign area on slip base
supports to achieve a reduction in occupant
compartment deformation caused by secondary
contact of the released support system with the
roof of the impacting vehicle. It is recommended
that an expanded investigation using engineering
modeling and full-scale crash testing be
undertaken to more fully examine the
performance limits of slip base sign supports in
terms of sign panel size, mass, and mounting
height. The compatibility of other vehicle types
(e.g., pickup truck) with the slip base with small
signs could also be evaluated.
IMPLEMENTATION STATEMENT
Texas counties expressed a desire to
TxDOT to post advisory signs on the roadside to
alert motorists when a burn ban is in effect. For
obvious economic reasons, the preferred method
of implementation is to append the burn ban
notification signs to existing sign support
structures already installed along Texas
highways.
In support of this request, TxDOT
sponsored this project to evaluate the impact
performance of a Texas slip base sign support
system with a burn ban sign appended to the
support below the primary sign at a mounting
height less than 7 ft. The impact performance of
the burn ban sign support configurations was
evaluated through full-scale crash testing. The
crash testing was performed in accordance with
the requirements of NCHRP Report 350.
To qualify the burn ban sign for use on
most if not all slip base support systems installed
across the state, the research plan included
identifying and testing the most critical sign
configuration. The configuration selected for
testing incorporated a 24 inch by 24 inch by
0.080 inch thick aluminum confirmation sign
mounted at a height of 7 ft, with the burn ban
signs mounted below.
Two different sizes of burn ban signs
were considered: a 24 inch by 24 inch sign and
a 30 inch by 36 inch sign. The smaller 24 inch by
24 inch sign is intended to simply communicate
that a burn ban is in effect. The larger 30 inch by
36 inch sign will additionally indicate the name
of the county when needed.
Based on the satisfactory test results
reported herein, the practice of appending a burn
ban sign to an existing slip base sign support
system is considered suitable for implementation.
The burn ban signs should be fabricated from
0.080-inch thick lightweight composite sheeting
consisting of a high-density polyethylene
(HDPE) core sandwiched between two thin outer
sheets of aluminum and should be no larger than
30 inches by 36 inches in size.
The burn ban signs may be attached to
any slip base sign support system having a
primary sign panel that is 24 inches by 24 inches
or larger mounted at a height of 7 ft or greater
from the ground to the bottom of the sign. Both
the 2-1/2-inch nominal diameter schedule 80
steel pipe support and 2-7/8-inch outside
diameter, 10 BWG steel tube support are
acceptable support post options. The mounting
height of the burn ban sign should not be less
than 3 ft-9 inches from the ground to the bottom
of the bottom of the composite sign.
It should be noted that slip base sign
supports have traditionally been used for signs
having an area of 10 square feet or more.
However, some districts are now using the Texas
slip base with signs as small as 4 square feet. In
full-scale tests of this configuration, secondary
contact of the released sign support system with
the roof resulted in roof deformation ranging in
magnitude from 4.8 inches to 5.6 inches. While
this level of deformation is considered acceptable
by FHWA, it is significantly greater than roof
deformations typically associated with impacts
of slip base sign support systems that use larger
sign panels. It is recommended that additional
research be performed to more fully understand
the performance limits of slip base sign supports
in terms of sign panel size, mass, and mounting
height, and determine whether or not a minimum
sign area should be established for slip base
support. The compatibility of other vehicle types
(e.g., pickup truck) with the slip base with small
signs could also be evaluated.
REFERENCES
1. H. E. Ross, Jr., D. L. Sicking, R. A.
Zimmer and J. D. Michie. Recommended
Procedures for the Safety Performance
Evaluation of Highway Features. National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Report
350, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993.
2. R.P. Bligh, H.E. Ross, Jr., W.L.
Menges, and S.K. Schoeneman. Development
and Evaluation of New Small Sign Support
Systems. Report No. 7-1971. Texas
Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas, April 2001.
3. R.P. Bligh and W.L. Menges.
NCHRP Report 350 Testing of the Southwest
Pipe Sign Support. Report No. 405481. Texas
College Station, Texas, June 1996.
4. R.P. Bligh, A.G. Arnold, and W.L.
Menges. Safety Performance Evaluation of
Southwest Pipn Sign Support Systems in Weak
Soil. Report No. 405851-1F. Texas
College Station, Texas, February 1997.
5. R.P. Bligh, D.L. Bullard, Jr., W.L.
Menges, and S.K. Schoeneman. Testing and
Evaluation of Slip Base Sign Supports. Report
No. 0-1792-5. Texas Transportation Institute,
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas,
May 2001.
6. R.P. Bligh, C.E. Buth, W.L. Menges,
and B.G. Butler. Evaluation of Design and
Retrofit Concepts for Slip-Base Sign Support
Systems. Report No. 3911-S. Texas
College Station, Texas, February 2001.
7. Federal Highway Administration
Memorandum from the Director, Office of
Engineering, entitled: “ACTION: Identifying
Acceptable Highway Safety Features,” dated
July 25, 1997.
Roger P. Bligh, P.E. is a Research
Engineer, and Wanda L. Menges is a Research
Specialist, both with the Texas Transportation
Institute.
Protected by international copyright
laws. This report has been abridged. The full
report can be obtained by contacting the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 or at
www.ntis.gov. The cost for a paper copy is
$60.00 plus $5.00 shipping and handling. A
downloadable electronic copy is obtainable for
$25.00. The access number is PB2010-100847.
#
#
#
46
WILL YOUR NEXT CAR BE A SMARTPHONE?
Forget about using your smartphone in the car. Your next car might
be one.
A growing number of auto and electronic companies are creating
systems that put touchscreens, and the ability to talk and text, right into the
dashboard.
In the near future, a significant percentage of new cars on the road
are expected to come equipped with the ability to update Facebook
statuses by voice and even surf the Web from the driver's seat.
Ford, General Motors and several other automakers are pitching
the systems as a safer and easier way to let drivers do what many of them
are already doing -- using their smartphones while driving.
"We saw this trend of mobile devices increasing, and we said this
is an area where we can offer the customers a safer way to use those in the
car," said Ford spokesman Alan Hall.
Safety experts aren't completely convinced, though. Some say that
while hands-free devices remove part of the danger from using phones
while driving, it remains to be seen how such devices are going to be used.
"There's still a lot we don't know about how these 'infotainment'
systems are going to affect how people drive," said Russ Rader, spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. "We still don't know
how drivers are going to integrate these systems into their driving
environment."
Ford has been a leader in the field with its Sync and MyFord Touch
systems, in which phones, MP3 players, radio and navigation tools all can
be controlled by voice or by using an in-dash LCD screen.
MyFord Touch has a Wi-Fi receiver built in, effectively creating
a Wi-Fi hotspot in the vehicle.
At the end of this year, Ford plans to roll out "App Link," a voicecontrol system that links apps from the user's smartphone to the car in some
models. It will launch with Android and BlackBerry systems; the iPhone
operating system and Windows Phone 7 will be available by the end of
2011, Hall said.
The technology will be available in 80 percent of Ford vehicles
within five years, according to Hall.
ON T H E COVER
This vehicle was travelling at a high rate of speed when it went out
control , rotated approximately ninety degrees, struck and fractured a
wooden utility pole, and came to rest on its roof. The unrestrained driver
suffered serious injuries but survived.
- Submitted by A. K. Rosenhan
But Ford is hardly alone. And it's not just car companies that are
getting involved.
General Motors is promoting its own smartphone-like capabilities
as part of an upgrade to its OnStar system. The improvements are designed
to go after Sync, which has been a hit for Ford, especially among younger
customers.
Pandora, podcasts and Wi-Fi are included. And GM officials say
future versions may include the ability to update Facebook statuses and
send text messages by voice control.
"Our system is first and foremost about safety and security, but we
are evolving that now to include connectivity," OnStar spokesman Sam
Mancusotold Wired magazine last month. "Some people might say that we
are behind in that space, but we are not. We were doing connected services
as far back as nine, 10 years ago, but the marketplace really wasn't ready
for it yet."
Microsoft and Kia Motors have teamed up to create UVO, a
touchscreen and voice-enabled system that lets drivers make calls, send
text messages, change radio stations and scroll their music playlists.
It features a 4.3-inch dashboard screen, about the same size as the
screen on the Droid X and some other smartphones on the market.
"[The system] is a breakthrough for in-vehicle infotainment that
helps allow drivers and passengers to safely and easily use all of their
personal technologies to create personalized in-vehicle communications
and entertainment experiences," said Michael Sprague, vice president of
marketing for Kia.
Early this year, Pioneer unveiled an enhanced stereo system that
integrates maps, the Pandora music site and other apps -- plus another that
allows devices such as iPods and home computers communicate.
Rader, from the highway safety group, said that with more options
come more opportunities for drivers to get distracted.
"It's true that with a truly hands-free system, you're not fumbling
with a device. You're not trying to dial a number," he said. "But the
conversation itself appears to be a major part of the distraction. There's no
indication from the research that we're making things more safe by going
hands-free."
It's difficult to track the exact role smartphones play in traffic
accidents, since many wrecks are caused by more than one factor. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, though, says that cell
phone use "whether it is a hands-free or hand-held device, degrades a
driver's performance."
And a growing number of people worldwide own smartphones,
which add Web surfing, apps, games and GPS-mapping to the list of
diversions available to phone users in the driver's seat.
According to a Pew report, 38 percent of Americans accessed the
internet on their phone last year -- up from 25 percent the previous year.
Hall said the new in-car systems address a simple truth. People
already are driving while talking, texting and tweeting. Anything that can
make that safer, he said, is a good thing.
"It really doesn't add any level of distraction to a driver that a driver
can't already do," he said. "If they want to surf with a laptop in their
passenger seat, they can do that in a car from 1970."
Future plans for the Sync system include the ability to surf the Web
on the in-dash touchscreen, but only when the vehicle is in park.
Rader, whose group is funded by the insurance industry to help cut
down on the number of car accidents, acknowledged that phone technology, even physically holding a phone in one hand and the steering wheel
in the other, isn't the only reason drivers take their eyes off the road.
"Distracted driving isn't new," he said. "It hasn't suddenly appeared because of all this new electronic technology. Drivers who use their
phones a lot might be the kind of drivers who would be distracted by other
things.
"We just keep inventing new ways to distract ourselves."
- CNN
49
A. R. JOURNAL / A. I. QUARTERLY
SUBJECT INDEX 1989 - 2010
NOTE: Page numbers refer to first page of article.
AIQ citings ending in 'N' refer to abstracts of federal
reports available through the National Technical
Information Service.
ACCELERATION RATE/ANALYSIS
Math model for light vehicles
AIQ #53, p.11
Variable power model hvy. trk.
AIQ #52, p.15
2003 police vehicles
AIQ #36, p.32
AIQ #29, p.31
Calculation of rates
AIQ #27, p.38
Discussion of ‘normal’
AIQ #13, p.36
Model for heavy truck
ARJ Jan. ’08, p.31
An understanding of
ARJ July ’89, p.11
ACCELERATION TESTS
Various non-motorized vehicles
Scooters, Skateboards
Vehicles in 'idle'
Performance tires
Observations of ‘normal’
Various autos, lt. trucks
Fire truck
Snowmobiles
Semi-tanker
AIQ #55, p.23
AIQ #29, p.22
AIQ #25, p.18
AIQ #23, p.15
AIQ #23, p.46
AIQ #13, p.38
AIQ #10, p.54
ARJ Mar. ’98 p.55
ARJ Mar. ’95,p.52
ACCELERATION, UNINTENDED
Fusion, Milan owners warned
ARJ Sep. ’10, p.36
Data points to driver error
ARJ July ’10, p.2
Feds launch criminal investigation ARJ Mar. ’10, p.10
Toyota electronic throttle
ARJ Mar. ’10, p.26
See also LIABILITY, PRODUCT
ACCELOROMETERS
Discussion of
Accuracy study of VC2000
Accid. invest. using VC2000
Extending use of G-Analyst
AIQ #4, p.4
AIQ #3, p.24
AIQ #3, p.24
AIQ #3, p.24
ACCIDENT RATES
1/2 spinal injur.: car crashes
Higher for rural residents
Hwy. perspective side impacts
Highway safety info system
AIQ #3, p.3
AIQ #2, p.43
AIQ #1, p.20
ARJ Sep.’94, p.54
ACCREDITATION
ACTAR important changes
New ACTAR Administrator
ACTAR, news release
ACTAR, roster (1/18/94)
ACTAR, news release
ACTAR, update
ACTAR, news release
ACTAR, news release
ACTAR, update
Testing begins
ACTAR, update
ACTAR, start up in 1992
Qualifications, application
NAPARS member poll
ACTAR, letter from chairman
ACTAR, recent progress
ARJ Mar. ’10, p.4
ARJ Mar. ’09, p.1
ARJ Nov. ’97, p.2
ARJ Jan. ’95, p.62
ARJ May ’94, p.2
ARJ Jan. ’94, p.62
ARJ Nov. ’93, p.1
ARJ July ’93, p.1
ARJ Mar. ’93, p.2
ARJ Sep.’92, p.1
ARJ Mar. ’92, p.1
ARJ Sep.’91, p.1
ARJ Sep.’91, p.2
ARJ Jan. ’91, p.10
ARJ Jan. ’91, p.10
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.2
ADMINISTRATION
State DOT reconst. practices
Incident Command system
Fee paid for police interviews
Traffic enforcement needs
Of acc. recon. program.
AIQ #55, p.9
AIQ #43, p.15
ARJ Sep.’92, p.41
ARJ July ’92, p.3
ARJ Sep. ’89, p.10
AIR BAGS
No change in regulations
Autoliv for SUVs
Court upholds rules
Arup locates
Misuse of on/off switches
Depowering lowers risk
More sensors for smarter
Side bags saving lives?
Smart on 2003 GM models
Daul-stage
Crash tests show need for side
Smart system
Seat postion sensor
Advanced frontal for new cars
AIQ #49, p.2
AIQ #47, p.18
AIQ #40, p.2
AIQ #39, p.10
AIQ #39, p.7
AIQ #38, p.9
AIQ #38, p.15
AIQ #34, p.16
AIQ #31, p.3
AIQ #26, p.5
AIQ #25, p.11
AIQ #24, p.5
AIQ #22, p.7
AIQ #19, p.48
Father sentenced in son's death
Advanced mandated
For the feet?
Explosions in
Current designs
Side/head protection
Reasons for on/off switches
On/off switches & seat belts
Risks to children
Deployment threshold
Effectiveness
Action to improve safety
Case studies of lives saved
Study refuted
Few recalls involve
Lag in Europe
Discussion of toxic gasses?
Warning: special steering dev.
Target of thefts
Investigators become ill?
Automakers want off switch
NHTSA receives complaints
Smart bags often fooled
Fake in used vehicles
Delphi improves
Hazards for rescuers
Less force lowers injuries
Subaru occup. detec'n sys.
Deployment testing
Technology softens
Lower power still work
Test chamber
Automakers granted leeway
Threats to rescuers
Gov't testing supported
Functional in repaired cars?
I-74 danger
Blamed in child's death
Nissan adopts curtain
Smarter bags from Jaguar
Side bags in Saturn
Occupant protection for
Science prevails in rule
Slim jim death reports false
& 30 mph unbelted crash test
Concern about older
In heavy trucks
Sidebags & slim jims
Who should get on/off
Boy decapitated by
Survey results
Lower power permitted
NHTSA proposes 2 changes
Public not warned of risks
NHTSA/Tran Can research
Toddler decapitated
Adverse side effects
Passenger side save lives
Dangers of disconnecting
Risks for small adults, kids
Injuries to children
Injuries from
On/off switch permitted
Side impact air bag coming
Changes reduce abrasions
1 vs. 2, insurance losses
Dual deploy’t threshold/belts
Getting smarter
Statistics on lives saved
The basics
For side impacts
Injuries from deployment
Differing designs
Passenger side requirements
Pass. side rule proposal
Deaths down in vehicles
Senate bill mandating
Projection of lives saved
Breed bag deploys OK
Rescue crew precautions
Listing, 1990 models
New design considered
Occupant safety survey
Technology assessment
Bibliography
Injury potential w/SCD’s
Bibliography
AIQ #18, p.1
AIQ #17, p.2
AIQ #17, p.19
AIQ #17, p.19
AIQ #16, p.28
AIQ #15, p.52
AIQ #15, p.14
AIQ #14, p.56
AIQ #12, p.3
AIQ #9, p.2
AIQ #9, p.7
AIQ #9, p.20
AIQ #6, p.18
AIQ #6, p.41
AIQ #6, p.3
AIQ #6, p.4
AIQ #4, p.4
AIQ #4, p.2
AIQ #3, p.2
AIQ #3, p.4
AIQ #2, p.2
AIQ #1, p.25
ARJ Mar. ’08, p.38
ARJ Mar. ’07, p.43
ARJ Nov. ’06, p.62
ARJ Jan. ’05, p.5
ARJ May ’04, p.10
ARJ Jan. ’04, p.2
ARJ Jan. ’04, p.30
ARJ Nov. ’03, p.15
ARJ Nov. ’03, p.22
ARJ May ’03, p.15
ARJ May ’03, p.62
ARJ Mar. ’03, p.5
ARJ Jan. ’03, p.18
ARJ May ’02, p.58
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.1
ARJ Sep.’00, p.55
ARJ May ’00, p.64
ARJ Mar. ’00, p.2
ARJ July ’98 p.3
ARJ July ’98 p.20
ARJ May ’98 p.56
ARJ Nov. ’97, p.3
ARJ Sep. ’97, p.3
ARJ May ’97,p.80
ARJ Mar. ’97, p.9
ARJ Mar. ’97, p.5
ARJ Jan. ’97, p.64
ARJ Nov. ’96, p.1
ARJ Nov. ’96, p.2
ARJ Nov. ’96, p.3
ARJ Nov. ’96, p.3
ARJ Nov. ’96, p.5
ARJ Nov. ’96, p.20
ARJ Nov.’96, p.84
ARJ Sep. ’96, p.5
ARJ Nov. ’95, p.16
ARJ May ’95, p.3
ARJ May ’95, p.11
ARJ May ’95, p.18
ARJ Mar. ’95, p.2
ARJ Mar. ’95, p.20
ARJ Mar. ’95, p.51
ARJ Mar. ’95, p.63
ARJ Mar. ’94, p.49
ARJ Mar. ’94, p.49
ARJ Jan. ’94, p.12
ARJ Jan. ’94, p.56
ARJ Nov. ’93, p.13
ARJ Jan. ’93, p.48
ARJ Nov. ’92, p.56
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.43
ARJ Jan. ’91, p.3
ARJ Sep.’90, p.28
ARJ Sep.’89, p.7
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.28
AIQ #31, p.15 N
AIQ #16, p.10 N
AIQ #16, p.13 N
AIQ #15, p.13 N
AIQ #13, p.11 N
Rule changes proposed
Bibliography
Bibliography
Abrasion test procedure
Patent file citations
See also PASSIVE RESTRAINTS
AIQ #12, p.18 N
AIQ #12, p.12 N
AIQ #10, p.9 N
AIQ #8, p.10 N
AIQ #5, p.10 N
AIRBORNE EQUATION(S)
Quartic analysis applied to
AIQ #23, p.42
ALL TERRAIN VEHICLES
2-year-old dies riding
Firefighter finds own kids
Rhino rollover suit
Removing from paved roads
Physical characteristics
Operating characteristics
Warning labels
Public perceptions
AIQ #46, p.3
AIQ #32, p.6
ARJ Sep. ’07, p.2
ANIMALS, COLLISIONS WITH
Signs reduce deer hits
AIQ #35, p.13
Moose problem in N. America
AIQ #11, p.6
Fatalities on rise
ARJ Nov. ’08, p.46
Approaches to reduce collis'ns
ARJ Sep. ’03, p.13
Deer danger zones
ARJ Sep. ’03, p.19
Costs of deer collisions
ARJ Sep. ’03, p.20
BMW/moose case study
ARJ Sep. ’03, p.34
Deer collision fatalities
Methods to reduce deer coll.
AIQ #11, p.9 N
ANIMATION
Product overview
AIQ #15, p.38
Intro to simulation, 3D visualiza'n ARJ Mar. ’09, p.13
See also COMPUTERS
ATTORNEYS
DUI attorney arrested for DUI
Behavior in Firestone tire case
Courts reduce fees
Excessive billing by
And A.R. experts
AIQ #45, p.5
ARJ Nov.’00, p.13
ARJ Jan. ’93, p.41
ARJ May ’91, p.18
AXLE
Failure case study
ARJ Nov. ’93, p.35
BATTERIES
Risks and prevention
Explosion/fire case study
Explosions, ignition sources
Fires and explosions
AIQ #41, p.29
AIQ #28, p.21
ARJ Sep.’92, p.46
ARJ May ’92, p.18
BASIC SKID FORMULA
Discussion of ‘n’ factor
AIQ #8, p.4
Maximum speed to stop
ARJ May ’93, p.58
Examples of use
ARJ every, p.10
See also SKID TESTS, FRICTION
BICYCLE/SCOOTER/SKATEBOARD
Acceleration, braking, turning
AIQ #55, p.27
New Maine laws
AIQ #48, p.48
Acceleration trials
AIQ #25, p.18
Fire engine/concrete pillar
AIQ #24, p.36
Rider charged with DWI
AIQ #2, p.46
Mountain bike accel., braking
Hogging road
ARJ Mar. ’09, p.31
Skid, acceleration tests
ARJ Nov. ’08, p.26
Safety concerns for
ARJ Sep. ’08, p.15
Drunk plows into racers
Bells required in UK
ARJ Sep. ’03, p.13
Wearing safety gear
ARJ Sep. ’03, p.15
Groups seek to reduce collis.
ARJ Sep. ’03, p.20
Paths for
ARJ Sep. ’03, p.26
Fatality case study
ARJ Sep. ’03, p.56
Bicyclist sues driver
ARJ Sep. ’03, p.64
Scooter safety
ARJ July ’03, p.2
Heads-up on safety
DOT targets safety
ARJ May ’03, p.61
Report on safety strategies
ARJ Nov.’00, p.5
Bike or wide curb lanes
ARJ Jan. ’00, p.3
Nighttime accident case study
ARJ Jan. ’94, p.26
Bike/car crash test
ARJ Nov. ’93, p.30
Speed determination of
ARJ May ’92, p.41
Rider conspicuity
ARJ Jan. ’91, p.22
Rider reaction time
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.40
Grade crossing accidents
ARJ Nov. ’90, p.34
Roadway lanes for
Crash types of 1990’s
Bibliography
Use & hazard patterns
Math simulation side collis’n
Effect of car front profile
Braking system patent file
Chain/drive system
Frame, fork patent file
See also SEGWAY
AIQ #22, p.11 N
AIQ #12, p.13 N
AIQ #10, p.14 N
AIQ #8, p.8 N
AIQ #5, p.8 N
AIQ #5, p.8 N
AIQ #4, p.9 N
AIQ #4, p.9 N
AIQ #4, p.9 N
BIOMECHANICS
Test reference guide
Lower extremity injuries
Pedestrian leg injuries
Head impact protection
Fed head restr. proposal
See also INJURIES
AIQ #26, p.10 N
AIQ #8, p.9 N
ARJ Sep. ’03, p.37
ARJ Nov. ’95, p.9
ARJ Jan. ’01, p.14
BLOOD ALCOHOL COUNT
Canada: 30 min. delay OK
Canada: samples, warrant req’d
Whole blood vs. serum
Gender as factor
Breathalizer as evidence
Calculation of
See also DRUNK DRIVING
ARJ Sep.’94, p.12
ARJ Mar. ’94, p.5
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.3
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.3
ARJ May ’90, p.2
ARJ May ’90, p.15
BRAKES, ANTILOCK
New Renault
New Delphi product
Bosch expands offerings
Delphi advanced
Corrosion in
“Float” condition
Fatal 1-vehicle crashes up
Regulatory reform deflated
New rule for trucks/buses
Mixed results for
Stronger regs. for trucks?
What they can/can’t do
No improvement safety stats
OE vs. aftermarket performance
Override system
Engineering assessment of
Testing robot
Braking news
Bosch electro-hydraulic
Bosch electronic
No defect in Suburban
Advanced stopping systems
Updated fatal crash rate
ATA petition for rule change
Veh’s higher rollover rates
No reduction crash frequency
Add-on devices don’t work
Cut insurance claims, Canada
Discussion of stopping dist.
Aftermarket system tested
Add-on kits worsen perform.
Investigator’s guide to
Next generation
Schematic diagram
How they work
Light vehicle performance
Technician guidelines
Crash Experience
Bibliography
Performance on trailers
Material friction
On double tanker trucks
Crash eperience, autos
Crash eperience, lt. trucks
Semi-trailer elec. systems
On log-hauling truck
Bibliography
Bibliography
Improvement for heavy vehs.
Patent file citations
See also SKID TESTS
AIQ #39, p.45
AIQ #38, p.43
AIQ #38, p.7
AIQ #33, p.43
AIQ #18, p.26
AIQ #14, p. 16
AIQ #12, p.3
AIQ #6, p.3
AIQ #6, p.45
AIQ #5, p.19
AIQ #3, p.31
AIQ #2, p.39
AIQ #1, p.1
ARJ Mar. ’10, p.3
ARJ Jan. ’09, p.50
ARJ Sep. ’07, p.34
ARJ Nov. ’06, p.14
ARJ Nov. ’04, p.64
ARJ Jan. ’02, p.70
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.32
ARJ Sep.’00, p.5
ARJ May ’95, p.2
ARJ Mar. ’95, p.17
ARJ May ’94, p.11
ARJ May ’94, p.18
ARJ May ’92, p.13
ARJ July ’91, p.2
AIQ #19, p.15 N
AIQ #18, p.12 N
AIQ #18, p.12 N
AIQ #15, p.13 N
AIQ #14, p.14 N
AIQ #14, p.14 N
AIQ #13, p.13 N
AIQ #9, p.9 N
AIQ #9, p.9 N
AIQ #8, p.12 N
AIQ #8, p.14 N
AIQ #8, p.16 N
AIQ #7, p.12 N
AIQ #4, p.13 N
AIQ #3, p.8 N
BRAKES, CONVENTIONAL
Internat’l standardized regs.
Pressure sensor for booster
Hydraulic deceleration
Performance-based testers
Inspection devices tested
AIQ #5, p.48
ARJ Jan. ’03, p.15
ARJ July ’01, p.5
ARJ Mar. ’98 p.2
50
Faulty fluid
Auto. slack adjusters req’d
Adjustment & truck perform.
Lining friction
Examination of
Slack adjusters, diagram
S-cam brake model
Bibliography
Bibliography
Bibliography
Material friction
Air, performance criteria
Improvement for heavy vehs.
See also SKID TESTS
BRAKE TEMPERATURES
Braking strategy, mountains
& low speed performance
Infrared device for measure
ARJ Sep.’93, p.16
ARJ Nov. ’92, p.49
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.22
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.20
ARJ Jan. ’89, p.18
AIQ #24, p.21 N
AIQ #15, p.12 N
AIQ #15, p.13 N
AIQ #14, p.12 N
AIQ #14, p.14 N
AIQ #13, p.8 N
AIQ #4, p.13 N
ARJ Sep.’94, p.34
AIQ #15, p.11 N
BRAKING - See BASIC SKID FORMULA
BUMPER (CHALK) GUN
Repair tip
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.25
BUMPERS
Flimsy on SUV's
AIQ #23, p.41
5 mph requirement bill
ARJ Sep.’91, p.3
5 mph, petition denied
ARJ Sep.’91, p.23
See also CRASH TESTS LOW SPEED
BUSES, COMMERCIAL
11 pulled out of service
Rollover case study, MD
Automated driving controls
NTSB report on safety
Top safety issues
Rollover case study, NY
Accident data coll'n/analysis
Accident prevention program
Large veh. safety research
See also NTSB, SKID TESTS
AIQ #47, p.48
AIQ #1, p.8
ARJ Nov. ’04, p.56
ARJ Mar. ’98 p.51
AIQ #31, p.14 N
AIQ #5, p.9 N
AIQ #3, p.8 N
BUSES, SCHOOL
Seat belt forum
AIQ #47, p.36
Case study, run-off-road
AIQ #34, p.40
Case study, w/semi-truck
AIQ #32, p.51
Case study, w/semi-truck
AIQ #31, p.21
Police riding
AIQ #31, p.47
& dump truck case study
AIQ #26, p.19
Accident case study
ARJ Mar. ’10, p.23
Seat belts
ARJ Sep. ’06, p.42
Struck in rear by truck
ARJ Nov. ’04, p.16
Double fatality
ARJ Mar. ’04, p.15
Run-off-road fatality
ARJ Mar. ’04, p.18
Run-off-bridge case study
ARJ Mar. ’04, p.23
Broadsided by truck
ARJ Mar. ’04, p.58
NHTSA’s new focus on
ARJ Mar. ’98 p.5
Snagged clothing warning
ARJ Sep.’94, p.56
Snagged clothing
ARJ May ’93, p.62
Wheelchair safety
ARJ May ’93, p.15
Driver visibility, mirrors
ARJ Jan. ’93, p.35
Accident case study
ARJ Jan. ’92, p.32
Revised guidelines
Mirror proposal
Stop signal arms
Saf. improvements proposed
ARJ May ’91, p.16
Pedestrian safety prop.
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.21
Stop arms
ARJ Sep.’90, p.7
Seating for disabled
ARJ Sep.’90, p.2
Mirror configuration
ARJ May ’89, p.13
Crashworthiness research
AIQ #32, p.14 N
Advanced signaling devices
AIQ #21, p.10 N
See also SKID TESTS, CASE STUDIES
BUSINESS, A.R.
Example of abuse
Consultants and marketing
How to start
ARJ May ’92, p.36
ARJ Mar. ’92, p.5
C.A.D. PROGRAMS
Listing of available
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.14
CAMERAS, ON-BOARD
Use of videotape in speed calc.
Watching teen driving
3-D sensing added
Could save lives
ARJ May ’07, p.40
ARJ Mar. ’07, p.12
CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING
Case study, van in snow
ARJ Nov. '06, p.16
CASE LAW
Appeals court reduces verdict
Admissibility recon. evidence
And A.R. experts
AIQ #40, p.10
ARJ Sep.’93, p.24
ARJ May ’91, p.20
CASE STUDIES
Fire truck run-off-road
AIQ #55, p.19
Fire captain fatality
AIQ #54, p.29
LA fire tanker fatality
AIQ #53, p.35
Single vehicle fatality
AIQ #47, p.19
EMT fatal, 3-vehicle
AIQ #43, p.18
Fire truck hits boulder, tree
AIQ #32, p.16
Semi-truck / police car
AIQ #30, p.17
Fire truck fill tank explosion
AIQ #30, p.40
Fire truck/2 veh., intersection
AIQ #29, p.19
School bus run-off-road
AIQ #29, p.44
Bus Run-off-road 22-fatal
AIQ #28, p.25
Fire truck / tree
AIQ #27, p.23
Worst crash in VA history
AIQ #25, p.14
Pickup/dump truck
AIQ #25, p.42
Fire engine/concrete pillar
AIQ #24, p.36
Firefighter backed over
ARJ Sep. ’10, p.38
Limited intersection sight dist.
Fireman ejected from pumper
ARJ Sep. ’09, p.19
Fireman killed directing traffic
ARJ May ’09, p.41
7-fatality chain reaction
ARJ Mar. ’09, p.35
AL firefighters 1 fatal 2 injured
ARJ Jan. ’09, p.42
Fla. ambulance / tree
ARJ Nov. ’08, p.21
Load breaks loose hits cab
ARJ Jan. ’08, p.25
2 fire engines, intersection
Chief struck by fire truck
4 pedestrians struck
ARJ May ’03, p.24
Killed climbing on truck
ARJ May ’03, p.54
Firefighter run over
ARJ Mar. ’03, p.32
Fire truck/utility pole
ARJ Jan. ’03, p.20
Medic unit rollover
ARJ Jan. ’03, p.43
Antitheft bar, steering wheel
Oblique angle collision
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.24
Head-on collision
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.20
See also NATIONAL TRAN. SAF. BRD.,
PEDESTRIAN
CAUSATION
Urban: identifying crash types
Factors in accidents
ARJ Mar. ’93, p.13
ARJ Nov. ’90, p.16
CELL PHONES/TEXTING
Prohibited for bus drivers
Considering bans
Accidents related to
Swedish study on hands-free
Aid police 3 times
Virginia ban defeated
Study: cause distraction
Use back up in NY
State may ban
Hands-free no better
Driving bans worthwhile?
Safety tips for use
Report: laws needed
State law summary
Insurers will not penalize for
Use & collsion risk
Adults/teens equally likely to text
Like driving drunk
Texting in trucks banned
1.6M crashes per year due to
Neb. texting ban
How dangerous is texting?
MO bill would ban texting
State ban considered
Feds sued info on related deaths
More dangerous than talk w pass.
Students still text while driving
New California law
Plan to ban
Teens lose privileges
Use while driving on rise
Cited in crashes
May cause 2600 deaths
Employers nix driving with
CA: stricter rules?
Policy for Exxon employees
Driver takes on ban
Ga. ban debated
Banned in New Zealand
Move to end ban
Handheld banned in UK
Santa Fe Police enforcem't
No ban yet
Danger at gas pumps?
Safety
Hands-free not risk free
Lawmaker attacks
Companies create policies
Visteon & hands-free
NTSB widens probe
NHTSA survey
Effects while driving
Skills required to use & drive
AIQ #42, p.46
AIQ #40, p.3
AIQ #40, p.7
AIQ #40, p.44
AIQ #39, p.13
AIQ #38, p.2
AIQ #34, p.5
AIQ #34, p.12
AIQ #31, p.17
AIQ #30, p.47
AIQ #29, p.46
AIQ #28, p.9
AIQ #27, p.2
AIQ #27, p.9
AIQ #22, p.48
AIQ #13, p. 1
ARJ July ’10, p.5
ARJ May ’10, p.4
ARJ May ’10, p.50
ARJ Mar. ’10, p.28
ARJ Mar. ’10, p.36
ARJ Mar. ’09, p.4
ARJ Mar. ’09, p.59
ARJ Jan. ’09, p.40
ARJ Jan. ’09, p.5
ARJ Jan. ’09, p.8
ARJ July ’08, p.3
ARJ Sep. ’06, p.52
ARJ July ’06, p.5
ARJ May ’06, p.13
ARJ May ’06, p.58
ARJ May ’06, p.62
ARJ Jan. ’05, p.64
ARJ Sep. ’04, p.10
ARJ July ’04, p.4
ARJ Jan. ’04, p.3
ARJ Jan. ’04, p.19
ARJ Nov. ’03, p.19
ARJ Nov. ’02, p.5
ARJ Sep. ’02, p.14
ARJ May ’02, p.44
ARJ Mar. ’02, p.15
ARJ Jan. ’02, p.16
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.64
ARJ Mar. ’01, p.56
AIQ #27, p.12 N
AIQ #22, p.10 N
CENTER OF MASS - See Inertial Parameters
CHASSIS
Intermodal safety
ARJ Nov. ’04, p.2
CHILD SAFETY SEAT
IHSS questions boosters
LATCH system confusing
Consumer Reports tests erred
New rules proposed
Infant carriers recalled
Confusion leads to underuse
Talking seat big hit
Infants: use at record high
New system
Instructions inaccuate/outdated
& seat belts, air bags
Case studies
Parents urged to heed recalls
Warnings, air bag positions
New safety rule
New booster seat questions
Safety is inspector's aim
Fall hazard
Booster seat use low
Use increasing
Shield-type toddler injuries
Use hits record high
New rating system
LATCH system
Improved labels required
Rating system proposed
Attachments need refining
Belt-integrated
Plan for improving
Physician counseling about
Too many children unrestrained
Installation safer/easier
New federal rule
Universal attachment system
Universal attachment system
G.M. donation for
Remote control seats recalled
Revised standard for booster
Warning label/airbag posit’ns
Warning for airbag positions
Parents alerted about recalls
Poor recall response
Registration proposed
Recall alert
Misuse a problem
NHTSA advisory
Bibliography
Patterns of misuse
Older child, fit & injuries
Crash tests of
Belt anchorage location
AIQ #54, p.2
AIQ #45, p.3
AIQ #45, p.5
AIQ #42, p.2
AIQ #39, p.11
AIQ #38, p.48
AIQ #36, p.12
AIQ #34, p.10
AIQ #30, p.8
AIQ #28, p.7
AIQ #14, p. 20
AIQ #14, p. 42
AIQ #1, p.31
AIQ #1, p.32
AIQ #1, p.32
ARJ Nov. ’08, p.7
ARJ Sep. ’08, p.9
ARJ Jan. ’07, p.64
ARJ Mar. ’06, p.64
ARJ Mar. ’04, p.64
ARJ Nov. ’02, p.64
ARJ Sep. ’02, p.13
ARJ May ’02, p.13
ARJ May ’01, p.64
ARJ Sep. ’00, p.64
ARJ May ’00, p.42
ARJ Mar. ’00, p.5
ARJ Jan. ’00, p.14
ARJ Jan. ’00, p.62
ARJ Mar. ’98 p.13
ARJ Jan. ’97, p.5
ARJ Nov. ’95, p.30
ARJ Mar. ’94, p.3
ARJ Jan. ’92, p.40
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.48
ARJ Jan. ’91, p.2
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.56
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.56
AIQ #17, p.12 N
AIQ #12, p.16 N
AIQ #8, p.14 N
AIQ #5, p.11 N
AIQ #4, p.10 N
COLLISION DATA RECORDER
See Event Data Recorder
COMBINED SPEED FORMULA
And Delta V’s
AIQ #1, p.30
Example of/mult. surfaces
ARJ Jan. ’94, p.18
Example of
Alternative approach
ARJ July ’89, p.3
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE
Driver fitness for duty
See also BUSES, TRUCKS
AIQ #8, p.15 N
COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS
New NHTSA standard
ARJ Jan. ’95, p.56
Fleet safety experience
AIQ #8, p.15 N
COMPUTERS/COMPUTER MODELS
Recon. valiation using EDSMAC4 AIQ #51, p.19
DYNA3D model
AIQ #27, p.41
LS-DYNA model
AIQ #26, p.44
Product overview
AIQ #15, p.35
Roadside object collisions
AIQ #15, p.42
dSpace diagnostic software
ARJ Jan. ’10, p.3
Simulation of M/C - car tests
Intersection acc. models
ARJ Jan. ’97, p.28
Of dual leg sign support
AIQ #11, p.12 N
See also ANIMATION, BIOMECHAN'S, CRASH3
COSTS
Crashes & health care
Of catastrophic injuries up
Of vehicle crashes
Economic impact of accdts.
ARJ Mar. ’94, p.3
ARJ May ’93, p.2
ARJ Mar. ’93, p.48
AIQ #30, p.14 N
CRASH COMPATABILITY
NHTSA assesses data
& fuel economy
Automakers pledge improv.
Vehicle type/weight factors
2 case studies
Vehicle agressivity
AIQ #21, p.48
ARJ Sep. ’04, p.59
ARJ Jan. ’04, p.58
ARJ Sep. ’97, p.14
AIQ #17, p.14 N
C.R.A.S.H. COMPUTER PROGRAM
Global & local axes
AIQ #1, p.26
See also CRUSH STIFFNESS
CRASH TESTS - BARRIER - FRONTAL
WREX motorcycles
ARJ May ’10, p.21
Crush data, 2007 vehs
ARJ Nov. ’09, p.43
ARJ Sep. ’08, p.25
ARJ Mar. ’08, p.25
ARJ Sep. ’07, p.37
ARJ Mar. ’07, p.29
ARJ Sep. ’06, p.29
ARJ Jan. ’05, p.29
ARJ Jan. ’04, p.32
98-00 veh's/deformable bar.
ARJ Sep. ’04, p.36
ARJ Nov. ’03 p.37
Crush data, 1997-99 vehs
ARJ Nov. ’98 p.46
1997 Thomas school bus
ARJ Mar. ’04, p.16
97 Caravan, Explorer 15 mph
94-97 veh's/deformable bar.
Offset, 14 ’96 4-dr sedans
ARJ Mar. ’96, p.22
Offset, 14 ’96 sport uts.
ARJ Mar. ’96, p.34
Repeat offset, 7 vehicles
ARJ Mar. ’96, p.40
ARJ July ’98 p.49
ARJ July ’98 p.47
ARJ July ’98 p.45
ARJ Mar. ’95, p.50
ARJ Nov. ’94, p.32
ARJ Mar. ’93, p.22
Repeat, ’92 Chev. Caprice
AIQ #12, p.13 N
ARJ Nov. ’92, p.26
’91 Ford F150 pickup
AIQ #11, p.36
ARJ May ’92, p.42
ARJ Jan. ’92, p.34
’89 Cutlass, LeBaron, offset
ARJ Mar. ’96, p.66
ARJ May ’90, p.28
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.28
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.26
’86 VW Golf, oblique
ARJ Sep.’94, p.52
’86 Taurus, repeat
AIQ #12, p.36
ARJ Sep.’89, p.26
’85 Escort, repeat
AIQ #12, p.36
ARJ Mar. ’89, p.19
ARJ Sep.’92, p.23
’84 VW Rabbit
ARJ May ’95, p.48
ARJ Mar. ’89, p.20
ARJ Sep.’92, p.23
ARJ May ’89, p.20
ARJ Sep.’92, p.23
ARJ May ’89, p.21
ARJ Sep.’92, p.23
ARJ Sep.’90, p.26
ARJ Jan. ’91, p.28
ARJ May ’91, p.25
ARJ Sep.’91, p.26
Crush data, 1969-1974 vehs
ARJ Nov. ’91, p.40
Mini-cars tested (news)
AIQ #54, p.5
Tropica roadster
AIQ #10, p.11 N
Crash test bibliography
AIQ #5, p.11 N
Millbrook testing (news)
AIQ #45, p.12
Midsized cars improving
AIQ #42, p.47
IIHS defends methods (news)
AIQ #12, p.5
Are ratings for dummies
ARJ Nov. ’09, p.48
Toyota plans U.S. tests (news)
ARJ May ’07, p.61
Court says 25 mph justified
ARJ Mar. ’06, p.13
Automakers focus on offset
ARJ Sep. ’97, p.2
Value confirmed (news)
ARJ Nov. ’03, p.16
Make SUVs more deadly?
ARJ Nov. ’03, p.20
Unbelted tests on hold (news)
ARJ May ’97, p.19
Europe, new standards
ARJ Sep.’95, p.5
Crashworthiness compar’ns
ARJ May ’95, p.64
Olds Cieras, offset
CRASH TESTS - BARRIER - REAR
AIQ #50, p.19
AIQ #45, p.23
AIQ #43, p.22
AIQ #42, p.21
2002 conversion vans
AIQ #42, p.26
AIQ #41, p.19
IIHS 10 mph
AIQ #38, p.40
AIQ #37, p.39
AIQ #36, p.39
Offset, deform. bar., 1998
AIQ #40, p.19
Crush data, 1995, 1998
AIQ #38, p.17
Offset, deform. bar., 1996
AIQ #39, p.19
1992 Dodge Ram B250 van
AIQ #9, p.42
1991 Plymouth Acclaim
AIQ #11, p.34
Collins school bus
ARJ Mar. ’04, p.50
ARJ May ’90, p.28
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.28
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.26
ARJ Sep.’89, p.26
ARJ Mar. ’89, p.19
ARJ Mar. ’89, p.20
51
Repeat, ’79 F250, ’79 Gr. Prix
Repeat, ’76 Honda Accord
Fixed barrier, 1970-74 vehs.
ARJ May ’89, p.20
ARJ May ’89, p.21
ARJ May ’92, p.20
ARJ Sep.’90, p.26
ARJ Jan. ’91, p.28
ARJ May ’91, p.25
ARJ May ’92, p.20
ARJ Sep.’91, p.26
ARJ Nov. ’91, p.40
CRASH TESTS - MOVING BARRIER - SIDE
News of FHWA on pickups
AIQ #38, p.14
Aspects of good performance
AIQ #37, p.33
Only 2 midsized cars 'good'
AIQ #37, p.34
Crabbed, ’92 Chev. Caprice
AIQ #16, p. 32
Repeat, ’92 Chev. Caprice
AIQ #15, p. 48
’90 Honda Civic, repeat
AIQ #14, p. 54
Crabbed, ’90 Honda Civic SI
AIQ #8, p.36
Crabbed, ’88 Ford Escort
AIQ #13, p. 46
Crabbed, ’88 Ford Taurus
AIQ #8, p.36
ARJ May ’90, p.28
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.28
Rep. 45 deg. pole, ’87 Golf
AIQ #3, p.28
Rep. 90 deg. pole, ’86 Escort
AIQ #3, p.28
Rep. 45 deg., ’86 Celebrity
AIQ #2, p.44
ARJ Sep.’89, p.26
Rep. 90 deg., ’85 Celebrity
AIQ #4, p.36
Repeat 90 degree, ’85 Escort
AIQ #1, p.28
Repeat 90 degree, ’85 Sentra
AIQ #4, p.36
Repeat 45 deg., ’84 Olds ’88
AIQ #5, p.43
Repeat 45/90 deg, Audi 5000’s
AIQ #5, p.43
4 autos, 10/20 mph delta v’s
AIQ #6, p.42
Citation, pass. comp., axle
AIQ #6, p.42
Seven school buses
ARJ Mar. ’04, p.53
ARJ May ’91, p.25
New rule covers light trucks
ARJ Sep.’95, p.5
CRASH TESTS - ROADSIDE OBJECTS
Short portable concrete barrier
AIQ #54, p.19
Multiple mailbox mount
AIQ #54, p.23
Midwest guardrail system
AIQ #53, p.17
Var. veh. side into fixed pole
AIQ #51, p.34
Portable concrete barrier
AIQ #49, p.8
Tests of impact attenuators
AIQ #44, p.38
Guardrails mounted in rock
AIQ #43, p.38
Triangular slip-base signs
AIQ #41, p.38
Var. veh. side into fixed pole
AIQ #35, p.16
Guardrail terminal
AIQ #34, p.21
MN aluminum barricade
AIQ #30, p.33
25-ft long span guardrail
AIQ #29, p.32
Connecticut transition
AIQ #25, p.8
Bullnose guardrail
AIQ #25, p.20
Yaw impact into guardrail
AIQ #22, p.15
New Jersey concrete barrier
AIQ #20, p.22
Colt/side/breakaway pole
AIQ #20, p.31
Accord side into pole
AIQ #19, p.21
Toyota pickup side into pole
AIQ #19, p.26
Explorer side into pole
AIQ #19, p.32
Guardrail terminal
AIQ #18, p.48
MELT guardrail terminal
AIQ #17, p.40
Speed change in curb impacts
AIQ #15, p.20
’97 BMW 528 side/pole
AIQ #14, p. 19
Concrete bridge rail
AIQ #11, p.47
Various mailboxes
AIQ #10, p.30
N.J. concrete barrier
AIQ #8, p.27
Side, var. roadside objects
AIQ #7, p.24
Selected guardrails
AIQ #4, p.16
Three side impacts, pole
ARJ Sep. ’10, p.29
85 mph into guardrails
ARJ May ’10, p.38
ARJ Mar. ’10, p.32
Cable guardrail terminal system
ARJ Nov. ’09, p.27
Cable guardrail terminal system
ARJ Sep. ’09, p.25
Concrete barrier w light pole
ARJ May ’09, p.25
Concrete barrier w light pole
ARJ Mar. ’09, p.15
Temp. rigid sign stands
ARJ Jan. ’09, p.28
F-shaped guardrail on slope
ARJ Sep. ’08, p.33
Midwest guardrail
ARJ May ’08, p.35
Midwest guardrail
ARJ Mar. ’08, p.49
Equations for pole impacts
ARJ Nov. ’07, p.19
Various safety devices
Fla./NJ safety-shape rail
ARJ Mar. ’07, p.50
Heavy truck/F411 bridge rail
ARJ Jan. ’07, p.49
Vehicle rear into fixed poles
ARJ Nov. '06, p.19
Heavy mailboxes
ARJ Jan. ’04, p.29
3-strand cable barrier
ARJ Sep. ’02, p.19
G4 guardrail v. Geo Metro
ARJ Sep. ’02, p.33
Bridge rails level 4
ARJ Sep. ’02, p.39
Guardrail breakaway posts
Long-span guardrail
Guardrail/bridgerail trans.
Pickup/masonry guardrail
ARJ Sep.’00, p.3
Wood RR crossing sign
ARJ Sep.’00, p.37
U-channel sign supports
U-channel sign supports
OR slip-base sign supports
Work zone sign support
Pickup/thrie beam guardrail
Three-cable terminal
MELT2 guardrail terminal
Ford Festiva/pole, sign
Various, offset front barrier
1992 Caprice repeat barrier
Auto/various bridge rails
Pickup/various bridge rails
Hvy truck/var. bridge rails
Truck, bus/var. bridge rails
Truck/steel bridge rail
Application of rail tests
Pickup/steel guard rail
Pickup/MELT2 terminal
Pickup/T101 bridge rail
Composite guard rail
Steel sign supports
Fiberglass sign supports
Honda Civics, fixed pole
Honda Civic, sign post
88-90 Festivas, fixed pole
Slip-base light pole
Slip-base sign support
Break-away light poles
Steel bridge rails
Concrete median barrier
Steel guardrail terminals
Composit post guardrail
Steel W-beam guardrail
Repeated front pole impacts
Breakaway light pole w gate
In-line/offset fixed pole
Curbs: acceleration levels
Repeated front pole impacts
Frontal, pole impacts
Honda Civic/bridge rails
Ford F150 pickup/bridge rails
Int’l heavy truck/bridge rails
With breakaway light pole
Repeated rear barrier tests
High speed, tree
Precast concrete barrier
W-beam guardrail
7.62-m span guardrail
Various guardrails
Various guardrails
Various guardrails
NETC-2-bar bridgerail
Wood bridge railings
BEST guardrail terminal
Various guardrails
Various guardrails/poles
Traffic-signal poles
W-beam transitions
ET2000 guardrail end
Guardrails, bridgerails
Plastic drum sign substrates
Pickup/Festiva MELT term’l
Ford Festiva MELT terminal
Mazda RX7 MELT terminal
Ford Festiva MELT terminal
New Jersey barrier
Bibliography
Safety structures bibliography
Application (news)
ARJ Mar. ’00, p.19
ARJ May ’00, p.19
ARJ May ’00, p.35
ARJ May ’00, p.45
ARJ July ’98 p.13
ARJ July ’98 p.21
ARJ July ’98 p.53
ARJ May ’98 p.24
ARJ May ’98 p.29
ARJ May ’98 p.54
ARJ Jan. ’97, p.20
ARJ Jan. ’97, p.20
ARJ Jan. ’97, p.20
ARJ Mar. ’97, p.22
ARJ Mar. ’97, p.22
ARJ Mar. ’97, p.22
ARJ Mar. ’97, p.50
ARJ Mar. ’97, p.50
ARJ Mar. ’97, p.69
ARJ Mar. ’97, p.70
ARJ Mar. ’97, p.72
ARJ Mar. ’97, p.80
ARJ Mar. ’97, p.80
ARJ Jan. ’97, p.14
ARJ May ’96, p.18
ARJ May ’96, p.18
ARJ May ’96, p.22
ARJ May ’96, p.28
ARJ May ’96, p.44
ARJ May ’96, p.52
ARJ Jan. ’96, p.28
ARJ Jan. ’96, p.52
ARJ Jan. ’96, p.67
ARJ Jan. ’96, p.70
ARJ Jan. ’96, p.72
ARJ Sep.’95, p.22
ARJ May ’95, p.50
ARJ May ’95, p.54
ARJ Sep.’93, p.44
ARJ Jan. ’93, p.32
ARJ May ’92, p.42
ARJ May ’92, p.42
ARJ May ’92, p.42
ARJ Jan. ’92, p.3
ARJ May ’92, p.20
ARJ Nov. ’92, p.50
AIQ #26, p.10 N
AIQ #26, p.10 N
AIQ #22, p.10 N
AIQ #22, p.12 N
AIQ #21, p.10 N
AIQ #20, p.11 N
AIQ #20, p.14 N
AIQ #20, p.15 N
AIQ #19, p.12 N
AIQ #19, p.13 N
AIQ #18, p.11 N
AIQ #18, p.14 N
AIQ #17, p.13 N
AIQ #17, p.14 N
AIQ #17, p.15 N
AIQ #16, p.10 N
AIQ #16, p.15 N
AIQ #16, p.15 N
AIQ #16, p.15 N
AIQ #15, p.11 N
AIQ #14, p.11 N
AIQ #13, p.10 N
AIQ #8, p.16 N
AIQ #11, p.14 N
CRASH TESTS - VEHICLE-TO-VEHICLE
4 side impact tests
AIQ #52, p.24
Motorcycle/van high speed
AIQ #51, p.26
4 side impact tests
AIQ #50, p.26
4 side impact tests
AIQ #49, p.20
4 side impact tests
AIQ #48, p.20
4 side impact tests
AIQ #47, p.22
Semi-trailer side underride
AIQ #27, p.17
’85 Escort, repeat oblique
AIQ #12, p.36
Compared to barrier tests
AIQ #5, p.38
Motorcycle/car
AIQ #5, p.48
Car/semi-trailer side crash tests
ARJ Sep. ’10, p.19
Motorcycles/cars
ARJ Jan. ’10, p.25
Two '02 Tundra/'04 Accord
ARJ Jan. ’10, p.42
Two '01 Ventura/'04 Accord
'02 Trailblazer/'04 Accord
ARJ Jan. ’09, p.46
Two '99 Gr. Caravan/'04 Accord ARJ Nov. ’08, p.40
05 T&C / '01 Civic head-on
'03 Silverado / '01 Civic head-on ARJ May ’08, p.26
Two F-250 / '02 Focus head-on
ARJ Mar. ’08, p.42
'05 T&C / '02 Focus head-on
ARJ Nov. ’07, p.42
'06 Ridgeline / '02 Focus head-on ARJ Nov. ’07, p.44
2 Odyssey/Focus
ARJ Sep. ’07, p.26
10 motorcycle/car
3 Silverado/Focus head-on
'03 Navigator/'96 Neon
'02 Ram 1500/'97 Accord
'02 Trailblazer/'97 Accord
'02 Ram 1500/'04 Accord
'02 Ram 1500/'04 Accord
'02 trucks/autos head-on
'01 Montero/'97 Accord
'01 Ram 1500/'97 Accord
'01 Ford F-150/'01 Neon
'01 Ford F-150/'01 Neon
'01 Ford F-150/'01 Neon
'97 Accord/'98 Cavalier
'98 Sienna/'97 Accord
'98 Chevy S-10/'97 Accord
Deform. Impact./98 Cavalier
'94 K-2500/'97 Accord
'96 Lumina/'97 Accord
'96 Avalon/'97 Accord
'97 Caravan/'96 Neon
'97 Explorer/'97 Accord
'97 Caravan/'97 Accord
'97 Blazer/'97 Accord
'97 Seville/'97 Accord
Deform. Impact./'97 Accord
Peterbilt semi/Blue Bird bus
'00 Avalon/'97 Accord
'00 Seville/'97 Accord
'00 Previa/'97 Accord
Linc. Navigator/Dodge Neon
Mits. Montero/Honda Accord
Heavy truck/auto frontal
Truck-mounted attenuator
Breakaway cable terminal
Truck side underride
Side pickup, van, bus
Various ’83, head-on, offset
’89 Cutlass, LeBaron, offset
Auto/heavy truck underride
Auto/heavy truck underride
4 autos, truck side underride
Malibu into rear of Maxima
Heavy truck/Civic, 4 tests
Heavy truck/Taurus, 9 tests
Two Olds Cieras head-on
Two ’68 Cadillacs head-on
Truck mounted attenuator
Bibliography
FRP end-terminal
Guardrail pedulum testing
Heavy truck/’89 Taurus
Heavy truck/Honda Civic
See also GRADE CROSSINGS
ARJ May ’07, p.34
ARJ Jan. ’07, p.26
ARJ Sep. ’06, p.20
ARJ Sep. ’06, p.22
ARJ Sep. ’06, p.24
ARJ Sep. ’06, p.26
ARJ Nov. '06, tent.
ARJ Jan. ’05, p.18
ARJ Jan. ’05, p.20
ARJ Jan. ’05, p.22
ARJ Jan. ’05, p.24
ARJ Jan. ’05, p.26
ARJ Sep. ’04, p.24
ARJ Sep. ’04, p.26
ARJ Sep. ’04, p.28
ARJ Sep. ’04, p.30
ARJ Mar. ’04, p.20
ARJ Jan. ’04, p.22
ARJ Jan. ’04, p.24
ARJ Jan. ’04, p.26
ARJ Nov. ’03, p.24
ARJ Nov. ’03, p.26
ARJ July ’98 p.13
ARJ Mar. ’98 p.37
ARJ Jan. ’98, p.12
ARJ Nov. ’97, p.54
ARJ Nov. ’96, p.39
ARJ Mar. ’96, p.64
ARJ Mar. ’96, p.66
ARJ Nov. ’95, p.34
ARJ Jan. ’95, p.22
ARJ Nov. ’94, p.34
ARJ Sep.’94, p.26
ARJ Nov. ’92, p.50
AIQ #16, p.11 N
AIQ #16, p.13 N
AIQ #16, p.14 N
AIQ #16, p.14 N
AIQ #11, p.13 N
AIQ #11, p.13 N
AIQ #11, p.14 N
AIQ #11, p.14 N
AIQ #7, p.14 N
CRASH TESTS - LOW SPEED
Utility vehicles/human subjects
ARJ Sep. ’96, p.24
Table: tests with human subj’ts
ARJ Sep. ’96, p.41
Car-to-bus with human subjects
ARJ Sep. ’96, p.44
Summary of research
ARJ Sep. ’96, p.52
Car-to-car with human subjects
ARJ May ’93, p.22
See also INJURIES, CRASHWORTHINESS
CRASH TESTS - ROLLOVER/TIPOVER
Damage, doors/structure from
AIQ #6, p.46
Summary of
ARJ Jan. ’03, p.33
2 editorials on NHTSA
ARJ Jan. ’03, p.42
2003-2004 vehicles
ARJ Jan. ’03, p.56
CRASH TEST DUMMIES
See DUMMIES, CRASH TEST
CRASH TEST FILMS/VIDEOS
Nat’l Crash Analysis Center
AIQ #3, p.5
Consumer Reports/IIHS
ARJ Sep. ’07, p.58
CRASHWORTHINESS
Compatability guildlines
Many vehicles not improving
Improving for most vehicles
New tech for side impacts
School & transit buses
Weight mix of fleet
Safest vehicles for downsizing
Impact of 4WDs
Crash incompatability
Mercedes S-class revisions
Euroncap spurs improvements
Auto/pickup/SUV compatability
Low speed, passenger van’s
Ford Taurus rated best
Texas grid-slot barrier
Front in rear-end crashes
Car/light truck impact
Standard test methods
Simulations with DYNA3D
AIQ #33, p.47
AIQ #24, p.2
AIQ #24, p.4
AIQ #24, p.43
AIQ #23, p.18
AIQ #20, p.47
ARJ Nov. ’08, p.28
ARJ Nov. ’03, p.28
ARJ Nov. ’03, p.30
ARJ Nov. ’03, p.34
ARJ Nov. ’03, p.56
ARJ Jan. ’00, p.5
ARJ Sep. ’96, p.3
ARJ Nov. ’95, p.6
AIQ #32, p.13 N
AIQ #24, p.16 N
AIQ #19, p.11 N
AIQ #19, p.11 N
AIQ #12, p.17 N
CRITICAL SPEED TO SIDESLIP
Tests asphalt, gravel, grass
ARJ May ’08, p.29
Tests verifying formula
ARJ Jan. ’95, p.37
Overview of approach
ARJ Nov. ’93, p.22
Tests verifying formula
ARJ May ’93, p.48
Computer analysis using
Discussion of
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.27
Discussion of
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.13
Braking/cornering veh.
ARJ July ’89, p.3
Accuracy, discussion
ARJ Sep.’89, p.24
Discussion of
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.13
See also RADIUS OF CURVATURE
CRUSH PROFILE
Use of unequally spaced pts.
Measurement techniques
ARJ May ’07, p.21
ARJ Mar. ’95, p.22
CRUSH STIFFNESS/SPEED FROM DAMAGE
Motorcycle crush analysis
ARJ Mar. ’09, p.25
Force-crush model, unequal pts.
ARJ May ’07, p.21
Discussion of
Speed, frontal pole impacts
ARJ May ’96, p.24
Analysis, offset head-on
ARJ Mar. ’96, p.66
Speed, frontal pole impacts
ARJ Sep.’95, p.28
Analysis: breakaway pole
Campbell eq. derived
ARJ May ’95, p.48
Discussion of derivation
ARJ Sep.’94, p.18
Discussion of derivation
A, B & G from crash tests
ARJ Sep.’92, p.43
Pole, finite element model
AIQ #8, p.16 N
CURB IMPACTS
See CRASH TESTS - ROADSIDE OBJECTS
DEBRIS ON ROAD
Slices car
Growing hazard
AIQ #35, p.12
DELTA V’s
Restitution constant
Calculation proceedure
And equiv. barrier speed
Discussion of
Discussion of
And combined speed formula
AIQ #28, p.22
AIQ #19, p.16
AIQ #14, p. 16
AIQ #3, p.4
AIQ #2, p.5
AIQ #1, p.30
DIABETES
Rules waived for drivers
Crash risk for drivers with
ARJ Nov. ’93, p.64
ARJ May ’93, p.3
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.47
DIAGRAMS
Limiting time req'd for meas.
Triangulation scene mapping
Example of schematic
Rubber ruler computer prog.
Computerized schematic, ex.
Computerized schematic, ex.
AIQ #46, p.30
ARJ Jan. ’10, p.39
ARJ Mar. ’94, p.62
ARJ Mar. ’92, p.16
ARJ Jan. ’91, p.14
DIMENSIONS
Fire truck, trash truck
ARJ Mar. ’98 p.55
Tables, motorcycles, 1967-91
See also INERTIAL PARAMETERS
DOORS/HATCHES
New standard for
Testing, latch failure modes
Chrysler minivan rear door
New standard go far enough?
Chrys. minivan rear door fix
Evaluation of door locks
Minivan rear door/side imp’t
Proposed retention standard
AIQ #8, p.3
AIQ #8, p.18
ARJ Nov. ’95, p.5
ARJ Nov. ’95, p.25
ARJ Mar. ’95, p.1
ARJ Mar. ’95, p.24
ARJ Jan. ’95, p.64
ARJ Sep.’94, p.64
DOWNSIZING
Autos & safety
ARJ Jan. ’91, p.26
DRAG FACTORS
For non-motorized vehicles
Rotating vehicles
Heavy truck slide/guardrail
From rotating vehicle
Stop dist.-various trucks
Adjusting for grade
Adjusting for brake eff.
Sensitivity
Table, various surfaces
Adjustments to table
For motorcycles
Table for motorcycles
Table for pedestrians
Effects of rotation
Rotational effects on
Aggregate type, mix design
Rolling resistance in snow
See also SKID TESTS, TIRES
DRAG SLED
Large scale testing
Effect of pull angle
AIQ #55, p.27
ARJ May ’08, p.19
ARJ Mar. ’97, p.70
ARJ Nov. ’94, p.30
ARJ May ’92, p.40
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.10
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.10
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.11
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.12
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.12
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.26
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.19
ARJ Sep.’90, p.24
ARJ Nov. ’90, p.32
ARJ May ’89, p.9
AIQ #10, p.11 N
AIQ #9, p.11 N
AIQ #42, p.18
ARJ May ’98 p.20
52
Compare to book, Vericom, etc.
Limitations
Spring constants
Zero calibration
Improper use of
ARJ May ’98 p.20
ARJ May ’98 p.20
ARJ Sep.’91, p.25
ARJ Sep.’91, p.25
ARJ Jan. ’89, p.12
DRINKING AGE
Zero tolerence policy
LA keeps 21
Teens use fake IDs
Underage drinking problem
AIQ #12, p.3
AIQ #12, p.3
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.48
DRIVER EDUCATION
Does not = safe drivers
Europeans echo concerns
ARJ Jan. ’97, p.2
ARJ Sep. ’96, p.64
DRIVER IDENTIFICATION
When occupants are ejected
ARJ Sep.’91, p.20
DRIVER RECORDS
Missing data
ARJ Sep.’91, p.11
DRUG TESTING
For bus/truck drivers?
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.56
DRUGGED DRIVING
Multiple medications & crashes
Move to pass laws
Kava test case
National initiative against
OR Recognition experts
New law tough
Common as drunk driving?
Putting teeth into laws
Detect’n prog. cost effective?
Overshadowed by drinking
& automobile accidents
Truck firm fined
Cocaine danger on the road
Driver recognition prog.
Truck drivers: % posit.
Program expanded
Marijuana & driving perform.
AIQ #52, p.33
AIQ #39, p.14
AIQ #37, p.14
AIQ #32, p.3
AIQ #13, p. 17
ARJ Nov. ’08, p.11
ARJ Jan. ’05, p.14
ARJ Mar. ’94, p.2
ARJ Mar. ’94, p.42
ARJ Nov. ’93, p.62
ARJ Jan. ’91, p.3
ARJ July ’90, p.3
ARJ Sep.’90, p.3
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.2
ARJ Mar. ’89, p.2
AIQ #4, p.9 N
DRUNK DRIVING
Up among women
MD Governor wants law changed
Most TX officials refuse tests
Man's BAC was .491
Repeat offenders on road
Tags for offenders?
Deportation after fatal crash
Tougher penalties in Japan
Underaged drinkers
Lunch: less alcohol needed
Lawmakers focus on
B.I.A. slow on reform
DOT revises testing rule
UK proposal
Canada ignition interlock
Sobriety checkpoints/deaths
Case study
Sobriety checkpoints
Double jeopardy def. rej’d
Teenage 2-fatal case study
Tough new law in Virginia
Public lacks knowledge
Monitoring gadgets
New LA laws
WI passes tougher law
Driver tries to make ammends
Case dismissed urine inhalation
Older adults impaired easily
Warrents for blood draws
Data puts spotlight on county
Court: DUI not violent felony
Full time enforcement officer
Bills to increase penalties
America's deadliest drunks
More ignition interlocks urges
Innovative technologies for
Silent hybrid vehicles
Proposal affects convicts
Still over limit next day?
Fatally injured drivers
Check lane productive for cops
Penn.: ignition devices
European Union reciprocity
Field sobriety test study
Age laws - low enforcement
Redesigned alcohol sensor
Lower after N.C. enforcement
Crackdowns deter alcoholics?
Mother faces child neglect
Wisconsin gets federal grant
Canada: screening time limit
1980’s internat’l statistics
AIQ #55, p.3
AIQ #53, p.4
AIQ #53, p.7
AIQ #51, p.3
AIQ #50, p.2
AIQ #50, p.18
AIQ #49, p.2
AIQ #46, p.2
AIQ #38, p.10
AIQ #32, p.7
AIQ #30, p.48
AIQ #28, p.4
AIQ #25, p.2
AIQ #25, p.8
AIQ #25, p.12
AIQ #20, p.15
AIQ #13, p. 20
AIQ #10, p.56
AIQ #7, p.2
AIQ #5, p.14
AIQ #2, p.9
AIQ #1, p.25
ARJ Nov. ’09, p.4
ARJ Nov. ’09, p.61
ARJ Sep. ’09, p.2
ARJ Sep. ’09, p.3
ARJ Mar. ’09, p.7
ARJ Mar. ’09, p.12
ARJ Sep. ’08, p.16
ARJ Sep. ’08, p.8
ARJ May ’08, p.3
ARJ Jan. ’08, p.12
ARJ Jan. ’08, p.3
ARJ Jan. ’08, p.11
ARJ Jan. ’08, p.12
ARJ Jan. ’05, p.15
ARJ Sep. ’04, p.64
ARJ July ’03, p.2
ARJ July ’02, p.9
ARJ Nov. ’01, p.5
ARJ May ’98 p.62
ARJ Mar. ’96, p.19
ARJ Mar. ’96, p.5
ARJ July ’95, p.1
ARJ Mar. ’95, p.5
ARJ Nov. ’94, p.5
ARJ May ’94, p.64
ARJ Mar. ’94, p.49
ARJ Mar. ’94, p.64
Sobriety checkpoint tech.
Sting cuts sales to minors
Sobriety checkpts. effective
Sports heroes and
Reduced in U.K.
Odds of getting caught
Ignition interlocks
Enforcement grants
Truck drivers: % posit.
License confiscation (CA)
Supreme Ct. & checkpoints
Supreme Ct. & videotapes
Alcohol sensors tested
United enforcement effort
NHTSA recommendations
Breathalizer & due process
Open container laws
.08 law history
Effects of .08 BAC laws
Low concentration literature
Low dose & driver skills
Bibliography
Stdzd. field sobriety test
Bibliography
Breathalizer patent database
Database citations
Detection manual/video
ARJ Jan. ’94, p.3
ARJ Jan. ’93, p.2
ARJ Sep.’92, p.22
ARJ May ’91, p.24
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.43
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.39
ARJ Jan. ’91, p.2
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.23
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.2
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.3
ARJ July ’90, p.1
ARJ July ’90, p.2
ARJ July ’90, p.7
ARJ Sep.’90, p.7
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.15
ARJ July ’89, p.2
AIQ #31, p.13 N
AIQ #27, p.13 N
AIQ #26, p.11 N
AIQ #24, p.15 N
AIQ #24, p.19 N
AIQ #14, p.12 N
AIQ #12, p.12 N
AIQ #10, p.13 N
AIQ #6, p.11 N
AIQ #5, p.12 N
AIQ #4, p.8 N
DUMMIES, CRASH TEST
New competition for
New developed by Ford
Position important in results
POLAR2 pedestrian
Data aquisition system
Design for air bag tests
Finite element model
Which for side impact?
Hybrid III recommended
Child dummy recommended
Hybrid III 5th% female
Pregnant female dummy
AIQ #51, p.4
ARJ May ’08, p.2
ARJ Sep. ’04, p.54
ARJ May ’03, p.27
ARJ Nov. ’01, p.1
ARJ Jan. ’98, p.1
ARJ May ’97, p.49
ARJ July ’96, p.2
ARJ May ’91, p.31
ARJ Nov. ’90, p.31
AIQ #30, p.11 N
AIQ #26, p.10 N
EDUCATION
WREX2000 conference
Survey of A.R. engineers
AIQ #21, p.18
ELECTRIC VEHICLES
Low-speed in urban envir.
Fleet safety experience
AIQ #32, p.14 N
AIQ #8, p.15 N
EMERGENCY SERVICES
Unifying incident response
Data improvements recom’d
ARJ May ’08, p.51
ARJ Jan. ’94, p.2
ENERGY, DISSIPATION OF
Power Law force-deflection
Equations for pole impacts
Validation of equation
Validation of equation
Front pole impact equations
With cons. momentum
Simplifying calculations
Discussion of
With cons. momentum
Applied to barrier tests
With cons. momentum
Presenting in court
Discussion of minivan stiff.
EPILEPSY
ARJ Nov. ’07, p.19
ARJ Mar. ’96, p.69
ARJ Mar. ’96, p.73
ARJ Sep.’93, p.50
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.30
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.38
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.22
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.28
ARJ May ’90, p.19
ARJ May ’90, p.22
ARJ Sep. ’90, p.14
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.28
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.47
EQUIVALENT BARRIER SPEEDS
Privacy concerns
AIQ #40, p.5
Real world experience with
AIQ #32, p.20
You're never alone
AIQ #31, p.46
Experts join to standardize
AIQ #26, p.4
Crash data retrieval kit
AIQ #21, p.42
In police cars
AIQ #19, p.7
Requirement urged
AIQ #8, p.4
Like airplane black box
ARJ Mar. ’03, p.25
Delphi's latest for racing
ARJ July ’01, p.5
Heavy truck case study
ARJ Nov. ’93, p.40
For haz-mat trucks?
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.21
Black boxes for cars?
Report to congress on
AIQ #30, p.12 N
Crash event data recorder
AIQ #27, p.11 N
Electronic recorder study
AIQ #20, p.12 N
See also CRASH TESTS, CRUSH STIFFNESS,
DELTA V's
ETHICS
For expert in civil litigation
Expert changes sides, rebuttal
Expert changes sides
Class-action lawyers sued
Lawyer leaves case
Example of bad
AIQ #11, p.39
AIQ #8, p.4
AIQ #7, p.4
ARJ Mar. ’96, p.1
ARJ Mar. ’96, p.1
EVENT DATA RECORDERS
Building Caterpillar ECM cable
In full-systems crash tests
Performance of selected
Privacy concerns
Real world experience with
You're never alone
Experts join to standardize
Crash data retrieval kit
In police cars
Requirement urged
Faulty speed readings in Toyota
Evaluation of
US weighs requirements
Show Toytota drivers didn't brake
Toyota's policy
Heavy truck field guide
Case study
Cummings ECM downloads
State statuates & legal consid'ns
Review of SAE symposium
Concrete co. use of
New NHTSA rules for
Case study
Like airplane black box
Delphi's latest for racing
Heavy truck case study
For haz-mat trucks?
Black boxes for cars?
Report to congress on
Crash event data recorder
Electronic recorder study
AIQ #53, p.42
AIQ #43, p.32
AIQ #41, p.31
AIQ #40, p.5
AIQ #32, p.20
AIQ #31, p.46
AIQ #26, p.4
AIQ #21, p.42
AIQ #19, p.7
AIQ #8, p.4
ARJ Sep. ’10, p.1
ARJ Sep. ’10, p.11
ARJ Mar. ’10, p.2
ARJ Mar. ’10, p.7
ARJ May ’09, p.19
ARJ Jan. ’09, p.19
ARJ Jan. ’08, p.50
ARJ Sep. ’07, p.14
ARJ May ’07, p.16
ARJ Jan. ’07, p.15
ARJ Sep. ’06, p.40
ARJ Mar. ’03, p.25
ARJ July ’01, p.5
ARJ Nov. ’93, p.40
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.21
AIQ #30, p.12 N
AIQ #27, p.11 N
AIQ #20, p.12 N
EVIDENCE, PRESERVATION OF
Failure, case dismissed
AIQ #28, p.1
Spoiled, the consequences
ARJ Jan. ’92, p.16
Preserve wrecked cars?
ARJ July ’90, p.3
Forensic lab analysis
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.24
EXAMINATIONS
Of automobiles
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.20
EXPERT TESTIMONY
Expert obliterates evidence
In airbag liability case
Toyota's bid to curb fails
Kia suit tossed for lack of
Rule 26 - Discovery
Witness found not qualified
Expanded authority of judges
On facial injuries
On cause of collision
AIQ #42, p.2
AIQ #22, p.48
ARJ July ’10, p.3
ARJ Mar. ’01, p.1
ARJ Nov.’00, p.15
ARJ July ’98 p.2
ARJ Mar. ’98 p.1
ARJ May ’97, p.5
ARJ May ’97, p.80
EYEWITNESS - See Witness
1994, total
Relative to speeding
Increase in Canada
Up in Japan
Lowest in 31 years
’92 motorcycle deaths down
Alcohol related - 10-yr. low
Dramatic increase, women
1991 lowest ever
Variance among dif. cars
1990, total
Motorcycle rates
65 mph & rural Interst.
1989 lowest ever
By vehicle
Rural Interstates
1988, total
For ejected occupants
ARJ July ’95, p.1
ARJ Jan. ’95, p.52
ARJ Nov. ’93, p.62
ARJ Nov. ’93, p.12
ARJ Sep.’93, p.64
ARJ July ’92, p.1
ARJ May ’92, p.16
ARJ Jan. ’92, p.31
ARJ May ’91, p.32
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.42
ARJ Nov. ’90, p.2
ARJ May ’90, p.27
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.6
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.2
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.3
AIQ #17, p.11 N
FATIGUE
Increased danger in GA
Medical resident's sleep loss
Tired truckers
Charging tired drivers
Sleep deprivation/driving ability
Tech. to reduce work hours
Sleep-deprived brains
Fighting fatigue
Accident research
Canada truck drivers
Drunk or drowsy?
FMCSA to gather data
Drowsey driver legislation
Extend trucker hours of serv?
FHWA madating recorders?
Truck driver hours of service
Hours of service rule history
Management plans for truckers
Computer/hours of service
Truck driver study
Truck driver study
Sleeper berth usage and
Face monitoring techniques
Drowsey driver alarms
Drowsy driver detection
Bus driver study
Commercial veh. drivers
Operating practice/com. drivers
NHTSA efforts to combat
Eye activity measures
Commercial driver study
See also HUMAN FACTORS
AIQ #40, p.45
AIQ #35, p.47
AIQ #28, p.6
AIQ #24, p.5
AIQ #18, p.18
AIQ #8, p.2
ARJ May ’06, p.3
ARJ Nov. ’04, p.2
ARJ Sep. ’04, p.9
ARJ Sep. ’04, p.62
ARJ Nov. ’03, p.13
ARJ Mar. ’98 p.62
ARJ Mar. ’98 p.64
ARJ Jan. ’98, p.2
ARJ Jan. ’98, p.9
ARJ Jan. ’98, p.18
ARJ Jan. ’98, p.54
ARJ Nov. ’97, p.3
ARJ Sep. ’90, p.28
AIQ #31, p.14 N
AIQ #27, p.13 N
AIQ #26, p.11 N
AIQ #24, p.17 N
AIQ #24, p.20 N
AIQ #23, p.13 N
AIQ #22, p.11 N
AIQ #21, p.14 N
AIQ #19, p.11 N
AIQ #16, p.12 N
FATIGUE FRACTURE
See METALLUGICAL FAILURES
FALL/VAULT
Motorcycle & rider
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.19
FATALITY RATE
Non-traffic accidents
2008 deaths at record low
Older drivers in fewer crashes
Bikes, DWI's rise
Rises after terrorism
2003 rates
Trend in car/truck
Ramidan fasting increases
Among demographic groups
IIHS issues report
Among hispanic groups
1995 rates
Higher after 65 mph law
1993 lowest rate ever
Record low in 2009
Bad roads blamed
CA teen deaths drop
Marine motorcycle very high
Truck stats at all-time low
Driver rate falls
High for fat drivers
Fla. leads for elderly
Child pedestrians
86K in China in 10 mo.
School buses have lowest
2001 rates
For Latino children
2000 rates
Child, alcohol-related down
Young drivers killing teens
Youngest drivers most at risk
Up on interstates
Higher for black, Hispanic kids
Most truckers die in single veh.
1996 statistics
Variance among vehicles
& economic indicators
Autobahns v. Interstates
Best & worst passenger cars
1994 breakdown
AIQ #55, p.41
AIQ #53, p.8
AIQ #53, p.37
AIQ #52, p.44
AIQ #42, p.1
AIQ #39, p.16
AIQ #37, p.37
AIQ #33, p.2
AIQ #26, p.7
AIQ #25, p.12
AIQ #22, p.28
AIQ #11, p.3
AIQ #4, p.2
AIQ #2, p.3
ARJ Mar. ’10, p.1
ARJ Jan. ’09, p.26
ARJ Nov. ’08, p.2
ARJ Mar. ’08, p.15
ARJ May ’07, p.30
ARJ Jan. ’03, p.10
ARJ Sep. ’02, p.9
ARJ July ’02, p.3
ARJ July ’02, p.5
ARJ Mar. ’01, p.16
ARJ May ’00, p.56
ARJ Jan. ’00, p.64
ARJ July ’98 p.9
ARJ May ’98 p.62
ARJ May ’98 p.64
ARJ Mar. ’98 p.48
ARJ July ’97, p.2
ARJ Sep. ’96, p.2
ARJ May ’96, p.72
ARJ Jan. ’96, p.80
ARJ Sep.’95, p.2
ARJ Nov. ’95, p.32
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIN.
New publications catalog
ARJ Nov. ’07, p.12
Ofc. Motor Carriers to NHTSA? ARJ Mar. ’98 p.1
Ofc. Motor Car. dir. interview
ARJ Mar. ’98 p.32
Pressured on hours of service
ARJ Jan. ’98, p.64
Motor carrier fines
ARJ Nov. ’90, p.47
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMIN.
New web site
FEDERAL MOTOR VEH. SAFETY STDS.
See STANDARDS, SAFETY
FIRES - CROWN VICTORIA POLICE
Judge rules cruisers safe
AIQ #38, p.2
Ford order to do crash test
AIQ #37, p.10
Ford conducted 'secret recall'?
AIQ #36, p.1
Ford offers safety system
AIQ #34, p.1
Are the vehicles safe?
AIQ #33, p.20
4 lawsuits settled
AIQ #33, p.20
Ford insists cars safe
AIQ #33, p.20
Class action suit allowed
AIQ #33, p.30
ODI's report
AIQ #33, p.32
Ford questions crash test
AIQ #33, p.37
Retired cars in Appalachia
AIQ #33, p.38
Dallas sues Ford for info
AIQ #29, p.5
Police agency tries to exit suit
ARJ Mar. ’06, p.14
Lawmaker inquiry
ARJ Mar. ’04, p.58
Dallas say upgrade unsafe
ARJ Jan. ’04, p.3
Dallas alternative safety meas.
ARJ Nov. ’03, p.5
Ford fights court-ordered test
ARJ Nov. ’03, p.1
Ford flunked own test
ARJ Sep. ’02, p.3
Group sues Ford
ARJ Mar. ’02, p.1
Info to Dallas police
ARJ Mar. ’02, p.1
Ford Crown Vic police
ARJ Nov. ’01, p.1
FIRES - G.M. C/K PICKUPS
Mosely, 3 other cases settled
Pena favors recall, GM balks
G.M. attacks judge in suit
GM paid $500M on lawsuits
Suit rejected/statute limit’s
Editorial
AIQ #7, p.3
AIQ #4, p.1
AIQ #2, p.3
ARJ Sep. ’03, p.1
ARJ Sep. ’96, p.1
ARJ Jan. ’95, p.18
53
NHTSA settles with GM
Mosely verdict overturned
GM C/K pickup stats
NHTSA invest. C/K pickups
ARJ Nov. ’94, p.1
ARJ May ’93, p.5
ARJ Mar. ’93, p.21
ARJ Jan. ’93, p.13
FIRES - VEHICLE
Bulldozer operator dies
AIQ #49, p.36
Feds reject plan
AIQ #43, p.4
New NHTSA std. published
AIQ #38, p.12
Cadillac, Olds fuel leaks
AIQ #33, p.9
Catalytic converter
AIQ #24, p.34
Highway cargo tanks
AIQ #22, p.38
Proposal to upgrade standard
AIQ #22, p.48
Flammable liquid spills
AIQ #19, p.39
& fuel system integrity std.
AIQ #6, p.20
Gas truck grade cross accid.
AIQ #3, p.13
Nissan buys back minivans
AIQ #2, p.3
Gasoline tanker crash
ARJ Nov. ’09, p.37
Feds investigate SUVs
ARJ Mar. ’08, p.3
Motorcoach case study
ARJ Nov. ’07, p.33
Fire retardant cars
ARJ Nov. ’03, p.55
Ford Crown Vic police
ARJ Nov. ’01, p.1
GM steering column
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.3
Gasoline tanker/car case study
ARJ Mar. ’98 p.25
Portable fuel containers
ARJ Nov. ’96, p.84
Vapor recovery systems
ARJ Sep.’93, p.1
Nissan vans recalled again
Flouroelastomer risks refuted
ARJ July ’93, p.2
Investigation in heavy veh.
ARJ May ’93, p.50
Investigators become ill
ARJ July ’91, p.1
Heath hazards from debris
Transmission oil
ARJ Mar. ’89, p.11
Coolant flammability
ARJ May ’89, p.17
Freon flammability
ARJ May ’89, p.17
Body panel coatings
AIQ #20, p.12 N
Minivan parts behavior
AIQ #17, p.17 N
See also BATTERIES, LIABILITY-PRODUCT
FRAUD
2 men convicted staging crash
Committee for “salvaged” cars
“Salvaged” cars
FRICTION CIRCLE
Example of use
Discussion of
Example of use
Tests validating formula
AIQ #18, p.3
ARJ Sep.’93, p.16
ARJ May ’93, p.3
AIQ #22, p.24
AIQ #2, p.4
AIQ #1, p.24
ARJ Jan. ’95, p.43
FRICTION COEFFICIENT
Tyregrip surface treatment
ARJ Sep. ’09, p.53
High friction road surfaces
ARJ May ’09, p.35
Beginning of high-fric'n technique ARJ May ’09, p.64
As function of speed
ARJ Sep.’92, p.34
As function of slip angle
ARJ Sep.’92, p.36
Combined brak’g & corner’g
ARJ Sep.’92, p.40
Limitations of skid number
ARJ May ’92, p.38
As a function of time
ARJ Sep.’90, p.18
Table, various surfaces
ARJ Jan. p.12
Pavement skid resistance
AIQ #6, p.13 N
Pavement skid resistance
AIQ #4, p.8 N
See also DRAG FACTORS, SKID TESTS
GLASS
As forensic evidence
AIQ #42, p.33
ARJ Mar. ’10, p.
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEMS
ARJ Jan. ’10, p.14
GOLF CARTS
Faster heavier not allowed
AIQ #52, p.4
GRADE CROSSINGS (RAILROAD)
Crash test news report
AIQ #13, p. 3
Accident case study
AIQ #9, p.44
Info required for reconst.
AIQ #6, p.16
Accident case study
AIQ #3, p.13
Plan to reduce collisions
AIQ #3, p.17
Texas safety needs
ARJ May ’04, p.3
New light rail sys. accidents
ARJ May ’04, p.5
Semi/train case study
ARJ May ’04, p.14
Train/bus Sri Lanka
ARJ May ’04, p.17
Jeep left on crossing
ARJ May ’04, p.18
Amtrack/oversized semi
ARJ May ’04, p.20
Fire truck fatality
ARJ May ’04, p.30
76 crashes in MN in 2002
ARJ May ’04, p.31
Pass. train/truck 11-fatality
ARJ May ’04, p.36
Train horns and quiet zones
ARJ May ’04, p.62
Fire truck case study
ARJ Nov. ’01, p.19
Sight distance at
ARJ Nov. ’01, p.22
Investigation tips for police
ARJ Nov. ’01, p.27
Grantsville UT case study
ARJ Nov. ’01, p.28
School Bus case study, TN
ARJ Nov. ’01, p.31
Operation Lifesaver coord'tors
ARJ Nov. ’01, p.52
Blum TX case study
ARJ Nov. ’01, p.54
Accident statistics
ARJ Nov. ’01, p.56
Australian coroner concerned
ARJ Nov. ’01, p.56
Semi with oversized load
ARJ Nov. ’01, p.62
MP calls for safety upgrade
Train detector developed
D.O.T. video
Train horn proposal
Hazard index formulas
NTSB report, safety at
Adequacy of sight dist.
Train/van crash test
Train/bus case study
Train event recorders
Train/Camaro case study
Speed calculation
European solutions
Legal requirements
Driver info needs
Traffic control devices
Train braking
Train/Diplomat crash test
Train/Celebrity crash test
F.R.A. proposes rule change
Enforcement program
Calculating train speed
Human factors
Enhanced traffic control
Rail car impact tests
Auto radio override systems
Contraventions & safety
Seminar findings
Reflectorized rail cars
Wayside horn
Traffic control devises
Safety research summary
Computer analysis of accds.
Auxiliary altering devices
ITS applications
Retroflective sign mat’l
Field guide
Freight car reflectorization
Passive RR crossing signs
Motor veh. & rail accidents
See also NTSB
ARJ Nov. ’01, p.64
ARJ Sep. ’00, p.2
ARJ Sep. ’00, p.5
ARJ Sep. ’00, p.13
ARJ Sep. ’00, p.33
ARJ Sep. ’00, p.43
ARJ Sep. ’00, p.56
ARJ Sep. ’97, p.20
ARJ Sep. ’97, p.22
ARJ Sep. ’97, p.56
ARJ Sep. ’97, p.58
ARJ Sep. ’97, p.59
ARJ July ’97, p.5
ARJ Nov. ’94, p.3
ARJ Mar. ’93, p.26
AIQ #32, p.13 N
AIQ #32, p.14 N
AIQ #30, p.12 N
AIQ #30, p.13 N
AIQ #26, p.15 N
AIQ #21, p.15 N
AIQ #20, p.13 N
AIQ #20, p.14 N
AIQ #19, p.15 N
AIQ #13, p.14 N
AIQ #12, p.12 N
AIQ #12, p.11 N
AIQ #9, p.9 N
AIQ #7, p.13 N
AIQ #6, p.13 N
AIQ #4, p.10 N
AIQ #3, p.8 N
GRANTS
First anti-DWI grant to NY
State anti-drunk driving
For seat belt & helmet laws
To states, cities
Anti drunk driving
Video cameras
Alcohol sensors
ARJ Sep.’92, p.50
ARJ July ’92, p.5
ARJ Mar. ’92, p.48
ARJ Mar. ’92, p.15
ARJ Sep.’91, p.27
ARJ Nov. ’90, p.15
ARJ Nov. ’90, p.31
GREY MARKET IMPORTS
NHTSA aids customs offic’ls
New rules
Tougher regulations prop.
AIQ #8, p.3
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.28
ARJ July ’89, p.5
GUARDRAIL
Concrete barrier basics
AIQ #24, p.24
Aesthetic guardrail transit’n
ARJ Jan. ’96, p.78
Transition/case study
ARJ Mar. ’94, p.52
Tension loss, cable guardrail
AIQ #9, p.10 N
Performance of end treatments
AIQ #8, p.11 N
Accident studies
AIQ #5, p.12 N
See also HIGHWAY DESIGN, CRASH TESTS
HEADLIGHTS
Benefits of leveling, cleaning
Smaller electronic control unit
Low beam intensities/visibility
Mercury-free HID tests
LED and discomfort glare
Glare from
UV Headlights
Headlight illumination meas.
Output, various angles
Keeping lighting level
Performance tungs-halo, HID
LED glare & color rendering
New BMW design
Valco Double Xenon
Aspects of Glare
Factors influencing low-beam
That follow road curves
Aimable and harmonized
Hidden
Adoptive front
New type safety benefits
Hella / Maybach
Clear lens reflector
Glare issues
Lateral position/perceived dist.
Daytime, crash rate, Canada
Driver performance w/HID
Blue-tinted tungsten bulbs
Rise-time requirements
Influence of lens haze
Voltage change/beam pattern
AIQ #54, p.14
AIQ #48, p.33
AIQ #47, p.14
AIQ #45, p.14
AIQ #44, p.22
AIQ #24, p.38
AIQ #14, p. 19
AIQ #13, p. 40
AIQ #8, p.28
ARJ Jan. ’07, p.19
ARJ Mar. ’06, p.15
ARJ Mar. ’03, p.13
ARJ Mar. ’03, p.35
ARJ Mar. ’03, p.51
ARJ Mar. ’03, p.59
ARJ May ’02, p.19
ARJ Mar. ’02, p.23
ARJ Mar. ’02, p.57
ARJ Jan. ’02, p.17
ARJ Jan. ’02, p.54
ARJ May ’95, p.45
AIQ #31, p.14 N
AIQ #26, p.15 N
AIQ #26, p.15 N
AIQ #18, p.11 N
AIQ #18, p.13 N
UV field experiment
Low beam intensities
Effects of dirt on
Turn signal masking, daytime
Database citations
See also LIGHTING, VISIBILITY
AIQ #15, p.13 N
AIQ #14, p.12 N
AIQ #11, p.12 N
AIQ #7, p.13 N
AIQ #5, p.12 N
HEAD RESTRAINTS
IIHS criticizes weak req'ts
ARJ Jan. ’05, p.62
HELMETS
Debate begins on m/c law
Foundation tests
M/C case study
Fatalities/injuries down in CA
MO repeals mandatory law
Debate on
Law covers skates, scooters
Seattle may require bike
Deaths up after laws repealed
M/C interfere with vision?
Use law incentive killed
Use up injuries down in TX
Value to bicyclists
MC, Calif. passes law
MC, TX law & use increase
Bicycle law passed
Bicycle law weakened
AIQ #49, p.35
AIQ #48, p.4
AIQ #16, p.3
AIQ #6, p.48
ARJ Mar. ’09, p.12
ARJ Nov. ’07, p.64
ARJ Sep. ’03, p.17
ARJ July ’03, p.9
ARJ Nov.’00, p.5
ARJ Nov.’00, p.14
ARJ Jan. ’96, p.2
ARJ Sep.’93, p.27
ARJ Jan. ’92, p.3
ARJ Sep.’91, p.11
ARJ May ’90, p.25
ARJ May ’90, p.3
ARJ Sep.’90, p.2
HIGHWAY DESIGN
Retrofitting bike lanes
Use of zig-zag lines
Retrofitted bicycle lanes
Turn lanes and safety
Lane departure warning
Centerline rumble strips
Whose symbols are safer?
Helping research pay off
Taming traffic
Study I-76 stretch
Safer 2-lane roads
Plan for dangerous roads
Safer roadsides
Signal changing devices
Wrong-way veh. on ramps
Warnings on I-77
National safety review
Saving lives in 'Blood Alley'
Amateur traffic control
Residents hate speed bumps
European traffic control
Shoulder texture treatments
Bullnose guardrails
To reduce urban crashes
New MUTCD
Traffic data collection
Safety audits
Safety problems, GW Prkwy.
Composite materials
Roundabouts
Truck acc. countermeasures
Capital Beltway safety
Lighting options, freeways
Washington beltway review
Reduced medians, more crash
Warning sys., trucks, ramps
Drivers divided on comeras
Politicians/red light cameras
States embrace roundabouts
Centerline rumble strips
Cable barrier design, placement
Western Transportation Inst.
Scoring intersection safety
Pavement edge drop-offs
Traffic calming in Virginia
Road diet treatment
Pave't markings/speed reduct.
Sidewalks, walkways
Sidewalk impact study
Design at fault in wrecks
Model for sidewalk design
Smart signs
Reducing points of conflict
Intersection turn lanes
CA slow to fix danger zones
Unique barrier system
Hardware management syst.
Roundabouts, fewer crashes
2-lane to 4-lane conversions
Work zone injury reduction
Handbook for older drivers
Warning signs
Public response/roundabouts
Safety Information system
Computer aids saf. research
Veh./hardware compatability
Truck acc. countermeasures
AIQ #54, p.4
AIQ #54, p.45
AIQ #53, p.41
AIQ #43, p.47
AIQ #39, p.10
AIQ #39, p.11
AIQ #39, p.13
AIQ #36, p.35
AIQ #36, p.56
AIQ #36, p.56
AIQ #35, p.39
AIQ #34, p.32
AIQ #34, p.35
AIQ #32, p.15
AIQ #31, p.40
AIQ #31, p.48
AIQ #30, p.29
AIQ #29, p.42
AIQ #28, p.6
AIQ #28, p.56
AIQ #20, p.29
AIQ #19, p.46
AIQ #18, p.42
AIQ #17, p.18
AIQ #15, p.7
AIQ #15, p.51
AIQ #14, p.53
AIQ #13, p.22
AIQ #13, p.24
AIQ #9, p.38
AIQ #7, p.36
AIQ #5, p.2
AIQ #4, p.31
AIQ #3, p.2
AIQ #3, p.3
AIQ #3, p.10
ARJ Sep. ’10, p.56
ARJ Sep. ’10, p.57
ARJ July ’10, p.9
ARJ Nov. ’08, p.62
ARJ Sep. ’08, p.55
ARJ Mar. ’08, p.33
ARJ Sep. ’07, p.50
ARJ Mar. ’07, p.58
ARJ Mar. ’06, p.4
ARJ Mar. ’03, p.18
ARJ Mar. ’03, p.20
ARJ Mar. ’03, p.58
ARJ Nov. ’02, p.12
ARJ Jan. ’01, p.17
ARJ Sep. ’00, p.62
ARJ Mar. ’00, p.17
ARJ Mar. ’00, p.64
ARJ May ’98 p.2
ARJ Nov. ’97, p.41
ARJ Mar. ’97, p.80
ARJ Mar. ’97, p.80
ARJ Nov. ’96, p.34
ARJ July ’96, p.5
ARJ Jan. ’96, p.24
ARJ Sep.’95, p.34
Accident predictive module
ARJ May ’95, p.46
Metric signing delayed
ARJ Nov. ’94, p.56
Geometry/cont’l device books
Finite element analysis
Safety strategies for ‘90’s
Rumble strips
AIQ #30, p.11 N
Road safety audits
AIQ #30, p.12 N
Geometric design research
AIQ #30, p.14 N
Crash models rural intersec'n
AIQ #23, p.12 N
Improved safety info
AIQ #23, p.14 N
Lane markings & night driving
AIQ #20, p.14 N
Rockfall fence evaluation
AIQ #19, p.14 N
Interchange geometry
AIQ #19, p.14 N
Roadside safety features
AIQ #17, p.13 N
Zero-length vertical curves
AIQ #17, p.16 N
Guardrail need: banks/culverts
AIQ #16, p.10 N
Utility pole acc. prediction
AIQ #12, p.17 N
Highway markings biblio.
AIQ #12, p.14 N
Sign/signals, high sp intersctn
AIQ #12, p.11 N
Hwy. geometrics/accidents
AIQ #12, p.11 N
Trans. Research Brd. reports
AIQ #11, p.11 N
Rumble strips
AIQ #11, p.11 N
No passing zones
AIQ #11, p.12 N
Saf. structure bibliography
AIQ #10, p.13 N
Yellow change interval
AIQ #9, p.9 N
Saf. structures bibliography
AIQ #8, p.15 N
Median & access safety
AIQ #6, p.11 N
See also IMPACT ATTENUATORS, VISIBILITY
HIT & RUN ACCIDENTS
Victim trapped in windshield
Jury convicts AZ ex-bishop
Uninsured motorists cause
Body fluids/hair
Clothing/fiber patterns
Recovery of paint particles
Recovery of vehicle parts
AIQ #29, p.14
ARJ Jan. ’03, p.17
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.24
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.26
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.24
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.24
HUMAN FACTORS
Parent-controlled vehicle
Drivers more distracted
Dealing w unfit driver
MO law and unfit drivers
More states ban texting
Teens immitate parents
Long-term use of painkillers
Text messaging while driving
Distractions for all ages
Distractions
Restricting older drivers
Road test for elderly
Diabetics' driving risk
Teens have dangerous ideas
Medical probs., not old age
Driver distractions
Alzheimer's patients
Worst drivers by profession
Building a safer driver
Doze-cam
Driver distractions
TVs in steering wheels
Eating while driving
Prodrive ADT system
Older driver handbook
Elderly medication
Scrutiny of older drivers
Effect of sleep deprivation
Sr. drivers & fatality rates
Physician guide older drivers
New IL law
Cell phones, talking, texting
Distracted driving
Distracted driving campaign
Cell phones and accidents
Teens and texting
City may repeal restrictions
Distracted driving summit
Multicultural safety campaigns
Ford Mykey teen safety
Adaptive cruise control effects
Speeding & teen driver crashes
Taking eyes off road
Traffic control practices/older driv.
Teen accidents peak in Oct.
Elderly drivers
Assertive teen passengers
Teen drivers' top mistakes
Texting ban mulled
Text message sent before accid't
Behaviour during precrash brak'g
New Volvo safety systems
Toyota simulator
LMS, IPG simulator
Distraction from digital billboards
Electro-mechanical hwy. ads
Text measaging & driving
Distracted driving personality?
AIQ #54, p.8
AIQ #54, p.13
AIQ #53, p.2
AIQ #53, p.48
AIQ #52, p.23
AIQ #48, p.3
AIQ #48, p.11
AIQ #47, p.11
AIQ #46, p.9
AIQ #43, p.30
AIQ #42, p.20
AIQ #38, p.43
AIQ #38, p.5
AIQ #36, p.2
AIQ #36, p.5
AIQ #35, p.46
AIQ #34, p.46
AIQ #33, p.3
AIQ #32, p.52
AIQ #30, p.32
AIQ #28, p.11
AIQ #28, p.20
AIQ #28, p.56
AIQ #26, p.46
AIQ #17, p.3
AIQ #15, p. 3
ARJ Sep. ’10, p.9
ARJ May ’10, p.10
ARJ May ’10, p.54
ARJ May ’10, p.61
ARJ Mar. ’10, p.26
ARJ Jan. ’10, p.7
ARJ Jan. ’10, p.10
ARJ Jan. ’10, p.13
ARJ Nov. ’09, p.7
ARJ Nov. ’09, p.10
ARJ Nov. ’09, p.10
ARJ Nov. ’09, p.11
ARJ Nov. ’09, p.58
ARJ Sep. ’09, p.9
ARJ Sep. ’09, p.10
ARJ Sep. ’09, p.37
ARJ Mar. ’09, p.41
ARJ Mar. ’09, p.59
ARJ Jan. ’09, p.16
ARJ Jan. ’09, p.16
ARJ Jan. ’09, p.22
ARJ Sep. ’08, p.7
ARJ Sep. ’08, p.13
ARJ Nov. ’07, p.46
ARJ Jan. ’08, p.13
ARJ Mar. ’08, p.38
ARJ May ’08, p.13
ARJ Sep. ’07, p.57
54
Stopping old, dangerous drivers
ARJ May ’07, p.59
Tools to measure distraction
ARJ Jan. ’07, p.5
ADHD drug improves driving?
ARJ Nov. ’06, p.8
Text-messenger hits cyclist
ARJ Sep. ’06, p.4
ADHD and driving
ARJ Sep. ’06, p.64
Quantifying distraction impact
Antidepressants and drivers
Antihistamines and drivers
Alzheimer's effect
ARJ May ’06, p.10
Rollover case study
ARJ May ’06, p.16
Is the Moth Effect real?
ARJ May ’06, p.18
In 5-fatal case study
ARJ May ’06, p.25
Risks for older drivers
ARJ May ’06, p.44
Speech system/distraction
ARJ May ’06, p.44
Driver mental effort tests
ARJ May ’06, p.45
Fear to motivate safety
ARJ May ’06, p.48
Decision-making at RR X-ings
ARJ May ’06, p.51
Distraction dilemma
ARJ May ’06, p.59
Driving with epilepsy
ARJ May ’06, p.59
Distracted pose safety hazzard
ARJ May ’06, p.64
Brain imaging/distraction
ARJ Jan. ’04, p.19
Peer pressure, young drivers
ARJ Nov. ’03, p.9
Super Bowl Sunday dangers
ARJ Mar. ’02, p.3
Horiz. curves/visual demand
ARJ Mar. ’02, p.17
Gadgets preoccupy drivers
ARJ Jan. ’02, p.3
Lack of sleep
ARJ Jan. ’02, p.5
Ford research for seniors
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.14
Design changes for seniors
ARJ Mar. ’01, p.1
Women aren't riskier
ARJ Mar. ’01, p.13
Autoliv saves lives
ARJ Mar. ’01, p.15
Truck driver workload
ARJ Mar. ’01, p.21
Firefighter case study
ARJ Mar. ’01, p.39
& intersection collisions
ARJ Mar. ’01, p.42
Telematic devices
ARJ Mar. ’01, p.64
Older driver screening
ARJ Jan. ’01, p.9
Laws change behavior
ARJ Jan. ’01, p.15
Century convert. child seats
ARJ Jan. ’01, p.2
Lead veh. size/following behav.
ARJ Jan. ’01, p.21
Firefighter/truck controls
ARJ Jan. ’01, p.31
Education alone ineffective
ARJ Jan. ’01, p.42
Collision avoidance behavior
ARJ Jan. ’01, p.45
Driver distractions
ARJ Mar. ’00, p.16
Fatigued driver risk
ARJ Jan. ’00, p.9
Truck driver hearing req’t
ARJ Jan. ’98, p.4
Elderly drivers/intersections
Driver’s height & seat posit’n
ARJ Sep. ’96, p.24
IVIS & driver performance
ARJ Jan. ’96, p.2
Fatigue in truck drivers
ARJ May ’95, p.22
Traffic management systems
ARJ Mar. ’95, p.48
Heath problems in old drivers
ARJ Jan. ’95, p.3
Trauma disorder, acc. victims
ARJ Sep.’92, p.48
Elderly drivers, accid. rates
ARJ July ’92, p.7
Model at veh. handling limit
AIQ #32, p.12 N
Peripheral information
AIQ #32, p.12 N
Distractor complexity
AIQ #32, p.13 N
Behaviour by vehicle type
AIQ #32, p.14 N
Truck drivers sleep apnea
AIQ #31, p.13 N
Mature driver safety
AIQ #31, p.13 N
Older: driving reduction
AIQ #27, p.12 N
Driver distraction forum
AIQ #26, p.12 N
Understanding road rage
AIQ #26, p.13 N
Truck driver workload
AIQ #24, p.12-13 N
Car following
AIQ #24, p.14 N
Sleep disorder research
AIQ #21, p.10 N
Tacit driving knowledge
AIQ #21, p.11 N
Reflexes, athletics, gender
AIQ #21, p.11 N
In braking tests
AIQ #19, p.15 N
Older driver capabilities
AIQ #18, p.14 N
Behavior during merges
AIQ #17, p.10 N
Risky-driver bibliography
AIQ #17, p.14 N
Diabetes, epilepsy, hearing
AIQ #17, p.17 N
Driver risk perception
AIQ #16, p.15 N
Older driver performance
AIQ #14, p.10 N
Backup warning signals
AIQ #14, p.12 N
Bibliography
AIQ #13, p.9 N
Bibliography
AIQ #13, p.14 N
Flashing display processing
AIQ #12, p.17 N
Guildlines, crash warn. dev.
AIQ #11, p.10 N
Operator behavior biblio.
AIQ #11, p.12 N
Psychiatric disorders
AIQ #11, p.13 N
Seat design bibliography
AIQ #11, p.14 N
Age-related disabilities
AIQ #10, p.9 N
& highway signs
AIQ #8, p.9 N
Database citations
AIQ #5, p.12 N
In truck accidents
AIQ #4, p.10 N
Age-related driver limits
AIQ #4, p.14 N
See also CELL PHONES, FATIGUE, HIGHWAY,
TRAINING, VISIBILITY
HYDROPLANING
Case study
Bibliography
Bibliography
Bibliography
Database citations
Database citations
See also TIRES, SKID TESTS
AIQ #38, p.44
AIQ #16, p.14 N
AIQ #13, p.9 N
AIQ #10, p.10 N
AIQ #5, p.11 N
AIQ #4, p.10 N
IMPACT ATTENUATORS
Crash cushion from tires
Crash cushion attenuators
Field evaluation CT system
Operational experience
See also HIGHWAY DESIGN
INERTIAL PARAMETERS
Ctr. of mass height table
Estimation techniques
Measuring device
Tables, autos & light trucks
AIQ #20, p.13 N
AIQ #9, p.48 N
AIQ #8, p.11 N
AIQ #7, p.12 N
ARJ May ’91, p.23
ARJ May ’89, p.31
ARJ May ’89, p.24
ARJ May ’89, p.28
INJURIES
From loose objects in vehicle
AIQ #55, p.2
Skull survey to improve safety
AIQ #49, p.48
Waits 36 hours for help
AIQ #37, p.13
IIHS tests head restraints
AIQ #8, p.27
Claims for sprains/strains up
AIQ #5, p.13
From steering wheel jerk
ARJ May ’10, p.25
Belts/bags prevent spinal
ARJ Mar. ’09, p.5
Outcomes in rollovers
ARJ Jan. ’07, p.35
New technology for whiplash
ARJ Nov. ’06, p.59
Fragility, death in older driv.
ARJ July ’06, p.9
Seat belts/hospitalization
ARJ May ’06, p.5
Causes in rollovers
ARJ Jan. ’03, p.23
Trauma database
ARJ Nov.’00, p.63
Research center
ARJ May ’00, p.54
Head injuries vs. delta V
ARJ Sep. ’96, p.20
Risk from opposite side imp.
ARJ July ’96, p.5
Discussion of whiplash
ARJ Jan. ’96, p.21
Whiplash from car crashes
ARJ Sep.’95, p.52
Head restraints/neck inj.
ARJ Sep.’95, p.53
Treatments for neck inj.
ARJ Sep.’95, p.56
Head restraints improvements
ARJ Sep.’95, p.64
Improv. sun visors/head inj.
ARJ May ’95, p.3
Car-to-car vs. car/barrier
ARJ Nov. ’94, p.20
List of best/worst vehicles
ARJ Nov. ’94, p.62
Car crashes top worker list
ARJ July ’94, p.2
Medical costs, 1990
ARJ May ’92, p.1
Head impact tolerance
Multi-vehicle rear end
AIQ #22, p.10 N
Involving jack failures
AIQ #20, p.12 N
Involving vehicle batteries
AIQ #20, p.12 N
Involving power windows
AIQ #20, p.12 N
Involving rollaways
AIQ #20, p.12 N
Head response, tolerance
AIQ #17, p.10 N
Emergency room survey
AIQ #11, p.9 N
Brain injury prediction
AIQ #7, p.11 N
Pedestrians/cyclists
AIQ #4, p.13 N
See also BIOMECHANICS, CRASH TESTS
INSURANCE FRAUD
100's charged in scam
And cigars
Gieco/NY claims ring
UK lawyers warning
Technology combats
Neck injury fraud
Vehicle damage analysis
See also LOW SPEED IMPACTS
AIQ #36, p.6
AIQ #20, p.48
ARJ Mar. ’10, p.8
ARJ Mar. ’10, p.35
ARJ Mar. ’96, p.76
ARJ Sep.’95, p.55
ARJ Jan. ’94, p.30
INTELLIGENT VEH./HWY. SYSTEMS
How they make roads safer
AIQ #32, p.28
Run-off-road testing
AIQ #31, p.5
Crash-warning syst. research
AIQ #20, p.3
Deployment analysis system
AIQ #19, p.3
Greyhound removes devices
AIQ #7, p.4
Flawed study underlines claims
AIQ #4, p.3
DOT's strategic plan
ARJ May ’09, p.3
Will drivers give up control?
ARJ May ’07, p.58
ITS interface tested
ARJ Mar. ’07, p.41
Taming Traffic
ARJ Nov. ’02, p.17
Smart autos plan for worst
ARJ Sep. ’02, p.2
Vehicle crash-warning syst.
ARJ Jan. ’00, p.17
Safety promises questioned
ARJ May ’95, p.21
Safety claims aren’t backed
ARJ Sep.’94, p.5
& state sovreign immunity
AIQ #24, p.13 N
Human factors projects for
AIQ #24, p.15 N
Visual & task demands
AIQ #21, p.13 N
Truck control system
AIQ #19, p.13 N
Bibliography
AIQ #17, p.16 N
Collision avoidance system
AIQ #12, p.15 N
Database
AIQ #7, p.12 N
Bibliography
AIQ #7, p.11 N
& roadway departure crashes
AIQ #5, p.9 N
INTERNET
Vehicle dynamics software
Useful web sites
Vehicle owners questionaire
National Crash Analysis Ctr.
AIQ #11, p.44
ARJ Mar. ’96, p.69
LAMP EXAMINATION - See LIGHT BULBS
LANE CHANGE
Lateral acceleration in
Factors to consider
Study
Shortest circular path
4-wheel steering vehicles
Merge crash assessment
LASER/LIDAR SPEED GUN
Speed, distance tests
Lidar min. performance specs.
See also RADAR
AIQ #39, p.24
ARJ Nov. ’91, p.7
ARJ July ’91, p.4
ARJ May ’91, p.24
AIQ #24, p.16 N
AIQ #24, p.18 N
ARJ Jan. ’92, p.17
AIQ #8, p.9 N
LIABILITY, in ACCIDENT RECON’S
Accident case studies
ARJ Jan. ’92, p.30
LIABILITY, HIGHWAY/OTHER
Employee texting/accident
ARJ Nov. ’09, p.25
Drunk driver sues police
ARJ Nov. ’07, p.10
Suit blames bar for DWI fatality ARJ May ’08, p.5
Flagman's family's settlement
ARJ Mar. ’03, p.5
Caltrans light maintenance
ARJ May ’02, p.48
RR grade crossings
ARJ Sep.’00, p.1
Pavement edge dropoff
Construction zones
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.18
Maintenance as factor
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.21
Design as factor
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.22
Largest verdicts of ’88
ARJ May ’89, p.11
Traveler info systems
AIQ #24, p.14 N
Advanced traffic mang't sys.
AIQ #24, p.15 N
Database system
AIQ #20, p.11 N
Analysis of risk management
AIQ #20, p.11 N
Tort liability, Kentucky
AIQ #16, p.9 N
Tort liability, risk manag’t
AIQ #9, p.12 N
Tort management
AIQ #6, p.12 N
LIABILITY, PRODUCT
Explorer rollover
Escort seat belts
Saturn SL brakes
Class action Lexus airbags
GM, Ford, Chrysler seats
Lessor's limited in R.I.
Town & Country child seat
Caravan seat
Cell phones for businesses
Class action Ford door latch
'95 Chevy Blazer, brakes
'91 Dodge Stealth
'00 Lincoln fold-down seat
'79 Chevy Malibu fire
Firestone Wilderness tires
'96 Chrysler LHS air bag
'98 Ford Ranger air bag
Michelin, DCX van rollover
Bridgestone tire/Explorer roll
Ford withheld evidence
'95 Monte Carlo airbag
Dodge Caravan rear latch
'94 Camry airbag
Ford Bronco rollover
'91 Explorer seat back
Firestone Wilderness tire
'85 Caravan rear latch
'83 Silverado bumper
Hyundai seat belt
Chevrolet G van seat belt
Toyota 4Runner rolloever
Escort seat belt
Injured fireman sues GM
Corolla restraint system
Firestone moves to settle
Kia Sephia seat back
Honda drivers seat back
Isuzu /Consumer Reports
Marquis fuel system
Escort passive seat belt
Ford Ranger rollover
Casino justice
Sazuki Samurai rollover
Mixed verdicts in airbags
Ford Taurus crashworthiness
Chevrolet Beretta door hinge
Mazda Miata headrests
GM pickup engine fire
Late lawsuit thrown out
Nissan Sentra brakes
Chevette seat
Lincoln Continental air bag
Michelin tire
Cherokee shoulder belt
G.M. conversion van
Horizon seat belts
1983 Camaro door latches
1985 Blazer fire
Ford Bronco II rollover
No-air-bag suit goes ahead
AIQ #48, p.8
AIQ #48, p.1
AIQ #47, p.12
AIQ #47, p.4
AIQ #46, p.1
AIQ #45, p.2
AIQ #41, p.1
AIQ #41, p.3
AIQ #41, p.4
AIQ #40, p.12
AIQ #39, p.1
AIQ #38, p.1
AIQ #37, p.1
AIQ #35, p.2
AIQ #35, p.13
AIQ #32, p.3
AIQ #31, p.1
AIQ #31, p.2
AIQ #30, p.1
AIQ #29, p.1
AIQ #28, p.1
AIQ #28, p.55
AIQ #28, p.56
AIQ #27, p.1
AIQ #27, p.4
AIQ #27, p.14
AIQ #26, p.3
AIQ #26, p.17
AIQ #25, p.3
AIQ #25, p.11
AIQ #25, p.48
AIQ #23, p.48
AIQ #22, p.1
AIQ #22, p.5
AIQ #21, p.1
AIQ #21, p.48
AIQ #20, p.1
AIQ #20, p.3
AIQ #20, p.29
AIQ #20, p.29
AIQ #19, p.1
AIQ #19, p.7
AIQ #19, p.30
AIQ #18, p.48
AIQ #18, p.2
AIQ #17, p.1
AIQ #16, p.1
AIQ #16, p.2
AIQ #16, p.39
AIQ #15, p.1
AIQ #15, p.2
AIQ #15, p.7
AIQ #15, p.52
AIQ #13, p.5
AIQ #12, p.1
AIQ #12, p.1
AIQ #11, p.1
AIQ #11, p.1
AIQ #10, p.1
AIQ #10, p.2
Ford Ranger stability
Excel crashworthiness
Class action settlem’ts rej’d
Nissan pickup bed gate
GMC Jimmy axle failure
Suzuki Samuri rollover
Consumer advocate fined
Corvette passenger seat
Ford F350 transmission
G.M. door-mounted seat belts
Dismissal of Toyota rollover
Aerostar sudden acceleration
Toyota steering rods
GM, Chrysler bankruptcies
Dismissed against PA dealer, Ford
Auction not liable for truck def't
F-350 rollaway
Tempered glass/ejection
OH limits on pain
Pontiac Firebird
Kia seatbelts
Yamaha Rhino rollover
Dealer can be sued in limo acc.
Croatia crash, can't sue in Mich.
Honeywell seat belt failure
TRW wins seat belt case
Crown Vic roof strength
Explorer cruise control
Laminated window claim
Chrysler minivan air bags
VW Passat wheel assembly
Lincoln LS seat-latch
Gen-3 seat belt buckles
Dealer modified truck
2000 Explorer rollover
'91 Excel door latch/seat belts
'95 Chevy Lumina fire
'91 Honda Civic seat belts
1987 Sierra park-to-reverse
Lawyers sued for fraud
Dealership spared
Chevrolet van seat belt
Steeltex tires CA class action
Dodge 15-passenger van
'96 Town & Country seat belts
Ford to quit NY car leasing
Ford Expedition rollover
Ford Ranger seat belt
'00 Lincoln LS seat collapse
'78 Ford Bronco rollover
Japan's laws changing
Ford F-350 parking brakes
Ford Expedition/Gen'l Grabber
Court reduces $290M verdict
'95 Dodge Ram engine fire
'82 Vanagon seat belt
SUV/Tire suit settled
$28M judgement/leasing co.
Bridgestone suit not dismiss'd
Ford Ranger seat belt
Wilderness AT tires
Ford Ranger airbag
Ford ignition class action
Ford Explorer/Firestone tire
Insurer liable for dealer
Ford/Firestone class action
Explorer ruling helps Ford
Class action overhaul
GM replacement seat belt
Tire failure / rollover
'94 Explorer rollover
Bridgestone avoids trial
Researcher wins class action
Kia airbag suit tossed
Waiver shields dealer
More devices - more risk
'91 Jeep Wrangler soft top
Firestone tire 40% settled
'95 Gr. Marquis air bag
Morton air bag
Mercedes ML 320 SUV
Nissan Pathfinder rollover
Suzuki Samurai rollover
’95 Monte Carlo airbag
Mazda Protégé seat belt
Dealer not liable for loaner
’95 Explorer rollover
Sable airbag warning
Volvo 850 GLT airbag
Judge blocks tire lawyers
Caravan airbag
Crown Vic sudden acceleration
Wilderness death toll
Supreme Court/no airbag
Wrangler judgement upheld
$5 billion verdict against GM
1993 Jeep Wagoneer airbag
Bronco II class action
'89 Plymouth Voyager brakes
AIQ #8, p.2
AIQ #7, p.14
AIQ #6, p.1
AIQ #5, p.3
AIQ #4, p.35
AIQ #4, p.25
AIQ #3, p.1
AIQ #2, p.39
AIQ #2, p.48
AIQ #1, p.7
ARJ Sep. ’10, p.5
ARJ Nov. ’09, p.1
ARJ July ’09, p.1
ARJ Jan. ’09, p.7
ARJ July ’08, p.1
ARJ May ’08, p.1
ARJ Jan. ’08, p.2
ARJ Jan. ’08, p.5
ARJ Jan. ’08, p.49
ARJ Nov. ’07, p.1
ARJ Sep. ’07, p.2
ARJ July ’07, p.2
ARJ May ’07, p.1
ARJ Mar. ’07, p.1
ARJ Mar. ’07, p.3
ARJ Nov. ’06, p.1
ARJ Nov. ’06, p.14
ARJ Sep. ’06, p.1
ARJ July ’06, p.3
ARJ May ’06, p.1
ARJ Mar. ’06, p.1
ARJ Jan. ’05, p.1
ARJ Nov. ’04, p.1
ARJ Nov. ’04, p.14
ARJ Sep. ’04, p.1
ARJ July ’04, p.1
ARJ Mar. ’04, p.1
ARJ Mar. ’04, p.3
ARJ Jan. ’04, p.1
ARJ Jan. ’04, p.2
ARJ Nov. ’03, p.2
ARJ Nov. ’03, p.3
ARJ Sep. ’03, p.3
ARJ May ’03, p.2
ARJ May ’03, p.14
ARJ Nov. ’02, p.1
ARJ Jan. ’02, p.1
ARJ July ’03, p.1
ARJ Mar. ’03, p.1
ARJ Mar. ’03, p.2
ARJ Jan. ’03, p.1
ARJ Nov. ’02, p.1
ARJ Nov. ’02, p.5
ARJ Sep. ’02, p.1
ARJ July ’02, p.1
ARJ May ’02, p.1
ARJ May ’02, p.14
ARJ May ’02, p.64
ARJ Jan. ’02, p.1
ARJ Nov. ’01, p.1
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.1
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.1
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.2
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.22
ARJ July ’01, p.1
ARJ July ’01, p.2
ARJ May ’01, p.1
ARJ May ’01, p.3
ARJ May ’01, p.5
ARJ May ’01, p.64
ARJ Mar. ’01, p.1
ARJ Mar. ’01, p.5
ARJ Mar. ’01, p.44
ARJ Jan. ’01, p.1
ARJ Jan. ’01, p.2
ARJ Nov.’00, p.2
ARJ Nov.’00, p.63
ARJ Sep. ’00, p.2
ARJ Sep. ’00, p.57
ARJ Sep. ’00, p.57
ARJ Sep. ’00, p.61
ARJ July ’00, p.1
ARJ May ’00, p.5
ARJ May ’00, p.15
ARJ Mar. ’00, p.5
ARJ Mar. ’00, p.15
ARJ Jan. ’00, p.1
ARJ Nov. ’98, p.1
ARJ Nov. ’98, p.5
ARJ July ’98 p.1
ARJ July ’98 p.3
ARJ July ’98 p.13
ARJ May ’98 p.1
55
Nissan Pathfinder rollover
ARJ Jan. ’98, p.1
Cadillac Seville fire
ARJ Jan. ’98, p.1
Toyota 4-Runner rollover
ARJ Jan. ’98, p.64
S-10 Blazer fire
ARJ Nov. ’97, p.1
Dodge Ram door latch
ARJ Nov. ’97, p.16
Pontiac Grand Am axle
ARJ Sep. ’97, p.1
Demonstrator crash suit
ARJ Sep. ’97, p.2
Video evidence upheld
ARJ July ’97, p.1
Voyager door latch
ARJ July ’97, p.3
Ford Bronco rollover
ARJ May ’97, p.1
Hyundai Excel seat belt
ARJ May ’97, p.1
’76 Maverick no-airbag
ARJ May ’97, p.20
ARJ Mar. ’97, p.1
Preemption supported
ARJ Mar. ’97, p.1
Ohio court hears no-air-bag
ARJ July ’96, p.1
’88 Ford Ranger seat belt
ARJ May ’96, p.1
Plymouth Voyager brakes
ARJ Mar. ’96, p.2
1976 Audi 100LS fire
ARJ Mar. ’96, p.73
ARJ Jan. ’96, p.3
Samurai crashworthiness
ARJ Jan. ’96, p.5
Chev. S10 Blazer fire
ARJ Jan. ’96, p.80
ARJ Nov. ’95, p.5
N.H. court clears no-air-bag
ARJ Sep.’95, p.1
’86 Toyota van belts/door
ARJ July ’95, p.1
Grand Am drive axle
ARJ May ’95, p.1
Jeep spare tire bracket
ARJ May ’95, p.1
Dodge Spirit roof strength
ARJ May ’95, p.3
Subaru GL side impact
ARJ Sep.’94, p.56
Toyota Camry fire
ARJ Sep.’94, p.3
Escort seat belts defective
ARJ July ’94, p.3
1993 top 3 megaverdicts
ARJ May ’94, p.20
Ford Bronco II suit settled
ARJ May ’94, p.8
Rear lap belt only suit
ARJ Nov. ’92, p.24
Court rules on 2-pt. belt
ARJ Sep.’92, p.41
Rear lap belt only suit
ARJ Sep.’92, p.21
Nissan wins seatbelt suit
ARJ July ’92, p.7
Sealing court records
ARJ May ’90, p.2
No-air-bag suits rejected
ARJ May ’90, p.2
Reform bill introduced
ARJ July ’89, p.2
See also DRUNK DRIVING, FIRES-C/K PICKUP
LIABILITY, VICARIOUS
How it works
LICENSE, DRIVER’S
Driver in fatal: 6 suspensions
Court orders training rewrite
Limits for teens in MD
No restrictions for PA elderly
Fatal crashes, drivers lack
Convicted commercial veh.
Tractor-trailer drivers
Graduated, state laws
Graduated in 6 states
Michigan 3-step system
Graduated for teens
Teenage responsibilities
Phased-in license, teenagers
Risk, short learners permit
Slow graduation, teen deaths
FL bad drivers must retake test
Unlicensed drivers common
IL only state to confiscate
Unlicensed drivers targeted
Medical revocation rare
Driving school investigated
Hard to certify older driver
Fake Inter'l driving docum't
For illegal immigrants
New commercial rules
Graduated
Truckers under 21
Crash rates: 16 v. 16 1/2
Graduation lowers crash rates
Graduated licensing support
Suspension & employment
Rules vary, state to state
Suspension study, Ontario
NHTSA reviews trucker’s
Deterrent of veh. impoundm't
With medical conditions
Deterrent veh. impoundment
AIQ #43, p.4
AIQ #41, p.47
AIQ #39, p.5
AIQ #35, p.3
AIQ #29, p.12
AIQ #26, p.4
AIQ #22, p.12 N
AIQ #21, p.17
AIQ #16, p.18
AIQ #12, p.8
AIQ #11, p.47
AIQ #5, p.18
AIQ #4, p.35
AIQ #4, p.5
AIQ #2, p.46
ARJ July ’08, p.9
ARJ Sep. ’07, p.62
ARJ Mar. ’07, p.11
ARJ Mar. ’04, p.10
ARJ Mar. ’04, p.64
ARJ Jan. ’04, p.62
ARJ Jan. ’04, p.64
ARJ July ’02, p.9
ARJ Jan. ’02, p.18
ARJ July ’01, p.3
ARJ Mar. ’01, p.5
ARJ Sep.’00, p.13
ARJ July ’00, p.3
ARJ Mar. ’97, p.80
ARJ Mar. ’92, p.48
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.27
AIQ #24, p.17 N
AIQ #23, p.14 N
AIQ #19, p.11 N
LIGHT BULBS
Substandard, company fined
Effects of dirt on output
Metallurgical theory
Examination of
Recovery & preservation
Innovative source spectra
Sun-loading/visibility
Stop lights & reaction times
AIQ #36, p.45
ARJ Sep.’93, p.52
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.18
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.24
AIQ #24, p.17 N
AIQ #17, p.14 N
AIQ #7, p.13 N
LIGHTING
Center high-mounted stop
Prevalence of LEDs
Intelligent systems
AIQ #17, p.7
ARJ Nov. ’09, p.12
ARJ Mar. ’03, p.13
European study on
ARJ May ’02, p.47
New rules eyed
ARJ Jan. ’02, p.1
Revisiting roadway
ARJ Jan. ’02, p.57
Environmental factors - ambient ARJ July ’00, p.37
Explorer/Mountaineer windows
ARJ July ’00, p.5
Daytime running lights
ARJ July ’00, p.5
ARJ Sep. ’97, p.3
Ctr. high-mounted stop stats
ARJ July ’95, p.5
ARJ July ’90, p.9
Stronger truck stds.
ARJ May ’90, p.25
And aging population
AIQ #18, p.11 N
Dirt on rear lamp output
AIQ #16, p.11 N
Lateral pos’n, dist. percept’n
AIQ #9, p.9 N
See also HEADLIGHTS, VISIBILITY
LITIGATION SUPPORT
DOT traffic center
LOW SPEED IMPACTS
Using live subjects
See also CRASH TESTS
LOW SPEED VEHICLES
Souped up golf carts
Design/inspection
ARJ Sep.’92, p.15
ARJ May ’93, p.22
AIQ #26, p.32
AIQ #22, p.28
MANSLAUGHTER, VEHICULAR
Trial in dragging death
AIQ #48, p.48
Man dragged 1/2 mile
AIQ #45, p.10
Guilty verdict in market crash
AIQ #44, p.1
Goodrich convicted
AIQ #39, p.8
Must carry picture of victim
AIQ #37, p.15
Aquittal after stroke
AIQ #35, p.3
Congressman gets 100 days
AIQ #35, p.8
Congressman convicted
AIQ #33, p.1
In death of MD councilman
AIQ #28, p.24
Russian envoy jailed
AIQ #26, p.1
Mitsubishi head charged
ARJ Sep. ’04, p.3
1963 conviction overturned
ARJ May ’03, p.50
Mom wants tough sentences
ARJ Mar. ’02, p.14
Road rage sentence
ARJ July ’01, p.9
Sleep apnoea defense
ARJ May ’01, p.16
13 years in road-rage case
ARJ Sep.’00, p.1
Double jeopardy
ARJ Sep.’90, p.2
MEASURING DEVICES
Speed from video recordings
100' tape vs. new tech.
See also DRAG SLEDS
MEDIA
& the auto safety lobby
Safety’s talking heads
Does TV news go too far?
CBS News “Irresponsible”
AIQ #18, p.16
ARJ Jan. ’92, p.33
ARJ May ’93, p.56
ARJ May ’93, p.57
ARJ Mar. ’93, p.1
ARJ Jan. ’93, p.1
METALLURGICAL FAILURE
Corrosion of TT brakes
ARJ Sep. ’06, p.48
MIRRORS
Glare in rearview
Glare & vehicle geometry
Field of view in car
Non-planar, driver adoption
AIQ #24, p.38
AIQ #11, p.9 N
MODEL FAMILIES
Gen. Motors, 1987
ARJ May ’90, p.12
MOMENTUM, CONSERVATION OF
Monte Carlo approach for
AIQ #49, p.19
Use in 4-vehicle rear collision
AIQ #22, p.24
Monte Carlo analysis example
ARJ Nov. ’08, p.44
Setting up angles for, example
ARJ Sep. ’08, p.45
Auto/motorcycle example
ARJ Sep. ’08, p.46
Relative mass/departure angle
ARJ May ’98 p.20
Ex: with diss. of energy
Transferred to earth?
ARJ Mar. ’94, p.18
Sensitivity analysis in calcs
ARJ Nov. ’92, p.22
Computer program for
ARJ Mar. ’92, p.38
W/dissipation of energy
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.30
Simplifying calculations
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.38
Ex. head-on collision
ARJ May ’90, p.21
Example of (motorcycle)
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.20
360 degree approach
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.22
Ex. of oblique collision
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.26
Vector diagramming
ARJ Mar. ’89, p.12
See also TRAJECTORY ANALYSIS
MOTORCOACH
Safety studied by NHTSA
ARJ May ’09, p.7
MOTORCYCLES
Post crash inspection of
Super bikes increase risk
Brake systems, testing
Brake systems, testing
Air brakes on
AIQ #50, p.34
AIQ #48, p.11
AIQ #48, p.12
AIQ #47, p.28
AIQ #42, p.3
Conspicuity of
AIQ #4, p.26
w/ABS have fewer crashes
ARJ May ’10, p.7
Noted expert dies
ARJ Jan. ’10, p.11
Braking analysis
Deaths, injuries up
Pep Boys stop sales
ARJ Sep. ’04, p.33
Pocket bikes dangerous?
Segway Human Transporter
ARJ Sep. ’03, p.25
Speed from engine rpm's
ARJ Nov.’00, p.17
Technical innovations
ARJ Nov.’00, p.25
Specifications, 1967-1999
ARJ Nov.’00, p.29
C.M. apogee in speed calc.
ARJ Nov. ’94, p.26
Braking assumptions
ARJ Mar. ’93, p.14
Specifications, 1967-1991
Trail, definition
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.18
Examination of
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.23
Accessory examination
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.25
Glare effects of headlight
AIQ #32, p.14 N
Fatal single veh. crashes
AIQ #27, p.13 N
Bibliography
AIQ #16, p.15 N
Database citations
AIQ #5, p.12 N
See also CRASH TESTS, VISIBILITY
MULTI-PIECE WHEELS
See WHEELS/RIMS
NAT. HWY. TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN.
Hurley nominated to head
AIQ #54, p.1
Front/side safety ratings
AIQ #51, p.10
Nason appointed to head
AIQ #42, p.1
Advanced driving simulator
AIQ #21, p.4
Safety grants to states
AIQ #1, p.2
Receives safety recommend’s
AIQ #1, p.25
New chief selected
ARJ Jan. ’10, p.5
Kelly temporary head
ARJ Nov. ’08, p.1
Wants more time for roof rule
Portis named dep. admin.
Imposes civil penalties
Plan for safety rulemaking
ARJ Nov. ’03, p.13
DCX settlement
ARJ May ’00, p.55
Vehicle size/occupant safety
ARJ Mar. ’97, p.79
Driving simulator approved
ARJ Mar. ’96, p.3
Strategic plan
ARJ Nov. ’95, p.68
Safety programs cited
ARJ Sep.’95, p.63
Strategic operations plan
ARJ Jan. ’95, p.1
Recht to chief counsel
ARJ Nov. ’94, p.1
Martinez confirmed
ARJ Sep.’94, p.1
Auto safety’s hot seat
ARJ July ’94, p.3
Martinez nominated
ARJ Jan. ’94, p.1
Research budget cut
ARJ Jan. ’94, p.2
Will shift funds
ARJ Nov. ’93, p.2
Top 2 spots unfilled
ARJ Sep.’93, p.1
Accident statistics, 1990
Advanced driving simulator
ARJ Mar. ’92, p.40
New assoc. administrators
ARJ Sep.’91, p.32
New assoc. administrators
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.2
Antilock brake study
Announces safety agenda
ARJ May ’90, p.3
Safety award winners
ARJ May ’90, p.9
Safety hotline
ARJ Jan. ’89, p.2
NAT. TRANS. SAFETY BOARD
SUV into girder
AIQ #48, p.26
Chain reaction near toll plaza
AIQ #45, p.26
Report, motorcoach/SUV
AIQ #40, p.24
Report, 15-pass. van 5-fatal
AIQ #38, p.25
Summary, AR 5-fatal
AIQ #29, p.17
Report, PA bus/semis
AIQ #21, p.20
Report, grade crossing, semi
AIQ #17, p.20
Report, MO bus/pedestrians
AIQ #16, p.20
Report, WA truck/pedestrian
AIQ #15, p.16
Report, AR chain reaction
AIQ #11, p.16
Report, NY propane truck fire
AIQ #10, p.16
Report, OK truck/school bus
AIQ #5, p.20
Summary, truck/bridge coll’n
AIQ #3, p.17
Dump truck, 4 passenger cars
ARJ May ’07, p.42
Bus/parked tractor-trailer
ARJ Nov. ’04, p.32
Summary, TX 10-vehicle
Report, Flatbed truck/train
ARJ Sep.’00, p.15
Report, Front-end loader/train
ARJ Sep.’00, p.30
Report, PA truck brake loss
ARJ Nov. ’97, p.31
Fatigue in truck drivers
ARJ May ’95, p.22
Most wanted recommend’ns
ARJ Sep.’94, p.3
Most wanted recommend’ns
ARJ Jan. ’94, p.3
Report, NJ defect. bus crash
ARJ Jan. ’94, p.34
Report, CA tour bus plunge
ARJ Sep.’93, p.28
Report, TN chain reactions
ARJ May ’93, p.28
Summary, tanker rollovers
ARJ Nov. ’92, p.3
Report, PA, NY, bus accidents
Summary, tank truck overturn
ARJ May ’92, p.11
Report, work zone 8-fatal
ARJ Mar. ’92, p.18
Summary, grade crossing, CA
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.37
Report, school bus, TX
ARJ Nov. ’90, p.18
Report, grade crossing, NJ
Summary, bus rollover, TN
ARJ Sep.’89, p.1
Report, church bus fire, KY
Summaries, hvy. trk. accid.
ARJ Jan. ’89, p.22
NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROG.
Overhaul recommended
AIQ #5, p.13
Offset alignm’t, deform. bar.
AIQ #3, p.23
Should side tests be added?
Star rating sys. critized
ARJ Mar. ’95, p.64
Test performance
ARJ Sep.’94, p.56
Options for expansion
ARJ July ’94, p.5
Goals stated
Test results
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.29
Fatality risk in real crashes
AIQ #5, p.9 N
See also CRASH TESTS - FRONTAL BARRIER
NYSTAGMUS, HORIZONTAL GAZE
State case law summary
AIQ #42, p.31
Tests of acc. victims
ARJ July ’90, p.9
OCCUPANT KINEMATICS
Occupant protection improves
AIQ #19, p.2
From curb impacts
ARJ May ’95, p.54
Low speed rear end crashes
ARJ May ’93, p.22
Ejection
ARJ Sep.’89, p.23
Evidence of
ARJ Sep.’89, p.14
Height/weight factors
ARJ Sep.’89, p.22
Simulation models
ARJ Sep.’89, p.22
Lower leg finite model
AIQ #13, p.13 N
See also INJURIES, LOW SPEED COLLISIONS
OVERVIEW
Of accident reconstruction
ARJ May ’91, p.11
PASSING MANEUVER
Accidents on 2-lane rural roads
Invest. using HSIS d-base
AIQ #2, p.10
AIQ #2, p.16
PASSIVE RESTRAINTS
NTSB case studies
% reduction in fatalities
Required in light trucks
Trouble, Caprice police veh.
IIHS belt petition
Requirements in effect
Required by law
Bibliography
See also AIR BAGS
ARJ May ’94, p.24
ARJ July ’92, p.2
ARJ May ’91, p.1
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.43
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.23
ARJ Sep.’89, p.7
ARJ May ’89, p.17
AIQ #13, p.8 N
PEDESTRIAN - ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION
3-fatality case study
AIQ #47, p.37
Fatality case study
AIQ #44, p.27
Firefighter case study
AIQ #39, p.42
Farmers' market case study
AIQ #36, p.16
Factors for detection dist.
AIQ #21, p.38
Child ped. cognitive ability
AIQ #7, p.34
Audits for safety
ARJ May ’10, p.52
Speed with canes, walkers
ARJ Mar. ’10, p.49
Accident case study
ARJ Jan. ’10, p.20
Walking speeds crossing road
ARJ May ’09, p.11
Night accident characteristics
ARJ May ’09, p.54
Struck by dump truck
ARJ Mar. ’08, p.41
Backed over by dump truck
ARJ May ’08, p.57
Run over by skid-steer loader
ARJ Sep. ’07, p.31
Fireman fatality case study
ARJ Sep. ’06, p.44
Runover/throw dist. reconstr.
ARJ Sep. ’06, p.54
Fireman fatality case study
ARJ Sep. ’03, p.22
Biomechanics of lower legs
ARJ Sep. ’03, p.37
Dummy crash tests
ARJ May ’03, p.27
Homeless man in truck bay
ARJ May ’02, p.47
Fire fighter case study
ARJ Jan. ’02, p.21
In-Line skaters
ARJ Jan. ’00, p.18
Walking/running velocity
ARJ Jan. ’00, p.22
Reconstruction review/update
ARJ Jan. ’00, p.25
Injury vs. vehicle speed
ARJ Jan. ’00, p.33
Age-related development
ARJ Jan. ’00, p.34
2 case studies
2-yr old running speed
Fender vault
ARJ Jan. ’97, p.13
School bus case study
ARJ Nov. ’96, p.22
Vehicle speed calculation
ARJ May ’94, p.22
ARJ Mar. ’94, p.38
Veh. speed calc’n case study
ARJ Jan. ’94, p.18
Crash tests
ARJ Nov. ’93, p.30
Plastic overlay/inj. docum’n
ARJ Sep.’92, p.20
Road/vehicle/body evidence
ARJ Jan. ’92, p.19
Dynamics in impact
ARJ Jan. ’92, p.20
Vehicle speed estimates
ARJ Jan. ’92, p.23
Accident case studies
ARJ Jan. ’92, p.27
Collision diagrams
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.28
Frontal impact analysis
ARJ May ’90, p.16
Det. minimum veh. speed
Discussion veh. speed
ARJ Sep.’90, p.24
Dummy for case reconstr'ns
AIQ #30, p.12 N
Detection distance
AIQ #10, p.13 N
See also POINT OF IMPACT
PEDESTRIAN - SAFETY
Step in right direction
New bumper design
AIQ #48, p.8
AIQ #44, p.26
56
More wrecks involve
Downward death trend
Accident countermeasures
Vehicle designs/injuries
Making clothing visible
Hybrid vehicles too quiet
Automakers weigh risks too
New developments protecting
Silent hybrid vehicles
Deaths receive attention
Higher risk from hybrid cars
Ped. dragged 8.5 miles
Orlando most dangerous for
Intelligent protection
Drunk walking
Signals & elderly peds.
High tech protection
NHTSA research report
Vehicle speed and injury
Types of collisions
Roadway design for
Fatality rates down
Safety Road Show
& pedacycle crash types
Safety program
3-second head start
Fed/state/private partnership
Safety roadshow
Signs/pavement markings
Killed by large trucks
School bus egress
Injuries
Safety grants
Nat'l strategies for children
Innovative warning signs
Marked/unmarked X-walks
In rural areas
Risk in darkness
Sidewalks, facilities
Rural crash rate
Alcohol-involved crashes
Bibliography
Bibliography
Bibliography
Effects retroflector posit’n
Older - highway design
Signal effectiveness
AIQ #40, p.2
AIQ #27, p.5
AIQ #18, p.15
AIQ #18, p.46
AIQ #13, p.48
ARJ Nov. ’07, p.46
ARJ Sep. ’06, p.9
ARJ July ’03, p.5
ARJ May ’03, p.13
ARJ May ’03, p.13
ARJ May ’03, p.17
ARJ May ’03, p.18
ARJ Mar. ’00, p.59
ARJ Jan. ’00, p.9
ARJ July ’98 p.16
ARJ July ’98 p.62
ARJ May ’98 p.64
ARJ Sep. ’97, p.5
ARJ May ’97, p.20
ARJ Sep. ’96, p.56
ARJ Sep. ’96, p.64
ARJ Mar. ’96, p.76
ARJ May ’93, p.16
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.21
ARJ May ’90, p.17
ARJ Sep.’90, p.4
AIQ #30, p.11 N
AIQ #30, p.13 N
AIQ #30, p.13 N
AIQ #27, p.14 N
AIQ #27, p.14 N
AIQ #24, p.17 N
AIQ #24, p.21 N
AIQ #24, p.21 N
AIQ #17, p.13 N
AIQ #16, p.14 N
AIQ #12, p.13 N
AIQ #11, p.8 N
AIQ #9, p.8 N
AIQ #8, p.10 N
AIQ #8, p.15 N
PERCEPTION-REACTION TIME
To LED and incandescent lights
AIQ #55, p.23
Older drivers - object detec.
AIQ #9, p.20
Older drivers - intersections
AIQ #9, p.20
Tread separation simulation
Driver braking responses
To clear-lens turn signals
ARJ Mar. ’06, p.23
Collision avoidance
ARJ Jan. ’01, p.45
Joint conf. test results
ARJ Nov. ’95, p.26
Overview of past studies
ARJ Nov. ’95, p.26
Cyclist at intersections
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.40
Driver studies
ARJ Jan. ’91, p.4
Driver studies
ARJ Jan. ’91, p.16
Include perception time?
ARJ Sep.’90, p.25
To visibilty warning signals
AIQ #14, p.13 N
Emergency driving events
AIQ #9, p.11 N
Older drivers - intersections
AIQ #8, p.9 N
& turn signal color
AIQ #8, p.8 N
& stoplight intensity
AIQ #7, p.13 N
PHOTOGRAMMETRY
Advantages/Disadvantages
Desktop transformation
Misuse of telephoto lenses
Measurements damaged veh.
Projection
Use of
AIQ #32, p.32
AIQ #7, p.16
ARJ Mar. ’93, p.16
ARJ Sep.’92, p.25
ARJ Nov. ’90, p.17
AIQ #26, p.11 N
PHOTOGRAPHY
Camera use in acc. invest.
Ex. of overhead photo
Ex. of sight distance
Ex. of overhead photo
ARJ Mar. ’93, p.38
ARJ Mar. ’93, p.42
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.17
PHYSICS
Basic in car crash video
Ex: Van/utility wire
Forensic/veh accidents
AIQ #23, p.48
ARJ Mar. ’93, p.36
POINT OF IMPACT
Pedestrian accidents
ARJ May ’90, p.18
PRODUCTS, ACC. RECONST.
Overview
AIQ #3, p.18
What’s new in A.R.
ARJ Mar. ’89, p.8
PRODUCT LIABILITY - See LIABILITY,
PRODUCT
RADAR
Speed cameras favored in DC
Photo radar in Ontario
Photo radar in Oregon
Jammers fail to jam
Photo radar constitutional
Drone units at work zones
Photo radar/public opinion
Photo radar in Virginia
See also LASER
AIQ #30, p.8
AIQ #7, p.4
ARJ Mar. ’06, p.2
ARJ Jan. ’03, p.14
ARJ Jan. ’02, p.2
ARJ Nov. ’93, p.2
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.22
AIQ #22, p.10 N
RADAR DETECTORS
Ban upheld by appeals court
How US compares to others
Banned in commercial vehs.
Truck/bus ban proposed
In tractor trailers
Insurance coverage
Banned for trucks (NY)
Linked to speeding
AIQ #6, p.2
AIQ #2, p.48
ARJ Mar. ’94, p.1
ARJ Mar. ’92, p.40
ARJ July ’91, p.2
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.2
ARJ Sep.’90, p.2
ARJ Sep.’90, p.28
RADIUS OF CURVATURE
Optimum chord length
Min. spd, if not determined
Compass method
Pythagorean theorem
Methods for determining
AIQ #31, p.18
ARJ Jan. ’91, p.24
ARJ Sep.’90, p.13
ARJ Sep.’90, p.13
RAILROAD CROSSINGS - See GRADE
CROSSINGS
REACTION TIME - See PERCEPTION-REACT.
REAR END COLLISIONS
Speed estimates in
ARJ Sep.’90, p.12
Driver response to
AIQ #31, p.15 N
See also CASE STUDIES, LOW SPEED
RECALLS
Toyota seatbelt tensioner
NYSP investigation leads to
Saturn power steering fluid leak
Regal, Gran Prix
Ford 2008 trucks
Nissan, Toyota, tubes, mats
Civic rear wheel bearing
Ford cruise control
New software to reduce
Accords, airbag sensor
Sequoias, Tundras steering
Wildness tires missed
70K Harley motorcycles
Youth restraints
BMW air bags
1997 Escorts/Tracers
Britax child restraint
1.1 million Jeeps
Windstar suspension probed
Ford pressed on ignitions
Britax child seats
Subaru Legacy, Outback
NHTSA warning Mustang
Automakers more willing
VW minivan fires
GM '06 - '09 fire risk
Chrysler minivans, jeeps
Dodge Caliber sticking pedals
Toyota $16.4M fine
Lexus GS 460 rollover
Honda brake problem
Toyota acceleration pedals
Feds clear Toyota fix
Toyota Tundras
Toyota acceleration pedal interfer.
Toyota brake vacuum port
Firestone tires
Saturn Vue crossovers
Nissan SUVs
Toyota fuel delivery pipes
Gov't recalls down in 2008
BMW airbag sensor
Ford cruise control switch
GM, Toyota window flaw
Highlander seat belts
Toyota Corollas
Ford pickups
Ford trucks engine flaw
GM vehs. fluid leak
Dodge trucks, vans, shifting
Tire recalls shows sys. flaws
Hyundai SUVs
Wranglers, Nitros
450,000 Chinese tires
Michelin motorcycle tires
Many for Toyota
GM Daewoo SUV brakes
Chrysler recalls 68,000
AIQ #53, p.1
AIQ #53, p.10
AIQ #52, p.7
AIQ #50, p.47
AIQ #50, p.48
AIQ #48, p.2
AIQ #48, p.3
AIQ #47, p.1
AIQ #46, p.8
AIQ #45, p.20
AIQ #45, p.1
AIQ #43, p.1
AIQ #40, p.11
AIQ #34, p.12
AIQ #33, p.45
AIQ #30, p.48
AIQ #27, p.16
AIQ #27, p.22
AIQ #24, p.9
AIQ #24, p.9
AIQ #23, p.48
AIQ #22, p.2
AIQ #21, p.3
AIQ #1, p.25
ARJ Sep. ’10, p.53
ARJ July ’10, p.1
ARJ July ’10, p.8
ARJ July ’10, p.9
ARJ May ’10, p.1
ARJ May ’10, p.9
ARJ Mar. ’10, p.5
ARJ Jan. ’10, p.1
ARJ Jan. ’10, p.2
ARJ Jan. ’10, p.8
ARJ Sep. ’09, p.1
ARJ Sep. ’09, p.64
ARJ July ’09, p.3
ARJ Jan. ’09, p.1
ARJ Jan. ’09, p.1
ARJ Jan. ’09, p.8
ARJ Sep. ’08, p.15
ARJ May ’08, p.10
ARJ May ’08, p.23
ARJ May ’08, p.32
ARJ Mar. ’08, p.9
ARJ Jan. ’08, p.1
ARJ Jan. ’08, p.1
ARJ Nov. ’07, p.16
ARJ Sep. ’07, p.61
ARJ Sep. ’07, p.64
ARJ July ’07, p.1
ARJ Mar. ’07, p.13
ARJ Jan. ’07, p.3
ARJ Jan. ’07, p.5
Ford engine fires
Firestone tires for SUVs
Court rules legal by region
Groups sue US over
Steeltex tires
Mitsubishi trucks, busses
Ford Focus throttle
VW, Toyota, Jeep
Mercedes battery explosion
Mitsubishi trucks/busses
Chrysler minivan fuel leak
Chrysler Jeeps
Goodyear light truck tires
Peg Pergo child seats
Three large
Additional Wilderness AT tires
Century convert. child seats
Firestone tires near complete
Ford vans fuel tank
Firehawk GTA-02 tires
Ballistic bicycle forks
1.3 million Mitsubishi’s
’02 Trailblazer, Envoy, Bravada
Explorer/Mountaineer windows
Explorer, Ranger hood fly-up
F-series, Villager fuel leak
CA judge orders Ford
Trooper fuel system leak
Evenflo child seats
Defects: insurers 1st to learn
Cosco infant seats
Master index
’95 Cirrus/Stratus ordered
Did Ford miss models?
1995 totals
With low response
Toyota fined Land Cruiser
ARJ July ’06, p.1
ARJ Sep. ’04, p.20
ARJ May ’04, p.1
ARJ May ’04, p.19
ARJ Sep. ’03, p.2
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.5
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.48
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.64
ARJ May ’01, p.1
ARJ May ’01, p.10
ARJ May ’01, p.17
ARJ May ’01, p.39
ARJ May ’01, p.58
ARJ Mar. ’01, p.9
ARJ Jan. ’01, p.2
ARJ Jan. ’01, p.5
ARJ Jan. ’01, p.64
ARJ Nov.’00, p.3
ARJ Nov.’00, p.5
ARJ Sep. ’00, p.64
ARJ July ’00, p.1
ARJ July ’00, p.5
ARJ May ’00, p.1
ARJ May ’00, p.2
ARJ May ’00, p.15
ARJ Mar. ’00, p.5
ARJ Mar. ’00, p.15
ARJ Nov. ’98, p.72
ARJ May ’96, p.2
ARJ May ’96, p.3
ARJ Jan. ’96, p.13
ARJ Nov. ’94, p.64
ARJ May ’94, p.1
RECORDERS, COLLISION DATA
See EVENT DATA RECORDERS
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES
Motor home crash tests
ARJ Nov. ’04, p.20
Design & construction
AIQ #4, p.9 N
REPORT
Scope of
ARJ May ’93, p.49
ROAD RAGE
Closes highway
AIQ #47, p.10
Consequences of
AIQ #43, p.30
Siren to combat
AIQ #37, p.5
Results in murder
AIQ #35, p.45
In Utah
AIQ #34, p.41
Aggressive drivers tracked
AIQ #32, p.2
& funeral corteges
AIQ #32, p.18
Backfires on driver
AIQ #29, p.21
And more road rage
AIQ #18, p.41
Women display more
AIQ #17, p.48
2 crowbar attacks
AIQ #15, p. 2
Teen accused of attack
ARJ May ’08, p.5
Avoiding
ARJ Mar. ’08, p.37
Calls for new laws
ARJ July ’07, p.3
Man gets 10 years
ARJ Mar. ’07, p.2
Fla. Troopers target
ARJ Jan. ’07, p.16
Patience, music to avoid
ARJ Jan. ’07, p.64
Disected in court
ARJ Sep. ’06, p.18
Suspect caught
Chain saw pulled
From conjestion, lifestyle
ARJ May ’06, p.9
Comes from where?
ARJ May ’06, p.58
Fla. bill vetoed
ARJ Jan. ’05, p.3
Driver wanted to kill
ARJ Sep. ’04, p.3
Aggressive driving enforce't
ARJ Sep. ’04, p.5
Two articles
ARJ Sep. ’04, p.35
Fla. Hwy. Patrol program
ARJ July ’04, p.3
Web sites to report
ARJ July ’04, p.5
Left lane slowpokes
ARJ Nov. ’03, p.14
Slow drivers v. aggressive
ARJ May ’03, p.15
Complaints before fatality
ARJ Mar. ’03, p.13
Road roller challenged
ARJ Mar. ’02, p.14
13 years in manslaughter case
ARJ Sep.’00, p.1
Truck attack, long sentence
ARJ July ’98 p.64
Aggressive driving
ARJ Mar. ’97, p.14
Promising mitigat'n measures
AIQ #30, p.13 N
Understanding road rage
AIQ #26, p.13 N
Aggressive driving imaging
AIQ #23, p.13 N
See also HUMAN FACTORS, MANSLAUGHTER
NTSB invest. 15-pass. vans
Firefighter killed in
Fire engine case study
Warning on SUVs
Safety in Volvo's XC90
Leads to Explorer probe
Warning label for SUV’s
Formula for probability
NHTSA seeks formula
Feds seek resistance labels
Threshold lateral g’s, trucks
Tractor-trailer, different tires
Smartfortwo performs well
Roof strength poor in small SUVs
New roof strength rule
Roof strength rule delayed
Manure truck case study
Crash mechanisms
Groups challenge rules
Results for Saturn Vue
At 249 mph
Human factors case study
Case study
Seat belts faulty in rollover
Van stabilizing equipment
SUVs fail test
Changes to 15-passenger vans
NHTSA posts report on
Causes of injury
SUV technology to reduce
NTSB report on 15-pass vans
Fire tanker case study
NHTSA announces new test
Technology to reduce
Tests no effect on SUVsales
Fire truck/tanker case
Loaded van stability
Bosche stibility sensor
15-pass TX, NC case studies
Mitigation reports
Millbrook tests
SUV case study
Predicting 15-pass van accds.
Tractor case study
Tanker truck case study
Sensor development
Tractor case study
Motorcoach case study
SUV rollover protection
Tubular side airbags for trucks
Roof crush testing
Bibliography for big truck
TRW active roll control
Pumper truck case study
Maneuver that induce
Trailer axle arrangement/loads
Ford delays package
NHTSA dynamic test
Heavy commercial vehicles
Tactor hazards
P-18 suspension tests
NHTSA ratings
College sports team vans
Physical factors med/hvy trucks
Roof crush resistance
Statistical analysis, propens’y
In liquid tank trucks
Caused by crosswinds
NTSB recom’s. tanker trucks
Death rates, lt. trucks/MPV’s
Accident database
NHTSA Jeep invest. closed
Jeep petition
Minimum req’d distance
Caused by crosswinds
Heavy commercial vehicles
Truck-activated warning
Roof crush testing
Trauck warning system
In special trans. service veh.
Mechanics & biomechanics
Lt. trucks/roadside charact.
Frequency Chevy/GMC trucks
Precrash risk factors
AIQ #35, p.41
AIQ #33, p.44
AIQ #31, p.44
AIQ #30, p.2
AIQ #29, p.10
AIQ #24, p.3
AIQ #21, p.5
AIQ #20, p.20
AIQ #20, p.21
AIQ #4, p.5
AIQ #3, p.10
ARJ Mar. ’10, p.39
ARJ Sep. ’09, p.37
ARJ May ’09, p.1
ARJ May ’09, p.63
ARJ Jan. ’09, p.40
ARJ Mar. ’08, p.19
ARJ Mar. ’07, p.25
ARJ Jan. ’07, p.35
ARJ Jan. ’07, p.16
ARJ Nov. ’06, p.14
ARJ Sep. ’06, p.10
ARJ May ’06, p.16
ARJ Nov. ’04, p.52
ARJ Nov. ’04, p.64
ARJ Sep. ’04, p.13
ARJ Jan. ’04, p.16
ARJ Mar. ’03, p.11
ARJ Jan. ’03, p.14
ARJ Jan. ’03, p.23
ARJ Jan. ’03, p.40
ARJ Jan. ’03, p.47
ARJ Jan. ’03, p.54
ARJ Nov. ’02, p.1
ARJ Nov. ’02, p.2
ARJ Nov. ’02, p.3
ARJ Nov. ’02, p.2
ARJ Nov. ’02, p.23
ARJ Nov. ’02, p.23
ARJ Nov. ’02, p.25
ARJ Nov. ’02, p.49
ARJ Nov. ’02, p.49
ARJ Nov. ’02, p.51
ARJ Nov. ’02, p.5
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.18
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.20
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.24
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.26
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.29
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.32
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.34
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.35
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.49
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.52
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.58
ARJ May ’01, p.2
ARJ May ’01, p.16
ARJ May ’01, p.19
ARJ May ’01, p.41
ARJ May ’01, p.47
ARJ May ’01, p.55
ARJ Mar. ’01, p.9
ARJ July ’00, p.2
ARJ Jan. ’98, p.41
ARJ Mar. ’95, p.24
ARJ Sep.’94, p.20
ARJ Mar. ’93, p.14
ARJ Nov. ’92, p.3
ARJ May ’91, p.22
ARJ Jan. ’91, p.1
ARJ Nov. ’90, p.35
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.14
AIQ #21, p.14 N
AIQ #21, p.15 N
AIQ #19, p.15 N
AIQ #17, p.15 N
AIQ #16, p.10 N
AIQ #15, p.11 N
AIQ #12, p.14 N
AIQ #7, p.13 N
AIQ #6, p.11 N
SCALE DIAGRAMS - See DIAGRAMS
ROLLOVER
GM tests in-house
Protection from Autoliv
Proposed roof crush standard
Technology for SUVs
New ratings
Vehicle or driver at fault?
AIQ #49, p.24
AIQ #46, p.16
AIQ #41, p.48
AIQ #39, p.2
AIQ #37, p.17
AIQ #37, p.44
AIQ #36, p.13
SCENE DATA/MEASUREMENT
What to collect
AIQ #9, p.12 N
Use of total station
AIQ #9, p.12 N
SEARCH WARRENTS - VEHICLE
Court OKs road blocks
AIQ #35, p.1
Not necessary for brake insp.
ARJ Sep. ’96, p.1
57
SEAT BELTS - ACCIDENT INVEST.
Field investigation
AIQ #9, p.16
Development/design features
ARJ Jan. ’94, p.24
Failure case study
Less known problems
ARJ Mar. ’92, p.37
Post crash examination
ARJ May ’91, p.26
Advanced auto restraint syst.
AIQ #26, p.12 N
Bibliography
AIQ #17, p.10 N
2 Bibliographies
AIQ #13, p.9 N
Bibliography
AIQ #13, p.10 N
Devices improve shldr belt fit
AIQ #12, p.11 N
3 Bibliographies
AIQ #10, p.9 N
Bibliography
AIQ #8, p.16 N
Passive, patent file citations
AIQ #3, p.8 N
SEAT BELTS - SAFETY NEWS
Tough law pushed
AIQ #39, p.10
Not required by OSHA
AIQ #33, p.42
For pregnant women
AIQ #31, p.43
Primary enforcement WA
AIQ #27, p.5
Use at all time high
AIQ #6, p.45
Weak Kansas law
ARJ July ’10, p.5
New inflator for
ARJ Sep. ’09, p.60
Cincinnati police enforcement
ARJ May ’09, p.61
Primary law passes in AR
ARJ Mar. ’09, p.2
TRW active buckle lifter
ARJ Sep. ’08, p.16
NJ Governor pays ticket
ARJ May ’07, p.12
Many truckers aren't using
ARJ Nov. ’04, p.3
Record use by blacks
ARJ Nov. ’02, p.15
Use reaches 75%
ARJ Sep. ’02, p.30
ROP's, riders and....
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.34
That thick like air bags
Use reaches 73%
ARJ May ’01, p.17
Use varies by region
ARJ Nov.’00, p.13
Lower use among blacks
ARJ Jan. ’00, p.64
Positioner warning proposal
ARJ Nov. ’98, p.2
Blacks have lower use rate
ARJ Nov. ’98, p.16
Points for not wearing
ARJ Mar. ’97, p.9
Takata recall slow
ARJ Jan. ’97, p.1
Push for increased use
ARJ May ’96, p.71
Teen use up
ARJ Mar. ’96, p.2
Survival improvment est.
ARJ Jan. ’96, p.5
Signs spur rise in use
ARJ Nov. ’95, p.67
Use rates
Fines won’t persuade some
ARJ Jan. ’95, p.2
8 of 10 use in N.C.
ARJ Jan. ’95, p.5
Use at 10-yr. high in Canada
ARJ Jan. ’94, p.23
1st state long-term program
Primary enforcement
Enforcement efforts
Use higher in Canada
Retrofit kit
ARJ May ’93, p.64
Use and leg injuries
ARJ Jan. ’93, p.5
Importance of manual belt(s)
ARJ Nov. ’92, p.2
History of
ARJ May ’92, p.11
NTSB urges state laws
ARJ Sep.’91, p.11
NHTSA enforcement drive
CHiP program
Canadian campaign
Laws pushed
Rear shoulder, new rules
ARJ July ’89, p.5
Usage rates
NBN Sep.’88
Occupant safety survey
AIQ #31, p.15 N
Primary enforcement laws
AIQ #24, p.15 N
Effectiveness: back seat
AIQ #21, p.13 N
On transit buses
AIQ #9, p.48 N
Bibliography
AIQ #7, p.11 N
SEGWAY HUMAN TRANSPORTER
FHWA studies riders
ARJ May ’07, p.32
SIDE IMPACT
Tests soon harder to pass
New NHTSA requirements
Compliance test set
Standards announced
Ctr Auto Safety action
See also CRASH TESTS
AIQ #48, p.24
ARJ Sep. ’07, p.1
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.1
ARJ Nov. ’90, p.3
ARJ Nov. ’90, p.35
SIGHT DISTANCES
Wider lanes and
Right turn lanes and
Inersection angles/field of view
At RR grade crossings
Measurement of
Horizontal
Vertical
Determination of stopping
In highway design
For intersections
ARJ Mar. ’02, p.25
ARJ Mar. ’02, p.33
ARJ Jan. ’02, p.61
ARJ Sep. ’00, p.56
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.20
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.20
AIQ #20, p.14 N
AIQ #19, p.11 N
AIQ #15, p.13 N
SIGNAL LIGHTS
Red light camera research
Cameras/accident reductions?
HSIS data for crashes at
Who runs red signals?
Red light camera laws
AIQ #46, p.11
AIQ #41, p.16
AIQ #22, p.2
AIQ #5, p.36
ARJ Sep. ’07, p.49
Red light enforcement
Cameras reduce crashes
Cameras are constitutional
Red light camers reduce inj.
Red light cameras
Crashes increase
Timing and crashes
Effects on intersection crashes
ARJ May ’06, p.22
ARJ Jan. ’02, p.2
ARJ Nov. ’01, p.64
ARJ Jan. ’00, p.43
ARJ May ’98 p.5
ARJ May ’95, p.63
AIQ #30, p.14 N
SIGNS
Rulemaking on retroreflective
ARJ Mar. ’06, p.16
Nighttime legibility
ARJ Mar. ’06, p.27
RR X-ing, retroflective
Retrorelectometer testing
Color recognition
ARJ Sep.’91, p.14
Driving & perception
AIQ #32, p.14 N
Flourescent yellow warning
AIQ #27, p.13 N
Adding reflective mat'l to
AIQ #23, p.12 N
Retroreflectivity requirements
AIQ #19, p.15 N
Legibility distance
AIQ #8, p.12 N
Retroreflective sheeting
AIQ #8, p.9 N
Human factors issues
AIQ #8, p.9 N
See also HIGHWAY DESIGN, VISIBILITY
SKATES/SKATEBOARDS
Germany bans in-line
AIQ #28, p.9
Acceleration trials
AIQ #25, p.18
Bibliography
AIQ #7, p.13 N
See also BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN
SKID MARKS
Speed est. from skip skids
Semi, varying tire pressure
Appearance, ABS/conv. brak.
AIQ #11, p.44
ARJ Sep. ’07, p.19
SKID TESTS - BRAKING, DRY ASPH./CONC.
Motorcycle various systems
AIQ #48, p.12
AIQ #47, p.28
2003 police vehicle data
AIQ #36, p.32
AIQ #34, p.42
AIQ #29, p.22
Truck/bus braking in curve
AIQ #28, p.12
AIQ #27, p.35
AIQ #27, p.27
'99/'00 police vehicles analysis
AIQ #27, p.37
AIQ #26, p.34
1998 police vehicle analysis
AIQ #26, p.43
Poorly maintained brakes
AIQ #24, p.32
Performance tires
AIQ #23, p.46
Low speed vehicles
AIQ #22, p.28
Moderate & high speed
AIQ #20, p.28
Overloaded heavy trucks
AIQ #18, p.22
Mazdas, dry asphalt
AIQ #2, p.40
Motorcycles
Semi, varying tire pressure
ARJ Sep. ’07, p.19
Motorcycle, IPTM data
Tract-trailer ABS braking
ARJ Mar. ’07, p.19
Various light trucks
ARJ Nov. ’04, p.22
Motorcycles
ARJ Nov.’00, p.22
4 buses & dump truck
ARJ Mar. ’98 p.21
Fire truck
ARJ Mar. ’98 p.55
Heavy truck, var. ABS sys.
ARJ Jan. ’98, p.56
ARJ Nov. ’97, p.43
Caprice, Taurus, dry asphalt
ARJ Sep.’94, p.34
8 vehicles, ABS on/off
ARJ Jan. ’94, p.52
ABS & non-ABS Caprice
ABS vs. non-ABS vehicles
Motorcycle, braking
Locked/unlckd, ’78 lt. trks.
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.22
Locked/unlckd, ’78 md. trks.
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.25
Semi-truck, dry asphalt
ARJ Jan. ’91, p.25
Double trailer, dry asphalt
ARJ Jan. ’91, p.25
Autos, asphalt, concrete
ARJ Sep.’90, p.22
Autos, dry tar & chip
ARJ Sep.’90, p.22
F-250, F-7000, dry asphalt
ARJ Sep.’90, p.23
Semi truck, dry asphalt
ARJ Sep.’90, p.23
Moderate braking/skid mk
ARJ Sep.’90, p.21
School bus, asphalt, concr.
Celebrity, asphalt, concr.
Autos, dry asphalt
ARJ May ’89, p.14
Lt. trucks, dry asphalt
ARJ May ’89, p.14
Fire truck, concrete.
ARJ Jan. ’89, p.10
School bus, concrete
ARJ Jan. ’89, p.11
Caprice, concrete
ARJ Jan. ’89, p.11
Bibliography
AIQ #14, p.10 N
See also DRAG FACTORS
SKID TESTS - BRAKING, WET ASPH./CONC.
AIQ #48, p.12
AIQ #47, p.28
Various tires
AIQ #21, p.37
Mazdas, wet asphalt
AIQ #2, p.40
Motorcycles
Heavy truck
ARJ Nov. ’09, p.19
ARJ Jan. ’98, p.56
ARJ Nov. ’97, p.43
8 vehicles, ABS on/off
ARJ Jan. ’94, p.52
Locked/unlckd, ’78 lt. trks.
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.22
Locked/unlckd, ’78 md. trks.
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.25
School bus, wet asph./concr.
Celebrity, wet asph./concr.
Caravan, wet asphalt
ARJ May ’89, p.15
SKID TESTS - BRAKING, OTHER SURFACES
W/wo studs, snow, ice
AIQ #37, p.18
Various tires
AIQ #21, p.37
W/wo studs, snow, ice
AIQ #12, p.26
Motorcycles, Belgian block
Snow-covered, travelled roads
ARJ Jan. ’09, p.24
Various tires, ice, snow
ARJ Nov. ’08, p.12
EBW / ABS ice
ARJ Jan. ’08, p.39
ARJ Nov. ’97, p.43
Snowmobiles
ARJ Mar. ’95, p.52
Caprice, Taurus, dry dirt
ARJ Sep.’94, p.50
280Z, hard-packed dirt
w & w/o ABS Caprice, gravel
Snowmobiles
ARJ Jan. ’93, p.36
Auto w & w/o ABS, glare ice
ARJ Mar. ’92, p.42
Trucks & buses, glare ice
ARJ Mar. ’92, p.42
LTD, unpacked snow
ARJ May ’89, p.14
6000STE, unpacked snow
ARJ May ’89, p.14
Caprice, wet grass
ARJ May ’89, p.16
Arctic conditions
AIQ #32, p.13 N
Sand on packed snow & ice
AIQ #17, p.11 N
SKID TESTS - EVALUATION OF
Varying tire pressures
ARJ Jan. ’93, p.40
Heavy truck, brk. adjustment
Different tire effects
ARJ Sep.’90, p.19
Load condition effects
ARJ Sep.’90, p.22
Integral analysis
ARJ Jan. ’89, p.10
SKID TESTS - LATERAL
Performance tires
Various tires, snow
Various tires, ice, snow
pavement, gravel, grass
ABS vehs. braking/evasive
Fire truck, concrete
School bus, concrete
Caprice, concrete
Camaro, dry asphalt
AIQ #23, p.46
AIQ #21, p.37
ARJ Nov. ’08, p.12
ARJ May ’08, p.29
ARJ Nov. ’04, p.22
ARJ Mar. ’94, p.41
ARJ Jan. ’89, p.10
ARJ Jan. ’89, p.10
ARJ Jan. ’89, p.10
ARJ May ’89, p.36
SKID TESTS - NON-UPRIGHT VEHS.
Motorcycles, IPTM data
AIQ #46, p.18
Motorcycle, test summary
AIQ #44, p.31
Autos, wet/dry asphalt/concr.
AIQ #13, p. 30
Motorcycle, sideways
AIQ #5, p.48
Motorcycles, sideways
ARJ Mar. ’07, p.47
Motorcycles, dry asphalt
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.13
Motorcycle, dry asphalt
NBN Jan. ’87
SAE SP-853, p.77
Sae SP-1237, p.357
Various vehicles
Soar Win. ’01 p.13
SNOWMOBILE
Alert system
Acceleration/braking tests
Acceleration/braking tests
Safety
Accident invest./reconst.
ARJ Mar. ’10, p.9
ARJ Jan. ’07, p.29
ARJ Mar. ’95, p.52
ARJ Mar. ’94, p.22
ARJ Mar. ’94, p.30
SPECIFICATIONS
Cadillac DeVille hearse
Motorcycle, 1967-1991
AIQ #27, p.39
ARJ Nov. ’04, p.22
SPEEDOMETER
Back plate analysis
ARJ Nov. ’91, p.28
SPEED LIMIT
Repeal of 55 safe?
Repeal of national
Speeding = child abuse?
IL: truck increase vetoed
Urban freeway speeds up
Urban freeway speeds up
Establishing for curves
8 states retain 55 mph
65 mph to be repealed?
Safety impact 65 mph in IA
AIQ #16, p.3
AIQ #8, p.1
ARJ Nov. ’04, p.5
ARJ Mar. ’96, p.3
ARJ Jan. ’94, p.28
ARJ May ’90, p.7
ARJ Sep.’89, p.5
AIQ #5, p.10 N
SPEED LIMITERS
To be mandatory in Europe
ARJ Sep.’92, p.56
SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES
Study questions safety
ARJ Jan. ’03, p.2
Lower CGs for 2008?
ARJ Jan. ’03, p.62
To get warning label
ARJ May ’98 p.9
STANDARDS, SAFETY
Semi trailer rear underride
Side impact, worldwide
U.S., Europe diff. approaches
Side impact, head protection
AIQ #9, p.1
ARJ July ’96, p.3
STEERING SYSTEMS
Electronic stability control
Angle Sensor
Problems ’92-’93 Crown Vic?
Failure in police cruisers?
GE safety developments
TRW active front
Infiniti lane departure sys.
Pitman arms, ’95-’96 Fords
Examination of
Bibliography
Bibliography
Database citations
AIQ #46, p.13
AIQ #23, p.5
AIQ #2, p.1
ARJ Sep. ’07, p.5
ARJ Sep. ’07, p.24
ARJ Jan. ’07, p.56
ARJ Nov. ’06, p.12
ARJ Jan. ’96, p.1
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.20
AIQ #13, p.9 N
AIQ #10, p.11 N
AIQ #5, p.12 N
SUBMERGED VEHICLES
Mich. St. Police tests
AIQ #12, p.18
SUDDEN ACCELERATION
'91 Ford Aerostar case
AIQ #23, p.1
Case study/tiremark analysis
ARJ Mar. ’94, p.44
NHTSA report released
ARJ Mar. ’89, p.1
Transp.Canada findings
ARJ Mar. ’89, p.22
See also ACCELERATION, UNINTENDED
SUICIDE/HOMICIDE
27 case studies
Accident....or homicide?
By trian fairly common
Suicide case study
AIQ #2, p.20
AIQ #1, p.22
ARJ May ’04, p.14
ARJ Sep. ’96, p.56
SUSPENSION SYSTEM
New sensors
Examination of
Evaluation of ARFF system
Bibliography
ARJ Sep.’00, p.13
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.20
AIQ #32, p.13 N
AIQ #10, p.14 N
TELEMATICS
Integrated safety systems
AIQ #40, p.16
TESTIMONY
Expert witnesses and
Presenting energy diss.
Cross examination tactics
Expert’s scope
ARJ Sep.’90, p.14
ARJ Sep.’89, p.10
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.18
TIE DOWN STRAPS
Testing/case study
ARJ Mar. ’94, p.50
TIME/DISTANCE ANALYSIS
Diagrams for reconst. & court
Acceleration, time, distance
Closing speed right angle
Closing speed oblique angle
Closing speed right angle
AIQ #48, p.34
AIQ #2, p.38
ARJ Jan. ’96, p.13
ARJ Nov.’95, p.22
ARJ Sep.’95, p.20
TINTED WINDOWS
Driver visibility
ARJ May ’89, p.12
TIRE MARKS
ABS v. conventional braking
Case study
Documentation of
See also SKID MARKS
TIRES
Run-flats losing appeal
Press. monitoring sys. mandate
Blow-out case study
Motorola pressure sensor
May not pass new standards
Safer tire on road in 2007?
Monitoring system
Steeltex probe rejected
Expiration date for?
Automatic Pressure measur't
Labeling rule
Pressure monitoring device
NHTSA to select TPMS
Goodyear run-flats
NHTSA report Wilderness
Mitsubishi to inspect
General Ameri 550-AS
Ford replacing Firestone
Bridgestone defends
Ford settling Firestone cases
Sensor use gains
Myths refuted
Heavy truck failure modes
Tractor-trailer rollover, dif. tires
Unique new test facility
Time to deflate ruptured
450,000 Chinese recalled
Safety ratings
New veh's monitor pressure
Run-flats improve safety
Press. monitoring sys. tested
ARJ Nov. ’91, p.28
AIQ #55, p.1
AIQ #50, p.11
AIQ #41, p.34
AIQ #40, p.16
AIQ #40, p.1
AIQ #39, p.8
AIQ #38, p.3
AIQ #37, p.37
AIQ #33, p.5
AIQ #32, p.19
AIQ #31, p.2
AIQ #29, p.3
AIQ #28, p.9
AIQ #27, p.16
AIQ #27, p.21
AIQ #26, p.32
AIQ #25, p.13
AIQ #24, p.1
AIQ #23, p.3
AIQ #23, p.5
AIQ #22, p.3
AIQ #2, p.9
ARJ May ’10, p.41
ARJ Mar. ’10, p.39
ARJ Nov. ’09, p.9
ARJ Nov. ’07, p.29
ARJ July ’07, p.1
ARJ Mar. ’06, p.22
ARJ Mar. ’02, p.2
ARJ Nov. ’01, p.16
58
Pressure monitoring system
ARJ Sep. ’01, p.22
Pressure monitoring mandate
ARJ July ’01, p.5
Continental replacem't review
ARJ Nov.’00, p.1
ARJ Nov.’00, p.2
Firestone, Ford chronology
ARJ Nov.’00, p.58
Public awareness
ARJ Nov.’00, p.14
Ford, Firestone act
ARJ Sep.’00, p.5
Expert’s study of Firestone
NHTSA probe of Goodyears
ARJ May ’00, p.5
Slater statement on Firestone
ARJ May ’00, p.17
Feds: Firestone warnings
ARJ Mar. ’00, p.1
Wilderness death toll
ARJ Jan. ’00, p.1
Grading standard comments
ARJ May ’94, p.20
Regrooved warnings
ARJ Sep.’93, p.42
Grade list available
ARJ Jan. ’92, p.13
Grade list
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.47
Grade list update
ARJ Sep.’90, p.1
Examination of
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.19
Load indices
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.20
Sidewall markings
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.19
Grade list available
ARJ Sep.’89, p.2
Fatigue failure
Casing breakup
AIQ #27, p.12 N
Blowout resistant
AIQ #26, p.14 N
Synthesis on studded
AIQ #24, p.19 N
Transient response
AIQ #18, p.14 N
Bibliography
AIQ #17, p.10 N
Bibliography
AIQ #17, p.12 N
Bibliography
AIQ #16, p.14 N
Truck tire characteristics
AIQ #10, p.10 N
3 bibliographies
AIQ #10, p.10 N
Studded performance
AIQ #10, p.10 N
Bibliography, skid resist.
AIQ #7, p.13 N
Testing/evaluation database
AIQ #6, p.10 N
Study of in-plane dynamics
AIQ #5, p.8 N
Radial tire design
AIQ #5, p.12 N
See also SKID TESTS, HYDROPLANING
TRACTORS, FARM
Overturn case study
More on roads in spring
Overturn case study
AIQ #46, p.16
AIQ #41, p.15
ARJ May ’07, p.18
TRAINING
Mature driver course
ARJ Jan. ’92, p.2
TRAJECTORY ANALYSIS
The effects of rotation
AIQ #4, p.22
TRANSPARENCIES
Use in reconstruction
ARJ Nov. ’90, p.17
TRUCK DRIVERS
18-year old = 18 wheels?
New federal work rules
14-hour rule proposed
Joint safety effort w police
Fines for out-of-service
Waving vision rules unlawful
Failed to submit reports
AIQ #24, p.22
ARJ Nov. ’04, p.13
ARJ May ’00, p.64
ARJ Nov. ’96, p.79
ARJ Nov. ’94, p.5
ARJ Sep.’94, p.2
ARJ May ’91, p.3
TRUCKS, HEAVY DUTY
Car carrier safety in PA
Safety Systems
New requirements for trailers
New underride rule
Rule to improve brakes
Reflectors for trailers
Higher risk, double trailers?
2 or 3 trailer data sketchy
Electronic stability control literat.
OE vs. aftermarket braking tests
Bill for tow truck safety
11-hour limit for drivers
Hazard parked on shoulder?
Speed control devices pushed
Study may alter inspections
Norfolk-area inspections
Driver's safety record
Requirements for marking
Safety report
Electronic control module
Gasoline tanker/car case study
4 truck collsion case study
Securing loads
Safety improvement
Size/weight study
Top safety issues
Driver fatigue case studies
New rules for
IIHS presses underride regs.
Stability rules proposed
Defective vehs. cited
Downhill braking info
AIQ #36, p.11
AIQ #23, p.14
AIQ #19, p.47
AIQ #10, p.7
AIQ #5, p.1
AIQ #3, p.3
AIQ #2, p.15
AIQ #1, p.7
ARJ Sep. ’10, p.33
ARJ May ’08, p.4
ARJ Jan. ’08, p.49
ARJ May ’07, p.19
ARJ Jan. ’07, p.8
ARJ Sep. ’02, p.3
ARJ Sep. ’02, p.59
ARJ Nov. ’01, p.58
ARJ Sep. ’00, p.61
ARJ May ’00, p.13
ARJ Mar. ’98 p.56
ARJ Mar. ’98 p.25
ARJ Jan. ’98, p.20
ARJ Nov. ’97, p.16
ARJ Sep. ’96, p.64
ARJ May ’96, p.64
ARJ May ’95, p.22
ARJ Mar. ’95, p.2
ARJ Jan. ’95, p.56
ARJ Jan. ’94, p.3
ARJ Sep.’93, p.42
ARJ Sep.’93, p.2
NAFTA lowers standards?
Wheel separation on
Underride death count
Ways to reduce occup. deaths
Drivers exceed work hours
Underride guards
Speed limiters, U.K.
Senate restrictions on
Trailer brake compatibility
Examination of
Inspection standards
Braking deficiencies in
Methods for crash reduction
Pneumatic aerodyn. devices
Downhill speed warning
Roadside safety inspection
Crash profile
Fire truck collisions
Accident countermeasures
Loads & accident experience
Tank trailer crashworthiness
Collision avoidance system
Accident bibliography
Safety bibliography
Long combination stability
Brake adjustment criteria
Safety on 2-lane roads
Large veh. safety research
See also BRAKES, ROLLOVERS
ARJ Sep.’93, p.1
ARJ Jan. ’93, p.16
ARJ Sep.’92, p.5
ARJ Sep.’92, p.15
ARJ Mar. ’92, p.42
ARJ Mar. ’92, p.36
ARJ Sep.’91, p.32
ARJ Sep.’91, p.24
ARJ July ’90, p.2
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.22
ARJ Sep.’89, p.5
ARJ Jan. ’89, p.16
AIQ #30, p.14 N
AIQ #30, p.14 N
AIQ #24, p.12 N
AIQ #24, p.18 N
AIQ #24, p.20 N
AIQ #23, p.12 N
AIQ #22, p.12 N
AIQ #18, p.12 N
AIQ #15, p.13 N
AIQ #12, p.15 N
AIQ #12, p.17 N
AIQ #12, p.17 N
AIQ #11, p.11 N
AIQ #8, p.11 N
AIQ #7, p.13 N
AIQ #3, p.8 N
TRUCKS, LIGHT DUTY
Pressure to make safer
Unfair safety questions?
Auto saf. std. extended to
Prop. side impact protect’n
Risks for passengers in bed
New side door standard
High-mounted stop lamp
Roof crush standards
NHTSA safety report
Auto saf. std. extended to
Side impact standard
Seat belt requirements
NHTSA sued/FMVSS 204
Safety standards bill
Crash requirements
ARJ Mar. ’04, p.14
AIQ #37, p.10
AIQ #7, p.1
AIQ #3, p.7
ARJ July ’95, p.3
ARJ July ’91, p.2
ARJ May ’91, p.32
ARJ May ’91, p.3
ARJ July ’90, p.3
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.1
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.32
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.1
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.2
ARJ Sep.’89, p.3
ARJ Jan. ’89, p.4
TRUNK RELEASES
New standard
New federal requirement
AIQ #23, p.3
ARJ Nov. ’98, p.5
TURN SIGNALS
Masked by headlamps
AIQ #24, p.28
Color & reaction time
AIQ #8, p.9 N
Masking by daytime lights
AIQ #7, p.13 N
See also VISIBILITY, LIGHT BULBS
UNDERRIDE
Semi-trailer side underride
AIQ #27, p.17
Study of Incidence
ARJ Jan. ’98, p.49
# of crashed undercounted
ARJ Mar. ’97, p.2
Another look
ARJ Sep.’93, p.20
See also CRASH TESTS - VEHICLE/VEHICLE
UNDER WATER
See SUBMERGED VEHICLES
UTILITY POLE COLLISIONS
Crash Modeling
AIQ #30, p.13 N
Method for reconstruction
ARJ Sep. ’09, p.41
VEHICLE DYNAMICS
Electronic stability control
Rotating vehicle drag factors
Active control & reconstruction
Tread separation simulation
Intro. heavy trucks
Controlling factors
Demonstrating brake instab.
Tire forces and
Tire forces & simulation of
Overview
Testbed vehicle
4-wheel steering vehicle
Numerical methods for
Trailer axle arrangement
Lateral model for semi
Numerical methods
Obsticle avoidance maneuver
Robust lateral control
VIDEOTAPE
Testing methodology
Use in speed determination
AIQ #44, p.4
ARJ May ’08, p.19
ARJ Jan. ’08, p.19
ARJ Nov. ’97, p.39
ARJ Jan. ’93, p.37
ARJ Jan. ’93, p.42
ARJ Sep.’92, p.23
ARJ Nov. ’91, p.20
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.21
AIQ #24, p.14 N
AIQ #24, p.16 N
AIQ #22, p.11 N
AIQ #20, p.10 N
AIQ #17, p.11 N
AIQ #13, p.12 N
AIQ #9, p.8 N
AIQ #6, p.12 N
ARJ Sep. ’10, p.23
VISIBILITY/VISION
Visual fatigue & driver
Safety garments/seasonal variat'n
Safety apparel, civil twilight
Interior lighting and driver
New filter, night vision sys.
Blue lights help older drivers?
Dashboard TV's
Reflector tape for big trucks
Twilight sensor
Hydrophobic windshield coat
UV Headlights
Heavy truck rules
Child ped. cognitive ability
Lighting options on freeways
Night vision/visual percept’n
Reflectors for truck trailers
G.M. leads, daytime lights
Driving in fog
Retroreflectivity of stop signs
Conspicuity of safety garments
Body pillar obstructions
Test for elderly drivers
New Ford blind spot mirror
Near-infrared illuminators
Ped. dectection w night vision sys.
Role of garment design
Vehicle blind zones (news)
Multiple wrecks in fog
Blind spot warning device
Car spirit paint
Rear window tranmittance
Color and light level
New research
Reflectors on rail cars
Lighted crosswalks
Retroreflective pav't marks
Driving after dark
Truck splash & spray
Post-mounted delineators
Non-planar rear view mirrors
Mirror view for lt.trucks
For driver
Computer model/pav't lines
Cameras for blind spots
Cataracts and crashes
Workers/night demonstration
Vision test/driver’s license
Color/pedestrian detection
Retroreflective/pedestrian
Reflective markings/trucks
Transmittance of sunglasses
Retrorefective materials
Driver eye postions
Headlight locations
UV headlight reg. dist.
Sign legibility distances
Roadway visibility sensor
Semi-tractor proposal
Daylight sav’gs time benefits
Sight dist. in night driving
And vision in acc. recon.
Truck proposal
In pedestrian accidents
Shadow position calcul’n
Light intensity as factor
Night enhancement system
Infared enhancement syst.
Future auto lighting
Analysis & data integration
Rear window transmittance
Rear window defroster lines
Hydrophobic window coating
Intersection angle/view
Distance perception/mirror
Fog: highway practices
Traffic control devices
Sign luminance, old drivers
Window tinting & mirrors
Daytime veiling glare
Windshield bibliography
Signs & signals
Virtual active vision tools
Sodium vapor lights
Side mirror type & accidents
Freight car reflectorization
Thru windshields/windows
AIQ #55, p.43
AIQ #54, p.9
AIQ #52, p.11
AIQ #51, p.12
AIQ #45, p.20
AIQ #39, p.5
AIQ #37, p.2
AIQ #25, p.7
AIQ #22, p.24
AIQ #16, p.34
AIQ #14, p.19
AIQ #11, p.2
AIQ #7, p.34
AIQ #4, p.31
AIQ #4, p.26
AIQ #3, p.3
AIQ #2, p.5
AIQ #2, p.19
ARJ Jan. ’10, p.47
ARJ May ’09, p.47
ARJ Mar. ’09, p.56
ARJ Jan. ’09, p.63
ARJ Sep. ’07, p.51
ARJ Mar. ’07, p.63
ARJ Mar. ’06, p.17
ARJ Mar. ’06, p.21
ARJ Mar. ’06, p.39
ARJ Mar. ’06, p.49
ARJ Mar. ’06, p.64
ARJ May ’04, p.17
ARJ Mar. ’03, p.27
ARJ Mar. ’03, p.40
ARJ Mar. ’03, p.43
ARJ Mar. ’03, p.44
ARJ May ’02, p.27
ARJ May ’02, p.51
ARJ May ’02, p.59
ARJ Mar. ’02, p.41
ARJ Mar. ’02, p.64
ARJ Jan. ’02, p.72
ARJ July ’00, p.5
ARJ Jan. ’00, p.45
ARJ Jan. ’00, p.51
ARJ Nov. ’97, p.16
ARJ Jan. ’97, p.15
ARJ Jan. ’97, p.21
ARJ Jan. ’97, p.31
ARJ Jan. ’97, p.31
ARJ Jan. ’97, p.35
ARJ Jan. ’97, p.39
ARJ Jan. ’96, p.78
ARJ Sep.’95, p.64
ARJ May ’93, p.26
ARJ Nov. ’92, p.30
ARJ Mar. ’92, p.30
ARJ Jan. ’92, p.3
ARJ Jan. ’92, p.11
ARJ Mar. ’91, p.48
ARJ May ’90, p.17
ARJ May ’90, p.24
ARJ Nov. ’89, p.22
AIQ #32, p.12 N
AIQ #27, p.13 N
AIQ #27, p.14 N
AIQ #26, p.15 N
AIQ #26, p.15 N
AIQ #21, p.12 N
AIQ #21, p.13 N
AIQ #17, p.11 N
AIQ #16, p.11 N
AIQ #15, p.13 N
AIQ #14, p.11 N
AIQ #13, p.9 N
AIQ #11, p.10 N
AIQ #11, p.12 N
AIQ #11, p.14 N
AIQ #10, p.13 N
AIQ #9, p.9 N
AIQ #8, p.13 N
AIQ #8, p.15 N
AIQ #7, p.12 N
AIQ #6, p.11 N
AIQ #6, p.13 N
AIQ #5, p.8 N
WEIGHT SHIFT
Limit lateral load factor
Discussion of
ARJ Sep.’91, p.24
Daily, p.117
WHEELS/RIMS
Multi-piece explosion
Police Probe Mitsubishi
AIQ #52, p.30
AIQ #32, p.1
Breaking off heavy trucks
Multi-piece explosion
Falling off H2s?
NHTSA warning multi-piece
Rim design & defects
Servicing wheel rims
Design Defects
Manufacturing Defects
ARJ Sep. ’07, p.55
ARJ Nov. '06, 31
ARJ Sep. ’06, p.58
ARJ Jan. ’90, p.27
Limpert, p.116
AIQ #19, p.11 N
Peters II, p.182
Peters II, p.194
WHIPLASH
See INJURIES, LOW SPEED COLLISIONS,
CRASH TESTS-LOW SPEED
WINDOWS
Anti-pinch protection
Anti-pinch protection
See also VISIBILITY
ARJ July ’02, p.3
AIQ #26, p.2
WITNESSES
Credibility of eyewitnesses
ARJ Mar. ’01, p.59
WORK ZONES
Roboflagger
Police cameras
Protective device
Fatality case study
Mobile protection device
Portable speed bumps
Safety clearinghouse
Teens taught safety rules
I-74 danger
Public awareness
European practices
Best practices guidebook
Training expanded
NTSB recommendations
Crash characteristics at
Enforcement pullout areas
Traffic contol devises
Lane closure warning lights
Night traffic control
Evaluation of barricades
AIQ #50, p.48
AIQ #43, p.5
AIQ #43, p.15
AIQ #42, p.38
AIQ #41, p.15
AIQ #27, p.4
AIQ #16, p.26
ARJ Nov. ’03, p.15
ARJ Nov.’00, p.14
ARJ Mar. ’00, p.15
ARJ Jan. ’97, p.64
ARJ Nov. ’92, p.5
AIQ #32, p.12 N
AIQ #30, p.14 N
AIQ #26, p.11 N
AIQ #26, p.13 N
AIQ #22, p.10 N
AIQ #18, p.12 N
YAW MARKS
Describing to jury
AIQ #17, p.38
How to build jig
ARJ Nov. ’92, p.20
Illustrations of
ARJ Nov. ’91, p.28
Use of jig in evaluations
ARJ Mar. ’90, p.12
See also CRITICAL SPEED FORMULA
#
#
#
TOYOTA LAWSUITS Cont'd from p. 1
market conditions change and the
values of Toyotas don't drop.
Toyota, in its reaction, did
not treat the ruling as a defeat.
Rather, the automaker sees that it
further places the burden of proof
on plaintiff attorneys.
“Today's hearing did not
address the merits of plaintiffs allegations and did not consider any
evidence,” the automaker said in a
statement. “The court requires a
basic assumption that the plaintiffs'
allegations are true, even though
they are unproven. The burden is
now squarely on plaintiffs' counsel
to prove their allegations, and
Toyota is confident that no such
proof exists.”
Toyota's statement also said
that the entirety of the plaintiffs'
case rests on the theory of a defect
in their vehicles' electronic throttle
control system, something that has
yet to be proven despite months of
investigations.
- Bloomberg News Service
60
Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation
(Required by 39 USC 3685)
1. Publication Title
2. Publication Number
4. Issue Frequency
3. Filing Date
1057-8153
5. Number of Issues Published Annually
BIMONTHLY
10/1/10
6. Annual Subscription Price
SIX
7. Complete Mailing Address of Known Office of Publication (Not printer) (Street, city, county, state, and ZIP+4)
3004 CHARLETON COURT, WALDORF, MD 20602-2527
$49.00 per year
Contact Person
VICTOR CRAIG
Telephone
301/843-1371
8. Complete Mailing Address of Headquarters or General Business Office of Publisher (Not printer)
3004 CHARLETON COURT, WALDORF, MD 20602-2527
9. Full Names and Complete Mailing Addresses of Publisher, Editor, and Managing Editor (Do not leave blank)
Publisher (Name and complete mailing address)
VICTOR THOMAS CRAIG, 3004 CHARLETON COURT, WALDORF, MD 20602-2527
Editor (Name and complete mailing address)
Managing Editor (Name and complete mailing address)
10. Owner (Do not leave blank. If the publication is owned by a corporation, give the name and address of the corporation immediately followed by the
names and addresses of all stockholders owning or holding 1 percent or more of the total amount of stock. If not owned by a corporation, give the
names and addresses of the individual owners. If owned by a partnership or other unincorporated firm, give its name and address as well as those of
each individual owner. If the publication is published by a nonprofit organization, give its name and address.)
Full Name
Complete Mailing Address
VICTOR THOMAS CRAIG
20602
3004 CHARLETON CT, WALDORF, MD
11. Known Bondholders, Mortgagees, and Other Security Holders Owning or
Holding 1 Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages, or
Other Securities. If none, check box --------------------------------------------------->
x
Full Name
Complete Mailing Address
12. Tax Status (For completion by nonprofit organizations authorized to mail at nonprofit rates) (Check one)
The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt status for federal income tax purposes:
x Has Not Changed During Preceding 12 Months

Has Changed During Preceding 12 Months (Publisher must submit explanation of change with this statement)
61
13. Publication Title
14. Issue Date for Circulation Data Below
15.
Extent and Nature of Circulation
Throughout U.S. and world
a. Total Number of Copies (Net press run)
(1) Paid/Requested Outside-County Mail Subscriptions Stated on
Form 3541. (Include advertiser’s proof, & exchange copies)
(2) Paid In-County Subscriptions Stated on Form 3541
b. Paid and/or
(Include advertiser’s proof and exchange copies)
Requested
Circulation
(3) Sales Through Dealers and Carriers, Street Vendors,
Counter Sales, and Other Non-USPS Paid Distribution
(4) Other Classes Mailed Through the USPS
c. Total Paid and/or Requested Circulation
[Sum of 15b. (1), (2),(3),and (4)]
d. Free
Distribution
by Mail
(Samples,
complimentary,
and other free)
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010
Avg. No. Copies Each Issue
During Preceding 12 Months
No. Copies of Single Issue
Published Nearest to Filing Date
1847
1650
1323
1313
0
0
0
0
247
165
1570
1481
(1)
Outside-County as Stated on Form 3541
0
0
(2)
In-County as Stated on Form 3541
0
0
(3)
Other Classes Mailed Through the USPS
105
0
0
0
105
0
1675
1481
172
169
1847
1650
93.7%
100.0%
e. Free Distribution Outside the Mail
(Carriers or other means)
f. Total Free Distribution (Sum of 15d and 15e)
g. Total Distribution (Sum of 15c and 15f)
h. Copies not Distributed
i. Total (Sum of 15g. and h.)
j. Percent Paid and/or Requested Circulation
(15c. divided by 15g. times 100)
16. Publication of Statement of Ownership
x Publication required. Will be printed in the _NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2010_ issue of this publication.

Publication not required.
17. Signature and Title of Editor, Publisher, Business Manager, or Owner
Date
VICTOR THOMAS CRAIG
10/1/10
I certify that all information furnished on this form is true and complete. I understand that anyone who furnishes false or misleading information on this form
or who omits material or information requested on the form may be subject to criminal sanctions (including fines and imprisonment) and/or civil sanctions
(including civil penalties).
LAHOOD TARGETS FORD’S SYNC AD FOR DISTRACTED DRIVING
In his bid to get state governments and
local police to enforce laws barring drivers from
texting behind the wheel and using phone devices, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood
has started to do some policing on his own.
The former Illinois congressman was
working out recently in the House of Representatives gym, where he still has a pass, and saw a
new Ford ad promoting its Sync system for
hands-free calling and navigation. The ad fea-
tured a 20-something girl bragging on the Sync
system as she drove down the road, looking out
every window but the front one. After his workout, LaHood called Ford CEO Alan Mulally to
complain. "He thought it was promoting distracted driving," says a LaHood aide.
It worked. A few days later, Ford called
LaHood's chief of staff to say it was taking the ad
off the air. A Ford spokeswoman told Whispers:
"We didn't take it down totally. We modified it
to address a concern he expressed."
That was enough. "I think it's safe to say
that the secretary really appreciated Mulally
being responsive on this," says LaHood's spokeswoman.
But LaHood's not totally satisfied. He
tells us that he'd still like the Sync system
removed from cars.
- US News and World Report
62
TEST YOUR SKILL SOLUTIONS
Problem One
First we must convert the speeds of the vehicles from miles per hour to velocities feet
per second. The truck was travelling 56 mph and the car was travelling 71 mph.
Velocity of the truck:
VT = 56*1.467 = 82.1 ft/sec
Velocity of the car:
VC = 71*1.467 = 104.2 ft/sec
The closing velocity is the sum of the two vehicle velocities:
V = VT + VC = 82.1 + 104.2 = 186.3 ft/sec
The time required to cover the 950 foot distance is the distance divided by the closing
velocity:
f1
d2
f2
dS
fS
=
=
=
=
=
One-wheel skid drag factor = 0.35
Two-wheel skid distance = 21 feet
Two-wheel skid drag factor = 0.80
Side slide distance = 128 feet
Side slide drag factor = 0.53
The speed of V-1 at the start of precrash braking:
________________________
S
=
\/30*d1*f1 + 30*d2*f2 + 30*dS*fS
_____________________________
S = \/30*76*.35 + 30*21*.80 + 30*128*.53
______________
_____
S = \/798 + 504 + 2035 = \/3337
S = 57.77 or 58 mph [93 kph]
t = d / V = 950 / 186.3 = 5.1 seconds
Problem Five
Problem Two
To calculate the average, we ultimately need to utilize the equation that gives the
relation between acceleration, initial velocity and distance.
d = dO + VO*t + 0.5*a*t2
Where:
d = Total distance = 30 feet
dO = Starting point = 0 feet
VO = Initial velocity = 0 feet/sec
a = acceleration rate, ft/sec/sec
t = time
The variables:
S = Speed of vehicle at takeoff
d = Horizontal flight distance = 75 feet
H = Height change = 0 feet
m = Takeoff slope = +7% = +7/100 = +.07 (upward)
To find speed at takeoff, we use the free fall formula:
S
2.74 * d =
=
/(m*d - H)
a = 0.12 * g = 0.12 * 32.2 = 3.86 ft/sec/sec
= 2.74*75
\/(5.25 - 0)
\
____
205 / \/(5.25) = 205 / 2.3
S =
First we convert acceration from g's to ft/sec/sec:
2.74 * 75
/(.07*75 - 0)
\
S = 89.3 or 89 mph [144 kph]
Substituting and solving to find elasped time:
30 = 0 + 0*t + 0.5*3.86*t2
30 = 1.93*t2
Problem Six
15.54 = t2
3.94 sec = t
Velocity at the end of the test can be estimated by multiplying the acceleration by the
time elapsed:
Solution of this problem has two main steps. We will ultimately utilize the critical
speed to sideslip equation (banked surface). First we must determine the radius of
curvature of the tire mark used to estimate the radius of curvature of the center of
mass. The equation:
V = a * t = 3.86 * 3.94 = 15.2 ft/sec
R
=
Converting to miles per hour:
S = V/1.467 = 15.2/1.467 = 10.37 or 10 mph [17 kph]
Where:
C2
+ mO
8*mO
2
R = Radius of curvature, feet
C = Chord length = 60 feet
mO = Middle ordinate length, feet = 135" / 12 = 1.08 feet
Substituting and solving:
Problem Three
First we must convert the speed of the auto from miles per hour to velocity in feet per
second. The car was traveling 42 mph.
Velocity of the car:
VC = 42*1.467 = 61.6 ft/sec
The time required for the bus to accelerate to the point of impact was determined to
be 3.94 seconds in Problem 2. To get distance back from POI we simply multiply the
velocity by the timeframe.
d = V * t = 61.6 * 3.94 = 243 feet [74 m]
Problem Four
R
S = Speed of motorcycle at start of precrash skid
d1 = One-wheel skid distance = 76 feet
602
8*1.08
+ 1.08
2
= 417 ft.
We now plug the radius of curvature, lateral friction coefficient and cross slope into
the critical speed to sideslip formula. The equation:
_________
S = \/15*R*(f+m)
\/(1 - f*m)
Where:
S = Speed in miles per hour
f = Lateral friction coefficient = .82
R = Radius of curvature = 417 ft
m = cross slope = 0% = 0/100 = 0
Substituting and solving:
_____________
S =
We have a combined speed problem on our hands. The variables:
=
\
/15*417*(.82+0)
\/(1 - .82*0)
____
=
\
/5129
\/1.00
S = 71.61 / 1 = 71.61 or 72 mph [115 kph]
63
Problem Seven
This is a simple application of the in-line (one dimensional) conservation of
momentum formula. The variables:
S1 = Speed of V-1 at impact
S2 = Speed of V-2 at impact = 0 mph
s1 = Speed of V-1 after impact
s2 = Speed of V-2 after impact
d1 = V-1 post impact skid distance = 29 feet
d2 = V-2 post impact skid distance = 40 feet
f 1 = Drag factor of V-1 = 0.52
f 2 = Drag factor of V-2 = 0.40
W 1 = Weight of V-1 = 4678 lb.
W 2 = Weight of V-2 = 4025 lb.
The weight ratio:
If W 1 = 1,
W 2 = 4025 / 4678 = 0.860
To find speeds after impact, we use the post impact skid distance and the basic skid
formula. For Vehicle One:
______
________
s1 = \/30*d1*f1 = \/30*29*.52 = 21.3 mph
Speed after impact of Vehicle Two:
______
s2 = \/30*d2*f2 =
________
\
/30*40*.40
= 21.9 mph
The conservation of momentum formula:
S1*W1 + S2*W2 = s1*W1 + s2*W2
S1*1 + 0*0.860 = 21.3*1 + 21.9*0.860
S1 = 21.3 + 18.8
S1 = 40.1 or 40 mph [65 kph]
Problem Eight
Solution of this problem can be done in two steps. We will first calculate equivalent
barrier speed for the damage on each vehicle. We will then use the dissipation of
energy equation to solve for V-1's impact speed. Besides the data from the previous,
we will use the following variables:
CAVG1 = Average crush depth to V-1 front = 7.5 inches
CAVG2 = Average crush depth to V-2 rear = 15 inches
ebs 1 = Equivalent barrier speed of V-1
ebs 2 = Equivalent barrier speed of V-2
Equivalent barrier speed of V-1:
ebs 1 = 1.4 * CAVG1 + 7 = 1.4*7.5 + 7 = 17.5
Equivalent barrier speed of V-2:
ebs 2 = 1.15 * CAVG2 + 5 = 1.15*15 + 5 = 22.3
Substituting and solving the dissipation of energy equation:
S12*W1 + S22*W2 = s12*W1 + s22*W2 + ebs12*W1 + ebs22*W2
S12*1 + 02*0.860 = 21.32*1 + 21.92*0.860 + 17.52*1 + 22.32*0.860
S12 = 453 + 412 + 306 + 428 = 1599
____
S1 = \/1599 = 39.99 or 40 mph [64 kph]
#
#
#
TOYOTA WANTS UNINTENDED ACCELERATION LAWSUITS THROWN OUT
Citing a lack of an "actual defect" in its vehicles, Toyota [has] asked
a federal court to dismiss lawsuits seeking damages for economic losses
caused by the company's recall of millions of cars to fix problems that may
cause them to accelerate uncontrollably.
In a filing with the U.S. District Court of Southern California,
Toyota Motor (TM) said the multi-party legal action should be thrown out
because plaintiffs have never identified any defect in Toyota's electronic
throttle control system (ETCS). Further, many of those suing the automaker haven't claimed to have experienced any episode of unintended
acceleration, Toyota said in a statement.
"Toyota looks forward to the time when plaintiffs will finally be
compelled to specify exactly what is defective in Toyota's Electronic
Throttle Control System," said Cari K. Dawson, an attorney for Toyota in
the statement. "More than a year after filing their first complaint, plaintiffs
have not identified a defect and are grasping at straws to make their case."
The plaintiffs' lawsuit, should it be allowed to go forward, would
permit virtually all owners of Toyota vehicles that have ETCS to sign on
to the lawsuit, Toyota said.
"The suggestion that at some undisclosed time in the future, when these
plaintiffs might attempt to sell their vehicles, they will suffer some loss legally
traceable to a defect that they have never experienced is sheer speculation," the
company said in its court filing, Bloomberg News reported.
The lawsuit, along with hundreds of others, was filed in the wake
of Toyota's recall of about 8 million Toyota and Lexus vehicles to make
repairs to prevent unintended acceleration. The ongoing action involves
two separate recall campaigns: one to repair sticking accelerators, and
another to shave down gas pedals to prevent them from getting hung up on
heavy rubber floor mats.
The recalls were the subject of congressional hearings earlier this
year and led to a record $16.4 million fine. Toyota has repeatedly denied
that there is any other source of the problem, although the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration has commissioned studies to see if
the problem may be caused by electronic interference.
Possible unintended acceleration problems in Toyota vehicles
came to the public's attention in September 2009, after a veteran California
Highway Patrol officer and three members of his family were killed in a
tragic, fiery crash. The loaned Lexus ES 350 sedan they were riding in
began accelerating uncontrollably down a San Diego area highway despite
the officer's repeated efforts to stop the vehicle.
The vehicle reached speeds of up to 120 mph before crashing and
bursting into flames. Surviving family members sued Toyota, and the
matter was settled out of court about six weeks ago. Details of the
settlement weren't disclosed.
Toyota said its court filing addresses claims made in the plaintiffs'
original amended complaint. The automaker is expected to file another
response to plaintiffs' most recent amended complaint.
In the modified lawsuit, those suing the company say the automaker
failed to report incidents of unintended acceleration experienced by employees of Toyota dealerships. Plaintiffs also allege that Toyota bought
back vehicles from owners who complained of sudden acceleration in
exchange for confidentiality agreements barring them from discussing the
matter.
Though the recalls involving unintended acceleration are Toyota's
largest this year, they aren't the only safety issues Toyota has had to address.
Among others, in February the automaker recalled about 437,000 of its popular
Prius hybrid vehicles to repair anti-lock braking systems in 2010 models. Most
recently, Toyota recalled some 1.5 million cars and SUVs, including 740,000
in the U.S. to repair master cylinders that may leak brake fluid.
- DailyFinance
Editor's note: See the update to this report beginning on page 1.
64
CMFs - Cont'd from p. 16
users with an indication of the general reliability
of the CMF, one of the best ways to ensure
CMFs used by practitioners match the local
conditions as closely as possible is for State and
local agencies to develop CMFs using local
data.
Coordinating With AASHTO's Highway
Safety Manual
Coordination with the Highway Safety
Manual was an essential factor in development
of the CMF Clearinghouse. In fact, to be consistent with the manual, the predominant term in
the clearinghouse is "crash modification factor"
rather than "crash reduction factor," which
FHWA used in previous related documents.
The CMFs in the manual meet strict
inclusion criteria, as described in Transportation Research Circular E-C142 Methodology
for the Development and Inclusion of Crash
Modification Factors in the First Edition of the
Highway Safety Manual, whereas FHWA's clearinghouse provides a comprehensive list of all
available CMFs. To help users quickly determine whether a CMF is included in the Highway
Safety Manual, the clearinghouse enables them
to search for CMFs in the manual. High-quality
CMFs do not exist for every countermeasure,
and, therefore, there are many countermeasures
for which CMFs do not appear in the Highway
Safety Manual. In addition, there are many CMFs
that were documented after the Highway Safety
Manual was developed.
"The review process for the CMF Clearinghouse has the added benefit of setting the
stage for the next edition of the Highway Safety
Manual," says Priscilla Tobias, State safety engineer with the Illinois Department of Transportation and chairperson of the AASHTO Subcommittee on Highway Safety Management's
Technical Safety Publication Oversight and
Coordination Task Force. "Highway Safety
Manual reviewers will be able to use the information compiled for the clearinghouse to review
CMFs and determine whether they meet the
manual's inclusion criteria."
The Clearinghouse at Work
Launched in December 2009, the clearinghouse hosted more than 6,300 visits in just its
first 8 months. Traffic engineers and other professionals now use the clearinghouse to answer
basic questions they face every day, such as,
"What is the best safety countermeasure to use?"
To find applicable CMFs, users can conduct
quick keyword searches from the home page or
narrow their queries by countermeasure, crash
type, crash severity, and roadway type. The
Web site also has an advanced search feature
that enables users to search by more detailed
parameters, such as intersection type, traffic
control, area type, and more.
State DOTs are promoting the clearing-
house to transportation officials who are conducting benefit-cost analyses. The Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT), for example, uses the clearinghouse as a resource for
local governments that are applying for sitespecific safety funding through the State's Traffic Safety Improvement Program. When seeking grants for either new construction or improvement of traffic safety and operations at a
specific site or corridor with a crash history,
applicants must include benefit-cost analyses.
Using worksheets provided by Iowa DOT, local
transportation officials calculate the benefitcost ratio for each potential improvement. Iowa
DOT directs applicants to the CMF Clearinghouse as a starting point for these analyses and
instructs them to use the CRFs there. "We especially like that in most cases there are factors that
are specific to certain crash types and severities," says Tim Simodynes, a safety engineer
with Iowa DOT.
The Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) also is using the clearinghouse to provide guidance on benefit-cost
analyses. With the complete list of CMFs included in the clearinghouse as a starting point,
WSDOT is developing a tailored list of CMFs
approved for use by the department and will
distribute that list to potential applicants for
local safety funding.
"Providing our agency with CMFs from
the clearinghouse will enable WSDOT to better
scope and prioritize our projects," says Matt
Neeley, intelligent transportation systems research and planning engineer with WSDOT. "In
the past, we haven't had as much information as
the clearinghouse provides."
Educational Value
Another purpose of the clearinghouse is
to educate transportation professionals about
the application of CMFs. The Web site includes
an overview of CMFs and a glossary of related
terms. Users can read a list of frequently asked
questions that address issues such as the difference between CMFs and CRFs, and how to
apply multiple CMFs at one location. The site
also includes a comprehensive resources section
with links to CMF-related publications, countermeasure selection tools, and how to sign up
for the CMF Update, the clearinghouse's enewsletter.
The clearinghouse also directs users to
two Web-based training courses dealing with
CRFs available through the National Highway
Institute (NHI): Application of Crash Reduction
Factors (FHWA-NHI-380093) and Science of
Crash Reduction Factors (FHWA-NHI-380094).
The former provides hands-on experience with
safety diagnosis and application of CRFs to
compare the effectiveness of countermeasures.
According to Kathy DesRoches, director of workforce development at Manchester
Community College, New Hampshire hosted a
session of the course Application of Crash Re-
duction Factors in March 2009 as a prerequisite for
individuals planning to attend a road safety audit
(RSA) course. "By taking the CRF course first,"
DesRoches says, "participants were better equipped
to conduct an RSA because they were more informed about low-cost countermeasures and linking crash patterns with specific countermeasures."
Moving Forward
Now that the clearinghouse is up and
running, FHWA will continue to update the
database with new CMFs as they become available. FHWA invites users to submit feedback
regarding the site's design and content. Past
feedback has resulted in improvements to the
search mechanism, better explanations of site
items, and a clearer layout.
In addition, FHWA encourages transportation professionals to make efforts to develop CMFs within their own agencies by conducting safety evaluation studies using data from
their jurisdictions. These evaluation studies can
be submitted for possible inclusion in the clearinghouse. By adding to the library of documented CMFs, practitioners can share their own
research with other States and assist their colleagues in making data-driven decisions that can
help save lives.
For more information, contact Katy Jones
at 919-843-7007 or [email protected], Karen
Yunk at 609-637-4207 or [email protected],
or Daniel Carter at 919-962-8720 or
[email protected]. To sign up for news
about the CMF Clearinghouse, please visit
www.CMFClearinghouse.org/signup.
This article appeared in the November/
December 2010 issue of Public Roads and have
been abridged.
CHRYSLER TO RECALL
VEHICLES FOR
POSSIBLE FIRE
Chrysler Group LLC is recalling 26,397
vehicles, saying a malfunction with the power
steering pressure hose may cause steering fluid
to leak over a hot engine and cause a fire.
The affected vehicles include the 2011
Dodge Ram, the 2010 Chrysler Sebring, Chrysler
300, Dodge Charger, Dodge Avenger, Dodge
Challenger and Dodge Journey, according to a
letter dated October 18 posted on the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration website.
A spokesman for Chrysler, the U.S. automaker controlled by Fiat SpA, did not immediately comment. The company said in the letter
that it was not aware of any injuries or accidents
related to this issue.
Chrysler notified U.S. safety regulators
of the problem earlier this month. The supplier
of the hose is YH America South Carolina LLC.
- Reuters