 |
|
|||
|
Accident reconstruction research RESEARCH LINKS
Interstate
Median Entry Crash/Fatigued Driver ABSTRACT The nighttime crash described in this report occurred on a rural, divided interstate highway when a drowsy driver, inadvertently, allowed her vehicle to enter the median. Once in the grassy median, the now startled driver steered hard to her right and regained the roadway. In an attempt to correct this now sharp maneuver back onto the pavement, she steered hard to the left causing her vehicle to re-enter the median where it struck, in a glancing impact, a guardrail system. The car was re- directed, while spinning, back into the left inside lane and came to rest with its front blocking this lane. Due to the damage on the car’s front, all frontal lights were broken and inoperative. Moments later, several motorists stopped on the emergency outside shoulder to render assistance. While two pedestrians were in the busy roadway, attempting to redirect traffic away from the wrecked car in the left lane, a third motorist had exited his vehicle and was standing on the emergency shoulder just south of the crash location. Another motorist also traveling in the left lane suddenly saw the wrecked car and swerved to his right to avoid it. As he lost control of his car, his vehicle ran off the road to the right where it gently struck a stopped vehicle and then it struck and killed the pedestrian. This car then came to rest in the soft berm near some trees alongside the emergency shoulder. This crash illustrates the hazards of driving while drowsy and the vulnerability of pedestrians standing alongside the highways. Also discussed in this report is the poor driving history of the drowsy driver, her utter disregard for Virginia’s traffic laws and the importance of median barriers at locations such as this crash site to protect motorists from errant vehicles which may enter the median. Additionally, this report addresses why the vehicle’s air bags did not deploy when the drowsy driver struck the guardrail. TABLE OF CONTENTS SYNOPSIS VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION SAFETY TRAINING CENTER - CRASH INVESTIGATION TEAM Report Number 178 - February 1997 SYNOPSIS
 View looking south at the crash site. Damage to the guardrail is from impact with Oldsmobile. Note tire scuff marks from vehicle just before and after collision. The car’s right tires made a noticeable yaw mark as it sharply ran off the pavement a second time. The car entered the median and began to rotate counterclockwise, striking the guardrail located approximately 10 feet from the edge of the left inside lane. The sharp attack angle with which the car’s front struck the guardrail was nearly 20 degrees. The collision damaged the bumper, grille and fender areas, and tore head lamps, running lights and side marker lights from the car’s front end. Because the collision with the median guardrail was of a glancing nature rather than a direct impact, compounded by the pre-impact rotating of the car, the Oldsmobile was redirected back into the roadway after sliding down the guardrail. As it was deflected off the barrier, the car continued to spin until its right rear bumper corner struck the guardrail. This slowed the car and allowed it to come to a stop facing northwest with its rear wheels resting on the grassy median and its front blocking nearly two-thirds of the left inside lane. The Oldsmobile traveled approximately 475 feet from the point where it initially ran off the road to its final rest. Within minutes after the southbound Oldsmobile came to rest, two motorists stopped alongside the outside shoulder to offer assistance. At least one of the passersby walked out into the left inside lane, attempting to direct traffic away from the car and to assist the Oldsmobile driver, who was still in her vehicle. While this was occurring, other southbound traffic in the left lane was slowing and steering clear of the Oldsmobile. A southbound motorist, driving an out-of-state pickup truck pulling a horse trailer, stopped on the outside emergency shoulder about 325 feet south of the Oldsmobile to offer assistance. This 48 year-old male activated his emergency flashers and exited his vehicle with a flashlight and flares in hand. He went around the front of his vehicle and walked toward the Oldsmobile along the right side of his vehicle (farthest from traffic). As he approached the right rear corner of the trailer, while still standing on the paved shoulder, a southbound 1984 Honda Accord, driven by a lone 32 year-old male, came upon the Oldsmobile while traveling in the left, inside lane. Because the Oldsmobile’s head lamps and front side marker lights had been destroyed, the Honda driver could not detect it until it became visible in the beams of his headlamps. In an attempt to avoid the Oldsmobile, the Honda driver (estimating his speed at 65 mph) steered abruptly to his right, lost control of his vehicle, and yawed across the remaining two lanes of the interstate. The Honda then entered the emergency outside shoulder at a sharp ten degree angle and struck, with its right front corner, the pedestrian who was standing next to his trailer. The Honda lightly grazed the right rear corner of the trailer with its left front corner as it carried the pedestrian on its hood and windshield across the emergency shoulder and down the grassy , muddy berm bordering to the southbound lanes. The pedestrian vauled over the roof of the Honda and came to rest about 55 feet south and 20 feet west of his parked pickup truck. He died instantly due to massive head and chest injuries and was found lying in the mud nearly hidden by the earthen debris. The Honda came to rest 70 feet south and 25 feet west of the pickup truck against several small pine trees. The Honda driver, although startled, was not injured in the crash. He exited his vehicle several minutes after the crash and walked back to the paved shoulder near the stopped truck. The Honda driver was not aware that he even struck the pedestrian. The investigating trooper received a call from his dispatcher advising of a wreck on the interstate, and he arrived at the scene several minutes later. Although traffic had slowed considerably by the time police arrive, the trooper parked his police cruiser in the left lane behind the Oldsmobile, so that its flashing blue lights would be high visible to southbound motorists, affording them sufficient time and distance to decelerate and change lanes safely. Emergency personnel, including rescue squads and other troopers responded to the scene. Other motorists with flashlights and flares had stopped to assist emergency personnel. The uninjured Oldsmobile driver was assisted from her vehicle and directed across the busy interstate highway to one of the stopped vehicles as the investigating trooper arrived on the scene. She was later transferred to a police cruiser where she was questioned. Although the scene was not cleared for nearly two hours after the crash occured, no problems other than traffic congestion were experienced. It was not until the investigating trooper was directing the motorists who had stopped on the shoulder to leave the scene that it became apparent that the owner of the parked truck and trailer was missing. When this driver could not be located, the area between the truck and the wrecked Honda was searched. The pickup truck driver’s body was found lying in the ditchline about an hour after the emergency personnel arrived on the scene. Due to the nature of his injuries, the delay in reaching him was not a causative factor in his death. It was determined that the pickup truck driver was en route to a border state to make a delivery when the crash occurred. Family members advised that this man, whose horse transport business required him to frequently travel nationwide, would routinely stop to assist motorists who were disabled or involved in a crash. Therefore, the fact that he stopped at the crash site to render assistance was not unusual. The Honda driver had been visiting friends located about 40 miles north of the crash site and was returning home (about 20 miles away) when the crash occurred. He was familiar with both his vehicle and the highway. He indicated that he was driving with his car’s low beam head lamps on at the time of the crash. He stated to the trooper that he was traveling about 65 mph (the posted speed limit in this area) and saw a stopped car (the wrecked Oldsmobile) in the left lane in front of him. While swerving to avoid it, he lost control of his vehicle and ran off the road. He made no mention of seeing the pedestrian with a flashlight standing in the median just north of the Oldsmobile. He said he did not see anything except the stopped car that suddenly appeared in front of him. The Honda driver told the trooper that he had had one beer earlier in the evening. When tested with the trooper’s alcosensor, he registered a 0.02 percent Blood Alcohol Content (BAC), which was compatible with his statement. The Oldsmobile driver had left Maryland and was en route to visit a friend when the crash occurred. She was only about 35 miles from her destination at the time of the crash. The driver told the trooper that she must have fallen asleep as she did not recall any of the events prior to her swerving out of the median. She advised that she was tired from her normal work day and she had been driving for about three hours when she wrecked. She was driving a rental car and had stopped about 20 miles back to drink a cup of coffee. While at the scene, prior to the trooper’s arrival, she was noticeably excited and emotional to the point of attracting attention to herself. A passerby (who was an off-duty police officer) suggested to the trooper that he may want to check her for alcohol and/or drug use, which the trooper did. Several marijuana cigarettes were found in her purse and when asked if she had been smoking and/or drinking prior to the crash, she stated that she had not. After she passed a sobriety test, the marijuana was confiscated, she was charged with reckless driving and possession of marijuana. The first two motorists who came upon the Oldsmobile crash and called 9-1-1 from their cellular phones gave the following accounts of the crash. Upon seeing the car run into the median and strike the guardrail, the first southbound motorist stopped his vehicle on the paved emergency shoulder. He ran across the lanes of traffic with a flashlight in hand and attempted to reach the Oldsmobile while at the same time directing traffic around the wrecked car. A second motorist arrived at the scene and stopped on the northbound side of the interstate, also on the shoulder. This motorist, a professional truck driver, had heard over his citizens band radio that a crash had occurred at a particular mile marker and for southbound drivers to be aware of the car partially blocking the highway. Upon searching for and seeing the wrecked car, this truck driver pulled off the road and called 9-1- 1 to report the crash. As this driver was preparing to walk across the median to the Oldsmobile and while the first motorist was attending to the Oldsmobile driver, the southbound pickup pulling the horse trailer stopped on the outside paved shoulder several hundred feet south of the Oldsmobile. While this was occurring, other southbound motorists traveling in the inside left lane had to brake and swerve to avoid colliding with the Oldsmobile. Shortly thereafter, according to the witnesses, the southbound Honda, traveling in the left lane at a high rate of speed came upon the Oldsmobile, swerved to the right, ran off the road, and struck the horse trailer. The stopped motorists indicated that they did not see the pedestrian standing by the horse trailer and thought that the Honda had only struck the trailer before skidding to the edge of the woods. At that point, the Oldsmobile driver was taken to the car of the parked southbound motorist and the second crash was called in on "9-1-1". In checking the 30-year old Oldsmobile driver’s record, it was discovered that although she had a Maryland operator’s license in her possession, her driving privileges in Virginia and Maryland were suspended at the time of this crash.. As suggested by her repeated driving infractions and subsequent convictions, this driver exhibited a disregard for authority and highway safety laws. According to her Virginia transcript, her first documented driving infraction occurred on November 29, 1987 when she caused a property damage crash in Arlington. She was driving a rental car and was not insured at the time of the collision, thus a civil judgment was rendered against her. On December 26, 1990, her privilege to drive a motor vehicle in Virginia was suspended by the Department of Motor Vehicles due to her not satisfying this civil judgment. However, between the time of this first reported traffic crash and before her first of many suspensions, she obtained a Virginia driver’s license in June 1988. This license expired in November 1995, however, it was not surrendered to authorities when she obtained her Maryland driver’s license on August 1, 1994. Her complete driving history as indicated by her Virginia and Maryland transcript is as follows: Interestingly, her Virginia’s driver transcript originally indicated she had one safe driving point and her Maryland transcript indicated that she has zero safe driving points and zero demerits. Apparently because she was licensed in Maryland, which does not assess points for her Virginia violations on their point system, the 16 driving demerits she would have received under Virginia’s point system do not appear on her Maryland driving transcript. This driver caused the two serious highway crashes described in this report, incurred at least eight convictions, and received seven suspensions within a one year period. Yet although her driving privileges were revoked in Virginia and Maryland, she still illegally drove a motor vehicle, and was able to rent one. Less than four months after the crash described in this report, this driver was convicted in her absence in Virginia for speeding 10-19 mph above the speed limit and driving under revocation. As it did in the past, the Virginia court suspended her driving privileges indefinitely. Given her past behavior, it seems unlikely that she will cease to drive in compliance with this order. Her driving history strongly indicates the need for some form of effective intervention and follow-up to improve (or limit) her driving behavior. This case illustrates the need for state motor vehicle departments, police jurisdictions, courts, federal highway safety agencies, and even auto rental companies to work together to identify and remove unfit motorists from our roads. The 1996 Oldsmobile Achieva was equipped with driver and passenger side air bags that did not deploy in the collision with the guardrail. Air bags are designed for frontal impact crashes, the kind of crash which accounts for more than half of all passenger vehicle occupant deaths. According to NHTSA, air bags are designed for deployment in moderate to severe collisions at speeds of about 10-15 mph directly into a fixed object or about 20-30 mph into a similarly sized vehicle. The air bags’ crash sensor, located on the vehicle’s front near the firewall, will activate the air bags’ firing mechanism when it senses deceleration forces equivalent to a change in velocity of about 12-15 mph during an extremely short time period. Although the Oldsmobile incurred significant front end damage and its speed during the glancing type impact with the guardrail was estimated at about 50 mph, insufficient deceleration forces were exerted on the air bags’ sensor to deploy the air bag. The air bag functioned properly in this crash and was not defective. The properly belted Oldsmobile driver remained in her vehicle during the collision and was sitting upright behind the steering wheel when the car came to a stop. As a result of being properly belted by the car’s combined 3-point lap and shoulder belt system, she did not strike the interior of the vehicle and consequently she was not injured. It is likely that had she not been belted, she would have struck the car’s interior (or possibly been ejected) during the two collisions with the guardrail and/or during the car’s rapid rotation. This crash is yet another testimony to the life saving and injury reducing benefits of proper safety belt use. One of the primary reasons the Crash Investigation Team selected this crash for study was to focus on a highway design improvement which illustrates the effects of sound traffic engineering. The location discussed in this report is the same location of an earlier Crash Team report in which two motorists were killed when an out-of-control southbound car crossed the median and collided head-on with four northbound vehicles. An accident records check revealed that within the 18-month period prior to the double fatal crash along this 2.7 mile long section of interstate facility, at least 24 reported median entry crashes occurred. Of this number, a total of 12 crashes involved vehicles completely crossing the median, several of which resulted in head-on collisions with opposite direction vehicles. Considering the potential severity of head-on collisions, especially on heavily traveled, high-speed roadways divided by narrow, traversable medians, it was recommended that the State construct a proven median barrier throughout this section of interstate (and at other similar locations throughout Virginia). Nine years after the Teams’ recommendation, this stretch of highway was improved by the installation of a guardrail barrier. Since its installation along this section of interstate highway which carries over 80,000 vehicles a day, the risk of median crossing crashes has been reduced almost entirely. Had the median guardrail not been in place when the crash described in this report occurred, the Oldsmobile probably would have entered the northbound lanes where it could have collided with a northbound vehicle. This six-lane rural interstate facility, posted for 65 mph, is divided by a 34 foot-wide, gently sloped, grassy median. The barrier, consisting of a double-faced, w-beam guardrail system, runs longitudinally down the median. Because of drainage, the barrier is not erected in the median’s center, but rather 10 feet from the southbound lanes and 24 feet from the northbound lanes. An analysis of crashes along this facility from January 1995 - December 1996, revealed the following: of the 200 crashes reported along this section of interstate, 97 (49%) involved a vehicle entering the median. Of this number, 83 (86%) struck the guardrail (one vaulted the barrier and struck an opposite direction vehicle head-on). Of the number of crashes in which a vehicle struck the guardrails, 63 (76%) were originally traveling southbound, which would be expected since the guardrail is closer to the southbound lanes than the northbound lanes. This analysis reveals the high number of errant vehicles which might have crossed the median had the barrier not been present. The Team concludes that the guardrail barrier has more than paid for itself in terms of crash severity reduction. Similar locations, where the potential of median crossing crashes is relatively high, should be studied and prioritized for the installation of a median barrier. Lastly, this crash illustrates the hazards associated with driving while fatigued. According to the proceedings from the 1993 Highway Safety Forum on Fatigue, Sleep Disorders and Traffic Safety, highway crashes resulting from drivers asleep at the wheel are grossly underreported, especially in single vehicle run-off-the-road crashes. This is partly because culpable drivers are unlikely to admit to police officers that they fell asleep for fear they will be charged with a traffic violation. In many cases, drivers at crash scenes will tell the investigating officer that the reason they wrecked was due to other plausible alternatives ( someone cut me off , an animal ran in front of me , etc.) to shift the culpability. Additionally, drowsy driving is easily masked by other driver actions (alcohol use, driver inattention, etc.), so determining the true cause of the wreck may be difficult. Another factor contributing to the under-reporting of drowsy driving is that there is no measure for sleepiness like there is for intoxication. The National Sleep Foundation estimates that as many as 30% of highway crashes are related to driver fatigue and/or sleepiness. According to the Virginia Crash Factor, there were at least 3,280 (1.4%) drivers involved in crashes in Virginia in 1995 who were reported as being apparently asleep and/or fatigued. In all fatal crashes, there were at least 59 drivers (6%) reported as being asleep and/or fatigued and in alcohol related fatal crashes, at least 697 (6.5%) were reported as asleep/fatigued. In a past special report prepared by the C.I.T. (SR#8-93) entitled Run Off the Road Statistical Analysis , it was found that during 1990-91, at least 13% of the fatal crashes involving vehicles that left the roadway resulted from drivers who fell asleep. Most people are unaware that a drowsy driver is as potentially dangerous as the drunk driver. Unfortunately, sleep deprivation is seen as a norm in our society. It should be realized that lack of sleep and rest can seriously impair reaction time, awareness of surroundings, and ability to discern potential roadway and traffic conflicts. The Better Sleep Council estimates that about 10,000 auto deaths occur each year due to drowsy drivers. Drivers should be fully rested before embarking on a trip and plan adequate rest periods into their travel agenda. Many drivers believe the myth that coffee, the radio, or the air conditioner will help to keep them awake if they feel sleepy while driving. Once the driver acclimates to these countermeasures, or when they are withdrawn, the driver is more sleepy than before. Once the body reaches the critical level of sleep deprivation, the person will fall asleep no matter what they are doing to counteract their sleepiness. At that point, the only remedy is sleep. Drivers should not underestimate their need for sleep or the importance of it. Motorists who are especially vulnerable to sleep-related problems are shift workers, teenagers and young adults, long haul truck drivers, and those with sleep related illnesses. In order to better capture the numbers of crashes resulting from fatigue, police crash investigators need to look for physical evidence at crash scenes which may indicate that a driver was drowsy. Information may be obtained from the driver, witnesses and the physical evidence at the scene. Indicators of a drowsy or asleep driver are:
CAUSAL FACTORS AND CONCLUSIONS
|
|||
|
ARC NETWORK QUICK LINKS
|
||||
