The Relationship between Vehicle Impact Speed and Pedestrian and Cyclist Projection Distance

Part of the Solid Mechanics and Its Applications book series (SMIA, volume 166)

Many factors affect pedestrian and cyclist injury risk in a vehicle collision, but the most important determinant is the vehicle impact speed. This has been observed empirically (see Chapter 2) and is also evident from a theoretical basis, see Chapter 7. Vehicle impact speed therefore has implications for legislators in designing speed limits for urban areas, for automotive engineers to reduce vehicle aggressivity and for biomechanics research into injury causation. It also has legal implications in determining culpability following a collision [1] and driver statements of vehicle speed are therefore unreliable and other independent methods to estimate vehicle impact speed have been proposed.

The methods frequently used to estimate vehicle speed include the use of witness statements, tyre skid marks on the road, impact locations/damage on the vehicle and pedestrian projection distance. However, witness statements are subjective, tyre skid marks are now less common due to ABS braking and impact locations/damage on the vehicle depend on the collision configuration and are unreliable predictors of vehicle speed [2]. An alternative method is therefore necessary, and the strong correlation between vehicle impact speed and the distance that impacted pedestrians and cyclists are projected in an impact has been known for over 30 years (e.g. [3]). Since then, a variety of methods have been proposed to estimate vehicle impact speed based on measurement of the pedestrian projection distance.1 This chapter presents accident investigation data relating to pedestrian and cyclist projection distances and a comparison is made with staged tests involving pedestrian/cyclist dummies and cadavers. A theoretical framework for modelling pedestrian impact and projection is then proposed, and a review of models in the literature is given. There are many such models, but emphasis is placed on those predicated on representing the mechanics of the collision event rather than on the many regression models based on staged tests or accident data.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Simms, C., Wood, D., and Walsh, D., Confidence limits for impact speed estimation from pedestrian projection distance. Journal of Crashworthiness 9(2), 219–228, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Toor, A., Araszewski, M., Johal, R., Overgaard, R., and Happer, A., Revision and validation of vehicle/pedestrian collision analysis method. In Society of Automotive Engineers Conference, SAE Paper No. 2002-01-0550, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stuertz, G., Suren, E., Gotzen, L., Behrens, S., and Richter, K., Biomechanics of real child pedestrian accidents. In Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Paper No. 760814, 1976.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fugger, T., Randles, B., and Eubanks, J., Comparison of pedestrian accident reconstruction models to experimental test data for wrap trajectories. In IMechE Conference Transactions, Professional Engineering Publishing, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wood, D., Simms, C., and Walsh, D., Validated models for pedestrian impact on projection. Proc. IMechE (Part D) 219, 183–195, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Randles, B., Fugger, T., Eubanks, J., and Pasanen, E., Investigation and analysis of real-life pedestrian collisions. In Society of Automotive Engineers Conference, SAE Paper No. 2001-01-0171, 2001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huibers, J. and Janssen, E., Experimental and mathematical car bicycle collision simulations. In Society of Automotive Engineers Conference, SAE Paper No. 881726, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mukherjee, S., Chawla, A., Mohan, D., Chandrawat, S., and Agarwal, V., Predicting throw distance variations in bicycle crashes. International Journal of Vehicle Safety 1(4), 304–315, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alliot, R., Simulation of vehicle cyclist collisions using Madymo, BA BAI Mechanical Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, 2007.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maki, T., Asai, T., and Kajzer, J., The behaviour of bicyclists in accidents with cars. Japanese Society of Automotive Engineers 21, 357–363, 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maki, T. and Kajzer, J., The behaviour of bicyclists in frontal and rear crash accidents with cars. Japanese Society of Automotive Engineers 22, 357–363, 2001.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maki, T., Kajzer, J., Mizuno, K., and Sekine, Y., Comparative analysis of vehicle-bicyclist and vehicle-pedestrian accidents in Japan. Accident Analysis and Prevention 35(6), 927–940, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Otte, D., Bedeuting und Aktualität von Wurfweiten, Kratzspuren und Endlagen für die Un-fallrekonstruktion. Verkehrsunfall und Fahrzeugtechnik 11, 294–300, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Otte, D., A review of different kinematic forms in two wheel accidents, their influence on effectiveness of protective measures. In 24th Stapp of Car Crash Conference, SAE Paper No. 801314, 1980.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Streletz, R., High speed impact of passenger cars on stationary dummy cyclists. In Proceedings of the 17th EVU Conference, Nice, pp. 111–117, 2008.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wood, D. and Simms, C., Coefficient of friction in pedestrian throw. Impact, Journal of ITAI 9(1), 12–14, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dettinger, J., Methods of improving the reconstruction of pedestrian accidents: Development differential, impact factor, longitudinal forward trajectory, position of glass splinters. Verkehr -sunfall und Fahrzeugtechnik, December, 324–330, 1996 [in German].Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dettinger, J., Methods of improving the reconstruction of pedestrian accidents: Development differential, impact factor, longitudinal forward trajectory, position of glass splinters. Verkehr -sunfall und Fahrzeugtechnik, January, 25–30, 1997 [in German].Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Field, J., Analysis of real world pedestrian/vehicle collisions in the United Kingdom. In 6th Conference of Institute of Traffic Accident Investigators, pp. 129–142, 2003.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hill, G., Calculation of vehicle speed from pedestrian throw. Impact, Journal of ITAI 3(1), 18–20, 1994.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    KOB, Project, personal communication from Dominic Cesari to Denis Wood.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Otte, D., Use of throw distances of pedestrians and bicyclists as part of a scientific accident reconstruction method. In Society of Automotive Engineers Conference, SAE Paper No. 2004-01-1216, 2004.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schneider, H. and Beier, G., Experiment and accident: comparison of dummy test results and real pedestrian accidents. In Society of Automotive Engineers, 1974.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stuertz, G. and Suren, E., Kinematics of real pedestrian and two wheel rider accidents and special aspects of the pedestrian accident. In IRCOBI Conference, pp. 1–23, 1976.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lucchini, E. and Weissner, R., Differences between the kinematics and loadings of impacted adults and children; Results from dummy tests. In IRCOBI Conference, pp. 165–179, 1980.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Severy, D. and Brink, H., Auto-pedestrian collision experiments using full-scale accident simulation. In Society of Automotive Engineers, Detroit, SAE Paper No. 660080, 1966.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Haight, W. and Eubanks, J., Trajectory analysis for collisions involving bicycles and automobiles. In Society of Automotive Engineers Conference, SAE Paper No. 900368, 1990.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Searle, J., The physics of throw distance in accident reconstruction. In Society of Automotive Engineers Conference, SAE Paper No. 930659, 1993.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wood, D. and Simms, C., A hybrid model for pedestrian impact and projection. International Journal of Crashworthiness 5(4), 257–269, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fugger, T., Randles, B., Wobrock, J., and Eubanks, J., Pedestrian throw kinematics in forward projection collisions. In Society of Automotive Engineers Conference, SAE Paper No. 2002-01-0019, 2002.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wood, D. and Simms, C., Discussion on ‘Vehicle speed calculation from pedestrian throw distance’, by Evans A.K. and Smith R., IMechE, Part D 214, 467–469, 2002.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bhalla, K., Montazemi, P., and Crandall, J., Vehicle impact velocity prediction from pedestrian throw distance: Trade-offs between throw formulae, crash simulators and detailed multi body modelling. In IRCOBI Conference, Munich, pp. 263–276, 2002.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Evans, A. and Smith, R., Vehicle speed calculation from pedestrian throw distance. Proc. IMechE. 213, 441–447, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Appel, H., Stuertz, G., and Gotzen, L., Influence of impact speed and vehicle parameters on injuries of children and adults in pedestrian accidents. In IRCOBI Conference, pp. 83–100, 1975.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Eubanks, J., Pedestrian Accident Reconstruction. Lawyers and Judges Publishing Company, USA, pp. 69–71, 1994.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Han, I. and Brach, R., Impact throw model for vehicle-pedestrian collision reconstruction. Proc. IMechE. (Part D) 216, 443–453, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wood, D., Walsh, D., and Simms, C., Communication in response to Roy Smith comments on confidence limits in pedestrian projection distance. Impact, Journal of ITAI 15(3), 82–86, 2006.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wood, D. and Walsh, D., Pedestrian forward projection impact. Journal of Crashworthiness 7(3), 285–305, 2002.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wood, D., Alliot, R., Glynn, C., Simms, C., and Walsh, D., Confidence limits for motorcycle speed from slide distance. IMechE Journal of Automobile Engineering 222, 1349–1360, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Happer, A., Araszewski, M., Toor, A., Overgaard, R., and Johal, R., Comprehensive analysis method for a vehicle/pedestrian collisions. In Society of Automotive Engineers Conference, SAE Paper No. 2000-01-0846, 2000.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Depriester, J., Perrin, C., Serre, T., and Chalandon, S., Comparison of several methods for real pedestrian accident reconstruction. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, ESV Paper No. 05-0333, 2005.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Toor, A., Theoretical versus empirical solutions for vehicle/pedestrian collisions. In Society of Automotive Engineers Conference, SAE Paper No. 2003-01-0883, 2003.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wood, D., Application of a pedestrian impact model to the determination of impact speed. In Society of Automotive Engineers Conference, SAE Paper No. 910814, 1991.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Linder, A., Douglas, C., Clark, A., Fildes, B., Yang, J., and Otte, D., Mathematical simulations of real-world pedestrian-vehicle collisions. In Experimental Safety Vehicles Conference, 2005.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Untaroiu, C., Meissner, M., Crandall, J., Takahashi, Y., Okamoto, M., and Ito, O., Crash reconstruction of pedestrian accidents using optimisation techniques. International Journal of Impact Engineering 36(2), 210–219, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2009

Personalised recommendations