Volume 8, Issue 2 by Collision Publishing

R e c Tr fo on us r st t e 15 ru d + ct by Y io e n a is rs t s

2013 ARC-- CSI CRASH CONFerence DVD

2013 Vol.8 Iss.2

The International Compendium for Crash Research

Volume 8 Issue 2

Collision: The International Compendium for Crash Research

SIMPLY THE BEST RECONSTRUCTION SOFTWARE

CRASH WITH US...

CALL US NOW TO

BOOK A LIVE DEMONSTRATION

OR TO FIND OUT MORE

1.888.828.0383

Volume 8, Issue 2 - FALL 2013

Diagramming • Reconstruction • Animations • Point Cloud

visualstatement.com/demo

ollision C FALL 2013

Data from the 2013 ARC-CSI Crash Conference Analysis of Event Data Recorder Delta-V Reporting in the IIHS Small Overlap Crash Test Hyundai and Kia Crash Data, the Indispensable Compendium

collisionmagazine.com

Differentiating Potentially Causal Pre-crash Component Damage from Crash Damage

A SOFTWARE SOLUTION FOR EVERY SITUATION:

Total station w/onboard data collection

Robotic total statio n w/Windows CE

Get EVR

□ Reliable □ Compatible See Exhibit A

Evidence Collection Forensic Mapping

Total station or GPS w/data collector

3D Laser Scanner

Evidence Collection Software? w tion n A imacapabilities?

Do we

Yes

No Get Forensic CAD

MapScenes Evidence Recorder • Software for tablets and Windows CE devices • Connect with a total station or GNSS receiver to take measurements and collect evidence • Built for the professional reconstructionist

+ Animation Module

Cloud + Point Module

MapScenes Forensic CAD • A powerful and feature-rich program that provides law enforcement professionals and accident reconstruction specialists with confidence that the evidence they present is precise, compelling, and irrefutable • Produce scaled diagrams for use in cour t, creating a strong visual case for the prosecution or defense. Contains flexible options for point cloud/LiDAR data visualization and anim ation tools • Now with point cloud and animation addon modules • Built specifically for forensic www.MapScenes.com investigators and accident scene reconstructionists 1.800.668.3312

is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. All other brand ® MapScenes names, product names or trademarks are property of their respective owners.

Exhibit A

ant

Contents

Fall 2013

Volume 8 Issue 2 8

inside 4

Letter From the Editor

NAPARS: Letter From the President

features

Analysis of Event Data Recorder Delta-V Reporting in the IIHS Small Overlap Crash Test by Sean Haight and Rusty Haight

Differentiating Potentially Causal Precrash Component Damage from Crash Damage By: David Hallman

Driver Distraction: Obtaining Mobile Device Digital Evidence by Mike May and Andrew Russell

Evidence Sometimes Overlooked During Vehicle Inspections by William Brem and Wayne Denham

Hyundai and Kia Crash Data: the Indispensable Compendium by Rusty Haight, Shawn Gyorke and Sean Haight

118

Bombardier Can–Am Spyder Braking and Acceleration Testing by Dawn Mutis

132

My Turn at the Wheel: "Think of a Number, Then …" by Erik Carlsson

www.collisionpublishing.com

118

Collision Magazine - Volume 8 Issue 2 3

Analysis of Event Data Recorder delta-v reporting in the IIHS Small Overlap Crash Test Sean Haight

Collision Safety Institute

8 Collision Magazine - Volume 8 Issue 2

W. R. "Rusty" Haight

Collision Safety Institute

www.collisionpublishing.com

"Twenty four percent of the frontal crashes that IIHS reviewed in the NASS study were small overlap crashes."

bstract A review of small overlap crash test data was conducted during which a seemingly anomalous condition associated with crash severity on the “minor axis” (see note 1) for the vehicles involved in those tests was observed as a function of comparing Event Data Recorder (EDR) and test instrumentation data sets. Where the reconstructionist or researcher might assume that longitudinal and lateral acceleration and/or delta-V would accurately represent the effect on the test vehicle based on past literature in the area, the data reviewed revealed a significant discrepancy between EDR data and the test instrumentation based data. Once the basis for the discrepancy was more fully identified, a corresponding or parallel discrepancy between the EDR data and corresponding values which might be calculated or estimated in a crash analysis or reconstruction was identified.

Over the years, there have been numerous studies (see appendix) on the accuracy and performance of Event Data Recorders (EDRs) in instrumented crash tests. However, most have been focused on full frontal impacts and perpendicular side impacts. This study will shift the focus from full frontal barrier crash tests to small overlap crash tests performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and the resulting effect this type of collision may have on some of the crash severity data recorded in the EDR component of late model vehicles. ntroduction In 2009, IIHS published a “Status Report”1 in which the possibility of creating a new crash test procedure was discussed to analyze vehi-

cle responses to a small overlap crash configuration. Previous similar studies conducted by IIHS focused on moderate (40%) overlap crash tests. The Institute performed a statistical study of real world crashes to evaluate the applicability of the smaller overlap crash test configuration. Researchers used the 2000-2006 National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) to study frontal crashes on US roads. As a result of the study, IIHS Sr. Vice President of Vehicle Research David Zuby said that “[IIHS] found that a lot of frontal crashes are happening in configurations that aren’t represented in the crash tests being conducted right now, either by us or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.”1 Twenty four percent of the crashes that IIHS analyzed in the study1 were small overlap crashes where only about twenty five percent of the vehicle is engaged with the impacted object. Mr. Zuby concluded that “based on results of this study, we think small overlap tests have good potential to improve the crashworthiness of new vehicles.” The report, along with other technical papers on small overlap crashes provided sufficient justification to further analyze this crash configuration in a laboratory setting. In 2012, IIHS announced that they began testing new vehicles in the small overlap configuration.2 By early 2013, IIHS completed testing on eleven mid-sized luxury/near luxury vehicles and eighteen midsized moderately priced vehicles.3 By August of 2013, IIHS completed testing on six small cars in the small overlap crash configuration.4

mall Overlap Test Procedure A brief summary of the IIHS small overlap test will identify data relevant to this study. All the details of the small overlap crash test proce5 dure is available at the IIHS website (iihs.org). The vehicle is aligned such that 25% of the vehicle width

www.collisionpublishing.com

Collision Magazine - Volume 8 Issue 2 9

differentiating potentially causal pre-crash component damage from crash damage david m. hallman, m.s., p.e.

26 Collision Magazine - Volume 8 Issue 2

www.collisionpublishing.com

bstract Statistics show that 10 – 15% of crashes are reported to have been triggered or caused by vehicle mechanical failure. Examination of involved vehicles in these cases requires an investigator to have skills in both crash reconstruction and vehicle mechanical systems. Important information is provided by both the post-crash vehicle examination and the original crash scene. This article will focus on some of the methods used to differentiate potentially causal pre-crash component damage from crash damage.

ntroduction Crash investigations vary widely depending on the circumstances of the incident being examined. Some of the investigations involve vehicle mechanical component failures and the investigator must determine whether the failure happened prior to or during the crash. In the event that a component is found to have failed pre-crash, the investigator must also determine if the component failure caused or triggered the crash. These determinations can dictate the direction of the investigation. Investigators need to be cautious interpreting all of the factual evidence

www.collisionpublishing.com

Collision Magazine - Volume 8 Issue 2 27

Driver Distraction Obtaining Mobile Device Digital Evidence

n array of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) from varying sources exists following a transportation related accident where the driver has been distracted by using their mobile device. Once collected, this data can be extremely valuable in criminal and civil litigations. Driver distraction is a leading factor in many crashes, and cell phone use and texting are two of the most common distractions. The term cell phone can be used to describe basic feature phones as well as the more popular smart phones. Smart phones offer traditional telephony features as well as broadband data services enabling web browsing, email, social media like Facebook and Twitter, and 3rd party applications, many of which are designed for use while mobile. At a high level, driver distractions fall into four types: • Visual – looking at something other than the road • Auditory – hearing something not related to driving • Manual – manipulating something other than the wheel • Cognitive – thinking about something other than driving While there are many distractions which may prevent a driver from focusing on the com-

38 Collision Magazine - Volume 8 Issue 2

plex task of driving, the focus here will be on the distractions that have received the most attention: driver use of cell phones, text messaging, and usage of other electronic devices brought into the vehicle. There have been numerous studies conducted to assess the impact of driver distraction as a contributing cause of motor vehicle accidents. These studies and common sense have contributed to the passage of laws and regulations by state and local jurisdictions to address these unsafe behaviors. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that 16% of fatal crashes and 20% of injury crashes in 2009 involved at least one distracted driver (NHTSA, 2010a). Similarly, the more detailed investigations in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Study (NMVCCS) found that in those crashes where the critical reason for the crash was attributed to a driver, 18% involved distraction (Ascone et al., 2009). Another study found that 29% of the passenger vehicle drivers in NMVCCS crashes and 20% of the large truck drivers in Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) crashes were distracted or inattentive (Craft and Preslopsky, 2010). These and other studies taken together conclude that drivers were distracted in 15% to 30% of crashes at all levels, minor to fatal. The proportion of distracted drivers may be greater because investigating officers may not detect or record all distractions.

www.collisionpublishing.com

Mike May and Andrew Russell, Esq. The Cannon Group www.collisionpublishing.com

Collision Magazine - Volume 8 Issue 2 39

William Brem ARCCA, Incorporated, ACTAR #1222 Wayne Denham ARCCA, Incorporated, ACTAR #1995

ehicle inspections are an important aspect in the reconstruction of motor vehicle accidents. Often, the reconstructionist is one of the first non-involved parties to examine and document a vehicle after a crash. As part of the vehicle inspection and initial documentation, there may be evidence that could be collected, but is sometimes overlooked, that could ultimately become vital to either the reconstruction itself or to other aspects of a case. This article highlights some of the more important aspects to be aware of that are not often addressed. It is not intended to cover all of the basics of a vehicle inspection, and is not all inclusive. Many of these items may not be required to perform a standard reconstruction, but nonetheless may become important ques-

46 Collision Magazine - Volume 8 Issue 2

tions that are asked of the reconstructionist, or of others, later on as the case evolves. Photography: Photography is one of the best methods of preserving evidence. When beginning the vehicle inspection you should take several overall photos from all four sides of the subject vehicle and oblique views from all four corners to establish the condition of the exterior vehicle as you found it. Photographs of the interior of the vehicle should also be taken through the windows and opened doors to document the “as found” condition of the interior of the vehicle. Take these photographs before you have disturbed anything. In a single frame for each, attempt to capture a photograph of the entire side, front, rear, and opposite side of the vehicle first. In addition, attempt to take several photographs of the top

www.collisionpublishing.com

and bottom of the vehicle. Because of how/where a vehicle is stored, this is not always possible. During the early stage of photographing the vehicle, take photographs of identifying aspects of the vehicle, including the license plate, the VIN plate (usually visible under the bottom left edge of the windshield), build plate (usually on the B-pillar or on the B-pillar edge of the driver’s door) and other indicators of the vehicle’s trim level should be taken. After completing these initial photographs, the investigator should concentrate on closer photographs involving the areas in question. Before ‘zooming in’ on a close view though, it is best to ‘walk’ the photographs sequentially into the close up, because if a particular bolt, head light, dent, etc. is the focus of the close up, a simple close up photograph may not allow someone else (or you) to later identify where or what side of the vehicle the close up is from. By ‘walking the sequential photographs in,’ it will be clear when reviewing the photographs sequentially where the item is located. The addition of simple identifiers is also helpful. For instance if the object is the left front tire, simply putting an “LF” on a small piece of paper on the tire and having it appear in the photographs is of great help. When using videotaping equipment in addition to, or instead of still photography, many of the same procedures should be followed, i.e., once recording begins, slowly walk all around the vehicle before focusing in on a specific area.

pecific Inspection Items: Lamp Inspection: Many cases involve a question of head light usage, brake usage, or turn signal usage. In some cases the condition of the filament of the bulb may assist an investigator in determining its usage. This information should be documented as soon as possible during an investigation. Frequently, after a collision there is scientific evidence that can be collected or photographed from a bulb, or even its remnants, that could help answer the question of whether a lamp was “on or off” at the time of the collision. At the first inspection it is not always known if this will be an issue, so if possible it is a good practice to inspect the bulbs that are accessible. However, unless you have specific permission, you do not want to disassemble any part of a vehicle.

www.collisionpublishing.com

Collision Magazine - Volume 8 Issue 2 47

Hyundai and Kia Crash Data, the Indispensable Compendium W. R. "Rusty" Haight

Shawn Gyorke

Collision Safety Institute

Crash Data Services, LLC

Sean Haight Collision Safety Institute

he Event Data Recorder (EDR) data retrieval tool built by Global Information Technology (GIT) which provides access to data stored in Hyundai and Kia vehicles was first offered for sale in 2012 such that vehicles sold by those manufacturers in the United States after September 2012 would be in compliance with 49CFR563. 1 2 The basic history of the GIT system, 49CFR563 and the basics related to the Tool are found in “Hyundai and Kia Crash Data, a Preliminary Overview” from Collision Volume 8, Issue 1 included by reference here. 3

This Compendium is a follow up to the earlier published preliminary review and is the product of a review and examination of crash test data, “real world” crashes, hands-on experiments and analysis of retrieved data. It is separated into five sub-sections: 1. General Functionality of the Hyundai and Kia EDR Tool(s) 2. A Review of Crash Testing involving Hyundai and Kia Vehicles 3. A Review of Hyundai and Kia Crash Data from "Real World" Crashes 4. Coverage Spoofing; Data from Unsupported Hyundai and Kia Vehicles 5. Compendium Conclusions and Summary

KIA 54 Collision Magazine - Volume 8 Issue 2

www.collisionpublishing.com

The first section, “General Functionality of the Hyundai and Kia EDR Tool(s),” is an examination of the installation and operation of the EDR tool and a limited look at its application. Observations related to potential installation considerations (i.e.: folder or directory choices which might be made during the initial installation process) are addressed. The operation of the Tool as it relates to how connection is made and other aspects of the hands-on use of the Tool are examined as the basis for other activity discussed in later sections of the Compendium such as the “coverage spoofing” section. This sub-section also offers a general look at the basic report layout for Hyundai and Kia EDR reports and what one might expect to find within the various sections of those reports including the section contents and layout of the hexadecimal data as presented. In “Crash Testing involving Hyundai and Kia Vehicles,” the authors examine a set of crash tests conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) involving Hyundai and Kia vehicles and compare the data retrieved from the Airbag Control Units (ACUs) to observations and instrumentation from those tests. An associated review of some of that data is also found in the paper “Analysis of Event Data Recorder Delta-V Recording in the IIHS Small Overlap Crash Test” found in this issue of Collision and particularly that information related to Hyundai and Kia vehicles involved in those tests is included by reference here. The sub-section “Hyundai and Kia Crash Data from ‘Real World’ Crashes” is a look at data retrieved from a small group of those vehicles accessible using the GIT/ Hyundai-Kia EDR Tool(s) involved in “real world” crashes and, particularly taken in light of the data retrieved and analyzed from the IIHS tests, it offers a look at some of the EDR data in a setting other than a crash test. Referring, in part, back to the section on functionality, the authors examine the potential for retrieving data from unsupported Hyundai an Kia vehicles in the sub-section “Coverage Spoofing; Data from Unsupported Hyundai and Kia Vehicles.” The authors examine the potential process and variations on that process and illustrate the possible dangers of this approach to data retrieval. In the previously published “Hyundai and Kia Crash Data, a Preliminary Overview,” the authors briefly discussed what is otherwise identified as “VIN spoofing” (using Bosch CDR Tool related terminology as a frame of reference) and suggested then that there had been some “success,” limited to the notion that “data has been retrieved,” not that it has been successfully translated accurately. This section looks at that investigation and experimentation in more detail including some analysis of the issues arising from this otherwise ill-advised

HYUNDAI www.collisionpublishing.com

Collision Magazine - Volume 8 Issue 2 55

Bombardier Can–Am Spyder

Braking And Acceleration Testing Detective Constable Dawn Mutis #1165 Toronto Police Service Collision Reconstruction Squad

he Can - Am Spyder A new vehicle, which is beginning to become popular in our city, is the Can-Am Spyder, manufactured by Bombardier Recreational Products (BRP). At the time of this project, The Toronto Police Service Collision Reconstruction Squad had not investigated any collisions involving a Spyder. The Squad thought it would be wise to gather some data in regards to the vehicle so there would be some familiarity should there be a collision involving one.

hicle, which is exactly what the Spyder pretty much is.

Design work started in the first years of the decade and advanced prototypes were being tested extensively by 2004. The new Spyder 'roadster' was unveiled in February 2007, to be marketed under the Can-Am brand. Originally created by Bombardier in the early '70s for a successful range of motocross, enduro and dual-purpose motorcycles, the name Can-Am was revived for BRP's line of ATVs. The first production Spyder rolled off the Canadian asWith the assistance of Mr. Ben Daponte, Dis- sembly line in Valcourt, Quebec, on Septemtrict Sales Manager for Canada, the Squad was ber 14, 2007. able to do some testing with two models of he Manufacturing Process Spyders. On the highway the Spyder ackground occupies approximately twoThe Spyder concept began life thirds of the traffic lane. The as a snowmobile you could front wheels have a tendency to follow the ride year-round in northern road’s camber. climates, with a wheel in back instead of a track, but everybody had so much fun riding The Spyder is built around a Surrounding the thing around it occurred to BRP it might Spar Technology (SST™) frame, featuring a be able to create an entirely new class of ve- minimalist steel center beam, surrounding the engine. It minimizes weld points for greater

118 Collision Magazine - Volume 8 Issue 2

www.collisionpublishing.com

structural integrity. This light and slim frame provides a low center of gravity to enhance stability and handling. The Y-shaped frame extends back to a steel double-sided swing arm located underneath its 6.6-gallon fuel cell.

roll-bar. There is an electronically controlled power steering system which also provides variable assist.

The wheels are a pair of 14x5-inch aluminums on the front and a 15x7-inch aluminum The engine is a Can-Am Spyder Roadster Rotax® rim in the rear. The tires are made by Kenda 998cc V-twin engine. This 60-degree V-twin is (165/65R14 front, 225/50R15 rear). counterbalanced, and runs on regular gas. The lectronic Vehicle Stability Sysdrive belt to the rear is carbon-reinforced.The tem specs indicate that it can accelerate from 0-60 Acceleration results from wheels mph (0-100 km/h) - in 4.5 seconds. being acted on by forces created The suspension is comprised of an automotive- from braking, acceleration and/or steering. derived double-A arm set-up with an integrated Friction is generated at the point of the tire

www.collisionpublishing.com

Collision Magazine - Volume 8 Issue 2 119

"My

n r u t

e h t at

- Erik Carlsson his article is not about a numbers game youngsters like to play, but about a case that went to court in Chicago. The issue that brought the case to court was the performance (or rather the lack thereof ) of the seatbelt in a car involved in a collision on a wintry Chicago road. The plaintiff, a fragile and not so young lady, who was a front seat passenger in the car, slid off the seat and got wedged between the seat and the dashboard when the car collided with the rear end of an oncoming car. [The driver of the oncoming car lost control on the icy road. His car spun around and entered the lane for oncoming traffic.]

The case was unusual in one particular respect, and that is that the defendant carmaker’s own legal team did not even try to make the jurors believe that the injured lady had not buckled her seatbelt. The deciding point was the rescue crew’s emergency call report, in which they stated that the seatbelt webbing had to be cut because the belt kept the trapped occupant’s upper torso as in a vice, pressed against the front edge of the seat frame. Particulars about the seat belt. The front seatbelts in the subject car were equipped with what the carmaker called a “comfort feature,” a type of seatbelt the National Traffic Safety Board in a report about seatbelt performance referred to as a “window-shade” type. In a more technical term, the seatbelts were described as having a tension reliever.

132 Collision Magazine - Volume 8 Issue 2

" l e e wh The tension reliever was a very simple device used for a period of time by some automakers as an inexpensive alternative to adjustable upper seatbelt mounts. The purpose of the device was to oppose retraction of the belt webbing. Vehicle occupants, whose body shape and size were such that the non-adjustable shoulder belt did not fit well could simply pull out some length of the webbing, then release it slowly. The belt would then stay in the extracted position and make itself unnoticeable by lying loosely on the wearer’s shoulder. (The NTSB made the point that this type of seatbelt may not be noticeable during an accident either!) Severity of the collision. Naturally, the speed of the car in which the injured passenger was riding became an issue. An engineer with the defendant carmaker served as the company’s accident reconstruction specialist, and produced a report in which he stated that the severity of the collision was equal to the car impacting a barrier at a speed of 20 mph, with a tolerance of plus or minus 3 mph . 1 Based on this report, the defendant carmaker conducted sled tests at 17 and 23 mph, with the test sled occupied by a dummy the size of the injured lady. Those tests showed that the lady must have had at least seven inches of slack in the seatbelt the defense legal team claimed. Therefore, she only had herself to blame for her injuries because she had not followed the instructions in the Owner’s Manual for the vehicle model. Those instructions state that the wearer of the seatbelt should not allow more than one inch of slack. Had she followed those instructions, she would have escaped injuries, just as the driver did, who was wearing the seatbelt properly. Hence the collision was not severe enough to cause injuries to a properly restrained occupant, the defense team argued. Particulars: It is of great interest that the injured lady was a passenger in a car driven by her neighbor, who had offered her a ride to the nearby shopping mall because the lady did not have a car! That the defense team would even mention what it says in the Owner’s Manual for the car model is therefore surprising since the lady could hardly be expected to have read the Owner’s Manual in her neighbor’s car. The car owner himself stated that he had never read the Owner’s Manual, nor did he see any reason why there would be instructions

www.collisionpublishing.com

in that manual about how to use the seatbelt. You just pull it out and buckle it, he said. Advanced Mathematics? How did the company engineer determine that the equivalent barrier speed at the accident was 20 mph, with a 3 mph tolerance level? Well, his method was rather unorthodox, I will say. In his report, the engineer stated that he had not seen the actual damage to the car because the car had already been repaired when he got involved. However, based on photos taken of the car before it was repaired, he estimated that the damage to its front end corresponded to a [barrier impact] speed of 20 mph. Note: His estimate may be on the high side. Had the damage really corresponded to what could be expected at a 20 mph frontal barrier impact, the insurance company would probably have estimated that the repair cost would exceed the market value of the car. If so, the insurance company would not have paid for the repair, but paid the car owner the market value of the car, and the car most likely would have ended up at a COPART or IAA, where it would have been auctioned off to licensed car body shops as a source of used replacement parts.] Having determined that the speed to use as a starting point was 20 mph, the company engineer multiplied 20 by 1.47, then squared the result. He next multiplied the new

www.collisionpublishing.com

Collision Magazine - Volume 8 Issue 2 133