Sunteți pe pagina 1din 19

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 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.

to 2? mph (25 to 43 km/hD3) relative to the cyclist. OFTEN, BICYCLE INVOLVED COLLISIONS are
to 2? mph (25 to 43 km/hD3) relative to the cyclist. OFTEN, BICYCLE INVOLVED COLLISIONS are
to 2? mph (25 to 43 km/hD3) relative to the cyclist. OFTEN, BICYCLE INVOLVED COLLISIONS are

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,

it relates to throw distance D1* of the cyclist’s body, ( 2 ) r i d
it relates to throw distance D1* of the cyclist’s body, ( 2 ) r i d

(2) ride time * for a cyclist struck by a car, and

t i m e ‘ * for a cyclist struck by a car, and - *
- *
-
*
i m e ‘ * for a cyclist struck by a car, and - * Superscript

Superscript notations (ie: distanceD’or !&very et al’) refer to definitions or references found at the end of the paper.

143
143

ML R. “Rusty” Haight

Collision Investigation and Analysis API, Inc. San Diego, CA

Jerry J. Eubanks

and Analysis API, Inc. San Diego, CA Jerry J. Eubanks Automobile CiDllision Cause Analysis San Diego,

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.

ing velocity of a vehicle in i:his type of collision. BACKGROUND In 1984, a bicycle versus

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

A 1984 Toyota Corolla rear-ended a 26 inch (.67 m)D3 The parties involved sought to determine

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

lo-speed bicycle at night in a light rainfall.

relate impact velocity to the approximate center of the “head star” on lo-speed bicycle at night

the windshield. This study was not concerned with the severity or degree of the damage to either the car, windshield, or dummy but rather its height and distance from the leading edge of the striking car itself.

TESTING PROCEDURES

The site chosen for this series of tests was a newly paved, asphaltic concrete roadway in San Diego, Califor- nia.

Strikina Vehiclr: - For this testing, the actual Toyota involved in the original coillision was used. The Toyota had not been repaired since that original event, save for the replacement of the windshield. A number of scratches and gouges found on the hood of the car before testing were identified bythe owner/driveras having been caused by the struck bicyclist’s body and belongings. The hood area was examined and photogiraphed prior to testing.

During the testing, the hood area was damaged by contact with the dummy, bicycle and debris. That contact area was examined, documented, and repainted with a quick drying flat spray paint. This provided a “fresh” surface to examine after each test run. .

IndsQ.&& . - Varying degrees of damage to the windshield were expected in each of thevarious test runs. For this reason, additional windshields were on hand to replace the damaged windshields between test runs. After each test run the broken windshield was removed from the car and a new windshield was properly re-in- stalled.

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.

set to a height of 36 inches (0.9 m) from the ground. . yc st Dummy
set to a height of 36 inches (0.9 m) from the ground. . yc st Dummy
set to a height of 36 inches (0.9 m) from the ground. . yc st Dummy
set to a height of 36 inches (0.9 m) from the ground. . yc st Dummy
.
.

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.

Toyota dictated the lighter, proportional dummyD4 be used. The dummy was supported on the bicycle for

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 of the test runs. The eyebolts to which the support wires

144

were attached are indicated by the arrowheads in the photo. During testing and after reviewing the photos and video of the testing, it was evident that this eyebolt and leader wire arrangemIent worked properly; breaking and then releasing the dummy virtually at the instant of impact.

There were nine tesl: runs completed during the two day testing period. Two of the runs were conducted with the dummy in a position that would simulate his standing at a stop sign or signal. In this series, the dummy was positioned with one foot on the ground and the other on a pedal as though he were ready to “push off.” In the remaining seven runs, both of the dummy’s feet were on the pedals at even heights as though the cyclist were riding.

In the actual collision, there were two bags of miscel- laneous groceries on the, handlebars of the bicycle -. one on each side of the handlebar stem. For six of the nine test runs, two equally balanced bags of groceries were attached to the bike being struck; as in the original cd- lision. The groceries in azh bag weighed 2.2 pounds (1 kg).

The dummy was lalso out-f&ted with a pair of sunglas- ses. After the dummy and cycle were struck, the sunglas- ses were typically found very close to the point of impact. Studies by Severy et al’ in the mid6O’s, offered the

position that:

lished that items of apparel and objects being carried such as briefcases, purses, etc., generally are not propelled as far as the pedestrian, in part because they tend to become dislodged from the pedestrian before he

tend to become dislodged from the pedestrian before he These 1JClA experiments have estab- Figure 1.
tend to become dislodged from the pedestrian before he These 1JClA experiments have estab- Figure 1.
tend to become dislodged from the pedestrian before he These 1JClA experiments have estab- Figure 1.
These
These

1JClA experiments have estab-

from the pedestrian before he These 1JClA experiments have estab- Figure 1. The dummy/bike suspension system.

Figure 1. The dummy/bike suspension system.

Figure 2. Car mounted devices and impact strip. is fully accelerated and, in part, because

Figure 2. Car mounted devices and impact strip.

Figure 2. Car mounted devices and impact strip. is fully accelerated and, in part, because those

is fully accelerated and, in part, because those objects are ”

Generally of lesser density than the pedestrian

plositioning of the sung/asses after the test impacts sup- piorted the Severy et al pedestrian findings.

Three of the nine test

runs were conducted with the roadway surface dry as “control” runs. Since the original collision took place in a light rain, the remaining six test runs were conducted after a water truck drove through the scene of the collision.

The

a water truck drove through the scene of the collision. The . er Consrderatians - During
. er Consrderatians -
.
er Consrderatians -
the scene of the collision. The . er Consrderatians - During the second day of testing,

During the second day of testing, when the six ‘%vet”

runs were conducted, it actually rained. Nonetheless, the water truck passed through the scene to ensure a consis- tent testing surface for ezch test run.

Devce D e v c e s - Aside from mounting the s - Aside from mounting the

various measuring devices described herein, no other modifications were made to this car.

To accurately determine the impact velocity of the striking vehicle, two systerns were employed. On every test run, a calibrated, hand-held radar unit 5 was used to determine the Toyota’s velocity. In addition, a second

timing s

stem using a detonator and “shot-to-shot” timing

device Dx was installed on the front of the Toyota (see Figure 2). This second arrangement, although arguably

the more accurate, was later damaged and proved to be functionally unreliable from that point forward.

By design, the detonator would fire when the car’s front bumper struck the bicycle tire and mark the pave- ment with a colored chalk mark. For seven of the nine

Car-Mounted

mark. For seven of the nine C a r - M o u n t e
mark. For seven of the nine C a r - M o u n t e

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.

finding of the vehicle’s ac- tual impact velocityD7. During the last few test runs, the detonator
finding of the vehicle’s ac- tual impact velocityD7. During the last few test runs, the detonator
finding of the vehicle’s ac- tual impact velocityD7. During the last few test runs, the detonator

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 vaiidaled by a comparison of the radar observation and timer/cletonator arrangement.

of the radar observation and timer/cletonator arrangement. During this testinghthe Toyota was also equipped with an
of the radar observation and timer/cletonator arrangement. During this testinghthe Toyota was also equipped with an

During this testinghthe Toyota was also equipped with an accelerometer . This device was down-loaded after each run to a compu?er at the site.

On runs one and two, there was a detonator trap set 25 feet (7.7 m) before the designated area of impact? The speed trap was a pai: of small pull string activated explosives across the intended path of the car. As the Toyota was driven through the speed trap before striking the bike, the sound of the explosives would register with the shot-to-shot timer and allow for a calculation of the vehicle’s average velocity through the trap area. On the remaining tests (in which t’x detonator operated proper- ly) this pre-impact speed trap was dismantled and the distance between impacl and first application of the brakes was the speed trap area.

In Figure 2, the timing device is visible on the left side of the photo and indicated by the left-most arrowhead. The detonator is in the center of the photo. The impact strip on the car is indicated by the right-most arrowhead in the photo.

The impact strip location on the bumper was selected based on the impact area found on the Toyota in photos taken after the original collision and on a pre-testing examination of the unrepaired car. The impact area was then fitted with a tightly sprung aluminum strip which activated the first detonator shot as previously described.

145

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.

Photo Documentation -

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.

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.”

Impact direction hardly effects the throwing distances.” Huij bers2 pointed out: Otte3 addressed direction of

Huij bers2 pointed out: pointed out:

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 pedestrian’s center of m,ass is considerably lower than that of a cyclist astride a bicyclle. For that reason, the cyclist will be carried higher onto the windshield than 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.

car moves and carries the cycle some additional distance. Consideration was also given to the slide
car moves and carries the cycle some additional distance. Consideration was also given to the slide
car moves and carries the cycle some additional distance. Consideration was also given to the slide
car moves and carries the cycle some additional distance. Consideration was also given to the slide
car moves and carries the cycle some additional distance. Consideration was also given to the slide
car moves and carries the cycle some additional distance. Consideration was also given to the slide
car moves and carries the cycle some additional distance. Consideration was also given to the slide

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

A measure of

object is constant with respect to weight.

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

a graphic representation? of the high and low values for the friction coefficients lound in the
a graphic representation? of the high and low values for the friction coefficients lound in the
a graphic representation? of the high and low values for the friction coefficients lound in the
a graphic representation? of the high and low values for the friction coefficients lound in the

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 not only validated the use of the lighter dummy as yielding data but also provided us data but also provided us with additional informa- tion regarding the friction coefficient for a body sliding on the ground.

the friction coefficient for a body sliding on the ground. In the Otte3 study, the author
the friction coefficient for a body sliding on the ground. In the Otte3 study, the author

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

‘The throwing distances of cyclists are similar to 14 12 1 08 06 0.4 02 0
14 12 1 08 06 0.4 02 0 Becke Searle Schmidt Sever y Morris HuijbersThls
14
12
1
08
06
0.4
02
0
Becke Searle Schmidt Sever y
Morris
HuijbersThls
test
Low tbrow
0 6
066
0 7
041
0 23
High throw
0 7
066
07
0 7
047
Low slide
08
08
08
High
slide
12
1.2
0.95
m H\Qh throw
m
Low throb+
EEILOW
slide
F§ilHlQtl slide

Figure 3. Friction coefficient comparisions.

146

<those of pedestrians, i.e. speed-depending within a

oarable-shaped exceptiIon

region Throwing-up
region
Throwing-up

an 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

fit the even more narrow projection seen in the Wood i i study which itself fiis
fit the even more narrow projection seen in the Wood i i study which itself fiis
fit the even more narrow projection seen in the Wood i i study which itself fiis
fit the even more narrow projection seen in the Wood i i study which itself fiis
fit the even more narrow projection seen in the Wood i i study which itself fiis
fit the even more narrow projection seen in the Wood i i study which itself fiis
fit the even more narrow projection seen in the Wood i i study which itself fiis
fit the even more narrow projection seen in the Wood i i study which itself fiis
fit the even more narrow projection seen in the Wood i i study which itself fiis

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.”

decrease of all peak values of about lOoA or less.” The HuijbersJansseng work is also shown
decrease of all peak values of about lOoA or less.” The HuijbersJansseng work is also shown
decrease of all peak values of about lOoA or less.” The HuijbersJansseng work is also shown
decrease of all peak values of about lOoA or less.” The HuijbersJansseng work is also shown
decrease of all peak values of about lOoA or less.” The HuijbersJansseng work is also shown
decrease of all peak values of about lOoA or less.” The HuijbersJansseng work is also shown
decrease of all peak values of about lOoA or less.” The HuijbersJansseng work is also shown

The HuijbersJansseng work is also shown in Figure

4. The data points from the mathematical models fit into

4. The data points from the mathematical models fit into the area shown by the two

the area shown by the two previous works cited (Otte3

Strl klng Speed (km/h)

two previous works cited (Otte3 Strl klng Speed (km/h) 40 0 0 2 4 6 8
two previous works cited (Otte3 Strl klng Speed (km/h) 40 0 0 2 4 6 8

40

two previous works cited (Otte3 Strl klng Speed (km/h) 40 0 0 2 4 6 8

0

0

2 4 6 8
2
4
6
8

12cited (Otte3 Strl klng Speed (km/h) 40 0 0 2 4 6 8 14 16 18

14

16

18

20

Throw Dletance (m)

Huljbers

-x-- Wood 2.6% 2.6%

14 16 18 2 0 Throw Dletance (m) Huljbers -x-- Wood 2.6% + Wood 87.6% 22

+ Wood 87.6%

22 *
22
*

24

26

28

Halght/Eubanks

- otte
-
otte
- otte
- otte
+ Wood 87.6% 22 * 24 26 28 Halght/Eubanks - otte - otte 0 INRETS test

0 INRETS test s

Figure 4. Comparison of throw distances with cited works.

147

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

given a more aciurate rep- resentation of the severity of the damage to the car and the actual or predictable physical injuries (chest load, etc) that the cyclist might sustain in such an impact. However, the foremost concern in ‘this regard was for the safety of the test driver of the Toyota. Further, the goal of this testing was nat to determine what injuries the cyclist would have experienced, but rather what would have

happened to the cyclist’s body as a single mass under varying conditions such as velocity and rider position.

varying conditions such as velocity and rider position. Figure 5 Photo of the movement of the
varying conditions such as velocity and rider position. Figure 5 Photo of the movement of the

Figure 5

Photo of the movement of the dummy onto the car

With the qualification that the cyclist’s body didn’t break the windshield when he started in a “standing” position as in runs eight and nine, there is some com- parison that can be made of the striking vehicle’s velocity versus the cyclist’s movement to windshield/“A” pil- lar/roofline area.

movement to windshield/“A” pil- lar/roofline area. While no accurate velocity estimates can be made with this
movement to windshield/“A” pil- lar/roofline area. While no accurate velocity estimates can be made with this

While no accurate velocity estimates can be made with this information alone, some questions can be answered by an analysis of the location of the center of the damage or “head star” on the windshield as an indica- tion of the movement of the cyclist’s body.

Otte was ex-

tion of the movement of the cyclist’s body. Otte was ex- From this and other studies8’g*‘0

From this and other studies8’g*‘0 the higher the im- pact or striking velocity of the car in the cdlision, the further back toward the windshield from the front of the car the cyclist or pedestrian’s body will be carried.

In the HuijbersJans:;eng paper, the authors describe the effect of the striking vlehicle’s impact velocity resulting in “the movement of the cyclist into the windscreen.” That result was described as t ‘le “lethalityg” of the cdlision. As such effect relates to this testing, Huijbers* indicated that a rear impact collision had a much higher “lethalit)/’than other types of bicycle inl/dved cdlisions. The Huijbers- Jansseng paper cited testing done with cadavers as weil as mathematical moclels and discusses the effect of dif- ferent automotive nose c esigns.

Their paper outlines what is described as a hypotheti- cal “Safe 90” vehicle model. They noted, “this ‘Safe 90’ was chosen in such a. way that it was estimated that this car will probably be safe too (sic) for pedestrians and cyclists in case of a collision.”

for pedestrians and cyclists in case of a collision.” Otte3 and HuijbersJansseng address the relation- ship
for pedestrians and cyclists in case of a collision.” Otte3 and HuijbersJansseng address the relation- ship
for pedestrians and cyclists in case of a collision.” Otte3 and HuijbersJansseng address the relation- ship
for pedestrians and cyclists in case of a collision.” Otte3 and HuijbersJansseng address the relation- ship
for pedestrians and cyclists in case of a collision.” Otte3 and HuijbersJansseng address the relation- ship
for pedestrians and cyclists in case of a collision.” Otte3 and HuijbersJansseng address the relation- ship

Otte3 and HuijbersJansseng address the relation- ship between striking velocity and the “ladling up” or ‘Throwing-up” effect on the cyclist. Both discuss meas- urements for head impact points back onto the hood and windshield area of the vehicles and that distance’s relationship to impact velocity. Otte3 wrote specifically about this: “only an influence of the body size and impact velocity was observed. Children impact the center of the front hood more frequently, due to shorter throwing-up distances. Adults, however more often impact the rear of the front hood as well as the windscreen. But the main influence must be seen in the collision velocity. Shorter throwing distances were observed in connection with ”

plicitly suggesting that the height (and thus the center of

lower rather than higher impact speeds

thus the center of lower rather than higher impact speeds mass) of the cyclist was nearly
thus the center of lower rather than higher impact speeds mass) of the cyclist was nearly
thus the center of lower rather than higher impact speeds mass) of the cyclist was nearly

mass) of the cyclist was nearly of equal importance as the striking velocity and apparently gave no concern to the weights of the riders.

Huijbers-Jansseng wrote: ‘The impact speed of the car influences the longitudinal impact location and rela- ”

tive impact velocity of the head

impact speed of the car influences the longitudinal impact location and rela- ” tive impact velocity

148

Figure 6. Photo of the dummy being thrown-up onto the car In our particular set

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

In our particular set of tests, the cyclist was carried onto the hood of the car and struck the lower portion of the windshield - at or below the midpoint of the windshield

- at velocities between 15-20 mph (24-32 km/h). Where the cyclist was astride the cycle as if he were standing and only one foot was on the pedals, the center of the impact damage to the windshield was at or below the base of the windshield itself.

At velocities between 20-25 mph (3240 km/h), the center of the impact area seen on the windshield is found at and above the vertical center of the windshield. For impacts above that velocity, the center of the impact area is found more toward the top of the windshield and onto the roof at the leading edge of the roof line.

The movement to the windshield by the dummy is shown more graphically in Figures 5 and 6. Figure 5 is a view of the impact in run number five where the impact velocity was 20.7 mph (33 km/h). In this photo, one can see the car moving “under” the cyclist as the impact progresses. The photo shows how the cyclist’s higher center of mass (compared to that of a pedestrian) would make the throwing-up onto the hood “easier” for the cyclist at a lower impact velocity. The central difference seems to be that the pedestrian’s center of mass is t!lpically lower than that of the cyclist and nearer the upper leading edge of the front hood while the cyclist’s center of mass starts out weil above that point.

The question becomes: if the dummy had been more heavily weighted, would there have been a difference in

more heavily weighted, would there have been a difference in the dummy’s rate of fall to
more heavily weighted, would there have been a difference in the dummy’s rate of fall to
more heavily weighted, would there have been a difference in the dummy’s rate of fall to

the dummy’s rate of fall to i:he hood of the car or a greater drag and/or damage to the hood of the car from this greater weight? It is our position that it would not.

149

greater weight? It is our position that it would not. 149 As stated earlier, the actual

As stated earlier, the actual damage to the hood of the car caused by the 140 pound cyclist struck in the litigated case was documented before the testing. On test number one, we foLind scratches caused by the dummy virtually overlapping the pre-existing “real-world” scratches and gouges on the hood. Finding that same pre-existing damage Inearly duplicated by the lighter dummy in this series of tests and would clearly lead to the conclusion that the weight is insignificant for the impact induced movement of t:he dummy during the impact.

Otte3 provided a chart showing the impact positions for his riders at velocities LIP to 31 mph (50 km/h). Figure 7 shows the impact poGtions on the hood/windshield in this set of tests relative to those plotted by Otte3. The majority of the points plotted in the Otte3 paper are centered on the striking vehicle whereas those from this testing set are offset to the driver’s side of the car. The initial contact areas between the bicycle and the vehicles involved in the collisions documented by Otte3 are an unknown whereas, in this testing, the cycle was intention- ally positioned to the driver’s side of the striking vehicle.

The difference in positioning or “throwing -up” dis- tance can be seen in a comparison of Figures 8 and 9. In Figure 8, from test run number seven where the impact was 18.6 mph (29 km/h), the cyclist is carried through the

and 9. In Figure 8, from test run number seven where the impact was 18.6 mph
and 9. In Figure 8, from test run number seven where the impact was 18.6 mph
and 9. In Figure 8, from test run number seven where the impact was 18.6 mph
and 9. In Figure 8, from test run number seven where the impact was 18.6 mph

*

2*

l * )) ) ))
l
*
))
)
))
2* l * )) ) )) 5;

5;

* >
*
>

= Otte

dat a

= HalgWEubanks

dat 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,

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

of the striking car, a great deaf of consideration should be 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.

is not s~pp~orted by the database of this test series. Aside from the post impact movement
is not s~pp~orted by the database of this test series. Aside from the post impact movement

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

the cyclist’s movement on the ground to rest was also largely predictable. In this testing, with

Figure 8.

150

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

position of the cyclist’s body relative to the car after the collision. A thorough examination of

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 items ried “and
(Sever+) that
items
ried
“and

of apparel and objects being car-

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

the finding and documentation of light apparel or personal belongings at a pedestriin or bicycle collision
the finding and documentation of light apparel or personal belongings at a pedestriin or bicycle collision
the finding and documentation of light apparel or personal belongings at a pedestriin or bicycle collision

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

where the collision occurred. Any deter- mination or finding of the location of impact using articles

Figure 9.

151

worn by the cyclist should be reported as part of an “area of impactD”” rather

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.

six test runs where groceries were attached to the cycle. Secondary or tertiac/ impacts between the
six test runs where groceries were attached to the cycle. Secondary or tertiac/ impacts between the
six test runs where groceries were attached to the cycle. Secondary or tertiac/ impacts between the
six test runs where groceries were attached to the cycle. Secondary or tertiac/ impacts between the

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.

Figure 10.

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

the age of the tire, and th+ rim assembly would be neces- sary to lead researchers
the age of the tire, and th+ rim assembly would be neces- sary to lead researchers
the age of the tire, and th+ rim assembly would be neces- sary to lead researchers
the age of the tire, and th+ rim assembly would be neces- sary to lead researchers
the age of the tire, and th+ rim assembly would be neces- sary to lead researchers
the age of the tire, and th+ rim assembly would be neces- sary to lead researchers

Distance (11)

Distance (11) On run number ttio, where the brakes were applied before impact and the dummy

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.

13 shows the ride times relative to each of the test runs. 18.8 27.5 20.7 Impact
13 shows the ride times relative to each of the test runs. 18.8 27.5 20.7 Impact

18.8

27.5

20.7

ride times relative to each of the test runs. 18.8 27.5 20.7 Impact Velocity (mph) C
ride times relative to each of the test runs. 18.8 27.5 20.7 Impact Velocity (mph) C

Impact Velocity (mph)

each of the test runs. 18.8 27.5 20.7 Impact Velocity (mph) C O N C L

CONCLUSION

m Glasses ea 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.

Figure 11. Sunglass movement, post collision distances.

Figure 11. Sunglass movement, post collision distances. a comparison of the vtdocity and damage. In Figure

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.

and 30 mph (24 and 48 km/h) is, on the average, 1.3 seconds. Figure 12. Veto&y
and 30 mph (24 and 48 km/h) is, on the average, 1.3 seconds. Figure 12. Veto&y

Figure 12.

(24 and 48 km/h) is, on the average, 1.3 seconds. Figure 12. Veto&y = DistanctP l

Veto&y = DistanctP l (X coef) + constant

Figure 12. Veto&y = DistanctP l (X coef) + constant or velocity, in mph, is: V=S*.158+

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:

ing runs, the following regression equation was developed: Velocity = DistanceR l (X coe~f) + constant
ing runs, the following regression equation was developed: Velocity = DistanceR l (X coe~f) + constant
ing runs, the following regression equation was developed: Velocity = DistanceR l (X coe~f) + constant

Velocity = DistanceR l (X coe~f) + constant or velocity, in mph, is: V= S.098 + 15.367

+ constant or velocity, in mph, is: V= S.098 + 15.367 For example, where the distance

For example, where the distance is 25 feet (7.7 m), the impact velocity would be approximately 17.8 mph (28.6 km/h).

where the distance is 25 feet (7.7 m), the impact velocity would be approximately 17.8 mph

153

17.5 19.6 113.6 18 4 27.5 20.7 l&Q 21.3 Impact Velocity (mph) m Ride Time,
17.5 19.6 113.6 18 4 27.5 20.7 l&Q 21.3 Impact Velocity (mph) m Ride Time,
17.5
19.6
113.6
18 4
27.5
20.7
l&Q
21.3
Impact Velocity (mph)
m Ride Time,
20.7 l&Q 21.3 Impact Velocity (mph) m Ride Time, Figure 13. Ride time chart. The third
20.7 l&Q 21.3 Impact Velocity (mph) m Ride Time, Figure 13. Ride time chart. The third

Figure 13. Ride time chart.

The third linear regression excluded the data pairs from runs two, three and eight. On runs two and three, the braking was pre-impact. On the remaining runs, the braking was post-impact sothesetwo runs were excluded from this regression on that basis. On run eight, the braking was post-impact; however,, on this run the cyclist was standing with one foot on the ground rather than starting out in a riding position on the bicycle. While the same was true for run nine, two points distinguish run eight from run nine.

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

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:

nine), the fdlowing regression equation was developed: Velocity = DistancG l (X coef) + constant or

Velocity = DistancG l (X coef) + constant or velocity, in mph, is: V= S*.203+ 10.314

For example, where the distance is 25 feet (7.7 m), the impact velocity would be approximately 15.4 mph (24.7 km/h).

Another analysis can be made for the impact velocity of the striking vehicle based on throw distance and throw distance effective drag lactor or friction coefficient for the cyclist’s body. The fornnula for the approximate velocity of an object thrown is shown as Figure 15. The formula shown as Figure 15 has been applied to the throw distan- ces for the nine test runs in this database using the throw average friction coefficient of .33 and a level take off angle from the windshield and/or hood area. The results of this calculation have been compared in Figure 16 to the velocity calculations made using the formula derived from the linear regression previously discussed.

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

a impact velocity an average of 1.5% higher than actual 86 86 76 05 65 45
a impact velocity an average of 1.5% higher than actual 86 86 76 05 65 45
a impact velocity an average of 1.5% higher than actual 86 86 76 05 65 45

86

86

76

05

65

45

35

26

16

DIS-MNCE (ft)

higher than actual 86 86 76 05 65 45 35 26 16 DIS-MNCE (ft) a K
a K li
a
K
li
actual 86 86 76 05 65 45 35 26 16 DIS-MNCE (ft) a K li  
 

-

18

17

18

18
18

2 0

21

22

23

24

26

28
28

27

28

*
*

rN3tance/Veloclty

-ff- fleg’sn w/o Run 4

VELOCITY (mph)

+ Reg’sn All Rune All Rune

fleg’sn w/o Run 4 VELOCITY (mph) + Reg’sn All Rune * Reg’an w/o 2, 3, 8

*

Reg’an w/o

2,

3, 8

w/o Run 4 VELOCITY (mph) + Reg’sn All Rune * Reg’an w/o 2, 3, 8 Figure

Figure 14. Linear regression chart.

154

V Velocity (fps) mu = Coefficient of friction Figure 15 S = Distance f l

V

V Velocity (fps) mu = Coefficient of friction Figure 15 S = Distance f l =

Velocity (fps)

mu = Coefficient of friction

V Velocity (fps) mu = Coefficient of friction Figure 15 S = Distance f l =

Figure 15

V Velocity (fps) mu = Coefficient of friction Figure 15 S = Distance f l =

S = Distance

mu = Coefficient of friction Figure 15 S = Distance f l = A n g

fl = Angle

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 test runs and, accordingly, a result more consistent with the remaining test data sets.

In addition, the cyclist body stayed in contact with the bicycle throughout the post-collision sequence all the way to rest on run nine <whereas they separated on run number eight.

The formula for the approximate velocity of an object thrown (Figure 15) would seem to provide adequate results based on the current data set and might be used with some reliability given a similar set of facts as in the test database.

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.

of any velocity estimate using this or any other database. Direction of Future Resmrch Future research

Direction of Future Resmrch

this or any other database. Direction of Future Resmrch Future research in this field should include

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.

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 Bim 25 20 15 10 5 0 2 3 4 5
Impact Veloctty (mph)
30
Bim
25
20
15
10
5
0
2
3
4
5
6
0
9
Formula
228
15. 4
16.7
28.5
22
4
17.2
18.8 20.7
22. 4
Test
21
18 4
19 6
275
20 7
16.9
18 6
17 5
21.3
Regression
21 1
15 2
16.1
27.1
20
7
16.4
17.6
19.1
20.7
B
B
21 1 15 2 16.1 27.1 20 7 16.4 17.6 19.1 20.7 B Formula I- Test

Formula I-

2 16.1 27.1 20 7 16.4 17.6 19.1 20.7 B Formula I- Test m Regression A

Test m

Regression

A
A

Figure 16. Comparison of actual and predicted values.

155

Clefinitions Dl. The “throw distance” is the distance from the point of impact to the m,

Dl.
Dl.

The “throw distance” is the distance from the

point of impact to the m, uncontrolled point of rest for the cyclist. The entire distance including any portions spent on the striking vehicle or in the air are included in the “throw distance.” The throw distance includes the

“slide distance”which is the distance the body travels ptl um as it comes to rest. See Figure 17.

body travels ptl um as it comes to rest. See Figure 17. D2. The “ride time”
body travels ptl um as it comes to rest. See Figure 17. D2. The “ride time”
body travels ptl um as it comes to rest. See Figure 17. D2. The “ride time”

D2. The “ride time” as used in this narrative is that

period of time starting when the bumper of the striking vlzhicle impacts the tire of the bicycle and ending when the cyclist body strikes the ground.

Throughout this narrative, the metric conversionsbicycle and ending when the cyclist body strikes the ground. will be truncated. D4. The term

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.

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.

D6. The shot-to-shot timing device was a PACT MK

05.
05.
D6. The shot-to-shot timing device was a PACT MK 05. II Timer and chronograph. This device,
D6. The shot-to-shot timing device was a PACT MK 05. II Timer and chronograph. This device,

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.

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

prior to testing each day, was mounted in the car. This D8. device reveals acceleration values
D8.
D8.

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

occurred before impact should be discarded because the 156 dummy stayed on the hood of the
occurred before impact should be discarded because the 156 dummy stayed on the hood of the

156

dummy stayed on the hood of the car virtually until the car came to rest. This caused the dummy’s slide distance to be lessened considerably and produced an artificially high figure. On test run number 2, the coefficient was 9.4. On test run number 3, the figure was 1.22 for the friction coefficient. While the ‘I .22 figure fell within the range of the works cited, the d$a was not included in the narrative because the braking was pre-impact causing a ridedown velocity on the rider exiting the vehicle.

Dl 0. “Area of impact’is a non-specific area on the roadway, as opposed to the more specific “point” of impact. “Area of impact”should be used where limited or no physical evidence is available or documented to posi- tion or determine the exact “point”of impact.

or documented to posi- tion or determine the exact “point”of impact. Figure 17. Throw distance vs
or documented to posi- tion or determine the exact “point”of impact. Figure 17. Throw distance vs

Figure 17. Throw distance vs slide distance.

1. Sever-y, Derwyn and Brink, Harrison (1966). Auto Pedestrian Collision Experiments, Institute of Transporta- tion

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.

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.

Mechanism and Crash

Kinematic of Cyclists in ,4ccidents - An Analysis of Real

Accidents, SAE 892425.

2.

,4ccidents - An Analysis of Real Accidents, SAE 892425. 2. 3. Otte, D. (1989) Injury 4.
,4ccidents - An Analysis of Real Accidents, SAE 892425. 2. 3. Otte, D. (1989) Injury 4.

3. Otte, D. (1989) Injury

Real Accidents, SAE 892425. 2. 3. Otte, D. (1989) Injury 4. Becke, M. and Golder, U.

4.

Accidents, SAE 892425. 2. 3. Otte, D. (1989) Injury 4. Becke, M. and Golder, U. (1986).

Becke, M. and Golder, U. (1986). Rutschweiten von

4. Becke, M. and Golder, U. (1986). Rutschweiten von Fussgangern urf nasser Fahrbahn (Sliding distances of

Fussgangern urf nasser Fahrbahn (Sliding distances of

von Fussgangern urf nasser Fahrbahn (Sliding distances of Pedestrians on Wet Roads,) Verkehrs-unfall und

Pedestrians on Wet Roads,) Verkehrs-unfall und Fahrzeugtechnik, December 1986, Heft 12.

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.

Schmidt, D. N. and Nagel, D. A. (1971). Pedestrian

5.

Schmidt, D. N. and Nagel, D. A. (1971). Pedestrian 5. 6. impact case study. Proceedings sociation

6.

D. N. and Nagel, D. A. (1971). Pedestrian 5. 6. impact case study. Proceedings sociation for
D. N. and Nagel, D. A. (1971). Pedestrian 5. 6. impact case study. Proceedings sociation for
D. N. and Nagel, D. A. (1971). Pedestrian 5. 6. impact case study. Proceedings sociation for

impact case study. Proceedings sociation for Automotive Medicine.

15th Conference As-

7.

8.

Collins, James C. and Morris, Joe . L . and Collins, .

Reconstruction,

Publishing.

Joe . L . and Collins, . Reconstruction, Publishing. . ,. . . Accident Thomas Wood,
Joe . L . and Collins, . Reconstruction, Publishing. . ,. . . Accident Thomas Wood,
Joe . L . and Collins, . Reconstruction, Publishing. . ,. . . Accident Thomas Wood,

.

,.

.

.

. L . and Collins, . Reconstruction, Publishing. . ,. . . Accident Thomas Wood, D.
. L . and Collins, . Reconstruction, Publishing. . ,. . . Accident Thomas Wood, D.

Accident

Thomas

Wood, D. P. and Riordain, S. 0. (1989) Impact

Speed From Bicycle, Motorcycle and Rider Throw Dis-

tance. Proceedings of the Can&an Mq [Safetv, University of New Brunswick.

Hi&,!av Callrslnn Analysts

9.

of New Brunswick. Hi&,!av Callrslnn Analysts 9. Huijbers, J. J. W. and Janssen, E. G.(1988). Ex-

Huijbers, J. J. W. and Janssen, E. G.(1988). Ex-

9. Huijbers, J. J. W. and Janssen, E. G.(1988). Ex- oerimental and Mathematical Car-Bicycle Collision

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.

of Technical Accident Inves- tigators), January 1986. 157 1. . m I Matthew Bender Publishing. Barzelay,

157

1. . m I Matthew Bender Publishing.
1.
.
m
I Matthew Bender Publishing.

Barzelay, M. E. and Lacy, G. W. (1982). Chapter

15, Personal MGcientific Awile A -

2.

(1982). Chapter 15, Personal MGcientific Awile A - 2. Grosch, L. and Hochgeschwender, J. (1989). Ex-
(1982). Chapter 15, Personal MGcientific Awile A - 2. Grosch, L. and Hochgeschwender, J. (1989). Ex-

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.

SP-782 &&motive Fm v, SAE Publications Division. 3. Severy, Derwyn and Brink, Harrison (1966). Auto-
SP-782 &&motive Fm v, SAE Publications Division. 3. Severy, Derwyn and Brink, Harrison (1966). Auto-

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.

University of California at Los Angeles, SAE paper 660080. 4. Kuperstein, I.S. and Salters, N. L.

4.

Kuperstein, I.S. and Salters, N. L. (1988) Chapter

,

4. Kuperstein, I.S. and Salters, N. L. (1988) Chapter , 5 0 , A t t
4. Kuperstein, I.S. and Salters, N. L. (1988) Chapter , 5 0 , A t t

50, Attorneys Guide To Enaineerina.

Publishing

5.

Matthew Bender

Dorsch, Margaret M., Woodward, Alistar J., Some-

Bender Dorsch, Margaret M., Woodward, Alistar J., Some- rs, Ronald L (1984) Effect of Helmet Use

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.

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.

Impact to Point of Rest, (1988) IMRS Conference, (1989) SOAR/WATAI Con- ference, (1989) TAARS Conference. 7.

7.

Impact to Point of Rest, (1988) IMRS Conference, (1989) SOAR/WATAI Con- ference, (1989) TAARS Conference. 7.

distance

Tre,ectory AnaIysis for Collisions Involving Bicycles and AutcmmbilPc

10.3144 Runs

Glasses

(sq ft) (seconds) (feet)

4 . 0 2 . 5

3 . 0

4 1.0 . 5

Note 3

8 . 0 4 . 5

15.0

0.024529 0

1.011920

0.945207

7

0.20376

Without

The impact speed was the radar observed speed for the given test run. On runs two and three, the

6

4

5

4

4

APPENDIX A - ENGLISH

Groceries Ride

time

1.1

4

3

4

1.1

1.4

.

.

.

.

.

.

1

1

1

1

1

1

English units

Without run X4

pre-inpact braking.

debris

383. 5

48. 8

79.6

245. 5

140.8

Note 2

Note 2

Note 2

75. 1

area

1.311494 3

6 0.098016

0.043089

location was not docunented on this test run.

0.46305

15.36609

test runs.

lost during

8

speed these

less the during

0.1582 6

7 9No. 0.8044 5R

0.02949

the bicycle

radar on speed

distance

Throw

(feet)(mph)

53. 0

24. 5 0

51. 0 0

36. 0

51. 0

82. 5

43. 5

of Observations

Freedom

28.

30.

carried

LdIlL of Output

Y Est

X Coefficient(s)

The glasses post-impact

was the

speed were

Impact

speed

i

of

0

6

5

18. 4

20. 16.9 7

5

19.6

3

Note

Reqression

groceries

Squared

21.

18.

17.
21.

27.

Err

Degrees

impact

A----L-

Lulls

No

Std

Std

1.

2.
3.

G m

Throw Slide dragdra coefficient g . 28 47 9:40 82 :45 1.2 2 . 31
Throw Slide
dragdra
coefficient
g
.
28
47
9:40 82
:45
1.2 2
.
31
.80
.
28
.83
.
32
.95
.
32
.
89
.
23
.83
.
30
.80
Braking began pre/post post P= post Pre II II II II It 2, 3, L
Braking
began
pre/post
post
P= post Pre II
II
II
II
It
2, 3, L a
pre/post post P= post Pre II II II II It 2, 3, L a Bike Bike
pre/post post P= post Pre II II II II It 2, 3, L a Bike Bike
Bike Bike tire tire inward area deformation (sq ft) (inches) 9.8 87. 0 9.2 106.
Bike
Bike
tire
tire
inward
area
deformation (sq ft)
(inches)
9.8
87. 0
9.2
106. 0
13.
0
126. 0
12. 6
180. 0
13.2
140.0
13.
7
152. 0
11.
2
133. 0
11.0
78. 0
12.
4
120. 0
0 13.2 140.0 13. 7 152. 0 11. 2 133. 0 11.0 78. 0 12. 4
Test 9 Notes
Test
9
Notes
0 13.2 140.0 13. 7 152. 0 11. 2 133. 0 11.0 78. 0 12. 4
0 13.2 140.0 13. 7 152. 0 11. 2 133. 0 11.0 78. 0 12. 4
All runs 1.3.1415 1.49230
All
runs
1.3.1415
1.49230

Without 16.57617 Runs 2, 3, C 8

1.651354

1.077305

0.131627

0.943650

and three, the

4 6

runs two

Without run #4

braking.impact

test run. On

pre-irrqxxt

21.14244 2.582611

0.843695

0.169347

0.805326 6 8

test runs. on this test run.

speed was the radar observed speed for the given

Lost during

speed these

The glasses post-impact location was not docunented

All runs

less the during

7 9 0.80445

0.83545

2.40112

0.15568

21.1447

the bicycle

radar on speed

distance

(metres)

Throw

9.1

7.3

25.1

16.2

8.7

15.5

11.0

15.5

13.3

carried

Err of Coef.

X Coefficient(s)

was the

speed were

-

- Tmnart

-

speed

(km/h)

Note 1

Y -

29.6 31.5

33.8

44.2 33.3

27.2 29.9

28.2 34.3

No groceries

The impact

Std

1.
2.

3.

Trajectory Analysis for Collisions Involving Bicycles ad Automcbilfs APPENDIX B - METRIC Metric units Bike
Trajectory
Analysis
for Collisions
Involving
Bicycles ad Automcbilfs
APPENDIX B - METRIC
Metric units
Bike
WL rw,,,w; debris area
A-
n-l -----
Y-L,. RiLe
UL.t=L ICZJ
-lasses
tire
tire
distance
inward
area
deformation
(metres)
(sq m)
(sq
m)
(metres)
24 0.06.
Note 2
1.2
0.07.
. 23
33
0.08
Note Note 36.6 13.3 7.5 2 2
Note 1.4 0.3 0.9 0.8 3
0.11.
0.09.
33 32
0.10.
0.09.
28 34
4.6
4.6
0.05.
23.2
2.4
0.08.
31 27
7.1
1.4
Tact- -v-w Notes
Tact- -v-w
Notes
0.05. 23.2 2.4 0.08. 31 27 7.1 1.4 Tact- -v-w Notes pl=rrrnaa4 em c%dt”‘dt *&u ”“rvrr
0.05. 23.2 2.4 0.08. 31 27 7.1 1.4 Tact- -v-w Notes pl=rrrnaa4 em c%dt”‘dt *&u ”“rvrr
pl=rrrnaa4 em c%dt”‘dt *&u ”“rvrr Constant Std Err of Y Est R Degrees Squared No.
pl=rrrnaa4
em
c%dt”‘dt
*&u ”“rvrr
Constant
Std
Err of Y Est
R Degrees
Squared
No.
of Observations
of
Freedom

Trajectory Analysis for Collisions Involving Bicycles and1 Automobiles Appendix C

Diagrams of the post-impact resting positions of the cycle, dummy, vehicle and debris.

resting positions of the cycle, dummy, vehicle and debris. l - k Appendix C, Figure 1,
resting positions of the cycle, dummy, vehicle and debris. l - k Appendix C, Figure 1,
resting positions of the cycle, dummy, vehicle and debris. l - k Appendix C, Figure 1,
l - k
l
-
k
positions of the cycle, dummy, vehicle and debris. l - k Appendix C, Figure 1, test

Appendix C, Figure 1, test run number 1.

l - k Appendix C, Figure 1, test run number 1. Appendix C, Figure 2, test

Appendix C, Figure 2, test run number 2.

run number 1. Appendix C, Figure 2, test run number 2. Appendix C, Figure 3, test
run number 1. Appendix C, Figure 2, test run number 2. Appendix C, Figure 3, test
run number 1. Appendix C, Figure 2, test run number 2. Appendix C, Figure 3, test

Appendix C, Figure 3, test run number 3.

run number 2. Appendix C, Figure 3, test run number 3. Appendix C, Figure 4, test

Appendix C, Figure 4, test run number 4.

run number 3. Appendix C, Figure 4, test run number 4. . . :a X Appendix
. . :a X
.
.
:a
X

Appendix C, Figure 5, test run number 5.

run number 4. . . :a X Appendix C, Figure 5, test run number 5. 160
run number 4. . . :a X Appendix C, Figure 5, test run number 5. 160

160

run number 4. . . :a X Appendix C, Figure 5, test run number 5. 160

Appendix C, Figure 6, test run number 6.

run number 4. . . :a X Appendix C, Figure 5, test run number 5. 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.

positions of the cycle, durnmy, vehicle and debris. Appendix C, Figure 7, test run number 7.
positions of the cycle, durnmy, vehicle and debris. Appendix C, Figure 7, test run number 7.
positions of the cycle, durnmy, vehicle and debris. Appendix C, Figure 7, test run number 7.

Appendix C, Figure 7, test run number 7.

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

Appendix C, Fiigure 8, test run number 8.

run number 7. Appendix C, Fiigure 8, test run number 8. Appendix C, Figure 9, test
run number 7. Appendix C, Fiigure 8, test run number 8. Appendix C, Figure 9, test

Appendix C, Figure 9, test run number 9.

run number 8. Appendix C, Figure 9, test run number 9. Appendix C, legend for characters
run number 8. Appendix C, Figure 9, test run number 9. Appendix C, legend for characters

Appendix C, legend for characters used in this appendix.

161
161