arj 120 for digitizing.pmd - NJAAR

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER, 2010

VOLUME 20, NO. 6 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER, 2010

INSIDE: EDR Delta-V Reliability and Restitution Values for Six Crash TestsCase Study: Farmer Dies When Tractor Rear-Ended by a SemiBraking Rates for Students in a Motorcycle Training ProgramCrash Testing and Evaluation of Breakaway SignsPedestrian Walking Speeds in Crosswalk StudyARJ and AIQ Subject Index 1989 - 2010Toyota Lawsuit Updates

ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION JOURNAL


VOLUME TWENTY, NUMBER SIX

Individual Subscription Rates:

1 Year - 6 issues 3 Years - 18 issuesU.S.A. $ 49.00 U.S.A. $ 119.00U.K. £ 28.00 U.K. £ 69.00Canada $

c 59.00 Canada $

c155.00

2 Years - 12 issues Back Issues - eachU.S.A. $ 89.00 U.S.A. $ 5.00U.K. £ 49.00 U.K. £ 4.00Canada $

c109.00 Canada $

c 8.00

Technical Article Review Committee:

Accident Reconstruction Journal, ISSN 1057-8153, USPS 008283, ispublished bimonthly at 3004 Charleton Court, Waldorf, Maryland 20602-2527. Second class postage paid at Waldorf, Maryland. Postmaster: Sendaddress changes to Accident Reconstruction Journal, P.O. Box 234, Waldorf,MD 20604-0234.

Dennis R. Andrews, PhD Cherry Hill, NJWade Bartlett, PE Rochester, NHSamuel Brown, PE, PhD Houston, TXKyle Clark Naples, FLJeremy Daily, PhD Tulsa, OKJohn C. Glennon, PE, PhD Overland Park, KSRudolph Limpert, PE, PhD Park City, UTRichard Ratcliffe Huntingtown, MD

The Committee assists the editor in the review and evaluation of reader-submitted technical articles for consideration of publication in both Acci-dent Reconstruction Journal and Accident Investigation Quarterly. Not allmembers review every article that is selected. The editor would like toexpress his appreciation to the committee for its dedication and hard work.


ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION JOURNALP.O. Box 234, Waldorf, MD 20604

Telephone/Fax: 301/843-1371E-mail: [email protected]

VICTOR CRAIG - EDITOR

Copyright 2010, Accident Reconstruction Journal. All rights reserved.Note: This notice does not apply to those news items already copyrightedand received through wire services or other media, or federal researchreports already in the public domain.

INDEX


TOYOTA SPEED-UP CASES WON'T BE DISMISSED, JUDGE SAYS

A federal judge tentatively ruled today that he will reject most ofToyota Motor Corp.'s first major legal challenge to class-action lawsuitsfiled against the automaker by car owners over sudden acceleration.

Car owners' lawyers provided sufficient evidence to allow theircases 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 heardarguments 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 dollarvalue of their losses, but that level of specificity is not required at thispleading stage,” Selna wrote in his 63-page ruling. “It is enough that theyallege a tangible loss that can be proved or disproved upon discovery.”

Selna said he would issue a final ruling by the U.S. Thanksgivingholiday on Nov. 25.

The economic-loss lawsuits, combined for pretrial filings andrulings before Selna, claim Toyota drove down the value of vehicles byfailing to fix or disclose defects that triggered unintended acceleration.

Federal suits claiming death or injury caused by such episodes arealso combined in the Santa Ana court.

Toyota over the last year has recalled more than 15.43 millionvehicles around the world for a variety of problems, including 10.2 millionfor unintended acceleration issues.

In September 2009, the automaker announced a recall of 3.8million Toyota and Lexus vehicles because of a defect that may cause floormats to jam accelerator pedals. The company later recalled vehicles overdefects involving the pedals themselves.

Toyota disputed the claims of economic loss at today's hearing.The vehicles have “produced as promised,” Cari Dawson, a Toyotalawyer, told Selna.

“These cars have not malfunctioned, their owners have not had topay 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 onlosses that the owners may never suffer if they don't sell their cars or if

Continued on page 58

New UCF SGA Campaign Tackles Distracted Driving ....................................... 2Porsche Patrol Car ............................................................................................... 2Court: Daewoo Korea Is Liable for US Damages ................................................ 3UK Owner of Segway Dies Driving One Off Cliff .............................................. 3Mass. Distracted Driving Bill Heads To Governor's Desk ................................... 3Teen Drivers Involved in Fewer Fatal Car Crashes ............................................. 4Safety: Distracted Driving as a Medical Condition .............................................. 4FHWA Issues New Guidance on Pavement Friction ........................................... 4Yamaha Motor Corp Wins Four Lawsuits ........................................................... 4New Sensor from Continental Increases Pedestrians' Chances of Survival .......... 5Upcoming Events ................................................................................................ 6AAA: Teens Don't Get Enough Supervised Driving Experience ......................... 7Test Your Skill .................................................................................................... 8CEO of Kia Motors Resigns Over Recalls .......................................................... 8Allstate Sues Toyota Over Acceleration Claims .................................................. 9Editorial: Federal Study of Antilocks Junk Science ............................................. 9LaHood Applauds New Kansas Primary Seat Belt Law ...................................... 10Pedestrian Walking Speed in Crosswalk Study ................................................... 11The CMF Clearinghouse: A Handy Safety Tool .................................................. 16Braking Rates for Students in a Motorcycle Training Program ........................... 19Farmer Dies When His Tractor Was Rear-Ended by a Semi ................................ 21EDR Delta-V Reliability and Restitution Values for Six Crash Tests .................. 27Toyota Recalls 1.5M Vehicles Worldwide .......................................................... 28Crash Testing and Evaluation of Breakaway Signs ............................................. 31Will Your Next Car Be a Smartphone? ............................................................... 46Montana Drinking and Driving Culture at Crossroads ......................................... 46ARJ and AIQ Subject Index 1989 - 2010 ............................................................ 49Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation ...................................... 60Additional News Reports .................................................................................... 61-64


For young adults, a cell phone is part oftheir everyday life from text messaging, statusupdates to checking e-mails on the go. But thesepopular devices are also becoming part of astatistic that UCF's Student Government Asso-ciation hopes to reduce.

UCF's SGA hosted a rally outside theStudent Union to kick off a new campaign tar-geted against distracted driving by students. The"Put Down Ur Cell Fone" campaign featuredsupport from the Florida Highway Patrol, FloridaDepartment of Transportation, the OrlandoMagic, UCF administration, and Senator LeeConstantine.

"Texting and driving is very dangerous,and we want to make students more aware of thisso that they can be more safe while driving,"SGA Vice President Taylor Lochrane said. Healso says students will benefit by knowing thattexting while driving is the same as drivingunder the influence.

According to the National Highway Traf-fic Safety Administration, individuals youngerthan 20 years old had the highest proportion ofdistracted drivers at 16 percent, followed by the20-to 29-year-old age group at 12 percent.

At 22 years old, Nicole Hughes describeda life to the audience that most young adultsexperience daily. She also told a story of how her

NEW UCF SGA CAMPAIGN TACKLES DISTRACTED DRIVINGlife changed when she was hit while walkingacross a crosswalk by a distracted driver who rana red-light.

"Don't take your life for granted, if youhave to use it, put it down," Hughes said. Ten yearslater, she remains paralyzed on her right side.

SGA's purpose of the week-long campaignis to decrease the statistics and educate studentsabout the dangers of such a common routine.

Former Magic player Bo Outlaw says thecampaign is a great cause. Speaking to a group ofstudents outside the Student Union, he says hisyounger son lead to his change in phone use.

"If you really got to text that bad, justpull over or wait till you get to a stop light to sendthe message," Outlaw said.

Students received free t-shirts for sign-ing the distracted driving campaign petition.Students waiting in line agreed that texting whiledriving is a problem.

UCF student Autumn Daumen says shehas seen people swerve on the road while usingtheir phone. She also said texting is a lot easierfor students than actually calling someone be-cause it doesn't waste minutes from your plan.

"I think some kind of law should be takeninto consideration," Daumen said.

Those three seconds it takes students tosend 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 havetraveled the length of a football field with youreyes off the road," Montes said.

NerdWorld, a Orlando based mobile so-lutions company, recently launched aSafeTexting application for Blackberry phones.The app uses GPS technology to automaticallyactivate controls that will allow or deny textingand phone calls while the car is in motion. AniPhone and Android version will be released bythe end of the year.

"Our hope is that this campaign preventsaccidents that result from distracted driving andmakes the university a safer environment foreveryone," Lochrane said. - WDBO News

PORSCHE PATROL CAR

Austrian police are testing a Porsche 911as a traffic control as a traffic control car to helpprevent motorists from speeding. A spokesmansaid, "The preventative effect is excellent. Driv-ers just need to see it parked alongside the roadand slam on the brakes."

- Road & Track

2


Even though Daewoo dropped out of theU.S. market in 2002, the remnants of liquidatedDaewoo Motor Co. in South Korea still areliable for damages incurred in product liabilitylawsuits, a California superior court jury ruled.

An appeal is likely from Daewoo's Ko-rean parent company and GM Daewoo & Tech-nology Co.

In denying its liability, Daewoo Koreaattempted to foist responsibility onto the bank-rupt husk of its U.S. subsidiary, Daewoo MotorAmerica.

Daewoo Motor America, now known asStarPoint USA, is the national representative for300 service points for the 185,000 Daewoovehicles sold in the United States from 1998through 2002.

StarPoint was forced from the retailingbusiness when General Motors bought some ofDaewoo's automotive assets in 2003 and de-cided that Chevrolet, not StarPoint, would be theretail channel for its Korea-made vehicles.

COURT: DAEWOO KOREA IS LIABLE FOR U.S. DAMAGESGM Daewoo bought Daewoo's hard as-

sets 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 automobilesto U.S. dealers and consumers here in the U.S.market," he said.

"It is not reasonable that they should beable to pull out of the U.S. market and turn theirback on it, claiming no responsibility for orliability to those Daewoo vehicles that they soldhere."

The judgement comes after seven yearsof litigation. International legal reciprocity codesmean a U.S. court judgement should be recog-nized and enforced in South Korea, Rainwatersaid.

No monetary amount has been assignedto Daewoo's potential liabilities.

The remaining shell of Daewoo's Ko-rean parent amounts to a handful of people

selling properties to pay creditors pennies on thedollar.

But as long as the suit is in process,Daewoo is prohibited under South Korean lawfrom fully liquidating, Rainwater said.

The suit originally rose in a productliability case filed in 2003 by Michelle Bandy,who was involved in a car accident and whoalleged that there was a design defect with theDaewoo vehicle.

Bandy sued all Daewoo entities involvedin the manufacturing and sale of the car, andDaewoo Korea refused to defend and indemnifyStarPoint for any product liability lawsuit.

Lawyers representing Daewoo's Koreanparent company could not be reached for com-ment.

Jay Cooney, a spokesman for GMDaewoo, called the judgement a "non-issue" andsaid GMDAT would take part in appealing theruling. Cooney declined further comment.

- Automotive News

The British tycoon who owned the Segwaycompany died after accidentally riding a ruggedversion of the two-wheeled machine off a cliff andinto a river, according to published reports.

Jimi Heselden, 62, plunged into the RiverWharfe while checking on the grounds of hisestate in northern England, the Telegraph re-ported. He was riding on a "rugged countryversion" of the scooter, the paper said.

"Police were called at 11:40 a.m. yester-day to reports of a man in the River Wharfe,apparently having fallen from the cliffs above,"a spokesman for West Yorkshire Police saidtoday, according to British media reports.

"A Segway-style vehicle was recovered.He was pronounced dead at the scene," the

UK OWNER OF SEGWAY CO. DIES DRIVING ONE OFF CLIFF

spokesman said. "At this time we do not believethe death to be suspicious."

Police confirmed the body of Heselden,a multimillionaire philanthropist who foundeddefense company Hesco Bastion, was found inthe river, the Guardian reported.

He was found five miles from a factoryin Leeds where he made his fortune from de-fense contracts for Afghanistan and Iraq. Histop-selling innovation was a wire basket filledwith earth and water that was better than sand-bags in protecting troops from missile and mor-tar attacks, the paper said.

Authorities are investigating whether thedeath was due to driver error or a problem withthe scooter, the Daily Mail reported.

[Recently], Heselden became one of theUnited Kingdom's most generous philanthro-pists, making a $15.7 million donation to acharity he established in 2008, the Daily Mailsaid. He had previously given about $20 millionto the same organization.

Heselden was worth about $260 millionand ranked 395th on the Sunday Times Rich List,according to reports.

In December, Heselden bought the U.S.company that makes the battery-poweredSegway, which uses gyroscopes to stay uprightand is controlled by the direction in which thedriver tilts. He was said to be testing a cross-country version of it at the time of his death.

- AOL News

The Patrick administration said it is study-ing legislation that would make it illegal to drivewhile texting and that would ban teenagers fromusing cellphones while behind the wheel.

“The governor has been supportive ofefforts to make our roads safer and looks for-ward to reviewing the bill,'' Juan Martinez,Patrick's spokesman, said in an e-mail state-ment.

the Senate unanimously passed the bill,the last legislative action needed before Patrickcan sign – or veto – the measure that supporterscall a "safe driving bill.''

The House gave its approval earlier on a150-1 vote.

MASS. DISTRACTED DRIVING BILL HEADS TO GOVERNOR'S DESK

“Everyone knows cellphones are a dis-traction and that texting while driving is espe-cially dangerous,” Senate President ThereseMurray said in a statement. “I hope this legisla-tion will dissuade people from putting them-selves and others at risk.”

According to Murray's office, the ban ontexting while driving applies to all drivers. Aviolation would not lead to an insurance sur-charge, but police would be authorized to stopsomeone they see texting while driving.

Junior operators – a driver under the ageof 18 – are banned from the use of cellphones,including the hands-free version. A first offensewould be a 60-day license suspension.

The measure would also shield healthcare providers from liability if they report apatient they consider a risky driver to the Regis-try of Motor Vehicles.

It would also require anyone 75 or older,to renew their licenses in person and to take aneye exam every five years.

"We took a comprehensive approach tomaking our roadways safer by trying to take thedistractions out … to focus people on driving asopposed to other things that distract them,'' saidSenator Steven A. Baddour, Senate chair of theTransportation Committee.

- The Boston Globe

3


FHWA ISSUES NEWGUIDANCE ON PAVE-

MENT FRICTION

A new technical advisory issued by theFederal Highway Administration (FHWA) onJune 17, 2010, Pavement Friction Management(T 5040.38), provides guidance to State andlocal highway agencies on managing pavementsurface friction on roadways. The new advisorysupersedes FHWA Technical Advisory 5040.17,Skid Accident Reduction Program, which wasissued on December 23, 1980.

The advisory outlines the purpose of apavement friction management program, whichis to minimize friction-related vehicle crashesby ensuring that new pavement surfaces aredesigned, constructed, and maintained to pro-vide adequate and durable friction properties, aswell as by identifying and correcting sections ofroadways that have elevated friction-related crashrates. Pavement friction management also in-cludes collecting and analyzing pavement fric-tion, crash, and traffic data to ensure the effec-tiveness of the engineering practices being used.

Another vital aspect of a friction man-agement program is prioritizing the use of re-sources so that the program can be carried outcost effectively.

Guidance on constructing pavement sur-faces with good friction characteristics, includingadequate wet pavement friction, can be found inFHWA Technical Advisory T 5040.36, SurfaceTexture for Asphalt and Concrete Pavements.

This Advisory is available atwww.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/t504036.cfm.

Also covered in the new Technical Advi-sory are such topics as test equipment for mea-suring pavement friction, the identification andclassification of roadway locations with elevatedcrash rates, how to prioritize projects for im-proving pavement friction, the appropriate fre-quency and extent of friction testing on a high-way network, and how to determine a pavementfriction management program's effectiveness.Additional reference materials on pavement fric-tion management and measurement are high-lighted as well.

FHWA's Pavement Friction ManagementTechnical Advisory is available online atwww.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/t504038.cfm. Formore information about pavement friction man-agement, contact Mark Swanlund at FHWA, 202-366-1323 (email: [email protected]).

- FHWA Focus

SAFETY: DISTRACTEDDRIVING AS A MEDICAL

CONDITION

Family doctors routinely ask their pa-tients whether they smoke, watch their diet,remember to fasten their seat belt.

Now, in an essay in The New EnglandJournal of Medicine, a doctor suggests adding aquestion to that litany: Do you drive whiletexting or talking on a cellphone?

The physician, Dr. Amy N. Ship, a pri-mary care doctor and assistant professor atHarvard Medical School, called on her col-leagues to initiate these discussions, saying theyare well worth the time and effort.

“This is such an easy way to keep peoplehealthy — it’s prevention, and it’s such low-lying fruit,” Dr. Ship said in an interview, add-ing:

“As physicians, we have an opportunityto counsel patients. It’s an enormous power, andwe should take advantage of it.”

In her essay, Dr. Ship says she ofteninitiates the discussion by asking about textingwhile driving, using that as an opening to men-tion that talking on the phone actually causesmore accidents. When patients ask why a phoneconversation should be any more dangerousthan talking to a passenger in the car, she said,she talks about the difficulties of multitasking.

“When patients aren’t convinced,” shesaid, “I ask them, ‘How would you feel if yoursurgeon talked on the phone — hands free, ofcourse — while operating?’ ”

- The New York Times

TEEN DRIVERSINVOLVED IN FEWERFATAL CAR CRASHES

Far fewer people are dying in car crasheswith teens at the wheel, but it's not becauseteenagers are driving more cautiously. Expertssay laws are tougher, and cars and highways aresafer.

Fatal car crashes involving teen driversfell by about a third over five years, according toa new federal report that credits tougher restric-tions on younger drivers.

The number of deaths tied to these acci-dents dropped from about 2,200 in 2004 to 1,400in 2008, the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention said.

The CDC looked at fatal accidents in-volving drivers who were 16 or 17. Therewere more than 9,600 such incidents duringthe five-year span, and more than 11,000people died, including more than 4,000 of theteen drivers and more than 3,400 of theirpassengers.

The report is being published in the CDC'sMorbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The rate of such fatal crashes has beendeclining since 1996. Experts credit a range offactors, including safer cars with air bags andhighway improvements, which reduce the riskof death.

The number of nonfatal accidents in-volving drivers 16 and 17 years old has beendropping as well - by 31 percent from 2004through 2008, according to government fig-ures.

Experts say a chief reason is that moststates have been getting tougher on when teenscan 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 insur-ance companies.

"It's that state laws enacted in the last 15years are taking teens out of the most hazardousdriving situations," such as driving at night orwith other teens in the car, he said.

Graduated driver's licensing programs,as they are called, began appearing in 1996, and49 states now have them.

The CDC found that Wyoming had thehighest death rate, with about 60 traffic fatalitiesinvolving 16- and 17-year-old drivers per100,000 people that age. New York and NewJersey, which have rigorous driving restrictionson teens, had the lowest rates, about 10 per100,000.

Wyoming's driver's license laws are laxerthan other states. For example, 16-year-olds areallowed to drive until 11 p.m., or later, whileother states set the driving curfew at around 9p.m.

- Tulsa World

YAMAHA MOTORCORPORATION WINS

FOUR LAWSUITS

Yamaha Motor Corporation has success-fully defended three product liability lawsuitsinvolving its Rhino off-road vehicle.

On August 11, a jury in San BernardinoCounty, California rejected the plaintiff’s claimsand awarded no damages in an accident caseinvolving a Yamaha Rhino. The case was Lewis/Hernandez vs Yamaha.

This followed another jury decision infavor of Yamaha on July 26 in a case in OrangeCounty, California. The jury has rejectedplaintiff’s claims regarding the Rhino’s design,finding no defect in the Rhino.

On August 12, a jury in TallapoosaCounty, Alabama rejected the plaintiff’s claimsand returned a unanimous defense verdict forYamaha in the case Mathis vs Yamaha. The caseinvolving an accident on a Yamaha Rhino inAlexander City.

On Friday, October 22, a jury in Mont-

gomery, Alabama rejected plaintiffs' claims andreturned a unanimous defense verdict in the caseMcMahon vs Yamaha, another case involvingan accident on a Yamaha Rhino. A jury onceagain rejected plaintiff’s claims the YamahaRhino was defectively designed.

Sources: Yamaha Motor Corp., Business Wire

4


NEW SENSOR FROM CONTINENTALINCREASES PEDESTRIANS'

CHANCES OF SURVIVAL IN AN ACCIDENT

In 2009, more than 4,000 people lost their lives in pedes-trian/motor vehicle accidents across the United States. Another59,000 pedestrians were injured. International automotive supplierContinental today introduced a unique pedestrian protection sys-tem that fundamentally enhances the protection of pedestrians onthe roads. The system features a novel type of air hose connected totwo pressure sensors which builds flexibly into the bumper.

"The sensor reliably recognizes collisions with pedestriansand supplies the safety systems with the information they need totrigger protective measures," said Scott Morell, passive safetyengineering director for Continental's North American region.Within 10-15 milliseconds of an impact, the active hood of thevehicle is triggered and raised by special actuators. This preventsthe pedestrian who has been hit from being severely injured orkilled by the impact with the hood and underlying engine block. Theextra space provided between the hood and engine can considerablymitigate the consequences of the accident.

In a collision, sensors detect the change in pressure in theplastic hose

Until now, fiber optics or acceleration sensors have beenused as the sensors for detecting collisions with pedestrians. Thepressure hose sensor, which Continental has developed in partner-ship with Daimler, is a new system offering a range of advantages,for example it is easy to integrate into any vehicle because it can beflexibly adapted to the shape of the chassis. "This means that thereare no restrictions on vehicle developers if they alter a vehicle'sdesign – as part of a facelift, for example," said Morell. "What'smore, the system's technology is extremely robust and offers highresolution and strong signal quality, which boosts the reliability ofcrash detection."

The crash sensor consists of a hose that is laid across theentire width of the car in its front bumper. The hose is situateddirectly behind the foam block that is fitted at the front of thevehicle to absorb energy. Standardized pressure sensors areinstalled at either end of the air-filled pressure hose. The sametype of sensor is used to activate side-impact airbags. When avehicle collides with an obstacle, the resulting pressure exertedon the hose through the front bumper and foam block creates atypical waveform that is detected by the two sensors at the endsof the hose and forwarded to an airbag control unit. Crashalgorithms in the analysis software and speed information fromthe vehicle's information network enable the type of collision tobe identified in a hundredth of a second. The signal relay timeeven allows conclusions to be drawn about the location of theimpact, for example the front right-hand corner or the middle ofthe vehicle. This enables the rapid activation of protectionsystems, which are most effective in accidents in urban trafficwith a pre-crash speed of no more than 34 mph and a crash speedof between 12 and 18 mph.

Particular challenges for the sensor system include reli-ability and the ability to detect a collision between the vehicleand a pedestrian – regardless of whether the person is a smallchild or a grown man. The sensors must, with the highest degreeof reliability, ascertain 'no-fire' situations in which the protec-tion systems must not be activated under any circumstances.Such situations include bumping the curb with the front spoileror hitting a small animal.

- PR Newswire

5


A.C.T.A.R.* TESTPREPARATION KIT

Includes a tutorial withpractice problems, plus a

2-part practice test of equalsize and comparable difficulty.

COST: $99

Send check/money order/dept. purchase order to:

Accident Reconstruction JournalP.O. Box 234

Waldorf, MD 20604

* This kit is a product of Accident Recon. Journal andis not produced or endorsed by ACTAR itself.

UPCOMING EVENTS - Through October 2011Accreditation Commission for

Traffic Accident Reconstruction

Contact: 800/809-3818

Event: Testing for AcceditationDate/Loc: January 21, Orilla, Ont., CanadaDate/Loc: January 26, Hershey, PADate/Loc: January 26, Kansas City, MODate/Loc: January 27, Blythewood, SCDate/Loc: February 18, Seattle, WADate/Loc: February 22, Chesterfield, MODate/Loc: April 1, Salt Lake City, UTDate/Loc: April 18, Springfield, MODate/Loc: April 20, Kansas City, MODate/Loc: April 27, Willoughby Hills, OHDate/Loc: April 30, SanJose, CADate/Loc: May 10, Seattle, WADate/Loc: June 16, Cedar Rapids, IA

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Engineering Dynamics Corp.

Contact: Machelle Palomo 503/644-4500 x115

Event: EDC Simulaions CourseDate/Loc: January 24 - 28, Burbank, CA

Event: 2011 HVE ForumDate/Loc: February 21 - 25, Scottsdale, AZ

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Inst. of Police Technology & Management

Contact: 904/620-4786

Event: At-Scene Traffic Crash InvestigationCost: $895Date/Loc: March 21 - April 1, Murfreeboro, TNDate/Loc: March 28 - April 8, Jacksonville, FLDate/Loc: September 12 - 23, Jacksonville, FL

Event: Advanced Traffic Crash Investig'nCost: $895Date/Loc: Jan. 24 - Feb. 4, Scottsdale, AZDate/Loc: April 11 - 22, Jacksonville, FLDate/Loc: Sept. 26 - Oct. 7, Jacksonville, FL

Event: Traffic Crash ReconstructionCost: $895Date/Loc: April 25 - May 6, Jacksonville, FL

Event: Inspection and Investigation of Commercial Vehicle Crashes

Cost: $695Date/Loc: Feb. 28 - March 4, Jacksonville, FLDate/Loc: March 28 - April 1, Scottsdale, AZDate/Loc: Aug. 29 - Sept. 2, Jacksonville, FL

Event: Investigation of Motorcycle CrashesCost: $695Date/Loc: February 7 - 11, Scottsdale, AZDate/Loc: March 21 - 25, Jacksonville, FLDate/Loc: October 17 - 21, Jacksonville, FL

Event: Pedestrian & Bike Crash Invest'nCost: $695Date/Loc: March 7 -11, Scottsdale, AZDate/Loc: April 4 - 8, Jacksonville, FL

Event: Energy Method and Damage AnalysisCost: $725Date/Loc: May 23 - 27, Murfreesboro, TN

Event: Occupant Kinematics for the Traffic Crash Investigator

Cost: $725Date/Loc: March 14 - 18, Marietta, GA

Event: Event Data Recorder Use in Traffic Accident Reconstruction

Cost: $695Date/Loc: March 14 - 18, Jacksonville, FLDate/Loc: March 21 - 25, Scottsdale, AZDate/Loc: October 24 - 28, Jacksonville, FL

Event: Event Data Recorder Use in Traffic Accident Reconstruction - Update

Cost: $495Date/Loc: April 25 - 27, Jacksonville, FL

Event: Digital Photography for Traffic Crash Investigations

Cost: $695Date/Loc: March 28 - April 1, Marietta, GADate/Loc: October 3 - 7, Jacksonville, FL

Event: Human Factors in Traffic Crash Recon.Cost: $725Date/Loc: February 14 - 18, Scottsdale, AZDate/Loc: March 21 - 25, Marietta, GADate/Loc: June 6 - 10, Murfreesboro, TN

Event: Special Problems in Traffic Crash Recosntruction

Cost: $695Date/Loc: May 2 - 6, Jacksonville, FL

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Michigan State Univ. / Rec*Tec

Contact: www.rec-tec.com

Event: Crash3 - Linear Momentum - SMACCost: $375Date/Loc: March 23 - 25, New Orleans, LA

Event: World Class TurcksCost: $975Date/Loc: March 27 - April 1, New Orleans, LA

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Michigan State Univ.

Contact: 517/355-3270

Event: AI - 1Date/Loc: January 24 - 28, Garden City, MIDate/Loc: February 7 - 11, East Lansing, MIDate/Loc: March 28 - April 1, Auburn Hills, MIDate/Loc: September 12 - 16, Garden City, MI

Event: AI - 2Date/Loc: January 17 - 21, Clinton Twp., MIDate/Loc: Feb. 28 - March 4, Garden City, MIDate/Loc: March 21 - 25, East Lansing, MIDate/Loc: May 16 - 20, Auburn Hills, MIDate/Loc: October 12 - 16, Garden City, MI

Event: AI - 3Date/Loc: February 15 - 16, Clinton Twp., MIDate/Loc: April 5 - 6, Garden City, MIDate/Loc: May 10 - 11, East Lansing, MIDate/Loc: June 21 - 22, Auburn Hills, MI

Event: AI - 4Date/Loc: February 14, Clinton Twp., MIDate/Loc: April 4, Garden City, MIDate/Loc: May 12, East Lansing, MIDate/Loc: June 23, Auburn Hills, MI



Event: AI - 7Date/Loc: March 21 - 25, Clinton Twp., MIDate/Loc: May 9 - 13, Garden City, MIDate/Loc: June 15 - 17, East Lansing, MIDate/Loc: October 3 - 5, Auburn Hills, MI

Event: AI - 8Date/Loc: April 25 - 27, Clinton Twp., MIDate/Loc: June 6 - 8, Garden City, MIDate/Loc: June 15 - 17, East Lansing, MIDate/Loc: October 3 - 5, Auburn Hills, MI

Event: AI - 9Date/Loc: January 10 - 21, East Lansing, MIDate/Loc: September 19 - 30, Clinton Twp., MI

Event: AI - 11 & 12Date/Loc: October 7 - 11, Auburn Hills, MI

6


Event: AI - 13Date/Loc: February 14 - 18, Garden City, MIDate/Loc: March 7 - 11, East Lansing, MI

Event: AI - 14Date/Loc: June 9 - 10, East Lansing, MI

Event: AI - 17Date/Loc: April 18 - 20, East Lansing, MIDate/Loc: June 27 - 29, Garden City, MI


Event: AI - 20Date/Loc: May 23 - 27, East Lansing, MIDate/Loc: October 10 - 14, Garden City, MI


-------------------------------------------------------------------

Northwestern University - Center for Public Safety

Contact: 800/323-4011 or 847/491-7245

Event: Crash Investigation 1Cost: $975Date/Loc: March 7 - 18, Evanston, IL

Event: Crash Investigation 2Cost: $975Date/Loc: March 21 - April 1, Evanston, IL

Event: Vehicle DynamicsCost: $775Date/Loc: April 11 - 15, Evanston, IL

Event: Math and Physics Workshop for Crash Reconstruction

Cost: $775Date/Loc: April 4 - 8, Evanston, IL

Event: Traffic Crash Reconstruction 1Cost: $1050Date/Loc: October 18 - 29, Evanston, ILDate/Loc: April 18 - 29, Evanston, IL

Event: Traffic Crash Reconstruction 2Cost: $850Date/Loc: November 1 - 5, Evanston, ILDate/Loc: May 2 - 6, Evanston, IL

Event: Traffic Crash Reconstr'n RefresherCost: $500Date/Loc: May 16 - 18, Evanston, IL

Event: Heavy Vehicle Crash ReconstructionCost: $875Date/Loc: May 9 - 13, Evanston, IL

Event: Pedestrian/Vehicle Crash ReconstructionCost: $575Date/Loc: May 23 - 25, Evanston, IL

Event: Event Data Recorder TechnicianCost: $200Date/Loc: November 16, Evanston, IL

Event: Event Data Recorder Technician FieldCost: $375Date/Loc: May 26 - 27, Evanston, IL

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Rudy Degger and Associates

Contact: www.rudydegger.com

Event: Basic Traffic Collision InvestigationCost: $273Date/Loc: January 25 - 28, Concord, CADate/Loc: March 1 - 4, Concord, CADate/Loc: April 26 - 29, Concord, CA

Event: Intermediate Traffic Collision Invest.Cost: $505Date/Loc: February 7 - 11, Concord, CADate/Loc: May 2 - 6, Concord, CA

Event: Advanced Traffic Collision InvestigationCost: $616Date/Loc: June 13 - 24, Concord, CA

Event: Traffic Collision ReconstructionCost: $770Date/Loc: March 14 - 25, Concord, CA

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Society of Automotive Engineers

Contact: Prof. Development 724/776-4970

Event: Side Impact Occupant Safety and CAFECost: Member: $1184 Non-member: $1315Date/Loc: February 21 - 22, Troy, MI

Event: Frontal Impact Crash Occupant Safety and CAFE

Cost: Member: $1139 Non-member: $1265Date/Loc: March 3 - 4, Troy, MI

Event: Brake Testing for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks

Cost: Member: $1103 Non-member: $1225Date/Loc: February 21 - 22, Troy, MI

Event: Vehicle Dynamics for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks

Cost: Member: $1499 Non-member: $1665Date/Loc: March 23 - 25, Troy, MI

---------------------------------------------------------------

Texas A & M Univ. - TEEX

Contact: 800/423-8433

Event: Advanced Collision InvestigationCost: $470Date/Loc: Jan. 24 - Feb. 4, Bryan, TXDate/Loc: March 21 - April 1, Baytown, TX

Event: Advanced Collision InvestigationCost: $835Date/Loc: October 18 - 29, Hot Springs, AR

Event: Collision ReconstructionCost: $835Date/Loc: January 3 - 14, Conroe, TXDate/Loc: February 14 - 25, Humble, TXDate/Loc: June 6 - 17, Baytown, TX

Event: Collision ReconstructionCost: $835Date/Loc: January 10 - 21, Van Buren, AR

.# # #

AAA: TEENS DON'T GETENOUGH SUPERVISEDDRIVING EXPERIENCE

Traffic crashes are the leading cause ofdeath for teenagers between the ages of 15 and18 across the nation.

A new study from the AAA Foundationfor Traffic Safety suggests one of the reasonsteenaged drivers are some of the most vulner-able drivers on the road is because parents aren’tspending enough time practicing driving withtheir teens.

During the study, the AAA Foundationplaced cameras in the vehicles of 50 families tomonitor teenage drivers and their parents duringthe supervised driving phase.

The study found the average amount ofweekly driving varied greatly among familiesranging from 20 minutes to five hours.

Overall, teens averaged about an hourand a half of supervised driving each week.

Most of the supervised driving occurredduring routine trips along the same routes, withfew teens gaining significant experience in chal-lenging situations, such as driving during heavytraffic or in inclement weather.

A statistic, AAA Foundation Presidentand CEO Peter Kissinger says the best way forteen drivers to become responsible drivers is bydriving in a variety of settings. “Starting earlyand practicing often can make the crucial differ-ence between being a tentative novice driver orone capable of handling challenging and un-avoidable driving scenarios.”

About 70 percent of parents from thestudy reported opportunities for driving withtheir teen were limited by the busy schedules ofthe parents and teens.

According to the Ohio Insurance Insti-tute one in three drivers under the age of 16crashed and one in seven drivers between theages to 16 and 20 crashed in 2008.

The Nation Highway Traffic Safety Ad-ministration says inexperience is what makesteens some of the most vulnerable drivers on theroad.

The state of Ohio has a graduated driver’slicense system (GDL). The state requires sixmonths of supervised driving before a teen iseligible for a license. During this stage of GDL,parents need to make sure their teens see enoughpractice in a variety of driving situations, in-cluding frequent practice with driving at night,in bad weather, through heavy city traffic, onrural highways and on busy interstates.

Parents should also share their driving“wisdom” to help their teen spot potential dan-gers that aren’t obvious. Teens need to also needto be taught how to drive defensively and toanticipate the unexpected, such as running redlights.

- nbc4i.com

7


Solutions begin on page 62.

1. A truck is traveling at 56 mph [90 kph]. A car is travelling in theopposite direction at 71 mph [114 kph]. The distance between them is 950feet [290 m]. If they both maintain constant speed, how much time willelapse before they collide?

2. A bus stops at an intersection. It then accelerates at a moderate rate of0.12 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 rateof 42 mph [68 kph]. How far from the point of impact was the car whenthe 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 topoff a small dirt mound. The scrape is measured and found to corre-spond to a take-off slope of 7% for the car. The horizontal distance ofthe jump is 75 feet [22.9 m]. There is no change in elevation from take-off to landing. Determine the take-off speed of the Camaro.

T E S T Y O U R S K I L L6. An automobile begins to yaw on a banked curve. The critical speedscuff 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 sur-face is level. Determine the speed of the vehicle.

7. 4025-pound [1826 kg] V-2 is stopped at a traffic signal when it is struckin the rear by 4678-pound [2122 kg] eastbound V-1. After impact V-1travelled east 29 feet [8.8 m] at an average drag factor of 0.52. Afterimpact 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 usingdissipation of energy. V-1 has an average of 7.5 inches [19 cm] of crushon 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: ebs = 1.40*CMAX

+ 7V-2 rear: ebs = 1.15*C

MAX + 5

S in kph, CAVG

in cm: V-1 front: ebs = 0.89*CMAX

+ 11V-2 rear: ebs = 0.73*C

MAX + 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 KIAMOTORS RESIGNS OVER RECALLS

Chung Sung-eun, vice chairman and chief executive of SouthKorea's second largest automaker, has quit, according to company spokes-man Michael Choo.

"His resignation comes in the light of the recent global recall issuedby Kia Motors," Choo said, without elaborating.

Kia is the sister company to Hyundai Motor. Together they formHyundai Kia Automotive Group, the world's fifth largest auto company.

Chung's decision to resign contrasts with the management deci-sions made at Japan's No. 1 automaker, Toyota Motor (TM), which sawits reputation for quality and safety wither in recent months after recallsof about 10 million cars worldwide to fix an array of problems, mostlyrelated 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 Chair-man Chung Mong-koo asked Chung to step down in order to takeresponsibility for the recalls, the Associated Press reported. Neither Choonor Hyundai Motor spokeswoman Song Meeyoung could confirm thereport.

Last week, Kia recalled about 100,000 cars for defective wiringthat controls mood lighting, including 35,000 Kia Sorento and Soulmodels sold in the U.S. Defective soldering may short out and possiblyresult in a fire, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin-istration website.

Federal safety investigators also said they were beginning aninvestigation into a report of steering problems in a 2010 Soul model. Thecomplaint claims steering components broke apart resulting in a completeloss of steering. - DailyFinance

8


A poorly designed government study ofantilock brakes threatens to lock up the wheels ofan effort to require this safety feature on all newmotorcycles. Relying on flawed methods, the au-thors fail to find any significant effect on crash riskfrom antilocks. A broad spectrum of research bythe Institute and others has found otherwise.

More than 5,000 motorcyclists werekilled in crashes in 2008. Such deaths continuedto grow in recent years despite an overall drop intraffic deaths. More people have started ridingmotorcycles, with bike registrations nearly dou-bling from 2000 to 2008. Given that surge, it’simportant to look for ways to make riding safer.

Brakes are a good place to start becausestopping a motorcycle is much more compli-cated than stopping a car. Most motorcycleshave separate controls for the front and rearbrakes, and braking too hard can lock up awheel, causing a fall. Improper braking has beenshown to be a common cause of crashes.Antilocks help by automatically reducing brakepressure when a lockup is about to occur andincreasing it again after traction is restored.

The National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration (NHTSA) announced in its 2009-11 agenda that it was considering an antilockrequirement for motorcycles. The Institutestrongly urged the agency to adopt the rule andreiterated this in a recent letter to the agency,warning that the new study should be ignoredbecause it contributes nothing reliable to what’salready known about the benefits of antilockbrakes on motorcycles.

The agency’s own studies have shownthat motorcycle antilocks reduce stopping dis-tances on the test track. Other studies have

quantified the benefits using crash reconstruc-tions. Two recent statistical analyses from theInstitute and the affiliated Highway Loss DataInstitute provide even more support for motor-cycle antilocks.

Institute researchers found that motor-cycles with antilock brakes are 37 percent lesslikely to be involved in fatal crashes than bikeswithout antilocks. The researchers looked atcrashes from 2003 to 2008 and measured theexposure of both types of motorcycles by look-ing at vehicle registrations. A separate analysisof insurance claims found that motorcycles withantilocks have 22 percent fewer damage claimsper insured vehicle year than the same modelswithout antilocks.

“There’s ample evidence that motorcycleantilocks prevent crashes and save lives,” saysInstitute president Adrian Lund. “Unfortunately,NHTSA decided to do its own study using aflawed methodology. The agency should disre-gard its latest findings, which only serve tomuddle the issue.”

NHTSA’s report is an apparent responseto the Institute’s study of fatal crashes. Theauthors point out that Institute researchers weren’table to control for possible differences in theriding habits of people who buy motorcycleswith antilocks compared with people whosebikes don’t have the feature.

But the government researchers didn’tconsider the Highway Loss Data Institute analy-sis of collision claims. This study does take intoaccount factors known to affect crash rates in-cluding rider age and sex and a bike’s location,and the findings still show a significant benefitof antilocks. Instead, the government research-

EDITORIAL: FEDERAL STUDY OF ANTILOCKS IS JUNK SCIENCEers tried to solve the problem by comparingcrashes that would be affected by antilocks witha control group of crashes in which antilocks aredeemed irrelevant. The problem, Lund says, isthat the categories are hardly clear-cut.

Agency researchers performed 2 ver-sions of their analysis using different definitionsof the control group. First, they defined thisgroup strictly as crashes in which a motorcyclewas stationary or moving very slowly. How-ever, such crashes are so rare that, as the re-searchers themselves acknowledge, it’s hard todraw any conclusions from them.

In the second version of NHTSA’s analy-sis, the control group includes all crashes inwhich a motorcycle rider wasn’t at fault but thedriver of another vehicle was. In this case, themethodological problem is the inclusion of manycrashes in which antilocks are anything butirrelevant. For instance, a rider going straightwho has to brake suddenly to avoid hittingsomeone improperly turning left from the oppo-site lane wouldn’t be at fault, although antilockbrakes could save the life of a rider in thissituation.

“It’s hard to find many crashes in whicheffective braking is irrelevant,” Lund says. “Theagency’s attempt to analyze the issue this wayadds nothing to what we know about antilocksand certainly doesn’t refute earlier studies show-ing the benefits of antilock brakes.”

“Motorcycle antilock braking systemsand crash risk estimated from case-control com-parisons,” along with the Institute’s letter toNHTSA, is available at regulations.gov, DocketNo. NHTSA-2002-11950.

- IIHS Status Report

Allstate Insurance Co has sued ToyotaMotor Corp, seeking to recover more than $3million the insurer and affiliates paid in claimsfor accidents linked to unintended accelerationin Toyota vehicles.

The lawsuit, filed [recently] in Los An-geles Superior Court, marks a relatively newfront in the wave of U.S. civil litigation piling upagainst the Japanese automaker for economiclosses stemming from complaints about Toyotasthat have sped out of control and crashed.

"We are expected to be one of severalinsurance companies that are taking this action,"Allstate spokeswoman Christina Loznicka toldReuters.

Echoing claims in a major class-actionconsumer suit pending in federal court againstToyota, the Allstate complaint says the auto-maker long ignored evidence of accelerationproblems in its vehicles and failed to install abrake override system that would have pre-vented accidents.

The Allstate action asserts, as have otherlawsuits, that acceleration flaws were rooted ina defect in an electronic throttle system Toyotaintroduced in the 1990s, and that Toyota "essen-tially hid the problem" instead of recalling thecars or changing the design.

"This has resulted in numerous claims ofinstances of property damage and injuries, includ-ing in some instances fatalities," the suit says.

Claims paid by Allstate and affiliates topolicy-holders or third parties for accidents in-volving unintended acceleration in Toyotas to-tal more than $3 million, according to the suit.

That sum is a fraction of the $10 billionin total potential U.S. civil liability Toyota isestimated to face overall from unintended accel-eration. But similar suits from other insurancecarriers are bound to multiply the effect of suchsubrogation claims.

Toyota spokesman Steven Curtis said thecompany 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 caus-

ing its vehicles to speed out of control were ill-fitting floor mats and sticking gas pedals -- bothaddressed in safety recalls encompassing 5.4million U.S. vehicles.

The automaker has staunchly denied thatan electronic glitch of any kind is to blame for itsacceleration problems.

But the unprecedented magnitude of therecalls has damaged Toyota's once-sterling reputa-tion for safety and reliability in its largest market.

Toyota's North American manufacturingarm said on Monday that consumer complaintsregarding unintended acceleration have dropped80 percent since April, when it instituted a newapproach to handling those complaints.

The National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration is investigating reports that asmany as 89 crash deaths since 2000 may belinked to unintended acceleration in Toyota cars.

- Reuters

ALLSTATE SUES TOYOTA OVER ACCELERATION CLAIMS

9


This comprehensive database of motor vehicle dimensions and weights, designed to be used in accidentreconstruction, is immune to challenge in court by other lawyers or engineers because the data comes directlyfrom each vehicle manufacturer.

Our Standard Data Sheet (40 data points) Includes:AAMA Widths and LengthsAAMA Height & Ground Clearance MeasurementsAAMA Curb WeightAAMA Tire & Wheel SizeAAMA Optional Equipment Weights

Additional Information Available:AAMA Headlamp DataRecall InformationAcceleration Speeds/DistancesBraking DistanceVIN Number AnalysisAAMA Interior DimensionsManufacturing Materials UsedCenter 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 ChargeSame Day Service No Extra ChargeInterior & Exterior Line Drawings and Dimensional

Explanations at No Extra Charge

MOTOR VEHICLE DATA12106 Waywood DriveTwinsburg, OH 44087

Phone Orders: 330/963-0130Fax Orders: 330/963-7737

Kansas now eligible for more than $11million in federal funds U.S. TransportationSecretary Ray LaHood today applauded Kansasfor enacting a new primary seat belt law that isexpected to save lives, reduce serious injuriesand cut medical and other economic costs bymore than $70 million.

The new Kansas law enables police of-ficers to stop and ticket the driver of any passen-ger car if either the driver or front seat passengeris observed not wearing a seat belt. This law alsoapplies to anyone under age 18. According to theNational Highway Traffic Safety Administra-tion (NHTSA), seat belt use is the most effectiveprotection against serious crash injuries, reduc-ing the risk by 50 percent.

"We are pleased that Kansas has joinedthose states that have adopted primary seat belt

laws to save lives," said Secretary LaHood."Wearing a seat belt can make the differencebetween life and death in a crash, so alwaysbuckle up on every trip, every time.”

NHTSA Administrator David Stricklandadded, “We applaud Governor Mark Parkinsonand the state legislature for stepping up to theplate to make Kansas roads safer. Seat belts havesaved more lives than any other piece of safetyequipment in the American automobile, but theyonly work when you wear them.”

NHTSA estimates that, with the passageof its primary belt law, Kansas will increase itsbelt use by approximately nine percent, cutannual fatalities in passenger cars and lighttrucks by eight percent and reduce serious inju-ries.

Traffic crashes cost the nation about

$230 billion each year in medical expenses, lostproductivity, property damage and related costs.Kansas pays $1.9 billion of these costs, $700 forevery resident of Kansas, each year.

The new law makes Kansas eligible toreceive $11 million in federal incentive fundsfrom the Department of Transportation. Primaryseat belt laws have a proven track record ofincreasing state seat belt use rates. In 2009, theaverage seat belt use rate in states with primaryenforcement laws was 11 percent higher than instates with secondary enforcement laws.

With the addition of Kansas, 31 states,the District of Columbia, American Samoa,Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, PuertoRico and the Virgin Islands have primary seatbelt laws.

- DOT press release

U.S. TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY LAHOOD APPLAUDSNEW KANSAS PRIMARY SEAT BELT LAW

10


PEDESTRIAN WALKING SPEEDIN CROSSWALK STUDY

By: Frank Carson

INTRODUCTION

Pedestrian walking speed is a parameteroften needed for time/distance analyses in trafficaccident reconstruction cases. A walking speedof 3 mph (4.4 ft/sec) or 4 ft/sec (2.7 mph) istypically assumed for a healthy, adult pedestrian,based studies published in this periodical andelsewhere. [Ref. 1 - 5]

Pedestrian walking speed is also widelyused as input for many transportation engineeringapplications, such as determining required gapsizes and pedestrian signal timing. The U.S.Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices[Ref. 6] assumes a pedestrian walking speed of4 ft/sec (1.2 m/sec) or slower by pedestrianssuch as the elderly, people using wheelchairs orother assistive devices, and others.

The purpose of this study was to providedata that would corroborate or possibly contra-dict previous studies, and to see what effectvariable factors such age, gender, etc., wouldhave on expected pedestrian travel speed.

METHODOLOGY

The study was conducted at a majorsports complex. A crosswalk was measured,and found to be 39 feet in length from curb tocurb. The roadway was of asphalt constructionand the path that the pedestrian walked wasstraight and level. The data, as it was collected,was entered onto a form and then transferred toa simple spreadsheet for analysis.

The pedestrians were timed using a TimexTriathlon digital stopwatch. The watch wasstarted when the pedestrian’s foot left the curband stopped when the pedestrian’s trailing footcame up onto the curb at the end. Pedestrianswere timed prior to the beginning of the sportsevent and before the crowds became so densethat a pedestrian’s walking speed may have beeneffected by them walking within crowds acrossthe roadway.

Only pedestrians who walked a straightline and were walking alone (not holding handswith another person, etc.) along the measuredpath were timed unless otherwise noted. Specialinstances, such as a person walking with a cane,were noted by a numeric code. The key to thesenumeric codes is visible at right. It was possiblefor a pedestrian to have required more than onenote. For example, a person limping and usinga cane would merit two separate codes.

There was no precipitation falling dur-

8/14/2004 B M 35 8.75 39 4.46 3.04 18/14/2004 W F 22 8.43 39 4.63 3.16 18/14/2004 W F 35 8.75 39 4.46 3.04 18/14/2004 W F 40 9.69 39 4.02 2.75 18/14/2004 W M 25 8.43 39 4.63 3.16 18/14/2004 W M 40 9.69 39 4.02 2.75 1

8/14/2004 W F 30 8.49 39 4.59 3.13 28/14/2004 W F 48 8.47 39 4.60 3.14 28/14/2004 W F 48 8.47 39 4.60 3.14 28/14/2004 W F 55 9.71 39 4.02 2.74 28/14/2004 W M 17 8.31 39 4.69 3.20 28/14/2004 W M 25 8.49 39 4.59 3.13 28/14/2004 W M 40 8.31 39 4.69 3.20 28/14/2004 W M 60 9.71 39 4.02 2.74 2

9/18/2004 B M 70 30.02 39 1.30 0.89 38/14/2004 W M 48 13.19 39 2.96 2.02 38/14/2004 W M 70 23.65 39 1.65 1.12 38/14/2004 W M 38 9.58 39 4.07 2.78 49/18/2004 B M 55 5.64 39 6.91 4.72 58/14/2004 W F 50 8.87 39 4.40 3.00 59/3/2004 W M 50 9.45 39 4.13 2.82 510/31/2004 W F 25 11.07 39 3.52 2.40 610/31/2004 W M 65 8.01 39 4.87 3.32 6

12/12/2004 W M 8 5.27 39 7.40 5.05 78/28/2004 W M 9 5.49 39 7.10 4.85 78/28/2004 W M 12 4.36 39 8.94 6.10 71/2/2005 B F 60 15.29 39 2.55 1.74 89/3/2004 W F 55 10.18 39 3.83 2.61 89/18/2004 B F 45 7.59 39 5.14 3.51 9

10/31/2004 W M 25 8.11 39 4.81 3.28 1012/12/2004 W M 30 7.29 39 5.35 3.65 118/14/2004 W F 40 12.16 39 3.21 2.19 6,28/14/2004 W M 40 12.16 39 3.21 2.19 6,2

paired by alcohol or other drugs were includedin the study. The decision to exclude a pedes-trian from the study was based on the author'sexperience as a law enforcement officer for 16years, and his training as a Drug Recognition

ing any of these measurements. The road sur-face was dry, except for the samples taken on 9/18/2004 at which time the roadway on which thepedestrians walked was wet from an earlier rain.

No pedestrians who appeared to be im-

Date Race Sex Age Time Dist. (ft) ft/sec mph Note

Code Descriptions:

1. Holding Hands 2. Walking Side by Side 3. Walking with Cane 4. In Wheelchair – Operated by Hand (Rider) 5. Motorized Wheelchair 6. Overweight/Obese 7. Running 8. Limping 9. Wearing High Heels 10. Pushed in Wheelchair11. Pulling Rolling Suitcase/Briefcase

TABLE 1 - Individual Walking Speed Measurements

11


12/12/2004 A F 25 8.94 39 4.36 2.9810/31/2004 A F 30 11.43 39 3.41 2.3310/31/2004 A F 35 8.10 39 4.81 3.28

9/18/2004 B F 19 10.49 39 3.72 2.549/18/2004 B F 20 11.56 39 3.37 2.309/18/2004 B F 20 8.82 39 4.42 3.0210/31/2004 B F 20 10.87 39 3.59 2.451/2/2005 B F 20 7.71 39 5.06 3.459/18/2004 B F 22 9.57 39 4.08 2.789/18/2004 B F 23 8.47 39 4.60 3.149/18/2004 B F 25 9.21 39 4.23 2.899/18/2004 B F 25 8.07 39 4.83 3.309/18/2004 B F 25 10.35 39 3.77 2.579/18/2004 B F 25 7.97 39 4.89 3.349/18/2004 B F 25 10.91 39 3.57 2.4412/12/2004 B F 25 9.23 39 4.23 2.8812/12/2004 B F 25 11.10 39 3.51 2.4012/12/2004 B F 25 9.61 39 4.06 2.778/14/2004 B F 28 7.69 39 5.07 3.469/18/2004 B F 28 3.96 39 9.85 6.72

9/18/2004 B F 30 9.27 39 4.21 2.879/18/2004 B F 30 9.92 39 3.93 2.689/3/2004 B F 32 8.89 39 4.39 2.9912/12/2004 B F 35 10.47 39 3.72 2.549/27/2004 B F 38 10.16 39 3.84 2.629/18/2004 B F 40 10.74 39 3.63 2.489/18/2004 B F 45 8.89 39 4.39 2.999/3/2004 B F 48 11.59 39 3.36 2.309/18/2004 B F 48 9.87 39 3.95 2.709/18/2004 B F 50 10.70 39 3.64 2.491/2/2005 B F 50 9.89 39 3.94 2.699/3/2004 B F 56 10.97 39 3.56 2.439/18/2004 B F 60 9.00 39 4.33 2.969/3/2004 B F 62 12.05 39 3.24 2.219/18/2004 B F 63 11.07 39 3.52 2.40

8/14/2004 B M 9 11.17 39 3.49 2.389/3/2004 B M 10 11.93 39 3.27 2.239/18/2004 B M 10 8.99 39 4.34 2.969/18/2004 B M 12 7.86 39 4.96 3.389/18/2004 B M 15 12.58 39 3.10 2.1112/5/2004 B M 15 9.23 39 4.23 2.8812/12/2004 B M 15 9.23 39 4.23 2.8812/12/2004 B M 15 9.27 39 4.21 2.879/18/2004 B M 16 8.35 39 4.67 3.198/28/2004 B M 17 9.69 39 4.02 2.759/18/2004 B M 19 9.57 39 4.08 2.789/18/2004 B M 19 12.59 39 3.10 2.11

8/14/2004 B M 20 10.23 39 3.81 2.609/3/2004 B M 20 9.4 39 4.15 2.839/27/2004 B M 20 9.3 39 4.19 2.869/27/2004 B M 20 12.39 39 3.15 2.159/18/2004 B M 21 8.33 39 4.68 3.199/3/2004 B M 22 7.85 39 4.97 3.399/18/2004 B M 22 8.64 39 4.51 3.089/18/2004 B M 22 7.19 39 5.42 3.709/18/2004 B M 23 8.49 39 4.59 3.139/18/2004 B M 23 10.28 39 3.79 2.599/27/2004 B M 24 12.93 39 3.02 2.069/18/2004 B M 25 10.27 39 3.80 2.599/18/2004 B M 25 9.77 39 3.99 2.72

9/18/2004 B M 25 9.35 39 4.17 2.859/18/2004 B M 25 7.53 39 5.18 3.539/18/2004 B M 25 7.53 39 5.18 3.539/18/2004 B M 25 8.27 39 4.72 3.229/18/2004 B M 25 8.74 39 4.46 3.049/27/2004 B M 25 11.80 39 3.31 2.2510/31/2004 B M 25 7.97 39 4.89 3.349/3/2004 B M 26 8.43 39 4.63 3.169/18/2004 B M 26 6.21 39 6.28 4.288/14/2004 B M 28 9.49 39 4.11 2.809/3/2004 B M 30 8.71 39 4.48 3.059/18/2004 B M 30 11.07 39 3.52 2.409/18/2004 B M 35 10.06 39 3.88 2.649/18/2004 B M 38 8.07 39 4.83 3.30

9/18/2004 B M 40 8.99 39 4.34 2.969/18/2004 B M 40 9.13 39 4.27 2.919/18/2004 B M 40 9.76 39 4.00 2.739/18/2004 B M 40 8.73 39 4.47 3.059/18/2004 B M 40 10.70 39 3.64 2.499/27/2004 B M 40 9.15 39 4.26 2.9110/31/2004 B M 40 7.73 39 5.05 3.441/2/2005 B M 40 8.95 39 4.36 2.979/3/2004 B M 42 12.1 39 3.22 2.209/27/2004 B M 43 8.99 39 4.34 2.969/18/2004 B M 44 11.38 39 3.43 2.341/2/2005 B M 45 9.52 39 4.10 2.798/28/2004 B M 48 7.46 39 5.23 3.579/18/2004 B M 48 10.55 39 3.70 2.529/27/2004 B M 50 11.15 39 3.50 2.399/27/2004 B M 50 10.58 39 3.69 2.5112/12/2004 B M 50 9.41 39 4.14 2.839/18/2004 B M 52 9.59 39 4.07 2.778/14/2004 B M 55 10.38 39 3.76 2.568/14/2004 B M 55 9.32 39 4.18 2.859/27/2004 B M 55 9.80 39 3.98 2.719/18/2004 B M 56 9.73 39 4.01 2.739/18/2004 B M 60 9.25 39 4.22 2.889/18/2004 B M 60 9.14 39 4.27 2.919/18/2004 B M 63 10.77 39 3.62 2.479/18/2004 B M 68 11.77 39 3.31 2.2610/31/2004 B M 70 14.16 39 2.75 1.88

1/2/2005 H M 30 9.19 39 4.24 2.891/2/2005 H M 35 9.30 39 4.19 2.86

1/2/2005 W F 9 8.03 39 4.86 3.3110/31/2004 W F 15 9.48 39 4.11 2.8112/12/2004 W F 15 8.60 39 4.53 3.091/2/2005 W F 15 11.17 39 3.49 2.389/3/2004 W F 16 10.18 39 3.83 2.611/2/2005 W F 18 9.67 39 4.03 2.758/28/2004 W F 19 9.35 39 4.17 2.858/28/2004 W F 19 7.63 39 5.11 3.498/28/2004 W F 19 10.19 39 3.83 2.61

9/27/2004 W F 20 9.19 39 4.24 2.8910/31/2004 W F 20 8.74 39 4.46 3.0410/31/2004 W F 20 7.33 39 5.32 3.6312/12/2004 W F 20 9.00 39 4.33 2.9612/12/2004 W F 20 6.81 39 5.73 3.911/2/2005 W F 20 9.53 39 4.09 2.798/28/2004 W F 22 9.88 39 3.95 2.698/28/2004 W F 22 9.61 39 4.06 2.77

TABLE 1 - Individual Walking Speed Measurements (Continued)

Date Race Sex Age Time Dist. ft/sec mph Date Race Sex Age Time Dist. ft/sec mph

12


9/3/2004 W F 22 7.28 39 5.36 3.659/18/2004 W F 22 8.80 39 4.43 3.029/27/2004 W F 22 8.45 39 4.62 3.159/3/2004 W F 24 6.74 39 5.79 3.958/14/2004 W F 25 7.78 39 5.01 3.4210/31/2004 W F 25 9.07 39 4.30 2.9310/31/2004 W F 25 9.01 39 4.33 2.9512/12/2004 W F 25 8.09 39 4.82 3.2912/12/2004 W F 25 8.01 39 4.87 3.3212/12/2004 W F 25 8.53 39 4.57 3.121/2/2005 W F 25 8.50 39 4.59 3.131/2/2005 W F 25 9.78 39 3.99 2.721/2/2005 W F 25 9.47 39 4.12 2.81

9/3/2004 W F 28 8.48 39 4.60 3.1410/31/2004 W F 30 8.19 39 4.76 3.2512/12/2004 W F 30 8.11 39 4.81 3.2812/12/2004 W F 30 9.12 39 4.28 2.9212/12/2004 W F 30 8.64 39 4.51 3.089/27/2004 W F 35 9.89 39 3.94 2.699/27/2004 W F 35 10.63 39 3.67 2.5010/31/2004 W F 35 7.79 39 5.01 3.4210/31/2004 W F 35 8.33 39 4.68 3.1912/12/2004 W F 35 8.35 39 4.67 3.1912/12/2004 W F 35 10.75 39 3.63 2.471/2/2005 W F 35 8.39 39 4.65 3.171/2/2005 W F 35 8.09 39 4.82 3.291/2/2005 W F 35 10.19 39 3.83 2.618/28/2004 W F 38 11.73 39 3.32 2.279/27/2004 W F 38 9.29 39 4.20 2.86

9/3/2004 W F 40 8.34 39 4.68 3.199/27/2004 W F 40 9.24 39 4.22 2.8812/12/2004 W F 40 9.51 39 4.10 2.801/2/2005 W F 40 8.88 39 4.39 3.0012/12/2004 W F 43 8.29 39 4.70 3.219/3/2004 W F 45 9.82 39 3.97 2.719/3/2004 W F 45 9.09 39 4.29 2.9310/31/2004 W F 45 7.77 39 5.02 3.4212/12/2004 W F 45 8.36 39 4.67 3.181/2/2005 W F 45 11.13 39 3.50 2.39

8/28/2004 W F 50 9.27 39 4.21 2.878/28/2004 W F 50 10.79 39 3.61 2.479/3/2004 W F 50 8.52 39 4.58 3.129/3/2004 W F 50 9.09 39 4.29 2.9310/31/2004 W F 50 12.87 39 3.03 2.0710/31/2004 W F 50 10.50 39 3.71 2.5312/12/2004 W F 50 12.01 39 3.25 2.229/27/2004 W F 55 8.97 39 4.35 2.9710/31/2004 W F 55 8.43 39 4.63 3.169/27/2004 W F 60 9.77 39 3.99 2.729/3/2004 W F 63 9.69 39 4.02 2.758/28/2004 W F 65 9.91 39 3.94 2.689/3/2004 W F 65 11.25 39 3.47 2.369/3/2004 W F 65 10.03 39 3.89 2.651/2/2005 W F 65 10.12 39 3.85 2.63

1/2/2005 W M 5 11.39 39 3.42 2.349/3/2004 W M 6 9.70 39 4.02 2.7410/31/2004 W M 8 8.27 39 4.72 3.2210/31/2004 W M 8 8.33 39 4.68 3.1912/12/2004 W M 8 7.83 39 4.98 3.4012/12/2004 W M 8 9.67 39 4.03 2.75

1/2/2005 W M 8 9.08 39 4.30 2.931/2/2005 W M 8 12.33 39 3.16 2.161/2/2005 W M 8 8.33 39 4.68 3.198/14/2004 W M 9 9.09 39 4.29 2.931/2/2005 W M 9 8.29 39 4.70 3.219/3/2004 W M 10 9.27 39 4.21 2.8710/31/2004 W M 10 9.77 39 3.99 2.7210/31/2004 W M 10 10.45 39 3.73 2.5510/31/2004 W M 10 9.07 39 4.30 2.9310/31/2004 W M 10 8.83 39 4.42 3.0110/31/2004 W M 10 8.29 39 4.70 3.211/2/2005 W M 10 10.35 39 3.77 2.571/2/2005 W M 10 10.49 39 3.72 2.541/2/2005 W M 10 9.45 39 4.13 2.82

9/27/2004 W M 12 7.87 39 4.96 3.3810/31/2004 W M 12 8.91 39 4.38 2.9910/31/2004 W M 12 9.87 39 3.95 2.7012/12/2004 W M 12 7.08 39 5.51 3.7612/12/2004 W M 12 8.84 39 4.41 3.019/27/2004 W M 13 8.59 39 4.54 3.1012/12/2004 W M 13 8.68 39 4.49 3.069/27/2004 W M 14 9.00 39 4.33 2.968/14/2004 W M 15 9.53 39 4.09 2.799/27/2004 W M 15 9.59 39 4.07 2.779/27/2004 W M 15 8.01 39 4.87 3.3212/12/2004 W M 15 9.25 39 4.22 2.881/2/2005 W M 15 9.61 39 4.06 2.771/2/2005 W M 15 10.20 39 3.82 2.61

12/12/2004 W M 17 8.46 39 4.61 3.1412/12/2004 W M 17 9.27 39 4.21 2.8712/12/2004 W M 17 8.19 39 4.76 3.2510/31/2004 W M 18 8.07 39 4.83 3.309/27/2004 W M 19 8.54 39 4.57 3.12

8/28/2004 W M 20 9.06 39 4.30 2.949/27/2004 W M 20 8.05 39 4.84 3.3010/31/2004 W M 20 9.00 39 4.33 2.9610/31/2004 W M 20 7.57 39 5.15 3.5112/12/2004 W M 20 7.88 39 4.95 3.3812/12/2004 W M 20 7.69 39 5.07 3.4612/12/2004 W M 20 9.05 39 4.31 2.9412/12/2004 W M 20 7.34 39 5.31 3.6212/12/2004 W M 20 8.17 39 4.77 3.2612/12/2004 W M 20 8.07 39 4.83 3.3012/12/2004 W M 20 7.93 39 4.92 3.3512/12/2004 W M 20 8.31 39 4.69 3.2012/12/2004 W M 20 8.16 39 4.78 3.2612/12/2004 W M 20 10.39 39 3.75 2.5612/12/2004 W M 20 10.80 39 3.61 2.461/2/2005 W M 20 9.02 39 4.32 2.951/2/2005 W M 20 8.47 39 4.60 3.141/2/2005 W M 20 8.27 39 4.72 3.221/2/2005 W M 20 8.27 39 4.72 3.221/2/2005 W M 20 7.19 39 5.42 3.701/2/2005 W M 20 9.57 39 4.08 2.781/2/2005 W M 20 7.86 39 4.96 3.381/2/2005 W M 20 8.65 39 4.51 3.08

8/28/2004 W M 22 8.87 39 4.40 3.009/27/2004 W M 22 9.87 39 3.95 2.709/27/2004 W M 22 8.69 39 4.49 3.068/14/2004 W M 23 9.09 39 4.29 2.93



13


8/28/2004 W M 24 8.85 39 4.41 3.018/28/2004 W M 24 8.37 39 4.66 3.189/3/2004 W M 25 9.18 39 4.25 2.909/3/2004 W M 25 9.71 39 4.02 2.7410/31/2004 W M 25 8.28 39 4.71 3.2110/31/2004 W M 25 8.98 39 4.34 2.9612/5/2004 W M 25 10.09 39 3.87 2.6412/12/2004 W M 25 7.33 39 5.32 3.6312/12/2004 W M 25 8.73 39 4.47 3.0512/12/2004 W M 25 8.92 39 4.37 2.9812/12/2004 W M 25 10.23 39 3.81 2.6012/12/2004 W M 25 8.13 39 4.80 3.271/2/2005 W M 25 8.40 39 4.64 3.171/2/2005 W M 25 8.49 39 4.59 3.131/2/2005 W M 25 9.04 39 4.31 2.941/2/2005 W M 25 8.67 39 4.50 3.071/2/2005 W M 25 8.73 39 4.47 3.051/2/2005 W M 25 10.8 39 3.61 2.461/2/2005 W M 25 8.10 39 4.81 3.281/2/2005 W M 25 9.49 39 4.11 2.801/2/2005 W M 25 9.61 39 4.06 2.771/2/2005 W M 25 9.37 39 4.16 2.84

9/27/2004 W M 27 10.03 39 3.89 2.658/28/2004 W M 28 9.19 39 4.24 2.899/3/2004 W M 28 8.06 39 4.84 3.309/3/2004 W M 28 8.64 39 4.51 3.089/27/2004 W M 28 9.58 39 4.07 2.78

8/28/2004 W M 30 8.29 39 4.70 3.219/3/2004 W M 30 9.88 39 3.95 2.699/27/2004 W M 30 9.81 39 3.98 2.719/27/2004 W M 30 9.58 39 4.07 2.789/27/2004 W M 30 9.63 39 4.05 2.7610/31/2004 W M 30 8.03 39 4.86 3.3110/31/2004 W M 30 6.87 39 5.68 3.8710/31/2004 W M 30 9.83 39 3.97 2.7110/31/2004 W M 30 10.48 39 3.72 2.5410/31/2004 W M 30 8.45 39 4.62 3.1510/31/2004 W M 30 10.53 39 3.70 2.5312/12/2004 W M 30 12.99 39 3.00 2.0512/12/2004 W M 30 8.77 39 4.45 3.0312/12/2004 W M 30 8.25 39 4.73 3.2212/12/2004 W M 30 7.93 39 4.92 3.3512/12/2004 W M 30 11.40 39 3.42 2.3312/12/2004 W M 30 8.03 39 4.86 3.311/2/2005 W M 30 8.69 39 4.49 3.061/2/2005 W M 30 9.09 39 4.29 2.93

8/28/2004 W M 32 9.10 39 4.29 2.928/14/2004 W M 35 6.62 39 5.89 4.029/3/2004 W M 35 7.68 39 5.08 3.469/27/2004 W M 35 9.43 39 4.14 2.829/27/2004 W M 35 8.95 39 4.36 2.979/27/2004 W M 35 8.55 39 4.56 3.1112/12/2004 W M 35 11.22 39 3.48 2.371/2/2005 W M 35 9.79 39 3.98 2.721/2/2005 W M 35 8.88 39 4.39 3.001/2/2005 W M 35 8.45 39 4.62 3.151/2/2005 W M 35 8.07 39 4.83 3.30

8/14/2004 W M 40 8.40 39 4.64 3.178/28/2004 W M 40 7.03 39 5.55 3.789/3/2004 W M 40 7.93 39 4.92 3.35

9/27/2004 W M 40 10.60 39 3.68 2.519/27/2004 W M 40 10.29 39 3.79 2.599/27/2004 W M 40 7.23 39 5.39 3.6810/31/2004 W M 40 8.06 39 4.84 3.3010/31/2004 W M 40 9.32 39 4.18 2.8510/31/2004 W M 40 8.98 39 4.34 2.9612/12/2004 W M 40 8.43 39 4.63 3.1612/12/2004 W M 40 9.30 39 4.19 2.8612/12/2004 W M 40 8.30 39 4.70 3.2112/12/2004 W M 40 9.10 39 4.29 2.9212/12/2004 W M 40 7.22 39 5.40 3.681/2/2005 W M 40 8.09 39 4.82 3.291/2/2005 W M 40 9.51 39 4.10 2.801/2/2005 W M 40 7.77 39 5.02 3.421/2/2005 W M 40 10.98 39 3.55 2.42

9/3/2004 W M 42 13.77 39 2.83 1.939/27/2004 W M 42 13.42 39 2.91 1.989/3/2004 W M 45 7.64 39 5.10 3.4810/31/2004 W M 45 9.04 39 4.31 2.9410/31/2004 W M 45 8.92 39 4.37 2.9810/31/2004 W M 45 10.89 39 3.58 2.44

8/28/2004 W M 50 8.55 39 4.56 3.119/3/2004 W M 50 10.51 39 3.71 2.539/3/2004 W M 50 10.23 39 3.81 2.609/3/2004 W M 50 9.30 39 4.19 2.869/3/2004 W M 50 9.17 39 4.25 2.909/27/2004 W M 50 11.19 39 3.49 2.3810/31/2004 W M 50 9.07 39 4.30 2.9310/31/2004 W M 50 9.07 39 4.30 2.9312/12/2004 W M 50 9.33 39 4.18 2.8512/12/2004 W M 50 9.13 39 4.27 2.9112/12/2004 W M 50 9.87 39 3.95 2.701/2/2005 W M 50 8.08 39 4.83 3.291/2/2005 W M 50 9.54 39 4.09 2.791/2/2005 W M 50 9.63 39 4.05 2.761/2/2005 W M 50 9.28 39 4.20 2.871/2/2005 W M 50 8.99 39 4.34 2.961/2/2005 W M 50 9.59 39 4.07 2.771/2/2005 W M 50 11.63 39 3.35 2.299/3/2004 W M 52 9.36 39 4.17 2.84

9/3/2004 W M 55 9.66 39 4.04 2.759/18/2004 W M 58 11.07 39 3.52 2.408/14/2004 W M 60 9.20 39 4.24 2.8910/31/2004 W M 60 8.99 39 4.34 2.961/2/2005 W M 60 8.89 39 4.39 2.998/28/2004 W M 65 12.15 39 3.21 2.1910/31/2004 W M 65 10.52 39 3.71 2.5310/31/2004 W M 65 12.59 39 3.10 2.111/2/2005 W M 65 10.69 39 3.65 2.491/2/2005 W M 65 11.33 39 3.44 2.351/2/2005 W M 65 10.55 39 3.70 2.521/2/2005 W M 65 9.92 39 3.93 2.681/2/2005 W M 65 10.89 39 3.58 2.44

8/28/2004 W M 66 9.76 39 4.00 2.738/28/2004 W M 67 11.17 39 3.49 2.388/28/2004 W M 70 9.96 39 3.92 2.679/27/2004 W M 72 10.10 39 3.86 2.638/28/2004 W M 74 15.84 39 2.46 1.68

Average 4.28 2.92



14


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 arecompiled 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 whengrouped by ethnicity. Gender did not appear to be a factor either, withvirtually identical speeds observed for both males and females.

Age did appear to affect speed. Children younger than 11generally moved slower than 4 ft/sec. Pedestrians in their late teenswalked 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 collectivelyaveraged almost exactly 4.0 ft/sec. Pedestrians in the 51 to 65 age rangehad an average walking speed of 3.3 ft/sec, as did those estimated to be66 years of age or older. (The latter group excluded two elderlypedestrians walking with the aid of a cane.)

There were eleven special instances, such as limping or walking inhigh heels, documented in this study. The only code groups that applied tomore than 3 pedestrians were #1 and #2, 'holding hands' and 'walking sideby side' respectively. The presence of these two activities did not appearto 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. "AnotherLook at Pedestrian Walking Speed." In Transportation Research Record:Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1982, TransportationResearch Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp.21-29.

3. Smith, S. L., "Pedestrian Velocity Trials," AccidentReconstruction Journal, January/February, 2000.

4. Knoblauch, R., M. Pietrucha, and M. Nitzburg. "Field Studiesof Pedestrian Walking Speed and Start-Up Time." In TransportationResearch Record 1538, TRB, National Research Council, Washington,D.C., 1996, pp. 27-38.

5. Idaho State Police, "Pedestrian Walking and Running VelocityStudy," Accident Reconstruction Journal, March/April, 1991.

6. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets andHighways. CD-ROM, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2003,pp. 4E-l to 4E-9.

Frank Carson is a reconstructionist with the Prince GeorgesCounty (Maryland) Police fatal accident investigation unit.

Victor Craig, ARJ editor, contributed to the data analysis andwrite-up of this article.

WEDDING DEEP-SIX’D

Following an argument between a couple who had been partnersfor seven years, future wedding plans have been sunk—along with theprospective groom’s clothes, CDs, DVDs, and van. Police in Whitehaven,England, arrested the former bride-to-be for aggravated vehicle-takingwithout consent, reports The Associated Press, after she packed herpartner’s possessions into his van, drove to the harbor and released thehandbrake. The ex-groom was left only with the clothes he was wearing.

- Road and Track

15


The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA), State departments of transportation(DOTs), and other stakeholders continue to makeprogress in reducing highway fatalities acrossthe Nation, with deaths per vehicle mile traveled(VMT) falling every year except 1 over the last15 years. In 1994 and 1995, for instance, therewere 1.73 fatalities per 100 million VMT, butthat number dropped to 1.25 deaths per 100VMT in 2008, according to the National High-way Traffic Safety Administration.

Continuing to achieve further reductionsin traffic fatalities will require even more effec-tive, data-driven investment decisions. Practi-tioners now have many resources and toolsavailable to help them identify potential safetyimprovements and decide which ones to imple-ment. One such resource is crash modificationfactors (CMFs), multiplicative factors used tocompute the expected number of crashes thatmight occur after implementing a given counter-measure at a specific site. The concept is notnew, as efforts can be traced back to the 1970s todevelop tabular summaries of accident reduc-tion factors, or ARFs, as they were called at thattime. Over the years, researchers have devel-oped thousands of CMFs to estimate the ex-pected safety improvement associated withimplementation of various countermeasures.

The CMF represents a valuable piece ofinformation for safety professionals. A CMF ofless than 1.00 indicates an expected decrease inthe number of crashes, while a CMF greater than1.00 indicates an expected increase in crashes.For example, imagine that an intersection isexperiencing 20 angle crashes and 40 rear-endcrashes per year. If a DOT implements auto-mated red light running enforcement cameras,which have a CMF of 0.67 for angle crashes, theagency might expect to see 13 angle crashes (20x 0.67 = 13) per year after implementation. If thesame countermeasure also has a CMF of 1.45 forrear-end crashes, the DOT might expect to see58 rear-end crashes (40 x 1.45 = 58) per year. Byperforming these calculations, engineers canweigh the relative costs and benefits of install-ing various countermeasures and informdecisionmakers about the solution(s) most likelyto improve overall safety at a given location.

Research continuously identifies newCMFs, but they are useful only if easily avail-able to practitioners. Recognizing the growingneed for a centralized location to store andprovide easy access to the CMFs, FHWA re-cently launched the Web-based Crash Modifica-tion Factors Clearinghouse(www.CMFClearinghouse.org). As of August

2010, the clearinghouse provides access to morethan 2,500 CMFs for over 700 countermeasures,as well as guidance to help transportation pro-fessionals use CMFs to improve their decisionsabout road safety. The site also features infor-mation on training and cost-benefit analyses.

"The Crash Modification Factors Clear-inghouse provides an easy way for practitionersto use the latest knowledge as they make impor-tant safety improvement decisions on their road-ways," says FHWA Executive Director JeffPaniati. "It also provides links to other importantsafety resources, such as the new [AmericanAssociation of State Highway and Transporta-tion Officials (AASHTO)] Highway SafetyManual."

Building the ClearinghouseIn November 2008, FHWA began devel-

oping the CMF Clearinghouse. The agencyworked with a variety of potential users, such asState DOT personnel and local engineers, todevelop the content, design, and functionality ofthe Web site. Based on this indepth user feed-back, FHWA structured the clearinghouse toinclude several key features. First, the site in-cludes a rating system to inform users of thereliability of CMFs. Second, the site lists bothCMFs and crash reduction factors (or CRFs),which are estimates of the percentage reductionin crashes. Plus, the site is home to assortededucational materials that are updated regularly.The clearinghouse also coordinates closely withinformation covered in AASHTO's HighwaySafety Manual, which is a key document practi-tioners use to facilitate roadway design andoperational decisions based on explicit consid-eration of their safety consequences.

The initial collection of CMFs in theclearinghouse came from several sources: re-search conducted to develop AASHTO's High-way Safety Manual, FHWA's Desktop Refer-ence for Crash Reduction Factors, and studiesidentified at the 2009 Transportation ResearchBoard annual meeting. After drawing on exist-ing compilations of CMFs to populate the clear-inghouse upfront, FHWA now updates the sitequarterly as new CMFs become available.

Studies have shown that providing con-tinuous milled-in shoulder rumble strips (with aCMF of 0.21) like those shown here can lead toa 79 percent reduction in crashes.

FHWA identifies additional CMFs forthe updates through literature searches and usersubmissions, and then reviews all potential newCMFs to determine their applicability for theclearinghouse. The review process has two parts.

First, a preliminary review identifies and recordskey information about studies with potentialrelevance to the clearinghouse. This step recordsinformation such as the study title and publica-tion date, countermeasures investigated, studymethodology, sample size, and locations usedfor data collection. Second, a critical reviewthen evaluates each CMF and determines anappropriate quality rating. After FHWA assignsa rating, the CMF goes live on the clearinghouseWeb site.

Rating CMF QualityThe CMF Clearinghouse includes all

documented CMFs, which can vary widely inquality and reliability depending on the studydesign, number of sites included in the analysis,and other factors. For this reason, the potentialusers who were consulted requested that theclearinghouse include a system to indicate thedependability of each CMF. In response, FHWAdeveloped a quality rating system utilizing stars-- the more stars, the better the quality of theCMF.

FHWA bases the quality rating on aCMF's performance (that is, the quality of thestudy that developed the CMF) in five catego-ries: study design, sample size, standard error,potential bias, and data source. The performancein each category is rated as excellent, fair, orpoor. For example, a study that employed astatistically rigorous design with a referencegroup, such as empirical Bayes (a method bywhich predicted crashes are compared to actualcrashes to determine the safety effect of thecountermeasure), would receive a rating of ex-cellent for study design. If the study employed asimple before/after design, it would receive alower rating relative to study design. However,study design is only one category. If the studyalso had a large sample size or widespread datasource, it would receive high scores for thosecategories. Scores across all five categories arecombined to produce the star quality rating forthe CMF.

The quality rating system applies criteriathat are intended to be as objective as possible,but ratings still entail a degree of subjectivityand judgment. "Users of the clearinghouse shouldtake into account all the information presentedfor a CMF and should not substitute the starquality rating for sound engineering judgment,"says Ray Krammes, technical director, FHWAOffice of Safety Research and Development.

Although the star quality rating provides

THE CMF CLEARINGHOUSE:A HANDY SAFETY TOOL

by Katy Jones, Karen Yunk, and Daniel Carter

Continued on page 64

16




INTRODUCTION

When evaluating the ability of a motor-cyclist to stop in a given situation, the recon-structionist needs to select an appropriate brak-ing rate, or drag factor. Though most modernmotorcycles can approach or exceed 1g on dryclean pavement, most riders can not, and expect-ing them to is unreasonable. This article willpresent some new data on rider capabilities, andcompare it to previously published research onthe capabilities of both novice and skilled riders.

STAR PROGRAM

The state of Idaho operates a motorcycletraining program called the Skills TrainingAdvantage for Riders (STAR) at three skilllevels: Basic I (B-I), Basic II (BII), andExperienced (EX).

The Basic I program is for riders who arenew to motorcycling, with virtually noexperience, and is conducted on STAR trainingmotorcycles. These bikes are typically 250cc orsmaller, with front disc and rear drum brakes.

The Basic II program is for riders whoare returning to motorcycling or those who haveridden on dirt, but not on the street, i.e., riderswith some experience but not much on streetcycles. These riders also use the program’straining motorcycles.

The Experienced program is for riders

who have been riding for more than one year,and is conducted us ing the riders’ ownmotorcycles. More information on the IdahoSTAR program can be found online at http://www.idahostar.org/.

TESTING

The conclusion of each level of classincludes a riding skills test, which incorporatesa stopping test. Riders are instructed to approachthe stopping area at a steady speed of 15 to 20miles per hour. Just prior to the braking area,they are manually timed through a 44 foot longtiming chute. Riders are instructed to effect amaximum braking stop as they exit the timingchute. The rider’s distance to stop is logged, aswell as their time through the chute. Riders whobrake early are asked to try again.

It was arranged to record and collect thetime through the chute and measured stoppingdistance for 100 students in each of thethreeprograms. Results in each group included someaverage stopping values in excess of 1.05g,which were discarded as unrealistic, and easilyexplained as riders who began their brakingprematurely, but not so much as to have alertedthe instructor to it.

The resulting three data sets were almostindistinguishable, as shown in Table 1, and infact are not statistically different.

The three groups of data were combined

BRAKING RATES FOR STUDENTS IN AMOTORCYCLE TRAINING PROGRAM

By: Wade Bartlett and Charlie Greear

Figure 2: Probability plot showing good agreementwith the linear “normal” probability assumption.

to produce the histogram shown in Figure 1, andthe probability plot shown in Figure 2. The veryclear linearrelationship shown in Figure 2indicates that the data is normal.

ANALYSIS

Previously, Ecker [1] as well as Vavryn& Winklebauer [2] have published resultsconducted under similar conditions with riderson their own machines. Despite the more complexdata collection systems utilized by thoseresearchers, the Idaho STAR data comparesvery well with their results, as shown in Table 2.Bartlett, et al [3] published results of testingconducted with trained and experienced police-riders, and showed slightly higher results thanany of these groups. Though not explicitlybroken out in that paper, the IPTM data shows aslight increase in average deceleration as speedincreases. This is commonly seen in such testing,

Figure 1: Histogram of data set comprised of all results under 1.05g, with normal curve superimposed.

TABLE 1: Summary Statisticsfor 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

19


as the initial sub-optimal braking portion of theevent becomes a smaller and smaller portion ofthe overall event.

The application of this work to accidentreconstruction should not be viewed as a meansto interpret speed based on skidmarks. Skiddingfriction values, to be used when there are marksto measure, have been discussed at length inother articles and publications. Rather, this datashould be applied to those circumstances whenone is attempting to evaluate how a rider per-formed or could have performed, givensituationally appropriate time and distance limi-tations based on the scene and circumstances of

the event under consideration. For instance,when calculating if a novice rider could havestopped in time given a different approachspeed, it is unreasonable to assume that therider should have slowed at a rate of 0.75g, asthat value is significantly better than an aver-age novice rider’s performance. In fact, 65%of novice riders demonstrated stopping ratesof just 0.48 to 0.75g.

CONCLUSIONS

Essentially all modern motorcycles arecapable of generating decelerations approaching

or even exceeding 1g on dry pavement. Butaverage riders can not be expected to approachthat level of braking, even when tested in non-threatening parking lot environments withsome opportunity for practice.

REFERENCES

1. Vavryn, K., and M. Winklebauer,"Braking Performance of Experienced andNovice Motorcycle Riders – Results of a FieldStudy," International Conference on Traffic &Transport Psychology, 2004.

2. Ecker, H., J. Wassermann, G. Hauer,R. Ruspekhofer, M. Grill, "Braking Decelerationof Motorcycle Riders," International MotorcycleSafety Conference, 2001.

3. Bartlett, W., A. Baxter, N. Robar,"Motorcycle Braking Tests: I.P.T.M. DataThrough 2006," Accident ReconstructionJournal, July/August 2007.

Wade Bartlett is the owner of MechanicalForensics Engineering Services, LLC. He maybe contacted through his web site, http://www.mfes.com.

Charlie Greear is a reconstructionistwith Thorn Consulting Services. He may becontacted at [email protected].

# # #

TABLE 2: Comparison Between STAR Resultsand Other Published Data from Similar Testing

AverageDrag (g)

StandardDeviation (g)

CountTarget

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



20


FARMER DIES WHEN HIS TRACTORWAS 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 malefarmer died when the John Deere 3020 tractorhe was operating on a dry, two-lane road wasstruck in the rear by a semi truck. MIFACEwas notified of this incident via a newspaperclipping.

On January 30, 2008, MIFACEresearchers spoke with a family member aboutthe incident. During the course of writing thisreport, the police and medical examiner reportswere reviewed. The pictures used in this reportare courtesy of the responding policedepartment. The decedent was a lifetimefarmer. He raised 300-400 head of sheep andgoats. He had been actively involved in manyagricultural organizations and educationalendeavors. He owned several styles of tractors,including cabbed tractors having rolloverprotection structures (ROPS) and seat belts.The family member indicated that all of theagricultural equipment that required a SMVemblem was equipped with a SMV emblem.

INVESTIGATION

The decedent had completed themorning chores and had set up and tested thecorn planters in the field. After completingthese tasks, the decedent traveled on his JohnDeere 3020 to pick up a port-a-box woodwagon from another farm location. This tractorwas not a cabbed tractor and was not equippedwith a ROPS and seat belt. The tractor wasequipped with a worn, faded SMV emblem(Figure 2). Two travel routes to the location ofthe port-a-box wagon were available, a lesstraveled, dirt road, longer “back road” routeand a more traveled, paved, shorter “direct”route. The decedent chose the shorter, moredirect route.

He attached the port-a-box wagon,which had a retro-reflective SMV emblemattached to the rear (Figure 3), and proceededhome via the direct route at approximately2:00 p.m. The road upon which he was travelingwhen he was struck had a dry, blacktop surfacewith paved shoulders that transitioned togravel, and then grass ditches. The roadwaywas straight at the crash location; there wereno hills, curves or dips in the road. The postedspeed limit was 55 mph. There were no trafficcontrol devices, fixed objects, or vision

obstructions in the area or near the roadway.Post-incident scene measurements

taken by the responding police departmentindicate that the farm tractor extended 3 feet2 inches into the northbound lane. Thedecedent was driving the tractor with thetractor’s right tire on the eastern most edge ofthe pavement at the shoulder. Approximately5 feet 10 inches of northbound travel lanewas left between the road’s centerline and theleft side of the tractor.

Both the decedent and a semi truckhauling an empty milk tanker were travelingnorthbound (Drawing 1). A tractor driver,also traveling northbound was approximatelyone-half mile behind the decedent. This tractordriver stated in the police report that the semiapproached his tractor, so he moved to theright hand far shoulder of the roadway. Thesemi driver slowed down and passed him inthe southbound lane, waved as he passed, andthen moved back into the northbound lane.

A vehicle driver traveling in thesouthbound lane stated in the police reportthat he observed both the farm tractor andsemi approaching him. He indicated he movedoff of the road slightly to give the semi roomto pass his vehicle.

The police report contained atranscribed interview of the semi truck driver.The driver indicated he came on duty atmidnight and had made some runs. He had abrief nap, got some fuel, and picked up anempty milk tank. During the police interviewat the scene, the driver indicated he was tiredand was planning to rest at the next farmwhere he was scheduled to stop, which wasapproximately 45 minutes away. The driverindicated that he had slowed down as he wasentering the town’s limits and looked downbecause he was going to get a drink out of hiscooler, and when he looked back up, thedecedent’s tractor was right in front of him.

The semi driver stated he swerved butindicated he didn’t have time and was tooclose to be able to avoid a collision. The rightfront of the semi cab struck the left rearcorner of the wagon and then struck thetractor, causing the wagon and tractor tobecome separated and the tractor to roll overseveral times. The semi driver was unsure ifhe applied the truck’s brakes. Witnesses statedin the police report that they did not observeany pre-impact braking on the part of the

semi driver, which was confirmed by visual evidenceand measurements taken by police at the scene.

Most of the damage was on the right rear endof the tractor, which was contact damage. The 3-pointhitch was broken off from the tractor and the right reartire was broken off from the rim and axle. The left reartire had fresh rubbings where it had rubbed on thesemi milk tanker.

The semi and milk tank jackknifed. The semicab came to a resting position facing a southeasterlydirection with the bulk milk tank facing almost directlynorth. Skid marks from the point of impact to the pointof rest showed the semi skidded to the left and backtowards the right. There were braking marks on theroad from the point of impact to the resting point fromthe semi cab and milk tank. There were severalscrapes and gouges in the area where the skid marksbegan. In examining the post impact skid marks, itappeared that the semi caused what is known as “skipskids” as it braked after impacting with the tractor.The post impact skip skids lead to the rear drive axelsof the semi cab. There were also skip skids leading tothe rear of the semi’s milk tank.

The decedent’s tractor flipped and landed inthe ditch upside down on the east side of the road with

Figure 1 - Overhead photo of incident scene

21


a yard. The decedent was ejected from the tractorand was lying on the ground between the semimilk tank and the tractor. There were skid marksfrom the tires of the tractor and wagon also onthe road veering off to the right. Post impact tiremarks for the tractor were also observed. Therewas a large tractor tire mark that began directlyon the fog line for northbound traffic, and thenproceeded between the fog line and the gravel onthe east side of the roadway. This tire mark leddirectly to the area of the first portion of thewagon.

Neighbors nearby began to assist thedecedent after the impact occurred as he waslying on the roadway. A witness working in hisyard called 911 after observing the impact. Herendered aid to the decedent, asking anotherneighbor for blankets to cover the decedent tominimize shock. This witness asked the truckdriver to shut off his vehicle and for neighbors toshut off the tractor. EMS arrived, and this GoodSamaritan stepped back and let emergencyresponders provide medical care for the decedent.A neighbor asked if the semi driver was OK andhe indicated that he was. The semi driver wasgoing to call 911, but a passerby told him that911 had already been called.

Contact damage on the semi cab wasmainly on the right front of the engine blockarea, which tore off the fender and half of thefiberglass hood. The right front passenger tirewas pushed back and bent. The engine hadboards stuck through the radiator and pieces ofwood inside the engine compartment. There wasred paint transferred from the wagon. The steelfront bumper of the semi cab was bent andcrumpled under the engine area.

Police estimated the speed of the semi atthe time of collision between 52 and 55 mph.

CAUSE OF DEATH

The cause of death as listed on the death

certificate was multiple trauma secondary to amotor vehicle accident. Toxicological resultswere 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 ofthe semi had received the required hours of restprior to driving the semi the day of the incidentbecause MIFACE could not obtain the driver’slogbook. The National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration (NHTSA) blames driver fatiguefor 31% of all truck driver fatalities. Also unknownwas the time of the day or night he rested and thequality of rest he experienced, as these two factorscan affect an individual’s alertness. Driving whiledrowsy/sleepy decreases the alertness level of adriver and may easily lead to paying less attentionto the task of driving. As illustrated by thistragedy, it is imperative that drivers ensure thatthey are alert and that their attention is focusedon driving. The National Sleep Foundation http://www.sleepfoundation.org/ (Link updated 9/23/2009) offers tips and a wealth of informationabout sleep, drowsy driving, and web links formore information on drowsy driving. The FederalMotor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/outreach/driver-safety/driversafety.htm has manyresources drivers may access to learn about theimportance of drowsy driving.

Another factor in this incident was thatthe driver was distracted (looking in his cooler)and by the time he looked up, he did not haveadequate reaction time to take evasive maneuvers.The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/distraction.pdfdefines distraction as “when a driver is delayedin the recognition of information needed tosafely accomplish the driving task because someevent, activity, object, or person within or outsidethe vehicle compels or induces the driver’sshifting attention away from the driving task.”Distractions can occur outside of the vehicle andinside of the vehicle.

The need to minimize distractions, suchas eating and drinking in the car are wellpublicized, but often not heeded by drivers, with

Drawing 1. Police drawingof incident scene

the front end facing southeast (Figure 4). Part ofthe wagon was on the east side of the road withthe front facing in a southwest direction; the restof the wagon was northeast of the wagon bed in

Figure 2. Police photo after the incidentshowing SMV emblem affixed to the tractor Figure 3. SMV emblem on wagon

22


tragic results. Under panic conditions thestopping distance for a truck is dramaticallygreater than a car. Pavement conditions such aswet or hot conditions also increase the distancewith some charts suggesting doubling or moreof the distances.

Agricultural Community:Use less busy alternate routes when

available when operating agriculturalequipment on the road, especially during hightraffic volume hours. Farmers cannot controlthe actions of the motoring public, thus operatingagricultural equipment, on public roads shouldbe considered a high-risk farming activity.Farmers can take actions to minimize theirexposure to and increase their visibility to themotoring public. Michigan traffic crash datafor 2006 compiled by the Michigan State Policefound that a total of 151 crashes involving farmequipment were reported on Michigan roadwaysduring 2006. Of these crashes, four resulted infatalities with one driver of the farm equipmentkilled. 2007 farm equipment crash data was notavailable at the time of writing this report.

When determining the travel routes tobe taken when traveling on the road withagricultural equipment, farmers should considerboth the route and volume of traffic and thetime of day in relation to personal and equipmentsafety concerns. The most direct route may bethe 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 toagricultural equipment on-the-road operation.The crash described in this report occurredbetween noon and 2:59 p.m. Michigan trafficcrash data indicates that the highest percentageof all time periods (22%) of fatal crashesinvolving semi trucks occurred during this timeperiod, as well as the highest percentage ofinjury crashes (21.1%). For all vehicles, 16%of all crashes and 12% of all fatal crashesoccurred during the hours of noon to 2:59 p.m.The time period during a “normal” workdayaccording to the 2006 crash data with the fewestcrashes was 9:00 a.m. to 11:59 a.m.

Upgrade old slow moving vehicle(SMV) emblems to the new retro-reflectiveSMV emblems.

A SMV emblem is a reflective orangetriangle bordered with red that warns other roadusers that the vehicle displaying the sign istraveling slower than the normal speed of traffic.The American Society of Agricultural Engineers(ASAE) has developed new recommendationsfor lighting and marking equipment (ASAES276.6, January 2005). Although the SMVemblems meeting the old ASAE standard are stillavailable, MIFACE encourages owners ofimplements of husbandry operated on theroadways to purchase SMV emblems meeting thenew recommendations. SMV emblems meetingthe recommendations in ASAE 276.6 are inpackages labeled with S276.5 or a higher number.

The new SMV emblems havefluorescent material aiding daytime visibilityand reflective material aiding nighttimevisibility (Figure 5). Replacing worn SMVemblems is important because the orangefluorescent center portion of the SMV emblemfades and turns color over time, changing fromorange to yellow, pink or white. This portion isthe most vulnerable to light and moisturedegradation because fluorescent dyesdecompose.

Retro-reflective material as found inthe outer border of the SMV emblem reflectsthe headlights of vehicles approaching fromthe rear at night. Retro-reflective material holdsup longer than fluorescent material. The retro-reflective readings on SMV emblems meetingthe new ASAE standard are over ten timesgreater than most of the readings on SMVemblems currently in use. Figure 5 shows acomparison of older and newer SMV emblems.The SMV on the left is a new sign under the oldstandard, the SMV in the middle is a new signunder the new standard, and the SMV on theright is an old sign under the old standard.

When available, use rollover protectivestructures (ROPS) and seatbelt equippedagricultural equipment when operating onthe road.

The decedent owned cabbed tractorsthat had ROPS and seat belts. Cabbed tractorsmust be equipped with at least one rear viewmirror. It is likely he would have taken evasivemaneuvers if he was able to see the semibearing down on him in the rear view mirror. Ifthe crash still occurred, he would have had agreater chance of surviving the crash if he hadbeen belted in the cab as he would not havebeen thrown onto the roadway by the force ofthe collision.

Retrofit older tractors with properlydesigned, manufactured and installed ROPSand seat belt when available.

Older tractors can be equipped withrollover protection structures and seatbelts.Rollover protection structures (ROPS) havebeen required by federal and state law for alltractors used by employees (with limitedexception) in agricultural operations that werebuilt after October 25, 1976. There are twobasic types of ROPS for farm tractors: protectiveframes (two- or four- post structures attachedto the tractor chassis) and protective enclosures(cabs or enclosures built around a protectiveframe).

ROPS are designed to help limit a tractoroverturn to 90 degrees and to provide theoperator a “zone of protection” (Figure 6). Theoperator must stay within this zone. Theoperator will not be protected by the ROPSduring an overturn if the operator is not wearinga seatbelt. Without a seatbelt, the operator maybe 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 keepthe operator from being thrown against the frame,through a window, or out a door. Therefore, whenan older tractor is retrofitted with a ROPS, approvedseatbelts must also be installed. Seat belts may ormay not be included with an available ROPSpackage.

Some tractors cannot be retrofitted with aROPS/seatbelt according to the manufacturer orthe cost of the retrofit is excessive in relation to thevalue of the tractor. In these cases, MIFACErecommends that the farm owner not use suchtractors and consider renting or leasing a tractorequipped with a ROPS/seatbelt, appropriateequipment for performing the work anddiscontinuing the use of the non-ROPS/seatbelt-equipped tractor. Seat belts should not be used ontractors that do not have ROPS.

The National Farm Medicine Center inMarshfield, Wisconsin maintains “A Guide toAgricultural Tractor Rollover ProtectiveStructures.” This webpage lists manufacturers,models, and approximate costs of obtaining retrofitROPS for almost all types of tractors. Anotheroption for owners of older tractors to obtaininformation about ROPS retrofits is to contact theirlocal extension office or tractor dealership. ROPSshould be certified to meet at a minimum thestandards and regulations of various agencies thatensure that the frame or enclosure is designed toprovide overturn protection. ROPS should not bemanufactured in the farm machine shop. OSHA

Figure 4. Tractor upside downafter being struck by semi

Figure 5. Comparison of SMV emblems

23


requires that ROPS are labeled/marked, therefore,tractor owners should look for a label on the frameor enclosure stating it meets rollover protectionstandards. Per the Marshfield Clinic website, afoldable ROPS/seatbelt and a rigid ROPS/seatbeltunit is available from John Deere for the tractorbeing driven by the decedent. The Marshfield ClinicROPS webpage can be accessed at the Internetaddress: http://www.marshfieldclinic.org/NFMC/?page=nfmc_rops_guide.

Install side view mirrors and construct/purchase appropriate temporary flashing warninglights and attach them to a tractor if not so equippedwhen the tractor is operated on the road.

Roll-over protection, safety hitch, SMVemblem, rear-view mirrors, signal lights, handsignals, clearance lights and/or reflectors are allaids to safety on the highway. If a piece of equipmentthat is not equipped with a cab is used on the road,consider mounting a base for a detachable rearview/side view mirror to enable you to see what iscoming up behind you. The mirror mounting shallprovide a stable support for the mirror, and shallprovide for mirror adjustment by tilting in both

horizontal and vertical directions. Havingmirrors that are properly adjusted will enablethe operator to monitor traffic and view howthe towed machinery is traveling. It is essentialto know at all times what is happening aroundyou when operating tractors and othermachinery. The mirrors should extend beyondthe sides of any towed or self-propelledmachine to provide optimum visibility.

Farm implement owners should lookat the new lighting and marking standard thatis required for all implements manufacturedafter January 1, 2007 as a model for lighting.Michigan Motor Vehicle Code (MVC) 257.688provides that SMV emblems be mounted onthe rear of the vehicle, broad base down, notless than three feet nor more than five feetabove the ground and as near the center of thevehicle as possible. The use of this reflectivedevice is restricted to use on slow movingvehicles specified in this section, and use ofsuch reflective device on any other type ofvehicle or stationary object on the highway isprohibited. On the rear, at each side, redreflectorsor reflectorized material visible fromall distances within 500 to 50 feet to the rearwhen directly in front of lawful upper beamsof headlamps.

Michigan MVC section 684a providesthat an implement of husbandry shall complywith the following, which are incorporated byreference:

(a) ANSI/ASAE S276.6 JAN2005,Slow-Moving Vehicle Identification Emblem.

(b) ANSI/ASAE S279.12 DEC02,Lighting and Marking of AgriculturalEquipment on Highways.

Older tractors (those manufacturedprior to January 1, 2007) are required to beequipped with at least one lighted lampexhibiting a white light visible from a distanceof 500 feet to the front of the vehicle and witha lamp exhibiting a red light visible from adistance of 500 feet to the rear of the vehicle.

Michigan MVC section 257.698(f))states that a vehicle towing an implement ofhusbandry or an implement of husbandry maybe equipped with flashing, rotating, oroscillating amber lights. Amber is the onlycolor permitted for this application. Addingthis lighting to the towing vehicle or to theimplement of husbandry being towed wouldincrease the visibility of the equipment toother vehicle drivers. Red reflective materialon the outboard edges is required for allimplements. Department of Transportation(DOT) truck tape can be applied to complywith this requirement.

Municipalities:Municipalities in rural areas should

consider the visual confusion and distractionthat may be experienced by vehicle driverssuch as when newspaper holders attached tomailboxes are the same colors as an SMV

Figure 6. Operator Zone of Protectionwhen wearing seat belt

Figure 7. Orange mailboxes onsouthbound side of roadway

emblem and/or SMV emblems are used asmarkers.

The MIFACE researchers recreated thetravel route of the decedent. Although thephotograph does not do it justice, it was veryapparent that the orange paper boxes affixed toeither mailboxes or free standing used to storedelivered papers could provide visual confusionto any vehicle operator who was driving on theroad (Figure 7). Although the paper boxes werelocated primarily on the southbound side of theroad, as the researcher was looking on thenorthbound lane in the distance, the orangecolor blended into the roadway.

In rural communities especially, wherethere is increased interaction betweenagricultural vehicles affixed with the orange/red SMV emblems and regular vehicular traffic,the SMVs must be able to be easilydistinguishable from the surrounding travelarea. Additionally, other safety indicators, suchas orange vests runners may wear or orangeflags used on bikes may be diluted when thereis a great deal of “orange” in the area.

SMV emblems illegally mounted onfixed objects such as trees or mailboxes and/orused as driveway indicators in the road right-of-way also minimize the impact of seeing aSMV emblem on a piece of equipment. Thismisuse of the SMV emblem is a violation ofSection 688 of the Michigan Motor VehicleCode.

MIFACE encourages communities toassess potential visual cue confusion issues,such as orange paper delivery boxes andillegally mounted SMV emblems. MIFACEencourages communities to mandate that objectson the side of the road be of a color that cannotbe confused with the colors of warning symbols,such as slow moving vehicle emblems. Theseobjects should be removed and replaced.Communities should also direct theirenforcement agencies to inform the public aboutthe misuse of SMV emblems as markers andensure the SMV removal.

States and Federal Government:States and the Federal government

should modify drivers’ training material anddrivers’ tests to include SMV embleminterpretation, types of vehicles on which aSMV emblem is found, and the proper safetyprocedures to use when approaching andpassing a SMV-marked vehicle.

Agricultural equipment, mostconstruction equipment, and other specialvehicles are required to display the SMV whenoperating on a public road. Many young drivershave no contact with any of these types ofvehicles and are not aware of how they aremoved on the road. Older drivers may recognizethe SMV emblem but the prolific illegal use ofthe emblem as driveway markers has diluted itseffectiveness over time. All drivers should bemade aware of the hazards associated with

24


SMV marked vehicles, those vehicles right touse the road, and the penalties for injuring ofkilling the operator of those vehicles.

The MVC at Sec. 601c states that (1) aperson who commits a moving violation that hascriminal penalties and as a result causes injury toa person operating an implement of husbandryon a highway in compliance with this act isguilty of a misdemeanor punishable byimprisonment for not more than one year or afine of not more than $1,000.00, or both, and (2)a person who commits a moving violation thathas criminal penalties and as a result causesdeath to a person operating an implement ofhusbandry on a highway in compliance with thisact is guilty of a felony punishable byimprisonment for not more than 15 years or afine of not more than $7,500.00, or both.

REFERENCES

1. Murphy, Dennis J and Shufran,Jennifer L. "Rx forSMV Highway Safety: BeConspicuous." Pennsylvania State University.Document reference from National Ag SafetyDatabase. http://www.nasdonline.org/document/29/d001545/rx-for-smv-highway-safety-beconspicuous.html (Link updated 10/5/2009)

2. Legault PhD, Malcolm L. Farm "Safetyand Health Week (September 15-21, 2002) NotJust for Farmers Anymore: Part I – Agricultural

Producers." National Education Center froAgricultural Safety (NECAS). http://www.nasdonline.org/document/199/d000148/national-farm-safety-andhealth-week-not-just.html (Link updated 1/12/2010)

3. Michigan Farmers TransportationGuidebook, January 2008. Michigan State Police.http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/FarmersTransportationGuidebook2008_224593_7.pdf

4. “A Guide to Agricultural TractorRollover Protective Structures.” National FarmMedicine Center in Marshfield, Wisconsin. http:// w w w . m a r s h f i e l d c l i n i c . o r g / N F M C /?page=nfmc_rops_guide

5. "Farm equipment needs to be morevisible! Be Seen and Be Safe" is sponsored bythe Edgecombe, Greene, Johnston, Nash, Pitt,Wayne, and Wilson Centers of the North CarolinaCooperative Extension Service and the NorthCarolina State Highway Patrol with fundingfrom the North Carolina Tobacco Trust FundCommission. http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/johnston/bsbs/visible.html

6. National Highway Traffic and SafetyAdministration (NHTSA). WisconsinDepartment of Transportation, Safety andConsumer 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.pdf8. National Sleep Foundation. http://

www.sleepfoundation.8. org/ (Link updated 8/5/2009) Mich. St. Police. Michigan Traffic CrashStatistics. http://www.michigantrafficcrashfacts.org/

9. Michigan FACE Program MIFACE(Michigan Fatality Assessment and ControlEvaluation), Michigan State University (MSU)Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 117West Fee Hall, East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1315; http://www.oem.msu.edu/MiFACE_Program.aspx.

This information is for educationalpurposes only. This MIFACE report becomespublic property upon publication and may beprinted verbatim with credit to Mich. St. Univ.

DO DRINK AND DRIVE

A Dutch scientist is encouraging peopleto drink and drive....on a racetrack. Youngdrivers who take the special driving lessons areasked to drink alcohol until they reach the drunkdriving limit, then go onto the track where theyattempt a slalom course, parking and an emer-gency stop. According to the scientist, in the 10years the course has been running, every singleperson has failed the test.

- Road & Track

25



Abstract

In April of 2010 a series of six low- andmoderate-speed collinear central crash tests wereconducted. The test vehicles containedinstrumentation capable of documenting the crashpulse, approach and departure speeds. Theresulting data set was used to calculatecoefficients of restitution. The well-knownbehavior of restitution as a function of closingspeed was confirmed.

Those results and some implications forthe reconstructionist follow. Furthermore, thebullet vehicles carried “ride-along” GeneralMotors Event Data Recorders (EDRs) that sensedacceleration and calculated delta-V. While theEDR generally documented shorter crash pulses,the EDR-calculated delta-V was found to bevery similar to the delta-V determined with theindependent instrumentation.

Introduction

Restitution is the tendency of damagedvehicle parts to return to their pre-damagedstate. It is obvious that very small forces appliedto a vehicle will result in no residual damageafter the crash forces are removed. Thisphenomena occurs because all materials have anassociated property called elasticity, which isthe object’s resistance to deformation. The abilityof a vehicle part to return to its original shapedepends on the material involved, the design of

the particular part, and the amount of forceinvolved.

There are several methods with whichrestitution may be quantified. The most commonis the kinematic definition of restitution, whichcompares the ratio of the closing speed of twovehicles immediately before impact to theirdeparture speeds just after impact. Thatrelationship is given by:

v2 - v

1e = ---------

V1 - V

2

for two colliding objects, where

e is the coefficient of restitutionV

1is the scalar initial velocity of the first objectbefore impact

V2

is the scalar initial velocity of the secondobject before impact

v1

is the scalar final velocity of the first objectafter impact

v2

is the scalar final velocity of the secondobject after impact

Procedure

In a series of tests conducted at IPTM’s2010 Special Problems in AccidentReconstruction Conference, a series of increasinglow and moderate closing speed collinear centralcollisions were conducted. All of the crashesconsisted of a stationary target vehicle that was

struck on the rear bumper by the front bumper ofa moving bullet vehicle. The bumpers wereconstructed from high density foam. The movingbullet vehicle was driven into the collision. Allof the collisions were collinear with 100%overlap. The brakes of the target vehicle werenot set, and the transmission was placed intoneutral to avoid the necessity of consideringexternal impulses. The vehicles used were a1999 Suzuki Esteem and a 2000 Pontiac GrandAm.

Four tests were conducted on Wednesday,April 26, 2010 and three tests were conducted onThursday, April 27, 2010. On Wednesday, thebullet vehicle was the Suzuki Esteem. Permanentdamage was done to both vehicles after the lasttest on Wednesday, so the roles were reversedand the Pontiac was used as the bullet vehicle onThursday.

Each vehicle was equipped with a 50Gaccelerometer that was attached to the rightfront floor pan, and a differential GPS wassecured to the roof. The accelerometer data wassampled at 1000 Hz and the GPS data wassampled at 5 Hz by a Vericom ComputersVC4000DAQ. The GPS data was plotted on thesame axis as the accelerometer data. The lastGPS data point that occurred before the crashpulse was used as the impact speed.

The post-impact speeds were determinedfrom integrating the Vericom crash pulse datawith respect to time to determine the change invelocity (delta-V). The integrated delta-V was

E.D.R. DELTA-V RELIABILITY ANDRESTITUTION VALUES FOR SIX LOWAND MODERATE SPEED COLLINEAR

CENTRAL CRASH TESTSBy: Andrew Rich, Bill Wright, and Michelle L. Fish-Rich

TABLE 1: Crash Test Data

ClosingSpeed(mph)

Delta VBullet(mph)

Delta VTarget(mph)

EDRBullet

Delta V(mph)

CalculatedBullet

DepartureSpeed (mph)

CalculatedTarget

DepartureSpeed (mph)

Coefficentof

Restitution

AccelerometerDelta t

(ms)

EDRDelta t

(ms)

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

27


taken to be the post-impact velocity of thetarget vehicle, and the delta-V of the bulletvehicle was subtracted from the bulletvehicle’s impact speed to determine its post-impact speed.

In addition to the Vericom dataacquisition system, the vehicles serving inthe bullet role were also equipped with aride-along EDR (Event Data Recorder). TheEDRs that were selected sensed chassisacceleration and then calculated delta-V.Delta-V data was retrieved via the BoschCrash Data Retrieval tool. The EDRs wereattached to the right front floor pan.

Results

Table 1 shows the results for six ofthe crash tests. The test numbers that beginwith a W were performed on Wednesdayand the test numbers that begin with a Twere conducted on Thursday. Noaccelerometer data was collected for testT1, so that test was not included in Figure 1.The crash pulse for test W1 was not sufficientto enable the algorithm of the EDR, so noEDR data was available for that test. Figure1 is a scatter plot of coefficient of restitutionvs. closing speed.

Conclusions

1. The maximum coefficient ofrestitution found in these tests was .475,which occurred at a closing speed of 3.280mph.

2. The widely-accepted behavior ofrestitution was corroborated; i.e., the smallerthe closing speed, the greater the restitution;and the larger the closing speed, the smallerthe restitution.

3. When using momentum to calculatedeparture speeds or delta-V for small closingspeed collisions, restitution, and externalimpulses such as ground forces must beconsidered (restitution approaches unity).

4. The crash pulses documented bythe EDR were found to be slightly shorterthan the length of the pulse documented byindependent crash instrumentation. Thisartifact is thought to be the result of differentresponse times for the EDR and Vericom-logged accelerometers.

5. Despite this difference in crashduration, the delta-V calculated in all of the“ride along” EDRs agreed to within 1 mphof the independent crash instrumentation.

6. One implication for the reconstruc-tionist is that EDR delta-V data should bechecked against the delta-V calculated in aconventional momentum analysis.

7. Given a suitable crash such asthese inline collisions and longitudinal onlydelta-V EDRs, the EDR documented delta-V is a reliable, independently determinedvalue for delta-V.

The authors would like to thank RickRuth, Russell Strickland, Rick Jobe, AlbertBaxter, David Brill, Daniel Vomhof III, andthe students who attended the 2010 IPTMSpecial Problems in AccidentReconstruction Instrumentation class fortheir contributions to these crash tests.

Figure 1: Plot of Coefficient of Restitution v Closing Speed

Re

sti

tuti

on

(u

nit

les

s)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.20 4 8 12 16 20

Closing Speed (mph)

y = -0.0177x + 0.5642R2 = 0.9647

Toyota Motor is recalling 740,000cars and sports-utility vehicles in the U.S.and nearly 600,000 units in Japan to repaira seal on the vehicles' brake master cylinder

TOYOTA RECALLS 1.5M VEHICLES WORLDWIDEthat may leak fluid and impair braking performance.

Affected models sold in the U.S. include 2005 to2006 Toyota Avalon sedans and 2004 to 2006 ToyotaHighlander (nonhybrid) SUVs as well as 2004 to 2006Lexus RX330 SUVs, and 2006 Lexus GS300, IS250, andIS350 sedans, Toyota said in a statement posted on itswebsite.

The automaker said in some instances a seal in thebrake master cylinder may dry out. Should that happen,brake fluid could leak from the master cylinder onto thebrake booster, illuminating a warning light on the instru-ment panel, Toyota said.

Should the vehicles continue to be operated with-out refilling the brake fluid container, drivers will beginto notice that the brake pedal feels "spongy," and brakingperformance may decline, Toyota said.

Toyota and Lexus dealers will make necessaryrepairs to the recalled vehicles at no charge to vehicleowners, the company said. Owners of affected vehicleswill be notified by regular mail beginning early nextmonth.

In Japan, the recall involves 599,029 vehiclesacross 11 model lines. Those models may also have aproblem with faulty fuel pump wires. About 200,000additional vehicles sold in other countries are also subjectto the recalls, CNN International reported.

A third problem, related to defective speedom-eters, affects two additional models totaling nearly 2,000cars in Japan, Toyota said. No accidents have yet beenreported as a result of any of the defects, the company saidin twin filings submitted with Japanese regulators.

Tough Year For RecallsThe recalls are the latest in a string of such actions

by Toyota this year. Less than two months ago, theautomaker said it would recall about 1.13 million Corollaand Matrix compact cars in North America due to enginestalling, following an investigation by federal safetyofficials.

Toyota's biggest recall so far this year involvestwo separate campaigns to repair some 8 million cars inthe U.S. to prevent unintended acceleration, caused bysticky gas pedals or bulky rubber floor mats that can pinaccelerator pedals to the vehicles' floor.

Earlier this month, Toyota said it had repaired80% 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, includingelectronic interference, that may result in Toyota ve-hicles accelerating uncontrollably.

The sticky pedal recall was the subject of a record$16.4 million fine assessed by U.S. regulators in April forToyota's failure to quickly disclose what it knew aboutthe defect.

The numerous recalls have taken their toll onToyota sales. Once the No. 2 supplier of vehicles to theU.S. market, Toyota has fallen behind once third-placeFord Motor (F) for much of the year.

Toyota also faces massive lawsuits related to itsquality woes. They include a claim brought by a group ofToyota stockholders who allege the automaker concealedproblems related to unintended acceleration in its ve-hicles. - Daily Finance

28




CRASH TESTING AND EVALUATIONOF BREAKAWAY SIGNSBy: 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 themsusceptible to being struck by errant vehicles that inadvertently encroachonto the roadside. To reduce the hazard associated with these crashes, thesign supports are designed to “breakaway” from their foundation uponimpact with a vehicle.

The crashworthiness of a sign support system must be evaluatedbefore the design can be used on the nation’s highways. This evaluationis typically accomplished through full-scale vehicle crash testing. NationalCooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 containsthe recommended procedures for testing and evaluating sign supports andother roadside safety features (1). This document contains the test matrices,impact conditions, evaluation criteria, and reporting requirements forassessing the impact performance of a breakaway support structure. If thedesign of a system is altered in response to changing needs in the highwayenvironment, it may be necessary to reassess its compliance with currentvehicle testing criteria.

Background

It is not unusual for parts of Texas to experience hot, dryweather, particularly during the summer months. During periods ofdrought, Texas counties enact burn bans that prohibit any form of outsideburning to help limit the risk of an uncontrolled fire. The countiesexpressed a desire to the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) topost advisory signs on the roadside to alert motorists when a burn ban isin effect. For obvious economic reasons, the preferred method ofimplementation is to append the burn ban notification signs to existingsign support structures.

The most commonly used sign support system in Texas is thetriangular slip base. It is a multi-directional breakaway design that usesthree bolts tightened to a prescribed torque to clamp. One plate is attachedto a rigid foundation and the other is attached to the bottom of the signsupport through various methods. When the impact force applied by avehicle exceeds the frictional clamping force, the upper plate “slips”relative to the lower plate and the support structure is “released” from itsfoundation. The released sign support system rotates over the impactingvehicle.

The Texas triangular slip base and its variations have beensubjected to extensive crash testing and evaluation in accordance withNCHRP Report 350 guidelines (2,3,4,5,6). It has performed well in testingand has been used successfully in the field for many years.

TxDOT policy requires a minimum mounting height of 7 ft tothe bottom of the sign panel. The Texas slip base system has traditionallybeen used for sign panels having an area greater than 10 square feet. Lessexpensive sign support systems, such as a wedge anchor system, aretypically used for smaller sign areas of 10 square feet or less.

The current Texas slip base system utilizes two different typesof support posts: a 2-7/8-inch outside diameter (O.D.), 10 British WireGage (BWG) steel tube that has a nominal wall thickness of 0.134 inchesand 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 wallthickness of 0.276 inches and a minimum yield strength of 46,000 psi. The10 BWG tube support can be used for sign areas up to 16 square feet, whilethe schedule 80 pipe support can be used for larger sign areas up to 32square feet.

There are many variables that can affect the impact performanceof a slip base sign support system (and breakaway supports in general).These variables include but are not limited to the size and weight of thesign substrate, the sign mounting height, and the type of support post. Asthe size, weight, and mounting height of a sign panel increase, the centerof mass and mass moment of inertia of the combined sign support systemalso increase. The released support system will rotate about its center ofmass, and the higher the center of mass the higher the probability that animpacting vehicle can travel under the rotating support without secondarycontact to the roof or windshield. Increasing the mass moment of inertiadecreases the rotational velocity of the support structure after activation,which can give an impacting vehicle more time to travel under the supportbefore any secondary contact occurs.

Appending a burn ban sign to an existing slip base sign supportat a height less than 7 ft can effectively lower the center of mass (i.e., pointof rotation) of the sign support system and possibly degrade its impactperformance. Use of a lightweight sign substrate can minimize the effectof the secondary sign on the overall properties of the sign support system.However, given that this practice could be adopted statewide, TxDOTdecided that further research of the proposed burn ban sign application wasneeded.

Objectives/Scope of Research

The objective of this research was to evaluate the impactperformance of a Texas slip base sign support system with a burn ban signappended to the support below the primary sign at a mounting height lessthan 7 ft. The impact performance of the burn ban sign supportconfigurations was evaluated through full-scale crash testing. The crashtesting was performed in accordance with the requirements of NCHRPReport 350.

To minimize the effect of the burn ban signs on the inertiaproperties of the sign support system, a lightweight aluminum compositematerial was chosen as the sign substrate. Two different sizes of burn bansigns were considered: a 24 inch by 24 inch sign and a 30 inch by 36 inchsign. The smaller 24 inch by 24 inch sign is intended to simply communicatethat a burn ban is in effect. The larger 30 inch by 36 inch sign wouldadditionally indicate the name of the county when needed.

As discussed earlier, the Texas slip base system is used with awide range of signs on two different types of supports. To qualify the burnban sign for use on most if not all slip base support systems installed acrossthe state, the research plan included identifying and testing the mostcritical sign configuration. If successful, the burn ban sign could then beused on the tested configuration as well as any less critical configurations.The most critical configuration would be the system incorporating thesmallest, lightest primary sign, because the appended burn ban sign wouldhave more influence on the overall inertia properties (e.g., center of mass)of that system. A review of district practices by the Traffic Operations

31


Division noted that some districts were using the Texas slip base for allsmall signs, even those having an area less than 10 square feet. Themotivation behind this practice was to reduce inventory associated withmultiple types of supports and simplify maintenance training and operations.This being the case, the smallest, lightest sign panel used with the Texasslip base support is a 24 inch by 24 inch aluminum confirmation sign.

The practice of using small confirmation signs on slip basesupports raised some concerns. Researchers at the Texas TransportationInstitute (TTI) are not aware of any crash testing of slip base supports withsigns this small. The center of mass (i.e., point of rotation) of such a systemwould be significantly lower than those associated with most of the testedsystems.

The lower point of rotation could cause secondary contact withthe roof and/or windshield that would not occur with systems incorporatinglarger sign panels. Thus, a secondary objective was to investigate theimpact performance of the Texas slip base with sign panels having an areaas small as 4 square feet.

The remaining chapters of this report describe the full-scalecrash testing and evaluation of different sign support configurations withburn ban signs attached below the primary sign, and presentrecommendations regarding implementation and future work.

CRASH TEST PROCEDURES

Test Facility

The TTI Proving Ground is a 2000-acre complex of research andtraining facilities located 10 miles northwest of the main campus of TexasA&M University. The site, formerly an Air Force base, has large expansesof 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 forconstruction and testing of the sign supports evaluated under this projectwas the edge of an out-of-service aircraft parking apron. The apronconsists of an unreinforced jointed-concrete pavement in 12.5 ft by 15 ftblocks nominally 8 to 12 inches deep. The apron is over 50 years old, andthe 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 involvesan 1808-lb passenger vehicle (820C) impacting the support structureat 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, oryielding mechanism of the support, as well as occupant risk.

NCHRP Report 350 test designation 3-61: This test involvesan 1808-lb passenger vehicle (820C) impacting the support structureat 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 andoccupant risk.

Researchers performed both the low-speed and high-speed testson a slip base system with a 24 inch by 24 inch burn ban sign attachedbelow a 24 inch by 24 inch confirmation sign. However, only the high-speed test was performed during subsequent evaluation of slip basesystems with 30 inch by 36 inch burn ban signs, as the high-speed testproved to be the more critical test.

All crash test, data analysis, and evaluation and reportingprocedures followed under this project were in accordance with guidelinespresented in NCHRP Report 350.

Evaluation Criteria

The crash tests performed under this project were evaluated inaccordance with NCHRP Report 350. As stated in NCHRP Report 350,“Safety performance of a highway appurtenance cannot be measureddirectly but can be judged on the basis of three factors: structuraladequacy, occupant risk, and vehicle trajectory after collision.”Accordingly, researchers used the safety evaluation criteria from Table5.1 of NCHRP Report 350 to evaluate the crash tests reported herein.

CRASH TESTS ON 24 INCH BY 24 INCH BURN BAN SIGN

Test Article

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 46,000psi. This support was considered to be more critical in terms of evaluatingoccupant compartment deformation associated with secondary contactwith the roof and windshield because of its greater mass and lower centerof 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 attachedto the schedule 80 support using two 2-1/2-inch sign bracket mountingclamps and 15/16-inch diameter by 1 inch long bolts. The mounting heightto the bottom of the confirmation sign was 7 ft.

A 24 inch by 24 inch by 0.080 inch thick lightweight compositeburn ban sign panel was attached to the schedule 80 support in the samemanner as the confirmation sign using two sign bracket mounting clampsspaced 18 inches apart. The composite sign consisted of a high-densitypolyethylene (HDPE) core sandwiched between two outer sheets of0.010-inch thick, 5052 aluminum. A 3-inch offset was used between thetwo sign panels, making the mounting height to the bottom of the burn bansign 4 ft-9 inches.Figure 1. Vehicle/Installation Geometrics for Test 452108-1.

32


The upper slip base assembly consists of an integral collar andtriangular base plate cast from American Society for Testing and Materials(ASTM) A536 Grade 65-45-12 ductile iron. The 0.535-inch thick collaris perpendicular to the base plate and has a 2.93-inch diameter hole toaccept the 2.875 O.D. pipe support.

To help prevent the pipe from rotating inside the collar duringservice and the casting from slipping off the pipe during an impact, the slipbase assembly is secured to the end of the schedule 80 pipe using three0.625-inch diameter set screws equally spaced around the perimeter of thecollar and torqued to 65 ft-lb using a torque wrench with an Allen headadaptor.

The lower slip base plate was welded to a 36-inch length of 3-inch nominal diameter schedule 40 pipe. The pipe stub was embedded ina 12-inch diameter by 42-inch deep concrete footing installed in NCHRPReport 350 standard soil. The distance from the ground surface to the topface of the lower triangular slip plate was 3.5 inches. The triangular slipbase was oriented such that the upstream side was perpendicular to thedirection of impact. A 30 gauge galvanized steel keeper plate was placedbetween the upper and lower slip plates. A washer was placed between thebolt keeper plate and upper slip plate to reduce the contact area betweenthe plates. The two slip plates were clamped together using three 0.625inch diameter × 2.5-inch long, ASTM A325 bolts that were tightened toa prescribed torque of 40 ft-lb. High strength washers were used underboth the head and nut of each bolt. Photographs of the completed signsupport installation are shown in Figure 1.

Test 452108-1 on the Schedule 80 Steel Pipe Support with 24 Inch by24 Inch TXDOT Burn Ban Sign

Test VehicleA 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 staticweight was 1953 lb. The height to the lower edge of the vehicle bumperwas 15.75 inches, and the height to the upper edge of the vehicle bumperwas 20.25 inches. The vehicle was directed into the installation using acable reverse tow and guidance system and was released to be free-wheeling and unrestrained just prior to impact.

Soil and Weather ConditionsThe 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. Moisturecontent of the NCHRP Report 350 standard soil in which the sign support

system was installed was 8.6 percent. Weather conditions at the time oftesting were as follows: Wind speed: 16 mi/h; Wind direction: 190 degreeswith respect to the vehicle (vehicle was traveling in a northerly direction);Temperature: 60°F; Relative humidity: 59 percent.

Test DescriptionThe 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 thevehicle centerline offset to the driver’s side. At 0.012 s, the support beganto move toward the field side, and the front bumper was crushed to thefront edge of the hood. The top slip plate began to move at 0.054 s, and thesupport lost contact with the lower slip plate at 0.066 s. The support beganto rotate counterclockwise in front of the vehicle at 0.069 s. At 0.241 s, thevehicle lost contact with the support while traveling forward at a speed of17.6 mi/h. As the vehicle continued forward, the top of the sign panelcontacted the top of the windshield at 0.405 s, and the support remainedin this position until the vehicle went out of view of the camera.

Damage to Test InstallationDamage to the sign support installation is shown in Figure 2.

The base showed no movement in the ground. The keeper plate and onebolt remained at the base, one bolt came to rest 12.5 ft downstream ofimpact, and the third was resting 57.5 ft downstream of impact. The signpanels and support came to rest under the vehicle, which came to rest 92.5ft downstream from the point of impact.

Vehicle DamageFigure 3 show the damage to the exterior and interior of the

Figure 3. Vehicle after Test 452108-1.Figure 2. Installation after Test 452108-1.

33


vehicle, respectively. The front bumper, hood, radiator, and radiatorsupport were deformed. The windshield was cracked near the roof line, butthere was no hole. Maximum exterior crush to the vehicle was 6.3 incheson the front of the vehicle at a point 6 inches left (toward the driver side)of centerline. No occupant compartment deformation occurred. Exteriorcrush measurements are shown in Figure 4.

Occupant Risk FactorsData from the accelerometer, located at the vehicle center of

gravity, were digitized for evaluation of occupant risk. In the longitudinaldirection, the occupant impact velocity was 5.6 ft/s (1.7 m/s) at 0.415 s, thehighest 0.010-s occupant ridedown acceleration was 0.2 g from 0.440 to0.450 s, and the maximum 0.050-s average acceleration was -3.0 gbetween 0.018 and 0.068 s. In the lateral direction, the occupant impactvelocity was 0.7 ft/s (0.2 m/s) at 0.415 s, the highest 0.010-s occupantridedown acceleration was 0.2 g from 0.428 to 0.438 s, and the maximum0.050-s average acceleration was -0.4 g between 0.062 and 0.112 s. Figure3.10 presents these data and other pertinent information from the test.

Assessment of Test Results

An assessment of the test based on the applicable NCHRP

Report 350 safety evaluation criteria is provided below.

Structural AdequacyB. 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 RiskD. Detached elements, fragments, or other debris from the test

article should not penetrate or show potential for penetrating the occupantcompartment, or present an undue hazard to other traffic, pedestrians, orpersonnel in a work zone. Deformation of, or intrusions into, the occupantcompartment that could cause serious injuries should not be permitted.

Result: The detached sign support traveled with the vehicle andcame to rest under the vehicle. The support did not penetrate nor showpotential for penetrating the vehicle, or to present undue hazard to othersin the area. No occupant compartment deformation occurred. (PASS)

F. The vehicle should remain upright during and after collisionalthough moderate roll, pitching, and yawing are acceptable.

Result: The 820C vehicle remained upright and stable throughout

General InformationTest No. ................................................. 452108-1Date ......................................................... 03/05/08

Test ArticleType ................................................. Sign SupportName ......................... TxDOT Slip Base with SignInstallation Height .............. 7 ft to bottom of top signKey Elements ..... 2.5-in schedule 80 pipe support

with slip base and two 24 x 24-inaluminum sign panels

Soil Type, Condition ............... Standard Soil, Dry

Test VehicleModel ............................................1995 Geo MetroMass Curb ................................................ 1,762 lbTest Inertial ............................................. 1,784 lbGross Static .............................................. 1,953 lb

Impact ConditionsSpeed ................................... 21.7 mphAngle .......................................... 0 deg

Exit ConditionsSpeed ................................... 17.6 mphAngle .......................................... 0 deg

Occupant Risk ValuesImpact Velocity x-direction .......................... 5.6 ft/s y-direction .......................... 0.7 ft/sTHIV ........................................ 6.2 kphPHD .......................................... 0.3 gASI ............................................ 0.26Ridedown Decelerations x-direction ............................. 0.2 g y-direction ............................. 0.2 g

Vehicle DamageVDS ..................................... 12-FL-4CDC ................................. 12-FLEN3Max Crush .... 6.3 in L ......... 11.8 inC1 ......... -1.6 in C2 ........ 1.2 inC3 .......... 2.4 in C4 ......... 6.3 inC5 .......... 2.0 in C6 ......... 0.8 in

Post-Impact Behavior(during 1.0 sec after impact)Max. Yaw Angle (deg) .................... -1Max. Pitch Angle (deg) .................... 1Max. Roll Angle (deg) .................... -1

Test Article Debris ScatterLaterally Left ........................... 12.5 ftLaterally Right .............................. 0 ft

Figure 4. Summary of Test Results and Sequential Photographs, Test No. 452108-1.

34


the collision period. (PASS)H. Occupant impact velocities should satisfy the following:

Longitudinal and Lateral Occupant Impact Velocity – m/sPreferred Maximum3 [9.8 ft/s] 5 [16.8 ft/s]

Result: Longitudinal occupant impact velocity was 5.6 ft/s, andlateral 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, andlateral occupant ridedown acceleration was 0.2 g. (PASS)

Vehicle TrajectoryK. 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) memoentitled “ACTION: Identifying Acceptable Highway Safety Features,”were used for visual assessment of test results (7). Factors underlinedbelow pertain to the results of the crash test reported herein.

Passenger Compartment Intrusion1. Windshield Intrusion

a. No windshield contactb. Windshield contact, no damagec. Windshield contact, no intrusiond. Device embedded in windshield, no significant intrusione. Complete intrusion into passenger compartmentf. Partial intrusion into passenger compartment

2. Body Panel Intrusion: yes or no

Loss of Vehicle Control1. Physical loss of control2. Loss of windshield visibility3. Perceived threat to other vehicles4. Debris on pavement

Physical Threat to Workers or Other Vehicles1. Harmful debris that could injure workers or others in the area2. Harmful debris that could injure occupants in other vehiclesNo threat to others in area.

Vehicle and Device Condition1. Vehicle Damage

a. Noneb. Minor scrapes, scratches or dentsc. Significant cosmetic dentsd. Major dents to grill and body panelse. Major structural damage

2. Windshield Damagea. Noneb. Minor chip or crackc. Broken, no interference with visibilityd. Broken or shattered, visibility restricted but remained intacte. Shattered, remained intact but partially dislodgedf. Large portion removedg. Completely removed

3. Device Damage

a. Noneb. Superficialc. Substantial, but can be straightenedd. Substantial, replacement parts needed for repaire. Cannot be repaired

Test 452108-2 on the Schedule 80 Steel Ppipe Support with 24 Inch by24 Inch TXDOT Burn Ban Sign



Soil and Weather ConditionsThe 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 signsupport system was installed was 8.6 percent. Weather conditions at thetime of testing were as follows: Wind speed: 13 mi/h; Wind direction: 180degrees with respect to the vehicle (vehicle was traveling in a northerlydirection); Temperature: 72°F; Relative humidity: 41 percent.


Figure 3.5. Vehicle/Installation Geo before Test 452108-2.

35


h, impacted the 2-1/2-inch diameter schedule 80 support 6 inches from thevehicle centerline offset to the driver’s side. At 0.005 s, the support beganto move toward the field side, and the front bumper was crushed to thefront edge of the hood. The top slip plate began to move at 0.012 s, and thesupport lost contact with the lower slip plate at 0.020 s. At 0.081 s, thevehicle 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 roofjust above the windshield at 0.108 s. The pipe support contacted the roofat 0.113 s and began to crush the roof at 0.118 s. At 0.187 s, the pipe supportlost contact with the roof of the vehicle.

Damage to Test InstallationDamage to the installation is shown in Figure 6. The base

showed no movement in the ground. The keeper plate came to rest 28.5 ftdownstream from impact and 30 inches to the right of centerline. One boltremained 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 confirmationsign panel separated from the support came to rest near the support andconfirmation sign panel, which came to rest 150 ft downstream fromimpact.

Vehicle DamageDamage to the vehicle is shown in Figure 7. The front bumper,

grill, hood, radiator, and radiator support were deformed. Maximumexterior crush in the frontal plane at the front bumper was 9.8 inches. Thewindshield was shattered downward from the roofline, but there was noloss of visibility. Two small cuts were noted in the roof, the largest

measuring 0.6 by 1.6 inches. The roof was deformed downward amaximum of 5.1 inches on the exterior of the vehicle and deformed intothe occupant compartment 5.0 inches. Exterior crush measurements areshown in Figure 8.

Occupant Risk FactorsData from the accelerometer, located at the vehicle center of

gravity, were digitized for evaluation of occupant risk. In the longitudinaldirection, the occupant impact velocity was 5.2 ft/s at 0.443 s, the highest0.010-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 0.001and 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 0.7g from 0.844 to 0.854 s, and the maximum 0.050-s average accelerationwas -0.6 g between 0.026 and 0.076 s. Figure 8 presents other pertinentinformation from the test.

Assessment of Test ResultsAn assessment of the test based on the applicable NCHRP

Report 350 safety evaluation criteria is provided below.


manner by breaking away, fracturing, or yielding.Result: The slip base sign support system with 24 inch by 24

inch burn ban sign readily activated by slipping away at the base asdesigned. (PASS)

Figure 6. Installation after Test 452108-2. Figure 7. Vehicle after Test 452108-2.

36




Result: The detached sign support traveled with the vehicle andcame to rest along the path of the vehicle. The support did not penetratenor show potential for penetrating the vehicle, or to present undue hazardto others in the area. Maximum occupant compartment deformation was5.0 inches in the roof area. (PASS)


Result: The 820C vehicle remained upright and stable duringand after the collision event. (PASS)

I. Occupant impact velocities should satisfy the following:Longitudinal and Lateral Occupant Impact Velocity – m/s

Preferred Maximum3 [9.8 ft/s] 5 [16.8 ft/s]


I. Occupant ridedown accelerations should satisfy the following:

Longitudinal and Lateral Occupant Ridedown Accelerations – gPreferred Maximum 16 20

Result: Longitudinal ridedown acceleration was 0.4 g, andlateral ridedown acceleration was 0.7 g. (PASS)


not intrude into adjacent traffic lanes.Result: The vehicle did not intrude into adjacent traffic lanes.

(PASS)N. Vehicle trajectory behind the test article is acceptable.Result: The vehicle came to rest behind the test installation. (PASS)

The following supplemental evaluation factors and terminology,as presented in the FHWA memo entitled “ACTION: Identifying AcceptableHighway Safety Features,” were used for visual assessment of test results.Factors underlined below pertain to the results of the crash test reportedherein.




with slip base and two 24 x 24-inaluminum sign panels





Occupant Risk ValuesImpact Velocity x-direction .......................... 5.2 ft/s y-direction .......................... 2.3 ft/sTHIV ........................................ 6.2 kphPHD .......................................... 0.7 gASI ............................................ 0.26Ridedown Decelerations x-direction ............................. 0.4 g y-direction ............................. 0.7 g

Vehicle DamageVDS ..................................... 12-FL-4CDC ................................. 12-FLEN3Max Crush .... 9.8 in L ......... 11.8 inC1 .......... 6.3 in C2 ........ 7.1 inC3 .......... 9.8 in C4 ......... 8.3 inC5 .......... 4.7 in C6 ......... 3.5 in


Test Article Debris ScatterLaterally Left .............................. 1.0 ftLaterally Right ........................... 2.5 ft


37








2. Windshield Damagea. Noneb. Minor chip or crackc. Broken, no interference with visibility

d. Broken or shattered, visibility restricted but remained intacte. Shattered, remained intact but partially dislodgedf. Large portion removedg. Completely removed

3. Device Damagea. Noneb. Superficialc. Substantial, but can be straightenedd. Substantial, replacement parts needed for repaire. Cannot be repaired

CRASH TESTS ON 30 INCH BY 36 INCH BURN BAN SIGNTEST ARTICLE

Figure 9 shows details of the test installation used for evaluationof the 30 inch x 36 inch burn ban sign. The type of support post differedin 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 yieldstrength 46,000 psi. This support was initially considered to be the morecritical of the two supports in terms of evaluating occupant compartmentdeformation associated with secondary contact with the roof and windshieldbecause of its greater mass and lower center of mass. In test 452018-4, thesupport 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 ofits lower mass moment of inertia, this support will have a greater rotationalvelocity, which could possibly result in a higher impact force at a pointmore forward on the vehicle.

In both tests, a 24 inch by 24 inch by 0.080 inch thick aluminumsign panel was attached to the support using two 2-1/2-inch sign bracketmounting clamps and 15/16-inch diameter by 1-inch long bolts. Themounting height to the bottom of the confirmation sign was 7 ft.

A 30 inch wide by 36 inch tall by 0.080 inch thick lightweightcomposite burn ban sign panel was attached to the support in the samemanner as the confirmation sign using two sign bracket mounting clampsspaced 18 inches apart. The composite sign consisted of a high-densitypolyethylene (HDPE) core sandwiched between two outer sheets of0.010-inch thick, 5052 aluminum. A 3-inch offset was used between thetwo sign panels, making the mounting height to the bottom of the burn bansign 3 ft-9 inches.

The upper slip base assembly consists of an integral collar andtriangular 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 a2.93-inch diameter hole to accept the 2.875 O.D. support.

To help prevent the pipe from rotating inside the collar duringservice and the casting from slipping off the pipe during an impact, the slipbase assembly is secured to the end of the schedule 80 pipe using three0.625-inch diameter set screws equally spaced around the perimeter of thecollar and torqued to 65 ft-lb using a torque wrench with an Allen headadaptor.

The lower slip base plate was welded to a 36-inch length of 3-inch nominal diameter schedule 40 pipe. The pipe stub was embedded ina 12-inch diameter by 42-inch deep concrete footing installed in NCHRPReport 350 standard soil. The distance from the ground surface to the topface of the lower triangular slip plate was 3.5 inches. The triangular slipbase was oriented such that the upstream side was perpendicular to thedirection of impact. A 30 gauge galvanized steel keeper plate was placedbetween the upper and lower slip plates. A washer was placed between thebolt keeper plate and upper slip plate to reduce the contact area betweenthe plates. The two slip plates were clamped together using three 0.625-inch diameter × 2.5-inch long, ASTM A325 bolts that were tightened toa prescribed torque of 40 ft-lb. High strength washers were used underboth the head and nut of each bolt. Photographs of the completed signsupport installations for tests 452108-3 and 452108-4 are shown in Figure9.

Figure 9. Test Article and Vehicle before Test 452108-3.

38


Test 452108-3 on the Schedule 80 Steel Pipe Support with 30 Inch by36 Inch TXDOT Burn Ban Sign


test. Test inertia weight of the vehicle was 1865 lb, and its gross staticweight was 2035 lb. The height to the lower edge of the vehicle bumperwas 15.75 inches, and the height to the lower edge of the vehicle bumperwas 20.25 inches. The vehicle was directed into the installation using acable reverse tow and guidance system and was released to be free-wheeling and unrestrained just prior to impact.

Soil and Weather ConditionsThe 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.Moisture content of the NCHRP Report 350 standard soil in which the signsupport system was installed was 8.9 percent. Weather conditions at thetime of testing were as follows: Wind speed: 3-6 mi/h; Wind direction: 80degrees with respect to the vehicle (vehicle was traveling in a northerlydirection); Temperature: 56°F; Relative humidity: 36 percent.


h, impacted the 2-1/2-inch diameter schedule 80 support 6 inches from thevehicle centerline offset to the driver’s side.

Shortly after contact, the support began to deform/move towardthe field side. At 0.009 s, the top slip plate began to move, and the supportlost contact with the lower slip plate at 0.0660 s. The support began torotate counterclockwise in front of the vehicle at 0.019 s. At 0.060 s, thevehicle 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 theroof at 0.090 s. The support lost contact with the vehicle at 0.170 s.


showed no movement in the ground. The keeper plate and bolts came torest near the base. The 30 inch by 36 inch burn ban sign panel separated

from the support and came to rest 58 ft downstream of impact and 28 ft tothe left of centerline. The 24 inch by 24 inch confirmation sign panel andsupport came to rest 149 ft downstream of and directly in line with thepoint of impact. The brakes on the vehicle were applied 160 ft behind thetest installation, and the vehicle subsequently came to rest 322 ft downstreamfrom impact.

Vehicle DamageFigure 11 show the damage to the exterior and interior of the

vehicle, respectively. The front bumper, hood, radiator, and radiatorsupport were deformed. The windshield was cracked near the roof line, butthere was no hole. Maximum exterior crush in the frontal plane at the frontbumper was 6.0 inches at a point, 6 inches to the left (toward the driver’sside) of centerline. Maximum occupant compartment deformation was 5.6inches in the roof area. Exterior crush measurements are shown in Figure12.

Occupant Risk FactorsData from the accelerometer located at the vehicle center of

gravity were digitized for evaluation of occupant risk. In the longitudinaldirection, the occupant impact velocity was 3.9 ft/s (1.2 m/s) at 0.516 s, thehighest 0.010-s occupant ridedown acceleration was -0.2 g from 0.956 to0.966 s, and the maximum 0.050-s average acceleration was -2.5 gbetween 0.000 and 0.050 s. In the lateral direction, the occupant impactvelocity was 1.6 ft/s (0.5 m/s) at 0.516 s, the highest 0.010-s occupantridedown acceleration was 0.2 g from 0.638 to 0.648 s, and the maximum0.050-s average acceleration was -0.5 g between 0.130 and 0.180 s. Figure12 presents other pertinent information from the test.

Figure 10. Installation after Test 452108-3. Figure 11. Vehicle after Test 452108-3.

39



An assessment of the test based on the applicable NCHRPReport 350 safety evaluation criteria is provided below.


manner by breaking away, fracturing, or yielding.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)



Result: The detached sign support traveled with the vehicle andcame to rest along the vehicle path. The support did not penetrate nor showpotential for penetrating the vehicle, or to present undue hazard to othersin the area. The sign panel and support deformed the roof 5.6 inches intothe occupant compartment. (PASS)


Result: The 820C vehicle remained upright and stable throughoutthe collision period. (PASS)

J. Occupant impact velocities should satisfy the following:Longitudinal and Lateral Occupant Impact Velocity – m/s





Result: Longitudinal ridedown acceleration was -0.2 g, andlateral occupant ridedown acceleration was 0.2 g. (PASS)



lanes. (PASS)



w/slip base, one 24 x 24-in and one30 x 36-in aluminum sign panel





Occupant Risk ValuesImpact Velocity x-direction .......................... 3.9 ft/s y-direction .......................... 1.6 ft/sTHIV ........................................ 4.8 kphPHD .......................................... 0.3 gASI ............................................ 0.21Ridedown Decelerations x-direction ............................ -0.2 g y-direction ............................. 0.2 g



Test Article Debris ScatterLaterally Left ........................... 28.0 ftLaterally Right .............................. 0 ft


40


N. Vehicle trajectory behind the test article is acceptable.Result: The vehicle came to rest 322 ft downstream (behind)

the test installation. (PASS)











Test 452108-4 on the 10-Gauge Steel Pipe Support with 30 Inch by 36Inch TXDOT Burn Ban Sign



Soil and Weather ConditionsThe 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.Moisture content of the NCHRP Report 350 standard soil in which the signsupport system was installed was 8.9 percent. Weather conditions at thetime of testing were as follows: Wind speed: 9-10 mi/h; Wind direction:180 degrees with respect to the vehicle (vehicle was traveling in anortherly direction); Temperature: 64°F; Relative humidity: 27 percent.


h, impacted the 2-7/8-inch O.D., 10 BWG steel tube support 6 inches fromthe vehicle centerline offset to the driver’s side. Shortly after contact, thesupport began to move toward the field side, and the front bumper was

Figure 13. Test Article and Vehicle before Test 452108-4.

41


crushed to the front edge of the hood. The top slip plate began to move at0.004 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 aspeed of 61.9 mi/h. As the vehicle continued forward, both sign panelscontacted the roof just above the windshield at 0.089 s, and the supportcontacted the roof at 0.097 s. At 0.175 s, the support lost contact with theroof of the vehicle.


showed no movement in the ground. The keeper plate and bolts came torest near the base. The 30 inch by 36 inch burn ban sign panel separatedfrom the support and came to rest 71 ft downstream of impact and 9 ft tothe left. The 24 inch by 24 inch confirmation sign panel and support cameto rest 213 ft downstream of impact and 4 ft to the left of centerline. Thevehicle came to rest 466 ft downstream and 37 ft to the left of the point ofimpact.

Vehicle DamageDamage to the vehicle is shown in Figure 16. The front bumper,

grill, hood, radiator, and radiator support were deformed. Maximumexterior crush in the frontal plane at the front bumper was 5.9 inches. Thewindshield was shattered downward from the roofline, but there was noloss of visibility. The roof was deformed downward a maximum of 5.5inches on the exterior of the vehicle and deformed into the occupantcompartment 4.8 inches. Exterior crush and occupant compartmentmeasurements are shown in Figure 17.

Occupant Risk FactorsData from the accelerometer located at the vehicle center of

gravity were digitized for evaluation of occupant risk. In the longitudinaldirection, the occupant impact velocity was 3.3 ft/s at 0.673 s, the highest0.010-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 0.000and 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 0.3g 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 pertinentinformation from the test.


An assessment of the test based on the applicable NCHRPReport 350 safety evaluation criteria is provided below.


manner by breaking away, fracturing, or yielding.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 byslipping away at the base as designed. (PASS)



Result: The detached sign support traveled with the vehicle andcame to rest along the vehicle path. The support did not penetrate nor showpotential for penetrating the vehicle, or to present undue hazard to othersin the area. The sign panel and support deformed the roof 4.8 inches intothe occupant compartment. (PASS)


Result: The 820C vehicle remained upright and stable duringand after the collision event. (PASS)

K. Occupant impact velocities should satisfy the following:Longitudinal and Lateral Occupant Impact Velocity – m/s





Result: Longitudinal ridedown acceleration was -0.2 g, andlateral ridedown acceleration was 0.3 g. (PASS)



lanes. (PASS)N. Vehicle trajectory behind the test article is acceptable.Result: The vehicle came to rest behind the test installation.

(PASS)



a. No windshield contactb. Windshield contact, no damagec. Windshield contact, no intrusiond. Device embedded in windshield, no significant intrusione. Complete intrusion into passenger compartmentFigure 14. Installation after Test 452108-4.

42


f. Partial intrusion into passenger compartment2. Body Panel Intrusion: yes or no







SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary of Test Results

Schedule 80 Steel Pipe Support with 24 inch by 24 inch Burn Ban SignTwo tests were performed on a slip base sign support system

with a 2-1/2-inch nominal diameter schedule 80 steel pipe support, a 24inch by 24 inch by 0.080 inch thick aluminum confirmation sign mountedat a height of 7 ft, and a 24 inch by 24 inch by 0.080 composite burn bansign mounted at a height of 4 ft-9 inches.

In the low-speed test, the support readily activated by slippingaway at the base as designed. The released sign support traveled with thevehicle and came to rest under the vehicle. The support did not penetratenor show potential for penetrating the vehicle or to present undue hazardto others in the area. No occupant compartment deformation occurred. The820C vehicle remained upright and stable throughout the collision period.Occupant risk factors were within the preferred limits specified in NCHRPReport 350. The vehicle came to rest 92.5 ft downstream (behind) the testinstallation and did not intrude into adjacent traffic lanes.

In the high-speed test, the support also readily activated byslipping away at the base as designed. The released sign support traveledwith the vehicle and came to rest along the path of the vehicle. The supportdid not penetrate nor show potential for penetrating the vehicle or topresent undue hazard to others in the area. Maximum occupant compartmentdeformation was 5.0 inches in the roof area resulting from secondarycontact with the released sign support system. The 820C vehicle remainedupright and stable during and after the collision event.

Again, occupant risk factors were with the preferred limitsspecified in NCHRP Report 350. The vehicle came to rest behind the testinstallation and did not intrude into adjacent traffic.

After analyzing the results of the testing on the slip base signsupport 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 criticaltest. Therefore, only this test was performed on the remaining burn bansign support configurations that were evaluated.

Schedule 80 Steel Pipe Support with 30 inch by 36 inch Burn Ban SignIn 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 steelpipe support, a 24 inch by 24 inch by 0.080 inch thick aluminumconfirmation sign mounted at a height of 7 ft, and a 30 inch by 36 inch by0.080 inch composite burn ban sign mounted at a height of 3 ft-9 inches,

Figure 16. Vehicle after Test 452108-4. Note: Photographs weretaken after vehicle was removed from test site. Movement jarred the

windshield loose from the top of the windshield/roof frame.Figure 15. Test Article and Vehicle during Test 452108-4.

43


the system readily activated by slipping away atthe base as designed. The released sign supporttraveled with the vehicle and came to rest alongthe vehicle path. The support did not penetratenor show potential for penetrating the vehicle orto present undue hazard to others in the area. Thesign panel and support deformed the roof 5.6inches into the occupant compartment. The 820Cvehicle remained upright and stable throughoutthe collision period. Occupant risk factors werewithin the preferred limits specified in NCHRPReport 350. The 820C vehicle came to rest 322ft downstream (behind) the test installation anddid not intrude into adjacent traffic lanes.

10-Gauge Steel Pipe Support with 30 inch by36 inch Burn Ban Sign

In a high-speed test (NCHRP Report350 Test 3-61) of a slip base sign support systemwith a 2-7/8-inch outside diameter, 10 BWGsteel tube support, a 24 inch by 24 inch by 0.080inch thick aluminum confirmation sign mountedat a height of 7 ft, and a 30 inch by 36 inch by

0.080 inch composite burn ban sign mounted ata height of 3 ft-9 inches, the system readilyactivated by slipping away at the base as designed.The released sign support traveled with thevehicle and came to rest along the vehicle path.The support did not penetrate nor show potentialfor penetrating the vehicle or to present unduehazard to others in the area. The sign panel andsupport deformed the roof 4.8 inches into theoccupant compartment. The 820C vehicleremained upright and stable during and after thecollision event. Occupant risk factors were withinthe preferred limits specified in NCHRP Report350. The 820C vehicle came to rest behind thetest installation and did not intrude into adjacenttraffic lanes.

Conclusions

The slip base sign support systemswith attached burn ban signs satisfied the impactperformance evaluation criteria of NCHRPReport 350. In the three high-speed tests

performed on different burn ban signconfigurations, secondary contact of the signsupport system with the roof resulted insubstantial deformation of the occupantcompartment ranging in magnitude from 4.8inches to 5.6 inches. These deformation levelsare less than the 6-inch roof deformationthreshold established by FHWA based onaccepted testing of various breakaway signsupport and luminaire poles. However, they aresignificantly greater than roof deformationstypically associated with impacts of slip basesign support systems.

After examination of the test results,the extent of roof deformation is primarilyattributed to the use of a slip base with a small,4 square foot aluminum confirmation sign ratherthan the addition of the burn ban signs to thesesystems. It was concluded that the small size andlight weight of the confirmation sign substratedecreased the height of the center of mass andmass moment of inertia of the support system.This adversely influenced the trajectory of the


Test ArticleType ................................................. Sign SupportName ......................... TxDOT Slip Base with SignInstallation Height .............. 7 ft to bottom of top signKey Elements ..... 2.87-in O.D. 10 BWG tube support

w/slip base, one 24 x 24-in and one30 x 36-in aluminum sign panel





Occupant Risk ValuesImpact Velocity x-direction .......................... 3.3 ft/s y-direction .......................... 0.0 ft/sTHIV ........................................ 3.9 kphPHD .......................................... 0.3 gASI ............................................ 0.13Ridedown Decelerations x-direction ............................ -1.5 g y-direction ............................. 0.4 g


Post-Impact Behavior(during 1.0 sec after impact)Max. Yaw Angle (deg) ...................... 3Max. Pitch Angle (deg) .................... 2Max. Roll Angle (deg) ...................... 2

Test Article Debris ScatterLaterally Left .............................. 9.0 ftLaterally Right .............................. 0 ft


44


support post and increased the severity ofinteraction with the vehicle by lowering thepoint of rotation and increasing the rotationalvelocity of the released support post.

Historically, and primarily due toeconomic considerations, slip base sign supportshave only been used for larger sign panels (e.g.,area greater than 10 square feet). With an increasein the size of the sign panel, there is acorresponding increase in the sign panel weightand length of the support post, both of whichtend to increase the height of the center of massand mass moment of inertia. This increases theheight of the point of rotation and decreases therate of rotation of the released support, whichtends to shift the point of secondary contactfurther rearward on the vehicle and decrease theseverity of this contact. In tests of the Texas slipbase with a 16 square foot plywood sign panelmounted at a height of 7 ft from the ground to thebottom of the sign, the released sign supportsystem rotated above the impacting vehiclewithout any secondary contact at all (3,4).

A recent review of district practicesby the Traffic Operations Division noted thatsome districts were using the Texas slip base forall small signs, even those having an area lessthan 10 square feet. The motivation behind thispractice was to reduce inventory associated withmultiple types of supports and simplifymaintenance training and operations. Thus, thesmallest, lightest sign panel being used with theTexas slip base support is a 24 inch by 24 inchaluminum confirmation sign. Until this project,TTI researchers were not aware of any crashtesting of slip base supports with signs thissmall.

Although the slip base support with 24inch by 24 inch aluminum confirmation signwas found to satisfy NCHRP Report 350 impactperformance requirements, it may be appropriateto limit the minimum sign area on slip basesupports to achieve a reduction in occupantcompartment deformation caused by secondarycontact of the released support system with theroof of the impacting vehicle. It is recommendedthat an expanded investigation using engineeringmodeling and full-scale crash testing beundertaken to more fully examine theperformance limits of slip base sign supports interms of sign panel size, mass, and mountingheight. The compatibility of other vehicle types(e.g., pickup truck) with the slip base with smallsigns could also be evaluated.

IMPLEMENTATION STATEMENT

Texas counties expressed a desire toTxDOT to post advisory signs on the roadside toalert motorists when a burn ban is in effect. Forobvious economic reasons, the preferred methodof implementation is to append the burn bannotification signs to existing sign supportstructures already installed along Texas

highways.In support of this request, TxDOT

sponsored this project to evaluate the impactperformance of a Texas slip base sign supportsystem with a burn ban sign appended to thesupport below the primary sign at a mountingheight less than 7 ft. The impact performance ofthe burn ban sign support configurations wasevaluated through full-scale crash testing. Thecrash testing was performed in accordance withthe requirements of NCHRP Report 350.

To qualify the burn ban sign for use onmost if not all slip base support systems installedacross the state, the research plan includedidentifying and testing the most critical signconfiguration. The configuration selected fortesting incorporated a 24 inch by 24 inch by0.080 inch thick aluminum confirmation signmounted at a height of 7 ft, with the burn bansigns mounted below.

Two different sizes of burn ban signswere considered: a 24 inch by 24 inch sign anda 30 inch by 36 inch sign. The smaller 24 inch by24 inch sign is intended to simply communicatethat a burn ban is in effect. The larger 30 inch by36 inch sign will additionally indicate the nameof the county when needed.

Based on the satisfactory test resultsreported herein, the practice of appending a burnban sign to an existing slip base sign supportsystem is considered suitable for implementation.The burn ban signs should be fabricated from0.080-inch thick lightweight composite sheetingconsisting of a high-density polyethylene(HDPE) core sandwiched between two thin outersheets of aluminum and should be no larger than30 inches by 36 inches in size.

The burn ban signs may be attached toany slip base sign support system having aprimary sign panel that is 24 inches by 24 inchesor larger mounted at a height of 7 ft or greaterfrom the ground to the bottom of the sign. Boththe 2-1/2-inch nominal diameter schedule 80steel pipe support and 2-7/8-inch outsidediameter, 10 BWG steel tube support areacceptable support post options. The mountingheight of the burn ban sign should not be lessthan 3 ft-9 inches from the ground to the bottomof the bottom of the composite sign.

It should be noted that slip base signsupports have traditionally been used for signshaving an area of 10 square feet or more.However, some districts are now using the Texasslip base with signs as small as 4 square feet. Infull-scale tests of this configuration, secondarycontact of the released sign support system withthe roof resulted in roof deformation ranging inmagnitude from 4.8 inches to 5.6 inches. Whilethis level of deformation is considered acceptableby FHWA, it is significantly greater than roofdeformations typically associated with impactsof slip base sign support systems that use largersign panels. It is recommended that additionalresearch be performed to more fully understandthe performance limits of slip base sign supports

in terms of sign panel size, mass, and mountingheight, and determine whether or not a minimumsign area should be established for slip basesupport. The compatibility of other vehicle types(e.g., pickup truck) with the slip base with smallsigns could also be evaluated.

REFERENCES

1. H. E. Ross, Jr., D. L. Sicking, R. A.Zimmer and J. D. Michie. RecommendedProcedures for the Safety PerformanceEvaluation of Highway Features. NationalCooperative Highway Research Program Report350, Transportation Research Board, NationalResearch Council, Washington, D.C., 1993.

2. R.P. Bligh, H.E. Ross, Jr., W.L.Menges, and S.K. Schoeneman. Developmentand Evaluation of New Small Sign SupportSystems . Report No. 7-1971. TexasTransportation Institute, Texas A&M University,College Station, Texas, April 2001.

3. R.P. Bligh and W.L. Menges.NCHRP Report 350 Testing of the SouthwestPipe Sign Support. Report No. 405481. TexasTransportation Institute, Texas A&M University,College Station, Texas, June 1996.

4. R.P. Bligh, A.G. Arnold, and W.L.Menges. Safety Performance Evaluation ofSouthwest Pipn Sign Support Systems in WeakSoil. Report No. 405851-1F. TexasTransportation Institute, Texas A&M University,College Station, Texas, February 1997.

5. R.P. Bligh, D.L. Bullard, Jr., W.L.Menges, and S.K. Schoeneman. Testing andEvaluation of Slip Base Sign Supports. ReportNo. 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 andRetrofit Concepts for Slip-Base Sign SupportSystems . Report No. 3911-S. TexasTransportation Institute, Texas A&M University,College Station, Texas, February 2001.

7. Federal Highway AdministrationMemorandum from the Director, Office ofEngineering, entitled: “ACTION: IdentifyingAcceptable Highway Safety Features,” datedJuly 25, 1997.

Roger P. Bligh, P.E. is a ResearchEngineer, and Wanda L. Menges is a ResearchSpecialist, both with the Texas TransportationInstitute.

Protected by international copyrightlaws. This report has been abridged. The fullreport can be obtained by contacting the Na-tional Technical Information Service, 5285 PortRoyal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 or atwww.ntis.gov. The cost for a paper copy is$60.00 plus $5.00 shipping and handling. Adownloadable electronic copy is obtainable for$25.00. The access number is PB2010-100847.

# # #

45


ON T H E COVER

This vehicle was travelling at a high rate of speed when it went outcontrol , rotated approximately ninety degrees, struck and fractured awooden utility pole, and came to rest on its roof. The unrestrained driversuffered serious injuries but survived.

- Submitted by A. K. Rosenhan

Forget about using your smartphone in the car. Your next car mightbe one.

A growing number of auto and electronic companies are creatingsystems that put touchscreens, and the ability to talk and text, right into thedashboard.

In the near future, a significant percentage of new cars on the roadare expected to come equipped with the ability to update Facebookstatuses by voice and even surf the Web from the driver's seat.

Ford, General Motors and several other automakers are pitchingthe systems as a safer and easier way to let drivers do what many of themare already doing -- using their smartphones while driving.

"We saw this trend of mobile devices increasing, and we said thisis an area where we can offer the customers a safer way to use those in thecar," said Ford spokesman Alan Hall.

Safety experts aren't completely convinced, though. Some say thatwhile hands-free devices remove part of the danger from using phoneswhile 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, spokes-man for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. "We still don't knowhow drivers are going to integrate these systems into their drivingenvironment."

Ford has been a leader in the field with its Sync and MyFord Touchsystems, in which phones, MP3 players, radio and navigation tools all canbe controlled by voice or by using an in-dash LCD screen.

MyFord Touch has a Wi-Fi receiver built in, effectively creatinga Wi-Fi hotspot in the vehicle.

At the end of this year, Ford plans to roll out "App Link," a voice-control system that links apps from the user's smartphone to the car in somemodels. It will launch with Android and BlackBerry systems; the iPhoneoperating system and Windows Phone 7 will be available by the end of2011, Hall said.

The technology will be available in 80 percent of Ford vehicleswithin five years, according to Hall.

But Ford is hardly alone. And it's not just car companies that aregetting involved.

General Motors is promoting its own smartphone-like capabilitiesas part of an upgrade to its OnStar system. The improvements are designedto go after Sync, which has been a hit for Ford, especially among youngercustomers.

Pandora, podcasts and Wi-Fi are included. And GM officials sayfuture versions may include the ability to update Facebook statuses andsend text messages by voice control.

"Our system is first and foremost about safety and security, but weare evolving that now to include connectivity," OnStar spokesman SamMancusotold Wired magazine last month. "Some people might say that weare behind in that space, but we are not. We were doing connected servicesas far back as nine, 10 years ago, but the marketplace really wasn't readyfor it yet."

Microsoft and Kia Motors have teamed up to create UVO, atouchscreen and voice-enabled system that lets drivers make calls, sendtext messages, change radio stations and scroll their music playlists.

It features a 4.3-inch dashboard screen, about the same size as thescreen on the Droid X and some other smartphones on the market.

"[The system] is a breakthrough for in-vehicle infotainment thathelps allow drivers and passengers to safely and easily use all of theirpersonal technologies to create personalized in-vehicle communicationsand entertainment experiences," said Michael Sprague, vice president ofmarketing for Kia.

Early this year, Pioneer unveiled an enhanced stereo system thatintegrates maps, the Pandora music site and other apps -- plus another thatallows devices such as iPods and home computers communicate.

Rader, from the highway safety group, said that with more optionscome more opportunities for drivers to get distracted.

"It's true that with a truly hands-free system, you're not fumblingwith a device. You're not trying to dial a number," he said. "But theconversation itself appears to be a major part of the distraction. There's noindication from the research that we're making things more safe by goinghands-free."

It's difficult to track the exact role smartphones play in trafficaccidents, since many wrecks are caused by more than one factor. TheNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration, though, says that cellphone use "whether it is a hands-free or hand-held device, degrades adriver's performance."

And a growing number of people worldwide own smartphones,which add Web surfing, apps, games and GPS-mapping to the list ofdiversions available to phone users in the driver's seat.

According to a Pew report, 38 percent of Americans accessed theinternet on their phone last year -- up from 25 percent the previous year.

Hall said the new in-car systems address a simple truth. Peoplealready are driving while talking, texting and tweeting. Anything that canmake that safer, he said, is a good thing.

"It really doesn't add any level of distraction to a driver that a drivercan't already do," he said. "If they want to surf with a laptop in theirpassenger seat, they can do that in a car from 1970."

Future plans for the Sync system include the ability to surf the Webon the in-dash touchscreen, but only when the vehicle is in park.

Rader, whose group is funded by the insurance industry to help cutdown on the number of car accidents, acknowledged that phone technol-ogy, even physically holding a phone in one hand and the steering wheelin 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 ap-peared because of all this new electronic technology. Drivers who use theirphones a lot might be the kind of drivers who would be distracted by otherthings.

"We just keep inventing new ways to distract ourselves."- CNN

WILL YOUR NEXT CAR BE A SMARTPHONE?

46




A. R. JOURNAL / A. I. QUARTERLYSUBJECT INDEX 1989 - 2010

NOTE: Page numbers refer to first page of article.AIQ citings ending in 'N' refer to abstracts of federalreports available through the National TechnicalInformation Service.

ACCELERATION RATE/ANALYSISMath model for light vehicles AIQ #53, p.11Variable power model hvy. trk. AIQ #52, p.152003 police vehicles AIQ #36, p.322001 police vehicles AIQ #29, p.31Calculation of rates AIQ #27, p.38Discussion of ‘normal’ AIQ #13, p.36Model for heavy truck ARJ Jan. ’08, p.31An understanding of ARJ July ’89, p.11

ACCELERATION TESTSVarious non-motorized vehicles AIQ #55, p.232001 police vehicles AIQ #29, p.22Scooters, Skateboards AIQ #25, p.18Vehicles in 'idle' AIQ #23, p.15Performance tires AIQ #23, p.46Observations of ‘normal’ AIQ #13, p.38Various autos, lt. trucks AIQ #10, p.54Fire truck ARJ Mar. ’98 p.55Snowmobiles ARJ Mar. ’95,p.52Semi-tanker ARJ July ’90, p.28

ACCELERATION, UNINTENDEDFusion, Milan owners warned ARJ Sep. ’10, p.36Data points to driver error ARJ July ’10, p.2Feds launch criminal investigation ARJ Mar. ’10, p.10Toyota electronic throttle ARJ Mar. ’10, p.26See also LIABILITY, PRODUCT

ACCELOROMETERSDiscussion of AIQ #4, p.4Accuracy study of VC2000 AIQ #3, p.24Accid. invest. using VC2000 AIQ #3, p.24Extending use of G-Analyst AIQ #3, p.24

ACCIDENT RATES1/2 spinal injur.: car crashes AIQ #3, p.3Higher for rural residents AIQ #2, p.43Hwy. perspective side impacts AIQ #1, p.20Highway safety info system ARJ Sep.’94, p.54

ACCREDITATIONACTAR important changes ARJ Mar. ’10, p.4New ACTAR Administrator ARJ Mar. ’09, p.1ACTAR, news release ARJ Nov. ’97, p.2ACTAR, roster (1/18/94) ARJ Jan. ’95, p.62ACTAR, news release ARJ May ’94, p.2ACTAR, update ARJ Jan. ’94, p.62ACTAR, news release ARJ Nov. ’93, p.1ACTAR, news release ARJ July ’93, p.1ACTAR, update ARJ Mar. ’93, p.2Testing begins ARJ Sep.’92, p.1ACTAR, update ARJ Mar. ’92, p.1ACTAR, start up in 1992 ARJ Sep.’91, p.1Qualifications, application ARJ Sep.’91, p.2NAPARS member poll ARJ Jan. ’91, p.10ACTAR, letter from chairman ARJ Jan. ’91, p.10ACTAR, recent progress ARJ Mar. ’91, p.2

ADMINISTRATIONState DOT reconst. practices AIQ #55, p.9Incident Command system AIQ #43, p.15Fee paid for police interviews ARJ Sep.’92, p.41Traffic enforcement needs ARJ July ’92, p.3Of acc. recon. program. ARJ Sep. ’89, p.10

AIR BAGSNo change in regulations AIQ #49, p.2Autoliv for SUVs AIQ #47, p.18Court upholds rules AIQ #40, p.2Arup locates AIQ #39, p.10Misuse of on/off switches AIQ #39, p.7Depowering lowers risk AIQ #38, p.9More sensors for smarter AIQ #38, p.15Side bags saving lives? AIQ #34, p.16Smart on 2003 GM models AIQ #31, p.3Daul-stage AIQ #26, p.5Crash tests show need for side AIQ #25, p.11Smart system AIQ #24, p.5Seat postion sensor AIQ #22, p.7Advanced frontal for new cars AIQ #19, p.48

Father sentenced in son's death AIQ #18, p.1Advanced mandated AIQ #17, p.2For the feet? AIQ #17, p.19Explosions in AIQ #17, p.19Current designs AIQ #16, p.28Side/head protection AIQ #15, p.52Reasons for on/off switches AIQ #15, p.14On/off switches & seat belts AIQ #14, p.56Risks to children AIQ #12, p.3Deployment threshold AIQ #9, p.2Effectiveness AIQ #9, p.7Action to improve safety AIQ #9, p.20Case studies of lives saved AIQ #6, p.18Study refuted AIQ #6, p.41Few recalls involve AIQ #6, p.3Lag in Europe AIQ #6, p.4Discussion of toxic gasses? AIQ #4, p.4Warning: special steering dev. AIQ #4, p.2Target of thefts AIQ #3, p.2Investigators become ill? AIQ #3, p.4Automakers want off switch AIQ #2, p.2NHTSA receives complaints AIQ #1, p.25Smart bags often fooled ARJ July ’09, p.12Fake in used vehicles ARJ Mar. ’08, p.38Delphi improves ARJ Mar. ’07, p.43Hazards for rescuers ARJ Nov. ’06, p.62Less force lowers injuries ARJ Jan. ’05, p.5Subaru occup. detec'n sys. ARJ May ’04, p.10Deployment testing ARJ Jan. ’04, p.2Technology softens ARJ Jan. ’04, p.30Lower power still work ARJ Nov. ’03, p.15Test chamber ARJ Nov. ’03, p.22Automakers granted leeway ARJ May ’03, p.15Threats to rescuers ARJ May ’03, p.62Gov't testing supported ARJ Mar. ’03, p.5Functional in repaired cars? ARJ Jan. ’03, p.18I-74 danger ARJ July ’02, p.15Blamed in child's death ARJ May ’02, p.58Nissan adopts curtain ARJ Sep. ’01, p.1Smarter bags from Jaguar ARJ Sep.’00, p.55Side bags in Saturn ARJ July ’00, p.62Occupant protection for ARJ May ’00, p.64Science prevails in rule ARJ Mar. ’00, p.2Slim jim death reports false ARJ July ’98 p.3& 30 mph unbelted crash test ARJ July ’98 p.20Concern about older ARJ May ’98 p.56In heavy trucks ARJ Nov. ’97, p.3Sidebags & slim jims ARJ Sep. ’97, p.3Who should get on/off ARJ May ’97,p.80Boy decapitated by ARJ Mar. ’97, p.9Survey results ARJ Mar. ’97, p.5Lower power permitted ARJ Jan. ’97, p.64NHTSA proposes 2 changes ARJ Nov. ’96, p.1Public not warned of risks ARJ Nov. ’96, p.2NHTSA/Tran Can research ARJ Nov. ’96, p.3Toddler decapitated ARJ Nov. ’96, p.3Adverse side effects ARJ Nov. ’96, p.5Passenger side save lives ARJ Nov. ’96, p.20Dangers of disconnecting ARJ Nov.’96, p.84Risks for small adults, kids ARJ Sep. ’96, p.5Injuries to children ARJ Nov. ’95, p.16Injuries from ARJ July ’95, p.45On/off switch permitted ARJ May ’95, p.3Side impact air bag coming ARJ May ’95, p.11Changes reduce abrasions ARJ May ’95, p.181 vs. 2, insurance losses ARJ Mar. ’95, p.2Dual deploy’t threshold/belts ARJ Mar. ’95, p.20Getting smarter ARJ Mar. ’95, p.51Statistics on lives saved ARJ Mar. ’95, p.63The basics ARJ Mar. ’94, p.49For side impacts ARJ Mar. ’94, p.49Injuries from deployment ARJ Jan. ’94, p.12Differing designs ARJ Jan. ’94, p.56Passenger side requirements ARJ Nov. ’93, p.13Pass. side rule proposal ARJ Jan. ’93, p.48Deaths down in vehicles ARJ Nov. ’92, p.56Senate bill mandating ARJ July ’91, p.29Projection of lives saved ARJ Mar. ’91, p.43Breed bag deploys OK ARJ Jan. ’91, p.3Rescue crew precautions ARJ Sep.’90, p.28Listing, 1990 models ARJ Sep.’89, p.7New design considered ARJ Nov. ’89, p.28Occupant safety survey AIQ #31, p.15 NTechnology assessment AIQ #16, p.10 NBibliography AIQ #16, p.13 NInjury potential w/SCD’s AIQ #15, p.13 NBibliography AIQ #13, p.11 N

Rule changes proposed AIQ #12, p.18 NBibliography AIQ #12, p.12 NBibliography AIQ #10, p.9 NAbrasion test procedure AIQ #8, p.10 NPatent file citations AIQ #5, p.10 NSee also PASSIVE RESTRAINTS

AIRBORNE EQUATION(S)Quartic analysis applied to AIQ #23, p.42

ALL TERRAIN VEHICLES2-year-old dies riding AIQ #46, p.3Firefighter finds own kids AIQ #32, p.6Rhino rollover suit ARJ Sep. ’07, p.2Removing from paved roads ARJ July ’02, p.64Physical characteristics ARJ July ’92, p.21Operating characteristics ARJ July ’92, p.22Warning labels ARJ July ’92, p.23Public perceptions ARJ July ’92, p.25

ANIMALS, COLLISIONS WITHSigns reduce deer hits AIQ #35, p.13Moose problem in N. America AIQ #11, p.6Fatalities on rise ARJ Nov. ’08, p.46Approaches to reduce collis'ns ARJ Sep. ’03, p.13Deer danger zones ARJ Sep. ’03, p.19Costs of deer collisions ARJ Sep. ’03, p.20BMW/moose case study ARJ Sep. ’03, p.34Deer collision fatalities ARJ July ’97, p.88Methods to reduce deer coll. AIQ #11, p.9 N

ANIMATIONProduct overview AIQ #15, p.38Intro to simulation, 3D visualiza'n ARJ Mar. ’09, p.13See also COMPUTERS

ATTORNEYSDUI attorney arrested for DUI AIQ #45, p.5Behavior in Firestone tire case ARJ Nov.’00, p.13Courts reduce fees ARJ July ’97, p.64Excessive billing by ARJ Jan. ’93, p.41And A.R. experts ARJ May ’91, p.18

AXLEFailure case study ARJ Nov. ’93, p.35

BATTERIESRisks and prevention AIQ #41, p.29Explosion/fire case study AIQ #28, p.21Explosions, ignition sources ARJ Sep.’92, p.46Fires and explosions ARJ May ’92, p.18

BASIC SKID FORMULADiscussion of ‘n’ factor AIQ #8, p.4Maximum speed to stop ARJ May ’93, p.58Examples of use ARJ every, p.10See also SKID TESTS, FRICTION

BICYCLE/SCOOTER/SKATEBOARDAcceleration, braking, turning AIQ #55, p.27New Maine laws AIQ #48, p.48Acceleration trials AIQ #25, p.18Fire engine/concrete pillar AIQ #24, p.36Rider charged with DWI AIQ #2, p.46Mountain bike accel., braking ARJ July ’09, p.49Hogging road ARJ Mar. ’09, p.31Skid, acceleration tests ARJ Nov. ’08, p.26Safety concerns for ARJ Sep. ’08, p.15Drunk plows into racers ARJ July ’08, p.44Bells required in UK ARJ Sep. ’03, p.13Wearing safety gear ARJ Sep. ’03, p.15Groups seek to reduce collis. ARJ Sep. ’03, p.20Paths for ARJ Sep. ’03, p.26Fatality case study ARJ Sep. ’03, p.56Bicyclist sues driver ARJ Sep. ’03, p.64Scooter safety ARJ July ’03, p.2Heads-up on safety ARJ July ’03, p.62DOT targets safety ARJ May ’03, p.61Report on safety strategies ARJ Nov.’00, p.5Bike or wide curb lanes ARJ Jan. ’00, p.3Nighttime accident case study ARJ Jan. ’94, p.26Bike/car crash test ARJ Nov. ’93, p.30Speed determination of ARJ May ’92, p.41Rider conspicuity ARJ Jan. ’91, p.22Rider reaction time ARJ Mar. ’91, p.40Grade crossing accidents ARJ Nov. ’90, p.34

Roadway lanes for AIQ #22, p.11 NCrash types of 1990’s AIQ #12, p.13 NBibliography AIQ #10, p.14 NUse & hazard patterns AIQ #8, p.8 NMath simulation side collis’n AIQ #5, p.8 NEffect of car front profile AIQ #5, p.8 NBraking system patent file AIQ #4, p.9 NChain/drive system AIQ #4, p.9 NFrame, fork patent file AIQ #4, p.9 NSee also SEGWAY

BIOMECHANICSTest reference guide AIQ #26, p.10 NLower extremity injuries AIQ #8, p.9 NPedestrian leg injuries ARJ Sep. ’03, p.37Head impact protection ARJ Nov. ’95, p.9Fed head restr. proposal ARJ Jan. ’01, p.14See also INJURIES

BLOOD ALCOHOL COUNTCanada: 30 min. delay OK ARJ Sep.’94, p.12Canada: samples, warrant req’d ARJ Mar. ’94, p.5Whole blood vs. serum ARJ Jan. ’90, p.3Gender as factor ARJ Jan. ’90, p.3Breathalizer as evidence ARJ May ’90, p.2Calculation of ARJ May ’90, p.15See also DRUNK DRIVING

BRAKES, ANTILOCKNew Renault AIQ #39, p.45New Delphi product AIQ #38, p.43Bosch expands offerings AIQ #38, p.7Delphi advanced AIQ #33, p.43Corrosion in AIQ #18, p.26“Float” condition AIQ #14, p. 16Fatal 1-vehicle crashes up AIQ #12, p.3Regulatory reform deflated AIQ #6, p.3New rule for trucks/buses AIQ #6, p.45Mixed results for AIQ #5, p.19Stronger regs. for trucks? AIQ #3, p.31What they can/can’t do AIQ #2, p.39No improvement safety stats AIQ #1, p.1OE vs. aftermarket performance ARJ July ’10, p.31Override system ARJ Mar. ’10, p.3Engineering assessment of ARJ Jan. ’09, p.50Testing robot ARJ Sep. ’07, p.34Braking news ARJ Nov. ’06, p.14Bosch electro-hydraulic ARJ Nov. ’04, p.64Bosch electronic ARJ Jan. ’02, p.70No defect in Suburban ARJ Sep. ’01, p.32Advanced stopping systems ARJ July ’01, p.62Updated fatal crash rate ARJ Sep.’00, p.5ATA petition for rule change ARJ July ’95, p.64Veh’s higher rollover rates ARJ May ’95, p.2No reduction crash frequency ARJ Mar. ’95, p.17Add-on devices don’t work ARJ July ’94, p.54Cut insurance claims, Canada ARJ May ’94, p.11Discussion of stopping dist. ARJ May ’94, p.18Aftermarket system tested ARJ July ’93, p.50Add-on kits worsen perform. ARJ May ’92, p.13Investigator’s guide to ARJ July ’91, p.16Next generation ARJ July ’91, p.2Schematic diagram ARJ July ’90, p.16How they work ARJ July ’90, p.37Light vehicle performance AIQ #19, p.15 NTechnician guidelines AIQ #18, p.12 NCrash Experience AIQ #18, p.12 NBibliography AIQ #15, p.13 NPerformance on trailers AIQ #14, p.14 NMaterial friction AIQ #14, p.14 NOn double tanker trucks AIQ #13, p.13 NCrash eperience, autos AIQ #9, p.9 NCrash eperience, lt. trucks AIQ #9, p.9 NSemi-trailer elec. systems AIQ #8, p.12 NOn log-hauling truck AIQ #8, p.14 NBibliography AIQ #8, p.16 NBibliography AIQ #7, p.12 NImprovement for heavy vehs. AIQ #4, p.13 NPatent file citations AIQ #3, p.8 NSee also SKID TESTS

BRAKES, CONVENTIONALInternat’l standardized regs. AIQ #5, p.48Pressure sensor for booster ARJ Jan. ’03, p.15Hydraulic deceleration ARJ July ’01, p.5Performance-based testers ARJ July ’00, p.15Inspection devices tested ARJ Mar. ’98 p.2

49


Faulty fluid ARJ Sep.’93, p.16Auto. slack adjusters req’d ARJ Nov. ’92, p.49Adjustment & truck perform. ARJ July ’91, p.30Lining friction ARJ Mar. ’90, p.22Examination of ARJ Jan. ’90, p.20Slack adjusters, diagram ARJ Jan. ’89, p.18S-cam brake model AIQ #24, p.21 NBibliography AIQ #15, p.12 NBibliography AIQ #15, p.13 NBibliography AIQ #14, p.12 NMaterial friction AIQ #14, p.14 NAir, performance criteria AIQ #13, p.8 NImprovement for heavy vehs. AIQ #4, p.13 NSee also SKID TESTS

BRAKE TEMPERATURESBraking strategy, mountains ARJ Sep.’94, p.34& low speed performance ARJ July ’94, p.52Infrared device for measure AIQ #15, p.11 N

BRAKING - See BASIC SKID FORMULA

BUMPER (CHALK) GUNRepair tip ARJ Jan. ’90, p.25

BUMPERSFlimsy on SUV's AIQ #23, p.415 mph requirement bill ARJ Sep.’91, p.35 mph, petition denied ARJ Sep.’91, p.23See also CRASH TESTS LOW SPEED

BUSES, COMMERCIAL11 pulled out of service AIQ #47, p.48Rollover case study, MD AIQ #1, p.8Automated driving controls ARJ Nov. ’04, p.56NTSB report on safety ARJ Mar. ’98 p.51Top safety issues ARJ July ’95, p.20Rollover case study, NY ARJ July ’94, p.26Accident data coll'n/analysis AIQ #31, p.14 NAccident prevention program AIQ #5, p.9 NLarge veh. safety research AIQ #3, p.8 NSee also NTSB, SKID TESTS

BUSES, SCHOOLSeat belt forum AIQ #47, p.36Case study, run-off-road AIQ #34, p.40Case study, w/semi-truck AIQ #32, p.51Case study, w/semi-truck AIQ #31, p.21Police riding AIQ #31, p.47& dump truck case study AIQ #26, p.19Accident case study ARJ Mar. ’10, p.23Seat belts ARJ Sep. ’06, p.42Struck in rear by truck ARJ Nov. ’04, p.16Double fatality ARJ Mar. ’04, p.15Run-off-road fatality ARJ Mar. ’04, p.18Run-off-bridge case study ARJ Mar. ’04, p.23Broadsided by truck ARJ Mar. ’04, p.58NHTSA’s new focus on ARJ Mar. ’98 p.5Snagged clothing warning ARJ Sep.’94, p.56Snagged clothing ARJ May ’93, p.62Wheelchair safety ARJ May ’93, p.15Driver visibility, mirrors ARJ Jan. ’93, p.35Accident case study ARJ Jan. ’92, p.32Revised guidelines ARJ July ’91, p.48Mirror proposal ARJ July ’91, p.48Stop signal arms ARJ July ’91, p.48Saf. improvements proposed ARJ May ’91, p.16Pedestrian safety prop. ARJ Mar. ’90, p.21Stop arms ARJ Sep.’90, p.7Seating for disabled ARJ Sep.’90, p.2Mirror configuration ARJ May ’89, p.13Crashworthiness research AIQ #32, p.14 NAdvanced signaling devices AIQ #21, p.10 NSee also SKID TESTS, CASE STUDIES

BUSINESS, A.R.Example of abuse ARJ July ’92, p.16Consultants and marketing ARJ May ’92, p.36How to start ARJ Mar. ’92, p.5

C.A.D. PROGRAMSListing of available ARJ Mar. ’90, p.14

CAMERAS, ON-BOARDUse of videotape in speed calc. ARJ July ’08, p.23Watching teen driving ARJ July ’07, p.573-D sensing added ARJ May ’07, p.40Could save lives ARJ Mar. ’07, p.12

CARBON MONOXIDE POISONINGCase study, van in snow ARJ Nov. '06, p.16

CASE LAWAppeals court reduces verdict AIQ #40, p.10Admissibility recon. evidence ARJ Sep.’93, p.24And A.R. experts ARJ May ’91, p.20

CASE STUDIESFire truck run-off-road AIQ #55, p.19Fire captain fatality AIQ #54, p.29LA fire tanker fatality AIQ #53, p.35Single vehicle fatality AIQ #47, p.19EMT fatal, 3-vehicle AIQ #43, p.18Fire truck hits boulder, tree AIQ #32, p.16Semi-truck / police car AIQ #30, p.17Fire truck fill tank explosion AIQ #30, p.40Fire truck/2 veh., intersection AIQ #29, p.19School bus run-off-road AIQ #29, p.44Bus Run-off-road 22-fatal AIQ #28, p.25Fire truck / tree AIQ #27, p.23Worst crash in VA history AIQ #25, p.14Pickup/dump truck AIQ #25, p.42Fire engine/concrete pillar AIQ #24, p.36Firefighter backed over ARJ Sep. ’10, p.38Limited intersection sight dist. ARJ July ’10, p.23Fireman ejected from pumper ARJ Sep. ’09, p.19Fireman killed directing traffic ARJ May ’09, p.417-fatality chain reaction ARJ Mar. ’09, p.35AL firefighters 1 fatal 2 injured ARJ Jan. ’09, p.42Fla. ambulance / tree ARJ Nov. ’08, p.21Load breaks loose hits cab ARJ Jan. ’08, p.252 fire engines, intersection ARJ July ’07, p.23Chief struck by fire truck ARJ July ’03, p.224 pedestrians struck ARJ May ’03, p.24Killed climbing on truck ARJ May ’03, p.54Firefighter run over ARJ Mar. ’03, p.32Fire truck/utility pole ARJ Jan. ’03, p.20Medic unit rollover ARJ Jan. ’03, p.43Antitheft bar, steering wheel ARJ July ’95, p.42Oblique angle collision ARJ Mar. ’90, p.24Head-on collision ARJ Mar. ’90, p.20See also NATIONAL TRAN. SAF. BRD.,PEDESTRIAN

CAUSATIONUrban: identifying crash types ARJ Mar. ’93, p.13Factors in accidents ARJ Nov. ’90, p.16

CELL PHONES/TEXTINGProhibited for bus drivers AIQ #42, p.46Considering bans AIQ #40, p.3Accidents related to AIQ #40, p.7Swedish study on hands-free AIQ #40, p.44Aid police 3 times AIQ #39, p.13Virginia ban defeated AIQ #38, p.2Study: cause distraction AIQ #34, p.5Use back up in NY AIQ #34, p.12State may ban AIQ #31, p.17Hands-free no better AIQ #30, p.47Driving bans worthwhile? AIQ #29, p.46Safety tips for use AIQ #28, p.9Report: laws needed AIQ #27, p.2State law summary AIQ #27, p.9Insurers will not penalize for AIQ #22, p.48Use & collsion risk AIQ #13, p. 1Adults/teens equally likely to text ARJ July ’10, p.5Like driving drunk ARJ May ’10, p.4Texting in trucks banned ARJ May ’10, p.501.6M crashes per year due to ARJ Mar. ’10, p.28Neb. texting ban ARJ Mar. ’10, p.36How dangerous is texting? ARJ July ’09, p.62MO bill would ban texting ARJ Mar. ’09, p.4State ban considered ARJ Mar. ’09, p.59Feds sued info on related deaths ARJ Jan. ’09, p.40More dangerous than talk w pass. ARJ Jan. ’09, p.5Students still text while driving ARJ Jan. ’09, p.8New California law ARJ July ’08, p.3Plan to ban ARJ Sep. ’06, p.52Teens lose privileges ARJ July ’06, p.5Use while driving on rise ARJ July ’06, p.44Cited in crashes ARJ May ’06, p.13May cause 2600 deaths ARJ May ’06, p.58Employers nix driving with ARJ May ’06, p.62CA: stricter rules? ARJ Jan. ’05, p.64Policy for Exxon employees ARJ Sep. ’04, p.10Driver takes on ban ARJ July ’04, p.4Ga. ban debated ARJ July ’04, p.16Banned in New Zealand ARJ Jan. ’04, p.3Move to end ban ARJ Jan. ’04, p.19Handheld banned in UK ARJ Nov. ’03, p.19Santa Fe Police enforcem't ARJ Nov. ’02, p.5No ban yet ARJ Sep. ’02, p.14Danger at gas pumps? ARJ July ’02, p.13Safety ARJ July ’02, p.16Hands-free not risk free ARJ May ’02, p.44Lawmaker attacks ARJ Mar. ’02, p.15Companies create policies ARJ Jan. ’02, p.16Visteon & hands-free ARJ Sep. ’01, p.64NTSB widens probe ARJ July ’01, p.59NHTSA survey ARJ Mar. ’01, p.56Effects while driving AIQ #27, p.12 NSkills required to use & drive AIQ #22, p.10 N

CENTER OF MASS - See Inertial Parameters

CHASSISIntermodal safety ARJ Nov. ’04, p.2

CHILD SAFETY SEATIHSS questions boosters AIQ #54, p.2LATCH system confusing AIQ #45, p.3Consumer Reports tests erred AIQ #45, p.5New rules proposed AIQ #42, p.2Infant carriers recalled AIQ #39, p.11Confusion leads to underuse AIQ #38, p.48Talking seat big hit AIQ #36, p.12Infants: use at record high AIQ #34, p.10New system AIQ #30, p.8Instructions inaccuate/outdated AIQ #28, p.7& seat belts, air bags AIQ #14, p. 20Case studies AIQ #14, p. 42Parents urged to heed recalls AIQ #1, p.31Warnings, air bag positions AIQ #1, p.32New safety rule AIQ #1, p.32New booster seat questions ARJ Nov. ’08, p.7Safety is inspector's aim ARJ Sep. ’08, p.9Fall hazard ARJ July ’07, p.29Booster seat use low ARJ Jan. ’07, p.64Use increasing ARJ Mar. ’06, p.64Shield-type toddler injuries ARJ Mar. ’04, p.64Use hits record high ARJ Nov. ’02, p.64New rating system ARJ Sep. ’02, p.13LATCH system ARJ July ’02, p.14Improved labels required ARJ May ’02, p.13Rating system proposed ARJ May ’01, p.64Attachments need refining ARJ Sep. ’00, p.64Belt-integrated ARJ July ’00, p.14Plan for improving ARJ May ’00, p.42Physician counseling about ARJ Mar. ’00, p.5Too many children unrestrained ARJ Jan. ’00, p.14Installation safer/easier ARJ Jan. ’00, p.62New federal rule ARJ Mar. ’98 p.13Universal attachment system ARJ July ’97, p.64Universal attachment system ARJ Jan. ’97, p.5G.M. donation for ARJ Nov. ’95, p.30Remote control seats recalled ARJ July ’94, p.64Revised standard for booster ARJ July ’94, p.12Warning label/airbag posit’ns ARJ Mar. ’94, p.3Warning for airbag positions ARJ July ’93, p.38Parents alerted about recalls ARJ July ’92, p.64Poor recall response ARJ Jan. ’92, p.40Registration proposed ARJ Mar. ’91, p.48Recall alert ARJ Jan. ’91, p.2Misuse a problem ARJ Mar. ’90, p.56NHTSA advisory ARJ Mar. ’90, p.56Bibliography AIQ #17, p.12 NPatterns of misuse AIQ #12, p.16 NOlder child, fit & injuries AIQ #8, p.14 NCrash tests of AIQ #5, p.11 NBelt anchorage location AIQ #4, p.10 N

COLLISION DATA RECORDERSee Event Data Recorder

COMBINED SPEED FORMULAAnd Delta V’s AIQ #1, p.30Example of/mult. surfaces ARJ Jan. ’94, p.18Example of ARJ July ’90, p.48Alternative approach ARJ July ’89, p.3

COMMERCIAL VEHICLEDriver fitness for duty AIQ #8, p.15 NSee also BUSES, TRUCKS

COMPRESSED NATURAL GASNew NHTSA standard ARJ Jan. ’95, p.56Fleet safety experience AIQ #8, p.15 N

COMPUTERS/COMPUTER MODELSRecon. valiation using EDSMAC4 AIQ #51, p.19DYNA3D model AIQ #27, p.41LS-DYNA model AIQ #26, p.44Product overview AIQ #15, p.35Roadside object collisions AIQ #15, p.42dSpace diagnostic software ARJ Jan. ’10, p.3Simulation of M/C - car tests ARJ July ’07, p.33Intersection acc. models ARJ Jan. ’97, p.28Of dual leg sign support AIQ #11, p.12 NSee also ANIMATION, BIOMECHAN'S, CRASH3

COSTSCrashes & health care ARJ Mar. ’94, p.3Of catastrophic injuries up ARJ May ’93, p.2Of vehicle crashes ARJ Mar. ’93, p.48Economic impact of accdts. AIQ #30, p.14 N

CRASH COMPATABILITYNHTSA assesses data AIQ #21, p.48& fuel economy ARJ Sep. ’04, p.59Automakers pledge improv. ARJ Jan. ’04, p.58Vehicle type/weight factors ARJ Sep. ’97, p.142 case studies ARJ July ’97, p.62Vehicle agressivity AIQ #17, p.14 N

C.R.A.S.H. COMPUTER PROGRAMGlobal & local axes AIQ #1, p.26See also CRUSH STIFFNESS

CRASH TESTS - BARRIER - FRONTALWREX motorcycles ARJ May ’10, p.21Crush data, 2007 vehs ARJ Nov. ’09, p.43Crush data, 2006 vehs ARJ Sep. ’08, p.25Crush data, 2005 vehs ARJ Mar. ’08, p.25Crush data, 2004 vehs ARJ Sep. ’07, p.37Crush data, 2003 vehs ARJ Mar. ’07, p.29Crush data, 2002 vehs ARJ Sep. ’06, p.29Crush data, 2001 vehs ARJ Jan. ’05, p.29Crush data, 2000 vehs ARJ Jan. ’04, p.3298-00 veh's/deformable bar. ARJ Sep. ’04, p.36Crush data, 1999 vehs ARJ Nov. ’03 p.37Crush data, 1997-99 vehs ARJ Nov. ’98 p.461997 Thomas school bus ARJ Mar. ’04, p.1697 Caravan, Explorer 15 mph ARJ July ’04, p.3994-97 veh's/deformable bar. ARJ July ’04, p.53Offset, 14 ’96 4-dr sedans ARJ Mar. ’96, p.22Offset, 14 ’96 sport uts. ARJ Mar. ’96, p.34Repeat offset, 7 vehicles ARJ Mar. ’96, p.40Crush data, 1996 vehs ARJ July ’98 p.49Crush data, 1995 vehs ARJ July ’98 p.47Crush data, 1994 vehs ARJ July ’98 p.45Crush data, 1994 vehs ARJ Mar. ’95, p.50Crush data, 1993 vehs ARJ Nov. ’94, p.32Crush data, 1992 vehs ARJ Mar. ’93, p.22Repeat, ’92 Chev. Caprice AIQ #12, p.13 NCrush data, 1991 vehs ARJ Nov. ’92, p.26’91 Ford F150 pickup AIQ #11, p.36Crush data, 1990 vehs ARJ May ’92, p.42Crush data, 1989 vehs ARJ Jan. ’92, p.34’89 Cutlass, LeBaron, offset ARJ Mar. ’96, p.66Crush data, 1988 vehs ARJ May ’90, p.28Crush data, 1987 vehs ARJ Jan. ’90, p.28Crush data, 1986 vehs ARJ Nov. ’89, p.26’86 VW Golf, oblique ARJ Sep.’94, p.52’86 Taurus, repeat AIQ #12, p.36Crush data, 1985 vehs ARJ Sep.’89, p.26’85 Escort, repeat AIQ #12, p.36Crush data, 1984 vehs ARJ Mar. ’89, p.19Crush data, 1984 vehs ARJ Sep.’92, p.23’84 VW Rabbit ARJ May ’95, p.48Crush data, 1983 vehs ARJ Mar. ’89, p.20Crush data, 1983 vehs ARJ Sep.’92, p.23Crush data, 1982 vehs ARJ May ’89, p.20Crush data, 1982 vehs ARJ Sep.’92, p.23Crush data, 1981 vehs ARJ May ’89, p.21Crush data, 1981 vehs ARJ Sep.’92, p.23Crush data, 1980 vehs ARJ July ’89, p.26Crush data, 1979 vehs ARJ July ’90, p.40Crush data, 1978 vehs ARJ Sep.’90, p.26Crush data, 1977 vehs ARJ Jan. ’91, p.28Crush data, 1976 vehs ARJ May ’91, p.25Crush data, 1975 vehs ARJ Sep.’91, p.26Crush data, 1969-1974 vehs ARJ Nov. ’91, p.40Mini-cars tested (news) AIQ #54, p.5Tropica roadster AIQ #10, p.11 NCrash test bibliography AIQ #5, p.11 NMillbrook testing (news) AIQ #45, p.12Midsized cars improving AIQ #42, p.47IIHS defends methods (news) AIQ #12, p.5Are ratings for dummies ARJ Nov. ’09, p.48Toyota plans U.S. tests (news) ARJ May ’07, p.61Court says 25 mph justified ARJ Mar. ’06, p.13Automakers focus on offset ARJ Sep. ’97, p.2Value confirmed (news) ARJ Nov. ’03, p.16Make SUVs more deadly? ARJ Nov. ’03, p.20Unbelted tests on hold (news) ARJ May ’97, p.19Europe, new standards ARJ Sep.’95, p.5Crashworthiness compar’ns ARJ May ’95, p.64Olds Cieras, offset ARJ July ’94, p.22

CRASH TESTS - BARRIER - REARCrush data, 2005 vehs AIQ #50, p.19Crush data, 2004 vehs AIQ #45, p.23Crush data, 2003 vehs AIQ #43, p.22Crush data, 2002 vehs AIQ #42, p.212002 conversion vans AIQ #42, p.26Crush data, 2001 vehs AIQ #41, p.19IIHS 10 mph AIQ #38, p.40Crush data, 2000 vehs AIQ #37, p.39Crush data, 1999 vehs AIQ #36, p.39Offset, deform. bar., 1998 AIQ #40, p.19Crush data, 1995, 1998 AIQ #38, p.17Offset, deform. bar., 1996 AIQ #39, p.191992 Dodge Ram B250 van AIQ #9, p.421991 Plymouth Acclaim AIQ #11, p.34Collins school bus ARJ Mar. ’04, p.50Crush data, 1988 vehs ARJ May ’90, p.28Crush data, 1987 vehs ARJ Jan. ’90, p.28Crush data, 1986 vehs ARJ Nov. ’89, p.26Crush data, 1985 vehs ARJ Sep.’89, p.26Crush data, 1984 vehs ARJ Mar. ’89, p.19Crush data, 1983 vehs ARJ Mar. ’89, p.20

50


Crush data, 1982 vehs ARJ May ’89, p.20Crush data, 1981 vehs ARJ May ’89, p.21Crush data, 1980 vehs ARJ July ’89, p.26Crush data, 1979 vehs ARJ July ’90, p.40Repeat, ’79 F250, ’79 Gr. Prix ARJ May ’92, p.20Crush data, 1978 vehs ARJ Sep.’90, p.26Crush data, 1977 vehs ARJ Jan. ’91, p.28Crush data, 1976 vehs ARJ May ’91, p.25Repeat, ’76 Honda Accord ARJ May ’92, p.20Crush data, 1975 vehs ARJ Sep.’91, p.26Fixed barrier, 1970-74 vehs. ARJ Nov. ’91, p.40

CRASH TESTS - MOVING BARRIER - SIDENews of FHWA on pickups AIQ #38, p.14Aspects of good performance AIQ #37, p.33Only 2 midsized cars 'good' AIQ #37, p.34Crabbed, ’92 Chev. Caprice AIQ #16, p. 32Repeat, ’92 Chev. Caprice AIQ #15, p. 48’90 Honda Civic, repeat AIQ #14, p. 54Crabbed, ’90 Honda Civic SI AIQ #8, p.36Crabbed, ’88 Ford Escort AIQ #13, p. 46Crabbed, ’88 Ford Taurus AIQ #8, p.36Crush data, 1988 vehs ARJ May ’90, p.28Crush data, 1987 vehs ARJ Jan. ’90, p.28Rep. 45 deg. pole, ’87 Golf AIQ #3, p.28Rep. 90 deg. pole, ’86 Escort AIQ #3, p.28Rep. 45 deg., ’86 Celebrity AIQ #2, p.44Crush data, 1985 vehs ARJ Sep.’89, p.26Rep. 90 deg., ’85 Celebrity AIQ #4, p.36Repeat 90 degree, ’85 Escort AIQ #1, p.28Repeat 90 degree, ’85 Sentra AIQ #4, p.36Repeat 45 deg., ’84 Olds ’88 AIQ #5, p.43Repeat 45/90 deg, Audi 5000’s AIQ #5, p.434 autos, 10/20 mph delta v’s AIQ #6, p.42Citation, pass. comp., axle AIQ #6, p.42Seven school buses ARJ Mar. ’04, p.53Crush data, 1979 vehs ARJ July ’90, p.40Crush data, 1976 vehs ARJ May ’91, p.25New rule covers light trucks ARJ Sep.’95, p.5

CRASH TESTS - ROADSIDE OBJECTSShort portable concrete barrier AIQ #54, p.19Multiple mailbox mount AIQ #54, p.23Midwest guardrail system AIQ #53, p.17Var. veh. side into fixed pole AIQ #51, p.34Portable concrete barrier AIQ #49, p.8Tests of impact attenuators AIQ #44, p.38Guardrails mounted in rock AIQ #43, p.38Triangular slip-base signs AIQ #41, p.38Var. veh. side into fixed pole AIQ #35, p.16Guardrail terminal AIQ #34, p.21MN aluminum barricade AIQ #30, p.3325-ft long span guardrail AIQ #29, p.32Connecticut transition AIQ #25, p.8Bullnose guardrail AIQ #25, p.20Yaw impact into guardrail AIQ #22, p.15New Jersey concrete barrier AIQ #20, p.22Colt/side/breakaway pole AIQ #20, p.31Accord side into pole AIQ #19, p.21Toyota pickup side into pole AIQ #19, p.26Explorer side into pole AIQ #19, p.32Guardrail terminal AIQ #18, p.48MELT guardrail terminal AIQ #17, p.40Speed change in curb impacts AIQ #15, p.20’97 BMW 528 side/pole AIQ #14, p. 19Concrete bridge rail AIQ #11, p.47Various mailboxes AIQ #10, p.30N.J. concrete barrier AIQ #8, p.27Side, var. roadside objects AIQ #7, p.24Selected guardrails AIQ #4, p.16Three side impacts, pole ARJ Sep. ’10, p.29Three side impacts, pole ARJ July ’10, p.1985 mph into guardrails ARJ July ’10, p.37Three side impacts, pole ARJ May ’10, p.38Three side impacts, pole ARJ Mar. ’10, p.32Cable guardrail terminal system ARJ Nov. ’09, p.27Cable guardrail terminal system ARJ Sep. ’09, p.25Concrete barrier w light pole ARJ May ’09, p.25Concrete barrier w light pole ARJ Mar. ’09, p.15Temp. rigid sign stands ARJ Jan. ’09, p.28F-shaped guardrail on slope ARJ Sep. ’08, p.33Midwest guardrail ARJ May ’08, p.35Midwest guardrail ARJ Mar. ’08, p.49Equations for pole impacts ARJ Nov. ’07, p.19Various safety devices ARJ July ’07, p.27Fla./NJ safety-shape rail ARJ Mar. ’07, p.50Heavy truck/F411 bridge rail ARJ Jan. ’07, p.49Vehicle rear into fixed poles ARJ Nov. '06, p.19Heavy mailboxes ARJ Jan. ’04, p.293-strand cable barrier ARJ Sep. ’02, p.19G4 guardrail v. Geo Metro ARJ Sep. ’02, p.33Bridge rails level 4 ARJ Sep. ’02, p.39Guardrail breakaway posts ARJ July ’02, p.24Long-span guardrail ARJ July ’02, p.32Guardrail/bridgerail trans. ARJ July ’02, p.45Pickup/masonry guardrail ARJ Sep.’00, p.3Wood RR crossing sign ARJ Sep.’00, p.37

U-channel sign supports ARJ Mar. ’00, p.19U-channel sign supports ARJ May ’00, p.19OR slip-base sign supports ARJ May ’00, p.35Work zone sign support ARJ May ’00, p.45Pickup/thrie beam guardrail ARJ July ’98 p.13Three-cable terminal ARJ July ’98 p.21MELT2 guardrail terminal ARJ July ’98 p.53Ford Festiva/pole, sign ARJ May ’98 p.24Various, offset front barrier ARJ May ’98 p.291992 Caprice repeat barrier ARJ May ’98 p.54Auto/various bridge rails ARJ Jan. ’97, p.20Pickup/various bridge rails ARJ Jan. ’97, p.20Hvy truck/var. bridge rails ARJ Jan. ’97, p.20Auto/various bridge rails ARJ Mar. ’97, p.22Pickup/various bridge rails ARJ Mar. ’97, p.22Truck, bus/var. bridge rails ARJ Mar. ’97, p.22Auto/various bridge rails ARJ Mar. ’97, p.50Pickup/various bridge rails ARJ Mar. ’97, p.50Truck/steel bridge rail ARJ Mar. ’97, p.69Application of rail tests ARJ Mar. ’97, p.70Pickup/steel guard rail ARJ Mar. ’97, p.72Pickup/MELT2 terminal ARJ Mar. ’97, p.80Pickup/T101 bridge rail ARJ Mar. ’97, p.80Composite guard rail ARJ Jan. ’97, p.14Steel sign supports ARJ July ’96, p.26Fiberglass sign supports ARJ July ’96, p.52Honda Civics, fixed pole ARJ May ’96, p.18Honda Civic, sign post ARJ May ’96, p.1888-90 Festivas, fixed pole ARJ May ’96, p.22Slip-base light pole ARJ May ’96, p.28Slip-base sign support ARJ May ’96, p.44Break-away light poles ARJ May ’96, p.52Steel bridge rails ARJ Jan. ’96, p.28Concrete median barrier ARJ Jan. ’96, p.52Steel guardrail terminals ARJ Jan. ’96, p.67Composit post guardrail ARJ Jan. ’96, p.70Steel W-beam guardrail ARJ Jan. ’96, p.72Repeated front pole impacts ARJ Sep.’95, p.22Breakaway light pole w gate ARJ July ’95, p.24In-line/offset fixed pole ARJ May ’95, p.50Curbs: acceleration levels ARJ May ’95, p.54Repeated front pole impacts ARJ Sep.’93, p.44Frontal, pole impacts ARJ Jan. ’93, p.32Honda Civic/bridge rails ARJ May ’92, p.42Ford F150 pickup/bridge rails ARJ May ’92, p.42Int’l heavy truck/bridge rails ARJ May ’92, p.42With breakaway light pole ARJ Jan. ’92, p.3Repeated rear barrier tests ARJ May ’92, p.20High speed, tree ARJ Nov. ’92, p.50Precast concrete barrier AIQ #26, p.10 NW-beam guardrail AIQ #26, p.10 N7.62-m span guardrail AIQ #22, p.10 NVarious guardrails AIQ #22, p.12 NVarious guardrails AIQ #21, p.10 NVarious guardrails AIQ #20, p.11 NNETC-2-bar bridgerail AIQ #20, p.14 NWood bridge railings AIQ #20, p.15 NBEST guardrail terminal AIQ #19, p.12 NVarious guardrails AIQ #19, p.13 NVarious guardrails/poles AIQ #18, p.11 NTraffic-signal poles AIQ #18, p.14 NW-beam transitions AIQ #17, p.13 NET2000 guardrail end AIQ #17, p.14 NGuardrails, bridgerails AIQ #17, p.15 NPlastic drum sign substrates AIQ #16, p.10 NPickup/Festiva MELT term’l AIQ #16, p.15 NFord Festiva MELT terminal AIQ #16, p.15 NMazda RX7 MELT terminal AIQ #16, p.15 NFord Festiva MELT terminal AIQ #15, p.11 NNew Jersey barrier AIQ #14, p.11 NBibliography AIQ #13, p.10 NSafety structures bibliography AIQ #8, p.16 NApplication (news) AIQ #11, p.14 N

CRASH TESTS - VEHICLE-TO-VEHICLE4 side impact tests AIQ #52, p.24Motorcycle/van high speed AIQ #51, p.264 side impact tests AIQ #50, p.264 side impact tests AIQ #49, p.204 side impact tests AIQ #48, p.204 side impact tests AIQ #47, p.22Semi-trailer side underride AIQ #27, p.17’85 Escort, repeat oblique AIQ #12, p.36Compared to barrier tests AIQ #5, p.38Motorcycle/car AIQ #5, p.48Car/semi-trailer side crash tests ARJ Sep. ’10, p.19Motorcycles/cars ARJ Jan. ’10, p.25Two '02 Tundra/'04 Accord ARJ Jan. ’10, p.42Two '01 Ventura/'04 Accord ARJ July ’09, p.28'02 Trailblazer/'04 Accord ARJ Jan. ’09, p.46Two '99 Gr. Caravan/'04 Accord ARJ Nov. ’08, p.4005 T&C / '01 Civic head-on ARJ July ’08, p.30'03 Silverado / '01 Civic head-on ARJ May ’08, p.26Two 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.442 Odyssey/Focus ARJ Sep. ’07, p.2610 motorcycle/car ARJ July ’07, p.33

3 Silverado/Focus head-on ARJ May ’07, p.34'03 Navigator/'96 Neon ARJ Jan. ’07, p.26'02 Ram 1500/'97 Accord ARJ Sep. ’06, p.20'02 Trailblazer/'97 Accord ARJ Sep. ’06, p.22'02 Ram 1500/'04 Accord ARJ Sep. ’06, p.24'02 Ram 1500/'04 Accord ARJ Sep. ’06, p.26'02 trucks/autos head-on ARJ Nov. '06, tent.'01 Montero/'97 Accord ARJ Jan. ’05, p.18'01 Ram 1500/'97 Accord ARJ Jan. ’05, p.20'01 Ford F-150/'01 Neon ARJ Jan. ’05, p.22'01 Ford F-150/'01 Neon ARJ Jan. ’05, p.24'01 Ford F-150/'01 Neon ARJ Jan. ’05, p.26'97 Accord/'98 Cavalier ARJ Sep. ’04, p.24'98 Sienna/'97 Accord ARJ Sep. ’04, p.26'98 Chevy S-10/'97 Accord ARJ Sep. ’04, p.28Deform. Impact./98 Cavalier ARJ Sep. ’04, p.30'94 K-2500/'97 Accord ARJ July ’04, p.22'96 Lumina/'97 Accord ARJ July ’04, p.24'96 Avalon/'97 Accord ARJ July ’04, p.26'97 Caravan/'96 Neon ARJ July ’04, p.28'97 Explorer/'97 Accord ARJ July ’04, p.30'97 Caravan/'97 Accord ARJ July ’04, p.32'97 Blazer/'97 Accord ARJ July ’04, p.34'97 Seville/'97 Accord ARJ July ’04, p.36Deform. Impact./'97 Accord ARJ July ’04, p.40Peterbilt semi/Blue Bird bus ARJ Mar. ’04, p.20'00 Avalon/'97 Accord ARJ Jan. ’04, p.22'00 Seville/'97 Accord ARJ Jan. ’04, p.24'00 Previa/'97 Accord ARJ Jan. ’04, p.26Linc. Navigator/Dodge Neon ARJ Nov. ’03, p.24Mits. Montero/Honda Accord ARJ Nov. ’03, p.26Heavy truck/auto frontal ARJ July ’98 p.13Truck-mounted attenuator ARJ Mar. ’98 p.37Breakaway cable terminal ARJ Jan. ’98, p.12Truck side underride ARJ Nov. ’97, p.54Side pickup, van, bus ARJ Nov. ’96, p.39Various ’83, head-on, offset ARJ Mar. ’96, p.64’89 Cutlass, LeBaron, offset ARJ Mar. ’96, p.66Auto/heavy truck underride ARJ Nov. ’95, p.34Auto/heavy truck underride ARJ Jan. ’95, p.224 autos, truck side underride ARJ Nov. ’94, p.34Malibu into rear of Maxima ARJ Sep.’94, p.26Heavy truck/Civic, 4 tests ARJ July ’94, p.36Heavy truck/Taurus, 9 tests ARJ July ’94, p.36Two Olds Cieras head-on ARJ July ’94, p.22Two ’68 Cadillacs head-on ARJ Nov. ’92, p.50Truck mounted attenuator AIQ #16, p.11 NBibliography AIQ #16, p.13 NFRP end-terminal AIQ #16, p.14 NGuardrail pedulum testing AIQ #16, p.14 NHeavy truck/’89 Taurus AIQ #11, p.13 NHeavy truck/’87 Taurus AIQ #11, p.13 NHeavy truck/’88 Taurus AIQ #11, p.14 NHeavy truck/’87 Taurus AIQ #11, p.14 NHeavy truck/Honda Civic AIQ #7, p.14 NSee also GRADE CROSSINGS

CRASH TESTS - LOW SPEEDUtility vehicles/human subjects ARJ Sep. ’96, p.24Table: tests with human subj’ts ARJ Sep. ’96, p.41Car-to-bus with human subjects ARJ Sep. ’96, p.44Summary of research ARJ Sep. ’96, p.52Car-to-car with human subjects ARJ May ’93, p.22See also INJURIES, CRASHWORTHINESS

CRASH TESTS - ROLLOVER/TIPOVERDamage, doors/structure from AIQ #6, p.46Summary of ARJ Jan. ’03, p.332 editorials on NHTSA ARJ Jan. ’03, p.422003-2004 vehicles ARJ Jan. ’03, p.56

CRASH TEST DUMMIESSee DUMMIES, CRASH TEST

CRASH TEST FILMS/VIDEOSNat’l Crash Analysis Center AIQ #3, p.5Consumer Reports/IIHS ARJ Sep. ’07, p.58

CRASHWORTHINESSCompatability guildlines AIQ #33, p.47Many vehicles not improving AIQ #24, p.2Improving for most vehicles AIQ #24, p.4New tech for side impacts AIQ #24, p.43School & transit buses AIQ #23, p.18Weight mix of fleet AIQ #20, p.47Safest vehicles for downsizing ARJ Nov. ’08, p.28Impact of 4WDs ARJ Nov. ’03, p.28Crash incompatability ARJ Nov. ’03, p.30Mercedes S-class revisions ARJ Nov. ’03, p.34Euroncap spurs improvements ARJ Nov. ’03, p.56Auto/pickup/SUV compatability ARJ Jan. ’00, p.5Low speed, passenger van’s ARJ Sep. ’96, p.3Ford Taurus rated best ARJ Nov. ’95, p.6Texas grid-slot barrier AIQ #32, p.13 NFront in rear-end crashes AIQ #24, p.16 NCar/light truck impact AIQ #19, p.11 NStandard test methods AIQ #19, p.11 NSimulations with DYNA3D AIQ #12, p.17 N

CRITICAL SPEED TO SIDESLIPTests asphalt, gravel, grass ARJ May ’08, p.29Tests verifying formula ARJ Jan. ’95, p.37Overview of approach ARJ Nov. ’93, p.22Tests verifying formula ARJ May ’93, p.48Computer analysis using ARJ July ’92, p.56Discussion of ARJ Jan. ’90, p.27Discussion of ARJ Mar. ’90, p.13Braking/cornering veh. ARJ July ’89, p.3Accuracy, discussion ARJ Sep.’89, p.24Discussion of ARJ Nov. ’89, p.13See also RADIUS OF CURVATURE

CRUSH PROFILEUse of unequally spaced pts. ARJ May ’07, p.21Measurement techniques ARJ Mar. ’95, p.22

CRUSH STIFFNESS/SPEED FROM DAMAGEMotorcycle crush analysis ARJ Mar. ’09, p.25Force-crush model, unequal pts. ARJ May ’07, p.21Discussion of ARJ July ’97, p.21Speed, frontal pole impacts ARJ May ’96, p.24Analysis, offset head-on ARJ Mar. ’96, p.66Speed, frontal pole impacts ARJ Sep.’95, p.28Analysis: breakaway pole ARJ July ’95, p.41Campbell eq. derived ARJ May ’95, p.48Discussion of derivation ARJ Sep.’94, p.18Discussion of derivation ARJ July ’94, p.18A, B & G from crash tests ARJ Sep.’92, p.43Pole, finite element model AIQ #8, p.16 N

CURB IMPACTSSee CRASH TESTS - ROADSIDE OBJECTS

DEBRIS ON ROADSlices car AIQ #35, p.12Growing hazard ARJ July ’07, p.16

DELTA V’sRestitution constant AIQ #28, p.22Calculation proceedure AIQ #19, p.16And equiv. barrier speed AIQ #14, p. 16Discussion of AIQ #3, p.4Discussion of AIQ #2, p.5And combined speed formula AIQ #1, p.30

DIABETESRules waived for drivers ARJ Nov. ’93, p.64Crash risk for drivers with ARJ May ’93, p.3Crash risk for drivers with ARJ Mar. ’91, p.47

DIAGRAMSLimiting time req'd for meas. AIQ #46, p.30Triangulation scene mapping ARJ Jan. ’10, p.39Example of schematic ARJ July ’95, p.42Rubber ruler computer prog. ARJ Mar. ’94, p.62Computerized schematic, ex. ARJ Mar. ’92, p.16Computerized schematic, ex. ARJ Jan. ’91, p.14

DIMENSIONSFire truck, trash truck ARJ Mar. ’98 p.55Tables, motorcycles, 1967-91 ARJ July ’92, p.46See also INERTIAL PARAMETERS

DOORS/HATCHESNew standard for AIQ #8, p.3Testing, latch failure modes AIQ #8, p.18Chrysler minivan rear door ARJ Nov. ’95, p.5New standard go far enough? ARJ Nov. ’95, p.25Chrys. minivan rear door fix ARJ Mar. ’95, p.1Evaluation of door locks ARJ Mar. ’95, p.24Minivan rear door/side imp’t ARJ Jan. ’95, p.64Proposed retention standard ARJ Sep.’94, p.64

DOWNSIZINGAutos & safety ARJ Jan. ’91, p.26

DRAG FACTORSFor non-motorized vehicles AIQ #55, p.27Rotating vehicles ARJ May ’08, p.19Heavy truck slide/guardrail ARJ Mar. ’97, p.70From rotating vehicle ARJ Nov. ’94, p.30Stop dist.-various trucks ARJ May ’92, p.40Adjusting for grade ARJ Jan. ’90, p.10Adjusting for brake eff. ARJ Jan. ’90, p.10Sensitivity ARJ Jan. ’90, p.11Table, various surfaces ARJ Jan. ’90, p.12Adjustments to table ARJ Jan. ’90, p.12For motorcycles ARJ Jan. ’90, p.26Table for motorcycles ARJ Mar. ’90, p.19Table for pedestrians ARJ Sep.’90, p.24Effects of rotation ARJ Nov. ’90, p.32Rotational effects on ARJ May ’89, p.9Aggregate type, mix design AIQ #10, p.11 NRolling resistance in snow AIQ #9, p.11 NSee also SKID TESTS, TIRES

DRAG SLEDLarge scale testing AIQ #42, p.18Effect of pull angle ARJ May ’98 p.20

51


Compare to book, Vericom, etc. ARJ May ’98 p.20Limitations ARJ May ’98 p.20Spring constants ARJ Sep.’91, p.25Zero calibration ARJ Sep.’91, p.25Improper use of ARJ Jan. ’89, p.12

DRINKING AGEZero tolerence policy AIQ #12, p.3LA keeps 21 AIQ #12, p.3Teens use fake IDs ARJ July ’95, p.12Underage drinking problem ARJ Mar. ’91, p.48

DRIVER EDUCATIONDoes not = safe drivers ARJ Jan. ’97, p.2Europeans echo concerns ARJ Sep. ’96, p.64

DRIVER IDENTIFICATIONWhen occupants are ejected ARJ Sep.’91, p.20

DRIVER RECORDSMissing data ARJ Sep.’91, p.11

DRUG TESTINGFor bus/truck drivers? ARJ Mar. ’90, p.56

DRUGGED DRIVINGMultiple medications & crashes AIQ #52, p.33Move to pass laws AIQ #39, p.14Kava test case AIQ #37, p.14National initiative against AIQ #32, p.3OR Recognition experts AIQ #13, p. 17New law tough ARJ Nov. ’08, p.11Common as drunk driving? ARJ Jan. ’05, p.14Putting teeth into laws ARJ July ’03, p.20Detect’n prog. cost effective? ARJ Mar. ’94, p.2Overshadowed by drinking ARJ Mar. ’94, p.42& automobile accidents ARJ Nov. ’93, p.62Truck firm fined ARJ Jan. ’91, p.3Cocaine danger on the road ARJ July ’90, p.3Driver recognition prog. ARJ Sep.’90, p.3Truck drivers: % posit. ARJ Mar. ’90, p.2Program expanded ARJ Mar. ’89, p.2Marijuana & driving perform. AIQ #4, p.9 N

DRUNK DRIVINGUp among women AIQ #55, p.3MD Governor wants law changed AIQ #53, p.4Most TX officials refuse tests AIQ #53, p.7Man's BAC was .491 AIQ #51, p.3Repeat offenders on road AIQ #50, p.2Tags for offenders? AIQ #50, p.18Deportation after fatal crash AIQ #49, p.2Tougher penalties in Japan AIQ #46, p.2Underaged drinkers AIQ #38, p.10Lunch: less alcohol needed AIQ #32, p.7Lawmakers focus on AIQ #30, p.48B.I.A. slow on reform AIQ #28, p.4DOT revises testing rule AIQ #25, p.2UK proposal AIQ #25, p.8Canada ignition interlock AIQ #25, p.12Sobriety checkpoints/deaths AIQ #20, p.15Case study AIQ #13, p. 20Sobriety checkpoints AIQ #10, p.56Double jeopardy def. rej’d AIQ #7, p.2Teenage 2-fatal case study AIQ #5, p.14Tough new law in Virginia AIQ #2, p.9Public lacks knowledge AIQ #1, p.25Monitoring gadgets ARJ Nov. ’09, p.4New LA laws ARJ Nov. ’09, p.61WI passes tougher law ARJ Sep. ’09, p.2Driver tries to make ammends ARJ Sep. ’09, p.3Case dismissed urine inhalation ARJ Mar. ’09, p.7Older adults impaired easily ARJ Mar. ’09, p.12Warrents for blood draws ARJ Sep. ’08, p.16Data puts spotlight on county ARJ Sep. ’08, p.8Court: DUI not violent felony ARJ May ’08, p.3Full time enforcement officer ARJ Jan. ’08, p.12Bills to increase penalties ARJ Jan. ’08, p.3America's deadliest drunks ARJ Jan. ’08, p.11More ignition interlocks urges ARJ Jan. ’08, p.12Innovative technologies for ARJ July ’07, p.63Silent hybrid vehicles ARJ July ’07, p.49Proposal affects convicts ARJ Jan. ’05, p.15Still over limit next day? ARJ Sep. ’04, p.64Fatally injured drivers ARJ July ’03, p.2Check lane productive for cops ARJ July ’02, p.9Penn.: ignition devices ARJ Nov. ’01, p.5European Union reciprocity ARJ May ’98 p.62Field sobriety test study ARJ July ’97, p.88Age laws - low enforcement ARJ Mar. ’96, p.19Redesigned alcohol sensor ARJ Mar. ’96, p.5Lower after N.C. enforcement ARJ July ’95, p.1Crackdowns deter alcoholics? ARJ Mar. ’95, p.5Mother faces child neglect ARJ Nov. ’94, p.5Wisconsin gets federal grant ARJ May ’94, p.64Canada: screening time limit ARJ Mar. ’94, p.491980’s internat’l statistics ARJ Mar. ’94, p.64

Sobriety checkpoint tech. ARJ Jan. ’94, p.3Sting cuts sales to minors ARJ Jan. ’93, p.2Sobriety checkpts. effective ARJ Sep.’92, p.22Sports heroes and ARJ May ’91, p.24Reduced in U.K. ARJ Mar. ’91, p.43Odds of getting caught ARJ Mar. ’91, p.39Ignition interlocks ARJ Jan. ’91, p.2Enforcement grants ARJ Mar. ’90, p.23Truck drivers: % posit. ARJ Mar. ’90, p.2License confiscation (CA) ARJ Mar. ’90, p.3Supreme Ct. & checkpoints ARJ July ’90, p.1Supreme Ct. & videotapes ARJ July ’90, p.2Alcohol sensors tested ARJ July ’90, p.7United enforcement effort ARJ Sep.’90, p.7NHTSA recommendations ARJ Nov. ’89, p.15Breathalizer & due process ARJ July ’89, p.2Open container laws AIQ #31, p.13 N.08 law history AIQ #27, p.13 NEffects of .08 BAC laws AIQ #26, p.11 NLow concentration literature AIQ #24, p.15 NLow dose & driver skills AIQ #24, p.19 NBibliography AIQ #14, p.12 NStdzd. field sobriety test AIQ #12, p.12 NBibliography AIQ #10, p.13 NBreathalizer patent database AIQ #6, p.11 NDatabase citations AIQ #5, p.12 NDetection manual/video AIQ #4, p.8 N

DUMMIES, CRASH TESTNew competition for AIQ #51, p.4New developed by Ford ARJ May ’08, p.2Position important in results ARJ Sep. ’04, p.54POLAR2 pedestrian ARJ May ’03, p.27Data aquisition system ARJ Nov. ’01, p.1Design for air bag tests ARJ Jan. ’98, p.1Finite element model ARJ May ’97, p.49Which for side impact? ARJ July ’96, p.2Hybrid III recommended ARJ May ’91, p.31Child dummy recommended ARJ Nov. ’90, p.31Hybrid III 5th% female AIQ #30, p.11 NPregnant female dummy AIQ #26, p.10 N

EDUCATIONWREX2000 conference AIQ #21, p.18Survey of A.R. engineers ARJ July ’89, p.12

ELECTRIC VEHICLESLow-speed in urban envir. AIQ #32, p.14 NFleet safety experience AIQ #8, p.15 N

EMERGENCY SERVICESUnifying incident response ARJ May ’08, p.51Data improvements recom’d ARJ Jan. ’94, p.2

ENERGY, DISSIPATION OFPower Law force-deflection ARJ July ’08, p.30Equations for pole impacts ARJ Nov. ’07, p.19Validation of equation ARJ Mar. ’96, p.69Validation of equation ARJ Mar. ’96, p.73Front pole impact equations ARJ Sep.’93, p.50With cons. momentum ARJ Mar. ’91, p.30Simplifying calculations ARJ Mar. ’91, p.38Discussion of ARJ Mar. ’90, p.22With cons. momentum ARJ Mar. ’90, p.28Applied to barrier tests ARJ May ’90, p.19With cons. momentum ARJ May ’90, p.22Presenting in court ARJ Sep. ’90, p.14Discussion of minivan stiff. ARJ Jan. ’90, p.28

EPILEPSYCrash risk for drivers with ARJ Mar. ’91, p.47

EQUIVALENT BARRIER SPEEDSPrivacy concerns AIQ #40, p.5Real world experience with AIQ #32, p.20You're never alone AIQ #31, p.46Experts join to standardize AIQ #26, p.4Crash data retrieval kit AIQ #21, p.42In police cars AIQ #19, p.7Requirement urged AIQ #8, p.4Like airplane black box ARJ Mar. ’03, p.25Delphi's latest for racing ARJ July ’01, p.5Heavy truck case study ARJ Nov. ’93, p.40For haz-mat trucks? ARJ Mar. ’90, p.21Black boxes for cars? ARJ July ’89, p.10Report to congress on AIQ #30, p.12 NCrash event data recorder AIQ #27, p.11 NElectronic recorder study AIQ #20, p.12 NSee also CRASH TESTS, CRUSH STIFFNESS,DELTA V's

ETHICSFor expert in civil litigation AIQ #11, p.39Expert changes sides, rebuttal AIQ #8, p.4Expert changes sides AIQ #7, p.4Class-action lawyers sued ARJ Mar. ’96, p.1Lawyer leaves case ARJ Mar. ’96, p.1Example of bad ARJ July ’92, p.16

EVENT DATA RECORDERSBuilding Caterpillar ECM cable AIQ #53, p.42In full-systems crash tests AIQ #43, p.32Performance of selected AIQ #41, p.31Privacy concerns AIQ #40, p.5Real world experience with AIQ #32, p.20You're never alone AIQ #31, p.46Experts join to standardize AIQ #26, p.4Crash data retrieval kit AIQ #21, p.42In police cars AIQ #19, p.7Requirement urged AIQ #8, p.4Faulty speed readings in Toyota ARJ Sep. ’10, p.1Evaluation of ARJ Sep. ’10, p.11US weighs requirements ARJ Mar. ’10, p.2Show Toytota drivers didn't brake ARJ Mar. ’10, p.7Toyota's policy ARJ July ’09, p.15Heavy truck field guide ARJ July ’09, p.19Case study ARJ May ’09, p.19Cummings ECM downloads ARJ Jan. ’09, p.19State statuates & legal consid'ns ARJ Jan. ’08, p.50Review of SAE symposium ARJ Sep. ’07, p.14Concrete co. use of ARJ May ’07, p.16New NHTSA rules for ARJ Jan. ’07, p.15Case study ARJ Sep. ’06, p.40Like airplane black box ARJ Mar. ’03, p.25Delphi's latest for racing ARJ July ’01, p.5Heavy truck case study ARJ Nov. ’93, p.40For haz-mat trucks? ARJ Mar. ’90, p.21Black boxes for cars? ARJ July ’89, p.10Report to congress on AIQ #30, p.12 NCrash event data recorder AIQ #27, p.11 NElectronic recorder study AIQ #20, p.12 N

EVIDENCE, PRESERVATION OFFailure, case dismissed AIQ #28, p.1Spoiled, the consequences ARJ Jan. ’92, p.16Preserve wrecked cars? ARJ July ’90, p.3Forensic lab analysis ARJ Nov. ’89, p.24

EXAMINATIONSOf automobiles ARJ Jan. ’90, p.20

EXPERT TESTIMONYExpert obliterates evidence AIQ #42, p.2In airbag liability case AIQ #22, p.48Toyota's bid to curb fails ARJ July ’10, p.3Kia suit tossed for lack of ARJ Mar. ’01, p.1Rule 26 - Discovery ARJ Nov.’00, p.15Witness found not qualified ARJ July ’98 p.2Expanded authority of judges ARJ Mar. ’98 p.1On facial injuries ARJ May ’97, p.5On cause of collision ARJ May ’97, p.80

EYEWITNESS - See Witness

FALL/VAULTMotorcycle & rider ARJ Mar. ’90, p.19

FATALITY RATENon-traffic accidents AIQ #55, p.412008 deaths at record low AIQ #53, p.8Older drivers in fewer crashes AIQ #53, p.37Bikes, DWI's rise AIQ #52, p.44Rises after terrorism AIQ #42, p.12003 rates AIQ #39, p.16Trend in car/truck AIQ #37, p.37Ramidan fasting increases AIQ #33, p.2Among demographic groups AIQ #26, p.7IIHS issues report AIQ #25, p.12Among hispanic groups AIQ #22, p.281995 rates AIQ #11, p.3Higher after 65 mph law AIQ #4, p.21993 lowest rate ever AIQ #2, p.3Record low in 2009 ARJ Mar. ’10, p.1Bad roads blamed ARJ July ’09, p.59CA teen deaths drop ARJ Jan. ’09, p.26Marine motorcycle very high ARJ Nov. ’08, p.2Truck stats at all-time low ARJ Mar. ’08, p.15Driver rate falls ARJ May ’07, p.30High for fat drivers ARJ July ’04, p.14Fla. leads for elderly ARJ July ’04, p.62Child pedestrians ARJ July ’03, p.1286K in China in 10 mo. ARJ Jan. ’03, p.10School buses have lowest ARJ Sep. ’02, p.92001 rates ARJ July ’02, p.3For Latino children ARJ July ’02, p.52000 rates ARJ Mar. ’01, p.16Child, alcohol-related down ARJ May ’00, p.56Young drivers killing teens ARJ Jan. ’00, p.64Youngest drivers most at risk ARJ July ’98 p.9Up on interstates ARJ May ’98 p.62Higher for black, Hispanic kids ARJ May ’98 p.64Most truckers die in single veh. ARJ Mar. ’98 p.481996 statistics ARJ July ’97, p.2Variance among vehicles ARJ Sep. ’96, p.2& economic indicators ARJ May ’96, p.72Autobahns v. Interstates ARJ Jan. ’96, p.80Best & worst passenger cars ARJ Sep.’95, p.21994 breakdown ARJ Nov. ’95, p.32

1994, total ARJ July ’95, p.1Relative to speeding ARJ Jan. ’95, p.52Increase in Canada ARJ July ’94, p.12Up in Japan ARJ Nov. ’93, p.62Lowest in 31 years ARJ Nov. ’93, p.12’92 motorcycle deaths down ARJ Sep.’93, p.64Alcohol related - 10-yr. low ARJ July ’92, p.1Dramatic increase, women ARJ May ’92, p.161991 lowest ever ARJ Jan. ’92, p.31Variance among dif. cars ARJ May ’91, p.321990, total ARJ Mar. ’91, p.42Motorcycle rates ARJ Nov. ’90, p.265 mph & rural Interst. ARJ May ’90, p.271989 lowest ever ARJ Mar. ’90, p.6By vehicle ARJ Jan. ’90, p.2Rural Interstates ARJ Nov. ’89, p.31988, total ARJ July ’89, p.29For ejected occupants AIQ #17, p.11 N

FATIGUEIncreased danger in GA AIQ #40, p.45Medical resident's sleep loss AIQ #35, p.47Tired truckers AIQ #28, p.6Charging tired drivers AIQ #24, p.5Sleep deprivation/driving ability AIQ #18, p.18Tech. to reduce work hours AIQ #8, p.2Sleep-deprived brains ARJ July ’08, p.14Fighting fatigue ARJ July ’06, p.23Accident research ARJ May ’06, p.3Canada truck drivers ARJ Nov. ’04, p.2Drunk or drowsy? ARJ Sep. ’04, p.9FMCSA to gather data ARJ Sep. ’04, p.62Drowsey driver legislation ARJ Nov. ’03, p.13Extend trucker hours of serv? ARJ Mar. ’98 p.62FHWA madating recorders? ARJ Mar. ’98 p.64Truck driver hours of service ARJ Jan. ’98, p.2Hours of service rule history ARJ Jan. ’98, p.9Management plans for truckers ARJ Jan. ’98, p.18Computer/hours of service ARJ Jan. ’98, p.54Truck driver study ARJ Nov. ’97, p.3Truck driver study ARJ Sep. ’90, p.28Sleeper berth usage and AIQ #31, p.14 NFace monitoring techniques AIQ #27, p.13 NDrowsey driver alarms AIQ #26, p.11 NDrowsy driver detection AIQ #24, p.17 NBus driver study AIQ #24, p.20 NCommercial veh. drivers AIQ #23, p.13 NOperating practice/com. drivers AIQ #22, p.11 NNHTSA efforts to combat AIQ #21, p.14 NEye activity measures AIQ #19, p.11 NCommercial driver study AIQ #16, p.12 NSee also HUMAN FACTORS

FATIGUE FRACTURESee METALLUGICAL FAILURES

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIN.New publications catalog ARJ Nov. ’07, p.12Ofc. Motor Carriers to NHTSA? ARJ Mar. ’98 p.1Ofc. Motor Car. dir. interview ARJ Mar. ’98 p.32Pressured on hours of service ARJ Jan. ’98, p.64Motor carrier fines ARJ Nov. ’90, p.47

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMIN.New web site ARJ July ’00, p.12

FEDERAL MOTOR VEH. SAFETY STDS.See STANDARDS, SAFETY

FIRES - CROWN VICTORIA POLICEJudge rules cruisers safe AIQ #38, p.2Ford order to do crash test AIQ #37, p.10Ford conducted 'secret recall'? AIQ #36, p.1Ford offers safety system AIQ #34, p.1Are the vehicles safe? AIQ #33, p.204 lawsuits settled AIQ #33, p.20Ford insists cars safe AIQ #33, p.20Class action suit allowed AIQ #33, p.30ODI's report AIQ #33, p.32Ford questions crash test AIQ #33, p.37Retired cars in Appalachia AIQ #33, p.38Dallas sues Ford for info AIQ #29, p.5Police agency tries to exit suit ARJ Mar. ’06, p.14Lawmaker inquiry ARJ Mar. ’04, p.58Dallas say upgrade unsafe ARJ Jan. ’04, p.3Dallas alternative safety meas. ARJ Nov. ’03, p.5Ford fights court-ordered test ARJ Nov. ’03, p.1Ford flunked own test ARJ Sep. ’02, p.3Group sues Ford ARJ Mar. ’02, p.1Info to Dallas police ARJ Mar. ’02, p.1Ford Crown Vic police ARJ Nov. ’01, p.1

FIRES - G.M. C/K PICKUPSMosely, 3 other cases settled AIQ #7, p.3Pena favors recall, GM balks AIQ #4, p.1G.M. attacks judge in suit AIQ #2, p.3GM paid $500M on lawsuits ARJ Sep. ’03, p.1Suit rejected/statute limit’s ARJ Sep. ’96, p.1Editorial ARJ Jan. ’95, p.18

52


NHTSA settles with GM ARJ Nov. ’94, p.1Mosely verdict overturned ARJ May ’93, p.5GM C/K pickup stats ARJ Mar. ’93, p.21NHTSA invest. C/K pickups ARJ Jan. ’93, p.13

FIRES - VEHICLEBulldozer operator dies AIQ #49, p.36Feds reject plan AIQ #43, p.4New NHTSA std. published AIQ #38, p.12Cadillac, Olds fuel leaks AIQ #33, p.9Catalytic converter AIQ #24, p.34Highway cargo tanks AIQ #22, p.38Proposal to upgrade standard AIQ #22, p.48Flammable liquid spills AIQ #19, p.39& fuel system integrity std. AIQ #6, p.20Gas truck grade cross accid. AIQ #3, p.13Nissan buys back minivans AIQ #2, p.3Gasoline tanker crash ARJ Nov. ’09, p.37Feds investigate SUVs ARJ Mar. ’08, p.3Motorcoach case study ARJ Nov. ’07, p.33Fire retardant cars ARJ Nov. ’03, p.55Ford Crown Vic police ARJ Nov. ’01, p.1GM steering column ARJ Sep. ’01, p.3Gasoline tanker/car case study ARJ Mar. ’98 p.25Portable fuel containers ARJ Nov. ’96, p.84Vapor recovery systems ARJ Sep.’93, p.1Nissan vans recalled again ARJ July ’93, p.56Flouroelastomer risks refuted ARJ July ’93, p.2Investigation in heavy veh. ARJ May ’93, p.50Investigators become ill ARJ July ’91, p.1Heath hazards from debris ARJ July ’91, p.11Transmission oil ARJ Mar. ’89, p.11Coolant flammability ARJ May ’89, p.17Freon flammability ARJ May ’89, p.17Body panel coatings AIQ #20, p.12 NMinivan parts behavior AIQ #17, p.17 NSee also BATTERIES, LIABILITY-PRODUCT

FRAUD2 men convicted staging crash AIQ #18, p.3Committee for “salvaged” cars ARJ Sep.’93, p.16“Salvaged” cars ARJ May ’93, p.3FRICTION CIRCLEExample of use AIQ #22, p.24Discussion of AIQ #2, p.4Example of use AIQ #1, p.24Tests validating formula ARJ Jan. ’95, p.43

FRICTION COEFFICIENTTyregrip surface treatment ARJ Sep. ’09, p.53High friction road surfaces ARJ May ’09, p.35Beginning of high-fric'n technique ARJ May ’09, p.64As function of speed ARJ Sep.’92, p.34As function of slip angle ARJ Sep.’92, p.36Combined brak’g & corner’g ARJ Sep.’92, p.40Limitations of skid number ARJ May ’92, p.38As a function of time ARJ Sep.’90, p.18Table, various surfaces ARJ Jan. p.12Pavement skid resistance AIQ #6, p.13 NPavement skid resistance AIQ #4, p.8 NSee also DRAG FACTORS, SKID TESTS

GLASSAs forensic evidence AIQ #42, p.33

ARJ Mar. ’10, p.

GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEMSARJ Jan. ’10, p.14

GOLF CARTSFaster heavier not allowed AIQ #52, p.4

GRADE CROSSINGS (RAILROAD)Crash test news report AIQ #13, p. 3Accident case study AIQ #9, p.44Info required for reconst. AIQ #6, p.16Accident case study AIQ #3, p.13Plan to reduce collisions AIQ #3, p.17Texas safety needs ARJ May ’04, p.3New light rail sys. accidents ARJ May ’04, p.5Semi/train case study ARJ May ’04, p.14Train/bus Sri Lanka ARJ May ’04, p.17Jeep left on crossing ARJ May ’04, p.18Amtrack/oversized semi ARJ May ’04, p.20Fire truck fatality ARJ May ’04, p.3076 crashes in MN in 2002 ARJ May ’04, p.31Pass. train/truck 11-fatality ARJ May ’04, p.36Train horns and quiet zones ARJ May ’04, p.62Fire truck case study ARJ Nov. ’01, p.19Sight distance at ARJ Nov. ’01, p.22Investigation tips for police ARJ Nov. ’01, p.27Grantsville UT case study ARJ Nov. ’01, p.28School Bus case study, TN ARJ Nov. ’01, p.31Operation Lifesaver coord'tors ARJ Nov. ’01, p.52Blum TX case study ARJ Nov. ’01, p.54Accident statistics ARJ Nov. ’01, p.56Australian coroner concerned ARJ Nov. ’01, p.56Semi with oversized load ARJ Nov. ’01, p.62

MP calls for safety upgrade ARJ Nov. ’01, p.64Train detector developed ARJ Sep. ’00, p.2D.O.T. video ARJ Sep. ’00, p.5Train horn proposal ARJ Sep. ’00, p.13Hazard index formulas ARJ Sep. ’00, p.33NTSB report, safety at ARJ Sep. ’00, p.43Adequacy of sight dist. ARJ Sep. ’00, p.56Train/van crash test ARJ Sep. ’97, p.20Train/bus case study ARJ Sep. ’97, p.22Train event recorders ARJ Sep. ’97, p.56Train/Camaro case study ARJ Sep. ’97, p.58Speed calculation ARJ Sep. ’97, p.59European solutions ARJ July ’97, p.5Legal requirements ARJ July ’97, p.27Driver info needs ARJ July ’97, p.28Traffic control devices ARJ July ’97, p.30Train braking ARJ July ’97, p.43Train/Diplomat crash test ARJ July ’97, p.48Train/Celebrity crash test ARJ July ’97, p.50F.R.A. proposes rule change ARJ July ’95, p.64Enforcement program ARJ Nov. ’94, p.3Calculating train speed ARJ July ’93, p.40Human factors ARJ Mar. ’93, p.26Enhanced traffic control AIQ #32, p.13 NRail car impact tests AIQ #32, p.14 NAuto radio override systems AIQ #30, p.12 NContraventions & safety AIQ #30, p.13 NSeminar findings AIQ #26, p.15 NReflectorized rail cars AIQ #21, p.15 NWayside horn AIQ #20, p.13 NTraffic control devises AIQ #20, p.14 NSafety research summary AIQ #19, p.15 NComputer analysis of accds. AIQ #13, p.14 NAuxiliary altering devices AIQ #12, p.12 NITS applications AIQ #12, p.11 NRetroflective sign mat’l AIQ #9, p.9 NField guide AIQ #7, p.13 NFreight car reflectorization AIQ #6, p.13 NPassive RR crossing signs AIQ #4, p.10 NMotor veh. & rail accidents AIQ #3, p.8 NSee also NTSB

GRANTSFirst anti-DWI grant to NY ARJ Sep.’92, p.50State anti-drunk driving ARJ July ’92, p.5For seat belt & helmet laws ARJ Mar. ’92, p.48To states, cities ARJ Mar. ’92, p.15Anti drunk driving ARJ Sep.’91, p.27Video cameras ARJ Nov. ’90, p.15Alcohol sensors ARJ Nov. ’90, p.31

GREY MARKET IMPORTSNHTSA aids customs offic’ls AIQ #8, p.3New rules ARJ Nov. ’89, p.28Tougher regulations prop. ARJ July ’89, p.5

GUARDRAILConcrete barrier basics AIQ #24, p.24Aesthetic guardrail transit’n ARJ Jan. ’96, p.78Transition/case study ARJ Mar. ’94, p.52Tension loss, cable guardrail AIQ #9, p.10 NPerformance of end treatments AIQ #8, p.11 NAccident studies AIQ #5, p.12 NSee also HIGHWAY DESIGN, CRASH TESTS

HEADLIGHTSBenefits of leveling, cleaning AIQ #54, p.14Smaller electronic control unit AIQ #48, p.33Low beam intensities/visibility AIQ #47, p.14Mercury-free HID tests AIQ #45, p.14LED and discomfort glare AIQ #44, p.22Glare from AIQ #24, p.38UV Headlights AIQ #14, p. 19Headlight illumination meas. AIQ #13, p. 40Output, various angles AIQ #8, p.28Keeping lighting level ARJ July ’10, p.28Performance tungs-halo, HID ARJ Jan. ’07, p.19LED glare & color rendering ARJ July ’06, p.15New BMW design ARJ Mar. ’06, p.15Valco Double Xenon ARJ Mar. ’03, p.13Aspects of Glare ARJ Mar. ’03, p.35Factors influencing low-beam ARJ Mar. ’03, p.51That follow road curves ARJ Mar. ’03, p.59Aimable and harmonized ARJ May ’02, p.19Hidden ARJ Mar. ’02, p.23Adoptive front ARJ Mar. ’02, p.57New type safety benefits ARJ Jan. ’02, p.17Hella / Maybach ARJ Jan. ’02, p.54Clear lens reflector ARJ July ’01, p.13Glare issues ARJ July ’01, p.62Lateral position/perceived dist. ARJ July ’00, p.27Daytime, crash rate, Canada ARJ May ’95, p.45Driver performance w/HID AIQ #31, p.14 NBlue-tinted tungsten bulbs AIQ #26, p.15 NRise-time requirements AIQ #26, p.15 NInfluence of lens haze AIQ #18, p.11 NVoltage change/beam pattern AIQ #18, p.13 N

UV field experiment AIQ #15, p.13 NLow beam intensities AIQ #14, p.12 NEffects of dirt on AIQ #11, p.12 NTurn signal masking, daytime AIQ #7, p.13 NDatabase citations AIQ #5, p.12 NSee also LIGHTING, VISIBILITY

HEAD RESTRAINTSIIHS criticizes weak req'ts ARJ Jan. ’05, p.62

HELMETSDebate begins on m/c law AIQ #49, p.35Foundation tests AIQ #48, p.4M/C case study AIQ #16, p.3Fatalities/injuries down in CA AIQ #6, p.48MO repeals mandatory law ARJ Mar. ’09, p.12Debate on ARJ Nov. ’07, p.64Law covers skates, scooters ARJ Sep. ’03, p.17Seattle may require bike ARJ July ’03, p.9Deaths up after laws repealed ARJ Nov.’00, p.5M/C interfere with vision? ARJ Nov.’00, p.14Use law incentive killed ARJ Jan. ’96, p.2Use up injuries down in TX ARJ Sep.’93, p.27Value to bicyclists ARJ Jan. ’92, p.3MC, Calif. passes law ARJ Sep.’91, p.11MC, TX law & use increase ARJ May ’90, p.25Bicycle law passed ARJ May ’90, p.3Bicycle law weakened ARJ Sep.’90, p.2

HIGHWAY DESIGNRetrofitting bike lanes AIQ #54, p.4Use of zig-zag lines AIQ #54, p.45Retrofitted bicycle lanes AIQ #53, p.41Turn lanes and safety AIQ #43, p.47Lane departure warning AIQ #39, p.10Centerline rumble strips AIQ #39, p.11Whose symbols are safer? AIQ #39, p.13Helping research pay off AIQ #36, p.35Taming traffic AIQ #36, p.56Study I-76 stretch AIQ #36, p.56Safer 2-lane roads AIQ #35, p.39Plan for dangerous roads AIQ #34, p.32Safer roadsides AIQ #34, p.35Signal changing devices AIQ #32, p.15Wrong-way veh. on ramps AIQ #31, p.40Warnings on I-77 AIQ #31, p.48National safety review AIQ #30, p.29Saving lives in 'Blood Alley' AIQ #29, p.42Amateur traffic control AIQ #28, p.6Residents hate speed bumps AIQ #28, p.56European traffic control AIQ #20, p.29Shoulder texture treatments AIQ #19, p.46Bullnose guardrails AIQ #18, p.42To reduce urban crashes AIQ #17, p.18New MUTCD AIQ #15, p.7Traffic data collection AIQ #15, p.51Safety audits AIQ #14, p.53Safety problems, GW Prkwy. AIQ #13, p.22Composite materials AIQ #13, p.24Roundabouts AIQ #9, p.38Truck acc. countermeasures AIQ #7, p.36Capital Beltway safety AIQ #5, p.2Lighting options, freeways AIQ #4, p.31Washington beltway review AIQ #3, p.2Reduced medians, more crash AIQ #3, p.3Warning sys., trucks, ramps AIQ #3, p.10Drivers divided on comeras ARJ Sep. ’10, p.56Politicians/red light cameras ARJ Sep. ’10, p.57States embrace roundabouts ARJ July ’10, p.9Centerline rumble strips ARJ July ’09, p.33Cable barrier design, placement ARJ July ’09, p.39Western Transportation Inst. ARJ Nov. ’08, p.62Scoring intersection safety ARJ Sep. ’08, p.55Pavement edge drop-offs ARJ Mar. ’08, p.33Traffic calming in Virginia ARJ Sep. ’07, p.50Road diet treatment ARJ Mar. ’07, p.58Pave't markings/speed reduct. ARJ Mar. ’06, p.4Sidewalks, walkways ARJ July ’03, p.26Sidewalk impact study ARJ July ’03, p.50Design at fault in wrecks ARJ July ’03, p.53Model for sidewalk design ARJ July ’03, p.56Smart signs ARJ Mar. ’03, p.18Reducing points of conflict ARJ Mar. ’03, p.20Intersection turn lanes ARJ Mar. ’03, p.58CA slow to fix danger zones ARJ Nov. ’02, p.12Unique barrier system ARJ Jan. ’01, p.17Hardware management syst. ARJ Sep. ’00, p.62Roundabouts, fewer crashes ARJ Mar. ’00, p.172-lane to 4-lane conversions ARJ Mar. ’00, p.64Work zone injury reduction ARJ May ’98 p.2Handbook for older drivers ARJ Nov. ’97, p.41Warning signs ARJ Mar. ’97, p.80Public response/roundabouts ARJ Mar. ’97, p.80Safety Information system ARJ Nov. ’96, p.34Computer aids saf. research ARJ July ’96, p.5Veh./hardware compatability ARJ Jan. ’96, p.24Truck acc. countermeasures ARJ Sep.’95, p.34

Accident predictive module ARJ May ’95, p.46Metric signing delayed ARJ Nov. ’94, p.56Geometry/cont’l device books ARJ July ’94, p.56Finite element analysis ARJ July ’94, p.62Safety strategies for ‘90’s ARJ July ’91, p.20Rumble strips AIQ #30, p.11 NRoad safety audits AIQ #30, p.12 NGeometric design research AIQ #30, p.14 NCrash models rural intersec'n AIQ #23, p.12 NImproved safety info AIQ #23, p.14 NLane markings & night driving AIQ #20, p.14 NRockfall fence evaluation AIQ #19, p.14 NInterchange geometry AIQ #19, p.14 NRoadside safety features AIQ #17, p.13 NZero-length vertical curves AIQ #17, p.16 NGuardrail need: banks/culverts AIQ #16, p.10 NUtility pole acc. prediction AIQ #12, p.17 NHighway markings biblio. AIQ #12, p.14 NSign/signals, high sp intersctn AIQ #12, p.11 NHwy. geometrics/accidents AIQ #12, p.11 NTrans. Research Brd. reports AIQ #11, p.11 NRumble strips AIQ #11, p.11 NNo passing zones AIQ #11, p.12 NSaf. structure bibliography AIQ #10, p.13 NYellow change interval AIQ #9, p.9 NSaf. structures bibliography AIQ #8, p.15 NMedian & access safety AIQ #6, p.11 NSee also IMPACT ATTENUATORS, VISIBILITY

HIT & RUN ACCIDENTSVictim trapped in windshield AIQ #29, p.14Jury convicts AZ ex-bishop ARJ July ’03, p.13Uninsured motorists cause ARJ Jan. ’03, p.17Body fluids/hair ARJ Nov. ’89, p.24Clothing/fiber patterns ARJ Nov. ’89, p.26Recovery of paint particles ARJ Nov. ’89, p.24Recovery of vehicle parts ARJ Nov. ’89, p.24

HUMAN FACTORSParent-controlled vehicle AIQ #54, p.8Drivers more distracted AIQ #54, p.13Dealing w unfit driver AIQ #53, p.2MO law and unfit drivers AIQ #53, p.48More states ban texting AIQ #52, p.23Teens immitate parents AIQ #48, p.3Long-term use of painkillers AIQ #48, p.11Text messaging while driving AIQ #47, p.11Distractions for all ages AIQ #46, p.9Distractions AIQ #43, p.30Restricting older drivers AIQ #42, p.20Road test for elderly AIQ #38, p.43Diabetics' driving risk AIQ #38, p.5Teens have dangerous ideas AIQ #36, p.2Medical probs., not old age AIQ #36, p.5Driver distractions AIQ #35, p.46Alzheimer's patients AIQ #34, p.46Worst drivers by profession AIQ #33, p.3Building a safer driver AIQ #32, p.52Doze-cam AIQ #30, p.32Driver distractions AIQ #28, p.11TVs in steering wheels AIQ #28, p.20Eating while driving AIQ #28, p.56Prodrive ADT system AIQ #26, p.46Older driver handbook AIQ #17, p.3Elderly medication AIQ #15, p. 3Scrutiny of older drivers ARJ Sep. ’10, p.9Effect of sleep deprivation ARJ May ’10, p.10Sr. drivers & fatality rates ARJ May ’10, p.54Physician guide older drivers ARJ May ’10, p.61New IL law ARJ Mar. ’10, p.26Cell phones, talking, texting ARJ Jan. ’10, p.7Distracted driving ARJ Jan. ’10, p.10Distracted driving campaign ARJ Jan. ’10, p.13Cell phones and accidents ARJ Nov. ’09, p.7Teens and texting ARJ Nov. ’09, p.10City may repeal restrictions ARJ Nov. ’09, p.10Distracted driving summit ARJ Nov. ’09, p.11Multicultural safety campaigns ARJ Nov. ’09, p.58Ford Mykey teen safety ARJ Sep. ’09, p.9Adaptive cruise control effects ARJ Sep. ’09, p.10Speeding & teen driver crashes ARJ Sep. ’09, p.37Taking eyes off road ARJ July ’09, p.58Traffic control practices/older driv. ARJ Mar. ’09, p.41Teen accidents peak in Oct. ARJ Mar. ’09, p.59Elderly drivers ARJ Jan. ’09, p.16Assertive teen passengers ARJ Jan. ’09, p.16Teen drivers' top mistakes ARJ Jan. ’09, p.22Texting ban mulled ARJ Sep. ’08, p.7Text message sent before accid't ARJ Sep. ’08, p.13Behaviour during precrash brak'g ARJ July ’08, p.35New Volvo safety systems ARJ Nov. ’07, p.46Toyota simulator ARJ Jan. ’08, p.13LMS, IPG simulator ARJ Mar. ’08, p.38Distraction from digital billboards ARJ May ’08, p.13Electro-mechanical hwy. ads ARJ Sep. ’07, p.57Text measaging & driving ARJ July ’07, p.30Distracted driving personality? ARJ July ’07, p.63

53


Stopping old, dangerous drivers ARJ May ’07, p.59Tools to measure distraction ARJ Jan. ’07, p.5ADHD drug improves driving? ARJ Nov. ’06, p.8Text-messenger hits cyclist ARJ Sep. ’06, p.4ADHD and driving ARJ Sep. ’06, p.64Quantifying distraction impact ARJ July ’06, p.26Antidepressants and drivers ARJ July ’06, p.43Antihistamines and drivers ARJ July ’06, p.46Alzheimer's effect ARJ May ’06, p.10Rollover case study ARJ May ’06, p.16Is the Moth Effect real? ARJ May ’06, p.18In 5-fatal case study ARJ May ’06, p.25Risks for older drivers ARJ May ’06, p.44Speech system/distraction ARJ May ’06, p.44Driver mental effort tests ARJ May ’06, p.45Fear to motivate safety ARJ May ’06, p.48Decision-making at RR X-ings ARJ May ’06, p.51Distraction dilemma ARJ May ’06, p.59Driving with epilepsy ARJ May ’06, p.59Distracted pose safety hazzard ARJ May ’06, p.64Brain imaging/distraction ARJ Jan. ’04, p.19Peer pressure, young drivers ARJ Nov. ’03, p.9Super Bowl Sunday dangers ARJ Mar. ’02, p.3Horiz. curves/visual demand ARJ Mar. ’02, p.17Gadgets preoccupy drivers ARJ Jan. ’02, p.3Lack of sleep ARJ Jan. ’02, p.5Ford research for seniors ARJ Sep. ’01, p.14Design changes for seniors ARJ Mar. ’01, p.1Women aren't riskier ARJ Mar. ’01, p.13Autoliv saves lives ARJ Mar. ’01, p.15Truck driver workload ARJ Mar. ’01, p.21Firefighter case study ARJ Mar. ’01, p.39& intersection collisions ARJ Mar. ’01, p.42Telematic devices ARJ Mar. ’01, p.64Older driver screening ARJ Jan. ’01, p.9Laws change behavior ARJ Jan. ’01, p.15Century convert. child seats ARJ Jan. ’01, p.2Lead veh. size/following behav. ARJ Jan. ’01, p.21Firefighter/truck controls ARJ Jan. ’01, p.31Education alone ineffective ARJ Jan. ’01, p.42Collision avoidance behavior ARJ Jan. ’01, p.45Driver distractions ARJ Mar. ’00, p.16Fatigued driver risk ARJ Jan. ’00, p.9Truck driver hearing req’t ARJ Jan. ’98, p.4Elderly drivers/intersections ARJ July ’97, p.44Driver’s height & seat posit’n ARJ Sep. ’96, p.24IVIS & driver performance ARJ Jan. ’96, p.2Fatigue in truck drivers ARJ May ’95, p.22Traffic management systems ARJ Mar. ’95, p.48Heath problems in old drivers ARJ Jan. ’95, p.3Trauma disorder, acc. victims ARJ Sep.’92, p.48Elderly drivers, accid. rates ARJ July ’92, p.7Model at veh. handling limit AIQ #32, p.12 NPeripheral information AIQ #32, p.12 NDistractor complexity AIQ #32, p.13 NBehaviour by vehicle type AIQ #32, p.14 NTruck drivers sleep apnea AIQ #31, p.13 NMature driver safety AIQ #31, p.13 NOlder: driving reduction AIQ #27, p.12 NDriver distraction forum AIQ #26, p.12 NUnderstanding road rage AIQ #26, p.13 NTruck driver workload AIQ #24, p.12-13 NCar following AIQ #24, p.14 NSleep disorder research AIQ #21, p.10 NTacit driving knowledge AIQ #21, p.11 NReflexes, athletics, gender AIQ #21, p.11 NIn braking tests AIQ #19, p.15 NOlder driver capabilities AIQ #18, p.14 NBehavior during merges AIQ #17, p.10 NRisky-driver bibliography AIQ #17, p.14 NDiabetes, epilepsy, hearing AIQ #17, p.17 NDriver risk perception AIQ #16, p.15 NOlder driver performance AIQ #14, p.10 NBackup warning signals AIQ #14, p.12 NBibliography AIQ #13, p.9 NBibliography AIQ #13, p.14 NFlashing display processing AIQ #12, p.17 NGuildlines, crash warn. dev. AIQ #11, p.10 NOperator behavior biblio. AIQ #11, p.12 NPsychiatric disorders AIQ #11, p.13 NSeat design bibliography AIQ #11, p.14 NAge-related disabilities AIQ #10, p.9 N& highway signs AIQ #8, p.9 NDatabase citations AIQ #5, p.12 NIn truck accidents AIQ #4, p.10 NAge-related driver limits AIQ #4, p.14 NSee also CELL PHONES, FATIGUE, HIGHWAY,TRAINING, VISIBILITY

HYDROPLANINGCase study AIQ #38, p.44Bibliography AIQ #16, p.14 NBibliography AIQ #13, p.9 NBibliography AIQ #10, p.10 NDatabase citations AIQ #5, p.11 NDatabase citations AIQ #4, p.10 NSee also TIRES, SKID TESTS

IMPACT ATTENUATORSCrash cushion from tires AIQ #20, p.13 NCrash cushion attenuators AIQ #9, p.48 NField evaluation CT system AIQ #8, p.11 NOperational experience AIQ #7, p.12 NSee also HIGHWAY DESIGN

INERTIAL PARAMETERSCtr. of mass height table ARJ May ’91, p.23Estimation techniques ARJ May ’89, p.31Measuring device ARJ May ’89, p.24Tables, autos & light trucks ARJ May ’89, p.28

INJURIESFrom loose objects in vehicle AIQ #55, p.2Skull survey to improve safety AIQ #49, p.48Waits 36 hours for help AIQ #37, p.13IIHS tests head restraints AIQ #8, p.27Claims for sprains/strains up AIQ #5, p.13From steering wheel jerk ARJ May ’10, p.25Belts/bags prevent spinal ARJ Mar. ’09, p.5Outcomes in rollovers ARJ Jan. ’07, p.35New technology for whiplash ARJ Nov. ’06, p.59Fragility, death in older driv. ARJ July ’06, p.9Seat belts/hospitalization ARJ May ’06, p.5Causes in rollovers ARJ Jan. ’03, p.23Trauma database ARJ Nov.’00, p.63Research center ARJ May ’00, p.54Head injuries vs. delta V ARJ Sep. ’96, p.20Risk from opposite side imp. ARJ July ’96, p.5Discussion of whiplash ARJ Jan. ’96, p.21Whiplash from car crashes ARJ Sep.’95, p.52Head restraints/neck inj. ARJ Sep.’95, p.53Treatments for neck inj. ARJ Sep.’95, p.56Head restraints improvements ARJ Sep.’95, p.64Improv. sun visors/head inj. ARJ May ’95, p.3Car-to-car vs. car/barrier ARJ Nov. ’94, p.20List of best/worst vehicles ARJ Nov. ’94, p.62Car crashes top worker list ARJ July ’94, p.2Medical costs, 1990 ARJ May ’92, p.1Head impact tolerance ARJ July ’91, p.27Multi-vehicle rear end AIQ #22, p.10 NInvolving jack failures AIQ #20, p.12 NInvolving vehicle batteries AIQ #20, p.12 NInvolving power windows AIQ #20, p.12 NInvolving rollaways AIQ #20, p.12 NHead response, tolerance AIQ #17, p.10 NEmergency room survey AIQ #11, p.9 NBrain injury prediction AIQ #7, p.11 NPedestrians/cyclists AIQ #4, p.13 NSee also BIOMECHANICS, CRASH TESTS

INSURANCE FRAUD100's charged in scam AIQ #36, p.6And cigars AIQ #20, p.48Gieco/NY claims ring ARJ Mar. ’10, p.8UK lawyers warning ARJ Mar. ’10, p.35Technology combats ARJ Mar. ’96, p.76Neck injury fraud ARJ Sep.’95, p.55Vehicle damage analysis ARJ Jan. ’94, p.30See also LOW SPEED IMPACTS

INTELLIGENT VEH./HWY. SYSTEMSHow they make roads safer AIQ #32, p.28Run-off-road testing AIQ #31, p.5Crash-warning syst. research AIQ #20, p.3Deployment analysis system AIQ #19, p.3Greyhound removes devices AIQ #7, p.4Flawed study underlines claims AIQ #4, p.3DOT's strategic plan ARJ May ’09, p.3Will drivers give up control? ARJ May ’07, p.58ITS interface tested ARJ Mar. ’07, p.41Taming Traffic ARJ Nov. ’02, p.17Smart autos plan for worst ARJ Sep. ’02, p.2Vehicle crash-warning syst. ARJ Jan. ’00, p.17Safety promises questioned ARJ May ’95, p.21Safety claims aren’t backed ARJ Sep.’94, p.5& state sovreign immunity AIQ #24, p.13 NHuman factors projects for AIQ #24, p.15 NVisual & task demands AIQ #21, p.13 NTruck control system AIQ #19, p.13 NBibliography AIQ #17, p.16 NCollision avoidance system AIQ #12, p.15 NDatabase AIQ #7, p.12 NBibliography AIQ #7, p.11 N& roadway departure crashes AIQ #5, p.9 N

INTERNETVehicle dynamics software AIQ #11, p.44Useful web sites ARJ July ’96, p.25Vehicle owners questionaire ARJ July ’96, p.54National Crash Analysis Ctr. ARJ Mar. ’96, p.69

LAMP EXAMINATION - See LIGHT BULBS

LANE CHANGELateral acceleration in AIQ #39, p.24Factors to consider ARJ Nov. ’91, p.7Study ARJ July ’91, p.4Shortest circular path ARJ May ’91, p.244-wheel steering vehicles AIQ #24, p.16 NMerge crash assessment AIQ #24, p.18 N

LASER/LIDAR SPEED GUNSpeed, distance tests ARJ Jan. ’92, p.17Lidar min. performance specs. AIQ #8, p.9 NSee also RADAR

LIABILITY, in ACCIDENT RECON’SAccident case studies ARJ Jan. ’92, p.30

LIABILITY, HIGHWAY/OTHEREmployee texting/accident ARJ Nov. ’09, p.25Drunk driver sues police ARJ Nov. ’07, p.10Suit blames bar for DWI fatality ARJ May ’08, p.5Flagman's family's settlement ARJ Mar. ’03, p.5Caltrans light maintenance ARJ May ’02, p.48RR grade crossings ARJ Sep.’00, p.1Pavement edge dropoff ARJ July ’90, p.39Construction zones ARJ Nov. ’89, p.18Maintenance as factor ARJ Nov. ’89, p.21Design as factor ARJ Nov. ’89, p.22Largest verdicts of ’88 ARJ May ’89, p.11Traveler info systems AIQ #24, p.14 NAdvanced traffic mang't sys. AIQ #24, p.15 NDatabase system AIQ #20, p.11 NAnalysis of risk management AIQ #20, p.11 NTort liability, Kentucky AIQ #16, p.9 NTort liability, risk manag’t AIQ #9, p.12 NTort management AIQ #6, p.12 N

LIABILITY, PRODUCTExplorer rollover AIQ #48, p.8Escort seat belts AIQ #48, p.1Saturn SL brakes AIQ #47, p.12Class action Lexus airbags AIQ #47, p.4GM, Ford, Chrysler seats AIQ #46, p.1Lessor's limited in R.I. AIQ #45, p.2Town & Country child seat AIQ #41, p.1Caravan seat AIQ #41, p.3Cell phones for businesses AIQ #41, p.4Class action Ford door latch AIQ #40, p.12'95 Chevy Blazer, brakes AIQ #39, p.1'91 Dodge Stealth AIQ #38, p.1'00 Lincoln fold-down seat AIQ #37, p.1'79 Chevy Malibu fire AIQ #35, p.2Firestone Wilderness tires AIQ #35, p.13'96 Chrysler LHS air bag AIQ #32, p.3'98 Ford Ranger air bag AIQ #31, p.1Michelin, DCX van rollover AIQ #31, p.2Bridgestone tire/Explorer roll AIQ #30, p.1Ford withheld evidence AIQ #29, p.1'95 Monte Carlo airbag AIQ #28, p.1Dodge Caravan rear latch AIQ #28, p.55'94 Camry airbag AIQ #28, p.56Ford Bronco rollover AIQ #27, p.1'91 Explorer seat back AIQ #27, p.4Firestone Wilderness tire AIQ #27, p.14'85 Caravan rear latch AIQ #26, p.3'83 Silverado bumper AIQ #26, p.17Hyundai seat belt AIQ #25, p.3Chevrolet G van seat belt AIQ #25, p.11Toyota 4Runner rolloever AIQ #25, p.48Escort seat belt AIQ #23, p.48Injured fireman sues GM AIQ #22, p.1Corolla restraint system AIQ #22, p.5Firestone moves to settle AIQ #21, p.1Kia Sephia seat back AIQ #21, p.48Honda drivers seat back AIQ #20, p.1Isuzu /Consumer Reports AIQ #20, p.3Marquis fuel system AIQ #20, p.29Escort passive seat belt AIQ #20, p.29Ford Ranger rollover AIQ #19, p.1Casino justice AIQ #19, p.7Sazuki Samurai rollover AIQ #19, p.30Mixed verdicts in airbags AIQ #18, p.48Ford Taurus crashworthiness AIQ #18, p.2Chevrolet Beretta door hinge AIQ #17, p.1Mazda Miata headrests AIQ #16, p.1GM pickup engine fire AIQ #16, p.2Late lawsuit thrown out AIQ #16, p.39Nissan Sentra brakes AIQ #15, p.1Chevette seat AIQ #15, p.2Lincoln Continental air bag AIQ #15, p.7Michelin tire AIQ #15, p.52Cherokee shoulder belt AIQ #13, p.5G.M. conversion van AIQ #12, p.1Horizon seat belts AIQ #12, p.11983 Camaro door latches AIQ #11, p.11985 Blazer fire AIQ #11, p.1Ford Bronco II rollover AIQ #10, p.1No-air-bag suit goes ahead AIQ #10, p.2

Ford Ranger stability AIQ #8, p.2Excel crashworthiness AIQ #7, p.14Class action settlem’ts rej’d AIQ #6, p.1Nissan pickup bed gate AIQ #5, p.3GMC Jimmy axle failure AIQ #4, p.35Suzuki Samuri rollover AIQ #4, p.25Consumer advocate fined AIQ #3, p.1Corvette passenger seat AIQ #2, p.39Ford F350 transmission AIQ #2, p.48G.M. door-mounted seat belts AIQ #1, p.7Dismissal of Toyota rollover ARJ Sep. ’10, p.5Aerostar sudden acceleration ARJ July ’10, p.64Toyota steering rods ARJ Nov. ’09, p.1GM, Chrysler bankruptcies ARJ July ’09, p.1Dismissed against PA dealer, Ford ARJ Jan. ’09, p.7Auction not liable for truck def't ARJ July ’08, p.1F-350 rollaway ARJ May ’08, p.1Tempered glass/ejection ARJ Jan. ’08, p.2OH limits on pain ARJ Jan. ’08, p.5Pontiac Firebird ARJ Jan. ’08, p.49Kia seatbelts ARJ Nov. ’07, p.1Yamaha Rhino rollover ARJ Sep. ’07, p.2Dealer can be sued in limo acc. ARJ July ’07, p.2Croatia crash, can't sue in Mich. ARJ May ’07, p.1Honeywell seat belt failure ARJ Mar. ’07, p.1TRW wins seat belt case ARJ Mar. ’07, p.3Crown Vic roof strength ARJ Nov. ’06, p.1Explorer cruise control ARJ Nov. ’06, p.14Laminated window claim ARJ Sep. ’06, p.1Chrysler minivan air bags ARJ July ’06, p.3VW Passat wheel assembly ARJ May ’06, p.1Lincoln LS seat-latch ARJ Mar. ’06, p.1Gen-3 seat belt buckles ARJ Jan. ’05, p.1Dealer modified truck ARJ Nov. ’04, p.12000 Explorer rollover ARJ Nov. ’04, p.14'91 Excel door latch/seat belts ARJ Sep. ’04, p.1'95 Chevy Lumina fire ARJ July ’04, p.1'91 Honda Civic seat belts ARJ Mar. ’04, p.11987 Sierra park-to-reverse ARJ Mar. ’04, p.3Lawyers sued for fraud ARJ Jan. ’04, p.1Dealership spared ARJ Jan. ’04, p.2Chevrolet van seat belt ARJ Nov. ’03, p.2Steeltex tires CA class action ARJ Nov. ’03, p.3Dodge 15-passenger van ARJ Sep. ’03, p.3'96 Town & Country seat belts ARJ May ’03, p.2Ford to quit NY car leasing ARJ May ’03, p.14Ford Expedition rollover ARJ Nov. ’02, p.1Ford Ranger seat belt ARJ Jan. ’02, p.1'00 Lincoln LS seat collapse ARJ July ’03, p.1'78 Ford Bronco rollover ARJ Mar. ’03, p.1Japan's laws changing ARJ Mar. ’03, p.2Ford F-350 parking brakes ARJ Jan. ’03, p.1Ford Expedition/Gen'l Grabber ARJ Nov. ’02, p.1Court reduces $290M verdict ARJ Nov. ’02, p.5'95 Dodge Ram engine fire ARJ Sep. ’02, p.1'82 Vanagon seat belt ARJ July ’02, p.1SUV/Tire suit settled ARJ May ’02, p.1$28M judgement/leasing co. ARJ May ’02, p.14Bridgestone suit not dismiss'd ARJ May ’02, p.64Ford Ranger seat belt ARJ Jan. ’02, p.1Wilderness AT tires ARJ Nov. ’01, p.1Ford Ranger airbag ARJ Sep. ’01, p.1Ford ignition class action ARJ Sep. ’01, p.1Ford Explorer/Firestone tire ARJ Sep. ’01, p.2Insurer liable for dealer ARJ Sep. ’01, p.22Ford/Firestone class action ARJ July ’01, p.1Explorer ruling helps Ford ARJ July ’01, p.2Class action overhaul ARJ July ’01, p.13GM replacement seat belt ARJ July ’01, p.64Tire failure / rollover ARJ May ’01, p.1'94 Explorer rollover ARJ May ’01, p.3Bridgestone avoids trial ARJ May ’01, p.5Researcher wins class action ARJ May ’01, p.64Kia airbag suit tossed ARJ Mar. ’01, p.1Waiver shields dealer ARJ Mar. ’01, p.5More devices - more risk ARJ Mar. ’01, p.44'91 Jeep Wrangler soft top ARJ Jan. ’01, p.1Firestone tire 40% settled ARJ Jan. ’01, p.2'95 Gr. Marquis air bag ARJ Nov.’00, p.2Morton air bag ARJ Nov.’00, p.63Mercedes ML 320 SUV ARJ Sep. ’00, p.2Nissan Pathfinder rollover ARJ Sep. ’00, p.57Suzuki Samurai rollover ARJ Sep. ’00, p.57’95 Monte Carlo airbag ARJ Sep. ’00, p.61Mazda Protégé seat belt ARJ July ’00, p.1Dealer not liable for loaner ARJ July ’00, p.14’95 Explorer rollover ARJ July ’00, p.39Sable airbag warning ARJ July ’00, p.64Volvo 850 GLT airbag ARJ May ’00, p.5Judge blocks tire lawyers ARJ May ’00, p.15Caravan airbag ARJ Mar. ’00, p.5Crown Vic sudden acceleration ARJ Mar. ’00, p.15Wilderness death toll ARJ Jan. ’00, p.1Supreme Court/no airbag ARJ Nov. ’98, p.1Wrangler judgement upheld ARJ Nov. ’98, p.5$5 billion verdict against GM ARJ July ’98 p.11993 Jeep Wagoneer airbag ARJ July ’98 p.3Bronco II class action ARJ July ’98 p.13'89 Plymouth Voyager brakes ARJ May ’98 p.1

54


Nissan Pathfinder rollover ARJ Jan. ’98, p.1Cadillac Seville fire ARJ Jan. ’98, p.1Toyota 4-Runner rollover ARJ Jan. ’98, p.64S-10 Blazer fire ARJ Nov. ’97, p.1Dodge Ram door latch ARJ Nov. ’97, p.16Pontiac Grand Am axle ARJ July ’97, p.88Suzuki Samurai rollover ARJ Sep. ’97, p.1Demonstrator crash suit ARJ Sep. ’97, p.2Video evidence upheld ARJ July ’97, p.1Voyager door latch ARJ July ’97, p.3Ford Bronco rollover ARJ May ’97, p.1Hyundai Excel seat belt ARJ May ’97, p.1’76 Maverick no-airbag ARJ May ’97, p.20Suzuki Samurai rollover ARJ Mar. ’97, p.1Preemption supported ARJ Mar. ’97, p.1Ohio court hears no-air-bag ARJ July ’96, p.1’88 Ford Ranger seat belt ARJ May ’96, p.1Plymouth Voyager brakes ARJ Mar. ’96, p.21976 Audi 100LS fire ARJ Mar. ’96, p.73Ford Bronco II rollover ARJ Jan. ’96, p.3Samurai crashworthiness ARJ Jan. ’96, p.5Chev. S10 Blazer fire ARJ Jan. ’96, p.80Ford Bronco II rollover ARJ Nov. ’95, p.5N.H. court clears no-air-bag ARJ Sep.’95, p.1’86 Toyota van belts/door ARJ July ’95, p.1Grand Am drive axle ARJ May ’95, p.1Jeep spare tire bracket ARJ May ’95, p.1Dodge Spirit roof strength ARJ May ’95, p.3Subaru GL side impact ARJ Sep.’94, p.56Toyota Camry fire ARJ Sep.’94, p.3Escort seat belts defective ARJ July ’94, p.31993 top 3 megaverdicts ARJ May ’94, p.20Ford Bronco II suit settled ARJ May ’94, p.8Rear lap belt only suit ARJ Nov. ’92, p.24Court rules on 2-pt. belt ARJ Sep.’92, p.41Rear lap belt only suit ARJ Sep.’92, p.21Nissan wins seatbelt suit ARJ July ’92, p.7Sealing court records ARJ May ’90, p.2No-air-bag suits rejected ARJ May ’90, p.2Reform bill introduced ARJ July ’89, p.2See also DRUNK DRIVING, FIRES-C/K PICKUP

LIABILITY, VICARIOUSHow it works ARJ July ’02, p.16

LICENSE, DRIVER’SDriver in fatal: 6 suspensions AIQ #43, p.4Court orders training rewrite AIQ #41, p.47Limits for teens in MD AIQ #39, p.5No restrictions for PA elderly AIQ #35, p.3Fatal crashes, drivers lack AIQ #29, p.12Convicted commercial veh. AIQ #26, p.4Tractor-trailer drivers AIQ #22, p.12 NGraduated, state laws AIQ #21, p.17Graduated in 6 states AIQ #16, p.18Michigan 3-step system AIQ #12, p.8Graduated for teens AIQ #11, p.47Teenage responsibilities AIQ #5, p.18Phased-in license, teenagers AIQ #4, p.35Risk, short learners permit AIQ #4, p.5Slow graduation, teen deaths AIQ #2, p.46FL bad drivers must retake test ARJ July ’09, p.64Unlicensed drivers common ARJ July ’08, p.9IL only state to confiscate ARJ Sep. ’07, p.62Unlicensed drivers targeted ARJ Mar. ’07, p.11Medical revocation rare ARJ Mar. ’04, p.10Driving school investigated ARJ Mar. ’04, p.64Hard to certify older driver ARJ Jan. ’04, p.62Fake Inter'l driving docum't ARJ Jan. ’04, p.64For illegal immigrants ARJ July ’02, p.9New commercial rules ARJ Jan. ’02, p.18Graduated ARJ July ’01, p.3Truckers under 21 ARJ Mar. ’01, p.5Crash rates: 16 v. 16 1/2 ARJ Sep.’00, p.13Graduation lowers crash rates ARJ July ’00, p.3Graduated licensing support ARJ July ’97, p.14Suspension & employment ARJ Mar. ’97, p.80Rules vary, state to state ARJ July ’95, p.63Suspension study, Ontario ARJ Mar. ’92, p.48NHTSA reviews trucker’s ARJ Nov. ’89, p.27Deterrent of veh. impoundm't AIQ #24, p.17 NWith medical conditions AIQ #23, p.14 NDeterrent veh. impoundment AIQ #19, p.11 N

LIGHT BULBSSubstandard, company fined AIQ #36, p.45Effects of dirt on output ARJ July ’00, p.17Metallurgical theory ARJ Sep.’93, p.52Examination of ARJ Jan. ’90, p.18Recovery & preservation ARJ Nov. ’89, p.24Innovative source spectra AIQ #24, p.17 NSun-loading/visibility AIQ #17, p.14 NStop lights & reaction times AIQ #7, p.13 N

LIGHTINGCenter high-mounted stop AIQ #17, p.7Prevalence of LEDs ARJ Nov. ’09, p.12Intelligent systems ARJ Mar. ’03, p.13

European study on ARJ May ’02, p.47New rules eyed ARJ Jan. ’02, p.1Revisiting roadway ARJ Jan. ’02, p.57Environmental factors - ambient ARJ July ’00, p.37Explorer/Mountaineer windows ARJ July ’00, p.5Daytime running lights ARJ July ’00, p.5Center high-mounted stop ARJ Sep. ’97, p.3Ctr. high-mounted stop stats ARJ July ’95, p.5Center high-mounted stop ARJ July ’90, p.9Stronger truck stds. ARJ May ’90, p.25And aging population AIQ #18, p.11 NDirt on rear lamp output AIQ #16, p.11 NLateral pos’n, dist. percept’n AIQ #9, p.9 NSee also HEADLIGHTS, VISIBILITY

LITIGATION SUPPORTDOT traffic center ARJ Sep.’92, p.15

LOW SPEED IMPACTSUsing live subjects ARJ May ’93, p.22See also CRASH TESTS

LOW SPEED VEHICLESSouped up golf carts AIQ #26, p.32Design/inspection AIQ #22, p.28

MANSLAUGHTER, VEHICULARTrial in dragging death AIQ #48, p.48Man dragged 1/2 mile AIQ #45, p.10Guilty verdict in market crash AIQ #44, p.1Goodrich convicted AIQ #39, p.8Must carry picture of victim AIQ #37, p.15Aquittal after stroke AIQ #35, p.3Congressman gets 100 days AIQ #35, p.8Congressman convicted AIQ #33, p.1In death of MD councilman AIQ #28, p.24Russian envoy jailed AIQ #26, p.1Mitsubishi head charged ARJ Sep. ’04, p.31963 conviction overturned ARJ May ’03, p.50Mom wants tough sentences ARJ Mar. ’02, p.14Road rage sentence ARJ July ’01, p.9Sleep apnoea defense ARJ May ’01, p.1613 years in road-rage case ARJ Sep.’00, p.1Double jeopardy ARJ Sep.’90, p.2

MEASURING DEVICESSpeed from video recordings AIQ #18, p.16100' tape vs. new tech. ARJ Jan. ’92, p.33See also DRAG SLEDS

MEDIA& the auto safety lobby ARJ May ’93, p.56Safety’s talking heads ARJ May ’93, p.57Does TV news go too far? ARJ Mar. ’93, p.1CBS News “Irresponsible” ARJ Jan. ’93, p.1

METALLURGICAL FAILURECorrosion of TT brakes ARJ Sep. ’06, p.48

MIRRORSGlare in rearview AIQ #24, p.38Glare & vehicle geometry ARJ July ’07, p.50Field of view in car ARJ July ’00, p.49Non-planar, driver adoption AIQ #11, p.9 N

MODEL FAMILIESGen. Motors, 1987 ARJ May ’90, p.12

MOMENTUM, CONSERVATION OFMonte Carlo approach for AIQ #49, p.19Use in 4-vehicle rear collision AIQ #22, p.24Monte Carlo analysis example ARJ Nov. ’08, p.44Setting up angles for, example ARJ Sep. ’08, p.45Auto/motorcycle example ARJ Sep. ’08, p.46Relative mass/departure angle ARJ May ’98 p.20Ex: with diss. of energy ARJ July ’95, p.42Transferred to earth? ARJ Mar. ’94, p.18Sensitivity analysis in calcs ARJ Nov. ’92, p.22Computer program for ARJ Mar. ’92, p.38W/dissipation of energy ARJ Mar. ’91, p.30Simplifying calculations ARJ Mar. ’91, p.38Ex. head-on collision ARJ May ’90, p.21Example of (motorcycle) ARJ Mar. ’90, p.20360 degree approach ARJ Mar. ’90, p.22Ex. of oblique collision ARJ Mar. ’90, p.26Vector diagramming ARJ Mar. ’89, p.12See also TRAJECTORY ANALYSIS

MOTORCOACHSafety studied by NHTSA ARJ May ’09, p.7

MOTORCYCLESPost crash inspection of AIQ #50, p.34Super bikes increase risk AIQ #48, p.11Brake systems, testing AIQ #48, p.12Brake systems, testing AIQ #47, p.28Air brakes on AIQ #42, p.3

Conspicuity of AIQ #4, p.26w/ABS have fewer crashes ARJ May ’10, p.7Noted expert dies ARJ Jan. ’10, p.11Braking analysis ARJ July ’08, p.15Deaths, injuries up ARJ July ’06, p.12Pep Boys stop sales ARJ Sep. ’04, p.33Pocket bikes dangerous? ARJ July ’04, p.12Segway Human Transporter ARJ Sep. ’03, p.25Speed from engine rpm's ARJ Nov.’00, p.17Technical innovations ARJ Nov.’00, p.25Specifications, 1967-1999 ARJ Nov.’00, p.29C.M. apogee in speed calc. ARJ Nov. ’94, p.26Braking assumptions ARJ Mar. ’93, p.14Specifications, 1967-1991 ARJ July ’92, p.46Trail, definition ARJ Mar. ’90, p.18Examination of ARJ Jan. ’90, p.23Accessory examination ARJ Jan. ’90, p.25Glare effects of headlight AIQ #32, p.14 NFatal single veh. crashes AIQ #27, p.13 NBibliography AIQ #16, p.15 NDatabase citations AIQ #5, p.12 NSee also CRASH TESTS, VISIBILITY

MULTI-PIECE WHEELSSee WHEELS/RIMS

NAT. HWY. TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN.Hurley nominated to head AIQ #54, p.1Front/side safety ratings AIQ #51, p.10Nason appointed to head AIQ #42, p.1Advanced driving simulator AIQ #21, p.4Safety grants to states AIQ #1, p.2Receives safety recommend’s AIQ #1, p.25New chief selected ARJ Jan. ’10, p.5Kelly temporary head ARJ Nov. ’08, p.1Wants more time for roof rule ARJ July ’08, p.44Portis named dep. admin. ARJ July ’07, p.12Imposes civil penalties ARJ July ’04, p.16Plan for safety rulemaking ARJ Nov. ’03, p.13DCX settlement ARJ May ’00, p.55Vehicle size/occupant safety ARJ Mar. ’97, p.79Driving simulator approved ARJ Mar. ’96, p.3Strategic plan ARJ Nov. ’95, p.68Safety programs cited ARJ Sep.’95, p.63Strategic operations plan ARJ Jan. ’95, p.1Recht to chief counsel ARJ Nov. ’94, p.1Martinez confirmed ARJ Sep.’94, p.1Auto safety’s hot seat ARJ July ’94, p.3Martinez nominated ARJ Jan. ’94, p.1Research budget cut ARJ Jan. ’94, p.2Will shift funds ARJ Nov. ’93, p.2Top 2 spots unfilled ARJ Sep.’93, p.1Accident statistics, 1990 ARJ July ’92, p.64Advanced driving simulator ARJ Mar. ’92, p.40New assoc. administrators ARJ Sep.’91, p.32New assoc. administrators ARJ Mar. ’91, p.2Antilock brake study ARJ July ’90, p.16Announces safety agenda ARJ May ’90, p.3Safety award winners ARJ May ’90, p.9Safety hotline ARJ Jan. ’89, p.2

NAT. TRANS. SAFETY BOARDSUV into girder AIQ #48, p.26Chain reaction near toll plaza AIQ #45, p.26Report, motorcoach/SUV AIQ #40, p.24Report, 15-pass. van 5-fatal AIQ #38, p.25Summary, AR 5-fatal AIQ #29, p.17Report, PA bus/semis AIQ #21, p.20Report, grade crossing, semi AIQ #17, p.20Report, MO bus/pedestrians AIQ #16, p.20Report, WA truck/pedestrian AIQ #15, p.16Report, AR chain reaction AIQ #11, p.16Report, NY propane truck fire AIQ #10, p.16Report, OK truck/school bus AIQ #5, p.20Summary, truck/bridge coll’n AIQ #3, p.17Dump truck, 4 passenger cars ARJ May ’07, p.42Bus/parked tractor-trailer ARJ Nov. ’04, p.32Summary, TX 10-vehicle ARJ July ’02, p.21Report, Flatbed truck/train ARJ Sep.’00, p.15Report, Front-end loader/train ARJ Sep.’00, p.30Report, PA truck brake loss ARJ Nov. ’97, p.31Fatigue in truck drivers ARJ May ’95, p.22Most wanted recommend’ns ARJ Sep.’94, p.3Most wanted recommend’ns ARJ Jan. ’94, p.3Report, NJ defect. bus crash ARJ Jan. ’94, p.34Report, CA tour bus plunge ARJ Sep.’93, p.28Report, TN chain reactions ARJ May ’93, p.28Summary, tanker rollovers ARJ Nov. ’92, p.3Report, PA, NY, bus accidents ARJ July ’92, p.34Summary, tank truck overturn ARJ May ’92, p.11Report, work zone 8-fatal ARJ Mar. ’92, p.18Summary, grade crossing, CA ARJ Mar. ’91, p.37Report, school bus, TX ARJ Nov. ’90, p.18Report, grade crossing, NJ ARJ July ’90, p.20Summary, bus rollover, TN ARJ Sep.’89, p.1Report, church bus fire, KY ARJ July ’89, p.16Summaries, hvy. trk. accid. ARJ Jan. ’89, p.22

NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROG.Overhaul recommended AIQ #5, p.13Offset alignm’t, deform. bar. AIQ #3, p.23Should side tests be added? ARJ July ’96, p.56Star rating sys. critized ARJ Mar. ’95, p.64Test performance ARJ Sep.’94, p.56Options for expansion ARJ July ’94, p.5Goals stated ARJ July ’91, p.15Test results ARJ Nov. ’89, p.29Fatality risk in real crashes AIQ #5, p.9 NSee also CRASH TESTS - FRONTAL BARRIER

NYSTAGMUS, HORIZONTAL GAZEState case law summary AIQ #42, p.31Tests of acc. victims ARJ July ’90, p.9

OCCUPANT KINEMATICSOccupant protection improves AIQ #19, p.2From curb impacts ARJ May ’95, p.54Low speed rear end crashes ARJ May ’93, p.22Ejection ARJ Sep.’89, p.23Evidence of ARJ Sep.’89, p.14Height/weight factors ARJ Sep.’89, p.22Simulation models ARJ Sep.’89, p.22Lower leg finite model AIQ #13, p.13 NSee also INJURIES, LOW SPEED COLLISIONS

OVERVIEWOf accident reconstruction ARJ May ’91, p.11

PASSING MANEUVERAccidents on 2-lane rural roads AIQ #2, p.10Invest. using HSIS d-base AIQ #2, p.16

PASSIVE RESTRAINTSNTSB case studies ARJ May ’94, p.24% reduction in fatalities ARJ July ’92, p.2Required in light trucks ARJ May ’91, p.1Trouble, Caprice police veh. ARJ Mar. ’91, p.43IIHS belt petition ARJ Nov. ’89, p.23Requirements in effect ARJ Sep.’89, p.7Required by law ARJ May ’89, p.17Bibliography AIQ #13, p.8 NSee also AIR BAGS

PEDESTRIAN - ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION3-fatality case study AIQ #47, p.37Fatality case study AIQ #44, p.27Firefighter case study AIQ #39, p.42Farmers' market case study AIQ #36, p.16Factors for detection dist. AIQ #21, p.38Child ped. cognitive ability AIQ #7, p.34Audits for safety ARJ May ’10, p.52Speed with canes, walkers ARJ Mar. ’10, p.49Accident case study ARJ Jan. ’10, p.20Walking speeds crossing road ARJ May ’09, p.11Night accident characteristics ARJ May ’09, p.54Struck by dump truck ARJ Mar. ’08, p.41Backed over by dump truck ARJ May ’08, p.57Run over by skid-steer loader ARJ Sep. ’07, p.31Fireman fatality case study ARJ Sep. ’06, p.44Runover/throw dist. reconstr. ARJ Sep. ’06, p.54Fireman fatality case study ARJ Sep. ’03, p.22Biomechanics of lower legs ARJ Sep. ’03, p.37Dummy crash tests ARJ May ’03, p.27Homeless man in truck bay ARJ May ’02, p.47Fire fighter case study ARJ Jan. ’02, p.21In-Line skaters ARJ Jan. ’00, p.18Walking/running velocity ARJ Jan. ’00, p.22Reconstruction review/update ARJ Jan. ’00, p.25Injury vs. vehicle speed ARJ Jan. ’00, p.33Age-related development ARJ Jan. ’00, p.342 case studies ARJ July ’97, p.232-yr old running speed ARJ July ’97, p.24Fender vault ARJ Jan. ’97, p.13School bus case study ARJ Nov. ’96, p.22Vehicle speed calculation ARJ May ’94, p.22Walking/running velocity ARJ Mar. ’94, p.38Veh. speed calc’n case study ARJ Jan. ’94, p.18Crash tests ARJ Nov. ’93, p.30Plastic overlay/inj. docum’n ARJ Sep.’92, p.20Road/vehicle/body evidence ARJ Jan. ’92, p.19Dynamics in impact ARJ Jan. ’92, p.20Vehicle speed estimates ARJ Jan. ’92, p.23Accident case studies ARJ Jan. ’92, p.27Collision diagrams ARJ July ’91, p.25Walking/running velocity ARJ Mar. ’91, p.28Frontal impact analysis ARJ May ’90, p.16Det. minimum veh. speed ARJ July ’90, p.18Discussion veh. speed ARJ Sep.’90, p.24Dummy for case reconstr'ns AIQ #30, p.12 NDetection distance AIQ #10, p.13 NSee also POINT OF IMPACT

PEDESTRIAN - SAFETYStep in right direction AIQ #48, p.8New bumper design AIQ #44, p.26

55


More wrecks involve AIQ #40, p.2Downward death trend AIQ #27, p.5Accident countermeasures AIQ #18, p.15Vehicle designs/injuries AIQ #18, p.46Making clothing visible AIQ #13, p.48Hybrid vehicles too quiet ARJ July ’08, p.10Automakers weigh risks too ARJ Nov. ’07, p.46New developments protecting ARJ July ’07, p.49Silent hybrid vehicles ARJ July ’07, p.49Deaths receive attention ARJ Sep. ’06, p.9Higher risk from hybrid cars ARJ July ’06, p.14Ped. dragged 8.5 miles ARJ July ’03, p.5Orlando most dangerous for ARJ July ’03, p.15Intelligent protection ARJ July ’03, p.49Drunk walking ARJ May ’03, p.13Signals & elderly peds. ARJ May ’03, p.13High tech protection ARJ May ’03, p.17NHTSA research report ARJ May ’03, p.18Vehicle speed and injury ARJ Mar. ’00, p.59Types of collisions ARJ Jan. ’00, p.9Roadway design for ARJ July ’98 p.16Fatality rates down ARJ July ’98 p.62Safety Road Show ARJ May ’98 p.64& pedacycle crash types ARJ Sep. ’97, p.5Safety program ARJ July ’97, p.563-second head start ARJ May ’97, p.20Fed/state/private partnership ARJ Sep. ’96, p.56Safety roadshow ARJ Sep. ’96, p.64Signs/pavement markings ARJ July ’96, p.63Crash types of 1990’s ARJ Mar. ’96, p.76Killed by large trucks ARJ May ’93, p.16School bus egress ARJ Mar. ’90, p.21Injuries ARJ May ’90, p.17Safety grants ARJ Sep.’90, p.4Nat'l strategies for children AIQ #30, p.11 NInnovative warning signs AIQ #30, p.13 NMarked/unmarked X-walks AIQ #30, p.13 NIn rural areas AIQ #27, p.14 NRisk in darkness AIQ #27, p.14 NSidewalks, facilities AIQ #24, p.17 NRural crash rate AIQ #24, p.21 NAlcohol-involved crashes AIQ #24, p.21 NBibliography AIQ #17, p.13 NBibliography AIQ #16, p.14 NCrash types of 1990’s AIQ #12, p.13 NBibliography AIQ #11, p.8 NEffects retroflector posit’n AIQ #9, p.8 NOlder - highway design AIQ #8, p.10 NSignal effectiveness AIQ #8, p.15 N

PERCEPTION-REACTION TIMETo LED and incandescent lights AIQ #55, p.23Older drivers - object detec. AIQ #9, p.20Older drivers - intersections AIQ #9, p.20Tread separation simulation ARJ July ’06, p.29Driver braking responses ARJ July ’06, p.56To clear-lens turn signals ARJ Mar. ’06, p.23Collision avoidance ARJ Jan. ’01, p.45Joint conf. test results ARJ Nov. ’95, p.26Overview of past studies ARJ Nov. ’95, p.26Cyclist at intersections ARJ Mar. ’91, p.40Driver studies ARJ Jan. ’91, p.4Driver studies ARJ Jan. ’91, p.16Include perception time? ARJ Sep.’90, p.25To visibilty warning signals AIQ #14, p.13 NEmergency driving events AIQ #9, p.11 NOlder drivers - intersections AIQ #8, p.9 N& turn signal color AIQ #8, p.8 N& stoplight intensity AIQ #7, p.13 N

PHOTOGRAMMETRYAdvantages/Disadvantages AIQ #32, p.32Desktop transformation AIQ #7, p.16Misuse of telephoto lenses ARJ Mar. ’93, p.16Measurements damaged veh. ARJ Sep.’92, p.25Projection ARJ Nov. ’90, p.17Use of AIQ #26, p.11 N

PHOTOGRAPHYCamera use in acc. invest. ARJ Mar. ’93, p.38Ex. of overhead photo ARJ Mar. ’93, p.42Ex. of sight distance ARJ July ’90, p.16Ex. of overhead photo ARJ Jan. ’90, p.17

PHYSICSBasic in car crash video AIQ #23, p.48Ex: Van/utility wire ARJ Mar. ’93, p.36Forensic/veh accidents ARJ July ’91, p.24

POINT OF IMPACTPedestrian accidents ARJ May ’90, p.18

PRODUCTS, ACC. RECONST.Overview AIQ #3, p.18What’s new in A.R. ARJ Mar. ’89, p.8

PRODUCT LIABILITY - See LIABILITY,PRODUCT

RADARSpeed cameras favored in DC AIQ #30, p.8Photo radar in Ontario AIQ #7, p.4Photo radar in Oregon ARJ Mar. ’06, p.2Jammers fail to jam ARJ Jan. ’03, p.14Photo radar constitutional ARJ Jan. ’02, p.2Drone units at work zones ARJ Nov. ’93, p.2Photo radar/public opinion ARJ Mar. ’90, p.22Photo radar in Virginia AIQ #22, p.10 NSee also LASER

RADAR DETECTORSBan upheld by appeals court AIQ #6, p.2How US compares to others AIQ #2, p.48Banned in commercial vehs. ARJ Mar. ’94, p.1Truck/bus ban proposed ARJ Mar. ’92, p.40In tractor trailers ARJ July ’91, p.2Insurance coverage ARJ Mar. ’90, p.2Banned for trucks (NY) ARJ Sep.’90, p.2Linked to speeding ARJ Sep.’90, p.28

RADIUS OF CURVATUREOptimum chord length AIQ #31, p.18Min. spd, if not determined ARJ Jan. ’91, p.24Compass method ARJ Sep.’90, p.13Pythagorean theorem ARJ Sep.’90, p.13Methods for determining ARJ July ’90, p.12

RAILROAD CROSSINGS - See GRADECROSSINGS

REACTION TIME - See PERCEPTION-REACT.

REAR END COLLISIONSSpeed estimates in ARJ Sep.’90, p.12Driver response to AIQ #31, p.15 NSee also CASE STUDIES, LOW SPEED

RECALLSToyota seatbelt tensioner AIQ #53, p.1NYSP investigation leads to AIQ #53, p.10Saturn power steering fluid leak AIQ #52, p.7Regal, Gran Prix AIQ #50, p.47Ford 2008 trucks AIQ #50, p.48Nissan, Toyota, tubes, mats AIQ #48, p.2Civic rear wheel bearing AIQ #48, p.3Ford cruise control AIQ #47, p.1New software to reduce AIQ #46, p.8Accords, airbag sensor AIQ #45, p.20Sequoias, Tundras steering AIQ #45, p.1Wildness tires missed AIQ #43, p.170K Harley motorcycles AIQ #40, p.11Youth restraints AIQ #34, p.12BMW air bags AIQ #33, p.451997 Escorts/Tracers AIQ #30, p.48Britax child restraint AIQ #27, p.161.1 million Jeeps AIQ #27, p.22Windstar suspension probed AIQ #24, p.9Ford pressed on ignitions AIQ #24, p.9Britax child seats AIQ #23, p.48Subaru Legacy, Outback AIQ #22, p.2NHTSA warning Mustang AIQ #21, p.3Automakers more willing AIQ #1, p.25VW minivan fires ARJ Sep. ’10, p.53GM '06 - '09 fire risk ARJ July ’10, p.1Chrysler minivans, jeeps ARJ July ’10, p.8Dodge Caliber sticking pedals ARJ July ’10, p.9Toyota $16.4M fine ARJ May ’10, p.1Lexus GS 460 rollover ARJ May ’10, p.9Honda brake problem ARJ Mar. ’10, p.5Toyota acceleration pedals ARJ Jan. ’10, p.1Feds clear Toyota fix ARJ Jan. ’10, p.2Toyota Tundras ARJ Jan. ’10, p.8Toyota acceleration pedal interfer. ARJ Sep. ’09, p.1Toyota brake vacuum port ARJ Sep. ’09, p.64Firestone tires ARJ July ’09, p.3Saturn Vue crossovers ARJ July ’09, p.59Nissan SUVs ARJ Jan. ’09, p.1Toyota fuel delivery pipes ARJ Jan. ’09, p.1Gov't recalls down in 2008 ARJ Jan. ’09, p.8BMW airbag sensor ARJ Sep. ’08, p.15Ford cruise control switch ARJ July ’08, p.13GM, Toyota window flaw ARJ July ’08, p.20Highlander seat belts ARJ May ’08, p.10Toyota Corollas ARJ May ’08, p.23Ford pickups ARJ May ’08, p.32Ford trucks engine flaw ARJ Mar. ’08, p.9GM vehs. fluid leak ARJ Jan. ’08, p.1Dodge trucks, vans, shifting ARJ Jan. ’08, p.1Tire recalls shows sys. flaws ARJ Nov. ’07, p.16Hyundai SUVs ARJ Sep. ’07, p.61Wranglers, Nitros ARJ Sep. ’07, p.64450,000 Chinese tires ARJ July ’07, p.1Michelin motorcycle tires ARJ July ’07, p.12Many for Toyota ARJ Mar. ’07, p.13GM Daewoo SUV brakes ARJ Jan. ’07, p.3Chrysler recalls 68,000 ARJ Jan. ’07, p.5

Ford engine fires ARJ July ’06, p.1Firestone tires for SUVs ARJ Sep. ’04, p.20Court rules legal by region ARJ May ’04, p.1Groups sue US over ARJ May ’04, p.19Steeltex tires ARJ Sep. ’03, p.2Mitsubishi trucks, busses ARJ Sep. ’01, p.5Ford Focus throttle ARJ Sep. ’01, p.48VW, Toyota, Jeep ARJ Sep. ’01, p.64Mercedes battery explosion ARJ July ’01, p.13Mitsubishi trucks/busses ARJ July ’01, p.64Chrysler minivan fuel leak ARJ May ’01, p.1Chrysler Jeeps ARJ May ’01, p.10Goodyear light truck tires ARJ May ’01, p.17Peg Pergo child seats ARJ May ’01, p.39Three large ARJ May ’01, p.58Additional Wilderness AT tires ARJ Mar. ’01, p.9Century convert. child seats ARJ Jan. ’01, p.2Firestone tires near complete ARJ Jan. ’01, p.5Ford vans fuel tank ARJ Jan. ’01, p.64Firehawk GTA-02 tires ARJ Nov.’00, p.3Ballistic bicycle forks ARJ Nov.’00, p.51.3 million Mitsubishi’s ARJ Sep. ’00, p.64’02 Trailblazer, Envoy, Bravada ARJ July ’00, p.1Explorer/Mountaineer windows ARJ July ’00, p.5Explorer, Ranger hood fly-up ARJ July ’00, p.12F-series, Villager fuel leak ARJ July ’00, p.13CA judge orders Ford ARJ May ’00, p.1Trooper fuel system leak ARJ May ’00, p.2Evenflo child seats ARJ May ’00, p.15Defects: insurers 1st to learn ARJ Mar. ’00, p.5Cosco infant seats ARJ Mar. ’00, p.15Master index ARJ Nov. ’98, p.72’95 Cirrus/Stratus ordered ARJ May ’96, p.2Did Ford miss models? ARJ May ’96, p.31995 totals ARJ Jan. ’96, p.13With low response ARJ Nov. ’94, p.64Toyota fined Land Cruiser ARJ May ’94, p.1

RECORDERS, COLLISION DATASee EVENT DATA RECORDERS

RECREATIONAL VEHICLESMotor home crash tests ARJ Nov. ’04, p.20Design & construction AIQ #4, p.9 N

REPORTScope of ARJ May ’93, p.49

ROAD RAGECloses highway AIQ #47, p.10Consequences of AIQ #43, p.30Siren to combat AIQ #37, p.5Results in murder AIQ #35, p.45In Utah AIQ #34, p.41Aggressive drivers tracked AIQ #32, p.2& funeral corteges AIQ #32, p.18Backfires on driver AIQ #29, p.21And more road rage AIQ #18, p.41Women display more AIQ #17, p.482 crowbar attacks AIQ #15, p. 2Teen accused of attack ARJ May ’08, p.5Avoiding ARJ Mar. ’08, p.37Calls for new laws ARJ July ’07, p.3Man gets 10 years ARJ Mar. ’07, p.2Fla. Troopers target ARJ Jan. ’07, p.16Patience, music to avoid ARJ Jan. ’07, p.64Disected in court ARJ Sep. ’06, p.18Suspect caught ARJ July ’06, p.54Chain saw pulled ARJ July ’06, p.61From conjestion, lifestyle ARJ May ’06, p.9Comes from where? ARJ May ’06, p.58Fla. bill vetoed ARJ Jan. ’05, p.3Driver wanted to kill ARJ Sep. ’04, p.3Aggressive driving enforce't ARJ Sep. ’04, p.5Two articles ARJ Sep. ’04, p.35Fla. Hwy. Patrol program ARJ July ’04, p.3Web sites to report ARJ July ’04, p.5Left lane slowpokes ARJ Nov. ’03, p.14Slow drivers v. aggressive ARJ May ’03, p.15Complaints before fatality ARJ Mar. ’03, p.13Road roller challenged ARJ Mar. ’02, p.1413 years in manslaughter case ARJ Sep.’00, p.1Truck attack, long sentence ARJ July ’98 p.64Aggressive driving ARJ Mar. ’97, p.14Promising mitigat'n measures AIQ #30, p.13 NUnderstanding road rage AIQ #26, p.13 NAggressive driving imaging AIQ #23, p.13 NSee also HUMAN FACTORS, MANSLAUGHTER

ROLLOVERGM tests in-house AIQ #49, p.24Protection from Autoliv AIQ #46, p.16Proposed roof crush standard AIQ #41, p.48Technology for SUVs AIQ #39, p.2New ratings AIQ #37, p.17Fire truck case study AIQ #37, p.44Vehicle or driver at fault? AIQ #36, p.13

NTSB invest. 15-pass. vans AIQ #35, p.41Firefighter killed in AIQ #33, p.44Fire engine case study AIQ #31, p.44Warning on SUVs AIQ #30, p.2Safety in Volvo's XC90 AIQ #29, p.10Leads to Explorer probe AIQ #24, p.3Warning label for SUV’s AIQ #21, p.5Formula for probability AIQ #20, p.20NHTSA seeks formula AIQ #20, p.21Feds seek resistance labels AIQ #4, p.5Threshold lateral g’s, trucks AIQ #3, p.10Tractor-trailer, different tires ARJ Mar. ’10, p.39Smartfortwo performs well ARJ Sep. ’09, p.37Roof strength poor in small SUVs ARJ May ’09, p.1New roof strength rule ARJ May ’09, p.63Roof strength rule delayed ARJ Jan. ’09, p.40Fire truck case study ARJ Mar. ’08, p.19Manure truck case study ARJ Mar. ’07, p.25Crash mechanisms ARJ Jan. ’07, p.35Groups challenge rules ARJ Jan. ’07, p.16Results for Saturn Vue ARJ Nov. ’06, p.14At 249 mph ARJ Sep. ’06, p.10Human factors case study ARJ May ’06, p.16Case study ARJ Nov. ’04, p.52Seat belts faulty in rollover ARJ Nov. ’04, p.64Van stabilizing equipment ARJ Sep. ’04, p.13SUVs fail test ARJ Jan. ’04, p.16Changes to 15-passenger vans ARJ Mar. ’03, p.11NHTSA posts report on ARJ Jan. ’03, p.14Causes of injury ARJ Jan. ’03, p.23SUV technology to reduce ARJ Jan. ’03, p.40NTSB report on 15-pass vans ARJ Jan. ’03, p.47Fire tanker case study ARJ Jan. ’03, p.54NHTSA announces new test ARJ Nov. ’02, p.1Technology to reduce ARJ Nov. ’02, p.2Tests no effect on SUVsales ARJ Nov. ’02, p.3Fire truck/tanker case ARJ Nov. ’02, p.2Loaded van stability ARJ Nov. ’02, p.23Bosche stibility sensor ARJ Nov. ’02, p.2315-pass TX, NC case studies ARJ Nov. ’02, p.25Mitigation reports ARJ Nov. ’02, p.49Millbrook tests ARJ Nov. ’02, p.49SUV case study ARJ Nov. ’02, p.51Predicting 15-pass van accds. ARJ Nov. ’02, p.5Tractor case study ARJ Sep. ’01, p.18Tanker truck case study ARJ Sep. ’01, p.20Sensor development ARJ Sep. ’01, p.24Tractor case study ARJ Sep. ’01, p.26Motorcoach case study ARJ Sep. ’01, p.29SUV rollover protection ARJ Sep. ’01, p.32Tubular side airbags for trucks ARJ Sep. ’01, p.34Roof crush testing ARJ Sep. ’01, p.35Fire truck case study ARJ Sep. ’01, p.49Bibliography for big truck ARJ Sep. ’01, p.52TRW active roll control ARJ Sep. ’01, p.58Pumper truck case study ARJ July ’01, p.17Maneuver that induce ARJ July ’01, p.21Trailer axle arrangement/loads ARJ July ’01, p.41Ford delays package ARJ May ’01, p.2NHTSA dynamic test ARJ May ’01, p.16Heavy commercial vehicles ARJ May ’01, p.19Tactor hazards ARJ May ’01, p.41P-18 suspension tests ARJ May ’01, p.47Fire truck case study ARJ May ’01, p.55NHTSA ratings ARJ Mar. ’01, p.9College sports team vans ARJ July ’00, p.2Physical factors med/hvy trucks ARJ Jan. ’98, p.41Roof crush resistance ARJ Mar. ’95, p.24Statistical analysis, propens’y ARJ Sep.’94, p.20In liquid tank trucks ARJ July ’93, p.24Caused by crosswinds ARJ Mar. ’93, p.14NTSB recom’s. tanker trucks ARJ Nov. ’92, p.3Death rates, lt. trucks/MPV’s ARJ July ’92, p.54Accident database ARJ May ’91, p.22NHTSA Jeep invest. closed ARJ Jan. ’91, p.1Jeep petition ARJ Nov. ’90, p.35Minimum req’d distance ARJ July ’90, p.28Caused by crosswinds ARJ Nov. ’89, p.14Heavy commercial vehicles AIQ #21, p.14 NTruck-activated warning AIQ #21, p.15 NRoof crush testing AIQ #19, p.15 NTrauck warning system AIQ #17, p.15 NIn special trans. service veh. AIQ #16, p.10 NMechanics & biomechanics AIQ #15, p.11 NLt. trucks/roadside charact. AIQ #12, p.14 NFrequency Chevy/GMC trucks AIQ #7, p.13 NPrecrash risk factors AIQ #6, p.11 N

SCALE DIAGRAMS - See DIAGRAMS

SCENE DATA/MEASUREMENTWhat to collect AIQ #9, p.12 NUse of total station AIQ #9, p.12 N

SEARCH WARRENTS - VEHICLECourt OKs road blocks AIQ #35, p.1Not necessary for brake insp. ARJ Sep. ’96, p.1

56


SEAT BELTS - ACCIDENT INVEST.Field investigation AIQ #9, p.16Development/design features ARJ Jan. ’94, p.24Failure case study ARJ July ’93, p.20Less known problems ARJ Mar. ’92, p.37Post crash examination ARJ May ’91, p.26Advanced auto restraint syst. AIQ #26, p.12 NBibliography AIQ #17, p.10 N2 Bibliographies AIQ #13, p.9 NBibliography AIQ #13, p.10 NDevices improve shldr belt fit AIQ #12, p.11 N3 Bibliographies AIQ #10, p.9 NBibliography AIQ #8, p.16 NPassive, patent file citations AIQ #3, p.8 N

SEAT BELTS - SAFETY NEWSTough law pushed AIQ #39, p.10Not required by OSHA AIQ #33, p.42For pregnant women AIQ #31, p.43Primary enforcement WA AIQ #27, p.5Use at all time high AIQ #6, p.45Weak Kansas law ARJ July ’10, p.5New inflator for ARJ Sep. ’09, p.60Cincinnati police enforcement ARJ May ’09, p.61Primary law passes in AR ARJ Mar. ’09, p.2TRW active buckle lifter ARJ Sep. ’08, p.16NJ Governor pays ticket ARJ May ’07, p.12Many truckers aren't using ARJ Nov. ’04, p.3Record use by blacks ARJ Nov. ’02, p.15Use reaches 75% ARJ Sep. ’02, p.30ROP's, riders and.... ARJ Sep. ’01, p.34That thick like air bags ARJ July ’01, p.14Use reaches 73% ARJ May ’01, p.17Use varies by region ARJ Nov.’00, p.13Lower use among blacks ARJ Jan. ’00, p.64Positioner warning proposal ARJ Nov. ’98, p.2Blacks have lower use rate ARJ Nov. ’98, p.16Points for not wearing ARJ Mar. ’97, p.9Takata recall slow ARJ Jan. ’97, p.1Push for increased use ARJ May ’96, p.71Teen use up ARJ Mar. ’96, p.2Survival improvment est. ARJ Jan. ’96, p.5Signs spur rise in use ARJ Nov. ’95, p.67Use rates ARJ July ’95, p.56Fines won’t persuade some ARJ Jan. ’95, p.28 of 10 use in N.C. ARJ Jan. ’95, p.5Use at 10-yr. high in Canada ARJ Jan. ’94, p.231st state long-term program ARJ July ’93, p.56Primary enforcement ARJ July ’93, p.49Enforcement efforts ARJ July ’93, p.17Use higher in Canada ARJ July ’93, p.17Retrofit kit ARJ May ’93, p.64Use and leg injuries ARJ Jan. ’93, p.5Importance of manual belt(s) ARJ Nov. ’92, p.2History of ARJ May ’92, p.11NTSB urges state laws ARJ Sep.’91, p.11NHTSA enforcement drive ARJ July ’91, p.29CHiP program ARJ July ’91, p.47Canadian campaign ARJ July ’91, p.23Laws pushed ARJ July ’90, p.48Rear shoulder, new rules ARJ July ’89, p.5Usage rates NBN Sep.’88Occupant safety survey AIQ #31, p.15 NPrimary enforcement laws AIQ #24, p.15 NEffectiveness: back seat AIQ #21, p.13 NOn transit buses AIQ #9, p.48 NBibliography AIQ #7, p.11 N

SEGWAY HUMAN TRANSPORTERFHWA studies riders ARJ May ’07, p.32

SIDE IMPACTTests soon harder to pass AIQ #48, p.24New NHTSA requirements ARJ Sep. ’07, p.1Compliance test set ARJ Mar. ’91, p.1Standards announced ARJ Nov. ’90, p.3Ctr Auto Safety action ARJ Nov. ’90, p.35See also CRASH TESTS

SIGHT DISTANCESWider lanes and ARJ Mar. ’02, p.25Right turn lanes and ARJ Mar. ’02, p.33Inersection angles/field of view ARJ Jan. ’02, p.61At RR grade crossings ARJ Sep. ’00, p.56Measurement of ARJ July ’90, p.30Horizontal ARJ Nov. ’89, p.20Vertical ARJ Nov. ’89, p.20Determination of stopping AIQ #20, p.14 NIn highway design AIQ #19, p.11 NFor intersections AIQ #15, p.13 N

SIGNAL LIGHTSRed light camera research AIQ #46, p.11Cameras/accident reductions? AIQ #41, p.16HSIS data for crashes at AIQ #22, p.2Who runs red signals? AIQ #5, p.36Red light camera laws ARJ Sep. ’07, p.49

Red light enforcement ARJ May ’06, p.22Cameras reduce crashes ARJ July ’02, p.15Cameras are constitutional ARJ Jan. ’02, p.2Red light camers reduce inj. ARJ Nov. ’01, p.64Red light cameras ARJ Jan. ’00, p.43Crashes increase ARJ May ’98 p.5Timing and crashes ARJ May ’95, p.63Effects on intersection crashes AIQ #30, p.14 N

SIGNSRulemaking on retroreflective ARJ Mar. ’06, p.16Nighttime legibility ARJ Mar. ’06, p.27RR X-ing, retroflective ARJ July ’00, p.21Retrorelectometer testing ARJ July ’00, p.24Color recognition ARJ Sep.’91, p.14Driving & perception AIQ #32, p.14 NFlourescent yellow warning AIQ #27, p.13 NAdding reflective mat'l to AIQ #23, p.12 NRetroreflectivity requirements AIQ #19, p.15 NLegibility distance AIQ #8, p.12 NRetroreflective sheeting AIQ #8, p.9 NHuman factors issues AIQ #8, p.9 NSee also HIGHWAY DESIGN, VISIBILITY

SKATES/SKATEBOARDSGermany bans in-line AIQ #28, p.9Acceleration trials AIQ #25, p.18Bibliography AIQ #7, p.13 NSee also BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN

SKID MARKSSpeed est. from skip skids AIQ #11, p.44Semi, varying tire pressure ARJ Sep. ’07, p.19Appearance, ABS/conv. brak. ARJ July ’95, p.22

SKID TESTS - BRAKING, DRY ASPH./CONC.Motorcycle various systems AIQ #48, p.12Motorcycle various systems AIQ #47, p.282003 police vehicle data AIQ #36, p.322002 police vehicle data AIQ #34, p.422001 police vehicle data AIQ #29, p.22Truck/bus braking in curve AIQ #28, p.122000 police vehicle data AIQ #27, p.351999 police vehicle data AIQ #27, p.27'99/'00 police vehicles analysis AIQ #27, p.371998 police vehicle data AIQ #26, p.341998 police vehicle analysis AIQ #26, p.43Poorly maintained brakes AIQ #24, p.32Performance tires AIQ #23, p.46Low speed vehicles AIQ #22, p.28Moderate & high speed AIQ #20, p.28Overloaded heavy trucks AIQ #18, p.22Mazdas, dry asphalt AIQ #2, p.40Motorcycles ARJ July ’10, p.10Semi, varying tire pressure ARJ Sep. ’07, p.19Motorcycle, IPTM data ARJ July ’07, p.19Tract-trailer ABS braking ARJ Mar. ’07, p.19Various light trucks ARJ Nov. ’04, p.22Motorcycles ARJ Nov.’00, p.224 buses & dump truck ARJ Mar. ’98 p.21Fire truck ARJ Mar. ’98 p.55Heavy truck, var. ABS sys. ARJ Jan. ’98, p.56Heavy truck, var. ABS sys. ARJ Nov. ’97, p.43Caprice, Taurus, dry asphalt ARJ Sep.’94, p.348 vehicles, ABS on/off ARJ Jan. ’94, p.52ABS & non-ABS Caprice ARJ July ’93, p.44ABS vs. non-ABS vehicles ARJ July ’93, p.45Motorcycle, braking ARJ July ’91, p.43Locked/unlckd, ’78 lt. trks. ARJ Mar. ’91, p.22Locked/unlckd, ’78 md. trks. ARJ Mar. ’91, p.25Semi-truck, dry asphalt ARJ Jan. ’91, p.25Double trailer, dry asphalt ARJ Jan. ’91, p.25Autos, asphalt, concrete ARJ Sep.’90, p.22Autos, dry tar & chip ARJ Sep.’90, p.22F-250, F-7000, dry asphalt ARJ Sep.’90, p.23Semi truck, dry asphalt ARJ Sep.’90, p.23Moderate braking/skid mk ARJ Sep.’90, p.21School bus, asphalt, concr. ARJ July ’90, p.15Celebrity, asphalt, concr. ARJ July ’90, p.15Autos, dry asphalt ARJ May ’89, p.14Lt. trucks, dry asphalt ARJ May ’89, p.14Fire truck, concrete. ARJ Jan. ’89, p.10School bus, concrete ARJ Jan. ’89, p.11Caprice, concrete ARJ Jan. ’89, p.11Bibliography AIQ #14, p.10 NSee also DRAG FACTORS

SKID TESTS - BRAKING, WET ASPH./CONC.Motorcycle various systems AIQ #48, p.12Motorcycle various systems AIQ #47, p.28Various tires AIQ #21, p.37Mazdas, wet asphalt AIQ #2, p.40Motorcycles ARJ July ’10, p.10Heavy truck ARJ Nov. ’09, p.19Heavy truck, var. ABS sys. ARJ Jan. ’98, p.56Heavy truck, var. ABS sys. ARJ Nov. ’97, p.438 vehicles, ABS on/off ARJ Jan. ’94, p.52Locked/unlckd, ’78 lt. trks. ARJ Mar. ’91, p.22Locked/unlckd, ’78 md. trks. ARJ Mar. ’91, p.25School bus, wet asph./concr. ARJ July ’90, p.15

Celebrity, wet asph./concr. ARJ July ’90, p.15Caravan, wet asphalt ARJ May ’89, p.15See also DRAG FACTORS

SKID TESTS - BRAKING, OTHER SURFACESW/wo studs, snow, ice AIQ #37, p.18Various tires AIQ #21, p.37W/wo studs, snow, ice AIQ #12, p.26Motorcycles, Belgian block ARJ July ’10, p.10Snow-covered, travelled roads ARJ Jan. ’09, p.24Various tires, ice, snow ARJ Nov. ’08, p.12EBW / ABS ice ARJ Jan. ’08, p.39Heavy truck, var. ABS sys. ARJ Nov. ’97, p.43Snowmobiles ARJ Mar. ’95, p.52Caprice, Taurus, dry dirt ARJ Sep.’94, p.50280Z, hard-packed dirt ARJ July ’94, p.52w & w/o ABS Caprice, gravel ARJ July ’93, p.44Snowmobiles ARJ Jan. ’93, p.36Auto w & w/o ABS, glare ice ARJ Mar. ’92, p.42Trucks & buses, glare ice ARJ Mar. ’92, p.42LTD, unpacked snow ARJ May ’89, p.146000STE, unpacked snow ARJ May ’89, p.14Caprice, wet grass ARJ May ’89, p.16Arctic conditions AIQ #32, p.13 NSand on packed snow & ice AIQ #17, p.11 N

SKID TESTS - EVALUATION OFVarying tire pressures ARJ Jan. ’93, p.40Heavy truck, brk. adjustment ARJ July ’91, p.38Different tire effects ARJ Sep.’90, p.19Load condition effects ARJ Sep.’90, p.22Integral analysis ARJ Jan. ’89, p.10See also DRAG FACTORS

SKID TESTS - LATERALPerformance tires AIQ #23, p.46Various tires, snow AIQ #21, p.37Various tires, ice, snow ARJ Nov. ’08, p.12pavement, gravel, grass ARJ May ’08, p.29Various light trucks ARJ Nov. ’04, p.22ABS vehs. braking/evasive ARJ Mar. ’94, p.41Fire truck, concrete ARJ Jan. ’89, p.10School bus, concrete ARJ Jan. ’89, p.10Caprice, concrete ARJ Jan. ’89, p.10Camaro, dry asphalt ARJ May ’89, p.36See also DRAG FACTORS

SKID TESTS - NON-UPRIGHT VEHS.Motorcycles, IPTM data AIQ #46, p.18Motorcycle, test summary AIQ #44, p.31Autos, wet/dry asphalt/concr. AIQ #13, p. 30Motorcycle, sideways AIQ #5, p.48Motorcycles, sideways ARJ Mar. ’07, p.47Motorcycle, sideways ARJ July ’91, p.43Motorcycles, dry asphalt ARJ Nov. ’89, p.13Motorcycle, dry asphalt NBN Jan. ’87Motorcycle, sideways SAE SP-853, p.77Motorcycle, sideways Sae SP-1237, p.357Various vehicles Soar Win. ’01 p.13

SNOWMOBILEAlert system ARJ Mar. ’10, p.9Acceleration/braking tests ARJ Jan. ’07, p.29Acceleration/braking tests ARJ Mar. ’95, p.52Safety ARJ Mar. ’94, p.22Accident invest./reconst. ARJ Mar. ’94, p.30

SPECIFICATIONSCadillac DeVille hearse AIQ #27, p.39Various light trucks ARJ Nov. ’04, p.22Motorcycle, 1967-1991 ARJ July ’92, p.46

SPEEDOMETERBack plate analysis ARJ Nov. ’91, p.28

SPEED LIMITRepeal of 55 safe? AIQ #16, p.3Repeal of national AIQ #8, p.1Speeding = child abuse? ARJ July ’06, p.64IL: truck increase vetoed ARJ Nov. ’04, p.5Urban freeway speeds up ARJ July ’96, p.64Urban freeway speeds up ARJ Mar. ’96, p.3Establishing for curves ARJ Jan. ’94, p.288 states retain 55 mph ARJ May ’90, p.765 mph to be repealed? ARJ Sep.’89, p.5Safety impact 65 mph in IA AIQ #5, p.10 N

SPEED LIMITERSTo be mandatory in Europe ARJ Sep.’92, p.56

SPORT UTILITY VEHICLESStudy questions safety ARJ Jan. ’03, p.2Lower CGs for 2008? ARJ Jan. ’03, p.62To get warning label ARJ May ’98 p.9

STANDARDS, SAFETYSemi trailer rear underride AIQ #9, p.1Side impact, worldwide ARJ July ’96, p.3U.S., Europe diff. approaches ARJ July ’96, p.14Side impact, head protection ARJ July ’96, p.25

STEERING SYSTEMSElectronic stability control AIQ #46, p.13Angle Sensor AIQ #23, p.5Problems ’92-’93 Crown Vic? AIQ #2, p.1Failure in police cruisers? ARJ Sep. ’07, p.5GE safety developments ARJ Sep. ’07, p.24TRW active front ARJ Jan. ’07, p.56Infiniti lane departure sys. ARJ Nov. ’06, p.12Pitman arms, ’95-’96 Fords ARJ Jan. ’96, p.1Examination of ARJ Jan. ’90, p.20Bibliography AIQ #13, p.9 NBibliography AIQ #10, p.11 NDatabase citations AIQ #5, p.12 N

SUBMERGED VEHICLESMich. St. Police tests AIQ #12, p.18

SUDDEN ACCELERATION'91 Ford Aerostar case AIQ #23, p.1Case study/tiremark analysis ARJ Mar. ’94, p.44NHTSA report released ARJ Mar. ’89, p.1Transp.Canada findings ARJ Mar. ’89, p.22See also ACCELERATION, UNINTENDED

SUICIDE/HOMICIDE27 case studies AIQ #2, p.20Accident....or homicide? AIQ #1, p.22By trian fairly common ARJ May ’04, p.14Suicide case study ARJ Sep. ’96, p.56

SUSPENSION SYSTEMNew sensors ARJ Sep.’00, p.13Examination of ARJ Jan. ’90, p.20Evaluation of ARFF system AIQ #32, p.13 NBibliography AIQ #10, p.14 N

TELEMATICSIntegrated safety systems AIQ #40, p.16

TESTIMONYExpert witnesses and ARJ July ’91, p.14Presenting energy diss. ARJ Sep.’90, p.14Cross examination tactics ARJ Sep.’89, p.10Expert’s scope ARJ Nov. ’89, p.18

TIE DOWN STRAPSTesting/case study ARJ Mar. ’94, p.50

TIME/DISTANCE ANALYSISDiagrams for reconst. & court AIQ #48, p.34Acceleration, time, distance AIQ #2, p.38Closing speed right angle ARJ Jan. ’96, p.13Closing speed oblique angle ARJ Nov.’95, p.22Closing speed right angle ARJ Sep.’95, p.20

TINTED WINDOWSDriver visibility ARJ May ’89, p.12

TIRE MARKSABS v. conventional braking ARJ July ’95, p.22Case study ARJ July ’92, p.28Documentation of ARJ Nov. ’91, p.28See also SKID MARKS

TIRESRun-flats losing appeal AIQ #55, p.1Press. monitoring sys. mandate AIQ #50, p.11Blow-out case study AIQ #41, p.34Motorola pressure sensor AIQ #40, p.16May not pass new standards AIQ #40, p.1Safer tire on road in 2007? AIQ #39, p.8Monitoring system AIQ #38, p.3Steeltex probe rejected AIQ #37, p.37Expiration date for? AIQ #33, p.5Automatic Pressure measur't AIQ #32, p.19Labeling rule AIQ #31, p.2Pressure monitoring device AIQ #29, p.3NHTSA to select TPMS AIQ #28, p.9Goodyear run-flats AIQ #27, p.16NHTSA report Wilderness AIQ #27, p.21Mitsubishi to inspect AIQ #26, p.32General Ameri 550-AS AIQ #25, p.13Ford replacing Firestone AIQ #24, p.1Bridgestone defends AIQ #23, p.3Ford settling Firestone cases AIQ #23, p.5Sensor use gains AIQ #22, p.3Myths refuted AIQ #2, p.9Heavy truck failure modes ARJ May ’10, p.41Tractor-trailer rollover, dif. tires ARJ Mar. ’10, p.39Unique new test facility ARJ Nov. ’09, p.9Time to deflate ruptured ARJ Nov. ’07, p.29450,000 Chinese recalled ARJ July ’07, p.1Safety ratings ARJ Mar. ’06, p.22New veh's monitor pressure ARJ July ’04, p.64Run-flats improve safety ARJ Mar. ’02, p.2Press. monitoring sys. tested ARJ Nov. ’01, p.16

57


Pressure monitoring system ARJ Sep. ’01, p.22Pressure monitoring mandate ARJ July ’01, p.5Continental replacem't review ARJ Nov.’00, p.1Pressure monitoring system ARJ Nov.’00, p.2Firestone, Ford chronology ARJ Nov.’00, p.58Public awareness ARJ Nov.’00, p.14Ford, Firestone act ARJ Sep.’00, p.5Expert’s study of Firestone ARJ July ’00, p.34NHTSA probe of Goodyears ARJ May ’00, p.5Slater statement on Firestone ARJ May ’00, p.17Feds: Firestone warnings ARJ Mar. ’00, p.1Wilderness death toll ARJ Jan. ’00, p.1Grading standard comments ARJ May ’94, p.20Regrooved warnings ARJ Sep.’93, p.42Grade list available ARJ Jan. ’92, p.13Grade list ARJ Mar. ’91, p.47Grade list update ARJ Sep.’90, p.1Examination of ARJ Jan. ’90, p.19Load indices ARJ Jan. ’90, p.20Sidewall markings ARJ Jan. ’90, p.19Grade list available ARJ Sep.’89, p.2Fatigue failure ARJ July ’89, p.14Casing breakup ARJ July ’89, p.14Pressure monitoring system AIQ #27, p.12 NBlowout resistant AIQ #26, p.14 NSynthesis on studded AIQ #24, p.19 NTransient response AIQ #18, p.14 NBibliography AIQ #17, p.10 NBibliography AIQ #17, p.12 NBibliography AIQ #16, p.14 NTruck tire characteristics AIQ #10, p.10 N3 bibliographies AIQ #10, p.10 NStudded performance AIQ #10, p.10 NBibliography, skid resist. AIQ #7, p.13 NTesting/evaluation database AIQ #6, p.10 NStudy of in-plane dynamics AIQ #5, p.8 NRadial tire design AIQ #5, p.12 NSee also SKID TESTS, HYDROPLANING

TRACTORS, FARMOverturn case study AIQ #46, p.16More on roads in spring AIQ #41, p.15Overturn case study ARJ May ’07, p.18

TRAININGMature driver course ARJ Jan. ’92, p.2

TRAJECTORY ANALYSISThe effects of rotation AIQ #4, p.22

TRANSPARENCIESUse in reconstruction ARJ Nov. ’90, p.17

TRUCK DRIVERS18-year old = 18 wheels? AIQ #24, p.22New federal work rules ARJ Nov. ’04, p.1314-hour rule proposed ARJ May ’00, p.64Joint safety effort w police ARJ Nov. ’96, p.79Fines for out-of-service ARJ Nov. ’94, p.5Waving vision rules unlawful ARJ Sep.’94, p.2Failed to submit reports ARJ May ’91, p.3

TRUCKS, HEAVY DUTYCar carrier safety in PA AIQ #36, p.11Safety Systems AIQ #23, p.14New requirements for trailers AIQ #19, p.47New underride rule AIQ #10, p.7Rule to improve brakes AIQ #5, p.1Reflectors for trailers AIQ #3, p.3Higher risk, double trailers? AIQ #2, p.152 or 3 trailer data sketchy AIQ #1, p.7Electronic stability control literat. ARJ Sep. ’10, p.33OE vs. aftermarket braking tests ARJ July ’10, p.31Bill for tow truck safety ARJ May ’08, p.411-hour limit for drivers ARJ Jan. ’08, p.49Hazard parked on shoulder? ARJ May ’07, p.19Speed control devices pushed ARJ Jan. ’07, p.8Study may alter inspections ARJ Sep. ’02, p.3Norfolk-area inspections ARJ Sep. ’02, p.59Driver's safety record ARJ Nov. ’01, p.58Requirements for marking ARJ Sep. ’00, p.61Safety report ARJ May ’00, p.13Electronic control module ARJ Mar. ’98 p.56Gasoline tanker/car case study ARJ Mar. ’98 p.254 truck collsion case study ARJ Jan. ’98, p.20Securing loads ARJ Nov. ’97, p.16Safety improvement ARJ Sep. ’96, p.64Size/weight study ARJ May ’96, p.64Top safety issues ARJ July ’95, p.20Driver fatigue case studies ARJ May ’95, p.22New rules for ARJ Mar. ’95, p.2IIHS presses underride regs. ARJ Jan. ’95, p.56Stability rules proposed ARJ Jan. ’94, p.3Defective vehs. cited ARJ Sep.’93, p.42Downhill braking info ARJ Sep.’93, p.2

NAFTA lowers standards? ARJ Sep.’93, p.1Wheel separation on ARJ Jan. ’93, p.16Underride death count ARJ Sep.’92, p.5Ways to reduce occup. deaths ARJ Sep.’92, p.15Drivers exceed work hours ARJ Mar. ’92, p.42Underride guards ARJ Mar. ’92, p.36Speed limiters, U.K. ARJ Sep.’91, p.32Senate restrictions on ARJ Sep.’91, p.24Trailer brake compatibility ARJ July ’90, p.2Examination of ARJ Jan. ’90, p.22Inspection standards ARJ Sep.’89, p.5Braking deficiencies in ARJ Jan. ’89, p.16Methods for crash reduction AIQ #30, p.14 NPneumatic aerodyn. devices AIQ #30, p.14 NDownhill speed warning AIQ #24, p.12 NRoadside safety inspection AIQ #24, p.18 NCrash profile AIQ #24, p.20 NFire truck collisions AIQ #23, p.12 NAccident countermeasures AIQ #22, p.12 NLoads & accident experience AIQ #18, p.12 NTank trailer crashworthiness AIQ #15, p.13 NCollision avoidance system AIQ #12, p.15 NAccident bibliography AIQ #12, p.17 NSafety bibliography AIQ #12, p.17 NLong combination stability AIQ #11, p.11 NBrake adjustment criteria AIQ #8, p.11 NSafety on 2-lane roads AIQ #7, p.13 NLarge veh. safety research AIQ #3, p.8 NSee also BRAKES, ROLLOVERS

TRUCKS, LIGHT DUTYPressure to make safer ARJ Mar. ’04, p.14Unfair safety questions? AIQ #37, p.10Auto saf. std. extended to AIQ #7, p.1Prop. side impact protect’n AIQ #3, p.7Risks for passengers in bed ARJ July ’95, p.3New side door standard ARJ July ’91, p.2High-mounted stop lamp ARJ May ’91, p.32Roof crush standards ARJ May ’91, p.3NHTSA safety report ARJ July ’90, p.3Auto saf. std. extended to ARJ Jan. ’90, p.1Side impact standard ARJ Jan. ’90, p.32Seat belt requirements ARJ Nov. ’89, p.1NHTSA sued/FMVSS 204 ARJ Nov. ’89, p.2Safety standards bill ARJ Sep.’89, p.3Crash requirements ARJ Jan. ’89, p.4

TRUNK RELEASESNew standard AIQ #23, p.3New federal requirement ARJ Nov. ’98, p.5

TURN SIGNALSMasked by headlamps AIQ #24, p.28Color & reaction time AIQ #8, p.9 NMasking by daytime lights AIQ #7, p.13 NSee also VISIBILITY, LIGHT BULBS

UNDERRIDESemi-trailer side underride AIQ #27, p.17Study of Incidence ARJ Jan. ’98, p.49# of crashed undercounted ARJ Mar. ’97, p.2Another look ARJ Sep.’93, p.20See also CRASH TESTS - VEHICLE/VEHICLE

UNDER WATERSee SUBMERGED VEHICLES

UTILITY POLE COLLISIONSCrash Modeling AIQ #30, p.13 NMethod for reconstruction ARJ Sep. ’09, p.41

VEHICLE DYNAMICSElectronic stability control AIQ #44, p.4Rotating vehicle drag factors ARJ May ’08, p.19Active control & reconstruction ARJ Jan. ’08, p.19Tread separation simulation ARJ July ’06, p.29Intro. heavy trucks ARJ Nov. ’97, p.39Controlling factors ARJ Jan. ’93, p.37Demonstrating brake instab. ARJ Jan. ’93, p.42Tire forces and ARJ Sep.’92, p.23Tire forces & simulation of ARJ Nov. ’91, p.20Overview ARJ Nov. ’89, p.21Testbed vehicle AIQ #24, p.14 N4-wheel steering vehicle AIQ #24, p.16 NNumerical methods for AIQ #22, p.11 NTrailer axle arrangement AIQ #20, p.10 NLateral model for semi AIQ #17, p.11 NNumerical methods AIQ #13, p.12 NObsticle avoidance maneuver AIQ #9, p.8 NRobust lateral control AIQ #6, p.12 N

VIDEOTAPETesting methodology ARJ Sep. ’10, p.23Use in speed determination ARJ July ’08, p.23

VISIBILITY/VISIONVisual fatigue & driver AIQ #55, p.43Safety garments/seasonal variat'n AIQ #54, p.9Safety apparel, civil twilight AIQ #52, p.11Interior lighting and driver AIQ #51, p.12New filter, night vision sys. AIQ #45, p.20Blue lights help older drivers? AIQ #39, p.5Dashboard TV's AIQ #37, p.2Reflector tape for big trucks AIQ #25, p.7Twilight sensor AIQ #22, p.24Hydrophobic windshield coat AIQ #16, p.34UV Headlights AIQ #14, p.19Heavy truck rules AIQ #11, p.2Child ped. cognitive ability AIQ #7, p.34Lighting options on freeways AIQ #4, p.31Night vision/visual percept’n AIQ #4, p.26Reflectors for truck trailers AIQ #3, p.3G.M. leads, daytime lights AIQ #2, p.5Driving in fog AIQ #2, p.19Retroreflectivity of stop signs ARJ Jan. ’10, p.47Conspicuity of safety garments ARJ May ’09, p.47Body pillar obstructions ARJ Mar. ’09, p.56Test for elderly drivers ARJ Jan. ’09, p.63New Ford blind spot mirror ARJ July ’08, p.46Near-infrared illuminators ARJ July ’08, p.49Ped. dectection w night vision sys. ARJ July ’08, p.46Role of garment design ARJ Sep. ’07, p.51Vehicle blind zones (news) ARJ July ’07, p.14Multiple wrecks in fog ARJ Mar. ’07, p.63Blind spot warning device ARJ Mar. ’06, p.17Car spirit paint ARJ Mar. ’06, p.21Rear window tranmittance ARJ Mar. ’06, p.39Color and light level ARJ Mar. ’06, p.49New research ARJ Mar. ’06, p.64Reflectors on rail cars ARJ May ’04, p.17Lighted crosswalks ARJ July ’03, p.45Retroreflective pav't marks ARJ Mar. ’03, p.27Driving after dark ARJ Mar. ’03, p.40Truck splash & spray ARJ Mar. ’03, p.43Post-mounted delineators ARJ Mar. ’03, p.44Non-planar rear view mirrors ARJ May ’02, p.27Mirror view for lt.trucks ARJ May ’02, p.51For driver ARJ May ’02, p.59Computer model/pav't lines ARJ Mar. ’02, p.41Cameras for blind spots ARJ Mar. ’02, p.64Cataracts and crashes ARJ Jan. ’02, p.72Workers/night demonstration ARJ July ’00, p.5Vision test/driver’s license ARJ July ’00, p.13Color/pedestrian detection ARJ Jan. ’00, p.45Retroreflective/pedestrian ARJ Jan. ’00, p.51Reflective markings/trucks ARJ Nov. ’97, p.16Transmittance of sunglasses ARJ Jan. ’97, p.15Retrorefective materials ARJ Jan. ’97, p.21Driver eye postions ARJ Jan. ’97, p.31Headlight locations ARJ Jan. ’97, p.31UV headlight reg. dist. ARJ Jan. ’97, p.35Sign legibility distances ARJ Jan. ’97, p.39Roadway visibility sensor ARJ Jan. ’96, p.78Semi-tractor proposal ARJ Sep.’95, p.64Daylight sav’gs time benefits ARJ May ’93, p.26Sight dist. in night driving ARJ Nov. ’92, p.30And vision in acc. recon. ARJ Mar. ’92, p.30Truck proposal ARJ Jan. ’92, p.3Daytime running lights ARJ Jan. ’92, p.11Daytime running lights ARJ Mar. ’91, p.48In pedestrian accidents ARJ May ’90, p.17Shadow position calcul’n ARJ May ’90, p.24Light intensity as factor ARJ Nov. ’89, p.22Night enhancement system AIQ #32, p.12 NInfared enhancement syst. AIQ #27, p.13 NFuture auto lighting AIQ #27, p.14 NAnalysis & data integration AIQ #26, p.15 NRear window transmittance AIQ #26, p.15 NRear window defroster lines AIQ #21, p.12 NHydrophobic window coating AIQ #21, p.13 NIntersection angle/view AIQ #17, p.11 NDistance perception/mirror AIQ #16, p.11 NFog: highway practices AIQ #15, p.13 NTraffic control devices AIQ #14, p.11 NSign luminance, old drivers AIQ #13, p.9 NWindow tinting & mirrors AIQ #11, p.10 NDaytime veiling glare AIQ #11, p.12 NWindshield bibliography AIQ #11, p.14 NDaytime running lights AIQ #10, p.13 NDaytime running lights AIQ #9, p.9 NSigns & signals AIQ #8, p.13 NVirtual active vision tools AIQ #8, p.15 NSodium vapor lights AIQ #7, p.12 NSide mirror type & accidents AIQ #6, p.11 NFreight car reflectorization AIQ #6, p.13 NThru windshields/windows AIQ #5, p.8 N

WEIGHT SHIFTLimit lateral load factor ARJ Sep.’91, p.24Discussion of Daily, p.117

WHEELS/RIMSMulti-piece explosion AIQ #52, p.30Police Probe Mitsubishi AIQ #32, p.1

Breaking off heavy trucks ARJ Sep. ’07, p.55Multi-piece explosion ARJ Nov. '06, 31Falling off H2s? ARJ Sep. ’06, p.58NHTSA warning multi-piece ARJ Jan. ’90, p.27Rim design & defects Limpert, p.116Servicing wheel rims AIQ #19, p.11 NDesign Defects Peters II, p.182Manufacturing Defects Peters II, p.194

WHIPLASHSee INJURIES, LOW SPEED COLLISIONS,CRASH TESTS-LOW SPEED

WINDOWSAnti-pinch protection ARJ July ’02, p.3Anti-pinch protection AIQ #26, p.2See also VISIBILITY

WITNESSESCredibility of eyewitnesses ARJ Mar. ’01, p.59

WORK ZONESRoboflagger AIQ #50, p.48Police cameras AIQ #43, p.5Protective device AIQ #43, p.15Fatality case study AIQ #42, p.38Mobile protection device AIQ #41, p.15Portable speed bumps AIQ #27, p.4Safety clearinghouse AIQ #16, p.26Teens taught safety rules ARJ Nov. ’03, p.15I-74 danger ARJ July ’02, p.15Public awareness ARJ Nov.’00, p.14European practices ARJ July ’00, p.64Best practices guidebook ARJ Mar. ’00, p.15Training expanded ARJ Jan. ’97, p.64NTSB recommendations ARJ Nov. ’92, p.5Crash characteristics at AIQ #32, p.12 NEnforcement pullout areas AIQ #30, p.14 NTraffic contol devises AIQ #26, p.11 NLane closure warning lights AIQ #26, p.13 NNight traffic control AIQ #22, p.10 NEvaluation of barricades AIQ #18, p.12 N

YAW MARKSDescribing to jury AIQ #17, p.38How to build jig ARJ Nov. ’92, p.20Illustrations of ARJ Nov. ’91, p.28Use of jig in evaluations ARJ Mar. ’90, p.12See also CRITICAL SPEED FORMULA

# # #

market conditions change and thevalues of Toyotas don't drop.

Toyota, in its reaction, didnot treat the ruling as a defeat.Rather, the automaker sees that itfurther places the burden of proofon plaintiff attorneys.

“Today's hearing did notaddress the merits of plaintiffs alle-gations and did not consider anyevidence,” the automaker said in astatement. “The court requires abasic assumption that the plaintiffs'allegations are true, even thoughthey are unproven. The burden isnow squarely on plaintiffs' counselto prove their allegations, andToyota is confident that no suchproof exists.”

Toyota's statement also saidthat the entirety of the plaintiffs'case rests on the theory of a defectin their vehicles' electronic throttlecontrol system, something that hasyet to be proven despite months ofinvestigations.

- Bloomberg News Service

TOYOTA LAWSUITS -Cont'd from p. 1

58



Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation(Required by 39 USC 3685)

1. Publication Title 2. Publication Number 3. Filing Date

4. Issue Frequency 5. Number of Issues Published Annually 6. Annual Subscription Price

7. Complete Mailing Address of Known Office of Publication (Not printer) (Street, city, county, state, and ZIP+4) Contact PersonVICTOR CRAIGTelephone301/843-1371

8. Complete Mailing Address of Headquarters or General Business Office of Publisher (Not printer)

9. Full Names and Complete Mailing Addresses of Publisher, Editor, and Managing Editor (Do not leave blank)Publisher (Name and complete mailing address)

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 thenames 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 thenames and addresses of the individual owners. If owned by a partnership or other unincorporated firm, give its name and address as well as those ofeach individual owner. If the publication is published by a nonprofit organization, give its name and address.)

Full Name Complete Mailing Address

11. Known Bondholders, Mortgagees, and Other Security Holders Owning orHolding 1 Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages, orOther Securities. If none, check box --------------------------------------------------->

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:

Has Not Changed During Preceding 12 Months Has Changed During Preceding 12 Months (Publisher must submit explanation of change with this statement)

ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION JOURNAL 1057-8153 10/1/10

BIMONTHLY SIX $49.00 per year

3004 CHARLETON COURT, WALDORF, MD 20602-2527

3004 CHARLETON COURT, WALDORF, MD 20602-2527

VICTOR THOMAS CRAIG, 3004 CHARLETON COURT, WALDORF, MD 20602-2527



VICTOR THOMAS CRAIG 3004 CHARLETON CT, WALDORF, MD20602

x

x

60


13. Publication Title 14. Issue Date for Circulation Data Below

15. Extent and Nature of Circulation Avg. No. Copies Each Issue No. Copies of Single IssueThroughout U.S. and world During Preceding 12 Months Published Nearest to Filing Date

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 3541b. Paid and/or (Include advertiser’s proof and exchange copies)RequestedCirculation (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 (1) Outside-County as Stated on Form 3541 by Mail (Samples, (2) In-County as Stated on Form 3541 complimentary, and other free) (3) Other Classes Mailed Through the USPS

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 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

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 formor 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).

ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION JOURNAL SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010

1847 1650

1323 1313

0 0

0 0

247 165

1570 1481

0 0

0 0

105 0

0 0

105 0

1675 1481

172 169

1847 1650

93.7% 100.0%

x

VICTOR THOMAS CRAIG 10/1/10

In his bid to get state governments andlocal police to enforce laws barring drivers fromtexting behind the wheel and using phone de-vices, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHoodhas started to do some policing on his own.

The former Illinois congressman wasworking out recently in the House of Represen-tatives gym, where he still has a pass, and saw anew Ford ad promoting its Sync system forhands-free calling and navigation. The ad fea-

tured a 20-something girl bragging on the Syncsystem as she drove down the road, looking outevery window but the front one. After his work-out, LaHood called Ford CEO Alan Mulally tocomplain. "He thought it was promoting dis-tracted driving," says a LaHood aide.

It worked. A few days later, Ford calledLaHood's chief of staff to say it was taking the adoff 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 Mulallybeing responsive on this," says LaHood's spokes-woman.

But LaHood's not totally satisfied. Hetells us that he'd still like the Sync systemremoved from cars.

- US News and World Report

LAHOOD TARGETS FORD’S SYNC AD FOR DISTRACTED DRIVING

61


f1 = One-wheel skid drag factor = 0.35

d2 = Two-wheel skid distance = 21 feet

f2 = Two-wheel skid drag factor = 0.80

dS = Side slide distance = 128 feet

fS = Side slide drag factor = 0.53

The speed of V-1 at the start of precrash braking: ________________________

S = \/30*d1*f

1 + 30*d

2*f

2 + 30*d

S*f

S _____________________________

S = \/30*76*.35 + 30*21*.80 + 30*128*.53 ______________ _____

S = \/798 + 504 + 2035 = \/3337

S = 57.77 or 58 mph [93 kph]

Problem Five

The variables:S = Speed of vehicle at takeoffd = Horizontal flight distance = 75 feetH = Height change = 0 feetm = Takeoff slope = +7% = +7/100 = +.07 (upward)

To find speed at takeoff, we use the free fall formula:

S = 2.74 * d = 2.74 * 75 = 2.74*75\/(m*d - H) \/(.07*75 - 0) \/(5.25 - 0) ____S = 205 / \/(5.25) = 205 / 2.3

S = 89.3 or 89 mph [144 kph]

Problem Six

Solution of this problem has two main steps. We will ultimately utilize the criticalspeed to sideslip equation (banked surface). First we must determine the radius ofcurvature of the tire mark used to estimate the radius of curvature of the center ofmass. The equation:

R = C2 + mO

8*mO 2

Where: R = Radius of curvature, feetC = Chord length = 60 feetm

O = Middle ordinate length, feet = 135" / 12 = 1.08 feet

Substituting and solving:

R = 602 + 1.08 = 417 ft. 8*1.08 2

We now plug the radius of curvature, lateral friction coefficient and cross slope intothe critical speed to sideslip formula. The equation:

_________ S = \/15*R*(f+m)

\/(1 - f*m)

Where: S = Speed in miles per hourf = Lateral friction coefficient = .82R = Radius of curvature = 417 ftm = cross slope = 0% = 0/100 = 0

Substituting and solving: _____________ ____S = \/15*417*(.82+0) = \/5129

\/(1 - .82*0) \/1.00

S = 71.61 / 1 = 71.61 or 72 mph [115 kph]

Problem One

First we must convert the speeds of the vehicles from miles per hour to velocities feetper 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 + V

C = 82.1 + 104.2 = 186.3 ft/sec

The time required to cover the 950 foot distance is the distance divided by the closingvelocity:

t = d / V = 950 / 186.3 = 5.1 seconds

Problem Two

To calculate the average, we ultimately need to utilize the equation that gives therelation between acceleration, initial velocity and distance.

d = dO + V

O*t + 0.5*a*t2

Where: d = Total distance = 30 feetd

O = Starting point = 0 feet

VO = Initial velocity = 0 feet/sec

a = acceleration rate, ft/sec/sect = time

First we convert acceration from g's to ft/sec/sec:

a = 0.12 * g = 0.12 * 32.2 = 3.86 ft/sec/sec

Substituting and solving to find elasped time:

30 = 0 + 0*t + 0.5*3.86*t2

30 = 1.93*t2

15.54 = t2

3.94 sec = t

Velocity at the end of the test can be estimated by multiplying the acceleration by thetime elapsed:

V = a * t = 3.86 * 3.94 = 15.2 ft/sec

Converting to miles per hour:

S = V/1.467 = 15.2/1.467 = 10.37 or 10 mph [17 kph]

Problem Three

First we must convert the speed of the auto from miles per hour to velocity in feet persecond. 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 tobe 3.94 seconds in Problem 2. To get distance back from POI we simply multiply thevelocity by the timeframe.

d = V * t = 61.6 * 3.94 = 243 feet [74 m]

Problem Four

We have a combined speed problem on our hands. The variables:

S = Speed of motorcycle at start of precrash skidd

1 = One-wheel skid distance = 76 feet

TEST YOUR SKILL SOLUTIONS

62


Problem Seven

This is a simple application of the in-line (one dimensional) conservation ofmomentum 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 skidformula. For Vehicle One:

______ ________s

1 = \/30*d

1*f

1 = \/30*29*.52 = 21.3 mph

Speed after impact of Vehicle Two: ______ ________

s2 = \/30*d

2*f

2 = \/30*40*.40 = 21.9 mph

The conservation of momentum formula:

S1*W

1 + S

2*W

2 = s

1*W

1 + s

2*W

2

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 equivalentbarrier speed for the damage on each vehicle. We will then use the dissipation ofenergy 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 inchesC

AVG2 = 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 * C

AVG1 + 7 = 1.4*7.5 + 7 = 17.5

Equivalent barrier speed of V-2:

ebs 2 = 1.15 * C

AVG2 + 5 = 1.15*15 + 5 = 22.3

Substituting and solving the dissipation of energy equation:

S12*W

1 + S

22*W

2 = s

12*W

1 + s

22*W

2 + ebs

12*W

1 + ebs

22*W

2

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 ACCEL-ERATION LAWSUITS THROWN OUT

Citing a lack of an "actual defect" in its vehicles, Toyota [has] askeda federal court to dismiss lawsuits seeking damages for economic lossescaused by the company's recall of millions of cars to fix problems that maycause 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 outbecause plaintiffs have never identified any defect in Toyota's electronicthrottle control system (ETCS). Further, many of those suing the auto-maker haven't claimed to have experienced any episode of unintendedacceleration, Toyota said in a statement.

"Toyota looks forward to the time when plaintiffs will finally becompelled to specify exactly what is defective in Toyota's ElectronicThrottle Control System," said Cari K. Dawson, an attorney for Toyota inthe statement. "More than a year after filing their first complaint, plaintiffshave not identified a defect and are grasping at straws to make their case."

The plaintiffs' lawsuit, should it be allowed to go forward, wouldpermit virtually all owners of Toyota vehicles that have ETCS to sign onto the lawsuit, Toyota said.

"The suggestion that at some undisclosed time in the future, when theseplaintiffs might attempt to sell their vehicles, they will suffer some loss legallytraceable to a defect that they have never experienced is sheer speculation," thecompany said in its court filing, Bloomberg News reported.

The lawsuit, along with hundreds of others, was filed in the wakeof Toyota's recall of about 8 million Toyota and Lexus vehicles to makerepairs to prevent unintended acceleration. The ongoing action involvestwo separate recall campaigns: one to repair sticking accelerators, andanother to shave down gas pedals to prevent them from getting hung up onheavy rubber floor mats.

The recalls were the subject of congressional hearings earlier thisyear and led to a record $16.4 million fine. Toyota has repeatedly deniedthat there is any other source of the problem, although the NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration has commissioned studies to see ifthe problem may be caused by electronic interference.

Possible unintended acceleration problems in Toyota vehiclescame to the public's attention in September 2009, after a veteran CaliforniaHighway Patrol officer and three members of his family were killed in atragic, fiery crash. The loaned Lexus ES 350 sedan they were riding inbegan accelerating uncontrollably down a San Diego area highway despitethe officer's repeated efforts to stop the vehicle.

The vehicle reached speeds of up to 120 mph before crashing andbursting into flames. Surviving family members sued Toyota, and thematter was settled out of court about six weeks ago. Details of thesettlement weren't disclosed.

Toyota said its court filing addresses claims made in the plaintiffs'original amended complaint. The automaker is expected to file anotherresponse to plaintiffs' most recent amended complaint.

In the modified lawsuit, those suing the company say the automakerfailed to report incidents of unintended acceleration experienced by em-ployees of Toyota dealerships. Plaintiffs also allege that Toyota boughtback vehicles from owners who complained of sudden acceleration inexchange for confidentiality agreements barring them from discussing thematter.

Though the recalls involving unintended acceleration are Toyota'slargest 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 popularPrius hybrid vehicles to repair anti-lock braking systems in 2010 models. Mostrecently, Toyota recalled some 1.5 million cars and SUVs, including 740,000in 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.

63


users with an indication of the general reliabilityof the CMF, one of the best ways to ensureCMFs used by practitioners match the localconditions as closely as possible is for State andlocal agencies to develop CMFs using localdata.

Coordinating With AASHTO's HighwaySafety Manual

Coordination with the Highway SafetyManual was an essential factor in developmentof the CMF Clearinghouse. In fact, to be consis-tent with the manual, the predominant term inthe clearinghouse is "crash modification factor"rather than "crash reduction factor," whichFHWA used in previous related documents.

The CMFs in the manual meet strictinclusion criteria, as described in Transporta-tion Research Circular E-C142 Methodologyfor the Development and Inclusion of CrashModification Factors in the First Edition of theHighway Safety Manual, whereas FHWA's clear-inghouse provides a comprehensive list of allavailable CMFs. To help users quickly deter-mine whether a CMF is included in the HighwaySafety Manual, the clearinghouse enables themto search for CMFs in the manual. High-qualityCMFs do not exist for every countermeasure,and, therefore, there are many countermeasuresfor which CMFs do not appear in the HighwaySafety Manual. In addition, there are many CMFsthat were documented after the Highway SafetyManual was developed.

"The review process for the CMF Clear-inghouse has the added benefit of setting thestage for the next edition of the Highway SafetyManual," says Priscilla Tobias, State safety en-gineer with the Illinois Department of Transpor-tation and chairperson of the AASHTO Sub-committee on Highway Safety Management'sTechnical Safety Publication Oversight andCoordination Task Force. "Highway SafetyManual reviewers will be able to use the infor-mation compiled for the clearinghouse to reviewCMFs and determine whether they meet themanual's inclusion criteria."

The Clearinghouse at WorkLaunched in December 2009, the clear-

inghouse hosted more than 6,300 visits in just itsfirst 8 months. Traffic engineers and other pro-fessionals now use the clearinghouse to answerbasic questions they face every day, such as,"What is the best safety countermeasure to use?"To find applicable CMFs, users can conductquick keyword searches from the home page ornarrow their queries by countermeasure, crashtype, crash severity, and roadway type. TheWeb site also has an advanced search featurethat enables users to search by more detailedparameters, such as intersection type, trafficcontrol, area type, and more.

State DOTs are promoting the clearing-

house to transportation officials who are con-ducting benefit-cost analyses. The Iowa Depart-ment of Transportation (Iowa DOT), for ex-ample, uses the clearinghouse as a resource forlocal governments that are applying for site-specific safety funding through the State's Traf-fic Safety Improvement Program. When seek-ing grants for either new construction or im-provement of traffic safety and operations at aspecific site or corridor with a crash history,applicants must include benefit-cost analyses.Using worksheets provided by Iowa DOT, localtransportation officials calculate the benefit-cost ratio for each potential improvement. IowaDOT directs applicants to the CMF Clearing-house as a starting point for these analyses andinstructs them to use the CRFs there. "We espe-cially like that in most cases there are factors thatare specific to certain crash types and severi-ties," says Tim Simodynes, a safety engineerwith Iowa DOT.

The Washington State Department ofTransportation (WSDOT) also is using the clear-inghouse to provide guidance on benefit-costanalyses. With the complete list of CMFs in-cluded in the clearinghouse as a starting point,WSDOT is developing a tailored list of CMFsapproved for use by the department and willdistribute that list to potential applicants forlocal safety funding.

"Providing our agency with CMFs fromthe clearinghouse will enable WSDOT to betterscope and prioritize our projects," says MattNeeley, intelligent transportation systems re-search and planning engineer with WSDOT. "Inthe past, we haven't had as much information asthe clearinghouse provides."

Educational ValueAnother purpose of the clearinghouse is

to educate transportation professionals aboutthe application of CMFs. The Web site includesan overview of CMFs and a glossary of relatedterms. Users can read a list of frequently askedquestions that address issues such as the differ-ence between CMFs and CRFs, and how toapply multiple CMFs at one location. The sitealso includes a comprehensive resources sectionwith links to CMF-related publications, coun-termeasure selection tools, and how to sign upfor the CMF Update, the clearinghouse's e-newsletter.

The clearinghouse also directs users totwo Web-based training courses dealing withCRFs available through the National HighwayInstitute (NHI): Application of Crash ReductionFactors (FHWA-NHI-380093) and Science ofCrash Reduction Factors (FHWA-NHI-380094).The former provides hands-on experience withsafety diagnosis and application of CRFs tocompare the effectiveness of countermeasures.

According to Kathy DesRoches, direc-tor of workforce development at ManchesterCommunity College, New Hampshire hosted asession of the course Application of Crash Re-

duction Factors in March 2009 as a prerequisite forindividuals planning to attend a road safety audit(RSA) course. "By taking the CRF course first,"DesRoches says, "participants were better equippedto conduct an RSA because they were more in-formed about low-cost countermeasures and link-ing crash patterns with specific countermeasures."

Moving ForwardNow that the clearinghouse is up and

running, FHWA will continue to update thedatabase with new CMFs as they become avail-able. FHWA invites users to submit feedbackregarding the site's design and content. Pastfeedback has resulted in improvements to thesearch mechanism, better explanations of siteitems, and a clearer layout.

In addition, FHWA encourages trans-portation professionals to make efforts to de-velop CMFs within their own agencies by con-ducting safety evaluation studies using data fromtheir jurisdictions. These evaluation studies canbe submitted for possible inclusion in the clear-inghouse. By adding to the library of docu-mented CMFs, practitioners can share their ownresearch with other States and assist their col-leagues in making data-driven decisions that canhelp save lives.

For more information, contact Katy Jonesat 919-843-7007 or [email protected], KarenYunk at 609-637-4207 or [email protected],or Daniel Carter at 919-962-8720 [email protected]. To sign up for newsabout the CMF Clearinghouse, please visitwww.CMFClearinghouse.org/signup.

This article appeared in the November/December 2010 issue of Public Roads and havebeen abridged.

CMFs - Cont'd from p. 16

CHRYSLER TO RECALLVEHICLES FORPOSSIBLE FIRE

Chrysler Group LLC is recalling 26,397vehicles, saying a malfunction with the powersteering pressure hose may cause steering fluidto leak over a hot engine and cause a fire.

The affected vehicles include the 2011Dodge Ram, the 2010 Chrysler Sebring, Chrysler300, Dodge Charger, Dodge Avenger, DodgeChallenger and Dodge Journey, according to aletter dated October 18 posted on the NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration website.

A spokesman for Chrysler, the U.S. au-tomaker controlled by Fiat SpA, did not imme-diately comment. The company said in the letterthat it was not aware of any injuries or accidentsrelated to this issue.

Chrysler notified U.S. safety regulatorsof the problem earlier this month. The supplierof the hose is YH America South Carolina LLC.

- Reuters

64



Documents

arj 120 for digitizing.pmd - NJAAR