900368
Trajectory Analysis for Collisions Involving
Bicycles and Automobiles
ABSTRACT
Determining the impact velocity of a striking vehicle
in a bicycle-involved collision is arguably the most difficult
part of preparing an analysis or reconstruction of such an
event. To help the accident reconstructionist in this effort,
a series of crash tests were conducted to relate the impact
vc?iobty of the striking vehicle to the throw distance for the
qciist.
This series of tests was conducted using a 1984
four-door Toyota Corolla and an articulated dummy
astride a group of similar bicycles. The dummy/bicycle
arrangement was struck at velocities ranging from 16 to
2? mph (25 to 43 km/hD3) relative to the cyclist.
OFTEN, BICYCLE INVOLVED COLLISIONS are poorly
documented in police reports or follow-up investigative
reports. For example, faint tire marks made by the bicycle
when it’s struck by a motor vehicle can be easily omitted.
Even if the marks are actually visible, they’re usually
overlooked altogether. Further, it is difficult to establish
a true “point” of impact without specialized training and
an appropriate allocation of time by the investigator at the
scene.
Without accurate or reliable information, it becomes
an impossible task to ascertain pre-impact velocities for
eii:her the striking automobile or the cyclist.
When properly gathered at-scene information is con-
sidered together with the inflormation compiled as a result
of this study, the accident analyst should have a more
thorough understanding of:
(1) striking velocity for the subject automobile as it
relates to throw distance D1* of the cyclist’s body,
* for a cyclist struck by a car, and
(2) ride time ‘
-
* Superscript notations (ie: distanceD’or !&very et al’) refer
to definitions or references found at the end of the paper.
143
ML R. “Rusty” Haight
Collision Investigation and Analysis
API, Inc. San Diego, CA
Jerry J. Eubanks
Automobile CiDllision Cause Analysis
San Diego, CA
(3) post-impact movement of a cyclist’s body when
struck by a car when the car is braking pre- and
post-impact from diYering velocities.
The testing showed that a thorough examination of
the vehicle, bicycle, and scene is essential if one is to
gather sufficient information to try to determine the strik-
ing velocity of a vehicle in i:his type of collision.
BACKGROUND
In 1984, a bicycle versus vehicle collision occurred
in a residential intersect ion within the City of Los Angeles.
A 1984 Toyota Corolla rear-ended a 26 inch (.67 m)D3
lo-speed bicycle at night in a light rainfall. The parties
involved sought to determine the impact velocity of the
Toyota based on the throw distance for the cyclist.
The testing on which this paper is based was
prompted by the lack of substantial published research
on car versus bicycle collisions. Specifically, little infor-
mation is currently availabl~~ regarding throw distance as
it relates to striking velocity and nearly none for the ride
timeD for the struck cyclist. The goal of this research was
not to analyze the injuries sustained relative to impact
velocity or to discover a reliable method of determining
the impact-induced inljur)r causing movements of a
cyclist. Rather, this testing was done to try to determine
a method of predicting an impact velocity for the striking
vehicle based on a known throw distance.
Other published work in this area has addressed the
design of automobiles relative to prevention of injuries
and, as an aside, touched on the potential relativity of
throw distance to impact velocity. However, none offer a
method of determining the striking vehicle’s impact
velocity based on a known throw distance for the cyclist.
A lesser goal of this study was to relate impact
velocity to the approximate center of the “head star” on
the windshield. This study was not concerned with the were attached are indicated by the arrowheads in the
severity or degree of the damage to either the car, photo. During testing and after reviewing the photos and
windshield, or dummy but rather its height and distance video of the testing, it was evident that this eyebolt and
from the leading edge of the striking car itself. leader wire arrangemIent worked properly; breaking and
then releasing the dummy virtually at the instant of impact.
TESTING PROCEDURES
There were nine tesl: runs completed during the two
The site chosen for this series of tests was a newly day testing period. Two of the runs were conducted with
paved, asphaltic concrete roadway in San Diego, Califor- the dummy in a position that would simulate his standing
nia. at a stop sign or signal. In this series, the dummy was
positioned with one foot on the ground and the other on
Strikina Vehiclr: - For this testing, the actual Toyota
a pedal as though he were ready to “push off.” In the
involved in the original coillision was used. The Toyota had
remaining seven runs, both of the dummy’s feet were on
not been repaired since that original event, save for the
the pedals at even heights as though the cyclist were
replacement of the windshield. A number of scratches
riding.
and gouges found on the hood of the car before testing
were identified bythe owner/driveras having been caused In the actual collision, there were two bags of miscel-
by the struck bicyclist’s body and belongings. The hood laneous groceries on the, handlebars of the bicycle -. one
area was examined and photogiraphed prior to testing. on each side of the handlebar stem. For six of the nine
test runs, two equally balanced bags of groceries were
During the testing, the hood area was damaged by
attached to the bike being struck; as in the original cd-
contact with the dummy, bicycle and debris. That contact
lision. The groceries in azh bag weighed 2.2 pounds (1
area was examined, documented, and repainted with a
quick drying flat spray paint. This provided a “fresh” kg).
surface to examine after each test run. The dummy was lalso out-f&ted with a pair of sunglas-
. . ses. After the dummy and cycle were struck, the sunglas-
IndsQ.&& - Varying degrees of damage to the
ses were typically found very close to the point of impact.
windshield were expected in each of thevarious test runs.
Studies by Severy et al’ in the mid6O’s, offered the
For this reason, additional windshields were on hand to
position that: ”. ..These 1JClA experiments have estab-
replace the damaged windshields between test runs.
lished that items of apparel and objects being carried
After each test run the broken windshield was removed
such as briefcases, purses, etc., generally are not
from the car and a new windshield was properly re-in-
propelled as far as the pedestrian, in part because they
stalled.
tend to become dislodged from the pedestrian before he
Bicvm - Since the bicycle in the original collision
was damaged beyond repair, a set of exemplar bicycles
was obtained for the testing. While the test bikes were
from different manufacturers, the original bike was also a
“generic” brand. The group of testing bikes closely simu-
lated the original bike in t#erms of size, design and equip-
ment. Before each test: run, the bike seats were all
adjusted and set to a height of 36 inches (0.9 m) from the
ground.
.
yc st Dummy - The dummy used was 64 inches
(1.6 m) ti;l and weighed 70.5 pounds (32 kg) clothed in a
shirt and trousers. Although the cyclist actually struck in
this collision event weighed 140 pounds (63.5 kg), safety
considerations for the test driver in the Toyota dictated
the lighter, proportional dummyD4 be used.
The dummy was supported on the bicycle for testing
using eighty pound test leader wire through a loop at-
tached to the dummy’s head and by the bike seat itself.
The bicycle was held upright using a looped strand of
leader wire through the handlebars. These pieces of
leader wire were stretched to the breaking point between
the dummy and the bicycle’s handlebars and a set of
eyebolts on a wood support built for the testing.
Figure 1 shows the cyclist dummy in place before one Figure 1. The dummy/bike suspension system.
of the test runs. The eyebolts to which the support wires

144
 test runs, the driver’s instructions
were I:O lock the brakes when the
at-impact shot was heard. When the
brakes were applied, the second shot
would be fired.
The shot-to-shot timer would
record the time between shots to one
one-hundredth of a second (.Ol set).
The distance the car travelled be-
tween the shots (during this known
period) was then measured as the
distance between the chalk marks on
the ground. When the detonator
operated properly, the result was an
accurate finding of the vehicle’s ac-
tual impact velocityD7.
During the last few test runs, the
detonator did not operate properly
because of damage which occurred
to the firing pin assembly during one
of the impacts. Nonetheless, the ac-
curacy of the velocity findings malde
on those runs where both of these
systerns operated properly were
Figure 2. Car mounted devices and impact strip. vaiidaled by a comparison of the
radar observation and
timer/cletonator arrangement.
is fully accelerated and, in part, because those objects are
Generally of lesser density than the pedestrian...” The
During this testinghthe Toyota was also equipped
plositioning of the sung/asses after the test impacts sup-
piorted the Severy et al pedestrian findings. with an accelerometer . This device was down-loaded
. after each run to a compu?er at the site.
er Consrderatians - Three of the nine test
runs were conducted with the roadway surface dry as On runs one and two, there was a detonator trap set
“control” runs. Since the original collision took place in a 25 feet (7.7 m) before the designated area of impact?
light rain, the remaining six test runs were conducted after The speed trap was a pai: of small pull string activated
a water truck drove through the scene of the collision. explosives across the intended path of the car. As the
Toyota was driven through the speed trap before striking
During the second day of testing, when the six ‘%vet” the bike, the sound of the explosives would register with
runs were conducted, it actually rained. Nonetheless, the the shot-to-shot timer and allow for a calculation of the
water truck passed through the scene to ensure a consis- vehicle’s average velocity through the trap area. On the
tent testing surface for ezch test run. remaining tests (in which t’x detonator operated proper-
. ly) this pre-impact speed trap was dismantled and the
Car-Mounted Devce s - Aside from mounting the
distance between impacl and first application of the
various measuring devices described herein, no other
brakes was the speed trap area.
modifications were made to this car.
In Figure 2, the timing device is visible on the left side
To accurately determine the impact velocity of the
of the photo and indicated by the left-most arrowhead.
striking vehicle, two systerns were employed. On every
The detonator is in the center of the photo. The impact
test run, a calibrated, hand-held radar unit 5 was used to
strip on the car is indicated by the right-most arrowhead
determine the Toyota’s velocity. In addition, a second
in the photo.
timing s stem using a detonator and “shot-to-shot” timing
device Dx was installed on the front of the Toyota (see The impact strip location on the bumper was selected
Figure 2). This second arrangement, although arguably based on the impact area found on the Toyota in photos
the more accurate, was later damaged and proved to be taken after the original collision and on a pre-testing
functionally unreliable from that point forward. examination of the unrepaired car. The impact area was
then fitted with a tightly sprung aluminum strip which
By design, the detonator would fire when the car’s
activated the first detonator shot as previously described.
front bumper struck the bicycle tire and mark the pave-
ment with a colored chalk mark. For seven of the nine

145
 Photo Documentation - Several still photo and
video cameras were used to record the testing sequence.
On some of the test runs, a small video camera was
mounted inside the Toyota behind the driver to get an
approximation of a driver’s view of the collision event. The
photos presented in this paper were taken by manually
controlled motor wind equipped 35mm SLR cameras at
the scene.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
While there is no argument that the results of this
testing are somewhat limited by the size of the study, the
database of information can be generally applied to col-
lisions involving impact velocities between 15 and 30 mph
involving pontoon and wedge shaped vehicles.
A comparison of this data to other previously publish-
ed works shows that this body of data would most
probably apply to highler impact velocities as well as
impacts from different a,ngles providing that the cyclist
was projected from the tar after impact.
Huij bers2 pointed out: “The dummy and cadaver
experiments show that vehicle impact velocity has a con-
siderable influence on the throwing distance of the cyclist
and bicycle. The vehicle stiffness and vehicle geometry
appear to have minor influence. Impact direction hardly
effects the throwing distances.”
Otte3 addressed direction of impact and classified
the relationship between the striking/struck car with that
of the bicycle into seven collision profiles. While Otte3
specifically addressed injury relative to the collision profile
type, he grouped the throw distances (regardless of the
striking velocity) into one set of findings as shown in
Figure 4.
In analyzing the test database from this series of
collisions, an analysis has been made of the throw and
slide friction coefficients ‘to further validate the use of the
lighter dummy through a comparison to previous works.
Throw distance friction coefficients calculated by Becke4,
Searle5, and Schmidt’ vary from .6 to .7 values. In our
se&x of tests, the throw distance coefficients varied
between .23 and .47.
While the throw distance values found as a result of
this project are somewhat different from those found in
the cited works, one should note that in those references,
the values were representative of pedestrian impact
studies whereas our testing was done with a rider/bicycle
configuration with a higher pre-impact center of mass. A
Low tbrow
pedestrian’s center of m,ass is considerably lower than High throw
that of a cyclist astride a bicyclle. For that reason, the Low slide
cyclist will be carried higher onto the windshield than High slide
would the pedestrian struck at the same velocity. Addi-
tionally, time is consumed during collapse of the rear tire
as it is struck by the car. The resultant final throw distance
is compounded because, during that additional time, the
car moves and carries the cycle some additional distance.
146
Consideration was also given to the slide distance
friction coefficient. The works by Severy et al’and Collins
et al7 calculated friction coefficient values for sliding
bodies. Using slide distances only, their coefficient
values are between .#8 and 1.2. In the series of cyclist tests
discussed herein, the friction coefficients for slide dis-
tance only were beWeen .8 and .95? Clearly, this fell
within the range of previous findings outlined in the cited
sources1’7. Based on this information it is clear the lighter
dummy, when in contact with the ground, had essentially
the same friction coeffic:ient as a heavier cadaver and/or
Hybrid Ill-type dummy.
The dummy used in this testing was lighter than the
human involved in the actual collision itself and lighter
than a Part 572,5Oth percentile dummy. It is the position
of the authors that the difference in weight had no bearing
on the information being sought when the project was first
conceived in as much as gravity has the same effect on
a 70 pound (32 kg) body as it would on a 140 pound (63.5
kg) body. The force of gravity on a free falling or sliding
object is constant with respect to weight. A measure of
support for this position is seen in a comparison of the
throw and slide coefficients shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 is
a graphic representation? of the high and low values for
the friction coefficients lound in the cited works’*2*4151617
and those found as a re:;ult of this particular testing.
In the final analysis, our findings and comparisons
not only validated the use of the lighter dummy as yielding
reliable data but also provided us with additional informa-
tion regarding the friction coefficient for a body sliding on
the ground.
In the Otte3 study, the author compiled the data from
614 real-life collisions investigated by a research team in
Germany. In these collisions, the research teams docu-
mented the throw distance of the involved cyclists. Otte3
wrote: ‘The throwing distances of cyclists are similar to
14
12
1
08
06
0.4
02
0
Becke Searle Schmidt S e v e r y Morris HuijbersThls test
06 066 07 041 0 23
07 066 07 07 047
08 08 08
12 1.2 0.95
m Low throb+ m H\Qh throw EEILOW slide F§ilHlQtl slide
Figure 3. Friction coefficient comparisions.
<those of pedestrians, i.e. speed-depending within a
oarable-shaped exceptiIon region...Throwing-up a n d
away distances of cyclists as well as of two-wheelers offer
possibilities for the determination of speed values.”
Although not providing a method for such velocity
determination, the Otte3 study supplied information about
Ihe throw distance of the cyclist (notably grouped by
cyclist’s height rather than weight) relative to the impact
velocity of the striking vehicle. Figure 4 includes a plot of
the Otte3 throw distance information. The Otte3 paper’s
real-life cyclist’s throw distance figures include all but the
highest velocity run’s data, point from this testing. This is
another indication that thle lighter dummy very closely
simulated the movements of full-size human cyclists from
impact to rest that were documented in some 614 real-life
collisions.
In another example, Wood et al8 calculated a throw
distance/impact velocity curve for both a rider and bicycle
based on real-life collision investigations. In Figure 4, the
curve (reflecting the area between the 97.5’h and ~?.5’~
percentile of cyclists) has been compared to the results
of this study as well as the Otte3 data. In the graph, the
Wood’ curve more narrowly limits the predictable range
G! throw distances relative to the impact velocity. The
c’ata from these tests conducted with the lighter dumm
fit the even more narrow projection seen in the Wood ii
Strl klng Speed (km/h)
40
0 2 4 6 8 IO 12
Throw Dletance (m)
0 Huljbers -x-- Wood 2.6%
- otte - otte
Figure 4. Comparison of throw distances with cited works.
147
study which itself fiis witqin the more broad Otte3 data
points.
A third comparison might be made to mathematical
modeling such as is described in HuijbersJansseng.
HuijbersJanssen’sg calculations of the throw distance
from mathematical mod&ng using a MADYMO 3D cyclist
model (dummy validated, version 4.1) based on results of
cadaver-cyclist testing1 was done primarily to determine
the influence of car design on injury to the cyclists.
Their work cited tlhrow distance as impact veiocity-
dependent and, as with the other examples cited, did not
address the weight of the cyclist. The HuijbersJansseng
testing was based on aI modified Part 572 50th percentile
dummy. In fact, those models were of a cyclist-bicycle
single mass unit and were classed by riding position
(seated upright versus racing position) rather than even
gross weight of the two as a unit, direction of impact or
impact velocity. Huijbe!rs-.Jansseng wrote: “In the simula-
tions the bicycle was represented by a rigid mass with a
mass distribution identical to the bicycle in the dummy
experiments. In one of the simulations, the bicycle mass
was decreased by 50016. The effect of this was a slight
decrease of all peak values of about lOoA or less.”
The HuijbersJansseng work is also shown in Figure
4. The data points from the mathematical models fit into
the area shown by the two previous works cited (Otte3
14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
+ Wood 87.6% * Halght/Eubanks
0 INRETS t e s t s
and Wood et al’) and com-
pare favorably with the
data points found in this
study using the lighter
dummy.
Clearly, that the actual
and predictable trajectory
and slide behavior of the
dummy in this testing fell
within the parameters of (1)
the real-world expecta-
tions, (2) the dummy and
cadaver testing throw
predictions and (3) the
mathematical modeling
should be sufficient to sup-
port the position that the
lighter dummy provided
accurate and reliable
throw and slide distance in-
formation relative to strik-
ing velocity.
A fully weighted
dummy may well have Figure 5 Photo of the movement of the dummy onto the car
given a more aciurate rep-
resentation of the severity of the damage to the car and With the qualification that the cyclist’s body didn’t
the actual or predictable physical injuries (chest load, etc) break the windshield when he started in a “standing”
that the cyclist might sustain in such an impact. However, position as in runs eight and nine, there is some com-
the foremost concern in ‘this regard was for the safety of parison that can be made of the striking vehicle’s velocity
the test driver of the Toyota. Further, the goal of this versus the cyclist’s movement to windshield/“A” pil-
testing was nat to determine what injuries the cyclist lar/roofline area.
would have experienced, but rather what would have
While no accurate velocity estimates can be made
happened to the cyclist’s body as a single mass under
with this information alone, some questions can be
varying conditions such as velocity and rider position.
answered by an analysis of the location of the center of
Otte3 and HuijbersJansseng address the relation- the damage or “head star” on the windshield as an indica-
ship between striking velocity and the “ladling up” or tion of the movement of the cyclist’s body.
‘Throwing-up” effect on the cyclist. Both discuss meas-
From this and other studies8’g*‘0 the higher the im-
urements for head impact points back onto the hood and
pact or striking velocity of the car in the cdlision, the
windshield area of the vehicles and that distance’s
further back toward the windshield from the front of the
relationship to impact velocity. Otte3 wrote specifically
car the cyclist or pedestrian’s body will be carried.
about this: “only an influence of the body size and impact
velocity was observed. Children impact the center of the In the HuijbersJans:;eng paper, the authors describe
front hood more frequently, due to shorter throwing-up the effect of the striking vlehicle’s impact velocity resulting
distances. Adults, however more often impact the rear of in “the movement of the cyclist into the windscreen.” That
the front hood as well as the windscreen. But the main result was described as t ‘le “lethalityg” of the cdlision. As
influence must be seen in the collision velocity. Shorter such effect relates to this testing, Huijbers* indicated that
throwing distances were observed in connection with a rear impact collision had a much higher “lethalit)/’ than
lower rather than higher impact speeds...” Otte was ex- other types of bicycle inl/dved cdlisions. The Huijbers-
plicitly suggesting that the height (and thus the center of Jansseng paper cited testing done with cadavers as weil
mass) of the cyclist was nearly of equal importance as the as mathematical moclels and discusses the effect of dif-
striking velocity and apparently gave no concern to the ferent automotive nose c esigns.
weights of the riders.
Their paper outlines what is described as a hypotheti-
Huijbers-Jansseng wrote: ‘The impact speed of the cal “Safe 90” vehicle model. They noted, “this ‘Safe 90’
car influences the longitudinal impact location and rela- was chosen in such a. way that it was estimated that this
tive impact velocity of the head...” car will probably be safe too (sic) for pedestrians and
cyclists in case of a collision.”

148
 Figure 6. Photo of the dummy being thrown-up onto the car

the dummy’s rate of fall to i:he hood of the car or a greater

In our particular set of tests, the cyclist was carried
drag and/or damage to the hood of the car from this
onto the hood of the car and struck the lower portion of
greater weight? It is our position that it would not.
the windshield - at or below the midpoint of the windshield
- at velocities between 15-20 mph (24-32 km/h). Where As stated earlier, the actual damage to the hood of
the cyclist was astride the cycle as if he were standing and the car caused by the 140 pound cyclist struck in the
only one foot was on the pedals, the center of the impact litigated case was documented before the testing. On
damage to the windshield was at or below the base of the test number one, we foLind scratches caused by the
windshield itself. dummy virtually overlapping the pre-existing “real-world”
scratches and gouges on the hood. Finding that same
At velocities between 20-25 mph (3240 km/h), the
pre-existing damage Inearly duplicated by the lighter
center of the impact area seen on the windshield is found
dummy in this series of tests and would clearly lead to the
at and above the vertical center of the windshield. For
conclusion that the weight is insignificant for the impact
impacts above that velocity, the center of the impact area
induced movement of t:he dummy during the impact.
is found more toward the top of the windshield and onto
the roof at the leading edge of the roof line. Otte3 provided a chart showing the impact positions
for his riders at velocities LIP to 31 mph (50 km/h). Figure
The movement to the windshield by the dummy is
7 shows the impact poGtions on the hood/windshield in
shown more graphically in Figures 5 and 6. Figure 5 is a
this set of tests relative to those plotted by Otte3. The
view of the impact in run number five where the impact
majority of the points plotted in the Otte3 paper are
velocity was 20.7 mph (33 km/h). In this photo, one can
centered on the striking vehicle whereas those from this
see the car moving “under” the cyclist as the impact
testing set are offset to the driver’s side of the car. The
progresses. The photo shows how the cyclist’s higher
initial contact areas between the bicycle and the vehicles
center of mass (compared to that of a pedestrian) would
involved in the collisions documented by Otte3 are an
make the throwing-up onto the hood “easier” for the
unknown whereas, in this testing, the cycle was intention-
cyclist at a lower impact velocity. The central difference
ally positioned to the driver’s side of the striking vehicle.
seems to be that the pedestrian’s center of mass is
t!lpically lower than that of the cyclist and nearer the upper The difference in positioning or “throwing -up” dis-
leading edge of the front hood while the cyclist’s center tance can be seen in a comparison of Figures 8 and 9. In
of mass starts out weil above that point. Figure 8, from test run number seven where the impact
was 18.6 mph (29 km/h), the cyclist is carried through the
The question becomes: if the dummy had been more
heavily weighted, would there have been a difference in

149
 *2
5;
l
* of the striking car, a great deaf of consideration should be
)) )
))
* = Otte d a t a
> = HalgWEubanks d a t a
Figure 7. Ladeling-up positions on the striking car.
impact with the windshield and then “ladled-up” onto the
roof of the car before leaving the car off the driver’s side.
In Figure 9, a photo <from run number four where the
impact velocity was 27.5 mph (44 km/h), the cyclist is seen
at the point of impact with the windshield. The center of
the windshield damage is at the dummy’s shoulders at the
top of the windshield and onto the leading edge of the roof
line where the head has already struck and had
rebounded before this photo was taken. Note the posi-
tion of the sunglasses in this photo (Figure 9). Unlike what
is shown in Figure 8, where the impact velocity was lower,
Figure 8.
150
the dummy travelled ‘onto the roof and exited the car from
the roof rather than being “ramped” up the front of the
windshield and off the side at the “A” Pillar.
Although it is our position that some limited estima-
tion of an impact velocity might be made based on the
height of the center of impact damage on the windshield
given to any estimations of velocity based solely on the
actions of the cyclist’s body on the striking car as a result
of the impact.
Another consideration is that no finding of velocity
can be based sdefy ton aa lacrk of windshield damage. In
test runs eight and nine, 1 he impact velocities were 17 and
21 mph (28 and 34 km/h) and the windshield was nnt
broken. In these two te.st runs, the cyclist was standing
with one foot on the ground and the probability would be
that he would have sulfered significant sacral injuries
because of contact with the bicycle saddle. In short, the
injuries to the cyclist should always be compared to the
damage to the car and bicycle before even the most
limited velocity estimate can be rendered. To assume
that a lack of windshield damage indicates a velocity
below some given figure based solely on that lack of
damage is not s~pp~orted by the database of this test
series.
Aside from the post impact movement of the dummy
into the windshield, the cyclist’s movement on the ground
to rest was also largely predictable. In this testing, with
one exception, whenever the dummy was astride the
cycle as though he were riding, the dummy’s post-impact
position relative to the car’s at rest position was predict-
able.
When the front of the car dipped under braking
application before impact, the rider was projected ahead
of the car and came to rest further from the point of impact
than the car did. When the car was not braking at impact,
and when the rider is astride the cycle as though riding
and not standing, the cyclist is thrown off the side of the
car after being ramped back onto the windshield. This
was not the case in test run five.
As shown in Figure IO, from run number five, the
dummy was projected back onto the hood and into the
windshield as in the other test runs; however, this time,
the “skin” on the back of t:he dummy’s head caught the
seam at the roof line and top of the windshield. The
clummy “hung up” on the wiindshield/roof line long enough
t3 be slowed as the car was slowing and was then cast
fl3rward as the car continued to slow to a stop.
It is our position that, generally, the point of rest of
tie cyclist relative to the car’s point of rest is one indica-
t on of the car’s braking attitude at impact.
As with any other aspect of r;ollision analysis, care
should be given to making absolute statements. No
opinion with respect to the pre-impact braking attitude of
the striking car can be rendered based solely on the at
rest position of the cyclist’s body relative to the car after
Figure 9.
151
the collision. A thorough examination of the damage to
the car and the injuries to the cyclist should be carefully
considered before offering any opinion regarding the
striking vehicle’s actions’ pre-impact. Further, a sig-
nificant finding of pre-impact skid marks should never be
cast aside based on a Finding of the cyclist at rest in front
of the car’s at rest position.
The issue of the sunglasses and their point of rest
relat’we to the point of impact was not a primary area of
focus when the goals for this study were laid out. None-
theless, information from the previous study cited
(Sever+) that 1’. ..items of apparel and objects being car-
ried...“and Otte3 that some lighter debris would often land
near the point of impact was significant enough that some
portion of this test was devoted to providing additional
information in this area.
Otte3 wrote: “Shopping bags attached to the bicycle
mark the collision place, lhis is especially the case with
liquid containers...”
Based on our work with this set of tests and a review
of the Otte3 and Severy’ studies, there is some value to
the finding and documentation of light apparel or personal
belongings at a pedestriin or bicycle collision scene.
At the same time, no single point of impact can be
determined based solely on the finding of these items at
a certain location at the scene, but it may be helpful in
finding the area where the collision occurred. Any deter-
mination or finding of the location of impact using articles
 Figure 10.
worn by the cyclist should be reported as part of an “area
of impactD”” rather than the more specific “point” of
impact.
Figure 11 is a graphic showing of the distance the
glasses were found relative to the point of impact. Except
where the glasses stayed with the cyclist for an extended
period of time, the glasses came to rest within about 4.5
feet (1.4 m) of the point of impact. When the glasses
stayed with the dummy, even for a short period or were
involved in a secondary or subsequent impact with the
dummy or car, they were moved much further from the
point of impact. This was seen in runs seven and eight of
the test set as reflected in Figure 11 and the attached
appendices.
Based on the information obtained in this study,
neither the area over which the grocery debris is spread
nor distance that the furthest pieces were thrown can be
equated to the velocity of the striking vehicle. The
groceries, in this type of impact, were dispersed as shown
in the drawings (Appendix C) as indicated for each of the
six test runs where groceries were attached to the cycle.
Secondary or tertiac/ impacts between the grocery
items and each other in and out of the grocery bags, or
with the groceries and the car or dummy, each affected
the direction and distance an individual piece of debris
was carried. For example, after ihitting the ground, some
items, such as soft drink cans, rolled with the crown of the
road.
152
Wood et al8 and Otte3 discussed the potential value
of the bicycle’s throw distance in making a velocity deter-
mination. In this research, consideration was also given
to the post impact movement of the bicycle as it related
to the impact velocity.
On one of the test runs, the bicycle caught under the
front of the car to its at rest position. On three of the runs,
the cycle was pushed by’the car while it was caught under
the front bumper, but released as the car came to rest.
On those three runs, the cycle came to rest in front of the
car’s at rest position. On yet another test run, the car
actually ran over the bicycle and essentially stopped the
cycle at that position.
For the remaining iour test runs where the cycle
moved clear of the car, the friction coefficient for the cycle
alone was found to be between .6 and .8. Even looking
at this smaller database, the high figure represents a test
run where the cycle and 1:he rider stayed together to rest.
Using the information obtained by measuring the tires
both for maximum deformation and to find the total of the
tire area lost to the impac:t damage, we found no correfa-
tion between such damage and the velocity of the striking
vehicle.
Figure 12 is a photo taken of the damage to one of
the tires used in this testing. At the very least, additional
testing regarding bicycle tire make up, spoke positioning,
the age of the tire, and th+ rim assembly would be neces-
sary to lead researchers ‘toward some method of making
 Distance (11)
18.8 27.5 20.7
Impact Velocity (mph)
m Glasses
ea
Figure 11. Sunglass movement, post collision distances.
a comparison of the vtdocity and damage. In Figure 12,
the arrow indicates the direction from which the tire was
struck.
Because the cycle interacts so extensively with the
front of the car, it is our position that no direct inference
can be drawn as to thIe friction coefficient for the sliding
bicycle based on the current state of the information
available in these tests.
Ride time for the cyclist on the car was not discussed
in any other cited treatments of this subject. Based on
the findings from these nine test runs, the ride time for the
cyclist struck in this manner at velocities between 15 and
30 mph (24 and 48 km/h) is, on the average, 1.3 seconds.
Figure 12.
153
On run number ttio, where the brakes were applied
before impact and the dummy had to travel both back and
forth across the hood, the ride time was a high of 1.5
seconds. The majority of the ride times were 1.4 seconds
in duration although some were as short as 1 .l seconds.
Figure 13 shows the ride times relative to each of the test
runs.
CONCLUSION
Based on the information from this study and within
the limitations previously described, one can predict, with
some degree of reliability, the velocity of a striking car if
the throw distance of the cyclist body is known. In
analyzing the data set for study, three linear regressions
were completed from the information gathered. In addi-
tion, the data set was compared against the product of a
formula to calculate the approximate velocity for an object
thrown.
Figure 14 is a ch,art showing the throw distance to
impact velocity for each of the nine runs in this test. The
projections of each 01’ the three linear regressions have
been drawn through the graph in Figure 14.
The first data set analyzed was a compilation of all
the impact velocities and the corresponding throw distan-
ces. Using that data set, the following regression equa-
tion was devefopcd for the determination of velocity
based on throw distance. The metric equivalent informa-
tion is available in Append’ix B - Metric.
Veto&y = DistanctP l (X coef) + constant
or velocity, in mph, is: V=S*.158+ 13.141
For example, where the distance
is 2!j feet (7.7 m), the impact velocity
vvould be approximately 17.0 mph
(27.:3 km/h).
The second linear regression
med the same data set but exduded
the velocity and throw distance for run
number 4. Run number four might be
considered the “high end” run inas-
muchas the impact velocitywas 6 mph
(‘9.6 km/h) greater than the next
highest run velocity.
Using the data set for the remain-
ing runs, the following regression
equation was developed:
Velocity = DistanceR l (X coe~f) + constant
or velocity, in mph, is: V= S.098 + 15.367
For example, where the distance
is 25 feet (7.7 m), the impact velocity
would be approximately 17.8 mph
(28.6 km/h).
 nearly 5 mph (8 km/h) difference was significant enough
to project the cyclist and bicycle with which he became
tangled much further onto the hood of the striking car.
Because the cyclist was carried up to the base of the
windshield, this test run was more like the lower velocity
runs considered as the rernainder of the data set for the
regression equation. Using the data set for the remaining
six runs (including run nine), the fdlowing regression
equation was developed:
Velocity = DistancG l (X coef) + constant
18 4 19.6 27.5 20.7 l&Q 113.6 17.5 21.3 or velocity, in mph, is: V= S*.203+ 10.314
Impact Velocity (mph)
For example, where the distance is 25 feet (7.7 m),
m Ride Time, the impact velocity would be approximately 15.4 mph
(24.7 km/h).
Figure 13. Ride time chart.
Another analysis can be made for the impact velocity
of the striking vehicle based on throw distance and throw
The third linear regression excluded the data pairs distance effective drag lactor or friction coefficient for the
from runs two, three and eight. On runs two and three, cyclist’s body. The fornnula for the approximate velocity
the braking was pre-impact. On the remaining runs, the of an object thrown is shown as Figure 15. The formula
braking was post-impact sothesetwo runs were excluded shown as Figure 15 has been applied to the throw distan-
ces for the nine test runs in this database using the throw
from this regression on that basis. On run eight, the
braking was post-impact; however,, on this run the cyclist average friction coefficient of .33 and a level take off angle
from the windshield and/or hood area. The results of this
was standing with one foot on the ground rather than
starting out in a riding position on the bicycle. While the calculation have been compared in Figure 16 to the
same was true for run nine, two points distinguish run velocity calculations made using the formula derived from
eight from run nine. the linear regression previously discussed.

First, on run eight, the seat broke and the dummy
moved free of the cycle to its at rest position. Second,
the velocity for run eight was 17.5 rnph (28.2 km/h) while
the velocity for run nine was 21.3 mph (34.3 km/h). The
Using the formula shown as Figure 15 with the
average throw distance coefficient of friction and the level
take off in this type of cdlision, the formula predicts a
impact velocity an average of 1.5% higher than actual

DIS-MNCE (ft)
86
aK
86
76
05
li
65
45
35
26
16 -
18 17 18 18 20 21 22 23 24 26 28 27 28
VELOCITY (mph)
* rN3tance/Veloclty + Reg’sn All Rune
-ff- fleg’sn w/o Run 4 * Reg’an w/o 2 , 3, 8

Figure 14. Linear regression chart.

154

V = Velocity (fps) S = Distance
mu = Coefficient of friction fl = Angle
Figure 15
impact velocity for these tests. In Figure 16 there is a
significant difference between the calculated and actual
test velocities on runs two and three. The calculated
velocity is less than the actual impact velocity of the two
test runs. Without offering other explanations for this
varied result, we would point out that, on runs two and
three, the driver applied *the brakes before impact.
The higher calcula&d velocity found on run eight
might be compared to a calculation for the velocity of a
pedestrian rather than theat for a cyclist. In the eighth run,
the cyclist was standing lower than on the previous runs
and the center of mass was thus correspondingly lower.
While this was also true for the final run (run nine), the
velocity in run nine was higher than run eight and the
cyclist moved higher on the hood of the car than in the
previous run. The movement higher on the hood in run
nine produced a reaction more in line with the previous
Additionally, specialized training for accident inves-
tigators and analysts should include proper identification
of the faint tire marks left by the struck bicycle as well as
marks left by the striking car as well as correct identifica-
tion and documentation of other evidence found at the
scene.
More and more Americans are killed or seriously
injured each year in traflic cdlisions than any other type
of accident. Improved administration of accident inves-
tigation training programs and the appropriate allocation
of manpower are the most necessary elements of any
government agency’s response to traffic cdlisions within
their particular jurisdiction. Suitable attention by public
officials can only result in a more exacting identification,
documentation and cdlt?ction of evidence and sewe to
produce a more precise analysis of a given cdlision event.
Impact Veloctty (mph)
30
25 Bim
20

test runs and, accordingly, a result more consistent with 15

the remaining test data sets. 10

In addition, the cyclist body stayed in contact with 5

the bicycle throughout the post-collision sequence all the 0
way to rest on run nine <whereas they separated on run 2 3 4 5 6 0 9
number eight. Formula 228 15.4 16.7 28.5 22 4 17.2 18.8 2 0 . 7 2 2 . 4
Test 21 18 4 19 6 2 7 5 2 0 7 16.9 18 6 17 5 21.3
The formula for the approximate velocity of an object Regression 21 1 15 2 16.1 27.1 20 7 16.4 17.6 19.1 20.7
thrown (Figure 15) would seem to provide adequate
results based on the current data set and might be used B F o r m u l a I- Test m R e g r e s s i o n
with some reliability given a similar set of facts as in the A
test database.
Figure 16. Comparison of actual and predicted values.
The importance of the at-scene investigator locating,
properly identifying and documenting the point or area of
impact as well as the point of rest for the cyclist cannot
be stressed strongly enough. The accuracy of identifica-
tion of roadway markings, items attributable to the given
collision and thorough al-scene documentation are cru-
cial to the reliability of any velocity estimate using this or
any other database.

Direction of Future Resmrch

Future research in this field should include a larger
sampling of velocities - particularly those above 30 mph
(48 km/h), different types of vehicles, and various relative
positioning between the striking car and bicycle such as
collisions involving a perpendicular approach by the strik-
ing vehicle.

155
Clefinitions dummy stayed on the hood of the car virtually until the
car came to rest. This caused the dummy’s slide distance
Dl. The “throw distance” is the distance from the
to be lessened considerably and produced an artificially
point of impact to the m, uncontrolled point of rest for
high figure. On test run number 2, the coefficient was 9.4.
the cyclist. The entire distance including any portions
On test run number 3, the figure was 1.22 for the friction
spent on the striking vehicle or in the air are included in
coefficient. While the ‘I .22 figure fell within the range of
the “throw distance.” The throw distance includes the
the works cited, the d$a was not included in the narrative
“slide distance” which is the distance the body travels ptl
because the braking was pre-impact causing a ridedown
um as it comes to rest. See Figure 17.
velocity on the rider exiting the vehicle.
D2. The “ride time” as used in this narrative is that
Dl 0. “Area of impact’is a non-specific area on the
period of time starting when the bumper of the striking
roadway, as opposed to the more specific “point” of
vlzhicle impacts the tire of the bicycle and ending when
impact. “Area of impact” should be used where limited or
the cyclist body strikes the ground.
no physical evidence is available or documented to posi-
D3. Throughout this narrative, the metric conversions tion or determine the exact “point” of impact.
will be truncated.
D4. The term “proportional mass,” for purposes of
this paper, is used to mean that the body part weights of
the dummy were proportionally equal to the body part
w!eights of a human. This dummy was not a standard
Hybrid III dummy. There was no simulation of rib/chest
s\:iffness nor joint stiffness or flexibility capable with this
particular dummy and no such flexibility nor restriction of
flexibility was necessary to achieve the intended goals of
this testing.
05. The radar unit used in this testing was a Decatur
model Gl Ragun. It was calibrated before the testing each
day with a tuning fork at 65 mph and with its own internal
calibration features. The radar unit reads velocities to one
tenth (.l) of a mile per hour. The radar unit was ap-
proximately 100 feet (30.5 m) from the point of impact and
parallel to the path of the Toyota. Figure 17. Throw distance vs slide distance.
D6. The shot-to-shot timing device was a PACT MK
II Timer and chronograph. This device, designed primari-
ly for use at “combat”pistd matches measures the time
between gunshots to one one-hundredth of a second
(.Ol). The detonator was the standard two shot 25 calibre
cclalk shot skid test detonator.
07. The velocity of the vehicle through the trap dis-
tance is equal to the distance between the chalk marks
found on the ground divided by the time between shots
fired by the detonator. For use in this study, the impact
velocity used for the regression calculations as well as for
other comparisons and the attached appendix was the
radar measured velocity for the car at im. That
velocity was adjusted in runs two and three to account for
slowing during pre-impact braking.
D8. A G-Analyst accelerometer manufactured by
Valentine Research, calibrated to the Toyota at the scene
prior to testing each day, was mounted in the car. This
device reveals acceleration values in one tenth (.l set) of
a second increments.
D9. The actual slide distance drag coefficient values
were between .8 and 9.4 for the complete series of test
runs. The two values for the test runs where braking
occurred before impact should be discarded because the

156
14
 1. Sever-y, Derwyn and Brink, Harrison (1966). Auto
Pedestrian Collision Experiments, Institute of Transporta-
tion and Traffic Engineering, Department of Engineering,
University of California at Los Angeles, also SAE (Society
of Automotive Engineers) Paper number 660080.
2. Huijbers, J. J. W. (1984) A Description of Bicycle
and Moped Rider Accidents Aimed to Indicate Priorities
for injury Prevention Research. IROCOBI, Delft, Nether-
lands.
3. Otte, D. (1989) Injury Mechanism and Crash
Kinematic of Cyclists in ,4ccidents - An Analysis of Real
Accidents, SAE 892425.
4. Becke, M. and Golder, U. (1986). Rutschweiten von
Fussgangern urf nasser Fahrbahn (Sliding distances of
Pedestrians on Wet Roads,) Verkehrs-unfall und
Fahrzeugtechnik, December 1986, Heft 12.
5. Searie, J. A. and Searle, A. (1983). The Trajectories
of Pedestrians, Motorcycles, Motorcyclists etc following
a Road Accidents. Proceedings 27th Stapp Car Crash
Conference, SAE, Page 2177.
6. Schmidt, D. N. and Nagel, D. A. (1971). Pedestrian
impact case study. Proceedings 15th Conference As-
sociation for Automotive Medicine.
7. Collins, James C. and Morris, Joe L and Collins,
. . .
Accident Reconstruction, Hi&,!av Callrslnn Analysts
Thomas Publishing.
8. Wood, D. P. and Riordain, S. 0. (1989) Impact
Speed From Bicycle, Motorcycle and Rider Throw Dis-
. ,. . .
t a n c e . Proceedings of the Can&an Mq
[Safetv, University of New Brunswick.
9. Huijbers, J. J. W. and Janssen, E. G.(1988). Ex-
oerimental and Mathematical Car-Bicycle Collision
Simulations, SAE 88 1726.
10. Snyder, Greth and Eubanks, Jerry J. (1986).
Pedestrian impact and Trauma Analysis, lecture to SATAI
(Southwest Association of Technical Accident Inves-
tigators), January 1986.
157
1. Barzelay, M. E. and Lacy, G. W. (1982). Chapter
1 5 , P e r s o n a l MGcientific Awile A -
.
m I Matthew Bender Publishing.
2. Grosch, L. and Hochgeschwender, J. (1989). Ex-
perimental Simulation 01’ Car/Pedestrian and Car/Cyclist
Collisions and Application of Findings in Safety Features
on the Vehicles. Sociiety of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
paper 890751, SAE Publication SP-782 &&motive Fm
v,SAE Publications Division.
3. Severy, Derwyn and Brink, Harrison (1966). Auto-
Pedestrian Collision Experiments, Institute of Transporta-
tion and Traffic Engineering, Department of Engineering,
University of California at Los Angeles, SAE paper 660080.
4. Kuperstein, I.S. and Salters, N. L. (1988) Chapter
,
50, Attorneys Guide To Enaineerina. Matthew Bender
Publishing
5. Dorsch, Margaret M., Woodward, Alistar J., Some-
rs, Ronald L (1984) Effect of Helmet Use in Reducing
Head Injury in Bicycle Accident, ADAM, 28th Proceed-
ings.
6. Searle, John A., Searfe, Angela, The Trajectories
of Pedestrkxs, Motorcycle and Motorcyclists, etc. Fol-
lowing a Road Accident, SAE 831622.
7. Eubanks, Jerry J , Pedestrian Collisions: A For-
mula to Determine Vehicle Speed based on the
Pedestrian’s Travel Distance from Impact to Point of Rest,
(1988) IMRS Conference, (1989) SOAR/WATAI Con-
ference, (1989) TAARS Conference.
 Tre,ectory AnaIysis f o r C o l l i s i o n s I n v o l v i n g B i c y c l e s a n d AutcmmbilPc

APPENDIX A - ENGLISH

English units
Test Impact Throw Bike Bike Groceries Ride Glasses Braking Throw Slide
speed distance tire tire debris time distance began drag drag
Note i inward area area pre/post coefficient
deformation
(mph) (feet) (inches) (sq ft) (sq ft) (seconds) (feet)
21.0 53.0 9.8 87.0 Note 2 1.4 4.0 post . 28 82
18.4 24.0 9.2 106.0 Note 2 1.5 2.5 Pre 47 9:40
19.6 28.5 13.0 126.0 Note 2 1.4 Note 3 P= :45 1.22
27.5 82.5 12.6 180.0 383.5 1.4 1.0 post . 31 .80
20.7 51.0 13.2 140.0 140.8 1.4 4.5 II . 28 . 83
16.9 30.0 13.7 152.0 79.6 1.3 3.0 II . 32 .95
18.6 36.0 11.2 133.0 48.8 1.1 15.0 II . 32 . 89
17.5 43.5 11.0 78.0 245.5 1.4 8.0 II . 23 . 83
9 21.3 51.0 12.4 120.0 75.1 1.1 4.5 It . 30 . 80
Gm

Notes
1. The impact speed was the radar observed speed for the given test run. On runs two and three, the
impact speed was the radar speed less the speed lost during pre-inpact braking.
2. No groceries were carried on the bicycle during these test runs.
3. The glasses post-impact location was not docunented on this test run.

Reqression Output
All runs Without run X4 Without Runs 2, 3, L a
A----L-...
Lulls LdIlL 1.3.1415 15.36609 10.31447
Std Err of Y Est 1.49230 1.311494 1.011920
R Squared 0.80445 0.463053 0.945207
No. of Observations 9 8 6
Degrees of Freedom 7 6 4
X Coefficient(s) 0.15826 0.098016 0.203760
Std Err of Coef. 0.02949 0.043089 0.024529
 Trajectory A n a l y s i s f o r Collisions I n v o l v i n g B i c y c l e s ad Automcbilfs

APPENDIX B - METRIC

Metric units

Tact- Tmnart RiLe Bike rw,,,w; A- n-l -----

-v-w - “‘Y - - - Throw Y-L,. WL UL.t=L ICZJ -lasses
speed distance tire tire debris distance
Note 1 inward area area
deformation
(km/h) (metres) (metres) (sq m) (sq m) (metres)
33.8 16.2 . 24 0.06 Note 2 1.2
29.6 7.3 . 23 0.07 Note 2 0.8
31.5 8.7 . 33 0.08 Note 2 Note 3
44.2 25.1 . 32 0.11 36.6 0.3
33.3 15.5 . 33 0.09 13.3 1.4
27.2 9.1 . 34 0.10 7.5 0.9
29.9 11.0 . 28 0.09 4.6 4.6
28.2 13.3 . 27 0.05 23.2 2.4
34.3 15.5 . 31 0.08 7.1 1.4

Notes
1. The impact speed was the radar observed speed for the given test run. On runs two and three, the
impact speed was the radar speed less the speed Lost during pre-irrqxxt braking.
2. No groceries were carried on the bicycle during these test runs.
3. The glasses post-impact location was not docunented on this test run.

pl=rrrnaa4 em c%dt”‘
dt
*&u”“rvrr

All runs Without run #4 Without Runs 2, 3, C 8

Constant 21.1447 21.14244 16.57617
Std Err of Y Est 2.40112 2.582611 1.651354
R Squared 0.80445 0.805326 0.943650
No. of Observations 9 8 6
Degrees of Freedom 7 6 4
X Coefficient(s) 0.83545 0.843695 1.077305
Std Err of Coef. 0.15568 0.169347 0.131627
 Trajectory Analysis for Collisions Involving Bicycles and1 Automobiles
Appendix C
Diagrams of the post-impact resting positions of the cycle, dummy, vehicle and debris.

Appendix C, Figure 1, test run number 1. Appendix C, Figure 2, test run number 2.

Appendix C, Figure 3, test run number 3. Appendix C, Figure 4, test run number 4.

.
.

:a
X

Appendix C, Figure 5, test run number 5. Appendix C, Figure 6, test run number 6.

160
 Trajectory Analysis for Collisions Involving Bicycles and Automobiles
Appendix C
Diagrams of the post-impact resting positions of the cycle, durnmy, vehicle and debris.

Appendix C, Figure 7, test run number 7. Appendix C, Fiigure 8, test run number 8.

Appendix C, Figure 9, test run number 9.

Appendix C, legend for characters used in this appendix.

161