May - June 2006 - Accident Reconstruction Newsletter

Welcome to the May/June 2006 edition of the Accident Reconstruction Newsletter.

The ARC Network just finished up the 5th Annual ARC-CSI Crash Conference in Las Vegas. It was our biggest conference to date. We conducted 10 instrumented crash tests including a Toyota 4Runner rollover, two motorcycle-to-car crashes, a school bus crash, multiple motor home crashes, car-to-car crashes, fire truck-to-car crashes and a split-car crash (2 in, 3 out).

Then it was back to the hotel for 3 days of presentations from various experts around the world. This year we had a record attendance of over 200 people which included attendance from France, Australia, Austria, Bahamas and even Malta! Next year's ARC-CSI Crash Conference is already scheduled for June 4-7, 2007 and will be held at the same location.

All the major news networks showed up at the crash test facility and the crashes aired on all major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and CNN). The links for a couple of the news clips can be found at http://www.crashconferences.com/. We also had two film crews from the Discovery Channel filming for two different shows.

At the ARC-CSI Crash Conference we also introduced the newest publication for crash research called COLLISION. All of the 2006 ARC-CSI conference proceedings and crash data will be published in the next issue (shipping this Fall) and will also include the ARC-CSI Crash Conference DVD (video, pictures, CDR data, drawings, etc). The premier issue of COLLISION shipped on Friday June 16, 2006. For more information regarding this publication please visit Collision Publishing.

Now that we have the 2006 ARC-CSI Crash Conference behind us, it is now time to focus on the next conference - 2007 Crash Data Retrieval User's Conference. This is an annual comprehensive conference to publish Crash Data Retrieval System (CDR) related information in the form of papers, data compendium and the like. It covers legal issues, legislation, user applications, and future developments. Last year the conference sold out and was one of our best evaluated conferences ever. This year, we are hosting the conference at the Sheraton Hotel in Houston, Texas on January 29-30, 2007. There will also be a CSI "Train the Trainer" course offered immediately following the CDR Conference. Information will be made available at: www.crashconferences.com.

The ARC Network is approaching its eighth year of providing information online. For those who have been with us for the eight years, you have seen the ARC Network grow from a fledgling web site about accident reconstruction to the largest portal web site for accident reconstruction, traffic accident investigation and automotive safety. The ARC Network isn't just a web site anymore. Although our top priority is continually updating the ARC Network web site with new and important information, the ARC Network is also committed to hosting two of the most "important" conferences. One being the ARC-CSI Crash Conference and the other being the Crash Data Retrieval User's Conference. In addition to the web site and conferences, the ARC Network also works closely with Vetronix Corporation to provide information and special offers relating to the Crash Data Retrieval System. Finally, the ARC Network is now publishing a full color comprehensive magazine dedicated to crash research. The publication is called "Collision: The International Compendium for Crash Research".

Thank you for making the ARC Network the number one organization and web site for accident reconstruction and traffic investigation.

Sincerely,

Scott Baker
President
The ARC Network

• Movement of Unrestrained Occupants in Motor Vehicle Crashes Involving Vehicle Rotation
• Electronic Stability Control (ESC)
• Electronic Stability Control: Report from IIHS
• Collision Magazine: A new international publication for crash research.
• Reconstructionists Play Pivotal Role As They Aid Officers At Remote Crash Scenes
• Race and Ethnicity in Fatal Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes 1999 - 2004
• ARC Network Conferences and Training
• Q & A: Rollover and Roof Crush
• Collision Reconstruction Book Celebrates One Year Anniversary
• New 2006 Rollover Rankings Show Improvement
• Advertising in the ARC Network
• Crash Data Retrieval
• FOR SALE: MACINNIS ENGINEERING ASSC. 5th WHEEL
• ARC Network New Members
• Events, Conferences and Seminars
• Accident Reconstruction News Articles

Movement of Unrestrained Occupants in Motor Vehicle Crashes Involving Vehicle Rotation
By: Larry Sparling ACTAR #1420

The movement of occupants in motor vehicle crashes can be a critical area of a thorough investigation or reconstruction. Being able to establish who was the driver of a vehicle can sometimes be very difficult in cases when one occupant is ejected from the vehicle and another occupant remains in the vehicle.

If a less than thorough analysis is done, or if this analysis is done by someone without an understanding of the movement that takes place during a crash, it would be relatively easy to identify the wrong person as the driver of a vehicle involved in a crash.

To understand what occupant movement takes place during a crash in which the vehicle occupants are unrestrained we must first understand Newton’s First Law: The Law of Inertia. To simplify this law into easily understood terms: Objects will continue to be at rest, or move in a straight line at a constant velocity, unless they are acted upon by an outside force.

In a crash scenario where the center mass of the vehicle is traveling in line with a stationary object struck by the vehicle there will be little or no rotation and the unrestrained occupants will continue to travel in the same direction at the same velocity that they were traveling prior to the crash.

In Figure 1 at the right we see a vehicle striking a tree in what is commonly referred to as a “head on” orientation. In this example, the center mass of the vehicle is in line with the tree and, assuming that the tree does not break, the vehicle will stop without rotating. The unrestrained occupants will continue to travel in the same direction at the same velocity that they were originally traveling prior to the crash until they are acted upon by an outside force such as striking the interior parts of the vehicle.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

<< Back to Index

Electronic Stability Control

Electronic Stability Control (ESC) is the generic term for systems designed to improve a vehicle's handling, particularly at the limits where the driver might lose control of the vehicle.

Robert Bosch GmbH were the first to deploy an ESC system, called Elektronisches Stabilitätsprogramm (ESP®) that was used first by Mercedes-Benz and BMW in 1995. It was then introduced to the mass market by Continental Automotive Systems under the broader name of Electronic Stability Control, which is now the more common term recognized by the Society of Automotive Engineers, although individual motor manufactures use a range of different marketing names (see below).

Operation
ESC compares the driver's intended direction in steering and braking inputs, to the vehicle's response, via lateral acceleration, rotation (yaw) and individual wheel speeds. ESC then brakes individual front or rear wheels and/or reduces excess engine power as needed to help correct understeer (plowing) or oversteer (fishtailing). ESC also integrates all-speed traction control, which senses drive-wheel slip under acceleration and individually brakes the slipping wheel or wheels, and/or reduces excess engine power, until control is regained. ESC cannot override a car's physical limits. If a driver pushes the possibilities of the car's chassis and ESC too far, ESC cannot prevent a crash. It is a tool to help the driver maintain control.

ESC combines anti-lock brakes, traction control and yaw control (yaw is spin around a vertical axis). To grasp how it works, think of steering a canoe. If you want the canoe to turn or rotate to the right, you plant the paddle in the water on the right to provide a braking moment on the right side. The canoe pivots or rotates to the right. ESC fundamentally does the same to assist the driver.

Effectiveness
Numerous international studies have confirmed the effectiveness of ESC in helping the driver maintain control of the car, help save lives and reduce the severity of crashes. In the fall of 2004 in the U.S., the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration confirmed the international studies, releasing results of a field study in the U.S. of ESC effectiveness. NHTSA concluded that ESC reduces crashes by 35%. The prestigious Insurance Institute for Highway Safety later issued their own study that concluded the widespread application of ESC could save 7,000 lives a year. That makes ESC the greatest safety equipment development since seat belts, according to some experts. However, some people contend (backed up by the theory of risk compensation) that the perception of safety conferred by the ESC will encourage more dangerous driving, as seems to be the case with seat belts.

Criticism
Some driving enthusiasts, most publicly motoring journalists from enthusiast magazines, object to some of the implementations of ESC. They contend that by making it impossible to explore the dynamic behavior of their cars, overzealous ESC systems spoil much of the fun of driving. Consequently, some manufacturers allow drivers to disable ESC systems, or provide a setting that allows greater levels of under or oversteer before the ESC intervenes. Enthusiasts have also begun to modify ESC systems to suit their preferred driving styles [1].

It has also been argued that ESC is being used as a "catch all" for poorly designed cars, whereby the basic mechanical handling of a car is unstable and ESC is used to fix the problem.

Another point of critique is that in the case of very dangerous drivers, the car will be able to be pushed further (and faster) before the limits of the vehicle and ESC are reached, meaning that should the vehicle become "out of control" this will happen at higher speeds, leading to more severe crashes.

Product Names
Vehicle manufacturers use electronic stability control systems under different marketing names:

Acura: Vehicle Stability Assist (VSA)
Alfa Romeo: Vehicle Dynamic Control (VDC)
Audi: ESP - Electronic Stabilization Program
Buick: StabiliTrak
BMW: Dynamic Stability Control (DSC), including Dynamic Traction Control
Cadillac: All-Speed Traction Control & StabiliTrak
Chevrolet: StabiliTrak (except Corvette - Active Handling)
Chrysler: Electronic Stability Program (ESP)
Dodge: Electronic Stability Program (ESP)
DaimlerChrysler: Electronic Stability Program (ESP)
Fiat: Electronic Stability Program (ESP) and Vehicle Dynamic Control (VDC)
Ferrari: Controllo Stabilita (CST)
Ford: AdvanceTrac and Interactive Vehicle Dynamics (IVD)
GM: StabiliTrak
Hyundai: Electronic Stability Program
Honda: Electronic Stability Control (ESC) and Vehicle Stability Assist (VSA)
Holden: Electronic Stability Program (ESP)
Infiniti: Vehicle Dynamic Control (VDC)
Jaguar: Dynamic Stability Control (DSC)
Jeep: Electronic Stability Program (ESP)
Kia: Electronic Stability Program (ESP)
Land Rover: Dynamic Stability Control (DSC)
Lexus: Vehicle Dynamics Integrated Management (VDIM) with Vehicle Stability Control (VSC) and Traction Control (TRAC) systems
Lincoln: AdvanceTrak
Maserati: Maserati Stability Program (MSP)
Mazda: Dynamic Stability Control
Mercedes: Electronic Stability Program (ESP)
Mercury: AdvanceTrak
MINI Cooper: Dynamic Stability Control
Mitsubishi: Active Skid and Traction Control MULTIMODE
Nissan: Vehicle Dynamic Control (VDC)
Oldsmobile: Precision Control System (PCS)
Opel: Electronic Stability Program (ESP)
Peugeot: Electronic Stability Program (ESP)
Pontiac: StabiliTrak
Porsche: Porsche Stability Management (PSM)
Renault: Electronic Stability Program (ESP)
Rover: Dynamic Stability Control (DSC)
Saab: Electronic Stability Program
Saturn: StabiliTrak
SEAT: Electronic Stability Program (ESP)
Skoda: Electronic Stability Program (ESP)
Subaru: Vehicle Dynamics Control Systems (VDCS)
Suzuki: Vehicle Stability Control (VSC)
Toyota: Vehicle Dynamics Integrated Management (VDIM) with Vehicle Stability Control (VSC)
Vauxhall: Electronic Stability Program (ESP)
Volvo: Dynamic Stability and Traction Control (DSTC)
VW: Electronic Stability Program (ESP)

Future
Electronic Stability Control forms the foundation for new advances on vehicle equipment that will save additional lives and give the driver still more control over the vehicle. The computing power of ESC facilitates the networking of active and passive safety systems on the car, creating the opportunity to address still more causes of crashes.

In the US, the NHTSA is currently evaluating whether ESC should be mandatory on all passenger vehicles, due to the effectiveness noted above.

<< Back to Index

Collision Magazine: The International Compendium for Crash Research

Collision Publishing is pleased to offer a new resource dedicated to providing timely and current research and information on crash research. This is the first publication of its kind, featuring conference proceedings, articles of interest, peer-reviewed papers, crash test data, industry news and research. Included with every issue is a bonus CD containing all papers in electronic PDF format and supporting data. The bonus CDs will include information captured at the annual CDR User's Conference and the ARC-CSI Crash Conference.

This new publication, is dedicated to keeping its subscribers current in crash research.

Reconstructionists Play Pivotal Role As They Aid Officers At Remote Crash Scenes
By BOB GALVIN

Vehicular accidents unfortunately don’t occur in just one locale. They strike every hour, on the hour, in the most populous areas of a state as well as in the remotest. The challenge is that the more remote the accident scene, chances are high that the expertise needed to fully investigate crash scenes will be sparse. Nevertheless, most cases involving a crash usually end up in court, making it essential to examine the crash scene thoroughly and generate a detailed diagram that will present the most likely sequence of events for a jury.

Almost invariably, well trained reconstructionists investigate and document crash scenes, but usually not far from their base of operation. When accidents occur in remote parts of a state, the investigating officer or team may not include a reconstructionist. Since the scene still must be investigated, mapped and diagrammed, these documentation steps can be more challenging.

State patrols across the country tend to encounter this dilemma more than other law enforcement agencies such as police departments and county sheriffs. The more remote a state patrol’s districts, the fewer troopers there are to patrol highways. When a crash occurs, it’s a pretty good bet that the responding trooper will not always have the skill, knowledge, confidence or equipment that a reconstructionist would offer.

For this reason, reconstructionists, particularly those serving with state patrols, are becoming more mobile, making themselves available to respond to crash scenes that may be hours away from their offices. Crash Reconstruction Specialist Duane Meyers, Wisconsin State Patrol—NE Region, for example, notes that troopers often bring forward information on their crash cases, after which he or other reconstruction specialists create a detailed diagram. They also travel to distant crash scenes to assist with investigations, which can involve driving up to five hours.

Guidance, Coordination Brought To Crash Scene

Part of the value which trained reconstructionists bring to a crash investigation is their pure length of service and experience. “They often have more resources available because they’ve purchased equipment beyond what their state has provided,” explains Meyers. “As reconstructionists, we make every effort to get all of the available information,” Meyers continues. “And we’re dedicated to documenting every item that has evidentiary value.”
Since every crash is different, Meyers believes it’s important to consider three basic factors when approaching the investigation: human, environmental and vehicle.

The human element considers at least a one-week history of the driver, what kind of work he was performing, how much work he did, when the work was accomplished, when he slept, as well as any substances that he might have consumed that may have subjected him to impairment behind the wheel.

Environmental factors include roadway design issues (i.e., vertical and horizontal curves), signing, climate or weather conditions, lunar positions of the moon and sun, and pavement conditions.

Finally, mechanical issues such as brakes, suspension, gear position, engine condition and general safety of the vehicle’s systems must be considered.

Meyers views the process of crash scene reconstruction as a team effort, requiring leadership and experience, noting “We’re comprehensive about our data collection.”

Scene Complexity Requires Strong Reconstruction Skills

If you don’t routinely investigate crash scenes, as is the case for many state troopers, just determining the details to document can be overwhelming. “They might not know the best way to tackle a particular problem,” notes Corporal Dave Templeton of the Florida Highway Patrol. For example, Templeton continues, “If you have cars bouncing off of multiple cars, and the investigators are trying to get an accurate representation of the energy involved, this may be a little beyond their training.”

Troopers have the basic skills to investigate a crash scene, yet crash reconstruction is something they don’t deal with every day. Many times they don’t feel that their diagrams can stand up in courtroom, which is why troopers often will consult with reconstructionists about special issues.

Varied Mapping Tools Used

A big advantage that reconstructionists have over troopers who can conduct basic crash scene investigations is that they are techno-savvy. One common tool, of course, is the ubiquitous total station used for plotting key data points at the scene so a diagram can be created. The total station used for years by law enforcement officers and reconstructionists, can map data points for very long distances, and is ideal for large crash scenes. Laser-based speed and measurement instruments represent another frequently used technology that has emerged in recent years. Still another technology recently gaining more acceptance among reconstructionists is photogrammetry, which involves special software used with a digital camera that captures crash scene data points in 2D or 3D, then stores them electronically. There is far-range photogrammetry (with camera distance setting to indefinite), and close-range photogrammetry (with camera distance settings to finite values). Special photogrammetry software, like iWitness by DeChant Consulting Services, of Bellevue, Washington, is used to obtain 3D coordinate data from a series of markers placed at a scene and photographed from different angles. Then, by exporting the data points from iWitness into a diagramming software program, a very detailed and to-scale 3D diagram can be generated.

Scaled, 3D Diagrams, With Animation, Tell Whole Story

Both troopers Meyers and Templeton are steady users of The Crash Zone diagramming software because it is easy to learn and use. The Crash Zone was their choice because it is tailored so well to the reconstructionist’s needs for creating detailed and accurate 3D drawings. For example, the software offers many training movies and tutorials, pre-drawn street and intersection templates, ability to import 3D data points from Laser Technology or other total station systems, and a wide variety of vehicle and crash scene related symbols.

Corporal Templeton and his fellow Florida Highway Patrol reconstructionist team all use computers in their cars. The Crash Zone program is on each computer. “It’s a wonderful tool, and the learning curve is far less than for anything else we’ve used,” notes Templeton. In addition, he said, “I can shoot my scene and show what the grade and elevation of the road is, plus the height difference between two points.”

Whenever a scene involves a major crash with injuries or fatalities, it’s going to be a complex one to investigate. For scenes matching this description, the high-level expertise of a seasoned reconstructionist is essential. That’s how Trooper John Howell with the Nevada State Patrol views it. He is part of a reconstructionist team that works out of the southern command in downtown Las Vegas. Reconstructionists may travel up to 280 miles away three to five times a month to help investigate a complicated crash scene. Whether the scene involves a tourist bus carrying 50 people, or it’s a one-person accident resulting in a pile-on in a construction zone, “Any of these will get our attention,” says Trooper Howell.

When Howell’s crash detail arrives at a crash scene in a rural area, the scene has been stabilized by the troopers who originally responded to the call. From here, the detail takes over the investigation of the crash, mapping and photographing the scene, determining needed evidence points, and even visiting the hospital to visit with survivors.

Roughly 85 percent of crashes in Nevada go to court, while the remaining 15 percent are pled. For the court crash cases, diagrams typically tell the whole story. In addition to creating the diagrams in 3D, Howell notes that animation, which soon will be added to them, will make a huge difference in how the events prompting a crash, along with its aftermath, most likely played out.

“When you’re dealing with a layperson on the jury,” explains Howell, “it’s easy to overwhelm him with facts and figures that he can’t see happening. He doesn’t see the vehicles, or the collision that occurs. When you can actually animate this and bring a scene to life and show the juror literally a moving picture, or a moving simulation of what occurred at the scene, it makes it a lot more intimate and allows him to make much more informed decisions.”

###

Bob Galvin is a Portland, Oregon freelance writer who writes on topics covering technology used by law enforcement to investigate crime and crash scenes.

<< Back to Index

Race and Ethnicity in Fatal Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes 1999 - 2004
NHTSA

BACKGROUND
This report describes the differences among racial and ethnic populations in the frequency of occurrence of characteristics or behaviors associated with fatal motor vehicle crashes. Leading cause of death data1 from 2002, the latest year available, showed that 6.8 percent of deaths from all causes were attributable to motor vehicle traffic crashes for Native Americans and more than 4.7 percent for Hispanics or Latinos. For the non-Hispanic White population, the percentage of those dying from traffic crashes was just below 1.6 percent, and for Black or African Americans and Asians and Pacific Islanders, the percentages were 1.8 percent and 2.5 percent, respectively. The Native American population is comparatively small and does not appear to be growing proportionally. However, the Hispanic-Latino portion of the United States population in the year 2050 is projected to be double that population in 2000, according to projections by the U.S. Census Bureau.

FINDINGS
Drunk driving continues to play a major role in the motor vehicle traffic crash experience across race, ethnic, age and gender divides. Data showed that the percentage of fatally injured drivers who were drinking was highest for Native Americans (57%) and Hispanics or Latinos (47%). This trend appeared to be independent of such socioeconomic influences as education levels or the proportion of female-to-male drivers in the population of drivers killed.

Fatally injured Native American and Hispanic drivers, followed by African American drivers, were less likely to hold valid licenses than White or Asian and Pacific Islander drivers. Moreover, these Native American drivers were more likely to have had prior driving while intoxicated (DWI) convictions and license suspensions, but African American drivers were the most likely to have had speeding convictions and convictions for other moving violations.

For those killed in passenger vehicles, safety belts for children and adults, and safety seats for small children were not used as frequently by those in minority groups when compared with the non-Hispanic White population. More than half of African American, Native American, and Hispanic or Latino children under 5 years of age were not in child safety seats. Asian and Pacific Islander children younger than 4 years of age were more likely to be in child safety seats or belted, and 58 percent of White children were in child safety seats and another 11 percent belted. Among these three groups, fatally injured African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics or Latinos had the lowest rates of safety belt use for those 5 years of age and older. The highest safety belt use rate was for Asians and Pacific Islanders at 48 percent.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

<< Back to Index

Electronic Stability Control
Report from IIHS

ELECTRONIC STABILITY CONTROL
Status Report from IIHS

This technology could prevent nearly one-third of all fatal crashes and reduce the risk of rolling over by as much as 80 percent. The benefits are found in crashes involving one vehicle and more than one.

An extension of anti lock brake technology, electronic stability control (ESC) is designed to help drivers retain control of their vehicles during high-speed maneuvers or on slippery roads. A previous Institute study found significant effects of ESC in reducing fatal single-vehicle crash risk. Using data from an additional year of crashes and a larger set of vehicle models, the researchers have updated the 2004 results, finding that ESC reduces fatal multiple-vehicle crash risk by 32 percent.

This research confirms that ESC reduces the risk of all single-vehicle crashes by more than 40 percent—fatal ones by 56 percent. The researchers estimate that if all vehicles were equipped with ESC, as many as 10,000 fatal crashes could be avoided each year. “

The findings indicate that ESC should be standard on all vehicles,” says Susan Ferguson, Institute senior vice president for research. “Very few safety technologies show this kind of large effect in reducing crash deaths.”

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

<< Back to Index

ARC Network Conferences And Training

The ARC Network is proud to bring you two of the year's top conferences, the ARC-CSI Crash Conference and the CDR User's Group Conference. These two conferences attract international attendees and provide a lasting learning experience for all involved.

ARC-CSI Crash Conference
www.crashconferences.com

The first ARC-CSI Conference began in 2002 at the Bremerton Race Track in Washington State and attracted just under 60 attendees. Since then we have moved the conference to Las Vegas, NV and increased annual attendance to over 170 people.

The ARC-CSI Conference is the annual premier crash conference. At the conference you will witness live crash testing first hand, attend presentations by recognized leaders in their field, leave the conference with crash data in hand including the photos and video of the testing, copies of the presentations for later review and related documents and reference material.

Next Conference: 2007 ARC-CSI Crash Conference. June 4-7, 2007. Las Vegas, NV.

CDR User's Conference
www.crashconferences.com

The ARC Network also hosts the newest conference and training opportunity - the CDR User's Conference. The first conference was held in Dallas, Texas in February 2006. The conference sold out in record time. We are planning to make this an annual conference, taking place around late January/early February.

This conference is a comprehensive conference to publish CDR System related information in the form of papers, data compendium and the like. It covers legal issues, legislation, user applications, and future developments.

Next Conference: 2007 CDR User's Conference. January 29-30, 2007. Houston, TX.

Conference CDs Available Online
If you missed a previous ARC Network conference, you may order a CD copy directly online from our secure web site.
The conference CDs include all the data collected at the conference including video, digital pictures, CDR data, diagrams, presentations, IST files and more.
www.crashconferences.com/products/index.html

<< Back to Index

Q&A: Rollover and roof crush
From IIHS

Rollover crashes

1. Are rollovers a big problem? A vehicle is classified as rolling over if it tips onto its side or roof at any time during a crash. Many rollovers lead to partial or full ejection of occupants from the vehicle, increasing the likelihood of injury or death. So, although rollovers account for only 3 percent of vehicles in all police-reported crashes, they make up approximately 20 percent of vehicles in fatal crashes.1 A total of 10,511 passenger vehicle occupants died in rollover crashes in 2004.2

2. What causes a rollover? Most rollovers occur when a driver loses control of a vehicle, and it begins to slide sideways. When this happens, something can "trip" the vehicle and cause it to roll over. This tripping object could be a curb, guardrail, tree stump, or soft or uneven ground on the side of the roadway. Rollovers also can occur when a driver attempts to turn a vehicle too aggressively — at a high velocity or with a tight turning radius. In such conditions, the frictional force between the tires and road surface can cause the vehicle to tip up and then roll over. These crashes, generally referred to as "untripped" or "frictional" rollovers, are more common for SUVs and pickups than for passenger cars due to their higher centers of gravity.3 Though less frequent, rollovers can be caused by other factors, such as when one side of a vehicle is flipped up suddenly by a guardrail or other ramp-like object or when a vehicle falls sideways or front-first down an embankment.

A multiple-vehicle crash can initiate a rollover if it causes a driver to lose control, or a vehicle may roll directly after being struck in the side by another vehicle. However, about three-fourths of fatal rollovers are single-vehicle crashes.4 More than half of all occupants killed in single-vehicle crashes are involved in rollovers.2

3. Are rollovers more common for SUVs than for other vehicles? Rollovers are much more common for SUVs and pickups than for cars, and more common for SUVs than for pickups. This has been true in the past and continues to be so. In 2004, 62 percent of SUV occupants killed in crashes were in vehicles that rolled over. In comparison, 45 percent of deaths in pickups and 23 percent of deaths in cars were in rollovers.2

Pickups and SUVs tend to be involved in rollovers more frequently than cars largely due to the physical differences of these vehicles. Light trucks are taller than cars and have greater ground clearance, causing their mass to be distributed higher off the road relative to the width of the vehicle. Additional passengers and cargo can increase the center of gravity even more. Other things being equal, a vehicle with a higher center of gravity is more prone to rollover than a lower riding vehicle.

Driver behavior may contribute to the increased rollover involvement rate of SUVs and pickups. Drivers of these vehicles may be more aggressive in hazardous weather, increasing their chances of sliding off the road and rolling over. Pickups and SUVs also are more likely than cars to be driven on rural roads, where rollovers occur more frequently.4 Lower belt use among pickup occupants means they are more likely to be seriously or fatally injured when rollovers occur.

4. How has the number of rollover fatalities changed over time? The significance of rollover crashes can be perceived as increasing, decreasing, or staying the same, depending on what is being compared. The annual number of fatalities in rollover crashes on US roads has increased as SUVs have become more popular since the early 1990s. However, the size of the US vehicle fleet has grown more rapidly than the number of rollover fatalities, so the fatality rate based on the number of registered passenger vehicles in the fleet has declined consistently during the past 20 years, from 34 driver deaths per million registered vehicles in 1984 to 23 deaths per million in 2004.2 Compared with other crash types, the percentage of fatalities in rollover crashes for each vehicle type has remained relatively unchanged.

Rollover prevention

5. What is being done to reduce the occurrence of rollovers? Manufacturers are creating more stable vehicle designs. The static stability factor (SSF), a measurement of a vehicle's geometrical ability to resist rollover based on its width and center of gravity height, increased an average of 6 percent for new SUVs between 1998 and 2003, after remaining constant for 20 years.5 Electronic stability control (ESC) also has become more common. This technology helps prevent the sideways skidding and loss of control that can lead to rollovers.

6. What are the rollover resistance ratings assigned by NHTSA? Since 2001 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been assigning rollover resistance ratings to vehicles (one to five stars). These ratings can provide some indication about which specific vehicles are more likely to be involved in rollover crashes. Between 2001 and 2003, the ratings were calculated using SSF only. SSF is calculated by dividing half of a vehicle's track width (the distance between the right and left tires) by its center of gravity height. Wider vehicles with centers of gravity closer to the ground tend to be more stable, but this measurement does not account for dynamic effects such as those due to a vehicle's suspension. Beginning in 2004, the rollover resistance rating system was revised to combine the SSF with results from a dynamic handling test, but this test changes the star ratings of only a few vehicles.6

7. How does electronic stability control work? ESC is a vehicle control system comprised of sensors, brakes, engine control modules, and a microcomputer that continuously monitors how well a vehicle responds to a driver's steering input. The computer compares a driver's commands to the actual travel of the vehicle. In general, when the sensors indicate the vehicle is leaving the intended line of travel, ESC applies the brake pressure needed at each individual wheel to bring the vehicle back on track. In some cases, ESC also reduces engine speed. ESC has been found to reduce single-vehicle fatal crash involvement risk by 56 percent.7

8. Are electronic stability control systems widely available? ESC first appeared in Europe in the 1995 model year and in the US market a few years later. As is typical of new technologies, ESC initially was available as optional equipment on luxury cars. However, by the 2001 model year it was standard on a number of high-selling vehicles and available as an option on many more. For the 2006 model year, ESC was standard on 40 percent of the fleet, including all cars and light trucks sold in the United States by Audi, BMW, Infiniti, Mercedes, Porsche, and Volkswagen. It was an option on an additional 15 percent of vehicles and unavailable on 45 percent. Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler plan to equip most SUVs with ESC within the next few years, and General Motors has pledged to equip all passenger vehicles with ESC by the 2010 model year. Vehicles equipped with electronic stability control (ESC)

Rollover crashworthiness

9. What can be done to reduce the likelihood and severity of injuries when rollovers occur? Seat belt use is the most effective way to reduce the risk of injury or death in a rollover. More than 70 percent of people killed in rollover crashes are unbelted.4 Without seat belts, occupants in vehicles that roll can be thrown from the vehicle, greatly increasing the risk of serious injury or death.

When occupants are contained in the vehicle during a rollover, the performance of restraint systems and structural components is crucial to preventing injury. Side head curtain airbags triggered by rollover sensors can prevent the upper body from being exposed to contacts with the ground or even complete occupant ejection. Good seat belt designs with tensioners that remove slack are important to hold occupants in their seats and away from the roof as much as possible. Finally, the roof and other vehicle structures must be strong enough to resist occupant compartment intrusion that can increase the risk of head and neck injury.

10. Does roof strength really matter in rollovers? During the past 30 years, there has been much debate about the association between roof crush in rollovers and serious head and neck injuries. Some vehicle manufacturers have published studies claiming that roof strength and injury are not "causally" related but that occupants are injured as they "dive" into the roof before it crushes. Conversely, other researchers maintain that injuries occur when the roof buckles into the occupant compartment and makes contact with the people inside.

The specifics of this debate can obscure an important and generally accepted principle: a strong "safety cage" is an essential part of crashworthiness design in all types of crashes. Institute testing using front and side impact configurations continues to show that limiting intrusion in the occupant compartment is necessary to allow the restraint systems the space to prevent injury. The same principle applies to rollovers. Vehicles with strong roofs and advanced restraint systems will reduce injury risk to occupants in rollover crashes.

11. Will roof strength matter in the future if all vehicles have ESC? Even if all vehicles eventually are equipped with ESC, rollover crashes will not be eliminated. ESC can help a driver maintain control in some situations but not all. For example, ESC may not prevent a rollover-initiating impact with another vehicle or with a roadside obstacle, tire failure, or complete loss of traction with the road surface due to weather conditions. Vehicles with ESC still need strong roofs and effective restraint systems to protect occupants in rollover crashes.

12. What federal standards are applicable to rollover crashworthiness? Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, establishes a minimum requirement for roof strength to "reduce deaths and injuries due to the crushing of the roof into the occupant compartment in rollover crashes." This is a quasi-static test in which a rigid plate is pushed into the roof at a slow rate. The roof must be strong enough to prevent the plate from moving 5 inches when pushed at a force equal to 1½ times the weight of the vehicle. The test went into effect in 1973 and remained essentially unchanged until a proposal to modify it in 2005. No federal standards provide performance requirements for restraint systems in rollover crashes.

13. What changes have been proposed to the federal roof crush standard? NHTSA has proposed an upgrade to the FMVSS 216 test. While the same test device would be used, there would be changes in two major areas: the number of vehicles covered under the standard and the performance criteria used to determine compliance. The new standard would extend coverage to vehicles with gross weight ratings up to 10,000 pounds. This change would result in regulation of the roof strength of many SUVs and trucks for the first time. The second change would prohibit the roof from touching the head of a dummy when the test plate is pushed with a force equal to 2½ times the vehicle weight.

The Institute has two major concerns about the proposed changes. NHTSA expressed willingness to consider alternative requirements for vehicles with small amounts of initial headroom. Under such an alternative, the vehicles with the greatest need for strong roofs to protect occupants would have weaker requirements than other vehicles that begin with more headroom. A second concern relates to changing the method of measuring crush. The proposed measurement of dummy headroom may be more meaningful with respect to real-world rollovers. However, because this measurement is taken at a different location on the roof than the current measurement, it is possible that some new roof designs could meet the proposed standard but fail the current one, even with the increased plate force. The proposed standard should be modified to prevent this from happening.

14. What effect would the proposed changes be likely to have? If concerns with the proposal are resolved, the new standard should improve the rollover crashworthiness of some vehicles under certain conditions. Currently, the standard does not apply to vehicles with gross weight ratings of more than 6,000 pounds, which means about 44 percent of the SUV and pickup fleets.8 Some larger pickups and SUVs that are not subject to the current standard may have to be redesigned based on the expanded weight range of the proposal. Among the vehicle roofs already tested, those that pass the current standard by a narrow margin also may be strengthened. However, these improvements are expected to be small because NHTSA estimates that 68 percent of today's vehicle fleet already would meet the proposed standard without any design changes.

15. Does the federal roof crush standard ensure that roofs are strong enough to protect occupants in rollovers? The test used in the standard may not adequately represent most rollover crashes. Rollovers frequently damage both sides of the roof, with each impact making the roof weaker for successive impacts. The windshield initially may supply extra strength but become damaged and less supportive during subsequent rolls. Both the current and proposed FMVSS 216 tests would evaluate roofs on only one side and with the windshield in place. Perhaps more fundamentally, the forces that are applied to a vehicle's roof in most real-world rollover crashes are likely different from those transmitted to the roof by the test plate. Results of this test never have been shown to correlate with the extent of roof crush sustained in real-world rollovers.

16. Are there better ways to measure rollover crashworthiness? Ultimately, a repeatable dynamic test is needed to replace the federal standard's quasi-static evaluation. The test should be able to predict performance in a variety of real-world rollovers. It should assess how different components of vehicle structure and restraint systems interact to contribute to rollover crashworthiness. Such a test would improve vehicle roof and restraint system design.

17. What dynamic tests are there and why aren't they used? Automobile manufacturers and safety researchers have added tests to evaluate structural performance in rollovers. Vehicles have been dropped on their roofs from certain angles and heights. Drop tests do not reproduce the forces that result from rotational velocity and speed in a rollover. Other tests that can reproduce some of these forces generally have not been sufficiently repeatable to be used in a federal standard. For example, in a dolly rollover test a vehicle is released sideways from a moving platform at an angle that causes it to roll. Slight differences from one test to the next result in varying numbers of roof impacts and different force angles.

References

1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2006. Traffic safety facts, 2004. Report no. DOT HS-809-919. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation.

2 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 2005. Fatality facts, 2004: occupants of cars, pickups, SUVs, and vans. Arlington, VA. Available: http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/occupants.html.

3 Robertson, L.S. and Kelley, A.B. 1988. Static stability as a predictor of overturn in fatal motor vehicle crashes. Journal of Trauma 29:313-19.

4 Deutermann, W. 2002. Characteristics of fatal rollover crashes. Report no. DOT HS-809-438. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

5 Walz. M.C. 2005. Trends in the static stability factor of passenger cars, light trucks, and vans. Report no. DOT HS-809-868. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

6 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 2004. New rollover ratings reflect dynamic testing, but tests don't affect ratings very much. Status Report 39(3):6-7. Arlington, VA. Available: http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr3903.pdf.

7 Farmer, C.M. 2004. Effect of electronic stability control on automobile crash risk. Traffic Injury Prevention 5:317-25.

8 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2005. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. NHTSA Docket no. 2005-22143-1. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation.

<< Back to Index

Collision Reconstruction Book Celebrates One Year Anniversary

Contact: Michael Lyons, President
Tower Publishing
800.969.8693 x11
michalelL@towerpub.com

Tower Publishing is pleased to announce the first year anniversary of the national launch of From Crash to Courtroom: Collision Reconstruction for Lawyers and Law Enforcement, by renowned author and leading expert on automobile accident reconstruction, John Kwasnoski.

“This is an important and long overdue book,” says Gerald Partridge, Adjunct Professor at the National College of District Attorneys. “From Crash to Courtroom will serve the trial lawyer as both a sword and a shield – providing the tools needed for dismantling the incompetent or unscrupulous collision reconstructionist, while supplying the roadmap for building a case on a solid foundation of scientific cause and effect.”

From Crash to Courtroom is devoted to ensuring that the science behind traffic collision reports is accurate, and explains how many seemingly flawless findings may actually be incorrect. Examples range from the improper use of the non-deployment of an airbag to “prove” a low impact speed to the deliberate misapplication of computer software to supply desired videos and graphs.

According to Tower’s president Michael Lyons, the book’s top buyers are law firms, district attorneys, and police departments. “We test marketed over twenty business classifications and learned that the top three categories made up nearly ninety percent of our customers. Law firms are without equivocation our number one market for this book” says Lyons. The book has been so popular that it is now entering its third printing in its first year, something which is an uncommon phenomena among professional books.

Kwasnoski’s From Crash to Courtroom opens with an explanation of the anatomy of a collision, going through the chronological phases of an accident as well as the basic laws of physics in a motor vehicle crash. Using case study investigation reports to highlight both obvious and hidden errors, From Crash to Courtroom provides readers with a more complete understanding of everything from the use of tire mark and yaw mark evidence to the determination of speed from a vehicle’s airborne motion. The work also focuses particularly on the ways in which errors in data collection can influence expert opinions. From Crash to Courtroom may be purchased directly from Tower Publishing for $125.00 by calling 1.800.969.8693 or by visiting their website at www.towerpub.com.

About the Author:
John Kwasnoski is one of the leading national experts in crash reconstruction and co-author of three best-selling books: Investigation and Prosecution of DWI and Vehicular Homicide, The Officer's DUI Manual and Courtroom Survival. A Professor Emeritus of Forensic Physics at Western New England College, he has served as an expert in over 750 motor vehicle accident cases, including single and multiple vehicle, pedestrian, train and motorcycle crash cases. Professor Kwasnoski is also the founder of CRASH! The Science of Collisions, an educational program for high school and college students devoted to reducing young adult motor vehicle fatalities while teaching science and math.

About the Company:
Tower Publishing, founded in 1772, offers a wide range of business and legal publications of regional and national focus. Recent publications of note include: Missouri Corporate Law 5th Edition, The New Hampshire Environmental Statutes Deskbook and Maine Civil Remedies. For more information on From Crash to Courtroom or any of Tower’s other publications, please contact Marie Haskell by e-mailing her at marieH@TowerPub.comor dialing 1/800-969-8693 ext 14.

<< Back to Index

New 2006 Rollover Rankings Show Improvement

Rollover ratings for 2006 model sport utility vehicles (SUVs) show a marked improvement over 2005, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced today. The rating results also point to an unprecedented number of SUVs with electronic stability control (ESC) in 2006.

For the 2006 model year, 39 SUVs (42 percent of those rated) earned four stars in NHTSA’s rollover rating program. In 2005, 34 percent received four stars. For the 2006 model year, 57 SUVs (69 percent of all SUV models) offer ESC as standard equipment, up from 43 percent in 2005.

Earlier research by NHTSA documented the potential life-saving benefits of ESC, reducing single vehicle crashes by 63 percent for SUVs and 30 percent for passenger cars.

“We have worked hard to encourage automakers to install the kind of safety technology needed to make cars safer, prevent crashes and save lives,” said Acting NHTSA Administrator, Jacqueline Glassman.

Since 2004, NHTSA has encouraged manufacturers to voluntarily install ESC because of its life-saving potential. As a result, nearly all automakers now offer ESC on a total of 57 SUV models as standard equipment, and on six SUVs as an available option, up from 20 standard and 14 optional in 2003.

NHTSA uses a five-star rating system, which ranks the likelihood of a rollover in a single vehicle crash. The top score is five stars, representing a rollover risk of less than 10 percent.

For new 2006 model year vehicles, the highest rated SUV was the Chevrolet HHR, earning four stars and a 14 percent chance of rollover if involved in a single-vehicle crash. The 2006 Chrysler Pacifica and Ford Freestyle, both carryover vehicles previously tested in earlier model years, remain the agency’s highest rated SUVs overall with four stars and a 13 percent chance of rollover.

Of the 2006 model year tested vehicles, the lowest rated SUV was the Nissan Xterra 4x4, receiving three stars, representing a 25 percent chance of rollover.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

<< Back to Index

Advertising in the ARC Network

The ARC Network offers advertising solutions to anyone interested in promoting their product or service to the industry of Accident Reconstruction and Traffic Accident Investigation. If you are looking to target this industry... there is no better place to advertise!

The ARC Network understands all advertising needs are different. We have developed highly effective, easy to implement, advertising methods for companies to gain the most benefit from the ARC Network and also to fit your advertising budget. For all the promotion, traffic, and service we provide compared to other advertising methods you quickly realize the value of advertising with the ARC Network.

Advertising Options

• Banner Advertising
• Newsletter Advertising
• Products Directory Listing
• Page Sponsorship
• Email Advertising
• Conference Sponsorship
• Co-op Direct Mail Marketing

Why Advertise on the ARC Network?

1. The ARC Network is the most visited web site for Accident Reconstruction and Traffic Accident Investigation. We receive over 2.5 million hits per month.
2. The ARC Network is ranked in the top position of ALL MAJOR SEARCH ENGINES making it easy for people interested in your product to find you.
3. The ARC Network is a trusted, proven, non-biased web site resource for this industry.

Complete information about advertising with the ARC Network can be found in our advertising section.

<< Back to Index

Vetronix Crash Data Retrieval System
Special Offer from the ARC Network

The Vetronix Crash Data Retrieval System has fast become an indispensable part of a complete crash reconstruction program. Police agencies, private reconstructionists, government agencies and other safety researchers have fast come to the realization that data stored in the air bag control module and accessible using the Vetronix Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) System is an invaluable part of a complete and thorough crash reconstruction.

Whether for trial, research, or any other crash related safety program, the Crash Data Retrieval System has become an integral tool in the effort to move roadway safety efforts forward.

Purchase a CDR System through the ARC Network and choose between:

• FREE tuition to the CDR Technician and Analyst Certification course ($450 value) offered by Collision Safety Institute plus a free one-year membership to the ARC Network.

  OR (if you choose or have already taken the certification course)

• A $200 Cash rebate and a free one-year membership to the ARC Network.

>> Click here for the Details
or call the ARC Network toll free (866) 223-4984

<< Back to Index

FOR SALE: MACINNIS ENGINEERING ASSC. 5th WHEEL

MACINNIS ENGINEERING ASSC. 5th WHEEL

This is a MEA custom made 5th wheel. It is in great condition. It has a hard plastic travel type container. The lunch box type computer is within a canvas foam case. The unit is guaranteed to perfor according to specs. We have never experienced any problems with the system. The only difference between this unit and a brand new (made to order) one is slightly longer cables and a color monitor on the computer. The unit includes the following.

- Low Speed Impact testing system (including 2 MEA 5th wheels, computer board, software and manual,

- Optional Real Time Display

-Lunch Bucket Style Computer (Pentium 90, 850 MB hard drive, 4 MB Ram, DOS, Windows and mouse. (More than enough to record many tests. Still in great condition. We paid $10,300 for it cutom made new. Will sell for $4,500 (USA). (This price is substantially below current fair market value of a USED system, based on quote from manufacturer. One case could pay for it, and still have money left over.

-This price does not include shipping for more info and shipping quotes call

ROBERT A. DUBOIS
Ph. 603.343.2426
Cell# (603) 817-1851.

Address
PO Box 137, Rollinsford NH 03869 USA

<< Back to Index

ARC Network New Members

Please welcome the newest members of the ARC Network.

If you would like to become a member and support the Accident Reconstruction Network, please visit the Membership Section and sign up directly online through our secure server.

Name	Company/Department	State
Joe Montgomery	Complete Accident Reconstruction Service	TX
Mike Andrews	Complete Accident Reconstruction Service	TX
Carmen Daecher	Daecher Consulting Group Inc.	PA
Jeff Vick	J.G. Vick Consulting	NM
Timothy Pebler	Collision Dynamics	AZ
Hal Watson	Watson Engineering Corp	TX
Mark Allen	S. Lake Tahoe Police Department	CA
William Lanier	Mansfield Police Department	TX
Mary Stirling	M.P. Stirling Consulting LLC	AL
David Eisenbeisz	Krueper Engineering and Associates	CA
Brian Nightingale	RCMP	BC
Nathan Parsons	State of California	CA
Tammy Bennetts	San Diego Sheriff's Office	CA
Mary Joy	EVINA BHD	DC
Stanley Bezuidenhout	IBF Investigations	South Africa
Dennis Andrews	Collision Dynamics	UT
Russ Haight	Juneau Police Dept	AK
Scott Naramore	Collision Dynamics	CA
Daniel Kasamis		IN
John Rodriguez	Los Angeles County Sheriff	CA
Joe Giangrosso, III	Giangrosso Consulting	FL
Steven Ulrich	Sunrise Investigative Services	CA
Graham England	South Australia Police	Australia
Wade Roberts	Noblesville Police Dept.	IN
Lyle Baker	California Highway Patrol	CA
Jose Nieves	P.A.E.A.A.S.	PR
Robert Enzi	Zrod Investigations LLC	CO
Keith Trapnell	West Manchester Twp PD	PA
John Agno	Honolulu Police Dept.	HI
Jeff LaGreek		CA
Albert Benally	McKinley County Sheriff	NM
David Heinbaugh	San Ramon Police	CA

<< Back to Index

Events, Conferences & Seminars

The ARC Network host a comprehensive calendar of events relating to the accident reconstruction and traffic accident investigation industry. New events are always being added. It is free to add as many events as you wish. SImply visit this section of the ARC Network and browse through the current events or add your event to the list.

View the entire Events Calendar

<< Back to Index

Accident Reconstruction News Articles

The ARC Network continually posts news articles relating to accident reconstruction, traffic accident investigation and automotive safety. The newest articles are always posted on the ARC Network's homepage and all the archived articles are posted in the AR News Section.

Following are the news articles posted in May/June 2006:

June 15, 2006:
TRW Advanced Pre-Crash Radar and Seatbelt System Further Integrates Active and Passive Safety

June 15, 2006:
New Technology Can Prevent Drunken Driving

June 13, 2006:
New IIHS Research Findings on Effectiveness of Electronic Stability Control (ESC)

June 7, 2006:
TRW Automotive Drives Integration of Safety Systems to Help Mitigate Vehicle Rollovers and Protect Occupants

June 5, 2006:
Crash Data Confirms Child Safety Seats, Boosters Offer Survival Advantage to Child Passengers

June 2, 2006:
Drunk Drivers Beware! Alcohol-Sniffing Ankle Bracelet Likely Addition to California Law

May 30, 2006:
US says popular SUVs better in rollover tests

May 30, 2006:
Collision Avoidance: Innovations in Vehicle Safety Systems

May 26, 2006:
The Next Patrol Vehicle You See May be a Subaru

May 26, 2006:
Study: 18 Million Americans May Be Unfit for Roads

May 25, 2006:
Edmunds.com Lists Top 10 High-Tech Car Safety Technologies

May 18, 2006:
All-New 2007 Honda Fit Achieves Top '5-Star' Safety Rating From the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

May 17, 2006:
Ramtron FRAM Memory Enhances Smart Airbags for Hyundai Autonet

May 17, 2006:
Volvo Group's Safety Knowledge to Reduce Traffic Accidents in Humanitarian Aid Transports

May 16, 2006:
Road Rage Survey Reveals Best, Worst Cities

May 4, 2006:
Sometimes Bigger is Better... Dallas Leads Texas in Population but Not in Car Crashes

May 2, 2006:
Bobby Unser Teams With Accident Reconstruction Firm ATA Associates

May 1, 2006:
Nearly 600 Crashes a Week Occur in San Diego

<< Back to Index

---

Each month the ARC Network continues to grow with new memberships and contacts.
We now have over 600 members and going strong. We would like to thank everyone for their support.

The ARC Network would like to thank everyone for continuing to make the
ARC Network the number one web site for accident reconstruction and traffic investigation.

Please direct any questions regarding this issue of the Accident Reconstruction Newsletter to
the ARC Network

© 2006 ARC Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
Any comments, questions or suggestions should be e-mailed to the ARC Network.

ARC NETWORK QUICK LINKS
Homepage | Contact Us | Guest Book | Advertising
AR News | Book Store | Corporate Directory | Discussion Forum | Education | Events Calendar | Expert Witness Directory | Membership
Newsletter | Organizations | Police Department Directory | Research Directory