Volume 12, Issue 2

2017 ARC- - CSI CONFERENCE DATA

ollision C The International Compendium for Crash Research

Volume 12 Issue 2

forensic Methods

damaged acm components

residual damage

Consent & Court Orders crash data Access and Authority

electric golf cart & Scooter acceleration, hard brake, stability

based accident reconstruction collisionmagazine.com FrontCover.indd 1

8/27/2018 2:20:06 PM

Crash site evidenCe

A 2010 Chevrolet Equinox SUV attempted to make a left turn in front of a 2003 Dodge Ram pickup. The pickup was in the middle northbound lane when it struck the left-rear side of the SUV, causing both vehicles to rotate CCW to their final rest positions.

The right-rear passenger in the SUV suffered significant facial injury, but there was no physical evidence on the back of the right front seat. How did the facial injury occur?

For more information on the capabilities of HVE please visit edccorp.com

HVE directly answers the following questions using Newton’s laws of motion:

Questions

Answers

Impact Speeds

SUV: 22 – 25 mph Pickup: 42 – 45 mph

Peak Impact Force

SUV: Fx= -37,850 lb, Fy= 66,350 lb, Fz= -1,560 lb Pickup: Fx= -71,400 lb, Fy= -26,700 lb, Fz= 1,880 lb

Peak Impact Acceleration

SUV: 18 – 23 g Pickup: 12 – 15 g

Peak Angular Velocity

SUV:

~ -340 deg/sec

PDOF

SUV:

~ -61 deg

Occupant Analysis (Right-Rear)

Seat Belt Status: Unbelted General Motion of Occupant: Left/Forward Facial Contact Detected: Left Front Seat Headrest

Required Technologies

SIMON 3-D Vehicle Dynamics Simulation Model DyMESH 3-D Collision Model GATB 3-D Occupant/Pedestrian Simulation Model

Other software may claim to answer these questions. Have you closely evaluated their claims and the basis for their results?

To learn more about HVE and all of the available tools for crash investigators, call 503.644.4500 or visit www.edccorp.com. Our professional sales staff will help you get started using HVE today!

Knowledge = Power 7096-0820

Engineering Dynamics Company, LLC • 550M Ritchie Hwy #128, Severna Park, MD 21146 USA • Phone 503.644.4500 • www.edccorp.com

Ahead of the Curve HIGHWAY SAFETY COURSES

More than 30 courses cover a broad spectrum of highway safety disciplines: investigation, reconstruction, and engineering. Northwestern has been the leader in developing techniques and practices that define best practices in the field. Our program excels in providing students with the skills and knowledge to meet the most challenging current and emerging demands.

Registration for spring courses is now open. nucps.northwestern.edu

Every Dimension of Public Safety Only at Northwestern

nucps.northwestern.edu MANAGEMENT HIGHWAY SAFETY FORENSICS POLICE MOTORCYCLE

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 1

8/24/2018 4:53:01 PM

Read more, on page 57

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 2

8/24/2018 4:53:01 PM

Contents

Volume 12 Issue 2

inside 4

Industry Partners

5

Advertiser Index and Digital Download Information

6

Letter From the Editor

8

features 8

Electric Golf Cart and Scooter Acceleration, Hard Brake, and Stability Testing

by Robert D Anderson, Michael Rosenfield, and Russell Anderson

30

Estimated Likelihood Of Obtaining The NonDeployment Event Of Interest And Pre-Crash Data Guide For The Toyota Gen1 Airbag Control Modules

36

by Robert D Anderson

36

Revisiting Caterpillar ECMs

42

Forensic Methods for Dealing with Damaged ACM/ECM Components

by Tim Austin

by Shanon R. Burgess and William F. Messerschmidt

50

Reconstruction From Body Worn Camera Videos

62

Residual Damage Based Accident Reconstruction: Accounting For Mismatched Residual Damage Profiles

42

by Bobby J Mullinax

by Jai Singh

82

90

A Summary of Recent NTSB Highway Crash Investigation Products

by Thomas Barth

90

Crash Data Access and Authority: Consent, Court Orders, and more W. R. Rusty Haight

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 3

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 3

8/24/2018 4:53:09 PM

Industry Partners IAARS

is one of the oldest associations dedicated to expanding the knowledge and training of automobile crash Reconstructionists. IAARS was started in 1980 as a resource for members to use when the inevitable questions arose while trying to reconstruct a crash. We have members from several different countries as well as many different states across the U.S. The annual seminars not only provide instruction on specific topics by experts in the field, they provide face-to-face discussions on how other people approach reconstructing a crash. The old saying "two heads are better than one" is definitely true in accident reconstruction.

Membership in IAARS has other advantages, including a discount (from IAARS) on a subscription to Collision Magazine; access to electronic delivery of the quarterly publication of the Society of Accident Reconstructionists, and electronic delivery of bi-monthly editions of Accident Reconstruction Journal. Members also receive discounts at our training seminars.

We have annual conferences with training opportunities across the country. IAARS was the first association to do actual crash testing in 1982 with T-Bone and Head-on collisions and we continue to try and have a dynamic full scale vehicle crash or testing at each of our seminars. As a member you have full access to the setup and test with all of its data. As a member you have We have three levels of membership. Our highest level, Felaccess to a vast archive of videos and data from many different low, includes a peer review of a reconstruction project. This and sometimes unique tests. Some of these tests include vehicle differs from many other associations in that with this process for membership it can help the member as peer review is a spe- to vehicle, truck to vehicle, motorcycle to vehicle and vehicle to pedestrian crashes, semi rollovers, tip-over testing and brake cific area of judicial consideration when admitting an expert opinion in court. This review, along with training and experi- efficiency testing. IAARS sometimes partners with other associaence, go a long way if you happen to come across a stickler for tions when providing seminars or conferences. a judge. We offer opportunities for a member to publish work IAARS enjoys working with all of the associations and organizaor research in the reconstruction field and an opportunity to tions that are involved in helping get answers to how and why present materials at our annual conferences. collisions occur and how to make our roads and highways safer.

Hope to see you at one of the conferences.

Our association has "old-timers" that have worked thousands of accidents. If you have a question, chances are they have Sincerely, encountered a similar situation in the past and can give some Butch Thompson insight on how they worked it out. We also have members very President, IAARS familiar with the ins and outs of new technology (Crash Data www.iaars.org Retrieval, Photogrammetry) and are willing to help with any questions or concerns you may have.

The ARC Network

was founded in 1998 and since has grown to be the largest and most respected organization for Accident Reconstruction and Traffic Investigation.

The ARC Network has become the largest and most trusted Accident Reconstruction directory on the Internet. The ARC Network also provides research tools, an events calendar, industry updates, products directory and a Member's Only area that gives access to various online databases and information.

The ARC Network offers various membership levels to fit your needs and budget. Membership starts at just $89.00 per year.

With your membership you not only get access to everything in the ARC Network, you also receive a$50 discount to the EDR Summit. Extend your savings and sign up as a Police Agency member or Platinum member and receive a complimentary subscription to Collision Magazine!

Join online today. www.accidentreconstruction.com Scott Baker President The ARC Network (800) 280-7940 arc@accidentreconstruction.com

For information on becoming a Collision Industry Partner send an email - sbaker@crashdatagroup.com 4

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 4

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:53:09 PM

ADVERTISING RATES & INFO If you would like to advertise your products or services in Collision Magazine, rates, availability and other information are available online at: www.collisionmagazine.com

Crash Data Group Inc PO Box 892885, Temecula, CA 92589 Toll Free: 800-280-7940 E-mail: sbaker@crashdatagroup.com Web: www.collisionmagazine.com ISSN: 1934-8681

ADVERTISER INDEX

PAGE

4N6XPRT Systems

110,Inside Back

ARC Network 35

COLLISION STAFF

Collision Safety Institute

Scott Baker Sean Haight Tonya Baker Courtney Baker

Crash Academy 29

Owner, Managing Editor Senior Editor Advertising Manager Subscription Services

All rights reserved, © 2018 Cash Data Group Inc. The opinions and conclusions expressed in this publication and attached data disk and throughout the articles attributed to specific authors are the opinions and conclusions of the authors noted and not necessarily the editorial staff or anyone else for that matter.

While some articles have been reviewed for content, the accuracy of reprinted models or equations cannot be fully guaranteed. It is the responsibility of the reader to apply critical thinking to an individual review of the content and make their own personal judgements as to its value to them, individually. At the end of the day, facts belong to everybody, any other opinions to us. The distinction is yours to draw...otherwise, the opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of any employer, not necessarily ours and probably not necessary. Dis-

senting opinions, discussion or conclusions which may express an adverse position to those expressed herein by specifically cited authors can be addressed in writing by sending an e-mail to the editor at sbaker@crashdatagroup.com or sending a "regular mail" letter to us at PO Box 892885, Temecula, CA 92589. By

61

Crash Data Group

41, Back Cover

Engineering Dynamics

Inside Front

EDR Summit 88-89 Laser Technology Inc 80-81 Leica Geosystems

2, 57-60

Northwestern CPS 1 Tesla 79

Included with this issue of Collision

is the 2017 ARC-CSI Crash Conference Data Disc and presentation files (PDF).

sending correspondence to either our e-mail or snail mail addresses listed in this publication you are agreeing that: (1) we are by definition, "the intended recipient" (2) all information in the e-mail is ours to do with as we see fit and make such financial profit, political mileage, or good joke as it lends itself to and, (3) this overrides any disclaimer or statement of confidentiality that may be included on your original message. The entire physical universe, including this publication and attached data disk, may one day collapse back into an infinitesimally small space. Should another universe subsequently re-emerge, the existence of this publication and data disk in that universe cannot be guaranteed.

SUBMIT AN ARTICLE If you would like to submit an article to be published in Collision please e-mail us your article for review or call us toll free 800-280-7940. E-mail: sbaker@crashdatagroup.com

BACK ISSUES

If you would like purchase back issues of Collision Magazine, please visit www.collisionmagazine.com or call us toll free 800-280-7940.

Next conference: EDR Summit Houston, Texas March -6, 2019 www.edrsummit.com

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 5

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 5

8/24/2018 4:53:10 PM

Letter from the editor First, I want to personally thank you for being a loyal subscriber to Collision Magazine. Over the past year, we have been working on reorganizing the structure of Collision Magazine. Hopefully you will continue to read this letter, as there are a few major changes.

Late last year, the decision was made to merge Collision Publishing Inc with Crash Data Group Inc. This was essentially a logistical decision. We were simply wasting time and resources running two separate companies, under the same roof. The merger allowed us to reduce California taxes and a handful of other expenses and resources related to running Collision Publishing Inc as a separate business with an eye on passing the savings on to our subscribers. We thought this would be pretty straight-forward, but Murphy's Law stepped in and the project became larger and took additional time to complete. We put the Magazine on hold until all the legal documents were completed, business plan updated and the accounting merged and balanced. Everything is now in place and we can get back to the business of putting out a quality magazine and providing cuttingedge research.

Merger Overview After the merger was completed, Crash Data Group Inc is now responsible for the following: •

EDR Summit

•

ARC-CSI Crash Conference

•

Collision Magazine

•

Bosch CDR Tool distributorship

•

B&W Cases distributorship

•

EDR for Tesla distributorship

•

Crash Academy Learning Center

With the merger, there have also been some changes in terms of our planned conferences, our ability to stay on top of authors who have promised fresh content, our efforts at peer review, and the Collision Magazine subscription model. This is a far larger undertaking twice a year than we first imagined.

6

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 6

1. We will continue to host the annual EDR Summit. The next one being March 4-6, 2019. The conference presentations (in PDF) will be included with Collision Volume 13, Issue 1. We will continue to include future EDR Summit conference presentations with Collision Magazine.

The EDR Summit (formerly CDR Summit) has become far larger and more wide reaching that we initially expected. For the past two years (20162017), attendance levels have surpassed 300, making these our largest EDR Summits! In addition to the wide range of topics for really every interest, we are now receiving requests for special product announcements to originate at the EDR Summit. If you attended the 2018 EDR Summit, you witnessed the official announcement of data accessibility for Tesla vehicles - directly from Tesla Engineers!

In addition, Crash Data Group Inc is the only distributor to offer genuine Telsa EDR cables that make up the Event Data Recorder Hardware Kit for Telsa vehicles. These new EDR kits support all Model S, Model X and Model 3 Tesla vehicles. Tesla even offers a free Tesla EDR file translation service for vehicles manufactured in the United States and Canada.

For the 2019 EDR Summit, with the long anticipated full introduction of the Bosch CDR 900 vehicle interface model and cables, we anticipate another large turnout. Speakers are already lining up for the 2019 Summit. Down the road, we’re looking at other potential venues for the Summit and, again here and on the web site you would find announcements as final decisions are made.

2. We have put the annual ARC-CSI Crash Conference in a holding pattern and there will NOT be an ARC-CSI Crash Conference this year (2018). This

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:53:11 PM

means there will NOT be an ARC-CSI Conference DVD in Collision Volume 13, Issue 2 schedule for Fall of 2019. YOU WILL receive the 2017 ARCCSI Crash Conference DVD (held last September) inserted in this issue. It was our largest conference to date and some of our best crash tests.

3. Not as an excuse but as an explanation, when we decided to try to complete peer review on many if not most of our articles, we discovered that review isn’t as easy as it seems. Not the review itself, but the coordination between author, reviewers and deadlines. There seems to be nearly no overlap.

Complicate that with a push to have Conference presenters follow through on promised articles associated with their presentations and the challenge becomes greater.

Originally, we thought we could simply release three (3) issues of Collision Magazine this year and get back on schedule. However, we decided to concentrate on quality, not quantity and proceed with Collision Volume 12, Issue 2 in September 2018, then continue the production as normal going forward. Yes, that means there is a gap in the production of the magazine. All paid subscriptions will be adjusted accordingly. See the tentative production schedule at the end of this letter.

4. We have updated the subscription price to Collision Magazine. Since we were able to reduce some expenses in this process, we wanted to pass the savings along to our subscribers. The annual subscription price for Collision Magazine will be $99.00 per year (2 -issues) down from $139.00 per year. In addition, Collision Magazine will truly follow a "subscription" model going forward. All new subscriptions coming in will be a subscription and will automatically renew (unless cancelled before the next subscription period). This way the subscriber does not have to worry about remembering to renew or undeliverable renewal emails. You will be assured you will continue to receive Collision Magazine until you either, 1. cancel your subscription, or 2. don't update an expired credit card on file.

5. Crash Data Group, as a company, will still continue to be the North American distributor for the Bosch CDR Tool and product line; the global distributor for the Genuine EDR Kit for Tesla; and the global distributor for B&W Cases.

6. The Crash Academy is now full-functioning and we have been hosting various classes and product demonstrations. Crash Data Group has launched its first online training class, "How To Use The Bosch CDR Tool" and is currently working on the update modules for that class including the Bosch CDR 900 vehicle interface module and how to use it.

So, with all of the above in mind, yes, we have slipped behind in our planned publication dates but will be back on schedule with this issue and future issues.

Collision Magazine Tentative Production Schedule •

September 2018 - Volume 12, Issue 2

•

May 2019 - Volume 13, Issue 1

•

September 2019 - Volume 13, Issue 2

•

May 2020 - Volume 14, Issue 1

•

September 2020 - Volume 14, Issue 2

Note: Subscription renewals will automatically renew on either January 5 or July 1 of the given year, based on when your subscription began.

We appreciate our loyal readers patience with our production struggles and look forward to being able to bring you even better content in the future as Collision Magazine continues to be the industry leader in new, original crash reconstruction content.

Managing Editor

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 7

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 7

8/24/2018 4:53:12 PM

Electric Golf Cart and Scooter Acceleration, Hard Brake, and Stability Testing Robert D Anderson, Michael Rosenfield, and Russell Anderson

8

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 8

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:53:13 PM

I

ntroduction

Low speed vehicles (LSV) have been thought of as a low-cost, eco-friendly way to tool around in locations where there would be little interaction with larger vehicles. As of 2010, practically every state allowed LSV’s on roadways with speed limits up to 35 mph.1 LSV use on public roads experienced rapid growth since the phenomena began in resort and retirement communities in the 1990’s.2 The standard golf cart is typically limited by speed governors or gearing to a top speed of 15 mph. Allowing a golf cart to attain speed of 20 to 25 mph creates a new class of vehicle known as the neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV). Aftermarket conversions, especially for electric carts, can significantly increase the top speed of these vehicles.3 Unfortunately, golf cart-related injuries have steadily increased with the increased popularity and growing capabilities of these vehicles.4 A compilation of golf cart and scooter acceleration, hard brake, stability testing and specifications are presented to add to the existing published information. The EZGO RXV used in this testing had headlights, mirrors, tail lights, turn signals, and a horn, making it street legal.

The E Wheels EW-36 Scooter had street legal features including a seat belt, head lights, turn signals, a horn, tail lights and turn signals, but its lower top speed might preclude it from being street legal in some areas. The remainder of the test vehicles were golf carts that were not street legal and were from a variety of golf courses in and around Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona. All test vehicles (Table 1) were battery powered. The static stability factor (SSF) was used to rate rollover risk for two golf carts. The SSF evaluates single vehicle crashes as part of the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) and

Model Make and Model Year 2018 E Wheels EW-36* 2013 2009 2012 2013 2006

Year Type Tested 2017 3-wheel scooter Club Car 2014 golf cart Club Car Precedent i2 2013 golf cart EZGO TXT 48 2014 golf cart EZGO RXV* 2017 golf cart Fair Play ZX 2013 golf cart

star rating program.5 The SSF is also known as T/2h since it is calculated by dividing the track width by twice the center of gravity (CG) height. Vehicles with static stability factors below 1.2 are generally considered at increased risk for rollover, while SSF of 1.2 and above are generally considered stable with respect to passenger vehicle rollovers.

B

ackground Current golf cart designs, which employ rear braking only, have been shown to have reduced braking capability compared to four wheel braking, and exhibit directional instability that can lead to a rollover, particularly when braking downhill.2,6

In 1998, a gas powered Yamaha G-16A golf cart was tested by NHTSA. The unloaded weight was 688 pounds. The dealer indicated that the electric and gas powered carts had similar performance and that the electric version weighed about 100 pounds less. The cart did not have a windshield or canopy. Its height, wheel base, length, width were 43½, 65½, 93¾ and 46 inches, respectively. The rear axle had drum brakes. The 14 inch CG height increased to 20.8 inches with ballast equivalent to two 50th percentile male adults, which dropped the SSF from 1.3 (stable) to 0.88 indicating a higher potential for rollover. The average acceleration during hard braking was -0.36 g’s. Impending rollover instability was observed for speed above the 15 mph intended operating speed with constant steer in 50 foot radius turn. NHTSA expressed concern that the standard golf cart was easy to modify in order to increase their top speeds to beyond their designed operational speeds to where they may be, or are, inherently unstable.

Long, et al. presented the results of top speed, acceleration and braking test for three golf carts.7 The average parameters for each golf cart is shown in (Table 2). The test vehicle model, vehicle weight, dimensions, motor/ engine type, and test surface were not specified. The distance, speed, or acceleration vs time or speed vs distance relationships were not included their study. It was reported that the potential for a rollover increases with speed. The study showed that passengers could be ejected while cornering at speeds as low as 11 mph and that the hip restraint orients the ejected occupants into a head first dive toward the ground.

* Street legal

Table 1: Test Vehicles

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 9

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 9

8/24/2018 4:53:14 PM

2003 Club Car 1998 EZGO 2000 EZGO

Top Speed (mph) 16.6 12.9 14.4

Peak Acceleration (g) 0.19 0.30 0.28

Ave Acceleration (g) 0.07 0.05 0.12

Braking Acceleration (g) -0.53 -0.51 -0.45

Table 2: Test results of golf carts (averaged)7 E Wheels EW-36

I

nstrumentation Test vehicles were instrumented with Racelogic data loggers VBOX 3i, Video VBOX Lite, and VBOX Sport (Figure 1). These data loggers measure and record vehicle speed using the Doppler shift of GPS satellite signals.

The sample rate for the VBOX 3i, Sport and Video Lite is 100Hz, 20Hz and 10Hz, respectively. For all three data loggers, the Racelogic reported accuracy for acceleration is ±1% or better, distance traveled ± 0.05%, and speed ± 0.13 mph or better when smoothed with a moving average of 4 samples. 8,9,10

The VBOX Lite has the additional ability to record video from up to two cameras allowing a low-resolution image to be viewed as a picture within a picture from a highresolution image. The video may also be overlaid with virtual gauges, such as a speedometer. The VBOX Sport is waterproof and can be used with its internal GPS antenna or with an external GPS antenna.

Vehicle weights were measured with CAS Wheel Weigher RW-05S, Mass Load LCD Standard Weighpad, or Intercomp Microflex scales. The CAS and Mass Load scales have a 10,000 pound per wheel capacity and the Intercomp scales have a 4,000 pound per wheel capacity. The CAS scales report weight in 5 pound increments with a 1% accuracy. The Mass Load scales report weight in 10 pound increments with a 0.5% accuracy, and the Intercomp scales report weight in 1 pound increments with a 0.1% accuracy.

The 2018 E Wheels EW-36 was an electric 3-wheeled mobility scooter with street legal features including a headlight, brake lights, seat belt, turn signals and a horn (Figure 2). With a top speed below the 20 to 25 mph range, the EW-36 scooter may not be street legal in some areas. The manufacturer published specifications include a 48 volt battery pack, comprised of four 12 volt batteries, 500 watt motor, 43 miles range, and 18 mph top speed. Similar to a motorcycle, the right grip is a twist throttle. There are front and rear brakes actuated by handle bar mounted hand levers. The right hand lever operates the front drum brake and the left hand lever operates the rear disc brakes.

The scooter is equipped with wheelie bars to prevent tipping over backwards. The specifications for the EW-36 are shown in Table 3.

The E Wheel EW-36 scooter was instrumented with the Racelogic VBOX Sport and weighed with the Mass load scales. Performance was demonstrated through a series of hard accelerations from a stop, top speed, and hard braking (skidding) to a stop. All runs were conducted on a level asphalt residential street with a 200 pound rider. The E Wheel EW-36 scooter weight over the rear axle is 82 percent (Table 3) and with the addition of the rider, the weight on the rear axle was 81 percent of the total weight.

The scooter took about 86 feet and 7.2 seconds to reach a top speed of 12.4 mph, which is only about two-thirds the rated top speed (Figure 3 and Figure 4). Consistent with the top speed rating, the speedometer read about 20 mph at this speed. It appears that the actual units for the top

Figure 1: VBOX 3i, VBOX Sport, and Video VBOX Lite (left to right) 10

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 10

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:53:14 PM

Figure 2: E Wheel EW-36 Scooter FAW 40 RAW 180 WT 220 FOH 8.5 WB 40 ROH 21 ROH 12 OL 61 OW 29 OH 53 TW Rear 20.5 Axle Ht 7.5 Tire 16x2.5 SN: 2017090187

Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. inches inches Inches w/ basket Inches w/o basket Inches Inches Inches w/ head rest low Inches Inches

Table 3: E Wheels 2018 EW-36 Scooter Specifications speed rating and the speedometer are in km/h, not mph.

The scooter’s distance and acceleration vs time shows the average acceleration to top speed was 0.08 g’s with a peak of approximately 0.2 g’s at 1.2 seconds (Figure 5 and Figure 6).

Front wheel lift or wheelie on a flat surface could only be produced when the driver leaned back as far as possible so that only fingertips were on the handlebars. Attempts to peel out with hard acceleration were unsuccessful.

In previous testing on this portion of the roadway, -0.78 g’s to 0.87 g’s were obtained for a Toyota Highlander and a Jeep Renegade during ABS braking.

Maximal grip on the front and rear brake levers produced rear wheel skidding and decelerations of -0.56 to -0.57 g’s.

Rear wheel skidding during rear only braking produced decelerations of -0.41 to -0.42 g’s. Maximal grip front only braking resulted in -0.23 -0.24 g’s. Normal hard front and rear hard braking of the scooter produced rear wheel skidding in only two of the six runs and average accelerations of -0.4 to -0.49 g’s. Front wheel skidding on the scooter was not achieved in any run. Any application of the brakes was sufficient to prevent vehicle motion from a stop, even with full throttle application, due to the electronic over-ride.

Maximal grip on the front and rear brake levers produced rear wheel skidding and decelerations of -0.56 to -0.57 g’s.

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 11

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 11

8/24/2018 4:53:14 PM

Figure 3: EW-36 Speed vs Distance

Figure 4: EW-36 Speed vs Time

Figure 5: EW-36 Distance vs Time 12

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 12

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:53:16 PM

Figure 6: EW-36 Acceleration vs Time

Club Car The 2013 Club Car was in service at a golf course and was not street legal (Figure 7). Similar to a car, golf carts have a steering wheel, accelerator pedal and a brake pedal, which actuates the rear brakes. Golf carts are rear wheel drive.

The under seat battery pack had six 8 volt batteries. The specifications for the 2013 Club Car are shown in Table 4.

The Club Car golf cart was instrumented with a Racelogic Video VBOX and weighed with the CAS scales. Performance was demonstrated through a series of hard accelerations from a stop to top speed. Hard braking (skidding) to a stop was not conducted with this vehicle. All runs

were conducted on a concrete cart path with a 200 pound driver. The 2013 Club Car’s weight over the rear axle is 62 percent of its total weight, (Table 4). The Club Car was not weighed again with the driver seated in the vehicle.

The golf cart reached a top speed of 12.5 mph in about 220 feet and 14.7 seconds (Figure 8 and Figure 9). The first plateau at a speed of 11.6 mph took about 72.5 feet in about 6.4 seconds to achieve. The Club Car’s distance and acceleration versus time shows the peak acceleration was almost 0.2 g’s at 2.5 seconds and the average acceleration was 0.9 g’s (10 and Figure 11).

Figure 7: 2013 Club Car

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 13

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 13

8/24/2018 4:53:22 PM

FAW RAW WT FOH WB ROH OL OW OH TW Front TW Rear Axle Ht Tire Steering Ratio Turning Diameter SN: JE1418-458775

355 585 940 9 66 16.5 91.5 47.5 68 35 39 8.5 18x8.5-8 1:12 17

The Club Car Precedent was instrumented with a VBOX 3i and weighed with the CAS scales. Performance was demonstrated through a series of hard accelerations from a stop, top speed, full steer-max speed turns, and hard braking (skidding) to stop. All acceleration and braking runs were conducted on a concrete cart path with a 280 pound driver, while the steering runs were conducted on the grass.

The Club Car Precedent weight over the rear axle is 62 percent of the total weight (Table 4) and with the addition of the driver resulted in 63 percent of the total weight on the rear axle.

Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. inches inches inches inches inches inches inches inches inches

The golf cart was equipped with rack and pinion steering. The steering wheel had approximate 1½ turns in each direction, with approximately 45 degrees of wheel steer, which is steering gear ratio of approximately 1:12. It was observed that when the front wheels contact curbing at a shallow angle, without active resistance by the driver, the vehicle steers fully toward the curbing causing the vehicle to mount the curb and leave the cart path.

feet

Table 4: 2013 Club Car Specifications Club Car Precedent i2 The 2009 Club Car Precedent i2 was in service at a golf course and was not street legal (Figure 12). The specifications for the Club Car Precedent are the same as that for the Club Car listed in Table 4 with a lower total weight of 915 pounds. The under seat battery pack had six 8 volt batteries.

Seating a 280 pound driver in the center of the cart seat, the front ride height was reduced by a quarter inch and the rear ride height was reduced by half an inch. Moving into the driver’s position, the front ride height on each side changed by half an inch so that the left was 1 inch lower than the right. The rear right height changed so that the left rear was about half an inch lower than the right. Operating the cart with the driver did not produce steering in either direction even without hands on the steering wheel.

Figure 8: Club car Speed vs Distance 14

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 14

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:53:23 PM

Figure 9: Club Car Speed vs Time

Figure 10: Club Car Distance vs Time

Figure 11: Club Car Acceleration vs Time www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 15

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 15

8/24/2018 4:53:24 PM

Figure 12: Club Car Precedent Full steering at higher speeds resulted in a significantly larger turning diameter on the grass as a result of understeer. At full speed, steering into a turn, and then releasing the steering wheel resulted in the steering wheel keeping the initial steering input. With prolonged driving in a circle, the steering eventually straightened out. Releasing the steering wheel never resulted in greater steering, except during shallow contacts with curbing, as described above.

The CG height was measured by tipping the vehicle sideways until it balanced and then marking a vertical line above the balance point on each side. The intersection of those lines represents the transverse and vertical location of the CG. The measured CG height of the Club Car Precedent was about 13 ⅜ inches (Figure 13). Combined with the average track width this CG height corresponds with a SSF of 1.38. Tipping the cart this far (approximately 60°) was sufficient to allow acid to leak out of its unsealed batteries.

Figure 13: Club Car Precedent CG measurement

16

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 16

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:53:28 PM

Four skid to stop tests, all of which involved rear wheel skidding, resulted in an average acceleration of approximately -0.28 g’s. The brakes were sufficient to prevent vehicle motion from a stop, even with full throttle pedal application. Traveling at full speed and full throttle with simultaneous brake application resulted in rear wheel skidding and deceleration that was indistinguishable from hard braking only.

Full acceleration from a stop produced average accelerations of approximately 0.09 g’s, peak g’s of approximately 0.25 g’s at 2.5 seconds, and a top speed between 13 and 14 mph at the first plateau, depending on the terrain. Ultimately, a maximum speed of 13.5 mph was achieved (Figure 14 and Figure 15). Full acceleration from approximately half speed, produced an average acceleration of about 0.09 g’s (Figure 16 and Figure 17). Attempts to peel out, even on loose gravel, were unsuccessful.

Figure 14: Club Car Precedent Speed vs Distance

Figure 15: Club Car Precedent Speed vs Time www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 17

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 17

8/24/2018 4:53:28 PM

Figure 16: Club Car Precedent Distance vs Time

Figure 17: Club Car Precedent Acceleration vs Time EZGO TXT 48 The 2012 EZGO TXT was in service at a golf course and was not street legal (Figure 18). The under seat battery pack had six 8 volt batteries. The specifications for the EZGO TXT are shown in Table 5.

The EZGO TXT 48 golf cart was instrumented with the Racelogic VBOX 3i. The weight of the EZGO was not measured. Performance was demonstrated through a series of hard accelerations from a stop and hard braking (skidding) to a stop. All runs were conducted on a level concrete cart path with a 200 pound driver.

Hard braking with rear wheel skidding on the concrete cart path produced accelerations of about -0.29 g’s.

18

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 18

FOH WB ROH OL OW OH TW Front Axle Ht Tire SN: 3025426

9 67.5 17.5 94 41 68 35 8.5 18x8.5-8

inches inches inches inches inches inches inches inches

Table 5: 2012 EZGO TXT 48 Specifications

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:53:29 PM

Figure 18: EZGO TXT 48

Figure 19: EZGO TXT 48 Speed vs Distance

Figure 20: EZGO TXT 48 Speed vs Time www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 19

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 19

8/24/2018 4:53:33 PM

Figure 21: EZGO TXT 48 Distance vs Time

Figure 22: EZGO TXT 48 Acceleration vs Time A top speed of about 14.4 mph was achieved in 7½ seconds and 125 feet with a 200 pound driver (Figure 19 and Figure 20). Peak acceleration was about 0.33 g’s at 0.4 seconds, but the acceleration dropped quickly. The average acceleration to top speed was 0.08 g’s (Figure 21 and Figure 22).

EZGO RXV The 2013 EZGO RXV is a street legal golf cart with head lights, windshield, horn, mirrors, tail lights, brake lights and turn signals (Figure 23). The under seat battery pack had four 12 volt batteries. The EZGO RXV uses a newerdesign drivetrain, with an AC motor, and controller with integrated brake and speed control. Instead of wheel brakes, regenerative braking is used to slow the vehicle during normal driving. There is a friction brake at the motor for hard braking and a parking brake. This braking 20

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 20

system was demonstrated to be capable of rear wheel skidding. The specifications for the EZGO RXV are shown in Table 6.

The EZGO RXV golf cart was instrumented with the Racelogic VBOX 3i and it was weighed with the Intercomp scales. Performance was demonstrated through a series of hard accelerations from a stop and hard braking (skidding) to a stop. All runs were conducted on a level asphalt residential street. Runs were conducted with both stock 18x8.50-8 and larger DOT 205/30-14 tires and wheels and with drivers weighing 200 and 235 pounds.

With the stock wheels and tires, the EZGO RXV’s front and rear axle weights were measured to be 361 pounds and 613 pounds for a total weight of 974 pounds. Adding a 235 pound driver shifted the percentage of the total weight on the rear axle from 63 percent to 64 percent. With the

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:53:33 PM

Figure 23: EZGO RXV with stock and larger tires and wheels FOH WB ROH OL OW OH TW Front TW Rear Axle Ht Tire Steering Ratio Turning Diameter SN: 5309872

9.5 66 38 113.5 47.5 38 35 & 35¾ 38 & 38¾ 8⅜ & 10⅜ 18x8.5-8 & 205/30-14 1:12 17.5 & 18

inches inches inches inches inches inches inches inches inches

feet

Table 6: 2013 EZGO RXV Specifications

larger tires and wheels, the total vehicle weight was increased to 1014 pounds and the percentage of vehicle weight on the rear axle was 62 percent.

Like the Club Car Precedent, the EZGO Carts are equipped with rack and pinion steering. The steering wheel had approximate 1½ turns in each direction, which produced approximately 45 degrees of wheel turn in each direction. Again, the steering gear ratio was approximately 1:12.

Similar to the Club Car Precedent, the EZGO RXV’s CG height was measured by tipping the vehicle sideways until balanced, which was nearly 60°. The CG height of the EZGO RXV was 17.5 inches. Combined with the

average track width, this CG height corresponds with a static stability factor, or T/2h, of 1.04. The EZGO RXV’s change in CG height was not measured with the larger wheels and tires.

The coast down acceleration without brakes was measured to be -0.04 g’s (stock tires) and -0.02 g’s (larger tires).

Hard braking produced rear wheel skidding with accelerations of -0.37 to -0.38 g’s (stock tires) and -0.35 g’s (larger tires). Any application of the brakes was sufficient to prevent vehicle motion from a stop, even with full throttle application, due to the electronic over-ride.

The top speed was measured to be 24.8 mph and 27.8 mph with the stock and larger tires, respectively (Figure 24 and Figure 25). Vehicle performance was largely comparable between tire sizes. The acceleration peaked later and a higher speed was obtained with the larger tire size (Figure 24 through Figure 27). Peak accelerations were in the 0.2 to 0.25 g range at about 1.2 seconds for the stock tires and 0.21 g’s at 2.5 seconds for the larger wheels. For both tire sizes, the average acceleration was about 0.09 g’s (Figure 27).

Like the Club Car Precedent, the EZGO Carts are equipped with rack and pinion steering.

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 21

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 21

8/24/2018 4:53:36 PM

Figure 24: EZGO RXV Speed vs Distance with both wheel sizes

Figure 25: EZGO RXV Speed vs Time with both wheel sizes

Figure 26: EZGO RXV Distance vs Time with both wheel sizes 22

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 22

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:53:37 PM

Figure 27: EZGO RXV Acceleration vs Time with both wheel sizes Fair Play ZX The 2006 Fair Play ZX was in service at a golf course and was not street legal (Figure 28). The under seat battery pack had six 8 volt batteries. The specifications for the Fair Play ZX are shown in Table 7.

(Table 7). The Fair Play was not weighed again with the driver seated in the vehicle.

The top speed of the Fair Play ZX was found to be in the 10 to 11 mph range depending on the terrain (Figure

The Fair Play ZX was instrumented with the Racelogic VBOX3i, and was weighed with the CAS scales. Performance was demonstrated through a series of hard accelerations from a stop. Hard braking (skidding) to a stop was not conducted with this vehicle. All runs were conducted on the asphalt cart path with a 200 pound driver. The rear axle weight was 67 percent of the total vehicle weight

Figure 28: 2006 Fair Play ZX

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 23

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 23

8/24/2018 4:53:38 PM

FAW 375 RAW 745 WT 1120 FOH 10 WB 67 ROH 17 OL 94 OW 46 OH 38 TW Rear 39 Tire 205/50-10 Turning Diameter 20 SN: LE8FKGT1061005213

Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. inches inches inches inches inches inches inches feet

29 and Figure 30). The minimum turning diameter was found to be 20 feet. Turning diameter on grass increased to 34 feet with maximum throttle due to understeer. The maximum lateral acceleration on flat grass was about 0.4 g’s, which was noted to have overcome the seat bottom cushion’s friction to allow outward movement of the lower torso. The natural left turning maneuver onto the cart path was found to be at a speed of about 9 mph and a 70 foot turning radius resulting in a lateral acceleration of about 0.25g. Peak acceleration was 0.28 g’s and the average acceleration was 0.15 g’s (Figure 32).

Table 7: 2006 Fair Play ZX Specifications

Figure 29: Fair Play ZX Speed vs Distance

Figure 30: Fair Play ZX Speed vs Time 24

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 24

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:53:39 PM

Figure 31: Fair Play ZX Distance vs Time

Figure 32: Fair Play ZX Acceleration vs Time

D

iscussion The specifications and performance characteristics measured for an electric scooter and electric golf carts are presented here in an effort to expand the available body of information regarding this group of vehicles.

Measured weights are reported for the test vehicles. The specified vehicle weights for electric powered vehicles are expressed both with and without batteries, which can make about a 300 pound difference. For example, the published weight for the EZGO RXV over a range of years is 611 to 635 pounds or with batteries in the 911 to 939 pound range. When incorporating specified vehicle weights into an investigation or analysis, care must be taken to ensure that one has the full vehicle weight.

The difference in the intended use is evident in the speed vs distance (Figure 33) and speed vs time (Figure 34). The

fleet golf carts’ top speed were found to be 14 mph or less, while the street legal golf cart had a top speed of 25 mph.

Battery pack weight can vary among electric golf carts depending on cell type, manufacturer, and cell capacity. Golf carts generally have either a 4 or 6 battery pack of lead acid batteries. Lithium ion batteries with a substantial weight savings are also available. Differences in battery packs may result in a difference of 250 pounds or more in total vehicle weight. The battery pack was located under the seat for all the test vehicles. The weight of the battery pack (due to number and weight of batteries), affects the total vehicle weight, the center of gravity height, and rollover stability.

Adding a driver decreased the percentage of total vehicle weight on the rear axle of the EW-36 Scooter and EZGO RXV larger tires by 1 percent and increased on the Club Car Precedent and the EZGO RXV stock tires by 1 per-

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 25

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 25

8/24/2018 4:53:41 PM

cent. With the battery packs and occupants positioned toward the rear of the vehicle, similar results would be expected for golf carts in general, although this was not confirmed for the other test vehicles.

The distribution of vehicle weight between the axles can also impact steering characteristics. With lighter front wheel weight, there is less lateral steering friction available resulting in under-steer, as opposed to reduced rear lateral stabilizing forces which results in over-steer and spin out.

By reducing the chance of the vehicle getting into a sideways slide, under-steer is generally associated with reduced rollover risk. A consequence of the under-steer is that the minimum turning diameter is achieved at low speed and increases with higher speeds. The test vehicles were not evaluated for over/under steer on the roadway or on cart paths.

Weight distribution also impacts braking performance. On rear brake only vehicles, the weight over the front axle cannot be used to generate friction for slowing and stopping.

The greater deceleration during rear wheel skidding on the roadway of the EW-36 Scooter’s vs the EZGO RXV may be attributable to the scooter’s greater percentage of total vehicle over its rear axle.

In electronically controlled vehicles, such as the EW-36 Scooter and the EZGO RXV, brake application overrides throttle input as compared to the Club Car Precedent, where the brakes mechanically over-powered the throttle.

Hard brake accelerations of -0.28 g’s to -0.29 g’s were observed with the golf carts on cart paths as compared to -0.37 to 0.38 g’s for street legal carts on the roadway. The reason for this difference was not investigated as the hard brake data was collected independently at different times. Variation in braking performance can possibly be attributed to the roadway surface, tires, or the vehicle itself.

With the larger tires and wheels installed on the EZGO RXV there was a subtle degradation of the performance during braking and the initial peak acceleration. This may be due to the roadway’s increased mechanical advantage applied through the radius of the rear wheels. The larger tires on the EZGO RXV raised the axle and CG height with only a modest increase in track width, so that an even lower SSF would be expected compared to the stock tires.

The number and type of batteries in the battery pack can also change the CG height. The Club Car and EZGO RXV with stock tires have comparable appearance and geometry, including track width. However, the EZGO RXV with stock tires has a CG height that was 4 inches higher than the Club Car’s. The additional weight of the two extra batteries in the Club Car’s battery pack may provide the explanation for its lower CG height.

26

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 26

The Club Car Precedent cart had an empty or un-ballasted SSF of 1.38, which is well within the stability range of many passenger cars. The street legal EZGO RXV with stock wheels had an empty SSF of 1.04 which is comparable to that of SUV’s, such as the Ford Explorer, before widened track widths and electronic stability control were common.

Static stability factors below 1.2 are generally considered at increased risk for rollover.5 The SSF factor was only determined for empty golf carts. Similar to the NHTSA testing 3, accounting for driver and/or passenger weight would be expected to raise the CG height, resulting in a lower SSF and increased rollover risk.

Other customizations may also have an impact on top speed, vehicle weight, the distribution of weight between the axles, the braking and acceleration performance, CG height and rollover stability. A suspension lift is a common modification expected to change CG height and rollover stability that was not included in this study.

S

ummary A compilation of golf cart and scooter acceleration, hard brake, and specifications has been summarized in Table 8. Relatively constant acceleration was observed during, and can be used to represent, hard braking and skidding. Non-constant acceleration was observed during hard accelerations. The graphs provided may be used to represent the time dependent relationship between speed, distance, and time during hard accelerations (Figure 6, Figure 11, Figure 17, Figure 22, Figure 27, and Figure 32).

Peak vehicle accelerations were about two to four times that of the average vehicle accelerations. Therefore average acceleration would not represent hard accelerations as accurately as a time dependent relationship.

The combined results for the test vehicles in this study may be used as a guide or indicator of the representative performance of electric golf carts or scooters relative to speed vs distance (Figure 33), speed vs time (Figure 34), and distance vs time (Figure 35). The variation in speed between all vehicles tested up to about 30 feet has a range of about 2 mph (Figure 33) and the time it takes to traverse any distance has a range of about 1½ seconds (Figure 35).

Testing of the actual vehicle is ideal and would undoubtedly result in much smaller variation, but such testing is not always realistic, as the crash vehicle may be damaged or unavailable. When considering the appropriate exemplar vehicle performance, measurements, and/or specifications into an investigation or analysis it is recommended that the manufacturer, type, configuration, customization, and intended application be considered in the selection process.

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:53:41 PM

Approx. Top Test Surface Speed

E Wheels EW-36

(mph) 12.5

Club Car Club Car Precedent EZGO TXT 48 EZGO RXV

12.5 14 14 25

Fair Play

28* 11

Asphalt Concrete Concrete Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt

% Vehicle Weight Rear Axle (%) 81 62 62 62-64 67

Average Acceleration

Peak Acceleration

Average Braking

(g’s) 0.08

(g’s @ secs) 0.2 @ 1.2

(g’s) -0.42 g’s R

0.09 0.09 to 0.1 0.08 0.09

-0.57 g F+R 0.2 @ 2.5 0.25 @ 2.5 -0.28 0.33 @ 0.4 -0.29 0.2 – 0.25 @ 1.2 0.38

0.15

0.21 @ 2.5* 0.28

-0.35* -

Table 8: Summary of Acceleration, Top Speed, and Hard Braking Data

Figure 33: Summary Speed vs Distance

Figure 34: Summary Speed vs Time www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 27

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 27

8/24/2018 4:53:42 PM

Figure 35: Summary Distance vs Time Author Note Balancing the golf cart while tipped sideways is a simple way to determine an empty vehicle’s CG height. However, the tipping angles involved may be high enough to allow battery acid to leak from unsealed batteries. It is recommended for those vehicles equipped with unsealed batteries that either the investigators be prepared for potential battery acid leakage or use another method.

Glossary ABS Anti-lock Braking System CG Center of Gravity FAW Front Axle Weight FOH Front Overhang GPS Global Positioning System LSV Low speed vehicle NCAP New Car Assessment Program NEV Neighborhood Electric Vehicle OH Overall Height OL Overall Length OW Overall Width RAW Rear Axle Weight ROH Rear Overhang TW Track Width SN Serial Number SSF Static Stability Factor T/2h TW / (2* CG height) WB Wheel Base WT Weight Total References

way Loss Data Institute, Status Report, Vol 45, No 5, May 2010.

2. Seluga KJ & Ojalvo IU, “Braking Hazards of Golf Cars and Low Speed Vehicles,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol 38, No 6, pgs. 1151-1156, November 2006.

3. Elias J, “Inspection and Testing of Low Speed Vehicles,” National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Vehicle Research and Test Center, August 1998.

4. Watson DS, Mehan TJ, Smith GA & McKenzi LB, “Golf Cart – Related Injuries in the U.S.” American Journal of Preventative Medicine, Vol 35, No 1, pgs.

55-59, July 2008.

5. Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 49 CFR Part 575, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rollover Resistance.

6. Seluga KJ, Baker LL & Ojalvo IU, “A Parametric Study of Golf Car and Personal Transport Vehicle Braking Stability and Their Deficiencies,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol 41, No 4, pgs. 839-848, July 2009.

7. Long TJ, Fugger TJ & Randles B, “Vehicle Performance Characteristics and Seat Belt Effectiveness in Low Speed Vehicles and Golf Cars,” 19th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), Paper No 05-0431, June 2005.

8. Racelogic VBOX 3i 100Hz GPS Datalogger data sheet, 3/11/09.

9. Racelogic VBOX Sport data sheet, 4/2/14.

10. Racelogic Video VBOX Lite (RLVBVD10LT) data sheet, 3/20/2012.

1. “Low-Speed Vehicles Aren’t Crashworthy, New Tests Show,” Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, High-

28

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 28

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:53:43 PM

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 29

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 29

8/24/2018 4:53:44 PM

Estimated Likelihood Of Obtaining The Non-Deployment Event Of Interest Robert Anderson And Pre-Crash Data Guide For The Biomechanics Analysis Toyota Gen1 Airbag Control Modules

S

tored crash data event from a non-deployment is generally vulnerable to replacement by subsequent recorded events if that vehicle has been returned to service. The average risk of event replacement is related to the average time between recorded events, which are called triggers (TRG’s) in Toyota vehicles. This information is a useful guideline to evaluate the chance of successfully recovering an unlocked non-deployment event of interest from a Toyota vehicle equipped with an 02EDR airbag control module (ACM) that has been returned to service.

A review of over 500 Toyota CDR reports grouped by EDR category (00EDR through 13EDR) found that it is reasonable to expect that non-deployment data of interest may be obtainable from vehicles from the Toyota Line with 02EDR ACM’s for at least 3 to 5 years after the vehicles have been returned to service post-crash.

B

ackground

Toyota Gen1 00EDR was excluded since the data limitations confirms that the modules renumber the stored events starting with TRG0 every time the ignition is turned on (Figure 1). Therefore, the TRG number of the most recent event (MRE) generally does not represent the actual number of TRG’s that vehicle has experienced. In fact, every single CDR report without a freeze signal, or deployment, had TRG0, TRG1, and TRG2.

Out of 31 00EDR CDR reports reviewed, no lateral or rollover events were recorded. When there is a freeze signal present the MRE TRG number was usually 3, 4 or 5, as these modules appear to always have the three memory locations occupied (TRG0, TRG1, and TRG2). Therefore it cannot be concluded that the reported highest TRG number was the total number of TRG’s seen by each of these vehicles in their service lives.

30

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 30

"TRG Count" value is rewritten by the airbag ECU every time the ignition is switched ON. At this time, the "TRG Count" values become 0, 1, or 2 in order from the smallest to the largest "TRG Count" value of each recorded frontal/rear page (memory map). For example, if the frontal/rear "TRG Count" values before rewriting are 2 for Page 0, 3 for Page 1, and 4 for Page 2, the rewritten "TRG Count" values will be 0 for Page 0, 1 for Page 1, and 2 for Page 2. However, the values are not rewritten when the "Freeze Signal" is set "ON".

Figure 1: Data limitations text from Toyota 00EDR modules Toyota Gen1 02EDR modules assign TRG numbers only for longitudinal events even if some of the modules may have recorded lateral and rollover events. The TRG number of the MRE can simply be used as the total number of longitudinal (Front/Rear) TRG’s in the service life of these vehicles and their modules. Therefore an average time separating longitudinal TRG’s can be derived from the estimated vehicle age and total number of TRG’s.

Analysis of the CDR files from Toyota Gen2 04EDR/06EDR and Gen3 12EDR/13EDR modules is outside the scope of this paper as these modules assign trigger numbers to all events that meet the recording criteria. Gen2 modules wake threshold and re-

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:53:46 PM

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 31

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 31

8/24/2018 4:53:47 PM

cord threshold coincide. Gen3 modules are intended to be 49 CFR Part 563 compliant and therefore have record threshold that is separate from the wake threshold of the airbag control module. Both Gen2 and Gen3 modules have separate memory locations for longitudinal, side, and rollover events. In the absence of side and rollover TRG’s, the TRG number of the Most Recent Event (MRE) can always be used as the total number of longitudinal triggers during the service life of the vehicle up to the CDR imaging date. However, if there is a mix of longitudinal, side, and/or rollover events, a more detailed analysis of the TRG types and their memory locations may be required to deduce the number of longitudinal, side and rollover TRG’s and the average time between TRG types.

Across multiple generations of CDR modules the presence of pre-crash data coincides with the vehicle having a LAN according to the Toyota Motor Corporation. A Toyota vehicle line chart indicates the presence of a vehicle LAN and therefore the presence or absence of pre-crash data (Figure 4).

A

nalysis

A total of 219 vehicles equipped with Gen 1 02EDR airbag control modules (ACM’s) were evaluated for the number of Bosch CDR reports recorded longitudinal events (Front / Rear TRG numbers) to arrive at the average time between recorded events per year. The age of each vehicle at the time of CDR imaging was estimated by the difference between the imaging date and the model

year. For example a 2008 model vehicle imaged in 2012 would be counted as 4 years old and a 2016 model imaged in 2016 was estimated as 0 years old for the purposes of this analysis.

These vehicles included 25 different Toyota, Lexus, and Scion models that spanned the 2003 to 2012 model year range. Average age of the 02EDR vehicles was 6 years.

Average MRE TRG number was 3.2 TRG’s. Thirteen vehicles did not have any TRG’s at all and one Toyota Echo had 42 TRG’s. Adding up the estimated ages of all the vehicles produced a combined vehicle age of 1320 years.

Adding up all the MRE TRG numbers resulted in a total of 719 TRG’s. On average there was about 1.8 years between TRG’s. Average number of years between TRG’s by make and model are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

Additionally 6 of the 31 00EDR reports reviewed from a Lexus GS300, LS430, or SC430, had pre-crash data. The remainder 00EDR reports for Camrys and ES 300’s did not have pre-crash data. As shown in Figure 4, this result coincides with Toyota’s line chart that shows the LS, GX, and SC as having pre-crash data for all supported calendar years.1 Interestingly, Figure 4 indicates that the Toyota Corolla did not have pre-crash data until mid to late 2007 calendar year, which would be expected to start with the 2008 model year. However, there were not any pre-crash data until the 2009 model year in the 58 Toyota Corollas CDR files reviewed.

Figure 2: Toyota EDR02 average years between TRG’s by vehicle make 32

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 32

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:53:47 PM

In the Toyota Line chart (Figure 4) the Sienna is shown as having pre-crash data for all supported years. However, three Sienna CDR files did not have pre-crash data. One was 2010 model year that only had a lateral event. The other two CDR files were from 2005 model year Siennas.

Similarly, Highlanders are shown as always having precrash data, but files from two 2004 and one 2005 model year Highlanders did not have pre-crash data.

R

ecommendation

Bosch CDR reports from Gen2 and Gen3 modules only stored at most two longitudinal events. As such, one subsequent TRG would relabel the longitudinal non-deployment of interest from MRE to 1P and then the next longitudinal TRG would over-write it.

For the Gen1 modules, two subsequent TRGs could lead to the non-deployment of interest being over-written or saved as Prior Event. Toyota’s vehicle line chart (Figure 4) is a useful guideline for which of their vehicles are likely to have pre-crash data in their CDR reports.

A total of 219 vehicles equipped with Gen 1 02EDR airbag control modules (ACM’s) were evaluated for the number of Bosch CDR reports recorded longitudinal events (Front / Rear TRG numbers) to arrive at the average time between recorded events per year.

Figure 3: Toyota EDR02 average years between TRG’s by vehicle model www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 33

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 33

8/24/2018 4:53:47 PM

Figure 4: Toyota line modules with pre-crash data

Out of 219 vehicles equipped with 02EDR ACM’s, 187 or approximately 85 percent had an average of one year or more between TRG’s. Overall, based upon the recorded longitudinal events included in this study, it is reasonable to expect a good chance the non-deployment data of interest could be obtainable from Toyota Line with Gen1 ACM’s for 3 to 5years on average after the vehicle has been returned to service.

Assuming a similar frequency of recorded events for other generations of Toyota modules, or other vehicles with two or more memory locations for storing longitudinal events, it is reasonable to expect a good chance of obtaining a nondeployment data of interest for 2 to 3½ years after the vehicle is returned to service post-crash.

Reference 1. Iyoda M et al. 2016. Event Data Recorder (EDR) Developed by Toyota Motor Corporation. SAE 2016-011495. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.

34

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 34

Out of 219 vehicles equipped with 02EDR ACM’s, 187 or approximately 85 percent had an average of one year or more between TRG’s

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:53:48 PM

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 35

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 35

8/24/2018 4:53:48 PM

Revisiting Caterpillar ECMs Tim Austin

Wisconsin State Patrol

36

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 36

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:53:49 PM

I

ntroduction

The use of Heavy Vehicle Event Data Recorders associated with electronic engine controllers is well established in the crash investigation community. References to specific casework involving crash related data being recovered from a Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) can be found as far back as 1998 in the Accident Reconstruction Journal and two years later in a 2000 Society of Automotive Engineers technical paper1,2. Both of these publications stemmed from an investigation of a 1996 crash that involved a CMV with a Caterpillar engine. In fact, engines manufactured by Caterpillar were some of the first in heavy vehicles to potentially store event data surrounding a crash event. Starting with the 1994 engine model year, their Advanced Diesel Engine Management (ADEM) system has had the capability of recording information surrounding certain events. These files, which are called “snapshots,” have proven very beneficial to those interested in determining how and why a particular incident occurred. However, in the nearly twenty years that have passed since the first formal publication, there have been several observations made by the crash investigation community that both validate this data, and show a need for very careful examination of the information.

C

aterpillar Snapshots

Caterpillar Electronic Control Modules (ECMs) have the capability of recording three different types of snapshots. These include Diagnostic Events, External Triggers, and Quick Stop Occurrences. A Diagnostic Event is recorded when most engine or electronic system faults take place. In these cases, the ECM will record a file that consists of a time period of approximately 9.12 seconds before the event and 3.36 seconds after at a rate of about 2 Hz. However, as was pointed out in the Fall 2012 edition of Collision, the time from the onset of the condition to the actual fault being recorded in the snapshot3 can vary considerably between different faults. So, this does not necessarily mean that the user will see a true nine seconds worth of data before the event. A Caterpillar boost pressure fault, for example, requires the fault condition to be active for about two seconds before the event is documented. So, only seven seconds of preevent information can be expected. In contrast, a barometric pressure fault typically requires 30 seconds before the fault is recorded. In this situation, the snapshot would actually only contain post-event information.

The second snapshot type is the External Trigger. This is a Caterpillar feature that allows the vehicle driver or engine operator to manually trigger an event. This is done by toggling between “set” and “resume” on the cruise control switch in a specified order. While it is intended for the operator to document a specific condition, many crash investigators have found these files to be written when the driver is simply trying to set the cruise control at a desired wheel speed during normal operation. These snapshots show information similar to those for Diagnostic Events, and record the same timeframe of 9.12 seconds before the trigger and 3.36 seconds after.

The third snapshot recorded by Caterpillar ECMs records data surrounding a Quick Stop Occurrence.

These are triggered when the system detects a decrease in wheel speed in excess of a set threshold rate. This rate is a programmable value that is expressed as miles per hour per second. As most investigators have found, this value is typically set at zero, which means that the parameter is turned off and the ECM will not record a Quick Stop snapshot. However, when it is turned on and the threshold is met, the information contained in the subsequent snapshot file has proven valuable to those completing an analysis of the collision. In most cases, the snapshot will contain 44 seconds of pre-event

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 37

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 37

8/24/2018 4:53:52 PM

data and 15 seconds of post-event information recorded at 1 Hz. For all snapshot types, new files are expected to overwrite older snapshots.

Caterpillar ECMs come in three different physical styles.

The first of these, the ADEM II, has two 40-pin connectors positioned sideways on the front. This was primarily used on engines from 1994 to 1998. The next version, the ADEM 2000, was used from 1999 – 2001. This was followed by the ADEM III Bridge in 2002 and the ADEM III between 2003 and 2006. The ADEM 2000, ADEM III Bridge, and the ADEM III use the same shell and have two 70-pin connectors on the face of the ECM. The third physical ECM style incorporates a 70-pin plug and a 120pin plug. This was used with the ADEM IV MXS/NXS in 2005 and 2006, followed by the ADEM IV EPA 07 from 2007 to 2010. After 2010, Caterpillar stopped manufacturing engines for on-highway applications.

C

aterpillar Research

Since the early 1998 article that explained how Caterpillar data was used in a crash investigation, several researchers have invested time and resources into validating snapshot information. In 2008, for example, a team from Hrycay Consulting Engineers, Inc., specifically looked at Caterpillar data reliability from the perspective of crash investigations4. While the researchers found that the numerical values for speed were consistent with outside recording devices, they noted that the time

38

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 38

interval shown between samples was actually double the true duration. So, instead of documenting 44 seconds for a Quick Stop, the snapshot only showed approximately 22 seconds. Two years later, in 2010, a team led by Messerschmidt Safety Consultants identified further discrepancies while looking into crash scenarios involving a catastrophic loss of power5. While testing various Caterpillar Engines, it was found that they could not write more than one Quick Stop snapshot without first powering down

Researchers from Hrycay Consulting Engineers, Inc., found that the given time interval between samples was doubled in many Caterpillar ECMs.

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:53:54 PM

the engine on some ECMs. More puzzling was that some ECMs were dating snapshots for the following day.

In 2011, additional research was conducted at Fox Valley Technical College in Appleton, Wisconsin, with the intention of looking into the potential issues experienced by the Hrycay and Messerschmidt researchers6. During the course of this project, 27 different Caterpillar engine types were tested using 93 vehicles or ECMs. The researchers triggered Diagnostic Events, created Quick Stop conditions, and updated ECM software on the modules themselves to determine if upgrades had an effect on performance.

The tests confirmed previous findings about operational anomalies and documented which specific ECMs were susceptible to the conditions.

With respect to Diagnostic Event snapshots, it was found that some Caterpillar ECMs could only record one or two snapshots until they are manually cleared by a technician.

This means that when accessing the ECM, the only data available might be from some time in the past. Similarly, some ECMs, such as that for the Caterpillar C-10 tested

by Messerschmidt in 2010, were unable to write a new snapshot file until the engine and ECM had been powered down and restarted. For other ECM models, only one Quick Stop snapshot would be written until that particular file was manually cleared by a technician.

While ECM software updates fixed these conditions in some ECMs, others are still subject to these anomalies.

to the ECM’s use of UNIX time. This method of keeping time is based off of the number of seconds that have passed since January 1, 1970 at 12:00 a.m. If the ECM records an error or negative number for time, it stamps the date being before, or at the start of, the UNIX clock. When this occurs, it becomes necessary for the investigator to use other methods of determining whether or not a particular snapshot is related to his or her incident.

U

pdated Information

While the 2008, 2010, and 2011 Caterpillar testing has been previously published and is widely known, new information about the date anomalies has recently come to light and was formally presented at the 2017 EDR Summit in Houston, Texas. An examination of actual cases and additional testing has shown that the conditions wherein the ECM advances the date one day ahead or reports the incident as having occurred in 1960 or 1970 will likely only occur between 6:00 a.m. and 11:59 p.m., using the ECM’s internal clock. In other words, a snapshot that is written between midnight and 5:59:59 a.m. will have the correct date. However, if the incident is recorded at 6:00:00 a.m., it will be dated one day ahead.

The 2011 research also confirmed the time interval anomaly noted by Hrycay and found it to occur in a wide range of Caterpillar engine controllers. Again, the time interval shown in the applicable snapshots is approximately double what true samples were actually recorded at. For these files, it is necessary for the investigator to reevaluate the given time and sample rate. Caterpillar ECMs going back to 1999 are subject to this condition, with software updates correcting the anomaly for the ADEM IV EPA 07.

Perhaps the most perplexing condition in Caterpillar ECMs concerns situations where the ECM dates snapshots for the following day. Many ECMs made prior to the ADEM IV EPA 07 were found to have this anomaly and it has no doubt caused frustration for those attempting to determine when a particular event took place.

Furthermore, if a snapshot occurs on the 31st day of an applicable month, the ECM will give the date as being either December 31, 1969 or January 1, 1970 at 12:00 a.m. This is attributed www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 39

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 39

8/24/2018 4:53:54 PM

Caterpillar ECMs use the J1587 protocol for keeping track of time. This parameter divides the day into six-hour quarters beginning on January 1, 1985. If an ECM subject to this anomaly has its clock reset to midnight on this date, any snapshots immediately documented will show the correct date and time. However, once time passes the 6:00 a.m. mark, the date is advanced by one day. The same is true for the 1969/1970 issue. On the 31st day of the month, the snapshot will show the correct date up until 5:59:59 a.m. However, after this point, the date will show the UNIX error.

While this new information has only been tested on a limited number of Caterpillar ECMs, it is believed that it will apply to all those having the date anomaly. The controllers subject to this condition include the ADEM 2000, ADEM III Bridge, ADEM III, and ADEM IV MXS/NXS. In other words, ECMs from 1999 to around 2006 may have an issue with the dates of snapshots occurring between 6:00 a.m. and 11:59 p.m. Again, this is a new finding with Caterpillar ECMs that supplements past research. It is important for investigators be aware that the date anomalies will likely not occur during the first six hours of the day as measured by the ECM.

C

onclusion

The use of Caterpillar ECMs for the purpose of crash reconstruction has been accepted and documented for nearly 20 years. During that time, professional researchers have published peer-reviewed articles and technical documents that have validated the information contained in incident snapshots. However, investigators must be aware that they while readings such as wheel speed and driver input parameters are valid, they must make adjustments to the sample intervals on some

40

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 40

ECMs. Likewise, users should know that some ECMs will incorrectly report the snapshot date as being one day ahead, or back in the past to 1969 or 1970. New information presented at the 2017 EDR Summit shows that these date anomalies do not appear to occur during the first six hours of the day. Therefore, it is important to give special consideration to the ECM’s reported time with respect to when the incident occurred in order to determine if the snapshot is related to the incident under investigation. In spite of these known issues, Caterpillar data are indeed useful to the crash investigator and can be used with confidence.

However, it is critical that possible anomalies and conditions be evaluated.

R

eferences

1. Meyers, D., Andraschko, M., and Ausloos, B., “Commercial Vehicle Crash Investigation – Electronic Control Modules,” Accident Reconstruction Journal. 10(2):56-57, 1998.

2. Goebelbecker J., and Ferrone, C., “Utilizing Electronic Control Module Data in Accident Reconstruction,” SAE Technical Paper 2000-01-0466, 2000.

3. Austin, T., Messerschmidt, W., and Farrell, M., “Using and Preserving HVEDR Diagnostic Event Data,” Colllision – The International Compendium for Crash Research. 7(2):46-53, 2012.

4. Drew, K., van Nooten, S., Bortolin, R., Gervais, J., and Hrycay, J., “The Reliability of Snapshot Data from Caterpillar Engines for Accident Investigation and Analysis,” SAE Technical Paper 2008-01-2708, 2008.

5. Messerschmidt, W., Austin, T., Smith, B., Cheek, T., Plant, D., and Voeglie, C., “Simulating the Effect of Collision-Related Power Loss on the Event Data Recorders of Heavy Trucks,” SAE Technical Paper 201001-1004, 2010.

6. Austin, T., and Farrell, M., “An Examination of Snapshot Data in Caterpillar Electronic Control Modules,” SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-0807, 2011.

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:53:54 PM

Get the facts of the crash get answers quickly

Helping you understand the crash evaluate causation

validate physical evidence

corroborate witness statements

With proven admissibility in court, the Bosch CDR Tool is the worldwide standard used by law enforcement for obtaining unbiased, critical crash data from vehicles. Equip your investigators with the trusted tool to get answers quickly, evaluate causation & physical evidence and corroborate witness statements producing accurate incident reports.

In addition to selling the Bosch CDR Tool, Crash Data Group also assists with training needs, assuring you understand how to use the tool properly.

The CDR Tool allows you access to crash data from the majority of vehicles on the road today. Because of the impact the data provides to the investigation process, this tool has become the essential tool for law enforcement and accident inviestigators.

www.crashdatagroup.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 41

8/24/2018 4:53:54 PM

Forensic Methods for Dealing with Damaged ACM/ECM Components Shanon R. Burgess William F. Messerschmidt

T

here you are, elbows deep in grease, oil, jagged metal, and who knows what else, trying to remove the engine control module (ECM) from a severely damaged truck before the wrecker yard closes…you’ve got one stubborn bolt that seems to be longer than a night in jail. There isn’t much left of what once was a tractor-trailer and you can’t actually see the ECM through the mangled metal, but you know it’s there. At this point, all you can think about is getting the ECM out, getting connected to it, and getting data so you can get home from the wrecker yard. The last bolt falls to the ground and you manage to wiggle the ECM out of the metal coffin it has come to call home.

But the ECM you remove from the wreck looks something like Figure 1. Your day just got a little more interesting…

42

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 42

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:53:56 PM

Figure 1: Example ECMs removed from a crash ntroduction Under ideal circumstances, data can be imaged through the Diagnostic Link Connector, or DLC, which also may be referred to as a Deutsch connector in heavy trucks or an OBD II connector in light vehicles. When data cannot be imaged through the DLC, direct connection to the module - often using a passive sensor interface - or connection via surrogate vehicle must be used. However, sometimes modules are damaged to such a degree, or in such a manner, that direct imaging of the data is impossible. This occurs when there is damage to the circuit board and/or its components.

memory chips. Very often chip-swap forensics, defined as removing the memory chips from a damaged module and transferring them to a working, surrogate module; allows a complete forensic image to be obtained from the damaged module. With this method, we are essentially disconnecting the data storage component from the damaged module and re-connecting it to a working, surrogate module.

When done properly this technique allows reconstructionist to transfer all stored data from one ACM/ECM to another, so that data from the damaged module can then be retrieved using traditional data recovery tools.

This paper describes how it is often possible to obtain a complete forensic image of the ACM or ECM even if damage prevents imaging data using some form of direct connection (e.g., CDR Tool direct to module cables, Synercon Smart Sensor Simulator 2, a custom passive sensor interface, or surrogate vehicle). Chip level forensic techniques, though relatively recently applied to vehicle accident reconstruction, have been shown to produce valid data when done properly (Daily, 2015, Muir, 2015).

This paper describes how it is often possible to obtain a complete forensic image of the ACM or ECM if damage prevents imaging data using some form of direct connection

I

First, we need to understand that an ACM/ECM is an embedded system containing embedded memory chips, often referred to as flash memory. What is an embedded system?

It is a computer system designed with a specific function or set of functions within a larger system. While this paper focuses on ACMs and ECMs, flash memory is used in a vast majority of electronic devices, almost any electronic devices that are capable of storing data, all of which carry their own specific set of difficulties when attempting to transplant or extract data.

The challenge for forensic scientists and engineers is to to devise a method for obtaining a full forensic image from a severely damaged ACM/ECM that contains embedded-

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 43

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 43

8/24/2018 4:53:59 PM

Figure 2: Example damaged ECMs

It should be noted that chip-swap forensics is just one type of “chip-level forensics.” The broader category of chip level forensics may involve minor repairs to the circuit board itself. These repairs may solve communication issues encountered during traditional data recovery techniques. There are times when the circuit board itself is undamaged but components such as analog-digital converters and CAN (controller area network) communication chips may have been damaged or jarred loose from their solder connections resulting in the need to replace the missing or damaged components. Perhaps the ACM/ ECM is undamaged internally, but the external interface connector has been damaged in a way that pins are broken or bent, and need repaired in order to attach direct to module cables. When such repairs can be made, or reasonably attempted, they should be. The repair process is often cheaper in terms of both parts and labor and usually carries less risk than the removal and replacement of data storage components. hip-swap complexity The simplest chip swaps involve merely moving one eight-pin EEPROM chip (electronic erasable programmable read only memory) and transplanting it on an undamaged circuit board. These simplest of chip swaps are common with ACMs and Powertrain Control Modules (PCMs) used on older-model light vehicles and supported with the Bosch CDR Tool.

C

44

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 44

Heavy truck ECMs perform much more extensive and complicated tasks than ACMs, since the ECM is responsible for monitoring and managing engine and emissions functions in real time. The ECM therefore, has a larger, more complex circuit board that requires the utilization of different memory types: ROM (read-only memory) for firmware, formulas and look-up tables to calculate the correct fuel/air ratios; EEPROM/Flash for programmable parameters (such as tire size or maximum governed speed), historical data that is augmented during the use of the engine, the EDR component, and RAM (random access memory) to hold sensor input data which must be processed allowing the microprocessor to make adjustments. Figure 3 compares the physical differences between EEPROM and flash components.

In addition, microprocessors also incorporate various forms of EEPROM, Flash, or combinations of both internally. Microprocessors can be utilized in a variety of package sizes and types. Most often, automotive microprocessors are found in QFP (quad flat pack) or BGA (ball grid array) package types. Keep in mind BGA microprocessors do not have visible pins like the QFP microprocessors do.

Instead, BGA pins are found underneath the device in the form of pads. Common BGA microprocessors have anywhere from 40 to 272 pads spaced less than 0.6mm apart. These components alone require specialized equipment and training to remove and align properly during re-soldering. Figure 4 compares the physical differences between common microprocessor packages.

Late model light vehicles are also becoming increasingly complex. Airbag deployment algorithms incorporate data from an increasing array of external sensors to combine with accelerometer readings: seat position sensors, occupant sensors, satellite sensors, and much more. In addition, deployment decisions are made more quickly, while the amount of data considered increases dramatically.

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:01 PM

Figure 3: Physical differences between EEPROM (left) and flash components (right)

Figure 4: Physical differences between common microprocessor packages Implementing these safety improvements has necessitated that ACMs increase in complexity, with some current ACMs storing data on at least two memory chips. Successfully reading data from a damaged, late-model ACM may be much more complex than simply moving an identifiable, 8-pin EEPROM! In cases such as this, obtaining

a complete, forensically valid dataset involves identifying ALL chips containing relevant data and removing and resoldering them according to IPC (Institute for Printed Circuits) standard techniques.

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 45

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 45

8/24/2018 4:54:05 PM

The goal of a chip transplant is to retrieve a complete forensic image of the data stored on a damaged module that otherwise would be impossible. In order to successfully work with heavy truck ECMs and late-model ACMs, a three-step process must be employed: •

Inspection and Identification

•

Proof of Concept

•

Imaging

external interface connector, or that an analog-digital converter has been knocked loose from the board during the impulse of the collision. Other times, the initial inspection will reveal that no further work of any sort is likely to obtain data. For example, the external interface connector may have been torn from the module during the crash, taking a section of circuit board with it and leaving a large hole. This can also be the case when memory bearing chips themselves have suffered physical damage (e.g., during a vehicle fire).

I

When a chip-swap is determined to be the most effective method of data retrieval, or when repair attempts have failed, the scientist or engineer must be prepared to identify ALL potentially data-bearing chips.

Often, this initial inspection will reveal that a chip swap is not (or may not be) necessary. For example, the inspection may reveal that the only damage appears to be a broken connection between the circuit board and the module’s

Close study of the ECM or ACM circuit board and decoding of the serial numbers on individual chips will provide many clues about which will or may contain relevant data. In many cases, visual inspection and serial number decoding alone will not provide all the necessary answers.

(Some ECMs and especially ACMs are custom made for the manufacturer, and that chip serial numbers, along with

nspection and Identification The first step involves disassembling the module and identifying missing/damaged components. During this phase, the scientist or engineer is primarily asking the questions: “What specific damage is preventing me from reading the subject module?” and “What is the most practical way to address or repair that damage?”

Figure 5: Example of a damaged ECM 46

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 46

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:06 PM

their specific role on the board, are kept proprietary). In other cases, simply the wide range of possible chips will prevent the scientist or engineer from determining conclusively which ones store relevant data. roof of Concept In these cases, the Proof of Concept is essentially a trial-and-error process, aided by the scientist’s experience, training and education. In these cases, chips from an ACM or ECM with known data are moved repeatedly until the host module is imaged and its data is substantially identical to the initial dataset from the Proof of Concept’s initial data.

P

The Proof of Concept is critically important for the following reason. In crashes that are so severe that the ECM or ACM itself has sustained damage, it is possible that no data was written. This should be obvious: if the critical damage occurred before the data could be saved, then the expected result would be – No Saved Crash Data.

The Proof of Concept answers the question of how one decides conclusively between an incorrect reading of the chips that results in No Saved Crash Data (a false negative, similar to a Type II error in statistical analysis) as opposed to a correct reading of chips that were unable to save data during the crash.

Of almost equal importance, the Proof of Concept will also reveal if the transplant process itself leaves any residual data from the host module. For example: hypothetically, an ECM may contain two flash chips and one EEPROM; it may store its EDR data in EEPROM, parameter data in flash #1, and ECM serial number in flash #2. The Proof of Concept will demonstrate that after moving two relevant chips (EEPROM and flash #1), the host module will contain the crash data and parameter data from the subject vehicle but will retain its own ECM serial number.

Only when all data bearing chips have been identified and a Proof of Concept has been successful can the scientist or engineer confidently apply a procedure for moving memory components to the damaged module. ommon Issues & Problems Despite every precaution, chip-swap forensics does carry the risk of damaging the memory chip or losing data during the rework process. The rework process is the removal and re-soldering of memory chips.

During this process, the memory chips are exposed to hightemperatures (up to 220C or 428F at the solder joint) that are required to melt the solder connections between chip and circuit board. Care is taken to create an appropriate temperature profile (the gradual introduction of heat-

C

energy over time to reduce the risk of damage). However, at such high temperatures the risk cannot be eliminated.

In the case of BGA microprocessors this is especially challenging because it takes more heat and/or longer exposure times to successfully rework the device. Even after creating the most appropriate profile, this process can unintentionally damage the chips, especially if the circuit board has been exposed to extreme weather conditions or other contaminants before it is recovered from the vehicle. It is important to recover any damaged ACM/ECM from a vehicle quickly to prevent unnecessary exposure to weather elements. When exposure to adverse weather conditions or outside contaminants cannot be avoided or has already taken place, the ACM/ECM must be thoroughly baked and cleaned before rework can begin.

CM Issues As described earlier, ACMs typically contain one 8-pin EEPROM to function as data storage. In older ACMs, the task of identifying it was simple: look for the 8-pin chip. For many late-model ACMs, this is no longer the case. There are times when EEPROM or flash memory components can’t be identified or simply are not present. This may lead scientists or engineers to look elsewhere on the circuit board.

A

In addition to these new challenges, the main microprocessor is also capable of containing EEPROM/flash capabilities. In this case, a Proof of Concept is necessary to verify the main microprocessor has been identified. ACMs can contain several microprocessors and serial numbers may be proprietary, preventing the scientist from identifying the component conclusively. A proper Proof of Concept will allow the scientist to verify that EDR data does exist on the suspected component.

ACMs typically contain one 8-pin EEPROM to function as data storage

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 47

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 47

8/24/2018 4:54:06 PM

Figure 6: Example of a damaged ACM with identifiable EEPROM For example: during the Proof of Concept, an ACM has been identified as containing one 8-pin EEPROM as the potential data-bearing component. Further testing reveals the scientist is unable to transfer a known, simulated crash event from one module to another. This could be caused from a bad solder joint during the rework process or it could mean that the EDR data is not stored on that EEPROM. Recall the statement earlier, that ACMs are customized and contain proprietary components? It is not uncommon for components such as a secondary EEPROM to be unmarked and easily mistaken for an analog-digital converter. For this reason, the Proof of Concept phase can involve multiple attempted readings, consume several ACM modules, and take several weeks to complete. Figure 6 shows an ACM that presents this challenge.

48

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 48

CM Issues Because ECMs are critical to the operation of diesel engines, it is important that data stored on them does not become corrupt and is not modified incorrectly.

How does an ECM verify data found on multiple memory chips is correct? Checksums exist in memory chips to verify data integrity and protect components in the event that data in the ECM does become corrupt or modified incorrectly. The ECM will recalculate checksums on startup and compare the values to those stored on multiple memory components. If checksums do not match, the ECM will assume data has become corrupt and by default will initialize one or more of the memory components to correct the issue. What do I mean by initialize? Reset!

E

For example: an ECM may contain both an EEPROM and a flash memory chip; it may store its EDR data in EEPROM and store trip data in flash memory. Let’s say you transplant the EEPROM chip without the flash memory chip and power on the ECM. The ECM will detect incorrect checksums between the transplanted EEPROM and

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:08 PM

the host module flash memory. It will then proceed to initialize flash memory, resetting ALL the trip data to zero or vice versa.

In addition, ECMs contain firmware that exists on the main microprocessor. What is firmware? Firmware operates similarly to the operating system found on your laptop. Firmware is the software that provides control for the module’s hardware. Almost every electronic device has firmware, including ACMs. But the major difference between ECM and ACM firmware is that ECM manufacturers release different firmware versions throughout the lifespan of a ECM. For example, two identical Cummins ECMs from 2007 could be running completely different firmware versions.

How does this affect ECM chip-swaps? The data stored in the EEPROM and flash chips are also known as binary files (.bin). The binary files from one firmware version are often not compatible with other versions. Essentially “marrying” the memory chips to the main microprocessor. Since the subject ECM is severely damaged it is almost impossible to verify what firmware version was running at the time of the crash. Resources such as Cummins QuickServe are a good place to start, but in most cases these should not be regarded as definitive. In order to ensure proper communication between microprocessor and memory chips, the microprocessor from the subject module must be transplanted. This is another reason why Proof of Concept is not only critical, but that this stage of the task may involve several rework attempts. maging the Data Once the rework process has been completed, the chips identified by the Proof of Concept are carefully moved from the damaged subject module and attached to an undamaged host module. With ECMs, the final imaging of the data should typically be performed with some form of passive sensor interface, such as a custom built “truck in a box” or Smart Sensor Simulator 2 that has been properly programmed for a fault-reduced data images. While this step is not necessary for the chip swap itself to “work,” it makes little sense to invest thousands of dollars in weeks of hard work only to deliberately create new fault data and overwrite existing fault data that could be related to the collision.

I

It should be noted that chip swaps DO NOT recover data that was never written or saved to permanent memory in the first place. Messerschmidt et al. described the power requirements and other conditions needed for most ECMs through 2010 to permanently record data. Even during a chip swap, these conditions remain relevant. Therefore, if the ECM experienced a loss of unswitched power during

the crash, the hoped-for data cannot be recovered simply by working at the chip level.

Although this seems like “bad news,” relevant data can be and often is stored in these damaged modules. An example is Detroit Diesel’s Daily Engine Usage or most manufacturer’s Fault Snapshot data. These data may be useful in many crash reconstruction cases and can reliably be recovered by chip level techniques.

Moreover, the trend within both the automotive and trucking industry is to write more data more quickly, with fewer requirements for external power, switches to signal the move from RAM to EEPROM/Flash, or other caveats that have prevented data recovery in the past. It is most likely, therefore, that chip level forensics will increasingly provide access to crash-related EDR data.

Although this paper has focused on ACM and ECM technology, chip level forensics are applicable to wide range of devices, including GPS devices, camera systems, and many other onboard recording devices. onclusion The increasing complexity of ACM and ECM technology has helped create vehicles which are safer, more fuel efficient, and create less pollution. However, they pose a unique challenge to forensic scientists and engineers who are attempting to recover data from them, especially at the chip level. The chip-swap process is an advanced technique to retrieve crash data from severely damaged ACMs and ECMs that otherwise would be impossible. Before deciding on a chip swap, other methods of repair should be reviewed and rejected as viable options. When a chip swap has been shown necessary and approved, the process must be undertaken in a methodical, step-by-step manner that relies heavily on individualized proofs of concept.

C

R

2. Daily, J., Kongs, A., Johnson, J. Corcega, J. (2015).

Extracting Event Data from Memory Chips within a Detroit Diesel DDEC V. Society of Automotive Engineers 2015-01-1450.

3. Messerschmidt, W. F., Austin, T., Cheek T., Smith, B., Plant, D. P., Voeglie, C. (2010). Simulating the Effect of Collision-Related Power Loss on the Event Data Recorders of Heavy Trucks. Society of Automotive Engineers 2010-01-1004.

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 49

eferences 1. Muir, B. (2015). EDR Survivability / Damaged ECUs. Proceedings of the Second European CDR User's Summit, Kottenheim, Germany.

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 49

8/24/2018 4:54:08 PM

Reconstruction From

Body Worn Camera Videos Bobby J Mullinax

I

t’s 3:00 A.M. and the on-call collision investigator has responded to the scene of a severe pedestrian involved vehicle collision. The investigator arrives on scene only to discover that the location of the pedestrian was not documented before being transported by emergency medical services. The investigator also discovers that several items the pedestrian was wearing and/or holding were bagged up and taken to the hospital by the ambulance crew. The investigator is already at an extreme disadvantage in the investigation.

This is not a unique scenario. Many times an investigator, whether law enforcement or the private sector, is tasked with attempting to complete a complex puzzle, in which

50

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 50

all the pieces aren’t there. In the past, guesswork or other methods have been employed to attempt to solve these puzzles, however with new technology comes new opportunities. With the usage of body worn camera technology continuing to soar in North America, investigators will now have the opportunity to place themselves at the initial collision investigation. These videos will present opportunities for an investigator to place themselves in the shoes of the initial responding officer, and to hear and see everything the initial officer heard and saw. If any of the first officers on scene are wearing body worn cameras, the chance is great that the officers captured locations of key pieces of evidence, before they were moved or otherwise compromised.

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:10 PM

In 2014, the Spartanburg (S.C.) Police Department began testing the usage of body worn cameras for their officers. As part of the pilot test program, the department issued body cameras to members of the traffic division. In 2015, one of the officers participating in this test program responded to a vehicle vs. pedestrian crash in downtown Spartanburg, South Carolina. The pedestrian did not appear to be seriously injured to the original responding officer and no photographs or measurements were obtained during the initial investigation. Approximately one-week later the pedestrian died as a result of the injuries sustained and the case was given to the department’s reconstruction unit to review. The author utilized the video evidence of the initial crash investigation to place the vehicle and pe-

destrian back in their original locations, allowing for a full reconstruction to be completed, including a speed estimate for the striking vehicle. This investigation pioneered efforts in using body worn camera technology to reconstruct and recreate collision scenes, while the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy continues to refine methods used and validate their results.

These methods have gone from the earliest form of simply locating reference points to place back items of evidentiary value along the roadway, to today’s methods of using photogrammetric principles and techniques to locate evidence with a high degree of accuracy.

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 51

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 51

8/24/2018 4:54:11 PM

ethodology When approaching the problem of recreating a collision scene using the body worn camera video the investigator has different options available to them depending on their overall budget. Many police departments, and even private firms, operate under incredibly tight budgets making the overall costs associated the deciding factor in many cases. Photogrammetry in the past has, many times, not been a viable option for a lot of investigators due to the program costs.

With PhotoModeler now offering monthly licenses for as low as $49.00, this opens the door for many investigators who would otherwise not be able to take advantage of this option. The photogrammetry testing for this article was completed entirely in PhotoModeler Standard, the entry level version of the software.

M

With Photomodeler, the program uses complex algorithms and mathematical solutions to compute the point of an object in 3D space, by using the geometry of light rays.

The more photographs the investigator has, and the more photographs the same point appears on, the stronger the overall solution of the project. As far as the overall accuracy, typically, the higher the resolution of the camera used, the better the results. The question becomes, can we still achieve quality results with an extracted frame from a lower resolution body worn camera?

To answer this question, Photomodeler was used to reconstruct several crash scenes using body worn camera videos, recorded with a Stalker CopTrax body camera, that would simulate an officer’s initial collision investigation. While Photomodeler can be used to document any evidence that was missed or went without documentation on any type of crash, the tests conducted focused on strikes involving pedestrians and bicycles. These types of crashes offered the opportunity to relocate short lived evidence that could become compromised, such as hats, shoes, pedestrian final rest, items which were carried, and offered opportunities to relocate traditional evidence such as any pre-impact skidding and the final rest location of the striking vehicle.

To compare the results, evidence was diagrammed with both PhotoModeler and a calibrated camera, and also PhotoModeler and the Stalker CopTrax. Key distances were measured such as length of skid marks, throw distances, etc to test the results and the reliability of using the software with the extracted body camera still frames. All the diagrams were completed using FARO Zone 2D/3D programs.

52

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 52

rocess If an investigator is attempting to recreate a collision scene to locate missed or disregarded evidence, they are already approaching the investigation in a less than ideal situation. Therefore, the tests conducted with Photomodeler would also take place in less than ideal situations, attempting only to solve the projects with a scene survey and one single photo from the body worn camera video extraction. While this is not intended to be an all-inclusive tutorial on PhotoModeler, following the outlined steps will allow the investigator to reconstruct their scene with body worn camera footage using PhotoModeler’s external geometry feature.

P

The first step of the process is to view the body worn camera video. This makes it possible to get on overall sense of the collision scene and start the process of identifying control points to solve the project with. Once the body worn camera video is viewed several times, the video is uploaded to a “Video to JPEG” software converter which extracts each frame from the video. This software program can be downloaded as freeware from the internet and no costs are involved. It is important to note that in some instances the investigator may have access to the body camera software package which may offer the ability to extract a frame from the video, as the video is viewed. Additionally, PhotoModeler Scanner can import video files and extract frames, which would also eliminate the need for this step.

Once the video has been converted into individual still frames, the photographs can be analyzed to find which photos offers the best view of the evidence that is to be documented. After the photographs have been chosen they can be further analyzed to identify control points, or points that are visible in the photograph and at the scene of the collision. The control points will be used to orient and solve for the unknown parameters of the body worn camera used to record the video.

To solve for the unknown properties of the body camera, a scene survey will be conducted to orient the photograph in later processing in PhotoModeler. The scene surveys can be done from a variety of sources including photogrammetry, total stations, laser mapping systems, etc.

Once an acceptable amount of control points are identified from the scene survey they are used to orient the photo and solve for the camera parameters. The body camera still frames can then be used with PhotoModeler to recreate the collision scene and document vital evidence.

First a manual modeling project is opened and the selected still frames uploaded in to the project. Once the photos are loaded in to the program, the investigator will have to select a matched camera for the photographs or solve

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:11 PM

Diagram 1

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 53

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 53

8/24/2018 4:54:11 PM

for an unknown camera. In most cases with body camera still frames, the unknown camera option will be selected, and the project is solved by control points. After the new project is created, the investigator will select the external geometry explorer icon and choose to control the solution by known X,Y,Z locations from a file. After this the scene survey file can be uploaded, and project units will be set to match the corresponding units of the scene survey, e.g. feet, meters, etc. After the units are selected and the investigator clicks “next” the investigator can then begin to assign points from the scene survey to the still frame of the body worn camera, which will orient the photograph and solve for the unknown variables. Once the photograph is oriented the investigator can select the “path mode” icon and assign points which will represent the ground surface of the photograph. After the ground surface is identified by selecting the ground points in the photograph, the investigator can open the 3D view of the project and turn on the camera station visibility. This will allow the project to be visually observed and to check if the location of the camera appears to be correct as observed in the photograph. If the investigator is happy with the 3D view, the “path mode” icon can be selected again, but this time the investigator will choose “mark surface points” and document their evidence locations. Once this is complete the model can be exported as a .DXF file and a diagram completed. To have a better understanding of this process and to see the steps in action, please see the QR code at the end of the article to link to a video explaining this procedure.

Diagram 2

rash Testing As part of pedestrian-bicycle course curriculum at the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy, live crash testing was conducted in October 2017. This crash testing becomes the foundation for testing the reliability of using photogrammetry with body worn camera footage. These crash tests were marked and documented by the students participating in the course.

C

Vehicle vs. Pedestrian In this crash a 2006 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor was used to strike a “Rescue Randy” weighing approximately 165 pounds, simulating a pedestrian. The pedestrian was suspended by masonry twine attached to an overhead mount, and impacted at a speed of approximately 40 miles per hour. The feet of the pedestrian were marked pre-impact using a lumber crayon. At impact a hat being worn by the simulated pedestrian was projected upward and came back to rest perfectly where the pedestrian was standing at impact. Just prior to impact the driver of the Ford Crown Victoria began emergency braking, achieving four-wheel lockup, and sliding to final rest. The pedestrian

54

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 54

Diagram 3 also lost both shoes, a water bottle which was simulated as being held, the hat, and a pair of sunglasses. After the collision a body worn camera video was recorded simulating a walk-through of the collision scene. The video was converted in to still frames and several control points were located which were visible in the body cam photographs, as well as visible in the scene survey.

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:12 PM

Once the body camera photograph was imported in to the PhotoModeler project, the steps outlined in the process section were used to orient the photo and solve the project. Using the mark surface points feature, the evidence was documented on the photograph and a .DXF file of the collision scene was exported. Using FARO Zone, the .DXF file was imported, and a complete scale diagram of the evidence was created.

As seen in Diagram 2, the longest skid distance measured in Faro Zone was a length of 57.44 feet and an overall throw distance of the pedestrian was measured to be 91.57 feet. In Diagram 3, an overlay was created of the final rest of the pedestrian, as well as all four skid marks for the striking vehicle.

Vehicle vs. Bicycle The second crash conducted was a vehicle vs. bicycle. During this crash the Ford Crown Victoria struck a stopped bicyclist from the rear, projecting the bicycle and rider forward. At the point of impact, the bicycle left a rear tire scrub mark on the roadway. There was no post-impact emergency braking on the part of the Ford, with the driver coming to a gradual controlled stop. The bicycle was ran over by the Ford as it slid to rest with the rear tire of the bicycle coming to rest under the front left tire of the Ford.

The bicycle was impacted at a speed of 30 miles per hour.

After the collision a video walkthrough of the scene was performed, and methods outlined in the process section were again used to orient the photograph and solve the project. The “mark surface points” feature was again used to document the evidence from the collision. The solved project was exported as a .DXF file and FARO Zone was again used to complete the scale diagram of the collision.

Once the diagram of the collision scene was completed, using the data from the body worn camera photogrammetry project, 6.01 feet was measured for the scrub mark left by the bicycle, and 41.80 feet for the rider throw distance was measured.

Diagram 4 onclusions In Table 1, the distances obtained with PhotoModeler and CopTrax are compared with the known measurements from the test skid project, the pedestrian strike, and the bicycle strike. Once the differences in measurements were averaged out, the projects completed with the body worn camera still frames averaged an error of .28 feet, or 3.37 inches. The overall locations of key pieces of evidence such as skid locations and pedestrian locations aligned well also, as observed in Diagrams 1 and 3.

C

In Table 2, the results obtained from the PhotoModeler and CopTrax projects were used to complete speed estimates. Slide to a stop speed estimates were obtained for

Table 1: Distance comparison in feet www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 55

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 55

8/24/2018 4:54:13 PM

the test skid and pedestrian strike project, using .82 as a roadway drag factor. Speed estimates for pedestrian and bicyclist throw were obtained for the pedestrian and bicycle strikes using the Searle formula. A drag factor of .56 was used for the Rescue Randy pedestrian, assuming a 15 degree take off angle for both collisions. Once all the speed estimates were compiled for the known measurements and body worn camera measurements, their difference were averaged. Again, the projects completed with the body worn camera still frames performed well with an overall error of 0.027 miles per hour.

The crash testing signifies that photogrammetry can be accurate with photographs extracted from a body worn camera video. While body cameras like the CopTrax provide an exceptional quality of video, the body camera’s function is not with photogrammetry in mind, but these cameras offer investigators the ability to locate their missing puzzle pieces and finish their investigations with findings the investigator can be confident in. Body worn camera manufacturers like Stalker, will continue to improve upon their designs and capabilities for their products as popularity continues to increase. While again, these improvements will largely not be with collision investigations in mind, the improvements will continue to have a substantial positive impact on collision reconstruction.

worn camera videos at several reconstruction conferences across multiple states.

Acknowledgements The author would like to acknowledge and thank the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy, Collision Publishing, Spartanburg Police Department, Stalker Radar, FARO, and Photomodeler for their support of this article.

R html

eferences 1. PhotoModeler- How it Works. (n.d.). Retrieved November 13, 2017, from http://www. photomodeler.com/products/how-it-works.

2. Single Photo Unknown Camera- Road Skid. (n.d.).

Retrieved November 13, 2017, from http://www.photomodeler.com/tutorial-vids/media/RoadSkidSingle/ SinglePhotoSkid.html More Resources

About the Author Bobby J. Mullinax is a full-time collision reconstruction instructor at the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy in Columbia, South Carolina. Prior to coming to the Criminal Justice Academy in 2016, he was an officer with the Spartanburg (S.C.) Police Department where he was assigned to the department’s traffic division. In addition to his duties within the traffic division, he was a team leader on the department’s Major Accident Investigation Team.

He has lectured on the topic of reconstruction from body

Scan the QR Code to find more resources such as practice projects, information about the products used, and videos of the crash tests involved in the creation of this article.

Table 2: Speed estimate comparison in miles per hour 56

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 56

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:13 PM

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 57

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 57

8/24/2018 4:54:13 PM

58

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 58

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:13 PM

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 59

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 59

8/24/2018 4:54:13 PM

60

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 60

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:15 PM

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 61

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 61

8/24/2018 4:54:15 PM

Residual Damage Based Accident Reconstruction: Accounting For Mismatched Residual Damage Profiles Jai Singh, BS, MS, MA, ACTAR Biomechanical Engineering Analysis & Research, Inc.

62

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 62

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:16 PM

bstract Two primary foci serve as the primary objectives for the subject study. The first is the evaluation of the role of mismatched discretized residual damage profiles, for a two collision partner system, under the confines of the Campbell and CRASH3 modeling methodologies. Specifically, within the modeling confines, excluding the locations of the boundary nodes of the residual damage profiles, does there exist a necessity for matching the locations of interior nodes along the common l-axis of the l-c(l) space? The evaluation of this objective is first approached from the theoretical perspective in regards to the residual damage area, the geometric centroid of the residual damage area, the Campbell b1 coefficient and the CRASH3 A and B coefficients. The second approach is by means of reduction of a small cohort of FMVSS 214D lateral impact collision test data. Both approaches reveal, for the collision partner for which the residual damage model coefficients are initially unknown, that collocation of internal nodes at the l-axis values of the opposing collision partner (and with the employment of piecewise linear interpolation using the nodal values of the former) is extraneous. The second primary objective is the theoretical development of a vector algebra based solution for determining the moment arm of the collision force and using this result to determine the effective mass ratio and the impact of the effective mass for the quantified stiffness coefficients of the test vehicles within the cohort.

A

confines of the Campbell and CRASH3 modeling methodologies, as a means of quantifying collision severity, remains relevant in regards to the field of motor vehicle accident reconstruction. In the private sector, there often exists a substantial delay between the occurrence of a collision event and when the incident is presented for evaluation. This, in turn, may lead to the preclusion of the ability for direct examination of the involved collision partners and even if a direct examination is conducted, the loss of data from vehicle fixed onboard instrumentation. When coupled with a lack of documentation regarding the interaction of the collision partners with the environment (e.g. roadway based evidence such as tiremarks), if such evidence was actually present, residual damage based methods serve as the sole method for quantifying collision severity. Even when vehicle fixed onboard instrumentation data is present, a standard caveat, paraphrased, is that it should be considered within the context of the totality of the available evidence. In the government sector, residual damage based methods within the structural confines of the Campbell and CRASH3 modeling methodologies remain the primary approach (Sharma et al. 2007) for quantifying collision severity for field study investigated accidents and in regards to inclusion in the National Accident Sampling Survey (NASS).

ntroduction The evaluation of the residual damage profiles, following an impact, retained by the collision partners, within the structural

I

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 63

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 63

8/24/2018 4:54:17 PM

The assumptions and limitations of the Campbell and CRASH3 models can readily be found in the literature detailing the developmental work for each model. These assumptions and limitations were recently reviewed (Singh 2013, 2015) and therefore are only briefly covered herein.

1. Both the Campbell and CRASH3 models are uniaxial models in regards to the relationship posited between the independent parameter, that being the depth of residual damage, and the dependent parameter (the equivalent barrier speed (EBS) for the former and the peak collision force magnitude, normalized by the length of direct contact damage, for the latter).

2. The Campbell model is generally considered as being empirical while the CRASH3 model is analytic in regards to the uniaxial relationship between collision force and deflection, for the closure phase, and inherently empirical in regards to the normalization of the collision force by the length of direct damage and in regards to the depth of crush. The original formulation of the CRASH3 model does not contain an explicit mechanism for considering the separation phase of a collision.

3. The uniaxial nature of the models do not necessitate a specific fixed orientation of the response elements, with respect to the local coordinate system of a given vehicle. However, the vast majority of controlled collision test data involves the reporting of residual damage depth measurements along the relevant principle axis of a vehicle and with respect to the reference configuration of the same. As a consequence of this, quantified model coefficients based on such reporting are applicable for subsequent use when the residual damage depth is measured in the same manner. A further consequence of this fact is that the use of the incident angle approach to account for non-orthogonal force application, from a strict work-energy perspective, is incorrect.

4. The uniaxial nature of the models, as typically presented, do not contain an explicit mechanism for accounting for induced damage. The consequence of this is that the length of direct damage, between the collision partners, must generally be equal. The inclusion of induced damage regions, in specific cases such as narrow object collisions, may serve to improve the predictive accuracy of the models but does not have a support within the models themselves.

5. The residual damage relationships are not the equivalent of the time-parametric, deflection-based responses, shifted along the abscissa. For the uniaxial case, 64

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 64

the linear-linear load-unload model, in which both stiffnesses are finite and non-zero valued, is the sole model that guarantees linearity between EBS and the residual damage depth and between the peak collision force and residual damage depth. Furthermore, the transition point, for a given region of a given vehicle platform, for which a collision is of sufficient severity to generate a non-zero valued depth of residual damage, represents a bifurcation point in the response.

6. For uneven residual damage profiles, the standard approach is of determining the depth of residual damage at certain locations along the length of direct damage. These nodes are fixed values of ci (the depth of residual damage at the ith indexed node). The internodal regions in the c(l)-l space (where l is the position along the length of direct damage) are traditionally fit using the trapezoidal rule (i.e. piecewise linear interpolation). For a given collision partner, linearity in the c(l)-l space holds explicitly, only when both the corresponding reference and damaged boundary geometries are linear. For the rectangular Cartesian characterization of a vehicle fixed frame of reference, with the corresponding coordinate axes xyz, the plan projected boundary represents the projection in the xy plane. The boundary geometry functions for an end impact case, x = f(y), and for a side impact case, y = f(x), can be replaced by the singular formulation of η = f(ζ). Generally, the reference case is specified as ηr = f(ζr) and the damaged case is specified as ηd = f(ζd).

However, because of (3-4), both dependencies are a function of ζr, and as a result, ηd = f(ζr). The resultant mapping is of ζr → l and ηr(ζr) - ηd(ζr) → c(l).

We may set these limitations aside for the moment and consider the issue of mismatched residual damage profiles, in regards to reporting, using the standard formulations.

The term mismatch, herein, refers to the combination of an initial difference in the length of direct damage for each collision partner or the employment of a nodal spacing scheme that leads to a mismatch in the location of the nodal values of the opposing collision partner. These issues are encountered when evaluating controlled collision test data, such as lateral impact test data conducted under US FMVSS 214D and high-speed lateral NCAP testing protocols (Singh 2005, Singh and Perry 2005). The quantification of model parameters for the test vehicles in such cases employs Newton’s Third Law and involves knowing the residual damage profiles of both the test vehicle and the moving deformable barrier (MDB) as well as the model coefficients for the latter (Neptune and Flynn, 1998). This exact same approach, termed the force balance method (Hull and Newton 1993, Neptune and Flynn 1994, Long

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:17 PM

1999, Chen et al. 2005) can readily be employed to any case, inclusive of field study data available through NASS, when the residual damage profiles of both collision partners are known and the model coefficients for one collision partner is known, for quantifying the model parameters of the opposing collision partner. The same issues regarding mismatch of residual damage profiles can also readily be found in this context. The objective of the subject work, therefore, is to develop and detail the methods and mechanics for handling mismatched damage profiles and the cases in which they do and do not require employment. heory We proceed by considering the two collision partner system where the subscript k {k: k = 1 or 2} denotes the kth collision partner. The initial estimate of the length of direct damage, with respect to the kth partner is denoted as Lk. The number of nodal values used for the discretization of the direct damage portion of each collision partner is noted as Nk where N1 is generally not equal to N2. Arbitrary nodal spacing is allowed and thusly, for the kth collision partner, the nodal depths are denoted as cki {i: 1 < i ≤ Nk} and located at lk,i. The sign convention chosen is of cki ≥ 0 ∀k. Depending upon the indexing convention, either lk,i+1 > lk,i or the converse holds.

The former is shown in regards to the development of this section but the converse can readily be employed without

T

the necessity for developing parallel theory. The linear interpolation function that is operative over the domain {lk: lk,i ≤ lk ≤ lk,i+1} can be defined by either of the following two equations:

(1)

(2)

Mismatched residual damage profiles From the modeling assumptions, it is clear that the initial estimates of the length of direct damage, L1 and L2, must be equal, such that L1 = L2 = L. The simplest issue to correct is that of the boundary conditions when the zone (i.e. the area formed between the domain limited l-axis and the appropriate linear interpolation function arising from the domain) that overlaps has constant model parameters.

This is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Co-plot showing two hypothetical ‘as measured’ residual damage profiles. The dashed lines that match in color to their respective profiles denote the nodal locations. The solid green arrow, labeled as L, and bounded by the dashed vertical green lines denotes the actual length of direct damage for this hypothetical. www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 65

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 65

8/24/2018 4:54:18 PM

In Figure 1, as shown, the damage profile associated with c2(l) exceeds that of c1(l) on the left while the converse holds on the right. The determination of L is readily achieved by determining the interpolated value of c2(l) at l = la where {la: l2,1 < la < l2,2} and by determining the interpolated value of c1(l) at l = lb where {lb: l1,4 < lb < l1,5}. For a collision in which the entire projected end-width of one collision partner is involved in direct contact, this same width serves as the correct value of L. The correct positioning of the residual damage profiles along a common l-axis requires having accurate documentation of both residual damage profiles coupled with the appropriate dimensional information and physical evidence.

It is instructive, prior to considering the issue of mismatched internal nodes, the basic equations that are typically employed in a residual damage based analysis. The CRASH3 model posits the following relationship between the normalized peak collision force and the depth of residual damage:

(7) In equation (7), the second double integral arises from consideration of the area bounded by the linear forcecrush function from above, the abscissa from below and the ordinate from the right. Substitution of equation (1) into equation (7), followed by evaluation of the integral terms and algebraic simplification, yields the following expected result:

(3)

In equation (3), the angle θk provides for the correct sign when measured from the xk-axis and ck(lk) denotes ck as a function of lk. When applied to the zone, for the kth collision partner, between the nodes i and i+1, the zonal force is obtained by integrating over the domain.

(4)

(8) Equation (8) makes use of the trigonometric identity sec2(θk) = 1 + tan2(θk), the definition of Gk,i→i+1 = A k,i→i+12/ (2Bk,i→i+1) and the following:

(9) The total force and energy are obtained by summing over the total number of zones. When the model coefficients are constant across all zones, the summations yield the following:

In equation (4), the term ∆lk,i→i+1 = lk,i+1 – lk,i. Substitution of equation (1) into equation (4) followed by evaluation of the integral yields the following, expected solution: (5)

(11) Where:

Where:

(12)

(6)

The zonal area encompassed is defined as:

The energy associated with the zone is obtained by the double integration of the zonal force-crush relationship.

66

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 66

(10)

(13)

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:22 PM

Substitution of equation (1) into equation (13) followed by evaluation of the integrals and simplification yields the following:

(14) The total encompassed area is:

(17)

The coordinate locations of the entire area are obtained by:

(15) The coordinate locations of the geometric centroid of the zonal area, in the lk-ck(lk) space, are defined by:

(16) Substitution of equation (1) into each equation under (16) followed by evaluation of the integrals and simplification yields the following result:

(18) These foundational equations provide for a foundation for the substantive consideration of internal nodes with respect to the issue of mismatched residual damage profiles.

The simplest case is that in which the domain of a given zone of direct damage of one collision partner corresponds to two consecutive zones of direct damage of the opposing collision partner. This is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Co-plot of a coupled pair of residual damage profiles with c1(l) based upon two nodal values and c2(l) based upon three nodal values. www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 67

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 67

8/24/2018 4:54:25 PM

We first consider the simpler case in which the model parameters are constant for the single zone of the first indexed profile. In considering Figure 2, it is readily apparent that for the second indexed profile, there exists a nodal value at l2, denoted as c2,2 but there exists no such corresponding nodal value for the first indexed profile. Instead the value c1(l2) would be one that would be determined from the interpolation function generated by the immediately previous and immediately following nodal values. The obvious question that arises is one of necessity of determining the interpolated value {l2, c1(l2)}, thereby splitting the original single zone into two adjacent zones, in the context of the force, energy, area and centroid calculations presented previously. We evaluate this issue by first writing the relevant equations for the single zone formulation.

(19)

(25)

For each of the parenthetical terms: (26)

(27) Substitution of equation (23) for c1,2 in equation (27) followed by algebraic simplification yields:

(28) (20)

(21)

The zonal energy sums in a similar manner with the coefficient of the G term being given by equation (26) and the α term associated with the A term being given by equation (28). The β coefficient associated with the B term is:

(22) For the case in which an intermediate node is generated for the profile of the first collision partner, using equation (1) yields a value at l2 of:

(29) Substitution of equation (23) for c1,2 in equation (29) followed by algebraic simplification yields:

(23) Starting with the zonal force equation, we may readily write the equivalent of equation (19) for each of the two zones.

(30) For the area calculation:

(31)

(24)

The total force across both zones, as per equation (10), is obtained by summing the two equations under (24).

68

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 68

Where equation (28) is employed in regards to the relationship for the next to last equality. The centroid locations for each new zone are obtained by simply rewriting the equations under (22) using the correct domain delimited subscripts.

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:29 PM

(32)

(33)

Implementation of equation (18) followed by substitution of equation (23) and algebraic simplification again yields the equations under (22). Both the collision partner index and the successive node numbering indices are arbitrary and these results, under the constraints noted previously, hold for any collision partner and any successive node numbering sequence. As a result, for a collision partner with a zone of direct damage, for which the model coefficients are constant, and in the case where internal nodal values are present, along the l-axis, for the opposing collision partner, the determination of c(l) for the first collision partner, at the internal nodal values and along the linear interpolation function, is extraneous. This finding clearly does not hold in the situation in which there is either a difference in the model parameters between zones or within a zone. The rationale for this statement is that the model parameters no longer represent constant terms that can be

arithmetically separated from their corresponding coefficient terms under summation. In such cases, the determination of intermediate values along a given interpolation function is requisite at the transition points. As shown in Figure 3, the interpolated value for the zonal residual damage profile for the first collision partner would be required at l3 (and potentially at l2 depending upon the manner of force balancing) and the interpolated value along the second linear interpolation function for the second collision partner would be required at l3. mpulse center The methodology employed within both the CRASH3 approach and in the planar collision mechanics approach (Brach 1977, Ishikawa 1993, 1994, Brach and Brach 1998) presumes a single time-step transfer of momentum between the collision partners. The collision force and collision impulse are resolved not only in a single time-step but also at a single physical location in the global coordinate system. For the CRASH3 approach, this point, with respect to each collision partner, is taken as located at centroid of the residual deformation area of the same. Clearly, with respect to the global coordinate system, the centroid locations must be co-located. For the planar collision mechanics approaches, the impulse center is located at a point along the common collision interface (CCI), which develops between the collision partners during the collision, and at the time at which maximum engagement occurs between the collision partners (i.e. at the

I

Figure 3: Co-plot of a coupled pair of residual damage profiles in which the single zone for the first collision partner exhibits a transition in model coefficient values (at l3) and in which the two zones for the second collision partner have differing model coefficient values (at l2). www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 69

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 69

8/24/2018 4:54:30 PM

temporally contemporaneous terminus of closure phase and initiation of separation phase). These two approaches clearly posit differing locations for the impulse center for any given collision for which a point of maximum engagement is reached. This can be seen for both cases in which the coefficient of restitution (ε) is zero-valued (producing a closure phase only impact) and when it is non-zero-valued.

Shown in Figure 4 is a hypothetical two collision partner impact at the start of closure and at the terminus of the closure phase. The depiction of a regionally linear boundary geometry model is for the sake of simplicity and with the result being unchanged with the use of a more accurate modeling depiction.

For the case in which ε = 0, the conformation reached by each collision partner at the terminus of closure is retained following the collision (i.e. the residual damage equals the peak deflection). For the modeled case in which the collision force is sufficient to produce a non-zero-valued depth of residual damage, as shown in Figure 5, the residual damage area will have as one boundary the CCI and as a result its centroid of the damage area will be distal to the location of P. When 0 < ε < 1, the area encompassed by the residual damage is less than the area encompassed by the difference between the reference and maximally deformed geometries. The difference in these two areas decreases as the coefficient of restitution approaches unity. Within this range, however, the location of P, on the CCI, and the location of the centroid of the residual damage area, for both collision partners, will differ.

The case of ε = 1 represents that of full recovery of the internal work absorbed and would result in zero-valued residual damage depth under the model constraints.

Residual damage based coefficient quantification using force balancing For a two collision partner system, in which the residual damage profiles of both collision partners are known and the residual damage based model parameters for one collision partner are known, the application of Newton’s Third Law proceeds by first calculating the peak collision force by employing equations (5) and (10). The subscript on Fk can readily be dropped. For the collision partner for which the model coefficients are initially unknown, the zonal and total force equations are written with the CRASH3 coefficients converted into their Campbell equivalents.

(34) Generally, one finds that the approach taken in the literature is that of treating the model parameters as having constant valuation across the direct damage region for the collision partner with initially unquantified valuations. A potential rationale for this approach may be due to zonal effective mass partitioning. For the situation in which the model parameters are constant valued, substitution for the CRASH3 model parameters in equation (10) yields the following:

Figure 4: Impact between a two collision partner system. The boundary geometry of the first collision partner is shown in red while that of the second is shown in blue. The contact region, representing the common collision interface, is shown in yellow. The image on the left depicts the configuration at the start of the closure phase. The image on right depicts the configuration at the terminus of the closure phase. The original boundary geometries in the image on the right are shown by dashed lines and the impulse center, located on the common collision interface at the point of maximum engagement, is denoted as P. 70

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 70

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:30 PM

Figure 5: Top row showing the difference in the location of the impulse center on the CCI v. for the damage centroid for the case when ε = 0. The bottom row showing the difference in the location of the impulse center on the CCI v. the damage centroid for 0 < ε < 1.

(35) (37) When the Campbell b0 parameter is estimated, equation (35) represents a quadratic equation with a singular unknown. The real problem specific solution is the positive valued solution.

(38) (36) The solution from equation (36) is back-substituted into the relationships under (34), resulting in quantified values of the CRASH3 parameters. Back-substitution also allows for the CRASH3 A and B model coefficients to be written wholly in terms of the Campbell b0 coefficient (this is already the case for the CRASH3 G coefficient).

The NHTSA reformulation of the CRASH3 stiffness coefficients, as a minor aside, leaves the underlying CRASH3 model unchanged (Sharma et al., 2007) secondary to the direct convertibility of the model parameters (McHenry and McHenry, 1998). For non-collinear planar collisions, the CRASH3 model posits the occurrence of the terminus of closure as happening at the impulse center rather than at the centers of mass of the collision partners. Using the subscript p to denote the impulse center (a more general notation than for the previous section), the closure phase

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 71

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 71

8/24/2018 4:54:32 PM

velocity change magnitudes for a two partner impact are (NHTSA 1981):

(39) In the equations under (39), the first equation refers to the velocity change magnitude during closure at the impulse center, for the kth collision partner, while the second equation references the velocity change magnitude during closure at the center of mass of the kth collision partner. The subscripts k and j simply refer to the two collision partners.

The terms of the form γm reference the effective mass {γ: 0 < γ ≤ 1} where:

(40) In equation (40), κk is the radius of gyration of the kth collision partner in yaw, which is defined by equation (41), where Ik is the yaw moment of inertia of the kth collision partner, and hk is the moment arm of the collision force about the center of mass of the kth collision partner.

It is presumed that all vectors shown are written in terms of their mapping to the local coordinate system (LCS) of the kth collision partner. Furthermore, it should be noted that the local coordinate system shown is a mirror of coordinate system employed within the SAE J670 Vehicle Dynamics Terminology and the SAE J224 Collision Deformation Classification standards (both utilized by NHTSA). This choice is made because it signs gravity as negative. The transformation between the coordinate systems is simple enough (i.e. changing the signs of the yk and zk terms).

For the subject planar problem, counterclockwise rotations about the zk-axis (the planar nature of the problem makes the Z-axis of the global coordinate system with the zk axis ∀k) are positively signed, whereas clockwise rotations about the same are positively signed for the SAE coordinate system. We define the vector rk as the vector from the local origin of coordinates to the impulse center. We

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 72

first determine the orthogonal projection of the vector rk onto the force vector Fk.

(41)

The determination of hk can readily be made using relatively simple linear algebra and vector operations. Figure 6 shows the vector relationships for a hypothetical collision.

72

Figure 6: Vector diagram for the kth collision partner with a non-central impulse center.

(42) Using the definition of the dot product, the vector, hk, which is orthogonal to the vector in equation (42), is given by:

(43) aterials and methods Reduction of FMVSS214D controlled collision test data

M

The NHTSA Vehicle Crash Test Database (VCTB) was queried for testing conducted under FMVSS 214D protocols and with results reported in ascending order. The tests constituting the reported results of the query were evaluated sequentially until a cohort of ten tests was generated. Tests were excluded if either the full residual damage profile for the MDB was not reported or if the residual damage profile over the direct damage region of the test vehicle was not reported. For the tests in the cohort, the data reporting was in English units and the MDB

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:35 PM

residual damage depth data did not include the pre-test and post-test measurements. The salient data from each test was entered into a spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel v.14.0; Microsoft Corporation; Redmond, Washington) either by means of manual input or by means of importation following the conduction of optical character recognition upon the extracts of the salient pages from the PDF versions of the contractor’s reports. In two cases (02086 and 02087), it was found that the test vehicle pre-test and post-test lateral measurements were reported in reverse order. This conclusion was reached based upon the fact that the measurements were taken from a reference plane, parallel to the test vehicle longitudinal axis (with respect to the undeformed configuration) and with the plane located distal to the lateral aspect of the test vehicle. It was also found to be the case, for the test vehicle data, that the reported residual damage depths contained either errors in reporting, which in turn, may have been due to underlying arithmetic errors. As a consequence, the test vehicle residual damage depth data used in the subject work was calculated from the reported pre-test and post-test measurements. Shown in Table 1 are the tests that were considered for this portion of the subject work.

The completed spreadsheet was imported into symbolic software package (Mathematica v.10.1; Wolfram Corporation; Champaign, Illinois) for further processing. For each test, the frontal width of the MDB was taken as the average of the reported widths at the bottom front of the bumper, the bottom front of the aluminum honeycomb stack and the top rear of the aluminum honeycomb stack.

In each case, this width exceeded the reported width over which the MDB residual damage profile was reported.

Test No. v02073 v02079 v02086 v02087 v02088 v02089 v02090 v02093 v02094 v02095 v02096 v02097

Year 1994 1994 1995 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1995 1994 1994 1994

Make Cadillac Volvo Hyundai Honda Saab Dodge Buick Subaru Toyota Buick Mitsubishi Lincoln

The lateral offset between the leftmost nodal location for the MDB and the actual left edge of the MDB face was simply determined as half of the difference between the frontal width and the reported damage profile width. For all cases, the MDB residual damage profile was obtained from the center of bumper (17 inches from ground) reporting. For all cases, the test vehicle geometry and residual damage profile were obtained from height level two (occupant H-point) reporting.

The first portion of the study was focused upon evaluating the previously presented theoretical results regarding mismatched residual damage profiles. As a consequence, the analysis was limited to the l-c(l) space. A mutually concordant l-axis was established with origin located at the desired impact point (the location of the zero valued position along the measurement axis parallel to the x-axis of the test vehicle in the reference configuration). The desired impact point, representing the desired location of the projection of the left side of the MDB face, rarely matched the location of the actual impact point. The location along the common l-axis, of the nodes of the MDB, therefore required adding both the offset associated with the frontal width differential, noted previously, and the offset between the desired and actual impact points. The test vehicle residual damage profile was generated in three ways from the reported height level two nodal values. In all cases, the first and last nodal locations were chosen with l-axis values matching the first and last l-axis values of the nodes of the MDB. The c(l) values, at those nodes, for the test vehicles, were determined by linear interpolation of the closest pair of bounding nodes. The first method in which the residual damage profile was generated for each Model Deville 850 Sonata Accord 900S Intrepid Regal Impreza Camry Roadmaster Galant Towncar

Style 4DS 4DS 4DS 4DS 4DS 4DS 4DS 4DS 4DS 4DS 4DS 4DS

Exclusion X

X

Table 1: FMVSS 214D tests considered for inclusion. The term 4DS denotes four door sedan.

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 73

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 73

8/24/2018 4:54:35 PM

test vehicle consisted of using the interpolated boundary nodes coupled with the reported interval test vehicle nodal points. The second method in which the residual damage profile was generated for each test vehicle consisted of using solely interpolated c(l) values at l-axis values of the MDB. The third method consisted of combining the first and second methods. The total force exerted on the MDB was calculated from equation (10) using AMDB = 357 lb./ in and BMDB = 172 lb./in2 (Neptune and Flynn, 1998) and θMDB = 153o. For the test vehicles, the zonal damage areas encompassed in the l-c(l) space along with their centroid locations were determined using equations (14) and (17). The total damage area encompassed, for each test vehicle, in the l-c(l) space along with the centroid locations of the same were determined from equations (15) and (18). The Campbell b1 coefficient for the side of each test vehicle was calculated from equation (36) and with b0 = 2 MPH and θTV = -117o. The CRASH3 A and B model coefficients, using the full mass of each test vehicle, were calculated using equations (37) and (38).

The second aspect of the subject study focused on evaluating the use of the total vehicle mas, rather than the effective mass, in quantifying the residual damage model coefficients. For each collision partner, a right rectangular Cartesian coordinate system was established. Each local coordinate system (LCS) was with origin at the center of mass of the collision partner. The xyz axes, with respect to the reference configuration, were parallel to the longitudinal centerline, parallel to the lateral axis and along the vertical axis, respectively. The sign convention employed was with positive directionality to the fore, left and upwards, respectively. The inertial frame of reference, characterized with a right rectangular Cartesian coordinate system, was chosen with origin at the center of mass of the MDB in its ‘at impact’ position but with Z = 0 at the ground plane. The sign convention of the global coordinate system (GCS) matched that of LCS of the test vehicles. The front bumper face of the MDB was treated as flat (i.e. a line in the plan projection) and as a consequence the x-axis coordinate locations of all nodal points, in the reference configuration, were simply the sum of the distance from the center of mass of the MDB to the front axle center of the same, the distance from the front axle to the rear of the aluminum honeycomb stack and the distance from the latter to the front of the front bumper. The l-axis coordinate locations were converted to the y-axis of the MDB by the following: for a point P with l-axis coordinate location Pl, the corresponding y-axis coordinate Py, was equal to –PL + 32” + lateral offset per side to the edge of the MDB face - lateral offset of the MDB center of mass from the longitudinal center line.

74

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 74

The transformation of coordinates between the LCS of the MDB and the GCS was exceedingly simple due to the choice made in regards to the latter. In the plan projection, the location of the origin of the LCS of the MDB, in the GCS, was simply {0, 0} and the heading angle, ψMDB, was 0o. As a consequence the reference configuration coordinates for points on the MDB, in the LCS of the MDB, were equivalent to the coordinates in the GCS. The location of the left front corner of the MDB, at the actual impact point, in terms of the LCS of the MDB and the GCS, was determined by the previously described x-axis distance and with y-axis location as the sum of the y-axis coordinate location of the leftmost aspect of the MDB face and the offset between the desired and actual impact points.

This approach allowed for the placement of the damage centroid within both the LCS of the MDB and the GCS. For the test vehicle, the x-axis location of the desired impact point was obtained as the difference of the provided values of the distance from the latter to the center of the front wheels and the distance from the center of the front wheels to the desired impact point. The lateral axis values, at the nodes, in both the reference and damaged states, were provided from a measurement plane located parallel to the x-axis in the reference configuration. The distance between the measurement plane and centerline of the test vehicle, for each test in the cohort, was not reported. This distance, as a consistent value across the cohort, was estimated by first determining the value of the reference configuration node, for each test vehicle, with the minimum distance from the reference plane (i.e. farthest from the centerline of the test vehicle). Reference planes at six inch intervals between 36 and 60 inches were considered. Twice the difference between the location of each reference plane and each minimum distance point equaled the predicted total width of the test vehicle at the node location. The longitudinal spread of the nodal locations, with respect to the test vehicle, was expected to contain the location of the maximum width. For each reference plane location, the calculated total width at the noted nodal location was compared with the provided maximum width for each test vehicle. As a singular value for the entire cohort, a reference plane located 60 inches from the centerline of each test vehicle provided for a reasonable estimate of the width of each test vehicle, at the maximum width node, without exceeding the published maximum width of each test vehicle. The reported lateral axis values were then subtracted from 60 inches to yield the y-axis coordinate values. The x-axis coordinate of the actual impact point was obtained by adding the provided longitudinal distance between the desired and actual impact points to x-axis coordinate of the desired impact point. The y-axis coordinate value for the actual impact point was obtained by use of the linear inter-

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:35 PM

polation function based upon the closest boundary points for which both coordinate values were known. Knowing the coordinate locations of the actual impact point in both the GCS as well as the LCS of the test vehicle and knowing the heading angle of the test vehicle (ψTV = 90o) allowed for the determination of the location of the center of mass of the test vehicle in the GCS, PTV-XY, by means of equation (44).

the second method of generating residual damage profiles, which used solely interpolated values. The third method, combining the distinct nodal values from the first and second methods, produced identical results with respect to the first method. The quantified values for the total residual damage area and the centroid locations in the l-c(l) space, for each case, and by method of determination, are shown in Table 2.

These results were mirrored when it came to the quantified Campbell b1 and CRASH3 A and B model coefficients, These results are shown in Table 3.

(44)

With the coordinates of the center of mass of the test vehicle known in the GCS, the location of any other point given in terms of its coordinate location in the LCS of the test vehicle could readily be determined in the GCS.

(45)

The location of the centroid of the residual damage area for each test vehicle was placed into the LCS of the same by the method described above. Equations (40) through (43) were then employed to determine the effective mass of each collision partner. The Campbell b1 and CRASH3 stiffness coefficients for the test vehicle were then recalculated using the effective mass of the test vehicle and compared to their corresponding valuations based upon the use of the full mass of each test vehicle.

The findings for the moment arm of the collision force, about the center of mass of the test vehicle, as well as the effective mass ratio, again, mirrored the findings from above. For the former, the mean ± standard deviation for the first and third methods was 1.110 ± 0.2865 feet and for the second method was 1.113 ± 0.2859 feet. For the latter, the mean ± standard deviation for the first and third methods was 0.9313 ± 0.0332 and for the second method was 0.9310 ± 0.0332. The results for each test are shown in Table 4. The small sample size precluded any categorical or correlational analysis. For the MDB, the moment arm of the collision force was 3.186 ± 0.769 feet and the

esults The theoretical findings in regards to the issue of mismatch between residual damage profiles over a consistent length of direct damage was supported by the evaluation of the data cohort. The first method of generation of the residual damage profiles for the test vehicles, consisting of using interpolated values at the boundaries and the as-reported internal nodes, generally provided for slightly different results, as expected, from

R

Table 2 (right): for the residual damage area and centroid locations of the residual damage area in the l-c(l) space. For each test, the first row of numbers are based on the first and third method of determining the residual damage profiles for the test vehicles while the second row is based upon the second method of determining the residual damage profiles for the test vehicles.

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 75

Test No. v02079 v02086 v02087 v02088 v02089 v02093 v02094 v02095 v02096 v02097

Area (in2) 545.2 544.1 959.4

Cl (in) 37.27 37.30 35.51

Cc (in) 4.377 4.372 7.621

958.0 847.1 845.4 755.9 753.5 854.4 853.4 749.6 748.2

35.54 36.43 36.45 33.76 33.80 33.17 33.17 35.03 35.06

7.613 6.838 6.819 6.036 6.021 6.760 6.752 5.935 5.925

874.2 873.1 867.4 865.8 803.8

33.91 33.93 36.97 36.99 36.55

6.892 6.886 7.200 7.189 6.874

803.9 700.6 696.7

36.60 35.07 35.18

6.867 6.486 6.490

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 75

8/24/2018 4:54:35 PM

Test No. v02079 v02086 v02087 v02088 v02089 v02093 v02094 v02095 v02096 v02097

b1 (sec-1) 16.86 16.87 9.010

A (lb/in) 87.25 87.33 43.43

B (lb/in2) 41.79 41.86 11.23

9.106 10.10 10.11 12.80 12.81 11.27 11.28 14.85 14.86

43.46 46.03 46.07 63.91 64.00 60.45 60.48 58.46 58.51

11.24 13.20 13.23 23.23 23.30 19.35 19.38 24.66 24.70

10.13 10.13 9.282 9.289 10.22

48.95 48.97 61.47 61.52 47.09

14.08 14.10 16.21 16.24 13.67

10.22 10.34 10.34

47.12 67.47 67.46

13.69 19.82 19.82

Test No. v02079 v02086 v02087 v02088 v02089 v02093 v02094 v02095 v02096 v02097

hTV (ft) 1.411 1.413 1.167

γTV 0.8952 0.8949 0.9272

1.170 1.116 1.118 1.334 1.338 1.621 1.621 1.163 1.165

0.9269 0.9332 0.9329 0.9026 0.9021 0.8727 0.8726 0.9175 0.9172

0.8094 0.8109 1.053 1.055 1.097

0.9631 0.9629 0.9522 0.9520 0.9310

1.100 0.8159 0.8234

0.9305 0.9714 0.9709

hMDB (ft) 3.063

γMDB 0.6853

4.101

0.5485

3.853

0.5792

2.725

0.7334

2.646

0.7447

3.192

0.6672

3.242

0.6603

3.795

0.5865

1.463

0.9052

4.028

0.5573

Table 3: Results for the quantified Campbell b1 and CRASH3 A and B stiffness coefficients.

The per test row ordering follows that of Table 2.

Table 4: Results for the moment arm for the collision force and the effective mass ratio for each collision partner. The per test row ordering for the test vehicle follows that of Table 2.

effective mass ratio was 0.6700 ± 0.1044 (mean ± standard deviation).

boundary nodes, at the start and terminus of the mutually congruent direct damage profiles for both collision partners, arises from the intrinsic modeling limitation of uniaxial compression. It is instructive, here, to consider the nature of the residual damage function for a given collision partner. If the domain variable is denoted as ζ (mapping to the l-axis and to the x-axis for a lateral impact or the yaxis for an end impact), the reference and damaged geometries can respectively be expressed as ηr(ζ) and ηd(ζ). The residual damage function can then be defined simply as:

The use of the effective masses for each of the test vehicles resulted in an increase in the Campbell b1 coefficient and the CRASH3 B coefficient. The CRASH3 A coefficient was decreased in all cases. These results are shown in Table 5. iscussion The subject study, to the author’s knowledge, is the first to explore the issue of the necessity of matching internal node locations, within the confines of the primary residual damage based modeling approaches, for a two collision partner system in which the impacted regions of each partner are deformable, and in specific regards to using the force balance method for model parameter quantification. The colocation of the

D

76

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 76

(46)

This residual damage function is exactly linear when both the reference and damaged geometries, over the domain, are linear. Non-linearity in the form of either geometry model not only appears as a non-linearity in the residual damage function but also alters the form of the peak col-

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:36 PM

Test No. v02079 v02086 v02087 v02088 v02089 v02093 v02094 v02095 v02096 v02097

b1 (sec-1) 17.92 17.94 9.490

A (lb/in) 83.04 83.10 42.00

B (lb/in2) 42.28 42.36 11.32

9.498 10.49 10.51 13.54 13.56 12.15 12.16 15.56 15.58

42.02 44.64 44.67 61.04 61.11 56.86 56.89 56.21 56.25

11.34 13.31 13.33 23.47 23.54 19.62 19.65 24.86 24.90

10.34 10.35 9.540 9.548 10.63

48.14 48.16 60.16 60.20 45.61

14.14 14.16 16.30 16.33 13.77

10.64 10.51 10.51

45.64 66.61 66.59

13.80 19.89 19.88

Table 5: Quantified Campbell b1 and CRASH3 coefficients based upon use of the effective mass of each test vehicle. The per test row ordering for the test vehicle follows that of Table 2. lision force magnitude function and the associated energy function (Singh, 2017). The stated assumption in the residual damage based models under consideration is that the residual damage function, itself, is piecewise linear over domain. The implicit assumption is that both of the underlying geometry functions are piecewise linear over the same domain. For the case in which the residual damage function is piecewise linear over the domain {l: li ≤ l ≤ li+1} the insertion of an interior nodal location simply serves to subdivide the extant domain and does not alter the underlying linear interpolation function. The underlying linear interpolation remains valid for both of the new subdomains created by such a nodal insertion operation.

It is this basis that explains why the residual damage area, its centroid and the quantified residual damage stiffness parameters were consistent between the first and third methods for formulating the residual damage profile of the test vehicles in the cohort. The consequence of this

finding is that for collisions reconstructed using the subject modeling approaches, only the nodes at the boundary of the direct damage region of each collision partner are required to fall at the same location along the common l-axis. The location of internal nodes do not require the same predicate. Clearly, this is not to say that the discretization scheme employed, for either collision partner, should not be sufficient to capture the salient details of the residual damage profiles under consideration. Rather, this is to say that additional nodes based upon the extant piecewise linear interpolation of the residual damage profile for one collision partner, at locations that match the internal nodal locations of the residual damage profile for the opposing collision partner, are extraneous and do not alter the salient results. The second method for generating the residual damage profiles of the test vehicles produced results that were quite close to the first and third methods.

The results were generally different due to the fact that the actual internal nodes from the residual damage profiles of the test vehicles were not included in the final discretized l-c(l) scheme. The closeness in the calculated values arises from the fineness of the interpolation mesh and because the internal nodal values were based upon the use of the piecewise linear interpolation functions generated from the internal nodes of the residual damage profiles of the test vehicles.

The quantified values of the stiffness coefficients presented in Tables 3 and 5 may appear low when compared to other sources. It is important to note that the subject approach utilized only the direct damage regions whereas the standard damage profile distance six (DPD6) presentation of FMVSS 214D test data uses both the direct and induced damage regions. The induced damage regions typically contain lower magnitude residual damage depths and their inclusion in a DPD6 formulation reduces the nodal residual damage depths when compared to a formulation that excludes the induced damage regions. For a given magnitude of collision force, based upon the MDB, lower values of the residual damage depth for the test vehicle will result in an increase in the stiffnesses.

A number of areas serve as crystalized venues for future consideration. The first of these is the evaluation of the assumption, for the CRASH3 model, of the colocation of the geometrical centroids of the direct damage areas, of the collision partners, representing the impulse center (see Figure 9-3 of NHTSA, 1981). Procedurally, this task would simply involve mapping the coordinate locations of the centroids of the direct damage areas from the LCS of each collision partner to the GCS and comparing the resultant coordinate values. The second area is the development of a methodology for mass partitioning for the colli-

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 77

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 77

8/24/2018 4:54:36 PM

sion partner for which the stiffness coefficients are initially unknown, and in regards to allowing for zonal variation, for the same, of the Campbell b0 parameter. The third area is the repetition of the subject work but for alternative residual damage based models such as the bilinear stiffness model, force saturation model and the power law model.

A final area for future consideration is the use of accurate plan geometry models for both the reference and damaged geometries and repeating the subject evaluation.

eferences 1. RM Brach (1977) An impact moment coefficient for vehicle collision analysis. SAE Technical Paper No. 770014.

R

11. NHTSA (1981) CRASH3 User’s Guide and Technical Manual. Washington DC: US Department of Transportation. DOT HS 805 732. NTIS Publication No. PB83112201.

12. D Sharma, S Stern, J Brophy and E-H Choi (2007) An overview of NHTSA’s crash reconstruction software WinSMASH. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (Lyon, France). Paper No. 07-0211.

13. J Singh (2005) The effect of residual damage interpolation mesh fineness on calculated side impact stiffness coefficients. SAE Technical Paper No. 2005-01-1205.

2. RM Brach and RM Brach (1998) Crush energy and planar impact mechanics for accident reconstruction.

SAE Technical Paper No. 980025.

14. J Singh (2013) A fundamental reconsideration of the CRASH3 damage analysis algorithm: the case against uniform ubiquitous linearity between BEV, peak collision force magnitude and residual damage depth.

Traffic Injury Prevention 14(7): 718-724.

3. Chen F, C Tanner, P Cheng and D Guenther (2005) Application of force balance method in accident reconstruction. SAE Technical Paper No. 2005-011188.

15. J Singh (2015) The implications of the CRASH3 uniaxial structural response model and the nature of available collision test data in regards to work-energy relationships for oblique impacts. Collision 10(1).

4. W Hull and B Newton (1993) Estimating crush stiffness when reconstructing vehicle accidents. SAE Technical Paper No. 930898.

16. J Singh (2017) The effects of nonlinear boundary geometry function on internal work absorbed and residual damage based model coefficients. Submitted to: Accident Reconstruction Journal.

5. H Ishikawa (1993) Impact model for accident reconstruction – normal and tangential restitution coefficient. SAE Technical Paper No. 930654.

6. H Ishikawa (1994) Impact center and restitution coefficients for accident reconstruction. SAE Technical Paper No. 940564.

17. J Singh and J Perry (2005) Quantification of constant stiffness force-shortening model parameters for vehicles tested under United States side impact protocols.

International Journal of Crashworthiness 10(6): 589601.

7. T Long (1999) A validation study for the force balance method in determination of stiffness coefficients.

SAE Technical Paper No. 1999-01-0079.

8. RR McHenry and BG McHenry (1998) McHenry Accident Reconstruction. Cary, North Carolina: McHenry Software, 50-54.

9. J Neptune and J Flynn (1994) A method for determining accident specific stiffness coefficients. SAE Technical Paper No. 940913.

Author information Jai Singh, BS, MS, MA, ACTAR Biomechanical Engineering Analysis & Research, Inc. 2060-D Avenida De Los Arboles, No. 487 Thousand Oaks, California 91362 805-491-2652 jaisingh@bearinc.org

10. J Neptune and J Flynn (1998) A method for determining crush stiffness coefficients from offset frontal and side crash tests. SAE Technical Paper No. 980024.

78

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 78

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:37 PM

EDR Retrieval Kit for Tesla Vehicles Introducing the EDR Retrieval Hardware Kit for Tesla vehicles. This kit contains all the hardware required to download the Event Data Recorder (EDR) data that may be stored in Tesla Model 3, Model S and Model X vehicles.

Genuine Tesla EDR cables only at

crashdatagroup.com Order your kit today.

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 79

8/24/2018 4:54:44 PM

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 80

8/24/2018 4:54:45 PM

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 81

8/24/2018 4:54:45 PM

A Summary of Recent NTSB Highway Crash Investigation Products Thomas Barth, Ph.D. bstract

A

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigations contain valuable crash data, analysis, findings and recommendations available to the public. However, finding the information can be difficult without some familiarity with the system and types of products released. A review of highway crash investigations was conducted along with a brief overview of the types of crashes and issue areas. The review included all NTSB Office of Highway Safety (OHS) products that were released to the public over a 20 month period from January 2016 through August 2017. Preliminary reports (that indicate an investigation has been initiated), and other reports of a purely factual nature were not included.

The survey found 20 products of 4 basic types. The list of product types and their reporting format are provided. An overview of vehicle types, crash scenarios, and issue topics are presented.

ntroduction

I

This paper conducted a review of NTSB highway investigations and provides a summary of the products and information available to the public.

82

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 82

The NTSB investigates all modes of transportation as well as accidents involving release of hazardous materials and significant pipeline accidents. The mission of the NTSB, since being created within the US Department of Transportation (DOT) in 1967 is to establish the cause of transportation accidents and issue safety recommendations to improve transportation safety. The NTSB became an independent agency in 1974, enabling objective evaluation of transportation safeguards, including the effectiveness of government agencies. The NTSB determines the probable cause of all civil aviation crashes, and investigates significant crashes in the other modes with the objective to prevent and reduce the effects of future crashes. Additionally, the NTSB carries out special studies concerning transportation safety issues and provides assistance to victims and their family members impacted by major transportation disasters. More information can be obtained by reading the NTSB’s annual report to Congress, available on the website: https:// www.ntsb.gov/about/reports/Pages/default.aspx.

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:45 PM

The NTSB Office of Highway Safety (OHS) selects crashes to investigate based on multiple factors. These investigations result in recommendations that will affect positive change in transportation safety. Large scale crashes that involve commercial vehicles or other heavily regulated operating environments are most commonly selected. Novel technologies or emerging issues may also be areas of investigation. While limited resources preclude the NTSB from conducting large numbers of investigations, the NTSB investigations are uniquely thorough. NTSB authority allows for a scope of collection and evaluation uncommon from any other source of transportation investigation. The NTSB OHS makes use of multiple disciplinary teams. During a major investigation, experts in the disciplines of Human Performance (driver), Motor Carrier Factors (commercial operator), Highway Factors, Vehicle factors, and Survival Factors lead teams comprised of knowledgeable outside experts to collect information and produce factual reports that are ultimately released (with some data restricted or redacted) via a public docket system.

The final NTSB product, referred to as a “Board Report”, consolidates factual information and evalua-

tions that support the probable cause and findings for the case. Each Board Report is supported by a range of factual information and analysis. The factual reports are released in the public docket and analytical information is only released though the Board Report. The Board of the NTSB, which has 5 members appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress, has the ability to adopt or alter the probable cause and the findings, and ultimately issues the recommendations.

ethod

M

This paper provides a review and summary of all publicly released Board Reports from NTSB OHS investigations over an 18 month period from January 2016 through August 2017.

This approach was taken to adopt the perspective of an interested party searching the NTSB website for released products. Note that this is different from the number of investigations conducted over that timeframe. Generally, a small scale product may be released in about 6 months while a larger scale product based on a major investigation or a study can take a year or more to complete.

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 83

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 83

8/24/2018 4:54:46 PM

The products range from relatively short to large and complex. The types of Board Reports are: •

Brief Report, typically referred to as a Highway Accident Brief (HAB), which addresses an investigation with usually one or two issues;

•

Large Scale Report, typically referred to as a Highway Accident Report (HAR), which is a larger report involving several issue areas and typically was adopted using a public meeting process;

•

Studies or Forums, typically referred to as Special Investigation Reports (SIR), Safety Report (SR), and Safety Study (SS), which combine a group of investigations or conduct an investigative study in order to focus on a specific issue area or topic;

•

Safety Recommendation Reports, referred to as SRR or Highway Safety Report (HSR), which covers a specific recommendation area and is used to release information as soon as possible, and before the full investigation and reporting process are complete.

The results grouped the reports according to the 4 types listed above. Note that there are occasions when the report numbering format does not conform to the abbreviations.

These products are developed from two basic types of highway investigations, major and field. A major investigation involves multiple groups performing the investigation according to the multi-disciplinary teams described above, and led by an Investigator-In-Charge (IIC). These

investigations may have an NTSB board member launch to the investigation. During these investigations, the board member or IIC are the point of contact for public media inquiries. A field investigation is a limited investigation focused on a specific aspect of a crash, and typically involves 2 or 3 investigators. A major investigation will have investigators at the scene of the crash for about a week or more, while a field investigation will typically have investigators on scene for a few days.

The type of report produced from an investigation depends on the safety issues revealed through the investigative process. Although not typical, a major investigation might yield no issues and only have a brief report with basic documentation. Figure 1, which is an overhead view of the Oxnard California crash scene, provides an example of a major investigation that resulted in a brief report. The Oxnard crash involved a Metrolink commuter train operated by Amtrak which collided with an agricultural service truck and trailer at a grade crossing in Oxnard California on February 24, 2015. The white circle in Figure 1 indicates the location of the agricultural service truck and trailer.

Conversely, a field investigation may find several issues and result in multiple recommendations. Figure 2 is a view of the Anaheim California school bus crash which occurred on April 24th, 2014. The crash resulted in recommendations on the topics of medical oversight for school bus drivers, the use of passenger seat belts on school buses, and the use of onboard video monitoring systems.

Figure 1: Oxnard California Crash 84

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 84

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:46 PM

Figure 2: Anaheim California Crash All products that make recommendations are based on an analysis presented in the final Board report. The independent structure of the NTSB allows for recommendations to be made to any entity, including individual companies, associations, or agencies. esults The survey found 21 Board Reports issued for the specified timeframe, according to the types as shown in Table 1. There were 11 investigations that developed into a brief report that established a probable cause.

Most of these also addressed an issue area and generated recommendations. Three of these 11 were from major investigations and the remaining 8 were from field investigations.

R

There were 3 large scale reports that established a probable cause and several issue areas and recommendations, all from major investigations. There were also two safety

forums and a safety study. The forums had a public meeting with panel sessions, and although they do not have associated formal reports, the public dockets contain presentations, notes from the meetings, and supporting material. Figure 3 provides a view of the Seattle Washington crash which occurred on September 24, 2015. This crash involved a mechanical failure of the left front wheel axle housing of a “Duck” amphibious passenger vehicle, which struck a motorcoach on a bridge in Seattle Washington.

This crash resulted in 4 fatalities and 13 serious injuries on the motorcoach which had the driver and 49 passengers, and 17 serious injuries in the Duck, which had the driver and 36 passengers.

There were also 3 reports that address a specific issue area separately from the long report. These are called Safety Recommendation Reports, and allow an issue area to be addressed on an urgent or early basis, while the investi-

Figure 3: Seattle Washington Crash www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 85

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 85

8/24/2018 4:54:47 PM

gation is still in progress. All three of these were from a major investigation. Two of the 3 final products had been released by the time of the survey, and one investigation was still in progress, with the final report not yet released. iscussion The short reports listed in table 1 involved a variety of vehicles and crash scenarios, including vehicles that departed the roadway and overturned, collisions between vehicles, and collisions with stopped vehicles, trains, bicycles and pedestrians. The types of vehicles involved ranged from passenger vehicles and a 15 passenger van, to larger vehicles such as school buses, a motorcoach, and a truck tractor semi-trailer. The probable cause in all 11 investigations involved the driver. Five of the cases generated no issue areas or recommendations, and the others resulted in issue areas and recommendations on topics such as driver qualifications, training, medical fitness, distractions and substance abuse, motor carrier oversight, highway signage and maintenance, and seat belt usage. One of the field in-

D

Board Report Type Brief Report

Large Scale Report

Studies or Forums

Safety Recommendation Report

NTSB Report Number HAB1601 HAB1602 HAB1603 HAB1604 HAB1605 HAB1606 HAB1607 HAB1608 HAB1609 HAB1701 HAR1601SUM HAR1601 HAR1602 HAR1701 DCA16SS001 SIR1701 SR HSR1701 HSR1702

vestigations generated an SRR addressing deficiencies in state 911 communications.

The survey found 3 brief reports that resulted from major investigations. This occurs when the identified safety issue areas are focused. These included: the passenger train derailment in Oxnard California; a prison bus which departed the roadway and fell off a bridge onto a moving freight train in Penwell Texas; and a pickup truck that collided with a group of bicycle riders in Cooper Township Michigan.

The survey found 3 major investigations which also generated long reports. These occurred in Chattanooga TN, Seattle WA, and San Jose CA. The Chattanooga crash involved a commercial tractor semi-trailer which struck a traffic que near a construction zone. The probable cause was associated with human performance factors and had contributing factors associated with motor carrier and survival factors. The issues addressed were related to the PC as well as highway factors. The Seattle crash involved an

City or Topic Red Lion, DE Moore Haven, CT Penwell, TX Knoxville, KY Houston, TX Anaheim, CA Oxnard, CA Stillwater, OK Robstown, TX Cooper Township, MI Naperville, IL Chattanooga, TN Seattle, WA San Jose, CA Rear Seat Safety Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Pedestrian San Jose, CA Baltimore, MD Cooper Township, MI

Investigation Type Field Field Major Field Field Field Major Field Field Major Field Major Major Major Safety Forum Safety Study Safety Forum Driver seat issues Driver oversight and qualifications issues Emergency communications issues

Table 1: NTSB Highway Products Released from January 2016 to August 2017 86

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 86

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:47 PM

Figure 4: San Jose California Crash amphibious tourist vehicle which collided with a motorcoach.

The probable cause involved vehicle factors and survival factors contributing to the severity of the crash. Issue areas included vehicle defects, inspections and repairs, and crashworthiness. The San Jose crash involved a motorcoach collision with a crash attenuator separating a high occupancy vehicle lane on a freeway which had a probable cause related to highway factors and human performance with survival factors contributing to the severity. It resulted in recommendations in several areas ranging from highway design to commercial operational procedures, to collision avoidance and seat belts. The San Jose crash also generated an SRR concerning the floor design and the driver’s seat attachment. Figure 4 provides a view of the overturned motorcoach in the San Jose crash which occurred on January 19, 2016.

There was also an SRR generated on the topic of driver oversight and qualification issues stemming from a collision of a transit bus with a school bus in Baltimore, MD, which was still in progress. In addition, a safety study on the topic of reducing speed related crashes in passenger vehicles was presented. It was based on a literature study, analysis of speeding-related crash data; and interviews with national, state, and local traffic safety stakeholders. The findings were related to the risk factors of speed related crashes and mitigation strategies.

The review also found two forums, one involving rear seat safety and the other on pedestrian safety. The rear seat safety forum gathered a large group of stakeholders and explored countermeasures for mitigating the effects of crash impacts for the occupants seated in the rear seats of a passenger vehicle. The pedeswww.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 87

A major investigation will typically have investigators at the scene of the crash for about a week or more, while a field investigation will typically have investigators on scene for a few days Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 87

8/24/2018 4:54:47 PM

Factor Discipline Human Performance Motor Carrier Survival Factors Highway Factors Vehicle Factors

Number of PC / Issues PC: 13 Issues: 5 PC: 2 Issues: 5 PC: 5* Issues: 6 PC: 4 Issues: 4 PC: 2 Issues: 3

Common Topics Medical fitness, distractions, use of substances, qualifications Operations, inspections, training Structures, seatbelts, evacuation, emergency response Guidance material, signage, roadway design/maintenance Brakes, steering, weight/loading, seats and seatbelts

*Survival Factors can contribute to the severity of the probable cause.

Table 2: Probable Cause and Issue Area breakdown according to factor disciplines trian forum also gathered information from subject matter experts. A special investigation report is in progress and includes 15 field investigations involving pedestrian fatalities. The probable cause and issue areas found in the review for the investigative products according to the factor disciplines are provided in Table 2.

The driver, (human performance factors) is the most common factor related to the probable cause, but other disciplines were also found in the PC or as a contributing factor. While survivability is not a cause of the crash, it can be attributed as a contributing factor for the severity of the crash and included in the statement of the PC. The issue areas found were roughly evenly distributed across the disciplines.

onclusion The review of NTSB Office of Highway Safety Board Reports issued over a 20 month period from January 1, 2016 through August of 2017 resulted in a range of products covering a wide range of vehicles and crash scenarios. All of the factor disciplines were represented in the probable cause and issue areas. The NTSB highway investigative products are a useful resource for crash safety and investigation community. The reports issued are dependent on the crashes selected for investigation and the complexity of the investigations and issues found, and is unrelated to the total accident rate.

C

www.edrsummit.com

88

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 88

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:49 PM

passenger cars light trucks March 4-6, 2019 Houston, Texas

infotainment

The EDR Summit will deliver the next step in

legal

advanced EDR technology for vehicle crash analysis. Most importantly, this summit brings together industry experts from around the world to present on timely top-

commercial veh

ics and case studies. The presentations will focus on EDR data found in light trucks, passenger cars, SUVs, commercial vehicles, ac-

suvs

tive safety systems, autonomous driving, and

self driving

vehicle infotainment systems.

case studies

Register Today edrsummit.com www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 89

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 89

8/24/2018 4:54:52 PM

Crash Data Access and Authority Consent, Court Orders, and more W. R. Rusty Haight Collision Safety Institute

90

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 90

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:53 PM

B

ackground With The Driver Privacy Act of 20151, the US Congress codified, at least at the federal level, what had previously only really been seen at state levels starting with the passage of California Vehicle Code Section 99512 in 2004 as it relates to the statutory authority required to access and retrieve crash data from a vehicle system. Between 2004 and 2007, that California Vehicle Code (CVC) section was essentially duplicated or assimilated by more than 20 other states in whole or in part. In 2012, 49CFR5633 took effect and generally raised public not to mention legislative awareness of the presence of Event Data Recorders (EDRs) in passenger cars, light trucks and SUVs and their potential for use in litigation which ultimately lead, at least in part, to the passage of The Driver Privacy Act of 2015.

This article summarizes some of the existing litigation and legislation and examples of search warrants, court orders and consent forms with an eye toward assisting the reader in the development of a best practice for search warrant/ court order applications and/or the development of a consent document which might be used to authorize imaging data from a vehicle system (i.e.: the airbag control module). Examples of both effective and “less than effective” verbiage relative to search warrant/court order applications and consent documents are offered for consideration or, perhaps at least “food for thought,” for the reader going forward.

To narrow the scope of the narrative portion of the suggested consent form and search warrant/court order documents, this article will focus on data which might be accessed and retrieved using the Bosch Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Tool. The analysis would have, by extension, application to similar crash data retrieval tools not made by Bosch. However, this article leaves off the immediate application of these documents to non-traditional crash data which might be found in, for example, a navigation or infotainment system and then accessed and retrieved by another system or tool.

In the discussion found in this article, a central focus area relates to data privacy and access authority. The data or information which might be accessed and retrieved using the Bosch CDR Tool is different - in many significant and remarkable ways - than that which might be recovered from a navigation or infotainment system. For that reason, the end user is left to evaluate locally whether or not to include reference to access to such system into the suggested form or application.

The information assembled for this article is drawn from a variety of sources including police agency search warrant/court order example documents, various EDR consent documents, input from civil lawyers, prosecutors and more and the hope is that this article might help streamline the process of developing such documents or templates for local application and then if not eliminating at least reducing the necessity of fully “reinventing the wheel.” Where there are opinions expressed in this article, they are those of the author and the overall content of this article is offered as informational and not for the purpose of providing any specific legal advice or guidance. One should work with a client attorney, affiliated colleague prosecutor or other interested and informed attorney to develop a local application and jurisdiction-specific search warrant/court order application template and/or consent form.

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 91

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 91

8/24/2018 4:54:53 PM

L

itigation and Legislation Any discussion of the taking of an individual’s property (in particular for criminal litigation) necessarily has to begin with a look at the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution:

“... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ...”

The underlying concept is such that an individual should be free from unreasonable intrusions by the government and, in more recent interpretation, their privacy would/ should be protected. Significantly, the Fourth Amendment does not guarantee protection from all searches and seizures, but only those done by the government and found to be unreasonable and it outlines the requirements for the reasonable seizure of property. Notably, while the Constitution does not explicitly state that there is a “right” to privacy or define it as a specific right, Supreme Court decisions have found an implied right to privacy on a wide variety of issues although none are specific to EDR data.... yet.

There are; however, local cases which do address EDR data ownership and access authority. For example, a recent Georgia Court of Appeals case touched on privacy, search warrants and EDR data in Mobley v. Georgia4 where the court’s written decision included these passages: “... “The Fourth Amendment proscribes all unreasonable searches and seizures, and searches conducted without prior judicial approval are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject to specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.”5 ... “[A]n individual may challenge the legality of a search under the Fourth Amendment ... only if he or she has manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the object of the challenged search and society is willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable.” 6 “[T]he Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public ... is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” 7 .... “A car has little capacity for escaping public scrutiny. It travels public thoroughfares where both its occupants and its contents are in plain view.” 8 “A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another.” 9 ...”

92

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 92

The Mobley appeal focused on the warrantless retrieval of data from Mobley’s car’s EDR subcomponent/function of that car’s airbag control module (ACM) and the court held that: “... Whether a search warrant is required to retrieve the data from a vehicle’s ACM is an issue of first impression in Georgia. Because we find that a search warrant was not required here, we affirm Mobley’s convictions. ... We find that, under the circumstances in this case, Mobley did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data from his vehicle’s ACM. ...” 4 This analysis is in line with California v. Diaz10 and the Georgia Court in Mobley noted that case: “... The Diaz court held that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the speed and braking data taken from the vehicle’s ACM in that case, because “others could observe [the] vehicle’s movements, braking, and speed, either directly or through the use of technology such as radar guns or automated cameras.” 11 The Diaz court noted that “technology merely captured information defendant knowingly exposed to the public[.]” See also People v. Christmann (3 Misc.3d 309, 315, 776 N.Y.S.2d 437) (Just. Ct. 2004) (the immediate warrantless download of information from the defendant’s ACM did not violate the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights). ...”

Similar individual opinions and discussions, while not binding, can be found almost back to the earliest days of EDR data accessibility from nearly the initial public availability of the Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Tool in February 200012,13,14. Since then, across North America, one could easily find a wide variety of opinions relating to crash data retrieval authority but no clear common or universal opinion on the subject although it is evident that most legal minds expressed a strong preference for data access and retrieval being conducted pursuant to a warrant including the court in the closing paragraph of Mobley decision: “... We therefore limit our holding to the particular facts of this case, and note that future treatment of this issue will likewise depend on the specific facts of the cases under consideration. As such, we reiterate the strong preference for searches to be conducted pursuant to a warrant, see Jones v. State15, and caution law enforcement officers faced with an investigative need to obtain data from a vehicle’s ACM to err on the side of caution by obtaining a search warrant before retrieving that information. ...” 4 (Emphasis added)

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:54 PM

The Mobley and Diaz cases (one before and one after The Driver Privacy Act of 2015 was enacted) don’t really clear up the potential issues raised particularly inasmuch as other courts have come down on the side of there being a privacy concern and a warrant requirement. For example, a Missouri Court of Appeals held recently that a warrant to retrieve crash data from a commercial vehicle ECM was required and included this passage: “... We affirm. ... The trial court found “that [West] had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the ECM” so that West “has standing to contest the search and seizure of the ECM and ECM data.” ... ” 16 and in Florida v. Worsham where, after a warrantless retrieval of data from Warsham’s car, the court noted: “... Extracting and interpreting the information from a car’s black box is not like putting a car on a lift and examining the brakes or tires. Because the recorded data is not exposed to the public, and because the stored data is so difficult to extract and interpret, we hold there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in that information, protected by the Fourth Amendment, which required law enforcement in the absence of exigent circumstances to obtain a warrant before extracting the information from an impounded vehicle. ... Recently enacted federal legislation enhances the notion that there is an expectation of privacy in information contained in an automobile data recorder. The Driver Privacy Act of 2015 states that “[a]ny data retained by an event data recorder . . . is the property of the owner . . . of the motor vehicle in which the event data recorder is installed.” § 24302(a), 49 U.S.C. § 30101 note (2015). ...” 17 Whether one agrees or disagrees with the reasoning found in these decisions, the fact remains that the courts thus far appear to be split on vehicle crash related data access authority likely as a function of the circumstances surrounding the data retrieval and the court’s understanding of content and process against a background of virtually no real specific precedent.

Legislatively, prior to California Vehicle Code section 9951 (9951 CVC) taking effect in 2005, there was no legislative guidance specific to the required authority to access and retrieve crash data from a vehicle system. Similarly, looking to 9951 CVC and its clones and near-clones in other states as a starting place for the legislation-based restriction on the authority to access data we find this in 9951(c) CVC: “...(c) Data described in subdivision (b) that is recorded on a recording device may not be downloaded or otherwise retrieved by a person other than the registered owner

of the motor vehicle, except under one of the following circumstances: (1) The registered owner of the motor vehicle consents to the retrieval of the information.

(2) In response to an order of a court having jurisdiction to issue the order.

(3) For the purpose of improving motor vehicle safety, including for medical research of the human body’s reaction to motor vehicle accidents, and the identity of the registered owner or driver is not disclosed in connection with that retrieved data. The disclosure of the vehicle identification number (VIN) for the purpose of improving vehicle safety, including for medical research of the human body’s reaction to motor vehicle accidents, does not constitute the disclosure of the identity of the registered owner or driver.

(4) The data is retrieved by a licensed new motor vehicle dealer, or by an automotive technician as defined in Section 9880.1 of the Business and Professions Code, for the purpose of diagnosing, servicing, or repairing the motor vehicle. ...”

Focusing on this subsection as it might relate to most criminal or civil litigation scenarios and, at the same time, the practical functionality of the Bosch CDR Tool, we can effectively set subsection (c)(4) aside for he purpose this discussion. The CDR Tool is not (ordinarily) used “for the purpose of diagnosing, servicing, or repairing the motor vehicle.” The CDR Tool Sub section (c)(3) might also be set aside for the purposes of this article as a function of it being included, generally speaking, to provide or enable data access and retrieval by regulatory and research entities such as NHTSA and the NHTSA CIREN program to the exclusion of litigation.

For context here, this distills the California Vehicle Code section - and its progeny - down to the idea that data might be retrieved as a function of (1) consent provided by the vehicle’s registered owner or (2) based on authority related to a search warrant or other court order. Where some jurisdictions have taken a subpoena approach (i.e.: a Grand Jury subpoena) rather than the search warrant route to provide authority for crash data retrieval, this article would approach a subpoena and search warrant as sufficiently similar enough that they’re addressed in this article generically as “court order” and “search warrant” interchangeably.

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 93

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 93

8/24/2018 4:54:54 PM

In The Driver Privacy Act of 2015, we find this similar passage: “... (b) PRIVACY. - Data recorded or transmitted by an event data recorder described in subsection (a) may not be accessed by a person other than an owner or a lessee of the motor vehicle in which the event data recorder is installed unless (1) a court or other judicial or administrative authority having jurisdiction (A) authorizes the retrieval of the data; and (B) to the extent that there is retrieved data, the data is subject to the standards for admission into evidence required by that court or other administrative authority; (2) an owner or a lessee of the motor vehicle provides written, electronic, or recorded audio consent to the retrieval of the data for any purpose, including the purpose of diagnosing, servicing, or repairing the motor vehicle, or by agreeing to a subscription that describes how data will be retrieved and used; ...”

Another take on access authority is, interestingly enough, found in the Bosch CDR Tool software itself. In the CDR Tool End User License Agreement18 (EULA) we find these passages: “... (10. Miscellaneous) 10.6 Licensee agrees to obtain written permission from the owner or leasor of the Ford vehicles which the Licensed product is used to retrieve EDR data from, or the owner's legal representative; or written legal compulsion, in the form of a subpoena, warrant or court order, prior to downloading data from a Ford vehicle. Violation of this agreement will result in the termination of CDR software license. ...” (sic) “... 11. Data Privacy and Protection Licensee agrees that the users of the CDR tool and Licensed Software are obligated to be familiar with and follow applicable laws and regulations with respect to data privacy and general data protection regulations (e.g., US Driver Privacy Act of 2015, and the EU General Data Protection Regulation) related to the collection of data from vehicles, including but not limited to Event Data recorded as the result of a crash or active/passive safety system related events. Data collected from the vehicle and subsequently saved to a CDR file may contain Personally Identifiable Information (PII) including but not limited to Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), date & time the event data was recorded and, in some cases, Global Positioning System (GPS) data. Depend94

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 94

ing on the applicable local, regional, federal, or EU laws and regulations, compliance to regulations may require consent from the vehicle owner or sufficient legal authority may be required to access recorded data prior to retrieval of data from the vehicle using the CDR tool as well as compliance with the GDPR when processing and handling the data stored in the CDR file. Licensee also agrees that it is incumbent on the users of the CDR tool and Licensed Software to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. ...”

What is shown above currently as section 10.6 was section 10.5 prior to CDR Tool Software version 17.7.2 and section 11 was added to the CDR Tool EULA with the release of version 17.7.2. What is found in the EULA might be coupled with the observation that, once crash data is retrieved from certain manufacturer’s vehicles using the CDR Tool, in the Data Limitations text of a translation report, one might find a passage like this: “... Privacy Issue As of February 2013 the following states: Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Washington all have EDR Laws to address vehicle owner's privacy and consumer concerns. Subsequently, a 2015 Federal law prescribed privacy restrictions to address these same concerns. It is the responsibility of the user and end user to observe all applicable State and Federal privacy laws. ...” 19 Of course, longtime users of the Bosch CDR Tool have encountered the additional step when imaging Ford vehicle data where, at one time, one had to answer what was called the “Privacy Question” which, in more recent versions of the CDR Tool software has become the “Access Authority” question. Prior to version 5.0 of the CDR Tool Software, when one would initiate an imaging/download of a Ford system, before communication with a module being imaged began, the “Ford Privacy Question” dialog box (Figure 1) would appear. The Tool user would have to affirm they had proper authority in order to continue with the data access and retrieval.

With CDR Tool version 5.0, one would find, in the CDR Tool software Help file under the heading “CDR 5.0 Software Release Notes,” this entry as it relates to changes effective with version 5.0 of the CDR Tool software: “... Changes made to the Ford Privacy Question prompt and report text - Change the Dialog Box Title for the Ford Privacy Question to “Authority Question”

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:54 PM

- Removed wording in the user prompt and CDR report for legal authority from “subpoena” to “court order” - Moved the “Authority Question” text from the Data Limitations to just following the Comments section of the CDR reports. ...”

Thus, with the release of version 5 of the CDR Tool software, the “Ford Privacy Question” became simply the “Authority Question” as seen in Figure 2.

Figure 1: Ford Privacy Question

The person with “proper authority” has thus far been almost uniformly identified as the owner or lessor of the vehicle in which the data to be accessed and retrieved might be found in legislation and, to some degree, in the relevant cases. It would seem logical that, if the concern were to truly be about “driver privacy,” the driver of the vehicle at the time of the crash - whether or not they might be the owner of that vehicle - might be the one with standing: the individual whose privacy should be somehow protected and therefore would be the one who might reasonably give or revoke consent. But the legislation thus far - although titled at the federal level as The Driver Privacy Act (emphasis added) - specifically assigns the consent authority to the owner or lessor of that vehicle.

The distinction between the driver at the time of the crash and the owner of the vehicle involved in the crash - as it relates to consent to access and retrieve crash data - has yet to be addressed separately in any published decisions specifically point for EDR data. Looking for a similar scenario, we might consider cases such as Frazier v. Cupp21 where the

Figure 2: Authority Question Between 9951 CVC, The Driver Privacy Act of 2015, the admonition found in the Mobley decision, the opinions of the court in the West and Worsham cases (as well as others) and admonitions and agreements found in the CDR Tool software, it should be clear that - at a minimum - the best practice as it would relate to crash data access and retrieval is where that is or would be authorized as a function of either a search warrant (a court order by some name) or owner consent. To that end, one might look at examples of each of those document in current use types of toward the development of a locally acceptable or applicable form or template.

C

for example, in Missouri v. West20) may give their consent to the search/seizure or, in context here, the imaging/downloading of data from a vehicle’s EDR component. Normally, the courts have recognized that neither a court order nor probable cause are required if consent has been given by someone with “proper authority.”

onsent In a variety of cases, the courts have held that where a search warrant or other court order has not been obtained or, for some reason, cannot be obtained, then one who would otherwise have “standing to contest the search and seizure” of crash data (“standing” as used,

The distinction between the driver at the time of the crash and the owner of the vehicle involved in the crash - as it relates to consent to access and retrieve crash data - has yet to be addressed separately in any published decisions specifically point for EDR data

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 95

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 95

8/24/2018 4:54:54 PM

court held that a person with joint authority and control over an item (in that case, it was a duffel bag) may consent to its search. However, in Stoner v. California22 and U.S. v.

Jeffers 23 the courts held that a hotel manager or employee (although they would have a pass key or second key to a hotel room) cannot give valid consent to enter or search a guest’s room, that would have to come from the hotel guest renting that room.

So, the question here might be something along the lines of: if the owner of a car loans that car to another individual for the day who is then involved in a crash while driving that car, should not consent have to come from the driver who borrowed the car (recognizing that they’re not the owner of the car) or would it have to come from the actual owner of the car?

Similarly, another aspect of consent in this regard would have to do with joint ownership of a vehicle. Consider a scenario where one were to be in a community property state (i.e.: California) whether the registration for a car might list both the husband and wife or just one of the two, they both have an ownership interest in the vehicle as community property so, it begs the question: who would be in a position to give consent ... would it be required of only one or would consent from both be required? If we were to take the verbiage found in 9951 CVC on its face, “ownership” is associated with the person named as the owner on the car’s registration (from 9951(c)(1) CVC; “...

The registered owner of the motor vehicle... ”).

In that respect then, consider John and Mary Smith who are a married couple in California. The registration for a vehicle involved in a crash indicates that John Smith is listed as the “registered owner” while Mary isn’t mentioned in that document. In that scenario, is John the only one who could or would be required to give consent or do both need to give consent? What if Mary were driving? Because the car is community property in California, can she still give consent even though her name isn’t actually on the registration?

What about a scenario where the registration indicates that John Smith AND Mary Smith are the registered owners as compared to a registration document indicating that John Smith OR Mary Smith are the registered owners? In the scenario where we find “or,” the sale and transfer of the car only requires signature of one of the two listed on the registration whereas the “and” would require the signature of both to transfer the car. Could/does that reasoning extend to a consent document in the context of crash data retrieval as we contemplate whether or not one or both need to give consent? So far, this seems to be unanswered by case law in the context of EDR Data.

96

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 96

Next, consider a situation where one might seek to get consent to image data from a company owned vehicle; for example a vehicle registered to a public utility like a power company or a small privately held company like a florist with two or three delivery vans. The registration might bear the name of “ABC Gas and Electric” but likely not the name of a person within that company who would be authorized to give consent. How would one go about identifying the individual(s) in that scenario who would be in the position to give consent?

In virtually every statute regarding EDR data access, as it relates to consent, these regulations call for that consent to be given by the “owner” and “owner” is used in the singular not plural. However, one state’s EDR statute - even though it calls for the owner (singular) to give consent specifically addresses the potential for there being more than one “owner.” In the Arkansas24 EDR statute, we find this passage: “... 27-37-103(d)(2) If a motor vehicle is owned by more than one (1) person or entity and if all owners agree to release the data, then all owners must consent in writing by signing a release to authorize a person or entity to retrieve or use the data. ...”

The phrase, “...if all owners agree...” begs the question, what if all the owners they don’t agree? Then does it revert to where consent from only one might be sufficient? The Arkansas statute also includes this definition again using the singular: “... 27-37-103(a)(3) “Owner” means a person or entity: (A) In whose name a motor vehicle is registered or titled; (B) Who leases a motor vehicle for at least three (3) months; (C) Who is entitled to possession of the motor vehicle as the purchaser under a security agreement; or (D) Who is the authorized representative of the owner (1) “Authorized representative” means a person who is the attorney-in-fact for an owner or a person who has been appointed the administrator or personal representative of the estate of the owner; ...”

The definition of “owner” (in the singular) found in the Arkansas statute is also found, almost verbatim or at least in similar form, in the comparable statutes found in New Hampshire25, North Dakota26, New York27, Maine28, Colorado29, Texas30 and others although Arkansas stands alone specifically addressing consent against the potential of multiple owners.

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:54 PM

The clear observation is that the “driver” of a given vehicle at the time of a crash does not appear to be individually contemplated in any of these statutes (or in The Driver Privacy Act of 2015). Secondly, beyond it being defined to some degree on a local basis, who is or is not the owner (or owners) for purposes of giving consent doesn’t appear to have an easily discernable universal definition. This brings us back to an earlier passage in this article on point: one should work with a client attorney, affiliated colleague prosecutor or other interested and informed attorney to consider the “owner” aspect of consent when looking to develop a local jurisdiction-specific consent form. It might be good to discuss with them the issues associated with multiple named registered owners, community property and fleet/company owned vehicles.

On the issue of the potential for the driver giving consent and perhaps being in some position to revoke that consent if given by an owner who was not the driver, legal scholars who offered input on this article suggested a reading of Third-Party Consent Searches, the Supreme Court and the Fourth Amendment31. There, we find this paragraph: “... The most obvious application of the so-called consent search exception occurs when the party at whom the search is directed and whose property is to be searched is the party who consents to the search.32 The consent search exception to the requirements of the fourth amendment also may be used to validate a search in which the party who gives the consent is not the party at whom the search is directed.33 Searches in such situations have been upheld as valid consent searches provided the consenting party had some close relationship with the property to be searched or the person at whom the search was directed. Such searches are called third-party consent searches. ...” 34 Statutorily, the retrieval of data might be done under consent of the “owner.” However, the data might be considered to be in a place in control of and/or property in control of the driver as “the party at whom the search is directed” and, at the time of a crash, they clearly had “some close relationship with the property to be searched.” The discussion found in Abrams31 includes a look at situations in settled cases which are at least generally comparable to that and the various scenarios discussed above although still not specific to EDR data and none directly addressing the verbiage of any local statue or The Driver Privacy Act. To move this forward, we might recognize that consent given to access and retrieve crash data will likely have to remain a locally settled issue based on guidance from an appropriate local legal authority; however, the design of a sufficiently effective consent form might still be within reach. To this end, several consent forms/documents from

public and private sources including police agencies, auto manufacturers and others were reviewed for content and application. Given broad guidance in this area, a set of tests was developed toward identifying a best practice in this area.

Setting aside specifically who would be authorized to give consent at this point, an effective consent form should address the basic elements of a consent process with an eye toward “informed consent” including (in no specific order): •

Full disclosure of the nature of the data access and retrieval

•

An indication that sufficient information about what consent allows has been conveyed

•

A description of the relationship between the vehicle and the individual(s) giving consent

•

A showing of the consenting individual’s voluntary choice to give consent for the access and retrieval

Starting with a few examples of consent forms actually currently in use which fall well short of meeting the elements listed, one might consider: --------------------------- Example #1 --------------------------CONSENT TO SEARCH (Vehicle) DATE: _______________ LOCATION:

I, __________, having been informed of my constitutional right NOT to have a search of my vehicle hereinafter mentioned without a search warrant and of my right to refuse to consent to a search, hereby authorize __________ and other members of the City Police Department to conduct a complete search of my vehicle located at ___________.

These detectives and/or officers are authorized by me to take from my vehicle any items of evidence related to a vehicular crash involving my vehicle on ___/___/___. Items of evidence are to include, but not limited to, electronic information contained within the Airbag Control Module or Powertrain Control Module (Black Box). It is understood that some damage may occur to the vehicle during the search. All efforts will be made to keep any damage to a minimum during the search. This written permission is being given by me to the above named detective/officer voluntarily and without threats or promises of any kind.

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 97

_______________

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 97

8/24/2018 4:54:54 PM

The vehicle to be searched is a ___________. ______________

the removal of the Airbag Control Module. It is agreed not to hold ________ and those associated with _______ liable for any damage incurred.

Signature of Consenter

Vehicle Year:

________ Make: _________

--------------------------- Example #1 ---------------------------

Model: _________ VIN: ______________

In Example #1, is there full disclosure of the nature of the data access and retrieval? Is there an indication that sufficient information about what consent allows has been conveyed to the person granting consent? Is there a clear description of the relationship between the vehicle and the individual(s) giving consent?

Location: __________

The apparent effort at some sort of disclosure in that text is found in the sentence “items of evidence are to include, but not limited to, electronic information contained within the Airbag Control Module or Powertrain Control Module (Black Box).” First, this sentence leaves off the potential for data access and retrieval from a rollover sensor35. Next, the inclusion of the colloquial “black box” which seems grammatically used to describe the Powertrain Control Module (PCM) as written is, at best, gratuitous and unnecessary.

Remarks: _______

Although one might assume that the investigator seeking consent could have explained, verbally, what the granting of consent will actually allow there is no indication of whether or not that happened, what the individual granting consent was told or understood that explanation.

Moreover, without the detail of some separate verbal explanation being included in the document, the actual content of that explanation might easily be questioned.

Moreover, it should be obvious to individuals familiar with the capabilities of the Bosch CDR Tool to access more than just the ACM, this text is unnecessarily narrow and restrictive - unless it were to be coupled with additional duplicative forms specifying additional separate access to, for example a rollover sensor or powertrain control module. In that case, how many consent forms would one have to complete for access to all the vehicle’s crash data?

There is nothing in the test of Example #1 which suggests the person granting consent is the owner - or the driver - of the vehicle in which data might be accessed and retrieved.

Although the text includes the phrase “my vehicle” more than once, given the statutory discussion found earlier in this article “my vehicle” falls short of specifically identifying whether or not the granting individual is the vehicle’s actual registered owner or not.

Another consent document examined reads:

Another consent document found in use is: --------------------------- Example #2 --------------------------Permission to “Download” Crash Data from an Airbag Control Module.

I am the owner or representative of the owner of the vehicle described below. I hereby grant permission to ______ and those associated with ________ to examine this vehicle and “Download” the “Crash Data” from the Airbag Control Module. It may be necessary to remove the Airbag Control Module, due to the severity of the crash, or other operational reasons. Extreme care will be exercised during 98

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 98

Owner or Representative of the owner: __________ Address: ______ Telephone: ______ Signature: _______ Date: _______

--------------------------- Example #2 --------------------------Applying the same tests to Example #2, there is little or no disclosure of the nature of the data access and retrieval in this text and no indication that sufficient information about what consent allows has been conveyed to the individual granting consent.

--------------------------- Example #3 --------------------------I, _________, am the owner of the ________ having Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) ________. I hereby give my permission for crash data, if present, to be retrieved from my vehicle by a certified Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) technician via my vehicle’s OBDII port, located beneath the dashboard. It is my understanding that: •

No part of my vehicle will be removed or altered by this procedure, and

•

Any data contained in the event data recorder will remain unchanged by this procedure.

I will make my ignition key available at the time of inspection for this procedure.

Signed: ________ Date: _______ --------------------------- Example #3 ---------------------------

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:54 PM

Editorially, it’s difficult to know where to start here. There is really no meaningful disclosure of the nature of the data access and retrieval in this text. There is no indication that any - much less any sufficient - information about what consent allows has been conveyed to the individual granting consent. While there is a description of the relationship between the vehicle and the individual(s) giving consent, there is no real indication that the consenting individual’s voluntary choice to give consent for the access and retrieval is part of this process. In Example #3, the text sets out narrow and restrictive descriptions which might conflict with the actual retrieval process necessary to retrieve data.

Another example of a consent form in use is: --------------------------- Example #4 --------------------------Event Data Recorder Readout Authorization and Consent I am the owner/lessor/lessee or the authorized representative of the owner / lessor/lessee of a _______ , vehicle identification number: _________ (the “Subject Vehicle”).

I consent and authorize representatives of _________ or other persons designated by _____________, to readout data from the Subject Vehicle's Event Data Recorder and / or any other computer memory contained within the Subject Vehicle. In doing so, I acknowledge and agree voluntarily to waive any privacy rights associated with or contained in the information or data downloaded. ______________________ Name (please print) ______________________ Status (i.e., owner, lessor, lessee, representative, attorney, etc.)

Signed: _____________ Dated: ____________ --------------------------- Example #4 --------------------------While this example addresses ownership and it’s clearly casting a broad net (“any other computer memory”) there is, again, no meaningful disclosure of the nature of the data access and retrieval in this example. There is no indication that any information about what consent allows has been conveyed to the individual granting consent.

Here, specifying an “event data recorder” also invokes a specific device definition and, if we were to look to 49CFR56336 for guidance there, the regulation includes a specific definition of what an “event data recorder” is: “... 49CFR563.5 Definitions

Event data recorder (EDR) means a device or function in a vehicle that records the vehicle's dynamic time-series data during the time period just prior to a crash event (e.g., vehicle speed vs. time) or during a crash event (e.g., delta-V vs. time), intended for retrieval after the crash event. For the purposes of this definition, the event data do not include audio and video data. ...”

That definition might arguably exclude the GM ROS and data which might be an accessible Ford PCM. That term would then also exclude any sort of aftermarket “dash cam” type system one might find in a car; however, in both instances, the more broad inclusion of “any other computer memory” might still be applied but, was that explained to the person granting this consent? The problem, either way, is that the consent form - like many reviewed for this analysis - is, at best, vague while trying to be superficially specific at the same time.

Having offered examples of consent document which fall somewhat short of what would really meet the tests laid out (or as fully as practical), the reader should understand that others which do satisfy the tests (or most of them) were also reviewed in the development of this article. Using the examples above wasn’t meant to single out any individual or entity, rather to give examples of what is actually currently being used and what falls short of an optimal consent document.

That said, other documents reviewed did provide valuable examples of consent forms which come far closer to meeting the tests. Offered as Appendix 1 is an example of a model consent form compiled from the many reviewed for this article. This form is also available as a text document which can be downloaded and further edited to suit your individual needs (without having to retype what’s offered here) at Crashforum.info within the “CDR Tool Technical Support” forum (search “authority form” within the Crashforum.info site).

S

earch Warrants and other Court Orders An application for a search warrant or similarly named court order to access and retrieve crash data is universally called out as an option in all the various US state laws as well as The Driver Privacy Act of 2015. There is nothing in 49CFR563 regarding legal authority required to access and retrieve data, that activity being beyond the scope of that regulation. Although, if the reader has made it this far into this article, they probably have a good idea of what a search warrant is and what it’s for but so we’re “all on the same page,” for the purpose of this article, a search warrant is a court order signed by a judge or magistrate which authorizes police officers to search for and retrieve specific things at specific location.

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 99

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 99

8/24/2018 4:54:54 PM

For example, a warrant (court order) may authorize or direct the search of “the outbuilding or detached garage on the premises at 1234 Heisenberg Street” and allow or direct the police to search for and seize (retrieve) “chemicals, devices, implements, containers, cash, record books and every other means or thing used in connection with the manufacture, sales and/or distribution of illegal drugs and/or their component compounds.” In the most basic sense, the order is (1) specific to a place and (2) the thing(s) associated with a (3) specific crime the police have reason to believe may be related to that place in some way which would have been more fully articulated in the application for the warrant. It would be issued or granted by a judge based on information in an affidavit from an investigator after a showing of probable cause and once specific elements for the granting of the order are (or should be) met.

In context here, this describes an order issued by an appropriate legal authority based on a finding of appropriate probable cause and foundation which would allow for or order a law enforcement officer to access and retrieve crash data from the appropriate vehicle system(s) in a specific vehicle.

As in the Mobley4 case - among others - the courts have reiterated their “... strong preference for searches to be conducted pursuant to a warrant...”. From a law enforcement perspective, there are a variety of good reasons to seek a court order for crash data access and retrieval. Setting aside conflicting case law on the subject, where a warrantless search (consent or other access and retrieval process) is conducted, the burden would be on law enforcement to show that the search was reasonable whereas, with a warrant/court order, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the judge erred by issuing that order (often a decision to be made by the same judge who would have issued that order in the first place...).

Procedurally, the process varies from one jurisdiction (state by state or even by county) to the next. Often, the documents and process - while generally the same across a given state - are prepared as a function of the local prosecutor’s or court’s preferences or policies. For example, an investigator may write an affidavit in support of the request for a search warrant and then appear before a judge (magistrate) and give additional live testimony in support of that request for the order. The investigator may prepare the order in advance and other documents which would, in that jurisdiction, might be locally required and then signed - if approved - by the judge. Documents often associated with this process typically include (by these or a similar name):

100 Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 100

1. The Affidavit for a Search Warrant written and/ or signed by the investigator or a prosecuting attorney 2.

The actual Search Warrant (or other similarly named court order) which would be approved then signed by the judge

3. A Return affidavit or report that the warrant was executed Simplifying the process of a warrant application is not a new or novel idea. In Virginia, for example, from the “Virginia’s Judicial System”37 web site, a law enforcement officer can find an online document “fill in the blank” affidavit for a search warrant application which includes, by topic, the elements of the application. The content of the boxes to be filled in would be more the subject of this article (see Figure 3).

In some jurisdictions, the investigator may appear live in front of the judge or telephonically in support of the application and there may be no written affidavit. To narrow the scope of this article, we’ll focus on the basic contents of the application affidavit rather than format looking to ideally reduce mistakes in that document and making it more complete and then, ideally, more “bulletproof.” Since the format of the actual order/search warrant and the Return will be more varied by jurisdiction and often more specifically set out within a given jurisdiction’s local rules, those documents aren’t really within the scope of this article. Locally common or required verbiage is not addressed here.

Ultimately, the review of a variety of affidavit documents from across the US and Canada revealed, as did the review of the various consent forms, recurring mistakes and flaws which could potentially lead to an order being overturned.

Having said that, among the many affidavits reviewed for this article, there were also several which were well developed and offer good examples of both content and the organization of the information which might be applied across different jurisdictions.

Recurring mistakes, again discussed here not to embarrass any individual but rather as a function of being able to say: “here’s the kind of thing to avoid...” fell repeatedly into specific recurring groups. In 2011 and 2012 Gillingham 37 addressed similar issues in his presentations under the heading “Most common warrant mistakes.” The categories include, in no particular order:

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:54 PM

Figure 3: Affidavit for Search Warrant www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 101

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 101

8/24/2018 4:54:54 PM

1. The “cut and paste” trap (including being overly specific but specifically wrong) 2. Insufficient detail setting out the probable cause (including a poorly set forth or overlooked “commission” element) 3. Failing to fully associate the suspect with the item/things or the place to be searched 4. Incomplete description of the affiant’s (investigator’s) training and qualifications

T

he “cut and paste” trap Undeniably, creating a generic template for an affidavit that might be used as a guideline for affidavits which then might be used from one crash data warrant application to the next is part of the underlying goal of this article; however, simply the act of “cut and paste” is not “the trap.”

The “trap” is actually two part. The first part is the potential for developing a good template or guideline document and then, from one case to the next, copying information from “warrant application #1” to “warrant application #2” which doesn’t really apply.

For example, “last week” Detective Concursus prepared a warrant application affidavit on a case involving an Explorer. The application was well written, complete, concise and the warrant was granted by the court. This week, Concursu, while working on a case involving a Camaro and using the format and general content from the previous application writes another application for a warrant for the recent Camaro crash. In the process of cutting and then pasting some of the text from the Explorer crash warrant application into the application for the Camaro warrant, the involved vehicle is described as an Explorer instead of a Camaro. The location of the first crash is copied to and appears in the application for the second crash as the location of the crash.

Clearly, the error results in a place (the vehicle) which is not properly identified in the more recent application and, in the description of he underlying probable cause, a flawed collision location. Either or both might be sufficient to challenge the validity of a warrant based on the arguably flawed application foundation.

The second trap, similar to the first, is where specific technical information or information which might relate to the Explorer crash from “last week” (in the example above) is copied into warrant application for the Camaro. For example, say the Explorer has an accessible powertrain control module (PCM) in addition to the vehicle’s restraints 102 Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 102

control module (RCM). In the first affidavit for the data from the Explorer, Det. Concursu thoroughly addressed the data from the PCM and separately from the RCM. Cutting and pasting the Ford-specific RCM and PCM information into the affidavit for the Camaro results in that application describing components which are, at least by name, not present in the Camaro and, worse would give rise to a line of questions for Det. Concursu later such as: Q: In your affidavit for the search warrant, you described your training and experience in retrieving and analyzing crash data, correct?

A: Yes. Q: Being offered as an expert on this topic here, you understand the nuances of the systems and components related to this technology, correct?

A: Yes. Q: In your affidavit for the search warrant, you described how access to data contained within the Camaro’s powertrain control module would be important to your investigation and reconstruction of this crash, correct?

A: Yes. Q: Did you access and retrieve data from the powertrain control module in the Camaro?

A: No. Then the argument is then made by the defense that either (a) Det Concursu is not the expert he claims to be because he doesn’t know what component(s) he was or should have been accessing in the Camaro or (b) the reason he doesn’t have data from a component he initially said was important to his investigation is because that data doesn’t conform to the prosecution’s representation of the crash facts. Obviously, the prosecution will have to rehabilitate the detective - and that can probably be done in a handful of questions the Detective will find avoidably uncomfortable - but most lawyers (prosecutors) would rather avoid a scenario that unnecessarily muddies the waters or unnecessarily complicates their case.

The misidentification of the module(s) by manufacturer specific name or a lack of support for a Ford component in a General Motors vehicle is not uncommon. Similarly, using terms from one affidavit to another which, in some cases may be accurate and in others wholly inaccurate are not uncommon and can be more damaging than the line

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:55 PM

of questions set out above. Some examples found in some of the affidavits reviewed for this article include:

the air bags or seat belt pretentioners deployed as a result of the traffic collision. ...” (Emphasis added)

From an affidavit for a Ford vehicle, we find this passage:

The question is: is the highlighted section of this passage true? On one level, not all pretentioner only events are considered “deployments.” Separately, at one time, a GM ACM had to be replaced after it had commanded one deployment; however, that’s not actually true of more recent vintage ACMs in GM vehicles which may hold, for example, up to three deployment events before they need to be replaced. Or in the case of a VW module which could record as many as 6 deployments or a Chrysler module which may be able to record up to 3 deployment events.

In other words, at one time, the statement would be true but this, like other problematic statements found in the review, appears to have been cut and pasted from previous warrant affidavits apparently without reviewing it’s accuracy against current modules in use in vehicles today.

“... and all parts and containers therein or parts of the vehicles described as a 2000 Ford Expedition, green in color, bearing license plate... ... for the following property, to wit: the Electronic sensing and diagnostic control module (SDM); and/or Diagnostic and Energy Reserve Module (DERM); and/or Restraint Control Module (RCM); and/or any other electronic data recorder contained within the described vehicle ...”

While specific enough to include the manufacturer-specific designation RCM (this being a Ford) it can be said this is overly broad and includes unnecessary detail and nomenclature which had simply been cut and pasted from another warrant application where those other systems don’t exist on this vehicle (the “SDM” and “DERM” being GM not Ford system names).

Yes, it reads “and/or” but the right line of cross examination unnecessarily detracts from the affiant’s expertise (Q: So, as an expert in this technology, when you were writing your affidavit, you didn’t know there wouldn’t be GM components in this Ford?).

From an affidavit for data from a GM vehicle, this passage: “... Located within the (vehicle) is a Sensing and Diagnostic Module (SDM). This component of the vehicle's airbag system is designed to store information about collisions involving the vehicle. ... During that collision, the vehicle's airbags deployed. The airbag deployment guarantees that the SDM would have stored information regarding that specific collision. ...” (Emphasis added) Are the highlighted statements actually true? Is the “design” of the ACM (SDM) actually to store data? While that’s one conditionally possible function it is not THE main design element of the module. Would a deployment actually “guarantee” data is recorded ... in the case of a power interruption followed by a power depletion? ...in the case of a module which already had data associated with a deployment recorded (this system had a limit of one deployment)?

Similarly, there was this passage in one example: “... These agents ARE / ARE NOT (circle one) authorized to physically remove the air bag control module from my vehicle. The air bag control module will need to be replaced when the vehicle is repaired if

From a template used by an agency for the warrant affidavit: “... may record certain data, including, but not limited to ... The speed the vehicle was traveling for five seconds prior to algorithm enable ... Engine throttle pressure for five seconds ... ” (Emphasis added) While this template isn’t necessarily offered for use “just for GM vehicles” it doesn’t define for the otherwise impartial (uninformed) judge what “algorithm enable” is or means setting aside this would not be a term found in, for example, a report made later from Chrysler data. But setting that aside inasmuch as it could be described in a narrative specific to a GM system beyond the layout of this template, what is “engine throttle pressure”?

The most troublesome part of this verbiage has to do with the amount of time specified and the term “speed the vehicle was traveling.” First, for example, some GM systems don’t record 5 seconds of pre-crash data, they only record 2.5 seconds. Imagine one returns with a report made from retrieved data only showing 2.5 seconds of pre-crash data and the line of questioning becomes: Q: Officer, in your affidavit you said there would be 5 seconds of the speed of the vehicle and other data elements in the data retrieved but, on page 4 of this report and you have previously testified there was 2.5 seconds of pre-crash data ... what did you do with the other 2.5 seconds of pre-crash data?

Of course the officer can be rehabilitated by way of additional questions by the prosecution BUT the seed’s been planted that perhaps the level of expertise isn’t what it was initially represented to be or, in the mind of the “right ju-

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 103

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 103

8/24/2018 4:54:55 PM

ror,” the police must be hiding 2.5 seconds of data which might be exculpatory.

All that said, within this template, the more potentially destructive element is the specificity of the phrase “the speed the vehicle was traveling.” Assume data is successfully retrieved and assume it covers the specified 5 second precrash period and that “pressure” versus “percent” doesn’t become an issue. The real problem is: what if the dynamics of the crash are such that the car from which the data was retrieved was in a fully locked wheel skid as a function of no ABS or malfunctioning ABS on that vehicle (and the speed is reported as zero or nearly zero) or, because the vehicle is in a yaw, the wheels were slipping? In either case, the speed reported isn’t going to be “speed the vehicle was traveling” prior to the crash, it is a reported or, as we find in 49CFR563, the “indicated speed” and not the speed of the center of mass of the vehicle during that period. This prompts this potential (albeit avoidable) line of questioning: Q: In your affidavit for the search warrant you specifically wrote that the data you wanted to retrieve from my client’s vehicle would include THE speed my client’s vehicle was traveling, correct?

A: Yes Q: And that speed, the speed we see in the report made from the data you testified was important if not crucial to your investigation from a unit in the car you have testified is generally reliable and accepted within the crash reconstruction community has, as a function of a US Federal regulation, a requirement for a specific level of accuracy is reported as being 32 mph but now, here at trial, you’re testifying that all that’s wrong and the actual what you are calling minimum speed was 54 mph, correct?

As with any line of questions, any “issue” raised by the other side in a case, there can be rehabilitation, there can be explanations; however, in legal terms “you can’t un-ring the bell.” That juror(s) that defense attorney is trying to reach has heard “the officer said the data is reliable and reported 32 mph but now he’s changed his mind and says the speed is really 54 mph, to me, there is reasonable doubt...”

F

ailing to associate the suspect Although less common, another observation made after a review of several examples of warrant applications had to do with connecting the suspect with the data. The problem here is actually two-fold. First, there will be cases where the data being might be used to help put the suspect “behind the wheel” and, for that reason,

104 Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 104

there may not be - as the affidavit is written - a level of certainty that can be fully articulated in that respect. The follow on shortcoming is then where the affidavit fails to focus on how the data might help establish a specific individual is or is not the driver.

A second issue is such that, while the suspect has been identified in, for example, the name of the case or a statement listing pending charges, that individual may not be clearly connected in the affidavit to/with the vehicle or the data.

For example, the affidavit might assume (presume?) that everyone involved understands or “knows,” going into it, that “John Smith” was the driver and further detail would not seem to be required. But looking back to the discussion of consent forms, is the individual identified as the owner, a co-owner or a non-owner driver of the subject vehicle and should not that be at least addressed in the warrant affidavit? On a technical level, where a potential data element which might be retrieved could relate to identifying or further identifying the driver, shouldn’t that be specifically called out as part of the probable cause discussion whether or not the “driver” has been separately identified?

I

nsufficient probable cause detail Within the group of example affidavits reviewed, this topic falls into one of two categories: either the affidavit laid out so much detail about the crash investigation, much of it well beyond being related to the data in the car and how that relates, that it might be considered too much detail.

For example, one affidavit for a warrant ran 4 typed pages outlining the steps of the investigation including what witnesses had been interviewed and details of the content of their interview even when, for example, the individual being interviewed was only able to offer that they heard the sound of a crash and had called 911 but made no other observations.

On the other end, in the other extreme, there was nothing more than a single sentence such as: “... based on the information which has been compiled by the investigating officers, there is reasonable belief that this collision constitutes a criminal offense. ...”

This simplified statement might be supplemented by live testimony from the officer seeking the warrant but in later review, all that had been set out formally (in writing) to establish probable cause might be considered an opinion rather than a statement of facts. Finding he middle ground - a statement laying out probably cause without giving so much detail it might later seem to be or be repre-

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:55 PM

sented as contradictory (sometimes “less is more”) - should be the goal.

Minimally, adding a just few words would make this a stronger application:

One of the best examples of the probable cause statement set out, in a single page sufficient details to describe that there had been a crash, the crash resulted in a death, that defendant Jones was both the owner of the involved car a nd the driver at the time of the crash and that, to fully analyze the crash which potentially might lead to additional charges. It ended with this caveat:

“... The investigating officers, based on their collective training and experience in collision investigation and reconstruction and having received specialized training in the collection and analysis of electronically stored crash data from vehicles, have determined that ...”

“... Since this affidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose of securing a search warrant, Affiant has not included each and every fact known to me concerning this investigation. Affiant has set forth only those facts which Affiant believes are minimally necessary to establish probable cause to believe that evidence of the specified crime, in violation of the Penal Code Section 7.4.59 ...”

An affidavit should include a sufficient outline of the affiant’s training and experience (or the underlying investigator’s training and experience) that the judge can reasonably conclude that the information they’re being asked to rely on is actually reliable in the context of the remainder of the affidavit. Topics that might be included, even is summarized in a short form or list would include: •

The police agencies the affiant worked for and units applicable to the warrant content

•

What academy training the affiant had in the topic (i.e.: crash investigation)

•

That they have received annual updates to their training

•

A listing of classes attended specific to the topic (i.e.: CDR Technician, CDR Analyst)

•

A showing that they’ve attended other classes and conferences related to the topic

•

Number of times an affiant

And nothing more was offered in the affidavit to support followup statements in the affidavit like:

•

Number of times involved in execution of a search warrant

“... It is the belief of the Affiant and he hereby charges and accuses that the described vehicle may contain evidence pertaining to a collision involving the injuries of ...”

•

Qualified as an expert at trial in the subject matter

I

ncomplete training and qualifications for foundation This would seem like an area which would be hard to image being left out of a warrant affidavit; however, in more examples than might otherwise have been expected the content all but excluded the basis on which the affiant was giving the information and expert opinions in that affidavit. For example, one affidavit started out this way:

“... My name is Detective Concursu and I am a commissioned peace officer employed by the City of Pleasant Valley Police Department, assigned to the Traffic Unit. ...”

But again nowhere in the affidavit any showing that the detective had any training and experience which would lead to reasonably offer that conclusion/opinion.

An example of an affidavit which would be offered by a prosecutor instead of by an investigating officer included this passage: “... The investigating officers have determined that this vehicle has a device commonly called an airbag and/ or a electronic control module that was installed by the manufacturer that may record certain data, including, but not limited to ...”

The list might be an attachment to the affidavit in the form of a curriculum vitae (CV) which can be updated separately but always attached to the affidavit such that it is always updated separately and, where other officers in the same unit might be completing similar affidavits, each could attach their own CV. As with the consent form many of the affidavit documents reviewed did provide valuable examples of practical and effective content. The review of several example affidavits in support of search warrant applications from a variety of jurisdictions also makes it clear that local court rules or custom either specifies or prefers specific verbiage as part of the affidavit. For example, these two opening or introductory passages are from the same state but in use by different police agencies in different counties:

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 105

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 105

8/24/2018 4:54:55 PM

“... Affidavit for Search Warrant {Article 18.02(a)(1)-(9), Texas Code of Criminal Procedure} Before me, the undersigned authority personally appeared the affiant herein, a peace officer under the laws of Texas, who, being duly sworn, on oath made the following statements: ...”

And... “... Application for a Court Order Comes now the State of Texas, by and through her Assistant District Attorney and does hereby request this Court to issue an order to the ______ (Agency) to go to ____ (Location), located in ____ County, Texas and to locate a ___ (Year) ___ (Vehicle Type) with VIN _____ and plate number ____ for the purpose of retrieving data from a recording device which is installed within this vehicle and for good cause would show the following: ...”

Given the variety of forms, the initial or introductory verbiage is outside the scope of a recommended model for the content of the application itself. A "Model Content for an Effective Application in Support of a Search Warrant Application" has been compiled from the many reviewed for this article. Referring back to the "fill in the blank" form found in Virginia, for example, the recommended narrative might be a useful guideline for effective text/narrative in that form. The model is available as a text document which can be downloaded and further edited to suit your individual needs (without having to retype what’s offered here) at Crashforum.info within the “CDR Tool Technical Support” forum (search “authority form” within the Crashforum.info site).

C

onclusion This article is based on a review of a variety of consent form examples as well as several examples of search warrant affidavits both of which come from a number of varied sources across North America. These examples were examined together with a review of recent legal decisions on the topic of authority to access and retrieve crash data. This review has resulted in the creation of a recommended best practice Consent Form example as well as a comprehensive search warrant affidavit content guideline document.

The scope of this article has been limited to the authority to access data which might be retrieved from safety systems to the exclusion of infotainment or navigation systems.

Some of the recommendations might well be modified to 106 Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 106

make similar applicable documents for those systems by one with sufficient familiarity with those systems.

Where the scope of this article is chiefly aimed at law enforcement applications, in light of some of this discussion, those in the private sector would do well to consider the source of their authority to access and retrieve crash data in a non-law enforcement role. While private reconstructionists aren’t in a position to seek a search warrant, for example, one might review their policy and practice with respect to a client seeking to have them retrieve crash data.

As a private reconstructionist, do you have a policy in place to get some sort of access authority from a client in writing? Is it part of your contract for services with a private client? How would you handle a situation where you might be contracted by an individual as opposed toan attorney as opposed to an insurance adjuster or investigator?

Although this is beyond the scope of this article, it might well be something which should be contemplated in a follow on article which could lead to an example authority contract or memo authorizing a privately directed retrieval of crash data.

R

eferences and Notes 1. H.R.22, Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2015, Subtitle C “Miscellaneous Provisions”, Part 1 - “Driver Privacy Act of 2015” Section 24301, et seq

2. California Vehicle Code, Division 3.6. Vehicle Sales, Section 9951, amended by Stats. 2004, Ch. 183, Sec. 350. Effective January 1, 2005 3. US Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49: Transportation, Part 563 “Event Data Recorders” 4. Court of Appeals of Georgia, Mobley v. The State (of Georgia), A18A0695, March 22, 2018 5. Teal v. State (of Georgia), 282 Ga. 319, 322-323 (2) (647 SE2d 15) (2007) (citation omitted) 6. Bowling v. State (of Georgia), 289 Ga. 881, 883 (2) (a) (717 SE2d 190) (2011) (citations and punctuation omitted) (citing Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 33 (II) (121 SCt 2038, 150 LE2d 94) (2001)) 7. Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 351-352 (88 SCt 507, 19 LE2d 576) (1967) (citations omitted) 8. Sevilla- Carcamo v. State (of Georgia), 335 Ga. App. 788, 794 (3) (fn. 25) (783 SE2d 150) (2016) (citation omitted).

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:55 PM

9. Devega v. State (of Georgia), 286 Ga. 448, 453 (4) (d) (689 SE2d 293) (2010) (citation omitted) 10. People (of the State of California) v. Diaz, 213 Cal. App. 4th 743 (153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 90) (2013)

25. Chapter 357G, section 357-G:1 26. Century Code Title 51, Chapter 51-07, §51-07-28 27. Vehicles and Traffic, Title 4, Article 16, §416-b

11. Id. at 757 - 758 (III) (F).

28. Title 29a, Chapter 17, §§1971-1973

12. “California Vehicle Code section 9951, An Analysis,” Haight, W. R. (2005)

29. Title 12, Article 6, Part 4 – Event Data Recorders

13. “CDR System Downloads…Do we need a Search Warrant?” Chuck Gillingham, Deputy District Attorney, Santa Clara (CA) County, CDR User’s Summit 2012 14. “CDR Admission and Expert Testimony,” (2008) and “Criminal Law Update (2014)”, William J. Melkonian, Essex District Attorney’s Office, Salem, Massachusetts, CDR User’s Summits

30. Transportation Code, Title 7 Vehicles & Traffic, Chapter 547 Vehicle Equipment, section §547.615 Recording Devices 31. Sharon E. Abrams, Third-Party Consent Searches, the Supreme Court, and the Fourth Amendment, 75 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 963, (1984) 32. E. Corwin, The Constitution, 342-43 (1978) 33. E. Corwin, supra note 2, at 346

15. Jones v. State (of Georgia), 337 Ga. App. 545, 548 (1) (788 SE2d 132) (2016),

34. Matthews, Third Party Consent Searches: Some Necessary Safeguards, 10 VAL.

16. State of Missouri, Appellant, v. Anthony West, Respondent, Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, WD 80879, April 17, 2018

35. U.L. REV. 29 (1976); Comment, Relevance of the Absent Party’s Whereabouts in Third Party

17. District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, State of Florida, Appellant v. Charles Wiley Worsham, Jr., Appellee, No. 4D15-2733, March 29, 2017

37. As found at: http://www.courts.state.va.us/ and then the online form at http://www.courts.state.va.us/ forms/district/dc338.pdf

18. End User License Agreement “EULA_CDR.rtf ” as found in the installation folder of the Bosch Crash Data Retrieval Tool software in version 17.7 et seq.

19. Data Limitations text as found in a CDR Tool report for a set of Mercedes vehicle EDR data generated using CDR Tool software version 17.7.2 showing the Data Limitations text identifier “09001_Daimler001_ r004.”

20. State of Missouri, Appellant, v. Anthony West, Respondent, Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, WD 80879, April 17, 2018 21. Frazier v. Cupp (1969) 394 US 731 22. Stoner v. California (1964) 376 US 483 23. U.S. v. Jeffers (1951) 342 US 48 24. Arkansas Code Title 27, Subtitle 3 - Motor Vehicles and Their Equipment, Chapter 37 - Equipment Regulations, Subchapter 1 - General Provisions, § 27-37103

36. Consent Searches, 53 B.U.L. REV. 1087 (1973)

38. As of this writing there exists the potential for data retrieval from Pedestrian Protection Modules (PPM) in Toyota and Fiat Chrysler vehicles using the Bosch CDR Tool; however, the intended audience of this article is chiefly a North American CDR Tool end user and those systems are not found widely in vehicles sold in North America yet.

39. For this article, North American - and perhaps more specifically US statute and case law - is discussed top the exclusion of others. The author recognizes that there are also privacy regulations in place or being proposed in South Korea, the EU, and China among other regions and countries. As stated herein, local guidance from an appropriate local attorney or counselor is recommended.

40. “CDR System Downloads…Do we need a Search Warrant?” Chuck Gillingham, Deputy District Attorney, Santa Clara (CA) County, ARC-CSI Crash Conference 2011 and CDR User’s Summit 2012

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 107

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 107

8/24/2018 4:54:55 PM

Appendix 1: Authorization to Access, Retrieve and Analyze Event Data Recorder (EDR) Crash Data Authorization to Access, Retrieve and Analyze Event Data Recorder (EDR) Crash Data I (we) am the owner(s) or authorized representative of owner(s) of the vehicle identified as: ___(year, make, model, VIN and/or tag #)____ and have been informed that this vehicle is equipped with one or more event data recorder (EDR) devices or sub-components. I (we) understand that the main purpose of an EDR is to record, in certain crash or near crash-like situations such as an airbag deployment or without an airbag deployment after hitting another vehicle or road obstacle, crash related data that may assist in understanding how a vehicle's systems performed, the conditions, dynamics and other information leading up to and related to the crash. The EDR is designed to record data related to vehicle dynamics and safety systems for a short period of time, typically 30 seconds or less.

I (we) understand that EDR data may be recorded by my (our) vehicle if it is involved in a non-trivial crash or other physical occurrence and that no data is recorded by the EDR under normal driving conditions and no personal data (e.g., name, gender, age, and crash location) are recorded. However, I (we) understand that other parties, such as law enforcement or other investigators, may combine the EDR data with the type of personally identifying data routinely acquired during a crash investigation.

The EDR in this vehicle may be designed to record various crash related data elements including: •

How various systems in my (our) vehicle were operating;

•

Whether or not the driver and passenger safety belts were buckled/fastened;

•

How far (if at all) the driver was depressing the accelerator and/or brake pedal; and,

•

How fast the vehicle was traveling leading up to the crash

I (we) understand that this type of data can help provide a better understanding of the circumstances in which crashes and injuries occur. I (we) understand that EDR data are recorded by my (our) vehicle only if a non-trivial crash situation occurs and that no data is recorded by the EDR under normal driving conditions and no personal data (e.g., name, gender, age, and crash location) are recorded. However, I (we) understand that other parties, such as law enforcement or other investigators, may combine the EDR data with the type of personally identifying data routinely acquired during a crash investigation.

I (we) understand that to access and retrieve data recorded by an EDR, special equipment is required, and access to the vehicle or the EDR is needed and I (we) consent to that access and retrieval. In addition to the vehicle manufacturer, other parties, such as law enforcement, who may have the special equipment, can read the EDR data if they have access to the vehicle or the EDR directly. I (we) understand that there may be more information about the vehicle’s EDR found in the Owner’s Manual or from the vehicle’s manufacturer.

My (our) signature on this authorization indicates and understanding of the information I (we) have been given about the EDR component(s) in this vehicle and that I (we) voluntarily consent to the access and retrieval of crash data which may be found in one or more of the components of my (our)

108 Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 108

www.collisionmagazine.com

8/24/2018 4:54:55 PM

Appendix 1: Continued vehicle. I (we) understand that consent for the access and retrieval of crash related data and the follow on analysis of that data is voluntary.

I (we) understand that the analysis of crash data may be used - together with other information typically gathered during a crash investigation - to more fully understand and/or explain aspects of how the crash being investigated may have occurred. I (we) understand that the analysis may necessitate sharing retrieved information with others beyond the individual identified above seeking my (our) consent and that the person seeking this consent may also be required to provide the information to others who demonstrate sufficient legal authority to receive it.

I (we) understand that the individual named above seeking this authorization will make every reasonable effort to preserve and retain the original raw data which has been retrieved (imaged/downloaded) from the EDR device(s) in my (our) vehicle and that accessing and retrieving the data will not erase, delete or alter the original data or prevent me (us) from later retaining another individual trained to access and retrieve the same data from doing so.

I (we) understand that, in certain circumstances typically associated with the severity and location of damage to a vehicle, removal of an EDR component or vehicle parts may be necessary to complete the process. It may also necessitate applying external auxiliary power (i.e.: a “battery jump box”) to the vehicle. I (we) agree that before any components are removed to allow for the access and retrieval of the data, the individual requesting this consent will explain what may have to be removed and how or whether or not it might be replaced afterward.

I acknowledge that I have read and understand the terms set forth above and agree to them, and that I enter this agreement freely with full authority and right to do so.

___(signature)___________

___(date)___

___(printed name)_____________ vehicle owner / lessee / driver (circle one) ___(address)______________________________________ ___(phone number) _______________

____(signature)___________

___(date)___

____(printed name)_____________ vehicle owner / lessee / driver (circle one) ____(address)______________________________________ ____(phone number) _______________ __________(witness signature)________ Case/file number: __________

www.collisionmagazine.com

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 109

Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 109

8/24/2018 4:54:55 PM

Expert AutoStats®

4N6XPRT BioMeknx™

Expert AutoStats® is a computer program containing over 42,000 vehicles cars, vans, utility vehicles, and light pickups. 1945-2012 model years are represented.

This program can be used alone or with our Expert Qwic Calcs® and Expert VIN DeCoder® programs. Also accessible from within REC-TEC.

(Lap top & D esktop W indow s 3 2 & 64 -bit O S C om p atible)

Enter:

M anufacturer and Year

Select:

M odel from pop-up window

Output:

Wheelbase Overall Length Height Wt. Distrib

Curb Weight Width Drive Wheels Front/Rear Track

M id-60's to present output also includes (when available): Front Overhang Rear Overhang Bumper Heights Hood Height Turning circle Wheel radius Bumper-to-Hood Bumper-to-Window

Expert AutoStats® is currently owned by over 700 private individuals and 300 Law Enforcement agencies in the U.S.A., Canada, and South America. Additional information, brochure, and order from can be downloaded from:

www.4n6xprt.com/4n6as.htm

4N6XPRT BioMeknx is designed as a collection of the Biomechanical data of importance to the Accident Investigator into one easily accessible reference location. It is designed as a program to be useful to ALL accident investigators, not just the Biomechanical expert.

The program includes: 1. Over 65 printable illustrations and charts 2. 10 Separate categories or sections of information related to forensic biomechanics 3. Information on walking speeds of people from 17 months to > 65 years 4. Calculation modules for: - segment length from total body height, - segment weights and Centers of M ass (CoM ) based on total body weight, - Predicted M aximum Walking Speed based on total height 5. Information was obtained by review of over 65 scientific texts, several of which are now "out of print"

www.4n6xprt.com/4n6bm.htm

PROGRAM ORDER FORM (Please Print) Contact Name: ________________________________________________ Company: ____________________________________________________ Street: ______________________________________________________ City:____________________ State:____ Zip:__ __ Country: __________ Phone: (_____) _______________ Fax: (_____) ___________________ E-M ail: ______________________________________________________ Expert AutoStats® 4N6XPRT BioM eknx™ Expert Qwic Calcs® 4N6XPRT Ped & Bike Calcs® 4N6XPRT StifCalcs® Expert VIN DeCoder® (pkg) Expert TireStuf® Order Processing

- $ 625.00 ea.

- $ 495.00 ea.

- $ 275.00 ea.

- $ 375.00 ea.

- $ 650.00 ea.

- $ 550.00 ea.

- $ 85.00 ea.

= ________ = ________ = ________ = ________ = ________ = ________ = ________

- Check = $5.00 / Credit Card = $10.00 / G ovt. P.O . = $15.00 = _______ Notarized Affidavit Requirement $25.00 per required Notarized Signature = _______

Q Deliver via electronic download (Email address Required) Q Ship on USB - $35.00 per disk per program California Sales Tax Enclosed is:

- 8.50%

TOTAL (U.S. Dollars)

= 0.00 = ______

= ________

= ________

Visa ___ MasterCard ___ Am. Ex. ___ Exp ____/____ - Check ___ - Gvt PO ___

Card Number: Name on Card: Signature:

_______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ ________________________________________________

Please M ake Checks*/Purchase Orders Payable to:

4N6XPRT Systems®

8387 University Ave - La M esa, CA 91942-9342 - U.S.A. FAX: (619) 464-2206 Phone: (619) 464-3478 Web: http://www.4n6xprt.com C hecks * M U ST * be draw n on a U.S. bank. O rders are shipp ed within 10 working days of receipt.

Prices subject to cha ng e without notice.

M ultip le orders and Package discounts availab le. Please call for details.

Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 110

8/24/2018 4:54:56 PM

We have the STIFFNESS data you need for your calculations!!

Now includes a FORCE BALANCE calculation module!!

4N6XPRT StifCalcs®

puts the NHTSA Crash Test database on YOUR 32 or 64 bit MS-Windows computer, automatically calculates A-B-G values Front, Side, and Rear - and Test Specific Crush Factors based on the NHTSA test data, allows the creation of “CLASS” vehicles and determine the “CLASS” stiffness values, PLUS conduct FORCE BALANCE calculations when needed, all of this with no need for you to get on the internet, and all for the LOW price of $650.00*!

Can you do this yourself “for free”?? Only if YOUR TIME = $0.00!!

For more information, program order form, and sample printouts please visit our web site at http://www.4n6xprt.com.

4N6XPRT StifCalcs® is provided by 4N6XPRT Systems

8387 University Avenue - La M esa, CA 91942 - USA Phone: 800-266-9778 / (619) 464-3478 Fax: (619) 464-2206

Individual Vehicle Stiffness Data So, you want Stiffness data for a vehicle, QUICKLY & CONVENIENTLY, but you don’t want to buy a program? Order your data on a vehicle-by-vehicle basis from us at only $40.00 per test!

Year: _________ Make: _____________________ Model:____________________________________ Impact on (circle one): Front - Side - Rear Impact speed (circle one): High - Low YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION

Name: ________________________________________ Company: _____________________________________ Address: ______________________________________ City/State/Zip: _________________________________ Phone: _______________________________________ Fax: __________________________________________ Email: ________________________________________ Visa/MC/AmEx: ________________________________ Exp.:____/____ Case Reference: ___________________ Send Order to:

4N6XPRT Systems

Fax: 619-464-2206

Ph: 800-266-9778 8387 University Avenue / La Mesa, CA 91942 / USA E-mail - 4n6@4n6xprt.com

InsideBackCover.indd 1

8/27/2018 2:21:03 PM

bo s ch CD R p r o t o o l kit Bosch is the world leader in Event Data Recorder (EDR) information and imaging technology. Since 2000, Bosch Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) products have been trusted internationally by law enforcement, crash researchers, auto manufacturers and government agencies to access EDR information on a wide range of passenger cars, light trucks and SUVs.

The CDR Pro Kit is the complete CDR Tool for downloading crash data using the DLC/ OBD port method. This kit includes the CDR 900 upgrade kit and the CDR CANplus vehicle interface module.

Includes the Bosch CDR 900 upgrade kit!

Now available from

Schedule a webinar or product demo today www.crashdatagroup.com

Bosch Pro Kit.indd 1

8/24/2018 11:57:47 AM