140

Traffic crash investigation,

analysis and reconstruction
updated by

R Grzebieta B Eng (Hons), M Eng Sc, PhD, FIEAust, CPEng.,

(NPER), MSAEA, MSAE, FACRS, RRSP

G Rechnitzer B Eng (Hons), M Eng Sc, PhD, MIEAust, CPEng,

FSIA, MSAEA.

A McIntosh B App Sc (PT), M Biomed E, PhD

previously updated by

G Rechnitzer
S Richardson
T Orton
A Short
by

G Rechnitzer
W Keramidas
J Lenard

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 51

[The next text page is 140-55]

Update: 70

EXPERT EVIDENCE

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 52

Expert Evidence

Author information
Raphael Grzebieta (PhD) is currently a Professor of road safety at the Transport and
Road Safety (TARS) Research unit at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in
Sydney. He is also a principal consultant for Professional Engineering Consultants Pty
Ltd and a Director of the International Safe Systems Institute for Road Safety which is
a not-for-profit company dedicated to improving road safety globally, with a priority on
improving road safety in developing countries. He has 28 years of research and
practical experience in road safety, road and vehicle crashworthiness, and crash
investigations and reconstruction. Dr Grzebieta has led and been involved with
research teams that have carried out numerous vehicle, truck and road infrastructure
crash tests, impact and blast load laboratory testing, road injury biomechanics studies,
computer modeling and theoretical studies. He has published over 240 peer-reviewed
and conference papers, supervised numerous PhD and Masters Students, received
several prestigious major federal, state and industry grant funds, and awards for his
work. His current research focus areas are: road infrastructure crashworthiness,
rollover crashworthiness; motorcycle safety; quad-bike safety; truck safety; cycling and
pedestrian safety; ambulance crashworthiness; and fatigue. He is a member of US
Academy of Sciences Transport Research Boards AFB 20 Committee for Roadside
Safety Design and ANB 45 Committee for Occupant Protection. He has been involved
in over 100 crash reconstructions and investigations and has assisted Coroners, Police
and lawyers in numerous cases involving mobile vehicles and vulnerable road users.
Dr Grzebieta graduated from the Tadeusz Kosciuszko Technical University of Cracow,
Poland with Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) (Hons) and Master of Engineering Science
degrees in 1978. He then completed and was awarded his PhD focussing on structural
crashworthiness research from Monash University in 1991. He joined Monash
Universitys Department of Civil Engineering in 1982 as a Senior Tutor and rose to
Associate Professor in 2000. Dr Grzebieta was also one of the three founding
members and Directors of Delta-V Experts from 2002 to 2006. After returning to the
Department of Civil Engineering at Monash University in 2006 he then took up a
Professorship and Chair in Road Safety in 2007 at UNSW. He now leads and co-works
with teams of injury prevention researchers focussing on rollover crashworthiness,
cyclist and pedestrian injuries, quad-bike safety, heavy vehicle safety, motorcycle
safety, injury data analysis, fatigue, and naturalistic driving studies. He is also a
co-founder of the Australian Forensic Engineering and Safety Group (AFSEG).
Dr Grzebieta can be contacted at: Professional Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd;
901/97 Brompton Rd, Kensington, NSW 2033. Telephone: +61 (0) 411 234 057. Email:
r.grzebieta@unsw.edu.au.
George Rechnitzer (PhD) is the principal consultant for George Rechnitzer &
Associates Pty Ltd, a Forensic and Safety Engineering consultancy; an Adjunct
Associate Professor at the Transport and Road Safety (TARS) Research unit at the
University of New South Wales (UNSW), and an Associate Professor at CQUniversity,
Rockhampton, Queensland.
At CQUnivesity, in 2012, Dr Rechnitzer was the Course Co-Ordinator - Road Accident
Investigation Courses, School of Health & Human Services Faculty of Sciences,
Engineering & Health. This appointment related to the two new courses started in 2012
at CQU on Accident Forensics (undergraduate degree) and Accident Investigation (Specialisation) Masters Degree.

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 55

Update: 70

EXPERT EVIDENCE

From 2002 until April 2011 George was a founding member and Director of Delta-V
Experts.
Dr Rechnitzer has extensive experience in the application of the engineering sciences
to safety in many areas including road safety, crashworthiness of all vehicle types,
occupational health and safety, crash and incident investigation and reconstruction,
analysis and countermeasure development for injury prevention. Dr Rechnitzer was a
Senior Research Fellow at the Monash University Accident Research Center for some
12 years, and has carried out major projects for the Australian Defence Force, Vic
Roads, Federal Office of Road Safety, Victorian Work Cover Authority and the Victorian
Occupational Health and Safety Commission. He has also carried out a number of
in-depth investigations for the State Coroner; consultancies on vehicle safety related
projects for BHP, Australia Post, SECV and the Australian Industrial Relations
Commission, amongst others. Dr Rechnitzer provides expert evidence for litigation
cases in Australia and the USA, and his work has been published extensively with over
90 publications including contributing chapters in books relating to traffic crashes,
crash investigation and reconstruction; and has made presentations at over 60
conferences and seminars, at both national and international forums.
Dr Rechnitzer graduated in 1971 from Monash University with a Bachelor of
Engineering (Civil) (Hons), has a Master Engineering Science degree from Melbourne
University (1979), and a PhD from Monash University (2003). Dr Rechnitzer is a
Member of the Institution of Engineers Australia, Member of the Society of Automotive
Engineers, a Fellow of the Safety Institute of Australia and Chair of the SIAs National
Technical Panel from 2009-2011; a member of the Victorian Transport Associations On
Road Operators Group and also a co-founder of the Australian Forensic Engineering
and Safety Group (AFSEG).
Dr Rechnitzer may be contacted at: George Rechnitzer & Associates Pty Ltd; PO BOX
2120 Blackburn South, Victoria, 3130, Australia. Telephone: Mobile: +61 (0)418 884
174 Email: georger@netspace.net.au. Skype: drgeorger.
Andrew McIntosh (PhD) is the principal consultant for McIntosh Consultancy and
Research and has over 20 years of experience in the area of biomechanics of impact
injury and crash analyses. He holds several adjunct academic appointments:
Professor, Centre for Health and Safe Sport, University of Ballarat (April 2013 to March
2016); Associate Professor at the Transport and Road Safety (TARS) Research unit at
the University of New South Wales (UNSW) (September 2011 to August 2013) and an
adjunct Associate Professor (research) at MIRI at Monash University (September 2011
to September 2014). He was an academic at UNSW from 1996 until 2011. He was an
Associate Professor at the UNSW between 2007 and 2011. He taught in the areas of
biomechanics and ergonomics, and directed the Biomechanics and Gait Laboratory, at
the School of Risk and Safety Science until its closure in 2010.
Dr McIntosh has been active as a researcher, academic and consultant in the area of
the biomechanics of impact injury since 1991. He has published extensively; according
to Google Scholar (2 April 2013) he has an H index of 22, based on 120 included peer
review papers, reports and conference presentations and 1570 citations. In addition to
his consultancy and UNSW appointment, he has worked and/or studied at the New
South Wales state government Road Transport Authoritys (RTA now RMS) Crashlab
crash test facility as well as the Institute for Forensic Medicine at the University of
Heidelberg in Germany. His main interests are in the biomechanics of impact injury, the
function of safety systems in the prevention of injury, and human movement analysis.

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 56

Expert Evidence

He has extensive research experience with the analysis and assessment of injury risks
in motor vehicle, bicycle, motorcycle and pedestrian crashes, as well as sporting and
recreational incidents. He has undertaken field based collision investigation research
and case studies, as well as laboratory based impact simulations and numerical
simulations. In 2000 he was awarded the FE Johnson Memorial Fellowship by the New
South Wales (NSW) Sporting Injuries Committee for his work on the biomechanics of
concussion in football. Dr McIntosh is the current chair of Standards Australia
Committee CS-076 Protective Helmets for Vehicle Users. He is a member of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia, as well as the International
Society of Biomechanics. He has provided expert evidence in civil, criminal and
coronial cases, as well as contributing to the understanding of the causes of the 2003
Waterfall train crash at the Special Commission of Inquiry.
Dr McIntosh graduated in 1984 with a Bachelors Degree in Applied Science in
physiotherapy. In 1988 he commenced studies in biomedical engineering and
graduated with a Masters in Biomedical Engineering in 1991 followed by a PhD in
1995. He is an alumnus of Sydney University (through Cumberland College of Health
Sciences), the University of New South Wales and Ruprecht Karls Universitt
Heidelberg. He has supervised numerous PhD and Masters students and received a
number of prestigious grants from the Australian Research Council and industry. His
current research focus is safety in sport and transport, head and neck injury, personal
protective equipment (helmets and child restraints), motor vehicle occupant safety
(rollover crashes), and quad-bike safety. Dr McIntosh is also a co-founder of the
Australian Forensic Engineering and Safety Group (AFSEG).
Dr McIntosh may be contacted at: McIntosh Consultancy and Research Pty Ltd; PO
BOX 6209 UNSW, NSW 1466, Australia. Telephone: Mobile: +61 (0)400 403 678
Email: as.mcintosh@optusnet.com.au

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 57

Update: 70

EXPERT EVIDENCE

1. The views expressed in this work are those of the authors. Although considerable care
has been taken in regard to ensuring the accuracy of the work presented, the
responsibility for the correct use, interpretation and verification of accuracy of any
materials used must rest with the user; and,
2. Your feedback as users to the authors is welcome. Please use our contact details.

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 58

Expert Evidence

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Overview ............................................................................................................................ [140.10]

Crash reconstruction..................................................................................................... [140.50]
Traffic crash statistics for Australia ............................................................................... [140.90]
Road safety Historic trends ................................................................................ [140.100]
Biomechanics in collisions .......................................................................................... [140.140]
Occupant motion in frontal collisions.......................................................................... [140.180]
Injury biomechanics in collisions ................................................................................ [140.220]
Crash test dummies and associated computer models ........................................ [140.230]
Pedestrians in collisions ............................................................................................. [140.270]
Injury criteria and tolerance levels for serious injury.................................................. [140.310]
Crashworthiness and Australian design rules and standards .................................... [140.340]
Reconstruction techniques ..............................................................................................................
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... [140.380]
1.2 Crash scene ......................................................................................................... [140.400]
1.3 Damaged vehicles ................................................................................................ [140.440]
1.4 Tyre marks ............................................................................................................................
1.4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... [140.460]
1.4.2 Rolling prints ................................................................................................. [140.470]
1.4.3 Skid marks .................................................................................................... [140.480]
1.4.4 Scuff marks ................................................................................................... [140.490]
1.4.5 Friction and the tyre-road interaction............................................................ [140.510]
1.5 Estimation of speed from skid marks ................................................................... [140.550]
1.5.1 Limitations ..................................................................................................... [140.560]
1.5.2 Accuracy ....................................................................................................... [140.570]
1.6 Estimation of speed from yaw marks ................................................................... [140.590]
1.6.1 Determining the yaw radius .......................................................................... [140.600]
1.6.2 Limitations ..................................................................................................... [140.610]
1.6.3 Accuracy ....................................................................................................... [140.620]
1.7 Measurement of friction ........................................................................................ [140.640]
1.7.1 Vehicle test skids .......................................................................................... [140.650]
1.7.2 Limitations ..................................................................................................... [140.660]
1.7.3 Test skids using accelerometers................................................................... [140.670]
1.7.4 Drag tyre and drag sled................................................................................ [140.680]
1.7.5 The British portable skid resistance tester ................................................... [140.690]
1.7.6 Friction values from tables............................................................................ [140.700]
1.8 Leaps, flips and vaults ..........................................................................................................
1.8.1.1 Estimation of speed ................................................................................... [140.740]
1.8.1.2 Limitations .................................................................................................. [140.750]
1.8.1.3 Accuracy .................................................................................................... [140.760]
1.9 Exterior vehicle damage ....................................................................................... [140.780]
1.9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... [140.780]
1.9.2 Structural performance ................................................................................. [140.790]
1.9.3 Collision type ................................................................................................ [140.800]
1.9.4 Crush profile ................................................................................................. [140.810]
1.9.5 Estimation of speed from vehicle damage ................................................... [140.820]
1.10 Interior vehicle inspection ................................................................................... [140.840]
1.10.1 Seat belt use............................................................................................... [140.840]
1.10.2 Intrusion ...................................................................................................... [140.860]
1.11 Mechanisms of injury .......................................................................................... [140.890]
1.11.1 Signs of contact .......................................................................................... [140.890]
1.11.2 Occupant motion and mechanisms of injury .............................................. [140.900]
1.11.3 Other ........................................................................................................... [140.910]
1.12 Computers and software .................................................................................... [140.930]
1.13 Documentation.................................................................................................... [140.950]
Case histories ........................................................................................................... [140.1000]
1.14 Civil cases.................................................................................................... [140.1020]
1.14.1 Train and truck, level crossing collision.................................................... [140.1020]
1.14.2 Pedestrian impact I ................................................................................... [140.1030]
1.14.3 Pedestrian impact II .................................................................................. [140.1040]

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 59

Update: 70

EXPERT EVIDENCE

1.14.4 Motorcycle and car collision ..................................................................... [140.1050]

1.15 Criminal cases ............................................................................................. [140.1070]
1.15.1 Two vehicle head on collision culpable driving ..................................... [140.1070]
1.15.2 Vehicle forward pitch rollover dangerous driving occasioning grievous
bodily harm .......................................................................................................... [140.1080]
Appendix 1: Symbols and glossary of terms................................................................. [140.1100]
Appendix 2: Perception and reaction time .................................................................... [140.1200]
Appendix 3: Forces and laws of motion........................................................................ [140.1300]
FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... [140.1640]

[The next text page is 140-101]

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 60

Expert Evidence

TRAFFIC CRASH INVESTIGATION, ANALYSIS AND RECONSTRUCTION [140.10]

TRAFFIC CRASH INVESTIGATION, ANALYSIS AND

RECONSTRUCTION
Overview
[140.10] The many thousands of collisions which occur in Australia each year give rise to
many actions, from property insurance claims, medical treatment, compensation claims,
criminal charges for culpable driving, coronial inquests, product liability and other legal
actions, road safety research and so on. The list is large. At the heart of many of these actions
is the need to establish, as clearly and accurately as possible, particular and relevant details
relating to any phase of the incident. Based on data from the Bureau of Infrastructure,
Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) data, the result of the approximately 700,000 road
crashes in Australia each year was around 1,300 fatalities (BITRE, 2011) and 32,500 serious
injuries (ATC, 2011) in 2011.
Typical questions include, How fast was the vehicle travelling?, What was in its path?,
What action was taken by the driver (or rider, cyclist, pedestrian)?, Who was driving?,
How did the vehicle design perform in terms of crashworthiness?, How did the vehicles
impact?, How was the occupant (or motorcyclist, cyclist, pedestrian) injured?, Was a
seatbelt worn?, Did the driver see the pedestrian (or other vehicle, cyclist, motorcyclist) in
time to brake, and so forth. Queries come from a host of interested parties, including
insurance companies, police, coroners, road safety researchers, Federal and State regulatory
authorities, vehicle owners, vehicle manufacturers and, of course, lawyers. The reasons for the
queries can range from road safety research programs, product liability litigation, to driving
prosecutions and insurance claims.
Traffic collision investigation and crash reconstruction is aimed at providing the answers, if
possible, to these questions.
It should be noted that the term accident was used throughout this Chapter in previous
versions. Two definitions of the term accident provided in the Oxford Dictionary are: an
unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in
damage or injury; an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate
cause. Websters Dictionary denotes acts of God as those accidents which arise from
physical causes, and which cannot be prevented. Continued use of the word accident
promotes the concept that these events are outside of human influence or control. However, we
can identify the causes of accidents; that is, they are not acts of God but predictable results
of the laws of physics. In fact, they are predictable results of specific actions. Moreover, within
the United States (US) Department of Transportations National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (US DOT/NHTSA), the word accident is no longer used in materials
published and distributed by that agency. In addition, NHTSA is no longer using accidents in
speeches or other public remarks, in communications with the news media, individuals or
groups in the public or private sector (Anikeeff, 1997).
We have decided to use more appropriate terms such as crash, collision, incident, and
injury as substitutes for the word accident unless it is embedded in a previously quoted
passage presented by other authors in their citation. We identify a crash as being associated
with a rollover or a collision between a vehicle (car, motorcyclist, cyclist, bus, or truck) with
either another vehicle, object (tree, roadside barrier, pole, etc), or a pedestrian. The authors
have used the generic word crash throughout the Chapter and note that within a crash there
are various collisions from which an injury may result. For example, these vehicle collisions
might involve a collision with another vehicle or other objects, the human collisions within the
vehicle interior or exterior (pedestrian) or with the road infrastructure, and lastly the
biomechanical collisions of the internal organs inside the skeletal structure of the human
body.

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 101

Update: 70

[140.10] EXPERT EVIDENCE

Similar to the United States of America, the Australian Transport Council1 made up of all
Federal and State Ministers responsible for roads and transport, released the National Road
Safety Strategy for 2011 to 2020 (ATC, 2011), where the word crash or crashes was
intentionally used in place of the word accident. The strategy is firmly based on Safe System
principles and is framed by the guiding vision that no person should be killed or seriously
injured on Australias roads. The initiatives and options are set out in four key areas - Safe
Roads, Safe Speeds, Safe Vehicles and Safe People. Safe System principles require a holistic
view of the road transport system and the interactions among roads and roadsides, travel
speeds, vehicles and road users. The strategy also acknowledges that a large proportion of
casualty crashes result from drivers or other road users making mistakes. It aspires to
create a road transport system in which human mistakes do not result in death or serious injury.
The Safe System approach also recognises that there are known physical limits to the amount
of force the human body can tolerate before it is injured. It further recognises that system
designers and operators need to take into account the limits of the human body in designing
and maintaining roads, vehicles and speeds. An overview of how the Safe System approach
was developed, and how it now underpins not only Australias road safety strategy but also the
World Health Organisation (WHO) and United Nations (UN) Decade of Action for Road
Safety, is provided by Mooren et al (2011) and Grzebieta et al (2012).
This chapter provides an introduction to the science of traffic crash investigation: analysis and
crash reconstruction; current methodologies, procedures and limitations; expertise required;
and questions for vetting expert witnesses. It is not intended nor is it possible in the space
available to be a treatise on the subject, but it can provide those concerned with traffic
crashes that includes all collisions with a substantial background and insight into what can be
done, what information is needed and what questions need to be considered.
With the great advances in computer analysis and graphic presentation techniques, it is more
important than ever not to confuse technical sophistication with accuracy and quality.
Sophisticated technology may merely transform poor-quality data and analysis into
impressive-looking but still poor-quality results. It is our objective to encourage the full and
effective use of modern crash investigation techniques and also to sharpen the focus on
ensuring that expert opinions, procedures and results are subject to due and appropriate
scrutiny. Changes have occurred over the past decade that the reader should be aware of such
as for example:
improvement of tyre rubber compounds;
introduction of vehicle systems such as ABS braking for cars and motorcycles;
Electronic Stability Control (ESC) for vehicle handling;
pre-brake systems that reduce reaction times for braking;
vehicle communications/instrumentation and driver distraction; and
research developments in better understanding of crash mechanisms, eg rollover
crashes, etc.
Hence crash reconstruction literature such as this Chapter need to be updated continuously. A
useful web site where various crash investigation and reconstruction techniques are regularly
discussed, particularly difficult and unusual reconstructions, and where ideas, products,
techniques, tests, experiments, court decisions and laws are shared, is the International
Network of Collision Reconstructionists (INCR).2 It is a by-invitation-only network of crash
reconstructionists where prospective members must be nominated by a current member.
Australia has an equivalent society, namely the Australasian and South Pacific Association of
Collision Investigators that provides information relating to issues current within the
Australasia region.3
Whilst experts can present technical reports and argue their position in Court, our experience is
that lawyers, barristers and judges must also become more conversant with the principles

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 102

Expert Evidence

TRAFFIC CRASH INVESTIGATION, ANALYSIS AND RECONSTRUCTION [140.50]

outlined in this Chapter. It remains a difficult and challenging exercise to present succinctly
such science based material in court, where the science rather than the impression of science
must be properly explained and completely understood by decision makers. This then leads to
the further need for effective cross examination of experts based on a better understanding of
the principles outlined in this Chapter. Thus our work as experts can often lose its full impact
without the partnership of a technically well-informed legal team. Perhaps this is rather
obvious; nonetheless it is vital that it is always recognised.
Please refer to the appendices to this chapter in order to fully understand the explanations
given below:
Appendix 1: Symbols and Glossary of Terms
Appendix 2: Perception and Reaction time
Appendix 3: Forces and Laws of Motion
Appendix 4: Figures
1 http://www.atcouncil.gov.au
2 http://www.tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/INCR
3 http://www.aspaci.org.au

Crash reconstruction
[140.50] Vehicle crash reconstruction has been defined as the application of scientific
knowledge and methodology to determine what happened in a crash. When considering traffic
crashes including collisions, many facets and levels of investigation and analysis are possible.
Investigation can range from determining vehicle impact speeds through to detailed analyses of
vehicle design and crashworthiness performance and the specific cause of occupant and
vulnerable road user injuries. The levels include crash reporting, at-scene data collection,
technical follow-up, professional reconstruction and analysis. To help ensure a verifiable basis
for analysis, there needs to be primary reliance upon actual physical evidence: tyre and skid
marks, vehicle collision details including location and depth of deformations, road features,
location of impact marks and debris, impact location, occupant or vulnerable road user injuries,
weather conditions, vehicle condition, and a host of other details which help form the pieces of
the jigsaw puzzle of the collision.
The output or results from crash investigation and reconstruction take different forms,
depending on the clients, police, lawyers, judges or Coroners requirements. These include
reports with accompanying data analysis and calculations, photographs, diagrams, and answers
to lists of questions presented by the client, solicitor, police, judge or Coroner.
Eyewitness accounts, though useful, can be quite limited in their value and reliability. Lacy
and Peterson (1966) note:
eyewitnesses have been treated as impersonal recording devices who observe an event
exactly as it happens and carefully preserve it for future recall and use nothing could be
further from the truth some eyewitness accounts are reasonably accurate, but more often
than not they are conflicting, fallacious, unreliable and misleading.
The problems of eyewitness accounts of crashes relate to perception (of very brief events),
reporting and remembering. In vehicle crashes the actual impact event typically lasts for only
one or two tenths of a second, a time frame that allows little room for reliable observation. In
recognition of this, expert testimony has been increasingly used in courts, particularly in the
United States of America, to assist in scientifically reconstructing vehicle crashes including

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 103

Update: 70

[140.50] EXPERT EVIDENCE

collisions. The use of crash reconstruction in the United States of America has also been driven
in part by the relatively high number of product liability actions that are initiated there and the
extensive research by NHTSA and the United States of America Federal Highways
Administration (FHWA) as a pre-requirement for any crashworthiness rule making, laws or
policies involving cars, roads and road users. Another factor is that eyewitnesses can only
contribute to part of the story, and issues related to crashworthiness or the causes of occupant
or road user injury are not typically within the scope of an eyewitness report.
Crash reconstruction is a many-faceted activity and the necessary expertise varies accordingly.
The scientific disciplines applied to crash reconstruction include kinematics, dynamics,
structural engineering, mechanical engineering, biomechanics, road and roadside design and
traffic engineering, disciplines which are often part of a mechanical engineering degree, civil
engineering degree or applied science degree. Human factors, human ergonomics and road
injury epidemiology are additional fields that contribute to our understanding of crashes that
include collisions. There are also courses which specifically teach the applications of these
disciplines to crash reconstruction experts.
In general it is probably most common to have a professional engineer, applied scientist or
experienced police (or ex-police) investigator providing the overview of most aspects of a
crash reconstruction case. Further opinion can be obtained from other experts as required, for
example, in the fields of epidemiology, medicine, psychology, metallurgy or chemistry. The
need for additional expertise depends very much on the significance of the case, the
information sought and the possible lack of primary evidence on which to form clear and
confident opinions. For example, the colour of scrape marks on one vehicle can be matched
visually to the colour of another vehicle, but for a higher level of positive identification and
matching it might be necessary to subject a paint sample to detailed chemical analysis.
The other determinant of the level of analysis and detail that is sought is based simply on cost.
At the outset the client, solicitor, police, judge or Coroner needs to discuss budgetary
constraints, report format and output requirements.
It is important, therefore, to select experts with the appropriate qualifications and experience.
Academic qualifications which attest to a good grounding in disciplines related to the basic
reconstruction equations say little of actual crash reconstruction experience or understanding of
vehicle structural behaviour, vehicle dynamics, injury mechanisms, road design, and so on. The
criteria for selection depend on the actual information sought, and whilst in some cases an
engineering background may not be relevant, we consider that science based degrees should be
pre-requisite. For full crash reconstruction, we regard civil engineering, mechanical
engineering, biomechnical engineering, and/or applied science qualifications, with additional
training and experience in impact analysis, reconstruction, vehicle crashworthiness, road
design and road safety to be most relevant as qualifications.

Traffic crash statistics for Australia

[140.90] The types and distribution of fatal traffic crashes including vulnerable road user
collisions in Australia (2011) are set out in Table 1. By road user category, car occupants make
up 67% of the total, pedestrians 15%, motorcyclist 15% and bicyclists 3%. The distribution of
serious injury by road user type is given in Table 2.

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 104

Expert Evidence

TRAFFIC CRASH INVESTIGATION, ANALYSIS AND RECONSTRUCTION [140.90]

TABLE 1 Road fatalities by road user type and State (2011)

NSW

VIC

QLD

SA

WA

TAS

NT

ACT

AUST

Drivers

190

121

108

40

86

14

17

579

45%

Passengers

73

60

73

23

36

18

286

22%

Pedestrians

52

49

33

17

26

189

15%

Motorcyclists

52

49

45

20

29

201

15%

Bicyclists

10

35

3%

All Road
Users

377

287

269

103

180

25

44

1291 100%

Source: BITRE 2011

TABLE 2 Serious injuries by road user type (2008-2009) (Source: AIHW 2012)1
NSW

VIC

QLD

SA

WA

TAS

NT

Car
Occupant

5,249

4,796

3,451

1,439

1,641

441

285

278 17,937

Pedestrians

1,250

977

622

247

329

69

59

46

3,686

7%

Motorcyclists

4,348

3,183

3,759

965

1,388

337

197

226 14,493

27%

Bicyclists

2,701

2,580

2,083

604

813

205

352

139

9,577

18%

Pick-up
truck or
van

100

125

73

33

50

17

425

~1%

Heavy
transport
vehicle

240

167

223

50

81

11

790

~1%

Buses

181

103

93

45

59

508

~1%

5,990

11%

Other
Total

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

ACT

AUST
34%

53,407 100%

140 - 105

Update: 70

[140.90] EXPERT EVIDENCE

Other

NSW

VIC

QLD

SA

WA

TAS

NT

ACT AUST

Animal or
animal-drawn
vehicle

972

693

1,011

177

162

65

47

33

3,189

Special all
terrain or off
road motor
vehicle

281

147

254

85

215

57

37

1,095

Three-wheeled
motor vehicle

15

12

41

Tram

14

67

11

105

Train

44

39

16

116

Special
industrial,
agricultural or
construction
vehicle

116

90

148

36

34

18

462

Unknown

326

192

260

49

91

21

10

13

982

Total

5,990

Note
* Small counts are omitted
As a comparison, Table 3 sets out the range of crash types by severity for New South Wales for
the year 2010, from fatal to non-injury, tow-away crashes. (An injury crash is one in which
at least one person is admitted to hospital or at least one person is injured; and a non-injury
crash is one in which at least one vehicle is towed away, but no person is injured.) In 2010, in
New South Wales, there were 405 fatalities and 24,623 injured amongst a population of
7.2 million.
TABLE 3 Crash type by severity New South Wales 2010
Number
Fatal crashes

365

0.9%

Injury crashes

18,971

44.8%

Non injury (tow-away) crashes

22,963

54.3%

Total recorded crashes

42,299

100%

Source: Transport for NSW, Road Traffic Crashes in New South Wales, Statistical
Statement, 2010 (Information Section)
Comparisons of road crashes locally and internationally are typically carried out using some
measure of exposure. A characteristic measure is the rate per 100 million kilometres travelled

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 106

Expert Evidence

TRAFFIC CRASH INVESTIGATION, ANALYSIS AND RECONSTRUCTION [140.100]

and rate per 10,000 registered vehicle and rate per 100,000 population. Two of these rates are
given in Table 4.
TABLE 4 Comparison of fatality rates with other countries 2010
Country

Australia

Killed

Population
(000s)

Vehicles
registered
(000s)

Fatalities
per 10,000
vehicle

Fatalities
per 100,000
population

1,352

16,061

22,342

0.84

6.05

32,885

252,962

308,746

1.30

10.65

New
Zealand

375

3,204

4,368

1.17

8.59

Canada

2,185

na

34,109

1.0*

6.41

France

3,992

39,026

62,799

1.02

6.36

Germany

3,648

50,184

81,802

0.73

4.46

Japan

5,745

82,770

128,059

0.69

4.49

Denmark

255

2,891

5,535

0.88

4.61

United
Kingdom

1,905

35,278

62,027

0.54

3.07

Norway

208

3,326

4,858

0.63

4.28

Sweden

266

5,453

9,341

0.49

2.85

Netherlands

537

9,340

16,575

0.57

3.24

6.20

USA

OECD
Median

Source: Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE), 2012,

International Road Safety Comparisons, Statistical Report, BITRE, Canberra ACT.
Note
International Road Traffic Accident Database (IRTAD) is the main data source for BITRE
report). *2009 data

1 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: http://www.aihw.gov.au/

[140.100] Road safety Historic trends

The historic trends from 1975 to 2011 in the road deaths in Australia and international
comparisons are set out in Figures 1, 2 and 3. These figures give the rate of road fatalities in
relation to exposure measures:
1. Rate per 100,000 population
2. Rate per 10,000 registered vehicles

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 107

Update: 70

[140.100]

EXPERT EVIDENCE

3. Rate per 100 million kilometres travelled.

The following commentary and figures are taken from the BITRE publication: International
Road Safety Comparisons, 2010 report.

1. Rate per 100,000 population

The public risk associated with road use declined significantly in Australia between 1975 and
2010. In 1975, Australia-wide, there were 26.8 road deaths per 100,000 population; this rate
had fallen to 6.1 deaths in 2010a drop of around 77%.
Over this same period, the median rate for OECD nations also declined. In 1975, the OECD
median rate was 18.5 deaths, and in 2010 it had reduced to 6.2 deathsa drop of around 67%.
Figure 1 Road deaths per 100,000 populations

2. Rate per 10,000 registered vehicles

Road deaths in Australia, relative to vehicle ownership, declined significantly between 1975
and 2010. In 1975 there were 5.9 deaths per 10,000 registered vehicles, while in 2010 this had
decreased to 0.8 deathsa drop of around 86%.
The median rate for OECD nations also declined significantly. The OECD median of 7.2
deaths per 10,000 registered vehicles in 1975 had fallen to 0.88 in 2010a drop of around 88%.

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 108

Expert Evidence

TRAFFIC CRASH INVESTIGATION, ANALYSIS AND RECONSTRUCTION [140.140]

Figure 2 Road deaths per 10,000 registered vehicles

3. Rate per 100 million kilometres travelled

The degree of actual risk associated with road travel in Australia declined significantly between
1975 and 2010. In 1975, there were 3.8 road deaths per 100 million vehicle kilometres
travelled in Australia. In 2010, this had decreased to 0.61 deathsa drop of 84%.
Over the same period the median rate for OECD nations also declined, from 3.6 deaths in 1975
to 0.54 deaths in 2010a drop of 85%.
Figure 3 Road deaths per 100 million kilometres travelled

Biomechanics in collisions
[140.140] Collisions may be considered from two viewpoints, the first of which involves
the motion of the vehicles themselves (primary impact), and the second of which involves the
motion and forces acting on the occupants inside (secondary impact), and possibly outside, the
vehicle. This latter is sometimes known as the secondary impact because it relates to the

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 109

Update: 70

[140.140]

EXPERT EVIDENCE

impact of the occupants with the cars interior, which is subsequent to and at a different
location to the initial impact on the exterior of the car as indicated in Figure 4.
The key to understanding injury causation is an appreciation of the forces acting on the
occupant during the collision, how those forces determine the occupants motion, the
occupants velocity and interactions with the vehicle interior, exterior environment and safety
systems. Forces acting on occupants and their motion during the collision are complex and,
although different for frontal, near-side, far-side, rear and rollover collisions, are consistent
with the same principles.
Some fifty years ago initial steps to develop passive safety systems to prevent occupant injury,
such as seat belts, frontal crumple zones, steering wheel collapse, focussed on preventing
injury in frontal impacts through interaction with the vehicle interior and generally preventing
occupant ejection from the vehicle. In more recent developments, over the last two decades, air
bags, seatbelt pre-tensioners, glazing and interior padding in conjunction with further structural
changes to vehicles have been developed as additional passive systems to protect the occupant
in near side impacts, offset frontal impacts and to a lesser extent rear impacts and rollover
crashes. Even more recently within the past five years or so, significant developments have
occurred in active safety systems (in contrast to passive safety systems that activate during the
crash) that either assist the driver to avoid the crash or reduce its severity. Examples of such
active systems are electronic stability control (ESC) that counter yawing or rollover on curves,
anti-lock braking system (ABS) that reduces the braking distance by preventing wheel lock,
and pre brake which activates the brakes when the vehicles on-board computer system detects
the driver is unaware of an imminent impact.
Figure 4 The primary and secondary impacts in a vehicle collision

The mechanics of each contact event is associated with the structural response and the contact
with the occupant. These vehicle surface analyses use the basic physical laws relating time and
distance to acceleration and velocity during the surface crush, as well as engineering laws
concerning the behaviour of structures and materials under dynamic loading.

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 110

Expert Evidence

TRAFFIC CRASH INVESTIGATION, ANALYSIS AND RECONSTRUCTION [140.180]

The Biomechanics of each human contact event is that there is force on the interior (or
exterior) of the vehicle and there is an equal and opposite force applied to the person. The level
of available knowledge in human tissue biomechanics is now developed sufficiently, to provide
injury predictors for these contact events. Young et al (2011) in their 8th Edition of Roarks
Formulas for Stress and Strain provides a good over-view and starting point to readers wanting
to gain a deeper awareness of biomechanics than that provided below.

Occupant motion in frontal collisions

[140.180] To illustrate these concepts, consider the example of a 48 km/h barrier test with
unrestrained anthropomorphic crash dummies in the front seats. The vehicle is impacted
against a concrete barrier in a full frontal collision, which results in uniform crush of perhaps
500 mm, with little or no intrusion into the passenger compartment.
Figure 5 Velocity vs Time

Figure 5 (Mackay, 1984) shows the velocity change of the occupant compartment with an
overall crash duration of 90 milliseconds, which is just short of 1/10th of a second. As the front
of the vehicle crushes and slows the rest of the vehicle down, the unrestrained dummy
continues to move forward at the original velocity of the car, with the knees first impacting the
dashboard, followed by the head and chest. These body parts strike the vehicle interior at
different speeds, with trauma generated by the specific forces arising at the local contact areas,
which in turn depend on the structural characteristics of the actual components that are struck
and the impact energy of the human body segment. That energy is largely influenced by the
body segments velocity.
The time at which various contacts occur is marked on the graph. Contact of the knees with the
knee bolsters occurs first, at which time the occupant space is still in motion. This means that
the contact is at a speed of 10.4m/s (34 feet per second) instead of the full 13.4m/s (44 feet per
second) initial vehicle speed. Chest impact occurs later at a greater relative speed and finally
the head impact occurs at the full 13.4 m/s (44 feet per second) relative speed, as the occupant
space is now at rest.

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 111

Update: 70

[140.180]

EXPERT EVIDENCE

Figure 6 Typical kinematics of a restrained (seat belt wearing) driver

The trajectory of the head, chest and knees for a restrained occupant is shown in Figure 6
(Mackay, 1984). In this case, the occupants forward motion is resisted progressively by the
forces generated in the seat belt webbing. The seat belt webbing material stretches and allows
some forward movement of the occupant relative to the passenger compartment. The seatbelt
should lock before the acceleration of the webbing becomes greater than 20 m/s2 (2g) and the
length of reel-out of the webbing should not exceed prescribed limits (Australian Design
Rule 02/04). Further it should also lock where forward deceleration of 5 m/s2 (0.5g) or more
is experienced. Head, chest and knee contact can still occur with a conventional three point
belt system, however typically at a much lower speed than in the unrestrained case.
Seat belt pre-tensioners are devices that reel in some of the belt to reduce slack for an impact
event. They ensure that there is tension in the belt to minimise immediately the occupants
forward motion. Belt slack and/or belt spool-out allow unnecessary forward motion of the
occupant. Similarly, air bags may be regarded as a cushioning device to reduce trauma to the
head, face and chest. The other benefit of a well-designed restraint system is that it provides
coupling of the occupant to the vehicle structure, thus providing ride-down which provides
the benefit of the occupant being slowed down at the same time as the vehicles frontal
structure is crushing. In this way, there is more space retained for the occupant and less
likelihood of the occupant impacting the vehicle interior.
Characteristic kinematics are also determined for other impact configurations such as rollover,
near side and far side impact.
Occupant injuries in rollover can be very severe and catastrophic. Relative to the number of
rollover crashes they are associated with a very high incidence of serious injuries. A HARM
measure identifies rollover as the greatest relative contributor to traffic injuries. A seatbelt can
play a critical role in preventing occupant injury in a rollover crash, especially by preventing
ejection. However, even belt-restrained and contained occupants may suffer severe or fatal
injuries due to forceful impacts against the vehicle interior and/or intrusion into the occupant
compartment, or partial ejection. Roof crush and head contact with the roof is a source of
serious neck injury including spinal cord injury. Ideally the occupant is held in a restrained

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 112

Expert Evidence

TRAFFIC CRASH INVESTIGATION, ANALYSIS AND RECONSTRUCTION [140.220]

position within a survival space which is preserved from intrusion and crush. There are no
effective standards for passenger vehicle rollover protection, whereas there are effective
standards for Earth Moving Equipment, Tractors and large Omnibuses. A great deal of research
has been undertaken examining the factors that contribute to injury in rollovers. Those factors
include, the crash severity (number of turns and rollover type), roof strength, intrusion into the
occupant space, impacts with the door, pillars and roof, and seatbelt use. What is emerging is
a view that the main three regions of injury head, neck and thorax - are injured largely by
separate mechanisms as recently outlined in Grzebieta et al (2012), Bambach et al (2012 and
2012b), and Mattos et al (2012).
In near side impact, the occupant comes into contact with the vehicle interior directly adjacent
to them. Seatbelts are not typically effective in preventing occupant injury in the initial phase
of a nearside impact, but may contribute to injury prevention overall in the crash. In some
cases this surface is being pushed in towards them. In some cases, occupant injury can be
prevented by side curtain airbags and seats which shift to the passenger side in a crush
situation. A pole impact test can be used to identify the crashworthiness of a vehicle for
near-side impact. In some situations the occupants head can be struck by the vehicle that has
collided with the near-side as indicated in Rechnitzer and Grzebieta (1999) and Grzebieta and
Rechnitzer (2001).
In a far-side impact, the occupant is thrown laterally towards the impact point which causes
them to lean into the other occupant space. Injury countermeasures different to the seatbelts
and airbags currently available appear to be required to counter injuries in a far side impact.
The seatbelt should retain the occupants lower body in the seat, but the sash belt may not
restrain the upper body. Therefore, the upper body from the perspective of the vehicle interior
moves towards the far-side. In reality, the lower bodys motion is changed due to the forces
acting through the seat and lap belt, and moves sideways with the vehicle. The relatively
unrestrained upper bodys (pre-collision) motion remains largely unchanged until the forces
acting through the body or other external impact forces, to the head or trunk, change its
motion. Severe injury is more likely where the intrusion into the adjacent occupant space is
extensive. Eighty six percent of abdominal injuries in far side impact appear to be associated
with seat belt buckle or webbing contact. In a worlds first ground breaking far-side impact
crash test series, carried out in Melbourne by Monash University Civil Engineering
Department crash research team and Autoliv Australia, Stolinski et al (1999, 1998, 1998b)
showed that head injuries occur in far side impacts usually at impact speeds of the order of
60 km/h or higher, where the head of the far side occupant contacts the intruding near side
door.

Injury biomechanics in collisions

[140.220] Impact biomechanics (or the biomechanics of impact injury) is a speciality field
within biomechanics. The field developed rapidly after WWII as a result of the need to
understand more about human tolerance for manned space flight, airforce pilot safety (such as
ejection seats) and the then growing awareness that traffic crashes were the cause of a high
incidence of trauma. It is a well-developed field comparatively within biomechanics and its
knowledge is embedded in many international and national safety standards, eg for helmets
and motor vehicles. It has reached a sufficient level of sophistication that safe motor vehicles
can be designed from the ground up utilising knowledge and methods from impact
biomechanics. The field studies the response of the human body to impact loads. Those
responses include the force and motion of the body and body segments, related injuries, and
internal strains and stresses at a tissue level.
The knowledge base in this field has evolved from the study of natural phenomena (for
example, people falling from heights), force/response testing in the lab including the use of
volunteers, cadavers and animals, conducting vehicle crash tests and the study of real world

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 113

Update: 70

[140.220]

EXPERT EVIDENCE

crashes. A theoretical framework has developed based on the idea that the likelihood of injury
is dependent on the force response of the body in the context of criteria for the manifestation
of an injury. This knowledge base takes physical form as a crash test dummy or anatomical
computer model with embedded measurement devices (Figure 7).
It is interesting to note that the ATCs (2000) National Road Safety Strategy as well as the UN
and WHOs Decade of Action in Road Safety (Mooren et al, 2011, Grzebieta et al, 2012) have
adopted the Safe System Approach which essentially has a biomechanical injury criterion at
the heart of its framework as its main criterion. In essence it requires that any road or vehicle
system should be designed so that if a crash occurs, and the road user is subjected to a load
resulting from the crash, the load should not be any higher than the human body can tolerate.
If an injury does occur, then it should not be more severe than one from which the road user
can fully recover.
Individual injury criteria for many body parts are established (eg the head, neck, thorax and
legs). These injury criteria are developed from the aforementioned studies of human tolerance
to forces in particular circumstances (Kleinburger et al 1998, Eppinger et al 1999 & 2000).
Injury criteria are not yet available for every body part in every impact circumstance and
biomechanics professionals are particularly concerned with the use of the correct criterion for
the right body part in the right circumstances. On a case-by-case basis there is also concern
about consideration for age and gender, for example, rather than criteria that are designed for a
specific population percentile (5th, 50th and 95th).
Injuries are typically generated by the high forces associated with the rapid change of a
vehicles velocity (delta-V) during a crash and the consequent forces to which various parts of
the body are subjected. Thus, if an occupants ribs, for example, are subject to compression
loading arising from contact with the steering wheel, fractures can occur if the bending
capacity of the ribs is exceeded.
Figure 7 A Madymo computer representation of the human skeleton

Similarly, the forces applied to the head which arise from a head impact with the vehicles
A-pillar (on each side of the windscreen) give rise to linear and angular head acceleration and
local contact stresses in the skull. The loading of the skull may result in a fracture and the
acceleration of the head can cause complex patterns of strains in the brain and vascular

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 114

Expert Evidence

TRAFFIC CRASH INVESTIGATION, ANALYSIS AND RECONSTRUCTION [140.230]

structures that cause brain injury. The impact force and the potential for injury will be quite
different if the head impacts an unpadded steel section A-pillar or one covered with 20 mm of
energy-absorbing foam padding.
The difference lies in the distance over which the head is brought to rest; in the first case this
may be only a few millimetres, whereas in the latter case the crush distance is increased by
perhaps a factor of 10 to 20 mm or so, so that the applied forces resulting from the
decelerations are correspondingly reduced due to Newtons second fundamental law of
Physics, i.e. the relationship between an objects mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied
force F is F = ma. Whether an injury is avoided will depend on the particular circumstances of
the impact.
The external loading on the body induces stresses on the internal organs through the
deceleration of the body segment and/or through deformation of the body segment and organs.
This occurs either by contact with components of the passenger compartment or by the applied
pressure of the restraint system. Where these induced decelerations and bending moments
exceed the bodys capacity to sustain specific loading criteria the result is internal injuries such
as ruptured aortas, lacerated livers or haemorrhages from internal blood vessels in and around
the brain. One factor that is critical in the causation of organ injuries, eg lungs, heart and liver,
is the velocity of compression. As the velocity increases injury is more likely even with small
amounts of compression. This viscous type loading represents a zone between typical
impacts and blast loading.
The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) is an anatomical-based coding system created by the
Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine to classify and describe the severity
of specific individual injuries.1 It is a consensus-derived global severity scoring system that
classifies each injury in every body region according to its relative severity on a six point
ordinal scale. AIS is also one of the most common anatomic scales for traumatic injuries used
by biomechanics experts and injury researchers involved in traffic crashes. The scale used is:
AIS 1 minor, AIS 2 moderate; AIS 3 serious; AIS 4 severe; AIS 5 critical and AIS 6 maximum.
An AIS Code of 9 is used to describe injuries for which not enough information is available for
more detailed coding, eg crush injury to the head. Each injury is assigned an AIS score and is
allocated to a particular body region, namely head, face, neck, thorax, abdomen, spine, upper
extremity, lower extremity, external and other.
1 http://www.aaam1.org/ais

[140.230] Crash test dummies and associated computer models

Crash test dummies (Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATD)) are physical test devices that have
been designed to measure impact loads and to replicate occupant kinematics. The dummies are
used in standards tests and consumer programs such as the Australasian New Car Assessment
Program1. These dummies, such as the HYBRID III2, exhibit a degree of biofidelity (similarity
to a human) and can be instrumented to measure impact loads and responses such as
acceleration, force and deflection at key body segments such as the head, chest and femur. The
dummies are surrogates for a human and can be used multiple times in crash tests, component
tests and research. The HYBRID III is specifically designed for frontal crashes. There are also
other ATDs that are suited to side impact, rear impact, and pedestrian impact.3 The downloaded
data from the instrumentation inside the dummy represent the physical experience of the
dummy and this is connected with the kinematics through the use of synchronised high-speed
video capture of the sequence of contact events in the occupant space.
In Australia, the New South Wales Roads and Maritime Services Crashlab specialise in
performing crash tests using these instrumented dummies. The dummies usually come in
families, commonly represented by the 50th and 95th percentile adult male, 5th percentile female
and a six or three year old child. They are not perfect surrogates for a human and their use in
many situations may be quite limited.

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 115

Update: 70

[140.230]

EXPERT EVIDENCE

Figure 8 Screenshots from the Madymo software package showing

secondary collisons within the occupant space for a driver with (right) and
without (left) an airbag in position A Madymo computer representation of the
human skeleton

Computer simulation is another very powerful tool used in the design of vehicles to engineer a
crashworthy product and for research. Sophisticated finite element method (FEM) programs
are also used for engineering analyses of vehicle crush. The method works by dividing a very
large surface or solid into a finite number of elements interconnected via nodes and thus can
solve many smaller problems (within an element) instead of a larger and more complex one
(the whole vehicle) to determine the motion and deformation of these interconnected elements
over very small periods of time. Two FEM programs commonly used to simulate car crashes
are Pam-Crash and LS-DYNA.4
Another type of computer simulation program often used to design crashworthy vehicles is
based on interconnecting multi-body systems (Figure 8). MADYMO5 is a widely used program
for occupant safety systems that uses such an approach. Bodies representing regions with
particular deformation characteristics (eg think of a basketball as one whole body) that are
usually much larger than a finite element, are interconnected, sometimes via springs, dampers
and other mathematical constraints, to model the overall behavior of a structure, human or
ATD. The main advantage of such multi-body models is their computational task size is much
smaller than a finite element model. Hence multiple simulations can be run in minutes rather
than hours or days using the FEM approach.
With a computer generated virtual environment, mathematical models of a vehicle structure
can be placed into a collision path with models of anthropomorphic dummies. Given the cost
of multiple crash tests, these programs are extensively used by car manufacturers as a less
costly adjunct where variations on a single crash test can be evaluated. Alternatively, all crash
tests are simulated in the pre-production stages and a single crash test is used to validate the
findings with real world data later in the design process.
Despite the sophistication of these techniques, as with any other method of analysis or testing,
the accuracy, fidelity and appropriateness of the results are all subject to the quality of the
model whether it is in the form of a human-like dummy or a mathematical description, the
experience and competence of the user, the quality of the instrumentation and so on.
Nonetheless, valuable results can be and are obtained by expert users. Results can be
moderated in expert reports and in terms of court evidence the true value can only be
ascertained by recognising the reported and un-reported limitations.
HYBRID III dummies, for example, are designed to provide good biofidelity for frontal
impacts, with neck movement, and chest response being considered reasonable in an impact6.
However, for occupant response in rollovers, the HYBRID III neck and spine design is

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 116

Expert Evidence

TRAFFIC CRASH INVESTIGATION, ANALYSIS AND RECONSTRUCTION [140.270]

considered inadequate and not able to provide sufficiently realistic estimates of cervical spine,
thorax or head impact loadings (Grzebieta et al 2012).
Injury outcomes in computer modelling are very dependent on the material properties used in
the model and in many cases these can be difficult to model accurately, so the computer model
needs to be accompanied by a documented validation exercise.7 At face value it may appear
simple to model a specific injury crash, however, if there has been little or no research on that
topic and there is no data that can be used for validating a model, the use of a computer model
may not be warranted or can be inaccurate if it has been simulated. A recent publication by
Ray et al (2013) funded by the United States of America National Academies Transportation
Research Board provides guidelines for verification and validation of detailed finite element
analysis for establishing accuracy, credibility, and confidence in the results of crash test
simulations. While these guidelines specific focus is on FEM models used for roadside safety
barrier applications the verification and validation can be readily applied to all FEM models
simulating any crash test.
One advantage of a valid computer model of an injury crash is that the sensitivity of the
outcome to key factors such as impact speed can be studied with the model. The sensitivity can
easily be shown by conducting a series of simulations at slightly different impact speeds.
Expert reports can be bolstered by the inclusion of such sensitivity analyses of speed and other
factors relevant to the case, not just to determine the accuracy of the model, but also to assist
the court in considering the consequences of a lower speed impact, should that become
important during the trial. However, again caution is required as often the accuracy of such
models without supporting experimental or real world validation can be readily questioned and
sometimes dismissed by non-experts as animated fiction.
1 The Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) provides independent and consistent information
about how well new car models protect their occupants and pedestrians in serious crashes. In more recent times
ANCAP have started to assess how well a vehicle can assist a driver in avoid a crash. See:
http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/andhttp://www.ancap.com.au/home
2 The HYBRID III is latest in a series of HYBRID anthropomorphic dummies which included the HYBRID I and
HYBRID II. Other anthropomorphic styles of dummies are also available including pedestrian and side impact.
The current state of the art anthropomorphic test dummy is THOR.
3 This site from Humanetics, arguably the largest supplier of ATDs, provides a good overview of the crash test
dummies available, http://www.humaneticsatd.com/crash-test-dummies.
4 http://www.lstc.com and http://www.esi-group.com/products/crash-impact-safety/pam-crash
5 http://www.tass-safe.com/en/products/madymo
6 If the reader ever has a chance to try to move the HYBRID IIIs head and neck around the reader will observe
how stiff the neck is. At the correct impact speed, the neck does behave like a human neck in a frontal crash.
7 Young et al (2011) provide an extensive list of material properties commonly used in biomechanics.

Pedestrians in collisions
[140.270] In pedestrian collisions (Searle and Searle, 1983; Searle, 1993; Short et al,
2007; Otte, 2004 and Otte et al, 2007), the primary and secondary impacts are not so clearly
defined. Primary impact causes damage to the car and strictly speaking this is on the front
bumper where contact between the lower limb of an adult and vehicle first occurs. The
secondary impact can occur on the bonnet or windscreen of the car (Figure 9) or later where
the pedestrians head hits the ground. Research on vehicle impact with pedestrians is
concerned with factors pertaining to the vehicle, the pedestrian and the road.
Factors involving the vehicle include its front-end geometry and the location of any specific
markings, human tissue traces and panel damage that can be definitively associated with the

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 117

Update: 70

[140.270]

EXPERT EVIDENCE

pedestrian contact. More recently engineering of the bonnet and windscreen profile and contact
characteristics is identified with preventing pedestrian injury.5 Damage to the vehicle is
invariably useful in determining the pedestrian impact kinematics as well as speed of impact.
Factors relating to pedestrians include post-impact trajectory type, injuries, pedestrian height
and throw distance.
Figure 9 The wrap of a pedestrian over the bonnet of a passenger car

Roadway surveys after a pedestrian impact record the location of any skid marks or debris. The
rest position of the pedestrian is confirmed by blood patches where they lay. The impact point
can be loosely determined by an item of debris like shoes, hat or spectacles.
With this collected evidence it is usually possible to build up a picture of the impact event.
To determine and analyse pedestrian trajectories and vehicle damage caused by different speed
impacts, studies of real-world crashes and impact tests using different sized dummies have
been performed (Happer et al, 2000; Ravani et al, 1981 and Han and Brach, 2001, Otte 2004).
Correlations are drawn between the speed of the vehicle at impact and the distance ultimately
travelled (throw distance) by the pedestrian. Further, the type of post-impact trajectory
experienced by the pedestrian is correlated with vehicle characteristics and impact speed.
Similar research has been conducted using the impact points of the head and trunk on the
bonnet, windscreen and roof of the vehicle as a measure of the wrap distance, and its
relationship to vehicle speed (Otte, 2004; Otte and Tobias, 2007).
Research indicates that the trajectory of the pedestrian is dependent on the size matchup of the
height of the pedestrian and the vehicles front bumper and bonnet height and profile. For
example, if the vehicles upper leading edge is above the pedestrians centre of gravity, then
a forward projection is expected, otherwise a wrap trajectory would likely result as indicated in
Figures 10 and 11.
Figure 10 Forward projection as described by the North-western (above) and
a roof vault as most commonly described by Searles equation (below)
(illustration from Ravani et al)

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 118

Expert Evidence

TRAFFIC CRASH INVESTIGATION, ANALYSIS AND RECONSTRUCTION [140.270]

Figure 11 Classic forward projection surfaces are buses and trams. The
figure indicates some prototype injury prevention measures for pedestrian
impacts

Ravani et al (1981) analysed 460 pedestrian crashes from data gathered in Northern California.
This study involved frontal crashes which constituted 67% of all crashes investigated. Eighty
percent of frontal crash cases could be classified by the motion of the pedestrian during the
crash into one of the five basic trajectories: wrap, forward projection, fender vault, roof vault
and somersault. Injury patterns were found to be dependent on the trajectory type, vehicle
speed, vehicle geometry and road surface. This was simplified by Happer et al (2000) into
either a forward vault or wrap. In a fender vault, roof vault and somersault trajectories, the
pedestrian first wraps onto the vehicle prior to vaulting or somersaulting, thus are classified as
wrap trajectories. In general, wrap trajectories involve two or more contacts with the vehicle
(eg leg and then a later head contact), whereas a forward projection only has one contact event
(Han and Brach, 2001).
More recent work was carried out by Otte (2004) where he studied vehicle impacts into 355
pedestrians and 510 bicyclists investigating throw distances and impact kinematics for low and
high impact speeds up to 100 km/h.

Established calculations of pedestrian throw distance

There are a number of well supported and widely regarded calculation methods for a
pedestrians throw distance. The most commonly used method in Australian crash
reconstruction for passenger cars is Searles calculation. There are other methods appropriate
for vans and trucks (Northwestern University Method).
While the established calculations often have their basis in a quadratic (mathematical)
calculation, in truth the relationship between contact and resulting throw is related to multiple
factors and an individual outcome can differ dramatically from the calculated impact speed.

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 119

Update: 70

[140.270]

EXPERT EVIDENCE

Speed of vehicle impact and pedestrian survivability

In relation to the survivability of vehicle impact for pedestrians, Aekbote, et al (2003) reports
findings from a large review of pedestrian impacts (Figure 12). In this study, the researcher
looked at contributory factors for pedestrian injury when they had been struck by a vehicle.
Among a number of factors, the speed of impact showed a strong correlation to likelihood of
injury and injury severity. The study correlated the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) injury
severity score with speed of impact.
Figure 12 Reproduced graph, reporting the percentage of crashes that result
in minor and moderate (AIS 1&2), serious and severe (AIS 3&4) and critical and
fatal injury (AIS 5&6) to pedestrians (from Aekbote)

In vehicle/pedestrian impact, the pedestrian invariably assumes the speed of the vehicle due to
being shunted, wrapped and/or projected forward. This graph (Figure 12) can be used to
determine the injury potential for a pedestrian where the impact speed is known or can be
estimated.
The vertical line in the graph above that is positioned at around 40 km/h can be used to show
how injury potential can be determined for an impact known to be approximately 40 km/h.
Where this vertical line intersects the injury potential lines the graph reports the percentage of
crashes at 40 km/h that result in minor and moderate injuries (AIS 1&2) which is 80% of
crashes, serious and severe (AIS 3&4) which is 55% of crashes and critical and fatal (AIS
5&6) injuries which is 25% of crashes.
It is interesting to note that in Figure 12, the percentage of fatal or normally not survivable
crashes reduces to around zero at around 18 km/h and the percentage of serious and severe
injuries similarly reduces to almost zero at 8 km/h.
This determination quantifies how vulnerable a pedestrian is in terms of a statistical likelihood
of death or serious injury and identifies the threat to life for the individual being struck by a
vehicle.
Pedestrian casualties have been a focal point of regulators in recent times. For example, the
Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety (Staysafe) held an inquiry into school zone safety
[Staysafe, 2012, 2009]. Vehicle average travel speed is usually at the core of issue. Reductions
in average travel speed in pedestrian areas are regularly highlighted by experts as a way to
immediately reduce casualty numbers. The graph in Figure 13 shows the risk of a fatal injury
(as opposed to frequency of occurrence of injury) for varying vehicle impacts speeds (OECD,
2006) and is an update. It is interesting to note that this graph is not dissimilar to that shown by
Aekbote for AIS3+ injuries, i.e. serious injury or higher severity. It is for this reason that the
speed limits in pedestrian active areas are often set to 40 km/h or lower, i.e. school zones and
shopping strips.

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 120

Expert Evidence

TRAFFIC CRASH INVESTIGATION, ANALYSIS AND RECONSTRUCTION [140.270]

Figure 13 Probability of fatal injury for a pedestrian colliding with a vehicle

A second graph often presented by experts is the Nilsson (2004) power model shown in
Figure 14. The relationship illustrated demonstrates how vehicle average speeds effect casualty
numbers. For example, a rise of 5% in average vehicle speed can result in as much as a 20%
increase in crashes. This graph is cited in the Federal Governments National Road Safety
Strategy 2010 to 2020 signed off by the Federal and all State Transport Ministers.
Figure 14 Probability of fatal injury for a pedestrian colliding with a vehicle

2013 THOMSON REUTERS

140 - 121

Update: 70